A (0:00)

Foreign It's Friday, March 6, 2026. I'm Albert Mohler and this is the Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. I am currently in the Los Angeles area and there is a big drama unfolding in a courtroom in downtown la. It has to do with the big trial over social media and whether or not social media are inflicting harm, in particular on young people and in terms of body image and all the rest. So this is a big trial. It's attracting a lot of attention because this is the first big case, the first big trial in which you have major social media figures, the heads of some of the biggest platforms having to testify along with others on their staff in this central question. So, for example, the headline story in the Los Angeles Times tells us, quote, ladies of the jury dabbed their eyes sniffling as the 20 year old on the witness stand described the hours she spent trying to fix her face. And before appearing in court that morning, her view of herself irreparably warped by what she characterized as a decade of addiction to YouTube and Instagram. The young woman who goes by the name Kaylee in court said, quote, whenever I got a bunch of likes, I was really happy and it made me feel really good about myself. She went on to say, if I didn't, I would feel insecure, like I looked ugly. End quote. Now, we are told that some members of the jury wept openly. Given the testimony, it must have been heart wrenching testimony. This young woman spoke of the fact that she came to despise herself because she had based her self image, she had based her, her basic likability and her worth as a human being upon how persons responded to her on social media. And again, in particular, the platforms at stake here are YouTube and Instagram. The LA Times article tells us, quote, caylee's lawsuit is a test case chosen from among hundreds alleging that social media apps were designed to snare young kids and keep them hooked. But the story tells us, quote, it's her Los Angeles jury that will set the stakes for thousands of suits still to come, making this one of the corporate world's most closely watched legal battles. Next paragraph. Quote. And as the landmark trial closes out its first month, gender has emerged as a dividing and perhaps decisive factor in the case. End quote. All right, there is a lot in this coverage and there's a lot to this story. First of all, we are talking about the fact that social media comes with enormous potential, perhaps potential to do good, but also potential to do harm. Furthermore, we understand that social media has created what can only be described as a massive distortion field. And not all persons are equally susceptible to that distortion field. That distortion field comes with several harms and several threats. One of the direct threats is towards self image, particularly when it comes to young people and their involvement on social media. And this can come with devastating consequences. Now, the legal fallout from all of this, that is not mine to predict, but the fact that this is in a courtroom and that you already know, at least in part, how a jury is responding to this case, that tells you that this is going to be something big. Furthermore, the LA Times tells us there are thousands of cases in the funnel coming behind this one. But as we think about the dangers of social media, I think a lot of parents have been sensitized, and I'm thankful for this. A lot of parents have been sensitized to some of the direct threats about sexual predation and the manipulation of young people and even some of the scams that are being addressed, particularly at teenage boys, at adolescent boys. They're being directed at them and they're being used for extortion and other means. And now you have a very clear angle in this article about this case in which we're told that there is a clear gender pattern in terms of this kind of harm and it's disproportionately girls who are harmed. All right, that tells us something. First of all, isn't it interesting? Let's just back up a moment. The larger world around us, the cultural elites, Hollywood, the academic community, all the rest, has been telling us there's no difference. Male and female are basically abstractions. And by the way, if you're one, you can change to the other, vice versa. In other words, gender's just plastic, biological sex is just an accident, it shouldn't really matter. But now we're being told, interestingly, that there is a predictable pattern to this kind of vulnerability. That's not to say there are no boys who aren't trapped in this same kind of problem. It is to say it's overwhelmingly female. And by overwhelmingly, when you look at the plaintiffs in these cases, that's an understatement. Overwhelmingly, we're talking about girls and young women. There's a particular vulnerability here when it comes to self image, when it comes to body, when it comes to beauty and all these things. And, and most of us as adults understand, number one, that's not right. It's imbalanced. That's not godly, it's unbiblical. But secondly, it is a Massive distortion field. Anyway, for one thing, when you look at a picture of someone on social media, or for that matter, when you look at a picture in terms of Hollywood productions and all the rest, that really doesn't tell you what this person looks like. It tells you what kind of image has been cultivated. Now, basically, of course, there are some structural issues that relate to understandings of beauty, but the fact is, it's a massive lie, it's a massive distortion field, it is a massive confusion, but it's also coming with massive damage in the lives of very real human beings and in particular girls and young women. Now, the article goes on about the legal complexities. It goes on about the legal precedent that will be set one way or the other by this verdict. Because this case in this LA courtroom is, is massively important because it is the first of what will be many. But beyond that, as Christians we have to understand as much as the legal consequences are going to be big. This ought to be a wake up call for us to understand. Well, just fundamentally, there's a difference between male and female. There's a difference in terms of the vulnerabilities. We've already spoken of the vulnerabilities that are overwhelmingly male when you look at these sextortion plots on social media platforms. But when it comes to this particular issue of body image, again, not exclusively female, but even as the secular press now understands, overwhelmingly female, okay, that's one thing. But as Christians, we need to take this to a far deeper level. And that means our responsibility. We need to ask the question, are we making clear that the worth of every single girl and young woman is not tied to any kind of secular, worldly understandings of beauty. It is tied to the fact that every single one of them is made in the image of God. Every single one of them can be beautiful, beautiful, biblically defined. I also want to note that the secular world has virtually no way to deal with this. It has no way to say this is based in an illusion, it's based in a distortion. It can say these are young women who are being victimized, girls who are being preyed upon. But it really can't answer the question as to why this is morally wrong. It's morally wrong because it holds up something that isn't real and says this is what's most important. It holds up a deliberate corruption of the image of God and of a biblical design of what it means to be human and what it means to be male and female. And it presents this in such a way that it's Causing very real harm to very real girls and young women and the rest of the world. The secular world, I think, is going to have a very difficult time grounding an argument against this in anything other than documentable harm. This is something we need to watch. We're living in a secular age in which many people don't believe it's a harm until some court says it's a harm. And frankly, behavior doesn't change until some kind of court decision requires that kind of change. Some kind of liability exposes a company to a vulnerability, they decide it's just not worth it. The fact is that as Christians, we have to come at this at a far deeper level. We will never meet a fellow human being who does not bear full dignity and full worth simply because every single human being, male and female, is made in the image of God. The other thing Christians need to think about here is how we need to affirm those who are in particular need of this affirmation. Every girl, every daughter, every sister, every friend needs to know that in the body of Christ we see the beauty that God has put there, the beauty that God has declared that and created for his glory. And we need to make very clear that if no one else on earth remains sane on these issues, the church of the Lord Jesus Christ must Christian parents just please understand this. And even as you know how much you love your own children, just remember you need to help them to think biblically about these categories. And this trial, if nothing else, is a great wake up call for parents that there are others who are seeking to get to our own children and, and to feed them with lies, devastating lies. All right, now let's turn to questions. I appreciate all questions sent in by listeners and frankly, I'm fascinated by them. I appreciate the fact that so many listeners entrust me with these questions and so many of them. The most interesting of them come from young people. So this is a question from a 16 year old boy. Okay? So just factor that in as you hear this question. Quote, I listened to your briefing about gambling a while back and it made me think of this gambling website called Polymarket. And he goes on to say that there's a current wager on whether or not Jesus will come back before 2027. This young man says it looks like a win win theoretically, because either you win by winning the bet or you win by Jesus coming back. He says, so it doesn't matter that you lost. He says, quote, I think this would be a sin, but I wanted to ask you what you think and your Reasoning for your opinion. Thanks. Well, first of all, to this young man, I want to say thanks for the question and it's really helpful and by the way, it's clever. So I didn't see this one coming. And I especially appreciate questions that have a turn in them I did not see coming. I didn't see Jesus coming back in 2027 as a Poly market issue. And it makes perfect sense because defined the way those platforms want to define it, it's about a wager on how events in real time will unfold. So let me just say, you know, it is a real fact that Jesus Christ is returning bodily in space and time and history. But I don't know when. But the wagering issue is the issue and this young man recognizes it. He says, I think it would be wrong to bet even though in one sense you can't lose. Well, I just want to say there are a couple of very big biblical considerations here. Number one, when you say you can't lose when you're talking about something like the return of the Lord Jesus Christ to judge the nations and to claim his church, I'll just say that I don't think that should be susceptible to wagering under any circumstance. And frankly, whether there's money involved or not. But there's also a complexity here. And so I want to speak to the 16 year old and say I really appreciate you asking this question because it points out something and that is that if it's a simple wager, say something just in your mind that can be relatively uncomplicated. But if it is a financial transaction, it involves others and that means a web of complexity. And so quite frankly, you're going to be playing in a game. You're going to be engaged in a platform in which speculation about the return of the Lord Jesus Christ is turned into a wager. In other words, you would be contributing to the larger problem. And I guess I would explain that by saying you're facilitating others also involved in the market, also involved in gambling. And that just leads to all kinds of things. This is almost never a one time event. That's the big problem with repetitive sin, which is also, and I think this is an overused word, I'm going to use the word addictive. I do not mean that in the way the therapeutic culture always wants to do it, but let's just say people like it, they get an adrenaline kick from it and they just keep coming back. There's another issue here, and I especially appreciate the fact this young man is a believer and I want to say believer to believer, heart to heart, it's this. When the Lord Jesus Christ comes back in glory to judge the nations and to claim his church. I don't think you're going to want to have to answer for wagering on when the Lord would return. I'll just put it that bluntly. And you sense that already you've indicated that in the question. I want to thank you again for sending the question because it could prompt a lot of Christians to think more Christianly about the same issue. Okay. A senior man wrote to ask me a question about Islam. He said, quote, our Constitution guarantees us freedom of religion, the right to worship any person, God or thing we desire. How do we square that with Islam, a religion that physically threatens every other faith or belief? It seems that Islamists are using our constitutional freedom to force others to renounce their faith and convert. He says that our guaranteed right may become a catch 22. Okay, so I think this raises a host of issues. So I don't know how to take some of the individual parts separately here. Let me just look at the big question of our constitutional freedom of religious liberty. And let's also speak of the reality of Islam. So here is where I appreciate this question because it allows me to say that I think some clarification and some basic Christian honesty is necessary here. And that is that there are religious belief systems that would undermine the entire civilization, the entirety of Western civilization in general, and would subvert American constitutional order. So if you take orthodox Islam, you just take Quranic Islam, it very clearly calls for the victory of Islam over all other civilizations. Because Islam is a unity. You don't have a separation of mosque and state. It is a unity under an ummah. And when you understand that, you see that anything Western has to be provisional. Any kind of, say, U.S. constitution in an Islamic context has to be provisional. I don't believe the founders of the United States, I believe the framers of the Constitution had any adequate understanding, because I don't think they had any adequate fear that there would be a sizable number of Muslims, or anyone else for that matter, in terms of religions far, far away. And so, for example, historians like Mark John hall have done a very good job of pointing out that the vast majority of Americans would have been categorized as Christian, at least in terms of, of their historic religious tradition. If nothing else, the vast majority would have been. And by vast majority, we're talking about upwards of 90% would have been Protestant Christians at the time of the founding of the nation. And even the framing of the Constitution. And so the reality that they were facing is this overwhelming Protestant Christian consensus and majority. And so quite honestly, they never foresaw a situation in which there would be, for instance, the imposition of Sharia law in at least some neighborhoods in American cities. That would have been inconceivable. And so I think we clearly have a collision here. I think the political left, it will not admit the nature of this collision because that would bring so many of its arguments into absolute disaster. So instead they want to argue in a communitarian basis that all of this can still happen. But of course, the Islam that they want to protect is a liberal Islam that isn't at all really tied to historic Islam. And so you look at Mayor Mamdani in New York City and he's declared to be Muslim. I'm in no position to say he isn't a Muslim. I can, however, look at the Quran and say he is not following the dictates of the Quran in terms of, say, his abortion position or his support for same sex marriage. But let's just also say that the vast majority of Muslims around the world are not confused about what they believe the Quran teaches and what kind of civilizational order should be put in place. So how I do see this as a collision, I think, in other words, I want to say to this listener, I think you understand a crucial problem. Long term. Given a sufficient number of Muslims, I think there would be inevitably a constitutional crisis. I don't think I've ever put it just in those words before, but I will repeat it. I think if there is a sufficient number or percentage of Muslims in this country, and if they represent historic Quranic Islamic, there will be some sort of a constitutional crisis. I don't see that on the near horizon, but I think it's intellectual dishonesty to say it's impossible. Okay, next, a question from a listener in Indiana. Very kind words. And then quote, my question today is about the use of AI. How do we decide when it's okay to use AI? He says I use it a lot for coding because I'm a chemist and when I have to code, it's infrequent or frustrating. He says he has a couple of different thoughts here. Number one, am I being lazy? Do I need to man up and learn more and never use AI? Or B, I'm using the tools at my disposal to accomplish the task. So there's nothing inherently sinful about using AI as long as it's not for. Well. He goes on to say things that would be wrong. He says he sees these options as two ends of a spectrum. And he says he's wondering if I can provide some guidance to land in the middle. Okay, so really appreciate the question. I don't intend to land in the middle. I want to think biblically about this. And so let me just say something. There were those who made the argument that the invention of the internal combustion engine was wrong because it meant that some human labor wasn't as necessary. There were even some people who argued that the Genesis 3 curse, in which human men are given the assignment to labor, that it was a shortcut if you used a truck to carry the load rather than merely human labor. Let me just say, in essence, that's at least part of the radical Anabaptist simplicity. Even the Amish or someone like that, that indeed there's a dignity to labor, and machines really subvert that dignity. Okay, so I'm just gonna say that I flew in a plane to be at the conference, or I'm speaking today. I rode in the car. I'm sitting in a building. There's a lot of machinery going on here. We don't worship the machinery, but we do use it. And consider that a part of the Genesis Dominion mandate. Okay, so then there were people who said, you know, the use of computers is wrong because, like. Like these massive calculations. And by the way, some of what they said wasn't stupid. Like, you know, who needs. Who needs certain kinds of math anymore? You have computers to do it. Well, I think most of us will admit the computers are doing a lot of the math. Do I think that has subverted human dignity? I don't think so. But at the same time, every one of these inventions has come with the capacity to do both good and evil, and every one of them has come with both good and evil. You can use a truck to carry produce to a market. You can use a truck for nefarious purposes, like human trafficking. You can use the Internet. Well, you already know this already for good. Or you can use it to accomplish evil or just to dive into evil. When it comes to artificial intelligence, I do really appreciate this listener sending the question, because AI seems to be different. I want to tell you why I think you're right to see it as different. No one's going to confuse a truck with a human being. No one's going to confuse a personal computer with a human being. The biggest problem with artificial intelligence is when it poses as a human being or is treated as a human being. And so here's the big danger from AI, it is the. The confusion of what it means to be human. It's not so much the confusion about the machine, it's the confusion about what it means to be human, human dignity, human moral agency. And so, you know, using artificial intelligence to do mundane calculating tasks. I don't see that as a theological problem. I don't see it as a theological problem. When it comes to efficiency for certain kinds of procedures, you know, automation and other things having to do with, you know, updating factories and all the rest, I don't see that as a problem. I see it as a problem when there is a subversion or a confusion between the machine and the human being, that's a problem. And so when you're talking about the kinds of calculations I see you mentioning here, I'm not sure that's fundamentally a different theological and ethical question than using a computer in the first place, which might not be that much of a difference between using a handheld calculator with just a few keys on it. But on the other hand, the big danger of artificial intelligence is that there are people who are confusing human intelligence with machine intelligence. There are people who are being seduced and manipulated by chatbots thinking they're human beings. You have machines posing as human beings, confused as human beings. You also have many of the prophets and the purveyors of artificial intelligence who are basically invested in that confusion, furthering that confusion, and even promising there's going to be a day when these machines are going to replace human beings and fully replace human labor. Okay, if that happens, that is a direct attempt to subvert creation order, by the way, not just as a result of the Fall, but even the beginnings of creation order, where human beings were put in the garden and were told to use it and to exercise dominion over it. So it's a huge question. I think the big issue is the confusion of what it means to be human. It is the artificial platforms that frankly can pose as human beings to great, great injury to people, and it is the subversion of human moral agency. I think those are the big issues, and they're going to continue to be issues. It doesn't sound to me like they're necessarily issues in AI as you are talking about using it here. But I think the fact that you're asking these questions is itself an extremely healthy sign. All right. Finally for today, a question sent in by a homeschool mom of four. It's just so sweet. A Christian wife and homeschool mom of four. She's troubled in her conscience because she Says looking back to the time when she was 20 years old, she said, I didn't vote. I didn't care. She said, I couldn't have told you who was the vice president or the Secretary of state. Fourteen years later, she says she's a Christian wife and homeschool mom of four who, quote, now very much pays attention to politics and the happenings in the world. She says ever since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, she's been watching the response, the madness and the chaos, and. And she says, quote, it has left me feeling a bit depressed and at times frustrated. I feel the temptation to just get rid of the Internet, forget about it all, and focus on my responsibilities at home. My question is this. How much thought should a Christian wife and mother reasonably give the events and politics out in the world? She says, my main mission field is my home, but I know the answer isn't to bury my head in the sand and only be concerned with what's going on inside my four walls. Well, let me tell you what I love about this question. This homeschool mom and wife with such a sweet spirit writes in, asks a question, and then answers it accurately. It's such a sweet thing that she actually does answer the question. In asking the question, she understands that her main mission field is her home. But she says she can't bury her head in the sand and only be concerned with what's going on in those four walls. And you know, that's exactly the answer. Putting these things in proportion is not easy. And so this mom knows she was wrong when she was 20 years old. Didn't vote, didn't care, didn't know much. But you know what? It'd also be wrong for a faithful wife and Christian homeschool mom of four to be primarily interested with the things of the world other than the things right in her own home. And this mom knows it so sweetly and it comes through so clearly. And I understand how we can be troubled in spirit, how we can be quite fatigued and disturbed by these events. And one of the things we have to watch is that kind of fatigue and disturbance interfering with the most precious relationships we have, the relationships between a husband and a wife and parents and children in the household. But there's another aspect to this, and that is that this mom says that she knows the answer isn't to bury her head in the sand, to be only concerned with what's going on inside your four walls. I just want to tell you, I think that's. That's absolutely right, but I want to give you a little ammunition here it is. Because as a Christian mom, a Christian wife, and as a homeschool mom of four, you are not raising those children to stay at home. You're raising those children to be faithful in the world. And one of the ways you can most teach them how to be faithful in the world is by modeling what it means to be faithful in the world, by the way, with all the complexities and all the perplexities and, you know, all the steps forward and the steps back. I think being honest about that is just a great Christian example. And I am very confident, by the way. I understand how we can be depressed and disillusioned and how we can grieve even certain events, certainly rightly grieve the assassination of Charlie Kirk. We also understand that we're in this battle for the long haul, especially when it comes to raising children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. And keeping these things in perspective isn't easy, which is one of the reasons why we need to have these kinds of conversations. But I just want to come back to the fact that what encouraged me so much about this letter is this sweet mom asking the question and basically answering it. You know, even that sharing that is a great exercise for us all. It ought to instruct us all and encourage us all. Well, that's all we can take for today, but we're always glad to get your letters. Just write me@mailbertmohler.com as always. Again, I deeply appreciate the trust invested by listeners in sending these questions. You're sending them not only for yourself, by the way, but for us all. 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.comalbertmoler for information on the Southern Baptist Theological seminary, go to sbgs.edu. for information on Boyce College, just go to Boyce College. I'm speaking to you from Los Angeles, California, and I'll meet you again on Monday for the briefing.