Al Mohler's Address at the National Conservatism Conference
I listened with interest to Al Mohler’s address at the National Conservatism conference in Miami.
Mohler is very cordial and whimsical as a communicator. And not everything he said was wrong. In fact, I agreed with a great deal of his talk!
Mohler’s thesis was the ongoing tension between assumed and articulated beliefs in the Christian Church, highlighting the negative impact of modern secular ideologies, and emphasizing the importance of conserving pre-political realities rooted in the Christian tradition.
While I share Mohler’s concern about a progressive state where progressive politics is the de facto religion, I would critique Mohler on three grounds: (1) You cannot have a Christian state without a state church; (2) Secularism is more diverse than he appreciates; and (2) Europe is not the boogeyman he makes it out to be.
To give credit where credit is due …
I did think Mohler was right (10:12) in terms of how a rejection of Christianity’s theology will inevitably lead to a rejection of Christianity’s social and moral vision. The proof is, I think, a recent survey which showed that under 30s in Canada think poor and homeless people should be allowed to seek euthanasia if their lives are miserable enough that they want to do so. Alas, human autonomy and expendability has replaced the “imago dei” as the basis for determining human worth (agreeing with Mohler at 23:21). I share Mohler’s concern too (17:21) that progressive political ideals can become a de facto religion among political elites and the influencer. I’ve written on A Godless Age and its Theocratic Religion.
Mohler is correct (27:54) that America was not created as a secular state, but it was definitely intended to be non-sectarian. Christian reasonings were embedded in the principles and foundations of the American republic. In fact, Andrew Wilson has shown how the opening of the Declaration of Independence is suffused with Christian reasoning.
But, on the critical side …
Mohler claimed (4:42) that conservatism “is going to be increasingly tied to explicit theological claims and confession or there will be nothing left to conserve.” Well, insofar that notions of liberty are rooted in Christian ideas of human rights, yes, that is true. But not all the theological ideas offered up as the basis for a civic community are necessarily going to lead to positive outcomes for its citizens, e.g., Christian Nationalism.
Mohler also warned about (7:25) the “dangerous illusion of the secular state.”
To read further, consider joining the “Aviary” by taking out a paid subscription, only $7 per month or $75 per year, supports me in my ministry and scholarship, and gets you 4-5 posts per week on biblical studies, Christianity and gender relationships, cultural commentary, book reviews, previews of my forthcoming books, and some cool videos.
My immediate response is to ask, “Which secularism?” There are different ways of being secular, from France, to Turkey, to Britain, to China, to Canada and more. They are not all the same.
Also, secularism was a Christian invention to prevent a majority of Christians from persecuting a minority of Christians!
Yes, there are pernicious forms of secularism from the Third French Republic, to 1930s Mexico, to the Soviet Union. But not all secularisms are mean and nasty. A level of secularity is necessary to allow differences among Christians and to allow religious differences among a citizenry. Otherwise, you end up penalizing anyone who is not Anglican, Baptist, or Methodist! A religiously diverse society needs a benign secularity in order to protect religious freedom and to safeguard religious minorities.
Mohler is very happy with a coalition of Protestants, Catholics, and Jews standing up for western civilization, but what is his socio-political apparatus for defending the rights of these three tribes beyond a mutual hatred of godless bureaucrats? His conservative pluralism needs to be sustained by religious tolerance, which requires some kind of secularity!
Added to that, Mohler’s rhetorical mention of Europe (14:21) as the paragon of a postmodern, godless, and secular society is a crass over-generalization. Europe is more diverse internally than he understands and religious influence plays out very differently whether you are in Sweden, the Czech Republic, Hungary, or Malta. Pointing to the danger of secular and socialist Europe is a strawman argument.
In sum, the weakness of Mohler’s lecture is …
First, Mohler wants a Christian state without a state church. Yet that is not possible, because you need some authority and mediator of Christianity between religious communities, civic leaders, and the citizenry. So you are going to end up with a clerical elite imposing a version of Christianity in some form which will be to the detriment of dissenters and minorities (including Baptists!). That’s how and why we got secularism! The state cannot privilege one religion or become the interpreter of any religion. There’s the danger of a slow shift from Christians acting as chaplains to the state to then finding a way to become the Pope, Ayatollah, or Dalai Lama over the state.
Second, Secularism is not one thing, it is many things, some versions are pernicious, while some versions are benign. I literally wrote a book on this, Religious Freedom in a Secular Age. Do check it out!
Third, the lecture had a lot of fear-mongering about godless Europeans and their doctrines becoming the opiate of the American elite. Well, this is true to a degree, especially in philosophy. But Europe has pockets of religiosity in places, London is one of the most religious cities in Europe! Plus, many Europeans also whinge about the influence of American politics on Europe, esp. “wokeness.” The French philosopher Michel Foucault found his home in America because audiences there were more receptive to him, and his influence is mediated primarily through the ideology of American gender theorist Judith Butler. So remember, Europe is not monolithic and the trans-Atlantic highway travels in both directions.
Fourth, Mohler doesn’t speak about Muslims. Now, in my experience, Muslims tend to be conservative in terms of family values, they can be very pro-commerce, and they often dislike the postmodern left as much as Mohler does. So, apart from perhaps the obvious reason (cough, cough, Islamophobia), is there a place for Muslims in Mohler’s coalition of religious conservatives? This is a topic I’ve written on elsewhere with respect to the Australian context.
On this point... "You cannot have a Christian state without a state church" I think that's too narrow as stated. Now by Christian state I would not mean Christian nationalism, but rather a state that is sublimely influenced by primarily Christian values. It seems there is no question America from its founding forward (and now waning) was primarily functioning with assumed Christian principles and values, and yet without any "state church". I think this is the way it should be.
And it becomes separately the job of the church via evangelism and discipleship to maintain a general Christian ethos to maintain said values (which we are not doing great at). This of course need not in any way take away freedoms of other faiths.
So separation of church and state are maintained, but not so much separation of God and state as we are called to be salt and light. Influencers and prophets, but not kings.
Excellent point about Muslims! All the Muslims that I come in contact with have very very strong family units. They are modest. They don’t drink. And they not only value but practice family values far more than we do in most American families. They take care of their elderly. In turn, the elderly have a valued place of mentorship with the young. But it’s not expedient to mention these things when we’ve framed all Muslims as terrorists.