I want to say from the outset that I would strongly prefer that no elected politician, candidate, or official speak at the Southern Baptist Convention. I would even go so far as to suggest that the host city send a tourism or chamber of commerce representative to welcome us to their fair city instead of a mayor or councilperson. I hope the SBC exec committee will, as a result of the referred motions regarding this, propose a formal nix going forward of our historic practice of inviting and granting space on the platform and/or on the schedule to elected politicians or candidates for secular civic office – I will enthusiastically vote for such a policy if a messenger vote is necessary.
Now for my other thoughts… I agree with my friends who have said that the convention is not the place for “political rallies” for numerous reasons. Among the chiefest of these reasons that comes to mind is that in following JD’s “Gospel First” vision for the SBC inviting (or allowing to come) a speaker who brings a charged partisan political message that is not the gospel or about our cooperative efforts to proclaim it worldwide seems oxymoronic. In addition, the desire toward maintaining and growing unity in our thankfully more and more diverse convention is not advanced by political speeches from the mouth of the VP to perhaps the most controversial President we have ever had.
Having stated that, I also want to say that I am somewhat that glad Vice President Mike Pence spoke at the Southern Baptist Convention.
I am glad because with him came a large gaggle of reporters with cameras and recorders in tow. While they were there, these reporters were exposed to the proclamation of the gospel in song, as well as to the VP of the US refereeing to his personal salvation experience. Several networks broadcast portions of the speech live and so the exposure was not only to reporters but also beamed into the television sets of tens of thousands (maybe more?) of Americans watching at home.
I am further glad that the Vice President of the US is a born-again Christian who is not ashamed to say so. I am glad that he wanted to address our convention. I am glad he cares enough and appreciates us enough to want to speak to us. I am glad that he, as far as this self-proclaimed political buff can tell from a distance, has modeled consistency and straight arrow legislating in keeping with Christian values in a way we can be proud of for well more than to two decades. VP Pence has done this all the way from his time in the US House of Representatives to the Indiana Governors mansion and now he is still influencing the worlds most powerful people with godly principles from the plush 1 Observatory Circle on the campus of the U.S. Naval Observatory.
The point is that he spoke is neither the best thing to happen during the convention this year – nor is the worst. No doubt, there are some who feel his speaking was one or the other, but do I see it as a mixed bag.
I think we might all do well to consider that while many of us would prefer not to have VP Pence speak at the convention – the cloud we felt it brought might, in fact, have a silver lining or two.
I got the feeling that no one was giving any of the speakers directions or parameters—topic or time. We had men preaching sermons when they were to give a report, Dave Ramsey marketing his study, and, I love Ravi, but would have also enjoyed more of the messengers being present for the commissioning service.
I, too, was grateful for the testimony of the VP, but I recognize a stump speech when I hear one. I’m glad he came to speak to us. He shouldn’t have used it a a political rally.
As far as banning civic leaders, that’s unnecessary. Just give them adequate parameters. Example: at local National Day of Prayer gatherings, I’ve always welcomed mayors, county judges, or others who have proclamations to make. But they know not to use it as a personal platform.
Remember, Dr. Gaines (and Barry McCarty) ruled a motion out of order that would have given parameters to VP Pence.
It was certainly a stump speech. But, I am not sure that speech perimeters would work for politicians…they tend to go off script if they so desire and even our highly esteemed low buttoned platform bouncer would hardly (or even be allowed to) to walk up behind him and tap him on the shoulder for going to long like he did Ronnie Floyd. – certainly tapping him to tell him he is saying something that is not allowed is at least somewhat out of the question..LOL
Therefore, the easiest and most efficient way is not to have civically elected office holders or candidates on the schedule in the first place. I did not vote to “uninvite him” when that vote was taken – thinking it was a done deal at that point and like I alluded to in my article – allowing him to speak was in keeping with historic SBC annual meeting practice – I typically do not support changing policy on the fly and retroactively.
Although there were some benefits in the mixed bag – I still say… Historic practice does not mean we have to continue it….Going forward, IMO – no more elected officials or candidates.
Perhaps he could not interrupt the speech once it was started, but giving the VP parameters and seeing if he stuck to them would have said something about his character. I have my own ideas about his character but it would be nice to be proven wrong.
I think we may be a bit naive to think this won’t happen again. The SBC is clearly Trump’s base and the conflation of politics and religion is well established, as we saw, and as I think we will continue to see. I don’t think that’s something Greear can change in 2 years.
Good word!
Thank you, Fabian.
This is a very balanced assessment, Dave. I agree completely, but especially with the part about how we should never allow this to happen again.
Appreciate it, Brent.
I hate to be cynical, but the only reason Pense asked to speak was to build up the Republican base in the run up to the November election. Since he gave a standard stump speech, it was clear his motive was political and not spiritual. Yes he threw in a bit of Christian language, and told us how he walked the aisle, but I would assume that is included in his stump when he speaks to what he judges to be Christian audiences as he often does.
As for the reporters and TV people being reached, I would think it increased their cynicism toward the Gospel as they saw, once again, a politician using his faith to engage in electioneering.
The SBC let itself be used for political purposes. And in doing so it broke trust with many committed SB people.
I don’t totally disagree with what you’ve said – but I was simply trying to be a little more balanced.
It seems we so quickly go to our corners now – everything is either completely bad or completely good. We seem unable to see or acknowledge anything else than our little corner of the good vs evil paradigm – I am getting to the point that I no longer find the reflexive corner runs particularly helpful. It’s a work in progress.
Granted some ideas, actions, etc. are good and some are evil – but not everything. I’m not a relativist – I’m only trying to, with this article, find and highlight the ever shrinking middle and common ground.
Thank you for your good reply. I have a longer comment to give concerning the VP’s speech and how it effects the outreach of local SBC churches in my context, but that will need to wait till at least Monday.
You are right!
I’ve never been a huge fan of political personalities speaking at our sbc annual meeting. However, I’ve already said and will stand by my comments stating the hypocrisy of the outrage over this in 2018 and the lack of outrage with the 2015 namb send conference (fwiw- sbc annual meeting is a business meeting and send was basically commissioning/ discipleship/ worship conference. If one of the two was gonna be ‘political’ which one should it be?). I am very disappointed that there has been numerous articles, mainly blogs within our camp making this an issue. Theres no way this makes national news without articles like this one and tweets during Pences speech. I’m not for a ‘rule/ resolution’ forbidding politicians from speaking. We don’t need another overreaction by the sbc to add to our long list. (Predictions time: pledges, national anthem, ….. any sort of ‘American pride’ will done away with too at our meetings within a couple of years) Committee on order of business and other leaders: Just don’t invite and don’t accept the invitations. It’s not that hard. But if we ever have a completely sold out born again, bold believer in a major political position, ……… man, I would love to hear his conversion testimony at our annual meeting. (I said testimony). Let this issue die and it will. The current leadership will not allow this again, and a trend will be set for future years. Now before I get a lot of negative feedback- the wise move would have been to tell VP Pence no, given many of the great reasons stated in previous articles. See, I do agree with you guys more than you think.
Two more points: One, pence delivered exactly what I expected- a mostly pro trump, political speech. Two, if any politician speaks at the 2019 or 2020 Convention than the sbc president has very little authority in our denomination. Again, this issue will go away, so let it.
Thank you for your thoughts and input, Shelvin. .
There was quite a lot of criticism over RM bringing in Bush and Rubio to the 2015 SEND conference in Nashville.
Disappointed the writer can justify a believer who supports unbiblical behavior, speech and policies. I guess because he’s a believer then all the nasty stuff his administration does is ok. Very disappointed with the biblical inconsistency
Excellent post. I hope your first paragraph is heeded!
Thank you.
I’m not sure why you guys seem so confident that this won’t happen again. By all accounts Pence was welcomed with open arms and any efforts to uninvite him or even keep him on message were pretty thoroughly beaten back. Given the solidly pro-trump sentiments in the SBC, why do you think next year will be different?
BillMac,
Just to be fair, it’s not accurate to characterize all those who voted against the motion to uninvite VP Pence as pro Trump.
Also, I’m not at all confident this won’t happen again unless the rules of the convention are changed to prohibit it… Because it’s been common practice to have elected (and candidating) politicians speak to the annual convention… That will not change without a rules change.
They were not “thoroughly beaten back.” The initial motion was defeated around 60-40 according to twitter estimates, which is a pretty close margin when going against the platform’s enthusiastic recommendation. As has been discussed here before, when the platform wants something, almost always they get their vote. Even the alt-right resolution fiasco last year, there were I believe 4 votes on it and each time the floor voted in agreement with the current platform. This year with the Pence motion, it was basically the first item of business and there had been little effort on social media to rally a vote against Pence. It was doomed to fail.
The rest of the efforts were simply ruled out of parliamentary order.
However, I am confident the platform next year under J.D.’s leadership is going to be very different, at least in terms of what the priorities for non-business items on the agenda will be.
I hope you guys are right. I’d like to think the SBC is not wholly in the tank for Trump, but I’ll believe it when I see it.