Friday, October 24, 2025

Part I

Parents Need Biblical Counsel, Not Fads: The Rise of Parenting Advice and the Fall of Parenting Sense

Parenting advice, the world seems to be filled with it, bookstores are, frankly, offering dozens and dozens of new titles a year coming from publishers on advice for parents when it comes to raising children. Where did all of this come from? Well, Peter and Brigitte Berger, years ago, wrote a book entitled The War on the Family, in which they said that one of the symptoms of the modern age is that a family, and in particular parents, the mother and the father, are surrounded by, what the Berger’s described as, a regime of experts. Supposed experts who are speaking into family life and defining family.

Now, that’s a fascinating concept, and I think the Berger’s were absolutely right. But it also forces us to just think for a moment, about where this avalanche of advice for parents came from and why. Well, when it comes to, just say, how most parents came to be parents and to learn how to do parenting, they learned in the context of homes and neighborhoods and churches. There wasn’t so much this entire universe of professionals and experts speaking into parenting. That began to change in the Victorian era, and so we’re talking in the early modern age, in the Victorian era, all of a sudden in the age of widespread print culture, you had magazines for moms and magazines about the family and magazines and books that were written giving advice to parents. And that really exploded with the therapeutic revolution of the 20th century. At that point, you had the rise of, not only the pediatric discipline as a specialization among physicians, but you also had the regime of experts that came in, psychologists, child psychologists, sociologists, the entire therapeutic universe, educators, they all came saying that they knew what was best for children.

And of course, one of the things you have to note, is that there have been wave after wave, all of these waves have come with this theory, and then that theory, this approach, and then that approach. The main worldview divide, by the way, is between a biblical Christian understanding of the family, parenthood, as explained in terms of that biblical worldview, and a secular perspective on parenting. Which, frankly, has been one of the most unstable entities as a conceptual unit in all of the modern age. But if you try to come up with a parenting approach that is separate from that, that would be offered by historic Christianity, informed by Scripture, something that would be alienated from the scriptural position and understanding and taken out of the nurturing context of extended family and also of the congregation, then you’re just going to fall to fad after fad. And that’s exactly, by the way, an entire publishing industry, but also an entire therapeutic industry, that just thrives off of and expands and makes money off of this parenting theory, and then the next.

Well, USA Today, which is a barometer of these cultural developments, just in recent days, ran an article asking, “What are Velcro Parents? And How to Avoid the Pitfalls.” Madeline Mitchell is the reporter on this case, and Madeline Mitchell is telling us about a new phenomenon when it comes to raising children. These are children described as Velcro kids. Why are they described that way? It is because they stick to their parents like, well, the two sides of Velcro. The article begins, I kid you not, with one father’s experience, and as USA Today tells us, that his, “Five-year-old wants to be near him all the time, whether he’s in the kitchen, backyard or even in the bathroom.” We are then told that this particular father told his TikTok followers in a post about Velcro kids. We’re told that his post garnered nearly 3 million views, thousands of comments, many from parents experiencing what we’re told is the same thing. The term stems from Velcro babies, which therapist, Elizabeth Shane, describes as, “Infants who prefer constant contact and cry when they are put down.” One commentator said, “My kids sit outside the bathroom and ask me questions.”

Now, number one, you just have to wonder where these people come from. And let’s just be honest, anyone who’s ever raised kids knows that the children of the species Homo sapiens, are all Velcro kids, every single one of them. And even though previous generations of parents would have no idea what Velcro was, they would understand the phenomenon. That is to say, that by a Christian biblical understanding, we know that a human infant craves connection to his or her parents and that bonding process. And yes, they want the parent’s attention. Now, the interesting thing here is that you have USA Today reporting on this phenomenon that appeared at TikTok, but also has the background of a therapist who’s been writing about these Velcro kids. This tells us that all of a sudden there’s some parents who understand that kids are, oh, I don’t know, kids, that infants are infants, toddlers are toddlers.

And the demands are very, very substantial, these kids make demands on their parents, they will sit outside in the hallway, because they’re absent from the parents for just a few minutes or seconds. But I don’t think this is a new human experience. Now, it may have been just a bit different for Abraham and Sarah, there wasn’t a hallway, but I think this situation was probably hauntingly familiar. The reporter here tells us, “The term Velcro parents isn’t as established as other parenting styles,” but she says, referring to some of those parenting styles such as lawnmower parents, helicopter parents, intensive parents, gentle parents, free-range parents, she says, “It is gaining traction on social media. While it can feel good to know you’ve created a safe space and a close bond with your child, experts say it’s important for parents to set boundaries and take breaks for themselves too.”

