Friday, November 22, 2024

Part I

---

Matt Gaetz Withdraws: Trump’s Potential Attorney General Change in Wake of Gaetz Scandal

Well, it wasn’t surprising, but still it was shocking when former Florida Congressman, Matt Gaetz, withdrew from consideration to serve as Attorney General of the United States in the second Trump administration. It was an announcement on Twitter or X that came in which Matt Gaetz said, “It is clear that my confirmation was unfairly becoming a distraction to the crucial work of the Trump-Vance transition.”

He went on to say, quote, “There is no time to waste on a needlessly protracted Washington scuffle. Thus, I’ll be withdrawing my name from consideration to serve as Attorney General.” He went on to say, “Trump’s Department of Justice must be in place and ready on day one.” Responding on the social media platform Truth Social, President-elect Trump went on to express appreciation for Matt Gaetz and also praised him. He went on to say that Gaetz had been doing very well in the confirmation process. Well, that last part is rather questionable, but there is no doubt that Matt Gaetz did the right thing in withdrawing from consideration. And there are some big lessons here, but I want to focus on just one of these lessons and another practical application.

The first of the lessons is this, when there is a major charge in terms of moral misbehavior, when such a charge comes, you have to meet it and deny it. And then you have to face the argument and make very clear you’re standing by your claim that you did not do it. And that means you have to state that you’re willing to face whatever evidence or so-called evidence someone might bring forward.

The fact that Matt Gaetz was charged with very significant moral misbehavior, that is of secondary importance in political terms to the fact that he appeared to have resigned from the house in order to block the release of a House Investigative Committee report.

And furthermore, it was in the face of the fact that at least the particulars and some of the testimony produced by that investigation would likely come out. So again, let me be very clear. I am in no position to know whether or not all of these charges, some of these charges, or none of these charges are actually applicable when it comes to former Congressman Gaetz. I am saying this: in moral terms, you cannot run from what someone says is evidence of misbehavior. You have to confront that evidence, and you have to make very clear that evidence is false.

There are some people who are claiming that it is unfair to Matt Gaetz that he had to withdraw in the light of this kind of investigation, but it is also clear that President Trump himself as President-elect of the United States, made a decision that is consistent with exactly what was said by Matt Gaetz, and that is that the Trump-Vance transition team, the presidency when it comes to the second term of Donald Trump, the President of the United States deserves a team at the Department of Justice that is in place and frankly has the confidence of the nation.

A bit of political history will also help us to understand the context if you go back, for example, to the fact that George H.W. Bush was elected President of the United States in 1988, he had chosen Texas Senator John Tower to serve as his Secretary of Defense. And that fell apart not this early. It fell apart with far greater political costs later when power failed the confirmation process. And remember this, the big stakes were the fact that John Tower was a towering member of the United States Senate, but that very Senate refused to confirm him for service as the Secretary of Defense of the United States.

When your own colleagues or former colleagues in this case refused to confirm you when the president has nominated you, that is a major statement. The withdrawal of Matt Gaetz from this process serves the nation in that larger sense, but it also serves specifically the transition process for President-elect Donald Trump. And President-elect Trump turned right around after this. And within a very short amount of time, in some sense a record amount of time, he announced that he was turning to nominate former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi as the next Attorney General of the United States. And that’s likely to be a very fast confirmation process, and just politically speaking for two reasons.

Reason number one, Pam Bondi is the former Attorney General of Florida, which means she unquestionably has the legal background and experience to serve as Attorney General of the United States. But the second thing is this. Once you have controversy about one appointment, very rarely is there a lengthy or contested confirmation process for the second nominee. In one sense, the people who are trying to oppose the Gaetz nomination effectively shot all their bullets in that process. Now, there could be an exception to that rule. But when it comes to Pam Bondi, it is unlikely that will serve as an exception.

Now, I said there was also a practical observation to be made here, and that practical observation is this. Many in the national media are saying that the withdrawal of Matt Gaetz is a significant setback for President-elect Donald Trump. I’m just going to tell you that is not the case. I have had no conversation with the President-elect, but I can almost guarantee you that he was ready from the beginning to follow any appointment that might’ve failed with a subsequent name. And that’s exactly why you had Pam Bondi put forward as his choice to be Attorney General within just a very short amount of time after Matt Gaetz had announced on social media that he was withdrawing.

