A Great Commission Resurgence? (Part 3)

Recent events within the SBC are certainly making things interesting. Especially compelling to me is the issue of Clark Logan, formerly Vice President for Business and Finance for the Executive Committee of the SBC. Clark's abrupt resignation caught a lot of people off-guard last week. When I first heard the news, my immediate thought was GCR and Dr. Chapman. Right or wrong, that was my first thought when I heard the news via a friend on Facebook last week.

Recent events have done nothing to change my first perception. And from the amount of chatter via Twitter and Facebook, I do not believe that I am alone in my assessment. I certainly hope that my assessment is wrong. The initial silence from Dr. Chapman, and then the reply to Clark's short clarification, speak volumes. One cannot help but wonder if Dr. Chapman is falling on his own sword after events of the past several months.

Before I share some of my perceptions, let me state a few things in Dr. Chapman's defense. First, I do not know what authority he has to fire or ask for the resignation of employees of the Convention. He may have the authority and he may have followed proper procedure. These kinds of issues happen not only in the business world, but they also happen in large churches across our convention. Leaders and those who work for them have disagreements that they cannot work through. That is not a surprise. Dr. Chapman may have been warranted in asking for Clark's resignation due to philosophical differences. I could understand that and would not really even have a problem with it. But...if that is the case, it has not been made clear.

I have known Clark for about 8 or 9 years. He and his wife Helen have always proven to be kind, humble people. I talked with Clark for a few minutes at the Convention. He has never, and I mean never, acted like a big-shot, at least not around me. My experiences with Clark and his family have always been pleasant and friendly. I was excited for Clark when he was hired to serve as a Vice President for the EC. That is what made the news of his resignation so shocking to so many people.

Because of the July 4 holiday period, news was slow in coming out about this event. Due to the lack of info, many people were left wondering if perhaps there had been some type of immorality or ethics issue. For anyone who knows Clark, that was not a consideration. That does not mean that he is not capable, because any of us are capable and more willing than we would care to admit. Yet, for those who know Clark, that was the last thing anyone would consider. As a matter of fact, I talked to an EC trustee (whom I will not name here because I talked with them as a friend and not as a source of info) who was under the impression that there could have been a moral lapse on Clark's part. It was not stated or inferred in a letter that was received from Dr. Chapman, but that was the only conclusion that they were able to draw as they did not know Clark. And then, Clark had to release a statement declaring that there was not a moral or ethical lapse on his part. And all Dr. Chapman would do is confirm that there was no immorality or ethics breach on Clark's behalf and retreat back into a "personnel matter" defense. And Baptist Press has yet to say one thing about this entire issue...and that really bothers me.

It is my opinion that Dr. Chapman has underestimated the response to this issue. I really believe that if Dr. Chapman would have issued a press release simply stating that "due to philosophical differences" he had asked for -and received- Clark's resignation, everything would have been a whole lot simpler. Instead, the silence and lack of clarity may very well prove damaging beyond repair for Dr. Chapman. And that makes me sad for him. Why? Because he has faithfully and dutifully served our Convention since 1992. He has literally "stood in the gap" for Southern Baptist causes and issues.

How is this issue linked to the GCR? Well, first of all, I do not know that it is. But it certainly seems that way to a lot of people. Why? Because as has already been noted, Dr. Chapman has made clear his opposition to the GCR document, particularly Article IX, and the formation of the GCR Task Force. How does that relate to Clark's resignation? Is it related to Clark's forced resignation? For those who do not know Clark, he once worked and served at Southern Seminary. Who is the President of Southern? Who made the motion to allow Dr. Hunt to appoint the GCR Task Force? That's right - Dr. R. Albert Mohler. I believe that the whole issue of the GCR has become very personal for Dr. Chapman and that Clark is the victim of his association and friendship with Dr. Mohler. I realize that may sound ludicrous or off-the-wall to some, but it is just my opinion. And I believe that opinion is shared by many who know Clark.

As I just mentioned, the GCR seems to be morphing into a personal tug-of-war between Dr. Chapman and those who support him with Dr. Hunt and those who support him. Whether that is true or not, it is certainly shaping up like that. And that is really unfortunate. The GCR should not become the next battleground for Southern Baptists, as it certainly seems to be doing. The GCR should be about seeking ways we can be more effective in our cooperation in fulfilling the Great Commission. That is why we voted to allow Dr. Hunt to appoint a GCR Task Force. However, I really believe there is more going on in all of this than any of us "regular" folks know.

In Christ,

Joe