You're listening to Breakpoint This Week, where we're talking about the top stories of the week from a Christian worldview. The Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to the Obergefell decision legalizing same-sex marriage.
So, what's next? And the number of embryos now discarded through IVF outnumbers the number of abortions committed in America each year. We have some weighty stuff to get to this week. 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 want to start today with some legal news.
So, we have kind of teased in the past couple of weeks that there was this petition before the Supreme Court to reconsider the O'Bergefeld decision, which created a legal right to so-called same-sex marriage. There was a challenge brought by a woman named Kim Davis, who was a clerk. who refused to give out marriage licenses immediately following that. Decision in 2014, and the Supreme Court this week, without comment, declined to hear the case. I don't think that was fully unexpected.
Do you think that another challenge will come?
Well, I mean, there's a long line of this. What happened is, after the Dobbs decision, or in the Dobbs decision and a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas actually invited. These kinds of challenges, saying that there were other decisions like Roe v. Way that were decided wrongly, that extended judicial reach over and above the rights of states and so on, and that there should be some challenges.
Now, this was an interesting challenge because it had to do with kind of two aspects. Number one is what's the degree. of religious freedom, uh someone who is employed by the state. Pass. And of course, it would be one thing if we were talking about a Jack Phillips, you know, baking cakes as a private citizen, another Kim Davis, and actually an agent of the court.
And that was the distinction There, the other aspect that Kim Davis and the attorney Matt Staver. asked the court to consider was the decision itself. And that the decision was wrongly decided, basically taking Justice Thomas up on the offer. The court declined. There's various reasons that might be the case that they declined, but they did.
I mean, a lot of petitions to the Supreme Court are, in fact, declined. This will not be the last one. You know, what happened was. And uh And what happened, of course, with Roe v. Wade is it took decades for the court to get the kind of case that it was willing to consider.
And once, and there was an awful lot of cultural things that needed to happen. There was an awful lot of legal groundwork that needed to be laid. We haven't gotten that far on the Abergel decision, sadly enough. I think it'll be a while. But I don't critique at all the attempt.
Make it the attempt. Let's try to hit it as many ways as possible. Do you think we hamstrung our ability to make the case now? that same-sex marriage has all these tangible detrimental effects, especially on children, by focusing on the religious liberty challenges as well.
Well, who's we? I mean, I I think that there is a critique that we haven't rightly emphasized the The other aspects of it, I think there's some real momentum on the harms for children, but. You know, listen, no no one invented the challenge to Jack Phillips. The challenge to Jack Phillips came. The restrictions to religious liberty came.
They came immediately, as predicted. And you have to stand up and defend those things.
Now, if that's the whole case, then there's going to be huge holes in the case. And I think that there's other aspects of it as well. But I don't think that it's really worth a a lot of energy critiquing things that needed to be defended at the time as if it were a waste of time. Obviously, it wasn't because there's been an awful lot of religious freedom secured. Uh in the meantime.
Now it it's not going to be enough to overturn something as Devastatingly bad as a judicial decision like O'Bergefell, especially given the grounds upon which it was. It was argued. But I do think that there's a lot of mileage ahead. Probably leveraging some other things like harms done to children, which was something that was completely left out. Of the arguments.
In fact, it was actually argued that this didn't have anything to do with children whatsoever, which I think in and of itself is a faulty argument. And can be also p that you know, that's a button that that can be pushed and and needs to be pushed as well. You know, it's interesting. My parents just celebrated their forty fifth anniversary and they were all kind of telling us the story of their wedding and Their honeymoon and all, you know, they were completely broke. They basically went to a state park for their honeymoon for a few days.
But they were telling us about when they showed up to the hotel the night after their wedding, the clerk at the hotel made my dad show him their marriage certificate before he would rent the room to them. And my mom, of course, was completely horrified and like so embarrassed. And I mean, she was even embarrassed telling us the story.
So sorry, mom, that I'm sharing it. But it is, I feel like that's another indication of how far things have gone culturally. This is, to me, is another example of what you say a lot, which is that, you know, for some reason, sexuality gets treated completely differently. Like the rules are just completely different. Because you would have never, I can't imagine the argument being made that that clerk would have said, I have the religious freedom to do this.
Because the culture was so different at the time. And I just wonder sometimes if we short sell. The true harms and the irrationality of things like so-called same-sex marriage. If we say that this is primarily a religious freedom issue, I think the way it's being Forced onto people, it absolutely, of course, implicates religious freedom. And I'm grateful for people like Jack Phillips who bring that argument.
But I something about it just doesn't sit with me that we have to like, it feels like we're giving up ground by saying you'd have to be religious to disagree with this. I understand that. And therefore, my main claim to like judicial consideration is religious freedom. Does that make sense? It does.
I just don't think that's how it all went down. I don't think it's how it went down with the Jack Phillips case. He didn't bring a religious freedom charge. A religious freedom challenge was brought to him, and then there was a defense. What's happening in the Kim Davis case is maybe a little bit different.
And I don't think that that was the only argument that was being made. in terms of when the court was asked to reconsider Obergefell. There were two clear and specific things that were asked of the court in this challenge from Kim Davis and her attorney. One was a religious freedom. The other was to reconsider the case.
Reconsider the Obergefell decision and that it was actually wrongly decided. And that was coming out of, again, Justice Thomas' concurring opinion in the Dobbs decision.
So I don't think the second aspect of that was: hey, let's reconsider this, or court, please reconsider this because of the religious freedom challenges. It was court reconsidered this because it was poorly decided. And we know that now, and this is a case where it can be considered.
So this had to do with standing, I think, at least on that second case. Or at least on that second count.
Well, Don, there was another case or another decision. This one came from the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. From my home state of Ohio, there was a school district here that had made a policy that students had to, these were K through 12 students, had to refer to their peers by their preferred pronouns. A group of parents challenged that, and two lower courts actually.
