A (0:04)

It's Friday, March 27, 2026. I'm Albert Mohler, and this is the Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. Are the kids all right? Well, the COVID story of the current edition of Scientific American declares the kids are all right. The subhead in the COVID story, quote, what the doomsayers get wrong about the young people of today. Oh, okay, so for Christians, that's a big issue, right? We want to know if the kids are okay. We want to know, you know, what even does this cover story point to? What is it talking about? You look at the article itself, and the headline again is the kids are all right. The subhead inside the magazine, young people are doing better than you think. The author is identified as Melinda Winner Moyer, and she is a science journalist. She begins the article by basically making the case that there have been dire predictions and prophecies, dire analyses about the current state of kids suggesting they're not doing well. She comes back to say, a lot of this is overblown. She writes this quote, if you were to ask most people how kids are doing these days, you probably get an earful of complaints and concerns. Compared with children from past generations, kids today are often portrayed as being less mentally healthy, less resilient, less empathetic. That's a big word that's used over and over again. Continuing, she cites headlines such as America's children are unwell, New York Times back in November, how to know if your kid is a narcissist and what to do about it. Another online article you also have, she says, the fact that, quote, In a 2025 Common Sense Media survey of 1300 nationally representative parents, 61% said they believe kids today lag behind past generations and their morals and values. And more than half said youth today are less resilient and independent. End quote. All right, so let's just step back for a moment. Anytime you see a big moral question primarily dealt with in terms of a war of statistics or just an easy dismissal of an argument, your defense mechanisms should go up. In other words, if 61% of parents said 71% of this, that doesn't really tell you much, but it does frame an argument. And for our concern worldview analysis, this is actually a big thing in itself. The fact that this article appears as it appears basically in Scientific American, which is the nation's oldest continuously published magazine. Again, it's the oldest continuously published magazine in the United States. It emerged in the era with the rise of modern science and with the authority of Science in American society growing by leaps and bounds. And so when this magazine began, it was just when you started hearing Americans saying things like, well, scientists say, or experts say, and the role of the scientist and the role of science as a way of knowing and as a cultural authority was really expanding vastly. Well, she asked the question, in this case, the author of this article, why are so many people concerned about children? She writes, quote, many factors are probably at play, but thoughtful emotions, focused parenting reflected in the. And the kinds of conversations that regularly occur. She mentions one household could be an important driver. Experts say she also, and again, notice, experts say she also goes at what are identified as negative narratives about kids these days. Okay, then listen here. Research points to evolutionary biology and cognitive biases that distort our memories and our perception of others, end quote. So just all of a sudden in this article, you have evolutionary biology cited as an intellectual mechanism for knowing whether or not kids are doing well or why people might think that they aren't doing well. All right, so I want to get to what I think is the most important part of this article, and it's research and argument that is based in moral judgments made by children. So just listen to this. I think you're going to hear immediately why we're talking about this today. Quote. Although there's no question that racism and homophobia remain persistent problems, a 2019 study analyzed more than 4 million tests of implicit and explicit attitudes administered to people in the US between 2007 and 2016 and found substantial declines in anti gay and racial bias, especially among young people. A 2024 study found that homophobic beliefs and attitudes have been dropping among adolescent boys in Canada. And in another study, researchers in Turkey found that generations Y and Z hold more egalitarian views about gender and are more likely to reject violence against women compared with Gen Xers. I frequently hear from parents how shocked they are by their children's complete comfort with the spectrum of sexuality and gender identity. And I think there's a contrast with how we grew up. So said Emily Edelin, identified as a clinical psychologist in Illinois, has been practicing for 20 years. Okay, I hope you heard what I wanted you to hear. Now, clearly, we should be very glad if children demonstrate less racism than generations in the past. That's a good thing. But you'll notice that that is equated immediately put alongside homophobia, and that is to say moral judgment against LGBTQ behaviors. It's very, very interesting. So racism and homophobia are put in this article as. As absolute equivalents. They belong together. But it is also interesting that the homophobia part, which, of course, homophobia is declared to be an irrational condition of making negative moral judgments towards persons and behaviors and relationships that are identified as homosexual. You don't see that word used so much these days. You hear more the anti LGBTQ rather than homophobia. But it's in this article, so I wanted you to hear it just as it is. And so you hear a statement such as, quote, A 2024 study found that homophobic beliefs and attitudes have been dropping among adolescent boys in Canada. End quote. Now, there's a lot to deal with here, but let me just note that you're supposed to celebrate this. This is written as if the reader looks at that and goes, wow, we're winning. What's described as homophobia is dropping among adolescent boys in Canada. Okay? So if you have time and you want to track that down, I'm secondarily going to say, I really doubt that that is all that it appears to be. And so here's one of the things. When it comes to, say, doing surveys, doing this kind of analysis with teenagers, children even more so, but teenagers also with children, they tend to answer questions the way they think they are supposed to answer questions, according to adults. When it comes to teenagers, you have a little bit of that. You also have an awful lot of generational bias where they say what they think they're supposed to say or they're going to say they believe what their friends and peer structure would say they're supposed to believe. You know, all of that is in here, and it's all presented for a magazine called Scientific America. And this is a profoundly unscientific article. It cites studies, it cites research, it cites theories. Now, the reason we're talking about it today in the briefing is I just want Christians to understand the large occurrence in the culture. And in one sense, what we're up against. We're up against the explicit and implicit point of this article, which is that it's a good thing if fewer people think that homosexuality is a sin. It's a good thing if more and more young people, kids and teenagers, because, remember, this is an article about those identified as kids. We're supposed to celebrate this. The reader of this article is supposed to celebrate this as a great moral victory. Things are not going in the wrong direction. They're going in the right direction. The this is also tied, I think, to a lot of the current controversy over empathy, because this author is saying, no, these young people are very empathetic. But I want you to note that empathetic, defined in this way, has a great deal to do with liberal moral judgments. And it becomes a shorthand one, becomes a shorthand for the other. There's more to the issue than that. We'll talk about it in greater length and depth at another time. I just want to mention this because Scientific American, the nation's oldest and longest published periodical magazine, it now comes with this article telling Americans the kids are all right. As if Americans, by the way, are about to be persuaded by a cover story in Scientific America when it comes to their own kids. No, this is more about public signaling and it is about how elites operate in the society. And this is really an attempt to speak elite to elite, the kinds of people who would read Scientific American to be basically told, the progressivist system is working, things are moving our way. It is interesting that when you think about how the issues are defined here, we're really talking about liberal parenting being championed. We're talking about liberal moral judgments being the goal, and we're talking about liberal moral trends being the trajectory that is hoped for. So it's just good for us to know this. It's good for Americans to know what you're up against. And it's also good for us at times to see this kind of argument and recognize, you know, we need to take a closer look. What exactly does this mean? And I want to go back to one statement. It was the statement made by the clinical psychologist cited here. Quote, I frequently hear from parents about how shocked they are by their children's complete comfort with the spectrum of sexuality and gender identity. And I think there's a contrast with how we grew up. Let me just make the obvious point here, and that is that the moral trajectory depicted in that statement is exactly what is being hoped for and worked for when it comes to those who are trying to. Well, the article makes clear, make everyone in America think in totally morally affirming terms of all that is covered within that spectrum of behaviors, identities, and all the rest. Okay, now let's turn to questions. As always, really good questions sent in by listeners. One, one man wrote in and asked about the recent deaths of, say, the Ayatollah in Iran, also mentioning the deaths previously of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. How do we as Christians rightfully think about those deaths without celebrating their deaths? Okay, that's a good question. And of course, at least a part of this comes because of recent controversies about statements made about someone dying. And I addressed that on the briefing. But let's just move on and say that you do have here a really good moral question. And this does test us in terms of our Christian worldview. And the moral question is, how do we deal with someone's death who was just horribly evil and did evil things and even brought about mass genocide, the killing of millions of innocent people? And you're talking about different levels here, but let's just say the Ayatollah Khamenei and also Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, all of them, each of them deeply evil people, given over, I think, in a biblical sense, to evil, documented evil, which also includes using the mechanisms of the state to bring about mass death and all kinds of other things. Without going into detail, I think the big moral question in this question is, is how in the world do we deal with our emotional response to the news of someone's death when it is someone like a totalitarian, dictatorial extremist leader who has brought about death and murder and mayhem. And the fact is that we should not celebrate anyone's death insofar as that's the cause of celebration. We can celebrate the neutralization of a threat. We can celebrate justice in terms of someone like Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin dying. And there were different circumstances, of course, but the point is that we can agree it is a good thing the world is rid of this person. That is something that I believe Christians, consistent with the biblical worldview. That's a judgment we can make. It is a good thing that the world is rid of this. It is a good thing that the world is no longer threatened by this person, that this person will no longer be in power, in a position in authority to bring about horrible acts. But we do not celebrate directly their death. We celebrate the neutralization of a threat. And sometimes in a fallen world, in a murderous world, this kind of action becomes necessary. This is something that became a major struggle in the hearts of some German Christians, and they weren't all Christians, but some German citizens who really were struggling with whether or not the right thing to do was to assassinate Adolf Hitler. And of course, this led to a direct effort to assassinate and to eliminate the Fuhrer. And a bomb did indeed go off. And the bomb did do grave damage, even some physical damage, to Adolf Hitler. It did not kill him. And so one of the big issues is that by the time that happened, there had been a shift in the moral judgment of a good many people in Nazi Germany, not to mention people outside Nazi Germany, even a good number of people inside Nazi Germany, that Adolf Hitler was an evil, malign force that could only be neutralized for the good of Humanity and the safety, the literal safety of human beings if he were eliminated. And so, you know, I'll just say that in terms of Christian moral judgment, it goes back to just war. Just war must always be defensive, and it must be undertaken. Even battle. Military action must be undertaken with the goal of neutralizing a threat in terms of endangerment to human life and human dignity, rather than an aggressive action. And I think that's what's reflected in the moral question of how do we respond to the death of someone like the recent Ayatollah or Hitler and Stalin. The fact is that there is some moral satisfaction in the fact that they are certainly no longer a threat. And that was true at the time when their deaths were announced. But it is also true that it is not the death of a fellow human being that we celebrate. It is of lamentable necessity, the elimination of one who is posing a real and present danger to human life and human dignity. Okay, this is a hard question to deal with in this context, but I think it's so important, and I deal with so many young people. I want to deal with the question just to put it out there. So let me just tell you. This one's going to stretch me a bit in terms of how to discuss it. But it is a young man, a Christian young man who is intending to be married, and he is writing to me about his desire for his future wife, and he's struggling with whether that desire is holy. Okay, let's just state that's a legitimate question. All right. I admire the fact that this young man is struggling with the question, but I also just want to tell him that the sexual urge within him is not something aliens put in him. His creator put that drive in him. That is natural. Now, you're a sinner, I say to this young man, and we're all sinners. So that means we have to be very careful in understanding how we are to respond to this. But God put that drive in you, at least in part, to drive you, to motivate you and direct you towards the woman you should marry in the context of holy matrimony, and to whom you should be faithful in every conceivable way for the rest of your lives. And that's a sweet thing. And I also want to say that your interest in the woman who is soon to become your wife is a good thing. The absence of it would be a bad thing. And so that is in itself a good thing. You are morally responsible for how you deal with that before you're married. And the best way to deal with that is to just be so devoted to Christ and so devoted to your wife. Even in terms of, of making sure the right things happen after marriage and the wrong things don't happen before marriage. You just have to understand that the lack of that passion would be a big problem. The presence of that passion is a very good natural sign. It is also a moral challenge for you to deal with until such time that you stand before God and witnesses and before all, commit yourselves to each other as husband and wife until death do you part. It is a sweet question, and I mean that in essence. And this young man also goes back to my definition I mentioned on the briefing of porneia as a wrongful sexual desire. You know, that's another reminder that there's also a rightful sexual desire. I appreciate this question so that I can say that clearly, but it is a man for his wife and a wife for her husband. And that is going to be kindled to before the covenant of marriage begins. But it is to be set loose and celebrated inside the covenant of marriage. And I just will say this to young men all the time, young women too, but it's my position to speak most candidly to young men and say God has put this fire within you to make you restless until you do the right thing and commit yourself to a woman in marriage and live out that marital life faithfully to the glory of God. Okay. Another very interesting question comes from a young woman contemplating marriage. In this case, the young woman is 19 years old and is really looking forward to marriage. And she says, I want to be wise and honor God in preparing for marriage. And in considering she then asked this question, I didn't see this one coming. I was wondering how to think biblically regarding prenuptial agreements. Okay, that's interesting. I will just say that the prenuptial agreement, widespread in culture, is really a result of widespread divorce. So prenuptial agreements really aren't at all needed, even pragmatically indicated, unless there's some expectation that the marriage may end in divorce. And then the question is what kind of legal protections, arrangements need to be made up front before that should happen. There might be prenuptial contractual conditions that aren't envisioned in what we're discussing here. But by definition, I can't envision what they would be. But when it comes to just the general structure of prenuptial agreements, I would say I would never encourage Christian couples to enter into one. I would encourage Christian couples, a young man and a young woman, to enter into the covenant of marriage as defined by Scripture and celebrated and recognized by the church. And that marriage covenant, the set of vowels that are exchanged, that is the nuptial agreement, a prenuptial agreement is something worked out ahead of time, usually in anticipation of the marriage being dissolved. I think that's a huge problem for Christians. I think buying into that kind of back door is a huge problem. And I didn't expect the question. I think it's a good one. I'm glad to address it. Next, another very interesting question sent in by a 20 year old young man about marriage. Let's just state the obvious. It's a good thing that young men and women these ages are thinking about marriage. That's a refreshing contrast with the secular world. So that part just makes me happy already. Okay, so here's the question. My girlfriend and I have gotten into a debate recently on the question of divorce. I've been holding that the only reason we're allowed to divorce as Christians would be because of infidelity. She's been saying that the reason Jesus said that that was the only reason was in order to combat the Pharisees teaching that the Jewish men could get a divorce for any reason and that there are other acceptable reasons for getting a divorce, such as a physically abusive relationship. What is my opinion on this? Wow. Well, you ask. I'm going to do my best. I think there are biblical allowances for divorce on two grounds, clearly. And those grounds are adultery and abandonment. And so both of those things are easily recognized. Adultery is adultery. It is the physical violation of the marital covenant and bond. And the second of abandonment is that a spouse is just involuntarily abandoned. The other spouse deserts. And so desertion is the other word that is sometimes being been used. And in almost every society there's some legal definition of time and circumstances to make that clear. And I believe that churches, congregations are in a position to judge those things very adequately and faithfully. And I think it is something local churches are called upon to do that is exercising church discipline and pastoral judgment and congregational understanding as to how we uphold holiness and uphold the institution, the covenant of marriage. Okay. In this case, the young man's asking about what his girlfriend said about also grounds of a physically abusive relationship. Okay, so this has been an interesting discussion among conservative Christians. Okay. And I think it's been a productive discussion. And so a good number of really gospel centered churches have addressed this question. And you know, there is no precise biblical text that makes that clear. And so I will tell you what at least some of the biblical reasoning has been on this, that I think is fruitful. And the biblical reasoning is that if, say, a spouse is physically abusive, and that's how this question is stated, a physically abusive relationship, that, that especially without remedy and without adequate correction and adequate restoration, that would be the equivalent of abandonment. In other words, a man who is unwilling to live with his wife without physically harming her is a man who has abandoned any claim to be her husband and is acting contrary to the covenant of marriage. And so I think this is an expanding matter of awareness for a lot of Christian congregations, evangelical congregations, in dealing with this. And it is a congregational responsibility to make certain that we act to protect, I'll say, women in this situation, the vast majority of cases, from a physically abusive spouse. And this is why you need a structure of church discipline within a Gospel congregation. And you need elders and others who can provide leadership. And remember, protection, that's one of the responsibilities of an elder, the protection of the sheep, pastoral responsibility. So I think it's a very good question. And I want to say, in some sense, at least, what I have here, I think both of you are right, because I don't think we get to add new grounds for divorce in biblical terms. I do think that we can become morally aware that some things are actually covered by those grounds in ways that we would understand become necessary. But again, in a divorce directed culture, we just have to think very, very carefully. Okay, I want to take another question that comes, and I think there are probably others who are asking some similar questions. This is a young man, and by young, I mean young. 