Morris Chapman Vindicated by Peter Lumpkins

Dr. Morris Chapman, President of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, still reels from the public stoning he endured for refusing to air publicly the details surrounding the release of Clark Logan.  Twittering Baptists, bloggers, high profile pastors, and seminary personnel all gathered in a circle around Chapman and threw their rocks.  Even the President of the SBC found a rock and lobbed it before the mob finally busted up and went about their business.

Yesterday, the Christian Index published breaking news vindicating Dr. Chapman (//link).  Not directly.

Indirectly. 

Seems an email from one of the NAMB trustees fed the Christian Index** some intimate details surrounding the lack of confidence the Board possessed in its president, Geoff Hammond, including an upcoming meeting to discuss possible severance action.  Indeed the reasons stated appear serious and places Dr. Hammond in a less than stellar light for securing future denominational service. 

Embarrassing. Really embarrassing.  And personally hurtful, I'm sure.

What does this have to do with Morris Chapman? 

Simple.

The mob is already networking.  Bloggers are blogging and twittering Baptists are already twittering why the trustees are making a huge mistake. Their concerns are not well taken.  Or, maybe they are. Hammond's friends are gathering and his enemies are gloating.  And trustees now face public pressure to do the will of this side or that instead of focusing on handling the job we instructed them to do.

Oh my.

If we don't stop this senseless undermining of our trustee system, mark it down:  the trustee system will collapse.  It simply will not support the weight of the mob on its back. 

Congratulations, Dr. Chapman for a job well-done!  

While you couldn't stop bloggers and twittering Baptists from gossiping about the Clark Logan affair, you rightly made sure Logan's privacy was protected and the trustee system guarded.

Morris Chapman is vindicated.     

With that, I am...

Peter

**The Christian Index is a news agency for Georgia Baptists.  Hence, it was doing what Georgia Baptists expect it to do by publishing the story

Comments

[Dave Miller]

Honestly, Peter, I'm not seeing the connection. I don't know a thing about Geoff Hammond or his leadership style. The trustees (except for whomever leaked this) are doing their job and this needs to play out.

But how this "vindicates" Morris Chapman, I don't know. Morris Chapman either acted wisely or foolishly in firing Clark Logan.

I don't have the information to make that decision, and unless you know something that is not public information, neither do you.

The assumption it seems many are making is that Dr. Chapman fired Logan either for some Calvinist sympathies or for supporting the GCR. I don't know.

Nothing that happened at NAMB affects the justice or injustice of Chapman's decision.

On this I would agree. The trustees need to handle both, and need to do it quickly and justly.

[peter]

Dave,

You assert "Morris Chapman either acted wisely or foolishly in firing Clark Logan" but then admit "I don't have the information to make that decision..." First, there are other options than the e/o you assert. Dr. Chapman also could have acted appropriately or inappropriately according to established protocol. And, for the record, he acted in consultation with--not withouttrustee involvement.

Why not assume since trustees were involved, the action very well was both wise and appropriate? After all, as you say, neither of us have the facts. Even more, if we did, what difference does it make? Do either of us have any input into the decision?

Which, now, brings us to the Hammond situation. Apparently we do have some of the reaoning of the trustees. But the fact is, that reasonming is absolutely none of our affair. Publicly airing out these issues is fatal to our trustee system. Grants both you and I are able to make a more reasoned view about the NAMB affair than with the gossip swirling arounf the Logan affair. So be it.

Nonetheless, Dave: again, it's none of our business. That's why we have trustees.

Now, however, Hammond's service with the denomination is probably finished. Hence, Chapman was indeed correct in withholding the information.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Les Puryear]

Peter,

You wrote, "it's none of our business. That's why we have trustees."

I understand your point, but I disagree. It is our business because the trustees are accountable to the churches.

BTW, many of your BI brethren were among the most vocal critics regarding Clark Logan, signaling that they were not rubber stamps after all. ;>

Les

[WesInTex]

Peter,

Your assertion that Dr. Chapman acted with Trustee support and or input is not exactly correct. None of the ExComm members that I have talked to knew anything about the firing until after the act (oops, “request for resignation”). As far as anyone can tell, the only ExComm members that actually knew before hand what was going to happen were the executive leadership, and from what I read, they didn’t have any input – they were simply informed. There wasn’t any ExComm input in the events surrounding Logan. Dr. Chapman made the decision alone.

Grace,
Wes

[Todd Burus]

Peter,
Seriously, are you arguing against transparency and accountability among Christians?

[WesInTex]

Peter,

On the other hand, having read the article from the Christian Index, I do agree with you on the need for some things to be worked out by the trustees without external pressures (though I don't agree as to the connection to the Chapman, Logan situation). This is a mess at NAMB, and I think the Trustee who leaked the information needs to be reminded about the confidentiality inherent in the trustee system.

Grace,
Wes

[scott shaffer]

I don't think Peter's point is that Logan's dismissal was right or wrong. Rather, his point is that Chapman by refusing to "air publicly" the details of the dismissal, prevented the type of commotion we see with Hammond's situation. Of course, I've misunderstood Peter before!

