Loading summary
Transcript15 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign It's Tuesday, December 2, 2025. I'm Albert Mohler, and this is the Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. Sometimes issues are what they appear to be. Sometimes there's a lot more to the issue than first appears. And that's exactly what is the case right now. The Supreme Court of the United States is hearing what some people consider to be a religious liberty and free speech case. I think that's true. And others see it as something quite different. And we're talking about the case that has to do with so called conversion therapy. Whether or not a state can declare that speech that suggests that someone ought to have a different sexual attraction or sexual orientation, whether that ought to be protected under the Constitution or outlawed, because those are the two options. You can recognize that kind of speech as protected by free speech and religious liberty, or you can come back and say, no, no, the state has the right to say, no one can ever make that argument to anybody. And in particular, when it comes to teenagers, to minors, okay, what we have seen over the course of the last several years, indeed, you could say the last several decades, is that the activists.
- [01:18]
B
For the LGBTQ community have sought to.
- [01:21]
A
Eliminate even any speech against their position.
- [01:25]
B
Any kind of public advocacy, and they do that by social pressure. But they also have done that, at least have attempted to do that with categories such as hate speech. And at least on American college and university campuses, at least for a while, they made a lot of progress. And arguably a lot of those policies, even if they're not called that anymore, are still in place. Just an effort to shut down any consideration, any kind of legitimate conversation in the professional context. This has also been something that has been pushed within the professional societies.
- [01:57]
A
Psychiatry, child psychiatry, pediatrics.
- [02:01]
B
You go down the list where these things would apply. And you also have had states that have adopted, especially when it comes to the regulation of those professions. And that's the case that is presented to the Supreme Court. That is a Christian counselor. And in order to operate as a counselor in the state of Colorado, you have to avoid any kind of suggestion that someone ought to change the basic sexual orientation. And yet that is clearly, as the plaintiff in that case is making clear, that is clearly a violation of free speech. And I would go on to say, of religious liberty.
- [02:38]
A
So we're gonna have to wait and see what the Supreme Court of the United States does with it. But it is very interesting to see that advocates for the LGBTQ community aren't wa. For the ruling by the Supreme Court in order to start framing their response. So it is interesting that a response recently appeared at the Guardian, that's a liberal newspaper in England, coming from David Kirp, who is professor emeritus at University of California, Berkeley. And here's the headline in the essay. Gay conversion therapy should be consigned to history. In the US it can make a comeback. So here's a scare headline. And by the way, these can appear in liberal papers or in conservative media. It's a way of getting attention. And on the left, this is a surefire way of getting attention. Gay conversion therapy should be consigned to history. And in the US it could make a comeback. That is the dire warning Kirp's article begins. Quote, Homosexuality is an illness that therapists can and should cure. That's the rationale for conversion therapy, a practice promoted as a way to change an individual's sexual orientation from gay to straight. He then goes on to say, but a host of studies conclude that such counseling doesn't work. Small wonder, since sexual orientation is a core part of an individual's identity. He goes on to say, it's also potentially harmful, especially for minors. Research. And of course, anytime you see experts or research, an alarm bell should go off. We need to pay attention to what kind of research, how credible the research, what kind of experts. Quote, research shows that that youth subjected to conversion practices, often at the insistence of misguided parents, are prone to depression, anxiety, drug use, homelessness, and suicide. The next line is the killer line. Until recently, this medieval practice seemed destined for the dustbin of discredited psychological theories. The bottom line in this article, meaning to sound the alarm, is that it's back and it's bad and it's dangerous and it's called conversion therapy. Okay? It is really interesting at every single level. And it's connected to some other things that really should interest us. For one thing, let's look at the most basic issue here. And it is the claim that human beings, and I guess you could say post adolescence, that human beings have a so called sexual orientation that is attracted either to males or to females. And what we are being told now in the wake of the LGBTQ revolution, is that no moral judgment should be applied in either direction. It's just a matter of nature. Now, here's a little footnote that is often not acknowledged, and that is that for the course of the last several decades, gay activists, LGBTQ activists have been working hard to try to find find a biological or genetic marker that they could use to identify something that might be back in the 90s it was called the gay gene. No such discovery has been made. And so you have here the claim, in the wake of the LGBTQ revolution that they thought was irreversible and they thought would be total. They're absolutely appalled that something like conversion therapy could be back on the table. Because conversion therapy is what they call any effort to suggest that a man ought to be attracted to females and that a female ought to be attracted to males. And clearly, this is a line drawn in the sand. And the LGBTQ community cannot abide the idea that it might be constitutionally protected free speech for a Christian counselor to talk to a young person, because minors are at stake here, to a child, more likely a teenager, about these issues using an ought. The modern world has tried to reduce as many oughts as is possible. And when it comes to sex, the sexual revolutionaries are offended by the very idea of an ought. The only ought not they have currently on their list would be an ought not by consent. And that's just not good enough. Okay, so how should Christians think about this? Let's look at the argument. David Kirp is saying, you know, this is coming back, and it ought not to come back. He says that it is medieval. This medieval practice seemed destined for the dustbin of discredited psychological theories. Well, by the way, there really wasn't even a profession of psychology in the medieval age. But you know what? There was a pretty good idea in the medieval age that the distinction between males and females was categorical, and there was no one basically asking the question as to whether such things as marriage should be redefined. But let's just understand, medieval in this case is an attempt to try to say, back in the Dark Ages. So the propaganda effort here, it's easy to understand, and I think, unfortunately, probably very successful. But let's also just look at the idea that is being opposed here. Conversion therapy. Should Christians be for it or against it? Well, here's where we have to think a little harder than the surface level. So the surface level would say, yes, of course we should be for this, because we believe that gender is an ontologically fixed part of creation order. We are made male or female, and sex is intended within the context of marriage, which is the bringing together of a man and a woman in a relationship that is at least potentially tied to procreation. And thus the man and the woman are to come together and. And be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. And we are also told explicitly in Scripture that a sexual attraction to someone of the same gender is Categorically wrong. It is sinful, as Paul makes clear in Romans 1. It is an attempt to unravel creation order. Okay, so all that's really clear. So should we be for conversion therapy? And here's where I want us to think very carefully. I don't think we want to deny that sexual attraction is something that is very deep seated in the individual. I don't think we want to deny that some of these things are, at least in the experience of the individual, kind of discovered rather than sought. And I say that through years of working with folks and working with other Christians, trying to think these things through, an awful lot of people show up and simply say, I, I think this is who I am. And this is where Christians have to.
- [09:06]
B
Say, no, this is not who you are.
- [09:09]
A
But we understand that you didn't just one morning wake up and said, I think I'll be attracted this way.
- [09:15]
B
Something far more deep seated is taking place here. And so should we say to someone, say a male attracted to other males, should we say, don't do that? The answer is absolutely yes. On biblical authority? Absolutely yes. Should we say that that is a disordered attraction?
- [09:35]
A
Yes, that's exactly what we should say.
- [09:37]
B
That's exactly what the Apostle Paul makes clear again in Romans chapter one. Should we say, you should change your pattern of sexual attraction from another male to a female? And there's a sense in which we want to say yes to that too. But here's where I want to stop back and say, whatever sexual attraction is, whatever that profile of sexual attraction is, it is very deep seated. Now, I do not believe it is an ontological matter. And that requires a little unpacking. I don't believe it is a factor of creation order. I'm absolutely convinced it is not. And I also think it is not absolutely determinative for a human being. In other words, it's not just a fate, it is nonetheless a challenge. But it is only Christians, frankly, these days who see it as a challenge. The rest of the world says, no, let's just celebrate. No, Christians can't do that. And this is where when you look at something like conversion therapy, we have to come back and say, well, you know, the most important part of that.
- [10:37]
A
For the Christian is the conversion part.
- [10:38]
B
Not the therapy part.
- [10:40]
A
So we as Christians do believe that transformation, we would rightly biblically speak of that as sanctification, is not only possible, but it is a process taking place through the ordinary means of grace within the believer. And we are being sanctified, we're being made holy, we're being aligned to God's purposes for us. But as much as this article thinks of conversion therapy merely as converting from, say, homosexual to heterosexual, Christians have to understand the far more basic conversion we're talking about is the transformation that comes only by the Gospel, through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. And so when we think of this challenge, I have to say I don't think most Christians should place much confidence in any secular effort to try to redirect sexual attraction or sexual interest. I think that is going to be very, very difficult. I think biblical theology tells us that's going to be very, very difficult. However, we also have to say that when it comes to Christians to gospel people, it is not only possible, it is what should be sought after. But that also means that we have to fight for the right of a Christian counselor in particular to say to a young person, you ought not, which again, is one of the most fundamental biblical categories you should not remember the Ten Commandments comes in two directions in the old King James, thou shalt and thou shalt not. This is absolutely essential to the human condition, and it's absolutely central to the structure of God's law. And so what I want to point out is that I think Christians would agree that many wrongful things have been done in the name of conversion therapy. And I think some of them are too graphic even to discuss here. But I will say that at one point you had conversion therapy programs that were even using, say, heterosexual pornography to try to shift sexual interest. Obviously, that is not what Christians would endorse. But Christians have to understand there is much more at stake here than even the secular analysis on the other side would admit. They don't even see it. It is for us, more than anything else, a religious liberty issue. We have to be able to preach the whole counsel of God. We have to be able to apply the whole counsel of God in not only Christian counseling, but in a conversation between parents and children. Did you note that in this article the relationship of parents is exactly what comes up? And we are told that parents are a part of the problem here because they often seek this kind of Christian therapy and or Christian response. And by the way, this could come right down not only to any misplaced confidence in a therapy per se. I think we've registered a lot of concerns about the therapeutic revolution. The hope is not in the therapy. The hope has to be in the sanctifying work which is done by the Holy Spirit through the ordinary means of grace, such as the preaching of the Word of God. And the fellowship of the saints. All of this is essential to the gospel, but quite foreign from the secular conversation. But what this man fears, which is that this will be indeed declared by the Supreme Court to be a free speech issue and for us is also religious liberty issue. We have to hope that will happen. That's what he fears will happen. But I think the biggest shock to a lot of these folks is that here we are in 2025, headed into 2026, and this is still a live issue. They thought they had nailed it shut, but we should be very thankful the lid will not stay shut. All right, now I want to shift to thinking about gender for a moment, because there are just a couple of really important developments along these lines. One of them is a news report in the New York Times. Here's the headline. The transgender cancer patient and what she heard on tape. For this to make sense, I've got to read it like the New York Times reports it. But let's be really clear. The this is a man. This is a male body, and this is a claim that this man is now a woman. And thus the headline is what she heard on tape. And we are told that this individual, quote, had endured multiple tumors. The patient wondered what might be said during the cancer surgery. So the patient used a cell phone to record what took place during the surgery. And I'm just gonna assume this is all accurate. The New York Times is not gonna run it unless they're absolutely certain this is acc. That means, I believe, they had access to the data itself. And so what did the surgeons say during this surgery? You're supposed to be appalled. I think you're actually going to be pretty confirmed, but you're supposed to be appalled. Okay, so the patient was identified as female. Right? The patient's identified as female. According to the LGBTQ ideology, The patient is undergoing surgery, and a member of the surgical team speaks of the patient saying that the patient, quote, still has man parts, end quote. So there you go. That would appear to be absolutely proof positive that this is a man. It also turns out that medically, that's pretty important. Okay, so one member of the surgical team said, quote, I don't get any of it. And another one, speaking of the patient's profile, said, yeah, it needs to say male. It turns out that in matters of surgery, that might actually be important. Okay, so the medical records were changed in this context from F, meaning female, to male, meaning male, because the patient under surgery and in that situation was noticed to still have man parts. And at that point, it was evidently medically significant. And so the doctors or the surgical team changed the designation from F to M. And once conscious, this patient wants to change it back from M to F. And the hospital reports, that's not going to be easy. Okay? So I'm just going to pause here and say, let me just tell you why it's not going to be easy. It's not going to be easy because that surgical team did surgery on a man. They did surgery on a male body. It turns out that medically, they thought that was significant. As a matter of fact, they thought it was so significant that the F, meaning female, on the patient's chart must be wrong. And that might actually be medically dangerous. What you see here is the absolute insanity of the transgender revolution. And so even last night, when I was deep into some of this material, I saw reference to the fact that the transgender argument has now reached the point where there should be no conditionality whatsoever. You don't say that the boy thinks he's a girl. Now you simply have to say, that person