Probably a different thread but I think there are ideas at work. They seem to me at least to be dominated by what has been called “the privatised gospel”. Individual rather than communal salvation, individual rather than communal responsibility.
A separation of both elements certainly produces incoherence.
Trump's Christianity fits right in with Christian history and practices. Here's just one example: the Spanish missions in California.
The missions were established by Catholic priests of the Franciscan order to evangelize indigenous peoples backed by the military force of the Spanish Empire.
...
Indigenous peoples were forced into settlements called reductions,[3] disrupting their traditional way of life and negatively affecting as many as one thousand villages.[2] European diseases spread in the close quarters of the missions, causing mass death.[4] Abuse, malnourishment, and overworking were common.[5] At least 87,787 baptisms and 63,789 deaths occurred.[6] Indigenous peoples often resisted and rejected conversion to Christianity.[7] Some fled the missions while others formed rebellions.[7] Missionaries recorded frustrations with getting indigenous people to internalize Catholic scripture and practice.[7] Indigenous girls were taken away from their parents and housed at monjeríos.[8] The missions' role in destroying Indigenous culture has been described as cultural genocide.[5]
I mean, c'mon, a lot of the history of Christianity is hideous: the persecution of Jews, the subjugation of women, colonialism, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Trump's Christianity fits right in with Christian history and practices. Here's just one example: the Spanish missions in California.
The missions were established by Catholic priests of the Franciscan order to evangelize indigenous peoples backed by the military force of the Spanish Empire.
...
Indigenous peoples were forced into settlements called reductions,[3] disrupting their traditional way of life and negatively affecting as many as one thousand villages.[2] European diseases spread in the close quarters of the missions, causing mass death.[4] Abuse, malnourishment, and overworking were common.[5] At least 87,787 baptisms and 63,789 deaths occurred.[6] Indigenous peoples often resisted and rejected conversion to Christianity.[7] Some fled the missions while others formed rebellions.[7] Missionaries recorded frustrations with getting indigenous people to internalize Catholic scripture and practice.[7] Indigenous girls were taken away from their parents and housed at monjeríos.[8] The missions' role in destroying Indigenous culture has been described as cultural genocide.[5]
I mean, c'mon, a lot of the history of Christianity is hideous: the persecution of Jews, the subjugation of women, colonialism, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
I'm not altogether convinced it was wise of Rt. Rev. Budde to address Trump directly. I can't imagine that approach wasn't deliberated, but I think the decision to do so undermined her message in the end. In that moment, regardless of how it was intended or the spirit with which it was offered, it was inferred as a personal challenge, and Trump never lets those go unanswered, and his surrogates don't either, which, in our current media circus amplifies the conflict and not the content of her message. I mean, even here in this thread there's hardly been a line shared re: her three pillars of Unity (honoring every person's inherent dignity, honesty in both private and public discussion, and humility). It's nearly all 'speaking truth to power' which we all know isn't going to work in the least in the case of Trump. It's arguable that it will even have the opposite effect. She could have presented the Christian standard as she understood it which would have risen above his person and the exalted position of his office. Instead, we have the controversy of it instead of its compelling, inspiring content.
Trump's Christianity fits right in with Christian history and practices. Here's just one example: the Spanish missions in California.
The missions were established by Catholic priests of the Franciscan order to evangelize indigenous peoples backed by the military force of the Spanish Empire.
...
Indigenous peoples were forced into settlements called reductions,[3] disrupting their traditional way of life and negatively affecting as many as one thousand villages.[2] European diseases spread in the close quarters of the missions, causing mass death.[4] Abuse, malnourishment, and overworking were common.[5] At least 87,787 baptisms and 63,789 deaths occurred.[6] Indigenous peoples often resisted and rejected conversion to Christianity.[7] Some fled the missions while others formed rebellions.[7] Missionaries recorded frustrations with getting indigenous people to internalize Catholic scripture and practice.[7] Indigenous girls were taken away from their parents and housed at monjeríos.[8] The missions' role in destroying Indigenous culture has been described as cultural genocide.[5]
I mean, c'mon, a lot of the history of Christianity is hideous: the persecution of Jews, the subjugation of women, colonialism, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Yeah, I think the only way to argue that Trump’s ideals—or those of his followers who profess to be Christians—aren’t really Christian in some meaningful way is to engage in an extensive exercise in No True Scotsman.
