By choosing to trust God‚ you’ll begin to see your anxiety and worry level disappear.

Making a joyful noise doesn’t necessarily mean we need to shout‚ but we can have a joyful battle cry in our hearts that will propel us into a grateful attitude. If you woke up today with worries on your mind instead of a joyful noise in your heart‚ it’s never too late to turn it around. God hears our battle cry.

Last month‚ the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos created and stored in IVF clinics can be considered children under state law. This news might have seemed an indisputable victory for the pro-life cause and worthy of being championed by pro-life Christians across America. Yet numerous pro-life legislators in Alabama and other states seem less enthused about the recognition of embryos as children and more concerned about how it might affect the IVF industry. For example‚ as the Washington Post reports‚ Republican state senator Larry Stutts‚ an ob-gyn‚ acknowledged the “moral quandary” with IVF but said discarded embryos are “a small‚ small percentage” compared to the ones used or retained. “We could pass a law limiting the number of eggs you can fertilize in a cycle. But I don’t think we should legislate that‚” Stutts said. “I’m not talking about morality‚ I’m talking about the practice of medicine.” It might seem peculiar that pro-life legislators are now using the same talking points to defend certain IVF practices that pro-choice activists use to protect certain abortion procedures. But the acceptance of reproductive technologies has advanced faster than the public’s ability to grapple with the profound moral and ethical dilemmas of IVF. This disconnect is especially true of reflections on the status of frozen embryos. In considering the complex and emotionally charged topic of IVF‚ it’s important to acknowledge the deep pain and longing experienced by families who turn to this technology in hopes of having a child. The struggle with infertility can be a heartrending and isolating experience‚ and the decision to pursue IVF often comes after much discussion and prayer. As we consider the theological and ethical dimensions of IVF‚ it’s essential for Christians to approach this subject with a compassionate heart. This empathy does not diminish the need for careful ethical deliberation but rather enriches our understanding and response to the issue‚ grounding it in the reality of human suffering and hope. Understand the Nature of IVF-Created Embryos The questions we must address aren’t merely scientific or biological but profoundly theological: What’s the nature of a frozen embryo created through IVF? How should pro-life Christians think about such beings? The answers to these questions aren’t just academic; they hold significant implications for how we view life‚ dignity‚ and our responsibilities as followers of Christ. The acceptance of reproductive technologies has advanced faster than the public’s ability to grapple with the profound moral and ethical dilemmas of IVF. First‚ let’s clarify the essential terms. By “pro-life‚” I mean the commonly used framework of a person who believes life‚ from conception to natural death‚ should be protected in our laws. I belong to this group as a Christian‚ and this is the group I hope to convince. Now let’s consider the nature of a frozen embryo created through IVF. Here’s how I propose pro-life Christians define the nature of such a being: An IVF-created frozen embryo is a human life created in the image of God at the earliest stage of development. This person is living in suspended animation outside a woman’s womb and is worthy of all moral considerations and legal protections afforded to other human beings. I’ll attempt to defend each proposition. An IVF-Created Frozen Embryo Is . . . 1. A Human Life Unfortunately‚ the most obvious statement in the definition is the one most frequently contested. For example‚ WORLD magazine recently interviewed Brett Davenport‚ a fertility doctor working in Alabama. Davenport says he’s “pro-life” on the issue of abortion but does “not personally believe that life has begun by day seven of an embryo’s growth‚ and even more so when it is outside of a woman’s uterus.” Many Americans—including Christians who consider themselves pro-life—would agree with Davenport. But the people most likely to disagree are biologists. The question of when human life begins contains two interrelated queries about a specific type of being: When does a particular being become a “human‚” and when does that being’s existence constitute “life”? The answer is straightforward: Human life begins when the human sperm fertilizes a human ovum and creates a distinct human being capable of growth‚ functional activity‚ and continual change preceding death. This is known as the “fertilization view.” Fertilization is also known as conception‚ so it’s accurate to say human life begins at conception. Within the biology field‚ this view is uncontroversial. A 2021 report published in Issues in Law &; Medicine found that when biologists from 1‚058 academic institutions around the world were asked when a human life begins‚ 96 percent (5‚337 out of 5‚577) affirmed the fertilization view. From an empirical perspective‚ the view of Davenport and those who agree with him about when life begins are in the extreme minority. As the report notes‚ in the “two studies that explored experts’ views on the matter‚ the fertilization view was the most popular perspective held by public health and IVF professionals.” The fertilization view isn’t only the commonsense view; it’s the leading scientific and empirical perspective on when a human life begins. 2. Created in the Image of God In Genesis 1:27‚ we read that “God created mankind in his own image‚ in the image of God he created him.” Because this passage doesn’t define what “the image of God” means‚ theologians throughout history have considered a wide variety of interpretations. For our purposes‚ we don’t necessarily need to agree on what this term means but merely on how it’s applied. Specifically‚ we need to be able to agree on whether it applies to all human beings. We’ve established that IVF-created frozen embryos are living human beings. If we claim they’re not created in the image of God‚ then we have to determine the basis for their exclusion. We’d also‚ for the sake of consistency‚ have to apply that same standard of exclusion to other groups of humans. Most modern pro-life Christians won’t want to go down this dangerous path. 3. At the Earliest Stage of Development In a biological sense‚ human development describes the chronological processes that occur over a human’s lifespan. The processes begin when a human being comes into existence (fertilization) and continue until death. If left unimpeded‚ the stages of development will typically progress through the broad categories of prenatal (the stages before birth)‚ infancy (newborn and up to 1 year old)‚ toddler (1 to 5 years old)‚ childhood (3 to 11 years old)‚ adolescence (12 to 18 years old)‚ and adulthood (18 and older). All embryos are in the prenatal stage. This embryonic stage extends from the time of fertilization until the end of the eighth week of gestation‚ when the state of development shifts to the fetal stage. What was once described as an embryo is then described as a fetus. This is worth noting because while the broad stages of development have always been recognized‚ the moral worth of each stage hasn’t. Only since Christianity and its expanded influence has the concept of human dignity been applied to a larger range of human development. While the broad stages of development have always been recognized‚ the moral worth of each stage hasn’t. For example‚ in most pagan cultures‚ not all adults were considered equally worthy of life. In ancient Greece and Rome‚ children’s lives had little value‚ and a father had the right to kill his children. Newborns weren’t even considered human if they were deformed. They could be killed or abandoned to die. That view changed as Christian morality began to replace paganism For instance‚ following his conversion to Christianity in AD 313‚ the emperor Constantine implemented laws protecting newborns‚ while infanticide was outlawed in AD 374 by Valentinian. Regrettably‚ laws protecting humans in the prenatal stage have lagged behind. But even today‚ the idea of killing a fetus in the latter stages of pregnancy is losing ground‚ and a majority of American adults (56 percent) say that how long a woman has been pregnant should matter in determining when abortion should be legal. Pro-life Christians‚ of course‚ believe in the sanctity of life at all stages of development. 4. Living in Suspended Animation Outside a Woman’s Womb Suspended animation is the temporary cessation of most vital functions without death. For human embryos‚ this status is achieved through the process of cryopreservation‚ which protects them from decay by keeping them at extremely low temperatures. This process prevents the embryo from continuing through the normal stages of human development and allows human beings at this stage of life to exist outside their normal habitation‚ the mother’s womb. Before cryopreservation‚ it would’ve been impossible for an embryo to exist outside of a woman’s womb; now‚ this can be achieved if the embryo is created through IVF. Does this change the moral status of the embryo? Not at all. “Location is simply one more of those many factors that make no difference where the most foundational moral principles are concerned‚” ethicist Christopher Tollefsen says. “The human embryo is a human being‚ whether in utero‚ undergoing cell division in vitro‚ or temporarily (or permanently) in frozen stasis in a ‘nursery‚’ as the Alabama Supreme Court tellingly‚ but somewhat ironically‚ calls it.” Tollefsen’s point should be obvious. Yet it’s surprising how often Christians who oppose abortion at the earliest stages of pregnancy aren’t as concerned with the death of children in the IVF clinic. Perhaps many who identify as “pro-life” do so more out of emotional attachment to pregnancy than out of a commitment to the sanctity of human life. But it’s more likely many pro-life Christians simply haven’t thought about the issue enough to recognize that the location of the embryo doesn’t change its moral status. 5. Worthy of All Moral Considerations and Legal Protections Afforded to Other Human Beings Based on the parts of the statement we’ve clarified so far‚ let’s consider how they affect the moral considerations of IVF-created frozen embryos. To simplify the argument‚ we’ll use only two presuppositions rooted in Scripture: (1) all human life belongs to God (Rom. 14:8; Ps. 100:3)‚ and (2) God created human beings in his image (Gen. 1:27). Based on those presuppositions‚ here are a few statements all Christians (and certainly all pro-life Christians) should be able to agree on. 1. There’s compelling—even overwhelming—empirical evidence that life begins at fertilization. Because all human life belongs to God‚ we should have equally compelling evidence that life does not begin at conception before we conclude certain distinct biological human beings don’t possess life and thus don’t warrant moral consideration or legal protection. 2. Since IVF-created frozen embryos are living human beings‚ we should conclude they too are created in the image of God. 3. Scripture says all life belongs to God and that humans are created in his image; it makes no exceptions based on the stage of development. Unless we have sufficient reason to think that God does not care about human life at a stage of development all humans—including the God-man Jesus—passed through‚ then we shouldn’t consider the embryonic stage unworthy of moral consideration or legal protection. 4. Just as the physical location of an adolescent or adult doesn’t change his or her moral status‚ the location of a human being at the embryonic stage should have no bearing on whether that human is worthy of moral consideration or legal protection. Many pro-life Christians simply haven’t thought about the issue enough to recognize that the location of the embryo doesn’t change its moral status. Based on these four claims‚ we can conclude IVF-created frozen embryos are worthy of all moral considerations afforded to other human beings. They should also be afforded‚ based on their status as human beings‚ two unquestionable natural rights: the right to continue living and the right to continue unimpeded to the next stage of biological development. Some exceptions to the first natural right exist—for instance‚ a person has a right to life as long as he hasn’t forfeited it by committing a crime worthy of death‚ such as intentional murder. But such situations wouldn’t apply to embryos. The exceptions to the second right are rare and exceedingly controversial. For example‚ most people believe a child has a natural right to progress from one stage to another‚ such as from childhood to adolescence. If a physician was able to completely inhibit that change‚ such as through puberty blockers‚ most people would consider it an extremely immoral action—even if the parents consented—to intentionally stunt the development of the child. Likewise‚ inhibiting an embryo from progressing to the next stages of development (fetal‚ birth‚ childhood‚ and so on) should similarly be considered an extremely immoral action. Unfortunately‚ the violation of these rights is often made by the people who are‚ or should be‚ most concerned about the welfare of these human beings—the biological parents and the fertility doctors. Yet the decision by some to ignore these natural rights shouldn’t prevent us from seeking to protect these vulnerable humans. The legal protections aren’t as clear-cut and obvious as the moral obligations. Yet I believe we pro-life Christians should be able to agree on a specific set of claims: 1. The protected status of human beings is either absolute or subject to redefinition. 2. If it’s absolute‚ then every individual human being—regardless of biological age‚ sex‚ ethnicity‚ or abilities—has the right to all the protections afforded to every other human being. 3. If it’s subject to redefinition‚ then those who control the definition inevitably have life and death control over the rest—the strong can control and enslave the weak. 4. The only way to avoid granting such powers to the strong is to adopt an absolute standard of human protection from conception to natural death. If we agree with this argument—and we should if we consider ourselves “pro-life”—then we should extend legal protections to all embryos‚ whether created through natural reproduction or IVF. New-Old Problem The discussion surrounding IVF-created frozen embryos challenges us to confront some of the most foundational aspects of our faith and our understanding of human life. It’s a new form of an old problem. For instance‚ before the 1970s‚ many Protestant Christians in America either took no position on abortion or accepted legal abortion under certain conditions. The Southern Baptist Convention even adopted a resolution calling for the legalization of abortion under certain conditions that were later codified in Roe v. Wade. It was only as believers committed to the sanctity of life advocated for the unborn that evangelicals began to recognize the horror of abortion. Today‚ we need a similar effort to protect the hundreds of thousands of IVF-created frozen embryos formed only to be abandoned or killed. We need pro-life Christians willing to navigate these complex issues with hearts that seek wisdom‚ minds that engage with truth‚ and spirits that reflect Christ’s love for all humanity. And we need those with the courage to affirm a commitment to the biblical mandate of valuing and protecting life‚ from conception to natural death‚ so we might better honor the Creator who has fearfully and wonderfully made each one of us.

