John Stonestreet – Page 13

Pete Buttigieg Says It Out Loud : Guest Column

Aug 19, 2024John StonestreetAbortionAbortion, Life, Pro-life, Sanctity of Human Life

With less than three months remaining until the election, Vice President and Democratic Presidential Nominee Kamala Harris is working hard to garner the support of white voters. In the past month, Harris’s campaign has hosted Celebrity-studded virtual rallies aimed at this demographic. In her “White Women for Harris” rally on Zoom, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and actress Connie Britton called on all “Karens for Kamala” to use their “privilege” to help everyone. Shannon Watts, who helped organize the call, said that the rally was vital because white women “in recent presidential elections have voted in a way that upholds White supremacy … [and] upholds the patriarchy.”

Also worried that progressives have been “ceding white men to the MAGA right for far too long,” organizers of the “White Dudes for Harris” online rally encouraged participants to steer the country away from President Trump’s “dangerous, dark path” for the country. Star Wars actor Mark Hamill made an appearance, saying, “I’m Luke Skywalker. I’m here to rescue you.”

However, the Harris campaign’s unprecedented commitment to advance abortion undermines the rhetoric employed in these rallies about advancing women’s rights, using one’s privilege to help others, and working to end the “patriarchy.” For example, Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg explained to the “White Dudes for Harris” rally participants that they should vote for Harris because “men are also more free in a country where we have a president who stands up for things like access to abortion.” Intentional or not, Buttigieg’s comment echoed concerns expressed decades ago by first-wave feminists who opposed abortion.

Abortion, to borrow progressive terminology, is a “tool of the patriarchy.” Far from advancing women’s rights, abortion enables self-centered men to pursue what they want without consequence. Though sold as a necessary “choice” for women, many report choosing abortion because they were pressured to do so. Thus, abortion harms women and ends the lives of countless preborn humans.

Whether chemical or surgical, abortion severs the natural link between intercourse and procreation. Legalizing abortion allowed men to “freely” engage in intercourse without the obligation to and responsibility for any children that result. The more abortion is normalized, the more that men are “freed” from any expectation to care for the women they get pregnant or the children they beget.

Buttigieg simply said out loud what has long been assumed within the ideologies of the sexual revolution and third-wave feminism. Sexual liberation is, in fact, not liberation at all, at least not for women and the unborn. Though sold as an aspect of women’s health and a means to ensure women’s rights and freedom, the reality is far different. As theologian Frederica Mathewes-Green said in a segment from Focus on the Family’s Family Project, “Women were promised autonomy, and what they got was abandonment.”

The early feminists issued this warning about abortion. Scholar and author Erika Bachiochi has noted that “first-wave” feminists understood how “the burdens and privileges of reproduction and early caregiving [fall] disproportionately on women.” Men, therefore, needed to embrace their roles as husbands and fathers. Because of the unique differences between men and women, especially in childbearing, the state needed to uphold these responsibilities and obligations. Because abortion undermines these responsibilities and obligations, most feminists of the “first-wave” opposed it.

Buttigieg is right that abortion makes men “free,” but not in a good or life-giving way. This is freedom from obligation, consequence, and responsibility, a freedom that enables the worst vices of “patriarchy” and “toxic masculinity.” The “freedom” afforded by abortion is a license that empowers men to live for themselves without regard for others, and therefore is a license that leads to pain, abandonment, and death.

True freedom is freedom for, not freedom from. Freedom for recognizes the inherent, God-given place of sex within a marriage oriented for the good of others, especially the children that may result. This is true freedom for all parties involved.

This Breakpoint was co-authored by Jared Hayden. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org. And check out this What Would You Say? video on how to make a pro-choice argument in 60 seconds.

Voting: Lesser of Two Evils vs. Lessening Evil: Guest Column

Aug 12, 2024John StonestreetElectionsElections

Both sides of the presidential race are (finally) set, and Americans remain historically dissatisfied with both options. Of course, considering the flurry of events of just the last few months, it’s not impossible that something may change yet again. Whether we fall into the category of being so sick of politics already or being unable to look away, every citizen has two choices. First, whether to vote and, second, how to vote.

After his White House days, Chuck Colson never publicly endorsed a political candidate. The Colson Center remains committed to that practice. He did, however, tell Christians to vote, and why. “It’s our duty as citizens of the kingdom of God,” Chuck wrote, citing St. Augustine, “to be the best citizens of the society we live in. To do that, we must vote.”

There are some Christians who disagree, and their hesitation is understandable. Since the Republican Party scrubbed pro-life and pro-family commitments from its platform, voters who prioritize life and family are left to choose between pro-abortion and pro-choice options. The Democratic nominee is the first sitting vice president to visit an abortion clinic, with a vice presidential choice who has aggressively pushed dangerous gender ideology in Minnesota schools. The Republican nominees have each stated that the choice to terminate preborn lives should be left to the states.

Even so, not voting in order to “keep our hands clean” is a form of pietism, not Christianity. James is clear that if there is good that we can do, we should. To not do the good we can is sin. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, even in the face of far worse political realities than ours, rejected pietism as being contrary to Christian responsibility. Because Christianity is an incarnational faith, he wrote, it must be lived in “the tempest of the living.”

