You're listening to Breakpoint This Week, where we're talking about the top stories of the week from a Christian worldview. Today we're going to talk about the devastating earthquake in Venezuela. Then we're gonna talk about the elections in New York. Is America turning back towards socialism? We have a lot to get to this week and we're glad you're with us.
Please 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, we have to start with the earthquake this week. There have been a series of quakes across the world, but particularly hardest hit was Venezuela.
As we're recording this on Thursday afternoon, The running tally is at about 190 people have been killed. More than 1,500 were injured. The U.S. is sending search and rescue teams, and some other nations have offered help as well. But this, from all accounts, this is a catastrophic event.
for that nation. It's the most powerful earthquake they've recorded in over a hundred years.
Well, and there was a pair of them that took place within just a uh an hour or so uh or less of each one. And I y you know, it's um it's tragic the the um The devastation is palpable. And first and foremost, obviously, that matters is the loss of life. What what what this Story and stories like it bring to mind is something we've talked about before, which is that culture is itself an outworking of worldview. What you believe is important, how you think about life and the world, and then the kind of capacity of growing knowledge to make something of the world, all that kind of exists within a cultural setting.
And one of the places you see that kind of lived out or played out is when a calamity or catastrophe happens. When you see something that's particularly devastating, sometimes it's because the event is particularly devastating, this would fall into that category. And sometimes it's because the event happened in a place that uh lacks the Resilience. You know, it's a culture that is unable to handle calamity. just because it's uh either so poor or so Vulnerable.
The Venezuela situation is especially unique because it was not that long ago. That Venezuela, as a nation, was among the richest in the world and was among. The most kind of fast-growing economies in the world. And then, of course, when it became Marxist. Then it completely changed.
And that also, I think, has created the situation. Where the nation is now, and of course, famously, the United States overthrew. Maduro, the dictator, there, not that long ago. And so all of this stuff factors in. Uh I mean on a very Kind of Straightforward way.
The United States has committed hundreds of millions of dollars in help. Plus, people to go over there and help. That would not have been the case just a little bit ago. Prior to the U.S. military action.
That doesn't justify the action in any way, but it does actually just put it into a broader context. As to whether or not this nation that would have been in a completely different place had it not been plagued by decades of communism than it is now, now it has to face. This particular devastation. And it is awful. The images are absolutely.
incredible. Uh, I suspect, I think many people suspect that the death count will continue to go up tragically and certainly. the the long-term consequences are are going to be devastating. But you can also, as we see in so many contexts like this, look for the helpers. There will be a lot of helpers.
uh the vast majority of those helpers will be Christian and that will be something Uh, to acknowledge and to celebrate, uh, in terms of the work that Christians tend to do in the face of events like this, yeah. I think whenever disasters like this happen, it is tempting to look at it and try and imagine how we are insulated from it, right?
So to You know, obviously, culture is going to influence how we respond to it and can influence the lead-up to it, you know, how well prepared we are for it. Things like how buildings are built and what the codes are, and whether we have warning systems for catastrophes like this. But at some level, I think the healthy response to something like a devastating earthquake is to just accept that this is a part of life in the world right now. And there is, to a degree, there is no insulating yourself from that kind of danger, even across cultures. And it reminds me of a quote that I come back to all the time just because it sounds like my inner dialogue.
But it's from the writer Ernest Becker, who wrote a book called The Denial of Death. And he says, I think that taking life seriously in this world has to be done. In the lived truth of the terror of creation, of the rumble of panic beneath everything. And I remember the first time I read that thinking, I feel that. I feel that rumble of panic.
And obviously, that evokes even. pictures of an actual earthquake, a rumble of panic beneath everything. I think that's why you see Christians as the ones showing up to help so much after catastrophes like this, because we, of all people, should not be surprised. by the rumble of panic and of catastrophe and horror and death. At this moment in time, just as much as any other, despite however scientifically advanced we think we are.
But, John, you mentioned something about Venezuela being plagued in recent years by communism, by Marxism. And just by the government seizing control of every facet of life, which has led to. you know, government-owned grocery stores and And really crippled the country's economy and its culture in a lot of ways.
Well, this week, We saw in our own country in New York a series of primaries. I think this surprised a lot of people. There were several. Primaries for congressional seats and other positions in New York, and every single candidate that was backed by New York City Mayor Zoran Mamdani won their primary. And every single candidate was uh in these three races are extremely Far left candidates, at least by the measures we would be using.
I mean, in the past five or even 10 years. I mean, one of the candidates. was up against incumbent Hakeem Jeffries. Claiming that he was too right, I guess, not left enough. Are we headed?
I mean, what does this mean in a city like New York? Compared with a country like Venezuela, like how do these ideas still seem good to us?
Well, I think it remains to be seen whether what happens in New York actually translates outside of New York. I think that a lot of people were really surprised by how radical these candidates were and how well these candidates did. I mean, we've been talking about for the last decade or so how. Progressivism has overtaken the traditionally liberal political party in America, the Democratic Party. And now you have a situation in which, at least for a faction of this party, progressivism is not progressive enough, right?
I mean, these are democratic socialists, these are anti-capitalists, these are Candidates that think progressivism is too tolerant and too soft and too. Not aggressive enough. In terms of accomplishing the agenda that they want, I don't know whether or not this will translate into anything kind of long-term or anything outside of New York. It is difficult to say. And it is early in Momdani's.
Right. Regime, I don't know what you would call it, his influence as a leader. And I think the honeymoon period probably will not last very long, which should have downstream effects on these things in the future. But it is notable, and it has to be mentioned here that we're talking about an ideological position that's even further. Away from where we have been than we could even imagine.
And I. And I think it also lends credence that when you look at kind of the political parties in America, they have become increasingly ideological. They have become increasingly far away from each other. And the one that's moved the furthest are those that are on the left, not those that are on the right. I'm not saying those that are on the right haven't moved.
I'm not saying that there's not an extreme faction within the right, that there's not some radicals. Certainly, there are. I think we have a growing wave of anti-Semitism on the right, and so on. And it's taken some weird, weird forms even this week. But this is notable.
It's worth talking about that that within this party You have such an extreme set of positions now that we're able to secure a primary election, and we'll see where it goes from here. Yeah, absolutely.
Well, John, the last thing I want to hit in this first segment is a new poll from Gallup. This is a question that they've asked repeatedly over the last several years. And The results continue to trend downward.
So they asked Americans in a, I think, a thousand-person poll. whether they believe America would be better off if we were more religious. And the share of those who said yes continues to go down. It's still a majority of Americans. It's still around 65%.
But that's down from somewhere in the 70s in 2013. And that is concerning. I don't know that this poll was exactly representative of where everybody is. I mean, it depends on who you ask and what day, but. But in 2013, yeah, 75% of people said that we'd be better off if we were more religious.
A full 22% in this year's poll said religion would be a negative if we were more religious. And that's up from 17% a decade before. What should we take from this?
Well, I think there's a lot to be said within the demographics within the study because we're seeing kind of a divide here as well in terms of younger Americans and older Americans and so on. And also, I think it's interesting when you ask this particular question: is religion? Good for us because that could have, you know, could be heard a couple of different ways. Is religion good for me? as an individual and is religion good for us as a people, as a community, as a society.
You know, those are two different questions, really. I think the red is two different questions. And I think also there's the underlying aspect of this. Is religion or what else? And we are, and if the New York primary results have anything to say about this, there is at least a growing faction.
Who thinks that the institution within society that is most good for us is the state, that that's the Group we should look to to solve our problems. And if you inherently look Uh, to the state to do that, the state's going to see problems a particular way and it's going to solve them in a particular way, and you're going to look for those kinds of answers, and you're not going to look for the kinds of answers that religion gives. And of course, you know, Christian religion in particular famously gives the answer that you're what's wrong with the world and you're the one that needs to be fixed. I don't mean specifically you, Maria, but all of us, right?
So, in other words, that the problem is not them out there.
So, I just think surveys like this are interesting. I think it's hard to get to the actual number, and it was a small study, but it does have to do with a whole lot of things. Like, how do people think of religion? Do they think of it primarily as individualistic or do they think of it primarily as institutional? Do they think of it primarily as utilitarian?
Or do they think of it primarily as true?
So it doesn't actually matter if I perceive it to be helpful or not, if it's actually true. Am I looking for something good for me for this life or something good for me for the next life? What's interesting is that these numbers continue to fluctuate. They continue to trend overall. downward, at least for younger Americans.
And yet, we continue to have At the same time, rising numbers of depression, rising numbers of addiction.
So we know that AI is not going to solve our problems.
Social media is not actually good for us. And that there's something that we all sense is wrong with us And the people that are Reporting being well adjusted and finding peace, they find real benefit in religion. There was just an article this week in the Wall Street Journal. It was a Um uh an opinion piece, but it was talking about how 24-hour micro-retreats are better than vacations. In other words, in the overall scheme of things, you should take one day a week.
And you should set it aside and rest. And, you know, our editorial team read that article. It's like: congratulations, you just invented the Sabbath. It's in the Bible. You know, I mean, this is already there.
There's been lots of evidence to talk about the Sabbath being good for you, the relationships that you find in a church community being good for you, the taking of a moment to contemplate. Uh eternal things. Getting off screens, looking people in the eye. All these things are actually good for us. And the numbers on this stack up.
So, how we read the. Uh the the overall picture of the place of religion in society i i is is is changing and it continues to change and it doesn't always reflect the the the the reality on the ground. I thought the question was interesting. Do you believe we'd be better off if the country was more religious? I wonder how people would answer if you said, like, would you rather have a confrontation with a Christian person or a non-religious person?
And I don't know. I feel confident that people would say a Christian person. I just wonder if you heard this question and you thought about the conduct of people.
So if it's trending. It wasn't that long ago, though. Hold on. It wasn't that long ago where people said that they. That the person they least wanted to live beside was an evangelical Christian.
Do you remember that study? It was like, I mean, actually, it was more like 10 or 12 years ago where people were actually saying, no, I don't want to have a conversation with someone who's an evangelical Christian. See, but this is fascinating. I don't believe that at all. I mean, because as much as I disdain like most pop culture depictions of evangelical Christians, we're not being depicted as like terrorists.
