Breakpoint

In their eloquent defense of life, marriage, and religious liberty, Chuck Colson and the authors of the Manhattan Declaration made this bold statement: “There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail.”

Today on Martin Luther King Day, we want to share with you a BreakPoint commentary Chuck Colson aired back in the year 2000 about “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.”  Although recent revelations point to Dr. King’s moral failings, the issues Dr. King raised about the nature of law, what constitutes an unjust law, and how we should respond to unjust laws are as true today as ever.

So, here’s Chuck Colson, from January of 2000.

"A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is out of harmony with the moral law."

It was with these very words, in his memorable “Letter from the Birmingham Jail,” that Martin Luther King, Jr., threw down the gauntlet in his great Civil Rights crusade. King refused to obey what he regarded as an immoral law that did not square with the law of God.

All across America today, millions of people are celebrating the birthday of this courageous man, and deservedly so. He was a fearless battler for truth, and all of us are in his debt because he remedied past wrongs and brought millions of Americans into the full riches of citizenship.

In schools and on courthouse steps, people will be quoting his "I Have a Dream" speech today. It is an elegant and powerful classic. But I would suggest that one of Dr. King's greatest accomplishments, one which will be little mentioned today because it has suddenly become "politically incorrect," is his advocacy of the true moral foundations of law.

King defended the transcendent source of the law's authority. In doing so he took a conservative Christian view of law. In fact, he was perhaps the most eloquent advocate of this viewpoint in his time, as, interestingly, Justice Clarence Thomas may be today.

Writing from a jail cell, King declared that the code of justice is not man's law: It is God's law. Imagine a politician making such a comment today? We all remember the controversy that erupted weeks ago when George W. Bush made reference to his Christian faith in a televised national debate.

But King built his whole case on the argument, set forth by St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, that "An unjust law is no law at all." To be just, King argued, our laws must always reflect God's Law.

This is the great issue today in the public square: Is the law rooted in truth? Is it transcendent, immutable, and morally binding? Or is it, as liberal interpreters have suggested, simply what courts say it is? Do we discover the law, or do we create it?

Ever since Dr. King's day, the United States Supreme Court has been moving us step-by-step away from the positions of this great Civil Rights leader. To continue in this direction, as I have written, can only lead to disastrous consequences—indeed, the loss of self-governing democracy.

So I would challenge each of us today to use this occasion to reflect not just on his great crusade for Civil Rights but also on Martin Luther King’s wisdom in bringing law back to its moral foundations.

Many think of King as some kind of liberal firebrand, but when it comes to the law he was a great conservative who stood on the shoulders of Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine, striving without apology to restore our heritage of justice.

This is a story I tell in my book, “How Now Shall We Live?”: a great moment in history when a courageous man applied the law of God to the unjust laws of our time, and made a difference. And that is the lesson we should teach our kids on this holiday. It is not just another day off from school or a day to go to the mall.

Read through King's letter with you kids: It's the most important civics lesson they'll ever get.

Musician and author Andrew Peterson joins Shane Morris to discuss his  new book, "Adorning the Dark: Thoughts on Community, Calling, and the Mystery of Making." Peterson discusses his journey from songwriting to storytelling, the power of beauty, and every Christians's calling to creativity as bearers of the image of God.

“Adorning the Dark: Thoughts on Community, Calling, and the Mystery of Making,” by Andrew Peterson

In today's broadcast, John Stonestreet and Shane Morris unrwap what's behind Planned Parenthood's claim that it performed a record number of abortions last year, and why the abortion giant still reaps hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds.

Along with talking about Millennials interest in socialism, they discuss our next Short Course, "Preparing for the 2020 Elections" as well as our upcoming Wilberforce Weekend.

They wrap up the show by noting the passing of Roger Scruton and Christopher Tolkien (the son of J. R. R. Tolkien), both men who were defenders and purveyors of beauty--transcendent beauty that lifts the human spirit, beauty "that is grounded ultimately in the nature of God Himself who is beautiful, who is beauty itself."

Register for our next Short Course: Preparing for the 2020 Election

Information on the 2020 Wilberforce Weekend

“Why Beauty Matters,” by Roger Scruton (video)

“Good Times for Planned Parenthood, So It Says” BreakPoint

“Unfinished Tales of Numenor and Middle-Earth,” by J.R.R. Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien

“The Silmarillion” by J.R.R. Tolkien

As I said in a BreakPoint commentary last month, gene-editing technologies such as CRISPR and what’s being called “Prime Editing” are “existential threats.” We have no idea what our attempts to play god with the human genome will unleash on humanity. Yet, we insist on charging ahead despite our imperfect knowledge with an unbounded confidence in our abilities.

