Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign. June 17, 2026. I'm Albert Mohler, and this is the Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. We're living in one of those moments in which it seems that the headlines are coming to us with huge worldview issues in a rush. And the reason it seems that way is because that is exactly what's happening. We are living in precisely such a time. So consider the fact that we're looking at these giant tectonic plates in terms of the moral superstructure now moving on so many different issues. We're looking at embryo experimentation, big headline news. We're looking at the abortion issue exploding again. We are looking at huge questions related to the larger culture, to what it means to have a baby and what it means to be human. These are just giant things coming at us. Generative artificial intelligence is another entire field in which all of a sudden people are warning this could be disaster right around the corner. As we're going to see today, reports coming out in the field of embryo experimentation very, very troubling to Christians. And you're talking about something that even some secular people acknowledge could lead to a redefinition of what it means to be human. But I want us to start with an opinion piece I ran in the New York Times. It's by Zay Jelani, identified as a journalist based in Georgia, who writes the newsletter the American Saga, in this case, writing from Georgia, which is right now in the midst of the political campaigns directed most interestingly there towards the office of governor and also the US Senate seat currently held by Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff. And so with all of that as very much a part of the picture, and with the future of the Democratic Party, and that's the reason I mentioned the Democratic side, with the. With the future of the Democratic Party very much in flux precisely because they are not in control of the House, they're not in control of the Senate, and they don't hold the White House. The likelihood that they're going to regain at least part of that, that, well, that is certainly their ambition. And the question is, then, what would the future of the Democratic Party look like now? Our concern is not so much political as worldview. You're going to understand why I'm directing your attention to this piece. You hear the title the Missing Middle in the abortion debate. The Missing Middle. So this is a very interesting thing. The big political question for the Democratic Party nationwide is whether it addresses itself to the progressive left, which is moving ever further left, ideologically left, Democratic, socialist, left, Just think of New York's mayor. Or is it going to try to move to the middle now? There are so many Democrats in places like Georgia who want to see the party move to the middle because after all, they're in Georgia and Georgia is still at least a purple state. You have a Republican governor, very popular. He decided not to run for the Senate seat, however. And so both the Senate seats are held by Democrats. You're looking at one of those states in which the future of its color, blue or red or some continuation of purple is very much in question. If you're a Democrat in a state like New York or California, the world looks very different because you're basically in a one party state, at least when it comes to statewide elections. This particular article begins with reference to another big Senate race. This one is in Texas. And Zaid Jelani asked the question, is this the year a U.S. senate seat in Texas turns blue? Now remember, that's James Tallarico, state legislator, very much on the Democratic left, but presenting himself as kind of a moderate face. We've discussed the fact that that's not true, but nonetheless, it is interesting that in the state of Texas you can't run openly identified with the Democratic left. You have to run aiming as if you're someone somewhere in the middle, and then move left after you're elected. And everyone knows that's exactly what Talarico would do. But nonetheless, with reference to that Senate race in Texas, he goes on to say, but there's one issue that may trip up Mr. Talarico. He said this, quote, I trust Texas women to make decisions about their own bodies, to shape their own destinies. He said that when asked about abortion in a podcast with Jamie Kern Lima in May, he went on to say, quote, I don't believe that's a place for government. Now, I want to pause here. I think the big thing we need to recognize at this point is that that statement from James Tallarico is basically entirely supportive of abortion at any point from conception, all the way up until natural birth, because he says it needs to be a decision left up to women, period. That's a categorical statement, and I think it's an incredibly radical statement. But it's put in the kind of language that's not at first recognized by many people as being so radical, but it's astoundingly radical. Then Jelani goes on and writes his campaign, meaning Talarico's campaign calls for codifying Roe v. Wade, which, which allowed states to ban abortion only after fetal viability so, okay, the question is, is he saying that he thinks Roe should be the standard, or is that just the starting place for an even more expansive set of abortion rights? And then Jelani writes, quote, abortion rights advocates nationwide would support Talarico's stance. It's what you'd expect to hear from Democrats coast to coast. And then he asks, but is it what Texans believe? He says this. A survey of Texans last year by the University of Houston found some good news for pro choice Democrats. Only 23% of Texans believe that unrestricted abortion should never be legal. Okay, that's unrestricted abortion. So we're back to that. That's an honest word, unrestricted abortion. Only 23% of Texans, at least according to this article about this survey, said that unrestricted abortion should never be legal. Currently, we're told Texas's strict abortion ban allows the procedure only if the pregnant woman's life is endangered or one of her major bodily functions is threatened. There are no exceptions, we are told, in this law, for rape or incest. But the survey found that 83% of Texans supported adding such provisions. Okay, so the point of this article, and this is what's interesting, because I'm in fundamental disagreement with this article, but I think it's important that we recognize the arguments being made here. You have a political tactician arguing that Democrats should moderate their position on abortion because that's where the American people are speaking to the race in Texas. That is where a majority of Texans are, at least according to this analysis. Now, the point I want to make is that when you look at the layout of this article, it's entirely a political argument. The political argument is that there's a political right on abortion and there's a political left and there's a political middle. And he says the Democrats are making mistake by jumping over the political middle and speaking only to the political left. Now, in tactical terms, you can see why this is important. You can't possibly win a Senate race in a statewide election in Texas and basically identify yourself with the deep blue left of the Democratic Party, even if that's exactly where James Talarico is. You have to present yourself as something different. But I want to point out that this article makes very clear that on the issue of abortion, that's not exactly what James Talrico is even doing. Jelani writes about Democrats in Texas. He says Texas Democrats failure to calibrate on abortion serves as a microcosm for what's happened to abortion politics in the party writ large. The party has long been the home of pro choice Americans and has for decades worked to expand access to abortion. But Democrats used to see the issue with more nuance, acknowledging the moral complexity behind the procedure, end quote. Now, I've been in this issue for more than a half century, and I can tell you that what he's describing here is exactly where many Democrats were and where they ran. They claimed it was a middle position. And again, this is a writer who's a political tactician, and he's basically saying, I think Democrats are missing a big opportunity because they're missing the middle. But I just want to point out how muddled the middle is. One of the heroes of this article, a positive example is former President Bill Clinton, who ran for president, of course, in 1992. He famously said that he believed that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Okay, so here's the thing. The legacy of Bill Clinton is that he did none of those three things, but he ran on it, trying to suggest he was somewhere in the middle on the issue. But the point I want to make is this. Even Bill Clinton's language was repudiated very quickly by successive leaders in the Democratic Party, including, inconvenient enough as this might be his own wife when she ran for the presidency as the Democratic nominee in the 2016 presidential election. Hillary Clinton's position famously was just for abortion, basically without limitation. And as a presidential candidate, Donald Trump, in that massive debate context, made that point graphically clear. We want that Trump back. But it is very important to recognize that Hillary Clinton basically ran repudiating her own husband's position, with her husband, of course, sitting there applauding, and then, of course, a standing ovation. Jelani says that even former President Barack Obama, quote, took pains to respect opponents of abortion and insist on the need to reduce the procedures frequency, end quote. Again, I'll just point out that none of these Democrats did any anything that actually would have led to any infrequency. But the point, at least in moral terms, that Christians need to observe, is that they, at least at that point, felt they had to say so. For years now, they've no longer believed that. Jelani goes on and says that there's a problem for Democrats on this issue. Democrats might solve this problem by embracing nuance on abortion. Again, we're going to come back to that word, nuance, he says. This would include acknowledging that many Americans who are skeptical of abortion arrive at their position not because they want to control women, but because they have deeply held concerns about when they believe life begins. Now, let me Just say this. When you have someone on a moral issue like this call for nuance, all your alarm bells should go off. But it is interesting in this case that the call for nuance is coming from the left rather than the right, and it's coming from someone who clearly supports abortion rights saying, you know, maybe we need a little nuance in order to include some of those voters who aren't going to go for unrestricted abortion. I just want to step back and say in worldview terms, in moral terms, when you call for nuance here, you're calling for. In many cases, I'll just say it out loud, saying what you don't actually mean. And so I really do mean that I don't think Bill Clinton will wanted abortion to be rare. I don't think that Barack Obama wanted to make abortions less frequent. I do believe that they thought, at least in the political calculus, they had to talk that