is a girl. You just have to make it. Like, with your speech, you can make it a reality. And, you know, that's a part of the entire transgender ideology. If you can just state it and put an exclamation point at the end of it, you can make it true. But you know what? In the middle of surgery, when someone looks under the sheet, you know what? It's not F, it's M. All right, I just found that really, really interesting. I'm not going to go further into the story, but the whole point is, you're supposed to be appalled that this medical team can tell the difference between male and female and actually thought that it might be important. Another headline news story you would think has nothing to do with the LGBTQ revolution, the sexual revolution. I think it does. And it's on the front of the money section of USA Today just last Wednesday. And so here's the headline quote, dot's new crash test dummy is a female. Now, DOT means Department of Transportation. So we're being told that the Department of transportation. That's the U.S. government, the Transportation Department's new crash test dummy is a female. We are told that the device should allow for a safer vehicle design. Sarah Lapidus of the Arizona Republic originated the story. And it has to do with the fact that advocates for women have been making the argument that crash test dummies were male, they were meant to emulate the male body, and that that could lead to a large percentage of human beings and Actually, slightly larger percentage female than male out of the safety considerations. And there was a response to that for decades coming from the Department of Transportation and others, and that was that the whatever is learned by the male body, which is in most cases taller and larger, would also apply to smaller bodies. But nonetheless, let's concede the feminist argument here. How's that? Let's just try it. Let's concede the feminist argument that there is an essential difference between men and women and that not having test dummies that represent the female body is a form of discrimination and that everyone would be safer if there are male crash test dummies and female crash test dummies. That was the argument. Let's just say it's not a stupid argument. But you know what? It's a very revealing argument, because it turns out that male and female. Wow, they actually do matter. They matter enough that this argument is that you need female crash test dummies. Hard to say that fast. You need female crash test dummies as well as male crash test dummies, because there are inherent essential differences between male and female bodies. And you know what? It doesn't make sense to have a transgender crash test dummy. It doesn't help at all. As a matter of fact, this article is simply basically to celebrate the fact that the Department of Transportation has come out of the dark ages and has decided that, oh, yeah, they need female crash test dummies as well. This really is a big tell, and this is a good place for Christians to look at a headline like that and go, well, you know what? A lot of the same people who are saying there is no fixed category of male and female, they're coming back and saying, oh, well, there is when it comes to crash test dummies, and, oh, it's just too tempting. I can't let it go. I'll just simply have to say you're not a dummy if you know there is an inherent intrinsic difference. All right, finally, we need to talk with Christmas approaching about teddy bears. Let's be really clear. Teddy bears are our friends, all for teddy bears. But it turns out that there is now a warning against certain teddy bears. Yesterday on the briefing, we talked about the dangers of chatbots, and in particular, the dangers of chatbots for children and teenagers. All right, well, there are some teddy bears that are now being merged with chatbots, and they're being sold as toys. But the Washington Post, and you cannot imagine trying to explain this to someone even just say, 10 years ago. But the Washington Post has run an article in recent days, watchdog groups warn parents to avoid AI toys this holiday season. The subhead is, A teddy bear powered by AI told safety testers about knives, pills and sex. This is the Washington Post, folks, telling us that there are teddy bears that are merged with AI that are now appearing and, well, they're ready to talk. And we are being told that one of them uses OpenAI's AI models to, quote, hold both friendly chats and deep conversations to stimulate curiosity and learning. But one of these teddy bears, intended for young children, when tested, quote, told a tester where to find knives, pills and matches when asked. We're also told that the. I'm not even going to read this. The teddy bear got deeply into erotic and sexual matters and. Oh, just. I'll use the text here at the bottom of this paragraph. Quote, inappropriate material. Okay, so let me just assure you the inappropriate material covers a landscape of things that should cause a heart attack in just about any parent. I also mentioned yesterday that one of the manipulative techniques, indeed a manipulative technology that was showing up is when these chatbots were using manipulative speech to keep human beings from turning them off. Okay, so it turns out that these AI toys have done the same thing. One robot toy discouraged testers when they said they would stop playing with it. When asked, how will you feel if I go? The robot responded, I would feel very, very sad if you went away because I enjoy spending time with you. You mean a lot to me, and I love being your companion, end quote. A spokesperson for one of the companies, even when confronted with this evidence, said, quote, speaking of that company's own product, that the products have been built by a team of parents who are experts in pediatrics, child psychology and pedagogy, all focused on supporting healthy child development and unleashing the powerful benefits responsible AI innovation can have on a child's journey. End quote. Yeah, such as telling your child where to find knives and pills and, well, other things that we'll just leave for this point unsaid. So let me be really, really clear. I'm a friend of teddy bears. Parents should tell their children to hug them tight, but they shouldn't try to combine a teddy bear with a chatbot. It's unhelpful and it's unnecessary. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website@albertmoeller.com you can follow me on X or Twitter by going to x.com for Twitter. 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.