"I went to Jerusalem to become acquainted (Gk. istoria) with Cephas" - Paul's words from Galatians 1:18.

Dr. Drake Told Me He NEVER Signed the Petition

Last night I was able to visit with Wiley Drake by phone. He adamantly denied ever signing any online petition and said his name has been falsely used. Below is the statement Wiley emailed to me and asked I place on my blog.

I did not sign any such document and anyone who says I did is telling a lie.

Until a friend called me about this I had never heard of nor did I know who James Kopp is.

My stand against killing babies has not changed. I am against killing babies.

Killing a doctor that is a baby killer is never right. Two wrongs do not make murder right.

Please hear my heart, I am deeply sadden about our killing of babies, and all those who do so will face an angry God; but that's God's business not mine.

Dr. Wiley S. Drake Sr

Regardless of one's opinion of Wiley's philosophical or theological views, it seems to me someone owes Wiley an apology for publicly accusing him of supporting a murderer of an abortion doctor without ever first calling Wiley and asking him about his alleged support.

In His Grace,



Alan Cross said...

Okay. I'll start by apologizing that I believed what everyone was saying today and I added to it a bit myself on a blog. It seemed legitimate according to the blog posts and the ABP story.

Sorry Wiley. We should always give brothers the benefit of the doubt.

We should probably ALL be more careful to not just jump on a story like this that could ruin someone's life without first checking it out. Blogs are powerful and in things like this, we really should be responsible enough to check our sources. It's a lesson that I will remember.

Anonymous said...

now wait a minute. i'm very confused here. wade, you are writing this like you called wiley, and art rogers is writing at his blog like he called wiley. who called wiley drake?


Jack Maddox said...


I for one will join in saying I am sorry for even joining the conversation on the subject. Will you join with me in also apologizing for some of the statements you made towards Wiley?


Bart Barber said...

Man, do we ALL have egg on our faces today! I confess, although I did not pronounce Drake guilty in my blogging (I've felt this way about his election since...well...his election), I certainly pronounced him guilty in my heart, giving too much credence to the report because it had broken a week ago without soliciting any denials.

I sure would like to hear from Bob Allen about all of this.

Wade Burleson said...

David, have you considered the possiblity that we both did? I was unaware that Art called Wiley -- Wiley did not tell me Art had.

I reached Wiley tonight at 7:00 p.m. PST. We talked for about ten minutes and then he emailed me his statement. I would ask you what difference does it make, but I am not interested in your answer. :)

Anonymous said...


wow, what made you get so smarty with me? i was just wondering why you and art both had the same post so close together. man, are you having a bad day or something? i had no bad nor mean motives for asking this question. it was sincerely just curiousity. but, i'm glad to know that you dont care to hear what i think about things.


Wade Burleson said...

Mr. Maddox,

I stand by everything I have said about Mr. Wiley Drake. I have been nothing but supportive of him as a person, while at the same time repudiating his fundamentalism and extreme political, eschatalogical, and theological views. At the same time I cautioned everyone not to believe what they read about Wiley's alleged 'support of a murderer' until you talk personally to Wiley.
There is no need for me to change one sentence I have written. However, your apology does seem appropriate.

Kaylor said...

Wade: It is very good that you are looking into this. However, I am not confident that Drake can be completely trusted on this yet.

When I interviewed him last year for an article I wrote about his connections with the Moonies, his answers were not entirely accurate. Although he apologized publicly back in 2001 for his Moonie connections I reported that he actually continued to be a part of their events. When I interviewed him, he at first denied he had done any other events. When I told him I had evidence he was at three events he claimed it might have been one but no more. One of the three Moonie newspaper articles about his involvement after the apology even had a photo of him at the event.

I do truly hope that he did not actually sign it. But based on my past conversation with him I need more to convince me.

Wade Burleson said...

No offense intended David. Just an honest answer to your question.

Wade Burleson said...


You bring up a good point. However, I am reminded that 'love believes all things' and until someone can prove to me Wiley supported a convicted murderer's actions of killing an abortion doctor, I am choosing to believe Wiley. That doesn't mean, however, that I am in support of his reelection as VP in San Antonio.

Jack Maddox said...


I will take that as a no...that you do not apologize for joining the frey which was a result of this report. I am so glad you feel my apology was apropiate. I however feel your lack of one is not. On this we will agree to disagree. I feel there is more to be said in this issue and probably many more as we draw closer to San Antonio.


Bart Barber said...


Like I said, I sure would like to hear from Bob Allen about all of this.

I am not yet concluding that Drake is innocent (and by extension, that Allen is guilty), but I sure can conclude that I was too quick to think Drake guilty. I have never supported the Drake VP election, and like Wade, I stand by everything I have written today. Nevertheless, he deserves the benefit of the doubt until and unless Bob Allen can substantiate his allegations (or, whoever wrote the piece for SPLC). Surely Allen realizes that the burden of proof is upon the journalist.

Wade Burleson said...

You assume correctly Jack. I will do all I can to insure that neither extreme fundamentalists or extreme liberals represent the SBC.

Kaylor said...

Wade: Thanks for the reminder that "love believes all things." At the same time, since I'm from Missouri you have to "show me" ;)

Wade Burleson said...

That's a good one.


peter lumpkins said...


I trust you are well. I've read thru the threads on both recent posts. Are we all back now to supporting Wiley--fundamentalist he remains--or are we against him? Is Wiley the kind of guy we need as VP or should we boot all little fannies out who are similar to him? I must record my utter confusion in the matter.

Even more confusing is, in light of his recent fall from worthiness to serve the SBC, the litany of praise toward him from this community beginning only one year ago. Please allow me to share a few morsels of praise:

Wade: "“Someone once told me Wiley was crazy. If that man is crazy, I ask God to make me crazy too.” (May 4, 2006)

Wade: “God, make me crazy like Wiley.” (ibid)

Wade: "“Wiley shared with us all that his heart broadened to other evangelicals when a Pentecostal pastor partnered with him to reach the needy for Christ in California…Wiley loved his pastor friend, has not and will not become tongues speaker himself, but partnered with that other pastor, setting aside petty differences, to reach the lost.” (ibid)

Wade: “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.” (june 21, 2006)

Tell me, my Brother Wade, do you still feel Wiley is as Wiley says? Is he the kind of guy you can work with?

There is a little more if I may presume upon you guys here.

Wiley was recorded on this blog to have said:

“I have been a Southern Baptist pastor for more than 40 years and will probably be a Southern Baptist when Jesus takes me home, but I confess to God before all men that I have been too narrow. He has forgiven me and I hope all my brothers and sisters from all denominations will find it in their heart to also forgive me for being so Southern Baptist that I was unkind, and thinking we have the only answer.” (Wiley Drake, Sept 17,2006)

To which the community choir responded:

"Well said, Wiley” (Wade)

“I thank God for men like Wiley Drake and his humility. This may just be the beginning of something very spiritually significant to us all.” (Alycelee)

“Brother Wiley, thanks for your call to New Testament unity.” (LivingDust)

“I am BLOWN away by this statement by pastor Wiley. Finally, someone from the "good ole southern baptist boys club," gets real.” (Melanie)

How it is that our dear old Wiley can go from such openness and authenticity--that is, the "kind of guy I can work with"--to one who should not serve the SBC
for being so darn fundamentalist stands just beyond my faint horizon.

I hope for ya'll a gracious night's rest. With that, I am...


Wade Burleson said...

Peter Lumpkin,

I am thrilled that you read my posts as carefully as you do. I sure wish you would place a link to the entire post since you are taking quotes, many of them out of context and drawing false conclusions.

I don't know how hard it is to understand --- I like Wiley Drake as a person and I have commended him often --- but I am adamantly opposed to his fundamentalism, and have told Wiley this in person.

It's interesting, that a man the liberals accuse me of 'defending' and the fundamentalists accuse me of 'despising' told me on the phone tonight, "I love you man."

How I wish more people could understand that you can love, admire and support a PERSON, but vehemently, adamantly and consistently repudiate that same person's POLICIES -- whether they be theological, political or philosophical.

Blessings Peter, and again, thanks for reading my posts.

Wade Burleson said...

By the way, Peter, I think you may have missed a few choice quotes about Wiley. I'll just give you a couple to chew on:

He thinks like a fundamentalist but he seems to care for the underdog like a liberal

The one thing nobody can deny is that Wiley really cares for the poor. He not only talks about caring for the pimps and prostitutes in his city -- he actually does it. He not only talks about helping immigrants and the poor -- he actually supports them. His fundamentalism is buried and lost when it comes to caring for those in need. I vehemently disagree with most of Wiley's political and denominational policies, but I admire his compassion for those he considers downtrodden. He will not be supported as VP in San Antonio by any blogger I know (and will not be elected), but the SBC has deserved Wiley for at least 28 years, and we can at least enjoy him for one.

Wade Burleson said...

One last thing Peter --

Maybe Wiley Drake is having a conversion experience. Maybe he himself is moderating? If so, there is hope for the entire SBC, yes?

With that, I am . . .

Going to bed. :)

peter lumpkins said...


In response, you wrote: "you are taking quotes, many of them out of context and drawing false conclusions." The quotes I offered are referenced. Thus, your community is welcome to look for themselves whether or not I fudged. And, I do not fear the outcome, I assure you.

As for not understanding how one can love a person and not his/her policies, Wade, is even more confusing. Who is denying such an elementary observation here? Not me. Nor have others as I can tell.

Rather it stands fairly obvious, from my view, that the issue here is possible duplicity. But know this: I fully understand, Wade. You pump out a lot of posts.

And, given that, it becomes a gigantic task to remember what one has said. Unfortunately, that also makes it much easier to get caught with your skirt up.

Grace. With that, I am...


p.s. Dog, Wade. Did I drink your tea? You posted two additional comments before I could even post this little reply :^)

Wade Burleson said...


It should be obvious to you by now, that I encourage everyone to read every single post I have written and have never removed one post from the very beginning.

Thanks for pointing others to previous posts, and I sincerely hope that everyone will take up my challenge to read them in full.

peter lumpkins said...


I think it would be good to expose me for the fudger I am, since I have so obviously skewed the meaning of those quotes. Hang me High!

But, please be gentle. I'm very tender. With that, I am...


P.S. Actually the quotes you gave were not necessarily overlooked. But thank you for offering them. They demonstrate further my theory of duplicity...

Anonymous said...

Peter -

And if another Christian (capital "C" intended) is going to "caught with their skirt up", you are just the christian to do it...aren't you Peter?

Good work old chap.

Hey! I know! QUICK!!! Hop over to Ascol's blog, maybe you can even catch a look up his "skirt" as well! He is bound to make a blunder sooner or later and surely you want to be there to get him!!!

Sic 'em boy!

Wade - I don't see how you do it. I would come as close as one could to losing my salvation (if it were possible) if I had to read and reply to the ridiculous, closed-minded comments from folks like Peter and David. (While I am on this soap box, Maddox seems to make sense sometimes, but then he falls off the deep end at others? Aggresive passive is written all over his comments for sure. Join the "choir", I guess. Maybe if his comments get posted close to Peter's or David's, there is a collateral damage effect? I don't know?

By the way Maddox, you can get Wiley's number from Wade to make that apology. Apologizing through a blog that he may or may not even see is a weak apology at best.

I just had a thought, but maybe in Tennessee it's not possible for 2 different people to call the same person within a 24 hour period? If this is the case, I will apologize to David. Again, and I agree with you here, why even be concerned with that? What's the point of questioning it? What could possible be David's motivation behind it?

Or is he trying to get a look up your "skirt" also?

Alycelee said...

Peter, if you're going to copy and paste comments, please do so in the context of the original post.

This comment was in response to his serving. Not in any leadership position but serving those less fortunate. Yes, we need more people who are servants in attitude and action.

I don't know Wiley Drake. Never met him and know little about him.

Speaking of attitude, I've seen at least 4 people appeal to you about yours. Specifically about being condescending in your comments and each time, you brushed it off or worse, post something condescending to the one who suggested you might look inward.

I would have to discern after reading these, (if you like I can find them and post them here) that you seem to unteachable, unable to be adjusted, as many times people here ask you to humble yourself and your response was to ignore them.

But Peter, we are in the company of many. Many of us find it hard to listen yet determined for others to listen.

Wouldn't it be great if we learned here instead. Open to listen and receive our brothers and sisters.
I pray you will listen to this appeal for we are to esteem others more highly that ourselves. Even here.

Bob Cleveland said...

And here all these years I thought only Piranhas and Sharks had feeding frenzies....

peter lumpkins said...

Dear Alycelee,

Good morning. I trust your coffee was hot as was mine. Ummm. Delicious!

First, I will simply say to you as I said to our host, my sister: "The quotes I offered are referenced. Thus, your community is welcome to look for themselves whether or not I fudged. And, I do not fear the outcome, I assure you." I stand by that.

Second, Alycelee, as for my attitude, whether I'm teachable or unteachable, condescending or not, a good listener or a bad one may be a great subject about which to converse here; but, if you do not mind, I think I'll pass.

Personally, I'd rather talk about issues and avoid the temptation to chat about myself. Moreover, it surely is more consistent with the Inspired Apostle's words.

I hope for you a great day, my sister in Christ. With that, I am...


Anonymous said...


for one thing, why dont you tell us who you are?

secondly, who are you to question my motives for asking something? do you know my heart? sincerely, truly, i was just asking wade that question....i also asked art...because it just looked funny...strange...wierd...that both of them posted seemingly identical posts about calling wiley at nearly the same time...as far as i could tell. i was sincerely just curious. wow!

thirdly, not only can we call people more than once in tn, we also have indoor plumbing and lectric lights, and we wear shoes now, and we go to school right up to the 12th grade.....why, some fellars and gals even go onto college. yes sir, they do...i tell ya.

fourthly, why did i get put into this conversation with peter? i love peter in the Lord. i think that he's a great guy....very intelligent too. but, why did you include me in your tirade against peter? again, i'm just curious.


Wade Burleson said...

Peter and David, I would gently request that your comments in this string be about the post. Cuba is upset with the USA about a foiled hijacking this morning, and though I'm not upset (yet), I would simply make a request, reserved by the host of any blog, that comments pertain to the subject matter of the post and not hijack the stream.

Both of you have a great day.

In His Grace,


David R. Mills said...

Whatever happened to rebuke, reprove, can two walk together except they agree,come out from among them and be separate, or as Paul wrote break off the relationship because of false doctrine. When I pastored for 27 years I wanted my congregation to believe what I did without question, especially in the area of eschatology like the Rapture, the judgment seat of Christ, the marriage suppper of the Lamb, crowns and rewards, the Millenium, the GWT and etc. If we are not dispensationist, where does all this fit in or is Hank H., right God forbid!!!!

Anonymous said...


if you will notice, i was just responding to anonymous for his comments about me....comments that were not very nice, btw.


peter lumpkins said...

Dear Wade,

Good morning. Actually, I wrote, after our Alycelee invited me into a chat about my attitude "if you do not mind, I think I'll pass...Personally, I'd rather talk about issues and avoid the temptation to chat about myself." I really would like to focus on the posts.

Know I respect your blog, Wade, and will ever attempt, under God, to abide by your wishes. More importantly, I possess a working presupposition to pen no words that dishonor our Lord. And while I am surely not perfect at it, nevertheless, it remains the target toward which I aim.

Curiously, other than the brief exchange you and I had last evening, I've only written one brief response to our sister, Alycelee. Hijack the thread?

And to you, Wade, a great day. With that, I am...


Anonymous said...

you ought to consider taking down the Thursday, May 3 post since your talk with Wiley clarifies a few things...seems your original post on Wiley Drake was perjorative at best and unseemly...I'm not sure why your posts seem to be more and more "over-the-top" and uneccessarily harsh. Stick to the issues and quit "pounding on" individuals.

Anonymous said...


Did Wiley Drake tell how his name and message of support for James Kopp end up on the Army of God website and why it has now been removed?

Tom from Indiana

Wade Burleson said...


He did not.

Anonymous said...

what's really sad is that wiley drake was run down by many people in blogdom over something that he apparently never said.....over something that someone said that he said. that's sad. he was villified....ostracized.... criticized....and hanged in effigy....and the fella apparently never even did what some accused of him of doing.

how sad.


Webster7 said...

Regardless of one's opinion of Wiley's philosophical or theological views, it seems to me someone owes Wiley an apology for publicly accusing him of supporting a murderer of an abortion doctor without ever first calling Wiley and asking him about his alleged support.

Hi Wade,

A couple weeks ago, you accused some faculty members at Baylor of denying tenure to one of their colleagues because he was a conservative evangelical, and you did so based on a single anonymous source without first calling the people you were accusing about it. When pressed for proof of these accusations, you said that you stood by the "theme" of the post, but despite repeated questions, you would not stand up for the facts of your post.

If your above quote is the standard, shouldn't you publicly apologize for the accusations made in that post?

farmboy said...

Were the case of Joseph Jeyaraj an isolated one, webster7's appeal for an apology might have some merit. However, the cases of William Dembski and Francis Beckwith have similarities to the case of Mr. Jeyaraj, lending credence to the theme of Mr. Burleson's post.

Mr. Dembski, a leading advocate of intelligent design, was brought to Baylor by Robert Sloan to head up the Michael Polanyi Center. During his time at Baylor Mr. Dembski faced constant opposition from old guard Baylor faculty. As an example, the faculty senate voted 26-2 to disband the center that Mr. Dembski directed. It seems that an explanation for why the world exists as it does that incorporates an essential role for an intelligent designer or creator was too much for the old guard faculty.

Similarly, Francis Beckwith, current president of the Evangelical Theological Society, was denied tenure at Baylor on 3-24-06. During the appeals process Baylor received much unfavorable publicity, and Mr. Beckwith's appeal was successful, with tenure being awarded on 9-22-06.

In both these cases solid Christian scholars who sought to understand their disciplines from distinctly Christian perspectives faced sustained opposition from old guard Baylor faculty. Given these case studies of the environment at Baylor, it is reasonable to believe that Mr. Jeyaraj has received similar treatment.

Stephen Pruett said...

Peter, I really don't understand how you conclude Wade is duplicitous. Admiring someone for their works and for a recent expression of humility is not at all inconsistent with opposing their political and/or doctrinal opinions. There is nothing duplicitous there; not even close; not a hint. Duplicity would be saying in previous posts, Wiley is a great guy and I like his style of conservatism and then in later posts saying Wiley is a great guy but I don't like his brand of fundamentalism. Among those quotes you listed I did not see any examples like that. Did you?

One other thought. It seems unlikley to me that you would go to the homes of people you know and call them duplicitous on the basis of questionable evidence. Why do it on a blog? Maybe you are not received well by some commenters and bloggers because your words are often unkind, unsupported, and uncalled for. I think I would like the "in person" Peter, but I find the online persona extraordinarily grating.

Webster7 said...

Farmboy, in my view, those cases don't have a bearing on whether or not the charges Wade made in his post are supported by evidence, or whether that post fits the criteria that Wade is using in this post.

Incidentally, Francis Beckwith converted to Roman Catholicism last Sunday. Perhaps the committee that originally denied him tenure had more insight than most gave them credit for.

peter lumpkins said...

Dear Stephen,

If, after reading the quotes that I offered, you do not find a trace of duplicity, I simply say "bravo." Some do; some don't. I'm perfectly happy to accept that fact, my brother.

As for the comparison between a public blog and one's private home, I drew a blank on that one, Stephen. Sorry.

And whether or not other commenters well receive me for my meager contribution to any discussion stands, in the end, moot. I possess no control over what others do or think.

Nevertheless, the often "unkind, unsupported, and uncalled for" triad by which you characterize my posts, my dear Stephen, is interesting. Evidently, in one sweep, while my posts often include neither evidence ("unsupported") nor purpose ("uncalled for"), what they do include is dishonor to our Lord ("unkind"). So much, I suppose, for my working assumption I expressed to our host.

I hope for you a grace-filled weekend. With that, I am...


Anonymous said...

David - Who I am has nothing to do with the curious and ridiculous things that come out of your heart, into your mind, through your fingers, onto this blog.

Don't question my notion to check someone who calls themself a Christian, but defaults to such a suspicious position like you continually do.

And to double your woes, your actions are causing another believer (that would be me) to falter as well.

Alycelee summed up Peter perfectly. Perhaps I could have done as well if I weren't blinded by frustration.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...


again, why dont you tell me who you are? why are you staying anonymous?

secondly, you are not God. you dont know my heart. you dont know why i asked the question. you have judged me wrongly. i was not trying to throw suspicion on anybody. i was genuinely curious and asking. it looked strange. can you grasp that concept.... something looking strange, so you ask about it? you know, like if you were to see a deer with a coon on his back...you might ask a hunter why that would be. you'd just be curious.

anyway, anon, God bless you. i hope the Lord gives you a wonderful day.


SilentBob said...

The WebArchive.org archive for the Army of God, February 2006 edition, has Wiley Drake's quote. Make of it - and of him - what you will. Here is the link:


Anonymous said...

No one else is questioning a simple fact David. They can put 2 and 2 together.

........NEWS FLASH...This just in...two different people have called a man by the name of Wiley Drake...more tonight at 10.......

I have read many of your comments to many different people who question you in different ways about different things and your replies astound me.

Now you question this simple statement by Wade? I suggest it's because you are coming from a bad place my friend.

Or does 2 and 2 equal 4 in Tennessee?

I'm done with this post...like everyone else.

peter lumpkins said...

Dear David,

I see you are attempting to reason with the shadowy figure lurking around the blogosphere. Early on in my "blogging" experience, I learned that conversing with an anon is much like talking to telemarketeers. They hold every advantage in the conversation, and remain totally immune to any accountibility for their behavior--likened here, for example, in the way your home state is mocked or your intellectual ability is questioned.

That said, only in the rarest circumstances, I have concluded, will I engage an anon for the same reasons I won't buy stuff over the phone. Too many good products are available for me to examine in the open marketplace for me to waist time with a telemarketer.

Peace, David. With that, I am...


Anonymous said...


thanks, bro. i guess you are right. you try to reason with some people, and all they want to do is attack you.


Anonymous said...

idiots. but I am not surprised... sbc: always looking for a fight with someone who doesn't believe like they do. fire, ready, aim... oh yeah, should we have confirmed this before trashing someone? hmmm... should we even be trashing anyone at all? hmmm...