Decided in favor of the school, which claimed that they had to have this policy basically compelling this lie to maintain whatever, peace and order. The parents argued that this was compelled speech, and not only that, but a compelled lie. And the Sixth Circuit has now turned it back over to the lower courts and told them that they must reconsider that. And I believe they're also considering an injunction.
So this seems like another good decision, another maybe implication of the vibe shift. Yeah, I mean, I think there's been a lot of these, and this is another one, and it's good. You know, you always are going to stand on the side of kids. At least you should in terms of school-age kids. I mean, if school-age kids should have the right to speak their mind about.
any number of things, you know, from things they know nothing about, like climate change, to something like this, then you should protect their compelled speech, or protect them from compelled speech, I guess you should say. And I think that's what's happening here. I don't foresee this actually being appealed or challenged because it's interesting to me, again, one of the things all these cases point to is the cultural norms. Uh, and how just you know a few years ago, it seemed completely normal for a school district to do that, and it seemed completely normal, and we would all roll our eyes. But of course, they're going to do that, and of course, they're going to be able to get away with it.
And now it just seems so anachronistic. Like, really, you know, could they believe they actually were going to get away from that? And, you know, and I think it probably is even obvious to them, too. The other notable thing, too, is this is not California, this is not Massachusetts, this is not Delaware, not even Colorado. This is Ohio.
A school district in a state that was at least purple, but more purplish red, you know, even at the time. And it's all kind of it's just that the vibe shift is real. The norms have changed on this issue. I'm not sure that it's the end of the story by any stretch of the imagination, but it is another indication that. That this thing is moving back into the category of being Like weird, like why would we do that?
You know? And so that's a good step. Do you think there's going to be a reckoning with this kind of thing?
So I've been thinking about this with regards to, for example, we have one of the largest children's hospitals in the country here in Ohio, nationwide children's hospital. And they in 2019, like hospitals all across the country, hundreds of them started a gender clinic. And they were doing hormone treatment. They were doing surgical therapies. I've been looking into some of the news on this.
And there's now a paper written by co-authored by a physician at Nationwide Children's talking about doing a so-called transgender reconstruction surgery on a 10-year-old. And this is in somewhere in the United States. It's unclear whether that happened at Nationwide Children's. But in September of this year, the Nationwide Children's Hospital just erased all evidence of that program from their website. There was no official press release, although there were stories in local news outlets announcing that this clinic was officially closing.
They were discontinuing this so-called medicine because of information from the Trump administration. But You know, I've been wondering what happens to these doctors because to me, it feels like there's really no good option for them. Either they've stopped now doing medicine that they were telling us less than a year ago was a matter of life and death for kids, and they've just rolled over and stopped it. Or It was never sound medically in the first place, and therefore it was harming kids, which to me is obviously the case.
So I don't know the third option to that, but my fear is, and what I think is happening here, is everybody's just kind of going quietly their separate ways. And I see something like this policy with the school. And I agree with you that, you know, five years ago, that of course every school has a policy like this. And now it's like, really, you're going to have a policy like this. But all of those educators are still working in the schools.
Right. And I mean, is there something we should do? Do you think something will like will people pay a professional price for this kind of thing? I don't think there might be a difference between what happens with doctors, medical professionals, medical associations, hospital chains, and what happens in schools. I think there's.
Absolutely no evidence whatsoever that teachers will pay the price for teaching something that was wrong. Or teachers will pay the price for being incompetent in their job, or teachers will, you know, have to be, there will be a reckoning for teachers with underperformance because that has all been so clearly and thoroughly worked out of the system a long time ago. There's nothing in place to hold teachers accountable. Teachers kind of have a qualified immunity across the board, and we might get some hate mail on this, but teachers have long kind of had a. a kind of a unqualified immunity on you know being held accountable.
for the kind of the the results.
Now a direct harm situation For example, sexual abuse, we have seen teachers held accountable for that, praise God. Especially kind of this incredible Uh growing Number of female teachers that target middle school and high school boys. That seems to be a story that continues, and there's a reckoning of that. And that's just one example. I think sexual abuse is.
This should be thrown into the category of sexual abuse. If it's thrown, maybe not the pronoun piece, but in terms of teaching the ideology in some way or another. And um If it is, then maybe that's the chance, because that's the only area in which teachers, I think, by and large have been. Held accountable in this country. Other than that, there's a good bit of elbow room and wiggle room.
And I think that comes from both parents having Kind of absconded that responsibility in many places and also. Systems being put in place with some justification. But systems being put in place to protect teachers.
Well, John, let's take a quick break. We'll be right back with more of the latest headlines on Breakpoint this week. As Christian parents, we want our kids to grow in confidence in the truth. But there are so many big questions that they will face in this cultural moment. Even age-old apologetic questions like if God is so good, why is there evil in the world?
That's why I love Summit Ministry Summer Programs. These immersive worldview training programs give high school and college students the hope, the clarity, and the confidence they need to follow Jesus Christ boldly in this world. It prepares them for college, it prepares them for life. And it's not just about getting answers to tough questions. Summit students also learn how to live consistently with their faith in a world that's consistently fighting against it.
They'll be equipped to stand strong, to speak with courage, and to live with unshakable faith. What a great Christmas present to give your son or daughter or maybe your grandchild. Please visit summit.org/slash breakpoint. That's summit.org/slash breakpoint. Breakpoint and you can lock in the early bird raid and save an additional $250 to attend a session in either Colorado or South Carolina when you use the code BREAKPONT26.
That's Breakpoint 26. Trust me, this is an investment you'll make in your student that will last a lifetime. I have worked at Summit, I teach at Summit, and my kids have attended Summit. Grab your spot now by going to summit.org slash breakpoint. That's summit.org slash breakpoint.
