Talk To Action | Reclaiming Citizenship, History, and Faith: "And now there is the vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention who publicly endorsed the assasination of a doctor by a member of an underground terrorist organization who had been on the FBIs Ten Most Wanted List."
May 2, 2007
Ah, Baptists, what the hell?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Somehow when I saw this post on my reader, before I even followed the link, I knew it was Wiley Drake. I don't know why...hmmm...
Same tool that offered absolution to Don Imus.
So what is the deal with this guy, and why is the SBC putting him in some position of leadership?
Don't call him a tool -- that implies that he is legitimately useful.
Streak,
I honestly wish I knew. The veeps have very little authority and their positions are titular mostly. They seem to be there pretty much for publicity's sake--not that that isn't bad enough.
I have read some genuinely good things about Wiley--like spending the night in homeless shelters, working in crisis pregnancy centers, organizing after school programs for boys and girls homes, and the like.
But then he does stupid stuff like this...I blogged on the Don Imus thing and strangely enough, NO response. Wiley was one who led the charge back in the early nineties for the Disney boycott.
He has a history of being very vocal, "irrepressible," as some in the SBC like to call him. He likes to be center of attention is all I can gather. I just don't get it.
ubub,
:)
Tony,
Interesting. I read Burleson's post on Drake and agree that he seems to be a complicated person.
What is interesting to me is that Burleson seems to think that Drake, while being a good person in many ways, represents the SBC sliding into fundamentalism. Do you think that is true?
At the level of the individual congregation in an SBC member church, do the national leaders have any real authority beyond the "bully pulpit" (and I mean this in every possible sense of both words?
Ubub: My understanding from my former life is that the answer to your question, "do the national leaders have any real authority" varies from church to church, person to purson. I don't remember ever being directly influenced by these guys growing up in the SBC. However, this is a different day i.e. I don't think there used to be as much desire to influence or have "authority". The availability of communication with leadership through blogs and sermon notes online makes the influence much more available if someone is interested.
The real influence historically of the elected leadership, however, is likely still in place. I'll write as if the past policies are still there- anyone can correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, that very real influence is in the area of presidential appointments. The president of the convention appointed the committee on committees from which came all of the key leadership positions in the convention. So, over time, these elected leaders do mold the convention in ways that influence local congregations or the congregations' activities through convention boards, commissions and other agencies. Granted, the vice-presidents don't make those appointments. It used to not be too unusual, however, for vice-presidents to end up as presidents. Traditionally if they did a good job they were carried over another year. Given the committee rotations, a ten year hold on the presidency by a group would mean all presidential appointments would then be party folks. This is the means by which Pressler et al did their work.
Regardless of all of this, there's the basic problem that this guy with his laundry was voted in. In what religious universe could any of us get elected to a national position with this on our public record without any kind of public explanation or apology? Even given the sleeping in shelters and "complicated" personality, this would be poison. It begs an interview in which he's asked- "Do you really mean this?"
Dammit Streak- I try to ignore your SBC posts but every once in a while I find myself typing away.
"Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in":-)
Later-bb
Streak, ubub,
The Bootlegger has pretty much answered the questions you raise so I don't see any reason in me hashing out the answer all over again.
I would like to say, though, that in the SBC, churches are autonomous, a friend and a foe. The make-up of churches in the SBC is about 52% are 200 members or less, but represents the majority of people that would call themselves Southern Baptists.
However, the top 12% of churches, 1000 members or more, carry the load politically with the smaller churches, though representing a much more significant block of the SBC population, have little to no authority in the political process.
Wiley was voted in by a very small block of voters, around 2400 votes with only about 4800 messengers voting. In contrast, 9005 votes were cast in the vote for SBC president, with Page voted in with 4546 votes. Wiley was voted in through cronie machination.
Wiley has issued a statement that says he did not sign the document endorsing the murder of the abortion doctor.
Streak, you asked, Drake, while being a good person in many ways, represents the SBC sliding into fundamentalism. Do you think that is true?
There probably are 100 more qualified to answer this question, because I like to keep my nose clean of SBC politics. Wiley is dangerous in my opinion, but if you were to ask any member of the church I serve who he is, they would not have the foggiest notion.
His theology/philosophy seems to have a fundamentalist bent, even though Burleson said he had the heart of a liberal (I think I know what he means by that statement). He is a confusing character to say the least.
All that being said, Wiley's influence in the SBC only progresses to those who really only care about Wiley or those willing to listen. I do not think he speaks for the entire SBC.
Good grief. Between Tony's and BB's response, we have actual thoughtful and informed comment. You guys trying to warp this blog or what?
I saw that Drake denied signing the statement as well. Read it this morning. Will be interesting to see how this pans out, though I doubt much of anything happens. From what I could see, most of the angry people were already critical of the SBC anyway.
The entire SBC thing is fascinating. I completely understand Tony's assertion that most of his members would not know Drake's identity, and have very little connection to denominational politics. I grew up in small SBC churches and really had little clue about the politics until I moved to Houston and SOF and I found ourselves at one of the resistance churches (not sure they were called that, but...).
I still remember a strong opponent of the conservative takeover listing all the "moderates" who were all biblical innerantists. He concluded by saying this had more to do with power and control over funding.
Anyway...
You're right, Streak. Let's get back on track here.
Tony, you said "titular." Heh heh. Heh heh.
Post a Comment