It's Friday, December 6, 2013. I'm Albert Moeller, and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. Yesterday, Jacob Zuma, the president of South Africa, announced the death of Nelson Mandela at age 95. One of the most significant and historical figures of the 20th century, Nelson Mandela became known not only as the father of his nation, but as the father of a people. All this goes back to 1918 when he was born into the royal line of the Inhosa tribe in South Africa. He was born in the midst of what was known as apartheid. That was the official policy of racial segregation, a racial segregation that baffles the moral imagination that came about in terms of the Dutch-speaking colonists over against the native Africans in South Africa. There were many dimensions to apartheid. Many of the tribes were put into tribal lands where apartheid meant that they had no access to modernity and to modern goods and the modern economy. It was a form of forced racial discrimination that would be almost impossible for Americans to believe had a similar form of racial segregation not occurred in this country. That legal American segregation came to an end during the civil rights era back in the 1960s. And even though the legacy continues, the reality is that it passed away, at least in terms of its legal possibility, about two generations ago. But in South Africa, it took another 30 years for apartheid to fall apart. And if anything, apartheid was far more stark and extreme than was even the racial segregation found in America and especially in the American South up until the 1960s. This kind of racial apartheid flies in the face of the Christian understanding of the equality of every single human being. Not an equality that is politically established, but one that is biblically and theologically grounded, unquestionably grounded, in the fact that the Bible clearly reveals that every single human being is equally God's image, made in God's image. We are separated and distinct from the animals and the other creatures precisely because we alone as a species, as human beings, as homo sapiens, as the family of man as it has been known, We alone bear God's image, and we bear God's image equally, male and female, and regardless of any racial or ethnic consideration. And for that matter, as we have to argue over and over again, regardless of any other kind of consideration, including age or process of development. What we're looking at here in the death of Nelson Mandela is a landmark in terms of history, but it's also, in terms of the Christian worldview, a cause for our deepest thinking about the intersection of history and destiny, of human rights and human dignity, and of character and leadership. Nelson Mandela long before World War II came in contact with what became known as the African National Congress, the effort, the political effort there within South Africa to overthrow the apartheid regime. It was led before World War II by Walter Sissulu, a very famous figure, but Nelson Mandela became even more famous. As a young man, he joined the ANC when the ANC was, to use the only word that would fit, a terrorist organization. And yet, he also became a major figure in world politics. He spent many years in prison after several treason trials. He found himself on the infamous Robben Island as a prisoner for 20 years and spent almost a decade in another prison thereafter. But in just a matter of years after his release from prison, as he was already approaching the age of an elderly man, he became the president of his nation, the duly elected, democratically elected president of South Africa. What changed? Well, you might say everything. In the 1990s, he received the Nobel Peace Prize, shared with F.W. de Klerk, the last of the Afrikaner presidents of South Africa. In other words, those in the Dutch heritage who had been ruling in South Africa and had been capitalizing upon apartheid. F.W. de Klerk shared that Nobel Prize with Nelson Mandela precisely because it took a cooperative effort by the last white president of South Africa and the first black president of South Africa to put together a system that would not lead to national collapse, but would create a national future. South Africa remains a deeply troubled nation in many ways, but it is an economic powerhouse. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out, even in the obituary to Nelson Mandela, it is the economic powerhouse of Africa. It stands out economically from every other African nation. And much of that is due to the transition that took place in the 1990s, away from apartheid and towards a new future for South Africa. That very process that was negotiated by F.W. de Klerk and Nelson Mandela. Dying yesterday at age 95, Nelson Mandela lived a very long life. His life encompassed most of the 20th century and at least the first decade and more of the 21st century. He retired twice from national life. He never expected, indeed, to become the president of South Africa. In his younger years, he just wanted to overthrow the government that was enforcing apartheid. When you think of Nelson Mandela and reflect on his life and now on his death, there are many worldview issues that are immediately implicated. One of them has to do with the fact that Nelson Mandela was, to use the word I used earlier, a terrorist. That immediately raises a deep moral issue. How can someone be so honored who had at any point resorted to terrorism in order to achieve a political objective? Well, while we're thinking about that question, let's reflect upon some less convenient facts of history. For instance, you look at Menachem Begin, who became one of the most powerful prime ministers of Israel, and the one who signed the Camp David Peace Agreement with then-Egyptian President Anwar Sadat during the American presidency of Jimmy Carter. Menachem Begin became also one who won and shared the Nobel Peace Prize, but he was also a terrorist as a young man. He was a Zionist terrorist. He was directly implicated in a bombing that took place about the time of World War II in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, a bombing that led to the deaths of British soldiers. He was known as a terrorist. He was indicted as a terrorist. He later became the Prime Minister of Israel, and he became also a sharer of the Nobel Peace Prize. While we're thinking about that, we probably also want to think about someone like George Washington. Had the American Revolution turned out differently, George Washington would in all likelihood have been hung as a traitor. He would have also been accused of being a terrorist. This is not to say that this gives moral absolution to terrorists