“Who am I?” existential musings have long provided rich fodder for cinematic drama. But recently in Hollywood‚ the drama of a character’s self-discovery has morphed into an all-consuming obsession. “Drama” has come to consist less in what characters do or have done to them and more in who they discover or assert themselves to be. This is especially true when the “who” identity negotiations concern politicized identity categories like sexuality‚ gender‚ and race. Hollywood is increasingly eager to foreground these stories. Yet for all the merits of depicting diverse characters (and this is one of the great potentials of moviemaking)‚ when identity politics becomes a dramatic end unto itself‚ movies tend to suffer. Instead of being virtuous‚ compelling‚ endearing‚ or heroic‚ modern film protagonists tend to be tortured by questions of identity‚ annoyingly self-referential‚ and generally boring. They’re flattened by directors and screenwriters who sacrifice compelling character at the altar of identity politics. In many movies today‚ ‘drama’ has come to consist less in what characters do or have done to them and more in who they discover or assert themselves to be. Consider three of this year’s Academy Award best picture nominees: Maestro (seven nominations)‚ Barbie (eight nominations)‚ and American Fiction (five nominations). I found things to like in each but generally consider them frustrating examples of this trend. While the protagonists are ostensibly meant to complicate our categories of sexuality (Maestro)‚ gender (Barbie)‚ and race (American Fiction)‚ in the end‚ they’re wholly defined by these categories‚ their personhood reduced to a solitary dimension that serves the interests of “the discourse” more than the entertainment or edification of the audience. This is tragic. It’s tragic because it flattens characters into boring “viewpoint pawns” and leaves more interesting dimensions of their humanity unexplored. But it’s also tragic because it reflects a society where the inordinate focus on identity—and the reductive formulas therein—represents a real pressure and crushing burden. Contrary to what these films suggest‚ young people today need to know that the greatest drama in life isn’t the discovery and expression of one’s “true self” from within the identity matrix of sexuality-gender-race. Maestro’s One-Note Symphony of Sexual Identity When I watched Maestro‚ Netflix’s “prestige” biopic about Leonard Bernstein (played by Bradley Cooper‚ nominated for best actor)‚ I’d hoped to learn more about the origins and nature of the famed conductor and composer’s musical genius‚ including how his Jewish faith informed his art. I’d expected to learn about his place in American music history. Instead‚ I mostly just learned about Bernstein’s gay sex life and how it affected his openly nonmonogamous marriage to Felicia Montealegre (Carey Mulligan‚ nominated for best actress) as well as their three children. From the opening scene (in which we first meet a young “Lenny” in bed with another man) until the final scenes (in which we see an elderly Bernstein creepily dancing with a young male conducting student‚ to the music of Tears for Fears’s “Shout”)‚ Maestro is fixated on Bernstein’s sexuality—as if it’s the most interesting thing about him. Maestro is fixated on Bernstein’s sexuality—as if it’s the most interesting thing about him. Cooper (who also directs the film) seems to want to paint Bernstein as a “complex” and multidimensional enigma who defies easy categorization. At one point‚ Bernstein declares‚ “The world wants us to be only one thing and I find that deplorable.” Yet based on what consumes the majority of the film’s plot‚ Cooper does want Bernstein to be only one thing: his sexuality. And in making the film about that (Bernstein’s carnal exploits)‚ Cooper ends up flattening an interesting character and sucking the story of its true drama. Here’s how Michael De Sapio put it in his reflection for The Imaginative Conservative: What makes a Leonard Bernstein unique and sets him apart is his art‚ not his personal sins and infidelities‚ by virtue of which he resembles millions of poor souls the world over and which‚ therefore‚ are uninteresting as the main subject of a movie. True‚ Bernstein’s double life‚ his tragically divided self—happily married yet pursuing homosexual affairs on the side—and how this affected his public life as an artist is