Breakpoint

On Friday, in an act of what can only be described as dereliction, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear the case of Arlene's Flowers, Inc vs. Washington. In refusing to hear this case, the Court has failed to bring clarity to a situation it ultimately created. Despite the utopian thinking of Justice Anthony Kennedy in the Obergefell vs. Hodges decision, legalizing same-sex marriage has led to a crisis of religious liberty. Barronelle Stutzman is the definitive answer to the question, "how will my gay marriage affect you?" In 2014, a long-time customer (whom Stutzman considered to be a friend) asked Barronelle to create a floral arrangement for his same-sex wedding. When Stutzman declined due to her Christian belief about marriage, the client said he understood and asked for referrals to other florists who would be willing to do the job. She recommended three other floral designers, they embraced and said goodbye. When the attorney general of the State of Washington saw a post about the incident on social media, they brought charges against Barronelle. In 2015, a trial court found her guilty of violating Washington's anti-discrimination law, ordered her to pay a $1,000 fine and the ACLU's legal fees, and to no longer accept wedding business unless she agreed to serve gay weddings. Her appeal to the state Supreme Court drew so much interest that arguments were held in a local college auditorium. The state Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Stutzman, citing Kennedy's Obergefell language and even claiming that to not service a same-sex wedding is to "disrespect and subordinate" gays and lesbians. The court also ruled that floral arrangements weren't "speech" but instead "conduct," and rejected her free exercise claim based on the Employment Division vs. Smith. In other words, the Court found that even if the state had violated Barronelle's First Amendment right to free exercise, it had done so in a generally applicable way that serves a compelling interest of the government. Barronelle, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, when the Court found the state of Colorado guilty of animus toward the religious beliefs of Jack Phillips, in the very similar Masterpiece Cakeshop case, it vacated the decision by the Washington court, effectively asking it to re-examine Barronelle's case and look for the kind of religious animus condemned by Kennedy in the Masterpiece decision. Unsurprisingly, the Washington Supreme Court, not about to admit it had decided anything wrongly, ruled again against Barronelle. So ADF, on behalf of Barronelle, appealed again to the Supreme Court. By refusing to hear Barronelle's case, the Supreme Court has left her, after seven years of fighting for her rights of conscience, without justice. It has left her without a significant part of her business. It has left her weary but amazingly hopeful after a seven-year battle to save it. It has left her with the potential of financial ruin, and largely at the mercy of the ACLU. And, the Supreme Court has left America in the lurch, unsettled as to what definition of religious freedom it will recognize and protect. By ruling in favor of Catholic Social Services a few weeks ago, the Court made it even more clear that religious organizations will be protected. However, by refusing to take up Barronelle's case, the status of religious freedom for individuals outside of religious organizations to live and order their public lives according to their deeply held convictions, is decidedly not clear. Even if the Supreme Court is not clear, we all should be. First, LGBT advocates should be clear about whether or not this is what they are fighting for? Is the goal really to destroy people like Barronell Stutzman and Jack Phillips, neighbors who have served you and the community so well for so many years? Churches, Christian organizations, and Christians everywhere need to be clear too. Where will we stand? Will we make the sort of hard, life-altering choices as Barronelle, even if it costs us everything? And, will we choose to stand, in prayer and financial support, to those forced to pay a high cost for their Christian convictions? I'm no prophet, but I suspect Barronelle is among the first of many who will be forced to choose between their convictions and their livelihoods. The least that the rest of us can do is to stand with them, pray for them, support them, carry whatever burdens we can, and take our place alongside them, if and when the time comes.

The term cancel culture evokes images of screaming undergrads, D-platform speakers, fired employees, and demanding protesters. However, the cancel culture ethic doesn't simply exist "out there" in the larger culture; it has infiltrated our homes. Our dinner tables have become personal social media platforms. Increasingly, this doesn't merely take the form of political ideology, it is quite simply a fading ability to forgive. In a recent essay at Comment magazine, Pastor Timothy Keller articulated this current feature of our hyper-politicized atmosphere. Not only is there a race for victimhood status and an inability to find any common ground with people across ideological lines, and not only does this make school board meetings and Thanksgiving dinners more awkward (to say the least), but it has turned us into a society without forgiveness. For example, Keller points to the dramatic shift in tone on issues of race relations since the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, when leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. emphasized forgiveness and reconciliation. This stands in stark contrast to the tone of the modern movement for racial justice that frequently erupts into destructive violence and open antipathy toward fellow Americans. Opinion pieces are released in major news outlets that increasingly urge black Americans to stop forgiving white Americans altogether. Think of how this advice contrasts with the behavior of the members of Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, South Carolina a few years ago. Activists now argue that not only has there been a history of white racism, but that all white people are racist; that even whiteness itself is akin to a plague. Women's rights advocates have also soured on forgiveness. Keller cites an opinion piece in the New York Times, in which Danielle Berrin argues against forgiving perpetrators of sexual assault. One commenter distilled her message well: Forgiveness is overrated. In fact forgiveness is not only overrated, the argument goes, but it perpetuates further evils such as sexism, abuse, and oppression. Keller writes, "…[T]he emphasis on guilt and justice is ever more on the rise and the concept of forgiveness seems, especially to the younger generations, increasingly problematic." In these observations, Keller joins authors like Gregory Jones, Bradley Campbell, and Jason Manning to conclude that what we're witnessing is nothing less than the birth of a new honor-shame society. Increasingly it is victimhood status, not God's mercy or Christ's imputation that is seen as the source of our righteousness. As a result, our culture values fragility over strength, and embellishes a constant good-versus-evil conflict, even over the smallest of issues. From elections to Facebook posts to hygiene practices — almost everything takes on the emotional temperature of a religion. It's especially true with anything that is or can be related to politics. Absolution for moral guilt was once secured in church. But today our moral status and our identity hang on our credentials as victims. Being oppressed or mistreated brings moral absolution. And the oppressor is left without even the possibility of forgiveness or restoration. "It's no wonder," writes Keller, "that this culture quickly becomes littered with enormous numbers of broken and now irreparable relationships." It's as if there is a race to hold the most grudges and grievances, to be the people most wronged, and therefore the people with the greatest moral authority. But as Christians who have been forgiven much, we should be among the first and especially the quickest to forgive. Instead, too many of us have absorbed the very worst habits of cancel culture — withholding forgiveness ourselves, refusing to extend any dignity or respect to someone who is a political or ideological opponent, and writing others off completely for infractions of any kind. This is not the Christian way of doing life together. This is not the way of life and birth in Christianity that brought about the best of the modern world. Cultivating habits of forgiveness will not only reorient our priorities to the core truths of the Gospel, but it will also awaken and re-awaken us to the common good. As figures like Hannah Arendt, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Desmond Tutu have attested, forgiveness of the gravest of evils can end the otherwise perpetual cycle of grievance and revenge. When we let go of wrongs, both perceived and real, we acknowledge the reality of Divine justice. When we surrender these matters into God's hands, we demonstrate that He is the One who will "square all accounts" in the end, as Keller puts it. Even more, extending forgiveness tacitly acknowledges that we, too, are in need of forgiveness. The Psalmist put it this way: "If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? But with you there is forgiveness." A world without forgiveness is simply an awful prospect. The only way forward in our increasingly vindictive age is for Christians to offer this very good gift that we've received from God as a gift to the larger world. If we don't, there's simply no other source for it. And guilt and grievance will consume our culture — and our family gatherings.

