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 riots in France, and we're also going to talk about a poll that suggests a rising favorable view of Sharia law among young American voters. We are so glad you're with us for this show. Please stick around. Welcome to Breakpoint this week.
From the Coulson Center for Christian Worldview, I'm Maria Bear, alongside John Stone Street, president of the Coulson Center. John, I want to start this week in France. Those who've been following the news will know that there have been riots across that country now for several days. They started supposedly as an uprising of students who were complaining about what sound like really, really rough conditions in some of their public school buildings. But it has now.
I think it's fair to say spread to something way beyond even that. Rioters are in Paris and across France, lighting things on fire. They are, from some of the videos I've seen, they're just openly attacking other people in the street. It's gotten quite violent. The French president issued a curfew to try to curb some of this, but.
I did hear kind of a story on NPR today that was going back and forth on like is this?
Some people have blamed immigration for this. That these are non mostly non French born citizens or non citizens who are starting some of this unrest, and others saying no, this is just as much about French citizens as others. Is this a civilizational moment, as you like to say sometimes?
Well, that's—I can't take credit for that phrase. That's an Oszkénis phrase, but I do think there are some civilizational moment ramifications. How's that for what we're seeing in France right now? There's a number of things here that I think have to be considered. The first is that yes, the immigration question, or at least the second generation immigration question, and the identity of those who.
Are largely leading the violent aspects of this. What happened after the riots started? After the protests clearly became riots, is that many on the far left blame the government for initiating the violence? I don't think the evidence holds true to that. I think what you have here is something that we have seen in other places around Europe.
In fact, there were other protests that became violent. And riotous, sparked by these in Belgium and and Milan and other places. But I I think you you see here a thing that's supposed to be about education. It's supposed to be about failing schools. It's supposed to be in solidarity with teachers who walked out.
And there's there's a number of math problems here. Number one is if that's what the issue is, why we have so many Palestinian flags. Why is there, you know, so many signs that have to do with, you know, supporting Palestine? Why are Jewish businesses and, in some cases, and and Jewish residents being attacked as part of this and singled out?
Now, at some level, in the kind of Whatever version of of of this brave new world we're in, the Palestinian cause gets lumped in with the trans cause and gets lumped in with all kinds of protesting and riotous causes, which should tell you an awful lot about what's kind of fueling the anger here. And certainly, if it began as something related to education, it has not. Stayed that way, whether it's opportunistic by these folks or whatever. That that we we have seen something else take over. The other thing that has to be mentioned is that when it comes to kind of the the the the lingo of railing against capitalism, railing against the West, that becomes part of these protest.
You know, apologizing or. Pushing back against the colonial past or whatever, France has done more to accommodate these demands over the last several decades than any other European nation. And I guess at some level, you are like, well, listen. In terms of the social safety net, in terms of the the government subsidies, in terms of everything else. The demands, kind of largely apologizing for colonial the colonialization or whatever, even though that's not what this is supposed to be about, like meeting the demands of those that are trying to take you kind of culturally captive, never works, right?
And this is an example of that. I think that you're seeing here, but your question had more to do with what is this saying. By and large, about kind of where we're at as a as a civilization, and I think it is notable. We've got some commentaries coming out on this on our Breakpoint Daily that it wasn't that long ago that many people were very very encouraged and very excited about the papal visit to France, about the turnout. Of hundreds of thousands of of people, even young people, and it came along with talk of you know the vibe shift or even revival, and then just you know weeks later, now we have this nationwide chaos that gets sparked one place and spreads very very quickly, and is joined by a whole lot of different.
Factions and groups.
Now, I'll say, I think largely what we're seeing is an Islamic presence, particularly from those immigrants and those you know non-native families. And I think you're also seeing the far left, and many people have talked about the alliance of the far left with Islamists, and how we've seen that coalesce in various places around the West. And it's always in the context of these protests. It's not new. It's something that you can see that goes back to the seventies.
But it is something where you have two different groups that are railing against not just a specific issue like education, but against the state of the nation, against the identity of France, against the values of of Western civilization. Even though with very different motives, very different causes, and yet they're they're both willing kind of to join forces. And why do we continue to see that not only here but in other parts of the world? Is is is I think is at least part of the answer, you know, to that question, you know, on a civilizational level. What's the significance here?
What's interesting is that you know we there's throughout human history there are uprisings. Like I usually use this idea to calm myself down when something like this is happening. Like this is not totally new; it's not completely unprecedented. People, especially when there's economic hardship or there's major transition, like a huge flux of immigrants, it tends to lead to unrest, and so this shouldn't necessarily shock us. But one of the things I I feel like marks this.
As different from times past is that we're so siloed, just as people, given the digital age, and I, I'm thinking about this even with what you just brought up about the papal visit and how it seems so whiplashy that we had this experience a couple weeks ago and now suddenly France is doing what it's doing now, but we're so siloed. In in our own digital worlds, that there almost is nothing that you could credibly call like a current French experience. Like, what is it like living in France right now? There really is no monolithic answer to that, and that's. Always been true in multicultural places, but I it feels more true now than ever.
Which is probably why it's hard to coalesce around a single cause as well, because really, no two people in the world are having the same experience, even if they live next door to each other. And it it makes me a little bit more afraid, but it also makes me think of that book by Eric Hoffer that you recommended to me last year. I think. Called True Believer, which it is him just kind of riffing on why people are attracted to political extremism and violence in some cases, and it's almost never rational. Like you and I are sitting here trying to figure out, like, is this about schooling?