so long as they win and eventually have political victory. It is to say that in the process of politics in a fallen world, Often, when you look at terrorism, it's in the eye of the one who gets to define it. In the United States, we speak about the efforts that led to the overthrow of the British colonization as our national revolution, the birth of a nation. Similarly, Nelson Mandela is seen as a great hero by the people of South Africa, as was Menachem Begin by the people of Israel. But this does not absolve the use of force. It does not absolve the tactics of terrorism. It just raises the point that when we talk about this, we must talk about it honestly, recognizing that when you look at the process of political change, the kind of change on the scale necessary to overthrow something as powerful as apartheid, it looks in a fallen world as if force, more often than not, becomes necessary. That is lamentable, but we ought to note it. It is a moral factor in our consideration of the life and legacy of Nelson Mandela. So is the issue of character in terms of conviction. In my book on convictional leadership, The Conviction to Lead, I mention Nelson Mandela and I also mention at the same time Martin Luther King Jr. They raise many of the same issues. Martin Luther King Jr. was known as an ordained minister. He was also known as a serial philanderer. Nelson Mandela was known as the father of his nation eventually, but he was also known as a serial adulterer. He was a man who was deeply morally conflicted. And yet, when we look at his legacy in terms of the overthrow of apartheid, we recall the fact that Reinhold Niebuhr, a very influential theologian in America in the middle of the 20th century, said that there are times in which certain men, certain figures we might say, appear to be historically necessary even if they are far from historically perfect. That seems to be the case also in a fallen world. In a sinful world, a world in which every dimension is marked by sin, including politics, oftentimes the most effective political leaders are those who have the strongest convictions, but often those strong convictions are met by a somewhat less than stellar character. Nelson Mandela's character, however, is not limited to, but certainly includes his sexual behavior. But it also includes his courage. It also includes the deep conviction he had about the future of his people. He was a committed man to democracy. That's a very important issue. He did not want to overthrow the South African government in order to put in place an African National Congress dictatorship. When it comes to human rights and human dignity, Nelson Mandela has to be put on the side of the heroes. not only in the 20th century, but in any recent century. He is, as Reinhold Niebuhr might remind us, one of those necessary men. A necessary man who nonetheless is a man whose feet were made of clay, as his biography reveals very clearly. Hollywood is releasing a major film about Nelson Mandela that tells about both sides of this story. And as Americans perhaps go to see that story, perhaps in greater numbers than ever before after the death of Nelson Mandela yesterday, it's likely that they'll be confronted with many of these worldview issues. It's unlikely that anyone's going to try to help them think these things through and think about them as Christians. But American Christians looking at Nelson Mandela have to say we are thankful that he was used in order to achieve freedom and human dignity for his people. But perhaps we should also be thankful that we know a little bit more of the story. So that he's not merely held up as a hero, to be emulated in every respect, but is known as one who was a morally complicated figure. And when it comes to figures on the world scene, every single one of them is morally complicated. Not in the same way, not all of them, as was Nelson Mandela, but every man, every woman, in his or her own way. we are morally complicated figures. And that's why when you look at the span of human history, you recognize that it is our Christian responsibility to look at it, and to look at it all, and to take it all as evidence not only of why human history is important, but why our ultimate redemption can come only from Christ. And speaking of history and its meaning turning to the United States, it was 80 years ago yesterday that America ratified the 21st Amendment to the Constitution. In other words, repealing what was known as Prohibition. This raises a host of questions for the Christian conscience, but it also raises a host of questions for historical honesty. For instance, looking at the Huffington Post and at many others in the national media, what you see is a celebration of the fact that the end of Prohibition meant a return to moral and legal sanity in the United States. And as a matter of fact, very typical, the kind of media coverage about the end of Prohibition was an essay by Derek Rosenfeld, who is the Internet Communications Coordinator of the Drug Policy Alliance, arguing that the 80th anniversary of the end of Prohibition should be, just by any form of common sense, an argument for the end of the war on drugs. It's an argument we've heard before. It's one we're going to hear again. And frankly, the war on drugs is itself a morally conflicted situation. But when you look at an argument like this, what's missing is an actual attention to historical honesty. For instance, when you look at the period of prohibition, it was a very interesting era. It was a very problematic era. It was the 18th Amendment that had earlier established prohibition, outlawing the sale of beverage alcohol, certainly with any significant alcohol content, in the United States. It was the 21st Amendment that repealed prohibition. And in between was a period in which America was largely forced to reduce its alcohol consumption. It's when you had the rise of speakeasies and rum-running and all kinds of things. Organized crime saw it as a moment of their great advantage, and many of the criminal gangs that continue even today, in America's cities in particular, emerged from this era. You had the infamous revenuers and others who were going into the hills finding stills. And you had the American government, the federal government, and then government at every level, determined to eradicate beverage alcohol. The thing that's missing from most of the analyses about the 80th anniversary of the end of Prohibition yesterday is that, by and large, Prohibition actually worked. In other words, the sale and use of beverage alcohol plummeted in the United States, and it had a moral effect. Historians of Prohibition will tell you that what took place during that era was that there were many who simply had no access to beverage alcohol. Looking at the ill effects of alcohol in the culture, the very effects that brought about the 18th Amendment and the idea of Prohibition, we need to recognize that there was a tremendous moral crisis leading to the breakup of families and the injury to so many that led to people to believe that Prohibition would be a good idea. At the end of the day, prohibition exhausted the legal and cultural resources of the United States. It was impossible, actually, given the scale of the United States and given the impossibility of policing prohibition totally and comprehensively, it was impossible to avoid building a police state if one was going to continue to enforce it. It fell because there were all kinds of reasons why America was just exhausted at the ability to continue Prohibition. But you won't find many honest analysts pointing out that it took until the 1970s, that's right, it took until the 1970s, about 40 years after the repeal of Prohibition, for alcohol sales per capita to return to the levels they were before Prohibition. In other words, Prohibition not only worked, it worked in one sense, even after it was repealed. It took 40 years, four decades after the end of Prohibition, for the per capita sale of alcohol to get back where it was before Prohibition. So when people are talking about the end of Prohibition, and you'll see many people, especially with a libertarian bent, celebrating it, just recognize it still had an effect. The law has an effect, and we need to recognize the reason why it is so. It is because there is a knowledge innate in us by God's grace that tells us of a law and a lawgiver. And even after that law was repealed, it still had a moral effect. That ought to tell us something. Something you won't hear in most talking about the 80th anniversary of the end of Prohibition. Yesterday we discussed recent developments in the Church of England. Shifting to the Church of Sweden, last month that church elected its first woman as its Archbishop. She'll be serving from 2014 onward. The 58-year-old Bishop, who will become the Archbishop, was born and raised in Germany. But as is reported by Ecumenical News, she has spent much of her working career in Sweden as a Lutheran priest and a church leader. She was asked to comment about becoming the first female archbishop in Sweden. She said it wasn't so surprising, quote, I've been out on the international scene a lot and I can see there's a curiosity about female church leaders. I have confidence that it is also an asset, she said, end quote. What she doesn't think is an asset is the historical deposit of faith, otherwise known as historic Christianity. She created controversy years ago as a priest and as a bishop for suggesting, for instance, that the virgin birth is simply a metaphor rather than an actual event. She'd also argued for the legalization and the normalization of same-sex marriage, and Ecumenical News also reports that the Church of Sweden not only allows its priests to conduct same-sex marriages, it allows them to be involved in same-sex marriages as well. The Church of Sweden has had female priests for over 50 years now, and starting in the middle of next year, by the election that took place just a matter of weeks ago, that church will have its first female archbishop as well. I would simply argue that when you look at the pattern of theological direction in any church or denomination, you'll notice that several things go together. The hermeneutic that allows a church to move toward the ordination of female priests, not to mention a female archbishop, is the very same form of biblical interpretation that allows a church to say, we don't have to take what the Bible has clearly been understood to say about homosexuality anymore. We can understand it to say something else. We can turn the words around and we can make it to say what we now believe it must say in order to fit in modern culture. This new Archbishop says that modern culture indeed sets the stage, he says she looks forward to the day when it is no longer even newsworthy that a woman is elected to a post such as the one she has just decided to accept. Once again this demonstrates the dichotomy that is taking place in American Christianity in which those on the right and the left To use those hide-worn but unavoidable designations, are moving in different directions, not only on issues such as women in the ministry, not only on issues such as homosexuality and same-sex marriage, but on an entire host of issues, and not, we should note, by accident. Back to the United States, while we're thinking about the moral character of our country, Citizen Magazine reflects upon a gala held on September the 18th in Washington, D.C. It was known as Men for Choice and the Women Who Love Them. It was a pro-choice, pro-abortion event, a fundraiser for that movement, and the featured guests included Hunter Biden, the son of Vice President Joe Biden, and Nathan Daschle, the son of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. And, as Citizen reports, while you were at this event, you could have enjoyed the open bar with cocktails like Pro-Choice Teenie. not-so-old-fashioned and row-rum-punch. The magazine then explains the event was a fundraiser for NARAL Pro-Choice America, formerly known as the National Abortion Rights Action League. The magazine then cited a cynic could see this as part of the same image makeover that moved the group to change its name, as the Capitol Hill paper known as Roll Call put it, quote, given the option between hosting another combative reproductive rights rally or parading around the studs at the Democratic stable, NARAL chose the latter, end quote. It says a great deal about NARAL. It says a great deal about the Democratic Party, in this case, with the sons of major Democratic leaders held out as the attractive stars to be drawing others to this gala. And it says a lot about our country, that we would have a country in which not only would abortion rights be defended by those who call themselves pro-choice or pro-abortion, but you would have them celebrated in this sense. Write down the alcoholic drinks available at the bar named for Roe v. Wade, the infamous Supreme Court decision of 1973 that has led to the death of over 40 million unborn children. Just think about it and ponder what that says about the entire nation. Thanks for listening to The Briefing. For more information, go to my website at albertmohler.com. You can follow me on Twitter by going to twitter.com forward slash albertmohler. 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.