And by the way, today I’m coming to you with the background of the ark. All right. Very interesting things are happening. One of the most interesting dynamics in terms of American culture, it comes down to the cycle of presidential elections. So when you think about issues rising and falling, and even if you’re trying just to track cultural and moral change, one of the ways you can easily track it is by looking at the issues of debate, presidential cycle by presidential election cycle. Okay. So the interesting action right now is not on the Republican side because you have a Republican incumbent. It’s on the Democratic side because the Democrats, and there are many of them who are interested in gaining the 2028 Democratic nomination, they’re out on the hustings. They’re making their case. On the Republican side, you can’t do that when you have an incumbent. Now, it will come at some point, but it’s going to be held off until the very last minute. On the Democratic side, there’s no reason for them not to get into a slug fest right now. 

Okay. So something very interesting is happening, and in worldview terms, I think it’s just really interesting. So now let me just tell you about an article that recently ran in the New York Times. It ran on April the 5th, so that’s just past Sunday. And the headline is this, “Newsom has Entered the Manosphere.” So we’re talking about Gavin Newsom, very liberal Democratic governor of California, very hungry as a presidential candidate. The fact that he’s very interested in the 2028 presidential nomination is unknown to nobody. It’s as out there as it can be.

But it’s not just about Gavin Newsom. It’s also, in another sense, an issue about Rahm Emanuel, who of course is a former US ambassador to Japan under President Biden, Senior White House official under President Obama, former US member of Congress, very well known, also basically very liberal in terms of basic outlook. The reason that both of them are now of interest, and you see in this headline about entering the manosphere has to do with the fact that both of them in each in his own way has come out saying that, just to put the matter bluntly, boys ought not to be in girls’ bathrooms and in girls’ locker rooms, et cetera. All right, so that makes news. That makes big news because in the Democratic Party, that’s a breaking with orthodoxy. The Democratic Party is so committed to LGBTQ+ in every way that any kind of heresy on this is a big deal.

This is a big deal here, half page article in the New York Times because Gavin Newsom, and you’ll remember this came in a podcast several months ago, just came out and said it just makes sense, boys shouldn’t be in girls’ restrooms, men shouldn’t be in women’s spaces, et cetera. And we just ought not to do that. And of course, he made headlines because that’s a break with the Democratic orthodoxy, or at least it appears to be. Rahm Emanuel, similarly, sending out all kinds of signals about how he intends to run. He says he wants to run on economic issues. He doesn’t want to run on social issues. He thinks this is a problem. And Emanuel’s come right on and said this. Rahm Emanuel has said that the Democratic Party is really being hurt with voters and putting its own national election prospects in danger by pressing on the LGBTQ stuff.

And in particular, the T, T, T. L, and G, and B, that’s now just a part of the orthodoxy. Transgender has been in the Democratic Party. And basically, by the way, still is. That’s going to be the big story here. But here you have these two trying to gain some attention. And of course, the article here says that they are entering the manosphere. Most importantly here, Gavin Newsom. Here’s how Matthew Schmitz begins the article. And he, by the way, is the editor of Compact Magazine. And he begins, “Not so long ago, the future was female.” That expectation was most memorably expressed a few weeks before the presidential election in 2016 when Hillary Clinton posted a picture of her young self on Twitter with the caption, “Happy birthday to this future president.” Although Donald Trump’s victory dashed her presidential hopes, it did not enter faith in that direction of history. “I remain convinced that yes, the future is female,” end quote. Just imagine that, by the way, as a statement, not includes females, but the future is female.

Okay. This article goes on to say that Kamala Harris, who also gained the Democratic presidential nomination was not successful. And then he writes, “But if Democratic party politics are any indication, the future is no longer female. Stung by the losses of Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Harris, many in the party are according to multiple reports looking for a presidential candidate in 2028 who is straight white and male.” Okay. Now, Representative Jasmine Crockett, who you remember was defeated by James Talarico for the Democratic Senate nomination in Texas. She goes on to say that the current, and by the way, Talarico is indeed as defined here, white and male. She goes on to say that the new motto in the Democratic Party is, “Let’s go find the safest white boy we can.” 

So okay, you can see why there are many of the Democratic Party who given the promises of the party are now upset. But the interesting thing here is the change in messaging, especially by Gavin Newsom and also, as I say, Rahm Emanuel. But the Schmitz’s point is this. He says, quote, “The point is not that Mr. Newsom secretly desires the subjugation of women or minorities. On the contrary, he’s committed to a system of diversity, equity, and inclusion measures that offer advantages to women, racial minorities, and LGBT people. That is to everyone but straight white men. The point is that he is responding to a political and cultural energy that has shifted away from the celebration of feminism and diversity toward the concerns of alienated and possibly white men.” He says, “This is not just a matter of two election cycles. It’s a much longer historical process.”

Okay. In worldview analysis, that’s interesting. I don’t think that’s what’s most important. Let me tell you what I think is most important. Evidently, these two leading Democratic men believe that if a Democratic candidate is going to win the White House once again, that candidate is going to have to be at least closer to the American people on the question as to whether biological males should be in girls’ changing rooms, et cetera. And so both of these candidates, both of these presidential hopefuls, Rahm Emanuel and Gavin Newsom, they come out and said that ought not to happen. But here’s the thing, they’re not at all clear on what actual detailed policy proposal that would mean. They also are very careful not to state this in terms of a clear reason why. It’s interesting how they continue to frame the issue as in having to win voters. All right? So this is something you have to say in order to win voters.

I just want to say, as Christians, we understand there are basic issues here, fundamental issues here, creation order issues here. In one sense, it’s interesting that these two Democratic hopefuls say the Democratic Party is not going to have a future unless it basically comes out with some kind of sane policy like boys ought not to be in girls’ restrooms. But they won’t give a detailed proposal. They don’t want to be too specific on this and they don’t want to really give a reason why, other than the reason that evidently voters will demand it. I just want to remind Christians, we’ve got to get to the reason why. And that reason why can’t just be public perception. That reason why has to be grounded in legitimate argument. For Christians, that’s a creation order argument.

Even for those who don’t want to use an explicitly Christian argument, the argument’s going to have to be something like natural law. It’s going to have to be something like it’s just categorically morally wrong for a biological male to be in those female spaces. If you say it’s just wrong enough in the sense that enough voters aren’t ready to go for that yet, let me just be very clear. That is not a weak moral argument. That’s no moral argument. We need to recognize when moral argument is missing. Sometimes that’s the most important issue.

One more issue I just want to put on the table today. Very interesting development has come up. And I mentioned the presidential contest, and of course there’s a lot of polling, and there’s surveys, and there are all kinds of issues. Who has this chance of winning the nomination? Who has this much traction, et cetera, et cetera.

A lot of the social sampling, a lot of the polling sampling is increasingly difficult. One of the reasons it’s difficult is because a lot of the older polling system used landline telephone calls in order to talk to people and ask them questions that could show up in surveys. And in the digital age, this hasn’t become easier for the surveyors and pollsters. It’s become more difficult. And it’s particularly difficult because back in the old day when you could call neighborhoods, you could call people in their homes, you use these wired phones, you had a pretty good idea who the people were. And you could look at a far more substantial statistical claim and you had far stronger ground to go on and say, “This is a representative sample.” When you’re talking about the digital world, you don’t even know who you’re dealing with. And the representative sample really becomes a very tenuous argument.

Okay, so now we’re in even worse shape. So okay, you already knew you needed to hold these polls and surveys with some suspicion. Let me tell you, it’s a lot worse than you thought. It’s a lot worse than I thought. What’s the game changer? Well, here’s a guest essay in The New York Times by Leif Weatherby and Benjamin Recht, and it is entitled, “it’s called Silicon Sampling, and it’s Going to Ruin Public Opinion Polling.” Okay, so what are we talking about? We’re talking about artificial intelligence, replacing actual human beings. We’re talking about Axios breaking the report that polling increasingly isn’t even the polling of actual physical human beings, but rather of bots created by artificial intelligence or deployed through artificial intelligence as representative human beings. So we’re not even talking about real people in so many of these polls now. We’re talking about algorithms and we’re talking about artificial intelligence.

As the article says here, this is called silicon sampling. How’s that? Sounds like they’re studying sand. And we’re told it’s suddenly everywhere. “The idea behind silicon sampling is simple and tantalizing because large language models can create responses that emulate human answers, that’s artificial intelligence. Polling companies see an opportunity to use AI agents to simulate survey responses at a small fraction of the cost and time required for traditional polling.” All that to say, just be warned all the more. When you hear that the survey says, the survey might not even be a survey of human beings, but of large language models. Factor that into your thinking when you hear the claims made about these polls and surveys.

And next, I want to turn to questions as always. I appreciate so much the questions sent in by listeners. I discussed on Wednesday’s edition of The Briefing this week, the very tragic case of Noelia Castillo, a 25-year-old woman who died by euthanasia, again, 25 years old.

It’s an extremely sad situation. I’m not going to go into the detail because I talked about it on Wednesday, but this is a question sent in about who’s to blame. This listener who, by the way, I love the location, Venezuela, but live in Toronto. That’s fantastic. Thanks for listening. He asked the question, who is responsible for her death? Her, the state, her family, at least in part. At least her father sought to go to the courts to prevent this moving forward. Her mother, I understand, was opposed to it, but nonetheless supported her, whatever that means. But this is a really, really good question. Who’s responsible for her death? Her, that is Noelia Castillo herself, the state, et cetera. The answer is yes. Yes. The state adopted the legislation. The state has embraced the culture of death. The state administered and authorized, legalized this process. She also demanded her death. So she bears some responsibility, definitely. She exercised moral agency. There’s no question about that. 

But my argument is that she should never have been confronted with that exercise of agency. The state, this means the government of Spain is ultimately most culpable, most responsible here because the government of Spain has authorized this regime of death. And of course, has also basically incentivized it and repackaged it, camouflaging it as a matter of personal autonomy and rights. Is she responsible? Yes, she demanded it. She exercised moral agency. There’s moral responsibility there. But for Christians, it’s important for us to recognize there are questions that should never be posed to human beings. And one responsibility of government is to limit the questions that are presented. And should I kill myself? Is one of those questions that no rightful government should submit to the public.

But next, let me turn to a question coming from a listener in Martinsburg, West Virginia, asking about the intermediate state. So this is the state, the set of conditions, the time between our physical death and the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ and the consummation of the age, and all that is promised to us in our ultimate resurrection, body and our glorification, which is yet to come. And so right now there’s a period between our death and the death of all human beings before us. And most particularly here we’re talking about believers who died before us, and the period of time between that and the day of the Lord. So what about that intermediate time? Now, theologically, we often refer to this as the intermediate state. And let me give you the biblical promise. Jesus himself made very clear that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. And so we understand that those who are the redeemed in Christ are in a very real sense with him.

But this also means that in the intermediate state, our bodies are in the grave, but we’re also, in a very real sense, alive and with Christ awaiting the resurrection of the body, which is to come. So that intermediate state means that we’re clearly conscious, we’re with Christ spiritually, soulishly, and in a very clear way, but we’re awaiting the resurrection of our bodies and the life everlasting. So this listener writes in to say about that intermediate state, he says, “Well, I’ll feel comfortable,” he says, “to say that in heaven, believers will be visible and recognizable to one another. However, beyond that, I’m curious to know if we know more details.” He says, “I would appreciate any insight you have regarding if we will appear in bodily form in heaven or not, or would appearing in bodily form in heaven minimize the glory of the physical bodily resurrection.”

Okay. So I think we actually know the answer to this and I don’t think we have to speculate at all. I think for example, that we have in the New Testament, we have in the gospels, the record of the risen resurrected Lord Jesus Christ being encountered by others, including the disciples, and they saw him, they recognized him. They knew him. Now, his resurrection body was different enough that they clearly recognized it was different. And of course, we’re also told that he had passed through things. And so it’s demonstrating some very different physical attributes, but here’s what’s important. It is a continuation of the incarnations, a continuation of his earthly body. And so we are promised that as he is, so we one day shall also be. So that’s the gospel promise. In the glorification of our bodies, we will not be Jesus, but by the power of the gospel, the transforming power of the promise of the gospel, our glorification means that in our resurrection body, we will be as Christ is. So that means I think that we’ll be able to recognize one another.