We're usually being depicted as prudes and people whose skirts are too long. Like everyone would rather live with a Christian neighbor than, you know, a gangster or somebody selling drugs. You see what I'm saying? Like, I just feel like the result was. It was widespread.
Well, I feel like whoever answered that, that was a virtue signal, whoever answered that one. Is that what it was? It was a while ago. I haven't seen an updated number. I do have to bring up, though, this piece from the Wall Street Journal about the micro-retreats because the woman who wrote it was a mom of young kids.
And she said, Yeah. That she started doing this when her kids were very young. And one of the reasons she needed to do it was because she could not go 20 seconds without some kind of interruption of her thought or of what she was working on. And I think that is a very unique and relentless kind of experience. That most people who are not in that exact scenario, like caring for their own young children around the clock.
Have ever experienced. And I smiled because. You know, there's sort of this idea that, like, oh, moms can go in the other room and get a break. And you know what? It actually kind of tends to require what she describes, which she was like, I literally checked into a hotel for a day.
So props to her. And yeah, if you're in the same boat and you have very young children. Yeah, you it you should consider taking a Sabbath retreat. in another building because another room doesn't always cut it. Let's take a quick break, John.
We'll be right back with more breakpoint this week. Across the country, Christians are asking how to respond to growing confusion about identity, truth, and what it means to be human. That's why the Colson Center created Truth Rising the Study, a resource designed to help believers engage these difficult conversations with clarity, confidence, and courage. Recently, John Stone Street sat down with D-Transitioner Chloe Cole to discuss why this message matters so deeply today. What would you hope and pray for the Truth Rising Project to accomplish?
I want this to reach the hearts. and in minds and frankly souls. of many people, as many as possible, because The message of not just my story, but of this project, needs to go far and wide. People need to know how to engage on these issues and the personal stories of them and the importance of doing so. What happened to me is something that is in some way affecting Almost everybody in this country.
Not only have I and my family been through what we experienced, but over the last four years, I have been to countless churches, communities, colleges. different legislatures and I've been to almost all 50 states. I've been to 49 states as part of my activism and even to, I think it's been four countries now that I've been to abroad. every single place I have gone to.
Somebody has been affected by this in some way. Stories like Chloe's remind us why this work is so urgent. Truthrising the study is helping equip facilitators to lead conversations in homes, churches, and small groups across the country. And just $200 trains and supports one Truthrising facilitator to help reach even more people with truth and hope. As we approach our fiscal year end on June 30th, your support helps keep this work going and expanding to the next generation.
Give today to help meet our June 30th fiscal year and goal of raising $1 million and be part of shaping the next decade of impact. Just go to colsoncenter.org/slash June. That's colsoncenter.org/slash June. We're back on Breakpoint this week.
Well, John, speaking of moms, let's talk about dads. For Father's Day, the New York Times really went for it. They went full steam ahead. And they posted a series of cartoons and I believe an uh opinion piece. from a woman who claims that she's a man now and that she is now a father as opposed to her mother.
And this was like a Father's Day reflection from this person. The reaction was pretty strong. And it has popped up everywhere. But what was your reaction to this piece?
Well, yeah, I mean, it got sufficient hate. We probably don't even need to talk about it. But it is, I think, noticeable that. I I if if we underestimate just how thoroughly i in in the wider Western culture we have departed from understanding of kind of basic realities. You know, certainly there's been a vibe chef.
Certainly, you know, some of the extreme versions of forcing it down everyone else's throat. You know, all that stuff has abated somewhat, thank God. But there's still this. I mean, this is not just an article that was published. This was an article that was published on Father's Day of a woman.
Claiming to be a dad and saying that, you know, hey, kids, kids get this, you know, pretty easily, and you all should too, essentially. And you just you kind of think about that and you think, l listen, the the the greatest mental health struggles. That we have seen since we've been measuring it have been in the last few years, specifically among young adolescents. Girls, many of whom at an epidemic level decided that they were born into the wrong bodies and could really be. You know, boys.
And the connection between the roles that dads play and helping these young people stay mentally balanced and stable. And accept their identity as who they are, male and female, just cannot be overstated. All this stuff we know, and then you still have a New York Times piece say, well, in my scenario, you know, it's just. It really is hard to imagine. It kind of reminds me of.
You know, on Easter Sunday a couple years ago, you know, kind of highlighting trans day of visibility or whatever it was. It's like it's one thing to say that out loud. It's another thing to do it on the high holy day of the Christian faith. It's one thing to say that dads aren't nothing special and anyone can be one. It's another thing to do that on Father's Day.
And so I you just every once in a while get reminded. Of where these ideas have taken people, have taken writers like this, have taken. Entire institutions, you know, like the New York Times. It's just, it's just a really hard thing to believe sometimes until you see it and then you're like, oh, yeah, that's who we're talking about. I forgot.
The most annoying part of it to me, and then we can move on, is just that. I feel like what you hear all the time from people who claim to be in the trans community. Is that they just want to be treated like whatever gender that they claim to be, that that's all they're after. And that actually it's live or die if you treat them that way, if you call them the right thing, whatever. You know who doesn't write a piece in the New York Times about how they Father their kid like this and talk to their kid about how they used to have.
