Author: art rogers
Wiley Drake Denies Supporting Kopp
Thursday, May 3rd, 2007 @ 9:49 pm
I just got off the phone with Wiley Drake. Until this morning, he says that he had never heard of the name James Kopp or even knowing that he had killed an abortion doctor.
When asked about putting his name on an online “declaration of support” for the murderer, he categorically denied doing so.
Nevertheless, it was assumed that Wiley had done this and roundly criticized before confirming with him if he had made such a statement. You can read the original article at Called According, written by Wes Kenney.
I asked Wiley what he thought of someone who killed an abortion provider. He condemned the action.
In fact, here is his full press release. You will note that he put it out so fast that he didn’t even spell check it.
Re: My name listed as a signer of “Declaration of Support for James Kopp”
I did not sign any such doccument and anyone who says I did is a telling a lie.
Untill a friend called me about this I had never heard of nor did I know who James Kopp is.
My stand against killing babies has not changed. I am against killing babies.
Killing a doctor that is a baby killer is never right. Two wrongs do not make murder right.
Please hear my heart, I am deeply sadden about our killing of babies, and all those who do so will face an angry God; but that’s God’s business not mine.
Dr. Wiley S. Drake Sr.
Wiley is owed an apology. A big one.
[edit]
Wiley has released another statement:
Why would someone tell such a dumb lie?
The only motive I can think of is that a few are fearful that God’s people, not the machine, might re-elect me to 2nd
V. P. again.
Someone called today and said maybe I should run again, and when our brother Frank Page is re-elected and can not run again, I should run for President, Hmmmmmmmm What a day of revision that would be, by by to many.
I would remind ALL my God is still in charge. And He does have a sense of humor.
WILEY
I suppose that God is not the only one with a sense of humor.
[/edit]
Posts with related content
Blogging, General Christian, SBC
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Wes’s is not the original article. Big Daddy Weave reported this last Friday. Associated Baptist Press reported it. The Southern Poverty Law Center reported it. I am glad that Wiley Drake has repudiated this action. Wes says that he attempted three times to contact Drake before commenting on a story that broke, after all, last week.
But the big story is that Drake denies the charges. Thanks for bringing that facet of this developing story to light.
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:07 pm
If this is true you are right Art about Wiley being owed an apology…I asked the question on Wes’s blog if all of this had been confirmed. It seems to me one who would owe him an apology is Wade Burleson. Wade voiced some pretty harsh rhetoric towards Wiley and those of us who are like him, in Wade’s opinion.
Wade said
“If our convention continues down the road of fundamentalism, Wiley Drake will be the norm, not the aberration. ”
“People are beginning to wake up to where we are headed, and if it takes the election of Wiley Drake for Southern Baptists to see that the logical end of extreme evangelical fundamentalism is having leadership that advocates the boycott of Disney World and allegedly supports the murder of abortion doctors, then maybe Wiley’s election is for our ultimate good”
“Wiley Drake should not and will not be reelected to an SBC office in San Antonio. Thankfully, people want moderation in our leaders, not extremes.”
“The policies of Wiley Drake are the policies of fundamentalism”
“I won’t get into other ecclesiogical, eshcataological, or soteriological demands for conformity illustrated by the ideological and philosophical extremes represent by Wiley and those who think like him”
Anyway…I for one apologoize to Wiley for jumping the gun in and that I was active in the conversation. What is owed to Wiley and many in the SBC is an apolgy for being used as a means to the emd of ones political ideas and vision for the convention
Jack
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Although I never published that Wiley Drake had indeed made these comments, I confess that I assumed them to be true. My opinion of Drake’s election is one that I have held since…well…since his election. But unless Bob Allen can come up with some corroboration for his story, Bro. Drake has been sorely wronged. I apologize for leaping too soon to conclusions. To avoid making the same mistake twice, I include my “unless Bob Allen…” sentence to wait and see whether this matter is settled yet before drawing any more conclusions. In the meantime, innocent until…
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:40 pm
art,
you and wade have posted almost identical posts, and it looks like both of you have called wiley drake. i cant get wade to answer over on his blog, so i’ll ask you. who called wiley drake? you, or wade?
david…..volfan007
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Jack,
It seems you have either intentionally or deliberately forgotten I am the only one who said we should not believe what we hear on the internet without talking with Wiley first. In fact, I asked Wes why he was posting the story without calling Wiley directly. Sorry, Mr. Maddox, but I stand by everything I have written about Wiley Drake.
It seems I’m one of only a handful, including Art, who issued caution about believing the allegations against Wiley.
It shouldn’t surpirse you that stand by my statements of personal affection for Wiley, but strong and persistent disagreements with his theological and philosophical viewpoints.
Your apology to Wiley is appropriate.
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:50 pm
SO Wade…you will not join with me in apologizing to Wiley for joining in the conversation? I would think you would be glad to. I have asked you this question on your blog. An Apology does not imply that you believed he was giulty…but although you issed a warning, yet still you jumped in with the rest of us. Can you not agree that this is so? I guess Wade my question is this…DO you ever make a mistake? Are you ever wrong on any issue…one would wonder due to your stance on this and other issues. Come on Wade, join the rest of us poor ol sinners and apologize to Wiley.
Jack
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Bart,
Thanks for pointing to the other stories. Wes is the first place I heard it. Bob Allen should know better. It is poor blogging but ridiculous reporting from a professional journalist.
