PCA stated clerk keeping 'enemies list'

paranymph said:
Strange development:
"And the fact is, on the evidence, I do not believe you lied."
theaquilareport.com

Concerning the Resignation of Dr. Chapell

theaquilareport.com theaquilareport.com
Click to expand...
Unbelievable. It's to paraphrase, those that captured the list's fault. And there is no one qualified or better that can replace him? This will merely create more lack of peace, which Coffin professes he wants to avoid. He wants a trial? Ludicrous. Chapel's already given his intention; he should resign this week and put this sorry mess behind him and the PCA. Dragging it out would be disastrous.
*And why publish the letter? If he left it a private communication leaving it to Chapel to decide how to act on it, that is one thing. Publishing it is a very act of politicizing this issue and stirring up the controversy.
**And Chapel's already demeaned the office. His resigning is to resolve that.
 
Last edited:
NaphtaliPress said:
Unbelievable. It's to paraphrase, those that captured the list's fault. And there is no one qualified or better that can replace him? This will merely create more lack of peace, which Coffin professes he wants to avoid. He wants a trial? Ludicrous. Chapel's already given his intention; he should resign this week and put this sorry mess behind him and the PCA. Dragging it out would be disastrous.
*And why publish the letter? If he left it a private communication leaving it to Chapel to decide how to act on it, that is one thing. Publishing it is a very act of politicizing this issue and stirring up the controversy.
**And Chapel's already demeaned the office. His resigning is to resolve that.
Click to expand...
Yes, I hope this letter puts to rest whatever remaining regard the confessionally conservative have for him.
 
Andy Webb posted a public letter to Coffin, I won't comment as it speaks for itself.
This morning, Dr. David Coffin, a longtime member of the PCA SJC, published a letter in The Aquila Report in which my name and the names of the other individuals listed in the infamous Post-it note were once again dragged through the mud. I have sent the following response to Dominic Aquila, which I hope will also be published in The Aquila Report:
Dear Dr. Coffin,
On May 22nd of this year, I was made aware that Bryan Chapell, the Stated clerk of the PCA, had done a podcast interview with Collin Hansen of The Gospel Coalition, and that during that interview, he had held up a Post-it note with a number of names on it, saying,
“Collin…I’m going to show this to you quickly. I keep the note on my desk. Those are the names of the scandalizers, the people who have invested hours every day attacking others for their supposed lack of faithfulness, for their compromise, whose identity comes from scandalizing others.
And every name on that list has either left his family, left the faith, or taken his life. Every name on that list. It amazes me. I’ve done this for almost 50 years now, I’ve been in ordained ministry. And I can tell you almost with certainty: those who build their reputations on destroying the reputations of others will end up with terribly dark lives.”
My name, along with many others such as D.G. Hart and Carl Trueman, was on that Post-it note that Chapell flashed in front of the camera, perhaps forgetting that with the internet, every image is forever.
I will freely admit I was shocked. Since leaving the PCA in 2020, my family and I have been very happy in the ARP, and I have found a collegial brotherhood where I can finally be useful. Since joining the ARP I have served as both a moderator and on a number of committees including as the Chairman of Outreach North America, a position that I have a particular interest in as I began my own time in the pastorate 24 years ago as a church planter and my congregation is currently in the process of trying to plant a new ARP congregation in Raeford, NC. I say all of that to indicate that I certainly have not left my family, left the faith, or taken my life as Chapell initially alleged.
After the scandal broke, Dr. Chapell contacted me by phone offering a sincere apology in which he confessed his sin against me and the other people on the note. He also indicated that he would be retiring from his position as Stated Clerk. Following that phone call, I published the following public statement:
“Today I received a gracious apology call from Bryan Chapell, and I sincerely forgave him. Given his announcement, I regard the matter, as far as it concerns me, to be at an end. I would earnestly encourage people to pray for him as he goes into retirement.”
As I publicly stated, Dr. Chapell had done the honorable thing as a Christian gentleman, and I believed the matter was at an end. That was until I was made aware this afternoon of your open letter entitled “Concerning the Resignation of Dr. Chapell,” published in the Aquila Report [ https://theaquilareport.com/concerning-the-resignation.../ ] in which you argued that Dr. Chapell should not retire as he had done nothing wrong. In fact, you state in your letter, “And the fact is, on the evidence, I do not believe you lied.”
I will confess that I was amazed that a long-time member of the Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA would make such a statement. I know you realize this, but If Dr. Chapell did nothing wrong and did not lie about the individuals on that list then you have publicly stated that you believe, “on the evidence”, that I have, “either left [my] family, left the faith, or taken [my] life.” Which of those assertions is true, Dr. Coffin? Have I left my family even though I am still happily married to and living with my wife of 31 years? Have I left the faith, even though I love the Lord Jesus Christ and am serving His Body, the church, as a minister in good standing in the ARP? Have I taken my life and somehow, like Samuel’s ghost, I have returned to rebuke you from the grave? I ask again, which of these is true? Because if there were no lie, then by your bold assertion, at least one must be true.
The fact is that none of those assertions are true; they are bold-faced lies, and once again, my name and the names of several other individuals have been slandered (or, in this case, libeled) in public.
Therefore, since the libel was public, I am publicly asking you for a public apology and retraction. If I do not receive one, then I regret to inform you, I will be sending a letter to your presbytery asking that they begin a 31-2 investigation into this matter.
Your Servant in Christ,
Pastor Andrew Webb
Providence ARP Church
Fayetteville, NC
Click to expand...
https://theaquilareport.com/concern...vHzKUGlsEAfC_mDHQY_aem_hazzUApsFuvXONRUSZFyfA
 
NaphtaliPress said:
Unbelievable. It's to paraphrase, those that captured the list's fault. And there is no one qualified or better that can replace him? This will merely create more lack of peace, which Coffin professes he wants to avoid. He wants a trial? Ludicrous. Chapel's already given his intention; he should resign this week and put this sorry mess behind him and the PCA. Dragging it out would be disastrous.
*And why publish the letter? If he left it a private communication leaving it to Chapel to decide how to act on it, that is one thing. Publishing it is a very act of politicizing this issue and stirring up the controversy.
**And Chapel's already demeaned the office. His resigning is to resolve that.
Click to expand...
Now posted at the Aquila Report.
 
I’m rather surprised at how many conservatives thought so highly of Coffin. I’ve always been under the impression that he was, if not progressive, very much a Kellerite. He fought against a lot of the safeguards many conservatives pushed against Revoice. This didn’t shock me too much, sad to say.
 
PointyHaired Calvinist said:
I’m rather surprised at how many conservatives thought so highly of Coffin. I’ve always been under the impression that he was, if not progressive, very much a Kellerite. He fought against a lot of the safeguards many conservatives pushed against Revoice. This didn’t shock me too much, sad to say.
Click to expand...
Again, ironic, Coffin following exactly the same circumstance of getting caught up in the moment (here defending Chapel) and saying something foolish, and another elder statesman in the PCA, disregarding party, tarnishes himself.
 
ZackF said:
Whatever someone feels, men (especially those with power and prestige) have to behave smarter than that.
Click to expand...

He who digs a pit will fall into it -- said by Someone who knows human hearts far better than any of us. Smart people can be very stupid at times because all of us are sinners.

Dr. Chapell has apologized and agreed to retire. From what I've read on Facebook, a number of the victims of this debacle have received personal phone calls from Dr. Chapell expressing repentance and have accepted his repentance as genuine. I think we need to say that if the victims have accepted his repentance, we should as well. Of course, if there are victims who believe his repentance is insincere or illegitimate, that needs to be addressed as well.

I have no desire to defend this "enemies list." I personally know some of the men on it. They may be Chapell's enemies, but the ones I know are not God's enemies.

However, I do think the underlying point that Chapell was trying to make, but badly messed up in making, is legitimate. People who spend all their time, or most of it, dealing with the deeds of darkness and fighting them need to be careful not to adopt the methods of darkness.

That's not saying darkness should not be fought. It is, however, a warning not only to pastors but also to police officers and prosecutors (and yes, reporters) that in our zeal to expose darkness, we can develop dark hearts.

It's less of a problem in the Reformed world because of the nature of ecclesiastical accountability in our circles, but there are "discernment ministries" in conservative Christian circles about which significant concerns can be raised. Are they exposing deeds of darkness? Yes. But their motives may be monetary, or worse, with less zeal for God's glory and more for personal aggrandizement or power. That definitely does not apply to the men on the list who I know, but it is a very real temptation faced by men who focus on exposing evil, whether in the church world or the secular world.
 
