A lot of noise has been made recently about the abrupt resignation of Clark Logan from his role as VP of the Executive Committee. Finally, we know a little more.
Morris Chapman, who seems to be putting himself in the hot seat, told the Texan that the Executive Committee does not respond to rumors when asked if Logan was requested to resign.
Concerning whether Logan’s resignation was requested, Morris Chapman, president of the SBC Executive Committee, told the TEXAN, “It is not the practice of the Executive Committee to respond to rumors.”
Come to find out, Clark Logan was indeed requested to resign. Although, Chapman, called it a rumor, it was true, nonetheless.
Here is a clip of Clark Logan’s statement:
“On Wednesday, July 1, 2009, I was asked to submit my resignation before the end of the day, which I did. I do not have any comment to make regarding my separation, except to make clear that I have not been involved in, nor have I been accused of being involved in, any immoral or unethical action.
Read the whole official statement at the link below.
{ 142 comments… read them below or add one }
Matt, I think it is highly Pharisaical to call Morris Chapman a liar. Clark has already publicly admitted to being highly embarrassed by all of this attention, and perhaps Chapman just wanted to keep the circumstances of Clark’s resignation private so that Clark and his family wouldn’t have to endure the spotlight. Just a thought, brother.
By the way, do you EVER blog about praise reports and positive topics?d
James,
Clearly you have not been around me very long. I encourage you to check out a majority of my posts here at SBC Voices AND Evangelical Village. Did you see my last post?
How is it pharisaical to call out a lie when we see one? He could of said, “No comment.” But he didnt he made it seem that it was an untrue rumor, when it wasn’t. He lied.
I’m new to Matt’s blog, so i have to say write up front, i don’t know what he’s written in the past. but, he seems to be taking a lot of flak in response to this article. James, here, is calling him a Pharisee as he and others below call Matt out for calling MC a “liar”. Yet, I have read and re-read the article and I can’t find the quote, in this article, where Matt calls MC a “liar”. He lays out the facts: in response to a direct question as to whether Logan was asked to resign, MC responded that it is not the EC’s practice “to respond to rumors.” Matt then points out that the “rumors” proved to be true. Matt’s critics and respondents to this article seem to be the ones making the logical and necessary leap to the conclusion that MC’s initial response was not completely truthful. Matt presented the facts. His critics are the ones drawing the conclusions.
oops. first sentence, “right” not -write-. sorry
Ray,
I appreciate the comments. For the record, I did call MC a liar in my original post. That is because I do feel he lied. It in no way was ever “Pharisaical” as James declared, but nonetheless I edited the post due to the fact that some trusted friends of mine let me know it might now be the wisest decision when we just dont know everything surrounding the situation. See comment 24.
I must say though, that I have also been surprised at some of the backlash I have received from this post. It appears that although it is clear MC is in the wrong (his silence proves it) many are not willing to hold him accountable. Whatever happened to wanting transparent leadership? Leadership with integrity?
Again, thanks for the comment and I hope I cleared some thing up.
Something can be true and also be a rumor. There are certainly several things going on behind the scenes that we know nothing about. And it seems that the rumors were true about Logan’s forced retirement. But that does not warrant calling Chapman a liar for saying he does not respond to rumors. At that time they were just rumors, whispers circling about rather than confirmed statements from the committee or those in the know.
.-= Chris Roberts´s last blog ..Why John Piper Doesn’t Have a Television =-.
Chapman clearly knew that Logan was requested to resign. He lied when he said, the EC would not respond to “rumors.” In calling the rumors he insinuated that they were not true, therefore, he lied because they were true.
He could of said, “no comment” but he clearly wanted everyone to think that Logan was not asked to resign.
Pheh. It’s just political bullying. Pointing out that Morris Chapman is not a person who will deal truthfully is redundant at this point.
I am sorry for Clark Logan, but he’s a casualty of he war in the SBC against SBTS, calvinism, and the next generation.
.-= Frank Turk´s last blog ..Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility. Again. =-.
Agreed 100%.
Wait, wait, wait. Can someone explain to me who’s on first? How did we get from Morris Chapman (2007), apologist for young calvinists in the SBC (http://www.sbclife.org/Articles/2007/05/SLA4.asp) to Morris Chapman, opponent of “SBTS, calvinism, and the next generation?”
Apparently you missed the EC “report” he gave at the convention two weeks ago. Let’s just say, it wasn’t received well, and, in my opinion, for good reason.
.-= Todd Burus´s last blog ..What We Believe- Article XVIII, The Family, part 1 =-.
Interesting quote from the article you listed:
What is a “not Calvinistic” church and why does that need to be a static thing? What is the role of the pastor but to teach? and what is the role of congregationalism but to allow democracy in the church? Does my church have a team that it is committed to play for and I just don’t know about it?
And the comment about “second-generation successors”? Could he not think of any examples to fit the caricature he wanted to project and so he hypothesized an straw man for us to turn against?
Needless to say, this article from two years ago already shows the seeds of the shameless, unmerited bashing that was displayed full force at the convention.
.-= Todd Burus´s last blog ..What We Believe- Article XVIII, The Family, part 1 =-.
Jon,
Did you hear Morris Chapman’s “speech” at the SBC?
Jon: Your question is my question. I must say I was very surprised at the speech given by Morris Chapman this year as compared to the stirring speech he gave at the Convention even 2 years ago. It seems we have a very different Morris Chapman.
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..It Hurts =-.
Debbie,
Please see the quote I commented on above in comment #9.
.-= Todd Burus´s last blog ..What We Believe- Article XVIII, The Family, part 1 =-.
In case you missed Chapman’s report, here’s the transcript:
http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/10423.article
Matt, I am very interested in this story, and frankly, Morris Chapman is not looking that good right now.
But, you might be better served to wait till all the facts are out before you make summary judgments like this one. Saying, “something is fishy at the EC.’ Justifiable. Calling MC a liar? That might need to wait for a little more evidence, in my opinion.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..The Best Preaching Ever? =-.
I agree. Chapman gave the standard response of most organizations in a situation like this and saying one does not respond to rumors does not necessarily imply that the rumors are not true. We are probably best to wait until we actually know something before we add to the problem by fueling the fire.
“He who gives an answer before he hears,
It is folly and shame to him.” Prov 18:13
“The first to plead his case seems right,
Until another comes and examines him.” Prov 18:17
My suggestion: Let’s wait until all the facts are out and then we can blog about it.
Blessings,
Todd
BTW, if you are at all savvy concerning the various debates in SBC life, you’ll note that Chapman not only swipes at Calvinists, but not so subtly swipes at several groups/persons inside and outside SBC life. The report, IMO, was certainly a low point in the Convention.
I heard the report from ten feet away. At the time, I took it as the kind of jawboning everyone does when there are two groups you’d like to get along. i.e., last year, I told you revivalist old’un’s to play nice. This year, you Calvinist young’uns shouldn’t think you’ve got it all figured out, etc., etc.
But I’m asking about the interim — how, exactly, did we go from Morris Chapman arguing for careful, deliberate shift in generational leadership including calvinists, to MC is part of a war on SBTS, Calvinists, and young leaders? In other words, MC welcomed calvinism, the next generation and SBTS in 2007. “Calvinist prejudice” doesn’t fit to me. Is there some other factor?
Ask Chapman, he gave the report. As to your assessment of his report, read it again. From my perspective, it was a pretty offensive display…and I had been a Chapman supporter up to that point.
The “other factor” you ask about was Mohler’s GCR task force motion which Chapman was against — particularly in light of Article IX of the GCR document.
How is being asked a question = responding to rumors?! It must be policy of the Exec Committee not to respond to questions from SBaptists in good standing?
.-= Alex S. Leung´s last blog ..Are you living out Religion or the Gospel? =-.
I am confused by your question.
To All,
I did edit the post. As a few of you suggested that it might not be wise to call out what appears to be a lie by Chapman until we know more. No matter what, it is shady and I think it would of been wise for Chapman to merely say, “no comment” rather than calling the truth a “rumor.”
Until we do know a little more to the story, I concede, that it is wiser at this point to not pass judgement on the situation.
Although I must say, I am terribly curious as to what is going through Morris Chapman’s head. Is he wanting removed? He is certainly not wanting to get out of the hot seat that he got himself in with his “charade” that some call a “report.”
I think that was a wise decision, Matt.
And I also agree that Morris Chapman seems to be doing everything he can to lose what goodwill he might have among Southern Baptists.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..The Best Preaching Ever? =-.
What Dave said.
.-= Wes Kenney´s last blog ..Logan Resignation Forced =-.
