The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Friday, August 14, 2026

Episode Date: August 14, 2026

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.On today’s edition of The Briefing, Dr. Mohler discusses the University of Michigan’s ditching grades for freshman, Malaysia’s difficulty enforcing social media ban, the ethics of Trump’s escape plan from Turkey, if the story of Gideon is a biblical example of righteous deception, the increase of grandparents becoming caretakers of their grandchildren, and at what age a person will be resurrected.Part I (00:14 – 08:26)The University of Michigan To Ditch Grades for Entering Freshman: University Says It’s Attempting to Curb “Mental Health Crisis” Among Students – This is RidiculousMediocrity in Michigan by The Wall Street Journal (Matthew Continetti)Part II (08:26 – 10:23)The Ban Doesn’t Yet Ban: Even With a Legal Ban, Malaysia is Finding It Increasingly Difficult to Keep Children and Young People Off Social MediaMalaysia Was Confident in Its Social Media Ban, but Kids Are Still Logged In by The New York Times (Zunaira Saieed)Part III (10:23 – 16:55)Was It Ethical for President Trump to Leave the Press Corp On Presidential Jet As He Secretly Escaped Turkey on a Different Aircraft? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters From Listeners to The BriefingPart IV (16:55 – 17:26)Is the Story of Gideon a Biblical Example of Righteous Deception? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters From Listeners to The BriefingPart V (17:26 – 23:05)What About the Increase in Grandparents Who Become Caretakers of Their Grandchildren? Is This Unique to Contemporary Society? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters From Listeners to The BriefingPart VI (23:05 – 25:17)At What Age Will a Person Be Resurrected? Will It Be at Their Point of Death or At Another Point in Life? — Dr. Mohler Responds to a Letter From an 8-Year-Old Listener to The BriefingSign up to receive The Briefing in your inbox every weekday morning.Follow Dr. Mohler:X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.To write Dr. Mohler or submit a question for The Mailbox, go here.

It's Friday, August 14, 2006. I'm Albert Moller, and this is the briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. You know, back to school is the season right now, and that's true for kindergartners, elementary school students, you know, all the way up in terms of middle school and senior high school, also colleges and universities. Very interesting flurry of articles that comes out often in terms of what the back to school means and what's happening. on campuses. One of the most interesting articles that's come out in the midst of this back-to-school season is the fact that the University of Michigan faculty has made the announcement that they are anticipating offering freshmen in their first semester an option of masking grades. And it might actually be broadened to the entire class in terms of the opening semester. They're just not going to have letter grades. Now that raises a host of issues. Number one, I guess the question

would be why. And the answer comes out in that you have a spokesman for the university say, quote, we believe that covering grades will help students start strong and curb the mental health crisis unfolding among college age individuals, end quote. That's an official statement from the University of Michigan. Okay, let's just stipulate this. You may love the University of Michigan. You may hate the University of Michigan and athletics. I can guarantee you there are those on both sides. But when it comes to academic respect, the University of Michigan is a major American university. It's in the most prestigious list of America's most prominent state institutions, state universities. For the University of Michigan to do this is kind of unexpected precisely

because it is that one of those universities. You don't expect those universities to say we're just going to be concerned about freshmen in their opening semester. And so we're going to mask grades. Now, a couple of other observations immediately come. Number one, they haven't determined how in the world they're going to do this. In other words, you can simply say, well, we're just not going to have letter grades, but on the other hand, here's something I think everybody knows. Somebody somewhere is going to keep score. Even though it may not show up on a grade or a report card,

and the reason for that we'll talk about in just a moment. The reality is that they're going to have something. The school says that it will simply list classes as people, P for pass or NC for no credit on official transcripts, and as the Washington Post says, first semester grades won't be used to calculate grade point averages. Well, there are a couple problems with that, again, at least in terms of some of the people inside the situation, it's going to be very difficult not to have grades because it's just going to have to be a part of the evaluation, but it's not going to be something that's going to be a letter grade that

will be given to students and put on the transcript, or at least they don't think so. But on the other hand, here's the deal. If you want to apply for graduate study or if you're in a competitive situation in terms of special studies, you're going to need a documented grade point average that is going to have to cover the credit hours you have. And so it's not very clear how in the world this would work if you're at the University of Michigan and you want to go to the Harvard Law School. Because in all likelihood, the Harvard Law School is going to say, we want eight semesters of grades in order to make this evaluation. You also have a competitive situation in which you're going to have other universities say, look, we're providing eight semesters or whatever semesters,

eight in most cases of grades. It's not fair for the credit hours that are covered by grades to be reduced for applicants from the University of Michigan. So that's going to be one part of it. The other big question is, what is this crisis, mental health crisis unfolding among college age individuals? Okay, so from many colleges and universities, we're hearing this is a thing. and this is a massive admission from a major American university. Let's just think about it for a moment. You have the University of Michigan telling us that a sizable percentage of the entering students in its own freshman class of 2006 are so emotionally fragile that grades may be a mental health crisis.

Now, let's just review the fact that throughout the history of higher education, one way or another, grades have been a part of it. and certainly grades have been a part of pressure and grades have been a part of expectation and grades have been a part of performance. All of this, that's just part of it. But wow, to come out and say that there is now a mental health crisis unfolding among college age individuals that means the University of Michigan is saying maybe no grades for a semester or even certainly no grades for a semester, I think we have to ask some fundamental questions. I think as Christians, there's an urgency behind asking these fundamental questions.

And I think this is probably the right time to talk about it. With listeners to the briefing, I just want to say to parents, to pastors, and to young people, we're talking about a situation in which this fragility is acknowledged in this article to be a new thing. To be a new thing. So what has happened among young people that has created a situation in which so many of them are so fragile that grades in the first semester may be more than they can handle? I think the most basic question here is what in the world has happened? What has created this crisis? because when you talk about masking grades for a semester,

it's hard to see if the crisis is a mental health crisis unfolding among college-age individuals. It's hard to imagine. You can say, just put that in a hole for a semester. In other words, if that diagnosis is real, well, this response doesn't appear to be exactly right-sized. I think there's more going on here. I think there is an emotional fragility because I think parents and families and society at large and schools and educators have, and for that matter, maybe even churches and pastors, have treated

young people in such ways as to increase fragility rather than resiliency, immaturity rather than maturity. And without just trying to look for some way to assign blame, let me to say that for Christians, the big issue is we really need to work hard to raise our children so that they are resilient and ready. We really do need to raise our children in such a way that we identify what kinds of problems, maybe real genuine contributors to this problem or this pattern, and say, well, at least for our family, we're going to do everything we can to counter this and, you know, produce resilient children who are ready for adulthood. And that's really the undergraduate experience. This is at least in part a massive transition from adolescence to adulthood.

And the entire society depends upon real adults coming out the other end. And this kind of fragility on the front end, the opening semester, that's really not a good sign. I think it's also, I just want to state bluntly, a secular crisis that has bled over into the Christian world. I think we can understand, given the fragility of the modern secular worldview and modern psychotherapies and modern conceptions of education and modern conceptions of the child, the adolescent, there's no wonder that there's a lot of brokenness there. But at least among Christians, based upon biblical theology, biblical basis, the natural family, the rightly ordered family. There ought to be a very different kind of resilience built into the young people who come out

of Christian homes. And you know, this kind of thing is not necessarily guaranteed, but the pattern should be clear. And we also need to identify what factors might be contributing to this problem. I think that Matthew Contonetti, writing in the Wall Street Journal, is on to something important when he says, at least a part of this has to be tied to the social media revolution and smartphones. And so he says, you know, at the very least,

you should understand that technology may represent a major part of this fragility. And by the way, I don't think technology is the wrong word here. I just don't think it's an adequate word

because I think it is the social media dimensions of technology that are particularly dangerous and artificial intelligence and chat bots and all the rest will just complicate that even further.

But I do think a lot of what happens with children and teenagers in the social media context is just very, very damaging. And I think it does run counter to producing the kind of resiliency that should be the mark of a successful adulthood. The technology is a big part of this, but I think the social media dimension is the most dangerous. And then, again, you add chatbots and all the rest. It just gets more complicated.