Jack,
Of all the people who disagreed with Wiley, you single out Wade and list all of his quotes. No condemnation for Wes, with whom you agreed on his blog? One might think you have an ax to grind. Your condemnation, repeated yet again, is obviously one sided. How can we take what you say seriously?
David,
I don’t know if Wade called him. I called him, as I stated in my post - the first sentence. I have not talked to Wade since Saturday - the day I returned from the conference.
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Clarification about Bob Allen. I am assuming that Wiley’s first hand account - that he had not been contacted - is the truth. I have no reason to doubt it.
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:58 pm
art,
i was just curious….wondering out loud.
david………volfan007
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:01 pm
David,
If you say so. Thanks for the clarification. My wife read your comment from another room and thought you were calling me a liar.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Art,
Where I said “Associated Baptist Press” in my original comment, I should have said, “Ethics Daily.” My bad.
And that kind of mistake is why I should go to sleep now.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Art
Did Wes attack Dr. Drake in the same way Wade did. I will need to go back a read his post again. The reason I single Wade out is because he is the only one I know of that has sought to identify those he calls fundamentalist with Wiley Drake, all in the context of this story being true. I have no ax to grind with Wade. I love Wade…I even like Wade. We got a chance to meet this past weekend in Arlington and had a great time. SO no Ax here, just an honest disagreement with SBC political methodology as I see it. As for taking me seriously…you might be surprised how many folks take my line of thinking seriously…we are concerned about the direction Wade would like to take this convention, just as he is concerned about the direction it is going. Nothing personal here Art…just Baptist working through these issues with an honest question and some honest answers.
Hope that helps
Jack
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Jack,
Wes assumed the information was true and that assumption was the basis of the entire post.
Can you deny that this quote is condemning?
As for how many people you represent, I am sure that the circles in which you travel share similar thoughts. Just as the circles in which I travel share similar thoughts. Claims to represent the majority, no matter who makes them, are anecdotal.
And it seems your explanation, “The reason I single Wade out is because he is the only one I know of that has sought to identify those he calls fundamentalist with Wiley Drake, all in the context of this story being true,” is a stretch - especially with a history of consistent critiquing of Wade and the patronizing tone you last took with him. Just doesn’t ring true to me.
I hope I am wrong.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:17 pm
“We are concerned about the direction Wade would like to take this convention, just as he is concerned about the direction it is going”
Jack, finally, something from you with which I can agree. I think you will find a very, very large group of people in the SBC agree with me. The SBC needed to moderate from the extreme fundamentalism into which we were heading. We have, we are, and we will.
May 3rd, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Jack,
I just want to add another quote from Wade’s original post - the one you so one sidedly quote above:
If you are truly seeking to be balanced here, you need to go back and regroup.
May 4th, 2007 at 5:51 am
Far be it from me to be accused of being a fan-boy of Wade’s, but I concur that Wade’s post was a responsible one with regard to these now-dubious charges. Wade posted reasons that he does not support any campaign for Drake’s continued political service in the SBC—reasons not related to the charges. He deliberately did not comment on the pending charges other than to express an eagerness to hear what Drake had to say about them. I can’t fault Wade—he sounded a lot like what I was saying!
My point of disagreement with Wade was his suggestion that, whatever Drake is or was (and at the time, “supporter of James Kopp” was a very real possibility on the table), he somehow epitomizes where the SBC at large would be headed but for Wade Burleson. That’s going too far. Otherwise, I thought (stop the presses!) Wade Burleson was right to distance himself from Drake in light of the gravity of the charges and the credentials of the accusers (the Southern Poverty Law Center, for Pete’s sake!), but right to be hesitant about convicting Drake before hearing from him.
May 4th, 2007 at 6:45 am
Bart-
Nicley said.
Art-
Thanks for following up on this and for the heads up.
David Volfan007-
Is Wiley on a cell plan that limits his number of incoming calls? Was it actually difficult for you to assume that both Wade and Art talked to Wiley?
May 4th, 2007 at 7:43 am
Fan-boy? I had this image of Wade on a chaise and Bart slowly waving a large feathered fan, a la Cleopatra and Marc Antony.
On a more serious note.
Bart,
You said you were waiting to hear from Wiley. Do you mean hear from him in person or are his press releases not enough? I don’t quite understand what you are saying here.
May 4th, 2007 at 7:44 am
Bart,
Sorry. I didn’t see that you were quoting yourself. The blockquote doesn’t show up on my Treo when I read it.
May 4th, 2007 at 7:50 am
One final word this morning. Bart, you said that Wade’s post is responsible, not supporting Wiley for service. Once again, I will point out that Wade’s opinion on this is in direct contradiction to Wes’ suppositions and all the subsequent comments and posts building on the false conclusion that Wade orchestrated his election - yours included, Bart. This could have been easily avoided had a phone call to Wade been made and I urged just such a call prior to the publishing of this story.
May 4th, 2007 at 8:07 am
art, mrs. art, and marty,
i was not calling anyone a liar. i was not insinuating that anything shady was going on. i do know that two, or three, or four people can call someone on the same nite. wow, yall all need to sit back and take a deep, cleansing breath, and then understand that everyone out here is not out to get yall. you all seem very eager to call people liars, or accuse people of alterior motives, or ready to blast someone for a simple comment. i was just wondering how in the world that you and wade were posting the same exact thing about wiley drake at nearly the same time. i mean, what wade wrote and what you wrote, art, looked identical to me. it just looked strange, and i was wondering what was going on. that’s all. really. geeeeeesh.
david……..volfan007
May 4th, 2007 at 8:33 am
Art,
I really wish you would go back over to my site and read my stuff. More than once I directly and specifically denied that I was alleging that Wade orchestrated Wiley’s election. HOW MANY TIMES do I have to say that? Ben was involved. I lay the blame for his election at the feet of all of those who voted for him. Period. No matter how many times you repeat this huge assumption on your part, it will not make it any less of a huge assumption.
