Last week the social media headlines were filled with commentary over Trump’s attendance of his inaugural prayer service at the Washington National Cathedral, Washington D.C. The cathedral bills itself unsurprisingly as “A House of Prayer for All People”, setting the ecumenical tone right out of the gate. Denominationally, it is affiliated with the Episcopalian Church, specifically the Episcopal Diocese of Washington. This of course means that they trace their lineage back to the Church of England, which began after King James left the Catholic Church over its refusal to grant him a divorce and remarriage. Dubious beginnings, to be sure. Significant to their leadership vision is their following statement, “We believe that leadership in the church is available to all, both lay and ordained, male and female, and can be expressed by all people, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or ethnicity.” It should come as no surprise then that they welcome leadership and team members from all sexes, gender identities, and sexual orientations. The service was led by Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde, who is listed as the spiritual leader of 88 Episcopal congregations and 10 Episcopal schools throughout D.C. and Maryland. Her bio indicates she was received a Ministry of Divinity as well as a Doctor of Ministry. It does not, however, mention her sexual orientation.
Now, full disclosure, I did not watch all of the service. Like most, I saw the clip which likely occurred towards the end in which Bishop Budde offered an appeal to President Trump to be merciful to the LGBTQ community, followed by an appeal of mercy for those illegal immigrants who perform the more lower class, menial jobs in society, I’m paraphrasing. The visual responses from President Trump, his wife, Vice President Vance and his wife were telling, noticeably irritated, however composed. Many, and rightly so, have viewed Bishop Budde’s appeal as political in nature, representing a far more liberal political opinion that what was promoted by the incoming administration (sort of). It’s only fair to note that the Trump Administration has softened its stance on LGBTQ and somewhat on immigration.
With this intro, we need to discuss what the problems were with this whole service. Some have called for the removal of the Cathedral’s tax-exempt status or the firing of Bishop Budde herself. But that is in itself problematic as then the state would be intruding onto the church. I don’t think anyone in the U.S. wants to start setting precedence down that road.
In order to untangle this, we need to first understand that the appearance of the Trump family and several members of his administration at the National Cathedral was entirely political in nature. It has been a presidential tradition dating back to FDR in 1933. Generally, it’s meant to associate the incoming president with faith (in what or whom?) and seen as unifying event. However, this service is also an interfaith gathering. In short, it’s strategic. Turning again to Bishop Budde, her message to Trump at the close of the service was also political, guised in religious overtones and delivered from a pulpit in a cathedral. So then, what we actually had was the intersection of conservative and liberal politics in the theater of God. In other words, this was nothing less than unauthorized worship – for all parties involved; the worship of God, if we can even call it that, was used as a means to an end. On the one hand, when has God ever approved syncretistic, blended-faith worship? NEVER! In fact, some Puritans used to even forbid congregational singing for the explicit reason that an unbeliever may be found offering worship to God. On the other hand, God is not interested in political gain, nor is He interested in false, outward worship for the sake of tradition or photo opportunities. No, God is interested in spiritual worship that proceeds from regenerated heart. Anything less is considered false worship.
Jesus makes this explicitly clear in John chapter 4 of his gospel account
23 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
John 4:23-24
Using this passage as the basis for his discourses on Spiritual Worship, Stephen Charnock helpfully summarizes the practice, with emphasis on the heart, as follows:
- Spiritual worship is a worship from a spiritual nature.
- Spiritual worship is done by the influence and with the assistance of the Spirit of God.
- Spiritual worship is done with sincerity-when the heart stands right to God, and the soul performs what it pretends to perform.
- Spiritual worship is performed with a unitedness of heart.
- Spiritual worship is performed with a spiritual activity and sensibleness of God, with an active understanding to meditate on his excellency and an active will to embrace him when drops upon the soul.
- Spiritual worship is performed with acting spiritual habits.
Before we can even begin to discuss whether or not Bishop Budde, a woman, should have been in the pulpit, or whether the Episcopal Church steeped in liberalism, should be censored, or whether the National Cathedral should lose its tax exempt status, before any of that is even discussed, the issue that must be dealt with is how should the Holy God be approached in worship. The principal problem with what took place is first and foremost a matter of Who God is with respect to sinful people and how it is that the infinite gulf between Creator and creature should be bridged through the person and work of Jesus Christ alone, and subsequently how the Trinitarian God ought to be worshipped.
Drawing this post to a close, worship of God is not a political event whether from the pulpit or the pew. This brings up again the question that many focused on related to the validity of a woman “preacher”. Before we can take a stance on whether a woman should be in the pulpit, we need to step back even further and ask: is the pulpit and subsequently the pew model even valid based on the New Testament? Surely this is a sore subject with most, but we can’t decry one practice on the basis of the New Testament but allow others just because of our own traditions or preferences. No, everything must fall under the authority of God’s Word, especially in matters of worship. If we were to reexamine this in light of the New Testament and find it wanting, then perhaps in a worship service a singular person is not given a platform to advance errors or heresies. Instead, the entire gathering is able to weigh what is said and offer rebuttal in accordance with God’s Word (1 Corinthians 14:29-30).
The fallout from this event brings to the surface a number of issues, not the least of which is the relationship between church and state. This will definitely be a concern going forward as the underlying current suggests a desire of the state to direct the affairs of the church. When the state is conservative, at least in name, most people are fine with steps or actions being taken towards a liberal church. However, we would then need to be prepared for the opposition scenario and reaction, which is exactly what we have seen in our series on the Universal Church Theory. Finally, and more importantly than this is the worship of God. For far too long we have assumed the tradition and practices we have been handed down and have been cowardly about returning to the New Testament and demanding that God’s Word be the sole authority for how He is to be worshipped. Do we find passive pew-sitting participants? Do we find monologue pre-rehearsed sermons ala the Greek rhetoricians? Or do we find the burden placed on every member to participate and bring to the gathering the spiritual gifts that God has given so that every part of the body is functioning in harmony for mutual edification?
Ecclesia semper reformanda
