R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s Blog, page 308

Transcript: The Briefing 05-20-15

The Briefing

 

May 20, 2015

This is a rush transcript. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

 

It’s Wednesday, May 20, 2015.  I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

1) Same-sex marriage legalization will reconfigure political, cultural landscape

A series of recent articles points to the deep worldview implications of so many of the headlines now surrounding us. And one of the most urgent of those headlines, recurring it seems almost every day in every newspaper and at every turn, is the expected Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage. Linda Greenhouse writing a very important article for the New York Times asked what might be the obvious question: What Comes on the Morning after the Same-Sex Marriage Decision? She writes,

“Let’s assume, as I do, that the Supreme Court finds a constitutional right to same-sex marriage when it decides Obergefell v. Hodges sometime next month. What happens next?”

Now she asked the right question, that’s the essential question for us to think about even before the Supreme Court acts. What will happen next? Now there’s one issue in terms of how we understand the media that also comes into play here; Linda Greenhouse is not masking in any way her support for the legalization of same-sex marriage – that becomes very, very clear. She goes on to ask the question nonetheless, what will happen on the day after or the morning after? She says,

“It may be a morning-after landscape of more confusion than clarity, with some rain falling on the victory parades.”

In particular she identifies what she sees as a problem, the problem of conservative Christians. She says the conservative Christians,

“…claiming victimization by the onrushing tide of marriage equality, [conservative Christians] aren’t like to be deterred in their quest for the right to withhold goods and services from same-sex couples.”

Now one of the most interesting things is why she turns there, why she turns to that particular issue rather than to the issue that actually came up before the Supreme Court in oral arguments. And that issue is the direct collision between same-sex marriage and religious liberty, not just when it comes to those who may be involved in offering goods or public accommodations, but rather religious institutions that are deeply situated in the religious convictions of their sponsoring bodies. That’s a very interesting question, and it tells you how the secular media is focusing on this question.

She also points to a reordered political landscape on the other side of the Supreme Court decision. And interestingly, and with some perception, her main issue is what’s going to happen on the Republican side. Now that’s because there’s no question about what is going to happen on the Democratic side, the Democratic Party and both of the declared candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination are avid and ardent supporters of same-sex marriage. The question is what’s going to happen on the Republican side after the Supreme Court rules? Now again, Linda Greenhouse is assuming, as many are assuming, that the Supreme Court will find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and thus legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states. She says that what’s going to happen on the Republican side is that you’re going to find Republican presidential candidates who are going to try, in her words, to find something to say that will alienate neither the base of the Republican Party nor the growing majority that supports a right to same-sex marriage.

One of the most interesting dimensions of this article is how clearly Linda Greenhouse comes out publicly in support of same-sex marriage – as if that’s just the default moral position. And she’s probably right if that is the default moral position of the likely readers of the New York Times – certainly of its staff and its editorial board; that’s been made abundantly clear. But it’s also interesting that you have people here on the secular left who are asking big questions about what’s going to happen the day after the Supreme Court rules, what’s going to happen on the other side of this great legal divide, this anticipated judicial decision. She’s right to see a reordered political landscape on the other side, and there’s no doubt that this is going to create an entirely new landscape for Republican presidential candidates. And that’s just symbolic of the fact it’s going to create a new landscape for virtually all Americans – especially for those Americans who believe that marriage must be the union of a man and a woman. Now Americans who hold to a traditional understanding of marriage are going to be set off as a minority who are now opposed by a decision of the United States Supreme Court.

It’s very difficult to overestimate the kind of cultural momentum that will come with that kind of decision. Here you have a secular reporter for the New York Times trying to figure out exactly what it’s going to look like on the other side. The interesting thing she does understand is that Christians who are rooted in biblical conviction can’t change that convictions simply because the Supreme Court has redefine marriage, that’s a crucial insight. It’s also very interesting that she assumes that even as conservative Christians who are committed to a biblical authority aren’t going to be able to change their position, and thus turn on a dime, she expects there will be political candidates who, twisting themselves like pretzels to use her metaphor, will find some way to land in a new position and in relatively short order.

Greenhouse offers her own advice – this is very telling in itself –

“If Republicans understand their own options and interests, they will accept a same-sex marriage ruling as a gift, and find something else to talk about.”

Now once again, here you have the advice that will be given by the secular left to anyone in American public life. If the Supreme Court rules, as they expect the court to rule, then just get over it and change the subject and don’t talk about this anymore. But the final revealing aspect of this very interesting article is where Linda Greenhouse cites Michelangelo Signorile, as she says,

“a well-known gay radio host and blogger, warns against what he calls ‘victory blindness,’”

She then writes,

“…he defines [this] as falling prey to ‘a kind of bedtime story that tells us we’ve reached the promised land.’ Getting beyond ‘mere tolerance’ and winning ‘full equality’ is likely to remain an elusive goal,”

Now why is it so interesting that she cites Michelangelo Signorile? It’s not just because he’s a very prominent gay activist, it is because – even though she doesn’t acknowledge it – Signorile is rather well known for making the argument that same-sex marriage is a way to destroy marriage rather than merely to force the redefinition of it. Signorile sees marriage itself as a repressive institution that needs to be overcome.

In an article he wrote years ago entitled I do, I do, I do, he argued that the gay-rights movement should seize upon the issue of marriage not because marriage itself is really the issue, but because it is a way of destroying heterosexual privilege. So when in her article she cites Signorile warning fellow activists about what he calls victory blindness and pushing on to what he says full equality, well we need to remember what he has himself defined as the ultimate end game, the ultimate goal. That’s not acknowledged in Linda Greenhouse’s article and that, quite obviously, tells us something.

2) Success of gay marriage compared against abortion aggravates abortionists

Next, one of the interesting aspects of our current media culture is that that culture keeps bringing up the issue of same-sex marriage and the related issue of abortion over and over and over again. That is simply a demonstrated and documented fact which leads to some very interesting questioning, such as: what in the word was Robert Putnam speaking about at Georgetown University last week when he suggested that it’s conservative Christians who keep talking about same-sex marriage and abortion? Now to that issue we should simply plead guilty because of the importance of those issues there’s no way we can remain silent about them.

But as you’ll note on The Briefing I’m generally citing a development in the secular media and these developments take place not just by the week, not just by the day, but almost by the minute. And the issues are related; they are not the same issue, but they are related and sometimes it’s really illuminating to see how they are related on the other side of the great moral divide. In order to gain some insight in that other side there is probably no better source than The Nation; that’s one of the most left-wing magazines in America tied for many, many decades to the radical left in terms of American politics.  Katha Pollitt, a very well-known abortion activist, has written an article in a recent issue of The Nation in which she’s trying to explain to the left why in her words marriage trumps abortion.

She’s looking at an interesting phenomena and it’s interesting to us too. Why is it that America has experienced a radical moral revolution on the definition of marriage, but on terms of the abortion issue America is becoming more conservative by almost every measure? More Americans are now pro-life than are pro-choice, and more Americans are now more pro-life even then they were in the past. Katha Pollitt is a very well-known activist for abortion and she is very concerned that America is, in her view, moving in the wrong direction on abortion and moving in the right direction on the question of marriage, and she wants to know why one is happening and not the other.

She actually offers some insightful argument, she says in the first place,

“Marriage equality is about love, romance, commitment, settling down, starting a family. People love love!”

But she says that abortion is not such a winning issue; it doesn’t provide the same kind of picture that those who are advocating for same-sex marriage are able to show the public. She says,

“Reproductive rights, by contrast, is about sex—sexual freedom, the opposite of marriage—in all its messy, …glory. It replaces the image of women as chaste, self-sacrificing mothers dependent on men with that of women as independent, sexual, and maybe not so self-sacrificing.”

She clearly operates from a very interesting worldview, but her analysis does tell us something. And we should recognize that there is actually some crucial insight here. I won’t go through all of her arguments but the most revealing is one you simply need to hear. She says and I quote,

“In marriage equality, there is no loser. But many, including some who call themselves pro-choice, feel that abortion creates a loser: the embryo or fetus. You have to value women a lot to side with the pregnant woman, with all her inevitable complexities and flaws, over the pure potentiality of the future baby.”

Well in response to that paragraph I simply have to say, so close and yet so far. She’s so close to understanding something really, really important here and that is that there is – to state the obvious – a loser in abortion. She considers the unborn child to be of no significance whatsoever and so she’s actually dying that there is any loss in abortion, that this is exactly why the secular left is losing the abortion argument when they make it this way. It is because you can’t have the ultrasound image of an unborn child taped up on the refrigerator door so that all the siblings can see it and show it around to coworkers and then argue that someone else’s unborn child at the same point of development is not an unborn baby – of course it is.

But the language found in that paragraph, though chilling, is one we need to hear. When she refers to the contrast between a pregnant woman on the one hand and then she says “the pure potentiality of the future baby,” you see again she is so close and yet so far. The reason they’re losing this argument is because no one actually looks at that unborn child and sees just pure potentiality – no, what they’re seeing is demonstrated reality, actuality, not just in the future but right now. She does ask a very important question, and one that Christians should think about very seriously: why is the moral momentum on same-sex marriage so different than the moral momentum on abortion? That’s a good question. We would certainly not agree with Katha Pollitt on her answer, her answer nonetheless is very revealing. We do agree with her that she asked an important question.

3) Fertility medicine without a moral worldview induces moral confusion over ‘excess’ embryos

A similar point arises out of an article that was published in recent days at the Washington Post; it’s by Ellen McCarthy and it’s entitled, Fertility Medicine Brings Babies And Tough Decisions. America, as we’ve often discussed, has become the Wild Wild West of advanced reproductive technologies with very few rules – if any in most cases – having to do with the access to reproductive technologies, even at the expense of human dignity. It’s very important that even the Washington Post recognizes this with a major article. It goes to a couple who had created an extra embryo – now remember Katha Pollitt’s term about the pure potentiality of the future baby? Remember that when the Washington Post reports on this embryo as “a potential child.” Actually, over and over again in this article the frozen embryo is referred to as a potential child. Now once again the Christian worldview tells us that it is not merely a potential child, this is a child. It’s a child in a very early stage of development, but it is a human being made in God’s image. It is fully deserving of the protection and the recognition of the sanctity of its life.

McCarthy then reports that this couple is,

“…among thousands of couples and individuals in the United States grappling with difficult choices regarding their stored genetic material. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that more than 600,000 frozen embryos are stored nationwide, in addition to countless more cryo-preserved eggs and sperm.”

Now let that just sink in for a moment. There are over 600,000 frozen human embryos in the United States for which there is no intended purpose. The Post cites Eric Widra who is medical director the Shady Grove Fertility Center who stated the obvious,

“Having embryos in limbo is a huge problem for our field,”

He went on to say,

“Parents are apprehensive or conflicted and don’t know what to do.”

The Post goes on to report,

“Most couples never consider the fate of excess embryos when they start down the path of fertility medicine. Especially for childless pairs longing to conceive, ‘addressing that is not on the list of priorities, many of them take a ‘we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it’ approach.’”

This article demands our attention because the chilling language that is included within it doesn’t appear to be so chilling to at least those who are saying it. Now let me just skip to that part of the story; we read about these excess human embryos and one couple. They were offered options for their so-called excess embryos; the options were to implant them, to offer them for donation to another couple, to pay the hefty annual storage fee, or have them destroyed. The wife said,

“And we did not like those options at all,”

The Post says that would’ve preferred to donate the embryos to science, but there wasn’t availability for that kind of donation at the time. Ultimately, hear the words I want us to hear,

“The couple decided to have the embryos destroyed, as neither felt a strong emotional attachment to them.”

Now as we encounter the headlines every day we come across things that are concerning and some things that are deeply chilling. This is one of those most chilling comments I’ve seen in a very long time. Here you have a couple who has decided to destroy their own embryos, let me read the words again: “as neither felt a strong emotional attachment to them.” So now we see the dignity of human life being minimized and subverted by the fact that here you have a couple that doesn’t feel a strong emotional bond to their own embryos. Well what we’re looking at here is a deep and insidious moral confusion. And yet it is the kind of moral confusion that becomes inevitable when all of these medical technologies arrive without a moral worldview capable of instructing about their use.

One woman described her own decision basically to destroy her own embryos by saying that she brought the vials home “burned some incense, held them and cry,” She said,

“I could’ve had the lab dispose of them, but this felt better to me, for whatever it’s worth.”

Well just imagine her own question: for whatever it’s worth? The human embryos here were destroyed. In this case they were destroyed along with the burning of incense and some tears, but they were destroyed in an intentional act.

Christians need to be very, very careful when it comes to these advanced reproductive technologies and this much is abundantly clear: the Christian worldview would demand that if these assisted reproductive technologies are used and if any embryos are created as a part of these technologies, every single one of the must be transferred to the mother – every single one of them – and this should take place only within the context of marriage. While we’re thinking about the deep moral confusions of our day, indeed the worldview crisis of our day, it’s hard to come up with anything in recent headlines that is quite so demonstrably horrifying at this. In terms of the worldview crisis of our age it is hard to come up with any more graphic example than this article recently published in the Washington Post, and in the picture of these embryos being destroyed –  wantonly destroyed – simply because no one feels – feels – a strong emotional attachment to them.

