Albert Mohler (0:00)

Foreign It's Friday, March 21, 2025. I'm Albert Moeller, and this is the Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. You know, the pro life movement has been pushing for decades against the Roe v. Wade decision of the Supreme Court from 1973. That was reversed, of course, in the Dobbs decision back in 2022. But we are looking at the fact that when you have states moving towards what we would see as more consistent pro life, eventually someone's gonna get arrested for performing an abortion. And if we can't stand that as a society, then we're gonna lose the entire pro life cause because the mainstream media is gonna go nuts the moment someone is arrested for performing an illegal abortion. And the test case right now is the State of Texas headline coming out this week, the Texas Tribune quote, 2 Houston Area Clinic employees arrested for allegedly providing illegal abortions. NBC News headline, texas Midwife arrested and charged with performing illegal abortions. New York Times, Texas arrest midwife and associate on charges of providing abortions. That's exactly what happened. As David Goodman of the New York Times reports, a midwife and an associate had been arrested and charged with illegally performing abortions in greater Houston, according to court records and the Texas Attorney General, apparently the first criminal arrests of abortion providers since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. Okay, so let's just face what's going on here. So the state of Texas, after the Dobbs decision reversing Roe v. Wade, moved to restrict abortion very significantly. And as a matter of fact, Texas has been moving into greater and greater consistency in terms of the defense of unborn life. The Attorney General there in Texas is the lead constitutional officer to deal with these issues. It was the office of the Texas Attorney General as Ken Paxton, who released a statement saying that the midwife, quote, operated clinics in several towns around Houston, including two in Harris county, the state's most populous county, and one in Waller County, a more rural and conservative jurisdiction where the charges were brought. The statement said that she was, quote, charged with the illegal performance of an abortion, which is a second degree felony since the state adopted a near total abortion ban in 2022. By the way, the next sentence, quote, she was also charged with practicing medicine without a license, end quote. Yeah, that's a thing. Okay, so I'm not going to mention the names here. That's not so important for our consideration, but you have a person operating as a midwife who was practicing, at least according to the allegation in the criminal charge, was Practicing medicine without a license was moving in. Once you had the pro life laws in place, with unborn life defended and thus the performance of this kind of act criminalized, she nonetheless moved in. And with an accomplice identified as a partner here or a fellow clinic employee, this midwife was performing abortions. And the articles don't go into great detail, the news reports nor the statement from the attorney general go into great detail. But it appears she was dispensing abortion pills, so to speak, and she was doing so without a medical license. She was doing so in order to bring about an induced abortion. She was doing so in violation of Texas law. And she and the accomplice were both arrested. Now, in the largest worldview sense, let's just deal with the morality of the question. We're talking about the defense of the unborn. If you really do believe in the defense of the unborn, and I believe Christians really must, the biblical worldview leaves us no alternative. If we're going to recognize the imperative of defending the unborn, that means that we're going to have to take responsibility in a grown up way and say that that will require criminal sanctions and actual arrests and actual prosecutions if people violate that law. And this is where you have a lot of people who are kind of really squeamish. They're kind of generally squishy way pro life, but not if a difficult issue comes along. And you know the mainstream media is going to make this a difficult issue, no question about it. This is being held up as being flagged as a headline all over the country. Now you have arrests in Texas, arrests in Texas. They're arresting people for performing abortions or seeking to aid abortion, an agent of abortion, or being an accomplice with the same. And I just want us to recognize that the deepest worldview level, this is about the defense of unborn life. And the reality is that the law, civil law, the law of the state, criminal law, these are established in order to sanction those who do wrong and to honor and respect those who do right. And that means that there have to be consequences for doing wrong, for breaking the law, and in particular for something as serious as this. We either believe or we don't believe that an unborn human life is a human life. If we do believe that, and I believe biblically we must believe that, then you have to grow up and take responsibility for the fact that that means that if someone is an agent of abortion, they're conducting a criminal act. And it is a serious criminal act that should bring about serious consequences. Honestly, I get very exasperated with a lot of people who say, I'm pro life, but I don't want anyone to have to go to jail about it. The other worldview dimension this certainly underlines is the fact that there are going to be people who will do this. And so even as we're living in what we know is a culturally and morally and politically divided nation, we understand that. And, you know, that tells us there are people who are very determined to get abortions. There are people who are very determined to be agents of performing abortions. There are many, many people who are determined to make abortion as available as possible at low a cost as possible, low consequences as possible. It's just really important that in moral seriousness we recognize this. A third worldview dimension here is the fact that you have accomplices in the mainstream media who are going to respond to something like this and say, look, I told you, I told you the moment those pro life laws are put in place, I told you the moment you restrict abortion, somebody eventually is gonna get charged with a crime and somebody's gonna go to jail. The only way to prevent that is just to legalize all abortions. Now, I wanna say that in terms of the mainstream media headlines that I cited with you, I don't think they're particularly unfair. But the conversation that is taking place, most importantly, I would say in cable TV news, in the major news networks, it's been worse. And so, you know, you are talking here just as the Texas Tribune said, about two Houston area clinic employees arrested for allegedly providing illegal abortion. So I want to say I think that's pretty fair. But when you look at much of the conversation that's being pushed, it isn't fair at all. And even in the general context here, the fact is that the media effort is to put to the attorney general of Texas and the state of Texas on the defensive here as if, well, now the outlandish has happened. We told you it was going to happen. Someone was eventually going to get arrested. I can also tell you that I think the attorney general of Texas, Attorney general Paxton, and the government of Texas, the state leaders in Texas, I think they're pretty much ready for this and they're grown ups who knew this was going to happen. And so this is something we're going to have to watch closely. The way this is handled is going to tell us a lot in Texas about the future of the pro life movement and the legal challenges and the larger media, cultural challenges, communication challenges we're going to face. But when you have people who say, what are we supposed to think about this? We need to say, well, someone's committed a crime, someone was arrested for it. The legal process is in play. What do I think about that? I think that's the way the legal system is supposed to work. Next question. Okay, well, speaking of questions, let's just go to questions from listeners. I look forward to this every week. And the first question is from a man who asks straightforwardly, do married couples who adopt fulfill the command to be fruitful and multiply? And my answer to that is, yes, I believe that a Christian couple, a married couple adopting a child is indeed helping the entire civilization to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. And I think the rescue of a child is actually so important in the Bible, so honored in the Bible, that it becomes a metaphor for our redemption and a picture of our salvation. And so I think it's in every way honorable. And I think it's a very sweet question. I think the answer is an unqualified yes, that adoption is a very, very good thing. And even though adoption does not in itself bring a new child into the world, it makes provision for that child to have a future in this world. So I think it's a kind question. I'm assuming there's probably a lot behind it, but straightforwardly asked, I think it could be straightforwardly answered. Another question, a little more complicated, comes from someone on the mission field. A wife with her husband and their children serving overseas, quote, as cross cultural workers. And a long way away. I won't identify the place, but a long way away. And this mom and wife ask about children, saying that they have four and they're clearly interested in having more. She writes this quote, we have heard of families that have had more than four children eventually having to leave the field, despite being the only ones in the world who believe the gospel in that world and understand an unreached people group's language because they could not keep up with the demands of their families. So my question is this. Is there a limit to the amount of kids a family should have given their circumstances? Or should they continue to have children and leave it up to the father to open and close the womb? And she says, while I understand this question is specific to our context, I believe it could also be helpful to address her brothers and sisters in the United States. Okay, I appreciate the trust in sending that question to me. And let's just try to think biblically. Number one, the command is in creation to the man and the woman united in Marriage. Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Now, I think the words are easy enough to understand. Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. That is a command given to humanity and originally addressed to Adam and thus also to Eve. Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. There is no specific command that says that a Christian couple, in order to be obedient to that, must maximize the total number of children they could have throughout their reproductive lifetimes. Now, in another conversation, and I've written so much about this, and we've talked about it, there are considerations about birth control and contraception. No, they're not exactly the same thing, but contraception is a form of birth control. And I think most Christians have understood this is a deep question of responsibility. But the consensus of the Christian church has not been. And this is true even, by the way, historically of Roman Catholicism, just to give an example here, because people associate Roman Catholicism in terms of birth control, that a couple would be obligated to maximize the total number of children they can have. That's actually not even Roman Catholic doctrine. But children are a gift from the Lord and are to be welcomed. And I think the biblical picture includes large families with what our culture would call large numbers of children. But you have four children. I want to honor you and your husband. And you are in a unique circumstance. And I think a husband and a wife before God who are committed to total faithfulness can come to different decisions. And it may be a different couple in a very similar situation might, before God, come to a different conclusion about exactly how to think about these things. I don't think I have a biblical warrant to burden your conscience one way or the other here. I have no such reluctance. If I'm talking to a Christian couple and they say, yeah, we want the conjugal relationship, but we don't want children. Okay, that's a huge problem. It's a huge problem if you have people using illicit methods, I think absolutely immoral methods, or even questionable methods when it comes to birth control to try to prevent conception or sometimes just to prevent birth. As I say, there is a distinction there, but I do think it's a very sweet question. I appreciate the trust invested in the question, and I would say I can just tell the way you and your husband are thinking through these issues Biblically. As believers, they're on the mission field. I'm really confident in how you as husband and wife would come to a conclusion about how to think through and pray through these matters. I think your brothers and sisters in Christ owe you the very same respect. And as is so often when I read this kind of letter, I want to say I also would look forward, if possible someday to meeting you and your sweet family with at least four children. Okay, next, a question from a 10 year old boy sent in by his faithful mom. She writes, quote, my 10 year old son asked me the other night if Jesus was still in heaven when he was on earth during his ministry. He knows and understands for a 10 year old about the Trinity. But I was not sure how to answer this very specific question which was asked right before bed, as she says. Classic, huh? Well, that's exactly right. But I want to also just cover that last part for a moment. Classic. Yeah, absolutely. A 10 year old boy asking a question like that at bed. I want to tell you a personal story. I, as a boy that age and much longer as an adult, I've always had trouble falling asleep. And when my parents came to tell me good night and I'll say, my dad in particular, it became an opportunity to have a conversation. And even when I was a teenager, I would sometimes take the conversation to my parents when, you know, I probably should have been sleeping. And you know, my parents never shut down a conversation. And I asked my dad about that later and he said, you know, we really felt that if you wanted to talk that was the right time for us to have a talk. I just want to honor my parents for that. I thought that's a very sweet thing. And it also explains why they were indulgent with big questions at bedtime. I think the other thing I want to come back on this, and I do this with a big smile on my face, is where this mom writes about her 10 year old boy, that she knows and understands the Trinity well for a 10 year old. Now I just want to say there are many things about the Trinity that we want him to learn. There are many things about the doctrine of the Trinity from Scripture. And with the church's faithful wrestling with these questions, I want him to learn. But, but I also want to tell you as a 65 year old and as someone who's been for decades a theologian, there is still a mystery to the Trinity. And I think it's meant to be that way for us until in glory we see him face to face. And so, all right, the specific question is whether or not Jesus was still in heaven when he was on earth during his earthly ministry. And the answer to that is no. And I want to tell you biblically why it is. Because the New Testament tells Us very clearly that God sent his Son. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son. He sent his Son, he was sent down from heaven. In some of his letters, the Apostle Paul talks about him being humbled in Philippians 2, in particular humbling himself, taking on the form of a man. And the ascension is, remember when he is reunited in heaven with the Father. And so, you know, the fact is that in the mystery of the Trinity, we only talk about the Son, the second member of the Trinity, as being embodied, because that is exactly as it is. And a part of his humility and obedience to the Father was taking on human form again coming right out of Philippians. And so that gave Jesus a specific where that does not apply to either the Father or the Spirit. And let's remind ourselves this is something that some evangelicals kind of get slippery and careless on. The Son, Jesus Christ our Lord is embodied now and will be for eternity. And it is in his glorified body that he is now with the Father in heaven, sitting at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. And it is from heaven he will come to return and as the Apostles Creed says, to judge the quick and the dead. Okay, a great question for a 10 year old. Yes, the Father sent the Son and that meant he came to earth. And the New Testament theology is clear that that meant that he was apart from the Father in that sense of being in heaven with the Father, but has now returned to him after his perfect obedience. Okay, kind of a related question coming from an older believer who says about the Trinity. Given that the Bible doesn't explicitly say that God is triune, how do we know that he is? Interesting twist. He writes, I definitely believe that there are three persons of the Godhead revealed in Scripture, but how do we know there aren't other persons we may come to know later on in glory? Okay, number one, don't worry about this kind of question because we are not to engage in theological speculation, period. So that's the first thing you know, what things might we not know that we will one day know? Well, here's the thing we know from Scripture that we will never find out anything that is contradictory to what is clearly revealed in Scripture. And so the Scripture principle tells us that we have all that we need to know in the inerrant and fallible Word of God and that it is our singular authority. That's sola scriptura. And we will know more when we see him face to face no longer through a glass darkly. But what we know will Be a more, not a different than. And let me just remind you that the scripture does, I believe, clearly reveal the triune nature of God. And I think it's in text after text after text. But it is a simple formula. The scripture tells us that God is one. And the scripture tells us clearly, repeatedly, consistently that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God. The doctrine of the Trinity is just a way of seeking faithfully to say those things all at once every time. Okay, then, another question from a mom. In this case, it's about an eight year old son. It's very sweet and she says, quote, my husband was away this evening and my 8 year old was having a hard time falling asleep without dad's presence in the house. We prayed and I told my son he didn't have to be scared because God is with us and will protect us. He asked me, what about people whose houses get broken into? God doesn't always protect us, you know. She goes on to ask in a more elaborate way how to answer her son here. And it is really sweet. But you know what? The first thing that strikes me is the sweetness of this, that it's just absolutely right that by God's plan, in a family there would be a mother and a father. And the father's presence in the home, giving the child security, that's a really sweet and precious thing. I just praise God for that. That's just really, really sweet. The trust that is invested in you, as mom is clear in asking the question, the trust invested in his father, it comes through massively in the question. And furthermore, frankly, it does matter whether Dad's at home. It does matter. But dad sometimes can't be at home. And that's where your advice is exactly the right advice. You're teaching, your encouragement is exactly right. We are taught to trust God to protect us in such situations. And bad things happen in a scary world. And it is natural for a boy this age to be worried about hearing the bad things happen. But words of assurance that are honest, you know, words of assurance that are honest are really called for here. And your word of assurance that you're trusting the Lord to keep you safe is a very sweet and honest word of affirmation and encouragement. Okay, another question from a listener. Can demons, or angels for that matter, hear my thoughts or know what I'm thinking? Okay, my answer is I don't know, but I don't think so. This is where, again, we need to avoid theological speculation. And when it comes to angels and demons, that's an area that's just rife with theological speculation. And by that I mean we need not to imagine what angels and demons might be able to do other than what is revealed in Scripture that they do. And nowhere in Scripture, to my knowledge, does an angel directly know, you know, what we're thinking. The angels are messengers sent from God. They're spiritual beings that are messengers sent from God. So God knows absolutely, infinitely, perfectly, even better than we know ourselves. He knows what we're thinking. And so insofar as that's communicated to angels, and angels serve as his messengers, that's. So, you know, I don't know any more about demons than is revealed in Scripture, and I don't really want to know any more than is revealed in Scripture. And it is clear in Scripture that demonic temptation is a real thing. But whether or not they can get inside our minds, I don't know. But they can certainly tempt us. And so I'm just to say, let's avoid speculation, but let's know whether or not demons can read our minds. I think there's no evidence that they can. They evidently, in a certain diabolical way, literally know our hearts and know how to find our weaknesses and lead us into temptation. And as to angels, they're the messengers of the God of hosts. And what he tells them is what they know. And I'll just leave it at that. Okay. An interesting question sent in by a listener about the Supreme Court of the United States and in particular about the Chief justice. And an interesting kind of crack in history that's revealed here. He writes, I've wondered about the Chief justice position of the Supreme Court for a long time. He says, I seem to recall when John Roberts was appointed that he immediately became the Chief Justice. Can you explain how the Chief justice is chosen and whether or not another justice could become chief while Roberts is still serving? Also, what special authority does the Chief justice have? And, you know, one of the interesting things about the job is that John G. Roberts, Jr. Is not chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. He's actually Chief justice of the United States. That's a different role. So the Chief justice actually has a supervisory role over the entire federal court system. That's something most Americans don't think about because that's not the part of the Chief Justice's job that most people about in the headlines, but it is something to be corrected. He's not the Chief justice of the Supreme Court. He is Chief justice of the United States of America. So how does a Chief justice get to that role, the Chief justice has to be appointed, nominated by the President of the United States. And so this listener is exactly right. When John Roberts went to the court, he went immediately as Chief Justice. Okay, so how did that happen? Actually, that's that kind of crack in history that turns out to be really interesting. John G. Roberts, Jr. Who had had different roles in different administrations, was nominated to the federal bench to the D.C. court in. In 2003 by President George W. Bush. And of course, that nomination, that appointment requires confirmation by the United States Senate. So the listener's exactly right. John G. Roberts, Jr. Went on the Supreme Court serving as Chief justice immediately. How did that happen? Well, that's that crack in history. In 2003, John G. Roberts, Jr. Who had served in many different capacities in different Republican administrations, he was appointed to the U.S. court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by President George W. Bush. That's 2003. He's put on the most senior of the circuits in terms of the US Courts of Appeal in 2003. In 2005, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced she was retiring from the court. And she was doing so, by the way, largely, it is now known, due to the declining health of her husband, who was struggling with Alzheimer's disease. And so Sandra Day O'Connor retired. And so President Bush, that's George W. Bush, he had to appoint someone to that seat. So that was a seat as an Associate Justice. And so John G. Roberts, Jr. Was nominated as an Associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. Okay, so between when the President made that nomination and he was confirmed by the Senate and could take the seat, before that happened, the Chief justice of the United States, William Rehnquist, died. And so you had a situation in which the President of the United States was unexpectedly facing the necessity of appointing a new Chief Justice. He had just gone through the process of choosing John Roberts for an Associate justice position. It just made sense, given the strength of Robert's background and support, that he would just switch that nomination to the nomination as Chief Justice. And it was to that position that John G. Roberts, Jr. Was confirmed by the Senate. And he did indeed, in just a matter of a very short time, assume role as the Chief justice of the United States. So it's really interesting. Think of how few persons have ever served on the Supreme Court. One justice retires, an Associate justice, you're plucked out of all the candidates to become the next nominee to the Supreme Court. Then the Chief justice dies, and guess what? Within a matter of weeks, you are now Chief justice. Of the United States. That's sometimes just the way it works. By the way, since the Constitution of the United States went into effect in the late 18th century, there have been 17 chief justices of the United States. So there have been a lot more justices than chief justices. And there have only been 17 opportunities in all of American constitutional history for a president to make such a nomination. It is a very big deal. And the influence and authority of a chief justice is so great that we tend to date the Court in terms of the chief justices in which you speak of such things as the Warren era or even the Rehnquist Court, that's very important. The court gets named for the chief justice by historians because of that influence. All right. Always fascinated with the questions you send. You can send yours just by writing me@mailbertmuller.com and thanks, as always, for listening to the Briefing. For more information, go to my website@albertmuller.com you can follow me on Twitter or X by going to twitter.com AlbertMuller for information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to spts.edu for information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com I'll meet you again on Monday for the briefing.