definitely of moral and psychological interest. But by putting this conflict front and center and slighting what truly made Bernstein who he was in his core—his musical mind and passion—the filmmakers ultimately lose any reason for making (or watching) the film. While many cite the Thanksgiving argument scene as the standout moment in Maestro‚ for my money‚ the best scene occurs when we watch Cooper-as-Bernstein conduct the finale of Mahler’s “Resurrection” Symphony No. 2 in a stirring recreation of a London Symphony Orchestra performance at Ely Cathedral in 1973. Set in a towering cathedral and featuring Cooper going for broke with Bernstein’s full-bodied conducting mannerisms‚ the scene briefly centers the movie on a masterful artist’s pursuit of aesthetic transcendence‚ rather than his far-less-interesting sexual sins. It’s possible to make riveting biopics without focusing on the central character’s sexuality. Consider Capote‚ for which Philip Seymour Hoffman won the best actor Oscar for portraying Truman Capote. While Capote’s homosexuality is certainly part of the character‚ it’s in no way the focal point of the film (which finds the writer’s literary craft more interesting). Countless other biopics have managed to present thoroughly fascinating human characters without once having to depict their bedroom habits. Flattened Characters in Barbie and American Fiction Though Greta Gerwig’s Barbie is a different sort of film than Maestro‚ it shares a fixation on identity politics (in this case‚ gender). The central protagonists—Barbie (Margot Robbie) and Ken (Ryan Gosling)‚ along with all the other Barbies and Kens in the film—are preoccupied with how gender does and doesn’t define them. They spend the film wrestling with feminism‚ the patriarchy‚ and how men and women should relate to one another. Both Ken and Barbie want to break out of boxes (sometimes literally) and aspire to robust humanity beyond stereotypes or consumer expectations. But Gerwig’s film keeps them in the box by flattening their characters into the singular dimension of gendered identity. To be sure‚ gender is a dimension of every man’s or woman’s life—and a rich one at that. But it’s not the only dimension. For the characters of Barbie‚ however‚ it seems like the only dimension worth exploring. The online fury surrounding Ryan Gosling’s Oscar nomination as Ken (when Robbie didn’t get nominated for best actress and Gerwig failed to make the cut for best director) proves how much the film and the discourse it spawned is fixated on gender. Few are talking about the merits of Gosling’s performance or why exactly Robbie’s performance was worthy of best actress‚ only that he’s a man and she’s a woman. The fact of their gender overshadows the merits of their performances. In American Fiction‚ meanwhile‚ it’s not gender but race that centrally defines the protagonist. Jeffrey Wright (nominated for best actor) plays Thelonious “Monk” Ellison‚ a professor and novelist who intentionally crafts a career as a “writer who happens to be black” rather than a “black writer.” The jokes in the satirical film arise when Monk realizes he can sell more books when he writes the sorts of gritty‚ underrepresented #blackstories affluent liberal audiences want to buy to help absolve their guilt. And so he jokingly sends his agent a manuscript—My Pafology—full of black suffering‚ trauma‚ and expletive-laden “authenticity.” It ends up landing him his most lucrative book deal yet‚ prestigious literary awards‚ and a Hollywood movie adaptation. Fiction occasionally contains sharp satire‚ but in the end‚ it reduces Wright’s character—however much he wants to be uncategorizable—into a role boxed in by racial categories. Even when he’s trying to subvert expectations and break stereotypes in his work and his life‚ Monk’s identity is nevertheless fundamentally in conversation with racial discourse. While this is certainly a part of who he is‚ I left the film with so many questions about what else defined him. What inspired him to become a writer? What defines his art? What are his primary intellectual interests? What are his chief goals in life? Much like Maestro‚ American Fiction suggests the most interesting thing about its artistic protagonist isn’t what he does or makes but the marginalized identity that must define him. At one point‚ Monk decries the audience’s hunger for black books that “flatten our