← Breakpoint
Breakpoint
Dismantling the Department of Education, the Ethics of Immigration Policy, and Investigation of the SBC Concludes
00:54:30
President Trump moves forward with his plans to scrap the Department of Education. John and Maria discuss the ethics of immigration and deportation. And the Department of Justice ends its investigation of the Southern Baptist Convention....
Loading summary
Transcript19 lines
- [00:02]
A
You're listening to breakpoint this week where we're talking about the top stories of the week from a Christian perspective. Today we're going to talk about the dismantling of the Department of Education. We're also going to talk about immigration policy. How should we think of that from a biblical perspective? We have a lot to get to today. Thank you so much for being with us. Stick around. Welcome to breakpoint this week from the Colson center for Christian Worldview. I'm Maria Baer alongside John Stonestreet, president of the Coulson Center. John, I hope you don't work for the Department of Education because you may have gotten a pink slip this week.
- [00:36]
B
Well, yeah, I, I mean, look, look, it's serious Whenever, whenever anybody loses their job and we have a situation in which the, the government has increased in size in an unjustifiable way. And there's no example of that more in terms of effectiveness or a lack of effectiveness in the Department of Education. We talked about education a lot here on the program, both the opportunity that Christians have right now in this moment to be leaders in the educational space, and many are. And that's why we're seeing some, I think, some very important developments. But, but also the fact that there's just been a reckoning. There's just been a reckoning. It goes back to at least Covid, of parents choosing differently, of parents demanding accountability, of parents actually showing up to school board meetings, of school board members and other folks behaving badly and the Department of Education calling people domestic terrorists. So calling parents domestic terrorists. Let's be really, really clear. The Department of Education was an idea. It was an idea that didn't work. It got more than enough time to prove that it could help and it didn't. And you know, there's a Kyperian analysis, by the way. There's always a Kyperian analysis here at the Colson center. If you know who Kuyper is. One of his ideas was the idea of sphere sovereignty, which is that certain authorities were created by God to operate in certain areas. And when authorities step into other spheres or when the God given authority within a sphere breaks down, then it leads to really some long term issues. Education is an example of that. This is not a place where, how do we want to say it, a behemoth state belongs to local authorities. There is a vested interest, I think, that local governing officials have. And so when you talk about a city level or a county level or a state level, that makes more sense. Although in various regions of the country, people are reacting strongly against that, mainly because in a lot of ways, a lot of those talking points came from the federal government, from a progressive direction. The federal government. And so look, there's a lot to unravel here. And I think that one of the challenges for Christians right now, and it's not just the Department of Education, it's across the cuts that are being made, it's just so unusual for the federal government to shrink in any way possible. And we do need to remember there's actual people involved and there's actual livelihoods and lives. And honestly, it's many people who've. I don't know how to say this without being sounding crass, but this attempt to manage top down across so many spheres of society doesn't work. Education deals with individuals. Individuals need to be dealt with individually. The federal government is not equipped to do that in any sort of effective way. And this idea that the federal, you know, the Department of Education, you know, didn't really meddle. Mike Ferris this week, the former CEO of the Alliance Defending Freedom, had an interesting post on Facebook where he compared the Department of Education to meddling in laws. Who, you know, the in laws can hold their hands up and say, but I, we didn't do anything. It's like, but you said an awful lot and you have an awful lot of leverage and power. It was a, it was a pretty interesting take on it, I thought, as an analogy. Anyway, there's a lot more to say, but it is an interesting time.
- [04:22]
A
I think for me it underscores that things that don't feel possible can be possible if you have the political will and, or courage. In Ohio, we passed what's called SB1 Senate Bill 1 this week, which basically defunded DEI programs at state schools. And it was this weird. I mean, the reaction to it is strange. It's kind of what you'd imagine from the left at least. But there's always a weird sense that like, there's things you don't touch, like, well, those are the universities and we forget that the state funds state schools. We have every right to speak into how those schools are run and how the money is spent. The same is true for the Department of Ed and whatever else the government does. Sometimes we get lulled into a sense of like, trust the experts and they are so, they're, they've always been there and they shall always and forever be. But we actually have more ability to speak into how that's going and what we want that to, what we want to be funded and how and why. And when you reach a, again, national literacy rate of fourth graders that's like below 35%, it's completely warranted to ask for a change. Honestly, that should be the foremost stat of the discussions about this. It's always like, well, I heard somebody on NPR this morning about, well, the labor unions are upset. People are going to lose their jobs. This is going to shake up. Okay, but were kids being taught they weren't. So we've got to do something different. That's what this department was supposed to do. And the Department of Ed will remain. They handle federal student loans. That's got to be housed somewhere. And so that's. They're going to keep doing that, but in terms of speaking into local and state education policy, it was never working anyway. So I'm not mourning that change.
