Mike Pence Heckled by the Christian Right Because He Didn't Bow to Trump

Mike Pence, White House photo

Earlier today, former Vice President Mike Pence faced loud heckles of “traitor!” and “boo!” when he spoke to the convention of the conservative Faith and Freedom Coalition. The angry audience remembered that Pence had failed to show sufficient deference to Donald Trump when he certified the Electoral College vote.

The Coalition’s annual "Road to the Majority" gathering brings together a collection of conservative politicians, leaders of the Christian Right, and deranged conspiracy theorists. They say that their goal is to bring Christianity into the government.


Christianity Becomes a Weapon

Yet, Trump aside, I would have thought that the Coalition would like the things that Pence spoke about so passionately. Indeed, near the end, he called the United States to “reject Critical Race Theory in all its forms.” That should appeal to even the most bigoted conservatives. He said we would not let “Nancy Pelosi nationalize our elections.” He opposed “religious persecution masquerading as a quest for equal rights.” The Coalition’s purpose is to turn the Christian faith into a weapon that advances political conservatism. Many of the Christian Right’s policy ideas, including oppressing immigrants, flatly contradict biblical morality. The Christian Right doesn't care about mercy to immgrants. That isn’t their point.

So, it is not really the Coalition’s purpose to spread Christian morality. Pence apparently didn’t fully understand this. Indeed, at the speech’s outset, Pence missed the point when he said:

“It is great to be back with so many patriots.”

That got some cheers. But he next said that:

“I’m a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order.”

As he uttered those words, which were, one would think, exactly what the Coalition should want to hear, the crowd shouted “traitor” and booed him. For a time, it became difficult to hear Pence speak. The crowd booed Pence because Donald Trump is the Christian Right’s champion. 

So, in his policies, ideas, and words, Mike Pence is exactly what the Christian Right pretends to support. Unfortunately, he failed in the one test that mattered: absolute loyalty to Trump.


Conservatives Are Cancelling Their Own People

And, so conservatives once again employed (or tried to employ) cancel culture against their own people! Pence had failed to bow to Trump. America’s conservative movement has degenerated to personal loyalty to a most unworthy man. That many members of the Faith and Freedom Coalition demand absolute loyalty to a person, rather than to God, should warn us about their intentions.

That is why the hecklers could not abide Pence. Why they did not even want him to speak. Pence had, unforgivably, accurately counted the Electoral College vote for President on January 6. Donald Trump had famously urged Pence not to count the votes as part of his corrupt Stop the Steal campaign to void the election. At the time, Trump had falsely said that Pence could “decertify the results or send them back to the states for change and certification.”

The Coalition’s reaction to Pence was extremely ironic. Conservatives often complain about what they call cancel culture. They think it’s awful when conservatives are not allowed to speak. Conservatives complained bitterly, and rightly, when libertarian scholar Charles Murray was heckled off a college stage. Today, they turned around and heckled one of their own. This really does need to stop.

Free speech on campus, Charles Murray 

Cancel Culture Gone Amok: Governor Brian Kemp Was Shouted Down by His Own People

  
It wasn’t just the heckling. The Christian Right’s entire function is to stop reasoned speech in its tracks. When they heckled Mike Pence, members of the Faith and Freedom Coalition made it clear that they wanted to stop him from speaking. Even more, however, the Christian Right’s purpose is to shut down reasoned debate. We can debate about any element of American domestic and foreign policy. But when one side claims – falsely, in my opinion – that they represent true religion, how do we argue with that? The Christian Right’s entire ethos is to pretend that they are serving God. Can we argue with Mike Pence? Certainly. But who wants to argue with God? And so, by pretending to speak for God, the Christian Right employs the ultimate conversation stopper. 

Paula White Prayed against Trump's Enemies and Gave a Lesson in How to Shut Down Reasoned Debate


Conclusion

Pence angered some members of the Coalition enough that they wanted him heckled off the stage. Did Pence foolishly think that these people pursued Christian ideals? The crowd’s hostile reaction to Pence shows that they sought political power, not religious perfection. Does the Christian Right think that faith requires loyalty to God? Or to Trump? For Trump is not God. Let us remember, however, that the Christian Right can only define God if other Christians allow them to do so.

Yes, the conservative movement shrinks daily. But as its followers become more fanatical, its baneful power grows.

The Golden Trump Statue at CPAC 2021: Conservatives Worshipping a Golden Idol?   