Now, let me just be honest, parenting is a high-stress activity. It’s a very high-demand activity, which is one of the reasons why God intended for this activity to take so much of a human adult’s time and investment, particularly a mother in the house. But of both parents, children are very demanding in terms of time and attention. Now, this doesn’t mention how rewarding they are, how fulfilling they are, how exhilarating they are, but there wouldn’t be a good article at USA Today about how exhilarating being a parent is. So instead, it’s about the arduous task of trying to figure out between the styles of lawnmower parents, helicopter parents, intensive parents, gentle parents, free-range parents, what kind of parents you should be. And of course, if you’re looking for the latest fad, it’s going to be one thing after another.

We’re also told, by the way, that millennial parents are doing things differently. Now, just listen to this, it’s written as if we’re to take this at face value, “Parents these days are spending more quality time with their kids,” that’s quoting the expert here, “And trying to connect with their children instead of, “Just physically being there.”” This theorist, again, and the name of the theorist is Elizabeth Shane, she said, and I quote, “The overstimulation is real. It’s something that most parents go through because we’re tired, we don’t get a break, we don’t get a chance for ourselves, but the reward is the best possible childhood for our children.” Just think about all this and you recognize, this has to come down to a great deal of nonsense. But if you’re thrown into a secular context and all you have is secular wisdom, this is an indication of just how fragile, how temporary, how faddish, and frankly, how empty-headed it can be.

And so first of all, I don’t know how in the world you would say that this generation of parents is committed to spending more quality time with their children. Isn’t that what they said about the last generation of parents and then the generation before that? This is the kind of thing that makes for an article at USA Today. It’s not for what makes for much common sense and it is not very helpful to actual parents who are about the task of parenting. They’re going to need more stable advice than this. They don’t need a fad, they need good biblical counsel.

Responding to at least one of these fads, I found an article at The New Yorker, interesting, it’s by Susanna Wolff, and let me just warn you ahead of time, she’s making fun of this, so don’t have a heart attack. It’s entitled, “We’re Doing Child-led Parenting.” Okay, do you understand that The New Yorker is on the cultural Left and even on the cultural Left, evidently, they understand that child-led parenting is something to be lampooned rather than exercised. Susanna Wolff writes, “Oh, you’re doing baby-led weaning. We did that too, it’s really the only way to raise confident independent little humans. That’s why we decided to take it a step further and do child-led parenting. Hold on one sec, yes, Caleb, my love. How can I help your journey? I see, yes, I understand that your heart wants to watch Paw Patrol right now, but remember, you broke your iPad, so okay, yes, you can watch on my iPad. Great problem-solving.”

Okay, she’s lampooning this. Here’s what she says. She says, “We started with gentle parenting, but we found that we were having difficulty maintaining boundaries. And then, Derek,” presumably her husband, “And I, realized that we’re smart, capable people and there’s no reason to believe that our son isn’t just as smart and capable, so we stopped enforcing boundaries. Instead, we said, Caleb is the one who needs to be parented. He should be in charge of deciding how it’s done.” Now, remember, Caleb is the young child. Okay, now speaking to the child, she says, “And you know what, Caleb, my darling, I’m reflecting on our previous interaction and I fear that my saying, “You broke your iPad,” was really blamed-forward phrasing and might cause you feelings of shame or guilt. No, you’re not feeling that. Well, just to be safe, I want to revise my words so they carry less accusation. How’s this? Your iPad became broken while in your possession. That’s better, right? Yeah, you can keep watching Paw Patrol.”

Okay, she’s making fun of this, but the point is, she couldn’t make fun of it if the average reader of The New Yorker didn’t know exactly what she’s talking about. And in all likelihood, wasn’t at some level attracted to this idea of baby-led weaning, which leads, as she says here, to child-led parenting, which is of course an oxymoron and that’s the point. But I can almost guarantee you that if someone came up with this and packaged it as a new theory of how to raise children, it just might become a new New York Times bestseller, and let’s just to say, probably an entire series in USA Today.

But behind my raising of these issues today, is not just pointing to the insanity we see here, but reminding Christian parents that we really do have a distinctive understanding of parenting, of the family, of the child, based in Scripture, not based in the latest psychological or therapeutic fad. And thus, a biblically guided approach to parenting and raising our children is fundamentally different than the wisdom of the world. It started out that way, it is that way today. No one should be surprised.

