I wonder if the terms of Bro. Logan’s resignation dictate that he is unable to share anything other than what has been said? I truly wish we had the answers to this forced resignation.

I have not seen anything concerning what Bro. Logan’s desires are in this. Is there someone out there who is a close enough friend to him with enough “pull” or influence to be able to tell all of us whether we need to keep pursuing this or we need to shut up. Granted, the list of people who could tell all of us in the twittersphere to shut up and we would actually trust them is probably a short one! ;>)

Finally, two things I see as undeniably true. First, the “Gospel presentation” portion of the letter is embarrassing. Whoever wrote that wouldn’t know missional if it bit them in the baptistry. Second, the absence of Baptist Press on this is inexcusable. If this is the reporting we get they need to take their flannel graph and go home.

It’s not really a reformed/non-reformed issue, but an integrity issue. If you believe the Word, then act like it.

Thanks for being on this.

The affection and support that Johnny Hunt is receiving from many young and Reformed Southern Baptists is a reminder that we do not all demand that all our fellows or even leaders be Reformed. Trustworthiness will do just fine.

Also, the form letter from the EC was interesting. To me the subtext was, “We’re too busy doing evangelism to bother with your concern at this time.”

troubling

Amen. This should not distract us from the passion of our lives–the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ. I hope that, should you taken into account the bulk of my writings, that is where i hope to direct our attention. Thanks for your constructive and edifying comments.

I think that it is a stretch to say that Bro. Clark’s resignation and the call for transparency in personnel issues is equivalent to Paul rebuking Peter for shunning Gentiles when prominent Jews were around. When Peter started acting differently when different people were around, that caused great confusion among the Christians in Galatia and undercut Paul’s message of salvation through faith alone. I doubt that there will be an adverse reaction when we preach the Gospel because Bro. Clark resigned without full disclosure of the reasons why. It might be poor denominational polity, but it is not a part of the Gospel.

That being said, I agree (and advocate above) that we should not relent in our pressure for open disclosure. You are absolutely correct that we should vigorously pursue both the truth with regard to Bro. Clark and the proclamation of the Gospel without one impeding our ability and desire for the other. I am not saying that our pursuit of the truth with regard to Bro. Clark is impeding our ability and our desire to proclaim the Gospel; I am just warning that we take a step back and ensure that it is not. Let’s make sure that one man (Bro. Clark) is not justified before many (all of us), but that many are justified before God through the words that we preach.

I agree. Thanks for the correction. I have also updated my language in the original comment to reflect that.

i am all for proper transparency and handling of such matters, but i just want to make sure that we (younger s.b.c.’ers) do not give merit to accusations of spreading speculation as fact. we should never fear pursuing the truth, but we should be wary of asserting what we *think* is truth as truth, before we *know* it is truth.

also, i would think it would be worth checking into the job descriptions and duties of e.c. members who are elected/appointed as representatives vs. those who are paid e.c. staff. there may be reasons why reps wouldn’t know but paid staff would. has anyone checked w/ paid staff (aside from the e-mail inquiries)?
-stephen

Perhaps so. Given that (a) many of the EC members were totally unaware of what had happened and that (b) the EC refuses to explain the reason for Logan’s termination, I am willing to assume that sufficient warrant was not had.

Chapman has the right to fire an employee, but should not the rest of the EC be briefed on what happened prior to the termination? And should Logan be terminated for poor job performance or inability to fulfill expectations, should Logan have not received prior notifications or leading indications that his termination was on the horizon? Yet neither Chapman nor Logan indicated that this was the eventual outcome of a process but rather the abrupt, sudden termination of which Chapman misled the public from the beginning (Logan resigned rather than Chapman forcing Logan to resign by the end of the day).

If the Executive Committee believes that we should be sharing the gospel, great. However, using a passing gospel presentation as a cover from addressing the issues raised is, well, not so great. In fact, I would argue that their actions are not in line with the gospel, and it is equally important that we uphold the gospel in our conduct as we do in our proclamation (see Gal. 2 where Paul confronts Peter for an example).

I don’t see how it is either/or but rather Scripture argues for both/and. I appreciation your words of exhortation, but I believe that a failure to bring accountability on these issues manifests a superficial commitment to the integrity of the Southern Baptist Convention and sets a precedent for future denominational leaders to freely act in ways contrary to the gospel and the will of churches of the SBC.