You're listening to Breakpoint This Week, where we're talking about the top stories of the week from a Christian perspective. The hostages in Israel are on their way home. We're going to talk about the tentative peace deal between Israel and Hamas. We're also gonna talk about a case before the US Supreme Court about the rights of Therapists and counselors in Colorado. We really do have a lot to get to this week.
Stick with us. 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. And thank you to Katie Faust of Them Before Us Fame for filling in for me last week. She did an awesome job as always.
She's so energetic. I need to match that energy. John, we have a ton of news stories to get to this week.
So I think we're going to try and do our first really the first half of the show. We're going to run through some of these items. But really the big news of the morning is that a Peace agreement has been reached between Israel and Hamas, brokered by the US and Egypt and Qatar and some other global players. This is huge.
So according to this agreement, all of the remaining hostages, alive and deceased, are going to be released in the next seventy two hours in as much as the deceased is possible. I was hearing this morning on the BBC that They're still looking for remains for some of the, I think, 28 hostages are assumed to be. Dead by this point, but this is a Huge, huge development. Oh, it's unbelievable. And it's interesting.
People are being forced to give some credit here to President Trump on this. And, you know, against their will, but This is a remarkable Moment. It's going to be like some of those historic moments that we remember. You know, if you remember that one image from the 70s, I think. you know, hostages running to their loved ones after being freed the day after Jimmy Carter left office and Ronald Reagan took office.
These are just going to be an amazing moment. But but it's also, I think, a moment. where all this started, how all this started.
So the scale is, what was it, 250 hostages taken on October the 7th, right? And already the number that were killed are confirmed dead, an astonishing number. And now you have some that have been returned. And the the remaining, it's gonna be, it's gonna be tough. when we do learn just how many have been killed overall.
and the treatment of those that were over there. and had been taken. The long-term trauma that these folks are going to face, knowing what we know, which is that. Passages. In Gaza, we're not treated well.
We're not treated well at all. There's celebration happening in Tel Aviv right now, and rightly so, but it's going to be mixed with an incredible amount of mourning. The same thing, uh or another thing that contributes to this is We're now getting Um documentary uh products, some media products that are Describing October the 7th in great detail with eyewitnesses. I don't know if you've seen any of those. I've seen a couple of those.
I don't recommend seeing them, honestly, because we forget. just how barbaric An animalistic That day was Just Awful. I mean, it was like medieval, if that makes sense. You know, any sort of rules of modern warfare, which I know is a strange phrase to begin with. just had no application here whatsoever.
But You know. People were weary of this conflict. There is a A peace agreement. Israel's backing out troops right now from Gaza. And this is all setting the stage for the remainder of the hostages to be to be brought home.
And, you know. Benjamin Netanyahu has taken an awful lot of heat for how he has you know, wage this conflict for you know, what was allowed to happen on October the 7th to begin with. And this is a great triumph, I think, for his leadership as well. But my goodness, what a historic day. You know, the political fallout and implications are obviously of much lesser importance than the release of the hostages and how these.
how Israel repairs and moves forward right now, but There is a deafening silence right now of people who have been. agitating for a so-called ceasefire for the past however many months. often in violent fashion. seeing no irony in that. The ceasefire is happening and there's I mean there's no Where are the celebrations in the streets of American universities?
Like, where are the thank you? This is wonderful news. You know, and it just the fact that there isn't any. betrays the fact that that's never what this was about. This was A lot of it, I think, was anti-Semitism.
A lot of it was agitation for the sake of agitation, like rebels without a cause. But it's it's embarrassing. Uh and I I think we should keep that in our memory the next time something like this bubbles up. But we also observed this week the anniversary of the attack on October 7th, the second anniversary, which is wild. I'm with you.
I don't recommend like sitting and watching those necessarily, but I do think it's important. to be aware You know, we all have this inherent optimism, and I think you have to, especially as a parent. about the world that you're in. You know, you read about World War II and you're like, wow. I Honestly, feel grateful that that happened before I was alive because surely we will not let that happen again.
I mean, I think every generation has, that's a defense mechanism to believe that about the time that you're living in. It is worthwhile to be reminded that the world is as it ever was because Jesus hasn't returned yet. And You know, I felt this way after Charlie Kirk's killing as well, which happened in our own country. This is, we're in a world that I was kind of naively optimistic we weren't in anymore. And The stories of October 7th are a reminder that That's not how this works.
You know, that evil is real and people are capable of evil that you can't even imagine. You know, there was this kind of moment. I think it probably peaked in the 90s. I remember. You know, sitting in a college classroom listening to a history professor describe.
the Second World War and I don't know even what specifically we were talking about, but you know, this would have probably been 94, 95 and Just even thinking to myself, it's unimaginable. That the world would ever go back to war like this again. And of course, just a few years later, in two thousand and one, I was teaching in a college classroom when the attacks of 9-11 happened and the world essentially went back to war. Again. And you know the the the the the the peaks of You know, The Secret, which was kind of popular at the time, the Oprah New Agey kind.
Kind of feel manifest your prosperity, kind of thing. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. It had infected Christianity and And so on. And it kind of goes to what we've talked about a lot, which is what worldview is big enough for the world.
And it's got to be big enough for that. I remember the secret was this kind of, yeah, this man, you can manifest thing. And it was this whole movement, and you could name it and claim it, and so on. And I used to show the kind of video from their website. you know, of different cultures and celebrating all these things and There was an Aboriginal dance.
I think, I mean, that was the best I could as part of it. And I was like, you know. It's good that this video decided to show. The Aboriginal dance and not the Aboriginal dinner because these guys were cannibals. You know, you're just like so selective in terms of what you have to.
leave out of the world picture. And then you have events, you know, to your point. that just put this front and center and you say, well, which world view actually describes the world? And there are other worldviews, I think, that adequately or almost adequately describe evil. Where evil comes from.
I mean, if you take, for example, atheism in its purest form, and you accept a Darwinian view of things, then. Kind of the whole survival of the fittest, you know, narrative, nature read in tooth and claw, I think is. as he put it, you know, at least Heads that direction. I don't know that it can explain some of the gratuitous evil that we see.
Well, if anything, doesn't it suggest that that evil is is good? Like that, that's necessary. What it does is it suggests that it is. Right, not that it ought or not ought to be, because you don't even get that category. It's just that it is.
But there's a motivation behind it, which is survival. And you might say, well, what those. Hamas. operatives did on October the 7th had something to do with survival. But how they did it.
What they did to children. what they did to mothers? The sheer terror of it.
Now we're into new moral category, right? We're into a category that my Theology professor called maximum evil. There's natural evil, moral evil. But you can't, there's another Category of both natural and evil where it just seems gratuitous. It just seems over the, usually involves children.
And Now we're talking about a different category, and that can only be explained by An inherent evil, in evil for evil motivations, evil for evil's sake. This is the difference between The Joker and the first Batman movie. And you know, Heath Ledger's Joker. Or something beyond, where there's just something else. And that's what we saw on October the 7th.
Christianity. Frames that in a way that describes that evil, but also. gives us a resolution and answer. You might say that postmodern Kind of power struggle also speaks to the evil. Although, you know, our 90s postmodernism was tolerance, and that never held water very long, right?
It devolved into something. you know, much more uh realistic. But It doesn't give you any resolution. There's no way out of that evil. And this is the strength of the Christian.
Worldview and explaining. that Not that we can explain every act of evil. I really appreciate Frank Turek has been asked this question a lot. There's a powerful clip. In his interaction with Megan Kelly, specifically about.
What happened with Charlie Kirk? And he offers this. I think, I can't explain that evil. that there's an explanation for evil and a way out of it. And I think Christians are going to have to get versed in that.
Because, to your point, we might not have wanted this to be the cultural moment we're in. But you know, the idea of a peaceful world where there's no enemies anymore, the end of democracy. As uh uh or the end of civilization, what was the name of uh of the book back in the 90s that got it all wrong? The world doesn't stay at peace very long. Thank God for this.
peaceful chapter right now that's been initiated in this ceasefire two years later. What's happened in those two years is just. Gosh, it's awful. You know, we can pray for the peace of Jerusalem. We can pray for the peace of these families.
You know, these are real things that I think Christians should and can do.
Well, John, there's been some news on the domestic front as well. There was a case this week that was argued before the Supreme Court about challenging a new law in Your lovely home state, once again, geez, it's like you're back in the principal's office constantly. A law in Colorado that would ban any sort of, I'm putting this in the most gigantic scare quotes you can imagine, conversion therapy.
Okay, so essentially, this would curb the speech of therapists who want to talk to young people in particular who are struggling with their sexual identity or their sexual attractions and want to talk about it. Anything short of absolute affirmation and encouragement is hypothetically against the law in Colorado.
So, this was argued before the Supreme Court this week. How did the oral arguments go? I haven't had a chance to listen yet.
Well, you know, it's interesting. It's always dangerous to predict outcomes from the oral arguments. But the universal take, and I'm talking about from Colorado news outlets, from both conservative and Progressive. was that it did not go well for Colorado. And you'd think at some point then that the state of Colorado would stop.
You know, because it is a joke. in my mind that the number of cases that are coming out of Colorado, right? It's just one after another after another. This is a significant one. Uh and by the way, I think the um the Supreme Court just Bran has heard it a couple weeks ago on another, having to do.
Maybe you guys should just secede. Like trying to do your own thing or why? We would collapse clearly from the incompetence of the Civil Rights Commission and the activists in the Colorado State that's enabled and pressured by the government. They not only keep going to the Supreme Court, they keep going to the Supreme Court and getting smacked down for how they do things. And this is the clear distinction here.
But The idea, these are some of the most draconian anti-conversion laws. In America, and they seem really draconian now, right? You know, you might have had a moment. you know, 10, 12 years ago, Where there could be a case made. in kind of popular culture.
Right, that these are you know, things designed for protection. But basically if somebody Someone, including a young person, goes to a certified or licensed counselor. And says, I'm struggling with my gender identity or my sexual orientation, and I want help. being straight or I want help. aligning with my body, These laws prevented with a five thousand dollar fine per incident.
a counselor from acting.
So basically it was a way of not helping kids who want to be helped. of quote unquote follow their heart which is what we were told this was all about anyway It was a way of suppressing the Conscience rights? And the speech writes Yeah. The medical or the healthcare professionals, the mental health professionals. And it was a way of the state getting what they wanted.
It would also potentially be an enormous way of interfering with parental rights. To explain kind of where the oral arguments went, Maria, we got to talk about two things. Number one is, as you put conversion therapy in quotes. Let's just review what this means, okay? If you wanted to help a young person, A line with their bodies.
Then that was called conversion. Right. If you wanted to help a young person, deny their body. and even reject their body. to the extent of permanent damage caused by hormone therapy.
Puberty suppressing, puberty blockers, or even cutting off healthy body parts. That was affirmation. Right, I mean, this is the language game of critical theory, this is the language game of LGBTQ, it's never been able to advance on its own merits. It only is able to advance when you play crazy language games like this, right? Turning, calling up, down, and down, up.
There's no better example of it. than this right i always talked about the adding of the made up word cisgender as the most unnecessary word in history. Only to basically add another category so that transgender could be equated with normalcy. This is even worse because it literally is calling conversion affirmation and affirmation conversion. It's got everything upside down, right?
In the actual care, and this is where the justices seem to go, everyone except maybe Katanji Brown Jackson. All of them seemed to say, look, This is basically at the court level, all about speech. Because If you are taking A young person or any client down the path towards what they call affirmation. That means you have to do medical intervention. Does that make sense?
Now you're prescribing things.
So this is when. you know, the quote unquote standards of care that Colorado was claiming have to kick in. If you are performing quote-unquote conversion. Right. All you're doing is talking.
There's nothing else you're doing. Right? Because if a student comes in or a client comes in and says, hey, I'm struggling that I may have been born in the wrong body. Can you help me come to terms with that? You're not giving them medication.
So there's a made-up standard of care here. You're actually just talking with them. You're encouraging them. You're helping them understand reality. And what Colorado was claiming is that that violates the standard of care.
Well, first of all, we know now. Way even more that it should have been obvious, but we really, really, really know now that that standard of care is completely bogus, right? We know it from the CAS report. We know it from the whistleblowers. We know it from even the report that came out of the DHS.
We know that it's all. not successful, that it promised results and it's not delivering those results and everything else. The best that the Colorado attorneys could do was quote some outdated stuff, okay? And really, what you have, and Kaylee Chows did a wonderful job, her attorneys. Uh from the Alliance defending freedom.
did a wonderful job just articulating this. That Professional speech is still protected speech.
So they have one option here. Because professional speech Is protected speech. Professional speech is all that someone doing quote-unquote conversion therapy is engaging in. And it is a suppression. of that.
And the courts have already decided that professional speech is protected speech.
So this could be. A big one. This could be a 9-0. I don't think it will be because of where Katanji Brown Jackson. I think it's going to be a 7-2.
But of course predictions at this point mean nothing. would be sodomaior. Yeah, Sodomayora Kagan. I had a little argument this week whether it would be Sodomayora Kagan. And it just is such a clear violation of professional speech.
And the courts already decided on this.
So I. I think this is where this one's going. I'm glad to hear that it it sounds like it went well. I mean, in as much as you can make that characterization, but I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling this way. It is once again frustrating, although completely understandable and the right way.
But you just wish, I just want there to be before the Supreme Court the question, right? Can boys become girls, and how do we structure society around the truth of that question? That they can't, it just hasn't happened. Like that, you can't, that's not an issue before the court at this point. But this is another step, hopefully, in the direction of normalcy.
I also think, though, that this case highlights a deeper problem. within the way we approach therapy generally. If our stance is truly, That the only therapy that is quote unquote helpful or healthful or should be legal. is therapy that absolutely affirms every person that comes in the door. Then I don't know what therapy is other than like hired pseudo-friendship.
Like because The premise, to my mind, of therapy in the first place is that a person is struggling emotionally and mentally to cope with something. They acknowledge by showing up at the therapist's office that there is a disorder in the way that they're thinking and that they are seeking help with ostensibly changing that mode of thinking. People aren't showing up to a therapist's office asking a therapist to join an armed revolution. Like they're not. Coming and saying, I'm fine, but everything else is wrong.
And will you help me change everything else? They're asking for help changing.
So, the fact that the question before the court is: is a therapist allowed to help a person reframe the way they look at the world? is bonkers to me. Because I mean, and but I think it's helpful because it does illustrate that this is a huge problem within. Therapy culture generally. We're just not looking at it as the thing that we think it is.
Does that make sense?
Well, no, of course. I don't think you're exactly right. And I think that thankfully that that conversation has been sparked. But you have, you know, and it's not i in your example. Or what you're saying here is not just an example having to do with sexuality, but it is the most prominent example having to do with sexuality, right?
I mean, the right comparison here, of course, is with someone struggling with an eating disorder. Nobody comes on and affirms their delusion that, no, you're actually overweight when in fact you're starving yourself to death. And that's because we understand in those cases, the sexual revolution took sexual autonomy and it put it in its own category. And we've talked about that before: that the sexual revolution gets to play by its own rules for some reason, right? It has its own understanding.
Now, there are other examples other than sexual issues with therapy, and that's something that. You've talked about Abigail Schreier has certainly brought out in her book. And that you want to perpetuate the victimhood because then that keeps the business going and there's financial incentives that go the wrong way. And we need to reckon with this. I think too.
There are other cases now that are going to the Supreme Court about. Schools transing children against their parents' understanding and knowledge. We actually have, I think, split circuits on that, so that's going to have to be picked up. And I think it was, I think that's the certification that happened in the state, another one out of Colorado.
So we're going to have to reckon with this in every different way. Will we actually get to the. You know, what is a boy? What is a girl? I don't know, but we're getting all around that issue, right?
And at some point, this treatment is harmful for young people. And we should ban that in every single way that we ban lobotomies, right?
So anyway. A lot to come. This is a good step, though. At least in allowing the voice of reason to stay in the therapy game. I think that's where this will land.
Let's take a quick break, John. We'll be right back with some more top stories from the week on Breakpoint this week. Truth Rising is making waves in the church, mobilizing Christians to step into their God-given calling. If you haven't seen this courage-building film, now's the time. Truth Rising is streaming for free at truthrising.com slash Colson, and God is using it to equip his people with courageous faith.
Invite your friends, family, and church members to join you in streaming Truth Rising for free. You'll get insights from global thought leaders about the current state of our civilization, and you'll also be inspired by Christians just like you who are choosing to take steps of courageous faith. making a difference where God has placed them. Join the movement. Stream Truth Rising today at truthrising.com/slash Colson.
That's TruthRising.com/slash Colson. We're back on breakpoint this week. John, I want to turn now to a story that is quite frustrating, if I'm honest. I'm sure it has been for you as well. We've been talking for a few months now about a new report.
about just kind of the shoddy study. That the FDA always cites in its approval and continuing loosening regulations of the abortion drug regimen. A study done by the EPPC a couple of months ago that showed that the incidence rates of Severe medical after effects is like 10 times higher than the FDA has been reporting. It's just deeply unsafe for women. And at the very least, more study needs to be done.
I think it needs to be taken off the shelves. But I know lots of people behind the scenes and people that we're friends with have really been lobbying the Trump administration to tighten, re-tighten those regulations. and restudy this approval, the FDA approval of this medication. in a really disheartening kind of twist to the story. The FDA, I believe this week, just recently at least, Has now approved a generic version of this abortion drug regimen.
And which of course is just going to expand access to it and kind of muddy these waters even further. Were you expecting this? No, I mean, and then I kind of. Slapped myself on the hand and said, Maybe I should have been, right? I mean, listen.
In the run-up. to the 2024 election This is something that President Trump clearly signaled in his campaign leading up to the 2024 election. He had done what he wanted to do on the issue of abortion. He didn't really want to do anymore. He saw it as a losing issue.
He overturned Roe v. Wade with the Supreme Court and with his judicial nominations. And then that was that. Decision is now to the states. That's what everybody wanted, he said.
And that's what it was. Then, of course. Part of the deal was getting RFK. In the position as the head of HHS, RFK has priorities, very clear priorities. Uh vaccines.
healthiness of Americans, the chronic disease, inflammation. processed foods, you know, basically bringing you know, making America healthy again. He was on his on record himself. you know, as a someone who is pro abortion. He didn't want to touch this issue.
Now, what happened was in the meantime, There was some very important and successful lobbying that had taken place. Bye. Pro-life. Advocates To and within the administration. And most notably, that was backing the Trump administration down from this kind of pushing of IVF.
And funding of IVF, and you know, which Trump often called fertility. increased fertility, but either not knowing or not caring that Way, way, way, way, way, way, way more children are killed. In the IVF process as we currently do it, then are given to us.
So You know, this is the context that we knew the administration Was in, right?
Now, clearly, way better than the pro-abortion for any reason regime, particularly how it was, you know. promoted under President Biden, how we know you know, Kamala Harris would have taken all of these things.
So, you know, listen, it's we're not comparing apples and apples here. I mean, completely different, way, way, way better than the alternative, not even close. But there was a commitment made by Marty McCarry, the head of the FDA. that if reports came back. that mifopristone was more harmful.
uh than was previously understood or known that they would do an investigation. And there was a very clear push that the loosening the regulations on Mifopristone. during COVID Needed to be backtracked. And that was pushed forward without real justification or rationalization other than everyone's locked down and they can't actually get in front of a doctor. And that Basically, we were leaving women to go through this process.
alone and you know at the very least we can back it up to that. And that didn't happen. We now have the evidence that was needed. We have independent studies. Using insurance data.
about these uh serious complications from going through the the abortion regimen. And All the evidence that's needed that was then said we'll act on it, and instead of actually. going and initiating that investigation. And study and looking at Miffopristone per se, we just made it more available and cheaper. and more widely available and it's a real travesty.
Look. Part of it Yeah. Basically, realizing that salvation doesn't come in Air Force One, right? Part of it is realizing that abortion has to hit the point of being unthinkable. Which is something we, you know, it hasn't changed kind of the goal of the pro-life movement.
But We need to be really, I think, clear-eyed on uh you know where our allies are on these issues. Particularly this, which is the most important issue, moral crisis of our generation and has been for the last couple generations. Again. Are we in way better shape than we would be with a different administration on this issue? Absolutely.
But they have been really clear on where they stand. Not everybody in the administration, and I'm sure there's a lot of frustration and pushing it, you know, pushing back on this and asking, wait a minute, what are we doing? But that yeah, it it it was really disappointing and it should be disappointing.
So two-thirds of abortions now in the United States are estimated to be performed using this drug regimen. In the pop culture sense, not the political sense, does the pro-life approach need to change at all? to reckon with that. No, I think there was some making hay, you know, while the sun was shining that was happening. Where we were able then at the state level to push back and create state regulations.
And all those things are good, right? I mean, it's better that the big Abortion clinic closed in Houston, right? It's better. But we also need to know that there's two realities. Number one is blue states are having more abortions, and red states are having way less abortions.
So laws actually do make a difference. The other thing is that the mail order abortion, at least in terms of legal strategy. Creates a big set of problems, not only to your point. It's way more available, and it's now 60 or so percent of the abortions. But it's really, really hard, if at all possible.
to keep it out of red states. Uh right, because of the US mail. The state of Texas is trying to do that. Ken Paxton has basically sent letters of warning to the biggest Mifipristone providers and saying, Look, we will go after you, we will prosecute you if you mail to our state. That's a good first step.
Uh there's a lot of other steps. But listen again. All of these are tactical intermediary steps. They've always been tactical intermediary steps. to limit abortions, to protect as many lives as we can and so on.
The goal has always been that abortion goes into the dustbin of history like slavery, right? We have laws against slavery, praise God. Right now we wouldn't need laws against slavery for most people because most people find it morally reprehensible and unthinkable and we should never do this again. That's where abortion needs to get.
Now, what does that require? It requires pro-life apologetics. It requires us having conversations. It requires us going to the people who are tempted. because they feel like they're in a hopeless state.
With a an unplanned pregnancy or an unwanted pregnancy. and we actually go and help those people. It means we correct the public record because of the hysteria. in which medical doctors are driving forward. Their own agendas by saying, oh, I can't actually do real health care because of these draconian laws.
which hasn't proven to be true in any state that I can find. And the idea of protecting a woman's health is always front and center. But those stories. Carry a lot of weight in the popular imagination, you know?
So I think, I think it. You know, our tactical maneuvering has always changed, right? It's always had to bob and weave. It's got to change for. Colorado providers, right, who have to take stands, and many are.
Another ADF client suing the state of Colorado, which is becoming, as we joked earlier, a bigger and bigger category of people. Uh is someone who courageously administered. and the abortion pill reversal. Where in the state of Colorado, it's unclear because laws are going forward saying that's illegal to prescribe.
So we're going to need people that do these kind of courageous things. These are all tactical things that serve that larger goal in my mind. I think it's it's just reality that to take a medication removes some of the The fear and the gravitas or the gravity of getting an abortion. And that that's just a reality when we're talking about how we approach women that are in that. state or that are that scared.
As opposed to going through a DNC or yeah. And because I so I will never be convinced because it's a lie that women who are approaching abortion, by and large, vast majority of them, That they're like empowered. They're like so excited about this. They hate babies. They're just like, oh, I just, this is the same as having a headache.
Women do not feel that way. I mean, there might be a tiny minority, whatever. but that is not what's happening on the ground with abortion, okay? But that being said, that just makes it even harder. Because if a woman is terrified and in crisis and she's been abandoned by whatever coward made the sexual decision with her, and someone says, take a pill, Like that that's an even easier sell.
Just because of normal human be like I'm willing to say that too. Then like you have to go to the hospital, you have to have a surgery, it can be kind of scary, that kind of stuff. It's still, it's almost more scarier. We know that now. I mean, that it's more dang it's very, very dangerous.
For women to take this pill, it's emotionally dangerous because you're doing it in isolation, and all of that's true. But to me, this also just reiterates the fact that. Our pro-life approach is going to have to increasingly be Um returning to a safer sexual ethic. Because you got to get behind the problem. You know, I mean, wom women who are who want to take a pill and are thinking that this is the fix.
This will get rid of it. Not only that, but it will kind of do it in isolation. It will be as if this pregnancy never happened. A lot of these women probably aren't even seeking help. They're not going to pro-life centers and saying, Can you help me?
Right? And some of them are.
Some of these courageous women are. And we hear about those abortion pill reversal stories all the time, which are incredible. We had a woman testify. At our Ohio March for Life last week, and brought up her beautiful little girl on stage afterwards, who was born after an abortion pill reversal. Like, that's incredible.
But the majority of women who are doing this in secrecy and in privacy. We're not even able to intercept them and offer them help and resources because of the nature of this.
Well, we got to get past the demand thing. I mean, you know, we have to remember, though, as well, that sexual sin. Predates abortion rights. It is a promise of empowerment, so it has been made worse. Where the promise of empowerment really to women historically has not been really abortion, it's been sexual freedom, it's been.
sex without consequences and being able to behave like men in that in that arena. But you know, sexual promiscuity, fornication, adultery, all that stuff. you know is as old as the garden right it goes it goes back uh to the fall But there is a difference when you think there's a get out of jail free card and you don't. And realizing that the get out of jail free card actually has way bigger consequences. I mean, to your point, the The lies about mifopristone, that it's just a heavy period, that it won't be a big deal, that there's no complications, that it's as safe as Tylenol.
I mean, all these things now we know. From the, even if you don't bring in the to, you know, the psychological dangers, which, you know, as you've brought up, I think helpfully. If even if you don't bring that in. We now know the EPPC report has made that very, very clear. And again, using insurance data.
Um which is neutral data, right?
So, yeah, I think that. We've got to work on all these fronts. But the Church's job has always been Two. Help people understand how God. design them, male and female.
How God designed marriage, how God designed sexuality within the context of marriage. I think inherently connecting it to procreation. That's huge. That's part of the sexual ethic. And honestly, Those of us who are are Protestants Haven't always remembered that connection.
We haven't always talked about sexuality as if it's inherently connected to the body. and inherently purposed by God in creation for the propagation of the species so that Humans can do everything that God created them to do on the planet.
So yeah, there's an awful lot of catechism that goes along with this as well. But we need all hands on deck, all efforts, I think, in order to go forward.
Okay. John, let's take another quick break. We'll be right back with more breakpoint this week. Hey, John Stone Street here. This is your official invite to join us at the 2026 Colson Center National Conference.
It'll be held in Knoxville, Tennessee, May 29th to the 31st. Again, Knoxville, Tennessee, May 29th to the 31st. The theme this year is you are here. You might remember those large, now largely empty buildings called shopping malls, where you had all kinds of stores and you were trying to find the one you were looking for and you had to go to the map. And not only did you need to find the store, you needed to find that yellow arrow or the star that said you are here.
Our culture today changes so fast and at such a profound civilizational level. And that of course is because we've abandoned the truth and we're reaping the consequences.
So a conference like this is absolutely necessary to get the lay of the land, to kind of figure out what's happening in culture and at what moment we're really in. If you've ever wondered if your faithfulness and obedience Can make a difference in this civilizational moment that we're in. This is the conference. For you.
So, join us at the Colson Center National Conference. You'll be hearing from fantastic speakers like the one and only Oz Guinness, the remarkable story of Chloe Cole, Abdu Murray, and many more that will be announced soon. If you register before November 29th, you can receive up to 50% off tickets. For more details and secure your spot, For the Colson Center National Conference, May 29th through the 31st, Go to ColsonConference.org. That's colsonconference.org.
We're back on breakpoint this week. John, we have another story. This one is out of the UK. There is a new head of the Church of England. Her name?
is Dame Sarah Malally. She was the Bishop of London. She will now be the Archbishop of Canterbury. She's the first woman to hold that office. Ann Kennedy, who is just an incredible writer, and I always look forward to reading her stuff.
She is within the Anglican Communion and she wrote a piece about this at World. opinions which I highly recommend. But one of the things she pointed out was that when Bishop Malali made her speech as the first female archbishop. She never mentioned the gospel. I think she barely mentioned Jesus.
And that is unfortunate for a whole host of reasons, but one of them is that. This just further entrenches, I think, the challenge. Of the Church of England in terms of being any sort of credible or worthwhile witness to the gospel of Jesus in the world. You're within the Anglican Communion. Your response.
Yeah. Well, I think making this correction is really, really important. worldwide Anglican communion right now is not connected. To the Church of England. It's not connected to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Historically it has been. The Archbishop of Canterbury has been the A chief among equals, or the first among equals, is how the title is, among all the bishops in the communion. But for twenty five years now, The Anglican communion outside of the Western world. Yeah. Been distinct.
It has been. uncooperative with the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Archbishop of Canterbury calls those Lambeth meetings and, you know, the Archbishop of Kenya and Nigeria and... Other places, they don't go. Because they don't think that things are okay.
There has been a real break in fellowship. And now, with this appointment of the Archbishop, he has And it's interesting because the last two archbishops of Canterbury have been sold to us as being evangelicals. In other words, gospel people. And maybe they were personally, but they weren't in their leadership. In fact, they were disasters in their leadership.
Because what they allowed was in the larger Church of England, of which they are. you know, ostensibly in charge. They allowed other bishops. to basically advance the sexual revolution. They had allowed other bishops to advance heresy about who Jesus is and about what the scriptures say and about.
what it means to be human. It's not surprising to me that this Archbishop of Canterbury never mentioned the gospel because she is a part of. the Church of England that hasn't believed in the gospel in a long time. I mean, there's been so many kind of statements of like, you know, we're not in line with this, we're separate than this, and so on. And it's interesting for the last 20 years or so, what's called the Global Anglican Futures.
Um Conference, the GAFCON. has not gone to Yeah. support or to fellowship with the Archbishop of Canterbury. But the Archbishop of Canterbury has come to the GAFCOM meetings hoping to bring them back into the communion, and they haven't been successful in doing that because they will not deal with the heresy that's right in front of them.
Now, if you're an Anglican in America, that already says that you're in a different spot.
Okay. Because you're saying I'm not an Episcopalian. And that's because by and large. the Episcopalian church and the Episcopalian leaders. and certainly the head of the National Cathedral, are basically kind of pseudo New Agey Buddhist and many of them gays and lesbians.
and even a few trans. We're not talking about Christians anymore. And so the Anglicans in America. have identified and Yeah. primarily with Gafcon.
Doesn't mean this isn't a tragedy. It doesn't mean this isn't a crisis. There's a part of this, too, that needs to be brought out. This Archbishop of Canterbury is fully affirming of the LGBTQ. uh community and lifestyle.
Uh as you said, um She is not a proponent of the gospel. She's a proponent of the social. Gospel. But but there's something else. This is a a woman who did not have the theological credentials to become a priest in the first place.
She was ushered into that position. Initially, Because she was a woman. And because of the statement that was trying to be made. And now she certainly doesn't have the years of qualification. or the theological convictions.
Or the history of service to be named a bishop, much less the Archbishop of Canterbury. And this is a problem within the Anglican Communion. is that being right on social issues has replaced being right on theology. This is what you see in mainline denominations, right? You see people getting up and speaking and preaching authoritatively, saying, Here's what I believe.
Sometimes, even, I mean, if you follow Protestia or one of those X accounts that. puts all these videos up of These mainline Churches and their pastor saying things that are just insane, that are just.
so far outside of historic Or anything that could be considered substantial Christianity, it's not even close. And basically saying Jesus was wrong, or I don't want to read this reading from Paul because I don't agree with it as if. As a Christian clergy, you have the right to put yourself over the text of scripture. This is fundamentally at odds, by the way, with the understanding of hierarchy and the church and the authority. That is inherent in a liturgical and historic expression like Anglicanism.
And that's why we have such a problem. And I'll say, you know, look, there there are Examples of this problem within American Anglicanism as well. Are we going to prioritize theological formation or are we going to prioritize people who are really clever preachers? Are we going to prioritize the formation? Of Anglican clergy and ministry leaders.
I know I'm kind of going down a denominational. Whole, and that's because it's mine.
So there we go. I'm calling prerogative, but we've got a real problem. Where we have people in leadership who aren't theologically formed, Or who I have Evangelical sensibilities, which I have as well, right? And in the historic best sense of the word, even though that word has lost a lot of its meaning. Boy, we're going to get a lot of letters on this, aren't we?
But To be an Anglican is to be something. To be an Anglican is to be a part of the church hierarchy, to be under the authority, to be a part of the historicity. And this is something that isn't prioritized or valued even in. The American Anglican expressions right now, by all of them. And it's created a conflict.
So I look at where the Church of England has gone. I look at where the Archbishop of Canterbury stands, and you just go. How did that happen? How did we get there? Right.
The fact of the matter is. On specifically the issue that's the elephant in the room within the American Anglican Communion. within what's called the ACNA. The elephant in the room. is women's ordination.
And I have obviously strong views on that. But how people get to their answer makes all the difference in the world. And that's what we're seeing. and how we got an Archbishop of Canterbury like this one.
So let me be really clear. There are churches. who have ordained women. into the pastor. I think that's wrong biblically.
I think that is not something that can be. That's not something that can be justified with scripture. but there are few of those Who have been able to ordain women within their denominations? I'm talking about mainly charismatic. Or Pentecostal denominations, and they have not gone further.
Okay. And the reason they have not gone further to ordain gays and lesbians and trans and people who outright reject the exclusivity or the divinity of Jesus Christ. is because Their arguments have been biblical.
Now, I don't think they have a right interpretation of these verses. They rely heavily on, you know, when Paul says in Christ there's neither Jew nor Greek, male or female, that's the big one, and so on. But because they take biblical authority seriously in the first place, that has at least provided the breaks from going on to ordaining outright sin. The vast majority of those who have ordained women. particularly within mainline denominations and certainly the Church of England.
What you see is a rationalization and a justification on the categories of diversity, equity, and inclusion. In other words, they are borrowing Not biblical categories of authority, but cultural categories of authority. to drive forward the biblical text or their understanding of the biblical text. And once you do that, you have to go wherever the culture. authoritatively takes you.
And that's why it's gotten increasingly bizarre to the point where it's not only, oh, you know what, if we You know, if we're going to be relevant, we have to get with the times when it comes to evolution. And if we're going to be relevant, we have to get with the times when it comes to sex outside of marriage. And if we're going to be relevant, we have to get with the times when it comes to divorce. And if we're going to be relevant, we're going to have to get with the times when it comes to gay and lesbian identity. And it gets, if we're going to stay relevant, and then it just keeps going and there's no breaks.
And that's where the Church of England. has gone. And as part of the ACNA, I look kind of within art. I'm saying, well, what? How are we going to have this conversation?
How are we going to argue about this? Because we've got to argue about it. It's the elephant in the room. And we see our future. If we do not have.
The theological primacy, if we're not under the authority. of the of church teaching as understood through Holy Scripture. This is what it means to be a Christian. You're under the authority of God, you're under the authority of. Of the scripture, you're under the authority of the church.
These are the authorities that God's put over us. Yeah, this is the crisis that we're in right now.
So I know that was more than I had planned to share, but well, I'll just, you know, I'm not an Anglican. It's always a deep shame to me, no matter what, whenever there is an opportunity and an expectation of sharing the gospel and you don't do it. Or honor Jesus at all. You should have let it just sit at that. That's a good point.
There you go. But I will also just say of lesser importance, but important to me. It is always the women who purport to be standing up for me the loudest who tend to embarrass me the most. And, you know, the women I admire the most for doing things that You know, maybe women weren't allowed to do it some earlier history. Are the women who do it without constantly exclaiming, Can you believe I'm doing this as a woman?
Because nothing says you're not as confident as you're acting like you are. By consistently saying out loud. that you can't believe you're a woman doing this. You know, I'm a woman, so I can be more angry about this maybe than you are, but I just, I cannot stand it. Because now everybody's just like, oh, she's a DEI.
You know what I mean? She's a DEI hire. And Yeah, I just find that deeply embarrassing. I don't think I could ever accept a position where that was even a remote possibility of people thinking that with any sort of. reason to.
Yeah, the most important thing is that the gospel needs to be shared and believed and followed. And that's a shame if that's...
Sounds like that is obviously not what's happening here. Before we go to questions, I just want to mention two individuals. I think it was actually the day we were recording the program last week with Katie Faust, we got news of the death of. Just a wonderful preacher, a wonderful theologian, a wonderful leader, Vodi Bakam. Just, I mean, I heard him.
once preach on a At an event that I was at. And you just, when you hear a master at work, but also someone who had been so deeply grounded. In biblical truth, just incredible respect. A lot of people have kind of put his death alongside of John MacArthur and Jim Dobson's and Charlie Kirk and this kind of whole line of.
Solid. Christian leaders and you know, prayers for the Bockham family, particularly his children and his wife. And You know, these are one of those times you just trust God with the timing of these things because they don't make sense to anybody else. And then I also wanted to give a shout out to. the sister Jean and her legacy at the University of Chicago at Loyola.
If you know that name, it's because of the magical 2018 run through the March Madness tournament from the University of Chicago at Loyola. And she became a celebrity as a nun who was kind of the team's nun. I don't know. I've never been on a team with a team nun. But she died this week at age 106.
She always had really accurate predictions in March Madness. But just apparently a delightful person. And so anyway, uh I Just had to mention Sister Jean.
Well, John, I want to get to a couple of questions that we got this week from listeners. One of them was in regards to a story that you and Katie mentioned kind of briefly last week about a new law that had passed in Kentucky. that enforced a 50-50 custody rule.
So if you file for divorce no-fault divorce essentially in Kentucky right now, the presumption is a shared 50-50 custody between mom and dad if there are children involved. There was a Wall Street Journal that suggested the divorce rate in Kentucky has plummeted since this happened, and this is a reason why. But a listener pointed out, and I've since gone and looked at Lyman Stone, a researcher with the Institute for Family Studies, a really great statistician who kind of dove a little bit deeper into this. And it sounds like the story is not quite as clear cut. The divorce rate is going down in Kentucky, but it's also going down everywhere else.
And the rates of the decrease in divorce in Kentucky have kind of stayed. Stay generally the same as before this law passed.
So it might not be quite as simple. Still a positive thing. But not quite as simple. Yeah, good laws are good laws. And I appreciated this comment.
And I certainly appreciate the work of Lyman Stone. I think he helps us in really profound ways. I know the Institute for Family Studies, I think they kind of themselves went back and forth on that. That's another group I look to to kind of analyze these things. But, you know, I think that in the old adage that it's not one thing, it's many things.
That you know, a good law is a good law, so let's leave it. One of the reasons that divorce is rates are going down. is that the people who don't believe in marriage to begin with aren't Getting married. And so, you know, there's, you know, better candidates. I guess, quote unquote, they're less likely.
They're in the demographic. In other words, as marriage has become understood as a more historic you know traditional outdated old-fashioned institution that it's Christians, you know, who tend to get married more and younger and God bless them. Let's keep doing that. That'll play into, I think, how we address the next question. But I would say that we still want good laws if we can get them.
There's a lot to like about this law. But we also want less divorce. But we don't want less divorce because there's fewer marriages. And I think that's. Primarily, what Lyman Stone was pointing out, too, is just like, listen.
Fewer people are getting divorced because fewer people are getting married, and that's not a win for the church. Or for mankind or for women or for children. I'm a little ambivalent about whether this was a good law, I guess. I mean, the presumption of 50-50 custody, because. As it stands now, I think the presumption of custody I think you can make a request.
If it's a no-fault divorce, you make a request. And there was a commenter on Liman Stone's Substack about this who said, It is less than 3% of cases right now in Kentucky. And presumably, this trend plays out nationwide, where dads ask for more custody than they get. Like there's just there's just deeper problems here. I don't know that you know just saying half and half is better The whole thing is just a toxic soup, right?
Like it's just family brokenness all around.
So. I'm not sure that That evening it out that way, because presumably, in a no-fault divorce, a father could request 50-50 and it should be ostensibly granted if it's a no-fault, right?
So, Yeah, I don't know. I don't think it always. I think there, I mean, we're going to get some notes on this too, which I think wax would be helpful. Because I think that's not how many men feel. And, you know, as they're going through this.
And this is one of the reasons. Divorce is such a horrific Thing, right? And we've normalized it, we've made it less than what it really is. And it really is a fracture. And also, let's remember, too, we live in a.
cultural moment. in which Moms and dads are considered parents. Right. As if they're sexless, genderless, and that they're interchangeable and easily replaceable, and they're not really essential. And It makes sense within those contexts that we're going to mess this up one way or the other, or both ways.
You know, this to me falls into the. G.K. Chesterton's, there's a whole lot of ways to fall down. There's only one way to stand up straight. And when you're not standing up straight on marriage, all of these things are going to have.
Kind of consequences.
So I'm sure we'll hear from some other folks, and I'll be interested. You know, maybe this can be an ongoing. Conversation. Experiment.
Well, it has been an experiment, and it's been an awful experiment. The social experiment of no-fault divorce has been terrible. It's been really bad for children. If you, you know, go to the long study now, what, 50 years that. No-fault divorce has been studied.
The consequences are devastating. They're devastating for kids in particular. And one of the things that makes it that is basically treating dads Or moms. And of course, this is happening now in artificial reproductive technologies and surrogacy and so on, that either the mom or the dad is the optional one. And that dad's can mom and moms can dad, and none of that's true.
You know, it's what happens when you. Treat This stuff is like it's a speed limit rather than like gravity. It's Whether that we can socially construct the family the way that we want it to enhance adult desire. And um You know. create uh the world that we want or if it there's actually something to it.
And um this yeah, I think These kinds of laws are attempt to be mitigating effects on on some of these things. Yeah, so yeah, I think there's a lot to talk about here ongoing.
Okay, well speaking of marriage, we also got a question this week from a longtime listener of Breakpoint This Week. She says, I love your discussions on Gen Z and your encouragement to young adults to get married. I wonder if you can balance the stats regarding young men in Gen Z returning to the church. with my own experience and many other young women.
