That service was solely to inauguration his presidency. That inauguration wasn't incidentally it was central, the main focus. Of course it was right to remind him of one of the main Christian virtues. Nobody was called a sinner, it was an exhortation. Are politicians above being reminded of such things?
With a couple of reservations, I agree with this. If one attends in Installation, or Induction or Consecration, the individual being inducted will almost always certainly be addressed in person! My main reservation is about the word 'solely'. First and foremost, the service was to worship God. Trump's great surprise at being addressed in what he would've perceived as a negative way was probably as much to do with his lack of realisation that, in fact, he was there to worship God who was the subject and object of the service, not to be worshipped himself. His Main Character syndrome was showing.
It's ridiculous to say that someone in her position should not directly call out the president by name. She is not his bootlicker, to be lectured on manners. She has a charge to keep, and a Lord to answer to, and she did right. In her shoes, the only thing I'd be wondering is whether I was too gentle.
Amen.
To the point of the Bishop calling out the president, wasn't it Elijah that called out Ahab in his own court? Seems like the Bishop is following a long prophetic line.
Well... Ahab actually went out to meet Elijah. And, Ahab didn't restore his household or the people to God on Elijah's 'truth to power' words alone. God had to back up that speech by performing a spectacular miracle for the people to repent. Oddly there's no mention of Ahab's own repentance. Elijah then ordered the mass murder of the priests of Baal. Yet, despite all of that, Elijah had to run for his life for fear of retribution by Jezebel. So, it's Elijah -- certified badass.* Is that want you meant, @Gramps49? I mean, at least Elijah actually told Ahab that he was in the wrong and how. But it kinda looks as if it was Jezebel whom Elijah should have been talking to.
Originally posted by Kendel: Having heard a few sermons, I have never heard the pastor address a single member of the congregation
This is before my time, but in my church: someone, let us call him John Smith, turned up to church very drunk and staggering about. The following week the minister said that he had been told he ought to issue a rebuke from the pulpit. If it happened again, he said, he would certainly rebuke, from the pulpit, the person who sold alcohol to a troubled man.
I assume the unnamed seller was in the congregation at the time.
I didn't mention the time when, as a kid, my b-i-l's father and his friends who were later elders in our church, were belly-crawling under the pews during the service. The pastor interrupted the sermon, addressed the boys by name and directed them to go sit with their parents.
Perhaps you see the differences between our examples and the service in DC.
Do you think it wrong to speak truth to power by direct address to the powerful? Or only speak truth to power if it might work?
I appreciate you are sure it’s a waste of time given Trump’s character. But should things be left unsaid for that reason? Others were listening.
I'm not thinking about it in terms of right or wrong, but of wise or unwise specific to the idea of addressing the POTUS directly.
Precisely.
Like you, I am thinking about strategy. I don't think calling out this one particular member of the congregation is going to effect any desired change in this one particular member or his followers.
Having heard a few sermons, I have never heard the pastor address a single member of the congregation, but the *issue* and that to the entire congrgation. There IS a process for confronting a sinner. Nothing about Budde's address to Trump fits that model,
While as a general rule I’d agree with you, I don’t know that that general rule applies to this specific context.
That service was solely to inauguration his presidency. That inauguration wasn't incidentally it was central, the main focus.
Even without the sermon, Trump was the/a focus of the service—not in the sense that prayer was directed to him but in the sense that the whole point of the service was to pray for him and for the nation as he began his term. As @Anselmina says, it’s no different from a homily at a wedding being addressed primarily to the couple getting married, or at an ordination to the ordinand.
If she had ended the sermon with words of encouragement for him (which, I think it can be argued, is what she did), no one would have batted an eye or complained that she was speaking just to him.
She didn’t call him a sinner; she called on him to show mercy as president. Yes, one could reasonably say the subtext was “which you’ve shown no signs of doing so far.” One could also say that Trump’s discomfort was indicative of some recognition that the subtext had validity.
I doubt Bishop Budde had any real idea that her words might actually change Trump or his followers, though one always hopes. But in that moment, that’s not what mattered most. What mattered is that the call to “have mercy” was announced and heard. It mattered that the people who need that mercy know that Trump was called on to show that mercy.
My take from the OT is that God’s call to the prophets is to be faithful in proclaiming what God requires, not to be successful.
In my part of the world (the American South), where “have mercy!” or “Lord, have mercy!” (or “Lord’a’mercy”) have long been exclamations akin to “good gracious!” or “oh my!,” “Have Mercy” has become something of a slogan in the last week.
