Friday, February 6, 2026

It's Friday, February 6, 2026.

I'm Albert Moller, 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 of 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-coparenting instead of withdrawing or competing with mothers for the child's

attention.

And in 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 and 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 in 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.

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, 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 have 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 a 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 those 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 it's 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 ideologs.

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 is 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

and 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 Moro writes an article entitled, what a baby's laugh actually teaches us.

She is a developmental psychologist of Vermont State University.

And by the way, at the New York Times, this comes along with some video.

And it's about the glorious sight of seeing babies as 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 here 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 a prop, 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.

Oh, that's 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 encipient laughter and hypothesize 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.

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.

So it must be Charles Darwin said, and remember, saying this not only is 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.

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 in 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 the 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 within 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, quote, 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 living presence in his children's lives.

The parents both work with the family is what gives them meaning.

As Louise Perry says, the characters lives are small, see, 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 at a program for children, it is incredibly attractive.

So much so that it turns out that this little sea 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.

When listener wrote in where I was talking about the necessity of making certain that biological

males don't compete on female teams, especially girl sports and women sports.

But the attention here was because of court cases and now case before the spring 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 with a 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's 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 through 12 classical Christian school.

And he says he wants some clarification.

Okay, let me clarify.

I, 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 know, 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 through 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 anyway.

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.

Have 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 more are different than every day life.

But I love to hear, I've heard of here,

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

to 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 in the Bible makes this clear,

fighting is necessary.

Sometimes war is necessary.

Sometimes God's people,

especially look at the Old Testament or recalled to war.

And it's a limital 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

of the CIA, a deeply thoughtful man on these various 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 issues are more complicated,

but in that context, sometimes it's just important to know

we cannot, must not, tell evil people how to hurt others.

And so that's involved in that whole question.

And, you know, I think it's sweet

that a five-year-old's 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 a spycraft,

the same principle applies.

And in a world of sin, sometimes are really hard things.

The 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, which I am a part.

Pressing back on the Bergerfeld decision

and the legalization of same-sex marriage

and the defending the right of children

to a mother and a father who plays into some

of the other stuff we were just talking about.

And this listener says regarding that movement, quote,

if you hold onto the argument of children

having a biological right to have a mom and a dad,

it will logically be against singles

also widows are divorced to adopt.

What are your thoughts on this?

Well, first of all, I would say 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 are 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 that we need to say in 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 help before they die.

She asked if he still loves them when they are in hell.

We looked at John 336 and talked about God's wrath

on those who are in hell.

I ask 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,

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 then his wrath is poured out upon sinners

and eternally so and rightfully so.

And 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 gonna struggle with this

because of the association of love with sin and mentality.

And I just wanna 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 teaching to 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

or go into x.com forward slash.

Albertmuller, for information

on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,

go to spts.edu.

For information on voice college,

just go to voicecollege.com.

I'll meet you again on Monday for the briefing.