Last night you proved the accuracy of which you are capable in blogging. Show a little of it here.
May 4th, 2007 at 9:07 am
David,
So, it’s all my fault and you have no history of calling motives into question? Do you never read your own comments? you need to take a deep breath and consider that, in spite of what you meant, what you said can be interpreted as hostile. my wife never blogs. She wishes I would give it up. She just happened to click on my site last night while she was surfing in the other room. She read it for what it is worth.
If no body understands you but your mother or your wife, it could be you that has the communication problem. Don’t make it about me. Just clarify your words, apologize for the misunderstanding and move on.
Bart,
In Wes’ post, the supposition was that Wade and Ben were in collusion. Your original post, Incatitus, cited Wes’ post as the source of your observation. It did so without comment and, therefore, assumes all of the suppositions thereof.
That is as precise as it gets and it was to that post I referred earlier. You could show some precision here.
As to hanging it all on Ben, you again lack precision. You are ignoring the original nomination from Bill Dodson the year before and all of the SBC who voted for him last year. Was he involved? Sure. Nevertheless, as I wrote last night, you can’t say on the panel discussion last week that “we get what we deserve” when it comes to showing up and voting at the convention and then hang Wiley on Ben Cole.
And I still love you.
May 4th, 2007 at 9:23 am
art,
sigh. ok, man. whatever.
in love,
david………..volfan007
May 4th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Brother Art,
As to who/whom is responsible for Brother Wiley Drake being VP, I believe you are standing on shaky ground in your argument. I say this not in a condescending way, but to merely make a point.
While you are correct that Brother Bill Dodson nominated him in 2005, he did not gain any reputable hearing until he was promoted in the blogging world. Brother Dodson could have nominated him in 2006, but if he was not promoted as he was and (correct me) he signed the Memphis Declaration(?). I know that I argued against his being nominated and I promoted Brother JD.
You make the point that Brother Dodson vowed to continue to nominate him until he got elected, but you do not make the point that had he not been promoted as one that is sympathetic to the movement that you, Wade, Marty, and Ben lead, he would never have gained the hearing that placed him in contention for the election. Once that ground work was laid, the nominating speech would drafted by Brother Ben and then (as they say) the rest is history.
I feel your reliance on Bill Dodson as the factor that placed Wiley Drake in his position is a little inaccurate. Would you not agree?
Blessings,
Tim
May 4th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Correction. I missed the statement by Bart, “I lay the blame for his election at the feet of all of those who voted for him.”
My apologies. I appreciate that, Bart.
However, you still ignore the 2005 nomination by Bill Dodson and promise to return as often as it took to get Wiley elected. Ben is still the foremost in your words as far as responsibility goes. He was behind it. He did write the speech. He was not alone and it wasn’t about the “inner circle.” It predates all of that.
David,
Thanks for your *heartfelt* apology.
May 4th, 2007 at 9:39 am
art,
i didnt see that any apology was needed on my part. i think that many people are very quick to see something bad and evil in what certain people write….but, if ben or marty or wade or cb or anyone else in yall’s little group says nearly the same thing….it’s seen as alright. there are no alterior motives assigned to it. there is no evil intention assumed. but, let me innocently write something out of pure curiousity, and bam! it was a mean, sinister plot to get you and wade.
art, i do apologize for the confusion. i apologize for causing you, or your wife, or marty, or wade, any undue heartache. i apologize for just asking a simple question and getting slammed for it. i apologize for not being a more clear, concise writer. i apologize for all of my shortcomings.
david…….volfan007
May 4th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Art
Here is my last word on this as I need to as more than likely all of us , to move on from this. If you were to read all of my comments, even in the other threads, you would see that my main concern through all of this was that Wade seemed to use this report to attack fundamentalist. wade seems to define a Fundamentalist as someone who does not agree with his idea of inclusiveism and cooperation in the SBC. IN making his point he said what I believe are some pretty harsh words about Wiley. He also had some gracious things to say about Wiley. When you reported that this whole thing may not be true, I simply made the point that not only did I need to apologize concerning my joining in the “Blog Orgy” over this thing, but perhaps Wade needed to also. Obviously Wade disagrees and that is fine. SO let me sum up…
1) I do apologize for joining in what scripture would refer to as “Idle Talk and Gossip” It was wrong due to the fact that the allegations had not been proven thus it was much ado about nothing.
2) As far as Wade goes…only Wade needs to feel any responsibility to apologize…if he does not that is between him and the Lord.
3) Just as those who believe that change in the SBC is necessary do not like to be attacked or maligned…those of us who disagree certainly do not like it either…for years we have been accused of being narrow minded, spooky fundies, exclusive and the list goes on and on…forgive us for responding emotionally when it happens.
Jack
May 4th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Tim,
I absolutely would not agree. I don’t think that the Memphis Declaration had that kind of sway - just as the Joshua Convergence did not have that kind of sway. If the blogosphere ruled the day, much more would have been different in Greensboro.
I am much more inclined to believe that the speech was the swaying factor - which is what you yourself cite on Bart’s blog in this comment.
