This brief piece pertains to events surrounding the Stated Clerk of the PCA, Bryan Chapell. My single hope is to bring some clarity in the spirit of peacemaking but not provide a solution that’s beyond my pay grade.
Bryan Chapell’s primary wrong doing was not that he exposed people he thought ill of but rather that he thought ill of at least some people unjustifiably. The circulation of names of individuals was not done by Bryan but by others. That seems relevant, but those individuals aren’t on the hot seat. Only Bryan is. But let’s be clear. That untrue things were circulated about named people was not done by one man, let alone with an intention to spread a bad report about specific individuals. The only intentional effort to spread a bad report was done in an effort to expose Bryan by freezing and zooming in on a list he never intended or wanted to be seen. Yes, people were rightly offended but it’s more than a bit confused to suggest that Bryan offended in the way in which it is being implied at least by some.
As to why Bryan misled himself about unnamed people and then intentionally voiced shockingly untrue things is another matter. More on that in a moment.
As for Bryan’s resignation, the warm gospel reconciliation that I believe is occurring is refreshing, not surprising and, of course, not necessarily sufficient for restoration. Behavior has consequences and restoration to a position can be complex. My primary concern is whether what has occurred with respect to Bryan’s behavior has clearly been identified by (a) those who want a pound of flesh, (b) those who believe an apology is always sufficient for restoration, and (c) everyone in between. Again, Bryan did not spread a false report about individuals. Rather, Bryan thought severely incorrectly and, I believe, sounded a false alarm. Given the good character of the men on the list, I must believe that they are more quick to try to understand why Bryan thought (if not harbored) certain things about them and felt the need to sound an alarm about the state of the PCA as he did. Perhaps tender conversations are occurring whereby impressions Bryan had are being understood, addressed and allayed. Perhaps some are even learning from Bryan! No matter what, we can be sure God will use these interactions to the good of his own and to his glory. I believe he already has!
Wrapping up:
On day one I believed that Bryan was being impugned with an offense he had not actually given. Notwithstanding, knowing two brothers on the list, I also reached out to them expressing how ludicrous it was that they were listed. (I don’t believe that entails contradiction.)
We must distinguish between offense given and offense taken. Indeed, good men, if not associated loved ones, were unfortunately and unnecessarily offended, but whose intention was it to act in a way that would necessarily stir up such strife about named individuals? Certainly not Bryan Chapell’s! Indeed, Bryan is 100% responsible for his thoughts that resulted in waving a list of names in front of a camera, but it would be a reckless over-simplification to hold him equally culpable for the providence that involved the calculating wills of others. After all, had the former occurred without the latter, then what? I could be mistaken but I find that to be a relevant reflection.
Closing:
I am not in a position to render an informed opinion on whether Bryan should ultimately step down from his position of Stated Clerk. I will say this, however. If there is pressure to step down because Bryan sought to spread a bad report about individuals, then that pressure, although intensely real, ought to be released to the atmosphere and vanish. It’s baseless.
As I said earlier, consequences and restoration can be complex. Sometimes withholding restoration is necessary because it fits the infraction. Other times withholding restoration is under good regulation because of principles pertaining to reputation of those represented (e.g., the PCA) and optics. That’s not necessarily compromise, especially when the one not being restored falls on the sword without coercion, say for a perceived greater good. However, it can, also, be needful to restore one to his position and refuse to make an example with the intention to placate the implacable. Lastly and where things can get extremely difficult is when one ought to be restored even though he bears blame to one degree or another and the masses are outraged. That course of action can sometimes take the most Christian courage in my estimation.
In the end, these are weighty matters that need to be considered prayerfully and in a posture of humility, not as eye-servants but in the fear of God, yet not without thoughtful appreciation of the anticipated aftermath. In a word, not just our decisions but our reasons have value in God’s sight.
May God be pleased to grant wisdom and grace to those of proper influence in the PCA. And may lying lips be made dumb!
6/5/2025 Since the time of publishing this piece it has been said by some that I am promoting a false narrative and abating the seriousness of Chapell’s behavior. Whereas others have appreciated the article and the distinctions made, and don’t think I’m cutting slack to anyone.
Essentially, some who oppose my article suggest that Bryan waved a piece of paper in front of the camera with the purpose of showing viewers his list of names. The names were then widely circulated.
We can observe two interpretations:
1. Bryan intended to show that he had a list of names.
2. Bryan intended to show the actual names on the list.
Those are vastly different premises.
#1 is obviously true. It’s undeniable, Bryan waved a list. Yet #2 is to claim to know another man’s intentions. But aside from judging intentions, such a position is untenable as I will try to show below.
Reductio ad absurdum of #2
At the very least, if #2 is true, then it was Bryan’s hidden intention that (a) the screen would be frozen, (b) a picture would taken, and (c) the names on the list would be circulated. Before the Lord God of conscience, to whom we must all give an account, does anyone truly believe that narrative?
It seems extremely unlikely that it was Bryan’s intention for the names to be known, and it’s not something that he should confess unless he believes he wanted the names to get revealed. But if that actually were the case, then Bryan would also be guilty of trying to make the names public without it looking like his intention. That’d be calculating, bordering evil!
Full circle. Bryan owed an apology for thinking falsely and cruelly about several people unjustifiably in conjunction with his falsehoods getting out in public because he carelessly waiving a list in front of a camera. That apology was necessary due to Brian’s false statements and actions coupled with the providence of the names being found out, which we may not conclude was his intention. Consequently, I stand by the article. Bryan is not guilty of seeking to spread a false and evil report about the people on the list. “Yes, people were rightly offended but it’s more than a bit confused to suggest that Bryan offended in the way in which it is being implied at least by some.” The connotation of “slander” turns on an equivocal notion that lacks a relevant distinction, which is he never spoke about any particular person. Also, the issue pertains to what was written and not just spoken, and what was written was not intended for public consumption!
Most who oppose the article have the good sense not to assert that it was Bryan’s intention to expose specific individuals by name. I suspect that’s because they appreciate it’s beyond their mortal capacities to know, and also appreciate the absurdity of Bryan wanting to get caught as he did. Notwithstanding, their criticism of the article is according to not taking into account the relevant distinction between (a) referencing nameless people Bryan hoped to keep private and (b) intentionally besmirching people by name. Consequently, their conclusions about the article are really no different than those who think they know it was Bryan’s intention for the names to be discovered!
Philosophical Theology 