The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Friday, October 2, 2026

Starting point is 00:00:00 It's Friday, October 2nd, 2006. I'm Albert Mueller, and this is the briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. You know, there's certain things we just take for granted, or at least those of us of a certain age take for granted. And that is the fact that when you get in a car, there's a radio in the car. And in the United States, that's not an accident. In the United States, that's at least partly because of federal mandates. And that goes back to the age of radio and the age of automobiles, which, by the way, has a great deal of over. which is to say the early 20th century is when both of them really came into cultural importance. AM radio is no longer as popular as it once was, is no longer as central as it once was in American society. During the period of the 1970s and beyond FM radio stations, that other band,

Starting point is 00:00:51 it in terms of frequency modulation began to gain all kinds of listeners, partly because of the density of the sound signal, in which case you could have stereo broadcasting as it was known at the time. And there was a richness to that. So a lot of music moved on to the FM band. AM was out there, however, and Americans, I think in many cases, just to understand how important AM radio is. And I'm saying that, as someone who had a national radio program for about a decade, and as a daily program, it was on mostly FM, but it was also on some AM stations. And I can just tell you, the listeners are different. And you can understand the culture is different. And we're talking about this now because the House of Representatives recently passed legislation requiring carmakers to put AM radio in the vehicles.

Starting point is 00:01:43 And I want to tell you why that was put in place. The United States Senate should take it next. And at least according to the Wall Street Journal, the Senate is going to take it up next, or at least I hope they do, because we're told that the support for the bill comes down to the fact there are 60 co-sponsors. There's bipartisan support. and I think for very good reason. I think for very good reason. I hope the Senate moves and follows the example of the House and affirms this legislation. President Trump signs it. It needs to be on the books. And there are some of me wonder, why do I feel so strongly about this? And I will tell you, it's because I was born in some of the hottest years of the Cold War. I was born in a situation in which I'm born in Central Florida. And then my family, when I was just entering the eighth grade, moved to South Florida. And we were right where in the context. of the Cold War, let's just say we were really close to Cuba. We were really close to where Russian and Soviet subs could be. We were really close to a lot of the action. And because of the Cuban missile crisis, Florida had become just a very important piece of strategic geography for the

Starting point is 00:02:49 United States of America. I grew up with Air Force bases about 30 miles, both east and west. I grew up with a constant reminder that we were just minutes or seconds away from the possibility of a nuclear attack. And I can tell you, I also was raised in an era in which one of the issues of our national security was that Americans had access to AM radio and that AM radio would become an absolute lifeline in the event of a national emergency. And that's because you could have other forms of communication knocked out. but because of the way AM radio works, especially at night in terms of the way it works in relationship to the radio waves and the atmosphere, there is the opportunity to reach just about every American with an AM radio signal. And in a time of national emergency, that would be absolutely crucial.

Starting point is 00:03:39 Now, I'll just tell you a little bit of autobiography here when I was in high school and in college. I was an amateur DXer, and that meant a radio hobbyist who listened to the AM radio spectrum at night in order to identify how many stations you could pick up from a great, great distance. And in South Florida, just given the way the world works, I was able to hear from all over the place. And so you had to have a very good radio. You had to have a record book in which you logged which broadcast you were able to hear. And then at one point, I know this sounds very strange to many Americans, but we didn't even know we didn't have the internet at this time.

Starting point is 00:04:16 What we had was AM radio. And so you would listen to a broad It could be W-H-O or you can just go down the list. It could also be foreign broadcasts. At one point, my greatest achievement in terms of D-Xing was able to document a radio signal coming from Africa. And how you documented it was, you would write down the date, you'd write down the time and what you heard, and then you would send that. And at least in many cases, the station would send back a confirmation card that, yes, indeed, you heard our signal. And I know, that sounds really exciting to you. I can tell you in the 1970s, that was exciting.

Starting point is 00:04:52 But here's the great assurance when it comes to AM radio. You think about the vulnerability of the Internet, the World Wide Web, and all the rest. You think about the vulnerability of so much digital transmission. It could be shut down. But there's something rather comforting to me about that radio signal, that AM signal. And all it would take would be a little transistor radio or just, or being in your car. And you should be able to hear emergency broadcast coming from the government. I just think that's important.