Meanwhile, I very much agree with the observation in your post upthread about the effect Bishop Buddy’s sermon had among people in mainline churches.
Probably a different thread but I think there are ideas at work. They seem to me at least to be dominated by what has been called “the privatised gospel”. Individual rather than communal salvation, individual rather than communal responsibility.
I disagree - I think it's a communal faith, but one where "communal" aligns more with the Chosen People of the Old Testament than the more modern "communal means everyone, everywhere" definition. And, as a brief perusal of the OT will show, that kind of communal faith is perfectly compatible with disregard for, and indeed hatred of, anyone outside the community concerned.
And, as a brief perusal of the OT will show, that kind of communal faith is perfectly compatible with disregard for, and indeed hatred of, anyone outside the community concerned.
A very brief, very selective perusal, I think. One would have to avoid everything in the Torah about treatment of the strangers, the foreigner and the widows and orphans, and everything in the prophets calling Israel to task for mistreating the strangers, the foreigner and the widows and orphans and for general lack of justice and mercy.
You also pretty much have to ignore Jesus and “love God, love neighbor.” And ignoring Jesus seems a bit problematic for people claiming to follow him.
I suppose at the Pastor's place, they must sing:
'The vilest offenoer who truly believes,
That moment from Donald a pardon receives.'
Sorry if that is out of place here, but it was too open a goal to miss.
Trump's Christianity fits right in with Christian history and practices. Here's just one example: the Spanish missions in California.
The missions were established by Catholic priests of the Franciscan order to evangelize indigenous peoples backed by the military force of the Spanish Empire.
...
Indigenous peoples were forced into settlements called reductions,[3] disrupting their traditional way of life and negatively affecting as many as one thousand villages.[2] European diseases spread in the close quarters of the missions, causing mass death.[4] Abuse, malnourishment, and overworking were common.[5] At least 87,787 baptisms and 63,789 deaths occurred.[6] Indigenous peoples often resisted and rejected conversion to Christianity.[7] Some fled the missions while others formed rebellions.[7] Missionaries recorded frustrations with getting indigenous people to internalize Catholic scripture and practice.[7] Indigenous girls were taken away from their parents and housed at monjeríos.[8] The missions' role in destroying Indigenous culture has been described as cultural genocide.[5]
I mean, c'mon, a lot of the history of Christianity is hideous: the persecution of Jews, the subjugation of women, colonialism, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
The fact that they were perpretrated by people who called themselves christians does not mean that their behaviour and attitudes align with the gospel message in any meaningful way. A saying about trees and their fruit comes to mind.
Trump's Christianity fits right in with Christian history and practices. Here's just one example: the Spanish missions in California.
The missions were established by Catholic priests of the Franciscan order to evangelize indigenous peoples backed by the military force of the Spanish Empire.
...
Indigenous peoples were forced into settlements called reductions,[3] disrupting their traditional way of life and negatively affecting as many as one thousand villages.[2] European diseases spread in the close quarters of the missions, causing mass death.[4] Abuse, malnourishment, and overworking were common.[5] At least 87,787 baptisms and 63,789 deaths occurred.[6] Indigenous peoples often resisted and rejected conversion to Christianity.[7] Some fled the missions while others formed rebellions.[7] Missionaries recorded frustrations with getting indigenous people to internalize Catholic scripture and practice.[7] Indigenous girls were taken away from their parents and housed at monjeríos.[8] The missions' role in destroying Indigenous culture has been described as cultural genocide.[5]
I mean, c'mon, a lot of the history of Christianity is hideous: the persecution of Jews, the subjugation of women, colonialism, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
The fact that they were perpretrated by people who called themselves christians does not mean that their behaviour and attitudes align with the gospel message in any meaningful way. A saying about trees and their fruit comes to mind.
