It's Friday, January 23, 2026. I'm Albert Mohler and this is the Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. Sometimes there's a story and then you recognize, no, inside this story there's a bigger story. So I want us to look at a major report coming out. It's coming out from Australia. Here's what it tells us. A year about a month ago, a law went into effect that eventually barred most children and younger teenagers from access to social media platforms. The New York Times and others are reporting that nearly 5 million teen accounts have been removed. The platforms, 10 in particular, the law prohibits when it comes to young people's use. They include Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Reddit. And the law says that those who are not yet 16 are not allowed on these platforms and the platforms are legally bound to basically remove users or block them who are under age 16. So you have to be 16 years old that has to be certified by some kind of process in order for you to have access to one of these platforms. All right, so that's interesting. And it's based upon the fact that the Australian government was faced with an avalanche of evidence indicating the harm that comes to younger teenagers and to children when it comes to exposure to social media. Now, by the way, this doesn't mean that it's safer for those who are 16 and older. It simply means that the Australian government, like most governments, describes a certain age range for what's often referred to as paternalistic policies. That's the government standing in as a father or as a parent to say, you ought not to do this. Okay, that paternalistic policy is really important here because I think the big story is not five million young users kicked off these platforms. I think the big story is how they're getting back on because news reports are telling us that these teenagers in particular are getting back on. How are they getting back on? Well, the big shock is many of them are getting back on with the cooperation of their parents and it's the parents who are helping their teenagers under age 16 to get around these policies sometimes by signing on as the parents or using the parents' information. It is rather difficult in Australia, it turns out, we are told, for young people who are covered by this law who are not yet 16 to use parental information or parental access without the parents finding out. That's the big story here. It's not only that the parents are finding out and they're okay with it. It is that in many cases the parents are, well, they're frustrated that their young people don't have access to social media and so they are actively intervening in order to subvert the law. And so it's not the kids alone who are trying to get around the law, it's parents in many cases who are facilitating that get around. Now you look at this and this really does tell us something about modern parenting and what you're looking at in the challenge of the social media and the digital age. It turns out that the seduction is so great that you have a lot of parents who are saying, look, these kids don't have a decent life if they're not online. You kick these kids off these platforms, how are they going to have any friends? How are they going to communicate? This is depriving them of some kind of basic human right. You also have social media influencers and this is something I just scratched my head and wondered this. Parents who are proud of their children and teenagers for being social media influencers and if they get cut off, of course, on the platforms they can't continue to influence in this social media way. And so these parents are facilitating, once again, by allowing or even facilitating their young people to sign in with their own information and even affirming that it's the parent. The parents are affirming, it's me when actually it is their children. And it's bad enough when you have children and teenagers who find a way to go around when you have the parents facilitating that just raises the stakes enormously. And it does tell us about the redefinition of parenting. So many parents believe it is their job to keep their kids happy by the kids' definition. And not only that, far too many parents, and this is true of middle class parents and it's not just limited to the middle class, but the middle class are the big numbers here. It is just true that there are too many middle class parents who like their children being popular and like the fact that their children are popular or trying to be popular online. Of course, the reason the Australian government put this law into effect is the devastating data coming of how many young people are harmed by social media exposure. And by harm, we're talking about acts of self-harm. We're talking about depression. We're talking about isolation and rage. We're talking about all kinds of things. And just even the exposure of these children to issues of relational and, well, multi-dimensional vulnerability. That's something parents are supposed to prevent, not facilitate, even in the violation of a law. But you know, Christians need to recognize that there is something in this problem that points to a fundamental truth, and that is government can't parent. Now if parents won't parent, that's a disaster. But it does come down to parents. The government can pass a law, but if the parents allow this go around and even with their children and teenagers seek to subvert the law, it's the parents who are really in the driver's seat here. And that's something that is just basic to creation order. And it reminds us that government can adopt all kinds of laws, but if parents are determined to subvert those laws, well, there's a societal breakdown right there. And this is why this story is, at least in the start, about five million children and teenagers kicked off the platforms, but the story ends up being about how many parents and others are helping them to get right back on. OK, next I want to turn before we take questions. I want to turn to another headline. This one is about an appeals court pending decision on whether or not the state of Texas can have the 10 Commandments posted in classrooms on classroom walls. OK, so that's just the interesting way we're going to get into this issue today. And this particular report tells us that even as this case has been