way with a bit of nuance. Let me tell you, as someone who is very much committed to a comprehensive pro life worldview based in scripture, and as I'm speaking to you, I just want to tell you, remind us all that when we're talking about nuance here, that nuance is deadly. It is deadly to the unborn. And this is not saying that we don't believe we have to take steps towards the goal of eliminating abortion in terms of a comprehensive ban. It does mean, however, that nuance in moral terms here basically is suggesting there's a middle position. I don't believe such a middle position exists. All right, now I want to show you immediately, we're not going to wait weeks. We don't have to. The headlines came at the same time. So I am pointing to another headline. This one ran in yesterday's edition of the same newspaper. Here's the headline. Ethicists Urge Caution on Embryo Editing Technology. So here we're not talking about abortion per se, but we are talking about the unborn. But we're not talking about the unborn. Even in terms of Roe v. Wade's infamous trimester, first trimester, second trimester, third trimester, in the night months, no, we're talking about embryos. So virtually, at the very same time the one article runs, the second comes saying, you know, when we're talking about a pro life position, it goes all the way back to fertilization. And that means that when we talk about conception, for example, we're talking about fertilization, not just the successful implantation of the embryo in the uterine wall. Okay, so this means when Life begins our pro life position believing that every single human life is the gift of God and every single human being is made in the image of God and every human life bears dignity and is to be respect. That's what sanctity means. It's holy because God has said, let there be life. The big issue now is something that's been reported over the course of the last few weeks in the mainstream media. Wall Street Journal headlines, Scientists Edit DNA of Early Human Embryos. New York Times headline, the First One Breakthrough in Embryonic Editing Stirs Debate. The article yesterday, the headline, ethicists Urge Caution on Embryo Editing Technology. So what are we talking about? Well, what we're talking about is the advent of designer babies. And that is actually acknowledged in all three of these articles I just cited. In all three of these reports, there is the acknowledgement that this particular new technology which is being both deployed and proposed in terms of a broader application of human embryos, this would lead to the ability to do germline technology in terms of the human embryo. Now, of course, the promise of this in terms of the people promoting it is at least first they say, well, you'll be able to screen out genetic diseases. And with contrast to earlier technologies such as what's known as crispr, the new technology sometimes referred to as mosaic, it would allow a far more precise targeting of what are identified as genetic problems. But let me just point out what this would require. This means that once you have an embryo, and by the way, most of the embryos in this consideration are going to be produced by a laboratory. That is, they're going to take the female cell and the male cell, and the embryo is going to emerge in a laboratory setting. This is basically central to IVF or in vitro fertilization technology. In other words, if this is happening inside the woman's body, the scientists are in there to inspect the embryo. So we're talking about a laboratory setting. But I want to warn you about something, and that is that increasingly medical science is going to want to move human reproduction into the laboratory and just consider what that means. And it's because they're going to say we need to do this kind of genetic screening for health purposes. We need to screen out genetic problems. It could be related to genetic diseases, could be related to down syndrome, could be related to any number of things. But of course, this is where the designer baby angle comes in here, because if you can identify the genetic pattern and go after, say, Tay Sachs disease, then you can also go after, well, adding athletic capability or choosing blonde hair, or choosing blue eyes, or choosing at least what you think will contribute to a higher iq. All of this is not something that is now way out there somewhere in an indefinite future as a threat. That's how Christians were looking at this, say, in the 1970s when the discussion first began. No, right now it's around the corner. And that is what is evident in this avalanche of headlines. Emily Baumgartner Nunn, writing in that article that appeared yesterday, the New York Times says, quote, when scientists at Columbia University announced this month that they had used a newer technology to precisely edit the genes of human embryos, they set the academic community ablaze with debate. Okay, so it is ablaze with debate. I have been following that debate in the scientific literature and in the press as well. She goes on to say, is this good news or bad? How fast will this move? And more philosophically, where does medicine end and eugenics begin? End quote. Okay, two words there, medicine. And the implication here is that medicine is invoked if indeed you are looking at this kind of technology to screen out some kind of genetic abnormality, some kind of genetically inherited disease or something like that. And the other word is eugenics. And I think a good number of listeners to the briefing are going to know that word. It means basically good genes. It comes from the Greek. And so eugenics would mean producing good genes. It'd be producing good offspring. And that means designer babies. It means also having both a positive and a negative use of this technology. You could have someone who says, I want blue eyes and blonde hair. I want athletic ability. I want height. This is what I want in my baby. I want my, my boy to have this specific athletic ability. I want my daughter to have this particular cosmetic attraction. All these things could be just factored in and you could, I guess, reverse the things as well. And then you have a negative aspect to it in which you say, I don't want this, I don't want that, and I don't want the other thing. Now, morally, morally more in the medical ethics community are comfortable with the second move saying, we don't want some kind of genetic malady than are with the first move saying, we want this designer baby. But the point that is now abundantly clear is that the technology will do both. And here's a thing that Christians need to understand. Our concern has to be with the emergence of a technology that further abstracts human beings from any notion of human dignity. We're talking here about the ability to order a baby. And I don't just mean order the existence of a Baby by means of something like IVF technology, outside of marriage, outside of biology, or at least outside of any natural context. Now I'm talking about order a baby, as in with specific attributes, abilities. You get it? When the Times broke the story, first, the subhead was asking a question. A pathway to healthier babies or eugenics? And I just want to say that the 20th century really began with a high tide of eugenic ideology. And you know, by the time the 20th century was over, and especially looking at what had taken place in Nazi laboratories and in the gas chambers and all the rest, there was the understanding that there's something inherently evil, objectively evil about this eugenic mentality. As Margaret Sanger, the founder of what became known as Planned Parenthood, said, more from the fit, less from the unfit. The agenda was clear and now we have it coming back. But it's not coming back right now in terms of, say, banners on the headline or big mass demonstrations in a stadium. It's coming back now with the promise that you too could have a healthy baby. Healthy how? Healthy according to your own set criteria. It's a very frightening development. It's something that right now is right before our eyes. And I do think it's very interesting that the New York Times. And again, we're talking about the New York Times, very liberal paper. I think it's very interesting that in two major reports they lead with the word eugenics. Folks, if they know this is a problem, Christians operating out of a biblical worldview better know at an even deeper and more urgent level, this is a big problem. All right, now I want to go back to what took place on Sunday, President Trump's 80th birthday. Big event there at the White House. Very controversial. The paper, USA Today, has a headline, White House hosts a brutal Trump brand birthday bash. And the reporter says, quote, call it the Donald Trump Spectacular. Vegas meets White House extravaganza at dusk. Under the claw, a 90 foot tall arch adorned with glimmering stars and stripes lights looming over a coliseum style arena on the White House's south lawn. The president on his 80th birthday spent the evening of June 14 taking in a series of Ultimate Fighting Championship mixed martial arts cage matches. Okay, so let's just take the obvious. That had never happened at the White House before. Safe to say it had never ever happened before. So then it is very tempting to say nothing like that has ever happened before. Well, that's both true and false, actually. And that raises a very interesting issue for Christian consideration. It's not the same deep level that we're considering with the sanctity of human life and human dignity. But it does get to the issue of dignity and the dignity of leadership, the dignity of a culture, and the dignity of the White House. But, you know, when someone says something like this has never happened before, we just need to remember that, yeah, it's true. There's never been a cage match on the White House lawn before. And I wish it hadn't happened, frankly. But the reality is the White House has been the scene for controversies like this that go back a matter of generations. One of these controversies actually has to do with President Richard Nixon, because Richard Nixon, who was elected by a blue collar coalition, in contrast to previous Republican coalitions. It was Richard Nixon who invited the country singer Merle Haggard to sing at the White House. He sang his famous song, Okie from Muskogee, there at the White House, even in the White House. And you know what? That led to an uproar among many American elite saying, this is the end of civilization as we know it. Merle Haggard in the White House. Will Weissert of the Associated Press, even before the event said, you know, there were some very interesting things. Theodore Roosevelt hosted boxing matches at the White House. He sometimes entered the ring himself. I guess we should be thankful at this point that President Donald J. Trump did not go into the cage as a combatant. The AP article also said, quote, sometimes called America's backyard, the South Lawn, that means of the White House was until now known for low contact sports and joyful events geared toward children or bipartisanship, like the annual Easter Egg Roll or the Congressional picnic. The same space being used for bloodsport. Fetting a president who relishes it. And playing out in a hulking structure featuring a complicated overhead