But how then should we vote? Often, Christians and other citizens of conscience describe voting as choosing between “the lesser of two evils.” My former colleague Kevin Bywater suggests a better approach.

Christians, he said, should think of voting as a way of “lessening evil.” Not only does this approach better fit the political realities of our particular context, it recognizes the inherent limits of politics even while maintaining principle. Also, voting to lessen evil acknowledges the moral inadequacies of candidates while still seeking to accomplish good through voting.

In the American context, the “lesser of two evils” approach tends to exaggerate the importance of the oval office. “Salvation,” Chuck Colson often said, “will never arrive in Air Force One.” Neither, for that matter, will the apocalypse. On the issues that matter most (such as life and family), state and local races and ballot initiatives are incredibly important, especially now. Voting to lessen evil recognizes these cultural realities.  

Of course, the Office of President is important, but more so because of the 3,000-5,000 personnel—especially the unelected, rule-making department heads—that come with each administration. The heads of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Education (ED), and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have been incredibly consequential in every recent administration, as are judicial nominations. For example, under President Obama, the HHS Secretary forced employers to provide contraceptives and abortifacients to employees free of charge and irrespective of religious beliefs. Without Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or Coney Barrett there would be no Dobbs ruling. And since Dobbs, there have been all kinds of department-level maneuverings to advance abortion at the state and federal levels. Title IX regulations are interpreted and reinterpreted under each administration by unelected officials that are appointed by the president.  

A system that allows unelected officials to hold such power is flawed, as are the candidates who appoint, and the leaders appointed. Voting to lessen evil should never be about excusing bad character. It should be our best attempt to enable the best outcomes possible while recognizing that the most important work the Church will do won’t be political.

Years ago, Chuck Colson observed, “[T]he church has allowed itself to become dangerously polarized into two camps: politicized and privatized views of faith. [N]either view has anything to do with historic Christianity.” To address both these errors, the Colson Center has produced a free video series, Why Vote? Courageous Faith in an Election Year. For a free download, visit colsoncenter.org/why vote.

Christ, not politics, is our hope. He’s called us to engage, to discern, and to the best of our abilities, uphold good and lessen evil. 

If you’re a fan of Breakpoint, leave a review on your favorite podcast app. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org. 

Screentime in Schools: Guest Column

Aug 6, 2024John StonestreetCurrent EventsSocial Media

More local and state governments, from both sides of the political aisle, are acknowledging the harmful effects of cellphones in schools and adopting policies to limit their use.

Last year, Florida passed a law to ban the use of cellphones in classrooms. In April, Governor Eric Holcomb of Indiana signed a bill to prohibit students from using cellphones except for learning purposes and in cases of emergencies. In June, the Los Angeles school board adopted a ban that will take effect at the beginning of next year. Some school districts have issued similar policies, and many others are at least having the debate.

These policies are long overdue. Smartphones are not only distracting, but they also affect brain development. According to one long-term study published in January 2023, adolescents who check their phones regularly for notifications experience change in “how their brains respond to the world around them.” Among other things, they tend to be hypersensitive to peers’ reactions and engage in compulsive social media activity.

In 2018, Jean Twenge noted that teens who spend more time behind screens are at a higher risk for depression. Since 2012, the year when most Americans became smartphone owners, teens’ mental health has been in decline. One study found that, after just seven minutes of scrolling on Instagram, young women showed decreased body satisfaction and negative emotional state.

To be clear, this is not just a matter of content. As Jonathan Haidt argued:

Content moderation is to some extent a red herring, a distraction from larger issues. Yes, it must be done and done better, but even if these platforms could someday remove 95% of harmful content, the platforms will still be harmful to kids. 

Social media companies have long known about these harms, but they have failed to offer much help to minors or their parents. As mother of five and CEO of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation Dawn Hawkins noted, “The parental controls do not work. They’ve designed these platforms without parents in mind.” For example, 32 steps are required on Apple devices to set up parental controls.

The ubiquity of smartphones, social media, and the internet has created, in Haidt’s words, a collective action problem for our children. That’s a situation in which many people would benefit from a particular course of action, but if only one person or small group of people chooses that course of action, it will not be beneficial, but costly. The result? Without collective action, no individual is likely to take any action. 

In recent years, groups of Christians, including families, have joined together to take the “Postman Pledge,” a year-long commitment to raise kids without phones and in community with one another. While good and creative, these grassroots efforts have limits—especially for those who can’t afford to homeschool their kids or send them to private schools that share their convictions.

The move by states to help parents protect their kids at school is helpful for just these families. To be sure, state regulation is never a replacement for good parenting or good community. Even in school districts where smartphones are restricted, parents must help their teens use social media and smartphones wisely, in ways that limit their harmful effects. Parents and concerned community members must come together to figure out what is best for these students.

What is clear is that these policies are providing a much needed aid for American families who would otherwise be powerless against the titans of big tech. Let’s hope more states follow suit.

This Breakpoint  was co-authored by Jared Hayden. If you’re a fan of Breakpoint, leave a review on your favorite podcast app. For more resources to live like a Christian in this cultural moment, go to breakpoint.org. 