Is this about immigration? Is it about you know they're upset with Western culture or whatever? I'm sure there are elements of that in all all of it, and different people might have different ideas about it. But at the end of the day, I think you only reach this level of a fever pitch in connection to this level of incoherence when you have a crisis of meaning, and you just have a whole bunch of people who are a willing to be violent because the political norms have shifted towards violence, and b are desperate for meaning and have chosen to find it or at least seek it here. Yeah, I listen.
the the The larger context of the void of meaning in Western culture—something we've talked about here for the last couple years—frequently, you know, quoting again and again and again Nietzsche's predictions in *The Madman* have to come into play here. There's just no question about it. But I, so that that's certainly the the case. But but I think it's also Important to note too that in that search for meaning, if you have adopted kind of a that that kind of far left view, it may go under the term of progressivism and insinuate that you know you're looking for something better, you're looking to build something better. But the core of this is a postmodern framing of of the world, and that everything can be explained by power and disenfranchisement.
Who is the victim, and who is the oppressor? And that takes the form of trying to deconstruct everything. Right? I mean, this started as an idea applied to language, where you're trying to uncover the oppression narratives that are at root in some of the great ideas, whether you're Talking about the great works of Western civilization, and you're talking about the great documents like the Constitution, or you know some sort of kind of government language that you're trying to deconstruct and uncover the power agenda. But understand deconstruction when that becomes the primary methodology.
Construction is not the primary methodology. That can't be lost on this. And I, I don't think the Islamic impulse is the same because the Islamic impulse does have some sort of ideational goal, some motivation. Certainly, if you're talking about the the true believers that are looking for you know the fulfillment of essentially Islamic prophecy and. The Caliphate and and whatever else, but there is a you know they might have a kind of a shared agenda of you know tearing down the West so that this could actually come in place.
But the far left with a a vision of life that's all about deconstruction. It's it's not about construction. I don't I don't know how else to say it. It's not about building something. It's not about constructing something better.
It's not about you know taking out this rotted board and putting you know a beautiful you know gold emblem or something in its place. It's about tearing down. It's about tearing down the works. It's about tearing down the the icons, the the traditions. It's about tearing down the religion, the virtues.
It's it's about tearing down the culture itself, and that's why I think so often when you see these folks, for example, on these you know hot mic conversations that everybody has been doing, trying to emulate Charlie Kirk. That so often that's what you're hearing. It's not like this is the better day that I'm trying to get to. It's that this is how awful everything has been, and it's got to be. We've got to fight it.
We've got to fight it. That impulse is powerful. That impulse to tear down is is something that's contagious. I think particularly in a crisis of meaning, and I I think you're seeing that. And look.
When you ask the question at the beginning, what is this? What are the civilizational ramifications here? That that that's pretty serious. I mean, we've said this over and over and over. Like, I think.
I was thinking this week, thinking about the what we're seeing in Paris. I mean, France is emblematic as a central entity in the history of Western culture. The propagation of high culture, certainly, you know, religiously oriented in its history, even though that history is quite sorted and broken in all kinds of things. But you you look at this, and is this emblematic of what was talked about in? The Truth Rising documentary.
I mean, I I looked at the what I saw in in these videos coming out of France this week, and thought, man. What Oz and Ayon Hursi Ali and and and Neil Ferguson and and David Berlinski said in that documentary has aged really well. I think of David Berlinski, you know, somebody who is kind of an observer of civilization. When when he was filmed for that documentary, guess where he was? Paris.
He was in Paris, right? And he's there, and he has this statement. That was just remarkable. He said, "Someone that could not build a shed can tear down a chateau, right?
Someone who can't build a thing can tear down an awful lot. The potential for damage is big, and we know from how we think about civilizations. I mean, none of us think about civilizations. I mean, rarely in current terms. It's because we're reading a history book." Of something that we call a civilization that's no longer that died that that that that decayed that disappeared or maybe we're in a museum looking at something that was you know until quite recently covered up in a lot of dirt right I mean buried that's the the the the fate of most civilizations and the West is not immune from this it doesn't happen overnight.
But I tell you what the British historian Arnold Toynbee said is that you know, and I'm paraphrasing here, is that most civilizations aren't murdered; they commit suicide. They they don't get attacked from the outside; they collapse from the inside. And when you see that sort of lack of identity, the lack of Allegiance or loyalty, the thought that everything's bad, and the only thing that I can do is just fight everything and tear down everything that I can. That's not a path forward. That's not sustainable.
Even if you are resisting things that are unjust or you know immoral overall, if if you are not building, if there is nothing that you are shooting for, then everything becomes short term, and you know that the. The destruction itself is the win, and I think you're seeing some of that in how protests are so often done these days. And this is an extreme example what we're seeing in France, but it seems like an example. It reminds me of Philip Reeve talking about Death Works, and I think that's exactly. It also reminds me of the great poet Christopher Nolan in what whatever Batman movie it was when he's trying.
You know, Michael Caine is explaining the Joker to Batman, and he's like, "Some men just want to watch the world burn. There's just nothing else behind it." Okay, speaking of that, John, there's a new poll out from Rasmussen Reports and an organization called Our Republic. That found 43 of likely voters among the age cohort of 18 to 24 have a positive view of Sharia law.
