The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Friday, January 24, 2025

Episode Date: January 24, 2025

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.Part I (00:13 - 07:11)Spycraft in a Casino in Washington D.C.? There are Major National Security Issues with the Prospective Building of a Casino in Fairfax, VirginiaEx-spies say suburban D.C. casino would put nation’s secrets at risk by The Washington Post (Laura Vozzella and Teo Armus)Spycraft and Soulcraft on the Front Lines of History: A Conversation with Former CIA Chief of Counterintelligence James Olson by Thinking in Public (R. Albert Mohler, Jr. and James Olson)Part II (07:11 - 11:03)Should I Risk Taking a Class in Feminist Philosophy? Is Feminism Important for Christians to Understand? — Dr. Mohler Responds to a Letter from an 18-Year-Old College Student and Listener to The BriefingPart III (11:03 - 13:36)Does the Conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit Mean That He Only Had Female Chromosomes? — Dr. Mohler Responds to a Letter from an 18-Year-Old Listener to The BriefingPart IV (13:36 - 18:16)How Do We Know That Life Begins at Conception If the Bible Doesn’t Say So? How Can War Be Justified If Jesus Teaches Us to Love Our Enemies? — Dr. Mohler Responds to a Letter from a 15-Year-Old Listener to The BriefingPart V (18:16 - 20:53)Should Our Church Use the Enneagram in Its Hiring Processes? — Dr. Mohler Responds to a Letter from Listeners to The BriefingPart VI (20:53 - 25:41)Why Don’t Protestants Have to Confess Their Sins to a Minister Like Catholics Do to a Priest? — Dr. Mohler Responds to a Letter from a Catholic 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, January 24, 2025. I'm Albert Moller, and this is the briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. Most of us are drawn to at least a very significant interest in espionage and spycraft. It is an absolutely thrilling part of the human story precisely because it has so much to do with pressing against the dark side, even by using at times what are referred to as the dark arts. it is by its very nature a morally complex enterprise. One of the most interesting questions from the Christian worldview is the extent to which Christians can be involved in that kind of activity. But it's also very clear that for the good, a good many Christians have been involved in that kind of activity.

And frankly, much of the understanding of the meaning and the ethics of espionage and spycraft that comes from an explicitly Christian worldview. But it's also interesting that it takes. times, there's an angle that comes completely unexpectedly. And that's what has happened just in recent days with a story that emerged in the Washington Post about a proposed casino in suburban Washington, D.C. What's that got to do with spies? Well, evidently, the fear is a very great deal. Okay, so now, as Christians, the worldview interest just went up because you have the combination of espionage and spycraft and gambling. Just think, James Bond.

in a casino, who would have thought? The two reporters on this story, Laura Vosella and Teo Armas, tell us this, quote, forget what you've seen in every James Bond movie, spies and casinos don't mix, at least they shouldn't mix, according to real-life agents, fighting a proposed Fairfax County Casino as a national security threat, end quote. That's right. You have individuals in the leadership of America's spy agencies, and you have veteran spies in the area who are warning that the establishment of a major casino this close to Washington, D.C., could lead to all kinds of trouble. So again, here is Christians, we have the combination of the worldview issues of spycraft and gambling, espionage. All of this is just put

in the question of a proposed casino in Fairfax, Virginia. As the Washington Post tells us, quote, home to CIA headquarters, the National Counterterrorism Center, the Office of the Director of national intelligence and countless super secret defense and intelligence contractors, the D.C. suburb probably boasts more security clearances than anywhere else in America, says a group of spies, who warn in a letter to state and local officials that building a casino in Tysons could lead those secret keepers astray, end quote. So let's just anticipate the argument. The argument is going to be that somehow the existence of a gambling enterprise on the scale of a major casino in proximity to so many spies could lead to real problems with America's intelligence assets.

Moral temptation, moral compromise, moral scandal. And of course, you recognize the big problem coming. The big problem is blackmail or moral leverage against a spy who's got big debts, and that means big trouble. And that means that person could be easy pickings for a foreign agency interested in. in espionage against the United States of America. The letter states this, quote, the proximity of a Tyson's casino to a significant population

of government, military, and contract officials with access to highly sensitive government intelligence, diplomatic, and defense information will not only attract organized crime, casinos always do, says the letter, quote, but also adversarial intelligence services looking to recruit those with such access whom they hope to blackmail.

Interesting. So now you have an open assertion that a casino just might be a problem. And in this case, it is a focused problem and an urgent problem when it comes to the proximity of the casino and spies. Now, let me just back up a moment. And let's just say, let's bracket the spies for a moment. We'll get to them. Let's just consider the fact that this is a very, very clear admission that there's a problem

with gambling. It is a very, very clear admission that when gambling arrives, it doesn't come alone. It comes with other vices. This letter says, we all know it comes with organized crime, as if you don't even have to say that, but we'll just say it in the letter. And it also comes with a possibility of blackmail. And that's not only true in Spycraft, that's true in just about every other arena of life. Okay, so I know you're asking, is this hypothetical? Let me just remind you of the name Robert Hanson. Robert Hanson, he had his home in Fairfax County, Virginia, right where this casino's proposed to be. Robert Hansen was an American intelligence official who ended up with massive debts.

And so it turns out that he ended up being turned by Soviet intelligence in such a way that he sold to them state secrets of the United States of America, and he sold them for at least $1.4 million in cash and in diamonds. A casino wasn't directly the problem with Robert Hanson, but as the Washington Post says, quote, gambling debts drove at least seven Americans to sell government secrets to the Soviet Union, according to a 1992 report by the Defense Technical Information Center, which the national security leaders for Fairfax noted in their letter. One individual, Sally K. Horn, identified as former senior director of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, said this to the Washington Post, quote,

Problem gamblers who go into deep debt and or fear losing their clearances and jobs if their gambling problem comes to light are prime targets for compromise and recruitment by Russia, China, and others who would do us ill. End quote. So let's ask another question. Why would the state of Virginia go into the gambling business by going in with this proposal for private investors to build this massive gambling complex there in northern Virginia?

It's because the state gets a huge cut of the money. And it gets a lot of money. And that's why state after state has gone head over heels in order to get in the gambling business. And casinos are just a part of it. but they are a big, very visible part of it. And the casinos, in a very dangerous way, offer the opportunity for collegiality, for fellowship,

for human relatedness in the context of the kind of gambling experience the casinos offer. And that means that you have all kinds of people mingling together, and that's why so many spy movies have big scenes in casinos. And evidently, the real spies have been watching. And by the way, if you find this as interesting as I, do, you'll be interested to listen to my thinking in public interview with former CIA chief of counterintelligence James Olson. We'll add a link to that conversation to this edition of the briefing.

All right, we're going to be able to turn a little earlier than some weeks to take questions and so many good questions sent in by listeners. I'm going to start out with a question from an 18-year-old college student. The young man asked the question about taking a feminist philosophy class. He is a listener to the briefing. I appreciate that. and he says he's considering taking a feminist philosophy class because it fits my major and minor. He goes on to say, quote, but I'm concerned about the feminist and woke propaganda that will be discussed. He then goes on to say he attends a public university. This young man is majoring in philosophy and he's minoring in ethics at this state university.

That's very impressive. He says he plans on becoming a lawyer so this background in philosophy and ethics could serve him very well. But he asked an honest question, and I'm going to give him an honest answer. should a young Christian in his situation risk taking a class in feminist philosophy? I'll just say this. I think by the way this young man framed this question, he's going to be able to handle a class in feminist philosophy. And then he asked the larger question, is this important, should Christians seek to understand it? And I want to say yes. I would not suggest that all Christians take a class in feminist philosophy. I wouldn't suggest that all Christian college students

majoring in philosophy take the class. I'd want to know something about them. But the young man asking this question is clearly committed to the Christian worldview. He's clearly committed to viewing all things through the biblical understanding. And so when he asked the question, is feminism important for Christians to understand? I have to answer that with a profound yes. Now, I don't want this imported, the way it's imported, even in the class you're talking about, as a part of the college curriculum mandated so that unsuspecting and rather unthinking, unreflected persons can find themselves swept up in this kind of movement. But I want to tell you that I have to read this material, and I've been reading it for years. I couldn't talk about it as I talk about it and write about

