Albert Mohler’s transparent theocratic leanings, and why he should stay off all our porches.


Election results have Albert Mohler quite concerned.

We are rightly and deeply concerned. We must pray that God will change President Obama’s heart on a host of issues, ranging from the sanctity of unborn life to the integrity of marriage. We must push back against his contraception mandate that tramples upon religious liberty. Given the trajectory of his first term in office, we are urgently concerned about a second term, knowing that the President will never again face the electorate.

Because Mohler is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, we’re unfortunately compelled to be smitten by his voluminous wind far more often than those residing in civilized portions of the country. However, he still is considered a quoteworthy ayatollah of sorts among the nation’s evangelicals in need of “leadership”, sacred or profane. Not coincidentally, some of you will recall the time in December, 2006, when Mohler was engaged as the keynote speaker at a breakfast session of the organization ironically known as Leadership Southern Indiana, and I observed the rampant incongruities therein.

Will gays, Catholics, the childless, Muslims and artists if all marred stripes actually be allowed to attend this questionable exercise in the enhancement of their “quality of life” by means of the theocratic version of “leadership?”

Just curious.

From that moment forward, LSI’s relevance has disappeared from view faster than a midwinter’s smudgy sun, but this isn’t my point today. On Wednesday, Mohler’s “holy father, now what?” web column contained these actionable thoughts:

Clearly, we face a new moral landscape in America, and huge challenge to those of us who care passionately about these issues. We face a worldview challenge that is far greater than any political challenge, as we must learn how to winsomely convince Americans to share our moral convictions about marriage, sex, the sanctity of life, and a range of moral issues. This will not be easy. It is, however, an urgent call to action …

 … Christians must never see political action as an end, but only as a means. We can never seek salvation through the voting booth, and we must never look for a political messiah. Nevertheless, Christians do bear a political responsibility, established in love of God and love of neighbor. We are rightly concerned about this world, but only to a limited extent. Our main concern is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Which is it to be? Is the “call to action” political, or not? If this moral action bears fruit at the voting booth, how is it not political? And if it is inescapably political (surely it is, or Mohler would not be expending this many words to obfuscate the issue), then how is this NOT advocacy of a theocracy, defined as:

A form of government in which God is the Civil Ruler and the official policy is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group.

I certainly hope Mohler’s various organizations are on the tax rolls.