Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:05]
A
It's Friday, December 12, 2025. I'm Albert Mohler and this is the Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. The City Council in Los Angeles has moved to ban certain language, certain offensive language, certain offensive slurs which had become common in rather riotous debates that have taken place there during. During the meetings of the City Council. The City Council has moved to ban certain of those words. I can't tell you what they are. USA Today doesn't tell us what they are. I don't particularly need to know what they are, and I probably wouldn't share them if I knew them. The point is that the City Council in Los Angeles has found some words beyond acceptable use. They're simply outside the pale when it comes to meetings there of the City Council. The. Okay, so that might make sense to you. It might also, sadly, make sense to you to know that there's pushback on this with people claiming that this is an infringement of their First Amendment free speech liberties. As Brianna J. Frank reports at USA Today, quote, the ban sparked a First Amendment debate over whether a person's right to use offensive and hateful language at City Council meetings impedes on others rights to be heard on issues affecting them at governmental meetings, end quote. Now, this, this came up partly because at one particular meeting of the City Council, you had some people being honored, others were being recognized, and this included children from area schools. And they were subjected to hearing these things shouted. And again, we don't know what they were, but evidently they're bad enough. I think that tells you a whole lot. They were bad enough to get the City Council there in Los Angeles to move to ban them. And yet you've got the free speech absolutists, on the other hand, who are saying that it is the right of these people to say whatever they want. Not only also at, but particularly at meetings of the Los Angeles City Council. There's a line here that I find very, very interesting. We're being told that in the view of some, this represents a right to be heard on issues. I just want us to notice where we are as a culture, as a civilization. Obviously, there are very legitimate free speech issues open for debate. Free speech is one of the most important of the constitutional rights granted to us in the Bill of Rights. But it is not and has never been without any conditions or boundaries whatsoever. These conditions and boundaries and rules have often been debated. They've often been adjudicated all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States. In one famous case Going Back to the 20th century, Supreme Court justice said that this does not extend free speech rights, does not extend to yelling fire in a crowded theater. That's just one example in which free speech meets a wall that is not acceptable speech. And of course, now we have all kinds of categories where people are debating this. But I just find it really interesting that USA Today reports that there are people saying that in order to make their political argument, some people evidently say they have to use this kind of language, or they're saying it in the negative. If you say we can't use that kind of language, then we can't make our point in terms of a political context over public policy issues. I just think we need to understand what a cultural collapse this represents. Now, it's not a cultural collapse in the sense that all of a sudden the civilization disappears. It is, however, as Christians should understand, it is a part of the larger culture of what is acceptable and tolerable. And at some point, you can't have political debate in these terms if you allow this kind of language. The argument here is that some people say that facilitates political debate. Well, here's what we need to understand. It actually shuts down political debate. And this is one of the ways that you see so many people bringing chaos into what has to be a meeting marked by order. And you find this absolute declaration, we've talked this week about this horrifying idol of personal autonomy. Now you have people who are extending that to the freedom evidently to say absolutely, absolutely whatever they want, even in the context of an official government meeting, in this case the city council in Los Angeles. The argument here is not a serious moral argument. It is interesting, frightening, though, to note how many people are making this as a serious, they claim, political and even judicial argument. They're prepared to go before the nation's highest courts and argue for the ability to use the most offensive slurs imaginable, not just out on the street, not just in what might be defined as the privacy of their own home, but in public meetings, even in meetings of government. But when you rip that out of any sane context, it no longer is the right that was claimed, it becomes something else. And this has been noted for a long time in terms of ethical observation. You can make a claim for the freedom to do this, the freedom to do that, but you put that out of place in extreme. In a different context, it makes no sense at all. The rules in different places have to be different. Now, let me give you an example. The rules in, say, a kindergarten class have to be different than the rules in a college classroom. I'm not saying that the same moral universe does not pertain to both. I am saying context matters. And furthermore, there is