My sense is that Dr. Coffin’s comments have not properly represented the nature of the fallout from the podcast. To imply that the situation was stirred up by some bad actors, when, in fact, it was actually an unfortunate mistake that resulted in an unnecessary controversy within the PCA and beyond. With all due respect to Dr. Coffin, this controversy did not arise from a mob. This controversy was born out of the statements and actions made by our Stated Clerk on a podcast; statements for which he has since repented. It is from these circumstances that we must move forward.

I have never met Dr. David Coffin and write this with due respect to his person and office. I also respect his willingness to defend a man whom he obviously respects. Though I disagree with Dr. Coffin’s assessment in “Concerning the Resignation of Dr. Chapell,” his willingness to support a friend, Dr. Bryan Chapell, during his time of trouble is admirable and I pray that we could all display that same level of courage in comparable circumstances.

Further, I have never met Dr. Chapell, though I have heard him speak and have his book, Christ-Centered Preaching, which was required reading at RTS/Orlando; my copy is greatly underlined, highlight, and notated. I appreciate Dr. Chapell and his many years of faithful ministry and I trust nothing that follows contradicts this appreciation.

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

Though Dr. Coffin did not pen these words himself, he offers the quote and says that they “have exactly and eloquently expressed my view of the matter.”

I too am adamantly against mob rule, especially when such a mob is fomented on the internet. But there is a significant difference between a statement that besmirched someone that had already become public going viral and someone making something public that was previously private.

Who actually made the list of names public? It wasn’t X or Facebook. It was Dr. Chapell. It was The Gospel Coalition (TGC). I am sure Dr. Chapell had no intention of those names being made public…yet he flashed the note in front of a camera. This is the 21^st century. One must know that anything that should not be made public should not be put in front of a microphone or a camera.

Does it not seem like blame-shifting to then call those who spread what was public the actual scandalizers? Again, how did they get the names? Because Dr. Chapell and TGC made them public.

It would be an entirely different story if someone had sneaked into Dr. Chapell’s office, stolen the list, and then posted it on X. But that is not what happened. Have there been ungracious and unchristian-like comments made about Dr. Chapell and this situation? Absolutely, and they should be condemned. But to classify this as “trial of a denominational officer by social media” is itself potentially a 9^th commandment violation since the character of many brothers is being called into question for sharing information already made public by the Clerk himself. The fact that a little work had to be done to see the names is irrelevant (and I stress little as anyone with a phone can take a screen shot and spread-to-zoom).

Additionally, and respectfully, I do not agree with Dr. Coffin’s position that Dr. Chapell retiring “will profoundly debilitate the office of the Stated Clerk.” He goes on to ask, “Further, in our current circumstances, is it likely to calm the waters, or roil them, for the PCA to be forced to choose a new Clerk? It seems to me the latter.”

To the contrary, it seems incredibly more likely that if Dr. Chapell had tried to maintain his role as the Stated Clerk, despite the controversy he created, there would have been significant debate on the floor of GA, an unnecessary distraction from other pressing issues before GA. I believe Dr. Chapell himself recognized this and has humbly submitted his retirement for the peace of the church.

Perhaps, an unintended (but positive) consequence of this will be the election of a Stated Clerk who is more under the radar—which is most fitting for the office of Clerk. I have seen statements, even from those who are normally very careful in their language, unintentionally describing the office of Stated Clerk as “the head of the PCA,” or “the face of the PCA.” This is unhelpful and sends the wrong message. The PCA’s Rules of Assembly Operations (RAO)Section III states, the role of the Clerk is…well…remarkably Clerk-like. The only language that indicates a “face of the PCA” role is found in RAO 3.2 and reads as follows: “He shall be authorized to make public statements for and on behalf of the denomination only insofar as such statements are warranted on the basis of specific actions of the General Assembly.” The emphasis being on “only in so far as”.

This is not to impugn Dr. Chapell, as he is a man who, to his credit and a testament to his character, has formed many relationships with those in and around the PCA. Upon his election to the office of Clerk, he already was a figure of note within and without the denomination.

But it is to say that Dr. Coffin’s comments seem to present an implicit and unhelpfully high view of the office of the Stated Clerk; a view that I hope this controversy will help correct.

Dr. Coffin’s comment that Dr. Chapell’s resignation “will almost certainly lead to a less qualified man in the office,” while seemingly meant as a compliment to Dr. Chapell, is a statement that is not only unfair and unwarranted but also unhelpful. The statement, whether unintentional or not, calls into question other faithful brothers who may turn out to be just as qualified.

Somewhat jarring is Dr. Coffin’s claim regarding the veracity of Dr. Chapell’s list and his commentary on it. I agree this is an inference on my part as Dr. Coffin does not elaborate on specifically what he believes Dr. Chapell did not lie about. However, Dr. Coffin wrote: “And the fact is, on the evidence, I do not believe you lied.” This statement seems to be a reference to Dr. Chapell’s initial comments on the podcast. If this is not the case, then I will gladly stand corrected. However, this goes against Dr. Chapell’s own (second) apology where he stated, “I wrongly said that every name on the paper represented social media “scandalizers.” Obviously, the original statement could not refer to men such as Dr. Carl Trueman, since he has not left the faith, or left his family, or committed suicide.

We have no idea why Dr. Trueman’s name was on Dr. Chapell’s list. At this point, it does not matter. Dr. Chapell may or may not have to answer that question in other settings, but for now we know that Dr. Chapell has recanted some of his statements and has also personally apologized to many on his list.

To Dr. Coffin’s point: There has to date been no trial to establish all the facts of the circumstances. However, there has been a clear statement by Dr. Chapell, as well as a public confession of his error. Dr. Coffin places us in the awkward position of either agreeing with Dr. Chapell’s initial statements on the podcast or Dr. Chapell’s retraction and apology. I think we should take Dr. Chapell at his word that he sinned, accept his repentance, and move forward accordingly. What we cannot do is pretend that it did not happen nor pretend that Dr. Chapell did not repent.

Also, given no evidence to the contrary, it is beyond comprehension that anyone would stand behind Dr. Chapell’s initial statements. To contend otherwise would be to place oneself in a position of possibly violating the 9^th commandment.

Conclusion

As to whether Dr. Chapell should resign as Clerk or not is not our decision to make. But given that last year Dr. Chapell had to offer an apology for inviting a speaker to serve on a GA panel, followed this year with the podcast comment, I believe Dr. Chapell’s decision to retire indicates that this is the best decision for the peace of the church. His willingness to do so, in my opinion, shows humility, contrition, and grace, for which he should be commended.

My sense is that Dr. Coffin’s comments have not properly represented the nature of the fallout from the podcast. To imply that the situation was stirred up by some bad actors, when, in fact, it was actually an unfortunate mistake that resulted in an unnecessary controversy within the PCA and beyond. With all due respect to Dr. Coffin, this controversy did not arise from a mob. This controversy was born out of the statements and actions made by our Stated Clerk on a podcast; statements for which he has since repented. It is from these circumstances that we must move forward.

Samuel Brewer is the Pastor of Christ the King Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Seminole, Florida.