No hard feelings here, but it is that argument that lacks real teeth, in my opinion.
Here’s an anecdotal story to go along with it. When the nominating speeches were read, I was in the seats surrounded by old veterans that I didn’t even know. They were excited to see a younger guy among them, and several welcomed me. When the speech was read, I asked them if they thought he would win - they said, “How could he not?”
This same group of men, when I opened my laptop, asked me if I was with Baptist Press or a secular reporter. When I explained that I was a minister but was just writing on the internet, they simply nodded and turned their attention back to the convention. They had no idea what a blogger was, they voted for Wiley.
David,
You play the victim well.
Jack,
Thanks for the word.
May 4th, 2007 at 9:49 am
jack,
well said.
david……..volfan007
May 4th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Brother Art,
I may have missed it and if I did, please correct me. Bill Dodson, as far as I know, never publicly stated that he would nominate Wiley Drake every year until he got elected. I know, I have now challenged the best ferret in the business to find something, but I have never heard that he has said that. My point, I believe you are relying on information that may have been said publicly in private. I do not recall it being public convention knowledge. Of course I was not in the hall to vote in 2005 on the VP and that may be where he said it.
Second, would you not agree that he signed the MD and that signature attached him to this movement? Also, was he present in Memphis?
My point Brother Art, you seem to be placing too much emphasis on Bill Dodson nominating him, when that does not seem to be the issue. The issue is that he was nominated with a speech penned by Brother Ben, pushed by the bloggers preceding June, 2006, and promoted as one that should serve because he was not part of the good-ole-boy network. Now, it seems, that many are trying to say they are not responsible for his being VP because of some unsubstantiated allegations. He is VP because the convention voted him into the office, but the convention would never have given any legitimate hearing for him, if the ground work were not laid by those who promoted him.
Blessings,
Tim
May 4th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Tim,
Bill told me that he said he would do that in his original nomination speech. Go back and watch the video. If you watch last year’s video, pay close attention to the opening lines of the speech. His first words were: “I’m baaaack.” He went on to refer to the promise that he would come back and reiterated it.
Wiley was in Memphis. He is not “part of a movement.” Those that you would link together within such a “movement” would be resistant to being placed there. I am not led by anyone, nor do I lead others. I speak for myself. I have frequently denied even speaking for my church, and I don’t list its name here in case some of my members disagree with what I write. In any case, Wiley is not close to myself or the bloggers with whom I am normally associated.
When I called Wiley last night, I had to remind him who I was. It actually took a few minutes before he placed me.
Again, you are trying to make this about collusion and its not.
Also, I will note here, as I did on Bart’s blog, I have not distanced myself from Wiley or my statements of affirmation at his election.
His position has, no doubt, caused some grief for the leaders of the SBC, but I think it is not a great price to pay for the opportunity to work with a man who loves the SBC and wants to work with others if they agree with him or not.
You see, I have, along with many others, told Wiley to his face that I disagree with a great many of his objectives and actions - the Disney boycott in particular. His response was that it was fine with him because we were brothers in the Lord. I am glad that he has that attitude, and I reciprocate it.
After all, remember what Bill said, and Ben wrote,(this is a paraphrase) “You may ask why I am nominating Wiley for the post of 2nd Vice President of the Southern Baptist Convention. Because there is not a 3rd Vice President of the Southern Baptist Convention.”
Should we do it again? Probably not. Once is enough. Still, I am not about to push Wiley away. Do I regret some of the things he says and how he says them? Sure. I also regret some of the things other convention leaders say and how they say them.
Also, remember that Richard Land comes down on virtually every issue in the identical stance as Wiley Drake. Nobody seems in a hurry to distance themselves from Dr. Land, yet I seem to remember him being mightily involved in the Disney Boycott once it became an SBC Resolution.
See my point, yet?
May 4th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Brother Art,
Thanks for the clarification of the public comment. As I said, I was not present for the 2005 VP nominating speech. Come to think of it I was not present for much of the 2006 convention at all. I found out when your church is located 20 miles from the SBC event, the church forgets you are at the convention. :>)
Allow me to address the issue of collusion. Are you saying that you are not in contact with Wade, Ben, Marty or any others about a plan and how it should be carried out? If that is the case, why did no one correct Ben when he was openly advocating a plan with Robin?
No, I still do not see your point. It does appear that you have jumped the gun on Richard Land. I do not believe I would advocate him as being on the bandwagon with Wiley Drake. If that is the case then I would point to Brother Pollock, who nominated Frank Page, being appointed as the Florida representative on the CoC as business as usual. You and I both know this is not the case, but if I were to point to collisional activity it would be a great launching pad.
Blessings,
Tim
May 4th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Brother Art,
Please disregard our going back and forth. I know that it is off topic and if you desire not to address it now I will understand.
Let me get back on topic. I saw a comment on another blog and it peaked my interest. You have spoken with Brother Wiley. I have left a VM with Bob Allen but have not received a call back. (Like I expect him to call me back :>)) Did Brother Wiley tell you how, not only his signature, but a statement supposedly made by him appeared on the website?
Blessings,
Tim
May 4th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Tim,
I have no problem answering your questions. I am not in contact with those men concerning a plan. Rather, we have noted in conversation the interesting aspect that we are all individuals with subtle differences but also much in common. I am and independent thinker and speaker. In that same vein, I’ll let the other men speak for themselves, though I think you will hear that repeated.
