Morris Chapman has published a “Clarification of Intent” about his much talked about SBC “report.”
I am posting this to make everyone aware and give everyone the opportunity read what Chapman has to say. In the next few days there will be a SBC Voices contributor “responding” to Chapman’s “clarification.”
Does it bother anyone else that his “clarification of intent” is on the front page of sbc.net? For a Convention that is desperately seeking unity around the GCR our president of the Executive Committee seems to be doing everything within his power to not let this happen. If anyone in the SBC is making the GCR about Calvinism it is him.
Also, see Timmy Brister’s response.
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
His clarification is somewhat astounding. As one tweeter said, I’m still wondering what he’s fighting. The implication seems to be that if Calvinists are open about their theology, churches will be destroyed and missions will die.
His explanation of Ephesians 2:8 is almost useless, relying as he does on commentaries. It is easy to find commentators that agree with you. If commentaries settled the issue, I could easily name several that disagree with Chapman. His tone seems to suggest that his position is the correct one because of what these commentaries say about the Bible.
It also is odd how often he explains the word antinomy. Is he proud of himself for knowing what the word means?
Chris Roberts´s last blog ..Angels and Evangelism
Notice the title of Murray’s book in the 10th paragraph “Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinists.” Then not how in MC’s article in the next phrase he reduces their beliefs to Calvinist. Then he gives HYPER-Calvinist arguements vs. Spurgeon.
This is very clarifying of Chapman’s position. He really does think Calvinism is hyper-Calvinism. This is the same song next verse.
That is an interesting development.
My jaw is still sore from when it hit the floor at the SBC during his report. The report was condescending, arrogant, and divisive. The report on his report is convoluted, full of antimony, and disingenuous.
Some thoughts:
*if a report needs a report to clarify it then the original report should not have been given. The Chairman failed in his responsibility to the SBC. An immediate investigation into the behavior. ethics, and business practices of Mr. Chapman may be in order based on his inability to provide an accurate report of the Executive Committee.
*Broad sweeping (mis)generalizations of an entire sector of the SBC is irresponsible. Had Dr. Mohler given a report from SBTS that categorically vilified prevenient grace believers I believe that there are factions in the SBC that would have had his head on a platter before he left the podium. Mr. Chapman owes an apology to the entire SBC — not a report on his report.
*Commentary theology only stands to prove that one can read. The report on the report showed me that true interaction with the doctrines of grace by Mr. Chapman is superficial. He may have a valid concern with supposed second generation issues, but certainly not in the way he addressed them. But even so, the second generation issue is not limited to so-called Calvinism but rather to pseudo-Christianity.
*based on his report to the SBC and the report on the report, I personally have a hard time seeing how Mr. Chapman is allowed to stay in his position. Either a new position should be created for him to get him out of this leadership role, or he should find a mega-church to lead the charge in cleansing the SBC of antimony.
Scott´s last blog ..SBC ‘09 with Pictures
Does anybody know if dude has some sort of medical problem? I am being quite serious although I’m sure someone is going to get offended and flame me for asking but he doesn’t sound like he’s “right”.
Joe Blackmon´s last blog ..Matthew 6:24 No Moonlighting Allowed
Listen guys,
I’m the Twitter guy who said I don’t know who Chapman is still fighting. I’m a little confused by the clarification, but glad to see it nonetheless.
The fact that Chapman is making a clarification means that he believes he has misspoken. Rather than kick him while he’s down, thank him for admitting he misrepresented Calvinists and furthermore, thank him for taking the time to respond to concerns offered by people on blogs like these.
You don’t want Calvinists to always be seen in a negative, suspicious light? Then do non-Calvinists a favor and give them the benefit of the doubt. Listen charitably. Surely we are all guilty of misrepresenting people from time to time. When we do, and we admit it, it’s time to move on.
Trevin Wax´s last blog ..A Blog Sabbatical
Trevin,
Perhaps you misunderstand. While I was not pleased with his report I am even more displeased with the report on the report. It represents not a slap at Calvinists but poor business practice and leadership. He admitted to essentially falsifying his report in effect and wants to revise it now by giving a post on his blog. He has become the poster child of what Dr. Hunt called the permeation of “self” into the church and the resultant vision problem.
Its an integrity issue — not a them-against-us issue.
Scott´s last blog ..SBC ‘09 with Pictures
Is grace not commenting? I don’t know Morris Chapman nor his love for Christ. By all reports, he loves Christ and has served him faithfully for much longer than I. How can one not rebuke a older man yet correct him as a brother when one does not know him.? Things are difficult in a technological age where everyone is your audience?
Since we are in technologically saturated time and he knows this, I will make a comment…as grace filled as possible. Humilty demands that he not ‘clarify’ his statement but rather apologize for using an SBC platform to state a personal conviction that had absolutely nothing to do with his committee report. It was divisive. Cleverly disguised yet backhanded statements made to a home crowd is not fitting of someone holding his position. But I will ‘drop my rocks’ and thank him for his years of service. Not in hopes that he would give an apology but because love covers a multitude of sins.
I am not holier than thou…today God’s grace has overpowered my sinful flesh. May God be beating the pride out of someone today in hopes of raising him up to lead the SBC tomorrow. As for today…we Christians need to Gospel as much as non-believers lest we join the ranks of the pharisees.
“Falsifying his report” means that you believe he intentionally sought to lie about Calvinists. I will not go so far to accuse Chapman of such a thing. I’ll chalk it up to ignorance before I will accuse him of intentional deception.
The fact that he has responded to criticism is a good sign, not a bad sign. I understand that you’re troubled by the response, but don’t miss the big picture here. He has taken a step toward those who are criticizing him, and now he’s getting criticized for that step.
Listen, you may disagree with Chapman on these reports or on the way the Logan situation was handled, but let’s not immediately assume the worst in people. He is a brother in Christ who has given many faithful years of service to the SBC.
Trevin Wax´s last blog ..A Blog Sabbatical
His first step should have been an apology. Then maybe an explanation would be in order.
But, yes, I do believe he meant to purposefully malign those that hold to the doctrines of grace. And only when the heat got to be too much was an explanation (note: not an apology) given. That kind of leadership may have served him in prior years in the old-school SBC to a good end but it certainly should not today in a resurgent SBC. And because he is a “brother in Christ” then we should, if we have something against him, expect him to “make good.” Just like I would expect anyone to do with me, and anyone else between themselves. Thus far, the only step I see him making is not to make amends but rather to prove himself.
(*I can’t speak to the Logan issue as I don’t have knowledge enough to address that. Apparently, no one does. So, we’ll leave that out of my comment threads.)
Scott´s last blog ..SBC ‘09 with Pictures
OK. That’s the distinction between our two points of view. We both agree that Chapman’s first report was a misrepresentation and neither of us are satisfied with the follow-up clarification. But you assume malicious intentions on his part and I assume that he realized he misspoke and is trying (somehow) to make things better.
I may just be naive. Or you could be cynical.
Trevin Wax´s last blog ..A Blog Sabbatical
“I may just be naive. Or you could be cynical.
”
Well spoken!! LOL
Scott´s last blog ..SBC ‘09 with Pictures
Trevin, that’s almost identical to one of my own personal maxims: “If I must err in my judgment of others, I’d rather be naive than a cynic.”
Well said, Trevin. Thanks!
Just to let everyone know, I have added a few things to the bottom of the post. I didnt want to make a whole new post out of it.
You fellows let Mr. Chapman alone. HE HAS OFFERED A CLARIFICATION. It does not necessarily satisfy. How can it, when he obviously has a problem with the founding theology. But, and the conjunction is big here, it was the Sovereign Grace Believers who opened the door for people like brother Chapman in the principles for union between Separates and Regulars. The article adopted in 1787 says, “the preaching that Christ tasted death for every man shall be no bar to commnunion,” which simply and amply imply that the original position and the dominant one was PARTICULAR REDEMPTION (i.e., limited atonement). You see, fellows, the liberal and catholic spirit was the calvinistic one. So if we follow the founders and ancestors (in some cases), we must simply overlook Bro. Chapman’s faux paux and expect that we shall win him to the original position which started the great missionary movement and enjoyed the visitations known as the Great Awakenings and, it seems likely, might be getting ready to enjoy another Great Awakening, the thrid one, the one which wins the whole earth in one generation and every soul on earth at one time and even for a 1000 more generations after it so Christ will have literally “a number no man can number.” I have the privilege of telling about a Spurgeon wo came to believe like his more famous relative in irresistible grace. A young lady helped. He won her to Chist and she responded so readily, he asked why. She replied, “O, it was so wonderful that I could not resist it.” Forty years later, Mr. Spurgeon came to believe it. About the same time he found out that he might be related to the more noted Spurgeon (C.H). God is getting ready to bless us, so why worry about a little problem. Nothing succeeds like success
Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation
You fellows let Mr. Chapman alone. HE HAS OFFERED A CLARIFICATION. It does not necessarily satisfy. How can it, when he obviously has a problem with the founding theology. But, and the conjunction is big here, it was the Sovereign Grace Believers who opened the door for people like brother Chapman in the principles for union between Separates and Regulars. The article adopted in 1787 says, “the preaching that Christ tasted death for every man shall be no bar to commnunion,” which simply and amply imply that the original position and the dominant one was PARTICULAR REDEMPTION (i.e., limited atonement). You see, fellows, the liberal and catholic spirit was the calvinistic one. So if we follow the founders and ancestors (in some cases), we must simply overlook Bro. Chapman’s faux paux and expect that we shall win him to the original position which started the great missionary movement and enjoyed the visitations known as the Great Awakenings and, it seems likely, might be getting ready to enjoy another Great Awakening, the thrid one, the one which wins the whole earth in one generation and every soul on earth at one time and even for a 1000 more generations after it so Christ will have literally “a number no man can number.” I have the privilege of telling about a Spurgeon wo came to believe like his more famous relative in irresistible grace. A young lady helped. He won her to Chist and she responded so readily, he asked why. She replied, “O, it was so wonderful that I could not resist it.” Forty years later, Mr. Spurgeon came to believe it. About the same time he found out that he might be related to the more noted Spurgeon (C.H). God is getting ready to bless us, so why worry about a little problem. Nothing succeeds like success.
Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation
I am not in awe of the debate between Calvinism and non-Calvinism (there is no escaping it), I am in awe at the division between the two groups of BELIEVERS! The church is no longer consists of the church, it consists of Calvinists and non-Calvinists. No matter how you interpret grace, God’s word still says GO and MAKE disciples. So why doesn’t the church unite, preach the gospel that supports both interpretations, and stop worrying about hurting John Calvin’s rep and start being more pro-active in glorifying Jesus’ name.
Fermentation is not an altogether attractive process, but out of it arises goo things. Bread as the result of yeast fermentation which is tasty, aromatic, etc. So out of the fermentation of Baptists fussing in the 1700s came religious liberty, uniting of Separates and Regulars, persuading a lot of General Baptists to become Regular Baptists, employing both educated and uneducated men together, an early abolition effort, the educational institutions, evangelism in quality and quantity. I remind you folks that biblical orthodoxy brings believers to the point of being balanced, flexible, creative, and magnetic. Talk about exciting, thrilling, captivating, attractive, interesting, compelling, so wonderful as to be irresistible, sensible, sensitive, winsome, charming, inviting, I could continue, but you all read Roget’s synonyms for the foregoing words to find more that are suggesting of just how incredibly ______ (fill in the blank with whatever term you prefer) the Lord’s future for His people in this world even can be. I think, if Christians really realized, what the promises imply with reference to the future success of the Gospel, there would be no stopping them from pleading those promises. And one day such will be the case. Then we shall have 1001 generations converted to Christ….and why not, if He is to have a number no man can number?
Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation