Timmy Brister has done a masterful job addressing Morris Chapman and the latest controversies which he has been involved in. He thrust himself into the spotlight at the SBC and with the Clark Logan situation.
Brister shows the appropriate amount of respectfulness for Chapman’s years of service in the SBC, but also suggests that it might be time to move on.
During the 17+ years that he has served in this position, he has undoubtedly done some great things for Southern Baptists, and his role in advocating the Conservative Resurgence is one to be remembered, including being a past president of the SBC from 1990-1992. However, 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, not the least of which are the following:
Read the full article below:
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
I am happy that we have leaders who disagree, who do not all walk in lock-step. I think it is a good thing.
I thought Dr. Chapman’s comments on Calvinism were dreadfully ill-advised, but I am glad that if he thinks the GCR is a bad idea, he states it publicly for all to hear.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Chapman, Akin Et Al: A Pleasing Dissension in the SBC =-.
Is there no other important news in the SBC right now other than about Clark Logan?
I thought we were going to be focusing more on getting missionaries into the field. Hmmm… guess not…
I’m a young SBC’er who is glad to see that Morris Chapman stands up for his values and isn’t afraid to state them. It’s too bad that things that make SOME people “unhappy” in the last “few months” (as Timmy Brister has stated) is enough to get calls for his resignation.
What is really a shame is that Clark Logan isn’t being asked to make any kind of clearer statement by the “big boys” and it’s ok for him to be silent and it is all falling on Morris Chapman to talk. If Mr. Logan is weak enough to be “forced” into a resignation without justification, then he probably doesn’t need to be handlng the SBC EC’s business and financial affairs anyway.
Do we really want to clear up an issue with Clark Logan? Or, rather, is it we just want another excuse to get Morris Chapman out? More and more, it looks like target practice is on for Morris Chapman.
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..It's Like Riding A Bicycle… =-.
No one would be targeting Chapman if it wasn’t for what happened to Logan. This is about standing up for what is right and demanding better transparency from our leaders.
Yes, there are other important issues, but this an important issue as well.
Would you all say it is time for Chapman to move on?
Or would you say these past two “controversies” do not warrant such a question?
I don’t think it is time. I think he has a target on his back and certain people who don’t like him are being the squeaky wheel.
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..It's Like Riding A Bicycle… =-.
Matt, I don’t know enough to say Dr. Chapman needs to move on. If he thinks the GCR is a bad idea, he SHOULD speak against it. Differing opinions are not malfeasance in office. If the GCR report is something he cannot support when it is finalized, maybe then he should move on.
And we still know almost nothing about the Logan thing. He was forced to resign but it was not for moral or ethical reasons. Until we know the details, I cannot say that Morris Chapman needs to move on.
What he said about Calvinists, for that Dr. Chapman should apologize. But I’m still unsure that he should resign.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Chapman, Akin Et Al: A Pleasing Dissension in the SBC =-.
I tend to agree with Dave Miller on this. If there is disagreement it should be allowed. I read Dave’s blog post and agreed with it. Good points Dave.
.-= Debbie Kaufman´s last blog ..How To Overspiritualize Everything =-.
Timmy has documented a number of issues. This goes way beyond a mere disagreement.
Exactly.
I agree with Dave also that disagreement should be allowed. The question isn’t whether or not you should move on because he disagrees with Calvinism or the GCr, but rather how he handled the Clark Logan situation in a way that left much to be desired. I am not saying he should move on.. But I think it is a question that needs asked and answered by people much higher than myself.
Debbie, of all people I thought you would be a proponent of removing a leader who isn’t transparent and **possibly abused his power by asking Logan to resign for no good reason(as far as we can tell).
Here is my thought for what it is worth. If you fire someone, or in this case ask for their resignation, is it your responsibility/right to publish that information. In business, you are likely to be sued for releasing that information. There are other reasons besided moral and ethical issues that people are fired/asked to resign.
We may not all be seminary grads but we’re not stupid. Let’s be honest, shall we? There were calls for Chapman to leave before this came up with Logan. If you want to think he only got a target on his back because of Logan, then you are lying to yourself. Logan’s resignation is just another excuse for some people to keep calling for it. Before there has even been any sort of investigation (IF it is warranted) guilt has already been proclaimed and punishment called for — ie resignation.
Actually if I were Logan, I’d be feeling a little perturbed at my so called friends using a personal matter to push their own agenda, especially when I’ve already said I was embarrassed by the amount of publicity being given the matter.
So, I guess here is a question to answer if we really want to prove its not a personal vendetta: Who else in the SBC Executive Committee has EVER handed in a resignation — even if asked for —
and had the situation turn into a call immediately for an investigation into and resignation of the EC president?
.-= Sallie´s last blog ..It's Like Riding A Bicycle… =-.
Matt,
“The question isn’t whether or not you should move on because he disagrees with Calvinism or the GCR”
Exactly… Chapman should move on because he has clearly show that he is bias against Calvinist in the Convention. And at time when Calvinist and Non-Calvinist in the Convention are setting aside their differences and seeking unity and greater cooperation he appears (by the content of his speech and the firing of Logan) to desire nothing less than to fan the flames of division within the Convention. That from someone in his position is just simply unacceptable!
Grace Always,
.-= Greg Alford´s last blog ..Passionate Missionary Calvinism – Follow up =-.