0:04

It's Friday, April 19, 2024. I'm

0:08

Albert Moller and this is The Briefing,

0:10

a daily analysis of news and events

0:12

from a Christian worldview. Does

0:14

it matter whether Donald Trump or

0:16

Joe Biden is elected president of

0:18

the United States in November? Well,

0:21

interestingly, right now, according to the stock market,

0:23

it doesn't appear to matter all that much.

0:26

Big interesting issue here. The

0:28

New York Times has the interest. Jeff

0:30

Summer wrote the article, the headline was this,

0:32

Trump or Biden, the stock market doesn't care.

0:35

That's because the stock market feels like it's done

0:37

pretty well under President Biden, but it feels like

0:40

it did pretty well under President Trump. It has

0:42

to factor in the COVID-19 crisis and some other

0:44

things, but the point is the

0:46

stock market at this point is not

0:48

really taking sides in the presidential election.

0:52

When you look at this, there's some interesting

0:54

worldview questions to ask. Number one,

0:57

would there be circumstances in which

0:59

the stock market really would have

1:01

an opinion? The answer to that

1:03

is yes. For example, you

1:05

go back to an election such

1:07

as, well, 1972, George McGovern on

1:09

the Democratic left versus Richard Nixon

1:11

running for reelection as the Republican

1:13

nominee. Richard Nixon was no

1:15

radical conservative, but George McGovern was,

1:18

certainly by the standards of his day, a

1:20

pretty radical liberal. That would have

1:22

made a big difference when it came to the American

1:24

economy and the stock market pretty much had

1:26

that figured out. You fast forward to,

1:29

say, 1980, the election between Jimmy Carter

1:31

and Ronald Reagan. At that point, the

1:33

investor class was pretty much interested in

1:36

moving past Jimmy Carter. Ronald

1:38

Reagan benefited from all of that. Then,

1:40

of course, you had changes in terms

1:42

of the market environment. You had the

1:44

development of individual retirement accounts. More Americans

1:46

got more deeply involved in the stock

1:49

market, but then you fast forward to 2024. There's

1:53

a lot of difference between Joe Biden

1:55

and Donald Trump. Yet, the stock market doesn't, at

1:57

least at this point, seem to have factored in much

2:00

So what is the worldview angle

2:02

in all this? Well, it tells

2:05

us that even as you can't

2:07

separate economics from politics or morality,

2:10

there's a sense in which economics is

2:12

a lagging indicator of political and

2:14

moral issues. So in practical

2:17

terms, yes, there are big differences between

2:19

the economic policies of Donald

2:21

Trump and Joe Biden. Now, if

2:23

you bring in someone who, for instance,

2:25

is more of an open socialist, like

2:27

someone like Senator Bernie Sanders, Bernie

2:30

Sanders would say, look, the problem with the

2:32

Democrats is that they're too much like the

2:34

Republicans. George Wallace, the former governor of Alabama,

2:36

running as a third party candidate, said that

2:38

he was doing so going back to the

2:41

Nixon era. He was doing so because in

2:43

his words, there wasn't a dime's worth of

2:45

difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. So

2:47

you have people on the right and on

2:49

the left. You have both someone like George

2:52

Wallace and someone like Bernie Sanders saying,

2:54

you know, the problem with the two parties is

2:56

that in economic terms, they're simply too close. And

2:59

there's a reason for that. And the

3:01

reason for that is you cannot survive in

3:03

office as president of the United States. You

3:06

can't certainly be reelected president of the United

3:08

States if the entire business class has come

3:10

to the conclusion that you're going to be

3:12

horrible for the economy. Now, in

3:15

worldview terms, there's another very interesting aspect

3:17

of this, and that is that different

3:19

parts of the economy will tend to

3:21

like different candidates. So for

3:23

example, you have candidates and office holders

3:25

that are far friendlier to say the

3:27

fossil fuel industry, or you have incumbents

3:30

such as the now retiring West

3:32

Virginia Governor Joe Manchin, a Democrat who

3:34

by the way, is representing

3:36

coal country. And yes, it shows.

3:39

And so you have the more fossil

3:41

fuel traditional energy sector of the economy.

