The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Tuesday, February 17, 2026

Episode Date: February 17, 2026

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.Part I (00:14 – 09:27)The Church of England Says No to Stand-Alone Same-Sex Ceremonies, for Now: Debate Reveals Massive Theological RiftsChurch of England abandons proposals for same-sex blessing ceremonies by BBC News (Aleem Maqbool)Part II (09:27 – 10:57)LGBTQ Activists Say They Will Go for Broke: LGBTQ-Affirming Group Commits to Increase Pressure on Church of England for Full LGBTQ InclusionUpdate on Living and Love and Faith by Together For the Church of EnglandPart III (10:57 – 18:31)An LGBTQ Priest Makes a Passionate (and Bizarre) Argument Before the Church of England Synod: The Theological Battle Lines Are ClearPart IV (18:31 – 24:21)The Bank of England’s New Dress Code: Its Updated Dress Code Policy for Transgender Inclusion is Yet Another Form of Insane SurrenderBank of England lets ‘genderfluid’ men wear eyeshadow and high heels by The Telegraph (Noah Eastwood)Part V (24:21 – 26:09)Politics Matter, Elections Matter, Marriage Matters: Tennessee Legislators are Fighting Important Battles Over Marriage and Much MoreTN House advances bills to delegitimize same-sex marriage by The Tennessean (Vivian Jones)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 Tuesday, February 17, 2006. I'm Albert Moller, and this is the briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. The General Senate of the Church of England met just days ago, and it's making history, it's making headlines, is making headlines mostly because you have developments such as reported by the BBC, the British Broadcasting Corporation, quote, Church of England abandons proposal for same-sex blessing ceremonies. So the claim that the Church of England has abandoned proposals is the headline. And there is news here. And indeed, the Church of England in its General Senate did abandon some proposals,

some proposals that many people thought were moving towards the inevitable recognition of standalone same-sex ceremonies in particular, the equivalent of same-sex marriages or weddings in the church. That didn't happen. And it didn't happen to the massive consternation of many people there at the General Senate and beyond. It is unclear, however, exactly what this means for the long term, because at the same time, it's really clear that momentum towards the adoption of some kind of standalone same-sex blessing ceremony or wedding ceremony is gaining traction. And indeed,

some of those in the LGBTQ community who expressed such deep hurt and dissatisfaction with his most recent action are pressing for even bolder action in the future. Now, one of the things I want us to keep in mind, is that the culture itself is moving so rapidly in that direction, that it's hard to believe that without really resolute theological conviction, any denomination or church can prevent itself from falling into this practice. But the language, the arguments, the background to all of this, it turns out to be really interesting and important for us to consider. I mentioned the BBC, that's the British Broadcasting Corporation, its article begins this way, quote, the Church of England's National Assembly has formally abandoned proposals to deliver

blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples in churches. General Senate did vote to continue to look into the issue in the future, but bishops had already decided there were theological and legal barriers to having such ceremonies now, end quote. Now, when you look at an article like that, it tells us that the newsworthiness of this is that something did happen, a decision was made, and the BBC accurately reports that the General Assembly or the National Assembly had formally abandoned proposals to deliver blessings ceremonies or same-sex couples in churches. But at the same time, it is still an open question as to where this will go. It's also an open question as to exactly what this means.

Now, I want to start out by saying that when you look at the Baptists, when you look at the Presbyterians, when you look at many others, you are looking at the inheritance of this Anglican tradition that was through time transformed in terms of separatism and later the development of Presbyterianism, especially going by that name in Scotland, and also you had Baptist coming out of the English Reformation. The reality is that there are Anglican roots, but it is also the reality that the separatism that took place in separating from the Church of England was in part attempting. to separate from the broadness of the theological definition and the worship definition of the Church

of England, even going back to the 17th century. Going back to the General Senate report from the BBC, quote, there was emotional testimony from some gay Christians during the Senate debate and warnings that many liberals and LGBT people were abandoning the church. Church leaders apologized for the hurt cause to both sides, as put in quotation marks, with conservatives having also complained about a lack of clarity from bishops about traditional teaching about marriage and sexuality. End quote. The Archbishop of York, Stephen Cottrell, said at the Senate, and this is the second-ranking member of the Anglican hierarchy in terms of the clergy.

You have the Archbishop of Canterbury, after that, in prior to the Archbishop of York. This was the Archbishop of York, basically apologizing. He said, and I quote, this is not where I want us to be nor where I hoped we would be, three years ago, and I want to acknowledge that wherever you stand on the debate, I know that many of you are feeling angry and disappointed, end quote. Now, I just want us to look at that for a moment and recognize that if you didn't even know the theological commitments or the intentions of the Archbishop of York in that case, when you have this both sides apology, what you have there is a basic abandonment of conviction. In other words, if you really do understand the issue of human sexuality,

or even just the definition of marriage according to scripture, there really is not a two-sides equivalent. Now, again, this goes back to the basic composition of Anglicanism. It's a very inclusive church or movement in this sense. And so just to make the point, if you go back, you understand that in the Reformation, you had a clear break between the Church of Rome, the Roman Catholic Church, and what became the Protestant churches, the Reformation Churches. The Churches, the Church of England was, especially in its earlier decades, and also again under Puritan influence, it was very much a Church of the Reformation. And yet over time, it really did take the position of something of an in-between church. There are deeply committed Reformation, Evangelical Protestants

within the Church of England. And yet at the same time, there are also Anglo-Catholics, those who really hold to some syncretism between the Church of Rome and the Church of England, especially in traditions and worship and also in theological forms. You also have, especially beginning in the 19th century, you have very liberal members of the Anglican communion, theologians, which are in good standing, who are in good standing with the Church of England. And so you have a mainstream position that seeks a middle way. And again, I am not saying that the evangelicals within the Church of England are satisfied with that middle way. I'm just saying that functionally that is the way that it works. And it's also why, when you look at this news story, the immediate

headline coming out was what didn't happen. At the same time, there were conservatives there in the Church of England who came back and said, well, it really is what didn't happen, but may happen yet, which is to say that given the process of the Church of England, the issue was not abandoned. The issue was not settled. They didn't say, okay, well, now we're going to settle on the fact that marriage is and can only be the union of a man or a woman, and that church blessings can only be in concordance and consistency with that commitment. Instead, they said, we're going to enter into another period of considering this issue. Now, from a church history perspective, I just want us to understand that when you remain open

to a question, when a question is put on the table and remains open, it will almost always move in a leftward direction. and that is particularly true when the culture is moving in that leftward direction. And that's exactly, of course, where the culture has been going. And when you have a church like the Church of England, which by definition really exists within the culture, then you're going to have this particular pattern show up again and again and again. However, it is just really interesting to note that the termination of this most recent process, without the adoption of approval for standalone same-sex ceremonies,

it was seen as something of an evangelical victory, and it was seen as certainly something that frustrated those who believed they were going to gain the approval for the same-sex ceremonies, a standalone ceremonies. They believed they were going to achieve that. They're very frustrated that they didn't. A group known as together for the Church of England, together sort of like a gay pride flag in terms of its insignia,

it released a statement that said, it has been nearly 10 years since General Sond had rejected the House of Bishop's refusal to change the Church of England's provision for LGBTQIA plus people. Since then, the Church has invested enormous time and hope in living in love and faith. That was the program that was terminated. Encouraged by the promise of a radical new Christian inclusion, following in the footsteps of our Savior Jesus Christ. In 2003, the House of Bishops brought forward the prayers of love and faith. That's a ceremony that can be used for something like the blessing of a same-sex couple.

but it's not a standalone ceremony. Quote, yet what has followed has not been delivery but delay, and in the face of threats and intimidation, a steady retreat from what Senate agreed, end quote. So what was presented as a conservative victory is here lamented as a step backwards, but rather than to accept it, this group within the Church of England says

that it is going to press for a final victory, just to settle the issue, adopting a new private motion, quote, that this Senate affirmed, that there are no fundamental objections to being in a committed, faithful, intimate same-sex relationship, and that such a relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship, end quote. Now, I wanted to read that, just so we understand what's at stake. And let's just remind ourselves that we are talking about marriage, which is the official recognition and

blessing of a union, and we're talking about blessing ceremonies, which, well, by using the word blessing, make clear what is the intention. And then you have this motion. that says, here's what they are aiming for, and they're calling for the statement that there is no fundamental objection. That's quite a statement, quote, to being in a committed, faithful, intimate, same-sex relationship. So let's just understand, when you stack the words like that, you have to have a complete revolution in theology, a complete revolution in ethics, away from Holy Scripture to be able to even make such a statement, putting the words in series, committed, faithful, intimate, same-sex relationships. And then to go on and state clearly that such

relationship can be entirely compatible with Christian discipleship, again, that is in refutation of nearly 2,000 years of unbroken Christian consistency on this issue. But here's where you understand that those who are seeking the revolution, even when they have a setback, announce that the only possible response is to go for broke. And this is about the Church of England. It is about the Church of England's most recent general senate, but don't think for a moment that this isn't exactly how so many of the liberal Protestant denominations in the United States collapsed on this issue, and why the activists will be coming for your church or denomination as well in time, trust me. I found the statements of one priest very much in the LGBTQ movement to be a particular interest.

This is the priest known as Charlie Bonshik Bell, and the Bonshik Bell, I think, indicates a same-sex marriage. And he spoke very emotionally saying, quote, send it, you have broken my heart. I cannot believe that we are here again after all this time with only this to offer, to say that the apology from the 2003 motion rings hollow is to cause offense by understatement. How dare you, he said, and how dare we come again to this place to lament and recognize distress and pain whilst we continue to inflict it on LGBTQIA people? How dare we, he said, and how dare you make LGBTQIA people take part in this facetious charade? I I'm so angry. So many of us are angry. So many of us feel that down. So many of us feel that you do not

care. End quote. Okay. In worldview analysis, let's just take that apart for a moment. It's a very passionate statement. I don't think it was manufactured passion. I think that this priest, who clearly identifies with the LGBTQ movement, I think his understanding of theology, his understanding of church, his understanding of Christian ethics, is consistent with his emotional response here. But notice he comes back to say that it's based, his outrage is based in the distress and pain that he says it has been inflicted upon and experienced by LGBTQIA people. That's his phrase. Well, let's just think about it for a moment. What is declared here to be this form of distress and pain is the assertion of biblical Christianity of the very doctrine and definition which the Church

of England has affirmed ever since its beginnings. The Church is, of England until recently has been completely unconfused about the issue of marriage, which is an irony, of course, because at least arguably in the history of the Church of England, one of the catalyst for the beginning was the question of the legitimacy of marriage, and, by the way, divorced, but especially royal marriage with the question of King Henry the 8th. But as I say, that's a footnote in this. It's also important to recognize that the order of marriage, the ceremony of marriage found in the book of common prayer is the most widely used and influential in all of English-speaking Protestantism,

period. That is to say the wedding service, the wedding ceremony, as most evangelical Christians would recognize it, is taken in one way or another from the Anglican tradition and from its ceremony for the wedding. All right. So let's go on. Let's go back to this statement from this gay-identified priest. He said, quote, so many of us have worked so hard. And for what we are, once again the acceptable sacrifice, the thing that is too difficult to do anything about. We have become an issue, a problem, a discussion point where he says, for example, are the words, let alone actions of public support from bishops who warmly encourage us behind closed doors, end quote. Okay, that's absolutely crucial. Here's what he's saying. He's saying that there are bishops who have

encouraged the LGBTQ movement to expect this change behind closed doors, but he's accusing them of basically, well, holding back, if not hiding behind other arguments during the general Senate. This is a very interesting argument, and it's a very clear accusation as well. Okay, it gets even more interesting because you also have his statement about the goodness of homosexuality and the goodness of homosexual relationships. He proffered an amendment, and again, he says it seeks to do one thing and one thing only, which is to tell the truth. He says this, quote, it is this,

the majority of us wish to recognize and lament that the Church of England remains unwilling to affirm the faithful, committed, and legally recognized, beautiful life-giving, procreative, abundant, glorious, godly, queer lives that are so clearly, that so clearly display the glory of God in front of our very eyes, end quote. Okay, so let's just look again. He is piling up his argument here, but he describes same-sex relationships with these qualifiers, quote, faithful, committed, legally recognized, and of course that means by the government, the beautiful, life-giving, procreative, or procreative, abundant, glorious, godly, queer lives. Okay, procreation? I mean, how in the world can a same-sex relationship amount to procreation?

I'll just state the obvious, you don't have to be very sophisticated in these matters to understand that that that is impossible. So I'll just say that, you know, when he puts that series together, we also understand that faithful here, in Christian terms, it can't be. And glorious, godly, again, if scripture is the word of God, this is impossible. But you'll understand the passion with which the argument is made. And I'll just go on to say that this passion is an enormously powerful passion. The energy behind the LGBTQ movement is incredibly powerful. And that's why it has succeeded so overwhelmingly, so fast in the larger society. And if you do not have robust biblical commitments, if you don't believe the Bible is the word of God, if you do not believe that we are

obligated by the authority of God's word to define marriage completely consistent with the scripture, that we have to define human sexuality, absolutely, in a consistent way, an obedient way to scripture. If you don't believe that, then it is only a matter of time before you slide into this. and if you do abandon the authority of Scripture, then you're likely to make this slide in a way that is rather more fast than slow. In one sense, it becomes inevitable. I'm not saying that evangelicals in the Church of England face inevitable defeat. I'll simply say, I would be very interested to know what those evangelicals think right now about what comes next in the Church of England. And as we pray for our brothers and sisters in Christ, there within the Anglican Communion,

and especially within the Church of England, we need to pray that they will be victorious in making their arguments based upon Scripture, not just because it is scripturally true, but because it is scripturally true for our good and for God's glory, and the only way to point to human flourishing. Even and especially within the context of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is obedience to Scripture. Disobedience to Scripture can lead only to dissolution and disaster, period. Some within the Anglican Communion are pointing out that the defeat of this most recent movement is not a long-term victory, especially not yet, because, and I'll quote from one of these sites, quote, the bishops continue to commend these prayers for use. These are prayers for the blessing of same-sex couples. So same-sex couples can invite their friends and family to join them at a regular church service where, quote, the vicar will bless them and the commitment they've made to each other using prayers like the. below, again, already in use within the Church of England. So a reminder to us all, I'm looking

at this not just to say, let's pay attention to what's happening in the Church of England, but because I want us to understand this is a pattern that is inevitable in terms of the cultural context in which we are seeking to be faithful. And understanding that context, I think, is essential to that faithfulness, understanding the patterns and trajectories, also taking into account the language, as we have just seen, used by some of those pushing this agenda, the language reveals more than they know, maybe more than they intend. Okay, I have to tell you that this happened at almost exactly the same time. We are talking about a development, and this is not in the Church of England, but in the Bank of England. The report here is coming from the Telegraph,

one of the major newspapers in London. Here's the headline, Bank of England lets gender-fluid men wear eye shadow and high heels. Okay, so the Bank of England is one of the most venerable traditional institutions within England. I mentioned the Church of England. Well, here is the Bank of England, located primarily within what's known as the City of London proper, that is to say, the square mile. For decades, as the telegraph reports, men have known how to dress. Young men have learned how to dress. Quote, young men wear navy, senior executives wear gray, and brown shoes are nigh a sackable offense. So in other words, very strict dress code. Quote, but years of city tradition, that's the city of London, meaning the financial district, now risk being thrown

into disarray by the Bank of England itself, it has told male staff that they can wear stilettos, eye heels, and makeup in a new gender fluid dress code. Okay. Tell us, Pellograph continues. Quote, guidance shared with staff, seen by the telegraph, says, quote, anyone is welcome to wear a suit with high heels irrespective of their gender, end quote. So, anyone is free to mix a suit with extremely high, high heels, irrespective of gender. It's hard to believe this is coming from the Bank of England, but it is. Quote, it adds, quote, trans men may wear large earrings while cis men may wear eye shadow and trans women may have facial hair. Okay, so just to get all this straight, and I'm reading this directly from the telegraph,

