On October 23, 1998, Barnett Slepian was preparing soup in his kitchen when he was shot in the shoulder through a window. He died a few hours later. Slepian was a physician who performed abortions, and he was shot by James Kopp, who confessed to the shooting, but doesn’t see it as murder. Kopp claims he was only trying to wound Dr. Slepian in order to prevent him from performing any more abortions. Kopp is now serving 25 years to life in a New York prison for a conviction on state murder charges, and will be sentenced in June for a federal conviction related to the killing.
Kopp’s goal of stopping abortion is an admirable one, in and of itself. But the means by which he sought to achieve that goal should cause revulsion in any thinking person, even those who, like me, believe abortion to be the painful killing of an innocent human being. The ends do not justify the means.
On June 13, 2006, the Southern Baptist Convention elected Wiley Drake as its second vice-president. Many saw Drake’s election as a nod to his many years of convention-dominating antics, and as a harmless reward to give to a man who obviously loves the convention. Others, however, want to attach more significance to the election.
Wade Burleson vehemently disagrees with Wiley Drake on many issues, but it would seem he views Drake’s election to national office in the convention as a positive development. Burleson recently wrote (in the discussion thread here) that Drake’s election was “a very clear statement to the powers that be that they no longer control who will be elected to SBC nation wide offices.” The speech nominating Drake for the office, delivered by
On the website of the “Army of God,” a group the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as “anti-abortion terrorists,” there is a “declaration of support” for James Kopp. It reads in part:
We, the signers of this declaration, proclaim that we support and stand for righteousness in the defense of the unborn.
We will not condemn our own brethren.
We will stand with our brother Jim Kopp.
Kopp is quoted on the website as saying that if abortions are still being performed when he is released from prison, he would have to act again. “Will we still be killing children? If so, then I will be duty bound to do something.”
The declaration of support includes the option for readers to add their names as signers, with the caution that, “if you contemplate ever taking action against babykilling abortionists or their houses of murder, e.g. abortion mills; you DO NOT SIGN THIS, NOR MAKE YOURSELF OR YOUR PLANS KNOW IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER TO ANYONE AT ANY TIME.”
Listed among the signers of this declaration is one Pastor Wiley Drake, who makes the following comment to Kopp:
“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.”
As I said, Wade Burleson makes it very clear that he is in disagreement with Wiley Drake on many issues, and I certainly don’t mean to imply here that Wade in any way endorses what it appears Wiley Drake has endorsed.
However, it seems that one of the unintended consequences of this “statement to the powers that be” is that we will have presiding over a business session of our upcoming convention a man who has pledged to stand with a confessed, convicted killer.
I have trouble imagining any end that would justify such means.
on May 2nd, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Boy, Wes, you sure nailed this one. Not only did we know Wiley recommended — and the SBC passed — the Disney World boycott, not only did we know Wiley was a partner with Sun Yung Moon, and not only did we put Bill Dotson up to nominating Wiley, but we actually stuffed the ballot box to get him elected. All the while we knew he supported the murder of an abortion doctor, advocated the overthrow of the federal government and was involved in the assassination of JFK.
I’m embarrassed to say that you have now exposed me for who I really am — a person advocating the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC. Your blog exposing my actions may very well put a stop of my agenda to throw up a bulwark against encroaching liberalism within the SBC. I am resigned that my mission and goal of making the SBC even more Fundamental than we already are is now compromised by your post. Be careful, Wes. You may be leading our SBC toward a more moderate path with posts like this one.
On a serious note, your post only makes sense if people knew of Wiley’s ’support’ of a convicted murderer before his election. I just recently found out about the alleged comment Wiley made and posted this statement on Baptist life:
“I, Wade Burleson, strongly, vehemently, unconditionally, and eternally disagree with Wiley Drake’s affirmation of a murderer, if indeed he ever made such an affirmation.”
I seem to remember reading a post or two where you take Southern Baptists to task for blogging about the actions of an individual without first talking personally to the individual being blogged about, so I would assume your conversation with Wiley confirmed that he actually did what you allege, and you have expressed your disappointment to him personally. If not, I would think you are past due making a phone call to Wiley personally.
Reply
on May 2nd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Wade,
My point was about unintended consequences. In no way do I think you knew about any of it in advance, nor did you plan his nomination. It simply fit within the overall strategy of “sending a message to the powers that be.”
I’ve tried with no success to contact Wiley Drake, and the fact that he is somewhat of a public figure (due to his office), combined with the fact that he did sign the declaration, make this topic fair game in my opinion even without the contact.
Reply
on May 2nd, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Wes
Do we know for sure that it was Wiley who made this comment? COuld someone simply have used his name?
