R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s Blog, page 310

Transcript: The Briefing 06-01-15

The Briefing

 

June 1, 2015

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

 

It’s Monday, June 1, 2015. I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

1) Senate debate over NSA program exposes tension between security and privacy in dangerous world

We’re watching before our eyes a drama in the United States Senate, having to do with what it means to live in a dangerous world. What kind of information needs to be collected in order to make us safer? What kind of information once collected doesn’t make us safer at all? That is the root of the debate and that debate has been playing out in recent days in the United States Senate. Last night the Senate adjourned at 10 o’clock without passing a new bill that would replace the Patriot Acts provisions for data and surveillance collection that came after the 9/11 attacks on the United States of America. So as of midnight this morning, 12:01 to be precise, those particular provisions of the Patriot Act expired and yet last night, United States Senate was able only to move by a vote to a debate of the issue, not to an actual consideration or a vote on the bill itself.

The original legislationm Americans will remember, is called the Patriot Act. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush, some of the specific provisions of that law enabled national security agencies to collect vast amounts of information on the phone calls made by Americans. The actual content of those phone calls was not available without some sort of judicial order, but the information on the phone calls themselves were allowable under the Patriot Act. That information became known to the world largely through the exposé that was undertaken by Edward Snowden, now basically in exile or asylum in Russia.

Politically this was a test for the United States Senate. The United States House had passed the new bill, known as the USA Freedom Act, by an overwhelming majority and that act also has the support of President Barack Obama. But in the United States Senate, especially among very powerful people who have been involved in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, there has been resistance to the form of the bill that was passed overwhelmingly in the house. Specifically, there are several leading senators who feel that the House version of the bill, the bill supported by the President would leave America vulnerable in terms of lacking certain information that might well prevent a terrorist attack.

We’re looking at a political situation in which one Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has an outsized influence, as he has been arguing and frankly marshaling support among more libertarian elements in the Senate in order to defeat a stronger version of the bill that was supported by the other Kentucky Senator that is Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell also of Kentucky. The bare political fact is that the house version is likely to be adopted by the Senate with minimal revision by sometime this week, but the reality is that as of 12:01 this morning, at least some provisions of the law will lapse. That is indeed the political drama, but there is a huge moral drama that is going on here and it’s one that is hard for any of us to answer in terms of exactly which course we should take.

There are two very strong arguments, both of which have traction in terms of the Christian worldview. The first argument is in an evil and fallen world, in a very dangerous world, we need to collect every bit of information that might be accessible in order that the government might review that data and prevent some kind of terrorist attack. The other argument, which also has strong support from the Christian moral tradition, is that, that kind of information is never neutral and once it is in the hands of a centralized authority it can be used for evil as well as for good. In the United States, politically this means that there are libertarians who basically want to say that the United States government should have no access to this information without already knowing who might commit a crime and on the other hand you have those who say there is no way to know who might commit a crime until there is a pattern of information that might reveal it.

It’s clear that the American people are themselves inconsistent, perhaps even contradictory on the issue. They want to keep their own personal information private and they want to make sure that the government is not using that information without their knowledge. On the other hand, they want to hold the government accountable to try to detect patterns that might indicate a potential terrorist act before it happens. The same kind of tension is playing out in much of Europe right now in France and Germany, for example, but in the United States, it takes on a special sense because the United States, as the bastion of liberty in the world has long cherished individual liberty and personal privacy as a part of that liberty.

An intelligent Christian looking at the situation and trying to think biblically recognizes that there are arguments to be made on both sides of this equation. There is always a danger when any institution, including a government, begins to collect vast amounts of information on its citizens without any presumption of a criminal act that might be actually in the making. On the other hand, in a fallen and dangerous world, it is the expectation of citizens that a government will do anything within its power in order to prevent some kind of violent or terrorist attack, and of this you can be certain, if indeed a terrorist attack were to happen Americans would ask the question, “Why did the government not prevent it from happening?” On the other hand, Americans have a memory, if not at first hand of the Gestapo in Nazi Germany listening into the phone calls of German citizens and of the communist government in the Soviet Union doing the very same.

It’s fairly easy to predict in terms of the political equation, as Senator Paul acknowledged last night, some version of this bill is going to pass. That’s because when the government look to these two competing issues, it’s going to side with security rather than with privacy. Whatever eventual form the legislation takes that is signed by the President of the United States, it will in one way or another, we can safely presume, allow the government to have some way to collect the data that it believes might prevent a terrorist attack. And American citizens are in the rather awkward, if inconsistent position of believing that the data shouldn’t be collected but that the government should use it very carefully.

Sometimes Christians need to understand there are cases to be made on both sides of an argument and at some point we simply have to decide which side of the argument will prevail even if both arguments have a certain amount of traction to them, even in the Christian worldview. Because the Christian worldview also affirms the fact that those who are plotting evil, almost by definition, have the jump on those who are trying to prevent it.

2) Scandal over former Speaker Hastert remind sin will find you out

Next, when it comes to sin we also need to remember regularly the biblical teaching that we should be certain our sin will find us out. There was a scandal that emerged as we went into the weekend, as the longest-serving Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, was indicted on federal charges having to do with financial irregularities. But as was immediately suspected that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois served as the speaker the house for 1999 to 2007, again, that’s the longest term held by any Republican in terms of serving as leader of a lower house of Congress. The case against the former speaker was put in blunt form by the New York Times on Saturday with reporters Michael Shear and Michael Schmidt, writing:

“J. Dennis Hastert, who served for eight years as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, was paying a former student hundreds of thousands of dollars to not say publicly that Mr. Hastert had sexually abused him decades ago, according to two people briefed on the evidence uncovered in an FBI investigation. The story continues, federal prosecutors on Thursday announced the indictment of Mr. Hastert, age 73, on allegations that he made cash withdrawals totaling 1.7 million to evade detection by banks. Federal authorities also charged him with lying to them about the purpose of the withdrawals.”

Now here’s what’s really interesting from a Christian worldview perspective, in the first place we have very serious allegations at two levels made against someone who was second in terms of the line of succession away from the presidency of the United States. In the first place, we have financial irregularities that are actually now coming in the form of an official indictment from federal prosecutors. On the second level, we now have information on the reason why those financial irregularities appeared in the first place. By the time the weekend had ended, federal prosecutors had acknowledged that the financial irregularities were tied to a pattern of payments the former Speaker was making to a young man who had been a student in the high school where Mr. Hastert had served not only as a teacher, but also as the wrestling coach. According to federal prosecutors, the young man had addressed the former Speaker in the year 2010, and somehow an agreement was reached whereby Speaker Hastert would pay him $3.5 million to maintain his silence. According to the prosecutors, the former Speaker had paid $1.7 million to the man by the time the indictment was handed down late last week.

In terms of sin, there are a couple of very important lessons here from the Christian biblical worldview. In the first place, we’re talking about something that took place according to the allegations made decades ago and yet it came to light, not just in terms of the federal indictment, it came to light in terms of something that happened in 2010, three years after Mr. Hastert left office. Somewhere in those three years, a young man addressed him with the challenge that led him to promise $3.5 million if the young man would remain quiet. But there’s a first lesson, no matter how deeply in the past something like that may be thought to be left, it is not going to stay there.

The important thing to realize is that there is no doubt that in terms of human justice, even of human knowledge, there are any number of undetected crimes, certainly undetected sins. But the biblical worldview doesn’t assure us that somehow a federal grand jury is going to hand down an indictment one day, but it does assure us that on that Day of Judgment God will reveal every sin. There’s something else here, a fundamental interest to the Christian worldview, and it also is deeply tied to American criminal and criminal justice history. It has to do with the fact that it is not unprecedented at all. In fact, it is all too common in terms of American legal history, for someone to go to jail for some reason other than the underlying and more fundamental crime. Perhaps the most graphic illustration of that is the fact that the gangster, Al Capone, who is credited by virtually all, with multiple murders, all kinds of racketeering, any number of forms organized crime, eventually spent time in a federal prison, not for murder, not for extortion, not for gangsterism, not for all kinds of manifestations of organized crime with incredible violence, but rather for income tax evasion.

When it comes to organized crime in America and when it comes to any number of crimes including many drug crimes, the people who end up in prison are not there for the fundamental crime they have committed, because the evidence may be inadequate to bring that to court or a statute of limitations may have expired, but there is still the lingering issue of the money. As Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee famously said during the Watergate investigations of President Nixon in the early 1970s, “Follow the money.” What first alerted federal prosecutors in this case is that the former Speaker was withdrawing a huge amount of money from his financial accounts. He had the money to withdraw evidently and he was drawing at one time $50,000 multiply. Now one of the things we need to keep in mind is that federal banking law requires that the banks alert the federal government of any cash withdrawal of $10,000 or above. This provision was put in place largely because of the war on crime, including especially, the war on organized crime. Once the banks made an inquiry of the speaker, he began withdrawing smaller amounts of money. Now here again, the Christian worldview tells us that when we come to matters economic, when we come to matters of money, that’s where the intersection of sin and opportunity often shows itself most graphically. And one of the things that we have to keep in mind here is that this is a former speaker of the House of Representatives. This is someone who surely knew the banking laws. He had helped to put those laws into place. It seems almost inconceivable to us that someone who withheld that kind of position of authority would then follow the very pattern that he had to know eventually was likely to draw attention to himself and not only that, according to the indictment, when the speaker was addressed by federal investigators he lied to them about the purpose of the withdrawals.

Any way you look at it, this is a very sad case and one of the most interesting aspects of this is that the colleagues of the former Speaker who served with him in the House of Representatives, those who also knew him from Illinois politics, those who know him now in terms of his hometown there in Illinois, that express almost universal shock at the allegations made against the former Speaker. We also have to be very clear, that at this point these are allegations. This is a criminal indictment handed down by the U.S. Department of Justice. But Mr. Hester deserves his day in court, as does everyone accused of a crime. At this point, however, the federal government has put the indictment out for public view, making very clear, the specific charges it intends to bring against a former Speaker of the House of Representatives. This is indeed a world of sin and stories like this, heartbreaking as they are bring that very much to our attention. Also going back to Watergate, it’s important for all of us to remember that sometimes people go to jail or face criminal penalties not for the underlying crime but for the cover up. As Howard Baker might remind us, “Follow the money” –  all the way to the Day of Judgment.

3) Presidential candidates multiply as middle ground between parties disappear

Next, as we are looking at the future of the United States, the year 2016 looms before us as a presidential election and in this case, there are more candidates than we had expected even a matter of just a few months ago. The most interesting action has taken place in recent days on the Democratic side, where the former Governor of Maryland, Martin O’Malley announced that he will run against Hillary Rodham Clinton and against now Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont for the office of President of the United States, specifically for the Democratic Party’s nomination for that office.

The interesting thing about Martin O’Malley, who served as governor of Maryland until last year, fulfilling two full terms, is that he is running to the left of Hillary Clinton, and that’s very interesting, because even in recent months, it’s been clear that the former Secretary of State and New York Senator, the former First Lady of the United States, has been running to her own left in terms of where she ran in the year 2008.  So oddly enough, given the current spectrum of those who are running for the Democratic nomination as announced candidates, you have Senator Bernie Sanders, a socialist by his own declaration on the far left and then you have on the nearer left Martin O’Malley, the former Governor of Maryland, and then you have the former Secretary of State who’s trying to prove to the Democratic grassroots that she’s the liberal after all.

Martin O’Malley’s argument is number one, rather subtle that he is younger than the former Secretary of State, he drew attention to that, but he also especially drew attention to what he believes are his bona fides, the proof that he is actually more liberal than the former Secretary of State, one of the things he offered is that he was for the legalization of same-sex marriage long before she was and he declared he was going to be running against Wall Street declaring that Wall Street really didn’t care if the election were to be won by a Clinton or a Bush, presenting himself as the liberal alternative.

From a worldview perspective it’s going to be really interesting to see how the Democrats fight amongst themselves in the who’s more liberal than whom contest, but the immediate political effect of Martin O’Malley entering the race is that it is likely to draw Hillary Clinton even further to the left, but there’s something else to watch here, and that is the answer to the question, “Why did Martin O’Malley enter the race?” He is way behind the former Secretary of State in terms of name recognition; he is way behind in terms of political apparatus, why did he enter the race? At least one assumption is this; he may well have entered the race in order to position himself as the obvious alternative if there is a major problem that emerges in a Hillary Clinton candidacy. That will be very interesting to watch.

Meanwhile, on the Republican side two new entries into the race for the Republican nomination, in the first place, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum he was in office as United States Senator from Pennsylvania from the years 1995, 2007 and in 2012, he came in second, albeit a rather distant second to Mitt Romney in the race for the Republican nomination. Rick Santorum has been a family values conservative. He has run every single time he has run for election on that very same kind of platform. However, he has been out of office since the year 2007 and he is facing a host of other Republican candidates who are trying to address themselves to the very same voters.

Rick Santorum is resolutely pro-life, that draws immediate contrast with the other man who entered the Republican race in recent days, former New York Governor, George Pataki. Pataki was the Governor of one of the most liberal states in the union as a Republican from 1995 to 2006 and George Pataki is pro-choice, that is going to add an interesting element to the conversation and debates on the Republican side of the presidential election process. This much is clear; the Republican Party really doesn’t have much room for someone who’s going to run against the party’s clear declaration of a pro-life position. One of the interesting observations so often made about American politics today especially the presidential level is that the middle ground, has disappeared or is disappearing. “Where is the ground?” We often hear for a more liberal Republican or a more conservative Democrat. The answer is there isn’t much ground for either. And the reason for it is actually very easy to understand. The issues are now so clarified that it is very difficult to imagine how one would bridge the positions of the two parties in a single individual or for that matter, in any kind of political platform. The Democratic Party is not only for abortion under almost any circumstance in terms of his 2012 national platform, it actually called for government funding of abortion, whereas the Republican Party adopted a pro-life position in terms of its 2012 national party platform. To the extent that it was specific about calling for exactly the kind of legislation that was adopted by the House of Representatives just in recent weeks.

One of the things Christians should recognize very clearly is that fundamental issues really are here at stake. The very fact that when George Pataki entered the race, national journalists immediately leapt on the fact that he is the first major pro-choice candidate or pro-abortion candidate to enter the race on the Republican side tells us that even those who are watching from a very different political standpoint in a very secular understanding notice that this is a very interesting development in the race. And it points to the worldview consequences; not only of the race, but of every vote. 2016 is shaping up to be a major test of the American people. It’s shaping up to be a major debate over issues of very deep and inescapable worldview significance. We’re going to have issues of war and peace, going to have issues of national security and privacy, we’re going to have issues of life and death, and we’re going to have issues in the balance of some states having to do with assisted suicide and euthanasia. One way or another, the issue of marijuana is likely to factor into the 2016 race as well. And of course, even as a major Supreme Court decision on the issue of same-sex marriage is looming before us, we have the great divide that separates Americans over this issue and the fact that in terms of middle ground, as represented by the two political party platforms in 2012.

As we anticipate 2016, it’s hard to imagine how the divide would not be even wider than it was before. Political campaigns, especially when the focus is the office of President of the United States are always unpredictable and they are often messy. But in terms of the worldview consideration, we need to note that it is our responsibility to watch very, very carefully because this is not most fundamentally a battle of personalities, though personality does matter, this is not fundamentally a battle over mere issues, though the issues certainly matter. This is a major struggle and there’s no way around to define what kind of nation we need to be, even what we understand to be the nature and dignity of human life, one way or another, this will be an election that will test our understanding of whether or not there is an established stable morality that is to be honored by all people everywhere, or whether morality is just an ongoing project of human social evolution. Week by week, the pollsters and the survey takers may bring us new data about who’s up and who’s down and what issue was on the front lines in which has been relegated to the inside pages. But know this, by the time we get into the voting booth we’re going to know a great deal more about the candidates and by the time we get out of the voting booth, we’re going to know a great deal more about ourselves.

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 information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu. For information on Boyce College just go to boycecollege.com.

I’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.

The Briefing 06-01-15

1) Senate debate over NSA program exposes tension between security and privacy in dangerous world

Senate to let NSA spy program lapse, at least temporarily, Reuters (Patricia Zengerle and Warren Strobel)

NSA must end bulk data collection even as Senate moves ahead on NSA bill, CNN (Jeremy Diamond and Ted Barrett)

2) Scandal over former Speaker Hastert remind sin will find you out

Hastert Case Is Said to Be Linked to Decades-Old Sexual Abuse, New York Times (Michael D. Shear and Michael S. Schmidt)

Dennis Hastert Allegedly Made Payments to Conceal Sexual Misconduct, Wall Street Journal (Andrew Grossman, Devlin Barrett and Ben Kesling)

3) Presidential candidates multiply as middle ground between parties disappear

Martin O’Malley’s Star-Spangled, Snafu-Speckled Debut, New York Times (Maggie Haberman)

Bucking Odds, Martin O’Malley Tilts at Hillary Clinton, Wall Street Journal (Laura Meckler and Scott Calvert)

Enter Pataki, Fiorina, and Santorum: Thoughts on 2016, Forbes (John Zogby)

Ask Anything: Weekend Edition 2015-05-30

1) Were there actually women pastors and bishops in the early church?

2) What is the point of fasting?

3) Should evangelicals attend the weddings of divorcees or Catholic infant baptisms?

 

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

 

 

Transcript: The Briefing 05-29-15

The Briefing

 

May 29, 2015

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

 

It’s Friday, May 29, 2015.  I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

1) FIFA corruption charges exposes incompetence of humans to self-police sin

The question is this: is there any dimension of human existence that is not corrupted by sin? Here’s the answer: no. And here’s the evidence: just consider the last couple of days when criminal indictments were brought by the Atty. Gen. of the United States against FIFA, that is the world organization that organizes and governs international soccer. We’re looking here at the fact that the United States – represented by its Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch – has brought criminal indictments against some of the highest-ranking authorities in the international world of professional soccer.

The indictments did not come out of the blue. It was well known that the American Justice Department was working on investigations, and the United States will not be alone. The nation of Switzerland is also highly involved in investigations of corruption of the highest levels of FIFA. But let’s remind ourselves what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about a game. We’re talking about a game that evolved into a sport. And we’re talking about a sport that became a big business. And once you have a game that becomes a sport that becomes big business you have the opportunity for big corruption.

We’re talking out of business, a worldwide enterprise that involves billions of dollars a year. And in particular, the limited indictments brought by the United States Justice Department brought criminal allegations alleging at least $150 million in bribes. One of the most interesting things heard on the worldwide scene is that given the totality of the money involved in FIFA, $150 million doesn’t add up to that much. As a matter fact, in the last 12 months FIFA spent over $100 million just on attorneys’ fees. And indictments handed down this week mean they are sure to be spending a great deal more.

One of the things the Christian worldview informed by the Scripture helps us to understand is that sin in its insidious force works its way into every nook and cranny, into every crack of a civilization, into every dimension of human existence. You might think that one of the most innocent would be play. And yet as you know, even if you’re looking at just two kids in a sandbox play can turn anything but entirely innocent. And when you’re looking at a worldwide opportunity represented by multiple billions of dollars a year, and when you’re looking at the prestige and the egos, and you’re looking at the reputations that are at stake – when you’re looking at the confluence of glory and pride and money and profit, you’re looking at a recipe for moral disaster.

One of the things that immediately people will say – it’s a commonsense response – is you have to put adequate guards and matters of accountability into place. And when you look at FFA – let’s just remind ourselves of this: FIFA’s supposed to be the organization that watches in order to govern soccer and its moral integrity. Now you have very credible criminal investigations brought not just by the United States, but soon also by Switzerland,  and with the full authority of the United States government behind them, including the active involvement of the Atty. Gen. United States, and their being brought against the very organization that exists in order not only to govern soccer, but also to protect what is known internationally as football against any allegations of corruption or immorality.

Sepp Blatter, who’s been the president of FIFA now for a matter of years is not the direct target of one of these indictments, at least not yet. And yet he’s been standing at the top of an organization that has been accused – credibly accused – of corruption for years now. And even now, even yesterday, he insisted that FIFA has to be left alone to police itself. The New York Times reported yesterday that Blatter said that these were, in his words, “unprecedented and difficult times” for his organization. He said it must do a better job of policing itself. But as the New York Times tells us, he largely avoided taking responsibility for the actions of what he called a tiny minority arrested in a corruption inquiry this week.

One of the most interesting questions raised in the context of this controversy over FIFA is how in the world you can have someone as president of the organization given now over a decade of sustained allegations of corruption, who at the end of that decade, and only after criminal indictments are headed down, says we must be left to police ourselves. Blatter said,

“We, or I, cannot monitor everyone all of the time. If people want to do wrong, they will also try to hide it. But it must also fall to me to be responsible for the reputation of our entire organization, and to find a way to fix things.”

Anyone familiar with the literature of the 20th century would hear that almost as a refrain from something like Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, or something, perhaps, even older. It sounds like it could come from Dante. Here you have a man who is been at the top of an organization accused of immorality for years, who says ‘I’m responsible,’ but takes no responsibility.

He then has the audacity, facing scrutiny from the entire watching world, to say, ‘We haven’t done a good enough job of policing ourselves, even though we are basically when it comes to international football, the policing organization. And yet, we must be left to police ourselves, even now.’

There are so many interesting moral dimensions of this – one of the things is the tight ethical squeeze this now puts on the sponsors of international soccer. The New York Times again is reporting that many of the major corporations who are spending billions of dollars in advertising and sponsorships in international football, they now are saying they’re going to have to reassess the situation. But that doesn’t mean they’re pulling back their sponsorship. You see, this is one of the situations in which a cost-benefit analysis is just the way the world thinks. They have to measure whether or not at this point it is more expensive for them to spend the advertising or to withdraw the advertising. They have to decide whether or not the scandal is bad enough that it’s too expensive morally for them to associate their brand and their logos and their image with international soccer. At this point, many these companies are taking a wait-and-see attitude.

Once again, a lesson from the Christian worldview: when some scandal like this breaks there is almost the immediate response to say, let us govern ourselves. That’s what Sepp Blatter said. And yet, we remind ourselves, this is the organization that has spectacularly failed to hold itself accountable, much less the rest of international football. And then you have the immediate response coming from those who’ve been funding the operation, saying we’re going to take a wait-and-see attitude. We’re going to reassess.

I think that was sympathy for these corporations. They find themselves in an untenable situation. They simply don’t know how bad this corruption scandal is going to be. If, like previous scandals, it blows over rather quickly, the business will go on like usual. But the sign that the United States Justice Department is brought criminal indictments of this magnitude, that tells most people around the world this one isn’t going to blow over.

The biblical worldview reminds us of so many things that come out in the headlines concerning FIFA. The most important of them is this: we are simply incompetent and governing ourselves. In a sinful world even the organization, perhaps especially the organization that is formed to govern international soccer and its integrity falls prey to the corruption that is demonstrated by the fact that the president of the organization says that if people are intending to do evil, they will. And then you’ve got the rest of the world, including those sponsors with so much at stake, wondering just how bad is this going to get.

Well, the way sin generally works is this, when a scandal breaks of this magnitude at the beginning it’s just a hint of what is to come. And when it comes to the statement by Sepp Blatter saying we simply have to be left to police ourselves, well just remember this: just think of those preschoolers in the sandbox when they look up and say, ‘just let us police ourselves.’ In a fallen world, neither one of those statements make sense.

2) Attempt to blame infidelity on genes part of human conspiracy to excuse immorality

Here’s another symptom of a fallen world. We try to come up with rationalizations for why we sin. And furthermore, the complexity of the situation is each of us actually feel more comfortable with rationalizations for our sin if we can find some cold comfort in the rationalizations of other sins as well. Thus, I direct our attention to a major article that appeared in the New York Times. It’s by Richard A. Friedman, who is a professor of clinical psychiatry at the Weill Cornell Medical College. He’s also contributing opinion writer for the New York Times. He writes an article –  just listen to this headline, “Infidelity lurks in your genes.” The subhead of the article, “Evolution doesn’t explain why women cheat, but hormones and their receptors might.” If you think this is interesting, well just wait.

Richard Friedman writes,

“Americans disapprove of marital infidelity. Ninety-one percent of them find it morally wrong, more than the number that reject polygamy, human cloning or suicide.”

And for this he cites a 2013 Gallup poll. Now we talked yesterday about the moral shift in America and about the fact that fewer Americans now believe adultery is wrong than was true about 14 years ago. But it’s still true that the vast majority of Americans believe at least this: they believe that adultery is wrong. So Friedman starts out on a rather strong ground when he makes the point that Americans believe that infidelity, that is marital infidelity, is wrong. And then he goes on to say,

“Yet the number of Americans who actually cheat on their partners is rather substantial.”

He goes on to document the rates of adultery –  by the way this point, I’ll simply interject that’s one of the things is rather difficult actually to statistically verify. But nonetheless was just take his argument that marital infidelity is on the rise in America. That’s probably something is pretty safe to judge. The article takes its key turn when Friedman writes,

“We are accustomed to thinking of sexual infidelity as a symptom of an unhappy relationship, a moral flaw or a sign of deteriorating social values. When I was trained as a psychiatrist we were told to look for various emotional and developmental factors — like a history of unstable relationships or a philandering parent — to explain infidelity.”

But then he says,

“During my career, many of the questions we asked patients were found to be insufficient because for so much behavior, it turns out that genes, gene expression and hormones matter a lot.

“Now that even appears to be the case for infidelity.”

So without going into the details of his argument concerning genes and hormones and hormone receptors, let me just get to the bottom line. Professor Friedman, who again, is a clinical professor of psychiatry, is arguing that in a large number of cases went infidelity happens it is Simply because of a biological impulse. Whether that is rooted in a genetic evolution (which he clearly affirms, especially when it comes to men) or in hormones and hormone receptors which he now affirms especially when it comes to women, the bottom line is what he’s arguing for is a biological causality for moral behavior. Or in this case, clearly immoral behavior.

What we have here is nonetheless very clear evidence of what we’re left with what all we have is a naturalistic and materialistic worldview. He writes,

“Sexual monogamy is distinctly unusual in nature: Humans are among the 3 to 5 percent of mammalian species that practice monogamy, along with the swift fox and beaver — but even in these species, infidelity has been commonly observed.”

Now what you have here is yet another effort to reduce human beings to the level of being merely an animal. In this case, even a mammalian. And it turns out that in the animal kingdom monogamy is largely exceptional, but let’s just point out the obvious. Among animals marriage is nonexistent. That’s nonexistent in this article.

This article is so distant from the Christian biblical worldview that marriage only appears as the context in which sex outside of marriage might occur. This is a form of moral insanity that is growing more and more pervasive in our culture. And yet we need to understand not only the fact that the argument’s being made, we need to understand the reason why the argument is gaining traction. It’s because we as sinners want to be told we have not sinned. We want to be told that is not our moral responsibility, that is not our moral action. We want to be told the matter what the sin might be, that it is somehow rooted in something we could not not do. Something that was driven by a biological necessity. Something that is an accident of evolution embedded in our genes. Something that is rooted in our hormones or hormone receptors. Something that is simply a part of what it means to be a part of nature.

But this is where the biblical worldview simply intervenes to say human beings are not simply a part of nature. And when it comes to the moral expectations made of us, they are profoundly not merely natural. They are supernatural. Even as we are created by a sovereign divine Creator who made us in his image –  human beings uniquely in his image – he made us moral creatures and he gave us he gave to human beings the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman as the very molecular unit of society on which the rest of society would depend. Animals beyond human beings, no matter how conscious they may be no matter how much intelligence, they may have no matter whether they are reptilian or mammalian or anything else, they are not moral creatures in this sense. And they are not made in the Creator’s image in any way, and they are not given the gift of marriage. And they are not accountable to marriage.

The fact that dogs and cats do not practice monogamy has nothing to do with human beings, because dogs and cats are not given the institution of marriage, and they are not moral creatures accountable to the institution of marriage. But we are. What you have here is a part of that vast human conspiracy to avoid moral responsibility, and in this case to avoid the obvious. How in the world can anyone make an argument about marital infidelity without dealing with the marital part, with marriage? It simply doesn’t exist in his argument. And that tells us a very great deal.

It would certainly be convenient for us if we were told that our sin really isn’t sin at all, it’s just a behavior that is rooted in biological causality. Of course second of argument doesn’t even work in a human court, much less in the divine court of judgment.

That article appeared in Sunday’s edition of the New York Times and I waited because subsequent editions have brought letters in response to the article and the letters themselves are revealing for instance Henry Friedman who is an associate professor of psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School, said that the arguments made by the other Dr. Friedman in his original essay the New York Times are simply based upon a generalization. He says that extramarital infidelity is simply too complex to human behavior to be reduced to any form of biological argument. The Christian worldview would respond to this Dr. Friedman by saying the problem isn’t that sin is so complex, but actually that it’s so simple.

Yet a third Dr. Freedman appears. This one another psychiatrist, a former president of the New York County branch of the American Psychiatric Association. The third Dr. Freedman writes a second letter that appeared in the New York Times in which he says,

“Human beings can control behaviors. Even for some who may be at a disadvantage because of their biology, strength and motivation can be attained with the help of psychiatric treatment or other means of assistance.”

So now comes the third Dr. Freedman to argue that there is some biological element, but it can be overcome with psychiatric treatment. The Christian worldview would respond all three Drs Friedman by pointing out that the Bible teaches us that marriage is a gift to human beings to which we are accountable in every conceivable form. And marital infidelity is wrong, it’s called in the Bible ‘adultery’ precisely because it is extra marital.

In a fallen world, there is no doubt a biological dimension to almost everything. But the Christian worldview simply does not accept a biological argument for causation of our behavior. When it comes to moral responsibility the problem isn’t in our genes, it’s not our hormones; it is ourselves. We are indebted nonetheless to all three Drs Friedman for helping us to see this in a very clear way through their contributions to the New York Times.

3) Naturalists inadequately struggle attempt to explain experience of awe

Meanwhile, following on a similar theme, the New York Times ran another article, this one by Paul Piff and Dacher Keltner. The entitled article; “Why do we experience awe?” Now that’s a really interesting question. And once again, this article in its own way (by the way it appeared in the very same edition of the New York Times) points to the fact that in a naturalistic worldview, you have nothing but natural explanations and everything has to be defined in purely natural terms, including a three letter word that doesn’t appear to work in a naturalistic worldview. That three letter word: awe.

The two authors write,

“Here’s a curious fact about goose bumps. In many nonhuman mammals, goose bumps — that physiological reaction in which the muscles surrounding hair follicles contract — occur when individuals, along with other members of their species, face a threat. We humans, by contrast, can get goose bumps when we experience awe, that often-positive feeling of being in the presence of something vast that transcends our understanding of the world.”

They then ask the question, why do human beings experience awe? Well they try to explain that awe is a social emotion, that it’s brought about by the fact that human beings have a need – socially, not just individually –  for some experience of transcendence and some experience of wonder. They’re writing about what they call an ‘awe deficit’ that is occurring in a modern society in which too few actually go outdoors.

Writing in a way that’s reminiscent of the naturalist Henry David Thoreau they write about the fact that human beings need to be in nature in order to have the periodic experience of understanding that we’re part of something bigger. We’re part of something grand. We’re part of something that transcends ourselves. We’re part of something that would bring about a moment of awe. It’s really interesting, however, that these two authors discuss all as merely what they call,

“the often-positive feeling of being in the presence of something vast that transcends our understanding of the world.”

Now once again we have the naturalistic worldview at work. Here we have a couple scientists trying to explain that one of the problems of the modern world is that we are so disconnected now from nature, we’re so attached to our digital devices, we stay indoors so much of our lives, that we’re not outdoors have any experience of looking at a valley, looking at a sunset, looking at the stars, and having experience of awe, complete with a goose pimples they physiologically described.

But of course the biblical worldview would respond by asking the question, why in the world would human being even looking at the stars, or looking at a valley, or looking at a sunset, or looking at anything experience what might be described as awe?

There’s something else in the biblical perspective that comes up here. We are told that our God is an awesome God. One of the problems of the word awesome so easily thrown around in our common English parlance is that awe in the Bible is particularly and specifically assigned to the human response to being in the presence not merely of a transcendent vision, not merely of nature, but of God. Oh, and by the way, the other problem with the biblical worldview in terms of awe, measured against this naturalistic very materialistic worldview concerning awe is that in the Bible the experience of awe, isn’t rightly described as an often positive social emotion.

In one of the classic expositions of awe found in Scripture we look to the prophet Isaiah 6 were he writes,

“In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said:

“Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts;

the whole earth is full of his glory!””

Isaiah then tells us,

“And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke.”

And what did Isaiah say then? He said,

“Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!”

Now that is a biblical definition of what it means to experience awe. That awe does not lead merely to goose pimples, and it certainly can’t be described as simply an ‘often positive social emotion.’ It doesn’t, as these two scientists are arguing, necessarily lead to human altruism. In the case of Isaiah when he actually had this vision of the one true and living God who was in the temple, high and lifted up, it was Isaiah, who said, ‘I am undone, woe is me trying a man of unclean lips, and I live in the midst of the people of unclean lips.’ And how did he know? He said, “For my eyes to seen the King, the Lord of hosts.”

So let’s think about the deep distinction between the Christian biblical worldview and the naturalistic worldview. The naturalistic worldview tells us that sin is something that happens by some biological necessity or evolutionary accident for which largely we are not responsible. The biblical worldview responds that we are moral agents made in the image of God, and that we are inherently, inescapably responsible.

The naturalistic worldview says that we are impoverished if we don’t take a look at nature and have the experience of goosebumps in looking at the fact that we’re so small and nature is so large. The biblical worldview responds by saying looking at nature and being impressed simply isn’t enough. When one has a vision of the one true and living God, the response is an awe that leads to an understanding of the fact once again that we are sinners. And we shouldn’t be surprised the sin makes his way into every dimension of our existence, even in our play.

But as we go into the weekend, let’s remember the people especially in the Southwest, and especially in states like Texas that have been ravaged by sudden floods. But even as we’re praying for those in Texas and beyond, let’s remember this; this too is a sign of what it means to live in a fallen world. A world in which even nature itself is corrupted by our sin. A world in which event like this, along with the reality of our sinfulness, point to why we need a Savior, and why we are awaiting a day that is yet to come. To a new heaven and a new earth. But that comes only by a biblical worldview. The naturalistic worldview isn’t looking for anything like that.

 

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 our website at www.sbts.edu. For information on Boyce College just go to boycecollege.com. Remember we’re taking questions for Ask Anything: Weekend Edition. Call with your question and call in your voice to 877-505-2058. That’s 877-505-2058.

 

I’ll meet you again on Monday for The Briefing.

 

The Briefing 05-29-15

Podcast Transcript

1) FIFA corruption charges exposes incompetence of humans to self-police sin

Global soccer corruption case deeply rooted in USA, USA Today (Kevin Johnson)

Sepp Blatter Says FIFA Must Police Itself, New York Times (Sam Borden, et al.)

Scandal Creates a Tricky Spot for FIFA Sponsors, New York Times (Richard Sandomir)

2) Attempt to blame infidelity on genes part of human conspiracy to excuse immorality

Infidelity Lurks in Your Genes, New York Times (Richard Friedman)

Blame Genes for Extramarital Affairs?, New York Times

3) Naturalists inadequately struggle attempt to explain experience of awe

Why Do We Experience Awe?, New York Times (Paul Piff and Dacher Keltner)

Transcript: The Briefing 05-28-15

The Briefing

 

May 26, 2015

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

It’s Thursday, May 28, 2015.  I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

1) Chimps’ day in court exposes confusion of human dignity with care for animals

Though they were not in court, Hercules and Leo got their day in court on Tuesday in a state courtroom in New York. As Jacob Gershman of the Wall Street Journal reports,

“The question of whether two chimpanzees should be afforded the right to challenge the legality of their detention got a hearing on Tuesday before a New York City judge.”

The two chimpanzees are known, again, as Leo and Hercules. They are, according to the Journal,

“allegedly in the custody of State University of New York at Stony Brook.”

As I said, they weren’t at the proceeding, they certainly didn’t speak for themselves, but a lawyer nonetheless argued their case demanding that the animals be moved to a sanctuary for animals in south Florida.

In terms of how moral issues progress, they begin with something that is unthinkable, then it becomes thinkable. Once it becomes thinkable, it becomes plausible. And at some point, many issues moves from being merely plausible to being acceptable, and sometimes even morally celebrated. The issue of animal rights in terms of our moral landscape is actually more important than may first appear. That’s because our understanding of animals is a mirror relief to how we understand ourselves, and the more fundamental question: is there anything distinctive that separates human beings from other intelligent creatures?

And what we’re looking at here is the undeniable evidence that there are some intelligence that is possessed by Leo and Hercules. But they are chimpanzees. The first thing to note in terms of this story is the fact that the hearing took place at all. It was something of a surprise when the judge in this case decided to take the case, and even though Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Barbara Jaffe did not rule on the case, she did hear the case. That’s already something of a victory for animal rights activists, but we need to remind ourselves that here, when we use the term animal rights, we’re not specifically just talking about the human responsibility to care for the animals and to respect them, but rather we’re actually confronting the argument that animals, like human beings, possess certain rights.

And the argument in this case is that one of the rights that the animals supposedly will share with us is a right not to be falsely imprisoned, which is what they are arguing is the experience of Hercules and Leo in terms of their custody by a state university for the purposes of research.

The actual argument made on behalf of the chimpanzees by attorney Steven Wise is that the chimpanzees are falsely imprisoned and must be granted a writ of habeus corpus. That’s a very important issue of constitutional rights for citizens of the United States, who are granted the right of a writ of habeus corpus lest they be falsely arrested or imprisoned.

Speaking to the judge, Wise said,

“They’re essentially in solitary confinement. This is what we do to the worst human criminal.”

Speaking on behalf of the university was an assistant state Attorney General of the state of New York, Christopher Coulston, who argued that there were no merits to the case; that the plaintiffs of the case had no legal standing because they are chimpanzees after all, and as non-human beings, they do not enjoy the rights that are restricted to human beings themselves.

The assistant Attorney General told the judge,

“The reality is these are fundamentally different species. There’s simply no precedent anywhere of an animal getting the same rights as a human.”

At the end of the hearing on Tuesday the judge gave no indication of how she might rule. But the first problem, from a Christian worldview perspective, is that the hearing took place. Because the hearing itself is an indication of a grotesque moral confusion. And one that will inevitably undermine human dignity. The Christian biblical worldview would insist at every point that animals must not be mistreated. That there must be respect for animals simply because they’re a part of God’s creation. They are not merely evolutionary accidents, they are part of the greatness and the goodness of God displayed in his creation. A creation in which the Creator registered his own good pleasure. But to respect the animals as animals is not to recognize them as human beings. That would be a huge category mistake that would be deeply injurious to human dignity. There is a basic biblical understanding, deeply rooted in the doctrine of Creation and in the entire Christian worldview, that human beings alone (according to Scripture) are created in God’s image. And human beings alone, in that respect, stand out from the rest of Creation as those who are the special objects of God’s redemptive love. And are also held uniquely responsible in moral and spiritual terms.

If the judge were to rule in the chimpanzees favor – and again, the first mistake was actually granting the hearing in the first place – we can immediately understand there would be an almost infinite number of complexities and problems that would immediately ensue. Where would one draw the line in the animal kingdom? As to which animals, which species, would be understood to have these rights? Which among the right that are understood to be possessed by human beings, and specifically by citizens of the United States, would be applied to animals?

Presumably, even those who are now making the argument against what they allege is the false imprisonment of these chimpanzees, are not going to be arguing that they should have the right to vote. On the other hand, if they are the equal to human beings, and if they do possess the same rights, then how could one deny them the vote any more than one could argue that they could not be illegally imprisoned?

In the last half of the 20th century, evangelicals in the United States began to understand a worldview that was a direct alternative to that of the biblical Christian worldview. It was often referred to as secular humanism. It was a worldview identified very well by people like Carl Henry and Francis Schaeffer – a worldview that was established in the understanding that as an ancient Greek philosopher said, “Man is the measure of all things.” But as many of the most insightful Christian voices of the 20th century recognized, secular humanism is a compound worldview that will not long survive. The hearing that took place on Tuesday in a New York City courtroom is evidence enough. Because the confusion that was evident there was evidence of the fact that there is now eroding around us any understanding even of humanism.

We can see in Western society a transition from what might be called a ‘biblical humanism’ that understands, according to Scripture, that human beings are made in the image of God – and are distinctively accountable, and distinctively addressed by God’s Law and the Gospel – to then by the process of secularization, what might be called a secular humanism. But then, as we now see evidence coming from New York City in an absolutely undeniable form, that secular humanism turns merely into a secularism. Humanism itself disappears.

And as I pointed out when it was announced this hearing would be held in the first place, there is no shortage of irony in the fact that these chimpanzees who supposedly should be recognized to have human rights could not represent themselves in the courtroom and were not even present.

But Christians must take note of this: the confusion that was evident this past Tuesday in a New York City courtroom will not stop there.

2) Leftward trend on social issues reflects cultural milieu more than beliefs of Americans

Next, the issue of animal rights can’t actually be abstracted from other moral issues that are very much in the forefront of our culture. And that’s what gives special importance to a recent report that came from the Gallup organization. It was dated May 26, 2015, and the headline tells the major point of the story: “Americans continue to shift left on key moral issues.”

Frank Newport of the Gallup organization summarizes that Americans are now more likely than even in the early years of the 21st century to find a variety of behaviors morally acceptable. Including gay and lesbian relations, having a baby outside of marriage, and sex between an unmarried man and woman.  Moral acceptability of many of these issues, he says, is now at a record level high. And we’re talking about more change here in the course of just about 15 years.

Research coming from the Gallup organization is generally very thorough and trustworthy. And the Gallup organization has been in existence for such a long time that they are actually able to document much of this moral change over the course of the last century and more. This is a snapshot, however, of moral change in just the last 15 years or so.

As they report,

“This latest update on Americans’ views of the moral acceptability of various issues and behaviors is from Gallup’s May 6-10 Values and Beliefs survey. [They say] The upward progression in the percentage of Americans seeing these issues as morally acceptable” –

And these are issues including gay and lesbian relations, having a baby outside of marriage, sex between an unmarried man or a woman, divorce, medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos, polygamy, cloning humans, doctor-assisted suicide, suicide itself, gambling, abortion, cloning animals, and a few other issues also thrown in as matters of research.

In the section of the article headlined “Implications.” Newport writes,

“Americans are becoming more liberal on social issues, as evidenced not only by the uptick in the percentage describing themselves as socially liberal, but also by their increasing willingness to say that a number of previously frowned-upon behaviors are morally acceptable.”

He very quickly summarizes that,

“The biggest leftward shift over the past 14 years has been in attitudes toward gay and lesbian relations, from only a minority of Americans finding it morally acceptable to a clear majority finding it acceptable.”

Well, a couple of observations based upon this report. In the first place, I think there’s really no argument that America is shifting left on so many of these issues. We didn’t need a report from Gallup to tell us that. But it is important sometimes to have it quantified, and in terms of the data, laid out so that we can compare it over time. In this case we are shown that in the last 14 years there has been a very significant shift to the left morally speaking, in a very clear liberal direction.

But there are a couple of other very interesting aspects to this research, and one of the questions has to do with the research itself. One of the interesting things that Frank Newport acknowledges in the paragraph I read is that there is a “increasing willingness to say that a number of previously frowned-upon behaviors are morally acceptable.” That’s a very interesting way to say it. He is nonetheless being very clear and careful in making his argument. He is not saying that Americans – to look at these percentages – have actually shifted their moral judgment to this extent over the course of these 14 years. But they have shifted in what they are now willing to say.

So when we’re looking at so many of these reports on moral change, or moral conviction in America, one of the things we need to recognize is that the survey or the research instrument itself is an indication of what Americans say. It’s not necessarily a reflection – at least in adequate terms – of what Americans believe.

But it is very revealing that this society is shifting remarkable to the left in terms of what increasing numbers of Americans believe they are supposed to say when it comes to the approval or their willingness to approve certain moral behaviors. And yet, some of the same data brings back a rather mixed picture – certainly when you get much closer to asking the question whether these people are actually saying what they believe. There is evidence that the beliefs are also shifting – no doubt, shifting left in terms of the general trajectory of the population. But it’s also interesting that perhaps what is more important here is what increasing numbers of Americans believe they’re supposed to say.

3) Approval of assisted suicide dissipates as voters recognize threat of slippery slope 

In one of the interesting questions asked in the survey, the issue was the acceptability morally speaking of doctor-assisted suicide. According to this report, there has been an increase in support for doctor-assisted suicide from 37% of the population to 56% of the population. Well, just to state the mathematical obvious, 56% would reflect a clear majority of the American people. And to put the matter even more specifically in a political context, eventually, what 56% of Americans want, 56% of Americans will get.

There’s also no question that there has been an increased acceptability when it comes to assisted suicide. But, an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal points out that when voters actually have the opportunity, or the responsibility, to confront the legalization of doctor-assisted suicide, they often decide – indeed, right now they most often decide – that idea is not so good after all.

Aaron Kheriarty is associate clinical professor of psychiatry and the director of the Program in Medical Ethics at the University of California Irvine School of Medicine. He stated in the Wall Street Journal,

“In the past 20 years, more than 100 campaigns to legalize assisted suicide have been introduced in various states. All but three have failed.”

That means that more than a 100 have been attempted, only three have been successful. As he writes,

“In 2012 the same Massachusetts voters who elected Elizabeth Warren and re-elected Barack Obama gave the thumbs down to doctor-assisted suicide. Compassion & Choices—the “death with dignity” organization formerly called the Hemlock Society—saw a 40-point lead in Massachusetts polls evaporate on election day, despite millions of dollars in campaign spending. Bills this year in Connecticut, Maryland and Colorado also failed after legislators took a closer look at assisted suicide.”

But then he gets to major point of his article,

“California is the latest place where the wheels appear to be coming off the assisted-suicide bandwagon. Senate Bill 128, the End of Life Option Act, was introduced in January after the widely-publicized death of Brittany Maynard, the 29-year-old patient who moved from California to Oregon to avail herself of that state’s assisted-suicide law last November. Advocates for “end of life options” declared her case, which ended in her death, a game changer.”

He then writes,

“The bill was expected to fly through the California Senate, but now SB 128 is stalled. It was placed in the Senate Appropriations Committee “suspense file” last week, where bills go when they are short on votes. Most bills on the suspense file simply die, while others get watered down to appease opponents.”

Why have the vast majority of these efforts to legalize assisted suicide failed? Well, the professors tells us,

“Californians are realizing that assisted suicide represents the slipperiest of slopes. This can be especially true for those who rely on emergency rooms for primary care, lack health-care access, or who predominantly come from minority or immigrant communities with documented health-care disparities where many remain uninsured. They would have every reason to mistrust a health-care system under considerable pressure to drive down costs.”

He writes of the opposition to the bill in California, describing a grassroots movement that includes groups like the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers and the Autism Self Advocacy Network. It turns out that so many advocates for the disabled, and those who are representing minority communities recognize that if assisted suicide is legalized, there will be many who will be incentivized to bring about their death rather than to treat them in life.

He also writes about the fact that suicide rates in general in Oregon rose dramatically during the years following that state’s legalization of assisted suicide in 1997. Now, the rate of suicide in the state of Oregon – that is as of 2010 – the suicide rates are 35% higher in that state than the national average. Now I remind you, here we’re not talking about doctor-assisted suicide in Oregon, we’re talking about the general suicide rate. 35% higher than the national average, spiking after the legalization of assisted suicide.

As Professor Kheriarty ends his article,

“As the evidence mounts, proponents who favor placing society’s stamp of approval on suicide find themselves increasingly on the losing end of the public debate.”

So why do I bring these two reports together? It’s because it’s important when you look at something like this massive Gallup poll to indicate that undoubtedly something is going on. There is a dramatic shift to the left in terms of America’s moral perception. And yet, as Frank Newport indicated, in the actual text coming from Gallup, what is indicated coming from this survey is what Americans now say they believe about these issues, not necessarily what they believe about them.

Because if you look at that Gallup poll it shows that a clear majority of Americans indicate they favor the legalization of assisted suicide. And yet, out of over 100 attempts to legalize assisted suicide at the state level, only three have succeeded. And in one of the most liberal states in the union – the state of California – right now an effort to do the very same is stalled in a Senate committee.

But at this point these two stories also tie back to our first story in terms of the hearing held in that courtroom in New York City for the chimpanzees. As in that story, the big issue here is the nature and dignity of humanity. Whether or not human beings are distinctive creatures made by a divine Creator in his image. Whether or not every single human life is sacred and thus deserving of our full support, and demanding our full protection. Assisted suicide is fundamentally inconsistent with the Christian worldview, but as this story from the Wall Street Journal indicates, it also runs against a basic moral instinct that, at least for now, seems to exist in the American people. We should be thankful that that basic moral impulse still remains. But as the society continues to secularize, given that very pattern we discussed when it comes to animal rights, we should not expect that it will survive indefinitely. Perhaps not even for long.

4) Chinese crackdown on religious groups reveals idolatrous effort to co-opt religion for state

Finally, when it comes to human dignity, one of the most important of all rights is religious liberty. And that is made graphically clear in an article that appeared in recent days from the Voice of America. The headline: “China Aims to Break Foreign Influence on Religion.” It turns out that the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, has now asked religious groups in that country to pledge their loyalty to the state, even as (the Voice of America tells us) he warned religions China must be independent of foreign influence.

As the Voice of America tells us,

“At a time when China’s Christians now outnumber the membership of the Communist Party, some say there is an intensifying crackdown on religious groups.”

Specifically, on Christianity. One leading observer of Christianity in China said,

“The crackdown and persecution against Christianity, in particular, has really accelerated to a level that is perhaps the worst in two decades. The kind of crackdown on government sanctioned churches is the worst since the Cultural Revolution.”

From a Christian worldview perspective, the issue is not only religious freedom – and what we’re seeing here is the persecution of Christian believers – it is also the fact that what we have articulated by the President of China is actually a religious statement itself. It is the religion and the ideology of statism.

Statism is an ideology – indeed it is secular religion that places the state in an idolatrous position that puts the state as the center of meaning and the object of highest adoration and obedience.  The president of China is here demanding that religious leaders – pastors in particular, but Christians writ large – must obey the state in all things and pledge their ultimate allegiance to the state. Given the fact that religious beliefs are growing so fast in China, and that this is a direct challenge to the Chinese Communist Party, the president said,

“active efforts should be made to incorporate religions into socialist society.”

What that means is that the president of China is calling for all religious beliefs to be  co-opted by the state for the purposes of the state. And in China, given the supremacy of the Communist Party, and the one-party government there, that means that all religions and all religious believers and all religious leaders are all to be co-opted by the state, for the purposes of the state. Which means for the purposes of the Chinese Communist Party.

Totalitarian governments always fear religious liberty and they fear the Christian gospel in particular. And one of the most interesting aspects of this report from the Voice of America states,

“There are an estimated 100 million Christians, more than the total membership of the Communist Party.”

So if you’re wondering why the president of China is so concerned about the threat to his government and to his Communist Party that is represented by Christianity it’s because in China, an officially atheistic nation, virtually everyone now acknowledges there are more Christians in that country than there are members of the Communist Party. The Communist Party sees its influence eclipsing and sees the influence of Christianity rising, and it fears that reality greatly. But rarely do you see such an open display of raw, undiluted, unadulterated statism. Christians have to recognize this for exactly what it is. It is straight, unadulterated, undiluted idolatry. Christians at the very least should call it what it really is.

 

Thanks for listening to The Briefing. For more information go to my website at AlbertMohler.com. There  you will find an article posted yesterday entitled, “A Requiem for the Boy Scouts.” You can follow me on Twitter by going to twitter.com/albertmohler. For more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary go to our website at www.sbts.edu. For information on Boyce College just go to boycecollege.com.

I’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.

 

The Briefing 05-28-15

Podcast Transcript

1) Chimps’ day in court exposes confusion of human dignity with care for animals

Judge Ponders Whether Chimps Should Get Same Rights as Humans, Wall Street Journal (Jacob Gershman)

2) Leftward trend on social issues reflects cultural milieu more than beliefs of Americans

Americans Continue to Shift Left on Key Moral Issues, Gallup (Frank Newport)

3) Approval of assisted suicide dissipates as voters recognize threat of slippery slope 

The Assisted-Suicide Movement Goes on Life Support, Wall Street Journal (Aaron Kheriarty)

4) Chinese crackdown on religious groups reveals idolatrous effort to co-opt religion for state

China Aims to Break Foreign Influence on Religion, Voice of America (William Ade)

 

Transcript: The Briefing 05-27-15

The Briefing

 

May 27, 2015

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

 

It’s Wednesday, May 27, 2015.  I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

1) Secularists note Gates’ membership proposal purely seeking survival of corporation

Sometimes events that take place around us, often erupting in the headlines, serve as a catalyst for understanding the bigger picture and larger issues. Such is the case with the current controversy that has focused on the Boy Scouts of America. As I discussed on The Briefing yesterday they had to the Boy Scouts, Robert Gates, former Defense Secretary the United States and former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, announced that if the Boy Scouts were to survive as a national movement they would have to abandon their compromise policy of the present that allows for the participation of openly gay scouts, but not of openly gay adult leaders. He says that second part is simply going to have to go.

In comments made to a national gathering a scout leaders in Georgia Robert Gates said that the Boy Scouts would have to deal with the world as it is, not as the Boy Scouts might wish that world to be. In his extended comments he made quite an argument for the dropping of the prohibition against gay scout leaders. But his argument was almost entirely centered on how to rescue and preserve the Boy Scouts as a national organization. Moral principle basically did not enter into his discussion at all. As I pointed out yesterday from a Christian worldview perspective, this is pathetic and catastrophic at every turn. It raises the very question whether you can have an organization with any meaning that might be called the Boy Scouts of America. But now, again, one of the most interesting dimensions of the story is the secular response.

For instance, Sarah Kaplan and Michael Miller writing for the Washington Post point out that the Boy Scouts right now can do no right politically. They went on to say,

“That’s because the Boy Scouts are now in a position where politically they can do no right. Besieged by the left for decades for not allowing gay scouts or leaders, the Boy Scouts are now being attacked from the right. By allowing gay scouts two years ago and now considering allowing gay leaders as well, a deeply traditional organization is trying to stay attuned to the times.”

But then they state the obvious,

“But it also risks alienating many core members, for whom the Boy Scouts have long been a bedrock of conservative American life.”

They then make the interesting observation,

“In a way, the Boy Scouts are a barometer of how far the country’s attitudes have shifted on issues of race, gender and sexuality.”

But when it comes to that last statement, again where they say that the Boy Scouts are a barometer of how far the country’s attitudes have shifted on issues of race, gender and sexuality, we have to raise a fundamental question: is it the Boy Scouts who are shifting or is it the Boy Scouts of America, in terms of the national leadership that is indicating this shift? My hunch is that it’s the latter rather than the former, because time’s going to tell whether or not the scouts and their parents go along with this policy change. And even in making his proposal last week, Secretary Gates had to acknowledge that the vast majority of scouting units are actually sponsored by religious organizations, the vast majority of whom are not going to define human sexuality and sexual morality the way the Boy Scouts of America now propose.

Secretary Gates said that religious organizations should enjoy a first amendment privilege of determining the responsibilities and criteria for leadership in the Boy Scout units under their sponsorship. But he had to know, even in making a proposal, that that is a very thin reed.

Once again, as a compromise policy that’s going to please no one. And at this point, that’s a very important point. Because even the Washington Post, writing from a very secular and rather morally liberal perspective recognizes that the Boy Scouts are now in a predicament of their own making. For decades, as the Post said, they had brought about opposition from the cultural left because they resolutely refused to surrender their membership criteria, which as they acknowledged back in 2013 were expected by the vast majority of the parents of scouts.

But now there in the position of angering and alienating the parents of scouts, the scouts themselves, and the sponsoring bodies of the vast majority of scouting units. You’ll recall the fact that yesterday on The Briefing we pointed out that evidently Secretary Gates has one singular concern; and that is to use his own words to preserve the Boy Scouts of America as a national organization.

But that’s where Kevin D Williamson writing for National Review gets to the heart of Gates’ argument, and what’s absent from that argument, and that is a serious moral argument. Williamson writes,

“Gates, whose likeness appears in Webster’s with the entry for “bureaucrat,” says that the Boy Scouts’ policy on homosexuals is “unsustainable.” He warns that attempting to maintain it would mean “the end of us as a national movement.” This sentiment expresses a great deal of what is wrong with the leadership culture of the United States.”

You’ll notice he says a problem with the leadership culture of the United States, not just with the Boy Scouts of America. This is not, Williamson writes, because Gates is just taking what he calls a “friendlier attitude towards homosexuals.” It is because, he says, he is merely arguing from “organizational self-interest.” Nevermind if it is right or wrong. The policy puts Scouting Incorporated, says Williamson,

“so best to abandon it. Duty to God and country? [he says that’s simply out of the picture now]— management always has its own priorities.”

Then Williamson writes a very important line. In his words,

“Depending on your point of view Gates is either doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason, or doing the right thing for the wrong reason.”

Williamson gets to the heart of the issue when he continues,

“ For those among the shrinking minority of Americans adhering to something like the Scouts’ longstanding view of homosexuality — that it represents a set of choices and behaviors that constitute at the very least a bad example for children — Gates’s decision must be understood as simple moral cowardice: The gay-rights movement is energetic and totalitarian, and its demands are fortified more often than not by the dictates of judges. Faced with overwhelming cultural and political pressure, Gates did not have the mettle to lead the Boy Scouts of America as a kind of Nockian remnant, keeping the tablets until such a time as civilization once again returns to certain eternal truths.”

With striking a brilliant prose Williamson gets right to the heart of the problem of the Boy Scouts of America under the leadership of Robert Gates. But in this case Robert Gates is mostly the bureaucratic spokesperson for the corporate board that is behind the Boy Scouts of America.

But the point made by Williamson here is that if one holds to a traditional understanding of sexual morality, then Gates is proposing the wrong thing, and for the wrong reason. But then he continues and he writes,

“For those who take the more contemporary view of homosexuality, Gates’s position is arguably even more distasteful. If the Scouts have been wrong about the moral and social status of homosexuals, then they have been wrong about something important. If their exclusion of gays from leadership positions was based on error or malice, then they owe it to those they have excluded to admit as much, freely and openly. Perhaps more important, if the exclusion of homosexuals has been wrongful, then the Boy Scouts’ leadership owes it to the young men whose moral development is in part entrusted to it to be forthright about that fact.”

What’s really interesting here is that two secular perspectives are agreed on this; the policy that was suggested by Secretary Gates is a morally bankrupt. It’s morally bankrupt whether one comes from the understanding of the sinfulness of homosexuality or the normalization of homosexuality. In either event what Secretary Gates called for was a capitulation to the direction of the culture – not to what was considered either right or wrong. The moral context used to be entirely absent from his argument.

2) Boy Scouts’ rules against water gun fights furthers estrangement from actual boys

Meanwhile in a far less important front (but also very revealing) the scouts found themselves in yet another controversy in recent days. This one not over sexuality, but water balloons and water guns. It turns out that in recent days the scouts have restated their position in an advisory to scouting units that even though Boy Scouts may play with water guns, they may not own them at other. Now as I said, in the great moral scheme of things this is a far less important issue, but it is nonetheless revealing. Because as I said the big question is whether or not you can have in modern America, an organization that might be actually called the Boy Scouts of America that might be appealing the boys.

In a statement no doubt timed for the beginning of summer, the scouting authorities intended to alert scouting units to the fact that the 2015 Boy Scouts of America National Shooting Sports Manual says,

“Water guns and rubber band guns must only be used to shoot it targets, and eye protection must be worn.”

When it comes to water balloons, the Boy Scouts of America has an official national policy,

“For water balloons, use small, biodegradable balloons, and fill them no larger than a ping pong ball.”

Just in case anyone should miss the details of the policy,

“Pointing any type of firearm or simulated firearm at any individual is unauthorized. Scout units may plan or participate in paintball, laser tag or similar events where participants shoot at targets that are neither living nor human representations.”

Now I will simply point out as a former Boy Scout and frankly, just as a former boy, that there is no fun and having a water gun unless you can shoot it at someone in proximity – hopefully, a friend, perhaps even a sibling. And that done with the full expectation that they will then turn and shoot their water gun at you. Now it should be stated (obviously) that this should be done with adequate adult supervision. But what are the adults to supervise is the kids can’t even shoot the water guns at each other?

Oh and by the way, if you’re going to allow water balloon fights and you think the boys are going to stop when they have enough water to constitute being about the size of a ping-pong ball then you’ve never been around boys, and you certainly never been a boy.Writing at World magazine, D.C. Innes simply points out that this is part of what can be described only as the end of the Boy Scouts. Similarly, Rich Cromwell writing at the Federalist simply uses the headline “The Boy Scouts Continue to Devolve into a Garden Club.”

On the far more important moral issue of human sexuality and the leadership of the Boy Scouts, the Boy Scouts are taking an unprincipled position that will surely collapse in the face of continued cultural opposition. Having abandoned the moral high ground, they now find themselves in a position of being swept along by the cultural currents by a matter of bureaucratic policy in order to preserve themselves as a national movement. That may explain, if this change takes place, why many parents pulled their scouts out in why many scouts have less interest than ever in participating in the scouting organization and why the religious organizations sponsoring the vast majority of scouting organizations may well try to find some other organization to sponsor.

But it also raises the question, if in the context of our current cultural and moral confusion you can even have a meaningful organization called the Boy Scouts of America, with a very politically charged word ‘boy’ right in the first name of the organization.

But this advisory on water balloons and water guns from the Boy Scouts simply raises the question of why any boy would want to be a part of this organization in terms of its continued direction in the very first place?

And that’s said with a real sense of loss, because the scouts have been such an important part of American culture and in the boyhoods and in the maturation of so many boys and young men in America – for that matter, many old men in America look back with great fondness and appreciation to their experience in the Boy Scouts.

3) Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts membership decisions reveal shrinking moral middle ground in culture

One of the most interesting aspects of this comes in the contrast between the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts, because the Girl Scouts of also been in the headlines in recent days. That comes in report for instance, at CNN by Katia Hetter writing that the Girl Scouts are now to welcome transgender girls. The Girl Scouts are saying this is not an innovation, but just a restatement again of their policy.

As seen and reported,

“Transgender girls are welcome in the Girl Scouts of the United States of America, a stance that has attracted controversy from some conservative groups over the past [several days].”

A spokesperson for the Girl Scouts USA, that is Andrea Bastiani Archibald said,

“Our position is not new. It conforms with our continuous commitment to inclusivity”

Now when I see a statement like that, I simply want to remind all of us that there is no individual and there is no organization, not on the planet, that doesn’t discriminate on some basis. There is no individual, there is no congregation, there is no organization, on the planet that is actually committed to “a continuous commitment to inclusivity.” This is now the language of political correctness in terms of the new moral regime. She went on to cite a frequently asked questions page at the Girl Scouts website in which it is said,

“Placement of transgender youth is handled on a case-by-case basis, with the welfare and best interests of the child and the members of the troop/group in question a top priority. That said, if the child is recognized by the family and school/community as a girl and lives culturally as a girl, then Girl Scouts is an organization that can serve her in a setting that is both emotionally and physically safe.”

Now without going into various arguments about the impracticality of that policy, I’ll simply point out that here you have a trajectory that is very different than the Boy Scouts of America, even when you take into account the statements made by Robert Gates in recent days. Because what you see, very clearly, is that the Boy Scouts of America – as Kevin Williamson said, regardless of which side of the divide you’re on – the Boy Scouts are being dragged, kicking and screaming as a national organization into this moral revolution. Not so the Girl Scouts. The Girl Scouts have been a driving force in so much of this ever since the ideology of feminism overtook that organization decades ago.

And it’s not just Christians operating out of a biblical worldview find this interesting. A very important article appeared at the Atlantic in recent days by Kate Tuttle. Its headline, “Boy Scouts are from Mars, Girl Scouts are from Venus.” The subhead of the article, “Behind the khaki uniforms and the merit badges the two organizations have vastly different political leanings.” Tuttle offers some very interesting historical background and the differences between the Girl Scouts and the Boy Scouts – both came out of the same historical vision rooted in Robert Baden Powell, the British man who gave the vision for the Boy Scouts and also by inspiration to the Girl Scouts. Tuttle then writes,

“In truth, while the two organizations were founded with similar purposes, history has enormously widened the ideological gulf between them. The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts share a founding father…[But] the Boy Scouts quickly came to represent a kind of all-American ideal of health, outdoor exploration, and patriotic goodness. It also served as a pipeline to leadership in a country still ruled mostly by men.”

She then acknowledges,

“Anyone could be a Cub Scout, but those who have ascended to the pinnacle of scouting, Eagle Scout, are overrepresented within military academies, NASA, and even Congress.”

Meanwhile, as Tuttle tells us, going back decades, the Girl Scouts begin moving in a profoundly feminist direction and also in the direction of secularization as far back as 1993, even though the Girl Scout manual included the words “love God.” in the Girl Scout promise. The national organization ruled that a girl could substitute whatever words fit her individual belief system. That explains in part, Tuttle acknowledges why back as far as 1995 conservatives formed an alternative to the Girl Scouts of America known as Heritage Girls. It also explains why only in recent years has an alternative organization to the Boy Scouts emerged. That group is known as Trail Life USA.

The development within both of the scouting organizations are important in and of themselves, but as I said in the beginning, the greater importance lies in the fact that they are catalysts for understanding just what’s going on in the larger culture. And they also point to the fact that there is no middle ground remaining on these issues. The Boy Scouts are trying to find middle ground. And now they find that there is no middle ground. Having abandoned moral principle and moral argument they now find themselves only trying to preserve themselves as a national organization.

In the final analysis, once you surrender a moral argument, there are no real arguments left. Add together the capitulation of the Boy Scouts of America and the continued trajectory of the Girl Scouts of America and then you’ll understand why there is so much worldview confusion in the world we know today.

4) Surge of cremation popularity in America linked to decline of Christian worldview in society

Next, when it comes to many moral issues, many pastoral questions a confront the church, there are issues in which it is very easy on a biblical authority to know what is right and what is wrong. When it comes to some other issues, it is not quite so easy. And moral judgments in some cases should be in the form of declarations, as when the church declares on the clear basis of Scripture, we understand about human sexuality and marriage. When it comes to some other issues we have to be a bit less declarative and put the issue into a larger context.

Such is true with the question of cremation. From a Christian worldview perspective cremation is not necessarily a sin, but it is according to the Christian worldview inadvisable. This comes to light in terms of a recent report that was published at Slate magazine, indicating that at least as many cremations as burials are now taking place in the United States. And given the trajectory of this movement, it is almost without question that by the end of this year there will be more cremations than burials in America.

Now what’s really interesting in terms of this article by Andrew Khan is that he recognizes that something basic in the worldview has to have changed. And though he doesn’t use the word ‘secularization’ that is exactly what he describes. Looking at the radical rise of cremation as a practice in the United States he acknowledges this couldn’t happen if the Christian convictions that had shaped the population in decades and centuries past had continued. He acknowledges the very basic Christian instinct against cremation because of the biblical understanding that we are created as a psychosomatic unity. And Christians are not seeking the liberation of the body (as we’ve discussed in the past) but we’re looking forward to the resurrection of the body. That is a fundamental conviction of Christianity and respect for that body is been very important to Christianity from the very beginning as it was also very important to Judaism.

It is our belief, based in Scripture that the body is not an accident, but that God has created us as embodied creatures made in his image. And also Christians have to remember that our eternal promises are also grounded in the fact that we will be embodied even in our glorified state. Even though then we will have a glorified body. As the apostle Paul argues in 1Corinthians 15 in one of his major emphases, as Christ now is in his resurrection body so believers one day also will be. It makes sense according to some worldviews to destroy the body by fire after death because in some Eastern worldviews this represents the liberation of the soul or spirit from the body, and in other situations it simply reflects a secular worldview that assigns no continuing importance to the body, and no divine origin of the body itself.

Andrew Khan writing at Slate.com about the growth in terms of cremation in America says,

“Meanwhile, spiritual views of the body and soul have also changed. Christians historically believed that the body should be preserved whole in the hopes of reunification with the soul at the end of days… [he’s there citing Stephen Prothero of Boston Universitym who is the author of the book Purified by Fire:  A history of cremation in America] But the ’60s ushered in a wave of New Age notions that reflected a new view of the body as subordinate to the soul, like reincarnation, karma, and transcendence.”

Kahn then writes,

“As the counterculture has gone mainstream, so has cremation.”

In another very interesting paragraph Kahn writes,

“Cremation is more environmentally friendly than burial, and it’s easier to “customize.”

He then cites Barbara Kimmis who is head of something called the Cremation Association of North America. He goes on to say,

“Cremation is more environmentally friendly than burial, and it’s easier to “customize,” as Kemmis puts it. You can enshrine cremated remains in customs urns or jewelry; you can spread them across a beloved landscape, or two, or three; you can divide them among multiple family members. You can embed them in a painting. Prothero once met a family that had packed some cremated remains into a bullet for hunting deer. “You dream it, you can do it with cremated remains”

according to Barbara Kimmis. She is again head of the Cremation Association of North America. She then added,

“Sorry, I get really excited about this stuff.”

Well, she may indeed get excited about this stuff, but Christian should think very seriously about the question of burial and cremation, understanding to the Christian tradition, the Christian worldview based upon Scripture has had a very strong understanding of the importance of burying the dead with respect rather than with destroying the body.

One of the most important aspects of this story that appeared at Slate is the reminder that we have to think about these things as Christians, and we should think about these things as members of churches where we are in a continual moral discourse about how we are to fulfill our discipleship in Christ. And the time to discuss the implications of burial and cremation is not just at the moment when that decision becomes necessary, but rather right now when Christians should be encouraging one another to think most biblically.

As I’ve suggested the question of cremation is not a question of right and wrong in the same sense that some other issues are. But Christian faithfulness is not found that merely in being on the right side of questions that are clearly right and wrong, but being on the side of faithfulness in terms of what the Scripture would encourage us to think when we think about major issues including what should happen upon our death.  But Andrew Kahn’s got itfundamentally right when he points out this radical rise in cremation in America couldn’t happen if Americans still held pervasively and overwhelmingly to a Christian understanding of both life and death.

 

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.

I’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.

 

The Briefing 05-27-15

Podcast Transcript

1) Secularists note Gates’ membership proposal purely seeking survival of corporation

Why the Boy Scouts can do no right politically, Washington Post (Sarah Kaplan and Michael E. Miller)

Gates, Gays, and the Boy Scouts, National Review (Kevin D. Williamson)

2) Boy Scouts’ rules against water gun fights furthers estrangement from actual boys

Water guns OK for target shooting, not for firing at other Scouts, Scouting Magazine (Bryan Wendell)

The end of the Boy Scouts, World Magazine (D.C. Innes)

The Boy Scouts Continue To Devolve Into A Garden Club, Federalist (Rich Cromwell)

3) Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts membership decisions reveal shrinking moral middle ground in culture

Girl Scouts welcomes transgender girls, CNN (Katia Hetter)

Boy Scouts Are From Mars, Girl Scouts Are From Venus, The Atlantic (Kate Tuttle)

4) Surge of cremation popularity in America linked to decline of Christian worldview in society

Cremation in America, Slate (Andrew Kahn)

A Requiem for the Boy Scouts

The Boy Scouts were doomed the moment the national leadership decided to preserve the organization at the cost of the values and ideals that gave it birth. Speaking to a national meeting of Boy Scouts of America leaders, President Robert Gates, former Secretary of Defense and former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, called for the B.S.A. to abandon its policy of allowing the participation of openly gay scouts, but not the involvement of openly-gay adults.

Speaking in Atlanta, Secretary Gates told his fellow B.S.A. leaders that “we must deal with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be.” Gates presented a matter-of-fact briefing to the leaders, speaking in entirely pragmatic terms. There was not a shred of moral insight or argument in his statement, other than his belief that the Scouts must do whatever is necessary, or face “the end of us as a national movement.”

Even as he took office last year, Gates indicated that he was not satisfied with the compromise the B.S.A. national board adopted in 2013. After insisting, just six months earlier, that the Scouts would not change their policy excluding openly-gay scouts and scouting leaders — a policy national leaders acknowledged was expected by the vast majority of scout parents — the national board crumbled under external pressure, largely from activist organizations and major corporations.

By any honest account, the policy adopted in 2013 was a compromise that anyone could see would not hold. By allowing for openly-gay scouts but not openly-gay adult leaders, the B.S.A. put itself in a no-man’s land of moral evasion. As recently as 2004 the Boy Scouts of America had maintained that homosexual conduct is “inconsistent” with the Scout Oath’s requirement that a scout be “morally straight.” By 2013 that policy — successfully defended all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States — was an embarrassment to some leaders and in some regions of the country.

But the 2013 policy was stranded in moral ambiguity. If there is nothing morally deficient with homosexuality, why allow gay scouts but not gay leaders? Furthermore, about 70 percent of all local scouting units are sponsored by religious organizations, who found themselves in the position of choosing between remaining loyal to the scouting organization or committed to their own religious convictions. Some decided to wait it out.

Predictably, the waiting is soon to be over. Gates indicated to the press that a decision is likely by October. The handwriting is on the tent wall, and the direction is set. The compromised policy of 2013 is about to be abandoned, with scouting at all levels, including adult leaders, to be open regardless of sexual orientation.

Back in 2013, those who demanded the full inclusion of gay scouts and leaders registered their dissatisfaction with the new policy. The editorial board of The New York Times called the new policy “an unprincipled position” — and they were right. As the editors pushed onward, they warned that the move “should hardly satisfy” the demand for full inclusion. Once again, they were clearly right. Both sides could see the the compromise of 2013 was unprincipled and unsustainable.

Now, Secretary Gates proposes that the compromise be abandoned, accepting the inclusion of openly-gay leaders. His argument is entirely based on the self-preservation of the B.S.A. as a national organization. He made no moral argument at all. He did not celebrate the new policy he proposed on moral grounds, nor did he lament the loss of the older policy on moral grounds. There were no moral elements in his argument.

Tellingly, Gates referred to internal pressures from scouting organizations in several states that were openly defying the national ban on gay adult leaders, and he also made reference to the threat of lawsuits that, in his words, would threaten to “forbid any kind of membership standard, including our foundational belief in duty to God and our focus on serving the specific needs of boys.”

What Gates did not mention was the fact that the inclusion of openly gay leaders and scouts, along with the challenge that already comes from the feminism and and transgender advocates, makes the very existence of the Boy Scouts ever more vulnerable.

The inescapable fact is that America is becoming a society in which the very idea of the Boy Scouts is increasingly implausible. The current leadership of the B.S.A. would supposedly save the Boy Scouts as an organization, but leave scouting in yet another unsustainable compromise.

That was made clear when Gates argued that the religious organizations that sponsor local units should remain free to establish their own criteria for adult leaders “consistent with their faith.” But Gates surely knows that this assurance is a very thin promise. Perhaps Gates hopes that the lawsuits will now be directed against churches, instead of against the Boy Scouts of America.

The moral disaster of the Gates proposal is matched by a legal and political disaster. Writing at The Washington Post, Sarah Kaplan and Michael E. Miller called the move by Gates “an astute capitulation,” but they also recognized the predicament Gates had made deepened:

“That’s because the Boy Scouts are now in a position where politically they can do no right. Besieged by the left for decades for not allowing gay scouts or leaders, the Boy Scouts are now being attacked from the right. By allowing gay scouts two years ago and now considering allowing gay leaders as well, a deeply traditional organization is trying to stay attuned to the times. But it also risks alienating many core members, for whom the Boy Scouts have long been a bedrock of conservative American life.”

Writing at National Review, Kevin D. Williamson nailed Gates for failing to make a moral argument, when the issue, regardless of the side one takes, is inescapably moral:

“Instead, he argues from organizational self-interest — never mind if it is right or wrong, the policy puts Scouting Inc. in a tough position, so best to abandon it. Duty to God and country? . . . Depending on your point of view, Gates is either doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason or doing the right thing for the wrong reason. ”

As Williamson argues, those who are committed to both sides of the argument over homosexuality are making a moral argument — and Gates is not. To the defenders of the Scout’s longstanding policy, Gates’s proposal is “understood as simple moral cowardice.” On the other hand, those who Williamson describes as taking “the more contemporary view of homosexuality” will see Gates’s position as “arguably even more distasteful.” In the end, “As a moral rationale, ‘the end of us as a national movement’ fails, and fails pitifully, regardless of one’s views on homosexuality.”

So true, and so sad. As a former Boy Scout, I lament the inevitable loss of scouting, knowing full well how much good the scouting movement has done in the lives of countless boys and men. Secretary Gates has signaled his determination to preserve the Boy Scouts of America “as a national movement.” Again, he told the scouting leaders, “we must deal with the world as it is, not as we might want it to be.”

Of course, he never even said how he wanted it to be. That would have required a moral argument. The most unforgivable truth about Gates’s proposal for the Boy Scouts is that it was presented with no moral argument at all. Nevertheless, the eventual requiem for the Boy Scouts will reveal a moral lesson to be sure. But it will be a lesson learned too late, and at so great a loss.

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/albertmohler.

For more information on Southern Seminary, visit SBTS.edu and for more information on Boyce College, visit BoyceCollege.com.

Kevin D. Williamson, “God, Gays, and the Boy Scouts,” National Review, Sunday, May 24, 2015. http://www.nationalreview.com/article...

Sarah Kaplan and Michael E. Miller, “Why the Boy Scouts Can Do No Right Politically,” The Washington Post, Friday, May 22, 2015.

Previous posts at AlbertMohler.com:

http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/01/2...

http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/05/2...

http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/01/3...