Female characteristics. Men and people who are dads. If it just betrays the whole game. Like this was never about People who have, I don't doubt that some people, especially kids, have earnest dysphoria and are really struggling. But the idea that this is some like normal, you know, series of human events that these are just people who are different and we need to and then all they're after is just fitting into society.
It was never about that. And these kinds of things just betray that once again. For me, I see a story like this and I just feel the most sad for this person's kids. And you know, for this person to a degree, but they're the adult in the room. And that just breaks my heart.
Well, and that's worth saying, is we're saying again and again and again that basically what you saw in this article. was I'm going to create this alternative reality. That is made up, in which I'm going to claim, you know, kind of this identity. And you know what? My daughter needs to adjust to it.
And you know what? She will adjust to it. I mean, this is why we get. Surveys that are done in these reports about how same-sex parenting is the greatest thing ever. It's because you ask the parents themselves, how great of a parent are you when they're at a gay, a health club, or they self-select into a study where they already know and they're reporting on how great they are, and they talk about how great they are.
You know, who never gets asked in these studies. And by the way, the flaws behind these studies are well documented. But the ones who never get asked are our kids. And you know, here this is another example. The kid is expected to adjust to the adult's.
choices. It's not, by the way, an accident too, that Friday, June twenty sixth, is the eleventh anniversary of the Obergefell decision.
Now last year was a 10th anniversary, and you and I spent an awful lot of time talking about that. And talking about what all was wrought. But at the end of the day, it's what Justice Kennedy. Basically, wrote, which is that marriage is not really a procreative institution of male and female designed for having babies and protecting those children and raising them in the best situation possible. It was a way for the government to endorse adult happiness.
It was a way for the government to endorse the will and wishes of adults. And you know who was expected to comply, whether they liked it or not, the kids. And that was screaming to me out of this essay in the New York Times: like, this is who I am, ain't I great? And even on the playground, you know who has to comply with my fantasy? My kid.
And I just, it's, it's completely backwards about what. You know, Father's Day is supposed to talk about, which is what fathers are supposed to do. And fathers, when they're at their best, put their kids and their family before themselves. When they're at their worst, they get it exactly backwards. That's why dads matter so much.
And here you have the exact antithesis. Of what a dad is supposed to be, claiming the title of dad, and the New York Times putting the seal of approval. And again, the person that's supposed to adjust, it's always the kid. The kid's always supposed to adjust. There's a thing on social media that people refer to as the main character problem.
Like, ooh, she has a main character problem. When you live and act and speak as if you are the main character in every story, not just your own. Uh and that it it's just weird to me because This seems like such an obvious. I mean, always and everywhere, this issue is centered on a person who has main character syndrome. I mean, we all do to an extent, let's be fair, but.
Ugh, it's just not a good look.
Okay, well, John, I want to pivot to Canada because there's been a law that's been hotly debated now for months, and it's officially passed now. And this is called Bill C9. I don't know how they count their bills up there, that's weird. Bill C9 in Canada is, you know, ostensibly a hate crime law. Part of it would make it a crime to block access to a place of worship.
But part of it also says that it is a crime to willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group. by displaying hate symbols in public.
Now, Christians raised concern that this could, under vague language like this, include things like quoting scripture. Which we've seen before. I mean, there was a law in Australia against so-called conversion therapy a couple of years ago, where pastors were kind of warned under the table that if you preach on Romans 1 and you talk about homosexuality and you talk about having those desires and putting them to death, that may be considered an offense under this law.
Well, it's hard not to see the same possibility under this law in Canada. And there was actually an exception. That was kind of proposed as an amendment to this bill that would have made an exception for religious expression, good faith religious expression. And that was taken out.
Now, I know that some officials in Canada have said that those exceptions would still exist, that if you're making a good faith religious expression. Then I guess you wouldn't be persecuted. But there's really no way of knowing. And it does seem like a scary, slippery slope happening here. Yeah.
Well, it I think that people are right to be concerned whenever the government comes in and starts to say, yeah. Um we'll uh give you this exemption, but we're going to constantly redefine what the exemption includes. And it kind of reminds me of what was the biggest, I think, challenge of the health and human services. what was called the HHS mandate years ago. Because what it did was basically create this category.
Out of whole cloth about what counted as a religiously exempt organization. And Kathleen Sebilius, the secretary. HHS secretary at the time basically said, you know, you only count if you are small and if you never try to work or evangelize or serve someone who doesn't already believe what you believe.
So think about everyone that, you know, that, you know, there's a missionary sending church or, you know, a church that had a Christian school that didn't require kids who came there to, or even a tutoring service or an after school or a healthcare clinic. Did not require people to agree with their statement of faith before helping them.
Well, they didn't count under this definition. This is what's happening here with this good faith religious opinion. What counts as good faith? Who gets to say what good faith is? And you have to remember too, and this is something that we've seen become more and more and more and more relevant, particularly across Europe.
in the UK and so on, that we're gonna uh sorry, sorry, that other countries that say they have some levels of uh freedom, like freedom of speech or freedom of religion, but they don't have something like the First Amendment. They don't have something that clearly articulates it and has been fought over and defined. That's what America has on this. I'd be a lot less concerned. At the time when Sibelius proposed this kind of new definition of religiously exempt organization, there was a whole lot of case law that had not been tried and adjudicated and figured out about what counts as speech, conscience, religious freedom, and so on.
