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 some recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court. We're also going to talk about the July 4th holiday and patriotism. What does it mean for Christians?
We are so glad you're with us this week. Please stick around. Welcome to Breakpoint This Week. On this week's episode, we're going to start with a special interview with a friend of our podcast, Ian Speer. He is a lawyer and a constitutional law expert who's going to talk with John Stone Street, president of the Coulson Center, about the slew of decisions that came down from the Supreme Court this week.
So we're going to start with that interview, and then you'll be back to hear more from John and me, Maria Baer. in just a few moments.
Well, it was a big week as far as the Supreme Court goes. This week in the calendar year typically is when we get a lot of the decisions that come out. Of the court that we've been waiting for most often. A lot of times the easier ones or the more straightforward ones come out earlier in the term and then some of these other ones. Take a little longer.
Maybe it's to wordsmith. Maybe it's to build suspense. Maybe it's all of the above. It's hard to know, but we did get some big decisions this week. And obviously, some of them that were, I think, first and foremost on people's minds had to do with some political realities, questions about immigration, and so on.
But from a Christian worldview, one of the most important ones of the term had to do with this question that we've been. uh wrestling with as a society, as a culture. Just in the last couple of decades, and that is what does it mean to be human? What does it mean to be male and female? And how does that affect everyday life?
And so, a big question. Court decision was issued this week on whether or not states could regulate. Keeping boys who identify as girls out of girls' sports. And this specifically had to do with the state. Of Idaho and the state of West Virginia, but really had impact beyond that.
I wanted to discuss this decision and some others.
So pleased to have here as a guest on Breakpoint this week, Ian Spears, somebody who's no stranger to the Breakpoint crowd, head of Covenant Law, and also, I don't know if I have to do this for legal disclosure. He's our attorney at the Colson Center. I don't know if I need to admit that or not. Ian, you can advise me as my attorney, whether that's necessary or not. Happy to admit that.
Well, that's good. That's good. We don't want to get you into too much trouble. Whether or not this constitutes some level of conflict of interest, neither one of us are getting rich because of it, so we can just move on. That's right.
That's right. So, look, I think this is an enormous decision. I don't think it's a decision that should have ever had to be considered. The very fact. That the Supreme Court is weighing in on something as obvious as what it means to be a boy and what it means to be a girl, to me, says a whole lot more about the state of America and the state of the American system than almost anything else.
But I'll let you kind of walk us through what are the details of this case and why is it significant? Yeah, so the case is called West Virginia versus BPJ. And as you noted, John, it actually does involve two different states, both West Virginia. And the state of Idaho. And the background here is that 27 states, along with the NCAA, the U.S.
Olympic Committee, and the International Olympic Committee. Have all barred biological males from competing in women's sports or girls' sports. They've all said: we're going to limit women's and girls' teams to women and girls, to biological females. Two of those 27 states are the ones that issue in this case, West Virginia and Idaho. And those laws were challenged by transgender athletes.
In both cases, these are. Boys, a boy or a man who identifies as a girl or a woman, and saying it's unlawful, it's inconsistent with Title IX or with the Equal Protection Clause under the Constitution. to exclude me from the women's or the girls team. Because I identify as a woman or a girl. And I mean, as you note, John, it is a little bit odd that we're at a point in the culture in the country where this is the sort of question that goes to the Supreme Court.
Here we are. And so. Thankfully, in this case, West Virginia versus BPJ, the Supreme Court ruled that schools can maintain women's and girls' sports for women and girls, that is, for biological females. and that there was no federal or constitutional right for men to compete. and women's sports.
And this is a welcome decision. It's a win for women and girls. It's a win for competitive fairness and safety. But it's also a win for. You know what we care about here at the Colson Center and at Breakpoint, it's a win for Christian worldview, it's a win for truth.
in reality and the the the beauty of um of creation and the way that God has created us, both male and female. You know, something I just want to point out before we get into the distinctives here, and I want to talk specifically about the the three justices that descended. And on what grounds they did that. And also, I want to talk about Gorsuch and Gorsuch's concurring opinion. Trying to make this decision line up with Bostock, which I can't quite figure out what he's trying to say there.
And so, and I think it's significant kind of on a legal level going forward. But just on a personal level, I think it's important to bring out something that Kristen Wagner of The Alliance Defending Freedom brought out on CNN because what we have had since is the The young man who is the client on the other side here in the West Virginia case with the name BPJ, right, is the initials. For this young man. who identifies as a girl. I mean, there's been some very sympathetic portrayals of this young man.
You know, the victim status has been kind of given to him in terms of now this. This guy will not be able to do what he has always dreamed of. And one of the things that got overlooked in this is that this is a young man who not only took away. hundreds of uh of titles and posit and wins. Uh from other girls.
But but also Threatened sexual abuse in the locker room. And when we talk about this, it's not just about whether girls can compete fairly, but also about safety issues. And I don't know if the court went as far as to actually say that that's what matters. And in this case, I mean, it had much more to do with kind of states' rights. But, you know, this young man threatened sexually, sexual violence on.
you know, other girls at Uh at the school. We also have this story now that came out of, I think, Minnesota, where a wrestler. is he appears to have sexually assaulted uh an opponent. Uh, during a wrestling match. I mean, so the safety issue is front and center here, and I don't want that to.
To go away, because I think when we talk about the differences between boys and girls, It's not just a competitive advantage. There's also kind of this aspect of it. which is it puts girls at risk. Right. The court didn't address those particular scenarios directly, but it did talk about the interest in safety.
Particularly when it comes to contact sports, so wrestling would be a great example of that. But, you know, other sports as well. Hockey. Uh, football, even flag football. Yeah, and you can certainly imagine others.
And the court said, look, there are inherent differences between girls and boys, between women and men. Um and so it's quite reasonable. In fact, it's compelling that uh that sports teams would be uh separated um and you'd have You'd have sports teams set aside. For girls and women. Uh to enable them to compete kind of on a level playing field.
The court also talked about the interest in competitive fairness.
So, I mean, to your point at the beginning of that, competitive sports are zero sum.
