Why Wiley Drake Should Not Be VP of the SBC
When the Southern Baptist Convention voted to boycott Disney World, I took my entire family, the very next day, to Orlando, Florida to enjoy Disney World. I told my church it was the best vacation we ever had. It was then, in the mid-1990's, that Wiley Drake first came into my consciousness. He was the man who recommended that boycott at the SBC, and the messengers passed it. I let my strong disagreement with Wiley be known at the time.
In fact, Wiley's views on everything denominationally, politically, and about life in general are as different from my views as the colors across the aisle on the 50 yard line at the annual Texas OU Cotton Bowl tussle. Wiley's classic dispensationalism, ardent fundamentalism, and strident political activism are the antithesis of my views. My concern over the last several years has been that we, the SBC, are becoming ideologically like the Wiley Drakes of this world .
Last year in Greensboro, North Carolina, an elderly pastor named Bill Dotson took it upon himself to nominate Wiley to the position of Second Vice President of the SBC. He asked Ben Cole to write the nominating speech. I believe the speech to elect Wiley Drake will go down in history as one of the most, if not the, funniest SBC nominating speeches of all time.
Wiley Drake was elected.
My choice for Second Vice President was my friend Bob Bender from Colorado. In fact, I had helped Bob get his nominator and talked with him several times about his being nominated. I did not know Wiley personally before he was elected, having only one conversation with him (and that was about our disagreements), but after Wiley was elected, I met him, his wife, and his mother-in-law during an informal reception at our hotel.
This is what I discovered. Wiley is a man who possesses a very soft heart. He ministers to the down and out in a street ministry that he personally leads. Most of us who are Southern Baptist pastors wouldn't even think of helping in, much less organizing, such a ministry to the poor and outcast. He cares for the Mexican immigrants in California as if they were his own family, buying food and clothes for them as he tries to help them get established. He cared for his aged mother-in-law, who was in a wheel chair, with both class and grace. Wiley is a man of paradox. He thinks like a fundamentalist but he seems to care for the underdog like a liberal.
Wiley's views on abortion are well known. He strongly opposes abortion and calls it 'the murder of our children.' What is not so well known is Wiley's alleged support of a man in prison for killing an abortion doctor. Some liberals question why people are silent about Wiley's 'support' of domestic terrorism. Other fundamentalists take me to task for sending a message to the powers that be in 'getting Wiley elected.'
A few thoughts on Wiley Drake for people to ruminate on:
(1). If our convention continues down the road of fundamentalism, Wiley Drake will be the norm, not the aberration.
(2). 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 - it will wake us up to the fact that our mission is to take the gospel of Jesus Christ to the ends of the world. We are a gospel convention not a political convention.
(3). However, I would be very cautious about accepting something you read on the Internet about Wiley Drake. I have not spoken to Wiley on the issue of his 'support' of a murderer. I, like everybody else, just found out about it. I've not heard Wiley speak to it. Too many people are quick to jump to unfounded conclusions before talking to the people involved. I am not defending Wiley, I am just urging caution to all who would castigate him before you talk to him.
(4). I love the SBC and support the SBC with dollars and ministry. I am skeptical of anything that is said to embarrass the SBC by those who were once participating in the SBC but pulled out. The SBC needs neither liberalism or fundamentalism. Both Pharisaical and Sadduceal extremes may have their place in the religious world, but not in the SBC. We need moderation in all things except our love for Christ.
(5). 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.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
In fact, Wiley's views on everything denominationally, politically, and about life in general are as different from my views as the colors across the aisle on the 50 yard line at the annual Texas OU Cotton Bowl tussle. Wiley's classic dispensationalism, ardent fundamentalism, and strident political activism are the antithesis of my views. My concern over the last several years has been that we, the SBC, are becoming ideologically like the Wiley Drakes of this world .
Last year in Greensboro, North Carolina, an elderly pastor named Bill Dotson took it upon himself to nominate Wiley to the position of Second Vice President of the SBC. He asked Ben Cole to write the nominating speech. I believe the speech to elect Wiley Drake will go down in history as one of the most, if not the, funniest SBC nominating speeches of all time.