Part II

What Do You Think About Charlie Kirk’s Thoughts on College? Is College a Scam? — Dr. Mohler Responds to a Letter From an 18-Year-Old Listener of The Briefing

All right, now let’s turn to questions. And as always, I’m really interested in the questions sent and honored by them. You can send your question just by writing me at mail at albertmohler.com. I’m going to take the first question from an eighteen-year-old young man, and he writes in about college. He makes some very kind statements, which I greatly appreciate. Then he says, “I’m a young man who’s looking going to college. I was wondering what your thoughts were on Charlie Kirk’s views on college. As a man so experienced in the world of academia,” he’s picking at my role as President of the College in the Seminary. He says, “What do you think about Mr. Kirk’s remarks that college is a scam?” He says, “I am particularly concerned by the cost.” He says that he got a job when he was 16, he has saved some money for college. “Now I’m wondering if the money would be better spent elsewhere, because that money wouldn’t even cover the cost of one year. Is college worth going into debt for?”

Okay, lots of questions. They’re good questions and I really want to honor those questions coming from an eighteen-year-old young man. And let me just come back and say, that Charlie Kirk’s views on college weren’t exactly one thing. So he raised a lot of good questions, and as a matter of fact, he did not go to college and clearly, Charlie Kirk was a success. But let’s also face it and say, Charlie Kirk was a success because God gave him many gifts and he used those gifts beginning at a very young age. But I think at the same time, even as Charlie Kirk wrote a book and clearly raised questions about the current practice of higher education in America, and I share just about all of his concerns, the quite legitimate concerns, the fact is that Charlie Kirk spent a great deal of his time on college and university campuses and especially trying to reach out to college and university students.

And he didn’t say exactly this when he was on those campuses, and I think it’s because he did recognize that, I won’t say the vast majority, it’s really hard to quantify this, but I would say that success in terms of the job market and so many other things, in this time, is greatly advantaged by a college degree. And that’s for many different reasons. For one thing, high school hardly prepares persons to be functional adults in this country. College comes closer, but it all depends upon what kind of college experience you have. You could go to many liberal campuses and study the most ridiculous ideologically driven disciplines that could do nothing for you except cost a great deal of money and by the hundreds of thousands of dollars, to be honest. That would be a complete waste. On the other hand, college can be, for many people, a great life enhancement. And so I’ll just simply say as a matter of experience, I am absolutely committed to the college and university context and to the graduate study context of the seminary. I’ve given my life to that.

I would not say it is right for everyone, but for the vast majority of young people, and I’m speaking here of Christian young people, I think that it’s a very important stage of life. And the proper collegiate education, at the right school, for the right reasons, undertaken with the right faculty, can be an enormous assist, not only to getting a job, but to functioning as a leader in society, in the church, in the family, and all the rest. But that does mean that college isn’t one thing anymore. In one sense, being able to say you have a baccalaureate degree to an employer, seems to say one thing, but I think we all know it really doesn’t. And so I’m not particularly clarifying this as much as I want to perhaps, and that’s because it is a complex situation. I think we should be, as Christians, very happy for vocational training programs, that I think are helping a lot of young people, especially older boys and young men to transition, frankly, to very honorable jobs and vocations that can help them to provide for a family as husband and father.

And that should be the goal whether a young man goes to college or not, that should be the goal. And for young women, putting all of that into a biblical perspective, the purpose of a college degree needs to be factored into their own life commitments and their own biblical vision for their life as well. I think college can add a very great deal, but it all depends upon where you go, with what faculty you study and what the commitments of the school are and honestly, how driven it is by leftist ideologies. And the vast majority of academic institutions are pretty polluted when it comes to that, just to be honest. But it’s also something that varies to some degree, discipline by discipline.

And when it comes to money, yes, college is expensive, it just has to be expensive like so many other things in society. But there’s a difference between expensive and expensive. So I’ll be honest, I’m president of an institution that tries to charge not a dollar more than is absolutely necessary just to meet the bills for the year, along with other sources of income to the institution. And you look at our total cost to the student on an annual basis, it’s a fraction of the average when it comes to colleges.

But I also want to say that it’s something that you need to work out with a school that believes in you and wants you to be a student and does not want you to be someone who graduates with crippling debt. That’s not good for anyone, but frankly, the entire college enterprise is based upon separating as many parents and young people from their money as possible. So if I sound cynical about that, sorry, just look at the situation for yourself. I do believe there are some good alternatives. I know one I’d like to start talking to you about, but thankfully there’s not just one. There are several good Christian committed schools and frankly, there are also some, say, regional state universities that aren’t so affected as some of the elite institutions by a lot of the ideological trends. It is hard to say there’s just one answer, because there’s not just one Christian young person asking these questions.

So I hope you’re surrounded by parents and also other Christian people who can really speak into your life, perhaps the elders in your church and help you to think this through. And I’ll just say, if we at Boyce College can be helpful to you in that, we would certainly want to be.

Part III

What is the Proper Way to Use Extra-Biblical Sources in Interpreting Scripture? How Should We Interpret Genesis? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters From Listeners of The Briefing

All right. Someone writing in and asking in particular about some of the arguments made by Dr. William Lane Craig. I’m not going to engage those directly, but the man writing this in, says he has a two-part question. One, is the use of pre-existing sources and our interpretation of Genesis, the J, E, P and D in particular. And then he asked, “To what extent is it proper to use extra-biblical sources in our interpretation of Scripture?” Then he just summarizes, “What is your view on the best way to interpret Genesis, literal, symbolic, etc.”

Well, let me just back up and say, the first issue here is about the use of pre-existing sources, or what are claimed to be, posited to be pre-existing sources combined to some degree, by an editor in the Book of Genesis. That itself is something that’s very prominent in liberal biblical scholarship and a very foundational liberal theology. And I think it’s deeply subversive of Scripture and honestly, I would’ve nothing to do with it. Now, I would want someone studying Old Testament interpretation to be aware of what’s been going on there, but not to commend that to what’s called documentary hypothesis, but rather to identify it as an attempt to subvert Scripture and the unity of Scripture and the divine inspiration of Scripture.

Okay, then the question is, “To what extent is it proper to use sources outside the Bible in the interpretation of Scripture?” I would say, extremely limited. I’m not going to say impossible, because that’s not the case. We don’t operate, ourselves, out of an intellectual context that is informed by many different things, we have to check those when we come to Scripture. But to use extra biblical sources in our interpretation of Scripture, I think is something we have to approach with a great deal of care. And I think even the way you asked the question sort of answers it.

And then the last question, “What is your view on the best way to interpret Genesis, literal, symbolic, et cetera?” Let me just say, I think we should interpret it exactly as it is presented to us, and I think it’s presented to us as something we are to understand, as Francis Schaeffer said, “Is expressed in the framework of space, time, and history from the beginning.” So in other words, I don’t think at some point Genesis becomes historical unless that point is chapter one verse one. I don’t believe that we have a mythological section followed by an historical section. I think what we have is a book presented to us and its claims are made clear from chapter one verse one, and they are to be read in the space-time continuum. Which is to say, that would fit, basically what you call as a literal interpretation, which I think you mean is, is one constrained by the claims made by the text.

Part IV

What Do You Make of Dinosaurs as a Young Earth Creationist? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters From Listeners of The Briefing

Okay, I’m going to turn now to a related question, but it comes from a three-year-old, actually, it comes from the father of a three-year-old in Pennsylvania. And I have to tell you, perhaps you can even hear it, I’m smiling as I read this. “My three-year-old son has very rightly become obsessed with dinosaurs. I enjoy watching him stomp around our house as a T-Rex and he has a big book of dinosaurs that he likes to page through. I’m curious to hear what you make of dinosaurs as a young earth creationist.” He says, “I’m a young earth creationist as well, and I find that most dinosaur books or resources simply have thrown in the, ‘obvious fact,’ that dinosaurs lived hundreds of millions of years ago. As for the little boy, he’s blissfully unaware of this right now, but it’s just a matter of time before he starts to ask questions. I plan to discuss this with my pastors, but I would also enjoy hearing your thoughts on the topic.” He says, “Along with many other young fathers who also spent their toddler years playing Dino.”

Okay, so let me just say, you’re not alone, your son’s not alone. I was right there in thick with you, with a plastic dinosaur for Sinclair Fuel Company on my dresser, and I have been just as obsessed as your three-year-old is. So let me just say, I think there is a good response to your question. What is a young earth creationist? And I am one, unapologetically, it’s kind of tied to the previous question. And how do we deal with the dinosaurs? Well, I think we just have to deal with the dinosaurs the way we deal with the sequence of creation is revealed in Scripture, which is to say, I believe the dinosaurs were created with all the other creatures as they were created in the sequence of creation.

