The Big Leak, Pt. 2

By Travis Scott, November , 2021. Click this link to read Part 1 of this series.

In part one of this series I discussed how the Big Leak, encompassing nine years and 447 pages of emails from the National Partnership, revealed no smoking guns, no nefarious plots, and no breaches of orthodoxy. In short, it revealed very little that the founder and members of the NP haven’t said for years. 

I also mentioned that the more troubling revelation from the Big Leak, in my opinion, is the Big Reveal About the Character of Some NP Detractors.

Hypocrisy

One of the clearest things the Big Leak reveals is how hypocritical the most vocal detractors of the NP are. For years, various individuals have railed against the NP as a secret political group. I made the point in Part 1 that the word political is often maligned instead of understood properly. Politics is the art of getting things done with others and all ministry, organizations, and institutions are inherently and inevitably political. 

However, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that being political is bad for the church. If that’s true, and if the detractors of the NP believe that’s true – then why aren’t they speaking up against all the other political activity in the denomination? Why do they seem to have such a double-standard and selective outrage when it comes to political movements and activities?  

It’s telling that these men aren’t criticizing the most organized political movement in the PCA – the Gospel Reformation Network (GRN). The GRN runs a Facebook page, a Twitter account, a YouTube channel, a Vimeo channel, a website. The GRN hosts conferences, solicits donations, enlists "member" churches, posts videos, and writes numerous articles decrying the slippery slope of the PCA. Many of their activities are strategically aligned to coincide with GA and major votes. If there were any question that this is a political movement, during the concluding panel discussion at the recent GRN Meeting of Concerned Presbyterians held on September 25, 2021; Pastor Fred Greco stated clearly and without equivocation, “I’m on a national campaign to get you to vote for Overture 23.”[1] Campaigning is as political as you can get.   

In the discussion of the impact of the NP on the poor pastors who didn’t realize there was this force of politicking in the PCA, why neglect to talk about the GRN’s constant troubling of the waters in the PCA? Why not address their clear promotion of members to positions of influence and decision making? Why not speak out against this well-funded and highly-organized constituency steamrolling others as they pursue particular aims for the denomination?

Let me be clear. While I disagree with my brothers in the GRN on a number of issues [2] they are free to be political in trying to impose their vision and agenda on the PCA. That’s really what everyone is doing every time they cast a vote at Presbytery and General Assembly. However, for the people who decry all things political in the church – Where is your outrage over the GRN? Where are your podcasts? Where are your blog posts? Where are your social media rants over this clear politicking? Your silence is telling, and hypocritical. 

At this point many will shift the goal posts. “It’s not that the NP is political,” they’ll say. “It’s that it’s all so secretive. The confidentiality is the problem.” 

There are several responses here. First of all, nothing is confidential anymore. You have nine years and 447 pages of emails. It’s all there in print and as I said in Part 1 – there’s nothing revealed there about vision and strategy that hasn’t been stated and addressed many times prior to the leak. It's also important to highlight that the NP, at its high point, had barely more than 200 people on the email list. It was, plausibly, a large group of friends. Before the leaks started the NP admitted people who asked to join, but were obviously adversarial toward the NP and the like-mindedness of the group. To avoid being factionalists, the NP did not refuse them. Removal from the email list, and other avenues of discussion, came after people began acting in bad faith – misquoting others, taking information out of context, and violating the confidential nature of the group. Additionally, the NP has recently shifted to be more public. For instance, the NP released public advice on Overtures 23 and 37 for all to see. 

Still, confidentiality is seen as a dangerous threat to honest (grassroots?) Presbyterianism. Now, let’s assume all the detractors are right and confidentiality is bad for honest Presbyterianism. Still I ask – why the selective outrage?

If confidentiality is such a problem, can we expect the board of GRN to be publicly releasing all of their private correspondence with one another since its inception? And what about other political groups in the PCA? Since confidentiality is seen as a sign of deceitfulness, when will we see the same loud voices demanding that a list of the board members for MORE be published on their website? While they’re at it, maybe they can get MORE to disclose their vetting process for how they determine which Ruling Elders they will and will not support to go to GA.

Of course then they should go after all the private Facebook groups in which Pastors and Elders are discussing and debating denominational matters. While they’re at it maybe they’ll write some Overtures to forbid courts of the church meeting in executive session. We should also make sure no delegates to GA room together, or heaven forbid, rent out a house together where even more than two might spend time discussing denominational matters privately together. 

Again, I don’t think confidentiality and privacy are inherently problematic. Confidentiality is a tool that can be used for good or for cover up. But for those who decry confidential groups, your unbalanced criticism is telling, and hypocritical. 

One more note on the hypocrisy of these most vocal detractors of the NP who are celebrating the Big Leak – What about character itself? Often when others write and speak against the NP it is implied that the existence of, and any participation in, the group is a result of low moral character if not outright sinful deceitfulness. 

And yet, they raise no questions about the character of a man who willingly receives confidential emails for nine years, creates a database of them, then leaks them anonymously. They raise no questions about the moral implications of third parties receiving this cache of emails and releasing them on public Facebook accounts. They also raise no objections to someone creating a fake Twitter account under the founder of the NP’s name and releasing the emails publicly under the guise of a most pernicious lie.  

All these actions are violations of the 8th and 9th Commandments as explicated in the Westminster Larger Catechism. Where is the sorrow and lament for such a glaring lack of character? And if anonymity and secrecy are such a blight, then why hasn’t the originator of the Big Leak come forward and revealed himself? If he was so troubled by the content of these emails why did he not follow the commandment of our Lord in Matthew 18:15-20 and follow a biblical process? And why are the detractors of the NP not calling for such things? Again, their selective outrage and their silence here is telling, and hypocritical. 

Divisiveness

The other Big Reveal about the character of some NP detractors is just how divisive they really are. This divisiveness has been evident for a long time. In the writings of many of the vocal detractors, their critique of the NP is not a critique of brothers with whom they disagree. Their language is that of war and witch hunts. Their opponents are not men with whom they can agree to disagree, they are dangers to the denomination who need to be rooted out and removed. 

This seems to be part of the reason for all of the hypocrisy mentioned above. The reason for selective outrage is simply because they think their side is right and since they are right their activities are justified and excused. This is what factionalism looks like.  

The NP consists of men of varying opinions, who openly disagree with one another. Despite erroneous claims to the contrary it’s a group that does not want to broaden the doctrinal “tent” of the PCA. If you need proof of that, there are nine years and 447 pages of emails in which there is zero evidence of anyone wanting to change the theology or confessional standards of the church. I have yet to hear of a single detractor of the NP, who has found a chargeable offense in that content. The NP is made up of men with a spectrum of views and positions all falling under tent historical Reformed and Presbyterian orthodoxy. The NP doesn’t want to broaden the theological tent, many of us want to find unity with brothers with whom we disagree. Indeed, we see those legitimate differences as vital to a healthy denomination in which iron can sharpen iron.  

While members of the NP have made mistakes and missteps, many of which have been repented of privately if not publicly, it is not a faction seeking to change the size of our theological tent. Rather, it is many of the detractors who divisively want to narrow the tent. This is seen by the way they describe those they disagree with. 

An example of this is Todd Pruitt’s recent blog post in which he discusses the Big Leak. In his article at Reformation 21 entitled “Making Sausage with the NP”, Rev. Pruitt engages in the typical unbalanced, selective outrage described above. As he closes though, the oft present divisiveness of the NP detractors becomes clear when he writes to those, assumedly on his side, and says: 

To those confessionalists in the PCA I say do not lose heart. Continue to pray for our beloved denomination and labor for its peace and purity. Pray that those who find themselves out of step with the doctrines, ecclesiology, and worship of our Reformed heritage would either repent and honor their sacred ordination vows or find a denomination which fits their present convictions.

What is implied in his first sentence? Those who agree with him are confessionalists. The men of the NP are not just brothers with whom he disagrees – they are un-confessional. This means, according to our polity, that they should be deposed from office. He’s not describing men in good standing with whom he disagrees. The implication and connotation is that those in the NP are (without supporting evidence) out of step doctrinally and ecclesiologically; they are also out of tune with right worship and the whole of our Reformed heritage. Therefore, they need to repent or find a different denomination. This is a spirit of divisiveness which seeks to label everything it disagrees with as out of bounds. Those in error must be divided out from the denomination and its boundaries narrowed. That is what factionalism and party spirit look like and it’s far more divisive than a confidential email list. 

This divisiveness needs to be considered further. In Part 3 I will seek to address how the Big Leak gives us the saddest Big Reveal about the state and culture of the PCA.

[1] September 25 - GRN Meeting of Concerned Presbyterians, see the 5:52:17 mark.

[2] I also happen to agree with them on a lot of issues, including the view that the Westminster Standards present a most faithful biblical theology.