Mohler pulls back reference to blasphemy

LOUISVILLE, KY (BP)—“I think I blew it,” Albert Mohler responded Sept. 14 to critics of his envisioned blasphemy laws under a hypothetical Christian nationalism supposed in a book chapter he wrote.

Mohler’s comments in the 2026 book Five Views on Christian Nationalism, which proved contentious, were based on the supposition of drafting a new constitution for a fractured nation in the year 2099.

Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, argued the nation’s constitution should acknowledge its foundation on Christianity encompassing the Holy Trinity, that citizens should be required to acknowledge such a Christian foundation, and that blasphemy should be criminalized as “a fundamental rejection or repudiation” of the republic’s foundation.

He is among five authors offering varying scenarios in the book from Canon Press, and he participated in a related webinar Aug. 7.

Mohler’s recantation

In his Sept. 14 column, Mohler recanted his August comments regarding blasphemy. He maintains his premise that the U.S. Constitution erred in not acknowledging the nation’s Christian foundation, as well as his proposal that citizenship and public office should require substantial acknowledgement of that foundation.

“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,” Mohler wrote, thanking his critics for their input.

“The setup for the book was a bit awkward for me, since it asked the contributors to respond to a hypothetical future scenario in which the United States has failed and small regional nations have emerged,” Mohler continued.

“I have never responded to any similar context, and one effect of a hypothetical is that a writer is allowed some freedom to address issues that otherwise might be conscribed by the present order of things. I am not built to address hypotheticals like this.”

Mohler erred in using “an old word (blasphemy) in a new context,” he wrote in WORLD. “In the larger sense, I should have just stated that doctrinal and theological judgments are matters for the believing church and left the government out of it. It is a complex and complicated question when seen in the span of Christian history and constitutional development.”

“But Baptists have been on the wrong side of the lash and the law throughout our history and have learned to separate the roles of church government,” Mohler wrote.

“I was not calling for conventional blasphemy laws, and I have never advocated or supported any such legislation. I have supported religious liberty for all citizens energetically and forcefully. Needless to say, I fully support our current constitutional order. That is not in question.”

Land criticizes Mohler

Among Mohler’s critics is Richard Land, former president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, who served with Mohler on the committee that led to the 2000 version of the Baptist Faith and Message.

Land deemed Mohler’s requirement for citizens to acknowledge the nation’s Christian foundation as contrary to Article 17 of the Baptist Faith and Message upholding religious liberty.

*******

BFM 2000, Art. 17: God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.

*******

“When Mohler advocates that officeholders make ‘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,’ how is this not a ‘religious test’ for political office by any other means?” Land wrote Sept. 4 in The Christian Post.

“For example, Thomas Jefferson, a Unitarian, would be disqualified from holding office, much less being president,” Land continued.

“While I would prefer all officeholders to meet at least Mohler’s guidelines,” Land wrote, “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.”

Mohler’s response to Land

Mohler yet disagrees with Land’s deduction, acknowledging him as a “dear friend.”

“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,” Mohler clarified.

“I stand by my argument on acknowledgement, though it is at this point in history, in the real world, not a matter of political possibility. It is, I think, a fruitful tool for thinking through the issue,” he continued.

Mohler’s now recanted description of blasphemy is contrary to his comments 15 years ago, when he described blasphemy laws as contrary to Christianity.

“Anti-blasphemy laws serve the honor logic of Islam but not the evangelistic aims of Christianity,” he wrote in 2011. “It is wrong to give governments the power of theological coercion. Seen in this light, blasphemy is no small matter, but anti-blasphemy laws are deadly barriers to the proclamation of the gospel.”

Read Baptist Press’ previous story here.