Thirty years ago, in 1989, we in the West were convinced that a new democratic order was dawning in the world. The Berlin Wall was gone and the democratic protests in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China fed the hope that a new world of democracy and freedom was dawning. The old, corrupt regimes of totalitarian communism were unraveling and the passion for democracy in both the Soviet Union and Communist China would surely produce a new world in which everyone embraced the same democratic values so central to Western Civilization—and especially to the United States. Those optimistic hopes are now dashed.

Recently, the American Psychological Association (APA) released its new guidelines, which defined “traditional masculinity” as pathology. Psychoanalyst Erica Komisar argues that the APA guidelines “demonize masculinity rather than embracing its positive aspect. In a press release, the APA asserts flatly that ‘traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful.’”

For civilization to work, it needs a foundation, a set of moorings that provide an anchor for it to function reasonably, justly and fairly. American civilization gives every indication that it has no foundation, no underpinning. The selfish, self-centered, self-indulgent individual has replaced the community-minded, other-centered virtuous citizen—the glue that held American society together. Our politics, our universities and our economy are all driven by an ideology that stresses identity politics, grievance-focused protests and an economy with no ethical foundation.

Consider the amazing national trend of accommodating American culture to the legalization of marijuana. In 2014, the editorial page of the New York Times argued intensely (on the front page) for the legalization of marijuana and the removal of all penalties against the manufacturing and distribution of marijuana, let alone the possession of marijuana in its many forms. Ten states (soon to be joined by New York and New Jersey) have voted to legalize marijuana for recreational and medicinal use. Licensed shops in Colorado and Washington now sell it to anyone who wants it. Numerous states have recently legalized the drug for medicinal use, bringing the total to 23; this number will undoubtedly grow.

One of the major developments of 2018 was the growing worldwide influence of Vladimir Putin. He has made no secret of his desire to restore the grandeur and power of Russia, not as a communist state, but as the restored Russia of the czarist mold: The Russian Orthodox Church supporting a corrupt, authoritarian state. Two recent developments buttress his vision to make Russia a global superpower.

Basic to any understanding of physics is the concept of mass. Why do particles of nature have mass? This is obviously a fundamental question of physics but one that is inscrutably difficult to answer. For four decades now, physics has worked from what is known as the Standard Model of physics—an explanation that relies on 17 fundamental particles of matter and three physical forces. But this model requires the existence of a force that, so to speak, keeps everything together. That is the importance of the “God particle,” the so-called Higgs Boson, named after an Edinburgh University physicist of 50 years ago—Peter Higgs.

As with the issue of war, capital punishment is filled with intellectual and theological tension. In this Perspective, I am not defending how capital punishment is practiced in the United States or any other country. Instead, the focus is whether one can make a biblical defense for capital punishment as a responsibility of the state. If humans bear God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27), then ethically taking the life of an image-bearer in a premeditated act of murder demands just punishment, for killing a human being in such a manner is an attack on our Creator. It is a rejection of His sovereignty over human life (see Deuteronomy 32:39). But is it just to make the punishment capital?

My wife and I have two precious grandsons. They are a source of unsurpassed joy for us. But as grandparents, we frequently ask, with a degree of anxiety and apprehension: What does their future look like? What will become of them? Will they be men of character? Will they be successful? In the year 1809, parents and grandparents asked similar questions about these newborns: William Gladstone, Alfred Lloyd Tennyson, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Edward Allan Poe, Charles Darwin, and Abraham Lincoln. That year the world was focused on Napoleon as his armies raced across Europe. Today, other than Waterloo (1815), can we name one other battle or triumph associated with Napoleon? But in the nurseries across Europe and America in 1809, what seemed inconsequential was actually the dawn of a new era.

George Herbert Walker Bush (1924-2018) died on Friday evening, 30 November 2018. He had a form of Parkinson’s disease that forced him to use a wheelchair or motorized scooter in recent years. He served as president from 1989 to 1993, capping a career of more than 40 years of public service. A decorated Navy pilot (compiling 126 carrier landings and 58 missions) who was shot down in the Pacific in 1944, he was the last of the World War II generation to serve as president. President Bush was a skilled negotiator and diplomat and, as president, helped end the Cold War and the threat of nuclear engagement with a careful handling of the Soviet Union’s collapse and the liberation of Eastern Europe. James A. Baker III, former Secretary of State, said of President Bush: “[He] was the best one term president the country has ever had, and one of the most underrated presidents of all time. I think history is going to treat him well.”

Science has always struggled with the scientific (technological) imperative: Just because science can do something does not mean it must do it. That imperative is now being tested by the gene editing technique known as CRISPR. For several years now, several scientists have warned of the day when the gene editing technique CRISPR would be used to create a genetically altered human being. Among other things, their concern was that that CRISPR would be misused to alter everything from eye color to IQ. For this reason many nations have banned CRISPR and any procedure that deliberately alters the genes of a human embryo.