I had someone very smart tell me recently, “The system may acknowledge that change is coming, but they’re going to always defer to the status quo”. MC is trapped by the inertia of his position–he must defend the status against the up-and-comers.
I thought his speech was as balanced as he could make it…and may I say that re-reading the speech SLOWLY may reveal how selective your hearing had been…I cite Alan Cross, “As I went back and read over his address, I found myself agreeing with almost all of it. Even his controversial statements on Calvinism are more understandable if you hear them in context of the rest of his address.” (http://www.downshoredrift.com/downshoredrift/2009/06/morris-chapman-southern-baptist-calvinism-and-the-gcr.html)
That’s all I’m going to say about this…although I will read any other comments.
Andrew,
Something both you and Alan have missed in asking people to “re-read the speech SLOWLY” is that what you are reading is not actually the transcript of the speech Chapman gave but a manuscript compiled beforehand (the site even says, “This is the prepared manuscript of Morris Chapman’s June 23 morning address during the Executive Committee report at the Southern Baptist Convention in Louisville, Ky”). What was written beforehand and what was said do not match up entirely as Chapman ad libbed portions, particularly the portion which most Calvinists are upset about. Just a word of caution if people are going to continue using this to excuse what was said.
.-= Todd Burus´s last blog ..What We Believe- Article XVIII, The Family, part 1 =-.
Todd,
My point was just that Chapman has a right to speak his mind just like Mohler had a right to speak his mind in San Antonio in 2007 when he opposed the Garner Motion and maybe his perspective is not completely off base, at least in its main points. I might not have agreed with Chapman on what he said about Calvinism, but I sure don’t think that castigating him over it is helpful. There are lots of different views on this issue in SBC life. How many Calvinists equate the Doctrines of Grace with the Gospel and believe that non-Calvinists have lost the Gospel? Is that an accurate statement? What will that perspective do to the SBC?
I guess that I am saying that it is fine to disagree with Dr. Chapman over this. I did in a blog post I wrote during the Convention. But, it seems that we are moving past simple disagreement here.
.-= Alan Cross´s last blog ..Middle Class Flight Instead of White Flight? =-.
Alan,
I agree with your point of his right to speak his mind. I think what the problem is is that he pretty plainly caricatured a large, biblically-focused, evangelistic minded segment of the SBC as holding certain unbiblical positions that are quite contrary to what they actually do believe, all while he was simply supposed to be telling us what the EC had been up to for the past year. Call an SBC non-Calvinist an Arminian and you never hear the end of it; say Calvinists don’t believe faith is necessary and we’re supposed to simmer down? Chapman crossed a line– a line he’s been toying with for a while as evidenced by the quote above from 2007– and now people are asking for some accountability over it. That’s all that I see happening. (Though I will concede that not all comments along these lines have carried the charity they should.)
Plus, I felt it needed to be mentioned that if one looked at the document cited they may very well not see why Calvinists have been so angered by his comments, but that that manuscript doesn’t include the most offensive moments.
.-= Todd Burus´s last blog ..What We Believe- Article XVIII, The Family, part 1 =-.
Matt, has Voices become a gossip column? First Ergun Caner’s twitter and now who said what to whom and when before we know who said what to whom and why? Just wondering. I mean no disrespect, but Disappointed Missionary makes me think about all the thousands of folks who are reading us every day. What are we trying to say with our Voices? selahV
.-= SelahV´s last blog ..IS IT POSSIBLE? =-.
SelahV,
Although I do see your point I am not sure how this post could be considered “gossip.” Reporting SBC news and gossip are very different.
SelahV,
To be biased, I wouldn’t call it a gossip column. I think that charge is best reserved for a certain publication that is actually funded by the convention. I think what you are seeing here is a bunch of young SBCer’s who are charged up following a fairly exciting, fairly productive convention, trying not to get steamrolled in the wake of it by the same old SBC-Nashville Express.
Young people are frustrated at the fingering of Calvinist non-SBCer’s as unfit for our bookshelves while similarly controversial people who fit more nicely into the favored soteriological model or abstentionist convictions go around unquestioned. Young people are frustrated at the bureaucracy sucking the life out of our mission efforts and our vibrant leaders while the ruling class sits comfortably back in Nashville unchallenged. I don’t want to jump to conclusions or throw stones at anyone, but when it comes to the younger generation I think there are predominantly two options: let us play and be ready to rethink the business as usual approach, or watch us go elsewhere.
I’m a little aggravated that there are so many out there who cry for young people to be involved but then want to restrict “involved” to simply mean “go with the flow.” (SelahV, this isn’t a charge against you, but an observation about others speaking out in SBC life). With the rise in involvement of the younger generation I think we are seeing a shift away from Nashville, Richmond, and Atlanta, and more towards Louisville and Raleigh (i.e. where the young people actually are) and that scares some of those who are having their salaries paid by the CP (particularly in light of Article IX of the GCR). As for me, I’m all for it.
.-= Todd Burus´s last blog ..What We Believe- Article XVIII, The Family, part 1 =-.
Since the convention, I have learned that there is group of people who hold an “intense dislike” for Morris Chapman. Period. Because of that, I see that everything he says will be viewed badly. Many people took the compliments he paid Clark Logan in the article and threw them to the side of the road to pick out one sentence — we don’t answer rumors. Honestly, it sounds like a big business sound bite to me and not a lie. Whether he was asked to or not, he DID resign.
Clark Logan in his response wished God’s blessings to the entire EC of which Morris Chapman is a part of. Should we assume he was really saying everyone in the EC except Morris Chapman? No. Because then we’d be calling Clark Logan a liar.
C’mon people!! This has got to stop. We are Christians. People are looking at us and saying the only group better worth keeping an eye on is politicians. Is that the message of Christ we want people to see?! It’s not the message I want to send, that’s for sure!
Maybe Morris Chapman does have some questions to answer. But in my opinion so does Albert Mohler and others who sent out messages like “the truth will come out” as soon as the article about Logan’s resignation came out. Those leaders KNEW they would be starting up a firestorm of rumors that Morris Chapman had done “something wrong” the moment they posted on twitter. That isn’t leadership at its finest… that’s gossip at its worst.
It seems like the theme of LoveLoud of this years convention has made a resounding dud as it hits the floor and is trampled on by so many folks who might speak a good line when in front of cameras, but whose words and actions don’t match up when the cameras are off.
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..It's Like Riding A Bicycle… =-.
Chapman’s response is yet another example of what is wrong in the SBC… He might as well of said “That’s need to know information… and you don’t need to know.”
More smoke filled, back room, politics at work…
Might I ask a question… Who in the SBC has the authority to ask for Logdan’s resignation?
If Chapman is the one who ask Logdan to resign, and then responded as reported, then there is no question that he lied… it’s that simple.
I’m with Matt on this one, he should have said “No Comment”.
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
Todd,
If I may, allow me to make a comment or two about your response to SelahV.
I understand the frustration of feeling left out of the SBC loop. However, a bad attitude is not the best way to counter a bad attitude. Discussion, debate, and differences are healthy. Most of us do not like to have our preferences challenged, but in reality those challenges only serve to make valid preferences stronger and to remove preferences not worthy of standing.
But HOW we discuss, debate, and differ is of vital importance. As the Bible says, our speech should always be graceful and seasoned with salt. While I did not detect anything unsavory in your tone, I have read some comments here that seem a little mean-spirited and somewhat south of Christlike.
And one other point I want to give you to think about is that while it is sad that for many the focus of the SBC had been on Richmond, Nashville, (and though you failed to include it) Alpharetta, it now should NOT move its focus to Louisville or Wake Forest. Our focus should now be where it should have been all along – Christ.
In all that we do, let’s show respect for others, even those who do not show respect for us. If we disagree, let’s do so respectfully. If we agree, let’s do that in a manner that does not disrespect those who do not agree with us.
Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things.
.-= Jim Duggan´s last blog ..Are you ready? =-.
Jim,
I mean the focus of power is moving towards Louisville and Raleigh with guys like Mohler, Akin, Moore and Reid (not to mention the totally boss churches in those cities like Sojourn and The Summit). I think this is a welcome change because it is moving the stream of influence away from disassociated denomination heads and closer the training center for the leaders of the local church around the nation, which goes along well with Matt’s new post on structuring around why we exist.
.-= Todd Burus´s last blog ..What We Believe- Article XVIII, The Family, part 1 =-.
Good Morning Gentlemen, You’ve been busy since I’ve been sleeping.
Matt, if you can see my point, then what part of “gossip” don’t you understand? Reporting news is an art. It is facts. It is not speculation. Therefore to describe Dr. Chapman as being in the “hot seat” or putting himself in the “hot seat” is pure speculation. Guessing at why he said the “EC doesn’t respond to rumors” and calling him a liar because he didn’t say “no comment”, until the facts are fully known, is gossip and spreading innuendos directed at Dr. Chapman. It is obvious by this thread that Clark Logan didn’t want to elaborate or he would have. Now, should he decide to elaborate, that is news. Then you may pick the meat of the proverbial bone all you like (although, I see little edifying effect that will have) until the bone is picked clean or buried.
There are sides being chosen before the facts are out here. It began with the twittering and tweeting. That’s all I’m saying. And with Egun Caner it was all about embellishing and elaborating and speculating what he meant by a rhetorical statement meant to be humorously illustrative. Yet it was taken as a statement of some doctrinal stance and spun around like sugar in a cotton candy spin-bin. Do you not see this? Really? selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..IS IT POSSIBLE? =-.
SelahV,
I do see what you are saying. Which is why I edited the post before you ever said anything. See comment 22.
Matt, I saw that comment where you edited the first one. Did you read Greg Alford’s just before mine? I am saying that people are engaging in conversation that is not factual. And making accusations that are without valid foundation. And that is why I asked if this was turning into a gossip column rather than a discussion board on points of interest in the SBC life. That’s all I am saying. You are to be commended for taking down the “lied” portion of your comment. However speculation on the motives or intentions of Dr. Chapman are not valid for the discussion as I see it. Not when he is not in the conversation. We are talking ABOUT him and what he is doing or not doing, thinking or not thinking. Does this help?
In the past 3 years people have accused me of thinking things they had no idea I thought. They have assumed they know my motive, intentions and they most often are dead wrong. It has caused undue angst on several people’s parts. To me, this is the kind of thing I seek to avoid in blogging. I don’t want to see what was an excellent source of various voices dissolve into another one of “those” kind of blogs that many stay away from and do not bother commenting on. Sometimes we see dead bodies on the tracks of the train wrecks we all crane our heads to view. If not dead, we can see many a maimed character at times.
If I had just resigned under the circumstances which are being reported, and I didn’t elaborate, I sure wouldn’t want a bunch of speculators bee-bopping my name all over blogland and twitter tweets. selahV
.-= selahV´s last blog ..IS IT POSSIBLE? =-.
SelahV,
Excuse me Sister… Just what part of my comment is not factual?
If you will notice my comment “If Chapman is the one who ask Logdan to resign…” starts with the word “If”.
And I think it is also very clear from what has been reported so far that Chapman had insider information that he was unwilling to share with the rest of us in SBC. Now, unless he can show us that releasing this information will put Missionaries lives in danger, which I highly doubt, then what right does he have to keep everyone in the dark? As cooperating Southern Baptist I think we have a right to know what is going in our agencies.
This lack of transparency is one of the things that many of the younger generation finds highly offensive… you know, like saying “You can’t handle the truth”.
If Chapman has nothing to hide, then why is he hiding?
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
Morris Chapman seems to be an equal opportunity offender. Over the last several years he has seemed to make a hit at most everyone, Calvinists, non-Calvinists, old guys, young guys, those wanting executive salary information, those against sole ownership of SBC entities, GCR document, etc.
I gladly voted for him way back in the day when he was elected SBC president during the Conservative Resurgence. One thing this reveals is that even the old line conservatives do not always agree on everything. They may even think for themselves. Baptists do not and need not agree on everything (except on MY issues!
). If Dr. Chapman keeps on offending everyone, I may start liking him more 
.
I don’t know any details about Clark Logan. I do know that sometimes two equally good Christians just cannot work together. I do wish God’s blessings on Clark and his family.
David R. Brumbelow
.-= David R. Brumbelow´s last blog ..Alcohol Condemned in the Bible =-.
Most of the guys on this blog sound like a bunch of gossips who are relishing the hot water in which Morris Chapman finds himself.
May I, in love, suggest that you gentlemen not only pray for him, but also encourage the people who post on this blog to do the same?
Geez, maybe that would be the Christian thing to do, wouldn’t it?!?!
I relish nothing. I appreciate all that Chapman has done for this Convention and was saddened by the recent turn of events, especially the report Chapman gave at the annual meeting followed by the situation surrounding Logan. You wrongly assume false motives and lack of prayer.
Further, you shouldn’t start your post making drive-by pot shots , condescendingly attacking people’s character while hiding your identity and then claim to be speaking “in love.”
I think what stands out to me are all the people who probably do know more about what happened because of their position and situation. They seem very bothered by it and also seem to be calling attention to it. These are all leaders who have fired many people themselves. But it seems that what needs attention and clarification is the why of the firing. If it was embarrassing to Clark, his friends and their friends would not be drawing attention to it.
Jerry,
Who are the people calling for attention to it who seem to know more than they are saying other than they are concerned?
As of now we have the initial statement, Dr. Logan’s statement and the “clarification”… other than that there is silence… either that or I am way out of the loop, which is very true.
Tom,
Dr. Mohler, Dr. Moore, and Jimmy Scroggins is a start.
Thanks,
I just read Timmy Brister’s post. It was the first I had read of the statements. Teach me to not keep up!
Thanks.
Timmy Brister has provided a helpful summary of the events leading to Logan’s dismissal and the reasons why so many speculations and questions persist. http://timmybrister.com/2009/07/08/morris-chapman-sbc-clark-logan/
No response to my prayer suggestion? Oh yeah, I forgot….Calvinists don’t need to pray because God is sovereign.
That was vacuous, at best.
Also, why are you so arrogant as to assume the people at this blog haven’t been praying for Morris Chapman and the EC?
Forgive me for the Calvinist potshot. I affirm that it was empty-headed and out of line. I acknowledge my sin and ask for everyone’s forgiveness.
Todd, do you find it ironic that you’re accusing ME of attacking the character of people on this blog while ignoring the people who are attacking Chapman’s character?
Vacuous, Matt? Start with the man in the mirror. Calling Morris Chapman a liar, on your part, is a bit hasty, my brother. Perhaps he had good reason to be vague. Why assume that he be forthcoming? Are you and the rest of the readers of this blog the only ones qualified to make judgments about the righteousness (or lack of virture) in the EC’s decision to ask for Logan’s resignation? I would say Chapman, with his vast experience at dealing with critical SBC issues, is qualified to determine what should be made public and what shouldn’t.
When aiming criticism at a highly public figure such as Chapman, it would always be best to affirm prayer for him and all parties involved. If a visitor to this blog were to be unaware of certain circumstances, (s)he would easily get a bad impression of Chapman and the people who share his faith. The seething judgment about Chapman’s motives appears extremely inane and unbecoming.
I don’t know Morris Chapman personally…but I do know that he has put in several years of faithful service to the SBC and EC. It grieves me to hear people sound like they rejoice at his difficulties, or pounce upon accusations against him like vultures near a carcass. Whether or not anyone agrees with him, many comments on this blog give the appearance of assuming Chapman had un-Christian motives.
Ironic? Not at all. Several people did in fact call Matt out on calling Chapman a “liar” including me (comment #15) and to his credit, Matt edited the post (see comment #22) to remove that statement.
Other than that, the remainder of the comment stream has been mostly a legitimate questioning concerning actions that seem suspicious and about which the key player has not been forthcoming. All the events leading up to the present controversy are factual and well documented at Timmy’s blog (see link above). If there is any questioning of motives, it is because of the actions of Chapman himself and his unwillingness to clear things up by giving a simple explanation of his actions.
There is a big difference, in my opinion, between asking questions and making accusations. We have been asking questions — questions that much more important people than us are asking — about a person’s motives based on a pattern of behavior and public statements and an action whose reasons are being kept a secret. You may not like that we are asking these questions, but asking tough questions is not the same as making snipy remarks and assuming OUR motives with no basis whatsoever except your own personal distaste for controversy.
I will gladly refrain from personal attacks but I will not refrain from asking legitimate questions. We did not create the controversy, Chapman did, and I am not going to apologize for wanting to get to the bottom of things.
Good explanation. I’m glad you feel the call to be a watchdog and are uncomfortable trusting a man who has led the EC for over 17 years. Congratulations on being a voice. I’m thrilled to have you as a Southern Baptist scandal-driven blogger.
Other EC members have resigned in the past (Terry M. Robertson, Tom James, and Doug Winters, just to name a few) but have received little fanfare and public scrutiny. Why the sudden interest in Logan’s resignation? Chapman led the EC when Robertson, James, and Winters resigned, and little was said. What’s changed in the last several years to warrant such obnoxious distrust?
Legitimate questions are fine, and I ackowledge that you have the right to ask such questions, Todd. What I’m not convinced about is whether Chapman must answer these questions. What I mean is this: if the EC feels as though the circumstances surrounding the incident remain private, shouldn’t we trust their judgment?
If Mohler, Moore, and Scroggins know so much, how come THEY aren’t being forthcoming about the details? They are either getting their blog buddies to stir the pot instead to tackling the issue head-on, or are remaining silent out of respect. Reverent silence is a good practice for those who feel as though they have a “right” to know everything.
Are you familiar with all the issues at play here? Read Timmy’s blog and tell me that this is just another resignation which deserves no scrutiny.
http://timmybrister.com/2009/07/08/morris-chapman-sbc-clark-logan/
James,
I agree with you. Satan is using this controversy to once again spotlight the SBC and all of its “problems.” The sad part is that as long as we human beings are involved, there will always be problems.
I do not know Clark Logan. I do not know anything about Clark Logan. I do know Morris Chapman. I know about the other leaders you have mentioned. I would guess that the reason this resignation has raised so much controversy is because Morris Chapman had the audacity to speak his convictions at the Convention. Up until this point, no one, as far as I know, has questioned the integrity of this man who has led our EC all these years and has served our Convention for so many more. Isn’t it amazing how we can justify our own attacks and berate those who don’t agree with us? I believe Chapman raised issues that the majority of Southern Baptists agree with. (Lest you think I am against the GCR, please know that I signed off on it in the early days of its presentation.)
My question in all of this is, “Why hasn’t Clark Logan shared the reasons behind his requested resignation?” Is it because his severance package depends on his silence? If that is the case, then he cares more about the money than he does the conflict. And by the way, isn’t there something in Scripture about taking up another’s conflict?
James, let me respond a little more calmly now and take your remarks out of the equation.
I agree, in general, that we should not assume people’s motives or call them into question merely because we are in disagreement with them. If you were to read my blog and my comments on most other blogs, I generally play the peacemaker and grate against those who constantly question the motives of others rather than addressing the substance of their argument. In practice, I think it is best to give people the benefit of the doubt in terms of motives and assume the best intentions even when there are disagreements on key issues.
There comes a point, however, when such a stance becomes a detriment rather than a help. It is one thing to have a default position of giving one the benefit of the doubt. It is quite another when there is mounting evidence and a pattern of behavior and statements that seem to indicate something else. At some point, always giving the benefit of the doubt turns into a pollyannic naivete that allows injustice to go unchallenged and abandons the responsibility to hold leaders accountable. Such is the case here. While not going so far as to make blanket accusations, I believe there is enough evidence to call Chapman’s motives into question and hold him accountable to explain his action.
There is no vitriol here — no delight in taking him to task. There is legitimate concern for the responsible leadership of the Convention and for a brother who quite likely has been unfairly treated.
Todd — Would you please list your mounting factual evidence for all to see? I see a lot of innuendo and supposition but no real evidence. Am I missing something?
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..Redecorating and Painting =-.
Never said there was factual evidence, but there is enough circumstantial evidence surrounding the issue to warrant a more forthcoming response from Chapman.
Todd —
Then, by all means, please list your complete grievances of circumstantial evidence…
I know partof it already… the speech etc.. but I’d like a complete list just to make sure I understand you correctly.
BTW, I listened again this morning to Morris Chapman’s speech at the convention. I thought it would be a good idea to have fresh ears away from all the twitter-jabbering that was going on the first time around. Apparently a lot of people in the room liked quiet a bit of what he said by the applause I could hear. I didn’t really see anything wrong with it myself. I heard a man stating his convictions in love and with gentleness and humbleness.
And I really hope you aren’t getting all your circumstantial evidences strictly from twitter hashtags or Timmy Bristers article.
Timmy Brister may be saying LOTS of southern baptists are concerned but that doesn’t necessarily ring true when you look at the numbers. Forgive me, but I have this thing with numbers today. If could be something along the lines of having certain folks trying to speak for all SBC’ers. It kinda just rubs me wrong I guess.
Anyway, as far as the twitter thing goes, as of 3:48 pm today, there were 352 tweets/twubs for Clark Logan. Of those 352, slightly more than 20% (20.17 to be specific) were merely the standard “I just became a member of the Twub for #clarklogan at http://twubs.com/clarklogan“. That doesn’t really say anything pro or con about the situation other than I just have my ear open to what is being said.
Over half of the other 80% were retweets of posts (baptist 21 and timmy brister getting the big share of course) or articles (Clark Logan makes statement, Johnny Hunt weighs in, and so forth).
Surprisingly, a great number of the retweets were also because of an original tweet from Nathan Lino stating that Ronnie Floyd, in a QnA panel @ SWBTS, said folks should contact the EC about Morris Chapman not going along with the GCR. That QnA had nothing to do with Clark Logan but solely the GCR and so it should not have gotten the Clark Logan hashtag associated with it AT ALL but for own SBC political gain or whatever, it was.
Even if we take the whole of the 352 posts as seperate items (though many people tweeted more than once — or twice, thrice, etc.. — so we can’t really take them as seperate people) we would still only have approximately 0.0022% of the WHOLE SBC giving a flip about what happened to make Clark Logan resign.
Granted, people don’t just twitter what they are concered with but I find it hard to believe that Timmy Brister is that much in touch with the whole of the SBC, and frankly, only an arrogant man would think he had the ear of so many people.
I look forward to reading your list of circumstantial evidence. It would be interesting, too, to find if you think you should be fired from your own job if such a list was developed against you as well.
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..For The Birds… =-.
I’ve already done so elsewhere on this comment stream.
Further, Brister’s blog is a well documented retelling of the events up to this point that have led many to be concerned. You may not agree with his analysis, but the facts he presents are indisputable. Finally, how many or how few people are concerned or even know about this matter really has nothing to do with anything.
If you personally don’t find Chapman’s actions to merit suspicion or his words to be inflamatory, fine. I do, and I’m not alone.
I certainly agree that consistently and blindly giving people the beneft of the doubt can be a detriment. You are correct, brother, that leaders must be held accountable if integrity is compromised. However, that exactly illustrates my position concerning Chapman. I don’t see a consistent failure in integrity. This Logan situation is an isolated incident, and I see any past compromises by Chapman that warrant doubt about his legitimacy and integrity as a leader. Since he has consistently been faithful in his service, I believe we should trust his judgment.
Whether or not Logan has been treated unfairly is a matter of opinion. I am thankful for his service, as well, and have lifted him to the Lord (along with his family). However, there is certainly a possibility that asking for his resignation was a justified move. And it doesn’t necessarily need to be disclosed to the public for US to determine whether or not it was justified.
How is it an isolated incident? The Logan resignation is the last in series of events that have led to this point. I am grateful for his past service and faithfulness. However, Timmy Brister says it well, “Chapman’s actions over the past couple of months have spiraled downward to a point where many Southern Baptists are deeply concerned about his actions.” Consider … Chapman actively campaigns against a GCR and speaks out publically against it, uses Baptist Press as a propaganda machine to advance his side of the argument, reprints the BP articles to be handed out to all Convention messengers, uses his Executive Committee report to not only question the GCR but also, in a pretty offensive rant, to mischaracterize Calvinists and blame them for all our woes while at the same time swiping 3 or 4 other persons and groups in SBC life, then a few days after a seamless Convention asks for the resignation of a person with known ties to the GCR (and Calvinism for that matter) without any moral, ethical reasons.
So now, because he has been faithful in years past, we are wrong to question his present actions?!?
.-= Todd Benkert´s last blog ..Two Challenging Sermons from the SBC Pastor’s Conference =-.
The Florida Baptist Witness is reporting:
“Hunt told the Witness he has not spoken with Chapman about the controversy, but he has talked to Logan.”
Wow!
That Johnny Hunt (the president of the SBC) has called Logan, and has not spoken to Chapman concerning this issue at all speaks volumes in itself…
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
Yes, it does.
I think it would be prudent for any great leader to try and hear both sides of the story.
Then again, perhaps he has tried but not been able to reach Mr. Chapman. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt….
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..It's Like Riding A Bicycle… =-.
Sallie,
Hunt, the twice elected President of the Southern Baptist Convention, has publically called on Chapman for an explanation to be made public.
I think Hunt knows why Logan was fired… and of course Logan knows why… and Chapman knows why, but it is not Hunt’s or Logan’s responsibility to give an explanation to the Churches of the SBC. It is Chapman’s responsibility alone to give this explanation to the Churches… and the longer one is delayed the louder the cry from the Churches will be for transparency.
