Well, sort of. You read it and see if Dr. Chapman brought a new take to the table or whether he is affirming or denying one side or the other. He has a congenial sense to him and a great passion for us to stay focused on the gospel. Of that I concur and find him very clear.

I am grateful that he addresses the three current issues regarding Calvinism, Private Prayer Language and Baptism. You tell me if I’m reading him wrong, but it appears Dr. Chapman says, Calvinism is in the BF&M, but so is a more Arminian stance, so leave it alone. A private prayer language is not addressed in the BF&M but by common knowledge, Southern Baptists do not, by consensus, advocate it, so leave it alone. On the Baptism issues, the BF&M is clear for what local churches are to do with baptism. However, Baptist agency heads and employees should not move beyond the BF&M to any other statements to clarify our stance.

Is he saying, the IMB trustees should not create additional statements to address the controversy? He is also suggesting that those IMB trustees who register their disagreements with the BF&M should either stand down or leave it alone?

So, after reading his report (I will go back and read it a few more times), I’m convinced Dr. Chapman is for seeing people come to Christ. He says the “minimalist” “maximum” issue is a non-issue. We should agree to agree that the BF&M is a consensus statement (I think I heard both Mohler and Burleson say they both do), and doctrinal statements that address issues not in the BF&M we should agree to disagree and keep on debating them.

So, you read Dr. Chapman’s response and see if you can pin point how we should respond to what was voted on in San Antonio and how the motion should now be enacted. I’m still not quite sure I see where he lands (I’ll keep reading it).

m o r r i s c h a p m a n . c o m