The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Friday, March 14, 2025

Starting point is 00:00:04 It's Friday, March 14, 2025. I'm Albert Moller, and this is the briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. Well, it's really interesting to see how things lay out. And I'm talking now about recent headlines and the way the realities fall out. One of them has to do with an announcement made by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in the announcement that his department, which is heavily involved, of course, in all matters of health and medical research and policy and all the rest, he announced that according to President Trump's executive order, the Department of Health and Human Services, would now recognize two and only two genders, male and female. And following the example of the president's executive order, female is described as the gender capable of producing the large reproductive cell. male is identified as the gender capable of producing the small reproductive cells.

Starting point is 00:01:00 So again, you do the math, clear. That was never a question throughout most of human history shouldn't be now. But it is quite interesting that the statement announcing this was made by the Secretary himself. Secretary Kennedy said, quote, this administration is bringing back common sense and restoring biological truth to the federal government, the prior administration's policy of trying to engineer gender ideology into every aspect of public life. is over. Well, I'm encouraged by those words. I'm thankful for them. I think one of the interesting worldview questions is, does Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. actually believe this? Or is this what he is saying as one of the main officers, a cabinet member of the

Starting point is 00:01:42 Trump administration? I have to say, given the kinds of statements that have been made by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the past, given his association with social liberalism on so many things, I'm not sure exactly what Secretary Kennedy believes about this. I do know this. He understands that to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Trump administration, he has to say that he's going to apply the Trump administration policy. And not only that, the way this works is he can't just say I'm going to abide by it. He has to say, this is the right policy. If you're going to be a cabinet member in a presidential administration, you have to not only say, I'm going to agree to operate by the president's directive and definitions here. I'm going to argue in public consistently that they are

Starting point is 00:02:27 right. So I don't know exactly what Secretary Kennedy believes about this matter. Frankly, Secretary Kennedy, by himself, I would not trust on this matter. But it's a reminder of how government works. And he works for someone known as the president of the United States. He's accountable to the president's policy. And I do think it's really interesting. And I can just wonder what many members of the Kennedy family think about this. Clearly, they were opposed to Robert of Kennedy Jr. getting the job that came out as a family and made a statement against him. And of course, that had everything to do with family history and with the reality of Donald Trump as a presidential candidate. And, of course, now as president of the United States. The reality is

Starting point is 00:03:13 the Kennedy family has been thoroughly, consistently identified with the liberal wing of the Democratic party, and let's just say Donald Trump is their worst nightmare, having a member of the Kennedy family, indeed one with the name, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., that means the son of the former New York Senator, son of the former Attorney General of the United States, key member of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Administration, nephew of the slain president himself, you're looking at someone who is not representative of his family when it comes to these issues, but he came out swinging, making the announcement, even criticizing the Biden administration for its policies on the very same question. Okay, the New York Times, Cheryl Gay-Stolberg is the reporter here. We looked at a lot of

Starting point is 00:04:00 her stuff in the past. She inserts in this news report, quote, but many medical experts, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, recognize that not everyone fits into neat categories of male and female. Some individuals are intersex and have sexual anatomy or chromosomes that do not fit typical definitions of male and female. Let's just stop there for a moment. Is that paragraph right? If so, it's morally significant. We need to note it.

Starting point is 00:04:27 The statement is that that paragraph taken alone is correct. It is correct that a very, very small percentage of human beings are born with chromosomal abnormalities, and it is unclear exactly how they should be classified. If that's what we're talking about in terms of the LGBTQ issue, we would have a very different conversation. That's not what we're talking about. Christians looking at this understand sympathetically the reality that is described here. It may well be described in scripture. And it has to do with the fact that there is an abnormality in the genetic chromosomal structure. That is not saying something judgmental. That's saying something that is right. It is just biologically true. We should be very

Starting point is 00:05:10 sympathetic with the very, very small number of human beings, every single one of them made in the image of God who struggles with or whose parents upon the birth of a baby struggle with this kind of question. I just want to be clear, this is not what T stands for. That is not what transgender stands for. That is not in the main what non-binary stands for. What that stands for is someone for whom there's really no chromosomal question at all, but due to what's identified as gender identity or sexual orientation identifies as something other than the chromosomal structure, which is to say the sex assigned at birth. But then here's the very next paragraph. This comes right away, quote, some children do not identify with either gender or identify with a gender that does