Ben spoke in the first person singular, i.e. his motivations, thoughts etc. Nothing to correct. I did think of clarifying that in the moment for Robin, but the conversation moved on and it was not apropos to where the conversation went. I did call Robin when he made that link and clarified that for him.
I assume you are not in contact with anyone concerning a plan for San Antonio. It’s the same thing. There is no plan, of which I am aware.
Wiley told me that he has had to deal with this type of thing before. People who don’t like what he does sign his name to things that are deplorable and write notes that seem to sound like him.
Beyond that, I find it hard to believe that Wiley is responsible for explaining the actions of others. It’s a bit like asking you why your name is on the same document.
*pause*
It’s not, but I could have put it on there before writing this, just to make a point.
That’s the problem with electronic petitions. Anyone can sign them and no one seems to check them.
Which is why I have saved every email I have ever received asking for someone’s name to be added to the Memphis Declaration. If someone claims they didn’t sign it, I will have the email and address from whence it came. If they didn’t sign it, we can possibly trace back who falsely asked for it to be signed. If they did, I can show it.
Now, the MD is no really big deal, as I have stated not long ago. Not many seem to care much about it and very few (respectively) have signed. If I am willing, though, to guard people’s identity over something so small, the “Army of God” should certainly go further than that. Moreover, the SPLC and Ethics Daily should have verified it with them and Wiley - getting the facts. According to Wiley, they didn’t.
May 4th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Art,
Brother, I love you and Ben both. As if it matters much, here is where I put it all: Other people get the credit for coming up with the idea to run Wiley Drake. Ben Cole gets the credit for Drake actually winning. The messengers to the convention get the blame, not for electing Drake, but for the basis on which they elected him—an item of knowledge that none of us could document for a dissertation, but which numerous academic reports and common sense tell us is accurate.
Now, as to the theory that a “Hat Tip” equals “I espouse everything said at this link”, does that apply as well to the other link given? Have I endorsed everything said by all parties in the discussion over at BaptistLife? Somebody really ought to explain these rules to us before we start blogging. I thought that a Hat Tip simply meant (the idea for this post was prompted by something I read at…). In the case of “Incitatus”, the hat tip links are obviously necessary to clarify to the reader what on earth I am talking about, but they do not equate to full endorsement.
On the other hand, if there is something that ties me to Wes’s post, it is doubtless the fact that I, like many people, saw Wes’s post in advance and confirmed to him that I had seen the story and had not seen any refutation of it. Yes, that action puts some of the responsibility upon me. But that’s not the same thing as going public on my blog with it.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Bart,
I love you, too. I think you should separate original posts and comment threads. I don’t assume you endorse everything in the comment section, but I did believe that you were supporting the conclusions Wes made because your post paralleled it and you made no effort to clarify it. It seems logical to me.
May 4th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Brother Art,
Let me say thank you for a time of back and forth. Though I did stray from the original post, you were very kind in responding.
I can see how someone can sign another’s name. I think I will touch base with “The Army of God” leaders before I comment any further concerning Brother Wiley.
Blessings,
Tim
May 4th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
and I love everyone *SMACK, SMACK*
Tim-
If you liken a plan to people talking on the phone and via email as to what they would like to see happen and what each person can do to bring about change, then there is a plan. It’s very, very loose, there is no leader and no real form or structure and certainly no hierarchy, but if that is a plan to you, then I guess there is a plan. But, in fact, if it is a plan, it would probably be the worst one ever assembled. But things are still getting done and needed changes are at least being discussed openly.
However, if a plan is having a leadership structure, state leaders and regional leaders or if it mean phone calls to local pastors encouraging them to bring all their messengers to each and every SBC annual meeting, or if it means follow up phone calls to get a head count of exactly how many messengers can be expected from each and every precinct across the SBC, all of which would be reported to the
Judgeperson in charge, then you are thinking of the Conservative Resurgence and nothing that is going on presently…or at least nothing that I’m involved in.May 4th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Correction Art….the Memphis Declaration does matter, it matters to me personally or I wouldn’t have signed it. I think it’s words are important to me. In fact I have a copy of it just as a reminder to myself of why I am doing all of this. It is reminder of what is important to me. Sorry, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
May 4th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Oh my Gosh!!!!! This is going to make headlines in BP, APB, Ethics Daily and every news reporting agency around. Marty cyber-kissed everybody!!!
:>)
I feel the luv!
Seriously, Brother Marty I do not mean to imply that you all are having secret meetings setting up state agencies. That has never been my thoughts whenever I referred to a plan. However, you know that the reporting of “what they would like to see happen and what each person can do to bring about change” is planning and you do not need to report numbers when the blogoshpere does it for you.
Blessings,
Tim
May 4th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
I will add that the statements of the individuals seem to back up the lack of collusion, at least with regard to Rev. Drake.
Rev. Dodson, though having recently expressed a desire to leave the SBC, has publicly indicated his sincere endorsement of Rev. Drake. I have discovered no reason to doubt his sincerity. Further, Rev. Cole has expressed similar enthusiasm towards the 2nd VP: I’m loving that somebody is out there reminding everybody that Baptists are a bunch with diverse personalities and a common commitment to making a difference for the Kingdom.
