My intent in this critique is not to delve into partisan politics but to address a more significant concern: the misuse of the pulpit for advancing political agendas at the expense of the gospel’s transformative power.
By Dr. Tim Orr
My intent in this critique is not to delve into partisan politics but to address a more significant concern: the misuse of the pulpit for advancing political agendas at the expense of the gospel’s transformative power. As a Christian leader and author, I have long examined how Christianity intersects with cultural and religious ideologies. In my book, Gospel-Centered Christianity and Other Religions, I devote three chapters to analyzing how the Progressive and Mainline Church has increasingly subordinated the gospel to social and political activism, neglecting the central message of Christ’s redemptive work. Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde’s sermon at the National Cathedral during President Donald Trump’s inauguration is a prime example of this troubling trend. My critique is not aimed at her political views or the causes she champions but at the theological superficiality and gospel dilution evident in her message—a shift that risks reducing the church’s prophetic voice to mere moral advocacy rather than proclaiming the eternal hope found in Christ.
Bishop Budde, as the leader of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, gained national recognition for her calls for mercy toward immigrants and LGBTQ+ individuals in her inauguration sermon while criticizing Trump-era policies. While well-intentioned, her appeal to compassion and justice represents a surface-level engagement with deeply complex issues. Her sermon compromises the gospel's transformative truth by prioritizing cultural trends and political activism over a Christ-centered foundation. It dilutes the church’s unique role in addressing the brokenness of humanity. This critique is not about partisan alignment but about reclaiming the centrality of the gospel in the church’s public witness.
Though emotionally resonant, Bishop Budde’s central appeal to mercy lacked the theological depth necessary to address the complexities of justice and compassion. In Scripture, mercy is not merely an abstract virtue. Still, it is an extension of God’s character, rooted in truth, justice, and discernment (Micah 6:8). Mercy without accountability and wisdom becomes enabling rather than redemptive.
The bishop’s portrayal of Trump’s immigration policies as inherently unmerciful reflects a lack of engagement with their broader purpose. Policies that enforce borders and prioritize national security are not inherently acts of cruelty; instead, they aim to protect both citizens and migrants. For example, strong border policies can prevent human trafficking by deterring illegal crossings and dismantling smuggling operations. A compassion that ignores these realities risks enabling the very suffering it seeks to alleviate. Furthermore, the economic strain of unregulated immigration on low-income communities often exacerbates inequality, particularly harming minority groups. True mercy must consider the needs of all affected parties, balancing compassion with justice.
The bishop’s calls for compassion toward LGBTQ+ individuals conflated affirmation with genuine care. Policies such as those preserving fairness in women’s sports or protecting parental rights were often dismissed as discriminatory without acknowledging the underlying need for societal balance. In this case, Mercy requires addressing emotional, spiritual, and psychological well-being without compromising biological realities. For instance, children struggling with gender dysphoria need compassionate guidance and care rather than irreversible medical interventions. The bishop’s rhetoric risked promoting policies that harm the most vulnerable, undermining her goal of showing mercy.
One of the sermon’s most glaring weaknesses was conflating the church’s mission with the state’s responsibilities. While the church is called to embody Christ’s love and mercy, the state is tasked with administering justice, maintaining order, and protecting its citizens. This distinction is critical for a biblically informed understanding of governance.
Bishop Budde’s critique of immigration enforcement and policies addressing gender issues failed to recognize the importance of impartial justice. For instance, enforcing immigration laws ensures fairness for those who follow legal processes while preventing exploitation by criminal networks. A compassion that prioritizes one group at the expense of another distorts justice and creates further division. Similarly, policies affirming biological realities protect vulnerable groups such as women and children from unintended consequences. The state’s role is not to reflect unconditional mercy but to enforce justice that promotes stability and equity for all.
By implying that the state should act as the primary agent of mercy, the sermon risks shifting the church’s mission onto the shoulders of government. This perspective undermines the church’s distinct calling to address spiritual brokenness and point people to Christ. The government’s role is to enforce laws and protect citizens, while the church’s role is to proclaim the gospel and meet the needs of the marginalized. Conflating these roles dilutes the church’s prophetic voice and creates unrealistic expectations of the state.
The sermon also reflected a troubling shift in focus from the gospel’s transformative message to political activism. While social justice is a biblical concern, it must always flow from the gospel and never replace it.
Bishop Budde’s emphasis on political solutions overshadowed the central message of sin, redemption, and grace. The church exists not to champion political causes but to proclaim Christ’s redemptive work. Addressing societal issues is important, but these efforts must always reflect the gospel’s power to transform hearts and communities. Without this foundation, activism becomes an end, disconnected from the eternal truths that give it meaning. The sermon’s focus on temporal concerns risked leading congregants away from the ultimate hope found in Christ.
By framing Trump-era policies as inherently unmerciful, the sermon alienated Christians who support these policies for justice and prudence. This approach fosters division within the church, contradicting Paul’s exhortation to maintain unity in the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:3). A truly gospel-centered sermon would have emphasized the shared need for grace and the call to pursue justice in ways that transcend political ideologies. The bishop’s rhetoric, however, created an “us versus them” dynamic that undermined the church’s mission to be a unifying force in a divided world.
Bishop Budde’s sermon exemplified virtue signaling, where public moral posturing replaces meaningful engagement with complex issues. While her critique of Trump-era policies was emotionally powerful, it lacked substantive solutions.
The bishop’s repeated calls to “have mercy” ignored the complexities involved in policymaking. For example, immigration enforcement often protects vulnerable migrants from traffickers and cartels. Similarly, policies preserving fairness in sports ensure that biological males do not displace female athletes, and safeguarding parental rights prevents ideological overreach in decisions about children’s welfare. The sermon offered condemnation without practical guidance by reducing these issues to moral platitudes. True mercy requires grappling with these complexities to develop solutions that uphold compassion and justice.
Virtue signaling can erode trust in leadership when it prioritizes appearance over substance. The bishop risked alienating those who support these policies for legitimate reasons by failing to engage with the reasoning behind Trump-era policies. The sermon’s tone implied moral superiority rather than fostering a spirit of understanding and constructive dialogue. True leadership requires humility and a willingness to engage with differing perspectives rather than dismissing them outright.
The sermon reflected a lack of theological depth, prioritizing temporal concerns over eternal truths.
The pulpit is meant to proclaim God’s Word, not political agendas. Paul’s charge to Timothy in 2 Timothy 4:2 emphasizes the need to “preach the Word” in all circumstances. Focusing on political critique rather than Christ’s redemptive work, the sermon diminished the pulpit’s sacred role as a place of worship and transformation. The bishop’s approach risked reducing Christianity to a moral philosophy rather than the good news of grace.
The sermon focused on systemic issues as the primary source of injustice, neglecting the biblical teaching that sin is the root cause of brokenness. Immigration and gender issues cannot be fully addressed without acknowledging the sinful motivations—greed, corruption, and lawlessness—that exist on all sides. A gospel-centered approach would call for repentance and transformation, addressing personal and systemic sin. The bishop’s failure to highlight humanity’s shared brokenness undermined the sermon’s ability to point listeners to the hope and healing found in Christ.
A truly gospel-centered response would:
Additionally, the church’s engagement in these issues should prioritize eternal truths over temporal concerns. This means calling individuals to repentance and faith, addressing sin as the root cause of brokenness, and pointing to Christ as the ultimate source of hope and reconciliation. Only by grounding its mission in the gospel can the church effectively navigate complex societal challenges and offer compassionate and just solutions.
In conclusion, Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde’s sermon illustrates the peril of reducing the gospel’s profound truths to mere political commentary. By neglecting the nuanced interplay between mercy and justice, she risks diluting the church’s unique role as a moral and spiritual guide in a society increasingly divided over governance and policy issues. While her appeal for compassion aligns with the heart of biblical teaching, its application must be rooted in the transformative power of Christ’s message—a call not just to empathy but to repentance, truth, and enduring hope. Through this deeper engagement, the church can rise above political noise and embody its divine mission to speak life into a broken world.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023). Opioid overdose statistics. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov
Holy Bible, New International Version.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). The economic and fiscal consequences of immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23550
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2023). Annual report on human trafficking and border enforcement. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov
Tim Orr is a scholar of Islam, Evangelical minister, conference speaker, and interfaith consultant with over 30 years of experience in cross-cultural ministry. He holds six degrees, including a master’s in Islamic studies from the Islamic College in London. Tim taught Religious Studies for 15 years at Indiana University Columbus and is now a Congregations and Polarization Project research associate at the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University Indianapolis. He has spoken at universities, including Oxford University, Imperial College London, the University of Tehran, Islamic College London, and mosques throughout the U.K. His research focuses on American Evangelicalism, Islamic antisemitism, and Islamic feminism, and he has published widely, including articles in Islamic peer-reviewed journals and three books.