such a thing as the privacy of your own home. And American law understands that and raises a very high barrier for anyone coming into your house to telling you what you can't say. And it's a different thing, even perhaps if it happens in the street. And again, that doesn't make it morally right. It doesn't make it ethically defensible, but it might be constitutionally protected. But when you bring it into a context in which people are basically forced to be there by the circumstances of government doing its work, or frankly, if you so devalue government that you just think government meetings are an appropriate place to issue a protest in which you use language and slurs that are fundamentally unacceptable in such a context, it just shows you that as a society we are losing our moral marbles. We're losing any form of sense. So I just mention that because this is a half page news story in USA Today. This is an article that of course is sourced in Los Angeles. That's where the controversy is. But I assure you the controversy will not stay there. Secondly, I want to note that there's a lot of buzz right now politically. We'll be talking more about this in days and weeks to come once we enter into the year 2026. Of course, that will be the year of midterm elections. And so much of control for Congress, certainly in the House, but also in the Senate, it's going to be up for grabs. And then immediately everything turns to the 2028 presidential election. But those who want to be taken seriously as potential candidates, and right now, most of the action understandably is in the Democratic Party. They are jockeying for position. And so even this week there's been a lot of discussion about former Vice President Kamala Harris, who was sending signals that she really is really is maybe, maybe really is interested in making another run for the White House in 2028. That means she would have to run against other Democrats in a primary that did not go well for her at all the first time she tried it, as in a net gain of delegates of zero. But who knows? She has a lot of name recognition. She's also alienated a lot of Democrats. But nonetheless, her book is selling in terms of big numbers, six figures book sales. And she sees that as encouragement. One of the things that's being observed, and the New York Times has recently observed this with some pretty keen Analysis. The big interest right now in the Democratic Party seems to be among governors. It's going to be very interesting to see what happens, but there are a lot of governors who. Who see themselves moving into a different office. And so this is an interesting pattern, and this has been in politics for a long time. To be elected governor of a state is to be the chief executive of a state government. It's a major role. It is an executive role, the role of senator and the role of representative in the House of Representatives. They are not executive roles. They are legislative roles. Now, there had been a long period of time in which basically no one went directly from the Senate to the White House. In terms of the party nomination. It can be argued that one crucial turning point was 1960, when John F. Kennedy, Democratic senator from Massachusetts, was elected president. Thereafter, even though senators got the nomination, it wasn't that often that they won the White House. You have to jump, just think in your imagination, all the way to Barack Obama in 2008. And so governors are kind of the natural cultivating places in both parties, frankly, for the most likely persons to gain the party nomination for president. And here's where things are gonna get very interesting, because there's a considerable list of governors among the Democrats who could very well see themselves running for president. Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan, Gavin Newsom in California, JB Pritzker in Illinois, Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania. That's not even the whole list. But understand, the only way they can get to the Democratic presidential nomination is knocking all the rest of them out of the race. And the easiest way to knock them out of the race is to knock them out of the race before there is a race. And so right now, watch what's going on, especially after the first of the year, because the Democrats are going to be working fast and furiously, especially governors right now, to get themselves in a position to run for president. And their main problem right now is each other. So we're going to be watching this pretty closely. Don't wait long, because I guarantee you this is going to happen real early. All of this is going to become a part of national speculation. And just as a matter of accident, a lot of these governors are going to show up where they usually don't show up, because it just could be. This could have something to do with the primary coming in the fairly near future. So as we go into the closing days of 2025, recognize that this is a temporary respite from the campaigning that is just about to happen. All right, now, let's move to questions, you can send yours just by writing me@mailalbertmuller.com Sometimes the questions are long, sometimes they are short. We're going to start with a very short one. It's a big one, but it's short. Alyssa writes in and asks, is donating my eggs to a gay couple a sin? Okay, short question, short answer. Yes. And that is because this is facilitating what is not right. Facilitating that which is contrary to God's