Friday, August 30, 2024

Part I

---

Not Even Penguins are Safe From the LGBTQ Revolution: So-Called ‘Queer Icon’ Penguin Dies, But It’s Not Just the Penguins Who Were Confused

Remember the gay penguin couple? Now they’re supposedly at the Sydney Aquarium, and the big news has come that one of the two penguins has died. So here’s the big news story: it came several years ago, supposedly, that officials there at the Sydney Aquarium had noticed that there was a male bonded pair. There was a bonded pair of male penguins. Now, given the moral confusion and the sexual revolution and the LGBTQ activism, you can expect where this went. This became a celebrity couple of penguins, and they were celebrated as evidence of the fact that same sex marriage in effect takes place in the animal kingdom as well as among human beings after the sexual revolution and of course the revolt against marriage.

So you’re looking at this and you recognize: this is propaganda. This was big media attention in the service of a moral argument; an argument against marriage as the union of a man and a woman. An argument for the revision of marriage is whatever two human beings, or even more human beings, that’s going to be hard to avoid as an argument, but as only two human beings but evidently two penguins might want. Now, there was an awful lot of what is called anthropomorphism here. And that means just simply reading onto animals what is distinctively human. That’s a big problem. And by the way, it’s something that’s fun to play with. And this is why we have animal stories. This is why you have lots of cartoons. This is why we have animals talking on the screen or in a book; and animals don’t talk.

So the bigger issue here is how this plays out in moral terms. From a Christian worldview, the big question is, number one, what is going on here? And this is where Christians, we just are going to concede right away, in a fallen world, weird things happen. Weird things are found in the animal kingdom. Weirder things, arguably, are found in terms of behavior among human beings. But when you look at the animal kingdom, wires get crossed, things get messed up, two male penguins end up, well, at least according to the anthropomorphism, in love.

Now, I cannot speak to you of the romantic life of penguins. That is outside my expertise. I cannot speak to you of direct observation of this couple of male penguins. That’s outside my experience. I can tell you that looking at the media coverage several years ago when the story broke, it was just about as predictable as you could imagine. So is the news coming now that one of the penguins has died and the other surviving member of the pair is grieving the loss of effectively the same-sex penguin marriage.

Now, let’s just look at it and recognize we are not saying that this animal’s not suffering the loss, the social loss of an animal that was a companion. We’re not saying that. And as a matter of fact, when you look at God’s creation and you look at, say, mating pairs, and by that I mean male and female in the animal kingdom, there’s some remarkable loyalty, some remarkable monogamy. It’s not universal in the animal world, by the way. But then again, animals are not accountable to these moral principles, nor are they made in the image of God. They are not moral creatures with the same moral consciousness. And so if you find two gay penguins, well, first of all, you have to wonder if you are reading gay onto their behavior. And let’s just say the penguins aren’t themselves describing the relationship. But this really tells us a lot more about the human beings who have a moral agenda in what is described in Romans 1 as suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. Evidently, you can suppress the truth in unrighteousness by using the example of penguins.

But the news story is interesting. The New York Times reported, “Sphen, a male gentoo penguin whose enduring partnership with another male penguin in the colony led them to become international queer icons has died. According to the Sydney Aquarium that housed him, he was 11. We are told that after health was deteriorating, the penguin died earlier this month.” We then read this. And again, I just remind you, this is a major news article in The New York Times. “For Sphen and Magic, a summer meet-cute in Sydney sparked their six-year partnership. Sphen, three years older, had come from Sea World, while Magic was born in an aquarium in Melbourne. In a colony of young flirty penguins at Sea Life, the two had eyes only for each other, bowing, singing and bringing each other pebbles for a potential future nest, according to penguin keepers.”

Well, you can see exactly what’s going on here. I want to state again, in a fallen world, weird things happen. In a fallen world, even penguins get confused. I am not saying that these two male penguins were not emulating some kind of mating behavior. I’m simply saying they’re not married. You are reading on here for the purpose of creating “international queer icons,” What is clearly, laughably, lamentably, just really sadly and tragically a matter of human moral corruption and human moral confusion, and the mainstream media just playing along. Children’s books were written about the two penguins, and you know the bottom line of the message from those books.