So every championship that this young man won, every title that he took, means that there's a girl who didn't. Uh who didn't have that title. Every biological male that stands on a a gold medal platform. In a women's competition, is taking that position away from a woman or a girl. And that in a sense is inherently unfair.
And the court said, well uh you know title nine was Titan I is the federal statute that bars sex discrimination in educational programs that are federally funded. Of course, one of the original intentions of that law was to equalize women's opportunity in sports. And what's happening now, what the court thankfully has put some something of a stop to is that equal opportunity has been taken away by these by these men and these boys. A really important decision by the court. I mean, you mentioned the issue of states' rights.
The court did not go so far as to hold that states must bar men from competing in women's sports. But importantly, to say that states may do that and they can maintain the Kind of distinction between the sexes with respect to teams.
Well, except for Clarence Thomas. I mean, he all but basically said that they should. I mean, he didn't quite go that far, but I mean, he made a very definitive statement. Like, it doesn't matter what these biological men say, they are not women. I mean, it was a definitive, he went further, I think, than anybody else.
And kind of it and you know, as Justice Thomas seems to do at times. Want to invite people, please, you know, let's address this part of the question, you know, in his concurring opinion. Yeah, I mean, he's fast become my favorite justice on the court and certainly one of my favorite in history. I think it's worth just quoting him in full. And I've got it right here.
In his concurrence in the decision, it's just excellent. He says men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls, even if they believe that they are. Sex is an immutable an immutable biological characteristic. It is binary, and man and woman, boy and girl are the terms that correspond to adults and children of each sex. To use language to obscure reality To show indifference regarding the truth is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens.
as equals. you couldn't get more clarity and uh more kind of pro-Christian worldview than that. And I'm not saying that he's Necessarily promulgating a Christian worldview through his concurrence, but certainly his views are consistent with one. And in fact, he quotes a German Catholic philosopher. Um as part of his concurrence, Joseph Pieper.
And uh so yeah, it's Yeah. Thank goodness for Justice Thomas. If only there were more of him on the court.
Well, you know, and I appreciate that the court really didn't have a question, you know, fully the safety question or specifically the accusations of abuse in this case or in others. But I just don't want that to go. I don't want to let that go because at some level, we were told this wouldn't happen. We were told this hasn't happened. And now we have another one that's happened.
And, you know, we only need to look at Loudoun County where, you know, allowing boys to go into girls' bathrooms and locker rooms has led to a systemic repeatable offense there with young men. And the people who are calling it out. This is not unlike what we have seen the accusations be in the UK when dads go and try to protect their daughters. They're the ones that get in trouble. That's what happened at the Virginia School Board.
And so, but the context of all this is we were told this isn't happening. And yet, this is happening, and it did happen in this story. You know, as well.
Okay, so legally speaking, you talked about equal protection and Title IX. Talk us quickly through both of those. Those things and how they differ, and why they mattered in this case. All right, yeah, so like I said, Title IX is a federal statute. The Equal Protection Clause, of course, is a Provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Title IX permits schools to have separate teams for men and women.
So that's built right into the statute. It's built right into the regulations for Title IX, and it has been basically from the beginning when it was enacted in the 1970s. And so all of the justices on the court in this case agreed that there's no real Title IX claim here. Did it surprise you that the dissents included that as well?
Well, it did because you would think that under Bostock, under certain interpretations of Bostock, which is. The Title VII decision holding that Federal anti-discrimination law protects transgender or protects LGBTQ classifications. You would think that that reasoning would have applied at least for some of the liberal justices in this case. They found ways around Bostock, and you raised that earlier. Whether they're convincing or not is.
Is uh In the eye of the beholder, I guess. But where the justices did differ with one another, and why you have some dissents in this case, is around the Equal Protection Clause.
So that's. That's a constitutional protection. It would apply to public schools, right?
So schools either K through 12 or public higher educational institutions. And what the Equal Protection Clause says is: if you have, if a law has a sex-based classification or it makes a sex-based distinction. Courts will subject it to something called intermediate scrutiny.
So that's not strict scrutiny. That's not like, you know, free speech violations. And it's not rational basis review, which is very deferential to governments and legislatures. It's something kind of in between. And what the court looks for is whether the classification is substantially related to an important government interest.
And here the court said it is, here the majority of the court said it is, because safety and competitive fairness are important government interests, particularly for women and girls. And this kind of classification, separate teams, advances that interest in kind of reasonable ways. The liberal justices disagreed with that particular aspect of the court's decision. But Justice Kavanaugh wrote a. You know.
A A pretty uh persuasive, I'd say, m uh opinion explaining why. Um you know, inherent differences between men and women. are not constitutionally suspect, at least when it comes to competitive sports.
Well, so let's let's hit the bow sock, because Gorsuch issued a very short concurring opinion in which he said, you know, this will appear to some as if it contradicts. Uh, what I wrote in Bostock, but actually, it confirms it. And I looked at it every single way that I could, and I just couldn't quite figure out what he was saying. I mean, if we remember, as you mentioned, the Bostock decision had to do with employment.
So, we're talking about Title VII in the Civil Rights Act. And this is Title IX that he's saying that it doesn't apply to for the same reason somehow, but I couldn't quite see how he got there. I'm glad he ruled and agreed with the majority here. and the majority opinion in this particular case. But do you think he's kind of looking back now going, yeah, I got that one wrong?
Yeah, I mean, I don't know that he would ever admit that. Perhaps he does think that his explanation for the difference between Bostock and this case is entirely unpersuasive. It doesn't make any sense to me. Justice Kavanaugh, in his majority opinion, says, well, Bostock involved employment and this, you know, this case involved sports. And those are like totally different contexts.
But both, you know, both are federal statutes. Both outlaw discrimination on the basis of sex. And so you'd think that some of that logic would apply. Justice Gorsuch and actually Justice Sotomayor and Dissent both seem to have a notion that, like, some sex-based distinctions are okay, like, some are good. And some are not okay, some are bad.
And we're going to, you know, we're going to draw some kind of lines between the good and the bad, where we're not going to exactly tell you like when we think they're good and bad. And so we're going to decide these based upon like case by case and not on. On principle, the So uh just a soda my order. She says, well. Uh all that Bostock really held was that Distinctions based on transgender status are a form of, are a kind of sex-based distinction.
but it didn't answer the question whether that was also unlawful discrimination.
So, there seems to be this additional kind of element now. If you're doing Bostock, you not only have to. Argue that this is a sex-based classification, but it's also like. unlawful discrimination. In other words, it's bad sex-based classification and not good.
I don't quite know what the differences between those are going to be over the long term. But I do want to highlight because the last time you and I talked on this program, we were talking about the Schermeti case.
So that was another kind of a case in the transgender area. It's a case where the state of Tennessee had outlawed certain kinds of medical treatments. designed for gender transitions with respect to children. And the Supreme Court in that case said. It was appropriate, it's rational.
For a state to outlaw those kinds of treatments, particularly in light of the unsettled science of whether those are actually good. or bad.
So that pumped the brakes on the medical aspect of the transgender movement. This case, West Virginia versus BPJ, really pumps the brakes on the The athletic aspect of the transgender movement.
So, both are positive, and both are grounded in, I think, a similar. Review that sex is in fact an immutable characteristic, as Justice Thomas says, and that it's not only rational for legislatures and regulators to make distinctions between men and women, it's actually a good thing. It promotes, you know, as this case emphasizes, promotes safety and fairness. I want to just hit one more case here that came out yesterday and obviously created a lot of news, particularly in the conservative blogosphere. Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts both joined in and basically said, look, birthright, citizenship stands.
It's in the Constitution.
Now, I think there's a lot to be said here about whether or not it should be in the Constitution, but the fact that it's there is kind of hard. To describe, and now we're kind of fiddling around with what did the framers mean, and now we have a whole different set of circumstances, and was it a wise ruling, and so on. I just want to get here because in terms of As we look at this, I may think, and I do, that birthright citizenship is unwise and it's something especially that's being exploited, and we have clear proof of that. But I'm also an originalist. I'm also someone who looks at the Constitution and I say, look, it's there.
So if we want to change it, we need to go through the process. I didn't like back in the 90s. When the court was basically making law and legislating from the bench. And if I didn't like that when the left is doing it, I shouldn't like that when a quote-unquote conservative court.
Now, one could also say too: this whole narrative that we've heard in the media that this is Trump's court, this should all, this term alone should just demonstrate that the court is willing to do what the court is willing to do. And that is an unfounded accusation. That said, people, I think, are in a little bit of a tizzy here between what we think that. Whether we like this particular thing that's in the Constitution and whether we want a court that's ruling from the bench. How do you adjudicate that as?
Someone who knows more about this than I do.
Well, let me preface this by saying that the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment is not my particular area of expertise. But I will say the decision in this case, it's actually called Trump versus Barbara. Is the name of the case. It's just the birthright citizenship case. Is a really fascinating sort of comparison of judicial methods.
So, Chief Justice Roberts writes the majority opinion, which is joined by Justice Barrett and the three liberal justices. And Justice Thomas writes a 91-page dissent in the case. both the majority and Thomas in dissent, are trying to Divine or determine and understand the original meaning of the citizenship clause, like what its words actually mean, what did the framers of that clause post Civil War in the Reconstruction period, what did they intend when they used specific words? And they have different ideas. About what that means.
They're relying upon different strands of history to kind of construct meaning out of this. This text.
So in some sense, John, the fights of the 90s were decided in our favor, so to speak. If you care about original meaning and you care about text. And you care about constraining judicial interpretations. That is actually on display in both sets of opinions in the birthright citizenship case. It's just that that doesn't necessarily resolve all questions.
There are still questions about how you read the history and which parts of the history. you look to and what weight is that you know, historical evidence entitled to versus This You know, we're going to be reckoning with the results, the outcome of this decision, I think, for a long time. And we probably don't fully understand the ways in which we're going to have to reckon with it. Because as you say, circumstances have changed considerably from the post-Civil War period till now. Um and our laws are in some sense being exploited.
Birth tourism is an issue that's continually come up. Justice Thomas mentions it in his dissent in that case. But just as an example or a comparison or like a foray into judicial method, read the decision because it really is fascinating on multiple levels.
Well, Ian, thanks so much. There's more we could talk about, but we're out of time here for this segment. Thanks for giving us a little bit of an insight, particularly on this really important case. I got one more question. I just learned today of a case that's going before the Australian High Court.
Have you heard about this case? I don't think so. Tickle versus Giggle. No. Have you heard of Tickle versus Giggle?
You're pulling my leg. I am not making this up, and it is a court case. It is a court case that has to do with men and women spaces. You cannot make this stuff up. The woman who is being sued and has been found already against, she's appealing it now, spoke at the art conference in London.
It's worth seeing the video. But it's something at some point you and I need to talk about, tickle v. Giggle. You just can't make it. When you start thinking, why is the Supreme Court actually being forced to deal with these things?
Well, at least we don't have to deal with that at like Australia. Yeah. In other parts of the world. Laughing all the way to the court.
Okay. Laughing all the way. Ian, thanks so much for being a part of Breakpoint this week. Always a pleasure, John. Thank you.
Christians are people of hope. We might not feel like we have hope, but there is hope. There's hope for the story of the world. As Christians, our hope isn't simply wishful thinking, our hope is rooted in Christ Himself. Truthrising the Study is a free study and explores the four truths that ground authentic hope.
Christ is arisen, Christ is Lord, Christ is making all things new, and He has placed us here for this time and place. Take the next step in understanding hope that is anchored in Christ. Sign up for Truthrising the Study at Colsoncenter.org/slash study. That's colsoncenter.org slash study.
Well, welcome back to Breakpoint this week. Thank you again to Ian Speer for helping us weed through the decisions from the Supreme Court this past week. But now you're back with me, Maria Baer. from the Coulson Center for Christian Worldview with John Stone Street. And we're going to get into the rest of our show this week.
John, as you and I are sitting down to talk, we are heading into the July 4th weekend. And this is a big July 4th, it's the 250th anniversary. Of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. You know, I heard from some people in the administration. That there was some, like for a while, it was confusing whether, how do we refer to this?
