goodpods headphones icon

To access all our features

Open the Goodpods app
Close icon
headphones

Breakpoint

Colson Center

Star filled black icon

5.0

(8)

Join John Stonestreet for a daily dose of sanity—applying a Christian worldview to culture, politics, movies, and more. And be a part of God's work restoring all things.

...more

profile image
profile image

2 Listeners

Star filled black icon

5.0

(8)

comment icon

1 Comment

not bookmarked icon
Share icon

All episodes

Best episodes

Top 10 Breakpoint Episodes

Best episodes ranked by Goodpods Users most listened

play

06/15/23 • 1 min

Star filled black icon

5.0

Statistical data from the General Social Survey shows that, contrary to what many think, the overwhelming majority of Americans—a whopping 86%—believe in God at some level. For every American that doesn’t believe in God, there are seven who do.

Of course, just because 4 out of 5 Americans think God exists doesn’t mean they believe in the same God or, for that matter, in the God that actually exists. What we believe about God is a defining aspect of our lives. As A.W. Tozer wrote, “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.”

What we believe about God shapes what we believe about the rest of life, including those ultimate, worldview-shaping questions of origin, identity, meaning, morality, and destiny. And the more a group of people is unmoored from the truth about these things together, the more disconnected they are from those essentials of a healthy and functioning society, such as justice, human dignity, and the care and protection of children.

play

06/15/23 • 1 min

profile image

1 Listener

comment icon

1 Comment

1

bookmark
plus icon
share episode

John and Maria discuss the new documentary on the Duggar family, Oklahoma approves a Catholic charter school, and a Jeopardy! panel shows its ignorance of the Bible.

— Recommendations —

Dad, How Do I? YouTube channel

The River by Peter Heller

play

06/17/23 • 55 min

profile image

1 Listener

comment icon

1 Comment

1

bookmark
plus icon
share episode

In sports news, the Denver Nuggets have won their first NBA Championship, in their 47th year in the league. That was this week. Last week, it was the Oklahoma Sooners women’s softball team that dominated headlines, winning their third straight and seventh overall NCAA championship.

For those of us who don’t typically follow this particular sport, the OU team was as well known for their celebrations and press conferences as for their dominant play. The word that comes to mind, partly because it was repeated over and over by those in the program and those watching, is joy. To be clear, for these Sooners, joy is not a consequence of winning. It’s the other way around. When asked about their joy, during a press conference a few days before winning the national title, team captain Grace Lyons said this:

Well, the only way that you can have a joy that doesn’t fade away is from the Lord. And any other type of joy is actually happiness that comes from circumstances and outcomes. I think Coach has said this before, but joy from the Lord is really the only thing that can keep you motivated, just in a good mindset, no matter the outcomes. Thankfully, we’ve had a lot of success this year. But if it was the other way around, joy from the Lord is the only thing that can keep you embracing those memories, moments, friendships, and all that.

Following Lyons, her teammate Jayda Coleman discussed her own journey of learning the proper order of winning and joy:

1,000% agree with Grace Lyons. I went through that my freshman year, I was so happy to win the [College World Series]. I’ve talked about this before, but I was just so happy that we won the College World Series, but I didn’t feel joy . . . . I didn’t know what to do the next day. I didn’t know what to do for that following week. I didn’t feel filled. And I had to find Christ in that. And I think that is what makes our team so strong is that we’re not afraid to lose, because it’s not the end of the world. If we do lose, yes, obviously, we worked our butts off to be here and we want to win. But it’s not the end of the world because our life is in Christ. And that’s all that matters.

It’s not unusual at a press conference for an athlete or two to express thankfulness to God. What is unusual is for three in a row to do so, while also expressing how their faith in Christ has completely changed their perspective on sports and life. Sophomore Alyssa Brito then iced the press conference (that’s a sports metaphor for an athlete who finishes out a game and secures the win), describing how the game is not life, only part of a life that’s completely reoriented by focusing on Christ and not self:

I think a huge thing that we’ve really just latched on to is eyes up. And you guys see us doing this and pointing up, but we’re really like fixing our eyes on Christ. And that’s something we’re, like they we’re saying, you can’t find a fulfillment in an outcome, whether it’s good or bad. And I think that’s why we’re so steady in what we do and in our love for each other and our love for the game, because we know this game is giving us the opportunity to glorify God. And I just think once we figured that out, and that was our purpose, and everyone was all in with that, it’s really changed so much for us. And I mean, I know myself, I’ve seen so much of a growth in myself . . . . once I turned to Jesus, and I realized how He had changed my outlook on life, not just softball, but understanding how much I have to live for. And that’s living to exemplify the Kingdom. And I think that brings so much freedom. And I’m sure everyone’s story is similar, but we all have those great testimonies that have really, like, shown how awesome it is to play for something bigger.

To be clear, this is a talented team, but there is also a culture in place at OU that just looks different. In another press conference, Coach Patty Gasso attributed their success to knowing “they are defined not by softball . . . . . They never play tight, they never play afraid . . . . because . . . . they’ve really found their freedom ... through their faith.”

In a “Dear Softball” letter, senior captain Grace Lyons echoed her coach when she said her perspective changed “when I realized you were just something I did, not who I was.”

The expectation is to idolize you. And the promise is that true joy comes from reaching a goal that you have put all of your effort into. Yes, we as Christians are expected to work hard at all that we do for Christ. But the real victory has already been won on the cross: Jes...

play

06/14/23 • 4 min

profile image

1 Listener

comment icon

1 Comment

1

bookmark
plus icon
share episode

An argument commonly used to justify radical ideologies about gender and sexuality is the existence of so-called “third” genders in various cultures throughout history. For example, gender “workbooks” that are often promoted in schools, counseling offices, and online, aimed at children and their parents, suggest that “third” genders prove that transgender identities have historical precedent and are therefore not just products of a modern fad.

Among the most cited examples are the Native American “Two-spirit,” Thailand’s “Kathoey” (regularly translated as “Ladyboy”), Ancient Middle East’s “Sal-zikrum,” the “Fa’afafine” of Samoa, the “Hijra” of India, and the “Muxe” of Southern Mexico. This long list of those who didn’t conform to male and female norms of their cultures may seem to be a compelling argument. However, a quick look at so-called “third” gender people reveals that they are not based on the same presuppositions as modern transgender ideology.

At the heart of contemporary gender ideology is a rejection of the so-called “gender binary,” that only two genders exist, as well as any essential link between biological sex and gender. The contention is that biological sex is itself “assigned” and therefore not determinative of one’s gender identity, which is, after all, nothing more than a social construct.

In most cases, labeling non-conforming individuals as “third genders” is an anachronism forced upon people who presumed the reality of biological sex, gender roles, and the so-called “gender binary.” For example, the word Fa’afafine, literally translated, means “in the manner of a woman.” The name refers to Samoan men who act like, live as, and associate with women. Historically, a Fa’afafine is a boy chosen by his family at a young age to help the mother with household tasks, often because there was no daughter born to the family. In other words, the Fa’afafine are not those “born into the wrong body” who express “their true selves.” Nor is the choice based on the boy being a homosexual or even noticeably feminine. Rather, the choice is made for them by a father in a culture committed to distinct gender roles.

It’s also notable that, in this context, those who are identified as Fa’afafine are not considered to be female, nor are they considered a wife or a mother. They are recognized as men who act like women. This is not a culture that denies sexual difference.

The Native American “two-spirit” is a neologism created in 1990 to refer to so-called “third” genders in those cultures. However, “two-spirit” is not monolithic. Each Native American tribe had different ways of describing gender-bending individuals, and most refer to a member of one sex who acts stereotypically like the opposite sex. For example, the Lakota “Winkte,” which has been categorized under “two-spirit,” refers to a man who is “like a woman.” Such identification relies on the fact of binary gender roles. It is not a “third” gender.

Of course, modern transgender ideology also relies on the gender binary that it rejects. Rigid masculine or feminine stereotypes determine whether someone’s “true identity” is at odds with their bodies. A boy is considered a girl if he likes pink or plays house or even occasionally enjoys stereotypical “feminine” habits or games. In the same way, a girl who likes trucks or playing in the dirt isn’t just a tomboy but an actual boy. Amidst all the talk about fluidity and gender spectrums, and sexual identity being a social construct, transgender ideology relies on the grossest, rigid stereotypes.

Thus, transgender ideology not only contradicts itself, it also perpetuates the very problem it claims to solve. In the second half of the last century, a cacophony of voices denounced rigid stereotypes as harmful and restrictive, especially for children. The social contagion of those who struggle with the identities today do so because of narrow stereotypes that are treated as absolute and definitive. Girls are no longer allowed to behave “like boys.” Rather, they must be boys. And if a boy wants to be a girl, that means embracing the most frilly, suggestive, stereotypes thinkable. All of this ignores the perfectly normal and natural variety found among men and women, long before novel sexual ideologies became new articles of faith for America’s cultural priests.

(It’s also worth mentioning that pointing to other cultures to justify a modern ideology commits the “noble savage” mistake. Just because some other culture did it does not make it right. Imagine suggesting that because ancient cultures practiced cannibalism or slavery, then we should too.)

To be made in the image of God is to be male or female. The solution for today’s poor thinking is not to default to some shallow stereotype, any more ...

play

06/15/23 • 5 min

profile image

1 Listener

comment icon

1 Comment

1

bookmark
plus icon
share episode
play

06/16/23 • 5 min

Star filled black icon

5.0

On December 6, 1907, a massive explosion decimated a coal mine in Monongah, West Virginia. Three hundred and sixty-two miners were killed, making this the worst mining disaster in U.S. history. The tragedy devastated the small town and led eventually to the establishment of the U.S. Bureau of Mines.

The Monongah mine disaster also marked another beginning. Several months after the explosion, a local church held a special service in honor of the 362 miners, most of whom had left behind wives and children. This is the first event on record in the United States set aside specifically to honor dads.

Two years later, a woman from Spokane who, along with her five siblings, was raised by her widowed father, began a public campaign to establish a national Father’s Day. A day for mothers was already in the works and, according to historical accounts, was a much easier sell to the public. By 1916, President Woodrow Wilson had officially recognized Father’s Day, though it would not be recognized as a national holiday until 1972.

A little over a hundred years after the mining disaster that birthed Father’s Day, the United States is now suffering a crisis of fatherlessness. One in four American kids are, like so many in that West Virginia town, growing up without their father at home. That amounts to 18.5 million kids.

If statistics hold, this means that 18.5 million children are three times more likely to engage in criminal activity than those who have dads at home. Those 18.5 million kids are more likely to engage in sexual activity earlier, are less likely to go to college, more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems, more likely to struggle academically, are twice as likely to commit suicide, and much more likely to commit violence. The vast majority of mass shooters in the past 20 years were young men who were, in some way, estranged from their fathers.

Almost any social good that can be named is dependent on dads who commit to their families and is at risk when they don’t. This does not mean that every child who grows up without dad in the home will not succeed. Thank God for the millions of grandparents, relatives, friends, neighbors, and especially single moms who heroically raise children in difficult circumstances. Nor does it mean that a faithful dad at home guarantees success for children. Many people squander the amazing inheritance with which they are blessed. Put differently, statistics do not determine the destiny of individuals.

At the same time, statistics predict the future of societies. Though fatherlessness is correlated with almost every major cultural crisis of the 21st century, the importance of dads remains consistently underestimated and is even undermined. So-called “same-sex marriage” and adoption by same-sex couples suggest that either moms or dads really aren’t that important when it comes to raising children. Legalized abortion has effectively catechized generations of men into believing they are not obligated to take responsibility for children that result from their sexual activity and catechized generations of women into believing they’ve no right to expect that commitment from men. According to the Guttmacher Institute, nearly half of all women who seek abortions do so because they’ve been abandoned by their baby’s father.

I’m especially grateful for the

play

06/16/23 • 5 min

profile image

1 Listener

comment icon

1 Comment

1

bookmark
plus icon
share episode
play

06/16/23 • 1 min

Star filled black icon

5.0

Several years ago, a New York Times headline read, “Is Your Child Lying to You? That’s Good.” Parents, the author said, shouldn’t be upset about their young fibbers because studies show that kids who lie are more intelligent and “socially adept” than those who don’t.

And for children who aren’t quite so good at lying, parents can “speed up the process” through training exercises. If, as the author claims, lying is good for your brain, then the sooner kids start lying, the better.

I wish I were making that up, but I’m not. The author’s argument is fully consistent with a worldview that sees cognitive ability as the highest quality we should value and cultivate in children.

But cognitive intelligence isn’t the only kind. There’s also moral intelligence—knowing the right thing to do in a morally charged universe. And there’s relational intelligence—knowing how best to live in relationship with others, for their good, not just our own.

And never forget, “studies” and “research” are never neutral . . . .

This Point was originally published on January 19, 2018.

play

06/16/23 • 1 min

profile image

1 Listener

comment icon

1 Comment

1

bookmark
plus icon
share episode

The moment Roe v. Wade was overturned last month, desperate activists began to dust off the oldest and oddest arguments for abortion. These “gotcha” scenarios are supposed to prove that pro-lifers don’t really value human life or consider preborn babies from the earliest stages of development to be human. Instead, these pretend scenarios demonstrate that pro-lifers are simply hypocrites.

On closer inspection, however, these scenarios fail to convince. For example, there’s the so-called “burning fertility clinic” scenario. A friend emailed me recently and asked for a response to this one, which as best I can tell, was invented by author Patrick Tomlinson.

It goes like this. You’re in a burning fertility clinic and hear a 5-year-old child crying for help. Across the room is a container marked “1,000 Viable Human Embryos.” The flames are rising, smoke is filling the air, and you can only save one: the child or the container of embryos. According to Tomlinson, if you would choose to save the crying child, you’re betraying the fact that, whatever you may say, you really believe embryos aren’t equivalent to human beings. How, otherwise, could you justify saving one over 1,000?

“Gotcha,” right? Not really. First, this argument has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion. In no instance does a woman or her doctor ever choose between saving the life of one child at an advanced stage of development, or 1,000 at an earlier stage. Abortion involves the intentional killing of one or multiple children who, in most cases, would have lived if left alone. There’s no analogy, here, which means as an argument for abortion, the burning fertility clinic is toast.

But even setting that important point aside, the decision to save the imaginary 5-year-old over the embryos—which for the record, I would make—doesn’t necessarily reflect my view of the embryos’ humanity. It only reflects what I would do with limited time in a no-win situation. Perhaps, I would be acting on an impulse to stop conscious suffering, or to prevent parents from losing a child whose face and voice they know, or from a spur-of-the-moment instinct to answer a cry for help. None of these actions has any equivalence to an intentional killing, and none of them means I consider embryos less than human.

Of course, abortion activists continue to repackage this flawed scenario, again and again, with help from media sources. Last week in The Washington Post, another and even more bizarre form of this argument surfaced. Harvard ethics professor Daniel Wikler and Northwestern University law professor Andrew Koppelman argued that if state lawmakers who are now outlawing abortion really believe embryos are human beings, they should be panicking over the sudden statistical spike in their states’ infant mortality rates.

As these professors write: “30 percent of human embryos spontaneously self-abort”—or are miscarried. These deaths aren’t normally counted in infant mortality statistics, which only account for deaths after birth. But if embryos are human persons, these profs argue, infant mortality stats should include miscarriages. If we did that, though, we would be looking at mortality rates more than twice those of the most dangerous countries on earth—a true public health crisis! They conclude: “the fact of spontaneous abortion shows that opponents of abortion do not themselves believe what they are saying.”

This “gotcha” scenario has nothing to do with abortion, which is, once again, the intentional killing of unborn babies. Their use of the term “spontaneous abortion” instead of “miscarriage” may be medically acceptable but muddies this crucial distinction.

And consider their logic: Lots of miscarriages, tragically, do happen. If pro-life lawmakers aren’t adequately panicking about this, they must not really think intentionally killing unborn babies is wrong? That is like saying if you aren’t panicked about children dying during a pandemic, you can’t be against a shooter gunning them down in a school. It’s an absurd line of thinking yet, in the frenzy of a post-Roe abortion movement, passes for Ivy-League-level ethical reasoning.

None of these “gotcha” arguments should intimidate pro-lifers, especially Christians. We have the truth on our side, and now, thank God, the law in an increasing number of states. Bizarre hypothetical scenarios cannot change the moral reality that elective abortion is evil. On close inspection, the “gotcha” scenarios, like the imaginary fertility clinic in which they so often take place, just go up in smoke.

play

07/15/22 • 5 min

profile image

1 Listener

bookmark
plus icon
share episode
play

07/18/22 • 6 min

The day that Roe v. Wade died, reactions were mixed. Those who long supported Roe’s legal death work mourned the victory for life. For many, it provoked fear, sadness, outrage, and hyperbole. “I thought I was writing fiction in The Handmaid’s Tale,” Canadian author Margaret Atwood wrote. “The Supreme Court is making it real.”

On the other hand, many pro-lifers celebrated. “For nearly fifty years, America has enforced an unjust law that has permitted some to decide whether others can live or die. We thank God today that the Court has now overturned this decision,” said Archbishop José Gómez, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The only truly surprising reaction came from a third group. While technically pro-life, this group viewed the overturning of Roe as a sort of problem, a cause for caution and even sorrow. Some even condemned the celebrations they saw from the rest of us.

Apologist Mike Winger referred to this group as “the sideways people,”

... because it’s like they are taking a sudden turn from the issue at hand and going sideways onto other things they care about more. Or perhaps it’s because they are “looking sideways” at this whole thing in the sense of being bothered by it, even if not repudiating it.

He’s right. After achieving a goal that united Christians for nearly 50 years, it was strange to see a tone of fear and concern from some corners of the Church.

If the caution came from a fear that the Dobbs decision was wrongly understood to have ended abortion or to have settled the issue, that’s valid. Overturning Roe did neither. As many have said, this is not the end of this battle on behalf of pre-born life. It’s not even the beginning of the end. At best, it’s the “end of the beginning.” The pro-life movement must continue, and its future has to be not only pro-child but also pro-mother, treating people, especially women caught in unexpected pregnancies with compassion and support while unraveling the lies our culture tells them about their child’s life. All of this is true. But that’s not really where these critiques were coming from.

These were coming from Christians who declared that real compassion precluded celebration and that we must “lament” with women who no longer have a presumed right to end the life of their child. It was as if the real problem was that this particularly heinous choice was being taken away from them. Abortion is an act of violence to both mothers and children. Only a society that’s been deeply poisoned by a culture of death pretends otherwise. Should celebrations of the Emancipation Proclamation have been muted as well?

The real issue is that too many Christians crumple under the weight of mere public opinion. Whenever empathy becomes the chief virtue of a Christian, their moral waters are muddied. “Winsomeness” somehow looks like “silence.”

Cultural elites, from business to entertainment, have made it perfectly clear: To speak out against abortion carries with it the crushing stigma of somehow hating women, of being merely “pro-birth,” of needlessly offending our neighbors with divisive rhetoric. The tragic irony is anyone who favors the killing of unborn children can publicly say so without a hint of moral disapproval from some of these Christians.

This imbalance is, of course, not new for pro-life advocates. We’ve come to expect it from those who are deceived by the worst ideas of our age. But we don’t expect it from those who claim to be pro-life.

Princeton Professor Robert P. George often tells of a question he asks his students. If you had been born before the Civil War, would you have accepted slavery, or opposed it? Nearly every student quickly answers that they would have opposed slavery and would have worked tirelessly to dismantle it. “Of course, this is nonsense.” George writes: “Only the tiniest fraction of them, or any of us, would have spoken up against slavery or lifted a finger to free the slaves.”

If he’s going to believe those students who claim the moral high ground, George demands that they show evidence of how they have stood, today in some context, for an unpopular victim of injustice, knowing that, as a result of their mora...

play

07/18/22 • 6 min

profile image

1 Listener

bookmark
plus icon
share episode

Apparently, Josh Timonen, once a right-hand man of New Atheist author Richard Dawkins, has converted to Christianity. Timonen began working with Dawkins back in 2006, just before the publication of Dawkins’ bestseller, The God Delusion, helping with Dawkins’ website, some documentaries, as well as his foundation and merchandise. The two parted ways due to a legal dispute.

Later, Timonen relocated his family during the pandemic, and they started attending a church so that his young daughter could make friends. At that church, Timonen and his wife began to reconsider Christianity and, after reading Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ, Timonen was confronted with the historical fact of Jesus’ life, ministry, and resurrection, all of which he had dismissed early on in his atheism. Within the year, Josh and his wife placed their faith in Christ.

Timonen’s story is a reminder that God is at work and that through Christ, can reconcile us to Himself, even “while we were enemies” (Romans 5:10).

play

06/14/23 • 1 min

profile image

1 Listener

comment icon

1 Comment

1

bookmark
plus icon
share episode
play

06/12/20 • 53 min

play

06/12/20 • 53 min

bookmark
plus icon
share episode

Show more

Toggle view more icon

FAQ

How many episodes does Breakpoint have?

Breakpoint currently has 1780 episodes available.

What topics does Breakpoint cover?

The podcast is about News, Culture, Christianity, Religion & Spirituality, News Commentary, Podcasts and Politics.

What is the most popular episode on Breakpoint?

The episode title 'Americans Still Believe in God ... “But”' is the most popular.

What is the average episode length on Breakpoint?

The average episode length on Breakpoint is 12 minutes.

How often are episodes of Breakpoint released?

Episodes of Breakpoint are typically released every 12 hours.

When was the first episode of Breakpoint?

The first episode of Breakpoint was released on Mar 26, 2020.

Show more FAQ

Toggle view more icon

Comments

5.0

out of 5

Star filled grey IconStar filled grey IconStar filled grey IconStar filled grey IconStar filled grey Icon
Star filled grey IconStar filled grey IconStar filled grey IconStar filled grey Icon
Star filled grey IconStar filled grey IconStar filled grey Icon
Star filled grey IconStar filled grey Icon
Star filled grey Icon

8 Ratings

Taryn Sturkey's profile image

Taryn Sturkey

@tarynsturkey

Jun 11

horizontal dot icon
Star Filled iconStar Filled iconStar Filled iconStar Filled iconStar Filled icon
not liked icon

Like

Reply