I don’t think you can True Scotsman your way out that easily; if their beliefs and practices were not aligned with the gospel (and this is certainly true as we understand the gosprl, and I hope is true in some objective way as well) they were certainly aligned to the gospel as many understood it then, because they don't generally seem to have had to fight off poeple saying more than "steady on, old man!" If that.
If the problem is they aren't true Scotsmen, then Luther (preached antisemitism), St Bernard of Clairvaulx (preached the Second Crusade as a Get Out Of Purgatory After One Turn Instead Of Three card) and the modern Catholic church (opposes equality of women within the church and their reproductive rights throughout society) are all "people who called themselves ScotsmenChristians"
Probably a different thread but I think there are ideas at work. They seem to me at least to be dominated by what has been called “the privatised gospel”. Individual rather than communal salvation, individual rather than communal responsibility.
I disagree - I think it's a communal faith, but one where "communal" aligns more with the Chosen People of the Old Testament than the more modern "communal means everyone, everywhere" definition. And, as a brief perusal of the OT will show, that kind of communal faith is perfectly compatible with disregard for, and indeed hatred of, anyone outside the community concerned.
There were Bible Studies in the White House during the first Trump era and they were entirely based on writings from an adherent to the privatised gospel. I can’t find the source on the internet but I read a number of the writings used.
When examining responsibility for poverty for example it was argued that first responsibility rested on the person themselves, then secondly on their family, then thirdly the church. Government responsibility was reserved for protection via army and police. Filling in the gaps left by person, family and church was not the job of government; that was a “socialist” error.
I kid you not. I doubt whether Trump attended the studies but was provided with copies of the study material.
The privatised gospel is iniquitous and quite ubiquitous in conservative churches.
I think there are sections of the OT which are supportive of the outsider. The stuff about the stranger, and the book of Jonah for example. You can get all sorts of selfishness out of “the Chosen” of course but it’s wrong to say the picture is completely exclusive. And Jesus redefined neighbour and responsibility for the needy.
Feel free to disagree but that’s a brief glimpse of where I’m coming from.
She could have presented the Christian standard as she understood it which would have risen above his person and the exalted position of his office. Instead, we have the controversy of it instead of its compelling, inspiring content.
I suspect the controversy greatly amplified the compelling, inspiring content and gave it a life it wouldn’t have otherwise had. Without the controversy, without the words having been spoken directly to the president, the sermon would’ve barely been noticed outside the cathedral.
Not that I necessarily think that’s what motivated the bishop. I suspect her main motivation was that she simply asked herself what, given the opportunity she had, would she regret not saying.
I'm not altogether convinced it was wise of Rt. Rev. Budde to address Trump directly. I can't imagine that approach wasn't deliberated, but I think the decision to do so undermined her message in the end. In that moment, regardless of how it was intended or the spirit with which it was offered, it was inferred as a personal challenge, and Trump never lets those go unanswered, and his surrogates don't either, which, in our current media circus amplifies the conflict and not the content of her message. I mean, even here in this thread there's hardly been a line shared re: her three pillars of Unity (honoring every person's inherent dignity, honesty in both private and public discussion, and humility). It's nearly all 'speaking truth to power' which we all know isn't going to work in the least in the case of Trump. It's arguable that it will even have the opposite effect. She could have presented the Christian standard as she understood it which would have risen above his person and the exalted position of his office. Instead, we have the controversy of it instead of its compelling, inspiring content.
If nothing else it breathed hope and courage into a very disheartened opposition. We all know Trump has as much compassion in him as a live volcano, so the ears it was aimed at were deaf. But other ears can take a great deal of goodness from her words.
While I agree with her, I don't think she is really a hero. As a minister of the Gospel, she was doing her job, preaching the Gospel and applying it.
However, calling out one member of the congregation is a poor strategy. It won't lead to self reflection, repentence or cooperation. Only reinforce determined resistence to the messege.
On the other hand, she could never have expected to have another such opportunity to address her petition directly to Trump, where he was in no position (at the moment) to dismiss her or it.
Yet, she surely knew what to expect as his response. She is well acquainted with him as a president.
So, it is okay to praise God in the same worship service for sparing that same person's life and appointing him to lead the nation, which one of his supporting clergy did, but not okay to appeal to him to show mercy? Seems like a double standard, to me. Now, if she had done both, that would have been hypocritical.
It was Trump's choice to have the service there and to go. Note the service has only been held regularly since 2001 (the previous ones were 1985 and 1989 and supposedly 1933 though I have my doubts on the 1933 one). They left the decisions on the service completely up to the cathedral. They didn't consider how the bishop probably considered Trump. Perhaps they thought she would roll over and surrender as so many of his previous critics have. A surrender that would be streamed for all to see and, I think, televised. The bishop probably thought that God has delivered him into my hands. Despite that she did not attack him but rather preached mercy and begged. If he heard and repented, well stranger things have happened. More importantly many other people heard and took heart that not all were going to surrender.
It was Trump's choice to have the service there and to go. Note the service has only been held regularly since 2001 (the previous ones were 1985 and 1989 and supposedly 1933 though I have my doubts on the 1933 one). They left the decisions on the service completely up to the cathedral. They didn't consider how the bishop probably considered Trump. Perhaps they thought she would roll over and surrender as so many of his previous critics have. A surrender that would be streamed for all to see and, I think, televised. The bishop probably thought that God has delivered him into my hands. Despite that she did not attack him but rather preached mercy and begged. If he heard and repented, well stranger things have happened. More importantly many other people heard and took heart that not all were going to surrender.
It was Trump's choice to have the service there and to go.
It was Trump’s choice to go there. It’s the cathedral, as I understand it, that chooses to have the service. In this case, the service had been announced and planned, at least in draft form, before Election Day.
So, it is okay to praise God in the same worship service for sparing that same person's life and appointing him to lead the nation, which one of his supporting clergy did, but not okay to appeal to him to show mercy? Seems like a double standard, to me. Now, if she had done both, that would have been hypocritical.
Not wanting someone to be assassinated and giving thanks that they weren't and appealing to that same person to show mercy aren't mutually exclusive or hypocritical positions.
What would you prefer? That she'd expressed disappointment that the bullet only grazed his ear?
I'm not altogether convinced it was wise of Rt. Rev. Budde to address Trump directly. I can't imagine that approach wasn't deliberated, but I think the decision to do so undermined her message in the end. In that moment, regardless of how it was intended or the spirit with which it was offered, it was inferred as a personal challenge, and Trump never lets those go unanswered, and his surrogates don't either, which, in our current media circus amplifies the conflict and not the content of her message. I mean, even here in this thread there's hardly been a line shared re: her three pillars of Unity (honoring every person's inherent dignity, honesty in both private and public discussion, and humility). It's nearly all 'speaking truth to power' which we all know isn't going to work in the least in the case of Trump. It's arguable that it will even have the opposite effect. She could have presented the Christian standard as she understood it which would have risen above his person and the exalted position of his office. Instead, we have the controversy of it instead of its compelling, inspiring content.
If nothing else it breathed hope and courage into a very disheartened opposition. We all know Trump has as much compassion in him as a live volcano, so the ears it was aimed at were deaf. But other ears can take a great deal of goodness from her words.
This was possible without a direct address to Trump. This thread title includes the moniker "badass," and so, as I've said, even in here the controversy itself is the focus, and not the Rt. Reverend's essential content.
I would love to join you, @Nick Tamen in thinking that the content has been magnified as a result of the controversy, but I simply may be too cynical to agree with you, now. Your suggestion that the sermon wouldn't have moved the needle in any appreciable way without the direct challenge to Trump is unfortunate fodder for another thread.
A digression and a tangent. Whatever criticism I might have about the BBC, I found their coverage of the Aushwitz 80th anniversary events quite excellent.
Here's former-Republican-former-independent-evangelical-pastor-still-very-much-a-Christian Pat Kahnke on the bishop's sermon and appeal. I don't know how useful it is dropping in links here to 24 min youtube podcasts - I probably would not watch it if I were not already a fan - but I am a fan, so here it is.
He might be run over by a bus or have a heart attack. Who knows? Deliberate murder is a big no-no.
I'm not going to apologise. You won't budge me on this one. 'Pray for your enemies, bless those who despitefully use you.' Easier said than done of course but shooting someone through the head because you don't agree with them or their politics is beyond the pale.