Do we call it an anniversary? Do we call it a birthday? Do we call it a reclaiming? Do we call it a renewal? I feel like that's a little bit of a sign of the times.
And I want to talk with you about. this anniversary slash birthday slash renewal. Because you mentioned when you and I were talking yesterday that from people who experienced the 200th birthday of the United States, that they've expressed, some of them have expressed that this feels a little different than then. What do you think that they mean?
Well, I don't know that everyone would say that, but I think it's pretty obvious. I don't have a memory of, you know, 1976. I was alive. I was six months old. But I do have a memory of.
You know, as a child at my grandparents' house or my other grandparents' house, or even at our own house, you know, as you're a little kid and the Especially a fourthborn boy that no one may or you know, pe people may or may not notice sneaking away. Yeah, I mean, I sympathize with this, by the way, having a fourth child that's just kind of like, oh yeah, I've got to parent that kid. But anyway, you find things laying around the house. And I found tons of stuff in my house, my grandparents' house that. You know, spoke to the fact of this celebration of 1776.
And this would have been, you know, a couple of years later when I was conscious enough to know what I was. what I was finding. But I remember like. Books and knickknacks and souvenirs and things that were just acquired during that year. And earlier this week, I was doing a weekly segment that I do for the World and Everything In It podcast, and both Nick and Myrna, who are a little older than I am.
You know, they remember that. They remember, by the way. Yeah. They remember the celebration of 1776. And it's interesting, they sensed the difference between the patriotism.
That was kind of universal 50 years ago and where we are now. And I think it's an interesting conversation. Patriotism. has to be cultivated. Patriotism itself is a result of Of thinking about yourself in a particular way and understanding your identity in a particular way.
And I think that it's probably clear that it's. seemed differently than it was. At least on scale, there's a lot of people not proud to be an American. There's a lot of people. That are not sure what that means.
You know, and where did that come from? I think is an interesting question, but it seems like almost like a self. You know, since we're talking about truths that are self-evident, that it seems self-evident that we're not in the same place we were as a nation thinking about ourselves. And our purpose, you know, as the last time we went through this kind of a year.
Okay, well, we have to be nice to Nick and Myrna because they may be older than you, but I don't think they remember the celebrations of 1776. They probably remember that. I did, and I let it go so that I could make that joke.
Well, let me ask you, John, why do you think it's different? Why do you think it's more muted, maybe this celebration? Or people, I get that sense too. It's kind of like if you're happy about it or you're celebrating, you've got to be hushed about it a little bit, or you have to caveat it at the beginning with the fact that you recognize all of our national sins and that we haven't done everything perfectly, but. And I don't think it was like that always.
What do you think has brought that on?
Well, yeah, I think that's a good question. I mean, I think that it's very hard to maintain a nation, much less excitement about a nation, if you don't have strong civic education. And I think it's obvious we don't have strong civic education. If what people fundamentally learn is the mistakes. That a nation has made, and ours has.
There's no need for us to whitewash history or to somehow, you know, ignore. things that we got very, very, very wrong. But we maybe have gone from telling just one side of the story to telling just. You know, the other side of the story, and nothing in between. I mean, you actually have people who.
who say out loud on programs that in the past. Past as news programs that, you know, this is the most racist nation, for example, in the history of the earth. That people have it worse off now than they did, you know, 100 years ago. I mean, just things that are just absurdly not true. And yet it passes for kind of a hot take.
And why is that? I think it has to do with, you know, that sort of stuff has to be cultivated and can't be cultivated without citizenship. I also think though there's a missed opportunity this year and I think that there's a lot of guilt on this one to be spread around. Patriotism. Can't be upheld with partisanship.
I think there's been a lot of confusion on this. I think basically. There is a way to celebrate being an American. I think the other thing is that we've missed an opportunity this year where there is a lot of reclaiming that could be done. But everything's just so partisan.
And part of that's just what's in the water. Everything's partisan. Politics takes the air out of the room. And politics can actually rob you of patriotism, right? I mean, look, it's one thing.
When everyone agrees on where we're supposed to get to, but we disagree on how to get there. That's kind of politics disagreeing on how to get to where we're trying to get to. But we don't agree on where we're trying to get to. And you have one side basically calling any sort of patriotism partisanship, and you have the other side saying, unless you're with our side. You're not allowed to be patriotic because you're not really patriotic.
And so I think that there was a real opportunity this year of maybe doing some things that could be unifying. And by and large, it hasn't happened. And so I think that's another part of the story. That's my guess. What do you think?
I mean, why aren't we patriotic? I agree because I think a lot of it is because we've shifted the definition of patriotic in the way that you're suggesting, where it's become political. But people think of it less like the, I think the founding fathers certainly wrote about it. In so much as we think of being patriotic as signing on to the project of the leaders of our country. Like whatever they're doing currently, we agree with it and we like it.
Or that we were claiming team allegiance rather than patriotism being something like, I am so grateful that I live in a system that was set up where I have. this level of autonomy and self-governance and where we have Enjoyed for so long and still really do, especially relative to the rest of the world, safety and order. And that recognizing that has not been the norm for human history, and that the reason we've largely done that is because most of us. Have agreed to a level of self-governance, and we have an agreed-upon set of at least norms. You know, we have until this point, I guess, and that that's something worth celebrating.
That we've we've decided, we decided to celebrate as a nation the development of individual virtue. And those virtues included self-sacrifice and kindness and protection of life and those kind of things. With all the caveats that we haven't done it perfectly, but I think of that as patriotism, like being proud of the system that you're a part of and that you, by your own self-governance, help to uphold. If we thought of patriotism more like that, and of course, that entails also being proud of the men and women. That built this system and that kept it going, that have defended it over a series of.
centuries and wars and you know, plagues and everything else that has Bedeviled the country.
So it's being thankful for the people that came before us, being thankful for the system that we're in, and being proud that I do whatever small part I do to uphold it. I think of that as patriotism. But I don't think everybody does. I think largely it's become a political term that means is synonymous with signing on to whatever we're up to at any given moment. Almost like a cheerleading without any sort of ownership, right?