3:43

It did tends to have a pretty

3:45

strong political preference for people who would

3:47

continue to use fossil fuels to make

3:50

them available. On the other hand, the

3:52

Biden administration is now collecting friends on

3:54

the one side and enemies on the

3:56

other side because of its rather radical

3:58

decisions having to do phasing up

4:00

fossil fuels and that means requiring

4:02

Americans to jump into the purchase

4:05

of electric vehicles and all the rest, all

4:07

kinds of problems frankly and this is a

4:10

convoluted issue when you look at the intersection

4:12

of the climate stewardship issues, you look at

4:14

the economic issues, you look at the impact

4:16

on disparate parts of the American population and

4:19

frankly even when you look at the honesty

4:21

of some of the arguments being made you

4:23

really are looking at a complex situation. The

4:26

interesting thing is that at this point the

4:29

stock market as a whole has not yet taken

4:31

sides. Now it tells you that the stock

4:33

market is rather adaptable in trying

4:35

to figure out how to handle

4:37

the political situation but as we're looking at

4:39

this in terms of a worldview analysis it

4:42

does tell us that

4:44

there are parts of the culture

4:46

that lag others in terms of

4:49

say indicating the moral position.

4:52

The stock market is usually not

4:54

the leading indicator of that

4:57

particular dynamic and to understand that just

4:59

understand that the stock market has to

5:01

find a way to respond to current

5:03

economic conditions in a way that will

5:06

somehow lead to investment opportunities

5:09

and to economic growth. It's got to

5:11

find where that is and it's got

5:13

to exploit that. It has to find

5:15

a way to put investors money into

5:18

investing situations in which there is an

5:20

opportunity for an investment gain. But

5:23

there's another worldview dynamic in this and

5:25

that is that when you are looking

5:27

at say the threat of war you're

5:29

looking at the disruption of the transportation

5:31

and shipping system. You are looking at

5:34

threats to the say stability of the

5:36

monetary system. Well all of a sudden

5:38

the stock market it comes

5:40

up with rapt attention and that's

5:42

one of the ways of saying that when

5:44

you look for example at the Democratic likely

5:46

nominee the current president Joe Biden and you

5:48

look at the likely Republican nominee and likely

5:50

here's an understatement and that is former president

5:52

Donald Trump you are looking at two people

5:54

who are different in so many ways and

5:56

they're holding the policies that are different in

5:59

so many ways. Different in terms

6:01

of the understanding of trade policy. Difference when

6:03

it comes to taxation policy. Differences when it

6:05

comes to a general understanding of

6:07

what would aid the future growth of

6:10

the economy. Differences when it comes to

6:12

climate and energy questions. Differences, obviously,

6:14

when it comes to moral questions like abortion

6:17

and an entire range of moral issues. When

6:20

you look at the two candidates in that light

6:22

and you look at the two parties, you are

6:24

looking at two positions with a great deep chasm

6:27

that's only growing wider and deeper. But

6:29

on a lot of issues of

6:31

economic policy, well this is

6:33

where we recognize that there are differences.

6:35

It will make a difference whether there is

6:37

a Republican or a Democratic president. In

6:40

economic terms, it will make a difference whether

6:42

there is a Republican or a Democratic majority in

6:45

both the houses of Congress. It does make

6:47

a difference whether or not the

6:49

governors of states are Democrat or Republican. But

6:52

as you look at it, you recognize

6:54

that when it comes to economic issues,

6:56

it's not exactly the same dynamic. So

6:59

we'll be watching this. At this point, the

7:02

New York Times article is simply underlining

7:04

the fact that the stock market is

7:06

not yet in this election basically taken

7:08

sides. But it will might. And

7:10

that will be an interesting development in itself. And

7:13

we'll be tracking it with you. Okay, one

7:15

more issue before we turn to questions today.

7:18

And this has to do with the fact that in so many

7:20

states, you have very good

7:22

legislation, very urgently needed legislation

7:25

in order to combat the DEI

7:27

agenda, especially in so many public

7:30

universities or universities where government funding

7:33

is involved. That means most of them.

7:35

And DEI means diversity, equity, and inclusion.

7:37

And it basically has been a way

7:39

of smuggling in and making policy a

7:42

very liberal, very leftist ideological position.

7:44

So that under DEI, quite frankly,

7:47

all kinds of mischief has been

7:49

taking place. And

7:51

when it comes to say LGBTQ issues

7:53

and any number of other issues, quite

7:56

honestly, DEI is just a toxic

7:58

ideology. that even sadder

8:00

is the fact that it's been institutionalized

8:03

in government funded offices all over elite

8:06

academia. And it's been filtered down

8:08

to say even your regional state

8:10

university in so many states, you

8:12

have this first of all massive

8:14

new bureaucratic administrative staff, but this

8:16

is one that is driving issues

8:18

from a leftist ideological position. And

8:21

frankly, it's a very good thing that you

8:23

have some conservative governors, particularly in red states,

8:25

who said that's it, no more. That

8:28

would include states like Florida. The University

8:30

of Florida, by the way, is responded by shutting down

8:32

its DEI office. And you ask why? And

8:34

it's because it was forced to by the state legislature and

8:37

the governor there. That's a very good thing. But

8:40

now you have reports that what's happening,

8:42

university by university, and not so much

8:44

that they're being shut down, even where

8:46

you've had legislation passed and you've had

8:48

governors and state leaders move into

8:50

action to enforce the legislation. What

8:53

many of these universities are doing is

8:56

simply renaming the program, renaming the personnel,

8:59

giving new titles to people. They're

9:01

still serving the same old ideological agenda.

9:03

Stephanie Saul writing for the New York

9:05

Times tells us, quote, in what appears

9:07

to be an effort to placate or

9:10

even head fake opponents of diversity and

9:12

equity programs, university officials are relaunching their

9:14

DEI offices under different names, changing

9:17

the titles of officials and rewriting

9:19

requirements to eliminate words like diversity

9:21

and equity. In some cases,

9:23

only the words have changed, end quote.

9:25

Now let's be honest, for

9:27

a good number, if not the vast majority of the readers

9:29

of the New York Times, that's going to be considered to

9:31

be good news. But it

9:34

does tell us how the law is

9:36

subverted. And it tells us another way

9:38

that the progressive left tends to win in

9:41

this kind of situation. It's

9:43

because when you look at the alphabet soup

9:45

of all these bureaucratic programs serving ideological agendas,

9:48

you have legislators who in good faith and

9:50

governors who in good faith say, stop it.

9:53

And yet these progressive educators don't

9:55

stop it. They just rename it

9:58

and move on. examples

10:00

that was given here is that of

10:02

Louisiana State University known as LSU. As

10:05

Saul reports quote, Louisiana State University

10:07

also rebranded its diversity office after

10:09

Jeff Landry, a Trump back to

10:12

Republican, was elected governor last fall.

10:14

Quote, its division of inclusion civil

10:16

rights and Title IX is now

10:18

called the Division of Engagement, Civil

10:20

Rights and Title IX. So you

10:22

throw out inclusion and you throw

10:24

out any reference to DEI and

10:26

instead you just rename it the

10:28

Division of Engagement and steamroller

10:31

right on. At Florida

10:33

State University in Tallahassee, the university

10:35

according to the Times quote has

10:38

reshuffled jobs and turned the Equity,

10:40

Diversity and Inclusion Office into the

10:43

Office of Equal Opportunity Compliance and

10:45

Engagement. End quote. It's

10:47

almost as if George Orwell has written

10:49

this new doublespeak into his famed work

10:52

1984. But this

10:54

is 2024. This is the way the game

10:56

is played now. I think a very important

10:59

comment was made by David Bray identified as

11:01

a finance professor at Kennesaw State

11:03

University and he said

11:05

this quote, it's the same lipstick on

11:07

the ideological pig. End quote. He continued

11:09

and said quote, as soon as DEI

11:12

was uncovered as political left they now

11:14

reinvent the language and have morphed into

11:16

the sense of belonging crew. End quote.

11:18

You know you look at this and

11:20

you recognize it's very important that intelligent

11:23

thoughtful Christians understand that this is

11:25

the way the world works. You

11:27

can have the legislature adopt a very clear

11:30

law. The governor signed it into law. The

11:33

responsibility then follows to the administrators

11:35

of these universities and the response

11:37

is put lipstick on the pig.

11:39

Or in other words the battle continues.

11:42

Next we turn to questions and I'm always really

11:44

interested to see what questions are sent in by

11:47

listeners to the briefing and so

11:50

many intelligent and important questions. We'll get to as

11:52

many as we can. We had

11:54

a listener write in saying quote, and since

11:56

the Bible doesn't mention the denominations we presently

11:58

have how can any Christian that's identify with

12:00

the denomination, the denomination of

12:03

Christ seems the only appropriate label

12:05

to me. Your thoughts? Well,

12:08

my first thought, Gregory, is that this has been something that's

12:10

been thought about for a long time. And

12:13

there's an important history to this question.

12:15

There's also a practicality to this question.

12:18

And interestingly, this was very

12:20

much a focus of what I taught in

12:23

a class yesterday on the battle of the

12:25

denominations. It's a lot of fun talking

12:27

to college and seminary students about how the

12:30

denominational structure of Christianity came about. So

12:33

this is really fresh on my mind. And

12:35

one of the things I've been telling people in

12:38

anticipation of that class period is like, I

12:40

think these kids are going to be shocked how

12:42

fascinating this is, because

12:44

the story of American denominations is massive. And

12:47

here's what we need to remember that the

12:50

denominational structure of Christianity is

12:52

really uniquely American. That's not to say

12:55

there aren't Methodists and Presbyterians and Anglicans

12:57

in a place like Britain or Scotland.

12:59

It is to say it's quite different

13:01

than what you have in the United

13:03

States. In the United States, as

13:06

the late historian Sidney Meade said, denominationalism

13:08

is the shape of Christianity in America.

13:11

And he helped to explain it in a way that I

13:13

think is just extremely helpful. He said

13:15

to understand why denominations exist in the

13:17

United States. You just need to understand

13:19

a matter of basic math. And

13:22

I have found this helpful ever since I first heard

13:24

it when I was just a very young seminary student.

13:27

Sidney Meade said, the math is this, religious

13:30

conviction plus religious

13:32

liberty equals denomination. Religious

13:35

conviction plus religious liberty equals denomination. If

13:38

you're in a situation in which there

13:40

is no religious liberty, you can be

13:42

told that the only acceptable

13:44

form of Christianity is one that, for instance,

13:47

believes is baptizing babies. And that's

13:49

exactly the situation that helped precipitate

13:51

the American experiment in religious liberty.

13:54

But if you have a difference of opinion, and

13:56

here's where, just to say the classic distinction, there's

13:59

a distinction of opinion. about what

14:01

is called infant baptism between

14:03

say Baptists, and I speak as a Baptist,

14:05

and say Episcopalian or Anglicans on the other

14:07

side. And you can put Presbyterians on the

14:09

other side too that are much closer to

14:13

Baptists in terms of theological heritage. But we

14:15

have a major distinction, a major disagreement, sometimes

14:18

even a major controversy in Church

14:20

history over whether baptism

14:22

should be believers baptism only

14:25

or whether it should also include the

14:27

covenant baptism of infants. And you know,

14:29

both the Baptists and the Presbyterians, just

14:31

to say the two, show up with

14:33

a lot of theology behind the Baptist

14:35

argument and the Presbyterian argument. Now here's

14:37

just a matter of fact. Both can't

14:39

be right. But in a

14:41

situation of religious liberty, here's the good news.

14:44

Presbyterians can be Presbyterian and Baptists

14:46

can be Baptists. And

14:49

that's a very important issue, and

14:51

that's why in America, particularly in

14:54

the early age of the American Republic. So

14:56

when you're looking at the history of the

14:59

American colony, some of them did have state

15:01

supported churches. And you had

15:03

for example, Virginia, which is basically an Anglican

15:05

colony. You had

15:07

Massachusetts, which was basically a congregational

15:11

state. And yet you're looking at the fact that

15:13

after the American constitutional order came into

15:15

place, and you had the First Amendment,

15:17

and you had government

15:19

recognized and defended religious liberty,

15:21

well then Presbyterians can be

15:24

Presbyterian, Methodists can be Methodist,

15:26

Episcopalians can be Episcopalians. And

15:28

you look at that, you recognize, well, this

15:31

means that Baptists are willing

15:33

for the condition of religious liberty to mean that

15:35

Methodists who are wrong on this question, you know,

15:38

the spirit in which I say that, are nonetheless

15:40

able to be Methodist, to establish Methodist churches. They

15:42

do so freely. And the same thing is true

15:44

for the Baptists. In other words, religious liberty says

15:46

the Methodists can be Methodist, and the Baptists can

15:48

be Baptist. And I want to say to the

15:50

listener who sent in this question, the problem is

15:53

that you're going to organize a congregation by

15:55

one principle or the other, just to take the issue

15:57

of the question of baptism. You're either going to be

16:00

Baptist congregation or you're going to

16:02

be say a Presbyterian congregation and

16:05

I'm just talking about two among

16:07

many options across the theological landscape

16:10

and if you are a

16:12

Baptist congregation well in order

16:14

to describe how your congregation

16:16

differs from say the Presbyterian

16:18

congregation not to mention denominations

16:20

which are networks of those congregations

16:22

then guess what you're gonna have to say well

16:25

here's a word that describes how we're different and

16:27

that's how by the way the Baptist ended up

16:30

being called the Baptist we were

16:32

not those who said you know we want

16:34

to take the name Baptist we think that's

16:36

a brand we want to run on no

16:39

it was often simply the most essential word

16:41

that characterized a group and sometimes it was

16:43

even used in derision as

16:45

in the methodical devotion of

16:47

the Methodist the Methodist were

16:50

called Methodist and it stuck the Baptists were

16:52

called Baptists and it stuck so

16:54

yes the scripture says clearly and

16:56

this is absolutely foundational and

16:59

it is eternally true Jesus Christ said upon this

17:01

rock I will build my church and the gates

17:03

of hell shall not prevail against it so here's

17:05

the most important thing we need to recognize Baptists

17:08

believe that the Church of the Lord

17:10

Jesus Christ is made up of all

17:13

blood-bought believers in the Lord Jesus Christ

17:15

and that includes some who differ with

17:17

us doctrinally and so if

17:19

you find Baptists who are true New Testament

17:22

Baptists we don't claim that the only Christians

17:24

are those who are Baptists and Baptist churches

17:26

at the same time gospel committed and theologically

17:28

Orthodox Presbyterians some of whom are my closest

17:30

friends in the world they

17:33

are not going to say that

17:35

those who are not in Presbyterian

17:38

churches and don't consider themselves Presbyterians

17:40

that they're not Christians so to this listener

17:42

I want to say yes the most important word is Christian because

17:45

the most important thing is that we are

17:47

disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ but when

17:49

we organize congregations we're gonna make decisions about

17:52

the Lord's Supper about church government and yes

17:54

about baptism just because that's the easiest and

17:56

most visible thing to see and you

17:59

look at that and say all right whether we want to

18:01

be Baptist or not, guess what? We're Baptists

18:03

and we're going to be called Baptists. You

18:05

know, I don't know that Presbyterians always want

18:07

to be called Presbyterians, but they're Presbyterian and

18:09

thus that's what we call them. Same thing

18:11

for Methodists and go down the line. None

18:13

of these names says everything any denomination wants

18:15

to say, but helpfully,

18:18

they do point out the distinctions.

18:20

So I want to just go back to

18:23

that math. If you have religious liberty and

18:25

you have doctrinal conviction before long, you have

18:27

what can only be called a denomination, which

18:29

by the way, means this is what

18:31

we call the thing. All right, this

18:33

is a fun question and

18:35

it was sent in by Brandon and

18:37

he asked the question. He says, my

18:40

wife and I were discussing the sacraments

18:42

observed by Protestants versus Roman Catholics and

18:44

she asked me why we don't, that

18:46

means evangelicals don't observe marriage as a

18:48

sacrament. Brandon goes on

18:50

to say, I assume that Catholics observe it

18:52

as such due to it pointing to the

18:54

relationship between Christ and his bride. Why is

18:57

it that evangelical Protestants don't count it being

18:59

marriage among the sacraments? Well, Brandon, I want

19:01

to say, first of all, the Roman Catholic

19:03

Church holds to a sacramental theology, which

19:06

is basically not replicated in any

19:08

Protestant church, in any Protestant denomination.

19:11

It also holds to a model of

19:14

the sacraments mediated through a priesthood, which

19:16

again is not held by, it's

19:19

certainly any consistent Protestant, maybe

19:22

by some high church Anglicans, but

19:24

even that's in conflict with the

19:27

Anglican theological tradition. And

19:29

when it comes to the number of sacraments, well, the

19:31

Baptists would come back and say, with full honesty, we

19:33

believe the number of sacraments in that kind of sense,

19:35

using that kind of language is zero, which

19:38

is that we don't accept a sacramental theology.

19:41

And so Baptists would define baptism in

19:43

the Lord's Supper as ordinances, most importantly,

19:45

meaning that they're commanded by Christ and

19:47

they're commanded of Christ to the congregation,

19:49

we believe. And that's

19:51

where marriage is different. So

19:53

for instance, marriage is given in creation,

19:56

baptism is not given in creation, the

19:58

Lord's Supper is not given in and even

20:01

the more sacramental Protestant churches that

20:03

would use the word sacrament say

20:05

again the Anglicans and the Presbyterians

20:08

and they're not in exactly the same place because

20:11

most Presbyterians would be less

20:14

sacramental than would at

20:16

least be allowable in some Anglican circles

20:19

but even when they're talking about that they're

20:21

basically in agreement with the Baptists that we're

20:24

talking about the ordinances now it's true that

20:26

Lutherans are a bit

20:28

less consistently Reformation based on this

20:30

historically then say the Reformed and

20:32

the Baptist and the free churches but the

20:35

bottom line is is that we do not

20:37

believe in a priestly

20:39

ministry with the dispensation of sacramental

20:41

grace and marriage is

20:43

not just given to the church marriage

20:45

is given to creation and thus marriage

20:48

is a creation institution and

20:51

the church affirms that the church celebrates that

20:53

the church may actually be the context in

20:56

which a marriage is held but we believe

20:58

at the same time that marriage is a

21:00

civic institution the way we certainly do not

21:02

believe that baptism or the Lord's Supper is

21:04

a civic institution so it's a

21:07

great question we don't believe less about marriage by the

21:09

way than the Roman Catholics I think we actually

21:12

affirming what I believe scripture reveals

21:14

believe even more I don't

21:16

think turning marriage into

21:18

a sacrament actually helps

21:21

the understanding of either the gospel or

21:23

marriage and I think one of

21:25

the big problems is the role of

21:27

one identified as a priest in

21:30

terms of dispensing sacramental grace in that context

21:32

that's just completely alien from

21:35

the worldview of the Reformation

21:37

but actually when I turn to a question sent in by

21:39

Gabriella a college student in

21:41

Florida and

21:44

she starts out very nicely and then says in

21:46

my developmental psychology class we were assigned a project

21:48

to look into the end of life care and

21:51

to ask our next of kin what they would

21:53

do if we were ever declared brain dead in

21:56

the articles that I've read the Vatican

21:59

has said that this is is morally unethical to

22:01

pull the plug on someone being sustained by

22:03

life support, how should we approach this topic

22:05

as Christians? Is there any specific guidance that

22:07

you have for Christian college students struggling with

22:09

moral questions brought up in their classes?"

22:12

You know, I want to start at the end,

22:14

Gabrielle. Thank you so much for your question, and

22:17

I'm so thankful for you listening to the briefing

22:19

and holding fast to Christian conviction and seeking to

22:21

think as a Christian. Working backwards from this, I

22:23

would say that I think it's very dangerous for

22:25

Christian college students ever to just be kind of

22:27

stranded as a Christian college student. This is where

22:30

we desperately need the local church preaching the word

22:32

and observing

22:34

the ordinances and experiencing

22:37

worship and the preaching of the

22:39

word together and talking about these things. Now,

22:41

I'm a little perplexed by the first

22:43

part of your question because it's talking

22:45

about end of care when someone has

22:47

been declared brain dead, and that's

22:49

a very dangerous, slippery thing. And I think you recognize

22:51

that, and that's why you set the question, and boy,

22:53

do I appreciate the fact you recognize that it's slippery

22:56

because I think the slippery slope is this.

22:58

I think increasingly there's going to be a

23:00

temptation and perhaps even a commercial

23:03

motivation for medical personnel to

23:05

declare someone brain dead while the heart is still

23:07

beating. And this

23:09

is a technical kind of question, but

23:12

the question is, when is a body

23:14

dead? And so in this

23:16

sense, I'm not sure that in the

23:19

class the term brain dead is actually

23:22

the right line to draw, but the point I want

23:24

to make is this. The Christian worldview does not say

23:26

that we keep a dead body hooked up to,

23:29

say, a life support system.

23:31

It does say that we make certain we

23:33

know exactly what dead means and

23:36

that we do not redefine that in a

23:38

way that hastens death, brings it about more

23:40

speedily, or embraces it as a

23:42

good in itself. That just is

23:44

a complete contradiction of the Christian worldview. I

23:47

think one of the most dangerous things going

23:49

on right now is that you have medical

23:51

personnel who are looking at keeping bodies alive

23:53

in terms of circulation even after

23:55

there is at least the argument

23:57

that this person is no longer

23:59

alive. in terms of brain activity. You'll have

24:01

to take that question and taking it apart in

24:03

terms of a different edition

24:06

of the briefing. But at this point, I just want

24:08

to say, I'm thankful for your Christian conviction. I'm thankful

24:10

you recognize a huge problem here. And I think this

24:12

is where you need the wealth of the Christian tradition.

24:15

It looks like you've looked up what the Vatican has

24:17

to say. And in this sense, I

24:19

think you would see the

24:22

Vatican seeking to uphold a dignity of

24:24

life ethic that

24:26

I think most evangelicals and Orthodox

24:28

Protestants would find themselves

24:30

in agreement with. And so in this,

24:32

I think we have some very common concerns. But

24:35

this is where, honestly, on the

24:37

other side, the Roman Catholic Church has a

24:39

way of ethical and theological maneuvering on this

24:41

that I don't believe biblically-minded Christians have. And

24:44

so we need to gather together biblically-minded Christians to

24:47

think through these issues. And

24:49

I do believe that pastors and local churches are

24:51

going to have to talk about these things openly,

24:54

or we're gonna find individual Christians finding

24:56

themselves very much adrift. All

24:58

right, I'm gonna end with a question from a

25:00

five-year-old, and again, the young among

25:02

us asked some of the smartest questions. Quote,

25:04

if the Bible says God never slumbers or

25:06

sleeps, why did Jesus sleep in the boat with

25:08

his disciples before he calmed the storm? Well, let

25:10

me tell you what's so encouraging about that. Mom

25:13

sent this question in. Just think about it for

25:15

a moment. You have a five-year-old asking that question.

25:17

How does a five-year-old ask that question? That

25:19

five-year-old has to be told a lot of Bible

25:22

to get to asking that question. It's so sweet.

25:24

I'm just so encouraged by this kind of question.

25:26

And we're also talking about a five-year-old who's listening.

25:29

If the Bible says God never slumbers or sleeps, why does

25:31

Jesus sleep in the boat? Well, this is where we need

25:34

to recognize, and I'm gonna try

25:36

my best to speak to a five-year-old

25:38

here, that when Jesus came as a

25:40

baby in Bethlehem, he needed

25:42

to sleep as a baby from the beginning. And

25:44

that is because a part of God's love for

25:47

us is that he loved us so much that

25:49

he sent Jesus to become like

25:51

us in taking on a human body. And

25:53

that meant that just like a human baby,

25:55

he had to sleep. And just

25:58

like a human being, even who's a grown-up. He

26:00

had to sleep. And for the same reason, Jesus

26:02

also had to eat. And this

26:04

is one of the ways God shows that He loves us,

26:07

is that He sent His only Son, who came from heaven where He didn't have

26:09

to sleep, and He didn't have to eat, in order to be among us, in

26:13

order to show God's love for us, and

26:16

to accomplish our salvation from sin.

26:20

And in order to do so, He became

26:22

like us. He never ceased

26:24

being God, and right now in

26:26

heaven, He doesn't need to sleep anymore, and He

26:29

doesn't need to eat anymore. He

26:31

did not set aside His deity, but

26:33

He did take on true humanity. And

26:36

I'll say to this sweet five-year-old, it

26:38

is so sweet to know that God loves us so much, that

26:41

Jesus, God's Son, who never needed to

26:43

sleep in heaven, came as a

26:46

little baby, and He did have

26:48

to sleep as a baby, and even as a grown

26:50

man. And that's a sweet

26:52

thing, just to underline again how much

26:54

God loves us. Thanks for

26:56

listening to the briefing. For more information, go to

26:58

my website at albertmuller.com. You

27:01

can follow me on Twitter by going to

27:03

twitter.com/albertmuller. For information on the

27:05

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to

27:07

sbts.edu. For information on

27:09

Boyce College, go to boycecollege.com. I'll

27:12

meet you again on Monday for the briefing.