working its way through the courts, it is now a front and center in terms of a constitutional issue. And predictably the sides are lined out here. You have citizens who say the 10 Commandments are absolutely fundamental to Western civilization, they need to be in the classroom. And you have others who are saying, no, that is an unconstitutional imposition of a specific religion and a religious document, and that shouldn't be accepted. Now, when it comes down to that conflict, I'm with the first party, not with the second. It is absolutely true that the 10 Commandments are absolutely fundamental to Western civilization. And I will make that argument and I will make it as strongly as I can, but that's not the interesting part of this story. It's interesting to be sure. But more interesting are some comments made by parents about having the 10 Commandments in the classroom. And so I want to look at one particular comment from a parent. This is also in a Times report. And you have a parent here who is talking about his own children. And he's talking about the 10 Commandments. And let me tell you the article sets it up by saying this quote, critics of the law say that posting the commandments where students have no choice but to see them amounts to state endorsement of religion and exclude students of faith not connected to the commandments. I think that's a ridiculous argument, by the way, especially when there are other issues, other statements, other documents on the wall. This is a particular animus towards Christianity and Judaism. I think we need to recognize that's exactly what it is. By the way, it is a secular allergic response to the law, a law based in divine revelation. Now, that's interesting, but it's the next paragraph that's a lot more interesting. And my guess is you're not going to see this coming. OK, so the next paragraph cites a teacher quote, it meaning the 10 Commandments. It talks about adultery. It talks about coveting your neighbor's man servant said, I won't say his name, a teacher who's a fifth grade math teacher in Keller, Texas, who has his own young children. Quote, I don't want them meaning his own children to have to figure out what these things mean. End quote. OK, so the article begins with a kind of secular allergy to the 10 Commandments. That's that's very clear. We understand why. But when you look at this particular parental comment, it's a parent saying, look, I've got young children and the 10 Commandments talks about such things as adultery and coveting your neighbor's wife and and man servant, etc. He says, I don't want to have to define those things. I don't think it's fair to put those in the classrooms. Parents don't want their children being exposed to such things. OK, so now we have the argument that children shouldn't learn the 10 Commandments because they can't handle the 10 Commandments and parents shouldn't be put in the position of having to explain the things found in the 10 Commandments to their children. Let's just step back and understand this is a much bigger problem. If you're going to call this a problem, it's a much bigger problem when you look at the entire Bible. You look at the entirety of the Old Testament. Let's just say not only does the Old Testament use the word adultery, it very honestly portrays what adultery is in all its sinfulness and in God's judgment against it. And that comes right down to coveting your neighbor's wife, etc. Now, I understand as a parent and as a grandparent, these things have to be explained to children in an age appropriate manner. But the fact is that our children need to learn the 10 Commandments and they need to learn the 10 Commandments early. They need to learn the 10 Commandments, however, in the context of a gospel home and a gospel church in which the entirety of the counsel of God is taught. But the 10 Commandments are absolutely fundamental. And you'll recall a text like Deuteronomy chapter six, where God tells Moses that he is to say to the people that they are to teach their children the law. And when their son asked them in times to come of the meaning of the law, then the parent is to explain it and put it in the larger biblical context. So this isn't a new problem. This was a problem in Israel in the earliest stages of Israel's development after the giving of the law. The law was given by God through Moses. And it was through Moses that God told the parents of the children of Israel, teach your children. In Deuteronomy six, beginning in verse four, we read here, Oh, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord, your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise. So you have right here in scripture, the order to the parents of the children of Israel, that they are to teach their children the law. And that continues to be the responsibility of Christians in a gospel context to do the very same thing. And right there in Deuteronomy six, the children of Israel are told. And in particular, the fathers of Israel are told when your son comes to you asking, what is the meaning of this law? Well, the fathers of Israel are told you need to answer the boys question. The children of Israel are also told to put it in the context of God's saving work. That is exactly the responsibility that falls to Christian parents, mothers and fathers with our sons and our daughters. It makes evidently at least one schoolteacher in Texas feel uncomfortable. Let me just state that evidently God's people, that is to say, Godly parents will find a way to answer the question in the most appropriate manner, understanding that as the child grows, that child is going to need to know more and more in terms of specificity. That's true when it comes to the Ten Commandments. It's true for the whole Council of God. OK, so I'm always encouraged by the questions that are sent in from listeners. And some of them just give me a little extra encouragement. So one letter came in from a 19 year old young man and he is in love. And he has met a godly young woman and he wants to get married. So here's what he says. He says, my girlfriend and I both really want to get married and we talk about it almost every day. I wish I could give you more context, but for the sake of keeping my question brief, I simply want to ask you, assuming a man's girlfriend is a godly young woman and he is a godly