New Years Kiss on ESPN, Renaming the Kennedy Center, Tradlife Affordability and Ken Burns take on The American Revolution

Summary

Breakpoint Podcast Summary

Host: The Colson Center
Episode: New Years Kiss on ESPN, Renaming the Kennedy Center, Tradlife Affordability, and Ken Burns’ Take on The American Revolution
Date: January 2, 2026
Hosts: Maria Baer & John Stonestreet

---

Overview

In the first episode of 2026, hosts Maria Baer and John Stonestreet dive into prominent cultural and political stories through the lens of a Christian worldview. Topics include: the viral ESPN New Year’s Eve moment, the renaming of the Kennedy Center to include President Trump, ongoing American anxieties about “trad life” and family affordability, and Ken Burns’ documentary on the American Revolution on the 250th anniversary of the United States. The episode features deep reflections on how Christians can wisely respond to changing cultural tides and where hope and prudence intersect.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. ESPN’s Viral New Year’s Eve Kiss and the Culture’s Gag Reflex (00:38 – 08:40)

• The Incident: During ESPN’s coverage of the New Year’s Eve festivities in Times Square, host Scott Van Pelt voiced an involuntary “ooh, oh, ooh” reaction when the cameras showed two men kissing, correcting himself quickly. The brief moment spread across social media and sparked debate.
• Christian Reflection on Discomfort:
  • John: Recounts how, culturally, ESPN once championed progressive stances aggressively, but public reactions (and the network itself) now seem less uniformly strict. Van Pelt’s reaction could’ve cost him his job five years ago, but today the climate is nuanced.
  • Moral Reflex:
    • John references a “gag reflex” (or more accurately, a “moral reflex”) against certain acts that he thinks reflects a deeper spiritual intuition, not a personal condemnation of individuals.
    • Quote (John, 05:49): “There needs to be something where a disgusting act is thought to be disgusting. A morally problematic act is considered as such... But it needs to be bolstered or it is easily lost.”
  • Parenting: Maria asks about teaching kids to discern between moral wrongs and dehumanizing people.
    • John: Avoid segmenting people as “the problem with the world.” Instead, root moral formation in theology and empathy.
  • Normalization Concerns: Both warn against society’s tendency to normalize things that might contradict Christian morality.
  • Quote (Maria, 08:25): “You can tell yourself that it’s normal and good as much as you want... but you can’t make something that’s ugly beautiful.”

---

2. Faith, Football, and Shifting Cultural Tides (08:40 – 13:21)

• Faith in Sports: John notes the increasing comfort of athletes to publicly profess faith, especially in college football (“my Lord and savior, Jesus Christ”), contrasting it with prior pressure to suppress Christian references.
• Juxtaposition: The sports world showcases both public professions of faith and high-profile scandals (violence, legal issues), reflecting America’s broader moral clash.
  • Maria’s Point: Observes contradictory cultural threads in the NFL—spiritual revival among some teams (e.g., Ohio State), yet persistent problems of violence and lawlessness.
  • John: Sports now serve as a bellwether for social change due to their outsized cultural influence, measuring not just coaching but booster money, cultural priorities, and the shifting definition of success.
  • Quote (John, 13:21): “Sports are an interesting bellwether… In ours, it’s outsized. It's really, really important.”

---

3. Renaming the Kennedy Center: Trump, Cultural Divides, and Symbolic Power (14:51 – 21:47)

• The Story: The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts has been officially renamed to include President Trump’s name (“Trump Kennedy Center”), amidst board controversy and legal challenges.
  • Maria: Notes the drama and cultural significance, including a satirical twist where a comedy writer secured the new .com domain.
  • John: Critiques the practice of naming institutions after oneself, referencing biblical wisdom about humility and noting Trump’s pattern of self-promotion.
    • Quote (John, 16:05): “There’s such a dramatic difference between putting your name on something and having your name put on something… It kind of feels icky.”
  • Cultural Ownership: Both hosts see the battle for cultural institutions as a proxy for deeper ideological divides—whether the arts belong to a narrow elite or the populace at large.
  • Wider Impacts: Some artists refuse to perform at the Center, underscoring continuing polarization.
    • Quote (John, 19:41): “These are, at heart, ideological divides… You have to deal with ideological divide by doing the battle of ideas.”
  • Meta-Point: The fuss over naming is less about real change than about symbolic contests for legitimacy and visibility.

---

4. “Tradlife” and the Economics of Family: Can You Afford It? (22:37 – 40:17)

• Declining Birth/Marriage Rates: Discussion of social concerns surrounding later and fewer marriages/births, often justified by claims of unaffordability.
• Matt Yglesias’ Argument: The journalist argued that traditional lifestyles (one breadwinner, stay-at-home spouse, multiple kids) are materially as possible as in previous generations—what’s changed is cultural expectations (bigger homes, more travel, more spending).
  • Maria: Notes the importance of status—marriage and motherhood are perceived as low-status for women, which influences choices more than raw finances.
  • John: Agrees, elaborating how culture shifted from seeing marriage as a “cornerstone” (foundational, something you build your adult life on) to a “capstone” (something you add once “everything else” is in place).
    • Quote, (John, 26:10): “Our material expectations are completely different… If you want this, you have to do this. And those things have all, all changed.”
    • The problem is not just economics but worldview—the belief that marriage is to be added after one’s career, self-development, and financial goals.
  • Church’s Role: John notes the church’s solution must model and encourage virtuous, future-oriented, pro-family living.
    • (33:05): “We got to get young people married… We need to encourage marriage.”
  • Compassion and Structure: They acknowledge real financial hardship for some, but stress that the crisis is broader—an erosion of marriage/family as a social good.

---

5. Ken Burns’ “The American Revolution” and America at 250 (40:26 – 58:21)

• Ken Burns’ Docuseries: As America marks its 250th anniversary, the hosts reflect on Burns’ latest work and what it means for national memory and self-conception.
• Themes and Coverage:
  • Historical Honesty vs. Presentism: Both appreciate Burns’ quality but debate whether his focus on slavery/Native Americans is excessive or contextually necessary.
    • John: Points out that appreciating the Founders’ ideals and acknowledging their failings is necessary. Fears of a purely “critical theory” view or a “whitewashed” history miss the complexity.
    • (48:51): “There was an ideal, an incredible ideal… that wasn’t reflected on the ground.”
  • Providence and Faith: John notes the documentary downplays religious motivations in favor of Enlightenment themes and “secularizes” providential interventions in history.
  • Recommendation: John recommends Joe Loconte’s video series for a more rounded Christian account of the Revolution, especially foregrounding figures like Benjamin Rush, and suggests these are suitable for families and young viewers.
    • (53:18): “When religion was talked about, it was talked about as being kind of only a morally compromised thing… There was also one source of saying, ‘No, we’re not going to do this,’ and it came from religion—specifically the Christian religion.”
• National Reflection: They call for a sober, grateful, and virtue-centered approach to American identity—not presuming continuation but actively working for civic and moral renewal, especially as self-government requires character.

