Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde, the Episcopal Bishop of Washington DC has received a lot of attention for her remarks earlier this week at a prayer breakfast attended by the new occupant of the White House, which also drew a demand for her to apologize. The controversy raises a number of questions, I think, especially if you think she should not have made them.
I had a lot of questions when I imagined if an LDS Stake President or Area Authority (or maybe even General Authority) had been asked to speak at such an event. What would or should he say?
For what it’s worth, President Peter K. Christensen of the Washington D.C. Temple apparently WAS at the event and participated by reading one of the prepared prayers—so he did not have the opportunity to give his own remarks.
For context, here is the portion of Bishop Budde’s remarks that have been quoted in the media and seem to have drawn the controversy.
In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country. We’re scared now. The people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings, who labor in poultry farms and meatpacking plants, who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants and work the night shifts in hospitals. They may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals. They pay taxes, and are good neighbors. They are faithful members of our churches and mosques, synagogues, gurdwara, and temples. I ask you to have mercy, Mr. President, on those in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away, and that you help those who are fleeing war zones and persecution in their own lands to find compassion and welcome here.
I must admit that I don’t know what has been said in previous sermons given at this national prayer breakfast. I do believe it is held regularly, and I think that the new President attended them during his first term. Since Bishop Budde has served in her current position since 2011, I assume she also attended the prayer breakfasts during the first term.
Were these remarks a departure from those at previous breakfasts? I don’t know.
So, here are my questions:
- Is there anything in Bishop Budde’s remarks that significantly contradicts the gospel? Without being specifically addressed to the president, could the same words be said in an LDS prayer in sacrament meeting?
- Bishop Budde’s remarks can be seen as an example of parrhesia, the term the ancient Greeks used for an individual speaking boldly to someone who had power over them, calling them out. For example, the Apostle Paul did this in Acts, speaking to Agrippa.
However, in the LDS Church today we don’t have a tradition of speaking out like this. Is parrhesia ok? Is it something that should be done when those in power aren’t acting as they should?
- Is a prayer breakfast a good venue for this kind of speech?
- Should leaders expect to hear pleas for mercy like this? Isn’t hearing what those who disagree with you say part of the job?
- Ideally, how would an LDS leader act in this situation?
- What should we learn from this?
Likely, those of you who read this also have questions.
Comments
27 responses to “Questions about Bishop Budde’s Remarks”
It’s true that she does not contradict anything Church-wise, but she’s clearly taking a very specific policy position for open borders (which, incidentally, I agree with, but let’s be frank that not deporting people is functionally open borders) with only the barest veneer of not doing so.
Now, that might be fine, but there are costs whenever any church takes a firm policy position as opposed to speaking in more general moral principles, and her rhetoric was clearly the former, so it’s more along the lines of the time the priest gave a homily on abortion legalization to the Supreme Court justices at the Red Mass.
Personally I prefer the approach taken by Nathan, but I think we’re well beyond questions of taste and decorum at this point. It seems to me that a larger problem is that we have a president and a lot of his followers who can’t keep keep it together for even the 5 minutes it would take for this prayer to be forgotten by just, you know, not reacting to the indignity of being forced to hear something they disagreed with.
How can a religious leader avoid overt political agitation without offering religious sanction to words or actions that contradict the faith they represent?
Mercy and compassion are not attributes Trump understands.
The event was a national, interfaith prayer service to offer prayers for the nation. The sermon given was inappropriate for that setting because it was a pointed political message with the thinnest veneer of religion. The sermon should have, and could have, made a number of the same basic points without the brazen political statements. The sermon should have been addressed to all of the leaders present, not merely the president. Attacking President Trump personally for his policies turned this from a sermon to a political attack in a service that was originally meant to rise above politics and unify the leadership and nation before God. By the way, I have the exact same criticisms of the Rev. Franklin Graham, whose prayer at the inauguration suffered from the same exact faults, with the difference that he fawned over Trump rather than attacking him.
I have spent much of the past day thinking how I would have given this sermon. For example, the sermon could have:
1. reminded the president, vice-president, and other political leaders of their need for compassion and listening to those who are hurting on all sides.
2. reminded the president, vice-president, and other political leaders of the need to listen to each other and stop the name-calling and other harmful rhetoric.