What I most appreciated about the Bishop of Washington's sermon was that she modeled a way of speaking to and with people that is different from the "gotcha" soundbites that we tend to live in. I believe that we are living in a world in which it is going to become more and more necessary to speak truth, love, and mercy so that more and more of us feel courageous to address the fragile state of our world.
I already feel braver, and have acted out of that courage in the past couple of days. The Bishop's words may not transform Trump or his followers. However, she has transformed me. I think she may have transformed some others as well. As we gain courage, perhaps we can bear witness to the God who cares for the least among us. Perhaps we can speak when we might otherwise have kept silent. Perhaps we can act when we might otherwise have looked away.
There have been other times in history when people kept silent because they were scared, uncomfortable, or just hoped the unpleasant thing would go away. We cannot repeat that history. I am grateful to Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde for nudging me.
Yes, that's a huge help to us who are struggling to do right.
On another note--
I don't see what the problem is with calling him a sinner. Because he IS, as am I, as is everybody with the exception of Jesus. Do you blame the doctor for telling you you have cancer, when you actually do? (yeah, of course there are people who do that, and he's likely to be one of them, sigh.)
But calling people sinners is part of her job. Pussyfooting around is not part of her job, whomever she's speaking to.
You could argue that in a particular case, she ought to hold off--but now we're getting so far into the theoretical/didn't happen that it's probably not worth discussing.
The deal of it is, the Bishop does not get paid by the Federal Government.
I think part of the problem for most preachers of congregational type churches is they fear biting the hand that feeds them. On the other hand, ministers of diocesan type churches are not paid directly by the congregation but through the diocese. Thus, as long as they keep on the good graces of the bishop, they are freer to speak to social justice.
Originally posted by Kendel: Having heard a few sermons, I have never heard the pastor address a single member of the congregation
This is before my time, but in my church: someone, let us call him John Smith, turned up to church very drunk and staggering about. The following week the minister said that he had been told he ought to issue a rebuke from the pulpit. If it happened again, he said, he would certainly rebuke, from the pulpit, the person who sold alcohol to a troubled man.
I assume the unnamed seller was in the congregation at the time.
Maybe the seller was in the congregation or maybe the minister was subtly rebuking the person who asked the minister to rebuke John Smith. The minister said he was indeed displeased with someone, but no it's not John Smith.
I think part of the problem for most preachers of congregational type churches is they fear biting the hand that feeds them. On the other hand, ministers of diocesan type churches are not paid directly by the congregation but through the diocese. Thus, as long as they keep on the good graces of the bishop, they are freer to speak to social justice.
An Episcopalian can correct me, but my understanding is that Episcopal priests serving parish churches are paid by the parish they serve, not by or through the diocese.
An Episcopalian can correct me, but my understanding is that Episcopal priests serving parish churches are paid by the parish they serve, not by or through the diocese.
Correct. We pay our rector, we pay our other employees, and we send a contribution to the diocese that supports diocesan activities and employees (and the Bishop). Each parish sets the salary of their priest, although there are diocesan minimums that we're not supposed to go beneath (for salary, and for health insurance.)
I think part of the problem for most preachers of congregational type churches is they fear biting the hand that feeds them.
In my experience at a Congregational church, this was not at all the case. Counting interims, senior ministers and associates, 10 different people preached regularly at various times in the 23 years I worked there, and none of them shied away from preaching social justice. This particular church has in fact been known locally for taking progressive stances on social justice issues for at least the 30-plus years I've lived here.
If she hadn’t have talked directly to Trump, he was the main guest, it was around his inauguration. I don’t see it could be taken any other way but as aimed at him. Even if she spoke in general terms it would have been seen as to him. There was no way it could have been any other way.
Good on her for doing what she did.
There's a nice Malcolm Guite article in the latest Church Times. He was in Washington listening to a sermon by Dr Sean Rowe, the new Episcopal Primate. According to the Rev Guite (whose poetry I rate very highly indeed) the Gospel was again preached.
Comments
With a couple of reservations, I agree with this. If one attends in Installation, or Induction or Consecration, the individual being inducted will almost always certainly be addressed in person! My main reservation is about the word 'solely'. First and foremost, the service was to worship God. Trump's great surprise at being addressed in what he would've perceived as a negative way was probably as much to do with his lack of realisation that, in fact, he was there to worship God who was the subject and object of the service, not to be worshipped himself. His Main Character syndrome was showing.
Well... Ahab actually went out to meet Elijah. And, Ahab didn't restore his household or the people to God on Elijah's 'truth to power' words alone. God had to back up that speech by performing a spectacular miracle for the people to repent. Oddly there's no mention of Ahab's own repentance. Elijah then ordered the mass murder of the priests of Baal. Yet, despite all of that, Elijah had to run for his life for fear of retribution by Jezebel. So, it's Elijah -- certified badass.* Is that want you meant, @Gramps49? I mean, at least Elijah actually told Ahab that he was in the wrong and how. But it kinda looks as if it was Jezebel whom Elijah should have been talking to.
*in certain, limited, extraordinary supernatural circumstances
I didn't mention the time when, as a kid, my b-i-l's father and his friends who were later elders in our church, were belly-crawling under the pews during the service. The pastor interrupted the sermon, addressed the boys by name and directed them to go sit with their parents.
Perhaps you see the differences between our examples and the service in DC.
As @Alan29 said: Even without the sermon, Trump was the/a focus of the service—not in the sense that prayer was directed to him but in the sense that the whole point of the service was to pray for him and for the nation as he began his term. As @Anselmina says, it’s no different from a homily at a wedding being addressed primarily to the couple getting married, or at an ordination to the ordinand.
If she had ended the sermon with words of encouragement for him (which, I think it can be argued, is what she did), no one would have batted an eye or complained that she was speaking just to him.
She didn’t call him a sinner; she called on him to show mercy as president. Yes, one could reasonably say the subtext was “which you’ve shown no signs of doing so far.” One could also say that Trump’s discomfort was indicative of some recognition that the subtext had validity.
I doubt Bishop Budde had any real idea that her words might actually change Trump or his followers, though one always hopes. But in that moment, that’s not what mattered most. What mattered is that the call to “have mercy” was announced and heard. It mattered that the people who need that mercy know that Trump was called on to show that mercy.
My take from the OT is that God’s call to the prophets is to be faithful in proclaiming what God requires, not to be successful.
In my part of the world (the American South), where “have mercy!” or “Lord, have mercy!” (or “Lord’a’mercy”) have long been exclamations akin to “good gracious!” or “oh my!,” “Have Mercy” has become something of a slogan in the last week.
I already feel braver, and have acted out of that courage in the past couple of days. The Bishop's words may not transform Trump or his followers. However, she has transformed me. I think she may have transformed some others as well. As we gain courage, perhaps we can bear witness to the God who cares for the least among us. Perhaps we can speak when we might otherwise have kept silent. Perhaps we can act when we might otherwise have looked away.
There have been other times in history when people kept silent because they were scared, uncomfortable, or just hoped the unpleasant thing would go away. We cannot repeat that history. I am grateful to Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde for nudging me.
On another note--
I don't see what the problem is with calling him a sinner. Because he IS, as am I, as is everybody with the exception of Jesus. Do you blame the doctor for telling you you have cancer, when you actually do? (yeah, of course there are people who do that, and he's likely to be one of them, sigh.)
But calling people sinners is part of her job. Pussyfooting around is not part of her job, whomever she's speaking to.
You could argue that in a particular case, she ought to hold off--but now we're getting so far into the theoretical/didn't happen that it's probably not worth discussing.
I think part of the problem for most preachers of congregational type churches is they fear biting the hand that feeds them. On the other hand, ministers of diocesan type churches are not paid directly by the congregation but through the diocese. Thus, as long as they keep on the good graces of the bishop, they are freer to speak to social justice.
Maybe the seller was in the congregation or maybe the minister was subtly rebuking the person who asked the minister to rebuke John Smith. The minister said he was indeed displeased with someone, but no it's not John Smith.
It’d be nice if they were paid for by the diocese or if there were a communal structure, but that will probably never happen.
Correct. We pay our rector, we pay our other employees, and we send a contribution to the diocese that supports diocesan activities and employees (and the Bishop). Each parish sets the salary of their priest, although there are diocesan minimums that we're not supposed to go beneath (for salary, and for health insurance.)
I've seen this done a lot back in my charismatic evangelical days and always with a sense of disquiet. It's the sort of thing that ends in tears.
I don't think it was inappropriate in this instance for the reasons @Nick Tamen and others have identified.
In fact, I think it was highly appropriate.
Incidentally, I don't know whether US Shipmates can confirm this, but I'm hearing that the Bishop has received death-threats from Trump supporters.
Good on her for doing what she did.