Starting point is 00:05:58 not correspond to their biological sex. The Academy, that means the American Academy of Pediatrics, quote, has published its own set of definitions that include transgender youth described as, quote, a subset of gender diverse youth whose gender identity does not match their assigned sex, end quote. Okay, stop, stop. That paragraph is in contrast with the paragraph that came just before. The paragraph before deals with hermaphroditic situations now more commonly described as intersex. That's a chromosomal abnormality. We have full sympathy for persons who are afflicted with that particular abnormality. We have full sympathy with parents who are trying to deal with issues when a baby is born or when a child is young. We see every single one of them is made in the image of God and we

Starting point is 00:06:43 celebrate them as gifts to humanity. But when you in the next paragraph, all of a sudden shift to transgender, Christians need to be alert, we need to be aware, we need to hear when that happens, and call it out for what it is. This is a very different thing. And I also want you to note that in those two paragraphs, you have the truth accidentally laid out. In that first paragraph, we read, quote, some individuals are intersex and have sexual anatomy or chromosomes that do not fit definitions, typical definitions of male and female. But then immediately in the next paragraph, you're not talking about biology. You're talking about children who do not identify with either gender or identify with a gender that does not correspond to their biological sex. Notice the switch

Starting point is 00:07:27 there. Every once in a while, I think it's just really helpful when we look at the cultural conversation around us to notice the sleight of hand with which someone in an article like this all of a sudden shifts, and you've got to be very careful to notice the shift. We just shifted from biology to sexual identity politics. One paragraph, the next paragraph, there's no announcement that that's what's happening. We've got to recognize that's what's happening. But next, before we turn to questions, I want to let you know about something if you don't know about it already. And I'm speaking particularly to families to parents with children, although everyone, I think, will be interested to know of Jackie and Shadow and their three chicks.

Starting point is 00:08:06 Who am I talking about? Jackie and Shadow are beautiful bald eagles. They are a breeding pair of bald eagles. They are located at Big Bear Lake, about 145 feet in the air. They're in the mountains. They're in a stunningly beautiful place. And human beings have placed webcams to watch them. They're even illuminated at night by infrared light, which does not disturb the eagles. They can't see it, but does allow you to look into the nest. And I have been looking at it periodically for quite a long time. It's an amazing story. You go back to 2003, Jackie and Shadow had eggs, but the webcams caught the fact that the eggs were eaten by ravens, predators. They ate the eagle eggs. And then last year, there was another disaster for the couple. They again had eggs, but their eggs completely failed to hatch.

Starting point is 00:09:02 unusual cold meant that, for example, Jackie sat on her clutch. That's what you call the group of eggs in an eagle's nest. She sat on them for 62 hours straight. It wasn't enough. And now, however, you have three beautiful little chicks who have emerged from three beautiful eggs, and these little chicks have been through the process known as pipping, whereby they have emerged from the eggs, and you can watch Mom and Dad Eagle and their baby Eagles 24-7 at their webcam. And on the website for the briefing, we'll tell you where you can go for the friends of Big Bear Lake who afford you the opportunity 24 hours a day to check in on this eagle family, these two beautiful eagles, raising their little tiny eagles. It tells you about the love of God shown in creation, the glory of God, evident in creation. These parents are caring for these chicks with enormous, enormous devotion.

Starting point is 00:09:58 Shadow has to go out hunting, frequently brings back food to fish were evident just very recently there in the nest, and Mom eats first. Mom has to eat in order to have her energy to feed those babies. And I'll tell you, she knows exactly how to rip up a fish just into bite-sized portions for tiny little eagle chicks. In truth, even as I am speaking to you right now, that's exactly what Mom is doing to the glory of God. This does tell you about what parents, eagle parents, have to do to take care of their young. It tells us that God planted in the hearts of these birds a desire, a determination,

Starting point is 00:10:40 an absolute commitment to do everything possible to protect these little chicks. We are told that in the wild, bald eagle chicks have only a 50% survival rate in terms of ever leaving the nest. Let's hope for better for Shadow and Jackie and their three little chicks. So many people looking at that will say,

Starting point is 00:10:57 boy, that is interesting. Amazing how evolution put that instinct in those birds. You're going to know better. You're going to look at the same picture and see the glory of God. But I encourage you. Go take a look, but I warn you, it's addictive. Okay, now let's turn to questions. I have to tell you. A question came in this week. So one of my favorites of all time. It comes from a 19-year-old young woman who is in a doctoral dispute with her boyfriend. So you kind of have an indication. This is going to be interesting. And so she writes, quote, I'm asking a question about a dispute of having with my boyfriend. We've been together nine months now and talk a lot about the Bible. Recently, he's talked about his disappointment of the wickedness in the world and how he believes as a Christian that he

Starting point is 00:11:41 should always follow his head because his heart is only deceitful and evil, end quote. Okay, she goes on to basically elaborate on the question, a doctrinal dispute. Here's a young man who clearly trying to to think in biblical term says he's only going to trust his head because the heart is deceitfully evil. And, okay, does the Bible say, by the way, that the heart is deceitful and evil? Yes, it does. So what does that say? Do we now just use our heads? Okay, here's a problem. What we need to do is understand biblical psychology or biblical understandings of humanity and how we think, made in God's image, how does that work? And so the Bible does refer to the heart. add to the mind, not so much to the head physically, but to the mind. And what we need to understand

Starting point is 00:12:32 is that the heart in the Old Testament in particular, but also in the New Testament, in the Bible, the heart represents the center of who we are. It is our consciousness. You can't separate it from that consciousness. And so it includes the mind. Here's the bad news for the boyfriend in this case. Your mind is a part of your heart. Your mind is as deceitful and evil as your heart is, because your heart is the essence of who you are. It is the seed of meaning and the seat of feeling and the seat of cognition, as we say. It's the seat of thinking. Your brain is an extension in this sense of your heart. So deceitful and evil, thinking in your head is not going to get you out of the heart problem. By the way, the young woman in this case asking the question raises rightly Proverbs 423,

Starting point is 00:13:15 above all else, guard your heart for everything you do flows from it. Well, that actually makes the point. Everything we do, everything we are flows from our heart. So guard it. So I appreciate these two young people involved in this doctrinal debate. That's a pretty sweet thing in and of itself. And it's the kind of thing you should point us to deeper biblical thinking. And I'm very thankful this young woman wrote me. I want to write back with bad news. The bad news is your head can't get away from your heart. Your heart actually includes everything that goes on in your head. The reality is the heart is you. The heart is me. And the problem is and the problem is me. We are sinners. It is true. So how in the world do we deal with this as Christians?

Starting point is 00:13:59 As a new man, a new woman in Christ, how do we deal with this? Well, here's where we have to come back to the ordinary means of grace. Fill our minds of scripture. Continually be involved in prayer, in devotion, in the fellowship of the saints as a part of a local church growing in grace together. The ordinary means of grace, that is the only answer we're given. And we pray that progressively our hearts and our minds will be aligned and will be conformed. to the image of Christ. And so what a sweet question. I just love the idea of this teenage couple in a doctrinal dispute. And thanks for sending the question. I think you're going to find that an awful lot of people out there may have had a similar question. Okay, another question was sent in,

Starting point is 00:14:40 and it's simply this, when did presidents of the United States start swearing in public? David writes in. David, I appreciate the question. When did presidents of the United States start swearing in public. Okay, there could be two meanings to your question. I love both of them. The first one would have to do with the swearing in of a president, like you swear in someone as a witness, which means a vow. And the presidential oath goes all the way back to the Constitution of the United States. 1789, the eventual election of George Washington is the first president. He publicly vowed. And thus, some people would say that was a swearing in. It is, in essence, an oath is indeed called the oath of office. But I don't think that's what David's asking about here.

Starting point is 00:15:24 I think he means swearing in public as in using profane language, bad language, bad words. And presidents of the United States may have used these words for a long time, but not in public. As a matter of fact, when the Watergate tapes became available, when the presidency of Richard M. Nixon was coming to an end. It was a part of the reason why the presidency of Richard Nixon came to an end and he had to resign the office in disgrace. A part of it that was shocking to Americans is how a president of the United States in the privacy of the Oval Office had used horrible language over and over and over and over again. That was just shocking to Americans. It was so shocking in many ways. It just further eroded the credibility of Richard

Starting point is 00:16:07 Nixon as president of the United States. However, we have lots of other tapes. For example, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who preceded Richard Nixon in office, was president back in the 1960s. Those tapes once released revealed pretty coarse language. What about John F. Kennedy? We don't have the same kind of evidence, but he was in the Navy. Who knows? And you go back and you can find there is evidence that at least some form of strong language was used by many presidents, but not in public. The public's a new thing.

Starting point is 00:16:38 But, you know, I think I really first noticed it in terms of the public use of this kind of language of what's called here swearing. I think I first heard that with President Trump and President Biden. in his first term in office, President Trump used some language like this. I think a lot more now, at least by my perception, more now than then. And in between, Joe Biden as president of the United States, he seemed with calculated intentionality to drop language. And of course, I can remember when I was a teenager hearing arguments against swearing and profanity, obscene language, I can remember I was told, and generally by older men, including my own father, I was just told, it's a sign of weakness, not of strength, to use that kind of language. If you have a good argument, the argument

Starting point is 00:17:24 will stand on its own. If you have the truth, the truth will stand on its own. If you use that kind of language, it's to shore up a weakness rather than a strength. And I think there's a lot of moral insight in that. I think my dad was right. I think other who made this argument, they were right. And I think a part of what is really offensive is the fact that these days it is translated, at least in many circles, into showing that you're morally serious of all things, or showing that you're genuinely outraged, or perhaps even in some cases showing an exaggerated and unbiblical corrupted masculinity. I think that's all a part of what's going on here. I think young people sometimes try out this language to try to look big and look old and look powerful,

Starting point is 00:18:09 and instead it makes them look something else. But as for a president of the United States, let me just be very clear. Whatever they say in public is a part of their public branding. It's not by accident. They intend it. That's bipartisan now. It tells us something. Okay.

Starting point is 00:18:25 Another question coming in from a listener. What should the Christian think about Mardi Gras? Well, all right. I think it happens. And I also think it's a problem. And by the way, there's nothing wrong with a civic celebration. There's nothing wrong with bands in the street. there's nothing wrong with throwing a party, rightly understood. But, you know, Mardi Gras is inseparable,

Starting point is 00:18:47 actually from Catholic theology. And from the understanding of Lent and of Ash Wednesday and all the rest, it is a part of a festival of, well, fleshly desires. And let's just say something as simple as overeating, which is often translated into overdrinking and also other moral impulses as well. I'm just not picking one city in the United States, New Orleans, in this case, or others around the world, frankly, who celebrate Mardi Gras celebrations. But I am going to say Christians should not take part, at the very least, in the fleshly part of fleshly festivals. We certainly aren't called to be the community killjoy, but on the other hand, we can't involve ourselves in the essay, the fleshly and profane parts of a festival. And I think it's very parallel to the issue about swearing in public. I think a lot of the fleshly aspects they're now gaining in prominence.

Starting point is 00:19:49 And it's not just about Mardi Gras. It's pretty much about American culture. Okay, next, very encouraged from a question from a man who teaches the fourth to fifth grade kids at church. And when talking about the fall into sin, some of the students brought up a very interesting discussion, quote. The question that came up was this. What was the first sin? Was it Eve's bite of the fruit? Was it before then when Adam failed to lead and protect his wife? Or when Eve added to God's word when replying to the serpent, was it Adam's failure to exercise dominion over the snake? Was it the moment they placed their faith in the

Starting point is 00:20:22 lie before they chose to rebel? End quote. Well, I want to answer all those questions by saying the answer is yes, it was then. And that is because in the biblical theology that points to the doctrine of the fall, it includes all of those acts. It includes all of those sins. it is all presented as a part of the sin of the fall. Most importantly, we have to look at Adam's sin in joining the disobedience of his wife in terms of eating from the tree that was forbidden, eating the forbidden fruit, as we often say, and thus sending directly against God. We sinned in Adam.

Starting point is 00:20:58 And so when we talk about the fall, it includes actually all those things, but the central thing is Adam violating God's law and explicit command by eating of the tree. Now, at the same time, we're also told, for instance, the Apostle Paul will make reference to the fact that the woman was first in sin in terms of eating from the tree, but Adam is our federal head. In Adam, we all sinned. And so the easiest thing I would say in theological understanding is to point to all those things, your students so very intelligently identified there, every single one of them a dimension of sin, and just saying, our task is not to dissect all of that, but to take it all together. know that that, all that is what took place when our father, Adam, entered into sin. And in Adam, you know, the scripture says, we send. It's not just Adam sinned and that falls on us. It is that in Adam, we send. And there it is. The biggest issue here, by the way, is the moral agency of Adam. And Adam is described in scripture as our federal head. And so it's Adam's eating of the forbidden

Starting point is 00:22:06 fruit or the fruit of the forbidden tree that is mostly at issue here. But that doesn't occur without all those related things taking place. They're all a part of the same picture. Okay, another case, a young man in his 20s writes me and says, what would you say is the main goal of the sermon within the Sunday morning church service? Is it primarily so that we as believers can examine ourselves and seek to apply the word to our life? He says, my wife and I have been struggling with this notion as we often leave church feeling as though we were focused on ourselves most of the time, rather than on worshiping God. What a great question. I appreciate this young man sending in the question. And I want to tell you that God is glorified in the preaching of his word in such a way that even as

Starting point is 00:22:47 in the preaching of the word, the word directs you to consider yourself, the word acts as a mirror to show ourselves to ourselves, to let us see ourselves, even as we're aware of where we fall short of the glory of God when we hear this text. And even when we exult in the fact that this text is telling us about the glorious work of God and conforming us to the image of Christ, we can't take ourselves out of the picture. And a lot of the text is directed exactly to us, precisely to us, and the Holy Spirit uses the scripture to convict us of sin, et cetera. I just want to tell you, God's glorified in that entire process. That effect of His Word is exactly what God intends by the preaching of His Word. And so, yes, you should be thinking in Godward terms the entire sermon, but God is directing through

Starting point is 00:23:35 His word, much of the attention back on you that we examine our own lives, examine our own hearts, examine our own ways, and throw ourselves anew upon the grace and mercy of God. And so that's a sweet question. We want to please God in listening to the sermon, but the sermon's often going to direct the Holy Spirit through the text of Scripture is often going to direct the attention back to us in order that we may be corrected, in order that we may be instructed in order that we may be conformed to the image of Christ. Ultimately, it all takes place in a service of worship which should be entirely committed to the glory of God. And that's why in the traditional Protestant form of worship, the preaching of the word is to be followed by

Starting point is 00:24:18 a hymn which praises God and expresses thankfulness for God's word. Okay, another question comes in from a listener. It's another question that points us right back to scripture. The question is this. Why does it matter that Jesus rose from the dead. Why wasn't it enough that Jesus died? Would it not still be the case that our sin was imputed to him and his righteousness imputed to us? But let me just say in response, I've got nowhere to go but Scripture. And Holy Scripture tells us, 1st Corinthians 15 is the classic text, telling us that Christ died for our sins according to the scripture and that God raised him from the dead according to the scriptures. The Apostle Paul goes so far as to say that if Christ is not raised from the dead, then we are still dead in our trespasses and sin. And so the Word of God tells us,

Starting point is 00:25:01 us that if Jesus had died for our sins and that been the last word, then we would still be dead in our sins and trespasses. So the scripture itself tells us, by the way, we are also told in scripture that Christ was raised for our redemption, raised for our justification, specifically. So the resurrection of Christ from the dead is a part of the father's work and bringing about atonement through the faithfulness of the Son. And also the New Testament teaches us that the resurrection of Christ from the dead is the father's act of accepting the substitutionary sacrifice accomplished by the son and declaring his victory over sin and death. Absent that confirmation, absent that victory over sin and death, the apostle Paul says, we are still dead in our trespasses

Starting point is 00:25:47 and sins. And so this is why we must take the substitutionary death and the victorious resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ as both equally a part of Christ's atoning work. In a very sweet, way the New Testament tells us that the resurrection is the visible evidence of the fact that the father has accepted the substitutionary atonement accomplished by the son and that he has honored the son's obedience by raising him from the dead. And furthermore, exalting him and giving him the title of Lord such that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God, the Father. Or another way of putting it is, no resurrection, no exaltation, No salvation. Thanks be to God. Christ died for our sins on the cross. And thanks be to God

Starting point is 00:26:36 that the Father raised the son from the dead. And we are saved. 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 sbtsbts.com. For information on Boyce College, just go to voicecollege.com. I'll meet you again on Monday for the briefing.

The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Friday, March 14, 2025

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.