---

6. Listener Questions: Vision for Young Men, Cultural Rot, and Biblical Womanhood (58:21 – 65:27)

• Vision for Young Men: John argues the church must hold up:
  • Aspirational, virtuous models combining both liberty and responsibility
  • Family and marriage as cornerstones for society, aided by strong education and spiritual formation
  • Quote (John, 58:54): “[It’s] the embodied vision of a good and moral life... Our passions either have to be ordered toward something higher or they take over. And I think that’s the most fundamental difference.”
• Women’s Cultural Temptations: Responding to a listener critique, John and Maria agree that feminism has often taught women to reject created differences, idealizing expressive autonomy and denigrating marriage/family. They affirm previous discussions and note renewed book resources such as Emma Waters’ forthcoming “Lead Like Jael.”
  • (John, 62:44): “One of the lies of feminism is to teach women to reject their created bodies… There has been this kind of inward turn... I basically, whatever I want, whatever I desire is good on its face, and that’s what I should live for.”
• Final Note: Maria encourages compassion for singles and emphasizes the church’s role in modeling healthy, realistic marriages—valuing marriage but not idolizing it.

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• Moral Reflex:

  • “A morally problematic act is considered as such… it needs to be bolstered or it is easily lost.”
    — John, 05:49

• Normalization:

  • “You can tell yourself that it’s normal and good as much as you want… but you can’t make something that’s ugly beautiful.”
    — Maria, 08:25

• Capstone vs. Cornerstone Marriage:

  • “The capstone vs. cornerstone thing… is a fundamental aspect of what it means to be human.”
    — John, 34:18

• Vision for Young Men:

  • “Our passions either have to be ordered towards something higher or they take over. And I think that’s the most fundamental difference.”
    — John, 58:54

• Naming Institutions (on Trump):

  • “There’s such a dramatic difference between putting your name on something and having your name put on something… it kind of feels icky.”
    — John, 16:05

---

Resources & Recommendations

• Ken Burns’ “The American Revolution”: Praised for quality—watch with discernment.
• Joe Loconte’s YouTube Series: Short, Christian-informed American Revolution stories—excellent for families.
• Emma Waters’ “Lead Like Jael”: (Forthcoming) on biblical womanhood—specifically recommended for young women.

---

Tone and Takeaways

The discussion blends lightheartedness and humor (riffing on “trad wives,” Christmas memes, and Barron Trump jokes) with sober, thoughtful engagement on serious cultural trends. The hosts maintain a posture of empathy, realism, and hope—encouraging Christians to neither withdraw from cultural struggle nor react with panic, but to model faithfulness and engage in the battle of ideas for the good of society and God’s Kingdom.

---

For more thoughtful Christian analysis and resources, visit colsoncenter.org.

Transcript

[A]

You're listening to breakpoint this Week where we're talking about the top stories of the week from a Christian Worldview. We're gonna kick off the program today talking about sports and the new year, and then we're gonna talk about the renaming of the Kennedy center to add President Trump's name. We have a lot to get to this week. We're so glad you're 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 Colson center. John, happy 2026.

[B]

It is. It is 2026. It's still yet to be seen whether it'll be a happy one or not.

[A]

It's gonna be a happy one.

[B]

There we go.

[A]

I got my daughters for Christmas. A framed quote from Anne of Green Gables, which we read this year. And I'm gonna butcher the quote precisely, but it was something like, I've decided that you can enjoy just about anything if you make up your mind that you will. And I think that's incredibly wise. That's what I'm gonna do going into 2026. But let's talk about the New year, John. So I did not watch any of the festivities this year, and that made for a really fun New Year's Eve. But I have seen the clips since. And there was an interesting moment with Scott Van Pelt on espn and we've talked about him before because I think he's just such a interesting looking bloke and my husband really likes watching him. He's a great commentator. But there was a moment where he was just commenting as the camera moved over people in Times Square on New Year's Eve. And of course, when the ball drops, they always show a bunch of people kissing for the New Year's moment. And all of a sudden it went to two men kissing. And Scott Van Pelt had kind of what is probably a deeply human and very common reaction, which was like, ooh, oh, ooh. And then he kind of quickly corrected himself and was like, okay, there it is and everybody's kissing and happy New Year. But it, it went mini viral. Did you see that in real time?

[B]

I did. I didn't know because I, I was watching with some folks and I had the, the sound down, but I, I saw facial expressions and I thought that's, that was an odd reaction and, or an unexpected reaction or maybe not an unexpected or odd. A notable. Like, it was notable. Like, you could tell, like, it wasn't just like, come out of his mouth. It was really kind of. Yeah. And I. And he. You're right, he corrected himself. And then it created a social media kind of frenzy where people were saying, Scott Van Pelt, you know, barely avoided losing his job and that sort of thing, because there clearly was a, like, you know, the first shot was a man and a woman kissing. It was like, you know, it was just kind of like, oh, gosh. But then here we go. The two men. It was what was written about years and years ago. We've talked about this before on Gospel Coalition article by the Bahamian pastor whose name I cannot pronounce to be D. Something. Something. Something about a gag reflex. And I thought about a lot of things. That was one of the things. It's like, you know, basically that pastor encouraged us to keep the gag reflex. That the gag reflex actually is a reflection. It can be corrupted and it can be distorted, but it's actually a reflection of something that God put us. Put in us. You know, the things that Romans 1 talks about, the things that are made, the way God made them reflect his eternal nature and. And also kind of a moral order that we do have as individuals and a culture, the ability to suppress. I also thought about kind of where we are today, because I. I do think five years ago, even the reaction that he gave and caught himself, he would have gotten a lot of trouble for that, you know what I mean? Especially at espn, because ESPN went through a whole phase where they were just kind of all in on all things woke, and especially on, you know, gay rights and the LGBT and the trans stories in sports and all that. And they were not neutral in that territory. Let's just, you know, put it that way. And I remember years ago that there was an article in Sports Illustrated about Jason Collins, who was a basketball player still in the NBA, who announced he was gay, and the sports world's reaction to that. And Chris Broussard was being interviewed on an ESPN show and disagreed with it. And he didn't react. He didn't have any sort of kind of visceral reaction to it. He was basically very clear about when he was asked specifically, as a Christian, what he believed about Jason Collins being. Being. Calling himself a gay Christian in the article. And he just said, well, you can. That's just not. What. That's just not biblical categories. And. And he was immediately suspended. And he was probably on the early end of that, where he didn't quite get fired, but he was suspended. And he's slowly basically disappeared from the network and has showed up other places, but. But it's almost like we're there and back again. You know what I mean? Like, it's almost like three or four years ago, I think this would have done Scott Van Pelt in. And now it's not that way. Yeah, it's just a fascinating thing. I think all these things are kind of signposts of kind of where we are in the culture, and this is one of them.

[A]

Can I ask you, how do you talk to your kids about this? Yours are a little bit older than mine, but a couple things like this have happened. I mean, either out in public or on something that we're watching. And I've noticed my older daughter was. Will kind of have the same reaction as me and my husband, which is like, ugh, you know, ew. Or whatever. And on the one hand, I'm like, that's the appropriate response. On the other hand, I worry that I don't want to go so far as teaching her, like, these people are disgusting. You know, like, as individual people. How do you thread that needle?

