Breakpoint

Pastoring is always a difficult job. I can’t think of another job, in fact, in which someone is hired to do one thing (typically, lead and disciple God’s people) but evaluated on a completely different thing (namely, growing the audience and the budget).

Pastoring during coronavirus seems even more unenviable. Zoom stock might be way up as the new prefered platform for corporations and schools, but there no digital substitute for the sort of face-to-face work pastoring requires. When to close down was a tough decision. When to reopen is even more difficult. If pastors choose to strictly adhere to state guidelines, they will upset people. If they ignore or relax those guidelines, they upset others. In almost every church I know of, pastors face a no-win proposition right now.

In addition to navigating a global pandemic, pastors must also deal with our already intense and only intensifying cultural firestorms. While we all must navigate the issues of race, sexuality and gender, criminal justice, political divisions, and other markers of our fallen human nature that dominate this cultural moment, pastors face expectations that many of us don’t. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen this phrase on social media recently: “If your pastor doesn’t preach about X from the pulpit this Sunday, it’s time to find a new church.” Same phrase, but the X changes with the headlines.

Don’t get me wrong. As the true account of the human condition, the Bible has this quality of universal relevance. Pastors should make the connection between the timeless truths of Scripture and our particular context, in their preaching and in their leading. There are times that to not address something from the pulpit is to be louder than addressing it, and churches that never address controversial issues risk giving their people the impression that the Bible is our own personal, private collection of encouragements rather than the personal, public and true account of the human condition. 

At the same time, the loud demands placed today on pastors to not only hold but to articulate our approved opinions reveals more about us than about our pastors. After all, if we are confident our pastors are called by God and entrusted by Him to lead us into His Word and His will, that leaves little room for making demands on what he teaches.

Also, our loud demands that a pastor “talk about subject X,” almost always means “say specifically what I want him to say about subject X.” But that also means we’re not really looking for a pastor or a teacher anymore. We’re looking for a parrot.

The demands pastors face can range from mountains to molehills but, in too many cases, they are treated the same. To bring up the most common elephant in the sanctuary today, everyone has strong feelings about masks. I do too. But being asked to wear a mask in church by pastors seeking to comply with civic authorities or protect the health of parishioners is not a matter of orthodoxy. This is not a sufficient cause of outrage or of making demands for our pastor’s compliance. And it’s certainly not worth leaving a church over.

Keep in mind that pastors are called to shepherd specific congregations. Though the big cultural issues are always relevant, each community and each congregation find themselves in a specific time and place (as Paul told the Athenians) with specific people and circumstances all orchestrated by God. For example, a church connected to an addiction recovery center, as is the home church of a colleague, will be made of people with specific needs and challenges that others may not have. 

What is really at stake here is that we all need to foster a proper ecclesiology, (that’s a $.50 word for the doctrine of the church). When we view church like we do so much of 21st-century western life, as consumers, we’ll see church as a place to be entertained or affirmed, in our feelings and in our views. That, rather than a fidelity to Christ and His Gospel, is what’s driving so much of the entitlement we feel, and pastors face.

Every church and every Christian, of course, ought expect and demand that pastors preach the true Word of God with passion and courage. We ought never allow a pastor to abuse his power or his position in exploiting the congregation.

Still, we ought never demand that our pastor never disagree with us. The holy willingness of a pastor to say what’s true is only matched by the holy willingness of a Christ follower to hear what we may not like. And again, don’t leave a church over a mask.

A few days ago, a colleague shared comments he and his wife get when people find out they have seven kids: “Are they all yours?” “Were they all planned?” “What are you, Mormon?” And, most awkward of all: “You know what causes that, right?”

This kind of reaction to large families, which I’ve gotten with only four kids, reveals the assumptions about children that largely go unquestioned in our culture, even in the Church.

It is widely assumed, for example, that children are a choice. This was not always so. The introduction of reliable contraception, especially the pill, made it possible to divorce the inherent connection between sex, marriage, and procreation.

