Logan Resignation Forced

Here’s a roster of Executive Committee members, listed by state.

A bit off-topic: I think it is interesting that the denominational press has been on this for a week, Twitter has been absolutely ABLAZE on this topic, and blogs have been absolutely silent about it. Does this mean that Twitter has entirely displaced blogging in SBC life?

If so, why am I commenting here?

I have been emailing my state EC reps since I heard of the “resignation.” No one responded yet. Also, isn’t it odd that there’s nothing about it on BP today? I know they’re back working after the holiday.

On the question of Twitter buzz but a lack of blogs—I think perhaps we’re seeing some intelligent restraint by some of the blog folks. It’s one thing to join the twub to keep up with what’s going on, another thing entirely to write whole blog posts when there’s been, until now, basically no information. There’s still not much.

Could we actually be seeing SBC bloggers being the calming influence in the situation? And would that be a sign of the apocalypse?

Doug

WesinTex,

The same could be said years ago about Paul Debusman’s firing at SBTS. If it’s not good for the goose, it’s not good for the gander.

Brother Wes,

The shooting of Steve McNair is getting most of the press here in Nashville. But, it does seem that Clark is in control of his own decisions on this one and was willing to do what he was asked to do. So, it seems that the matter is over.

Now, if Clark wants to inform us that he was not willing and was coerced or something more….then he will find a way to get that done. I trust his judgement on the matter.

Blessings,
Chris

John Fariss,

I don’t think that we can separate the events of the annual meeting from this dismissal unless and until we are given reason to do so. Chapman’s animosity and opposition toward the Great Commission Resurgence movement have “not been done in a corner.” A power struggle between the Executive Committee CEO and the SBC’s elected president has been playing on the front page of our newspapers for all to see. The messengers of the SBC just overwhelmingly sided with Hunt and the GCR.

And then, in the very next week, a high-ranking member of Chapman’s staff is abruptly terminated. He is a staff member who shares close friendships with many people who have favored the GCR publicly. This is a staff member who has not sustained any criticism for his performance. He is also a staff member whose largest job function (the Annual Meeting) was just completed very successfully.

It is now an undisputed fact that Logan was shown the door. No work-related reason for his dismissal has been given or has even been alleged from any quarter. No theological, moral, or personal reason has been advanced by anyone for this termination. A very plausible political reason for the termination (viz. Logan’s connections with pro-GCR people in the SBC) not only exists but also is at the height of relevance in this time frame.

People have been terminated in the SBC for political reasons before. The difference here is that the messengers of the SBC have just a few days ago sided overwhelmingly against Chapman. For SBC employees to be terminated for their entrenched opposition to the viewpoint of the Southern Baptist people is one thing; for them to be terminated for AGREEING with the Southern Baptist people is quite another.

As a final note of indisputable facts about who is taking Logan’s side in this comment (that would be me):

1. I cannot be characterized as a gung-ho supporter of the GCR. I’ve blogged from an undecided vantage point. So I have no reason to defend the pro-GCR position.

2. I have only had one interaction with Clark Logan in my life, in which he forcefully and publicly criticized me for blogging about the BGCT Lottie Moon scenario way back when. So I have no reason to be loyal to Logan.

My only reason to advocate this viewpoint is because I think it is right, and my only reason to stand with Clark Logan against Morris Chapman is because I believe that Chapman is wrong.

So what I’m saying is that Clark Logan has already found a way to inform us that he was coerced to resign.

There is definitely something aflutter and atwitter in this case. Much of it is a desire for a lessening of the good ole boy system that often permeates our convention, and I say that as a big supporter of the SBC. The reality is that our polity suggests that everyone in the ‘food chain’ has a voice in this situation and ought to use it.

John,

1. You have to pay tuition to get the right to prepend “Dr.” onto my name. We’re good Baptists who believe in the level ground at the foot of the cross. Call me Bart.