We're back on Breakpoint this week. John, there's a new report out from a group called the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. They put out an annual report each year on the use of IVF and other reproductive technologies. And they're showing what I think a lot of us expected, which is a sharp increase in the use of IVF. As of 2023, it accounts for 2.6% of all births in the United States.
LiveAction has done some digging into those numbers and I think we can make a reasonable estimation about the number of embryos that have since therefore been either discarded or put indefinitely in ice in storage as a result of these IVF practices. And Live Action is putting those numbers somewhere around 1.9 million embryos in 2023 did not survive to be implanted. And 1.8 million were either frozen, destroyed, donated to research or released for embryo adoption. Again, these are estimates based on what we know about how many embryos are typically created in an IVF cycle. But that would officially mean that as of 2023, the number of embryos that are either indefinitely frozen or destroyed as a result of IVF outnumber the number of abortions committed in the U.S.
each year. That is a staggering number. It was a staggering number when it was much lower than it is now, and it's a staggering number. Even before it was driven up by alternative family structures like same-sex parents who have to resort to this sort of thing, plus add in something like surrogacy and And you have an intentional separation of a child who's actually brought to life from mom and dad.
Now, what we're going to hear, and what we're going to hear from defendants of in vitro fertilization is that, well, you know, in kind of. the natural process. There's an awful lot of embryos. That are lost because pregnancy is not achieved, or implantation of an embryo of the zygote is not achieved, or. Um you know, there's a miscarriage of some kind or another.
And they're going to then say that that explains the high numbers and that it's actually no different. It's not true. The reason that it is different is because this is an intentional. uh creation knowing that this sort of loss will occur. Versus one that is unknown.
One puts the consequences in the hands of God. the other puts the consequences in the hands of technicians. That in and of itself, the question of intent is enough to make all the difference. But the scale and scope of this is incredible. And it has been a hidden aspect of this.
It's not.
Something that people lead with in the PR for IVF or IVF services. That there will be an awful lot of embryos that are aborted in this process.
Some will die naturally. But just as many will be brought to existence and then frozen indefinitely, uh suspended in time. Or will be actively aborted because they are the wrong sex, because they have a certain genetic condition, because they're not. perceived to be viable. In other words, the intentional step will be taken to end the life of these embryos.
And it's at a scale that goes way beyond one of the Uh, the great evil monsters of our day, Planned Parenthood, and what they do. And there's just no way to get around those facts, those are the facts of this. And the justifiers of IVF and some other, they have to actually. justify that process.
Now, again, there's ways to do IVF. One embryo at a time. It's rarely done, hardly ever, certainly not covered and assisted with because of the quote-unquote inefficiency and the high costs. It's not the path that most people choose. And that certainly is not because that is a possibility is not an argument for IVF.
It's an argument for greater regulation on IVF, which doesn't currently exist.
So these are numbers that we have postulated, we have heard about, we have and this is one of the first times where we're getting hard, fast numbers about just what kind of scale of human loss there is. And what we're talking about is an incredible human rights crisis. And it's one created by our technologies. It's one created by our hubris. It's one created by our claims to autonomy and the whole mentality of birth control.
And it is at a scale that's really hard to fathom.
Well, speaking of that, there was a story in the Denver Gazette this week. October was Down Syndrome Awareness Month. And I apologize, I am not fully clear on exactly what they're saying here. And I hope that I'm misinterpreting it because the Gazette says. That according to research on pregnancy termination rates, the national average is that 70% of babies who are diagnosed with Down syndrome in utero are aborted.
I can't tell if this story is saying. that that That 70% of babies in utero who are diagnosed with a chromosomal abnormality. And then aborted, have Down syndrome. Does that make sense? But because I.
I'm like physically revulsed. Repulsed by the idea that it's 70% of babies that are diagnosed with Down syndrome and utero. I think that's what they're saying, but the language is. kind of unclear in this story. Either way, we know that that occurs frequently.
And it would make sense culturally to me that the numbers would be on the rise, just given that the fact that. Abortion numbers are on the rise, and that genetic testing is now considered a totally normal part of every woman's pregnancy. How are you reading these numbers? No, I'm reading it at 70%. I mean, I think that's pretty much large by and large the average in the Western world.
unless you're talking about some countries where it's higher. In other words, 70% is on the low. The low range when you talk about Western nations.
So you have. The prevalence, the growing prevalence, are you talking about an X number factor that is much larger than in the past? because of the accessibility of this kind of genetic testing.
Now, we still have the idea of, or the problem of the reliability of that genetic testing. Because at one point, amniocentesis, which detected this Extra chromosome was actually. Often wrong. And so, you know, whether I haven't heard recent numbers about whether it's more correct than it used to be. But at one point, it was pretty wrong.
And so it was like, don't take the chance, even. And on that basis, an incredibly high number of babies were were killed. because of the diagnoses, whether or not the diagnoses was actually pointing out reality or not. And we had plenty of reason to believe that in many cases it was not. But listen, as the author put in this article in the Colorado Springs Gazette, and it's Debbie Kelly, a religion reporter there.
Iceland is aiming at 100%. They're not aiming at 70%. They're aiming at all so that they can have a big announcement. and and which is heralded as a triumph and really is is awful when you get behind it, that they they have uh eradicated Down syndrome from their country.
Now the only way to do that is to eradicate every single child that is diagnosed with Down syndrome from being born. And that's the champ that's the that's the uh the the triumph. uh that they are are claiming, which is just Just dark.
So, this goes back. One of the reasons I want to talk about this story, and I sent it. you to talk about is That This was a remarkable article to find in any newspaper, including the Gazette.
Now, the Gazette is in Colorado Springs. Colorado Springs is, compared to at least some places, relatively conservative, not fully, it's not nearly as. conservative as it used to be or Christian as it used to be. But this was basically communicated as a straightforward article. Like, hey, if you didn't know this was going on, there is a high number of children.
