Presbyterian Polity and Bryan Chapell’s “Naughty” List

A few weeks ago, the Stated Clerk (Dr. Bryan Chapell, national administrator) of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA, the denomination where I have my credentials), sat for an interview where he thoughtlessly slandered several individuals. He didn’t intend to do it. But his actions and words did reflect what was going in his mind and heart.

In the normal but unpredictable ebb and flow of conversation, Dr. Chapell began talking about people who spend their time online and in other media “scandalizing” the church: critiquing it, tearing it down, tearing down other people. He claimed that this path of dark conduct did not lead to good ends. In fact, he kept a list of “scandalizers” who either left their families, left the orthodox faith or ended their own lives. He then pulled a Post-It note from his desk top, and flashed it quickly on the video before returning it to its spot. He had no intention of revealing the names on the list publicly but pulled it out to prove that, indeed, he keeps a list.

How foolish. How foolish it was to flash the list on video. It was foolish because in the age of streaming video, it is a simple task to screen shot the moment and blow-up the picture to make the list readable. And while the list did have well-known names (well-known at least in Reformed and Presbyterian circles), many of these individuals had not taken their own lives or left the faith or left their families. It became a moment of public slander. Foolish indeed. But the more profound act of foolishness was to have such a list in the first place.

Many have called it an “enemies” list. I don’t think that is an accurate description. It was a “naughty” list. I don’t know all the individuals on the list, but I am familiar with enough with the names to understand why Dr. Chapell might have put them on it. They were folks who caused disruption in building the reputation and institution of the Church. Their voices and actions were “unproductive,” at least in Dr. Chappell’s estimation. In other words, they weren’t with “the program.” They were obnoxiously conservative… or obnoxiously liberal. (Or maybe they were just plain “obnoxious”.) They were thorns in the side. They had been “naughty.”

I have heard credible reports of Dr. Chapell personally seeking the forgiveness of those he offended, and I commend these efforts. I have no personnel animosity towards Dr. Chapell and in fact I am thankful for his teaching while I was a student at Covenant Seminary. However, if we simply “move on” from this incident, we will miss an important opportunity to assess the health… not simply of our institutions… but the culture we have created in the American Church. This is not just about one man but about a Church culture that breeds institutional arrogance.

In my view, the existence of the list is not a reflection of one man’s bitterness towards specific individuals. It represents a much more pervasive arrogance about institutional progress. Years ago, I remember being at a training conference for ministers in a kind of “missions” work. We were all young. We were all in the PCA. The a leader in our organization began to talk about our mission and said: “Of all the things God is doing in the world, the most important are what He is doing in the church.” I was onboard with that. “Of all the things, God is doing in the church, the most important are happening in the PCA.” I wasn’t so sure about this statement but in my youth, I was still very excited about our ‘brand.’ “Of all the things God is doing in the PCA, the most important are in ‘our missions work.’” I knew this was an unhealthy way to think about what we were doing. Because anyone who criticized our work… even if it came from internal sources… would be seen as opposing the most important work of God. Dr. Chapell’s list was born of this kind of arrogance and judgmentalism. These were individuals who caused trouble in the important work of God. That is what this list represents.

The reactions to the list were entirely predictable. There are those ready to say, “See! I told you leadership was corrupt!” Others countered with equal fervor, “We must not acquiesce to the mob! This is unjust! Look at all the good he’s done!” Of course, there were more circumspect and thoughtful reactions, but they are rarely as captivating as the partisan voices. I read one such voice in an “open letter” from TE David Coffin, whom I don’t know personally but have respected from a distance:

“[Dr. Chapell] My brother, if the PCA submits to ‘trial’ of a denominational officer by social media, how will anyone be able to provide actual leadership, as opposed to merely blending into the background, or, worse yet, capitulating to, and thus facilitating, the current mob majority?”

So, are those expressing deep concerns lumped in with the “mob majority”?

TE Coffin goes on to say:

“The PCA is on the verge of a catastrophic misjudgment. We will wrongly demean a longstanding servant of Christ, do significant harm to the office of the State[d] Clerk, and thus to the health and peace of our denomination.”

“Wrongly demean…”? “[D]o significant harm… to the health and peace of out denomination”? Isn’t that what Dr. Chapell did? But this is a common defense of those who have “done so much good” in “building” our institutions. We attempt to diminish the wrongdoing in light of the “good” the offender has accomplished. Blame is then placed on the ones pointing out the problem… the falsehood. TE Coffin here quotes an unnamed source:

“If it was wrong for Bryan to hold up a slip of unreadable paper, it was far worse for people to make the slip readable, publish the names, and then spread it around the internet. It was they that scandalized the names, more so than Bryan. The failure to realize that is weighing very heavy on me. How can our brothers and sisters – including ordained men – not see that?”

What?!? It was worse to point out the falsehood being told than to speak the falsehood in the first place?!? If anything, this kind of defense reveals how captive we can be to the institutional project. “We can’t afford losing people who accomplish big things! Those that attack such leaders are the real problem.” Which brings us back to the idea of a “naughty” list. Some people are helpful to the institutional project… and others are not.

And even when Dr. Chapell requested retirement from the Administrative Committee, some still championed our denomination… our institution: “See! Our system of accountability worked! Presbyterianism works!” Again… what?!? Except for the Administrative Committee calling a meeting to discuss the incident, there was no process. The meeting hadn’t even happened yet when Dr. Chapell requested retirement. Were there meetings behind the scenes? Probably. But our “system” did not effectuate that outcome. It was the more informal system of relationships and public relations calculations. That is an observation not a critique. Neither is it an endorsement.

When it comes to our “institution,” I don’t see anything to rejoice in except for the apparent repentance in Dr. Chapell. Just about everything leading up to this circumstance and what has followed seems only a reflection of our institutional arrogance. I am not talking about the PCA alone but all corners of the evangelical church in America. We start with a noble ambition to labor in God’s church but move to wanting to build God’s church and taking pride in what we’ve built. Those that then critique… or worse yet, oppose… our work, we arrogantly deem enemies of the Church. It is a faulty logic but common. We can’t distinguish our ambition from the mission of the Church. This is what led to the creation of the “naughty” list. And sadly, I fear this will lead to a missed opportunity: corporate self-reflection.

Here is what we are likely to do: now that Dr. Chapell has retired/resigned, we can move past this ‘unpleasantness’ and get back to the work of building the institution… get back to the way we have always done things but just find a better candidate. We will find another important person to fill the important position and keep doing the important work of the Church. If that is our disposition, we will miss an opportunity the Lord is giving for institutional reflection and self-assessment. But that work is painful and difficult. “That won’t build our organization. That won’t be productive.” In fact, it may initially cause division and discord. But I think that this process may be necessary if we are to escape institutional capture. We will need debate, critique and disagreement. Will it hinder our institutional mission? Maybe, but it will advance the God’s desire to forge righteousness and love among us and in the world. If I advocate for that painful, “unproductive” process, will that make me a “scandalizer” of the Church? And now we have worked our way back again to those that deserve to be on the “naughty” list.

Here is what I hope for at General Assembly and in the many other places where our church culture is formed: humility and repentance. The whole thing disgusts me. I am disgusted with the arrogance that was on display in the creation of the list and the flaunting of it. I am disgusted with the partisan efforts to defend or tear down our institutional leadership. And I am disgusted with my own morbid interest in this jockeying for positions of prestige and power. Who will save me… save us… from this wretched circumstance? “Maybe it will be the next Stated Clerk.” No. “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ, our Lord.” Rom. 7:25a. I am praying we have a process that will produce more of that attitude in us and our churches: humility and confidence… not in ourselves… but in Christ working through us and even despite us.