Jack
Reply
on May 2nd, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Wade
So did you know of Wileys position before you endorsed him for 2VP? I would say that you did not…at least I would hope so…that being the case, Wes…what bearing does this have on Wade and Ben’s activity during the convention?
Reply
on May 2nd, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Jack,
I’ve been given to understand that it has been confirmed that Wiley Drake did indeed “sign” the declaration of support.
As to your second comment, my point was that in their zeal to “send a message” to the “powers that be,” Wade and Ben are in the position of having supported the candidacy of a man who many at the time called an unwise choice, and now it seems that the caution of folks like James Smith of the Florida Baptist Witness has proven to have been justified.
Reply
on May 2nd, 2007 at 10:32 pm
It seems that these comments are somewhat in opposition to one another
WB
“I know Wiley’s love for his wheelchair bound wife. I know Wiley’s love for the homeless in Los Angeles. I know Wiley well enough to know that he ministers in the power of Christ to the very people Los Angeles leaders want gone. I know Wiley lives his life based upon convictions and principles, and though I don’t agree with Wiley on everything he has presented to the Convention, Wiley is the kind of guy I can cooperate with in the Southern Baptist Convention. Wiley is as Wiley says.”
And the Brother Wade says this on BaptistLife
“Further, Mark, I am neither a friend, nor a supporter of Wiley Drake. I have only spoken with him twice, and both times included me talking with Wiley about issues with which we disagree. ”
Let the spin begin!
Jack
Reply
on May 3rd, 2007 at 7:07 am
What we have here is buyer’s regret on Wiley Drake as SBC VP. Getting elected as a joke, or to tweak the SBC powers-that-be, hasn’t proven to be very pleasant. And it is a rather tepid excuse to say none of us knew he would do what he has done subsequent to his election. While WD is a great guy, he was and is no one fit for a visible SBC office.
Perhaps Burleson has had sufficient time now to check and see if his “if indeed he ever made such an affirmation” qualifier about Drake should be removed and to say that he would no longer support Drake in this position. Apart from his latest hijink, WD’s previous behavior is sufficient for me to say he should be retired in June.
Reply
on May 3rd, 2007 at 8:33 am
Wes
You said, “In no way do I think you knew about any of it in advance, nor did you plan his nomination. It simply fit within the overall strategy of ’sending a message to the powers that be.’”
Let me back you on this. There is an overall strategy that is being employed and I am not putting them down with having a strategy even though I disagree with their plan. Who all formulated this plan, I don’t know, but at the very least I do know it was Wade, Ben, and Art Rogers. Wade has been very open and deliberate about this, so I don’t believe I am breaking any confidentiality with him or the other men mentioned.
Their strategy is based on at least three fronts. First, elect a group of presidents that are sympathetic to their cause. They view the convention as being in charge of those who practice spooky fundamentalism. In fact, they take great pride in the election of Frank Page. They want presidents to buck those they deem as dangerous to the fabric of cooperation. Second, they want to see originate from the election of these presidents the nomination of people from what they consider a wide spectrum of belief that would represent what they feel is the “make-up” of the convention. Third, they elected their “bad boy,” Ben Cole, to keep Dr. Paige Patterson busy so that he would not, as they said, interfere with the nominating process. It seems lately that Dr. Patterson has been very busy dealing with legal matters
Again, I am not against anyone employing a strategy to accomplish their goal, but I have been very vocal with them one on one in believing that if they continue with how they are implementing this strategy, they will alienate and burn bridges with many in the convention. Ultimately, they will not bring the convention together, but cause it to be fragmented, not because of theology, but because of strategy.
Again, it is not my intent to disrespect any of these men. They have been very open and deliberate about their actions and goals.
Reply
on May 3rd, 2007 at 9:34 am
Robin,
Thanks for pointing out the nature of the Burleson Blogger Coalition. I wonder how many of his own supporters really understand the nature of what is really happening behind the scenes. I hope that more people are beginning to put the pieces together and understand the nature of these current struggles in the convention.
Reply
on May 3rd, 2007 at 9:38 am
I think Bart Barber’s latest post is very apropos to the Wiley Drake issue and to those who supported his candidacy.
praisegodbarebones
Reply
on May 3rd, 2007 at 9:39 am
I think Bart Barber’s latest post is very apropos concerning those who supported Wiley Drake’s candidacy.
praisegodbarebones
Reply
on May 3rd, 2007 at 9:41 am
Sorry about the double post.
Reply
on May 3rd, 2007 at 10:03 am
WOW!