4) Pro-life politician not so pro-life in his personal life, revealing importance of consistency in life and practice

But finally an article that hits a little closer to home that appeared in this week New York Magazine – again this is coming from the secular left – the headline: Pro-Lifers Change Their Minds When Abortion Gets Personals. It is by Alex Ronan and it’s the article we might avoid but must not avoid because it’s not about the pro-choice side, it’s about the pro-life side. And it’s demonstrating that when it comes to pro-lifers some aren’t nearly as pro-life as they would have us to think.

Ronan points to a controversy emerging from Tennessee where Representative Scott DesJarlais is officially against abortion and recently voted for a restriction on abortion, but has been in the press because he and his wife have had abortions and he at one point had a mistress who he had pressured – according to press reports – to have an abortion. This has been running in much of the secular news. According to New York Magazine when the controversy over the mistress and the abortion emerged in his reelection campaign he said that his mistress wasn’t actually pregnant when he was recorded, indeed he recorded himself, pressuring her to get an abortion for a pregnancy he says didn’t exist. Nonetheless, the controversy does exist.

In his divorce trial, as New York Magazine says,

“[It was] demonstrated that DesJarlais had also supported his ex-wife’s decision to get two abortions before their marriage. He called the first a ‘therapeutic’ abortion because she was on Lupron at the time, which can cause birth defects …. Of the second abortion, he said the couple was struggling and that the abortion was a ‘mutual decision.’”

Why am I raising this article? It is because of the conclusion in New York Magazine. The whole point of this article, written by the secular left for the secular left, is one we desperately and urgently need to hear and that is that many pro-lifers actually aren’t so pro-life when it comes to their own situations. And the final quote in this article is from Jon Pennington who had done a PhD dissertation on the pro-life movement and it is a matter of judgment that we need to hear his final words. He said this,

“Most pro-life women oppose abortion with four exceptions: rape, incest, the life of the mother, and me.”

Now let me just state up front I don’t think at all that is indicative of most pro-lifers, and certainly not of most pro-life women, but it is indicated by the fact that hypocrisy is always crouching at our door. It is always possible to be pro-life in theory but not in practice and that’s the really horrifying thing that we have to face squarely in terms of this article that appeared yesterday in New York Magazine.

The deceitfulness of sin explains why sinners are always looking for an exception to the rule and that exception comes down to that short word that ended that quote: me. But it is not enough to be pro-life in theory, we have to be absolutely consistently urgently pro-life in practice, and that pro-life ethic becomes most crucial and most important when that pro-life issues, as this article says, gets personal. That’s when the worldview most matters.

 

Thanks for listening to The Briefing. For more information go to my website at AlbertMohler.com. You can follow me on Twitter by going to twitter.com/albertmohler. For more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary go to sbts.edu. For information on Boyce College just go to boycecollege.com. We’re taking questions for Ask Anything: Weekend Edition released. Call us with your question, in your voice to 877-505-2058. That’s 877-505-2058.

 

I’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.

 

The Briefing 05-20-15

Podcast Transcript

1) Same-sex marriage legalization will reconfigure political, cultural landscape

The Morning After the Same-Sex Marriage Decision, New York Times (Linda Greenhouse)

2) Success of gay marriage compared against abortion aggravates abortionists

There’s a Reason Gay Marriage Is Winning, While Abortion Rights Are Losing, The Nation (Katha Pollitt)

3) Fertility medicine without a moral worldview induces moral confusion over ‘excess’ embryos

Fertility medicine brings babies — and tough decisions, Washington Post (Ellen McCarthy)

4) Pro-life politician not so pro-life in his personal life, revealing importance of consistency in life and practice

Pro-Lifers Change Their Minds When Abortion Gets Personal, New York Magazine (Alex Ronan)

Transcript: The Briefing 05-19-15

The Briefing

 

May 19, 2015

This is a rush transcript. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

 

It’s Tuesday, May 19, 2015.  I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

1) Irish same sex marriage referendum shows division between radical Catholics and evangelicals

The nation of Ireland is poised to be the first nation on earth to put the question of same-sex marriage up for a national referendum, and the vote is coming on Friday. And make no mistake, it’s going to be a big vote; not only about the future of marriage in Ireland, but about the future of Ireland. And there are some huge issues involved in this story. As Fintan O’Toole reports for the New York Times yesterday, what we’re looking at is aligned to be added to the Irish Constitution that would read simply and I quote,\

“Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”

Now when you’re looking at changes in the law or changes in a Constitution, the economy of words will really matter. In this case, a good deal is being made of just how short that sentence turns out to be. And it’s very interesting that here you have just a few words put in a series that will totally revolutionize marriage in the nation of Ireland by national referendum – that is of course if a majority of voters approved the measure. That is at least somewhat in question.

The nation of Ireland has been known as rather socially traditional when it comes to many issues for the better part of its history. Even until 1993 homosexual acts were criminal acts and it took an action of a European court to reverse that. You’re looking at a nation that has been dominated in terms of its tradition by the moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. And what we’re looking at here is only possible because of the rather radical rupture in terms of the spiritual dimension of Ireland that is taking place; the evidence of that is this vote on Friday. In any previous generation it would’ve been inconceivable.

Henry McDonald, writing from Dublin for The Guardian, which is a liberal London newspaper, has given the most interesting attention to this dimension of the story. As he writes,

“Tens of thousands of Christian immigrants who have become Irish citizens are being mobilised across the Republic to vote down a historic move to legalise gay marriage in Ireland this week.”

The next words are particularly interesting,

“While liberal Roman Catholic priests and nuns are defying their bishops to urge a yes vote on Friday, religious leaders in the evangelical Christian community are now placing their congregations on the frontline of the battle to persuade Ireland to say no.”

So this could be one of the most interesting dimensions of this turn in Ireland. It could turn out that the opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage in Ireland is indeed theological, but not coming from the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, but rather from an influx of immigrants who are overwhelmingly evangelical and thus biblical in terms of their opposition. This is a very interesting development.

By the way, this has exposed all kinds of tensions within Ireland. This article in The Guardian makes very clear that there are many in Ireland who believes that the influx of these conservative immigrants is a problem rather than a blessing. And of course the influx of evangelicals, well that’s something very telling in terms of Ireland and its national history.

The Guardian goes on to report that,

“The Irish Republic is the first country in the world to hold a referendum to decide on whether or not the state should allow gay marriage. If passed, the right of gay couples to marry will be incorporated into the Republic’s constitution.”

Then they describe the two corners in terms of this opposition, this controversy. They say in the yes corner are radical Catholic clergy such as Sister Stanislaus Kennedy, identified as a lifelong anti-poverty campaigner who backed to gay marriage just last week. On the no side, in that corner according to The Guardian, more than 30 born again Christian pastors originally from Africa and representing dozens of churches – they are urging their congregations to help defeat marriage equality.

