You're listening to Breakpoint This Week, where we're talking about the top stories of the week from a Christian worldview. Today we're going to talk about another flurry of court cases around what people can and cannot say regarding biological sex. We're also going to talk about what art Christians can and should read and watch and listen to. We have a lot to get into today. We're so glad you're with us.
Stick around. Welcome to Breakpoint This Week from the Coulson Center for Christian Worldview. I'm Maria Baer, alongside John Stone Street, president of the Coulson Center. John, I've been practicing all week on my What's Up Louisville for tonight at the Colson Center National Conference. I think I'm saying Louisville correctly.
Everybody corrects me and says. You need to say it like you have more mush in your mouth.
So, I have you been practicing? Are you ready for it? No, I actually walked by one of the stores here and they had various ways to say it as if all were correct.
So, for all the purists out there, they're going to be critiquing us all weekend. I'm just not listening. I'm just upset on principle because I grew up in a very, very small town in northeast Ohio called. Louisville And it is spelled the same as Louisville. And everybody called it Louisville.
And that's how we could identify outsiders, frankly, because it's pronounced Louisville.
So. This is just a very deeply confusing week for me. But I'm very excited for the Colson Center National Conference. You and I are recording this on Thursday, and the conference kicks off tomorrow. And I can't wait to meet so many of the new Colson Fellows and People that will be joining us for the conference.
But in the meantime, let's get to the show.
So, a couple of weeks ago, we used the term, rightly so, shenanigans, to describe some things that were going on in states across the country. And I think we need to revisit said shenanigans because there are new ones. And somehow, whenever we talk about these, we always seem to center on Colorado. I don't know what the common denominator is, but I'm starting to think it might be you. Your state is up to some shenanigans again.
This week, there is a Christian camp that's been in operation there since the late 40s. You were correcting me offline. It's called, wait, Idrahaji? Am I saying it right? Camp Idrahaji.
It stands for I'd Rather Have Jesus. It's a whole. There's a long history to Camp Idrahaji in Colorado, apparently. That's a great hymn. I know that hymn too.
So they have filed a lawsuit because, as we know, your governor recently signed a bill adding so-called gender expression to the list of things protected under anti-discrimination laws, which has several downstream effects. Among them, camps like Camp Idrahaji Would have to, ostensibly under law, allow boys who say they're girls to bunk with girls and shower in the girls' locker rooms and so on. And so this week, Camp Idrahaji, with the help of Alliance Defending Freedom, I believe, filed a lawsuit. saying that because of their religious beliefs they'd rather not do that. One of my questions for you is: whenever this comes up, I'm happy, obviously, that people are willing to stand up and push back against this.
But I also wonder why such a narrow argument that it's a violation of religion. When any sane person should be able to say, I run a children's camp and I don't want to force boys. Or girls to bunk with boys who say they're girls. You know, I want to have a really common sense policy. Is it because of the Cases that have gone before that they're kind of hamstrung on this?
Or why the folk the kind of narrow focus on religious liberty?
Well, I'm not an expert on legal strategy, and I tend to trust the folks that do legal strategy, especially when they're as successful as an alliance defending freedom who. Is filing on behalf of Aydra Haji is. I mean, they've had enough success on this, and they clearly. We're poised and ready to not only launch this lawsuit, but we're going to talk about another one here as well in response to another law that was just kind of signed into. uh to being there was specific Mandates given by the state of Colorado to the camps in the state that they had to respect, quote unquote, this sort of self-identifying gender identity.
Stuff. I do think it is the responsibility of everyone else. In other words, you do legal strategy in order to win a lawsuit. You win a lawsuit in order to hold back a bad law or to create additional elbow room for citizens to have the kind of freedom that they're supposed to have in a country like ours. That's what the law should do.
That's what lawyers should be working on. That's what a legal strategy is aimed at. That's not what the rest of us should be doing. The rest of us should absolutely be saying that boys aren't girls and girls aren't boys, and this is especially egregious to impose and to And force For for for school-aged children. And it's it's flat out wrong.
And we should call absurdity absurdity and And so on. And I think that there's a difference between what the responsibility is of all of us, as our friend Katie Faust says, to defend the rights of children. against the whims and the the the rights of adults and uh choose children over adults. That that's what the rest of us should be doing on this particular uh n uh uh narr narrow case and narrow arguments. I'm I'm assuming it's a part of a legal strategy and I tend to trust what Those groups say.
Well, let's talk about the other case that you mentioned briefly there. There's a clothing line that was launched in Denver. Last year by Jennifer Say, formerly of Levi Strauss. And a former competitive gymnast. The clothing line is called XXXY.
Of course, a nod to the differing chromosomes between men and women. And they have filed a preemptive lawsuit as well, challenging Colorado's anti-discrimination laws because they foresee that they're going to be in trouble for so-called. Misgendering people because they refer to male athletes, for example, as men. Um including when they try to compete against women in in women's leagues.
So, this was also brought by the Alliance Defending Freedom. And I'm happy to see this one as well, because it just, again, kind of highlights the irrationality of this law, even before, you know, I mean, it went into it, it was signed by the governor, what, a couple of weeks ago, right? Earlier this month in May. No, just last week. It passed out of the state legislature and was put on the governor's desk.
And there were questions of. Of How extreme it was. You might remember that the earliest version of this, for example, had language that could penalize. Parents in custody battles for not fully affirming their child's chosen gender identity and supporting their transitions. Chemically and medically, there's still really, really bad language here.
This is still an example of something we've talked about for a while. And it seems like this segment here that we've instituted where we go kind of through a bunch of stories ends up being a tour of the U.S. Like here's what's happening in red states and here's what's happening in blue states because they're both moving. They're both moving in opposite directions, although we have a couple exceptions to that we're going to get to here in just a second. But Colorado is an example of a state that's doubling down.
It's an example of a state that is trying to stick this one out on the issue of gender despite the fact that everybody around the world has backed off Of a radical agenda. It's an example of the fact that. All politics is local. It's an example of the fact that we have to stay engaged at the local level. Because there's still a willingness in some places to advance death and to advance mutilation.
And that that who's in the White House doesn't actually relief. to an awful lot of of people. It matters who wins those national elections. But at times it actually emboldens the other side, and that's I think one of the cases here. This is fascinating to me for a number of reasons.
The XXXY clothesline is pretty new. The fact that they ended up in Denver to me is. Is providential. That you know, because the the the the the woman in charge, and you mentioned her name, Jennifer Say, I think. Is that her name?
Yeah. Yeah. She, I mean, her history in in high-level fashion and then To end up here at such a time as this, it reminds me of what Paul talks about. about God's chronological precision. Uh and often geological, uh geographical precision as well.
I think that's interesting. You might have seen the commercials that they have been doing, including that were here. I think one was not accepted by the Super Bowl, but they went all out. Riley Gaines has been a part of their commercials of You know, basically calling for government officials to defend women and calling them out that they're not.
So, this is an example of an argument that's not being made based on religious expression or. Freedom of speech or even any of the other First Amendment rights, but more of saying this is just wrong. And so I think that's interesting because here you have Uh Different arguments here and hitting in on different levels. And I think that's part of the legal strategy as well. I'm excited to see where this one Is going.
So, this law is a particularly egregious part of the thing that finally did pass. through the legislature and actually was signed by Jared Polis. Which basically makes misgendering a crime. in a place of public accommodation. Places of commerce are understood to be places of public accommodation.
And so here you have someone who, in the name of the company, is quote unquote misgendering, right? I mean, it's literally baked in to the mission statement of the organization, of the company, and what they stand for.
So. I think it's fascinating. I don't know where it's going to go.
Well, I do. I can tell you right now, this is one that I think the state of Colorado. is going to be really clear on. They're super stubborn. It's kind of like ADF.
versus the state of Colorado is the headline of the last ten years. On these sorts of issues, I think what we'll get from Colorado the same thing we always get from Colorado, which is doubling down. Even though the Supreme Court continues to call their behavior egregious in various ways. And the question is, is will the Supreme Court Now have to take up something. And I think between Hydra Haji, between XXXY, between a number of others.
We're going to have to get this thing to the court. And that's important because of the next story we should probably talk about, which is this week, which also involves ADF. They're at the headlines, but also involves another state, which is the state of Massachusetts. Yeah, so thankful for ADF.
So, this is helpful because so much of this anymore is posturing, I'm convinced. And what's helpful about these lawsuits is just baseline to see how far people will go for their posturing. Like there's a house in my neighborhood that has a sign in their yard that says housing is a human right. And every time I drive past it, I think I'm just waiting for the person, you know, struggling with homelessness to just set up a camp or to just knock on the door and say, let me in. Because again, these are postures and you got to ask yourself, how far, what do you actually mean by this?
How far are you willing to go? And if you wake up one day and you find that your posture would logically require you to allow boys to bunk with girls at a young adult's camp, then you need to revisit some things here. And that's what's helpful about these lawsuits, I think.
However, as you mentioned, there is this case out of Massachusetts that the Supreme Court declined to hear this week. This was of a boy who had worn a t-shirt to school that said there are two genders. That's what the t-shirt said. And he was told to go home. This was interesting.
I was reliably informed by a CBS story that he was not punished by the school for wearing the shirt. He was merely told to go home and said he can't come to school in the shirt.
So FYI. But he obviously appealed that, or he sued over that decision. His family sued, and ADF took up the case with them. And it made it up to the Supreme Court level, which this week declined to hear it. Why do you think they declined?
You know, it's a great question. I think that it's building up, though. What happened was the Supreme Court kind of made a bed in the Bostock decision. in areas of civil rights legislation, which extends to employment and education. You remember Title IX, Title VII, Title V, all the various arenas.
And They they basically opened a big old can of worms, if you remember the case having to do with the Michigan funeral home director. Wonderful man. I met him a couple of years ago who had an employee. quote unquote transition changed genders and appearance. created issues within the context of his employment.
If you can imagine a grieving family coming in and being met by a man dressed as a woman. And just out of blue, no you know, no no notice, no announcement, anything like that.
So here you have it applied. And here you have the Supreme Court, and it was written the the majority opinion was written by Justice Gorsuch. about kind of workers' rights that that Basically, created space for this in federal legislation.
So now we got to work it out. And this is, you know, applied to education. What what's interesting, uh, you know, at some level too, is that you you remember the um The the mask, the Jesus loves you mask during COVID, the the the little girl, I think Lydia down in Mississippi. And I think it was Mississippi. And courts tend to stand on the side.
of children, you know, who have opinions and have thoughts. I mean, think about Kind of the hesitation of both government officials and school officials to stop. You know, even protests that turn violent on these campuses, right? And so here you have a boy, and by the way, he's Young man super clever. Not only did he he w he wore a uh There's only two gender shirt.
But then he came back with and then had two marked out with the word censored genders on it.
So he's I love his creativity. Hilarious. His his God-given honoriness. But it's interesting, y you you kind of knew what you were going to get from the state courts and the region uh the the the um lower courts up in that area of the country. But at some point, the Supreme Court's going to have to adjudicate this because it's a mess that essentially they created.
