Connect with us

News

Some Liberal Christians Find Comfort in Bishop Mariann Budde’s Plea to Trump

Published

on

Some Liberal Christians Find Comfort in Bishop Mariann Budde’s Plea to Trump

Millions of Christians in churches around the world heard the same passage on Sunday from the Gospel of Luke. In it, Jesus declares his intentions “to proclaim good news to the poor,” as he speaks to people gathered in a synagogue in Nazareth.

At Episcopal Church of the Transfiguration in Dallas, the passage felt particularly appropriate this week, though it was chosen years ago as part of a three-year cycle of Bible readings.

“It’s Jesus 101,” said Michelle Williams, 55, a parishioner at the church.

It was the first Sunday since a fellow Episcopalian, Bishop Mariann E. Budde, delivered a sermon that many observers heard as an echo of passages like the one from Luke. Speaking at a prayer service at the National Cathedral in Washington the day after President Trump’s inauguration, she faced the president and made a direct plea: “Have mercy.”

After the service, Mr. Trump called Bishop Budde a “Radical Left hard line Trump hater” in a social media post. His foes immediately hailed her as an icon of the resistance. But for many progressive Christians and their leaders, the confrontation was more than a moment of political catharsis. It was about more than Mr. Trump. It was an eloquent expression of basic Christian theology, expressed in an extraordinarily public forum.

Advertisement

Sara Ivey, 71, another parishioner at Church of the Transfiguration, said the sermon reminded her of Psalm 103, which describes God as “merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.” The sermon, which she watched live, made her “very proud to be an Episcopalian,” she said.

Bishop Budde’s sermon delivered a jolt of energy in many mainline Protestant churches, whose numbers and influence have declined steeply from a high point in the middle of the last century. Some mainline Christians have sensed an unsettling whiff of irrelevance that has accelerated in the Trump era, as Mr. Trump has elevated a stream of conservative, political Christianity whose leaders in some cases do not even consider Bishop Budde a fellow Christian.

So it was startling for many progressive Christians and their leaders to see Bishop Budde’s sermon overpower the prayers that were delivered at the inauguration by clergy members who are more sympathetic to Mr. Trump — and to see her rely primarily on theological principles themselves, rather than advocating specific policies.

“A plea for mercy, a recognition of the stranger in our midst, is core to the faith,” Presiding Bishop Sean Rowe, the Episcopal Church’s top clerical leader, said in an interview. “It is radical, given the order of the world around us — it is countercultural — but it’s not bound to political ideology.”

Across the country, mainline churchgoers proudly shared clips of Bishop Budde’s sermon online and made plans to read her books with their book clubs. Priests and pastors discussed the sermon in church newsletters and in intimate conversations with their members.

Advertisement

The clergy members addressed it directly in their sermons, too. At Church of the Transfiguration, the associate rector, the Rev. Ted Clarkson, acknowledged to the congregation that aspects of the bishop’s sermon might have been “hard to hear.” But “mercy is truth,” he said, “and I expect a bishop to preach the truth.” (Bishop Budde preached on Sunday at a church in Maryland.)

Indeed, not all mainline churchgoers appreciated her message. Some at Church of the Transfiguration worried that it had inappropriately politicized the pulpit, or had allied the denomination with one political party, according to the Rev. R. Casey Shobe.

White mainline Christians in the United States are politically diverse, in contrast to white evangelicals, who are overwhelmingly Republican. There are still more Republicans than Democrats in mainline pews, according to an analysis of the 2022 Cooperative Election Study by Ryan Burge, a political scientist. (Episcopalians are something of an exception; 58 percent of them are Democrats.) Even so, the mainline tradition tends to be theologically liberal, preferring Bishop Budde’s message of mercy over an emphasis on judgment or authority.

Pastor Jonathan Barker of Grace Lutheran Church in Kenosha, Wis., said he felt a thrill seeing the clips of the sermon spread across his social media feeds, popping up from Lutheran colleagues, parishioners and people he would not have guessed to be supportive.

His congregation is part of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and it was active in mobilizing support for Jacob Blake, a Black man shot by a white police officer in Kenosha in 2020. Some 50 years ago, at the height of mainline strength, the Grace congregation had about 1,500 people. Now it has about 40.

Advertisement

“We are willing to do things that other people would find hopeless,” he said. “Our Christian tradition is marked by hope. This feels like a time where we need hope.”