15 years old, really encourages me. Listen to this quote. I definitely feel called to ministry, but I'm not sure what role exactly. He says he's been leaning towards youth ministry for a while. Very common. Still unsure. I don't want to get ahead of myself if God decides he has different plans for me. But I also don't want to hesitate. If God really wants me to show my calling, I don't want to spend. Well, he goes on. He wants to make good decisions in line with God's call. He then asked the big question, how can I know for sure that this is the path God is calling me to? And know what he'll let me know, what role to take, et cetera. Okay. He's worried about just following his feelings, and yet he's honest about those feelings. Okay, let me just state as succinctly as I can. And I intentionally took this question when I knew I didn't have too much time to deal with it. It's because this is an urgent question that deserves a straightforward answ. Let me just tell you that God calls men to serve his church in these crucial roles, in particular in the role of the Christian ministry. What we're talking about here is in particular elders and pastors. Those would be the preacher teachers in the church. And we do believe, rightly, that there is a special call. Now, as Luther and others remind us, all Christians have a calling. So it's not like there are those who have a call to ministry and the others aren't called. No, there's a calling to many different areas of service. As Luther said, the milkmaid's just as called as the. As the preacher. But there is a cult of ministry. I know what you're talking about. And at your age and in that same age period, I was struggling with the very same question. And I want to tell you that there are objective criteria set out in Scripture, Paul's letters to Timothy and to Titus. There's some very clear objective criteria that are set for those who will be deacons in one context and for those who will be pastors and, and elders in another context. And I think that's very helpful. So in other words, God's not going to call someone who is disqualified by an objective criterion. And by the way, one of those is able to teach. So that's good. Okay, so I'm going to assume that's met then you have feelings, passions that you believe are calling you into the ministry. And I would simply say God could be using those very things. And that's why you need the counsel of your parents. I hope they're Christian parents. You can talk to them and others in the local church who know you, including elders and pastors in your local church church who know you, who can help you to determine what God's plan is for your life. But I want you to hear me to say the need also helps to clarify the call. And there is a tremendous need for young men to answer the gospel call and to show up for service, because we need pastors, elders, teachers of God's word for the church in generations to come. And there is an urgent need. And so it's also biblical to understand an urgent need can very well be a part of God's call. I also just want to cite the Apostle Paul to Timothy. It is a good thing to desire to be a preacher. And so it is in itself a good thing. And I pray you receive the help and direction you need. And I just want to encourage you also to kindle that call and passion that is within you in a godly way. The last thing I want to say is please stay in touch because I know a school you could well attend to help you to prepare to become the minister God would call you to be. Well, you know, honestly, I realize now I'm going to talk about that very thing. And as I end the briefing today, I just want to tell you that if you're called to the ministry, where you prepare for ministry is one of the most important decisions you'll ever make. At Southern Seminary we're committed to providing theological education that is trusted for truth, grounded in the Word of God, led by our world class faculty, designed to prepare you for a lifetime of faithfulness in service to Christ and His church. I want to invite you to Preview Day at Southern Seminary April 17th and we would invite you to come and to sit in on classes, meet the faculty, tour the campus, experience firsthand what it means to be trained rightly to divide the Word of Truth, rightly to handle the Word of Truth, and to learn all these things in a confessional community committed to the Word of God, to the Gospel and to the Great Commission. Your registration includes two nights of complimentary meals and lodging. Your registration fee is waived when you use the promo code the briefing one word, all caps. Make plans to join me at Southern seminary preview day April 17th. For more information, go to spts.edu preview. 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 for the briefing.