plan. Contrary to go God's design is going to be sin. And I think it's, in this case, probably something that asking the question means the person asking it knows that donating my eggs to a gay couple a sin. Yes, I think that is a huge problem. You do not want to facilitate, number one, you don't want to facilitate a baby being born with your eggs that is not yours. And so there's all kinds of issues here. The context for having babies, according to the Scripture, is the husband and the wife together in the context of the covenant of marriage, a monogamous, faithful marriage. And that is the context. Everything from that is some degree of brokenness. And so there is brokenness in society. So often Christians are saying, what can we do to take care of this child? What can we do? This is why adoption is honored among Christians. This is why the rescue of children is honored among Christians. But the creation of human embryos with the eggs or sperm of a Christian, and that's already problematic, of course, but in this case, when it starts out by doing so for a gay couple, let's just say virtually every word in that sequence cries out wrong, which cries out sin. All right. A young man writes me with another question, and I think this is becoming more and more common. And he says his own brother has a close friend who was a close follower of the Lord and had been active as a servant within their church over the past few months. This friend has found many questions with his faith and has rejected many of our teachings. He has since found comfort in the teachings of Catholicism, and he dived in headfirst since finding his answer. That's put in quotation marks. He has made it his mission to convert everyone around him to join him in Catholicism. He's taken it to the point that he believes if you're not attending Mass constantly and practicing the teachings of Catholicism, you are not a true believer and therefore not saved. After many conversations with him, we've reached a point that every meeting with him ends in a heated argument that is not fruitful. Now, let me just say I think this is an increasingly common situation. It's not always presented in just this way, but when you are looking at, in this case, a very young man who is looking for something and he thinks he's founded in Catholicism, that's a different issue for a different conversation. But let's just say he thinks he's founded in Catholicism. He then comes back to the evangelical church where he had been a member and a servant, and tries to convince everyone there they should also join the Catholic Church and participate in the Catholic Mass. And then he becomes very contentious in the church. Every conversation ends up in a heated argument. That is not helpful. That's a direct quote from the question. The point is this. You know, there are issues here that would take a long time to unpack. And so, first of all, we have the issue of this young man. It doesn't say he's converted to Catholicism, by the way. It looks like it's a very clear, immature excitement, and that immaturity is showing up in the behavior of this young man. For one thing. Clearly, there are huge issues there. And as an evangelical and capital P Protestant Bible, big issues there. But the immediate issue that I think is in the foreground is the contentiousness that's represented here, the fractiousness, the divisiveness represented here. This is a young man who goes back to an evangelical church, and again, we don't know that he's actually converted, but he's nonetheless, he comes back to the evangelical church and is incredibly divisive. He's contentious. Every conversation ends up in a heated argument that is not fruitful. Well, I would point to a text like 1 Corinthians 11:16. In chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians, Paul has been dealing with issues of controversy in the church, and he deals with those issues. But then he deals to a person, and he deals with those issues. But then he turns to deal with the problem of a contentious person in the church. He writes in chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians, verse 16, if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God, end quote. That's an astoundingly clear statement. You'll notice that the apostle Paul doesn't say, don't do that. He says, we have no such practice. Okay, who is we? He says, we, meaning himself. And then he says, nor do the churches of God. An authentic, biblically ordered church has no such practice. The churches of God have no such practice. That means not only is it not to happen, is it not to be allowed. It is not to be. Well, to use modern parlance, a thing. Now, I'm not saying cut off all personal contact. I am saying this should not be a matter tolerated within the fellowship of a church. Someone who is contentious in this way. Well, again, this does not happen. We do not do these things. Things, nor do the churches of God. I think there are other clearly larger issues here related to his understanding of the gospel, related to his understanding of justification, related to his understanding of proper biblical worship. All kinds of things here and more than I can handle in this particular context today. But it's the contentiousness that is the first, most urgent issue here. This young man should not be allowed to be divisive and in the context of the local church. And that appears to be the first presenting issue here. And then you're going to have to deal with the other issues as well. And I think that goes all the way down, not only to confrontation, but potentially to church discipline. Now, I want to turn to a communication I received from a man, and he is very much in disagreement with an answer I gave to another young man just recently on the briefing. But. But I want to say, even though this is a very strong communication, I appreciate the fact that this man wrote to me and I hope he's listening even now. He says that he grew up Protestant and still lives in a Protestant household. He says he abandoned his faith a few years ago when he came out as gay. But he says he sometimes listens to the briefing with his mother, who is faithful still. Okay, I take that as a great privilege and I'm very, very thankful that you would even take the time to write me. Okay. Now I disagree with your argument, but I also want to take it seriously out of respect. And so this man who wrote me, disagreeing with what I said to another listener, he said, I am writing to you because while I respect your right to say what you say and believe what you believe, I believe your recent choice to discuss a gay man and describe him as struggling with homosexuality and needing to repent is legitimately dangerous. I think I understand you're trying to help, but I believe this rhetoric leads to unnecessary suffering. And then he mentions even self harm. He says homosexuality is not a struggle, it is simply a way of living. To frame it as a struggle adds an obstacle to someone living their life in a way that harms absolutely no one. Furthermore, there is nothing that can be done to rid someone of homosexuality. And to suggest that there is is to deny scientific truth. And to force someone to suffer it would be no different than telling Someone that their favorite color cannot be blue and that they have to change their ways or be punished for it. All right. It's a serious argument being made here. And I think as Christians, we need to take seriously when someone who disagrees with us says, I disagree with you, I'm going to tell you why, and then basically invites me to respond. So I am responding the best I know how. I want to respond respectfully. I also want to respond faithfully. And faithfully as a Christian, I have to say I can't change what I said in the answer to that first young man who was, as I remember, in high school when struggling with how to continue having conversation and being a friend to another young man who was struggling with homosexuality. And the scripture, I think, is just incredibly clear. I've got nowhere to go. I believe the Bible is the word of God. I believe that the Bible is incredibly consistent and thoroughly, demonstrably clear when it comes to homosexual behavior in both the Old Testament and in the New. And I want to say something else, and that is that I do believe I was right to use the word struggling. Because I think even the conversation that the young man writing me mentioned indicates that there is some struggle going on, and I think understandably so. Now I understand that the man who wrote me this recent communication does not see a struggle. And he says he thinks it's dangerous for me to discuss homosexuality in this way. I want to take seriously what he says. He says, I understand you're trying to help. He doesn't think I am helping, but he says, I believe this rhetoric leads to unnecessary self and possible self harm. Well, I need to say that my biggest concern is not to add to someone's suffering, but as best I know how, based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to point the way out of that suffering. One of the things I said in that context is that when it comes to sexual desire, it gets very complicated. And so I said, even at that time, I don't think it is an easy thing when it comes to a pattern of sexual attraction for someone to just switch that to something else. And there are all kinds of things that happen, all kinds of experiences, all kinds of things. I don't think anyone has an adequate understanding of how all that comes together. What I do have to say as a Christian on the authority of God's Word, is that I believe the Creator's intention from the beginning in making us male and female was to design us for the institution of marriage. And the sexual act is between the husband and the wife in the context of marriage open to the gift of children, for the procreation of children, and also for the bringing together of that couple in the conjugal union. I don't believe that anything outside of that is an appropriate sexual expression period. And I think that the Scripture makes that very, very clear. And so I've got nowhere to go with this. But I also want to be candid about another matter. I take the the accusation here that I may do harm to people with very heavy seriousness. The last thing I would want to do is bring harm to anyone. But I do not believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is harmful. I believe that it is the only hope for our salvation and for personal wholeness. I do not believe that the commands of Scripture are harmful. I believe that they are for our good as well as for God's glory. And I don't think it's right to say that. This is like, say, telling someone that their favorite color cannot be blue and that they have to change their ways or be punished for it. I don't think that's as serious an argument as you may have thought at the moment. This is something far deeper. Now, I want to tell you, I want to speak just in the event the person who wrote me this communication is listening. First of all, I want to say thank you. And I also want to say I'm speaking to you as a human being made in the image of God. I want that to be extremely clear. And my concern for the young man who was referenced in that original conversation and for you and anyone else involved even in this question, maybe especially in this question, is to say we have to begin with the fact that I believe you were made by God for His glory, and I believe you were made in his image. I also believe that sin distorts everything and corrupts everything. And in a sinful world, many things are directed in ways they simply should not be directed. And I think the pattern of sexual attraction sometimes is key, crucial evidence of that fact. But I don't believe, according to the Scripture, I don't believe, according to the Gospel that that can define an individual. I think what defines an individual is God's purpose in creation. And what defines an individual is where that individual stands vis a vis the grace and mercy of God through the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now, I want to point to something, and that is that even though I appreciate this communication and I receive it, I think it was sent with respect. I receive it with respect. I want to speak back with respect. There are a couple of aspects of this communication that really kind of helped me to understand, I think, what's going on behind this. For example, the person writing me this communication said when he heard me answer the previous question, he said, let me say this. If the gentleman you spoke about is listening to your show, if and when you choose to read my message, what I would tell him is, go find a man who loves you and enjoy your life. End quote. Okay, so that is exactly the problem, because the. That is exactly, I think, the wrong thing. And I realize we are here at an absolute disagreement. We are at loggerheads. We're at an absolute point of contradiction. I think that is the last thing. The only reason I read it is because I think it's important to understand the argument you made. And the last thing the Scripture says to anyone is, give yourself to your sin. Instead, what we're called to do is to fight sin and to resist sin and to obey Christ. And so I also want to tell you, I think apart from the Gospel of Jesus Christ, such obedience is impossible. And even such a change of life will have to be superficial rather than. At the deepest level, I believe only Christ can heal and only Christ can save. At the deepest level, the man writing me this communication also went on to say, I fail to see how homosexuality could ever even be considered a problem. As I said, it harms no one. It doesn't even incidentally lead to any harm. Okay, I want to press back on that because I think there's a sentence in which this may have been written in good faith. And so I want to accept this. This very well might have been written in good faith. That doesn't mean it's right. I don't believe it's right at all. I don't believe it's true at all. Number one, I have to define harm in terms of Scripture and in terms of the Gospel. And in this case, the harm is not just even an earthly, temporary harm. It is an eternal, infinite harm. And I think it's a harm that Scripture says is even brought into the body and destroys. And I think we just need to say that. I have no choice as a Christian but to say that. And then the last line in this communication, if God is truly benevolent and all loving, he would tolerate homosexuality. And if he doesn't, he's not a God deserving of worship. End quote. Okay, that gets us to the most basic issue of all. It comes down to who God is, how we know him, and how he reveals Himself to us. I do not believe theology in any sense can start with what kind of God would we find to be acceptable? I believe that God is indeed the one true and living God, is truly benevolent. And I believe he is love. He is also righteous. He is also just. He is perfect. And he reveals Himself in His Word in such a way that we have a true knowledge of Him. Not only of him, but of his commands and his law. And he tells us about ourselves and we are pointed to Christ. So in this case, this is not just about sexuality issues, sexual orientation issues or anything like that. When we talk about setting up an equation where if God doesn't meet our expectation he isn't willing, worthy or deserving of worship, then we have turned ourselves into the One who determines who God must be. And that is the one thing no human being has any power or license to do. The one true and living God, I firmly believe, and I say this with as much compassion and conviction as I can muster, tells us who he is and he tells us who we are. And that is actually gifted. And then the scripture says, for God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whosoever believes in him might not perish, but have everlasting life. I want to say again, I appreciate this man writing me and what I take as good faith. I want to respond in kind. I have to respond as a Christian, and that means I have to respond by saying the biggest issue for me is not winning an argument, but hoping that you will come to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and that your sins will be forgiven. That's more important than anything else. And now to all of you, 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 I'll meet you again on Monday. The briefing.