Al Mohler is a big-name Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) leader, and he is also the worst kind of bootlicking worm: He moves to place himself right at optimal licking distance by carefully following the boots. He’s not even subtle about it. In a September 2nd article in Baptist Press, we learn that he sensed that the boots had moved to Christian nationalism, and so he decided Jesus totally loves Christian nationalism after all. The pushback, though minimal, was so serious that he even walked a bit of his bootlicking back!
Today, let me show you the evolution of Al Mohler’s stance on Christian nationalism—and the amazing curveball this story throws midway through.
(This post and its audio ‘cast first went live on Patreon on 9/29/2026. They’re both available there now. Please support my work—see the end of this writeup for options, and thank you for whatever you decide to do!)
SITUATION REPORT: So, Al Mohler, I hear you’re a Christian nationalist now?
I’ve never been impressed with the strength of Al Mohler’s convictions. Nobody should ever be. As I’ll show you, he’s flip-flopped on big issues before—always to whatever position is most powerful right then. (Awhile ago, we talked about the heel-turn he did on women pastors.) But this flip-flop was possibly the most breathtaking. It was also possibly his most public one. The others generally resided in the mists of the pre-internet era. This one took front and center stage.
Last month, Canon Press published Five Views on Christian Nationalism. The book offers (as you might suspect) five essays from disparate Christian voices. Two of note include Doug Wilson, a rabble-rousing grifter whose extremist views are becoming au courant in decline-era evangelicalism, and Al Mohler, the president of a Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) seminary and one of the SBC’s most powerful voices. (One contributor, Paul Miller, actually objected to any form of Christian nationalism. Of note, he’s the other Baptist in the lineup.)
As part of the marketing of the book, on August 7th most of its essayists appeared onstage together to discuss their essays and their points of view. Canon Press uploaded the debate on August 20th to their YouTube channel:
It reminds me of the iconic scene from Father Ted years ago (this clip should be timestamped at about 1:15 in):
So, Al Mohler, I hear you’re a Christian nationalist now?
The pushback was minimal but incredibly potent, causing Mohler to issue a truly craven walking-back of only one of many of his points on September 14th.
As we’ll see, Mohler prefers to stay at the edge of the Overton Window. This time, he stepped outside it. That move was a miscalculation, one he’s made in the past as well. This time, powerful evangelicals easily reined him back in with a rebuke from former SBC leader Richard Land. But rest assured: His sympathies fit in well on a stage with Doug Wilson.
Here, we’ll explore the points in his essay, the rebuke, and the walkback. I’ll show you how his behavior in this matter is part of his overall pattern of glomming onto whatever view is likely to win out—and, of course, why evangelicals are about the least qualified people on Earth to govern an American-flavored theocracy.
Al Mohler’s a Christian nationalist now: The essay in question
No less than the senior writer for Baptist Press, the official news site of the SBC, wrote about this story on September 2nd. That’s where I first spotted it. In her writeup, Diana Chandler summarized Al Mohler’s essay in Five Views on Christian Nationalism, which asked various Christians how they’d handle the re-creation of America in 2099 after an imagined breakup of the nation:
Key points of Mohler’s envisioned Christian Nationalism, in response to specific questions the book asks of all included authors, include:
No national church established by the government, as Mohler asserts such a responsibility lies with the Church, not the nation;
Profession of Christianity remains voluntary, but acknowledgement of Christianity as foundational to the nation would be required;
There would be no religious test for public office, only office holders’ “public and authentic acknowledgement of the nation’s formal commitment to the God of the Bible, specifically the Holy Trinity,” and “an acknowledgement of the binding moral authority of the Bible, including both the Old and New Testaments.”
Generally applicable laws would “respect the Lord’s Day and restrict some economic activity.”
Robust constitutional protections for religious liberty for all citizens, Mohler writes, “would be within the context of the acknowledgement of Christianity as foundational to the state.”
Blasphemy would be criminalized, with Mohler arguing “the government has the full right to restrict and punish blasphemy as an act or expression that represents a fundamental rejection or repudiation” of the foundation of the republic.
Homosexual marriage would not exist and such unions would be criminal, Mohler said in the debate, referencing the scriptural parameters as marriage between one man and one woman.
When I read this story, I was absolutely shocked. It wasn’t shock at how evangelicals keep getting closer and closer to just admitting they want America to become the Republic of Gilead, no. It was more like shock that Al Mohler stepped so far out in front of the trendline for his tribe. He’s not normally so brave.
But he not only wrote the essay, he also appeared on a debate stage with most of his fellow essayists later on to argue his points—and offered details about his desire to criminalize “blasphemy,” which he defines (at 1:23:10) as “a denial of the legitimacy of God,” which makes “blasphemy against the state” into “a denial of the legitimacy of the state.” This guy really loves the idea of getting to imprison and punish the critics of his form of religion.
This ain’t new, either, baby
Mohler says that the term “Christian nationalism” is a meaniepie liberal smearing of the government he wants. He complains that liberals have “misdirected, misconstrued, and frankly corrupted” his vision. Unfortunately for him, he falls right into line with every single horror story liberals tell about an evangelical theocracy in America.
And he always has.
In January 2018, The Handmaid’s Tale won big at the Golden Globes Awards. I’d already heard a few evangelicals get upset about this series. Their Christian theocracy would succeed. Jesus would ensure that their Christian theocracy wouldn’t be corrupt and hypocritical! So unsurprisingly, Al Mohler weighed in as well. In his “Briefing” on January 8, 2018, he said The Handmaid’s Tale was just an example of feminist hysteria in the 1980s (when the novel was first published). He accused the novelist, Margaret Atwood, of blowing up a few innocent little religious-inspired anti-abortion laws and a few evangelical-flavored marriage and sex laws into a corrupt Christian theocracy.
In 2022, Al Mohler complained about Christian nationalism having a bad press rap. During an interview described in Word and Way on July 21 that year, he said that if someone chose to call him a Christian nationalist, he wasn’t “about to run from that” label.
Word and Way thought this statement was odd, considering his warnings against Christian nationalism in 2021 in the wake of the January 6 insurrection attempt. In his 2021 “Briefing” about that attempt, he’d called nationalism in general “a clear and present danger” and warned about “a very dangerous confusion of the nation and Christian identity.” But now he wasn’t “about to run” from being labeled as a Christian nationalist. And in 2025, Mohler declared in a blog post on his site that “Christian nationalist” was “a term I do not choose for myself,” though he wasn’t “afraid of it.”
So this book essay he wrote doesn’t come out of left field. The general ideals are ones he held already, though he shied away from a full-frontal endorsement of a Republic of Gilead theocracy. His partnership with Doug Wilson was remarkable only because Wilson wholeheartedly and vocally embraces exactly that theocratic ideal. Even as far back as June 2026, Baptist News Global noticed Mohler appearing with Doug Wilson on a podcast. They offer a great outline of what Wilson’s all about, as well, noting that on paper, the two men couldn’t be more different. And yet here they were, sharing stages—and apparently books and political goals.
Then, pushback from a very surprising place reined Al Mohler in almost immediately
This is where today’s story throws us a surprising and hilarious curveball:
RICHARD LAND PUSHED BACK AGAINST AL MOHLER.
Richard Land is the former leader of the SBC’s public-facing Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) for many years. He lost his ERLC gig because he plagiarized a racist to score political points during the Trayvon Martin case. Seriously. He’s still a powerful SBC voice, but he’s not really part of the denomination’s formal power structure now. These days, he’s the Executive Editor of The Christian Post, a prominent evangelical news site.
And on September 4th, Richard Land wrote a critical op-ed on his news site in his official professional capacity to take issue with Al Mohler’s suggestion of “a religious test for political office,” as he put it. His post begins “Imagine my surprise,” and it only gets better from there.
Land lists the many projects he’s worked on for the SBC with Al Mohler, including their all-important creed, The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (BFM2k or just BFM), as well as collaborating on a commentary on the same. He points out that the BFM itself endorses “religious liberty” and unequivocally opposes the notion of any political power having the right to “impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind.” (Remember this bit. It’ll become very important in a moment.)
Importantly, Land also wonders who would keep Mohler’s theocratic leaders in check—and who’d decide how much deference was enough, or if it was truly authentic deference in the first place.
Land ended his post with this:
I fervently pray he will reconsider his position.
No one’s beliefs, or lack thereof, should disqualify them by government edict, or law, from participation in the public debate, the electoral process, or serving in office. As has often been said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” (Evelyn Beatrice Hall, The Friends of Voltaire, 1906).
I’m far more amazed at Richard Land writing that post than I am at Al Mohler provoking it as he did. I really didn’t think Land had it in him. Then again, I reckon even broken clocks really can be right twice a day.
This wasn’t the only pushback, of course. Some folks on social media didn’t like Mohler’s ideas. On September 11, Religion News Service sharply criticized Mohler and pointed out his deviance from SBC ideals.
But this particular broken clock had a huge effect on Al Mohler.
Al Mohler walks back one of his points
On September 14, Al Mohler wrote a post for World News Group titled “Acknowledgement and blasphemy: Sometimes, critics have a good point.” It begins with the real problem he faces:
Well, it is now apparent to me that I have kicked a hornet’s nest on issues of religious liberty, blasphemy laws, constitutional self-government, and the Baptist tradition.
He refers to the controversy he’s provoked as a “fracas,” implying it’s just “a noisy fight,” to borrow the definition from Cambridge Dictionary. In other words, the fight is the issue—not what he has actually advocated at length for years.
First, Mohler focused on one part of his theocratic vision for an imaginary re-created America in 2099: The requirement of a religious test for office, which goes against both our original Constitution and the BFM.
See, he didn’t mean forcing people to endorse personal belief in his particular take on Christianity. No, no! He writes:
My purpose is to make clear that, as a Baptist, I would never want to coerce religious belief—period. The concept of acknowledgment would not bar Thomas Jefferson or any other president from the White House, since it is not a test of personal religious beliefs.
Okay. So what he really meant was just making sure all political leaders validated and endorsed his particular take on Christianity as the entire reason America existed (NOPE), as the foundation of its laws and all human rights (LOL NOPE+1), and as the correct moral center of its character (LMAO XTRALOTSNOPE). See, that’s not the same thing at all as a religious test for office! Not even close!
Al Mohler’s views on pretty much everything are incoherent. But this post was a new low even for him. What he describes is a meaningless distinction. Even giving him every benefit of the doubt, he’s still describing a deeply coercive environment.
I must admit that visions of the malicious compliance that would result are amusing me to no end right now. Except those wouldn’t be possible either, because Al Mohler also demands the right to punish critics via blasphemy laws.
Oh and Mohler walked back his demand for blasphemy laws—except not really
In his response to Land, Mohler complained much more that everyone had misunderstood what he meant by endorsing blasphemy laws for his new evangelical-controlled America. This was confusing because Land’s post doesn’t contain anything about blasphemy specifically. As we saw, Land only quotes part of the BFM that advises Southern Baptists to oppose any law penalizing the expression of religious opinions of any kind.
But to Mohler, it’s a welcome lifesaver. He focuses entirely on blasphemy as a result:
A short section asked about the possibility of blasphemy laws. In the book, based in a hypothetical situation, I argued for blasphemy laws to be effectively redefined in the context of constitutional acknowledgement. On this score, to state the matter plainly, I think I blew it.
Nope. Mohler described exactly what he meant in that debate video. He wants exactly the kind of blasphemy laws that exist in countries like India and Pakistan right now. These countries already misuse these laws to punish dissenters of any kind for any reason. As one 2022 summary of these laws notes:
Mere accusations of blasphemy have sparked vigilante mob violence and targeted killings in various situations. When government fails to deter such actions, and does not vigorously hold those who engage in them accountable, it breeds an atmosphere of impunity that destabilizes communities and leaves minorities ever more vulnerable. The enforcement of blasphemy laws also undermines other human rights, such as non-discrimination and fair trial protections. State enforcement of blasphemy laws is often arbitrary and sometimes used as a tool by governments and non-government actors to target members of marginalized groups including religious minorities and political dissidents.
Al Mohler clearly thinks there’s a way to have blasphemy laws without human rights abuses. We’ve already run that experiment. There just isn’t. They’re incredibly easy to misuse, so they get misused constantly.
So in effect, Land pulled Mohler up short here. He suggested that Mohler didn’t have any way to protect people from misuse of religious privilege. Mohler dishonestly reframes his initial suggestion by focusing narrowly on blasphemy laws, then suggests that there’d be nothing objectionable in his suggestion if he’d used a different word.
I reject this attempt. Mohler meant what he said. His version of blasphemy is the exact same version many countries have now. They already misuse it. His imaginary new America would too.
Mohler didn’t “blow it” by misusing the word “blasphemy.” He blew it by wanting laws punishing religious critics, period.
So in summary for this subsection, Richard Land focused on the religious test for office and barely even alluded to blasphemy laws. Mohler, in turn, focused mostly on blasphemy laws and only briefly mentioned the religious test for office.
I hope Mohler doesn’t think nobody noticed.
Evangelicals will never beat the Christian nationalism allegations, but they crave absolute power that they do not deserve
Al Mohler doesn’t like normies thinking Christian nationalism is dangerous and toxic to all American ideals. What he does like, however, is Christian nationalism having power over all Americans—most especially including normies. He craves the power to silence opposition and prevent any worldview taking precedence over his own.
Most of all, he wants his tribe to avoid all shows of weakness.
In deeply authoritarian religious groups, weakness is the worst sin. Having less than full participation, having no power over dissenters and heretics, being incapable of fully punishing offenders in or outside the tribe, that is all weakness.
Mohler’s chosen to call his brand of Christian nationalism “public Christianity.” By this term, he means taxpayer-funded, legislature-endorsed, court-ordered evangelicalism. It differs from Doug Wilson’s brand of Christian nationalism only in its reluctance to name specific measures Wilson wholeheartedly supports: Revocation of women’s right to vote, slavery apologetics, etc. (And Mohler’s on record anyway as defending how slavery operated.)
Mohler holds to a coward’s brand of Christian nationalism. It refuses to face the tangible outcome of its goals that we already see in theocratic countries: abuse, misuse, and the exact kind of Republic of Gilead dystopia that Al Mohler so mocked in 2018.
A friendly reminder about evangelicals’ utter unsuitability to control any nation, society, community, or clubhouse
It seems useful to remind people that Al Mohler’s exact denomination began because many of its first adherents wanted to keep slaves—when the rest of the Baptists in America wanted to end that practice. And Al Mohler knows that truth perfectly well.
He also knows that his denomination covered up a massive sex abuse crisis for decades, that its top leaders were completely complicit in that cover-up, that they actively silenced victims and refused to warn churches about abusive pastors. He knows as well that when SBC leaders could no longer deny the existence of the crisis, they did their level best to destroy any attempt to reform the denomination to prevent more abuse. At this point, reform is dead in the SBC.
And Al Mohler is on record as claiming he had no idea this abuse was even happening. I have zero faith in his ability to prevent or stop it anywhere else.
Scandals erupt constantly out of all churches and Christian organizations that are dysfunctional authoritarian in nature. They can’t help it. Functional authoritarianism would prevent bad-faith actors from achieving power (or keeping it if they sneak in). But the dysfunctional kind has no way whatsoever to prevent bad-faith actors from getting that kind of power. Evangelicalism is very much a dysfunctional authoritarian system, especially the way Al Mohler envisions them.
No, the very last people we should want in charge of any government are evangelicals. We have every reason in the world to oppose their ever gaining that kind of power.
Al Mohler’s craven attempt to reframe his theocratic longings should not be allowed to pass without comment. We should never, ever turn away from the opportunity to remind him and his pals that evangelicals are not even a little qualified to control any government at any level, nor to set the terms of engagement for anyone else.
NEXT UP: Another day, another Calvinist hypocrite. This time the scandal has ensured the closure of a popular evangelical ministry. Gosh, why oh why does this keep happening? We’ll try to find out! See you soon! <3
Please support my work!
Thanks for reading, and thanks for being part of our community! Here are some ways you can support my work:
