This past week, PBS premiered the latest film by Ken Burns. His subject was Waitstill Sharp, a Unitarian minister and his wife Martha, who, during World War II, helped smuggled at least 150 Jews out of Nazi-controlled areas, operating first in Prague and then in Lisbon.

It’s a remarkable story that is worth telling and hearing.

And there’s another story involving the rescue of as many as 2,500 Jews that Glenn Sunshine recently brought to our attention. And I promise, it’s a story that’s also worthy of your attention.

The protagonist of this story was a 29-year-old Polish social worker named Irena Sendler. Her responsibilities included taking care of countless people who had been dispossessed by the German occupation of her country.

The most vulnerable and most dispossessed were Warsaw’s Jews. Four hundred thousand of them were crowded into a three-and-one-half square mile area. At great personal risk, Sendler found a way to enter the Ghetto, which was off-limits to non-Jewish Poles, to see how she could help relieve the appalling conditions.

As her biographer wrote “Irena knew she had to help the sick and starving Jews who were imprisoned in the Warsaw Ghetto. She began by smuggling food, clothing, and medicine into the ghetto.”

But in the fall of 1942, half of the Ghetto’s inhabitants were deported to the Treblinka death camp, where they were immediately gassed upon arrival.

This barbarity led Sendler and her co-conspirators to declare war on Hitler and to redouble their efforts. Working in concert with Catholic orphanages, especially the Family of Mary orphanage in Warsaw, Sendler, code-named “Jolanta,” and her co-conspirators helped smuggle out an estimated 2,500 Jewish children by whatever means possible: hiding them in coffins, potato sacks, even in a tool box.

Continue reading BreakPoint – Saving the Children: The Story of Irena Sendler →

Some issues in presidential politics have staying power. Twelve years ago, everyone was talking about immigration, abortion, and terrorism. Today, everyone is still talking about immigration, abortion, and terrorism.

But another issue that gripped the public and had candidates shouting from the debate stages then has been all but forgotten today: embryonic stem cell research.

Here’s a quick refresher: Stem cells exist in every multicellular organism and have the ability to differentiate into different types of tissue, whether it be heart, brain, lung, liver or other kinds of human tissue. The stem cells everyone is interested in—called “pluripotent” stem cells—have the ability to become any type of tissue, anywhere in the body.

Scientists have long seen these cells as a potential cure or therapy for degenerative diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, as well as paralysis, heart disease, and a host of others. A decade ago, the only way to derive “pluripotent” stem cells was to conceive a human embryo in a test tube, and then kill it.

Then-president George W. Bush issued a moratorium on new federal funding for this type of stem cell, sparking outrage from across the aisle. The move was roundly condemned as “anti-scientific,” and Bush was lampooned by the media, liberal politicians, and cartoonists as a peddler of dark-age superstitions.

In 2009, a newly-elected President Obama immediately lifted the moratorium and poured new funding into embryonic stem cell research. Since then, countless embryos have been destroyed with taxpayer dollars, but to this day, the technology has failed to yield the miracle cures Americans were promised.

And that’s only one reason the debate has gotten so quiet. During the years since the moratorium, a different kind of stem cell—tissue-specific “somatic” or adult stem cells—have been used to successfully treat over a million-and-a-half people with conditions ranging from blindness and cancer, to juvenile diabetes and arthritis. Without killing human embryos.

And in 2006, a technique pioneered by Nobel Prize-winning Japanese scientist Shinya Yamanaka all but rendered embryonic stem cells obsolete. He discovered a way to induce pluripotency, causing adult cells to mimic embryonic stem cells. His method has since been developed to the point where researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital used it to grow a genetically-compatible, beating human heart from a patient’s skin cells!

This method is actually superior to the embryonic method, because it eliminates the risk of rejection. The freshly-grown tissue from adult stem cells is, quite literally, the patient’s own. All of this led Christopher White at Crux to declare the stem cell controversy effectively over. President Bush was right, White argues, and so were the legions of pro-life activists who supported alternatives to embryo-destructive research. The stem cell debate didn’t just fizzle out. On an important level, it was soundly won by those who insisted that medical science could advance without turning human life at its earliest stages into a disposable commodity.