So here you have a very liberal and secular newspaper in London looking at this emerging and developing story in Ireland saying, here you have Roman Catholic Church that is fast liberalizing on this issue with very prominent nuns and others who are breaking from the authority of their church and publicly supporting same-sex marriage. And then you have these who are coming from Africa – interesting how that is reported in this story – who are importing not only their evangelical Christianity, but their opposition to same-sex marriage; or as they would prefer to say it, their understanding from the authority of Scripture that marriage is and can only be the union of a man and a woman.

The Guardian tells us that organizers of what’s called an evangelical alliance for a no vote on the question of same-sex marriage believe that the votes of up to 200,000 African and Eastern European immigrants, many of them conservative Christians and some of them Muslims, could help swing the vote in favor of no on the Friday. As The Guardian says,

“Across the key battleground of Dublin, evangelical and Pentecostal pastors are actively encouraging their congregations to vote no.”

While there are certainly some Catholics who are opposing same-sex marriage in Ireland, there are some very well-known Catholics who are supporting it. I mentioned Sister Stan, as according to the paper she is affectionately known, she has been an anti-poverty campaigner, and she has now become a campaigner for same-sex marriage. In speaking of her position publicly she said and I quote,

“I have thought a lot about this. I am going to vote yes in recognition of the gay community as full members of society. They should have an entitlement to marry. It is a civil right and a human right.”

Well the issue to face most directly here is that you have a nun in the Roman Catholic Church who is directly advocating a position that is at odds with the official teaching of her own church, and even the instruction of the Catholic bishops there in Ireland. Recognizing just how symbolic same-sex marriage in Ireland would be, Fintan O’Toole, again writing in the New York Times yesterday, says that the legalization of same-sex marriage there may now consolidate he says same-sex marriage as the new normal in the developed world. He calls this evidence of how profoundly attitudes have changed. Griff Witte writing in the Washington Post makes a very similar assessment when it comes to this kind of moral change and the symbolism of Ireland when he writes,

“That such a momentous event in the gay rights struggle could happen here, of all places, reflects the breathtaking social change that has swept Ireland in recent years —”

Now what he calls a breathtaking social change is pointing to an even deeper worldview change, a deeper theological and ideological change, within the Irish people. In Fintan O’Toole’s article that appeared in yesterday’s edition of the New York Times, a woman by the name of Rita O’Connor is cited there in Dublin. She says and I quote,

“I’m just going to vote for gay people because I have nothing against them,”

She was speaking inside a Roman Catholic Cathedral, and she says,

I can’t understand why anybody is against it.”

O’Toole says she dismissed the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition saying,

“…it’s a stupid carry-on”

O’Toole points to this change within the thinking of so many Catholic people in Ireland and he says that change,

“…owes something to Pope Francis’s more conciliatory tone on homosexuality,”

Now that raises a very different issue. This Pope has sown confusion within the Roman Catholic Church over the issue of homosexuality and I would simply argue that you should draw a line between that confusion and the change you see taking place even within the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. And for evangelical Christians there are some very important lessons there to be observed.

But when it comes that change, or that perception of change, within the Roman Catholic Church, last Friday Timothy Egan, writing another opinion piece for the New York Times, described how Francis is transforming the Roman Catholic Church to what he calls the art of joy. He then writes this,

“Francis’s predecessor, while a cardinal, once signed a letter saying homosexuality was ‘an objective disorder.’”

Now that paragraph is supposed to contrast the current Pope of the Roman Catholic Church with his predecessor, the retired Pope Benedict the 16th. And in order to make his point Egan goes back not to this Pope but to the previous Pope, but before he was Pope, when he was merely a cardinal when he wrote a letter in which he said that homosexuality was an objective disorder. In the context of this column you would think that was some kind of radical statement made by a Pope even before he was a Pope way back somewhere in terms of a Catholic legacy left behind. But let me read to you from the current official catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, fully affirmed not only by Pope Benedict the 16th but by Pope Francis as well. The current catechism, still everywhere in force of the Roman Catholic Church says this,

“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

That’s not from a letter someone dug up from a previous Pope even before he was Pope – that is the current catechism affirmed by this Pope. But you would know that by reading the New York Times. But as a matter fact you might not know it evidently if you’re a Roman Catholic in Dublin Ireland, which is why a good many Irish Roman Catholic Church are expected to vote for the legalization of same-sex marriage there in Ireland on Friday and why the focal point of opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage turns out to be evangelicals – who after all have moved to Ireland largely from Africa. Once again, we see the global South very clear on the issue of marriage while the secularizing north is very confused.

2) Protestant church distinctives affirmed by political disasters made by Vatican

Next, it’s also important for us to think about the fact that the evangelical church, evangelical Christianity does not have a foreign-policy. We understand there are scriptural principles of righteousness and justice and fairness and peace that should drive our concern for foreign-policy, but the Southern Baptist Convention doesn’t have a foreign-policy. The national Association of Evangelicals doesn’t have a foreign-policy. American Protestant and Evangelical denominations don’t have foreign-policy. But the Roman Catholic Church has a foreign-policy. Largely because so many nations recognize the Vatican not only as the theological seat of the Roman Catholic Church, but as a sovereign state. Evangelicals have historically and rightly identified this as a major problem – one that is not sustainable. And there are two recent developments that point out why it is so problematic that the Vatican is recognized as a state with a foreign-policy.

In the first place, there was a very well-publicized visit to the Vatican of the Pres. of Cuba, Raul Castro. And according to all the international press, Raul Castro and the Pope had a very good visit. Indeed Raul Castro was quoted as saying,

“I read all the speeches of the pope, his commentaries, and if the pope continues this way, I will go back to praying and go back to the church, and I’m not joking,”

Well let’s just talk about the fact that as the Wall Street Journal points out, to call Raul Castro President is an absolute fiction. He was the only name on the ballot. That was about his Democratic as you could find in the nation of North Korea, and yet he was received in the Vatican as if he were the duly elected president of Cuba – which he certainly is not. Furthermore, the Castro brothers led a revolution in Cuba that was not only officially Marxist but officially atheist and they have led a regime that has cracked down on Christians and has violated religious liberty at virtually every conceivable turn. The big question for the Vatican is: how in the world is it good news that the Roman Catholic Church is becoming the kind of church that Raul Castro would want to be a member of?

The second development took place also in recent days when the Vatican state announced that it was moving towards the recognition of the Palestinian state as an autonomous state. Not especially from the vantage point of Israel, this is a very problematic development and even many American Catholics are scratching their heads to wonder what in the world is the point the Vatican’s trying to make by recognizing what calls itself the Palestinian state as an autonomous state. It simply doesn’t meet even the United Nations requirements of what a state must be, at least says that definition has been applied at any time in the past. Furthermore, the current head of the Palestinian state, Mahmoud Abbas, wrote his doctoral dissertation basically denying the reality of the Holocaust. This is one of those disasters that simply shouldn’t happen, but it is set up to happen when the Roman Catholic Church claims that the Vatican is not only the seat of its church government, but the seat of a national state as well. With that national state comes a foreign-policy and with that foreign-policy comes no shortage of trouble.

Evangelical Christians looking at these headlines in controversies are sometimes, at least in the present and especially perhaps in the United States, unaware or unmindful of the very deep theological reasons why evangelicals do not recognize the hierarchical authority of the Roman Catholic Church, in particular do not recognize the papacy and do not recognize the Vatican state as a state. The evangelical opposition to all of these is deeply rooted in the Reformation itself, and in the solas of the Reformation – that after all are not merely evangelical distinctive, but are the very heart of the evangelical understanding of Christianity, of the gospel, of biblical authority, and of the doctrine of justification – which is our salvation.

We should be very thankful that we have lived long enough to get over some of the very lamentable prejudice that was merely prejudice that separated Protestant evangelicals and Roman Catholics, but even as that prejudice and that animus has happily been removed, the theological issues that divide us have not gone away. The developments now in Ireland show that even in Ireland there are many Catholics who aren’t so Catholic after all. The real danger for evangelicals, even here in the United States, maybe especially here in the United States, is that many of those evangelicals aren’t so evangelical after all.

3) Luxembourg Prime Minister becomes first European leader to marry same sex partner

Finally, on this issue one of the story also from the New York Times also related to many of the same issues; Aurelien Breeden reports for the Times,

“The prime minister of Luxembourg on Friday wed his partner of several years in the first same-sex marriage of a European Union leader.”

The first head of government of a European union country has now been wed in a same-sex marriage ceremony. In this case it is Luxembourg Prime Minister Xavier Bettel, who married Gauthier Destenay, a Belgian architect,

“…less than a year after lawmakers in Luxembourg overwhelmingly legalized same-sex marriage, a sign of shifting attitudes in the predominantly Roman Catholic duchy.”

Now it is predominantly Roman Catholic – 87% of those in Luxembourg are Roman Catholics. You’ll remember the Luxembourg is a little duchy that does border Belgium and France and Germany and evidently it’s also very much a part of the secularization that has been taking place in those countries and throughout northern Europe. And the evidence of that in this case is abundantly clear there in the photographs and all over the world of the first head of government of a European Union nation to wed a partner of the same-sex.

4) Justice Ginsberg presiding at same sex wedding affirms view of gay marriage as constitutional

But wait just a minute, let’s then shift to the United States of America where a very interesting story developed yesterday, also reported by the New York Times,

“The groom and groom strolled down the aisle to the mellow strains of ‘Mr. Sandman.’”

Notice the following words,

“Wearing her black robe with her signature white lace collar, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presided over the marriage on Sunday afternoon of Michael Kahn, the longtime artistic director of the Shakespeare Theater Company in Washington, and Charles Mitchem, who works at an architecture firm in New York.”

So we’re not talking about Luxembourg, we’re not talking about Ireland, we’re talking about the United States of America – we’re talking about New York, and we’re talking about a justice of the Supreme Court presiding at a same-sex marriage ceremony – not her first – even as the Supreme Court is known to be dealing with the case that will involve the question of the legalization of same-sex marriage. She did so between the oral arguments held back in April and the eventual decision to be handed down we expect in June. One would think this to be a very unusual development to say the very least and it was the justice herself who indicated that she knows evidently just how unusual this was.

“But the most glittering moment for the crowd came during the ceremony. With a sly look and special emphasis on the word ‘Constitution,’ Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States.”

Now let’s just ask the question: what if one of the well-known conservative members of the United States Supreme Court, expected perhaps to oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage, were somehow in their own sly way to try to give their own indication of how they have already decided the case even before the Supreme Court rules? Where would the New York Times editorial board be about that? But in this case the sly look was given by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, expected to be a very safe vote for same-sex marriage. And you’ll note that before the Supreme Court has ruled she, according to this news article, with a sly look and a special emphasis on the word Constitution, declared that she was pronouncing the two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States. Actually we should note, if they are married – and they were married in New York – they would be married under the laws of New York State, not under the laws of the federal government.

If this were published in any newspaper other than the New York Times we might disregarded it as something that would belong more in terms of the checkout lane in the grocery store, but this is the New York Times and thus I refer you to the continuation of the article:

“No one was sure if she was emphasizing her own beliefs or giving a hint to the outcome of the case the Supreme Court is considering whether to decide if same-sex marriage is constitutional.

“But the guests began applauding loudly, delighted either way. Justice Ginsburg, who has officiated at same-sex weddings in the past, also seemed delighted, either by their reaction or, perhaps, by the news that she will be played in a movie by Natalie Portman (who, in a strange casting segue, will play Jackie Kennedy Onassis in another film).”

The article concludes,

“Taking off her robe to reveal a glamorous jacket with a cream satin leaf motif, Justice Ginsburg reigned as belle of the same-sex ball.

“And the music, being the food of love, played on.”

Now I just ask you to be reminded, this was not on a tabloid in the grocery checkout line; this comes from no less than the New York Times yesterday. The world as we know it is changing right before our eyes, our responsibility as Christians is at least to understand what’s happening as we see it happen.

 

Thanks for listening to The Briefing. For more information go to my website at AlbertMohler.com. You can follow me on Twitter by going to twitter.com/albertmohler. For more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary go to sbts.edu. For information on Boyce College just go to boycecollege.com. We’re taking questions for Ask Anything: Weekend Edition released. Call us with your question, in your voice to 877-505-2058. That’s 877-505-2058.

I’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.

The Briefing 05-19-15

Podcast Transcript

1) Irish same sex marriage referendum shows division between radical Catholics and evangelicals

Ireland’s Marriage Equality Moment, New York Times (Fintan O’Toole)

‘New Irish’ Christians mobilise to vote no to gay marriage, The Guardian (Henry McDonald)

Ireland could be first nation to legalize same-sex marriage by popular vote, Washington Post (Griff Witte)

Pope Francis and the Art of Joy, New York Times (Timothy Egan)

2) Protestant church distinctives affirmed by political disasters made by Vatican

Castro: Pope Francis so impressive I might return to church, Washington Post (AP)

Vatican Officially Recognizes State Of Palestine, NPR (Krishnadev Calamur)

3) Luxembourg Prime Minister becomes first European leader to marry same sex partner

Luxembourg Premier Is First E.U. Leader to Marry Same-Sex Partner, New York Times (Aurelien Breeden)

4) Justice Ginsberg presiding at same sex wedding affirms view of gay marriage as constitutional

Presiding at Same-Sex Wedding, Ruth Bader Ginsburg Emphasizes the Word ‘Constitution’, New York Times (Maureen Dowd)

Genesis 32:1-33:20

Transcript: The Briefing 05-18-15

The Briefing

 

May 18, 2015

This is a rush transcript. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

 

It’s Monday, May 18, 2015.  I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

1) Death penalty given to Boston Bomber in right recognition of need for justice

On Friday a federal jury handed down a death sentence to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev just weeks after he was found guilty of multiple federal counts, including several for which the death penalty was applicable. As the New York Times reported on Saturday,

“Two years after bombs in two backpacks transformed the Boston Marathon from a sunny rite of spring to a smoky battlefield with bodies dismembered, a federal jury on Friday condemned Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to death for his role in the 2013 attack.”