Wiley Drake was elected.
My choice for Second Vice President was my friend Bob Bender from Colorado. In fact, I had helped Bob get his nominator and talked with him several times about his being nominated. I did not know Wiley personally before he was elected, having only one conversation with him (and that was about our disagreements), but after Wiley was elected, I met him, his wife, and his mother-in-law during an informal reception at our hotel.
This is what I discovered. Wiley is a man who possesses a very soft heart. He ministers to the down and out in a street ministry that he personally leads. Most of us who are Southern Baptist pastors wouldn't even think of helping in, much less organizing, such a ministry to the poor and outcast. He cares for the Mexican immigrants in California as if they were his own family, buying food and clothes for them as he tries to help them get established. He cared for his aged mother-in-law, who was in a wheel chair, with both class and grace. Wiley is a man of paradox. He thinks like a fundamentalist but he seems to care for the underdog like a liberal.
Wiley's views on abortion are well known. He strongly opposes abortion and calls it 'the murder of our children.' What is not so well known is Wiley's alleged support of a man in prison for killing an abortion doctor. Some liberals question why people are silent about Wiley's 'support' of domestic terrorism. Other fundamentalists take me to task for sending a message to the powers that be in 'getting Wiley elected.'
A few thoughts on Wiley Drake for people to ruminate on:
(1). If our convention continues down the road of fundamentalism, Wiley Drake will be the norm, not the aberration.
(2). 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 - it will wake us up to the fact that our mission is to take the gospel of Jesus Christ to the ends of the world. We are a gospel convention not a political convention.
(3). However, I would be very cautious about accepting something you read on the Internet about Wiley Drake. I have not spoken to Wiley on the issue of his 'support' of a murderer. I, like everybody else, just found out about it. I've not heard Wiley speak to it. Too many people are quick to jump to unfounded conclusions before talking to the people involved. I am not defending Wiley, I am just urging caution to all who would castigate him before you talk to him.
(4). I love the SBC and support the SBC with dollars and ministry. I am skeptical of anything that is said to embarrass the SBC by those who were once participating in the SBC but pulled out. The SBC needs neither liberalism or fundamentalism. Both Pharisaical and Sadduceal extremes may have their place in the religious world, but not in the SBC. We need moderation in all things except our love for Christ.
(5). 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.
In His Grace,
Wade Burleson
posted by Wade Burleson | Thursday, May 03, 2007
104 Comments:
Wade, thanks for another on-spot commentary!
In His Grace and Peace,
T. D. Webb
Wade: Very well put. I hope you are correct that Drake will not be elected again. And I think you are right on that Drake represents the direction that many in SBC leadership seem to be headed.
While I have not spoken with Drake about this recent issue, I have spoken with him in the past. Although he was a very nice guy, I was troubled by much of what he said.
That conversation led to an article I wrote about Drake's connections with the Moonies. Although he apologized publicly back in 2001, I reported that he actually continued to be a part of their events. When I interviewed him, he at first denied he had done any other events, but he did kind of admit to it when I pointed the facts out.
I fear that you are right that Drake is where the SBC is headed. While he should be commended for his work with the poor and ignored peoples, we must not follow his example of exclusion. From his Disney boycott to his attacks on public schools to his attacks on the Baptist World Alliance, Drake has been drawing more and more lines to exclude more and more people.
Wade: Well said.
You seem to hint ("...if it takes the election of Wiley Drake for Southern Baptists to see that the logical end of extreme evangelical fundamentalism ...") at the fact that God is behind the scenes directing what is going on in the SBC. To that, I say "amen".
And Amen.
I never have understood the disdain many had for the Disney boycott. In my younger days, I was a member of Bread for the World and Evangelicals for Social Action. I have subscribed to Sojourners and The Other Side.
I was deeply affected by Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger by Sider.
All those entities were BIG on evaluating your consumer choices in the light of your Biblical convictions. As an example, I participated in the Nestle boycott for years. All of this "liberal".
