Breakpoint

Breakpoint A daily look at an ever changing culture through the lens of unchanging truth. with a Christian perspective on today’s news and trends.
(696)

Since 1991, Breakpoint—a program of the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview—has provided believers around the U.S. Our daily Breakpoint commentaries, co-hosted by Colson Center President John Stonestreet, air on some 1,400 radio outlets with an estimated weekly listening audience of eight million people. Its "Breakpoint This Week" counterpart, also hosted by Stonestreet and Shane Morris in

cludes a weekly conversation with leading Christian writers and thinkers on topics ranging from the sanctity of life to marriage, religious liberty, and the restoration of virtue and ethics to public life. Over at Breakpoint.org, Stonestreet is joined by other thoughtful Christian writers through columns and feature articles equipping believers to live and defend the Christian worldview. Check us out online for great worldview content and resources, including book reviews for teens and preteens, need-to-know news headlines and more.

Mamdani’s Fantasy of “Warm Collectivism”In an inaugural address delivered on New Year's Day, Zohran Mamdani promised “to...
09/01/2026

Mamdani’s Fantasy of “Warm Collectivism”

In an inaugural address delivered on New Year's Day, Zohran Mamdani promised “to replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.” Social media quickly filled with memes that paired the quote with images of the victims of N**i, Stalinist, and Maoist “warm collectivism.”

For all Mamdani’s disarming smiles, his choice of words was intentional. Regurgitating language from revolutionaries and ivory tower intellectuals, he is not attempting to hide who he is and what he plans to do. As he also said in his inauguration speech:

“We will govern without shame and insecurity, making no apology for what we believe. I was elected as a Democratic Socialist, and I will govern as a Democratic Socialist. I will not abandon my principles for fear of being deemed radical.”

Except, his principles are radical. In fact, as Al Mohler put it at World, they “come right out of the Marxist nightmare,” and we know how this dream ends. As Mohler continued, “It’s not that (his ideas) haven’t been tried; it’s that they have produced immeasurable human misery wherever they have been adopted.”

Either Mamdani doesn’t understand the history of his ideas, or he believes this time will be different. After winning the race on November 4, Mamdani declared, “We will prove that there is no problem too large for government to solve, and no concern too small for it to care about.” The comment reminded many what President Reagan once called “(t)he nine most terrifying words in the English language: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”

In fact, Mamdani sounds very much like another politician, who said, “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” That was Benito Mussolini. At one time, it would have been problematic for an American politician to essentially sub-quote a Fascist dictator, but many younger Americans are ready to reconsider failed ideas of the past. According to a recent YouGov and Economist poll, nearly half of Americans aged 18 to 29 have a favorable view of socialism. Unsurprisingly, that demographic overwhelmingly turned out for Mamdani.

A key factor is that many in the younger generation simply don’t know better. Their education has failed them. They’ve heard all about the evils of capitalism but not about the many killed attempting to escape socialist regimes or why the escapes only went one direction. They’ve been taught to fear the impending catastrophes of climate change, which is the fault of evil corporations, but not about the mass starvations, which resulted from the state controlling industry and agriculture. They’ve learned that socialism is about sharing; not that the sharing is often forced at gunpoint. They’ve learned that when socialism fails, it was done “wrong,” and that true socialism has never been tried.

The truth about socialism is that it is inherently immoral. As Ben Shapiro put it a few years ago,

Socialism is bad, because socialism is tyranny. Not it’s an aspect of tyranny. Socialism itself is tyranny. …The notion of socialism is that you don’t own your own freedom.

The reason that oppression results every time socialism is tried is because it’s built into the system. Tyranny is not a bug of socialism. It’s a feature.

This is because, according to a socialist vision, every element of society must either submit to the state, be stripped away or, “better” yet, made another arm of the state. The mediating institutions that Alexis de Tocqueville rightly observed as drivers of American liberty and prosperity—such as churches, schools, volunteer organizations, and families—must devolve under socialism into departments of government power. The state cannot fail.

But the state does fail, and not just because of inefficiency. Ultimately, socialism is built on flawed anthropology. Socialists claim to be for “the People,” but it’s always for Humanity and never for humans. According to a socialist vision, the individual receives dignity from society, not the other way around. The individual with his or her unique insight, perspective, and preference becomes an existential threat to the grand socialist project.

