Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign. It's Monday, June 29, 2026. I'm Albert Mohler and this is the Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. It was last Wednesday night that terror struck in the nation of Venezuela. Two earthquakes. It was not immediately understood that it was two. Pretty quickly it was determined that it was two different earthquakes on two different faults. And we're talking about a tremendous amount of devastation. And we are now reaching the end of the stage in which it is likely that survivors can be taken alive out of the wreckage. And that is leading to a great deal of grief there in Venezuela. And we can understand the scale of the disaster is simply huge. We are talking about the government currently acknowledging about 1,500 deaths. That's documented deaths, but there are about 50,000 Venezuelans who are missing. You look at the photographs in the video, you're looking at major buildings, entire complexes that have just fallen in on themselves. And you are looking at the inevitability, what happens when massive physical forces unleashed and not just one, but two major earthquakes go up against, say, multi story concrete buildings. Now, there is a lot for us to consider here. The first thing we have to consider is the human grief, the human loss, the human pain going on in this. And we should have our minds and hearts directed toward the nation of Venezuela, toward the people of Venezuela, toward the understanding that there is enormous suffering. And that suffering is compounded by the fact that the government is, as you know, not a highly efficient and competent government. That's the reason why you had a U.S. intervention. You now have not a president, but an acting president. And of course you had Nicolas Maduro taken into custody. A lot, a lot of headlines out of Venezuela. But it's also true that the United States has been trying to establish friendlier relations with Venezuela. And that's going to be really important. American aid is going to be absolutely crucial because the people of Venezuela are facing one of the biggest natural disasters in modern times and they simply do not have the wherewithal to deal with it themselves. This is where the United States can do enormous good. This is where the people, the citizens of the United States understand this kind of need. And there is tremendous public support, I'm glad to say that, tremendous moral support for the nation helping out. It's also true that you have a lot of other nations which are in better shape than Venezuela, including some that are across the oceans that are showing up with materiel, showing up with help, showing up with medical experts, showing up with the kind of machinery and engineering to be able to move massive concrete ruins. So the first thing we need to do is respond with prayer and concern for the people of Venezuela. We also need to understand how this fits into human history. Earthquakes have been a long standing plague against humanity, a long standing problem. And when you're talking about this series of earthquakes, you're talking about something called a doublet. And what makes it all the more frightening is that it wasn't just one fault quaking twice. It wasn't a major earthquake and an aftershock. It apparently was one quake on one fault, setting off a much larger earthquake on a second fault. So just look at this. You had the Caribbean plate moving into the South American plate. That's the tectonic issue that creates all this stress. That's why Venezuela is so vulnerable to this kind of earthquake. You have several fault lines. Two, the fault lines intersect, or at least are extremely close, a matter of as close in proximity as 3 miles. We are told either one of these earthquakes on either one of these fault lines taken alone would have been a major earthquake. With devastation coming together. We're talking about massive devastation, devastation. I want to talk for just a moment about how this is factored into human history and into Christian history, into church history, into theological history, into worldview history. Let's just think of it in these terms. So obviously earthquakes have been known to human beings for a very long time. Although it was not something that was easily explained by the ancients. It was one of those natural phenomena that would come with tremendous devastation. But more or less like the eruption of volcanoes, even though it came with such explosive force, there was very little weight that the ancients could predict or even understand some of the basic physics that were involved. And by the way, that is true on earthquakes, even to the point that many of the buildings that basically crumbled in the earthquake there in Venezuela, many of them were built before some of the current knowledge about the physics of earthquakes was available, which is to say in the United States. Quite frankly, the time in which a building was built has a great deal to do with what kind of knowledge is built into the engineering and the architecture. Now there's more to it, as we're going to see when it comes to Venezuela. But while we are thinking about how worldview crises have emerged because of earthquakes, we need to understand there's one that looms largest in Western history, the history of Western civilization, and that is the horrifying Lisbon earthquake of the year 1755. Okay, it may be that with 50,000 missing, this horrifying series of earthquakes. The two earthquakes, the pair there in Venezuela, may rank along with Lisbon. The death toll from Lisbon in Spain itself was between 30 and 40,000. It was estimated that another 10,000 died in Morocco, there in North Africa. So you're talking about a massive earthquake that had effect in more than one nation. But the epicenter was in Portugal. It was in Lisbon. And it really was a horrifying situation. So horrifying that it led to a crisis in Christian theology, at least among some, some among the intellectual elites, and of course, we're now into the Enlightenment. They had to have a rational explanation for all of this. They demanded a rational explanation for not only how the earthquake happened, but why it happened then and there and killed these people. And that led to a theological crisis. And quite frankly, it also led to some who abandoned Christianity. It led to some who basically gave themselves to what would later be defined as theological liberalism. They simply wanted to say God didn't have anything to do with this. This flies in the face of the notion of a good and sovereign God. So I just want to say earthquakes can sometimes come with devastating consequences. And some of those consequences are worldview consequences, sometimes even theological consequences. And this is where we have to measure our theology, not by our experience, but by divine revelation, by the word of God. And this is where we come to understand that in a fallen world, there are natural evils. Okay, so that gets to another distinction. It's the distinction in Christian theology in terms of what's bad, what's evil. When we talk about evil, what are we talking about? Well, it comes in two different forms. It requires two different understandings. The first is moral evil. And you see this show up really quickly. I mean, this is Adam and Eve taking of the fruit. This is Cain killing Abel. We're talking about moral evil. They're acts undertaken by moral agents, most importantly, by human beings. And you know how early this comes. Even in a human infant, even in just a little baby, a toddler, you can see how this works. And then you see in the most horrifying headlines of our own time the dramatic evil of moral evil. But there is also what is often referred to as natural evil. And this means something that comes with an evil effect, but there is no human agent to blame. And so hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, for that matter, naturally occurring plagues and such things as that, injuries that come by no human agency. All of those things just remind us that we live in a fallen world, a world of many dangers, toils and snares. It is a world in which the effects of sin are not only those that show up in moral evil, but in natural evil as well. So theologically, if we ask the question, why did this earthquake take place with such devastation? It is a result of creation groaning under the weight of sin. That is the biblical definition. But that doesn't mean that biblically committed Christians aren't interested in the natural data as well. We're very interested in the fact that this was not just one, but two earthquakes on just not one, but two fault lines. It does have something to do with our ideas about where we would, say, build a building or how we would build a building or where we would put a village or a town and how we would build that town. And you can count on the fact on the other side of this disaster, the nation of Venezuela is going to have to be thinking through many of those things. But, of course, right now, they're just dealing with grief and with the urgency of trying to rescue as many people as possible. There is one other issue. It is very interesting that even the secular press and even the more liberal press has really picked up on this, and that is the fact that you are also looking at a nation that was economically weakened by all of those years of basically Marxist, socialist and autocratic mismanagement. And, you know, mismanagement comes with consequences. And sadly to say, some of those consequences show up when an earthquake happens and buildings toppled. They looked secure. They were not. Lots of investigations will come out of this, but again, everything in due course. Right now, the big issue is to rescue as many people as possible who, after all, have been trapped in much of this rubble for a very long time now. And time is running out. That's just the way human beings are. It cannot last without food and water and especially if badly injured, for very long. That adds to the moral urgency, of course, there in Venezuela. Next we come back to the United States. We are in the last days of June, and that means many things. But one of the things it means is that the decisions to be handed down by the Supreme Court are likely coming in the next days or even hours. That is because the justices generally go into a summer recess and about the first of July. So that means they've got to release some of these cases and decisions. And by the way, there's some big decisions coming, transgender issues, all kinds of issues coming. But just last week, the Supreme Court released not one, but two decisions having to do with the Trump administration, executive power in issues related to immigration and what is called temporary protective status, or tps, which is a Special category under the legal definition of asylum. Okay, so. So that was put into place a matter of years ago, indeed almost a generation ago. It was put in place as a humanitarian intervention, and it was done by legislation through Congress. This temporary status, temporary protection status was put in place in order that you could have, say, people from a certain area who were in a certain kind of danger, and they'd be allowed entry into the United States in a lawful entry, not a naturalization process, not a permanent process, but. But a temporary relocation to the United States because of some kind of clear and present danger. And you're looking at Haiti as one of the nations that was most represented here. And President Trump and his administration have been saying that temporary is run out. They're basically saying that you're looking at all of these years, this temporary status was intended to be temporary. And they are starting, certainly they're initiating procedures in order to remove many of these people. And there's political pushback. But the Supreme Court handed down not one, but two decisions on cases related to this. Both of them came down six, three. The six conservatives on one side, the three more liberal justices on the other. I think the New York Times got it right when in a front page article, they said, quote, taken together, the court's conservative majority signaled deference to the president's ability to set the nation's immigration policy. As the justices prepare in the coming days to issue more rulings that will decide how much power to give Mr. Trump across his boundary pushing agenda. Two different cases. So two decisions were handed down, as I said, both six, three. The first had to do with the Trump administration's intentions to end humanitarian protections. That's that temporary status. And specifically for people who came from Haiti and Syria, of course, many of them have been now in the country more than a decade. And so the point of the Trump administration is that this was intended to be temporary. But, you know, at least some of the people who put the legislation in place, at least what they're saying now, and some of the people who came and have stayed, it appears that their definition of temporary is more permanent. And by the way, some of the people on the political left have been pretty clear about the fact that their definition of temporary is permanent. The court came back with a second case, also six to three. And this one, as the Times says, was a separate decision in which the court, quote, said the Trump administration could turn away migrants seeking asylum along the US Border by physically preventing them from crossing into the United States as they sought protection from persecution. Okay, so that's kind of stilted. I'll just say that's a slanted way of reporting it. But, you know, it's true in the facts. But it is also just a matter of logic. And so here there are several things that come into play. And, you know, if the Congress wants to re legislate the immigration question, and I think it bears a lot of responsibility for failing to do that, quite frankly, in terms of a national interest immigration policy, which would also be a humane immigration policy, I think the United States is capable of both. I think what we have right now is a legacy of decades in which immigration, legal and illegal, has been in many ways, out of any rational control, but especially illegal entry. And the Biden administration blew that up even bigger. And that's part of the reason why I think President Trump was elected to a second term in 2024, and that's why he's taking this action. And by the way, I think an enormous number of Americans just believe it's right. If you have legislated a temporary status, it needs to be temporary. And we're not just talking about, say, two or three years. We're talking about multiple years and more than a decade in many of these cases. As I say, it's clear the Democrats basically want them to stay. Their definition of temporary is permanent. And I think that's just not reasonable. And that's what the conservative majority on the court said. They said temporary means temporary. In the second case, they also said, look, the border is a border, and so it's not fair if people on the other side of the border or right at the border can claim basic rights. That would be due to someone inside the United States, that the Trump administration has the actual constitutional authority to stop people before they enter the United States. Now, let me just say once again, you have to think about what would logically be the opposite position. It would be unconstitutional for the officers of the United States to stop someone from entering the country. Instead, to have to allow them to enter and then to have to come up with some kind of understanding of what to do, even if the vast majority of people would be sent back. In other words, they didn't qualify by the parameters set by immigration policy or even refugee policy. All I'm saying is we are looking at a mess here. It's also interesting that in the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, he also pointed out that in the legislation, it said that judges had no right to grant judicial review to the process. In other words, congress more than 30 years ago said that Judges were to have nothing to do with intervening in these individual cases. And the Supreme Court just basically read back to Congress what Congress adopted in the legislation. It just shows you that words matter. And I appreciate the fact that for the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, words matter. Now, this issue isn't going to go away. And by the way, this is one of the most pressing issues, one of the most pressing moral and political issues in so many countries. Just look at the political chaos going on in much of Europe, a lot of it over this issue. And just to take one nation, just look at the United Kingdom, look at Britain, and see the rising and falling of governments having at least something to do with the immigration policy. And you're also looking at a continent that largely had no control over immigration by act of will, not by act of some kind of invading force. And in the United States, as in Europe, these issues, one way or the other, are going to have to be adjudicated. And there are huge worldview issues at stake. And given due time, we'll talk about those issues. But right now, the issue was the Constitution of the United States and the legislation adopted by Congress. And the conservative majority came back and said that temporary means temporary. It's more than just a hint. Okay, a couple of things we're going to have to watch coming back to the United States. A lot of the conversation going into the weekend had to do with legislation adopted in Texas and a curricular report that was released there in Texas. And so the headline in the New York Times is Texas Adds Bible Verses to School Reading List. The Associated Press, what to know about the Push to make Bible Stories Required reading in Texas public Schools. You had headline after headline, the Independent in the United Kingdom. Texas is pushing forward with plans to make parts of the Bible required reading in public classrooms. Well, just think about it for a moment. Is this so radical? Let's just ask ourselves, is this radical? You know, you have people in the strict separationist camp, which I'll just say are the secularizing secularist camp, and they are saying that it is a horrible, unconstitutional violation of what they call the separation of church and state to have the Holy Bible read in any sense, to have Bible verses or any text from the Bible as a part of the public school curriculum. Now, let me just remind you that throughout most of the history of the United States of America, there was no question that the Bible was a part of the curriculum one way or the other. And as a matter of fact, the Christian roots of Western civilization and the Christian roots of the American experiment were something that required some understanding of Scripture and I'll say still requires some understanding of scripture. And it basically was that civics impulse that was driving legislators and the state government there in Texas. How in the world can you be an informed citizen if you have no idea about the most foundational text of Western civilization and something that was massively influential in terms of the American founding and in terms of the national experiment? And then you have a secularizing ideology, a secularist ideology that emerges in the 20th century and tries to shut all that down. But you know what? History just has too much inconvenient evidence for this secularist position. It just will not hold water. It's very interesting to see these secular groups that see themselves as the watch people on the wall in terms of the wall of separation between church and state. And that's the metaphor they love. It was used in only one letter by only one president, Thomas Jefferson. And by the way, Jefferson, in his own personal, let's just say, practices, including attending religious services in US Government buildings, Thomas Jefferson used that metaphor. But even he, and I'll simply say he was more radical on these issues than most of the founders. Even he wasn't really represented by any kind of absolute separation of church and state. Most of the founders articulated the fact they didn't think a society was possible, nor would the American experiment survive without basically a moral structure which was explicitly Christian. And you had explicit statements such as the fact that this political order requires a biblical commitment and a Christian morality. And this constitution, as one of the founders said, was written for just such a people, such a people shaped by Christianity. It would work for no other people. And that's something we're going to have to talk about and we're going to have to come back to again and again. But it is very interesting to see the secularists not only break out in hives, but quite frankly declare defcon ultimate level. Because just having some Bible texts along with many other writings, I mean, like Charlotte's Web, as a part of the curriculum, they're claiming that this is an unconstitutional disaster. And I think what it reveals more than anything else is the secular antipathy towards the Christian roots of Western civilization. And that means towards Christianity. Yes, but they really want to rewrite all of Western civilization. And the United States is very much a part of that Western civilizational project. They want to rewrite it in explicitly secular terms. But let's just say facts matter, texts matter, words spoken at the time matter. The very fact is that the vast majority of Americans at The time of, say, the ratification of the Constitution were not only identified as Christians, but they were identified as Protestant Christians. And as many historians will point out, even that in a fairly limited spectrum. Now, there were others, including some Roman Catholics and some Jewish citizens. But the fact is, it was not only an overwhelmingly Christian nation. We're talking about, well, more than 90% of the population in the founding era being Protestant Christians. That was the worldview that held up everything else. Okay, so at almost the same time, you had the release of a massive report from the Presidential Religious Liberty Commission. This was a commission that President Trump put in place about a year ago, and it came back with its report. The report's about 200 pages long. It has a lot of good things in it. For one thing, it kind of sets the record straight, but it also points to some very needed policies, such as supporting parents, supporting religious people. Let's just put it that way. People of deep religious faith. And of course, people are saying, well, that means the majority will be Christian, therefore it's. It is basically a government support of Christianity. No, it is a very clear statement, and I appreciate what the President's commission has done here. It's a very clear statement of the fact that what you have in the United States is a society that depends upon a preexisting moral order and moral authority. And there simply is no doubt that it wasn't just religion, but it was explicitly Christianity that provided that moral order. There's just some really good material in this, and we will be coming back to this in months ahead. But, for instance, let's listen to this. Among our conclusions, we believe that safeguarding religious liberty requires more than defending legal rights after they've been violated. It requires cultivating a culture that understands why those rights exist in the first place. It requires correcting misconceptions about the Constitution, strengthening conscience protections, ensuring equal treatment under the law, and fostering renewed appreciation for the manifestly positive role of religion and. And building up the infinite richness of American life. End quote. Okay. I think that is classically written. Absolutely true. And it is nitroglycerin in a highly secular society. So let's just watch what happens. Let me tell you, the dividing lines are going to become very, very clear. Just take the Texas curriculum dividing line. Just take the president's commission report. We'll talk more about it in time ahead. But it's a dividing line. And you know what a dividing line does? It divides. Now, one final issue as we close today. Sometimes you come across an absolutely authoritative, credible press report. That sounds like it's written as satire or sarcasm. Parody. And I want to point to an article that appeared in the New York Times. Here's the headline, Pro Transgender Candidate is chased from a Trans Rights Event over Gaza. Okay, folks, we can't pass this up again. The headline, Pro Transgender Candidate is chased from a Trans Rights Event over Gaza. The next text in the article says Scott Weiner, who is running to replace Nancy Pelosi, was surrounded by a small group of protesters shouting invective before a transgender march in San Francisco. Okay, listen to the lead in this article. You're going to want to hear this. I quote, scott Weiner is a Democratic member of the California Senate and a prominent gay politician who has championed significant state legislation to expand the rights of transgender people. But late Friday afternoon, as Mr. Weiner was on his way to a pride Shabbat service led by a transgender rabbi, he was run out of San Francisco's annual trans march by protesters accusing him of endorsing genocide in Gaza, end quote. So, in other words, he has at least some level of support for Israel and therefore he's accused of supporting genocide in Gaza. But this is a liberal who tries to be as far on the left as he can be on virtually all these other issues. And he was on his way to a gay pride Jewish service led by a trans rabbi when he was run away from San Francisco's annual trans march. Yes, there is such a thing. And you already know where it was by protesters accusing him of having the wrong position on Israel and Gaza. So that's what's happening on the left. You can be a gay activist, a trans activist on the way to a trans celebrating pride affirming Jewish service. You can go to a service led by a trans rabbi, but it's the Jewish part that is the offense to people on the left now. And so you get chased away from the trans parade. That is one of the strangest parables of our times. Where do it happen? But San Francisco. Who would report on it by the New York Times? There it is. Everybody has a line they draw. And this gay activist, trans activist on the way to a gay pride Shabbat service led by a trans rabbi had the wrong position on Israel. So he is out of the trans parade. Go home. One of the activists just yelled at him, you do not belong here anymore, Scott, end quote. Presumably, he got the message. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website@albertmuller.com youm can follow me on X or Twitter by going to x.comalbertmohler for 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 tomorrow for the briefing.