lighting scheme known as the claw illustrates yet another of the White House norms that President Trump is gleefully laying to rest, or in UFC parlance, forcing to tap out. It is interesting that an historian at the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library says, quote, sports has been central to presidents. I don't know that it's been quite the spectacle it is with the Trump administration, end quote. Well, again, I am someone who believes that cultural moments are very important. They can be very illustrative of a moment. I believe the White House ought to be primarily about democratic self rule and dignity. And I think the White House cries out those particular claims, those very evident themes. And so I'll just tell you, having this kind of mixed martial arts event at the White House, I do not see as a great cultural step forward. I also do not see it as the end of civilization as we know it. It is interesting to see how many people, particularly on the cultural left, are saying this is just the end of civilization. President Trump is about spectacle. He's been about spectacle all his life. When he owned casinos, he hosted spectacles. He single handedly helped to bring this particular avenue of sport into commercial success. And by the way, there are commercial aspects of this. That's just the way it is. The national press is just very concerned about all of this. And the national press is also, at the same time, however, having to run articles about how the formal elite, say, artistic, musical scene is really suffering a lack of income because of a lack of people going to see these performances. And by the way, those performances, when you're talking about orchestras and operas and all the rest, one of the reasons why fewer people are going is because those prices have also gone up so much that the average family can't afford them. By the way, just looking at the way politics works, I love this Associated Press article because it tells us some things, just really honest in a bipartisan way. Quote, playing, or at least being avid fans of sports, has long given presidents ways to connect to everyday voters while also projecting vitality. Now listen to this quote. John F. Kennedy largely hid his skill as a golfer because he was afraid of bad political optics. But he promoted footage of himself and his family playing touch football and frolicking in the surf, seeking to convey his youth and energy. We actually know that, of course, the medical reality of President John F. Kennedy was being lied about and hidden from the American public. We know that the touch football and all the rest was followed by an awful lot of time under a doctor's care and with an awful lot of drugs that actually would be in violation of medical ethics today. And then I think it's also interesting that John F. Kennedy was a very, very good golfer, but he didn't want Americans to know it. And, you know, the AP doesn't really give the context for that. And that context was the fact that his predecessor in office for two terms, former General and then President Dwight David Eisenhower, he was an avid golfer. And the Democrats used that as an argument against him, saying he spent too much time on the golf course. It turns out that John F. Kennedy really liked golf himself, but he didn't want the American people to know it. Here's a contrast with Donald J. Trump. It appears that he wants the American people to know exactly what he finds interesting. And for his 80th birthday, well, what he finds interesting is the claw and what took place within it. I'll just say that mixed martial arts also reminds us that human beings have often given ourselves to some pretty brutal and downright physical contests. And so I think it's very interesting to know that, for instance, in the age of Shakespeare, one of the things that was very interesting and eventually controversial was bear baiting, in which you would have a bear, a real bear, like a big bear who had been captured, tied to a stake, and then you'd have dogs set upon it and the bear would fend off the dogs. Let's just say it was a blood sport. And the interesting thing is that there were all kinds of people in the age of Shakespeare who wanted to see it. And it turns out one of them was named Queen Elizabeth I. Within about a century, bear baiting was officially illegal. But it is a reminder of the fact that there's a very long history, history of the carnival, bread and circuses going all the way back, of course, to ancient Rome and the gladiatorial battles and for all we know, going way, way back in the annals of human history. Now, I know that listeners to the Briefing are very, very attuned to cultural events and what they mean. And I think it's also important that we have a sense of proportion. So, yes, a large number of Americans didn't like what happened at the White House. Another large number of Americans did like it. Are there moral issues to be involved? Yes, of course, when you're talking about anything like this, there are moral issues to be involved. But the point I want to make is this. Many people in the cultural left said that this means the fall of civilization. But they somehow did show up at work on Monday morning to file their articles and columns and essays condemning the event. Evidently, it wasn't actually the end of civilization as we know it. At least not yet. 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 information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu. for information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com if civilization doesn't fall, I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.