Should Congress Tell Preachers How To Preach?

a Presbyterian response to US House Resolution 59

Freedom of Worship by Norman Rockwell.

A CHURCH MEMBER informed me of a resolution making its way through the US House of Representatives, co-sponsored by our representative, with whom I often agree and whose demeanor and moderation I greatly appreciate. He works hard for our district and represents the region’s view points well. Consequently, I have never written about specific congregational legislation, much less a House resolution, but here I must dissent. I believe a word of caution is in order regarding what appears to be a clear and harmful overstepping of Congressional authority, at least from a conservative Presbyterian’s point of view. As I hope to demonstrate, this is so despite it being a seemingly toothless resolution which does nothing more than “express the sense of the House.”

The text of House Resolution 59 can be found here, and if passed, would result in the following:

Resolved, That—

(1) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the sermon given at the National Prayer Service on January 21st, 2025, at the National Cathedral was a display of political activism; and

(2) the House of Representatives condemns the Right Reverend Mariann Edgar Budde’s distorted message.

This seems innocuous enough, a minor part of the culture wars America is currently engaged in. Many Republicans were offended by the last three minutes of Bishop Budde’s fifteen minute sermon and wish to say so. And surely, we all recognize there are more pressing religious issues for us to address, such as the shuttering of USAID efforts, or the suspension of the Refugee Resettlement program, both of which affect many religious charities who minister to millions of people in danger from hunger, illness or persecution. I agree these are more important, but will allow others who are more invested in the complexities of those public policies to address them.

But I am a Presbyterian minister - as well as an American citizen and US Army veteran - and as such part of my duty is to push back on government when it oversteps its bounds in violation of my church’s constitution, as well as in ways which could threaten our First Amendment rights, explicitly or implicitly. Let me try to explain.

As a member of the Presbyterian Church in America, this is what my church’s constitution states in its Confession of Faith regarding the proper role of civil government -

Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. (Westminster Confession of Faith, 23.3)

Notice the restrictions. Government is not to “assume the administration of the Word,” etc. It is not to “in the least, interfere in matters of faith.” It is not to give preference to one denomination over others, but to make sure that all clergy can exercise their sacred functions, “without violence or danger.” The full paragraph goes on to describe further duties and limitations, the chief purpose of which is to ensure that no one is pressured by the state to conform in the matter of religion. In recent history, Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s successful lawsuit against uneven COVID restrictions is a helpful illustration of the principle that government is not to interfere “in the least, in matters of faith.”

~~~

SO HOW DOES House Resolution 59 violate this principle? By the context in which it has been issued, and what powers it has assumed unto the House of Representatives.

First, the “Service of Prayer for our Nation” is a voluntary, denominational prayer service which no one is obliged to attend. It does not appear that President Clinton ever attended one. It is planned by the Episcopal staff of the National Cathedral. It is not, in any way, a government event, though it is usually attended by many government officials, including the President and Vice President. This is certainly one of the difficulties of our shared “civic religion,” which is most acceptable to all when it remains general, vague and challenge-free.

Second, it is immaterial whether members of the U.S. House of Representatives agree with Bishop Budde’s sermon in part or in whole. In my sermons, I try to preach Christ and Him crucified, regardless of who is present or the purpose of the occasion. But what a sermon should be or do is not within the purview of the U.S. government. Preaching is clearly a “matter of faith” and a “sacred duty” performed by members of the clergy. It is protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, just as the right to respond to a sermon is protected, as the President did the following day. But a House Resolution about a sermon is more than a press release or social media post. It involves representatives’ official roles as civil magistrates, and is thus improper to issue according to the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Third, the Episcopal Church in the United States has a long record of progressive, social activism. None of the (rather general) comments by the preacher should have surprised anyone in attendance. Moreover, even though Bishop Budde addressed the President directly in the last three minutes of her fifteen minute sermon, she did not offer specific policy solutions, but rather left those unstated, asking the President to “show mercy” to three specific groups of people within our nation.

As a preacher myself, I understand how the Bishop’s direct appeal to an individual impacted some hearers as inappropriate to the stated purpose of the service. But I also realize there are times for a preacher to take up their cross and be prophetic in the pulpit in unpopular ways. It is a difficult task that takes both courage and wisdom. But it is not the government’s job to declare its mind on its proper execution. If a member of Congress disagrees with a sermon, there are plenty of ways to address those concerns outside of official declarations, which take on a heightened form of governmental pressure, and thus implicitly serve to suppress religious dissent.

Fourth, even if the House of Representatives believes this call to mercy implied a rebuke of the President’s policies, and thus consisted of “political activism,” it is simply not within their power or purview to “condemn” (sic) a religious message given within a peaceful religious service, regardless of the congregation involved. The annual “National Prayer Breakfast” is arguably closer to a government-sanctioned event, but even that has not proved without controversy, such as when Ben Carson upbraided President Obama on several of his policies in 2013. But I do not recall any House resolutions praising or condemning Dr. Carson’s speech. One person’s “political activism” may be another person’s expression of faith. That is precisely what the freedom of religion within a pluralistic society is meant to guarantee.

Fifth, it is clearly beyond the purview and competence of the U.S. Congress to declare what is “the full counsel of biblical teaching” (cf. the last Whereas clause). As a conservative Protestant myself, I suspect I know what they are hinting at here in regards to Bishop Budde’s sermon, and would likely agree. But I do not cede to any secular Congress the right to declare what the “full counsel of biblical teaching” is. To do so when I agree with them sets a dangerous precedent for when I do not.

Sixth, it is irrelevant how orthodox any of us deem the Episcopal Church to be at the moment or whether the ordination of women is Biblical. It is not within the federal government’s purview to speak to either. The Westminster Confession says civil government is to give no “preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest.” Similarly, the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids religious tests as a qualification for any public office or trust. (Article 6.3). The founders knew the dangers of government declaring what was orthodox or not.

Seventh, and most importantly, HR Resolution 59 comes within a political context, one in which threats and political violence have occurred against public figures, and whose likelihood has been increased by the mass pardoning or commuting of the January 6th rioters, including its most violent offenders. Bishop Budde has received personal threats since giving her sermon. If the sponsoring representatives are not aware of these threats, they should be now, and as part of their civil duty to protect all citizens, withdraw this resolution, as not only overstepping their bounds but harmful to the good ordering and peace of our society. They are to “protect the church of our common Lord,” not pressure a branch of it to perform as they wish.

In short, by condemning Bishop Budde’s message, the House of Representatives would fail in their magisterial duty to uphold her freedom to conduct her religious duties without fear “of violence or danger” (per Westminster Confession 23.3 above). Words have power, and when issued by government officials, can be meant to intimidate or pressure dissenters to remain silent, even in the pulpit. If the National Cathedral (or any church) plans future worship services for government officials that may be thought to be inappropriate, it is certainly within anyone’s power not to attend. But the government has no power to dictate a worship service’s content.

~~~

I DO NOT know the religious commitments or denominations of the sponsoring representatives. What I do know is what my own church teaches me about the proper role of the civil magistrate when it comes to matters of faith and religion. This resolution violates that role, and I respectfully ask that it be abandoned.

Has the U.S. Congress ever done something like this before, in which it condemns the religious speech of a clergy member spoken at a religious service, speech which violated no law nor threatened any person? I do not know, but if they have, then it would have been wrong then as well. If passed, would this resolution set a precedent for future condemnation of religious speech by the government? I do not know that either, but I would ask our elected representatives to do the work of the people, not to interfere in matters to which neither God nor the U.S. Constitution has called them.

I would rather be writing about almost anything else than this. But we live in an age of increasing intimidation and fear, and when one member of the clergy is threatened, we must all speak up. I am thankful for all the good our government does and for the hard work of public servants, including those in the U.S. Congress. I pray for their safety and well-being, along with the other branches of government. May they legislate justly, love kindness, and walk humbly with their God.