And there's a disconnected from the past. I think that's required. Yeah. Yeah. Well, on that note, John, so with regards to the founding fathers, now we, I think you and I both have watched the Ken Burns American Revolution documentary.
My favorite part of watching that, it's several episodes on PBS, is that at the beginning they always have to thank their sponsors. And the title of the documentary is The American Revolution.
So they always say, The American Revolution was made possible by Viking cruises. And I'm like, I don't think that they subsidized the colonial army, but it just sounds funny. But we've been learning a lot about we've been watching it with our older daughter about the founding fathers. And so, you know, of course, the writings of John Adams are most poignant on this point, but they talk a lot about virtue development and how virtue is required for people to be self-governing. What do you think are the virtues that are required for self governance and peace and law and order?
And do we still have them?
Well, I think that there's a sense of morality that has to order liberty. And that's fundamentally what is kind of guiding the framing. And as Oz Guinness, I think, has written really well about, that sets apart the vision of the American Revolution and the American founding from others that were happening at the same time. I mean, you can look at. revolutions that were really just guided around throwing off tyranny.
and acquiring liberty. The idea of ordered liberty and liberty that's ordered by a moral vision of life, that's something else, right?
Now we're not talking about something as As trivial as or as dangerous as autonomy, you know, which is the French version of things. Right. I mean, it's kind of defined in the last verse of Judges. You know, at this time, there was no king in Israel, and everyone did. what was right in your own eyes you know if you have You have to have both of those conditions that have the moral disaster that the book of Judges is talking about, right?
If you don't have a king, but people do what's right in God's eyes, then people don't need a king. Right. If people don't do what's right, but you have a king that keep makes people do what's right, you know, now you have it's kind of the conscience or the constable kind of thing. And the idea of self-governance is that you have to be morally formed in order to have. Kind of that ability to govern yourself in the right way.
And that's the vision that's at the heart of this. That this is something that we are to steward. It's a vision and a process that can be built. That building will give people incredible opportunity, and it did, and it has. But it has to be stewarded because untethered freedom, freedom from any vision of the good, is freedom that actually becomes self-slavery.
In just a couple of weeks, we're going to talk about in a breakpoint commentary something that I knew very little about until One of the folks in our editorial group brought it up, Andrew Carrico. about the Northwest Ordinance. And the Northwest Ordinance, you know, we typically think was Kind of how do we deal with this territory that's not part of the 13 colonies immediately after the revolution? We're talking about really even before the first Constitution was ratified. This was actually d determined and thought through after.
under the Articles of Confederation. And basically, what they're saying in this new territory is: A, there's not going to be slavery here, which is a fascinating thing to hear before the Constitution. We actually have people trying to apply the principles of the Declaration. And of course, Even Jefferson played a role in ensuring that the Northwest Ordinance would basically Determine that this territory was going to be free and not slave. And of course, Jefferson's completely inconsistent in his own life.
And see, that's the whole thing: you have these principles around which we're to aspire. This idea that there's a vision of life that is aspirational and it's not just everyone doing what's right in their own eyes. That's a really remarkable thing that you see right off the bat. And that there was going to be educational opportunity. Ensured and protected and established.
And why?
Well, because people needed a religious and a moral vision of life and they needed to acquire knowledge.
So they saw that religion, morality, and knowledge being kind of. This inseparable package deal that needed to frame out. This vision. Of course, a lot of this moral vision, as I say, and I don't think we can say this too often, was aspirational. It wasn't.
It wasn't right on the ground, but this speaks to the kind of project that this was. That this was a project that was ideational, not sensei, to use the words of Petirum Sorokin, the sociologist. And we've talked about that here before, but that's a really helpful framework to understand. The difference between the French Revolution and the American Revolution, for example, or other revolutions. When the goal was basically to just do whatever you want, that devolves into kind of an anarchy.
that devolves into people just living for what they want. And if that ends up being pleasure instead of some kind of a long-term or higher kind of vision of success. Then you're going to have a very short-sighted vision, and that vision is not going to be able to secure any sort of progress going forward. The idea of an ideational society is that you lay out these ideals, these ideals that aren't yet acquired, that aren't yet. Shaping Everything about it.
It wasn't a reality on the ground, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and all men are created equal and down by their Creator, but it was an aspiration. And you could see that aspiration shape the Northwest Ordinance almost, you know, just 20 years later. And the idea. Of basically that slavery was a good comes in actually a generation later, and people are abandoning the principles, these ideals. That the Declaration sets forward, even calling them bad things as opposed to good things.
So, you know, this is a real wrestle with a moral vision. The history of America, the first couple hundred years. This is a real wrestling with. moral principles that are bigger than the nation, that are higher than the nation. They're not subject to a king's fiat or just, you know, these are big, big visions that I think it bears fruit.
And you see that it bears fruit. But The fruit's not inevitable. And I think that's. maybe one of the sources of the loss of patriotism is If you lose that vision, you can't expect the fruit to continue. It's like.
you know the um What Oz Guinness calls that cut, or you know, talks about quoting somebody else, the cut flower civilization that we have. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's true. I think patriotism is a collective and individual project, just like the Republic is collective and individual. On the individual level, we tend to think more now.
This is a generality, but in terms of like whose fault is it that things aren't ideal, that we haven't reached the ideal we were looking for, that if we don't feel like all men are created equal, whose fault is it? And it's definitely not mine, and it's someone else's, and therefore there's some injustice. And also, I've lost a little bit of agency because of that worldview, and then everything just continues to break down from there. But let me read this quote from the Northwest Ordinance because Part of the motivation for the Northwest Ordinance, if I may, point of privilege, was that George Washington loved Ohio and he loved the territory of Ohio and he really wanted to settle it. And one of the first, I think the first university settled in Ohio was Ohio University, your girls alma mater.
And over the college green, there's a stone arch that says this quote from the Northwest Ordinance. Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind. Schools and the means of education shall for ever be encouraged. Which is a beautiful quote, and I love is over college green at Ohio U. But just gets to exactly what you're saying.
