Let me begin by saying I was appalled and confused when I found out about the V.P.’s speaking at the convention. With all the rah-rah on unity, to put such a polarizing figure on stage seemed to be a blatant slap in the face.
Though, and no one is more surprised about this than me, I walked away from the speech strangely encouraged. Here’s the play by play:
First, this professing brother started well and ended well in regards to really driving home a message appropriate for our convention. It was the middle/body of his speech where it got awkward with what was basically a re-election speech.
I was feeling very unsettled seeing the over the top exuberance of some at every “victory” Pence touted, but before my emotions got the better of me, I had a bit of a spiritual growth spurt.
Let me explain. I began to ask myself, why would the older, wiser saints, from Dr. Gaines to the EC allow this? And then it dawned on me. Week in and week out I preach to my people that they must let the gospel come to bear wherever God has planted them. That this is God’s plan to save the world. Not to bring the world into the church, but to send the church into the world. So here we have a man, who by all accounts is a sincere believer, who is modeling what it looks like to let the gospel come to bear in their secular profession. Why am I upset?
Now, whether you agree with his politics or not, the fact is, we would all do well to take note of how it looks to not compromise excellence in your profession and also be a faithful witness. I am bi-vocational. I own a real estate company and when I am talking business, I am representing interests and I am committed to delivering the highest level of excellence to my clients, while at the same time I am laser focused about using those and every opportunity to be a faithful witness. Vice President did no more, and he did no less.
Let us submit to our elders in our denomination just like we submit to our elders in the church, there is wisdom in that even when it doesn’t make sense to us. It was a remarkably encouraging time, on to the work!
Ps. Maybe I’m just not mad because I was, in fact, able to get in with my glitter 😉
Fabian Portunato is a Send Network church planter and the lead pastor of Revolution Church in Miami, Fl. He holds an M.Div. from SEBTS. You can connect with him on Facebook and Twitter.
You are braver than I am. I was too chicken to try to sneak my glitter in.
Bold as lions…lol
I find Fabian’s take fascinating because I went the other direction. I said I thought it was a bad idea to begin with. I hadn’t decided whether or not to be in the hall to listen. I went in to see the earlier business. I decided as time got closer, that I would stay and try to keep an open mind – that maybe the speech would follow the guidelines the convention asked of him – that politics would be kept to a minimum, for one. The time he spent was disappointing to me. There was way too much politics. He didn’t have to go there, but he did, against the requests of our convention leadership, I believe. I went from against it, to trying to be open, to being against it again after seeing what actually happened.
Thankfully the security wasn’t as much of an inconvenience as many had anticipated, at least with wait times. I understand that for some the restrictions placed on what items were allowed either prevented their attendance or made it really inconvenient in some ways.
Thanks Brent. I respect that.
So you’re saying . . . shut up and sit down, because after all the “big boys” don’t put their pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us do? No you didn’t put it that crudely, but isn’t that what it amounts to? And in so doing, ignore the concerns of some of our African-American brothers who have expressed concern?
We are told to submit to our Elders, I think there is wisdom in that, because it’s God’s word and will for our lives. that’s all it amounts to. I suspect many people in our churches feel the same disdain you expressed towards me about submitting to our leadership as elders as submitting to their elders in church and that undermines everything in the church.
I suppose my reply did smack of disdain, though it was for your position rather than you in any personal way. I do however apologize for it.
Having said that however, does the admonition to submit to elders not refer to one’s own church, or at most, the Apostles? History tells us of no early church that invited an emperor, someone from “his household,” or any government official to speak; and however the early churches related to one another, our associations and conventions are modern inventions. Mind you, I have no problems with them, but it means we should not look to Scripture for specific examples of how to handle such situations since they either had no associations and conventions, or are completely silent about them. And your answer does not speak to the concerns of our African-American brothers at all.
John, I don’t think that’s quite fair. Our convention leadership was put in place by the messengers, and one of those tasks is making choices about what should be included in the schedule. I think there’s a certain deference we owe to them, although I don’t agree with their decision here. I think that’s also part of the reason I decided to give it a shot and see what the speech would be like. As someone who disagrees with the decision to let him speak, I don’t feel in any way that Fabian is telling me or others to sit down and shut up.
And to be clear, had the decision been to decline the self invitation from the white house, it would have been a move that I would’ve submitted to as well and certainly with less inner turmoil.
Interesting take on this.
Once the decision was made to invite him, the text of the speech was up to Pence, not the Convention, so the issue is the decision to invite him.
I don’t fall in the “never have a politician” address the SBC camp. I think the minute we adopted such a bright line, some event would occur, and we would want to have a politician address us.
Here’s what I would suggest. I would have an open, standing invitation to the Pres or VP of the US to speak to the Convention every year, regardless of party, regardless of who it is. The only qualification being adequate notice etc.
That way, the SBC would not appear to be partisan, but would be giving our top the leaders the honor of addressing our meeting, and we then honor of hearing them.
The truth is – we are awash in politics.
It’s in the resolutions.
We have an agency that deals in politics, and that agency gives an annual report and exhortation. This year the agency had a special evening presentation. I am not criticizing any of that. Just noting politics are already a part of the deal.
I also note that our agency had a conference that was very political, and other evangelical groups have political office holders address their meetings (e.g. Ben Sasse at TGC meeting; Dr. Moore inviting Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio to a conference leading up to the 2016 Presidential run).
It would be naïve to think that every President/VP would be as well received as every other President/VP. It would depend on their policies and how they fit with regard to the SBC constituency.
As it turns out, with no surprise, VP Pence was well liked in the SBC.
I am not one who routinely argues that the SBC needs to make a break with the Republican party etc. because I really don’t believe the SBC has a strong relationship with the party per se.
Let the party become pro-choice, weak on religious liberty, hostile to Conservative judicial nominees, weak on religious expression in the public square, hostile to religious people serving in government (i.e. “Your dogma lives loudly in you.”), and you will see the SBC bolt Republicans quickly. There are other issues that are not per se religious, but are held by many people in the SBC due to regional and other historical reasons – strong national defense, strong domestic policing, lower taxes, Second Amendment rights. If the Republicans change on those matters, there would also be a bolt from the party or at least a softening of support.
But regardless of the fact that by and large at this point in time in the life of our Republic, Republicans are going to appeal more to the SBC constituency, I would fully support extending the same gracious invitation to any Pres or VP, regardless of party.
I could have sat through a stinker of a speech that President Obama may have given, but I would have enjoyed the fact that he would have been there.
Thank you Louis very well put
In our resolutions we speak to the politicians, we don’t need them to come speak to us if they are just going to stump.
I think that this was all much ado about nothing. From all accounts VP Pence is a Christian brother who lives with integrity. He seems to me to be a gracious Christian gentleman. We are commanded to honor our leaders in scripture. I believe that so much that I would have been okay with President Obama’ addressing our convention.
I was not crazy about VP Pence coming and was not crazy about the speech. Not necessarily in the “no politician” camp, but I am in the “only born again believers” camp. The SBC should not allow a politician of any party to use our convention for political purposes which is what I believe took place . He does appear to be a born again believer. Would encourage leadership to use a little more discretion. And no, I would not have come to hear Barak Obama or Donald Trump. Political Party makes no difference. Personal spiritual condition most certainly does.
I’m with Les on this. I would not have gone to the speech. There was absolutely no question what his speech was going to entail. Pence used the SBC. They allowed themselves to be used, eyes wide open.