- [06:13]
B
Yes, and there has been a direct correlation between a, you know, declining test scores and declining outcomes in public schools and the existence of the Department of Education. You can't put it all certainly on their existence because there's a lot of factors. The breakdown of the family, the breakdown of morals in society, all the typical things that we talk about a lot, which I think are probably much more directly involved. But the Department of Education hasn't helped. And it's contributed, by and large, by initiating, to your point, and pushing ideologies. And see, this is the progressive direction. You have to look for things to take people further in kind of this moral, evolutionary way that we're becoming a more just and a more tolerant and a more enlightened society. And when one strategy doesn't work, you go with another. And when one strategy doesn't work, you go with another. And then decry the fact to ever say any of these other strategies failed. I mean, this is what's happened. But to your point on the states, that's something that has to be said, I think, both ways. Illinois, for example, as Ohio is, as you described it, is talking about how to uproot something like dei, which has been a corrupting influence in schools. Obviously, in our view, Illinois is trying to crack down further on homeschooling families right now. So the state officials. Yes, states can do what they want, and they're being really aggressive right now against homeschool families. I suspect the same thing's gonna happen out of Colorado, not just with homeschooling, but with other educational alternatives. They've already done that on charter schools in various ways. And look, I think that what we're gonna see is the same thing. We've seen on the issue of life, the same thing we've seen on gender policies, the same thing we've seen between immigration, sanctuary cities and states and largely progressive areas is that on education, you're going to see experiments like in Ohio, Florida, other places with more and more educational freedom, returning more and more power to local communities and even to parents. And then you're going to see the opposite of that. You're going to see crackdowns, you're going to hear the horror stories in media as the media gets co opted on this of, you know, educational failures. And I think it's going to be, it's going to be another example of how divided the American experiment is right now on a state by state level. We've talked about that since Dobbs. On the issue of life, I'm seeing it across the board and I'm absolutely seeing it in education. And I think that the, the, the DOA has needed to go for quite some time. So good for the president for actually making a move on this. But there's going to be repercussions. And one of the repercussions is this state by state divide is going to get wider and it's going to get harder again for some parents to operate the way they think that they should in some of these states. Hi, John Stonestreet here. I want to share with you one of the most important things that I think that parents can do to help their students develop and continue to cultivate a resilient faith. I've been working with Summit Ministries for years, speaking at their 12 day summer student conferences. These are conferences that go deep in what it means to have a Christian worldview, what it means to have a resilient personal faith, understanding the world as described in scripture, and also understanding the challenges that will come for their faith, the wrong ideas, the wrong worldviews that they will encounter in the culture and college from their friends and with others. If you know a student, someone in your church, your child, your grandchild between the ages of 16 and 22, you want to send them to a Summit ministry summer conference. There they'll have mentors and friends who will share their belief and together they'll dive deep into what it means to live out a Christian worldview wherever God has placed them. I love teaching at Summit. I love hearing the thoughtful and deep questions and I love tackling things that matter with them, even if they end up disagreeing with me. Look, don't wait. There are summer sessions in Colorado and in Tennessee and they fill up really, really fast. Register the young people in your Life for a 12 day session this summer. You can learn more by visiting summit.orgbreakpoint that's summit.orgbreakpoint and you can also get a special discount by using the code BreakPoint25. Again, that's BreakPoint25.
- [10:59]
A
Well, let's keep talking about education because there's a case right now that has really brought home a lot. I feel like this is clarifying a lot of different cultural hot buttons in one test case, and that is the case of a student at Columbia University named Mahmoud Khalil. He was born in Syria. He is a Palestinian man who's been studying at Columbia University. He was here on a student visa and then applied for permanent residency and has a green card. The Trump administration is now threatening to deport him and has arrested him. What is a little bit fuzzy is precisely the reasons that the administration says they want to deport him. Marco Rubio has spoken about it and then others in the administration have as well. And I think the, it'd be fair to characterize the essence of their argument is that he is supporting the activities of a designated terrorist organization, which Hamas, because he led a student group, if not officially. He was like their official negotiator with the Columbia University at Columbia, called the Columbia University Apartheid Divest, which is a student organization that's basically anti Israel. And so he was obviously a part of all those big protests that started last or in the spring of 24 and started after the October 7th attacks. His group specifically officially praised the attacks of October 7th as a moral and a just act by, you know, an oppressed peoples. And whatever it is, he has not been arrested for any, like direct property crime or theft or, you know, kidnapping or what his group has been cited for. You know, for example, barring Jewish students at Columbia from entering a building or from leaving a building. And he's certainly been involved in all of that kind of thing. But the Trump administration has been threatening to deport him based on a kind of rarely used legal precedent that says we have the right to deport non US Born citizens who are hostile to America's interests. And so there's a huge debate right now about whether this is a case of free speech. Is this a case about immigration? Is it about antisemitism? This is a really hard one. But I think one of the reasons you and I wanted to talk about this today is because it does bring into relief this question about laws and immigration. And you brought up Kuiper and sphere sovereignty. And, you know, this has been a big debate in the Christian world for many, many years in the US as it should be. It's good to think about these things from a biblical perspective. But what is the right way to approach the sojourner, as they're always called in these, these discussions? But when people are not born here and they want to travel here, is it okay to have a border or an immigration law? And how should that be enforced? How should we think about that from a biblical point of view?
- [13:59]
B
Yeah. Well, I mean, first of all, in the case of this specific student, I think it's okay. And I will. I'm going to say I don't know because I don't know the details and neither do a million other people, including religious leaders, who are commenting on it. We've got a piece coming out in the coming week talking about that. It has become obligatory in this kind of social media age for every person to have the right or a opinion, a definitive opinion on everything. And it's not okay to ever say I don't know or to just remain silent. And I think we have to be able to, to do that, especially on things we don't know. Kevin DeYoung posted recently a quick tweet on this and saying, you know, look, pastors and pundits don't have the same calling. And I think the, the punditry calling is way more fuzzy than the calling for pastoral work because we do need pastors to speak up on clear moral issues. People look to the Colson center for that sort of guidance when appropriate. But that doesn't mean we're going to have an opinion on every single scenario or every single situation. And there's also been this kind of fuzzy, what's the word? This blurring abundance as spiritual authority. So in other words, this fuzziness has gone both ways. So I don't have any idea about this particular story. I'm not going to pretend to have any idea about this particular story. But we have been asked to comment and to give a, a perspective, a theological worldview perspective on this idea of immigration and enforcing borders and in deportations, given the, the promises and the headlines about this administration. And I've avoided doing that primarily because there hasn't been a whole lot of there there to really comment on. The administration quickly began to act on the southern border and quickly began to address what was agreed upon by both voices on the right and the left as a national crisis of undocumented and illegal immigrants flooding into the country. Trying to stop that has negatively and dramatically affected our ability to care for people who come in the right way or who try to come in the right way, particularly those of refugee status fleeing religious persecution. That's a concern that's high on our radar and should be, I think, for all believers. If we can provide that sort of help for people that are being religiously persecuted around the world, not necessarily coming here, but at times coming here, then we need to be able to do that. And this whole thing has messed up this whole thing. And we were asked to comment on what Trump is doing. And one of the things that I found to be really curious is that there hasn't been many stories about the wrong people being subject to deportation. The promises immediately was to go after those who had already been deemed by the state to have committed some sort of crime or to be some sort of threat within the American context. We know that there are stories about that, and that seems to have been the focus of the administration so far. There's going to be issues. And when we talk about sphere sovereignty, one of the things, one of the illustrations I like to use is the difference between a chainsaw and a scalpel. Both of those things are useful instruments, but you don't want a chainsaw to do surgery and you don't want a scalpel to cut down a tree. There's times you need precision and there's times you need something more wide. The government tends to use chainsaws. They have a one size fits all. That's why they're not really good at education. They do have the area of responsibility having to do with national security. It is unthinkable that this sort of operation will be undertaken and there not be a lack of precision carried out. It's not unlike really carrying out an attack or even a justified war. When you talk about just war, you have two questions. Number one, is this war just. Number two, how I carry this war out? Will that be just? And the same thing I think applies here is, is it legitimate, particularly at times when there are huge security concerns for the government to crack down on borders? And the answer is, of course, and to carry out deportation. And the answer is that is well within the government's purview. How they do it is the next question. And I think just war theory, in a sense helps us by giving us those two kind of categories of thought. When you apply instead a model that anything this president does is going to be bad or anything this president and administration does is going to be good, as opposed to is this area within the government and the president's purview is. And then are they carrying it out in the right way? Then we lose the ability to speak with any sort of moral authority. I mean, look, I've been waiting for kind of the horror stories of families and individuals unjustly caught up in this enormous deportation thing. And they haven't really come. And we. We know that's not because there aren't people looking for those stories and looking to highlight those stories. But this was kind of the first story that emerged of this young man in Colombia as kind of unjust. And then you think, you know, he campaigned and celebrated a genocide, you know, in Israel. Now, his story brings up a lot of things. Again, I don't know a where the story is, and I don't know the specifics of this individual. I certainly don't think I know all the specifics. But there's a difference between someone who crosses the border illegally and someone who. Who is here on some level of legal status. All citizens and all people here in some sort of legal status, like a green card or a student visa or a work permit or something like that, they agree to. This is not a, you know, basically, you can come here and do whatever you want. That's not true for citizens. That's not true for anyone. And so if there are laws on the books like the one that is being used here about foreign policy, and obviously, if you and I say something that's against the foreign policy of the United States, the influence is going to be really, really, you know, nil. You have to balance that with free speech concerns. But this person has had an outsized voice and an outsized voice with a group of people on a campus that has been problematic, that has limited the rights of other citizens. The question is, is if that's a bad law, then that law needs to be changed. If that law is on the books, then it needs to be