So that groundwork wasn't there. The groundwork was outdated, so to speak, when we were dealing with the HHS mandate a decade or actually, it's been more than a decade ago. You know, Canada doesn't have that kind of history of adjudicating. This is what we actually mean by good faith religious opinion. What an ambiguous term, right?
I mean, listen, think about what Canada has done with terms like terminal diagnosis when it comes to the medical assistant dying. We know that it's not above the progressive lawmakers there to play fast and loose with language. I think that there is reason to be concerned here. For our neighbors to the north, because again, good faith, does that mean when no one else ever gets offended? And that's increasingly what we see in the UK.
That's increasingly what we see in other places where progressive ideology says: yeah, you don't have a right to say it if. If their feelings get hurt.
Well, that's not freedom. Right? That's not a robust freedom of speech or religion or conscience or anything like that.
So I do think this undermines it, whether it bans the Bible as some of the headlines on this. has said, I think remains to be seen. My guess is it'll ban certain parts of the Bible in practice once it gets adjudicated. But we will see. It is now law.
So it will be enacted soon. And we'll see who decides to put it to the test first. There's a norm here that I feel like we haven't interrogated in a long time because it's become a norm. Which is the idea that the government has a role or a responsibility to protect against something they call hatred in the first place? Like what I wish we could go back all of the The debates around this bill were around all of the obviously necessary questions you just brought up: and what happens if you're religious, and what does this mean, and what about the Bible, and all of that is important.
But what exactly is the government what kind of authority is the government asserting here? Because we have laws against conduct, and you can't kill another person, you can't harm another, you can't assault people, you can't do all that kind of stuff.
So, what exactly are they aiming to protect against? Because when you pass a law aimed at protection, you're asserting. that it's your place and your authority to do that. And I just don't understand the justification for something as vague. as hatred.
I don't think that, that is something that's within the governmental sphere. First of all, it's emotional language, but also because it requires defining your terms by outward expression, And that's that's where you get into all these quagmires. It's just, I wish we could go back to have it feels like that ship sailed. And we've, even in this country, that we're like, yes, the hatred is bad. We all agree hatred is bad.
So therefore, it is the government's role to protect us from it, I guess. Yeah.
Well, I mean, listen, that ship sailed long ago in Canada. I mean, there was hate crime legislation on the books way before this one. This, if anything, proves the kind of, again, the slippery slope argument is that if that counts as hatred, then this is going to count as hatred. And anything that whoever's in power says counts as hatred is going to count as hatred. And there's not a hard, fast definition when you're talking about emotions or you're talking about feelings, or you're really, in a sense, talking about thought crimes.
I mean, think about it. What you're saying is if you act this particular way by reading the Bible, it's being motivated, but reading the Bible about these particular behaviors, it's really not being motivated by your religious belief. It's being motivated by your hatred of this group of people. And also, Equivocating these two things, that disagreeing with someone's behavior is the same as hating them. And listen, that sort of language has been fiddled around with here in the United States.
I was just doing a writing project recently, went back to one of the first cases. having to do with a wedding photographer in New Mexico, Elaine Huginen. And there the New Mexico Supreme Court. Uh, ruled against them and their ability to turn down photographing a same-sex commitment ceremony. This is before same-sex so-called weddings.
And in a concurring opinion, that judge, I think his name was Richard Bosnian or Bosian. Uh I'm blanking on his name. I think that's pretty close, but He said something so remarkable in that decision, which is basically: oh, you know, Elaine Hooginen as a photographer, she has the right to believe what she wants, but when it comes to the public. Space. She has to curb her rights so as to create space for their rights.
And it was fascinating because basically he was just inventing a new First Amendment, right? He was just inventing a new thing. No, no, actually, according to our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment is freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and association. In other words, all these conscience rights. You have the right to believe these things and to live accordingly.
But he undermined that with that one decision. You see this kind of smacking around. Whenever these stories come out, and you see, when you don't even have the First Amendment, when you don't even have a well-attested to or a well-adjudicated understanding. Of the place of conscience as a citizen, then yeah, you pun everything to the state and the state now has to determine. And then another situation comes up, and oh, we need the state to speak to that, the state to speak to that.
And that's how government overreach happens. The state starts speaking to everything, including things that it has no business speaking to.
Well, yes, we will be on the lookout to see where this goes and whether or not the Bible becomes banned in Canada. I giggled when you said that because earlier this week, We went to the big bookstore here in Columbus. It's kind of famous around the state. It's adorable and I love it. But it's obviously it's very decked out for Pride Month this month.
And then we went in to try to get J.D. Vance's new book, and they didn't have it. And they usually, when they don't have a book, they're like, we'll order it for you. You know, they really want to sell it to you. But they were like, you can check online and kind of send us home.
And my husband was like, I think this qualifies as a banned book now. I think we're reading banned books. Can we do this for banned book week or banned book month or whatever? Ugh, all right, let's take a quick break, John. We'll be right back with more breakpoints this week.