Coming from a concerned non-scientist like me, these concerns can be easily dismissed as alarmist, but what if the concern comes from the Director of the National Institutes of Health?

It turns out that Francis Collins is also concerned. In a recent article in Discover Magazine entitled “We Must Never Allow Our Technology to Eclipse Our Humanity,” Collins called for a “moratorium of at least five years on heritable human gene editing.”

Heritable gene editing technologies, like “Prime Editing,” aim to edit genes that can be passed on to future generations, along with any unintended and dangerous mutations. This differs from “non-heritable gene editing,” which can be used to treat people with “life-threatening disorders, such as sickle cell disease, HIV infection, cancer and muscular dystrophy.”

Proponents of Prime Editing talk about the possibility of making “any kind of DNA change that anyone wants at just about any site in the human genome.” Thus, according to Collins, “scientists and leaders around the globe have an obligation to consider the appropriate use — if any — of heritable human gene editing. This involves scrutinizing the safety of such experiments, including the risk of unintended mutations, as well as a clear-eyed analysis of actual medical need.”

Anticipating some objections, the NIH Director added that “the current arguments — that the benefits outweigh the risks — are surprisingly uncompelling.”

Finally, Collins insisted that “We must weigh the profound social, ethical and moral issues associated with modifying the germline in ways that could change the human species forever.”

It’s good to hear someone as prominent as the director of the National Institutes of Health voice many of the same concerns we have at BreakPoint. But, as Wesley J. Smith pointed out at National Review, it’s probably not enough. As Smith notes, when it comes to “the rapid development of the most powerful technologies ever invented — CRISPR germline gene editing, “artificial life,” “3-parent” embryos, cloning,” the Trump Administration has been, and I am quoting Smith here, “derelict.”

For the most part, while NIH Director Collins’ statement should be applauded, it is an exception. As Smith states, “unless leaders higher up the food chain engage the question in more amplified media venues than Discover,” Collins’ proposed moratorium will never happen.

In some ways, as I recently pointed out, the Communist Party of China, by sentencing Dr. He Jiankui to three years imprisonment for experimenting on fetuses using CRISPR, has demonstrated more commitment to reining in scientific hubris than our own government. Of course, given their track record, it would be silly to think that Beijing cares at all about humanity dignity and the sanctity of human life. Their reaction was almost certainly because Dr. He’s transgressions portrayed that country in an especially bad light.

In our country, scientists differ from Dr. He in only one respect: They’re a lot more subtle about what they are doing than Dr. He was.

We need much more evidence that those “higher up the food chain” in this administration care about the issue and are willing to make it a priority. For that to happen, we have let them know that it’s a priority for us.

Gene editing, what Smith has called “biotech anarchy,” is among the greatest threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life that we currently face. I will say it again: It is an existential threat. It’s time for Christians, and through them our leaders, to treat it like one.

A few weeks ago, Planned Parenthood released an upbeat, even triumphant sounding annual report for the 2018-19 fiscal year. Despite the increased legal and political “challenges” they face, the organization claims to have met these challenges with “resolve.”

This kind of “spin” is pretty standard fare for annual reports, so it should be taken with a large grain of salt. Still, it prompts an obvious question: If Planned Parenthood is going from strength to strength as it says it is, why does it still need our taxpayer support?

According the report, Planned Parenthood performed 345,000 abortions during the 2018-19 fiscal year. That’s approximately 40 percent of the approximately 862,000 abortions performed in the United States. In other words, Planned Parenthood performed a record number of abortions at a time when the overall number of abortions is declining. Put differently, we might say that Planned Parenthood is cornering the abortion “market.” The report sounds so upbeat because business is good.

In fact, it’s so good that Planned Parenthood could turn down millions of dollars in federal grants rather than comply with new Trump Administration rules that bar recipients from referring clients to abortion providers.

With that kind of financial flexibility, why are American taxpayers still forced to fund the organization to the tune of $617 million a year? More to the point, why was the most recent funding approved without the slightest consideration that things could be different?

At least part of the answer to those questions lie in the pages of the annual report. Planned Parenthood claims that it provided “9.8 million services” in its last fiscal year. Half of these were what it called “STI Services & Treatment.” The rest were “Birth Control Information & Services” and “Breast Exams & Pap Tests.”

This is, of course, Planned Parenthood’s continual, and still bogus, argument that abortion is “less than four percent” of what the organization does. I have explained on several occasions why that number just isn’t true. Apparently, enough elected officials—Congressional Republicans included—either believe Planned Parenthood, don’t care enough to learn the facts, or are unwilling to risk their political careers to do anything about it.

And so, the omnibus spending bill passed and signed into law late last year directs $550 million in federal funding for Planned Parenthood in this fiscal year. That’s an increase of $20 million over last fiscal year.

That of course means the impact of the millions of dollars in grants Planned Parenthood turned down was limited. Rather than comply with the new rules or employ their famously creative accounting, they instead chose to fight the rules in court. They recently lost that fight at the Ninth Circuit.

The continued federal funding of Planned Parenthood matters for reasons that transcend the symbolic and moral. Nearly forty percent of Planned Parenthood’s revenue -- $617 million in the last fiscal year—comes from government sources. Nearly ninety percent of that amount comes from the federal government alone.

Which means Planned Parenthood is quite vulnerable, despite the upbeat annual report. If the federal spigot of funds were turned off or even turned down, they’d be in big trouble.

In fact, we should be asking “Why hasn’t it been already?”

We can’t blame what’s happened or, more accurately, what hasn’t happened by those in the courts and legislatures, without also pointing to what’s happened or, more accurately, what hasn’t happened in the public square. Legislatures will only defund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood if Americans make it clear they view abortion as something they absolutely do not want to pay for. And that will only happen if we make the case for life.

If we fail to do that, then we can only expect more upbeat annual reports from Planned Parenthood, America’s unquestioned abortion leader.

On Sunday, Western Civilization lost a giant of a man, and a giant of a mind. Sir Roger Scruton was a philosopher and a prolific author on topics ranging from the history of philosophy, to music, to wine, to hunting, the true meaning of conservatism, the human soul, and more.

Scruton was no mere ivory tower intellectual. What he deeply believed, he put into action. During the 1970s, he smuggled books into communist Czechoslovakia and helped run an underground network of seminars, offering “courses in philosophy, Hebrew, history, musicology, classical architecture, fine art, theatre, and anything else asked for.” No doubt his experiences with communism helped make him the ardent and courageous critic of more recent forms of intellectual totalitarianism, too.

Among the things Scruton fought most intensely for, and what I think could be his most enduring contribution, is his defense of beauty.

In a 2009 BBC documentary entitled “Why Beauty Matters,” Scruton argued that Western culture’s loss-of-touch with beauty is a symptom of its loss-of-touch with reality, especially any reality beyond the material world.

In the documentary, which everyone should watch, Scruton contrasts great paintings, sculptures, music, and architecture with the modern and postmodern embrace of ugliness that fills too many museums today: cans of human excrement, urinals, dead animals in tanks, sterile buildings, and literal piles of trash. To call these things “art,” says Scruton, as too many do, isn’t just to rob that word of any meaning. It is to rob our world of meaning.

Quoting Plato, he argued that beauty not only exists objectively, but that it functions as a sign of another and higher order. Beauty reminds us like nothing else that there is more to life than matter, utility, and subjective taste. Good art is recognizable because it “unites form and ideal,” carrying our minds to higher things and surprising even those on vigilant guard against God.

“We all know what it is like,” says Scruton, “suddenly to be transported by the things we see—from the ordinary realm of our appetites, to the illuminated sphere of contemplation. A flash of sunlight, a remembered melody, the face of someone loved. These dawn on us in the most distracted moments, and suddenly life is worthwhile.”

Scruton was no art snob. He saw beauty bursting from everyday surroundings, too. In fact, he spent much of the film under windswept trees, or in quaint streets between brick shops built in a long-disused style. He even praised the finger-paintings of children as tributes to the beauty they see around them.

At the same time, Scruton loved the unique treasures of Western art: the "Pietà," "David," the "Birth of Venus," and the works of Dante, Malory, and Shakespeare are all celebrated in the documentary not only as artistic triumphs, but as the collective testimony of a civilization to a “transcendental God,” and to the order He built into His world.

Scruton argues that belief in this God—what we might call a “Christian worldview”—was the womb that nourished the greatest art the world has ever known; and that the degradation of art was a direct consequence of the West’s loss of faith.

Fittingly, beauty itself, Scruton believed, points our way back. The ugliness of modern and postmodern art and the even uglier philosophies behind them need not have the last word.

Because Scruton believed and taught this, he ended his documentary with a performance of one of the simplest yet most soulful pieces of Western music: Giovanni Battista Pergolesi’s setting of the “Stabat Mater.”

The haunting piece recalls Mary’s grief at watching her Son hanging on the cross. Scruton describes this as the ultimate beauty—the redemption of suffering in the sacrifice that redeemed mankind.

Perhaps, as Dostoevsky claimed, beauty really can “save the world.”  At the very least, it points us to the One who can. And like Him, perhaps we might still see a resurrection of beauty.

The world owes Sir Roger Scruton a debt for reminding us of all this. He’ll be badly missed, but long remembered. Come to BreakPoint.org and I will link you to his incredible documentary, “Why Beauty Matters.”

Do the hypocrisy and failings of Christians invalidate Christianity? Of course not, despite what the media or the waves of “I was a former evangelical” narratives would have us believe.

Today John Stonestreet welcomes Mary Jo Sharp, author of the new book, “Why I Still Believe: A Former Atheist’s Reckoning with the Bad Reputation Christians Give a Good God.”

Mary Jo Sharp, assistant professor of apologetics at Houston Baptist University and founder and director of Confident Christianity Apologetics.

“Why I Still Believe: A Former Atheist’s Reckoning with the Bad Reputation Christians Give a Good God,” by Mary Jo Sharp

A substantial part of Terrence Malick’s latest movie “A Hidden Life” takes place in a German prison where the film’s protagonist, a real historical figure now considered a Catholic saint, Franz Jägerstätter, is being held in prison for refusing to swear a loyalty oath to Hitler. As he mills about the prison courtyard with his fellow inmates, two words loom large on the stone wall that fences them in: “Sprechen Verboten.” Speaking prohibited.

Rod Dreher, senior editor at the American Conservative, has called “A Hidden Life,” “the best evocation of the gospel ever put to film.” That’s a serious claim to make. And I might agree.

Malick, a director known for transportive cinematography, takes viewers into the remote Austrian village of St. Radegund in the early 1940s. There, Franz, his wife Fani, and their three small daughters, faithfully farm their land and faithfully attend the local Catholic Church. When Franz hears about Hitler’s conquest, he begins to worry. His worst fears are realized when he’s called up for military service but refuses to swear the required oath to the Führer. Ultimately, Franz Jägerstätter was imprisoned, tortured, and ultimately, executed.

Not only does the film powerfully portray the suffering Franz is forced to endure, but how his decision to refuse the oath baffles nearly everyone else around him. Apparently, it’s a decision that still baffles people today, especially the film critics.

For example, in a review for Rolling Stone, Peter Travers faults Malick for giving audiences, quote, “very little to help us understand the man behind the saint” and next to nothing about “the thought process that helped Franz hold steadfast.” Apparently for Travers, devout Christian faith is “very little.” In reality, by portraying Franz’s devout Christian faith so clearly, Malick has told audiences all we need to know.

Before his imprisonment, Franz seeks counsel from his local priest and eventually the bishop. Both warn what his obstinance might bring to bear on his vulnerable family. Even so, he holds fast to his faith, and his wife holds fast to hers.

Given the central role faith plays in the film, one might expect it to be a bit more preachy. In fact, there’s very little dialogue, preaching or otherwise, in the whole three-hour film. While we hear the words of faith in Franz’s letters to Fani and in Fani’s prayers for Franz, it’s almost as if the sign on the prison wall, “speaking prohibited,” is the film’s central theme. Thus, in this film, the gospel’s power and Franz’s faith is mostly shown, not spoken.

Perhaps that’s why certain secular critics missed the obvious. Franz doesn’t give a theological lecture on the historicity of the resurrection or virtue signal via rousing testimony about his own moral courage. His is a quiet faithfulness, first shown by how he works his farm, trusting God for harvest, and eventually shown as he follows his conscience, which for some reason, just won’t allow him to say the words of the oath that’s required.

Franz faces every temptation to compromise. His neighbors and family even appeal to his own values in attempting to change his mind. Isn’t he being prideful or judgmental by refusing to swear the oath? Doesn’t he have a duty to his family? And, of course, there’s the temptation to be “practical.” What if, Franz’s lawyer asks him, he could serve as a medic? What if he didn’t have to carry arms? Would that solve the problem?

Franz’s final answer is finally put into words, in a powerful scene in which a Nazi officer - not unlike Pontius Pilate questioning Jesus - asks why he’s doing this. Franz’s answer: “I don’t know. I just know that something inside of me tells me I can’t swear that oath.”

This is the Christian life. Everyday faithfulness to what the Holy Spirit is asking of us.

Will his defiance change the course of the war? Will it bring down Hitler? Probably not. Will it endanger him and his family? Definitely yes. But God doesn’t call us to results; those are always and everywhere His. He calls us to obedience - even if it’s hidden.

I cannot say that Franz’s decision is prescriptive for everyone else. The key is that Franz must follow God’s call on his own life. In an early scene, Franz tells a frightened fellow inmate to “trust what you knew in better times.” If we, like Franz, build a solid foundation for faith in better times, we will have the ears to hear what God would have us do in the midst of our trials.

This film will give you lots to think and talk about it. Please know it contains some violence, and its subject matter is obviously intense. But I recommend it heartily.

In the 1967 film, “The Graduate” (which I do not recommend), Dustin Hoffman plays a recent college grad who is clueless about what to do next. At a cocktail party celebrating his graduation, one of his parents’ friends takes him aside and says, “I want to say one word to you .  . .  Plastics . . . there’s a great future in plastics.”

Today, the one word on the lips of far too many investment advisers is “cannabis.”

A recent article in the “Motley Fool” online investment guide tells would-be investors “there’s a decent chance” 2020 will be a significantly better year for the marijuana industry and marijuana-related stocks than last year.

Why? Because there’s a “decent chance” that three new states – New Jersey, Arizona, and Nebraska – will join the legalized marijuana trend in some form or fashion this November.

Illinois legalized the sale of the drug on January 1st, with the lieutenant governor of the state promising “a new day” for residents of that state, “particularly those that are black and brown.” Here’s what she meant: Besides legalizing recreation marijuana for anyone 21 or older with a driver’s license, their new law created a “Social Equity Cannabis Business Development Fund,” whose goal is to promote diversity within the marijuana industry. So, would-be weed-entrepreneurs from communities that have been “disproportionately impacted” by the war on drugs can not only get loans from the state, they can receive “technical assistance in preparing their license applications,” and reductions in their “license and application fees.”

Promoting entrepreneurship in struggling communities is a laudable goal, but you have to question the wisdom of infusing a community already “disproportionately impacted” by the war on drugs with state-subsidized drug dealers.

Encouraging and incentivizing residents to use marijuana is the last thing these communities need, particularly from the state. Governmental and marketplace enthusiasm for legalized marijuana overlooks that marijuana is not a “safe” drug, despite what we are so often told. Last year, in one of our most popular BreakPoint commentaries of 2019, I discussed the link between marijuana use and psychosis. And this isn’t the only health risk associated with marijuana use. See the YouTube channel “COncOrdance” for an entire playlist devoted to the subject. Not only is the creator of the playlist a cellular biologist, he’s an atheist. So, he cannot be accused of pursuing some religious, moral, or cultural agenda under the guise of science.

In addition to the link between cannabis and psychosis, there is a link between cannabis and increased stroke risk, and research is becoming increasingly clear about the drug’s impact on the heart and the lungs. All of this is covered by the YouTube COncOrdance series, with links to peer-reviewed studies from scientific journals. Most importantly, the series debunks the myth that “cannabis never killed anyone.”

While newer research continues, the risks of marijuana on physical and mental health are well-documented and have been for some time. So why are so many states rushing headlong towards legalization?

There are two answers. First, states just cannot resist all the money to be made. This is obvious in the way marijuana legislation is sold to citizens. Second, citizens are easily sold because of an impoverished understanding of freedom. As Os Guinness has summarized, we think of freedom as merely the absence of restraint, the ability to live and do as we please.

While theoretically, such freedom is limited by the potential harm to others, we’ve become experts at ignoring or spinning such potential harms to get what we really want.

True freedom is different. It’s freedom to live as God intended, as image bearers at work restoring God’s good creation. We oppose things not because we are killjoys, but because we embrace a bigger, fuller vision of the human person. In other words, we find ourselves against such so-called freedoms, because they are not freedoms at all. They will not make us more human, but less.

It is a large and storied  communion, one that traces its roots to the Wesley brothers. It has been one of the largest historical sponsors of global missions. And the United Methodist Church is—or soon maybe was—the second largest Protestant denomination in America.  Yet years of tension over issues  like abortion and especially LGBT participation have led the UMC to the brink of division.

How did the Methodists get to this point, and what does this mean for the church's theologically orthodox members? Lifelong Methodist and President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy Mark Tooley joins BreakPoint's Shane Morris to discuss.

The Institute on Religion and Democracy

“The United Methodist  Church Moves toward Separation,” by Mark Tooley, Juicy Ecumenism

Get a one-year subscription to WORLD magazine with your January gift to the Colson Center and BreakPoint