Now, I don't know how I don't know if they measured exactly the depth of understanding of Sharia law that these respondents have, but that is quite alarming. I mean, I think among older voters, the positive views are much. Less, they're still there. Eighty-three percent of all likely voters oppose allowing Sharia to become the legal code in an American town, city, or state. But twenty-seven percent of voters under thirty would support allowing a community to adopt Sharia under those circumstances.
Is this a part of the civilizational shift? Like, is this for real? Should we take this seriously? I saw this study and I thought this this is one of those you are like this can't possibly be real. And then you look at the you know the different ways they ask the questions in this study and the differences in cohorts, and it's it's it's it's pretty dramatic.
And it it speaks to a number of things. One is. What's normal for one particular generation, you cannot take for granted for the next generation. You know, you and I talked not too long ago about something Gene Twangy has written about, and some others. This free for all, for example, in LGBTQ identification among young people under the age of eighteen, and it's just a free fall.
So, whatever you know, new norms that you know the last cohort of young people expected, it's just not coming to fruition. But that same study found that if you're, you know, in your 20s and you're female, you're identifying as LGBTQ at a higher rate. In other words, that trend line is continuing for that one demographic. But the younger people aren't buying into it. It just shows you just kind of how quickly norms can change in a society.
And and this is one I I tell you just the other night. I was flipping through, and a station was re-airing. I don't know if you remember this or you saw this. Was re-airing the concert from Madison Square Garden that was a benefit concert for the firefighters and police officers and emergency services families, particularly those that had lost people after nine eleven. It was a remarkable thing to see, and I don't know.
Do you remember this? It was it was five weeks after nine eleven. That Richard Gear was he there? And he oh boy. Yes, two people got booed.
Hillary Clinton. That was when she was trying to make her New York Senate run, and she she did not play well with that audience. The other one was Richard Gear, right? Because he is Richard Gear. Asked everyone got on stage being Richard Gear.
Well, no. He asked everyone to have a moment of silence for the terrorists.
So that did not play well in a like the the audience was full of firefighters, police officers, their families. People are holding up pictures of loved ones who had died, and like. But what struck me about this as I was watching it is everybody was on the same page. Bill Clinton got up and and talked about how you know the terrorists won't win and our way of life is different. That he actually said this line, that's what make.
And after talking about America and you know, that's what makes us different from them. That's what he said. All right, this is this is the the the lead figure of what at the time was the progressive arm of politics in the United States. And he said that it was very much an identity. It was very much of what makes us who we are.
Will Ferrell showed up, you know, because he used to do this impersonation of George W. Bush, you know, and so he made he made this joke. He goes, "I can do anything I want. My approval rating's like a hundred and seven percent right now," which. Which it was, you remember that.
I mean, you know, it really was, and I say all that to say there was just none of this ambiguity at that point. That wasn't that long ago, right? I mean, okay, it was twenty five years ago, and that's an eternity when you're talking about generations. But there was a very clear line, even if there wasn't an understanding of what made that line between. Those who attacked us and who we are.
So to see this, even in light of some of the same chaos, what happened, for example, on October the seventh, with Muslim Hamas terrorists targeting and and committing atrocities against Israelis, you just look at these lines of good and bad guys, and like this, this wasn't a small cohort. Of the this was forty three percent of eighteen to twenty four year old with a positive view of Sharia, and of course none of it makes any sense because you know if they knew what Sharia, you know taught, it would fly in direct contradiction from what they also have a positive view of, which of course is LGBTQ identity, right? I mean, like this is incompatible in any sort of rational world, right? And yet, you just kind of say we have not done a great job catechizing the next generation that, in terms of understanding this, and so you put these ideas, and these ideas certainly are upstream from the sort of downstream chaos that you see in France right now. There's a direct line.
You you got to see the connection there. Even if the connection isn't fully understanding the ideology of Sharia law, but just embracing a misunderstanding of it, it's still going to have those sorts of downstream consequences. I mean, it's been drilled into us for so long that to disconnect the actions of all the terrorists that you're talking about from any representation of Islam, which has never been rational, but that. That has been clearly, effectively drilled into at least this younger generation.
So I don't think. I mean, I hope that the kids who are saying, "Yeah, I'd be this favorably," or it would be okay with me if a town adopted Sharia law, whatever. I hope they're not connecting that to like. Therefore, I'm inviting in a community of terrorists into my community, and I'm not. I don't even think that that's essentially what they would be doing, but.
I think it just—I don't think they're open to the idea. Like, I think it is—they are victims of what you talked about a minute ago, which is like the norm normalcy bias, where they just are so convinced that everybody sees the world generally the same way that they do. Like, I—I spoke a couple weeks ago in a high school class here, and it was really really fun. I get to go back next week. But one of the things we were talking about was the government's role in the United States, and I asked something like, "Should the government have any involvement in defining what marriage is?" And they kind of talked about it.
They were really smart. They had a lot of like they took their time, which I was really impressed with. And they kind of came to the conclusion that no, I don't think this is this territory that the government should be involved in. And I was like.
So adults can marry children, you know, and immediately they were like, "Oh my gosh, no, never!" And it, it obviously had not occurred to them, and it shouldn't. And I'm glad it didn't. But I was like, "Well, friends, there are nations in the world where they allow this, and they do it forcibly, and it's children, and you know, and that, and that's why this is important." But I, I just say that to say I don't. I think that a lot of kids hear Sharia law, and maybe what they think is like. A nice, quaint, little, different way of life that some brown people like to adopt, and I want to be inclusive, so I'll say that it's okay.
And they really don't understand what they're saying. No, I don't think there's any question they don't understand it. That's for sure. I mean, the the idea that it's thought out is not, you know, required to get to this conclusion. Honestly, it might be more terrifying if it was thought out.
Sure, and it and it should be right because we're talking about a really, really bad idea when we're talking about Sharia law. But you know, to your point, they have embraced something. And by the way, you know, President Bush was one of the ones who said this. You know, we're talking about some Muslims, not Islam. You know, and he made that distinction.
And I think the better distinction is we are talking about some Muslims who fully embrace Islam at its fullest. Right? I mean, that's a that's a different sort of conversation. And at some level, he just wasn't able to to say that at the time. But I think it needed to be said.
But something else has happened too, right? And this is the critical theory mood playing in, where it's not just those people are different, and we can't say that they're wrong about anything, but those people are oppressed, and we need to say that they're right about everything. That's the the critical theory mood that I think actually plays into this as well. Yeah, absolutely. Let's take a quick break, John.
We'll be right back with more Break Point this week in just a moment. If you're ready to go deeper in Christian worldview formation, it may be time to consider the Colson Fellows program. Colson Fellows take time over ten months to study how Christianity is so much more than a private God and me only faith. It's a way of seeing and comprehending all reality. The result is a more confident, courageous faith that's equipped for our cultural moment.
If you're ready to learn more, join us on a live informational webinar on Thursday, November twelfth, at one. 1 p.m. Register today at colsoncenter.org/webinar. That's colsoncenter.org/webinar. We're back on Breakpoint this week, John.
Did you know that there is a place where people could probably make a bet on like whether you'll be wearing a hoodie or a collared sweatshirt when we record? Or whether I'll be sitting in front of a weird logo or a blank wall, or it's a safe bet.
Okay, I'm talking about.
Okay, I'm going to say Kalsi. I think it's Kalsi, and I I only know about it because I saw the commercial that Timothy Chalamet was in about it. But a New York Times piece from a couple of days ago says that this is Kashi is essentially a prediction market. It's it's a place where you can bet on literally anything. You can create a bet, and then you can create you can invite other people to bet on it.
It is now valued at twenty two billion dollars.
So, for example, I believe Kashi is the place where several months ago there was a small scandal that we don't even have the attention span for anymore, but Somebody who runs the teleprompter in the White House was leaking the length of speeches, and people were then placing bets on Khashi on how long the speeches would be. And this teleprompter operator was placing those bets and then winning a lot of money.
So I guess he had a side gig going. There's no shame in that game, but probably not in this iteration. This cannot possibly. Be healthy for any segment of our population, whether it's people gambling or the people that love them or the people that live in proximity to them. I just cannot imagine any plausible argument for why this should be legal and supported.
You know, as a conservative, I think the government should stay out of almost everything. This is where it gets really, really difficult. We've seen what has happened to sports. We have seen what has happened to families because of widespread and fully accessible sports betting through DraftKings and and and and different apps and and and things like that. What's interesting here about Kashi is that it's actually sold as not betting, as not gambling, but as a form of trading, a stock, yeah, stock prediction market, which is just a Yeah, it it's just a completely fabricated, you know, word to call something something else than what it actually is.
The other thing that has got to be concerning to some degree. I mean, listen, Pete Rose still isn't in the Hall of Fame. For participating in gambling, not on his own games, not on his own thing, he wasn't pulling what this you know teleprompter operator was doing in the White House. Like he was something, and he still isn't, you know, in in the Hall of Fame because of of some of these things. Justice for Pete Rose, man.
Well, I'm not I'm not making a case for that either way. I'm sure we're going to get some some some strong thoughts on that. But this is now a dominant way. That many people, and I would venture to guess, many young people are going to engage the midterm elections. Yuck!
Because that is where I'm hearing Kalshi being promoted on, for example, the Morning Wire podcast, which is the daily news podcast of. Daily Wire, the organization, the conservative punditry organization, they have Kowski commercials every single day, and it is about you know where the markets are, you know, predicting the outcomes of particular races, whether it's ballot initiatives or candidates. Look, if we think that the very activity, at least we let's at least say this, we at least once thought that the very activity. Of sports gambling, made one a corrupted athlete. How is it that actually that same sort of gambling, but even more so in the arena that you're actually operating, how is that not going to corrupt the citizenry?
I mean, you see what I mean. It's just at the very least, we got to say this this thing has the pendulum has swung completely the other direction. In a hurry, and we have basically one example to look at and say, "How did this work out when it was applied on a smaller scale?" And that is sports gambling. That is online sports gambling, and it has led to a lot of people losing a lot of money, a couple providers making a lot of money, but it has led to bad things for families, for young people. And and and so on.
You know, you you have young people now talking about their sports gambling activities as being part of their income or part of their portfolio, their their financial portfolio. Like this is. This is insane to then expand this and then suddenly hide it under some sort of kind of fake language. By the way, if you're finding any success in sports gambling, like you're legitimately trying to call it part of your income, I promise you will get kicked off soon if you haven't been kicked off already. The operators of places like Fanduel know what they're doing.
When you start winning too much, you'll be off that site. I can just promise you. This makes me think about Sherry Turkle also because so she's written so much. She's the MIT researcher about how digitization has changed the way we conceptualize ourselves and other people, and that you know she was studying back in the '80s, kids interacting with computers or computerized games started anthropomorphizing the games, but then also started talking about each other and themselves in more mechanistic language and how we. How we interact with these things change the way we view people, and I think you're exactly right.