You had the perfect freedom to go to Disney World, boycott or not. But why does it make you so mad that there was a boycott? Any boycott ever? Or just this particular one?
Wade,
If, as you say, "our convention continues down the road of fundamentalism, Wiley Drake will be the norm, not the aberration."
UMMMMMMM? Since when was Wiley Drake a candidate endorsed or supported by Conservative Resurgence leaders? By your own admission his nomination was supported not by the Paige Patterson's of the convention, but rather by your friend and political ally Ben Cole, whose speech no doubt will go down in history. I admire the humorous wit that Ben has. I think most would agree that it was Ben's hilarious nominating speech and not the logical outcome of conservative leadership that led to Drake's election.
I think there is partly a problem in the whole election process anyway. Leading up to Greensboro many people asked "What does a Second VP do?" The response most gave was "not much." The candidates don't really campaign (at least not to the "person in the pew" messenger), they are just brought up at the last minute, so unless one is very knowledgeable as to the "who's who" of SBC life, we are left voting based upon nomination speeches alone. If we are concerned about the public image of the SBC, and if that is what the President and Vice President is really all about, then perhaps it shouldn't all hinge on one speech. I'll admit it ... I voted for the speech. As a first time messenger, I didn't know much about Wiley at all.
That is the power of the speech writer in SBC politics. But then, I guess a lot of people knew that already.
Ms. Karen in Oklahoma,
Our convention has better things to do, like focusing on the gospel, missions around the world, and cooperative ministry -- positive changes for a dark world in need of the light of Jesus Christ -- than to boycott Walt Disney and his Disney World character.
I wasn't mad, just astounded that the SBC can't tell the difference between what is important and what is absurd.
Mr. Civil War Photographer Matt Brady :),
The policies of Wiley Drake are the policies of fundamentalism.
Ok Wade, let me get this right because I am a little confused and you know how dense we "Spooky Fundies" can be : )
1) You obviously and rightly so distance yourself from Wiley Drake.
2) You never really supported WD due to his antics and positions in the past.
3) In fact, you supported another candidate for VP, Bob Bender
4) It was in fact, Bill Dotsons idea to nominate Wiley, and Ben Cole was jsut being helpful in electing him by writing the speech
5) Your reason for not supporting WIley was because he represented Business as usual and was typical of fundamentalist leadership
6) This recent incident only goes to show us what can happen if we Southern Baptist continue to elect those extreme fundamentalist that we have been so enamored with.
then you seem to make the point that WIley is what is waiting for us if we do not 'moderate' our convention.
Is that pretty much your position?
Jack Maddox
oh Wade...one mnore question for you if you don't mind.
Did you vote for Wiley Drake in Greensboro?
Jack Maddox
One problem that I have with actions such as the Disney Boycott is that I can not find any basis in the Bible for Christians to ostracize unbelievers for thinking and behaving like unbelievers. Expecting to cause lost people to act like saved people through some contrived external means rather than through the saving work of the Holy Spirit in their lives is an exercise in futility.
If we were a little more patient in the face of sin in the lives of unbelievers and a little less tolerant of sin in the lives of confessing Christians, we would go a long way toward being the church we are called to be.
Wade,
You say that Wiley's policies are the policies of fundamentalism. So now suddenly Ben wants to take us down the road of narrow fundamentalism helping to elect men like Wiley Drake? I thought he was your ally in leading us down the road of friendly cooperation? Which is it?
By the way, since you labeled Wes Kenney as a fundamentalist in your post, no doubt you would do the same to me. I'm in no way supportive of Wiley Drake for leadership in our convention, nor do I know of anyone in conservative leadership that supported his candidacy. Vocal support only came from some in your network of political allies.
Petitions and boycotting never has brought people to salvation.
I do not boycott nor sign petitions because my question is how do you expect those without Christ to behave? I am a new creature not because of boycotting but because of Christ. I am not a Green Beret for Christianity nor is my battle cry "Onward Christian Soldiers."
Mr. Maddox,
I sense a little fear that my point that the SBC needs to moderate from her advancing fundamentalism is beginning to be felt and heard.