And remember that the whole theme of biblical eschatology, the whole theme is that what we will know as believers saved by the blood of the lamb, in that future state in which we are reigning with Christ in heaven, with him forever, it’s about more, not less. It’s about perfection, not reduction. So I think it’s just important to say in the new heaven and the new earth and the new Jerusalem and the promise of the gospel, we’re not going to ever have less than we have now. It’s going to be more. And since God made us as relational people, and it actually made us for that, even the relationship most importantly with him and made us for his glory and made us to have human communion one with the other. I don’t believe there’s really any question that that’s going to continue, but in a glorified sense, in a glorified state, I think it’s really contrary to the biblical logic to think that somehow there will be less than. There’s going to be infinitely more than.

Now, I think we have to be very careful about saying anything beyond that because I don’t think we should engage in speculation. We just lean into the promise and the assurance and we lean into the clear teachings of scripture and to that promise that as Christ now is, so one day we shall always be. Meaning in our resurrected body with Christ in the age to come. Okay.

Next to a question about the Lord’s supper. Coming from a listener in Providence, Rhode Island, he writes, “I have heard the following declaration. The Lord’s supper is a means of grace from a few Protestant pulpits. I most strongly reject this assertion declaring it to be erroneous. This claim mindlessly states what Rome believes and it is an emphatic lie.” And he made it emphatic by capitalizing all the letters. “It should be condemned without apology in my opinion. I vehemently excoriate this falsehood. What say you, Dr. Mohler?”

Wow. Well, that’s kind of setting the terms for an interesting question. I emphatically do believe that the Lord’s supper is a means of grace. I also agree with this listener’s concern, and I think there’s a misunderstanding going on here. So when you’re talking about a sacramental understanding, classically Roman Catholic sacramental understanding of the Mass, you’re talking about what is claimed to be a true metaphysical transmission of grace, okay? That is the idea of a sacrament. That’s certainly the theory of sacramental grace, operato, in other words, it’s an objective metaphysical transfer of grace. That is emphatically denied by, I’ll just say, Baptists. I’m a Baptist. And by most Protestants, even when most Protestants use the word sacrament, they do not mean it in that sense. The closer you get to Catholicism, that is the case. The Lutherans believe in a more sacramental system than even most in the reformed tradition. Baptists, I just want to clarify the language.

But the Puritans and others, the Protestant Reformers, referred to the Lord’s supper as a means of grace. They did not mean that in any true sacramental sense with that language. They meant it in the main, and certainly this is the Baptist and the Puritan affirmation, that it is one of the issues the ordinances commanded by scripture and that all that is commanded by Scripture. The preaching of the word of God and the faithful observance of the ordinances are in the life of the believer a means of grace, is how we grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is not a transmission of grace. It is no substantia. And so this isn’t in any sense the equivalent of the Mass. And I want to say this is a listener who, I think, has probably has some very well grounded concerns based in the Catholic understanding.

And I could say there’s even a kind of understandable allergy in the Protestant sense to some of this language, but the words, means of grace here does not in that Protestant tradition mean what you have in the sacramental system of the Roman Catholic Church. And you actually have both sides during the time of the Reformation who understood that clearly, but it’s a good thing to bring this kind of thing up. And I’m not often thrown an issue just this way, but you know what? You throw it, I’ll take it.

Okay. I want to turn to another question. I appreciate questions that are sent to me in just this way. This is coming out of a very real situation, a very real church struggling with a very real question. And so here’s the question. He refers to the conversation I had when I answered the question, does abuse constitute grounds for divorce? I just refer back to The Briefing where I answered that.

He then asks, “Is it plausible that a man whose spouse was an unrepentant adulterer or obstinately insisted on abandoning the marriage could be an elder or pastor?” So again, “Is it plausible that a man whose spouse was an unrepentant adulterer or obstinately insisted on abandoning the marriage could be an elder or pastor?” I’m going to tell you that’s an interesting question and I think the answer is yes. I think the answer to the question is yes. I could envision where that could take place. I know situations where that’s taken place and I think it’s taken place in accordance with Scripture and accordance with the gospel and I think in accordance with the church’s gospel wisdom. And I’m going to say, I think this comes down to the fact that some of these situations have to be locally understood and locally known.

