The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Friday, January 17, 2025

Episode Date: January 17, 2025

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.Part I (00:13 - 10:22)Age-Verification for Pornography Goes Before SCOTUS: SCOTUS Hears Consequential Oral Arguments on Texas Porn Case – What Wasn’t Said is Just as Important as What Was SaidFree Speech Coalition v. Paxton by The Supreme Court of the United StatesPart II (10:22 - 11:28)Limiting Porn Access is a Major Parental Responsibility: Christian Parents, We Cannot Entrust the Government to Limit Porn Access in Our FamiliesPart III (11:28 - 15:30)What Comfort is There for the Christian When an Unsaved Loved One Dies? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners to The BriefingPart IV (15:30 - 17:05)Would Samson Have Lost His Supernatural Power If He Had Broken His Nazarite Vow By Drinking Alcohol? — Dr. Mohler Responds to a Letter from a 6-Year-Old Listener to The BriefingPart V (17:05 - 18:56)How Should My Husband and I Approach Our Children's Social Media Access? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners to The BriefingPart VI (18:56 - 23:03)Will the Republican Party Ever Return to its Former Policies? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners to The BriefingPart VII (23:03 - 28:19)What is Voluntarism? How Does It Fit Within Scripture? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners 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, January 17, 2025. I'm Albert Moller, and this is the briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. On Wednesday, some of the most interesting oral arguments held before the Supreme Court in recent times took place. And the issue was a case in which the state of Texas is being sued for passing legislation that requires age verification for those who want access to porn sites. Now, in this case, both sides know that a precedent is likely to be established. And the issue here is that both sides see the precedent is absolutely crucial. The porn industry wants the precedent to be that Supreme Court rules that any legislation limiting access to porn has to be subject to the legal standard of what's called strict scrutiny. Now, under strict scrutiny, that means that any law that restricts access to, say,

pornography in this case would be considered suspect, and the state could only defend it if it were limited in its scope and absolutely necessary in terms of the action. Now, that strict scrutiny is a very high standard, so high that most legislation challenged under that standard fails, and the porn industry has been counting on that. On the other hand, the state of Texas is calling for the Supreme Court to apply what is known as a rational basis test. That is to say, is this legislation that is constitutional and makes sense? Is there justification for this kind of legislative action limiting, say, access to porn sites to those who are age-verified?

You can understand the issues that are at stake. But here's where, from a Christian perspective, I want to point out not so much what happened in the oral arguments as what didn't. And what didn't happen, I just want to point out, is any moral declaration that there is something wrong, morally wrong with pornography. It was implied that it's morally suspect, but we're in an age that is so morally disarmed in a secularized phase of existence here in the United States with a liberalizing culture. It's very difficult for anyone to say, looking at pornography is just wrong. And in a secular context, it's exceedingly difficult for a court to say, looking at,

say, pornography is wrong. So instead, you have to prove some kind of harm. Now, this is a major shift. Even before we just think about the oral arguments, we need to understand that the shift to a morality of harm is one of the most significant shifts, and those who are thinking in terms of the Christian worldview better recognize it. The older moral argument had been, this is wrong. It's inherently wrong. It's intrinsically wrong. And that could include stealing or lying, and certainly would include adultery, and behind that, pornography. And this was something. that the Christian Church was in agreement about with the secular culture. The secular culture for a very long time agreed with the Christian church that pornography is not just, say,

harmful, it's intrinsically wrong, sinful, even just use the word evil. It is a perversion. It is a distortion. But in a secularized age, where moral liberalism is so taken hold and personal autonomy is basically culturally in the driver's seat, well, a morality of good and evil, a morality of intrinsic right and wrong, it gets replaced with a morality of harm. And that's exactly what we're looking at here. And now you're also looking at the fact that the state, that is to say, the government really doesn't claim to restrict pornography on the basis of harm to most citizens. The issue in Texas is age verification. And the crucial issue there is that those under a certain age aren't to have access. In the ages 18, aren't to have access to pornography.

There is a limitation in which anyone would just hit a door, so to speak, in digital terms, and not be able to go forward unless the individual offers age certification or age verification. Now, the pornography industry is an absolute uproar over this. They're an outrage about this because, of course, it's going to threaten their business model. And let's be honest, their business model would be severely undermined if there are any restrictions on access to their porn sites. And so the porn industry is saying, our freedom of speech is at stake here, and the freedom of speech of those who are the consumers, so to speak, of pornography. And they're saying, more or less, any restriction here is unconstitutional. Now, the Solicitor General, the state of Texas came back and said, the state has an interest, the Supreme Court is recognized, the state has an interest in limiting harm to minors.