[B]

Oh, yeah. I think that's absolutely what you don't want to do.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Because the. The problem with the world is all of us, not just a group of people. And the segmenting of a group of people, I think, is always problematic. I think that there needs to be an awful lot of theology and explanation and wisdom to bolster the gag reflex. So the gag reflex, that's a harsh term because it kind of sounds like we're encouraging thinking a certain group of people are disgusting. But there needs to be something where a disgusting act is thought to be disgusting. A morally problematic act is considered as such. I remember years ago watching oh, Brother, Where Art Thou? For the first time. I don't know if you remember that movie. It's a great movie. And there's a car being driven by a robber who hits a cow. And I remember my reaction to that and everybody else in the theater was like, you'll see a cow kind of murdered on big screen. And. And. And you think, oh, that's a reaction we had. And I remember at the time, people were like, oh, this is a reaction we have there. But abortion doesn't elicit the same reaction. When we lose that kind of reflex. The moral reflex. A moral reflex is probably a better word than a gag reflex. Then that's a real problem. But it needs to be bolstered or it is easily lost. What we've done with our kids is. I always feel like when those situations pop up, there's three possible Responses, number one is to try to do everything possible to avoid those things. And I think that has a very limited shelf life. The second is to let it go and hope that the kids don't notice. And at a certain age, they may not notice, but to me, that's more morally problematic. Right. I want them to notice because when it just kind of fades into the background, I mean, think about, you know, forgetting how beautiful a mountain is because you see it every day, or how beautiful a sunset is because it's really common in your part of the world, or not recognizing that you have a really dysfunctional family because it's the only thing you've ever known kind of thing that's the possibility here, is that we don't want it to become normalized. And that's where culture, I think, is most powerful. And the fact that it wasn't normalized on a network that basically banked their entire programming on a lot of their programming on normalizing it. I just thought that was the interesting dichotomy between Scott Van Pelt and the ESPN network.

[A]

Yeah. I think there is a deeper spiritual truth that you can tell yourself that it's normal and good as much as you want and for as long as you want and as forcefully as you want. But at the end of the day, you can't make something that's ugly beautiful.

[B]

But let's reverse that because the next story to talk about is it's football, college football season. We've talked about kind of the revival in college football season.

[A]

Buckeyes lost. Jon, this was a difficult day in my house.

[B]

Listen, this has been an interesting football playoffs. But here's the thing that I noticed. It wasn't that long ago that a reporter kind of in a post game interview would interview a player who would mention God and they would downplay it and move on quick or try to avoid it or say, I think at sometimes that people were even instructed, don't, don't do this, don't say this. All that's gone. And two ways I felt like there were less references in the past. And when they came up, it was a bigger deal that they wanted to avoid. And you know, Ole Miss's quarterback, who had just one of the great epic spectacular performances and bowl game history on New Year's Day, came right out, you know, my Lord and savior, Jesus Christ. And you just hear one after another after another. And it seems to me that that's being tolerated more the kind of the public profession of faith, it's okay to say that out loud. And, you know, juxtaposed between some really bad stories that happened in the last couple weeks on in the football world. Certainly the story of the Michigan football coach, the NFL player who punched a fan, and the fan clearly did something over the line too. But you know, real, real problem there. And then some other just legal things there. There seems to be a growing normality of faith, particularly in college football, I think, but I think in other places as well. So you could see the norms shifting on both sides. And I think that's an important, you know, thing to, to acknowledge that Scott Van Pelt's theoretically not getting fired for whatever happened on New Year's Eve and he's, you know, opening up the. Not, not he himself, but the network has stopped trying to police faith references in post game interviews, which I think is really. These are interesting things to note.

[A]

Yeah, John, you know, I've always wondered. There seems to be such a somewhat of a culture clash because as you noted, there've been a couple high profile stories of NFL players that are in trouble with the law right now. There's one who's being investigated for murder, another who was just arrested for allegedly hitting a woman. And then you have stories like the OSU team. You know, I did a story in World last year about these Buckeyes who really, there was a mini revival, it seemed like on that team, and they had taken it even into the OSU campus and were doing multiple events baptizing people. And you know, Trayvon Henderson from that team is now playing in the NFL. I just wonder what that cultural clash is like. You have some guys who are really, really strong, outspoken believers. And then there also is a small but notable pattern of violent behavior and trouble with the law in the NFL.

[B]

Now listen, I, it's, it's, it's, it's such an interesting part of culture. One, because the influence is so outsized and we can argue that it shouldn't be that are, you know, our heroes. Shouldn't, you know, be those who score touchdowns and hit three pointers. They should be real heroes. I think that's a legitimate conversation. There's corrupting influences all over the place. And I was noting last night, listening to some of the, you know, the, the analysis of these various programs that went into the College Football Playoff and lost. It used to be that when you talk about a program's future, you talk about their coach, the announcers, and talking about the program's future were talking about their boosters. So for example, you know, Oregon has Phil Knight, the Nike guy, and you just think, oh, that, that. That's a completely different way of measuring, you know, this program has a future if they have enough booster money to pay for the right sort of players to be in there. I mean, that's just a different conversation. Then, you know, you know, who's your coach? Do you have dabo or do you have, you know, Mike Krzyzewski or, you know, do you have some of these greats? It's just, you know, can they recruit and can now it's about, you know, nil money and so on. And there was a whole thing about that. So sports are an interesting bellwether. Not for every culture. In some cultures, you know, what happens in kind of this leisure activity or set of activities is irrelevant. And ours, it's outsized. It's really, really important. And we're also, you know, seeing, you know, the influence there across other aspects of culture, like media. So, yeah, I don't know that there's a conclusion other than fascinating. And Maybe that's a 2026 story to pay attention to as well.

[A]

Yeah, sure.

[B]

Hi, John Stonestreet here from the Colson Center. If you've ever taken a close look at a really old church building, most of the time, people, you can find a cornerstone. A lot of times the cornerstone will bear the names of the founders who built the church not just to last during their time, but for generations to come. If the ministry of the Colson center is making a lasting impact in your life, and if it's going to continue to make a lasting impact for the Kingdom of God, we have to have that same kind of strong foundation. That's why I want to invite you to become a Cornerstone Monthly partner. Partner with us at the Colson Center. Your monthly support provides a steady foundation so that we can do the work that God has called us to do. It's a way to ensure that resources like breakpoint, the Strong Women podcast, the what would you say? Video series, and the Identity project can remain free so that believers, families, individuals, pastors, teachers can continue to use them and benefit from them. Your monthly support also helps to fund Colson Fellows scholarships for those who have financial need. More than anything else, that sort of financial stability allows us to seize the strategic opportunities as God brings them to us. So please join us laying a strong foundation for the future by becoming a Cornerstone Monthly partner of the Colson Center. Visit [e-mail] monthly that's colsoncenter.org monthly monthly.

[A]

Well, let's talk about one more somewhat fascinating 2026 story. The name of the Kennedy center in Washington, D.C. was just officially changed. The board, according to President Trump, unanimously voted to change it to the Trump Kennedy center for the Performing Arts. There's a one woman who is a member of the board who is a senator from my state, who has now filed a lawsuit because she says that she was muted when she tried to vote no. Anyway, it's this whole drama over a small thing in my estimation, but it does feel culturally significant. I think one of the funniest parts of this story is that a comedy writer or somebody maybe saw this coming from a ways off and bought the URL for Trump Kennedy center or whatever.com before this happened. And so now he owns that, which just gives me a hearty giggle. Is this an important story, do you think? Another bellwether, maybe.

[B]

Look, Trump's putting his name on a lot of things.

[A]

That's the story.