Now, another key to understanding the Washington process is to know that Matt Gaetz, who very much wants to be in the good graces of the President-elect, you can count on the fact that you had Matt Gaetz in close conversation with the Trump transition team in order to decide exactly what would be said and when. The withdrawal of Matt Gaetz from this consideration is not going to weaken the presidency of Donald Trump. It may well serve to strengthen it.

Part II

---

The ICC Issues Warrant for Netanyahu’s So-Called War Crimes? Israel Has Every Right to Defend Itself

But next we need to shift to what may well turn out to be a far larger story, certainly in the international context. News came yesterday that the International Criminal Court had issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, now his former defense minister by the way, and Ibrahim Al Masri identified as a senior official with the terrorist group, Hamas, and also Mohammed Deif, another senior Hamas commander. However, Israel and Hamas both indicated that Deif has been killed. And so even though the arrest warrant was issued, it is not likely that that matter will go further.

But the big news is this, Hamas is a terrorist organization. It’s easy to understand why there would be arrest warrants issued for one of the leaders of Hamas. In fact, many leaders of Hamas need to face the court of justice. But that court of justice is not likely to be the international criminal court for the obvious reason that Hamas is a terrorist organization and not a state actor.

It is not a recognized government, not even close. But the really big story here, and its big and more ways than many might recognize at first is the issuing of arrest warrants for the prime minister of Israel and the former defense minister. They’ve been charged with criminal responsibility and frankly for what would be considered crimes against humanity in a time of war.

The prosecutors claim that the Israeli leaders “Created conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the civilian population in Gaza, which resulted in the death of civilians including children due to malnutrition and dehydration.” Now, let’s just start from the very beginning and say that it is quite possible. Indeed, it is quite probable the nations involved in war will commit acts that will be morally questionable if not outright morally wrong. But those have to be set within a larger moral context.

And the larger moral context here when it comes to Israel is Israel’s absolute right to defend itself against a terrorist organization. And Hamas had unleashed a deadly attack against Israel back on October 7th of 2023. And as we know, it was the deadliest attack against Israel since Israel’s Wars of Independence. We have to understand that Hamas has pledged itself along with other Islamic terror organizations in the region to the non-existence of Israel at whatever cost.

We also understand that Hamas deliberately strategically embedded its own military forces within a civilian population. In other words, it is Hamas that overwhelmingly bears responsibility for the civilian casualties here. But you have the International Criminal Court which has existed only since the Rome Statute was affirmed by several nations back in 1998. And you have this International Criminal Court that now poses as an international court that will render judgment on the state of Israel and on Israeli political leaders for their conduct in a war that defends the very existence of Israel.

Now, it was just with the anticipation of this kind of problem that the United States and Israel chose not to join the International Criminal Court nor to recognize its international jurisdiction going all the way back to 1998. Now, when you do go back to 1998, it’s perhaps important to recognize that the then President of the United States, Bill Clinton, far more of a globalist than say President Trump, and that is by light years. It was President Clinton who did sign the document. But it was not ratified by the United States Senate. The United States has never been a signatory nation thus to the Rome Statute that produced the International Criminal Court.

And what you now have in terms of the issuance of arrest warrants against Israel is proof positive of the wisdom of the United States not joining or recognizing the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Directly, the greatest concern of the American government back in 1998 is that an international criminal court would be used politically to bring criminal action against members of the United States military or even senior political leaders of the United States just for the crime of defending the United States against its own enemies.

So let’s apply the Christian worldview here for just a moment. Do we believe in justice? Of course, we do. It is a command of God. And justice is determined by what the Lord God himself says is and is not just. And even in terms of common grace, we can be thankful that many people around the world have a sense of what is just, and they want to serve that sense of what is just. So is it right to seek after justice? Of course, it is. But that has to be justice that is grounded in a correct understanding of what justice is and what justice requires. And frankly, it also has to be limited in terms of jurisdiction.

When you think about this, you recognize that if anyone anywhere can charge anyone anywhere with a crime, then, we’re going to spend the rest of human history until Jesus comes trying to unwind legal actions, maybe even criminal legal actions taken by one nation or, in this case, a coalition of nations against another nation which isn’t even a member in terms of the treaty organization.

