Addressing the Morris Chapman Controversy in the SBC: A Call for Accountability, Transparency, and Unity

Morris Chapman has served as President and CEO of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention since 1992.  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:

1. Within a few weeks after the formal and public announcement of the Great Commission Resurgence document, it was being reported that Chapman was having serious disagreements with the two leading architects of the GCR–Johnny Hunt (president of the SBC) and Danny Akin (president of SEBTS).  At one point, Hunt wondered if the differences were because “he’s [Chapman] sitting as an executive director and I’m out there with the pastors every week.”  At this point, the Chapman and the GCR was no private or personal matter, and Chapman was just beginning his counter-GCR campaign.

2. Two weeks later (a month after the GCR document is released), Morris Chapman utilizes the denominational online “news wire” of which he is CEO to publicly express his grievances over the GCR document, in particular Article IX (for a detailed response to Chapman, check out Tom Ascol’s interaction).  At this point, Chapman had clearly positioned himself with an opposing vision than that of GCR advocates.  Ironically, the second reason why Chapman did not sign the GCR document was because of his belief that it would cause division, which leads to the third development–SBC Louisville.

3. What many veterans of SBC annual meetings have called the most significant moment since 1979 was the motion made to develop a task force to address Article IX and examine the structures and systems of the SBC so that we could be more effective in Great Commission work as a convention comprised of associations, state conventions, and national entities.  While it was expected that the task force would receive significant opposition, the final vote turned out to be an overwhelming 95-5 per cent margin.  Southern Baptists spoke loudly, clearly, and definitively, and Chapman was not only wrong about the divisiveness of GCR but on the entire issue altogether.  Hardly could a Southern Baptist think of a time when we were all more united around the Great Commission task entrusted to us.

4. On that very same day where Chapman’s counter-GCR position garnered no more than 5% of SBC support, the convention began that morning with the first part of the Executive Committee report which, by unanimous reporting, was considered the lowest point of the convention.  Instead of reporting on matters related specifically to the task of the Executive Committee, Chapman took the opportunity to offend nearly every person in the meeting room with outrageous and shameful remarks that led Dr. Akin to apologize to Southern Baptists for and Mohler to issue a “recovery group” (albeit in a somewhat humorous manner).  But instead of being embarrassed by his remarks, Chapman made his manuscript available to be disseminated by Baptist state papers.  In one day’s work, Chapman marginalized himself with a vision 5% of Southern Baptists embraced while going on an indefensible rant against matters no where near related to an Executive Committee report.  By this point, it seemed that things were spiraling out of control as Chapman was out of touch with his fellow Southern Baptists.

5. Exactly one week after the SBC Louisville convention (July 2), it was reported that Clark Logan, Vice President for Business and Finance of the Executive Committee and Convention Manager, abruptly resigned the previous day.  From the initial reports, there were indications that there was more to Logan’s resignation than being reported (even though the Southern Baptist Texan did mention the suspicion of Logan being fired), largely due to the new medium and immediacy of Twitter providing comments by nearly 100 Southern Baptists, including Johnny Hunt, Al Mohler, Russell Moore, Jimmy Scroggins, James Smith (of Florida Baptist Witness), Mark Overstreet, Nathan Lino, and numerous others. Four days later (July 6), Clark Logan issued a brief response, clarifying,

“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.” (emphasis mine)

Chapman specifically told the The Texan that “Clark Logan resigned yesterday from his position as Vice President for Business and Finance of the Executive Committee” (emphasis mine), not that he had asked Logan to resign, or to be more specific, was forced to resign.  Chapman was not forthright or transparent when asked about how or why Logan resigned, only to say that “it is not the practice of the Executive Committee to respond to rumors.”

Well, as it came out, it was not a rumor but the truth–a truth Chapman apparently did not want disclosed.  A day later (July 7), Chapman issued a statement affirming that Logan’s resignation was not due to any immoral or unethical action but refused to address the situation any further because it was a “personal” and “private” matter.

The rumors have been proven to be true, and the matter has proven to be one warranting much public attention.  Although Logan has apparently done nothing to warrant a forced resignation, Chapman has not to this point explained why he called for Logan’s resignation.  What was the warrant?  Is it possible that Chapman wrongfully exercised his use of authority to force the resignation of one of his employees for unsubstantiated reasons relegated to matters deemed “personal” and “private”?

While Chapman serves at perhaps the most powerful position as CEO of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, this does not mean he is free from any accountability and transparency to the churches of the SBC.  In a recent interview with SWBTS students, Ronnie Floyd, head of the GCR Task Force said that concerned pastors should contact EC trustees and remind them that Chapman works for the churchesThe actions listed above are disconcerting to say the least and should require the Executive Committee members to take seriously the entrusted task to function in cooperation with, and not contrary to, the will and spirit of the convention.

Although Logan has been cleared of any wrongdoing, he has still been dismissed.  Chapman, on the other hand, has set a course contrary to the convention and committed himself to its realization even at the expense of making what appears to be an unethical decision.  Two months ago when Chapman was on the offense against the GCR, his thoughts and opinions were public record, and yet when he is on the defense, nothing either from him or Baptist Press is being reported on the firing of Clark Logan.

Here’s the bottom line.  God is doing some great things in the SBC, and riding the huge momentum gained at the SBC Louisville convention, we need to bring closure to the situation with Clark Logan and demand accountability for the words and actions by Morris Chapman.  Neither silence nor the mere passing of time is going to cover up what has transpired over the past couple of months, and Southern Baptists need to make their voices heard for the sake of moving forward together with a unified commitment toward the Great Commission.

Three years ago, Morris Chapman penned what he called “My Hope for Our Convention.”  In the introduction he wrote,

“Sometimes we seem better prepared to compete than to cooperate, to boast than to be brokenhearted, to stand proudly in the synagogue than to kneel at the altar, to judge than to be judged, to call for repentance than to repent.”

I find those words, three years later, to be quite prophetic and apropos.  Morris Chapman is my brother in Christ, and I am praying for him and for all Southern Baptists that we will cooperate with broken hearts, humbled and repentant, looking to the sin in our own hearts and seeking to apply the gospel in sincerity and soul-piercing truth.

Southern Baptists, I encourage you to voice your concerns to the Executive Committee members.  While their contact information is not provided, here is a list of them by state.  In a humble and yet forthright manner, communicate your concerns and share your heart with grace and truth.  You can do so here in the comments section of this post, and I will do my best they read your responses.  And finally, let us pray together and labor together for renewal in our local churches and resurgence in the mission to the nations with an undivided focus on the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Explore posts in the same categories: Responses, SBC

Tags: , , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

42 Comments on “Addressing the Morris Chapman Controversy in the SBC: A Call for Accountability, Transparency, and Unity”

  1. Keith Sewell Says:

    Perfectly articulated. I agree wholeheartedly. No one is above accountablity. The quote you provided from Johnny Hunt is very telling of the whole situation, “he’s [Chapman] sitting as an executive director and I’m out there with the pastors every week.” I’m afraid that sometimes sitting behind a desk for too long brings about an unfortunate disconnect between you and the people you serve/lead; which is a great warning to us as pastors. It’s not about the hours in the office or our position.

    I appreciate the work that Morris Chapman has done in the past for the SBC. But sadly he has veered of course and is serving his own desires and wants rather than the needs, desires, and wants of the churches he supposedly serves. His job is Executive Director not Executive Dictator.

    Despite the negativity that we are seeing from Morris Chapman and other minute factions, I am more excited about the SBC and the future than ever before.

    Praying and laboring with you for the “renewal in our local churches and resurgence in the mission to the nations with an undivided focus on the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

  2. iMonk Says:

    Not a hard one. He’s served well, but he needs to resign. It’s the noble thing to do. We’re grateful for his leadership, but what he’s currently doing is not helpful.

    Dr. Chapman: please resign.

  3. Randy Alston Says:

    I missed all of that last week because I was on vacation without Internet. However, I did know of the stuff leading up to this and was already bothered by much of it. I agree Chapman has been used in great ways in the past, but something’s not right about this. I am thankful that after his talk at the SBC the people spoke loud and clear against it. He needs to be held accountable so that we can move on and focus on the GCR.

  4. Brent Hobbs Says:

    Well said Timmy. EC Members, this situation has the potential to be either a black mark in our history or a trial from which we emerge better than we were before. Please make sure the latter is the case.

    Silence is not the way forward. Transparency is the way to show you respect the churches you serve.

  5. Lane Harrison Says:

    Maybe this is the most hopeful sign of GCR in the SBC? Maybe we do care deeply about doctrinal dialogue as essential to effective missional mandate, instead of divorcing the two? Maybe along with young guys rising up to participate in the SBC, we also need wise men IN the SBC who will stand FOR the Gospel and against denominational politics when they collide? Maybe Southern Baptist, at our core, love sound theology and strong missiology as much as we say, we’ve seen it in the 95-5 and its time to put it into practice in the 24/7 of operations? No maybe about it.

  6. Robert Angison Says:

    Extremely well put. I hope we can finally see the bloated denominational structure that is hurting our ability to reach the lost changed.

    One of the first places should be to eliminate unnecessary agencies. I’ve always been taught the headquarters of the SBC is the local church, not in buildings in downtown Nashville.

    We must take the opportunity to use our abundant, and faithfully given resources to reach the lost in this generation. We have too great an opportunity to waste it.

    You are the Church!
    Robert Angison

  7. Matt Cummings Says:

    I wonder when we, as a convention, are going to stop looking at each other as enemies so that we can partner together to win people to Jesus Christ. The GCR document is very encouraging, young leaders (JD Greear and David Platt) stepping up is encouraging, but stubborn ignorance can absolutely destory us as a convention. Tim thank you for this post. I join you in praying for our convention leadership, our churches and those in the seminaries. This is a critical time for the SBC, and the question that arises is this : are we going to continue fighting and tearing each other down, or are we (despite some differences) going to join together and try to win this lost world to Jesus Christ?

  8. L. White Says:

    Very concerned about why you are so quick to throw Dr. Chapman under the bus. This is a man with decades of devoted service to our Lord and to the SBC, a leader in the Conservative Resurgence, a man found faithful in all he has done. What causes so many to assume the worst and speak out publicly in such a negative way with so few facts to back up the caustic remarks? Is anyone concerned about how you are hurting him? Did you actually, carefully, read his report, or are you feeding off each other’s energies and creating a groundswell of negativism where no grounds exist?

    • Lynne,

      You said,

      Very concerned about why you are so quick to throw Dr. Chapman under the bus.

      If I wanted to be quick, I would have written this post on July 2. Furthermore, I have detailed in 1400+ words with dozens of documented sources the events that have transpired to warrant serious concerns that many Southern Baptists are having about the leadership of Morris Chapman. This post comes after days of deliberation and waiting.

      If you want to see what a quick throw-under-the-bus looks like, I encourage you to consider reading Chapman’s convention “report” (available in my post).

      This is a man with decades of devoted service to our Lord and to the SBC, a leader in the Conservative Resurgence, a man found faithful in all he has done.

      I said almost exactly the same thing in my first paragraph, and those sentiments have been echoed in the comments, of which you interpret as “caustic.”

      What causes so many to assume the worst and speak out publicly in such a negative way with so few facts to back up the caustic remarks?

      I, and several others, are asking questions and expressing concerns. Southern Baptists have the right to know the truth in full disclosure about what and how things are going down in the Executive Committee.

