R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s Blog, page 367

It’s Back — The “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” and the State of Modern Scholarship

The so-called “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” is back in the news and back in public conversation. The story first broke in a flurry of sensationalism back in September of 2012 when Smithsonian magazine declared that a papyrus fragment had been found which would “send jolts through the world of biblical scholarship.” Well, it didn’t jolt much of anything.

In 2012 Professor Karen King of the Harvard Divinity School announced that a papyrus fragment that had come into her supervision made reference to Jesus having a wife. Professor King announced that the papyrus fragment included the words, “Jesus said to them, ‘My wife.’” Smithsonian, which also produced a major television program on the finding, promised that the fragment would “send shock waves through the Christian world.”

As might be expected, numerous major media outlets jumped on the story. The Telegraph [London] ran a headline that stated: “Ancient Papyrus Could Be Evidence that Jesus Had a Wife.” In reality, even if the fragment is authentic in terms of dating to ancient times, the fragment revealed nothing that would have jolted anyone familiar with the early centuries of Christianity. The fragment of papyrus contained only about 30 Coptic words in eight fragmentary lines of writing.

Almost immediately, there were credible concerns that the papyrus fragment was a forgery or a fake. Professor King promised a thorough investigation and the Harvard Divinity School arranged for a panel of experts to review the document, conducting tests that might indicate its authenticity. Of course, the sensational coverage in the global media, driven in large part by the nature of Professor King’s announcement, came before the investigations had been done.

Last week, the Harvard Theological Review released a much-delayed series of articles on the fragment. After a series of investigations undertaken by diverse scholars, the general judgment claimed by Professor King is that the fragment probably is not a forgery — or at least that it dates back to ancient times. The analysis suggested that the fragment dated from about four centuries later than Professor King had first suggested. This would place the fragment, if authentic, in the context of eighth-century Egypt — hundreds of years after the New Testament was written and completed.

The language used by the national media in reporting the story this time reveals the lack of confidence now placed in the fragment. The Boston Globe reported that the tests “have turned up no evidence of modern forgery,” but the reporter had to acknowledge that at least one of the scholars writing in the Harvard Theological Review insisted that the fragment is not only a forgery, but an amateurish effort. The New York Times ran a story that featured a headline announcing that the fragment “is more likely ancient than fake.” Note the uncertainty evident even in the headline.

In her major article released last week, Professor King defended the fragment’s authenticity, but acknowledged that — all previous sensationalism aside — “It is not entirely clear, however, how many women are referred to [in the fragment], who they are, precisely what is being said about them, or what larger issues are under consideration.”

This is a very different message than was sent back in 2012. Professor King now acknowledges that all the references to females in the fragment might be “deployed metaphorically as figures of the Church, or heavenly Wisdom, or symbolically/typologically as brides of Christ or even mothers.” In other words, the fragment might not even conflict with Christian orthodoxy.

The most declarative article in the Harvard Theological Review, however, dismisses the entire fragment as a modern forgery. Professor Leo Depuydt of Brown University argues that the fragment’s authenticity is “out of the question.” He points to several factors, including the fact that a set of typographical errors in the fragment matches a set of errors in an online edition of the “Gospel of Thomas,” an ancient Gnostic text. Depuydt put the chances of coincidence with respect to these errors as one in a trillion. Depuydt states that he “has not the slightest doubt that the document is a forgery, and not a very good one at that.”

Taken as a whole, the issue of the Harvard Theological Review released last week includes some scholars who stalwartly defend the fragment as authentic, some who argue that there is no convincing proof that it is a forgery, and at least one who argues that the case for authenticity is laughable.

But the most important line in the entire issue is offered by Professor King herself: “In my reading, however, the main point of [the fragment] is simply to affirm that women who are wives and mothers can be Jesus’s disciples.”

That is astounding, not because it is not clearly plausible, but because that is not what Professor King suggested was the importance of the fragment when she made her announcement back in 2012 — and when she called the fragment “The Gospel of Jesus’s Wife.” While it is true that Professor King never stated that the fragment proved that Jesus was married, she certainly cooperated with media sensationalism that made those claims with abandon.

The larger background includes the fact that Professor King has devoted much of her scholarly career to making a case that the early church falsely constructed an orthodox understanding of Jesus that minimized the role of women. Back in 2003 she released The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle, in which she argued that at least some ancient texts pointed to Mary Magdalene as an apostle. In 2012 she told the writer for Smithsonian: “You’re talking to someone who’s trying to integrate a whole set of ‘heretical’ literature into the standard history.”

Professor King, along with others such as Professor Elaine Pagels of Princeton University, reject traditional Christianity and have turned time and again to ancient Gnostic documents, such as were found in 1945 in Nag Hammadi in Egypt, to argue that early Christianity marginalized some theological voices and standardized doctrinal orthodoxy in order to maintain doctrinal purity.

Well, they are exactly right. As a matter of fact, the pattern of marginalizing false renderings of Jesus is found even in the New Testament, where the apostles are continuously defending one understanding of Christ and rejecting all others. The apostles unapologetically rejected false teachings about Christ and argued for what the Apostle Paul called the “pattern of sound words.” To the Galatians Paul wrote: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” [Galatians 1:8-9]

Professor Karen King rejects Christian orthodoxy and hopes to eliminate the words “heresy” from the Christian vocabulary. But there is no Christianity if there is no defense against heresy. Heresy is not an abstract issue — it is a denial of the truth that leads to salvation.

That’s why Christians can never respond to heresy with indifference. As the late Harold O. J. Brown observed, “the important thing about heresies is the fact that they are not just permissible variations, options, or choices, but by their very nature so undermine Christian faith that they may well render salvation unattainable for the one who makes the mistake of embracing them.”

So much of what is presented as modern biblical and theological scholarship is an effort to destroy the very idea of orthodox Christianity and to erase all distinctions between orthodoxy and heresy. That is why so much attention is devoted to marginal issues of scholarship like this tiny fragment of papyrus. The “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” tells us nothing about Jesus and very little, if anything, about early Christianity. It tells us a great deal about modern scholarship, however — and that is the real message of this controversy.

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

All materials related to the “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” and the articles from the Harvard Theological Review are available here: http://gospelofjesusswife.hds.harvard...

Albert Mohler, “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife? When Sensationalism Masquerades as Scholarship,” Thursday, September 20, 2012. http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/09/2...

Laurie Goodstein, “Papyrus Referring to Jesus’ Wife Is More LIkely Ancient Than Fake, Scientists Say,” The New York Times, Thursday, April 10, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/sci...

Lisa Wangsness, “No Evidence of Modern Forgery in Ancient Text Mentioning Jesus’s Wife,” The Boston Globe, Thursday, April 10, 2014. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014...

Ask Anything: Weekend Edition 04-12-14

1) What role do dreams play in the Christian life today?

2) How should Christians deal with mourning the loss of a pet?

3) Is remarriage obligatory if divorced spouse is repentant of their sin?

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

Transcript: The Briefing 04-11-14

The Briefing

 

 April 11, 2014

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

 

It’s Friday, April 11, 2014. I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

 

Back in September of 2012, Smithsonian magazine put out a sensational news story and an associated television program in which it announced that an ancient document had been found that indicated that Jesus had a wife. In the background to that was Harvard Divinity school professor Karen King, who did announce that she had found or she had come across a document supposedly found in 1960 that is actually a fourth century early Christian papyrus that includes a reference, in the somewhat thirty words found on this very small document, that is a reference to Jesus’ wife, and that’s what led to the sensationalism. And as I said back in 2012, this is really sensationalism masquerading as scholarship. And there’s a huge story here, but why are we talking about it in 2014? Because yesterday, after months of embarrassing delay, the Harvard Theological Review finally put out an article in which it is addressed to the critics of this controversy suggesting—well, let me just quote from The New York Times’ Laurie Goodstein. She says:

 

A faded fragment of papyrus known as the “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife,” which caused an uproar when unveiled by a Harvard Divinity School historian in 2012, has been tested by scientists who conclude in a journal published on Thursday that the ink and papyrus are very likely ancient, and not a modern forgery.

 

Well that should tell you something; that the Harvard Theological Review, after months of excruciating embarrassment, released yesterday this major issue with a news report indicating—and The New York Times has it exactly right—that it likely isn’t a forgery. Now it tells you a great deal that they had to put out a news story saying that it likely (just consider that word) isn’t a forgery (just consider that word). In other words, this is a very embarrassing position in which a major academic institution now finds itself, and the story here is actually huge. It’s huge because what it really points to is a major development in terms of the secular academic establishment. Over the course of the last 30 or 40 years, especially after the mid-20th century discovery at Nag Hammadi of a vast trove of early Gnostic Christian documents, there’s been an effort to try to disprove that the early church had a theological orthodoxy. Instead, the claim is that early Christianity was marked by a radical religious pluralism, even in terms of the theological understanding of who Jesus is and why he came and what he did. And, furthermore, there is the accusation that the whole idea of Christian orthodoxy, of Orthodox Christian doctrine, was a far later development forced by political considerations, and that’s why liberals who hate the idea of theological orthodoxy believe that the discovery of an early heterodoxy or of a various pluralism of theologies would be advantageous to make their case. But as so often turns out, those that are discovered to be on the margins are there because the Orthodox Christian tradition pushed them to the margins, and actually, a closer look at this controversy reveals that that is exactly what is taking place. We’re not talking about the Gospels, the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. We’re not talking about the New Testament that has been received by the church and honored by the church for two millennia. We’re talking about documents that were completely unknown until they were discovered, hidden away in fragments, a matter of mere decades ago.

