Breakpoint

“After everything that guy has said and all the selfish, power-hungry things he’s done, you expect me to believe he’s a Christian?”

“Seems awfully convenient for him to claim to find religion now… he still needs to answer for his past.”

“Plus, his political history makes it hard to believe this religious conversion is authentic. It’s probably just another ploy of an egomaniac…”

Celebrity conversions aren’t easy to navigate. In fact, the ongoing reaction to reports that Kanye West has been born again, is serious about his faith, and is even considering seminary, all in association with the title and content of his much-anticipated music project Christ is King, sounded more than vaguely familiar to those of us at the Colson Center.

After all, our founder also had a celebrity conversion over four decades ago, and while I don’t expect much of anything else about Kanye West to remind us of Chuck Colson, the reactions to this week’s news were, shall we say, familiar.

Still, of the many celebrity conversions we’ve seen over the years, this one seems different to me. Maybe it’s because it would be hard to identify a bigger, and more notorious, celebrity today than Kanye West. Or maybe it’s because part of his notoriety is due to a string of publicity stunts. Is it really that hard to believe that this is just another one?

No, it’s not. And therein lies the challenge. It wasn’t hard for Colson skeptics to note the suspicious timing between his conversion and the Watergate scandal, either. In fact, the Washington Post felt obliged to note their skepticism of Chuck Colson’s conversion over thirty-five years later, when they were reporting on his death.

There’s a world of difference, of course, between a skepticism that comes after three decades of faithfulness, and the concern many of us feel right now for the reputation of Christ and His church. This is definitely a time to be “wise as serpents” and “harmless as doves.” So what might that look like?

First, we should be hopeful. No one, no one, is beyond the reach of the Gospel? Any of us concerned about lost friends or family members pray like we believe that’s true. And here’s why we have this hope: The headline of the Kanye conversion story, and any conversion story, is not the convert but the converter. Not Kanye, but Christ! At the end of the day, I believe Christ can save Kanye for the same reason I believe Christ can save me.

Second, we should be grateful. As St. Paul wrote, even if Christ is being proclaimed by someone of whom we are skeptical, Christ is still being proclaimed. And, in this case, it’s being proclaimed across popular culture in a way we’ve not seen in our lifetime. The message of Christ carries its own inherent strength and is not dependent (thank God) on the strength or stability of the messenger.

Third, we should be wise. There are two ways Christians have set up celebrity converts for failure. First, is by expecting too much too soon. I can think of more than one professional athlete or musician who came to Christ one week, only to be asked to preach the next week.

This foolish embrace of our cultural tendency toward celebrity worship has infected the church in so many ways, as evidenced by a generation of musicians and leaders in the church seeking to be famous and “have a platform” instead of being discipled and educated and obedient.

But there’s also the mistake of sitting back, waiting, and saying something like, “We’ll just see if they make it. If they do, we’ll accept them into the church.” The problem of that is, of course, no Christian can survive long without the church. We need the church. Kanye needs the church if his faith is to take root and continue to change his life.

One of the underreported but essential chapters in Chuck Colson’s story post-conversion, was how he submitted to discipleship, the church, and biblical and theological training: From the earliest days in which believers in Washington D.C. embraced him to being theologically mentored by folks such as Carl Henry and Timothy George, to his lifelong commitment of simply going to church. In the same way, I’m encouraged by early reports of the voices speaking into Kanye and his new faith.

Finally, we should expect life change. Chuck Colson’s life change was dramatic, and the fruit followed. As he often put it, his entire worldview was changed by Christ. There are early and encouraging indications of changes in Kanye’s worldview, as well.

My prayer is that these are early indications of what will be a powerful lifelong witness—to the power of the Gospel. And that, like Chuck, Kanye will never be ashamed of it.

Like an Autumn ritual, leaves start turning, the air turns chilly, and Christians argue over whether or not to celebrate Halloween. I’ve never been a huge fan of the dark, sketchy costumes (and I’m talking about what the adults wear), but there’s a whole history to this day, and especially tomorrow, All Saints’ Day.

Back in 2007, Chuck Colson described the history behind this holiday, including its Christian roots. Here’s Chuck Colson, in a BreakPoint titled, “Honoring the Witnesses.”

It is Halloween again, and to be frank, I really don’t look forward to talking about it on “BreakPoint” every year. At best, Halloween has become an excuse to ask total strangers for candy. At worst, it's a celebration of the mindless paganism our ancestors wisely turned their backs on.

So this year, I'd like to turn your attention to the often-overlooked celebration that Halloween calls to mind. In case you've missed it before, the name Halloween is a shortening of All Hallow’s Eve and signifies the night before All Saints’ Day.

For centuries on All Saints’ Day the Church celebrated the lives of Christians who went before us. And rightly so: We can learn so much from those whom the author of Hebrews calls that great cloud of witnesses.

The tradition of remembering the Church triumphant dates back to the time of the first Christian martyrs. When soldiers of Marcus Aurelius Verus came to arrest Polycarp, a beloved church leader, Polycarp greeted them kindly. According to the third century historian Eusebius, Polycarp “ordered a table to be laid for them immediately, invited them to eat as much as they liked, asking in return a single hour in which he could pray.”

When Polycarp later stood in the coliseum, accused and surrounded by the jeering crowds, the governor pressed him to recant his faith. Instead, this man, who himself had been discipled by the Apostle John, said this: “For eighty-six years, I have been [Christ’s] servant, and He has never done me wrong: How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?” As they were preparing to burn him alive, Polycarp offered up prayers of faith and praise.

In the years following Polycarp’s death, Christians would gather annually to take communion beside his grave. There they would remember his brave witness and take courage from his example.

As the years passed, the day shifted in focusing from remembering Polycarp to honoring all martyrs. By the seventh century, the Church created a holiday to honor all of God’s saints—heroes of the faith.

One of my favorite heroes was a woman named Monica, who lived during the fourth century. She would never face flames or jeering crowds, as did Polycarp, but she did face testing. That testing came in the form of her own longing for the return of her prodigal son, Augustine. His licentious lifestyle made this Christian mother weep. Later, when Augustine, who is now known as one of the foremost theologians of Christianity and scholars of Western civilization, did come to Christ, he wrote this prayer: “My mother, Your faithful servant, wept to You for me, shedding more tears for my spiritual death than others shed for the bodily death of a son. You heard her.”

I could tell you story after story like this, from Justin Martyr to Martin Luther to Amy Carmichael. But let me encourage you to do something this All Saints’ Day. Take the lead in your church to honor the great saints who set examples for us. Reacquaint your children with Halloween’s Christian origins. Research together and talk about the lives of Christian heroes.

Sure, go ahead and let the kids dress up like Batman and hit up your neighbors for candy. But when the hoopla of modern Halloween is over, encourage your kids to imitate some real heroes—not in what they put on, but in how they live their lives.

This commentary originally aired October 31, 2007.

 

In his album, “Resurrection Letters,” Andrew Peterson describes, in a song called “Maybe Next Year,” how a visit to Jerusalem made his faith real like never before. “This is the place where Abraham/cut loose the boy and he killed the ram instead/And this is the place where Jesus said/you could tear down the temple and He’d raise it from the dead.”

         This song is in my mind because I’m currently with my wife and ministry colleagues on a tour of Israel. Actually, “tour” is too weak of a word. Any Christian who’s been to the Holy Land will attest that coming here is more of a pilgrimage.

         We’re hitting all of the major sites—Caesarea, the Sea of Galilee, the Mount of Olives, Gethsemane, Jerusalem, and of course, the traditional locations of Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, and resurrection.

         Seeing these places, where the events of the Bible actually took place—not in some dream-time or fictional world, but right here, on this very soil—well, it’s incredible. 

         There is actually a place where Jericho once stood. The bluff where King David built his palace is a real bluff. The mountain where Elijah called down fire from heaven exists.

         And, as we continue to talk about time after time on BreakPoint, archaeology continues to validate these accounts. These discoveries not only verify the truthfulness of the Bible, they remind us how thoroughly grounded the Christian faith is in actual history.

