R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s Blog, page 24

Tuesday, January 7, 2025

The post Tuesday, January 7, 2025 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Monday, January 6, 2025

The post Monday, January 6, 2025 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

President Biden’s unpardonable pardon

President Biden’s unpardonable pardon: We must love our children both rightly and righteously

“Today, I signed a pardon for my son Hunter.” Those words formed the opening line in a statement from President Joe Biden released by the White House Sunday night without advance notice. Invoking the constitutional “reprieve and pardon” power invested in the president, Biden went on to issue an unprecedented “full and unconditional pardon” for his son for “offenses against the United States which he has committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.”

Once again, we are reminded that we can be shocked without being surprised. Joe Biden has repeatedly underlined his own vision of family commitment, which means unconditional support for any family member (except for Hunter’s young daughter who Biden never acknowledged until a flood of outrage forced him to do so). All this included a grandchild cohabitating in the White House and the extended soap opera that can simply be titled “Hunter.”

There is no question that the Constitution grants the pardon power to the president. The basis for this authority to pardon is rooted in the ancient tradition of pardon from a throne, generally rooted in monarchy. These pardons, such as referenced in Matthew 27:15–23, were a demonstration of undeserved mercy and graciousness. In other contexts, a presidential pardon, like a pardon from a king, is intended to correct a miscarriage of justice. Again, there is no question that a president of the United States has the power to grant a pardon or reprieve to any American.

And yet, that has never included a pardon extended to a son. President Bill Clinton did pardon his half-brother for cocaine possession, and other presidential pardons have been controversial, including some granted by President Donald Trump in his first term. The most controversial pardon in American history was granted to then–former President Richard Nixon by President Gerald Ford, who granted Nixon a “full, free, and absolute pardon” for any offenses that may have been committed during Nixon’s term in office. Nixon had not yet been indicted, much less convicted, but prosecution was virtually assured until Ford pardoned the disgraced former president.

Furthermore, President Biden lied again and again to the American people, stating repeatedly that he would not pardon his son. Sources within the White House turned this deceit even darker when stating that inside sources had known for some time that Biden did not intend to keep his word. This was not only an outright lie. It was a premeditated lie.

In my judgment, President Biden’s pardoning of his son was a moral wrong and a miscarriage of justice. Hunter Biden had been convicted of one crime and pled guilty to others. He was awaiting a sentencing hearing when his father, nearing the end of his term in office, pardoned him. This was a gratuitous and self-serving act that corrected no wrong done by the justice system. The Department of Justice that sought and achieved the prosecution of Hunter Biden was Joe Biden’s own Department of Justice.

Furthermore, the pardon of Hunter Biden forecloses any further legal action against him on the basis of his conduct in dealings with foreign interests—and this might well be the larger issue at stake. In any event, Biden’s pardon of his son is more likely to fuel congressional investigations into Hunter Biden’s business dealings. Surely the president’s capable lawyers reminded him that a person who accepts a presidential pardon forfeits any right to claim a Fifth Amendment release from self-incriminating testimony. President Biden’s pardon of his son might backfire. Big time.

But my concern is the larger truth that the problem with the pardon is that it underlines the fact that President Biden has failed his son by pardoning him again and again and again. There is full evidence that Joe Biden failed to confront his son with an adult lifetime of horrible wrongdoing, from sex and drugs to selling access to the U.S. government and his documented entanglements with foreign powers and interests. Hunter Biden is, in part, the product of Joe Biden. The story is filled with heartbreak, with Hunter and his late brother Beau as little boys injured in the auto accident that killed their mother. Later, Hunter was evidently crushed by the death of his brother (and then his strange romantic interest in Beau’s widow). Then there is the child born out of wedlock and not acknowledged.

The big problem with President Biden’s pardon of his son is not political, it is moral, and it is Biblical. It appears that Joe Biden’s pardon of his son is just the latest in a very long series.

Contrast the Biden parable with the parable of the Prodigal Son as found in Luke 15. Jesus told of the younger son who grievously sinned against his father, demanding his inheritance and taking it into a foreign land where he wasted it. But this younger son “came to himself” and realized what he had done. He returned to his father, intending to make his plea: “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants.” That son did return and did confess his horrible sin, but the father received him as his son, forgave him, and restored him.

That father in the parable, pointing to our heavenly Father, extended mercy without forfeiting his own righteousness. That son, unlike Hunter Biden, has clearly come to know and hate his sin. Hunter Biden has given no public evidence of remorse. Joe Biden has given plenty of evidence as to why that is so. An indulgent father mistakes that indulgence for love. According to Scripture, it is not. A godly father loves his son and disciplines him.

It is beyond our power to correct President Biden’s miscarriage of justice. But it is not beyond our power to learn from it. Fathers, are you seeing this clearly? I direct that question to myself, by God’s grace now both a father and a grandfather. May God grant us sight and show us as fathers how to love our children both rightly and righteously.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on December 4, 2024.

The post President Biden’s unpardonable pardon appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

The Culture of Death scores in Britain

The Culture of Death scores in Britain: A post-Christian society surrenders to “assisted death”

Once again, the Culture of Death scored big last week as the British Parliament voted 330 to 275 to forward a bill that will legalize “assisted death” in England and Wales. The legislative move sets the stage for negotiations over the final form of the bill and the velocity of Britain’s slide into the list of nations that encourage and enable their citizens to end their own lives.

Those who voted for the bill will surely protest my statement that they will encourage “assisted death,” but that is exactly what they are doing. If you declare a so-called “right to die,” then you simultaneously (if evasively) argue for a duty to die. Prominent spokespersons for people who are severely handicapped and terminally ill fully understood this and said so. From this point onward, a British citizen who fits the covered category of a patient dying of a terminal disease under a certain timetable will face a choice no patient should have to make: Do I continue to use up crucial medical services and the resources of both family and society when there is now a legal way out?

That’s the way the Culture of Death advances. It promises a perverted vision of personal autonomy but actually delivers a society in which so-called “assisted death” is redefined as a medical advance. All this would perhaps not be so obvious until you recognize that Britain’s cherished National Health Service is collapsing under the weight of massive cost increases and a decrepit delivery system. Quite convenient for “assisted death” to arrive as a cost-saving device sold as compassion.

The vote on Friday came as action on a “private members’ bill” offered by a Labour Party member of Parliament, Kim Leadbeater. This means that the governing Labour Party leadership did not propose the bill and both major parties declared the issue a free vote so that members could vote by conscience. Few of these private bills ever reach the floor for a vote, but Leadbeater’s bill advanced in record time—just a matter of days. A similar measure had failed back in 2015. Sadly, its time had come.

How did this happen? The move to legalize “assisted death” can succeed only when certain moral absolutes are undermined, and those moral absolutes rest on explicitly Christian foundations. The most crucial of these foundations is the knowledge that life is a precious gift granted by the Creator, who alone holds the power to give and take life. A society that honors this foundational truth could not contemplate the subversion of human life and human dignity by assisted suicide. A society that denies this essential truth will eventually rationalize anything, given time and motivation.

Britain is effectively a post-Christian society. Its breathtaking cathedrals and abbeys are a testament to a now-foreclosed culture based on a Biblical understanding of human life. Only a very small fraction of British residents attend church services. Of course, Britain has an established church, but the Church of England’s glory days are long past. On this issue, indeed on most issues, it represents either theological accommodation or historic antiquarianism. Lord Carey, a former archbishop of Canterbury, made his own position in favor of the bill quite clear. He lamented that “church leaders have often shamefully resisted change,” even as he called for others to support the Leadbeater bill “because it is necessary, compassionate and principled.” It should be noted that the current archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, along with a good number of Christian leaders, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, did bravely oppose the bill.

The point is that the majority in Parliament self-consciously discarded two millennia of Christian moral teaching and inserted an exuberant vision of human autonomy in its place. Christian moral teaching affirms with energy and compassion the use of palliative medicine to reduce pain and suffering, and medical authorities charged with palliative care note that such care has often been withdrawn in contexts where patients have been offered the “right” to die.

The second humiliating collapse was seen among figures in the Conservative Party, which by all rights should forfeit its name. Former Conservative Prime Ministers David Cameron and Rishi Sunak both came out in favor of the bill. They represent the move of that party to adopt social liberalism and attempt to combine it with some form of fiscal conservatism. It is a fatal combination that simply cannot stand, and the two former Tory prime ministers are positive proof of what social liberalism truly becomes—a Culture of Death.

Leadbeater and her allies promised, of course, that sufficient safeguards would be put into place, but no one should believe this for a minute. The “right to assisted death” may start with application only to mature adults with certifiably terminal diagnoses, but a quick look across the English Channel at nations like the Netherlands, where the slippery slide now allows for children to end their own lives—with medical assistance. Or Britain’s political class could have looked across the Atlantic to Canada, where assisted suicide now ranks in the top five causes of death.

The Culture of Death scored big in Britain, and its deadly logic is almost certain to spread. This is a horrifying rejection of the Christian conscience and Biblical truth. Then again, that is exactly what you must expect from a post-Christian culture. A secular morality simply cannot sustain an ethic of life.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on December 2, 2024.

The post The Culture of Death scores in Britain appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Monday, December 30, 2024

The post Monday, December 30, 2024 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Friday, December 20, 2024

The post Friday, December 20, 2024 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Thursday, December 19, 2024

The post Thursday, December 19, 2024 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Collapse in the cathedral

Collapse in the cathedral: A scandal in the Church of England reveals big lessons for all Christians

Headlines around the world last week told of the resignation of the Most Rev. Justin Welby, the titular leader of Anglican Christians around the world, as archbishop of Canterbury. Just days after insisting he would not resign, Welby’s office announced that he would step down in the wake of an investigation into the sexual and physical abuse of boys and young men at Christian camps. The specific charge against Welby is that he did not inform authorities when advised of the abuse.

The man at the center of the abuse allegations, John Smyth, is now dead and will never face a human court of justice. The report commissioned by the Church of England was released by Keith Makin, who led an independent review. The report reveals that church authorities, including the archbishop of Canterbury, should have reported the abuse to law enforcement authorities, who could well have prosecuted Smyth.

Welby’s position became untenable when political leaders such as Prime Minister Keir Starmer and at least one church bishop called for his resignation. The decisive signal apparently came from King Charles III. The British monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, which is an official state church. Evidently, that still matters.

Welby’s resignation sets in motion a process for choosing his successor. The matter goes to a crown commission, which advises the prime minister and, eventually, King Charles. The process is likely to take several months, though the pressure to put a new archbishop in place will be enormous.

The entire matter, horrible as it is in moral terms, also requires us to take stock of what remains of the Church of England and what lessons are to be learned.

The Church of England resulted from the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. At the same time, the emergence of an English church independent of the papacy came with a combination of seismic theological, political, and cultural changes—many of them revolving around King Henry VIII and his six wives. The Church of England emerged with something of a two-party system that included both ardent advocates of the Reformation and those who wished to retain as much Catholic worship and practice as possible. By the time you get to the 19th century, the church had a three-party system of evangelicals on the right, liberals on the left, and Anglo-Catholics growing in influence. The Church of England prided itself on having forged a “middle way” between classic Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. And, as so often happens with middle ways, the project became amorphous. The church went so far as to claim “comprehensiveness” in doctrine—a claim often asserted but never really defined. When liberalism is an option, liberalism eventually wins.

Back in the 19th century, novelist Anthony Trollope famously described the Church of England as “the only church that interferes neither with your politics nor your religion.”

When Justin Welby became the 105th archbishop of Canterbury, some described him as an evangelical of sorts. He had entered the ministry of the Church of England after a career in upper management of an oil company. He had an interest in charismatic groups such as the Vineyard Movement led by John Wimber. He was presented as a stabilizing establishment choice to lead a church in radical decline.

But Archbishop Welby became a parable of theological equivocation and evasion at the very time his church desperately needed clarity, conviction, and clear direction. When serving as a parish priest, he affirmed the Bible’s clear teachings on homosexuality, sexual expression, and marriage. Back in 1999, Welby stated, “Throughout the Bible, it is clear that the right place for sex is only within a committed, heterosexual marriage.” As recently as 2003, Welby had affirmed the same position, arguing that “sexual practice is for marriage, and marriage is between men and women and that’s the Biblical position.”

But Welby caved. Indeed he crashed. Asked in a media interview if gay sex is sinful, he responded, “I haven’t got a good answer.” It was an astounding admission. It was a display of flat-out ministerial failure. It was either a lie (since he had been able to answer the question quite clearly in the past) or it was an indication that he had switched sides in the controversy (which he didn’t appear to possess the courage to admit) or an admission of sheer abdication of responsibility (which it obviously was).

Fast-forward to just weeks ago and the archbishop went back on the same broadcast with the same interviewer and, predictably, was asked the same question again. This time, Welby chose Option 2 and simply advised that he affirms “that all sexual activity should be within a committed relationship.” He then added, “Whether it’s straight or gay.” What a disgrace.

The Church of England is in a free fall in terms of attendance and public influence. Anglican churches around the world, including in many African nations, are rejecting Canterbury’s authority. Welby presided over state funerals and the coronation of King Charles III, but he deserves to be best remembered as the archbishop of Canterbury who just surrendered to the modern age, LGBTQ activists, and the sexual revolution. Biblical authority and Christian clarity on sex, marriage, and gender—all thrown overboard by the archbishop himself.

In actuality, Justin Welby will be remembered as the archbishop of Canterbury who, at the very least, did not prevent a cover-up of sexual abuse. That, too, serves as a stark warning. The whole thing, as my grandmother would say, just stinks to high heaven. You bet it does.

This article originally appeared at WORLD Opinions on November 18, 2024.

The post Collapse in the cathedral appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Wednesday, December 18, 2024

The post Wednesday, December 18, 2024 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.

Tuesday, December 17, 2024

The post Tuesday, December 17, 2024 appeared first on AlbertMohler.com.