Al Mohler's “Discipleship of the Vote”
Al Mohler's “Discipleship of the Vote”
SBTS president Al Mohler spoke at the “Pray, Vote, Stand” conference where he talked about the “discipleship of the vote” and stated that failing to vote or voting wrongly means being “unfaithful.” Watch the clip yourself:
Look, Mohler is more conservative than me on certain issues, be they theological or cultural, but I always recognized the sincerity of his position. He was reasoning out of a Reformed Baptist heritage, holding to a high view of Scripture, and preserving the church’s polity as he understood it.
I thought Mohler was principled when he announced his disinclination towards voting for Donald Trump in 2016. Later, I disagreed, but I understood why Mohler said he changed his mind on Trump in 2019 (see this article in The New Yorker).
What baffles me now, however, is that Mohler is basically tethering Christian faith to fealty to a Trump-shaped GOP. He’s already done his “Hooray for Christian Nationalism” thing, but he is now going all-in on Trumpism.
Part of me wonders if Mohler is just reading which way the wind is blowing in his own denomination and setting his sails to catch it. Or else, does he face pressure from his board and donors to lean into Trumpocracy? Or, even worse, does he really believe it? I’m somewhat perplexed by his words.
I understand why people voted for Trump, but I don’t understand why people are devoted to Trump, even after he tried to overturn an election! Preserving democracy and the peaceful transition of power is more important than any other cultural war issue.
Many are vexed and affronted by Mohler’s remarks about voting and faithfulness. One SBTS graduate, pastor and author John Starke, tweeted this:
Props to John Starke. He’s not afraid to speak up against his own tribe and call out something he rightly views as dangerous or even a distortion of Christian political witness.
I think it’s okay to exhort Christian friends to discern within the precincts of their consciences how to vote faithfully. But to tell Christians that unless they vote one particular way, they are being unfaithful is not partisan it is positively pernicious. I’ve heard of a progressive version of this. When Trump won the 2016 election, an Episcopal church forbade anyone who voted for Trump from receiving communion one Sunday, which is near-heresy. Or else Mohler is like when Joe Biden told African-Americans that if they didn’t vote for him, they “ain’t black.” A stupid comment that Biden rightfully apologized for. To equate voting for one party or one candidate with Christian fidelity- whether conservative or progressive - is deeply wrong.
For an alternative to Mohler’s political theology, can I recommend a couple of forthcoming books to you:
First, Patrick Schreiner, an SBTS grad, who has written Political Gospel: Public Witness in a Politically Crazy World, now I haven’t read this myself yet, but it’s got some good endorsers, and Patrick is a very measured young scholar with a penchant for sane commentary. Out on Oct 18 2022.
Second, Constantine Campbell, a former Moore College and TEDS prof, an Aussie who has lived in the USA, he’s written on Jesus vs. Evangelicals: A Biblical Critique of a Wayward Movement. I have read this, it’s great, it was the type of book I was planning to write myself one day, but Con beat me to it. Out on 23 Jan 2023.
For the “Aviarians”- my name for subscribers to this subststack - what did I miss, what did I get right, where do you think I’m wrong?
A few additional thoughts - from a lifelong SBC insider and 30+ year pastor and missionary - I think Mohler is actually misreading the way the wind is blowing in his denomination but is reading well a vocal, angry, largely aging minority that is seeking to claw their way back into power after being privileged for so long. That's why he lost the election for SBC president so heavily two years back and why the backlash group keeps losing (most) votes at our national conventions.
The SBC tide is shifting, getting younger and more diverse and is definitively far less tied to one political party. That's who writers like Patrick Schreiner, Adam Wyatt, and others are representing. Theologically conservative, strongly anti-abortion, but far more holistically (and biblically) pro-life regarding immigration, the treatment of women, racial justice, etc.
Mohler and many in his generation (not just chronologically but also sociologically) are lost in this new world. They spent their lives fighting for "conservatism" and can't understand those who don't equate political conservatism / the republican party with a scripture shaped worldview. The weaknesses, blind spots and areas of political collusion of theological conservatives are being exposed as is their inability to self-critique. They often can't seem to see or ignore the weakness of unchecked capitalism and they minimize the dangers of Christian Nationalism, misogyny, sexual abuse and systemic racism.
Unless God grants greater grace, as we all need for true transformation, they will likely continue to pursue the re-establishment of the heyday of their power and influence. They will continue to beat the same drumbeat of politically conservative agendas and ideas. When frustrated, their rhetoric and behavior will likely accelerate (witness Kevin DeYoung's descent into defense of patriarchy) - perhaps even advocating or permitting violence to that end.
One further note - Mohler may be preparing himself for a run for political office - he certainly is hitting all the "right" conferences, etc.
May God grant greater mercy and grace to our churches!
I'm not SBC nor have I lived in the USA, but I've read enough to know that Mohler has done this sort of thing before.
I recall, many years ago, him saying that complementarianism was "an issue of basic obedience" to God's word. (I can provide a link but I'm not sure if you encourage them in comments.) He may not necessarily see it as a first-line issue on the level of the Trinity, but when one is female, it's first-line regardless — it's basically telling me how I must live my life. How can that possibly be a secondary issue?
Interestingly, he was originally an egalitarian. He apparently changed his mind virtually overnight when someone told him he'd better rethink it. The same question came up then as now: was the change due to expedience rather than a serious, unhurried reconsideration of the matter?