Ethics Daily Follow-Up Does Not Provide Substantiation

Let me clarify my position first so nobody will be confused. I am opposed to Wiley Drake receiving the Vice Presidency of the Southern Baptist Convention. I am in favor of Wiley Drake receiving fair treatment by the press. A follow-up article (see here) by Bob Allen at Ethics Daily is not exactly a retraction, but it sure isn't a substantiation. The article shows a lot of footwork that would have been work well done before the initial article (see here) came out. Among the interesting tidbits is a history of the site in question, including the admission by the administrator of the declaration that "names were added that should not have been… Fraudulent e-mails were sent in…" Of course, Allen depended upon a story by Intelligence Report from the Southern Poverty Law Center (of Civil Rights movement fame). They are the heavy-hitters in this story. The first article originated with them. It is time for them to weigh in. Unfortunately, they won't return my telephone calls. If they have posted more information on their web site, I cannot find it. I should mention, although Allen cannot substantiate his previous accusations, he does include a lot of scandalous information about Drake suggesting that Drake is, in point of fact, opposed to abortion (gasp!). One suspects that if Drake doesn't mend his ways he might wind up a Republican and therefore consigned to the fires of perdition. :-)

Lessons Learned from Yesterday in Blog-Land

For all of those who find the whole thing bewildering, some data to help you sort things out.

First, the Silver Lining

Do you believe in Romans 8:28? But for the eruption of blog activity yesterday, the charges against Wiley Drake would have continued unrefuted. These charges were on the Internet and being discussed long before yesterday.

A Timeline

???

Intelligence Report, a publication of the Southern Poverty Law Center of civil rights fame, reported in their Spring 2007 issue (no specific date of publication was readily visible on their web site) that Wiley Drake had affirmed the actions of James Kopp, an anti-abortion-motivated murderer. See the article here.

Friday, April 27, 2007

Bob Allen posted an article on Ethics Daily largely repeating the details from Intelligence Report. See his article here.

Friday, April 27, 2007

Aaron Weaver, proprietor of the blog Big Daddy Weave, posted an article the same day as the Ethics Daily piece. Weaver entitled his article "SBC 2nd Vice President Supports Doctor Killer". I commented in the response thread on this article. In the comment thread Weaver specifically and emphatically asserted that Drake had already been contacted about these allegations.

Friday, April 27, 2007

William Thornton over at BaptistLife discussion board, opened a thread in response to the Ethics Daily story. See the thread here

Monday, April 30, 2007

Wade Burleson entered the ongoing thread at BaptistLife and posted comments affirming Drake's philanthropic ventures but attempting to style him as the prototype of what "many in current leadership" in the SBC would make of us all.

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Aaron Weaver posted a second time, chiding us all for not taking this story more seriously than we had. See his second article, "The Sound of Silence Surrounding Wiley Drake". In his article, Weaver pointed us to several similar philippics against folks in the SBC. If Bro. Aaron wanted a stronger reaction from SBC bloggers, then he certainly got it!

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Wes Kenney began to contact people about publishing a blog article on the Drake situation. I am one of many whom he contacted. Wiley Drake was among those whom Wes tried to contact. When Wes contacted me, I replied that I had seen the whole story reported at Big Daddy Weave and Ethics Daily more than a week ago—that this was old news (i.e., that Wes's article was well written and worthy of publishing, but that he was not breaking anything that had not already been broken). I told him that I had already commented about Caligula's horse over at Big Daddy Weave, but that I might post something along those lines on my site. I'll let Wes comment on his own, but I think he was as bothered by Wade's attempt to push all of this off onto SBC leadership as by anything else.

Thursday, May 3, 2007

Wes posted his article (see here). I posted an article going back and dredging up my previously reported negative thoughts about Drake's initial election (see my article "Incitatus"). Wade Burleson posted an article distancing himself from Wiley Drake (see here). When things started to get out of hand, and due to my own concerns that Wes Kenney was being labeled a fundamentalist, that Wiley Drake was eerily silent (words rarely spoken about Wiley Drake) regarding the whole matter, that Wade Burleson was not being given credit for having distanced himself from Drake, that a conversation with a Baptist journalist did not yield confirmation of the allegations, etc., I posted a more moderating post (see my post entitled "Wiley-Gate?", and please note the question mark).

Thursday, May 3, 2007

Blogger-Of-The-Week Art Rogers tracked down Wiley Drake and discovered that Drake denies the whole thing. Kudos to Art.

Lessons Learned

1. This story is not about irresponsible blogging. Wes tried to contact Wiley Drake. I assume that he is among several. Wade Burleson has a reputation of trying to contact people first-hand when allegations are coming forward. We know that Wade has known about these charges at least since Monday. If Wade was unable to get in touch with Wiley Drake about them until late last night, then we can understand why Wes had trouble getting through to him.
2. If you are going to comment publicly on current events, sooner or later you are going to need to retract and apologize. Most bloggers are capable of doing so. Some seem constitutionally incapable of doing so. I leaped to the conclusion that Drake was guilty, even if I did not post that conclusion. For that, I publicly apologize. I remain at the end of all of this just as unsupportive of the Drake election as I ever was before any of this broke, but I am much, much more sympathetic toward him if these charges are indeed unsubstantiated.
3. The huge losers in this may be Ethics Daily and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Shame on them if they are gossip columns. Nevertheless, they deserve an opportunity to try to defend their stories. I've tried to contact the SPLC, but to no avail. Art, you seem to be the man—can you help us there?

Wiley-Gate?

I offer the following wrap-up observations.

1. This controversy ought not to be about Wes Kenney. Wes merely did what bloggers do—he commented on events that have been reported in a denominational press organ relying upon an advocacy newsletter. Wes did not break this story. Wes is one of the most evenhanded bloggers in Southern Baptist life. I cannot help but wonder where the vantage point is from which Wes Kenney is so far to the right of you that he looks like a fundamentalist. Wes is not the issue here.
2. The election of Wiley Drake ought not to be about Wade Burleson. Bro. Wade is responsible for comments that he has made about the SBC "deserving" Wiley Drake (see here) and for pretending that the endorsement of murder (or whatever else he might have meant to typify by reference to Drake) is somehow the logical result of being a conservative Southern Baptist (see here). But unless he colluded with Ben Cole and Bill Dodson, the only responsibility he has for the VP election is his own vote, however, he voted.
3. I am anxious to hear from Wiley Drake. It would be nice to have these charges either confirmed or denied.We have heard from Wiley Drake! Art Rogers (see here) was finally able to get through to Drake. Drake denies ever having visited the site in question. Now, I'm REALLY anxious to hear from Bob Allen over at Ethics Daily, who broke the story last week into Baptist life.
4. I have regarded Drake's election as a disrespectful action since I learned of it. Whatever he is and whatever he believes, he was elected as a lark. That's not the right way to select our leadership. Frankly, it is the kind of petulant stunt that political movements ought to avoid if they wish to be taken seriously.

Incitatus

When Suetonius recorded the life of the Roman Emperor "Caligula" (Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus), he provided one of the more stunning portraits of reckless abusiveness in the history of human leadership. The Roman throne had hosted ambitious manipulators and ruthless generals, but none of them proved to be more dangerous than a self-absorbed, egomaniacal, pampered-from-birth, pompous, dynastic cynic—Caligula. His reign only lasted from 37 to 41, when his own guards assassinated him.

Frivolity and disrespect were the weapons Caligula wielded to try to destroy the empire. Caligula despised the senate for daring not to yield to his wishes, and he reserved the most ridiculous of his acts of disrespect for the senate. He auctioned off the wives of Roman senators, daring them to object. Suetonius even reported that Caligula considered appointing as Consul his favorite horse, Incitatus.

Consul was not the most important office in the empire, but it was an important office. It wasn't the equivalent of a presidency—more like a vice-presidency.

Don't misunderstand Caligula's motives. He loved his horse, but Caligula did not have any high estimation of his horse's capacity for governance. Caligula was not endorsing anything his horse had done or planned to do in public service. Caligula's actions revealed nothing about his agreement or disagreement with his horse on any sort of political platform.

Nevertheless, Caligula's action is historically significant. Although it reveals very little about Caligula's opinion of his horse, it reveals a great deal about Caligula's opinion of all of the Roman government except for himself. He did not take the government seriously. He disrespected it. As far as he was concerned, the senate deserved to have to deal with his horse Incitatus.

(HT: Wes Kenney's latest post and a forum over at BaptistLife)