I was always for Bob Bender, but like my pink hatted friend Bob Cleveland pointed out above, 'God works in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform'
In His Grace,
Wade
I agree boycotts can be overdone, problematic, and ineffective. And Christians can and will reasonably differ on where that line is drawn. But for example, I hope that I would have joined in William Wilberforce's boycott of sugar raised by slaves had I been in that time and place.
It seems to me that SOMETIMES it is appropriate for Christians to get out of the huddle and speak collectively to the culture at large that something is wrong.
Disney, for example, was not about not liking Mickey Mouse. It was about a corporate policy of Disney on homosexuality, which would partly be funded by any individual Christian's dollars spent there.
Mr. Matt Brady,
Ask Ben what he thinks of Wiley's policies. He speaks quite well for himself and I will not choose to do so.
Regardless what you think of Wiley, ask yourself this question -
'How did he get elected to an office in the SBC?' The answer to that question may solve the riddle on how the SBC can, has been, and is manipulated for the election of officers who do not hold to the majority views of Southern Baptists.
Karen,
You don't change the hearts of homosexuals by boycotting Mickey Mouse.
You change the hearts of homosexuals by loving them enough to take the gospel of Christ to them and tell them the truth about their sin and the only Savior given for sinners.
This post has been removed by the author.
Wade, a very solid and courageous post, my friend! See ya' in San Antonio!
This post has been removed by the author.
Karen: I am well aware what the boycott was about. I agree with what Wade has said. Boycotts work no better in this situation than if we declared the official doctrine in the United States is to be Christianity, forcing people to accept it,as some have voiced they would like to do.
God works from the inside out, not the outside in.
I took my family to Disney World in 1994 when the convention was there. It was at the time that I learned about Gay Pride Day at Disney World. We went on the Monday after the event. We were in line talking to a couple from Ohio who had come down to enjoy Disney World. They showed up on Gay Day wearing red shirts not realizing what was going on. The lady's husband had sexual advances made upon him all day long by the male homosexuals. They found out later about the significance of the red shirts. It was disguisting according to the couple.
Wade, Walt Disney would roll over in his grave at the direction of Disney. They needed to be boycotted and I am glad the SBC did so!
Mr. Burleson
I fear you may misunderstand the intent of my post or you seek to pint it in another vain alltogether. Fear...fear my friend? Not from this preacher! In fact, this only substatiates what I have felt all along...that you and Ben and perhaps others are the masters of Baptist politics. Your former connections with past political machinery in the SBC has taught you both well. The fact that you now turn your poilical warewithall on the current SBC is quite telling. No Mr. Burleson, you misread my post if you think I am in any way starting to see your point. I greatly enjoyed our fellowship in Arlington and although I do believe that we in the SBC should tolerate other views...I feel this has nothing to do with that. Your equating the comments and actions of Wiley Drake to the dangers of the current SBC and the direction of our convention only serves to drive an even larger wedge between your position and myself. I am afraid your position on this issue and on other issuesis are far to transparent for this simple minded fundy.
I will see you in San Antonio and God's blessings as you travel there.
Jack Maddox
Wade,
You said I should ask myself:
"'How did [Wiley Drake] get elected to an office in the SBC?' The answer to that question may solve the riddle on how the SBC can, has been, and is manipulated for the election of officers who do not hold to the majority views of Southern Baptists."
I still happen to believe that the majority of Southern Baptists in the pew still hold to the fundamentals of Scripture. I believe the will of the majority HAS been heard for 28 years. Your question above, is the very reason I am concerned with your network of friends who are working to elect those who I don't believe represent the true majority of our convention.
We should be careful not to take an "anybody but Drake" attitude into the election. All of the reasons not to vote for Drake (which, if true, are admittedly compelling) must be weighed in the balance with a number of other factors, including the views and qualifications of any alternative candidates.
Mr. Brady,
We are not talking abou the fundamentals of the Scripture.
I believe in the fundamentals.
We are talking about the fundamentalism of the extremists who wish to separate from everyone over ever little disagreement in doctrine.