Others who had long ago stopped attending services wondered if there might be a place for them after all.

“It gave me hope — maybe I’ll be able to go to church again,” said Amy Tankard, 59, who lives in a rural part of eastern Virginia.

Ms. Tankard had once been part of a church in the Presbyterian Church (USA), with a female pastor. But the church splintered during the coronavirus pandemic, she said, and the pastor was ousted over a dispute over whether the church should stay closed because of health concerns.

Ms. Tankard told her husband she was not setting foot back in church until the church stopped being so involved in conservative politics.

Advertisement

“It feels like, if you are not with the current government, then you are not with church,” she said. “And I miss it. I think it’s why her sermon meant so much.”

It was too soon to know whether one sensational moment in one pulpit was enough to lead people like Ms. Tankard back to church. Mainline Protestants now comprise about 14 percent of American adults, according to the Pew Research Center. Evangelical Protestants represent about 25 percent, and Catholics 20 percent.

Mr. Trump has abandoned the mainline. He announced in 2020 that he no longer identified with the Presbyterian denomination that confirmed him as a child, but rather as a nondenominational Christian, a tradition closely associated with evangelicalism.

Bishop Budde’s message seemed to be resonating beyond the usual audience for Sunday sermons.

Her most recent book, “How We Learn to Be Brave,” was listed as temporarily out of stock on Amazon Friday afternoon. At that time, the book was No. 4 on the site’s list of best-sellers, 11 spots above Vice President JD Vance’s memoir “Hillbilly Elegy.”

Advertisement

The publisher of Bishop Budde’s book, Avery, an imprint of Penguin Books, was scrambling to reprint “a significant number of books,” said Tracy Behar, Avery’s president and publisher. She declined to share specifics.

At Church of the Transfiguration, Father Shobe pointed out that the sermon was more than just the one brief passage that made headlines. In her remarks, he said, Bishop Budde explored more deeply the concept of unity in complex times.

The last few months had been difficult for many people in the mostly progressive Dallas congregation, he said. But they were determined not to spend the next four years fixating on Mr. Trump’s every attention-grabbing move.

“We’re going to be much more focused on the broader work of the kingdom of God, which is beautiful and good and true,” he said. “If we can focus on that which is beautiful and good and true, we will ride through these four years and find our purpose.”

Advertisement

News

Here’s What the New Virginia House Map Looks Like

Published

on

Here’s What the New Virginia House Map Looks Like

Virginians approved a new congressional map on Tuesday that would aggressively gerrymander the state in the Democrats’ favor, giving the party as many as four more U.S. House seats.

The new map draws eight safely Democratic districts and two competitive districts that lean Democratic, according to a New York Times analysis of 2024 presidential results. It leaves just one safe Republican seat, compared with the five seats the G.O.P. holds on the current map.

The proposed map was drawn by Democratic state legislators and approved by Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat. It eliminates three Republican-held seats in part by slicing the densely populated suburbs in Arlington and Fairfax Counties and reallocating their overwhelmingly Democratic voters into five congressional districts, some stretching more than a hundred miles into Republican areas.

Perhaps the most extreme new district is the Seventh, which begins at the Potomac River and stretches to the west and south in a manner that resembles a pair of lobster claws. Several well-known Virginia Democrats have already announced their candidacies and begun campaigning in the district.

Reid J. Epstein contributed reporting.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Southern Poverty Law Center indicted on federal fraud charges

Published

on

Southern Poverty Law Center indicted on federal fraud charges

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche speaks as FBI Director Kash Patel listens during a news conference at the Justice Department on Tuesday in Washington.

Jacquelyn Martin/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Jacquelyn Martin/AP

WASHINGTON — The Southern Poverty Law Center was indicted Tuesday on federal fraud charges alleging it improperly raised millions of dollars to pay informants to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan and other extremist groups, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said.

The Justice Department alleges the civil rights group defrauded donors by using their money to fund the very extremism it claimed to be fighting, with payments of at least $3 million between 2014 and 2023 to people affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan, the United Klans of America, the National Socialist Party of America and other extremist groups.

“The SPLC was not dismantling these groups. It was instead manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose by paying sources to stoke racial hatred,” Blanche said.

Advertisement

The civil rights group faces charges including wire fraud, bank fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering in the case brought by the Justice Department in Alabama, where the organization is based.

The indictment came shortly after SPLC revealed the existence of a criminal investigation into its program to pay informants to infiltrate extremist groups and gather information on their activities. The group said the program was used to monitor threats of violence and the information was often shared with local and federal law enforcement.

SPLC CEO Bryan Fair said the organization “will vigorously defend ourselves, our staff, and our work.”

Blanche said the money was passed from the center through two different bank accounts before being loaded onto prepaid cards to give to the members of the extremist groups, which also included the National Socialist Movement and the Aryan Nations-affiliated Sadistic Souls Motorcycle Club. The group never disclosed to donors details of the informant program, he said.

“They’re required to under the laws associated with a nonprofit to have certain transparency and honesty in what they’re telling donors they’re going to spend money on and what their mission statement is and what they’re raising money doing,” he said.

Advertisement

The indictment includes details on at least nine unnamed informants were paid by the SPLC through a secret program that prosecutors say began in the 1980s. Within the SPLC, they were known as field sources or “the Fs,” according to the indictment. One informant was paid more than $1 million between 2014 and 2023 while affiliated with the neo-Nazi National Alliance, the indictment said. Another was the Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America.

The SPLC said the program was kept quiet to protect the safety of informants.

“When we began working with informants, we were living in the shadow of the height of the Civil Rights Movement, which had seen bombings at churches, state-sponsored violence against demonstrators, and the murders of activists that went unanswered by the justice system,” Fair said. “There is no question that what we learned from informants saved lives.”

The center has been targeted by Republicans

The SPLC, which is based in Montgomery, Alabama, was founded in 1971 and used civil litigation to fight white supremacist groups. The nonprofit has become a popular target among Republicans who see it as overly leftist and partisan.

The investigation could add to concerns that Trump’s Republican administration is using the Justice Department to go after conservative opponents and his critics. It follows a number of other investigations into Trump foes that have raised questions about whether the law enforcement agency has been turned into a political weapon.

Advertisement

The SPLC has faced intense criticism from conservatives, who have accused it of unfairly maligning right-wing organizations as extremist groups because of their viewpoints. The center regularly condemns Trump’s rhetoric and policies around voting rights, immigration and other issues.

The center came under fresh scrutiny after the assassination last year of conservative activist Charlie Kirk brought renewed attention to its characterization of the group that Kirk founded and led. The center included a section on that group, Turning Point USA, in a report titled “The Year in Hate and Extremism 2024” that described the group as “A Case Study of the Hard Right in 2024.”

FBI Director Kash Patel said last year that the agency was severing its relationship with the center, which had long provided law enforcement with research on hate crime and domestic extremism. Patel said the center had been turned into a “partisan smear machine,” and he accused it of defaming “mainstream Americans” with its “hate map” that documents alleged anti-government and hate groups inside the United States.

House Republicans hosted a hearing centered on the SPLC in December, saying it coordinated efforts with President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration “to target Christian and conservative Americans and deprive them of their constitutional rights to free speech and free association.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger Stressed Pragmatism, But Politics Hound Her

Published

on

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger Stressed Pragmatism, But Politics Hound Her

On the night of her resounding win in last fall’s election for Virginia governor, Abigail Spanberger told her supporters that they had sent a message to the world. “Virginia,” she said in the opening lines of her victory speech, “chose pragmatism over partisanship.”

But even then it was clear that the first big issue of her term would be as partisan as it gets: a proposed amendment by her fellow Democrats to allow them to gerrymander the state’s 11 congressional districts.

The push to redraw the Virginia map was another salvo in a barrage of redistricting spurred by President Trump in a bid to keep Republicans in control of the House in this year’s midterm elections.

Virginians vote on Tuesday on whether to adopt the proposed map, and if the “Yes” vote wins, Democrats could end up with as many as 10 seats, up from the six they hold now. The redistricting battles of the last year would end up in something of a draw, with gains for Democrats in California and Virginia offsetting gains for Republicans in Texas, Missouri and North Carolina — unless Florida lawmakers decide in the coming weeks to draw a new, more Republican-friendly map.

Historically, redrawing of congressional maps has been done each decade after the U.S. census. But with Republicans holding such a slim majority in the House, Mr. Trump began by pressing Texas to redraw its maps, touching off the wave of gerrymandering

Advertisement

Virginia Democratic legislators rolled out their redistricting plan last October, setting in motion the state’s lengthy amendment process just as the campaign for governor was entering its final weeks. At the time, Ms. Spanberger expressed support for the plan, though she emphasized that its passage was up to the legislature and then to the voters.