3. reminded the president, vice-president, and other political leaders that they need to be servant-leaders, get off of their high-horses, and learn humility.
4. reminded the president, vice-president, and other political leaders of the need for honesty and civility. This goes for Trump. Vance, Schumer, Pelosi, McConnell, Schiff, and nearly every elected politician in Washington.
5. emphasized America’s place in the world as a shining city on a hill that the rest of the world looks up to and made the point that our leadership, all of them in both parties, need to be worthy of that dream and ideal.
6. emphasized the need to seek divine wisdom as Solomon did.
If the Bishop had wanted to go after Trump politically, she should have picked a political venue. Dragging the church into politics ends badly for both politics and the church.
With regard to parrhesia, it is inapplicable here because Trump has no power, ecclesiastical or civil, over Budde. Budde had nothing to lose. The argument could be made that she gained stature among those who agree with her and dislike the president; I lack sufficient facts to press that argument further.
Should an LDS leader publicly give a sermon like this in a national unity setting? No way. We don’t need any further entrapment in politics. If the Church disagrees with a policy, the Church should participate in the political process like everyone else (ie. the MX missile and ERA). If the Church feels the need to call a politician to repentance, do that personally and privately with that politician.
She called for mercy towards people who are scared. That’s a political statement?
She didn’t advocate for any immigration policy. She didn’t say people couldn’t be deported. She didn’t call for “open borders” (whatever THAT means). She didn’t say that criminals couldn’t be deported or prosecuted. She didn’t even ask for mercy towards criminals. She just asked him to consider the “dignity of every human being.”
If the president’s political policies are contradicted by a call to consider mercy and dignity, then we’ve got a lot of problems with the direction our government is taking.
In the old days, the King of France sat for a sermon from a churchman once a year. The churchman had to respect the dignity of the king, but was allowed to say things to him that others could not dare say out loud.
I think Bishop Budde’s sermon fits well in that tradition.
I would argue her sermon was inappropriate for the occasion. Episcopalian church is literally dying in the US. This type of sermon and the liberal theology of it are why I would wager that there are now more LDS MEMBERS in the DC Area than members of her diocese.
President Trump reminds me more of King Noah in the Book of Mormon than anyone else. Maybe he needs an Abinidi to call him to repentance. Seems like this is an appropriate thing for a pastor to do. Anyone outraged by this obviously has more allegiance to the conservative Republican Party than Christianity or in my opinion Christ.
A few observations:
1. Some of the comments above seem to assume that there is a clear distinction between political venues and religious venues, and that there are messages that are clearly political and others that are clearly religious. At a minimum I believe there are grey areas — venues and messages that are both or neither.
Even if the National Prayer Breakfast is a religious venue, it clearly is also political to some degree, since so many politicians attend the event (likely to the exclusion of the general public, given the security issues), and given that it has been used, as Andrew points out, for partisan messages in the past. When does the venue become political instead of religious?
2. I’m surprised that no one has mentioned Parrhesia. None of the criticisms I’ve read of Bishop Budde’s comments suggest an alternative venue where the politicians in attendance are put in a position where it’s uncomfortable not to listen. JI gives a more recent example of what the Greeks were talking about in works like “Antigone.”
If you think that Bishop Budde’s remarks were ‘inappropriate’, I’d really like to know where such remarks should be given, since this administration has made it VERY clear that they don’t listen to what happens in traditional venues (unless they agree with them).
3. As for the content of what she said, I think a few of the comments above have suggested they were attacks, but without any clear indication of how. I agree with Left Field — this message was solicitous of general care for those who are poor and disadvantaged. Everything else had to be inferred from the political context. If this was an “attack”, it’s hard to think of how it could be more mild.
Andrew, I’m having a hard time seeing how your outline of what to say is substantively less critical than what the Bishop said — and since you cover more material it might even seem more critical!
4. Both Stephen C and BBell suggested that there are costs for what Bishop Budde said. Yes, of course. That is one of the core ideas behind the idea of Parrhesia — because the complaint is made to someone in power, the complainant and what the complainant represents are necessarily at risk. So, my question for both of you is, is the cost not worth it?
The issue comes down to one of practicality vs. morality. If your statement is the moral thing to say, why should you worry if it would cost you adherents? Is the size of your church more important than promoting righteousness?
And finally, “Bishop Budde fan club president”, yeah, that analogy had occurred to me. But my first reaction was not Noah, but Gadianton, because Gadianton was about tearing down the system.
I find the handwringing over Bishop Budde’s sermon deeply concerning. America has a long history of pastors who call out evil or wrong-doing from the pulpit. This tradition has existed from the fight for independence through abolition, through prohibition and into the Civil Rights movement. I find it concerning that some expect any religious leader to check their Christian compassion, even ignore the pains of their fellow human beings, when standing at the pulpit. Bishop Budde’s comments are in tune with that American tradition. She stood in a space carved out by the First Amendment and the blood of patriots to speak truth to power.
The core of Christ’s message is “love your neighbor.” He advocated for the poor. Suggesting Bishop Budde’s message is liberal politics is unsupportable. Unless you consider King Benjamin’s oration liberal claptrap.
Trump is a crude, and frequently uncaring, individual. To direct a message of kindness his direction was needed. Hopefully, other religious leaders, including Pope Francis, will be supportive of Budde. There is no hope that LDS leaders will make any kind of a strong stand. Which is unfortunate. Budde is one of my new heroes.
Even if Bishop Budde’s comments had a political tinge, wasn’t President Trump there, at least partially, in a political capacity? Even if he attended to hear some Christian doctrine, he took advantage of the optics for his evangelical base. Given that, he was required to leave his umbrage at the door. So, when would Bishop Budde’s comments be inappropriate? I can imagine one instance. Imagine President Jimmy Carter slipping in quietly to sit with the congregation (not in front for all to see) to hear a regularly scheduled sermon. If he was called out for his politics in that capacity, I would have sympathy.
For a general analysis to work, you need to change the message 180 degrees. If Bishop Budde had called on Pres. Biden to protect the unborn and cease promoting sinful lifestyles, would you still support that use of her office and opportunity (or shift from opposing to supporting it)? Pick a position that works as well for a message you support as it does for one you oppose.
Christ spoke forcefully about helping the poor. I don’t remember him talking about abortion? And I’m sure there were abortions in antiquity.
Additionally, Catholic priests and bishops hammered Biden (who is Catholic) about his stance on abortion. Some even suggested he be denied communion. Many of these criticisms were very public. Trump is just a crybaby.
Jonathan: what-about-ism is not, in general, a good way to evaluate the qualities of a talk or speech or policy. Among many reasons for this: it is entirely speculative, and allows one to answer in their own smug and self-affirming way. I would have thought that you were aware of this.
As noted: Biden was publicly criticized for his pro-choice policies and support. I don’t recall him complaining that those clergy who took him on as stupid, or boring, or blatantly political. I think he understood that good and moral people might disagree with him.
I’m also wondering about what you mean by “promoting sinful lifestyles?” Do you mean his family/community support of gay people who wish to marry and have families? Or his support for legalizing pot? Or his support of the equality of women. (Just look at his V.P.). I simply don’t recall him promoting sinful things. Maybe things sone might find different. Not sinful ones.
For some context, here’s what a member of our church said at this same prayer service in 2021:
Emma Petty Addams, Executive Director, Mormon Women for Ethical Government, Omaha, Nebraska
We remember before you the poor and neglected, the unemployed and underemployed, the homeless and the destitute, the sick and suffering, especially those with COVID-19, the rejected and disempowered; give them the blessing of your presence, that all in need may be relieved and protected.
Bless all whose lives are closely linked with ours.
And here is the homily from that 2021 service. Reverend William J. Barber spoke quite directly to Biden about poverty. https://time.com/5931343/william-barber-inaugural-prayer-service-sermon/
For those who want more context, The Guardian has published the full text of Bishop Budde’s remarks: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/24/bishop-mariann-edgar-budde-sermon-that-enraged-donald-trump
Jonathan said “ For a general analysis to work, you need to change the message 180 degrees.”. Yes, I agree. And if Bishop Budde had done so, yes, I would not have criticized her — IMO the National Prayer Breakfast is to some degree a political event — made so by who is invited and who comes to the event. Parrhesia — criticism of those in power to their face, in spite of the danger — is an important element of any democracy. We need it.
Kent, thanks, I was assuming that people would be able to distinguish an allusion to Kant’s categorical imperative from whataboutism. My bad.
Caitlin Flanagan published an interesting critique of Budde: politically it was fine, and that was the problem, since it failed to distinguishing the Christian gospel message from amorphous do-good-ism. I don’t know if I agree or not.
@bbell: I don’t think of mercy as “liberal theology.” We used to talk about compassionate conservatism. Mercy is antithetical to Trump and Trumpism. “I will make the bad guys suffer” is central to his brand–with a ridiculously broad definition of “bad guys.”
Anything said to the president in public is going to be interpreted through a political lens. I’m more concerned about whether what she said is true and consistent with Gospel, and it is. It’s consistent with what the Church has said about immigrants, and I could see Elder Kearon saying something similar–but he’d never say it directly to Trump.
To answer the OP’s question about how and LDS leader would act in this situation, my sense is that whenever an LDS leader interacts with a political leader, they’re thinking “We may need this person’s help to get a temple sited or get some missionary visas approved someday.” So they prioritize the relationship over speaking the truth to power. We’re used to the system being stacked against us sometimes and needing allies to get things done. Episcopalians are not–we’ll see if that changes now.
I’m failing to see how asking someone to consider compassion when carrying out their agenda is an attack.
Also note: She never says the sentence “We’re scared now.” Rather there is no break in the first sentence of your quote and she says “I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now.”
She spoke for 12 minutes about unity and then ended with the encouragement to apply the message.
That would be perfectly acceptable in an LDS talk. Sure, we don’t call people out by name, but let’s be real, it’s okay to publicly acknowledge Trump in attendance and direct the message at him. He’s the president. And it’s definitely been done before (see comments above about Biden and abortion)
She clearly explained that unity does not require policy to end up in line with our hopes and prayers. And she clearly explained that in every policy there are winners and losers. She never advocates for policy to end up anywhere. She just asked for an attitude of mercy and compassion.
If that is offensive then I’m just lost here on what is allowed in public discourse. Can we even quote the golden rule or is that also offensive?
This is what the church said a while back:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has long expressed its position that immigration reform should strengthen families and keep them together. The forced separation of children from their parents now occurring at the U.S.-Mexico border is harmful to families, especially to young children. We are deeply troubled by the aggressive and insensitive treatment of these families. While we recognize the right of all nations to enforce their laws and secure their borders, we encourage our national leaders to take swift action to correct this situation and seek for rational, compassionate solutions.
Just another Uber Liberal political schill. Do a little checking on her background and her history (and that of her son) she’s just another wealthy Liberal elitist; shaking her hypocritical finger at Trump and everyone else. Her entire message is lost in an idealogical haze. She’s certainly free to say these things….and I’m equally free to dismiss her entirely for who she really is.
Not sure how I feel about Bishop Budde’s plea.
Ideologues are often wrong even when they’re right.
“I’m equally free to dismiss her entirely for who she really is.”
Sorry to pick on you Grizzerbear65, but this is a great example of a very serious problem in our society today. “If someone is from the other political tribe, then I don’t have to think about whether what they say is true or not. I can completely dismiss it because of who they are.” Combine that with “information sources” whose primary purpose is to promote the interests of the tribe and its leaders (and whose secondary purpose is to entertain, with inform seemingly not on the list at all), along with decades of messaging that any other information source is part of the other tribe, and the leaders of the tribe have nearly complete control of what information their followers believe and thus what they think. If they hear anything contrary to the party line, they will immediately dismiss it. The result is Orwellian, but it’s all voluntary. It’s really quite amazing.
It’s a serious problem in both tribes, but it has gone much further on the right.
excellent, indirectly related reflections from Peter Wehner in the Atlantic (gated; available on Apple News): https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/01/evangelicals-trump/681450/
In my judgement Bishop Budde’s remarks as a whole are very much in line with the teachings of Jesus Her comments line up very well with Pres. Nelson’s plea to be peacemakers a few conferences ago. I highly recommend reading or listening to the entire sermon, and not just the few lines at the end that got all the headlines.