Albert Mohler, the long-serving president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is among the most recognized evangelicals in the United States, renowned for his writings on faith and more recently for his podcast, “The Briefing,” which is broadcast every weekday. Mohler was a vocal critic of Donald Trump in 2016, branding him a “sexual predator” and expressing concern over his support from Christians. (Mohler stated that he did not cast a vote that year.) During our conversation in June 2020, he referred to Trump as “a huge embarrassment,” yet provided several reasons why he felt it was essential to support him during that election year. He acknowledged that his rationale had a certain “pragmatic, utilitarian dimension,” citing the significant divergence between Democrats and Republicans on social issues.
Years later, in an interview, Mohler discussed “the sin of empathy” with a fellow theologian. This discussion took place in February, around the same time Elon Musk expressed to Joe Rogan that “civilizational suicidal empathy” was undermining the West. I sought to gain more insight into Mohler’s views on empathy, as well as whether his perspectives on American politics and the Trump Administration had shifted since our last discussion. Below is our conversation, edited for brevity and clarity.
Do you still view President Trump as an embarrassment?
Are you referring to your comments from 2016?
In 2020, you mentioned that.
Alright, I need to provide some context here. I backed President Trump’s election in 2020.
I’m aware of that, but during our conversation you expressed, “President Trump is a huge embarrassment, and it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who celebrate exactly those aspects that I find Biblically lamentable and embarrassing.”
Yes, I said that in a specific context. Frankly, many features of Donald Trump’s story are indeed embarrassing for evangelicals. However, I fully supported him in 2020, and I plan to do so again in 2024. Moreover, I supported him as President once he assumed office. It’s essential to consider that statement in a broader context. Donald Trump isn’t the only politician who has caused me embarrassment, yet I’ve supported him.
So, this applies to a larger group?
Well, it’s a complex context, and I want to clarify that. It’s not straightforward. I just concluded a two-hour class on leadership where I emphasized that, historically, there has been a distinction between public virtue and private vice. Nowadays, we face public vice. That’s a paradigm shift. We now have information about figures like John F. Kennedy that people were unaware of during his lifetime.
In 2020, I felt you were presenting a genuine utilitarian argument for Trump.
Absolutely. There is a utilitarian component to politics, after all. On my podcast tomorrow, I’ll be discussing incrementalism in politics, asserting that politics is incrementalism. The pursuit of perfection can obstruct the good in the political realm. Perfection in candidates doesn’t exist.
You just openly used the term “utilitarian.” You previously stated, “A utilitarian worldview is widely celebrated by secular elites. . . . When an objective morality of right and wrong is forsaken, pragmatism and utilitarianism inevitably take precedence.” Are you concerned about that now?
Yes. I’m not contradicting myself. In that quote, I referenced the established philosophies of pragmatism and utilitarianism. When I label someone as pragmatic, I’m not necessarily linking it to John Dewey, who denied the reality of morality. I consider myself a moral realist, not a pragmatist. However, in decision-making, we often must weigh two options and make a choice. In this instance, I would describe it as “pragmatic,” and I’m not trying to be evasive.
You recently wrote, “President Trump has won the White House, and he has completed a total overhaul of the Republican Party. Republicans who once disdained him and tried to disrupt his leadership have ironically made his point by leaving the party and aligning with Democrats (or at least voting for them). Trump maintains that they are now precisely where they’ve always belonged. It’s hard to argue against that.”
Amen.
Can you elaborate on that—
I believe this has resulted in significant sifting. To be honest, I see my principles as consistent, and I’m open to correction on that. I could explain why I view my stance as a straight line regarding these issues. My aim is to achieve the greatest realization of moral ends that I believe to be right, legislatively and culturally. That’s the strategy, while tactics may shift depending on the election and available choices. To understand why so many evangelicals are relieved to see many former Republicans leave, one must recognize that those individuals weren’t fundamentally different from Democrats concerning the major issues of our time. They were merely liberals on a different timeline.
How do you respond to lifelong Republicans who were repulsed by Trump’s conduct, including accusations of assault against women and mocking disabled individuals—those who ultimately felt they couldn’t support him on moral grounds?
I have two distinct thoughts. First, let’s assume those opinions are expressed sincerely and reflect an attempt at moral consistency.
Given that you once expressed similar sentiments, I will assume you were being sincere.
Right, but let me finish my thought. I’m about to lose my train of thought. Some are making that argument, I believe, with their integrity and accountability in mind. However, I would ask them where they draw the line. In other words, who is acceptable? Be honest and articulate where you set the boundaries. What has become apparent is that many Republicans were never truly aligned with the Party, either philosophically, ideologically, or particularly on moral issues. The Republican Party has historically been influenced by three main factions: big business and corporate interests, social conservatives, and libertarians. The libertarian and corporate groups have never prioritized social issues, which are often the primary reason moral conservatives joined the Republican Party. It has become clear that many individuals were not genuinely committed to those issues. This reality didn’t come to light in 2016, but it did in 2020 and will continue to in 2024.
Smoked out? Are you suggesting they revealed their true selves?
Look, consider how many people opposed same-sex marriage in the past but now support it.
During the 2024 primaries, there were candidates who upheld pro-life views, opposed gay marriage, and exhibited more genuine conservative values than Donald Trump. Why did evangelicals largely not rally behind someone else in that 2024 primary?
I supported Ron DeSantis. I believe Donald Trump embodies something that many people fail to recognize. I didn’t grasp it for a long time, but now I think I do. There is an intuitive connection that Donald Trump has established with many Americans who believe that drastic disruption of the norm is essential for preserving the Republic and protecting our culture. They perceive that in Trump. I must say, I don’t believe a mainstream Republican would have declared in his Inaugural Address, ‘In my Administration, there will be two and only two genders: male and female.’ Trump made that statement because he is a disruptor. There is a strong yearning among many American conservatives, including traditional Christians, for disruption.