lives.” It’s an understandable frustration‚ but sadly‚ Fiction inflicts the same flattening on Monk himself. Another character in Fiction—Monk’s brother Cliff (Sterling K. Brown‚ nominated for best supporting actor)—is gay‚ having divorced his wife to run off with male lovers. As with Monk‚ we know little about Cliff’s interests‚ passions‚ or life’s work (other than that he’s a surgeon). The main thing we know about Cliff is that he’s gay. In one tragically telling line‚ Cliff laments to Monk that their father died before Cliff could come out as gay: “He never knew the entirety of me.” How sad that‚ for Cliff‚ his gay identity signals a completion of himself. But this illustrates the warped imagination—and reductive vision of human identity—on display in these films. Again‚ there are countless examples of films where the gender or race of a character matters significantly but isn’t all-consuming or entirely defining of that character. In last year’s Oscar-nominated The Banshees of Inisherin‚ for example‚ the male gender of the two lead characters (Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson) matters hugely‚ as the fragility of male friendship is a big part of what the film explores. But being men isn’t the only thing that defines these characters and it’s not something they spend any screen time talking about. Wright is a great actor who has played many roles where race is part‚ but far from all‚ of the character’s identity. The characters he plays in Wes Anderson’s The French Dispatch and Ang Lee’s Civil War drama Ride with the Devil are a few examples. Wright’s black skin color isn’t incidental or unimportant in those films‚ but it’s not the defining attribute. More Compelling Identity Films like Maestro‚ Barbie‚ and American Fiction—with characters flattened into flannelgraph humans on a didactic felt board of identity politics—are symptomatic of a culture with a weak‚ unstable anthropology. In a secular age‚ there’s little consensus on what constitutes “being human‚” so the question becomes largely subjective. In a secular age‚ there’s little consensus on what constitutes ‘being human‚’ so the question becomes largely subjective. The onus is on each individual to (1) determine who he or she wants to be‚ (2) become that person‚ and (3) express it in the world in a unique way. But this threefold identity construction project is less an opportunity than a heaping burden. It becomes an all-consuming project of life (and culture‚ as seen in these films): a constant inward pursuit and outward performance that leaves individuals anxious and exhausted—“weary of the self” as Alain Ehrenberg puts it. Christianity offers a better way. To be a follower of Christ is to belong to Christ (Eph. 2:13). We are not our own (Rom. 14:7–8). The most important‚ interesting‚ and life-giving thing about us is . . . Christ in us (Gal. 2:20). This isn’t to say our distinctive physical or cultural attributes don’t matter. They do. They’re just not as ultimate or definitive as pop culture would have us believe. A Christian’s identity isn’t something to constantly create and re-create‚ justify and rejustify. It’s an identity forged by the Holy Spirit and hidden with Christ in God (Col. 3:1–13). In Christianity‚ a “new self” isn’t a prize we endeavor to win. It’s a gift we graciously accept. And this new identity is the best one possible‚ not because it’s modeled after a privileged race or gender‚ or some identity marker of fleeting cultural cachet‚ but because it’s “created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (Eph. 4:24).

On this episode of TGC Podcast‚ Ligon Duncan‚ Bob Thune‚ Andy Davis‚ and Philip Ryken examine Christian nationalism‚ differentiating it from mere patriotism and exploring its influence on Christian identity and societal engagement. They delve into the historical and biblical perspectives on Christians’ roles in society‚ emphasizing the need to prioritize Christ above all loyalties. They also discuss strategies for Christians to responsibly advocate for their beliefs in a pluralistic society.

The sergeant's motivation appears to have been financial

'Ok... is this going to kill me? He's looking at me!'

'Lincoln Riley‚ an innocent young woman who was killed by an illegal‚ that's right'

'I‘ve been delivering real results in fiscally responsible ways.'

The attack killed 13 American service members and around 170 Afghan civilians