Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:05]
A
It's Friday, June 26, 2026. I'm Albert Mohler, and this is the Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. You know, at times, anniversaries really matter. In this case, I'm not talking about a wedding anniversary. I'm talking about an anniversary at the Supreme Court of the United states. It was four years ago this week that a majority, a 6:3 majority on the court handed down the decision that known as the Dobbs Decision, reversing Roe v. Wade. That was a movement almost a half century in the making. You go back to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Legalizing abortion is one of the darkest marks in American history. In American constitutional history. Yes. In the history of the Supreme Court. Yes. In the history of American culture. Yes. In the history of American morality. Yes. We're talking about an untold number of millions of human beings killed in the womb at some point of development and gestation simply because the Supreme Court ruled that abortion had to be legal, at least in the first two trimesters, in all 50 states. All right, so there is a really fascinating history behind all of this. And a part of it has to do with the fact that there were fundamental changes in the way the Constitution was being interpreted. And so those fundamental changes didn't come out of the blue. Instead, they came out of the 50s and 60s. They came out of a leftist, very liberal method of interpreting the Constitution in which there was the argument that, that judges shouldn't be bound by the words and the sentences and the syntax, the text of the Constitution. Rather, they should see the Constitution as a living document. The Constitution can mean something in the 20th century. It certainly didn't mean when it was ratified at the end of the 18th century. And so there is no question, absolutely no question, that when you look at the Constitution, you look at the various amendments to the Constitution that have been adopted, there was no issue related to abortion anywhere in the Constitution or in the ratification of subsequent amendments. In other words, when the Supreme Court's majority in 1973 found that a woman had a right to an abortion, they didn't find it in the words, they didn't find it in the sentences, they didn't find it in the text, they found it in their imagination and they imposed it upon the nation. Now, that's where you had a conservative response. And that conservative response began among those who said, no, we have to be tied to. We have to be accountable to the actual text, the words, the sentences of the Constitution. Otherwise we have A rule by judges. So just think about that for a moment. If the judges, and this means all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States, if they just get to decide what they think should be included, say, in constitutional rights, they're not tied to any text. They can just decide by majority of justices what they should be. Then the Constitution is no longer the ruling governing document of the country. Rather, the judges are the ruling, governing, well, rulers. And that's why there was such a conservative press back. But it took decades. It took decades of the development of conservative legal interpretation. And by the way, that was basically just a return to a classic model of the interpretation of texts. Okay, a little footnote here. One of the things I want to point out to Christians, and especially to Christians, is that when we consider the authority of a text and we consider how to interpret the text, a good many of the issues that arise in the law about the Constitution, they were preceded in theological and Christian circles by discussions about how we should rightly interpret the Bible. And that's where there's also a conservative liberal divide. You have liberals who say we're not bound by the text of Scripture. And as a matter of fact, they will go on and make arguments that there are trajectories. That's one of the interesting arguments that came in theological circles in, say, the 1980s. There's a trajectory. Hermeneutic. No. In other words, what we have is a direction, and it's going to go on beyond the actual words of Scripture. Once again, guess who is the real authority? It's no longer the Scripture, it's the Word of God. The real authority then becomes whatever, say, expert can say. Here's a logical next step in the trajectory. That's exactly how liberal denominations fell. It was one argument after another. We don't have to hold to this biblical doctrine the way the church has understood it for 19 centuries. If you take, say, being in the 20th century, no, we can just press on in what we will claim is a continued development of a moral logic. And furthermore, they bought into very revolutionary and liberationist models. And so, once again, a parallel what was going on among liberal, say, theologians and liberal lawyers, very similar arguments. But of course, the texts don't have the same kind of authority when it comes to the theologians. We're dealing with the Bible, which is the inerrant and infallible verbally inspired Word of God. Constitution has no such status. But in our governing order, the Constitution is to be the regulating document, the governing document. And once again, the conservatives began to win the argument by saying, if the words don't have to mean anything, if the sentences don't have to be respected, then you can make the Constitution mean whatever you want to mean. That's exactly what happened to Roe v. Wade. And by the way, there's no camouflaging that. In other words, Justice Blackmun, who wrote that majority opinion, he didn't even claim that the words of the Constitution led to such a conclusion. He spoke of an inner logic. And where do you get that? Well, for one thing, he got it from earlier decisions in the 1960s. Justice William O. Douglas at one point said that what you have in the constitutional text are penumbras emundating. Okay, so that's just kind of platonic language there. What he means is, you know, what you have is a text that's pointing to things, it's pointing beyond itself. It's just a dynamic in which you can kind of head in this direction. And so when it came to contraception questions, when it came to any number of questions, the Supreme Court began to say, well, you know, the Constitution really doesn't deal with this, but it should now. So we'll just figure out that inner logic and apply it. All right, so you had this clash of a conservative understanding of the interpretation of the Constitution, and you had a clash on the other side, on the liberal interpretation that had been really ensconced in the courts. The federal courts had largely been influenced by that liberal direction. It took a long time for conservatives to press back. It took a long time for conservatives to start making constitutional arguments in defense of unborn human life. It took a long time for conservatives, and in particular Christians, to make arguments about inherent human dignity and about the fact that the sanctity of life has to be traced all the way back to the moment of fertilization and has to continue all the way to the moment of natural death. It took some time for those arguments to be made, but thanks be to God, those arguments were made. That's the good news. And the good news is that even though it took almost half a century, the Roe v. Wade decision was reversed, and it was four years ago this week, reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States. It turned out that electing conservative presidents had mattered. It turned out that the appointment and confirmation of conservative justices had mattered. It turns out that the words of the Constitution mattered. But here's the sad, tragic development thereafter. It also turns out that those who are committed to expand abortion in the culture of death, they did not step back at all. As A matter of fact, two things have happened. Number one, they have been pressing for statewide success in terms of getting states, even some states that were generally considered at least largely pro life, a state like Missouri, and putting through legislation or even voter initiatives by referenda that led to the declaration of a right to abortion in those states. And then the bigger issue was the development of the abortion pill, so called medication abortion. And this was of course, you're talking about mifepristol, mifepristone, and you're talking about drugs. And a little footnote here, we've talked often on the briefing about the fact that this was done without due regard for the health threat posed by those drugs, especially mifepristone. But you are looking at the fact that the Biden administration elections matter. And so it was under the Biden administration that the federal authorities decided to declare the COVID emergency as an opportunity to allow the interstate mailing of those abortion pills. So guess what? Now a majority of abortions in the United States don't come in an abortion clinic. They come via a pill. And even though you have conservatives and you have good legal arguments and movements pressing back against these actions, including the FDA's approval of the drug for widespread use, the fact is the, that what we see, and this is the deep moral issue, the worldview issue for Christians, what we see is how many American, and in particular American women are absolutely determined to have an abortion. They're absolutely determined. You know, you have the left simply declare that you can't have a sexual revolution without a woman controlling her own body. And that means all the way to abortion. You also have just, even in the course of the last several years, a distillation of the arguments. And so it is really interesting at this point that the pro abortion arguments now going all the way to the moment of birth, and frankly there are those who want to take it further and they want no conditions whatsoever. What you have right now among the pro abortion movement is that they don't want a return of Roe v. Wade. They want to be rid of even the restrictions that were allowable under Roe v. Wade. They want an unrestricted right to abortion. They also want the federal government to pay for abortion. I think in hindsight we need to understand that the last several years were more pivotal than some people understood. Pivotal not only in the Dobbs decision in 2022, but pivotal in terms of actions taken by the Biden administration once that administration took office in 2021. And so what we're looking at right now is this Huge worldview collision. Just a reminder, as this week is coming to a close, you know, a reminder of what happened four years ago and what we hoped it meant. And it turned out it didn't mean. We hoped that meant that the number of abortions would go down remarkably. And, you know, even the pro abortion movement seemed to believe four years ago that that would inevitably happen. It didn't happen. As a matter of fact, both sides in the abortion argument now pretty much are in agreement that there are more abortions now than even before the Dobbs decision four years ago. That is to say a greater number, net number. Now. It's a very humbling realization. It's a reminder to Christians that our responsibility in the defense of life is not only not over. Here's the really shocking thing, it's even more urgent. All right, we're going to turn to questions very quickly, but I want to tell you, sometimes a worldview collision, it comes as a cultural collision. It comes as an unexpected issue. So right now, there is a big cultural battle going on largely within European nations, and in particular right now, the nation of France. And so what are we talking about? We're talking about a culture war over a huge moral issue. What would that moral issue be? Air conditioning. Okay. Why is it such a huge issue? It is because just over the last several days, France has experienced the warmest day in the entire history of France. Now, you have to be careful here because some people are saying it's the hottest day ever in France. Well, we don't have documentation going back century by century. So let's just say in terms of the time since these records have been kept, this week saw some of the highest temperatures ever. You're also talking about the fact that in France, air conditioning is a culture war issue. It is a huge issue. And as a matter of fact, the French have been basically looking down, morally down at the United States for having such widespread air conditioning. It's seen in much of France as an American thing. However, we're talking about temperatures that are downright deadly. We're talking about the fact that people are dying because of the heat. And we're also talking about the fact that climate scientists are just telling the French, this is not going to go away. This is not just an isolated development. You're talking about a very long pattern. Okay, so right now you're having such developments, as you see in the Financial Times, published in London, and London finds this very interesting. It's not to say that the British don't have some of the same tensions but nothing like what you see in France. And so you have the French right declaring the need for wider use of air conditioning. You have the French left saying, no, no, no. Okay, so listen to this from the Financial Times. You talk about a clash of worldviews. How's this for interesting? The French debate over air conditioning largely focuses on whether it is an unnecessary extravagance or, or environmentally sensible. But there is also an enduring belief among many that too much cooling can cause. This is in quotation marks, thermal shock if one goes too quickly from one extreme to another, and that it causes people to catch colds or feel nauseous, end quote. I have heard this. I have actually heard Europeans tell me that air conditioning is unhealthy, that if you breathe in that air conditioned air, you're actually likely to have a greater number of colds and all kinds of things. I'm not in a position to tell you that can never happen. I'm just telling you the very real threat of high temperatures is a greater health emergency. And that's what's dawning on many in the French government. The French government are now increasingly beginning to understand we're not talking about just a cultural conflict and argument here. We're talking about a very direct threat to public health. Now, once again, ideas matter, ideology matters. So we. When you go further on the left in French politics, you have greater and greater hatred of air conditioning. You go further and further right in the French political spectrum, and guess what? Things get cooler, which is to say stronger support for air conditioning. And now you have the French who are really up in arms. That may be not a good metaphor for this at the moment, over the issue one way or the other. And it is a culture war being fought out. It's also not one that's going to be resolved quickly. It's not like you can just snap your fingers. The French have been moving towards a greater use of air conditioning as the climate has moved warmer and also as people are doing other things. And one of the things that's not mentioned here, at least in France, is that when you have greater and greater density in some areas, in some buildings, you're no longer building the structures or private homes the way they did in nations like France in centuries before, where you had a lot of circulation and you had a lot of shade. No, in a modern technological city like Paris, those are commodities that are quite incredibly rare. And the higher you go, let's just state the obvious, the less you have. All right, so it's very interesting, just a reminder that there are worldview conflicts and there are deep worldview divides on things you just don't expect. It's not just abortion and sexuality and marriage in France right now, for obvious reasons, the hot issue, pun intended, is air conditioning. Okay, now let's turn to questions. Again, just some brilliant questions. One came in, and it came in from Sri Lanka. I really appreciate that and appreciate listeners in Sri Lanka. The question comes down to this, Dr. Mohler, given modern developments such as contraception, assisted reproductive technologies, and changes in social infrastructure, do you believe the classical natural law arguments for marriage remain as philosophically robust today as they were in earlier centuries? If so, how should Christians present and defend those arguments in the modern context? I think it's a brilliant question, and I think it's asked in a particularly helpful way. This listener says he asked, do you believe the classical natural law arguments for marriage remain as philosophically robust today? Yes, I do. Yes, I do. As a matter of fact, I think there's some remarkable work being made among those who are doing scholarship on the natural law that is actually expanding those arguments, making those arguments even more robust, making the arguments even more clear. Okay, here's the problem, though. Here's the problem. In the larger society, you have an increasing number that means also a larger percentage of people who don't care about the natural law and aren't going to receive or pay any credence to a natural law argument at all. It is because their absolute worldview is based upon a Promethean personal autonomy. And so even if the most powerful natural law argument were made to them, they no longer care. And this is one of the issues, I think. So I'm going to go not to the natural law, but to Romans 1, and I'm going to make the argument that what's going on here, yeah, it can probably be explained in one sense in terms of the reasoning from the natural law, but I think we actually need Scripture to tell us that what's happening here is that you have a generation exchanging the truth of God for a lie. You have a moral commitment that is leading to a philosophical distortion and the fact that increasing numbers of people just won't hear these arguments. And so just think about the transgender challenge and just understand that even when you're talking to someone committed to the transgender worldview, even when they admit, for example, that if this were universalized, the. Let's just say the human race would come to an end, not only that, but civilization would break apart, they don't care. They are basically unmoved by any such argument because they don't believe there is necessarily any natural order that should be respected. They may even accept there is a natural order, but they believe that their own personal autonomy is a more pressing moral value and a more pressing authority than even nature. I think again we see what the Apostle Paul says about fallen humanity. Fallen humanity suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. And so you can put the truth right before them, and sadly enough, they will reject it no matter how well your argument is made. That doesn't mean you shouldn't make the arguments. And we should. We should be teaching these arguments in the public square because here's where there is real value. It gives people structure to arguments so that those who do want to stand for the truth and those who are reachable with moral clarity can have arguments on which they can stand. And so that's why we press on. Thanks again for this listener from Sri Lanka. Another reminder, by the way, that the natural law is universal by God's creative act in bringing the world into existence. Perhaps the fact that this good question has come from Sri Lanka should encourage us to think in those lines. Okay, a question coming in from a listener about Bible translations. And it's a good question. It comes with a certain urgency. This listener says that the preaching in this church to which they have moved, they moved to a different town, even a different state. They found a church, and they found a church where the preaching is completely Bible centered. Christ is exalted above all. Then listen to this quote. The pastor has recently proposed the idea of changing the Bible version he preaches from. It has always been from the King James Version. He's wanting to preach from the csb. That's the Christian Standard Bible. And then she says, as you can probably guess, my husband and I are your age and have grown up learning and memorizing the kjv. We're unhappy and unsure about what this decision will mean. Okay. She goes on to press the question and detail it. But I think we get the question. And so I hope to speak really carefully here. And that is to say that the issue is the inerrancy and infallibility of Holy Scripture and that what we should seek after are translations that are the most accurate and that are the most faithful and are the best at communicating the fullness of the words of Scripture, the original words of Scripture and what we have now in the text of the Hebrew Old Testament, the Greek New Testament, and are also beautiful in expression. Now. It's difficult. It's difficult to achieve that, regardless of what you're translating, but the stakes are far higher in Scripture. Okay, so I detect in this question such love for the King James Bible. And I love the fact that this listener says, we're about the same age. And my guess is you're the same way. Yes, I am. And the older I get, the more I think I love the King James language, which I did grow up in. That's what I did all my early scripture memorization in, and that's how so many verses are stuck in my mind. I preach almost exclusively out of the esv, the English Standard Version. The Christian Standard Bible is another very good translation, very faithful. I have also used the New American Standard Bible, and for years, that was the Bible used by very faithful biblical expositors such as John MacArthur. And it was just a really good translation. The ESV recovers a lot of that King James Tradition and syntax, which is one of the reasons I like it. It retains some of the formality of the King James Bible. I appreciate this list of writing, and I want to tell her, yes, I do identify with you, but I want to be very careful and say the authority is in the text of the Holy Scriptures. And we believe that the original manuscripts were absolutely perfect and without error. We believe, we have good confidence that the manuscripts we have now, the texts in which we're doing these translations, are very, very faithful. And there's plenty of historic evidence to back that up. But we also understand this is God's gift to have preserved His Word so that we can have the Bible in our language. One of the great achievements of the Reformation, and that was, and I'll tell you what the language is, it was the Bible in the vernacular. That was the principle that came out of the Reformation. And that meant using the language people actually speak. All right, so in the 20th century, the second half of the 20th century, and especially in the 21st century, that's presented some real deep questions for those who are absolutely committed to the inerrancy and infallibility and the classical scripture doctrine. And that has to do with how elevated the language needs to be. And that's where, just for example, I think when you talk about the esv, you talk about the Christian Standard Bible, you talk about some of the authoritative evangelical translations. I mean, honestly, they all score really high when it comes to accuracy. Part of it is just different speaking styles in different places. And so the ESV is very much in that King James Tradition. You're not wrong to miss that eloquence. You're not wrong to long for that King James syntax. And I'll tell you, I do find myself especially devotionally more and more in the King James Bible, I think because it is how as a boy I heard the word of God preached. It was how I memorized so much scripture. And I just love that language. I also recognize that for many modern people, a lot of that language is very difficult to understand. A lot of those verbal constructions are very difficult to understand. It's very easy to talk about the the's and the thous. But I can tell you that the majority of young people today have never heard of thee and never heard of thou. And so they can work at understanding the King James. But I appreciate, I think, what your pastor is trying to do here. You mentioned how faithful he is to the scripture, how faithful he is to the Gospel. I think he wants to be faithful to preaching in the vernacular. It's one of the reasons why Martin Luther, as one of the great achievements of the Protestant Reformation, he translated the scripture. And I wish I could show you right now a very early copy of the Luther Bible. I have. It's absolutely precious. And you know, one of the criticisms of Luther is that he used the common language. But as Luther pointed out, that's what the people speak. And thus I don't want to create a translation they can't understand. And so one of the goals of a preacher is to explain scripture. I mean, that's what exposition is to set forth and then explain scripture. If you have to explain the translation before you explain the scripture, that's a step that I think many preachers these days understand has theological and homiletical consequences. So I may have spoken too long about this, but it is an issue, I think that comes up in a lot of churches. And I want to say there's not in the way this question is framed, a right and wrong. I would say there are right and wrongs. I think there are some translations that are too loose, some of them even are ideologically corrupted. But that's not what we're talking about here. This is a Bible believing church. You're going to be using a faithful translation. But there is also a great love for the King James Bible. By the way, in Britain it's called the Authorized Version in the same way. And by the way, the King James includes a very great deal of the Geneva Bible. And I can tell you again, I often read the Geneva Bible and that language is even well older than the King James language. But I'm just telling you, I think you should continue your devotion to the Word of God, and continue reading and memorizing the Word of God in the way that is most faithful for you. And no apologies if you decide to use the King James Version. I do think your pastor, your preacher here, is following actually a reformation pattern and wanting to make certain that the people hearing him preach can understand the text of Scripture as he reads it. And so I know I've given a little bit of a longer answer there than normal, but I think it's because this is a more universal question than many people want to admit. Okay, finally, for today, I received a question from a listener in Crockett, Texas, and this is a question I've never received before. But it's something I had been thinking about. And this question forced me to look a little more deeply into a situation so that I had confidence I could speak about it. The question comes down to this. He writes, quote, love to hear your thoughts about the leftist takeover of the Sacred Harp singing community. Okay, so this is the old Shape Note singing. This is a very symbol. That's how it was presented. A simple form, particularly of hymn and gospel song singing that emerged particularly with great power and popularity in the 19th and the early 20th centuries, particularly in geographic areas, by the way, that were derivative, many people would argue, of the Scott tradition, of the Scottish tradition and Scottish influence, but particularly, for example, in the Appalachian region in the United States. And so it's very interesting. Just this week, I was talking to young people from a church in rural Kentucky, and I talked about having been with them. I preached in that church decades ago. It was a very sweet experience. And it's one of the few places where I've just gone into the church and discovered the hymnal was a shaped note hymnal. It's an enduring tradition. It came explicitly out of Gospel Christianity. It came out of Protestant biblical Christianity. But this listener writes in to say he'd love to hear my thoughts about the leftist takeover. Okay, what's the takeover? It is, as so often happens, in a cultural reality. Choral groups have decided to expand and indeed, to take over much of the Sacred Harp singing community and some of the conventions and other meetings where the Sacred Harp people gather. And it's including, for example, gay pride groups that are joining in the Sacred Harp singing community. I found an article in which one man was speaking. He said, I don't believe the words I'm singing at all, but I love the choral singing and the Shape Note tradition. Okay, so this listener writes, saying, what are my thoughts? My thoughts are, you know, here's the way the world works, the sinful world will hijack anything. And so what I think you have here is another example of something good and wonderful and beautiful and true being hijacked by a culture committed basically to subverting those very things while using the music and even taking the tunes. And what surprised me coming from some of these folks is they they say they're even taking the words because they don't mind singing the words because they are just words. Those original Sacred Heart communities who sang those words never saw them as mere words. By the way, my exhortation to those who are in the Sacred Heart community. And by the way, I love this question so much that I just ordered another. I just bought another antique shaped note hymnal because I thought, you know, this very question means just as another reminder to me there's a tradition there I do not want to lose and I do not want the church to forget. And as we close for today, if you've never heard about the Sacred Harp tradition, you've never heard about shape note singing, I'm going to encourage you to find it, if nowhere else, then on video, and especially a sung by Christians who not only sing but mean what they're singing. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website@albertmuller.com youm can send your questions simply by writing me right there. Mailbertmuller.com for information on the Southern Baptist Theological seminary, go to sbts.edu for information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com youm can follow me on X or Twitter by going to x.com AlbertMohler how's that for a different order? I'll meet you again on Monday for the brief briefing.