That first of all, when sports gambling and particularly mobile betting got huge, I can't watch the NFL anytime. There's like a play that you can't believe, like if the hail mary or whatever they called it, the immaculate reception happened today. I would be like rigged. Like I just have no. It's taken so much joy out of it for me because I don't have the same confidence in the game, and it's everybody's like, "Oh no, it's not that widespread." And then a few days later, you have the news break like that did in the NBA a couple years ago, and oh yeah, it was really widespread.
But we found that one, and it won't happen again, or whatever. This whole thing about being able to bet on almost anything is fundamentally. Unavoidably, gonna change the way people interact with life generally. If using social media has made us conceptualize each other as avatars, what is betting on every aspect of human life gonna do to us? But gamify your life.
Everything is now dollars and cents and a bet to be made. That is absolutely soul corrupting. And you know we talked last week about when we were talking about the death penalty, and you were talking about Chuck Colson's position on that, and one of the things that he I think said was that. There's a principle of it that he could get behind, but maybe not the practice. And I was saying that it feels like we're in a moment where we've lost a grip on communal virtues to an extent that I don't feel like we can responsibly handle something like the death penalty right now.
We absolutely cannot handle Kausi.
Okay, maybe there's a utopian free market world where we could. But I have to confess, I've been somewhat radicalized on this. If you couldn't tell, because I just moved across town, and the main reason I moved was because my neighborhood, which I loved over the last four or five years, I have watched absolutely degrade itself into an unlivable place, and it's because weed shops opened. It's because the police stopped responding down there, and I have no doubt it's because of vices like gambling that it is absolutely tearing people apart. And when you tear a person apart or a family apart, you tear a neighborhood apart, you tear communities apart, you tear cities apart.
Everybody is less safe. And I just we can't handle it right now. I think there is a connection to we've made this connection, you know, between things like legalization of marijuana and other drugs. This idea of kind of increasing freedom without virtue, and you know, to your point, if you know the promise of of capitalism or the the market system is that if you do the work and you make the product, if you contribute. If you give something of value, then you receive something of value, and that rising tide lifts all ships.
Gambling is a shortcut to that. Kalshi is a shortcut to that. You're not producing anything. You're trying to get the same sort of financial reward without the work. You're trying to get the same sort of financial reward without producing.
Anything valuable.
So that sort of shortcut is a false promise. It's a false promise that violates, I think, who God made us to be as workers. That worker working is part of that dignity that we have. And when you short circuit that, I think that's the the worldview mistake that's at the heart of these things. Don, let's take another quick break.
We'll be right back with more BreakPoint this week in just a moment. Breakpoint listeners, my name is Billy Hutchinson, director of Coulson Educators. If you're raising kids or teaching the next generation, you know one of the biggest areas of confusion is identity. Where should kids ground their identity? What does it mean to be made male and female?
Do our feelings determine our identity? In a world shouting the message of "do what's right in your eyes," we need to be grounded in truth. If you're an educator, I'm excited to let you know two new courses have been added to the Coulson Educators platform. Grounded, a course for educators on identity and sexuality, and Understanding Gender Ideology, a formation course for educators. Sign up today at CoulsonEducators.org.
That's CoulsonEducators.org. We're back on Breakpoint this week. John, I want to turn now to something that I know you're going to say, and I'm going to predict it. And if I used Kalshi, I would bet on it right now. I'm going to say it before you can say it.
We're going to talk about taboo or not taboo. Isn't that a great title? That's the all-time great title of any Breakpoint commentary ever. I wish I could take credit for it. It wasn't mine.
Was it Ricardo? I forget who came. It might have been. It might have been. It might have been Roberto Rivera.
Long-time writer. Breakpoint writer. Yeah. It may, it may have been him. It's a great title.
Well, this is referring to Halloween, and should Christians celebrate it? Should they avoid it? Are they allowed to celebrate it? This comes up every year. It's come up again this year.
Allie Beth Stuckey's been talking about it this week in particular. But I want to talk in particular about the horror genre.
So we're not just talking about like going trick or treating and and dressing up like a scarecrow or something, but What should Christians' relationship be with art that we would classify in the horror genre? It has been a fascinating conversation, and I think that her initial post came across as being kind of condemning of the genre itself. And I think she has tried, at some level, to kind of clarify her comments, and it has sparked a good discussion. Of course, there were people who overreacted on both sides, but. That's not unusual, but it it happened.
the the comment that she made is that you know the Bible tells us that we should fear nothing but God.
So if we're actively indulging things that make us fear or that lead us to some level of being afraid, then then that's that's a wrong thing to do. I think that the people who who push back on that, a handful of them, I think, made some really important points. Which is that that is that there there is bad stuff in the world. Evil is a real thing, and being able to take it seriously and to reckon with it has been the role, to some degree, of Christian literature and Christian art through throughout history. I know we kind of went through a phase where the tagline of every Christian radio station was the positive alternative, and the definition of Christian music was that it was positive.
There was actually, I think, a Seinfeld episode once that talked about it's just so positive. I just like it. It's just so positive. These were positive, yeah. That's right.
Yeah, because it's just so positive. And you know, I used to, you know, joke about this with. You know, students. That look. If you if you think that you know Christian art is nothing but naked little chubby angels that are certainly pleasant, you're you're not you're you're not seeing angels in the Bible.
Like like no one. Met an angel in the Bible and was like, "Oh, they're so cute, right?" I mean, when people saw an angel in the Bible, they were terrified. Also, the Bible describes a wheel covered in eyeballs. Yeah, well, and yeah, and they they were imposing and and terrifying, and they were afraid of them. And of course, the first thing that the angel said, if they were coming as a messenger of the Lord to one of God's people, is.
Fear not, right? Unless they're talking to Joseph, in which case they're like, "Dude, get up! What are you doing?" There was there was a lot of different, yeah, get up and go. There there was a lot of there's some of those interactions, but of course, the Bible describes horrors. It takes the it portrays reality as being deeply broken, people as being deeply capable of very awful things.
And that we are included in that category of people that are capable of awful things, and this is a reality of evil. And I don't think that Ali Basucky was saying this. I don't want to put any thoughts or words in her mouth, but I appreciated kind of the conversation, and I thought it kind of spoke to what if you're writing, what if you're painting, what if you're making a movie, what if you're telling a story. You know, there is a role for. Horror.
There's a role for evil in that story if it's going to accurately reflect reality.
Now, at some level, though, what we're also talking about is horror today.
So, if you take something like Frankenstein, that story was a story to teach a lesson about who you are and and about the kind of people we are and about the temptations to evil. If you look at the picture of Dorian Gray, for example, and the debauchery of that, or the Telltale Heart, I'm thinking of older stories that were more horrifying. You're you're doing this in a universe in which good and evil exist, in which they're real, where both have to be reckoned with, and where we ought to be one and not the other. That's a very different reality than horror for horror's sake. Or just trying to titillate one's own, you know, senses in order to scare one.
Now that said, there's another element of this as well, which Rodney Stark writes about when he talks about the case that has been made against Christianity from the history of witch trials, which is a story that's been way overblown, according to the actual numbers. And he also points to the fact not only that the numbers were overblown, but that the early church taught that you can talk about and portray the devil if you make fun of him, right? If you mock him because his power is temporary, he's the one on the leash. He's the one that has been defeated. The power of Christ.
In the resurrection is as such, not as to mean that evil doesn't exist, but to take you know the evil powers captive, and that there was a there was a sense of of of not giving too much credit where credit is not due, and so when you think about some of the work that has been done in. Jean in movies and songs and so on that would be considered horror in recent years that deals with the spiritual realms. That's another category. You know who wins and who's in charge, whose world is it really? And you have this kind of tightrope of walking where you're not trying to pretend like these things are not real.
They don't actually exist because the Bible describes them clearly as existing. But you should never. Ever make the mistake of seeing these things outside of the lens of the resurrection, because you know Christ is risen, Christ is Lord, Christ is making all things new, and the plans of the enemy, the actions of the enemy, are all going to be thwarted and frustrated, because there's no question who this world belongs to.
So, I mean, that's an awful lot of rules to apply to the horror genre. But I do think that there is a room for things that are horrifying for us to to take it seriously. That doesn't mean we should show it to kids. It used to drive me bonkers. I don't know if it had to drive you bonkers in the neighborhood you lived in.
But when I lived in a neighborhood where there was trick or treating, I don't now. But when I did. And these, you know, grown men would come to my door and knock on the door in these kind of terrible, bloody, demonic kind of costumes and scare the, you know, what out of my little girls. I mean, I just wanted to punch them in the face. It's like I did not buy this candy for you, dude.
And which also speaks, by the way, to my main opposition to trick or treating. Which is teaching your kids to go around beg for candy. It has nothing to do with participating in Halloween. That's just I am not a socialist, but that's a different point altogether. I um, there is a lot at play here.
I guess candy is willingly given. My candy is willingly given. Candy is willingly given. Yeah, and we it's not a hard fast rule for us. I just always wanted to clarify.
If you want candy, kids, you should work for it. You you can clean my car and then you can get some candy. I always hated it when adults let kids or made kids grow up or dress up like that. I don't know that I ever had adults coming to my door, but like when you see like you didn't you don't have like like eighteen, nineteen, twenty year old guys. That's and I I don't maybe it's the difference.
Well, well, I'm sure you did this too, but when that happens to me, I'm just like, no, I'm not giving this to go away. No, you may not. You're too old for the answer to your question is trick.
Now get out. You know.
Okay, regarding horror, though I I will just say first of all, to your point, like. Truly, reading through Ezekiel is horror. I mean, the what God is describing that He's going to bring is just chapter after chapter of utter dread. I mean, there's no other way to describe it, and it's explicit violence, right?
So, I don't think we can unequivocally say that any description that might involve some normalcy bias, like thank God we tend to be in the West, removed from that kind of abject violence, and that's a good thing. But that does not mean there. That it is somehow spiritually dangerous to describe it or to hear about it or anything like that. I I just think this always sounds like such a cop out, and I hate saying it, but I just think this is so person specific. I've never gotten in more trouble on this show than when I once recommended a book, and I'm not even going to bring up the title of the book because I can't.
I have PTSD from that situation.
So many people were so horrified by this book, and I was really touched that people. Listened to me and tried the book out, and I was I was grateful that people reached out to me. At least those who did it in good faith and said like I hated this. Why did you recommend it? And I like having conversations about books, but I think this book could be rightly classified as as horror.
But it was so it was in the Frankenstein vein for me. It had such a deep metaphor underneath it that it was worth reading for that reason. And I also think sometimes for me it's worth. Interacting with horror that's well done in a way that almost has the opposite of the intended effect, which is it makes me feel more empowered by it. Like, okay, I weathered it; it wasn't that bad.
Things aren't, you know, thank God the world isn't actually that scary, and thank God that death isn't on the throne and that kind of thing. That being said, we are also just deeply mimetic creatures, and Looking at images that are disgusting and troubling is not healthy in any sort of consistent way for people, but it's particularly unhealthy for people who particularly struggle with it. I know that my daughter—I think I talked last year about this during the commercial during the Super Bowl—they aired a preview for like Scream Seven or whatever it was, and we're watching the Super Bowl with our kids, and my at the time six-year-old saw this commercial. And for weeks, was telling me that every time she went to bed, she saw this image in her mind, and that she did not deserve that, and that was a horrible thing that happened. But that's true for a lot of people, and if you happen to be that way, where images stick in your brain or they they come up for you often or whatever, then I think yeah, you you have you have to steward that knowledge of yourself well by probably avoiding.
At least images of horror and that kind of thing, but I just think, unfortunately, it's really person specific with certain guardrails.
Well, look, yeah, I just want to offer what I would say as a nuance on that, from as I understand it, how people respond to it and and and their degree in which it's it's wise for them to engage on an individual is very individualistic. There's there's no question. I just I don't want that to sound Fully subjective. Like, if it's okay, yeah. There is guardrails.
Some things should never be okay for anybody, right?
So much of the horror, yeah. And I know you meant that. There is so much of the horror genre that's also associated with explicit sexuality. You know, we have talked about, you know, why is it that in the name of dressing up for Halloween, you are allowed to, you know, suddenly debase your soul or no clothes? I mean, this.
This is this is not okay for anyone. Certain horror genre movies, I think, just are so they're pointless. Right? They they they don't actually make us any sort of compelling argument or point or portrayal of. Evil—it's—it's evil for evil.
Yeah, are they supposed to be shocking or gross or whatever else? And yeah, and and I and I do think it says an awful lot about people that you know when you've lost the shock value when it doesn't affect you anymore. I mean, that should be something.
So yeah, it's an it's it's an interesting conversation and an important one in the history of literature and the history of art. And so on. I mean, you know, you read through how you know Dante describes the various levels of hell. It's pretty horrifying, you know. And so, is there an edification in it?
I think in the case of Dante, the answer is yes. And in the case of a lot of classic literature, it's it's yes. If it tells you more, I go back to what a Moody Bible professor Rosie de Rose said years and years ago. At an event that I was at, where she said the difference between a good book and a bad book, and I think this isn't all there is to it, but if you can at least apply this framework to it, it gets you a long way down the road. Which is a good book takes you deeper into life, and a bad book distracts you from life.
And I think that's it's simple. There is more to it than that, but man, it's a good starting point. I will say the most. Horrifying, if I can use that word, thing that I've ever read and still think about is actually in one of my favorite books, and it's just a description. It's a fiction book, but it's the description of the death of a child, and that's, I guess, that's what I mean too about this being person specific.
Is that that was not meant to be horror, but it had all of that impact on me. Just like the visualization of it and how it felt reading it and interacting with it, and then I think some other things because of my—I mean, not to be trite about it, but because of because I rest in Jesus, some things that are meant to be horror, like The Exorcist or whatever, just don't feel that way to me. They don't feel nearly as horrifying to me as the description of a a little girl dying as in that book, and that just has a lot to do with worldview, I guess.
Okay, well, John, let's go now to. I want to talk about a piece by Louise Perry that was really poignant and beautiful, and kind of interact with it because I think it it has to do with a lot of bigger cultural themes. But she wrote recently at the Wall Street Journal about the death of her grandmother, and it was a lovely piece. And she talked about being with her in the last few days of her life, along with other family members. And how she and her, how Louise and her aunts and some other family members were really doing for her grandmother, just the really mundane things that you hope somebody will do for you as you're dying.
You know, like she talked about wetting her lips so that they wouldn't get chapped, and sitting and holding her hand. Or I know when my both my grandparents dealt with dementia, and they couldn't really have a lot of coherent conversations towards the end of their lives, but you could tell that it was good for them to hear a voice.
So just to speak to them or to sit with them, and Louise Perry was reflecting on the fact that as things get more automated, like will this kind of care be available to people? But in particular, she's looking at the birth rates, the falling birth rates, and the implications this has for our generation and those right after us as we age. And one of the things I thought was most poignant in her essay was that. She said, "You know, you always talk to people, you know, in their 30s or whatever, who say they're contemplating having children, and they're really wrestling with, like, well, what will it do to my travel plans, and how will that impact my day-to-day life and my career." And she said, "My advice to you is to imagine what not having children will be like when you're 80, and it has the potential and the likelihood of being very, very lonely." Yeah. Hey, listen.
I I don't have much to say other than to recommend everyone read this.
So that's my recommendation for the week. It's there's going to be there already are civilizational level consequences of the declining birth rate of the demographic winter that we're in. It is expressing itself in all kinds of ways, from the upside down economic pyramid to you know people dying alone. We know stories. From contexts in which there are very, very, very low birth rates, and have been for a while, for example, in Japan, in which the elderly are they feel forced, or they choose to make these kind of incredible decisions in order to reckon with the loneliness.
