The Sense(lessness) of the House

 In a moment of crisis, when a display of courage and good judgment is called for, the U.S. House of Representatives can usually be counted upon to act like monkey in the zoo, throwing poop at all and sundry.

In witness whereof, we offer H. Res. 59, introduced to that august body by Rep. Josh Brecheen (R-OK-2) and his 20 co-sponsors on 23 January, 2025.  It seeks a resolution declaring the "sense of the House" that Bishop Budde's sermon at the National Prayer Service was "a display of political activism" with a "distorted message."

This is, of course, not merely nonsense but nonsense doomed to fail.  But as a record of these grim times, we offer here the text of the resolution:

Whereas the National Prayer Service is a longstanding tradition in which the United States publicly affirms dependence upon God and prays for the success of our President and Vice President;

Whereas, on January 21, 2025, President Donald J. Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance took part in the National Prayer Service at the National Cathedral in Washington, DC; and

Whereas the Right Reverend Mariann Edgar Budde, the bishop leading the inaugural prayer service, used her position inappropriately, promoting political bias instead of advocating the full counsel of biblical teaching: Now, therefore, be it

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.

It is a sign of the times that a plea for mercy on behalf of the powerless is construed as either political activism or a distortion of the Christian message, when in fact is very nearly the heart of Christian social ethics.

Disturbing as the misunderstanding of Christianity may be, we find the misunderstanding of Congress's role more disturbing still. While the very existence of a National Prayer Service (and Breakfast, and many other things) raise significant questions about the separation of church and state, it is the attempt of Congress to condemn a preacher's sermon that poses those questions most sharply. 

Are our elected officials now theologians? Are they now, like King James I, going to summon tame court preachers, who tremble before them and flatter them for fear of retribution? In other words, is the Christian faith expected to be an unreflective servant of the civil power, a bit of ceremonial frippery tacked up to impress the rubes and impart a nimbus of piety to impious princelings?

The answer that politicians have always desired, to all those questions, is Yes.  But the answer proposed by the Constitution is a resounding No.