As you were talking, I was thinking of, you know, just any project you undertake that It requires practice or the development of skill, like learning a sport, learning an instrument. You have an end goal in mind, even if it's something abstract, like being able to play proficiently or whatever it is. You're gonna go through times of practice and skill acquisition that will be fun and encouraging and feel like you're doing something, you're on the right path, and there will be times of. Drudgery and discouragement, but you will always have that ideal in mind. You know, the difference now is that we, like you said, we don't always have those ideals in mind because we don't think of them as being, we don't think of it as being a.
Product of personal development. Like, I want to be the kind of person that can self-govern. We think of it now as I want to live a certain way and I hope everybody else makes that possible for me. if that makes sense. And that's those are two very, very different things.
But let me ask you. Just as a Christian. Do you think it's appropriate or mandatory or wrong? for a Christian American to feel patriotic.
Well, Christian American, that's an interesting conversation. I mean, do we have the things that are part of our story, that are part of our nation, that are worth celebrating? And I think the answer is. Yes, do we do that at the expense of calling out evil as evil? And the answer is no, we've got to be able to make that moral distinction.
It is the moral distinction itself that we're talking about here. that without that, we're not going to be able to move forward. And Christians are allegiant first and foremost, not to a nation, but to a kingdom and so the question is is there alignment between the loyalty that we have to a particular nation and to this overarching vision of the kingdom of God. And there are plenty of Christians who say no. Their theological framing says that that's actually Uh impossible.
The reason that I think that it it is possible and even necessary to some degree, even if it doesn't have the same kind of volume of cheerleading that maybe I would have or that other. Patriotic American Christians would have. The reason I think at some level it's necessary is because we are in particular times and places. And the observation of a Christian worldview is that. We are living in this kind of large redemptive story of God working through history, but we're at a particular time and place within that story.
There's a you are here element to it. And that you are here, you know, Paul talks about to the Athenians being kind of a thing of a... Of a time and place, you know, the boundaries of our dwelling place, he talks about.
So we could have been born somewhere else, but we weren't. I've always been struck by a line from Father Richard John Newhouse, the founder of the First Things Journal, and someone who collaborated. With Chuck Colson a lot. And I always think his framing of this is really helpful.
Something he said years ago in which he got a lot of trouble. For uh he said When I meet God, I expect to meet him as an American. Yeah. What he meant by that isn't that being an American is the only way to meet God, or being an American is somehow the best way to meet God. He didn't really have a choice in the matter.
You know, I mean, he was born in an American context. And so you can't kind of separate that reality, that part of your identity from. But from your story. You're there. And if we're to steward something, we have to steward something specific.
People have talked about this, you know, people who say, I'm for all mankind. We're if you're for all mankind, but if you never get around to helping the person who's right beside you, you're not really for humans. And if you're for all nations, but you don't actually take care of the nation that you are a part of. What does that mean? There's a specificity that has to do with our human limitations.
And even if you're not excited about it. You know, I don't think it's wrong. For Christians born in different situations that are just dreadfully bad to not be patriotic. But They do have a responsibility to steward the time and place that they're in, just like we have a responsibility to steward the time and place that we're in. And maybe that is a best definition that I know of of patriotism.
It has something to do with stewardship. It's our steward it it's stewarding kind of who we are. in the national part of this. And this isn't something we choose. This is something clearly that's chosen for us.
And if I and put here in this time and place. then faithfulness to God will have. patriotic implications. It will have implications as a citizen. The laws that I'm him to obey, which is most of them, and even the laws at times were To obey God, I can't obey them.
Those are acts of patriotism. because it's the connection of my ultimate loyal uh loyalties. to um the time and place that God's put me in. The implication here is, I mean, is also can be seen in the idea of Augustine's City of God, that there's the city of God and the City of Man, and citizens of the City of God should be the best citizens of the City of Man. And I think all that plays in there.
And we need that framework. I think that. We've lost that framework. I think it's too easy to kind of reduce our identity down. Especially when we're feeling like we're trying to protect our nation.
From really bad things, as a lot of people are, that we are Americans first and Christians second. But the best Americans will be Christian first. The best Americans will be those who are loyal first and foremost to God and that moral vision. of life, that understanding of who we are, that understanding of every person. including those that are different from us as made in the image of God.
loyalty to categories of dignity and and equality. that I that I think were implied in as you pointed out Things that some of our founders wrote, Adams and Jefferson and others, even if they didn't live it out, these ideals are based on some framing, some vision of the world. And they may not have gotten it all right, but when it aligns, we can celebrate it, and we should celebrate it, and we should protect it. When they didn't get it right, to a large degree, they lamented it, or we at least lament it now. I mean, it.
You know, you hear in this documentary, we're hearing about the Continental soldiers just being. You know, like looting towns and treating people horribly and deserting and betraying each other. And, you know, but they, again, they had ideals that were good, capital G good that they were working towards, you know, and that that's. Important, you know, and I would say to what you said, too, sometimes it is chosen. Like when Uh immigrants That comes to this country tend to be some of the most patriotic Americans.
And I think it's largely because they have the wisdom of experiencing. Cultures that were not based on these ideals and that don't uphold them or try to and don't try to work towards them. And that's really special. That's how I feel about it. I feel patriotic, but I feel.
Patriotic in a almost like a lucky way, in the same way, although to a much higher degree, that I feel fortunate to have been born after Christ came. And that I didn't live before and have to be looking for a messiah kind of thing, you know? But. But I also, then that makes me feel motivated and proud to, again, kind of do my duty in whatever small way I can to uphold, like to be self-governing, to teach my kids to be self-governing, to be thankful for the system we've got and the freedom we have. to be to notice and to lament and to help where we can.
Other places and other brothers and sisters in particular who don't have these freedoms and And all of that is part of it. Yeah. You know, this might be a stretch, but it's something I noted on the World P podcast this week. And I've been thinking about it even since. It was one of those kind of thoughts that occurred to me in a stream of consciousness.
Because when you think about the patriotism that you do see, And the most recent example was last night when we were recording here on a Thursday.
So we're talking about Wednesday when America wins the World Cup game. And you have a unified group of people chanting USA and then singing John Denver, you know, Country Road. And it was a heck of a red card issue, yes.
Well, that's a whole thing. And everyone's on, you know, against the rough, but good heavens, what a free kick there. Unbelievable. Just like scientific precision. Beautiful.
You love it when you see all that come together and all that. But people are talking, for example, about Freddie and some of the other Europeans who come over, and they're just fascinated. And what are they fascinated by? What are they excited about? They became kind of pro-America.
I think it was because, A, they were expecting something worse, and what they got was something way better in terms of how they were treated and so on. And that's wonderful. But you also think about kind of the everyday Americana. Because if you're coming from Europe, if you're coming from Germany, if you're coming from France, You're coming from the UK. I mean, our buildings are pretty cool in DC, but they're not really that old compared to the buildings that they have, right?
I mean, we can't really compare. We do have Central Air. Very cool. Airporting is going to be a big, big, big, big part of it. But it's like Buckies.
And it's like, you know, these stadiums that are amazing in all these different towns that they're going to.
Well, he had one post too where he showed up in Amish Country, Ohio, which is one of our favorite places to visit, especially in the fall. But very, very small, unassuming town, not a lot of electricity, like a beautiful place. And yeah. I guess what I'm trying to get at it, it may be a little bit of a stretch. When Alexis de Tocqueville comes over and he talks about What's happening in America?
Yeah. America's not getting a lot right. They are getting some things right, but it's growing and there's such a level of social energy. And he talks about the exceptionalism, not of the individual, not that somehow, you know, if you're part of. the America, you're part of this blood and soil that somehow you're a better person than others.
or that somehow Americans are better than the Europeans. As individuals. Or even, it's not even so much in terms of the overarching system. I mean, we talk about the genius of the balance of powers, and we talk about the genius of. The moral genius of George Washington giving up power which was unheard of and unseen in world history.
But what the TOEFA really talks about is the strength of America in its middle. That there is a sense of responsibility and care that between the big government and the individual citizen are layer upon layer upon layer of these mediating institutions, these voluntary associations, these People not waiting for the government to do stuff for them. But choosing to actually build and to create and to innovate and to find ways forward and to do the best that they can. To solve local problems. And none of this is perfect.
And it all happens in starts and stops. And it all happens by sinful individuals working together with other sinful individuals. And sometimes the sinfulness is what comes to the surface as opposed to some sort of remarkable product. But it is an interesting framing that America has something to protect and to celebrate in its middle. And that's what.
These World Cup fans seem to be seeing. They're seeing that stuff. They're not seeing some kind of grand. History. I mean, you go to my daughters, they have traveled to Europe this summer for various reasons, and they're sending these pictures of these amazing structures.
I don't know. That there is a congregation anywhere that could build a church that looks like the kind of churches that they've seen. And that requires a level of worldview. Could we build cathedrals like that today? Would we care about it?
Should we? I mean, all that's such interesting conversations. But there's also a level of what you see in the United States that you don't see around the world. in terms of just every day.
solving of problems and and taking care of self and And and and framing around a kind of a vision of life. Have we lost a lot of that? It does seem that we have lost a lot of that, and there's going to be huge consequences. But that seems to be what these Europeans are seeing when they're coming over.
So I don't know. I was just thinking about that this week and how it relates to the fourth because it seems to be an interesting part of the story. Yeah, I love that.
Well, Dawn, let's take a break. We'll be right back with more breakpoints this week in just a moment. Has AI made humans replaceable? Do the promises of AI outweigh the perils? What does it mean to be human in an AI age?
These are just some of the questions we'll be exploring during a free live stream event on August 6th. We'll be joined by John Stone Street, Abdu Murray, Gretchen Heisinga, and John Lennox, leading thinkers on faith and AI, who will help us understand how to navigate this new technological landscape, considering our role as image-bearers of God. This event is free, but registration is required. Register today at colsoncenter.org/slash livestream. That's colsoncenter.org slash livestream.
We're back on breakpoint this week. John, I want to hit some questions now. I loved that segment just talking about the nation and happy birthday, America, by the way. I'm going to choose to call this a birthday. It's our 250th birthday.
We've been saying that all week. We're taking a special America trip with our kids. And we keep calling it America's birthday. And finally, my youngest yesterday said, how old is she?
So we got to have that conversation. But I do want to spend a couple of minutes on some questions that we've gotten. I want to start with this one about disability, Americans with disabilities, because you were just mentioning what is the role of government and that kind of thing.
So the Trump administration Recently put out a memo, you know, changing the way that the government funds. in-home care for people with disabilities. And there have been a lot of raised alarms about this, that this is going to inevitably lead to more institutionalization of people with disabilities because the funding will supposedly change, potentially decrease, it looks like, for in-home care. What do you think about this?
Well, the DOJ memo was just that it was a memo and it was reflecting on a very specific part of the Disability Rights Act, which was essentially the government required to basically fully include. Citizens with disability and to everything. Is that what the law actually states?
So it was more of a legal analysis than anything else. The reflection on the memo was basically saying that because The administration did not read the Disability Rights Act as saying, you know, you have every state has to do all of these things all the time. didn't see it as much of a mandate that that was going to then lead to the institutionalization of people with disability of any kind. That just seems uh to be a um reading this uh in the worst possible light. But I also think that I understand the concern because there is a history of the United States.
And most of the world ostracizing and removing these people that have disability. From society and institutionalizing at an early level, I saw this. Up close and personal when I lived in Jamaica after college. That there were sanitori uh sanitariums and that these are disgusting places in which Kids who need a lot of care and a lot of help don't get it. They're just basically removed.
And they're fed and they're bathed with garden hoses while they're. It was horrific. It's really hard to imagine these things. This is the norm in many places around the world as uh folks at Johnny and Friends and others who have ministered to these people for so long, What will tell you. And to go backwards in this area would be a great, great, great tragedy.
The the problem with reframing the direction of caring for those with disability in a less of an inclusive direction and more of a direction that kind of pulls them away from everyday life and so on. Is that it gets us off a trajectory of showing more dignity? and respecting the dignity of these individuals than basically compromising that dignity. And we have gone in a really positive direction. As far as that goes over the decades, and we need to continue to go in that direction as much as we can.
It's not an efficiency question because if you're dealing with all of this just based on. financial concerns, then you're not going to come to this conclusion. You're going to come up with ways to basically financially judge the value of individuals, and it's not going to go well.
Now How much responsibility does this on the federal government? Is this memo doing that? I think that's an overread of what I see in this memo. I think that the reaction to the memo is right in line with people who think that anything that comes out of this particular administration Has the worst possible concerns that is the worst possible that you can possibly think of and probably worse. And I didn't see that as I read through the memo.
Any of that, but but I do think that it was not that long ago. That individuals with disability were not treated in the ways that they should be, and that as a people, we have a responsibility to honor that dignity. And the alternative is so much worse when you think about what is the norm around the world and what is the norm in human history. We do not want to go backwards. We want to go forwards.
Now, maybe there's ways we can be more precise, we can be more efficient. But efficiency and precision cannot be the ultimate standards by which we live when you talk about human dignity.
Okay, now shifting to Venezuela.
So, you and I talked about the earthquakes there last week and the Venezuelan government. We got a comment from a Colson fellow who is. Living in the United States, but from Venezuela, he says that. Unfortunately, he said you mentioned the overthrow of the Maduro government and Maduro being The former dictator that we've arrested and who's now on American soil. And this Colsonfellow says: unfortunately, the same government dictatorship.
that has been in power for almost 30 years is really still in control. Yes, Maduro is in jail and no longer rules, but everyone else in government and the military that Maduro appointed are still in charge. And then he says that he has a friend who still lives in Venezuela who wrote to him and said that he's really hoping that these recent earthquakes, which the death toll and the missing toll just continues to rise astronomically. It's really heartbreaking. But his hope is that this causes some kind of political shock or waking up and that it will foster change.
Do you see that maybe happening? I don't know. But I appreciated this correction. I think that the Colstonfellow was exactly right in just saying, look, using the language of the Maduro government being overthrown is not Clear just because Maduro is arrested. You know, these are very, very difficult things.
to parse through and really at the heart of it is a way of thinking about life and the world. that shapes this government. And until that's unseated and there's a new vision put in place, it's just that you're going to get a lot of the the same.
Now I do think without Maduro, it's an easier place to control. And I think that's what the administration thinks and that's what the United States thinks. But This correction was exactly right. And so, yeah, I appreciated that. And I appreciated his.
His perspective as a Venezuelan, heartbroken, not only over the disaster of the earthquakes, but also because of the. the system that is in place that makes the the reaction and the care and the disaster relief so much more inefficient. you know because of that that context. It's it's it's absolutely brutal.
Okay, last but not least, we got a sweet note from a grandfather. He says he's concerned about his grandchildren because so many seem to turn away from their faith because maybe they know what they should believe but not why they should believe it. He is asking if you have a suggestion for a good system for teaching kids why they should believe what we believe. Yeah, I think the system is what the Bible says, which is exactly reflected in the concern of this grandfather, which is the system is that the old teach the young.
So the system's you, dude. The system is you with your grandkids.
So you learn about your faith and you walk and spend time and be with them. And I appreciate it specifically as a grandfather. I'm a big fan of the work of the Legacy Coalition. This is a group of. Grandparents, it's a grandparent ministry, it's a ministry to grandparents.
That basically are saying we're going to be intentional grandparents because right now the narrative is. If you're old. Then your job is to move to Florida and send checks for the birthday and leave an inheritance and nothing else. They're saying, well, look, you have a responsibility for your children and grandchildren. And of course, that's been complicated in our culture because of the quick cancellation, particularly between grandparents and and grandkids and grandparents and and and and parents and I hear about this all the time.
But the investment to stay involved in the life of your grandkid is the most important thing. And if they're seeing in you that you're learning more about the faith and you're studying more, then this gives you the capacity, the knowledge to continue to push that in. You will have a bigger influence than any class, than any curriculum, than any program. That you can send your grandkids through, or any book that you can make them read. That said, there are wonderful resources out there.
It's just they're not as successful. It's kind of like this: a good teacher with a bad curriculum still gives you a good class. A bad teacher with a good curriculum is a bad class. In other words, the secret sauce, the necessary component here is the person, the individual. And the same thing is true here.
We can give you a lot of good books. You got to stay engaged. as much as you can in the life of your grandkid. And it'll have an incredible, incredible influence in the long run. What are some books?
I would point you first and foremost as when they're little to start talking about the Bible as the story of the world and not just individual Bible stories.
So as you're reading to your kid, pick up the big picture study Bible.
Sorry, the big picture story Bible from Crossway. It's a wonderful place to start. And you'll have a lot of fun reading that. The Jesus Storybook Bible is a good one as well. To utilize, I also want to point to things that you can do when they get a little bit older.
So, there are wonderful programs and conferences that you can help sponsor. And I know a lot of grandparents, for example, that make this a condition. Like, if you're going to get financial help from me, for you to go to college. And then you got to go to Summit first. Summit's a great resource.
The Worldview Academy, great resource. These are programs: the immersion program and the Propel program. from Impact 360 Institute. These are all places in which students are really challenged to think about what they believe, to own their faith. And then I would also suggest mission trips.
Like take your grandkids not just on. Vacations. But on trips and programming and conferences, we have Grandparents that bring grandkids to the Colson Center National Conference. for this framing and parents that bring their children. Because there's an intentionality about kind of going, you know what, this is important.
We're going to go think and learn about this together. And then that relational dynamic between generations that I've said already, and I'll say it again, irreplaceable. When you put that to work around really good content. Then that's an awful lot of fun, and you can see some fruit there.
So, hopefully, that helps. I had breakfast this morning with one of my cousins. I have 17 cousins on my mom's side, and we lost our grandpa two years ago now, and he's still. Has an incredible impact on my life and her life and all of my cousins' lives. That's the other thing: when you have a grandparent like that, Devoted, steadfast believer.
He's a large part of the reason I'm a believer. Your impact on your kids and grandkids' lives goes way beyond even your life. I think it just extends beyond that.
So, love you, Grandpa.
Well, that's gonna do it for our July 4th edition of Breakpoint This Week. Thank you again to Ian Speer, and thank you for listening from the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. I'm Maria Baer alongside John Stone Street. We'll see you all back here next time. Happy 4th.
