BreakPoint

The relationship between Church and state and culture is and has always been contentious. The recent cultural debate about the term “Christian nationalism” is confusing because participants in the debate tend to use mutually exclusive definitions of the term. For some, it’s idolatry and a confusion of Gospel mission. For others, it’s faithfulness– and the only thing remaining to prevent our children’s co-option into an increasingly immoral culture. There are many questions that must be answered, for example:

A year ago, The Economist urged readers not to bring their “whole selves” to work. While some corporate gurus suggest that we make work feel more like home, the authors beg to differ.   

Your professional self displays commitment to the job and eats lunch at a desk. Your whole self is planning the next holiday and binges ice cream on the sofa. Your professional self makes presentations to the board and says things like: “Let’s get the analytics team to kick the t[i]res on this.” Your whole self cannot operate a toaster and says things like: “Has anyone seen my socks?” Pretending to be someone you are not is not a problem; it’s essential. 

That description speaks to what lies at the heart of the modern re-definition of “authenticity.” 

The most recent installment in the What Would You Say? video series looks at an idea that is increasingly popular, often repeated, and surprisingly believable: that sex is “assigned” at birth. Most of us have or will encounter this phrase, which no one would have uttered throughout most of human history. But not all of us know how to respond. After all, the idea that sex is something merely “assigned” at birth is taken as truth by college professors, media pundits, and medical professionals. We even hear that on this issue “the science is settled.”

Back in 2021, news outlets around the world announced a scandal involving Canadian government schools and missing indigenous children. Starting in the 1800s, Canada built and opened a series of boarding schools where children from local native people could be educated or, more accurately, assimilated into modern Western culture. A majority of these institutions were operated by the Roman Catholic church and, before they were shut down toward the end of the twentieth century, tens of thousands of children were taken from their families, compelled to speak English or French, taught Christianity, and required to dress according to European styles.

Today, however, at several of the sites where the burials were confidently asserted to have taken place, no physical evidence of human remains has been found.

In “Rich Men North of Richmond,” previously obscure Virginia songwriter Oliver Anthony rails against Washington elites for creating a world in which hardworking Americans can barely make ends meet and are dying of despair.

The song really struck a chord online, particularly with listeners on the political right, and shot to number one on the Billboard Singles chart. Days later, it was used as an opener at the first Republican presidential debate—a move Anthony himself slammed, saying, “I wrote this song about those people.” For many listeners, the song’s message reinforced the belief held by many: that elites of both parties have ruined America and are keeping ordinary working people down, and outrage is an appropriate response.

Here are six questions I’ve found extremely helpful to create the sort of dialogue we should desire about issues of faith and culture.

Fifty years ago on September 2, one of the most important authors of the twentieth century passed away. While most today know his amazing works of fantasy and fiction, J.R.R. Tolkien was long recognized in academic circles as a brilliant philologist and scholar of medieval literature. For example, his essay on Beowulf, written in 1936, reshaped scholarship around the poem and remains highly influential today.

It was in the following year that the world was first introduced to Middle Earth. The Hobbit was quickly recognized as a wonderful children’s book. But The Lord of the Rings series that followed initially earned a mixed reception.

Though unusual as a long-term vocation, singleness is a biblical, God-ordained calling within which individuals show God’s image and serve Him and His Church with single-minded, self-sacrificial devotion. Scripture presents single people as whole persons who bear the image of God. Unlike other creation stories (like Plato’s Timaeus), Genesis 2 does not present Adam and Eve as half persons made whole by joining in marriage. Rather, Adam was created a complete person who, in his singleness, reveals God’s image. When God declares that Adam’s aloneness is “not good,” He does not thereby imply that Adam was half of a person. Marriage unites the man and the woman as “one flesh” precisely because both are full persons who bear the image of God. Because singles bear God’s image, they are capable of revealing His image in their singleness.

The most recent controversy dragged before a judge was whether the state of Montana could be held responsible for climate change. Earlier this month, Montana District Court Judge Kathy Seeley ruled that the state’s failure to take climate change into account when greenlighting new oil and coal projects was unconstitutional. The plaintiffs were a group of young people called Our Children’s Trust. They sued the state over fossil fuel production, claiming that Montana violated a section of its constitution that guarantees citizens “the right to a clean and healthful environment.”

Climate activists have hailed the decision as a significant victory and model for the nation but have not been clear on what exactly has been accomplished. As The New York Times put it, unless a higher court overturns the ruling, Montana must now “consider climate change when deciding whether to approve or renew fossil fuel projects.” That’s all. They must “consider.”

A few weeks ago, voters in Ohio rejected a ballot measure that would have made it harder to amend the state’s constitution. As it stands, to amend Ohio’s constitution only requires 50% of the vote plus one. Issue 1 would have raised that threshold to 60%.

The turnout for this vote was unexpectedly high for what appeared to be a procedural change. It was the only issue on the ballot. However, this vote was not merely about a procedure. It was also about abortion.