But even if her formal role in the process was relatively minor — Ms. Spanberger signed the bill setting the date for the referendum — the politics of the effort has loomed over the first few months of her term. Her support for the amendment has drawn accusations of hypocrisy from the right and complaints from some on the left that she has not been outspoken enough in her advocacy.

“There’s always going to be somebody who wants me to do something differently,” the governor said in an interview on Saturday at a rally in support of the amendment outside a home in Northern Virginia. “I will always make someone unhappy, and I will always make someone happy.”

Ms. Spanberger, a former C.I.A. officer and three-term congresswoman, won a 15-point victory in 2025 after running on a campaign focused on pocketbook issues. Centrism has been her political brand since she was first elected to the House in 2018, flipping a district that had long leaned to the right.

Now Republicans campaigning against the amendment have made Ms. Spanberger a prime target, deriding her as “Governor Bait-and-Switch” and highlighting an interview in August 2025 in which she said she had “no plans to redistrict Virginia.”

Advertisement

“This was the perfect opportunity for her to show that she is the middle-of-the-road suburban mom that she portrayed herself as,” said Glen Sturtevant, a Republican state senator. He dismissed the notion that this was an effort that had been thrust upon her, pointing out that she had signed the bill setting the date for the referendum. “She is certainly an active participant in this whole process,” he said.

Republicans have eagerly highlighted recent polls suggesting that Ms. Spanberger’s honeymoon is over, though because governors in Virginia cannot serve two consecutive terms, public approval is less of a pressure point than it might be elsewhere. Some of her political adversaries have tied the drop in her ratings to her involvement in the campaign for the amendment.

But a number of factors are at play in those sagging poll numbers. Some on the right are irked by her support of standard Democratic priorities like gun control measures and limits to cooperation with federal immigration agents.

But some of the most vociferous criticism of her from Republicans, up to and including the president, has been for a host of proposed taxes and tax hikes in the legislature — on everything from dog grooming to dry cleaning — that she in fact had nothing do with. Most of those taxes, which were floated by various lawmakers, never even came up for a vote.

But Ms. Spanberger did not publicly hit back against these attacks until recent days, a delay that some Democrats say was costly.

Advertisement

“She let other people define her,” said Scott Surovell, the State Senate majority leader.

Mr. Surovell’s frustration echoed a growing discontent among Democrats about the governor’s recent moves. For all the Republican criticism of her, some operatives and lawmakers said, Ms. Spanberger has not been aggressive enough in pushing for Democratic priorities, redistricting among them.

This criticism broke out into the open in recent days, after the governor made scores of amendments to bills that had passed the General Assembly. Some lawmakers and Democratic allies accused her of unexpectedly diluting long-sought goals like expanded public sector unions and a legal retail marketplace for cannabis.

“Our party base is looking for us to stand up and fight and advocate and deliver,” said Mr. Surovell, who represents a solidly Democratic district in Northern Virginia. “It’s hard to deliver when you’re standing in the middle of the road.”

In the interview, Ms. Spanberger insisted that she supported the purpose of many of the bills but had to make amendments to ensure that her administration could implement them.

Advertisement

And she said she had been explicit in her support of the redistricting effort, appearing in statewide TV ads encouraging people to vote “Yes” even as an anti-amendment campaign has sent out mailers suggesting that the governor opposes the effort.

But she said she had never been in a position to barnstorm the state as Gov. Gavin Newsom did in the months leading up to the redistricting referendum that passed in California. Mr. Newsom is a second-term governor in a much bluer state, she said, while she only recently took office and has been “in the crush of their legislative session,” with hundreds of bills to read and examine in a short period.

“Those who may not be focused on the governing and only on the politics, they’re going to want me to do politics 100 percent of the time,” she said. “And for people who care about the governing and not the politics, they’re going to want me to do governing 100 percent of the time.”

Her preference, as she has often made apparent, is for the governing over the politicking. But she acknowledged that it is all part of the job.

Asked if she lamented that the highest-profile issue of her term so far was such a polarizing matter, rather than the cost-of-living policies she emphasized on the campaign trail, she said: “Any person in elected office wants to talk about the thing they want to talk about all the time, and that’s it. So I won’t say ‘No’ to that question.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending