PCA stated clerk keeping 'enemies list'

[Cornelius Van Halen]

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.
[automerge]1749115428[/automerge]

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.

I think the suggestion, based the testimonies of men on the list, is that bringing it to him would not lead to a public profession of repentance. Instead, it would add your name to the list.

Additionally, it was not a private sin, but a public one. Peter’s public sin was publicly rebuked.

“But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” Galatians 2:14

 

[Contra_Mundum]

a public action by a public person on a public media.

The "public" quality of certain persons often reverses the expectation of privacy. Whereas, a private person may assume his typical acts are private even when out in the air, a public person (a category invoked in Presbyterian Standards) such as a churchman must assume much or most of his life is "on display," and requires a constant behavioral and speech constraint.

RHIP, but also RHID. Privilege and duty are inseparable in fact, though often those with the former act as if the latter is dispensable. They act as if there is not nor ever will be an accounting. When duty is forgotten, but after accountability is demanded, a worthy person admits his error, makes his amends, accepts his consequences.

 

[DanSSwing]

I think the suggestion, based the testimonies of men on the list, is that bringing it to him would not lead to a public profession of repentance. Instead, it would add your name to the list.

Additionally, it was not a private sin, but a public one. Peter’s public sin was publicly rebuked.

“But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” Galatians 2:14

If he had held up a blurry nude photo, would it have been necessary to publicly show a clear freeze frame so we could all see who was in the photo?

 

[darrellmaurina]

I’m not sure what you disagree with. We agree about Chappell. I’m saying that publicizing and disseminating the list was wrong too.

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.
[automerge]1749115428[/automerge]

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.

As others have said, Matthew 18 does not apply here. Public sin is to be rebuked publicly. Otherwise, the Apostle Paul sinned by failing to first speak privately the Apostle Peter.

The difference in process between public and private sin is foundational to church discipline.

It is common for liberals to shout, "But Matthew 18!" when called to account for public sin. "Person X" writes a book, or gives a speech, or publishes an article, and when conservatives respond by criticizing the liberals, they get told they should have talked to the person privately and then filed charges with his consistory or presbytery, and not addressed the problem in public.

In other words, "Send your protest to the right address and don't tell anyone about it so we can bury the protest by sending it to a committee and talking about it in closed session for a few months to a few years until everyone forgets about it and we can drop it once everyone has forgotten and isn't paying attention anymore."

Now Dan, I certainly am NOT accusing you of being a liberal. Also, since (if I understand correctly) you are a Baptist, you may well not know the history of how Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed denominational leaders have abused procedural rules to bury criticism.

What I am saying is that the reason @SolaScriptura and others have reacted so strongly to you is that we've seen what happens in Presbyterian history when people cite Matthew 18 in ways that would make Paul into a sinner for rebuking Peter. It's a standard part of the liberal playbook and has been since at least the 1800s, used by denominational officials to insulate themselves from critics.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

If he had held up a blurry nude photo, would it have been necessary to publicly show a clear freeze frame so we could all see who was in the photo?

My statement was regarding public rebuke, so I’m not sure why you think this is a relevant response.

 

[DanSSwing]

As others have said, Matthew 18 does not apply here. Public sin is to be rebuked publicly. Otherwise, the Apostle Paul sinned by failing to first speak privately the Apostle Peter.

You're missing my point. The sin IS to be rebuked publicly. But we do not need to know all of the minute, sordid details of the sin. It's possible to expose and punish a child molester without publicizing the names of the children.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

You're missing my point. The sin IS to be rebuked publicly. But we do not need to know all of the minute, sordid details of the sin. It's possible to expose and punish a child molester without publicizing the names of the children.

The rebuke should have been public, the list should not.

I think I agree, but that was the means by which his sin was exposed. Men saw themselves and responded.

Chicken or the egg.

 

[paranymph]

You're missing my point. The sin IS to be rebuked publicly. But we do not need to know all of the minute, sordid details of the sin. It's possible to expose and punish a child molester without publicizing the names of the children.

But, in this case, the sin was specifically to lie about particular names. You wouldn't know he was lying unless you knew the names.

 

[darrellmaurina]

If he had held up a blurry nude photo, would it have been necessary to publicly show a clear freeze frame so we could all see who was in the photo?

Now that's an interesting question, and it's one that has personal application to me.

Back in college, and this was not only before cell phones but also way back before digital cameras and cameras still used film, somebody took a nude photograph of me in the shower. Back then, most people had to take their film to a commercial developer, which meant nude photographs would get reported to police, and that means whoever took the photograph of me needed to have the chemicals and a darkroom to develop the photograph privately. Today, unfortunately, it is a lot easier to take such photographs of people and distribute them, but back then, this was considered a REALLY serious offense and law enforcement treated it very seriously.

I was never able to find out who took the photograph. Either the photograph was blurry and wasn't useful for its intended purpose of public embarrassment or blackmail, or the person couldn't find someone to get it developed, or the person thought better of distributing it once I made it very clear that I had alerted campus police and would do what it took to prosecute anyone if the photograph turned up anywhere. It is possible, though extremely unlikely, that somebody somewhere still has the negatives and the photograph could someday show up somewhere in public.

I knew that if this went to court and the person fought the charges rather than pleading guilty to avoid a trial, the photograph would be entered into the public record of the case and shown to the judge and/or jury. That's an unavoidable necessity of the Constitutional right of a person accused of a crime to see the evidence against him and to confront his accuser and cross-examine the witnesses. Protections of sexual exploitation victims are more robust today, but back then, it would have been normal for a defense attorney to put me on the stand and grill me about my own sexual history and whether I had other "private photos" of me taken with my consent. (My answer, unlike most college students, would have been that I had no sexual history and never had any nude photographs taken of me -- something to consider for young people today, including Christian young people, who would never go to bed with a boyfriend or girlfriend but who think sending photos like that to boyfriends/girlfriends is okay.)

Would I have handled this differently if I were female and cute? I don't know. Nobody enjoys seeing and sharing photos of a short fat ugly Italian guy, so it's a lot easier for me to say, "Bring it on, I'll prosecute you to the full extent of the law" than it might be if I looked like Sophia Loren or Monica Bellucci or some beautiful Italian woman.

What I do strongly suspect is that a very severe and very public warning that I would prosecute the photographer and/or distributor of the photograph may have prevented it from ever going public. Or maybe the photographer just took a bad photo and couldn't use it. I'll probably never know for sure.

I do tell that story to young people who think "private photos" are no big deal. They are a very big deal, and now that it's much easier to take and distribute such photos, far too many young people have found that out the hard way.

 

[darrellmaurina]

You're missing my point. The sin IS to be rebuked publicly. But we do not need to know all of the minute, sordid details of the sin. It's possible to expose and punish a child molester without publicizing the names of the children.

That's not necessarily true, depending on details of the case and specifics of state law.

I've sat in open court when teenage girls were put on the stand during a preliminary hearing (not the trial; this is an early stage to examine evidence and see if charges are warranted) and had to explain, in detail, precisely how they were touched and where they were touched because the exact places they were touched determined the level of felony charge that could be brought in their case.

Our previous county prosecutor, about a decade and a half ago, convinced our county commission to authorize use of grand juries (which are closed to the public) so defense attorneys couldn't intimidate young female victims by forcing them to describe such details in open court before the case even went to trial. The result is that today, in nearly all cases, cases involving juvenile victims get settled by a plea bargain so the victim won't have to testify in open court.

But if the accused insists on going to trial, depending on state law, the victim may have to take the stand and testify.

Yes, there are ways around this today, but that's not universal in every state and every jurisdiction within every state, and years ago before the #MeToo movement, defense attorneys routinely intimidated victims in court. I'm glad we've put protections in place to make that much harder for defense attorneys to do, but there was a day when victims were re-victimized by defense attorneys and that was something prosecutors had to be up-front about with victims.

 

[SolaScriptura]

If he had held up a blurry nude photo, would it have been necessary to publicly show a clear freeze frame so we could all see who was in the photo?

IF he had held up a blurry photo, we would not have known who was on it... and thus we would not have known of his lie. We might have all still wondered about the likelihood of him having an actual list of names who had done all the things he said they had done, but we wouldn't have been able to prove it one way or another. And thus there would not have been a scandal... and he would have gotten away with it.

I think we should see this providential slip up (the holding up of a clear list of names) as his bill coming due.

 

[Pomopu]

Surely we can agree its ridiculous for someone's first reaction, after screenshotting and enlarging that list, to put it on Twitter? If that's what happened, that's quite silly. It's like, upon immediately finding one's neighbor illegally trimmed your hedges, to plaster his face on the phone poles of the neighborhood: "NOTICE: THIS MAN ILLEGALLY TRIMS HEDGES," rather than just calling the police, or him, or the neighborhood association (by analogy calling the PCA, the TGC, etc). The point being there are two errors of not equal value. The lie (of far worse import), and the way the fact of the lie was dispersed to people like us.

We might have all still wondered

Not if TGC or the PCA released a statement. Which is my point. Proper channels, not private individuals doing vigilante justice, which is what it seems to me to be what happened? Unless the facts of the record contradict that assumption.

With Adam Smith, if we were to place ourselves in the shoes of the man in question, my guess is we would all feel violently that an injustice has been done to us. Yes, we would see the error of the lie. But also, the other error: that vigilante, sensationalized way the mistake became known.

 

[paranymph]

Surely we can agree its ridiculous for someone's first reaction, after screenshotting and enlarging that list, to put it on Twitter? If that's what happened, that's quite silly. It's like, upon immediately finding one's neighbor illegally trimmed your hedges, to plaster his face on the phone poles of the neighborhood: "NOTICE: THIS MAN ILLEGALLY TRIMS HEDGES," rather than just calling the police, or him, or the neighborhood association (by analogy calling the PCA, the TGC, etc). The point being there are two errors of not equal value. The lie (of far worse import), and the way the fact of the lie was dispersed to people like us.

I'm not sure what analogy would fix this, but this isn't a good one. Chapell put something on a video that was intended to go public. He held it up to the camera, for crying out loud! What do you hold up something to a camera for, if not to be seen?

 

[Pomopu]

I'm not sure what analogy would fix this, but this isn't a good one. Chapell put something on a video that was intended to go public. He held it up to the camera, for crying out loud! What do you hold up something to a camera for, if not to be seen?

No one is arguing we absolve the man of the error.

But. . .clearly he did not intend for the names to be screenshotted. So those who screenshot them did something beyond what Bryan intended. So instead of running to the mob of people, they should have gone to him and the proper authorities that regulate such infractions, which was the lie he told. They should have told those who can, to immediately remove the video to stem the possibility other people screenshot, and so on.

 

[SolaScriptura]

No one is arguing we absolve the man of the error.

But. . .clearly he did not intend for the names to be screenshotted. So those who screenshot them did something beyond what Bryan intended. So instead of running to the mob of people, they should have gone to him and the proper authorities that regulate such infractions, which was the lie he told. They should have told those who can, to immediately remove the video to stem the possibility other people screenshot, and so on.

You’re right, he clearly did not intend for the names to be screenshotted - or even read for that matter - on the contrary, he intended to get away with his slanderous deception. But the truth found him out.

 

[No Other Name]

Surely we can agree its ridiculous for someone's first reaction, after screenshotting and enlarging that list, to put it on Twitter?

I will at least give you this point. Even though I disagree with how you are viewing this as a whole.

If I had been viewing live, saw it, and knew he was wrong, I would screenshot it, yes. But I would not post it out there. I am not sure what I would do.

Honestly, I think my only wise move would be to come here and DM admins like Rich and Chris and ask for help and guidance as to where to contact the ecclesiastical authorities.

 

[paranymph]

But. . .clearly he did not intend for the names to be screenshotted. So those who screenshot them did something beyond what Bryan intended. So instead of running to the mob of people, they should have gone to him and the proper authorities that regulate such infractions, which was the lie he told. They should have told those who can, to immediately remove the video to stem the possibility other people screenshot, and so on.

I am not sure it is so clear. In our day, I am not sure why someone would show something to a camera and not realize that someone could screenshot and publicize. It is the internet MO. Surely he knew, but it just didn't come to his mind at the time. This is why we must pray for wisdom and sound judgment at all times.
He said and did something wrong. He showed something to a camera. It was bad judgment, and now he must face the consequences.

 

[johnmo]

If I had been viewing live, saw it, and knew he was wrong, I would screenshot it, yes. But I would not post it out there. I am not sure what I would do.

Wouldn't the first thing be to contact Chapell and the podcast? I know many have said Matthew 18 doesn't apply, but it just seems like the wise first step. The desired outcome is for the video to be taken down before the scandal can be spread.

The next step, whether or not he repents, seems to be to contact the chair of the AC. Someone who doesn't know the PCA's structure wouldn't know that, but if they ask around as you suggest I assume it would become clear enough. The AC oversees him on behalf of the GA. If the AC fails to act, then I think it would be appropriate to broadcast something more publicly, but even then one could start with the CoC for the AC, and then commissioners to the GA.

Of course the stated clerk's position, and the scandal he has brought on the church, even if it was partially due to sin and partially to carelessness, makes it wholly appropriate that the focus here should be on him rather than a random person who broadcast it.

 

[No Other Name]

Wouldn't the first thing be to contact Chapell and the podcast? I know many have said Matthew 18 doesn't apply, but it just seems like the wise first step. The desired outcome is for the video to be taken down before the scandal can be spread.

The next step, whether or not he repents, seems to be to contact the chair of the AC. Someone who doesn't know the PCA's structure wouldn't know that, but if they ask around as you suggest I assume it would become clear enough. The AC oversees him on behalf of the GA. If the AC fails to act, then I think it would be appropriate to broadcast something more publicly, but even then one could start with the CoC of the AC, and then commissioners to the GA.

Of course the stated clerk's position, and the scandal he has brought on the church, even if it was partially due to sin and partially to carelessness, makes it wholly appropriate that the focus here should be on him rather than a random person who broadcast it.

What would I even contact them about? Say I saw what you did there? If they admit, do I trust them to self-report? Or do I still report anyway?

If I only contact Chapell and the podcast, that seems like taking it to only one party of the two-party dynamic Matt. 18 refers to.

 

[Cals2lip]

You’re right, he clearly did not intend for the names to be screenshotted - or even read for that matter - on the contrary, he intended to get away with his slanderous deception. But the truth found him out.

Bingo.

 

[Pomopu]

Bingo.

The bingo (in my mind, since he was responding to my post but not actually addressing the concern in my post) is recognition that while ultimately the truth did find him out, the method by which the truth found him out was less than ideal. Which is the only thing I've wanted to impress upon us. Imagine a world where every pastor's sin was vigilante-justiced to Facebook and PuritanBoard and Twitter and Tik-Tok, where instead of the courts and method and process (I am a conservative person so I believe in process) it was up to the "mob," as it were, where instead of the church it was social media that determined things. So there is a poignant lesson in the Bryan debacle, one entirely unrelated to the fact of his sin in the first place, mainly, how should the church in 2025, with the technology we have and tools of communication, handle scandle?

Case study? Don't ever go right to Twitter/Facebook. in my opinion. But I'm just a dude.

 

[johnmo]

What would I even contact them about? Say I saw what you did there? If they admit, do I trust them to self-report? Or do I still report anyway?

If I only contact Chapell and the podcast, that seems like taking it to only one party of the two-party dynamic Matt. 18 refers to.

"I'm sure you did not intend for these names to be viewable, but they are, and you should take this down as soon as possible to preserve the good name of these men, yourself, and the church you represent. It concerns me that you have violated the ninth commandment and risked scandal to the church through your carelessness, and I am going to report this matter to the chair of the AC."

 

[Edward]

o instead of running to the mob of people, they should have gone to him and the proper authorities that regulate such infractions,

That presupposes a trust in the system. At worst, it would have died in some committee, at best it might have been properly addressed in three or so years. Even now, it looks like they may be running the clock until General Assembly. How long does it take to set up a Zoom call to accept a resignation. Last I read, one had been offered, but no action taken. If I missed something, someone please correct me.

 

[SolaScriptura]

That presupposes a trust in the system. At worst, it would have died in some committee, at best it might have been properly addressed in three or so years. Even now, it looks like they may be running the clock until General Assembly. How long does it take to set up a Zoom call to accept a resignation. Last I read, one had been offered, but no action taken. If I missed something, someone please correct me.

Exactly.

 

[Pomopu]

At worst, it would have died in some committee, at best it might have been properly addressed in three or so years.

My contention is that this is superior to whatever it is that the fracas is, has become, might become. We can disagree on that. But again, I'm a man and I exist in a religion (the Reformed religion) that stresses process, procedure, and orderliness. Personally, my conception of justice better accords with the method that might take three years.

On some level it's entirely irrelevant; the main point is the man lied in egregious ways. And yet, for the survival of the church in its institutional form, and for the respectability of the church for its members and in view of the world, I find it helpful to stress the point.

Screenshots and social media are, quite simply, poor vehicles to establish justice, period. I don't think that's debated. So it is merely pragmatic expediency, perhaps, that would force us to applaud, laud, or merely accept the vigilante screenshot enlargers and publicizers.

All I know is that if we sinned if you sinned, and if I sinned egregiously, and it was found out, we would want the church's due process. Moreso, if we were in the position of Bryan. Do we have any empathy? Any sympathy? Any charity for the compromised position Bryan found himself due to unfortunate sin (yet Christ has atoned even for his lies, has he not?), made even further compromised by these vigilantes? It is that further compromise that strikes me as particularly despicable. So it is not only a corruption of justice, but of the charity that must define the Christian church.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

All, the list was visible on pause. I can tell a couple or more names as it is. While it is blurred out now, it likely clearly showed ink when it was flashed, though that can't be verified now. But originally, it certainly invited getting closer scrutiny to make out the names. Being public, someone should have, and did, contact the show to tell them it is visible and so it was subsequently blurred. But the list was seen; it was at that point public. And someone or more than one should have, and did, start contacting those visible on the list to let them know they had been slandered. Whether those slandered, such as Andy Webb, should have made contact privately, or immediately gone public, was their call, being publicly slandered (Matthew 18 not required; public matters require immediate as possible addressing). At the time Andy posted, I do not believe the list had been blurred yet, or Andy didn't have any reason to believe it had, he didn't mention it, because folks started reporting that it had been blurred in the comments on Andy's FB post. Seeing how clear the list is in the still, before any zoom, I'm not sure the person or persons who did the capture and sent it to people like Andy did wrong. Though a person commented he wished he hadn't contacted Andy. As far as I know, it was once Andy, one of those slandered, posted, that others, not on the list, starting sharing the matter publicly and commenting on the list. I'm unwilling to fault those slandered for going public. If the order of events was different or if others other than Andy simply shared the list first on social media, maybe there is some culpability for some other than Chapel, but it pales in comparison and was hardly the crying sin here.

 

[MW]

Eccl. 10:20, "Curse not the king, no not in thy thought; and curse not the rich in thy bedchamber: for a bird of the air shall carry the voice, and that which hath wings shall tell the matter."

Wise men in public positions should know what might eventuate and act accordingly. Don't blame the "bird of the air." Blame the person whose voice is being carried on virtual wings.

 

[Andrew35]

Eccl. 10:20, "Curse not the king, no not in thy thought; and curse not the rich in thy bedchamber: for a bird of the air shall carry the voice, and that which hath wings shall tell the matter."

Wise men in public positions should know what might eventuate and act accordingly. Don't blame the "bird of the air." Blame the person whose voice is being carried on virtual wings.

Bravo for drawing an excellent application from this bit of Biblical wisdom. We'd do well to remember it. I know I have a tendency to run my mouth sometimes.

 

[Pomopu]

While it is blurred out now

This to me is the salient point. I guess I think a disposition to protect and care for a brother in Christ should give him maximum charity, grace, and we should be maximally patient. To be greatly patient with a brother after committing such a sin entails leaving the dirty, sordid details out of the public eye. It is blurred out because of a loving sense of seeking justice but also restoration. And we seem to croon (although I know we are not crooning) that we have access to it not blurred out. Again, at some point in a process of the church investigating it may be appropriate to publicize the list of names of those he told blatant lies about. Whatever, though. Moot point, what's done is done, I don't even know the guy, but he wrote a really solid, incredible book on preaching, so I want to, you know, return the favor

 

[smalltown_puritan]

Onan did something he thought no one would notice, and, embarrassingly enough, it was definitive of his life and is the only thing he's remembered for. That's the kind of story God writes.

Chapell did something he thought no one would notice, and, embarrassingly enough, it is a definitive moment in his life and is probably going to be what he is remembered for. Life's tough. Small decisions have lasting consequences. No one is angry at Moses for pointing out Onan, and I don't think there should be any issue about pointing out Chapell. If you sow a sinful and stupid seed, one should not be surprised when the crop turns out the same.