Yes, you read the headline correctly. Perhaps you are as confused as I am.
Over at The New York Times, Astead Herndon, the son of a Christian pastor and the host of “The Run-Up” podcast, talks about evangelicals, Trumpism, and politics with New York Times journalist Ruth Graham and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Al Mohler. You can read the transcript here.
Mohler suggests he would vote for election-deniers like Kari Lake (AZ) or Doug Mastriano (PA) because these gubernatorial candidates have pro-life positions on abortion. He also says that he would not vote for a pro-life candidate who could not “uphold the Constitution.” Interesting. I think a lot of Americans believe that defending the Big Lie (and supporting the insurrectionists on January 6) and failing to uphold the Constitution are the same thing.
Here is a taste of the Mohler part of the interview with a little bit of commentary:
Astead Herndon: So is the basic premise that the Democratic party’s embrace of LGBTQ politics and embrace of those people and the embrace of pro-choice position has moved the party away from a position where you feel like it can be compatible with your Christian faith?
Al Mohler: Oh, absolutely.
So here we have Mohler doubling down on his claim that anyone who votes for a Democrat is an unfaithful Christian.
Astead Herndon: I’m curious what you think of people like Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, who have said that they’re tired of the separation of church and state, that church needs to play a greater, explicit role in government. Is that something you would agree with?
Al Mohler: I wouldn’t put it that way. And Representative Boebert has a different style than I have. I don’t like the language of separation of church and state because that’s not constitutional language. So —
Astead Herndon: What do you mean?
Al Mohler: That’s Thomas Jefferson language. The constitutional language is the language of the Constitution, which prohibits Congress to establish a religion and ensures the free exercise of religion. Those are two different things. And I do not want a Christian church in charge of the United States government.
I do not want a religious test for public office as administered by the government. Those things are clear in terms of our Constitution. But I do believe that our Republic is based upon certain religious assumptions, and without those assumptions, the entire project is very much undermined and subverted.
Mohler may not want a church in charge of the government, but he does want the beliefs of the church to shape the government.
Astead Herndon: What are those assumptions?
Al Mohler: I think they’re assumptions of the inheritance of Christianity concerning human dignity, human rights. When you say all men are created equal, well, that implies a creator, not only implies, it explicitly declares a creator. Where do those rights come from? So this isn’t some kind of abstract discussion. I don’t think a secular state is a neutral state.
Astead Herndon: It seems to —
Al Mohler: I wouldn’t call for the end of the separation of church and state. I do not want an established church. I do believe that there is no such thing as a secular nation. And I don’t believe that our constitutional compact can exist without the basic theological presuppositions that gave birth to the country.
Here is where I get confused by Mohler’s argument. What does it look like to abide by the disestablishment clause and at the same time claim that Christianity must be privileged? For example, if a Jew believes that life begins at birth, not conception, why is this deeply held religious conviction incompatible with religious liberty? Why must a Christian view of life always trump a Jewish view? Mohler answers these questions by saying that America was founded on Christian beliefs. But to make such a claim he must play fast and loose with the historical record, cherry-picking the revolutionary-era thinkers and ideas that best fit his Christian nationalist agenda. For many of Mohler’s ilk, those cherry-picked founders were Federalists: Washington, Adams, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris, and others. But the founding was much more complicated than what Mohler and his Christian nationalist/national conservative friends make it out to be.
Astead Herndon: I have a couple of images of the relationship between evangelical Christianity and politics stuck in my mind over the last 10, 15 years. And I think one of them I cannot forget is the January 6 day, where you saw a lot of imagery, particularly of Christ and faith, that people were using as justification to then attack the Capitol. I was curious, as someone who saw those same images, what did you think of them?
Al Mohler: I thought they were a freak show. I am a Christian theologian and I do not want to see the symbols of Christianity co-opted by anyone. Some of the people there, no doubt, were well intended and just trying to say, we’re claiming Christian continuity with the American constitutional experiment. But I was not there on January the 6th, would not have been there on January the 6th. And I want to be honest, I found much of it to be an absolute freak show. And so do just about all the Christians I know.
Mohler says that he does not want the symbols of Christianity co-opted by anyone. Yet he does appear to want the symbols of Christianity co-opted by American nationalism. He also fails to acknowledge that he voted for the man behind this “freak show.” Trump has no respect for the rule of law or the Constitution. Yet Mohler voted for him. I am not sure how this meshes with his claim, made below, that he would not vote for a pro-life candidate who does not respect the Constitution. But let’s give Mohler the benefit of the doubt. He did not know January 6 would happen when he voted for Trump in November 2020. But knowing what he knows now, would he vote for Trump again in 2024 if he ran on the GOP ticket against Joe Biden?
Astead Herndon: Even if you personally disagreed, why do you think there was space for the ardent supporters of Donald Trump, a man have expressed personal disagreements but also endorsed politically, why do you think there was an alignment between the symbols of your faith and his most violent supporters?
Al Mohler: Well, I will simply say we don’t have an evangelical Christian authority. We don’t have any authority that says you get to show up with this — anybody can show up right now, in front of the White House, today, with any kind of symbol, with no one’s authorization. So I simply want to say, that does not represent mainstream evangelical Christianity in the United States.
Astead Herndon: With that view in mind, how do you feel about the term Christian nationalist? I have heard that come up in response to the 6th. And I’ve seen some statements where you have seen to go from disliking or disavowing that term to embracing it, or at least embracing parts of it. Is that fair?
Al Mohler: Yeah, I still don’t like the term. What I said was, people will throw that term against any conservative Christian who believes in the importance of nation and conservative political convictions, and will claim you’re a Christian nationalist if you believe Christianity should influence the nation. I said I’m not going to run from that.
But many in the media, and certainly people on the left, they try to discredit Christian influence by saying it’s the radical right. It’s the reactionary right. It’s the Christian right. The latest thing is to say it’s Christian nationalism. Well, unapologetically, I believe in the importance of nation. Our constitutional order is around a nation.
I want to defend this nation. But all throughout the 20th century, particularly, the word nationalist also includes — which I don’t use. It’s not on my business card. I’ve not described myself as a Christian nationalist because I don’t associate with the extremes that show up on the right.
Astead Herndon: But you say you’re not going to run from that term?
Al Mohler: You can’t run from it. There are people who would say, I don’t like Baptists. Well, I don’t know which Baptists you don’t like. But I’m a Baptist. I can’t run from being a Baptist. I can try to argue with you what Baptists rightly means but —
Astead Herndon: But I guess I’m saying
Al Mohler:— put question the other way. How would I run from it?
Astead Herndon: I’m saying, if you’re saying that you don’t agree with what Congresswoman Boebert is saying about separation of church and state, why not disavow the term Christian nationalist because
Al Mohler: Because I’m not giving her the term. I’m not giving anybody that term. I’m not giving you the term. And I’m not arguing that you don’t have the right to your definition. But there’s no fixed definition there that demonstrates that what that must mean is Oath Keepers or some group that showed up on January the 6th. In other words, if I say abortion ought to be illegal, and you say that’s — I’m not saying you, excuse me. But if you say that’s Christian nationalism, I’m not going to say, well, then, never mind. I don’t have a position on abortion. I’m not going to run away at that argument.
I don’t think any scholar would suggest that all pro-life people are Christian nationalists. If they did, I would strongly disagree with them. I use the phrase to describe an attempt to privilege one religious view–Judeo-Christianity (as its defined by Mohler, the Christian Right, and national conservatives)–over other forms of religious expression. Christian nationalists like Mohler can support religious liberty and still reject democratic pluralism. Moreover, as noted above, they have a one-dimensional view of the American founding.
Astead Herndon: You’ve recently talked about how it could be, quote, “unfaithful” to God to vote the wrong way. What did you mean by that?
Al Mohler: I think there are certain issues that have to have primacy for Christian voters in our context. At that meeting, I was speaking to voters in Georgia. And I said two things in particular — I was very clear — the sanctity of human life and the integrity of marriage. And I said those would be the predominating issues for me. I think Christians must faithfully uphold those two principles. There’s more to politics. But I’m arguing there’s not less.
Astead Herndon: So again, it’s coming back to abortion and LGBTQ rights.
Al Mohler: LGBTQ rights in one sense is the way you’re going to describe it. I’m going to say the most important thing is defending marriage. And the Supreme Court, in the Obergefell decision, declared its judgment on the fact that no state may prevent or fail to recognize what is defined as lawful, same-sex marriage. I understand that. I’m not holding a sign outside the county courthouse, protesting that. I believe it’s a mistake. I believe that it will weaken this entire society.