Freedom is not just a governmental endeavor; it is an image-of-God reality. One that we citizens have a responsibility to defend, retain, to advance, and support. Not only here in America but also around the world. Ambassador Sam Brownback is doing incredible work in this field. John discusses the issue of freedom worldwide, how governments around the world need to be called to account and held accountable for their work in recognizing and protecting Freedom. Samuel Brownback is an attorney, politician, and diplomat who served as the United States Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom from 2018 to 2021. He is now the leader for the International Religious Freedom Summit (https://irfsummit.com/)

The greatest enemy of freedom can be freedom. One of the most important observations that I gleaned from one of Os Guinness's books is that celebrating the acquisition of liberty and freedom (what we celebrate this weekend is our acquisition of freedom) is typical in the world's history. But what is really unusual is sustaining freedom. When freedom becomes not a freedom for good, truth, or justice but a freedom from — freedom from restraint, from consequences, from any rules or responsibilities — then freedom devolves into license, and license can actually put us in slavery to our own passions and desires. This misguided definition of freedom presents a challenge to one of the core freedoms of the American experience and one built into human beings by God as our Creator: the freedom of religion. Recently, I spoke with former Senator and former Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, Sam Brownback, about the issue of religious freedom. He has been at the forefront of advocating for religious freedom not only in the United States, but especially around the world. As Islamic radicals in Nigeria clamp down on Christians' freedom there, and so many scenarios like this around the world, here is Ambassador Sam Brownback in his own words about religious freedom. An edited audio transcription of our interview follows: Most of the world's population lives in a country of significant religious persecution. It actually gets worse than that. The Chinese government now is standing up and saying it has an ideology that should legitimately compete with U.S. democracy, Western democracy, and capitalism on the world stage. China says that theirs is an equally viable system that people can adopt. They put forward an authoritarian, mercantilist type of system yet they say it's equal to democracy and free market capitalism. There is now a competing globalized system that goes right at the heart of religious freedom. It says the State controls this space and we say no, God controls this space because it's a human right; it's the dignity of the individual. I think the Ambassador is dead right here. We don't oppose foreign governments like China because of their progress, or their economic power, or their rising military might. We oppose their system of governance because it is frankly dehumanizing. What's happening right now to the Uyghur population is nothing short of genocide. We are responsible to defend not only religious freedom in America, but to defend it around the world — anywhere that our influence stretches. In fact, we have a responsibility to defend religious freedom in America because America is one of the few nations in world history with both the core beliefs and the capacity to expand religious freedom around the world. We believe as Christians that religious freedom is an image-of-God issue. It's not a political one. In fact, Ambassador Brownback believes that, too: I see religious freedom as God's freedom to us. He gave us the right to do with our own soul whatever we choose. And He knew ahead of time that if we did do that, He would have to send His Son to clean up the mess. And He still did it. He did it knowing how much it would cost Him. So, there must be something extraordinarily precious about this particular liberty given to humanity, such that we should not allow any government to interfere with it, and everyone should be allowed to freely exercise it. It's about a common human right and one that I believe was given to us by God. The American founders in particular saw its preciousness, and the need for it, and went so far as to protect it at the first order. We must protect this right first. Freedom is not just a governmental endeavor; it is an image-of-God reality. One that we citizens have a responsibility to defend, retain, to advance, and support. Not only here in America but also around the world. Ambassador Brownback is doing incredible work in this field. Listen to my full conversation with Ambassador Brownback on the Breakpoint podcast. The conversation will also be posted on Breakpoint's Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram pages, as well as on breakpoint.org. Incidentally, on July 13th through 15th in Washington, D.C., Ambassador Brownback will join with 70 different organizations, including the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, to host the International Religious Freedom Summit 2021 (IRF). IRF is the most comprehensive event to date on the status of religious freedom around the world. For more information visit irfsummit.com.

John and Maria start by making sense of the tragedy in Miami. With the Champlain Towers collapse there are many questions. John discusses a few ways to consider tragedies, and how Christians can respond with a worldview large enough to hold the brokenness we're experiencing. Maria then shares a commentary she wrote related to Gwen Berry, an athlete who recently turned her back to the American flag while standing on the podium during Olympic trials. John highlighted the importance of protecting liberties to dissent, even when dissent seems egregious to unity and the purpose of the Olympics. John provides clarity on a recent letter sent from the IRS to a Christian organization that was seeking tax exempt status. The letter essentially told the organization they can't receive the status due to their practice of communicating a voting guideline that aligns with a religious perspective. Maria then shared new data that shows a striking rise in deaths to young people. The data highlighted that the rise in deaths was not related to the Coronavirus. John outlines a few key points to help Christians not only think well on the issue, but potentially stand in support of young people who are suffering in light of the pandemic. To close Maria shares how a recent beauty queen, Miss Nevada, is actually a biological male. The man identifies as transgender, competing in the beauty pageant and taking the next step in the competition to Miss America. -- Story References -- The Champlain Towers, a Condominium Highrise, Collapsed Last Friday The northeast portion of the building, facing the beach, fell to the ground, while other units were left standing. But after days of intensive searches, the scene appeared quiet on Thursday, with cranes frozen above the rubble. The silent scene froze heroes who are digging through rubble working to find the over 100 people still missing. New York Times>> Why You're Free to Hate America Last week at the U.S. Olympic Trials, an American hammer thrower turned away from the flag while the United States National Anthem played. Gwen Berry later told reporters that the national anthem "doesn't speak" for her. BreakPoint>> IRS Denies 501(c)3 status to Conservative Group in TX The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has denied tax-exempt status to a Christian group in Texas on the grounds that "the bible [sic] teachings are typically affiliated with the [Republican] party and candidates." The Texan>> Young American Adults Are Dying — and Not Just From Covid Nearly 19% more Americans died in 2020 than in 2019, according to data that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is the biggest such increase since 1918, when deaths rose 30%. Bloomberg>> Transgender woman wins Miss Nevada USA pageant, "making history" A transgender woman has been crowned Miss Nevada USA — for the first time in the pageant's history. NY Post>> -- Cites and Recommendations -- Overwhelming Majority of Americans Support Religious Freedom, Oppose Key Provisions of Equality Act - Summit Ministries Survey - https://www.summit.org/about/press/new-poll-overwhelming-majority-of-americans-support-religious-freedom-oppose-key-provisions-of-equality-act/ Wilberforce Weekend Online Common Sense - Thomas Paine John Adams - HBO Series on Former President John Adams The Patriot - Roland Emmerich Directed Movie Liberty's Kids - Children's Series on America Hamilton - Broadway Musical

Chuck Colson would often say that the greatest gift Christianity gave the world other than the message of salvation is the idea of the image of God. It is important for Christians to know and understand the image of God for three distinct reasons. First, the image of God has been among the most consequential ideas in all of human history. Even atheists like Friedrich Nietzsche or the modern-day philosopher Luc Ferry, have acknowledged that our ideas about human dignity, human equality and human value were not present across cultures and civilizations, but were introduced to the world in Christianity. Why? Because of its core belief that humans were made in the image and likeness of God. Second, the image of God is central to a truly Christian worldview. Scripture has been given to us in a grand, sweeping narrative: the story of creation to new creation, from the heavens and earth to the new heavens and new earth. And one of the central characters in the Christian story is the image of God. We see this right away in Genesis 1, in which God creates the heavens and the earth; then He creates His image bearers to rule over them in His place and for His glory. Finally, the image of God is critical if we are going to understand the issues and challenges of our day. The most significant challenges we face in our culture are not fundamentally moral ones. We do face moral challenges but the ones we face are the fruit of the problems, not the root. It's the effect, not the cause. At the root of the issues of our culture has been a dramatic shift in how we think about the nature and value of the human person. At the recent Wilberforce Weekend, Rebecca McLaughlin talked about the significance of the image of God. This idea is in all of human history. She referenced the Declaration of Independence, went on to highlight how the image of God directs our hearts to freedom, and how the greatest freedom ever won is the freedom we find in Christ. Here is an edited excerpt of Rebecca's talk: John [Stonestreet] brought up that time when your country threw my country out. And I just want to say, I find that offensive, especially as I live in Boston, and I drink tea. I have it rubbed in my face day after day. So, if you guys could just leave it at that, I would appreciate it! In all seriousness though, I am going to bring us back again to the Declaration of Independence because I enjoy the pain. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. Now, people often talk about the New Testament as if it condones and justifies slavery, and I can understand why they do. Slaves are addressed in the New Testament because they were part of the early Church. In fact, from very early on, Christianity was mocked as being a religion of slaves and women and little children. Slaves are given instructions about how to live for Jesus in the condition that they find themselves. We look at Paul's letter to Philemon and think, okay, the Apostle Paul wrote a letter sending an enslaved person back to his master. Of course, that means the Bible condones slavery. Right? Not if you read the letter. Paul sends Onesimus back and tells Philemon to receive him as a brother. That's not all. Paul tells Philemon that Onesimus is his very heart. He loves him that much. He tells him to receive him back as he would receive Paul himself, his most respected mentor. In the New Testament there are ways that we are called to relate to each other as fellow image bearers of God, which is a radical undermining of the idea of there being masters and slaves. There were those whose lives were valueless and could be exploited by the more powerful. We see that in Jesus' own life as He takes on the slave role himself and dies a slave's death for us and for every enslaved person in history. As Christianity starts to work its way through the West, we see slavery being progressively abolished. One of the earliest explicit arguments against slavery comes from Gregory of Nyssa in the fourth century. He asks, how much does rationality cost? How many obols (currency at the time) did you pay for the image of God? How many staters did you get for selling the God-formed man? It's ridiculous. It is absurd for somebody to think that he can own another human being who has been made in the image of God. We're celebrating Wilberforce Weekend and it's right and good that we look back to folks like William Wilberforce, whose Christian faith drove him to fight tooth and nail against the evils of slavery. But we have to recognize as well that if Christians had truly believed that black people were made in the image of God, just as much as white people were, that Africans were made in the image of God, just as much as Europeans were, there wouldn't have been anything to abolish at that point. It's right for us to look back at the heroes of the faith, who fought for biblical values when it comes to human equality and who fought against slavery. But we must also reckon with the sins of our same sort of spiritual ancestors who didn't. Because the imago Dei had to kill slavery twice. And just as a disproportionate number of folks in the early Church were enslaved, people who are clinging on to Jesus — who died a slave's death for them — so Jesus has been calling enslaved people to himself through the centuries. To hear Rebecca's full talk, and gain access to the entire library of presentations about the image of God, visit wilberforceweekend.org.

From its earliest days, wherever Christianity has spread, hospitals have followed, particularly for the world's poor. Although most Christians who served the poor by healing the sick remain largely unknown, José Gregorio Hernández is an exception. He is a major figure in the history of Venezuela and is remembered today, both for his medical skills and his generosity to the poor. Yet, for all his ability and eventual fame, he almost missed out on serving God in this way, ironically because he wanted to serve God. José Gregorio Hernández was born in the town of Isnotú, Venezuela, in the foothills of the Andes Mountains. His parents owned a general store, and his father was an amateur physician. People would come to him for treatment, and he would diagnose their illnesses and prepare medicines for them. He was particularly skilled with herbal remedies. By all accounts, his skills were highly regarded in the area. Perhaps inspired by this example, his son decided to pursue a medical career. José received his degree in 1888 from the Central University of Venezuela in Caracas. Once he was licensed as a physician, the Venezuelan government helped him pursue advanced studies in Europe. He traveled to the Pasteur Institute in Paris, where he studied bacteriology, microbiology, histology, and physiology. When he returned to Venezuela, he became one of the principal doctors at the Hospital José Maria Vargas. Despite this early professional success, however, Dr. Hernández was not entirely sure about his vocation as a physician. He believed that in dedicating his life to serving God, his only choice was to join the clergy as a monk or a priest. A calling could only be to the cloister. This idea led him twice to attempt to become a monk. In 1908, he spent ten months in the Monastery of Lucca in Italy before his frail health forced him to return home. Then in 1913, he returned to Italy to continue his preparations for the cloister in the Latin America Pio School in Rome. Once again, however, poor health forced him to return to Venezuela. Even as he took these trips to Italy, Hernández continued to practice medicine in Caracas. He became known as the "doctor of the poor." He responded to any call for help, whether the patient was rich or poor. He treated the poor for free and sometimes even bought medicine for them with his own money. Along with practicing medicine, Hernández taught advanced medicine through his hospital in Caracas. This led him to publish The Elements of Bacteriology in 1906. He also continued his medical research., making important discoveries about the effect of malaria. His publications were not limited to medical topics, however. In keeping with his theological and philosophical interests, he published The Elements of Philosophy. In 1919, after attending Mass one day, Hernández stopped at a pharmacy to buy medicine for one of his patients. Cars had only recently been introduced to Caracas, and there were still very few of them on the streets. Perhaps for this reason, Hernández did not look as he walked around a tram and stepped into the street. He was struck by a car, thrown to the ground, and hit his head on the stone curb on the street, killing him instantly. News of his death spread across the city. So many wanted to show their respects that newspaper accounts said that nearly every flower in the city was picked for funeral bouquets and wreaths. At the funeral, tens of thousands of people filled the square around the cathedral, and when his body was going to be placed in the hearse, a spontaneous cry rose from the crowd, "Dr. Hernández is ours!" The people took up the coffin and bore it on their shoulders to the cemetery, and his memory lives on among the people of Caracas to this day. This was a life worth celebrating. He was a wonderful example of a Christian who lived out his faith sacrificially, using his considerable gifts to help the poor and to advance medical knowledge and education. His dedication and desire to serve God informed his work as a physician and his service to the poor. Yet, we also need to remember the mistake he almost made. God gives each of us a unique calling and purpose for our life, a calling that is as true out "in the world" as much as it is for those in professional ministry. For most of us, serving God and following His call means not becoming part of the clergy but working in the "secular" realm where our gifts can do the most good for our neighbors. Changed this sentence's scope from let's not make his mistake to let's remember that he almost made a mistake. Changed sentence for logical coherence.

Michael Craven joins John on Ask the Colson Center to discuss a myriad of topics. They discuss how a professional can retain credibility in their field in the face of woke courts and cancel culture. They also answer a question on how the church can care for the culture without swinging the pendulum into Critical Race Theory. Michael goes on to ask John if Christians should retire and if Christians should preach the simplicity of the Gospel to the culture rather than engage in culture wars.

Like his democratic predecessor, President Biden has prioritized LGBTQ rights in both the domestic and foreign policies of the United States. The administration's priorities were made most obvious in early June when an enormous rainbow flag was hung outside the U.S. embassy to the Vatican. While "trolling" the Roman Catholic Church isn't usually a diplomatic priority, officials made their intentions clear by tweeting: "The U.S. Embassy to the Holy See celebrates #PrideMonth with the Pride flag on display during the month of June. The United States respects the dignity and equality of LGBTQI+ people." The number of letters in that acronym continues to grow, but that shouldn't be confused with a unified movement. These are movements, plural, all made possible by what sociologist Peter Berger has called "modern man's perpetual identity crisis." And these movements based on fluid categories of sexual and gender identity are themselves suffering identity crises. A week after the Embassy to the Vatican flew the flag of virtue signaling, the gay news site "Them" announced that the Pride flag was updated in order to be even more inclusive. The new design features a purple circle on a yellow triangle in order to include intersex people (the "i"), pink and blue chevrons to represent transgender people, brown and black chevrons for LGBTQI+ people of color, and white chevrons for asexual individuals. All of this is overlaid on the original rainbow to form the new tincture-violating "Progress Pride Flag," that is even more representative than was intended. The clashing of colors is appropriate for the inherent contradictions of the movements represented, such as including intersex individuals alongside of those who identify as transgender. "Intersex" refers to a physical ailment, a quantifiable medical condition that afflicts a small segment of the population. To represent that biological characteristic on the flag of a movement that rejects the relevance of any biological characteristics to gender is flat-out incoherent. And then there's the ever-escalating conflict between the T's with the L's. Given the history of lesbian activism and its connection with second wave feminism, many of the "L's" are having difficulty with the men who appropriate the experiences, the struggles, and the sports teams of women. Understandably so. Given all that is interfering with the unity of these movements, a booklet provided by the Leicester Fire Brigade (UK) may be the only way forward. The booklet was filled with flags, 20 pages worth, each representing a particular gender or sexual identity, most I'd never heard of. The booklet has since been deleted for not accurately representing the fire house's "ongoing commitment to the LGBT+ community." Exactly how the booklet failed or what it ever had to do with fighting fires isn't clear. The flag problem reflects an ever-growing jumble of contradictory claims about sex, gender, and psychology, all of which lacks any uniting principle other than an opposition to what came before. There's no end to be found, and I mean that in two ways: First, the "plus" sign at the end of the acronym is an open invitation to ever more identities, with no end in sight; second, a movement built on deconstructing what came before has no end — in the sense of no telos. There is no clear, unifying purpose or goal to these movements, or for people taken captive by it. This provides both a challenge and opportunity for Christians, who can offer a compelling vision of human value, human dignity, and even diversity. In fact, the Progress Pride flag and its acronym are, in many ways, a poor parody of the unity and diversity central to the biblical story. In the beginning, God separated day from night, heavens from the Earth, land from sea, animals from humans, and the woman from the man. The diversity in the created order was intentional, but not as an end in itself. All that He made served a unity of purpose: to honor and please God who is Himself a Unity in Diversity, Three in One. The New Testament also speaks of one body with many parts; diversity united under Christ. We are one house that God builds out of many stones, with Jesus as the Chief Cornerstone. In the Church, one people is formed from Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female. In the New Heaven and the New Earth (a beautiful reversal of Babel), people of every tongue, tribe, nation, and language are described as unified before the throne of God. All attempts at inclusion, without the larger context of a unifying shared humanity, lead to incoherence. But this incoherence is an opportunity for Christians to offer a better vision of our purpose, our value, our gendered bodies, and our sexuality. In a culture running out of colors and letters, it's a vision that is badly needed.

China's next great leap forward could be forced procreation, and it's animated by the same ideas that energize so much of the West. In 1957, Chinese dictator Mao Zedong told a Yugoslav official that his nation did not fear a nuclear attack: "What if they killed 300 million of us?" he said. "We would still have many people left." Recently, China announced a revision to its infamous one-child policy, instituted by Mao's successor. Married couples can now apply to have up to three children, an increase from the more recent limit of two. On the surface, the policy change might appear to be a significant improvement on Mao's 1957 statement — at least in terms of human dignity. In fact, it is not. Both these stories reflect what happens when a society rejects the core Christian idea of the image of God. Mao's callous suggestion that there were plenty more Chinese to replace the dead ones is the obvious one. That contempt for image bearers was central to Mao's worldview. By God's grace, his theory about China's ability to survive a nuclear war was never tested. But what of his willingness to sacrifice tens of millions of Chinese on the altar of his ideological ego? That's a matter of historical record. Mao's great leap forward, his attempt to transform Chinese society economically and politically, resulted in the slaughter of as many as 55 million people. Mostly through famine brought on by his reckless policies. His successors continued to treat the Chinese people as disposable ends to ideological means — from the one-child policy to the genocidal campaign against the Uyghur minority, to the crackdown against Christians. People there exist to serve the State, not the other way around. The second rejection of the image of God is in the recent announcement about the increased family size. It's not due to some newfound appreciation for family life or the dignity of children. Rather, as the New York Times reported, this new policy is a desperate attempt to avert a demographic crisis that jeopardizes China's economic future, as well as the Communist Party's increasingly precarious hold on power. As The Times ominously predicts, it's not clear that relaxing the policy further will pay off. After all, people responded coolly to the initial expansion of the policy back in 2016 that allowed couples to have two children. What happens if this new attempt at social engineering fails? Gordon Chang, author of The Coming Collapse of China, recently raised the horrifying specter of mandated procreation. Writing in Newsweek and quoting Reggie Littlejohn of Women's Rights Without Frontiers, Chang asked whether Beijing will turn to force pregnancy since coercion is at the core of its population control policy. That possibility cannot be dismissed. Chang stated that forced procreation has been on the mind of Chinese officials for years. China's fertility crisis and gender imbalance pose existential threats to a regime willing to respond in draconian ways. The monstrous behavior of the Chinese government is well known and well documented, but our increasingly secular Western world has also proved to miss the point from whence it comes. The same Western corporations that bow to China, particularly media and entertainment, breathlessly promulgate Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale thesis. But in the real world it's never pro-lifers that treat women as mere breeders or babies as mere commodities. It's unrestrained governments that see image bearers as economic units. And unrestrained consumers who see other image bearers as useful means to accomplish the ends of their sexual lifestyles. In fact, it is the same bad ideas that drive the behaviors of China's ruling elites and Western individualists. The same basic contempt for the sanctity of human persons. The same basic rejection of the image of God. In his book A Brief History of Thought, atheist philosopher Luc Ferry rightly noted that the only source for human dignity, universal human rights, and human history is the Christian vision of the imago Dei. "Christianity was to introduce the notion," wrote Ferry, "that men are equal in dignity, an unprecedented idea at the time, and one to which our world owes its entire democratic inheritance." This notion, he said, is the direct result of the unique vision of the human person that's only found in Christianity. Thankfully most people will never take it as far as Mao and his successors. But there are many regimes and many people operating out of a similar world view. At the very least these days, we live as if Christian ideas about human dignity are true. Jettisoning the only worldview that has ever made these ideas possible, how long can the charade last? That is anyone's guess. We do know how the world will look when the charade is up.