Who are aborted, and a much higher, a great percentage of those are children who were diagnosed with Down syndrome. And people are wondering if that insinuates something about, and you know, disability rights advocates are concerned and worried about this. And I was pretty amazed. High five to this reporter. I had the chance to meet her a couple.
Months ago, she covered our release of Truth Rising, and this was a courageous story to write. Thanks to the Gazette, who has some. Other reporters who oftentimes report religion stories upside down, inaccurately, and full of bias. For them to actually cover this, high five. I was really pleased that this was covered.
And me too. I mean, I hate the news, but yeah, I'm pleased. And there's a really adorable picture if you click on the story. This reporter talked to a family with a little boy who has Down syndrome, and he's so cute and just talked to them about his life. And yeah, that's a really interesting part of the story, too.
I'm glad she included that. You know, I want to throw in here just at the time, though, because there's one other aspect of this. Because, you know, and families with children with Down syndrome will say, this is, this is. A disability, yes, but it There's something wonderful that these children add to the family and to the life. Doesn't mean it's easy, but.
You know, part of this is our kind of conflation of easy with good. And my wife Sarah on her Strong Woman podcast interviewed someone who kind of walked through the story. did not have the amnocentesis done, I think, if I remember the story right. But had a child with Down syndrome and basically was given a pamphlet and sent home. That was it.
Had no other preparation, no other information from the hospital or anything like that. And they realized, well, that's one of the reasons, right? I mean, you're so pressuring so many people not to do this that it's not a high priority.
So, this woman has started a wonderful ministry. To actually create care packages and gift baskets and things like that that will go home. to families with families who have a child with Down syndrome in the hospital.
So it's a wonderful way that Christians are stepping into the brokenness in that story. I love that story. I just think it's so creative. It answers that question, what's missing? And for them, it was information, you know, knowledge, things that we need to know.
And they were kind of left on their own. And now they're making sure that other parents are not left on their own.
So a great organization. We'll link to that in the show notes. How cool is that?
Well, John, there's one other story I wanted to talk with you about. This is a new survey out of the Barna group about. Bible reading, this is a really interesting contradiction, it would seem. Bible reading is at its highest level among U.S. adults in the last 15 years.
This is self-reported. How often have you read the Bible in the, or have you read the Bible in the last week, or do you read it weekly? It's. Up generally, but it's also up markedly among millennials and Gen C. At the same time, the number of people who say that they believe the Bible is 100% accurate has fallen somewhat sharply.
In 2000, that answer was about 43%, and now it's 36%. I'm a little mixed on this just because I trip over that question. Like, what exactly are you asking when you say, do you believe it's 100% accurate? Like, do you mean that if I read something I understand as metaphor, do I think that that metaphor is literal?
So I think the question itself may be I don't know exactly how it's asked in the survey, but do you find these findings significant? What do they tell you? I I think they are. I I share your like, okay, well, what did people mean by not 100%? Accurate, accurate, you know, and I wish I believed that, well, people are as nuanced as you are, like, you know, the difference between metaphor and poetry.
I just don't think the average reader is. I mean, I would like for them to be. I mean, I think, you know, some of us would say, well, listen, in the book of Job, you know, there's like. 12 chapters of Job's friends saying things and making claims about God. And, you know, then God shows up at the end and goes, all that stuff was bogus, right?
Remember?
So, in other words, is the Bible 100% true?
Well, God himself says that part is not because, I mean, it's a true account of what they said, but anyway, you see, but these are kind of the sophisticated nuances that I do not think most people have. I think most people have just kind of inherited, you know, the zombie idea. Like we're working right now on a on a new video in a What Would You Say series, which is, is the Bible full of contradictions? And, you know, one of the things we're pointing out is, is that the answer is, you know, if you ask most people, it's just kind of widely assumed because it's been said over and over and over and repeated by everyone. And even people who couldn't name a single contradiction or would name something that's actually not a contradiction when you just look a little closer would say that just because they've kind of embraced.
a certain, you know And I think that's probably what's at work here. Do I, is this good news or bad news?
Well, the answer, of course, as most things are, is it's both. There is a growing spiritual interest, there is a growing. interest in even Pursuing supernatural experiences and supernatural truth, all that's good.
So it makes sense that across the board, and even with the Charlie Kirk effect and other things, there'd be more interest in the Bible. But there is something here that needs to be noted. And that is If you are looking. For the Bible to give you something that you can use in your life, you'll find it. But that's not the same thing as putting yourself under the authority of Scripture and therefore under the authority.
of how God has chosen to reveal himself. and make things known to us, including the truth about himself. Um you know people have quoted and used the Bible throughout history.
So an increased interest in the Bible is a good thing. It's better than the problem that everybody was trying to solve just, what, 10 years ago, which is everybody has an average of 11 Bibles on their shelves and read an average of zero hours, which is what a lot of the Bible reading groups were talking about, and rightly so. Today, we're talking about people actually more hungry, which means they're going to be more likely to read the Bible. today and then you know pursue something else tomorrow, some other s spiritual. truth or spiritual choice.
So it's an opportunity, but it has to be shepherded well. One way not to shepherd it is, I think, the way that sometimes we do tend to shepherd it. Which is, you know, preaching sermons that treat the Bible as kind of a big advice book. You know, here's how to be happier, here's how to be healthier, here's how to be holier. Instead, here's the story of the world and what's true and who you are and where you fit in it.
And you start with that posture. And if you don't, then you can create all kinds of mess. Anybody watching from home will see that the Anglican Church right now is going through a whole series of crises. That is the denomination of which I am a part. It is a disaster.
And David Virtue on David Virtue Online has written a very important part saying, or quoting someone, I think. That, you know, there is a big issue here that stands out, which is women's ordination. And we've talked about this before. Women's ordination. In very, very rare instances in the history of the church, has been put forward out of biblical argument and by denominations.
