Is the Rev. Wiley S. Drake typical of the fundamentalist leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention? As one of the targets of Drake’s Baptist fatwah, I have a pressing need to know.
Earlier this week, Americans United issued a press release announcing that Drake’s First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park is being investigated by the IRS for illegal electioneering.
We reported him to the IRS last August for endorsing presidential candidate Mike Huckabee on church letterhead and on a church-based radio program. (Tax-exempt groups may not endorse candidates for public office.)
Drake, as you probably know, responded by calling for his followers to pray for the deaths of AU staffers
We mentioned this fact in our press release this week, along with information about Drake’s recent occupancy of a top post in the Southern Baptist Convention. (He’s running for president this year.) We also noted that the SBC, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, underwent a fundamentalist takeover in the 1980s and has become quite political.
Soon after our press release went out, I received a stern “request for correction” from Will Hall, Vice President for News Services of the SBC Executive Committee and Executive Editor of Baptist Press.
I quote his e-mail here in its entirety (just to show how broad-minded I am).
“I read with disappointment,” wrote Hall, “the public relations statement issued by AU (pasted below my electronic signature) and request you correct it immediately. Two points are particularly egregious misrepresentations:
“(1) You wrote that the position of ‘second vice president’ is the SBC’s ‘third highest post.’ The fact is the first and second vice presidents are honorary titles…period. Neither has any duties assigned relating to leadership of the Convention. There is no budget for either and neither has any power other than the one vote granted to each messenger attending an SBC annual meeting. The bottom line is your description appears to be an intentional misrepresentation to sensationalize AU’s position relative to its public tête-à-tête with Wiley Drake. It is an offense equal to Wiley;s having used the honorary title in his personal press releases.
“(2) In stark contrast to the hierarchical structures of mainline denominations, the Southern Baptist Convention is governed from the bottom-up. Southern Baptists churches own their property, hire their staffs, and determine whether they will cooperate with other Southern Baptists — and at what level as well as to what extent. Churches send messengers to the SBC’s annual meeting to establish a national budget, set the course for national cooperative missions, ministries and theological education efforts and elect leaders. You demean the democratic process and belie your purported support of religious freedom when you describe as ‘a fundamentalist takeover’ what is the overwhelming consensus will of Southern Baptist men and women expressed through free elections. Liberals and moderates have had every opportunity to make their case to messengers and in each instance Southern Baptists rejected them and elected conservative leaders.”
Hall concluded, “Either AU is a defender of religious freedom or a sham liberal group scoring points for a narrow political agenda. Set the record straight and stop the self-serving misrepresentations.”
Well, now. Brother Hall has certainly gone and worked himself into quite a lather.
I think I could have summarized his concerns in fewer words: Brother Hall thinks Wiley Drake is bad for the SBC’s image and wishes we wouldn’t mention Drake’s prominent role in the denomination. And, Brother Hall admits there was a fundamentalist takeover, but insists that the takeover took place through a democratic process.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see any need for a correction from us.
I can certainly understand why Brother Hall doesn’t want to be too closely associated with Drake. Drake is a theocracy-minded zealot who sounds like he just jumped off a time machine from the Dark Ages. (SBC lobbyist Richard Land studied at
As Brother Hall points out, Southern Baptist churches send thousands of “messengers” to their annual meetings to, among other things, “elect leaders,” and it was their votes that put Drake in his so-called “honorary” position. They knew Drake was a shrill and divisive figure, and they elected him anyway. Drake may be the crazy uncle in the SBC attic, Brother Hall, but he’s your uncle, not mine. Don’t try to disown him.
As far as Brother Hall’s second point: it is a well known fact that a small cabal of powerful fundamentalist preachers and their allies established a well-organized campaign to take over the SBC. It is quite irrelevant that they exploited the SBC’s “democratic” election process to achieve their goals.
What I’m more interested in is the SBC’s stance on SBC presidential candidate (and former SBC second vice president) Drake’s prayers for my death and the death of others on the AU staff. Brother Hall, do you agree with that call to prayer? Do other SBC leaders agree with it? If not, why haven’t you said so? Where is the SBC press release repudiating Drake’s actions as un-Christian and un-American?
When Drake issued his first imprecatory prayer last August, SBC spokesperson Sing Oldham took the Pontius Pilate approach and refused to comment.
“[A]ny Baptist, as an individual, may make pronouncements which reflect his or her thoughts,” said
As one of the targets of Drake’s venom, all I can say is, Gee, thanks!
The news media keeps telling me that the Religious Right is getting more moderate. With a Southern Baptist “death prayer” hanging over my head, I’m not persuaded.
© 1947 - 2009