And it's not clear where the lines are and where the limits are. Maybe they know that and they're just kind of holding off. Maybe they I think this is too narrow of a case to consider. But clearly the cases are stacking up. And there's going to come, I guess we could say a day of reckoning.
in the court on this. And it's going to be interesting where culture is at that point, because we're in a different place right now than when the Bostock decision was written. And one wonders, unless you think somehow that the courts somehow exist outside of culture, which they do not. I remember Chuck Colson talking about this. Supreme Court justices read the newspaper too.
And they want to be like everybody else.
Now, I don't think it's that simple. I think there's various levels of courage there, and there's certainly levels of objectivity versus their ideological commitments. That said, Would we get the Bosak decision today like we got back then? I don't know that we would. because of the way that the ground has shifted.
In terms of how we think about fundamental identity and human rights, and the fact that there's not just one view on this. and that the other view Which, throughout human history, has been the dominant view from the very beginning, can't just be relegated to a religious belief.
So anyway, I I think That's what's interesting about Colorado, about having Idrahaji, which is a religious organization, XXXY, which is not a religious organization. And eventually all of this stuff is going to come to a head and the court's going to have to. Make a decision on this. I just want to say briefly, too, I think it's hard to communicate. It's hard for men sometimes to understand.
Just how aggressive it is to encounter a man dressed as a woman. And I I'm thinking about this wi with regards to the Bostock decision, but also just Personal interactions I've had. And I'm not just talking about men and drag, which is its own kind of. really gross thing to encounter because it feels so pointed. Like such a caricature.
But last week at the pool where I swim to exercise, there's a man who dresses like a woman, including in a woman's bathing suit, and swims. And there's always a level as a woman, there's always a, you're always aware of the men that are around you, and you conduct yourself in a way that is. You know, reasonably protective, and you're just aware of it. It's just a part of life in the world. When there's a man who is dressed as a woman, it's an added sense of, I think, insecurity on my part.
Where it's like, okay, there's a sexual perversion here, but there's also this almost kind of aggressive feeling like, This person is supposedly Cosplaying as me. You know, like this is supposed to be a one, like that's supposed to be me.
So this person feels like they're entitled to the spaces that are set aside for me. And they're also, you know, culturally sending the message that they understand what it's like to be a woman. There's an added level of. Like it's it's such a feeling of Powerlessness and a little bit of instability. I find myself the whole swim.
I'm like, what am I going to do if I encounter this person in the locker room? Right. And I'm, you know, I don't have my kids with me. That changes the math. Do I say something?
I certainly would leave the room. It's hard not to feel bitter. Because of the, it's always a strain. Just being in any spaces with adult men, there's just always an embedded. I'm just not physically as strong.
There's always. That awareness. And this just adds to that. And I think as the rubber continues to meet the road here. The court's going to have to grapple with that too.
It's just a cultural reality for women. All right, let's take a quick break, John. We'll be right back with more breakpoints this week in just a minute. Imagine what could happen if the church led the way in restoring what's broken. That's what happened when Ryan joined the Colson Fellows program.
Shortly after completing the program, he worked with his church to launch his senior home, an addiction recovery center, and a foster care closet, real answers to real needs in his community. That's exactly why the Colson Center exists, to equip believers like Ryan to bring restoration. But none of it happens without donor support. As we close our fiscal year, we need your help to expand the impact of programs like the Colson Fellows, as well as the other ministries of the Colson Center. Give by June 30th at colsoncenter.org slash May and help the church be the church.
We're back on breakpoint this week. John, I wanted to take some time to address a question that I get frequently, and I actually wanted to bring it to you first.
So we've asked for continued feedback from listeners, which we always appreciate, and we've been getting lots of questions and comments. There's one theme that comes frequently, my direction, and I take these seriously. Especially when I can tell that they're earnest. But so, as our listeners will know, a lot of times at the end of our show, we do recommendations, we'll share things. that we recommend people read or watch or listen to.
And a lot of times I share the books I'm reading. And pretty frequently I get responses from people who either really don't like what I recommended, which I actually love that. I mean, it's just a it's a fun way to get to know people and to to share. But I also get messages from people who are concerned about what I'm reading. Whether there's language in there that they don't like, you know, like curse words or taking the Lord's name in vain, or there are situations that characters get in that they find unseemly or they don't want to read and think about.
And I take that critique seriously in that I have no When I'm recommending something, I'm never saying you must read this or you are. You're a weaker Christian if you don't read it, or you're missing something vital to your Christian life if you don't read it, or whatever the case may be. Where I bristle a little bit is sometimes I get pushback that is quite questioning my character as a Christian. I can't believe somebody. Who says they're a Christian could read or talk about something like this?
So I've been kind of wrestling through this the past couple of weeks. The way I want to frame this question to you is, how do you think about What Christians can or should Watch, read, listen to versus not watch, read, and listen to. Yeah, it's an interesting question. And I think that it's one that I also take. Seriously, because I do think that we all have blind spots on this as well.
And that's the role of the church is to keep each other accountable. It's a little bit more complicated and a little bit weirder when you're talking about.
somebody that, you know, we don't know, but we're you know, that has some sort of a public platform and And you write anonymously, it's very common that listeners feel like they know. people uh that are More public figures and so on, when that's really, really not the case. But on the flip side, You know, we kind of put ourselves in that position and when people hear recommendation From a show like ours, they take it as this is a you know recommendation and. When it kind of crosses some lines that that folks have. in most cases, you know, rightly, that they have for themselves.
Then it can cause confusion.
So I definitely understand it, and I think that the feedback needs to be. Welcomed and taken seriously, like you are, because of that. But it does get to a question, and it's. Interesting because I've kind of thought and talked about this. for for years.
when it has had to do with High schoolers and teenagers, and how do we help our own kids navigate, for example, the world? of entertainment. And The idea is that we live in a particular kind of cultural setting. In which entertainment has taken over life. And so a lot of what it is that we consume and that we read.
Is done for entertainment. And that, in and of itself, is a kind of a morally loaded assumption. Right? Like, should we amuse ourselves to death, to borrow the phrase from Neil Postman? And I'm tempted to say it's all in Postman again, because I think Postman.
Was so prescient on all of this, and he even foresaw challenges that would get worse and worse and worse in the age of the internet and the age of social media influencers and some of the other ways that. our entertainment has evolved.
So for example, you know, years ago he warned about the idea of fake life, you know, basically that entertainment would itself become kind of culture. It would become our own little world. And so what it would do is we would find ourselves kind of looking More and more at a mediated reality and miss real reality. We would, you know, look at characters and miss our family. In other words, we would kind of choose between what was titillating and ignore what was significant.
Whether it's ideas, we would choose style over substance or actual character, we would choose celebrities over heroes. And all of that obviously has come true, and we've become more and more and more isolated. I remember the good old days when our biggest concerns working with teenagers was whether they dated or courted. And now we can't even get them to have relationships with one another. You know, we have this conversation about every three weeks.
In our editorial meeting, that oh, the numbers are down in terms of teen pregnancy, but that doesn't mean the sexual brokenness numbers are down. It means that more and more teenagers are engaging with illicit sexuality. virtually disembodied And the upside is there's no diseases and no pregnancy, but that wasn't always the fundamental problem with illicit sexual behavior to begin with. But it's easy to be consequentialist in an age like this.
So all of that kind of plays in in terms of entertainment. But The larger reality, and it is a reality, and we have to think through what this means. What the Bible says, and the Bible does say, whatever is. pure, whatever is noteworthy, whatever is praiseworthy, think on these things. And then you have Paul walking around Athens in Acts seventeen.
Looking carefully, he says, at the objects of worship that were there in Athens, And that's idol worship. He's studying it, he's looking at that culture. The Idol worship is idolatrous, but it also Sexually explicit, it's violent. We're talking about human sacrifice, or at least portrayals of human sacrifice. He's like, Paul looked at that stuff.
He studied that stuff. How do you make sense of that? You have the part where he talks about becoming all things to all men. And Yeah, you know, so that he would be able to save some.
Well, What what are the limits of that? I mean, obviously he's not saying become a prostitute in order to win prostitutes. We know that that's wrong. Balancing all that out is where I think it gets really complicated and difficult. And I'll throw in one more biblical.
instruction here, which is something that James talks about. He mentions the way that we're tempted. He uses kind of a fishing. Analogy. That there's bait, there's a lure that the enemy puts out in front of us.
And it's not going to be the same for everyone. S some people that are tempted by power. Are not going to be tempted by anger in the same way, or not tempted by. illicit sexuality in another way or Tempted to Steal. The Ten Commandments cover an awful lot of territory, and some of us are more susceptible to envy.
you know, than to murder. And so it's interesting when Jesus sh you know, shows up and he puts it all into the intent of the heart. And that gets to some of the stuff I think that James is talking about: that there's something internally to us. And part of that I think is maturity. Part of that I think is our own background and what we've been exposed to and maybe what are significant weaknesses or temptations that maybe we have cultivated or fostered.
You know, the Puritan writers talk about that I remember my histr uh church history prophet at at Trinity uh talking and pr praying once before class and saying, God, help us. Please help us not to plan to sin today. And he was referring to those things that we kind of keep hidden in our own little corners. And then we find ways to excuse them. Chuck Colson used to say there's no limit to the human capacity.
for self-rationalization. And that's why I think, you know, any times that that a fellow believer or whatever asks us to think about these things, it's a good idea to do it, even if the intentions. are out of anger or whatever. We we don't need to worry about that as much as We know that all of this is true about the human condition. We have our own inclinations and proclivities.
We have Jesus saying that sin goes to the the depth, the level of depth of our intentions. Maybe that we don't even Realize. And then we have Paul saying, you know, think on the good things so that our Our our hearts and our minds are lifted above those temptations.
So a lot of people have interpreted that. as you know the best thing to do is to draw hard fast lines and to never cross those lines. You know, the Bible says that this is right and this is wrong, so let's not even get close to it. Right, let's set up rules like fences. and those fences uh can protect us.
But you know, as some of us who grew up in a rules-based environment, that maybe is a helpful strategy that we need to employ. That's kind of the Joseph strategy that, you know, basically You stick it out as much as you can and then every once in a while you just gotta run. You just got to get up and get out of there. But You know, the thing about fences is you you can become r kind of a rules-based sort of approach. you become pretty good at violating the rules.
And you also become Pretty prideful. not at being righteous or holy, but at keeping the rules. Then that's the temptation, right? I mean, that's the no limit to the human capacity for self-rationalization, as Chuck said. There's a lot of factors here, right?
There's a lot of things I think to consider. Yeah, I think for me, the biggest lesson here is, like you said, everybody is responsible for his or her own lines and where they draw them. And they probably should and will be different for each person. There are going to be things that are obvious. I mean, like.
Things that are violently explicit, and you know, in terms of entertainment, or things that. There are certain things that are just simply not. Worth looking at, thinking about, reading about, that kind of thing. There's going to be lines drawn in different places for different people. For me, one of the greatest values of reading widely, including reading things that are weird and strange and that clearly come from worldviews that are very different from my own.
Is And part, getting to know what the world looks like to people who don't know Jesus. That's worthwhile to me. But it's also worthwhile To sort of experience challenges in life from a safer distance than actually experiencing them myself. It's a way of like fortifying. your own strength of character.
There was a book I brought up a couple months ago called Lincoln and the Bardo, and people understandably. We're very upset by my recommendation of this book. I need to do a better job if I haven't. Of explaining when I bring up these books, like giving the caveats. There's language in this book, there are some scenes that are really dark and hard to read, and that kind of thing.
And this is one of those books that's really dark, but. The main theme of it was: there were rumors at the time of the death of Lincoln's son. President Lincoln's young son, that he, in between his death and burial, he revisited the boy's body in the cemetery at night. And those rumors are a matter of historical record. I mean, nobody knows whether he actually did or not, but this book was like an imagining of what that was like.
And there was a, it was really difficult to read, but it was a really beautiful experience for me of like really picking up this. This experience of losing a child. From a perspective of a person who knows Jesus. And imagining what it would be like and how it would change the way you view life and the transient nature of things, and how quickly time goes by, and also how slowly it goes when you're in grief. All of these things that are really, really difficult to think about.
But I got to sort of imagine them from a safe distance. It was not actually happening in my own life. And that is really valuable to me. That doesn't have to be valuable to everybody. And I think it's completely legitimate to avoid it if you want to, or it doesn't have value for you.
What I don't think is legitimate is to then accuse someone who does read that or value that experience of violating a Christian conscience when that's really not clear that that and I in my case, that didn't happen. But again, I want to take to heart. You know, the recommendation to be careful of these things. I'd rather be too careful than not careful enough. Yeah, I think what concerns a lot of people is that clearly there are lines, and clearly those lines have moved.
In other words, what would have been unacceptable. to previous generations, just kind of widely accepted in the same way that we would say this kind of explicit sexuality or that sort of stuff is over the line. For a couple of years ago, there was a kind of a very popular writer who also was known to be a Christian.
So talked about watching Game of Thrones all the time. Game of Thrones, in my mind, just so crosses the the thresholds that you're talking about. It's pornographic. There's a real actress there getting undressed in front of the camera for a whole lot of people. eliciting Lust.
And there's also the bloodlust. That you know that comes because of the violence and the bloodshed that that that people want. And you know, I remember having kind of that crisis. in the theater years ago with a movie called Gladiator, which dealt with s some really wonderful themes of eternity and and and nobility. You're talking about, you know, kind of the spirituality from a pagan.
Perspective, but also kind of thinking about our lives now in light of eternity. There's that famous line that he says. But I was in a theater full of people, kind of listening to the philosophy behind it, really intrigued. And then There's a gladiator scene. And everyone's like, oh, and then you realize, oh, this is actually bloodlust for most people.
In other words, there might be a lot of things. Given the theme of that movie being against the market, there's a difference. I mean, this is one of the things that you have to think about. And this is why the James's instruction, in terms of knowing yourself and where you're at. And that's why I would push back a little bit on kind of what you began with, which is it's different for everybody.
I mean, I don't want that to devolve into a subjectivity, right? Because there's not. If there are clear lines, then it's not up to every individual. up to every individual is No individuals on its own. The individuals are in accountability with others, we're in relationship with other people.
And so let's say, for example, the person going out and recommending people watch Game of Thrones because it's a really cool series. That same person is responsible to his or her spouse. You know, for looking at nude bodies and sexuality, where's that sense of responsibility? I didn't think it was present there, and I thought it was absolutely a wrong thing to do. We actually talked about it.
At the time, not you and I, I think, but I think Shane, for example, was wrote a particularly helpful breakpoint commentary about it at the time. And I think that that's Something that we forget is that we are kind of publicly accountable. I want to say one more thing. because there is a dramatic difference. Between Art.
Music. Entertainment. that portrays bad ideas, and sin as sin. and those that portray bad ideas and sin not as sin. In other words, violence for violence's sake, as opposed to violence as a result of human brokenness that therefore is redeemable.
Those are two very, very different ways of portraying violence. When you portray that the world has fallen, you're saying something that's true. When you portray that the world is fallen and there's nothing wrong with that, then you're saying something that's not true. In the name of Christian art, When you whitewash everything and portray as if nothing's broken in the world and everybody's intentions are pure. and there's a happily ever after, then you're not telling the truth about the world.
I think that there's A responsibility that we have to portray what is true. And to portray it as truth. And all truth is God's truth.
So sometimes that portrayal of truth. is going to come in a beautiful, compelling way. Uh from someone who It does not know Christ. Because of the image of God that they have and their understanding and the ability to access reality. and so on.
There's a there's a framework that a mentor of mine Gave to help us think about these things. And I think frameworks are really helpful, you know, not that they answer all the questions that we have. But there's there's there's form. And there's function. And then there is intent.
So, the form is the quality of what's done. And the Bible has very clear. Categories of quality that things should be done excellently. Whatever your hand finds to do, do it for the Lord. And so it is possible to have a right message in a bad message.
bad form and not be really good at what you do. I think m many people had that complaint about quote-unquote Christian art and have for a long time. And then it's also possible for something to be really well done, but to have a really bad message. You know, you can think about. But lots of examples of that, all from James Cameron.
Then you have form and that was a joke. I thought that was funny. Form and function. The function is the message, really. What is it trying to communicate or what is it communicating?
And it might communicate what's true. It might communicate what's not true. The Bible has really clear Criteria for that, that truth is the criteria for our messages. And then the third criteria is the intent.
Something should have a noble intent. For example, the intent of art that's just to sell, that's kind of cheap. That's not stuff that pleases the Lord. If there's the intent to Actually, make someone sin or to incite a revolution. I mean, these things are not always.
Noble purposes.
Sometimes they are. I mean, if you're dealing with a, you know, trying to wake people up to stand up against what's wrong, then inciting a revolution is good.
Now again, you still have to do the math and you still have to decide You know, whether something pulls on your own kind of heartstrings as as James puts it. and and you know pulls you out in your own temptation. That that that all needs to be figured out. Um But it has to be done intentionally and I think uh self-reflectively And a lot of times I think Again, we we need to be extremely wary of our own kind of Temptation to self-rationalize. I disagree a tiny bit because I think, especially when it comes to novels or book writing.
It is possible and happens frequently that things are portrayed as good that are not good. Like for the sake of story. You know, I'm thinking in particular, I got some feedback, for example, with a book that I recommended a couple months ago. That I thought was a beautiful book and ultimately really sad. Every conclusion the character came to was very sad.
And one of the reasons people were upset at this recommendation is that towards the end of this book, one of the main characters has an abortion. And it's portrayed as like this fixed it for her. She, this, you know, if she had had that child, man, her life would have been ruined. That is categorically false. But it was valuable to me in that I saw it for what it was, which was the author's rationalization.
Like, this was how you'd have to think about it. This, it was almost like the fakeness of the happily ever after in romantic movies, where it's like, I know that's not true, she knows that's not true, but she's got to imagine that this is true in order to rationalize her own worldview. And wow, that is interesting that that's where she took this. And that's a really sad way of looking at the world. And all I thought the book was beautifully written, and the characters were really rich and well imagined.
And this was just another, to me, it almost boosts my own confidence in my worldview because I'm like, I know it doesn't work like this, and I know that you know that too. And you have to pretend it does in order to move forward. And gosh, that's fascinating. Actually, I think the framework is helpful, right? Because what you're talking about is something that was functionally or that was done really, really well.
But content-wise, it wasn't true. And the art of discernment is being able to tell the difference between those two things. And you think about someone who is particularly compelled by pity. and by stories of um uh you know you know in which their understanding of reality changes if it's you know That there's a really sad story that goes along with it. That gets in the way of discernment, you know?
And I think that there are people who are worried. And rightly so, that many can't make that distinction. Yeah, and that's why I think it's a helpful framework, is so that we can, it's a framework for discernment. I should have said that, where it's a a framework for helping us actually navigate art and literature and uh entertainment. In those ways.
But I also think there is a kind of a baked-in right to entertainment that's assumed that. You know, if it's there, then I have a right to consume it. And we have to think about it both as producers. Most of us don't do production. of those sorts of things.
But those of us that do, we need to think about are we doing it well and are we doing it truthfully and do we have the right intention? And that includes what we're doing right now. On the other hand, if we're consuming it, that gives us a framework for actually thinking through it. Was this well done? How could it have been done better?
Did it actually say something that's true or not true? And then on the other hand, what what was it its intent? I think those are helpful tools. There's more. You know, at some level, we have to deal with just the question Is it ever right to consume things that are quote unquote not Christian?
I think that's a real challenging question because I don't think Christian usually makes a really good adjective. I think it's supposed to be a pronoun, a self-identifying pronoun. Or a God identifies us pronoun, right? That there are Christians, and Christians should do Christian things, and Christians should read and hear and think in Christian ways. And that's a better way of looking at it than saying this is a Christian book or not a Christian book.
It's going to be really hard to go through scripture and have a strong case. for never encountering things that are sent for are wrong. Because A, we're called into the brokenness of a cultural moment, not away from it. And B, we live in a fallen world. And so it's just...
In a sense, inescapable. But at some level, We still have a choice. With what to put in front of our eyes and what to put in front of our hearts. And we need to know ourselves pretty clearly. I do think, too, there's a responsibility that we have.
even in this position of recommendation because We're not talking to everyone who's in the same place as we are. And it's impossible for us to know that. And we need to be, I think, really mindful of that. Yeah, absolutely. It is a question.
I grew up in the age of learning that there's no such thing as bad art. Because art is merely expression. And so there's no good art and bad art. There's just art, and it can be whatever you want, and etc. The more I think about that, I mean, I don't buy that because I've seen things that I know are bad art.
I would put Game of Thrones in that category. I think there are things that are categorically hideous and ugly, and that is violence and exploitation. I also think More and more, what I've added to that category is things that are not ordered. Like that, and that's a fairly vague category, but. If we know what we know about the world in part is that God gave it order.
And so, if you think about what passes for modern art right now, both visual art, but also including novels and music and whatever. There are things that are just not pleasing to look at or listen to, and it's usually things that have no order. Or that don't follow some of the normal laws of creation, you know, whatever that might be. And I think that's been a helpful category for me because I'll start to read some books and think this is untrue on a level that makes it unreadable, if that makes sense. But a lot of this, again, is a personal preference, but I think there's something true there as well about order.
Yeah, I think that's actually a really good point. It gets hard when you talk about different styles of art that aren't clearly ordered. I mean, you think about it, you know, various forms of abstract or So on, can those things actually reflect reality and make a statement? I think the answer is yes, but I'm not good at that. And I think we oftentimes take.
The skill part out of it, you know, in other words, there is a skill to discernment, there is a skill to productivity, there is a skill. to actually being able to read well and think well about what you read. And I think that, you know, at the heart of. The lie that you were talking about earlier of the modern age is just that intentionality is all it takes, someone wants to do it. The rest of us have a responsibility to accept it as art.
And I don't think that's. Look, when I go to an art museum and I see something and I think to myself, I can do that. Then I know there's a problem because if I can do it, that's a good category. I went to the Met, I went to the Met last fall, and you go through all of the exhibits. It's incredible.
It's beautiful. They have the history of musical instruments and their different forms and how they were built. And then you go to the modern art section and you're like, how fast can I get out of here? Like, it's literally just like a strip of blue. And you're like, I don't care to sit here and read four paragraphs.
They're going to try to convince me that this means something or that this is important or should cost millions of dollars. I'm going to go to the part of the, and I, I don't want to sound, you know, even then I bristle at my inward reaction. Like, am I an old person? Am I closed-minded? Am I the wrong kind of art critic or whatever?
But I think there's, I got to trust that gut level reaction at some level because I mean, listen, I think the same thing is true with, you know, story writing. I mean, look, I think it's completely legitimate, for example, to walk down Broadway. And say we are out of ideas. Like, there is a real dearth of creativity. You know, if every single play on Broadway.
is basically a rehashed version. of a movie from fifteen years ago. Then, where is human creativity at right now? You know, just because you can. you know, doll it up or make it trans.
or change the lead character to an intersectional category doesn't mean you're an artist. And we have to have that kind of skill conversation. Because we have taken it out of it. We we have penalized it under low expectations with art. And Christians can be better than that, right?
Christians can be better in what they produce. Christians can be better in what they do. I'm really grateful, for example. for the folks over at Rabbit Room and other places that are trying to foster creativity, for Mako Fujimura and work he's done for a really long time. You know, we we we need to not embrace Not just the values.
of of of a culture You know, for example, as if self-expression completely undoes someone's responsibility to truth. We can't embrace that, but we also shouldn't embrace the rules. Our our our criteria Is God. And we shouldn't just embrace kind of the new evolving kind of standards. that Let me let me thr let me throw w one more thing in too.
Because I think it's valid for the whole conversation and it's something that I've thought about. you know, really for a long time. And it it's part of the tension of living in a fallen world with fallen art. And fallen literature. But really, anything, whether you're talking about a press brief or you're talking about a newspaper article.
Or any of that. There is this oftentimes an analogy that's thrown around. about that You know, we should only... look at Things that are true. And so on.
In other words, what what Paul means in that wit with that Line is that we should always avoid the counterfeit. And it comes along with the bank teller analogy. I don't know if you've ever heard that. which is, you know, when banks try to train their tellers They only showed them the real dollar bill so that they can spot the counterfeit. And I have a couple answers to that.
Number one is it's not true. That's not how banks train their tellers. It's an analogy.
Someone made it up, and maybe some bank somewhere did that, but that's not the way. Banks are trying to do it.
Now they have machines, so they don't even expect anybody to say that. I'm sure we're going to get corrections from bank tellers across America and parents that have used the analogy. I appreciate the analogy as a parent, right? Because you do want to make sure. That the hearts and minds of your children are oriented around good things, things that are solid, things that.
as they develop maturity.
So if they they need to have the category of good. But does that mean then that you only show them the real thing and never the counterfeit? That takes me to kind of to the second point. About this analogy, which is I don't think that the best analogy of what it means to be a Christian in the world is to be a bank teller. Because when a bank teller does spot the counterfeit, you know what they do?
They put it in a different pile and they push a button and notify somebody higher up. I don't I don't think that that's really what we're after. kind of in this occupied territory. of the modern world with lies and and agents of darkness. We're we're much more like, you know, CIA agents.
Where not only we need to be able to identify the difference between what's true and not true, and what's good and not good, and what's genuine, what's counterfeit. But then do something about it. Have a counter message. Be able to point it out. Be able to have a conversation about it.
Be able to set captives free and take ideas captive and all the things that Paul talks about.
So I just think at some level, The question If we're going to engage that stuff, is how solid our foundation is to begin with. And that gives us a much, much better place of discernment.
So I guess at the end of the day, again, there's some There's some accountability we need to have to each other on this.
Some some real Important conversations to be having about the skill of discernment. What Paul prayed. for the church at Philippi that their love would abound more and more in truth and all discernment. And you think about, you know, today there's a lot of love. That's being proclaimed as an excuse to not develop discernment and not stand on truth.
And then there's a lot of truth that's being proclaimed in a way to not be loving. And discernment helps us, I think, between that. We can discern between the artist and the work of art. We can discern between the author. And the intent, we can discern between the form, the function, And the purpose.
These are really important categories, I think, as we navigate this fallen world.
So there's more to be said, but it's an interesting conversation to say the least. Yes, indeed. All right, John, let's take another quick break and then we'll be right back with more Breakpoint this week. Hi, Breakpoint listeners. You've probably heard us talk about the Colson Fellows Program on Breakpoint.
I'm excited to let you know that the Colson Fellows team hosts one-hour live informational webinars that allow you to hear an overview of the program and get your questions answered. The webinars are hosted by our Vice President and Dean of the Colson Fellowship, Michael Craven. Here at Breakpoint, we work hard to help you consider current events through a Christian worldview. If you want to go deeper to discover how to develop the wisdom and skills needed to walk wisely in this cultural moment, then the Colson Fellows Program might be for you. This nine-month program takes you on a deep dive into Christian worldview through readings, devotionals, monthly cohort meetings, and more.
If you're interested, an informational webinar is a great next step to learn more. You can find a full list of webinar dates and register today at colsonfellows.org slash webinar. That's colsonfellows.org slash webinar. webinar.
