The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Friday, June 20, 2025

Episode Date: June 20, 2025

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.Part I (00:14 - 09:52)A Harmless Escape or Threat to Social Order? Brazil’s Sad ‘Reborn Doll’ CrazeExtremely Lifelike Dolls Cause a Frenzy in Brazil by The New York Times (Leonardo Coelho and Michael Levenson)Part II (09:52 - 23:42)What is the Responsibility of the United States to the Modern State of Israel? Do Christians Have a Doctrinal Obligation to the State of Israel? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The BriefingPart III (23:42 - 27:15)Can a Christian Become a Universalist and Still Be Considered a Christian? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The BriefingPart IV (27:15 - 30:59)Is Claiming a So-Called ‘Furry’ Identity Contradictory to Scripture? — Dr. Mohler Responds to a Letter from a 15-Year-Old Listener 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, June 20, 2025. I'm Albert Mueller, and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. There are all kinds of interesting developments in the media stories that come from here and there, and a lot of them appear to be interesting, but we need to focus on the ones that are not only interesting, but important. And the important ones should be of interest to us. And may well, when it comes to Christians, be interesting for reasons that are unique to Christians alone, or at least have a dimension that Christians alone can understand. So I want to go to a story that comes from Brazil. Leonardo Coelho and Michael Levinson reporting for the New York Times offered an article. It was given considerable space in the New York Times

entitled, Extremely Life-like Dolls Create a Frenzy in Brazil. As the article reveals, these dolls are known as Reborn Dolls. And the article tells us that they, quote, provide comfort, escape, or just plain fun. But not so funny to some politicians in Brazil who have taken efforts to try to adopt legislation saying that these dolls are not to be, for instance, given seats on buses or admitted into hospitals, etc. It seems crazy. But this is a serious news article and a serious newspaper.

And I think as Christians we understand, there's something very serious going on here. So the report coming from Rio, that is Rio de Janeiro in Brazil and Levinson in New York, they tell us, quote, a young woman posts a video that appears to show her holding her baby, Bento, and packing his bag for a trip to the hospital. She calls it one of the busiest and scariest days for me. According to the report, she grabs onesies, a bottle in medical documents, and tucks them in the back of a car. At the hospital, he is weighed and lies in a bed where she removes his pacifier, bottle feeds him, and wipes a few drops of formula from his cheek. But then the

Times tells us, and again, this is the New York Times, quote, but this was not an actual medical emergency. It was role-playing by a content creator, and the baby was not a real baby. It was a shockingly lifelike doll called a reborn doll, which is handcrafted to look and feel like a baby. We're told that that one video has received more than six million views on TikTok, and as part of what's described as, quote, a social media craze that has turned into a cultural and political flashpoint in Brazil. Quote, widely circulated video show women taking the hyper-realistic dolls to the park and strollers, celebrating their birthdays with cake and songs, and simulating childbirth, end quote. They go on to tell us that similar videos have been made, simulating the dolls having a nosebleed

or potty training. One woman who's a devotee of these dolls said, quote, the ones I like most are the newborns. She said that she began collecting the dolls back in 2018. She now has 22 of them. She went on to say, quote, the world of make-believe is an escape valve for me, and no, I don't treat them like a real baby. End quote. Well, obviously, she finds them very interesting. She's invested a lot of money in buying 22 of them, and she says they are an escape valve for her. But later in the article, there are other women cited who clearly are confused between the reality and make-belief. In Brazil, we're told that these alls have been flooding into pop culture. They've made it on to television. Quote, newspaper columnists, influencers, and lawmakers

have all weighed in with varying degrees of sincerity about what some perceive as a threat to the social order and what others have described was a harmless hobby. We're told that in one Brazilian state, a lawmaker carried one of the dolls into the legislative chamber and argued that some women have been demanding, quote, public benefits for the dolls. And there are others who have made statements about some of these dolls being taken to hospitals and all the rest. One legislature asked where it would end with people taking reborn pets to the veterinarian to be neutered. Well, you go on further and we're told that at least 30 bills have been filed in Brazil over the issue of these dolls. And for one thing, barring the dolls from receiving what's described

as services and public health facilities. But, says the paper, quote, there appears to have been just one documented case of a woman with a psychiatric disorder showing up at a hospital to seek treatment for her doll, only to be turned away at the entrance. But the article cites and quotes at least one woman who very clearly seems to be looking at these dolls as an escape from reality, but nonetheless she's treating them as babies. We're told the dolls have been around since the 1990s when rather common dolls were made to look more like actual babies. They cost somewhere between $200 and $250. Some limited edition dolls we are told have been sold for as much as $4,000.

One of the major marketers of these dolls located not in the Amazon, but rather in Ohio, he said that some of the dolls are purchased by mothers who are grieving the loss of a child. We're told that others have been purchased by memory care facilities, even by lawyers who use them for courtroom reenactments, people making movies and television shows, quote, but most buyers are just people who love babies. A woman who with her husband and daughter make these dolls in Indiana said, quote, about half of her customers are collectors and about half are coping with some kind of trauma or loss. One customer, and again, this is the woman who makes them, she said, quote, takes her dolls shopping into the doctor's office, feeds them baby food, and takes

pictures of them with Santa Claus at Christmas. Quote, she's unable to have kids, so this is as close as she can get for her and her husband. She went on, this is the maker of the dolls, quote, there's definitely a large group of people who don't understand why a grown adult would be playing with a baby doll, but they don't see it as a baby doll. They see it as a baby, end quote. So the article begins by saying that the paper is not certain this is really, serious issue, but it's big enough. It has attracted legislative attention. But by the time you get to

the end of the article, clearly it is a major issue where you have one of the manufacturers of the dolls and you have a marketer of the doll saying, look, this is about people who think this doll is more than a baby doll. They see it as a baby. All right. So as Christians look at this, I just want us to back up and get some perspective here. Our interest in this is not the salaciousness of it. It's not the consumer curiosity of it. It's not the cultural angle. It is the theological insight that God made us as male and female, and he made us as men and as women, to see ourselves in terms of being parents. And when it comes to the social and cultural revolutions all around us, quite honestly, fewer women are mothers in this generation as a percentage than in previous generations. You have birth control, contraception, you have abortion, you have a decreasing number of both men and women getting married by definition, and you just have a larger situation in which marriage, adulthood, parenthood are either being delayed or increasingly just being avoided altogether. And this is leaving a huge vacuum in the hearts

of many women who certainly have a desire for a baby. But they apparently have no realistic chance of becoming mothers in the traditional sense, certainly in marriage, etc. And so the love for a babies being transferred to these dolls instead. And our first thought as Christians is how heartbreaking all this has to be. It is just extremely heartbreaking. When you have one of the makers of the dolls acknowledge that many of the women who buy them don't see them as baby dolls, but instead see them as babies, there's something deeply, deeply troubling here. But it also points out that creation order is going to shine through. Creation order is going to show itself. God's purpose and creation, hunger he is put in us when it comes to a desire for marriage and for family. And the creation order

he is put in place in which he said to the man and to the woman, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, the emphasis upon marriage and family and the having and raising of children and the perpetuation of the human population, even to the point of reproducing to the glory of God. When that is violated when in a secular age all that recedes into the background, what you're left with is not just a new cultural situation. What you are left with is an enormous amount of heartbreak. And that heartbreak comes with, I think we can understand, just an absolute avalanche of confusion. You know, you look at this media story and it appears to say, these alls represent something of, I guess, a consumer fad, a political fascination, something of a cultural

freak show. But we as Christians look at it and say, no, that's not what we see at all. What we see here is something that is put as a hunger in the hearts of these women. And that hunger is not something that is put there by evolution or cultural conditioning. It is put there by the creator. And when you have the suppression of marriage and the suppression of having children and the suppression of the expectation of motherhood for these women, what is left is not just empty secular space. What is left is heartbreak. From that issue, let's turn to questions. A pattern of questions has come in concerning Israel, and that's understandable, especially given Israel's military action to take out the nuclear facilities in Iran. And of course, that's an unfolding story even now.

But representative of the questions that have come in this issue, a woman Lister from North Carolina writes saying, recent events in the news have led me to wonder about our obligation as a nation and as faithful Christians to support the modern state of Israel. She says, I pray for the peace of Israel and for wisdom for the Israeli and American leadership. But beyond that, do we have a religious obligation to defend the modern state of Israel? In other words, if Israel faces an existential threat from a nation such as Iran, should we step in to defend Israel militarily? Okay, that's a very interesting question.

I think it's very intelligently posed in this case. And the issues are put before us, certainly in the headlines these days. do Christians have an ethical obligation to support the state of Israel? I think the answer to this question is yes. I also think it is a defined and qualified yes, and so I'm going to need to define and qualify it. I think we need to turn first to scripture. You'll recall that in Genesis chapter 12, we find what is known as the Abrahamic covenant. That's God's covenant with Abraham. And the scripture says, quote, Now the Lord said to Abram, go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. and I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great so that you will be a blessing.

I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you, I will curse. And in you, all the families of the earth shall be blessed. So that's a very familiar text of Scripture, and it's a precious text. I want to state emphatically, I believe that the Abrahamic covenant is one of those blessed covenants established by God to reveal his glory and his unfolding redemptive purpose. I believe that all of the old covenant is fulfilled in the new covenant of Christ, but I also believe that all the promises of the old covenant will be fully realized. And that means that I believe there is a future purpose for the nation of Israel, biblical Israel. And I believe that the principle established in Genesis 12 continues. The question is, where is biblical Israel? When we use the

name, we invoke the name Israel of what or of whom are we speaking. And so I'm here need to make a distinction. Some people are going to say immediately, well, the answer is, the obvious answer to the question, where is Israel, is to look to the eastern shore of the Mediterranean and find the state of Israel. It's a nation on the map. You can find it on the globe. There is biblical Israel. Now, I just want to say, there is the state of Israel. And I have to make a distinction, theologically and biblically, between biblical Israel and the state of Israel. It is not that they have nothing to do with one another. I actually believe that biblical Israel is in a very real sense being protected and preserved for God's unfolding purposes inside the

state of Israel. But the state of Israel has its own history, and that history includes the emergence of the political state, the nation state in 1948. And it also includes some complications when it comes to the fact that many of the Jews who established the state of Israel, and I think it was such a noble act, they did so nonetheless, as largely secular Jewish people. And many of them were committed even to socialism. Well, let me to state very clearly the covenant that God made with Abraham, the covenant that God established with Israel as his personal possession, is a covenant with the spiritual people established as the descendants of Abraham. Now, should we befriend the state of Israel? And my answer to that is emphatically, yes.

I am not, however, stating that the state of Israel, the nation is a, of Israel. The nation is a theological obligation to the United States of America. I think there is a larger obligation, and I think that was recognized even by, say, President Harry Truman when he was the first major world leader to recognize the State of Israel in 1948. All right, when you look at the New Testament, and I believe, well, let me just state very honestly, I'm a pre-millennialist. Let me put my theological cards on the table, so to speak. As a pre-millennialist, I believe that all of the promises given to Israel will be fully fulfilled. and that includes the territorial promises given in the Old Testament.

So I mean that in space, time, and history. I am looking for the complete fulfillment right down to the inches of the territory designated for Israel for God's glory. I believe that the realization of this, the fulfillment of this, will happen in the millennial reign of Christ. I'm a premillennialist, so I believe that Christ comes and establishes that millennial reign. Of course, his reign is eternal, but there is that 1,000-year period in which you have the establishment on earth from Jerusalem of the reality.

of Christ's kingdom, all of its principles, all of its power in the reign of Christ with the saints. But to whom did God give those promises? I'm going to argue that those promises were not given to the modern state of Israel, established in 1948. They were given to biblical Israel. And here's why I say the answer is yes, we should befriend Israel, the state of Israel, but it's a qualified yes. It's not qualified as if we say, well, it's partly yes and partly no. It's qualified only by the understanding that the state of Israel is not, here's a Bally, big word, coterminous, it is not absolutely identical with biblical Israel. I do believe that in the providence of God, the state of Israel is an important holding and protective vessel for biblical Israel

for the unfolding purposes of God. I believe the state of Israel is not to be immediately and without qualification identified as biblical Israel. Biblical Israel is defined theologically. And I think this was pretty clear in the establishment of Israel by secular leaders who intended to establish Israel as a secular state. That's what they said. The majority of them were influenced even by Marxism. A good number of them were socialist. They saw Israel as a secular nation. And in some ways, even if not denying, they suppressed its biblical identity, even as they, in so many other ways, claimed it as a mandate. Now, not only as a political interest, as a geopolitical interest, but as a theological interest, I want us to look at this question. I want to be very careful. I do not believe that Benjamin Netanyahu

is the prime minister of biblical Israel, an office, which, by the way, doesn't occur in scripture. I do believe he is the prime minister of Israel, the nation, and I believe that that nation is providentially instrumental in the survival of biblical Israel for the completion of all things, according to God's perfect promise and unalterable purpose. But I want to press this case just a little bit farther. Let's say, I think it's also important to recognize that on purely secular terms, the United States should see the state of Israel as a key ally. And I think that's how the basic relationship between the U.S. and Israel has operated, going all the way back to the recognition of Israel by President Harrius Truman in 1948. By the way, he was persuaded, at least in part, by a major

Jewish friend who made explicitly biblical arguments to him. So I think that's an interesting part of the history between the U.S. and Israel as well. Well, the United States was instrumental in bringing about the nation, recognizing it. And the relationship between Israel and the United States, the state of Israel and the United States is crucial going all the way back to 1948. But immediately after the formation and even the recognition of the state of Israel, political leaders in the United States, and that includes also some of our European allies, weren't sure exactly what to do with Israel. Now, there's another background issue here, and that was the Holocaust undertaken by Nazi Germany. There was the sense that there was a moral mandate

to create a recognized nation state for the Jewish people to represent the continuation of Judaism and of the Jewish people. And that led to the fact that there was an intuitive support for Israel, but it wasn't clear how Israel fit into the geopolitics of the region, not to mention to the entire world. That has been tremendously clarified and clarified in some horrifying ways by Israel's fight for its own existence, an incredibly brave and courageous fight going all the way back to 1948. And Israel exists in a context in which it knows that it is surrounded by so many nations, and in particular you could put Iran at the top of that list, who have dedicated themselves to the non-existence of Israel.

And so Israel knows where it stands in the world and knows who its friends are. American support for Israel really began to come in the late 1960s, and even in the early 1970s, particularly in a society. succession of wars between Israel and Arab states. And so the United States has a lot of interest in the region, has a lot of interest with the Arab nations in the region. And one of the things that has happened just over the course of the last several decades is that largely due to the United States in its own geopolitics, our own geopolitics, there has been an outreach to Israel and to many Arab states, which have actually become functionally much more friendly to the existence of

Israel. And the fact is that Israel and so many of these Arab states now have a common enemy. And the enemy is, on the one hand, just anarchist, terrorist, Islamic fundamentalist groups, but it is also particularly Iran. Well, in the context of the Cold War in the last century, with that in the background, other issues, oil, all a part of the equation, you did have the increased recognition on the part of the United States that there is one, and there is only one constitutional government with any kind of democratic legitimacy there in the Middle East. There's only one government that qualifies politically as well as, say, militarily to be an ally of the United States in that sense.

There is one and only one government that seems to represent America's understanding of the world in that region, and even just in moral terms on so many different issues, there is a commonality. Now, since that time, there have been other majority Arab nations that have moved closer to the United States and implicitly to Israel and allyship. But there's simply no doubt that the United States has and always has had to some extent, especially since the 1970s. The United States has had an exceptionally close relationship to Israel. And Israel, by the way, should be recognized as in so many ways acting on behalf of the United States,

whether that's a stated goal or not. To put it another way, when Israel defends itself, it often does so against threats which are directed not only to Israel, but to the United States and to the global order the United States wants to see kept in place. Israel takes a lot of hard shots. It takes a lot of the hard shots that are intended for others. It also receives a lot of constant reminder that its very existence is at stake. Israel knows that it is constantly having to fight for that existence, and thus Israel, it takes action where sometimes the United States would not be quite so ready to take action. I think that's exactly what's taking place right now. Israel has taken action in terms of the

nuclear threat from Iran. It has a friend in the United States who, also is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from developing a usable nuclear weapon. But the U.S. has a bit of time. You even see that right now in the statements coming in the White House. The U.S. wants a bit of time to think these issues through. Israel tends to plan far in advance and be ready to meet this kind of threat. And Israel tends to act without some of the hesitation that might be reflected by other nations. Just based on a secular perspective, I think the United States has to see Israel as an incredibly important ally. you've seen this in explicit statements from President Trump. He seems very clearly now to acknowledge

that what Israel is doing is not only justified in terms of the action in Iran, but also necessary. That's a key statement of allyship. We'll see what comes beyond that. And of course, the big question right now is to what extent the United States under President Trump will or will not become a direct participant in terms of the military action against Iran. But, you know, the issue here is that Israel has taken the action. The United States, wants the action taken. One way or another, the relationship between the United States and Israel is going to be abundantly clear. But I don't want to speak about this merely in secular terms, precisely because I'm a Christian. I want to speak in Christian in biblical terms. I think that Christians

in the United States represent an even deeper understanding of identity with the Jewish people and with the state of Israel. And we also make the theological distinction, understanding that God's promises are to biblical Israel, and those promises, speaking, those territorial promises, are part of the larger context of God's redemptive purpose, and I believe that is to produce one saved people, saved by the blood of the lamb. I guess that one of the most controversial aspects of the future of Israel when it comes in biblical terms is the fact that biblical Israel will overwhelmingly turn to Christ's Redeemer, and that will be again to the infinite eternal glory of the one true and living God. I think that the existence of the state of Israel is a part of God's providential

purposes in setting the stage for that to happen. Christians need to remember that in the book of Romans, the Apostle Paul speaks to the fact that it is we who are grafted onto the promises of Israel. And Israel, in the unfolding purposes of God, will represent a victory for the power of the gospel and the reign of the lamb. And we will have the fulfillment of the promise that is given in the clear teachings of Scripture and the power of God into salvation. That's what the gospel is, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile. We're watching right now the unfolding of history being lived out right before our eyes, but Christians understand there is more to it than just history. There is that which is to come in the promise of God, and for that we await, and we wait as

friends of Israel, for the unfolding purpose of God and the unveiling of His glory, and all flesh shall see it together. Okay, another question comes in, listener writes, can a Christian become a universalist and believe that God will eventually reconcile everyone to himself and still be considered a Christian? He says he doesn't believe that. But he goes on to say that someone like William Barkley, a prominent New Testament commentator, ended up being a universalist. And he mentions that others, including some who identify themselves in some ways evangelicals, still cite William Barkley's work, etc. But the interesting question here is the first words of this email, can a Christian become a universalist and believe that

Jesus will eventually reconcile everyone to himself and still be considered a Christian? I think the answer to that is no, because I believe that that position is outside orthodoxy, and it is in direct contradiction to scripture. Now, if you are looking for the statement that all will be reconciled in Christ, well, the entire cosmos in one sense is the object of Christ's redemptive work. But it is a extremely clear in Scripture that there is a final judgment and then there is a dual destiny, both of them eternal. Those who are in Christ will go into everlasting joy with Christ. Those who are not in Christ will go into everlasting punishment in the hell created by God for that purpose. So let me just state that there is, I believe, no Christian orthodoxy that comes

anywhere close to universalism. I think universalism is the repudiation of the gospel of Christ. I mean, what in the world does it mean when you have a passage like Romans 10, which raises the major question of what happens if they don't hear the gospel? And Paul's answer is, they will not be saved. And that's why we preach the gospel. The stakes could not be higher, nor could the words be clearer. And thus, that's a rejection, I think, of the clear teachings of scripture. And by the way, where's it come from? Well, it comes in one sense through theological logic. And that's why we have to be careful of theological logic that goes beyond scripture, much less against scripture. And so you had a figure like origin in the early church.

And he argued that the redemptive reconciliation principle found in the work of Christ simply had to work its way through all of humanity so that all are saved. But that's in violation of scripture. That contradicts scripture. His problem, his his fault was to create a principle that violates the gospel. You just can't do that. There have been other kinds of efforts in recent years, a movement called inclusivism, which says, you know, all the different world religions are eventually included in the redemptive purpose of God. They will be included in Christ's finished work. Again, that is exactly not what is taught in scripture. Then there have been even suggestions that eventually someone, well, let's put it this way. There will be a

post-mortem opportunity. That's something that really came up. in the 20th century. People said, you know, the way out of this problem is to say that after death, there will be a post-mortem opportunity. But, you know, that again is directly rejected by scripture. It is appointed at a man wants to die, and after that the judgment. No post-mortem opportunity. And so you asked the question, can someone become universalist and still claim to be a Christian? Well, all I can state is not with legitimacy, because I believe universalism is a denial of and contradiction of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. And I don't. say that on my authority, nor the accumulated authority, the Christian Church. I say that, most

importantly, on the authority of Scripture. Okay, with just a little bit of hesitation, I'm going to take a question here because some younger folks have convinced me I really do need to deal with this. This is a question coming in from a 15-year-old. This young listener writes saying, quote, I have a friend who claims to be a Christian and a furry. I believe this to be contradictory and it's given me great concern. Where in the Bible would I show them that it's contradictory? Well, let me just state to this 15-year-old listener, you're absolutely right. This is something about which we should have very deep concern. And this is a problem because it is a denial of creation order. In other words, it becomes a real fundamental problem because we're not talking

about, you know, something that takes some time to figure out. We're talking about Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. We're talking about species distinction, the distinction between human beings and all other created things. Human beings are set apart, and most especially by the fact that we're made in the image of God. And one of the most consistent teachings throughout all of Scripture is the distinction between human beings and every other aspect of creation. That's just so fundamental. It's in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2. And in the rest of the Bible, we have, have an acknowledged under the fact that in our sinfulness, human beings will deny creation order, will deny the things that are obvious to us. And that's one of the most glaring aspects of this.

And you know, this furry thing, it comes not only with species confusion, it often comes with a sexual aspect as well. Without going into any kind of detail, I will simply say, it is directly a violation of scripture in terms of the rejection of creation order and the distinctiveness of human beings made in God's image. It is also fundamentally wrong in the development of a sexualized aspect. And that seems to be quite common in that experience. And it has become, in some ways, identified in the plus sign of LGBTQ plus. And that should tell you something. So I do want to to appreciate the clarity of this young person's concern and was saying, where in the Bible do we find this distinction? And that distinction is in Genesis 1. Let us make man in our

image. In the image of God, created he them. Male and female created he them. Those are the two big distinctions. First of all, the distinction between the human and all other aspects of creation. and then within humanity between male and female. Both of those distinctions, absolutely necessary to creation order, both of them showing the glory of God. You know, I think for all of us, this tells us a lot. It tells us a lot that here you have a 15-year-old Christian asking this kind of question about a friend.

I think that tells us a lot about where we stand in 2025. And by the way, to this 15-year-old listener, thanks for asking the question and for trusting us with it. You can send your own questions. It'll be by contacting me at Mail at Albertmuller.com. Thanks for listening to The Briefing. For more information, go to my website at Albertmuller.com. You can follow me on excerpt Twitter by going to Twitter.com forward slash Albert Moller.

For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbtsklee. For information on Boyce College, just go to Bois College.com. I'll meet you again on Monday for the briefing. Thank you.