He might be run over by a bus or have a heart attack. Who knows? Deliberate murder is a big no-no.
I'm not going to apologise. You won't budge me on this one. 'Pray for your enemies, bless those who despitefully use you.' Easier said than done of course but shooting someone through the head because you don't agree with them or their politics is beyond the pale.
'Praying for those who persecute you' doesn't preclude one from doing many other things to thwart those who persecute you. It just says 'pray' (well, it says love your enemies, then pray for one's persecutors), but it doesn't say only love/pray.
Here's former-Republican-former-independent-evangelical-pastor-still-very-much-a-Christian Pat Kahnke on the bishop's sermon and appeal. I don't know how useful it is dropping in links here to 24 min youtube podcasts - I probably would not watch it if I were not already a fan - but I am a fan, so here it is.
Excellent link and a very clear observation about the worth and value of Bishop Mariann’s sermon.
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.
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.
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.
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,
A solid, gospel-oriented sermon directed at the entire congregation and nation would have been hard enough for this administration - all of it - to tolerate. But it might hare reached a few hearts.
Whether Budde had a right to address Trump directly or not is not really part of my point. In doing so, I think she subverted her own (stated) goal.
I'm not altogether convinced it was wise of Rt. Rev. Budde to address Trump directly. I can't imagine that approach wasn't deliberated, but I think the decision to do so undermined her message in the end. In that moment, regardless of how it was intended or the spirit with which it was offered, it was inferred as a personal challenge, and Trump never lets those go unanswered, and his surrogates don't either, which, in our current media circus amplifies the conflict and not the content of her message. I mean, even here in this thread there's hardly been a line shared re: her three pillars of Unity (honoring every person's inherent dignity, honesty in both private and public discussion, and humility). It's nearly all 'speaking truth to power' which we all know isn't going to work in the least in the case of Trump. It's arguable that it will even have the opposite effect. She could have presented the Christian standard as she understood it which would have risen above his person and the exalted position of his office. Instead, we have the controversy of it instead of its compelling, inspiring content.
If nothing else it breathed hope and courage into a very disheartened opposition. We all know Trump has as much compassion in him as a live volcano, so the ears it was aimed at were deaf. But other ears can take a great deal of goodness from her words.
This was possible without a direct address to Trump. This thread title includes the moniker "badass," and so, as I've said, even in here the controversy itself is the focus, and not the Rt. Reverend's essential content.
I would love to join you, @Nick Tamen in thinking that the content has been magnified as a result of the controversy, but I simply may be too cynical to agree with you, now. Your suggestion that the sermon wouldn't have moved the needle in any appreciable way without the direct challenge to Trump is unfortunate fodder for another thread.
Yes.
The reactions I have heard from people who agree with Budde's points have focused on Trump's reaction, not on how the Gospel applies to each individual hearer - the "I".
Preaching is for the entire congregation and should be received by each single individual in the congregation as the word to each of them (us. To ME.)
If none of the rest of us receives her sermon and considers how each individualI should respond, I think her strategy has failed.
It's very difficult (probably impossible) for a sermon to have a message for each individual in a congregation - certainly not a short homily to a large congregation, though maybe if there was a congregation of a few dozen and a 45 minute sermon there might be something for everyone in it. In most congregations it would be impossible for a sermon to address an individual because the preacher wouldn't know what any one person needs to hear (when I'm preparing a sermon the only individual I consciously preach to is myself, because I know my own failings and weaknesses and needs in a way that I don't know for anyone else in the congregation). It's a bit different when there's someone present who is well known, or who has very publicly failed and their failings are known to the congregation. But, in that instance (especially the second) there are also pastoral concerns to be considered in how (or, if) to address that in a sermon. I wouldn't dream of getting into that sort of situation in a pulpit, but then I'm just a lay preacher and haven't had the training and experience of an ordained minister.
Though I'd also be surprised if there's a congregation anywhere without anyone who needs to hear "What does the Lord require of you? To act justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." (that's a direct quote from the Bible, Micah 6:8, in case anyone mistook it for modern woke nonsense). Especially when preaching to an unknown congregation that's one of the topics that's guaranteed to be of relevance to someone in the congregation.
So, it is okay to praise God in the same worship service for sparing that same person's life and appointing him to lead the nation, which one of his supporting clergy did, but not okay to appeal to him to show mercy? Seems like a double standard, to me. Now, if she had done both, that would have been hypocritical.
So it's not OK to praise God in the same worship service for sparing that same person's life and appointing him to lead the nation and okay to appeal to him to show mercy?
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?
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.
He might be run over by a bus or have a heart attack. Who knows? Deliberate murder is a big no-no.
I'm not going to apologise. You won't budge me on this one. 'Pray for your enemies, bless those who despitefully use you.' Easier said than done of course but shooting someone through the head because you don't agree with them or their politics is beyond the pale.
'Praying for those who persecute you' doesn't preclude one from doing many other things to thwart those who persecute you. It just says 'pray' (well, it says love your enemies, then pray for one's persecutors), but it doesn't say only love/pray.
I'm quite content for even public intercessions to include both prayers for world leaders to be wise, compassionate, capable etc, and also to pray God to remove the tyrant or the oppressor from their places of power. No names, no pack drill, but still within the bounds of praying scripturally, so far as I can see.
I don't think out and out murder of an opponent is the Christlike way. But of course Jesus did say those who live by the sword will perish by the sword, so some outcomes to certain situations may come as less of a surprise than others.
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.
Comments
A separation of both elements certainly produces incoherence.
From my perspective, no.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_missions_in_California
I mean, c'mon, a lot of the history of Christianity is hideous: the persecution of Jews, the subjugation of women, colonialism, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Exactly. Business as usual. A lot? As in 98%?
Meanwhile, I very much agree with the observation in your post upthread about the effect Bishop Buddy’s sermon had among people in mainline churches.
I disagree - I think it's a communal faith, but one where "communal" aligns more with the Chosen People of the Old Testament than the more modern "communal means everyone, everywhere" definition. And, as a brief perusal of the OT will show, that kind of communal faith is perfectly compatible with disregard for, and indeed hatred of, anyone outside the community concerned.
You also pretty much have to ignore Jesus and “love God, love neighbor.” And ignoring Jesus seems a bit problematic for people claiming to follow him.
It does, however, have a long pedigree among those in positions of power, most particularly white American evangelicals.
'The vilest offenoer who truly believes,
That moment from Donald a pardon receives.'
Sorry if that is out of place here, but it was too open a goal to miss.
The fact that they were perpretrated by people who called themselves christians does not mean that their behaviour and attitudes align with the gospel message in any meaningful way. A saying about trees and their fruit comes to mind.
I don’t think you can True Scotsman your way out that easily; if their beliefs and practices were not aligned with the gospel (and this is certainly true as we understand the gosprl, and I hope is true in some objective way as well) they were certainly aligned to the gospel as many understood it then, because they don't generally seem to have had to fight off poeple saying more than "steady on, old man!" If that.
If the problem is they aren't true Scotsmen, then Luther (preached antisemitism), St Bernard of Clairvaulx (preached the Second Crusade as a Get Out Of Purgatory After One Turn Instead Of Three card) and the modern Catholic church (opposes equality of women within the church and their reproductive rights throughout society) are all "people who called themselves ScotsmenChristians"
Not at all. It's normal in Christendom.
There were Bible Studies in the White House during the first Trump era and they were entirely based on writings from an adherent to the privatised gospel. I can’t find the source on the internet but I read a number of the writings used.
When examining responsibility for poverty for example it was argued that first responsibility rested on the person themselves, then secondly on their family, then thirdly the church. Government responsibility was reserved for protection via army and police. Filling in the gaps left by person, family and church was not the job of government; that was a “socialist” error.
I kid you not. I doubt whether Trump attended the studies but was provided with copies of the study material.
The privatised gospel is iniquitous and quite ubiquitous in conservative churches.
I think there are sections of the OT which are supportive of the outsider. The stuff about the stranger, and the book of Jonah for example. You can get all sorts of selfishness out of “the Chosen” of course but it’s wrong to say the picture is completely exclusive. And Jesus redefined neighbour and responsibility for the needy.
Feel free to disagree but that’s a brief glimpse of where I’m coming from.
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.
Not that I necessarily think that’s what motivated the bishop. I suspect her main motivation was that she simply asked herself what, given the opportunity she had, would she regret not saying.
If nothing else it breathed hope and courage into a very disheartened opposition. We all know Trump has as much compassion in him as a live volcano, so the ears it was aimed at were deaf. But other ears can take a great deal of goodness from her words.
However, calling out one member of the congregation is a poor strategy. It won't lead to self reflection, repentence or cooperation. Only reinforce determined resistence to the messege.
On the other hand, she could never have expected to have another such opportunity to address her petition directly to Trump, where he was in no position (at the moment) to dismiss her or it.
Yet, she surely knew what to expect as his response. She is well acquainted with him as a president.
This, especially the words I've put in bold.
Not wanting someone to be assassinated and giving thanks that they weren't and appealing to that same person to show mercy aren't mutually exclusive or hypocritical positions.
What would you prefer? That she'd expressed disappointment that the bullet only grazed his ear?
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.
This was possible without a direct address to Trump. This thread title includes the moniker "badass," and so, as I've said, even in here the controversy itself is the focus, and not the Rt. Reverend's essential content.
I would love to join you, @Nick Tamen in thinking that the content has been magnified as a result of the controversy, but I simply may be too cynical to agree with you, now. Your suggestion that the sermon wouldn't have moved the needle in any appreciable way without the direct challenge to Trump is unfortunate fodder for another thread.
You really want me to answer that?
But the person who did offered that petition was not the bishop.
I think I know your answer already and it doesn't become you as a minister of religion.
I know the person who offered that petition wasn't the Bishop.
Oh please. Countless lives will be destroyed because things didn't go differently that day.
I'm not going to apologise. You won't budge me on this one. 'Pray for your enemies, bless those who despitefully use you.' Easier said than done of course but shooting someone through the head because you don't agree with them or their politics is beyond the pale.
Would @Gramps49 or @Ruth be prepared to pull that trigger?
Could you look someone in the eye and shoot them dead no matter how reprehensible you thought they were or just your cause?
No, there is a more excellent way.
'Praying for those who persecute you' doesn't preclude one from doing many other things to thwart those who persecute you. It just says 'pray' (well, it says love your enemies, then pray for one's persecutors), but it doesn't say only love/pray.
Excellent link and a very clear observation about the worth and value of Bishop Mariann’s sermon.
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.
Exactly!
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,
A solid, gospel-oriented sermon directed at the entire congregation and nation would have been hard enough for this administration - all of it - to tolerate. But it might hare reached a few hearts.
Whether Budde had a right to address Trump directly or not is not really part of my point. In doing so, I think she subverted her own (stated) goal.
Yes.
The reactions I have heard from people who agree with Budde's points have focused on Trump's reaction, not on how the Gospel applies to each individual hearer - the "I".
Preaching is for the entire congregation and should be received by each single individual in the congregation as the word to each of them (us. To ME.)
If none of the rest of us receives her sermon and considers how each individualI should respond, I think her strategy has failed.
Though I'd also be surprised if there's a congregation anywhere without anyone who needs to hear "What does the Lord require of you? To act justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." (that's a direct quote from the Bible, Micah 6:8, in case anyone mistook it for modern woke nonsense). Especially when preaching to an unknown congregation that's one of the topics that's guaranteed to be of relevance to someone in the congregation.
So it's not OK to praise God in the same worship service for sparing that same person's life and appointing him to lead the nation and okay to appeal to him to show mercy?
How?
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'm quite content for even public intercessions to include both prayers for world leaders to be wise, compassionate, capable etc, and also to pray God to remove the tyrant or the oppressor from their places of power. No names, no pack drill, but still within the bounds of praying scripturally, so far as I can see.
I don't think out and out murder of an opponent is the Christlike way. But of course Jesus did say those who live by the sword will perish by the sword, so some outcomes to certain situations may come as less of a surprise than others.
Wow, thanks for posting that.