The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Tuesday, May 13, 2025

Starting point is 00:00:04 It's Tuesday, May 13, 2025. I'm Albert Mueller, and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. There are some patterns in terms of the way language is used that betray something far more important, something far deeper, which is actually in process. And in particular, as you look at the LGBTQ revolution, you look at the vast redefinition of the entire moral structure in Western civilization, you understand that there are certain logics that. that have been playing into this, certain dynamics that give a lot of energy to the revolutionaries. One of those dynamics is the idea that some change in moral judgment is simply the process of evolution, and that evolution is always from what should be left behind to what should be embraced now. And so the entire worldview of progressivism is you've got to progress, you've got to move forward, you've got to make progress from one position to another.

Starting point is 00:01:00 At one point, there was an understanding that homosexual behavior was sinful. But now we have through progress arrived at a very different moral consensus. They make the argument, and that moral consensus is going to just continue to develop in a leftward direction. So all of this comes to light in graphic ways, as a matter of fact, in the recent election of the new Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Leo the 14th. And of course, the big question now is, how will this Pope Pope, what's he going to do? what's going to be his use of the papal authority?

Starting point is 00:01:32 What is going to be the direction of his pontificate? What's this going to have to do with LGBTQ issues? That's one of the big, big questions. And the national media can't stop asking this question. It just tells you who's obsessed with this. USA Today, just yesterday, ran an article with the headline, LGBTQ plus advocates see hope in Pope Leo. The subhead quote, they look to his closeness to Francis.

Starting point is 00:01:56 So everyone's trying to read the situation in the Roman Catholic church. And from our perspective today, the important thing is understanding how moral arguments are made and how moral movements clash and just detecting in a very significant way what is going on here, which is this argument about progressivism, about moral progress, always from traditionalism to a brave new future, leaving behind the morality that gave birth to Western civilization and now embracing something new. That's the essence of the argument. The big argument is, now is what will the new Pope mean for all of this, but what it means for us as evangelical Christians is here's an argument we really need to track. So USA Today offers this headline about LGBTQ plus

Starting point is 00:02:43 advocates seeing hope in the new Pope. But Mark Ramirez, the reporter in the story, says that there is guarded hope here. Francis DiBernardo identified as executive director of the New Ways Ministry, identified further as, quote, a National Catholic Outreach Group promoting LGBT LGBTQ acceptance and equity, Francis Bernardo said, quote, we're going to take a wait and see approach. Listen to this. There's a great possibility that he will have a positive effect on LGBTQ ministry, end quote. Now, everybody knows what's going on here. The reporter knows exactly what's going on. The man interviewed here knows exactly what's going on. And this has offered not just as an honest response to the question, what do you expect. It is also offered as public relations for the LGBT movement. But what turns out to be really

Starting point is 00:03:29 interesting, our statements made by the same man and by others of a similar perspective later. Mellie Barber identified as President of Dignity USA Today, a national organization we're told working for LGBTQ inclusion in the Roman Catholic Church and Society said that 2012 was, quote, a really different time in our church and our society. Why? The statement about 2012. Well, it's because in 2012, the new Pope, Pope Leo the 14th, then as Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, He had made statements very clearly indicating a negative moral judgment on homosexuality. As a matter of fact, in an address given at the World Senate of Bishops in 2012, the man who is now the Pope said then that, quote, Western mass media is extraordinarily effective in fostering within the general public enormous sympathy for beliefs and practices that are at odds with the gospel. For example, abortion, homosexual lifestyle, euthanasia.

Starting point is 00:04:26 end quote. So there is the new Pope in a statement made now 13 years ago. Now this is exactly the way this works, because if you have a Pope, Roman Catholics are going to have to look for everything the man has said and as indications about what he might say in the future, indications about what he might do on LGBTQ issues in the future. That 2012 address reflects what would have to be understood as a rather conservative understanding of those issues. Abortion, homosexual lifestyle, euthanasia. In one sense. Evangelical Christians would agree. Those are at least the big three. Extended comments made also dated back to 2012 include this statement, quote, Catholic pastors who preach against the legalization of abortion or the redefinition of marriage are portrayed as being ideologically driven, severe, and uncaring. Again, that's a statement that would appear to come from a rather conservative perspective. But here's something really, really interesting in an argument that was published in the Guardian. The Guardian is a left-wing London newspaper. The respondent, to that statement tells us also a great deal of what's going on. Dignity USA

Starting point is 00:05:30 identified as, quote, a group that represents LGBTQ plus Catholics, expressed concern about the post previous comments, and one of the expressions of concern came down to this statement. Quote, we note that this statement was made during the papacy of Benedict XVI, when doctrinal adherents appeared to be expected, end quote. Okay, so what exactly does that mean? It means that these who are pro-LGBQ are saying, yes, yes. yes, the Pope did make those statements back in 2012 before he was Pope, but, quote, we note that this statement was made during the papacy of Benedict XVI. The next words are crucial, quote, when doctrinal adherence appeared to be expected, end quote. So that's in the past, not in the present? There once was a time. This statement obviously implies when doctrinal adherence appeared to be expected. But that statement reflects the indication that, at least in the view of those who made the statement, quote, doctrinal adherence doesn't appear now to be expected. But that statement reflects. But that statement, expected. That raises another big point, by the way, which is that the doctrinal statements of the

Starting point is 00:06:31 Roman Catholic Church on these issues have not changed, period. Haven't changed one word, period. And by the way, even as enormous authorities invested in a pope, the reality is that no pope acting responsibly can actually do much to change that official teaching without investing a great deal of energy collaborative with the bishops over a long period of time. That's going to be very frustrating to the LGBTQ activists. And so what you see here is a posturing. And it is interesting to see this posturing related to the new Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. My point is we need to note this argument because it's the same kind of argument that is used against all Christian foundations on the issue of morality and doctrine. But there's something else going on in that USA Today article. I want to go back to it.

Starting point is 00:07:14 It appear just yesterday. And it's like a hand grenade here. It just goes off in the middle of the article. I want to note it. One of the person, cited in the article as expressing a hope that perhaps the new Pope will be more liberal on these issues, said, quote, without knowing anything further about his stance, I just choose to be hopeful that his thinking has evolved and that we will see a continuation of the Francis way and not see any backsliding on LGBTQ issues. That is the person identified again as Mellie Barber, the president of Dignity, USA. The hand grenade is the word evolved. That's exactly what's going on here. We need to understand it. We need to see it. We're kind of accustomed to it, but we still need to note it with great care because this is another expression of that idea that moral progressivism is inevitably going to win the same way that evolution inevitably wins. You'll notice that worldview is problematic in and of itself. But the point is they're looking at evolution and they are saying that you look at the Roman Catholic Church. What it needs to do is evolve on these issues. You look at Pope

Starting point is 00:08:23 Francis compared to Pope Benedict XVIth. What's the difference? Pope Francis had evolved on these issues. After the expectation of the new Pope, well, this is a group that is at least expressing hope that he too has evolved on these issues. Evolved since when? Well, those statements, by the way, in 2012, evolved since then. 13 years of potential evolution. They're at least investing their hope in that. But the Pope will answer that question in due time. My concern is that evangelical Christians look at this and see, this is exactly the way the culture works. Well, the Pope will eventually answer these questions, but my point is not to focus on the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church in this respect,

Starting point is 00:09:01 but rather to understand the evangelical Christian paradox. We are in a situation in which the larger world around us has, for some time now, believe that it was moving in a direction of what it would define as moral progressivism, overcoming the oppression and the authority, for example, of the Christian Church in terms of its moral judgments, and instead entering a brave new secular age in which oppression is going to be alleviated and liberation is going to be brought in all of this as a process of inevitable, unstoppable, unstoppable evolution. Just to bring this to a conclusion, Christians do understand that thinking changes, that cultures change. We do not believe that there is any inevitability

Starting point is 00:09:45 that this will be in the direction of any genuine progress. As a matter of fact, we should be very much aware of our concern that such a development would not be towards truth, but away from it, not towards human flourishing, but at the expense of it. And we also have to note that our understanding of moral judgment is that it is based in reality. It is based in truth. It is based in even ontology. It is based in creation order. And those things are not evolving. Our commitment to be to hold to that which is true. That's what is made necessary. That's what's foundational to the Christian worldview. As to the judgment of those around us, it may evolve or it may devolve. The point is, it needs to be corrected by objective truth, not by some kind of myth of secular progress. But next, as we're

Starting point is 00:10:36 considering how moral arguments are debated in the public square, we need also to note the kind of ideological combat that takes place and how framing becomes very much. important. Framing is the process by which both sides try to say, here is the reality, here's what's most important, here's how we should see this. Sometimes you have a war of arguments going back and forth. So example, over the abortion pill. Those who have been pushing for the abortion pill and for expanded use of the abortion pill and for the dropping of requirements such as in clinic visits and supervision in terms of the abortion pill, those who are pushing for the abortion pill because they want ever more widespread abortion. And by the way, it's used and now we're told about

Starting point is 00:11:20 two-thirds of abortions. You have a war between the pro-abortion pill side and the anti-abortion pill side, which means the pro-life side in this case. And a big volley, as we discussed on the briefing, was launched in recent days when the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., released a massive study debunking the claims that there are few medical complications to the use of Mephipristone, the primary abortion pill pharmaceutical. And so as you're looking at this, you recognize you're going to see a battle of arguments going back and forth on these things. And right now, by the way, we see two of these right before our eyes. We just discussed on the briefing the battle that is going on right now with the release of the report on transgender care, as it's sometimes described for

Starting point is 00:12:03 children and minors, the health and human services report here in the United States, following on the heels of the CAS review in the United Kingdom. And we have seen how you have the media going back and forth, the two sides going back and forth on this. Well, now we have it on the Mifipristone question and this EPPC report, which is, by the way, stellar work and really important, showing that the pro-abortion pill side has basically been misrepresenting the genuine risk posed by Miphystone in terms of bleeding, other complications that come with the use of the drug. So now you have the pushback, and the pushback is coming, for example, in an article in The Guardian by Mora Donagan, the headline in this article, conservatives are trumpeting a new abortion pill study. One problem is bogus. Okay, well, when the word bogus is used in this kind of context, you can pretty much count on the fact that bogus is bogus. So let's take a closer look at the argument. The argument is that the anti-abortion movement, as she describes it, including several prominent Republican lawmakers, she says, is seeking to undo wider availability of the abortion pill. This is in the aftermath of the 2002 Dobbs, Dobbs,

Starting point is 00:13:11 decision. And you also now have the claim, by the way, made in this article that as many is one out of five, 20 percent of abortions in the U.S. are now accessed via telehealth appointments, quote, a technological marble that has allowed many people living in anti-choice states to avert the worst consequences to their lives. So just to understand the propaganda that you see here. And this is a very liberal newspaper. The Guardian is infamously liberal in the spectrum of the British media. And honestly, there's not a national newspaper in the United States that quite fulfills this function, although at times I think USA Today is trying. But the bottom line I want us to see in this is that when you see this argument, it means, well, a nerve has been hit. That ethics and

Starting point is 00:13:54 public policy center study has definitely hit a nerve. And it's because it focuses moral attention on the harm caused to women by the abortion pill. Now, of course, as Christians, we're concerned with a harm to the unborn child by the abortion pill. But focusing public attention on the genuine harms to the women taking the pill and the genuine harms that were basically glossed over, if not openly denied by propagandists for the abortion pill, that's a very important moral argument. The fact that that argument is now gaining traction

Starting point is 00:14:26 indicates why there is this response. But there's something else very interesting in this. So if you're going to argue from the abortion right side that this is bogus, how are you going to make the argument? Well, you're going to say, you're going to question the research. And that's exactly what's happening in the transgender questions. We saw the battle of the reports. But you're also going to have very vague statements made, which is exactly what takes place here.

Starting point is 00:14:48 And that's why I've drawn attention to the word bogus. Bogus is not a scientific word. If you're using that about some kind of scientific argument, your argument about what's bogus just might be bogus. But the second thing you'll do is you'll just say it's all about politics. And this is where we reached my favorite paragraph in this. atrocious article. And in it, it cites a United States Senator Josh Hawley. And how does it identify Senator Holly, Republican Senator from the state of Missouri, as quote, the author of a book on manhood. And manhood's put on quotation marks. Okay, so now you have a British newspaper trying

Starting point is 00:15:22 to scare readers that there's actually a United States senator who dares to write a book on manhood. But the Guardian is signaling its discomfort with that category by even putting the word manhood in quotation marks as if the Republican Senator just made it up. By the way, forgive me, but I'm going to insert at this point that I had a wonderful thinking of public conversation with Senator Hawley about his book on manhood without scare quotes. And you can find that at my website. But going back, it's really important to look at this article and understand this is one of those signals on the left that's supposed to set off all kinds of alarms.

Starting point is 00:16:01 This is a senator who dared to write a book on manhood put in skate. air quotes, so we can't trust anything, he would say, about abortion. But the real issue is what follows. The Guardian says that the senator, quote, went on to urge the FDA to restrict access to the drug and revert to pre-pandemic regulations in which Mifapristone could only be dispensed by a doctor after multiple in-person visits, quote, a regulatory regime that would cut off abortion access to millions of women in anti-choice states. Notice the reference to, quote, anti-choice states. Notice the reference to, quote, anti-choice states, but also notice that this is the great threat of cutting off abortion access to those millions of women identified here in anti-choice states. Notice there's no

Starting point is 00:16:45 indication of concern for their health at all. It's just that the worst possible condition would be a restriction in abortion access. That tells you again about the ideology of the left. The worst thing imaginable is a situation in which there is no access to abortion under any in all circumstances, simply as a matter of will. At Vox.com, Rachel Cohen offers an article in the headline, the anti-abortion movement's plan to restrict access to abortion pills, end quote. Now, what I want to point to there is the simplicity of that headline, which, by the way, is absolutely accurate.

Starting point is 00:17:17 That is exactly what the pro-life movement is seeking to do. That is, to restrict access to abortion pills. That's at least a very important step. Over at the Washington Post, representing one of the big brands in the mainstream media, Glenn Kessler offers an article headline fact-checking a study on the safety of the abortion pill. It's presented as a more dispassionate argument, not so much ad homonym as you saw in the Guardian article. But you have scare quotes here too. For example, quote, we dug into the EPPC report, which calls the use of Mithepristone, quote, chemical abortions, end quote, and pose 20 questions to EPPC, etc. Well, notice that line which says that the Ethics and Public Policy Center report calls the use of Mephipristone, quote, chemical abortions, end quote.

Starting point is 00:18:06 Well, what would Glenn Kessler call such use of Mephepristone? It certainly is about an abortion because, after all, they call it an abortion pill. But in this case, it is likely that what is attempted here by putting chemical abortions in quotation marks is that those who are for the use, of the pill and even expanded use of the pill would refer to this as a medical abortion. Now, why would that be medical as opposed to anything else? It is because on the pro-abortion side, there's an effort to say there are basically now two forms of abortion. There are medical abortions, that's pill or pills, and surgical abortions. And that is exactly what you know it is. But the branding, the language is everything in moral combat, words matter, every single word

Starting point is 00:18:55 matters. And in this case, the use of the term chemical abortions is evidently offensive to some, and they're going to have to call it something. And so they would rather call it medical than chemical. But you know what? Chemical is exactly what it is. And here's the other reason medical is so morally wrong as the category here. It is because medicine is about saving life, not taking life. It is about curing disease, not inflicting death. But the important thing for all of us is recognizing how all this vocabulary betrays the big moral issues that are right there before our eyes. All right, while we're thinking about how moral change takes place, and even when you look at the map, you know, you're looking at a complex moral reality. As we often remark, the closer you get

Starting point is 00:19:38 to a city, the closer you get to a coast, the closer you get to a campus, the more liberal any population becomes, regardless of whether you're in a red state or a blue state. And so in some red states, you have some blue dots, usually associated with something like a college, University campus, or for that matter, state capital. In almost all states, even in red states, the state capitals are more liberal. And a part of that is simply because of the administrative state, because how many people are actually working for the state, the state government, or at least a part of the economy entirely dependent upon government spending and all the rest. You also have the knowledge class, other developments that are concentrated in those capital

Starting point is 00:20:17 cities. A couple of other observations, when you get into the mountain west, things get a little complicated because there's always been an overlay, even in red states there, of a worldview that you could even describe as something like New Age. It's a libertarian, often mystical worldview, and there are even tourist attractions and other institutions in some of those Western states that kind of lean into that in a big way. And so as you look at Salt Lake City and Boise, that's at least a part of what's going on. Salt Lake City, at least you think almost immediately in terms of the influence of the Latter-day Saints of the Mormon Church. You would also think in Boise about the deep red conservatism of Idaho.

Starting point is 00:21:01 Why are we talking about those two cities? It is because in recent days, both of those cities have moved to adopt official city flags that include LGBTQ pride symbolism. Why did they do so? Why did they adopt them as official city flags? That is because both of the states, Utah and Idaho, adopted legislation saying that there are to be no non-official flags at schools or in government buildings. And so these very liberal cities when it comes to these issues, especially when it comes to LGBTQ pride in Salt Lake City and in Boise,

Starting point is 00:21:35 the city government said, well, we'll beat you at that game because we will make it not a non-official flag. We'll make it an official flag incorporating one way or another, or at least in some of these cases, in more ways than one, this kind of pride symbolism. So now it's an official city flag. Now it's can fly over government buildings and schools, take that conservative state leaders. We beat you at your own game. Republican-dominated state legislatures in Utah and Idaho thought that they had solved a problem by adopting legislation that would limit flags phone over such buildings to the United States flag, state flags, flags of other countries, or states and college and military flags. But in unflagging effort to push the LGBTQ agenda,

Starting point is 00:22:21 These cities, which are, again, very blue dots in this respect and very red states, they move just to adopt the pride symbolism within an official city flag. As Christians, we just need to be aware of the constant worldview combat, frankly, this is going on around us, going on in the language, going on in news coverage where scare quotes are used, even around a word like manhood. And when you look, for example, at the flags that are now official city flags in Boise and in Salt Lake City, not by accident, they're different now than they were a year ago. But this points to something else, and that is the fact that if you're about cultural revolution, you're about filling the public space with your symbolism and your messaging. Make no mistake. This is no small matter.

Starting point is 00:23:10 The gay pride movement is about putting in our face all the time, even on government buildings and even at schools. a moral agenda, which, after all, we believe, is nothing less than the undoing of Western civilization. Those who are pushing this agenda understand that they win, or at least they make advance, by normalizing in mainstreaming and institutionalizing their arguments in symbols that they fly, quite observably in this case, on a flagpole. Well, finally, for today's edition of the briefing, in all likelihood, at least a good many of you attended at least one commencement or graduation ceremony over the course of the last several weeks. Tis the season, these things are taking place, including right here on this campus.

Starting point is 00:23:54 But I think it is interesting to note who the commencement speakers were at many institutions, and they're trying to make a statement. And so, for example, the New York Times ran an article on the who's who of who is speaking at some very prominent graduations. In several big flagship state universities, the governor of the state is speaking. That is true in New Hampshire, in Vermont, in Virginia. Governor Glenn Yonkin in Virginia is going to speak at both Liberty University and then at the University of Virginia's college at Wise, we are told. And that's already taken place by now. Charlie Baker, the former governor of Massachusetts, who's the current head of the NCAA, spoke to graduates at Colby College. And there were a good many other governors. Mara Healy of Massachusetts, Ned Lambert, Ned Lamont of Connecticut, Westmore of Maryland, J.B. Prisker of Illinois, Tim Walls of Minnesota, Steve Bullock of Montana. They spoke, but I don't think you probably find all that very interesting. I think the most

Starting point is 00:24:56 interesting aspect in terms of the list of commencement speakers at major universities this season is the announcement that the commencement speaker at the University of Maryland was Kermit the frog. Now, in other schools, you had Nobel Prize winners. you had prominent person, states, people, governors, senators, you know, a large number of predictable speakers at an event of this kind of dignity. What in the world are you thinking when, as the New York Times says, you invite, quote, the amphibious orator of the Muppets to speak at the University of Maryland. The New York Times thought it was funny enough to say that the Maryland host would have to apologize who are not having green among their school's colors. But as we're thinking about the fall of civilization and civilizational decline, something that comes slowly and then we're told, as with bankruptcy, all at once, it seems that at least one very key marker of cultural decline would have to do with a talking frog as the commencing speaker at the University of Maryland. In this case, it's not even interesting to know what the frog said, only that, according to the university itself, it was honored to have the frog speak.

Starting point is 00:26:10 guess I'm going to let that go by saying I don't think that says a great deal about Kermit the Frog, but it does say a lot about the University of Maryland, perhaps even more about the state of higher education in the United States. But then again, perhaps you hear that and think, well, Mueller's just one of those cranky old men on the Muppets. Well, deal with it. Okay, I want to thank you, as always, for listening to the briefing and many of you listen to thinking in public. And I want to tell you, there is a new series. It's a video series. And it's just started. It's called In the Library and kind of taking into my library for a conversation. And I brought some others into the first of these conversations.

Starting point is 00:26:48 My colleagues, Tom Shrinner, Jim Hamilton, and Steve Wellum. And we're looking at a book recently released that basically claims that the Christian Church has misunderstood the gospel. Well, basically until now for about 2,000 years. And it's a book that says that somehow the divide between Catholicism and Protestantism can just be overcome with a new understanding. And so we take that on. And so we asked the question,

Starting point is 00:27:17 as the church misunderstood the gospel for 2,000 years, let me just cut to the quick and tell you that the answer is no, but I think you'll find the conversation very interesting. In the library, to subscribe at YouTube, just subscribe at Albert Mueller Official. All right, many more will be coming in the fall. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website

Starting point is 00:27:39 at Albertmower.com. You can follow me on Twitter or X by going to Twitter.com forward slash Albert Mowler for information. On the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbtsketeS.edu. For information on Voice College,

Starting point is 00:27:52 just go to voicecollege.com. I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.

The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Tuesday, May 13, 2025

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