Cooperation is the fabric of our convention - not conformity.
Jack,
I'm glad to know you have sworn off politics.
You must be aware my friend that the very structure of our SBC requires politics for change to occur.
Our convention must moderate.
It will.
Folks
This is not about who supports boycotts or not...this post is about the actions of Wiley Drake in regards to the duplicity of Wade Burleson and Ben Cole in their former support of him.
Why duplicity you ask? Because if they were so against everything he stood for then why did they endorse, defend and celebrate his victory. What was their reasons?
Can you answer that Wade?
and Wade...you have not answered my other question. Did you vote for Wiley Drake?
Jack Maddox
Debbie and Timothy and others,
You are right that we should not attempt to force others to be Christians. As if we could.
And Wade is right on how the hearts of people are changed.
But I strongly disagree with your seeming assessment of all boycotts.
William Wilberforce has been one of my heroes for years. Since this is the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in England, more is easily available on his life and the activities of the Clapham sect.
I would urge you to look again at Wilberforce's activities. Urged on by John Newton, the former slave trader. Some appropriate activities by Christians do not change people's hearts but still have a great impact upon society for the better.
Karen: I would not put the boycott of Disney next to William Wilberforce. There is no comparison.
The cultural, moral and spiritual battle will not be won by complaining and boycotting, even slapping our hand on the battle.
The SBC better wake up and smell the coffee, because our reputation, our very name means to many legalistic, mean spirited, having little compassion and I could go on and on. Do I want to align myself with the likes of Westboro Baptist Church? Definitely not.
We are supposed to be a reflection of Christ.
He didn't have a problem with sinners rather loved them and offered them a way out. His problem was with the religious, specifically the religious leaders.
It's about inclusive ideas not personalities when we look to leadership.
Thanks Wade for this update.
The idea of standing up for right is always right. How it is done will determine its effectiveness.
I am a black person that realizes that some boycotting may be necessary. I think of the bus boycotts that took place. My parents told me about them and I heard about them when I was very young during Black History classes. It set a moral compass for the nation.
I am also a person that lost a job and took five years before I could find work in my field. I also have business training and watch the trends in business from time to time. Anyone that keeps up with business will note that many of them will 'prosper' with a reduction in labor costs. TRANSLATION they laid people off and/or began to hire offshore workers at 20-30% of American wages. I know this is against the law but I have seen this personally.
There was a time that I would participate in boycotts thinking that I was sending a message to the companies by squeezing their finances. Hoever my view changed after working For a brief time in a call center where the vast majority of workers were offshore. I'm in Tulsa OK where the wages for call center workers are some of the lowest in the nation. Many call centers have moved here in the past few years. When I worked there 200-400 jobs were lost because a major mobile phone company wanted to reduce their labor costs. I told my Mother that was impossible domestically. Those jobs went to India.
This is my point. People can boycott businesses until the cows come home. Because of NAFTA and CAFTA companies can lay off workers and hire replacement workers offshore for a portion of what they would have paid American workers and still make a profit. No points will be made in the vast majority of cases and many people, including Christians, will be out on the street looking for work. The heads of these companies will not lose much if anything.
When I hear Christians screaming boycott anymore I shudder thinking about how many American Christians could lose their jobs in the process. Lost people are going to act like lost people. They will make decisions that Christians disagree with. That is because they have a dead nature inside. When my friends send me emails about a boycott they get a very long email from me stating why I will not support them anymore. I feel a better way is to pray that the Lord send laborers across the paths of the corporate heads so they can hear the gospel and change.
Mr. Maddox,
I was against Wiley Drake holding office from the very beginning and told Ben Cole that personally before the election. After the election I met Wiley and saw his heart. I happily call Wiley a brother in Christ. I look forward to continued cooperation with him as a Southern Baptist. I don't know how many times I have to tell you that Bob Bender was my choice Maybe if I say it in an unkown tongue you will understand. :)
Mr. Maddox, you above all should know that I value acceptance and cooperation with all - including fundamentalists. Wiley Drake is a pure fundamentalist. He has much in common with the fundamentalists in our convention.