They, with all the other creatures, revealed the glory of God in their creation, and yet they are no longer among us. And they’re no longer among us because, at least a part of this, seems to be they were cold-blooded and there was climate change. But let me just remind you, as Christians, the big event that changed everything isn’t a climate change, it’s sin, it’s Genesis three. Sin came with consequences and the entire created order and that included death, and so the mass extinction of these very large, amazing creatures is, I think a part of what is easily understood within the Genesis narrative, within an historical understanding of the Book of Genesis. And so there are people who say, “Well, how do you deal with the fact that carbon dating and so many other things claims that they’re so old?” But you need to understand that the main way that so many of these dinosaurs, and remember the first one really was kind of discovered just as you reach the mid-point of the 19th century, so that’s not that long ago.

And a lot of this was extrapolated by working backwards from assumptions that were based into how old things appeared to be, etc, etc. Without going into too much, let me just say that if you’re going to try to live by that kind of supposedly scientific dating system, then you’re not going to have a young earth in any respect. Because the dinosaurs are by no means alone as the problem if you’re going to put that over into the dating that would come from secular science. And again, I think a lot of that is explained directly by Genesis three and also by the flood. And so I would simply point to those two events clearly revealed in Scripture.

And one other thing I want to underline here, is I think there’s good biblical evidence here, I think of Job chapter 41 and Leviathan. And I think as you look at the description in Job chapter 41, it looks pretty much like a dinosaur, and yeah, I don’t have time today to go into greater detail. Well, let me just tell you, I’m not at all intimidated when people raise the issue of dinosaurs, I don’t think it is in any way a major obstacle to understanding an historical approach to Genesis. And through the total truthfulness of Genesis in this regard, I think the problems that come theologically with something other than a young earth position, frankly, they’re just far too theologically expensive.

And so I would just encourage this wonderful caring Christian father with this three-year-old boy, I don’t want either one of you to be shaken. And I think when your son begins asking questions, you just tell him, they’re in the Bible and they were a part of God’s creation. They no longer exist, but there are many other non-dinosaur species that, frankly, don’t exist now either, but they’re a part of the glory of God and creation, and they’re a wonderful part of the story that God shows us in the created order. And so stomp around as a T-Rex, that’s just about perfectly right for a three-year-old boy.

Part V

How Do I Combat Pro-Homosexual Interpretations of Scripture? — Dr. Mohler Responds to a Letter From a 15-Year-Old Listener of The Briefing

Okay, time is running short, but I want to take one final question. Coming from a fifteen-year-old young woman. This girl wrote in, and she’s evidently been in some conversations with people at school and she asked about the rise of, “Christian homosexuals, Christian LGBTQ activists and supporters.” And she asked about, “The 1946 event where a seminary student retranslated First Corinthians 6:9 and used the word, “homosexuals,” rather than the word that was there before. And here I just want to come back and say, I know what she’s talking about here. And this was in the translation of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. And it was when the word, “homosexual,” that English word, was used to describe what is revealed in First Corinthians chapter six.

And let’s just underline the fact that there was no confusion among Christians about God’s verdict on homosexuality from the beginning. In other words, the Christian tradition had understood this very, very well before the term we now use in English, “homosexual,” had ever been invented. And it was invented, and the easy thing to understand is that it was invented in order to say it is the opposite of heterosexual. So without going into detail, let me just say that the use of that word in a Bible translation doesn’t mean that that’s where the concept emerged. That is absolute nonsense. But you know what? It’s the kind of nonsense that LGBTQ activists have been pouring out for decades, but it requires you to think that all of a sudden the Christian Church had a moral discovery in 1946, and that is hardly the case.

This fifteen-year-old listener asked how to respond to other young people her age, “Who are using this event to justify their wrongness.” And I’ll simply say, to this fifteen-year-old listener, I hate to tell you, but there are people who will twist Scripture in any way, to any degree, in order to overcome the plain revelation in the text of Scripture, the plain message of the word of God, and instead, to turn it into something else. But if you want to endorse same-sex sexual behaviors and relationships, you are going to have to turn Scripture on its head. But I think it’s reassuring to us to recognize you have to be seen as doing exactly what you’re doing. And that means that you need to watch this argument and recognize exactly what they’re doing with the argument.