The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Thursday, January 8, 2026

Episode Date: January 8, 2026

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.Part I (00:14 – 10:51)The Abortion Landscape in a Map: The Culture of Death Pushed Back HardStates where abortion is legal, banned or under threat by The Washington PostPart II (10:51 – 21:40)Mayor Mamdani’s Housing Czar: Cea Weaver Has Even Called For and End to Home OwnershipThe Rent-Control Slums of New York by The Wall Street Journal (The Editorial Board)Part III (21:40 – 26:30) A Sign of Loss in the Digital Age: Denmark Ends Postal Delivery of Letters1 Corinthians by Line By Line (R. Albert Mohler, Jr.)Sign 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 Thursday, January 8, 2006. I'm Albert Mueller, and this is the briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. Sometimes it's really interesting to see how the culture of death seeks to make its point, or even to communicate its message. So let's consider the fact that just this week, the Washington Post ran a major article with the headline states where abortion is legal, banned, or under threat. That's not a neutral headline. when you use the phrase under threat, or even when you just juxtapose legal and banned, you're clearly raising the moral stakes. But when you describe the three options as legal banned or under threat, it's really clear that this is coming from a pro-abortion perspective. It's not even hidden. If you describe abortion rights as, quote, under threat, well, you have already told us exactly

where you stand. No real surprise here when it comes to the Washington Post, but here's how the article by a team of reporters begins. Quote, access to abortion remains a patchwork of state-by-state policies nearly three years after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, with abortion restricted across most of the southern United States. Now, as a matter of fact, they provide a map, and you know what?

The map is really interesting. And you are indeed looking at the South. Most particularly, you're looking at the South and the Southeast in terms of abortion restrictions. it is the very heart of what has been described as the Bible Belt in the United States, which just goes to prove the worldview point that theology, theological disposition, Christian worldview, and the question of abortion are inextricably linked. You can even map it on the map of the United States of America.

That very solid pro-life position in the South points to the fact that Virginia and North Carolina are the outliers here, much less pro-life than the rest of the solid South, It also indicates that this particular worldview extends northward into Indiana and also into West Virginia. You have to add four other states. You add Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Idaho. But there you're talking about very conservative mountain states, those last four. And so we are really talking about a predictability.

And of course, when you talk about red America and blue America, it's not an absolute overlap when it comes to the pro-life position, but it's the closest thing to an absolute. overlap. You can pretty much say one thing and know you're also saying the other. Now, this also means that we can predict, even in terms of geography, where you're going to find the most pro-abortion states. You're going to find these states largely on the coast, in particular when you look at the states along the Pacific coast and the Atlantic coast. And in this case, of course, this means the northeast. The northeast was colonial America. It was where the American story really began. And yet it has become one of the most of the most of the most of the most of the

most liberal sections of the United States, predictably democratic and the electorate, liberal in terms of the social values. The West Coast, in one sense, has been headed in this direction for a very long time. And one of the reasons is that particularly when you look at the Northwest and you compare it with the American Northeast, you have two different stories that end up in the same place, social liberalism. How do you end up in the same place if you have two different stories? Well, let's consider the stories. The Northeast, established even by people you describe as pilgrims and Puritans and many who were coming with a very clear Christian understanding of civilization. And then you also have an area of the country that was shaped by the first great awakening and even by what was called the second great

awakening. The second great awakening did have some impact in the Pacific Northwest, but it was very limited for the fact that the Pacific Northwest in the United States has never been, just to use a word that many people don't hear commonly. It's never been churched. It never had the formative influences that were true in the colonies of the American Northeast. You had a very different situation that was arguably more secular from the beginning. And by the way, this continues up the West Coast, the Pacific Coast in the United States. You could say in North America, because it is extended up into British Columbia and Canadian territory as well.

So geography isn't destiny. clearly there are wonderful, faithful, evangelical Christians in these areas, but demography and this kind of geography does indicate where you have the coalescence of worldview. And when you have the concentration of people committed to a certain worldview, well, it's predictable that's going to show up in the culture, it's going to show up in the entertainment, it's going to show up in the moral issues, it's going to show up in the politics, and thus it does, red and blue America. But let's go back to pro-life and pro-abortion America, as is indicated, in this recent report in the Washington Post. Again, the headline where abortion is legal, banned, or under threat gives away the worldview, but it's also interesting to look at the math. How do they do the math here? They suggest that if you look at the American population, about one-third of the country is in an area where abortions basically illegal in terms of abortion to be defined as

a surgical abortion, to be obtained at an abortion clinic or a similar kind of facility, about one-third, 34% of Americans, according to this tally, live in states where abortion is banned in that category. But let's just think about this for a moment. If you're going to define the population, I think in this sense, it does make sense for the population to be defined as women between the ages of 15 and 44. That is to say, women, isn't that interesting? You notice there's no gender non-binary reflected in this particular article. And so the concentration in the concentration in the population is on women ages 15 to 44 likely to be pregnant or to be in a situation where pregnancy might be an issue. So about 34 percent, you can just flip the equation and that

means that roughly 66 percent of the American population, nor, that is to say, specifically, of women ages 15 to 44, live in states where abortion is totally or at least generally available. Even when you look at the state-by-state breakdown, which is helpfully provided in this Washington Post report, you'll see that even in a state like California, it is said that abortion may be limited after fetal viability. But that's largely window dressing. And that's actually true for a couple of reasons, the most important of which is that when you look at the exceptions for the physical or mental emotional health of the mother, well, at that point, as we have seen for the last 50-plus years, you can have some legal authority or medical authority,

declare there's some kind of emergency, you add emotional to the tally, and you can understand why. And so it basically means that abortion is available through the entirety, the pregnancy. You look at other states like Massachusetts and Illinois, and it's almost impossible to determine how they could be even more radically pro-abortion. They even largely pay for abortions. And you could look at a state like Minnesota. And of course, we just talked about the fact that Governor Tim Walls recently announced he's not running for a third term. One of the things to note about him is how hard he pressed, even the state like Minnesota, in a radically pro-abortion direction. And largely ran on that, by the way, is a theme. So it's very interesting to see the

map really does matter. But there's a second reason this is so important. It's not just because the map matters. It is because given the logic of the culture of death, the map doesn't matter like it used to. So what do I mean? I mean that we've been talking about so called surgical abortions. These are abortions that come by medical intervention in some kind of medical facility or Planned Parenthood Clinic, etc. The big growth, however, in abortion since the Dobbs decision in 2002 that reversed Roe v. Wade isn't about surgical abortion. It's about so-called medical abortion. It's about abortion by pill. It's a prescription for an abortion. And this has become so widespread that even in many states where abortion is supposedly banned, it is happening, but it's happening

through medical abortions, through the use of abortion pills. The culture of death will press its agenda any way it can, everywhere it can, all the time. And that's exactly what has happened. The pro-abortion movement, by the way, right now, is quieter than it has been in the past. Immediately after Dobbs, well, you'll recall there was an immediate electoral effect, given the elections that took place shortly after the Supreme Court decision, the Democratic candidates in 2004, Kamala Harris and Tim Walls, they ran hard in their presidential ticket about abortion rights. You hear much less now. Why? It is because the arrival of medical abortion, abortion by pills, this has changed the equation politically. It's also changed the equation for the culture of

death. And it is in the advantage of the culture of death. It presses its agenda. And it's with deadly effect. And that is simply remarked in this article as one of the reasons why the map really matters, but then again, it matters less and less all the time. And that's simply because of the abortion pill, and this is where the pro-life movement needs to quickly understand that if we have the continued availability of these pills, even in states where abortion is banned, then the Dobbs decision is immediately reduced in terms of its effect. The culture of death, in this sense hasn't been pressed back. It's pressing back with even greater force. In this case, the great press back is coming with a pill or a series of pills. We need to give encouragement to

every pro-life advocacy group and to every legal strategy that can push back against the availability of these pills, which we should note do not come without medical consequence. And you have some very important arguments being made in court and in the court of public opinion about the danger of the use of these pills. Clearly, the approval of these pills came by political pressure. And that's also something we need to note. The culture of death is not reluctant to use that political pressure. It basically owns the Democratic Party. And with the pill, it intends to own even further ground every year, state by state, abortion by abortion, termination by termination. And let's just remind ourselves, we have to use the language. That means death by death. Okay, let's shift to New York.

city, we're going to have to do that often, I think, especially with the recent inauguration of Zohran Mamdani, as mayor of the nation's largest city. We have known of his leftist, even neo-Marxist, very progressivist inclinations. We've seen some of the early steps. We saw some of the language he used, even in his inaugural address, speaking bizarrely of the warmth of collectivism. We talked about that already. What I want to go to now are some of the appointments that he's made, in particular one appointment, because when it comes to someone in this kind of office, the appointments the individual makes indicate exactly what. Well, in this case, Mayor Mumdani wants to see take effect. So what would you say if you found out that New York City's new director

of the office that is intended to protect tenants' rights has urged people to, in her own words, seize private property? In this case, we are talking about seea Weaver. She was appointed by the New York mayor as director of this office, and it has particular responsibility for, at least purportedly protecting the rights of tenants. Now, in a city like New York City, where the rental percentage is just so massive, you're talking about a large number of people. You're also talking about a housing crisis in New York City. There is, to some degree, a housing crisis throughout the U.S. We'll talk about that as well another day. But the housing crisis in New York is partly just a matter of real estate. It's partly a matter of the economy.

It's also largely a matter of the laws, and in particular, attempts to control rents. To put the matter simply, New York City real estate is so expensive, and the demand for housing is so high that rents could just skyrocket. And, of course, that has to do with the value of the real estate. If you divorce the rent from the value of the real estate, you have a false economy. But in this case, you have a new housing czar, as this individual is sometimes referred to, that is the person in this office, who has actually called in the past to seize all private property. So we were talking about collectivism, we were talking about socialism, we were talking about all the things that would go with democratic socialism and electing the first democratic socialist

mayor of New York City. But did you know he would appoint to someone in this kind of position? An individual who's actually called for the abolition of private property? And it's not just that. At one point, she called for an agenda to, quote, impoverish the white middle class. She also said this in a post made on X in August of 2019. And I quote, private property, including any kind of especially homeownership, is a weapon of white supremacy. End quote. Okay. It is hard to imagine a position more extreme.

This sounds like something from Maoist to China or from Leninist Soviet Union. And it doesn't sound like anything in the United States ever, except on people from the far right who would never get close to politics. But that was all before the arrival of Mayor Mom Dani. Now, you will not be surprised to know that Cia Weaver, this political appointee in New York City, is also identified as a Democratic Socialist, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. And she's been calling for efforts to increase control, legal control over rents in New York City. but she goes far further than that. She actually calls for the abolition of private property.

So in this case, we're really not talking about democratic socialism. We're talking about pure unadulterated communism, as in the communist manifesto, eliminate private property. Now, she also talks about impoverishing. That means you'll notice that's an active sense of verbal force there to impoverished. Now allow the impoverishment, not limit the impoverishment, but force the impoverishment of the white middle class. Okay, so what's going on here? Some massive worldview issues. Number one, where in a democratic society does the future of the political project lie? It always lies

with the middle class. That's just the way it works. Now, when you have the elites, such as the academic and cultural elites, they are not large in numbers. They're just massive an impact. The massive numbers are what creates such a problem for Blue America and for the cultural elites. So far, on the left. And their problem is that America, especially in the heartland, we talked about red and blue America, pro-life and pro-abortion America, millions and millions of Americans just won't go for the progressivist program. And they tend to be the middle class. And so that raises a huge question. What in the world is the middle class? One of the easiest ways to understand what the middle class is is to consider where the middle class is or was absent. So let's give a lot. So let's give you a

a classic example of where the middle class was absent. Let's go early in the medieval period. Let's go to Europe. You have those who own the land and you have the people who work the land. The people who work the land can't own the land and the people who own the land, well, they have all the money so they don't need to work the land. So you have a division. You have those who own the land and those who own basically nothing. More recently, you just go to the beginning of the 20th century and you understand that that's what Russia looked like imperial Russia in the time of the last czar nicholas the second you had a problem that had emerged in the 19th century in which even the Russian autocratic czars recognized that there was no future for

Russia without a middle class so they were trying to come up with a middle class the problem is the only way to bring about the kind of changes that needed to take place was either to say we're going to do it by force as in the Russian czars taking imperial action that never turned out too well Or you're going to have a revolution, which is exactly what happened in the Bolshevik revolution. And, of course, it was Lenin who emerged out of that. He didn't come with the agenda to build the middle class. He came with the agenda to destroy all the property-owning classes. The point to be seen there is that if Russia, for the previous century, had developed an authentic middle class,

that revolution couldn't have happened. That's one of the reasons why, to the consternation of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the communist revolutions they called for didn't happen in nations such as Britain and Germany, highly industrialized. All those workers were there just ripe for revolution, except for the fact their ambition was not to revolt, but rather to move into the middle class. The middle class is a class that owns property or has the means to own property, not as the land did gentry, but rather as those who are rising in terms of economic power, those who are rising in terms of social status. And at the very core of the middle class was, and you hear this often derided by the cultural

elites, middle class values. What are middle class values? Well, they're the values of thrift and investment. They are the values of family and marriage and raising children. They are the values of an organic community. And that's what the middle class stands for. It's one of the reasons why you have middle class suburbs and you have so many people whose ambition is to move into those suburbs in order to raise their children. In other words, where you have the middle class, you also have conservative voters and you have opposition to socialism. Why? Because that mental class knows that it's working hard in order to be able to own a home, in order to be able to feed their children, send their children to college, perhaps even the first generation to do so.

The middle class is aspirational. That's exactly what this particular ideologically driven woman in New York wants to put an end to. Of course, this raises some really interesting worldview issues. It comes back to the map. Why would some candidacy like this, a Zohra Mandani, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, who would appoint this kind of housings are, how is it that this could happen in a city like New York? And the answer is simple. It can happen there rather than happening, say, in the state of Missouri, precisely because the state of Missouri is dominated by the middle class. But the city of New York, New York City itself, Gotham, well, the problem there is that it doesn't have that much of a middle class. Where you have rental patterns, as high as they are in New York City,

you have people who do not find their middle class wealth invested in real estate. They don't have the same kind of real estate anchoring that you would have, say, in the suburbs of Atlanta. It's a very different situation, and thus it is reflected in very different voting patterns. And by the one of the problems with socialism is that it believes it can tax its way to wealth. But of course, in order to do that, you actually drive all the wealth away. All your wealth incentivizing behaviors are basically dissipated because you say, no, let the government do it. And then, of course, the government's incompetent at doing it. But that also means that people no longer strive. And that's going to be one of the issues in New York City. And it's going to come with predictable consequence.

but I'll admit, I think most people were surprised that Mayor Mom Dani would do something this audacious. He's already made just a couple of outlandish appointments. But then again, he told us that he was going to govern with audacity, and I guess he actually meant it. What do you know? A politician who meant what he said in this case a socialist who turns out to be, oh, wait for it, a socialist. By the way, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal makes the very good, historically proven and obvious point, which is that if you bring in this kind of agenda of rent control, those who own the buildings, the properties have no reason to invest in them. Thus, the editorial statement is entitled,

the rent control slums of New York. One of the first actions Miram Dani took after taking office was to go to a rent control department complex, which was falling apart in order to demand that it be fixed. And it's now, in terms of the ownership of the property, facing bankruptcy. Who was the activist who forced the organization into that position? Oh, now wait for it. The very person Mayor Mamdani has now designated as the tenant support rent controls are of New York City. She's already been at work before as an activist and now coming with city authority. The mayor was going to one of the very sights of that activism in order to complain that more investment needed to be made. Well, here's the oxymoron. Here's the conflict. You can't demand more

investment and deny the income from that investment, that not only isn't America, that's not only socialism. It's also a recipe for a slum, which is exactly what Miram Dhani is going to get. All right. Finally, I want to consider a sign of the times. The end of the year for the year 2025 came with the delivery of the last postal letter in the nation of Denmark. Denmark has basically now abolished its postal service. No more can you send private mail, no more licking the envelope of fixing the stamp and sticking it in the mailbox. The reason given is that that just doesn't work economically anymore because in the age of email and so many other means of communication, people just don't write letters anymore. In the United States, by the way, the postal service

is living on something of an artificial economy because of the way advertising has often worked in the United States. But when it comes to sending a personal service, but when it comes to send a little bit of, sending private letters, and you'll notice how expensive stamps are getting, they're nowhere near the actual cost of delivery. And much of that delivery cost is centered in places that are remote, the very idea of the Postal Service, is that all Americans would have access to a post office and to the delivery of mail. But in an age in which letters are no longer written, well, the post office really doesn't have a need to exist. All those services can be handled in some other way. But, of course, it raises big issues for Christians. That's not the

to say that it's an act of Christian unfaithfulness not to write letters. It is to say we're going to be a very impoverished people without letters. I really have no memory of my great-grandfather, but I do have letters written to me by my great-grandfather that I will treasure for the entirety of my life. Letters he wrote to me, knowing that he would likely be dead before I would ever be old enough really to know him. But I feel like I do know him because of those letters. and then think of letters throughout history. Christians will have to go to the epistles in the New Testament, letters from the Apostle Paul and others that are central to our understanding of what Christianity is, and central to our understanding of those biblical texts is the fact that they came in the context of letters.

I just finished not long ago, just weeks ago, preaching through First Corinthians once again, in an expository series, and one of the things that simply strikes me every single time is how personal that letter is. And we know it was actually one of four letters written by Paul to the Corinthians. The Holy Spirit has given us two letters, as first and second Corinthians. And you can't take apart from those letters from the biblical text, the fact that they were letters. They were written by the apostle to a specific congregation and meant for the entire church of the Lord Jesus Christ. But we only understand them if we understand Paul and we understand Corinth. You go throughout much of history between the New Testament time and today, and you'll notice there are books and books

of correspondence. Recently, you had multi-volumes of correspondence released, published as major books, the correspondence, for instance, of C.S. Lewis. What will happen when you have no access to those letters? All will happen when library archives are no longer repositories of those letters. What happens? Well, what happens is that most of what human beings write to one another is going to be lost into the digital either. But it also means that increasingly we will have no communication, not just from one heart to another, but from one hand to another. Handwriting really does matter. And it tells us something. It tells us something when the Apostle Paul says, look, I'm writing this with my own hands. See the big letters? It makes a difference to know that someone took the time, put in the effort,

even produced the penmanship that is represented in the letter we can hold in our hands. I don't want to sound like a curmudgeon here just complaining about the present and something being lost, but I do want to recognize that even as the digital age comes with great gains and many advances, just for instance in terms of medical technologies, even the ability to text one another, which is not a bad thing just in terms of keeping in touch. But something is lost when the letter is no more, and when a nation like Denmark simply says there's no need now for a postal service, That isn't the fall of civilization, but it does indicate that something very essential to civilization is very much at risk.

I fully recognize the irony when I then say, if you disagree with me about this, send me an email. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website at albertmuller.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 sbtsbtsk.manyu. For information on Boyce of College, just go to Boisw. college.com. I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.