Now, I’m going to say that I believe the United States and Israel among other nations were both absolutely right in not joining the Rome Statute and that treaty, and also not recognizing the jurisdiction of this International Criminal Court. And that raises an interesting question. What from the Christian worldview then would be, say, the natural extent of a legal jurisdiction? And this is where it’s hard to imagine that anything larger than a nation could really conduct a meaningful sense of justice as you look at this kind of context, but it’s also clear that at the international level, it is not wrong. It is right for the United States to join with other nations in treaties in which you could have a mutual definition of justice, but that would be within the context of a mutual worldview.

And that’s what’s missing from the International Criminal Court. You’re also looking at the fact that many people there safely ensconced on that court, enjoying the glory of their exalted position, can just pretty conveniently ignore everything in terms of facts on the ground with the attack against Israel and just presume to issue a moral judgment with some kind of binding authority.

What will be the practical aspect of all of this? The practical effect is going to be that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel is going to have to watch where he travels lest he be arrested. And just understand that if this can be threatened against the prime minister of Israel, it can and almost assuredly will at some point be exercised against a sitting President of the United States or for that matter, a former President of the United States.

This is the kind of international nonsense up with which we cannot put. That last statement was a twist on famous words issued by former British prime minister, Winston Churchill. And if anyone would understand the issues at stake in this development, it would be someone like Winston Churchill. Disturbingly, several European nations, including close allies to the United States, have indicated that they believe the ICC, the International Criminal Court, rightly applied these arrest warrants to the Israeli prime minister.

That’s a very disturbing development, and it is likely to bring about some rather significant changes in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s travel schedule. He’s not going to land in those countries. On the other hand, we also have to look at the fact that there is a good deal of hypocrisy on this count because at least two nations which are signatories to the treaty, have failed to arrest persons who have been issued arrest warrants when it comes to International Criminal Court revealing that much of this is arbitrary and indeed not coincidentally, often hypocritical.

But we also need to understand that Israel is going to be shown very quickly who is and is not a friend of Israel. And that also means who is and is not a friend to the need for nations to defend themselves against terrorist organizations. Again, we are not saying that Israel has done no wrong. We wouldn’t say that about the United States. In our own military efforts, it is to say the cause is righteous. And standing with Israel in this sense is also righteous.

Part III

---

Did You Miss an Easy Explanation for the Voting Number Discrepancy Between the 2020 and 2024 Presidential Elections? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners to The Briefing

Okay. Now, let’s turn to questions. And sometimes, questions lead to other questions. And sometimes, they lead to clarifications and comments. I was glad to receive a comment sent in by a listener with response to my discussion about the differential between the vote counts and the vote totals looking at the 2016, 2020 and 2024 elections. I won’t go over that material again, but this very gracious math professor wrote back to say there’s an explanation for this. And he says, I’m just going to read this, he says, “There’s actually a simple explanation for the 13 million fewer votes cast in 2024 versus 2020.” He said, “These are votes for president, not total ballots as you can easily verify online.”

He said, “The total number of ballots cast in 2020 was 159.7 million. And 97.4% included a vote for president.” He goes on to say, “That at least at this point, the total number of ballots cast in 2024 appears to be something like 155.4 million. But only about 91% included a vote for president.”

That’s a very important clarification. And frankly, that’s not information that has been thoroughly covered in the media. I’ve been looking at other mathematical analyses, and I think this professor is quite right about the fact that there’s not a great difference, it appears, that calls for some explanation. There’s not a great question that calls for some kind of explanation as comparing the vote between 2020 and 2024. I still think there is a significant question, at least in my mind, about the jump from 2016 to 2020. And I’m sure there could very well be a mathematical explanation, but the radical increase of votes under the context of COVID with all kinds of alternative voting mechanisms, again, I am not supporting any conspiracy theory.

To the contrary, I think the fact that Donald Trump won so convincingly with many of the same voting rules in place in 2024, even as he lost in 2020, and even as there was a significant increase in the total votes, I don’t think there’s a basic question about all of that. And if there were a conspiracy like this, that conspiracy wouldn’t have elected Joe Biden in 2020 only to turn around and elect Donald Trump in 2024. That would be a pretty imbecilic conspiracy.

