Breakpoint

John and Maria consider the images and harsh reality of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There's a call for Christians to pray, but is prayer really doing something? John responds. Then, Maria asks John to clarify a new religious liberty case before the Supreme Court out of Colorado. The case has a lot to say about free speech, but John pulls back and explains how religious liberty is really a primary liberty for all of humanity.

Two days ago, we talked about the possibility of war, the fear that maybe the long peace the West had enjoyed for nearly a century could be broken. Well, now that fear has been realized. As an American official told ABC News, "You are likely in the last few hours of peace on the European continent for a long time to come." After weeks of saber rattling out of Moscow, along with vain promises that they had no designs on Ukraine, the Russian army has invaded its neighbor. In retrospect, this isn't much of a surprise. After all, you don't roll 200,000 men up to the border just for kicks. And, of course, there have been theatrically executed meetings at the Kremlin where Vladimir Putin walked his advisers through a script of dubious historical grievances, justifying his nation's recognition of the independence of territory inside Ukraine that Russia already controlled. At the same time, especially this time in history where we actually see the effects of war up close and personal, and in real time, what we're seeing is really hard to believe. Up to the very end, pundits and politicians claimed that there was no way the Russians would take such a risk, with the Russians themselves calling warning of an invasion just American propaganda. It just didn't seem possible. There's an old military saying that no plan survives contact with the enemy, and Putin had to know that invading his neighbor would make his nation a pariah in the world community. So, surely, he wouldn't do it, would he? He would and he did. After an alleged call by the newly "independent" regions for aid against the "terrorist" actions of the Ukrainians, Putin ordered Russian forces into Ukraine. He claimed that this was to prevent a humanitarian crisis from the supposedly Nazi-inspired government in Kyiv, even though that government had a Jewish president. While pre-war estimates guessed that he'd go with a smaller attack, aimed to seize just part of Ukraine and to place a pro-Moscow puppet in charge, the Russian attack hit all across the nation. As of this writing, Russian forces are said to be in control of the Kyiv airport, to have seized the infamous Chernobyl nuclear plant, and to be making progress out of Crimea in the South and toward Kharkiv in the East. Our news feeds are showing this in real time. There's the low-flying Russian plane, flinging missiles into resident neighborhoods with a child crying in the background. The fathers saying goodbye to their children as they head back to the front. The massed helicopter attack, looking like something out of the 1980s movie Red Dawn. This is as chaotic as it gets, and we have no idea what tomorrow will bring. Maybe, somehow, Western sanctions will force the Russians to back down. Maybe the Ukrainians will show such a hardened resistance that they will outlast their foe. Maybe the Russian people will finally sicken of Putin's despotism and demand a new regime. Maybe it will all spiral out of control to the point that Europe and America will have to get involved. We do know that before it's all said and done, tens if not hundreds of thousands of people will be dead for the sake of Putin's vanity. Where can hope be found in such dark days? It's in the same place it's been since the beginning. When Christ was on Earth, He offered hope to people whose situation was more defined by fear than the affluence we're all used to. He also knew that their world was about to be further rocked by turmoil, the likes of which they'd never seen. And He knew He would not be with them, at least not in person. In fact, He issued a somewhat vague warning about how bad it could get. Wondering what His words meant, His disciples asked for direction, clarification, and hope. In Matthew 24, you can read his reply: "See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are but the beginning of the birth pains." This is one of those places where Jesus doesn't pull any punches. He issues no false promises of world peace. He assures them that there would be wars, troubles, and calamities, and when they come, they'll just be the beginning. Despite the chaos, Jesus said that it's possible for us not to lose our way. Or, as He put it in John 16:33, "I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world." As we face these days ahead, I've been reminded of something about prayer. We often wonder at times like this, "Other than pray, what can I do?" Let's never forget that praying is doing something. In fact, it's doing the most important thing. The Anglican Church in Dublin, Ireland, has crafted a prayer quite fitting for this moment: O Lord our Governor, whose glory is in all the world: We commend to your merciful care the people and government of Ukraine that, being guided by your providence, they may dwell secure in your peace. Grant to their leaders and all in authority, wisdom and strength to know and to do your will. Fill them with the love of truth and righteousness, and make them ever mindful of their calling to serve their people; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Grant, O God, that your holy and life-giving Spirit may so move every human heart in the nations of the world, that working and witnessing together, we may live in justice and peace and change the hearts of those who would make for conflict and war; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

America's corporate cooption in China's oppressive activities is shameful. Political philosopher Charles de Montesquieu said that "The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy." With China, , we're seeing this play out in real-time. China's control and censoring of its own citizens is disturbing, but predictable. But the number of American corporations and media willing to censor themselves is what's really stunning With access to 1.4 billion consumers at stake, corporations like Nike and the NBA, and most Hollywood studios have bowed to China's demands, apologizin profusely for any perceived offense. Ahead of the Olympics, house speaker Nancy Pelosi warned athletes not to speak up against human rights abuses while in China. Clearly, those with the most money to lose are wiling to stay silent on human rights abuses. human dignity Which makes China's evils not just a "them" problem. It's an "us" problem, too. Freedom of speech is only as good as what it is used for. Let's hope we start using it for something better: speaking the truth.

So-called "No-Fault Divorce" has always been a bad idea, and children have always been its tragic victims. For the Colson Center, I'm John Stonestreet. This is BreakPoint. A couple of weeks ago, Dominic Raab, the Deputy Prime Minister for the United Kingdom, praised what he called an "important" debate in Parliament. He was referring to a law effective April 6, under which married couples no longer have to name any faults before seeking a divorce. Ironically for a member of Britain's Conservative Party, this idea flies in the face of what "conservative" means. It certainly cuts against conservative foundations articulated by the likes of Edmund Burke and T.S. Eliot. According to these thinkers, family and tradition are the only real bulwarks against the chaos of our atomistic age. As we noted recently, "If we lose our belief in marriage and the family as the foundation of a healthy and flourishing society, there will soon be very little left for 'conservatives' to conserve." But Mr. Raab's comments got worse. He went so far as to claim that this new law was a positive good, not just for parents seeking divorce, but for children. As he put it, "This vital reform will remove unnecessary conflict from the process by ending the blame game—helping [to] spare children from the harmful effects this can have." This, "the kids will be fine" line, is not just nonsense: it's dangerous nonsense. It flies in the face of everything we know about the impact of divorce on the most vulnerable among us. Over 20 years ago, Chuck Colson said, "People who divorce are more likely to die from stroke, heart disease, cancer, and hypertension. Kids from broken homes are more likely to fail in school, abuse drugs and alcohol, commit crimes, and have children out of wedlock." What Mr. Raab and our friends across the Pond should do is look before they leap. A look at the American experience reveals how this so-called "freedom" has played out here, and the enduring scars it's left upon children. In the early 1970s, an incredible (and incredibly sad) study was launch, which was later published in book form under the title The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce. It told some of the tragic stories of these children. Drs. Judith Wallerstein and Julia Lewis interviewed over a hundred children of divorce in California, hoping to get at the real-world impact of divorce on the increasing number of children growing up in broken homes. They didn't only interview these individuals as children, but also followed them over the next 25 years. What this study found was devastating. As one reviewer described their findings: [O]nly seven of the 131 children from the original sample experienced a post-divorce home in which they had a good relationship with a step-parent. At this 25-year mark, only 60 percent had contracted for marriage. Two-thirds of the sample decided not to have children. Only 30 percent of the sample received financial support for college, as contrasted with 90 percent of children whose parents were not divorced, an indication of the nature and quality of their troubled relationships with their parents. This story is about far more than stats. It's about the heartbreaking impact divorce had on these kids' lives. There's the woman who almost 30 years later could still see in her mind the details of "the sun striking the patterns on the living room carpet" the day her father left when she was only 4. There's the boy who refused to take off his heavy coat at school despite the day's heat in case he'd have to leave at a moment's notice. There's the little girl who kept telling her teacher about her new baby brother, except there was no baby, only her little heart's plea to imagine her parents were still together. Then, there was the 5-year-old who said she needed a new mommy because hers had been "a tense, cranky, unavailable stranger." There are times when divorce is necessary, but it is always tragic in the same sense as when catastrophic cures like amputation or chemotherapy are necessary. To pretend otherwise is a dangerous fantasy. The Bible sees marriage as a lifelong bond between a man and a woman, but, recognizing the frailty of human nature after the Fall, it allows for divorce in extreme cases, such as abandonment, adultery, or abuse. Highlighting the "wholesome" effects of no-fault divorce is even more reckless than praising the upside of amputation. Divorce is a messy, sometimes necessary, side effect of living in a world full of sin and folly. But while we may have to deal with our human weakness in this way, it's never something we should excuse by saying that it is for the kids' good. The cost to children is too high. Its effects on children are too long-lasting for society to allow, let alone encourage. To do so is to ignore the data, the stories, and reality itself.

- References - The Quarrel Movie>> Moral Therapeutic Deism - Christian Smith>> Making Sense of it All - Thomas Morris Pensees - Blaise Pascal The Mad Man - Nietzsche A Free People's Suicide - Os Guinness

"What happens to fascist architecture after fascism?" asks a recent BBC Culture headline. It's a good question. Because buildings are made by people and cultures, they are never just "functional." They tell stories. A tax office in Bolzano, Italy, for example, features a mural of Benito Mussolini on horseback, giving the infamous straight-arm salute. "It's a remarkable piece of fascist [propaganda-inspired] architecture," writes the BBC's ​​Alex Sakalis: "Awe-inspiring, odious and perplexing all at once." For decades, the building sparked conflict, until yearly neo-fascist rallies and bombing attempts forced leaders to seek a compromise in 2017. The tax office was left standing, its mural still visible, but over the top, the words of Hannah Arendt were written in LED lights: "Nobody has the right to obey." In other words, the duty of conscience triumphs over the demands of totalitarian regimes. Incredibly, the compromise seems to have eased the tension. We need not choose between romanticizing or demolishing history. Sometimes it's enough to let the truth be put in context, and learn from it.

The top headline of the past few weeks has been the saber rattling out of Moscow. This week, Russian leader Vladimir Putin stepped even closer to war. On Monday, Russian troops entered Ukraine, and Moscow formally recognized the pro-Russian breakaway parts of Ukraine as independent states (independent of Ukraine, that is). There will likely be further developments by the time this is posted. In addition to a build-up of forces, Russia has ratcheted up the rhetoric against America, NATO, and Ukraine. In his speech Monday, Putin declared that Ukraine has no real right to exist, and only lives as a colony of the West. Cross-border cannon fire has increased, along with accusations of Ukrainian terrorist activity. Russian authorities have forced ethnic Russians living in separatist regions of Ukraine to leave their homes, supposedly for their own safety, but also to provide an excuse to fight a war of "liberation." Many in the West are being reminded that we've actually not evolved beyond this kind of thing. Wars are not only fought in other, less-enlightened parts of the world, and not only instigated by rogue agents of unstable nations. The truth is that in our small part of the world, the last several decades have been remarkably peaceable. Recent conflicts have been fought on the periphery of the world order. The wars we've seen have been, for the most part, across the sea, away from our shores and our lives. Of course, not everyone has been as fortunate as we have been. Full-scale war in Ukraine could cost tens of thousands of lives in a matter of days, might lead to an ongoing blood fest in the agricultural heart of eastern Europe, and may result in an even greater remilitarization of the world. In fact, it's possible that this could be the start of something the world has not seen in 80 years: a great power war. If the industrial might and technological prowess of the world's biggest nations are brought against, not ill-equipped insurgents in deserts or jungles, but against those equally capable of hitting back, millions could die. All of our illusions of being invulnerable to destruction would end. That's certainly a worst-case scenario, but not out of the realm of possibility. Such dark tidings lead to a fear, not just for our lives but that nearly everything we consider sure in this world could come crashing down around us. What if the "personal peace and affluence" we think of as our birthright is relegated to the history books? When Christ was on Earth, He offered hope to people whose situation was more defined by fear than affluence. He also knew that their world was about to be further rocked by turmoil, the likes of which they'd never seen. And, He knew He would not be with them in person. In fact, He issued a somewhat vague warning about what was to come. Wondering what His words meant, His disciples asked for direction, clarification, and hope. In Matthew 24, He replied: "See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are but the beginning of the birth pains." Jesus doesn't pull any punches, does He? He issues no false promises of world peace. He assures them that there would be wars, troubles, and calamities, and that would just be the beginning. Despite the chaos, He said, it's possible to not lose our way. Or, as He puts it in John 16:33, "I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world." It's been 20 centuries since He said these words, and there have been wars and rumors of wars. There have been revolutions and famines and earthquakes and plagues. Yet, through it all, it's still true: Christ has overcome the world. Christ remains on the throne of the universe. This is no Pollyannish "hope of heaven." The fear is real because the danger is real, and the Bible never treats our pain as imaginary. Like the Hebrew children proclaimed, God does not promise to keep us from the fire, but He does promise to be with us in there as well as out here. It may be tomorrow that this global threat fizzles out, and we sigh collectively at what a close call it was. Or, it may flame up into a conflagration the likes of which few alive today have seen. It's not trite to say we don't know what the future holds, any more than it is to say but we know Who holds the future. Because we do, and whatever our moment entails, He has called us to it, to play our role in His greater story.

Dancing with Max by Emily Colson, , is an intimate look at what it means to raise a child with autism, alone. Emily's dance partner, Max, is Chuck Colson's grandson. He's now 31 and spreads love through art. The pandemic was incredibly difficult for people like Emily and Max, who lost their support structures. But Max took to painting colorful hearts on posters and hanging them around town. Pretty soon, Max's hearts were put on notecards, which have sold by the tens of thousands, with the proceeds going to charity. Writing at WorldOPINION, Jennifer Marshall Patterson described this mother-and-son dancing duo'ss latest project: infant onesies featuring one of Max's hearts and the word "Loved." Printed by a company that hires only employees with autism, For each onesie sold, Emily and Max donate another to a life-affirming charity. It's more than a way to pass the time until things return to normal. As Patterson observes, Emily and Max have shown that hope and encouragement "can be contagious in their own right."

Last year, the U.K. and German ministries of defense released a joint statement titled "Human Augmentation: the Dawn of a New Paradigm." The statement explored the future of technology in seeking to "enhance" people beyond the limits of biology, for military purposes. In this case, it's not a question of "whether" human enhancement is in our future. It's "when." CRISPR and other gene-editing tools, promise the ability to genetically alter human beings, turning off harmful genetic factors and turning on helpful ones. Pharmaceuticals promise, in addition to groundbreaking cures for mental illness, increased cognitive abilities. And, so-called "brain interfaces," promise the ability to "establish high-bandwidth data connections between brain and computer." "Six million years of evolution to where we are today," ­­­­­­­­­the authors claim, "and now we have the tools in our hands to decide how our continued evolution should be shaped." It's as if they don't even realize that there's at least half a dozen bad guys I can think of who used almost that exact line in some movie before nearly destroying the world. This time, it's not a sci-fi character making the promise he cannot keep. It's defense ministers from two major Western nations. While the authors do manage to mention ethics from time to time, it's a secondary concern at best. "The need to use human augmentation may ultimately be dictated by national interest," they write Countries may need to develop and use human augmentation or risk surrendering influence, prosperity, and security to those who will." In other words, like it or not, the cat is out of the bag. In response, bioethicist Robert Malone warned: "The arrogance and hubris in this point of view is enormous. That in one or two generations, the military industrial complex will pivot to controlling human evolution via genetic engineering and human augmentation is not only naive [and] ethically corrupt, but fundamentally dangerous." A helpful framework for thinking about what this future may entail is the difference between "Class 1" and "Class 2" problems, something articulated by Wired magazine's Kevin Kelly. Class 1 problems are when technology fails. An example would be iff someone botched an attempt at genetic editing and infected the human gene pool. Class 2 problems are worse. It's when technology works perfectly. As Gandalf put it, even the most wise cannot foresee all ends. It's possible that technology used exactly as it was intended could bring an outcome we failed to expect. To say, "it's going to happen anyway" is not an adequate ethical framework. Any ethical consideration, especially one with such consequential potential for humanity, should begin instead with the question, What does it mean to be human? Human innovation is possible because of how God made us. IFor that reason, we must distinguish between augmentation and restoration. Restoration is an amputee gets neural implants and can control a prosthetic limb with thoughts, Augmentation is an army or Olympic team outfitted with exoskeletons to make them stronger and faster. Our bodies are given to us, from our genders to our hands, feet, faces, and minds— As one moral theologian said: There are God-given limits, and if the limits are transgressed, people don't flourish. And one of those limits is respect for our bodily nature, which implies at very least that we shouldn't metamorphose that nature into some grandiose more-than-human reality. They [Christian scientists] hear in the transhumanist imperative a whisper of original sin, which is pride: "Do it and you'll be like God." The body is sacred, given purpose by God. Secularism lacks that grounding principle entirely. If everything is random, purposeless chance, then the physical "stuff" of our bodies can be shaped, molded, changed, prodded, and rearranged at our leisure or for our benefit. Other than individual desires, there are no limits on what we should do. In fact, if we can do it, we should. According to the authors of this report on human augmentation, all is justified under the guise of "national interest." It's as if they never heard of the Second World War... But good intentions cannot prevent bad ideas from having consequences and victims. Not in sci-fi films or in real life.

According to new census data, the number of parents living with their own children dropped to 40% in 2021 from 44% in 2011 and 48% in 2001. At the same time, as Brad Wilcox, Director of the National Marriage Project tweeted, "elite colleges are disproportionately made up of students from intact families." According to the Institute of Family Studies, 75% of graduates from selective schools have married birth parents. This counters the "divorce-is-better-for-the-kids" narrative, repeated in op-eds, that prioritizes adult happiness over children's rights. In a recent piece in The New York Times, entitled "Divorce Can Be an Act of Radical Self-Love," the author claimed that "Children benefit because happier mothers are better parents." The "children need happy parents not married parents" argument was widely used to advance no-fault divorce, at a time when we didn't know better, statistically speaking. Now we do. Even as the number of children not living with married parents increases, the data continues to show that's where kids are mostly likely to thrive. There are exceptions, of course, but they only prove the rule: family is God's idea.