The Briefing with Albert Mohler - Tuesday, September 8, 2026

Episode Date: September 8, 2026

This is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.Part I (00:13 – 12:52)The Lindsay Clancy Case Goes to Mistrial: There are Massive Worldview Issues Here, But For the Sake of Justice, a Mistrial is Not Necessarily the Worst ThingLine by Line by AlbertMohler.com (R. Albert Mohler, Jr.)Part II (12:52 – 21:36)The Death of Feminist Icon Gloria Steinem: The Feminist and Abortion Revolutionary Died at 92 – Her Ideology and Influence Reminds Us of What is at StakeShe was out to change the world, and she said so by WORLD Opinions (R. Albert Mohler, Jr.)Part III (21:36 – 25:56)A Rave at St. Paul’s Cathedral? Lord Nelson’s Family is Claiming the EDM Dance Party is an Insult – More Importantly, It is an Insult to Biblical ChristianityFabric nightclub ‘raves’ at St Paul’s Cathedral are ‘an insult to Lord Nelson’s memory’ says naval commander’s family by Daily Mail (David Olaseinde)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, September 8, 2006. I'm Albert Moller, and this is the briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. Well, wouldn't you know it going into the Labor Day weekend, all kinds of news broke out. That's sometimes just the way it works. The big news on Friday was a mistrial in the case, the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy. We're talking about the Massachusetts trial of a mother who basically admitted to murdering in a premeditated fashion her three-year-old. young children, one of them just an infant, and she murdered them and then also, at least according to the report, attempted to kill herself. But unsuccessfully, she is currently a paraplegic. She was in a wheelchair. They're in the courtroom. Miss trial, however, was the word.

Now, we talked a lot about this as the trial was just about to come to a conclusion. And this is an inconclusive conclusion. It's a very morally unsatisfying conclusion. And this is one of the risks of the criminal justice system. So we as Christians understand that there is no such thing as perfect earthly justice. What we hope for as Christians is proximate justice, the greatest achievement of justice and declaration of righteousness and execution of justice that is possible in a human system. And we understand that in a fallen world, simultaneously a system of law becomes more difficult and more important. And so in a fallen world, one of the gifts God has given us is not only the moral conscience and the moral law, but an understanding of law that is so deep in the human heart

that where you find civilization, you find a law code. And virtually wherever you find civilization, you're going to find some kind of legal process and you're going to find some kind of something like a judge, something like a trial, something like the carrying out of sentences. And the reason for that, again is that being made in the image of God, this moral impulse in us cries out. And so the biblical tradition also reminds us that the blood of the innocent cries out from the ground. And so there is a need for justice, a cry for justice, an urgency for justice. And sometimes it just doesn't happen. But we're also looking right now at a very modern situation in which the basic defense undertaken by Lindsay Clancy's team was to argue that even though she had murdered the

children, even though she went through intricate planning and deceiving her husband in order to carry it out, she nonetheless was doing so under the influence of what they defined as postpartum psychosis. Now, there are some very interesting developments here. One of them is that when you look at a therapeutic society, you're already looking at a society that says, okay, we have moral categories right and wrong. Now we have a third category, at least a third major category that includes all kinds of subcategories. And this is the therapeutic world. And no doubt that's where this comes from.

It is also interesting that the authoritative DSM, the diagnostic and statistical manual in its current edition, does it have an official listing for postpartum psychosis? So it was nonetheless allowed as an argument in trial. Okay. So fast forward, what we appeared to be facing as the trial was coming to a very frustrating end on Friday, it appeared to be a situation in which you had the impan. jurors at the very end, unable to reach unanimous decision, a unanimous verdict. Not only that, but because of the lengthy, we're talking over 30 hours of deliberations, because of the lengthy

process, it was also basically accepted in court. It wasn't declared by the court, but it appeared to be acknowledged by the court. It was a situation in which the jurors were split 11-1. And, you know, in a situation like that, when you're looking at a trial of this consequence, you often have no real inside information until one of the then former jurors speaks. But in this case, even before the declaration of a mistrial, while the jury is still impaneled, the news became quite public that 11 of the jurors were ready to find Lindsay Clancy not guilty by reason of this psychosis. That didn't mean she didn't do it, but they're going to argue she did not bear criminal culpability because she was not in her right mind when she carried all of this out.

