Loading summary
Transcript19 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign It's Friday, May 22, 2026. I'm Albert Mohler, and this is the Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. The issue of religious literacy is a public issue, and we as Christians ought to pay a bit of attention to this. It has a great deal to do with how our society is changing in terms of morality worldview, very comprehensive change. And we understand that. We talk about the process of secularization, the lessening of Christian influence in society. And we as Christians come to it understanding that this society is understandable and values truths that are anchored only in biblical Christianity. And thus it is Christianity that's essential for explaining the American order, or, for that matter, Western civilization. But it is interesting that for the first time in the history of this civilizational trajectory, you have large groups of people who don't know anything of what you're talking about. When you talk about biblical Christianity or the Bible or, say, the Ten Commandments, that becomes very interesting. It's presented in a recent editorial published in the Washington Post. So this is an opinion column published in the Washington Post. It's by Gregory Conti, who's identified as an associate professor of politics at Princeton University. So, okay, well, this gets really interesting, even more interesting than the article seems to acknowledge, because we are talking about Princeton University, which was established by Christians largely for the perpetuation not only of the Christian ministry, but of Christian learning. We're talking about institutions that once had Jonathan Edwards, for example, as its president. But we're also talking about one of the most elite academic institutions in the United States. And even as Princeton has a more conservative reputation than some of the fellow members of the Ivy League, that, by the way, isn't necessarily saying much. I mean, the fact is that it is now a part of this larger secularized culture. And that means, by the way, that students in Princeton can't even understand the history of Princeton, much less the trajectory of Western civilization or foundational issues without that knowledge. Gregory Conte, as I said, is a professor there. He's associate professor of politics. The article he wrote is headlined College Students Suffer from Religious Illiteracy, which is to say, they just don't know. And he doesn't say Christian, but that is what he's talking about primarily. Here's how he begins the article. Several years ago, one of my colleagues at Princeton University hosted a lecture on religion and free speech. The talk didn't seem to be landing with the students. Finally, he realized why the speaker had made repeated reference to the Ten Commandments and Several students didn't know what they were, end quote. Okay, that really is interesting, because, remember, we've also been talking about controversy, such as in the state of Texas, similar controversies in other states in which the posting of the Ten Commandments in public
- [02:52]
B
school classrooms became the big issue, even
- [02:55]
A
in terms of court action. And at least a part of the argument being made by the states doing this is that it is to aid religious literacy.
- [03:04]
B
And by the way, literacy was actually a part of why the Ten Commandments
- [03:08]
A
was posted in classrooms in the past, because the Ten Commandments was one of the texts that children traditionally read in order to learn to read. But now you have this associate professor of politics at Princeton who, by the way, identifies as a non believer. So that also makes the article more interesting. He says, quote, this isn't an isolated problem. It's increasing common on college campuses to encounter students who are unfamiliar the most basic features of Christianity, such as the difference between the Old and New Testaments or between Catholics and Protestants. He goes on to say, and I quote, they seldom recognize the allusions to the Bible that appear in Shakespeare's work or in Lincoln's second inaugural address or in Obama's first, for that matter. These students, he says, are bright, conscientious, and curious, but they lack religious literacy. And their ignorance of religious ideas means they struggle to understand a wide array of Western art, literature, and philosophy. Now, I think you can take those words and expand it to the entirety of the culture. If you do not understand the basic structures of Christianity, if you don't understand that the Bible is made up of an Old Testament and a New Testament, if you don't know the Ten Commandments, you don't know references to the Sermon on the Mount. Then how are you going to understand any of this? You go, by the way, to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the famous law codes of history are in the frieze, that is to say, even in the carvings you see in the murals, in the art that you see, the Ten Commandments is absolutely central. God giving Israel the Ten Commandments through Moses. That becomes the crucial turning point in terms of legal history. And thus you can't understand the building is even crying out. You cannot understand what takes place here without understanding what took place at Sinai. But now we're being told that at our most elite academic institutions, there are students who simply don't have a clue what anyone's talking about. The Ten Commandments, what in the world are they? Professor Conti goes on to write, and this makes his own position Very interesting. This is a development that even non believers like myself should find troubling, he says. A little more than a century ago, the influential legal and political theorist Carl Schmitt wrote that all political concepts are theological concepts secularized. Conti then goes on to say, even if one thinks this is an exaggeration, it points to the difficulty of attaining any real understanding of the tradition of Western political theory without religious literacy. He goes on to say the same holds for other subjects. Neither Shakespeare, nor Austin, nor Mozart, nor Rembrandt, nor John Ford, nor Oscar Wilde can be appreciated absent a grounding in Christianity. That's just profoundly true, profoundly true. And as Christians we're of course concerned about this at multiple levels. We share all of his non believer concerns in terms of religious literacy, in terms of even understanding Western civilization. We understand that no civilization has can perpetuate itself if it cuts itself off from its roots. Elton Trueblood, Quaker theologian with a great deal of influence in the 20th century, described the United States increasingly as a cut flower civilization. And he just said, basically it's a bunch of flowers that still look beautiful on the table in a vase. But the reality is that cut off from their roots, they're destined to wither and die. It's also really interesting and I read it and just went over it quickly. I'm gonna go back to this statement by Carl Schmitt, who by the way is a very prominent German theorists, quite controversial by the way as well, in the early 20th century. And as Gregory Conti writes, Schmidt wrote, quote, that all political concepts are theological concepts secularized. Now I've talked about that in other contexts. Jody Bottom made the argument about 20 years ago that you're talking about political ideas that are deeply theological. Whether those offering the ideas understand it or not. They're understandable only as kind of a secularized theology. That's exactly what Carl Schmitt was talking about. Again, I quote, all political concepts are theological concepts secularized. Now there may be more to it than that. I won't argue that there isn't more to it. But when you are looking at these political concepts, they are coming from some worldview, they're rooted in something, they are grounded in something. And this is where to understand Western civilization. Those arguments are grounded in Christianity, grounded in Christianity and in Judaism. And that's why we need the knowledge of both the Old and the New Testaments. This professor writes, quote, secularization is sometimes wrongly, he says, in his view, celebrated as a victory for reason over superstition. But he says a lack of Contact with religion, and particularly with Christianity and its history, is an obstacle to mastering many subjects and to attaining the kind of broad cultural competency of that higher education is expected to provide. He points to his own field, political science, political thought. He says, this is where it is. But then he goes on to write, quote, but it is hard to appreciate even basic truths about the Western political inheritance without grasping the ways in which thinkers of the past reacted to or against the Christian faith. End quote. Yeah, that's exactly true. That's profoundly true. And it is incredibly important to understand that. Here is an Ivy League professor who's saying, look, I have increasing numbers of students. Our campuses have increasing numbers of students who don't even know what we're talking about when we talk about something as basic as the Ten Commandments. Okay, so let's think about this as Christians for a moment. Let's divide it into two different sets of concerns. One is, we might say, a secular set of concerns, and the other is a very specifically Christian set of concerns. The secular set of concerns comes down to the fact that we really don't think that the American principles can endure if they're cut off from their roots, if they're separated from the biblical basis, if there's not even a knowledge of the fact that this is deeply grounded in a biblical worldview. Even secular people for a long time understood that this comes from the cultural inheritance of Christianity. But now you have not only people who are opposed to that Christian influence, but you have a generation of young people who, due to the secularization of the culture, don't even know what we are talking about, don't even know what their secular professors are talking about. And so we do understand as Christians, again, just trying to think about the secular importance of this, you really are endangering the entire American experiment if you're talking about citizens who don't have a clue what any of these things even mean. And then we have to go to the second. The bigger concern for Christians is, of course, a biblical gospel theological concern. And that is the fact that when you talk about the American ideals, you talk about American claims of rights and human dignity. That's not grounded in nothing. It's grounded in something. And every worldview has to be grounded in something. And if it's not grounded in biblical Christianity, it's going to be grounded in something very different. And when I say biblical Christianity here, I mean to acknowledge the influence of Judaism as well, and of course, the influence and importance of the Old Testament even in Christian thought. Christian understanding. I mean continuity there, a vast Judeo Christian inheritance. And even though that term really emerges from the 1960s, it's a truth that characterizes Biblical Christianity. And you're also looking at something else, and that is the fact that we have the inheritance from ancient civilizations. And so we're talking about the most important ancient civilizations being Israel and then Athens and Rome, okay? But it is true that the particularly American form of these principles grounded in Western civilization, which was for centuries called Christendom, if you try to establish those principles without any basis whatsoever, you're back to the cut flower problem. They look pretty on the table for a while, but they quickly wither and die. But we also have to understand as Christians when we look at this, that these are uneducated young people. Uneducated. Even if you just put that in a secular sphere, they're uneducated in understanding their own civilization, understanding their own country. The ability to read the U.S. constitution, the ability to know what it means that in the Declaration of Independence we read words endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. You just look at all this and you recognize this is an impoverishment that is not just interesting, not just interesting enough to rate this kind of article in the opinion section of the Washington Post. It's interesting enough to represent a cultural crisis. Professor Conti ends his essay with these words. At the moment, many universities are rethinking their curriculums, particularly with an eye to forming citizens with greater cultural depth and the ability to deliberate intelligently with their fellows. Speaking as a non believer, he says, and I appreciate his candor. Speaking as a non believer, I hope they will begin with basic instruction in the Bible and Christianity. The future leaders of American society, he writes, need to be fluent with its major religious traditions and idioms so that they can understand their believing fellow citizens and so that they can draw on the full wealth of moral insight that civilization has passed down. I think we all need to recognize that is an astounding argument, both in terms of the fact that it is needed and the fact that it's coming from a non Christian with such force. One final thought here before we turn to questions on this issue. We're talking about the failure of our secular society in terms of teaching the Ten Commandments, just to give one example. But what about the failure in so many Christian churches and in so many Christian homes? You talk about stewardship, responsibility, obligation. You talk about the command to raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. You talk about the necessity of biblical knowledge if Even in the secular world, even at Princeton, they recognize you can't understand our civilization without this. As Christians, we understand. No, the stakes are infinitely higher than that. Okay, now let's turn to questions. As always, I appreciate questions sent in by listeners to the briefing. And so you can just email me your question@mailbertmuller.com and so let's turn to the questions. First, a listener from Norman, Oklahoma. He writes, quote, Dr. Mueller, many younger Southern Baptists did not experience the conservative resurgence or the adoption of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 firsthand. As we reflect more than 25 years later, he says, why was that moment so pivotal in SPC history? And how has the continued use of the Baptist faith and Message 2000 shaped the convention's theological identity and long term stability? What a great question. And by the way, of interest not only to Baptists, to Southern Baptists, but interest to, I think, all evangelical Christians, all Christians understand the stewardship of doctrine to continue in the faith once for all delivered to the saints and to contend for that faith. And we confess that faith together in creeds and confessions. And those are formal statements of what we believe. The Baptist faith and message is grounded in the Baptist tradition in what was known as the New Hampshire Confession going back into the 19th century, when the Southern Baptist Convention faced a doctrinal crisis in 1925. And that was when the fundamentalist modernist issues were arriving, when theological liberalism was first showing up on the national scene in a big way. So Southern Baptists adopted what became known as the Baptist Faith and Message. That was an adaptation of the New Hampshire Confession. It was revised in 1963, but I must say, not in a helpful way. And in particular, some issues were made even less clear. That was in another age of controversy, but it was not in an age of a great deal of explicitly evangelical affirmation. That did change. By the time you get to the 2000 Baptist faith and Message, I was honored to serve on that committee. And thus you did have conservatives at the table. You did have people who wanted intentional continuity with the faith once for all delivered to the saints. And you wanted a very conservative biblical theological affirmation. And that's what came in the form of the Baptist Faith and Message updated in the year 2000. And so it is interesting, this listener says, why was that moment so pivotal in SBC history? Well, it is because the need became so great and the need for it was so apparent that Southern Baptists were really very, very ready for an updated Baptist faith and message. You also had new conservative leadership in control, in power and the boards of trustees and in the executive suites of most of the denominational offices by then, all of them, indeed by the year 2000. And it was just time to state all of these truths formally and to make very clear, for example, that the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture to make very clear the pattern of biblical sexuality and gender in the family. Things that, by the way, no one knew that you had to put in a confession of faith and 1925, not to mention in the 19th century, but by the time you get to the year 2000, were absolutely necessary. Also an absolute affirmation of the total truthfulness and divine inspiration of God's Word. And so that's why the timing was so crucial. It was also the beginning of a new millennium. Now, I know some people will say that was actually in the year 2001, you know the point, the year 2000, a very symbolic time. And then the second question was, how has the continued use of, of the Baptist faith and message shape the convention's theological identity and long term stability? Well, you know, even in recent years we've had some issues that have arisen and we go back to our fundamental authority is the Bible, it's the Word of God. But as a convention, we face the necessity of a summary of biblical doctrine in order to be able to cooperate together and move forward together. It's a substantial confessionalism. And so it's functioned by being a point of reference for all kinds of things. Who the seminaries hire and who they don't hire, who ends up being appointed as a missionary or not appointed as a missionary, who is put into positions of denominational leadership and who is not input what churches are in right fellowship with the SPC and considered cooperating churches and which are not. What does it mean to be a Baptist church? What does it mean to be a cooperating Southern Baptist church? All of these things are live issues. They're very functional. And from time to time the convention has to come back and say, here's what we mean by that. And that's why I've made a motion for a constitutional amendment to the upcoming convention in Orlando. I appreciate so much this question, and by the way, I intentionally skipped over part of it and the listener who sent it in knows I skipped over that part. So I'm going to go back to the part I skipped. He mentions longtime collegiate minister Max Barnett, who died just a matter of days ago, as a matter of fact, on May 17, 2026, who was on the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 Committee. And I was on the committee with him. And I will tell you, Max Barnett is just a wonderful illustration of Christian faithfulness. And his ministry on collegiate campuses there in the state of Oklahoma led to a massive, massive increase for the gospel and the influence of so many young people, including especially so many young men who went into the Christian ministry. And so I want to say to this listener, thank you for mentioning Max Barnett. And as the faithful, we just need to honor his memory and thank God for him. And I hope even those who did not know him will be moved and inspired by my memory of him and just the role that he played in shaping the minds of so many college students for Christ over decades. There in the state of Oklahoma, we. What an incredible legacy. Thank you. All right. Another man writes in about whether or not voting should be based on a household vote. So let me just read to you what he writes. He's writing me from Hancock county here in Kentucky. He says today's election day where I live in Kentucky. And over the past year or so, I've noticed an increase in online discussions and debates among some conservative voices on the right about whether society should return to a more traditional voting structure in which the head of the household casts one vote for the family. In practice, this would mean that most women would no longer vote individually, he says. Personally, I do not agree with this argument, and I view it as politically unrealistic in our modern egalitarian society. But I'm curious how Christians should think about these discussions. What is your opinion? End quote? Well, I think it's a good question. And let me just say that it has to be put in an historic context in which we acknowledge that, that when we talk about, say, several centuries ago, there's basically no franchise. In other words, no one had the right to vote. The franchise is another way of talking about the right to vote. And that was held by very few. And during the Medieval age, even beyond the classic medieval age, you had in many jurisdictions, even in the west, you had situations in which you had a difference between barons and lords and an aristocracy that had at least something like a vote. And those that did not, even when you look at the Magna Carta, you understand that's still talking about an elite basically in political power. It was just very remarkable for expanding that elite beyond the monarch himself. That's why it's such a significant historical category. You talk about even the 19th and the 20th centuries. You're talking about the expansion of the franchise in the United States. Let's Just talk in the United States, the franchise to others. And so, you know, it was extended to, not only to persons who own land, but to people who did not own land. Citizenship was recognized and voting rights were recognized on a broader basis. And of course, the early 20th century and by the way, with a great deal of controversy and later than most people think, you had the extension of voting rights to women. And of course that means citizens. That means both men and women who are citizens. And so land owning was taken away and the male only vote was taken away. There is a tradition in the Anglo American tradition of a household vote. And this is something that has an historic rootage and that's what's behind the question here. Let me just put it this way. I think conservative Christians can have a range of opinions about how, say, voting rights should be distributed and recognized and established and on what issues and under what conditions. I don't think there is just a really clear biblical mandate here. I think the man's leadership in the home, the husband's leadership in the home is really clear and really important. The parents leadership together over the children. I think all of this is well attested in scripture. There's a biblical order. I do think when it comes to politics, you can come up with arguments all over the place. And there are two things at stake in the question that I was asked. Number one, is there an argument for this? Well, of course there's an argument for it. People are going to make that argument. Do I think it's a compelling argument? I personally don't find it to be a compelling argument. And so, in other words, I am for the extension of the franchise to both men who own land and those who do not own land, but both are citizens of the United States and to those who are both men and women.
- [22:06]
B
And so I'll just say I think that is the right arrangement for the United States. I think it could have been different.
- [22:14]
A
So in other words, history could unfold differently.
- [22:16]
B
But I will tell you this. I don't think it's at all politically
- [22:20]
A
plausible that there's going to be a reversal of that pattern.
- [22:23]
B
And so I'm not going to waste a whole lot of time thinking about it. And look, I'm a part of, you know, all kinds of conversations in which all kinds of things like that are debated. I simply say, you know, at this point it is basically an abstract debate. I do not believe there is any likelihood that, that in any invisible amount of time you're going to have a change in the basic understanding of both male and female franchise, that is to say, the right to vote. And honestly, I'm okay with that. My bigger concern is with the worldview that is involved in the people who are voting.
- [22:59]
A
I do want to say that this listener went on to say, you know, that he didn't think it was politically realistic to think this could come about. But it is an interesting discussion, and I want to point out something else, and that is that when you have a society that is so intentional in subverting creation order, so intentional in confusing these issues, I don't think we should be surprised that a significant number of conservative Christians are asking, you know, how could this be avoided? How could our political arrangement be different? It's an abstract question, and honestly, I think some are taking this question way too far. But I'll just tell you, it's a legitimate conversation, be fun to have as a matter of just say, political theory. But when it comes to political reality in the United States, I don't think this is a live issue. I next want to turn to a different question. A man writes in and he says he and his friends are reading my commentary on Acts. And by the way, thank you very much for that. It's very encouraging to hear. And then he quotes me from my commentary on Acts, chapter nine as saying, I believe the evidence from Scripture indicates that miraculous gifts have indeed ceased. And he says, can you expand on this and cite verses? And by the way, thank you for the encouragement. Thank you for the question. Yeah. So I would say that I think we have to understand the statement I made there, that I think the evidence in Scripture indicates that miraculous gifts have indeed ceased. I think we are given both content and context for making that declaration. So this is the classic Protestant position, by the way. So this is not unusual. This is the classic Protestant position. And so it's grounded. Yes. In the Book of Acts. It's also grounded very much. In 1 Corinthians 13. And in 1 Corinthians 13:8, we are told that the supernatural gifts will cease. Love never fails, but these gifts will cease. And then in the same chapter, in 1 Corinthians 13:10, we are told, but when the perfect comes. Okay, so I'm going to tell you this. I think that in the context, that means that before we had the New Testament and instead we had the apostolic testimony and we had the preaching of the Gospel, I think the miraculous gifts were confirming gifts. They were confirming gifts in order to serve as an authoritative answer to whether or not this was a supernatural revelation. And I think we understand in the context, why that would have been important. I think we can also then understand in context why the Apostle Paul would say, you know, the perfect is coming. And I believe that's the New Testament. I believe we are given the inerrant, infallible word of God and that we have God's own word, his living and breathing word, which is the authority now. So when we cite an authority for what we preach, it's not the authority that is granted by a confirming supernatural gift. It's rather the authority that is granted by the fact that it is drawn, the message is drawn directly from Holy Scripture. And it's the authority of Holy Scripture which now is the authority. The operational authority in the early church was the apostles. And then the operational proof in many cases, and even where the apostles were not present were these supernatural signs.
- [25:56]
B
But that did cease. And by the way, just in terms
- [26:00]
A
of the historical reality of the church, the reality of the Church is that that authority did shift from the apostles to the Scriptures understood as the continuation of. Of the same thing. So in other words, the apostolic testimony was the original testimony. Apostolic authority was the theological authority in the church. That's why you had the apostles.
- [26:22]
B
That's why the apostles met together, they led together. That's why we read the epistles, the
- [26:26]
A
letters written by the apostles to the churches.
- [26:28]
B
But we do not believe that there
- [26:30]
A
are living apostles now.
- [26:32]
B
We believe that that was a part of how Christ led his church before
- [26:39]
A
the fullness of Scripture. It's a great question. I appreciate these questions. And you know, it is interesting sometimes questions without any kind of conspiracy, without letter writers knowing what anyone else is writing, they write along similar lines and, well, I just find that, let's just say, very interesting. I appreciate the letters always. And as always, thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website@albertmuller.com you can follow me on X or Twitter by going to x.comalbertmohler for information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu for information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com Monday is the Memorial Day holiday here in the United States. So that means I will meet you on Tuesday, next week for the briefing.