I will sit back and watch with amusement as my fundamentalist friends seek to distance themselves from Wiley. Wiley is what we were becoming.
But it seems by your reaction to Wiley, you and others of similar ilk are beginning to see the light. Blessings.
Wade,
Those of our "ilk" have always seen the light concerning Wiley Drake. It was those of your "ilk" that helped put Wiley in as 2cnd VP.
Wade,
You say:
"Cooperation is the fabric of our convention - not conformity."
I agree, but at what point do you draw the lines of cooperation. According to your post, the SBC should no longer include men like Wiley Drake in leadership. Are you too narrow to accept Drake?
My point is that we all have preferences for the kind of leadership that we want and are willing to draw lines that we will not cross. Some of us just draw the lines at different places.
The difference for me is that I would never say Wiley has no business running for office, I just may not vote for him. From what I understand some are saying that if a person does not meet the criteria if voted in he/she cannot serve.
Wade,
You said:
'How did he get elected to an office in the SBC?' The answer to that question may solve the riddle on how the SBC can, has been, and is manipulated for the election of officers who do not hold to the majority views of Southern Baptists.
In my humble opinion the SBC will never elect officers who hold to the majority view of Southern Baptists… until the majority of Southern Baptist are allowed to elect their officers…
Until the SBC adopts a “One Baptist One Vote” policy the process will always be open to manipulation!
Why is everyone in the SBC so afraid of democracy? …is it because those who are in power got there under the current system and really do not trust the Southern Baptist people?
Now, getting down from my soap box…
Grace to all,
Mr. Matt Brady,
My church member, Debbie Kaufman, answered your question.
Wiley is always free to run. The question is whether or not our convnention messengers will elect him.
Debbie,
"some are saying that if a person does not meet the criteria if voted in he/she cannot serve"
?????
Could you find me one quote, just one, anywhere to that effect? I would love to see it.
This post has been removed by the author.
Can I draw attention back to the fact that you have labeled Wes Kenney as a fundamentalist.
I thought you were against that sort of thing?
Wade,
I beg to differ. Debbie did not answer my question. Perhaps you misunderstood. I did not ask where the convention messengers draw lines of cooperation. My question was, Where do YOU draw the lines of cooperation?"
My point was (and is) that even you have lines that you will not cross in who you would support for leadership in the SBC. Again, some just draw the lines at a different spot.
Wow, Wes is a Fundy!
A few more posts like today's and he will move up to the Spooky class of fundamentalism. :-)
wes is a fundie? is he a spoooooky fundie? well, sometimes he is kind of spooky. :)
this post and comment thread has been most interesting.
david(volfan007)
debbie said:
I do not boycott nor sign petitions because my question is how do you expect those without Christ to behave? I am a new creature not because of boycotting but because of Christ. I am not a Green Beret for Christianity nor is my battle cry "Onward Christian Soldiers."
So, what is wrong with "Onward Christians Soldiers?" The last time I read Ephesians 6, it said something about putting on the full armor of God. It also says "we war not against flesh and blood but principalities..." Sounds like Paul was talking about a battle. Our enemy is Satan, and this world is a battleground not a playground.
Economic boycotts have been successful down thru the years, just ask Seven/Eleven store executives. There was nothing wrong with the SBC voting to boycott a company that claimed to be a friend to families. Maybe if more Southern Baptists had joined in on the boycott, Disney would have changed sooner!
G. Alford:
Well said!
John Fariss
Does anyone know if Mickey Mouse prays in a private prayer language?
:0)
jason,
lol. that's funny. :)
i dont think that micky has ever spoken in a prayer language, but i'm sure that donald duck has, i know that huey and duey and luey have most certainly done it. :)
david(volfan007)
Well as for Donald, Huey, Duey and Louie - they better not call and ask ME for any money to do missions! We don't give money to "quacks" who speak in tongues!
"The SBC needs neither liberalism or fundamentalism. Both Pharisaical and Sadduceal extremes may have their place in the religious world, but not in the SBC." [sic]
"Mr. Maddox, you above all should know that I value acceptance and cooperation with all - including fundamentalists."