followed, and the government's under duress to demonstrate that this person who's here on some level of legal status has to follow that law. Now, to your point that this has something to do with education, I want to bring in another angle, particularly when it comes to the situations of protest on college campuses. This is where this whole thing has been turned upside down because we've misunderstood what education is and whose job it is to educate. Education means to lead out of the word. Actually educare, it's a Latin to lead out of. Historically, that's been understood to lead out of ignorance. In other words, you have a learner who's ignorant and a Teacher's job is to lead them out. But our university experiment has been not to lead students out of their ignorance, but to lead students into activism and then to treat them, in our chronological snobbery, as if whatever a student cares deeply about is a just and valid cause that we all need to get behind, as if the student is the leader. That's been the whole framing of all of these campus protests. And so now you have a student who we have basically treated as if they are an authority on these things, as if they are the ones we should listen to. And if they feel strongly enough to protest, therefore their cause is morally just in some sort of moral upside down kind of intersectionality framework. And then when they're held responsible for the views that they espouse and lead others to believe, then we're taught, oh, no, no, no, they're just an innocent student. And this is a huge problem in terms of this sort of authority and the sort of leverage and power that students have been given in these protest situations. And then we want to turn and say, well, they don't know any better because they're just innocent students. Well, which is it? Are young people our new moral authority in our woke world or are they not? And that, I think, has complicated this situation pretty dramatically. Although the conversation about immigration policy is a little bit different.
- [23:15]
A
Yeah, as I've been thinking about it, I think when you're approaching immigration policy, you're thinking about the specific situations of individual people and the specific laws on the books that supposedly govern specific situations. But you also have to think about the integrity of the nation as like, both physically and conceptually, I guess, you know, because one of the arguments you hear all the time from, well, meaning, I think Christians who are wary of immigration laws, you know, that seem harsh or of calls to crack down on immigration or illegal immigration, I should say, on the border. One of the arguments you'll hear all the time is like, we are such a wealthy nation, we want to help people who are in dire circumstances in other parts of the world. I like that instinct and agree with it. But of course there's math in there somewhere. The situation with the student at Columbia is really interesting because on principle, I agree with the idea that the government has the right and interest to make sure that the people we're allowing in are not actively subverting America or hurting its citizens. I guess my problem with this case, as I understand it, is that he was not arrested for anything other than, you know, his, his spoken support of. So like he, like I said, he didn't commit a. He didn't overstay his student visa. You can't come here on a student visa and then not attend school anymore or stay. Overstay the date of expiration and not apply for, you know, the next step or whatever it might be. But they're not alleging he did that. They could allege that he stopped going to school. I don't know what his activities looked like when he was, you know, last spring or whatever. But. And if he had committed a crime that any US citizen or green card holder would be arrested for, then I would of course understand that as well. But I think this gets to the integrity question as well, because one of the reasons America is what it is is because we support people's freedoms to express their ridiculous and stupid and hateful views as long as they do it in a lawful way. And this just. It feels different. But I appreciate point that maybe the administration is trying to make, which is for a long time now, we've had this policy where, like, we accept your lashes. We hate ourselves too. And if you. We would love to welcome you into all of our universities in our country and please tell us how bad we are and that's. We don't want to do that anymore. I appreciate that, but again, I'm not sure where this case will go. It's in the courts right now. He's obviously appealing it. He's got a lawyer. I don't know which way this will go. But in terms of immigration policy itself, this has been really hard because again, there's the principled view of it, which is it makes complete sense, both from a sphere sovereignty perspective, but also a practical one, that nations need to have borders, that there are safety concerns, especially right now, relating to the drug war and violence. And also, you know, our social services are strained. And all of that is true at the same time. I work at the pregnancy center here in town and have seen several clients now who are not here legally. And on the one hand, I think that it's, you know, I wanna treat them as adults like they've accepted the risks of coming here. And on the other hand, I completely understand as a mom, just in hearing some of their stories, why they were drawn to come here in the first place. And I can almost say, you know, without ever being able to know for certain, I would have considered doing the same thing. Now, you could argue that's because we really did them a disservice by having a lax immigration policy that created the situation that they're now in. Which basically for eight years we told them, please come. And then now they're here and administrations change. But it's been really hard to kind of help them through this season because I don't really know what to tell them to do. And it would feel easier emotionally to be able to say, well, this person was wrong on this date by doing this thing. And we mourn that that happened. But let me help you in this way. It's hard to say exactly what the particulars even are in cases like theirs. But I do think in principle immigration laws are just like you said, within that just war framework, which I think is really helpful.