The human complicity is made very clear in The New York Times article about the death of one of the penguins. “The penguin keepers embraced their partnership and gave them a dummy egg to foster. They were later given a real egg after a heterosexual penguin couple appeared to be neglecting their parenting duties. Sphen and Magic, who had achieved relative stability with their big nest, diligently nurtured their bundle of joy, swapping shifts to incubate the egg and keep it warm.” Well, there you go. This is just absolute evidence of the fact that when you are living in a time of rebellion against creation order and you are living in a time of moral rebellion, not even penguins are safe. The next thing you know, two penguins, even two confused penguins, become “international queer icons.”

Part II

---

No, a Parrot Does Not Have the Intelligence of a Human Child: Animal Rights Movement Makes Insane Claim About Animal and Human Cognition

But all right, let’s leave the penguins. Let’s go to the parrots. Here’s a headline in The Washington Post. Again I say a headline in The Washington Post. “Parrot sets Guinness Record, is as smart as a toddler, owners say.” Sydney Page is the reporter in this story. The Washington Post tells us that “Apollo is an African gray parrot with a deep love of pistachios and millions of social media followers. He also has the brainpower of a human toddler, according to his owners.” Now, wait just a minute. We’re being told that a parrot has the brainpower of a human toddler; and this is being reported in the first paragraph of an article in The Washington Post. We’re supposed to take this seriously.

Now, here’s one of the things Christians need to keep in mind. Let’s forget the parrot for a moment; let’s look at the human baby. A human baby is born in a way that represents a unique vulnerability. Made in God’s image, that baby is nonetheless largely, if not totally helpless in terms of its ability to sustain its own life after birth. A baby left unto its own will simply die. Babies are not unintelligent, but their intelligence, in particular operational and social intelligence, takes time to develop. This is God’s plan. It’s part of the reason he gives children to parents who are to raise those children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. They develop intellectually during that time.

But you see the agenda here, and here you see the animal rights movement. Not only will it adopt aggressively two penguins as international gay icons, it will also now raise a parrot, the Washington Post arguing that the parrot has the brainpower of a human toddler. One of the owners said, “He’s very bubbly, he’s very outgoing; he wants to really perform for everyone.” Well, it turns out that this man and his wife bought the parrot at a pet store in St. Petersburg, and now they’re making their living off of the parrot. So there’s another little angle on this. You take what you want out of the article, but a couple that gives up jobs to create an industry related to an entertaining parrot, let’s just say I’m going to say they’re not qualified to make these distinctions. They now dedicate their lives, we are told, to training Apollo. “They both do it full-time because the earnings from his social media accounts provide an income for them.”

Well, here’s where things get even more interesting, and in worldview, more important. Irene Pepperberg, identified as a scientist specializing in animal cognition, said that African gray parrots have become known for their innate intelligence, is what The Post says, and, as The Post says, capacity for learning. But it’s also Irene Pepperberg, again cited as a scientist specializing in animal cognition, who at the end of the article says about, not Apollo the parrot, but Alex the parrot, that she had tested Alex’s cognitive skills and she measured them “at the level of a four-year-old human.” So again, you’re talking about a young human, a preschool human being. Saying that this parrot, Alex, like was claimed about the parrot, Apollo, is as smart as a human toddler. In this case, as a four-year-old human being.

Now, I’ll simply say that’s absolute nonsense. I’m not an expert on parrot cognition. You can write that down. I am not. But I do know enough about reality to tell you that neither of these parrots is as smart as a human child. And here’s where I want to point out that we’re not talking about a sane way of measuring intelligence here. Because as you’re talking about operational human intelligence, it’s not just about the acquisition of words or the ability to memorize a performance or an act, it’s a much deeper intellectual development. We understand that.

But the important point for human beings isn’t that it comes down to say the parrot’s ahead of the baby or the baby’s ahead of the parrot on the scale. It is to say that human being, regardless of age, infant, toddler, child, is made in the image of God and is by God’s own creative act, cognitively and in every other way, distinct from the animal kingdom, and let’s just state the obvious, distinct from a parrot. But it’s further evidence, we just have to repeat this so many times, it’s further evidence of the very deep confusion that in our society is not accidental, sadly, it is deliberate.