Continue reading BreakPoint –  The Late, Great Stem Cell Debate: Why Pro-Lifers Were Right →

Imagine a team of paleontologists eons from now, excavating the remains of ancient life. “Aha!,” says one, holding up a finger stained with petroleum grease. “Look here,” says another, brandishing a petrified Coca-Cola bottle. “Yes, this confirms it,” remarks a third, holding up a fossilized chicken bone. “This layer is Anthropocene.”

That’s precisely the scene one group of experts seemed to have in mind at this summer’s meeting of the International Geological Congress. The group’s chair, a professor at the University of Leicester, argued that human beings have so profoundly altered our planet that we have entered a new geologic era. The so-called “Anthropocene,” or “era of man,” will be easy to recognize in future rock layers by its distinctive strata of garbage, radioactive fallout, carbon pollution, and yes—chicken bones. At least, that’s what these scientists claim.

And there’s another marker of the Anthropocene: a so-called “Sixth Extinction.” The current die-off of species at the hands of human beings is so severe, say some scientists, that it’s comparable to the extinction of the dinosaurs and other major die-offs in Earth’s history.

“Nature is dead,” we might paraphrase Nietzsche, “and we have killed her.” But is this bleak picture of our relationship with all other life really accurate? Are we really entering the geologic era of man?

Let’s not flatter ourselves, says environmentalist and author Stewart Brand. In a recent essay at Aeon, Brand argues that notions like the “Anthropocene” and the “sixth extinction” aren’t just wrong. They’re a recipe for panic and paralysis when it comes to protecting our still-beautiful and wild Earth.

“Viewing every conservation issue through the lens of extinction threat is simplistic and usually irrelevant,” Brand writes. “Worse, it introduces an emotional charge that makes the problem seem cosmic and overwhelming rather than local and solvable.”

If doctors talked to their patients the way most environmentalists talk to the public, they’d begin every session by saying, “Well, you’re dying. Let’s see if we can do anything to slow that down a little.”

Continue reading BreakPoint – We are Nature’s Caretakers, Not Her Undertakers →

It’s September, and high school seniors are filling out their college applications. And if you’re the parent of a senior, like I am, you’re probably biting your nails. Because every day there’s a new and maddening report of progressive insanity at our nation’s universities: so-called “safe spaces” where students can hide from ideas that offend them, Ivy League schools providing feminine products in men’s rooms, wacko professors getting tenure while those who speak in favor of traditional morality get hounded off campus.

To make matters worse, Christian universities and colleges appear to be in the cross-hairs of the culture wars, too. California is laying the groundwork to discriminate against any institution that fails to confess the new LGBT orthodoxy. Even some traditionally strong Christian schools have been wracked by theological controversy.

So why is David Brooks so bullish on Christian higher ed?

The New York Times columnist gave his reasons for optimism at the recent 40th anniversary celebration of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. Brooks is a graduate, by the way, of the University of Chicago, and he teaches at Yale, my alma mater. There’s no need for Christians to feel in any way inferior, he says, acknowledging that while his Ivy League students are “amazing,” they’re pretty one-dimensional.

“They’ve been raised in a culture,” Brooks says, “that encourages them to pay attention to the résumé virtues of how to have a great career but leaves by the wayside … time to think about the eulogy virtues: the things they’ll say about you after you’re dead. They go through their school with the mixture of complete self-confidence and utter terror, afraid of a single false step off the achievement machine.” It’s flat, lifeless, and soul-killing.

But Christian schools attempt to educate their charges in three dimensions. Brooks told Christian college leaders that Christian universities “are the avant-garde of 21st century culture.” Christian colleges “have a way of talking about and educating the human person in a way that integrates faith, emotion and intellect. [They] have a recipe to nurture human beings who have a devoted heart, a courageous mind and a purposeful soul. Almost no other set of institutions in American society has that, and everyone wants it.”

Continue reading BreakPoint – Hope for Christian Colleges amidst the Culture Wars →

Throughout history, there’s been no shortage of superlatives showered on Michelangelo’s stunning statue of David, sling in hand, ready to take on Goliath. Giorgio Vasari, a 16th century artist and historian said this:

“It cannot be denied that this work has carried off the palm from all other statues, modern or ancient, Greek or Latin; no other artwork is equal to it in any respect, with such just proportion, beauty and excellence did Michelangelo finish it.”

And if you’re one of the millions of people who’ve travelled to Florence, Italy, and have seen the 14-foot statue in person, you probably agree.

More than any other work of art, except perhaps Michelangelo’s “The Creation of Adam” on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, the “David” statue captures the image and essence of Man. Confident, determined, physically beautiful and strong, called to a noble purpose: to do battle with evil in the service of the God in Whose image we are made.

And yet news from Florence reveals that “David” reflects humanity in another way: He is flawed.  To be more specific, there are cracks in his ankles; cracks that could, as the New York Times reports, “bring down the world’s most perfect statue.”

As Sam Anderson writes, “The seed of the problem is a tiny imperfection in the statue’s design. The center of gravity in the base doesn’t align with the center of gravity in the figure itself.”  If the statue is perfectly upright and level, all is well. But even the tiniest tilt places enormous stress on the six-ton statue’s “narrowest part: his ankles.”

And, for what Anderson calls “a very long time,” “David” did lean slightly, which created the hairline cracks that threaten the statue.

You’d think making sure the statue stands perfectly upright would be a simple enough engineering feat, but there are a couple of problems. The first is bureaucratic inertia and confusion on the part of the Italian government. And the second: earthquakes. If Florence gets hit by one, it could be “Arrivederci, David.”

So here we have the crown jewel of creativity, art, beauty, and sculpture, and yet he’s flawed, fragile, in need of restoration, poised on the verge of catastrophe.

Just like we are.

Continue reading BreakPoint – Man and Michelangelo’s ‘David’: Fragile Masterpieces →

There’s an old story about a chemist, a physicist, and an economist stranded on a desert island with nothing to eat but a can of soup. Puzzling over how to open the can, the chemist says, “Let’s heat the can until it swells and bursts from the buildup of gases.” “No, no,” says the physicist, “let’s throw it off that cliff with just enough kinetic energy to split it open on the rocks below.” The economist, after thinking a moment says, “Assume a can opener.”

There’s more than one trade that deals in assumptions. The way Darwinists approach the origin of life is a lot like that economist’s idea for opening the can. The Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection explains everything about life, we’re told—except how it began. “Assume a self-replicating cell containing information in the form of genetic code,” Darwinists are forced to say. Well, fine. But where did that little miracle come from?

A new discovery makes explaining even that first cell tougher still. Fossils unearthed by Australian scientists in Greenland may be the oldest traces of life ever discovered. A team from the University of Wollongong recently published their findings in the journal “Nature,” describing a series of structures called “stromatolites” that emerged from receding ice.

“Stromatolites” may sound like something your doctor would diagnose, but they’re actually biological rocks formed by colonies of microbes that live in shallow water. If you visit the Bahamas today, you can see living stromatolites.

What’s so special about them? Well, they appear in rocks most scientists date to 220 million years older than the oldest fossils, which pushes the supposed date for the origin of life back to 3.7 billion years ago.

Continue reading BreakPoint – New Fossil Discovery Poses Problem for Evolutionists →

I recently had the pleasure of speaking with Lord Jonathan Sacks, a British rabbi who won the 2016 Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion—a prize Chuck Colson also won. Lord Sacks told me that every American ought to read Alexis de Tocqueville’s classic book, “Democracy in America,” at least once a year. Why? To remind ourselves that citizens acting together can do far more good than a far-off government.

Just ask the citizens of Baton Rouge. Following a catastrophic flood recently which killed 13 people and rendered thousands homeless, residents learned yet again—as they did after Hurricane Katrina—how unreliable “the government” can be. U.S. Congressman John Mica called the federal government’s response “pitiful.”

But that didn’t mean Baton Rougers were without help—far from it. Hundreds of volunteers—members of churches, civic groups, and rank and file volunteers—showed up to pitch in. Volunteers in boats rescued some 30,000 people.

Wesley Pruden, a columnist at the Washington Times, marveled at the private citizens who worked to ease the suffering. For example, a Notre Dame student organized food contributions. Citizens in Appalachia loaded up a truck “with diapers, baby food, basic groceries, odd pieces of furniture and tape guns.” And University of South Carolina athletes “organized a truck to Baton Rouge for the benefit of their rivals at Louisiana State University.”

Continue reading BreakPoint –  Americans Doing Good: Louisiana, Tocqueville, and Volunteer Associations →

In Mark Twain’s classic story, “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court,” a denizen of nineteenth-century New England named Hank Morgan mysteriously finds himself thrown back into sixth-century England. The resourceful Hartford man, taken for a magician and sentenced to burn at the stake, recalls reading about a total solar eclipse that took place on that date in history. So he warns his captors that if they won’t release him, he’ll blot out the sun. When Arthur and his court won’t cooperate, Morgan dramatically delivers on his promise, terrifying their pre-scientific minds and earning himself a place at King Arthur’s right-hand.

If you happen to find yourself tied to a stake on August 21st of next year, you’ll be glad to know that another solar eclipse is on the way. The so-called “great American eclipse” will plunge viewers from coast to coast into darkness for a dramatic three or so minutes as the moon comes between the earth and the sun—although you’ll have to travel to a narrow strip from South Carolina to Oregon to see the sun fully disappear.

This rare event is more than just an amazing light show and a way of escaping execution by superstitious medievals. It’s also one of the most dramatic pieces of evidence that our planet and solar system were not accidents, but were designed by God.

Sarah Chaffee at Evolution News and Views cites astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and philosopher Jay Richards, who argue that our place in the cosmos is designed for discovery. That’s the subtitle of their book, “The Privileged Planet,” in which they document how vital total solar eclipses are to science.

For example, these phenomena were key in validating Einstein’s theory of relativity, which predicted that gravity bends light. By observing stars that are invisible except during an eclipse, astronomers were able to watch the sun bend their light, making them appear out of place in the sky, and confirming Einstein’s prediction. Eclipses were also how man first observed solar flares and coronal mass ejections on the surface of the sun. These phenomena are normally invisible to the naked eye, but appear briefly around the edges of the moon during an eclipse.

It turns out the conditions for this dazzling display are incredibly rare. The moon has to be just the right size, orbiting a planet just the right distance from its host star. And it so happens that although the sun is 400 times bigger than the moon, it’s also (coincidence?) 400 times further from us, meaning that the two objects appear roughly the same size in the sky. This allows the moon to block the sun in precisely the right way for scientists to study the solar atmosphere.

Continue reading BreakPoint –  Observatory Earth: Eclipses and Our Privileged Planet →

On September 2, 1991, Chuck Colson took to the radio airwaves with his first BreakPoint commentary. That’s 25 years ago today.

But think of all that has changed since then. Technology? My goodness. The World Wide Web was only available to research universities. No Google. No Amazon.

And mobile phones were the size of your shoe! If you had to make a call on the road, you needed coins and a phone booth. And people still wrote letters to each other. On paper. With pens.

George Bush the First was president. Operation Desert Storm had just taken place. No 9/11. No Afghanistan. We didn’t know what jihadism was. And about a month after Chuck’s first BreakPoint, some governor from Arkansas announced he planned to run for president.

And culturally… well. Same-sex “marriage,” transgender bathrooms, these were simply unimaginable. And the idea that the government and major corporations would punish those who opposed such things—that would have been conspiracy thinking.

So much has changed since then. But the reason Eric Metaxas and I offer BreakPoint every day hasn’t.

Let me ask this: As Christians, we know things are not right with the world. But can we put our finger on why?

Or let me ask this: In the midst of our daily lives of responsibilities and distractions, when is the last time we stepped back and asked, “What is the purpose of life? What’s all of this for?”

Continue reading BreakPoint – What Has Changed Since BreakPoint Began 25 Years Ago? →

It’s become so commonplace on American college campuses that it’s hardly news anymore. Students demanding “safe spaces,” where they aren’t confronted by any idea that might offend them or challenge their way of thinking. Trigger warnings: Professors having to announce that a particular book or lecture may upset someone.

At many universities, students are so determined not to be offended that they will shout down and shut down appearances by speakers who dare to hold a different point of view.

And more maddening than any of this is that many universities actually condone this behavior. Or at least refuse to intervene.

So I’m happy to share with you this “man-bites-dog” story from the University of Chicago.

Dean of Students Jay Ellison sent a letter to incoming freshmen with a stern warning:

“Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.”

Dean Ellison goes on to write that “the free exchange of ideas reinforces another university priority—building a campus that welcomes people of all backgrounds.”

Folks, the University of Chicago is an elite university. Forbes magazine ranks it #20 in its “best American colleges” category. And the composite SAT scores of its student body range from 1435 to 1600 (1600 by the way, is a perfect score).

It’s also fair to say that the University of Chicago, on a liberal to conservative scale, sits comfortably on the “liberal” side of the ledger.

Continue reading BreakPoint – Why ‘Safe Spaces’ are Dangerous for College Campuses →

If you blinked sometime around 2010, you probably didn’t recognize the country when you opened your eyes. Once President Obama “evolved” on marriage, and the Supreme Court redefined that institution, the remaining cultural dominoes are falling, and fast.

This year alone, laws were proposed that would force Christian colleges to deny their beliefs, and a federal directive demanded that schools nationwide accommodate transgender students in both restrooms and athletics. And this march is accompanied by the persistent media drumbeat that “the science is settled” on these issues.

But the rhetoric is way ahead of the research. A sweeping new report in the The New Atlantis surveys decades of published data on sexual orientation, gender dysphoria, and the psychology behind them. The results are turning heads. Not only is the science behind LGBT claims far from settled, but these findings call into question foundational assumptions of the new sexual orthodoxy.

Dr. Paul McHugh and Lawrence Mayer, psychiatric experts, argue that “there is a large gap between the certainty with which beliefs about [sexual orientation and gender identity] are held…and what a sober assessment of the science reveals.”

Their report identifies major areas where scientific findings don’t support the triumphal rhetoric of activists. First, the idea that “gay” people are “born that way,” genetically pre-programmed to be attracted to their own sex, lacks evidence.

“Genes,” write the authors, “constitute only one of the many key influences on behavior in addition to environmental influences, personal choices, and interpersonal experiences.” So-called “sexual orientation” is “fluid,” not “fixed” and often changes throughout a person’s life. In fact, some studies found that eighty percent of males who reported homosexual or bisexual feelings as children later identified exclusively as heterosexual.

Their report also tackles the transgender question, comparing actual research to the lofty claims of activists. Once again, there’s a yawning chasm. Only a tiny minority of children who experience gender dysphoria continue to identify as transgender when they’re adults.

Continue reading BreakPoint –  Study: ‘Born This Way’ Science Lacks Evidence →

Last week a thought occurred to me. I wanted to tweet it out but wondered whether it would be too incendiary. The thought was this: “It seems odd how confident we are that folks can lose their unwanted sexual parts, but can’t lose their unwanted sexual attractions.”

And then I thought of the stunning article by Christian ethicist David Gushee. And if you follow me on Twitter, you know what I did next. I hit “Tweet.”

In his article at Religion News Service, Gushee fired a warning shot across the bow of conservative evangelicals and religious traditionalists. He writes, “[y]ou are either for full and unequivocal social and legal equality for LGBT people, or you are against it. . . neutrality is not an option. Neither is polite half-acceptance . . . Hide as you might, the issue will come and find you.”

Now, there have been honest attempts by people on both sides of these issues to offer third-way sensible solutions, even compromises, that accommodate religious freedom and LGBT rights. Still, I think Gushee is right when he said these solutions will largely be rejected, shouted down by demands of a full embrace of the LGBT agenda.

What bothered me, however, deeply about Gushee’s piece, was how he framed the struggle of those who hold strongly to the historic Christian vision of sex and marriage. Conservative religious holdouts, Gushee writes, “are organizing legal defense efforts under the guise of religious liberty, and interpreting their plight as religious persecution.”

Jake Meador, writing at Mere Orthodoxy, was bothered too, using much stronger words than I am today. We’ve seen time and again, and Jake lists them, how federal, state, and local governments are forcing people to choose between their livelihoods and their faith. Meador goes on to point out what is really going on here—a clash of worldviews. And one side, at least, sees it as a total war.

And that side, as I tweeted, sees biological physical reality as fully optional and malleable to our surgical and chemical demands, while at the same time seeing emotional inclinations and sexual attraction as fixed and permanent. This is nothing but pagan Gnosticism on steroids. Gnosticism, over which Christianity triumphed 17 or 18 hundred years ago, held that the body was at best inconsequential, at worst, outright evil. Physical, biological reality is no reality at all.

Continue reading BreakPoint –  LGBT Rights Vs. Religious Freedom: No Middle Ground? →

A couple years ago, the Huffington Post’s “Wait But Why” blog created Lucy, an imagined embodiment of today’s emerging adult. Lucy is what the article called a GYPSY, short for Generation Y Protagonists and Special Yuppy. Lucy is destined to be unhappy.

From their earliest years, GYPSYs like Lucy, born between the late 70s and mid-90s, were told that they’re special, that they can be whatever they want to be, and that they should just “follow their passions” when choosing a career. Not surprisingly GYPSYs tend to struggle with a sense of entitlement.

According to the article, “The GYPSY needs a lot more from a career than … prosperity and security. …where the Baby Boomers wanted to live The American Dream, GYPSYs want to live Their Own Personal Dream.”

And this is a recipe for unhappiness. In those rare situations when reality exceeds our expectations, those convinced of the inherent goodness of their own personal dreams will be happy. But when reality falls short, as is most often the case, these dreamers will be unhappy, even depressed. Reality will never match the dreams GYPSYs have been told to expect.

Christians are guilty of inculcating false expectations to their young as well. For at least a couple of generations, Christian colleges and other educational institutions, with the noble intent of communicating the Biblical concept of “calling” being more than just full-time ministry jobs, have taught students to look at their own giftedness as the key (and sometimes the only key) to discovering “God’s will.” I must confess my own guilt in this regard.

Of course, it’s true the Lord has gifted us in unique ways to serve Him, and that we can discover these gifts through our passions and use them for His glory. Remember Olympian Eric Liddell’s wonderful line from Chariots of Fire? “God has made me…fast, and when I run I feel God’s pleasure.”

While the biblical picture of calling and vocation includes our giftedness, it also includes things like sacrifice, persecution, and an awareness of the needs of my neighbors. Jesus said that those who follow him carry crosses. Paul said that anyone who wishes to follow Christ will be persecuted. (Remember, Eric Liddell died in a Japanese prison camp.)

Continue reading BreakPoint –  How Can You find Your Calling in an Age of Entitlement? →

For some time now, I’ve been warning you about the various threats to religious freedom. We’ve talked about the gay-rights movement, which insidiously insists that religious believers and organizations bow before the altar of sexual freedom. We’ve talked about the so-called health care reform bill, which does not protect freedom of conscience of medical practitioners.

But now I’m seeing the threat to religious freedom in its most pernicious and dangerous form ever. I speak about this today on my Two Minute Warning video commentary. I urge you to go to ColsonCenter.org and watch it, and download the other resources.

In a nutshell, here’s what happened. In a speech at Georgetown University, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivered a speech on human rights. Not only did she talk about the right “to love in the way you choose,” (an obvious attempt at making protecting gay rights a top priority for the U.S. government), she also talked about “freedom of worship.”

But she never mentioned freedom of religion. Only freedom of worship–a big change.

In the First Amendment, the founders (whose work we celebrate this weekend) wisely ensured that government could not prohibit the “free exercise” of religion. And that means so much more than freedom of worship. It guarantees that we’re not restricted just to living out our faith in the privacy of our homes or church sanctuaries. It means we’re free to exercise our religion—and contend for faith—in every area of life.

Just this clever dissembling of words is an apparent attempt to restrict freedom of religion to freedom of worship only. Do you see the implications? Sure, I’m free to attend church, sing hymns, pray over meals, offer thanks to God for my children and grandchildren. That’s my own private affair.

But should the government succeed in redefining freedom of religion, how much longer can I practice my faith in public? See my Two Minute Warning to understand what this really means.

If you read history, you will see that that the first act of a tyrant is to suppress religion, which means of course, religious practice. Our Founders knew this. They knew the first English settlers came to these shores precisely so they could practice their faith.

Continue reading BreakPoint – Redefining the First Freedom: More Than Worship →