The Big Leak, Pt. 1
By Travis Scott, November 3, 2021.
If you’re a pastor or elder in the PCA you may be aware that last week a big cache of nine years of National Partnership (NP) emails was leaked online.
Before going further, I should state up front that I myself am a member of the NP. I’ve never hidden that fact when asked about it and have volunteered the information in various online forums. I never had an issue doing that because I never thought the confidential nature of the group was necessary or wise, but that confidentiality was established before I came back into the PCA in 2017 and became a part of the NP. I also have had no issue publicly identifying with the NP because my conscience was clear on what being a part of the NP did and did not mean.
It is also important to state that SemperRef is not an NP website. The founder of the NP has no say in what we do or do not publish, and the editorial team is not controlled or bound by any sort of agenda that others may perceive the NP as having. Our editorial team makes the final decision on the items we publish, and that often comes with differing opinions and respectful disagreements within our team.
The NP is a confidential email list [1] of like-minded pastors striving to see the PCA flourish and grow into a more faithful, more biblical, more missional, and a more healthy presbyterian denomination. To that end James Kessler, the founder of the NP, wanted to organize a movement that helped pastors and elders at various stages in their ministry be equipped to better understand and engage with the systems and processes of our sometimes convoluted and confusing polity. He also intended to create a respectful space where men could air differences together without fear of their words being reprinted out of context and used against them. What he did not desire was to create a specific tribe or worse, a voting block.
In the emails that were leaked, Rev. Kessler reminds the group of this many times. Here’s one such example from an email sent on January 13, 2016:
This group exists as a way to resource one another. We want you to feel prepared for the Assembly and engaged in its work on the Presbytery level. This group does not tell you how to vote. Even if I/we make recommendations please remember that we are grateful for diversity. We are looking for unity, not uniformity. Being a part of the National Partnership means that you are committing to participation in the business of our denomination. We will be about the logistics of denominational health; we aren’t a visioning committee.The NP also creates a place to have a conversation in confidence; nothing here is reproduced and blogged or whatever. Our discussion boards are places to stretch and reason together. Please feel free to use them.
With such a description you may wonder what all the hubbub is over. The main issue is that over the years many have criticized the NP of being a secret cabal trying to control the denomination. This suspicion has come from several places. The first, and most honest place to start, is to admit that suspicion has had the opportunity to grow because over the years different members of the NP have communicated poorly and in a triumphalistic way about different positions, approaches, and most importantly - votes. It’s important to admit this because it’s true. However, at the same time, most often the men who’ve made those sorts of statements have apologized and sought to clarify their meaning and intent.
On the other side of the coin, I think it’s also fair to say suspicion has grown because some men have mischaracterized the nature and goals of the NP. Some of this mischaracterization may be due to genuine misunderstanding. Other mischaracterizations seems due to willful ignorance and assumption. Most of the suspicion and maligning has come from the fact that the NP email list is confidential. Many have seen this as inherently untrustworthy and indicative of ill intentions.
The issue of confidentiality was addressed directly by James Kessler in a June 23, 2021 email after some of an NP correspondence was leaked and misquoted on a blog. Here’s what Kessler said at the time:
“I have said it before and I’ll say it again: the intent of confidentiality was always to protect those of you who felt you could not be as forthcoming in larger groups. I’ve always wanted the NP to be a place where you can seek advice with confidence that your questions weren’t being used to fuel blog posts. The lack of confidentiality makes no difference in what I share with you. Emails will say pretty much what they would have said.”
The aim of the confidentiality of the group was to promote open communication and trust between members of the group. This was seen as necessary in an ecclesial environment given to theological trolling, denouncement, and the continuous graceless questioning of men’s confessional integrity.
With that said, it’s really not surprising that many of the critics of the NP have responded like sharks with blood in the water over the release of all these emails. While the nature of how the Big Leak came about is concerning, I don’t really think it’s the smoking gun that some NP detractors seem to think it is. However, it is revealing. The Big Leak gives three Big Reveals:
The Big Reveal About the NP
The Big Reveal About the Character of Some NP Detractors
The Big Reveal About the State and Culture of the PCA
The Big Reveal About the NP
Since the Big Leak contained nine years of confidential emails from the NP, totalling 447 pages - it should be expected that these emails revealed some big things about the group. And it did. It revealed something huge.
The leak of these nine years of confidential emails revealed that the NP… is exactly what most of its members have always said it was - A group offering advice on votes and denominational matters, helping members better understand polity and process, and one aimed at helping coordinate efforts and strategies for what members thought was the common good of the PCA.
Of course, some will say this is inappropriate politicking. While the word political has negative connotations for many (for good reason) the word itself is not a negative one. In the book The Politics of Ministry, the authors make the helpful and salient point that politics are inevitable and offer a positive approach to how we should understand this. They write:
“Politics is the art of getting things done with others. Political activity can be positive and fruitful. As Cornell professor of city planning John Forester suggests, it involves our shared actions of choosing among conflicting (or merely diverse) wants and interests, developing trust, locating support and opposition, developing sensitivity to timing, knowing the relational and formal organizational expectations, and following both the obvious and hidden cultural rules of interaction…. All ministry involves politics… When people work together, they are inevitably involved in politics.” (18)
In this sense it’s completely accurate to say that the NP is political. Just as other groups and organizations in the PCA are political. Just as highly organized, well-funded, networks hosting multiple events to promote their own agenda is political. Indeed, just as a group of say 5-10 friends sharing their opinions and trying to persuade one other how to vote in a Presbytery or the General Assembly is political. Political doesn’t mean inappropriate. Political actions can be either positive or negative, appropriate or inappropriate. The confidential nature of a group doesn’t automatically make it inappropriate. The critics of the NP need to prove that the political movements of the NP are inappropriate based on its goals, methods, and agenda – and now they have nine years of emails to use to that effect.
However, throughout the emails there are no nefarious plots or schemes, no pressuring or bullying, no underhanded tactics to undermine and subvert our polity or our courts. There are no hidden agendas seeking to push the denomination toward female eldership or toward the ordination of practicing homosexuals. There is no expression of a desire to abandon our confessional standards or change the theology of the church. Despite statements and assumptions to the contrary, there really are no skeletons in the closet. What is present in the emails is mostly mundane descriptions and discussions of polity as well as advice on various decisions, as well as coordination for effective involvement in the courts of the church. In fact, most of what you will find if you read the emails is mundane and, dare I say, boring. It would make good bedtime reading.
To that point, to date I’ve only seen two sentences highlighted from these emails by NP detractors as particularly problematic. One of those was the poorly worded assessment of a candidate to the SJC. And in that one, while the language was disparaging, the overall point about the man’s clear conflict of interest in many cases was a valid consideration. The other statement was actually a sarcastic, ultimately self-deprecating joke about the NP itself which was taken out of context.
This in itself is quite revealing. Stop and think about this. With over nine years, and 447 pages of emails - the best the critics of the NP can do is highlight two sentences they think are mean. It seems like people are celebrating for catching a group of people doing exactly what they said they were doing. That’s where this Big Leak seems like a lot of smoke but no fire.
Indeed, the Big Leak actually disproves many claims critics of the NP have purported for years. There are several of these but I’ll limit myself to two.
First, an issue that is almost laughable because it’s so pointless. For those who attend the General Assembly regularly you may know that an annual non-Assembly sponsored event has developed called the Fellowship Dinner. The Fellowship Dinner is a large party with food and drinks, some time of worship, and often testimonies of the Lord’s work in various areas. This event has been organized and developed over the years by Mike Khandjian (Senior Pastor, Chapelgate Church, Marriottsville, MD) with the express goal of laying denominational politics aside for a night and enjoying fellowship with others in the PCA even if you disagree with them. For years critics of the NP have labeled this an NP event (and some have claimed Mike as the secret leader of the NP). This is despite the fact that this has been corrected time and time again, and despite the fact that there are many who attend the Fellowship Dinner who come from a wide variety of positions and views within the PCA. Yet, the claim that it is an NP event has persisted.
Well, what does the Big Leak reveal? It reveals that people within the NP have been telling the truth all along. Consider one of the most recent notes about this from June 11, 2021:
If you haven’t already signed up for the Fellowship Dinner (Not an NP event but lots of you guys will be there), here’s the signup [link]…
What’s more likely here: That the Fellowship Dinner simply isn’t an NP event; or that the NP emails multiple times over multiple years claim it’s not in an attempt to confuse and dupe NP members on that fact? Again, this is such a silly thing to highlight but I do it anyway because when you combine it with the fact that these emails have been being leaked for years it raises a more important question: Why do some of the most vocal critics of the NP, who’ve read these emails, keep on insisting that something is true when clearly it is not?
Second, maybe the most important criticism and allegation that has been proven false by the Big Leak is that the NP is some sort of voting block. If the Big Leak had proven that the NP was exerting some sort of undue pressure to keep everyone in lock step and all thinking and voting the same way then it would be right to decry it as an inappropriate political group.
Yet, what you see if you read the emails is the exact opposite. Time and time again Kessler writes: This group does not tell you how to vote. Even if I/we make recommendations please remember that we are grateful for diversity. We are looking for unity, not uniformity. This openness to difference and disagreement is expressed in various ways. For example, in the June 11, 2021 email - in reference to one of the Open Letters that were published in the lead up to the most recent GA, after explaining why he signed and commends the letter, Kessler writes,
I’m sure that some of you may have very good reasons for not signing this letter. As you know, the NP has always tried to achieve unity rather than uniformity. I want you to know that there is no lack of respect or grace for those of you who for one reason or another feel you cannot sign it. Glad to be doing the work together.
That hardly sounds like the statement of someone trying to control other people’s consciences.
This openness to difference and disagreement also shows up in many of the emails themselves. In the very pages of the Big Leak you have back and forth emails of men disagreeing and offering different perspectives as well as questions of clarification. One of my own strong disagreements with Kessler’s NP advice is is included within the Big Leak in an email from July 1, 2021. I for one have never felt pressured to vote a certain way, or disrespected because I did. As I’ve talked with others I know who are in the NP we have disagreed on a number of matters – and have been able to disagree agreeably, and vote accordingly.
So, the Big Reveal about the NP is really that there’s really nothing that’s been revealed which the founder and many of the members haven’t been saying for years.
The more troubling revelation in my mind is what the Big Leak reveals about the character of the NP’s most vocal detractors. That will be the basis of Part 2 in this series.
[1] Apparently there was also a website used to facilitate conversations for a short while, but that was before my time so I can't comment on it.