How to Heckle in a Tasteful and Witty Manner 


P.S. Security at the Faith and Freedom Coalition Conference escorted some of the worst hecklers out of the room. Many of them, however, were apparently allowed to remain. Pence was able to complete his speech, although, to my ears, he sounded just a bit subdued or chagrined. He got a few cheers here and there.

Vice President Mike Pence's Speech at the Marine Barracks: Policy without Proof?

Mike Pence, White House Photo

Yesterday, October 23, 2017, Vice President Mike Pence spoke at the Marine Barracks in Washington DC to commemorate the 1983 Beirut bombing, which killed 241 service personnel, mostly United States Marines. Members of a peacekeeping force, they were killed by a suicide bomber. The bombing, probably planned by Hezbollah and Iran, eventually led to President Ronald Reagan's decision to withdraw American forces from Lebanon.

Although Pence's speech was mostly long, dull, and predictable, he made some important points in an important way. As I have noted many times, ceremonial and commemorative speakers often support policies. But they do not support policy with arguments and evidence. Instead, they tell the audience what values the honored dead stood for, and say that we must follow their example. Or they might use praise and flattery. This can be, on the one hand, noble and right. We do want to honor our traditional values, which we forget at our peril. On the other hand, because the world changes every day, we want to be sure that our old policies are still right, which might require careful study.

Epideictic speeches, usually given at ceremonies like this one, give praise or blame to someone, often someone deceased. Praise is more common. Pence praised the courageous Marines: "This facility is an enduring testament to the fortitude and valor of America's Marines." He said that the Marines in Lebanon died for a noble cause: "this force of freedom stood together to protect the innocent and prevent a civil war from becoming an even greater tragedy." But it was, Pence said, "for that very reason, because of the principles for which they stood and the peace for which they strived, these heroes aroused the attention of great evil. And on that Sunday morning, that evil set them in its sights." Pence, who is noted for Evangelical Christian views, quoted the Bible: "the Lord is close to the brokenhearted." (Psalm 34:18). For those who shared Pence's religious views, quoting the Bible re-emphasized values. Pence said that "We remember our fallen heroes and those they left behind."

None of that could cause much controversy. Of course we should remember our fallen heroes. Of course we oppose evil. However, Pence jumped to a controversial policy: "But we also have a duty to honor the memory of our fallen by continuing to stand strong to fight and defeat the enemy that so cruelly took them from us." He announced that "The Beirut barracks bombing was the opening salvo in a war that we have raged ever since -- the global war on terror." He praised President Donald Trump's policy: "President Trump has already taken decisive action to make the strongest military in the history of the world stronger still." He promised that "this President has made clear that America will stand with our allies and we will stand up to our enemies." He condemned "radical Islamic terrorism," which he called "a hydra with many heads." He criticized "Iran's theocratic rulers." He praised President Trump's very controversial decision to decertify an agreement to slow Iran's nuclear weapons program. Pence promised that, "under the leadership of President Donald Trump, we will drive the cancer of terrorism from the face of the earth."

To know for sure whether those policies are right or wrong goes beyond the skill set of a retired speech professor like me. They are, however, all controversial. Good arguments could probably be made for or against any of them. By using epideictic speech, Pence advocated these policies without giving a single concrete reason for any of them. Was Iran complying with the nuclear arms deal? Pence never even said. Would a powerful, modern military be able to stop a radical ideology from spreading? Pence never explained.

What Pence did, instead, was to cite the Marines' bravery, praise their values, and then to announce that Mr. Trump's controversial policies continued to spread those values.

Like Ronald Reagan at Pointe du Hoc, like John McCain speaking about nationalism, like Hillary Clinton speaking at her alma mater, like President Barack Obama advocating gun control in his Charleston speech, like many other epideictic speakers throughout history, Mike Pence slipped directly from values to policy, appealing to tradition rather than to reason. There is nothing wrong with that as long as the audience knows what the speaker is doing.

Was Pence's speech dull? Surely! Did that make it  bad? Maybe not. He said the expected things in the expected manner, making his implied policy arguments harder to argue with. Conservatives -- real conservatives -- often go out of their way to sound solid and traditional. Being solid and traditional becomes part of their ethos. That's a nifty little track that speakers sometimes use.

https://www.facebook.com/marines/videos/10154742711950194/

Mike Pence speaking at Marine Barracks

VP Mike Pence Mixed Religion & Politics at the Southern Baptist Convention

VP Mike Pence, official WH photo

Vice President Mike Pence delivered a political speech yesterday at the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting. He continued the conservative movement's tradition of claiming biblical authority for conservative policies. On the one hand, this is old news: politicians often claim religious endorsement for their policies. On the other hand, conservative politicians are increasingly linking specific conservative policies with religion. This is something new: for neither the Christian Bible, nor any other religious authority with which I am familiar, claims that gun rights, hostile policies toward immigrants such as denying asylum, separating families, or expelling long-time residents, or the building of large military forces have a religious basis. Since he had no religious argument to make, Mr. Pence instead used the simple rhetorical device of juxtaposition: he put unrelated things side by side, creating the impression that the unrelated things belonged together.

We have increasingly seen political candidates appearing at religious conferences, giving lip service to religious ideas, then promulgating partisan views. The religious conference soon transmutes into a thinly-veiled political rally. Donald Trump has done this several times, for example, in his dramatic speech at the Values Voters Summit.

Never underestimate the rhetorical or persuasive power that comes when people combine religion and politics. This is nothing new; European rulers claimed the "divine right of kings," while, today, oppressive dictators in the Middle East claim a religious basis for their power. A citizen might argue with a seamy, scummy, amoral politician, but it takes real nerve to argue with God. A political pundit might disagree with the politician's values, but faces a real struggle by arguing with the Bible. So, when politicians lay their controversial, and often unwise, ideas side-by-side with religion, they gain credibility that they have not earned. They can shut down debate about the issues, and divert controversy from issues to unrelated values.

So, let us look at how Vice President Pence, who is widely known to be a conservative Christian, sandwiched controversial ideas in between slices of religion.

First, after acknowledging a flattering introduction, Mr. Pence introduced himself: "I'm a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order." This brief comment established his credibility: he established to the Christian audience that he was a Christian and he assured them that he put Christianity first, but then he laid conservatism and Republicanism side-by-side with Christianity. This made Christianity, conservatism, and Republicanism sound like a triumvirate of virtue. This is the power of juxtaposition.

Next, Mr. Pence praised President Donald Trump as "A leader who, I can tell you, has been delivering every day on his promise to protect faith and restore freedom across this country."  This appeals to two distinct points: first, the speaker reassured the audience that President Trump was protecting their faith against attack, while, at the same time, he repeated the concept of "freedom," which conservatives believe is also under attack. Already, Mr. Pence was mixing religion and politics together, but in a very subtle way: what Christian would argue against freedom?

Mr. Pence then talked about his upbringing, "it was grace before dinner and church on Sunday morning." He discussed his own religious conversion. He praised Southern Baptists for working "to bring about renewal of America, and new beginnings." That sounds fine, and still had a religious tone. Without a seam, he slipped into a political panegyric: "I believe that our nation is in the midst of a time of renewal," which could be either religious or political – he didn't say – and then, "we are in the midst of a new beginning of greatness in America."

So much of that is clever: a parallel phrasing – "in the midst of," and again "in the midst of" – connected a secular idea back to a religious one. When a speaker phrases two different ideas the same way, this can lead the audience to think that the ideas belong together. Also, Mr. Pence placed the religious and non-religious ideas side by side. Religious renewal, which most Protestant believers would favor, united with Donald Trump's controversial political policies. Mr. Pence did not tell the audience that Mr. Trump's ideas were religious, which they obviously are not; instead, he just lumped the two points together.

The link between religion and conservative politics, which Mr. Pence had already hinted at, became crystal clear in the next paragraph:


"When you look at the progress we’ve made over the last 500 days, at home and abroad – the stronger America, a stronger economy, a stronger commitment to the God-given liberties enshrined in our Constitution – I think there’s only one way you can sum up this administration: It’s been 500 days of action, 500 days of accomplishment.  It’s been 500 days of promises made and promises kept.  (Applause.)"

The speaker's transition from religion to conservative politics was now complete. "Stronger America?" Where does the Bible say that? "Stronger economy?" The Bible is strangely silent about macroecnomic policy. "It’s been 500 days of action, 500 days of accomplishment.  It’s been 500 days of promises made and promises kept:" Mr. Pence's humble confession of faith had now become open boasting about political accomplishments.

With the political engine now running at full power, Mr. Pence now said:

"From the very beginning of this administration, we’ve been rebuilding our military, restoring the arsenal of democracy.  And as the proud father of a United States Marine, I couldn’t tell you how grateful I am that, with the support of this Congress, we are once again giving our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guard the resources and training they need to accomplish their mission and come home safe.  (Applause.)"

The speaker had wandered away from religion and baldy praised the administration's pro-military policies. He continued by boasting of strict law enforcement:

"We’ve been standing with the courageous men and women of law enforcement.  We’ve been securing our borders, enforcing our laws, and removing dangerous criminals, drug dealers, and gang members off our streets in record numbers.  (Applause.)"

This, again, is political. Mr. Pence then endorsed "the President's stand on 'peace through strength.'" Again, although most conservatives, and many liberals, favor strength, this was a purely non-religious policy. He then moved on to a strictly pro-American (not pro-Christian) policy: "President Trump has been putting America first and standing strong for America’s interests all over the world." Many Americans will think that is a good political policy but it has no religious foundation.

Yet, returning to his religious theme, Mr. Pence contradicted himself: "In this White House, I want to assure you, we know that America’s strength ultimately comes from the foundation of our most cherished values in this country." So, which is it: does strength come from armies? Or from values? Which comes first? Mr. Pence seemed to want it both ways. He then finished the speech by discussing several more faith issues. That helped him sandwich his partisan ideas into a religious context.

Many people would argue with President Trump's policies. Fewer would argue with the Bible. Mr. Pence set up a high burden for Mr. Trump's opponents: to contradict President Trump is to contradict religion.

Liberal politicians would be wise not to take the bait. Mr. Pence advocated many policies that lack religious foundation. He put those policies side-by-side with religious values. But they don't necessarily fit. Christianity does not justify peace through strength, high tariffs, or conservative macroeconomic policies. Mr. Pence put conservatism and religion side by side to shut down reasoned, evidenced debate about controversial policies. This is not a legitimate rhetorical tactic.

Please note that I'm not saying whether Mr. Pence's policies are right or wrong. I'm saying that they aren't religious, but, that by putting his policies side-by-side with religion, he made them sound religious. Does Christianity support conservative policies? What about feeding the poor, visiting prisoners, helping the helpless, and forgiving wrongs? 

A hidden danger lurks: did Vice President Pence equate being religious with being Christian? Did he equate being Christian with being a Republican? Although Christianity is my own religion, I don't feel comfortable with any of that.

Later, I'll discuss audience reactions to Mr. Pence's speech. Not everyone at the meeting liked his strategy. Not everything went according to his plan. Stay tuned!

If you would like to post  a comment, log on to your Google account. Comments are moderated. 

See my earlier post about Dr. Robert Jeffress' speech in Jerusalem, which used the same tactic. 

Mike Pence Spoke for Gun Control and the Right Wing Didn't Howl in Protest ... Because They Trust Him ...

Mike Pence, White House photo

Conservative Republican Vice President Michael Pence spoke at the Law Enforcement Roundtable in Indiana yesterday and he more or less, quite hesitantly, endorsed modest gun-control proposals. Why? Does anyone care? Why did he give the speech at all? Why did the right-wing gun rights crowd not erupt in fury? Because of credibility, that’s why.

The speaker’s credibility is what persuades people. Of the three ancient modes of persuasion, logic, emotional appeals, and credibility, credibility has always stood foremost. Credibility, however, is not simple. That’s because credibility is a matter of the audience’s perception. It’s not really whether the speaker really is trustworthy, but whether the audience thinks he or she is trustworthy. Different audiences will trust different speakers. Conservative Republicans find Pence credible. They trust him not only to tell the truth, but to share their views.  

Look at it this way: when Barack Obama proposed background checks for gun owners, conservatives accused him of trying to confiscate America’s guns to disarm us and enslave us. National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre protested Obama’s 2013 background check proposal in these words: “A background check. A check that will always be far from universal, will never make our schools or streets safer, and will only serve as universal registration of lawful gun owners — the real goal they’ve been pushing for decades.” LaPierre continued: “In the end, there are only two reasons for government to create that federal registry of gun owners — to tax them and to take them.”

Now, let’s look at what Pence said during his speech, without eliciting a breath of complaint from the gun-rights crowd: 

“I’m pleased to report that our administration worked on a bipartisan basis in the wake of recent events to strengthen background checks.  We made a historic investment in school safety.  We directed the Department of Justice to ban bump stocks.  And we also have made historic investments in state and local law enforcement.” 

Strengthen background checks? Ban bump stocks? Those should be trigger points for gun-rights people. The National Rifle Association insists that they will not tolerate any expansion of background checks. Yet they are not complaining at all about what Pence said. So, what’s going on?

First, the National Rifle Association, which was once bipartisan, has transformed itself into a surrogate for Republican politicians. The NRA contributed to the campaigns of only four congressional Democrats in the 2016 election. No longer is the NRA primarily an advocate of hunting and self-defense. They are, instead, a partisan political force.

Second, Pence, as a Republican, can support background checks and not face the NRA’s ire, just because he’s a Republican: he’s one of their own. The gun-rights voters fear Democrats, no matter how much reassurance Democrats offer them. Elect a Democrat, and people start stockpiling guns for fear of confiscation. But gun rights people don’t fear Republicans. So, Pence can say the same things the Democrats say without inviting a backlash. That’s credibility’s power.

Third, people care less about what the Vice President says. President President Trump came out in favor of gun control and faced instant backlash. Donald Trump has power. People care what he says. The Vice President does not have power. One of the Vice President’s functions is to send up trial balloons. Pence can talk about background checks and Trump can wait to see what the response might be. If background checks never become a formal proposal, well, that’s okay, because nobody cares what the Vice President says.

My former professor Kenneth Andersen and his colleague Theodore Clevenger, Jr. wrote an important article, "A Summary of Experimental Research in Ethos." They found that credibility is the combination of the speaker’s expertise, trustworthiness, and dynamism. What we saw with Pence’s gun control speech is that people more often trust the speaker when the speaker belongs to their own group. Conservatives don’t trust Democrats. But Pence is one of their own. A Republican like Pence can say the same things that a Democrat might say, and yet Republicans will trust him. They don’t fear that he will confiscate their guns and lock them in FEMA concentration camps.

Is Pence reliable on any topic? Not in my opinion. PolitiFact.com rates only 22% of his statements as true or mostly true. That’s awful. But he belongs to the conservative crowd, and that is why they trust him. So, that’s why Pence gave the speech. That's why he didn’t create an uproar, and that’s why no one should particularly care what he said. Paradoxical, no? 

P.S. If you're interested in Mike Pence, here's my post about a 2017 Mike Pence speech. 

"Read It," Says Mike Pence. Serious Anti-Heckling

Mike Pence

“Read it.”

A good heckle is worth 100 words. A great counter-heckle is worth a library.

Evidently, many Republican voters are outraged that former vice president Mike Pence recently spoke out against Donald Trump’s illegal attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

Readers will recall that Pence tweeted on August 1st, 2023:

“Today’s indictment serves as an important reminder: anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be President of the United States.”

Trump, in turn, got on social media to call Pence “delusional.”

Then, during Pence’s campaign appearance in Londonderry, New Hampshire, Trump supporters in the crowd hurled abuse at Pence:

“Why’d you sell out the people?”

“Why didn’t you uphold the Constitution?”

Pence responded:

“I upheld the Constitution. Read it.”

 

Pence’s anti-heckle said several things:

1. Pence defended himself.

2. He denied the heckler’s premise.

3. He pointed out that his heckler didn’t even know what the Constitution says.

It is so sad that few Americans know the basic principles of American government. High schools across the land still teach civics, American government, and American history. Students tune out. They don’t care. They forget it all within days. During my years as a university professor, I counted myself lucky if even one student in the class could name the three branches of the federal government. That was after they had passed a required course in American history or government.

Ignorance is tyranny’s best friend. Pence has wallowed in Trump’s mire far too long, but at last, however cynically, he is finally standing up for the rule of law.

Boorish heckling (like the man in Pence’s crowd) is, well, just boorish. Witty heckling (and anti-heckling) is a rhetorical art. Pence’s quick response drove right to the issue as surely as a fencer’s thrust with a rapier.

Arguing in depth with people who choose ignorance is a waste of time. Heckling was the solution. Score one for Pence.

_________________

Earlier Posts:

The Lost Art of Heckling: How to Heckle and Not Sound Like an Idiot

Hear! Hear! Three Cheers for (Tasteful and Witty) Heckling

Heckling and Anti-Heckling in Joe Biden’s February 7, 2023 State of the Union Address: The Republicans Fooled Only Themselves

"OK, Boomer:" Chlöe Swarbrick Teaches Us How to Put a
Heckler Down Flat

_________________

Image of Mike Pence: White House photo

Mixed Reactions to Pence's Speech to Southern Baptist Meeting: Were His Views Truly Biblical? And SBC Resolution 5 . . .

Mike Pence

Yesterday, I wrote about Vice President Mike Pence's speech to the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting. My point was that he mixed religious doctrines with conservative political policies that were neither religious nor biblical. The Bible does not endorse strong armies, conservative economic policies, high tariffs, and so forth. Yet, Pence created the questionable impression that conservative economic and political policies arose from religion. Looking at the audience's reaction, we can see that, in fact, many of the people saw that his policies were not biblical at all.

The audience applauded many of Mr. Pence's comments, including some of his most politicized points. And we all know that about 80% of White Evangelical Christians voted for Donald Trump in 2016.

Still . . . Pence's politicized, campaign rally-type speech earned him some blowback. Newly elected Southern Baptist Convention President J. D. Greear tweeted about Pence's speech: "I know that sent a terribly mixed signal. We are grateful for civil leaders who want to speak to our Convention – but make no mistake about it, our identity is in the gospel and our unity is in the Great Commission. Commissioned missionaries, not political platforms, are what we do." Pastor Todd Benkert tweeted sarcastically on June 13, the day of Pence's speech: "Thank you @VP for hijacking our unified religious meeting with you[r] partisan political campaign speech. You had an opportunity to offer a unifying non-partisan message but no." Sadly, after Mr. Pence's controversial presentation, the Southern Baptist Convention is considering a proposal to stop inviting political figures at all. It is a shame that Pence's tasteless, inappropriate speech may lead to such an outcome.

Hostile policies toward immigration drove Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign and fear of immigrants motivated many of his supporters. Mr. Trump routinely read a song that he misinterpreted to send the message that immigrants are "snakes." He called for "extreme vetting" of refugees. He promised to build a border wall, paid for by Mexico, to stop immigration from that country. Mr. Pence referred elliptically to that policy when he boasted about Donald Trump's success in "securing our borders." The Trump administration has been separating immigrant families at the border, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions has, appallingly, cited the Bible to support this practice.

Yet, following Pence's speech, the Southern Baptist Convention overwhelmingly approved "Resolution 5 – On Immigration." Unlike Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence, who appropriated Christianity for their own purposes, the Convention based its immigration policy on religious grounds.

Highlights of Resolution 5 included:

"WHEREAS, God commands His people to treat immigrants with the same respect and dignity as those native born (Leviticus 19:33–34; Jeremiah 7:5–7; Ezekiel 47:22; Zechariah 7:9–10); and

"WHEREAS, Scripture is clear on the believer’s hospitality towards immigrants, stating that meeting the material needs of “strangers” is tantamount to serving the Lord Jesus Himself (Matthew 25:35–40; Hebrews 13:2);..." 

Compared to Mr. Trump's "extreme vetting" of refugees policy, Resolution 5 called for sympathy:

"WHEREAS, Longings to protect one’s family from warfare, violence, disease, extreme poverty, and other destitute conditions are universal, driving millions of people to leave their homelands to seek a better life for themselves, their children, and their grandchildren; . . ."

Resolution 5 also called for churches to reach out to immigrants:

"RESOLVED, That we encourage all elected officials, especially those who are members of Southern Baptist churches, to do everything in their power to advocate for a just and equitable immigration system, those in the professional community to seek ways to administer just and compassionate care for the immigrants in their community, and our Southern Baptist entities to provide resources that will equip and empower churches and church members to reach and serve immigrant communities; . . ."

I doubt that the Southern Baptist Convention intended to rebuke Mr. Trump, but they certainly contradicted his presidency's signature policy.

It is also reassuring to see that the Southern Baptist Convention unhesitatingly cited relevant biblical texts that called for, not extreme vetting, but extreme love toward immigrants, for example, Leviticus 19:33034: 

"When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien.  The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God."

I think it is unfortunate when religion and politics become too closely entwined. It is a very good thing for politicians to act according to moral values. It is a very bad thing when politicians hijack religion for their own self-centered agenda, and it is a worse thing if religion allows itself to be hijacked. I often wonder how many people have turned away from Christianity, falsely believing that Christianity requires them to support harsh policies toward immigrants, the poor, and the oppressed, when the Bible clearly and repeatedly says the opposite. Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation between Church & State" is not just for the protection of the state, but even more for the protection of the church. Christianity should never be an excuse for wickedness, but, instead, should lead us to do good things even against our own desires.

Images: Mike Pence's official portrait; Thomas Jefferson portrait from Library of Congress

The Scripture quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U. S. A., and are used by permission. All rights reserved.