         In just the last year, the existence of the biblical Philistines and Edomites has been confirmed by new discoveries, as has the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem, and even an obscure official in the court of King Josiah.

         But walking where we can prove patriarchs and prophets walked pales in comparison with walking where Jesus walked. That’s what makes a visit to Israel feel most like a pilgrimage. And it’s not just me.

         One member of our editorial team tells of how, during his own visit to Israel years ago, he went to the synagogue in Capernaum –which almost certainly stands on the site where Jesus preached and cast out a demon, as is recorded in Mark 1 and Luke 4. Because of the synagogue’s layout and size, archaeologists can say to within a few feet that “Jesus stood here.”

         Think about that for a second. The God of the universe in human form, the Word who became flesh, stood here. What a mind-boggling concept! And what a reminder that Christianity isn’t some subjective religious experience, or a mere expression of personal piety, as we too often seem to imply.

         Many believers, when asked why they accept the Gospel, talk about an experience or a “personal testimony.” The “I know that Jesus lives because He lives in within my heart” sort of thing, as goes the song. 

         Now, don’t misunderstand me, I hope God has captured your heart in such a way that you overflow with personal testimonies and experiences with God. But pointing to these as the main reasons to believe in Christianity misses a crucial point: Our faith is true in an objective, historical, and universal sense.

When Christians say the Bible is true, and that our faith is true, we don’t mean it’s true for us. We mean it’s true. We don’t mean it’s true if you accept it. It’s true whether you choose to accept or reject it. It’s true because two-thousand years ago, the Lord of life really did walk the soil of this land called Israel, rewriting history and eternity on behalf of His people everywhere.

         That God entered history is verified in the public, historical, verifiable events recorded in the gospels and professed in the creeds.

         Knowing that our God really did come to dwell among us should light a fire under our faith. Unfortunately, that cosmos-shaking detail loses its revolutionary essence far too often. Sometimes it takes pointing to where he stood on a map, or standing where He did in a synagogue, in order for that fire to light us up like it should.

         I’ll share more reflections on BreakPoint This Week about my time in Israel and the uniqueness of the Christian worldview as history. Be sure to tune in by coming to the website, catching us on radio, or subscribing to the BreakPoint podcast.

 

We’ve talked a lot recently on the BreakPoint Podcast about religious freedom—how do we live out our faith in the public square in a society increasingly hostile to Christianity? This is an especially acute question for Christian business owners—especially with the growing support for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity laws. Today on the BreakPoint Podcast, John Stonestreet talks with Michael Sharrow, President and CEO of the C12 Group, the nation’s largest network of Christian CEOs, business owners, and executives.

 

Resources

Attend Wilberforce Weekend 2020!

C12 Group

How Financial Levers Are Being Used to Undermine Religious Freedoms

A Special Colson Center Webinar

Making the Term ‘Sex’ Subjective Threatens American Businesses

Mike Sharrow, National Review, September 11, 2019

With the modern environmental movement, which emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s, came a new term: ecocide. It means the deliberate destruction of the natural environment.

It’s not clear who coined the phrase, but it was then-Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme who first called for it to be declared a crime in 1972.  Palme’s call came barely two decades after the international Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide went into effect, and at a time when many nations, including the United States, had yet to ratify the Convention on Genocide.

And yet, here was a head of state demanding that trees, rivers, and other inanimate objects be given the same legal protections that the civilized world had not yet fully extended to human beings.

Sadly, that past is just a prologue. Just last month, a group called “Stop Ecocide” began to lay the legal groundwork for prosecuting Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro on charges of ecocide.

The recent fires in the Amazon rainforest, the group argued, made Bolsonaro “a poster boy for the need for a crime of ecocide.” The effort is supported by the Hague’s top prosecutor who wants to prioritize cases involving the “destruction of the environment, the illegal exploitation of natural resources or the illegal dispossession of land.”

While there’s no current legal basis for such a prosecution, it’s not as much of a stretch as you’d think. Several countries have already recognized the idea of “environmental personhood,” under which rivers and other parts of nature have been given legal rights that can be enforced in a court of law. One recent example is the Whanganui River in New Zealand, which, in 2017, was granted the same legal rights as a human being.

Actually, the Whanganui has more legal rights than some human beings in New Zealand. The unborn there can currently be destroyed there in cases of hardship to the mother, and new proposed legislation would effectively legalize abortion there right up until the moment of birth with no legal consequences. So, unlike the Whanganui and other rivers, the unborn there would not be entitled to legal representation or a day in court. The appropriate word for this would be “feticide,” but when was the last time you heard anyone who wasn’t pro-life use it?

The very idea of “ecocide” represents an enormous shift in our thinking about the relationship between humans and creation. Rather than embracing our role as “stewards” or “conservators” of the natural order, humans are most often today seen as nature’s adversary. To badly paraphrase John the Baptist, we’ll just have to decrease so nature can increase.

After all, we are often told that the best thing for the environment is fewer people. Some environmentalists will even talk about “culling the human herd.” Of course, the more squeamish wouldn’t quite go that far, but most would agree that humans are nature’s biggest problem.

So, it shouldn’t surprise us when this new exaltation of nature and diminishment of man shows up in our language, like with the word “ecocide.” “Cide” comes from the Latin word meaning killer or slayer. Until now, it only applied to the killing of people: homicide, fratricide, and, more recently, genocide. It’s never really been used to describe the death of an animal or an inanimate object, until now.

Of course, some Christians have wrongly interpreted Genesis 1 to mean they can do anything to nature, but that’s not what the Bible means by “dominion.” God’s image bearers are to steward the creation in a way that protects it and promotes human flourishing. Our dominion over nature reflects God’s dominion over us.

But that’s only possible if we begin with an exalted view of man. Of all the created order, only humans are even aware of how their actions impact the rest of creation. And only humans can tend to creation and undo any damage done.

But reducing humanity’s place in the world will just take away the only reason we have to even try.

 

You should be pro-life. Everyone should be pro-life, and not only if they are Christians and see in the teachings of Holy Scripture how God defines life, or in church history that Christians have long opposed abortion. The more we are able to look into the womb and the more we know about embryology, the more we know that every single embryo is a whole, distinct, valuable human life.

But many people, even those who are pro-life, are unprepared to answer the very common questions we face in this cultural moment about abortion. But we should be prepared for two reasons. First, the answers are out there. Second, lives are literally in the balance.

Your hypothetical friend’s non-hypothetical question is the topic of the latest “What Would You Say” video.  This new series from the Colson Center equips people to answer the tough questions we face in our culture about life, marriage, sexuality, apologetics and other faith topics with both clarity and conviction.

Here’s a segment of our latest video. Pro-life apologist Stephanie Gray offers a “What Would You Say” response to the question of whether an embryo is a person:

Before we can decide whether an embryo is a person, we have to ask what makes anyone a person. Here are a few things to remember.

Our personhood does not depend on our abilities.

Some are hesitant to recognize embryos as persons because they don’t function in the same way that fully developed people often do.  For example, embryos can’t think or talk. But neither can someone under anesthetic, someone in a coma, or someone who is asleep, think or talk.  Newborns can’t think or talk the way adults can. Are they still people?  Even adults vary in their ability to think and talk. What we can do does not make us who we are.

Our personhood does not depend on our age.

The argument that embryos aren’t “fully persons” assumes that our age determines our personhood. But does that make sense?  If we have to be old enough to do certain things or look a certain way before we are “persons,” do we lose our personhood once we are too old to do things?  I certainly hope not. 

In times past, some humans with lighter skin denied the personhood of those with darker skin. Everyone rightly recognizes how wrong that is. But if some humans shouldn’t dismiss the personhood of others because of the color of their skin, neither should humans who are older have a right to deny personhood to those who are younger. 

If it’s not age or ability that makes us a person, what does?

Our personhood comes from our nature. 

To determine what something is, it is helpful to consider its nature, not just its current abilities.  It is the nature of birds to fly. If they are too young or injured to do what most birds do, that does not make them less of a bird.  While neither an embryo, an infant, or a severely disabled person may be able to think or talk the way we can, the capacity to do so is part of their nature, even if that capacity is undeveloped or impaired. This is why we protect the offspring of endangered animals in the same way we protect their parents. As humans, our shared nature, regardless of our abilities, appearance, or age, gives us equal value. 

Stephanie goes on to summarize the points she’s made so that, just like with every other What Would You Say video, you will walk away fully equipped to answer a tough question in an understandable, trustworthy, memorable, and most importantly, useable way.

Come to WhatWouldYouSay.org. And while you are there, be sure to subscribe to be updated every time we release a new answer to a new tough question.

 

For two long years Christian missionary and pastor Andrew Brunson was imprisoned by the Turkish government on charges of terrorism. Today on the BreakPoint Podcast, Pastor Brunson and his wife, Norine, tell their story of years of missionary work in the most-Muslim of nations, the painful testing of Andrew’s faith in prison, and the worldwide prayer movement launched to secure his release.

 

Resources   Request your copy of "Free to Believe: The Battle Over Religious Liberty in America" with your next gift to BreakPoint and the Colson Center Luke Goodrich, 2019

Sitting in for John Stonestreet, Shane Morris and co-host Warren Smith discuss the disturbing custody case out of Texas in which the mother is seeking to transition her 7-year-old son into a girl against the father's wishes. Clearly this is a case where ideology has descended into child abuse.

Shane and Warren also discuss the closing of Britain's lone Chick-fil-A thanks to protests by, what else, the LGBTQ community there. And while Northern Ireland joins the ranks of pro-abortion European lands, Shane and Warren note that other countries, such as Poland, are going the other way. Have some countries, as Warren suggest, tried the progressive way and found it wanting?

And to wrap up this week's broadcast, Shane and Warren discuss the New York Presbyterian churches that held "Beonce Masses."

In a strange sort of way, a recent Sky News story reminded me of Luke 11. That’s where Jesus asks whether, if your child asked for a fish, you’d give them a snake? Or if they asked for an egg, would you hand them a scorpion?

Here’s the article’s headline: “Hundreds of young trans people seeking help to return to original sex.” The story featured a woman who, after publicly admitting regret over her so-called “surgical transition,” was contacted by hundreds of people in her part of England who felt the same way.

One of those people, “Ruby,” also struggled with eating disorders. One would think that the combination of gender dysphoria and eating disorders would suggest to medical professionals that Ruby was suffering from body image issues. But, as she told Sky News, the doctors never even suggested there might be a connection there worth exploring.

Instead, it was “Here’s your hormones, here’s your surgery, off you go.” Or, to borrow Jesus’ words, “Here’s your scorpion, here’s your snake.”

This story is far from uncommon. Young people in emotional pain and distress are asking adults for help. But, because of our ideological blind spots, we give them serpents and scorpions instead of what they really need.

Just consider the name given to a new children’s pediatric clinic at Akron Children’s Hospital: “Center for Gender Affirming Medicine.”  Since the fundamental connection between gender and biological reality has already been severed by our ideological commitments, it’s safe to assume that doctors there will “affirm,” both in their diagnoses and with their prescribed treatments, whatever gender a child claims they are.

But what about the Ruby’s of the world? What about the hundreds of people in that one part of England that were given the wrong treatment for their psychological issues? They are victims of our bad ideas, and our blind spots. Too often, they are forced to be invisible victims, ignored because their very existence challenges the new sexual orthodoxy.

Many physicians today simply ignore that up to 80 percent of the children who suffer from gender dysphoria will eventually outgrow those feelings. Even worse, they fail to connect the dots between gender dysphoria and potentially serious mental illnesses that often accompany it—like depression and generalized anxiety disorder. Or, in Ruby’s case, a severe eating disorder.

Multiple issues like this spark the “chicken and egg” questions. Does gender dysphoria cause depression and anxiety? Or is gender dysphoria a symptom of depression and anxiety?  The truth is that no one knows with any certainty. But, the new gender ideology is leading many professionals to proceed with treatment as if gender dysphoria is no disorder at all.

So, the best “treatment” (the theory goes) is to affirm the young person’s belief that they are transgender and initiate the transition process as soon as possible. This will supposedly reduce the inner conflict, and in turn help with their other disorders.

This neat and tidy theory has one big problem: There’s no evidence it works. In fact, evidence points the other way. A 2011 study that followed 324 Swedish men who had undergone sexual reassignment surgery found that 10-15 years later, their suicide rate was 20 times higher than that of their peers.

An earlier study in Britain commissioned by the Guardian newspaper found that “There is no conclusive evidence that sex change operations improve the lives of transsexuals, with many people remaining severely distressed and even suicidal after the operation . . .”

Today, affirmation passes for “care,” not because it is, but because it affirms gender ideology, even if it leads to life-altering surgery or hormonal treatments. If the patient later regrets it, or hurt themselves, or are miserable, we’ll just blame it on “transphobia.”

Ideas have consequences. Bad ideas have victims. We need to ensure that the victims of bad gender ideology are no longer invisible. Their stories must be heard.

 

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez successfully grabbed another headline last week by tweeting that Americans should have a “real conversation” about abolishing prisons. Though she did later walk back this bone-toss to her far-left supporters, the prison abolition movement isn’t as niche as you’d think.

At their annual meeting this year, the Democratic Socialists of America passed a resolution to start a working group on the topic. In April, the ACLU told the New York Times it wants to defund the prison system.

The idea behind this radical proposal is this: If we could just get our systems right - our healthcare system, our education system, our welfare system - we wouldn’t need any prisons. If everyone just had proper healthcare, great teachers, and all the money they could want or need, no one would commit any crimes.

It’s a bit like suggesting we should abolish doctors; because if all had equal access to leafy greens and the flu shot, no one would ever get sick.

Obviously, part of the prison abolition movement’s strategy is to shock and turn heads toward these other issues. But such a proposal is also a particularly obtuse expression of Utopianism.

Chuck Colson defined Utopianism as “the myth that human nature can be perfected by government.” Utopianism has at least two core flaws: First, it completely misunderstands the human condition. Because human beings are corrupted by sin, we gravitate toward greed, selfishness, and pride without the redirection of the Holy Spirit. In fact, we do this without help of any kind… our sin is not society’s fault or caused by poverty. You can’t educate us out of our sinful natures.

In fact, even the most devoted prison abolitionists can’t make it through a single morning without falling short of their own standards, much less God’s standards. And neither can we.

Today’s prison abolitionists fail to acknowledge the scores of men and women who had every conceivable privilege and went on to commit crimes anyway. Wealthy Wall Streeters commit white-collar crimes. America’s Ivy League campuses - arguably the very seats of privilege - are plagued by sexual assault. Even some perpetrators of mass shootings came from stable, affluent families.

A second problem with Utopianism is that any attempt to create this fantasy world where no one commits a crime means advocating for government control on an unprecedented scale. Any government with that much power would quickly end any illusion of utopia. After all, governments are still made up of fallen human beings.

Every utopian project that has been tried so far has failed. Many were led by characters like Stalin and Mao and Castro - international revolutionaries who turned almost cartoonishly fast from “men of the people” into tyrants. History teaches it best: Presuming to create a perfect system will ultimately degrade into power grabs and human misery.

Because of the accurate way the Bible describes the human condition, we can expect prisons to continue as a necessary part of society until Christ makes all things new. In Matthew 25, Jesus instructs his followers to visit those in prison. An effective prison system will keep people safe, communicate the consequences of wrong-doing to the larger culture, and work to return the imprisoned to our community with better means and accountability by which to govern their own fallen impulses.

And let me add this: Because we believe the incarcerated are human beings made in the image of God and that restoration is possible, the Colson Center stands with Prison Fellowship and others who support criminal justice reforms that address the very real problems of over-incarceration and sentencing disparity.

But, the idea of abolishing prison is an unrealistic, and yet very real, distraction from the necessary conversations we need to be having about how to handle crime in our communities. Not to mention, it’s a poster child of Utopianism.