Within a Christian worldview, dignity was given to individuals by God, who made them in His image. They bring dignity to the families, communities, and societies around them. They are not cogs in a government-sponsored wheel, nor are they problems for the state to solve. They are, to borrow from J.R.R. Tolkien, sub-creators who, given the freedom and chance to do so, will outperform any mass system that seeks to control them.

Ninth Circuit Issues Landmark Religious Liberty DecisionA decision issued on Tuesday, January 6, by the U.S. Court of Ap...
08/01/2026

Ninth Circuit Issues Landmark Religious Liberty Decision

A decision issued on Tuesday, January 6, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit may be one of the most significant religious liberty decisions of 2026.

In Union Gospel Mission of Yakima v. Brown, the court affirmed that religious organizations have a constitutional right to hire according to their faith, even for “ordinary” or non-minister positions, and they can do this without government interference. It’s a moment worth celebrating, not only for the plaintiff, Union Gospel Mission, but for every church and ministry organization that takes its faith seriously.

At the heart of the case was this question: Can the government force a Christian organization to hire employees who openly reject its faith and mission? Attorneys for the state of Washington said, yes. The Ninth Circuit responded with a resounding, no.

Union Gospel Mission, a Christian ministry serving the homeless and addicted, requires its staff to affirm and live by its biblical beliefs, including Christian teachings on sexuality and marriage. Under the state of Washington’s Law Against Discrimination, this long-standing policy was under threat. After Washington’s Supreme Court narrowed the law’s religious exemptions several years ago, Union Gospel Mission feared being punished simply for hiring those who shared its faith.

Thankfully, the Ninth Circuit affirmed what many of us already know: religious organizations are more than just employers of labor. Rather, they are communities of shared belief and religious mission. As the court powerfully said in its decision, “personnel is policy,” and “who a religious organization hires may go to the very character of its religious mission.”

This decision is about much more than hiring. It’s about the ability of a religious organization to secure and protect its identity. Whenever ministries are forced to dilute their convictions in order to comply with secular norms, they cease to be who they are. As the Ninth Circuit noted in its decision, this kind of pressure would drive many religious missions out of the public square entirely. That would be a loss not just for churches and ministries, but also for communities and the countless people served by organizations of faith.

The decision is all the more significant because of the court that handed it down. The Ninth Circuit covers states like Washington, Oregon, and California, progressive states that have, in recent years, become increasingly hostile to people and institutions of faith. At the same time, the Ninth Circuit has long been a bastion of judicial activism and progressive ideology. However, it now hosts a growing number of principled judicial conservatives, thanks to key appointments by President Trump, including Judge Patrick Bumatay, the author of the Union Gospel decision.

Now, as important as this decision is, it has its limits. For example, it does not grant religious institutions blanket immunity from employment laws. And it does not necessarily apply to for-profit businesses or hospitals. Still, it does affirm the right of ministries like Union Gospel Mission to make personnel decisions that flow directly from their religious convictions, even if those convictions conflict with secular orthodoxy.

The court’s decision also reminds us of a critical truth: Faith is personal, but it is not private. Religious liberty doesn’t just protect our rights to believe in the privacy of our heads, our hearts, our homes, or our houses of worship. The First Amendment protects religious exercise, the active, practical living out of one’s deepest-held conviction, including the building and running of organizations designed to apply those convictions to the challenges and struggles of life. America in particular would be far worse off without the pre-political organizations that run headlong into the problems of our society seeking to help those in need.

Already in 2026, we can be thankful for a decision that understands the essential role these organizations play and the essential role that faith and morals play in making these organizations what they are. At the very least, this is not a bad way to start off a New Year.

Reimagining the American Revolution?One of the most trusted and popular documentary filmmakers on history and culture wo...
07/01/2026

Reimagining the American Revolution?

One of the most trusted and popular documentary filmmakers on history and culture would like us to “rethink the American Revolution.” Instead, critics of the latest project by Ken Burns have found that it retells the story of American independence through the lens of Critical Theory while making wrong assertions along the way.

Burns does correctly describe how many of the Founding Fathers “turned a blind eye” to the problem of slavery. Not far from the Philadelphia coffee houses where patriots plotted against tyranny, men and women and children were bought and sold like cattle.

There was, however, a Founding Father who boldly opposed slavery. In a new four-part documentary series, author and historian Dr. Joseph Loconte tells a more accurate version of the American story by describing the life and work of Dr. Benjamin Rush.

Dr. Benjamin Rush was one of the 55 signers of the Declaration of Independence. He graduated from college at age 15 and was a physician with his own practice by age 24. He served as an army doctor in the new American military, was a chemistry professor, wrote the first chemistry textbook published in America, and authored many treatises on medical education.

He was also a social reformer. Rush championed the cause of liberty in profound, if often overlooked ways. He was a key influence on Thomas Paine and his vital booklet, Common Sense. And, unlike most of his fellow Founders, he knew full well that any call for God-given rights must apply to everyone, slaves included.

As Dr. Loconte described in his new documentary series, Rush encouraged revolutionary thinking against British rule while also challenging slavery.

Rush rejects the assumptions that Africans are an inferior race. He cites evidence of their ingenuity and humanity as proof that they’re equal to the Europeans. Addressing the city’s clergy, Rush denounces them for using the Bible to sanctify their crimes against humanity.

Rush was a champion of human dignity, a founding member of the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons (the Pennsylvania Prison Society today), and an ardent abolitionist, joining abolitionist societies and writing pamphlets against the institution of slavery.

The activities on Rush’s very impressive resume were informed by his faith, specifically his conviction that each person is made in the image of God and, therefore, is worthy of dignity and respect. His observations on the importance of work for human wellbeing also reflected a Christian worldview.

His stand on abolition had been the historical position of the Church and, in his day, was being advanced by evangelicals and others in Britain and America. His concern for the wellbeing of the black population led him to act as an advisor to Richard Allen in the founding of the African Methodist Episcopal Church. He even lent both the church and Rev. Allen his public support.

Stories from history, like that of Benjamin Rush, demonstrate that a Christian worldview is to be lived and not just believed. Indeed, if it is true, aligning with it is good, not only in the hereafter but for individuals and societies here and now. In other words, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer would later write, Christianity is not an otherworldly religion. It describes the world as it actually is, which allows us to be part of God’s work, not just by preparing for Heaven, but in repairing what is wrong in His World.

Dr. Loconte’s excellent series about this largely unknown Founding Father is available on YouTube. The first and second episodes are released, with more to come. These videos provide keen insights into the origins of liberty and the American experiment and serve as a reminder of what can happen when Christian conviction and moral clarity meet, as in the story of Dr. Benjamin Rush.

Liberating VenezuelaOn January 3, after months of strikes on Venezuelan boats allegedly carrying drugs to the United Sta...
06/01/2026

Liberating Venezuela

On January 3, after months of strikes on Venezuelan boats allegedly carrying drugs to the United States and talk of regime change from the Trump Administration, a U.S. Military operation captured dictator Nicolas Maduro and his wife. They were flown to the U.S. where Maduro will face trial for narco-terrorism and leading “a corrupt, illegitimate government that, for decades, has leveraged government power to protect and promote illegal activity, including drug trafficking.” The common reaction from world leaders was to accuse the United States of breaking international law while being careful not to defend Maduro. A common reaction from Venezuelans around the world, including some of the 8 million who’ve left the country since 2017, is celebration that this dictator who oversaw the ruin of their country has been ousted.

In October, a 60 Minutes report described the situation there this way: “Freedom isn’t the only thing in short supply in Venezuela. Hunger, chronic blackouts, and scarcity of essential medicines plague Venezuela. Today, more than 70% of residents live in poverty—a stunning reversal of fortune for a nation that was once one of the wealthiest countries in the world.”

Venezuela should be swimming in wealth, and not that long ago, it was. Venezuela sits on the world’s largest oil reserves, with an estimated 302 billion barrels, which is 10% more than Saudi Arabia and significantly more than the United States, which has 43 billion barrels. Today, however, it is on the edge of economic collapse.

At least a part of the problem is that Venezuela became a “petrostate,” a nation with so much profit-making petroleum, they felt no need to diversify their economy and instead become dependent only on oil. Petrostates are highly susceptible to market swings and disruptions in the supply chain.

More importantly, the governments of petrostates tend to ignore their citizens. In 1999, after time in jail for a failed military coup, Hugo Chavez was elected president of Venezuela. He promised liberation and earned the praise of Left-leaning people in Hollywood and elsewhere. His rhetoric, however, did not line up with reality. Rather than improve the lot of the people, his policies made things worse. Like most dictators, Chavez lived comfortably as his nation struggled. The situation only grew worse under his successor, Nicolas Maduro. In 2019, the Colson Center’s Roberto Rivera snarkily wrote about “the diet you’ve never heard of that has enabled millions of people to lose at least twenty pounds without any effort on their part: the Maduro Diet.” In a single year, 2017, “75 percent of Venezuela’s 32 million people lost an average of [24.2 pounds].”

Despite such widespread hunger and poverty, Maduro was elected to a second term in 2018. Last year, when results pointed to an almost 70% win for his opponents, Maduro wrote off the election and violently cracked down on protestors. In response, Venezuelans voted with their feet. According to the CBS story, “Nearly 8 million Venezuelans—roughly 20% of the population—have fled the country in the last decade.”

Materialists claim that the real problems in the world are about the allocation of resources. Rich nations and people steal and hoard wealth while leaving everyone else in poverty. However, if it is as simple as this, why do some resource-poor nations like Singapore, Japan, and the Netherlands live in luxury while Venezuela lags? Why do the citizens of Poland, a nation with a lower per capita GDP than Venezuela a generation ago, now make an average of $35,000 per year compared to Venezuelans, who make just $7,000 per year.

There are many problems that nations must solve. How they define such problems and solutions is about worldview. Specifically, are people valuable or merely entities to serve the state? Are human beings mere consumers of resources and is the world of resources limited? If so, resources must be carefully controlled by those in power and then distributed according to some evaluation of need and warrant. Typically, in such calculations, those in power get way more than everyone else. And, when there is not enough to go around, the overall need is reduced, either by reducing what citizens are entitled to or by reducing the number of citizens.

In contrast, successful nations recognize and encourage the most important natural resource of human ingenuity. Citizens are thought of as producers and consumers. Through human effort and ingenuity, the available resources can be grown and expanded, and government is more effective when it encourages such growth.

Government control often comes with the pretense of good intentions. However, controlling governments most often fail from personal ambition. Most dictators claim to fight for justice and prosperity but instead turn out to be oppressive and incompetent. That certainly describes Maduro.

Whether this dramatic American intervention will make things better for Venezuelans remains to be seen. What is certain is that the Venezuelans deserve better. All people do, because people are not merely resource-consuming animals. They are image-bearing creatives tasked by God to fill and to farm, to be fruitful and multiply.

Is Your Parenting Disordered?Recently, The NY Post reported on the rise of “digital detox camps” where worried parents h...
05/01/2026

Is Your Parenting Disordered?

Recently, The NY Post reported on the rise of “digital detox camps” where worried parents hire experts at up to $8,000 a session to help their children be less addicted to screens. The kids hate it. As one founder described in a related Wire article, campers experience actual withdrawal symptoms. Some stash extra phones in their backpacks, and some even run away to avoid being separated from their devices.

The popularity of these “detox camps” relates curiously to another emerging trend: “kid concierge” services. Parents pay hundreds of dollars for “professionals” to teach their children how to organize their backpacks, how to throw a ball, and how to ride a bike. Apparently, the new “gig economy” involves “gig parenting.”

Of course, there are many instances in which professionals are needed for overwhelmed parents, and many students need serious help with screen addiction. Still, at least in general, shouldn’t parents be the ones who say “no” to unlimited screens? Shouldn’t they be doing the hard work of training their kids to perform the everyday, mundane tasks of life?

Saying “no” to kids, throwing a ball with them, limiting video games until their room is clean . . . these are all normal and natural responsibilities of being a parent. Are more parents convinced they can’t do such things? Or, even worse, are they sure that they shouldn’t have to do such things?

Part of the answer lies in what Thomas Aquinas described as ordo amoris, or “order of loves.” God created us to love Him and to love others. Our highest love and loyalty are intended for God Himself, followed by those closest to us, especially kids and family, and then neighbors and the wider world. This order reflects how God created the world and how He intended for His image bearers to inhabit it. How we order—or, after the Fall, disorder our loves lies at the root of what we value and how we live.

Cultures either cultivate order or disorder. Ours normalizes expending our energy and affections on activities and things that have little to do with God but are instead centered on self. This ordering reshapes, or rather misshapes, our values. Thus, we are told to value family as long as we don’t find them to be too “toxic.” And we should have kids if we want them, but always on our terms. The priority is always self. So, if we feel too tired or overwhelmed to offer correction or instruction, why shouldn’t we outsource the annoying parts of parenting to someone else?

A similar extreme can be seen in what is often called “lawnmowing” parenting. Lawnmower parents prioritize the comfort and ease of their kids over everything else, including moral formation or love of others. Thus, their primary work as parents is to remove any and all obstacles.

Recently, Resume Survey asked over 830 Gen Z adults who work full-time how involved their parents were in their jobs. The results are a shocking example of the fruits of disordered loves. 77% of those surveyed had brought a parent to a job interview; 53% had a parent speak with a hiring manager on their behalf; 45% regularly have one of their parents talk with their current manager; and a whopping 73% have their parents help complete work assignments. If “concierge” parents are too hands-off, “lawnmower” parents continue to over-parent adult children.

At one level, history is the story of humans thwarting, or attempting to thwart, God’s created order. Stalinist, Maoist and N**i societies, for example, encouraged children to disobey parents and prioritize the state over family. Parental authority was seen in service to the state. How parents were marginalized in those cultures is not completely unlike ours, such as children “socially transitioned” by school officials without parental knowledge, much less consent. Add in forces of social media, and kids are easily swept into radical social ideas and separated from parents, even if they’re just upstairs.

God gave parents authority over children. When done faithfully and well, packing a bagged lunch for a 25-year-old—or worse yet, for his boss—should be a very rare occasion. Though it can feel overwhelming, Scripture contains what we need to know, to love, to discipline, and to order our lives with and around our children. In His ordering, parents are first and non-negotiable, and the goal of parenting is producing adults, who are well-ordered themselves and ready to bring up the next generation.

Dangerous Liberty and the Safety in SilenceAfter several years in jail, former media tycoon Jimmy Lai has been found gui...
02/01/2026

Dangerous Liberty and the Safety in Silence

After several years in jail, former media tycoon Jimmy Lai has been found guilty of subversive activities. To China, “subversive” means speaking truths not approved by Beijing. Lai spoke out when silence was safer.

The story of Lai’s remarkable life is told in a documentary by the Acton Institute. Born in poverty, he became one of the wealthiest men in the once-free city of Hong Kong. When the Communists began to crack down on any dissent, he could have fled to the West. But he chose to stay, and now the tyrants want to make an example of him.

As Robert Sirico put it in a Daily Wire article,

“The verdict was preordained. The performance has been elaborate. And the point could not be more explicit: China intends to demonstrate that even a man of extraordinary achievement, wealth, international attention, and moral courage can be ground down when he refuses to bow.”

Stories like this should make us thankful that we don’t live in a society governed by totalitarian overlords. But we should also realize how important it is to defend the freedoms we enjoy and not take them for granted.

For example, a recent report by free speech group The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) claimed a record number of attempts in 2025 by colleges in the U.S. to silence speech:

“FIRE has documented 273 efforts—so far—this year in which students and student groups were targeted for their constitutionally protected expression. This breaks the previous record of 252 set back in 2020, the first year of the Students Under Fire database, during the unrest prompted by Covid-19 lockdowns and the murder of George Floyd.”

Not all these incidents were caused by overzealous administrators attempting to keep students in line. In several cases described by the report, government officials threatened to cut off funds to schools that didn’t suppress students saying “uncomfortable things.” To get around First Amendment protections, students were told that what they were saying wasn’t illegal, just dangerous. The implicit message to students being that it’s safer to remain quiet.

As a researcher with FIRE described it:

“Aside from the harm on the individual students involved in these incidents, such actions could have the effect of chilling speech across an entire campus—and across an entire generation. . . What kind of lesson is that? That the safest move in college is to keep your head down and your mouth shut?”

Much of the suppression comes from the Left. Like Jimmy Lai, the reason that Colorado continued to take Jack Phillips to court for more than a decade was to scare others from dissenting out loud. In the UK, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce has been arrested repeatedly for silently praying near an abortion clinic. Apparently, even silence doesn’t guarantee safety there.

But many of the incidents mentioned in the FIRE report involved left-leaning students being silenced. Feeling emboldened after years of the government, the media, and the academy silencing anything out of step with progressive orthodoxies, some on the Right have decided to fight fire with fire. This is not ok. Censorship paved with good intentions still ends up in the same bad place.

As the West devolves more into a power struggle between incompatible ideologies, the risks to our freedoms only increase. As Sirico put it:

“The test of our generation is whether we are still willing to defend the principles on which our free societies are built—or whether we will barter them for trade access and diplomatic convenience.”

This test must shape how we disciple our children. What kind of education, preparation, and formation do they need to courageously stand for truth in the public square and defend liberty? At the very least, they must know that dangerous courage is better than silent safety. Teach them about Jimmy Lai and Jack Phillips and others, who had the courage to stand up even when it cost them greatly.

Liberty is under threat, both here and around the world. It takes only one generation who lacks the courage to stand up for what’s right, for it to be lost. Whether they will have the courage they need begins with what we teach them today.

Reflections for New Year's DayThe hymn “Amazing Grace” was first sung on New Year's Day, 1773. In this classic BreakPoin...
01/01/2026

Reflections for New Year's Day

The hymn “Amazing Grace” was first sung on New Year's Day, 1773. In this classic BreakPoint commentary, Chuck Colson tells the story.

At the end of December 1772, an Anglican priest in the poor parish of Olney worked by candlelight on his New Year’s Day sermon. He would preach on the text of 1 Chronicles 17, verses 16 and 17. That passage was David’s response to God after Nathan informed him that his descendants would be enthroned forever as kings of Israel. David, the once-poor shepherd boy, the man who had repented of adultery and murder, responded to the news by saying, “Who am I, O Lord God, and what is my family, that you have brought me thus far?”

That pastor was John Newton, and those words struck a deep chord in his heart. In those last days of 1772, Newton found himself running out of empty pages in his journal, a bound book of 300 pages holding 16 years worth of entries. As he came to finish that journal and start another, his mind was drawn to the pages of his past—the story of his life from his days as an unregenerate slave-trader to becoming a child of God. Newton would have remembered when his rebellious spirit got him thrown off numerous ships, publicly flogged, and ousted from His Majesty’s Navy. He would have remembered the shipwrecks and the mutinies—and then the transformation of his heart by the power of the Gospel.

As Newton considered those days gone by, he would have asked as David did, “Who am I, O Lord...that you have brought me this far?”

As was his habit, Newton set to work composing a hymn to illustrate his New Year’s Day sermon. In that hymn, he would tell his poor congregation of lace-makers and low-paid artisans about the dangers and snares he had faced. He would reflect on the amazing grace that had saved a wretch like him.

Those now-famous words of “Amazing Grace,” first sung in the small parish of Olney on New Year’s Day, 1773, lingered in obscurity for many years. Even as Newton counseled the young William Wilberforce and encouraged him to stay the course in the long battle against the slave trade, the words to “Amazing Grace” were little sung in England. But the Olney hymnal, later published by Newton, caught on in the Americas.

The words of “Amazing Grace” would surface again some 80 years later in a book that would change the course of this nation, “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” In it, the slave Tom, at his lowest point, sings the words of “Amazing Grace.” Two verses hardly sung today were sung by Tom: “And when this mortal life shall fail/ And flesh and sense shall cease,/ I shall possess within the veil,/ A life of joy and peace.”

These words of the ultimate hope in God, even in the face of deep injustice, forever entwined the words of “Amazing Grace” with the plight of the slaves. But it all began in that dark little study in the waning days of a year gone by, when one man took the time to reflect on God’s goodness to him.

This New Year’s Day we’d all do well to pay tribute to Newton by imitating his gratitude to God and his heart for the lost. We would do well also to set aside some time to reflect on what God has done in our lives—how He has delivered us from slavery to sin. And we would do well to consider how we, in this new year, can sing God’s praise with our lips and with our lives.

Address


Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Breakpoint posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Breakpoint:

Shortcuts

  • Want your business to be the top-listed Media Company?

Share

Our Story

The truth is a powerful thing.

We live in a moment of cultural confusion. Fewer and fewer of the things that give meaning to our lives come easily. Family, community, beauty, truth seem to be constantly eroding around us—while our news feeds are full of despair, anger, and division.

How are Christians to make sense of the world around us? How can we make sure we have clarity in our daily lives?

Welcome to BreakPoint. A program of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, our commentaries offer incisive content people can’t find anywhere else; content that cuts through the fog of relativism and the news cycle with truth and compassion.