Editorial: Support religious freedom. Reject HR 59.

A group of U.S. representatives wishes to condemn a sermon on the grounds it “promot[ed] political bias instead of advocating the full counsel of biblical teaching.”

As true as their assessment of the sermon may be, it’s not for the government to decide.

Any government that attempts to determine what constitutes “the full counsel of biblical teaching” oversteps its bounds. This is especially true in the United States, where the First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees both freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

A sermon falls squarely within the protections of both freedoms—and therefore is off limits to government censure.

The most recent example of overreach, noted above, occurred Jan. 23. An example of how we can respond to this overreach took place in 2014.

Condemning a sermon

On Jan. 23, members of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced House Resolution 59 to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The resolution takes direct aim at Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde, who oversees the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. In particular, the resolution seeks to condemn her sermon delivered during the National Prayer Service on Jan. 21.

“Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives,” the resolution calls Budde’s sermon a “display of political activism” and a “distorted message.”

However true that may be, the mere introduction of such a resolution by U.S. representatives ought to be concerning—if not outright condemned itself.

If we allow elected officials to determine what sermon constitutes a “display of political activism,” a “distorted message” or “the full counsel of biblical teaching,” then what’s to stop our government from deciding the legitimacy of any sermon?

Frankly, it’s ironic that the sermon would be deemed political when the entire National Prayer Service is a political event, and the National Cathedral itself is a temple of civil religion.

The sermon

Budde’s sermon was addressed to her audience—a room full of politicians. Her appeal to unity was an appeal in keeping with America’s civil religion. She would have elicited no more than a yawn from those in attendance if she had stopped at 12 minutes and 20 seconds.

After a deep breath and a pause, Budde continued, making a second plea—a plea for mercy. That two minutes—in which Budde addressed President Donald Trump directly and pleaded for mercy for gay, lesbian and transgender children, and for low-wage laborers, many of whom are immigrants, some of whom are undocumented—is what has drawn condemnation.

Whether her sermon is worthy of condemnation is not for government decree, however.

Defending sermons

Here, we must remember what happened in 2014 when five pastors were subpoenaed in Houston.

The subpoenas ordered the turning over of “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO [Houston Equal Rights Ordinance], the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.”

Reaction to the subpoenas was swift and strong from the likes of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and then-State Sen. Ken Paxton. Abbott’s letter to the Houston city attorney is particularly instructive here.

Quoting directly from Texas Tribune’s report: “No matter what public policy is at stake, government officials must exercise the utmost care when our work touches on religious matters,” Abbott wrote.

“If we err, it must be on the side of preserving the autonomy of religious institutions and the liberty of religious believers. Your aggressive and invasive subpoenas show no regard for the very serious First Amendment considerations at stake.”

This is precisely the argument I am making with respect to the U.S. representatives’ resolution introduced Jan. 23. If it was a legitimate argument for the circumstances in 2014, then it’s a legitimate argument for the circumstances now—even with the differences in detail.

Baptist heritage

For hundreds of years, Baptists have stood against government censure of religion, and we must continue to do so now. Not because we agree with every religious position or utterance, but because we know from our own history what happens when the government decides what religion is permissible.

While a resolution is not legislation—and therefore skirts the First Amendment ban on making a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion—the fact 23 U.S. representatives consider it appropriate to condemn a sermon should be concerning. Such an action is not simply to step up to the boundary. It is to challenge and push against it.

Some may take me to be condemning those who condemn advocacy for gay, lesbian and transgender people, and undocumented immigrants. That would be to read one’s own position into my editorial. What I am condemning is government declaring in any way what constitutes “the full counsel of biblical teaching.” That’s not for the government to decide.

Defending Budde’s sermon against government censure does not mean agreement with everything in the sermon. Such agreement is not necessary to defend the free exercise of religion—including what a person preaches to a room full of politicians in attendance by choice, not compulsion.

I encourage readers to contact the U.S. representatives who authored or cosponsored House Resolution 59 to let them know such an action is inappropriate. Those individuals are listed here.

The City of Houston dropped the subpoenas after the strong reaction to them. House Resolution 59 should be dropped after our strong reaction to it.

Eric Black is the executive director, publisher and editor of the Baptist Standard. He can be reached at eric.black@baptiststandard.com. The views expressed in this opinion article are those of the author.