AP

“Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?”  (1 Corinthians 14:8)

The reaction to the bishop of Washington’s sermon at the President’s inauguration tells us as much about the confusion in the Western Church today, as did the reaction to bishop Curry’s sermon at the royal wedding. 

In case you missed it, the Episcopalian bishop of Washington, Mariann Edgar Budde, preached a sermon at the inauguration of President Donald Trump at what was supposed to be a national service of unity.   She took the opportunity to repeat criticisms she has made of him in the past, and reiterate her own political policies of support for trans rights and illegal immigrants. 

The world loved it.  Atheist authors and politicians like Philip Pullman, Alistair Campbell and Ed Davey fawned over it.  Calls were made for her to be made the next Archbishop of Canterbury. 

And many in the Church loved it – especially those of her own tribe.  Shane Claiborne, for example, described it as speaking truth to power and being the real message of Jesus. None of that should surprise us.  “They are from the world and speak from the viewpoint of the world, and therefore the world listens to them” (1 John 4:5)

But it wasn’t just atheists and liberals who were impressed by the bishop.  I was somewhat surprised at the reaction from some evangelicals – here and in the UK and US. 

 I wrote my own response on Christian Today –  which as they say went ‘viral’ and therefore got lots of comments.  Some of them were along the lines of ‘How can you be so unloving…. all the bishop did was ask for mercy and compassion?’    A typical article was this one from Andy Flanaghan published in Premier Christianity – which suggested again that the bishop was ‘speaking truth to power’. The National Catholic Reporter lauded the bishop for speaking ‘the heart of the Gospel’ and for ‘begging for mercy for the most vulnerable among us”.  In passing, I note that Bishop Budde endorses abortion on demand up to nine months – which is hardly speaking up for the most vulnerable and is certainly not in accord with Catholic doctrine – something the NCR editorial was strangely silent about.

In New Zealand an Anglican vicar called Peter Carrell who thinks that we ‘do things differently down under’, was unstinting in his praise for this’ thoroughly Christian’ sermon and justified it because, amongst other things, Trump was declaring there are only two genders. 

Peter Carolane in the Melbourne Anglican – proclaimed that bishop Budde  “bravely stepped into the role as a prophetic witness to the gospel.”

Julia Baird, someone whom some Australian evangelicals still regard as one of their own, wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald, that Bishop Budde’s sermon was “Christianity 101, woven directly from Bible verses”.  She said that Trump had been given a ‘bible bashing’.  

Of course, there were Christians who got it and who were able to point out the elephant in the room – that this was not a Christian sermon but a political polemic.  Gavin Ashenden gave a real Catholic perspective.

And here in Australia Stephen McAlpine and Murray Campbell. Both wrote excellent articles which were really helpful to those who were either somewhat confused or had the feeling that something wasn’t quite right – but they did not know how to articulate it. 

I would like to build on their work and suggest that when someone asks ‘what was wrong with the bishop’s sermon, it was just advocating mercy and compassion, speaking truth to power as Jesus did” there are many reasons why that is both a superficial and a false narrative.  Here are ten of them!

Before that, let me suggest that it is not good to be sidetracked by arguments that don’t really get to the heart of the matter.  The fact that she is a woman is irrelevant to what she said.  Then in this world of social media and constant abuse be careful not to get sucked into the vortex of personal attacks and, even worse, threats.  The fact that the bishop has received such threats is abhorrent and abominable – and no Christian should ever indulge in such actions.  However, this is also normal for social media, and of course every such threat is a gift to those who want to advance her agenda.   I note in passing that this doesn’t work the other way round.  As someone a lot less significant I too have been the subject of threats, even this week, including death threats, but that does not validate my message!

Let’s come on to the ten points. 

1. It was superbly delivered. Why is that a criticism?  Surely we want our sermons to be well delivered?  Indeed. But when they are we also need to remember that the devil is a superb preacher who knows how to misuse scripture and who often comes as an angel of light.  We are to examine everything in the light of God’s word (Isaiah 8:20). Otherwise we get fooled.  John Sandeman wrote on his Obadiah blog –

 “But it struck Obadiah that Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde, who, while in the progressive mainstream of The Episcopal Church, has shown more grace to conservatives than her more extreme colleagues, did NOT hammer home her progressive views. She did not ask people to become progressives. Instead, she simply called for mercy towards immigrants and LGBTQIA persons, especially children. That Obadiah thinks was smart.” It was smart – but not because it was conciliatory. It was smart in a passive/aggressive divisive way. She equated being merciful with supporting her political policies towards immigrants and LGBTQIA (why add the extra letters ?).  She implied that anyone, especially the President, who disagreed with her is not merciful.  She absolutely hammered home her progressive views, insisting that anyone who does not share them is not Christlike – but she did so so skilfully that even conservative commentators did not really get what she was saying.   More flies are caught by honey than vinegar.  Remember that Bishop Budde was once an evangelical.   Before she got power.

Bishop Budde is a friend of Bishop Curry – he wrote the foreword to her book.   The ‘Bishop of Love’ prosecuted a minister in his own diocese (ironically named William Love) for holding to the biblical teaching about marriage.  Bishop Love lost his job and his church.  Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing – even, or especially, if they sound nice.  You shall know them by their fruits.  

2. It was a divisive and inappropriate sermon. This was meant to be a service of national unity.  And for 12 and a half minutes bishop Budde stuck to that – giving a general homily about unity, humility, honesty. But then turning to and directly addressing the President, she publicly rebuked him for his policies on trans and immigration.  In other words, she completely contradicted the first 75% of the sermon by engaging in something which she knew would further add to the disunity in the nation.  Can you imagine if in speaking at the NSW parliament I turned to the Premier and said, “Premier let me appeal to you.  You need to be kind to your wife, not to mock or abuse her … you need to love her”?  The statements themselves would be biblical, but the context would make that a ridiculous abuse of privilege – implying that he was not that and needed to change – especially if there had already been rumours on social media to that effect.  (Incidentally such is the state of modern discourse that I have to point out I am using a hypothetical argument and not in any sense implying anything about the current NSW Premier!)  This was not just an appeal for mercy and compassion.  It was a passive/aggressive accusation that Trump was not so.

3. It was a political polemic rather than a prophetic biblical sermon. There are some who argue that the Bible is political and that we are to speak uncomfortable truths to rulers.  Indeed we are.  But we are to do so in a way that reflects the Bible and in a respectful way.  Bishop Budde was not focusing on what the Scriptures say but on what her politics are.  For example, she made the assumption that Trump’s policies on Transgender are ‘unmerciful’ – whereas of course hers exemplify the mercy of Christ.   But how is it merciful to children to go against the teaching of their Creator and state that there are more than two genders, or that gender is mutable?  How is it merciful to tell children who are one sex that they can change to the other and have been born in the wrong body?  How is it merciful to allow bodily mutilation of teenagers to deal with a mental condition?  How is it merciful to allow men into women’s sports and spaces? 

4. It misquoted and misused Scripture. Julia Baird was in one sense right: this was a bible bashing sermon. Not because, as she implied, the Bible was used to bash Trump, but because the Bible itself was bashed, misused and misapplied. For example, the bishop declared that Jesus said that unity was the solid rock on which to build the nation. He said nothing of the sort.  Ironically if she had quoted the Bible rightly it would have been even more controversial (at least to her tribe).  Jesus himself is the Rock – and without him there is no unity. He is also the Cornerstone which divides.

5. It was hypocritical. As I already indicated it was hypocritical in arguing for unity whilst preaching a political polemic.  But there was hypocrisy in other ways, not least in declaring the ‘dignity of every human being’. Bishop Budde belongs to and supports a denomination which wants abortion on demand up to birth.  In what sense is that upholding the dignity of the human in the womb? The hypocrisy also comes from the context. She cites Christ as an authority for her words, but at the same time she refuses to believe his words on marriage, the atonement, idolatry and Scripture.

6. It was the powerful speaking untruths to the powerful. There is a myth going round that, as one of my critics put it, this was a ‘poor little old woman’ who was speaking truth to the most powerful man in the world. Never mind the fact that she was distorting truth to the powerful – this was not the powerless speaking truth to power. Apart from being diminutive (and small people can be really powerful!), Bishop Budde is herself a representative of power.  Her denomination has long been associated with the most powerful in the nation (not the poor). She herself lives in a $2 million mansion and was given the powerful position of being able to address the President because of her status. In fact she misused the power of the pulpit to preach her own political views – views which no one would listen to if she was just an ordinary member of the public. Anyone in a pulpit has a degree of power, and to some degree a captive audience.  We should all make sure that we do not misuse that power to preach our own political views from the pulpit – whatever shade they may be.

7. It was dishonest. The bishop spoke of LGBT children.  It is dishonest and unmerciful to label children in that way. It was also dishonest to state that LBGBT children were living in fear of their lives because of the election of Donald Trump.  I doubt she knows any child like that – and if she did, she should have allayed their fears, not fed them.  Stoking up fears is the worst kind of political polemic and merciless.

8. It lacked humility. The bishop declared: “We are most dangerous when we are persuaded without a doubt that we are absolutely right and someone else is absolutely wrong. We are just a few steps from labelling ourselves the good people and others the bad people.” That is spot on. But then she went on to teach her political doctrines as though they are self-evidently right and anyone who disagrees with them is going against Christ.

9. It was simplistic. Take the issue of immigration. It is a much more complex issue than ‘these are the poor people who pick our fruit, clean our offices, faithfully attend mosques and churches” .’ What would the merciful bishop want?   All illegal immigrants to be welcomed to say in the US, even those who are criminals and fascists?  If the policy is not an open border, then what restrictions would the bishop ask for?   And how would she cope with the people who would immediately claim she was not being merciful? It’s not as if Donald Trump and JD Vance are anti-immigrant – after all both married immigrants.  The question is what should be done about illegal immigration?  Simplistic soundbites, on either side, look good on X – but they don’t really work in the real world.

10. It was Christless. This is by far my biggest objection. Even if the bishop actually believed what Christ said, I don’t think she should have stood up and had a go about any divisive political policy. Here was a national service for unity and instead she offered a divisive, simplistic political polemic. As a former evangelical she should know what the Gospel is, and she should herself return to it, before she preaches to others. Christ was at best an illustration for her own politics – a bit player in a drama which put her front and centre. There was very little of that sermon that could not have been delivered by an atheist. 

I find it deeply distressing just how many evangelicals seem to have adopted the values and methodology of our current culture.  One wrote me and said that I was either for the Jesus of Budde or the Jesus of Trump. I don’t accept such a binary world. I follow the Jesus of the Bible not the one that either clergy or politicians make up. And I don’t accept that I am just making up my own. I think Christ is clearly taught us in the Scriptures and He is the one I am to proclaim.

Remember Bishop Curry? His sermon was enthusiastically endorsed, even by many evangelicals, as preaching the gospel to the whole world. Well, you shall know them by their fruits.  His sermon achieved nothing except further division in the church and growing confusion in the society.  We need now, more than ever, to have preachers who will give ‘a clear call’ and who stop giving credence to false prophets just because they use biblical words.

– David Robertson