August 18, 2007

More Wiley Drake wingnuttery

Welcome to Ethics Daily.com!: "In an interview with EthicsDaily.com, Drake responded to the AU’s second press release dealing with his call for imprecatory prayer.

“If they think it’s ‘outlandish,’ it doesn’t surprise me,” Drake stated. “They’re ungodly, un-scriptural, not even Christians.”

“They have no reverence for the Word of God,” Drake continued. “And if they think it’s ‘outlandish,’ don’t blame me, I didn’t write it, God did.”

“It really doesn’t matter what my words are,” Drake added. “What matters is what does God’s Word say? God’s Word says if they continue to attack God’s people, God will cause their children to become orphans and their wives to become widows. I didn’t say that, God did.”
Shorter Wiley: "Don't blame me. Blame God for writing such crazy stuff. Can I help it that it is useful for me?"

What a scumbag.

8 comments:

Tony said...

Absolutely unbelievable. How can anyone claim to know the mind of God like that?

I think I just threw up a little in my soul.

Streak said...

Well said.

And isn't it interesting that Gary over at Jesus Politics sounds almost exactly like Drake?

I must say, Tony, you are very nice to him--nicer than I can find in me to be. But I think that is why you are the kind of pastor that gives us jaded and cynical types hope.

Bootleg Blogger said...

Streak- Boy, this really makes me want to accept Jesus as my savior so I can get him to kick some ass when people are critical of me! NOT!

The interesting thing to me in all this is that the American United folks are probably the ones in the equation that would have a good argument for using "imprecatory prayer" on this idiot.

I find it amazing that people will read psalms and then use it as an instructional manual when it's convenient. These are not prayers that we need to emulate any more than we should use David's murder and adultery episode as a model for good behavior. While these prayers reveal a transparent look into David's thoughts at a given time (keep in mind he was king of a small country surrounded by hostile neighbors), I can't see how anyone could take from this that you're supposed to use it as an example of how to pray when you don't like someone, like some kind of curse or something. Sure, if you're frustrated, mad, even hating someone, tell God about it. Be honest. Get it out. Then let God heal your hate and frustration, but don't expect prayers to be some kind of contract on someone's head.

Another flaw in the argument is this Drake fellow acting as if his opinions and choices are some kind of mandate from God and that a group calling into question whether or not his actions are LEGAL is then targeted as an "enemy of the church". What a laugher!

Of course, the ironic part of the deal is that Drake is leading his congregation into an empty activity. I can't imagine that these prayers will have any effects other than poisoning the sould of the pray-ers. Fortunately God isn't the puppet on a string under some kind of obligation to pay any attention to such prayers. God isn't the widow and orphan maker of Drake's fantasies.

These guys with their little kingdoms can't ever get enough power. Sharing in their culpability, though, are the people in the pews that keep them in the pulpits. While it's probably an interesting study in group dynamics and cult of personality, I don't think it has much to do with God.

Later-BB

Tony said...

Streak,

Thanks. Gary reminds me of the old SB type of preacher that will say, "I've got my Bible. That's all I need."

It also reminds me of two older preachers in our local association, if you'll forgive me a couple of stories, but they fit the bill.

One told me that he prayed for the death angel to come and take out a church member. She had been hassling him and he didn't like it, so he prayed that God would "take her out", "And He did!" Not only did I find the story sickening but ironic because he claims inerrancy (loudly). There is NO scriptural warrant for a death angel.

The "death angel" of the ten plagues of Exodus actually means "destroyer." The text actually says destroyer. Numerous times as well in the preceding chapters the text says that "the Lord will do this."

So not only is there trouble with applying inerrancy consistently but also a wedding of popular theology with biblical theology. Touched by an Angel anyone?

The second is much less serious but just funny. We were talking tribulational positions amd I made the statement that post-trib is a tenable position over pre-.

"No. It says it right there in the text, "caught up; which means rapture" (talking about 1 Thessalonians 4:18). I stated that "Could Christ not just come back after the tribulation concordant with the Glorious Appearing of Titus 2:13?"

"Nooo!! (say it gutturally then end it laughing). I guess you I'll be in heaven seven years early!!"

So, an utter unwillingness to talk through an issue because he felt himself so clearly right that there could not possibly be room for another interpretation. Pre-trib has to be right because it is "more faithful" to the text.

Nevermind that historically pre-trib doctrine is only about 150 years old and was not held by the majority of church fathers as well as major Christian figures of the nineteenth century.

I was just wrong, and he was appalled at my wrongness.

Anyway. Sorry about the length of the comment and the theological nuance.

Ha. BB said, I can't see how anyone could take from this that you're supposed to use it as an example of how to pray... Does this go for the prayer of Jabez, too?

Bootleg Blogger said...

Tony- Good stories. Opening the Jabez can of worms, eh? I'll not go there right now, but I do think that paying attention to the type of literature being read (i.e. poetry, history, etc...) is important as well as the context. Like I said before, there's plenty of David's actions, attitudes, and thoughts that for some reason got written down for our benefit, but that aren't there for us to emulate. We're to learn from the errors as much (or more than) the piety. I have to chuckle sometimes when supposed Christ-followers seem almost delighted when someone "persecutes" them beyond some threshhold that they have established on their own that then allows them license to pray for God to smite them, or to "shake the dust", etc.... Anyway, later- BB

Streak said...

when supposed Christ-followers seem almost delighted when someone "persecutes" them beyond some threshhold that they have established on their own that then allows them license to pray for God to smite them

Yeah. I agree. Two things; One was the South Main (Houston) pastor's admonition that OT stories were not intended always to tell us how to do things, but merely how some were done, which fits in well with your suggestion that "we're to learn from the errors."

Second, the whole persecution complex reminds me of how often some people seem to take the "they will hate us" as a license and just jump to the conclusion that the hatred or dislike is because of some connection to God. I dislike a lot of people--usually for acting badly. I can't think of anyone I dislike because they are genuine followers of God.

steve s said...

This is all kind of an eye-opener for me. I was raised Catholic and have attended a variety of Protestant churches as an adult. I have never heard anyone praying for the demise of another person, believer or not. Is this common? Is this isolated to certain sects? Is this guy just some isolated wacko?

Tony said...

Steve,

Not at all is this normal for Protestants, though unfortunately it is normal for Wiley Drake. I blogged not too long ago on the fact that he offered absolution to Don Imus over the Rutgers ladies' basketball fiasco. (Streak, I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that.) ;)

As Streak has made clear in other venues, Protestants mock and ridicule Catholics but some Southern Baptists sure do things that emulate Catholic practice.

As a Southern Baptist myself I am ashamed of this kind of shoddy hermeneutics, strained theology, and blatant disregard for people. Though Drake seems to intimate he believes that he is honoring God, I fail to see his rationale.

It represents too closely the wedding of GOP politics with the SBC. If this was a question at SBC 2007 in San Antonio it is all too clear now.