As Katherine Seelye went on to report for the Times,

“In a sweeping rejection of the defense case, the jury found that death was the appropriate punishment for six of 17 capital counts — all six related to Mr. Tsarnaev’s planting of a pressure-cooker bomb on Boylston Street, which his lawyers never disputed. Mr. Tsarnaev, 21, stood stone-faced in court, his hands folded in front of him, as the verdict was read, his lawyers standing grimly at his side.”

Now one of the most important points made by the New York Times and many other national media in response to the death penalty verdict is this and I quote,

“With its decision, the jury rejected virtually every argument that the defense put forth, including the centerpiece of its case — that Mr. Tsarnaev’s older brother, Tamerlan, had held a malevolent sway over him and led him into committing the crimes.”

What we’re looking at here is one of the great moral dramas of our time, and it’s a drama that involves the American legal system – in particular the federal courts – but it’s a drama that has ramifications that go far beyond this jury, this defendant, and this case. We’re looking at the first time since the 9/11 attacks in the United States in 2001 that a federal jury has brought forth a death penalty recommendation – in this case the death penalty verdict. And that’s highly telling because when you consider all the cases that have been brought before the United States courts since 2001 it’s very striking that it has taken this case to bring forth a federal death penalty verdict.

In this case the jury was asked to weigh the question of the death penalty or life in prison without the opportunity of parole – and that was for the 17 capital counts of which Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was convicted of weeks ago. Now you’ll recall that when his criminal trial began, the phase of the trial was to determine his guilt when it came to the crimes, his own attorneys conceded that he had done what the federal prosecutors alleged. They did not deny in any sense that he’d been an active participant in the terrorist attack that killed three and wounded so many others – so many of them grievously. It turned out that from the very first day of the criminal trial the main concern of his defense team was evidently to avoid the death penalty – and as the New York Times reflected on Saturday, they were spectacularly unsuccessful in doing so.

They had made two main arguments to the jury. In the first place they argued, as the New York Times indicated, that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was under the sway of his older brother, that he was not culpable to the degreed would invoke the death penalty for the attacks. And yet it turns out that the jurors, looking especially at the evidence brought forth by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was not under the moral sway of his brother, or at least not to the extent that it alleviated his own moral responsibility. That’s a very key issue. And as the New York Times and others reflected, the verdict forms indicated that only three of the 12 jurors believed that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had acted under his brother’s influence – that’s a very telling finding.

The second argument made by the defense team was that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was repentant and remorseful concerning his participation in the horrible events of 2013. But, as the New York Times reported,

“…the jury put little stock in any part of the defense. Only two jurors believed that Mr. Tsarnaev had expressed sorrow and remorse for his actions, a stinging rebuke to the assertion by Sister Helen Prejean, a Roman Catholic nun and renowned death penalty opponent, that he was ‘genuinely sorry’ for what he had done.”

One aspect of this that’s crucially important is the demeanor of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev during his trial and even during the penalty phase of his trial. But as the reporting has indicated, virtually unanimously, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev sat impassively in the court room even when the facts of the case were recited in all of their brutality and even when those who were the victims or the relatives of those who died in the attack had given very graphic testimony. One of the things we learned here is that being in that courtroom evidently made a great deal of difference, having the responsibility as a juror to weigh the relative arguments in this case, turned out not even to be a close call. And that is itself very telling.

There is a very important background to this and that is the fact that the state of Massachusetts does not have a death penalty in terms of its state books. There is no death penalty for any crime that is covered under Massachusetts law, but this was a trial in a federal court and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was being tried for federal crimes in a federal court with a federal jury. And this jury in this case was so-called death penalty qualified, which meant that all of the jurors had to state that given the opportunity they would not categorically reject the death penalty if it were called for in this case. And as we now know, the vast majority the jurors decided that it was called for. And this had to be a unanimous verdict at least on one of the death penalty convictions, not on all of them but at least on one of them.

A crucial insight on this issue was brought by the editors of the Wall Street Journal in an editorial that ran in its weekend edition. As the editors wrote and I quote,

“There are strong arguments for and against the death penalty, and there is no doubt that innocent men have been killed by the state. But there is no doubt of guilt in this case. And whatever else one believes about the death penalty, it sends an unmistakable message that even a society as tolerant as ours still believes that some acts deserve the ultimate penalty.”

That is one of the most important arguments being made in the aftermath of this death penalty verdict. The bigger question is not just, ‘was the death penalty indicated in the crimes of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev?’ but, would the death penalty be indicated in terms of any crime. One of the most interesting aspects of our cultural and moral landscape is the polls indicated that a majority of the citizens of Boston did not support the death penalty in any case, and particularly in the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. But this jury in Boston did find, not only that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was guilty of the crimes, but that he deserved the death penalty, and they impose that penalty.

Other polls indicated that a majority of Americans did believe that the death penalty was indicated in this specific case, and in at least some other cases. The editors of the Wall Street Journal got right to the point when they indicated that this jury, illustrating the general position of Americans at the moment, believes that at least in some cases the death penalty is applicable. Now we should note that even in the Bible, even in the Old Testament, the death penalty was very severely restricted and when it came to, for instance, the death penalty for murder – there had to be a very high evidentiary standard.

But one of the things we need to note is that a great deal of the moral transition on the question of the death penalty has to do with the secularization of American culture, because the biblical worldview establishes the death penalty not in vengeance but rather in the sacred dignity and worth of every single human life. Christians should be reminded that the death penalty is rooted in the Noahic covenant, found in the book of Genesis chapter 9 when after Noah and his family had emerged from the Ark, and as the Lord made his covenant with Noah, the Lord said this and I quote – this is Genesis chapter 9, beginning in verse five:

“And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.”

And then verse six,

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.

There you have the most important textual basis in Scripture for the death penalty. What follows in Scripture, in the Old Testament in particular, is an outlining of the circumstances in which the death penalty might be imposed. One of the most interesting aspects of our understanding of the Old Testament is the limitation that it puts upon the death penalty and the very high standard of evidence that was required before the death penalty can be applied. Christians looking at the issue the death penalty have to recognize that the biblical foundation of the death penalty is not in any sense rooted in retribution, but rather in the necessity of justice. And the fact that the crime of murder particularly demonstrates the fact that the one who would take a life forfeits his own life in so doing – that’s the biblical logic, its right there in the Noahic covenant.

In the United States at presents, an increasingly secularized country, the death penalty has lost much of that biblical foundation. And for that reason and for others it is itself now a highly controversial issue. And one of the things that we should note is that the death penalty has been significantly conscribed when it comes to laws in many of the states, including in particular the state of Massachusetts but also in terms of the crimes for which the death penalty is applicable in the federal courts. One of the most important moral points made by the editors of the Wall Street Journal is that the question of guilt in this case was never in doubt. As a matter fact, the very first statement made by the defense was to acknowledge the guilt of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in terms of committing these crimes.

One of the things we’ve looked at, whether its the case of Anders Breivik in the Netherlands, or in this case Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in Boston, the question, would the death penalty be applicable in any case? If indeed the death penalty is applicable in any case, then a civilized society – especially one that would operate out of a biblical worldview – has to be particularly careful, scrupulously careful, about making sure that the death penalty is actually applied only when it is called for by the evidence and justified by the actual circumstances of the crime. A conviction for murder is not itself enough to indicate the death penalty, but there have to be what is defined in the law as aggravating circumstances. There has to be intentionality about the act of murder; it can’t be merely manslaughter, it has to be intentional murder. And in the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev it was multiple cases of intentional homicide.

One of the things the Christian should note is that there are very legitimate, even urgent questions, about how the death penalty is often applied and whether or not it actually fits the circumstances of crimes and of convictions. But we must also understand that there is a basic understanding of the requirement of justice that appears to be shared widely by the American people. But we also need to understand that there’s a basic hunger and thirst for justice and when it comes to some acts, it turns out that there is a basic impulse towards understanding that at least some crimes are deserving of the death penalty. As I said, there are serious questions about how the death penalty is applied – especially at the state level – in many circumstances in the United States. And Christians need to be very concerned about achieving justice at every conceivable level, and that includes the state level.

But this was a federal case, and this federal jury brought a death penalty verdict. And as the editors of the Wall Street Journal indicated, even in modern America there is an understanding that was certainly symbolized by this jury that there are some crimes that simply demand the death penalty. The death penalty and the whole issue of capital punishment is going to be an ongoing controversy in American life, of that we can be absolutely certain. But Christians at least need to understand the biblical foundation that is at stake, and understand that what is centrally at stake is the understanding that every single human life is of infinite worth because every single human being is made in God’s image.

2) House passing 20-week abortion ban exposes institutionalized worldview division between parties

Next – also speaking about the sanctity of human life – a big development last week in the United States House of Representatives. As Tom Howell reported for the Washington Times and I quote,

“The House voted Wednesday to ban most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy as Republicans delivered a key piece of the pro-life agenda and overcame an embarrassing false start earlier this year.”

Howell went on to write,

“Dubbed the ‘Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,’ the legislation cleared on a 242-184 vote that largely broke along party lines, with just four pro-life Democrats joining in support and four Republicans voting against it.”

The deep worldview divide over the issue of abortion points to an even deeper worldview divide over the question of the sanctity of human life. And this bill, that past last week in the United States House of Representatives, is only the latest indication of how deep that divide actually is. Biblically minded Christians need to look at this story very carefully. One of the most interesting aspects is how the Washington Times introduce the story, telling us that it broke largely along party lines. There were four Democrats, identified as pro-life, who voted for the bill joining with the Republican majority, but there were four Republicans who brought from their Republican colleagues and voted against the bill.

Now when you look at the number four it’s an even exchange there, but one of the things we need to note is that the deep worldview divide over the issue of abortion is now rather institutionalized in America’s two dominant political parties. The Democratic Party addressed the issue of abortion in its 2012 national party platform, not only supporting abortion under every conceivable circumstance, allowing for no opposition to abortion legally whatsoever, but also calling for taxpayer support of abortion in the national party platform. In contrast, in that same year, 2012, the Republican Party indicated its pro-life position and made a pledge to work for just the kind of legislation we saw passed in the House of Representatives last week.

As the Times indicates, the Republican majority in the house delivered on a campaign promise. The response of the other party, not just those in the House of Representatives, was swift and it was clear. Maya Harris, Senior policy advisor for Hillary Clinton, said that the bill

“…puts women’s health and rights at risk, undermines the role doctors play in health care decisions, burdens survivors of sexual assault, and is not based on sound science.”

Now, again and again we see that phrase ‘sound science’ and there’s a very important issue to this that is indeed scientific – we’ll get to that in just a moment. On the other hand, the White House also responded with the White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest declaring the bill passed by the house to be disgraceful. The bill is unlikely to pass the United States Senate, even with the Republican majority – there simply aren’t enough votes to get cloture in the Senate at this point. But if it were to pass the Senate, Pres. Obama has declared that he would veto the legislation if it were to reach his desk.

Meanwhile, the editorial board of the New York Times, that has stalwartly defended abortion under every conceivable circumstance, declared that the abortion ban was based on what it called bogus arguments. As the editors wrote,

“For the second time in two years, the House voted Wednesday to pass legislation that would ban almost all abortions 20 weeks or more after fertilization. The bill, called the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, claims that ‘an unborn child is capable of experiencing pain at least by 20 weeks after fertilization,’ though medical evidence does not support this.”

Well, this is an editorial, it’s not a news report, but we simply have to point out that all depends on which scientific studies you are quoting and which medical evidence you are deciding to privilege. And that is virtually always dependent on whether or not you believe that the unborn child is a moral agent worthy and deserving, indeed demanding of, protection.

The most important section of the New York Times editorial comes when the editors wrote,

“The measure gained momentum after The New England Journal of Medicine published a study indicating that a tiny number of babies born at 22 weeks can survive if given intensive medical treatment. Representative Diane Black of Tennessee, one of the bill’s sponsors, released a statement last Friday saying, ‘Science tells us that, after 20 weeks, babies can feel pain and are increasingly able to live outside the womb.’”

One of most interesting aspects of this is that this very newspaper ran a front-page article, just days ago, that I discussed on The Briefing in which they made the very same point. They begin their editorial saying that “medical evidence does not support this,” but they actually reported on their own front-page some of the same medical evidence. Writing in her own essay published in the Washington Times Representative Black said this,

“Polls consistently show that upward of 60 percent of Americans support putting an end to the dangerous and inhumane practice of late-term abortions. Those numbers will only increase as hearts and minds are made aware of the pain that these babies experience during abortion and the evidence supporting their viability at increasingly early stages of development.”

It’s that very concern, we need to note, that led to the subhead on the front page of the New York Times, stating that the fact that this study had come out indicating that at least some babies at 22 and 20 weeks were capable of surviving outside the womb, it was that very paper that said that this would add fuel to the abortion debate and so it has.

In terms of The Briefing today, these two stories put together indicate that great chasm that now separates Americans on the issue of the sanctity of human life. But the two stories also point to the fact that there still is an amazing terrain of common ground. The vast majority of Americans believe that the death penalty should be applicable in at least some cases, and the vast majority of Americans believe that at least some abortions are wrong and at least some unborn babies deserve protection even in terms of the law. That tells us something about the conflicted and sometimes even contradictory understandings held by some Americans, even individually, on issues such as the death penalty and abortion.

Thinking as a Christian I simply have to say that the issue of abortion right now should be a far higher priority than the issue of the death penalty. On the issue the sanctity of human life on the American landscape there is much ground that must be reclaimed, and not all of this ground is level. But this much is abundantly clear: the loss of the Christian worldview in our culture is deeply subversive of the very idea of the sanctity of human life. To put the matter bluntly, you really can’t have the word sanctity and the words secularization at one in the same time. By its very definition a secularizing society holds to a lessening understanding of anything that is sacred, even the sanctity of human life. There are other issues to which we will turn as this week unfolds, but when it comes to the sanctity of human life it comes first and in this case it came first in the week.

 

Thanks for listening to The Briefing. For more information go to my website at AlbertMohler.com. You can follow me on Twitter by going to twitter.com/albertmohler. For more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary go to sbts.edu. For information on Boyce College just go to boycecollege.com. Remember, we’re taking questions for Ask Anything: Weekend Edition released. Call us with your question, in your voice to 877-505-2058. That’s 877-505-2058.

 

I’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.

 

Evangelical Titan: A Conversation about Billy Graham with historian Grant Wacker

The Briefing 05-18-15

Podcast Transcript

1) Death penalty given to Boston Bomber in right recognition of need for justice

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Given Death Penalty in Boston Marathon Bombing, New York Times (Katherine Q. Seelye)

Death For Tsarnaev, Wall Street Journal (Editorial Board)

2) House passing 20-week abortion ban exposes institutionalized worldview division between parties

House votes to ban most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, Washington Times (Tom Howell, Jr.)

House Approves Revised Measure Banning Most Abortions After 20 Weeks, New York Times (Emmarie Huetteman)

An Abortion Ban’s Bogus Arguments, New York Times (Editorial Board)

Pain-capable opponents ignore science, Washington Times (Diane Black)

 

The Gathering Storm: The Eclipse of Religious Liberty and the Threat of a New Dark Age

Remarks Delivered Friday, May 15,  2015:

Mister Attorney General, Mr. Sears, and distinguished guests, it is a great honor to accept the Edwin Meese III Award for Originalism and Religious Liberty. That honor is greatly magnified by the presence of Attorney General Meese and by the fact that this award bears his name. He is one of America’s most courageous defenders of human freedom and the American experiment in ordered liberty.

I am also honored to receive this award from the Alliance Defending Freedom and its President, Alan Sears. I have known Alan for many years, and I know him to be one of the most powerful advocates of virtue and liberty of our age. The work of the Alliance Defending Freedom is essential, singular, and urgently vital. This battalion of defenders fights most of all—and most effectively—for our “first freedom,” religious liberty.

I am deeply, and always aware that I could not be here without the constant support and love of my wife, Mary Mohler.

You will recognize that I borrowed from Sir Winston Churchill for the title of my remarks. In the first volume of his history of World War II, the great statesman looked back at the storm clouds that gathered in the 1930s, when he had bravely warned of a war that would determine the destiny of human dignity and liberty for untold millions of people.

We are not facing the same gathering storm, but we are now facing a battle that will determine the destiny of priceless freedoms and the very foundation of human rights and human dignity.

Speaking thirty years ago, Attorney General Meese warned that “there are ideas which have gained influence in some parts of our society, particularly in some important and sophisticated areas that are opposed to religious freedom and freedom in general. In some areas there are some people that have espoused a hostility to religion that must be recognized for what it is, and expressly countered.”

Those were prophetic words, prescient in their clarity and foresight. The ideas of which Mr. Meese warned have only gained ground in the last thirty years, and now with astounding velocity. A revolution in morality now seeks not only to subvert marriage, but also to redefine it, and thus to undermine an essential foundation of human dignity, flourishing, and freedom.

Religious liberty is under direct threat. Just days ago the Solicitor General of the United States served notice before the Supreme Court that the liberties of religious institutions will be an open and unavoidable question. Already, religious liberty is threatened by a new moral regime that exalts erotic liberty and personal autonomy and openly argues that religious liberties must give way to the new morality, its redefinition of marriage, and its demand for coercive moral, cultural, and legal sovereignty.

A new moral and legal order is ascendant in America, and this new order is only possible, in the arena of American law and jurisprudence, if the original intent and the very words of the Constitution of the United States are twisted beyond recognition.

These are days that will require courage, conviction, and clarity of vision. We are in a fight for the most basic liberties God has given humanity, every single one of us, made in his image. Religious liberty is being redefined as mere freedom of worship, but it will not long survive if it is reduced to a private sphere with no public voice. The very freedom to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ is at stake, and thus so is the liberty of every American. Human rights and human dignity are temporary abstractions if they are severed from their reality as gifts of the Creator. The eclipse of Christian truth will lead inevitably to a tragic loss of human dignity. If we lose religious liberty, all other liberties will be lost, one by one. I am a Christian, and I believe that salvation is found in no other name than Jesus Christ and in no other gospel, but I will fight for the religious liberty of all.

There is a gathering storm, and its threat is urgent and real, but there are arguments to be made, principles to be defended, rights to be respected, truths to be cherished, and permanent things to be preserved. We face the danger of a new Dark Age marked by the loss of liberty and the denial of human dignity. Thus, there is a battle to be joined and much work to be done. Together, may we be found faithful to these tasks. As Churchill would remind us, in every gathering storm there is a summons to action.

Remarks by R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, upon receiving the 2015 Edwin Meese III Award for Originalism and Religious Liberty from the Alliance Defending Freedom, Friday, May 15, 2015 in McLean, Virginia.

 

 

 

 

Ask Anything: Weekend Edition 2015-05-16

1) Should Christians participate in snowflake embryo adoption?

2) How can a Christian overcome a struggle over assurance of salvation?

3) What is a pastoral response to people pursuing elective cosmetic surgery?

 

Call with your questions 24 hours a day, 7 days aweek: 1-877-505-2058