Colorado is at it again, trying to silence free speech. A law in Colorado forces businesses to use customers' preferred pronouns, even if they're biologically inaccurate, and even if using those incorrect pronouns would violate a person's religious beliefs or conscience. That's a violation of free speech, but as Colorado has proved time and again, it has little concern for the First Amendment. At Alliance Defending Freedom, we're challenging the law on behalf of a Christian bookstore and a Colorado-based sports apparel company. But a court recently ruled against them.
With ADF's help, they appealed the ruling, and they'll continue fighting to ensure Colorado doesn't get away with this next attempt to skirt the First Amendment. Your gift helps protect free speech in cases like this all over the country. And for a limited time, your first gift to ADF is doubled by a special matching grant while funds last. Text Breakpoint to 838-48. or go to joinadf.com slash breakpoint to have your gift doubled.
We're back on breakpoint this week. John, earlier you mentioned kind of in passing. The concerning rise of anti-Semitism on the political right. And we've certainly seen it on the left, we've talked about it on the right as well. But there's another weird thing kind of bubbling up on the right as well, including some high-profile podcast conversations and other things.
Happening this week in particular, where there's a sort of effort to downplay. The persecution by Muslims onto Christians. And you know this talking about you know, the Ottoman Empire and their treatment of Christians and going back further. What is at the heart of that? Like, is this sort of another expression of just, Conspiracy thinking run amok?
Or is there something deeper that concerns you here?
Well, I think the most obvious answer is that this is coming out of a growth, an explosion of anti-Semitism on the right. I don't know if it's an explosion in numbers. I think it's an explosion in volume. And a lot of it has to do with some of these high profile conservative podcasters that are really taking this kind of hard position. That any sort of alliance with Israel uh equals Zionism and Zionism itself being a Christian heresy and and it's a a weakness and And then there's a a group of uh of uh I won't even call them theologians.
There's a group of church leaders, some of them, even pastors that are on the far right that. themselves, I mean, famously, just a few weeks ago at their conference, at some conference that featured some of these guys had a a Nazi publisher selling the pro-Nazi books. You just kind of say, Look look the the left has been accusing the right of being Nazis for a long time. Are we actually fulfilling this prophecy of theirs? Are we actually like guilty of what what was said?
And certainly I we most are not. But you do have this kind of loud voice that are basically saying that this hatred of Islam right now is due because of Zionism. And it has to do with our kind of improper understanding of the end times and the relationship between Jews and Christians and America and Israel and all kinds of things. And it just really does kind of border on insane. Not only does it retell history, which is what happened on the Tucker Carlson podcast this week.
As just completely reframing and misrepresenting the history of conflict. But do we actually have to look around the world right now and say, what is the most hostile group? Period? To Christians on the planet, and nothing else comes close, it is Islam. What comes in second are kind of radical atheistic or Marxist governments like North Korea and Cuba, but they're not big enough to actually have the same kind of damage that you see, for example, in Nigeria, in Kenya, in the Middle East, and so many other places.
Look, none of this means that there's no room to kind of question. Any sort of foreign policy questions or international Policy issues and how we relate to Israel and other players in the region. But it is insane. It is out of the realm of reality to have any sort of picture in which Islam is not completely hostile to Christianity. It has always been hostile to Christianity and to Christians, it has always seen Christians.
As infidels, in terms of within whenever Islam takes on national power, Christians are always persecuted. They're rarely protected. If they're protected, it's for a short season and in a very small way, and only as secondary citizens, never in the same way. As the sort of freedom and the sort of human dignity and value categories that are created by the creation story in Genesis, that's recognized in both. by both Jews and Christians.
So it it's absolutely Insane, but you know, here we have just come out of this incredible. Period of anti-Semitism. on the left, especially on college campuses, having to do with protesting Israel's retaliation against Hamas for October 7th. And now you have. The same sort of kind of vitriol and hatred coming out of the right.
Are corners of the right, and it's really astonishing to see. Is this kind of thinking?
So it sounds like what you're describing is that this is sort of like another expression of anti-Semitism. Basically, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
So the Islamic religion. uh as it's largely practiced. Is antagonistic to Jewish people, therefore it's better than we thought for people who are expressing anti-Semitism. Is that kind of where this argument's coming from? I mean, I guess.
It's just it's a bizarre place to be. Even if you think that there is an improper Uh Relationship that Christians have with Jews, and you call it Zionism. And that actually is this enormous threat to. Uh, you know, X, Y, or Z. Even if you think that on a national level, on a political level, we should distance ourselves from Israel and the way that they're playing in that region, even if you think that.
That certainly doesn't mean that you have to actually then suddenly rethink and recategorize the entire history of conflict between Islam and the rest of the world. Islam has had a, had it categorically had an antagonistic relationship. Not just with Christianity and with Judaism, but also with every other expression, including Western secularism and Hinduism and everything else. I mean, it's just a. a bizarre position to take.
To see it happen on Tucker Carlson this week was just something that was really shocking. And to see it voiced by someone. Who is claiming the mantle of a Christian pastor? it really is something to behold. And I wanted to think that all of this was just kind of a whole lot of noise and not a lot of substance.
