The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Friday, May 2, 2025

Episode Date: May 2, 2025

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.Part I (00:14 - 07:38)‘We Exist to Hold the Government Accountable’: The Message from the Media at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner – But Where Has That Accountability Been?Part II (07:38 - 09:42)Sheila’s on the Loose: Kangaroo Escapes in Alabama, Makes Its Way to the I-85 Before Its Apprehension – Yes, You Read That CorrectlyPart III (09:42 - 11:32)Why Do Most Popes Die in Office Rather Than Retiring or Resigning from Their Position? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The BriefingPart IV (11:32 - 15:38)How Do I Know That I Am a Real Christian? Is the Desire for Assurance of My Salvation Sinful? — Dr. Mohler Responds to a Letter from a 12-Year-Old Listener of The BriefingPart V (15:38 - 26:32)Is Baptism a Sacrament or an Ordinance? When is a Profession of Faith, Especially for Children or Teenagers Credible for Baptism and Church Membership? Should I Baptize My Father? If a Person is Baptized as an Unbeliever But Becomes a Believer, Should He or She be Baptized Again? — 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, May 2, 2025. I'm Albert Moller, and this is the briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. Well, you probably missed it, but over the weekend, the White House Correspondents Association dinner was held, and we are told that it was a darker, more somber event than had been the case oftentimes in the past when you had a president speak as well as a peer, and you often had the entire event emceived by a comedian, a stand-up comedian, a stand-up comedian, who often incorporated a stand-up act, a comedic segment in the event. Now, this is a big event in Washington. It's mostly of interest inside the Beltway, and this is an Inside the Beltway media event,

mostly of interest to the media. But it is a very, very interesting event. Huge moral consequences. There's a lot of worldview issues here. And I know something about this event because I was invited to attend this event several years ago. was a guest of Time magazine, and I'm glad I went one time, and one time was enough. But just to see what goes on at this kind of event, the relationship between politicians

who were present and the media who were present, it doesn't take expert powers of perception to understand that the liberal politicians seem to have a lot closer relationships with many in the media than conservatives. But there's more to the story now, because you have the breakup of a lot of big media. As a matter of fact, over the weekend, you had new diagrams of the White House press room showing how in the Trump administration some new media are being given unique access. Some of the old media are being pressed out. And there is no doubt that the liberal, mainstream, elite media feel threatened. And that threat was a big part of just about everything that took place. There was no president. President Trump did not attend the event and has not in the

past. And there was no comedian. Because in light of what the association described as kind of darkly challenging times. They didn't think having a comedian would necessarily work. I think there's a little more to it than that. I think the assertiveness of the Trump administration and the relationship between the Trump administration and the press has reached a disequilibrium, a time of confusion, and I think there's a sense of displacement. And it is really interesting, however, at the deepest level to hear how the press congratulates its own members and how they speak of themselves and their mission. And I want to start out by saying that the U.S. Constitution, in terms of one of its most prized principles, recognizes and honors the freedom of the press.

And that is something we should not take for granted. We should take the freedom of the press as a rare civilizational achievement that makes sense within the American constitutional order. And for that we should be thankful. But we should also understand that the freedom of the press doesn't mean that the press is always a helpful force and influence in society. And as a matter of fact, every press story, every press outlet, every press event is laden with worldview significance and it's important that we recognize it. Everybody comes from somewhere and every single report bears some kind of influence or some kind of worldview applying here. There's some kind of grid of understanding reality that applies here. There's some kind of

morality that applies here. If you're going to have a profession, you're going to have to say this profession is defined by this mission. And so journalism now defines itself as a profession and in the professional standards of journalism, it says that one of the purposes is to tell the truth, so that the truth will out, so to speak. So the truth will get out. What was really interesting at the event this past weekend is how often those presenting the awards and those receiving the awards, and these were, by and large, the big brand names of elite media, by and large, not exclusively, but overwhelmingly, it was really interesting to see how many times they said that the mission of the press is to speak truth to power and to keep the powerful accountable.

You know, in our modern society, that's one of those words that is being used over and over again. Its popularity in this context is probably about 40 to 50 years old. And it began with a certain psychotherapeutic and legal moves in the second half of the 20th century towards even addressing issues such as crime, but also mental illness and other things. And so accountability became a big issue. And holding people accountable became a new moral phrase. And that basically meant accountable in some sense, undefined generally, accountable by whom, accountable to what? I mean, honestly, it was hard to observe the White House correspondent's dinner without believing that the mainstream media, the overwhelmingly liberal media, are claiming that

they are holding the government accountable when they want to, and when they feel like it's their mission to hold the government accountable. I couldn't watch this event Saturday night without hearing that over and over and over again. We exist to hold the government accountable. And by the way, the press has enormous power. We wouldn't have the conversations we have on the briefing. We wouldn't have these considerations oftentimes without the press. But thanks be to God, the freedom of the press means that there are many different press voices out there. We should be thankful for that. We should be as Christians looking for what is true, what is objectively true. We know true in space, time and history. We should be looking

for underlying worldview, looking to detect bias and motivation, all these things we should be taking into theological account. But you know, there's also just this claim of holding people accountable that appears to be so arbitrarily applied. And I want to tell you what I kept thinking about during that entire event. And I tuned some of it out, but I put myself through the experience of watching a lot of it. I will tell you that one of the things came to mind is, well, where were you holding the powerful to account when you had a senile increasingly decrepit president of the United States? And you were all basically saying, hey, we don't see anything. what problem? It's really interesting now that you've got a flurry of mainstream reporters who seem

to have seen nothing then who are going to write what they hope are best-selling books about how they see the problem now. And here's where even just video footage is becoming a severe indictment of the journalistic profession. All you have to do, and by the way, the responsibility here is not just journalism. It goes also to those in senior positions in the White House. That's another story. But to the journalists, it becomes very clear they were not telling the truth. And in their claim of holding people accountable, it appears that there are some people who are outside that zone of accountability. Of course, the other issue is, and this is where the Christian worldview comes with a thundering question, who's holding accountable those who hold others accountable. And my only point here

is that there's no good answer to that question unless there is a final judgment by a just and righteous God, who finally holds everyone accountable with absolute righteousness. And short of that, all you have are people claiming, we're holding someone else accountable. And the obvious question is, well, who's holding that person accountable than that person, then that person, then that person? It's an endless question unless there is a final judgment. I'll let that be the last word on that subject. But before turning to questions, I just want to say sometimes the news gives us something that's just downright delightful. And in this case, the story comes from Alabama, and it is about a runaway kangaroo named appropriately Sheila. And Sheila got loose in

Alabama somewhere along I-85 in Macon County, Alabama, that's between Montgomery and Auburn. Sheriff Andre Brunson of Macon County said, quote, when somebody said there was a kangaroo, of course, I didn't believe it, and nobody believed it, but I'm looking at him. End quote. Well, as they say, seeing is believe. leaving, and Sheila is a personal pet, we are told, and somehow she got loose, and she hopped her way all the way to visibility on the interstate. It caused a two-car collision in which there were no injuries, but there were some people, no doubt, who thought they had experienced hallucinations. In a live stream from the event, the same sheriff, Macon County Sheriff Andre Brunson,

said, quote, there's a kangaroo in Macon County, Alabama. He went on to say, quote, we've got traffic stopped a long ways, and we're going to see if we can apprehend this kangaroo, end quote, something that, by the way, is probably not in the sheriff's training in Alabama. We were told that the kangaroo was trinkalized with a dart and returned to her owner, who is presumably building a higher fence. I had to go back to the sheriff because his statements are so incredibly believable at the time. He said, quote, when somebody said there was a kangaroo, of course, I didn't believe it. it. Nobody believed it. And then all of a sudden, he saw it. When he saw it, he believed it.

I don't know, but we have to deal with so many big issues and so many heavy issues every once and a while. It's just affirming and encouraging to know that there were headlines out of Alabama because of a kangaroo who showed up on the interstate and everybody's okay. I do have to wonder how many kids, for example, looking out the backseat window, saw a kangaroo and said, hey, mom, hey dad, I just saw a kangaroo. And they said, no, you did. except, yeah, he did. But now I'm going to turn to questions, always interesting questions. Some of them prompted by the death of Pope Francis and the anticipation of the conclave that is to come when his successor will be chosen. And a lot of evangelicals look at this and have some questions.

I had mentioned when talking about the death of Pope Francis that he was elected Pope after the resignation or retirement of Pope Benedict the 16th, and that was unprecedented in terms of recent history. And this reader looked it up and said, you know, the last one was back in the 15th, century. Why is it, the reader asks, that popes generally die as popes in the office rather than resign or retired? And the answer is because it's a monarchial model. It follows the same rule whereby most reigning kings or queens also die as king or queen, and the transition comes only after death. There's, of course, the expression that's well known in British and indeed larger European history. The king is dead. Long live the king. An indication of succession. Of course,

what makes the Roman Catholic situation different, not just that, of course, we're talking about a micro-state, if you can even call it that, when you think about the Vatican itself, over which the Pope is directly monarch. But you also note that the Pope's successor is not, and you can also figure this out yourself, is not the Pope's son. That would be a huge problem. So instead, there is an elected monarch who follows, but it is an office that is invested with full monarchial power in the understanding of the Roman Catholic Church. So it's an interesting thing to watch. And as the conclave is going to be gathering, there will be some very interesting developments and we'll be watching them because they will be not only interesting, but also important.

Okay, I get some questions sometimes that I think are just really important. And I don't think I've ever received a question as important as this one. So I want to privilege this question and give it some unique attention. It's from a 12-year-old girl, and I so appreciate her sending this question. She says, she listens to the briefing, very kind, and she says, I was wondering, how do I know I'm a real Christian? I know I want to be one, and I'm in a Christian home and go to church on Sundays, and I know I love Jesus, but I also feel like I want assurance. And then she says, is that sinful? No, it certainly is not sinful to want assurance. And that's actually a part of the promise of the gospel, is that there's an assurance of faith that comes with the gospel. And so I so appreciate this 12-year-old's question.

And she starts out again saying, I know I want to be one, that is to be a Christian, and I'm in a Christian home, and I go to church on Sundays, and I love Jesus, but she lacks assurance. And I want to say, it is because, sweet listener, that's not enough. Those are. Those are. are very important things. But salvation, according to the gospel of Jesus Christ, comes to those who believe on Jesus Christ. We believe that Jesus died for our sins, that he was raised on the third day by the power of the Father, and that salvation is in his name. In Romans chapter 10, we read this, that if we profess with our lips that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in our hearts that God raised him from the dead, we shall be saved. And so the promise I wanted to give you is

that the simple promise of the gospel from the beginning is believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. And that comes down to what we call justification by faith alone. And that comes to us as God's gift by grace alone. And we know this on the authority of scripture alone. And I say all that because our assurance is that God doesn't lie. And our assurance is that he saves all those who come to saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. who believe in him and who profess, who say out loud that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in our heart that God has raised him from the dead. There's the promise of salvation. You might be saved. You may be

saved. More likely you're going to be saved, but you shall be saved. And the assurance is not anything that is our personal possession. Our assurance is that God never lies, that he tells us the truth, and that if we believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, then we are saved. Now, I want to tell you that that results in a life of faithfulness and obedience. It results in repentance of sin. I also want to tell you that one of the signs of assurance I would want to give to a Christian believer is this. If you know what the gospel is and you desire Christ and you are concerned that that you have not yet come to whatever is a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I just want to tell you that I think, and I think the Puritans thought this through so sweetly, that when you know the gospel and you desire it, that desire comes from God as a part of him calling you to Christ, and that's a part of your assurance. You would not desire salvation and knowing the gospel of Jesus Christ, unless you are drawn to Christ by the gospel. And remember, God doesn't lie. And so I would wish to convey from one heart to another. I think that is our greatest assurance. And I want to say to this 12-year-old as well, I hope you're surrounded by Christians you can talk to, especially some adult Christians. I can tell you, they would consider it one of the greatest privileges of their lives to talk to you.

And you say you go to church, so that's a good place to start. And I don't know about your parents, but I hope they are Christian believers. I know they would love to talk to you. you about this. It will make so many people so happy to know that you desire Christ. And I believe there is no one who desires Christ who will not receive him. Okay, I also appreciate another question that was sent in. This one, an older believer who asked simply who may perform baptisms. And there's an interesting background to him asking the question. He says, my father is a long, complicated relationship with the church. He's 84, and while a believer has never been baptized, I have an online ordination from a Christian ministry, which I got to perform weddings, if asked.

He says, I am also an ordained elder in my local church. I've done some late pastoring. This summer, I'm officiating for my niece's wedding. My dad said, if you can marry her, could you baptize me? And the son said, well, one difference would be the baptism is a sacrament while marriage isn't, but I'll look into it. He did look into it. And he says that his church limits baptism to be done by ordained pastors. It's an interesting background here.

I don't know the denomination. I can make some guesses here. This man says, in short, I want to honor this request of my father and do it. I would say a few words, offer prayers, and make sure to use the proper Trinitarian form. In your view, is this permissible? And would the baptism be valid? Okay. And so you ask me, and I'm not going to dodge the question.

I'm going to say that the question of the validity of the baptism is separate from the advisability of the baptism. And so I think those two things are really important. And I don't think that your status as an ordained pastor by online ordination would have anything to do with the validity of the baptism. And I think in the scripture, the baptism of believers is presented as believers baptism. That is to say, it's to follow credible profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It is a sign of the new birth. And it is to be an ordinance, that is to say something ordered by Christ to be. performed in accordance with the gospel. And yet I'm a Baptist, so I have to tell you that I don't believe baptism is a sacrament in the same sense that some other denominations do. And those denominations are going to have to define what that sacrament means and what sacramental sense they believe applies. But I will just back up and say that I believe that baptism is a local church ordinance. I think a congregation baptizes, and at least in my world, the congregation is authorizing the baptism

in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that is tied to church membership and is the public profession of faith, the classic, most important public profession of faith in Christ. And it goes back to the question from the 12-year-old. So I'm not going to dodge this question, but I have to speak candidly and say, I don't even know the church context here, but I would certainly hope for baptism in the context of a church that recognizes conversion and thus is practicing believers baptism and understands that it is to be done in the scriptural order in the name of the father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit, but it is not simply an act disconnected from the larger context of discipleship, and that's not separated from the larger context of church membership. And so I want to be really honest, if you're asking the question of validity, the question is,

valid for what? That baptism would not be valid in terms of my local church and its understanding of baptism. But would it be valid in the eyes of God? That's a different thing, but I can't answer that apart from ecclesiology. I think it's very sweet that your father wants to affirm his belief in the Lord Jesus Christ and obey Christ in baptism. I could just hope that would be in the context of a believing church, where it would be a baptism connected to the larger context of faithfulness and identity with Christ. I really appreciate the statement in this question as it was sent in, quote, I would like to think that being baptized and able to more fully participate might help him see the value and importance of membership in a faithful congregation, end quote. Well, I

certainly think that is a rightful desire that he would see the value and importance of membership in a faithful congregation. I just can't separate baptism in the Lord's Supper from that membership in a faithful congregation. I know there are others who might answer this question differently, and I am answering this as a Baptist, but on this issue, I think there'd be pretty broad agreement across Protestantism as to how I am understanding this situation. God bless you and your father. And along the same lines, another question was sent in by a woman who was listening to the briefing, and she's talking about a merger of some churches, and she says there is a very, very overwhelming overlap in doctrine except for one big disagreement that has to do with whether or not the church

should baptize, professed believing children, and give them full responsibility as church members. And she says that her church is taking a middle ground on this issue. They baptize children only after their faith, and the Holy Spirit has become evident in their lives. The other church in town taking a stance on not baptizing children at all. They believe as long as children are under parents' influence, their faith is not their own, until they leave the influence of their parents' home. All right. So I've heard all these arguments before, and I can respect the impetus behind both of these arguments.

And I do not think this is as clear as some other issues in such a way. that I can say that a church that does this is a right-ly ordered church and a church that does the others a wrongly ordered church. I think in one sense is a wisdom issue. By the way, may back up and say it's a question that on both of these sides assumes that the congregation is taking baptism with great seriousness and great joy. So I appreciate that. In other words, this is that both of these churches are taking baptism, believers' baptism with great seriousness. The question is, when is that profession of faith credible in the sense of moving towards baptism and church membership. And I'll just tell you, I was very, very moved just this past Lord's Day by the testimony

of a 13-year-old who gave a very extensive testimony before being baptized. And honestly, that's an unusually young person to be baptized at our church. But I had a conversation thereafter with some church members. And I simply said, I think the incredible strength of that testimony and her understanding of the gospel was evidence of the fact that I think the church rightly baptized her and rightly celebrated her baptism. That doesn't mean there's a golden age in which I say, well, 13 is the line. I'm simply saying that I think it's the credibility of the profession of faith. And if you're looking for full maturity in the faith, I don't think anyone will ever be baptized. I see it as a very clear New Testament teaching that comes to us as an ordinance, that is a

command of Christ. And I see it as close to conversion, which is to say, believe and be baptized. And I'm not saying it's immediate just upon someone saying, I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, but rather it is to be evidence of what is considered to be a credible profession of faith. And I, and so I think the baptism of young children becomes more and more questionable along that line. I think the failure to baptize older children and teenagers can err on the other side. I am not speaking on apostolic authority. I have none. I am speaking on historic Baptist and Protestant theology, and I think a long evangelical tradition. And I think it also needs to be a case-by-case basis. I think there are some 13-year-olds who can give remarkable testimonies of their faith in Christ,

down to theological substance. Have they been tested yet in the world? Well, not in the way a 35-year-old will have been tested, but you know what? That's a credible profession of faith in Christ and truly credible. And then I think there are those who are older who are unable to even provide that much testimony and that much evidence of understanding of the gospel. And so I would say it needs to be a case-by-case basis, which is why you have pastors and elders and churches and parents when it comes to children, who should all be a part of this. I do believe the scripture teaches that baptism is an act of obedience and is thus a necessary act of obedience, which is to say we can't choose to disobey here and follow Christ faithfully. But I also think that it's proximity to the profession

of faith in, at least how I read the New Testament. I think that's very clear, which is to say, I don't think we are to say to someone who we believe has genuinely come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ that they are to wait for some arbitrary time in the future to be baptized. I think there should be a fairly close connection between the profession of faith and baptism. There would be some Baptists who, even on that point, would disagree with me. And that's why we look to the wisdom of a local congregation rightly ordered and under the authority of Scripture. But finally, and I decided to take several of these together today on the brief. briefing, a question comes in, in which someone is asking the question about valid and proper baptisms,

and what happens when a person who's received believers' baptism says they do not believe that they were a believer when they were baptized? What then? And then I think the answer is, you know, back to the proximity of baptism as an act of obedience to Christ, I believe there must be, to the best of our ability, there must be obedience to Christ in believers' baptism. I think the danger here is that there are some Christians who might misunderstand a deeper understanding of the gospel for a completely new understanding of the gospel. And I think, again, that's where conversations with pastors and elders and parents where applicable and others can be extremely important.

And just to state a position which is about as quintessentially Baptist as possible, I certainly do not believe in re-baptism. I do believe in valid baptism. and we are now out of our valid time. But I want to thank you again for your questions and thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website at Albertmohor.com. You can follow me on Twitter or X by going to Twitter.com

forward slash Albert Mueller. For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.bts.com. For information on voice colleges, just go to voice collis.com. I'll meet you again on Monday for the briefing.