Check out this EthicsDaily.com article on Wiley Drake, 2nd Vice President of the SBC.
The Southern Poverty Law Center criticized the Southern Baptist Convention for electing a second vice president last June whose name appears on a “Declaration of Support for James Kopp,” a man convicted of killing a doctor because he provided abortions.
Already serving 25 years to life on a 2003 state murder conviction in New York, Kopp was convicted in January of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act by assassinating the physician as he talked with his wife and children in the family’s kitchen. Kopp, 52, is also suspected in the shootings of four other abortion doctors in the U.S. and Canada. He faces a maximum prison term of life without parole when he is sentenced on the federal charges June 19.
Kopp, who was on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted” list before his capture in March 2001, has admitted to the shooting but claims he was only trying to wound the physician, and not kill him, to prevent him from performing abortions.
The declaration signed by Wiley Drake, elected last June as second vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention, appears on the Army of God Web site.
The National Abortion Federation describes the Army of God as an “underground network of domestic terrorists who believe that the use of violence is appropriate and acceptable as a means to end abortion.”
The Army of God Web site describes Paul Hill, a Presbyterian minister executed in 2003 for the 1994 killing of a doctor and bodyguard outside an abortion clinic in Pensacola, Fla., as “an American hero.”
……….
Drake is identified as on the declaration as a pastor and broadcaster with Crusade Radio. A comment alongside his name says: “The price of blood is high. Some will pay high, and some will pay low, but pay, we all will for the 40 million babies we have killed. God bless you my brother as you serve Him, and His little ones.”
The declaration bearing his name says: “We, the signers of this declaration, proclaim that we support and stand for righteousness in the defense of the unborn…. We will stand with our brother Jim Kopp. We will support him for his love of unborn children.” It ends with a reference to “those who have made the ultimate sacrifice” in defending unborn children.
Take the time and do read the rest of the article. What else can be said?
Further, why did the Southern Baptist Convention elect this man that so many find to be a joke? Thus far, at least one or two SBCers at Baptistlife.com have called for Wiley Drake’s resignation. Let’s see if any more will…
BDW,
You ask, “What else can be said?”
Well, the first thing that should be said is, “Someone should actually go talk to Wiley Drake about this, not the SBC, and certainly not the blogosphere.”
I don’t think your question (“why did the Southern Baptist Convention elect this man that so many find to be a joke?”) is either appropriate or relevant in this case.
First, who really cares whether one considers a Christian to be a joke or not? Should we really be concerned about what the world thinks of us? Legitimate criticism is one thing, but unfortuantely much of the Ethics Daily article focused on disconnected facts about Drake’s beliefs, many of which are simply ad hominems and have nothing to do with this particular situation or Drake’s election as 2nd VP of the SBC. And yet neither Bob Allen, nor the Southern Poverty Law Center point out a central fact that is necessary to their readers, namely when Wiley Drake signed the statement, or whether it was known by anyone in the SBC prior to his election. Ethics Daily has no problem though (and it seems that neither do you) suggesting that such an action could have or would have been known prior to his election in 2006. So maybe we could ask some more appropriate questions that would lead us to a knowledge of the facts, not just merely accusations that have just enough information to suggest impropriety and/or incompetence, yet don’t at all further our understanding of the situation. For goodness sakes, neither article even indicates that anyone contacted Drake about this – what kind of journalism is that?? Why try to make contact with the SBC (when again it only really exists for 3 days in June) when you could pick up the phone and call Drake, who never seems to shy away from expressing his opinion??
However, having said that, I want Drake to answer for signing this. If Drake is supporting the killing of abortion doctors as a righteous action or even as morally indifferent, then I think he should be called to repent and appropriate action should be taken should he refuse. What I am not prepared to do without more facts is to call for Drake’s resignation without due process. Simply calling for one’s resignation without personally speaking to him is a worldly action – Jesus called us to actually confront those we believe to be in sin and personally call them to repentence if they are at fault (especially leaders) – not to call for one’s resignation from afar.
Drake needs to be questioned by the SBC leadership – particularly the Executive Committee and the the President Frank Page. Drake should then be asked to give account for this action before the convention this summer. And he should be given the chance to repent, explain his position, and be subjected to criticism in an open forum. Then the convention should be able to make a choice afterwards whether to extend his Vice-Presidency or to ask him to resign by electing someone else. That might not satisfy the time line of those who would rather jump to conclusions than actually sit down and have a conversation with their brother in Christ, but it is certainly a more Christlike way.
The facts are simple. He signed this letter of support.
What else can be said?
I don’t think Wiley can justify signing that document.
You’re directing attention away from the issue at hand. Whether Wiley Drake was contacted or not, doesn’t matter to me or anyone else. His name is on the document. The facts speak for themselves.
My experience has been that people don’t always respond to requests for comment. Since you’re part of the SBC – perhaps you should contact Wiley Drake. As your 2nd Vice President, it seems he at least owes you an answer – not Bob Allen or Southern Poverty Law Center. Perhaps you should even contact a member of the Exec Committee for an answer.
Nonetheless, it doesn’t look great when an elected SBC official is connected (with his signature of support) to such a document and organization.
I’ve been told that Drake was contacted. In fact, a simple google of Wiley Drake reveals a website at least 2, maybe 3 years old that discusses the document and who the signers are. The article from SPLC actually states that the SBC in Nashville was contacted but officials declined to comment.
I said the guy was a joke – not as a person, I don’t know him – but his outspoken nature has made him the butt of many jokes especially within the SBC. I’m not sure many people take him seriously…
You know, Caligula considered having his favorite horse appointed as Consul. Drake did not arrive at this position without help.
So BDW,
What you are saying is we should condemn this man, call for his resignation, and basically make a decision without not only questioning him, but without even knowing any other facts than that this statement was alledgedly signed by him. And you want to rely on hearsay as to whether Drake was even contacted (though you apparently don’t know by whom or what was his reply and you don’t care!).
Hmmm…and what is your future occupation? You know “condemn first, ask questions later” might work in the secular world (especially among liberals), but I still believe in the Biblical teachings of confronting a man to his face, getting his side, and then calling him to repent should that prove necessary.
The fact is we don’t know when Drake signed this statement, what his motivation was in doing so, what he meant by what he said, and whether he still stands by what he wrote. He may very well have written this years ago, have forgotten what he wrote, and now today regrets doing so. If that was the case, should we condemn him on that basis? Can Christians not change? Can they not be wrong? Can they not repent of a wrongheaded belief without having to relinquish their current positions?
I wouldn’t have had a problem at all if you would have brought this up and called for the man to be confronted, but you step beyond that and incredibly ignore the need for more facts (or at least a conversation with the man himself) by asking, “What else can be said?” and justifying your condemnation by YOUR OPINION – “I don’t think Wiley can justify signing that document.”
You said, “Whether Wiley Drake was contacted or not, doesn’t matter to me or anyone else. His name is on the document. The facts speak for themselves.”
Well I think it might matter to Jesus Christ who called us to confront men to their face when in sin, not speak about them behind their backs, condemning them without allowing them to speak (remember Matthew 18?). I just think a Christian brother deserves better, even if he is wrong and holds to an unChristlike position.
D.R.
I’m not relying on hearsay.
I was TOLD that Drake was contacted. Maybe you don’t trust your friends – but I DO.
You often argue for the sake of arguing. Instead of wasting 2000+ words on my blog, perhaps you should send Wiley Drake a short email? How about emailing a member of the Executive Committee? Have you done that?
Nobody has ignored the facts. This post was based on trustworthy journalism. The guy was contacted. Get over it.
And, I do think a persons signature speaks for itself. It’s his. That’s a fact. I don’t need Wiley Drake’s explanation. Maybe you think that such a person should serve as Vice President of the SBC? I hope you’re the only one. For those of us who still claim the title – Baptist – it’s quite embarrassing when Wiley Drake’s come along and defend cold-blooded murderers.
Before I criticize a public figure in the future, I’ll be sure to “confront” them personally. I’m sure they’ll respond – what a joke.
Wiley Drake may repent of his actions but that doesn’t mean he should keep his job. Our actions have consequences. What does a person have to do to lose a leadership position in the Southern Baptist Convention?
