Oh, Those “Turbulent” Priests!
During an Inauguration Day Inter-Faith service at the National Cathedral last week, Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde delivered a sermon that, as the kids like to say, got spicey. Speaking directly to President Trump, who was in attendance alongside Vice President Vance and their families, she called for mercy and compassion toward the poor, the marginalized, the fearful, and undocumented immigrants and their families. Her plea for mercy came across as a direct challenge to the newly elected President, prompting predictably strong reactions from his Administration and its supporters.
There’s been no shortage of comments on the Bishop and her sermon since then. Some found her wildly disrespectful, and others “prophetic” and helpful. Some have dismissed her as “a leftist liberal” who’s an exemplar of the “woke mind virus,” while others asserted she has no right to be called a Bishop in the first place because she’s a woman.
Now, frankly, I have little time for Church Leaders who boast of as many doctrinal departures as Bishop Budde. Did she show mercy to Ministers forced out of the Episcopal Church for refusing to bow to the LGBTQ+ agenda over the past several decades? I doubt it. Those who abandon historically orthodox truth on life and sexuality often find that even the valid concerns they raise in one area are inevitably muffled by the layers of misbelief they promote in others.
However, this can also be true for those holding to historical orthodoxy. One can agree with many orthodox positions on a host of controversial matters while still worshipping mammon, treating people with contempt, and, in the words of Matthew 25, failing to recognize Jesus in the faces of the needy and broken ignored while on the way to a “sound” Sunday service. On Judgment Day, such a life yields deep trouble.
No one who’s read the Bible can be surprised that Christian Ministers and churches would advocate for mercy, compassion, and care for those in need or gripped by fear, whatever their legal status might be. “Do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly” has not yet been erased from the Scripture, and the only truly shocking thing should be the failure of Ministers to raise the issue in some way. We have a woefully truncated gospel if it doesn’t include compassion for the weak and our neighbors.
As Augustine observed, “If you believe what you like in the gospels and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.”
Not a New Thing
Whatever your view of the Bishop’s sermon might be, her action wasn’t something new, especially with US Presidents.
At the 1994 National Prayer Breakfast, Mother Teresa delivered an unexpected rebuke. In a room filled with political leaders, including President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton, she made an impassioned plea against abortion, saying, "Don't abort your babies. Give them to me." Her words, though delivered with her characteristic humility, were an unmistakable challenge to the Administration’s stance on abortion. Strikingly, despite her directness, few objections were raised, though several eyebrows certainly were.
I can recall the story of Methodist Pastor Peter Cartwright being told to “tone it down” because President Andrew Jackson would be present in a service where he was preaching. He began his message by saying, “I understand Andrew Jackson is here. I have been requested to be guarded in my remarks. Andrew Jackson will go to hell if he doesn’t repent.” Everyone present was shocked, but afterward, the President reportedly shook Cartwright’s hand and said, “Sir, if I had a regiment of men like you, I could whip the world.”
Clearly, one may say that there are significant differences between those events and the setting for the Bishop’s sermon - all true. Yet there’s more to learn here than simply agreeing or disagreeing with a message delivered to a government representative (just going political is a temptation to avoid). While this particular controversy can be left to one side as another example of the vast political chasm in our society (“Liberal Bishop rebukes Conservative President in Politicized Sermon”), it would be an inadequate view of public preaching that’s been around a very long time.
Throughout history, Christian clergy have often found themselves in the position of rebuking or appealing to civil authorities. Rooted in the biblical tradition of prophets confronting kings and apostles bearing witness before the Emperor and his officials, such acts have served as moral checks on unlimited power. This pattern of ecclesiastical courage exists across centuries, demonstrating the enduring conviction that the state is ultimately subject to divine justice and mercy (though not to the Church or her ministers). The Barman Declaration in Germany, the work of Desmund Tutu to oppose apartheid in S Africa, and Dr. King’s work to oppose racial injustice in this country are a few more recent examples we can easily recognize.
That doesn’t mean Christian ambassadors have always been correct in speaking as they did or handling every situation appropriately - far from it. But it's important to recall that speaking in confrontational ways is sometimes necessary for Christian witness.
Here are four significant instances of Christian leaders addressing and resisting civil authorities.
1. Ambrose and Theodosius: The Gates of the Church Shut
In 390 AD, Emperor Theodosius I ordered the massacre of thousands of citizens in Thessalonica as punishment for a riot that killed a local governor. The bloodshed horrified the Christian world, and Bishop Ambrose of Milan deemed the act an unforgivable overreach of imperial power. When Theodosius attempted to enter the cathedral in Milan, Ambrose barred the emperor from entering.
Ambrose wrote a letter to Theodosius, rebuking him for his sin and calling for public penance. Ambrose’s words were stern: "You cannot wash away sin with tears alone. You can be restored only through true repentance and submission to God’s mercy."
Theodosius eventually complied, performing public penance by wearing sackcloth and ashes and abstaining from his imperial duties for a time. This event demonstrated the church’s moral authority over even the most powerful rulers and set a precedent for clergy confronting the abuse of political power.
2. John Chrysostom and Empress Eudoxia
John Chrysostom, the Archbishop of Constantinople in the late 4th and early 5th centuries, was known for his fiery sermons and unwavering commitment to justice. His fearlessness brought him into conflict with the Empress Eudoxia, whose court he criticized for its opulence and moral corruption.
Chrysostom’s sermons often denounced greed and the exploitation of the poor, indirectly targeting the empress and her allies. At one point, Chrysostom famously compared Eudoxia to Herodias, the biblical queen who demanded John the Baptist’s head. This enraged the empress, leading to Chrysostom’s eventual exile.
Despite his suffering, Chrysostom’s boldness left a legacy of prophetic witness against the misuse of power. His willingness to risk his position and life highlighted the church’s role as a voice for the voiceless and a challenger to injustice.
3. Thomas Becket and King Henry II
Moving to medieval England, the conflict between Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and King Henry II is one of the most well-known clashes between church and state. Initially close allies, Becket and Henry grew estranged after Becket’s elevation to the archbishopric, as Becket became a staunch defender of the church’s independence.
The tension arose over the Constitutions of Clarendon, a set of laws that sought to reduce the church’s autonomy and bring clerics under royal jurisdiction. Becket refused to endorse the king’s demands, declaring that the church owed its ultimate allegiance to God, not the crown.
Henry’s frustration with Becket boiled over, culminating in the infamous remark, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” This led to Becket’s martyrdom in Canterbury Cathedral in 1170. Though his life was cut short, Becket’s resistance to royal overreach symbolized the church’s enduring mission to challenge tyranny.
4. Óscar Romero and the Salvadoran Government
In the 20th century, Archbishop Óscar Romero of El Salvador became a modern exemplar of prophetic rebuke. As the country descended into civil war in the late 1970s, Romero emerged as a vocal critic of the government’s human rights abuses, including the torture and murder of civilians by military forces.
Romero’s homilies, broadcast on the radio, were heard nationwide. He denounced the violence and pleaded with soldiers to disobey immoral orders, declaring, “In the name of God, in the name of this suffering people, I beg you, I implore you, I order you: stop the repression!”
On March 24, 1980, Romero was assassinated while celebrating Mass. His death cemented his status as a martyr and a symbol of the church’s commitment to social justice. In 2018, he was canonized as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church, his life and death testament to the enduring power of moral courage.
The Tradition of Prophetic Witness
You might find certain aspects of the Church’s minister unappealing in each case. You may not like Romero’s Marxist sympathies (Pope John Paul II certainly did not and only much later gained an appreciation for his moral courage). You might disapprove of Ambrose's severity. You may believe the Church should never speak to such matters as the Church, leaving this only to individual believers. Still, taking up that memorable phrase of Henry II, the world needs “turbulent priests” who will disturb and challenge the powers on behalf of the King of Kings and his subjects.
These four examples—Ambrose, Chrysostom, Becket, and Romero—illustrate the strong Christian tradition of Clergy attempting to hold political leaders accountable, not to their campaign promises, but to God's moral Law and reflects the belief that political authority, while ordained by God, is not above moral scrutiny.
Can we not imagine a service after President Biden’s inauguration at which a minister might’ve asked him to remember the unborn, the victims of crime caused by cartel members who entered this country lawlessly, and to resist the cultural pressure to abandon the dignity of God’s creational distinctive in man and woman? What a tragedy that didn’t occur! Had it done so, I imagine the responses of the various constituencies we see now would be reversed.
This preaching tradition's heart is the conviction that power must serve the common good and uphold justice, protecting the innocent and weak (especially the victims of illegal power, the marginalized and oppressed) while punishing evil doers. Suppose rulers abuse their authority or refuse to use it to protect the innocent. In that case, it sometimes falls to the Church’s Ministers to remind them of their higher responsibility to God and humanity. Christ’s ministers have often acted as the conscience of a community, standing firm even when it costs them their positions, freedom, or even their lives.
In our context of Constitutional pluralism, this tradition remains vital. As leaders wield enormous power in shaping society, the Church’s voice is as crucial as ever. By addressing injustice in its many forms, the church’s ministers continue challenging those in authority to pursue justice, mercy, and humility. They know governments that manifestly do not care for the lowliest members of their society and cater only to the mighty and wealthy are frequently the subjects of future divine chastisement. That’s why such warnings are the wounds of a friend, not the attack of an enemy.
Sometimes, This is Part of the Job
Despite the possibility of clergy abusing their privileges, “meddling in morality” is part of the job. When the Church’s ministers merely conform to the powers in place (usually excusing their silence with a nod to the truth that, after all, God put them in those positions), they fail to bear faithful witness.
Few on the “right” object to such rebukes regarding what they’ve concluded are the great sins of the day, a correction that supports their agenda and worldview. Similarly, when ministerial voices uphold their concerns, few on the “left” object, concluding that it is nothing more than “speaking truth to power.”
What’s essential, however, is not agreement with a political outlook or agenda but concern for God’s glory, the common good of all people, and the salvation of the authority being addressed. Preachers should not proclaim party and national politics when they are called to preach Christ crucified. They should stop imagining that the political discourses they deliver to their congregations are “speaking truth to power.” C’mon! You’re not “speaking to your city” “ “rebuking the Senate,” or whatever other silly boast/excuse some make.
That noted, those who regularly appeal to God being “on our side” in politics should be especially careful about objecting to the voices of the Church’s ministers being heard, whether they agree with them or not. Championing mercy and compassion is not a new message. One should expect the Church to follow Christ when he said, “Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice…” (Matthew 9:13). Mercy does take unexpected turns, and that’s especially true when it comes face-to-face with power and its acolytes.
“When you worship power, compassion and mercy will look like sins,” wrote Wesleyan leader Benjamin Cremer. I don’t doubt it. Since they reflect sacrificial love, we can depend on compassion and mercy being unpopular with those who pursue power at the expense of virtue. Others will dismiss the unchanging truth of the Bible’s clear teaching as an invitation to be merely considered rather than a declaration to be joyfully welcomed and believed.
We don’t have to accept either outcome. And we must never do so when it comes to those with power, whether in Government, the Military, Commerce, or, yes, the Church.
It seems that we’ve lost the capacity to be both supportive and challenging at the same time, that such wisdom is out of fashion: only total fealty will do. In the social media realm - and maybe in actual day-to-day conversations - it appears that any disagreement with a President is an act of full-scale rebellion; for others, any agreement is an act of utter surrender. But support for political and civil authorities doesn’t work that way. Our system isn’t designed for all-or-nothing combat on every single issue. Expressing disagreement and even directing attention to Scripture is not an act of rebellion or disrespect but genuine concern and faithfulness in the case of the Church’s Ministers.
Governments come and go, but the gospel endures.
“The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of the Lord endures forever.” Isaiah 40:8