That took seriously biblical authority. I disagree with how they interpreted the verses that they appealed to, but they appealed at least to that authority, right? and they did not go further. Every other group, including the Episcopal Church, which is what many Anglican groups broke off of, and the Anglican bodies within the ACNA. That ordained women do not argue based on this authority of scripture.
Instead, they argue based on appeals to equity. Diversity, and so on. In other words, they're appealing to cultural authorities.
Now, every other time that's been tried, which is basically every mainline denomination you can think of with few exceptions, that then has not stopped at the ordination of women. It's carried on to the ordination of homosexuals, the acceptance of same-sex marriage, the increase of liturgical services and wanting to provide blessings for same-sex couples and all the rest. Why?
Well, because that's where equity and that's where diversity and that's where inclusion now demands you go. You can't stop once you get down that road. We're seeing that problem. That's been one of the sources, not the only source of the chaos within the ACNA, but that's been one of the sources of the chaos within the ACNA.
So I think The difference between reading the Bible, using the Bible, teaching the Bible, and placing yourself under the authority of the Bible. I mean, we've seen this movie before in individual lives. And independent ministries and preachers that put out their own stuff. and entire denominations.
So Is there good news or bad news here? And the answer is yes. That's not really anything new other than the increased interest, right? It is interesting that as the interest goes up, the belief in its truthfulness goes down. I agree with you.
We got to ask, what do you mean by that? How you and I would answer that question is probably not going to be. How the average person who's picking up one of the 11 Bibles that's on their shelves, maybe the one with pictures, you know, now actually, you know, believes this. I don't know. I mean, maybe I'm a little cynical, but biblical authority is everything.
And the reason is, is. Listen. The Bible has authority not because it's true. The Bible is true because it has God's authority. This is how God has chosen to reveal himself to the world.
And that's the authority we have. We don't have other information. Right. We have the Holy Spirit to help illuminate that truth, is what Jesus said. But otherwise, you're trusting everyone's private interpretation, and that's where it becomes a problem.
That's why the history of the church matters. That's why church doctrine matters. That's why theology matters. That's why biblical worldview matters. Is you have to place yourself under authority.
And we're just not a culture that puts ourselves under authority anyway. I agree with you. But I also look at the Bible as I have a vision in my mind of the Bible as something that is magical. And I don't mean that in any sort of sacrilegious way, but I mean that's fine. People can please write in, address them to John.
almost like a contagion. When you open the Bible, you are exposed to the truth of God and the truth of the universe. And there is something supernatural that goes beyond. Like, I agree that every person has to decide at some level what to do with what they encounter in the Bible, but I also believe that the Holy Spirit can act on you. When you read the Bible, because that's how I experienced it when I came to know Jesus.
Like, and so I think that the, I am ready to full-throatedly celebrate any person opening the Bible who's not. A predetermined mocker, like if as long as they're not opening it to mock it, but they're opening it to just read it. Again, agreed that ultimately they're going to have to make a decision whether they believe it's true. And if they believe it's true, then they'll have to agree to put themselves under the authority. But at that point, it will seem like they have no other option because if it's true, then that's what's required.
And all of that will have to take place. But I think that the Lord can do that and He can create the conditions for people to do that. And it is, it is, um, here's what you're right: the Lord can do that. Because the Lord said he could do that. I mean, that's actually what the Bible says.
The Bible claims that same sort of authority.
So you're not saying anything radical, right? The use of the word magical might get us in trouble. But other than that, what you're saying is. Is great. That's exactly what the Bible says.
But it also says that people do have that choice. Yeah. And I mean, what I mean by magical. Is that it is spiritual and it's like post, it's like supra intellectual. There's something that happens that is not irrational from A to B in our minds all of the time.
That has to be part of the equation, but that the Lord can, when you are exposed, the truth has power. The word of God has power. It is a seed that falls to the ground and does not return empty.
So I think God can bring us to that. Uh, that movement of heart and laying down of our own authority. I mean, I am thrilled that it's still frankly compelling to people because there are a lot of other options. Like the re-enchantment is real, but there's a lot of other options to go towards. And in some cases, the Bible is one of the hardest options.
I mean, I've been trying to get my husband to read this book on healthy food for like two years, and he won't read it not because he doesn't think it's true, but because he knows it's true and he doesn't want to know because it's going to make him feel bad about eating the stuff that we all want to eat. Oh my gosh, I can't believe we went there. Look, look, I'm going to do it. But you see, I see what I mean. The metaphor I'm drawing here is like, I'm so glad people, people still find it compelling and good, and there's something drawing them to it when there are a lot of other easier, like Oprah Winfrey has an easier option for you.
Right. Listen, the it it's it's The Bible doesn't have its own authority. The Bible has God's authority. And that's why it doesn't return void because of what Abraham Kuyper called the unity of Trinitarian purpose, like God. The Godhead is working together to advance God's rule and reign over the creation.
And the description of that is coming in Holy Scripture. That's why it's still compelling. It's not anything kind of inherently magical. You know, and the way that, in any of it, it's just that this is God actually revealing Himself, and it points ultimately to Christ. As the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, it's empowered in our understanding by the Holy Spirit.
And it is the ultimate word of God.
So all the Godhead is working together to communicate this stuff to us. And when you encounter it, that's why it's undeniable and it does not return void. I'm with you 100% on that. No question whatsoever. The Bible is just also clear that humans are darn good at suppressing the truth in their unrighteousness.
So, as powerful as this scripture is. Uh, there is a point in which we do have to choose to whether to be under its authority or not. One way to do it is to clip it. You know, clip out this little encouraging thing, or clip out this little moral instruction, or clip out this little story. and try to use it for inspiration.
try to use it for emotional motivation. Try to use it for personal encouragement. And the Bible will do all that for you, which is great. But there is a difference between putting yourself over the Bible And putting yourself under the Bible. And I think that's where all this leads.
So I'm with you. I mean, let's celebrate any chance anybody gets and ask the Lord to do what work he wants to do. But as churches who are tasked to steward that and steward that encounter with the scripture as much as possible, how we use it will matter and it'll show people whether or not we're serious about this or not. Yeah. And I think that a little silver lining is that the left generally has made The Bibles seem so right-coded right now or conservative-coded that I think it's harder for people to do that.
It's a bigger ask to say, Hey, put this psalm in your TikTok bio. I don't even know if they have bios on TikTok, but because people view that as a political statement anymore.
So, hopefully, I mean, I hate that that's where we're at culturally, but I think that will dissuade some of the kind of superficial, I'll just take on these little quotes in scripture for self-help. You don't think so? I'm just so confused. Like, last week you were so cynical and pessimistic, and now you're like all optimistic. I don't even know who I'm talking to anymore.
Maybe it's what I ate. Yeah. 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 and 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.
Okay, well, there's something else I want to talk with you about this week. There was a piece in Compact Magazine that was adapted from a speech. From Helen Andrews, that she gave at the National Conservative Conference that has been making waves in my universe at least on Substack and elsewhere for the past couple of weeks and has garnered several responses. She was on Ross Douthett's podcast talking with Leah Labresco Sargent about it. Her thesis, she calls it the great feminization of society.
And she opens by talking about the hard numbers: that there are more women in higher echelons of society and culture than there ever were in the past.
So, more women CEOs, more women, particularly practicing in law and teaching in higher ed. And then she connects that directly with what she calls wokeness. And I think we all know what she means by that. And she basically makes sort of an anthropological argument. She does the normal caveats at the beginning that, you know, these female attributes I'm going to talk about, of course, exist on a spectrum.
Of course, you could pick out one random. Woman who does not have these qualities and a random man who does, but we're talking about statistics and aggregates and all of that. And she says that. By nature of more women being in these professions, the culture has tended towards now. privileging feminine coded virtues over male virtues, and that has been to our detriment.
So she uses, for example, the reinterpretation of Title Nine rules under the Obama administration as an example, which Said, of course, it kind of got rid of the rule of law in certain very specific sexual abuse allegations made on college campuses. The accused no longer had the right to confront their accuser. Women were supposed to be believed at all costs without the same burden of proof as other areas of law. And she says that that's due, at least in part, to us kind of valuing these feminine-coded virtues of like social cohesion and protecting the weak. As opposed to, or like making that subservient to, more masculine-coded virtues like pursuit of truth.
and not being so conflict averse.
So as you can imagine, this has created quite a dust-up of differing opinions and concurring opinions.
So I wanted to put the question to you. Do you think this is a problem culturally? I thought I've been fascinated by the debate and I think it's been a great conversation that has happened. And to be clear, one part of the conversation is that is looking for kind of the headwaters or the source material for wokeness and DEI. Because I think most everyone, including those that are very, very upset with this analysis, would say that.
Whatever the result is, you know, in the DEI, you know, what we've seen in terms of wokeness and so on, that hasn't been good, right? That has not even been the triumph of so-called feminine or masculine or whatever you want to call it virtues, but the abuse of them. And in other words, that's or the abuse of whatever. It hasn't been a good thing.
So I'm always interested. And part of it, it's my nerdiness. And part of it is my. absolute conviction that to really understand ideas. And why they're so powerful and compelling, you have to understand where those ideas come from.
So, when people try to trace them, I always find it interesting, even if in the end, I end up disagreeing with them because we don't spend a whole lot of time talking about where ideas come from. We talk about ideas have consequences, bad ideas have victims at the Colson Center all the time. But ideas have sources, ideas come from places, ideas have to be made plausible. And when you think about the ideas that were made plausible in corporate America, which is, you know, what she's writing about and so on, how did that happen? Like, how did we get to this point?
I mean, I think the opening line of Carl Truman's book was just absolutely spot on and brilliant, which is the question is not how can a man claim he was born in the wrong body? But the question is, how is it when a man does claim that now everyone doesn't immediately dismiss the idea of absurd and see the person who made the statement as someone who is deeply mentally ill? Like, you know, what changed in the plausibility thing? And so, you know, I think that this. Was a very interesting attempt to do that.
And all the pushback has been super interesting.
So I've kind of been, you know, like that Michael Jackson meme and thriller eating the popcorn, watching. The whole explosion takes place. The conversation on Ross Dalfit's podcast has been fantastic. I thought both Leah, and I don't know either of these individuals, but I thought both of them. made compelling points and so on.
And it's one of those fights that create more light than heat. And usually it's the other way around. And so I think at that point, it's been. That part's been pretty helpful.
So that's my background on it. That I think it's a great conversation. And it's been needed. I don't think it's a sufficient conversation.
So, if you ask me what I'm saying, The big problem with the Helen Andrews article, which I read at the time and really thought about and And my wife and I actually discussed it at length. is that it it tried to explain too much. There were things that she introduced as causes or influences into what eventually gave us kind of the wokeness that we See today that I think is probably absolutely right. But It's always dangerous when you say this explains everything. And the presentation was, this explains everything.
And I think it's just limited. in that because Because it doesn't explain everything. It's usually not one thing. It's usually a multitude of things, especially when you're talking about a culture like ours.
So it would be impossible to kind of source it all back to the one thing. And I think. You know, that was an oversell. And that, that. unfortunately kind of got in the way of maybe some of the things that could have been helpful analysis.
The thing that I think her critics often miss. As I've seen I haven't seen it all um I thought the uh the the little um What do you call it? The little symposium, digital symposium that the free press ran with, I think, seven different women commenting on it, about half of them agreeing. with Helen and about half of them agreeing, disagreeing. Or nuancing in one way or another, is that it it was the the And I'm not sure she made this argument completely well, but that the Her argument wasn't the great woman thesis.
I'm trying to remember. What was the title of the article? The Great Feminist Thesis? Then the majority of the maj Feminization, yeah. And that's why I think a Christian worldview always helps in the doctrine of creation and fall, is that many people read it, and maybe that's because of how she wrote it.
I'd have to go back and look. more carefully, as she was saying, is that the problem is that there's too many women. And I think what she was saying is, yes, but more specifically, the problem are feminist ideals that have been brought in mainly because. you know, of the cultural change. And women, of course, were a source From some of that.
But there is a difference between the God-given good beauty of male and female diversity working together in different situations within the context of his design and what has been feminism. I mean, feminism isn't the advance of women. Second and third wave feminism was a corruption of that. And I think those are the ideals. that oftentimes got smuggled in.
And I think that's something that the critics missed: they read the great feminization thesis and thought she was talking about the problem is women and not. Feminist ideals. And applied feminist ideals, I guess, or embodied feminist ideals. And I think that that actually explains a lot as far as the source material for critical theory and wokeism and. and some of the things that we said.
I I always struggle with a Here's what women do and here's what men do. Because we're fallen and we don't always do that. And we sometimes do what the others do. I mean, it's just kind of hard to make that distinction. I think it's a great conversation because we need to figure out where some of these ideas came from.
I think it's been really helpful. I've benefited from it. I've benefited from both the thesis and the critique of it and the various reflections on it. And we are a culture up one side, down one the other, confused about what it means to be male and what it means to be female. That confusion has inflicted so much of our world that it only makes sense that it would confuse the workplace as well.
She probably oversold it, maybe more than a little. And I think the critics are missing some of what she says too.
So how's that for a nuanced response? That was so diplomatic. I feel like you could run for office after that.
Well, I don't, it's not insincere. I mean, if I have a strong view, I'll give it. I think that that's actually, that's my legitimate analysis of it. And after having a lot of conversations about it and reading, I haven't read it again. You know, I probably should have read it again just moments ago before having this conversation with you, but.
But I honestly think that that's great. That that it was that it was written and that people are responding to it and That's the way this kind of scholarship should go. I agree that she suffered from kind of making it a theory of everything, and that hurt her argument a little bit. I also think she hamstrung herself because she did, she was saying that there's too many women in these areas. And I think that, like, that should stand on its own if she wants to claim that.
I think she has some compelling stories and statistics talking about that. But I don't think she was saying it was feminist ideals that were the problem or even suggesting that because. I think she would say most of the feminist ideals that she takes issue with As well as her detractors, are suggestions that women should act more like men. And I think, I mean, I think Helen Andrews, I don't mean to speak for her, but I don't think she's saying that that should be what happens. But I think she might say if women acted more like men, then we wouldn't have these problems.
So she's not saying that feminist ideals are the problem, like that there was this perfect storm of more women and more feminists, particularly in these positions. I think she's saying women have a way that they generally act and they value certain ways of relating to other people that don't lend themselves to the kind of corporate environments we need in some areas of the economy. And I think this was the biggest challenge to her thesis is that. I don't think you can argue that our economy is fundamentally different than it was 50 and 100 years ago, inso much as it's not based on physical labor anymore.
So we have gone from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based one, which naturally means that most people in their jobs today Many more of them compared with people who were working 50 years ago when women were in less of these positions of power. Most jobs involve a lot more communication. and working with other people and a lot of theoretical work, much more so than like fast and physical labor. I'm not saying that that's a good or a bad thing, but I'm saying that it's possible that by nature of the change in our work. We've started to value collectively certain things that aren't serving us well, over, for example, the pursuit of truth or efficiency, let's say.
So this is why we, you know. We have, we're more worried about how we speak to each other and whether we're being kind and whether we're considering each other's feelings and whether we're being understood. And you can see how that could create some issues. She calls that the result of too many women and those are feminine coded virtues and all that kind of stuff. But I would argue that a lot of our jobs just require that now, whereas they didn't used to.
There's probably a better way to do things. And when I posited that to my husband the other night, he said, Okay, but... If you go to like the stock exchange on, you know, in Wall Street in New York, it's not a bunch of people who are being kind and polite to each other. You know, there are still areas of culture where it's not strictly physical labor or the military, and it's theoretical and it's communicative, and you don't see these kinds of things taking over. And I think he's right.
I think that's a compelling counterpoint. I also think that it's part of this story is the rise of like litigiousness in the country. And the fact that one of the greatest concerns of every company is protecting themselves from legal liability. You could argue that that's because there are more women in law and HR who are making that problem, but I think it's probably more complex than that. And that's led to a lot of the issues that she's decrying as well.
So there's a lot here. I didn't take offense to it personally as a woman at all, but I did think that she, it was a bit of a theory of everything that didn't take into consideration some other. Occurrences, which is interesting because she wrote a book a couple of years ago about the boomer generation and how they basically have ushered in a lot of the social ills that we blame millennials for. Which I deeply appreciated as a millennial. But I think that's actually part of this story, too, that she misses.
And one of the women writing, I think it was a Harvard sociologist writing in the free press, kind of rebutting Helen Andrews, was like, this isn't a woman problem. This is a boomer generation problem who took the values of the 60s counterculture and put them into corporate practice. And that's why we are where we are.
So there's a lot to it. There is. I think blaming the boomers, you're going to struggle with the same theory of everything that you have there. There's plenty of boomers that have stacked up a whole list of evidence against the millennials for how they screwed up the world.
So. And I us Xers just sat there passively and did nothing.
So, you know, we're not going to be able to do that. There's plenty of black. Yeah, we did. Yeah, I think that is the kind of the challenge. And this might be something that many people aren't familiar with.
I think this whole conversation anyway, but I think it's a. Uh it is an interesting uh One, I you know, w where I was compelled by it. And again, I felt the same.
Well, not in the same, you know, to degree, but you know, Aaron Wren put together a framework of the positive world, neutral world, negative world thing, and I had some real disagreements with how I would frame those things and put the time frames and all that sort of stuff. How limited it is, and sometimes you feel like you're in the negative world, and then you look. 20 years later, you're like, oh, no, now I'm in the negative world. And So on. And to me, it was just the framework itself that was so helpful to wrestle with.
even if you quibble with it here or there. I do think that the inherent confusion of the differences between men and women. that has become endemic in our way of thinking about life and the world. We, I think, have thought that it's been neutral. I think we've thought that, oh, we went from being, you know, kind of patriarchal to not patriarchal.
And I think the reality is that in many ways, and again, not universally, not everywhere, we went from being patriarchal to being feminized. Um There have been people in many places writing about that and speaking about that, going all the way back to Carrie Hoff Summers, I think that's her name, right? Who wrote about the war against boys 25 years ago and how schools were arranged and how learning took place and how we expected that. That it w what we didn't go from being male centered, which obviously was the case in times past, to being neutral. that we actually were swinging back the the other direction.
I think you can find a million exceptions to the the manual labor. You know, balance or the stock exchange or the cutthroat sort of business entrepreneurial world. I think there's a million ways to find those differences. But there there are ways that the uh the the what was patriarchal became feminized and To look at that, I think, is legitimate. I think, and so that to me is where the interest came from.
And also, the fact that whenever we're talking about this, whenever we're talking about how a male behaves or how a female behaves, or what a male-dominated society looks like, or a female-dominated society looks like. We're not just talking about men and women. We're talking about created aspects of maleness and femaleness which are good. And we're talking about fallen aspects of maleness and femaleness which are bad. And what happens is, is when the pendulum starts swinging to the other side, then we take what is actually fallen and bad and just say, well, it's just the way men are, or it's just the way women are.
You know, and so I thought it was unfair, for example, that one of the big critiques is: you know, there was a lot mentioned about gossipy corporate culture, you know, in her article and in the analysis and in this support.
Now, is there a kind of cancel does cancel culture smell and look an awful lot like that, where gossipy culture, once power is gained, becomes cancel culture? That's a powerful analysis that makes sense of an awful lot of things. But is that Woman behavior? You mean men don't gossip? Are you kidding?
Of course we do, right? Do women gossip? Yes. Do men gossip? Yes.
Do we maybe gossip to the same degree and the same extent? You know, maybe not. I don't know. I don't know if anybody's ever done that math. But we have the capacity for that.
Paul directly addresses women and gossip in the New Testament. And he also talks about what men say and slander and other ways that we might tend to do it.
So, to call one of those male and one of those female is really to talk about sin. It's to talk about brokenness. And one of the things that feminist ideology, I think, did. is you know talk about inherent you know, female traits that were fallen as if they were good and normal. And I it it it certainly can be seeing the the the counterpoint and the balance of that on the other side as well.
So We are so confused about what What men and women are. You know, across the board culturally, that it only makes sense to me that a confusion about that will. Be an explanation or a helpful way of understanding the corporate America as well, or whatever else we're looking at.
So I think it's worth looking into. But as a theory of everything, it fails. Agreed.
Well, I'll make for my recommendation this week then that episode on Rostoffet's podcast. The podcast is called Interesting Times. It's such a great discussion. Highly recommend it. It was a fight.
It was, they went at it. You don't, you know, in a good way. Like, I thought it was a powerful conversation. That's hilarious because I'm going to resist the urge to overanalyze you calling it a fight in masculine versus feminine terms because I was very, I was very pleased with the frank discussion and the frank discussion. That's what I said.
Lack of a very fight. I said it was a frank discussion. I'm just glad you didn't make a cat sound.
Okay, you go ahead. I didn't mean any of that. Listen, I'm teasing you. I think it's awesome when we are allowed to fight on, and Dalfit's been doing that on his podcast from the beginning. As a man, I listened to it while I was exercising and I got so jazzed up.
Like I ran faster than I've ever, for that same reason. I really feel empowered and invigorated when people are just willing to plant their flag and make their claim to each other. I love it. It was really great.
Well, you know, I'm tempted then to recommend the follow-up free press symposium because they had seven women and they both all addressed it and some fully agreed with Helen Andrews' thesis. And some did not. I think it was maybe three to four or something like that. And it was that, and it was interesting. I went into some looking at the bio of the woman writing.
And I didn't know any of the names, but you're kind of like, oh, she's going to. She's going to be upset. And then she turned around and agreed. And I was like, oh, that's surprising.
So. I know I left it going, man, yeah, vibe shift, vibe shift. Like, yeah, this, oh, this is a professor from Harvard. Oh, can't wait. And I was pleasantly surprised as well.
Yeah, that was great.
So I'm going to go completely nepotistic and inappropriately biased in my recommendation and recommend my wife, who's awesome. And here's why. Because she has Over the last several years, been the most ferocious reader that I know of really good. uh thoughtful things. Widespread and also has become really, really passionate about the.
Coulson Center mission, not just because she likes me, although I think she does. But also because of just believing that that's significant. Having shared a little bit of the frustration of, you know, maybe kind of. The um More silly aspect of what passes is women's ministry these days. And I don't want to speak.
I'm just telling you what she says. And uh anyway, she has become a um It just has developed a powerful set of teaching and mentoring resources that she's delivered at women's events and things like that. And it's fresh on my mind because it just happened again last weekend with a church who. Pastor is a good friend of mine, and he wrote and just had really nice things to say about what she was able to bring. I am not trying to farm or market my wife out to have being gone every weekend, so that's not going to happen.
But I just think that You know, when you look back at what she's brought to the Strong Women podcast for years and the interviews and the kinds of conversations that she has and the kinds of things. If you've never started on that, get started. There's a whole lot of episodes to go through and you'll appreciate the content and the wisdom of it. And yeah, it's so anyway, I'm two thumbs up on her. How's that?
That's awesome. Love it.
Well, that's going to do it for the show. 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 a great week. We'll see you all back here next week.