young man, what is your advice to a young man who knows he wants to marry but knows not when he should marry her? In quote. OK, very articulate, well stated question. And I simply want to say that given what you've told us here, you're a 19 year old young man, you're dating, courting a godly young woman. And if there be no impediment to the two of you getting married, then my suggestion is you marry as soon as you are able. Now, that's a that's a specifically worded statement. You marry as soon as you are able. And that means, I think, that you have the maturity and and and the ability to establish a household, because that's exactly what in marriage you're doing in a biblical sense. You're establishing a household. A man shall leave his father and mother and shall cling to his wife and they should become one flesh. And this is a new union. And and it means the establishment of a new family and the ability to do that. I think it comes much earlier than our secular society believes. I think the delay of marriage is not only an issue of great frustration and demographic crisis. It is also an occasion for sin. And I think it just ought not to be this way. And so my encouragement would be to to be in conversation with your parents and hope their believers and will give you good counsel and her parents. And in the context of the local church, you know, fellow believers and in particular, the elders of the church. And I think if it's a godly biblical church, I think they are going to be inclined to want you to get married. If again, there's no reason you should not. And there are there's every reason you should then sooner than later, my young friend, God bless you sooner than later. And God bless you for the honesty and the urgency of your question. And I love the way you put it. A young man who knows not when he should marry her. And I'll simply say again, with all the right requirements put in place, I want to come back to say, dear young brother, sooner rather than later. And God bless you both. But I also want to to get to a question right away from a woman who wrote in and she says, quote, I have an upcoming baby shower where there's a conundrum between family members. The young mother is a single woman who was raised in a Christian home in a solid church. She began spiraling in life when her mother left the family for another man and just a few months ago showed up at my door, pregnant and repentant. She has fully acknowledged the seriousness of her sin, turning her life around and making changes for the Lord. Her family is split, however, in how to handle the baby shower. One side says there shouldn't be one because of the sin involved. And it isn't something to be celebrated. The other side says repentance is the key. Since the mother has repented, she should be helped and encouraged in a new life. Amid such repentance should be celebrated. Basically, she says, what are your thoughts on this situation? Well, I think this is a genuine conundrum, but I do think that there's a biblical wisdom through this. And the biblical wisdom is shifting at this point. The concern from the mother to the baby and a baby shower should in particular be about the celebration of an impending birth and God's gift of new life. But it should also be about providing the things that will be helpful and necessary for that mother to be able to take care of that baby. And so let's just put it this way. The fact is that the writer of this letter has indicated clearly her understanding and a biblical sense of sin, the sinfulness of sin and the sin of fornication, a sex outside of marriage. And she also says this young woman who has committed this sin is repentant and fully recognizes the nature of her sin. Okay. So here's where we understand that the sex act was sinful, but the baby is not. Every baby is to be welcomed. Every single baby, every single human being made in the image of God, every single baby is to be welcomed and cared for. And here's the thing. And you'll notice that Christians actually have a pretty good instinct on this, even when they haven't figured things out carefully or analytically in biblical terms, you celebrate the baby. That baby is a gift. You pick that baby up and you look at that little wonder and you understand this is the glory of God demonstrated in the gift of life and only God himself could bring about this gift. Another dimension of this is that this young woman, and I'm simply taking the letter writer's word for it, that she's repentant and understands the nature of her sin. The context here indicates she's a young Christian and this is in a gospel context. It should therefore be of concern to a local church that could offer guidance and real assistance and discernment in the midst of all of this. But once again, I'll simply say we're living in a world in which the failure to make real and rightful distinctions is a genuine problem. Christians need to learn in biblical terms how to make the right distinctions and the right acts of discernment. And in this case, it is celebrating the baby while being clear on the context of sin, but also being very clear about the forgiveness of sin by God's grace and the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ. One final thought here, let's just pause for a moment and recognize how thankful we are that this young woman didn't abort that baby, because that's exactly what so many people in our society would say she should have done. Just get rid of the problem. I'm very thankful that that's not the case in this baby as soon to be born. You understand the context. You understand the sinfulness of sin. You also understand the glory of God in the birth of a baby. And you welcome that baby and treasure that baby, because that's exactly what God's people know to do. Okay. Now a question coming from a young man. He writes and says, I practice sexual purity, and yet I still have vivid sexual dreams or experiences. I assume this means in the dreams. Am I being attacked by sex demons? If yes, how do I defeat them? Well, number one, if you are a believer, you cannot be possessed by a demon. You are filled with the Holy Spirit. And so number one, believers need not to worry about something like demon possession. Now, does this mean that we deny the demonic powers around us and that includes a demonic powers, a temptation? No, no, we don't. But the fact is that you don't need specifically a demonic explanation for this. This is just evidence of sin and of our sin nature. And by the way, I'm speaking to a young man here. That's a reminder that if indeed you are struggling with this, it would appear in biblical counsel that you need to be married. And number one, at a certain age, it becomes very clear that a man who is struggling sexually with this kind of thing and is unmarried, that in itself is a reminder of the fact that God made you for his glory for a purpose. And again, it goes back to creation order, the first command given to the man. You know, and the woman together be fruitful and multiply, but very clear in Genesis chapter two, therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and they should become one flesh. That is God's plan. Now, there may be other complications here. I don't know, but I'll simply say you don't. You don't need to blame this on demons. You need to take responsibility for it. And that means filling your mind with scripture. But it does mean, it does mean that in a fallen world and with the reality of sin, you know, one of the things that in the Book of Common Prayer, order of worship in terms of the declaration of marriage is that marriage is, among other things, a remedy for sin. That is emphatically true. And I wish more Christian young men took that wisdom seriously. All right. In the news, many of us are aware of the death of Dilbert creator Scott Adams. He wrote the comic strip for years. And a listener writes in saying, I identify myself as a staunch act, 1711 Christian. As such, I use the wisdom and authority of scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to inform my understanding. Would you please, he asked, comment on the deathbed conversion of Dilbert creator Scott Adams. He says, I know I am not his judge, but want further discernment on basic elements of a valid articulation of saving faith. Okay. So there was discussion about this. I simply want to state much of what I have heard about this and extended articulation from Scott Adams before his death is that he was prepared before his death simply to claim the name of Jesus Christ and to claim the gospel and be saved. But he even said he was not going to do that until the very last minute. Let me just state that the biblical presentation of the gospel is of the declaration of the gospel that comes alongside the Holy Spirit's work in drawing sinners to Christ and drawing sinners to faith in Jesus Christ and drawing sinners to repentance of sin, drawing sinners to desire Christ. I saw none of that language, none of it at all in reference to, to Scott Adams. Now I'm not Scott Adams judge. And frankly, I don't have enough information to state this in a determinative way, one way or the other. I'll simply say that a deathbed conversion or a conversion at any point is really rightly and biblically to be a demonstration of how Christ has drawn a sinner to himself and that sinner has come to Christ. And that means an eager confession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It doesn't mean some kind of deathbed deal. This gets back to the problem of some who say that salvation comes just by some act of articulation or intellectual ascent. I don't think that's biblical at all. Again, what you see in scripture is that Christ calls sinners unto himself and those sinners respond in faith. They, they desire Christ and they desire salvation and they, they, they turn to Christ in faith. They don't just make a last minute deal. You know, some people in reference to this or other contexts, they mentioned the thief on the cross, but the fact is that what we see in that biblical passage is a sinner who desires salvation and desires Christ. He says, you know, Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom. That's the demonstration of a sinner being drawn to Christ. And yes, right there, even on a cross himself, but that is not an indication or a demonstration of the gospel working in a last minute negotiated deal. Or for that matter, a last minute personal declaration. That is just not a biblical understanding of conversion. Okay. Long similar lines. A listener wrote in and mentioned that he had heard me read the Apostles Creed in a service at Southern Seminary, including, he says, the line that Jesus descended into hell. He says, I'm curious if this is a belief you hold on why, particularly, he cites Luke 23, 43, where Jesus tells the thief on the cross that they will be together in paradise that day. Okay. So, you know, it just seemed to follow. We were just talking about the thief on the cross. So let's just end on this. Let me just clarify this because it's real easy. The English language is the problem here. It's not a problem in the original of the Apostles Creed. It's not a problem in Latin, which is the dominant form. Of course, it's been translated into English, but when it was translated into English, the word Hades was simply translated as hell. Hades is the realm of the dead. It's a New Testament term. It is not hell. It's the place of everlasting punishment. It is instead the realm of the dead. So when we say he descended into hell, what we're saying is Jesus truly, genuinely died. And the Hebrew cognate in the Old Testament is the word sheol, again, the realm of the dead. So I appreciate your careful listening. And I deal with this in my book on the Apostles Creed. The shortest chapter is this simply because I say all it is saying, but what it is profoundly confessing is the biblical truth that Christ genuinely died for our sins. Some churches, due to possible confusion, leave it out. I'll simply say I much prefer to leave it in. I think it affirms a very important biblical truth. And if it has to be explained, then, you know, that's our job. Let's explain it. All right. Again, I appreciate your questions. You can write me at mail at AlbertMohler.com. Always glad to hear from you. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website at AlbertMohler.com. You can follow me on X or Twitter by going to X.com forward slash AlbertMohler. For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to SBTS.edu. For information on Boys College, just go to boyscollege.com. Today I'm speaking in Charleston, South Carolina, and I'll meet you again on Monday for the brief.