- [27:44]
B
Well, I mean, look, I appreciate that. I do think it's helpful. I do think that the problem goes both ways, that when you get this far into a mess where you have laws on the books that haven't been enforced, you have borders that haven't been enforced, you have areas that, to your point earlier, are being where the services we're trying to offer are being overrun and we lack the ability to have the kind of precision to have any sort of long term sustainability. Then basically we're having the whole immigration question without that sort of distinction of how do we do this rightly. So you have one side who basically sees any deportation as a violation of justice when it's not. And you have the other side who now louder and louder voices are just becoming basically everyone that doesn't look like me doesn't belong here. Neither of those things are valid ways. We have to do the hard work to make the distinctions. It is not going to be just to violate family integrity, for example, separating kids from parents administrations have done in the past. That is going to be an unjust way to do this. And yet there will be families that because of the sort of decisions that need to be made, will be deported. How do we do that? Justly and you know, a moral confusion just kind of continues to contribute to this and make it more and more difficult. That is why it is absolutely important to have the right laws on the books and to go by those laws so that we can make a distinction based on how people behave and not based on either ethnic or nationalist sort of categories. So in other words, there is a moral problem with saying all immigrants are bad in the same way that there is a moral problem with saying that, that all immigrants are good. That is not a moral framework that is sustainable. And that's why I think it feels to so many of us like it's back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and then also kind of distinguishing between what is the job of the church, what is the job of Christians, and what is the job of the government. And I think you can continue. And I think Christians have to continue to love our neighbor. And the Bible makes clear the neighbor is whoever is in our proximity. It is not the government's job to love their neighbor, because the government can't do that. The government can't do it with precision. So it doesn't help us, you know, to basically take kind of random verses either designed for Israel, designed for the church, or designed for individual Christians and then apply it to the federal government, as if the federal government can actually obey those things. There are instructions to the federal government, and they have to do with enforcing what is good and prohibiting what is evil. That's their job. Our job is different. And making that sort of distinction is going to be really, really important in the days ahead. And I'm sure we're going to get tons of letters about this because it is messy. And part of the mess is the mess has been allowed and the mess has become so. And it's on so many different fronts. I'm not throwing my hands up and saying, then there's nothing we can do about it. There's an awful lot that has to be done about it. But I'd tell you what I'm not going to do is just condemn abstract policy or condemn an administration based on a headline based on what might happen. We're already too far down the road for all the things that have happened. And so now we've got to figure out that mess. And yes, I think there are going to be things to condemn. And one of the things we tried to do at the Colson center is call balls and strikes, right? Just because I like more of what this administration is doing than the last one, an awful lot, doesn't mean we can't turn around and say this administration handled this poorly and did this wrongly. I'm sure there's going to be plenty of things. We've already said it so far this in this administration, particularly on an issue like, for example, IVF and IVF policy, wherever that lands, we'll be ready to go on that.
- [31:54]
A
One in particular, I think for me, from my perspective, one of the reasons I brought up the ladies at the pregnancy center, I, of course, do not position myself as an immigration lawyer or, you know, I'm not trying to help them with their legal status necessarily, but the practical question of how to love them as my neighbors in my physical vicinity is Actually, really difficult still. I mean, we give them diapers, but I don't help them, for example, apply for city services the way I do other clients because they don't qualify for them. They've called me before and said, can I come today? Like, my husband saw something in the news and he's worried that if I leave the house, we'll get in trouble. And I have to say, I don't know. I can't make any promises, but I hope and I know what they're looking for, which is comfort and reassurance. And I really don't know. I mean, the other question that has come up, people at my church have asked me is like, do you feel like you should report them? And I can say, I personally don't, but I don't bemoan someone who wrestles with that question. I mean, I would never do that. There's confidentiality and other things that govern what we do at the pregnancy center. But it's not so simple as to say, well, I love them because they came into the center because they're asking me for things, and they're stressed out and they need practical help. And I have a feeling even some of our listeners who I believe would have the best intentions and compassion for people would say, well, why are you giving them diapers when there's plenty of other women in your community that probably need them who are here legally? That's not a stupid question or even a cruel one, even though those questions are vilified all the time. I mean, it's just really hard on the personal level.