transgender men can wear large earrings, non-transgender men can wear eye shadow, and trans women may have facial hair. So it's just an astounding thing here. And when we talk as Christians, one of the things we always have to keep in mind is when you see something like this, we need to ask ourselves the question at what level of rebellion is this? So this is clearly an example of moral rebellion. How deep a rebellion? How significant a rebellion is it? Well, this is a rebellion against Genesis 1, Genesis 2. It's a rebellion against creation order, which was about distinguishing the male and the female. And not only that, given a reproductive, that is to say, a process of, procreation responsibility in terms of being fruitful and multiplying and filling the earth, which takes, by the way, a male and a female who know that the male and the female are alike made in the image of God, but not the same. Otherwise, you don't have the baby. So the policy I was just reading about transgender men and then non-transgender men and then transgender women. Again, it's just astounding how it is a direct refutation of creation order.

quote, it permits staff to alternate between masculine and feminine presentation within the same outfit. That's a quotation from the guidance, quote, saying a, quote, gender fluid person may wear a suit to work some days and a dress to work other days, end quote. Now, let me just ask a question. Why would you have a dress code, especially a venerable institution, a such tradition as the Bank of England, why would you go through the charade of believing that this is actually a coherent code? when you come back and say that persons can present as male the days they choose and as female the days they choose, they just have to keep some order about their dress right down to eye shadow and earrings

and all the rest. Let me just take the obvious. This is absolute insanity. It's insanity on a rank with the most extreme insanity imaginable. And we're not here talking about the branch of some little bank somewhere. No, we're talking about the Bank of England. And this just tells you how thoroughgoing the revolution in our society really turns out to be, as if there's any surprise. Nothing's going to be left unchanged. Nothing is going to be left unassalted. No barrier is going to be left without the demand that it be lowered. No policy, no definition is going to be able to last the LGBTQ revolution, unless there is some return to sanity. And I don't expect that right now in the larger culture.

On the transgender issue, we have seen some recovery of some level of sanity. But we also come to understand, and Christians need to consider this carefully, that even as there has been real hesitation on the part of many people, when you look at LGBTQ, on the T, there's been some real hesitation. Boy shouldn't be in girls' locker rooms. That recognition has been clear. The reality is that so long as L and G and B, are left intact, those who are pushing for tea understand it's only a matter of time until things

go their way. If there isn't an objective truth at stake, if there isn't something independent of human experience, human tradition, and human moral argument, if there's something not more substantial than that, then everything is going to give way. And that's exactly why the LGBTQ, whatever you're going to define it, movement, is confident long term of victory in the battle within the Church of England. I hope they're wrong, but they are actually quite certain they're right. And now within the Bank of England, in a report that comes out literally within hours of the Church of England, a very interesting situation there. Whether it's the Bank of England or the Church of England, at least some of the issues remain, but it is the Church of England that is to be

bound by scripture. Now, I'm speaking to you today from Nashville, Tennessee, and it's very interesting to note, the front page of the Nashville, Tennessee, and just published just yesterday, which tells us that in the current legislative session here in the state of Tennessee, bills are being presented that would say give private parties permission or legal authorization not to recognize same-sex marriages. There's actually a lot before the Tennessee legislature, and it's a reminder of the fact that even as the left thinks, for the most part, that all of these issues are settled, they're not settled. The Tennessee legislature is considering such things as the Ten Commandments, such things as whether or not to offer special protection to life in the womb.

And in this case, again, issues of the definition of same-sex marriage and the obligation of private parties to recognize it. It's just a reminder that elections really do matter. Culture really does matter. And arguments really do matter. And so at least I'm encouraged to know that some of these arguments are being made somewhere in America in a state legislature. The fight's not over, but it's not going to be easily won. Our task is not only to stay in the fight, but to raise our children to join the fight. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, you go to my website at Albertmuller.com.

You could 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 sbtsbts. The EDU. For information on Voice College, just go to voicecollege.com. I'm speaking to you from Nashville, Tennessee, and I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.