Well, we're back on Breakpoint this week. John, in the spirit of the last segment, let's go to recommendations. Do you want to recommend a saucy novel for us this week? No, I do want to note, though, that the listener feedback segment has become the whole show now, which is your fault for all the. Simple things you recommend in real life.
You're welcome.
So do better. I would know. Here's what I want to recommend. I have a conversation with Professor Robert George coming on a special edition of the Breakpoint podcast. And The next couple, next week or so.
And it's to talk about something that I think is one of the great ideas of our age. Christians. Not only should we respond to what is wrong, we should propose what is better. It's almost June. You may be hearing this, and it's either May 30th or June 1st.
So here we are. And oh wait, is there 31 days in May? There is, is it there? May 31.
So I am so sorry. I don't know. Yes. Yeah. It's almost June is the point.
And we know what June is. For the last several years, June has been like a megaphone of debauchery. In what's called Pride Month. And Pride is one of the seven deadly sins, and to hold it up. As a virtue is really a sign of what's wrong.
And we should say that it's wrong. And I think people have pushed back. And I think we've seen, even the last couple of years, kind of a muted. Pride Month. You know, thank God.
I hope this is even more muted than in the past. We've seen corporate pushback to DEI and some of the other ways. uh that that movement has gone forward. All that's good. But If we're not for Pride, what are we for?
Now, This is an idea from Professor Robert George. two years ago. He did not intend it to be a counter to Pride Month. I just want to be really clear. What it was a response to was a Wall Street Journal poll at the time, which showed that People were less patriotic.
They were less concerned. Their primary motivation in life was to make money, to be themselves. In other words, it was this completely internally focused thing. And if you get to the heart of it, it's really pride that's at the root. It's really self-centeredness.
It's expressive individualism. That's at the heart of a lot of cultural brokenness.
So he proposed something that I thought was absolutely genius. And that's Fidelity Month. In other words, let's celebrate the things. that really are good. If you talk about making America great again, Oz Guinness says, what made America great in the first place?
And really it was faith. And it was family. In other words, it was our fidelity to our most significant. Relationships, our relationship to God. relationship to spouse and children.
relationship to our communities. and that there is a moral responsibility that comes with our so-called rights. That is a completely different way of thinking about life and the world. That's why I love the idea of Fidelity Month. I think, first of all, the word fidelity is a good word.
It's not a poison word like some of the other good words have become. I think it's also something where people know it's a good word, but don't know why.
So I think it could be: what's fidelity? What do you mean by fidelity? And it's really, I mean, who can argue? Like, you know what? I want to celebrate.
the what what comes out of being faithful. faithful to my vows, faithful to my kids, faithful to my community. And faithful to God. And I think that that is a wonderful thing. Fidelity Month has a logo.
I love the fact that last year, which was year two, there were more people sharing the logo on social media. This is a way of kind of doing that social media cause that I think is justifiable. If you have a church that has banners, this is something that you can do. If you go to fidelitymonth.com, there is an entire A segment there, How to Get Started, and it's for individuals and it's for leaders and it's for churches. Hold on.
Sorry, I just have to share for people who are listening and who can't see the video here. John is in a room at the convention center in Louisville that has one of those timers on the lights, like with ostensibly a motion sensor.
So the light keeps going off. It just looks like he goes into a deep dark tunnel for a second and then he has to get up and get it back on. And it's just, it's tickling my funny bone. But that's what I was saying now that I jiggled around enough for the lights to come back on. FidelityMonth.com and you can get started.
One of the things that I think is a really cool initiative where this could go. I mean, this is not going to be a one-off, it's going to be in every June. Can we get behind this? Because if we can, then we're going to see municipalities and we're going to see even states adopt. June, as a month of fidelity.
And they're going to have tons of civic. A justification to do so. And you think the amount of Wind and air that Pride Month took out of the month of June for the last decade or so. And particularly because it had the force of the government behind it. You know, what could we do?
By offering a better alternative. And I tell you what, when I first saw it, I thought this is what Chuck said in his last speech: that Christians don't impose, we propose. We propose a better way. And I love that line and I love. Fidelity Month is a way to do that.
So go to FidelityMonth.com, FidelityMonth.com. And then you can also catch a full 30 minute or so conversation with Professor George. In the next week or so, you can hear. where the idea came from. Why he imagined it the way that he did.
I'm really excited about this.
Well, in the spirit of good art, I am going to recommend the music of Sarah Groves, which I know I've recommended so many times, but I can't stop. I truly think she is the single greatest Christian songwriter that we have. Alive right now. And she and her husband actually lives in St. Paul, and she started a couple years ago something called Art House North.
Which is an old church that they converted, sort of into an art space. I haven't been there myself, I'd love to try it out, but they. Host like theater productions and dances and concerts and poetry readings and all kinds of good art. At Arthouse North. But if you haven't, so visit that if you're in the area.
If you haven't listened to Sarah Groves, Listen to her music and listen like each word is so Perfectly chosen and succinct that it, every time I re-listen to it, I just am like newly in awe of her ability as a she's like the C.S. Lewis of writing songs, is the way I'd put it.
So, listen to Sarah Groves. Check out Arthouse North if you're in the St. Paul area. And that's my recommendation this week. And please do keep sending us questions, comments, and feedback.
If you can't tell, we get really energized interacting with those.
So, please continue to do that. Just go to breakpoint.org and click on contact us. We see all of those responses, and we love to hear from you guys. Otherwise, we're looking forward to meeting you this weekend at the Colson Center National Conference. And for the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, I'm Maria Bear alongside John Stone Street.
Wishing you a great weekend and a great week ahead. We'll see you all back here next time.