- [33:38]
B
Yeah. And I think that's why it doesn't help to kind of. We've had this conversation in the past, and we should probably dig it up and have it again. I think we're out of time for this one. But kind of the random application of Bible verses, you know, where we highlight, maybe, you know, care for the sojourner, include them and downplay what's expected of the sojourner within the. The same Jewish context about following laws and the idea of love the neighbor, but not clarifying who the neighbor is and who it is that's supposed to love the neighbor, or even using the other verses in order to justify being inhumane. And all of that sort of stuff is part of the cultural waters right now. And it's a challenge, there's no question about it. And it's affecting more communities than just on the coasts, which in the past this has been primarily a conversation with certain people in certain places, and now it's much more broad than that. Yeah, I think we have to have the right categories in order to think about it. Well, we'll need to continue to talk about this in weeks to come.
- [34:45]
A
All right, John, let's take a quick break. We'll be right back with more Breakpoint this week.
- [34:53]
B
Hi, this is John Stonestreet and I want to invite you to join us for the next Breakpoint forum live in Greenville, South Carolina, Thursday, April 3rd. Joining me will be Dr. Andrew Walker and Dr. Kaden McCoy. We'll be talking about the possibility of Christians leading a new sexual revolution by living as image bearers, male and female. We live in a culture deeply confused about what it means to be human, especially what it means to be human, male and female. It's time for a new sexual revolution. Just like Christians in the first century were known for their countercultural behavior when it came to valuing all human life and living faithfully with each other, it's time for Christians today to spark a new sexual revolution. It starts with understanding who we are. Join us for an important discussion. It'll be on the campus of North Greenville University. It's a free event, but space is limited. So secure your spot today@colsoncenter.org GREENVILLE that's colsoncenter.org GREENVILLE.
- [35:55]
A
We'Re back on Breakpoint this week. John, I want to switch gears here. This week the Department of Justice dropped the investigation, or at least concluded, I should say, the investigation into the Southern Baptist Convention. They've been investigating the SBC and its affiliated, you know, different entities which basically govern the Baptist church across the United States. They started this investigation in 2022 after the SBC executive committee, I believe, published a report from an independent investigator that suggested there may have been cover ups or attempted cover ups of abuse. And they were generally talking about sexual abuse by clergy within churches. And so the Department of Justice opened an investigation a year or so ago. There was a pastor or someone who worked at a seminary who was charged for lying to the FBI in the process of an investigation. But other than that, no other charges were brought. And when the DOJ announced the conclusion of the investigation this week, they said they will not be bringing any additional charges. So it kind of sounds like, I mean, obviously any allegations of abuse are very weighty and serious, but it sounds like less of a story than I think it is. And one of the reasons this has been such a big story is obviously, again, because of the abuse allegations, but because this has really lit a fire within the American church over it's Kind of become more tribal than you might have expected. If you just heard those details I shared, you might not understand why it would have become tribal. But it really did. Do you want to give us kind of a background on why you think that happened? Why people ran to their sort of ideological corners here?
- [37:41]
B
Well, look, I think there's a whole history here and it's sparked a pretty big discussion because of the prominent newspapers that cover these abuse allegations that go way back historically and also, you know, look, there's just so many things to play here. Number one is that there is something about evangelicals where there is a quick willingness to self condemn and that's, you know, could be motivated by a right theological perspective which is we are really aren't holier than thou. We really don't think that somehow, you know, as Christians we are exempt from sin. We actually want to acknowledge the sin. And you know that the kind of the self correcting impulse within evangelical circles is a good one. We will be in dread in a dreadful place if we ever think that, you know, hey, because we're Christians, therefore we're not going to have this sort of abuse and sexual sin and other things within our ranks. If that's all that this story was about, then I think we could kind of move on. What's happened is that this report has come out and then some people have used it to kind of conclude that oh we don't, this sin wasn't in our ranks, that's wrong. And that's in response to others who, you know, I want to actually just kind of compare it to something. I don't want to downplay at all the abuse situations that were revealed that did happen and the COVID ups that did happen because there were stories and there were many of them. But there was an assumption here of prevalent widespread guilt that infected the entire system. It's not unlike what happened in Canada where there were a bunch of Canadian churches that were basically co opted by the state up there 150 years ago to run schools for indigenous children. And there was accusations that these were widespread, not only abusive but deadly and that there were, there were these mass graves. It was based on very flimsy evidence and postulation that turned out to be flat out not true. The Canadian government just went on this huge look at an incredible expense trying to find mass graves. And I remember when all of this started, there was a, a definitive statement from the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as well as others that these mass graves were there and that they would be found and that it was awful. And there was a presumption of guilt ahead of time. It was the same thing here. When the government took up these abuse allegations. There were abuse allegations. They turned out to be true. Lives