And it’s because we take the biblical qualifications for leadership, for someone serving as an elder, a pastor. We take this with grave seriousness. And yet in the history of the Christian church, abandonment has been considered one of the grounds that’s often been considered. And now there’s another question here, and that has to do with the fact that at least in some churches, the idea would be that to be of good reputation and to be beyond question on this, some churches would be more strict. I’m not saying they’re wrong, but that’s not what I’m being asked. I’m being asked, is this allowable? Is this envisionable? And I will say, yes, I think there are congregations that would say that the abandonment of a man, and it’s clearly what we’re talking about here, in which his wife has left him years ago when he’s lived a godly life. I think it is quite possible that such a person could meet the biblical qualifications and be invested with this kind of responsibility.

But I wouldn’t dictate this as a matter of church law. I think this is where this is left in the hands of local congregations, under the authority of the word of God and led by the Holy Spirit through a godly scriptural means to come to this kind of determination. It’s a hard question, but you know what? It’s just true. We can’t avoid the hard questions. And it just reminds me that when I’m presented with a question like this, I want to be extremely careful to say, I would not dare to speak into the situation in any local church in a specific case where the local church knows what I don’t know. And bears the responsibility to decide these things on the basis of the Word of God. And I’m just going to say, we don’t have any question, we don’t have any, and I just want to say we really don’t have any option, but to believe that local churches have to be capable of reasoning in a faithful and obedient way in this and being led by the Holy Spirit through scripture to do the right thing.

This is one of the reasons why I think a lot of this is inevitably left up to a local congregation under the Lordship of Christ, under the authority of Scripture, in the power of the gospel, trying to do its very best to fulfill all the Scripture commands.

Finally, for today, a great question that I can answer very quickly and rather emphatically. This listener from Little Rock, Arkansas writes in to say, “What are your thoughts on the current renewal of classical Christian education? Do you see this movement as a meaningful recovery of historic Christian formation? Are there cautions schools should keep in mind as it grows?” And yeah, I want to come back and say, can I offer my thoughts on that? Emphatically, yes. I am a huge champion of the revival and recovery of classical Christian learning and the model of classical Christian schools. I am emphatically in favor of it.

“I love the way this question is asked, though. Do you see this movement as meaningful recovery of historic Christian formation?” Yes, emphatically so. I think it is superior to many other models and I think the combination of classical and Christian educational models here is really, really powerful. And I think it has deep roots in the early church, deep roots in reformation Christianity, yeah, absolutely. But then I love the question, are there cautions schools should keep in mind as it grows? I’ll say the first caution is that when you say classical Christian, you need to recognize you’re talking about a Venn diagram in which there’s an awful lot of shared ground, but you’re talking about two different claims, classical and Christian. And I just want to make very clear that it’s the Christian that stands in judgment over the classical, not the classical that stands in judgment over the Christian. And I think that’s an extremely good question and I hope that answer makes sense.

Keeping theological biblical clarity in a classical Christian school is I think really, really important. And let me also state, you’re talking to an emphatic Protestant on this question. And so as we’re talking about classical Christian education, I have to follow that all the way through with an embrace of reformation doctrine as well. I do think this is a situation in which to take a Venn diagram again, you have among the Orthodox and especially among Roman Catholics and Protestants, an enormous shared area in that Venn diagram with those two circles and no apology there, no apology at all. 

But as an evangelical, I want to say evangelical parents need to make certain that classical is being followed through in such a way that it’s also in harmony with the reformation and that won’t happen by accident.

What a great question and what a great thing that we’re in a time in which we can talk about so many different models available to Christian parents. I would say a generation ago, certainly 40 or 50 years ago, most Christian parents weren’t even aware of this conversation, and that was a huge problem. At least we are on the way to recovering an awful lot of ground, and I am really thankful for that. Thankful for your questions all the time. Again, I am speaking to you from the Ark Encounter behind me. You see the ark. I’m thankful to answers in Genesis. I’m speaking at a conference here. I am thankful for this space in order to do this. And I’m just very moved to be speaking to you where you’re seeing the ark behind me. How about that?