CasualWestminsterEnjoyer
Puritan Board Senior
She made and then undermined the case for housewife theologians.
PCA stated clerk keeping 'enemies list'
- Thread starter NaphtaliPress
- Start date
- Status
So now it's a wider scandal with it making at least one church news site. Funny how these sort of things can blow up. The initial apologies clearly are not sufficient and I know at least one person has told Chappel he needs to be more explicit in repenting of ninth commandment breaches against many on the list.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Graduate
Apologies in advance for adopting my annoying and frequent habit of playing devil's advocate; is there a more charitable way to read this? Not saying to excuse it all together, but just to view it in a slightly more charitable light. When I read your link, I saw that his remarks were in the context of a quote from something else he wrote with very similar wording. Without saying that he was justified in keeping an enemies list, or that he is right in harboring some sort of grudge against the people on that piece of paper, is it possible he didn't mean to literally say that everyone on that list has committed suicide or left their families, but rather that he was just complaining about people who he thinks build their reputation on scandals and that he thinks that it'll eventually come back to bite them?
It seems like he might have been going a bit off script, in which case he might not have spoken with precision. It still seems problematic no matter how you cut it, but...
I think it is clear he got caught up in his prop. He did say it; so I don't know what you mean by "literally". How would his meaning be taken if the list had not been visible?
John Nyberg
Puritan Board Sophomore
Once again, a churchman ignores Galatians 5:15 and we all suffer.
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
I've been wondering the same thing, that also seems a little morbid to have on a list of "enemies".
I've been trying to figure out a way to construe this in the best possible light, except for this:
I could construe the last part (e.g., left their family) as referring to one or two, but he is very specific that the note he is holding up the list is a list of "scandalizers".
I don't see the list as an "enemy's list" as much as those whom Dr. Chappell views as scandalizers.
My inclination is to believe the best about people, sometimes to a fault, and to try to put things like this in the best light, but in this case I really struggle to do that. On the one hand, I doubt he actually meant that every person on the list has left their family, left the faith, or committed suicide. But, that's what he said. And it gives the impression that he believes that, for anyone on his list of whom that is not true, it's just a matter of time.
I think you're right that this is a list of people that he views as scandalizers, but isn't that part of the problem? If it was a list of people who clearly fit his description, the list would still be a problem, but I could understand the rationale for keeping it as a reminder not to be one who builds himself up by tearing others down. And a good number of the names I don't know. But how do Lane Keister and Carl Trueman make the list?
It seems that his definition of "scandalizer" includes people who speak out publicly against things that he supports? "Enemies list" might not quite be a fair description, since at least a couple of people on the list have had minimal interaction with him and haven't spoken directly against him, personally. But I can't think of any way to construe this as anything other than animosity toward his brothers and fellow elders without any reasonable cause.
I can't help but see a correlation to the moderate mood of Eerdman against conservative "scandalizers" during the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy.
Take TGC or Christianity Today or any other number of the City Church crowd who have consistently been voices about how misogynistic or patriarchal Conservative Christianity is. Or take all the swips against the "white Evangelical Church" and that most are just involved in "culture wars" and that they practically justify the de-Churching and de-construciton movement.
Sons of Patriarchy, anyone?
No, with few exceptions, the scandalizers are those with fewer large platforms who are making public arguments against things like ESS or egalitarianism or Side B Christianity.
In other words, I can resonate in part with his caution about those who spend an inordinate amount of time assuming the worst of men in the Church, but it cuts both ways. The identity of the major platforms I identified is practically synonymous with telling us that Jesus and John Wayne is the state of the Church as a whole.
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
Just to clarify I meant "enemies list" in a hyperbolic sense. Almost an exaggeration about how ridiculous and petty whatever the reasons are for such a list. I admit I chuckled at first as to how a grown man actually has a written list of whatever you want to call those people.
I mean I've often heard of various people having such a list in different settings in their head but I'm not exactly intimidated by a grown man who has a literal list that he walks around with. It's very comical.
Not that I'm making light of the situation but really how intimidated would anyone be by a grown man who pulled out a list and in a serious fashion said something like "well he's getting added to the list" and wrote the name down.
It just seems like grade school nonsense. But it's not how a man in his position should behave.
I mean I've often heard of various people having such a list in different settings in their head but I'm not exactly intimidated by a grown man who has a literal list that he walks around with. It's very comical.
Not that I'm making light of the situation but really how intimidated would anyone be by a grown man who pulled out a list and in a serious fashion said something like "well he's getting added to the list" and wrote the name down.
It just seems like grade school nonsense. But it's not how a man in his position should behave.
Spot on.
If Dr. Chapell didn't have his list, or if he did and all the names on it indisputably belonged there, then I don't think this would have turned into a scandal, because the basic point that he was making is valid. But it seems clear that his application of that principle is highly prejudiced.
One quibble, though, with lumping in TGC with the likes of Christianity Today. I've not seen them consistently pushing the Jesus and John Wayne narrative, and they're a pretty broad organization, that doesn't seem to exercise a lot of central editorial control (which I think is part of what has gotten them in trouble on a number of occasions). At least a few of the men in leadership there could hardly be painted as sympathetic to such a negative view of conservative Christianity.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Graduate
Anything by Joe Carter is usually worth reading.
alexanderjames
Puritan Board Junior
Curious as to people's thoughts on the validity of such a list if it were exclusively individuals who had legitimately apostatised. Say Paul had one which included Demas. I can only really think that such a list could be profitable if it were for the purpose of praying for them and keeping oneself humble because it is by the sheer grace of God that we might continue to stand.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
While I do think your position is honoring the 9th commandment as set out in WLC 145, I do think however you cut it, the Rev. Dr. Chappell has violated the 9th commandment.
I thought of Paul's "list" of names such as Hymenaeus, Demas, and especially Alexander the Coppersmith. Paul points out that Alexander did him great harm. However, he names him so as to warn others. If you're going to warn about someone, you need to be very sure you are right about their character!
Dr. Chapell's list seems to have been more for personal use, rather than warning others, since we weren't supposed to know who was on it. More like a, "Don't be like these nasty scandalizers," list. The merits/demerits of such a list could be debated, but it, too, needs to be accurate.
B.L.
Puritan Board Sophomore
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Yeah, he's got to go.
In my opinion, the objective fact is that it’s just been one thing after another since Chapell has been in that role. He’s clearly not cut out for it. I hope his resignation or removal is forthcoming.
yeah, I concur. The man straight up said he had kept a list on his desk of scandalizers… And he claimed that all these people had apostatized or whatever… It’s just brazen slander what he said, and in many cases the names on the list are shocking and reveals that his view of “scandalizers” is itself problematic because he includes people who spend their every energy trying to keep the church protected and NEVER introduced or defended scandal, but rather they labored tirelessly (though tactfully) to expose and remove scandal.
In my opinion, the objective fact is that it’s just been one thing after another since Chapell has been in that role. He’s clearly not cut out for it. I hope his resignation or removal is forthcoming.
Last edited:
PointyHaired Calvinist
Puritan Board Junior
Anyone defending Chapell right now or saying “give the benefit of the doubt” please explain to me how he is right in saying that everyone on the list has “left the faith, their family, or taken their life.”
At least three names have gone liberal, one did commit suicide (apparently), but the rest I understand are mostly godly men I good standing with their churches.
This is not only slander, but could be an ecumenical disaster with accusations against, for instance, OPC and ARP ministers.
At least three names have gone liberal, one did commit suicide (apparently), but the rest I understand are mostly godly men I good standing with their churches.
This is not only slander, but could be an ecumenical disaster with accusations against, for instance, OPC and ARP ministers.
ZackF
Puritan Board Doctor
Who committed suicide?
I don't want to name him on an open thread. Anyone wanting to know may message me and I'll send a link to someone's posting because this has reopened a wound for friends of the individual in question.
Last edited:
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
2002 - about 23 years and 2.5 months.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Graduate
This just gets stranger and stranger. If there's anybody who belongs on the list, it would be McIntyre, a notoriously contentious person. But Brian Chapell would have been a diaper-toting thumb sucker when McIntyre was at the peak of his influence, and at any rate, he didn't leave his family or his faith, unless one wants to question his Christianity to begin with or point to the distance between him and his descendants later in life.
I'm also noticing that it looks like Carl Trueman is on the list twice. And he, to the extent that he spends time criticizing others, usually criticizes secular figures. If anything, he is sometimes too irenic for my tastes. I just can't figure this out for the life of me.
Last edited:
That's why I think the list is a list of those whom Chappell thinks of as "scandalizers" and who get their identity from doing so.
I think the part about divorce or suicide was stated by mistake, but I do think that Chappell had that list because he thought of those on the list in the vein of McIntyre.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Graduate
Why would Trueman make that list, though?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Trueman was a big critic of ESS. Don't know if Chappel supported ESS. Trueman was also skeptical of "For the City" types of church ministry.
itsreed
Puritan Board Freshman
Best take: these are examples of people who, according to Dr. Chapell, major(ed) in debating “scandals“, and through that behavior have helped to separate millennials and zoomers from interest in the church.
His comment about ruining their own faith, family, and future, appears to apply to only man on the list, and those actions have nothing to do with the debating that the brother engaged in. Again, best take: this was a point of exaggeration, attempting to promote the thesis of his new book.
Dr. Chapell has kept a list of fellow believers he believes have “scandalized “the church, not by promoting sinful doctrines/practices, but by the mere fact of engaging in public debate about those things.
Please remember that PCA process is involved at this point. Please pray for a godly resolution.
His comment about ruining their own faith, family, and future, appears to apply to only man on the list, and those actions have nothing to do with the debating that the brother engaged in. Again, best take: this was a point of exaggeration, attempting to promote the thesis of his new book.
Dr. Chapell has kept a list of fellow believers he believes have “scandalized “the church, not by promoting sinful doctrines/practices, but by the mere fact of engaging in public debate about those things.
Please remember that PCA process is involved at this point. Please pray for a godly resolution.
- Status
