The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Friday, January 16, 2026

Episode Date: January 16, 2026

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.Part I (00:14 – 06:08)The Ironies of Brigitte Bardot: The Icon of Sexualized French Film Culture, Animal Rights Activist, and Far-Right Sympathizer in Dies at 91Brigitte Bardot, French femme fatale and cultural phenomenon, dies at 91 by The Washington Post (Adam Bernstein)Part II (06:08 – 11:52)A Jewish Obituary and an Irony of Historic Proportions: The Death of Hessy Levinsons Taft, the Jewish Baby on the Cover of Nazi Magazine, Dies at 91Hessy Levinsons Taft, Jewish Baby on Cover of Nazi Magazine, Dies at 91 by The New York Times (Michael S. Rosenwald)Part III (11:52 – 15:59)How Should Christians Think About the Tragic Situation in Minneapolis? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The BriefingPart IV (15:59 – 19:55)What Counseling Model Should Christians Use to Counsel Other Christians? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The BriefingPart V (19:55 – 21:57)Should Christians Honor the Physical Body Even After Death? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The BriefingPart VI (21:57 – 24:51)What’s the Difference Between Palliative and Curative Care? When Are Christians Obligated to One Versus the Other? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The BriefingPart VII (24:51 – 28:40)What is Selfishness, and How Can a Christian Fight It? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of 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, January 16, 2026. I'm Albert Moller, and this is the briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. I'm going to deal mostly today with your questions, but I do want to start by looking at two obituaries, indeed the obituaries of two women who lived very significant lives in the 20th century and lives laden with all kinds of worldview importance. The first of them is Bridget Bardot. Bridget Bardot died basically over the Christmas holidays, at least her death was acknowledged at that point. Her foundation said that she died at age 91, but her life is one of the symbolic lives of the 20th century. Bridget Bardot was what in the French is referred to as a femme fatal. That is to say, she was a woman of tremendous male fascination.

She was also a deadly woman in a very specific sense. She was one of the most important, the most well-known sex sense. symbols, female sex symbols of the 20th century. In some sense, you're really looking at the sexuality that emerged in the post-war period in the United States, especially in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. It was earlier in France than in the United States. As a matter of fact, France prided itself during this period for its open-mindedness by its own definition on sex. As a matter of fact, the French looked down on the British and the Americans, but in particular the Americans, as being repressed and immature, and French cinema of that time, wow, it just took the world

by storm. And in particular, it became a model for what American Hollywood figures thought American film might one day do. A lot of it's very dark. That's the noir film category. A lot of it was based in realism, which makes a lot of sense just in terms of the aftermath of World War II and France's experience, devastating experience in the... at war. But it also reflects a French cultural understanding in which the French unabashedly claimed

cultural superiority and sophistication. And Bridget Bardot was very much a symbol of that. She really burst onto the scene as a 21-year-old and became an international sensation. The film that really rocketed her to this kind of celebrity was entitled, and God created Woman. That was in 1956. she was then 21 years old, and she became instantly famous. And a part of it was just because of her beauty. And it was not only that of the beauty matched to a very overt sexuality. She took the world by storm and, quite frankly, became one of the most famous pin-up girls, pornographic images, frankly, sexualized images of the 20th century, a model for so many others.

The Washington Post, in its obituary, said this, quote, Hollywood had volumptuous but fragile Marilyn Monroe, and Italy had earthy but dignified Sophia Loren. But Ms. Bardo's unapologetic hedonism made her a singular phenomenon. She became, according to the Post, one of the most photographed women in the world. She, quote, triggered a million fantasies and think pieces.

Simone de Beauvoir, who was, of course, the consort of Jean-Paul Sartre, one of the most famous feminist figures, very, very liberal figure in the 20th century. She, according to the post, quote, found existential meaning in Ms. Bardot's physical allure and dubbed her, quote, a locomotive of women's history. End quote. Conservatives in France and elsewhere saw her as a symbol of the absolute pornographic decadence of the age. Raymond Cartier, the editor of Paris Match magazine, blamed Ms. Bardot, we are told, quote, for the breakdown of social morays and declared her immoral from head to toe.

End quote. it's also interesting and I think the Washington Post is onto something here she was far more popular even as a highly sexualized figure in Europe than in the United States and a part of it was her exotic

foreignness I think but it was also that she was really ahead of where American culture was in terms of its inclination towards this kind of entertainment unless to be very honest Americans got there but they got there

through a cruder form of cinema the French could dress it up. This tells you something about worldview analysis. The French could dress things up, and they were supposedly laden with all kinds of philosophical meaning, and that supposedly made the pornography, the pornographic dimensions of it,

not only more acceptable, but downright artistic. And this still goes on, by the way, in the film community. When you see the film community talk about finding deep, deep meaning in films that, frankly, don't have any deep, deep meaning, they are trying to be French. They are trying to have that kind of cultural cachet. I think it's basically a good thing that very few Americans think of film

the way the French thought of it in the day of Bridget Bardot and the so-called Golden Age of Cinema in France. That was very much a part of French pride, indeed even of French cultural or artistic arrogance. But it is important to recognize that Bridget Bardot died at age 91. just a matter of a few weeks ago.

But there is a twist in this tale. And the twist in this particular story is the fact that Bridgette Bardot was so much a symbol of cultural and moral liberalism throughout that supposed golden age in France. But she is remembered in France now as someone who turned into a supporter of the far right. She wasn't animal rights activists.

Like so many people, she seemed to transfer human affection onto animals. But beyond that, she sided with the French political right in a way that absolutely scandalized the artistic left. They thought she was one of them, and I guess she was so long as she was a sex symbol. But once that was over, guess what? She turned out to be very much aligned

with the French political right, and by that, I mean, in some cases, the hard right. But next I want to turn to the obituary. It just ran in a Tuesday's edition of the New York Times. It's a very different story about a very different woman, also situated, at least in terms of, of this story in Europe, but a story that also has a significant twist in it. This woman who died also at age 91, by the way, so the same age, her name was Hesse Levinson's Taft. She was born in

Berlin, and you can tell from the date, she was born in Berlin during the 1930s, and yet she was born to Latvian parents. That explains that her maiden name Levinson's that was eventually adopted. It has the S at the end characteristic of Latvian names and Latvian families. The story begins in 1934 when she was six months old. Her parents are Latvian opera singers. They hired a very well-known photographer named Hans Balin to take her portrait. So this was a very famous photographer who was to take the picture of a baby who was then six months old. And by the way, I'm looking at the picture of this little baby.

She is adorable. She has a beautiful face. She's wearing a frilly bonnet. She's on the front of a magazine. That's the twist in the tail. The date tells you just about everything. The photograph was taken in 1934. Hesse was six months old. The photographer was one of the best-known photographers of the age. The portrait, it was going to get some prominence. Listen to this. This is the way Michael Rosenwald of the New York Times tells the story. After framing the photo, her parents displayed it on their piano. One day, the one day, the woman who cleaned the home, noticed it, and told Hesse's mother that she had seen her daughter on the cover of a magazine. Ms. Taff then said, quote, my mother thought, surely she must be mistaken that there are many babies that look alike and just told her, well, that can't be the case. That was said in

an interview with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum back in 1991. The Times tells us, quote, the woman insisted that it was the same baby. Quote, just give me some money, she said, and I'll get you the magazine. The story came. She continues, quote, soon she returned with a copy of Asson in's house or son in the home, one of several pro-Nazi magazines that were allowed to circulate in the country after Hitler had shut down thousands of other publications. And there on the cover was the portrait from the piano. Hesse's mother flipped through the pages, quote, on the inside of the magazine were pictures of the army with men wearing swastikas.

My parents were horrified, she said. Okay, so the mother then went to the photographer's studio, showed him the man. magazine and said, Vassizdas, what is this? How did this happen? The photographer said that the Nazis had invited him, the Times is telling us this, to submit photos for a contest to find the baby representing the epitome of the Aryan race. That is to say, what they saw is the most white genetically superior race. Hesse was among the photographs he included in his submission. Okay, now get this. Who made the choice? The choice was made by the Third Reich's Minister of public enlightenment and propaganda, one of the chief Nazis, Joseph Goebbels.

Hesse's mother looked to the photographer and said, here's the turn, quote, but you know that this is a Jewish child. The photographer responded, quote, I wanted to allow myself the pleasure of this joke. He said, you see, I was right. Of all the babies, they chose the baby, this baby, that means a Jewish baby as the perfect Aryan. As the New York Times tells us, suddenly the photo was everywhere. It showed up an advertisement for baby clothes, postcards, hanging in people's homes. Ms. Taft later said, quote, my parents were both shocked by the possible consequences that this could bring and amazed at the irony of it all. Since her parents were Latvians, they were at least temporarily protected from some of the laws targeting Jews, but out of fear of what would happen,

they fled from Nazi Germany and in wisdom rightfully did so. And they were particularly concerned that a scandal would erupt if the identity of the baby on the magazine cover were to be determined. So they wanted to protect a little Hessey, they wanted to get her out of Nazi Germany. As the Times relates, quote, they left Berlin, returning briefly to Latvia before settling in Paris. When the Nazis occupied that city in 1940, they fled again first to Nice, then to Cuba. and there she attended a British school. In 1949, they moved to New York City. She would graduate

from Barnard College and earn a master's degree from Columbia University in 1958. She married Earl Taft, therefore her full name, Hesse Levinson's Taft. She died, as I said, just in recent days at age 91. What a story from the 20th century. And what an indictment, by the way, of the race theories of the Nazis. They have a contest to find the perfect Aryan baby. None other than Joseph Gerbils himself picks the perfect Aryan baby. The picture is put on the front of a Nazi magazine, and now we know the baby was Jewish. And by the way, this baby's life may have intersected with your own because she was on the team that created the AP chemistry exam. Some of you, no doubt, have taken it. Others of you might take it soon. In any event, the big issue,

here is, of course, the irrational, horrifying racial theories of the Germans that the Germans couldn't even keep straight, with none other than Joseph Goebbels choosing a Jewish baby for a magazine cover as the perfect Aryan baby. All right, now let's turn to question, some really outstanding questions. Very interesting questions. One listener wrote in asking about the situation right now in the streets of Minneapolis. And this man writes, quote, I'm a federal agent, a combat veteran, my local church as a Sunday school teacher and assistant pastor, I've been in similar situations in combat as the ICE agent that's in the recent incident where a woman died, and as a military police officer exercising warrants and traffic stops. He says, I've even been hit by a car, end quote.

Well, this is a man with a very unique background, and he's just asking about how we as Christians should think about the situation there in Minneapolis. And one of the things I want to say is that I have said very little about this precisely because we do not yet know. all the facts and the context here in order to make an informed decision. We do know this. Every single human beings life is precious. We do know this. When you look at the issue of immigration, it's very controversial, and you are looking at activists going on the streets there, interfering with the work of federal agents. That is a very, very dangerous situation. I have no reason at this point to believe that the federal agent, in this case, acted improperly.

As a matter of fact, there's some body cam footage that would indicate that this was a cause, driven by a person who had been given repeated orders that were refused and then gunned the engine and went forward. It's a tragic death, no doubt about that. But I also think it is simply important that we're going to have to trust the authorities to investigate this matter, and we ought to keep ourselves rather hesitant from making final judgments because we do not yet know all the evidence. It's going to be presented to us. But you do have a culture war going on in this country, you have two different sides, as evident in terms of the ICE agents on the one side, the activists on the other side. The ICE agents, however, have federal authority, and the ICE agents

are law enforcement officers, and they are effectuating orders that I believe are lawful. And even if you believe they are unlawful, you know, interfering with the police action is a profoundly unwise thing to do, period. The woman who was killed in this, Renee, good, interesting story, leaves behind children, also leaves behind a woman to whom she was married. So there's all kinds of things going on here. And, you know, as Christians, we have to look at all of this, take a step back, and say, we need an understanding of what exactly happened here. But we either believe in the process of law, in due process and in due order, we either believe in duly constituted authorities, or we don't. I think, given Romans 13, Christians have to believe in such authorities. And we have to

at least allow these authorities to do their work before we make moral judgments about that work that's not yet done. And so I'm going to be very interested to see this. I do think we need to underline as Christians that Romans 13 principle about lawful authority and anyone who goes on the streets to interfere with a lawful exercise of law enforcement authority. I think that's inherently problematic and Christians understand that. And frankly, most people understand that. there in Minneapolis, a rather liberal city in so many different ways, just think of recent headlines along many different lines, but you are looking at an activist community, and there's much more to this story. I think it's going to be very interesting to see how the story unfolds.

I can assure you it's going to be very interesting. I don't think this is the kind of story that is going to be, in the end, adjudicated on social media. It's going to have to be adjudicated in the process of law and in a court of law. You either have confidence in that or you do not. If you do not have confidence in that, let me just state you're in big trouble. And even theologically, you're in a very awkward position. Let's just put it that way. It might well be much worse than awkward.

I want to thank this listener for writing the question and for your service as a federal officer. I also want to say, I am very honored to know that you are one of our grads. So that also just adds to it. God bless you. May God protect you. Next I want to turn to another question. from a listener. And this listener writes in about biblical counseling and integrational counseling as approaches. This person has a background in biblical counseling, but is now

in a program, which is integrationist. And the listener asked a question, quote, what advice would you give for entering into an integration world with a biblical counseling mindset? Well, number one, there's going to be conflict. There's going to be a collision. So let me just set out for listeners. There are basically three models. Now, you can put names and come up with more than three. They're basically three positions. The question is, how should Christian counselors counsel on what basis? And this includes pastors, most importantly.

How should Christians counsel other Christians? And there are basically three positions. One of them is more or less just a slightly Christianized form of secular psychology, the therapeutic constructs, and all the rest. And that is an option, and quite frankly, I've seen it all over. The other option of the other end is biblical counseling, which is based upon the reformation principle of Sola Scriptura, scripture as the sole final authority in all matters, and that includes counseling, and that means that since the one true and living God has given us his word, his gospel people in particular,

should find all the counsel we need in that word and in the application of God's word. And so it is to be explicitly Christian, explicitly gospel, explicitly biblical. The middle position is this integrationist or integration model. The integrationist model says, you know, here's what is just kind of syncretistic. We will take biblical information and we will take Christian doctrine and conviction and we will integrate that with secular constructs. Now, I think most of what is called Christian counseling out there in the world is this integrationist model. That is not the model taught at Boyce College in Southern Seminary. We are firmly committed to biblical counseling.

And that's because I think, theologically, that is the only option that I can live with, to be honest. As president of an institution, a one who bears this responsibility, I have seen firsthand the absolute, I think, disaster of the explicitly secular model just adopted by Christians with a few Bible verses added. I know there's some who have protested. There's more to it than that.

Well, I don't think there's much more to it than that. I'll put it that way. The secular position just wins, secular worldview, which, by the way, starts in its presuppositional level in the exact opposite place that Christians start. Okay? But the integrationist model, I think, is what's most common among those who call themselves evangelical Christians.

And I think if you have the integrationist model, the problem is the secular categories, they're going to trump scripture. I think inevitably that's just the way it works. Now, those who are committed to biblical counsel are not saying that we can't learn anything from the secular world or even from the world around us outside of scripture. We're not saying that. We are saying just as Solo Scriptura operates, scripture has to be the sole final authority

and our confidence has to be in the work within the human heart, the Christian heart, in particular, in which by the spirit and the word, believers are conformed to the image of Christ. That is the sum and substance of the biblical counseling model. I know there are faithful integrationists out there. God bless them. God bless you, if you're one of them. And I know that many operate out of very clear Christian conviction. I just, I don't find the model stable. I don't find it substantial. And I think that even though it certainly sells a lot of books and is extremely popular, I am firmly committed to biblical counseling because I think that is right and proper given biblical authority and the power of the gospel. Okay, two huge questions sent in by two different listeners related to death.

One comes from a listener who says, last Friday, my 91-year-old grandmother died. She praises God. Her grandmother was a believer. But she hears people say things such as about her grandmother, quote, her body was just an envelope. She's someone who lived very long and evidently was in some decay and dementia. And there were people who said, look, she's better off now that she's free from her body. Her body was just an... envelope. And there's more that was said. Someone said that the funeral or burial was equivalent to, quote, taking out the trash, end quote. Okay, well, let me just state, that's fundamentally at odds with biblical Christianity. It's fundamentally at odds with Christian doctrine,

understanding, first of all, who we are as human beings. We are body and soul in a unity. It is the union of body and soul, of body and spirit. And thus, we have to treat the body itself as essential to our identity and as part of our, as Christians, our eternal identity. We will one day be as Christ now is. We will have a glorified body. And it will be continuous in some sense with our current body because it is essential to our current self as a part of God's

gift. It is a part in some way that I'm not even going to dare to fully define. In some way, it's a part of the Imago Dei as well. And it is just incompatible with the Christian gospel and with biblical Christianity that we would despise the body, dismiss the body. The body is not an envelope we need to escape, and a burial is not just taking out the trash. That is to fundamentally miss the point. That's why where you find Christianity, you find high regard for the dignity of the body, and that includes the dignity of the dead in terms of bodies. And that's something I think a lot of contemporary Christians are frankly confused about. All right, there was another question sent in, and this is sent in by someone who's having to deal right now with a hard medical

situation, and it has to do with the extent to which Christians should see ourselves as obligated for extensive medical treatments when death is imminent. So this listener writes, It's very easy to understand, and it's kind of heartbreaking to hear. This listener has a medical background, but is right now responsible for making medical decisions for a very close family member who has just weeks to live with a terminal disease. Quote, I've been his guardian for the past decade. The hospital called me asking to make decisions regarding life-saving measures, intubation, CPR, et cetera, in the event that this family member can't make

those same decisions. All right. The listener is asking about the difference between palliative and curative care. And this is really important because as Christians, we are obligated to do our very best to preserve life. And we should not withdraw medical treatment if there is any hope for recovery. But that does not mean that when a person has entered the process of dying and death, that we have to use every medical means to try to extend life on the threshold of death. And so this listener very smartly makes the distinction between palliative and curative care. We are committed to the use of curative care. If there's a hope for cure, if there's a hope for a continuation of viable life,

then we are to do that. We're not to embrace death. We are to defy it. But once death is imminent, that's palliative care. in the sense that the dying person is made to feel most comfortable. Now, I mean to say, there are ethical issues related to this, because sometimes what's called palliative care can actually be almost a form of euthanasia in terms of some of the medical applications and the medicines used.

Christians just have to watch this and understand that preventing pain and agony, that's good. Bringing about an earlier death, that's not good. that that's not biblically acceptable. But that distinction between curative care and palliative care is quite legitimate. And I want to say to this listener, God bless you as you're dealing with this responsibility, I think the very way you ask the question indicates that you really do understand the issues. And faithfulness is sometimes in making very hard decisions, thinking them through, I think, the way you are in that Christian worldview perspective.

let me say, I'm sorry you're having to deal with this, but I hope you understand as a Christian brother speaking to you as a fellow Christian, I'm thankful you're dealing with this with deep Christian conviction. God bless you and your loved one. Okay, finally, just for this week, a very interesting question from a 17-year-old young woman. It's really straightforward, quote, what is selfishness in a biblical perspective? What does the Bible say about it? And how can you stop being selfish? What a sweet question. This is a question every Christian needs to ask pretty repeatedly. Selfishness is focusing on the self rather than on others, and biblically it is grounded in

failing to see others as God sees them and would have us see them. It's a focus on the self that is the very nature of the word selfish. So in terms of biblical background, we'll just consider this. Philippians 2 verse 4. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 2 Timothy 3 verses 2 in following. Let me just read the first words. For people will be lovers of self. That's what we are to avoid. Swollen with conceit. That's what we are to avoid. 1 Corinthians 10, verse 24, let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.

And, you know, I think especially in Philippians chapter 2 where Paul writes, do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility, count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. quote. I want to say just in conclusion with the time remaining, I think this is a great question coming from a sweet, young Christian, and I want to say, you can't make yourself unselfish. In the same way, you can't stop thinking about something you want to stop thinking about. What you have to do is start thinking about something else. And this means replacing one set of concerns, one set of desires, one set of inclinations with another. And it means

acting on it. So in other words, what I'm saying is you can't really just say, I'm going to stop thinking about myself. No, instead you have to start thinking of others. It is impossible to stop caring for yourself as your first priority, because if you just make your first priority, to stop thinking about yourself, you're still making yourself the first priority. You've got to exchange the thoughts about yourself for thoughts about others, and that means beginning intentionally to think of those around you and those whom you love and those whom you should love and understand how to put them and their priorities very central in your thinking, and transfer thoughts from yourself to them,

and then you will find yourself being less selfish. But it's not because you say, I want to be less selfish, so I'm going to think about myself. It's because you say, I want to be less selfish, therefore I want to seek and to serve others. It's in the same way, by the way, that just as a principle of the Christian life, Martin Luther, the reformer, I think, had this absolutely right. You can't stop thinking about something. You have to fundamentally start thinking about something else. Start reading scripture and to start helping someone,

thinking of others. And guess what? You will not be thinking about yourself, or at least not wrongly thinking about yourself. All right. Thanks for the questions. I appreciate so many. And we'll get to as many as we can. as always, thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website at Albertmuller.com. You can follow me on X or Twitter. I go to X.com forward slash Albert Mueller. For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbtsketech.org. For information on Boyce College, just go to Boiscolle.com. You can send your questions just by writing me at Neil and Albertmuller.com. I'm speaking to you from Orlando, Florida, and I'll meet you again on Monday for the briefing.