So this young woman says she just recently graduated from college. She moved to a new city, got established in a great church and deeply desires to get married and have children, as we've been talking about. But she's been very discouraged. She says, not only by the lack of young men who seem to be available and willing to date with an eye toward marriage, but she's also feeling discouraged by the amount of single young women that she's meeting in these churches and these great communities who are still waiting for a good man. She says, we share the desire for marriage and family, and yet the question of who will I marry remains unanswered.
Is this a phenomenon? I'm certainly seeing this play out in my personal life, like in my church family and around me with some of the younger women that I know. Are you seeing it as well? Oh yeah. I mean there's no question.
I mean listen. Just because young men are coming back to church doesn't mean that they're without baggage, right? Of the years of. you know, dealing with um You know, being taught that they're the problem with the world, themselves being the problem with the world. You know, I.
I I I started, you know, 20 years ago looking at the The the made up. Phase of life called adolescence, and how that, in particular, tells young men that they are something other than they are. You know, God created humans, especially young men, to take care of the planet, make it a better place. And so. That's kind of the fundamental criteria of masculinity.
If you ask me, are you leaving things better than you found it or worse? But then they were told. And then they were coddled and then they were basically led into the 90s in which you had the you know Expecting young men to lose their minds between the ages of 13 and 18, and then it went to 18 to 28 now. And so all of this is in the cultural soup. And now we have, praise God, a bunch of young men.
Who clearly are more interested in meaning and purpose and trying to find out the truth about things, but it doesn't mean they don't have baggage. You know, either from their own fathers or lack thereof or their own understandings and. You know, their own bad habits. You talk about the scourge of pornography addiction in particular. You have sports gambling, you know, too, which disproportionately.
uh attracts and addicts young men. Yeah, my heart always breaks when I hear these stories, and there's way too many of them. And I want to also just High five. this person Because As a reaction. To a lot of the problems we've seen among young men, young women, as we know.
Have gotten themselves less interested oftentimes in marriage or in church or in truth, right? And so a lot of the studies we're seeing is that young men are becoming. More conservative. and more church going and more religious and young women are becoming You know, the other way. I think, by the way, that number's turning around.
I had an interesting conversation this week with Katie McCoy. a Southern Baptist theologian, ethicist, and interesting writer who thinks that's the case as well. Which is kind of proves what Margaret Mead said, you know. years uh decades ago that the central task of any society is to figure out the right place for men. And of course, she thought the right place for men was on the moon, but And away from civilization altogether.
But the sentiment is true in and of itself that maybe this will turn things around. But there's a whole mess that leads up to this, right? I mean, it really is. It has created these sorts of situations that This person is asking us about. Yeah, I agree.
It's a soup. Like, there's many causes. I bristle a little bit at the characterization that I hear all the time that's like, Oh, boys have just been taught that they're the problem for so long because Like I agree, there's a lot of like really stupid and retrograde and judgmental. Feminist writings about men, and you know, they can't string sentences together, and they're too, you know, they're just like big cavemen lumbering around. Like, I agree with that, but I don't see just.
Anecdotally, I don't see the problem of men being like they're too timid about social engagement because they don't want to be called toxic or something. I just see a lot of men. who aren't taking responsibility for their own lives by the age that they should be. Like just, and I think that's like you mentioned, coddling. I think it's a problem for both sexes.
But maybe seems more pronounced when you have a certain expectation for young men in the church, let's say, and they're. you know, they're still playing video games at age twenty and they're they're not living with thirty. Yeah, sports gambling.
So that that would be my encouragement to this young woman and and others like her is like, I hear you, and I have such compassion, and I share the pain, and the angst, and the frustration, and the, you know, just being tired of waiting. But don't do what you're doing. Do not lower your standards. Like, continue to expect men to take care of themselves, and continue to expect men to be proactive and to come talk to you and to show assertiveness and confidence because. That is the part that I believe culture has done some real damage in suggesting that men shouldn't be confident and shouldn't be assertive, despite the fact that women, however much we might tell ourselves that we don't like that.
A lot of women do when it's done well and with kindness at its heart and you know. Self-confidence and whatever.
So don't lower your standards. I trust the Lord. The desire to get married and have children is a really good desire that He gave you. And I believe that He will bring that to you. Just don't lose heart.
Yeah, and let me just be clear. I have been from the very beginning. Harder on young men than young women. In other words, I can believe that they should. take responsibility, that they by and large aren't taking responsibility.
And that they have a responsibility to take responsibility and still say, no, there has been a cultural effort to demasculinize. Is that the word young men? Christine Hoff Summers wrote about this 25 years ago in her book The War Against Boys. And when you talk about all the ways that it had been kind of embedded, certain ideas. About maleness being bad and needing to be mitigated.
I mean, we've talked about this, right, with young women. This is what. Many Catholic women theologians are pointing out that That the feminist movement progressed. By the way, did you hear Louise Perry acknowledge Christ a couple weeks ago? This is exciting stuff.
About this last week.
So, so excited. But the reality of basically feminism teaching women that their fertility, their womanhood is parts of their life that needs to be mitigated and opposed. It's the same thing with men as well. It doesn't give them an excuse, right? It doesn't give them an excuse.
At all, but I think it has been a very real thing where what it means to be, I'm, I just had. A handful of young men over at our house the other day, and they're asking these kinds of questions. They're basically saying, and I mean, some of them had great dads, and so they weren't asking these questions, but the ones that aren't, they're like, I don't even know where to begin. Like, I don't even know what to do. And some of them are very, very afraid.
to do the wrong things because if they do the wrong things then they're the problem. And again, this is not an excuse. Everybody's afraid of doing the wrong thing socially. There has been. I don't I don't think we can Fully reckon with how many different areas of life and culture.
Have kind of aligned on this front in the same way that we've talked about, you know, women. I mean, this is the identity crisis that Peter Berger talked about, you know, years ago. If you forget who God is, you, you don't have any sort of Source to figure out what it means to be human. And then that just kind of plays itself out to the identity crisis. All that to say, I fully agree with your advice or your answer and your prayers.
and your encouragement, don't lower your standards, right? It is a mess that we have made and it has victims, right? Just like all bad ideas and especially when they're applied to.
Well that is all the time we have for our program today. Thank you so much for listening to Breakpoint This Week. From the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, I'm Maria Baer alongside John Stone Street. Have an awesome week. We'll see you all back here next week.
God bless.