Some of us may disagree with Chapman’s reasons for asking for Logan’s resignation (and quite honestly that is to be expected) but that pales in comparison to the outcry from Southern Baptist who will be very offended if Chapman feels he does not have to answer to the Churches of the SBC.
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
Greg,
Very well said.
publically calling on someone through an article or blog is not the same thing as asking someone personally… Respect for the position that Mr. Chapman has, if not for the man himself, should make Mr. Hunt see that.
I admit I have no clue what is going on in the inside of the SBC. My own personal convictions lie with seeing those who are around me on a daily basis come to know Christ, not the ins and outs of SBC politics. But I do think people who are mad at Chapman over his “bad” comments during the SBC are purposefully blowing this out of proportion. They are too close to the situation with their feelings on their elbows to see it.
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..It's Like Riding A Bicycle… =-.
As much as I did not appreciate Chapman’s presentation at the SBC and as much as I appreciate Tim Brister’s post, I’m still not comfortable with this whole ordeal.
I think Chapman managed to “push some buttons” at the SBC which carried over into questioning Logan’s “resignation”. I hope Chapman will explain more clearly what exactly happened, especially, since everyone seems to be questioning. I’d rather move past this quickly rather than let it linger.
.-= Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Book Review: Godology =-.
I have tried to remain quiet and see how the leaders of the convention handle this situation. For those of you who think that Clark Logan has remained quiet because of a character issue, you are right. I have known Clark for several years now and consider him a friend. It is his character that has kept him out of these arguments and off of these blogs. I know that it has been hard for his family to read these blogs and see people who know nothing of the situation question his character. However, they are not of the sort who will stick up for themselves on these boards. Rather, they will let their conduct speak for itself. Clark is one of the finest men I know. As to the circumstances surrounding his resignation, many of you are right. Strange things are afoot at the Circle K….I mean, SBC. There is enough evidence out there to demand an explanation from Chapman. I hope that it will come soon. To say, as James did, that Logan being treated unfairly is a matter of opinion is simply an opinion of someone who does not have enough of the facts to carry an opinion. I hope that doesn’t sound harsh for that is not my intention. I will say, however, that it is time for Chapman to speak up. I suppose he should have come up with a good reason for the resignation before he actually asked for the resignation.
Kevin,
Thanks for those comments on Clark Logan. I’m sure he’s honored to have you as a friend.
Another thing that makes this all not look right is the timing of it all. After what seems like such a positive SBC Clark “resigns”. Even if he had done so just before the SBC it would not have looked good.
.-= Mark Lamprecht´s last blog ..Book Review: Godology =-.
Kevin — I’m sorry for your friend. I really am. I don’t doubt that he is an honorable man, in general. But he turned in his resignation. If he didn’t think he had reason for being asked for it then he should have fought it himself. If other people do have the “facts”then it is because Mr. Logan IS speaking to others. Letting them do the mudslinging so you can keep up an appearance of meekness and good conduct is not honorable. That may sound harsh as well but its what I see.
.-= Sallie Anderson´s last blog ..It's Like Riding A Bicycle… =-.
Sallie,
“If other people do have the “facts”then it is because Mr. Logan IS speaking to others. Letting them do the mudslinging so you can keep up an appearance of meekness and good conduct is not honorable.”
That my sister is mudslinging from someone who does not have the “facts”…
In fact I would have to agree with your earlier comment where you said: “I admit I have no clue what is going on in the inside of the SBC.”
Allow me to quote your own words again:
“I am saying that people are engaging in conversation that is not factual. And making accusations that are without valid foundation. And that is why I asked if this was turning into a gossip column rather than a discussion board on points of interest in the SBC life.”
I am not trying to be harsh, but let me give you just one more quote:
“Physician heal thyself…”
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
Greg, I think that you have hit the nail on the head — for both sides of this debate. Guys, look in the mirror. Apply your arguments to yourselves.
Yes, but I have seen or hear no accusations against MC. I have seen innuendo and assumption. We are doing more harm to the body of Christ and the SBC than we are doing good when we jump to conclusions — on either side.
Greg — I came back to check and see if my comment went through. There was a glitch that shut my computer down as I was re-reading my words and I didn’t think it had posted. Usually, I get a chance to rethink my words before I hit the publish button and I actually was trying to change my words to better ones when it shut down. I’m sorry what was posted was offensive and gave you what you felt was the right to uhm, “quote” scripture at me. At least, my thoughts were unfinished and I meant to try and fix them. Yours are apparently exactly what you think.
I hope you have a blessed day!!
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..Autistics, Music, and Decorating =-.
oh, and Greg, you are quoting Selah V’s qoute as mine.. I completely agree with her.. but thought the correct person should get the correct credit… thanks… again, have a blessed day!!!
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..Autistics, Music, and Decorating =-.
Sallie,
You are right I did quote SelahV as something you said, but my point is still the same… you are slinging a little mud here yourself.
Just saying…
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
Did you read the other part of what I typed? The part where I explained to the best of my ability the recognition of the mis-use of the word and wanting to change it but not getting to edit because of a computer glitch that shut my computer down? Never mind.. think of me as a mudslinger if you must….
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..Autistics, Music, and Decorating =-.
Kevin, I appreciate where you are coming from, and I certainly do not have all of the facts. It’s not so much that I was attempting to condemn Clark Logan, but rather defend Morris Chapman. It’s difficult to believe that he had ill intentions after 17 years of faithful EC service. I’m not shallow and I’m don’t blow with the wind of fickle public opinion/perception. I appreciate hard work and service to the SBC. And, lest you deem that as a potshot, I’m certain you appreciate service to the SBC as well. I am sure you’re an upstanding gentleman.
As for Todd…oh, where do I begin?
“Chapman actively campaigns against a GCR and speaks out publically against it.” Chapman’s concerns about the GCR were about Article IX alone. The CEO of the EC had every reason to be concerned about it! A man is entitled to his opinion! Your statement suggests that Chapman is against the Great Commission…but any sensible person couldn’t be against that! Chapman isn’t against the Great Commission, he just had legitimate apprehension about the effects of Article IX. Is that a crime, Todd?
“…uses Baptist Press as a propaganda machine to advance his side of the argument”…actually, Todd, he published his side of the issue to address his concerns to Southern Baptists. That’s not unusual for an officer or representative of the SBC. The wording of your statement suggests ill motives. However, addressing his argument doesn’t constitute an “advance [of] his side of the argument.”
“…reprints the BP articles to be handed out to all Convention messengers”…which still did not hinder the motion from passing. Everyone was informed about potential complications that the GCR would bring, but chose to overlook those. Is educating messengers a crime, Todd?
“…uses his Executive Committee report to not only question the GCR but also, in a pretty offensive rant, to mischaracterize Calvinists and blame them for all our woes”…do I have to even mention how biased this claim appears? Chapman did not “rant” but rather spoke in love and genuine conviction. Check out his remarks: http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/10423.article
I am sure Clark Logan is a great man of God. I am sure Morris Chapman is a great man of God. I know neither man, but both men shine forth the light of Christ with the wonderful reports I hear about them. Todd, with all due respect, I see nothing of merit in your case against Chapman. I just refuse to believe that a man with 17 years EC experience would call for a man’s resignation for political reasons!
What if I were to try to spin this thing around, what would you say? What if I said, “Morris Chapman is remaining silent because he has info about Logan that is embarrassing.” Do you see how cantankerous that kind of claim is? I think the way I worded that statement is comparable to the way you worded your accusations about Chapman. And while that type of comment is more direct than the “circumstantial evidence” you discussed, it’s still not profitable to Kingdom work.
To attempt to label Chapman as a propogandist and subversionist is wrong. And to label him an anti-Calvinist is wrong. I consider Logan’s resignation to be unfortunate. And yet I wonder how many people would rejoice if Chapman resigned today.
It’s obvious we’re not going to agree here, but I still submit, I ask these questions and make these observations with no malice in my heart. My conscience is clear.
As to your observations:
1. I have no problem with Chapman addressing concerns about article IX, even if I think they are wrong and are out of step with the mainstream of SBC thought (perhaps I’m wrong on that) or at least with MY thought. Dissention in and of itself is no problem.
2. BP, however, is supposed to be a news organization not a tool for Chapman to advance his personal views. If you look at the editorials in the weeks leading to the Convention, they were stacked to support his views — undermining the basis for a need for a GCR (not to mention several hit pieces on Driscoll).
3. Distributing these same articles at the SBC only amplifies my dislike for #2.
4. The articles in question did not address article IX, they suggested that there was no need for a GCR at all. Thus, to say he was only concerned about article IX may be true but he campaigned against the GCR in its entirety.
5. When a report blatantly mischaracterizes a large segment of our Convention and then labels them as the big problem in the SBC, I neither see that as appropriate nor “in love.”
So basically, here’s where we stand: I join with a host of other concerned Southern Baptists in seeing a pattern and problem worthy of some level of concern. You don’t see it and find it offensive to call Chapman’s actions and statements into question.
Sallie, just wanted to let you know that you are not alone in how you see things. God’s greatest blessings be upon you and all those involved in this situation (especially Chapman and Logan and their families). selahV
.-= SelahV´s last blog ..WILL YOU BE INVESTIGATED SOON? =-.
Thanks, Selah. I knew my husband was with me at least… glad to know I’m not a lone voice.. maybe just the biggest one… lol… Have a blessed day!!
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..Autistics, Music, and Decorating =-.
Matt, silence is not an argument for MC being a liar or politically motivated or wrong. I don’t know Clark Logan, and just as strongly as you believe he could not possibly have done anything deserving this, I believe Morris Chapman would not have been motivated to do what you are accusing him of. I agree with Sallie. It really is Clark’s responsibility to address this. CEO’s (yes MC is a CEO) cannot just go around telling everyone why they ask for a resignation.
Ben,
I think you might be a little unfamiliar with politics. It is not the guy who was asked to resign to answer why he was asked to resign; it is the guy who asked him to resign who should answer why he made that decision. I mean, are you kidding me?
No, my friend, I have been around the block a few times. Probably more than you. I’m not sure. I think you are the one who has it backwards. But let’s not turn this into a playground game of I’m right; you’re wrong.
If I worked for you and you fired me it would be your responsibility to tell the church as to why you made that decision. It is the same situation here. MC should give a reason to the SBC.
One more word on this. I have been in that situation — forced to fire a student minister for issues of morality. I suffered the same kind of response to that from a group within the church as is going on here. I was unwilling to share this young man’s indiscretions in the hope that I could play a part in restoring him. Yes, I shared the reason with the church leadership with the understanding that it was to remain confidential. Because the majority of the members had confidence in both me and our leaders, the storm soon blew over for me and the church. Not the young man because he refused to be helped.
Ben,
Have you read the article. All of these “what if” scenarios you are coming up with have been ruled out. MC says it wasnt for any moral failure etc. It appears you aren’t caught up on this story.
Ben,
You do know that Bible give us very clear instructions concerning the sins of anyone in the ministry?
(1 Tim 5:19-20) Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. 20 Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
Matt — Maybe the whole of the EC should know. Maybe they already do. Maybe they don’t. But, do you really think that the whole of the SBC really fall into the category of “need to know”? If so, why?
I mean, I am thinking of my own church. If at our church a secretary, janitor, or even a deacon maybe, was let go from their duties, then I could understand if all the deacons and/or church council knew. I can not however understand why all the people of the church need to know. It isn’t anyones business.
I only ask because I want to better understand your reasoning for the whole transparency thing being a whole SBC issue. Look forward to your reasons… Thanks!
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..Autistics, Music, and Decorating =-.
When I say the whole SBC needs to know I really mean the information needs to be made public so the whole SBC at least has an opportunity to know.
Do you want to be in a convention that has no accountability or transparency? This is an issue of principle.
Matt — I don’t think it is any of my business.
I don’t think shareholders in any big company, which essentially is kinda what the EC is, would think it was their business to know why certain people are hired and others are let go.
My husband is a Marine. He does his job well. If the POTUS decides to fire a general, then the President doesn’t need to let all the people, including my husband, under that general know why he fired him. It’s his perogative. It’s the same thing here. I don’t think even if my pastor, or my associational director calls Morris Chapman on the phone and asks “why” that they really have a reason to ask either. It does not directly affect them (us), so they(we) don’t need to know.
As it is, the questions are only serving to cause division rather than unity. Is the answer we might get worth that?
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..Autistics, Music, and Decorating =-.
Sallie,
Not trying to pick on you my sister, but you said:
“I don’t think it is any of my business.”
As a member of a SBC church (assuming you are) you have the luxury of taking that position. However, as a Southern Baptist Pastor I do not have the luxury of taking that position. My congregation holds me responsible for where we send our mission dollars, and for not only how they are spent, but the conduct of those who we support with our mission dollars.
And, even more importantly, as the Senior Pastor of a church God will hold me accountable for who we support with our mission dollars. MC receives some of these mission dollars, and therefore I have a vested interest in knowing what and why things are done inside the EC.
I hope you have a blessed day also…
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
Greg, as a senior pastor, can you ever see a time that you might have to dismiss a staff member/employee without sharing all the details with the congregation? I can, and I have — explained in a previous post. What if your members used your same argument? They, after all, pay your salary. However, sometimes confidentiality must rule the day.
Ben,
In a word… “No.”
I think one of the big problems with the Baptist Churches of today is that they are run like a Company and not like the Body of Christ/Family of God.
Can you chop off a finger and the toe not know, or not feel the pain? Are these employees not members of the Body? If not then shame on you for outsourcing the ministry of the church… but it they are members of the Body then how can you dismiss them from the Body without the consent of the Body?
The finial authority within the Baptist Church does not rest with the Pastor/CEO or some executive board, but with the Body/Congregation of believers. And as such the Congregation must be the ones who both hire and fire those who minister in their name.
Do you hire assistant ministers without the consent of the congregation? If not, then I assume you inform the congregation of the qualification of an assistant minister before you ask them to extend a call to (hire) this person? If so they by what authority do you fire this person?
I am a little confused on how your church functions… but we do not hire or fire anyone without the consent of the congregation, which includes informing the congregation of the reasons for the hiring or the firing. (And we are an Elder lead Baptist Church)
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
So, Greg, a staff member comes to you seeking help because of a sin-problem he has. He truly is repentant, but his problem makes it impossible for him to remain on your staff. Do you:
a) ask for his resignation quietly and then try to help him through the situation. Restore him gently, so to speak.
or
b) fire the sinner and broadcast his sin to the entire congregation.
I’m just asking because I think some pretty strong words have been written by you on this. We must be careful about declaring others wrong just because we think we are right. I’m just saying.
Ben,
I have written some “strong words”?
Ben, my brother, I hope I have only expressed some strong convictions. It is never my motive while blogging to win an argument… and honestly in this little exchange I did not think we were even having a “strong” debate, but if you thought I was being a little to strong, I apologize (I seem to be doing a lot of that today…)
The comments I have written, while addressed to you, were not necessarily aimed at you and were intended to provoke all of us on this blog to think seriously about these issues…
With that said, I do no think it appropriate that we continue this discussion as we have clearly missed each others meaning for commenting and I do not wish to risk any further misunderstanding… hope you have a truly blessed evening.
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
By the way — all of us have within us the ability to do the wrong thing. It’s called a sin nature. Clark, Morris, Ben, Matt, Sallie — all of us. The good news is that when we do sin, there is the promise of forgiveness to those who repent. As Christian brothers and sisters, it is our obligation to restore those who stumble. But Paul said, “Restore gently.” I have seen very little gentleness on this blog. I have seen condemnation, accusations, bitterness, sarcasm, and anger. I think some of us have a lot of repenting to do.
Ben — I sin everyday… sometimes that means speaking/typing before thinking. Sometimes I say/type exactly what I mean but the tone can’t be seen. Sometimes I decide it was wrong and needs to be redone with different words — usually why blog posts take me 10 hours instead of 10 minutes. Forgive me where I have set the wrong example.
In Christ,
Sallie
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..Autistics, Music, and Decorating =-.
Sallie, my comments weren’t directed at you.
Still, its good to recognize it within ourselves
I know I’ve gotten angry over this issue and let my fingers think faster than my brain for sure…
In Christ,
Sallie
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..Autistics, Music, and Decorating =-.
Your latest question to Greg means nothing because MC has already said it is NOT a moral/sin issue.
How is trying to hold the leaders of our convention accountable for their actions “condemnation, accusations, bitterness” etc?
My point exactly.
.-= Todd Benkert´s last blog ..Two Challenging Sermons from the SBC Pastor’s Conference =-.
Part of the problem is that we have 1 minute news stories coming every 24 hours and then 24 more hours to dissect them. Then someone else comments and we feed on that for a while.
We have to keep asking questions of the EC, and not allow the subject to get caught in another news story. But in between the stories and the quotes spend some time praying for all involved.
Tom,
Good word. It would be much easier if MC would just come out and tell us why he asked CL to resign. He hasn’t, which leads one to believe it is political. If it weren’t, why the silence?
I agree… it’s like water torture.
I wonder if he has to get legal permission to do so from Dr. Logan to make a comment.
Matt, let me put it this way. Suppose you were the one asked to resign for cause. I don’t know what it might possibly be, but suppose, Matt, it was something that would be embarassing to you and your family. Perhaps personally or professionally. Please know that I do not know any details, so I am not trying to imply anything. But suppose you had “been fired” for this reason. Would you want the whole world, or in this case the SBC, knowing about it? What if Morris Chapman is simply being the gentleman he has always been and is willing to take the heat from blogs like this to protect a reputation or the family of a man that he genuinely loves?
I know. Some will say but look at the calls from Johnny Hunt and Al Mohler who stand behind Clark. I repeat my statements from previous posts. It is as possible they are wrong as it is that Morris Chapman is wrong. Let’s talk conspiracy. Who stands to benefit more in all of this? Certainly not Morris Chapman. He is the one being dragged through the mud. He is the one hearing calls for his resignation. Now would you suppose that his leaving the EC would solve a lot of problems for the above mentioned Johnny Hunt and Al Mohler? Please understand. I am not accusing. I am just trying to help you understand that one scenario is a possible as another. We all look at things based on our own preconceived notions. I think we should wait and see. If Morris Chapman is guilty of stepping out of line and the evidence of that comes to light, I will join you in calling for his resignation. I promise you that. Until then, why not spend more time praying and less time playing on these blogs.
Matt, there are other reasons besides moral failures.
Of course there are, but performance has been ruled out as well. MC commended the work CL had done. If he had done great work why would he be asked to resign for it?
Matt — If Morris Chapman were to come out and said “We just couldn’t get along because of tensions over our differences and so work in our office was becoming too tense for everyone. I had a choice to make to try and make the office environment run smoother for everyone who works here.” would that be an acceptable reason? It seems like most people would not consider that a good enough reason but none of us live and work day in and day out in that environment. Who knows.. maybe if that was the reason, then Clark Logan handed in his resignation cause he thought that was the best answer too. Of course, this is just a simple scenario but it seems more likely than all the “conspiracy” theories.
Does that makes sense? Would an answer like that still make resignation a needed thing? Honestly?
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..Autistics, Music, and Decorating =-.
Sallie,
If Morris Chapman cam out and made that comment, then that would be good enouf for me, and I put this behind me and move on.
But to make no comment at all is not acceptable…
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
That would be acceptable, but you would think it wouldn’t take this long serving together to figure that out. That would certainly not be grounds for his resignation. But, if that is the reason why is he silent? That reason doesn’t bring embarrassment on anyone, even Logan. If that is the reason he has no reason to be silent and if that was the reason Mohler, Moore, etc. wouldn’t be “standing by Clark Logan.”
Wow. Sallie, I don’t even know where to begin. I don’t doubt that you have the best motivation for writing but I think you are severely mistaken. Why in the world do you think that the Logans want others to do mudslinging, even claiming that he did this so he can still look good. That is frankly absurd. You accuse him of something that is repugnant after saying that you don’t doubt he is an honorable man. Would you not think that you had to give answers to friends who called asking what happened? Do you just say…..I can’t talk about it? Of course not! He has friends who are there to assist him, hold him accountable and encourage him in tough times….like we should all have. I don’t know if any people that he has actually talked to have been throwing mud. There are times where our words need to be retracted. This is one of those times for you. I say this in love….the honorable thing for you to do is to retract or modify those words. It may be obvious but I am passionate about this situation. if anything I have said sounds offensive or rude, I apologize.
uh Kevin, see my earlier reply.. computer glitch… not able to change words after rethinking… I’m sorry…
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..Autistics, Music, and Decorating =-.
it is 77 at 10:37 is first of several … if that helps….
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..Autistics, Music, and Decorating =-.
Also, let me say this.
I DO NOT think the Logan’s necessarily want others to clear up anything for them. I did not mean to harshly accuse him of a repugnant act because I do consider him an honorable man from what I’ve read..
However,
I DO think if my friends thought they were coming to my aid in raising noise about something but I asked them to stop and let the situation die down, then they would.
So,
IF Clark Logan is talking to friends, even if because he needs to open up to someone, and those friends are saying there is more to it, without saying what they know, then they are wrong and only fanning flames of division. He should ask them to stop. True friends will stop if he requests it. If he does not ask them to stop, then he is as guilty as if the words came from his own mouth.
If people DO know more and they believe that the truth needs to come out then they need to stand on their OWN COURAGE and present the facts. If it is right that known facts come out, then it will be proven right and they have nothing to worry about. If they lack the courage to stand up, then they need to stop talking as well.
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..Autistics, Music, and Decorating =-.
I agree with Ben. We all have much repenting to do. I want to be the first to publicly do so.
I apologize to everyone for my sarcasm and, if I appeared to write in an angry manner in my earlier posts, please forgive me for giving the appearance of evil. I hope each person on this blog will extend forgiveness to me.
I do admit that this whole concept of blogging about a CEO who asked for a resignation seems strange to me. A man who has faithfully served deserves a fair shake – and that goes for Logan as well as Chapman. If any man has acted inappropriately, we should all call sin what is truly is – sin. But let us also be reminded that the revelation of sin should also be wrought with a sincere desire to forgive and restore the man who has sinned (if any sin occurred). That goes for Chapman and Logan both.
I have an idea and I’m wondering if people agree with me. Feel free to comment.
If we are spending our time on computers trying to confirm someone’s sin, or attempting to sway public opinion about a man’s alleged sin, are we any better than the Pharisees of the New Testament?
To look at the circumstantial evidence of the events and infer that Chapman has sinned shows that someone has put themselves in God’s place and has decided to judge a man’s heart. We are certainly called to judge right from wrong, but we can’t possibly know that Chapman had any ill motives.
The sins that we ourselves commit each day should really bother us much more than the “potential” sins that another man has committed. To judge circumstantial evidence in an automatically condemning light makes a person Pharisaical – it’s as if people were looking for a reason to cast a a negative light on Chapman.
Let me admit my own Pharisaical faults. I personally can’t get past the suspicion that people are upset because he called for the resignation from a Calvinist good ol’ boy. And ya know what? My perception is probably sinful, but I’ve seen too much division between Calvinists and non-Calvinists to feel otherwise. I am being open and honest, but I also admit that my heart needs to be cleansed from this negative perception. Pray for me. And forgive me for my suspicious thoughts. I need to be cleansed and forgiven for my dark thoughts.
Let me add this thought: to publicly push for an explanation means that we distrust Chapman. Ask yourself why you distrust him. Is it because he fired a Calvinist? Is it because you want a Calvinist in his position? Is it because you’ve been given supernatural spiritual discernment and can see how obviously sinful he is? Is it because Logan was your friend? Is it because you have an easier time believing that Logan was a victim rather than Chapman being just in his actions?
Consider these questions and examine yourself. I have examined my heart, and I don’t like the way it looks. I’m thankful for the blood and for the Lord’s grace. Again, forgive me for earlier posts that have reflected sarcasm. I do love each of you in Christ.
James,
Why are you at comment 113 bringing Calvinism into this debate? Do you have an ax to grind against Calvinism? Is the firing of Calvinist, because he is a Calvinist, ok in your sight? Would you be upset if Chapman was a Calvinist and he fired someone because he was not a Calvinist?
I just wish you had not gone down this road… I honestly did not know that Logon was a Calvinist, if he is one, and honestly it never even entered into my thoughts that this was an attack on a Calvinist, but that the motivation was purely political.
Regardless of the reason… Regardless of the reason… One more time, Regardless of the reason… All anyone is asking for is an Explanation… is that really to much to ask?
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
Does anyone know exactly what the EC does? All I know is that they are the committe to end all committees and that Morris Chapman is the committee chairman of committee chairmans.
Greg, I have no axe to grind against Calvinists or Calvinism. I don’t find the firing of ANYONE because of their Christian theological persuasion to be okay, whether Calvinist, Arminian, or “in-between.” I was opening my heart to share an honest opinion. I feel that since that many are upset because of Chapman’s supposed “rant” against Calvinism at the SBC, they are coming to Logan’s defense as retaliation against the non-Calvinist Chapman. I admitted that my perception was sinful and asked for forgiveness, Greg. Since you signed off “Grace Always,” I find it ironic that were harsh in you rhetoric after I put myself out there. A little grace and reassurance would have gone a long way, but you chose otherwise.
I have admitted a few of my infinite number of flaws, and I do hope you can forgive me for my sometimes negative thoughts. I will try to be forthright but encouraging as I attempt to debate and discuss and even differ in a civilized manner.
Greg, I hope you can keep my comments in context. Calvinism was brough to this forum by Todd, not me. I just shared my heart and realized my thinking was wrong. I’m not against Calvinists or Calvinism, and I affirm much of Calvinistic theology. I was just being open about some of the thoughts that had crossed my mind.
Although I don’t have an ax to grind, I have thought that perhaps some Calvinists did…and my judgmental thoughts are sinful. I have apologized and hope I can be forgiven.
An explanation doesn’t seem like much to ask for, Greg, but if one is not offered I trust the EC leaders enough to believe they have a good reason not to make it public.
James,
No one is wanting to fire Chapman just because he is a non-Calvinist. This is about integrity and transparency in our leadership. I don’t believe anyone would be asking for his resignation just because of his rant. If they would, i would strongly oppose them.
“noone” includes me
James,
James,
My brother in Christ… I do publically apologize for offending you in my comments… That was not my attention at all, and for doing so ask your forgiveness.
All I was trying to do was to stress that this whole affair is not at all about Calvinism (at least not on my part)… For me, and I believe others here, we are taking issue with the lack of transparence in this matter, and nothing else.
Again I apologize if I came across as offensive, I truly did not intend to do so.
Grace Always
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
Matt,
Thanks for the reassurance…..it is greatly appreciated and encouraging to hear.
I don’t believe anyone would be asking for his resignation just because of his rant.
Actually…
“Morris Chapman should resign. His moral mandate is utterly finished. He has served well, but his address today was an embarrassment.” — Internet Monk
“What Morris Chapman did as a part of the Executive Committee report should be enough to bring about his resignation. It was that bad.” — Timmy Brister
.-= For Reference…´s last blog ..Two Challenging Sermons from the SBC Pastor’s Conference =-.
I will just have to respectfully disagree with Brister and Imonk on that. No one here, SBC Voices (contributors), is calling for MC to resign merely because of his rant. Although, it was atrocious and had nothing to do with the “report” he was supposed to give.
Chapman’s rant was no worse than Greg Alford’s rants on this blog or his own. And it’s good to know that Todd is willing to barrel over a legendary leader. Just think…many of the ones calling for him to resign actually use the term “grace” in your vernacular on a regular basis! How blind and graceless many of you pastors are! You broods of vipers!
James,
Please see my comment above… #123
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
James,
If you regret that last post I will happily delete it for you. I should delete it anyways. You just called men who you have never met, “brood of vipers.” Do you know what that means?
Leave it, Matt. Pharisees are Pharisees. Trying to reason with God-called men is like trying to chip paint with a toothpick. I like you , Matt, except for sarcastic post about the CBF to BDW (“do you have a point?”). But nevertheless, men who are so doctrinally sound that they are spiritually dead give me the creeps. Any less grace on this blog and I’d swear it was political instead of Christian.
I stand by my assessment. I asked for forgiveness and was shot down by Greg Alford. Reckon that it happens in churches that these men pastor? You answer that one for yourself.
James,
So, in your mind, is there any appropriate manner I may call the words and actions of a faithful leader into question without being one of a “brood of vipers”? You wrongly interpret my observations and questions as ill will. (You rightly assume, however, that I know longer have the level of trust in Chapman that I once did.)
Reading back over my comments, I don’t see how my remarks can be considered inflammatory — unless merely calling actions and words into question itself is sinful. Help me here. Is there anyway to pursue this without you being offended or is it the pursuing of answers itself that has got you upset?
James,
I went back and read my comments several times and I’m not sure how you saw my comments as “shooting you down” that was not my intent, but regardless of my intent my words offended you and for that I am truly sorry.
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
Good one Matt. That trips me out. James, I think the term “legendary” may go a bit far. Unless you are talking about like Hulk Hogan or somebody…then I’m on board with you! (with just a hint of sarcasm). I don’t know if I should laugh or cry at some of your posts. Many are fighting about things they know nothing about. Well done! We could and should probably all tone it down a notch and wait for the facts. I am with you all in hoping they come soon. GRACE and Peace from Cobra Commander!
“We could and should probably all tone it down a notch and wait for the facts.”
Agreed, with the understanding that what we are trying do is get MC to give us the facts!!! Speak up man!
I’ll agree to that as well.
I have spoken to my trustee and he knows the concerns that are there. It is ultimately the role of the trustees to hold Chapman accountable. If there is indeed a legitimate reason to ask for Logan’s resignation, I don’t really need to know what it is. The trustees should know, however, and they can determine whether there is just cause. So I hope this blog and others like it have brought voice to the concerns of many Southern Baptists concerning the events that have transpired and about the Logan resignation specifically.
I hope the trustees will get to the bottom of this issue. If they do, and the resignation is appropriate, it will be enough for me to hear from the trustees that it is so without hearing any of the details. If the resignation is not appropriate, I expect the trustees to rectify the situation. In any case, I call on the trustees to seek specific answers and not settle for a generic statement that this had nothing to do with politics. As they say, the ball is in their court.
.-= Todd Benkert´s last blog ..Two Challenging Sermons from the SBC Pastor’s Conference =-.
Matt, speaking of a one track mind. We’ve already had that discussion. My point was directed to Greg’s declaration that he would NEVER fire a staff member without informing the congregation as to all the details. I just believe that he might find there are times when that has to happen. If my illustration distresses you, change it from moral issue to being hooked on communion grape juice and secretly serves it to himself. I mean, you wouldn’t want people to know he was completely nuts. Of course, I’m being sarcastic. It really doesn’t matter what the issue is. There are times when discretion is the better part of valor. The need for confidentiality supercedes the need to know.
Ben,
I never actually said I would NEVER fire a staff member without informing the congregation as to all the details. What I said was that I would never fire a staff member without informing the congregation of the reason (I said nothing about the details).
Actually, seeing as it is the position of my congregation not to hire anyone that is not a member of the congregation, any issue that would rise to the seriousness of requiring the person to be fired or dismissed from their duties within the church becomes a matter of Church discipline as well. This would be a matter for our Elders to deal with, and not the Senior Pastor alone, and our understanding of Church discipline is always that the intent is restoration of the brother who has sinned, and not punishment.
However, none of this changes the fact that Chapman simply needs to give the Churches of the SBC an explanation for this firing… any explanation is better than nothing. I can’t believe that anyone would fire a staff member and not say something by way of explanation to their congregation.
Grace Always
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.
Greg, yes you did. You need to go back and reread your posts. Wait, let me copy the pertinent part here:
Greg, as a senior pastor, can you ever see a time that you might have to dismiss a staff member/employee without sharing all the details with the congregation? I can, and I have — explained in a previous post. What if your members used your same argument? They, after all, pay your salary. However, sometimes confidentiality must rule the day.
97 Greg Alford July 10, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Ben,
In a word… “No.”
It’s easy, guys, to take the “moral high road” when you have never been put in a position. My point in this argument is that we don’t know the details. I’m sure that the appropriate members of the EC do. Yet, I do not hear any of the rest of these members getting the word out. That tells me either there is something in play here that is keeping them from telling us OR that all of the members are participating in a cover-up of mammoth proportions.
I just want you all to know that this will be my last post to this board. It is obvious that your minds are made up and I suspect that even if evidence comes out that reveals MC is innocent of wrong-doing, you will not be satisfied. My prayer is that our SBC can once again get beyond these petty arguments and represent Christ in a world that doesn’t need what we are giving them.
Yes, the whole controversy should have been handled differently. The difference we have is that I can see reasons why MC might need to remain quiet. I CANNOT see any reason why Johnny Hunt and Al Mohler would have stirred the pot by suggesting something was fishy. If they know something, they should state what they know. If MC has done something unethical, then they should do everything in their power to correct it. Not just continue to fuel the fire of rumor and innuendo.
Ben,
You got me… I did say “No”. I stand corrected… However I think you have put forth a false dichotomy. I do believe there is plenty of room to inform the congregation without getting into the “dirty” details. Let me say that as a Senior Pastor, I personally would never move to dismiss a staff member without first the agreement of the Elders, and second explaining my reason for doing so to the Congregation.
I know you have said that you will no post again on this matter… However I find it somewhat telling that in you last comment you would take a pot shot at Johnny Hunt and Al Mohler, as if somehow by asking for an explanation from Chapman that they are the ones who have done something wrong.
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.