Well Brother Wade, I see that you have not grown any more consistent in your statements during the months since I last visited your corner of the web. How is anyone to know what you really think when you call both sides of the coin? Which is the real Wade, the one who says that "fundamentalism" has no place in the SBC, or the one who says he values acceptance and cooperation with the "fundamentalists?"
The one who adjures that he will not stand by and let people be labeled, or the one who labels Wes a fundamentalist?
yltzbAlycelee
You Said
"The SBC better wake up and smell the coffee, because our reputation, our very name means to many legalistic, mean spirited, having little compassion and I could go on and on. Do I want to align myself with the likes of Westboro Baptist Church? Definitely not."
My Lord sister! Surely you are not equating the SBC with the likes of WBC? If not, why would you even make an analogy to the folks at WBC? DO you feel that is where we are heading? That would be like me equating wade Burleson’s desire for cooperative unity to the Unitarian Church.
We may disagree, and you may disagree with the current leadership in the SBC although I do not know to what extent you personally know any of them. However, can our disagreement simply be that, brothers and sisters disagreeing over points of polity and perhaps even theology without making gross over generalizations like "mean Spirited" "Legalistic" and "Little compassion" To further make the reference to Westboro Baptist, which is a mean spirited, cultic, anti-Christian and in my opinion demonic group of people who are in no way affiliated with the SBC whatsoever...is somewhat disingenuous and a little mean spirited in its own right.
Jack
The fundamentals of the faith are what our convention is built upon.
Fundamentalism (sectarianism, exclusion over tertiary doctrines, and demands for conformity on non-essentials) as a philosophy has no place in the leadership of our convention. Neither does liberalism and her philosophies of denying the authenticity, inspiration and sufficiency of Divine revelation or the power of the cross.
Jack,
Well said! Amen!
Let's see - it is wrong to label one a liberal and the Spooky Fund do that and this must stop but it is ok to label one a Fundy and by making a huge vague line draw all Fundy's into a group with the one who was labeled - is this not what I read?
I thought cooperation and brotherhood was to be put above name calling and division?
I think we can do better - can we not?
I am open for a new name for those who wish to exclude fellow Southern Baptists from missionary participation or denominational leadership who disagree with them over minor, tertiary doctrines. It seems that some are a tad sensitive over the word 'fundamentalist,' so I am open to a new word.
All Wes did was point out the problems with Wiley Drake. Does that make one a fundamentalist?
Barth, when there is a open advocacy to exclude missionaries who possess a private prayer language from serving on the mission field, when there is a desire to ban church members and pastors from representation on SBC boards and agencies who do not practice closed communion, when there is a desire to accept only baptism at the hands of a 'duly authorized' pastor and a rejection of one's baptism not in a Southern Baptist Church or one that teaches eternal security -- what would you prefer I call that? 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 -- the above three illustrations serve my purpose. Give me something to call the above?
"Fundamentalism (sectarianism, exclusion over tertiary doctrines, and demands for conformity on non-essentials)"
I find it interesting that the more I read your blog the more I realize that you and you alone get to decide what is "essential" and "non-essential". Truly, you are advocating a new defintion of what "conservative" is. I was thrilled when Wiley was nominated and voted for him. Why? His passion and willingness to go all our for Jesus. I don't agree with all his views but I love his heart. Isn't it interesting that you hate the "conformity" you claim is being pushed and then cry out when a candidate doesn't match everything you hold to. The "younger voice" is not unanimously on your side Wade.
Actually Wade, you made both of those statements in the immediate context of Brother Drake. It would appear that either you have two definitions for the word "fundamentalist" (one which has a place in the SBC, one which does not) and that Wiley Drake somehow fits both, or you have contradicted yourself yet again. Which is it?
Is that Bert, Barth, or Bart Barber waxing so eloquently? :-)
Barth, Bert, Bart :)
Take your pick.
"Why in the world do we waste our time trying to identify the 'deceptive' and 'dangerous' within our convention? Could it be that the real enemy is being ignored and those who are our brothers and sisters in Christ and part of the Southern Baptist Convention are being unnecessarily attacked?"
Remember that post Wade (4/3/07, Fellow Southern Baptist are not teh enemy?) Consistency, Consistency...
Wade: In accordance with my latest blog posting, I ask myself if the three prohibitions you mentioned contribute to, or detract from, the Lord's plans to reach and win all those who will spend eternity in Heaven (Don't mean to be Calvinistic there....). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which.
Cameron, this confused, inconsistent blogger is not quite sure how to answer your query since it is hard for me to judge whether it is rhetorical or categorical in nature, so I'll just let it pass.
:)
Bob, like you I believe 'the Lord will build His church and the gates of hell shall not prevail' even if the gates are of our own construction.
Chris,
I could stomach Wiley's positions as well as long as he was just a fundamentalist. Even if I disagreed, it doesn't mean that he shouldn't serve. When he starts siding with murderers you have to draw the line. No one would categorically support anyone and everyone. It is messed up to side with the Army of God in the abortion debate, no matter how pro life you are. We should say so. If we don't we are ONLY political and are not worth much of anything.
"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"
I will say this Bro. wade. with that kind of a broadside directed at Wiley Drake...who you yourself said has not been proven to have even done what he is being accused of, it certainly seems to clash with your comments concerning him following his election...I would simply say this...if your part of the Burleson/Cole machine...better not mess up...they will drop ya like a bad habit!!!!!
Wade...if you were Tony Soprano...my guess is somebody would be getting 'whacked' over all of this. : )
(Hope you can take this with the humor in which it was intended : ) )
I don't agree with Wiley's view as well on the abortion issue. But I do understand why he holds to it. It isn't as rare a view as you might think amongst Baptist.
I prefer Bart-Man
Defender of Baptist Orthodoxy
Church historian extrordinaire
Quicker than Ben Cole with a white paper.
Able to confuse and disorient audiences with a term like xenoglossa.
Look, up in the sky. Its a pastor, its a professor.
No, ITS BART-MAN! :-)
Mr. Maddox,
Unlike you, I have told Wiley everything I have said here. I disagreed with his motion to boycott Disney, believing it to be a separatist mentality which is not conducive to the gospel of Christ. His eschatalogical views regarding Israel may be the majority view of leadesrhip in the SBC and the basis for our politics in the Middle East, but we as Southern Baptists should focus on the gospel since we are in Arab countries as well as Israel -- and our the gospel should transcend nations. I too, am against abortion, but the militant extremes of fundamentalism would seek to offer no solution to the problem of unwanted children (by the way Jack, I hope you are at next week's evangelical conference in Colorado to help provide a solution for orphans). This is not a broadside. It's an honest evaluation of the ultimate end of a particular ideology.
Wade
P.S. For someone who wrote, "See you in San Antonio" in closing out your post earlier today - as if you were done - you must have decided to stick around, right? :)
Holy Glossalia Bart - Man! That pesky Wade Burleson and his ban of do gooders is at it again!!!!
Jack
(again, please receive this in the humorous if not pathetic vein it is offered!)
So received.
If you don't know by now, I am not easily dissuaded.
:)
Mr. Burleson
I am only Ggad to stick around since the conversation is so stimulating and I must admit at times challenging. In fact, I plan on 'sticking around' until Jesus calls me home...then I must say I will no longer be active in this discussion. As far as I will see you in San Antonio...I meant, well...I will see you in San Antonio...meaning ...when you are there and I am there...we will see each other.
As far as the conference in Colorado. I regret that I will be unable to attend, however, I will continue to do what I can by continuing to serve with my wife as a foster parent, taking in children who have suffered some of the most horrible of circumstances. We have adopted one child and have and will continue to give a home to those who are needing our help. This is in addition to my four biological children, on Grandchild, 2 dogs, and several stray skunks that seem to think they are welcome at the parsonage!
I do not know what you mean by 'militant fundamentalism", but I do hope your not making the claim that it is something represented by the leadership of our SBC in comparison to the Army of God.
Jack