B (6:19)

those supposed, you know, binding international agreements don't feel bound by them. And you have a situation, and this is just a matter of realism in terms of the world picture right now you have many of the nations who have signed onto this being victimized by other nations who have signed onto this.

A (6:38)

Mr. Shrimsley later in the article says, quote, of course there is much in international law that can be reasonably lamented. He says its supporters can succumb to a rose tinted view that ignores how imperfectly it worked before. Too many avoid its reach. Major powers too often break the rules when it suits them, might will never be removed from the equation. Well, you know, that's realism. So again, I think that's a very honest statement. And so it comes down to asking again, where do I go and find that law? And so Mr. Swimsley clearly is invoking here treaties, acts and other legal documents and legal agreements that nations have entered voluntarily. But when you look to the United nations in so many ways, you have a common nexus here where many people who talk about international law want to point to international organizations as ways of protecting and administering and enforcing international law. But as this article concedes, that's only so good as nations agree to this. It's only so good as major powers play by the same rules. But the major powers don't play by the same rules. And by the way, that is bipartisan in the United States. It's extremely well documented. An article on the front page of yesterday's USA Today is entitled why Experts Fear for the Rule of Law. And how the US has attacked Iran. Later in the article, you have a bipartisan analysis here, or you might say an analysis of bipartisan violation of what's being cited as international law. Listen to this. Quote, President Bill Clinton sent troops into Bosnia in 1995 as peacekeepers. President Barack Obama participated in a bombing campaign in Libya in 2011 to support the ouster of its leader, Muammar Gaddafi. Trump sent American troops into Venezuela in early January to seize its leader, Nicolas Maduro. None of those military interventions were expressly authorized by Congress. Okay, so this turns out not to be so much about international law, but about the separation of powers in the United States. But you could look at those same incidents and recognize that in many cases there was non existent or ambiguous or retrospective international action. Later in this article, USA Today declares, quote, international treaties that have been ratified by the US Senate also carry the force of law within the United States. That includes the United Nations Charter, which was ratified by the senate in an89.2 vote in 1940, 1945. Quote, the charter generally authorizes the UN Security Council to determine what to do, including using military force in response to a threat to peace, but also allows a country to unilaterally use military force and defense, quote, if an armed attack occurs. Quote, some legal scholars have interpreted that provision to allow for military action if there is an imminent threat of an armed attack, which, by the way, is the language that President Trump has invoked here. Of course, other presidents have cited basically the same. Some of the developments that are often referred to in terms of international law on these matters have to do with the lessons of history. But as you look at the UN Charter and you look at many of the treaties and other kinds of agreements internationally, at least to some extent in scope, one of the things you find is that, well, looking at the experience of the 20th century, it was clear that what was adopted in the UN Charter in 1945 and was the expectation of that time didn't last through the end of that century. So, for example, let me give you two concrete examples that really do, let's just say, test the limits of this kind of understanding. The first is when you have a rogue state building up a massive offensive capability, do you have to wait until it attacks in order to address that aggressive ability? And of course, the answer is no. Just war theory in the Christian tradition helps to explain that as well. But that's one of those boundary cases. Clearly, there are people who even at the time might say that was justified and others might say it wasn't justified. The other Issue is, what about atrocities, even genocide, carried out inside a country? Do other countries have the right to intervene militarily? When you have just a massacre, obviously genocide, going on here, is it lawful for states to intervene? And this is where, in the course of the last several decades, a principle known as R2P, which means responsibility to protect, entered into what's often discussed as international law. And the presumption behind this is that it is lawful, it is right, it is justified to go into even a sovereign state with force if you are preventing some kind of genocide or massive affront to human rights and human dignity undertaken inside a state. So if you look at the original 1945 UN charter, there is no such authorization, but it basically was developed because circumstances demanded it, but then gets to some very, very interesting and frankly revealing situations. When Vladimir Putin openly discussed its invasion of Ukraine, which was the beginning of the current war there in Ukraine against Russian aggression, Vladimir Putin cited this explicitly when he said he was sending in Russian forces to prevent basically human rights offenses. Even he made reference to something like genocide against Russian people there in the eastern areas of Ukraine. And so it was almost as if the argument he was making was crafted by an attorney in order to cite R2P, the responsibility to protect in order to claim some kind of legal justification. Now, I'll just go so far as to say that was false on its face. I think most people all around the world, including, well, I'd say even beginning in the Kremlin, understood that that was a fig leaf of an argument. But then again, that's the problem. Russia has not undertaken that action with any kind of approval from the United Nations Security Council, because, of course, it wouldn't be coming and it wouldn't have happened. This was a blatant act of aggression by Russia against Ukraine. But you'll also notice something else. The fact that Russia did this in direct violation of what is supposedly international law. Well, it has led to many nations trying to help Ukraine, often at tremendous extent. And Russia has found itself in a situation that certainly is not the quick war of victory that was promised in the beginning. But the bottom line is all of this is not really happening by international law, whatever it is. But this also takes us back to the fact that the United Nations Security Council is immobilized and has almost from the start been immobilized when the actor is one of the major powers. And that is because the major powers, and at this point, that includes the United States and Russia and China, have veto power. So they're not going to allow an act which would correct themselves. And that's true, by the way, of all three. That's just realism, by the way. That idea, the responsibility to protect it, was, as the New York Times note, unanimously adopted at the UN World Summit, a gathering over 170 heads of state that goes back to 2005. Again, is that international law? Maybe it is, but clearly it doesn't mean what most people think it means. I want to look at this, however, also from the vantage point of Christian history and understand how Christians have thought through these issues. I mentioned this just in bare outline before, so let me just set the stage for how Christians have thought about this. Number one, we do believe in general revelation. Paul, in Romans 1, these things are known. They are clearly revealed, even in the things that are seen, so that they are without excuse. There is no one on planet Earth who has the excuse that he or she did not know that genocide is wrong. And so we understand that just from a position of Christian theology, we understand that there's a morally binding law, the law of God. And this invokes, of course, also the reality of conscience, at least a part of what it means to be made in the image of God. Looking at the Christian theological tradition, even going back to someone like Augustine, the towering figure, especially in the 4th century,