Has anyone checked out Wades latest post. This only confirms what Robin has brought out and what I have believed all along. This is politics at it’s most obvious nature. Now Wade seeks to use Wiley Drake’s actions to confirm what direction the SBC will be going if men like Wiley continue to be elected. When all along it was Wade/Ben/Marty and the whole bunch that worked to get him elected to be a slap in the face to current SBC leadership. Now that this has happened they distance themselves from him and cry FOUL BALL! What is amazing to me is how transparent this all is. Now Wade seems to be saying that this is all for the good of the SBC as it demonstrates just how bad those nasty fundies can be. In effect, he likens those of us who are sympathetic to current SBC leadership to the actions of Wiley Drake. Well let me go on record…I agree with Wade that he should not be re elected as VP and the fact is I voted against him for VP in Greensboro…not because of the man, but because of the machinery behind him…Sorry Wade, Sorry Ben…but you can’t turn this into a you vs the fundies issue…it is not that simple and you know it!
Jack Maddox
Reply
on May 3rd, 2007 at 1:22 pm
wes, wes, wes, you spooky fundie, you.
you have stirred up a hornet’s nest now.
this was a very interesting post. the comment thread has been most enlightening and entertaining as well.
david
Reply
on May 3rd, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Robin,
Brother, you have just libeled me. I have never been a part of any plan to elect anyone to any position in the SBC at any level. I have had subsequent conversations with friends after candidates have announced, but I found out who the candidates were the same way you did – when the press released them.
When discussing these matters, you should be exactly precise about what you know and what you suppose. You said that you knew me to be involved in a plan “at the very least.” You do not know that because it is not true. Who told you that I was involved? Certainly not me. If someone else told you this, you should have verified it with me. You didn’t.
As for the rest who have jumped on this bandwagon, you assume Wes’ train of thought is accurate. It isn’t and I told him so before he posted.
Wiley Drake was first nominated by Bill Dodson for 2nd VP in 2005 – a year before – with a promise that he would keep nominating him until the SBC elected him. Wiley was nominated by Bill partly as a lark and partly as a nod to Wiley for loving and serving the convention. I have this from Bill Dodson’s own mouth. This is something I also told Wes prior to his posting.
Wes,
You have been a friend over the last year and I have greatly respected your integrity. In this post you violated your own rules about verifying with people personally before you claim they have done something. Moreover, I specifically denied your suppositions. This placed a further burden on you to verify what you were claiming, but you still did not. Now my name has been connected to something I have never done and you have published a false account, misleading your readers. Wade and Ben did not select Wiley. Wiley was put forward in 2005. You knew this because I told you before you published this, but you did not include it. Why? Because it undermines your conclusions?
This is your integrity on the line.
As I told you before, there are plenty of areas for which Wade and Ben are actually responsible that you can critique. The selection of Frank Page? I understand Wade called him and asked him to run. Why not critique that? Not as big a splash as Wiley Drake?
Reply
on May 3rd, 2007 at 3:02 pm
I have nothing to say about the SBC.
But I will come to the defense of my friends Art, Marty, Wade and Ben. They have never had a plan to overtake anything. Everything that happened last year–just happened. There was no plan. Art and I were with Marty during one vote and we voted on the opposite side of Marty.
This is the reason I stopped talking about SBC stuff. But Art, Marty, Wade and Ben are my friends and this was unfair.
Reply
on May 3rd, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Ladies and gentlemen, I have it on good authority that Wes Kenney cannot comment because he is at one of them there Fundamentalist meetings.
Reply
on May 3rd, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Bart,
I remember now that there is a Singing Churchmen concert in Lawton today.
Robin,
I publicly apologize for the harsh tone of my comment to you.
Bystanders,
I just got off the phone with Robin and he was as gracious as always.
art
Reply
on May 3rd, 2007 at 5:02 pm
I drove through Lawton on Tuesday—just more proof of the conspiracy!
Reply
on May 3rd, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Bro. Art
Thanks for giving me a call. As we talked on the phone, it was not my intent to libel you and I appreciate you understanding how the conversation in the hotel lobby led me to believe you were in on the strategy with Wade and Ben.
I still stand by my statement that a strategy was told to me concerning the items I listed in my first comment. I mistook your engagement in the conversation for acceptance of the strategy and for that I was wrong and apologize.
Thank you for being so gracious.
Bro. Robin
Reply
on May 3rd, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Bart,
Ironic that you seem to be lampooning conspiracy theories on this particular post.
Robin,
I appreciate you as well. It was good talking to you today.
art
Reply
on May 3rd, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Art,
Show me where I have alleged any conspiracy with regard to this question. Look closely at my posts please.
Reply
on May 3rd, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Bart,
Look closely at my post, please. Where did I say you claimed a conspiracy theory? I said you were lampooning conspiracy theories on a post that is a conspiracy theory.
