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 break down some of the election results from earlier this week and talk about what it reveals about where we are as a culture. We're so glad you're with us this week. Stick around. Welcome to Breakpoint this week.
From the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, I'm Maria Bear, alongside John Stone Street, president of the Colson Center. John, I feel like something happened this week, but I can't remember what it was. Did we go vote? We voted. There was an election this week.
So obviously we are not—we're not a political show that's going to sit down and tell you all the political indications of everything that happened and why. Oh, but it's so tempting. Are you sure? Are you sure we can't? Is it tempting?
I feel like there's almost too much of that happening. But well, maybe. But take me to Johnstone Street's reaction to Tuesday.
Well, I mean, listen. The reason it's appropriate to talk about it on a show that's not political, but that focuses in on the cultural, is that we live in a cultural moment that is dominated by the political, and. I don't want to use that just as an excuse, but there is a reality, something we've talked about really oftentimes here, and that is that there's something called the political illusion, illusion that can affect both individuals and entire cultures. the The way that it affects individuals is people think, as Jackie Lul, who coined this phrase, said. Is that if my party is in power, or if my man is in power, then all will be well, and if my man is not in power, all will be lost.
And so you talk about it, and it and it impacts how you think about everything, and in terms of just political results. I think on a cultural level, what a political illusion looks like is just if you think about culture, I think in its various spheres, each sphere. Carries its own weight, but when a disproportionate amount is carried by the political process, when a disproportionate amount of the of the cultural discourse and the narratives are political by nature, then you're basically asking the the the political process to do more than it can do. It's it's carrying you know too much weight. And we've also talked here before about kind of historically, at least, a classic understanding of conservatism is not just based on certain moral principles, but it's also based on the idea of self-governance, and that self-governance is assisted and helped by intermediating institutions or mediating structures.
In other words, there's something else, a whole bunch of other things, in fact, between the individual citizen and the big state. And that's a million ways in which individuals build culture. They choose to govern themselves. They choose to determine their vision of life and and and explore purpose. Whether they do that in religious ways or in community ways or whatever, but the bigger that middle ground is, the healthier a society is, and the more that shrinks, the less healthy it is.
So there's a reason that you have to talk about it, is because we live in a moment with a where the middle has shrunk. You live in a moment where there's a lot of despair. On on on Wednesday morning, waking up and seeing what I guess the official term now that they're calling it is a blue tsunami, and that might be an understatement based on what actually happened. Do we know the fate of that bill in Colorado to protect girls' sports?
Well, there were three, and I said in a commentary today on Breakpoint. That if there's a hero of this election for me, it's Aaron Lee of Protect Kids, Colorado. Aaron is one of those moms whose daughter was targeted for confusion and and so called transitioning by a school official, and she has just become an incredible warrior. And she put three ballot initiatives on the ballot here in Colorado. Let me just tell you.
We had a lot of them, and almost all of these ballot initiatives were directly designed to undermine our taxpayer bill of rights, which has kept us at least fiscally sane, even as we've gone culturally insane as a state for the last little bit. And they were all designed to undermine that. And despite that, Erin Lee and her organization, she was helped by some others. Got three bills on on the ballot. One was about increasing the maximum or the required penalty for sex trafficking.
Second was about protecting girls' sports, and the third was about preventing or banning so called. Gender reaffirm or gender affirming surgeries for minors.
Okay, so all three were about protecting kids, and guess what? All three passed. Even in a state where we undermine everything else conservative, at least fiscally, including the train, we voted in the train, dude. We are going to get a train because it's worked so well in California.
Sorry. Do you have a train in Ohio? Do you have a taxpayer? Do you have a taxpayer-funded passenger railway in Ohio? No, that would be ridiculous.
It's going to run the whole. We'll get it by somewhere by the year 2050 or something. And you know what's funny? I could just go off on. I'm not going to go off on this.
This is where I'm getting political. We voted in the train, so that tells you how crazy crazy we are. But we did not. We we we we at the same time. They vote.
The vote was for women's sports, but this is something though that I want to talk about because I think it does have a cultural indication, and we should talk about some of the other ballot initiatives nationwide because there were some some important ones, and they all went the same direction as the election of these candidates. Colorado did not, but nationally, what have we heard over and over and over again about boys and girls sports and where that pulls? It's an eighty twenty issue. It's an eighty twenty issue. It's an eighty twenty issue.
We're recording this on Thursday afternoon. It looks like it's going to win. It hasn't been called yet, but it's only like fifty one forty nine.
So that one of the things that We have to talk about here on these ballot initiatives is is where, where the culture really is, and the fact that so many things went overwhelmingly progressive, but not only in Colorado, also in the state of Washington, they passed a ballot initiative to protect women's sports.
So it's still a winning issue. It's still a way to protect girls. It's still a way to recognize reality. It's still something we need to stand on. But I don't think we can be convinced that this kind of so-called trans moment is over, given how close it was.
Yeah, that is strange. How do you account for that? Why not?
Well, I, you know, I I do think that you know these issues tend to come in a package deal, and so if you're going to vote in one direction on ones that you maybe consider to be more important, it's going to be really hard to split the ticket. You know, and we oftentimes we talk about splitting the ticket when it comes to You know, between maybe a state office and a local office, or something like that, we saw that in, for example, South Carolina with the governor versus the Senate race there. But there is something about splitting the ticket on these some of these ballot initiatives, which is also pretty rare, especially when you have such a wave that heads everything in the same direction. But listen, I think the the Democratic Party has a Radical element that has become more mainstream as a result of this election, and that comes with an awful lot of other things, and so the temptation is going to be. For the well, let me just say, not the temptation.
I think the challenge for the Democratic Party is how do they deal with this radical element? It's one thing to have a you know more radical candidates that you primary. It's another thing to have a more radical candidate that you now elect and has a level of influence and power. And and the reason I bring that up is because it makes it very tempting for the more progressive wing of that party to push and go. We got to keep pushing.
We got to keep pushing. There are these indications that even in Colorado, even in the state of Washington, on these issues, which were the tip of the spear just three years ago, and for some of these candidates, they still are willing to talk about it out loud. That they think that you know boys should be allowed in girls' locker rooms, and that kids should be you know transed by medical professionals, and parents shouldn't have the final say, but doctors or school officials should. I mean, you still have some of that language, and so wrestling through that. That that that is not a a winning issue, even in a state as far you know left as as Colorado or Washington.
Yeah, it's interesting. I think candidates are still the way elections are run, or certainly like the ads that work beforehand, is still somewhat abstract to voters, including myself in that group. But something like this issue of girls and you know boys and girls sports is more is much less abstract than you know one individual politician telling you that they can lower your gas prices if you just elect them you know and so I think that that's telling as well. But let me talk. Let me ask you about that because you know if we're in a moment when people are putting too much importance on politics or it's taking up too much air in the room.
It would be impossible for that not to bleed into. Not, I don't. I don't want to go as far as saying the type of people that would run or be successful at running, but it's certainly the way campaigns are run and the way people talk about themselves as candidates. And I'm sure everyone who has weathered the last six months of political ads knows you see these commercials or you hear these messages that are just. Laughable, you know.
I don't care what party or what candidate, but they're telling you they can do things that they definitely cannot do, or they're blaming their their opponent for things that they definitely could not have done or be responsible for. I mean, it's it's like you know, you want Pluto to be a planet? Elect me, and I'll get Pluto the planet status again. It's it's like that level of silliness. But is that why?
I guess I was very nonplussed by the. A lot of the candidates that we saw this time around on both parties, and you know, I find myself feeling cynical. Like, is this the kind of person or the kind of campaign that you have to run in order to enjoy any sort of political success now? And what does that say about us? Like, are things worse than they used to be, character-wise, for people, or am I just paying attention in a new way?
You know, I I don't know. Maybe this is the argument that we should all vote for Rick Astley, right?
So because he'll never let us down, he'll never give us up. Boo! Did you know when you write someone in, though? There's there's like an actual verification process that they have to go through. Because one year I wrote in Celine Dion for like everything, and I thought it was hilarious and awesome.
And then Aaron was like, you know, they have to actually like you. You're forcing some bureaucrat somewhere to like look up stuff, and they have to verify whether that was a real candidate and. I felt kind of bad about it. Yeah, I wasn't being serious. You should you shouldn't do that.
It's a wasted vote. Apparently, I don't know Celine Dion in twenty twenty eight, but yeah, go on. I I do think that most voters, and I think that's the case here. I mean, look, the easiest way to understand what took place is that a whole lot of things happened at once. One is is that you had a second term president.
In a midterm, and maybe the most predictable things in American politics is what happens to the party of a second-term president in the midterms. They tend to lose. It's only been twice in the last hundred years or so that that has not been the case.
Now. There's losses and then there's this loss. There's almost usually, you know, almost always that tends to be the House of Representatives. This year, it's the House of Representatives and the Senate and the a whole lot of state offices, including surprising governor races. And not only that, but where when you start talking about South Carolina and Texas and and even maybe Mississippi, and I don't think we still know what's going to happen in Mississippi.
This is a you know pretty remarkable blue tidal wave, right?
So I don't think the voters there overall are voting specifically on candidates as much as they're voting according to this mood, and so the mood is already hard on the incumbent. But then you add in the gas prices, and you add in affordability issues, and you add in the Iran war and the unpopularity of of that, and it's just it was just set up one after another after another. But I also think too that you have both political parties, and I, I would say that the campaign ads that I saw, and also just the overall campaigning that was done, is way less these kind of crazy promises of you know good things that I'll bring to you, kind of the Rick Astley promises, as much as they are promises, they will fight the other side. And in ways, now to your point, I agree they're promising things they can't deliver, right? You, you know, it was like you know, one of our ministry friends contacted me during the Biden administration, and they're like, you know, why aren't you doing more to stop Biden?
And I was like, what would you like me to do? You know, I mean, like at what point? What what what is it that you're upset that I'm not doing? You know, talking about the issues. Do you want me to storm the Capitol?
Like, what what what what's the strategy here, right? And you have this when you start talking about state level races where they're like, we'll stand up to Trump. You're in a house seat in Colorado. Like, what what does that mean? Like that that.
Yeah, yeah, and and but we have a a lot of that and a lot of promises, but but both parties are primarily making promises now, not what they will do, but what they will stop. And sometimes that's really good.
Sometimes you need to stop things, right? Bad things are happening because of one party's decision, like transying children, or you know, you know, having no no law and order at at the border, or something. That stuff needs to be turned around. But that's not the same thing as a building something, and it's not the same thing as b changing the culture. Because just because somebody knows they don't like something doesn't mean that they're actually liking the right.
Things and so I do think that one thing that we can take out of this is that there's a there's a statement that seems to have stood up really well, and that is something that Chuck Colson used to love to say. He heard it from somebody else, another friend, and it's a statement that people kind of scoff at these days, but I think it actually still works. Chuck used to say, you know. And repeat this line: Politics is downstream from culture. Politics is downstream from culture.
I've edited that a little bit to say politics is almost always downstream from culture. And what I don't mean is that culture is one thing and politics is another thing, because politics is part of culture. But politics tends to follow the rest of culture, not lead the rest of culture. You certainly have exceptions to the rule, but exceptions don't disprove the rule. Just because, for example, the Civil Rights Act.
Was a political piece of legislation that was far ahead of the rest of the culture and most Americans on the issue of civil rights. Doesn't mean that almost always that political results are reflections of cultural values, not drivers of cultural values. There, it plays a reinforcing role to be to be sure. But I don't know just because, and and the back and forth of American politics kind of underscores this. That that the culture has been heading in a decidedly more and more progressive direction on almost everything, and because some political results slowed some of those things down, doesn't mean that the culture now has become less progressive, and our politics eventually is going to reflect that.
And I think that's probably the narrative, in many ways, you know, coming out of this. And I say that even though, again, I'll say this. I don't think most voters—they're just saying I don't like this, and so I'm ready for a change. I don't like that we have this and that and the other, and that's what happens at the midterms. And you add some of these super unpopular things, but that also doesn't change.
Even if the voters—I answered this question on the world and everything in it. Even if the voters aren't saying we want to be more progressive on this, the candidates that were put forward—this is the most progressive slate we've we've seen at this level. We have seven Democratic socialists, right? We have two pastors who are mainline liberals who have extreme views about God, about Jesus, and about human sexuality—extreme views. This isn't this isn't the liberals that Jay Gress and Matien was writing about in the 1920s.
These are pretty extreme. And then, of course, you have the Muslim candidate in Michigan that has both. Really troubling words and really troubling friendships.
So you put those two things together, and you're like, again, politics is reflecting where the culture is is going.
So that was a long answer, but that's how I understand that. Yeah, I guess I I'm thinking less about the actual policies. And more about how things are argued, and I just like I feel condescended to by the process. If that makes sense, because well, but that's because most candidates believe, yeah.
Well, no, let me just sorry, I would let you finish, but let me. I think that's just because most voters don't think with that level of. Depth about policies like you do.
Well, but that's my question. I don't know that it's a question of thinking about it as much as it is what matters to you. Like I, I don't, I don't. I imagine that most adults don't watch those ads and take those at face value. Like, well, I bet that person can stop Trump.
You know, my house rep. You know, in in Denver or whatever, but they're like, you know, everyone is free associating, and they're like, well, I don't like Trump, and then this person said Trump is bad, so that's the direction I'm going to go, and I'm just kind of thinking about what that signals, like what that itself signals that the process is that way. But I I mean, sometimes I read about the you know. The founding and the arguments that took place between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, whatever, and similar things were happening. Like it was ever thus, in a certain sense.
But it's just it feels more unstable to me when you think about the process being that way. Yeah.
Well, look, I think we can say this: sober-minded people weighing policy options. Right. No, and you're right. I think what we can say is this: it's not that. Individuals were less fallen at a different point in history.
People were fallen. That's the narrative. Cultures can get further and further from the truth, and I think that's something that history bears out, that Scripture bears out, and that observation should be able to bear out. And so, I think we can say both of those things. If you really want kind of the bright side of this, and I know we probably have some listeners going, there is no bright side to what happened on Tuesday night.
And there is very, very little in my mind on a political level, but even on a cultural level. But I will say, you know, we heard for the last at least four years, and maybe even longer, how vulnerable and we're you know the the democracies on the edge of extinction, and you know, this is how it all happens. And you know what just happened? We just had a you know complete shift back the other way. You had you know.
Checks and balances, checking and balancing. You know, I mean, the system worked.
Now, I'm not saying that it's it's easy, and I'm not saying that you're about to get so many emails about voter fraud right now. Oh, of course.
Well, the pendulum, the pendulum, is swings back and forth, and I don't think you even have to say that there's that the whole system is perfect in order to say that it accomplishes its purposes, and it maybe is like what Churchill said about you know that it's. The worst system out there, except for all the others, you know, it's the best of the worst. But you know, I think we can say that. But I think the most important lesson for the church and for Christians is still: we have got to put politics back in its box. You know, we have got to build up, and you don't do that just by denigrating the political process.
I think many Christians have made that mistake: they denigrate politics, they denigrate people who are participating politics. Almost always, by the way, that takes the hypocritical form of denigrating people who don't agree with your politics. You call them too political, while you're just as political to be political. Look, we're going to have a conversation. We have to have a conversation in the coming weeks about these two Protestant, you know, liberals that now we're in, and I mean theological liberals, James Tolerico, and then the the pastor in Kansas, I'm blanking on his name.
Here, but we're going to have to have a conversation about their form of Christian nationalism because there's a new form of Christian nationalism that is coming from the left that mirrors the ones that that mirrors in many ways what people are concerned about on the right, and at the same time, the temptation then is going to be to let this thing just punt to a struggle of power as if the whole thing is Nietzschean, and I think the Christian perspective is that it's not just power. You can build on something else. It's not just the lesser of two evils. It's the build the robust building up. Of more of life that's not just political, and the church has an answer for that more than any other.
That doesn't mean we do less politics; it just means we do more other stuff. The picture I have in my mind for some reason is of is all the who's and whoville. You know, the the day they wake up and they think that Christmas is done, and they all just keep going about. They you know they make a conscious choice to just go about their day and to do their song and to go into the town square just like they always would. Like at some level, I'm sorry, trying so hard.
Not to make fun of you right now. Thank you. This is a poignant moment.
So hard. I am bearing my soul right now. It's not yet. Are you in the Christmas spirit? It's not even Thanksgiving.
It was just Halloween yesterday. It's far too early. I'm trying to make a literary reference.
Okay, from Dr. Seuss, the great American poet. It was. I woke up Wednesday morning feeling heavy, but then immediately thinking about what I'm going to make my kids for lunch and. How we can continue to build the kingdom of God in our little family and our little neighborhood, and right, just like the who's in whoville, just like the who's in whoville, the tall and the small who singing.
It actually is a good vision. I just don't like the analogy, but it is it is the right vision, and it is a lot of what we're we're we're talking about. I I said in the break point commentary that you know one thing we repeat here a lot is.
Something Chuck said that salvation doesn't come in Air Force One, and I always add neither, neither will the apocalypse. And I think that if you want to look at a, and maybe I can end with this: if you want to look at Tuesday night and what happened, and I think we can say two things. Number one is salvation did not come in Air Force One. You know, it did not.
Some some people I think thought it did, and it did not. But you know what? The apocalypse didn't arrive in Air Force One on Tuesday either. And I think I don't want to be trite with that, and I don't want to just kind of say, "Well, this is what we don't believe," and without adding these other stuff. But I do think these are important things, you know, to to remember.
And I say that saying this is going to be an incredibly important election. It's going to be an incredibly important election for the Supreme Court going forward. Because of you know the impending retirements of Justice Alito, Justices Alito and Thomas, and what this means. I mean, look, we might look back as at this as the most important election of our lifetime. I know everyone gets called that.
One of them's got to be just by math. Like one of them's going to be more important than the other, and there's going to be consequences down the road. And maybe it's this one. Who knows? Might even be civilizational in what it indicates.
You know, to borrow some of the language from Truth Rising. But again, we live out the story of Holy Scripture, the story of Christ. Christ is risen. Christ is Lord. Our hope is not determined by this.
Our despair should not be determined by by this. We we have to take it as seriously as it needs to be taken, but not more.
Well, let's take a quick break, John. We'll be right back with more Break Point this week in just a moment. Tickets are going fast for the 2027 Coulson Center National Conference this June in Charlotte, North Carolina. If you want to be there, now is the time to claim your spot. Our theme is Pursue Wisdom to help us discern how to live wisely in this cultural moment.
We're excited to announce Brett Conklin, founder and president of Maven, Claire Morel, fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and Joel Penton, founder and CEO of Lifewise, have been added to the line. They join Ayon Hersi Ali, Robert P. George, Malcolm Gite, with more speakers to be added soon. Yes, wisdom seems to be in short supply today, but God is ready and willing to grant wisdom to all who ask, and He calls us to pursue it with urgency. Let's pursue wisdom together at CCNC 27.
You can save up to 50% if you register by November 30th. Register now before tickets are gone at ColsonConference.org. That's ColsonConference dot org. We're back on Breakpoint this week. John, Colorado is not off the hook this week.
More Colorado. Oh boy, is there ever! Oral arguments were heard this week before the Supreme Court in a case that we talked about a couple of weeks ago. This is St. Mary's Catholic Parish versus Roy.
There is a universal preschool program in Colorado. And the state decided it would like to exclude a Catholic school because of their statement of faith, and which they ask their staff and families to sign, which upholds the church's view on sexuality.
So obviously, here we're talking about homosexuality. That's the salient issue. The oral arguments seem to be pretty scathing. If I were to read any tea leaves, I'll put my neck out there and read some tea leaves. I mean, I have no idea what's going to happen ultimately, but.
They the justices seemed perplexed that the case had even made it as far as it did, given Colorado's history of being in trouble for this sort of bad behavior. I heard a fascinating, in a sociological sense, like as a cultural artifact sense, the coverage of this on NPR was just utterly fascinating because they had on one of the lawyers from the Becket Fund. Who is defending the Catholic schools in this case? And this, the reporter from NPR was just absolutely like, could not imagine, just could not figure out. Like, this is such a head scratcher.
Why would these schools be allowed to exclude gay people from their schools, and they still get money from the state?
So, John, state your case.
Well, I mean, listen, it's it's a fascinating case. It's a fascinating thing that Colorado would. Choose to do it. Basically, what they're trying to do is get around a consistent line of precedent that the court has set, which is that if the state is going to offer a public benefit that is available to everyone, it cannot exclude people just on religious grounds, based on you know the freedom. That are freedoms are guaranteed in in the First Amendment.
Okay, that's what the lawyer from the Becket Fund said, and the NPR reporter immediately said, "What on earth do beliefs about sexuality have to do with their religious beliefs?" Have to do with religion. This is your this is your nation's media class, ladies.
Well, that this is NPR, right? This is a group of secularist. And a even a discipline that's so shaped by secularism that it is impossible to imagine for these, you know, to use that phrase, true believers of secularism that religion is anything more than a personal, private preference. And then when you start talking about institutions, and especially when you start talking about institutions that are. Subsidized by the government, then you know these personal beliefs they they have to bow down to the to to the larger interest of that and and by the way, there's also an assumption not from secularists per se, but the kind of secularists that make up much of media, which you might call.
The kind of the woke secularism, and that's a trite way. I probably shouldn't have said it that way, but but I'm not exactly wrong. It's the secularism that's really been shaped by the critical theory mood that that not only is religion not the primary concern and religious conviction not the primary concern for anyone, including the religious, but the primary concern is you know tolerance and diversity and things like that. In fact, I've got a really good update on the whole Delta story, which falls into this. But I'll put that off, and maybe we could talk about this.
We got some wonderful comments about that, and then some that were not.
So, listen. The court has been really clear. Back to Colorado, and back to this preschool program funding deal. The the court has been really clear that if number one, if the state is going to make a program available to all, it cannot exclude religious people on the grounds of being religious, and number two. It has made the line that if it is going to ask religious individuals or religious institutions to actually curb some of their beliefs in order to participate, then it's got to be clear and it's got to have a compelling interest.
And the compelling interest here is that there would be no other providers, right? Guess what? There's a lot of providers here. There's not a public accommodation issue that is at stake, even though that's some of the language that's being used on the other side of the oral arguments. But look, I'm with you.
I think the justices were just really kind of like, "Why are we talking about this again?" We've we have decided it, and religious belief is not just the ability to believe individually, but to actually order your lives and order your institutions around this belief.
So it makes sense that if you believe certain things, that you can you hold that and still participate in these programs. And the court's always been like, "Look, you don't have to have this program. You don't have to pay everyone to do." Kindergarten on your behalf, but if you do, you have to actually respect people for for under the First Amendment.
So, look, I think I'm with you. You know, predictions Yogi Berra said are really dangerous, especially predictions about the future. And this one is a a prediction about the future, but it seems pretty clear. Even by the way. From some of the progressive justices, right?
Because you have like Sotomayor going, look, Christian Legal Society versus Martinez. You know, Christian groups are allowed to have Christian employees, and Christian employees and Christian groups are allowed to believe Christian things. And we don't want to go back and redecide that.
So you know, there's going to be different ways that people are going to try to position this, but but honestly, it's not hard. And I thought the most stunning part of it was something you already brought up, and I just want to highlight it again, which is the court. They didn't quite say it this way, but the court's like Colorado again, again. Here we go again. Like you guys already have the worst track record when it comes to religious freedom.
You clearly don't understand it.
So stop trying. I mean, I'm putting a lot of words in the mouth, but I think people are starting to notice. And I wish taxpayers in Colorado, before they voted down our taxpayer bill of rights things, when we talk about funding shortages, anybody want to say maybe one of the reasons we have a funding shortage is because we keep taking people to the Supreme Court and losing? Just want to say that out loud. Oh my goodness.
Well, yeah. I mean, it'll be probably until the summer until we have the the decision here. But it seems pretty clear to me. It's yeah. It's just it's kind of amazing that these things keep going before the court.
It's amazing that people keep trying it, and it's amazing and very disillusioning to realize that people who are in elite positions of power within the media. Like truly seem to not be able to even understand what this is, and I mean, the attorney for the Beckett Fund made a comment of like, you know, if there are other, the the reporter said something like, well, this is the only school that is trying to exclude anybody from it. And he was like, "That's just not true. Like, there are other. If a school wanted to say that you had to abide by DEI, you know, policies, or you had to hold these beliefs in order to come here, then that would exclude some religious people." And she was like, "What does DEI have to do with holding religious?" But and you're just like, "I don't know.
Maybe I'm naive. I didn't realize that that lack of understanding." But it is the power of worldview, right? Like, if you think, if if if you have a secular worldview, then to think of religion in ultimate terms and morality in ultimate terms is just, just in in definitional terms, like this is what it is that we're actually trying to do. Um, it's going to be really hard for you to get there. But the court has tried.
The court has tried to get people there over and over and over, especially the state of Colorado. Yeah, just the definitions of words here is just so critical because yeah, the the other thing worldview will heavily impact is how you educate children and what you teach children, right?
So even if a person was like, you know, I as a parent, I don't have any. You know, direct religious belief about a DEI policy, but I I do know that if you hold that as a school, I'm very skeptical of what you're going to be teaching my kid. Then couldn't I make the case that you're excluding me from your school because I don't want to be a part of it? I mean, under their reasoning, you could, you could make that case, which is. It's going to be interesting.
Okay, John. Before we break again, you just teased this, and I'm on pins and needles, so I need to know what the update is on the Delta situation.
Now, there we did get a couple of comments about it. Do you want me to share those? Just read that first one. That's my favorite. Dear John, you are a man, a Christian, a public speaker, a broadcaster, and seen as a leader.
You are a husband and a father. The next part is in all caps, so please hear it in all caps. It is heartbreaking why you were so unsure about speaking up to the airline regarding the obnoxious flight attendant who was unprofessional and disrespectful as a man pretending to be a woman, and who was acting like a terrible stereotype of a woman at that. End quote. Exclamation.
Well, yeah, I I'm sorry. It was heartbreaking. I'll give you the update. I'm just going to let that go. I'll give you the update here.
I have been talking to the airline. I think I mentioned I got a call the morning after and talked about it. And then I checked in on the status of the complaint this week, and it was closed. It said that the complaint was closed. I emailed back and I said I didn't know it was closed.
What happened? And I just got a call from the office, which is really interesting. The Delta office. Again, they call you. If you have given them a certain amount of money, which is interesting, but called and said, "Hey, we want you to know what has happened.
We have actually, you know, escalated this to the group that this flight attendant is part of, and the leadership there will coach this this man, this person, on how to actually better handle it." And I thought that was really interesting, and I had had such an interesting conversation. I think we and I talked about this last week. When you know you talk about calling a man calling a girl, girl or hun or something like that, and that it's only acceptable if you're talking about a gay man today, but a heterosexual man would absolutely not be acceptable, and it shouldn't be acceptable no matter what, right? And so anyway, I I I said, oh, so he's going to be coached on that. I'm like, look, I don't want to get the guy guy fired.
That's not what I'm after. But I I do just want to point out something, and I wonder if you could, you know, send this back up the chain as you as you talk about this. I don't know if she will or not, but I just said, you know, what do you think would happen if a heterosexual man had called all the women entering a flight, girl and hun and babe. Would they have been coached on how to behave better, or would they have been disciplined and maybe fired? Yeah.
And she said, "I understand." And it was so interesting because she was trying to, you know, represent the company. There was no question about it. But she also was very, very much saying, "Like, I agree with you. We all know that this is not consistent." In fact, she even said she she said, "You know, we're we're in a." We know it's complicated in this, you know, environment in which we prioritize diversity. And I, I mean, look, I, but I, but I understand, you know, I didn't actually even get the sense that she was just coddling to my complaint.
I think she actually, you know, you know, what everyone recognizes is somehow that this whole thing is just completely inconsistent. And I think that's one of the ways. To answer the question that we were talking about last week, like you know, what you say is important, how you say it is important, when you say it is important. I was just talking to someone else on on the phone earlier today, and we were talking about kind of strategies. And we're just like, we you know what we need to help people with everyday acts of of courage.
You know, to speak up when they need to speak up. But then, how do you do it? How do you do it without being A jerk. How do you do it with just being unnecessarily irate? How do you even do it in a way that's effective, right?
Because scripture says be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. Like, how do you actually a soft answer turns away wrath? Like, how do you actually do that?
So, and and I wonder even if in a situation like this, is if you at least encourage someone else that what they have this gut feeling about, like yeah, this inconsistency is crazy and wrong. Just encourage them that you're in that that that gut feeling is actually a good feeling, not a bad feeling. That they're right in that. I mean, again, Johnny Erickson taught me used to say, changing culture is like changing the flow direction of a flow of molasses. Which, by the way, did you have you ever heard about that molasses disaster in New England back in like?
Eighteen or seventeen.
Something. The only reason I've heard of.
Okay, I've heard of it now. I've heard of it. I've heard so much. I've heard much more about it than I would have ever desired to because my daughters are obsessed with the I Survived book series. Have you seen these?
Oh, and that's that's one of them. Books. That's one of I Survived the molasses disaster. Disaster.
Well, I think about that because I I'd heard Johnny Erickson taught it say something about that years ago that changing. Culture is like changing the flow of molasses. I thought, well, that's a weird example. But then I heard this story of this molasses disaster on the history podcast, and I was like, oh, that makes a whole lot more sense to me. But you know, to do that, it takes an awful lot of work.
It takes a lot of like subtle changes. You know what I mean? And and like you you push it here and push it there, and and I and I think that maybe we need to start. Thinking about these everyday acts of courage as maybe having more consequence than we would think about, but not giving it too much credit. I'm not saying that, you know, I'm somehow courageous for speaking out against Delta because there's always United.
I can. You are a man, a father, a husband, but I am a man, a father, a husband, and a broadcaster and a leader. See, I take offense at that because I'm none of those things, and I'm very courageous as well.
Well, apparently, you would have known what to do, like me. Listen, I have been thinking so much about this for several reasons. I'm working on a piece right now, kind of noodling over these exact questions because I think the the toughness or the difficulty in changing culture is somewhat relative. It has to do with our perception because what culture is ultimately is a collection of patterns of behavior that are done by individual people, and the way we change behaviors of individual people. Is by the most successful people that know how to change others' behavior are people within a multi-level marketing scheme.
They know what they're doing. They've studied this. They've cornered these markets. And you know how these organizations work is on an individual level. They get together with other individuals and they ask them, "Don't you want your life to be better?" And then they show them how to make their life better.
And then those people sign on, and then they recruit other people. And there's a The reason these are so successful because that is how culture change happens, and it just so happens. That Jesus, when he was endeavoring to build a new type of kingdom, the way he decided to do that was to get a local community of people extremely involved in each other's lives, and then told them what you need to do is spread the word to other people in your local community and get extremely involved in their lives because human beings are all. Individually acting norms creating people. I almost said machines, but I'm not going to say we're machines.
But when you say something, I am more and more convinced that the way to change culture on things, even like this, like a like a difficult, tense moment, like coming up to a flight attendant who's acting inappropriately. Is not by like shouting, creating another tense moment. There may be times when that is warranted. Like if I like to think that if my daughters were ever forced to compete against a boy, it would not. It would not go quietly.
Like I, I would make a scene. But most of the time, it's by acting like what is real and rational is truly real and rational and normal. Like it's like, and and in an even in moments when you know that it's not seen that way, when you know that it's seen like your position that men can't be women is seen as like the more dangerous view or the more awkward one or the one that most people don't hold. Act like it isn't. Act like it's not.
Like almost act dumb. Like I like to think maybe an effective way is to. Act like you you're not living in 2026. You come across a person like that to be like, why did you call me hun? Like truly, you know what I mean?
Like, oh, that was weird. Why did you say that? Do you call everybody that? That can be extremely disarming, and I've I've done it before at the library and at other. Public functions where I've been like, why is this book here?
This is crazy. Why would that be here? Because as soon as you act like it's not normal, anyone else who has that gut reaction feels a little bit more safe to say the same thing.
Well, I think that is. A way that all of us can impact culture. There's no question. I mean, I don't think that's the only way culture changes. Chuck Colson certainly endorsed that view of culture change.
You know, it's over the backyard fence, it's around the barbecue grill. I think your point on norms is exactly right. Like we should not consider what's normal normal. That's the first stage. And really, every moment that we're interacting with other people, we are either perpetuating norms or we're changing.
Them, yeah, and and sometimes that's morally neutral, but that's just a fact of living in proximity with other people. Yeah, I would just say as a kind of addition, norms are also advanced through corporate structures, laws, through films, through paintings and artifacts. You know, books became norms because of the printing press, sort of thing. And that's that's it's not just our conversations. But it's not less.
It's not less than our conversations, and it's a million of those things happening at once. And and even if it doesn't change the culture in terms of the overarching culture, if it actually changes a subculture, it changes just a family culture or a relational dynamic that you have with a friend or or a neighbor. That allows you to maintain a voice that other people have have lost. You know, that's that's a win. You know, that's a win in a in a tough in a tough time.
So I I do think we need more and more examples of everyday courage. I said this the other day, and I kind of it was one of those things I hadn't really thought a lot about, but I've been thinking a lot again about truth rising in light of the French riots, in light of the election results on Tuesday. What does it tell us in terms of you know things like cut flowers, civilizations, and our responsibility and what we can do? And I think a lot about what Jack Phillips said about you know we can trust God with our obedience.
So let's be obedient and then trust God with what He'll do with it. Maybe it'll be a small thing. Maybe a small thing will become a big thing, like in his case. But I think Christian faithfulness might look a lot like Jack Phillips in the days ahead. Maybe not going to the Supreme Court.
I mean, that was a 12-year narrative. But just that first decision, like, yeah, I'm sorry, I just can't do that. But you know, be kind, make a hard decision, stick with it, know why, be able to talk about it, and then you know, God might, you know, make make it a lot bigger deal.
So anyway, lot to think about. Christian educators, this is Billy Hutchinson with Colson Educators. As a former teacher myself, I know you're busy, and I know you want to teach like a Christian, not just be a Christian who teaches.
Well, that's why we created the Colson Educators app. You can get practical worldview training wherever you are, complete courses on your schedule, earn CEUs, and connect with a community of like-minded educators. Download the Coulson Educators app on the Apple App Store or Google Play. All right, well, John, let's shift gears here a little bit. Although I think the way we use technology is a huge, huge norm-shaping factor that we sometimes overlook because it doesn't feel exactly like a "quote unquote" culture war issue, but I think it might be one of the most consequential.
Of the norms that we're shaping right now, but I want to talk about a new policy from Google.
So we've talked about before, you know, starting in like 2014, Google made has made a really concerted effort to insert itself into American classrooms, and they've done this really brilliantly. They sent basically every public school kid in America a Chromebook back in 2014, and then. You know, started rolling out. It's Google Classroom and Google this and Google that, and everything within so many schools is tied up with Google to the point that they're shaping education in a way that nobody ever elected them to. But it's just very obviously happening, and it seems like there's another chapter in that story.
They announced this week that. It at first sounds like a good policy. They're saying that unless school administrators explicitly opt in to using artificial intelligence tools in their educational software, that Google will will turn those tools off automatically. But the other side of this coin, as you were explaining it to me, is that then those schools also will not have access to Google search. Am I understanding this right?
I mean, so you talk about norms. Can you imagine the world without Google? Oh my goodness! I know there is some people on here that will say yes, but almost all of us in reality, like I, I, I take like personal offense. I am like bristling at you saying that because I take personal offense.
At the suggestion that I can't, but I'm not sure I can. But how many things do we Google? I know. I mean, you want to find a new restaurant to try? You Google it.
I was trying to install a wall sconce the other night, and I took a picture of it and said, "What am I looking at?" And it told me. Right. I was watching Sports Center last night, and my friend said, "How old is LeBron James?" And I was like, "I think he's 43." What do you do? You Google it. You Google it immediately.
I mean, when I was growing up, and I asked my parents a question, and they said, "Go look it up." They meant in a book. Yeah, the dictionary. We haven't meant that for ten years.
So I get both sides of this. On one side, I'm sure Google is saying, "Look, they're so integrated right now. There's no way we could separate them if we try." So if you don't want AI in your classroom, you can't have search because We can't do search without AI anymore. the The service is not available. I think some people say, "Well, it could be available.
You know, you could make it available." And this is t here is a little bit of blackmailing that's happening here. Like, you know, can you imagine? Like, if we can't imagine doing our day to led day to day life without Google search, can teachers at school at these schools imagine, you know, preparing their lessons or You know, if you want students, for example, to write a paper on such and such, and they've got to go do research on it, how are they going to do research? Are we going to send them?
Now, some of us would say yes, send them back to the days of of encyclopedias. You know, not just books, but encyclopedias. Like they got to go look up. Um, it it it's just a different day, but it it it does say something. You know, to what we were talking about.
What do we mean when we say norms?
Sometimes norms become so embedded that you can't imagine life without them. Yeah, we don't even think of them as norms; where they're like facts of life. No, yeah, but but I also do agree that you know Google took some very important company steps, decade, you know, more than a decade ago, probably, so that it is, as the New York Times says, the dominant technology player in K to twelve classrooms. Not only just it is. I mean, nothing else comes close.
Nothing else could. Like it's it's just it's just the dominant player. I think though they're so dependent on the school's business. Not only by the way for current business, but for future customers. You know what what do people get used to using?
That's been a big part of that. I I think people should demand to have that sort of access, or at least a limited. Kind of AI function that would be maybe improve the search, because one of the things we've said here too, and other people have said, including John Lennox at our forum this year and many others, we tend to use artificial intelligence for every as as the kind of a blanket term for. Different technologies that actually aren't the same thing at all, right?
So you know what happened with the the the the the agents escaping the system, breaking the rules, and you know attacking another AI system. That's not the same thing as you know super enhanced search that can look through more sources and give you the exact. Yeah.
Okay. I was I was going to go with actual, you know, actual doing real research and finding quotes that you knew somebody said once. And hey, I'm a I am a I am a budding electrician, thanks to this.
Okay, but yes, point two.
Well, you know, it's it's true. How would how would we do anything? I've I've saved a lot of money on household repairs and car repairs just by you know being able to Google it. But listen, it's I think. It's not only are we talking about like vastly different types of technology with different implications, you know, relative to each one.
There is a vast difference between the use of even the same type of technology for a kindergartner versus a twelfth grader. A twelfth grader, right? Sure. Yeah.
And that should be a part. Like, I think the timing is going to be incredibly important because I don't think I don't want people to hear us saying, and I know that we're not that like. Using artificial intelligence in any iteration is sinful, and we have to avoid it. But there is a major difference between using it in a kindergarten class—you know, having kids not teaching kids to write with their hands anymore and not letting them read actual paper books anymore when they're in kindergarten first, versus you know showing a twelfth grader how to steward a search that can be extremely high-powered. And I mean, I I wrote a piece a couple of years ago about the the way the calculator shifted the teaching of calculus, and that in you know in the eighties there was like a a calculus reform movement that started at Tulane University because all of the calculus professors who were teaching incoming.
College kids who had grown up using a graphing calculator in school were like, these kids know how to do these functions on the calculators, but they can't explain the functions to me.
So they were never arguing against calculators, but they were arguing for introducing them later. And I think that's got to be a huge part of this conversation too. And isn't part of this conversation what is education? And this is something you have to decide: is education the process of transferring knowledge?
Well, well, then how that knowledge is transferred is less important than that than that the knowledge is transferred. Or is education the forming of a heart, soul, mind? Is education the forming of someone made in the image of God, who is tasked to love God and love neighbor, and part of that is love truth and. To be someone who's wise, particularly in an era where there's a whole lot of different ideas about these things, so that just changes things, right? If you think that that's the case, then you don't want to do the shortcuts because the shortcut actually is a way of not accomplishing that goal.
That's uh, yeah, but but we we've made this mess. There's going to be more of these dilemmas that certainly uh come up in the in the days ahead. Yeah, fascinating. All right, well, John, before we wrap up this week, I want to go back to a couple more questions and comments from listeners. The first is a response to a break point commentary you did about Ernie Johnson.
And this listener says, "This is what I and what I expect from Breakpoint—a wonderful tribute to Mr. Johnson. I don't know him, and I don't follow ESPN, but this essay struck me powerfully as to the significance of this man's life and his noble example. How kind! It was kind, and it was fun to do that.
We have talked about Ernie Johnson's wonderful example as a father with his son." Special needs, a young man who was adopted and passed away just a couple years ago. And one of the things that stood out at that time was the the love and the respect and the care. That the inside the NBA crew, and I am talking about the notorious Shaquille O'Neal and Charles Barkley. I mean, guys that are known for being kind of tough and funny, and you know, irreverent. And then Kenny Smith, and you know, this whole thing is about fun and it's about hoops and all that.
But you see, what you saw at that time was the love and the respect they had for not only Ernie Johnson's son, but Ernie Johnson as a dad. And his faith has been clear. He's talked about his faith on a number of occasions. I don't know him. I know some folks who have interacted and just say he's he's a wonderful, kind guy.
So when his announcement of his retirement at the end of the season. Came a lot of us had two thoughts. Number one is is thank God we have one more season. Number two, this show will never be able to go on because there is nobody else on the planet that can you know what's the word. Heard those cats when you talk about those personalities.
It's a lot. I was just watching it again last night, seeing the highlights from this incredible performance from Victor Wembanyama. I know we're talking a lot more about sports and politics this show than we usually do, but my goodness, he had fifty six points and twenty four rebounds or something crazy like that. But you just watch it, what he does, and he's a master at it. He's talented, he's good, and he he's kind, and so I I appreciate.
Appreciate the the opportunity to do it, and I actually appreciate that you didn't begin this segment here with all these questions talking about the even more comments we got in solidarity with trombones. But about the trombones, there's people love trombones, man. And I have to like, I'm still giggling a little bit because I genuinely don't remember the comment that they're referencing. Have you remembered it? I mean, this comment says it wasn't just one illusion, but it was several times.
So apparently, either you or I, we said something. One of us recorded in our sleep, and we let slip some deep-seated hatred for the trombone. Oh my word! Yeah.
We're going to have to use AI and do Google search to find what it is. Yeah, with John Street reference to trombone. Although it does, these comments do, which were very sweet and made us giggle. They do reinforce your belief that we have we are overrepresented among our listenership by people who play the trombone. Which is either I'm far underestimating the number of general of the general population who have a deep affection for trombones, or they just are highly represented in our audience.
I don't know which one this, but could be. Both okay. There's one more question I want to put your way this week, and it was you and I were talking about gambling. This person says, "When we invest in the stock market, though, isn't that a gamble? Aren't we gambling on whether a product or company will be successful?" I think presumably they're saying, "Why is that okay, and why are things like sports betting not?" Yeah, and some would say it's not okay.
I think this was in response to the Kashi segment that we talked about the betting markets about the election, and we ended up talking about that in a commentary as well. I do think that there is a big difference between guessing on something that may or may not happen and looking at the fundamentals of a company. And deciding this company has the likelihood to produce something tangible and solid, and has the you know the kind of the fundamentals in place to do it.
Now, the response is going to be, "Who does that when they invest?" You know.
Well, you you don't. You seek the advice of people. You know, brokers and so on, or you just take guesses. You know, but there are reasons that the stock market responds both to inside forces within the company and outside forces outside, and that's that's a little bit more data to go on. And you're also kind of looking at certain products now.
Are you still taking risk? You're taking risk. I don't think the Bible condemns risk. I do think the Bible condemns the kind of kind of gambling, which is kind of fifty-fifty, leave it up to the future, or the house always wins, or something that's you know repeatedly designed not only to suck you in but to make you less productive. And I just I don't think it's apples and oranges here.
I understand the concern. I understand that there there are similarities in terms that you don't know the future, but I also think. That risk is there. There's different levels of risk, and there's ways to be educated, and what you're actually trying to do in order to grow a particular. Portfolio.
So that that's my understanding of that. Yeah, and I think also that this strikes me as the kind of question that it morphs in the category of you asking like, is there anything wrong with what I'm about to do or what I want to do, as opposed to what's the good or the positive thing about what I'm about to do. And I think you you got to ask both questions, I guess, and. I feel very strongly that the answer to the second, at least regarding actual gambling, is nothing. What is the positive to come out of this?
Literally nothing. I mean, I can't. You could get lucky and win money, but is that worth it? You know, I really don't think so.
So. Whereas you could have some real positives that come out of investing in a company, even though despite the risk, as you're explaining.
Well, as always, I'll just remind you if you want to send in a comment or question or talk to us about the trombone, you can do so by going to colsoncenter.org and click on Contact Us. We'd love to hear from you, and thank you to those of you who have reached out already.
Well, that is going to do it for the show this week. Thank you so much for listening to Breakpoint this week from the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. I'm Maria Bear, alongside John Stone Street. We'll see you back here next time. God bless.