B (14:59)

Augustine clearly understood there to be something like international law. But it really did more or less come under the situation of some kind of emperor or monarch. And so it was really more about territory than anything else. If there was a major change in this, it came in the medieval period with the rise of what is known as the Holy Roman Empire. So there you're talking about the massive European empire. That really was the great political fact of much of the medieval period. And there was developing law, even international law, during that period. But the thing to recognize is that there was an emperor at the top of the Holy Roman Empire. And so you had an international organization that was monarchical and coercive. That's not to say it was easy to rule. It is to say there was a ruler.

A (15:49)

Now, I'm going to have to cross a lot of history here, but let's just go to the 18th and 19th centuries, where, in the wake of the Enlightenment, European powers in particular thought that they could put together a political elite that would prevent war. And you have such things as the Congress of Vienna and the development of an understanding of what would be a cosmopolitan peace among nations there in Europe, of course, that crashed. Well, it crashed even before 1914, but it certainly crashed in terms of what became known as World War I crashed even more tragically in World War War II. And so on the other side of that, you had nations that came together, and let's face it, most of them were the victorious nations. When you look at World War II, and they tried to put together an international body. And as you know, by 1945, it became known as the United nations, and it was headquartered in the United States. Because President Harry S. Truman was determined it not be too far from his ability for oversight. He believed from the beginning that it was likely the thing would be a great source of trouble, but was also necessary with good intentions, necessary at the end of something as horrible as World War II, hoping that at least some words could be prevented by means of the deliberations and relationships of the United Nations. The problem with that theory is that the United nations is not the Holy Roman Empire, which, by the way, I'll beat you to it. By the 19th century, the joke was that it was neither holy nor Roman nor empire, but it certainly was the Holy Roman Empire for a very long time. When you look at the age of the United nations, there's no secular counterpart for that. There is no global government. If there is a global government, the instinct of Christians is that it will be a very dangerous thing. As a matter of fact, it will be something that is contrary to biblical wisdom and contrary to a basic principle like subsidiarity. And instead, it is more likely to be tyrannical than helpful. I just want to bring this up today in order to say Christians do understand that there is a binding moral law binding upon all human beings and binding upon all nations, binding upon all institutions and organizations. And that's deeply rooted in God himself and in his law and in the fact the Creator has even embedded his law in the creation itself. But it's also true that when you look at international law, unless you do have something like an empire with an emperor at the head, you really don't have any way to say, okay, this exactly is the law binding on all nations, nor do you have the ability to make it binding. And so that also means that what you often end up with is you have the countries that are willing to sign such agreements and willing to live by them doing so. And others signing and breaking the treaties are just outside of it altogether. Very interesting statement in an article by Amanda Taub that ran in the New York Times yesterday. Here's the headline, Trump jumps through humanitarian loophole. Here it is, quote, international law is a funny thing with no real means of enforcement. It's essentially a set of reciprocal expectations. It only works if states believe others will follow the rules, too. Anything that departs from those expectations weakens the system. End of quote. Okay, so the bottom line, Christians believe that there is a law that is binding upon all. We do believe even that there is something like a law among nations. But we understand that the final judgment on such things will not come until it comes by the judgment of God. In the meantime, it is not wrong to try to do good and to restrain evil by the use of such institutions, organizations and treaties. But by definition, they have severe limitations. And even as the course of the last several decades has demonstrated, those limitations are often nearly fatal. So Christians understand that God will judge the United States for everything the United States has done, but more importantly, will judge every single one of us as human beings on that great day of judgment when all things will be revealed. And so we as Christians can't say we should never say there's nothing like a binding law upon all. But we can say that in a fallen world and in a complicated world in which there are so many evil actors, there is no adequate international body now that has jurisdiction or enforcement over international law, whatever it is. But now we need to come back to the United States. Very big explosive controversy among American evangelicals. A lot of frustration with David French, New York Times columnist and of course, this is not particularly new. Let's just say that since the election of Donald TRUMP In 2016, there have been some very clear strains. And again, it's almost like you're looking at a V with American evangelicals going in one direction and David French going in another. But the point is he has now made a very clear argument, and that argument appears in an article published in the New York Times entitled James Tallarico is a Christian X ray. Okay, so we've talked about James Tallarico. He is now the Democratic candidate for the U.S. senate seat currently held by Senator John Cornyn. And he is running as a Democrat, of course, but he's running on the Democratic platform and so far as I know, just about all of it. But he's really branding himself as a young, attractive moderate and as a Christian. And he's often identified as a seminarian with a theological seminary, Austin Presbyterian Seminary right there in Austin, Texas. He grew up there in Austin in a PC usa, this Presbyterian