But I do believe that Americans have the right for these numbers to be thoroughly analyzed and, in fairness, very clearly presented in such a way that all Americans can have confidence that our votes count, that rightful votes are counted, that they’re all counted equally, they’re counted accurately, they’re counted adequately. But I do think there were really big questions about the integrity of the vote in certain states in 2020.

I am not stating that Donald Trump was elected president in 2020 or that Joe Biden wasn’t. I believe Joe Biden was elected president in 2020. But I believe there were also voting irregularities that had to do, by the way, not only with the presidency, but with some other offices as well. And I’m simply going to say in frustration that I’m speaking to you again today from California where the state of California with all of its intellect, all of its power, all of its authority, all of its massive state power, it still has been unable to come up with a winner in two United States Congressional District elections.

So we have two seats in Congress in California, which the vote is still unclear. Now, I want to admit again, it looks like the vote’s very close. So that would slow down the process, but we’re talking now more than two weeks after election day. And on that score, I think whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, that should be considered absolutely unacceptable.

I think a thorough analysis of the math would be a matter of building credibility for our political system with the American people. And I think a mathematician can add to that. I want to thank this mathematician listener for writing in so helpfully.

Part IV

---

How Can I Live a Good Christian Life Around Non Believers? — Dr. Mohler Responds to a Letter from a 10-Year-Old Listener to The Briefing

But now, I want to shift to a question, a very intelligent question asked by a 10-year-old listener to The Briefing. This 10-year-old boy asked this question, “How can I live a good Christian life around non-believers? If I am hanging out with friends in my neighborhood and they’re using bad language or getting angry over small things at times, how should I handle that? What is the best way to respond without seeming judgmental?”

Well, I’m going to seem a little judgmental in my response, and I want to say to this 10-year-old, my judgment is you ask a very wise question for someone your age. I want to thank you for asking the question, and I also want to point out that this is a quandary. This is a challenge that doesn’t go away as you get older. It shows up with parents when you have someone in the workplace or someone, say, talking with adults in the neighborhood, the same kind of thing can take place.

This is a challenge for Christians of all ages, but I do want to recognize this can be a particularly difficult challenge for a 10-year-old. So again, let me state with respect to your question. I really respect the spirit in which you ask it. And so I want to answer your question as straightforwardly as I can. You ask, “How can I live a good Christian life around nonbelievers? If I’m hanging out with friends in my neighborhood and they’re using bad language, or” you say, “getting angry over small things at times, how should I handle that?”

Well, I want to say I think the best thing you can do is not to do those things. It is not to use the bad language, not to give support for using the bad language. And I want to say, I think also you can show an example by not getting angry over the wrong things, over little things. I think you can show by your own attitude, by your own character, by the way you carry yourself, by the way you behave with your friends, that you do not do these things.

Now, I love the fact that you ask, “How can I do this without appearing or seeming judgmental?” Well, this is another problem for Christians. If you don’t do certain things, then some of the people who do those things are going to think you’re judgmental for not doing them. That’s a risk you’re going to have to take.

On the other hand, you’re not simply condemning them as someone who is looking down on them or is just telling them they’re particularly bad people. We understand as Christians that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. But we also understand that there’s more going on here than just language or, say, temper. This is a sin problem. And the only answer to the sin problem is Jesus. And when you speak as one who has come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, you are yourself a believer in whom Christ dwells.

And the Holy Spirit is conforming you to the image of Christ. And that means that not only do you not do these things, but you also eventually come to a deeper understanding of why others do them. And that makes you even more want them to know Christ and even to see in you the virtues of what it means to be a Christian, which not only means that you don’t use bad language, but it also means that you’re kind, that you’re loyal, that you’re a good friend.

Of course, there are limitations to this. There are some crowds you simply can’t hang out with. There’s some boys you just can’t really afford morally speaking to be around. But you know you speak of a neighborhood. And in a neighborhood, I think there’s a good context for getting to know people who aren’t like you, who do not know Christ and desperately need to know Christ.

You may be one of the very few Christians. Your family may be one of the very few Christian families these folks will ever see these other boys, these other kids. And you can be an example to them. And as I said, not so much by condemning them for what they are doing, but by the very fact that you do not do these things. That will raise a question, “Why do you not do them?” And they may not ask the question out loud, but I can almost guarantee you they’re going to be thinking that question inside, and they may even ask you that question. And then you get to answer that question, and you’re hoping for an opportunity to tell them about not just why you don’t use bad language, but why you’ve come to trust in Jesus.

