R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s Blog, page 321

Transcript: The Briefing 03-09-15

The Briefing

 

March 9, 2015

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

It’s Monday, March 9, 2015.  I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

 1) 50th anniversary of Selma march points to importance of Christian worldview to civil rights

This past weekend marks the 50th anniversary of one of the darkest hours in America’s Civil Rights history. It was 50 years ago in early March of the year 1965 that those who were trying to bring attention to the injustice of Jim Crow laws as they were known across the American South, sought to bring attention to their cause by marching from Selma, Alabama to Montgomery. And yet the march failed – twice it failed. In both cases, the first and the second, there were those who opposed the civil rights movement who intervened. In the case of the first march this included police, and there were at least 600 protesters – those who were intending to march in the parade – who were gassed and otherwise besieged in that first attempt.

When a second attempt was made a couple of days later it ended in violence further along the trail from Selma to Montgomery. Only the third march succeeded; in about the middle of March when, as it turned out, it took FBI agents and federal Marshals protecting the marchers that enabled them to get safely to Montgomery and to make their point. But by then the point had been made. Not so much by those who were involved in the March, but by those who opposed it. Iconic images of those who were wounded simply seeking peaceably to protest by crossing the Edwin Pettus Bridge in Selma have become seared into the American conscience. Pres. Lyndon Johnson at that time understood the power of the symbolism and he moved quickly to push what became known as the Voting Rights Act through the United States Congress where it eventually passed.

What we need to notice as Christians looking at this anniversary is the fact that the actions of those who opposed the marchers now seem to be inexplicable. It seems to us nearly incomprehensible that there would’ve been those who opposed African-Americans simply demanding to be understood as equal citizens with equal rights in a nation that officially pledge itself to equal justice for all. For Americans, particularly for American Christians, looking back at this 50 year anniversary, there is the humbling acknowledgment of the evil that lurks in the human heart in the form of racism.

One of the most unsettling realizations as we look back to 50 years ago is how many Americans, including churchgoing Americans, were quite happy to allow and even to voice support for a system of injustice that meant there was one kind of justice for white Americans and another for black Americans. In so many cases the Jim Crow laws pointed to the reality that there had been, at least in recent American history at that time, separate water fountains and separate schools for American schoolchildren. But one of the things that becomes most evident is that the righteousness of the cause of those marchers in 1965 was made evident not only in terms of their witness and their argument, not only in terms of their activism, but in terms of the mirror image that American saw in the actions, the words, and the faces of those who opposed them – those who arrested them, those who beat them.

Along the path of these street marches, at least 3,000 protesters were arrested – mostly for the act simply of protesting and protesting a system that almost all Americans now would recognize was horrifyingly unjust. How could it be that so many people supported a system of such inequality? How was it that so many people felt defensive in the face of challenges to that unjust system and actually put themselves on the line to defend it rather than to overturning it. This is one of the darkest realizations in terms of fallen humanity. We are capable of massive self-rationalization, we are capable of massive lying to ourselves, and we are capable of supporting horrifying injustice. And in the case of the Civil Rights movement what we see is the righteousness of a cause that eventually reached the conscience of the American people.

But one of the most important truth we need to realize on this 50th anniversary is that the arguments that won the day in terms of the civil rights movement were arguments that were, by and large, offered by the most influential leaders of that movement – deeply biblical in terms of the shape of the argument and in terms of the substance. Some of the most important of these victories of course were won in terms of protests and eventually in terms of courtrooms and legislation. But as is always the case, the major battle was for the hearts of Americans. And arguments that won the day were, as offered by the most famous leaders of the civil rights movement, couched in biblical language. Using the very language of the Bible to demonstrate the equality of all human beings and the fact that America was at that time settling for a grossly unequal and unjust system.

We need also note that in the year 2015, as we face new challenges when it comes to racism and new challenges when it comes to understanding the relationships between all Americans, the reality is that not only as we look to Americans, but as we look throughout the entire world, only the biblical worldview offers an adequate explanation as to why all human beings are worthy of respect and worthy of the recognition of rights – basic human rights. It’s because only the biblical worldview, that explains that every single one of us is made as the loving creation of an omnipotent and sovereign creator, explains why humanity is distinct and why every single human being is worthy of respect and dignity. It is because every single human being is created in the image of God, and it’s because every single human being thus possesses those realities we call human rights, not because we are humans who deserve rights but because we are creatures made by a heavenly father who endowed us with certain rights and privileges simply because he made us in his image.

And one of those most basic rights is the right to be respected by every other member of the human race, understood that we are all united in the fact that we are creatures made by God. We are all united in the fact that Adam and Eve are our common mother and father – that means, in the ultimate sense, we are all truly brothers and sisters. It is also the gospel of Jesus Christ that explains our common need as fallen humans for a Savior. It is also the Christian gospel that points to the common provision for our salvation through the substitutionary atonement achieved by the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the understanding clearly revealed in Scripture that all who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved and that means that those who confess with her lips that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in their heart that God has raised Him from the dead will be saved. And we are promised, not just the picture of a potential, but of a reality in which men and women from every tongue and tribe and people and nation are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb and are eventually seated and what we know as the marriage supper of the Lamb.

Christians do well to remember that we do not support the equality of all human beings and the respect that is due to every single human being regardless of race, skin color, ethnicity, or even stage of development because we simply believe in justice – no. We believe in the full equality of all human beings because we believe in the gospel. We do believe in the demands of justice, but far more than that, we believe in the call of obedience to Jesus.

2) Lingering mystery of Malaysia Flight 370 reminder of untold secrets of human heart

Also speaking of anniversaries over the weekend, yesterday was the one-year anniversary of the strange disappearance of Malaysian Airlines Flight 370. That was a flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing that simply disappeared, disappeared without explanation. And one year later, the wreckage of that aircraft still has not been found – that is a Boeing 777, a very large jumbo jet that has inexplicably disappeared not only for days not, only for hours, but now for an entire year.

By now, as international press looking back in the one-year anniversary make clear, there is virtually no hope that any survivors will ever be found. That’s because the main theory right now is the very theory that first emerged in the aftermath of the plane’s disappearance and that is that the plane must be somewhere in the South Indian ocean, it must be somewhere on the seafloor, and it must be there because someone eventually intended for it to be. That is to say, that one year after the disappearance of the plane, the main theory now being held by investigators is that it was a deliberate act.

Last Friday’s edition of the New York Times included an article by Michael Forsythe and Keith Bradsher. Their point, as they report from Kuala Lumpur, is that officials there are beginning to be settled in a public way on the fact that the only explanation that seems to work is the explanation of what they call a rogue pilot. The article begins by citing the chief pilot of Malaysia Airlines; that is Nik Huzlan. He’s speaking of the fact that he finds it very difficult to believe that one of his friends, including the pilot and the copilot of the disappeared flight, could have possibly been involved in an effort not only to kill themselves but 268 other human beings.

As the reporters tell us, and I quote,

“Mr. Huzlan is convinced that deliberate human intervention, most likely by someone in the cockpit, caused the aircraft, on a red-eye flight from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, to suddenly turn around, cease communication with air traffic control and some six hours later run out of fuel and fall into the ocean. But he also said that he had never seen anything in more than 30 years of friendship that would suggest that Mr. Zaharie was capable of such a deed.”

Mr. Huzlan said,

“Based on logic, when you throw emotion away, it seems to point a certain direction which you can’t ignore.”

And then he said these words that are of particular importance from a Christian worldview perspective. He said,

“Your best friend can harbor the darkest secrets.”

The reality is we do not know what happened to this airliner and to the 269 souls aboard. But we do know this: it’s very hard to believe, given the circumstances, that this was not a deliberate act. That statement made by the chief pilot of Malaysia airlines deserves our close attention. Speaking of the pilot, in this case the chief pilot rather than the copilot, and at this point the chief pilot is the chief suspect, he said,

“Your best friend [and this man was his best friend] can harbor the darkest secrets.”

When we look back at the 50th anniversary of the Selma march, when we look back at the one-year anniversary of the disappearance of the Malaysian airliner, both of them come to us with major lessons. But of course one of the most troubling aspects of that one-year anniversary of the disappearance of Flight 370 is that we really don’t know how the story is explained; we really don’t know the details, we don’t know why – and that’s the most difficult question because human beings are made to ask the question ‘why?’ We simply can’t avoid asking that question and we want to know because, as God made us in his image, he made us moral creatures and we understand there is a moral issue that is at the bottom of this entire question.

Was this in truth a deliberate human act? That seems almost incomprehensible – that’s the word the gets bandied about and reported in the international media over and over again. And yet, it isn’t quite so incomprehensible as we would like to claim. As the chief pilot of Malaysia Airlines now tells the New York Times, he has come, over his own inclinations and wishes, over against his own experience of friendship with this pilot, to believe that the most likely explanation is that his friend flew this plane (in one very real sense) into the ocean – deliberately killing himself and 268 others.

You know when we look at the disappearance of this airliner we ask the question why because we want to know if there was a mechanical problem. We want to know if there was a weather problem. Those explanations would settle our mind somewhat because even as that would not lessen the tragedy of the 269 deaths, at least they would not be direct moral responsibility, human moral responsibility, involved. Far more ominous to us, and we know it even as we say it, is that the reality of murder in this case is far more haunting to us. The horrifying idea that a pilot could get behind the wheel of an aircraft, go into the cockpit and fly the plane to a high-altitude, only then to disable the mechanisms whereby it was directed, disabled all communications, and effectively set an autopilot to lead the plane away from civilization into the open expanse of the South Indian ocean only to run out of fuel and eventually crash.

There are those currently searching much of the Indian ocean right now – an area far larger than the state of West Virginia – in which computer projections indicate there is the greatest likelihood that the wreckage will be found. But one year later and hundreds of millions of dollars spent, no wreckage has yet been found. The reality that is the most important issue for us is the reality articulated by that chief pilot, it’s the moral reality when he said “your best friend can harbor the darkest secrets.” That’s even scarier to us than an airplane crash. The reality that someone we know, someone we think we know, can harbor these horrifyingly dark secrets – as it now appears the chief pilot of that airplane may well have harbored.

That statement made by the chief pilot of Malaysia Airlines was made better by the prophet Jeremiah in Jeremiah 17:9 when he stated, and I quote,

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?”

It is impossible for us as sinful humans to understand the true nature of the sinfulness of the human heart. As the prophet said, who can understand it?

3) Rise of ‘new’ secular religions point to spiritual nature of humanity

Yesterday’s edition of the New York Times included a very important commentary by Ross Douthat in which he cites the Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari. Harari is arguing that the problems now faced by humanity are so new that, in his words, the old answers simply are irrelevant. And when he speaks of old answers he’s writing from the context of modern Israel, dismissing all religious truth claims as being a part of that irrelevant past, the answers offered by the past that we can very well now do without – indeed he argues we should do without them, we should simply dismiss them. Ross Douthat’s point is that secularist making this kind of argument, like that made by Harari, had better be very careful what they ask for because to put it bluntly, if they get what they ask for, they won’t like it when they get it. That’s because Douthat understand what Harari does not and that is that there are no explanations, there are no answers, there are no truth claims being made by the secular world that can in any way suffice; can suffice to uphold human dignity, can uphold any promise of a human future.

Douthat says that one of the problems that we should face is the reality that so many in the elites actually nonetheless believe the secular assertions, they believe the secular promises. As Douthat writes,

“This argument deserves highlighting because I think many smart people believe it.”

I think Ross Douthat’s right in that, and I think it points out the fact that there are many intelligent people who hold to rather unintelligent worldviews. But one of the most important aspects of Harari’s argument is where he states,

“In terms of ideas, in terms of religions, the most interesting place today in the world is Silicon Valley, not the Middle East.”

In terms of the biblical worldview, the most important thing for us to note is Harari’s celebration of the fact that in Silicon Valley we are witnessing the creation of what he calls ‘new religions:’ techno-utopian religions, trans humanist religions, and as Harari sees it, it is those religions,

“…that will take over the world,”

Now just to be honest, I’m not very fearful that these new trans humanist and techno-utopian religions from the Silicon Valley are indeed going to take over the world. But I point to this important article in yesterday’s edition of the New York Times because it points to a profound biblical truth and that is that God made us as spiritual creatures; he made us with a spiritual capacity, he made us to ask spiritual questions, and to seek spiritual answers. And as many have noted throughout the history of Christianity, those who reject Christianity saying that they want nothing to do with religion and spiritual realities, they do not turn to a truly secular worldview, no they very quickly turn to some alternative religious worldview and that’s easily explained by the worldview of the Bible.

According to the Bible it’s actually theologically impossible to be an atheist. I don’t mean that the Bible says there are not those who claim to be atheist, maybe even those who believe themselves to be atheist, but even as the psalmist said, the foolish said in his heart there is no God. And as Paul makes very clear in Romans 1, God has implanted the knowledge of himself in all of creation. And as he makes clear elsewhere in Romans, that includes the revelation of himself within the human conscience.

It should be really interesting to us that here we have a testimony coming from an Israeli historian, writing from a clearly secular worldview, that when he looks to the future he has hope in the fact that there are new religions – exciting new religions – coming out of the Silicon Valley. Biblical Christians can appreciate at least this much from Mr. Harari’s argument: the recognition that these new philosophies, these new worldview coming out of Silicon Valley, these worldviews that hold up the promise of a utopia coming from technology, these promises of trans-humanism whereby human beings by technology in modern medicine can eventually live forever, at least Mr. Harari understands rightly that these are religions.

Finally, speaking of Silicon Valley, a very important article about California appeared in the weekend edition of the Financial Times from London. What makes this article really interesting is that here you have a British newspaper trying to explain California to British readers. The articles is entitled, California is too far out for politics; it’s written by Gary Silverman. His point is basically this: even though California is the most populous American state with 39 million people – as he notes, that’s about three times as many as the nation of Greece – even though California’s annual economic output is about $2 trillion – that’s roughly the same as Russia – and even as many of America’s largest companies, especially high-tech companies, are located there in Silicon Valley (he notes Apple, Google, and Facebook together) have a total market capitalization rivaling the gross domestic product of Spain, he says nonetheless it’s very curious because even though California has all these assets and all this power, this huge population, it doesn’t seem to be poised to elect a President of the United States – that is, anyone who actually from California. And this is where Mr. Silverman’s article gets really interesting because he points out, very adroitly and quite accurately, that in California conservative candidate simply don’t have a chance. No conservatives been elected to statewide office here in over a decade. But when it comes to the issue of liberals from California, as Mr. Silverman points out, largely trying to explain California to a British readership, California’s liberals are simply too liberal even for most of the liberals elsewhere in the country. And so he explains the conservatives can’t get elected in California and the California liberals can’t get elected outside California. It’s an interesting quandary.

As we well understand, politics is reflection of worldview and if you want to understand the politics, especially of the left in California (and right now, politically speaking, the left is in the driver seat) maybe we need to look back to the worldview explanation offered by that Israeli historian, Prof. Harari. Maybe it’s because of these new religions coming out of Silicon Valley. At least to Mr. Harari’s credit, he understands this is a spiritual issue, that these worldviews are inherently religious. You have to wonder how many, on the far political left of California (and that means left in control) understand that as secular as they think themselves to be, their worldviews are inescapably theological, inescapably religious.

Think back to what professor Harari said about religion; these new religions coming out of the Silicon Valley. He said of the Silicon Valley, in terms of religion, it is

“…the most interesting place today in the world,”

His point is very clear. When you’re looking at Silicon Valley you’re not just looking at a digital revolution, you’re looking at a religious revolution as well.

 

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.

 

Remember we’re collecting questions for Ask Anything: Weekend Edition. Just call with your question in your voice to 877-505-2058. That’s 877-505-2058.

 

I had the privilege of preaching over the weekend in Kingsburg, CA. I’m speaking to you now from Los Angeles, and I’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.

 

 

The Briefing 03-09-15

Podcast Transcript

1) 50th anniversary of Selma march points to importance of Christian worldview to civil rights

‘Bloody Sunday’ Commemoration Continues in Selma, NBC News (Elisha Fieldstadt and Amber Payne)

Revisiting Selma, New York Times (Malin Fezehai)

2) Lingering mystery of Malaysia Flight 370 reminder of untold secrets of human heart

To Explain Missing Malaysia Airlines Flight, ‘Rogue Pilot’ Seems Likeliest Theory, New York Times (Michael Forsythe and Keith Bradsher)

3) Rise of ‘new’ secular religions point to spiritual nature of humanity

The Case for Old Ideas, New York Times (Ross Douthat)

California is too far out for politics, Financial Times (Gary Silverman)

 

Ask Anything: Weekend Edition 03-07-15

1) How should Christian doctors respond to patients seeking gender-reassignment?

2) How dangerous is the New Age movement?

3) What will Judgment Day look like for Christians, already justified in Christ?

 

Transcript: The Briefing 03-06-15

The Briefing

 

January 28, 2015

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

 

It’s Friday, March 6, 2015. I’m Albert Mohler, and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

1) San Francisco archbishop criticized for having Catholic schools hold to Catholic beliefs 

The Roman Catholic Archbishop of the city of San Francisco has been discovered to be Roman Catholic. That’s evidently huge news to many people in San Francisco, at least in terms of the fact that the Archbishop has now been found guilty in the eyes of a secular society (and even of many liberal Roman Catholics) of holding to Roman Catholic teaching and expecting Roman Catholic schools to do the same.

Our concern this morning is not the Roman Catholic Church and its institutions per se, but rather what this story coming out of San Francisco represents in terms of our future; the future of evangelical churches evangelical denominations and those institutions that would serve the evangelical churches. Our concern is to watch what’s going on in San Francisco, and recognize this is almost exactly what we can expect will happen elsewhere – if not almost everywhere in the United States – in coming months and years.

The story is reported for the New York Times by Carol Pogash, and she writes this way;

“It is the issue that is stirring San Francisco: The archbishop has specified that teachers at four Bay Area Catholic high schools cannot publicly challenge the church’s teachings that homosexual acts are “contrary to natural law,” that contraception is “intrinsically evil” and that embryonic stem cell research is “a crime.” He also wants to designate teachers as part of the “ministry,” which could, under a 2012 Supreme Court ruling, strip them of protection under federal anti-discrimination laws.”

There is a great deal embedded in that paragraph, but what the New York Times wants us to do is to recoil in horror that a Roman Catholic archbishop is requiring Roman Catholic high schools in his diocese to teach Roman Catholic doctrine. In the eyes of the secular world around us that’s becoming increasingly scandalous. Indeed, they’re responding with shock and incredulity. How could it be that in the secular age, even a Roman Catholic archbishop would expected the schools in his diocese – the Roman Catholic schools – would uphold Roman Catholic doctrine?

As I said, our concern is not the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and the ability Roman Catholic schools to teach those convictions. But in another sense it is, because the blowback that is now being faced by this Catholic archbishop in San Francisco is the blowback will come for every single one of us in short order.

As Pogash reports for the New York Times,

“In this city that helped give birth to the gay rights movement, the backlash has been fierce. A top concern is that gay teachers could be fired.”

One senior quoted in the article – this is again a senior at a Roman Catholic high school in the Bay area –  Jessica Hyman said,

“Our community is in pain; our teachers are scared.”

According to the Times, the Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, made the changes this month and has been under fire ever since. As Pogash reports,

“Technically, what he has done is to change the handbook that covers the 318 faculty members in the schools in his jurisdiction, which are in San Francisco, Marin and San Mateo Counties and which educate 3,600 students. The new language about not challenging church teachings takes effect Sept. 1.”

There been several reports about this controversy in national media, but the most important of the reports is this article that appeared in the New York Times by Carol Pogash. And this article is really important because it tells us about two forms of the backlash against the Archbishop’s decision about this very important decision to uphold Catholic teaching in Catholic schools. Because the first blowback is from the secular community. Now, after all were talking about San Francisco, and as Pogash said this is the very city that claims to have given birth to the gay-rights movement in America. And that’s a pretty credible claim.

And so in San Francisco, you’ve got a pushback that is coming from the secular society, and that’s reflected in the fact that according to Pogash’s article in the Bay area, in addition to petitions in protest, “eight state legislators from the Bay Area have asked the archbishop to withdraw the clause as discriminatory.”

Even more shocking, two of the legislators, according to Pogash, called for an investigation accusing the Archbishop of using religion “as a Trojan horse to deprive our fellow citizens of their basic civil rights.”

This is one most disturbing things I’ve read in a long time, especially when it comes to religious liberty and especially because I read it as a seminary president. I’m reading it with the understanding that the challenge to the Archbishop of the Roman Catholic diocese of San Francisco is in effect a challenge to all of us. A challenge that there are those who are going to claim that we can’t discriminate even in terms of the hiring of professors in an expressly evangelical institution in terms of evangelical theology and evangelical conviction. The challenge that is represented by this is simply huge. You have eight legislators in the state legislature calling for the diocese to change its policy, and you have two of them who have officially called for an investigation. An investigation of the Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco for being Catholic and for intending to uphold Catholic moral teachings and Catholic doctrine.

We also understand that the secular backlash means that there in the San Francisco and Bay Area communities there are those who are responding with abject horror that the Roman Catholic archbishop would’ve taken this position. So far as they see it, this is a throwback to something like the Inquisition of the Middle Ages. This is something that in the worldview of so many who live in the Bay Area is virtually unthinkable. And thus they are shocked; seemingly genuinely shocked that a Roman Catholic archbishop would expect the schools in his jurisdiction (the Roman Catholic schools) to teach Roman Catholic conviction, Roman Catholic official doctrine.

But a closer look at the revisions that the Archbishop forced in the handbook for faculty indicates that he actually arguably didn’t even go that far. A look at the actual language indicates that what he is requiring of those who will teach and Roman Catholic high schools is that they will not publicly defy or deny official Roman Catholic teaching on these crucial, very important moral issues. That’s where we have to face the fact that the Roman Catholic archbishop here is playing something of defense with in his own schools within his own diocese, and therein is the second form of blowback.

It’s one thing (as we might expect) for a secular society such as the Bay Area like San Francisco to press back on a decision like this as being something that is simply unthinkable. But what we need to note very carefully is the second form of blowback that the Archbishop of San Francisco is receiving. And that is blowback not from the secular culture, but from some Roman Catholics. It’s one thing to have the pushback from the secular world; it’s a very different thing, a more ominous thing for the Roman Catholic Archbishop to have a pushback from Roman Catholics.

But we now know by ample documentation that there are millions of Roman Catholics in the United States who are openly defying Roman Catholic teaching on these issues. And we need to note that there is huge political pressure that is represented in the blowback coming from Roman Catholics on their own diocese. But turning to our own evangelical context, the question would be this: if the president of an educational institution that is sufficiently committed evangelical doctrine, the evangelical worldview, and even to an evangelical confession of faith would make very clear, the determination to hire only teachers who would hold to that faith – especially in terms of the school that is explicitly evangelical in terms of the total worldview – would there be adequate support coming from evangelical churches for that decision? We can certainly hope so, but honesty compels us to ask that question.

What if this were not the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco? What if this were a seminary president or Christian college president? What if this were a pastor of a local church very clearly committed evangelical conviction when it comes to the Christian school that is operated by that church? Herein is another lesson coming from this story.

Why did the Roman Catholic archbishop in the city of San Francisco have to make this decision in 2015? Glaringly and obviously it should of been made of very long time ago. And even now there’s a certain amount of elasticity that seems to be built into the policy change and the archbishop’s determination. As the Times reports,

“Expressing surprise at the strong reactions, Archbishop Cordileone said this week that he would form a committee of theology teachers to help “contextualize” the morality clause. But he said that he had no intention of deleting his wording, and that the committee’s recommendations would retain “what is already there.””

The Archbishop then added, “This is been a very trying time for all of us.”

Well, one lesson for evangelicals is that the Catholic archdiocese bears at least partial responsibility for bringing this crisis upon themselves by not having the policy in place long, long ago. Why did the archdiocese wait until the year 2015 to state very clearly tht teachers in its Roman Catholic schools would have to uphold Roman Catholic doctrine? What about all the years preceding? If this policy would be directed at teachers were already in the schools (as clearly the policy is), then they should of had the policy long ago, because they have very clearly hired people they should not of hired.

As I said there are huge lessons here for evangelical Christians. How many of our own institutions supposedly committed evangelical conviction have been hiring teachers who actually are not committed to the same convictions? And, furthermore, we would have to ask in some institutions, how would you know? Without a confession of faith that is explicit, without a contract that is absolutely clear how would one know unless a problem arises?

One of the lessons for all of us is if you wait until a problem arises you’re waiting far too long and far too irresponsibly. But the big story here is that the fact that the Roman Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco is now requiring all teachers and Roman Catholic schools under his jurisdiction to uphold Catholic doctrine makes the pages of the New York Times, thousands and thousands of miles away. That tells us something about the reality of the challenge we face in this increasingly secular age.

But we also need to note before we leave the story behind, that the story will not be left behind. This is a story that will arrive in its own way at every single evangelical school, every evangelical college and university, every evangelical seminary, there will be no place to hide. If this story about the Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco being after all Catholic makes the New York Times is a major new story, brace yourself for when the newspaper also discovers that there are evangelical Christians who expect their evangelical schools to uphold evangelical conviction and evangelical doctrine. Just wait for the scandal, for it is almost surely to come.

2) Story of priested twins points to importance of grounding our children in doctrine

A very different new story has my attention as it appeared in Wednesday’s edition of the Wall Street Journal. It’s found in the personal Journal section. The headline is “When we quit one faith for another.” Claire Ansberry, reporting for the Journal tells us that more than half of US adults change religions. She goes on to tell what she calls a tale of twin brothers and their paths  to different churches. Now before looking at the tale of these twin brothers, when you look at the claim that half of all US adults change religions. As Asberry writes,

“More than half of the U.S. adult population has changed religious affiliations at least once during their lives, most before they reach 50, according to a 2009 Faith in Flux report by the Pew Research Center. In many cases, the move is from one major religious tradition to another, say, Protestantism to Catholicism…but it also includes those who leave organized religion altogether.”

Well, having looked at the report itself I’d also have to point out that the claim of changing religions would include some of the changes from a Baptist to a Methodist, or from a Lutheran to a Presbyterian, by theological definition we certainly wouldn’t say that’s changing religions. But according to this report, it would be. So as we’re looking at the claim now widespread in the media, having look at the report I can simply say that it’s an overstatement of how much change is taking place. But is still comes as an affirmation of the fact that all lot of change is taking place and that’s the reason behind the story. The loosening of the religious identification generation by generation is something that should certainly have our attention, and I’ll return to that in just a moment.

But first let’s look at the two brothers Chad and Brad, the twins that grew up in the first Baptist Church of Elkin, North Carolina. As they are described here, they had the experiences during their childhood that most evangelical children would expect to have, and certainly most Southern Baptists. We’re told they went to Vacation Bible School, they went to Sunday school, they sang in the choir, and they did so along with extended family.

But now Brad, age 43, is a Roman Catholic priest in the diocese of Charlotte and Chad is an Anglican bishop in Atlanta. Let’s just say those are very different trajectories. Somehow you start out with two twin boys who are growing up in a stable evangelical context, in a very stable community in North Carolina ,being raised by parents who clearly identify not only is evangelical Christians, but specifically as Southern Baptists, and somehow you end up nearly a generation later with one of the twins being a Roman Catholic priest and the other being an Anglican bishop in Atlanta. What in the world happened here? Well, as the story unfolds and as it is reported in the Wall Street Journal, the brother started asking some very deep theological questions, and those questions led them to the people who were talking about those questions. As becomes very clear in the article the twins ended up in different places because even though they had a common quest for a deeper theological knowledge they found themselves in very different places; one a celibate Roman Catholic priest, the other an Anglican bishop with four children.

As Ansberry tells the story,

“Like many kids, in their early teen years they began questioning things, including the teachings of the Baptist Church, she says. [She says this speaking of the mother] Their curiosity was piqued in large part by an older, much-respected cousin, who lived in Greensboro and had recently converted to Catholicism. During one visit, their cousin took the boys, then about 12 or 13, to Our Lady of Grace Catholic Church. It was their first time inside a Catholic church. That Sunday morning remains 30 years later one of their most vivid memories.”

She goes on to report,

“The beauty of the building itself—the vaulted ceilings, marble steps, intricate woodwork, statues and stained glass—the smells of burning incense and the sounds of bells had a mystical quality that is hard to explain, says Father Brad. What struck Bishop Chad was watching the priest standing in front of the altar and elevating the Communion host.”

Ansberry then writes,

“For them, the Catholic liturgy made the invisible God palpable and tangible to the senses. Their own Baptist Church, where the walls are white and flat, the altar austere, and the worship focused largely on Scripture alone, didn’t.”

Chad told the Wall Street Journal,

“We weren’t theologians. We were children. But as children we had open hearts and minds to it and were very receptive.”

When I look at this new story I see it as hugely important, and for the following reason; It points out the fact that we are losing far too many evangelical young people as they reach older ages because they are simply not adequately grounded theologically in the Christian faith. They may go to vacation Bible school, they may go to Sunday school. But the question is, are they really grounded in the Christian faith? Are they well-grounded in the beauty of Scripture? Are they well-grounded in a knowledge of the deep theological convictions that define us as Christians. When these two boys, identical twins, were asking deep theological questions, who was there to help them? Who was there to guide them? Who was there as an evangelical thinker, apologist, theologian, friend, pastor, and guide to help them to understand these questions?

As I read this news article, it comes as judgment; judgment upon all those who missed the opportunity in failed in the responsibility to ground these young boys as they were then in the Christian faith, in the truth, and the beauty of evangelical Christian doctrine. In the theological principles that based upon long biblical consideration and the long argument of the church have met the differences between the Roman Catholic Church and evangelical Christianity. The differences between the understanding of a Scripture-centered Christianity and one that is centered in the sacraments (as is the Roman Catholic system and at least much of Anglicanism). This is a huge question. It’s a haunting question.

I raise this article simply because every single evangelical parent needs to take it as a serious challenge. Because every single evangelical church has to understand this story telling us in one sense what were up against, because the story of these two identical twins can be replicated thousands and thousands of times over, and surely will be if we fail now in the responsibility to raise up the next generation in the faith, to defend the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

Now when you look at this news article, we come to understand that the shift of one of these twins to becoming an Anglican is quite a different shift than the one became a Roman Catholic. Because becoming an Anglican doesn’t necessarily mean, in any sense, the denial of the very essentials of the gospel that would be at stake in terms of the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, in terms of those Reformation principles that we believe to be in the very heart of the gospel. Of justification, by faith alone, by grace alone, by the work of Christ alone, knowable by the authority of Scripture alone, and ultimately to the glory of God alone.

We impoverish our children if we don’t ground them in the grandeur of Christian doctrine. And we also set them up for an enormous vulnerability to be led by their senses –  remember the exact tale told in the story – rather than by a theological understanding grounded in the explicit teachings of Scripture.

Thanks be to God, there are a very good many evangelical Anglicans, and we can only hope that this bishop in Atlanta is one of them. The ways described in this article makes me think that it may well be so. But when we’re looking at the other identical twin becoming a Roman Catholic priest we need to recognize that – well it go back to the theme of the story by changing religions. In terms of the faith and judgment of the Reformers, that’s exactly what they would say this one identical twin indeed did.

According to the Wall Street Journal report the parents of these two twins don’t seem to be very upset about the trajectories that their sons of chosen. Surely that must be part of the story as well, in terms of how their boys ended up as man where they are now. I know nothing in terms of direct knowledge of the Baptist Church in which these boys were participants when they were younger (especially back in those days I know of no specific failing). What I do know is this; this story appears as judgment and is challenged every single one of us –  as pastors, as parents, as youth leaders, as those who care about the perpetuation of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. If we do not ground our children in the faith, then they are going to find the answers to their questions elsewhere.

There may be indeed there will be some who were well taught who at some point later in life will depart from the faith. But for those who are not well taught, it’s not just a possibility, it’s a probability. And this article in the Wall Street Journal makes that point very, very clearly. Perhaps we should end on this note, our great hope and determination is churches should be to make certain that the young people and children who are sitting in our churches today will be featured in an article like this in a generation yet to come.

Thanks to listen to The Briefing. For more information 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.

Remember we’re taking questions for Ask Anything: Weekend Edition. Call with your question in your voice to 877-505-2058. That’s 877-505-2058. I’m speaking to you from Los Angeles, California, and I’ll meet you again on Monday for The Briefing.

The Briefing 03-06-15

1) San Francisco archbishop criticized for having Catholic schools hold to Catholic beliefs 

Morals Clause in Catholic Schools Roils Bay Area, New York Times (Carol Pogash)

2) Story of priested twins points to importance of grounding our children in doctrine

When We Leave One Religion for Another, Wall Street Journal (Claire Ansberry)

The Briefing 03-05-15

1) Boston Marathon Bomber defense confesses client’s action, denies his responsibility

‘It was him’ Boston bomber’s lawyers admit guilt, focus on brother, Reuters (Scott Malone and Elizabeth Barber)

2) Former CIA head’s plea bargain points to active danger of sin’s hubris

Petraeus reaches plea deal with Justice Dept., USA Today (Kevin Johnson and Tom Vanden Brook)

Petraeus Reaches Plea Deal Over Giving Classified Data to His Lover, New York Times (Michael S. Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo)

3) Teens use digital media to feel good about themselves, like all humans

Digital content makes teens feel good about themselves, Los Angeles Times (Saba Hamedy)

 

Transcript: The Briefing 03-05-15

The Briefing

 

March 4, 2015

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

 

It’s Wednesday, March 4, 2015.  I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

1) Netanyahu’s Congress address exposes wide differences in view of challenge of Iran

Yesterday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint session of congress. Even though the event was boycotted by about 50 members of the Democratic Party, the chamber was well filled with both senators and members of congress. As Peter Baker of The New York Times reports, in an implicit challenge to President Obama, Mister Netanyahu told a joint meeting of congress that Iran’s “tentacles of terror” were already clutching Israel and that failing to stop Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons could threaten the very survival of Israel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu said,

“We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror,”

About two hours after the Israeli Prime Minister delivered his address to congress, President Obama responded at an appearance with his new Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter. The President said,

“The prime minister didn’t offer any viable alternatives. The alternative that the prime minister offers is no deal, in which case Iran will immediately begin once again pursuing its nuclear program, accelerate its nuclear program, without us having any insight into what they’re doing, and without constraint.”

When you look at the speeches, or at least the statements made by the Israeli Prime Minister and the American President, you use there is a vast chasm in terms of their interpretation of the threat of Iran and the appropriate response. Peter Baker reported the situation well when he writes,

“At the heart of the dispute between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu is a debate over the best way to curb Iran’s nuclear program. The United States, along with European allies, Russia and China, has been negotiating a potential deal in which Iran for at least 10 years would restrict the number of centrifuges it has for enriching uranium and open its program to international inspection.

“The goal would be to limit Iran’s capacity so that it would take at least a year to build a nuclear weapon should it choose to violate or break the agreement. In theory, that would give the West enough time to respond. In exchange, international sanctions that have hampered Iran’s economy would be eased.”

Part of the problem here is that the United States and Israel do not look at this problem as being of the same stature. As the Israeli Prime Minister said the day before his address to congress, ‘For the United States the question of Iran is an issue of security. For Israel, it is an issue of survival.’

That’s indeed a dramatic different way of understanding the problem. If the Israeli Prime Minister is right, and for the United States the issue of Iran is a security problem, then the United States can respond on that very basis. It can enter into a rather long and complicated process of trying to figure out how to lessen or to mitigate the nature of that security risk. But if the Israeli Prime Minister is right, that for Israel Iran represents a question of survival, then that requires a very different level; a very different kind of response. And that indicates why the Israeli Prime Minister was willing, against the opposition of the White House, President Obama, and the Department of State, against the fact that at least 50 members of Congress refused to listen to the speech, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believed that he had a message that simply had to be conveyed.

As reporter David Lauter and Evan Halper reported yesterday for the Los Angeles Times, the day before the Israeli Prime Minister addressed Congress, he addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and there he made the terms of his understanding very apparent. He told that group,

“I have a moral obligation to speak up in the face of these dangers while there is still time to avert them,”

He explained that for thousands of years Jews have had no state to defend them and no voice on the international stage. He then said,

“Today, we have a voice. And tomorrow, as prime minister of the one and only Jewish state, I plan to use that voice”

The political stakes in this matter are very high. In the United States it is well-known that the relationship between Israel and the United States is now at a very low point, a low point rather unprecedented in terms of recent history between the two nations. The United States was one of the greatest allies of the Israeli state from the very beginning. It was President Harry Truman who recognized the state of Israel as a state, over against even some of the political advice given to him from within his own party and nation. And in that brave act, President Truman put the United States firmly on the side of the Jewish state.

And furthermore, many people today forget that it was the United Nations, by an official act, that authorized the establishment of Israel as a Jewish State. And they did so explicitly in the aftermath of the Nazi horrors of the Holocaust. Now we’re seeing not only the rise of anti-Semitism, we are seeing Israel increasingly marginalized and isolated on the world stage. And we are seeing many of the Western political elites turn openly hostile to Israel – especially as they claim a moral concern for the Palestinian people. That’s a very complicated issue and any Christian must be concerned with justice and freedom and protection, human flourishing for all people.

But when you consider the real challenge of Iran to the Israeli nation, when you’re looking at the fact that Iran has been one of the most dangerous nations on earth for decades now, when you consider the fact that not only prominent Iranians but the actual political leadership class of that nation, its own government, has pledged itself to extinguish Israel as the Jewish state, then you understand – to use the language of at least one member of the Obama administration – for Israel, Iran does represent an existential threat. And that is why the Israeli Prime Minister was willing to put virtually everything on the line, even as he faces upcoming elections. And even as he angered the Obama administration and the President of the United States by arriving before this joint session of Congress to deliver such an impassioned plea; such a very clear message, a message that was not well received by the White House.

There are many even within the United States and within the United States Congress who are very concerned that deal President Obama and some allies are trying to reach will not lead to success in terms of curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but will rather just give Iranian state further elasticity, further time in order to accomplish its aims. And let’s make no mistake; we know what those aims are – not only regional power and regional strength, but a worldwide influence through terrorism, and not only an open confrontation with the Israeli state, but a public pledge to wipe Israel off the map.

President Obama seems to be staking much of his political reputation on achieving some deal; perhaps some are now accusing any deal, with Iran. It’s probably unfair to the President to say that he would be satisfied with just any deal. But the Israeli Prime Minister is clearly not willing to trust the future of his country to the American President – even any American president, especially this American President with whom the relationship is now so weak. And what happened yesterday before a joint session of the United States Congress was the Prime Minister of Israel declaring that Israel sees the challenge of Iran as a matter not of security, but of survival. And in such light, everything he said makes sense. He really sees this as a matter of life and death for his nation.

The big question for America, for the American president and for all Americans, is exactly this: how do we see the threat and what, in the long run, the short run and even right now, are we willing to do about it? For the idea of the nation of Iran armed with nuclear weapons is unthinkable, but just because it’s unthinkable doesn’t mean that it won’t happen.

2) Gay marriage plaintiffs claim the ‘right side of history’ before Supreme Court 

Daily we note the progress of the moral revolution around us. At the end of last week the United States Supreme Court received briefs filed by lawyers for the plaintiffs from four states who are calling for the United States Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage coast-to-coast. As Richard Wolf of USA Today reports,

“Lawyers representing same-sex marriage plaintiffs from four Midwest states filed their initial briefs with the Supreme Court on Friday, claiming to be on ‘the right side of history.’”

As he explains, the lengthy document reiterated all the major arguments that had been made by gay and lesbian couples in dozens of mostly victorious cases since the High Court ruled in 2013 against the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. Wolf goes on to say,

“There were appeals based on the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection and due process, claims that marriage is a ‘fundamental right’ of all Americans, and contentions that bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee discriminate on the basis of both sex and sexual orientation.”

There’s a great deal in that paragraph. First of all, it points to the fact that those who are pressing for the legalization of same-sex marriage are using a hodgepodge of various legal arguments. They are arguing, as he said, that same-sex marriage must be legal under the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection or of due process. There are claims, as he says, that marriage itself is a fundamental right owed to all American citizen. That’s going to be a rather problematic exertion but it’s one of the arguments we can expect the court to consider. There are arguments on the other hand, and as he says, this was with explicit reference to Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, that the laws of those states against same-sex marriage – note these words very carefully –

“…discriminate on the basis of both sex and sexual orientation.”

That’s a very interesting phrase. That laws that regulate marriage, defining marriage as exclusively the union of a man and a woman, discriminate not only in the basis of sexual orientation, but also on the basis of sex. That’s a very interesting argument. It points to the fact that this moral revolution won’t stop with what is called same-sex marriage, it won’t even stop with other permutations or arrangements, redefinitions, of marriage. It won’t stop until the very distinction of sex, when it comes to biological gender identification, is simply eliminated as a matter of any stability in the society at all. According to Wolf the briefs also attempted to knock down arguments used by gay marriage opponents – that upholding bans will preserve state’s rights, centuries of tradition and optimal child rearing. The most important argument was articulated by one of the attorneys representing plaintiffs from the state of Kentucky. He said, as Wolf indicated in his very opening paragraph,

“These are the briefs that represent the right side of history,”

That’s an interesting argument – it’s one we’ve heard over and over again. There’s a sense in which every right minded person would want to be in terms of the general picture on the right side of history. None of us would want to be found morally deficient or morally wrong by our own children or grandchildren or great-grandchildren or –  you can imagine how many generations might one day have an opportunity look back and think about our own moral judgments. But the argument being made the you’re on the right side of history if you for same-sex marriage is an argument that’s had huge traction in the popular culture. Just look at how fast Hollywood tried to get on the so-called ‘right side of history.’ They want it known, they went documented that they were there on the right side of history, even as many of them were by their own measure on the wrong side of history even very recently.

President Obama following this logic got on the right side of history in 2012 after he was on the wrong side of history in 2008 when he oppose same-sex marriage, but he was only on the wrong side of history after he was on the right side of history back when he was running for the Illinois state legislature. If that sounds like nonsense it’s because the argument about being on the right side of history is one that has a lot of cultural traction, but what it lacks is any objective status and judgment. Virtually anyone who’s taken any position on a controversial issue at any time in history has believed that in so doing he or she was on the right side of history. No one intentionally takes a position that we expect to be revealed as wrong either in short order or in the long run.

But as President George W. Bush famously told journalist Bob Woodward years ago, the problem with trying to aim at history is we’ll be dead before the historians do their work. It’s ultimately futile to try to figure out how to be on the right side of history. We simply don’t know what kind of judgments future generations are going to make. And we also need to point out the obvious – we’re not at all certain we would agree with those judgments if we could see into the future and know what our own descendents are going to decide at least in terms of moral judgment.

The reality is that our Christian responsibility, our moral responsibility is to be found right. And our Christian understanding of history is simply this; we understand that our ultimate concern has to be that ultimate judgment that is to come. And we have no right as Christians to try to use a calculation about the direction of history to make sure that we’re on the right side of whatever that calculation would suggest. We instead have the responsibility, as the apostle Paul told Timothy, to preach the word in season and out of season. We also have a responsibility to stay on the right side of the truth regardless of what might happen in history.

The reason why the argument about being on the right side of history has so much power is because it plays right into our desire to be liked. In this case not only by our contemporaries in our own generation, but by those who were not even yet born. We want them to think well of us. But that’s not even something we could calculate if we were determined to do so. It may well be that in terms of history any number of issues that are true might be denied. That doesn’t make them any less true. It might be in the future direction of what’s called ‘history’ that many things that are untrue are affirmed as true. That doesn’t make them true.

The reality is we have to be found true in terms of the judgment of God. And if we are Christians who base our worldview upon the authority of Scripture, we don’t have any choice to try to reread Scripture in order to find ourselves on the right side of history. The bigger issue for Christians is being found on the right side of God’s judgment. And when it comes to decision such as this, the only safe place to be is where Scripture indicates we should stand. And on the question of marriage Scripture is absolutely clear. It’s not a matter of the Scripture being unclear or silent. We know exactly what God expects marriage to be because he’s told us.

Years ago someone noted that the churches and denominations that seem to be most determined to define themselves as relevant seem to be the least relevant. It just might well be, following that very same logic, that the churches and denominations (or for that matter the individuals) who are most determined to be on the right side of history may be in the end the least likely to be on the right side of the right side of history.

3) California GOP recognition of gay group too little, too late to get on ‘right side of history’

But before leaving this issue I need to point to an article the Monday edition of the Los Angeles Times reporters Seema Mehta and Melanie Mason writing from Sacramento tell us,

“In a historic break with its past, the California Republican Party voted overwhelmingly Sunday to formally recognize a gay GOP group.

“The move, which drew the condemnation of some socially conservative GOP members, grants a charter to the Log Cabin Republicans’ California chapter, making it an official volunteer arm of the state party. It is among [say the reporters] the first gay groups in the nation to be officially sanctioned by a state Republican party.”

It’s a very interesting article that appeared in Los Angeles Times – it tells us that the vote wasn’t close. It was an overwhelming vote; it was 861 to 293 at the California State Republican convention. And, according to the reporters, it showed how much the organization (meaning the Republican Party itself) has changed over the years.

The reporters cited a delegate to the convention on the winning side of this vote who said,

“It would have been the complete opposite 15 years ago. [He went on to say] the fringe does not control the party anymore. We truly are a big tent once again”

The big tent language is very similar to the language used about being on the right side of history, and in this case at least a majority of those who were voting in the California Republican Party convention decided they wanted to be a big tent on the right side of history.

But even as this vote took place at the end of last week there are still some pretty significant potholes on the way to this big change in the California Republican Party. For one thing the parties own platform states the opposite:

“We believe public policy and education should not be exploited to present or teach homosexuality as an acceptable ‘alternative’ lifestyle. We oppose same-sex partner benefits, child custody, and adoption.”

It goes on to state other things. Now what we have is a state Republican Party that decided in California that it’s going to include an openly gay group in order to say it’s a big tent headed to the right side of history, and the party is now open to the arguments coming from those who are pushing the normalization of homosexuality and the legalization of same-sex marriage (which by the way of course is already legal in the state of California). But the state party is not at all of one mind on this.

For instance, Andrew Levy a delegate from Sacramento who is an Orthodox Jew said,

“I have a hard time understanding how we’re going to charter an organization that’s in opposition to our platform.”

Now that would seem to be common sense. He went on to say,

“People supported the Republican Party because they’re strong on family values.”

The article goes on to end on the fact that there is no consensus in the Republican Party that there should be any change in that platform. But, the voters who were at least t that party convention decided to include the very group who is now going to argue against the platform the party is already committed to uphold. Try to make sense of that, and you understand the political quandary not only of the California Republican Party but of the national Republican Party, and of anyone in the political world is trying to be found on the right side of history and fast, according to the modern secular consensus.

But one of the things we need immediately to note is that trying to get on the right side of history never satisfies those who think they’re already on the right side of history. Evidence of that comes in yesterday’s edition of Los Angeles Times when the editors of the paper wrote an editorial saying  the state GOP is late to the party. The editors wrote,

“The biggest surprise from the California Republican convention Sunday was not the party’s decision to formally recognize the Log Cabin Republicans; it was that it hadn’t done so already.”

The editors of the paper say,

“Conservative stances on LGBT rights and gay marriage don’t resonate with most Californians, especially younger and moderate voters.”

The editors point to the fact that the California Republican Party hasn’t  run a successful statewide candidate since the year 2006. They conclud their editorial;

“The next logical step if the state GOP really wants to send a message of inclusion is to change its platform, which says homosexuality is unacceptable and opposes same-sex partner benefits, child custody and adoption.”

They go on to demand,

“This platform not only contradicts state law and court rulings, but it’s completely out of step with the growing acceptance and normalcy of LGBT families living in California.”

The final lines?

“It’s long past time for the California GOP to catch up with public sentiment. If it can, California might once again become a two-party state.”

So the editors of Los Angeles Times say to the California Republican Party just days after the party voted to include an openly gay group as an official part of the party, even as that openly gay group opposes the very platform of the party, that that’s not going to be enough. They haven’t done enough to get on the right side of history.

The principle again is this not only is it really impossible morally speaking to be certain you’re on the right side of history (instead we have to make certain were on the right side of truth), in reality those who are pressing on us to try to get on the right side of history – thinking themselves already of course to be on the right side of history – won’t be satisfied with anything but total capitulation. Just one day – count it – one day after the Los Angeles Times ran a front-page story announcing that the California Republican Party had moved toward what they consider the right side of history by acknowledging and approving this openly gay group –  just one day later the editors of the Los Angeles Times (the very same paper) came back on the editorial page to say,  ‘well, it’s not enough. Not close to enough.’

It turns out we should note that the action of the California Republican Party in the eyes of the editors of the Los Angeles Times didn’t even get them on the right side of history for 24 hours.

 

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.

 

Remember we’re still collecting questions for Ask Anything: Weekend Edition. Call with your question in your voice to 877-505-2058. That’s 877-505-2058.

I’m in California for the Inerrancy Summit that’s a part of the Shepherds’ Conference at Grace Community Church. I would urge to look to the conference and look to the live streaming of the program. You can go to shepherdconference.org or  gracechurch.org/live.

I’m speaking to you from Los Angeles California, and I’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.

 

 

The Briefing 03-04-15

Podcast Transcript

1) Netanyahu’s Congress address exposes wide differences in view of challenge of Iran

Netanyahu, in Speech to Congress, Criticizes ‘Bad Deal’ on Iran Nuclear Program, New York Times (Peter Baker)

Obama lays out Iran nuclear deal conditions as Netanyahu visit begins, Los Angeles Times (David Lauter and Evan Halper)

2) Gay marriage plaintiffs claim the ‘right side of history’ before Supreme Court 

Gay marriage proponents claim ‘right side of history’, USA Today (Richard Wolf)

3) California GOP recognition of gay group too little, too late to get on ‘right side of history’

State GOP formally welcomes gays to the party, Los Angeles Times (Seema Mehta and Melanie Mason)

It was long past time for state GOP to recognize gay fundraising group, Los Angeles Times (Editorial Board)

 

 

 

From the Pulpit to the Culture

Originally preached at the 2015 Jacksonville Pastors’ Conference

Transcript: The Briefing 03-03-15

The Briefing

 

March 3, 2015

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

 

It’s Tuesday, March 3, 2015.  I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

1) Decriminalization of adultery in South Korea reflects global trend of personal autonomy 

The headlines that came over the weekend from around the world tell us that a great deal is changing when it comes to family life – not just here in the United States, but globally. As the report came in from the New York Times and others, on Thursday of last week the constitutional court in South Korea struck down a law that was 62 years old and made adultery a criminal offense, an offense punishable by up to two years in prison. As the New York Times indicated, this represents,

“…the country’s changing sexual mores and a growing emphasis on individual rights.”

Five of the court’s nine justices issued a joint opinion, in which they stated,

“It has become difficult to say that there is a consensus on whether adultery should be punished as a criminal offense. It should be left to the free will and love of people to decide whether to maintain marriage, and the matter should not be externally forced through a criminal code.”

According to numerous media outlets there have been several constitutional challenges to South Korea’s adultery law, but these have been unsuccessful – even as recently as the year 2008 – until just this past week when the law was struck down. Again, according to the Times,

“The adultery law was adopted in 1953, with the stated purpose of protecting women who had little recourse against cheating husbands in a male-dominated society. But divorce rates and women’s economic and legal standing have soared in the decades since, leaving many to argue that the law outlived its usefulness.”

As the Wall Street Journal reported: as the chief judge was releasing opinion he stated,

“It’s realistically impossible that all unethical acts face criminal justice,”

Back in 2008 the same court had ruled that the law was constitutional and necessary by stating,

“…a legal perception that adultery is damaging to the social order and infringes on other’s rights.”

One of the most important things that Christians need to recognize is that when the court ruled,

“It’s realistically impossible that all unethical acts face criminal justice,”

that is certainly stating a fact, but the most important fact in this case is that in South Korea the issue of adultery is now considered to be something that falls beneath legal scrutiny – at least when it comes to the criminal law.

Christians understand that the law functions with several purposes. One of the purposes of the law is that it instructs those who are under the law about what is the vision of the moral life that is expected within a community. We understand that biblical law fulfils the function, by its teaching authority, to tell us what is right and good and leads not only to righteousness, but also to human flourishing. When it comes to the civic law, one of the things that Christians understand is that there are always limits to what can be criminalized. And yet, even as this court has decided that adultery now falls beneath that barrier of criminal justice, it also tells us that there has been a vast change in the morality of that nation. But before we pile on South Korea in terms of recognizing this moral shift, we need to recognize that that same kind of moral shift has happened elsewhere.

In both Europe and in North America, in both the United States and Canada, adultery has also in the past been considered a criminal offense. And for the very same reason that in 2008 this same South Korean Court upheld the law then, stating and again I read from the opinion back in 2008,

“…a legal perception that adultery is damaging to the social order and infringes on other’s rights.”

Long before the moral revolution was announced in these terms last week in South Korea, that same moral revolution had swept away our societal determination to make adultery a matter of public significance – at least when it comes to the law. And in the United States and in Europe, even as the legal restrictions on adultery by criminal offense were taken away (mitigated step-by-step), the understanding was that adultery itself was taken with far less significance.

In our own legal history and tradition, largely drawn upon English common law, the very same moral principle – the very same legal principle – had pertained: the understanding that marriage is not fundamentally just a private affair – it’s not a private relationship – it has a social function. And a social function that the entire society must recognize, and having recognized, protect. The issue of the criminalization of adultery was not merely to bring about the public shaming of someone caught in adultery, but to emphasize the importance and the sanctity of marriage.

One of the things we thus need to recognize is that when something changes, such as the determination of a society to recognize the importance of adultery in the criminal law, prior to that there has been a shift in the understanding of marriage. And as the New York Times reporter indicated very clearly, this can be traced to a priority on personal autonomy – something that we have noted in recent days and weeks on The Briefing as being behind the massive marginalization of marriage and family not only in Western societies but increasingly, as we even see today, around the world. And the marginalization of marriage leads to the idea that adultery is no longer a matter of great societal importance, and the protection of marriage and the sanctity of that marriage is no longer a clear social priority.

In South Korea this came long after the same kind of change had happened in the United States and Europe. But in Korea, it still came as something of a surprise given the fact that that same court had upheld the very same law less than a decade ago. It is also still rather surprising that the majority in South Korea’s constitutional court (that voted to strike down the law last week) did so while being so publicly explicit about the reasoning for the ruling. Let me repeat what they said,

“It should be left to the free will and love of people to decide whether to maintain marriage,”

Just stopping there; that represents a vast moral shift. A shift away from marriage being a matter of public significance to marriage being just a private contract to be held together so long as both parties, simultaneously, will for the contract to continue. They stated finally,

“…the matter should not be externally forced through a criminal code.”

At this point we simply have to note from a biblical perspective that the law will continue to make moral judgments, it just will make no moral judgment on the issue of adultery when it comes to the criminal code of South Korea. Every society is eventually understandable by its laws, and even as this change came just last week in South Korea in terms of its criminal code, according to its constitutional court we can be very certain that the moral change had already taken place amongst the South Korean people. And in this respect, they’re simply following the same kind of moral logic that has led to the breakdown of the family and the marginalization of marriage in the Western world long before South Korea’s court ruled last week on the matter.

A final very important observation for Christians must be this: even though legislatures, even though executive branches, even though courts may eventually rule on law indicating this kind of revolution and morality, the law of God does not change. Many people, looking at the church from outside, wonder why the church simply doesn’t revise its moral understanding on these issues in order to keep pace with the times. The reason for that is abundantly clear: we do not believe that the law of God is ours to change – it is not. South Korea may now state that the matter of adultery is not a matter of criminal law, but the law of God remains – as you know from the 10 Commandments – thou shalt not commit adultery.

2) Chinese wedding industry growth obscures underlying tragedy of one-child policy

Shifting from South Korea to the nation of China, the current edition of The Economist, a major newsmagazine from Great Britain, indicates that the wedding vows and the wedding ceremonies in communist China are now being transformed largely due to that nation’s notorious one-child only policy. The reporting in The Economist seems to celebrate this moral development. As the magazine reports, there is now a large industry when it comes to weddings – something the Communist Party had frowned upon and something that was not really a part of Chinese culture even in generations and centuries past. Based on a Confucian understanding of the family, the issue of marriage had largely been arranged by parents with the determination to continue, especially the groom’s family, in terms of heirs. But now the rise of a culture of personal autonomy has reached even communist China and the magazine reports that the reason for this is that Chinese families have fewer children and those children are receiving the doting and the very devoted attention of parents. These parents are now willing to spend an enormous amount of money on the weddings of their singular offspring. And furthermore, this rise of personal autonomy and the focus upon the individual means that there is a new ethic of romantic love when it comes to these attachments that lead to weddings even in China.

As the magazine reports,

“The change in wedding frippery also reflects a fundamental shift in society. For the first time in the history of Chinese family life, the child—rather than ancestors or parents—is regarded as the centre of the family,”

That is according to professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“Most newly-weds now are single children, born since the one-child policy was introduced more than 30 years ago. Parents have more to spend if they only have to fork out for one wedding (they usually share costs with the spouse-to-be’s family).”

As you look at news articles, one of the questions you always need to keep in mind is not only what’s present but what’s absent. And in this case, what’s absent is even more important than what’s present. Because what absent is the recognition that even as the magazine seems to be celebrating the effective westernization of weddings and marriage in communist China, what’s not recognized is the millions of young men in China who will never have wives because of this very one-child only policy. In the nation of China, the one-child only policy (which has used government coercion, sometimes even forced abortions and infanticide) has also lead to a vast gender imbalance because when parents in China can only have one child, and given the preference in China (and in India and in other nations as well) for boys rather than girls to perpetuate the family line, than what is happening is the selected abortion of girls in the womb. And as we now know is well documented, the selective infanticide, the killing, of many baby girls even after they are born.

So what’s present in this article is a seeming celebration of the westernization of the wedding and marriage picture in China. This is treated is something that is an unintended benefit of the one-child only policy, but what’s not even addressed in the article is the really murderous nature of this policy. And the fact that the real story in terms of weddings and marriages in China is not what’s taking place in the weddings that happen, but about the weddings that will never happen because so many millions of Chinese young men who will never know any wedding or any marriage. They are described by some demographers as the ‘broken branches.’ That is to say, the family tree ends with them because given the horrible nature the one-child only policy, given the fact that the Chinese Communist government – sometimes even driven by and encouraged by Western secular elites – has adopted this policy, the net result is the fact that what you have is government coercion that leads to abortion, forced abortion, infanticide, and a total breakdown and subversion not only of marriage and the family and of parenthood, but of the very nature of what it means to be human. The very definition of human dignity.

3) Failure to regard consequences of divorce in Ireland causes indifference towards gay marriage

The last article in this series comes not from Asia but from Europe. In particular, from Ireland where Carol Hunt writes in the Sunday Independent that the nation of Ireland should simply welcome the advent of gay marriage. She writes,

“Relax. Gay marriage won’t hurt straight marriage.”

And she writes this because she says even as the nation of Ireland now considers the potential legalization of same-sex marriage, they should understand that previous changes such as divorce really didn’t bring about any strong, any enduring, national trauma. As she writes, there were those who were suggesting that when Ireland finally changed its divorce law, making divorce easier to obtain, there are many people who argued that there would be a rampant run on divorce. And she said at least thus far in Ireland that hasn’t happened. Therefore, she says the Irish should learn from that circumstance and simply affirm that the legalization of same-sex marriage is not likely to bring about any tsunami in terms of morality.

She actually writes the what’s gay marriage is legal this “doesn’t mean everyone will have to get one.” That’s one of the sentences that hardly even makes sense, but if it does make sense it’s a very very troubling sense. It’s the sense that since marriage has changed already when it comes to divorce, same-sex marriage is no big deal.

But even as we know the moral illogic and the very dangerous reasoning of her argument, we need to recognize that it is simply true that long before same-sex marriage would’ve been imaginable marriage already had to be redefined. It had to be revised – it even had to be subverted by the easy access to divorce.

In the United States the same kind of pattern happened. It would be possible to think about something like same-sex marriage if the divorce revolution hadn’t taken place in a previous generation. Divorce was very difficult to obtain in the United States up until the late 1960s and the early 1970s when the first so-called no-fault divorce laws were put into effect. We need to note that in United States there has been since the arrival of no-fault divorce a veritable tsunami of divorce. The divorce rate has skyrocketed, making every marriage effectively a tentative marriage. Meaning that even as marital couples joined together in a wedding still tend to use the historic language from the Book of Common Prayer –  that is, ‘till death do we part,’ – there is no longer actually the affirmation that that’s the expectation.

One of the great betrayals in this is how many couples are now being advised to arrange prenuptial agreements (what would happen indeed if the divorce were to happen later) even as they are taking their marital vows using the language about the fact they’re going to be together until they’re parted by death. In reality we need to recognize that the moral revolution that we are now experiencing has only been made possible because of our complicity, our cooperation as a society with the breakdown of marriage, the redefinition of marriage long before same-sex couples arrived as a matter of public consequence.

And when you now have this argument coming from Ireland saying, ‘don’t worry about same-sex marriage – we didn’t have to worry about divorce,’ the reality is that divorce rates in Ireland are going up too. It was the novelist Pat Conroy who several years ago in one of his novels wrote that every single divorce is in his words “the collapse of a small civilization.” Indeed every single divorce is the collapse of a small civilization. And writ large the redefinition of marriage and the easy access to divorce has met also the breakdown of much of our civilization. But in an age this seems to be absolutely determined to make individual happiness at the expense of any covenants, any bonds, or any responsibilities our sole preoccupation, we’re all complicit in the breakdown of that civilization.

4) Rise of psychic demand reveals Christianity never replaced by pure secularism

Finally sometimes you come across a news article that just seems to affirm what Christians must always understand. Everybody has some basic beliefs, and in some way those beliefs inevitably turn out to be religious. The Wall Street Journal yesterday had a story entitled “There’s a Lot of Spirit At School for Psychics.” Matthew Dalton reports from Stansted, England;

“In a stately Victorian mansion, Julie Grist is teaching the psychics of tomorrow how to speak to today’s dead for a living.”

Christians looking at this article have all the evidence we need to be reminded all over again that when Christianity fades into the cultural background it’s not replaced by a true secularism –  it’s replaced by religious nuttiness and craziness. As Dalton reports, this is a school or the training of psychics and is meant to be taken seriously.

One of the very interesting things from this article by the way is that even as the psychics are being trained, they’re being trained in a way that is perhaps more honest than was intended to appear in a newspaper such as the Wall Street Journal.

It’s known as the Arthur Findlay College. According to the Wall Street Journal it’s been offering courses for practicing psychics and mediums – those who claim to communicate with spirits now for 50 years. But evidently there’s a renaissance of growing enrollment because in this supposedly secular age there is a whole new interest in psychics. The school was once known according to the Journal as Spook Hall at least according to locals.

The school is located in a rambling estate 40 miles from London. Its instructors, according to Dalton,

“believe the powers of a psychic aren’t just gifts from the gods.”

Instead, mediumship, according to Steve Upton (an instructor there) is a skill that can be acquired like many skills. As I said, the article is very honest. It tells us for example that when it comes to today’s, even tomorrow’s psychics are being trained in this school for psychics, they’re being told that even as they used the occultic arts in order to supposedly bring up voices from the past – these voices a better speaking very happy and encouraging terms, because the people who are paying for psychic readings aren’t paying for bad news.

Even the Wall Street Journal notes of that’s quite a shift from the Delphic Oracle in terms of the ancient world where the word that came supposedly from the dead was often a word of judgment or of warning. That’s not going to work, say the instructors in this school because people now want only an encouraging message. As the Journal reports.

“Psychics report demand for their services has grown as people turn away from established religions and psychologists for counsel.”

It really gets interesting when you find out that even in this therapeutic age there are people who think that psychologists simply aren’t encouraging enough. One of the things that is claimed in this article is that people grow frustrated with psychologists because they ask so many questions and don’t offer so many answers.

People want answers according to the instructors in the psychic college, and as they want answers they were only happy answers. Instructor Grist (quoted in the beginning of the article) tells young or at least future psychics and training that when they phrase advice supposedly being drawn up from a dead person they’re supposed to give advice in such a way that as she says,

“You know they support you, and whatever you decide to do they’ll be with you.”

Now the pathetic nature of this of course is that what we’re watching here are people who were claiming to be psychics indicating even as they’re training future psychics that they’ve got to be very careful in order to get people exactly what they want and exactly what they’re paying for; and that’s not judgment, and that’s not warning –  it is only encouragement. ‘You be you’ seems to be the message that people want from psychics. And as this college now says to future psychics, ‘you’d better give them what they want.’And how do you find out what they want? Well, here the article is amazingly honest. You have to ask them questions say the instructors in the school for psychics. You have to ask the people who come to you for answers to answer the questions in which they’ll give you the material you can then give back to them as if you are getting it from a psychic occultic source.

They’re saying this right out loud and they’re even telling it to the Wall Street Journal. Even one of the students in the class identified as a yoga teacher from the Netherlands asked the obvious question, “Is that cheating?”

Needless to say from a Christian worldview perspective, from the understanding of the Bible, there is no reality to this at all. And furthermore it is absolutely dangerous –  deadly dangerous – to fool around with the occult in any form. But in terms of what’s revealed in this article it simply affirms the people who are looking for occultic readings. And the people who are paying for them are people who expect exactly what they pay for -  they want to hear back to mirror image of themselves. And they’re even willing to tell the people who claim to be using occultic powers all the information that they’ll then receive back from the psychic.

It is incredibly revealing that people who claim to be too advanced, too educated, too sophisticated in this modern age to believe in God (the God of the Bible), they will actually pay people to pander to them with this kind of occultic nonsense. Oh, and by the way, the last sentence of the article is simply too good to miss. It’s stated by one of the people of the college who says,

“It’s nice to be with like-minded people. You don’t feel so odd.”

Well, perhaps someone needs to tell her that the only reason the story made the front page of yesterday’s edition of the Wall Street Journal is because the Wall Street Journal found her and her school very very odd.

 

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.

 

Remember we’re continuing to receive questions for Ask Anything: Weekend Edition. Call with your question in your voice to 877-505-2058. That’s 877-505-2058.

 

This week I’m joined by many others in a special Summit called by Dr. John MacArthur on the issue of the inerrancy of Scripture. It will be this week Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. I would encouraged you, if you are not at the something to watch the sessions which can be accessed at www.shepherdconference.org. I’m speaking to you from Los Angeles, California and I’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.