One just proven false at its core by a call to Wiley Drake. You can read his words at my blog.
Reply
on May 3rd, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Art,
You have a point. I missed it. And that is my fault. Good irony.
Regarding Bro. Drake’s denial, I had already posted that I was anxious to hear from him about the charges (made, incidentally, not by Wes but by others).
Now, I’m REALLY anxious to hear from Ethics Daily.
Reply
on May 3rd, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Robin,
I can hardly believe what I am reading from you. If the strategy is as you say, are you suggesting that Dr. Klouda was a pawn in the game to keep those at SWBTS at bay?
Reply
on May 4th, 2007 at 5:40 am
Robin-
If your number one is the evidence of a conspiracy, then you just nailed the entire Conservative Resurgence as electing presidents was the cornerstone of the plan.
I’ll tell you that, prior to Greensboro, I had numerous conversations with dozens of people about needing to have multiple candidates for President not just the single guy chosen and approved by the “college of the cardinals.”
If Wade called Frank Page and asked him to run, then it was after Frank Page had already been asked by those who were strong supporters of the CP. I was one of the first ones to find out about his potential nomination and may have told Wade myself, I don’t remember at this point. Don’t forget, Wade’s call to Dr. Page was partially to discuss his stand on Calvinism.
Also, I didn’t know that Ben Cole had been elected to anything! He certainly hasn’t been by me; I never knew he was up for a vote. Can you tell me when and where? Thanks.
Wes-
Is it accurate that you did not engage Wiley either by phone or email prior to posting this? I appreciate that Wiley is “fair game” to shoot at due to his position, but if you missed the shot…
You said, I’ve been given to understand that it has been confirmed that Wiley Drake did indeed “sign” the declaration of support. That makes you about 2 generations removed from Wiley. Can you get closer than that?
Reply
on May 4th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Let me come back to Robin via Colin’s question.
Robin is referring to a conversation Thursday night in the lobby of our hotel in Arlington. In that conversation, Ben was explaining his personal motivations. Those were first person singular comments. Ben never included me in them and he never included Wade in them.
Ben was never “elected” nor “selected” to be the “bad boy.” Rather, Ben’s words that night revealed that he has appointed himself to that role.
Nobody tells Ben what to do or how to do it.
I have clarified this with Robin.
I can not say for certain, since I was not in any conversations on the topic, but I don’t think Dr. Klouda is a pawn. Wade and Ben are not the kind of people to use others that way.
Colin, you know that I disagree with her suing SWBTS. Nevertheless, I think the motivations were sincere. I have heard both men speak kindly of her in private.
It’s not straight from the horses mouth, and you should email them and ask that question yourself, but I hope it helps clarify.
Reply
on May 4th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Brother Art,
You have said; “I don’t think Dr. Klouda is a pawn. Wade and Ben are not the kind of people to use others that way.” I will be the first to say I do not know Dr. Klouda, but I believe by the appearance of the Wiley Drake issue you may stand to be corrected. From the floundering of Brother Wade and the silence of Brother Ben (maybe he is out of the country) it does appear that Wiley Drake was/is/and will be used to justify whatever goal has been conceived. This is not conspiracy theorist language. Please note this quote; “Wiley’s election was simply a very clear statement to the powers that be that they no longer control who will be elected to SBC nation wide offices.” This is what Brother Wade said in a comment stream at Baptist Life.
It is obvious by that statement that someone appears to have been positioned for something.
Blessings,
Tim
Reply
on May 4th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Tim,
I am not sure what you are saying in the first paragraph. Forgive me.
The allegation that Wiley’s election was part of a conspiracy because of that quote is a not accurate. I told Wes that (and encouraged him to confirm it) and I will tell you the same thing. What Wade said was an observation of the consequences, not details of a plan.
Wade has said that he supported another candidate and that he doesn’t support Wiley for reelection. On the phone just now, he told me that he is a part of no plan to take over the SBC other than his personal conviction to elect Presidents with whom he agrees. I think we all have that personal plan of action.
In other words, he denied any collusion. Ben was speaking for himself.
Wade is out of town on a family event. I am sure that when he returns he will be happy to confirm this.
On the other hand, Ben has told me specifically that the only two people involved in the proposal to elect Wiley Drake were he and Bill Dodson, that it dated back to 2005 and that it had nothing to do with taking over the convention.
See the information you get when you clarify with principal participants instead of piecing together comments out of context and making a case out of them?
Reply
on May 4th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Art,
Thanks for the clarification. The question was to Robin about what he was suggesting, not about what anyone else is actually doing.
Reply
on May 4th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
FYI: Wes is umpiring a regional baseball tournament (Thursday thru Saturday). I am sure he will be responding after the tournament!
Reply