Part V

---

How Do You Approach Visiting Mosques and Other Historical Religious Sites from a Christian Perspective? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners to The Briefing

Okay. A very different kind of question came from a listener in Indiana, and he said, “We saw with interest you have an upcoming trip to Istanbul in 2025.” He says, “Our family will be visiting Istanbul as well. I am as curious as to how you approach visiting mosques or other places of false worship. Obviously, there’s a component of history and architecture that is valuable to learn from. How do you approach visiting from a Christian perspective?” 

Well, I want to say this to listener. I think the most important thing is there is nothing wrong with going into, say, what Christians knew as Hagia Sophia, originally the Church of the Holy Spirit, one of the most historic church buildings in all of church history, and is now a mosque by order of the Islamic government. And of course, that’s traced back to the victory of the Ottomans over Constantinople.

And as you look at that, you recognize this is a part of Christian history we really need to talk about. And I mean the building itself, but I also mean regrettably, what happened here with the capture of this territory by the Ottomans and the translation of that building into a mosque. I think the biggest issue I would have is what would my presence state? And if you’re going where there’s a risk of there being a religious service, well, that raises the stakes considerably. But for most of the mosques, for example, and especially those that were formerly churches there in Istanbul, you can go in clearly as a visitor, and it’s clearly understood that you are a visitor. You’re not understood by making any theological statement whatsoever in entering that building.

And by the way, the Turkish government needs the income from the admissions fees to keep up those buildings. And so you can look at it, I think, in a way that is not really problematic from a Christian conscience perspective, but of course being there will, in essence, break your heart for what you’re seeing there as false worship, empty worship. And it will lead you, I think, to an even deeper understanding of the power of the gospel.

But there’s also a story of church history that’s being played out there, and I really have no reluctance whatsoever to enter the space and to see it. And even as I take people, say, on a trip like that, to talk about the meaning of these things, to tell the history of these things, it’s the history of Christianity there during those pivotal centuries. And that history ricochets all the way down to the present. I think there’s actually value in visiting some of these historic mosques, many of which, by the way, were built by the Muslims after the Ottoman invasion because as Christians engage Islam around the world, we ought to engage it as much as possible from a position of knowledge.

And at least a lot of that knowledge comes even by making a visit to a place like Istanbul and seeing how Islam works out in the lives of Islamic believers there in a city which has been so important to Islam now for centuries. And I’ll say this, and I mean this a little bit tongue in cheek, I’ll simply tell you that as I’ve been traveling with Christians throughout much of the world, trying to think about these things in a Christian worldview perspective, understand even more deeply our Christian history and heritage and understand, for instance, the teachings of the Scriptures more clearly, I think it’s also important to say that, sometimes, we’ll have a greater difficulty in that, not so much in visiting Islamic Mosque where the contrast is so clear for all who have eyes to see, and ears to hear. Some of my greatest challenges and walking and visiting the Christians around the world is what you see on the street in major cities in the West. I’ll simply stop here and say, “Enough said.”

Part VI

---

What is the Glory of God? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners to The Briefing

Okay, finally, for today, a very interesting question in by a listener to The Briefing about vocabulary. For instance, our use of the word glory in the Greek is doxa. It’s a great word used in the New Testament, reference to the glory of God, similar evidence coming from the Old Testament about the glory of God, sometimes, even the visible glory of God. This listener writes in saying, “I want to do a detailed study,” but he concludes by saying, “Do you have a definition of glory that you like to use?”

Well, I have to admit that I do. I have to define terms when I’m teaching theology and doctrine. And when I use the word glory and seek to define it from Scripture, I define it this way. It is the internal reality and the external manifestation of God’s character and his power, his attributes, and his being, his character, and his acts.

Again, it is the internal reality that is God’s own personal possession and the external manifestation. That is not only according to Scripture what we see in the glory of God and, for that matter, as the psalmist tells us, in the creation all around us, as the scripture says. But it is also evident in believers who are transformed and will be further transformed when we are glorified by the promise of the gospel.

But in the meantime, let’s just reflect on John 1 verse 14, where we are told of the Christ we beheld his glory. Glory is of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. How sweet is that? We beheld his glory, internal reality, and external manifestation.