Starting point is 00:05:22 And I think this is something I hope the Senate takes up. And I hope the Senate approves this bill. And of course, the auto manufacturers are saying they're against it because this adds cost to the vehicle. I'll just say it can't add much cost when you're talking about an AM radio. And there are many Americans who say, I never listened to AM radio. Well, it may be that you don't, but it may be one day you will want to have it. It's also a tie of connection and continuity with an America of decades past, Decades of radio broadcasts that had to do with baseball games and college football games and you just go down the list and news.

Starting point is 00:05:58 Paul Harvey and others famous for radio news. That was a part of American culture. Now, I know, I know. Most Americans don't spend a lot of time listening to AM radio, and I get that. However, I think it is still a need. And I think about the national security situation and all the rest. and I would be comforted by the fact that in vehicles, Americans have access to something that would be much harder to shut down than, let's just say, the internet. By the way, just another issue I will mention largely in passing. Headline in Wednesday's edition of the New York Times, breach at FBI leaves workers fearful of risk.

Starting point is 00:06:38 This has to do with the vulnerability of a digital system to invasion, manipulation, hacking, and all the rest. It turns out there's an organization that was able to hack into the FBI's personnel files. The hacking organization is known as shiny hunters. And you now have the FBI scrambling to try to figure out just how much damage was done, how much exposure of personal information when it comes to its personnel happened. And it turns out it looks to be very widespread, so much so that this is a front page article in the New York Times. It continues to an internal space. There's a facing article on the opposite page.

Starting point is 00:07:15 I'll just say this. If these kinds of groups can get at employees of the FBI, it sure makes the rest of us look pretty vulnerable. The report says this, quote, the hack appears to have swept up home addresses, social security numbers, secretive job assignments, and much more. It is already being compared to China's breach and more than 20 million records in the Office of Personnel Management over a decade ago, so catastrophic that officials and lawmakers vowed to never let something like that happen again. end quote until it did just another reminder and this is where I will leave it for today just another reminder of the vulnerability of our entire society and civilization to digital threats if they can do this to the FBI and get away with it then just imagine what they could do elsewhere and get away with it I also have to conclude by saying I hope the FBI is able to investigate this very fast and very thoroughly, and when it comes to shutting this down and prosecuting those involved very

Starting point is 00:08:17 effectively. I will say that hacking the FBI is so audacious, it sounds more like a movie than fact, but there it is. All right, now let's turn to questions, as always. I appreciate the good questions sent by listeners to the briefing. Sometimes some of these questions are kind of urgent, and I'm going to start with one of those. A listener writes in saying, quote, I am a local government employee and with some authority over land development. How should I think about possible construction of a temple for a religion contrary to biblical Christianity in my jurisdiction if I may have ability to discourage or even prevent it? I'm conflicted by my belief in the rule of law and religious liberty and my desire to further God's kingdom. You know, that's a very urgent

Starting point is 00:09:00 question, and I get it. And I will simply say that this is not an easy question. And because as we look at our biblical responsibility as Christians, we cannot celebrate in any way, any kind of paganism showing up anywhere. We understand exactly what it is in theological terms. At the same time, we also understand, and this man says he's a government employee, and that means he is accountable to the government, and that means also accountable to the Constitution of the United States of America. And that free exercise of religion is clearly in a context in which you cannot say that you cannot build any kind of structure, building, development that is in the name of some kind of pagan deity or some kind of religion other than Christianity. And I appreciate the fact that this writer,

Starting point is 00:09:50 this listener, clearly understands the difference between biblical Christianity and other religions. And so, you know, theoretically, we have to name things for exactly what they are. And that means we can't exult, we can't celebrate any kind of expansion of paganism. At the same time, as a government employee, you have government responsibilities under a constitutional order. And so in this sense, the freedom to build a Christian church building and the freedom to build something which I'll just say is another religion, a building for another religion, if the free exercise of religion applies as it does in our current constitutional order, then there is really no ability just categorically to say you can only build a Christian building there. You can't build a, and I'm not going to name some other religious system, but you can't build that. Now, that doesn't mean that you are happy about it. It doesn't mean that you do anything to encourage it. It is just to say, in our constitutional order, the free exercise of religion, if it means anything, it means that for persons who are not only Christians, but for those who are adherents of other religions.

Starting point is 00:10:59 Theologically, it's a grievous thing. I want to say, theology, it's a grievous thing, even to have to answer it in this sense, to think about it. But there are different spheres of responsibility in terms of the state, the church, the family, et cetera. I want this society to be overwhelmingly influenced and normatively influenced by biblical Christianity. I want that not only in terms of religious freedom for Christians. I want substantial Christian influence and public policy and all the rest. And also, I want to reach our neighbors with the gospel of Jesus Christ. I don't want to see them taken captive. That's a good New Testament term, by some kind of alternative belief system, whatever it is.

Starting point is 00:11:42 But in a constitutional order, the Constitution orders. And in this kind of situation, government responsibility comes down to doing what is in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. And by the way, this prevails in all 50 states and U.S. jurisdictions, whatever the category as well. So we look at this and we have to separate, how do I think about this as a Christian? And how do I deal with this within a constitutional order? And, of course, in that kind of situation, I just have to say I'm thankful for a Christian who's in this position and a Christian who has deep biblical convictions and is quite troubled by the question. And I do not know what particulars might apply here in terms of zoning and city planning or anything like that. But I do know that it is impossible in our current constitutional order, given the free exercise of religion to say you can build a church there, but you can't build a synagogue there or anything else you might put.

Starting point is 00:12:34 in is the noun there within our constitutional order. That also means you don't have to give privilege to some group trying to build a building somewhere. If you can't build a church there, you shouldn't be able to build a mosque there either. I think the difference here between biblical fidelity and say theological liberalism is that theological liberalism says it really doesn't matter. I appreciate the fact this listener to the briefing knows this really matters. It matters not only temporally but eternally. However, there is a government responsibility which is ordered by the U.S. Constitution, and those are the parameters within which a public servant is to work. Another way to put that is, I don't think Christians, biblical Christians, can in any sense

Starting point is 00:13:18 celebrate religious diversity. We can be thankful for religious freedom. And that's a different framing. And I think that that's where biblical Christians have to keep the two matters. very clearly in mind. Okay, next, a letter coming from a pastor of a Southern Baptist Church who writes, he makes very clear he believes in believers baptism by immersion, and I'm thankful for that. He then says this, quote, last week, the 89-year-old mother of one of our church members prayed to receive Christ. Praise God. She is currently in a hospital and may be about to go on hospice. I don't think she can walk anymore. Do you have any suggestions about how we might think about baptism for her? If she and her family are open to it, we've not discussed

Starting point is 00:14:01 it so far, by the way, well, he says he's a listener to the briefing. I deeply appreciate that. Let me just say that the first thing I want to say is that I agree with this Southern Baptist brother about believers baptism by immersion, normative. It is the sign of obedience. It's more than that, but it's never less than the believer's act of obedience in confessing Christ, given a public testimony to his or her faith in Christ. I also want to be clear that we do not believe in baptism of regeneration. I'm certain this pastor doesn't either. We don't believe in baptismal generation. And thus, baptism is an act of obedience and a public profession. And you know, I just want to say, I think the pastoral wisdom here is in understanding that this woman

Starting point is 00:14:43 who is in a hospital and may be about to go into the hospice, there is no reasonable expectation that she can obey Christ to the point of going to the church during a service and entering into the baptistry and going into the waters of baptism to proclaim her faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. And I will just say that I think this is where it's really important for us to understand that we sometimes face a situation in which you have someone who is fully willing to obey the command concerning baptism but is unable to do so. And I can think back to when I was a seminary student and people, you know, this is what happened. Seminary students last questions. What about someone who professes faith in Christ and then dies before, you know, they

Starting point is 00:15:25 can undergo the waters of baptism as an act of obedience. And the fact is we understand that that person's salvation is not contingent upon the fact that there's water involved, but rather obedience involved. And so, you know, if someone dies before they can be baptized, we don't believe that in any sense hinders them in terms of their citizenship in heaven. It is, however, a situation in which we would say, if someone resists baptism, that's another thing. That's another thing. But in this case, this woman, 89 years old, is profess faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. And for what I can tell here, she desires baptism. But it looks as if she may never have the opportunity to enter into the baptistry and receive the opportunity to bear her testimony to Christ in the waters of baptism.

Starting point is 00:16:14 I think at this point, some pseudo-baptism is not a good course. Instead, I would encourage this pastor to encourage this woman and her family with the knowledge that her willingness to obey Christ in baptism is noted. And she is not resisting baptism. She's physically unable. And I think in this situation, it's just wonderful to assure her that her place in heaven is not contingent upon the fact that she's physically able to go into a baptistry. And next, a younger man, about college age, he wrote in to ask a question. He says, as a Christian, I'm wrestling with the ideas and concepts in psychology, especially when it comes to forensic psychology. He mentions the Lindsay Clancy case and trial. He says, especially when many are using mental health as an excuse of their

Starting point is 00:17:03 wrongdoings and behaviors. As Christians, he asks, should we even consider working in the psychology field, especially when the culture chooses to rationalize sin using psychology and mental health? How can we navigate that? End quote. Well, I would say that if you look at psychology as a field of study in terms of trying to understand the human psyche, that's where psychology comes from, that's not necessarily a wrongful direction. And that could be an honorable profession. The problem is that the dominant schools of psychology are, well, they're dominated by not only secular worldviews, but I'll just say rather extreme secular worldviews. The entire therapeutic culture, this goes back to Christopher Lash, his famous book, The Triumph of the Therapeutic.

Starting point is 00:17:45 the replacement of theology with therapy is something Christians cannot celebrate. And as a matter of fact, I want to be very clear to say here, I'm not saying there can be no Christian psychologists or no Christians in psychology. I'm simply saying that Christians believing biblical Christians are going to be aberrations in the larger culture of the therapeutic, whatever the profession you might put into that list. So, you know, I want to say to this young man, I think you're quite right to be concerned about the trends in these fields. And by the way, several of these modern fields came about as explicit intentional efforts to try to provide a worldview and a professional application that was distinct from the Christian tradition and the Christian Church. So in other words,

Starting point is 00:18:37 some of these professions actually were basically founded as a way of replacing the influence of the Christian Church with a secular influence. And I think this young man is noticing something, and that is that what you have very clear in the Lindsay Clancy trial is the fact that there are people who have now absolutely eradicated all the theological categories and all they have left are the therapeutic categories. And even in terms of news this week in the Lindsay Clancy situation in which there was another hearing before the judge, it's really clear that the so-called supporters of Lindsay Clancy who are protesting outside the courthouse, they're saying that it's wrong to prosecute her, even with the killing of her three children, because the only categories that matter are therapeutic categories. I'm not saying that therapeutic categories never matter.

Starting point is 00:19:23 I'm simply saying that we understand that other categories matter a lot more. So I appreciate this question sent in by this young man, and I'll simply say that there's not a real clear yes or no to some questions, simply because it depends somewhat on the application, but I'll say the concern about the field in general is quite legitimate. I will say that emphatically. All right. Next to a question from an even younger young man, and he writes in saying that he and his girlfriend of two years have recently been discussing, quote, how our relationship can be biblical in this stage before marriage. We both love the Lord and go to our own separate churches.

Starting point is 00:20:01 He says, I'm Baptist. She's Presbyterian. He says, but that's an issue for another day. But we both agree that dating is meant for marriage. However, right now, marriage is not an option. He's a young man. He's still living with his parents. Clearly, the context of this letter is that these two young people are very interested in each other.

Starting point is 00:20:21 And he says, quote, one issue that's been popping up. is in reference to my authority in our relationship. She believes I ought to take a more authoritative role in our relationship to better fit a biblical marriage. But quite frankly, I believe that I shouldn't take a more authoritative position and I shouldn't take the role of a biblical husband. And she shouldn't take the role of a biblical wife because we're not there yet. He says, do not get me wrong. I believe that it is our job to prove we can take on the role. But this stage of getting to know one another doesn't seem to have much biblical guidance to help me structure how to lead our relationship in a way that's glorifying to God. I wanted to read all that just because I think

Starting point is 00:20:53 this is a God-glorifying way to ask the question. And I deeply appreciate it. I appreciate this young man's commitment to Christ and his desire to be faithful. Let me just say that I think even in courtship, I think that's a good term. So I'm just going to substitute that for dating, because dating can be just about anything. But courtship means intentionality. And I do think that there is a very important role for male leadership, even in that, before marriage, just in terms of courtship. But I think this young man, I just want to say you're right to understand. You're not her husband until you're her husband, and she's not your wife until she's your wife. And that means that there are other spheres of authority for both of you at this point. And it also means that you

Starting point is 00:21:33 need to clearly reserve for marriage what is only given to marriage. And that's in the covenant of marriage in which, you know, when you exchange those vows, you are affirming that covenant into which you are both entering. And so let me use a big theological category here. We believe that that reality is ontologically important, not just symbolically important. In other words, we believe that God has established marriage in such a way that it is a thing. It is a thing to which you are submitting and committing yourselves. And that's a separate thing than when you are an unmarried young man and she's an unmarried young woman. So I appreciate the fact that I think you've got the moral issues very clearly in mind here. And I just want to affirm that. And when it comes to

Starting point is 00:22:18 the authority issue, I do think that the natural pattern in terms of biblical courtship is for the young man to take the lead. But to understand he is not yet a husband, he hopes one day to be. And the young woman is not his wife. And if this continues the right way, then maybe one day she will be. That is a difference which isn't just merely a formality. It is a difference that has theological significance. Before marriage and after marriage, you don't have to read the Bible very clearly to understand those are really two very different things. Reading the Bible clearly, you understand there are two different things to the glory of God. But you also understand that leadership and courtship in this is how you get from one state to the other. So I hope this is helpful.

Starting point is 00:23:06 I do think there's a sense in which the young man, even at this stage, a courtship should lead. But that's very different than leading as a husband. And the relationship is very different than the relationship between a husband and a wife. But once again, if all things work together and the Lord makes it clear, this is his will, then hopefully in a fairly short amount of time, you can actually enter into marriage and be husband and wife in which the things that are less clear now should be much more clear then. Okay, thanks for listening to the briefing, but I need to take a minute and express appreciation to my producer, Graham Faulkner. This is his last produced episode of the briefing. You want a number?

Starting point is 00:23:46 This means he has been the producer for 1,172 episodes of the briefing. Get that number again, 1,172. He's the longest serving producer of the briefing during this time. It's just an outstanding Christian young man. It's been a privilege to work with him ever since August of 2021. He's contributed so much to this office and to this work and to this program. He was behind the launching of the program in the library. He's also produced 55 episodes of thinking in public.

Starting point is 00:24:17 That's a lot of thinking and a lot of public. He and his wife, Kelly, are going to be moving to North Carolina. He's assuming a ministry role there. And I think it's safe to say that Graham and Kelly are very excited to be anticipating the birth of a baby boy in just a matter of weeks. One of the blessings of Christians working together is that it's never merely work. It is work for a common cause to the glory of God. It has been a great privilege to work with Graham Faulkner, and he's going to be greatly missed.

Starting point is 00:24:48 And I'm just looking forward to what the Lord is going to do through Graham and Kelly and that ministry and their family with this baby coming so quickly. So I just wanted to end today by saying in a way that all of you can hear, thank you to Graham Faulkner, we'll be praying for you. And soon you'll be no longer the producer, but I hope of listener to the briefing. And always with great thanks. Thanks for listening to The Briefing. For more information, go to my website at Albertmohler.com. You can follow me on X or Twitter by going to X.com forward slash Albert Moller. For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbtsklee.org. For information on Boyce College, just go to boyscology.com. I'll meet you again on Monday for the briefing.

The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Friday, October 2, 2026

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