Part III

---

AI Needs Personhood Credentials Now? Tech Industry Borrows Biblical Categories in Wake of Concern of AI Danger

That deliberate deception leads me to a third development which is related here. In this case, I’m also going to cite The Washington Post. Will Oremus is the reporter in the story. Here’s the headline, “AI, artificial intelligence researchers call for personhood credentials as bots grow smarter.” Well, so now we’re not just talking about a parrot, we’re talking about artificial intelligence. And now you have some people concerned about the development and the threat of artificial intelligence. That’s what they mean when they say bots in this sense. When they talk about intelligent bots, and they say they’re worried about the threat of artificial intelligence, they’re now saying that maybe human beings need to be issued some kind of unique personhood credentials as artificial intelligence grows as a threat, as artificial personhood becomes more of a direct threat to human personhood.

This is really interesting because this is where all of a sudden people in the secular world are coming into at least a situation in which they’re borrowing from the biblical, from the Christian worldview, because they’re trying to understand what in the world is this threat and why is it a threat to human dignity? I think it’s an incredible turning point in the culture when all of a sudden you have people who are inside the technology industry who are saying maybe human beings need personhood credentials. Well, that tells us something. It tells us at least they are making the observation that human beings alone are human persons, period, and that human persons are distinct from other forms of intelligence, including artificial intelligence, and here again, including parrot intelligence.

We’re talking about a sense of danger here represented by these scientists who are saying if we don’t come up with a way of distinguishing human personhood from other, I’ll just say artificial personhood, then maybe real human beings and real human flourishing is going to be directly threatened. And I simply have to say, you bet they will be threatened. All right, and by the way, there’s no particular suggestion here as to how exactly personhood credentials could be determined and certified and passed out to human beings, but at least there’s the acknowledgement, “Houston, we have a problem.” You bet we do.

Part IV

---

Does a Belief in Conspiracy Theories Disqualify a Man From Being an Elder? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The Briefing

But next, let’s turn to questions. Honestly, sometimes it’s hard to know what questions we need to take for this opportunity. And this is one that I thought at first, “I’m not going to take that question.” But the more I thought about it, I thought, “Maybe this is actually one I ought to take.” I might regret it. You may tell me so.” Okay, here’s the question. It’s coming from a listener who asked, “Does a belief in an outlandish conspiracy theory disqualify someone from the office of elder? In this case, the conspiracy is the belief that the earth is flat. But I understand if you’d rather not open that can of worms on your program.” He says, “We have an individual that in all other respects appears to be godly, sincere and wise, but then he also believes the Bible teaches this view. Church members by and large do not know this about him, but the elders do.” “Understandably,” he says, “I’m one of the pastors of the church and would prefer to remain anonymous.” I perfectly understand that.

Well, all right. I take this question because I find that there are a lot of churches in very similar kinds of situations, related to any number of issues. And honestly, this is a first. But when you look at something like this, you recognize if we were coming up with the answer to this without the guidance of Scripture, I don’t know where we would go. But when I look at the question about an elder or an overseer in a church, I know I’ve got to go to 1 Timothy 3. And here’s where Paul writes to Timothy.

“If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore, an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity, keeping his children submissive. For if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and follow into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover,” here’s Verse 7, “Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.”

Well, you say, I don’t see flat earth on that list. And it’s not on that list of course, but I want to say it is in this text. And I’m going to say that I believe this person is not well-suited for service as an elder in an evangelical church. I’m going to say that I think this is a big problem. And I don’t want to create a problem in a local church, but you asked me the question. So I’ll simply say, when you look at above approach, you look at able to teach, well thought of by outsiders. I think this is a legitimate issue that invokes all three of those causes in 1 Timothy 3. And it is, because when you look at this kind of claim, you could say, well, there are all kinds of conspiracy theories about which Christians can disagree. You can disagree about whether there was one shooter or two in Dallas in 1963. You can disagree about any number of issues.