 

Well, this particular edition of the Harvard Theological Review that was released yesterday does include, at least at the very front of the journal, a major article by Professor Karen King, the professor at the center this controversy, in which she defends the authenticity of her research and of this little tiny papyrus fragment and it’s thirty words. But what we also have is a vigorous academic debate within the journal, and in that debate, there enters the figure of Leo Depuydt of Brown University who writes also in the same issue of the Harvard Theological Review:

 

The following analysis submits that it is out of the question that the so-called Gospel of Jesus’s Wife, also known as the Wife of Jesus Fragment, is an authentic source. The author of this analysis has not the slightest doubt that the document is a forgery, and not a very good one at that.

 

So we have a vigorous academic debate going on within the pages of the Harvard Theological Review’s issue that was released yesterday. And Leo Depuydt of Brown University, a well-recognized scholar of the ancient world, says that it is beyond question that this is an outright forgery, and he has some very interesting evidence that he brings to the fore. The most important evidence is this: what you have here is, indeed, an ancient piece of papyrus. It appears that all the tests indicate it is ancient. You also have what is claimed to be ancient ink, but, here’s one of the footnotes in this research, as it turns out, the only way they can actually test the ink, in terms of its chemical composition, would be to destroy the papyrus, so they didn’t do it. They’re just saying there’s nothing that proves it is a forgery.

 

But the most important evidence for the fact that it is a forgery is that it includes—and remember, you’re just talking about a tiny little fragment here of thirty words—included in this particular papyrus and its words is an error. And it is precisely an error that is found in an online edition of the Gospel of Thomas, one of these Gnostic documents. In other words, what we’re being asked to believe, in terms of the authenticity of this piece of papyrus and the document that is on it, what we’re now asked to believe is that it’s just a coincidence; that there is this same error in the document that occurs in this supposedly ancient fragment and in a modern online edition of the Gospel of Thomas. That’s why Professor Depuydt says, “All this leads me personally 100% convinced that the Wife of Jesus Fragment is a forgery. I don’t do 95% in this case.” He also says, “I find nothing in these documents”—he means the research reports published in the review. He says, “I find nothing in these documents that could change in any way the fact that I am personally 100% certain that the Wife of Jesus Fragment is a forgery. I have otherwise never deemed ink or papyrus text necessary or relevant in light of the evidence set forth below.” He goes on to say, “There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind personally that the text is a patchwork of words and phrases from the published and well-known Gospel of Thomas.” That’s a Coptic document. The dialect of Coptic, he says, is exactly what you find in the Gospel of Thomas.” In other words, this is a forgery, and here you have an Ivy League professor who says, “I’m not 95% certain it’s a forgery; I am 100% certain that it’s a forgery.” How does the Harvard Divinity School respond, in terms of the Harvard Theological Journal, “We don’t think it’s a forgery,” and that’s after months of investigation; months longer than they had originally promised.

 

The article that appeared yesterday in The New York Times quotes a professor at MIT Center for Materials Science and Engineering who used infrared technology to determine whether the ink showed any variations or inconsistencies. The professor, he is Timothy M. Swager, said, “The main thing was to see, did somebody doctor this up? And there is absolutely no evidence for that. It would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible.” Dr. Depuydt, who is also quoted in The New York Times article, the Brown University Egyptologist and specialist in terms of papyrus, said that testing the fragment was irrelevant, and he said that the inspection of it would make no difference. He said he decided all that based on the first newspaper photograph that the fragment was forged because it included what he called gross grammatical errors and each word in it matched writing in the Gospel of Thomas. “It couldn’t possibly be a coincidence,” he said.

 

Here’s what’s really interesting in terms of the conclusion of The New York Times article:

 

And Dr. King [that’s Dr. Karen King at Harvard] said that her “big disappointment” is that so far, the story of the fragment has focused on forgery, not on history.

 

Well let’s assume for a moment that it’s not a forgery. Let’s just imagine that all these coincidences are just that; they’re just coincidences. Let’s just accept for a moment that this just might be an authentic document from the fourth century of the early Christian era. Dr. King says we need to do history, but what’s the history we would do? Well, the history we would do is to say that evidently this document found from the fourth century indicates that some people on the very margins of Christianity made the claim that Jesus had a wife. What would that tell us? It would tell us exactly the that; that there were persons on the margins of the Christian movement who made claims that have nothing to do with Orthodox Christian understanding, nothing to do with the church’s testimony of Christ, nothing to do with the Christ who is revealed in the Gospels. In other words, it would tell us that in the early centuries of the Christian church, there were heretics, which is actually what every church historian already knows. So if we’re going to do history, what this tells us is that here’s new evidence of heresy. It doesn’t tell us anything about Jesus. And, by the way, the more you look at the actual articles in the Harvard Theological Review, the more they actually make that case themselves. In other words, this isn’t about Jesus. This isn’t really even about theology. It’s not even about history. It’s about the effort of the secular academy to present scholarship that’s actually just sensationalism masquerading as scholarship. All those concerns back in 2012 turn out to be not only well-placed, but extremely relevant, and at the end of the day, even if you grant the entire case being claimed by the professor here in the center this case, Professor Karen King, what does it demonstrate? Well it demonstrates what we already knew: there were minority heretical voices in early Christianity. And there are now. The difference is now people want to claim the margin for the center and push the center to the margin. And for Christians, that’s the most important insight in terms of this story.

 

You’re going to be hearing a great deal of conversation about the 50th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson. That 50-year anniversary is truly important, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was landmark legislation, a very important piece of legislation that made major changes in American society and in the American conscience. A piece of legislation that in retrospect was absolutely necessary in order to protect the civil rights of all Americans, especially of African-Americans, who were routinely denied those civil rights all the way up to Congress’s passage of this legislation and President Johnson’s signing of the legislation into law. The 50th anniversary is bringing out all kinds of commemorations. One of them is at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library there in Texas, in Austin, Texas, the Texas State Capitol. The Johnson Library has been the focus of a great deal of this conversation and will be in weeks to come because it was President Johnson who pushed this legislation, pushed it all the way through both houses of Congress, and eventually signed it into law. In so doing, President Johnson said he was continuing the legacy of the assassinated President John F. Kennedy whose place he took after the assassination in 1963. It was political momentum out of that that led President Johnson to face the American people and the American Congress and demand that this legislation be adopted.

 

Two presidents, one present and one former, have been speaking to this. President Barack Obama, speaking to this, pointed out that President Johnson’s centrality to this story is very important. Former President Bill Clinton was speaking at the Johnson Library about this as well.  President Obama praised Lyndon Johnson for knowing how to get things done—this according to report in USA Today—including civil rights laws that forged opportunities for millions and make possible the nation’s first African-American president. “Passing laws is what LBJ knew how to do,” he said. He said, “They swung open for you [speaking of the doors of this legislation], and they swung open for me. That’s why I’m standing before you today.” He spoke of President Johnson in very interesting terms. He said:

 

He was charming when he needed to be, ruthless when required. He could wear you down with logic and argument. He could horse-trade, and he could flatter.

 

Well anyone who’s read major biographies of Lyndon Johnson, such as the massive multi-volume biography by Robert Caro, knows exactly what President Obama was talking about. President Johnson had been for years the majority leader, the Democratic leader in the United States Senate during a time of overwhelming Democratic majorities. He had the power to push just about anything through the Senate when he was the Senate’s majority leader. As president of the United States, he knew how to make Congress work. But President Obama here, speaking of President Johnson, seemed to be speaking rather wistfully, looking back to the past, perhaps wishing that he had the same ability to cajole Congress that Lyndon Johnson had. But that’s where knowledge of history might come in to correct that picture just a bit. Because even as we look back to that Civil Rights Act and say it was absolutely necessary, and even as we must understand the ordeal of conscience that made it necessary, the very fact that the American people had to be pushed by the force of law to recognize the civil rights of other Americans, that’s a haunting issue in the American conscience. But when you look back to President Lyndon Johnson and the legislative achievement, how did it happen? Well, in actuality, what President Johnson did would never be tolerated today. President Johnson engaged in raw political bargaining. He brought in Senators and he offered them judicial appointments. He offered them special budgetary considerations. Without any apologies, President Johnson twisted arms and gave away judgeships. He did whatever was necessary in order to get the vote, and he did get this massive and important vote through the Congress. What does this tell us? It tells us that in a Genesis 3 fallen world, politics is a dirty business. It is sometimes a crooked business, but sometimes in a dirty and crooked business, the right thing actually gets done. And I think even as there are many statements looking wistfully back at Lyndon Johnson—and, let’s admit it, he was a very colorful figure—the reality is that in today’s Washington, DC, that kind of presidential behavior would never be accepted by people in either party—unless, of course, it’s still going on today. Maybe the big issue is it’s going on in different forms today and perhaps not so well. What does that tell us? It tells us that sometimes politics can be crooked and ineffective; sometimes it can be crooked and effective. Sometimes it’s hard to know which to hope for.

 

Finally, last month the Pew Research Center came out with a massive study entitled, “Worldwide, Many See Belief in God as Essential to Morality.” The subtitle: “Richer Nations Are Exception.” The researchers were James Bell, Katie Simmons, and Russ Oates, and their report is indeed pretty massive and is also very interesting. As it reveals, there is a huge disparity among nations in terms of the populations that believe that belief in God is necessary in order for there to be a stable morality. And as you look at the data, there are surprises here, but they’re actually quite few. In other words, it’s really pretty predictable. In North America, Northern Europe, the more secularized portions of the globe, you’re more likely to find people who don’t believe that belief in God is necessary for morality. Also, no surprise here, the younger you going in the demographic, the more likely you’re going to find secular people who do not believe that belief in God is necessary for morality. If you go to the global South, virtually anywhere south of the equator, if you look at anywhere in terms of the developing world, you find overwhelming majorities who will say explicitly, if you don’t believe in God, there is no stable morality. Very, very interesting. The Pew Research actually puts it out in terms of graphs and charts showing that Europe and North America, most secular, least likely to believe that belief in God is necessary. Then you compare it to the areas that are most likely to insist that if you don’t believe in God, you can have stable morality. The Middle East runs first in terms of that region.

 

Responding to this research, CJ Werleman, writing at Salon.com, says it’s nothing less than scandalous that so many people, especially so many Americans, a vast majority of Americans still believe that belief in God is necessary for a stable morality in order for a society to be moral. As Werleman writes, “A comparatively eye-popping 53% of Americans essentially believe atheists and agnostics are living in sin.” Well here’s the problem—both with the way the research is presented and in the way the media have largely responded to it. What’s the problem? The question really isn’t whether individuals must believe in God in order to behave in morally acceptable terms, but the real problem here is the way the research is presented and the way the media has reported it. The key question here from a Christian worldview perspective is not the question as to whether individual atheists or agnostics can behave morally. The fact is obviously they can. The big question, the most interesting question from a Christian worldview perspective, is about society at large. Can a society hold onto any form of moral stability if indeed the vast majority of its inhabitants or population do not believe in God? That’s the key question. Can you hold onto a stable morality? It’s not a question as to whether individuals can be moral, in terms of living relatively upright lives according to the moral code adopted by a society. The fact is, the obvious answer to that is, there are people with greater and lesser rates of theistic belief or Christian affirmation who behave well within the society. Christians should not be in the position of arguing that all atheist and agnostics necessarily misbehave. There is clearly a link between worldview and behavior, but the reality is there are many people who behave better than their worldview. And, by the way, we should be thankful for that. The big question is how you actually have a morality without a divine revelation; how, indeed, you have a morality without a self-existent God who establishes what is right and what is wrong; how you have a morality if, indeed, it’s nothing more than an evolutionary-negotiated human construct. If it is just merely, from the secular worldview, a human construct, then you actually don’t have any absolute right or absolute wrong.

 

The really interesting worldview question is this: How is it that every single human being seems to have an innate sense of the fact that there is a right and wrong? Where does that moral sense come from? Evolution simply is inadequate on its face to explain the fact that that is a universal human experience. The second thing is if that is a universal human experience, if to be human is to understand that moral nature of the universe, how is it that we understand what is right and what is wrong, how is it that we even have confidence that there is such a thing as right and wrong, if this is merely a cosmic accident? The reality is we can’t.

 

So from a Christian worldview perspective, the interesting question is how do you have morality if you do not have God? We must not let that get translated into the controversial and unhelpful question: Can unbelievers act acceptably in a moral sense in the society? Clearly, they can. Clearly, that’s not the important question. The Christian worldview gets to the deeper issue. How do you even know what is right and wrong? How can you meaningfully use those terms and engage in that kind of moral consideration if there is no God who determines what is right and what is wrong? Because of there is no God, there is no stability to those concepts, and if you don’t have stability to the understanding of what is right and what is wrong, then there’s no stability to the morality, and society after society will make that point abundantly clear.

 

Thanks for listening to The Briefing. Remember, tomorrow morning a new release of Ask Anything: Weekend Edition. Call with your question for an upcoming episode at 877-505-2058. Call with your question in your voice to 877-505-2058. For more information, go to my website at albertmohler.com. You can follow me on Twitter by going to twitter.com/albertmohler. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu. For information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com. I’ll meet you again on Monday for The Briefing.

The Briefing 04-11-13

Podcast Transcript

1) Gospel of Jesus’ Wife? It’s still just sensationalism masquerading as scholarship

Papyrus Referring to Jesus’ Wife Is More Likely Ancient Than Fake, Scientists Say, New York Times (Laura Goodstein)

The Alleged Gospel of Jesus’ Wife: Assessment and Evaluation of Authenticity, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 107.02 (Leo Depuydt)

“Jesus said to them, ‘My wife…’” A New Coptic Papyrus Fragment, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 107.02 (Karen L. King)

The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife? When Sensationalism Masquerades as Scholarship, AlbertMohler.com (R. Albert Mohler, Jr.)

2) Remembering the 50th Anniversary of Civil Rights Act and how politics really work

50 Years Later, Obama Salutes Passage of Civil Rights Act, New York Times (Peter Baker)

Obama Shifts Subtly on Civil Rights, Wall Street Journal (Colleen Nelson)

Obama pays tribute to Johnson, Civil Rights Act, USA Today (David Jackson)

3) How do you have morality if you do not have God?

Worldwide, Many See Belief in God as Essential to Morality, Pew Research Center (James Bell, Katie Simmons, and Russ Oates)

The destructive myth about religion that Americans disproportionately believe, Salon.com (CJ Werleman)

Transcript: The Briefing 04-10-14

The Briefing

 

 April 10, 2014

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

 

It’s Thursday, April 10, 2014. I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

 

Robert Barnes of The Washington Post reports:

 

The nationwide legal battle over same-sex marriage escalates [today] when a federal appeals court reviews the first in a string of unanimous judicial rulings that state bans on gay marriage cannot stand in the wake of last summer’s Supreme Court action.

 

As Barnes announces today, “a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver will be considering Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage.” You’ll recall that that was stricken in December of last year by a federal district court judge in Salt Lake City. So let’s review the situation. The Windsor Decision handed down by the US Supreme Court last June invalidated the federal Defense of Marriage Act. That set the precedent, as Justice Scalia said in a scathing dissent, for the fact that it basically invited challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage. Ever since the Windsor Decision was handed down last June, every single state or federal court decision on this issue has been in favor of the legalization of same-sex marriage and of the unconstitutionality of the state bans on same-sex marriage. Now we’re going to have these cases arrive at the various US courts of appeal in the various circuits. The 10th Circuit appears to be first. So the case being argued before the 10th Circuit today is from Utah; next Thursday, it will be from Oklahoma. But that just begins the process. Robert Barnes is exactly right. There are so many states and federal courts that are now involved that there will be several circuits at the appellate level that will also be involved and that sets up the inevitable likelihood that it will be soon that the US Supreme Court will be taking up the question of same-sex marriage again.

 

But The Washington Post also reports—and it’s the same reporter, by the way, Robert Barnes—that the lawyers who were successful in overturning California’s ban on same-sex marriage (that was Proposition 8) at the Supreme Court last summer, that is Republican lawyer Theodore Olson and Democratic lawyer David Boise, are targeting the state of Virginia as the state of origin, at least they hope the state of origin, for the eventual case that gets to the United States Supreme Court. And this gets to a very important moral issue that is disguised as a legal issue. Legally, the lawyer say, that Virginia is an attractive target—Olson speaking here—because it’s rejection of same-sex marriage and civil unions is so complete. He says, “The more unfairly people are being treated, the more obvious it is that it is unconstitutional.” Well, let the lawyers debate the law, but from a moral perspective, what this points out is often how these cases arrive not only before the nation’s courts, but before the court of public opinion. The attempt, in terms of this social revolution, this great moral change that is taking place around us, the attempt is to consistently place those who desire to be married in so-called same-sex marriages as being discriminated against and oppressed, and, therefore, the state that is clearest on the issue of marriage is the state that according to these plaintiff lawyers is the state that is most discriminatory, where, as Olson says, the harm against his clients is more obvious in such a way that it proves the supposed unconstitutionality of a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage.

 

So what we have here is very interesting from a Christian worldview perspective. What we have, in terms of the law, are attorneys who are shopping the various states to find the case that on the political grounds appears to be the most attractive to them, and, in that case, it appears to be Virginia. But the reason why Virginia’s chosen is because the Virginia constitutional amendment is so clear, which, in other words, means that the state that might be in the best position, from a legal defense, is the state that is least clear. That’s interesting on its face.

 

The likelihood that these cases will soon arrive before the Supreme Court was also recognized by those who brought the case against DOMA, and the lawyer for Edith Windsor in that case, Roberta Kaplan, said, “This just takes it one step closer to the Supreme Court, which will likely decide the matter for the entire country.” So what kind of schedule are we looking at there? Well, in all likelihood, the Supreme Court will take that case in its next year, that is, sometime in 2015, and, in all likelihood, the case will be settled, the decision handed down, before the court takes its summer recess in 2015. The reason for that is the fact that these cases are coming was such a velocity that, frankly, surprising observers on both sides of the political spectrum, that the court is going to be in the position of being unable to allow conflicting lower court decisions to stand for any appreciable amount of time because the public cannot take that kind of tension within the country, and without a stable legal precedent, this will lead to chaos across the courts. One of the things the Supreme Court almost surely does not want to do is to invite a tidal wave of litigation that it will eventually have to settle. In all likelihood, in other words, the path of least resistance for the United States Supreme Court is to do exactly what Justice Antonin Scalia said it was doing as a half measure back in 2013, and that was federalizing the legalization of same-sex marriage. As Justice Scalia said then, all that remains is for the other shoe to drop. And as these cases are now making their way up to the federal court level, what you can hear is the approaching drop of that shoe even sooner than either side in this debate thought possible just a matter of months ago.

 

Speaking of moral change, that’s one of the most interesting things from a Christian worldview perspective. The question: How is it that a society or a culture undergoes this kind of moral change? Sociologists, historians, theologians, and others, observing a society, note that on various issues moral change takes place. In some cases, it moves in a basically more conservative direction, but generally in a more liberal direction. Just to give an example of that; in a more conservative direction, that is, towards a restraint on personal behavior, the issue of drunk driving is a very different moral issue now than it was just 30 or 40 years ago. Just think of American primetime television when you had friendly drunks such as Otis on “The Andy Griffith Show.” That would be impossible now because society is settled on the fact that there must be a restraint on personal behavior when it comes to drunk driving. So from a moral perspective, that is a move in a more conservative direction, but on most issues, the direction has been the opposite, in more liberal direction against any legal restraints on personal behavior, especially as this relates to romantic relationships and the issue of human sexuality.

 

But now Matt Grossman, writing The Washington Post, offers a headline, “US Policy Has Gone Liberals’ Way for 70 Years.” Grossman’s a political scientist at Michigan State University. He’s the author of the work, Artist of the Possible: Governing Network and American Policy Change Since 1945. He’s looking at the major direction of moral and political change in America over the last century. He says that for at least the last 70 years, it is liberalism that has been in the ascendancy. From a worldview perspective, that’s a very significant because, as we remarked over and over again, one of the things to watch is the fact that changes in individual lives and especially in living relationships, changes that specifically relate to the family, always relate also to government. It’s not a one-to-one equation, but it is a correlation that is very easy to track. The massive growth in the government has come at the same time that there has been a displacement of the family. As sociologists Peter and Brigitte Berger noted several decades ago, the marginalization of the family and the taking over of so many family responsibilities by other agents, especially agents on behalf of the state, this has led to a massive growth in the size of the government. Coming back to Matt Grossman’s article, he argues that over the last 70 years, every major legislative or executive change has come in the direction of a larger government, in the direction of political liberalism. He writes:

 

I combed through hundreds of history books covering American public policy since 1945, tracking the most significant domestic policy changes that made it into law and the actors that historians credit for those changes. Of the 509 most significant domestic policies passed by Congress, only one in five were conservative, in that they contracted the scope of government funding, regulation, or responsibility. More than 60% were liberal. They clearly expanded government. When policy change occurs in the executive branch, it is even less likely to be conservative; only 10% of the executive orders and agency rules that policy historians cited were conservative.

 

Now this is where, from a Christian worldview perspective, there is something very important to watch, and it’s something that you don’t have to have the Christian worldview to observe. Even political scientists, who operate out of a basically secular worldview, have noted the very same thing. Government tends to take care of itself. It tends to feed on itself and to protect itself in such a way that even those who are elected on an agenda of shrinking the government, basically accomplished very little other than perhaps shrinking the size and rate of the growth of the government. In other words, the government never has contracted, not in the last 70 years. Every single movement has been a movement towards expansion, not one actually towards contraction. As Grossman writes, “Not surprisingly, liberals play a greater role in bringing about new policy.” And, yet, as he also relates, those who are identified as conservatives often also bring about policies that lead to the expansion of government. For example, it was Richard Nixon, the Republican president from 1969 to 1974, who led to a massive expansion of government, even as he claimed to be speaking for the so-called silent majority that wanted government to be limited. On the other hand, Ronald Reagan, who was elected in 1980 with the stated goal of eliminating the Department of Education, basically supervised the expansion of the federal government and of the Department of Education. Now, arguably, indeed in fact, it’s almost certain that under Ronald Reagan, the government expanded at a much smaller rate than it would have under either of his Democratic opponents, but Grossman’s point is this: the government has never basically contracted. Over the last 70 years, it has continually expanded, and almost every policy initiative has led to a rather significant expansion of the government.

 

But from a worldview perspective, the most important part of his essay is this paragraph:

 

The arc of the policy universe is long, but it bends toward liberalism. Conservatives can slow the growth of government but an enduring shift in policy direction would be unprecedented. History shows that a do-nothing Congress is a conservative’s best-case scenario.

 

That’s a very interesting analysis. The background of this is the political debate over the current Congress, and many people are complaining that the current Congress should be limited and criticized as a do-nothing Congress. Grossman comes along as a political scientist to say, “If you’re a conservative, a do-nothing Congress is about the best you can hope for.” But the main point of my interest is his previous sentence: “The arc of policy universe is long, but it bends towards liberalism.” That’s a paraphrase of a famous statement by Martin Luther King, Jr., who said that the arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice. Grossman, taking the same logic, says that it bends towards liberalism. His main point is about liberalism as defined by the expansion of government, and that is itself interesting. But my point is this: where you find the expansion of government, you find the contraction of private life.

 

Peggy Noonan wrote about this recently in a very important article in The Wall Street Journal. Over the last half-century, there has been a massive expansion of public life at the expense of private life. The amount of experience that is now lived out in the public life under the domain and scrutiny of government is now larger than ever before; that lived within the domain of the merely private is smaller than at any point in American history. But from a worldview perspective, Christians have to think about this at an even deeper level. And that is, that a basic moral change is required for this kind of political change. This kind of political change does not drive the moral change, although it may accelerate it. This kind of political change is only possible because of a previous moral change. This is something that’s very important to the Christian worldview. The Christian worldview understands that the politics is produced by the culture, not the other way around. The Christian worldview based in Scripture understands that it is the people who produce the politics, not the politics the people. In other words, whom do we blame in this situation? We can only blame the American people. It is the American people who, after all, elect their representatives and leaders. It is the American people who define the limitations of the possible when it comes to politics. The very fact that the things we’re talking about here are rendered possible, indeed, even actual, by the American government is evidence of the fact that a moral shift is taking place in the American people. That’s where the problem really lies and that shows us the scale of the problem that we face.

 

Yesterday, we talked about several social science reports indicating the disparity between men and women, including the claim made by President Obama that women earn only $.77 for every dollar earned by a man, and we pointed out that the distinction really isn’t between men and women when you look at the data; it’s between moms and everyone else. But moms are back in the news today. The Pew Research Organization has put out a major study, indicating that for the first time in many decades the percentage of mothers who stay home with their children has risen. As Laura Meckler reports for The Wall Street Journal, after decades of decline, the share of mothers who stay home with their children has risen over the past dozen years and that means that in 2012, 29% of mothers with children under age 18 stayed home. If the mother is married, it’s even more likely that she would stay home. Pew attributed the trend to a mix of demographic, economic, and societal factors, including an increase in immigrant families for whom it is now more common to have a mother stay home, a rise in the number of women who said they were disabled and unable to work, but that’s only about 15% all that together. The other 85%, the vast majority of married, stay-at-home mothers, say they chose not to work outside the home in order to care for their families. That’s a very important statement, and from the Christian worldview, that gets right to the heart of the issue.

 

And the response to this report is extremely revealing. Slate.com and many who are commenting in the news have pointed out that this is by their estimation a lamentable development. In other words, it’s a sad thing that the number of women staying home with their children has now increased after decades of decreasing. There’s a very important analysis to be seen here. What we have in response to this research is either a sense of celebration that something good is happening here or a sense of loss that something tragic is happening here. And that reveals a basic fault line in our society between those who believe that the ideal should be that there would be a parent at home with the children—and that would mean in most cases a mom at home with the children, and for reasons that are not only sociological, but also biblical—and those on the other side who think that the equality of women can only happen if motherhood is not an impediment to women being absolutely equal to men in the marketplace. That basic dividing line may be as clear as a moral dividing line on any issue in America today. And when you look at issues in the culture, ranging from abortion and sexuality to the nature the family, when you get down to this report from Pew, you’re actually down to where people have to admit, I think this is good or I think this is bad; I think this is a positive development or I think this is negative. And in terms of worldview significance, it’s hard to come up with anything more basic or important than the response to this data.

 

From a Christian worldview perspective, it is a good thing that there are more mothers at home with their children, but there’s even better news here. It is even a far better thing that 85% of women who are at home with their children, of married women, say it is because they want to be there. That may be the thing that infuriates the cultural left more than anything else because 85% say they are not trapped there, they want to be there, and if 85% of the married moms who are at home with their children say they are there because they want to be there, that tells us something that is more important than any political response to the data. It tells us that there is something in these moms that makes them want to be at home with their children, and it also tells us that many of those other mothers in the workplace probably also want to be at home with their children. And that also tells us something important; in terms of who is trapped where, that’s a very interesting question. Are the women trapped in the workplace and would rather be home with their children? Or are they trapped at home and they’d rather be in the workplace? There are certainly women on both sides of that equation, but the very fact that this report came out with such a stunning countercultural message, that tells us that the family isn’t dead and that motherhood is still a very live factor, even as it surprises those who produce the data.

 

Finally, just days after Brendan Eich was forced out as the CEO of Mozilla, because back in 2008 he had given a $1,000 contribution to the Proposition 8 drive in California, Kirsten Powers reports in yesterday’s edition of USA Today that Kickstarter, that is the funding organization on the Internet for businesses, had turned down a movie about the crimes of abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Kirsten Powers reports:

 

After [the producers of the film] complained publicly, embarrassed Kickstarter CEO Yancey Strickler claimed on Twitter that the allegation [that Kickstarter had rejected the movie] was false. Strickler released an e-mail accepting the Gosnell film, but failed to mention that it was accepted only after the filmmakers withdrew in frustration.

 

In other words, it was all falsehood.

 

The producers released e-mails from Kickstarter demanding that references to stabbing babies and “similar language” be removed. The “acceptance letter” came March 28, the day after the producers withdrew their proposal.

 

Let’s just review this case. Kermit Gosnell was an abortion doctor in Philadelphia. He was found guilty of multiple counts of murder for infanticide, for killing live babies, and for various crimes that even the abortion rights industry had to condemn. He is not merely the alleged perpetuator of these crimes; he is a convicted criminal who avoided the death penalty by accepting life in prison without an opportunity of parole. And, yet, Kickstarter would accept the film only after demanding that references to stabbing babies, which the court determined actually took place, and similar language be removed. What’s really alarming is what Kirsten Powers reports next:

 

Kickstarter explained its reasoning for blocking the movie by writing, “We understand your convictions … however … our Community Guidelines outline that we encourage and enforce a culture of respect and consideration, and we ask that that language specifically be modified.”

 

So why are we talking about this? Well as Kirsten Powers makes clear, Kickstarter evidently has a rather eccentric way of applying that set of standards. For instance, they feature an album entitled, “Incest is the Highest Form of Flattery,” and others that I will not even mention on The Briefing. In other words, what you have here is the specific, intentional targeting of a movie showing the crimes of an abortionist, and doing so while Kickstarter claims it’s because of the aesthetic and moral guidelines of their site. And yet, it’s clear that it was targeted directly at the fact that this would put the abortion industry in a very bad light.

 

So what Kirsten Powers reports is that Kickstarter rejected the film because it would put the abortion industry in a bad light, but what her report in USA Today accomplishes is to put Kickstarter in a bad light. What we also see here is exactly what Kirsten Powers suggests; that what we saw with Brendan Eich last week and what we see with Kickstarter this week indicates that there is a closing of the public space for any honest conversation about same-sex marriage, homosexuality, or now even abortion. Evidence coming in yesterday’s edition of USA Today; it will not be the last.

 

Thanks for listening to The Briefing. Remember Ask Anything: Weekend Edition. Call us with your question in your voice to 877-505-2058. That’s 877-505-2058. For more information, go to my website at albertmohler.com. You can follow me on Twitter by going to twitter.com/albertmohler. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu. For information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com. Remember this is the last day of the national conference of Together for the Gospel. You can watch the sessions at live.t4g.org. I’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.

The Briefing 04-10-14

Podcast Transcript

1) Multiple same-sex marriage cases in Federal Courts, racing toward Supreme Court

Same-sex marriage battle escalates to force Supreme Court decision on constitutionality, Washington Post (Robert Barnes)

2) Moral change required before political change: Government has “gone liberals’ way” for 70 years

U.S. policy has gone liberals’ way for 70 years, Washington Post (Matt Grossman)

3) As number of stay-at-home moms rises, media response reveals worldview

After Decades of Decline, A Rise in Stay-at-Home Mothers, Pew Research Centerk (D’Vera Cohn, Gretchen Livingston and Wendy Wang)

More Moms Staying Home, Reversing Decadeslong Decline, Wall Street Journal (Laura Meckler)

The Number of Stay-at-Home Moms Is Rising. These Are the Women We Ignore, Slate.com (Jessica Grose)

4) Kickstarter rejects Gosnell documentary

Liberals’ mob rule, USA Today (Kirsten Powers)

Transcript: The Briefing 04-09-14

The Briefing

 

 April 9, 2014

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

 

It’s Wednesday, April 9, 2014. I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

 

Yesterday, President Obama waded into controversy, a controversy of his own making. He returned to a theme he first raised in the State of the Union Address earlier this year in which he claimed then and yesterday that women earn only $.77 for every dollar that a man earns. The president returned to this issue as he was announcing a policy by his administration that would put strictures on federal contractors in order to alleviate this pay disparity. But as Michael Shear and Annie Lowrey of The New York Times report, critics of the administration were quick to turn the tables on the president and note that Mr. Obama’s White House fairs only slightly better than the very national averages he cited. A study released in January of this year showed that female White House staff members earn an average of $.88 for every dollar a male staff member earns. But this gets right to the heart of the issue. Recently, former President Jimmy Carter used the same statistic, and yesterday, the president went back where he had gone before, but the statistic that women earn only $.77 for every dollar that a man earns neglects the fact that those statistics do not take into consideration marital status, time in the job, levels of education, and the fact that men, far more likely than women, are likely to negotiate their salaries.

 

This is an issue also addressed yesterday at CNN.com. Katie Packer Gage writes:

 

Equal pay for equal work. Sounds pretty simple, right? We all agree that a woman doing the same job as a man should not be paid less just because she’s a woman.

 

Democrats consistently ignore data from neutral sources that indicates that when you actually compare men and women with the same background and education doing the same job, equality of pay has been largely achieved. PayScale, a compensation data company, has shown that in careers from software developer to nursing to construction project manager to human resources administrator, women are within 1% to 4% of men in terms of pay equity.

 

Similarly, Mark J. Perry and Andrew G. Biggs, writing for The Wall Street Journal, report this:

 

The supposed pay gap appears when marriage and children enter the picture. Child care takes mothers out of the labor market, so when they return they have less work experience than similarly-aged males. Many working mothers seek jobs that provide greater flexibility, such as telecommuting or flexible hours. Not all jobs can be flexible, and all other things being equal, those which are will pay less than those that do not.

 

Now this gets right to the heart of the issue: much of this is simply propaganda, a false issue. When you’re looking at the claim that women earn $.77 for every one dollar a man earns, that doesn’t take into consideration the fact that women often prefer the jobs that actually pay less, that offered things that are important to them, in terms of their lives not only as women, but potentially also as wives and mothers. And that is the big issue. As is so often the case, it is the issue of motherhood that is the defining dividing line in this kind of controversy because women who are not mothers, who continue in the workplace on the same schedule as men, tend to earn as much as men. It is women who leave the workplace and then re-enter the workplace or re-enter the workplace and negotiate a more flexible work pattern that really are in the position of earning significantly less than men. And when you ask Americans what’s fair, if you asked them, “Should women be paid as much as men for the same job?” the answer immediately comes down to yes, but if you take gender out of the equation and ask Americans, “Do you believe that people should be paid differently due to work experience, length of tenure on the job, willingness to work long hours, and etc.?” then the vast majority of Americans say that it is fair to pay those people differently. But what we have here is a case in which the issue of gender really isn’t the operational issue; it’s the issue of motherhood. And that gets to one of the biggest problems in our modern society. Just how should we recognize motherhood in terms of our national policies whether it’s related to wages paid to employees or insurance or any other number of issues in the society at large?

 

Another very interesting study came out just recently in terms of time management. And as it turns out, Americans now have more leisure time than ever before or at least more time under their individual control, except for one category, and that is mothers. If you look at it simply in terms of gender, men report far more time, in terms of their leisure and in terms of their self-determination, than do women, but if you take out the issue of gender and just asked about mothers, it turns out that the women who are not mothers have just about as much leisure time and flexibility as men. It’s the mothers who are bearing the primary responsibility and it is they who find their time especially crunched. In other words, motherhood turns out to be such a definitional issue that it separates women from other women when it comes to wages, job experience, job expectations, in terms of flexibility and tenure on the job, and other very related issues. It also has to do with the fact that mothers—not just women, but specifically mothers—are those that have the highest demands made on them in terms of the entire society. If you line up the entire society, all the vocational categories, all the gender equations, and everything else you can imagine, recent studies indicate that this singular issue that defines the difference is motherhood. That is a huge insight, and from a Christian worldview perspective, it certainly points to the centrality of motherhood, in terms of our understanding of the operation of the family, of the raising of children, of the care for the entire family, because, after all, motherhood and the role of the woman in the family, this is not related only to the care of children, but also disproportionately to the care of aged adults and others as well. And what we’re looking at here is a very clear, general-revelation affirmation of the importance of motherhood. And when it comes to these economic issues, such as the one addressed by the president yesterday, the reality is that this is bigger than any government can address. Governments simply cannot compensate adequately for motherhood. The contributions of mothers and the burdens placed upon them go far beyond anything any government can alleviate. What we’re looking at here is the fact that we come to the basic Christian principle that where the family is strong, government can be weak, but where the family is weak, government will always be strong. And in the case of this issue raised by the president yesterday, this is going to lead to a very, very interesting political debate, and what needs to happen more than anything else is a bit of honesty and clarification injected into this national controversy. We’re not really talking about men and women. We’re talking about mothers and everyone else. If that issue gets clarified, it will clarify more than employment data and salary statistics. It will clarify to a significant extent why the family is so important and why God gave the institutions of marriage and family to all of His human creatures and why mothers in every civilization throughout all of time bear the primary responsibility that no one else can or will bear.

 

And speaking of motherhood, a very interesting testimony again to the power of family, parenting, and motherhood comes from Ginia Bellafante, writing in the Big City column in The New York Times. Here’s the headline from Sunday’s paper: “The Time to Start Education Isn’t Prekindergarten; It’s Birth.” Very interesting debate that is now dividing those on the cultural left. As you know, Bill de Blasio, who is the new mayor of New York City, has put a premium on pre-K education, and he has won, through the state of New York, tens of millions of dollars to begin investing in a radical expansion of pre-K education for the citizens of New York City. The argument that the mayor is using is this: children need to get into schools earlier than ever before in order to get a head start, so that they do not fall behind their peers in school. But here’s the problem. It turns out that the big issue is not the neighborhood the child lives in nor the socioeconomic bracket the child comes from, but rather the biggest indicator of whether the child is going to do well in school is how many words that child hears in terms of active conversation in the household. And that’s why the headline reads, “The Time to Start Education Isn’t Prekindergarten; It’s Birth.”

 

Time and again, recent research has demonstrated that children learn verbal ability—and that translates almost immediately into reading ability—as they are engaged in conversation by adults, but not just conversation, even active listening. And as it turns out, children do not learn the same kinds of skills from listing to voices on digital devices or in the electronic media. Listening to the television is not the same thing. The most remarkable growth happens when the child is engaged in conversation, especially when the child is drawn into the conversation with an adult, hearing an adult use adult words and talk, well, with the thousands of words that can happen in a very healthy conversation.

 

The disparity in terms of the number of words heard by some children as compared to those heard by others can be a disparity in the millions of words before the child reaches school age. And now you have people on both the left and the right who are beginning to say we need to pay more attention to how we can get more words spoken by more adults into the lives of these children. But that’s where the issue of the family arises unavoidably because it is only in the context of the family, and especially when you have adult parents in the homes with the children, that the children are going to have the benefit of this kind of very vocal parenting. And it also points out that where you have a single-parent, you have a radical reduction in the total number of words that a child will hear; a very odd and perhaps unexpected affirmation of the importance of the two-parent family.

 

But as Ginia Bellafante reports, there’s now a division among social liberals, political liberals, as to how we should interpret this kind of research because there is the concern that this will mean that people will now begin judging parents on the basis of how many words their children hear. Well, let’s just point to the obvious. If we now know that this volume of words makes such a remarkable difference, there is going to be a judgment made about the relative number of words that one child hears as over against another. As she writes:

 

There has been a squeamishness on the left to create sweeping policy out of the kind of intimate intervention implied, a fear of the judgment and condescension ferried in exporting the habits of West End Avenue to Central Brooklyn or the South Bronx. No one wants to live in a world in which social workers are marching through apartments mandating the use of colorful, laminated place mats emblazoned with pictures of tiny kangaroos and the periodic table.

 

In other words, the kinds of things that parents do with many of these children who are getting a leg up, in terms of the educational experience, in terms of what they received before they ever get to school. But this is where Ginia Bellafante is onto a huge issue that all who are concerned with the Christian worldview should pay attention to, and that is this: the government, when it decides there is a problem, decides that the government should solve the problem. And if the government decides that problem is that these children aren’t receiving enough intellectual stimulation in their homes, then there’s nothing to stop the government from mandating that there needs to be more intellectual stimulation in the home. That is leading even some on the left to worry about an army of social workers going into the homes of rather impoverished and underprivileged New York families and saying this child is endangered because the child is not receiving enough words.

 

From a Christian worldview perspective, it is certainly our hope that all children will flourish and that we should do everything as a community to help every single child flourish, but the reality is this research, pointing to the number of words a child hears from an adult, points to the importance of the two-parent family, of the importance of the intact family, of the importance of having parents in the home with the children, not the children raised in institutional settings, and so it’s very interesting that the new development on the left is going to be how in the world to handle this data. Does it point to the fact that there should be a new realization of the importance of the family and of parents being home with their children? Or, on the other hand, does it point to some liberals that the understanding of the state’s going to have to do even more than they imagined? The bad news for those is that the state is incompetent to do that. The bad news for all of us is that the state might try.

 

Finally, an article dealing with an issue that hits directly close to home. Lisa Cornwell reporting for the Associated Press in an article that ran late last week; the headline is “Catholic Teacher Restrictions Are Questioned.” As Cornwell reports:

 

The doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is so complex the Archdiocese of Cincinnati is giving teachers a cheat sheet on some of the things that can get them fired.

 

A new contract proposal from the diocese specifies some violations of Catholic doctrine that could put teachers out of a job — including abortion, artificial insemination and “homosexual lifestyles” — and extends forbidden behavior to include public support for those kinds of causes, drawing some complaints that the language is overly broad and a cynical attempt to make it harder for wrongfully terminated teachers to sue.

 

Well, this article is about the Roman Catholic Church, but the issue is hardly only about the Roman Catholic Church. This gets to the right of any church or, for that matter, synagogue or mosque to define the terms of its own employment and the employment for those who will teach in its schools associated with the mosque, with the synagogue, or with the church. This is an article that hits just as close to home for evangelical schools and churches as to the Roman Catholic Church and its dioceses and schools. The article by Lisa Cornwell insinuates that there is something unfair and unseemly, cynical even, about a diocese stipulating the kind of things that can get a person fired, in terms of the violation of Catholic teachings. But that gets right to the point because, as a matter fact, the diocese is doing this because it has become legally necessary to specify what things can get one fired. Increasingly, there is a rebellion within the Roman Catholic Church by even some who would teach within official Roman Catholic schools against the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church holds the right to terminate those who will teach something that is contrary to the official doctrine and teaching of the church. That should be unsurprising, but some of those who have been terminated charge that they were terminated without any clear grounds for the termination. That’s why the diocese has decided to give a very clear set of indications of exactly what can get one fired working for the schools of that diocese.

 

The article in the Associated Press indicates just how infuriating that is to some on the cultural left, who simply cannot imagine that having demanded specificity, it’s fair to give it to them, but that’s exactly what the diocese is doing. The diocese received demands that it specify what things can get a teacher fired, and then it gave those specifications, and then those, who hold jobs within the diocese or are observing the controversy, responded that it’s unfair, totalitarian, and oppressive for the church to give such specifics. This is where evangelical Christians have to say with a clear set of understanding that we know the hymnbook from which this song is sung. This is exactly the same kind of pattern faced by evangelical institutions, evangelical churches and denominations. The reality is that if you hold to the certain specific doctrines and teachings and if you expect those who will teach within your schools to affirm and agree with those teachings and not to teach contrary to them, you’ll find yourselves in hot water with the model of academic freedom and individual autonomy that is now prized in the high worship of the church of the left. The church of the left simply cannot abide the fact that there will be doctrinal requirements for teaching, and, as a matter fact, even though the left has its own orthodoxies, they’re the orthodoxies that it will never admit operate the same way as the doctrinal requirements of a church.

 

A spokesman for the diocese in Cincinnati said that the new contract “simply requires that if you are going to represent the Catholic Church as a teacher, you are not going to publicly oppose the teachings of the Catholic Church.” Now I simply have to ask the obvious question: in what possible world would that be controversial? In what possible set of understandings would that be surprising? In other words, we’re now living in a time in which the world is turned upside down; when it is treated as unfair that a Roman Catholic Church would expect a Roman Catholic teacher to teach Roman Catholic teachings in a Roman Catholic school. But the same thing holds on the evangelical side where there are those who seem to be absolutely amazing and shocked, indeed outraged, that an evangelical church would expect those who teach in an evangelical school to teach the evangelical doctrines held clearly by that evangelical church. That’s exactly why the founders of the school I lead, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote an original confession of faith in 1859 that stands still today that states that every professor is to teach in accordance with and not contrary to all that is contained therein. The founder of the school, James Pettigrew Boyce, added “without equivocation or mental reservation;” in other words, without any crossing of the fingers.

 

In an age that has adopted a radical view of personal autonomy and a radical suspicion of any kind of doctrinal accountability, in an age in which many people have adopted a relativistic understanding of truth, in an age in which people think they’re simply owed a job, you now have the reality that the decision made by the diocese of Cincinnati is treated as a radical proposition. Going back to Lisa Cornwell’s article, she writes that last year a federal jury found that the Cincinnati archdiocese had discriminated against a teacher fired for violating Catholic doctrine when she became pregnant through artificial insemination, and the jury awarded her $171,000. The following sentence is absolutely crucial: “The teacher said she didn’t know artificial insemination violated Catholic doctrine.” Now you’ll forgive me for suggesting that a teacher in a Catholic school who doesn’t know that the Catholic Church teaches against artificial insemination may be in the position in which the teacher’s competence needs to be questioned or honesty, not just the knowledge of the issue. How in the world can anyone not know that the Roman Catholic Church teaches against the use of artificial insemination, but let’s just skip over that for a moment. Notice that it is in response to that jury decision in that federal court trial, in response to the teacher who said, “I didn’t know that that was against the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church,” it’s in response to that that the Roman Catholic diocese said, “Okay, we want everyone to know exactly what the teachings are and exactly the positions that we expect to be held.” And now there are those who criticize saying that’s oppressive and that’s unfair. Well that’s the world we live in; a world in which it seems to be absolutely controversial and shocking to people that a Catholic institution intends to remain Catholic. From the evangelical Christian perspective, here’s the issue. We need to understand clearly that if we do not state very clearly and expect absolutely that those who teach within our institutions will uphold very clear standards of articulated doctrine, then we should not be surprised that evangelical institutions remain evangelical for a very short time. Again, that’s the world we live in, and as this story in the Associated Press makes clear, if we do specify what we believe and what we expect, expect to be criticized for being clear.

 

Thanks for listening to The Briefing. Remember Ask Anything: Weekend Edition. Call with your question in your voice to 877-505-2058. That’s 877-505-2058. For more information, go to my website at albertmohler.com. You can follow me on Twitter by going to twitter.com/albertmohler. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu. For information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com. Let me remind you that I’m speaking this week at Together for the Gospel, along with many other friends and several thousands who have come to join with us. You can watch the sessions at live.t4g.org. I’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.

The Briefing 04-09-14

Podcast Transcript

1) In pay disparity, gender isn’t operational issue – it’s motherhood

As Obama Spotlights Gender Gap in Wages, His Own Payroll Draws Scrutiny, New York Times (Michael Shear and Annie Lowrey)

Equal pay or opportunity for outrage?, CNN (Katie Packer Gage)

The ’77 Cents on the Dollar’ Myth About Women’s Pay, Wall Street Journal (Mark J. Perry And Andrew G. Biggs)

2) Education begins in home at birth, not in government institutions through Pre-K programs

Books, and Compassion, From Birth, New York Times (Ginia Bellafante)

3) Religious institutions setting standards of termination now “unfair and oppressive”

Catholic teacher contract gets exact on behavior, Associated Press (Lisa Cornwell)

Transcript: The Briefing 04-08-14

The Briefing

 

 April 8, 2014

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

 

It’s Tuesday, April 8, 2014. I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

 

“Never again.” Those were the words spoken by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon as he spoke to somber and weeping Rwandans yesterday as the world commemorated the 20th anniversary of the start of the genocide there that led to the deaths of about 800,000 people in a period spanning several months. This was the situation in which the ethnic Hutu majority massacred the Tutsi minority, and what we’re looking at here is one of the most dark moments in recent world history. What is described rightfully as a genocide in which on ethnic bases alone about 800,000 human beings were eliminated in the most brutal massacres imaginable, and all this took place while the world watched. Twenty years ago means that this was after the world had the opportunity, by means of pervasive media, to know even by receiving images as well as first-hand reports that the genocide was taking place, and yet it went on and it went on and it went on.

 

The Secretary-General of the United Nations was speaking at a large assembly of Rwandans in the nation’s capital gathered to mark this 20th anniversary, and he said, “We must not be left to utter the words “never again” again and again.” But, of course, there was controversy in the fact that it was the Secretary-General of the United Nations who was speaking to this assembly, since it was the United Nations collectively that did not respond in any timely way that led to the eventual massacre of 800,000 people. And so there was enormous tension and moral consequence to the fact that the United Nations general secretary was saying this, but there was also tremendous irony in the fact that the UN Secretary-General offered those words, “We must not say the words ‘never again’ again and again,” when just two days before, standing in the Central African Republic on Saturday of the preceding week, this is what the Secretary-General had to say. He said, “We must not say never again. The international community failed the people Rwanda twenty years ago and we are at risk of not doing enough for the people of the CAR [that’s the Central African Republic] today.”

 

International aid groups, according to the Associated Press, have criticized the UN response to the crisis, though Ban Ki-moon himself has spoken forcefully about the need to protect civilians in the Central African Republic, where at one point earlier this year, Muslims were being killed by Christian mobs in the streets on a near daily basis. Speaking of his responsibility and the responsibility of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon said, “The world agreed on our collective responsibility to protect a population when the state is unwilling or unable to do that basic job. The people of CAR shouldn’t have to run and die while the world decides whether to keep its promises. You have waited long enough.” But the whole point here is that they wait still. The Secretary-General of the United Nations made this statement and the nation still waits. In other words, he can’t deliver on his promises. The United Nations can’t deliver on its promises. It is understandable, but nonetheless still astounding, that the Secretary-General of the United Nations would speak in the Central African Republic while these things are still going on and say, “The world agreed on our collective responsibility to protect the population when the state is unwilling or unable to do that basic job.” Because even as he was saying those things, it is abundantly clear that the United Nations is also not up to that job.

 

I’m not arguing that the United Nations should not attempt to make a difference. I’m not suggesting that everything the United Nations does is wrong. I am suggesting that everything it does is insufficient, and I am arguing that what we have here is a picture as is described in the Old Testament of the nations of the earth conspiring and making agreements and yet being unable to maintain the agreements that they’ve made and unable even to resolve themselves to act on the principles they have adopted. What we’re looking at here is the bear human fact that when evil comes out in the kind of enormity and the force that it came out in Rwanda, international organizations are largely helpless to stop it. Because one of the facts of human existence after the fall is that eventually you can’t keep people from harming each other if they are intent on doing so.

 

And yet this is a situation of tremendous moral complexity. In yesterday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Paul Kagame, the current president of Rwanda, blames at least part of the background, in terms of this ethnic genocide, on the nation of Belgium, arguing that it was Belgian colonialism that divided the country into Hutu and Tutsi ethnicities and divided people simply on that ethnic identification. And as Kagame makes this point, the Rwandan president certainly has some moral plausibility, but what this points to is the ambiguous nature of so much human moral behavior. Colonialism brought about many good things for the people of Africa, but it also brought about the kind of political and ethnic divisions that brought forth the genocide in Rwanda twenty years ago. But the Africans themselves bear direct responsibility for this. The people who are actively involved in the killing bear the most direct responsibility for this. And the other fact about human moral behavior that we clearly come to understand twenty years after the Rwandan genocide is that human evil is capable of coming out in the most murderous forms.

 

One of the most shocking things to the West is that something like this was possible and that international forces couldn’t stop it. But then how do we explain the 20th century—the Nazi regime and the genocide against millions of people, including mostly Jews—when the international community was also unable or at least unwilling to do anything to stop it then? The reality is we’re stuck in the same conversation. That’s because we’re stuck in the same fallen world after Genesis 3.

 

Before turning back to developments here in the United States, we have to talk about the beginning of this election season in India. It is the largest democratic election ever undertaken in the history of humanity. The numbers are simply staggering. India’s congressional election, which will determine the outcome in terms of the future government because as a parliamentary system it is the lower house of Congress that elects the Prime Minister, that Indian election is simply breaking every record you could imagine; an estimated 815 million voters. That’s right:  815 million voters. And they’re going to 935,000 polling places. All that to elect 543 states. So to elect 543 seats in Congress, 815 million voters are set to vote. They’re going to go to 935,000 different polling stations. It’s going to take weeks for this to take place and elephants are going to be necessary in order to convey poll workers to certain of these poll locations.

 

This is simply the kind of thing that defies the human imagination and it points to something very, very important. It points to the Democratic impulse on the hearts of the people of India that they are putting themselves through the trauma of an election that will take weeks and an enormous human organizational challenge that defies the imagination. And yet they’re going to do it. And they’re going to do it, furthermore, over against the fact that fully 30% of all the current members of the Indian Congress are under indictment or suspicion of charges for political corruption. In other words, they’re looking at a political system that is broken on its face; a political system in which corruption is increasingly the norm rather than the exception. And yet they are so determined to see this election take place and, in all likelihood, to topple the existing government that 815 million people are going to go to 935,000 polling places in order to cast one vote and that vote probably to topple the government. That’s how democracy works in India or we’ll see how it works. This is short, of course, of knowing how many hanging chads are going to be discovered in these Indian ballots, but it also points to something else. Recently we discussed the fact that an Oxford sociologist and historian pointed out that the Athenian democracy lasted about 250 years, the American Democratic experience has also lasted now about 250 years. There is no model, in terms of world history, of democracy living much longer than 250 years, and we also need to note that democracies generally have functioned best in fairly small electorates. When you’re talking about India, you’re not talking about a small electorate. This is stretching the definition of democracy and it will be a fascinating thing for all of us to watch as 815 million people go to the polls.

 

Coming back to the United States, we’ve been following this moral revolution closely and every day seems to bring a new development. Last Thursday, The Oregonian, the major newspaper in Portland, Oregon, told a story about a meat and vegetable store, fully organic and locally grown, that was to open in the neighborhood of Portland known as Sellwood Moreland, and yet controversy has ensued and it has ensued, as The Oregonian reports, because the woman—a woman by the name of Chauncy Childs, who is the owner of this new store yet to open—it’s been discovered that she holds the view that marriage should be the union of a man and a woman. As The Oregonian reports:

 

Another controversy has erupted over a Sellwood-Moreland business, this one over the owner’s views on gays and same-sex marriage.

 

Facebook and other social media sites have exploded over a soon-to-open fresh meat and vegetable store called Moreland Farmers Pantry. Neighbors and nearby business owners, once excited by the prospect of the new shop, are now backing away.

 

Then comes this quote. The quote comes from Tom Brown, the owner of Brown Properties and president of what’s identified as the Sellwood Moreland Business Alliance. You can’t miss what he had to say:

 

They’re choosing to open a business in a very open-minded neighborhood. I think their personal views are going to hurt.

 

In other words, this neighborhood, according to its prime spokesman, is so open-minded they can’t tolerate one business owner who doesn’t agree with them. This kind of open-mindedness, of course, is closed-mindedness in the guise of open-mindedness. The philosopher Herbert Marcus, writing about “free love” back in the middle of the 20th century, said that the only kind of tolerance that the new tolerance could accept is the kind of tolerance that accepts everyone except anyone who won’t tolerate everything. If you followed that, then you understand exactly what’s going on in Portland and you understand why the show “Portlandia” is located in Portland. In other words, they are so open-minded they can’t tolerate one person who disagrees with them on the issue of same-sex marriage.

 

Columnist Rod Dreher gets right to the point when he says, “Think about the paradox of a neighborhood so open-minded that it will not tolerate the presence of a businesswoman who privately holds negative views about same-sex marriage.” Rod Dreher is talking about the fact that in this community they say their values are open-mindedness and community and organic farming and locally-owned businesses, and yet, when a locally-owned business that is going to be selling organically-raised food and is held by someone who wants to be a part of the community, all of the sudden this is now the point in which the community says, “We are so open-minded we won’t accept you because you don’t agree with us.” And so, all of the sudden, a store that hasn’t even opened yet in a city that calls itself open-minded finds itself as the symbol of the closing of the American mind and the American heart on the issue of sexuality and same-sex marriage. And from Portland, Oregon, in the pages of its major newspaper, The Oregonian, comes testimony to the fact that evidently without irony the man said this statement and the newspaper published it without recognizing that their claiming to be so open-minded they can’t tolerate one person who disagrees with them. Welcome to America 2014.

 

Meanwhile, shifting to Australia, while trying to figure out some sanity in the midst of our contemporary confusion, we’re going to be challenged by this story that comes from Australia about a person who was born in Scotland and is now being recognized by the highest court in Australia not as male, not as female, but as “span-sexual;” sexuality: gender non-specified. As The Daily Record, published in Glasgow, Scotland, reports, “Norrie May-Welby, born a boy, had a sex change at 28, but now describes gender as span-sexual.” This person won a decision by the highest court in Australia after the register of births, deaths, and marriages in New South Wales refused to give this person a birth certificate with a sex listed as nonspecific. The 52-year-old now nonspecific person in Australia said, “I’m extremely excited. This is a marvelous victory. It’s a fantastic thing not just for one person, but for the huge team who worked towards this and all the people they did it for.” Of course, this raises a whole host of issues. What will we determine about gender? How will we identify ourselves when it comes to gender? Facebook recently decided that it would not require persons to identify as male or female. They didn’t come up with a third alternative; they came up with 50 different alternatives, and 50 will not be enough. Span-sexual is the term this individual wants us to use and yet there are no associated pronouns. The Glasgow newspaper has to continue using the male pronoun, and yet how do you refer to a span-sexual—neither he nor she, spee? We don’t know. In other words, this precedent by the Australian High Court means that every individual gets to determine his or her—now wait just a minute; we can’t even say just his or her—his or her or whatever designation in terms of gender, and this comes while even on the left, even among the sexual and gender revolutionaries, there is pushback in terms of persons wanting at least some definitions so that they can argue for the right to declare themselves by those definitions.

 

We now face a situation in which you have school districts in California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, saying that those who were born girls but declare themselves to be boys and those who were born boys but declare themselves to be girls are now able to say, “You must recognize me for the gender I say I am now, letting me use that locker room, that set of restrooms, and play on the athletic teams with the gender with which I identify now.” Are we now going to have span-sexual teams? What you do with this? The reality is no sane society can tolerate this. And even when you look at this story from Scotland about a court decision in Australia, it’s clear that there’s a certain form of sensationalism in this because this is one individual, this ruling can be written off as something of an eccentricity, except it can’t. It is sensationalism of one sort, but it’s sensationalism because it gets right to the basic social compact that makes social relationships possible. Do we know who we are? De we know with whom we are related? Do we know who we’re dealing with? Do we know how to recognize one another? How do we even address one another? What language do we use? The reality is that gender is so much a part of who we are because, as Christians know, we are made male and female by the Creator for His glory and for our good that even a newspaper that says we’re going to get beyond all of these sexuality and gender issues can’t do it because they can’t write a story without using those identifying markers.

 

You won’t be surprised to know that Julia Baird, an opinion writer for The New York Times, thinks this is a wonderful development that should be celebrated. She writes:

 

The “nonspecific” category is broad, mind-boggling and potentially hugely subversive in terms of the way we think about boys and girls, men and women, and our habit of dividing people into two distinct, gendered groups. Now it’s Adam, Eve — and Norrie.

 

Well that gets right to the point. What this really represents is a rebellion against the order of creation as God gave it to us and as it is revealed to us in the book of Genesis. Make no mistake; we know exactly what’s going on here. This is not just the quest of people who say I want to identify myself as who I am on my own terms—and, by the way, the Bible names that too—but what it is, is a direct, conscious rebellion against the order of creation. In other words, the fact that we are not now left with merely Adam and Eve, but Adam, Eve and Norrie—Norrie being unspecified, the span-sexual.

 

Oh, and Julia Baird’s not finished there because she points to a very interesting possibility. Australia does not yet have legal same-sex marriage, but this would not be—in the case of this individual who is now romantically engaged with a man—it would not be according to the decision of Australia’s highest court a same-sex marriage. In other words, it might be legal in Australia for a man to marry a span-sexual. I don’t know and perhaps they don’t yet know and the High Court of Australia might not have decided yet, but that’s the whole point, isn’t it? This is now being thrown out of the court of any rational consideration into the court of endless litigation and moral revolution, and that’s exactly what we have the latest evidence of from Australia.

 

Thanks for listening to The Briefing. Remember Ask Anything: Weekend Edition. Call with your question in your voice to 877-505-2058. That’s 877-505-2058. For more information, go to my website at albertmohler.com. You can follow me on Twitter by going to twitter.com/albertmohler. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu. For information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com. Over the next several days, I’ll be joined by several thousands in the movement known as Together for the Gospel, holding our convention right here in Louisville, Kentucky. Our conference is going to be live-streamed. In order to watch the sessions and listen to the teaching, just go to the World Wide Web at live.t4g.org. That’s live.t4g.org. I’ll also be speaking tomorrow at the conference held by the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. For more information, go to cbmw.org. I’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.

The Briefing 04-08-14

1)”Never Again” reflecting on Rwandan genocide 20 years after

20 years after the genocide, Rwanda is a beacon of hope, The Guardian (Tony Blair)

France Curtails Role at Genocide Services After Rwanda Leader Casts Blame, The New York Times (Alissa J Rubin and Maia de Baume)

Reflecting on Rwanda’s Past—While Looking Ahead, Wall Street Journal (Paul Kagame)

Rwandans Reflect On ‘Never Again’ 20 Years After Genocide, Associated Press

2) 815 million voters in India largest election in history of humanity

India to Kick Off World’s Biggest Election in Remote Northeast, Reuters (Shyamantha Asokan)

India Starts Voting in World’s Largest Election, USA Today (Associated Press)

3) Portland too “tolerant” to tolerate one individual with opposing views

Owner’s anti-gay views cause furor over soon-to-open Sellwood grocery store, The Oregonian (Harry Esteve)

4) The new Australian gender: “span-sexual”

Neither Female Nor Male, New York Times (Julia Baird)

Court declares Scotswoman born a man is now genderless, Herald Scotland (Staff)

Scot wins landmark legal battle to be recognised as neither male or female, Daily Record (Staff)