Richard Land 'delighted' to see Al Mohler's clarification on blasphemy law comments, but challenges 'religious test' for office
Southern Baptist leaders are expressing their delight after Albert Mohler, longtime president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, clarified that he opposes blasphemy laws, in response to criticism of earlier remarks in which he implied support for them.
"I am delighted, as many other Southern Baptists will be, that Dr. Mohler has clarified his position," said Dr. Richard Land, executive editor of The Christian Post, who served as president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission from 1988 to 2013, and was among the vocal critics of Mohler’s earlier comments.
"We still shouldn't have a religious test for office. Period. That's just verboten," added Land, who's also president emeritus of Southern Evangelical Seminary, where he continues to serve as an adjunct professor of theology and ethics.
Mohler garnered controversy for comments he made during a debate on Christian nationalism at New Saint Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho, where Mohler and other panelists promoted their book, Five Views on Christian Nationalism.
During the discussion, Mohler expressed sympathy for things like blasphemy laws and requiring all public officials to convey “public and authentic acknowledgment 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.”
In his opinion piece for WORLD Opinions on Monday, Mohler said the “fracas” over his remarks was “not what I intended,” saying that his comments were about a hypothetical scenario in which the United States no longer exists, and a smaller regional nation with a 75% Evangelical Protestant population exists in North America.
“The U.S. Constitution no longer operates. What order should be put in its place?” wrote Mohler in his piece. “I am not built to address hypotheticals like this.”
“My main concern in the project was to argue for some form of constitutional acknowledgment that its claims about human dignity, human rights, and the rule of law exist on a foundation more solid than thin air or a majority vote at your local law school.”
Mohler said he supported a system that included an acknowledgment of God, as seen in the Declaration of Independence, which states that people are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”
“I would not claim that such an acknowledgement, taken alone, would resolve our problems or prevent all judicial activism, but I do think it would help,” he said. “Current antipathy to any ontological grounding of claims to human dignity and human rights and the rule of law has been evident for decades.”
Mohler stressed that “as a Baptist, I would never want to coerce religious belief,” believing that his “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.”
“I think I blew it,” he added, when explaining his views on blasphemy laws, stating in the opinion piece that he “was not calling for conventional blasphemy laws, and I have never advocated or supported any such legislation.”
In his Sept. 4 column for CP in response to Mohler's initial comments, Land wrote, “I would prefer all officeholders to meet at least Mohler's guidelines, the only Baptist and constitutional way to do that is by electing them to office, not disqualifying those who do not meet these spiritual standards.”
“Who is going to adjudicate Mohler's suggested legal standards? What does ‘authentic acknowledgment’ mean? What are the ‘acceptable’ parameters of belief or unbelief?” added Land.
“How is Mohler's proposal different from liberals who seek to disqualify Christian believers from running for office because it violates their twisted understanding of separation of church and state?”
Mohler acknowledged Land's arguments in his response, admitting that Land “took me to task on the issue of blasphemy laws, even within a hypothetical scenario.”
“He made the point that, in this age, gospel Christians are most at risk of being punished under such laws at the hands of aggressive secularists,” Mohler added.
“The Baptist Faith & Message, our Southern Baptist Convention confession of faith, effectively answers the question: ‘The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind.’ I am gladly regulated by the confession of faith, and agree with its clear assertion.”
