Dr. Albert Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary believes the ontological basis of the “American experiment” was acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence — “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” He believes the exclusion of that language in the U.S. Constitution is a historical mistake that should be corrected, reports Biblical Recorder.
The debate was brought about by a new book, “Five Views on Christian Nationalism,” where the authors, one of them Mohler, were asked hypothetical questions about a new government for the United States.
Within his answer, Mohler said that different religious groups can participate in government if they acknowledge its Christian foundation. But in response to questions, he refuted that this is a religious test for public office.
Critics say Mohler is erring on the dangerous and false ideas of Christian nationalism.
William Roach, dean of apologetics at Veritas International University, said on American Family Radio this week that over the years, Mohler has rightly diagnosed the U.S. culturally: people are giving up on a biblical worldview and legislating immorality.
Roach affirms that the American political order instead “understands human dignity and natural rights and moral responsibility that rests upon an objective moral order, which ultimately rests upon God.”
“So, the disagreement is over what government may do with those various truths. The question is not whether Christianity is true or whether it's benefited America. The question is whether civil government has the authority to require citizens and office holders to have a formal acknowledgment of Christianity,” Roach explained.
Constitutional amendment
Mohler does not propose an established natural church or a personal profession of conversion, Roach clarifies. Instead, he says that Mohler proposes a constitutional amendment to formally acknowledge Christian foundations, which would have signific legal and political consequences.
“The mistake comes when we assume that because Christianity supplies the foundation that government therefore has the jurisdiction to administer that and require that for someone to serve in political office,” Roach said. “The point is, Christianity can provide the moral foundations of a political order without becoming a confession administered by the state.”
Roach is not alone in his position.
Dr. Richard Land, president emeritus of Southern Evangelical Seminary, wrote that he was surprised and bewildered at Mohler’s proposal, especially since he has worked with Mohler for over 30 years, including on the “Baptist Faith and Message 2000.”
The official confessional statement of the Southern Baptist Convention holds that “the church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work” and “a free church in a free state is the Christian ideal.”
Land questioned the difference between Mohler’s suggestion and liberals seeking to disqualify Christians from office.
While Land sympathizes with Mohler’s concern, he believes it will lead to a severely diminished “soul freedom.” And while he wished office holders held these views, he admitted the Baptist and constitutional way is electing people to office without the disqualification of spiritual standards.
Roach agrees with Land’s central criticism.
As he says, if refusing to affirm Christian doctrine disqualifies a person from holding public office, Christianity becomes a civil qualification. And “compulsory acknowledgment backed by a civil disqualification is the definition of a religious test,” even if it doesn’t go by that name.
Roach poses a question: if religious truth is the foundation of political order, does government have the jurisdiction to have citizens and office holders acknowledge it?
“I think this is where the false premise is coming in, is that the truth or goodness of something does not automatically place it within the civil jurisdiction. There are certain areas that can still be good. They can be great things for society, but it doesn't mean that the government needs to have control of it,” Roach says.
Goodness of God, not governance
For example, he doesn’t want the government running church, the good of baptism, the good of evangelism, sound doctrine and saving faith, all of which he believes contribute to human flourishing.
The goodness of an end does not establish the jurisdiction of the state over that end, he states.
Roach points to history as another a reason for the state to avoid a religious test, because people, including Baptists, have been killed for not fitting a particular religious mold that fell into the jurisdiction of a particular government.
Furthermore, he adds that the religious liberty seen in the U.S. has led to the best context for individuals to truly come to Jesus Christ and to share the gospel.