2. You’re right. You weren’t disagreeing. Your comment just seemed a good opportunity to spell out reasons why I believe that the situation lines up more with your second paragraph than your first. My apologies if it came out sounding like a reprimand. That was not my intention.

It looks like some sort of catharsis is in order within the SBC. Obviously, we’ve had our share of troubling difficulties and personality conflicts over the years. I would like to think the EC will at least be given a clear explanation for the matter even if it is a personnel issue. The part that disturbs me is seeing the one forced out having to clarify that the reason was not based on immoral or unethical grounds. A little more clarify from the one doing the forcing out would be appropriate w/o crossing into personnel confidentiality. Clark Logan, his family, and his ministry deserve that much.

Bart (and Wes),

The point that I was trying to make with linking Logan and Debusman was not that the situation was apples to apples, but simply the irony with how people react when someone unlike them is fired versus how they react when someone like them is fired. According to Volfan\’s philosophy, such kindness should have been afforded to Debusman and Dilday also. While both of them disagree (to a small or large degree) with our theology, they are not below being treated with kindness. To expect Logan to have been treated with kindness without also expecting the same for Debusman or Dilday is to set up a caste system within the SBC and to play favorites, which James 2 has something to say (substitute rich vs. poor with conservative vs. moderate).

And for a different perspective on the Debusman situation (who, actually, was technically fired by Akin), here\’s a different article for your perusal: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n4_v115/ai_20350170/

(sorry, i\’m not savvy enough to know how to make it a hyperlink).

Jason,

As I have tried to indicate, Clark Logan probably does not qualify as “someone like [me].” We’ve had one and only one interaction ever, and that was when he volunteered to clean my clock.

The difference between the Debusman and Dilday situations on the one hand and the Logan situation on the other hand is that Debusman and Dilday were acting in opposition to the expressed will of the people of the Southern Baptist Convention, while Logan appears to be aligned in favor of the will of the people of the SBC. That’s a noteworthy difference.

Also, I wish to clarify that my objection is not to the way that Logan was treated as he was being fired. I don’t care if the SBC EC had put him up at the Waldorf-Astoria for a month to recuperate from the shock of it all. I’m not asking why he was fired THE WAY that he was fired; I’m asking why he was fired at all.

Jason,

I should also have noted that your link certainly DOES provide “a different perspective” on the whole Debusman situation. Different indeed. That article illustrates all the more clearly Debusman’s opposition to the clearly expressed will of the people of the SBC since 1979, and thereby undergirds my point.

The irony is certainly seen in the high praise the Bro. Logan was given by Chapman in the initial press release. I mean…why get rid of someone so qualified?

Brother WesInTex,

I don’t disagree with you and Bart that the fish on the sidewalk at the corner of 9th and Commerce is beginning to stink a bit…. But, if what you say is true, then Clark has made the right decision and is consistent with his conviction…. which would be to resign. He may have already determined that the Kingdom is better served by his leaving than his staying, that is his choice. No one put words in his mouth…..as he said “We are uncomfortable and embarrassed by being in the center of this attention”.

It sounds like the man loves the Lord and wants the best. Maybe he doesn’t want to play the victim in this case. He said … “I also wish God’s blessings on the entire Executive Committee”. I would be discouraged to find his blessing to be a statement to appease the powerful and not one of sincerity.

Blessings,
Chris

I hope we get to the bottom of this. A purely political firing has no place in the leadership of an organization serving our churches. It is no secret that Chapman is not a supporter of the GCR. It seems like a huge coincidence that after a successful convention, its architect would be asked to resign…especially given that the passage of the GSR commission and the reelection of Pastor Hunt were the centerpieces of the convention…even more so when the one asking for the resignation is known to be in opposition. It seems very fishy indeed. I think that the EC should be forced to explain their actions; if there is a good explanation, then fine. If, however, there is not, people should be held accountable. The EC works for our churchs and should not be above being held accountable. Just my 2 cents worth.

God Bless,
Rick