Church USA Church that was one of the first among those liberal churches to move in the direction of performing and recognizing same sex relationships and same sex ceremonies even. And he's very leftist on all these Things. That's the amazing thing. He doesn't cover that at all. And so he's pro abortion, he's pro lgbtq, just across the array. But the interesting thing, the controversial thing, the thing that's gotten a lot of attention is how David French basically argues that nonetheless, he is really asserting a new Christian identity into American politics. Mentions his criticism of Christian nationalism. Quote, he makes a specifically Christian argument to counter a poisonous Christian movement. Talrico said in 2023, quote, Christian nationalism controls Jesus saves. Christian nationalism kills Jesus started a universal movement. Christian nationalism is a sectarian movement based on mutual hate. End quote. Well, again, it's like international law. Define it for me, show it to me. What in the world is Christian nationalism here? Christian nationalism, he says, wants to control. Okay, you know what he's talking about here? That means something like pro life legislation, which of course the Democrats have said for years is about controlling women's bodies. And we would have to respond and say, no, it's about saving unborn lives. But you'll notice here the control issue. So here's the thing. He never defines Christian nationalism in this way, but he and David French are really sure that Christian nationalism is an awful thing, but it's never defined. So does this mean, if you believe that the public policy and laws of the United States should recognize marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and that's based upon your Christian convictions, which you believe, by the way, are also part of the natural law, does that make you a Christian nationalist? Well, in the view of the folks making this kind of argument, clearly it does. It means you are about control. David French says he's not all on board when it comes to everything James Talarico believes. He says, when I hear Talarico speak about faith, I alternate between agreement and disagreement. He says, quote, he's spot on about the dangers of Christian nationalism. Again, what is it? And he goes on to say Talarico is a political and religious progressive. He says, I'm a political and religious conservative. Well, you know, that gets into some real debate real quick about what in the world conservative means here. Not on issues like same sex marriage and many other things that I think for most evangelical Christians would be, bottom line, foundational necessities. But David French, in his argument, says, to put it another way, Talarico is one of the few openly Christian politicians in the United States who acts like a Christian. And by acting like a Christian, he reveals a profound contrast with so many members of the MAGA Christian movement that's dominated American political life for 10 years. Years, end quote. All right, so you know, here you have a statement in which he says he's an openly Christian politician. I just want us to note his theology and his position on, I think some very important moral issues that are closely identified with Christianity and with Christian voters in the United States. He is diametrically at odds with them. But you know what, he's friendly, he's an attractive candidate. And even though he, he doesn't say things that come across as mean, I just want to say he is, I think, bearing false witness against Christians, conservative Christians. He goes on, his theological minimalism comes down to the fact he's basically for the Sermon on the Mount and the words of Jesus and the Good Samaritan. And David Finch himself writes, quote, if you were to crack open Scripture today and start reading, one of the first things you would notice is the Bible contains relatively few political mandates. You can read it from COVID to cover and not know the definitive biblical tax rate, welfare program or foreign policy. Okay, yes, that's true. I think that's pretty non debatable among liberals and conservatives, by the way. But nonetheless, he holds up James Tallarico as the example that other Christians should follow. And you know, I think this is a major divide. There's so much more to be said, especially about James Tallarico. And I will be covering this in far more detail as this race continues to unfold. This is a massive challenge. I don't know how the election's going to turn out, but I can tell you this. We are looking at the fact that there are attempts now to say that right minded Christians should vote for someone like James Talrico because he's a nicer guy than at least one of the Republican alternatives. And of course that he's referring there to Ken Paxton, the Attorney General who is running against the incumbent Senator John Cornyn. And you know, on the character issues there, I don't think it's even an open race. Ken Paxton, a very morally complicated person. But when you come to issues, and that includes something as basic, and I know people say we're reductionistic and you come back to it, but I'll just tell you, for 50 years this has been a significant litmus test. If you are for the killing of unborn babies in the womb and if you are for the subversion of marriage with the approval of same sex marriage, that is really all you need to know. And by the way, what I reject is that that's not about personal character. I do think it's about personal character. I don't doubt that James Tallarico would make a good neighbor in terms of friendliness there in the neighborhood. But I think he would make an awful United States senator precisely because of the convictions he holds and about which he has been very honest. And by the way, I just want to say one thing as I conclude this. There is the declaration here that those who voted for Donald Trump simply don't care about the character issue. You know, I just think that the policies themselves are a part of the character issue. And I don't know of any Christian with whom I have ongoing fellowship who has ever said anything like personal morality. Personal character doesn't matter. Obviously, these issues deserve a lot of ongoing attention, and we'll do that together as events unfold. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website@albertmohler.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 tomorrow for the briefing.