So before turning to questions, I also want to look at a major news story out of Malaysia. The headline is this, months after social media ban started, Malaysian children are still logging in. Okay, so a part of this is legal why the access is still available. The other part is, however, that the Malaysian government, and that's a pretty powerful government, let's just say that it's pretty intrusive into the entire society. One of the rather amazing economic stories there in the Pacific, I'll say this, the Malaysian government has taken responsibility. I think they're rightfully concerned with children and the influence of social media,

but banning it legally is not as easy and uncomplicated as many people might think. The platforms that the Malaysian government targeted are TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. So those are four. TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. They determined that those were most dangerous. It is very interesting. By the way, they defined them as media platforms with more than 8 million users. So that's a clever way to do it.

but it's not clever enough to be successful yet because it isn't really clear, even technologically, that there is much success here moving in this direction. Australia, you know, had even earlier adopted this kind of policy. The social media companies in the Australian situation were left with the responsibility to define age verification. You know, you have children who are teenagers who are one way or the other getting on here. I think it's very interesting and should tell American parents, hey, guess what? what, government's not going to be able to do your job for you. You eventually are going to be the only authorities who can deal with this issue. Government has its responsibility, but this is a very interesting revelation for many parents

that a government even intent on eliminating social media exposure for teenagers is finding it very, very difficult, just in technological terms. All right, now we turn to questions, and as always, I appreciate questions sent in by listeners. just write me at mail at albertmuller.com. First question coming in from a listener to the briefing about what we discussed even this week. This man asked the question, could you address the issue of Mr. Trump leaving the press corps to its fate, knowing he himself would survive? Is that ethical? Well, you know, here's another good opportunity for us to remind ourselves that we need at least three categories for questions in a biblical worldview.

And those three categories are this is right, this is wrong, and this is neither entirely right or entirely wrong. Now, I think there are some Christians who say we just need two, right and wrong, but that is not actually the case. Even in historic Christian ethics, there's a category that in the Latin is called adiaphora, which means the things indifferent. They're not absolutely right, they're not absolutely wrong. and there's a good way for Christians to think about this, and that is that we should be very thankful for everything that the scripture says, helping us to know what's absolutely right and what's absolutely wrong. The clarity of scripture is just really important. Also, the gift of conscience and even the natural law embedded in the creation orders Paul tells us in Romans chapter 1.

But then who asked the question, was it right for President Trump to get on one plane and then to allow the other plane, which would be commonly referred to as Air Force One, that 747, to take off with the press on it, also members of the Trump administration. And some in the press are saying that that turned the traditional Air Force One plane into a decoy when the president was actually on a modified 757 military plane. You know, the answer is, I don't think there's a real clear Christian way to say, this is absolutely right or this is absolutely wrong. So let me just say, Let's line up the arguments both ways. The argument one way would be to say, you know, maybe there should have been a way of saying no one should fly on that plane.

And that would create all kinds of international problems and all the rest. And we also, I will say, I'm not in a position to know the level of credible threat. It was evidently in the views of American authorities a sufficiently credible threat that they moved the president of the United States. And what can only be described to is something similar to a James Bond movie script. Okay, so that tells us they did take it very seriously. How serious was the moral risk to the people on the 747? I can't answer that. I'm not in a position to answer that.

It's a good question. This listener is writing in a very good question, but it points to the fact that in the fallen world, particularly where you get to higher levels of complexity, things really do. I mean, this is common in war. It's common in situations of war. It's also common in some economic situations,

where you say like marginal tax rates, you raise this or you just come up with a minor policy here, it helps these, it hurts others. It's very difficult to figure some of this out in terms of simple right and wrong. It is also a matter of fact that some honesty needs to be injected into the entire issue, and that is that one of the interesting things that came up subsequent to the revelation that the president has again entered the 747, then exited it on a food container and then made his way to a different plane, one of the things that was made clear is that similar things had happened in the past with Bill Clinton and with a flight into Pakistan, I believe, that was under similar circumstances.

But that was a situation in which people were told far earlier what was going on and including some of the people who would have been on the plane that was thought the president was on. But I think one game change in the midst of all this is the smartphone and the understanding that if the authorities in the United States had made any statement about all of this, it would have revealed the entire plan and thus made the president vulnerable. You know, this gets to another issue. Every single human being made in the image of God, you should say that every single human being's life is infinitely sacred. But in a situation like this, you recognize that something happening to the president of the United States in this kind of context would have devastating effects on the entire civilization, simply because, for one thing, it would mean a crisis in the U.S. government.

That would just lead to all kinds of things. I'm not saying it's justified. I'm saying it's reasonable. I think reasonable people would say it was a reasonable act, especially when you have the press complaining saying, we weren't told, well, there is very little confidence that the press corps could have been told with everyone on that plane and others being told

without that somehow getting out in such a way that it would have endangered perhaps everybody to a new degree. We're in complicated territory here. I want to admit that. I think it'd be easy to say in this kind of question, that's absolutely right or that's absolutely wrong. Once again, I think, and this gets back, I often mention a biblical worldview, and I mention an Augustinian worldview, that's Augustine, the church father, who helped so many ways to think these things through in his work on the city of God, when he made very clear that in the fallen

context of the city of man, in this earthly moral context, there are some excruciatingly difficult situations. I also mentioned spycraft and espionage and all the rest. We can understand that at certain points, the possession of what was gained by espionage made a difference for the good side to win in a war. We can also understand that some things probably contributed to that information coming into the right hands that we would not say in normal circumstances would be righteous acts. So I appreciate the question, is that ethical? I will say, I think arguments can be made, either way, just on ethical theory. I also think that in a fallen world with excruciating circumstances, it's very difficult at times

to think those things through. And let's just also recall one thing, and that is that the mandate given to the security apparatus is to protect the president of the United States, not just because he is a human being, but because the president of the United States bears a constitutional responsibility for our government and the entire civilization that, uh, is not distributed equally. The authority and responsibility is not distributed equally. I think this is going to be one of those questions that ethicists and others are going to toss around for consideration for a very long time. And I thank the listener for sending it.

By the way, on the issue of the ethics, even in context of war and other things of deception, I did think it was interesting. I appreciate the fact another listener wrote in and this man was just pointing to the biblical account of Gideon's victory over the Midianites. Again, some of this is not only drawn from biblical principles. Some of it is also drawn from biblical narratives, where you find some very interesting ethical questions arising. But in the context, again, Gideon and his plan are both honored. And indeed, it was divinely directed.

I want to turn to another question. This was sent in by a young man listening to the briefing, and I appreciate that. I think the fact that it comes from a young man is kind of interesting in this case. This listener is talking about the increasing number of grandparents, even great-grandparents, who are needing to step in as caretakers for grandchildren or great-grandchildren. And it's a complicated situation. And this listener asks, is this role unique to the contemporary American society?

How would you counsel those who find themselves in these roles? You know, in a situation like this, often it's a context of brokenness where there may be the absence of one parent or both, or it may be a situation in which there's just a person. dramatic need, even economic need on the part of the family, and someone needs to take care of the children. So we understand there are situations, all kinds of situations in which you could have something like this, in which grandparents or great-grandparents need to step in. The question, I think, is really interesting. Is this role unique to the contemporary American society? I'll say, in one sense, yes, I think it is a new thing, but it is basically

a new thing from a certain time. Before that time, it was. would not have been a new thing. And this is something Christian's need to think about, and that's the transformation of the family context and even family structure, even conceptualized, idealized family structure over the course of the last several decades. If you go back in, say, the history of Western civilization, the family was almost always seen in two senses. Number one, what is sometimes referred to as the nuclear family should be understood as the natural family. That's a mother and a father and their children. That is the, the nucleus of the family, but in most of the history, say, of humanity, but particularly,

we're thinking just of the linear history of Western civilization, there was at the same time a larger definition of family that could be described as extended family or extended kinship. And so before the rise of the modern age, most people lived in proximity to a lot of relatives and there were a lot of family members and sometimes even in a domicile, in a household situation, you would have several generations present. And so this would have been quite natural. Now, all that began to change, and a part of that change was brought about by two things that came with the modern age. And one of them is the Industrial Revolution, which means that Dad's now working outside the house.

And in the case of most situations, it was the father going to the factory, going to work to make this or that. And the other thing was mobility. So just to take the city of London in the 19th century, the two giant things that happened in one sense were so many people moving to London to work in the factories and the fact. that what you had moving were not these extended families, but individual families, the smaller unit of the mother and the father and the kids, or even the young man and the young woman, and they would marry and start a family. The point is it was separated from what is often referred to as Kithinkin, you know, separated from the stability of having extended family nearby and, frankly, extended family, for the most part, living in fairly close proximity as the

expectation. In the United States, the Industrial Revolution came, there was already a difference in some sense in the United States, certainly when you had immigration, ways of immigration, where you often had people coming and then they married only after they got here, or they came as smaller units and they were separated from family. It's true in my own family history, in which you had, you know, a man and his wife who would come, and then they'd be separated from the extended family back in the old country. And as a matter of fact, you look at 19th century and even 18th century immigration to the United States, that was a major part of the story. But you did have, in so many cases, the recovery of a new extended family

over time in the new land. And so, but then again, mobility was another part of the problem. You take the westward expansion, often it was a mom and dad or single man and woman who would marry on the frontier, and then they have children on the frontier, and they'd be separated from some. So the American experience here is a little different, but it's really the modern experience that's very different. And so I think one of the things we miss in terms of the changes that have come with modernity is we miss the blessings of having extended family so close to us. And in that situation, it wasn't unusual that grandparents and others, aunts and uncles and all the rest stepped in to help when there was a need in, say, a family, mother, father, and their children. in that domestic picture when there was a need for help, there were often all kinds of kin around to offer that kind of help.

Now I think what you have in a new situation in which the mobility is exaggerated, and now you also have both mother and father in many cases, either one of them is missing or both of them are in the workplace. You have a new need that is represented here. And by the way, a little footnote here, you have someone like Mayor Mamdami in New York who says, we're just going to provide universal health care. Well, guess what?

That is financially impractical. Let me just put it that way. And it's because the biblical worldview reminds us that what's most efficient is what is most natural in alliance with creation order. And that is for the family and even the family as it is more broadly identified and extended kinship, stepping in as a family. So I love this question. And I want to say to this young man, no, this isn't entirely new in terms certainly of human civilization. It's the modern age that is new.

But in the modern age, this is kind of a new thing. And I think it's a development worth our moral attention. So again, I appreciate the question. All right, finally, a question from an eight-year-old girl, and I really appreciate this. I appreciate so much children listening, and they or their parents sending in a question. This eight-year-old daughter was talking to her Christian parents.

And by the way, this comes from Senegal, West Africa. That just blesses my heart. And this little eight-year-old girl asks at what age a person will be resurrected? Will it be the age at which they die? Would a baby be resurrected as a baby, an older person the age they died? What about even unborn children? Let me just say this. I have no way of answering that in terms of an age.

I will tell you that the promise of a resurrection body is that it is a perfect body. And you know what? A perfect body will not be marked by age. certainly in terms of temporality, because we'll be raised immortal. That's a part of the biblical promise. But what will be idealized by God's perfect plan for every single human individual? I don't know. It's a sweet question from an eight-year-old.

An 88-year-old is no closer to the answer. But we simply know this, by God's grace, those who are in Christ, it will be perfect. And so the answer is, I don't have a number. I don't have a way of answering this in terms of what are. a resurrection body will look like, but I will tell you this, I am so encouraged by the fact that it will be perfect. And I think that's the best answer. I think it's just a taste of glory that you've got an eight-year-old girl thinking about such things. It just should make us all happy. It should make us also want to go talk to an eight-year-old. Again, I appreciate your questions.

Just send them to me at mail at albertmoler.com. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website at Albertmohler.com. You can follow me at X or Twitter by going to X.com forward slash Albert Moller. For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbtsk.edu. For information on Boyce College, just go to Boiscollege.com. I'll meet you again on Monday for the briefing.