NaphtaliPress said:
Andy Webb posted a public letter to Coffin, I won't comment as it speaks for itself.

https://theaquilareport.com/concern...vHzKUGlsEAfC_mDHQY_aem_hazzUApsFuvXONRUSZFyfA
Click to expand...
I was very much disturbed by Coffin's letter, especially the line noted by Andy Webb. I imagine that Coffin would say that he didn't mean that Dr. Chapell did not lie in saying that all of those people had apostatized, left their families, or committed suicide, but rather that he did not lie in labeling them scandalizers (probably in keeping with Dr. Chapell's original intent in his own statement). Of course, the problem there is twofold, as it has been from the beginning: (1) whatever may have been meant, what was said was that they had all fallen in some major way, and that is demonstrably untrue of almost everyone on the list. (2) Even limiting the charges leveled against these men to that of being scandalizers, that is still a very serious charge, and, as we've discussed at length, one that is also clearly not true of at least several of the names on the list. And to believe that all of these people are, in fact, scandalizers is itself evidence of a highly divisive spirit.

I think Dr. Chapell's actions have shown that he has come to recognize those facts (or at least point 1, but I have a hard time imagining that his apologies would be so readily accepted if he did not also communicate penitence about labeling the men as scandalizers). I am grateful that he is taking the honorable route, demonstrating, as far as I can judge in the spirit of charity, both genuinely humble repentance and a desire not to further disturb the peace of the church. The best thing for him and the PCA would be for the denomination to accept his apologies and his retirement, and then never bring it up again.

But Coffin's open letter ... it only prolongs the scandal. I suppose he believes he's defending the honor of a man who is only retiring under pressure. But I don't believe that to be true, in part because I want to judge Dr. Chapell charitably, and a voluntary retirement is a sign of true humility. If Coffin continues to press his case, I believe he will only further tarnish Dr. Chapell's reputation while also disturbing the peace of the church.
 
I had no idea that Dr. Coffin was viewed in such a way. I spoke to him once on the phone about R. L. Dabney because I'm interested in doing further studies on him and other Southern Presbyterians. It was a good conversation in which he described systematizing a great portion of Dabney's personal writings, which later helped others to study Dabney (Sean Michael Lucas for one, though I disagree with his psychologizing of Dabney).

I agree that his open letter has only fanned the flames and will not allow for a gracious end of the matter with Dr. Chapel.
 
NaphtaliPress said:
Unbelievable. It's to paraphrase, those that captured the list's fault.
Click to expand...
I'd say they're both at fault. Both Chapell and whoever took the screen capture. That person could have gone directly to Chapell and the names on the list probably never would have been smeared. Reminds me of an Australian football player last year who made a racist comment about a 3rd player in a private conversation, but someone else overheard it and blabbed to the media. Now the 3rd player was unnecessarily publicly traumatized when the issue could have been handled behind closed doors.
 
arapahoepark said:
Yet another interesting take.
philosophical-theology.com

A Very Few Thoughts On The Current Situation Facing The PCA

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 be…
philosophical-theology.com philosophical-theology.com
Click to expand...
The author is outside looking in (he's OPC). I don't know anyone that was saying what the author says they should not be saying, that Dr. Chapel spread a bad report. He may have; we don't know what he acted upon with that list. It is a good question, was the person or persons who captured the list within rights to publish it or should there be some accountability there for their part in this blowing up? But it pales in the overall scheme of things and the main thing is to restore some stability and resigning does do that. It was commendable, honorable, and any change in course just blows the thing up again.
 
J.L. Allen said:
I had no idea that Dr. Coffin was viewed in such a way. I spoke to him once on the phone about R. L. Dabney because I'm interested in doing further studies on him and other Southern Presbyterians. It was a good conversation in which he described systematizing a great portion of Dabney's personal writings, which later helped others to study Dabney (Sean Michael Lucas for one, though I disagree with his psychologizing of Dabney).

I agree that his open letter has only fanned the flames and will not allow for a gracious end of the matter with Dr. Chapel.
Click to expand...

You commented on how Dr. Coffin was viewed.

I have been at events where Dr. Coffin was speaking, and have heard him speak at the PCA General Assembly, but I do not know Dr. Coffin personally. He might know my name from the CRC fights of the 1990s, but probably would not know my name unless he had a reason to dig into CRC issues back then.

What I do know is what was being said about him in conservative PCA circles way back in the early 1990s.

Most of the conversations were private and therefore should not be repeated. What I can say, because it was said to me in a public context by ordained men well-known in PCA conservative circles, was that Dr. Coffin wants to be known as a conservative but spends too much time with denominational leaders who are not conservative, and therefore should not be trusted. Dr. Chapell was named in that context, long before he became the PCA stated clerk, as someone with whom Coffin spent too much time. Therefore, Coffin's support of Chapell did not surprise me.

Since you're an OPC man serving a CRC church, for whatever it may be worth, some very similar things could be said, and have been said, about me in a CRC rather than PCA context. I have a decades-long track record of trying to be nice as much as I can with denominational officials unless they have clearly shown themselves to be heretics and enemies of the gospel, in which case they need to be considered false teachers in need of conversion and repentance. I know from decades of experience that many top denominational leaders in evangelical denominations are bureaucrats and not ideologues, and while too many of them are sincere Christians who have made compromises to get and keep their positions, they're usually still believers and need to be treated as such. The real problems in evangelical denominations tend to be the professors, and pastors of "woke" churches in college towns, and "big name" authors, and megachurch preachers whose congregations are loyal to them personally and not to the denomination's doctrinal standards. Those categories of people, if push comes to shove, can tell their denominations to "shove it" and go elsewhere. Denominational bureaucrats rely on denominational support to pay their salaries and keep their jobs, and tend for that reason not to be ones with major doctrinal problems.

I think honey works better than vinegar and we need to be charitable in doubtful cases. Some conservatives prefer a flamethrower approach.

I sensed, even years ago, that the people criticizing Coffin might say the same things about me. So take that comment with the qualifier.

There's a man I have known for close to twenty years who for a few years now has been publicly attacking me as a "RINO," a "neo-con," and a "half liberal." I don't think any of those accusations are true and they're being said mostly for two reasons: 1) I believe the withdrawal from Afghanistan was done horribly and abandoned many Afghans who quite literally risked their lives to support the United States, and 2) I supported Ted Cruz, not Donald Trump, in the 2016 Republican primary and some consider that to be an unforgivable sin. (Now that SecDef Pete Hegseth has started an inquiry into the botched Afghanistan withdrawal, I'm guessing that my view on Afghanistan will become acceptable again in conservative circles.)

I think there are people who apply similar attitudes to church politics that they apply to secular politics.

Unlike most NAPARC denominations which are quite small and in which all or almost all ministers know each other, the PCA is large enough that some of the problems of secular politics come into play.

It's a lot easier to say bad things about people when you don't know them personally and rarely have a reason to meet.

Of course, sometimes bad things need to be said even about people we know very well, precisely because we know them very well and need to warn others about them.
 
NaphtaliPress said:
Unbelievable. It's to paraphrase, those that captured the list's fault.
DanSSwing said:
I'd say they're both at fault. Both Chapell and whoever took the screen capture. That person could have gone directly to Chapell and the names on the list probably never would have been smeared. Reminds me of an Australian football player last year who made a racist comment about a 3rd player in a private conversation, but someone else overheard it and blabbed to the media. Now the 3rd player was unnecessarily publicly traumatized when the issue could have been handled behind closed doors.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

@DanSSwing : I can't agree at all.

We're not dealing with a pastor of a small church somewhere who is unfamiliar with the internet and what can happen. We're talking about the stated clerk of the largest confessional Reformed denomination in North America, a man who was previously the president of a major seminary, who has written many books, and who was going on a podcast with a large audience.

I don't know about you -- granted, I do have formal training in broadcast journalism that most people don't have -- but before turning my camera on, even for a Zoom meeting, I check what's in the background to avoid potential problems. Don't most people, even small church pastors, check to make sure there aren't problems before turning on the cameras for their church service?

(Not trying imply there would be something bad off-camera. Practical example: During a Zoom interview with a national TV reporter on a local crime case in my county, because the room I use for TV studio interviews doubles as my wife's home office, I checked to be sure she didn't have any paperwork that would be visible on camera. It's standard to avoid "busy" backgrounds during TV interviews, so a shelf full of books is what I usually use for a background. I have zero problem with people seeing that I have Christian books as well as books on politics and journalism in the background. If somebody wants to blame a reporter for having Wylie's History of the Waldensians on my bookshelf next to the Genevan Psalter and Katherine Graham's Washington and several books on Missouri history, that's their problem -- and yes, those are real examples of books from my library.)

What Dr. Chapell did was far worse than having a problem in the background. It wasn't inadvertently in the background; it was right in the foreground, deliberately on camera. He held up a post-it note with a list of names, essentially an "enemies list," and did the same thing Joe McCarthy did -- saying he had a list of bad people he watches because they do bad things.

The only thing he didn't expect was that the names could be seen.

As the PCA stated clerk, how did he expect he was going to be able to meet with some of the men on that list, including the chairman of at least one major denominational committee of another NAPARC denomination, and conduct business as if nothing had happened? Are there other men in NAPARC denominational leadership positions who have secret "enemies lists" of people in NAPARC denominations, but keep their list hidden and deal with them underhandedly rather than directly?

Dr. Chapell simply had to resign, even if he believed he had done nothing wrong. As the stated clerk of America's largest Reformed denomination, he could not remain in that position after doing what he did. By God's grace, he not only resigned but repented both publicly and privately. Good for him. For Dr. Coffin to be saying he shouldn't have resigned is simply wrong, though he has a valid point that the circumstances of the resignation may well have serious long-term effects and do real damage to the office of the stated clerk.

If I have a problem with somebody, they won't have any doubt about whether I have a problem with them, or why. I think my "yes" should be "yes," and my "no" should be "no."

Maybe being Italian has something to do with that. We are kinda sorta known for bluntness! :wink:
 
Last edited:
darrellmaurina said:
@DanSSwing : I can't agree at all.

We're not dealing with a pastor of a small church somewhere who is unfamiliar with the internet and what can happen. We're talking about the stated clerk of the largest confessional Reformed denomination in North America, a man who was previously the president of a major seminary, who has written many books, and who was going on a podcast with a large audience.

I don't know about you -- granted, I do have formal training in broadcast journalism that most people don't have -- but before turning my camera on, even for a Zoom meeting, I check what's in the background to avoid potential problems. Don't most people, even small church pastors, check to make sure there aren't problems before turning on the cameras for their church service?

(Not trying imply there would be something bad off-camera. Practical example: During a Zoom interview with a national TV reporter on a local crime case in my county, because the room I use for TV studio interviews doubles as my wife's home office, I checked to be sure she didn't have any paperwork that would be visible on camera. It's standard to avoid "busy" backgrounds during TV interviews, so a shelf full of books is what I usually use for a background. I have zero problem with people seeing that I have Christian books as well as books on politics and journalism in the background. If somebody wants to blame a reporter for having Wylie's History of the Waldensians on my bookshelf next to the Genevan Psalter and Katherine Graham's Washington and several books on Missouri history, that's their problem -- and yes, those are real examples of books from my library.)

What Dr. Chapell did was far worse than having a problem in the background. It wasn't inadvertently in the background; it was right in the foreground, deliberately on camera. He held up a post-it note with a list of names, essentially an "enemies list," and did the same thing Joe McCarthy did -- saying he had a list of bad people he watches because they do bad things.

The only thing he didn't expect was that the names could be seen.

As the PCA stated clerk, how did he expect he was going to be able to meet with some of the men on that list, including the chairman of at least one major denominational committee of another NAPARC denomination, and conduct business as if nothing had happened? Are there other men in NAPARC denominational leadership positions who have secret "enemies lists" of people in NAPARC denominations, but keep their list hidden and deal with them underhandedly rather than directly?

Dr. Chapell simply had to resign, even if he believed he had done nothing wrong. As the stated clerk of America's largest Reformed denomination, he could not remain in that position after doing what he did. By God's grace, he not only resigned but repented both publicly and privately. Good for him. For Dr. Coffin to be saying he shouldn't have resigned is simply wrong, though he has a valid point that the circumstances of the resignation may well have serious long-term effects and do real damage to the office of the stated clerk.

If I have a problem with somebody, they won't have any doubt about whether I have a problem with them, or why. I think my "yes" should be "yes," and my "no" should be "no."

Maybe being Italian has something to do with that. We are kinda sorta known for bluntness! :wink:
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you disagree with. We agree about Chappell. I’m saying that publicizing and disseminating the list was wrong too.
 
SolaScriptura said:
I don’t think so. I think it was absolutely necessary in order to expose the lie.
Click to expand...
I absolutely disagree! Just talk to him personally. Send it through the proper channels. Why even post it? Just incendiary. Be like, "Brother: I screenshotted it, I found it deeply problematic, let's talk this through" rather than whatever happened which happened.
 
Pomopu said:
I absolutely disagree! Just talk to him personally. Send it through the proper channels. Why even post it? Just incendiary. Be like, "Brother: I screenshotted it, I found it deeply problematic, let's talk this through" rather than whatever happened which happened.
Click to expand...
Why did Chapell bother to show it? It keeps going back to him.
 
arapahoepark said:
Why did Chapell bother to show it? It keeps going back to him.
Click to expand...
Brother, question of the hour. But why did I (or anyone else besides a handful) see another person's screenshot? That's a whole another can of sardines in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Pomopu said:
I absolutely disagree! Just talk to him personally. Send it through the proper channels. Why even post it? Just incendiary. Be like, "Brother: I screenshotted it, I found it deeply problematic, let's talk this through" rather than whatever happened which happened.
Click to expand...
No. This was a public action by a public person on a public media. And he told a whopper. It needed to be addressed publicly in order for it to be addressed properly.

If one person had simply gone to him privately, that would’ve done absolutely nothing, nada, zilch. Except maybe get the person doing so written on his list as well.

Because he defamed and smeared and sullied the names and reputation of a good number of people… And since he shared that visibly, it wasn’t like it was seen by only one person… A lot of people screenshot it. So it was out there in the public. Thus there’s no way around it, it needed to be dealt with publicly.
 
Last edited:
SolaScriptura said:
No. This was a public action by a public person on a public media. And he told a whopper. It needed to be addressed publicly in order for it to be addressed properly.

If one person had simply gone to him privately, that would’ve done absolutely nothing, nada, zilch. Except maybe get the person doing so written on his list as well.

Because he defamed and smeared and sullied the names and reputation of a good number of people… And since he shared that visibly, it wasn’t like it was seen by only one person… A lot of people screenshot it. So it was out there in the public. Thus there’s no way around it, it needed to be dealt with publicly.
Click to expand...
Whist I agree with your comment wholeheartedly at face value it does not seem to answer the disagreement here, which is essentially this - regardless of Bryan Chapell, was it wrong in any way for people to screenshot and share the details on social media in the way they did? (In defense of Logan's comment for example, when he speaks about "other channels" surely he means other that privately to Chapell himself).
 
SolaScriptura said:
I don’t think so. I think it was absolutely necessary in order to expose the lie.
Click to expand...
I agree it was necessary to expose THAT he lied (which could have been done by bringing it to him personally resulting in his public repentance) but not the content of the lie, which is what led to damaging the reputation of the men on the list.
Post automatically merged:

SolaScriptura said:
No. This was a public action by a public person on a public media. And he told a whopper. It needed to be addressed publicly in order for it to be addressed properly.

If one person had simply gone to him privately, that would’ve done absolutely nothing, nada, zilch. Except maybe get the person doing so written on his list as well.
Click to expand...
Possibly. But we can use that same excuse every time we don't want to follow the Matthew 18:15 procedure. At least give him the opportunity first. That's all I'm saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AJ Castellitto
  • Locked
Love Your Enemies ?
Replies
3
Views
2K
AJ Castellitto
AJ Castellitto
C
  • Locked
Keeping Commitments question
Replies
5
Views
1K
Gage Browning
Gage Browning
B
  • Locked
Dead Theologians List
Replies
1
Views
2K
Ivan
Ivan
Romans922
  • Locked
Ministers/Elders List
Replies
28
Views
4K
Skyler
Skyler
Richard King
  • Locked
The Mindset list
Replies
9
Views
2K
jaybird0827
jaybird0827
Back
Top