[B]

No, true. And, and I think that there's just such a, a dramatic difference between putting your name on something and having your name put on something.

[A]

Like giving yourself a nickname, maybe a.

[B]

Little more important than that. But I, I mean, you know, we name things after significant individuals. Roads and buildings and institutions and apparently.

[A]

People who made significant con contributions, we'll say.

[B]

Right. I mean, but there's a whole new class of military vessel. I don't know if it's a full aircraft carrier, but that's being commissioned that Trump's naming after himself as well. And I just. It, I mean, obviously it kind of feels icky. That's not the way it's supposed to be. One's reminded of Jesus's words that when you go to a banquet, sit in the lower seat so you can be invited forward and so on. But also, this is something that Trump does. He's done it his whole career. He does it now. He's upset. I think that he's been passed over for things that he probably deserved. I mean, any other president certainly would have won the Nobel Peace Prize for orchestrating that deal, the peace deal in Gaza and so on. I mean, I just think that there's a sense of injustice and he's been wronged. And certainly the rules are different when it applies to him. And some of that is the bed that he made for himself. So I don't know that it overall is an important story. It's important in the sense that it's garnering a lot of attention because a lot of acts and performers are pulling out and saying, we're not going to perform there because of that. And I think that's completely bad form. You know, if this is the national venue, certainly the venue for Washington, D.C. you know, that that shouldn't change anything, but. But it has, and we'll see what happens.

[A]

I feel like I see both sides of it. I think there is a certain feel of, like starting to name a bunch of major cultural institutions after yourself under your own will. Does have like a very light veneer of, you know, that's what people in Russia do, you know, And I'm not saying it's equivalent, but it just has a weird feel to it. At the same time, I also think the reason this matters to a lot of people is that it has the feel of the Kennedy Center. And a lot of these major cultural institutions have, for a decade now, likely much more really signaled that a certain portion of the population is really not welcome there. Like, you have to have a certain worldview to be legitimate enough to perform there. And maybe you probably shouldn't come and see shows there unless you're ready to be elected by Bruce Springsteen about voting for Barack Obama. And so I think part of this is being interpreted as a signal like we're reclaiming the arts, we're reclaiming these higher portions of society for everybody. And of course, it's not realistically happening that way. It's just kind of swinging from one side to the other. It feels more like. But I do think that's maybe why it matters to people. I'm just laughing because my husband sent around a meme to all of our family on Christmas morning of Barron Trump. It's a little video of Barron Trump kind of standing up and waving a little bit awkwardly to crowd. And it was like, this is me pretending to take credit for all of the gifts to my children that my wife clearly bought and that I had no idea existed on Christmas morning.

[B]

That's a pretty. Yeah, that's a pretty common experience for us husbands. I think that's. That's a really, really good point. There's no question that this is kind of part of the, the overall strategy. The, the question is, is at some level, how does culture change? Right. And can culture change from the top down or by force?

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Or by force. Or does it change from the bottom up? And it goes both directions. There's no question. I mean, there's times when ideas in the form of laws are forced on people and it ends up having a long term impact. One can think, for example, the civil rights legislation and other things, but it's hard to sustain that stuff. And people aren't always kind of ready for it. I think the problem is going to be kind of equating a name change with the ideas because that's not the same thing. I don't know that it's fair to say that the pendulum has swung all the way back to the other side. I think that's what everyone's freaking out about, the same way they did when Barry Weiss took over CBS News, you know, and I don't think there's any evidence of a swing in any direction is going to be interpreted as, you know, all has been lost and, you know, the sky is on fire. So the hysteria is not going to be that we have seen and we will continue to see is not going to be, I don't think, you know, justified. But you're right. I mean, we're not talking about neutral territory here. We're not talking about something that was, you know, in perfectly good shape and now it's all been lost. There is an ideological struggle that is at the heart of the political divide and all the other divides, including, I think, one we're going to talk about later on, hopefully, if we have time, the adult child estrangement, you know, phenomenon that we had a question about this week. These are, at heart, ideological divides. And you have to deal with ideological divide by doing the battle of ideas. And that's why Christians belong in the battle of ideas. You know, we shouldn't just outsource that to the professionals who can fight on the stage. We need to be involved in it ourselves, which is, you know, kind of the whole thing of what Chuck Colson believed in, why the Colson center came to exist to begin with, is to be involved in that. So, yeah, yeah, this probably should fit into the category of a super funny, interesting, weird headline that points to a lot of things deeper in culture.

[A]

So, yeah, let's take a quick break, John. We'll be right back with more Breakpoint this week.

[C]

What is a human being worth in a culture that devalues life? Getting this question right couldn't be more important. That's why we want to invite you to sign up for why Courageous Faith in a Culture of Death. This is a series of four short video excerpts from some of the best Colson center national conference sessions on life and human dignity. Featured speakers include Ryan Bomberger, Daniel Ritchie, Dr. Margaret Cottle, and Dr. Kristen Collier. Each video comes with questions to help you think deeply and prompt discussions with your family, church members and friends. Sign up for why life [e-mail] ylife that's colsoncenter.org ylife.

[A]

We'Re back on Breakpoint this week. John, Another major cultural story that I know we'll continue to watch this year is, you know, the changing demographics. The we've talked about the birth rate going down. Marriage rates are certainly down. People are having fewer children, having them later, getting married later. One of the reasons you'll hear for this change is that the financial conditions are much different than when people had more children or when they got married younger. And the argument is basically it's just way too expensive to have children. People always quote childcare costs. Usually that leads to them arguing for a more generous public policy, paying for childcare or subsidizing it, whatever that might be. And Matt Iglesias, who is a writer and journalist, by no means a conservative, but he had a piece a couple of weeks ago called you can afford a trad life. He's referring to this idea of a traditional lifestyle or it's been more popularized in the idea of a trad wife, which is people largely influencers on social media. You know.

[B]

Well, I was about to note that as we were swapping emails here about the topics we going to talk to that you titled this segment not you can afford to have a trad life, but you could afford to have a trad wife. And I was like, I'm not going there at all. Like you can, you can.

[D]

I did not.

[B]

You can take the lead on this segment.

[A]

I didn't know if you caught that. And I was just going to breeze past it and pretend I did not accidentally. That was an accident, but I was going to pretend it didn't happen.

[B]

Where are trad wives for sale? The next question where does one go to acquire? This just sounds terrible.

[A]

She's such a lady. It does sound horrible.

[D]

Okay, getting back to Matt Iglesias, his argument was that the people who claim.

[A]

That having a family in this way is too expensive are missing the realities. He basically says what's actually changed is our material expectations because even adjusting after adjusting for inflation, a single male earner today earns more than he did in 1965. It's just people had smaller houses, they didn't take airplane vacations. We didn't go out to eat as much as we do now. There were just different cultural expectations and norms. So to say I can't afford it right now is really what you're saying is you can't afford a certain lifestyle that you have assumed. And that's not to say you shouldn't want it I'm not making a moral judgment yet. I have plenty of those in this conversation. But he's just saying it's really our expectations that have changed. And yeah, I wanna get your reaction to this. I think the thing that Matt Iglesias misses the most here is how important social status is to people. And I've thought about a lot. I heard a talk last year from Erika Bacchiocchi talking about the fact that marriage, and particularly at home motherhood for women has become socially viewed as low status. And I think there are a lot of reasons for that, but that's the reality.

[D]

And I think status matters a whole lot to people. I think you'll find people giving up a lot, including financial comforts and success in exchange for status. So it's not enough to say if we just changed our financial expectations or our cultural expectations around what the good life is, then you'll see more people getting married and having children. I think you'd also have to include changing the cultural norms and expectations about the status of women, particularly who make those decisions if you want to see a change in people's behavior. But what did you think about this piece?

[B]

Well, I think it's true. Our material expectations are completely different than they were a generation or a couple generations ago. And that is part of the consumerist society. I mean, listen, you just weren't expected 20 years ago to have 20 monthly charges on your credit card bill, between your cell phone and your television plan and your car payments, and not to mention your housing payments. We could go back and say, well, somehow when the interest rates were 20% in the 70s, a bunch of people figured out how to buy a house. And of course the houses were far less expensive, they made way less money, but they also didn't have all of these other things that you just have to have, you know, in order. So the package deal of kind of a married, settled down trad life is different. Right? There's no, there's no question about it. At the same time, if you do more immediate comparisons, for example, between Gen X and Gen Z, the affordability thing has changed dramatically. So yes, we're making more, but things are a lot more expensive that, you know, many people live in the city. That's part of the package deal, by the way of a social status that you're talking about is to live in a particular place where real estate's just incredible. But there's all kinds of other things here too. Number one, I think that this generation that is struggling to figure out whether they can afford this kind of life has been told they shouldn't want this kind of life from the very beginning that marriage is a problem, that marriage is, you know, the women have been told that marriage is a kind of prison that comes with the threat of children who are a threat to their happiness and well being. The men have been told that that is probably the place where their masculinity will be the most toxic. And they've been taught to fear that in and of themselves. So all that has been part of the gig. Secondly, we've been told the planet's going to blow up anyway because of climate change. So there's really no reason to do any of this. Number three, we've been sold a different vision of the good life, that the good life is the accumulation of this kind of standard of living. And so therefore, and I think this is, I don't think enough has been done on this piece of analysis and it is absolutely critical to understand this is the difference between understanding marriage as a kind of capstone and marriage as a kind of cornerstone. So if you think about the way that societies throughout history have dealt with the transition into adulthood, most of them have basically a rite of passage. And at a very young age, young people are expected to act like adults. We added in the 20th century adolescents, which continued to expand on both sides. So we stole kids innocence earlier than they should have been stolen, particularly with sexuality and pornography. And then we pushed out adolescents on the other side where we had very low expectations until now. Adolescence ends at 30. So you put that in there first of all. And then what people started to notice is that there were these traditional milestones that you would cross in order to be adulting, so to speak. You know, have your own bank account, have a job, graduate maybe from high school or college, and then move out and, you know, buy your own car. And you know, these things change. But these things were considered that marriage was considered one of those, you know, you're going to marry and settle down and have a kid and it was expected that you were going to be poor and struggle financially, but you were going to do it and build a life together. Now marriage is largely seen. I think there's a lot of things there as being the sign that you've achieved that life. So you have to have all your stuff together in order to be married. Your financial picture, your own happiness, your career needs to be in place, especially by the way, for women. And it's just a completely different way of thinking about marriage and family. So the desire, as you put it for social status has always, I think, been a part. I think it takes on a very specific form of this age in Western culture and in American culture. And that doesn't help at all. And then you add all these other kind of factors to it as well. The separation of sex and babies, the separation or the destigmatization of sex and childbearing outside of marriage. I mean, these were social norms and social expectations that drove young people to marry young than to marry younger and to marry. And, you know, because there was a kind of an economic reality of supply and demand. And if you want this, you have to do this. And, and those things have all, all changed. So that you can, I think, throw out the excuse that, well, we just, we don't have as much money as the last generation. And, and there may be elements of truth to that, but. But it doesn't explain the whole picture. It is a worldview issue about whether you kind of value marriage and family.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

And when.

[B]

Sure. Yeah, it was interesting. So right before Christmas, had a real treat of going to Louisville and sitting down to record an episode of a podcast called in the library with Dr. Al Mohler, who's the president of Southern Seminary. Talked for an hour and a half, just went at it. I mean, just. That's the way he does things. It's like hit play and blah, blah, blah, blah. We are in the deep water. And then we would pop out and talk about cultural issues. He does, obviously, the Briefing, which is a daily program. A lot of our listeners listen to the briefing and vice versa because we kind of do similar things, although his brain power is just on another level. It's just absolutely unbelievable. But it was interesting how many times in the conversation when it came back to what does the church need to do right now? How does the church respond to xyz? Everything from AI to the crisis of young men to the economic realities or the difference. We talked about a sociologist that we both appreciate in history, Peter Sorokin, who looked at society and talked about the difference between a society that lives for immediate gratification and one that lives for the future. And how do we get back to being one that builds for the future and thinks about the future. You know what the punchline was of almost every single one of those kind of forays into modern life was we got to get young people married.

[D]

Get married.

[B]

We need to encourage married. We do. And of course, the church kind of has self flagellated itself for worshiping marriage or putting marriage on a pedestal. And, and I, I understand where that complaint comes from. It comes, you know, oftentimes from single people who. Who are. Are married or maybe single, maybe don't want to be, and, and, and. And they don't see the. The ways out and so on. And I don't think we've put marriage on a pedestal. I don't think we've idolized it, and maybe some places have, but I think in general, we've lost the plot. We've lost that this is a fundamental aspect of what it means to be human. Not just where did our own human value come from, but how did God design human relationships to function? And there are institutional ones, and I don't mean that in terms of, like, organization, but there are real relationships that are built into the fabric of the universe, that if we pretend that they're not important or we put them on a priority that's lower than what God intended, it's going to have consequences. And it was just interesting because we kept coming back to, we got to get these young people married. You know, we got to get these young men to ask these girls out on dates and. But not be idiots and, you know, all that sort of stuff.

[A]

I think marriage should be on a pedestal in as much as it should be put forward as the norm, because I think it's what most people want and it's what most people need. I'm using most people very intentionally there because it's obviously not every person. But, you know, it's interesting. I did a story during COVID right, in the spring of 2020 for Christianity today about what people were doing who had weddings planned during that time. And, you know, I interviewed. Half the people I interviewed were putting their wedding on hold. The other half were saying, we're just gonna do me and my husband and our pastor in our backyard with masks on, and then, you know, we'll have a party later or whatever. And I remember interviewing a pastor, I can't remember his name at the time, who was like, this is actually really great. I mean, it's, you know, you feel for people who've been planning parties or whatever, but it's forcing us to come to terms with what we're actually doing. Here is the point of what we're doing. Throwing a lavish party and spending what people spend on weddings compared to what they spent even when I got married is truly jaw dropping. And he was like, I'm glad that it's forcing us to ask ourselves, is the point of this the party, or is the point of this the vows and the partnership and the new Family that we're creating. And you can do the extra accessories.

[D]

Later, you can do a party later.

[A]

But the reason, you know, he was.

[D]

Encouraging people, don't put it off if you're getting married. What a gift. Get married.

[A]

And that is, you know, to me, because you look at what people do. I think the capstone versus cornerstone thing.

[D]

Which we should credit Brad Wilcox at the Institute for Family Studies for really phrasing it that way. You can see that in ways people spend their money before and after they get married. I mean, people give this reason of financial strain or fear as the reason they're not pursuing family or marriage. But then you'll see people who spend thousands and tens of thousands of dollars on things like IVF afterwards. People are willing to spend money, even money they don't have, for things that they want or things that they consider high status, including all the accessories to modern life, the airplane, vacations, having a bigger house, living in a certain part of the country. So I really don't take seriously that people aren't making family decisions because of financial concerns. I think it's because they're. They're reasonably scared of it or apprehensive of it, or they want. They're viewing it as an accessory to.

[A]

Modern life and the kind of status that they want as opposed to what it is, which is purpose.

[B]

Well, I mean, you know, we're back to the problem between the collective and the individual. Right. I mean, collectively, you're right. And at the same time, I know that there's individuals who don't feel like, you know, they can afford the apartment, even in an apartment, or, you know, anything like that.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

So I.

[A]

It's certainly different among people in poverty as well. I mean, not all. All of this math changes when you've.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

I mean, even the behavior of people in poverty is very different.

[B]

You know, there's some of the expenses that we can lightly say, look, you shouldn't prioritize those expenses. You should live without those until you can reach that. And then there are some of those expenses that are kind of built into life today, and you can't actually do without them. And you've got to figure that out. So. So, yeah, I mean, that's the difference between those two things. But. But your pastor's words during COVID I mean, that's interesting. It just reflects something. One of the things we don't think about a lot, and this is when you go to the creation order and how God created these relationships to be fundamentally as part of the universe, you have to then say, and this is one of the things that Sorokin was getting at as well, the long term effects of how you think about marriage and family. So we think about, okay, what does it mean for me to be a good husband and what are the impact is going to be on my wife. It's going to be on my kids, kids and maybe my community. But there's a future looking aspect of this and how it ends up shaping society. So years ago there was an article written and it was on some new biotechnology and I just remember the last line. I really should remember who this is and where it was. I'm pretty sure it was first things but there was just this line at the end where it was like, we just need to come to terms with. It's the generation that treated their own kids as expendable, you know, in terms of abortion that's living longer than ever and is hoping that they're going to care for them when they're old. Right. In other words, it was the ideal that that's been put into the water about what family relationships are and the parent child relationship and how it's essential or non essential now it's in the water and we're actually going to reap that, you know, kind of, kind of long term. And, and I think that that's the sort of thing here we're talking about is that we don't always realize kind of what this, for example, this basic distinction between cornerstone and capstone marriage, what that actually does across the board. It's, it's not like this is an idea that's like a rock that you just put into a clear glass of water and maybe it has some mud on it. We're talking about dye, we're talking about like it goes and it's going to permeate, you know, the, the entire thing. And so I do think that this is a wonderful message in a way that the church can respond is that we can show, you know, something that's very different in the way that we exhibit and talk about marriage and family. And we're going to have to deal and not do it in such a way that compromises the dignity of humanity or anything like that of singles. Because many, God has called some to that and God has also allowed some of them to be in a situation, a cultural situation where it's hard, marriage is hard to find and we need to, we need to recognize that and not just kind of be. And I think sometimes the complaint is it feels for some of them like there's just a bunch of, you know, people going, get married, get married, get married. And they're like, I want to, you know.

[D]

Right.

[B]

I'm trying.

[A]

Tell me how, you know, give me.

[B]

A minute, you know, kind of thing. And I appreciate that, that struggle, because it certainly is real, I think, especially for young women.

[A]

Yeah, agreed. I would say, yeah, I wanna be compassionate as well, but I'd say the people yelling get married through a megaphone, then they're not talking to you, they're talking to the people who are like, really? I don't want to. It will impinge on my freedom or whatever. I'm too scared, or whatever it is. That's who needs that message more. But regardless, I think we're gonna need more people modeling healthy, good, exciting, fun marriages across the board and people valuing it for what it is and not pretending it's something that it's not, which is like, you know, the full meaning of your life and the only thing that gives anybody purpose and that kind of stuff. So, John, I wanna pivot right now. Last night, my husband and I were continuing to watch the Ken Burns very long documentary about the American Revolution. I love just listening to all of the different portions of letters that were written back then and trying to guess who the actors are that are reading them, because he has so many awesome big actors reading those. Tom Hanks is on there. Mandy Patinkin. It's really cool, but this year is the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States. And that is really incredible. Are you doing anything to celebrate that this year? And how do you think about where the country is? Do you feel like, oh, gosh, we're on a precipice and this might be the last year that we exist? Or do you feel hopeful?

[B]

No, it's not the last year that we exist. It's at a remarkable anniversary. And I think one of the things that's become an emphasis of at least the talk so far, I mean, we'll have to see. This is definitely a looking ahead to 2026. I mean, what does it look like for a nation to celebrate its 250th? And is there something that can be kind of a time of national self reflection? I know, for example, Os Guinness is calling for that. He's calling for kind of a solemn reflection and a series of things that. Where you kind of consider what kind of people we want to be, what we were founded on, whether those ideals are still there or not there. And so I think it's Interesting. I don't know if you saw this, but whatever committee is going to be behind this in Washington D.C. did this remarkable high tech display on New Year's Eve on the Washington Monument.

[A]

Oh, I did. With like the flame at the top.

[B]

It was just. Yeah. And incredible when you think about kind of what, what that possibility is. And you know, anyway, for that. So there's going to be a bunch of events and. And I think that the temptation, and maybe this is where it goes back to kind of our conversation about the Kennedy center is what are we going to do? Are we going to have kind of a show of congratulatory, pat ourselves on the back? Are we going to actually stop and think what is it that we were kind of nation we're supposed to be? Are those ideals true? And if they are indeed true, where are we in regards to them? One of the realities is that there was an ideal, a incredible ideal that was put into the fabric of the nation from the very beginning, in the words of the Declaration, about the self evident nature that we have God given rights and those rights come from the fact that we were created equal. And that was an ideal that wasn't reflected on the ground. Sorokin talked about this. Not specifically about this in the American context, but that there's an. There's a difference between sensate societies, societies that are just trying to get all the good that they can and live for the moment, live for pleasure, and ideational societies, those that are aspiring to something and that aspiration is aimed and shaped by an ideal. That certainly was an aspiration that we would be a nation in which all were considered equal. It wasn't true on the ground. The Ken Burns documentary series spends a lot of time on this, some would say too much time on the. The difference between the cries of freedom, the claim to freedom of the patriots and you know, the slaves that were right there, and that included folks like Jefferson and Washington. We'll have to come back and ask the question, is Ken Burns too woke or not in this series? Which is the conversation that a lot of people are having about that. But I do know that you watch this and I feel like I know a little bit about the history here and you learn a ton. There's a lot about our own history that we do not know. And can we be the nation that we should be without the history? Can we be the nation that we need to be if we have the wrong understanding of history? Like for example, if the critical theory mood just frames the entire history, can we be. Or if we just have a whitewashed view of history, can we be the type of nation. I think there's two threats here in our reaction, rightly so, against kind of the victim and an oppression narrative that we say explains everything in our history. Are we then going to go back and basically pretend like there was no issues, there was no moral failure that, you know, what was called the kind of the original sin of the American experiment that was there? And we. We're not. We. We can miss our own history. Either one of those directions. Right. That's why, by the way, I've got a great recommendation for. In regards to this to. To start learning about this history. And some of these things, I think on a rightly ordered. In a rightly ordered way. But all these questions come up in the 250th. Right. It's, it's, it's. It's kind of like a wedding anniversary. You celebrate it, but you should also use it and say, you know, hey, am I doing the right, my good husband? Or New Year's resolutions or whatever. This is an opportunity for a nation to do that sort of reflection. We've gone through some really hard, I think, years, ideologically speaking, where some really bad ideas threaten the future and nations don't last forever. This is what the heart of the truth Rising documentary civilizations don't last forever. Most civilizations that we think about and learn about and study are in museums. We're looking at artifacts of things that have died. Praise God. America is not one of those right now. It's outlasted a lot. I don't know. It would be an interesting conversation. We should look at this. Is there any other nation whose constitution has lasted this long and kind of a continuing country based on a certain set of ideals? We have a lot to be thankful for, but it won't go on in perpetuity just by accident. Right? Who are we? Is the question.

[A]

I think that's the biggest thing. So my husband and I and our best friends and their kids are planning a trip this summer. We're gonna take the kids to D.C. philadelphia and Boston. And so we're kind of designing all this to go see several of these sites. And I think the central message that I want to get across to my young kids are that none of this is guaranteed. There's so many wonderful parts about it. There's hard parts about it, but this is not. Because when you're born into something, you tend to think that this is just how things are and this is unique and special, and it's not guaranteed. And so we've gotta talk about self government and all of those things. That's one of the things that has been fascinating to me in this Ken Burns documentary is I didn't realize how much friction there was here in the colonies before then. There was a not insubstantial number of people who were loyal to Britain and who didn't, who thought of the patriots as rabble rousers and that this was a bad idea and that we don't have the moral character to self govern. And that's fascinating in its own right. And I have compassion for those people. You know, I also feel somewhat kind of bizarrely comforted by the violence of that era because so many things feel tenuous right now and things feel surprisingly violent in a lot of America cities. But then you hear about how Lexington and Concord, for example, you know, unveiled and it's similar, you know, I mean people are always. There's violence in the heart of every person.

[D]

That's part of our sinful nature. And it's been interesting.

[A]

But I think that's my focus, is that I'm grateful for a lot of what this country is, but it also is not guaranteed and it depends on virtue and character to continue.

[B]

Yeah. All right, so let's grade it. Let's grade the Ken Burns documentary. I don't know what episode you're on.

[A]

We've watched all the way through.

[B]

It's gotten a lot of bad press. It's gotten a lot of good press, but it's gotten a lot of bad press because of the amount of attention it pays to the, the sin of slavery. And then of course the Native Americans, the Indians. Yeah. So what, how do you grade it so far? Is it too woke?

[A]

No, I don't think so. But I, I have this ability to turn off part of my brain. I think at some parts where I'm just like, I, I realize what I'm getting myself into when I sit down to watch this and I just choosing not to be affronted by it so that I can allow myself to enjoy it. My husband is a little bit more cynical and gets a little bit more annoyed at it. I think we're both probably right. It just depends on who you are. Like last night in the episode I was watching, he spends 10 minutes talking about a group of 30 African American men who did something in the battle of Bunker Hill. And that's a cool detail, but given the scope of what he's giving us in this documentary, did it deserve that amount of time? It probably didn't. And it was a little weird and. But that's the moment we're in, so I don't know. B plus. What do you think?

[B]

All right, here's my definitive review, having watched it all. First of all, there is no better documentarian on the planet than Ken Burns in terms of quality of production and the, the sheer amount of, of things that he puts together. I mean, realizing that some of it's stuff he had to shoot and a lot of it's stuff he had to put together and then to weave that through, there's a real skill to that. So the quality on that is really, I think, excellent. I was taken in two ways on the whole question of is he focusing this whole thing on kind of a woke narrative or not? I do think there's an outsized in comparison to what is trying to be accomplished and the ideals that are driving them. Basically, the intent is to, is to portray the founders as morally compromised, and they were. But that, that moral compromise basically takes the place of anything else and it kind of succumbs to the bird's eye view of history that I think has been problematic. That comes out of a critical theory perspective is that basically we would have never done that. You know, we, we, we are smarter, we, we have a moral standing. And you don't allow people to be men of their age. It doesn't mean you dismiss the sin of their age as being, you know, somehow justified, because it's not, it never is. But there's a sense in which, well, you know, we see things more clearly. And there was a couple of the historians that were interviewed that I thought were really interesting because I thought that they were honest. There was a couple of them in which they acknowledged the kind of the moral compromise of slavery that inflicted America, but also the high ideals and how remarkable these ideals were, not just in kind of philosophical writing, but then trying to actually implement them in the founding of a nation and how, you know, groundbreaking it would be. I felt the tension and I appreciated that. In other words, there was actually some historians that I thought that were interviewed in, and I can't remember names because he obviously had had a bunch of them, but they really, they, it seemed to me like they felt the tension and I, I, I appreciated.

[A]

Isn't that funny though, John? That, that feels like such a, like, I'm grateful, but that feels like such a low bar, like, wow, they were willing to admit that these men had wonderful ideals.

[B]

If you have a cynical view of the academy, which I do.

[A]

Yeah, right.

[B]

You just you know, you know that this is a, a theory of everything that has imposed itself, especially in areas of history. And so you're right, it should be a low bar. But I guess, I don't know.

[A]

Maybe, maybe, but that's the, See, that's what I'm saying. That's the right way to watch it. Just understand the moment that you're in, Understand the moment that Ken Burns is in and go into it with, you know, some expectations and then be reasonably pleased when it's honest.

[B]

Right. I thought that the, the explanation or the portrayal of religion in this was downplayed and not nearly what it should have been in terms of the ideals that drove. So you Basically, there was a couple places where they chalked everything up to Enlightenment thinking. And there was a big difference between the French Revolution and the American Revolution. And to basically say that what you saw in America and what you saw in the slave colonies like Haiti and what you saw there and France in the subsequent years were all kind of the same thing. Well, there may have been a spirit of revolution that was common, but how they played out were incredibly different. And I don't think enough due was given to that. And when religion was talked about, it was talked about as being kind of only a morally compromised thing. When you had in Britain, for example, a religious push to end slavery. And they were the ones that were uncompromising, the religious politicians like William Wilberforce and so on. And then in the colonies as well, the kind of the religious uprising, certainly the religion was used to justify slavery in certain parts of the country ongoing in the century that followed. But there was also, there was one source of saying, no, we're not going to do this. And it came from religion, specifically the Christian religion, and nowhere else. So, you know, I, I, I thought it was fascinating and, and, and worth the watch. The other part that I, I thought was interesting was there are moments, and I appreciated that Ken Burns told these moments where there are details that no one could have planned that just came in like a fog, a heavy fog here or there, or a fog lifted or a distraction or something like that. And he would talk about how the people at the time, whether it's Washington or others, would call it the hand of Providence, and that's all he would say about it. Now you kind of look at that and you say, well, without saying, I know all of God's purposes in history, there was a lot of those details to not actually think that it's a particular kind of providence and a particular kind of direction. The Fact that he told about those things, I thought was, was. Was helpful how we portrayed them. You know, he kind of played by the rules of secular history there. Fair enough. Although I think as Christians we, we don't have to pretend like there are these invisible hands, you know, that there's a hand that has made his invisible hand visible in many ways and we can acknowledge that in history. So I thought that was pretty interesting as well. I know it's early for the recommendations, but since we're talking about this, there is a new set of, of videos and shorter, much shorter than the Ken Burns episodic series. But Joe La Conti was a longtime professor at the King's College. Now he is a Presidential scholar at the New College of Florida and C.S. lewis Scholar at Grove City College, Director of the Rivendell center in New York City. He has been working to produce a set of videos on some of these stories of the American founding. For example, one of the people that Burns barely talks about, he's a forgotten founding father, according to Joe LeConte, is Benjamin Rush. Rush was not unclear or morally compromised on the question of slavery. He understood the tension and was very much an abolitionist. And his writing was very, very clear on this. And also a strong believer and a remarkable guy. We did a breakpoint commentary by Glenn Sunshine, primarily authored on Benjamin Rush not too long ago. Just an amazing, amazing guy with this guy, accomplished in his life. And anyway, this is, this series. If you go to Joe La Conte's YouTube channel, you can find this, or you can go to joe la conti.com it's linked from there. But there's a whole set of videos that he's doing on the American Revolution and what you need to know, Benjamin Rush, Thomas Paine, some of these and other parts of the story, the Continental Congress and so on. And it's just really, really cool. So these are great things. I think you can also show younger kids as well. Burns thing is a little much for younger kids, but I think it's a really helpful series. Really grateful that he's doing it. He's great on camera too. He's got this kind of super gregarious, you know, expressivism that comes out in an enthusiasm. He kind of reminds me of Jim Valvano, the coach of the NC State and kind of his how he kind of, you know, talks like this. So pretty fantastic stuff. So I, I definitely recommend, like, go study this stuff. And this is a great resource is La Conte's new videos on this.

[A]

That's awesome. Well, John let's take a moment to get to some questions that have come in. I'm gonna read this one to you. You guys talked about how men are being drawn towards nihilistic politics and how many young men aren't living life with any purpose. This gets to what it sounds like you tackled with Albert Mueller as well. While I agree with that, I have a twofold question for you. Number one, you talk a lot about how the church needs to take advantage of this crisis that young men are facing. What would the ideal vision for young men be? Please be specific.

[B]

Well, I think it's exactly the vision that you see in the best writing that came out of the revolutionary time. It really is. I mean, it's an incredible thing to. This is another detail that Burns doesn't quite get at, but people have talked about, and you kind of think, where did these people come from that all gathered, particularly these young men? And they were young men that had these ideals of slavery. Did they have. Were they perfect? Absolutely not. Were they all evangelical Christians? Probably not. Most of many of them were. Many of them, though, had a Christian understanding of these ideals, not a Enlightenment understanding. And those are all details to come into. But where did that come from? Well, a big part of it had to do with the education that they were receiving, the kind of education that was being promoted at the time. And then also strong families and an understanding of ordered virtue and free virtue, this balance of freedom and virtue. And by virtue, I don't mean values. I mean kind of the embodied vision of a good and moral life. And that has to come along with a recognition of the kind of free individuals we are. I don't mean, like fully freed. I'm a. I'm reformed in my understanding of sin and the original sin in particular. But the idea of humans as moral agents, and when you start with that, and then that brings on a sense of, we were created this way, so I have a responsibility to my creator. So I'm not autonomous. I can't do whatever I want. I can't invent the world. And these are the lies that I think have just been pumped into young people, young women, as well as young men. But it affects young men, and especially because it takes away their vision of the future. If you don't have a vision of the future of where I'm trying to get to aspirations, dreams that are ordered in the right way, by the right kinds of things, it leads to a problematic life. People become slaves, especially young men become slaves of their own passions. So our passions either have to Be ordered towards something higher or they take over. And I think that's the most fundamental difference. And I think Christians have that message. The gospel message is one of the past, present, and future. It's one of creation and of aspiration. And the alternative right now in society is essentially live for yourself and define your own rules and define your own way of going, and don't let anyone tell you what to do and all that. And these are damnable ideas with incredibly, incredibly important consequences. So that's my vision. And I think the church both has the source material and Holy Scripture, the assistance through salvation and the gift of the Holy Spirit, and then also the vision of what it means to be human, to accomplish all that. And I'm not sure very many other things do, because certainly Christian education can do that. But right now in our society, a lot of these things have been hollowed out. And it's kind of us or no one else right now that's going to be able to solve this crisis.

[A]

Well, the second half of this question is women are contributing just as much to societal rot largely by embracing feminist ideals that tell them they're sinless, that marriage and family is undesirable, sexual autonomy is the highest form of freedom. You rarely discuss this. Could you comment on it?

[B]

I saw that. I appreciate the question. It's hard. People don't hear everything that we say. I don't rarely discuss this. We discuss this a lot. We just. I. I discuss this a lot. Maybe I haven't recently.

[A]

We just did on the program today, but go on.

[B]

Okay. Yeah, there, there, there. There you go. I think one of the best evidences of the biblical account of male and female and that men and women are fundamentally different is that you see the fall impact men and women in different distinct ways. And I think one of the lies of feminism is to teach women to reject their created bodies. And also there has been this kind of inward turn, the expressive individualism within feminism, which has been both a, men are what's wrong with the world, and then I basically, whatever I want, whatever I desire is good on its face, and that's what I should live for. All humans have to, you know, suppress those fallen urges and tendencies and messages by embracing what's true and what's good. So this isn't a race to see who's more fallen. There's a lot of problems right now. I do think it's interesting, and I probably subscribe to this. You may not. I don't know if it's quite as simple as all this. But in the upcoming conversation, which I don't know when it'll air, but one of the things that came up is I asked Dr. Mohler some form of this question is like, you know, as we. Because we. He had gotten so much into the conversation about young men and how do we fix this young man problem? And, you know, what about young women? And, you know, I think he all but said it. If you. If you get young men right, a lot of other things fall into place. I don't know that that's always the case, but I do know right now, young men are returning to church, and young women are not, according to most details, although some of those numbers are being disputed right now. And it's up in the air. But that you got to solve that problem first is the theory. I don't know if I agree with that fully. I do subscribe to a good bit of that, which, you know, I think we fix young men, and a lot of things. A lot of things fall into place.

[A]

Well, I'll use this opportunity to make a quick recommendation. A friend of mine, Emma Waters, at the Heritage foundation, has a new book coming out a little bit later this year called Lead Like Jael, a reference to Jael in the Old Testament. And it is kind of a really helpful, systematic building of an argument for what biblical womanhood looks like in both design and roles. And it's really, really great. I mean, I'm gonna recommend it. I have a couple young women in my life that I sort of informally mentor, and I'm excited to get it into their hands, and I would definitely recommend that. So put that on your list to keep your eyes out for that. I believe it comes out in the spring.

[B]

I saw that that's coming out. I thought that's a loaded title.

[A]

I know.

[B]

Jail with the Nail. That's how we remember it in high school.

[A]

That's awesome. Well, dawn, that is gonna do it for the program today. Thank you so much for listening to the very first episode of Breakpoint this week of the year of our Lord 2026. We're so glad you're with us. From the Colson center for Christian Worldview, I'm Maria Baer alongside John Stonestreet. Happy New Year. We'll see you guys all back here next week.