And by the way, I do not agree with the man you’re asking about here when he comes to saying the Bible teaches a flat earth. That is simply not true. But as you look at this, you do recognize if it weren’t a problem, you wouldn’t be asking me the question. And I’m going to say I take this, simply because it’s kind of illustrative of the fact that there are people who really are, in so many ways, Godly. There are people who are, in many ways, suited for all kinds of good work. But about some people, and as we’re talking about elders, about some men who are believers in the church, they’re very committed to the gospel, they’re very committed to the church, they may be wonderfully warm people, but if there is something that would cause an offense, and I want to tell you what I think that could be.

When you talk about the Christian gospel, you talk about the stewardship of and the job of an elder, you’re talking about truth. And you’re talking about making objective truth claims revealed in Scripture concerning Jesus Christ, concerning doctrine. And if there is confusion over something as basic as whether or not the earth is flat, given all the evidence and, frankly, even the laws of physics, it becomes rather dubious that this person is above reproach in that sense. And I don’t want to say morally at all, I simply want to say in that sense able to teach. Well, I think that’s a huge question. But then, well thought of by outsiders, that can be misused. That can be misused so that you give too much credence to the secular world and its thinking.

But this is clearly in a moral sense. And in that sense, it’s hard to imagine that a person who believes that kind of conspiracy theory can be well thought of by outsiders in such a way that it does not bring damage to the church or to the gospel. So you asked me the question, there may be people very, very angry with me, who regardless of what they think are not standing on a flat earth, but this is a risk I thought I ought to take.

Part V

---

What are the Dividing Issues Between the West and Other Worldviews? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The Briefing

Okay. Next, I’m going to turn to a very different question. This is another thoughtful question, and it has to do not so much with something inside the church, but a big issue out in the world. And this writer asks, “What are the defining and dividing issues between the West, meaning Western civilization and other worldviews? For example, what is it that Hamas wants that is so radically different from what the West wants? I know there are very distinct religious differences, but what about all other social issues and concerns?”

Really interesting question. As a matter of fact, the more I look at it, the more interesting it gets to me. So the first part’s real easy to understand, what is the dividing issue between the West and other worldviews? Well, here’s something that many people in the West don’t want to be reminded of. The West was founded upon a Christian worldview. That’s not to say everyone in it was a Christian believer. We don’t believe that to be true. But we do know that Christianity, the biblical worldview, was not only the dominant worldview that produced Western civilization, it was, for all practical purposes, the universally held worldview that led to the establishment of Western civilization. But then you go on to say, and other civilizations, by the way, were based upon other worldviews and some mixture of those worldviews.

But then the question says, “What is it that Hamas, for example, wants that is so radically different from what the West wants?” Well, you look at this and you recognize, “Okay, what is the goal of Hamas?” The goal of Hamas is to eliminate Israel and to establish an Islamic people with an Islamic regime throughout the entire area of the territory now held by Israel. And it has other ambitions as well, but the main ambition is on behalf, it would claim, of the Palestinian people it wants to establish a Palestinian state, it wants to bring about the eradication of Israel, the removal of the Jews, and not only that, the establishment of an Islamic state. So you really are talking about an absolutely opposed worldview to the Western worldview when it comes to basic issues of governance, freedom, human dignity, law; go down the list.

But there is a subtlety in this question, and I want to thank the writer of this question because I caught the subtlety. The question is, “What about all other social issues and concerns?” Well, that gets to something else, and it gets to something that I referred to earlier on The Briefing, even this week, about the love of parents for children. So by common grace, by the structures of creation, even those who get many issues wrong, get some things right.

So, you take Hamas, it’s easier to say you take classical Islam. You take classical Islam, there are many things that the adherence of classical Islam and the adherence of Christianity would hold in common when it comes to creation order. As a matter of fact, it may become more and more true in a secularizing age that Muslims and Christians, along with a few others, including Orthodox Jews, may be the last people on Earth who do believe in creation order, who at least even have limited agreement but still generally agree on the distinction between male and female and so much of the worldview that, quite frankly, the secular world is now rejecting piece by piece and wave by wave.

So the biblical worldview to Christians reminds us that there are people who, by common grace, still agree with us on some things, still love their children. Let’s be thankful for that. They still obey certain laws that are just absolutely right. The problem is they are at absolute war with what is right on some of the biggest questions of civilization. And when it comes to Hamas, you’re looking at, when it comes to some of the biggest questions of international priority, they’re actually some of the most dangerous people on planet Earth and they’re filled with evil ambition, which they have demonstrated in evil actions. And we need to understand that when we are looking at Hamas, we are looking at a worldview that is diametrically different than ours, that is leading to diametrically different actions on the ground.

But there are still some things which, in creation order, they can’t get around any more than we can. But this is also a reminder of the fact that Western civilization may be trying to lose its Christian influence. But if it does so, it becomes a very different civilization. We’ll see that unfold.

Part VI

---

Should My Wife and I Renew Our Marriage Vows Since I Became a Christian After We Were Married? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The Briefing

Okay. I am always surprised with some of the questions sent to me. Here’s one coming from Alabama. A man writes, “I met and married my wife three years before I became a Christian. We have been married 20 years. Do you think we should renew our vows, in light of my conversion early in our marriage that we should renew our vows?”

Well, it’s an interesting question. I’ll simply say, here’s where Christians need to understand that we believe marriage vows are binding, regardless of whether the individuals, one or both, are Christians. Now, we believe the Bible says that Christians are not to be unequally yoked, and that’s simply a biblical rule. We also come to understand that, biblically, an unequally yoked couple once married are considered a married couple. And the New Testament deals with this rather honestly and directly. Let’s also deal with the fact that as we are looking at this question, we simply have to come back to the fact that if you entered into marriage with your wife even before you became a Christian, that marriage is valid. It doesn’t have to be made valid after your conversion by a different ceremony.

Now, I’m not saying you shouldn’t renew your vows. There are people who do that. I simply think it’s really important to recognize the objective truth of marriage and the fact that when you became married in the sight of God and of human beings, you were married and you’re still married. And as you’ve become a believer, and for that I am so thankful, it’s only a believer that would be concerned about this. So I see this as a sweet question coming from a believer who wants to be faithful. And I simply want to say, now that you’re a new man in Christ, you still don’t have to renew your vows officially for your marriage to be real. That might be something that’s meaningful to you, but it is your original exchange of vows in the ceremony of marriage that is called a wedding that was most determinative here. And if I can give you any assurance, it is that you were married then and you are married now. And now, I think you’re married in a way that you weren’t in the origin of your marriage, to the glory of God.

Part VII

---

What Are Your Thoughts On Kentucky’s Amendment 2 Proposal? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The Briefing

Okay. A question coming from here in Kentucky reminding us that big issues are at stake state by state in the elections coming up in November. Here’s the question. “What are your thoughts on Kentucky’s Amendment 2 proposal on changing school funding? How should a Christian evaluate this before funding?”

Well, here’s where I want to say the big issue here is really something called educational choice or parental choice in education. And I believe very strongly that parents should be given additional choice in education, and I believe that Christians should be increasingly concerned about a state monopoly when it comes to the public schools, the state-supported schools. And finally, I think there are many people who are waking up to the fact that even if they say, “I’ve seen this school and things are safe there.” The fact is that the directors and the direction in terms of public education in the United States are towards greater control by bureaucrats in Washington DC, deeply marinated in leftist ideologies and philosophies and intending to ratchet that down where they have opportunity at every level of public education. Now, I’ll simply say there’s some places at which it is already absolutely rancid.

Something like 20 years ago, I wrote an article, it got a lot of attention, it created some controversy, entitled, “Needed: An exit strategy from the public schools.” I was absolutely certain that was true say a generation ago. I’m even more convinced that it is true. Now, there’s a bigger issue here when we talk about how parents make decisions along these lines. But the big issue is we need to make certain that Christian parents, or for that matter, all parents have greater choice when it comes to the education of their children. And so long as there is a state-funded monopoly when it comes to tax money, let’s face it, that is a way of saying, “In terms of the state and its funding,” and the national government’s very complicit in this as well, “we want your children and we don’t want you to have the choice to put your children elsewhere.” That in itself, I will simply say in closing, should tell you something. It sure tells me something.

Thanks for listening to The Briefing.