The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Friday, March 7, 2025

Episode Date: March 7, 2025

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.Part I (00:13 - 15:00)Gov. Gavin Newsom Drops a Bombshell: Liberal Governor of California Suddenly Says Male Participation in Female Sports is UnfairAnd, This Is Charlie Kirk by This is Gavin Newsom (Gavin Newsom and Charlie Kirk)Part II (15:00 - 18:50)How Do I Put the Sin of Emotional Infidelity to Death? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The BriefingPart III (18:43 - 20:43)Would You Elaborate on the Difference Between Empathy and Compassion? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The BriefingThe Sin of Empathy — A Conversation with Joe Rigney by Thinking in Public (R. Albert Mohler, Jr.)‘Empathy is Not Weak or Woke’: Jane Fonda’s ‘Fiery’ and Hypocritical SAG Lifetime Award Speech by The Briefing (R. Albert Mohler, Jr.)Part IV (20:43 - 23:58)Was There an Authority Structure Before Man and Woman in Creation Before the Fall? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The BriefingPart V (23:58 - 27:45)Is Gender a Social Construct? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The BriefingSign up to receive The Briefing in your inbox every weekday morning.Follow Dr. Mohler:X | Instagram | Facebook | YouTubeFor more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu.For more information on Boyce College, just go to BoyceCollege.com.To write Dr. Mohler or submit a question for The Mailbox, go here.

It's Friday, March 7, 2025. I'm Albert Moeller, and this is the briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. Well, California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom decided to make some headlines on Thursday, and make no mistake, he decided to make some headlines. He did so on his own podcast. This is Gavin Newsom. And he did so in a conversation with his guests, an unlikely guess perhaps, Charlie Kirk, the conservative activists. The issue eventually turned to biological males on female teams, on girls and women's teams. And in what appears to be a stunning development, Gavin Newsom broke ranks. That's the best way to put it. He broke ranks with the left, with the LGBTQ activist community, most importantly with the Democratic leadership, not only of the

nation, but of his own party. And he said it was a basic issue of fairness. Now, before we get too excited about this. The big question is whether this tells us anything about Gavin Newsom or if it tells us something about Gavin Newsom's political calculation. I think it might be a bit of both, but if you know Gavin Newsom and you've been watching him, you're going to lean into the ladder rather than the former. And we're also going to see that this is in itself an inadequate statement, but it's an important statement. It's a groundbreaking statement. It's a statement that will get Gavin Newsom in trouble with the leadership of his own party. And I'll simply venture that I think that's exactly what he intended to do. He intended to make headlines in doing so, and he has made them. What exactly

happened? What did he say? It was Charlie Kirk, the conservative activists who had a great deal to do with the 2024 presidential campaign and the activism of young voters. It was Charlie Kirk that raised the issue. He basically dared Governor Newsom to come out and, as he said, acknowledged that there's a young man who is about to win the state championship in long jump in female sports, he said, you as the governor should step out and say, no, no. Well, then Gavin Newsom responded by saying, well, I think it's an issue of fairness. I completely agree with you on that. It's an issue of fairness. Now, that's a short statement, but it really was a newsworthy statement. It was meant to make headlines, and it deservedly has made headlines. And the governor went on beyond that. He

made very clear that he agreed with the judgment that it is wrong as a matter of fairness for biological males to play on teams designated for biological females, for girls and for women. And you'll notice that Charlie Kirk pointed to something that is about to happen in California's athletic system. Now, the governor didn't pick up on this case. And as a matter of fact, the governor has been credited, I think, at least in the media, was saying more than he actually said. But what he did say, just in those words, that he acknowledged it was a matter of fairness. That's pretty stying. He went on to say more. He went on to say, again, it's a fairness issue. To Charlie Kirk, he said, I totally agree with you. By the way, as someone has four kids, and he went on to say

two daughters. And he mentioned his wife that, God forbid, he said, had gone to Stanford and played on the junior national soccer team. He spoke of himself as an athlete saying he got into college only because he could play a little bit of baseball. But then he went on to say, the issue of fairness is completely legit. He said, quote, and I saw that the last couple of years, boy did I see how you guys were able to weaponize that. Charlie Kirk came back and said that the word weaponize was wrongly used here. The governor acknowledged that it might be pejorative, but he went on to say, you were able to shine a light on it and highlight it in a way. And frankly, well, he went on to say, there are very few persons, he claimed, who are involved in such cases,

but it was a big headline and a big issue with voters. Charlie Kirk responded, it's not a minor issue, and his words were this, quote, it's 890 medals and trophies we know of the last five years. That's a lot, end quote. The governor went on to say, again, that as a basic issue of fairness, boys should not play on girls' teams, men should not play on women's teams, and he said he could hold two things nonetheless, and one of them is his basic pro-LGBQ plus activism and his position that biological males should not play on teams or compete in events that are limited to girls and young women.

He said that it was a good faith question and he acknowledged that it is a pressing question, even though he went on to argue that the numbers are really small. Charlie Kirk came back and said, not so small as you guys want to think or want to say or want to admit. But we are talking about Gavin Newsom here, and we are talking about big-time political aspirations, political ambitions. There is no doubt whatsoever that Gavin Newsom, California is now two-term Democratic governor, former lieutenant governor, former mayor of San Francisco, sees himself as the future of the Democratic Party. And he particularly sees himself as the next Democratic president of the United States. Now, Politico, for example, one of the most influential political citizens. and news sources in the country, actually reflected on Gavin Newsom's statement as declaring it to be

a move on trans athletes that, quote, jolts the 2008 campaign, end quote. Now, I know a lot of you are thinking, wow, we just got over the 2024 campaign, but you know, this is an honest acknowledgement the way presidential politics works. The 2008 campaign is on. Buckle your seatbelts, and there is no question that Gavin Newsom is revving up the engine. All right. So, So before we leave what he said and turned to response, let's be clear he went on to basically affirm himself as someone who is an unreserved, unqualified supporter of same-sex marriage. And he went on to speak of his activism for the LGBT movement. He spoke of his role when he was mayor of San Francisco of actually ordering marriages to take place, same-sex marriages to take place. They were later invalidated by the California Supreme Court.

But of course, Gavin Newsom, he has seen himself on what the left. would describe as the right side of history. As a matter of fact, going back to the Proposition 8 battle, going back to, well, now almost 20 years ago, in the middle of that battle, the battle in which California voters would affirm marriage is exclusively the union of a man and a woman. Coming out against that, Gavin Newsom made a statement saying, the door's wide open now, is going to happen whether you like it or not. That arrogant statement, political analysts believe, actually played into the success of Proposition 8, not the defeat of Proposition 8. Gavin Newsom likes to be out front, seen as being out front on the LGBTQ issues. Now he has taken a step back when it comes to

biological males involved in female spaces of female sports. So what exactly is going on here? But before we give him too much credit for saying much, let's remember the fact that he has very much made clear the fact that he is in support of same-sex marriage unreservedly. And even in the podcast with Charlie Kirk, he went on to try to say that he is an advocate for even transgender youth. And he said he's worried about people who speak of them the wrong way. But there are a couple of things when you look at the transcript and you listen to the podcast that become clear. Number one, Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, wants to rebrand himself and he wants to rebrand the Democratic Party. But he wants to rebrand the party on this issue only isolating us.

the issue of biological males in female sports. That far he is not willing to go. You'll notice he doesn't back up at all from the general universe of the LGBTQ issues. He doesn't back up at all from same-sex marriage. He actually doesn't back up at all from the T as in transgender only when it comes to the issue of athletic competition. And let's just say those of us who seek to hold to sexual sanity and gender sanity know that that's essential, but it's not enough and it can't be a standalone issue. However, it is very indicative of the fact that Gavin Newsom, who does understand politics, even if, by his implication, many in his own party, don't, he does understand that on this issue, the vast majority of Americans don't think a boy should be on a girl's team. They don't

think a young man should be on a woman's team. They do not believe that is right. And he at least is saying when it comes to that issue, he is going to break ranks with his party. So what's going on inside his party, you might think it would be a circus, and I guarantee you it is. Buy some popcorn. Lori Lightfoot, the former Democratic mayor of the city of Chicago and also herself, married to a woman, Lori Lightfoot said, quote, there are kids waking up today in California with this news thinking that their governor hates them, and rightly so. A very progressive member of the Democratic contention in the House, that would be representative

Pramala Jaipal, Democrat of Washington. As Politico says, she urged Democrats not to, quote, take the bait and give into their anti-trans people rhetoric, end quote. She also said that she hadn't seen Newsom's comments, but you can count on the fact that when she sees them, she's not going to like them. So again, former Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot called the governor's remarks disgusting. Kelly Robinson, the president of the human rights campaign, HRC, that is an LGBTQ activist organization, said, quote, the fight for equality has never been easy, but history doesn't remember those who waver. It remembers those who refuse to back down our message to Governor Newsom, and all leaders across the country is simple. The path to 2020A isn't paved with the betrayal of vulnerable communities, end quote.

But this situation is actually more complicated than the mainstream media may acknowledge. Governor Newsom serves as godfather to Nats Getty, described as, quote, a designer and oil air who came out as transgender in 2021 and is married to Gigi Gorgeous, a transgender YouTube personality, end quote. That according to the New York Times. So again, it's really clear that when it comes to the LGBTQ plus array, the governor's not backing up at all except on the one issue of athletic competition. But this is where the electoral politics, angle comes in. And that's why Politico got right to the 2008 presidential race. It is because Governor Newsom wants to be in it. He wants to be in it. He wants to win the Democratic nomination, and he wants to win the White House. And he understands that the Republican Party basically beat up on the Democrats massively on the issue because so many of the Democrats wouldn't back up at all and acknowledge biological reality when it came to girls and women sports. But here's something else that's really interesting. And Charlie Kirk, to his credit, zeroed in on this exactly,

and that is that the Democratic Party had a chance to make a right statement on this just a matter of days ago. And this was when the Senate considered a bill supported by Republicans that would have prohibited federal funding from going to public schools that include transgender students in women's and girls' athletic programs. And this again is reported by the New York Times. The acknowledgement simply needs to be made that the Democratic Party, as represented by every single Democrat in the United States Senate, is on the wrong side of this issue. And just as recently as a few days ago, refused to support a bill that would have done exactly what Governor Newsom says is right. And so there's a huge question here about what Governor Newsom thinks about the future of the Democratic Party. But at least at this point, there's very little reason to believe that the Democratic Party is going to change on this whatsoever.

ever. But it's also clear that Gavin Newsom understands that if the governor of California, any governor of California, any Democratic governor of California is going to win the White House, it's going to have to be by breaking ranks with the Democratic Party. Well, as Christians, what are to think of this? Well, we are to think Christianly, and that means we have to notice what's here and what's not here. What is here is a basic right statement. Boy should not be on girls' teams, and men should not be on women's teams. They should not compete against female. males in an athletic competition. Is that right or wrong? It is emphatically, unquestionably right, but it's not enough and it cannot stand alone what the governor refused to do in the statement,

what he certainly declines to do, even when he has thought out this issue in this podcast, he refuses to acknowledge any ontological issue. He acknowledges a physical issue, physical differences between post-peopal males and females. He does not, however, acknowledge there's any ontological right or wrong in this issue. He just referred. to a vague question of fairness. But what you'll notice here is that he comes back and emphatically says, I'm not backing up at all for my support for same-sex marriage. I'm not backing up at all, he clearly wants to be heard to say

when it comes to the LGBTQ plus issues, the entire array, the activism. Just remember that a matter of weeks ago, he pushed for and signed into law, a law that in the state of California says that school leaders are not required even to acknowledge to parents when their children are, presenting as transgender in the schools. He's not anti-trans. He's entirely pro-trans, except in this one issue when it hits the pool, when it hits the diving board, when it hits the court, when it hits the playing field, when it hits maybe the locker room, at that point, the governor all of a sudden has scruples. Well, we're going to leave it at this point, but I was not about to let this issue

go over the weekend. It deserves time on a Friday because even as we're talking about this, you recognize, this is perhaps a brilliant attempt to relabel to rebrand the Democratic Party. I don't think, by the way, that's going to be successful. It could be, to some extent, an attempt to rebrand Gavin Newsom. And that's going to be a tough sell, but nonetheless, the governor is given it a try. This is, in context, a rather amazing statement. But as Christians, we have to look at it closely and understand what's important here is not so much what's present, as what's absent. But you know, in the context of his party and with the LGBTQ activist community, even the slightest step back is going to bring universal condemnation, even when you acknowledge

what the vast majority of people understand is true, if only, even with their eyes, a boy doesn't belong on a girl's team. The big question is, when Democrats look at Gavin Newsom, do they say someone playing on their team? Time will tell. Next, we're going to turn to questions, And as always, I appreciate the questions. I'm honored by the trust that is invested in sending these questions. Sometimes I have to kind of cut them down a bit, honestly kind of repackage them just a bit for appropriate use on this podcast. But this is an issue that really needs to be confronted. And I appreciate the young man, the young husband who sent me this question. and he mentions that as a young newly married man, he had had a history with pornography addiction.

He says he went to his pastor prior to getting engaged, and he's made significant progress in destroying that sin in my life. We can certainly pray that it will be destroyed indeed. But then he goes on to say, there's another area where I still struggle. It's in what he calls emotional infidelity. He admits an active imagination, and he sometimes imagines himself a question. what his life would be like if he had married someone else. Okay, let me just stop there. I don't need to go any further. This is a very legitimate issue. It's a very urgent issue. And I think the man who trusted me with this question knows it's a very urgent issue. And I would place it right alongside pornography because this is another form of pornography. And you say, well, how is it so? Well, it's because of this. There are different kinds of pornography. One of them is what one looks at. The other is what one imagines in the mind. Both of them are forms of pornography. And you know, you're not going to get caught with ideas in your mind.

That's only between your two ears, so to speak. It's in your mind. But the fact is, it's going to show in its corrupting influence in your life and in your marriage, for sure, in some very damaging ways. We're not allowed to commit any kind of infidelity as Christian husbands. We're not allowed to commit any kind of emotional infidelity as well as physical infidelity. that emotional infidelity will not come without a horrifying moral cost. And I think, speaking to the young man who sent this, the young husband, I think you know that. I think that's why you ask it out loud. And I think this is something that as pastors, as Christian leaders, we come to understand. And that is that oftentimes people ask questions and they know the answer. They just need to have a little help in framing the answer.

And I think sometimes all Christians need to hear certain questions. statements made, certain moral judgments affirmed in such a way that we just have to say in our minds, I know that's absolutely true. I have to live that to be true. I have to fight sin in my life. And so I would say to this young man, you already know by calling it infidelity, it's wrong. You already know it. So I realize that many people will say it's more complicated than this, but the bottom line is the only way to kill this is to stop it. I mean, just stop it. And I would also say that you say you talk to the pastor, I think you need to go to the elders of your church. You need to go to the spiritual leaders of your church and just go and ask for help in this. Because this is something

that a man shouldn't handle alone. This is where we need brothers in Christ who will know how to watch us and ask the right questions and observe our marriage and observe our conduct and be able to speak into that. So to the young Christian man, the young Christian husband who wrote this letter, I just want to say you answered the question yourself in terms of the morality. I just want to urge you to get substantive help and encouragement, edification and oversight from those who are assigned and responsible for your care in the local church. And they should be eager to extend that care to you. And frankly, understand the nature of the sin and the temptation as uniquely men can understand of each other. Okay, all kinds of questions have come in. Frankly, some of it because of discussions on the briefing,

some of it because of my thinking and public conversation with Joe Rigney over his latest book, The Sin of Empathy. And the issue of distinctions and definitions comes up, and a good question came in from a listener. Quote, you mentioned briefly that Hollywood emphasizes empathy rather than true compassion or sympathy. Could you please elaborate on the distinction and how we ought to treat others? as Christians. He goes on and speaks of a situation in which empathy was pressed upon him as an impulse in a big business, in a big tech company, as he describes. Well, here's the thing about empathy. It's cheap. It's cheap and it's artificial in the sense that it costs you nothing, and I know the words you're pulling this from, it's my discussion of Jane Fonda in Hollywood,

just even this week on the briefing. And in her statement at the SAG-Afro, awards, she basically just came out and oozed empathy over every cause. And it's just so politically correct. It's just so affirming. Everyone in that group thought, okay, well, yes, because of the leftist direction of that group, we're going to stand with you on every one of these causes. We're going to express empathy for every one of these groups. And at the same time, it cost them absolutely nothing. It didn't keep them from going to the after awards parties. It didn't keep them from continuing to live their lives just exactly as they live them. Empathy costs us absolutely. nothing, compassion will cost to something. Genuine compassion will cost to something significant.

I know a lot of Christians are upset about this, because how can you be against empathy? Well, again, I don't argue that you should be against empathy. I think you should understand empathy, however, in its very sad comparison to sympathy and compassion. I'll go with the biblical categories. All right, I love hearing from listeners who so carefully studied the scripture. man writes in and says, My pastor and friend teaches that there was no authority structure between the man and the woman before the fall in Genesis 3 and that there was no need for one since they were sinless

and that after the fall there was one because of their sin. He goes on and says as pastor, he follows New Testament teaching that the man is the spiritual head of the family. He asked if these things are incongruous and he says he's had several friendly debates with his pastor over this. So let me just go back and say, If all we had was Genesis, then that would be one conversation. As is made very clear in 1 Corinthians chapter 11, verses 8 and 9, quote,

for man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. And so there you have an order. And that order, it's not exactly just in that text, what you would call a hierarchy, but it is an authority structure. And I think that's also made clear. Likewise, I know your pastor knows, and you say clearly affirms. I'm thankful for that. What we see in Ephesians chapter 5, verses 22 and following, wives submit to your own husbands as to the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its savior.

Now, as the church submits to Christ, so also why should submit in everything to their husbands? And to quote, what I want to point out is that the Lordship of Jesus Christ, as is affirmed in that text, it's not exactly parallel, of course, to the headship of the husband, the authority structure in marriage. But it does point to the fact, when you look at the totality of biblical theology, that all of this is made clear in the orders of creation in the first two chapters of Genesis. And so you look at this, you realize Jesus Christ will lord over all that creation, and thus the authority structure is not entirely due to the fall. The authority structure is there not just because of the fall and then the message of the gospel, but it is there because of the

orders of creation. Christ is the word through whom the worlds were made, and the authority structure is there. The authority structure is there in the man and the woman over the animals, by the way. and in the sequence it's the man Adam alone who names the animals. But the point is, there's an authority structure. They're in the garden. Now, here's the thing. Husbands would have loved their wives as Christ loves the church. As verse 25 says, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.

And so without sin, that authority structure would never lead to domination, would never lead to injury, would never lead to hurt, and would not be, for the limitation of sin, as is true under the new covenant. But I think it's very dangerous to look at authority structures in the New Testament and understand the New Testament itself cites Adam and Eve, and there is every evidence that it's citing creation order, not just the order of things after the fall. Okay, big questions this week. I want to end with a question from an 18-year-old student,

a dual enrollment student with a local state university, taking an English class. And this listener says this past week, my teacher instructed us to write a discussion post about how gender is a social construct in society and how we need to be more accepting to transgender people. The listener says, I don't believe that gender is a social construct. And I said that pretty clearly in my discussion post.

And that brought a response from a young transgender person who said that, quote, yes, chromosomes can't change, but gender is only a given society's notion of what a man or woman should be based on outward performance. The listener says, and I appreciate this young listener writing with this candor, I know this isn't true, but what do I say to people who want to claim that sex, chromosomes, and hormones is different from gender as in performances. Okay, thank you so much for the question. And, you know, we're going to have to make this rather concise, but I think that's probably for the best. There is a distinction between gender as a biological reality and gender as a social construct, and that is a

problem. There is a distinction out there in the society, and that is the essence of the transgender claim right now. And so in one sense, yes, gender is a social construct because the left has made it a social construct. It uses that social construct all the time. And this person who identifies as transgender, no doubt is living into that social construct, which we believe to be an erroneous social construct, a wrongful social construct, because it is alienated from ontology, from creation order, from biology. And so here's the strength of your argument, I want to say to this young listener. Your argument is that when gender is spoken of in society, that has to match the biological

reality of what gender is, speaking more specifically of sex as male and female, and that as a matter of biology. Yes, genes and chromosomes. So I appreciate when you say you don't believe gender is a social construct, and I'm going to say bless you because you understand that the basic reality, the most fundamental reality, is ontological. It is given to us by the Creator who made us for his glory in his image, male and female. But we also understand that does translate into ways that are culturally performative based upon what clothes we wear, et cetera. And that's where our response to that has to be

our social performance, so to speak, of what it means to be male and female, had better correspond to the biological reality, which is the creation order of male and female. So long as they correspond, no problem in terms of confusion. And we certainly feel compassion for them in that struggle. But what we can't do is join them in the illusion, in the false claim, in the false social construct. So to this student listener, I want to say, stand strong. Thank you for your question. and keep very witness to the truth in those classroom posts.

God bless you. You can send your question simply by writing me at mail at Albertmohler.com, and week by week we'll get to as many questions as we can. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website at Albertmoler.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 sbtsbtsb.org.

For information on Voice College, just go to Boisecollege.com. Thanks for listening. I'll meet you again on Monday for the briefing.