You talk about the you know what dignity is, and you know give someone worth and value as opposed to just being there. With them, and it's her description was beautiful. She talked about how her experience with her grandmother was different than what she saw with other patients that were there as well, and the contrast there. And so, look, you know, we've said it before, quoting Stanley Harwitz: If in a hundred years Christians are known in dealing with this sort of stage, and I'm paraphrasing here. Of life differently than it will be an incredible testimony to the world.
It'll be bigger than I think almost anything else that that we can do in the coming days. Is how we fulfill our vows, how we fulfill our commitments to our loved ones. And I think, for example, the vows that a husband and wife make to each other, at least until quite recently, involved a commitment to children, at least to you know a prayer that the union would be fruitful. And when you choose not to be fruitful, you're gonna have the have to experience the consequences of that, you know, at some at some point. You know, if you have one child or two children or three children or four children and or no children, that your fur baby is not gonna you know wet your lips in any way that you you want that to happen when you're on your deathbed.
So, look, I just say amen. People don't often consider it, and I hope people will read Perry's piece.
Okay, well, John, let's talk about some questions that we've gotten from listeners. The first is asking for a comment on. A piece in Christianity Today that suggested that Elizabeth Elliott, the wife of Jim Elliott, the man, the missionary who was killed by a tribe in Ecuador, questioning her sexuality. I guess suggesting that perhaps she was bisexual. I'm going to leave it to you to respond to this one.
Well, I responded. If you don't know what we're talking about, good for you. Don't investigate. If you do know what we're talking about, I'll point you to a longer answer that I gave at the World and Everything in It, the weekly podcast I do for World Radio, a Culture Friday segment. I spent a little bit more time on that.
We're not going to address it fully, other than to say this: number one, bisexuality is a made-up category that doesn't apply to people, and so I'm not going to embrace that term. Terminology. I'm not going to let it stand because I don't think it's legitimate. It's certainly not legitimate to retroactively apply that to anyone.
So, whether the investigation was, did she have a a slip up or so? I think the evidence is shady. I think the you know the the reports were thin, not worthy of an article, is my view. And the final thing that I'll say is. If it were there, then she herself and her life, living as a committed wife in marriages after her husband died, is an an example, is proof that the categories of sexuality aren't fixed and binding, and somehow should be retroactively applied to people.
It's actually, I think, a counter narrative to what's what at least.
Some are suggesting here, so I'll leave it at that. I'm not going to speak to the to the wisdom or not of doing an article like this or anything like that that involves speaking about another organization. I won't do that here, but that's about all we'll say about it at this point. I don't think it's worthy of much more comment.
Okay, the next question says one thing that bothers me about framing things like gender transition as a religious issue. Is how do you then protect the non-religious person who takes the correct view? Isn't this more of a truth issue than a theological issue?
Well, I think theological issues are matters of truth, but this question—I think the implication of this question is exactly right, which is there are many people. Who, for example, J.K. Rowling and others who have opposed this ideology, not because they read it in a Bible verse or anything like that, but just because it's obvious. I tell students all the time: Look, if the Bible is true, what that means is the Bible is describing reality as it actually is.
So, if it makes a statement about something like marriage or identity or something like that, then you should be able to find it in the Bible, and you should be able to find it in reality. And people suppress the truth. That's certainly true, both biblically and stuff you get from the world because of their wickedness. But it's also available to us, and plenty of people have realized that there's something about being male and being female that's more than just kind of an impulse or something that's socially constructed.
So I completely agree. I think the questioner, if I remember the question right, when I read it was speaking of a piece.
So, if we implied that the only reason to oppose this is on the grounds of religious freedom or something like that, I did not intend to. We try to be careful on that, but we may not have said it quite as clearly as we should have. This is not something that you need a Bible to know. This is something that you need eyeballs. And you know genetic testing and you know surgical equipment.
I mean, you know, common sense. I mean, there's a lot of different means by which you can come to. You will arrive at the same truth.
Well, I think it is interesting, though. I think the reason that this comes up, I don't know if this was what this questioner was referring to specifically, is that a lot of times when we have gotten close to litigating this question. It has been around the argument of religious liberty, and that's very intentional, and that's because of the way the judicial system works. And it's usually because the people involved are not trying to litigate in some kind of court whether men are men and women are women. They've chosen, usually for very good reason.
To litigate whether a a business owner can operate their business the way that they see fit, for example, in a way that aligns with their religious beliefs.
So it's true that a lot of times this issue gets framed that way, at least when we're talking about law. But it absolutely is first and foremost an issue of truth, which, like you said, all all theology is a discussion about truth as well. And and you know, the ones I think more guilty of making this a religious issue are those that are trying to drive forward change in their ideology in some sort of gaslighting way. Which is the only reason that you believe this is because you're a Christian and you read the Bible, but I don't.
Well, no. I mean, everybody in the history of the world had the same conclusion until yesterday.
So we're not the ones that changed our minds here because of a religious text. You know, you changed your mind here because of a social construct. That's a different thing.
Well, if you'd like to contact us with a question or feedback, or yell at me about a book that I've recommended, you can do that by going to colfsoncenter.org and click on Contact Us. We would love to hear from you and perhaps talk about one of your questions in a future episode. Otherwise, thank you so much for listening to Breakpoint this week from the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. I'm Maria Bear, alongside John Stone Street. Wishing you a great week, and we'll see you all back here next time.
God bless.
