Albert Mohler (0:04)

It's Friday, August 15th, 2025. I'm Albert Bohler, and this is the Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. You hear the name Winston Churchill. Do you think hero or do you think villain? Now, honestly, in the course of American history, indeed of world history, for the most part, over the course of, say, the last, well, 75 years or so, it would be unthinkable that the answer would not be hero rather than villain. But we're talking about this today because it comes down to a battle over history and morality in history and accuracy in history and how to read history, how to understand history, because there are some who identify themselves on the far right who are now making the argument that Winston Churchill was the villain of World War II rather than the hero the. And that, well, there are even some saying the wrong side won. Now, it is interesting that most of the people doing this are what we might say are their Internet sensations. This is not coming from the academically trained in history. I also want to say that being academically trained is not everything in terms of making historical judgment, because academically trained historians make a lot of very bad judgments. But there is a conversation among those who are the scholars of such things. And there is also a verdict of history, which I believe is very much a part of the Christian understanding. And the further you get from some events and from some moral judgments, the more you have to go back and say, okay, let's remind ourselves what exactly was going on there. When you look at Winston Churchill, you're looking at one of the biggest lives lived on the canvas of human history. And it almost was destined to be that way, I would say, in the providence of God. He was born in Blenheim palace, the only residence in Great Britain that's not a royal residence that is officially known as a palace. He was born the first son of the second son of the Duke of Marlborough. In the British aristocracy, that's an incredible height. Winston Churchill was born to a couple, to a mother and a father. His mother was an American heiress, thus Churchill was half American. His father was the second son of the Duke of Marlborough, and he became a major figure in the British Parliament, even became Chancellor of the Exchequer, the equivalent, although a little more so than the Secretary of Treasury here. He was almost assuredly going to become a conservative prime minister in Great Britain. But then he made some political misjudgments and his political career was largely trashed. But his son, Winston Churchill, raised in the midst of all of this, he actually entered Parliament under Queen Victoria. He resigned from Parliament and resigned in his second term as Prime Minister under Queen Elizabeth ii. You look at a span of history there, and you look at that life lived out on the canvas of history. I think Winston Churchill is a model of courage, a model of conviction, a model of convictional leadership, a model of the preservation and defense of liberty. I do not think Winston Churchill was a perfect man, nor did he have perfect political or moral judgment. He was on the wrong side of some issues. And Frank, frankly, that is almost assuredly going to be true when your public career is 70 years or so. And it is also clear that it took a while for him to figure out exactly what his core convictions were, other than a commitment to the greatness of Britain. But when history needed him, he was there. And not only that, Winston Churchill has been valorized and respected not only because of the leadership during World War II, in his courageous leadership of the British people over against the Nazi threat, and let's remember, over against the impending threat of, of what was assumed to be a Nazi invasion of Great Britain itself, Winston Churchill came to very clear political convictions about the defense of liberty. And he saw himself as leading a movement to save Western civilization. And I think that's exactly what he was doing, I think, over against the Nazi threat and in another context, over against the Soviet threat, and most particularly against Adolf Hitler and the Nazi threat. I do believe that Winston Churchill was one of the figures whose leadership was essential in the defense of liberty and in salvaging Western civilization from absolute ruin. It is interesting that these days that is an issue of odd public conversation. It has shown up in some very interesting places. Tucker Carlson interviewed a person who had very strong views on the subject. Podcaster Joe Rogan has made some other kinds of. Of statements and judgments. Let's just say that this demands a closer look. And as a Christian, I want to say we should always be ready to be corrected by the facts in our historical judgment. But the facts do not deter me from my admiration for Winston Churchill. Again, my admiration is a Christian admiration. That means I believe there really are some great figures in history. I also believe they're not perfect figures, not one of them, every single one of them is also a sinner. And that sin will show up, especially over a long political career. But you also have to ask the honest historical question, what would history look like if this figure were not there? And again, I think for a Christian, this comes down to our understanding that history is never merely history. It is not, as Henry Ford famously said, just one thing after another. History is the unfolding of the human story. And you have to understand, the Christian theological conviction is that God is sovereign and his justice shows up in the shape of history as it's lived out in the rising and falling of nations, not in ways that we should always presume to understand, but we do understand clearly that God has created a moral universe, and he made human beings moral creatures. And that means that we are accountable for justice and righteousness. We do make moral judgments about something like the genocidal plans of Nazi Germany, the Holocaust of the Third Reich. We look at the fact that Hitler made very clear his ambitions and his plans for what amounts to world domination by Germany. And you look at the fact that he proved himself to be the great enemy of human liberty and human good, just in terms of the goods, even of creation. And the legacy of his leadership was absolute devastation. And as Zbigodi Brzezinski, national Security Advisor to President Carter in the 20th century, said, he was responsible singularly for death on the scale of megadeath. Winston Churchill made political mistakes. He made political errors. He believed some things that were wrong. But when Britain needed him, he was there. And as William Manchester, I think one of his best biographers, says, at least in terms of lyrical style, William Manchester speaks of Winston Churchill as the one who was the lion whose roar summoned courage out of the British people. One of his most important volumes is simply entitled the Last Lion. He describes the travail of Britain, the danger of Britain over against the Nazi threat. He describes the moral stakes in how that would turn out. And he made very clear what Britain would need. And then, in what I think is the best line of the book, he says, in London, there was such a man. Indeed there was. And I'm very thankful that there was. As a young boy, I became very fascinated with Winston Churchill. I came to understand his place in history. I've had a very significant interest in him ever since. You come to my library, you listen to me talk, you look at my reading list. Yeah, you're going to find a lot about Winston Churchill. Because my preoccupation with him and interest in him has not waned, nor my indignation, honestly, at the fact that we're talking in the year 2025 about whether Adolf Hitler or Winston Churchill was the villain in World War II. I find that a very, very sad testimony about the age. I think things are coming loose in terms of moral judgment to a degree that I wouldn't have thought possible just a matter of a short time ago. And so we're not here to celebrate Winston Churchill. We are here to recognize the fact that I think it was his courageous, singular leadership in many of the years of the war that made the difference between surrender and eventual victory. Lord Andrew Roberts has written a piece asking point blank why we're talking about this. Now his piece is entitled why the Far Right Hates Churchill. I'm not sure he really answers the far right part here, but he does defend Churchill. And I think Lord Roberts, who by the way, has also written a splendid biography of Winston Churchill, I think he's absolutely right that the verdict of history is incredibly clear. And I just want to remind Christians that we're talking about this. It's not just a matter of history, as if history is separate from moral judgment. It's about the Christian understanding of history, which is in reality all about moral judgment. Okay, now let's turn to questions. I am once again humbled by the questions. I'm amazed by them and I hope you are as well. The first question I'm going to take is from a 15 year old young man. The boy writes in saying, I've been listening through the Bible for the past month and now getting through the book of Leviticus. He says I was wanting to be intentional in my listening and trying to stay engaged in the book, but I usually found it hard to stay engaged when I began to realize how I didn't know how to really approach it. So in conclusion, he says, how should Christians approach reading, studying and learning from the Old Testament law when we are in the post resurrection and mid church era and not of the Jewish nationality? Okay, there's an awful lot baked into that question. I can't take it all apart. But I'm going to take the central issue and his question straight on and I'm very thankful a 15 year old young man is listening to the Bible and listening to Leviticus and thinking through this. And in a Gospel sense. I mean, what a great thing is that wondering how Gospel Christians hear the book of Leviticus or read the book of Leviticus. Okay, so number one, there is ample New Testament evidence that one of the first things Christians should think about when we say read Leviticus or other major texts in the Old Testament of the law is our gratitude for the fact that we are saved by grace and it is all to the glory of Christ. And remember that Christ did not nullify the law. As the New Testament makes clear, he perfectly fulfilled the law. So isn't it wonderful when you hear so many of these laws about sacrifice and about, well, all the minutiae about what fabric you can wear and what you can eat. You're liberated from that as a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. Not because Jesus said, I ignore all that, but because Jesus died on the cross, paying the full penalty for our sin. And the Father raised him from the dead, recognizing that it was not just atonement, but perfect fulfillment of the law. And that means that that perfect fulfillment was in Jesus sinless life as well as in his substitutionary death. So, number one, we're free from the law in this sense. And the Apostle Paul in the New Testament famously leans into that with some beautiful passages about what it means to be freed from the law. On the other hand, we're not freed to lawlessness. One of the very interesting things affirmed in the New Testament, for instance, by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1, is the fact that the moral law absolutely continues. And not only that the moral law was revealed even in nature, and then by grace. The Father gave the law in written form. Just consider most quintessentially the Ten Commandments. That was grace. There's grace in the law. That is a major theological premise of Gospel theology. So when you say here's the law and here's grace. Yet that distinction is really important. But we do need to recognize that there's grace in the law because there's grace in the law, by the way, even for unbelievers, which is to say, you'd rather live in a neighborhood in which people don't murder each other, don't kidnap each other's kids. That's a good thing. The restraining power of the law is a demonstration of God's grace. He didn't just respond to Adam's sin and our sin in Adam by saying, okay, now you're left unto yourselves. No, he continues to exercise rule in a moral universe and to show his love for his human creatures even by giving us the law. But, you know, the New Testament tells us something else about the law. The New Testament tells us that the law was there to demonstrate our inability to fulfill it, to obey it. So the law kills, as the New Testament says, it kills us by indicting us for our sin and making very clear that we cannot keep the law. And that's not because the law is unrighteous. The law is righteous. It's because we are unrighteous. And only a perfectly righteous one can fulfill the law. And I'm so thankful Christ did. And so I have taught verse by verse through so much of the Old Testament, through all of the Pentateuch and that includes Leviticus. And by the way, that's online. I just want to say if you would find that helpful, there's a lot there that we need to learn, but it comes to us in two forms. Number one, the grace of God, the love of God, the graciousness of God, the patience of God demonstrated in the giving of the law and in the old covenant. In the covenant of old. But then the second thing is that we understand how wonderful it is to the glory of God that we are freed from the specifics of the law that demonstrate our unrighteousness. And frankly, I'm very thankful not to live under the law. That doesn't mean I live under no law. That doesn't mean. That doesn't mean believers are not under a law. We're under the law of Christ. And in the New Testament, in the Gospels and the teaching of Christ, so much of the law, the moral law, is absolutely recapitulated when Christians come to understand the moral law in terms of the moral law, that distinction, we affirm and understand ourselves to be under the moral law as was Israel, but not in order to prove ourselves righteous by the law, for that is impossible. But that we would live rightly ordered lives to the glory of Christ as his redeemed people by grace. But that does not mean lawlessly. Okay, I'm pleased to receive a letter from a woman who listens and wrote in about the occult. More and more people are using psychedelics and experience the spiritual realm and beings presumably demonstrated. She then says Protestants not only don't teach demonology, nor do they seem equipped in exorcism in the slightest. How are pastors in the next generation going to handle this when people are demon possessed or oppressed in Western culture? Okay, there's a lot here, so let me just try to unpack it a little bit. And of late, I've received quite a few questions along these lines. Now, I want to come back and go at one thing that was in the beginning of this. More and more people are using psychedelics and experience the spiritual realm and beings, presumably demons. I'm going to say I'm not sure that's true. I'm sure that they're using psychedelics. I'm not sure that they're actually thus in touch with any kind of real spiritual reality. I will simply say that there's evidently some impressions or experiences that appear. Even the New York Times on Wednesday had a very interesting article on this. Evidently it's a common experience for them at least, to think that they have experienced some kind of contact with the spiritual realm. I mean, for all I know, under the psychedelic influence, they're talking to their elbow. I'm not really sure. But she's right, the listener's right when she says Protestants don't teach demonology not as an object of fascination, not as a subject area of fascination, nor I love this, do they seem equipped in exorcism in the slightest. That's an interesting way to put it. And I just want to say this listener, you're absolutely right. I don't believe that Protestant ministers are equipped in exorcism in the slightest. And I want to tell you why. And it's because I believe the New Testament is clear that those who are in Christ are indwelt by Christ and are filled with the Holy Spirit. And thus there is no way for a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ to be possessed by an evil spirit. I think that's absolutely incompatible with New Testament theology. I want to say to Christians, you're in no danger of being indwelt by a demon. You're in no danger of being taken over by a demon. That doesn't mean we're not engaged in spiritual warfare. I believe in the reality of demons, but I don't believe in demon possession for believers. But you know what? When you talk about unbelievers, in one sense, demon possession is kind of leads to their problems. And even that experience would, or perceived experience would be evidence of the fact, more fundamentally that they are not believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. They are sinners. They have not been saved by grace. They are lost. They're dead in their sins and their trespasses. And by the way, in that sense, they are in the clutches of the evil one. As a matter of fact, one of the very interesting traditions in Christian theology is to describe our salvation as being snatched away from the evil one by Christ. And we are now in Christ. We now belong to Christ, we're united to Christ, we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. All that to say I don't want evangelical pastors to become specialists in exorcism. We don't have any right of exorcism. We certainly don't believe in any sacredotal or priestly authority over such things. I do believe that Martin Luther, the great reformer, has done so many things, got it really right when he says, when you are confronted by the devil, preach to him, preach the gospel to him. It's one thing he can't stand. And I think that's a very good biblical logic at work here. I do think we're in an era in which there is this, perhaps in a secular age. One of the things that happens is that that spiritual space is not filled by nothing. It's filled by this kind of thing. I think New Age spirituality, the influence of so many who are talking about demons and all the rest. I think a lot of it has to do with filling that void which is left when so much of the society grows distant from Christianity. Anyway, it's a good question. And I also think that we just need to be very careful not to let some of these themes that emerge in movies and in popular culture lead us astray from our basic theological convictions. Let's just remember what those convictions are and lean hard into them. All right, the next question comes from a young Marine, a young husband about to be father. And I really respect this listener writing in a young man says, I'm a Christian, I'm a Marine, a U.S. marine. My wife is currently pregnant with our first child. I feel strongly that I should not take the full 12 weeks of department of Defense sanctioned paternity leave, since part of the motivation for the DoD, the Department of Defense, increasing this allotment in 2023 was to eliminate distinctions between primary and secondary caregivers. How should I approach the decision of how much paternity leave to take in a way that honors God and his creation? Order. Wow. God bless you. God bless you for your service. I'm thankful to know that you are and that you are a Marine and that you are a believer and that you are a husband and you're about to be a father. So congratulations to you and your wife. I'm just very happy for you. I appreciate the way you're thinking about this. Paternity leave is kind of a new thing in terms of our experience. Paternity leave, or I guess parental leave legally defined these days, is kind of a new thing. And I think part of it was simply first made necessary by the entrance of so many women into the workforce. I know that the politically correct these days say pregnant people, but I'm not politically correct. So I'm going to say pregnant women. You had mothers who gave birth. And it was understood that in the workforce they would have to be out for some period of time. And then the argument was, well, and husbands should also. So it's just now gender neutral parent, often parental leave. And it's 12 weeks in this case. And I really appreciate this young Marine's moral insight as a Christian and understanding that the justification, the rationale that was Used at least in terms of extending this parental leave, was indeed in some cases to remove the distinction between primary and secondary caregiver. All right, all right. So let's just undo the language for a moment. But this young Marine is onto something really, really important. He gets it. I hope you do, too. Primary and secondary caregiver is a way of not saying mother and father, but that's what they're saying. And so it is an effort, I would attribute it to liberal social engineering to erase. I think it is an intentional effort to erase somewhat the distinction between the husband and the wife, the first father and the mother. However, I don't have a good answer to your question in terms of a length of time. I would simply say that I don't think your conscience is bound by some of the reasons why some people put the parental leave in place in terms of their agenda with primary and secondary caregiver. I would think that you and your wife and I would say maybe someone in your local church can really help you to understand how you can most fruitfully use this time. And I hope, first of all, regardless of how many weeks you take in this parental leave, I hope that for you and your wife, this is just one of the greatest blessings and adventures you're ever going to know. Congratulations on the fact you're about to be a father. That's just an unmitigated great thing. And I think all listeners are going to share the joy with you. And we're also going to trust you to make the judgment, you and your wife to make this judgment, you and your wife perhaps in conversation with your local church, to know how to make this judgment. And I also know that you have to weigh certain things against others if you are needed on the front lines. As a Marine, I am just absolutely certain you're going to show up where you are needed. And I'm going to leave that judgment to you. God bless you for asking the question. Next, I want to take another question. A good question coming in from a man who listens to the briefing, and he takes issue somewhat with something I said, and I appreciate the way he did. So just ask him the question. He said I referred to perfect order in the Garden, meaning the Garden of Eden. And then he writes, referring to the Garden of Eden. I've always wondered if perfect is the right way to describe the original creation order. I hear that a lot. When Christians talk about creation before the fall, doesn't that go beyond the description the Bible gives us? The Bible says everything was good, okay. Then he goes on to say perfection would imply the impossibility of sin entering the world. Then he says, I believe heaven will be perfect. I don't think the creation was perfect. Okay, I appreciate you asking a perfectly reasonable question. And by that I want to say that I'm going to stand by my statement that the garden reflected perfect order in God's design. I think that's reflected in biblical theology. I also think it's reflected in what is translated from the Hebrew here as good. I think when God says it's good, that's unconditional, infinitely good. And so I don't think in this sense perfect is an abstraction from good. I think that's implicit in exactly what God's declaring about his own creation. There's a bigger issue here theologically, and you get to it when you say that perfect would imply the impossibility of sin. I'm just going to say I don't think that's true. And that's because the garden was absolutely perfect according to the purposes for which God made it. Let me put it this way. God's determination from before the creation of the world was to redeem a people through the blood of His Son and to exalt His Son eternally and in order for the creation, even in the Garden of Eden, to anticipate a new creation and a new heaven and a new earth for those who are the redeemed. And so I think the distinction is, I think that there was perfect order in the garden. I think the garden was perfect according to God's plan for which he made it according to his purposes set before the foundation of the world. But the difference between the Garden of Eden and the Kingdom of Christ is going to be the difference between perfect in that sense or good. That's the best biblical word, is good and glorified. That's a magnificent distinction. And I don't think we would have thought today to make that distinction without your question. That makes me say to you and for your question. Thank you. Alright. Always appreciate the questions and always learn along with you. And so keep them coming. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website@albertmohr.com you can follow me on X or Twitter by going to x.com Albert Moeller for information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu. for information on Voice College, just go to voicecollege. Com. I'll meet you again on Monday for the briefing.