She was affected by this what is called postpartum psychosis. But there was one holdout. Now, in this case, of course, there were lengthy pre-deliberation briefings by the judge directly to the jury. And the judge in this case, Judge William Sullivan, who is a judge of the Massachusetts Superior Court, he was faced with the fact that the jury came back and said they're unable to reach a verdict. Now, as we discussed the last time on the briefing, the judge gave.

a particular instruction to the jury to work harder to try to achieve unanimity, which is required on the verdict, they were unable to do so. Now, this is where things got really interesting on Friday because we've already talked about the intricacies just given the Massachusetts court system when it came to the judge's instructions. But when you have a split jury, and the jury comes back and says, we are brokenhearted. There's pretty emotional language in some of what was conveyed. The jury came back and said, we are very frustrated,

but there is no way we're going to be able to reach unanimity. Okay, so at that point, you had the defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, moral him in just a moment. He came out and said, look, Judge, we're looking at a situation where that one holdout juror is actually refusing to obey your instructions.

Now, what would be going on there? Well, at least in part, it is assumed that this single juror in this case one out of 12 with 11 ready to evidently agree by consensus and by common judgment that Lindsay Clancy killed the three children. She did so in the detail, just absolutely gruesome way that was described in court, but she did so under the influence of the psychosis, so she did not bear direct moral responsibility. Evidently, 11 were willing to go there. The other was not. And so what you had was Kevin Reddington making the argument that he is unwilling to accept the alternative of this particular verdict that was allowed.

And so now remember, there were five different alternatives the jury could have considered all the way from guilty of first-degree murder, premeditated murder. And on the other side, so that will be number one, number five, you might say, not guilty by reason of this psychosis. sometimes simply described as not guilty for reason of insanity. That's lay language. But then there were three different positions in the middle, including different degrees of murder, different degrees of culpability. But at the end of the day, it was a mistrial.

And this is why Friday was so interesting. It is because Kevin Reddington, the defense attorney, who, by the way, is one of the most famous defense attorneys in the state of Massachusetts. We're talking about a very, a very popular state with a very, sophisticated legal system in a very liberal culture, as a matter of fact. But Kevin Reddington is, he's a defendant's attorney. He is 75 years old. He is known to be a master of the courtroom. He pulled something on Friday. He was looking at the fact that he had 11 jurors. I just understand. So far as he was concerned, he won 11 jurors. And there was this one holdout. He tried to get the

judge to instruct the holdout or perhaps even to strike him. It's a complicated process in every state in Massachusetts. It's complicated. But the judge wasn't going to do it because the judge came to the conclusion that this man was not refusing to obey his order. He was actually operating by conscience. And so it is really interesting the role of conscience in this. Christians need to notice this. This man in conscience could not find this woman, this defendant, not guilty by reason of psychosis for murdering her children. And you know, the jury itself said it was heartbroken, that it was unable to come to a conclusion. The judge was clearly frustrated. I mean, we're talking about a multi-week trial. We're talking about a massive amount of public attention. But I must tell you, I was impressed with a judge who said, okay, we're going to meet again before the end of the month and we're going to find out where we're going. Okay. I mentioned the fact that Kevin Reddington is such a well-known defense attorney there in the state of Massachusetts. And so it is interesting somehow because, let's just say, we're talking about a very expensively defense. Somehow that was provided. But then we also have to consider the role that's not going to be

played by Timothy Cruz, who's the district attorney there in Plymouth County, Massachusetts. And as Christians, we need to pay attention to what his responsibility is. Now, the big question is, will he refile criminal charges? Will there be a second trial? Will he go to that trouble? The answer to that, almost assuredly, is yes. Yes. There were two assistant DAs who were involved in this case and the prosecution, Jennifer Sprague and Shannon Buckingham. And these two attorneys, they made their case. But the fact is, they're going to have to make it again. Now, exactly what charges are going to come this time, because that is the prerogative of the district attorney, the prosecuting attorney. He could decide to come up with a different legal strategy, perhaps not going for first-degree murder,

but going for a lesser but still very significant charge. And this is where there are all kinds of biblical issues in the background here. And so you could just look at the fact that when you look at the Old Testament, it's very clear, you shall not murder. And the consequences for murder are very, very clear. But the Bible's also clear that there needs to be an evidentiary process and a judgment made, even more than one witness. And so there's just a lot at stake here. But there's a very real sense that if you look at the Old Testament, and I am going verse by verse, right now in teaching through Joshua, you notice how much of this is just in the background. And so it is different, but it's the same. The responsibility is to make certain that justice is

served. And that's where very interestingly, the question comes, will the DA, Timothy Cruz, file charges? And if so, why? And so there were so many people, particularly women, on the left, and I'll say the soft-headed left in particular, who really came out as champions for Lindsay Clancy. And by the way, there were some in the media who tried to say, you know, this is not all that uncommon. It is very uncommon. A mother murdering her children is extremely uncommon. Thanks be to God. It is so consequential.

It's so shocking. That's why a Massachusetts courtroom had the attention of untold millions of people on Friday. But here's the other thing. This district attorney represents the people of that county, Plymouth County, Massachusetts. And his responsibility is to speak and to seek justice for those who cannot speak for themselves nor press for justice for themselves. There are three dead children. And the responsibility of that district attorney is to make certain that their lives were not taken without consequence.

So we will be back in that courtroom, I think, in fairly short, order, and I think there'll be, if anything, even more attention to what might well be, almost assuredly now a second trial. I also just want to point out that in our system of justice, a mistrial is not the worst possible thing. The wrong verdict is a far worse thing. A miscarriage of justice is a far worse thing. It's very frustrating. It has to be frustrating to the judge, frustrating to the impaneled jurors who gave so much of their time, frustrating. Of course, morally frustrating, even to the country, looking for closure in this. it's not going to come quickly.

And in a case like this, perhaps there are huge lessons to learn in the fact it's not coming quickly. But as Christians, we do know that regardless of whatever mental conditions may have applied, when you have a mother premeditate the calculated murder of her three children, yes, there is a need for justice here, a dramatic need, a hunger and thirst for justice on the part of the people. There is so much confusion around this. At the very least, Christians can understand with full sympathy to those who are in all kinds of very difficult situations and may be experiencing all kinds of what may be defined variously as this or that. The reality is moral conduct still is moral conduct with moral consequences. If nothing else, we've got to be clear-headed and clear-minded about that. Also, last week, and certainly as we went into the weekend, a lot of discussion about the death of feminine, icon Gloria Steinem. She died Wednesday at age 92. And by any measure, she was one of the most

influential women in the 20th century and into the 21st. That just leads us to think about the entire context here. Let's just remind ourselves that Gloria Steinem was one of the most significant leaders of what was known as second wave feminism. Now, if there's second wave feminism, it really emerged in the 60s and 70s, then what was first wave feminism? Generally, in American history, first-wave feminism is associated with the movement for women to have the right to vote. So, of course, that led eventually to a constitutional amendment. And in the early decades of the 20th century, the suffrage movement, as it was known, was a major cultural development.

But then those issues kind of went off the front pages for a while. Second-wave feminism emerged in the 1960s and the 1970s. And this was what was styled as the women's liberation movement. So this was very different than the suffrage movement, which is towards a particular end, a constitutional amendment so that women would have the right to vote. And that was overwhelmingly supported by the time that it happened. Second Way feminism was a part of the revolutionary movements that emerged in the post-war period, and in particular in the 60s. Now, there were always roots in the 50s. So the 50s looked to be kind of a continuation of a very conservative era in America.

And in one sense, it was. But under the surface, these movements were really beginning. They exploded onto the scene in the 60s. So you have the sexual revolution. And eventually the LGBTQ revolution, as it is now known. You had other revolutions. And, of course, you had the revolutions that took place on American campuses. You had political revolutions around the world.

1968 became a key year of unrest and protest and a revolutionary fervor, and that was on both sides of the Atlantic. It was a big thing in terms of European countries as well as the United States. And then this second wave feminism really became very much a part of American culture. You had Betty for Dan and Gloria Steinem, who were probably the two most influential leaders in that movement of their time. And of course, one of the things they were pushing for was what was known as the Equal Rights Amendment, or the ERA. And that appeared to be coasting towards ratification by the states. And it would have declared that there can be no discrimination between men and women. It can be no discrimination on the basis of sex.

Now, you had Christians and conservatives who all of a sudden began to understand, you know, if there's no discrimination, then you can make a claim that, you know, well, this is very contemporary, isn't it? that even having different bathrooms or changing spaces or locker rooms could be a very much an unconstitutional thing by some courts ruling. And one of the things that was happening at that time was you had the anti-war movement. And with the ERA, you know, immediately there came the question, well, if there can be no discrimination, then what about when it comes to the draft? Well, there was a second thinking on the part of many Americans. and there was also a very influential woman among conservatives.

And that was Phyllis Schlafly. And I had the honor of knowing her and speaking at some of her conferences. She established what was known of the Eagle Forum. She led the charge against the Equal Rights Amendment. And let's just say, it was not ratified. And indeed, there were some states that had moved to ratify it that actually sought to reverse their vote. And so it came close, but it did not become a part of the U.S. Constitution.

But one of the things about second-wave feminism is that it came with such an ideological, such an ideological stance. And it was against patriarchy, and thus it ended up being against, if not in entirety. Basically, it called for, if not a rejection, then at least a redefinition of marriage in the family. And Betty Ferdin, by the way, referred to the middle-class family as what she called a domestic concentration camp. That kind of tells you where that's coming from. Gloria Steinem was a bit different. She had a very difficult childhood, and then she went to college. She went and spent some time in India, and there she was filled with a bit of revolutionary fervor.

She came back and really became, first of all, a reporter and a writer, but she became very influential in New York politics and New York culture. And she eventually became, if not the most significant feminist leader in America, then certainly the most famous. She started Ms. Magazine, and again, she just basically recharged that entire movement. And from the beginning, by the way, it was very clear that the issue of abortion was right at the top of their agenda. And it turned out, by the way, that that was a very personal issue for Gloria Steinem. She had actually gone to England and obtained there when she was a very young woman and abortion that was illegal. And so that was a big thing. She underwent a secret abortion in Britain in the year 1957.

She came back and she was radically a proponent as the feminist movement was radically pushing for abortion rights. And thus they greeted the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 as their great leap forward. But it was always, by the way, abortion basically with the argument taken to its logical conclusion. And so when you look at these feminist leaders, they were often at least pretty honest about where this logic would take them. And now this is exactly what you see. Where, for instance, in the state of Massachusetts, we just talked about it in another context. But in the state of Massachusetts, you're now looking at abortion legislation that allows for abortion all the way up until the moment of birth. It was very interesting that the feminist movement said what they want was absolute equality for women.

But what that came down to was a radical restructuring of society from top to bottom. a radical redefinition of marriage. And by the way, Gloria Steinem once said that, and she said this rather famously, that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Well, she did get married later in life, which brings that parable to a very interesting point. But you're talking about a redefinition of marriage, very tentative, divorce law, no-fault divorce, all of this was very much a part of that revolution that redefined marriage and the family. And by the way, the liberal of sexuality from marriage and then eventually from any kind of conventional moral code was very much a push from a lot of the feminists and in particular those who were the ideological leaders

and Gloria Steinem was that. She founded the magazine known as Ms. Magazine and as I say from the very beginning it was open on this agenda and right now it is just as you would expect. Small circulation by the way underwritten by a foundation but it is radical in its push for abortion. basically for any reason or no reason at any time right up until the moment of birth. The feminist movement, by the way, had the motto that the personal is the political. And when it came to Gloria Steinem, she actually lived that out. The personal became the political. And she became very influential in Democratic Party politics.

She became very closely aligned, for instance, with Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2016. She was absolutely convinced that the then former Secretary of State was going to become the next president of the United States. as we know in 2016, that did not happen. One of the matter and conclusion about Gloria Steinem, if you buy into this logic that marriage and conventional sexual ethics are tied to a patriarchal and oppressive worldview, then you basically have to say yes to everything. And for the feminist movement, and just think about this,

one of the biggest questions was, what in the world do you do with the transgender claims? Because after all, they're trying to make the argument about the rights of women. But inevitably, if you buy into their revisionism and into their revolutionary ideology, then you can't say no. And so it was interesting. Over time, Gloria Steinem had to say yes and had to start referring to biological males

who claimed a women's identity as fellow women in a feminist movement. By 2013, she was ready to say that transgender women, as she defined them, are to be celebrated, not questioned. It is very interesting that you're looking now at more than 10 years later, and there are still, thankfully, big questions, even in secular culture. All right, finally for today, there are headlines coming from London, in particular from the Daily Mail. Here's the headline, Fabric Nightclub raves at St. Paul's Cathedral are an insult

to Lord Nelson's memory, says, Naval Commander's family. All right, there's a lot to unpack here. have only a short amount of time, but let's do it. Number one, what is a nightclub rave? It is a festival, electronic music, big bass. It is a dance, and it's a pretty wild affair. The word rave ought to communicate that pretty clearly. So now you're talking about a nightclub rave being held where? Being held in St. Paul's Cathedral in London. Let's just remind ourselves, that's one of the most historic buildings in all of Christianity. After the great fire of London, it was re-ed- built by the design of Sir Christopher Wren, that glorious structure has been standing. It is one of the

most monumental buildings in church history, and it's there for all to see. And it is still an ongoing Anglican cathedral. However, it is now going to be the scene of a rave. Now, there have been rave masses, as in Catholic masses, that have been declared. Sometimes these are tinsed with paganism and all the rest. Let's just say the rock music, the loud music, the dancing. And by the way, we're being told that dancing itself is not going to take place. I don't know if that's believable or not. But what I want to point out here is that this is just another insult to Christianity coming from the Church of England. And now you're talking about a music rave being held under the Great Dome, which, by the way, is absolutely majestic. Most believe that it is a major influence in the rotunda

of the United States Capitol in the Capitol Dome. But when you look at it, and on the inside, I just tell you, it is one of the places I love to visit simply because of all the history. And yes, Admiral Nelson's tomb is there. I just want to point out something to Christians. The headline here is that the raves at St. Paul's Cathedral are an insult to Lord Nelson's memory, says Naval Commander's family. That's really the story here. The story is about Lord Nelson's family making an official protest that this rave, this rock music event, to be held inside St. Paul's Cathedral and officially.

sponsored, that it's an insult to Lord Nelson. It's an interesting thing. I presume perhaps they have every right to say it's an insult to Lord Nelson. I simply want to point out that for Christians, looking at a building like that of such consequence and importance for Christianity, and you look at it, I'm far less concerned with it being an insult to Lord Nelson's memory than an insult to biblical Christianity. There under that dome are majestic, reminders of biblical truth, and the entire building is in the name of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ and of the Church of England, and it was built as an absolutely astounding facility for worship. And now it's going to be the scene for a rave. I was also very interested as a Christian to read

that from the cathedral was the statement that this is a... is an effort towards engagement and was intended, as the paper said, quote, to offer a different way for audiences to experience the historic building, end quote. I guess I would put it this way, it should be patently obvious that a church that would accept this has already probably accepted just about everything else. It tells you a whole lot that the cathedral, evidently, is seeing this as an opportunity for people to engage the cathedral. So much for historic biblical Christianity, so much for the gospel. It's a rave.

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 sbtsd.U. For information on Boyce College, just go to Bois College.com. I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.