      Is anyone concerned about how you are hurting him? Did you actually, carefully, read his report, or are you feeding off each other’s energies and creating a groundswell of negativism where no grounds exist?

      No one is trying to hurt him. At the conclusion of my post, I wrote,

      Morris Chapman is my brother in Christ, and I am praying for him and for all Southern Baptists that we will cooperate with broken hearts, humbled and repentant, looking to the sin in our own hearts and seeking to apply the gospel in sincerity and soul-piercing truth.

      Chapman has hurt a lot of Southern Baptists with his misinformed rhetoric at the convention and fired one of his veeps without informing the EC nor providing an rationale for doing so. What kind of hurt do you think the Logan family is going through over the past week?

      I hope that I have sufficiently addressed your comments and questions. You are welcome to voice them here anytime.

  9. David Phillips Says:


    I’ll caution you in the same manner that I cautioned another yesterday. Are you sure there was nothing that provided just cause for his dismissal? Just because someone doesn’t do immoral or unethical things doesn’t mean their job performance was exemplary. I could not cheat on my taxes and not look at porn and I could still do a bad job.

    In addition, HR laws are clear and they may not allow for the ex-comm to say anything other than was said.

    Finally, can you be sure that no one else in the ex-comm officers list did not know what was going on? Are you sure that someone else did not recommend his termination?

    I agree that Morris is not above accountability. I agree there needs to be transparency. But regarding Logan, they may be legally unable to express the true reason for his termination.

    Now I have no dog in this hunt, except that what is right be done, regardless if it ticks off Mohler or Hunt or Akin or Patterson or Chapman or anyone else. I am a SBC pastor in Delaware and think the whole convention needs to be broken up except for 1 mission board, turn the seminaries over to the state conventions and be done with everything but missions.

    Yet to call for Morris’ head because he (and the ex-comm officers – that’s important, don’t forget that) made what may possibly be a agonizing decision to replace someone who may or may not have had quality job perfomence is inappropriate. And to call for the reason behind the dismissal, because of legal issues, may just be the reason there is no comment.

    • David,

      From the comments of EC members on Twitter as well as through private correspondence, they were not provided just cause or properly informed of his dismissal. Furthermore, if there were legitimate job performance issues by Logan, why would Chapman issue the following statement on July 2 via The Texan?

      “Clark is a fine young man and his gifts and skills uniquely equip him for many positions of service among Southern Baptists. I am grateful for the contributions he made to the work of the Executive Committee, and I wish the best for him and his family as Clark pursues other opportunities for ministry.”

      • David Phillips Says:


        I was fired from an IT job once. My boss gave me a similar recommendation.

        The question is the EC officers, not the EC committee. Only those on the phone call and who made the decision truly know the situation as they are the ones who are charged with such decisions.

        I was on the ex-comm of our state convention and on the administrative committee of said convention. We made a decision to fire a staff member. It was part performance based and part “fit”, ie he just didn’t fit in with the others. It was announced to the ex-comm only that he resigned and he was given a letter of recommendation he could take with him wherever he went.

        There are things you may not know of and which the ex-comm board may not know of but which the ex-comm officers do know of. In other words, be careful about what you call for when you do not know all the facts. We may never know why he was fired. Legally we may not be allowed to know. That doesn’t mean the actions were not justified.

        Don’t assume that because Morris gave an untimely speech that he was out to get Clark after the convention.

        • Don’t assume that because Morris gave an untimely speech that he was out to get Clark after the convention.

          Dave, I never made that assumption, did I? I think Dr. Nettles comments about abrupt forced resignation due to job performance comes across as rather odd, but then again I don’t have the denominational experience that you have. 🙂

          The fact that we may never know why or for what reason Logan was fired is unsatisfactory. We are a convention of churches who, for whatever the reason, have an Executive Committee that works for the churches and should answer fully and finally to the churches, and legal matters should not impede that given we are their our employees.

          • Bill Nettles Says:

            What’s so odd about my comment (below)? People with poor job performance are usually given warnings, admonitions, and hopefully instruction. Abrupt forced resignations usually signal a sudden or severe disagreement or catastrophic job failure.

            • Bill,

              What I meant was the oddity you expressed about abrupt termination for poor job performance without prior notifications as you mentioned. In other words, I was trying to utilize the argument you were making. It was poorly worded!

    • Bill Nettles Says:

      Very rarely are resignations asked “by the end of the day” for having low job performance. Even at the local church level, poor performers are given time to find other employment.

      I can think of a few situations for this present scenario: 1)there is a new boss/pastor and he asks for everyone’s resignation, then picks and chooses, 2) the person has been asked to do some task he finds distasteful/near-unethical and refuses to do so. The boss or pastor issues an ultimatum: do it or leave by the end of the day. Person leaves. The person can’t bring himself to do the action, which, while lawful, is not within their personal sense of acceptable behavior. 3)very close to #2, the boss expected a person to take an action during a certain time but the person deliberately didn’t. Sometimes the person is told “find another job” and sometimes “leave by the end of the day or get fired. If you leave, I’ll give you a good recommendation.”

      I don’t know (or even have any “rumor”) that these are applicable. I just know what I’ve observed in the past at churches and universities. So I disagree at this time that it would be long-term job-performance related.

      I do agree that the ex-comm officers knew what was going on. If they didn’t, then that would be a major problem since Logan was elected to the position by the ex-comm. Since he resigned by request, he must have known that the ex-comm officers were on board with the situation. The next meeting should be interesting for the members. It’ll be closed-door and confidential due to it being a personnel matter.

  10. Jeff Wright Says:


    While I very much agree with much of what you have written here Inwould like to caution you against using a phrase like “even at the expense of making what appears to be an unethical decision” when talking about Chapman (I assume this is a reference to the Logan situation).

    While I join you in being concerned that something less than wonderful is behind the Logan issue I just don’t think there is enough data on the table to even publically speculate about whether or not something shady has taken place.

    Anyway, just a friendly caution. Do with it whatever you think best.

    • Jeff,

      What I mean by unethical was that he presented to the public the resignation of Clark Logan only later to find out to the public that it was a forced resignation by Morris Chapman. When probed into this matter, he responded by saying that it was rumors when indeed it was true that Logan was essentially fired.

      On the one hand, you have the HOW question as to Logan’s dismissal, which has somewhat clarified. On the other hand, it is still not public as to the WHY question of Logan’s dismissal except that Logan did nothing immoral or unethical. Together, these beg even more questions and take the nature of this situation even deeper and problematic, in my opinion.

  11. B. Owens Says:

    Thank you Bro. Tim, for those well articulated words. Being a young Southern Baptist pastor who feels deeply about the SBC, I was deeply offended by the insensitive and irresponsible remarks given during Dr. Chapman’s “report.” Respecting him as a person and what he has done for the SBC, also I feel that it is time for him to do the right thing and humbly step down, along with a public apology to all of the young SBC pastors and seminary students he lambasted in his “report” as ascribing to theology not condusive to evangelism. There was much advance made here in Lousiville, and I pray that he doesnt continue to try and hinder that advance. Also, the EC reps need to do what they were elected to do and make sure the right thing is done, as they, including Bro. Chapman, work for the local churches of the SBC.

  12. Jerry Says:

    I am left wondering if your point number 4, above, was somewhat responsible for the landslide you record in number 3.

  13. Matt Redmond Says:


    Good job on this. I really appreciate your work here. The cautions from those who would look at this as an HR issue is hard to believe. When a VP for the EC for the SBC is asked to resign and no reason is given to those who they are employed to serve, it is the most reasonable thing in the world to expect an explanation. We would expect the same in the local church body. Why we would not expect this from those are payed by churches to serve churches? That is, unless we are working from a paradigm in which denominational leaders have an authoritative role over the local church…

    Matt Redmond

  14. B. Rabon Says:

    I am in full agreement.

  15. […] Addressing Morris Chapman Related PostsClark Logan: not just a resignationVideo – Morris Chapman speaks about the Baptist Faith and MessageQuestions and Quotes that demand an answer from the SBC […]

  16. Questions I have for the Executive Members include (but are not limited to):

    Regarding Logan’s forced resignation . . .

    1. Were all of you informed prior to the forced resignation of Logan of Chapman’s decision? If so, were you all in agreement?

    2. Can the President of the EC unilaterally fire a VP without the consent of EC members?

    3. Are there sufficient grounds necessary to warrant the dismissal of this nature?

    4. Do you feel an obligation and trust to the churches of the SBC to conduct such matters in the EC with integrity and transparency? If there is nothing unethical done here, what is there to hide?

    Regarding the EC Report in Louisville . . .

    1. Were the statements made by Chapman during his report representative or a consensus of the EC members?

    2. Given that his comments were not a “theme interpretation” or “convention message” but a “report” of the Executive Committee, do you stand by them as representing your views as well (that is, assuming that it was a “report of the Executive Committee”)?

    • Greg Alford Says:

      Great Questions Timmy…

      I am very interested to see if anyone will answer. If no one from the EC answers these questions then I think we have a far more serious issue in the SBC than just Chapman being out of step with the Convention.

      Also, I think the answers to these questions will go a very long way in identifying just who else is in Chapman’s camp… (You know me, I’ve never met a conspiracy theory I didn’t love). But in all seriousness, I do not think Chapman just pulled that EC report out of thin air, and I do not think that Logan’s dismissal was unrelated to Chapman’s EC report.

      Grace Always,

  17. BB Says:

    I’m not in the ministry. I’m just a retread Christ follower who burned out on organized religion years ago and found my way back through AA. These upheavals are very sad and distract from the church’s primary purpose: to fill people with life in Christ. The founders of AA wisely set it up so quibbles over money, property, and personalities wouldn’t get in the way of God’s work getting done. Surely the Baptists, with Divine help, could do the same.

  18. Sonny Holmes Says:

    Let’s keep our eye on the ball. The structure of the SBC is bloated and antiquated. Morris Chapman,is the cheif executive officer, and has resisted any serious effort to re-align the convention structure, even at the urging of elected SBC officers and the overwhleming support of the GCR among rank and file Baptists. It’s time for change, from the top down. Press the issue with the EC members.

  19. Aaron Says:

    While healthy dissent is a good thing, the leaders throughout the SBC must understand that they are there to carry out the tasks set by the convention.

    When a leader finds himself in such direct opposition to the convention, that leader must either change his view or resign.

    We have seen at the IMB (and elsewhere) that leaders often feel that they are above the messengers of the SBC. They are not. Chapman needs to understand this. If he cannot carry out his duties in line with the direction set by the messengers, he needs to resign.

  20. Pastor Jim Says:

    I agree wholeheartedly with your article. I don’t know that I’m ready to call for Dr. Chapman’s resignation, but transparency is certainly in order. If he continues to insist on keeping silent, then I see no other option.

    Like most others, I was appalled at his “report” before the convention. My take on the whole thing is here, if you’re interested:

  21. Bart Barber Says:

    Bart Barber agrees with Timmy Brister.

  22. […] Timmy Brister – “Addressing the Morris Chapman Controversy in the SBC” […]

  23. Greg Alford Says:

    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.”


    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…

    I would say that a whole lot more is going on here than has come out so far…

  24. Sallie Says:

    Timmy —

    1. Do you believe that there can be no disagreement at all and everyone must join wholeheartedly with every axiom in the GCR? If you are fine with disgreement, then that takes this complaint off the table.

    2. Do you have any PROOF that any one else was denied the right to write and have published an article about their views of the GCR. Would you have been ok had Mr. Chapman chosen the Texan or the Florida Baptist Witness to publish his article?
    If no one was denied that right in the Baptist Press, then this complaint is off the table because Mr. Chapman did not take any special priviledges that he denied to others.

    3. You siad:

    “Southern Baptists spoke loudly, clearly, and definitively, and Chapman was not only wrong about the divisiveness of GCR but on the entire issue altogether. Hardly could a Southern Baptist think of a time when we were all more united around the Great Commission task entrusted to us.”

    The unofficial count for the convention stands at approximately 8790. Less than 5000 have signed the GCR online. There are approximately 16 million Southern Baptists. Do you think it is fair to state that his counter GCR position has garnered no more than %5 SBC support? Maybe you could just retag it to say “of SBC attendees at the 2009 conference” to be more completely honest and accurate.

    We may be happy that we had a higher attendance this year than in the previous recent years but less than a decade ago we had almost twice as much in attendance. Still, with those numbers we would have been less than 1% in attendence. I hardly call that a status quo to be proud of.

    “Hardly could a southern baptist think of a time….” Do you propose to think based on the above stated numbers what ALL Southern Baptists think?

    4. the point specifically, and the questions you laid out in a later comment, if I may…

    In 2004, Morris Chapman gave the same type of sermon for his EC report, rather than a ” state of affairs report” itself which you state in #4 should have been given. Do you know if anyone since then has told him that he is giving the wrong type of report and isn’t allowed to preach at a convention?

    I don’t know how old you are, or how many opportunities you’ve had to meet with or listen to Morris Chapman, but have you told Morris Chapman before that you thought his reports were wrong to be sermons instead of fact sharing reports? Did you ask those same questions listed in “question 2 regarding his EC report” in the comments above about his 2004 report? Can you provide proof of your own correspondence to Mr. Chapman about his report giving in previous years? I only ask for proof regarding your questions specifically in light of wanting to be completely transparent in front of the SBC.

    And, because you mentioned 5% again, please again see my numbers in point three for your statement about marginalizing.

    5. The medium of Twitter is not really your bestest ally for proving SBC support when you break down the numbers. Anyway, as far as the twitter thing goes, as of 3:48 pm yesterday, 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“. 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 you 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 @nathanlino 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 it was by added @josh_howell. I have sent him a message to ask him why he was trying to mix the two situations but no response yet. Hmmm.. I do see that you have mixed the two subjects as well in your statement above repeating what Ronnie Floyd said about the GCC.

    Even if we take the whole of the 352 posts as seperate items (though many people — including yourself who tweeted MANY MANY times in that whopping number of 352– tweeted more than once so we can’t really take them as seperate people) we would still only have approximately 0.0022% of the WHOLE SBC twittering about this. Again, not a status quo to be proud of.

    A quick search for blog posts including “Clark Logan” for the past month turns up 21. More than 13,000 blog posts are listed for the southern baptist convention for the same time period.

    With all of that being said, it might suffice to say that “it seems” a few people are willing to blow a little incident up into a big thing.

    So, are you really concerned about finding out why Clark Logan was asked for his resignation. Or, are you more interested in getting rid of Morris Chapman because he doesn’t agree with the GCR?

    I think those were all the points I wanted to make…



  25. Sallie Says:

    Sorry, there was one more point. I listened to and watched the video again because I wanted to hear with fresh ears. You said “Chapman took the opportunity to offend nearly every person in the meeting room” … I just wanted to point out that I heard an awful lot of hand clapping for someone who “offended nearly every person.” I’m just saying that it didn’t sound like one or two claps, but you know, a lot. Ok, thanks!!

    Pray your week is truly blessed!!


  26. Angela Says:


    You make me sad!

  27. James Says:

    Amazing how no one wants to answer you, Sallie! lol

  28. […] is embroiled in a controversy that may cost him his job . Starting the inferno were his “outrageous and shameful remarks” concerning Calvinism and the Convention. Feeding the flames was the hush-hush […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: