Doulos International ~ Robert Barkley

Prolife Revisionist History?
Abortion and Evangelicals

John Stonestreet
November 20, 2012

Author Jonathan Dudley thinks he has caught evangelicals with their
hands in the prolife cookie jar. In recent articles for the Huffington
Post and CNN, Dudley claims that Bible-believing Christians only took up
anti-abortion views in 1980 at the urging of Jerry Falwell, who
supposedly was seeking to amass political clout and saw the prolife
cause as a way to do it.

As evidence, Dudley quotes prominent evangelical leaders from the
`60s and `70s who supported abortion rights to one degree or
another, sometimes quoting Scripture to buttress their position.

Why is the issue of evangelical motives important today, more than
thirty years later? Well, according to Dudley, "For one thing,
it's harder to argue the Bible clearly teaches something when the
overwhelming majority of its past interpreters didn't read the Bible
that way."

He goes on: "It further illustrates that evangelical leaders are
happy to defend creative reinterpretations of the Bible when it fits
with a socially conservative worldview—even while objecting to new
interpretations of the Bible on, say, homosexuality, precisely because
they are new."

In other words, he says we're being unfaithful to Scripture and
being intellectually dishonest. Hey, where I come from—and for all
of us here at BreakPoint—those are fightin' words!

So where to begin? I think I'll start withChristianity Today editor
Mark Galli, who responded to Dudley online. Galli freely concedes that
evangelical views have changed over recent decades, moving from a
reluctant "pro-choice" stance back in the day to a solidly
prolife one now.

Yet Galli says that while politics may have played a role, other
disciplines—includin g sharper ethical reasoning and a deeper
knowledge of history—played much bigger ones. Think about it. Galli
notes that Scripture, like all great literature, has depths of meaning
that sometimes take centuries to come to cultural consciousness.

For example, although the Bible never explicitly says "life begins
at conception," it's a reasonable conclusion after studying all the
relevant passages. In the same way, Scripture never uses the word
"Trinity" for God, but it's the only orthodox interpretation
of the Bible's teaching on God's being.

Is it really so hard to believe that it might take time for Christians
to grasp the ramifications of Scripture for the world in which we live?
The emancipation of women took millennia, even though Genesis says both
male and female are created in God's image. And it took William
Wilberforce in 18th and 19th century England to launch the anti-slavery
movement.

So if Christian worldview thinking can change in these instances, why
not in the case of unborn human life? We're always learning as
Christians—or at least should be!

And Christians aren't the only people who have become more prolife
since the `80s. A significantly higher percentage of our society
claims to be prolife, partly because of the widespread use of ultrasound
machines and a new-found recognition of the carnage that results from
the extreme "pro-choice" position, which is essentially
abortion, even partial-birth abortion, for any reason. Evangelicals were
never for that, and more and more people are against it.

And with more than 50 million unborn human beings legally slaughtered in
the womb sinceRoe v. Wade, the nature of "choice" that we face
has become much clearer.

And it's flatly untrue to say that the "majority of
interpreters" throughout history did not forbid abortion. While 20th
century evangelicals were late in the game on this, other Christians
were not. Catholics have been consistently prolife, and the first
written Christian condemnation of abortion dates to the late first
century in a document called theDidache.

Of course, knowing that the position of many Christians about something
as fundamental as human life has changed so recently ought to give us a
healthy dose of humility. If we could have been so wrong, we ought to
hold our beliefs today firmly but with grace towards those who disagree.
Let's allow these folks the same opportunity to change their minds
thatwe had. And remember, a lot of our neighbors already have.

Tanzania Trails: Two More Babies at Neema House
When we prayed "God let us help the least of these" he really
opened the gates! Two more babies this week at Neema (Grace) House.

Two week old Joshua who weighed 1.9 KG (4.18 lbs) was abandoned at the
hospital and is now safe at Neema House.

Frida, who appears to be about six to eight weeks old, was abandoned on
the road and is now safe at Neema House. I cry each time we get word of
a new little one found who needs our help.

We cannot say Thank You enough to those of you who are helping with this
ministry! You are incredible, awesome, outstanding and much loved!! By
your gifts we are able to buy formula, pay nannies, guards, cooks,
cleaners, the rent and utilities this month for the 22 babies who are
being cared for through Neema House in Tanzania, East Africa.

Claire will send pictures of these two newest little ones soon. She is
keeping baby Innocent in her room for now. Innocent you remember was
the little one found dropped in the pit latrine last week. Please
continue to pray for him and for the mother who would do such a thing.

Our baby Frankie is growing although still very small. He came to live
at Neema when he was six months old and weighed less than 6 pounds. He
just had his first haircut and will be having his first birthday this
month. We were not sure he would ever see his first birthday!

Hope you can see his sweet picture below.

Frankie still needs a sponsor. You can sponsor a baby at Neema House
for as little as $30 per month. It is quick and easy on our
website www.tanzania orphanhelp.com <http://www.tanzaniaorphanhelp.com/> .
Bless you,
Michael and Dorris

A Nation's Songs
Why the USA Went Gay

John Stonestreet
November 15, 2012

A video surfaced earlier this week produced by CollegeHumor. com, that
features young men who say they're gay, offering a message to
opponents of same-sex "marriage":

"Americans are becoming more comfortable with gay marriage, seeing
it as both a moral and a civil rights issue. But there are many out
there who are still fighting against the cause. And as gay men
ourselves, we'd just like to say to those people, `Fine. Keep
marriage between a man and a woman. And in response, we will marry your
girlfriends. ' "

They go on to proclaim a litany of reasons why gay men are smarter, more attractive, better dressed, more fun, better heterosexual lovers
(I'm not kidding) and generally more in-tune with the desires of
women than straight men are.

Aside from its extreme creepiness, this video contains decades worth of stereotypes and entertainment- driven folk images of the homosexual male.
Writes one commentator very bluntly
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/05/our-godawful-objectification-of-men-with-same-sex-attraction.html at the Pathos.com http://www.patheos.com/
blog "Bad
Catholic": "According to Hollywood, gay men are…just
fabulous. You can hardly turn on a sitcom, read a novel, or watch a
movie without seeing the Gay Man Abstraction. . . " a guy who's
"funny, cute, kooky, has great taste in clothes, and will always
solve [the] straight female protagonist' s problems by the end of the
episode."

And a recent survey from the Hollywood Reporter
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/thr-poll-glee-modern-family-386225
confirms how this portrayal has changed the
public's attitude on homosexuality and same-sex "marriage."

When asked whether favorable portrayals of gay characters on shows like
"Glee," "Modern Family" and "The New Normal"
had changed their views on gay "marriage," twenty-seven percent
of respondents—or over eighty percent of those whose views had
changed—said that they were more in favor of gay "marriage."

Says pollster John Penn, that's due especially to the influx of
young voters who grew up watching these shows.

"Views on gay marriage are totally defined by age," says Penn.
"Almost twice as many voters under 35 say these shows made them more
in favor of gay marriage. . ."

Translation: The hearts and minds of Americans—especially our young
people—are being changed when it comes to same-sex
"marriage" and homosexual practice because of entertainment, not
arguments.

But what popular media isn't telling us about homosexuality and gay
"marriage" is more manipulative still. In the well-adjusted,
sex-savvy, healthy and loving portrayals we see of gay characters and
their relationships, something important gets lost: the cost of living
counter to God's design: a higher risk of HIV
confirms how this portrayal has changed the
public's attitude on homosexuality and same-sex "marriage."

When asked whether favorable portrayals of gay characters on shows like
"Glee," "Modern Family" and "The New Normal"
had changed their views on gay "marriage," twenty-seven percent
of respondents—or over eighty percent of those whose views had
changed—said that they were more in favor of gay "marriage."

Says pollster John Penn, that's due especially to the influx of
young voters who grew up watching these shows.

"Views on gay marriage are totally defined by age," says Penn.
"Almost twice as many voters under 35 say these shows made them more
in favor of gay marriage. . ."

Translation: The hearts and minds of Americans—especially our young
people—are being changed when it comes to same-sex
"marriage" and homosexual practice because of entertainment, not
arguments.

But what popular media isn't telling us about homosexuality and gay
"marriage" is more manipulative still. In the well-adjusted,
sex-savvy, healthy and loving portrayals we see of gay characters and
their relationships, something important gets lost: the cost of living
counter to God's design: a higher risk of HIV
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/news/articles/2012/07/20/biology-leaves-gay-men-highly-vulnerable-to-hiv-study
greater promiscuity
depression and substance abuse
and a lower life-expectancy
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.abstract
and more importantly, polls now show that a
majority of all Americans favor the change http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-06-06/news/32084469_1_gay-marriage-majority-of-americans-support-new-poll
Scottish politician Andrew Fletcher once said, "Let me write the
songs of a nation, and I don't care who writes its laws." If he
were alive today, he might add, let me write the popular sitcoms of a
nation.

Folks, we've spent years, money, talents, reputations and voices
communicating the logical, moral and political reasons why marriage can
only mean a man and a woman for life. But we've failed to do what
the other side has succeeded at for so long: capturing the culture's
imagination.

Christian ideas have been very present in theology and politics, but not
the arts. And so now we face a political road ahead that's rougher
than we've faced in a long time. And so our real work lies in the
culture. And rather than give up and accept the "new normal,"
we've got to take a page from the other side's playbook.
We've got to realize that the ideas that most effectively shape a
culture are not necessarily those that are argued, but those that are
embodied. They capture the heart and mind because they capture the
imagination.
http://www.colsoncenter.org/voices/entry/43/20156?spMailingID=5103717&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=58324842&spReportId=NTgzMjQ4NDIS1
[Further Reading]
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/20790?spMailingID=5103717&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=58324842&spReportId=NTgzMjQ4NDIS1

Brave Thinking?
Some Suggestions for the Atlantic

Eric Metaxas
November 14, 2012

The Atlantic Monthly recently announced its "Brave Thinkers" for
2012. The designation "Brave Thinker" honors those who, in the
Atlantic's estimation, risk "their reputations, fortunes, and
lives in pursuit of big ideas."

The key here is "in the Atlantic's estimation," because the
proverbial visitor from Mars would have trouble identifying what exactly
is so courageous about the positions taken by some of those honored.

That's not to say that there aren't real examples of courage
among some of the honorees. By any estimation, Chen Guangcheng, whom
we've mentioned on BreakPoint, the blind Chinese human rights
activist, is an exemplar of courage in both his thinking and, more
importantly, in his actions. The same can be said of 2011 honoree Lydia
Cacho Ribeiro, a Mexican journalist who was raped, beaten, and left for
dead as a result of her efforts to expose corruption.

But several others seem to be honored for merely thinking in ways that
the Atlantic approves of. Case in point: writer-actress Lena Dunham. The
magazine acknowledges that her antics might reasonably be called
"dumb, cute, narcissistic . . . amateurish, [and] a confused
product of our pornified age" before deciding that it takes guts to
act this way in public.

Perhaps it does, but are we really supposed to equate exhibitionism and
over-sharing with standing up to totalitarian governments and drug
cartels?

Another choice that leaves me feeling bemused is what the Atlantic calls
"American Nuns." While I'm not Catholic, I know that nuns
are not monolithic: some nuns are very traditional in their deference to
the Church's authority, and others, in particular the Leadership
Council of Women Religious, verge on self-parody.

I'm guessing that the Atlantic intended to honor the latter, which
leads me to ask: has the Atlantic adopted the Islamic calendar and not
told us? After all, in the year 1412, nuns defying the Vatican would
have been a courageous act, but in 2012 it's a smart career move.
Praise from the likes of the Atlantic and the New York Times is to be
expected—a visit from the Spanish Inquisition isn't.

Then there's New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Scarcely a day goes
by without yet another dire warning about the consequences of
America's "obesity epidemic." In that context, limiting soda
sizes is hardly the stuff of the Spartans at Thermopylae.

You know what would be? If the mayor spoke out about the public health
consequences ofpromiscuity with anything approaching the passion he
invokes in his battle against Big Gulps.

Instead of celebrating people whose thinking mirrors its own, the
Atlantic would be well served to broaden its horizons. In the spirit of
cooperation, I have some suggestions:

Iranian pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, who was recently released after three
years in prison. Nadarkhani faced a possible death sentence for
apostasy. Given that, when it comes to capital punishment, Iran makes
Texas look like Massachusetts, refusing to renounce his Christian faith
makes Nadarkhani a truly brave thinker.

Another truly brave thinker is Asma Jahangir, the Pakistani lawyer who
represents those charged under Pakistan's draconian blasphemy laws
and the victims of honor killings. Her work is so dangerous that she had
to send her children to England. Without her, the victims of oppression
would likely be voiceless.
This, and not confirming the prejudices of its readers, is what it means
to risk your reputation, fortune, and life in pursuit of a big idea.
Maybe next year.
http://www.colsoncenter.org/voices/entry/43/20156?spMailingID=5096210&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=58223759&spReportId=NTgyMjM3NTkS1
[Further Reading
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/20775?spMailingID=5096210&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=58223759&spReportId=NTgyMjM3NTkS1

Veterans Day 2012
What We Owe
Ending Gendercide
200 Million Missing Girls
Eric Metaxas
November 13, 2012

Imagine hearing some of the most exciting news of your life: A doctor
tells you you're going to have your first baby. But then your doctor
does an ultrasound—and says what have become the three deadliest
words in the world: "It's a girl."

In China, India, and other parts of the world, those words are a death
sentence for millions of unborn baby girls.

In both countries, part of the problem is a centuries-long cultural
preference for boys, combined with coercive government policies. If the
mother is pregnant with a girl, her family pressures her into aborting
her daughter or abandoning her once she's born. In China, the
vicious One-Child policy also plays a large role. If a woman becomes
illegally pregnant with a second child, she is forcibly aborted, and
even newborn babies are killed. If a mother wants to save her
baby's life, she must go into hiding.

According to the United Nations, up to 200 million females are missing
because of gendercide—victims of a systematic, methodical
extermination of a gender. Incredibly, India and China eliminate more
girls than are born in the U.S. every year. This has created a severe
gender imbalance in the affected countries; to deal with it, women from
other countries are kidnapped and forced into sexual slavery, or forced
to live as wives to men who cannot find them in their own countries.
Women forced to abort their babies often commit suicide.

To bring attention to this horrific problem, documentary filmmakers and
human rights groups created a film titled "It's a Girl." It
tells the stories of women who are pressured to literally kill for a
son, and of mothers who would do anything to save their daughters. It
follows the lives of unwanted girls, who are abandoned and trafficked.

You can arrange a showing of this film in your home or church. Come to BreakPoint.org http://www.breakpoint.org/bp-home?spMailingID=5088711&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=58110281&spReportId=NTgxMTAyODES1 and we'll link you to it. You can also
directly help save the lives of baby girls in China and India by
visiting the website of Women's Rights Without Frontiers. You'll find
information under the heading of "End Gendercide—Save a
Girl" campaign. This campaign will tell you how you can help fight
government policies that target girls, and it allows you to donate funds
to help mothers who are at risk for committing gendercide by aborting or
abandoning their baby girls.

The campaign also helps women who are fleeing forced abortions. The
founder of Womens' Rights Without Frontiers, Reggie Littlejohn,
explains, "Once we learn of a woman who is pregnant with a girl and
is being pressured to abort or eventually abandon her, or who is fleeing
a forced abortion, one of our field workers contacts the woman and
offers financial support of $20 a month for a year, if the woman will
keep her daughter. In every case so far, the women have kept their
daughters. They have been able to push back against husbands and
mothers-in-law who want the woman to abort or abandon the girl by saying
that this girl is bringing money into the family."

In the ancient world, Christians were known for their compassion for
abandoned babies, taking them into their homes and caring for them. You and I can do the same today by helping mothers in China and India save their daughters' lives, and provide them with food, a home, and an education.
So that what should be the best news in the world—"You're going to
have a baby"—doesn't turn into the worst news in the world,
simply because "it's a girl."
http://www.colsoncenter.org/voices/entry/43/20156?spMailingID=5088711&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=58110281&spReportId=NTgxMTAyODES1
[Further Reading]
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/20768?spMailingID=5088711&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=58110281&spReportId=NTgxMTAyODES1
Eric Metaxas
November 12, 2012
In 1805, Francis Scott Key wrote a poem celebrating the return of
American soldiers who had fought the Barbary pirates. Simply titled
"Song," Key writes,

"When the warrior returns, from the battle afar,/ To the home and
the country he nobly defended,/ O! warm be the welcome to gladden his
ear,/ And loud be the joy that his perils are ended."

It's a lovely, patriotic thought. But Key's poem does not address the
fact that, while the perils of war end when they return home, many
soldiers return with traumatic wounds they will carry the rest of their
lives: Today's young veterans have lost arms and legs to roadside bombs
in Afghanistan and Iraq. How can we honor THESE veterans?

By helping them serve their country again—this time on the field of
sport.

A documentary film, titled "Warrior Champions: From Baghdad to
Beijing," tells the inspiring story of four badly wounded veterans
who began training for the Olympic Games—the Paralympic Games, that
is.

Army veteran Scott Winkler was paralyzed from the chest down in Iraq in
2003. After suffering bouts of depression and a divorce, Winkler
accepted an invitation to take part in a sports clinic for injured
veterans. He discovered a natural gift for shot putting, and broke the
paralympic world record. He then set his eyes on the 2008 Beijing Games.

"I am proud of my country," Winker says. "I'd fight for
it again if I could, but I can't. [But] I can still compete for my
country. "I thank God for me being here this day and it gives me a
second chance in life," Winkler adds. "I mean, for me as a
paralympian, it gives me one more chance to put on a uniform for my
country."

Iraq war veteran Melissa Stockwell lost a leg to a roadside bomb in
2004. She refused to let the injury slow her down; in less than a year,
she skied for the first time in her life and ran the New York City
Marathon. She next set her sights on competing as a swimmer in Beijing.

As Melissa told NPR, "the paralympic movement is all about getting
the word out and letting people recognize that just because someone lost
a limb in Iraq seven years ago, that we're not sitting around feeling
sorry for ourselves."

Kortney Clemons, a combat medic, rushed to help wounded soldiers, and
became a victim himself, when an IED blew off his leg and killed three
other soldiers in 2005. Like Winkler and Stockwell, Clemons refused to
view himself as a victim; within two years, he'd become an American
champion 100-meter runner in his disability category. Clemons, too,
began dreaming of Beijing. So did Carlos Leon, a U.S. Marine who trained
in adaptive track and field events after a serious injury.

Did these wounded warriors achieve their Olympic goals? Watch the
award-winning film, "Warrior Champions," and find out. You can learn
when and where by visiting BreakPoint.org
http://www.breakpoint.org/bp-home?spMailingID=5083336&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=58034181&spReportId=NTgwMzQxODES1 Click on this commentary, and we'll
link you to it. You can also learn how you can assist these gutsy men
and women who refuse to let catastrophic injury slow them down.
On Veterans Day, we honor the sacrifice of all those who wore our
country's uniform. And we should warmly welcome home the wounded,
and walk alongside them as they seek out new life purposes. In this way,
we will honor "the warrior who returns from the battle afar," as
Francis Scott Key put it, "to the home and the country he nobly
defended."
http://www.colsoncenter.org/voices/entry/43/20156?spMailingID=5083336&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=58034181&spReportId=NTgwMzQxODES1
[Further Reading]
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/20752?spMailingID=5083336&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=58034181&spReportId=NTgwMzQxODES1

Rights Talk Run Amok
The Supremacy of the Individual

John Stonestreet
November 09, 2012

Colleen Francis made himself right at home in the locker room at
Evergreen College in Olympia, Washington. The forty-five year-old
student showered, used the sauna and walked around naked in front of the
other people using those facilities.

Now if you're having trouble squaring the name "Colleen"
with the male pronoun "himself," you're not the only one.
Those present in the locker room also had trouble with the combination
that the locker room in question was the women's room and
"Colleen" is anatomically a male.

Thus when he showers, sits in the sauna, and walks around naked, Francis
is exposing himself not only to his fellow students but students from
local high schools and families who also use the college's swimming
pool and locker room. Thus, among the females he has exposed himself to
are minors, some as young as six.

If you're wondering, "Why doesn't someone stop Francis,"
well, they tried to, and that's when the story became surreal. The
swimming coach from the local high school and the mother of one of the
team members called the police. When the police arrived Francis informed
them that he was a transsexual and that, under Washington State law, he
was entitled to use the women's locker room.

If that sounds ridiculous to you, well, it worked. The coach apologized
and the college informed parents that state law, which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of "gender expression or identity,"
tied their hands. The best they could do was to provide screens for
those made "uncomfortable" by Francis' presence.

The Alliance Defending Freedom is representing the parents of the
children and has promised to take action if any of the girls is harmed,
but absent a change in the law, it may not make a difference.

That's because what's happening in Olympia is the logical
outcome of two very potent and destructive trends in American society.

The first is what Harvard professor Mary Ann Glendon famously called
"rights talk." This "talk" is characterized by "its
legalistic character . . . exaggerated absoluteness . . .
hyper-individualism . . . and its silence with respect to personal,
civic, and collective responsibilities. "

Despite these deficiencies, it's the "language" Americans,
more than anyone else, speak when they discuss important issues,
especially social ones driven by a culture increasingly marked by a
sexual free-for-all camouflaged as sexual "freedom."

The second trend is the transition from talking about the sexes to
talking about gender. Until very recently a person was either male or
female and the determination was based on objective physical criteria.
While it isn't always as simple as I just made it sound, the rule
generally held.

Today, we speak in terms of "gender identity," which "refers
to a person's private sense . . . and subjective experience."
It doesn't matter if Francis has had sex-reassignment surgery or
not—all that matters is his self-identification as
"transsexual. "

It's not an exaggeration to say that there are potentially as many
gender identities as there are people. And under Washington law, each of
these is protected from "discrimination" by state agencies such
as Evergreen College.

When Francis walked into the women's locker room, he was a
rights-bearing individual whose "right" to use the facility
trumped any other interest. Even the mental and sexual health interest
of six-year-old girls.
Obviously this is absurd, but it didn't come out of nowhere—it
is where American law and culture have been headed for some time. And
there aren't enough screens to cover this damage.
http://www.colsoncenter.org/voices/entry/43/20156?spMailingID=5071536&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=57817384&spReportId=NTc4MTczODQS1

Loving Chuck
Why You Should Read Colson
Eric Metaxas
October 16, 2012

Sometimes I think I take for granted what a huge, huge impact Chuck
Colson had on me.
I mean, he influenced almost every area of my life: my career, my walk
with Jesus, and certainly the way I see and think about the world; my
Christian worldview.

I'd come to faith in Christ in 1988, four years out of Yale. I was
excited about Jesus, and I wanted to meet and get to know people who
knew Him well. I'll never forget talking with a brilliant Hungarian
Christian friend of mine named Tibor Lengyel. Tibor gave me a list of
books he said I absolutely had to read. And two of the books were by
Chuck Colson, of course.

So I read them, and I was off to the races. I'll tell you more about
the books in a minute.

In 1994, a few years later I think it was, Chuck was scheduled to speak
at the Yale Law School auditorium. I just had to hear him. So I drove
from New Canaan, Connecticut to New Haven, and once I heard Chuck speak,
I just had to meet him. And of course that meeting changed my life.

After that speech I buttonholed Chuck just as he was walking out of the
auditorium and I introduced myself. I told him how much I loved
BreakPoint and that, frankly, the world needed to hear a whole lot more
from him. Of course he was gracious. And I knew that he had a grandson,
so I handed him a copy of a children's book I had written titled
"Uncle Mugsy and the Terrible Twins of Christmas." I had also
stuck a letter to him, to Chuck, between the covers.

He actually wrote me back a week or so later saying he hoped our paths
would cross again. All I could think at the time was, "Wow, Chuck
Colson wrote me a letter!"

Well, about a year and a half after that, I was writing for an
advertising agency in New York City, and it was awful work. The only
thing I ever wrote for this agency that made it to TV was an Ex-Lax
commercial! That's not a joke. So when someone from BreakPoint
called me and asked if I wanted to write for Chuck Colson, after almost
passing out, I said absolutely yes.

Today I cannot possibly tell you how grateful and humbled I am to follow
in Chuck's footsteps here on BreakPoint. And I know my colleague
John Stonestreet feels the same way.

Now let me tell you about two of those books. They so shaped the way
that I understand the Christian faith and the world, I almost can't
conceive that any believer has not read them. They really are MUST
reads.

The first book is "Loving God
http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/product.asp?sku=2191_310219140
." To this day I have people tell me
that "Loving God" is their favorite Chuck Colson book. Chuck was
such a great storyteller, and "Loving God" was vintage Chuck. He
used powerful stories to teach us about obedience, holiness, repentance,
suffering, and love. Please, read "Loving God."

The other book that really impacted me was "Kingdoms in
Conflict." Chuck updated it just a few years ago, and now it's
called "God and Government
http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/product.asp?sku=2191_BKGOV
." It could not be more prophetic or
timely today. In fact, you've still got time before the elections to
read it. Chuck so clearly lays out a profoundly Christian vision for
engaging in politics and public life. Again, through storytelling, he
shows us how Christians, banded together in those "little
platoons," can and must make a difference.

Of course, we have "Loving God"
http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/product.asp?sku=2191_310219140
and "God and Government"
http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/product.asp?sku=2191_BKGOV
available at our online bookstore at
BreakPoint.org
http://www.breakpoint.org/bp-home?spMailingID=4945220&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=55724611&spReportId=NTU3MjQ2MTES1
Before I leave you today on Chuck's birthday, I just want to send my
love to Patty Colson. Patty, thank you so much for all those years you
shared Chuck with us and the world. God bless you, Sister.

And to all the rest of you, thanks for listening. And thanks for
supporting BreakPoint. Now, get reading.
http://www.colsoncenter.org/voices/entry/43/20156?spMailingID=4945220&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=55724611&spReportId=NTU3MjQ2MTES1
[Further Reading]
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/20535?spMailingID=4945220&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=55724611&spReportId=NTU3MjQ2MTES1

Heather's Mommies
Crossing a Line
John Stonestreet
November 08, 2012

In 1989, the book "Heather Has Two Mommies" became the first
lesbian-themed children's book ever published. For many Christians,
it was the first time they became aware of an effort to redefine the
family.

Of course, the fictional "Heather" didn't really have two
mommies—she was simply being raised by two women.

But a recent announcement takes redefining the family to a whole new
level by making it possible for real-life Heathers to have two real-life
mommies.

Researchers at Oregon Health and Sciences University recently announced
that they had successfully created embryos containing DNA from one man
and two women.

To understand how they did this, a review of human genetics is in order:
Each of us has two kinds of DNA. The first, usually called chromosomal,
are inherited from both mother and father.

The second, lesser known kind is mitochondrial DNA. We only inherit
mitochondrial DNA from our mothers.

Mutations in mitochondrial DNA can cause diseases with symptoms
including "strokes, epilepsy, dementia, blindness, deafness, kidney
failure, and heart disease." Because these disease-causing mutations
are part of the genetic packages from our mothers, women who carry these
mutations face a difficult choice: conceive a child knowing illness
likely follows, or forego childbirth altogether.

So what the Oregon researchers did was to replace the part of one
woman's DNA that contained a mutation with DNA from another woman
that didn't. The result is an embryo with two kinds of DNA . . . or,
in one sense, an embryo with two mommies.

Now it's telling that British authorities, confronted with a similar
experiment in 2008, have yet to approve its use. Why? Because of two
concerns that should also concern us.

First, there's the concern that this technology, originally intended
to eliminate disease, could be adapted to produce "designer
babies." That's a concern we should take seriously. Harnessing
the power of the atom did give us a powerful source of energy, but it
also gave us an efficient way to kill millions of people.

Since the line between what counts as an illness and what counts as an
inconvenience is already becoming more and more blurry, it's quite
possible the line between what's considered healing and what's
actually mere enhancement will too.

The second concern is that the impact on the descendants of the
genetically- mixed child is unknown. As Laurie Zoloth, a bioethicist at
Northwestern University, told the AP, safety issues might not manifest
themselves for generations. And while preventing hereditary illness is a
worthwhile goal, "this might not be the best way to address it."

Unfortunately, the more recent history of bio-medical science reveals a
strong reluctance to limit scientific progress on the basis of ethical
concern. Absent legal barriers, we tend to live by the motto "if we
can do it, we should do it." But we can't always predict the
future, can we? After all, what has email done to grammar? Or texting
to spelling?

So while no one has proven this procedure unsafe, there's
well-founded reason to be reluctant to cross this line. Preventing
illness is a noble end, but not all means to that end are equally noble.

Also, there's this unspoken assumption that there's a
"right" to have children that are biologically ours and do not
have inconvenient conditions. While Christians believe that children are
an unconditional good, that doesn't mean that anything goes in the
pursuit of parenthood.

And two biological mothers is definitely a case of "anything
goes." And where it's leading us is a reality far more troubling
than children's fiction.
Concerns about science and ethics must be addressed by Christians.
We've rightly been concerned about politics lately, but as I discuss
on this week's "Two-Minute Warning," now that we're
post-election, there's much broader cultural work to do. Come
toBreakPoint. org
http://www.breakpoint.org/bp-home?spMailingID=5065413&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=57728920&spReportId=NTc3Mjg5MjAS1
" to listen.
http://www.colsoncenter.org/voices/entry/43/20156?spMailingID=5065413&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=57728920&spReportId=NTc3Mjg5MjAS1
Further Reading
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/20722?spMailingID=5065413&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=57728920&spReportId=NTc3Mjg5MjAS1

What's Next?
Pray for Our Leaders

Eric Metaxas
November 07, 2012

Whether you voted for Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, whether you're
recovering from your all-night celebration or drying the tears from your
pillow, today's a good day, as Chuck Colson reminded us, to heed
these words of the Apostle Paul: "I urge, then, first of all, that
requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for
everyone—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live
peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness" (1 Timothy
2:1-3).

As I record this, I don't know the outcome of yesterday's
voting. But I'm sure of one thing, whether the president's last
name is Romney or Obama, he will need our prayers, because he and his
administration face huge, serious challenges to the health of our nation
and to peace in the world—challenges that we cannot overcome without
divine aid.

Think about it. At home, the economy is still sluggish, to say the
least. We face the so-called "fiscal cliff" and sequestration.
Economists and politicians on both sides of the aisle are telling us
this would be an economic disaster for the nation. And speaking of
disasters, there's the national debt.

Overseas, America's foreign policy seems, to put it mildly,
confused, even as Iran seeks nuclear weapons, as Islamists have either
grabbed or are on the cusp of grabbing power in countries throughout the
Middle East, and as we struggle to figure out what in the world to do
about the war in Afghanistan.

How has America come to this point? Why is our economy on the brink of
disaster? And why is our culture so utterly depraved?

Chuck Colson asked these questions the day after the last presidential
election four years ago. And his answer was spot on. Chuck cited what
Russian author Alexandr Solzhenitsyn said about the catastrophic
consequences of the Russian revolution. "I recall," Solzhenitsyn
said, "hearing a number of older people offer the following
explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: Men have
forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."

Solzhenitsyn was right. And Colson was right. The best explanation for
why we Americans find ourselves in the state we are in is that to some
extent we have forgotten God.

We have also forgotten that American democracy—indeed Western
Civilization itself—is the product of the Judeo-Christian
understanding of God and humanity. As Chuck told us, "Without that
revelation that man is created in the image of God, our founders never
would have recognized the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness."

Make no mistake, no matter who won yesterday, the attacks on
Christianity are not going away. They'll only intensify. So we have
to continue, as Chuck said, "to make a winsome witness" to the
truths of the Christian worldview, because those who would banish
Christianity from American public life are risking the very survival of
American society.

So, if your presidential candidate or your congressional candidates won
yesterday, keep the celebration short. If they lost, don't head for
the hills. We've got work to do. As Chuck told us four years ago,
this is a time for Christians to stay involved, to, as he said,
"lead, encourage, and minister to a faltering country in a faltering
economy."
So by all means pray for the President and his administration. Pray for
our nation. But most of all be salt and light in a culture, in a
country, that is in danger of forgetting God.
http://www.colsoncenter.org/voices/entry/43/20156?spMailingID=5058532&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=57628006&spReportId=NTc2MjgwMDYS1
Further Reading]
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/20716?spMailingID=5058532&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=57628006&spReportId=NTc2MjgwMDYS1

A Crucial National Decision
Christians and Voting

Eric Metaxas
November 05, 2012

Tomorrow Americans will go to the polls and vote for the next president
of the United States. On what basis should we make our decision? Should
a candidate's religious faith—or lack of faith—have an impact on
whom we vote for?

I'd like to share with you the views of two of the twentieth century's
greatest religious figures: Chuck Colson and Billy Graham.

Chuck felt very strongly about the duty of Christians to vote—and to
vote for the best qualified candidate no matter what his personal
religious convictions. He considered voting a spiritual duty. On
BreakPoint, Chuck noted that as voters, we are to choose the most
competent people to be God's magistrates to do justice, restrain evil,
and preserve order. He pointed to Exodus 18, where Jethro, the
father-in-law of Moses, told him to select men of good moral character
who were competent to help judge the people.

Chuck also quoted Martin Luther, who reportedly said he would rather be
judged by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian. He meant that
he'd prefer to choose the best qualified leader available than vote
for someone less qualified who happened to share his religious beliefs.
We do this in other areas of our life all the time. For instance, if you
needed to undergo brain surgery, would you choose a Christian surgeon,
or the best surgeon available no matter what his beliefs?

Billy Graham also has strong views about voting for the best candidate
no matter what his private beliefs are. A few days ago, the Rev. Graham
took out newspaper ads in USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and the
Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch urging people to vote for candidates who
supported biblical teaching on some of the great moral issues of the
day.

As Graham put it, "We are at a crossroads, and there are profound
moral issues at stake. I strongly urge you to vote for candidates who
support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and woman,
protect the sanctity of life, and defend our religious freedoms."

Some commentators criticized Graham for mixing in partisan politics. But
is that really what he was doing?

Dr. Timothy George, Chairman of the Board of the Chuck Colson Center for
Christian Worldview, does not think so. In an essay he published at the
Christian Post, George points out that Graham, who will turn 94 in a few
days, is nearing the end of his life—which means his words "have
a certain gravity" that we should respectfully listen to.

Second, George says, "Graham reveals in his words a deep love for
his country. Jesus (and Jeremiah before him) loved Jerusalem and wept
over it. There are some tears in Billy Graham's lament about the turning
point we face in our American republic today."

And third, Graham—as Chuck did in the Manhattan Declaration—asks
Christians to "take a stand on three nonnegotiable commitments of
the Christian worldview: the sacredness of every human life . . . the
dignity of marriage as God intended it to be . . . and religious
freedom."

And I agree.
We need to pray about who is best qualified to lead our country, in
Congress and in the White House. And then, when we go to the polls on
Tuesday, we must do our best to choose the candidates who will best
fulfill biblical commands for leadership: men and women of good
character who are committed to preserving order and promoting justice
http://www.colsoncenter.org/voices/entry/43/20156?spMailingID=5046036&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=57447362&spReportId=NTc0NDczNjIS1
[Further Reading]
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/20695?spMailingID=5046036&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=57447362&spReportId=NTc0NDczNjIS1

Romney Resume "rxbarkley"
His full Name is: Willard Mitt Romney
He was Born: March 12, 1947 and is 65 years old.
His Father: George W. Romney, former Governor of the State of Michigan
He was raised in Bloomfield Hills , Michigan
He is married to Ann Romney since 1969; they have five children.
Education:
B.A. from Brigham Young University,
J.D. and M.B.A. from Harvard University
Religion: Mormon - The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints
Working Background:
After high school, he spent 30 months in France as a Mormon missionary.
After going to both Harvard Business School and Harvard LawSchool
simultaneously, he passed the Michigan bar exam,
but never worked as an attorney.
In 1984, he co-founded Bain Capital, a private equity investment firm,
one of the largest such firms in the United States .
In 1994, he ran for Senator of Massachusetts and lost to Ted Kennedy

He was President and CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games.
In 2002, he was elected Governor of the State of Massachusetts where he
eliminated a 1.5 billion deficit.

Some Interesting Facts about Romney: Bain Capital, starting with one
small office supply store in Massachusetts, turned it into Staples; now
over 2,000 stores employing 90,000 people.

Bain Capital also worked to perform the same kinds of business miracles
again and again, with companies like
Domino's, Sealy, Brookstone, Weather Channel, Burger King, Warner Music
Group, Dollarama, Home Depot Supply, and many others.
He was an unpaid volunteer campaign worker for his dad's gubernatorial
campaign for 1 year.
He was an unpaid intern in his dad's governor's office for eight years.
He was an unpaid bishop and state president of his church for ten years.
He was an unpaid President of the Salt Lake Olympic Committee for three
years.
He took no salary and was the unpaid Governor of Massachusetts for four
years.
He gave his entire inheritance from his father to charity.

Mitt Romney is one of the wealthiest self-made men in our country but
has given more back to its citizens in terms of
money, service and time than most men.
In 2011 Mitt Romney gave over $4 million to charity, almost 19% of his
income....
Just for comparison purposes,
Obama gave 1%.......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .... and Joe
Biden gave $300 or .0013%.

Mitt Romney is Trustworthy:
He will show us his birth certificate.
He will show us his high school and college transcripts.
He will show us his social security card.
He will show us his law degree.
He will show us his draft notice.
He will show us his medical records.
He will show us his income tax records.
He will show us he has nothing to hide.

Mitt Romney's background, experience and trustworthiness show him to be
a great leader and an excellent citizen for
President of the United States.

You may think that Romney may not be the best representative the
Republicans could have selected. At least I know what religion he is,
and that he won't desecrate the flag, bow down to foreign powers, or
practice fiscal irresponsibility.
I know he has the ability to turn this financial debacle that the
current regime has gotten us into. We won't like
all the things necessary to recover from this debt, but someone with
Romney's background can do it.
But, on the minus side, he never was a "Community Organizer", never took
drugs or smoked pot, never got drunk, did not associate with communists
or terrorists, nor did he attend a church whose pastor called for God todamn the US. http://news.yahoo.com/romney-sprinting-finish-key-states-204829457--election.html#

Get Your Church Involved
Volunteer for Angel Tree

John Stonestreet
November 02, 2012

How do people know when the Kingdom of God is in their midst? Most
often, it's when they see love in action. But how we do this needs
careful thought.

I remember as a kid going with my family to deliver Thanksgiving turkeys
to needy families. The families were genuinely grateful, but in so many
homes, the dad either wasn't at home or refused to come out of the
back room. I figured, and it's probably true, that the dad felt
ashamed that the family had been given what he couldn't provide.

Now these families needed the food and a reason to be thankful at
Thanksgiving. But I always walked away a little sad, and even
uncomfortable.

I thank God churches around the country step out of their comfort zone
to do works of charity like food delivery. And I hope your church will
be involved somehow this holiday season. But let's be sure our good
intentions don't have unintended consequences of dividing family
relationships, or even enabling destructive behaviors.

The Gospel offers a framework for helping others by clearly identifying
the human condition and our deepest needs. In fact, the Apostle Paul
described the Gospel and its impact most often by using "re"
words like repentance, renewal, restoration, redemption, and my
favorite: reconciliation.

Reconciliation has to do with repairing relationships that have been
broken—both with God and with others. This Christmas, you and your
church can make the invisible kingdom visible for families of the
incarcerated through Prison Fellowship's Angel Tree program. Angel
Tree is about so much more than providing gifts. It's about
reconciling the families of prisoners, and we need your help badly this
year.

Angel Tree is simple: Incarcerated parents sign up their children to
receive Christmas gifts. Church volunteers in the name of Jesus, and on
behalf of the parents, deliver these gifts. What makes Angel Tree so
distinct is not only that children, many of whom would have no Christmas
otherwise, receive a basketball or a doll. It's because the gift
they receive is from daddy or mommy. These kids know that even though
mom or dad is behind bars, they are loved and not forgotten.

And for many men and women in prison, Angel Tree is their one shot to
show love to their kids in a tangible way at Christmas. It's no
wonder so many of them begin attending Bible studies or worship
services. They see what the Kingdom looks like, and they want to see
more.

Chuck Colson loved to tell how hardened prisoners, moved by the love and
generosity of Angel Tree volunteers for their kids, repented and
embraced Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

And the benefit for churches? If your church signs up to deliver Angel
Tree gifts, you will see first-hand the fruits of the Kingdom:
restoration, renewal, and reconciliation. You'll see transformed
lives.

To sign up your church or to volunteer, call 1-800-55-ANGEL. Or go to
AngelTree.org http://www.angeltree.org/angeltreehome
. My wife and I just signed up our own
church for Angel Tree this Christmas.

And I want you to hear more about the Kingdom work of Angel Tree. This
weekend, listen to "BreakPoint This Week." I talk with Prison
Fellowship President Garland Hunt about the power of reconciliation. And
I talk with the former bank robber who started Angel Tree almost 40
years ago, Mary Kay Beard. She's an absolute trip, and she once
decorated the FBI most-wanted posters. Thanks to her vision, some nine million children of prisoners have received a Christmas gift through Angel Tree.
That's on "BreakPoint This Week." Come toBreakPoint.org
http://www.breakpoint.org/bp-home?spMailingID=5033604&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=57202607&spReportId=NTcyMDI2MDcS1
click on the "This Week" tab, and
listen in.
But most of all, please, sign up your church for Angel Tree. Call
1-800-55-Angel.
http://www.colsoncenter.org/voices/entry/43/20156?spMailingID=5033604&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=57202607&spReportId=NTcyMDI2MDcS1
[Further Reading]
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/20686?spMailingID=5033604&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=57202607&spReportId=NTcyMDI2MDcS1

Political Timeout
Responding to Sandy

John Stonestreet
November 01, 2012
Perhaps Hurricane Sandy was the only thing that could practically stop
the all-consuming presidential race dead in its tracks.
With nearly a quarter of the nation's population in the path of one
of the most massive storms on record, peoples' attention turned to
preparing for the worst and praying for the best.

As I record this broadcast, it's still not clear the extent of the
damage caused by Sandy. Lower Manhattan is flooded, people on the Jersey
coast are cut off, West Virginians are digging out of nearly two feet of
snow. From North Carolina to Rhode Island, power lines and trees are
down, houses and business are smashed, and roads and neighborhoods
flooded.

The presidential candidates, and even a good chunk of the media, did the
right thing: They took a time out from politics and focused on what was
most important—helping out and reporting on the storm and its
aftermath.

Sandy offers us a stern and poignant reminder that politics isn't
everything. And once again, we're reminded that in this fallen
created world, our prosperity—even our survival—depends not on
politics, but on Him in whom all things exist and hold together.

To think otherwise is to fall prey to what political thinker Jacques
Ellul called the "political illusion"; the idea that our
politics or government is capable of creating the good life, or even a
good society.

As Chuck Colson said in a BreakPoint years ago, this is "nothing
short of idolatry. Treating the state as a god. But like all idols,"
he continued, "the state inevitably disappoints those who worship at
its shrine. A government that can't even manage the simple accounting
task of balancing its budget is certainly not capable of making
peoples' lives `rich and full.' "

But what can government do, then? What is politics for?

Well, as Chuck would say, government has two divinely appointed tasks:
the pursuit of justice and the preservation of order. And as for
politics, its goal is to rightly order our common life.

And here, the Christian worldview has much to say. The proper ordering
of society must take into account the proper roles of national and local
governments, businesses, associations, churches, and especially
families. This Christian concept of sphere sovereignty teaches us, as
Abraham Kuyper said, that "each sphere . . . of life has its own
distinct responsibilities and authority or competence."

Another important concept about the relationship of government to the
rest of society is called subsidiarity, a product of Catholic social
teaching, which holds that "functions of government, business, and
other secular activities should be as local as possible."

And, interestingly enough, we saw healthy examples of sphere sovereignty
and subsidiarity at work in Sandy's wake.

We saw the federal government acting through FEMA and the Coast Guard;
state and local government evacuating citizens and providing shelter;
power companies coordinating with businesses and other utilities; local
fire and rescue organizations putting out fires and rescuing people. We
saw neighbors helping neighbors; charities like Operation Blessing
delivering sandbags to homes in low-lying areas. Folks, that's the
way things should work!

And how cool is it that even the politicians could put aside politics
for a while? Who would have thought that New Jersey Republican Governor
Chris Christie could go on national TV and thank Democratic President
Barack Obama for being available and ensuring federal resources were in play?

On this week's "Two-Minute Warning
http://www.breakpoint.org/twominutewarning?spMailingID=5028177&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=57124068&spReportId=NTcxMjQwNjgS1
," which I hope you'll go to watchatColsonCenter.org
http://www.breakpoint.org/wfp-home?spMailingID=5028177&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=57124068&spReportId=NTcxMjQwNjgS1
I talk more about this idea of the
political illusion. Please go see it.
And church, let's pray for those impacted by the storm, and
let's help wherever we can.
http://www.colsoncenter.org/voices/entry/43/20156?spMailingID=5028177&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=57124068&spReportId=NTcxMjQwNjgS1
Further Reading
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/20676?spMailingID=5028177&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=57124068&spReportId=NTcxMjQwNjgS1

Enought of "Three Strikes"
Unjust and Expensive

Eric Metaxas
October 31, 2012

Two months ago, Gary Ewing died at the age of forty-nine from pneumonia
and colon cancer. Chances are, you've never heard of Ewing. Until
recently neither had I. But his life and death are a kind of parable
about the absurd lengths that fear and the desire to be safe at any cost
will drive a society.

Like so many others in prison, Ewing was part of the crack cocaine
epidemic. He was first arrested at 22 for theft and received a six-month
suspended sentence. His second felony conviction, for grand theft auto,
came four years later. He served a year in jail and three more on
probation.

Then, in 2000, he entered the pro shop at the El Segundo Golf Course in
California. He took three clubs, with a total value of $1,200, stuffed
them down his pants leg and tried to walk out of the shop. An employee
saw him limping suspiciously and called the police.

Clearly, whatever else Ewing may have been, "criminal
mastermind" was not of them. Nor was he especially dangerous, except
perhaps to himself.

None of this mattered, because under California's
"three-strikes" law, stuffing $1,200 worth of golf clubs down
his pants earned Ewing life without the possibility of parole. Let me
repeat: Life in prison for stealing golf clubs.

Ewing's lawyers challenged the "three-strikes" law, enacted
by referendum in1994, all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2003, by a
5-to-4 vote, the Court upheld Ewing's sentence. The majority
declined to "sit as a superlegislature to second-guess" the
policy choices made by California voters and their legislature.

As constitutional law, Ewing v. California is arguably right. As a
policy choice, California's "three-strikes" measure has been
a disaster. No one understood this better and sounded the alarm more
clearly than Chuck Colson andJustice Fellowship
http://www.justicefellowship.org/justice-fellowship-home
the criminal justice reform ministry he
founded.

In the months leading up to the ballot initiative, he warned anyone who
would listen that measures like this one would do far more harm than
good. While there were—and are—repeat offenders who should be
permanently removed from society, laws like this one were just as likely
to sweep up petty criminals like Ewing.

The resulting harm would be two-fold: people like Ewing would be
permanently discarded in their twenties, and California's already
critical prison overcrowding problem would explode, but not before
bankrupting the state.

Time, of course, has proved Chuck Colson correct. Ewing died in a prison
hospital surrounded by guards, and not before the state spent hundreds
of thousands of dollars to incarcerate a man who, as I said, probably
posed no danger to anyone but himself.

During that time California's prisons became so overcrowded and
their conditions deteriorated to such an extent that the Supreme Court,
eight years after upholding the three-strikes law, ordered the state to
release approximately 30,000 inmates.

Chuck was far too gracious to say "I told you so;" but of course
he did tell us so.

The good news is that California voters have a chance to revisit the
"three-strikes" law. Proposition 36 would do away with
"three strikes" for offenders whose third felony conviction is
for a non-violent offense. Californians are being asked to consider
whether locking up a non-dangerous offender for the rest of his life, at
an average cost of $50,000 a year, is the best option.
Chuck would say "of course not." Not simply because it wastes
money, but especially because it wastes lives. Like Gary Ewing's.
http://www.colsoncenter.org/voices/entry/43/20156?spMailingID=5021284&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=57049632&spReportId=NTcwNDk2MzIS1
[Further Reading]
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/20657?spMailingID=5021284&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=57049632&spReportId=NTcwNDk2MzIS1

Snowflakes and Fingerprints
Forensic Science and Justice

Eric Metaxas
October 29, 2012

According to conventional wisdom, fingerprints have one thing in common
with snowflakes: No two are exactly alike. Well as it turns out, neither
snowflakes nor fingerprints are as unique as we believed them to be.

While being wrong about snowflakes might take some of the fun out of
winter, being wrong about fingerprints can ruin an innocent person's
life.

That's what almost happened to Brandon Mayfield, an attorney in
Portland, Oregon. His story was part of a recent episode of NOVA on PBS.
Following the March 11, 2004, attacks in Madrid that killed 191 people,
investigators found a plastic bag containing bomb-making materials near
the crime scene.

Using the best available techniques, they were able to obtain a partial
fingerprint. The FBI ran it through its system and found that
Mayfield's print was, in forensic parlance, a fifteen-point match,
more than good enough for a definite identification.

Mayfield was arrested and faced prison time. What saved him was that
Spanish police matched the same print to an Algerian jihadist who was in
Spain at the time of the attacks.

These kind of things aren't supposed to happen. Apart from DNA,
fingerprint evidence is as good as forensic science gets. Yet in this
case it almost cost an innocent man his freedom.

In response to Mayfield's ordeal, Congress asked the National
Academy of Sciences to study America's crime labs. The NAS report
found, as one expert on NOVA put it, that there wasn't enough
"science" in forensic science.

Much of what goes by the name of "science," such as fingerprint,
ballistic, hair and fiber analysis, is highly subjective, often more art
than science. Even when the science, as in the case of DNA analysis, is
solid, poorly-run labs filled with poorly-trained and, occasionally,
dishonest technicians, can call the results into question.

Stated differently, real-life bears very little resemblance to what you
see on television.

Yet thanks to the automatic credibility granted to anything labeled
"science," juries usually defer to the exaggerated and many
times unwarranted claims of authority made by "expert"
witnesses. It is difficult, if not impossible, to calculate how many
innocent men and women are behind bars as a result. Recent disclosures
about "allegedly skirting protocols and faking test results" by
a single technician at a Massachusetts crime lab has called at least 200
convictions into question.

This is far from unique: similar scandals have occurred in at least a
dozen states plus the federal system.

Here at BreakPoint, Prison Fellowship, and Justice Fellowship, we know
how a conviction and prison sentence can devastate the lives of
offenders and their families. And that's when the offender was
rightly convicted! Imagine the devastation wrought by a wrongful
conviction.

As Chuck told BreakPoint listeners many times, the God-ordained purpose
of government is to preserve order and establish justice. The kind of
failures documented on NOVA and elsewhere call into question our
system's ability to do the latter.
Chuck would tell us that Christians need to speak up about these
miscarriages of justices because if we don't, few others will. We
worship a Lord who was convicted on the basis of unreliable testimony.
We honor Him when we speak for the least of these who have experienced the same.
http://www.colsoncenter.org/voices/entry/43/20156?spMailingID=5009330&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=56901929&spReportId=NTY5MDE5MjkS1
[Further Reading]
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/20634?spMailingID=5009330&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=56901929&spReportId=NTY5MDE5MjkS1

How Then Should We Work?
Furthering the Kingdom
Eric Metaxas
October 25, 2012
More than 5,000 people jammed a sports arena for a conference featuring
motivational speakers such as Dick Vitale, Tony Robbins, and Colin
Powell. Most of them were leaders in business. One of the speakers asked
a simple question: "If you went home tonight and found that a long
lost relative had died and left you ten million dollars, would you be at
work tomorrow?"

Almost in a single voice came the boisterous reply: "NO!"
Friends, I can tell you, if I'd been there, I would have stood up
and shouted, "YES!" So would Hugh Whelchel, who tells this story
in his great new book, "How Then Should We Work? Rediscovering the
Biblical Doctrine of Work
http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/product.asp?sku=9781449745813
If the title "How Then Should We Work?" sounds familiar, well,
it should. Whelchel, who is director of the Institute for Faith, Work &
Economics, drew inspiration from two men you've probably heard of:
Francis Schaeffer, who wrote "How Should We Then Live?
http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/product.asp?sku=1581345364
", and our friend Chuck Colson, who, with
Nancy Pearcey, wrote "How Now Shall We Live?
http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/product.asp?sku=2191_BKHNP
"Schaeffer and Colson, in turn, led
Whelchel to the teaching of Luther, Calvin, and Abraham Kuyper.

"These authors," writes Whelchel in "How Then Should We
Work?", "taught that the work of my hands mattered to God. They
wrote that our work serves three great ends: it glorifies God, it serves
the common good, and it furthers the Kingdom of God. That includes
everything we do from the most significant project to the most mundane
task."

Now you may find yourself nodding your head in agreement and murmuring,
"Absolutely! " But many Christians have a skewed, unbiblical
understanding of work. So let me ask you: Do you find work a necessary
evil? Lots of people do. Whelchel reports that 77 percent of Americans
hate their jobs.

Do you hold pastors and missionaries in higher regard than you do office
workers or ditch diggers? Would you, like those business leaders, quit
the work you are doing right now if you were suddenly able to do so? If
you answered "yes" to any of these questions, then you very
possibly have fallen for the old sacred/secular distinction, forgetting
that the Lord is King over all of creation.

Or at least you may have forgotten that work is a calling, a true
vocation from God, and not just an unpleasant means to the necessary end
of making money. Whelchel says that the principles he learned, and which
he put in his book, "How Then Should We Work?", transformed his
life.

He came to realize that his daily work "wasn't just an avenue
simply to share my faith … or to create wealth to donate to missions
work; it was the very thing through which I could be the salt and light
Jesus called me to be. In fact," Whelchel continues, "my
vocational work was part of a larger grand story I was discovering, a
story that started in the Garden of Eden and continues when Jesus
returns and establishes the new heavens and the new earth."

Yes, friends, the Lord gave us work in the Garden before the Fall,
meaning work is an integral part of His plan for our good. As author
Dorothy Sayers said, "… work is not, primarily, a thing one does to
live, but the thing one lives to do. It is, or should be, the full
expression of the worker's faculties, the thing in which he finds
spiritual, mental, and bodily satisfaction, and the medium in which he
offers himself to God."

And, I should add, even when he doesn't haveto be there!
To order your copy of "How Then Should We Work?" please visit
our online bookstore atBreakPoint. org
http://www.breakpoint.org/bp-home?spMailingID=4993937&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=56594527&spReportId=NTY1OTQ1MjcS1
http://www.colsoncenter.org/voices/entry/43/20156?spMailingID=4993937&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=56594527&spReportId=NTY1OTQ1MjcS1
[Further Reading]
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/20613?spMailingID=4993937&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=56594527&spReportId=NTY1OTQ1MjcS1

Better Microbes
Nature Abhors Promiscuity

John Stonestreet
October 26, 2012

My colleague Eric Metaxas recently told BreakPoint listeners about a new
strain of gonorrhea "that is resistant to the only class of drugs
that can `reliably treat' the disease."

What's true of bacteria like Neisseria gonorrhoeae is also true of
virtually every other microbe: They are very adaptable and they change
faster than our ability to develop treatments that will kill them.

But in order to adapt, they often need—and get—a helping hand
from humans.

Let me explain. As Laurie Garrett chronicled in her book, "The
Coming Plague: Newly Emerging Diseases in a World Out of Balance,"
the four decades between Alexander Flemings' discovery of penicillin
and the mid-1960s were the most optimistic time in the history of
medicine.

The development of more-effective antibiotics and breakthroughs in
genetics and cancer research led many in the medical profession to look
forward to the day when even old killers like cancer would be considered
chronic, but not fatal, conditions.

Nowhere was this optimism more keenly felt than in the area of
sexually-transmitte d diseases. The incidence of STDs had dropped
precipitously, and cases were easily treated with antibiotics. Resources
previously devoted to keeping STDs in check were being shifted
elsewhere.

But in less than a decade, this optimism was gone. Why? The Sexual
Revolution. As Garrett tells us, changing sexual mores during the 60s
and 70s acted as a kind of growth medium for STDs like gonorrhea to
evolve into the "superbugs" that have public health officials
worried today.

The combination of promiscuity, drug use, and the overuse of antibiotics
as a kind of "backup plan" didn't create the better world
some promised: What it created were "better" microbes, or as in
the case of HIV/AIDS, the transformation of a previously-unheard of
virus into the source of a global pandemic.

The drug-resistant gonorrhea is only the latest chapter in a story that
began with the Sexual Revolution.

The connection between "lifestyle" and adaptable microbes is
well-documented. Equally well-documented is the unwillingness on the
part of public health officials to admit it.

I'm not talking about "blaming the victim" here. I'm
referring to what, in other contexts, has been called "the soft
bigotry of low expectations. " In virtually every book or article
about the emergence of antibiotic-resistan t STDs, the inability of
people to modify or even moderate their sexual practices, even in the
face of life-threatening illnesses, is a given.

Somehow New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's restriction on soft drink
sizes is hailed as social justice, but pointing out the dangers to
public health posed by promiscuity is a big no-no.

Look, nature is obviously indifferent to ourideas about
"freedom." As the philosopher Joseph John Rickaby wrote a
century ago, "nature abhors promiscuity. " He called promiscuity
"suicidal" and added that a society where it was acceptable
would be plagued by infertility and disease.

Time has proven him right, even if those entrusted with public health
refuse to say so.
And it's not just our physical health that's at stake. Our
mental and societal health is being decimated by the visual promiscuity
that is pornography—somethin g I discuss with Josh and Sean McDowell
on this weekend'sBreakPoint this Week
http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/discourse?spMailingID=4999850&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=56688651&spReportId=NTY2ODg2NTES1
This is easily one of the most stunning
interviews I've ever conducted, and if you're a parent, you
simply must take a look at Josh's new website:just1clicka way.org
http://www.just1clickaway.org/
That's "just," the number 1, click
away.org. And come to BreakPoint.org
http://www.breakpoint.org/bp-home?spMailingID=4999850&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=56688651&spReportId=NTY2ODg2NTES1
to listen to the broadcast.
http://www.colsoncenter.org/voices/entry/43/20156?spMailingID=4999850&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=56688651&spReportId=NTY2ODg2NTES1
[Further Reading]
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/20623?spMailingID=4999850&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=56688651&spReportId=NTY2ODg2NTES1

Stem Cell Breakthrough
A Scientific and Ethical Leap Forward

Eric Metaxas
October 24, 2012

Thirteen years ago, Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, a Japanese pharmacologist and
researcher, made a social call to a friend's fertility clinic. His
friend invited him to look at some human embryos through a microscope.

What Yamanaka saw set him on a path that culminated in a Nobel Prize for
Medicine and Physiology. And in the process has won him praise from the
pro-life community.

As Yamanaka later told The New York Times, "when I saw the embryo, I
suddenly realized there was such a small difference between it and my
daughters . . . I thought, we can't keep destroying embryos for our
research. There must be another way."

The search for "another way" took eight years, but eventually
Yamanaka and his colleagues at Kyoto University discovered a way to turn
"adult skin cells into the equivalent of human embryonic stem cells
without using an actual embryo."

Using methods first developed with laboratory mice, Yamanaka and company
"reprogrammed" the adult skin cells by adding "genes called
master regulators to the skin cells' chromosomes. These genes can
change the cell's behavior by turning other genes on and off."

When the findings were announced five years ago, the moral implications
were, if anything, even clearer than the scientific ones. The New York
Times, in a bit of understatement, said that his research offered a
"possible way around the thorny moral issues that have slowed the
study of stem cells." What the Times thought about the destruction
of embryos was, of course, left unsaid.

Others were not as reticent: the Vatican followed his work closely and
publicized it. Cardinal Justin Rigali, the chairman of the Vatican's
Pro-Life Committee, preached a homily in which he told the story of
Yamanaka peering into the microscope. According to Rigali, "God can
use a helpless embryo to change a human heart." The National Right
to Life Committee urged that Yamanaka be awarded the Nobel Prize.

Between 2009 and 2012, Yamanaka won three prestigious scientific prizes.
Each of them cited the ethical, as well as scientific, impact of his
work.

Then on October 8, he won the "big one," the Nobel Prize for
Physiology and Medicine, which he shares with John Gurdon of Great
Britain.

As William Saletan of Slate magazine pointed out, the announcement
completely omitted any reference to the moral and ethical implications
of Yamanaka's work. They merely cited him for developing "new
tools" with which to fight diseases.

As Saletan also noted, much of the mainstream media followed the Nobel
committee's leading: The New York Times, which commented, albeit
somewhat begrudgingly, on the implications five years ago, completely
omitted any such reference this time.

If I were of a more suspicious bent, I might suspect that some people
would rather ignore the obvious, and look silly in the process, than
acknowledge that pro-life objections to embryonic stem-cell research
stand on firm scientific, as well as moral, grounds.

Even when the Nobel laureate himself has acknowledged the moral
considerations that motivated the research, they insist on ignoring the
connection.
Well, consider this a shout from the housetops: Saletan is right when he
says that Yamanaka deserves an additional Nobel in ethics for tearing
"down the wall between preserving embryos and saving lives."
http://www.colsoncenter.org/voices/entry/43/20156?spMailingID=4987525&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=56480209&spReportId=NTY0ODAyMDkS1
[Further Reading
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/20593?spMailingID=4987525&spUserID=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&spJobID=56480209&spReportId=NTY0ODAyMDkS1

Unconditional
Hope for the Hopeless
Eric Metaxas
October 23, 2012

The new movie "Unconditional" is a powerful tale of loss and
renewal. It shows the sobering effects of crime on both victims and
criminals, but it also shows how their lives can be transformed, even
when everything seems hopeless. And it clearly demonstrates that God is
the one who transforms those lives.

The film begins with a voice-over from a young woman named Sam Crawford.
Sam, who writes and illustrates children's books, uses drawings to
tell the story of her beloved husband's unsolved murder. "That
killer didn't just take Billy's life," she tells us. "He
took mine, too. . . . I used to dream of telling stories, but I never
dreamed that mine would end like this."

But Sam's story is really just beginning. The night that her despair
almost drives her to suicide, she's stopped at the last minute when
she witnesses a little girl getting hit by a car in the street nearby.
After rushing the child and her brother to the hospital, Sam
unexpectedly runs into her best friend from childhood, Joe Bradford, who
has become a youth leader in the children's community.

Joe, who did time in prison for robbery and nearly killed a fellow
prisoner, had a spiritual epiphany while there and turned his life
around. He's now known as "Papa Joe" to the children of his
neighborhood, many of whom don't have fathers of their own.

Sam is irresistibly drawn into the lives of Joe and the children he
loves. But when she discovers that a member of their community might be
the person who killed her husband, she has a terrible decision to make.

"Unconditional" is based on a true story—the kind of story
that Prison Fellowship has seen unfold thousands of times. The real Joe
Bradford runs a ministry for at-risk children in Nashville, called
Elijah's Heart http://elijahsheart.com/
He became friends with J. Wesley Legg and
Jason Atkins, who ran an annual short film competition and were looking
to make their first full-length movie. And their friendship led to
Joe's story being brought to the big screen.

It's a story that is well worth telling. It honestly portrays the
poverty, racism, and family breakdown that derail so many children's
lives, but it also shows the hope that loving and selfless people like
Joe Bradford offer them.

"Unconditional" has received an unusually high level of critical
acclaim for a faith-based film. The "Dallas Morning News"
reviewer called it "a message film that doesn't taste like
medicine." Variety's critic wrote that the film is "blessed
with the saving graces of persuasive performances, handsome production
values and some undeniably affecting moments of spiritual uplift."

Nonetheless, since its opening a couple of weeks ago,
"Unconditional" has struggled to find an audience in a crowded
market. I recommend that you go and see it if you can. Joe Bradford said
in a statement before the movie came out, "My dream is that
`Unconditional' inspires cities to unite in love to rescue one
of our most precious commodities: thousands of at-risk and fatherless
children torn by poverty and oppression." Every bit of support that
"Unconditional" can get will help make that dream a reality.
I can almost hear Chuck Colson saying, "Now, you should know that
"Unconditional" is rated PG-13 for some violence and mature themes."
And I can also hear him say, "Go see it with an unbelieving friend,
then go out and talk about this great story of transformation. " I
couldn't have said it better myself.
http://www.colsoncenter.org/voices/entry/43/20156

Alone Together
Is Technology Making Us Less Us?

John Stonestreet
October 22, 2012

Facebook, Twitter, texting, email, video chats, sharing—the number
of channels we use to communicate today is staggering. The amount of
time we spend accessing these channels is increasing daily, and some of
us have more online "friends" we've never met than the
number of people our grandparents actually knew in their entire
lifetimes.

We're living in a new reality—where we can share intimate
details of our lives, argue about politics, sports or religion, enjoy
the same entertainment, and fall in love—all without ever meeting
each other face-to-face.

Now, thanks to a team of researchers at MIT, we can even give physical
affection remotely. The researchers created an inflatable vest
<http://links. mkt3980.com/ ctt?kn=36& ms=NDk3NDY4MAS2& r=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0 &b=0\
&j=NTYyODE3MjUS1& mt=1&rt=0> that links to your Facebook account and
"hugs" you every time someone "likes" something
you've posted. Well, while we may not see many inflatable hug-vests
hitting the streets in the near future, this invention is a perfect
symbol of how the rise of social media is deeply—and some say
permanently—changing our relationships.

Dr. Sherry Turkle, a specialist in technology and society, also at MIT,
is one of those people. She believes all of this virtual friendship is
falling woefully short of the real thing. In fact, she says, it's
leaving us less human. Turkle has spent years researching the ways
technology changes people, and has written a book entitled "Alone
Together
http://alonetogetherbook.com/
," in which she describes the disturbing
trends.

"These days we expect more from technology than we expect from each
other," she explained in a TED talk recently.
http://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together.html
"Technology appeals to us where
we are most vulnerable. We're lonely, but we're afraid of
intimacy. And so from social networks to sociable robots, we're
designing technologies that will give us the illusion of companionship
without the demands of friendship. We turn to technology to help us feel
connected in ways we can comfortably control. But we are not so
comfortable. We are not so in control," she says.

This illusion of control, Turkle says, leads to some unexpected
consequences. In a recent Wall Street Journal piece
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444592404578030351784405148.html
Elizabeth Bernstein argues that one of
these consequences is how we've become incredibly rude on the
internet. We say things from behind the safety of our keyboard we'd
never say face-to-face. And new studies suggest that our self-control
actually deteriorates proportionately with our time online.

The devices on our desks and in our pockets, in Turkle's words,
"change our hearts and minds." They offer what she calls
"gratifying fantasies," fantasies that give us the impression
that we can fully control our relationships. But by trying to replace
the vulnerability, the intimacy, the conflict and messiness of actual
friendships with electronic substitutes, we diminish part of what it
means to be human.

Parents, it is crucial that we help students thoughtfully and
intentionally develop authentic relationship skills in this online age.

My friend Andy Braner, president of Camp Kivu in Colorado and one of the
most thoughtful observers of youth culture, talked with me about this as
my guest on BreakPoint this Week
http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/discourse/entry/15/20578
which aired over the weekend.
Loneliness is the ironic epidemic of this over-connected age, Braner
says, and students are longing to be truly known and truly connected. In
fact, his book Alone
http://links.mkt3980.com/ctt?kn=40&ms=NDk3NDY4MAS2&r=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0&b=0&j=NTYyODE3MjUS1&mt=1&rt=0
, is must-reading for anyone wishing to
mentor students in our disconnected networked age. Come toBreakPoint.org http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/discourse/entry/15/20578
click on the "This Week" tab,
listen to my interview with Andy, and learn how to pick up his new book.

In the meantime, spend a little deliberate time connecting with friends
and family the old-fashioned way. You know—without the text-lingo,
the friend requests, or the inflatable vest.
For BreakPoint, I'm John Stonestreet.
http://www.colsoncenter.org/voices/entry/43/20156
Further Reading
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/20574

Is That a Fact?
Biden on the HHS Mandate
John Stonestreet
October 19, 2012

We've been keeping you posted for months now on the HHS
mandate—a component of the Affordable Care Act that would require
religious employers to provide contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs
and sterilization in their insurance plans—no matter their religious
convictions. Chuck Colson called it the most serious attack on
Americans' religious liberty in a generation, and so far, Christian
institutions ranging from schools and hospitals to a publishing house
http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/7667
and a craft store
http://www.christianpost.com/news/hobby-lobbys-request-to-halt-contraception-mandate-gets-hearing-date-82911/
have filed some 35 lawsuits against the
administration, seeking a broad exemption based on the right to freely
exercise their religion.

In other words, they're fighting for the right not to participate in
actions they believe are sinful.

As we've reported here on BreakPoint, these suits have met with
mixed results. At least one succeeded
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/29/judge-issues-preliminary-injunction-on-behalf-of-business-owner-in-hhs-mandate-fight/
a few months ago in securing an injunction
against the mandate, but federal judges have also ruled against others, as happened earlier this month
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/329043/aggressive-decision-against-religious-liberty-ed-whelan
in the Eastern District of Missouri.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is representing several other
plaintiffs, including businesses and schools in what it calls "a
large cross-section of Protestants and Catholics who object to the
mandate," in hopes of salvaging the First Amendment rights the
policy endangers.

So what's the bottom line? This is an ongoing fight, and—if the
mandate isn't modified or abandoned—we might see a Supreme Court
ruling before it's all said and done.

So imagine what went through the minds of everyone involved in this
legal battle when, during the course of the vice presidential debate,
Vice President Biden denied point-blank that the HHS mandate even
includes religious employers!

"[L]et me make it absolutely clear," he told debate moderator,
Martha Raddatz. "[L]et me make it absolutely clear. No religious
institution—Catholic or otherwise . . . has to either refer
contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a
vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact."

Well, as the Catholic bishops said in a statement issued last Friday
"That is not a fact." The bishops
went on: "[Religious employers] will have to serve as a vehicle [for
birth control coverage], because they will still be forced to provide
their employees health coverage, and that coverage will still have to
include sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients. "

Matt Bowman, senior legal counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom,said, "It's embarrassing to claim that something doesn't
exist while you're defending it in court . . .
http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/7689
The abortion pill mandate's very
existence and the Obama administration' s ongoing defense of it
demonstrate how amazingly false the Vice President's claims
are."
And as soon as the debate ended, the head of the Pro-Life group, The
Susan B. Anthony List
http://www.sba-list.org/newsroom/press-releases/post-vice-presidential-debate-biden-grossly-misleads-religious-liberty
joined the chorus, commenting that Biden
had "grossly misled the viewers and brushed over legitimate
objections," and that "[his] response…demonstrate d a
shocking disregard for our first freedom."

Folks, this isn't about a candidate or even an election. This is
about the willingness of a public official to deny a provable threat to
religious liberty in one of the most televised debates of the year.

But what's important now is that we, the Church, make it clear to
our elected leaders that we will not stand idly by while religious
freeedoms are dismantled—and that yes, the HHS mandate is still a
big problem.
And with neither foot in my mouth, I can promise you, that is a fact.
http://www.colsoncenter.org/voices/entry/43/20156
[Further Reading
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/20569

Prisoners' Children Need You
Volunteer for Angel Tree

Eric Metaxas
October 18, 2012

It was back in 1997, when I was practically a kid writer here at
BreakPoint, that I first heard about Prison Fellowship's amazing
Angel Tree program.

I was moved by how much Chuck Colson and the Prison Fellowship staff
poured themselves into making sure that thousands and thousands of
prisoners' children received gifts at Christmas time.

Though Chuck rarely got misty-eyed, he could when he talked about
delivering Christmas gifts every year to those precious
children—children who needed to be reminded that mommy or daddy
still loved them. And even more important, that their Father in heaven
loved them, too.

Since 1982, church volunteers across the country have delivered gifts to
more than nine million children of prisoners.

This year, though, we're really up against it. Our goal is to reach
475,000 children. So we need more churches—a lot more
churches—to sign up to gather and deliver gifts if we're going
to reach every child.

Here's how Angel Tree works: When you sign your church up to
volunteer, you will receive a list of prisoners' children and their
caregivers' contact information. A church volunteer will contact
the caregivers to confirm gift wishes. You'll place those
children's names and their gift wishes on paper angels, hang them on
a Christmas tree—an Angel Tree—that you place in your
church's lobby. Members of your congregation then choose the paper
angels, buy and wrap the gift or gifts, and return them to the church.

From there, a church volunteer will arrange a time to deliver the gifts
and the Gospel materials provided by Angel Tree. Many churches host
Angel Tree parties and invite the children and their caregivers to
attend.

Yes, folks, it's a lot of work. But if your church is looking for a
hands-on ministry to the "least of these," I cannot think of a
more rewarding experience—for your church or for those children.

All you have to do is call 1-800-55-ANGEL to get more information or to
volunteer. Or you can go to AngelTree.org
http://www.angeltree.org/angeltreehome
I promise you, Angel Tree is so much more than Christmas gifts: It's
a way of reconciling families torn apart by incarceration, and it's
about introducing these children, these families, to Jesus.

Here's a quick story—there are so many. By age 16, Chris was
kicked out of school. His parents divorced, his mom died of cancer, and,
as Chris says, he "shook his fist" at God. And before he landed
in prison with 69 felony charges, he had fathered a son, Christopher.

Although Chris gave his life to Christ in prison, he fretted about his
son. Chris says, "He knew I had to be a real scoundrel." Chris
had no way to show his boy that Jesus had changed him.

Until, that is, an Angel Tree pamphlet was slid through Chris's cell
door. Chris signed up Christopher for Angel Tree, and by Christmas,
Christopher had a brand-new basketball. An excited Christopher called
his dad, and all he could talk about was his basketball. The wounds
began to heal.

When he was released, Chris was awarded custody of Christopher. Chris
now runs his own business, holds a Bible study with ex-prisoners, and is
fully reconciled with Christopher—who, by the way, himself is
growing in Christ.

Folks, that's the power of God working through the smallest
things—a basketball delivered on behalf of a parent in the name of
Christ. That's what Angel Tree is all about, Charlie Brown.
I do hope you'll volunteer. Sign your church up for Angel Tree.
Please, call 1-800-55-Angel, or visit angeltree.org
http://www.angeltree.org/angeltreehome
Further Reading]
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/20552

Twenty Days to Go
Fasting and Praying for America

Eric Metaxas
October 17, 2012

Back on September 27, my colleague John Stonestreet told you on
BreakPoint that I would be fasting and praying for 40 days prior to the
elections.
And, I have been. Have you? I want to urge you to join me in praying for
our nation.

Let me remind you how this came about. I was about to address a
conference in Castle Rock, Colorado, when a keen awareness came upon me
that I should invite the audience to join me in fasting and prayer.

Folks, that kind of awareness does not come upon me often. I'm
convinced it was the Lord.

So I invited the attendees to pray and fast with me. And I launched a
Facebook page so folks could sign up to let me know that they're in.
If you come to BreakPoint.org
<http://links. mkt3980.com/ ctt?kn=27& ms=NDk1MTExNQS2& r=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0 &b=0\
&j=NTU4MzQxNTkS1& mt=1&rt=0> , click on this commentary; I'll link to
you to the Facebook page. Or of course, you can always come
toericmetaxas. com
<http://links. mkt3980.com/ ctt?kn=1& ms=NDk1MTExNQS2& r=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0 &b=0&\
j=NTU4MzQxNTkS1& mt=1&rt=0> where there's more information, and that
will also link you to the Facebook page.

I cannot emphasize enough how important I think this is. As I tour the
country, I speak a lot about Dietrich Bonhoeffer. In his day, Bonhoeffer
pleaded with the Church to wake up—to understand the times. And he
pleaded with the Church to be the Church. And being the Church means
more than going to a worship service on Sunday, and it means more than
believing a certain way. It means living out our faith, putting our
beliefs into action.

And the first action should always be turning to God in prayer. Or, as
Chuck Colson used to say, "getting on our knees."

Do you believe 2 Chronicles 7:14, that if God's people will
"humble themselves" and seek God's face "and turn from
their wicked ways," that God "will hear from heaven and will
forgive their sin and will heal their land"? If you do, please pray.

I hear from so many Christians who are discouraged about the direction
our country is going in, and who are so fed up with politics, or who
simply wring their hands and say, "What can we do?"

Well, do you believe with Paul in Philippians that we should not "be
anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with
thanksgiving, " that we should "present our requests to God"?

Do you believe that? Do you believe what the Word of God says? If
we're to be the people of God then we must believe the Word of God.
And believing the Word of God in this case means praying. So please
pray.

Now of course, I'm not going to tell you how to pray or how often to
pray, and I certainly don't want to tell you how to fast. That of
course is between you and the Lord. But please take a moment and think
about this. Make a commitment that you can keep to pray and to fast in
some way for the next twenty days as we approach these incredibly
important elections. Folks, that's the least we as the Church can
do.

And then, if you would, let me know you're praying and fasting or
how. Go toBreakPoint. org
<http://links. mkt3980.com/ ctt?kn=27& ms=NDk1MTExNQS2& r=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0 &b=0\
&j=NTU4MzQxNTkS1& mt=1&rt=0> again and follow the link to my Facebook
page or go to ericmetaxas. com
<http://links. mkt3980.com/ ctt?kn=1& ms=NDk1MTExNQS2& r=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0 &b=0&\
j=NTU4MzQxNTkS1& mt=1&rt=0> .

Ultimately, when we commit to this kind of prayer, we are telling God
and showing God and affirming to each other where and in Whom we are
placing our trust for the future of our land. We will not trust in
"horses and chariots," we will not place our hope and trust in
the political process, or in our favorite candidate or political party.
We will be involved in politics, but we will not make an idol of
politics. We, the Church, the body of Christ, must and will place our
hope and our trust "in the name of the Lord Our God" (Psalm
20:7).

And we will pray that God will bless His Church, and will bless this our
country where He has placed us, for His purposes—so that we will be
a blessing to the rest of the world.

<http://links. mkt3980.com/ ctt?kn=10& ms=NDk1MTExNQS2& r=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0 &b=0\
&j=NTU4MzQxNTkS1& mt=1&rt=0>

[Further Reading]
<http://links. mkt3980.com/ ctt?kn=6& ms=NDk1MTExNQS2& r=OTQ0MjQwNzk2S0 &b=0&\
j=NTU4MzQxNTkS1& mt=1&rt=0>

Keeping Leviathan in His Place
We Need to Be the Church

John Stonestreet
October 15, 2012

As I mentioned last week on BreakPoint, a recent report by Pew's
Forum on Religion and Public Life documents a disturbing trend: The
number of Americans who can be called "religiously
unaffiliated, " or as some refer to them "the nones," is on
the rise.

One-fifth of all Americans and one-third of those under the age of
thirty describe themselves as having "no particular religious
affiliation. " That doesn't mean they reject spirituality. Only
six percent of Americans describe themselves as "atheists" or
"agnostics," and many of the rest claim to believe in a
"higher power," even a personal God. And a quarter of them
actually want a religious funeral!

What the "nones" often reject is not belief but spiritual
authority. What they want "none" of is churches and other
religious institutions. It's the embodiment of religion-as- a-purely
private-matter.

And that brings me back to Friday's broadcast. As I told you,
policies like the HHS mandate are the product of ideas that date back to
the origins of the modern state nearly four centuries ago.

The modern state offers freedom from the constraints imposed by
families, communities and churches in exchange for your allegiance.

This definition of freedom served the state's interests by
undermining potential rivals. Calling yourself a "Baptist" or a
"Catholic" meant no more than calling yourself a NASCAR or
Alabama football fan.

And actually, if we're honest, for many Christians it might mean
less, judging by the passion on display at Talladega or Tuscaloosa.
Admit it: folks are much more likely to switch church loyalties than
football loyalties, say from Michigan to Ohio State.

In the absence of rivals or challenges to its authority, the reach of
the modern state will not and cannot be checked. It will expand to fill
the void left by the absence of intermediate institutions like the
family, local communities, and the Church. It will take it upon itself
to make decisions for us that it has no business making. The many
intermediate institutions that kept the state at bay were noted by
Alexis de Tocqueville in his masterful "Democracy in America
http://www.colsoncenterstore.org/product.asp?sku=0140447601
," and he warned what would happen if
those institutions ever gave way to the state. Well now they are.

That's why our first response to this government encroachment must
be a recovery of what it means to be the Church. The last few years of
Chuck Colson's ministry were marked by an increased concern about
the rampant individualism that characterizes so much of American
Christianity. One of the last pieces he wrote for "Christianity
Today" touched on this problem.

Not only is it a theological impossibility— for as Luther put it,
"he who would find Christ must first find the church"—this
individualism leaves the state as the sole decider of the really big
questions, such as, in this instance, the definition of "religious
freedom" and even the definition of "religious institution. "

Another part of the response is becoming acquainted with the Christian
teaching about the relationship of the state to the rest of society.
These include subsidiarity, a product of Catholic social teaching, which
holds that "functions of government, business, and other secular
activities should be as local as possible." Sphere sovereignty,
articulated by Abraham Kuyper, teaches "that each sphere . . . of
life has its own direct responsibilities and authority or
competence."

While there are differences between the two, each emphasizes the social
over the individual and insists on giving families, communities, and
churches the freedom to perform their God-given functions.
But all of this assumes, of course, that Christians see themselves not
as individual believers but as part of something together, where the
whole will be larger than the sum of its individual parts—even large
enough to keep Leviathan in his place.
http://www.colsoncenter.org/voices/entry/43/20156
[Further Reading]
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/20530

Restraining Leviathan
What to Make of the HHS Mandate

John Stonestreet
October 12, 2012

A recent episode of the "Diane Rehm Show," one of the most
listened-to public radio programs in the country, featured a
conversation with Sandra Fluke. Fluke, as you may recall, is the former
Georgetown Law School student who testified before Congress in favor of
the HHS mandate. She was then turned into a kind of "martyr"
when Rush Limbaugh made outrageous comments about her personal life.

Not surprisingly, Fluke defended the HHS mandate on the "Diane Rehm
Show" as well. Nothing especially noteworthy here.

What is noteworthy, although not surprising, is the grounds on which
Fluke justified the infringement of religious freedom: the right of
women to bodily autonomy and the benefits to society from universal,
subsidized contraception.

It's noteworthy not because it represents something new, but on the
contrary, it represents something as old as the modern state itself.

This is the conclusion of a fascinating and important article on the
"First Things" website written by Patrick Deneen,
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/10/president-obamarsquos-campaign-for-leviathan/patrick-j-deneen
a professor of Political Science at Notre
Dame.

The title of the article, "President Obama's Campaign for
Leviathan," a reference to philosopher Thomas Hobbes' book of
that name, does the piece a disservice by suggesting that the problem is
of recent vintage. That's not at all the case.

As Deneen tells us, "the origin of the [HHS] mandate lies in an
impulse that can be dated back to the beginnings of the modern era and
the rise of the state." If your history is a bit rusty, the
beginnings of the modern era date back to the early-to-middle
seventeenth century.

The "impulse" Deneen is referring to is the way that the modern
state, as described by Hobbes, poses as a kind of "liberator."
In this case, the one being "liberated" is the individual. What
he—or in this case, she—is being liberated from is interference,
or even the fear of interference, from other individuals. The
"liberation" offered by the modern state is the freedom to
"pursue his or her own ends" as he or she sees fit.

In other words, personal autonomy.

Of course, there's a catch: in exchange for being liberated,
individuals must pledge their primary allegiance to the state. Every
other traditional allegiance—to family, church and community—is
seen as secondary and voluntary. They have no authority over us apart
from what we choose to let them have, which, practically- speaking, means
none at all, since we can always change our minds.

In this telling, religion is less than a private matter—it's an
individual one. Religious teachings about, well, anything, can bind the
individual's conscience, but any larger applicability is dependent
on whether it meets the state's interests.

It was this vision of the modern state that set in motion the forces
that, over time, led to what the late Richard John Neuhaus called the
"naked public square." I say "over time," because the
kind of secularization Deneen wrote about unfolded gradually. But while
the American founders, for the most part, viewed religion and religious
freedom as vital for the maintenance of self-government, the seeds of
secularization were present at the birth of the republic.

Those seeds have sprouted in full. Fluke's justification for the HHS
mandate is, consciously or not, straight out of Hobbes' playbook:
religious freedom sacrificed in the name of personal autonomy and
allegiance to the state.

What should our response be? Well, that's the subject of
Monday's broadcast. And this weekend please listen to BreakPoint
this Week
http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/discourse
where my guests and I tackle American
education, another area where Leviathan can be seen.
In the meantime, please come toBreakPoint.org
http://www.breakpoint.org/bp-home
click on this commentary, and read
Professor Deneen's insightful "First Things" article
http://www.colsoncenter.org/voices/entry/43/20156
[Further Reading]
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/20520

Learning or Ticket Punching
The Value of Higher Education
Eric Metaxas
October 10, 2012

According to the Georgetown University Center on Education and the
Workforce, four of the ten most popular majors among American college
students are business-related.

It's easy to understand why: Even in the best of times, employers
aren't exactly tripping over themselves to hire Liberal Arts majors.
And I don't need to remind you that these are not the best of times.

But as a friend of mine, Chuck Stetson, who has real world experience in
the business world will tell you, the kind of knowledge you get in a
true liberal arts education is what is often needed the most.

In a recent column in the Yale Daily News, Stetson lamented that the
study of Western Civilization was not a part of his Yale education or
that of his daughter's forty years later. Instead his knowledge of
Western Civilization is mostly self-taught.

The loss is more than a personal one. According to Stetson, a grounding
in the "core concepts" of Western Civilization is
"essential" in his venture capital business. He described a
study he did on behalf of another venture capitalist, Tommy Davis. The
CEOs of the most successful companies that Davis had backed
"attributed their success to traditional, uniquely western
values."

The connection is so important that Stetson's firm rejects
applicants who lack this grounding.

Stetson's piece was directly occasioned by the announcement that
Yale's president, Richard Levin, will be retiring at the end of this
academic year. While Levin accomplished a great deal for the university,
my alma mater is still lagging when it comes to "teaching Yalies to
be good citizens and contribute to America's success."

It isn't only Yale. Across the country, fewer and fewer students are
being taught the kind of things Stetson wrote about. The reflexive
response is to blame the state of affairs on "political
correctness" or left-wing faculty.

While there is some truth to this, the biggest reason lies in our
attitudes towards higher education. Simply put, the vast majority of
Americans view college in economic and instrumental terms. We go to
college and want our children to do the same because it's a
necessary part of "getting ahead."

Case in point: a recent Yahoo article listed the "7 Benefits of
Getting a College Degree." The list included the usual suspects:
"higher earning potential," "job stability" and "job
satisfaction. " It also included things like "lower blood
pressure and stress" and "healthier lifestyle choices."

What it made no mention of was actually learning anything worthwhile,
much less an education that made one a better citizen.

Again, Yahoo, like Yale, is far from unique in this respect. Virtually
every argument for going to college is made along these same lines. Even
attendance at prestigious institutions, and the colossal debt that many
students incur to do so, is justified in financial terms such as the
contacts you make.

The idea that universities should help students "lay hold of
truth," as Stetson puts it, makes little sense in a world in which a
college degree is merely a ticket to be punched on the way to doing more
important things.

Thus, it shouldn't come as a surprise that most college students,
including those at Yale, are ignorant about Western Civilization and how
it made their way of life possible.

Because of this ignorance, all of our efforts at "getting ahead"
won't get us very far.
http://www.colsoncenter.org/voices/entry/43/20156
[Further Reading]
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/20501

Appreciate Your Pastor
Tell Him about Worldview Church

Eric Metaxas
October 9, 2012

Have you thanked your pastor lately? Or sent him a word of
encouragement?

Think about it: Pastoring a flock well (and remember, sheep aren't
the most intelligent of creatures) is one of the most difficult jobs on
the planet. As Colson Center theologian T. M. Moore told me recently,
pastors "Work like slaves all year long and take more regular
criticism than most people experience in a lifetime."

Well, October is "Clergy Appreciation Month," so while
there's never a bad time to encourage your pastor, now's a
particulalry good time.

And one thing I'd urge you to do is to let your pastor know about
the Colson Center's website devoted especially to pastors and local
church leaders. It's called the Worldview Church.

With content written by pastors for pastors, WorldviewChurch.org
http://www.worldviewchurch.org/wvc-home
is a place where your ministers can go for
resources to equip them to think and live as Jesus' light and salt
in the world. They can network and engage with fellow ministers on the
site as well, and garner insight from some of the great Christian
worldview thinkers about understanding the times and the culture in
which they carry out their Kingdom work.

WorldviewChurch. org has email newsletters and devotionals like
"Ekklesia" or "Pastor to Pastor" in which T. M. Moore
taps the deep well of wisdom from the ancient Church fathers and the
great reformers—and applies their pastoral teaching to here and now.

The site also contains articles by ministers such as Al Mohler, Tim
Keller, Tullian Tchividjian, John Piper, Byron Wheaton, and others on
worship and liturgy, on building community, on biblical preaching, not
to mention reviews of books that would interest your pastor.

In other words, WorldviewChurch. org is a great place for your ministers
to come and learn, network, and be renewed.

So please, tell your pastor about Worldview Church. And, if you want to
go the extra mile, during Pastor Appreciation Month we'll have a
ColsonCenter online bookstore gift certificate available for you to
purchase for your pastor. The gift certificate is good for any of the
great books and resources available at ColsonCenter. org.

As we pray for the renewal of the Church, remember God's agents for
renewal: our pastors and ministers.

Before I leave you today, let me share with you a centuries-old
appreciation of a good pastor, written by Geoffrey Chaucer in the
prologue of his "Canterbury Tales." Describing the band of
pilgrims on their way to Canterbury, Chaucer tells us about the model
minister in their midst:

"There was a good man of religion, too/ A country parson, poor, I
warrant you;/

. . . Who Christ's own gospel truly sought to preach;
Devoutly his parishioners would he teach/

. . . Wide was his parish, houses far asunder/But never did he fail, for
rain or thunder,/ In sickness, or in sin, or any state,/ to visit the
farthest, small and great/

. . .And holy though he was, and virtuous/, To sinners he was not
impiteous,/ Nor haughty in his speech, nor too divine,/ But in all
teaching prudent and benign./

…But if some sinful one proved obstinate,/ Be who it might, of high
or low estate,/Him he reproved, and sharply, as I know/
. . .There is nowhere a better priest, I trow."
http://www.colsoncenter.org/voices/entry/43/20156
[Further Reading]
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/20477