PCUSA backs Episcopal Bishop Mariann Budde who rebuked Trump in sermon

[RamiC]

There is no need for further debate. However, it is evident that American Christianity has evolved. It appears to be increasingly influenced by political ideology rather than Biblical principles.

Some Christians believe that abortion can be justified, gay marriage is acceptable, and homosexuals can serve as priests if they follow Jesus' teachings about social justice, feeding the hungry, and caring for the poor and weak.

Some Christians oppose abortion, disapprove of same-sex relationships, but acts of mercy and showing compassion is lefty liberal socialist agenda.

Where you say "American Christianity", I can simply add fyi that the same thing is going on in Europe.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

What did she mean by mercy? By implementing leftist values? That’s my interpretation of her sermon.

I didn't realize that showing mercy to the weak, poor, and foreigners is considered a leftist value.

As a Christian, I thought this was the teaching of Jesus, who said- love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, “I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.” ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."

It's disheartening to repeatedly explain element level biblical principles on a Christian forum.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It does not matter whether you answer the question or not. The accusations and attacks on Bishop Budda over the past two weeks illustrate the beliefs of many conservative supporters, particularly some of President Trump.

Many conservatives accuse that liberals and college campuses promote tolerance in theory, but in reality, they are often intolerant of differing viewpoints. I concur with this assessment.

Today, on college campuses and among liberals, there is an emphasis on tolerance for homosexuality, transgenderism, diversity, and various religions, especially Islam. However, some liberals can’t tolerate Christian perspectives, lifestyles, or teachings.

However, there appears to be a contradiction in the behavior of some conservatives. While they criticize liberals for being intolerant, accuse the Biden administration of suppressing free speech, and claim that Democrats do not practice religious freedom, they simultaneously engage in similar actions towards Bishop Budda.

Since Bishop Budda gave her sermon, numerous conservative elected Republican officials have accused and condemned her. There is a bill in the US Congress to condemn Bishop Budda.

Ok. Fair enough. My problem really doesn't have to do with her, but with the whole liberal agenda, anyway. She's just an easy target. I'll give you that.

I may also have a mistaken caricature of liberalism, just as most liberals I have talked to have of conservatism. Most of the liberals to whom I have spoken independently actually believe in such things as owning what they earned, the ability to choose what seems best to them, or according to conscience, and even limited government, as long as it isn't presented in terms related to talking points and political correctness.

The bishop represented, to me, that agenda, talking points and political correctness, statements made from the mindset of symbolism over substance, and principle rather than practical application. Not many conservatives would think an illegal immigrant in distress should not be helped. The problem we see is that these illegal immigrants, specially the ones in distress, are because of the liberal mindset, that has been hijacked and talking points made rather than substantial facts, applied to the border situation. The liberal politicians have invited them in, and so have invited a world of trouble in. It's time to send the problems back as best as we can, and to mitigate the actions and attitudes that brought them about.

The bishop DID disproportionately represent the effects of Trump's agenda, compared to the effects of the last many years' liberal agenda. But, I guess, that was her job. It was certainly her intention, whether her statements were hyperbolic or not, to be one-sided.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I didn't realize that showing mercy to the weak, poor, and foreigners is considered a leftist value.

As a Christian, I thought this was the teaching of Jesus, who said- love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, “I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.” ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."

It's disheartening to repeatedly explain element level biblical principles on a Christian forum.

At the end of the sermon Jesus says those who heed what he says are those who build their house on a rock. However, those who don't heed his words and do as he taught are those who build their house on sand, and great is the ruin of it.

 

[Paidiske]

Anyone would.

I didn't. It was, what, the first day of his presidency? Her remarks couldn't possibly, at that point, be about what he had done; because there had been no time for that. They were looking forward, to what he might do, and the principles which might guide his decision making.

I didn't take it as a "rebuke" (there's a loaded word) but an exhortation, which is, after all, one of the legitimate functions of preaching. I didn't see it so much as one-sided as tailored to her audience. I would think that had the other side won, she would have similarly tailored the message to the audience.

 

[Michie]

I didn't. It was, what, the first day of his presidency? Her remarks couldn't possibly, at that point, be about what he had done; because there had been no time for that. They were looking forward, to what he might do, and the principles which might guide his decision making.

I didn't take it as a "rebuke" (there's a loaded word) but an exhortation, which is, after all, one of the legitimate functions of preaching. I didn't see it so much as one-sided as tailored to her audience. I would think that had the other side won, she would have similarly tailored the message to the audience.

Not so sure about that but I thought it highly inappropriate. People are going to take things how it hits them at the time. And even in her following interviews she admits it was political. She asked how it could not be? People can praise it or not. It’s no matter but I thought it was pretty transparent.

 

[Paidiske]

Not so sure about that but I thought it highly inappropriate.

I'm hearing that from some Americans, but I just don't understand why. Why is it inappropriate for a bishop to exhort our leaders to virtue?

If she had said, for example, "And this is exactly what mercy should look like in detailed policy terms," I'd agree that was problematic. But in general? Pointing out that there are vulnerable and frightened people who should be met with mercy? I'm just not seeing the problem.

And even her her following interviews she admits it was political.

The gospel is political. "Jesus is Lord," is just about the most profoundly political thing one could say; because it undercuts any other claim to ultimate authority. It reminds all of us that our authority is only provisional and, for those of us who claim Jesus is Lord, constrained.

My reaction was, God grant me the courage and integrity to preach as well in my own context.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I'm hearing that from some Americans, but I just don't understand why. Why is it inappropriate for a bishop to exhort our leaders to virtue?

Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you. (Proverbs 9:8)

 

[Gregory Thompson]

A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself; The simple pass on and are punished. (Proverbs 22:3, 27:12)

 

[ozso]

She preached pure gospel; “Provide food for the hungry, water for the thirsty, shelter for strangers, clothing for those without, care for the sick, and visit those in prison. Assist widows, ensure justice for the weak and fatherless. “ , and asked President to show Marcy.

However, some Christians find challenges with the gospel today as it may not align with their political perspectives.

What has she had to say about living a life of holiness in obedience to Christ forsaking all else?

 

[ozso]

I'm hearing that from some Americans, but I just don't understand why. Why is it inappropriate for a bishop to exhort our leaders to virtue?

If she had said, for example, "And this is exactly what mercy should look like in detailed policy terms," I'd agree that was problematic. But in general? Pointing out that there are vulnerable and frightened people who should be met with mercy? I'm just not seeing the problem.

The gospel is political. "Jesus is Lord," is just about the most profoundly political thing one could say; because it undercuts any other claim to ultimate authority. It reminds all of us that our authority is only provisional and, for those of us who claim Jesus is Lord, constrained.

My reaction was, God grant me the courage and integrity to preach as well in my own context.

She pleaded for mercy as one would from an unmerciful tyrant.

 

[RamiC]

Since Bishop Budda gave her sermon, numerous conservative elected Republican officials have accused and condemned her. There is a bill in the US Congress to condemn Bishop Budda.

Perhaps a Bill to establish a set protocol for the spiritual part of the process of inauguration for a new President would be more constructive. Set out who chooses the faith leader, and write down some guidelines or principles about what they should say. At a guess, a bunch of law makers elected in such a large country could perhaps manage to sort that out.

I am curious as to how in a country with the separation of powers, the government can even try to condemn a faith leader. Is she accused of some actual crime?

 

[RamiC]

She pleaded for mercy as one would from an unmerciful tyrant.

Do you think it is not Christian to do that?

 

[High Fidelity]

No surprise there. PCUSA has long gone liberal.

Right, and I’m pretty sure they also (wrongly) support the ordination of women.

The message was mostly fine, just ironic coming from someone living contrary to Scripture themselves.

 

[ozso]

Do you think it is not Christian to do that?

I don't think it's Christian, if it was wrongfully and or disingenously placed. I found her incorporation of children with LGBTQQIP2SA+ the most disturbing. Children have been made the face of genderqueer pansexuality et al. So no I'm not seeing Christian in that. I'm seeing something straight out of the pit of Hell.

 

[RamiC]

I don't think it's Christian, if it was wrongfully and or disingenously placed. I found her incorporation of children with LGBTQQIP2SA+ the most disturbing. Children have been made the face of genderqueer pansexuality et al. So no I'm not seeing Christian in that. I'm seeing something straight out of the pit of Hell.

On that particular point, so am I. Children do not have sexuality. Some are born intersexed, that is a biological condition, but she said trans-children, and there is no such thing. However, while proffessional mental health experts get away with telling people that they do, presenting the situation as if they are actually helping children, and are not corrected by their own peers, some people will continue to be mislead because they are trying to be respectful of someone else's area of expertise. It is unspeakably tragic, but the solution IMHO is demanding that psychologists do not use children as pawns to subject to their grand unproven theories.

You did not specify that issue when you objected to her pleading, you objected to pleading as if he is an unmerciful tyrant. Christians should object to unmerciful tyranny.

 

[ozso]

On that particular point, so am I. Children do not have sexuality. Some are born intersexed, that is a biological condition, but she said trans-children, and there is no such thing. However, while proffessional mental health experts get away with telling people that they do, presenting the situation as if they are actually helping children, and are not corrected by their own peers, some people will continue to be mislead because they are trying to be respectful of someone else's area of expertise. It is unspeakably tragic, but the solution IMHO is demanding that psychologists do not use children as pawns with their grand theories.

You did not specify that issue when you objected to her pleading, you objected to pleading as if he is an unmerciful tyrant. Christians should object to unmerciful tyranny.

Yeah but he's not actually an unmerciful tyrant. So that's false witness via implication.

 

[RamiC]

Yeah but he's not actually an unmerciful tyrant. So that's false witness via implication.

I think because we all see things with our own bias's, you cannot really say that if you assume her tone suggested that the President is a thing Bishop Budde never called him at all, that is false witness.

 

[ozso]

I think because we all see things with our own bias's, you cannot really say that if you assume her tone suggested that the President is a thing Bishop Budde never called him at all, that is false witness.

I'm not going to pretend the intent wasn't clear ie "people are scared now" especially when other comments she's made about Trump are taken into consideration. And really rather than go on about whether or not she was being Christian and or bearing false witness etc. I'll just say I think she was out of line and provoked consternation. And also that the moment has passed and wasn't a big deal in the great scheme of everything going on in the world.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Ok. Fair enough. My problem really doesn't have to do with her, but with the whole liberal agenda, anyway. She's just an easy target. I'll give you that.

I may also have a mistaken caricature of liberalism, just as most liberals I have talked to have of conservatism. Most of the liberals to whom I have spoken independently actually believe in such things as owning what they earned, the ability to choose what seems best to them, or according to conscience, and even limited government, as long as it isn't presented in terms related to talking points and political correctness.

The bishop represented, to me, that agenda, talking points and political correctness, statements made from the mindset of symbolism over substance, and principle rather than practical application. Not many conservatives would think an illegal immigrant in distress should not be helped. The problem we see is that these illegal immigrants, specially the ones in distress, are because of the liberal mindset, that has been hijacked and talking points made rather than substantial facts, applied to the border situation. The liberal politicians have invited them in, and so have invited a world of trouble in. It's time to send the problems back as best as we can, and to mitigate the actions and attitudes that brought them about.

The bishop DID disproportionately represent the effects of Trump's agenda, compared to the effects of the last many years' liberal agenda. But, I guess, that was her job. It was certainly her intention, whether her statements were hyperbolic or not, to be one-sided.

I don’t care about liberal or conservative mindsets, President Trump's agenda, or the Republican agenda. I don't care about an American's status, whether they are undocumented, documented, or a US citizen.

What I value is the teachings of Jesus: provide food for the hungry, water for the thirsty, shelter for the stranger, clothing for the naked, care for the sick, visit those in prison, support widows, and ensure justice for the weak and fatherless. This is what Bishop Budda was preaching.