Quit defending Wiley Drake and actually do something, if you are truly concerned as you said previously…
I love how you try to throw this back at me without even considering if you have actually done something wrong here. Your comment that I argue for the sake of arguing is an attempt to ignore my criticism, particularly the Scripture I mentioned and the fact that indeed you do have a responsibility to be fair to your fellow Christian brother (even though it appears you have forgotten that – or at least overlooked it).
So, if he was contacted, then by whom (Ethics Daily, Bob Allen, or some guy you know?), who is your source, and what was Drake’s reply he say? Why not post any of that information? Trusting your friends is not an excuse for poor reporting. And if Ethics Daily was such a reputable source of journalism, why did they not mention contacting Wiley (if they indeed did) and what was his reply?
You said, “Before I criticize a public figure in the future, I’ll be sure to “confront” them personally. I’m sure they’ll respond – what a joke.”
Yeah, that Scripture stuff is such a joke. I’m glad to see a moderate finally admit they believe that. Sorry, but if you are not going to actually deal with my argument regarding Matthew 18, then I guess I have to stoop to silly conclusions like this one (which is similar to your statement “Maybe you think that such a person should serve as Vice President of the SBC? I hope you’re the only one.”). I guess two can play at the red herring/straw man game. Of course I would prefer sitting aside the logical fallacies and engaging in a more respectful debate.
You said, “Quit defending Wiley Drake and actually do something, if you are truly concerned as you said previously…”
I also love how you ignore parts of what I wrote by skirting around them with false accusations. Let’s see, I’ve called signing such a statement sinful, I’ve said that he should be called to account for his actions, and that he should be asked to report on his behavior at the SBC convention in June. Additionally, I have said that if he does not repent he should be forced to resign.
What I take issue with is your tone, your admitted lack of concern for the facts, and your quick move to condemn without a full knowledge of the facts or at the least a response by the accused. But, instead of looking at yourself and asking if this post was problematic, you have chosen to accuse me of sympathizing with such a cause? How ridiculous is that?
Look Aaron, notice how many post of yours over the past four months have been critical of either the SBC or a conservative Baptist associated with the SBC. You seem to have a vendetta. Unfortunately, like this time, you allow it to cloud your judgement, and attack others like myself who find fault with your reasoning. In the past you have attacked BP News for writing critically on the CBF, yet they can’t compare to the percentage of critical pieces about them on your website (or Ethics Daily for that matter). Looks like a double standard to me.
First, my friend or source is not EthicsDaily. And not even a Baptist. But, I’m not here to share my private conversations with you. EthicsDaily and the Intelligent Report published legit stories. It’s his name, his signature. Period. Journalists usually confirm stories before they are published. Most stories don’t say, “we contacted Wiley Drake for comment, but he was unavailable, bla bla bla.” College papers do that. Most real news organizations leave that part out.
If the story was not legit, I would not have blogged on it.
Next time, before blogging on Obama or John Kerry or whomever, remember Matthew 18. Contact them personally. I’m sure they’ll answer. We live in the 21st century and I trust trustworthy news organizations and reporters. Should I contact X,Y,and Z personally before blogging a story printed in the Washington Post, Christian Post, or RNS next time???
Come on.
Can you honestly say that you contact public figures before you blog on them?
Yes, you have called such a statement sinful. But at the same time, you’ve made every effort to attack the messenger and not call on the man to resign and repent. Again, why have you not contacted Wiley Drake or the SBC Officials?
Let me debunk your last false accusation. You can double check me, if you wish
Over the past 4 months (January – April), I have written 33 posts. Of those 33 posts, I have been 100% critical of the SBC (and related leaders) in 6 of those posts. Two recently, 1 critical of Richard Land’s support of Just War, 1 critical of Al Mohler’s plan to cure gay babies, 1 in response to Russ Moore’s mention of the New Baptist Convenant, and one critical of the Baptist Press and gay-friendly authors. That’s 18 percent of my posts.
In addition, I have defended Sheri Klouda (twice), Dwight McKissic, and wrote a piece on sex abuse (which encouraged the SBC to take action, not a critical theme).
I have addressed the State Baptist Convention of North Carolina (once), Women’s ordination (unrelated to SBC), and two political funnies.
Recently, I have reported positively on Richard Land THREE times, a blog on James Dobson and the environment, 3 posts on John Edwards, 1 on Democrats and Abortion, 2 on Martin Luther King, 1 on Muslim Congressman, 1 on Molly Ivins, 1 against the Confederate Heritage Month, 1 on Baptist Joint Committee, and two on the New Baptist Covenant (nothing to do with the SBc, again).
I have even been critical of Moderates in two posts – maybe you missed those.
Heck, at least 1/3rd of my posts have absolutely nothing to do with Baptists and are solely about politics and politicians. But maybe you missed those, again.
Aaron,
First these statements are absolutely wrong:
Most stories don’t say, “we contacted Wiley Drake for comment, but he was unavailable, bla bla bla.” College papers do that. Most real news organizations leave that part out.
In fact, to attempt to contact someone you are writing a story about is Journalism 101 and so is reporting that attempt. Maybe you should read the newspaper more and Ethics Daily a little less.
Secondly, the fact that you cannot report on who told you Drake was contacted makes it suspect that it even happened (especially since it didn’t happen by Ethics Daily – the source of your blog). This is one of my biggest problems with this story. Neither the SPLC nor Ethics Daily indicate they contacted Drake (the SBC does not control what is said and not said by its members or even its officers when not speaking in an official capacity, which Drake clearly was not, so why contact them? Anyone who knows anything about the SBC should know this).
So again I reiterate, contacting the person at the center of the story is an important part of journalism and to either ignore it or make it into a secret affair only calls into question the integrity of the reporting source. That is my central problem with you posting this. Drake was not given a say, yet you advocate taking action against him, like the bloggers you link to. I am especially critical of your post because you go above and beyond by calling for action without due process (like contacting him and getting more details). That is what I find extrememly problematic for a future lawyer and for a Christian. Calling for disciplinary action without allowing the man to speak is the central issue here, not merely reporting the fact that his name appeared on the website and that in doing so he supported sinful behavior (“What else can be said?” as I noted in my first comment is not an appropriate question).
Let’s remember what the central issue is and not try to cloud it by bringing in more and more red herrings, like my posts on Obama and Kerry, which do not fit into this debate at all. First, neither call for disciplinary action without due process. Second, in both cases the Congressmen were given chances to respond to their critics about public information. Third, in both cases the views of the two men were clearly articulated and there was never of question of what they said or did, when it happened, and why they said or did what occurred. NONE of those things exist in this case.
Additionally, you called Drake a joke (a rather disrespectful comment) and you have indicated that no further investigation needs to be done. All this adds up to why I am critical of your post. You can continue to ignore my critiques and attack me with red herrings, but that will not justify the problems with your post.
Finally, I love how you twist the significance of my points about your continuing assault against the SBC and its members and officers. You note that you were only 100% critical about the SBC or its members in 6 posts out of 33, but that wasn’t my point. My point is that in the majority of those posts you were critical in some way. One example is how you have used the “THREE” positive articles on Land to make negative comments about either the entirety of the SBC or many of those within in (which you often label “fundamentalists” and remember your off-the-cuff comments in those posts regarding Roger Moran?). Additionally, your articles on Sheri Klouda were obviously critical of SWBTS, and you were clearly critical of the SBC position on the ordination of women. My point is that you have found ways in the majority of your posts to either directly or indirectly attack the SBC, its members, or the clear theological and social positions that most Southern Baptists hold (just like Bruce Prescott does in pretty much EVERY post). It is not a false accusation to say such. If you want an example of a false accusation, then it is that I am defending Wiley Drake’s signature on the document simply because I believe that a statement like, “What else can be said?” is unfair to a Christian brother and because I believe that Drake should be given a chance to answer for his actions BEFORE one calls for his resignation. Maybe I’m old school, but I think confronting a BROTHER IN CHRIST is important before condemning him and calling him to relinquish any position he holds.
D.R.
I do have non-Baptist friends.
I worked in Washington, was an active Young Democrat, and went to a major University in the South. Did you stop to think that perhaps I know someone at the Intelligence Report?
Don’t give me a lesson on journalism.
The article was accurate and fair. Why don’t you actually do something if you truly care? Don’t dodge it anymore…
If you have beef with EthicsDaily or Bruce Prescott – take it up with them – not me.
I’m a Baptist. My area is Baptists. I will always write on Baptists. If standing with Burleson and not Moran on three posts makes me critical of the SBC, so be it. Did you take a side on those issues? Don’t you have an opinion?
Here’s the thing. You always chime in on moderate sites – but you never address your own Convention. Why is that?
I presented the evidence. It speaks for itself. Half of my posts do not deal with Southern Baptists. The other half do. Not all of those posts were even critical. I may be the only moderate Baptist who has praised a fundamentalist leader in a long time.
I don’t have time.
Contact your SBC officials. Contact Wiley Drake. I already have.
Put up.
Once again you avoid any criticism by turning on me. Maybe you will make a good lawyer. Bob and weave, bob and weave. Eventually it will catch up with you.
Hey, my favorite line: Hmmm…and what is your future occupation? You know “condemn first, ask questions later” might work in the secular world (especially among liberals),
Yeah, those liberals are awful.
If you notice, D.R. avoids my criticisms as well.
Next time I don’t criticize a Southern Baptist (see 2/3rds of most posts the past 4 months) – please remember to comment.
Actually, check out my latest post. It deals with Southern Baptists but no criticism…
d.r.,
I really am curious about something. I am a bit unclear why you can so easily dismiss liberals as less moral (and implicitly secular) but chastize BDW for calling another Christian a joke? That might have been a throwaway line for you, I don’t know.
I find that conservatives often find it easy to disparage liberals (and yes, I know it goes the other way, and yes, I know I did it to you) and often just drop those lines as if they are readily apparent.
Help me out here. Is it ok for you to disparage liberals but not ok for BDW to suggest that Drake is a “joke” for associating with AOG?
Friday May 4, 2007.
Army of God James Kopp Declaration.
Wiley Drakes name and comment is no longer on the declaration.
BD
I saw that.
However, AoG is not the only website that has had the Declaration posted for several years. Those have not removed the Declaration.
Streak,
Can you point me to where I “so easily dismiss liberals as less moral (and implicitly secular).” I don’t remember ever doing this. First of all I don’t usually attack the character of the person, but rather their actions (though in this type of format it is easy to mistake the two). I don’t think classifying a debate tactic or a form of argumentation as being something that a liberal (or conservative, or moderate) does is something that you could necessarily call disparaging. The fact is over the last few years you have seen over and over among Democrats and liberals a pattern of calling for people’s resignations almost immediately when there is any controversy. Yet when it comes to guys like William Jefferson (D-LA) and now Diana Fienstein (D-CA) there is little public outrage from the Dems. Comparing BDW’s very quick call for Drake’s resignation without knowing all the facts or asking for the man to account for his actions with liberal behavior in the past is legitimate, though it doesn’t mean I think liberals are inherently immoral or secularistic (even as I wouldn’t say that about BDW).
In this case I have a lot of respect for Aaron and I don’t consider him at all a typical liberal. In fact, while I think he generally sides with more liberal causes, I wouldn’t call him a classic liberal. Part of the reason I take the time to debate with him is because I think that he and his audience are legitimate thinkers and I don’t think they are drinking the MoveOn.org kool-aid. Additionally, I think Aaron and some others who read him haven’t made up their minds on all issues.
So, while I respect him, I think both he and his readers are often wrong and I think that part of the greatness of blogs is that they encourage vast arrays of opinion and give a format for debate (albeit with lots of limitations).
So, I reject the fact that I “disparage liberals” simply for being liberal. I think that most of their views are wrong and hence I feel I should offer a different view. As to your specific complaint, I think Aaron is wrong to classify any man as a “joke.” I think it is a bit of an immature comment and if nothing else an ad hominem. Thus I noted that. But having answered you, I don’t find that the two issues you brought up are really related enough to combine them into one compaint. I hope you see this now.