R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s Blog, page 328

The Briefing 01-05-15

Podcast Transcript

1) Assassination of two NYPD officers tragic example of when society does not respect its protectors 

2 N.Y.P.D. Officers Killed In Brooklyn Ambush; Suspect Commits Suicide, New York Times (Benjamin Mueller and Al Baker)

In Brooklyn, the Lives of 2 Officers Are Recalled as Their Deaths Are Mourned, New York Times (Michael Wilson and Michael Schwirtz)

Another Silent Protest of Mayor de Blasio as Officer Liu Is Laid to Rest, New York Times (J. David Goodman and Kirk Semple)

2) Crash of AirAsia QZ8501 shows importance of the coming of the Prince of Peace

AirAsia QZ8501: Search efforts to find flight data recorders resume, BBC News

AirAsia Passengers Remembered With Prayer in Surabaya Churches, Wall Street Journal (Jake Maxwell Watts and Anita Rachman)

3) Newsweek article example of  secular society’s problem with the teaching of the Bible — Jesus

The Bible: So Misunderstood it’s a Sin, Newsweek (Kurt Eichenwald)

Newsweek on the Bible — So Misrepresented It’s a Sin, AlbertMohler.com (Albert Mohler)

4) Trial of marathon bomber reveals civil achievement of trial by jury

Marathon bombing trial to start today with jury selection, Boston Globe (Milton J. Valencia)

Albert Mohler on Fox News: Newsweek on the Bible

 

 

To view the original article, click here.

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Newsweek on the Bible — So Misrepresented It’s a Sin

Newsweek magazine decided to greet the start of 2015 with a massive cover story on the Bible. For decades now, major news magazines have tended to feature cover articles timed for Christmas and Easter, taking an opportunity to consider some major question about Christianity and the modern world. Leading the journalistic pack for years, both TIME and Newsweek dedicated cover article after article, following a rather predictable format. In the main, scholars or leaders from very liberal quarters commented side-by-side those committed to historic Christianity on questions ranging from the virgin birth to the resurrection of Christ.

When written by journalists like Newsweek‘s former editor Jon Meacham or TIME reporters such as David Van Biema, the articles were often balanced and genuinely insightful. Meacham and Van Biema knew the difference between theological liberals and theological conservatives and they were determined to let both sides speak. I was interviewed several times by both writers, along with others from both magazines. I may not have liked the final version of the article in some cases, but I was treated fairly and with journalistic integrity.

So, when Newsweek, now back in print under new ownership, let loose its first issue of the New Year on the Bible, I held out the hope that the article would be fair, journalistically credible, and interesting, even if written from a more liberal perspective.

But Newsweek‘s cover story is nothing of the sort. It is an irresponsible screed of post-Christian invective leveled against the Bible and, even more to the point, against evangelical Christianity. It is one of the most irresponsible articles ever to appear in a journalistic guise.

The author of the massive essay is Kurt Eichenwald, who boasts an impressive reputation as a writer and reporter for newspapers like The New York Times and magazines including Vanity Fair. A two-time winner of the George Polk Award, he was also a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize. Eichenwald, however, has been primarily known for reporting and writing in a very different area of expertise. Most of his writing has been on business and financial matters, including business scandals.

When it comes to Newsweek‘s cover story, “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin,” Eichenwald appears to be far outside his area of expertise and knowledge. More to the point, he really does not address the subject of the Bible like a reporter at all. His article is a hit-piece that lacks any journalistic balance or credibility. His only sources cited within the article are from severe critics of evangelical Christianity, and he does not even represent some of them accurately.

The opening two paragraph of the article sets the stage for what follows:

“They wave their Bibles at passersby, screaming their condemnations of homosexuals. They fall on their knees, worshipping at the base of granite monuments to the Ten Commandments while demanding prayer in school. They appeal to God to save America from their political opponents, mostly Democrats. They gather in football stadiums by the thousands to pray for the country’s salvation.

They are God’s frauds, cafeteria Christians who pick and choose which Bible verses they heed with less care than they exercise in selecting side orders for lunch. They are joined by religious rationalizers—fundamentalists who, unable to find Scripture supporting their biases and beliefs, twist phrases and modify translations to prove they are honoring the Bible’s words.”

What is really going on here? Did some fundamentalist preacher run over young Kurt Eichenwald’s pet hamster when the reporter was just a boy? He opens with the most crude caricature of evangelical Christians — one unrecognizable in the vast majority of evangelical churches, and even to credible journalists. But the opening lines are truly a foretaste of what follows.

Amazingly, Eichenwald claims some stance of objectivity. “Newsweek’s exploration here of the Bible’s history and meaning is not intended to advance a particular theology or debate the existence of God,” Eichenwald insists. “Rather, it is designed to shine a light on a book that has been abused by people who claim to revere it but don’t read it, in the process creating misery for others.”

But Eichenwald demonstrates absolutely no attempt to understand traditional Christian understandings of the Bible, nor ever to have spoken with the people he asserts “claim to revere [the Bible] but don’t read it.” What follows is a reckless rant against the Bible and Christians who claim to base their faith upon its teachings.

In a predictable move, Eichenwald claims to base his research on “works of scores of theologians and scholars, some of which dates back centuries.” But the sources he cites are from the far, far left of biblical studies and the most significant living source appears to be University of North Carolina professor Bart Ehrman, who is post-Christian. Even so, he makes claims that go far beyond even what Bart Ehrman has claimed in print.

Eichenwald’s first claim is that we cannot really read the Bible, for it does not actually exist and never has. “No television preacher has ever read the Bible,” he asserts. “Neither has any evangelical politician. Neither has the pope. Neither have I. And neither have you. At best, we’ve all read a bad translation—a translation of translations of translations of hand-copied copies of copies of copies of copies, and on and on, hundreds of times.”

No knowledgeable evangelical claims that the Bibles we read in English are anything other than translations. But it is just wrong and reckless to claim that today’s best translations are merely “a translation of translations of translations.” That just isn’t so — not even close. Eichenwald writes as if textual criticism is a recent development and as if Christian scholars have not been practicing it for centuries. He also grossly exaggerates the time between the writing of the New Testament documents and the establishment of a functional canon. He tells of the process of copying manuscripts by hand over centuries as if that seals some argument about textual reliability, wrongly suggesting that many, if not most, of the ancient Christian scribes were illiterate. He writes accurately of the Greek used in the New Testament, and then makes an argument that could only impress a ten year old:

“These manuscripts were originally written in Koiné, or ‘common’ Greek, and not all of the amateur copyists spoke the language or were even fully literate. Some copied the script without understanding the words. And Koiné was written in what is known as scriptio continua—meaning no spaces between words and no punctuation. So, a sentence like weshouldgoeatmom could be interpreted as ‘We should go eat, Mom,’ or ‘We should go eat Mom.’ Sentences can have different meaning depending on where the spaces are placed. For example, godisnowhere could be ‘God is now here’ or ‘God is nowhere.’”

Isn’t that clever! But there is no text in the Bible in which this is truly a problem. Context determines the meaning, and no mom is in any danger of being eaten due to confused punctuation. That might impress a fifth-grade class, but not any serious reader. Later in his essay he makes essentially the same argument when he deals with the Greek word translated as worship when the text refers to deity. He rightly points out that translators use other terms when the context is merely human. Yes, the same word is used, but not in the same sense. This is not a translator’s sleight of hand, but common sense. Similarly, when a British nobleman is addressed as “Your Lordship” in public, this does not mean that he is being worshiped in the same sense as when a Christian speaks of the lordship of Christ. Common sense indicates that the same word has a different meaning in a different context.

Eichenwald grossly over-estimates the total number of ancient New Testament manuscripts and he seems to believe that mainstream Christianity in the Patristic era might have been seriously confused about the legitimacy of the so-called Gnostic gospels and other heretical writings. He cited Bart Ehrman as saying,“There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament,” but then he follows that with his own concession: “Most of those discrepancies are little more than the handwritten equivalent of a typo, but that error was then included by future scribes.” So there are many variations, but most are “little more than the handwritten equivalent of a typo?” Then, why is the point even important?

He turns to text critical questions related to the long ending of Mark’s Gospel (16:17-18) and the account of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery in John’s Gospel. These questions would not trouble any first-year seminarian in an evangelical seminary, but they are presented in the article as blockbuster discoveries. Furthermore, with reference to the woman caught in adultery, Eichenwald states: “Unfortunately, John didn’t write it. Scribes made it up sometime in the Middle Ages.” But the fact that the account is not found in the older manuscripts of the Gospel of John does not mean, in any credible sense, that scribes simply made it up in the Middle Ages. Eichenwald seems unaware of the very category of oral tradition.

He also presents a twisted version of Emperor Constantine’s influence in Christian history, getting right the fact that Constantine called and influenced the Council of Nicaea but getting facts wrong when he claimed that Constantine influenced the formation of the New Testament canon by determining which books were to be included. His accusation of political intrigue by Constantine on the question of Christ’s deity appears, within the totality of Eichenwald’s essay, as a pointer to a strange antipathy to the doctrine of the Trinity itself. He argues that the Trinity is never defined in a singular verse of Scripture — orthodox Christians do not claim that any single text does — but he ignores the development of the doctrine of the Trinity drawn from the totality of the New Testament itself.

Eichenwald’s opening sentences trumpeted his disdain for evangelical Christianity’s sexual ethic, and his essay turns to deny that Christians have any textual basis for a negative view of homosexuality. He dismisses 1 Timothy as being falsely claimed to be written by the Apostle Paul, citing, oddly enough, Friedrich Schleiermacher, the father of modern theological liberalism, who made that argument in 1807. There is no counter-argument offered. Eichenwald simply credits the “scholars” he cites without any admission that other scholars hold very different opinions. Interestingly, he appears unable to deny that Paul wrote Romans and that Romans 1:27 identifies men lusting after other men as sinful.

He seems to believe that the teachings about women teaching and leading in 1 Timothy would apply to a woman in political office, failing to read that the text is clearly speaking of order within the Christian assembly. He seems totally unaware of any distinction between the moral law in the Old Testament and the ceremonial law and the holiness code.

In the main, he argues that historic Christianity has been based on nothing but a lie and that those who now represent themselves as biblical Christians are lying to themselves and to others — and doing great harm in the process.

But Kurt Eichenwald’s essay is not ground-breaking in any sense. These arguments have been around for centuries in some form. He mixes serious points of argument with caricatures and cartoons and he does exactly what he accuses Christians of doing — he picks his “facts” and arguments for deliberate effect.

Newsweek’s cover story is exactly what happens when a writer fueled by open antipathy to evangelical Christianity tries to throw every argument he can think of against the Bible and its authority. To put the matter plainly, no honest historian would recognize the portrait of Christian history presented in this essay as accurate and no credible journalist would recognize this screed as balanced.

Oddly enough, Kurt Eichenwald’s attack on evangelical Christianity would likely be a measure more effective had he left out the personal invective that opens his essay and appears pervasively. He has an axe to grind, and grind he does.

But the authority of the Bible is not the victim of the grinding. To the contrary, this article is likely to do far more damage to Newsweek in its sad new reality. Kurt Eichenwald probably has little to lose among his friends at Vanity Fair, but this article is nothing less than an embarrassment. To take advantage of Newsweek’s title — it so misrepresents the truth, it’s a sin.

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

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

Kurt Eichenwald, “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin,” Newsweek, January 2, 2015 – January 9, 2015. http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/th...

Joy to the World — Even So Lord, Come Quickly

As Christmas Eve arrives we are reminded of the historic Christian prayer prayed by so many Christians through two millennia of Christian experience and bathed in Christian hope, “Even so Lord, come quickly.” But of course we can only utter that urgent prayer because the Lord did come and that’s why the truth of the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ remains the only source for our hope. For this reason alone, Christians looking even at the devastating headlines of our days are not destroyed, we do not surrender to paranoia or to despair because God is on his throne and the Lord is coming. The hope for our salvation is exactly what we celebrate at Christmas when we celebrate the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ.

We need to be reminded at Christmas of the fact that that celebration of incarnation is inherently eschatological. As Christmas Eve arrives, let’s remember one of those most famous and cherished Christmas hymns, “Joy to the World,” published first in 1719 and written by that great hymn writer, Isaac Watts. But even as it is so often sung at Christmas time and even as millions of Christians sing it as a Christmas carol, declaring the truth that the Lord has come in Bethlehem — that wasn’t what the hymn was about when it was written and that’s not what its words were originally intended to convey. Isaac Watts’ hymn, which begins with those famous words,  “Joy to the world the Lord is come, let Earth receive her King, let every heart prepare him room, let Heaven and nature Sing,” was written about the Lord’s second coming – not about his incarnation, not about his birth in Bethlehem.

Watts led in the development of hymns in the English tradition, drawing many of his hymn texts directly from the Psalms. “Joy to the World” is based upon Psalm 98, which declares creation’s joy when the Lord comes to rule and to judge. When we sing “Joy to the World the Lord is Come,” it applies when we talk about Bethlehem and when we rejoice in the gift of the infant Christ. But the song also reminds us that Christmas isn’t over; the promises of Christmas are not yet fulfilled.

Think about verse three of that hymn, “Joy to the World,” in which we read,

“No more let sins and sorrows grow, nor thorns infest the ground. He comes to make his blessings flow, far as the curse is found, far as the curse is found.”

The reversal of the curse is promised in the coming of the Messiah and the fulfillment of his atoning work. Implicit in this third verse is the promise of the new creation. We live in light of that promise, even as we look back to Bethlehem as we celebrate Christmas.

The final verse of the hymn as it is sung now resounds with eschatological hope: “He rules the world with truth and grace, and makes the nations prove, the glories of His righteousness, and wonders of His love, and wonders of His love, and wonders, wonders, of His love.”

Those words resound with final, ultimate, eschatological victory. The babe born in Bethlehem is the Savior, who is Christ the Lord. He is also the king who will rule on David’s throne, the heavenly victor who defeats sin and death, and the one who will rule the nations with truth and grace. That is what we pray to see and that is what we rightly sing at Christmas.

The promise was seen announced by angels to shepherds near Bethlehem, but the realization of that promise in fulness is what we pray for when we pray, “even so Lord, come quickly.”

This essay is based on devotional thoughts shares at the conclusion of the December 19, 2914 edition of The Briefing. http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/12/1...

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

“And Them That Mourn — Celebrating Christmas in the Face of Grief and Death”

Families across the Christian world are gathering for Christmas even now, with caravans of cars and planeloads of passengers headed to hearth and home. Christmas comes once again, filled with the joy, expectation, and sentiment of the season. It is a time for children, who fill homes with energy, excitement, and sheer joy. And it is a time for the aged, who cherish Christmas memories drawn from decades of Christmas celebrations. Even in an age of mobility, families do their best to gather as extended clans, drawn by the call of Christmas.

And yet, the sentiment and joy of the season is often accompanied by very different emotions and memories. At some point, every Christian home is invaded by the pressing memory of loved ones who can no longer gather — of empty chairs and empty arms, and aching hearts. For some, the grief is fresh, suffering the death of one who was so very present at the Christmas gathering last year, but is now among the saints resting in Christ. For others, it is the grief of a loss suffered long ago. We grieve the absence of parents and grandparents and aunts and uncles and siblings. Some, with a grief almost too great to bear, suffer the heartbreak that comes with the death of a child.

For all of us, the knowledge of recent events of unspeakable horror and the murder of young children make us think of so many homes with such overwhelming grief.

Is Christmas also for those who grieve? Such a question would perplex those who experienced the events that night in humble Bethlehem and those who followed Christ throughout his earthly ministry. Christmas is especially for those who grieve.

The Apostle Paul, writing to the Galatians, reminds us of the fact that we are born as slaves to sin. “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” [Galatians 4:4] Out of darkness, came light. As the prophet Isaiah foretold, “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who walk in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined.” [Isaiah 9:2]

This same Christ is the Messiah who, as Isaiah declared, “has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows.” [Isaiah 53:4] He fully identifies with and shares all our afflictions, and he came that we might know the only rescue from death, sorrow, grief, and sin.

The baby Jesus was born into a world of grief, suffering, and loss. The meaning of his incarnation was recognized by the aged Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, who prophesied that God had acted to save his people, “because of the tender mercy of our God, whereby the sunrise shall visit us from on high, to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.” [Luke 1:78-79]

There are so many Christians who, even now, are suffering the grief that feels very much like the shadow of death. How can they celebrate Christmas, and how might we celebrate with them?

In 1918, a special service was written for the choir of King’s College at Britain’s Cambridge University. The “Service of Nine Lessons and Carols” was first read and sung in the magnificent chapel of King’s College in that same year, establishing what is now a venerable Christmas tradition. In the “Bidding Prayer” prepared to call the congregation together for that beautiful service, the great truths of Christmas are declared in unforgettable prose:

Beloved in Christ, be it this Christmastide our care and delight to hear again the message of the angels, and in heart and mind to go even unto Bethlehem and see this thing which is come to pass, and the Babe lying in a manger.

Therefore let us read and mark in Holy Scripture the tale of the loving purposes of God from the first days of our disobedience unto the glorious Redemption brought us by this Holy Child.

But first, let us pray for the needs of the whole world; for peace on earth and goodwill among all his people; for unity and brotherhood within the Church he came to build, and especially in this city.

And because this of all things would rejoice his heart, let us remember, in his name, the poor and helpless, the cold, the hungry, and the oppressed; the sick and them that mourn, the lonely and the unloved, the aged and the little children; all those who know not the Lord Jesus, or who love him not, or who by sin have grieved his heart of love.

On the very evening of the celebration of Christ’s birth, Christians are called to remember, in Christ’s name, the poor and the helpless, the cold and the hungry, the oppressed and the sick, the lonely and the unloved, the aged and the children, those who do not know Christ, “and them that mourn.”

The church is filled with those who, while not grieving as others grieve, bear grief as Christians who miss their loved ones, who cherish their memories, and who wonder at times how to think of such grief at Christmas. Far too many homes are filled with them that mourn.

And it will be so until Christ comes again. The great truth of Christmas is that the Father so loves the world that he sent his own Son to assume human flesh and to dwell among us, to die for our sins and to suffer for our iniquity, and to declare that the kingdom of God is at hand. This same Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day, conquering death and sin. There is salvation, full pardon from sin, and life everlasting to those who believe and trust in him.

Christmas is especially for those who mourn and suffer grief, for the message of Christmas is nothing less than the death of death in the death and resurrection of Christ.

And them that mourn. Christmas is especially for those bearing grief and sorrow. Our joy is hindered temporarily by the loss we have suffered, even as we know that those who are in Christ are promised everlasting life. We know that even now they are with Christ, for to be absent from the body is to the present with the Lord.

Christians bear a particular responsibility to surround fellow believers with this confidence, and to minister Christmas joy and love to those bearing griefs. We stand together in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, declaring with the Apostle Paul that nothing, not even death, can separate us from the love of God. We bind one another’s hearts, respect one another’s tears, and remind one another of the blessed hope. For, it was Christ himself who promised that our “sorrow will turn into joy.” [John 16:20] When we sing Christmas carols and read the great Christmas texts of the Bible, we hurl the message of life over death against the Evil One and death, who meet their ultimate defeat in Christ.

That Bidding Prayer written for King’s College, Cambridge, in 1918 draws to a close with words that speak so powerfully to the Church about these very truths:

“Lastly, let us remember before God all those who rejoice with us, but upon another shore, and in a greater light, that multitude which no man can number, whose hope was in the Word made flesh, and with whom in the Lord Jesus we are for ever one.”

Those words are exactly right. Those who have gone before us to be with the Lord are with us in Christmas joy. They rejoice with us, “but upon another shore, and in a greater light.” Our loved ones in Christ are in that unnumbered multitude “whose hope was in the Word made flesh.” The great truth of Christmas is shouted in the face of death when we declare that, even now, “in the Lord Jesus we are forever one.”

Your loved one was not created and given the gift of life merely for that chair now empty. Those who are in Christ were created for eternal glory. We must train our sentiments to lean into truth, and we must know that Christmas is especially for those who grieve.

And them that mourn. The chair may be now empty, but heaven will be full. Remember, above all else, that those who are in Christ, though dead, celebrate Christmas with us — just upon another shore, and in a greater light. Merry Christmas.

Originally published  December 24, 2012

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

Transcript: The Briefing 12-19-14

The Briefing

 

December 19, 2014

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

 

It’s Friday, December 19, 2014.  I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

1) Responses to thawing Cuban relationship example of how experience shapes worldview

Some news stories seem to fade very quickly, others over time take on an even greater importance. I predict that’s going to be the case in terms of the announcement made on Wednesday by President Barack Obama in which he announced, surprisingly, stunning the nation and many in the world, that the United States was reversing over a half-century of diplomatic history and extending full diplomatic relations to the nation of Cuba.

Yesterday we discussed this at length, today the big issue is the response that the President’s decision garnered from across the nation and around the world, because in terms of worldview significance, the response is fully as revealing as was the President action. In Little Havana in Miami, the location of one of the nation’s largest Cuban-American populations, the President’s announcement gained a great deal of attention – some outrage and some joy. There are two forms of division in that Cuban-American community; the first is generational. Older Cuban-Americans tend to be far more resistant to the idea of warming relationships between United States and Cuba; that is insofar and for so long as anyone named Castro is the head of the government there. The younger Cubans, younger Cuban-Americans in particular, tend to be far more friendly toward the idea of a fall in American Cuban relations.

But the second distinction found among Cuban-Americans has to do with when the immigration happened to the United States. Cubans who came here years ago, especially those Cubans who came after the fall of the Batista regime, are far more resistant to any warming relationships between the United States government and the Castro regime. Those who came in subsequent ways of immigration, especially more recent waves of immigration, tend to be far warmer toward the idea. So this reminds us that in terms of worldview, experience really does count as a factor. The way people read the Castro regime, even Cuban-Americans, has to do with at least in part what generation there a part of and when they left Cuba. And of course that also raises the question, for what reason?

Yesterday we wanted to make a couple of very important points. The most important point being that the Christian worldview says that before we get to any of the particulars what we’re committed to is what the Bible says Christians must commit themselves to. This would include: justice, righteousness, truth, liberty, human rights in terms of a biblical understanding, and human flourishing – anything that would lead to a greater flourishing for human beings. And as we said yesterday, this means that there’s no easy answer to this question. Was the President’s announcement right? Was it wrong? Is it outrageous? Was it to be celebrated? There are actually arguments to be made for both sides, or almost for all sides, in terms of that question.

But the issue is actually a little more complicated and very quickly I want to take a look at how some of the response to the President’s decision indicates how those who are committed human flourishing can come to some very different conclusions when it comes to an issue of this kind of complexity and this kind of historical obstinacy. The editorial page of the New York Times absolutely celebrated the President’s announcement, suggesting that in so doing the President was basically following the lead of the editorial board of the New York Times. The most interesting paragraph in the Times editorial is this,

“The United States has been right to press for greater personal freedoms and democratic change. But its punitive approach has been overwhelmingly counterproductive. Going forward, American support for Cuba’s civil society and dissidents is likely to become more effective, in good part because other governments in the Western Hemisphere will no longer be able to treat Cuba as a victim of the United States’ pointlessly harsh policy.”

Well, that’s very interesting. The editors of the New York Times, in using language such as the fact that the American policy has been overwhelmingly counterproductive, are simply inventing some facts evidently as they go along. It may be that in some sense the United States policy has been hopelessly counterproductive, but we would only know that if we actually had knowledge of what historians call counterfactuals; that is how might it otherwise have been if the American policy had been the opposite of this would the Cuban people now be free? That’s not at all an assured reality.

The editors of USA Today took a more middle road approach – not surprising for that newspaper and its board. They supported the President’s decision and said that this could lead, should lead, they said to a greater Democratic openness for the Cuban people. And yet they also look to the argument of the President’s opponents in this and they said,

“Wednesday’s announcements nevertheless mark a historic shift — to the impassioned objection of hard-liners, particularly those with Cuban ties, who see it as legitimizing and stabilizing the Castro regime.”

The editors then wrote this,

“Their argument is not entirely without merit. Despite recent microsteps away from communism, the Cuban regime remains tyrannical.”

So at least give the editors of USA Today some credit for saying that there are arguments on both sides of this that do make sense; and on moral grounds and with human flourishing as the great concern. In my view the most thoughtful editorial in terms of a major American newspaper came from the Wall Street Journal. And yesterday the editors of that paper said that what the President was doing was declaring a new Cuban détente; using the word that became very popular in terms of describing the relationship between Cold War adversaries – most particularly in its historical context, relationship between United States and the Soviet Union.

But the editors of the Wall Street Journal pointed out that in the President’s announcement on Wednesday he basically gave away the most important thing America can give and that is full diplomatic recognition. 20 years ago, said the editors, they called for a lifting of the trade embargo; arguing that it had become counterproductive. But the most important paragraph in terms of the Wall Street Journal editorial is one in which they confronted what the President did on Wednesday with a very important moral point. They wrote that it was important that US officials not meet with Castro’s regime; that they not dignify the Castro regime by sitting down at a negotiating table and in so doing the editor said, they made that point 20 years previously. The whole point they made 20 years ago is to continue to oppose Castro’s government while allowing some help for the Cuban people. Then they wrote,

“Mr. Obama’s approach will provide immediate succor to the Castro government in the hope of eventually helping the Cuban people.”

In other words, they argue, the President should have announced some of the changes he announced on Wednesday but not full diplomatic recognition. In so doing, they argue, morally speaking, he gave away the store. I think that is a very credible point.

The Wall Street Journal editors made this point even more emphatically when they said and I quote,

“What’s striking is how little Cuba had to do for such a major shift in U.S. policy. At least Burma’s military government released the leader of the opposition and opened up its political process before the U.S. lifted sanctions.”

That is another indication that at least in terms of Cuba’s repressive government the Castro regime did get off on the cheek. But my major point in terms of this analysis, having to do with the journalistic response to the President’s announcement on Wednesday, is to point to the Wall Street Journal as a rather singular exception in this one point – they did present both sides of the issue; not only in terms of the editorial-page but also in terms of what’s known as the op-ed page in which outsiders not a part of the Wall Street Journal actually made their argument.

Writing against the president’s decision was United States Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida who called the President’s decision an outrage. He wrote,

“The entire policy shift is based on the illusion—in fact, on the lie—that more commerce and access to money and goods will translate to political freedom for the Cuban people. Cuba already enjoys access to commerce, money and goods from other nations, and yet the Cuban people are still not free.”

He went on to say,

“…the policy changes announced by President Obama will have far-reaching consequences for the American people”

He brings up another moral issue,

“President Obama made it clear that if you take an American hostage and are willing to hold him long enough, you may not only get your own prisoners released from U.S. jails—as three Cuban spies were—you may actually win lasting policy concessions from the U.S. as well.”

Writing on the other side in a column for the President’s decision was Douglas Irwin, who is a professor of economics at Dartmouth College. He has written a great deal about the United States and its relationship with Cuba. Professor Irwin wrote,

“Many say that any potential lift to Cuba’s economy brought about by the resumption of trade would only solidify the regime. Yet the Castro brothers’ dictatorship has been a fixture for two or three generations.”

He then asked the question,

“Time to try something new?”

We’ll watch this issue with you but some things become immediately clear. It’s important to get both sides of the story and to have both sides of the story made well. It’s also important to recognize that there are moral issues beneath the headlines; both of these articles also make that point abundantly clear.

2) Sony pulling movie in response to N. Korean cyber attack a totalitarian victory

Next, a story that is extremely important and so big and complex at this point it’s rather difficult to unwind, but it comes down to this: the American government, unofficially, but very clearly, announced yesterday that it was North Korea that was behind the massive innovative cyber-attack on the Sony Corporation. This cyber-attack is considered by security analysts to be one of most ominous ever. And from a business perspective, it may change the way that businesses even keep digital records and conduct conversation by email because the cyber-attack on Sony was particular and new because it revealed internal documents. It wasn’t about destroying information so much as it was about exposing information. And in this case, as one analyst said, this was basically Snowden 2, this time coming from the North Koreans.

But the other side of this is also very important because North Korea did this explicitly, we now know, in an effort to get Sony pictures not to release a movie the North Korean government opposed. The film is known as “The Interview”, it was to be released just in coming days, but now Sony Pictures says it’s not going to be released and the film company says it has no plans for any future release of the movie. As Brooks Barnes and Michael Cieply of the New York Times report,

“Sony Pictures Entertainment on Wednesday dropped plans for its Christmas Day release of ‘The Interview,’ a movie that depicts the assassination of the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, after receiving a terror threat against theaters.”

They went on to say,

“Before that, the four largest theater chains in the United States said they would not show the movie, which has been at the center of a devastating hacking attack on Sony over the last several weeks. In a statement, Sony said: ‘We respect and understand our partners’ decision and, of course, completely share their paramount interest in the safety of employees and theatergoers.’”

This is one of those stories that is very difficult to exaggerate in importance. We’re looking at the North Korean government, the most repressive government on earth, launching a cyber-attack against an international corporation with the company location here in the United States, preventing the United States’ release of a movie made about North Korea. Sony pictures has invested $44 million in the film, it was to be released on Christmas day. Even in the weeks prior to when the movie was to be released some Hollywood insiders had expressed some discomfort of the fact that this was going to be the first major motion picture to depict the assassination of a living political leader that had a state. In recent weeks the North Korean government, after all the most severe totalitarian dictatorship in the world today, had launched a public relations campaign against the movie saying that the movie itself will be considered by the North Korean government “an act of war.” Well if anyone thought that was hyperbole or exaggeration on the part of North Korean government, the American government’s unexpected and very rare attribution of responsibility to North Korea for the cyber-attack yesterday underlines the fact that the United States government fully expects that it is North Korea behind all of this.

The threat came from a group identifying itself as “guardians of peace.” They posted online, Tuesday of this week, this warning,

“We will clearly show it to you at the very time and places ‘The Interview’ be shown, including the premiere, how bitter fate those who seek fun in terror should be doomed to,”

That specific idiom has been recognized by American intelligence agencies as distinctive of one government and that government is North Korea. The same website included these ominous words,

“Remember the 11th of September 2001. We recommend you keep yourself distant from places at that time.”

The reference to the places there was a reference to theaters. In response the four biggest theater chains announced they would not be showing the movie. Reluctantly Sony announced it would not be releasing it. One of the interesting subplots here is that you have the big movie chains now furious at Sony for letting them twist in the wind for decision they say Sony should’ve made first.

But the moral issue is simply huge here; as was reflected in several comments made in the Wall Street Journal. Peter Singer, a cybersecurity strategist and senior fellow at the New American Foundation said,

“This is now a case study that is signaling to attackers that you can get all that you want and even more,”

He is responding to the fact that the North Korean hackers effectively got exactly what they wanted when Sony said, ‘all right we won’t release the motion picture.’ Others are looking at the fact that this particular hacking attack indicates that in the digital world if someone is determined enough, they can get anywhere, anytime, anyplace, regardless of the defenses. One analyst told the Wall Street Journal,

“A sufficiently skilled motivated and funded attacker will get in.”

Unsurprisingly, to this point, the most thoughtful piece yet to come on this comes from Ross Douthat in his column in the New York Times. It’s simply entitled, The End of Movies. He suggested that what has just taken place, not in North Korea, but in effect, here in the United States, is the success of a totalitarian attack. He writes,

“The cancelled release of the ‘The Interview’ is connected to an entirely non-metaphorical totalitarianism, of course, and it’s significant on a much higher level than the business of cinematic art. Right now this looks like one of the most successful (and most unlikely) terrorist coups in recent history, whose success could have all sorts of unpleasant implications for other entities — not just public institutions, but corporations and citizens — that might find themselves in a rogue-state-affiliated hacker’s crosshairs next.”

As the year comes to an end, it turns out that this is one of the most ominous news stories yet to develop. We must not miss the fact that we now know that the North Korean government threatened the killing of American citizens for going to a movie on American soil. It appears to me at least that most Americans have not come to terms with that reality. The merits or lack of merits of that particular movie be notwithstanding, this is a very serious development; not only politically but morally. And the fact that Sony withdrew the picture means exactly as Ross Douthat said, you can now say that North Korea has made a major movie decision on behalf of the American people; by force and even by threat of life. As the year 2014 is about to come to an end, as we think about big news stories, that’s going to stay a big one.

3) Terrorist attack on Pakistani school proves barbarism tragically works

Brokenheartedly we now turn to the third big new story of this week and this one is sadder than anything we’ve talked about in recent months. This has to do with the killing in Peshawar, Pakistan who intentionally killed schoolchildren, most of the between the ages of 12 and 15. And Yaroslav Trofimov writes for the Wall Street Journal, the sad and disheartening thing is that it proves that terrorism actually works. He writes,

“But, dishearteningly, the Pakistani Taliban’s attack Tuesday on a Peshawar school—one of their bloodiest atrocities—was likely the result of a rational cost-benefit analysis. Its bottom line: in this business, barbarism pays.”

He points out that the intentional targeting of innocent children in this regard was in order to get the attention of the Pakistani people, in order that they would force their government to back down in terms of their opposition to the Taliban. Trofimov writes that this is the lesson that Islamic terrorism have been learning in recent years. The only way to get attention is to kill more people, to kill them more ruthlessly, to kill them more graphically, and to kills those considered the most vulnerable and innocent in order to get the attention of a society. And as Trofimov said, apparently it works. He then writes,

“With Islamic State claiming a global role, and asking all Muslims to submit to its writ, this escalation of brutality now is spurring rival jihadist groups into a gruesome race for shock value.”

Syed Hussain Soherwordi, a specialist in international terrorism at Peshawar University said that viewed in this logic, killing more than 130 children makes total business sense. He said chillingly,

“For the terrorists, the targets must be as innocent as possible to give a shock to the people, and to make the people think that something like that will not happen again if the terrorists’ demands are met,”

Once again, we have terrorist demands being made and in some cases being met. And in all cases what we see here is that a barbarism of unprecedented intensity is coming at us as the year 2014 comes to a close.

4) Incarnation of Christ foundation of Christian hope and certainty

And as this week comes to a close we are reminded of the historic Christian prayer prayed by so many Christians through two millennia of Christian experience and bathed in Christian hope, “even so Lord, come quickly.” But of course we can only utter that urgent prayer because the Lord did come and that’s why the truth of the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ remains the only source for our hope. And that’s why Christians looking even at headline such as these are not destroyed, we do not surrender to paranoia or to despair because God is on his throne and the Lord is coming. The hope for our salvation is exactly what we celebrate at Christmas when we celebrate the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And yet we need to be reminded of the fact that that celebration of incarnation is inherently eschatological. As the week comes to a close, let’s remember one of those most famous and cherished Christmas hymns, “Joy to the World” published first in 1719 and written by that great hymn writer, Isaac Watts. But even as it is so often sung at Christmas time and when so many Christian sing it, declaring the truth that the Lord has come in Bethlehem, that wasn’t what the hymn was about when it was written and that’s not what its words are mostly intended to convey. Isaac Watts’ hymn, “Joy to the World,” in which he wrote “Joy to the world the Lord is come, let Earth receive her King, let every heart prepare him room, let Heaven and nature Sing,” it was written about the Lord’s second coming – not about his incarnation, not about his birth in Bethlehem.

When we say joy to the world the Lord is come, it works when we talk about Bethlehem and when we rejoice in the gift of the infant Christ. But the song also reminds us that Christmas isn’t over; the promises of Christmas are not yet fulfilled. Think about verse three of that hymn, “Joy to the World,” in which we read,

“No more let sins and sorrows grow, nor thorns infest the ground. He comes to make his blessings flow, far as the curse is found, far as the curse is found.”

The promise of that was seen in Bethlehem, but the realization of that is what we pray for when we see headline such as these; when you look at the world around us and we pray, “even so Lord, come quickly.”

And so as this edition of The Briefing comes to an end, so does the season for The Briefing for the year 2014. We’ll be back, Lord willing, in 2015, greeting you with the year on January 5. Until then, I pray for you and all those whom you love, a most glorious and Christ-filled Christmas and all the promises of the New Year; as we begin and end the year together with the same words, joy to the world, the Lord has come. Even so; Lord, come quickly.

 

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 boyecollege.com. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year. I’ll meet you again on Monday, January 5, 2015 for The Briefing.

The Briefing 12-19-14

1) Responses to thawing Cuban relationship example of how experience shapes worldview

Mr. Obama’s Historic Move on Cuba, New York Times (Editorial Board)

Obama cracks the ice with Cuba: Our view, USA Today (Editorial Board)

Obama’s Cuban Detente, Wall Street Journal (Editorial Board)

A Victory for Oppression, Wall Street Journal (Marco Rubio)

Trade Will Lead to Freedom, Wall Street Journal (Douglas Irwin)

2) Sony pulling movie in response to N. Korean cyber attack a totalitarian victory

Sony Drops ‘The Interview’ Following Terrorist Threats, New York Times (Brooks Barnes and Michael Cieply)

North Korean Role in Sony Hack Presents Quandary for U.S., Wall Street Journal (Devlin Barrett and Danny Yadron)

The End of Movies, New York Times (Ross Douthat)

3) Terrorist attack on Pakistani school proves barbarism tragically works

Taliban Attack Reflects Barbarity Competition Among Jihadists, Wall Street Journal (Yaroslav Trofimov)

4) Incarnation of Christ foundation of Christian hope and certainty

Transcript: The Briefing 12-18-14

The Briefing

 

December 18, 2014

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

 

It’s Thursday, December 18, 2014.  I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

1) President Obama announces historic reversal of status quo with Cuba

Huge and historic news came from Washington, DC yesterday having to do with an announcement made by the President of the United States that in a reversal of over a half-century, a very crucial American history, the United States would establish full diplomatic relations with the nation of Cuba and would establish a full embassy in Cuba’s capital city. Now many Americans, certainly those under 50 years of age, are unaware probably of what’s been going on in terms of the relationship between United States and Cuba. Diplomatic relations between the United States and that island nation 90 miles to our south came to an end in the conclusion of the Bay of Pigs crisis and deteriorating relationships between United States, the Soviet Union, and Cuba; with Cuba well understood then as a proxy state of the Soviet Empire. Of course almost immediately thereafter in the very next year came the 13 days of the most intense crisis of the Cold War; that is the Cuban missile crisis.

One of the things that quickly became apparent, even a year after diplomatic relations had ended, is that that came with a cost; and the United States actually had to communicate with Cuba through Soviet agencies and officials during that massive crisis. And of course this has been a very intimate issue for the United States. The United States was deeply invested in Cuba, especially United States firms – including sugar firms and the tourism industry. The fall of the Batista regime in Cuba to a communist insurgency led by the now infamous Fidel Castro was seen by the American government as a direct threat, a violation of the Monroe principle, that had been set forward early in American history whereby the United States had sent ample warning that no European nation was to try to interfere in politics and in world affairs in the New World – and especially anywhere near the United States of America.

But there’s a great deal more to the political context in the United States where the cessation of diplomatic relations between the US and Cuba also had a great deal to do with the fact that there had been a huge immigration of Cubans from that island nation to the United States, and in particular to the area of South Florida where Cuban concentrations were located in cities such as Tampa and especially in Miami – which soon became known internationally for its neighborhood of Little Havana. Like the Americans of that era the Cuban refugees who became immigrants and eventually, most of them, citizens of the United States were ardently anti-Communist and they pointed to the dictatorial rule of Fidel Castro as ample reason for the United States to have nothing to do with the island nation. Furthermore, this came hand-in-hand with what became developed as an economic embargo – effectively, for over a half-century, a near total economic embargo in terms of business and financial transactions, as well as tourism between people in the United States and in Cuba. And this was an excruciating issue for many of those émigrés because after all they were unable to send money and financial support, even foodstuffs, another form of aid, back to their Cuban relatives and friends.

The Cuban community in the United States saw this as a necessary action, even though it came with a tremendous cost in light of the autocratic and dictatorial reign of Fidel Castro. But one of the things that many modern Americans tend to discount is the actual nature of the Castro regime in Cuba. It has been an ardent enemy of human rights; it has been very repressive when it comes to religious liberty. In terms of the fall of communism worldwide and in particular the breaking a part of the Soviet bloc, the former Soviet communist empire, many people forget that there are still vestiges of the former Soviet type form of communism and the classic vestige of it is actually the nation of Cuba.

Amazingly enough Fidel Castro is still defying history, alive in Cuba, and very much a part of the Cuban scene. He did give power to his brother Raúl who currently serves as the president of the nation. In one of the most interesting aspects of the announcement made yesterday, it came after a fairly long period of intensely private – even secret – conversations that involved a third-party – and in this case the third-party was Pope Francis I, who had a very particular and personal interest and took an action he had not previously taken before – writing a letter to the President of the United States and to the leadership in Cuba proposing this kind of a resumption of full diplomatic relations. Now a couple of things need to be noted very quickly, first of all, the President of the United States has the constitutional authority to decide the issues of this kind of diplomatic recognition. He is our diplomat and chief, the Secretary of State, the entire State Department reports constitutionally directly to the President of the United States even though there is congressional oversight.

But when it comes to the economic embargo, that was not a presidential decision. It grew out of a presidential proposal but it eventually was undertaken by the force of legislation passed by Congress. And that leads to a very interesting contemporary context. That means, the President of the United States can decide – he can indeed declare – in a surprise announcement made yesterday, virtually publicly out of the blue, that the United States is going to reestablish full diplomatic relations with Cuba. He can do that; he can announce there is going to be an embassy. One of the things by the way that could become problematic if Congress defies this, is that the President could find himself unable to fund the embassy he has just declared he is going to open in Havana.

But that leads to the second observation and that is that the President of the United States has now declared himself on this issue. He went as far as he could go in terms of his constitutional authority and he then invited Congress to become involved. He said he would welcome an end to the economic embargo if Congress decided to send him legislation that would accomplish the end of that action. And that’s where it’s going to get really, really controversial. For the last half-century and more there has been solid economic support for the economic embargo, even though there have been proposals – some of them come from people like former President Jimmy Carter all the way back in the 1970s – that there might be a better way to engage the Cuba nation and actually to lead to greater freedom for the Cuban people. The economic embargo has been politically sacrosanct, virtually untouchable.

For one thing, in the state of Florida where I grew up, no major politician is going to be elected in terms of statewide office – much less in South Florida – unless that politician supports the economic embargo because that is considered to be so important as a political statement on the part of the Cuban-American community there in Florida. But that’s beginning to change, its changing in the first place generationally. Younger Cubans are indicating a much greater openness to ending the embargo and reestablishing economic relationships that might enable, first of all, the reestablishment of some very personal relationships, and the freedom of travel. And then would also bring the promise of greater economic prosperity which, in the case of at least some nations, has meant a growing middle class that simply demands the political reforms that brought an end to a communist dictatorship.

But there’s an even more fundamental issue for us to consider here, as Christians, who are very committed to a biblical worldview, we need to recognize that the Christian worldview does not give us a yes or no to this kind of action or proposal. It doesn’t give us a simple answer in terms of what is right in the situation. When it comes to the morality of the Castro regime, it is certainly in a moral repressive totalitarian dictatorship. But, the United States has maintained for some time official diplomatic relationships, indeed for the entire period with which it had broken those relationship with Cuba, with regimes that are almost assuredly as bad, if not worse.

The approach the United States government took with the nation of China was almost diametrically opposed to what was undertaken in Cuba. And one of the reasons for that is that it was politically possible for President Richard Nixon to go to Beijing – then called Peking – it was not politically possible for even Richard Nixon to go to Havana. The Christian worldview and our commitment to that worldview means that we are absolutely to seek that which leads to the greatest demonstration of righteousness, the greatest realization of justice, the greatest promise of human flourishing. There are good economic and political – even historical – rationales for what the president did yesterday, at least what he announced, and for what many would now propose should be the next step and that is ending the economic embargo. This is exactly what the United States did with some other nations, but there are also very good reasons on the other side of the equation for keeping the embargo in place. And what we discussed yesterday on The Briefing having to do with the economic crisis now in Russia is, on the other hand, an example of why an embargo can sometimes be very effective in leading to the very same goal.

Our goal must be the increase of human flourishing; our goal must be greater liberty, religious liberty, every form of liberty for the Cuban people. Our goal must the demonstration of righteousness and justice. There is no easy way here, there are no assured answers, the decision made by the president yesterday is a decisive very historic shift. Will it lead to greater freedom and liberty for the Cuban people? Time will tell. There is good reason to believe that the establishment of diplomatic relations may actually serve that cause; then again, will this give the Cuban government a reward it doesn’t deserve? That’s the other side of the equation. As for the economic embargo, there is no real political expectation that Congress is going to act to remove that embargo. The President said he would welcome that legislation coming from Congress, but even in so saying the President must’ve known it’s very unlikely he would receive such a bill.

In the actual details of what the President announced yesterday there was a swap of intelligence officers that have been held; one American, three Cubans. There was also the announcement of some specifics having to do with the allowance for financial transfers – the kind of things that would be within the constitutional authority of the President. But as for the big announcement, it comes down to this: the United States government, after the intervention of Pope Francis I, has decided, in the form of the President of the United States, to establish formal diplomatic relations that reverses over a half-century of diplomatic experience here in the United States. It is an historical act, and when you think about the long-term relations between the United States and Cuba, it turns out that December 17, 2014, unexpectedly, turns out to be a very huge day.

2) Church of England’s first woman bishop necessary result of mishandling of Scripture 

Big news was also made in the United Kingdom yesterday, but this wasn’t about diplomatic relations, it was about the appointment in the Church of England of the first woman Bishop. This came after a great deal of controversy, indeed 20 years of controversy, within the Church of England. It came after the British Prime Minister, when the church failed to approve women bishops a matter of about two years ago, simply by political pressure on the church asking the church when it was going to “get with the program?” There were actually political threats made against the Church of England that it was violating antidiscrimination statutes and the entire culture of antidiscrimination that is now very much a part of Great Britain. And furthermore, there were even suggestions that the Church of England should be disestablished – that it should lose its status as the official state church, the official state religion, there in the United Kingdom.

But the church responded earlier this year by approving the legislation that would eventually lead to the appointment of the first woman Bishop and it happened yesterday. In this case, the first woman Bishop is the Rev. Libby Lane, identified by The Guardian as a parish priest from Crewe. According to The Guardian, she is the surprise choice for the Church of England’s first female Bishop. She has been appointed a suffragan Bishop of Stockport, which the church counts as part of the diocese of Chester. Now just a couple of issues here for those who are unfamiliar with all things Anglican. A suffragan bishop is an assistant Bishop, not a Bishop over an entire diocese, but something of an assistant to the Bishop who is also holding status as a bishop. But the suffragan bishop does not have a seat in the House of Lords, the 20 something seats in the House of Lords for the Church of England, those seats are reserved for diocesan bishops – that is a bishop who has a cathedral and is recognized as being the head of an entire diocese.

Now what makes this really important is that this is how in so many of these very hierarchical denominations and churches, women are actually eventually named bishops. Their name basically ‘junior bishops’ before eventually they become a diocesan bishop. But the other big thing here is that this kind of appointment did not require all the bureaucratic kinds of actions and approvals that would’ve been necessary within the process of the Church of England had the seat been open for a diocesan bishop. Which means the Church of England in this case was able to fulfill its promise of establishing and naming the first woman bishop before the end of the year 2014. But what we’re looking at here as we’ve discussed even recently on The Briefing is that what we’re seeing is the church of England quite officially, apparently quite openly, accommodating itself to the larger culture around it. That’s what an established church really has to do; if you’re going to be the establish state church, you’re going to have to represent the state, and if you’re the establish state church, you really do care if the Prime Minister tells you you’re going to have to get with the program and thus decided that is what the church of England has done.

But we also noted the theological trajectory. This would’ve been impossible had the Church of England a generation ago not done the very same thing on the issue of women priests or ministers. And as I argued even back then, that decision laid the inevitable seeds and foundation for this decision that was announced yesterday. And furthermore, in terms of the way the biblical text is handled in the case of appointing a woman as a priest or woman as a Bishop, what we’re looking at is a way of handling the Scripture that also sets the very foundation and lays the seeds for this church’s eventual capitulation on the issue of homosexuality and the appointment of openly gay priests and openly gay bishops. The pattern of handling the Scripture in that way is exactly the same. And that’s why the advocates for the normalization of homosexuality and for the approval of same-sex unions are now openly saying to those egalitarians in the church, ‘we can understand why those who are opposed to women ministers might be opposed to the normalization of homosexuality and openly gay ministers, but we fail to see how those of you who approve women ministers can fail to approve openly gay ministers as well.’ As they recognize, and agree with us in this sense, is the very same form of argument and the very same pattern of dealing with the Scripture.

But the other thing to note in terms of this announcement is that it sets in motion an even greater risk that the Anglican Communion will break apart. Because one of the things that has been true until now is that the churches around the world, in the so-called global South that are very much more conservative than the Church of England, they had been able to relate to the Church of England and to its chief cleric – that is the Archbishop of Canterbury – because that church did not have women as bishops. But that changed yesterday, or at least the announcement was made that it will change; all that will be changed by the end of the year and thus we’re going to find out just how much of a communion the Anglican Communion really is. And the presenting issues, once again, are the same two. That is, the ordination of women and the normalization of homosexuality and the ordination of openly gay priests and bishops. So it’s not just conservative evangelicals in the United States who oddly enough, in this case, agree with the advocates for gay ordination and the normalization of homosexuality in terms of what exactly is going on in terms of biblical interpretation, there’s also an agreement that comes from the global South where those churches now face simultaneously the question of how they can relate to the church of England given its liberalized position on homosexuality and now the fact that it has its first woman Bishop.

3) Growing worldview chasm within political parties evidenced in reactions to Cromnibus bill

Meanwhile as the year comes to a close, political developments in Washington remind us of the incredible worldview chasm that exist politically there; at least the politics makes that chasm of worldview very apparent. Am I talking here about the great worldview division between the Republicans and Democrats? Well that’s part of the story but the more interesting story as the year comes to an end is the worldview division between Republicans and Republicans and between Democrats and Democrats. And this became abundantly clear in terms of the so-called Cromnibus bill, the bill that was adopted by Congress and signed by President Obama that extends the funding for the federal government but does so in a way that gravely disappointed the Democratic left and the Republican right – that wing of the party known as the Tea Party movement. And what we now find in terms of this picture is that the most interesting worldview issues being discussed in Washington right now aren’t actually dividing Republicans and Democrats but Republicans and Republicans and Democrats and Democrats.

And there is another thing to note here, it is the Democratic Party that might be the more interesting to watch because what’s happening, and perhaps this is at least in part due to the fact that they have a second term incumbent president in office, is that the Democratic Party is trying to ask some basic questions about who it is, where it stands, and where it’s going. The left of the Democratic Party is now very much in the driver seat in terms of the political dynamic in that party and as recent political scientist have indicated, what we’re looking at there is that even as the Republican Party is more conservative than it was a quarter of a century ago, the Democratic Party is even more liberal than it was a quarter-century ago. As the new year comes into shape, we’ll be looking at how these issues are developing because they reveal just how a worldview operates in terms of very tangible political decisions that become very apparent – sometimes graphically so – in the context of a year that is leading up to a presidential election; which means the parties are trying to decide who they are, where they stand, and what they believe.

And finally as we’re thinking about that Cromnibus bill – that was actually passed by Congress and approved by President Obama that’s going to fund the federal government through September of next year – well it’s an example of what happens, that anger so many people about this kind cromnibus spending bill because what’s in it or what’s not in it is extremely revealing. For instance, higher salt levels for public school lunches, a defeat for the First Lady of the United States and a big win for school cafeterias who are trying to figure out how in the world they could cut that much salt and sodium out of the diets that were serving. Schools in this bill also gained an opportunity to get an exemption from rules that required whole grain servings when it comes to serving pasta and tortillas. Yes folks, that was in a bill to fund the federal government.

Legislators in both parties use this bill and the political pressure to adopted in order to get some of their pet projects through, or policies revised – including policies of the Environmental Protection Agency having to do with water and one that orders the Defense logistics agency to re-examine the way it defined small business when it buys boots for troops. As you might expect, that particular revision was sought by legislate who have factories within their districts that were decided to be too large to qualify as a small business to get preference for developing boots for the military. But as we come to a close my favorite part of this bill, as reported by Robert Pear of the New York Times comes down to this paragraph with which I will simply close,

“The bill says the government cannot require farmers to report ‘greenhouse gas emissions from manure management systems.’ Nor can it require ranchers to obtain greenhouse gas permits for ‘methane emissions’ produced by bovine flatulence or belching.”

And that means that the federal government is told that it can’t list as an official issue that must be measured, methane that had been inside an animal that somehow gets outside. That, ladies and gentlemen, is your government at work.

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 boyecollege.com. I’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.

The Briefing 12-18-14

1) President Obama announces historic reversal of status quo with Cuba

Obama Announces U.S. and Cuba Will Resume Diplomatic Relations, New York Times (Peter Baker)

Obama moves to normalize relations with Cuba as American is released by Havana, Washington Post (Karen DeYoung and Brian Murphy)

Pope Francis played key role in U.S.-Cuba deal, USA Today (Gregory Korte and Oren Dorell)

FACT SHEET: Charting a New Course on Cuba, White House (Office of Press Secretary)

2) Church of England’s first woman bishop necessary result of mishandling of Scripture 

Church of England Names Rev. Libby Lane as First Female Bishop, New York Times (Alan Cowell)

, The Guardian (Andrew Brown)

3) Growing worldview chasm within political parties evidenced in reactions to Cromnibus bill

In Final Spending Bill, Salty Food and Belching Cows Are Winners, New York Times (Robert Pear)

Transcript: The Briefing 12-17-14

The Briefing

 

December 17, 2014

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

 

It’s Wednesday, December 17, 2014.  I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

1) Deliberate targeting of Pakistani children clear rejection of just war theory

The headlines coming out of Peshawar, Pakistan are shocking to say the least. They are very difficult to take. It appears that yesterday Taliban terrorists entered an army school filled with students, mostly aged 12 to 16, and killed at least 132 of them. The New York Times this morning is reporting that at least 145 people were killed, but that includes at least nine of the Taliban terrorists who were killed in the operation, in response it was launched by Pakistani Special Forces. There are also reports that the terrorists had put bombs within the facility, booby trapping them in order to delay a military response, and that at least some of the terrorist blew themselves up as the Pakistani military entered the facility.

There are several dimensions here of central importance for the Christian worldview but one is front and center and that is the fact that this was the deliberate targeting not only of civilians but of children; of students aged primarily 12 to 16. They were enrolled in a particular school that is run by the Pakistani military and the Taliban, in claiming responsibility for the attack and the killings, said that the murder of the students came in response to a military action undertaken by the Pakistani military against the Taliban in which they claimed the Pakistani military had killed some of their own civilians. In retaliation they specifically targeted the school filled with schoolchildren dressed in their school uniforms.

According to initial reports the majority of the students killed in one place were in the auditorium of the school where they were receiving first aid instruction. This horrifying story out of Pakistan reminds us of a similar headline that emerged a few years ago out of Russia when separatist Islamic forces there entered a school and killed schoolchildren in a strategic effort very similar to what was undertaken in Pakistan yesterday. The grief of the Pakistani people was palpable and of course all of us can understand that. The scenes of parents running through the streets of Peshawar trying to find their children, looking first at the school where they were denied entry, and later in hospitals, eventually also at morgues, is absolutely heartbreaking.

But the Christian worldview points us to something that is vitally important here and that is the fact that the Christian understanding of legitimate war specifically outlaws this kind of targeting; first of civilians and in a particular of children. The Christian church struggling to come to an understanding of the theological justification for the use of force under, at least some circumstances, developed what is known as just war theory. The church sought to build upon a biblical understanding of when and under what circumstances war might be necessary. The conclusion of Christians throughout the ages, the Christian consensus, is that war in the first place must always be the last resort possible. The only conceivable justification for the use of deadly force is that it would stop an even greater injustice or evil. That’s a recognition that in a fallen world sometimes the use of violent force is necessary, even what is rightly described as war.

One of the principles of Just War Theory is that war must always be defensive, never offensive. That is to say, it must be started as the last resort in order to defend oneself or one’s nation against an impending threat or an actual invasion. It must never be about the conquest of territory or the gaining of some kind of political or military advantage. Furthermore (and this is very important), Just War Theory is divided into the grounds by which war will be justified and then the acceptable grounds on which a war can be conducted. And one the most important principles of the Christian biblical thinking in terms of just war theory is the principle of what is called discrimination; which is to say that Christians, based upon the biblical worldview, must specifically discriminate against fellow combatants and civilians and must take every reasonable precaution in order to protect civilians and to direct deadly force only against those who are trying to initiate deadly force.

This is a very important qualification and what we’re looking at here is the fact that the Taliban are not only well described as terrorists, they are specifically Islamic terrorist. The goal of the Taliban in Pakistan is to topple the Islamic regime that is there and replace it with a more strict Islamic regime that will uphold sharia law. This is an intra-Islamic discussion in Pakistan; Pakistan is an Islamic state, even though various of its governments have claimed to be secular in terms of allegiance. But what we’re looking at here is the fact that the Taliban now consider the Islamic government of Pakistan to be insufficiently Islamic. And they are using any force necessary, they believe justified by the Quran and by the Muslim tradition, in order to achieve those gains. And the ultimate example of that horrifying worldview is exactly what we now see in the headlines coming out of Peshawar.

We’re looking at not only the killing of children, not only the killing of civilians, but the intentional, targeted, ruthless, cold-blooded execution of children who were in school. Sadly what we see in so many cases is not only the secular media trying to put this into a secular context in which frankly it makes no sense, there is no secular motivation on the part of the Taliban here. But we also see an almost intentional evasion of the Islamic dimension to this story.

Now in a very interesting development earlier this week given the incident in Sydney in which you had a lone Islamic terrorist who may have been basically psychologically deranged but nonetheless, as he was taking control of that chocolate Café in Sydney, Australia he put up a black flag that had on it the shahadah – that is, the Muslim declaration that there’s only one God and that Mohammed is his prophet. It was explicitly an Islamic communication. But several newspapers, including the New York Times, actually ran headlines in which they identify the flag as black – as if the color the flag is what was important. Well what’s important in that headline is what it’s missing, not what it’s getting. And that is that it was an explicitly Islamic act, at least undertaken in the name of Islam.

And now we’re looking at the situation in Peshawar and we’re seeing a similar reluctance to say what is actually at stake here. President Obama for instance spoke of the attack genuinely as horrific; no doubt he sees it in those terms. He then said that in this heinous attack terrorists have once again shown their depravity. Well that’s profoundly true, but these terrorists are showing not only their depravity, they’re showing the rejection of civilization. But they’re showing not only that, they’re showing their rejection of a Christian understanding of the rules of war. In the deliberate targeting of children, we’re looking at an act of moral extremity and depravity that is almost unfathomable to most people in the West. The grief and the sorrow of the Pakistanis, in terms of the targeted killing of their own children, is felt by people all over the world. But this is something that needs not only to require an emotional response of compassion and co-suffering, but also an immediate response of outrage and of the understanding, once again, that worldview matters. As you look at these headlines out of Peshawar, there is no conclusion to come to otherwise than that worldview matters tremendously, often in a deadly way.

2) Plummeting Russian rouble will reveal citizens’ priority – nationalism or food

This is not nearly as important a story in terms of the world scene, but it is important from a Christian worldview; we’re going to be watching something very interesting in terms of the situation in Russia. Just a few days ago Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia who is delusional in terms of his understanding of Russian destiny, actually declared in a speech what has been described in the Russian media as a sermon, in which he basically spiritualized his leadership and Russia’s place of leadership in the world. But now, Vladimir Putin, whose expansionist vision of Russia has scared virtually all of Europe and is upset the international scene, is facing what might be the crisis that could doom his own leadership – and that is the collapse of the Russian economy.

Earlier this week there were headlines from various newspapers and magazines around the world. The Economist, one of the most authoritative financial journals in the world, published a headline just a few days ago entitled Russia: A Wounded Economy, and then the subtitle, “It is closer to crisis than the West or Vladimir Putin realize.” Then just a couple of days ago the Washington Post ran a headline, Sorry, Putin. Russia’s economy is doomed. Matt O’Brien in that article says that the latest news from Russia is that even as its central bank raised interest rates in an attempt to stop the ruble, the ruble is actually collapsing – that’s of course the Russian currency. And just in the last 24 hours it has fallen at least 17%. Now that is a colossal fall. Just imagine if your dollar was discounted by .17 in a single day after falling almost 50% in value over the last several weeks and months.

What we’re looking at here is a very interesting question from the Christian worldview and that is what holds a civilization together and what are the fundamentals that make for peace, that make for stability, social cohesion. One of them is people have to be able to eat, they have to be able to take care of their children, they have to be able to feed their families. Russia, given Vladimir Putin’s expansionist imperialist leadership, his autocratic rule, and his expansionism that led him simply to grasp the Crimea and annex it to Russia, furthermore to send his own troops into Ukraine and sending Russian military planes so close to some Scandinavian countries that they fear it’s even a risk to civilian aviation. Vladimir Putin is singularly to blame for this particular crisis. But there’s something else that comes into play here and that is that sometimes things that are outside of leaders control can contribute to this kind of crisis. In this case it’s the fall of the petrodollar. What we’re looking at here is falling oil prices, that’s one of Russia’s major sources of income, and now you’re looking at the fact the lower gas prices at your gas pump mean continuing economic turmoil in Russia and continuing fall of the ruble.

But the thing to watching from the Christian worldview perspective is what’s going to happen when the Russian people find their bank accounts are basically empty or are discounted by a terrific, even horrifying, amount. We’re going to find out just how committed the Russian people are to their very Russian leader, if in his Russian imperialist vision he actually tanks the economy so that they can’t feed their children.

This is a very sad morality tale being played out before our eyes and as the year comes to an it’s going to be very interesting to see if the Russian people who were rallying behind Vladimir Putin’s nationalism just a few weeks ago are going to be so ‘gung ho’ to stand by their imperialist leaders as something of a new czar when they can’t feed their children. That’s when we’re going to find out just what the Russian people think about their own leader.

3) China’s Communist control of family planning undermines effort to buoy birth rates

Speaking of the Christian worldview it really comes into play with another story from the international scene. This one comes from Oxford University as is released by Policy, a major think tank there at Oxford University. The headline has to do with the fact that China’s relaxation of its notorious one child only policy, well its relaxation hasn’t had much of an effect. There isn’t much of a birth boom going on in China even though the government has restricted, at least in part, its one child only policy. The background of this is really crucial. China’s one child only policy is a draconian policy put into place by China’s communist leaders; it was put in place in the 1970s and certainly enforced in subsequent years in order to prevent the expansive population of China from growing. But there were unintended consequences. The unintended consequences include what are called the broken branches; that is the young men, numbering by the tens of millions in China, who will never have a wife, who will never have a normal family, they will never have a normal life. And China’s government is singularly responsible for this because it goes hand-in-hand with the prejudice against girls and young females in China, which has led to the abortion of untold millions of baby girls and even the infanticide, that is the deliberate killing, of many baby girls because if the government says you can only have one child, many Chinese families have said, ‘if we can only have one child, that child is going to be a boy even if you have to abort or kill our baby girls.’

But then there’s more of course, as there always is in this kind of story, and that is that the collapse of the birth rate in China given the one child only policy has led to the fact that there’s now an explosion of the elderly in China and there are insufficient young people coming into the economy and into the workforce even to keep the economy going at its current rate, much less to care for and pay for all of the exploding populations of the elderly in China. That’s why China’s government responded. China’s government relaxed, at least in part, the one child only policy – not because of some kind of moral enlightenment but because of economic and sociological desperation. But they weren’t desperate enough to change the policy much. They’ve actually required couples to gain an explicit government permission to have a second child and in many cases local government still depend upon tax money coming in from couples taxed at exorbitant rates in order to have the privilege of a second child.

So what we have here is a Chinese government, a Communist Party that is absolutely determined, even today, to control the reproductive decisions being made by couples and families in China and the disasters being seen worldwide by anyone who simply looks at the facts on the ground in China. Why won’t they change the policy? It is because they are so committed to their worldview of party control, and of the government party control of the most minute and intimate decisions – even the reproductive decisions of a couple or of a family, even the decision to have a child.

Now even as the situation in Pakistan shows us the great distinction between the actions of the Taliban and the Christian understanding of Just War Theory, the situation in China points to the dramatic distinction between the worldview of the Communist Party in that country and the Christian church. Another of the most basic facets of Christian moral thinking is something that many Christians simply aren’t very aware of, that is called the principle of subsidiarity. It’s a very important principle in Christian thinking and it comes down to this: the Christian worldview says that if God created the institutions that are given to us in creation – for instance, particularly, marriage and the family that come prior even to the government, prior even to any sort of external institution – then creation itself points to the fact that this most basic institution is, after all, most central to society itself and human flourishing and in the intimacy of that most basic institution the most important decisions about civilization are actually made. That is such a crucial part of the Christian worldview that many Christians simply don’t have to think about. And being unaware of that very important principle of Christian thinking, they don’t know exactly what you’re looking at when they see this headline coming out of China and they don’t understand why this points to the importance of Christians thinking as Christians.

The principle of subsidiarity is extremely important. It says that it is fundamentally wrong to believe the reproductive decisions should be made by a government at any level rather than by a husband and a wife within the institution of marriage. The principle of subsidiarity says that God gave us the gift of marriage and the gift of family in order that the most important decisions about civilization are actually made in the most central institution. It’s small to be sure, but its influence is massive. The principle of subsidiarity tells us that government can never replace what must happen inside the family; that government can never effectively and efficiently, much less faithfully, actually raise a child. That government cannot make the decisions on behalf of the family that the family must make for itself. The principle of subsidiarity points out that government can never replace the mother; that when government tries to be a parent, it’s a very inefficient parent.

Now sometimes, in terms of the brokenness of the family, government has to step in, society has to step in, in order to do something in order to rescue those who are left vulnerable. But what we have now in society is the assumption that maybe it’s government that should act first, government that should make the decisions. And furthermore we have government even here that is increasingly taking on that kind of rather hubristic and arrogant responsibility. We also have bureaucrats and others from government agencies surrounding the family saying they know best, when the Christian worldview says no that simply is not true; parents know best how to raise their own children and they must be trusted to make those decisions because not only are they the parents but actually no one else can make those decisions so faithfully and so efficiently.

The news coming out of China about the one child only policy, and why even relaxing it a little hasn’t made much of a difference, points out that the big problem here is that government is still trying to make the decision. If government were trying to make the decision about birthrates in this country, just imagine the kind of push back there would be. There would be pushback from the libertarian impulse of the American people saying, ‘you have no right to tell me how many children I’m going to have.’ You can imagine how Americans would respond to that kind of government influence. On the other hand, would Christians understand that there is something even deeper at stake? Would Christians even here push back with something deeper than a libertarian, ‘get your hands out of my personal affairs’ impulse? Would Christians here understand that this is basically an assault upon creation? That what God gave us in the family and the institution of marriage is prior to every other institution on earth – especially government – and as such it must be respected in just that way? What’s coming out of China is not just a headline about the failure of the government’s attempt to relax its one child only policy, the real headline out of China should be read this way: the Chinese government is still trying to control the intimate decisions that should be left to the family and disaster ensues. Whether the headlines say that are or not, that’s what they are saying.

4) Gender-specific toys continue to confound the ‘anti-gender agenda’

Finally, coming back to the United States, one of the things that the elites are trying to do in this country is to push a gender agenda that argues that gender simply is a social construct; that there’s nothing essentially important to whether one is born male or female, and that building distinctions on being male or female is always and in every case, wrong. And at the Christmas season one of things that infuriates those trying to push this agenda is the toy advertisements and the marketing of toys towards children; but after all, you look at these toys, they’re not basically being directed towards children, they are being directed towards boys and girls.

A headline about this comes in a story written by Elizabeth Sweet; here’s the headline, Toys Are More Divided by Gender Now Than They Were 50 Years Ago. Well, looking at the article, that’s not exactly what’s communicated. But what is communicated is that children right now basically are listing toys they want, especially at younger ages, that are explicitly girl toys and boy toys. And in many cases, the article also makes clear, the girl toys and the boy toys are the very kind of girl toys and boy toys that girls and boys wanted 50 years ago. We’re looking here the fact that girls often want the kinds of toys that are related to the context of domesticity and, furthermore, boys are often looking for the kind of toys that have to do with trucks and construction and guns and all kinds of other things that just about anyone knows could be colored blue or pink.

This is not to argue that the marketers always get right in terms of boys and girls, or that all toy should be addressed simply to one gender or another, it is to point to the inflexible issue that the Christian worldview well understands and that is even though the cultural elites may keep saying it doesn’t matter whether you’re a boy or a girl, you can be a boy today in a girl tomorrow it really doesn’t matter, it’s all a matter of fluidity – that’s what the national media and others are trying to tell us. Try telling that to a second grader, it’s not going to work. And if anything, the article in the Atlantic actually points out that those so-called gender stereotypes when it comes to toys have been there just about all along. For example the article cites a 1925 ad of Sears for an erector set the stated,

“Every boy likes to tinker around to try to build things with an erector set. He can satisfy this inclination and gain mental development without apparent effort. He will learn the fundamentals of engineering.”

Well as a boy who proudly had an erector set I’m not certain I learned the basic fundamentals of engineering, but I did learn how to build things, how to connect things, and I had a lot of fun with it. But my point in raising this article is to point out that the elites are simply frustrated by the fact that when you go to the toy store, you find out the gender still matters, it matters hugely and that perhaps the people on earth who right now at least in this society who are most conscious of what it means to be a boy and girl, are actually – here’s a surprise – boys and girls. And it turns out that that shows up at Christmas in terms of the toys they desire and even the toys that marketers have the sense to direct to them. Who would’ve thought it. You know in looking at this story I simply reflect upon the fact that if the cultural elites are frustrated with conservative Christians, that we won’t just get with the program, what in the world are they going to do with the elementary school?

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 boyecollege.com. I’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.