And that issue right now is front and center precisely because, not of the Supreme Court and not even because of a state measure, but because the United States Congress is taking up legislation that would codify the Obergefell decision. And yeah, I think if you find conservative Christians, you’re going to find people who believe that would be a grave mistake.
Astead Herndon I understand that’s your belief. And I’m not actually trying to push on that belief. I am saying, you’re saying the primacy of those two issues for you and what you are articulating for Christians should come before other issues. Is that what I hear you saying?
Al Mohler: That is what I said. They’re prior. I think they’re both prepolitical, by the way, which is Christian ethical language for, this is prior to what should be the regime of politics.
Astead Herndon: How should one measure those issues against, say, the peaceful transfer of power? Why isn’t an issue like democracy just as important as abortion or gay marriage?
Al Mohler: Well number one, I don’t that is, in the midterm elections right now, a crucial issue. And it’s not as defined, candidate by candidate or even party by party right now. And by the way, if you look at the record of what I said on January the 6th and subsequent to January the 6th, I called for and consistently have called for a peaceful transfer of power.
Astead Herndon: Well let me change the question to phrase it in actual candidates in this midterm elections. You have candidates who stand against abortion, and I would say, mirror some of your conservative values, but have also explicitly attacked the idea of Democracy. I’m thinking of Kari Lake in Arizona. I’m thinking of Doug Mastriano, who was at the Capitol on January 6. Do you support those candidates?
Al Mohler: Yeah. This is where we have a two-tier situation. And I want to be intellectually honest. So if I were living in those jurisdictions, I’d face the question of voting for them. But I’m not running from your question. And I’m simply going to say that in both parties, right now, in order to have a majority, there are going to be people with whom the majority in both party disagree. But nonetheless, they’re going to count them in the number. They’re going to hope for a majority.
So that is the difficulty. We live in a fallen world. I want to be an honest Christian. There are horribly difficult decisions to be made. Let’s put it this way. I generally want, in almost every case — in every case. Let me take away the conditional. I want, in every case, the genuinely-conservative candidate to win, who will uphold the issues that I believe are paramount. I forswear and give up the idea of a perfect candidate. That’s the best way I to put it.
Astead Herndon: OK, so it sounds like you’re saying you would support them if you were in those districts and you could vote in those races. Is that fair?
Al Mohler: If I were in districts or in a state, or in a statewide or congressional district election, I had to choose between someone who supports life and someone who does not support life in the womb, I’m going to vote for the one who upholds the sanctity of human life.
Astead Herndon: Is there something that a candidate who supports your vision on marriage and abortion could do that would stop you from voting for them?
Al Mohler: Yes, if I felt like they could not uphold the Constitution of the United States I would not vote for them.
Astead Herndon: And being at the January 6 Capitol does not cross that line for you?
Al Mohler: No, you switched two things. You got to the Capitol — because my understanding of January 6 is that there were multiple gatherings. Let’s put it this way. Anyone who showed up to invade the Capitol, I think, would have a very hard time taking the Oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
For the record, Mastriano was present at the Capitol, but did not go into the building.
Astead Herndon: OK. What if they defended people who invaded the Capitol?
Al Mohler: I do not feel competent or honest, at this point, to know exactly what that means. I will say this. That oath of office is the precious foundation of the political compact. And I would not vote for anyone that I believe could not honestly and earnestly take the Oath of Office. But quite frankly, I am in no position to think I know of a major candidate that today would fit that description.
Al Mohler, the guy who prides himself on writing thousands of words a day engaging culture from a “biblical world view” does not feel competent talking about people who defended the insurrectionists? This is an interesting “head in the sand” moment for a guy who recently claimed he has written millions of words on social and cultural and issues and travels to churches where he challenges congregants to “ask me anything.”
Read the rest of the interview here.
I wish in these kinds of dialogues, especially between skeptic (ie journalist) and religious right/christian nationalist, that more nuance and more details were teased out of the phrase “christian influence of nation/government”…. I would like to see more christian nationalists pinned down on what that actually means, in practical on the ground terms and then I wish the interviewer would point out the Gospel stories and ask these people to square their “plan” of influence with the story of Jesus and His apostles – that they say they believe in!
Speaking personally, I’m a menno/anabaptist Christian and I too would like some Christian influence in our nation/government… but the Way I want that done (or means) is vastly different, in fact opposite, in almost every way from Christian nationalist/religious right figures like Al M.