Character, Competence, and the Life of the Presbyterian Church in America

I first became involved in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) in 2006. It was fall semester at the University of Nebraska, where I had just matriculated after graduating high school the previous spring. A friend I had recently met invited me to the weekly large group gathering of Reformed University Fellowship (RUF). It became a kind of home for me for the next four years. There I heard the Gospel preached, grew in my understanding of Scripture and theology, and was constantly reminded that the Christian life happens not in parachurch organizations, but in churches. RUF wasn’t a replacement for church, but simply an extension of the church to the campus and it was understood that I still needed to be in church each week and that life after college would not be a prolonged adolescence in a campus ministry, but commitment to the ordinary life of a local church.

At the same time that I was involved in the life of RUF, I also joined a small recently particularized PCA congregation in central Lincoln. I was baptized there in April of 2007 and, again, was encouraged in my faith, challenged to repent of my sin, and aided in a life of Christian discipleship.

Alongside those local institutional experiences, I also became aware of Tim Keller’s work around the same time and quickly began reading everything I could from him—which in the late 2000s was actually not very much. It was the days of local church pastors passing around CDs with Keller sermons on them or sharing PDFs of short papers Tim had written.

That time was a period of a small revival of sorts in Lincoln, primarily propelled by the PCA. For a short time in the early 2010s, Nebraska was the most represented state in the student body at Covenant Theological Seminary outside of the PCA’s southern base. Many of my closest friends were part of that group. The Covenant they attended was the Covenant led by Bryan Chapell and downstream from the changes brought to the school by Chapell and Paul Kooistra. It was the Covenant that also trained my campus ministers from RUF as well as the most senior teaching elder in our presbytery who was instrumental in planting the church I eventually joined and launching the RUF chapter. The Platte Valley presbytery, still my ecclesial home nearly 20 years later, owes Chapell a great deal and I am thankful for his work to train so many of my friends and former pastors.

All that being said, as I reflect on my time in the PCA I am struck by the fact that so much of the good I have experienced is not necessarily because of talent or charisma but because of competence and character. The men God used so mightily in my life are not known across the nation for their preaching. They are not the sort that gather thousands for conferences. They do not hold high office in the denomination. They were, rather, ordinary faithful ministers, men of character and integrity, and men who knew how to do their jobs. They knew how to fundraise for RUF. They knew how to lead a church. They knew how to run a leadership team meeting or welcome new members into the church. They weren’t perfect, but they knew what they were doing and they went about their work with integrity.

This brings me to last week’s unfortunate events. Dr. Chapell, who moved on from Covenant over a decade ago and who now serves as our church’s stated clerk, appeared on Collin Hansen’s podcast “Gospelbound” to discuss a recent book he has written on generational dynamics in the life of Christian communities. Around 40 minutes into the interview, Chapell was discussing the challenges of institutional stewardship with Hansen. In that context, he produced a list he apparently kept on his desk and held it up to the camera. In speaking of the names on the list he said,

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.

Before we even get to what happened next, we should note this: It is not a mark of health in a Christian leader to keep a handwritten list of one’s enemies next to one’s desk. It is, rather, the mark of a person who is petty and foolish and carries grudges, as one friend observed to me. Or, as another friend put it, the command Our Lord gives us is not “love your enemies and also keep a list of them.” The simple existence of this list is a scandal in itself.

That being said, it got worse: Because Chapell made the decision to hold the list up to the camera, it was possible to read the names on his list. They included, in at least one case, a man who has been dead for over 20 years. Additionally, the list included a number of names of men who are ministers in good standing in various reformed denominations, none of whom have left the faith, left their family, or taken their own lives, as Chapell falsely claimed in the video. 

Wes White, for example, is on the list and actually is currently pastoring at Chapell’s former church. (White has written about this affair on his personal blog.) Other men on the list included Andy Webb, currently pastoring in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Lane Keister, currently pastoring in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and several other ministers who have not done any of the things Chapell claimed in the interview. His list also included both Carl Trueman and Peter Leithart.

Needless to say, neither Trueman or Leithart have “left his family, left the faith, or taken (their lives).” Both men have now commented on these claims, Trueman in a brief interview with a journalist from World and Leithart via a statement issued through the Theopolis Institute’s social media channels.

One day after the clip was first noticed, Chapell issued a faux-apology that was published on the TGC page that had originally hosted the podcast, which TGC has understandably taken down. Here is what Chapell said about the affair, which I refuse to describe as an apology:

With deep regret for harm done to others, I am issuing a public apology for not taking proper care to protect the reputation of others. In an unplanned moment on a recent video podcast posted by The Gospel Coalition, I held up a small piece of paper that I believed was not readable but included names of individuals. TGC personnel who prepared the video also thought that nothing was legible on the paper. However, there are now those who have taken a screen shot of the video and enlarged it to identify some names. I sincerely apologize.

Note the words missing from this statement: There is no mention of “sin.” There is no mention of “slander” though one can easily argue that Chapell slandered many of the people on the list. There is also no mention of the ninth commandment, which seems relevant given the Larger Catechism’s account of it.

Note also that virtually half of Chapell’s statement is dedicated to explaining what happened and explaining it in such a way that the real problem here is with the people who took a screen shot of the video and enlarged it to identify the names. It reads as an apology from someone not genuinely penitent over his wrongdoing, but rather sorry that he got caught.

Where do things go from here, then? There is an immediate problem and then a larger issue.

Procedural Matters

The immediate problem concerns the procedural actions that will or will not be taken in response to this situation. And on this point what I say is of little relevance; I am only an unordained lay person from the Platte Valley presbytery.  That said, it is worth taking the time to understand how the procedural steps from here should work, so we will address that briefly.

There are two procedural questions raised by Chapell’s behavior: The first concerns possible ecclesial discipline should it be determined that Chapell violated the ninth commandment. That question will be worked out via the presbytery in which Chapell is a member. 

The second concerns Chapell’s status as stated clerk. While we can’t say what will happen, we can have a fairly clear idea of what might happen simply by reviewing the PCA’s bylaws. Specifically, there is an appendix to our church’s Book of Church Order (BCO) which specifies what the office of stated clerk does, how the holder of the office is determined, and so on. Several portions of that document will be relevant to this situation.

First, this appendix (the Rules of Assembly Operations or the RAO) specifies certain qualifications necessary for the role of stated clerk. For example:

He must be loyal to the standards of the Presbyterian Church in America and be able to fairly represent the actions of each General Assembly. He must be conversant with the breadth of Reformed thinking in the Presbyterian Church in America and be able to communicate with the members of the Presbyterian Church in America and with representatives of other Reformed denominations.

He must be able to work in a capable, sensitive manner with persons who are in positions of responsibility in the Presbyterian Church in America organization structure.

He must have an appreciation of the whole church of the Lord Jesus Christ as defined in BCO 1-3 and thus be able to work with the leaders of all branches of this true Church.

Given that multiple sister denominations in the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council have submitted complaints about Chapell’s behavior, and given that others in the PCA have also expressed their concern, these requirements for the stated clerk are likely to be a factor in the discussion going forward.

Additionally, the RAO also specifies that,

(The Stated Clerk) shall make a full report to the Administrative Committee of General Assembly each year pertaining to his assessment of and evaluation of the performance by himself and those under his supervision and control during the year, which full report shall be submitted by this Administrative Committee to the General Assembly.  This Administrative Committee shall have the responsibility of adding its comments, recommendations and suggestions to such report which shall include an evaluation of the performance of the person filling the office of the Stated Clerk.

So the next procedural steps should already be defined. Chapell will prepare a report for the administrative committee assessing his performance in his role this year according to the criteria defined in the RAO. The administrative committee will then review the report and is at liberty to add its own comments, recommendations, and suggestions, including an evaluation of Chapell’s performance.

Finally, RAO 4-9 specifies how the stated clerk is appointed and how his office is renewed: He is appointed to a one-year term at the recommendation of the administrative committee. So as we prepare for General Assembly in June, it will fall to the Administrative Committee to review Chapell’s report, add their comments and recommendations to it, and then make a recommendation on whether or not to extend to Chapell another one-year term as stated clerk.

That covers the procedural side of things.

Trust Within the PCA

That said, there is also a larger concern, which has to do with a crisis of trust in the PCA, a crisis that is largely attributable to the lack of seriousness and competence on display in situations like this one. Viewed this way, Chapell’s behavior is simply the latest example of a much more wide ranging problem in our communion. 

One of the gifts I have taken from my time in Platte Valley is that I have observed a presbytery for nearly 20 years now in which most of what needs to be accomplished is done not through procedure and policy but through trust and relationship. We have a piece coming in the next issue of the journal by my former pastor, Stu Kerns, talking about how he worked to build that kind of atmosphere in the presbytery. 

One of the things that consistently happens when men from other presbyteries arrive in Nebraska is they comment on the relational health of the presbytery. It is not that we are completely homogeneous. We very much are not, nor are we at all perfect. 

But we do mostly get on with one another, or at least that is how it appears to my non-ordained eyes and it is mostly what I am told by the ordained leaders who are in a better position to know. RUF campus ministers, for example, are trusted and welcome in all our churches and could attend any of the Lincoln congregations and be well supported. All our Lincoln congregations meet together once a year for a joint public worship service. These are things that do not happen everywhere in the PCA. Whatever our faults, I think there is a great deal of good in Platte Valley, much of which has to do with high levels of trust, which have been deliberately cultivated over many years by Rev. Kerns and others in the presbytery.

How does one go about repairing trust? Kerns’s piece coming soon will have some helpful counsel. But some ideas to begin:

Normalize trust. Suspicion should be earned, not assumed.

First, our default should be to speak well of one another, particularly of those on opposite sides from us in denominational affairs. We should begin with an assumption of trust in our fellow church members rather than suspicion. The rule should be that trust is assumed and suspicion is earned, as it were. Too often, I think, we reverse that in the PCA: If you’re from one wing of the denomination and interacting with someone from another part of it, we assume suspicion and (maybe) seek to work toward trust.

But under such circumstances it is extremely challenging to ever arrive at trust because if one is determined to be suspicious one will never lack for supporting evidence. The posture of suspicion makes the manufacture of such evidence inevitable because it will construe innocuous comments or words taken out of context as proof of nefarious intent or bad faith. If trust is to be restored in the PCA then there is some sense in which it will require us to simply act as if trust already exists.

Apologize in plain and direct language.

Second, when we sin or simply do something foolish or hurtful, the best thing to do is apologize in plain terms without any mention of the other parties that might have been somehow involved in the matter and without making any attempt to distract from our own sin or foolish behavior.

Likewise, when confronted with the failures of someone in your wing of the church, you should not distract from that by bringing up what someone from the other side did. 

It doesn’t really matter, for example, that some of those commenting on Chapell’s behavior on Twitter are using pseudonymous accounts. The issue at hand is the behavior of the stated clerk. That has to be dealt with first. Attempting to bring up other issues of less gravity for what appears to be political reasons is precisely the kind of behavior that erodes trust. I am no fan of pseudonymous accounts, to be clear, but if you wish to be taken seriously in your condemnation of those accounts, you must first reckon with the behavior of our stated clerk. If your handling of this affair is to largely ignore Chapell’s behavior while highlighting the behavior of random social media handles claiming to belong to PCA members or officers, others will observe that and reasonably conclude that your moral reasoning is a function of what is politically advantageous for you.

See others as Christian brothers and sisters first, and denominational figures second.

Third, as a general practice if the primary way you interact with your fellow pastors or elders in the church is through public online media and your interactions are exclusively about political matters in the church, you should attempt to change that.

Minimally, seek out private interaction and attempt to make at least some of your conversations about your own practice of the faith, what God is teaching you, what difficulties you are facing, how you can support and pray for each other, and so on.

If you haven’t read it, read Mark Jones’s old reflection on friendship and theology at Reformation 21.

Do not engage in partiality or negative polarization.

Fourth, in low-trust environments, as the PCA is right now, it is easy to treat every dispute as basically being a dispute about power. If every dispute is basically a power dispute, it follows that every dispute is basically a fight between competing power blocs. Once this is accepted, you never actually talk about substance or the specifics of a case. Every issue is essentially pre-decided according to political interests, and the resolution of the debate is no more than a function of which side possesses power.

This is a very poor way to run a denomination. 

In the first place, to pre-determine issues based on politics in this fashion is actually to engage in the sin of partiality. 

Second, the actual reality of the denomination is always more complex than our political fighting suggests. There is always a centrist portion of some significant size that will switch sides from issue to issue depending on the merits of the case. This reality seems intractable to me in as much as many pastors will not spend a great deal of time online simply due to lack of time and interest. As a result, these pastors will not be as schooled in the tribal dynamics of online Christian media and denominational debates. Trying to force this bloc of pastors to fit into one bloc or another is unrealistic and, more to the point, not at all desirable. 

Third, the rule that norms the church’s life is first Scripture and, secondarily, the confessional standards of the church. To bracket such things or to simply presuppose without argument that one side plainly has those authorities on their side at all times is lazy. But actually it’s even worse than that because in practice this style of denominational life ends up negating those very authorities by marginalizing them in debate and simply allowing political considerations to rule. When we behave in such ways we repudiate the deposit entrusted to us as presbyterians, indeed as Christians, by our fathers and mothers in the faith. Not only that, we sunder ourselves from the sources of the church’s life, which is to our detriment not only as a church body, but as Christian believers.

Conclusion

At present the PCA is, I believe, one of the only denominations in American Christianity that is actually growing. Our size and positive growth allow us to do a number of things smaller denominations cannot do, let alone non-denominational churches. The opportunities before us are significant. 

Indeed, my own story is illustrative of this point: I am where I am today largely because of RUF and the various church planting movements in the PCA. Remove those influences from my life and, frankly, I do not know that I would even be orthodox at this point. When I came into RUF in 2006 I was reading books by every prominent Emergent Church figure alongside books by John Piper and Don Carson. (It was in Carson’s Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church that I first came across the name ‘Tim Keller.’) One of the decisive factors in me tipping into the reformed world and not the progressive was the on-the-ground institutional presence of the PCA in Lincoln. Without that, I do not know what might have happened. Looking back, I needed a small-c catholic Christianity, something whose roots were older than America and whose theology was more serious than the Bible church biblicism I’d grown up with. I found that in RUF and at the small PCA church I joined. So for deeply personal reasons I want the PCA to continue to grow, to stay at a size large enough to do things like RUF, and to continue to harbor the intellectual diversity that we always have. If we can do those things, there are enormously exciting opportunities before us.

But seizing those opportunities will require organizational competence, high character from our leadership, and a recovery of relational trust across the denomination. If we can address these problems, the potential good that might be accomplished through the PCA is significant. We should labor toward those ends. Should we fail, it will not be for a lack of talent or theological engagement, but simply due to a lack of competence, character, and charity in our denominational life.