There are two quotes from church fathers that put clergy squarely in their place: “The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops,” from St. Athanasius, and “The road to hell is paved with the bones of priests and monks, and the skulls of bishops are the lampposts that light the way,” from St. Chrysostom. Sobering words from saints who certainly did not advocate doing away with the office of priest or bishop but who cautioned against the easy access these powerful roles provide to scandal and abuse. They remind us of the importance that bishops play in the life and trajectory of the church, both for good and bad. Archbishop Robert Duncan, our first primate, said it in his wonderfully warm and winsome way: “There may be prophets in the church, but they will not be bishops. “

I write with genuine sadness about the trajectories of two such bishops: one, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the other, TEC Bishop of the Diocese of Washington. I commend to you the article by Ian Paul, theologian, author, speaker, and academic consultant at Fuller Theological Seminary. He is the managing editor of Grove Books and a member of the Church of England General Synod. In his recent article, “What is Justin Welby’s Legacy to the Church of England?,” he gives a long and detailed explanation of Justin Welby’s leadership, beginning with the high hopes in which he was embraced by virtually every party within the Church and ending with the scandal of the Smyth abuse, which ultimately precipitated his resignation.

Ian Paul writes with a great deal of sadness as well, contrasting two different Justin Welbys, one who began with the high hopes of the whole Church, as he proclaimed his own conversion experience to Christ, and his emphasis on mission and evangelism as a centerpiece of the Church. But when it came to serious theological disagreements over matters of human sexuality, identity, and gender, Justin Welby became a Doctor Jekyll to his promising Mr. Hyde. Instead of embracing biblical truth, Ian Paul writes, he seemed to rely more on his own managerial skills and ability to reconcile people in different positions to some common ground. Unfortunately, he wasn’t willing to engage in the kind of deep theological discussions and writings that bishops must engage with in order to fulfill their calling as principal teachers of the Church. Instead, Paul writes, Welby followed the politics of identity and other secular theories in molding his ultimate commitment to pluriform truth. He avoided due process and the hard work it takes for the Church to come to one mind as a conciliar body, standing on the clarity and authority of the scriptures, and the great tradition of what the Church taught at all times and in all places to all people.

At Lambeth, 2022, Welby announced unilaterally that there were now two contradictory understandings of marriage in the Communion, and that was that. The American Anglican Council was there, and we wrote about the theological incoherence of the Anglican Communion’s spiritual leader. We wrote about his efforts to keep faithful Global South leaders from bringing to the floor a vote to reaffirm Lambeth Resolution 1.10, 1998, on the biblical standards for human sexuality, marriage, and leadership within the Church. As Ian Paul noted, Welby’s decision to squash the Global South Anglicans’ patient and respectful request for a referendum on the Lambeth Conference’s Resolution 1.10, the only significant communion-wide doctrinal text to emerge from the Global South, was nothing short of a travesty. It alienated many leaders who were ready to be his friends and who may never respond to another of Canterbury’s invitations. During the conference, one indigenous bishop said informally that it mirrored his experience at boarding school. They say, “Sit down! Shut up, and we’ll tell you what to do.” There could hardly be a starker contrast to the Justin Welby who began his service in the hope of bringing Gospel clarity to the Church of England and the Communion.

The second bishop I wish to write about is the Right Reverend Mariann Edgar Budde, the TEC Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, DC. Much has been written about her sermon, both positively and negatively, in which she singled out President Donald Trump and asked him to have mercy on immigrant communities and the LGBTQ community. (The transcript of her sermon can be read here.) This was done in front of him and the whole audience at the inaugural service.

In the history of the Church, have bishops ever challenged people in positions of power? Yes! We have an ancient tradition going all the way back to Saint Ambrose of Milan, who publicly challenged the Emperor for a massacre he committed in the city of Thessalonica. Bishop Ambrose stated that the Church would refuse the Emperor Holy Communion unless he repented, which he eventually did. But this was done through a letter in a public forum that was not during a worship service dedicated to the worship of the Triune God. Bishop Budde cited Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:24 through 29, with the words in which he closed the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus painted the picture of one who builds his house upon a rock and one who builds his house on sand. But then she went on to exercise what biblical scholars call eisegesis, reading into the text of scripture a particular point of view that is not necessarily in the text itself.

Bishop Budde said unity is the threshold requirement for people to live together in a free society. It is the solid rock upon which to build a nation. But Jesus never said anything of the sort. At the beginning of his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus spoke of the Beatitudes that attract God’s blessing, virtues such as acknowledging our spiritual poverty, humility, sorrow, meekness, mercy, peacemaking, etc. He was talking to a mixed multitude which must have included people of influence, people in religious leadership, perhaps even people in political leadership. But not once in this sermon did Jesus single out one individual. In fact, I find it difficult to come up with any one incident in any of the Gospels where Jesus addressed a crowd and singled out one person, as Bishop Budde did with President Trump. Not only that, but Jesus was not speaking through that Sermon about governance and politics. Nor was he trying to shape public policy. He was shaping hearts for life in the true Kingdom—the Kingdom of God

In general, was this message of mercy and compassion wrong? Of course not. We ought always to have mercy and compassion for everyone, including those with whom we disagree. The Bible has much to say about care for the sojourners in our midst, the widows, the orphans, and the poor. But the Bible also has a lot to say about immigrants obeying the laws and customs of the land (Isa. 56:6-7), not breaking the law no matter how difficult their circumstances may be (Prov. 6:30-31), and how God himself fixed the borders of the peoples when he divided humankind (Deut. 32:8), as well as the borders of the Promised land for the people of Israel (Num. 34:1-15 and Ezekiel 47:13-23). He commanded them and us “not to move the ancient landmark that your fathers have set (Prov. 22:28).

With regard to LGBTQ persons, Scripture teaches that all people are made in God’s image and likeness (Genesis 1:27a) and that the Father loves each of us as much as he loves his own Son (John 17:23, 26). However, we are also told that “male and female he created them” (Genesis 1: 27b). Marriage in the Bible is clearly a covenant between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:18–25; Ephesians 5:22–33; Colossians 3:18–19). Sexual relations are intended only for men and women within this covenant (Exodus 20:14; Hebrews 13:4; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9–11; 1 Timothy 1:8–11).

In other words, the issues we are all facing as a nation divided are complex and difficult. They require careful listening in a spirit of charity and humility. How sad that the Bishop failed to acknowledge these very virtues Jesus himself commends in the Sermon on the Mount as the basis for achieving some common ground and unity in and through the person and power of Jesus Christ. By citing only one position rather than the context of Jesus’ most powerful sermon, she impoverished the message and left herself open to criticisms of preaching on the basis of identity politics rather than the true message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Our job as followers of Jesus is to live our lives on the rock, which is not unity or politics, but Jesus Christ himself. And this love and humility begins individually, through the Church, and out into the world. To that end, Bishop Budde might consider examining herself on whether her own policies that shape the Church, and the policies of the Church in which she serves, are based upon the Rock that she so easily quoted. President Donald Trump’s presence and policies should have been the least of that bishops’ worries. We haven’t mentioned the syncretistic prayers during the worship, or the Islamic call to prayer that was given during the service. Or what about TEC’s refusal to follow the Rock she claims to listen to in their policies of open and free sexuality and their increasingly Unitarian and Universalist theology? What kind of mercy did Bishop Budde’s Church have during the almost 60 million dollar’s worth of litigation against departing Anglicans who could no longer serve a Church that violated their consciences? Where was her sermon on mercy and repentance then?

Everything Jesus points to in the Sermon on the Mount comes back to his ability to define what the law of God actually requires and to go beyond it: how we ought to pray, worship, fast, and care for the poor; his ability as Lord and Savior to proclaim the true Kingdom, the Kingdom of God and to live for that regardless of our clothes or possessions. (Matthew 6:33) Bishop Budde, in her own way, represents the same failings that Justin Welby represents: the failure to have confidence in the clarity and authority of the Word of God above anything else. The universal principles of canon law within the Anglican Communion invest bishops with the solemn duty to expound the scriptures faithfully, with conscientious regard to their clarity and authority, and to guard and propagate the faith once delivered. These two bishops and their churches have failed to do that. Their lack of faith in the clarity, authority, and power of God’s word have led them to expound another Gospel, not the faith once delivered. May the tale of these two bishops remind us that clergy everywhere bear a solemn and weighty burden of leadership that can turn the Church in a positive or a negative direction. May we all pray for our bishops, that they may lead us faithfully according to Scripture, and in the great tradition of the universal Church.