A Sermon on Unity Divides
Kevin James May/June 2025Was it a call to greater national harmony? Or partisan meddling? “Elected theologians” weighed in.
The American colonies pursued separation from England in the interest of liberty. Our nation’s Constitution creates space for liberty to flourish, and our Bill of Rights places religious liberty at the very top of the 10 amendments. From the time America became a union of states under the Constitution, the promotion and preservation of religious liberty has been intimately tied to liberty of speech and press, peaceful protest, and the ability to call upon the government for redress without political or legislative backlash. Within this order, free religious expression is preserved by a government that holds no theological opinions, but instead protects the rights for all people to exercise their faith freely.
For more than 200 years citizens have spoken truth to power without negative consequences from the government. Our history is replete with religious groups or leaders who have felt free to call out the flaws and moral failures of the state, encouraging the nation toward its potential of a “more perfect union.” Perhaps one of the most memorable occasions of this was Martin Luther King Jr.’s August 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech, delivered from the foot of the Lincoln Memorial on the Mall in Washington, D.C. There King called for this nation to live up to its fundamental creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”
In recent times, however, debates about the best ways to preserve liberty have become deeply divisive. We are a people becoming more tribal and less tolerant of those with whom we disagree. This tribalism was on full display earlier this year following a short homily given in the National Cathedral a day after the presidential inauguration.
Acknowledging the deep divisions in our nation, Episcopalisn bishop Mariann Edgar Budde shared a short discourse on unity. “As a country,” she began, “we have gathered this morning to pray for unity as a people, and a nation. Not for agreement, political or otherwise, but for the kind of unity that fosters community across diversity and division.” Throughout her message Budde carefully developed the idea that unity is “not conformity, it is not victory. It is not polite weariness or passivity born of exhaustion. Unity is not partisan.” She defined unity “as a way of being with one another . . . to genuinely care for one another even when we disagree.” This, she said, is what makes it possible for those of differing views to share the same political and geographical space in a healthy way.
These were surely words needed for our times. It was a moment of speaking truth to power, and the power sat directly in front of Budde’s elevated podium.
But then Budde closed her message with a direct appeal to the president. She reminded him that the day before he had “told the nation” that he “felt the providential hand of a loving God.” She proceeded to step directly into topics freighted with partisan baggage, calling on the president to exercise “mercy upon the people who are scared now . . . gay, lesbian, and transgender children” along with those “people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings, who labor in poultry farms and meat-packing plants, who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants and work the night shifts in hospitals.” She urged the president to treat kindly “those in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away” and “those who are fleeing war zones and persecution in their own lands.”
The reactions came swifty. There were those who condemned her words as unseemly meddling. Others, however, saw her message as consistent with the values of a nation “conceived in liberty”—the idea that with liberty comes responsibility to care for the less-privileged among us; that there can be no liberty when some among us are deprived of the civil liberties this nation was formed to protect and promote.
Perhaps the most troubling reaction, though, came from Congress. Two days after Budde delivered her homily, Congressman Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma—supported by 22 others in the House—drew up a resolution condemning Budde’s “distorted message.” This resolution deemed Budde’s words as “promoting political bias instead of advocating the full counsel of biblical teaching.”
House Resolution 59 has generated hardly any notice in the media, and it very likely will not find any traction toward a house vote. But its under-the-radar nature doesn’t negate the startling shift it represents.
Public officials may not appreciate a critical religious voice. They may disagree deeply with what is said. But they cannot respond with a legislated theological critique, or by drawing up a resolution suggesting what may, and may not, be said to power. The very heart of America’s unique religious liberty regime is the bedrock principle that elected leaders can never be arbiters of theological orthodoxy. The actions of Representative Brecheen and his supporters represent a profound misunderstanding of this principle.
Article Author: Kevin James
Mr James's constituency encompasses Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. His primary responsibility is to provide assistance to church members who seek Sabbath accommodation in the workplace, and in that function has led numerous individuals through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claims process. Mr. James is an ordained minister, and prior to his work with the Southern Union, served as local church pastor for over 20 years.