these issues and talk about them as I do. If I didn't read this material, I don't want those who can't handle it to do so. But by the very fact that you're planning to be a lawyer, you're going to be dealing with not only competing worldviews, but competing arguments for the rest of your life. That's what the law is all about. And I think when you prepare for a case, you need to be better prepared than your adversary. And I'd say in the worldview conflict, we need to be better, better prepared than those who oppose us in terms of worldview issues. By the way, very interesting footnote to this. Just in the last 24 hours, I read an academic study saying that, conservatives tend to read liberal books and engage liberal ideas more than liberals engage conservative books and

conservative ideas. And you know what? That's a part of the strength of the conservative movement. We read our enemies mail. I have spent a lot of my life reading this material, listening to these folks. I have debated some of them in public, had some very interesting conversations before and after those debates. They not only did not shake me in my biblical worldview, I can just assure you, they strengthened me in my resolve in every conceivable way. But finally, to this young man and to others who may be in a similar predicament, I just want to say this is also one of the reasons why we need to talk to one another about what we're reading, what we're hearing, and how we're thinking about these things. And especially with fellow Christians, this is just a very important thing, that we

have an accountability to think through these issues, not merely alone, but in conversation and reflection and in biblical faithfulness with a larger group of Christians who are trying to think through the very same issues and can help us. That's really important too. I wouldn't do what I do without committed faithful colleagues. That's really important. Another 18-year-old young person wrote to me, and this is another very interesting question. This 18-year-old young woman is a student in a private classical Christian school taking an apologetics class. She says she was encouraged to share her faith, and she did so, talking to someone about salvation and the deity of Jesus, and that person responded to this young woman by saying that biologically, quote, Jesus was a woman because he did not

have a father to provide a second set of chromosomes and therefore transgender. End quote. She then asked, quote, how do I, as someone who has very minimal biological knowledge respond to someone in a position more knowledgeable of biology? End quote. Well, I'm going to say this one is pretty direct. This is not something that anyone trained in biology has any right to speak about, because we're not talking about something that comes down to a biological investigation. We're talking about what is clearly revealed in the Word of God that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit within the Virgin Mary, and he was identified at the very beginning as a baby boy who was born there to Mary in Bethlehem, and of course famously laid in a manger. He grew up. He grew in wisdom and in stature and in favor

with God and man. He clearly was a man, and this is crucial to New Testament theology. And it's not just a matter of the biological fact of the maleness of Jesus that is important here. But I think it's interesting that when I take people say to major European cities, and we look at the famous art museums, one of the interesting things noted by many Christians in these museums is how often the baby Jesus is presented naked, which is to say, presented fully male. And the question is, why did they do that? And one of the reasons they did that was to demonstrate unquestionably the fact that Jesus was not merely a baby. He was a baby boy. That was the promise of Scripture. It was the fulfillment of Scripture. I think in this case, by the way, I want to say to this young woman, I think the person you were engaging here was really trying to

divert the issue from Christ to something else. And that's not uncommon, but I want to just encourage you in your bearing witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ and in your defense of the faith as you are studying apologetics. So don't stop having this kind of conversation. Just make very clear, we're not going to have an argument about chromosomes. We're going to talk about Jesus as the incarnate son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord. Deal with it. Okay, I had another young man write in. This is a 15-year-old. He says, I really enjoy listening to the briefing with my dad. I appreciate that. Thanks to both of you. This young man says, I have two questions. First, how can we know that life begins at conception if the Bible doesn't specifically state so? Secondly, he asks, how can war be justified with Jesus'

teachings on loving our enemies? Well, I appreciate both questions. Let me just take them in turn. First of all, how do we know that life begins at conception if the Bible doesn't specifically state so? Well, let's just state, before we even turn to a biblical text, that the reason that we are quite certain that life begins at conception is because life wouldn't happen if God the Creator did not say, let there be life. And so we really believe that life begins when the cells meet and when that fertilization takes place, and life begins, that is not merely a natural process. It is a natural process, but it's far more than that. It was put in place by the creator because in every case that fertilization means the beginning of life. As a matter of fact,

throughout human history, it has been considered an absolute fact beyond argument that at conception, life begins, even when people before really didn't know when conception took place or how they knew that life had to be conceived. It had to begin at a point like conception, and at that point life begins. But we do have biblical warrant for this. Just consider, for example, the 139th Psalm, where David very clearly indicates that God created the life within his mother and knew him, even before his mother knew she was bearing him. That's just one very clear biblical testimony to the fact that life begins at conception. Now, let me also say that when we talk about apologetics defending this kind of statement, one of the things we need to always take into consideration

is what would be the ramifications if this were not so? What if life didn't begin at conception? Well, if it doesn't, then we have a problem, but we also have to decide when does life begin? When do we say, yes, that's life? Before that, it's not life. And of course, in today's debates, is more people that's not yet human, even more so that's a person that's not yet a person. This is why Christians press it all the way back to conception, because at any point after that, it is entirely arbitrary. And by the way, at any point after that, it becomes a constant process of negotiation. And you know how that works. Life loses. Okay, from time to time in answering this young man's second question, I talk about just war theory in the Christian tradition. It is a very important part of Christian

moral reasoning. It's called just war theory because it asked the question, when is war justified? and when war is justified, how is it justifiably pursued? And so those are two different questions, but they're closely related. And this young man asked the question, how can war be justified with Jesus' teachings on loving our enemies? Well, number one, we must love our enemies. But that does not mean we will not at times have to, as a nation, defend ourselves. And so let me just talk about the nation. It is important to recognize that when Jesus was talking to Christians about loving our enemies, he was giving us an absolute command. It was not a command given to nations.

And let me just say, in a fallen world, and Israel is a great example of this in the Old Testament, Jesus clearly did not think that Israel had been wrong for fighting wars to protect its own existence. Furthermore, Jesus didn't even demand that the Roman Empire give up its army. That was a statement in terms of loving our enemies that is characteristic of the gospel. It is a gospel command. And, furthermore, it can also be a command that is fulfilled even by a soldier in an army, who has the awful duty, and yes, it is a duty of protecting innocent life. Just war theory comes down to the fact that in a Christian understanding,

consistent with biblical truth, a righteous nation cannot be an aggressor nation, but a righteous nation can fight back when it is facing an aggressor. And that's just a basic way that Christians have reasoned through this, because if a righteous nation does not defend itself against an aggressor nation, then the entire world is ruled by merely aggressor nation. nations. And that can't be consistent with God's plan either. I appreciate all these questions, and I appreciate the fact that in schools and in Christian schools, classical Christian schools, but also even in a public university, we have Christian young people who are so serious about

thinking and living faithfully as Christians. That has to encourage us all. But next I want to turn to a man who asked me a question. He says his church is starting to introduce the Enneagram personality assessment. He says, quote, I know that there are large churches that use it with leaders who ascribe to its benefits. He says, Andy Stanley for one. And our church follows much of what happens at their church. Well, I'm simply going to stop here and say, I wouldn't. Let me just say it even more emphatically. I wouldn't, exclamation point. The last thing I want, and the last thing I would want to see a church use is this kind of, well, let's just say secular and the background of the enneagram may be even more complicated than just secular,

or this kind of personality assessment, and I'm really against it, I'm just going to speak candidly. I'm not going to tell you that if you use it, I have any power to bring down God's judgment on you. I'm simply going to say, I think it's very dangerous. I don't want to tell you why. It's not just because of its complicated background and its reductionism. It's also because it is an extra-biblical standard that becomes so authoritative to so many people. They tell me, or I see them, hear them say to others, I'm a this or I'm a that. Well, you know, that can really run into conflict with the fact that you are, first of all, a human being made in the image of God. You are a man or a woman, a boy or a girl, created for God's glory. You are given a personality which comes also with the glory of

God. In a fallen world, it also comes with the distortions of sin. If you have come to know the Lord Jesus Christ is Savior, you have been born again. That doesn't mean all those complications disappear. It does mean that you're a new creature in Christ, and I don't think any of that can be reduced to an eneagram or any other form of gram. I also want to say that these things wouldn't be popular if they didn't fit certain patterns of human existence and human thinking. If they didn't fit those patterns and add to some kind of predictability, nobody'd be using them. But it's quite easy to say, oh, I just took this test, I just went and talked to this therapist, and I've just discovered who I am. I am a blank. Honestly, in our therapeutic age, I'm afraid there are an awful lot of people

who would, for you, try to fill in those blanks. I think that's problematic. I want those blanks filled in by scripture. There's more to it than that in terms of the fellowship of the saints and the body of Christ growing in sanctification together as we are exposed to and receiving the preaching of the Word of God. But quite honestly, the Christian worldview tells us that it is the word of God that will disclose ourselves to ourselves, not some extra-biblical source. Okay, finally for today, I want to tell you, I'm highly honored by a Roman Catholic listener who wrote to me saying that he listens to the briefing. I appreciate that greatly. And then he asks an honest question, why don't Protestants have to confess their sins to a minister like

Catholics must to a priest? He says Catholic clergy often quote scripture as to the reason for confession. Well, I want to thank you as a listener for writing me of this question, and I'm so thankful you listen to the briefing. And as you ask the question, I want to say that it's not just as you state the question, why don't Protestants have to confess their sins to a minister? It is that in Roman Catholic theology and in Roman Catholic practice, it is Catholics who are confessing their sins to a priest. And so the priesthood turns out to be the crucial issue there beyond the confession of sins. So let me be emphatic. It is absolutely right that Christians, all Christians, any Christian, we must confess our sins. And the scripture tells us that if we confess our sins,

he, meaning the Father, is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. And that's because of the atonement accomplished by the Lord Jesus Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection. And so salvation comes to those who believe in Christ, who place our entire faith and trust in him, and the Christian life is indeed marked by continual confession of sin and the assurance of the fact that in Christ our sins are forgiven. But what makes the Protestant and the Catholic understanding of this so radically different is that we do not believe that any human priest is involved in that process at any point. That's why I had to say it the way I said it.

It's not because we just believe that the confession that a priest is not involved. we actually believe that at no point is a human priest involved. Salvation, atonement, the forgiveness of sins, the confession ascends, is all between the believer and the Lord Jesus Christ directly. He is our great high priest, and we have no need for a human priest. And not only that, we actually don't believe there is a legitimacy to a mediatorial human priesthood. So you asked the question so kindly and respectfully, and I just want to, in the same spirit,

it respond. It's not just that we don't believe in the confessional, we don't believe in the power of a human being to hear our confession and to declare our sins forgiven as a priestly function. We believe that it is Christ himself who fulfills that function, the one mediator between God and man, and that's a crucial distinction in the Protestant Reformation and a crucial distinction in Protestant Catholic practice right down to the present. So again, I'll just state that the problem doesn't begin, the difference doesn't begin with the confessional. The difference begins with the priesthood. This listener says that his Roman Catholic clergy often quotes scripture as to the reason for confession, and I'm going to say they're absolutely right when they say that Christians

should confess our sins to God. That's absolutely right. The distinction is, after the distinction over the priesthood, which is fundamental, is the distinction over the confession of sin and what's considered to be the sacrament of confession. As Protestants, we do not believe that scripture indicates or affirms any such sacrament of confession. Therefore, we don't have a confessional. What Christian churches should have, Protestant churches should have, is a prayer of confession in our worship services clearly designed to remind Christians and lead Christians together in congregations to confess our sins and receive by Christ's work alone, the forgiveness of sins. And I just want to say to this listener again,

thanks both for listening and for writing and trusting me with that kind of question. Actually, with reference to all the questions we consider today and all the questions that listeners send me, I just want to tell you, I am so thankful to know that the listeners to the briefing are thinking as you think and asking the questions as you frame them. And I just wish I could get to them all every single week. I invite you to send your question just to mail at Albertmohler.com. Thanks for listening to The Briefing. 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 sbtsd.u. For information

on Boyce College, just go to Boiscollege.com. I'll meet you again on Monday for the briefing.