have been ruined. It's horrific. Women were mistreated, and young men, by the way, also were mistreated within this. And there was basically, this will be true because there is a widespread systemic problem here. Turned out not to be true in that sense. And what I mean by that is not that abuse didn't happen, but it didn't happen, like, spectacularly within the Southern Baptist Convention. It didn't happen, for example, at any rate, there, compared to what we have seen out of public schools, which has a higher rate of abuse than, for example, the Roman Catholic Church, which has taken their own shot for this. Now, why the assumption of widespread guilt? That's the question. And this has to do with what we've talked about for a long time here, the critical theory, mood. There was an assumption of widespread guilt here that would be discovered and found. Why? Well, I think because there is an assumption of these are the people that are politically conservative and would, you know, there was the Trump effect, right? There was the inherent view of hypocrisy. Trump's been an abuser of women. If you can be that sort of. We're going to find all this abuse in your own ranks turn out not to be true at that scale. There was an assumption that sometimes that this was connected with being anti lgbtq, that we're going to see this. This widespread, you know, closeted homo, you know, homoerotic and homo abusive behavior because of your homophobia turned out not to be true. We're going to see this widespread view because of purity culture. Everything likes to get blamed on purity culture. And Southern, the Southern Baptist Convention Convention advanced maybe more than anybody else. The True Love Waits campaign back in the 90s. That was the precursor to Joshua Harris's I Kissed Dating Goodbye. And of course, there was a whole bunch of homeschooling and Southern Baptist homeschool. And I mean, it was all this kind of guilt by association of certain views that because we have spent so much time talking about purity, then it was going to be absolutely hypocritical. Now, are Christians hypocritical? You betcha. Are they somehow more hypocritical because they hold two traditional moral views on sexuality? No. And that was the widespread assumption that proved to be untrue, which means that there were many who basically leveled the accusations of widespread systemic abuse at a degree that would just be unthinkable. That would outdo all the other institutions. It turned out not to be true. But why, why, why was there this presumption of guilt that was levied ahead of time? It had to do with a bad moral framework that if you aren't progressive in your sexual moral views, or if you aren't progressive in your political views, or if you are traditional in your views of sexual morality, or if you just don't embrace kind of the, I don't know, the, the new sexual way we think about people in the last 20, 30, 40 years, then you're going to have this repressed sexual abuse that's going to come to the surface. Now, on, on the other hand, I, I think, you know, we. We've heard people in response to dei, in response to, for example, critical queer theory, whether explicit or just that mood that we've talked about for so long here, basically say that you should never assume any sort of systemic evil. Systemic evil? Anytime you hear systemic evil, that's critical theory. No, the Bible absolutely has categories of human sin that start on an individual level and can infect entire systems. I think that's what we're all saying when we're glad that the Department of Education. That's a systemically problematic thing. Planned Parenthood is a systemically racist and evil organization. Maybe not even the intentions, even if not the intentions of individual workers. It's in the system. But there was an assumption that there would be more of this in the SBC than there were in the public schools. It turned out to be not true. To me, this is another way in which this moral framework that we've embraced as a nation in both political and, yes, theological circles is proving to be wanting. It's proving to be anemic. It cannot explain human behavior as we're actually seeing it. And I think that's another lesson here. It's a hard thing to parse. Just because every act of sexual abuse and there have been acts within churches, within evangelical churches, like Roman Catholic churches and other churches, and it's horrific, and it probably is most damaging because of the confusion between leaders and pastoral figures and the God that they're supposed to represent. It's absolutely horrific. But this presumption of guilt going in proved to be not true. Like the presumption of guilt that were levied against these Canadian churches turned out to be not true. Why the widespread presumption doesn't help us. Basically, it's another way of folks pointing fingers and saying they're the baddies. Over there. And it violates the wisdom that Solzhenitsyn revealed when he said, look, the line between good and evil is not between nations and states. And I'll add, it's not between these denominations. It runs down the middle of the human heart. It's one of the fundamental things that Christianity teaches is the human condition. Who are we? What is our condition, both as created and as fallen? That's why a Christian worldview really helps.
- [46:40]
A
Do you think, in addition to kind of, you know, prosecuting the church's sexual ethic by proxy here, like presuming guilt? Because what you're really challenging is the sexual ethic, do you think that it was also in part the church's view on like the roles or the differences between men and women? Because I feel like I heard a lot of women in particular in the church suggesting that if you are, let's say complementarian, so you believe that men only are called to be pastors, then that necessitates a view of women that would also allow you to subjugate them in a sort of abusive way, which then, you know, allows you to presume guilt here. Because it's like, well, of course if you, you know, you've never taken women seriously so you're gonna treat them badly. And I. Because you sense almost, not just a presumption of guilt, but almost a desire for it. And I don't mean to say at all that people wanted others to be hurt, but like a desire for vindication like this will finally prove that complementarianism is wrong because you can't be non abusive complementarian.
- [47:52]
B
It wasn't the only targeted kind of belief, but it was one of them. You're absolutely right. In other words, there were others which I listed. I didn't list this one, but I think you're right. I think there was. And I think because there is a way of dismissing complementarianism and I have problems with the way complementary, the complementarian framework has been out. I would be one if you would have to put me in a, you know, if you give me two options between what's called egalitarianism in the church and complementary admin, the complementarian camp. I don't always or I rarely like the way we talk about these things. Just yeah, anyway, that's a whole nother segment. But there was a group that was looking for guilt, expecting guilt, because the assumption the only reason you would be complementarian is out of bigotry and discrimination towards women. In the same way, the only reason you could possibly not be Affirming of same sex marriage or something like that is out of bigotry and discrimination. Or the only reason you would want to teach true love weights in that purity culture way, is that a discrimination? By the way, a lot of times the critique of that was a discrimination against women treating teenage girls differently than teenage boys. And there were certainly ways in the true love weights movement. I'm not talking about the campaign itself, but the larger quote, unquote, purity culture. What's being lumped in here. I think all of the purity culture label is ridiculous, honestly. But yeah, there were well meaning youth pastors who said really dumb things. There were well meaning pastors who put more emphasis on women keeping men pure than men keeping themselves pure. All that's true. That doesn't change the fact that men were supposed to be pure and women were supposed to be pure. And so there was the expectation. But in other words, it was the presumption that because I perceive you to be discriminatory, you're necessarily going to be hypocritical too. And it just was a bad way of describing the human condition.
- [49:57]
A
Yeah, agreed. Okay, John, well, that is gonna have to be it for the program today. Do you have some recommendations you want to share quickly before we call it for good?
- [50:07]
B
Well, if I were honest, my recommendation would have something to do with March Madness, because this time of year I watch an awful lot of basketball and it's a lot of fun. Particularly my experience now is doing it with my kids, which makes it even more fun. And it's going to be a good tournament. So I'm excited about that. But that is not my recommendation. But no, my recommendation is going to be, you know, really simple and straightforward, which is the Colson Fellows program. This is a way to go deeper into these areas of distinction of Christian worldview. These words like hyperion that we throw around here and sphere sovereignty and the human condition. We use these words as kind of shorthand during our conversations and we hear from people who are like, what do you mean by that? And we try to go back and define them sometimes. And we probably don't do it as much as we should. Maybe we should just have all the. We should have a program, all the shorthand words that we use and what they mean and where they come from. But that's really what the Fellows program is. And it's really also integrated with a deep part of kind of personal spiritual formation of heart and mind together. A lot of times programs go either heart or they go mind. I think one of the distinctives of how Chuck Colson understood Christian worldview is that the integration of heart, mind and also action, that it has to be embodied and lived in the context of our relationships. And so listen, if you've considered this in the past, now's the time to consider it again. Colsonfellows.org, particularly in the context of church leadership or Christian school leadership, career, business, we have a lot of lawyers and second career folks as well. It's just really a wide representation of ages and callings trying to figure out what does it mean for me to live in this cultural moment, to not only be taken captive, to not be taken captive, but to take every thought captive and to be an agent of restoration where God has placed me. And we have some great stories of how God used that program. We have 1700 fellows right now going through the program. They will be many of them will be commissioned, most of them will be commissioned in May at our national conference. And the next group starts up here in the end of the summer. Kind of follows the school year time wise and look deeper. Go to colsonfellows.org that's a recommendation for this week.
- [52:37]
A
Awesome. I always love meeting the newly minted graduates at the conference. I'll just recommend quickly. In Deseret News this week I helped to write a piece with Brad Wilcox from the Institute for Family Studies about some new data and particularly some interesting folks, particularly on the left, kind of coming around to the idea that it's not just helpful for kids when their dad is living at home, but the benefits are almost, I mean astronomically more when their dad is married to their mom. Basically the data continues to suggest that marriage, not just parenthood, but marriage in particular is just a net good sociologically for men. And it's been interesting to see some kind of left leaning writers and thinkers come around on that just because the data is becoming unignorable. So the piece is called Progressives are Starting to Come around on the Importance of Marriage and Fatherhood. It has some really interesting data and graphs in there. So that will be my recommendation for the week. But I'm also going to recommend the Colson Fellows program as well. I love also in addition to meeting you all at the conference, I love hearing about what your three year projects are. So when you graduate from the Colson Fellows program, usually you have sort of a three year plan about where you feel called to put some of what you've learned into action. And they are always so incredibly creative and like impactful. I'm just always really humbled and amazed by the stories that I hear coming out of that program. So I will echo that recommendation. Well, other than that, thank you for listening to Breakpoint this week. From the Coulson center for Christian Worldview, I'm Maria Baer alongside John Stonestreet. And we'll see you all back here next week.