Friday, March 27, 2026

It's Friday, March 27, 2026.

I'm Albert Molar, and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from

a Christian worldview.

Are the kids all right?

Well, the cover story of the current edition of Scientific American declares the kids

are all right.

The subhead in the cover story quote, what the doomsayers get wrong about the young people

of today.

Okay, so for Christians, that's a big issue, right?

We want to know if the kids are okay.

We want to know what even does this cover story point to?

What is it talking about?

You look at the article itself, and the headline again is the kids are all right.

The subhead inside the magazine, young people are doing better than you think.

The author's identified as Melinda Winner-Moyer, and she is a science journalist.

She begins the article by basically making the case that there have been dire predictions

and prophecies, dire analyses about the current state of kids suggesting they're not doing

well.

She comes back to say a lot of this is overblown.

She writes this quote, if you were to ask most people how kids are doing these days, you

probably get an earful of complaints and concerns compared with children from past generations.

Kids today are often portrayed as being less mentally healthy, less resilient, less empathetic.

That's a big word that she used over and over again.

She writes headlines such as America's children are unwell New York Times back in November.

How to know if your kid is a narcissist and what to do about it?

Another online article.

You also have, she says the fact that quote, in a 2025 common sense media survey of 1300

nationally representative parents, 61% said they believe kids today lag behind past generations

and their morals and values, and more than half said youth today are less resilient and

independent.

All right.

So let's just step back for a moment.

Anytime you see a big moral question, primarily dealt with in terms of a war a statistics or

just an easy dismissal of an argument, your defense mechanisms should go up.

In other words, if 61% of parents said 71% of this, that doesn't really tell you much,

but it does frame an argument.

And for our concern, worldview analysis, this is actually a big thing in itself.

The fact that this article appears as it appears, basically in scientific American,

which is the nation's oldest continuously published magazine, again, it's the oldest

continuously published magazine in the United States.

It emerged in the era with the rise of modern science and with the authority of science

in American society, growing my leaps and bounds.

And so when this magazine began, it was just when you started hearing Americans saying things

like, well, scientists say, or experts say, and the role of the scientist and the role

of science as a way of knowing and as a cultural authority was really expanding vastly.

Well she asked the question in this case, the author of this article, why are so many

people concerned about children?

She writes, quote, many factors are probably at play, but thoughtful emotions focused

parenting reflected in the kinds of conversations that regularly occur.

She mentions one household could be an important driver experts say, she also, again, notice

experts say she also goes at what are identified as as negative narratives about kids these

days.

Okay, then listen here, quote, research points to evolutionary biology and cognitive biases

that distort our memories and our perception of others.

And quote, so just all of a sudden in this article, you have evolutionary biology cited

as an intellectual mechanism for knowing whether or not kids are doing well or why people

might think that they aren't doing well.

All right, so I want to get to what I think is the most important part of this article.

And it's research and argument that is based in moral judgments made by children.

So just listen to this.

I think you're going to hear immediately why we're talking about this today.

Although there's no question that racism and homophobia remain persistent problems.

A 2019 study analyzed more than 4 million tests of implicit and explicit attitudes administered

to people in the US between 2007 and 2016 and found substantial declines in anti gay and

racial bias, especially among young people.

A 2024 study found that homophobic beliefs and attitudes have been dropping among adolescent

boys in Canada.

And in another study, researchers in Turkey found that generations Y and Z hold more egalitarian

views about gender and are more likely to reject violence against women compared with

gen X's quote, I frequently hear from parents how shocked they are by their children's

complete comfort with the spectrum of sexuality and gender identity.

And I think there's a contrast with how we grew up in quote, so said Emily Edeland identified

as a clinical psychologist and known always been practicing for 20 years.

Okay, I hope you heard what I wanted you to hear now clearly we should be very glad if

children demonstrate less racism than generations in the past.

That's a good thing, but you'll notice that that is equated immediately put alongside

homophobia and that is just a moral judgment against LGBTQ behaviors is very, very interesting.

So racism and homophobia are put in this article as absolute equivalents, they belong together.

But it is also interesting that the homophobia part, which of course homophobia is declared

to be an irrational condition of making negative moral judgments towards persons and behaviors

and relationships that are identified as homosexual.

You don't see that word used so much these days, you hear more the anti LGBTQ rather

than homophobia, but it's in this article.

So I wanted you to hear it just as it is.

And so you hear a statement such as quote, a 2024 study found that homophobic beliefs

and attitudes have been dropping among adolescent boys in Canada, in quote, not that there's

a lot to deal with here, but let me just note that you're supposed to celebrate this.

This is written as if the reader looks at and goes, wow, we're winning.

Most described as homophobia is is dropping among adolescent boys in Canada.

Okay.

So if you have time and you want to track that down, I'm secondarily going to say, I really

doubt that that is all that it appears to me.

And so here's one of the things when it comes to say doing surveys, doing this kind of

analysis with teenagers, children, even more so, but teenagers also with children, they tend

to answer questions the way they think they are supposed to answer questions according

to adults.

When it comes to teenagers, you have a little bit of that.

You also have an awful lot of generational bias where they say what they think they're

supposed to say or they're going to say they believe what their friends and peer structure

would say they're supposed to believe, you know, all of that is in here.

And it's all presented for a magazine called Scientific American.

This is a profoundly unscientific article.

It cites studies, it cites research, it cites theories.

Now, the reason we're talking about it today in the briefing is that I just want Christians

to understand the larger currents in the culture.

And in one sense, what we're up against, we're up against the explicit and implicit point

of this article, which is that it's a good thing if, if, if fewer people think that almost

sexuality is a sin.

It's a good thing.

If more and more young people, kids and teenagers, because remember, this is an article about

those identified as kids, we're supposed to celebrate this.

The reader of this article is supposed to celebrate this as a great moral victory.

Things are not going in the wrong direction, they're going in the right direction.

This is also tied, I think, to a lot of the current controversy over empathy.

Because this author is saying, no, these young people are very empathetic, but I want

you to note that empathetic defined in this way has a great deal to do with liberal moral

judges.

And it becomes a shorthand, one becomes a shorthand for the other.

There's more to the issue than that.

We'll talk about it in greater length and depth in another time.

I just want to mention this because Scientific American, the nation's oldest and longest

published periodical magazine, it now comes with this article telling Americans the kids

are all right.

As if Americans, by the way, are about to be persuaded by a cover story in Scientific

American when it comes to their own kids.

No, this is more about about public signaling.

And it is about how elites operate in the society.

And this is really an attempt to speak elite to elite, the kinds of people who would read

Scientific American to be basically told the progressivist system is working.

Things are moving our way.

It is interesting that when you think about how the issues are defined here, we're really

talking about liberal parenting being championed.

We're talking about liberal moral judgments being the goal.

And we're talking about liberal moral trends, you know, being the trajectory that it's

hoped for.

So it's just good for us to know this is good for Americans to know what you're up against.

It's also good for us at times to see this kind of argument and recognize, you know,

we need to take a closer look.

What exactly does this mean?

And I want to go back to one statement.

It was the statement made by the clinical psychologist cited here, quote, I frequently

hear from parents about how shocked they are by their children's complete comfort with

the spectrum of sexuality and gender identity.

And I think there's a contrast with how we grew up in quote, let me just make the obvious

point here.

And that is that the moral trajectory depicted in that statement is exactly what is being

hoped for and worked for when it comes to those who are trying to, well, the article makes

clear, make everyone in America thinking totally, morally affirming terms of all that

is covered within that spectrum of behaviors, identities and all the rest.

Okay.

Now, let's turn to questions.

There are always really good questions sent in by listeners, one man wrote in and asked

about the recent deaths of, let's say, the Ayatollah in Iran, also mentioning the deaths

previously of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.

How do we, as Christians, rightfully think about those deaths without celebrating their

deaths?

Okay.

That's a good question.

And of course, at least a part of this comes because of recent controversies about statements

made about someone dying.

And I addressed that on the briefing, but let's just move on and say that you do have here

a really good moral question.

And this does test us in terms of our Christian worldview.

And the moral question is, you know, how do we deal with someone's death who was just

horribly evil and did evil things and even brought about mass genocide, the killing of millions

of innocent people?

And you're talking about different levels here.

So let's just say that Ayatollah, hominy, and also Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, all

of them, each of them, deeply evil people, given over, I think, in a biblical sense, to

evil, documented evil, which also includes using the mechanisms of the state to bring about

mass death and all kinds of other things without going into detail.

I think the big moral question in this question is, is how in the world do we deal with our

emotional response to the news of someone's death when it is someone like a totalitarian

dictatorial, extremist leader who has brought about death and murder and mayhem?

And the fact is that we should not celebrate anyone's death in so far as that's the cause

of celebration.

We can celebrate the neutralization of a threat.

We can celebrate justice in terms of someone like Adolf Hitler, or Joseph Stalin dying,

and there were different circumstances, of course.

But the point is that we can agree it is a good thing the world is rid of this person.

That is something that I believe Christians consistent with the biblical worldview, that's

a judgment we can make.

It is a good thing that the world is rid of this.

It is a good thing that the world is no longer threatened by this person.

That this person will no longer be in power in a position in authority to bring about

horrible acts.

But we do not celebrate directly their death.

We celebrate the neutralization of a threat.

And sometimes in a fallen world and a murderous world, this kind of action becomes necessary.

This is something that became a major struggle in the hearts of some German Christians.

And there weren't all Christians, but some German citizens who really were struggling

with whether or not the right thing to do was to assassinate Adolf Hitler.

And of course, this led to a direct effort to assassinate and to eliminate the furor.

And a bomb did indeed go off, and the bomb did do grave damage, even some physical damage

to Adolf Hitler did not kill him.

And so one of the big issues is that by the time that happened, there have been a shift

in the moral judgment of a good many people in Nazi Germany, not to mention people outside

Nazi Germany, even a good number of people inside Nazi Germany, that Adolf Hitler was an evil

malign force that could only be neutralized for the good of humanity and the safety, the

literal safety of human beings if he were eliminated.

And so, you know, I'll just say that in terms of Christian moral judgment, it goes back

to just war.

Just war must always be defensive, and it must be undertaken, even even battle, military

action must be undertaken with the goal of neutralizing a threat and in terms of endangerment

to human life and human dignity rather than an aggressive action.

And I think that's what's reflected in the moral question of how do we respond to the

death of someone like the recent Iatola or Hitler installing.

The fact is that there is some moral satisfaction in the fact that they are certainly no longer

a threat.

And that was true at the time when their deaths were announced.

But it is also true that it is not the death of a fellow human being that we celebrate.

It is a lamentable necessity, the elimination of one who is posing a real and present danger

to human life and human dignity.

Okay.

This is a hard question to deal with in this context, but I think it's so important and

I deal with so many young people.

I want to deal with the question just to put it out there.

So let me just tell you, this one, this one's going to stretch me a bit in terms of how

to discuss it.

But it is a young man, a Christian young man who is intending to be married and he is

writing to me about his desire for his future wife and he's struggling with whether that

desire is holy, okay.

Let's just state that's a legitimate question, all right?

I admire the fact that this young man is struggling with the question, but I also just

want to tell him that the sexual urge within him is not something aliens put in him.

His creator put that drive in him.

That is natural.

Now you're a sinner, I say to this young man and we're all sinners.

So that means we have to be very careful in understanding how we are to respond to this.

But God put that drive in you, at least in part to drive you, to motivate you and direct

you towards the woman you should marry in the context of holy matrimony and to whom you

should be faithful in every conceivable way for the rest of your lives and that's a sweet

thing.

I also want to say that your interest in the woman who is soon to become your wife is

a good thing.

The absence of it would be a bad thing.

And so that is in itself a good thing.

You are morally responsible for how you deal with that before you're married.

And the best way to deal with that is to just be so devoted to Christ and so devoted

to your wife even in terms of making sure the right things happen after marriage.

And the wrong things don't happen before marriage.

You just have to understand that the lack of that passion would be a big problem.

The presence of that passion is a very good natural sign.

It is also a moral challenge for you to deal with until such time that you stand before

God and witnesses and before all commit yourselves to each other as husband and wife until

death do you part.

It is a sweet question.

But I mean that in essence.

And this young man also goes back to my definition.

I mentioned on the briefing of Pornaya as a wrongful sexual desire, you know, that that's

another reminder that there's also a rightful sexual desire.

I appreciate this question so that I can say that clearly.

But it is a man for his wife and a wife for her husband.

And that is going to be kindled before the covenant of marriage begins.

But it is to be set loose and celebrated inside the covenant of marriage.