And it still might be, but it is an awful lot of noise. And we're going to be addressing this in the weeks to come on a breakpoint, specifically, let's be really, really clear on the history of Islam and the history of Islamic antagonism, particularly to Christians. It is long. It is brutal. It is horrific.
And it continues to this day.
Well, John, let's take some time now to hit some questions that we've got. And if you have questions or you'd like to engage with us, please do so. Go to colsoncenter.org and click on contact us. We would love to hear from you.
So I'm going to read one of these here. Last week, we talked a little bit about men and marriage and fatherhood. And, you know, you've talked before about how marriage tends to, in your words, domesticate men. And I think you mentioned something about Wild at Heart, that book by John Eldridge. And we got a couple of comments similar to this one, so I'll just read a little bit of this.
John missed the target. Eldridge was never arguing in Wild at Heart against domestication in the sense of marriage or fatherhood or commitment. He was naming what C.S. Lewis called men without chests, men trained into passivity. It was not a rebuttal of marriage.
It was a diagnosis of why so many young men can't initiate one. That's what Eldridge was after, not less manliness, but men rightly aimed.
Well, listen, I probably should have couched my words a little bit more carefully. I don't have an enormous problem with Eldridge's book, Wild at Heart. I wasn't a huge fan of it. It wasn't addressing the sorts of things that this questioner has brought up because it predates the kind of crisis of masculinity. Algebra's writing, you know, way before the kind of thing that we have seen, particularly in recent years, the complete feminization of masculine.
uh culture, the um uh the the the wake of of how do I want to say it? The kind of the the reaction that we've seen even in more recent years. I mean, Wild Heart's been around for a long time and it helped an awful lot of people who, for example, felt wounded by their dad. Uh, who felt like they didn't know what it meant for them to be a man. And as for all the good that it did in those areas, I applaud it.
It did argue against domestication of men, and the answer was that that eldritch. Proposed was not don't get married. He was not against marriage, but he was against a marriage as domesticating us. And by domesticating us, it was kind of an appeal to freedom and wildness.
So, to speak, an adventure. And I appreciate all that as far as that goes. I just don't think that that got to the heart of what the real. problem in the real Issue was that men, like women, in their fallen nature. Need to be restored, need to be redeemed.
The answer isn't more freedom, the answer is ordered freedom. I do agree that what Lewis is addressing in Men Without Chest is the real problem. I don't think that's exactly what Eldridge was getting at and writing about in that book.
So I see it differently, but hey, it helped a lot of people. I don't think there's anything heretical in that book. I think that it was a book that spoke to a lot of people at the time. And I appreciate that it did help people. I think that the The crisis of maleness.
is it kind of the flip side of the coin of the crisis That women face as well. And it's a problem that goes really, really deep. And we need a deeper analysis and some more work to help us capture. What it means to be made in the image of God, male and female.
So that's my take. I'm sure that will solicit. Plenty more hate mail. Please send it in. I'm happy to engage with it if we can.
You know, there was a story recently at the Free Press by Josh Code, one of their reporters, who went to a Christian men's retreat. Josh Code is not a Christian, and there was some of his coverage was a little. condescending, I think I'd say, but It was a really interesting profile of this retreat. And you talked about it, it's called Bench Press and Be Baptized, was the name of the story. And it certainly seems like there's something that men, some men are hungry for, like expressions of masculinity that they don't feel they don't, they either can't find the opportunities to do.
Or they don't feel they're allowed to do or they don't feel safe to do. Um And I don't know all the reasons why I haven't spent a whole lot of time thinking about it, but it does seem like there's a hunger for something. Like that, what you're describing, like adventure and wildness and manliness and things like that, things that men value. And there aren't as many places, maybe, as there used to be for that. Maybe that's nobody's fault.
Maybe that's just a reflection of the kind of economy we have right now and the kind of jobs we do and the. Just our daily life isn't as physical as it used to be, and that that has impacts and probably more so on men than women. It has that big impact, no question. I think that those are legitimate things, and that was that was a small part of what Eldridge was dealing about, dealing with in that book. It was he covered a number of areas, and again, it helped an awful lot of people, especially young men.
So, as far as God used it, you know, I think it's great. I will say my ears always prick up a little bit whenever you say that marriage domesticates men because. I just don't like, I know this isn't what you're saying. I don't like the idea that it's wives' job to teach men how to take care of their own hygiene or like how to how to be a grown up and take care of themselves. Like there's so there's so I'm like I'm offended on both men and women's behalf because I'm like, well, men aren't morons.
Like they should, you shouldn't require another human adult to be like, don't leave your. You know, dirty cereal bowl over the, whatever it is. But I also, it's also demonstrably true. That's what you mean by domesticate. I agree with you.
All human people need motivation to make healthy choices, especially when healthy choices are sacrificial. And marriage and family offer that motivation like no other endeavor in life to both men and women. But I think the larger point is just that when men don't have that meaning to strive for or purpose. The results tend to be more globally catastrophic than when women don't have those things met. I mean, it's bad for everybody in all cases, but.
That's the way I'd characterize it.
Well, I yeah, I don't mean Hygiene and table manners by domesticate. I mean, actually, domesticate and the idea of turning the man's attention. Away from just adventure for adventure's sake or narcissism or sexual satisfaction. Or something like that to something that is higher and better and orders the rest of his life towards building. Into the lives of others, into the community that he's a part of.
That's what we mean by the word domestication. That's why marriage and family has always been seen as the building block of society. That's why Petirim Sorokin. Talked about the regulation of the sexual instinct by marriage as being the definitive characteristic of an ideational culture as opposed to a sensei culture. And cultures are made up, civilizations are made up of a whole lot of individuals who are building their lives in a direction.
And marriage is what God uses, it's what God designed. to take the capacities that humans have. Specifically, that male humans have, which are incredible according to Genesis, and turn them to something constructive. turn them outward as opposed to inward. and almost everything else in culture.
Has turned us inwardly to our own passions, to our own desires, to our own autonomy, to our own sense of self-satisfaction, to our own immediate gratification. And by domestication, we just mean that the process of ordering some guys to live for something other than themselves.
Now you're right. On a civilizational level, when young men can't get married en masse. And you have the overwhelming ordering of society away from the family towards something else, it'll be towards violence, or it'll be towards exploitation, or it'll be towards, you know, militarism or something like that. It is only the family and marriage that domesticates men towards ultimate goods. And I don't mean that every single man needs to be married, but I mean.
As a collection, men need to be, it's not good for men to be alone. And I don't mean emotionally, I mean like socially, spiritually, relationally, constructively, every lee that you can think of. when when men are by themselves that the dire are left alone and and are not pulled into a better trajectory. A better orientation of the kind of life and the kind of people that they want to be. then things become problematic.
And that's what marriage does. And nothing does it like marriage.
So that was always my biggest reaction is people like, don't domesticate me. No, no, men are stupid. We're fallen. You have to be domesticated. When you don't have enough dads, then young men are domesticated.
When young men become uh are not married, then then they stop being domesticated. There there's just a role that's played. And unfortunately, I think that word domestication has come along with some pretty There there's a joke that it's it's it's a way of You know, being essentially made impotent in life in all kinds of ways. And that's not what we're talking about at all. The old ball and chain.
Well, John, this last question, I don't know if this was from a pastor or not, but they ask that there is a person who identifies as transgender, so it who has made a transition from man to woman. I'm assuming this means surgery. Who wants to join the church? What would you say about this person joining? church?
What a tough question. And there's a lot here that we don't know. For example, what's meant by joining the church?
Someone who becomes a member of church and a lot of churches have formal memberships as a way of identifying faith, personal faith kind of brought together in a community.
Well, no, at that point, I think that that is unacceptable.
Some people mean by joining the church, just attending the church. Attending the church, yeah. Where else would we want someone who is struggling so deeply with who they are than in church?
Now, obviously, you've got to take steps to protect children. You've got to take steps to protect women. I think the specific example here was a man who identifies as a woman.
So, you know, now you have all the social issues being brought into the church and being confused. But I think you have to be very, very clear. I was absolutely fascinated just recently to talk to a pastor. Who had decided, you know what, it had been too long since he had courageously spoken out on some of these issues. And he made the announcement that he was going to have this sermon series.
And during the altar call the week before, after announcing he was going to have this sermon series on all these things, this. This person came up who was in a same-sex relationship with children, married, and saying, What do I do? I want to leave my wife. And this was a woman.
So he's now in the middle of this, having to counsel somebody. And the temptation is to, he said, was to tone it down. And instead he looked at her and he said, listen, we're going to talk about this directly next week. Here's what we believe. You you you you may be I'm guessing you won't agree.
But if you're in such a Dark state. Maybe you need somebody to tell you the truth. And how he handled it was so impressive to me that it is possible to be completely truthful. and still welcome a person into your midst. While having those appropriate boundaries, it's gonna look different if you're in a church that has a membership model or a church that doesn't.
It's gonna look different. In terms of how big the church is, the age demographics that are at work. and how much space you can create there. For real transformation to take place. But but yes.
We want them in the church hearing the gospel over and over and over and over. if at all possible. Last story, several months ago, a same-sex couple showed up at our church. We had no idea. That it was a gay married couple.
And we ended up having the same journey with these two men. Sitting down with them, articulating what the Christian position is, them saying, you know, the church we were going to, which was an Episcopal church, all they did was affirm us. And we know that they can't, there's got to be more to Christianity than just telling us we're awesome.
So good on them for being willing to hear that. But they were only willing to hear so much. And when, you know, the truth about Uh what marriage really is and and how God ordained men and women. to be to be married and where sex fits into that and children. It was something they were not able to handle, but they were in our congregation.
They were in our midst for several months and they were able to hear the truth.
Now, they then have to respond to that. But we don't want to run people out. We don't want to run people out as long as we're able to, in particular, protect our children. Wow, that's fascinating. I would love to know, do you know what drew them to the church in the first place?
They were among the many young men in America that are curious about spiritual things. Wow, that's incredible.
Well, that is going to do it for the 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 a wonderful week, everybody. We'll see you all back here next time.
God bless.