So notice the shift in moral terms. It's not that Christians don't believe that it's harmful. We just believe that it's wrong even before you document a harm. But the state of Texas says it's well documented that pornography exposure is harmful to children and to teenagers. And the state has not only the right, but has an interest in and a duty to protect minors and to support families. And in particular, as the state of Texas says, to support parents and protecting their children. And so the state of Texas is arguing that the necessity of age verification is not something that is irrational or,

unreasonable under this circumstance. But there's another aspect of this, and Christians really need to understand this other aspect. If there is a process of age verification, there is some kind of registration that's going to require some kind of identification. Now, of course, there is likely to be all kinds of walls within walls and boxes within boxes so that there will be no direct attribution of an individual with a porn site. But nonetheless, you're going to have to register in some real way, and you know what? The Christian understands that there's a bit of conscience that gets invoked with that, that just might have something to do with an impact on the viewing of pornography. But then again, we also understand that the process of moral rationalization can leave many people to say,

well, I'm going to do it anyway. Now, decades ago, Justice Potter Stewart, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, famously said that he couldn't define pornography, but he knew it when he saw it. There has been an awkwardness when it comes to justices of the Supreme Court or federal judges in other contexts in even trying to define pornography. But you have to define it legally. If you're going to legislate about it, you have to define it. And the Supreme Court also came back. And in the oral argument, justices pointed to the fact that pornography, as it is available on the internet, is not even really analogous to the pornography that was at stake when the Supreme Court made previous rulings on this kind of question. Justice Clarence Thomas said that,

In times past, when the Supreme Court has dealt with pornography, it was about something that was quite primitive by today's standards, as he said, quote, Playboy was about squiggly lines on cable TV, end quote. Furthermore, there's another admission that a majority of the justices seem to make, a point they seem to accept, and that is that age verification software has become necessary because filtering software is a massive fail. Chief Justice John Roberts was very clear about the that the filtering system has just frankly been a colossal failure at preventing children and teenagers from having access to porn sites. And as more than one justice seemed to point out, children and teenagers are often more tech-savvy than their own parents. And so parents who put a

system in place may find out that they're not really protecting their children and young people from pornography. Responding to the attorney representing the porn industry, Justice Samuel Alito asked the question, do you know a lot of parents who are more tech-savvy than their 15-year-old children? It is also interesting that even though the language of morality, other than a morality, didn't appear much, and there's a loss in that. We need to recognize there's a problem in that. It did show up in the acknowledgement that pornography, as it is available on the internet, is not really analogous even to the pornography that, say, the Supreme Court had ruled about previously, go back to that statement by Justice Potter Stewart from death.

decades ago. And so for one thing, the justice has pointed out that what is available now on the internet is just vastly, well, let's just say more dangerous or more potentially harmful to children. Another morally insightful point was made by Justice Alito with a bit of sarcasm when he asked one of the lawyers for a specific porn site if the porn site also offered literary essays. And everyone knew of a certain age what he meant. And that's because, as Justice Alito, Lido said there were people in generations past who said they read Playboy for the articles. His point was clearly understood. The justice also asked the porn industry attorney, quote,

what percentage of the material on your site, he says, is not obscene? He says, is it like the old playboy? You have essays on there by Gorvadal and we met Buckley Jr. So it's really clear, and observers of the oral arguments came to the conclusion that a majority of the justices seem to be signaling that they're going to uphold the Texas law. And that's good news not only to Texas but to other states, and I'm speaking even the state of Florida, where the front page of the ledger, that's the Lakeland Florida ledger from just a matter of days ago, included the headline, porn platforms, asked for a block on age-verifying law, and that's the law here in Florida.

So this is going to be a case with very wide ramifications. But it is also one of several cases, explosive cases, considered by the Supreme Court this term, that have to do primarily with children and teenagers. One of the big cases, of course, is on the transgender issue. Obviously, Christians understand that much is at stake in these cases, much is at stake in these human lives, much is at stake in these moral issues. So we'll be watching these cases closely as the Supreme Court eventually will rule on them. And on all these cases, the expectation is that the Supreme Court will hand on a ruling before the recess for the summer. So that means likely the big decisions will not land until June. But before shifting to questions, I just want to underline the fact that Christian parents

rightly should expect government to do everything possible to limit the damage to their children and young people from pornography. But this is not a responsibility that Christian parents can simply defer to the state at any level, to the government at any level. Christians, Christian parents in particular, have a responsibility to cut off access and to prevent their harm to their children. And furthermore, to teach their children and young people that it's not just a matter of some kind of specific harm. The state of Texas went on to say that it had to claim scientific documentation about loss of attention and an inability to sleep on the part of teenagers, exposed to pornography. Christian parents have to get to this at a far deeper moral issue and, frankly, have some very

candid conversations and, honestly, make certain that, they know what is going on in the lives of their own young people. That is not a perfect art, but it is a parental responsibility. We can't just delegate it to the government, even as we hold the government accountable to do what government should do. Okay, next I want to turn to questions, and sometimes questions come not just as individual submissions. It seems that some issues tend to fall on the hearts of listeners and on the minds of listeners at a common time. And maybe Christmas was one of the opportunities that led many listeners to the briefing to think about their own relatives and loved ones and to wonder what will happen when they die. I do believe

Christmas gathering must have been a catalyst because I've heard from so many people asking the same question. And I'm going to paraphrase the question as this. I have a close relative, or even a more distant relative, that I really love. And that person's resistant to the gospel has not come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. That person is not a Christian. And in some cases, these questions have come with, this person has died recently or may soon die, what are we to think about the eternal destiny of a loved one who dies without Christ? And here's where I have to come back and say, you know, Christians throughout the ages have certainly struggled with the same question, going all the way back to the earliest church. And as a matter of fact, Jesus made reference to this,

I think, when he talked about believers, even having to at times leave mother and father in family and kin for the cause and the sake of the gospel. But the reality is that this is a really clear question when you think about Scripture. The Scripture is really clear that all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved, that those who confess with their lips that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in their hearts that God has raised him from the dead shall be saved. Those who by faith come to know Lord Jesus Christ as Savior and trust in Him and in Him alone, they are saved.

And their sins are not merely dismissed. their sins are covered under the blood atonement accomplished by the Lord Jesus Christ. And here's where the scripture is just really clear. Those who are not in Christ will bear the punishment, the just judgment, for their own sin. And thus, the Bible is really clear about a dual destiny. Those who are in Christ after the judgment will be with Christ, united with Christ, and reigning with Him in glory forever. and those who are not are facing the eternal judgment of God, rightly described when we talk about

the doctrine of hell. It is the doctrine of eternal punishment. And so, you know, at a human level, we want to respond to one another saying, there must be a way, or we don't really know. You know, there are some religious authorities who would claim a Christian identity who would say, you know, we just don't know. Well, the fact is we do know what the dividing line is. The dividing line is faith in Christ. We do not put ourselves in the position of God, the Father, making the judgment, and we know that whatever he does is just, but he has not left his judgment to us a mystery, and his mercy has revealed his judgment to us in order,

the hearing the gospel, we would cling to Christ and be saved. It is essential to Christian theology, as revealed in Scripture, that we understand that God, the father as judge is absolutely just. He is just to forgive sinners on the basis of the atonement accomplished by his son, and he is just to consign those who are not in Christ to everlasting punishment. That's a hard doctrine. It's a sweet doctrine when you see it in light of the gospel, but it comes with a hard judgment, and the scripture is just very honest about that. And you know, even as the early church understood this truth, they also understood it as an impetus to bear witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ and to witness to their loved ones, as well as to their friends and neighbors and to all within their reach. And we understand that heaven and hell are at stake. And that just underlines how precious salvation in Christ really is and how urgent the sharing of the gospel really is.

You know, sometimes we are reminded by a question of how carefully we should read scripture. And one of the things I warn about, and I not only want to warn church leaders and congregations, but want to warn parents gently about this, is that sometimes we can talk about a biblical story without actually telling the biblical story from the Bible. But I received a question from a parent on behalf of a six-year-old, a six-year-old little girl in this case. and the six-year-old little girl was hearing the story of Samson. And in particular, thinking about why Samson, when his hair was cut, lost his strength,

and the little girl understands it's the violation of the Nazarite vow. And this little six-year-old girl quite perceptively asked, well, what if it were not about hair cutting, but rather about drinking alcohol? Because that's also forbidden in the Nazarite vow. Now, I just have to say, this is one of those questions that can only come in the mind. of a child hearing the account as revealed in scripture and asking questions that come naturally to a six-year-old that honestly should come naturally to a 60-year-old. And the answer to the question is, presumably the same result would have come. He would have been weakened by the violation of his

Nazarite vow, because the vow was the issue, not so much there. And that takes me back to the fact that sometimes we can think about the colorful features of some of these stories, such as Samson's hair being cut and really missed a point that it was really about the vow being broken. Okay, with the previous consideration of the Supreme Court's deliberation over pornography, it isn't exactly the same as pornography, but sometimes can be close to it, a very sweet mom wrote in to ask about how she and her husband should consider the use of social media. media by their children, and she was post-dating that, is to say, not now, but in years to come. And, you know, the mom in this case asked a question in such a way that she's aware of the kinds

of conversations the parents are having, and some people are saying, look, how can they use social media responsibly if they have no exposure to it whatsoever? And other people are saying, no, they should have no exposure to it whatsoever. Well, I just want to say to this, mom, I'm really going to trust that you and your husband, guided by the Holy Spirit, and within the context of the gospel church, talking about this with other parents, will come to the right decision at the right time. And so you're asking the question right now, and I think that's good, but even as your children are so young, the reality is that this is likely to be an even more complex question by the time your children are teenagers.

So you're right to start thinking about it now, and my main instinct would be to say, there is no reason most children and teenagers need to be on social media, period, because the dangers are so high. But nonetheless, I think some Christian parents will come to a different determination, but nothing should be private, everything should be shared. And you know, at that point, especially on smartphones, now there are apps in which these postings will disappear. So the accountability is virtually nil. That's why I think Christians creating a counterculture and intentionally doing so for the raising of our children, have to understand that other people with other priorities will think some of our policy is quite extreme.

And, you know, this is only the first and a long list, and we're going to have to live with that. Okay, with all the issues, with the inauguration day staring at us on Monday and other developments, I want to go to two questions. And these were asked by two teenage young men. So two teenage boys sent me questions, high school age. And I'm just encouraged by the fact they sent the questions to me. That's quite a trust.

But they're also just really smart questions. And I'm encouraged to know that there are teenage young men out there who are thinking about these kinds of questions. Okay, so question number one. The first of these young men ask about President Trump and the future of the Republican Party. And keenly interested in these issues, he says, quote, during the last eight years of the Trump era of the Republican Party, He says, I've been disturbed on the path the party's been going, becoming more and more pro-choice, pushing away foreign allies, becoming more isolationist, and becoming more sympathetic to our enemies, particularly Russia. He says, it seems to me that the Republican Party is turning away from the traditional conservatism of Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower, and other past Republican presidents.

Simply, he says, his question is, how and why did this happen, and will the Republican Party ever return to its core beliefs? Okay, fascinating question. I want to start at the end of it worked backwards, I would not say that Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan were in the same position or representing the same party on many of these moral issues. And like, I don't have a position by President Eisenhower on abortion. The issue of abortion wasn't publicly discussed when he was president or when he was in public office. Furthermore, when he was the general helping to win World War II in the European theater for the Allies. It just wasn't an issue. And that again tells us something of the urgency of the modern age. The other side is the other side of the,

that is that you did have mainstream republicanism at that time more defined by alliance with corporate America than with alliance to any specific moral principles. They were clearly cold warriors when it came to the Soviet Union. But on some moral issues, you know, well, just honestly, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party both had pro-choice or pro-abortion and pro-life members by the time Roe v. Wade was handed down in 1973. The Republican Party moved in a far more conservative direction on family issues, on moral issues, especially on the abortion issue. And that was hard won by activism on the ground. And so I want to say to this young man, that's going to have to happen again. I am very disturbed by the party compromising on this issue

to some extent. And President Trump, frankly, moving the party into a different position. And still, light years of distinction between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party on the issue of abortion, but I'm not satisfied with the current position. And so I want to encourage this young man and frankly all of us to help to influence the political party into a more consistent pro-life position. On issues, for instance, a foreign policy, this young man, and this is just a really smart question, talks about turning from traditional conservatism and perhaps even in relations with our allies and perhaps a softening position with Russia. I just want to point out that on the ground, when you actually look at what President Trump did in his first term, he said some rather interesting

things about Vladimir Putin and Russia, but, you know, he took a very hard line in actual policy. And when it comes to our allies, say, for instance, NATO, it's true that President Trump has said some things that probably keep NATO leaders up late at night. On the other hand, Senator Marco Rubio, in his confirmation hearings just, say, two days ago in the United States Senate, he made very clear that the Trump administration will be absolutely committed to support NATO and to do so in such a way as to strengthen NATO over the next four years. rather than to weaken it. And Marco Rubio has the credibility given his record in the Senate to say that. So I just want to say, I'm so thankful that out there is a young Christian man with, honestly, the interest and the knowledge to be able even to frame this question.

And I want to say to this young man, we need more of you, and we need you very active in the public square and very influential in every way you can be with your friends. And I hope you make a difference. Another question also came from another teenage young man, and this one is explicitly theological, and it has to do with the issue of volunteerism. Okay, this doesn't mean volunteering, like at the food pantry. This is the philosophical, theological issue of volunteerism, and he was listening to a podcast, and a Catholic theologian in this case, Bishop Robert Barron, had issued a very strong criticism of volunteerism. And so this evangelical Christian young man writes to me saying, what is it? Could you

explain what a voluntaristic view is and how it compares to the Bible? Yeah, I would be very glad to do that. By the way, this young man identifies himself as a junior in a Christian classical school. And I find that both consistent and encouraging. Okay, the issue of volunteerism in this case, it's a theological issue, it's a philosophical issue. It came particularly to the fore with William of Acom and the controversies related to him in the medieval period. And it basically comes down to his claim that God is absolute will. And it's the priority of will over the intellect. And that may sound very obtuse. But Christian Orthodoxy holds that. First of all, God is a union. He's not divisible in his parts. But God is not merely absolute power. He is a person. And that person means that

his power is consistent with his intellect, that is to say his mind as he has revealed himself. And let me tell you where the water hits the wheel. And I was talking about this with someone else the other day, and I agree with the bishop on this issue. Don't know that I'd frame it exactly the same way, but frankly, I didn't see the podcast you're talking about. But I will tell you that volunteerism creeps into everyday spirituality and into modern worldviews in ways that might not be recognized. So let me tell you the clearest way right now I know to tell you to recognize it. The transgender issue. The transgender issue says, don't believe my biology, believe my will. And that's exactly what I demand to be called a girl, although I'm a boy. I demand to be called

a boy, although I'm a girl. And thus, the priority of will over everything else, well, it's pretty much a part in one sense of the modern experiment. It's very much a part of the spirit of the age. and it shows up in various ways. But the denial of, say, ontology or biology is revealing of God's will, and instead the insistence on the expression of will to say, I am this or that, that demonstration of the overestimate of the will and gross distortion, that's volunteerism. And it shows up in other ways. And by the way, I noticed you said this was a Catholic authority.

and a Catholic bishop. I have heard of Bishop Robert Barron. And I will just say that there are some Catholics who claim that Protestantism is, in one sense, voluntaristic because of the centrality of faith in terms of the experience. And you know, honestly, there are some Protestants who carelessly might speak that way. For instance, why are you saved? It is because I decided to follow Jesus. You hear that even in some popular songs. I decided to believe in Jesus. Well, I want to come. come back and say, the Protestant principle is that you must come to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you must seize upon him. And it is salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, but it is not voluntaristic in the sense that our will is the effective agent. That our will is

involved, but our will comes under submission to the Holy Spirit. That's why I believe the gospel is rightly expressed in terms of a response that comes about because of the effectual call. It is the Holy Spirit working in us in accordance with the gospel that brings us unto Christ. And volunteerism is deadly just about anywhere it shows up. And that means anytime someone makes a claim saying that something is simply because we will it, well, that's a big problem, and we need to recognize it. The closer we get to proper theological questions, the more dangerous. this becomes. I also want to point out that one of the classics of Protestant theology is rightly

entitled, The Bondage of the Will. And of course, it's by the Great Reformer Martin Luther. And notice it's the bondage of the will, not just the exercise of the will. Thanks for listening to the briefing. And by the way, you can send your questions in simply by writing me at Mail at Albertmuller.com. For more information, go to my website at Albertmuller.com. You can follow me on Twitter or X by going to Twitter.com forward slash Albert Moller. For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu. For information on Boyce College, just go to voicecollege.com. I'll meet you again on Monday, inauguration day in the United States of America for the briefing.