In stark contrast is Rev. Burleson’s distancing from Rev. Drake as 2nd VP, stating his ongoing opposition to him as well as heavily insinuating that he indeed voted against (at least hesitantly voted for) him in Greensboro (the blog post in reference, “Why Wiley Drake Should Not Be VP of the SBC,” has of today been archived here [art's edit] sorry but there was no address in this link [/art's edit] and removed off the main blog page). The common plan seems to be obvious, that of copying the success of the CR by replacing presidents and altering the current Trustee dynamic, though I think suggesting collusion between Burleson and Cole-Dodson on at least this single issue a stretch. It seems that Cole is happy having a diverse group in leadership (supported in theory by a recent defense of an anti-Trinitarian pastor), while Burleson seems to want those who, regarding inclusivity, only think like him.
May 4th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Colin,
I don’t think you can safely make the argument that Wade only wants people who think like him. He told Bart last weekend, for instance, that he would be happy with the leadership already in place, if they would cooperate with others, rather than excluding them.
Also, I’m sorry but your links are not quite working. I’ll try and fix them, but you may want to repost just the addresses.
Art
May 4th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Colin,
Also, Wade’s post is still on the main page - just one post down from the top. He hasn’t hidden it, nor removed it.
May 4th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Art,
I don’t think I am making a huge argument here in regards to Wade’s desires. You yourself proved it here: if they would cooperate with others, rather than excluding them. There are more conservative groups of baptists, and then more liberal groups. The question of leadership, then, is do we want leaders from either group? I would argue Wade does not, but only those in the “middle” of the groups that would be willing to be inclusive of both.
Also, the post I reference is in fact NOT on his main page. Look at the title. It would have been the third one down from the top.
May 4th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Colin,
In your post just above, you connected two links about Bill Dodson “expressing a desire to leave the SBC” and “endorsing Wiley Drake.”
The Bill Dodson in your first citation was VP with the California Plan for Church Finance (part of the California Baptist Foundation) and is now president of Ministry Partners Investment Corp.
The Bill Dodson in your second citation is a pastor in Kentucky.
There is about a 30-year age difference and 2,000 miles between the two.
Though they coincidentally share the same name, they are not the same person although your post would seem to indicate otherwise. I believe the fact that the California Dodson (or, at least, someone who used that name) joined a thread on Wade Burleson’s site that also had comments about the Kentucky Dodson may have led to the assumption that it was the Kentucky Dodson.
Further documentation on the California Dodson, including his work experience, pastoral experience and eduction can be found within these regulatory filings:
http://www.secinfo.com/dSqzd.vq.htm
http://sec.edgar-online.com/2007/03/30/0000944130-07-000005/Section16.asp
Just a clarification.
May 4th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Colin-
I think Wade’s front page is messed up. The article to which you refer is still the third one down on the left hand links.
May 4th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Colin,
To make the argument that Wade wants to bridge between conservatives and liberals ignores what he actually says. Unless you define me, Dwight McKissic, Marty Duren, Jerry Rankin and those kinds of folks as liberals.
If not, then I think you have a long way to go to refute his own words saying that he did not want liberals even in the convention.
Getting along with liberals doesn’t mean you want them in the convention.
May 4th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
John,
Thanks for the clarification. It seems the Bill Dodson I am talking about is fine with the SBC, and still is serious about his support for Rev. Drake.
Art,
Brother, I am not calling anyone in the SBC a liberal. I used the terms as terms of comparison or measure, not labels. A closed-communion supporter is more conservative than the middle, and a theology supporting women “teaching and having authority over a man” is more liberal than the middle. I don’t think I insulted Wade by my comment.
Marty,
Could be. It is also a setting in Blogger. You can set the main page to only show the last two postings, etc., while still having the link on the main page. I was pointing that out just for a few folkks.
Colin
May 4th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Colin,
Thanks for the clarification. I still think you have a hard time building a case against Wade insisting on having only those who think like him at the helm. I have heard him repeatedly state otherwise. He is out of town with family right now, but I am sure he would be glad to clarify this in the first person later.
May 5th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Brother Colin,
My computer is doing the same thing. Only showing two of his articles on the main page.
Blessings,
Tim
May 5th, 2007 at 10:36 am
“Why Wiley Drake Should Not Be President of the SBC” shows up on the front page in my browser and in my RSS feed. Also that’s news to me that Wade only wants people around him that disagree, since our church is made of a diverse set of views on eschatology, Calvinists, non-Calvinists etc. and that includes diversity among the associate ministers, and we have not had a split in the time I have been there, I’m sure it will be news to our congregation too.
May 5th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Colin,
Your comment is correct in one sense only.
I only wish a person in leadership in the SBC who is NOT interested in booting out people over minor, doctrinal matters.
That’s the way I think, and if you are saying I only want people in leadership who think like that, then you are correct.
It seems to me that only extreme fundamentalists and extreme liberals wish to boot out people who are not of their ilk. Nether have a place in leadership in the SBC.
Wiley Drake is telling me that he used to be a fundamentalist, but is reforming. That’s refreshing to hear.
In His Grace,
wade
P.S. Once again, Debbie Kaufman brings wisdom to what seems to be confusion.
May 5th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Wade,
That is exactly what I am saying. The idea is that we do not want leadership that represents the entire spectrum of Southern Baptists beliefs, but only those leaders willing to accomodate those in each spectrum. That would place all leaders in the middle.
Wade, could you also clarify why your post railing Rev. Drake’s leadership qualifications is no longer showing up on your main page?
Debbie,
That is a surprise to me as well since it is exactly not what I said.
May 5th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Colin,
Search for less pejorative language. At the very least, whatever your opinion, seek to describe others as if they were your brother.
Also, don’t be so dismissive to Debbie. She is making a valid point - Wade’s interest is cooperation and it is exemplified by his own leadership.
Finally, I think it is a false conclusion to say that Wade doesn’t want a “Fundamentalist” leader. He is saying that extremists are often exclusionists. He told me last week that he would be happy with Fundamentalist leadership, if they weren’t exclusionists. He has often said he doesn’t want Liberals in the SBC, and certainly not in leadership.
It seems that you are hearing what you choose to hear and not what he is trying to say. Just a thought.
May 5th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Art,
I am truly trying to hear everything. I get jumped on quite frequently in my comments as of late, and I am not sure if it because of a language barrier or because people assume they know my stance on every issue. I need some additional html training. I really do not intend to use pejorative language. My original comment was backing up the rebuttal that Wade and Ben probably did not plan this Drake VP stint. I was backing up your position. The language I used was drawing a contrast with a principle that Wade agreed with. I did not comment whether or not his desire for a non-exclusionist was right or wrong. I am sorry if my word choice hurt anyone’s feelings.
As to Debbie’s comment, Wade is inclusive- that was my point. I was not arguing that he wasn’t. I was arguing that he doesn’t want those that aren’t inclusive- those that don’t think like him in leadership strategy- in SBC leadership any longer. As to “Fundamentalist” leader, he has been pretty outspoken that the “Fundamentalists” are ones that exclude, so an inclusive “Fundamentalist” would be an oxymoron- othewise known as a fundamentalist. No Liberal leadership either. There again my point- draw leadership from the middle, right or wrong, trendy or bucking the trend, baptist or baptistic, paper or plastic.
I am a learner. I do not know everything. I like interaction. I like listening. I learn from each of you. I am probably the most ignorant person on this thread in regards to many things. I have to take many things I hear back to the Bible each night to work through them. But I do know this- hearing words sometimes gets lost in the attitudes and actions of those who speak them, rendering those words utterly meaningless. I am sick of self-righteousness, arrogance, lack of humility, hypocrisy, and division that is deliberately being sown. So there are quite a few anymore that I only hear until the next comment or AP article. I apologize if this tends to color my arguments. I will work hard to communicate more effectively.
May 5th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
That was:
I need some additional sarcasm>html training./sarcasm>
May 5th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Colin,
I did note your original comment. My only problem was with you describing Wade’s post as “railing” against Wiley. I am pretty sure Wade didn’t consider it to be such and would not do so intentionally.
As for Wiley, you know that I voted for him and I still am glad he got a shot to serve. I also think one year of Wileyesque leadership at the 2VP level is plenty enough for a while.
If, and I suspect this is not true, it turns out that Wiley lied about someone else putting his name on the declaration of support, then I will call him and personally ask him to resign.
Again, I don’t that will bear out.
At this point, the onus is on the SPLC and then on Bob Allen. I understand that Bob may be speaking soon. Still, Bob took the SPLC at its word, and they are usually dead on and not likely to print loosely gathered information. Further, Aaron Weaver says that he has a source inside the SPLC that confirms the story is accurate. We will see, but since Wiley has now called anyone making that claim a liar, they need to produce some evidence or retract.
May 5th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
To anyone who said they could not reach Wiley I keep my cell 1-714-865-8132 with me 24/7
Everybody can get me any time
May 5th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
art,
to colin’s defense, the post that wade took down was railing against wiley. i too could not see it anymore when i went to wade’s blog. i have not gone there today…yet. i’ve been doing things with my family, but the last time i looked, the hard post against wiley was taken down.
david….volfan007
May 5th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Well, David, if you think that it’s fine. Surely you can say what you think without hyperbolic language.
On the other hand, do you think Wade thinks of it that way? Do you think Wiley thinks of it that way?
I wouldn’t say you were unbiased when it comes to Wade, though. Would you?
May 5th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
David,
The post was not taken down. It is right here: http://kerussocharis.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-wiley-drake-should-not-be-vp-of-sbc.html
Just because it is not on the front page does not mean that it is taken down. There is a link to it in the left sidebar in order of his posts.
Colin,
I understand what you are saying. In a sense then, no fundamentalists need apply for leadership, because by definition, fundamentalists are exclusionary. Interesting. I probably would not hold that opinion, even if they are exclusionary. I am not against cessationists leading, even if they are trying to get rid of continuationists. I guess that my position is that they should not be allowed to exclude people, even if they want to. To say that fundamentalists should not serve at all would be wrong. Their exclusionary desires should be tempered by something however. Hmmm. If only we had some type of confessional something or other that was a summary of what Baptists believe so that we could not be taken over by special interest groups. Hmmm. If only it could describe the Faith and the Message of Baptists. Hmmm. Maybe we should come up with something?
I am obviously being silly. Our problem is that our polity always seems to trump Truth or an appeal to what we have all agreed Truth to be. In that, we become as relativistic as the Liberals we claim to despise.
May 5th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Alan,
You may be being silly, but you are right in that the BF&M serves as a cushion against extremism. It has continuously served in this capacity, and like any fallible human document, this people’s statement of beliefs is subject to revision. It is active and reactive by the hands of the messengers and their trustees.
My question to the panel: there obviously exists an outcry against perpetual leadership holding a specific qualification (the most bandied about being a member of the “Good Ole Boys Club”). There also exist cries against continually utilizing for service those in churches approaching or having reached mega-church status. What’s wrong with small church pastors? Nothing. Why?
Interesting question.
Are we arguing for an extra-biblical requirement for the leadership of the SBC? Is not a pastor qualified by the Word of God to oversee His flock in His church qualified to lead the SBC? Some may say no.
Is Wiley Drake qualified to lead a New Testament church? If not, in view of the glory of God should not that outcry be greater?
Is Wiley Drake qualified, then, to be 2nd VP? Then why shouldn’t he continue the post in 2007-08?
Further, are “Fundamentalists” or fundamentalists qualified to the pastorate? Are those who are for excluding PPL? Are those who believing closed communion is the only communion?
I have been pondering these questions as of late, and think it is pertinent to your post, Art. So, is Our problem… that our polity always seems to trump Truth or an appeal to what we have all agreed Truth to be?
May 6th, 2007 at 12:34 am
Colin,
Did you used to post as Colinm?
I don’t know about the answer to my question in the context that you have created, but I will say that I am not against Wiley serving a second term as 2nd VP if he did not sign his name to the petition. If he supports a murderer, then I would have some reservations, obviously. The one thing that I would question about Wiley’s leadership is his wisdom in focusing on the things he does, but we elected the man and we should expect to bring who he is to the office. I might vehemently disagree with some of his stances, but I don’t think that those stances, unless they are deemed to be blatantly unbiblical, should remove him from office or the pastorate.
In striving to be consistent, I want to reiterate that I do not have a problem with fundamentalists serving and serving from their convictions. They should just be hampered from imposing those convictions on the rest of the SBC. There should be protections. Again, our polity should not trump Truth. But, the fact that they are who they are should not eliminate them from ministry if our differences are tertiary. Once those differences begin to move up the ladder to core issues, then we need to have more governance from the middle, or from a place that reflects what the majority of Baptists believe as reflected in our Confession.
It isn’t really that hard. We just need to elect people to positions who care more about serving the SBC than they do about remaking it to fit their image.
May 6th, 2007 at 5:48 am
Brother Alan,
I have been following this comment stream and, I believe, it is a good discussion of the issue at hand. Many have given sound reasoning for where they stand and I do enjoy seeing the back-and-forth. Brother Colin has done a great job defending his position against not just one dissenter, but a few.
I certainly do not desire to interfere with the dialog, but I do believe I see what appears to be an inconsistency. You say; “I might vehemently disagree with some of his [Wiley Drake] stances, but I don’t think that those stances, unless they are deemed to be blatantly unbiblical, should remove him from office or the pastorate.” What has Dr. Paige Patterson done that is “blatantly unbiblical” enough to have him removed from office?
Before you answer that with “I have never said he needed to be removed from office”, that–I believe–is where the inconsistency enters your argument. You, and others, may not be straddling a fence crowing like a rooster that Dr. Patterson needs to go, but there is one among you that is. There is one among you that has made it crystal clear that he will not rest until Dr. Patterson is out of office. You may feel that he [Dr. Patterson] just needs to be “reigned in” by the BoT. But ascribing to the meanderings of one that is saying and doing all that he can to remove Dr. Patterson from office reveals a duplicitous characteristic. If, on the other hand, you and others were publicly “reigning in” the meanderings of the bombastic one, others would better understand and appreciate your position. The movement is judged by the character of those that lead. That is why this issue with Brother Wiley is of such concern to everyone.
Blessings,
Tim
May 6th, 2007 at 6:58 am
Tim,
Everyone keeps trying to tell you that there are no leaders, but you don’t believe us. I don’t take marching orders from anyone, nor do I tell people what to write on their blogs. If I choose to, I affirm or disagree with what people say at my own discretion. If I am not interested in what someone is saying one way or the other, I do not comment. There is no coordination going on beyond what you see publicly, at least that I am aware of. Of course, I am a lesser light in the universe of influential Baptist Bloggers, but I understand that there is little coordination at any level.
So, I don’t really see your point. I am one of the few that said I don’t have a problem with Wiley Drake. I disagree with him, but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t lead. I feel the same way about Dr. Patterson. I disagree with him, but I am not interested in his resigning or staying - it matters little to me. I mainly want to see the IMB policies rescinded and see us stick to the BF&M. After that, others can handle the staggering inconsistencies in the leadership of the SBC. I have a family and church to lead.
May 6th, 2007 at 10:25 am
alan,
when you click on the link at the left hand side of wade’s blog for the hard post on wiley, then nothing comes up. i have tried three times to look at it, and nothing comes up. every other post on the left comes up, but that one looks empty…like it’s been deleted. or, maybe my computer is acting crazy….like i said.
also, alan, i dont agree with wade on many, many things. i have told him so in the past. but, i dont hate wade. and, i’m not out to get wade. i honestly love wade in the Lord, just as i love you and art and others that i dont completely agree with.
david…..oscar winning actor(usually plays victim roles)….volfan007
May 6th, 2007 at 10:40 am
alan and all,
ok. either my computer just straightened out, or else wade put it back up. i just wanted everyone to know that i checked it out one more time, and it came up. so, anyway, i have spent far too much time on whether that post was still there or not. so, thats all for me for now about wiley and this unfortunate sitaution.
david……….volfan007
May 6th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Yes, Alan.
Colinm. I wanted to be addressed by first name not intials, so Colin it became. In a previous life, I posted as C Reverend Chilifry aka Colin, aka C Rev, aka Crev. But those were on a Baptist forum. And then there was my other personality…
May 7th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Wiley Drake no longer listed on AOG Web sight HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM