Al Mohler and the Temptation of Transactional Politics
Transactional politics may be the politics of the world, but Christians are called to something greater
In the weeks ahead I’m going to share some short pieces from my original website on this platform, mainly so they’re all in one place.
Today, my thoughts on transactional politics, stemming from Al Mohler’s endorsement of Donald Trump in 2020 after refusing to do so in 2016 (from April 19, 2020).
***
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president and SBC leader Al Mohler recently made news when he announced he would be voting for Donald Trump in November’s presidential election, and that he would likely support for the Republican candidate for the rest of his life. Mohler acknowledged that while he was skeptical of Trump as a candidate in 2016, Trump’s performance as president has changed his mind. This performance no doubt includes a blistering record of appointing young, conservative federal judges; issuing regulations on religious liberty favorable to people like Mohler; and yes, being an unlikely yet unwavering ally of the pro-life/anti-abortion movement.
Mohler’s announcement caused a stir among Christians from across the ideological spectrum. David French wrote that Mohler’s decision amounted to another nail in the coffin of the “character counts” argument many Christians were so quick to make during the Clinton presidency: “There were many men who thought character counted, until a commitment to character contained a real political cost. But that’s the obvious point. I’ve made it countless times before today. White Evangelicals, however, have shrugged it off.”
Similarly, Jonathan Merritt chastised Mohler’s 180-degree turn, calling it “the crowning flip-flop of his career” and suggesting that it was partially motivated by an increasingly powerful “militant right flank” of the SBC. Seen in this light, Mohler’s announcement is the latest step in a career “marked as much by ambition as conviction.”
If politics over the last several years have taught Christians anything, it’s that there is no perfect or ideal candidate. We may have known this on a theological level, but the realities of the last few years have hammered this hard truth home. After all, when one 2016 presidential candidate spoke unrepentantly of extramarital affairs and graphically about assaulting women, while the Democratic candidate touted expansive access to abortion and declined to endorse robust legal protections for conservative religious viewpoints, a Christian would be forgiven for struggling with how to allocate his or her vote.
For many like Mohler, the decision to vote for president is still rooted in traditional culture war issues, especially abortion. There is an appeal to making abortion the issue on which to base one’s vote for president, given the stakes for the unborn and what the prevalence of abortion says about our culture. And I will not criticize my brothers and sisters who make this decision, just as I won’t criticize those who decide to vote for someone who doesn’t support overturning Roe v. Wade while supporting policies that could lead to fewer abortions (in fact, abortions have been declining for decades). Given the binary choice that realistically exists when voting for president, these hard choices are inevitable.
But I will criticize my brothers and sisters when their desire for political influence paralyzes their ability to voice prophetic opposition to their favored leaders. For example, many Christians are thankful for President Trump’s policies and rhetoric aimed toward their communities. But these Christians owe it to their witness to not hold their tongues when the president does things that offend the Christian conscience. This includes his other policies, yes, but it also includes his behavior and rhetoric from the nation’s highest office. These expectations apply to Christians regardless of political context.
Mohler’s announcement illustrates a strong temptation in politics: settling for the transactional in lieu of the transformational. It is understandable that many Christians would be so thankful and grateful for Trump's policies that they decide that challenging him and his actions in any way could threaten this relationship. At the same time, though, given that Trump’s evangelical support bloc remains one of his most steadfast, imagine if these Christians tried to exercise their influence over the president’s conduct as much as merely expressing gratitude.
Transactional politics are easier and more intuitive, to be sure -- “you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.” In this sense, transactional politics are the politics of the world. But it is well know that Christians have not been called to be of the world. Our politics should reflect that.
***
One aside: Last week I was fortunate to moderate a conversation between the AND Campaign’s Justin Giboney and Southern Seminary’s Andrew Walker. The dialogue touched on faithful political and cultural engagement, and while both men come from different political perspectives, they both share the conviction that our political engagement should reflect our Christian witness.
Importantly, Giboney and Walker are motivated by their consciences to arrive at different conclusions about which party to support — Giboney is a Democrat, and Walker is a Republican. They both said they want to see their side win elections, not merely to beat the other side, but because they sincerely believe their party offers a better deal for our country. And both noted that in seeking to win, sometimes we must make peace with the less desirable elements of the parties: For Justin, that means opposing abortion as a Democrat; and for Walker, that means fighting against Trumpism as a Republican.
Could this approach be described as the transactional politics critiqued above? I don’t think so. Both men expressed a desire to be transformational in their parties, with Giboney speaking out against abortion as a Democrat and Walker promoting authentic social conservative values as a Republican. Both Giboney and Walker are clear-eyed about the problems with and drawbacks of their preferred parties. Neither has a record of following the crowd in the interest in political expediency. It’s hard to consider this approach as purely transactional. Indeed, this is the precisely the kind of engagement we should hope for from Christians in the future.