The cultural journey through the sexual revolution went something like this: First, we wanted sex outside of marriage. That required having sex without the threat of babies. Then we wanted babies outside of marriage, and even today, babies without sex. Somewhere along the way, the idea of marriage without children, intentionally I mean, became common too. Even among Christian couples, the idea of not only delaying children but choosing to not have them at all is, in many circles, non-controversial.

In previous generations, an intentionally childless marriage would have been unthinkable. Infertility, as so many couples are painfully aware, is tragic. Intentional infertility is considered a choice today.

Another assumption that controls our cultural thinking is that we have children in order to fulfill adult longings. This shift goes hand in hand with seeing marriage as fundamentally an institution of adult happiness, rather than as an institution to protect and enable the next generation.

When kids are thought of in terms of personal fulfillments, how we go about “obtaining” them becomes less important. Or not at all. And so, the sexual revolution is punctuated by ethically problematic reproductive technologies and intentionally single-parent households, not to mention same-sex households who want children even after entering an intrinsically sterile sexual union.

In short, after seeking the moral acceptance of sex without marriage or sex without children for so long, we now seek moral acceptance of having children without marriage or even without sex. Left out of our moral calculations is what happens to children who primarily exist to fulfill adult longings.

We will soon know. According to a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau, America has gotten older faster over the last ten years than at any other time in history. Since 2010, Americans over 65 have become the fastest-growing segment of the population. Meanwhile, the number of those under 18 actually shrank between 2010 and 2019. If this continues, by 2035, senior citizens will outnumber minors in America in an unprecedented “top-heavy” arrangement with all sorts of social, economic, and political instability.

This news comes at a moment many Christians are already wondering what America their children will inherit. No matter what we do or how we vote or even who is appointed to the Supreme Court, it seems, our culture and country continue to drift in an anti-Christian direction.

In response to a recent disappointing opinion from the Supreme Court, Pastor Kevin DeYoung proposed a new “culture war strategy.” Writing at The Gospel Coalition, DeYoung urged Christians to “have more children and disciple them like crazy.” As my Tennessee friend might say, it’s not rocket-surgery.

The heated reactions to DeYoung’s blog post, especially from other Christians, shows just how counter-cultural it has become to embrace the inherent created connection between sex, marriage, and children, even within the Church.

Of course, the reason Christians of all people should welcome children into our lives and even into our troubled times is not ultimately to win a culture war.  As DeYoung acknowledged, children are a blessing from the Lord. Full stop. They aren’t means. They are ends: They are signs of living hope, votes of confidence in God’s sovereignty, and the most basic and constant opportunity to love others as Christ loves us.

Jesus told his disciples: “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” Ours is a culture that hinders children, instead of welcoming them. That we look at God’s blessings as mere lifestyle choices, even as punchlines for wisecracks and mockery, marks that we are a dying culture. And maybe a dying Church.

Christians of all people should have no hesitation challenging our culture’s bad assumptions about children and welcoming them as blessings. But to do so, tragically, we’ll have to start with the household of God.

It might be the biggest stumbling block for modern non-believers: The Christian view of sex. Why, as author Sam Alberry asks in his new book, does God care who I sleep with?"

Sam Alberry, pastor, speaker for Ravi Zacharias International Ministry, and visiting professor at Cedarville University joins Shane Morris today on the BreakPoint Podcast.

Why Does God Care Who I  Sleep with? by Sam Alberry

“A Christian View of Money: God’s Economy vs. the World’s,” a Colson Center Short Course. Register by July 7.

John Stonestreet and Shane Morris discuss last week's momentous Supreme Court decisions:  one that handcuffs states that try to restrict abortion, and one that protects religious institutions--especially schools--from discrimination by the government.

Also on today's program: China's new security law could spell the end of democratic Hong Kong. Will other nations and especially international corporations push back on Beijing?  Shane Morris shares a portion of his BreakPoint Podcast interview with Jason Thacker, author of  The Age of AI:  Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity.  Finally, John and Shane answer your questions about the Christian perspective on the death penalty and the state mandating masks in church.

The Impact of the Supreme Court’s Louisiana Abortion Decision, a BreakPoint Podcast interview with Dr. Charmaine Yoest

“Justice Roberts Cites Precedent to Uphold Evil of Abortion,” By John Stonestreet and Roberto Rivera, BreakPoint

“Supreme Court Says States Cannot Discriminate Against Religious Schools,” by John Stonestreet and Roberto Rivera, BreakPoint

“China’s Threat to Religious Freedom in Hong Kong,” by John Stonestreet and Roberto Rivera, BreakPoint

The Age of Artificial Intelligence, a BreakPoint Podcast Interview with Jason Thacker

On July 4, 2004, Chuck Colson’s BreakPoint commentary was entitled “A New Declaration of Dependence.” Reading through it again recently, I was struck by just how prophetic his words were.

As a student of history, Chuck not only understood the founding principles of our nation, supremely expressed in the Declaration of Independence, he understood on what those principles were grounded.

What happens, Chuck asked, when the foundations are rejected? What happens when religion and truth and public virtue are all made non-essential? What happens when citizens want the benefits of the American experiment without taking seriously what it requires from us?

Here is Chuck Colson from July 2, 2004:

July 4 celebrates our liberty and our national independence. Americans will hoist their flags, march in parades, and set off fireworks. I get a thrill every time I hear the cannons blast that rousing finale of the “1812 Overture.” And I get a lump in my throat whenever I join in singing "America, America, God shed His grace on thee.”

Indeed, God has blessed America. This nation, dedicated to the proposition that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, has endured 228 years. America is the oldest constitutional republic on earth.

But all is not well in our land. When Thomas Jefferson penned the immortal words of the Declaration of Independence, he deliberately appealed to the Creator. He acknowledged an overriding obligation to “Nature and Nature's God.” And he understood that ordered liberty is not just a subjective preference, but a divinely ordained condition for which human beings are designed.

But over the last few decades, legions of skeptics have mounted a massive assault on these “self-evident truths.” In prestigious law schools, in the halls of government, and especially in the Supreme Court, God is often banished from public conversation. If a public school teacher introduces Jefferson's ideas and language into the classroom today, she would likely be called on the carpet—and possibly disciplined.

This assault on God in public culture severely damages our republic. If God is thrown out of our history, we lose our basis for believing that individuals have rights and dignity. In an empty universe, we have no meaning, no value. Without God there are no unalienable rights, and no certain proof that liberty is better than tyranny or that life better than death. Everything is a matter of opinion and power.

The references to God in the Declaration of Independence provide a foundation for a moral argument within civil society. And moral truths pervade our founding documents from beginning to end. Without God as the source of all those moral principles, the public square would quickly revert to the law of the jungle. Brutish power would prevail. The weak, the unborn, the elderly, and the gravely ill could be quietly terminated.

As much as I enjoy the anthems and the fireworks, more than that is called for on this July 4th. We need to confess our moral failures and our national sins. Repent of the lies that have justified killing innocent babies and the elderly. Renewal begins on our knees. It's there that we hear soul-searching questions from God Himself, asking: “How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?...Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

Our nation's founding document declared independence from Britain, but, with equal fervor, declared dependence upon God. Expressing “firm reliance on the Protection of divine Providence,” the signers committed the American experiment to their Maker. The Spirit of 1776 was reverence and trust.

So as we mark this solemn occasion, let us seek a rebirth of true liberty, which is possible only when governed by divine law. For, without God, we can never have “liberty and justice for all.”

Like many basketball junkies deprived of March Madness and the NBA playoffs, I devoured ESPN’s 10-part series “The Last Dance,” the definitive account of one of the NBA’s G.O.A.T (“greatest of all time), Michael Jordan. Anyone who watched the emergence of the Bulls in the 1990’s knew that Jordan’s talent and athleticism was matched only by his drive, but I’m not sure any of us fully understood his unique ability to manufacture grudges for competitive advantage, or to either motivate or run off teammates.

In one area, however, Michael Jordan was just like the rest of us. The series dove deeply into his love and devotion for his dad. The greatest athlete of the 20th century, the international icon and billionaire, longed for his dad’s acceptance and love just like everyone else, from the time he was a boy until long after his dad was murdered in North Carolina in 1993. His dad was the reason for his first retirement. His dad is the reason behind the iconic photo of Jordan heaving tears, hugging the championship trophy, after returning to the game.

The film also covers the career of Dennis Rodman, perhaps the greatest rebounder in basketball history and an unexpected ingredient in the second half of the Bulls dynasty. Rodman grew up without a father but found one, after his unlikely journey to the NBA, in Chuck Daly, the coach of the Detroit Pistons. After being traded to Chicago, Rodman continued to perform well on the court, but without Daly’s guidance, went off the rails off the court. Today, he’s less known for basketball than he is for substance abuse, Vegas bingers, dating Madonna, getting arrested, wearing a wedding dress and hanging out with Korean dictator Kim Jong un.

Another series I’ve binged during quarantine was the podcast “Monster: DC Sniper.” In October of 2002, John Allen Muhammad (aged 41) and Lee Boyd Malvo (aged 17) held Washington DC, northern Virginia, and Maryland hostage with fear during a three-week random shooting rampage.

A key factor behind the entire horrifying saga, at least according to the series, is Lee Boyd Malvo’e desperate need for a father. Malvo met John Allen Muhammad when he was 13, and Muhammad treated him like a son, trusting and affirming him. Muhammad even introduced Malvo to others as his son. So, Malvo followed him, back and forth across the country, and four years later, on a shooting spree that would kill at least eleven people in three states. 

A dominant narrative today is that fathers are expendable except for, perhaps, genetic and financial contributions. Either life goes on just fine without them, or they can be easily replaced by a “loving parent.” The stories of Michael Jordan, Dennis Rodman, and Lee Boyd Malvo, however, suggest that there is a dad-shaped hole in all us that only dads can fill.

Of course, many people have fared well without dads, and many haven’t fared so well with dads. Heroic single parents are everywhere, as are grandparents and extended family members, foster care parents, and others who step in to fill the gap left by absent dads. But still, the data could not be more clear: dads matter.

Back in 1992, Vice- President Dan Quayle was derided for saying as much in response to sitcom character Murphy Brown having a child outside of marriage and without the father involved. The whole saga likely cost him the presidency. (Either that, or it was because he couldn’t spell potato).

The following year, in an Atlantic article, Barbara Defoe Whitehead proclaimed “Dan Quayle was Right”. According to “a growing body of social-scientific evidence,” she wrote, “children in families disrupted by divorce and out-of-wedlock birth do worse than children in intact families on several measures of well-being.” Today, nearly three decades later, we know that “do worse” is an understatement. “Children in single-parent families are six times as likely to be poor.” They are also more likely to stay poor. “Fatherless children also have more difficulties with social adjustment, and are more likely to report problems with friendships, and manifest behavior problems.” As Chuck Colson would often point out, they are far more likely to be arrested and sent to prison. They “are more likely to smoke, drink alcohol, and abuse drugs in childhood and adulthood.” They are more likely to drop out of school and are much less likely to go to college even if they don’t. They are far more likely to run away from home, and they are much more likely to be physically and/or sexually abused.

Again, let me be clear: none of this means children from single-parent homes are doomed to fail. Heroic single parents, grandparents, adopted families, and mentors step in to fill huge gaps left when dads are absent. Yet, when it comes to dads, our culture changes the narrative instead of taking the data seriously.

Taking the data seriously would require sacrificing personal happiness for the sake of kids. Taking the data seriously requires not redefining institutions of marriage and “family.” Taking the data seriously means rethinking what a “life well-lived” really is.

Thankfully, almost none of the victims of our bad ideas about marriage or parenting or fathering wind up shooting random strangers around the Beltway, but the damage done is real and lasting. The narratives we invent won’t change that.

RZIM’s Abdu Murray speaks about his latest book, co-authored by the late Ravi Zacharias.  “Seeing Jesus from the East: A Fresh Look at History’s Most Influential Figure” is the Colson Center’s featured resource for the month of July.

The past two weeks of Supreme Court rulings have not been encouraging. After the disastrous ruling in Bostock arbitrarily expanded civil rights protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity, the Court, in June Medical, all but handcuffed meaningful state efforts to restrict abortion.

Finally, yesterday, good news. The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, held its ground on discrimination against religious education. In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the Court ruled that a state tax credit which “[discriminates] against religious schools and the families whose children attend or hope to attend them” violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.

The case dates back to 2015 when the state of Montana created a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for individuals who donate to organizations that provide scholarships to private school students. After creating the program, the Montana Department of Revenue ruled that such a tax credit, if used to fund to religious private schools, would violate the state’s version of the “Blaine Amendment,” which prohibits state funding of religious education.

Kendra Espinoza, a single mom who works extra jobs in order to send her kids to a Christian school, challenged the Department of Revenue’s ruling in court. In late 2018, the Montana Supreme Court acknowledged that the Department’s ruling probably ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause. However, instead of overturning the ruling, it invalidated the entire program.

Thankfully, that didn’t work. 

In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said that “when otherwise eligible recipients are disqualified from a public benefit ‘solely because of their religious character,’ we must apply strict scrutiny.” His statement was a reference to the Trinity Lutheran decision, a case that was successfully argued by the Alliance Defending Freedom in 2017.

“Strict scrutiny” means that the action can only be justified by a “compelling governmental interest.” Montana lacked a “compelling government interest.” Instead, the state argued that the law served “Montana’s interest in separating church and State ‘more fiercely’ than the Federal Constitution.”

Montana’s interest, replied Justice Roberts, is actually “limited by the Free Exercise Clause.” In other words, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause cannot be pitted against each other. The separation of church and state cannot be done by discriminating against the church, and religion is not a secondary part of the First Amendment.

And, Roberts continued, the attempt to sweep the Free Exercise problem under the rug by invalidating the whole program doesn’t change what he called Montana’s “error of federal law.” After all, because of the Trinity Lutheran decision, the Montana Court already knew the Department’s ruling was unconstitutional. But, instead of applying the decision as it should have, it invalidated the whole program “to make absolutely sure that religious schools received no aid.” That action in itself violated the Free Exercise Clause, according to Roberts: “A State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”

Roberts’ opinion is a resounding repudiation of dozens of “Blaine Amendments” in other states as well. Originally targeted to limit Catholic education, these amendments provide legal cover for treating religious institutions and the people who depend on them as second-class citizens. Roberts made it as clear as possible that they, and we, are not.

Roberts also rejected Justice Breyer’s argument for a “‘flexible, context-specific approach’ that ‘may well vary’ from case to case.” Religious institutions and citizens should not be at the mercy of courts waxing philosophical about the “purposes of the Religion Clauses,” and then applying them on an ad hoc basis. Not to mention, it’s hard to imagine Breyer’s “flexible, context-specific approach” being applied to any other right, such as abortion.

Perhaps the best part of this ruling is that it offers a roadmap for Christians who hope to help people like Kendra Espinoza afford Christian education. The Montana program can serve as a model for other states and could even open the door for other solutions such as vouchers. Educational innovation has long been among the best gifts of Christians to the wider world. This is an open door for us to be even more creative today.

That’s why this decision is such good news. After the earthquakes from the Court the past few weeks, it’s certainly nice to have some solid ground on which to stand.

Chief Justice John Robert's assertion of precedent in striking down a Louisiana Law requiring abortionists to have hospital admission rights has everyone--pro-life and pro-abortion--scratching their heads.

Today on the BreakPoint Podcast, John Stonestreet welcomes the Heritage Foundation's Dr. Charmaine Yoest to break down why Roberts ruled the way he did, what it means for states who want to regulate abortion, and what it means for the future of the Court itself.

“Justice Roberts Cites Precedent to Uphold Evil of Abortion,” by John Stonestreet and Roberto Rivera, BreakPoint

“The  Aftermath of Bostock,” by John Stonestreet and Roberto Rivera, BreakPoint

“The Peanut Butter Falcon: A Redeeming Story Well Told,” by John Stonestreet, BreakPoint 

Charmaine Yoest, Heritage Foundation

Yesterday, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that would have required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Not only did Chief Justice John Roberts side with the more liberal justices again, he also gave pro-lifers reasons to doubt Roe would ever be overturned during his tenure.

According to media outlets and the court majority, this case, June Medical Services v. Russo, was essentially “identical” to a Texas law the Court struck down in 2016. In that case, Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Court ruled that requiring providers to have admitting privileges places an undue burden on women who wanted to access abortion services.

As I argued on BreakPoint back in March, the Louisiana law was similar but not identical. For example, only about thirty percent of women seeking an abortion in Louisiana would have been affected by this law, and requirements for doctors to obtain admitting privileges are less strict in Louisiana than Texas. Because of these differences, a circuit court concluded that abortion providers could more easily comply with this law than the Texas law, and it therefore did not impose an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to an abortion.

The majority, including Chief Justice Roberts, felt otherwise. “The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike,” wrote Roberts.  “The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore, Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”

Roberts appeal to stare decisis, “the legal term for fidelity to precedent,” is troubling. In its history, the Court has abandoned precedent and overturned more than 300 of its previous rulings. In the 2018 Janus decision, for instance, Roberts had no problem with the court overturning the 1977 Abood decision, which required non-union members to pay union dues.

In 2016, Roberts dissented from the Whole Women’s Health decision. And yet, on Monday, he proclaimed the decision he believed to be wrong then as untouchable precedent today. Even worse, Roberts gave particular deference to the “undue burden test” from the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which is whether or not a particular law or regulation presents any kind of “substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion.” These days, “substantial obstacle” essentially means that nothing can get in the way of, slow down, or discourage an abortion in any way.

Justice Clarence Thomas sharply disagreed, not only with the majority opinion, but specifically with Roberts: “The Constitution does not constrain the States’ ability to regulate or even prohibit abortion. This Court created the right to abortion based on an amorphous, unwritten right to privacy, which it grounded in . . . ‘legal fiction’ . . . the putative right to abortion is a creation that should be undone.”

Despite his objection and the widespread panic of media outlets since Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined the court, it’s now difficult to see a Roberts-led Court ever overturning Roe.

Like Dred Scott, Buck v. Bell, and the Korematsu decisions, Roe gives constitutional sanction to great evil, and neither slavery, forced sterilization, nor the internment of U.S. citizens were ever overturned by the Court. Dred Scott was overturned by the Civil War and the 13th Amendment. Buck v. Bell and Korematsu are still “the law of the land.” So is Roe.

Ultimately, June Medical Services v. Russo is not about abortion access in Louisiana. It’s about the nearly unique and untouchable status of legal abortion in our country.

Every Constitutional right, even legitimate ones such as the freedom of speech or religion, is subject to limitations. Any restriction on abortion, however, is considered a mortal threat to “women’s rights,” cast as part of a “war on women,” and considered a violation of so-called “settled law.” On Monday, the Chief Justice added the sheen of “fidelity to precedent.”

And so, once again, Christians are left to ending this national evil by directly acting. Any hope that the Court would help us defend the vulnerable unborn was misplaced, but our commitment to defend the vulnerable unborn was not. Our only option is to stay at our posts, to love mothers and fathers and newborns, and to offer the reasons, the compassion, and the support that will, with God’s help, make abortion unthinkable.