It's Friday, February 6, 2026. I'm Albert Mueller, and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. A recent study undertaken by researchers at Pennsylvania State University makes a pretty astounding claim, and that is that the interaction of biological fathers with infants may have effects that exceed some of the interactions of mothers with infants. Now, I recognize we could be in all kinds of difficult terrain here. And frankly, I'm in no position to tell you whether this research is conclusive. I have a larger worldview purpose in bringing this up. Ellen Berry reporting for the Times tells us, quote, for a study published recently in the journal Health Psychology, the scientists observed three-way interactions between 10-month-old infants, their fathers and their mothers, and then checked in on the families when the children were two and seven. They found that fathers who were less attentive to their 10-month-olds were likely to have trouble co-parenting, instead withdrawing or competing with mothers for the child's attention. And at age seven, the children of those fathers were more likely to have markers of poor heart or metabolic health, such as inflammation and high blood sugar. A lot of it came down to how fathers behaved with these infants in what were described as, quote, three-way interactions. And they started seeing how this has an effect. One of the researchers said, quote, we, of course, expected that family dynamics, everybody in the family, fathers and mothers, would impact child development. But in this case, he says it was only fathers. Okay. So again, there is no claim here that fathers have more impact on the child's health over time than the mother. That's not the point. It is to say that in some specific situations of interactions with children, it turns out that fathers are uniquely important. And we already know that that's the case, for instance, in patterns of play and in patterns of security, the child's self-security, and long-term in the child's self-esteem and so many other things. Now, I think the last thing that's healthy for Christians is to say, who's more important here, the mother or the father? Clearly, the mother's role, especially when it comes to infants, is so clearly obvious that the headline is always going to be about the discovery that the father has an important role, especially in a secular society that's so confused about all of this. What I want to point to as a Christian is what is implied. It's even explicit in this article in terms of what's presented, but it isn't acknowledged. And that is that there is a real problem when the father is not in the home. What you see here is an open illustration, affirmation, confirmation of the fact that a father being present in the home, biological father present in the home in the time of the child's earliest development, it has a huge effect upon the child. Now, I think Christians know that already. And of course, no society has ever asked if mothers are all that important. Every society knows that. It is so absolutely obvious that no sane society can ask the question of how necessary mothers are. The fact is, however, that in the modern age, there's been an open denial of the importance of fathers. And quite honestly, there've been a lot of men who are just as happy to hear that they were irrelevant in this sense or not so important in this sense. Male irresponsibility or lack of responsibility in a lot of this is a big part of the problem, but so also is the influence of feminism and the ideological breakdown of the family. And frankly, the argument that it doesn't matter if a child has both a father and a mother. In this case, the research, which goes back to Pennsylvania State University, it demonstrates not only is there an important role for the child's biological father, but clearly that child really does need both the biological mother and the biological father if it is at all possible. And not only that, you could flip the equation in worldview terms and say this is an affirmation of the fact that God's intention in creating the family, growing out of marriage with the union of a man and a woman who become the father and the mother, that that is something that comes with blessings and benefits because of creation order. And thus Christians will look at this and say, well, of course, the absence of the father is going to come with some very real issues. Let's just put it that way, real deficits. And in some cases, as is pointed out here, real health problems for the child. We understand it goes beyond that. I also want to point to something else. And, you know, we live on the other side of this LGBTQ revolution. We live on the other side of the gender extremists and the gender ideologues. And we are told that, by the way, there are no mothers anymore. They're just pregnant people. And I guess there are no fathers anymore. They are just the impregnating people. You just look at this. You understand. Okay. Okay. However, when it comes to actual research about parenting in a straightforward way. These researchers talk about fathers and mothers, and they make clear it's social and biological. And for some reason, they thought that it just might be important that fathers and mothers be involved in the parenting of children. And so they did this study. And of course, there's something else here, and that is there's absolutely no gender confusion in this. Father means father, and mother means mother. I just want to underline this to say, you know, I don't think Christians looking at this research are going to see anything new at all. I think we understand this is a part of creation order. This is a part of God's design. It's interesting to have here some research that corroborates the importance of having a biological father in the home for the development of and for even the health of, even what's described here as heart and metabolic health for infants, and especially by the time they reach about the age of two, also age seven. You know, again, this just makes biblical sense. But it does really affirm the fact that when you have an honest conversation about family, an honest conversation about mothers and fathers, you end up in an honest conversation that doesn't come with the ideological corruption that is the political correctness and the standard in so much of our society. All right. Another interesting issue here has to do with babies and their laughter. Gina Moreau writes an article entitled, What a Baby's Laugh Actually Teaches Us. She is a developmental psychologist at Vermont State University. And by the way, at the New York Times this comes along with some video And it about the glorious sight of seeing babies just a few weeks old laughing giggling really having a good time And of course that is a very significant developmental marker. And I'll just tell you, it is one of the cutest things on planet Earth. Seeing a baby laugh and learn to laugh, know the baby's laughing, know he or she is laughing and enjoy laughing, try to come up again with a situation that will make him laugh again. It's just absolutely glorious. But the interesting thing here is that the subhead of this article is the evolutionary brilliance of the baby giggle. Okay, evolutionary brilliance. All right, here's what we read. As a developmental psychologist, this woman writes, I was perplexed. She's also the mother of a son who began giggling at 14 weeks old. She says, despite my PhD, I'd never come across research on infant laughter or humor. While psychologists and parenting experts had extensively researched early skills like walking, language, and attachment, humor was largely neglected as too frivolous for scientific attention. But she says, those early laughs inspired me to study baby humor full time. What an interesting job, studying baby humor full time. Quote, in the ensuing two decades, my own research, along with that of the few others chasing this phenomenon, shows that laughter and humor are fundamental to how babies learn about and participate in the world. In an age of parental anxiety, humor and laughter are also among the most joyful developmental milestones. And I can say as a father and as a grandfather, absolute affirmation to that. But the word evolution, evolutionary, is right there in the headline. Listen to this quote. In the 1870s, Charles Darwin described his own infant son's first display of what he called incipient laughter and hypothesized that laughter serves an evolutionary function, reinforcing social bonds without requiring language, end quote. Well, all right, when you look at worldview clashes, there are few so direct and well-known as the clash between biblical Christianity and evolutionary naturalism. You understand those are two absolutely diametrically opposed worldviews. Evolutionary naturalism, by the way, go so far as to understand it must explain every single facet of human existence some way, somehow in evolutionary terms. And I don't know of any better example of this than Charles Darwin himself in the 1870s trying to explain the absolute glory of infant laughter by telling us that it must serve an evolutionary function because, of course, evolutionary theory has no explanation other than evolutionary function. And so it must be, Charles Darwin said, and remember he's saying this, not only as an evolutionary scientist, he's saying this as a father. He says it must serve the evolutionary purpose of reinforcing social bonds without requiring language. That's according to the summary. Okay. So in other words, Charles Darwin said, it must be, it must be. If you have to explain everything in terms of evolution, it must be that the evolutionary explanation is that a baby giggling of that absolutely infectious, absolutely glorious, absolutely unspeakably wonderful experience of an infant giggling and laughing, it must increase social bonds between parents and baby. And for that matter, anyone in the room and the baby. And even though the baby isn't capable of language, the baby has your attention by this laughter. Wow. Now, I just want to say as a Christian, I think you're really missing something, missing something huge, missing something fundamental, missing something primary. If you don't believe and don't see, when you see an infant giggle and you see a baby laugh, you are seeing a demonstration of the glory of God and the creation he has made in such a way that he shows his glory in this tiny little, beautiful, cute, unspeakably attractive little tiny human being learning to laugh, hearing herself laugh, enjoying the experience of laugh, and associating that with a parent and hoping the parent will do it again and again and again and again every time with a laugh. I just look at that and want to say, do you really believe that's a sufficient explanation for something this glorious? But then again, that same worldview tries to explain every aspect of human experience, including the love of a parent for a child. And not only that, but the knowledge planted within the creature that there is a creator, all of that is dismissed as nothing more than something with an evolutionary function. But I just want to say, if you can look at the face of a giggling baby and see evolution, something is deeply wrong. Finally, before we get to questions, The Wall Street Journal ran a recent article by Louise Perry. She writes a lot of interesting stuff in which she tells us that the Australian animated series known as Bluey was the most streamed program in the United States for the second year in a row. One of only two children's TV shows to make it into the top 10. It made it there in a big way, the most streamed show in the United States. And we're talking here, as Louise Perry says, about a show which is itself, about a married middle-class heterosexual couple with two children living in the suburbs. The characters are anthropomorphic dogs that act and live like humans. They spend a lot of time with their extended families and their local friends who are overwhelmingly married heterosexual couples with children at a time when one in four U.S. children live without a father at home. The dad of Bluey is a constant and loving presence in his children's lives. The parents both work, but the family is what gives them meaning. As Louise Perry says, the characters' lives are small C conservative and they are happy. All I want to say in summary about all of this is that creation order is so beautiful that when you even turn it into creation order represented in characters who are anthropomorphic dogs and a program for children, it is incredibly attractive. So much so that it turns out that this little C conservative program is the most streamed show in the United States for a second year in a row. Okay now let's turn to questions and as always I appreciate questions sent in. And I appreciate questions when someone hears something I say and asks for an explanation or even raises a point that requires clarification. And I appreciate listeners listening so carefully One listener wrote in where I was talking about the necessity of making certain that biological males don compete on female teams especially girls sports and women sports But the attention here was because of court cases and now case before the Supreme Court, especially when it comes to high school sports, which was the focus of one of these cases. And I made a statement. Well, let me put it this way. Here's what the listener said. Quote, My specific question is, why is your conclusion that biological females competing in male spaces is not a problem? The listener says, I asked this question because as a school, we've run into this problem before and we're likely to again. And it's also very interesting that in a later part of the communication, the listener says, in such a rightly ordered society where we ask males not to use their size and strength to overpower women, what is a male athlete to do are the female athlete in this environment, end quote. Okay, very legitimate point. And it's a reminder that we have to be careful with language. And when I said that girls on boys teams is not a problem, I didn't mean that having a biological female on a boys team is actually not a problem. What I meant is that is not what's showing up in cases in law. That's not what is showing up in public policy. That's not what's showing up in terms of the public controversy. And it is because just in numerical terms, it is far more rare, and it is not the leading edge of litigation or of the cultural argument. So I want to say, listener, you are exactly right, and this listener has experience, and in fact is even the head of a K-12 classical Christian school, and he says he wants some clarification. Okay, let me clarify. When I said it's not a thing, I didn't mean it's not a thing. So let me say it's a thing, and you're absolutely right. And not only that, this school leader, Christian classical school leaders had to deal with that specific thing. It numerically is a tiny percentage of the issues raised by having biological males on female teams. But you're exactly right. In other words, I want to be really clear. It's wrong to go either way in terms of this confusion. It's just that the bigger presenting issues legally and culturally are the far larger number of biological males trying to show up on female teams. But theologically and biblically, listener, you're absolutely right. And by the way, God bless you for your service as the head of a K-12 classical Christian school, and thank you for holding the line on all of this. And it's a good reminder, even as we talk about these things, we need to be careful when we say, you know, that's not so much the problem. Theologically and biblically, it's just as much a problem. I mean, for one thing, it presents, however, another part of the same problem, which is exactly what This head of school recognizes, and that is that if you put teenage boys in a situation in which a teenage girl is put on the team, how in the world do they handle that rightly, given the difference in physical structure and all the rest? It's just, it's wrong to confuse this either way or any way. But it is simply the case that legally right now, the big challenges are biological males on female teams. But this listener is absolutely right in theological and biblical terms either way. the confusion is just wrong and dangerous. Okay, another listener writes in from Pennsylvania, and she says, quote, I'm writing because we were learning about spies in World War II this morning in homeschool, and my five-year-old daughter asked why they were doing bad things to people if God tells us to love our enemies, and why they were lying if lying displeases God, end quote. Now, this mom goes on to say, we talked a bit about why conditions and war are different than everyday life, but I'd love to hear, I'd love her to hear your input on this complex question, especially since I know Spycraft is one of your particular interests. Okay, what a kind contact coming in from this mom. And by the way, I'm immediately moved to respect this mom for raising such issues with a five-year-old daughter in homeschool. I mean, this is pretty significant stuff. This is really important. And I think it's a great context in order for these kinds of things to come up. And I'm also proud your five-year-old daughter is seeking to think in very clear moral terms, and not only that, in the right moral terms. And so one of the hard things we have to tell children is that sometimes, and the Bible makes this clear, fighting is necessary. Sometimes war is necessary. Sometimes God's people, especially you look at the Old Testament, were called to war, and it's a limitable thing. It's a horrible thing. But sometimes the thing worse than war, the thing morally worse than war, is allowing, say, a tyrant to kill people. allowing a tyrant to oppress people. And so sometimes war is absolutely necessary because in a sinful world, bad people do things and sometimes bad nations invade other nations or threaten other nations or a bad leader does such. And so sometimes even in the Bible, this is just made very, very clear. And then about spying, this is a five-year-old little girl, bless her heart. Why were they lying if lying displeases God? Well, there's a long history of Christian debate on this. And one of the most interesting arguments is that honesty is, of course, our responsibility, but it's due to the one to whom honesty is due. In other words, you don't have to give a murderer information to allow the murderer to murder even more people. Now, none of this is easy, and that's one of the reasons why the Bible never authorizes lying in that classic form of a lie ever. And so, also in a sinful world, there are times in which we're not sure exactly which is the least wrong thing to do. But we do know, and this listener says that she knows I'm interested in spycraft. Yes, I am. I have a thinking in public you can find right here at the website with James Olson, the former head of counterintelligence for the CIA, a deeply thoughtful man on these very issues. And I'm also extremely interested with how this has actually worked out in the history of Western civilization, in the history of the United States, say, in a context like World War II or the Cold War. I'm kind of way beyond an adequate faithful answer for a five-year-old, I recognize. But I think it's important for the five-year-old to know that even in the Bible, it's made clear that sometimes God's people are called to war. And, you know, we don't have to tell a five-year-old a lot about Christian just war theory, but there are times in which fighting someone to keep them from hurting someone else is necessary in a fallen world and God even made that clear with his people of Israel and Judah The spycraft issue is a little more complicated but in that context sometimes it just important to know we cannot must not tell evil people how to hurt others And so that involved in that whole question And you know I think it sweet that a five wrestling with this And I think it's important that we recognize we all have to wrestle with this for the rest of our lives. This is one of those hard questions. But I need to be very honest and say that I am thankful for responsible people, morally responsible people, fighting for the right side in the world of espionage, dark as it is at times, as well as on the field of battle. Once again, I do feel kind of a failure in talking to a five-year-old, but I do believe I would just point out that sometimes God's people are actually called to fight. And it's love of neighbor that leads us to do that because we want to defend those who would otherwise be endangered. And sometimes in the whole world of spycraft, the same principle applies. And in a world of sin, sometimes there are really hard things that God's people have to do and then have to bear responsibility for doing. Okay, really interesting question coming in from a listener from Costa Rica about the Greater Than Movement, of which I am a part. Pressing back on the Obergefell decision and the legalization of same-sex marriage and defending the right of children to a mother and a father, you know, plays into some of the other stuff we were just talking about. And this listener says regarding that movement, quote, if you hold on to the argument of children having a biological right to have a mom and a dad, it will logically be against singles, also widows or divorced to adopt. What are your thoughts on this? Well, first of all, I would say to this listener, I would not say that children have most importantly, a biological right to a mom and dad. I would say I think they have a biblical moral right to a mom and a dad. The biological part is quite necessary in how you actually get the child. But I understand the question, and it's more directed towards what about singles, widows, or divorced, and adoption. Well, I will be very clear in that I think we should say in biblical and Christian terms, two things simultaneously, but they are in a certain order. In other words, the first thing has to be said, and then the second thing, but we need to say them both. And so the first thing we need to say is that God's intention for children to have a mother and a father means that the optimal conditions for adopting a child and the rightful standard conditions for adopting a child should be a married man and a woman who will function as mother and father and love this child as their own. That needs to be said. The second thing we need to say is that in a world in which there are many abandoned children, we want those children to be taken care of. And sometimes the immediate need of taking care of a child means that there is not a context in which You can have all that you would want that child to have in terms of a married mother and a father. Now, that doesn't resolve all the issues, because right now we're looking at the fact that there are many people who don't intend to get married, but do want the experience of being a parent. I'm not speaking to that. There's a lot of confusion there. And I'm talking about the paramount need of the child to be taken care of. And that's why the Christian worldview has privileged, without question, married couples, and has held that up as the standard, and it should be the expectation. But in a world in which you have children who are in deep, dramatic, immediate need, taking care of the child has to be the first priority. But I think, again, we must not step back from marriage as the expectation, the norm, and in the vast majority of cases, the policy. Okay, there's so many questions, and I look forward to dealing with more and more of them week by week. A question came in from a dad asking a question on behalf of his two daughters, including one who's eight, who asked about God's love towards those in hell. I appreciate the question being sent. I appreciate this family listening. Quote, she pointed out that God loves those who are going to hell before they die. She asked if he still loves them when they are in hell. We looked at John 3, 36, and talked about God's wrath on those who are in hell. I asked her if we should, well, anyway, send in the question to me. I appreciate you sending it. Okay, so here's the thing. I think we have to think in biblical terms and use the language very, very carefully. The Bible tells us that God hates sin. And we're also told that his wrath is poured out upon sin and sinners. And, you know, the word wrath is right here in the question. God's wrath is poured out eternally upon those who are in hell. And so when we talk about God's love towards those who are in hell, I think we have to stop using the word love and simply use the biblical language that his wrath is poured out upon the unrighteous who are in hell. And so we understand that God's attributes, the words that are found in Scripture that describe God, attribute to him certain attributes, holiness, righteousness, eternality, indivisibility, immutability, you just go down the whole list, eternality. The fact is none are in conflict, but because we as human beings can't think beyond our human constraints, I think we just have to be careful to use the most important biblical language that we find right there in Scripture about such things. We're told that God hates sin and that His wrath is poured out upon sinners in hell, and eternally so, and rightfully so. We still say that God is love, but God loves in absolute accordance with His justice and with His righteousness. By the way, God's love was demonstrated even to those who are in hell by the fact that they were given the gift of life and were given the experience of life. That doesn't change the fact that God hates sin and His wrath is poured out upon sinners eternally. And that just makes more precious the salvation and the forgiveness of sins that comes to us through the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ. There's a sense in which I think an eight-year-old is really going to struggle with this because of the association of love with sentimentality. And I just want to say in humility, that's not just a problem for children, for eight-year-olds. It's a problem for all of us, which is why we just need to lean into the clear teachings of Scripture and use scriptural language. As always, send your questions to mail at albertmuller.com. And thanks for listening to The Briefing. For more information, go to my website at albertmuller.com. You can follow me on X or Twitter by going to x.com forward slash Albert Muller. For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to spts.edu. For information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com. I'll meet you again on Monday for the briefing.