[peter]

All,

Thanks for the input...

Les,

Thanks to you. Yes--the trustees' work is "part of our business" but only in its broadest sense possible. That they are doing their job as trustees, for example, is a "part of our business." Obviously I had no such innocuous meaning in mind.

Nevertheless, the reasoning you offer is incorrect, Les: "the trustees are accountable to the churches." Not so. The trustees are appointed by the convention and consequently accountible to the convention. No church votes on the trustees so far as I know.

BTW, whatever I say here applies to BI or non-BI...

Wes,

Thanks for your understanding. One quick point. I am unsure if all trustees were consulted before or even after Logan's departure. But that's irrelevant to the point. Established protochol may only call for say, the chairperson to be involved or a sub-committee to be consulted.

If Dr. Chapman failed protochol, he needs to be reprimanded. If he met established policy in the human resource department, none of us has either a right or moral obligation to complain. Especially complain based on absent information.

Todd,

Please note what I wrote in the post. And for the record, neither transparency nor accountibility hasjack squat to do with the issues now on the table...

Scott,

Ever how much I failed to communicate with youin the past, I may officially celebrate onthis one! Precisely!

Ultimately, this is about our trustee system. Southern Baptist are a gnat's breath away from a major crisis with this system collapsing before our eyes. We cannot continue attempting to do their job by proxy.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Todd Burus]

Peter,
Really? Because that's what Dr. Hunt is asking for. A leak of something that might happen versus a clarification of what has happened are two entirely different things. Maybe you are okay with the Logan situation, maybe you like arguing, either way, when the local church calls for someone to be accountable for the power they have vested in him (or them with the trustees) I do not see much reason for denying it. Remember, you are, like me, a Baptist.

[Matt Svoboda]

Peter,

I think this is a terrible stretch of a connection. Chapman has said that Logan wasnt forced to resign because of performance. It appears Hammond is being ousted because of poor performance, therefore, these are not at all the same.

[peter lumpkins]

Todd,

I'm afraid unless you rephrase, I do not understand your point...

Matt

For some reason there is an obvious disconnect here especially on the part of many young SB. It's not YOUR call nor MY call concerning EITHER. WE should NOT be making these calls, Matt. THAT'S the issue. That's how the trustee system works.

What some of the critics of Dr. Chapman are doing parallels quite nicely exactly what Burleson kept doing to Dr. Patterson concerning a particular professor.

In addition, the principle I'm arguing now is exactly the principle which allowed Al Mohler to oust several professors at SBTS. He did so and could do so unilaterally because the trustees were with him. The Moderate/Liberals complained but could do nothing. The difference is, they understood the system, they knew he could do--and do according to perfect protocol--what he did.

Hence, we cannot dump the principle just because it works against our desires when somebody we personally like gets axed, which I'm afraid largely drives the Logan complaint.

I think it's horrible. My heart bleeds for any DW or pastor/church staffer who loses his/her job. Candidly, I hurt more for Hammond right now. The whole world knows why his job is on the line. I don't want to know these things. Nor do I expect his children wants you and me to know their daddy is about to lose his job because his "bosses" have no confidence in him.

Besides that, privacy demands we not know these things. I don't want to see his employee record and neither should anyone else outside the trustees appointed to handle this thing. There also may be legal breaches in what's happened to Hammond which have yet to surface.

As it is, Hammond is more than likely ruined denominationally. And, were I him, I'd be very concerned when and if I faced a search team from a church, dreading the question concerning "leadership style."

No, Matt. Both Logan and Hammond bear an identical complaint from me--leave the trustees alone and let them operate. If they are lousy trustees, replace them. But to undermine them is not acceptable.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

Test 1

[gabaptist]

Thank you Peter for your comments. Perhaps, the SBC is moving past the 1890s system to a more democratic one, evident in stage one of the conservative resurgence and stage two: bringing the churches back into the equation. You know that is the very reason why we lost several Baptist groups before 1904. They did not think the Board System to be biblical, due to its rejection of the rights of the churches at its upper level of decisions.
Thought I might throw that into all of the talk.
I pray for wisdom and kindess among the upcoming meeting.
In Him,
gabaptist

[John Fariss]

Peter,

Referring to the trustee system, you wrote, "Southern Baptist are a gnat's breath away from a major crisis with this system collapsing before our eyes. We cannot continue attempting to do their job by proxy." If I understand the "by proxy" part correctly, it means second-guessing trustees, attempting to put pressure on them, perhaps even demanding accountability and/or transparency from them. Is this correct?

I would suggest that IF the system is close to collapse (and I don't know if it is or not), then the second guessing, pressure, and demands are due to the system being viewed as increasingly dysfunctional by a (large? vocal?) segment of the people who constitute the SBC. If this is correct, then it is not likely that external pressure applied will cease no matter what the resolution of any particular issue; on the contrary, either the pressure will increase, though perhaps in different ways, or the people applying the pressure will separarte from the SBC. As a pastor, I expect you have seen the same things happen in churches: when you have "fires" breaking out on different issues, but the constant is that fires keep breaking out over some issue or another, it is usually because there is some dysfunctionality, and it will not "go away" until the source is treated.

John

[peter lumpkins]

John,

Thanks. Perhaps. Consider, though...

In the meantime, some people are getting trampled by those who perceive the dysfunctionality of the trustees.

In my examples, Chapman being trampled because of irresponsible rhetoric on too little information and Hammond being trampled because of irresponsible release of too much information.

If the trustee system is dysfunctional as you suggest as a possibility, John, then the system needs to be addressed. Fine. No one so far as I know would object to improvements there, if improvements there are.

As for me, I cannot see as a viable solution--much less healthy one--undermining the system we own while we own it. The ultimate consequent is chaos at best but anarchy at worst.

With that, I am...
Peter

[John Fariss]

Peter,

I think you somewhat misunderstand. A result (or by-product if you prefer) of dysfunctionality IS distrust of the system which then causes problems to arise, and pressure being applied other than where and as it should be--in this case, externally to the trustees. It is not a matter of "improving" the system or tweaking it in any way. Even if it ceases in the current issues, dysfunction will continue to be causative in "fires" and "explosions" happening within the overall family that we call the SBC. This will cease when and only when health is restored and trust rebuilt. I am not even sure it would be correct to say that "If the trustee system is dysfunctional as you suggest," because the dysfunction may not be within the trustees, but rather in the relationship between the trustees and the wider SBC family; in fact, issues over the trustee system itself may be nothing more than a symptom of a wider dysfunctionality which has little to do with the trustees or the system which they oversee (if that is the correct term).

May I suggest that, if you are loathe to take my word on it, you talk to some folks in your association or state convention who have expertise dealing with dysfunctional churches?

John

[Todd Burus]

Peter,
For clarification, you said,

And for the record, neither transparency nor accountibility hasjack [sic] squat to do with the issues now on the table...

My reply is, Really? Because that's what Dr. Hunt is asking for [from Dr. Chapman and the trustees in the Clark Logan situation]. A leak of something that might happen (the NAMB issue) versus a clarification of what has happened (the Logan issue) are two entirely different things. Maybe you are okay with the Logan situation, maybe you like arguing, either way, when the local church calls for someone to be accountable for the power they have vested in him (or them with the trustees) [as is the case here], I do not see much reason for denying it. Remember, you are, like me, a Baptist [and thus a congregationalist who views the local church as democratic and fully autonomous].

[peter lumpkins]

John,

Thanks for your non-loathing response.

First, granting the system is strained, in your initial comment, you seemed to me to imply the difficulties I lamented are due to the system being viewed as increasingly dysfunctional. That's why I allowed if we've an unhealthy system, it needs attention.

From your second comment, however, it's not a matter of improving or tweaking the system in any way. Instead it's only when health is restored and trust rebuilt. I would simply ask, health restored to what?

And, if the result of "dysfunctionality" is distrust of the system which then causes problems to arise, are you not assuming a systemic cause in the system, John? Or, is the systemic problem those who bear distrust toward it?

Well, it could be the latter. For you leave the option open that the issues over the trustee system itself may be nothing more than a symptom of a wider dysfunctionality which has little to do with the trustees or the system.

You're right; I am confused.

With that, I am...
Peter

[John Fariss]

Peter,

I did not say you were confused, merely that you seem to have misunderstood part of what I said. They are not quite the same thing.

Peter, I learned much usage of the English language as a child from reading books that belonged to my grandfather, who was born in 1865 and died in 1951. Consequently, most of his books were 19th Century: Victor Hugo, Washington Irving, Matt O'Brian (a native Georgian, writing in the heritage of the Old Southwest, like Johnson Jones Hooper, Mark Twain, and later, Will Rogers), even Jules Verne. And sometimes I relapse into a 19th Century mode of writing. My comment, "if you are loathe to take my word on it," was one of those, in its 19th Century meaning, "if you are hesitant to take my word on it." I was neither being a smart alec or using the word in its modern meaning of "loathing," as I think you took it, but anyway I appologize for any confusion it caused. My point was simply that if you are hesitant to accept my analysis, talk with people you know and trust who are used to dealing with dysfunctional churches, families, and systems.

Having said that, I cannot help but notice that you seem to be more intent on defending your thesis--or perhaps even disputing others who you see as disagreeing with you--than in considering alternate explanations. If you believe the trustee system and indeed the SBC as a whole is an emotionally and spiritually healthy system, so be it. I hope you are right; but the evidence I see does not point in that direction. If you are right, the whole thing will blow over sooner or later--sooner if those "attacking" the trustees and/or Dr. Chapman get the message and either quiet down or leave. If I am right, brush fires will continue to break out. They will not seem to be related; some will be directed one entity, agency, or individual, other another. They will have different issues. But the common denominator among them will be dysfunction. And dysfunction does not "just" go away; it can be changed only through intentionality, and even then, it take a lot of energy, more the longer it is delayed.

History will tell.

John