And I just will say this to young men all the time, young women too, but it's my position

to speak most candidly to young men and say, God has put this fire within you to make

you restless until you do the right thing and commit yourself to a woman in marriage

and live out that marital life faithfully to the glory of God.

Okay.

The interesting question comes from a young woman contemplating marriage.

In this case, the young woman is 19 years old and it is really looking forward to marriage.

And she says, I want to be wise and honor God in preparing for marriage and in considering.

She then asked this question.

I didn't see this one coming.

I was wondering how to think biblically regarding prenuptial agreements.

Okay.

That's interesting.

I want to say that the prenuptial agreement widespread in culture is really a result

of widespread divorce.

So prenuptial agreements really aren't at all needed, even pragmatically indicated

unless there's some expectation that the marriage may end in divorce.

And then the question is what kind of legal protections arrangements and to be made up front

before that should happen.

There might be prenuptial contractual conditions that aren't envisioned in what we're discussing

here.

But by definition, I can't envision what they would be.

But when it comes to just the general structure of prenuptial agreements, I would say I would

never encourage Christian couples to enter into one.

I would encourage Christian couples, a young man and a young woman, to enter into the

covenant of marriage as defined by scripture and celebrated and recognized by the church.

And that marriage covenant, the set of vowels that are exchanged, that is the nuptial agreement.

A prenuptial agreement that something worked out ahead of time, usually an anticipation

of the marriage being dissolved, I think that's a huge problem for Christians.

I think buying into that kind of back door is a huge problem.

And I didn't expect the question.

I think it's a good one.

I'm glad to address it.

Next, another very interesting question sent in by a 20-year-old young man about marriage.

Let's just state the obvious.

It's a good thing that young men and women, these ages, are thinking about marriage.

That's a refreshing contrast with the secular world.

So that part just makes me happy already.

Okay, so here's the question.

My girlfriend and I have gotten into a debate recently on the question of divorce.

I've been holding that the only reason we're allowed to divorce is Christians will be

because of infidelity.

She's been saying that the reason Jesus said that, that was the only reason it wasn't

in order to combat the Pharisees teaching that the Jewish men could get a divorce for any

reason and that there are other acceptable reasons for getting a divorce, such as a physically

abusive relationship.

What is my opinion on this?

Wow, well, you ask.

I'm going to do my best.

I think there are biblical allowances for divorce on two grounds, clearly.

And those grounds are adultery and abandonment.

And so both of those things are easily recognized.

The adultery is adultery.

It is the physical violation of the marital covenant and bond.

And the second of abandonment is that a spouse is just involuntarily abandoned.

The other spouse deserts.

And so desertions, the other word that has sometimes been used.

And in almost every society, there's some legal definition of time and circumstances

to make that clear.

And I believe that churches, congregations are in a position to judge those things very

adequately and faithfully.

And I think it is something local churches are called upon to do that is exercising church

discipline and pastoral judgment and congregational understanding as to how we uphold holiness

and uphold the institution, the covenant of marriage.

Okay.

In this case, the young man is asking about what his girlfriend said about also grounds

of a physically abusive relationship.

Okay.

So this has been an interesting discussion among conservative Christians.

Okay.

And I think it's been a productive discussion.

And so a good number of really gospel-centered churches have addressed this question.

And you know there is no precise biblical text that makes that clear.

And so I will tell you what at least some of the biblical reasoning has been on this

that I think is fruitful.

And the biblical reasoning is that if, say, a spouse is physically abusive, and that's

how this question is stated, physically abusive relationship, that that, especially without

remedy and without adequate correction and adequate restoration, that would be the equivalent

of abandonment.

In other words, a man who is unwilling to live with his wife without physically harming

her is a man who has abandoned any claim to be her husband and is acting contrary to the

covenant of marriage.

And so I think this is an expanding matter of awareness for a lot of Christian congregations,

evangelical congregations and dealing with this.

And it is a congregational responsibility to make certain that we act to protect, I'll

say women in this situation, the vast majority of cases, from a physically abusive spouse.

And this is why you need a structure or church or discipline within a gospel congregation

and you need elders and others who can provide leadership and remember protection.

That's one of the responsibilities of an elder, the protection of the sheep, pastoral responsibility.

So I think it's a very good question.

I want to say in some sense, at least what I have here, I think both of you are right.

Because I don't think we get to add new grounds for divorce in biblical terms.

I do think that we can become morally aware that some things are actually covered by those

grounds in ways that we would understand become necessary.

But again, in a divorce directed culture, we just have to think very, very carefully.

OK, I want to take another question that comes and I think there are probably others who are

asking some more questions.

This is a young man.

And by young, I mean, young 15 years old really encourages me.

Listen to this quote.

I definitely feel called to ministry, but I'm not sure what role exactly.

He says it's been leaning towards youth ministry for a while.

It's very common.

Still unsure.

I don't want to get ahead of myself.

I've got to decide say it's different plans for me.

But I also don't want to hesitate.

God really wants me to show my calling.

I don't want to spend.

Well, he goes on.

He wants to make good decisions in line with God's call.

He then asks the big question, how can I know for sure that this is the path God is calling me to

and know what he'll let me know what role to take, etc.

OK, he's worried about just following his feelings.

And yet he's honest about those feelings.

OK, let me just state as succinctly as I can.

And I intentionally took this question when I knew I didn't have too much time to do with it.

It's because this is an urgent question that deserves a straightforward answer.

Let me just tell you that God calls men to serve his church in these crucial roles in particular

in the role of the Christian ministry.

What we're talking about here is in particular elders and pastors.

Those will be the preacher teachers in the church.

And we do believe rightly that there is a special call.

Now, as Luther and others remind us, all Christians have a calling.

So it's not like there are those who have a call to ministry and the others aren't called.

No, there's a calling to many different areas of services.

Luther said the milk maids just as cold as the preacher.

But there is a call to ministry.

I know what you're talking about.

And at your age and in that same age period, I was struggling with the very same question.

And I want to tell you that there are objective criteria set out in scripture.

Paul's letters to Timothy and to Titus.

There's some very clear objective criteria that are set for those who will be deacons in one

context and for those who will be pastors and elders in another context.

And I think that's very helpful.

So in other words, God's not going to call someone who is disqualified by an objective criterion.

And by the way, one of those is able to teach.

So that's good.

Okay, so I'm going to assume that's met.

Then you have feelings, passions that you believe are calling you into the ministry.

And all of a sudden, say, God could be using those very things.

And that's why you need the counsel of your parents.

I hope they're Christian parents.

You can talk to them and others in the local church who know you,

including elders and pastors in your local church who know you,

who can help you to determine what God's plan is for your life.

But I want you to hear me to say the need also helps to clarify the call.

And there is a tremendous need for young men to answer the gospel call and to show up for service

because we need pastors, elders, teachers of God's word for the church in generations to come.

And there is an urgent need.

And so it's also biblical to understand an urgent need.

Can very well be a part of God's call.

I also just want to cite the Apostle Paul to Timothy.

It is a good thing to desire to be a preacher.

And so it is in itself a good thing.

And I pray you receive the help and direction you need.

And I just want to encourage you also to kindle that call and passion that is within you

in a godly way.

Last thing I want to say is, please stay in touch because I know a school you could well attend

to help you to prepare to become the minister God would call you to be.

Well, you know, honestly, I realize now I'm going to talk about that very thing.

And as I end the briefing today, I just want to tell you that if you're called to the ministry,

where you prepare for ministry is one of the most important decisions you'll ever make.

At Southern Seminary, we're committed to providing theological education that is

trusted for truth, grounded in the Word of God, led by our world class faculty designed

to prepare you for a lifetime of faithfulness in service to Christ and His Church.

I want to invite you to preview day at Southern Seminary April to 17th.

And we would invite you to come and to sit in on classes, meet the faculty to the campus,

experience firsthand what it means to be trained rightly to divide the word of truth,

rightly to handle the word of truth.

And to learn all these things in a confessional community committed to the Word of God,

to the gospel, and to the great commission, your registration includes two nights of complimentary

meals and lodging, your registration fee is waived when you use the promo code, the briefing.

One word, all caps, make plans to join me at Southern Seminary Preview Day, April 17th.

For more information, go to spts.edu slash preview.

Thanks for listening to the briefing.

For more information, go to my website at albertmuller.com.

You can follow me on xr twitter by going to x.com forward slash albertmuller.

For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to spts.edu.

For information on boys college, just go to boyscolleys.com.

I'll meet you again on Monday for the briefing.