AU refused to retract any statements. Here is an excerpt from Joe Conn's response:
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.For those who desire documentation of the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC, here's a link to the website for Mainstream Baptists and to an article about the effects of the takeover.
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?
For the record, Mainstream Baptists are unanimous in deploring Wiley Drake's call for impreccatory prayers to hasten the demise of Joe Conn, Jeremy Leaming, Barry Lynn or anyone else.
1 comment:
Wasn't it Ben S. Cole or someone else in the "Burleson Coalition" who wrote the nominating speech for Wiley Drake? If the intent was to embarrass SBC conservatives, I guess it worked (assuming they are embarrassed). Perhaps those who thought it was funny should be embarrassed as well.
Post a Comment