Where is LeCroy's Secret Council Meeting?
Fear, suspicion, and unfounded allegations hinder the peace of the PCA
I have no interest in sports. However in high school, I did run cross country, and for our warm up run we frequently would take a big lap around our school campus. As we ran, I was always amused by the things they put on the school sign; it was usually some proverbial soundbite or moral. One of them has stood out in my memory since that time both for its pithiness and its wisdom:
Never ruin an apology with an excuse.
- Benjamin Franklin
Last week the Reverend Professor Tim Lecroy, PhD published a meandering blogpost on the SemperRef collective in which he initially seemed to be hoping for a less combative future in the PCA as he poignantly asked, “Will we have peace” as he reflected on his 25 years in the PCA and some of the controversies he has witnessed.
But the blogpost quickly abandoned its irenic façade in favor of what TE Charles Stover characterized as “Slander, for unity’s sake” in which Dr LeCroy leveled allegations, assertions, and questions aimed at the “right wing of the PCA” including the especially outrageous assertion that the GRN has a “secret council” and that the National Partnership (NP) “was never anything more than an email list and a facebook chat group that apparently enjoyed the occasional bourbon and cigar.”
I. Mea Culpa
The blogpost was exceptionally bad. As a man with a Doctor of Philosophy from Saint Louis University (one of the leading Roman Catholic research institutions in the world), he should have known better. As a professor at Covenant Theological Seminary (adjunct), we should be able to expect Dr LeCroy understands responsible research and the evidence needed to make such claims in writing. As a member of the editorial team for the SemperRef Collective, one would assume TE LeCroy would be more careful about what he puts in writing on the blog.
Late last week, Dr LeCroy issued a followup blogpost, Mea Culpa, in which he called a personal foul on himself. He tried to explain what a “personal foul” is using basketball. He stated he was just being “sarcastic” in asserting the GRN has a secret council, since people have used that word to describe him and his friends. So LeCroy doesn’t believe the GRN has a secret council; he was being sarcastic.
Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death is the man who deceives his neighbor and says, “I am only joking!” (Prov. 26:18–19)
Dr LeCroy insists:
Let me be clear: I do not believe that the GRN has a secret council. I also apologize for insinuating. My insinuations were based on my own experience, anecdotal evidence told to me, and my own hunches, but they were insinuations nonetheless. I shouldn’t have put them in print.
Well now I’m not clear. Does Professor LeCroy believe the GRN has a secret council or not? He said his insinuations are based on his own experience, anecdotal evidence, and his hunches. What does this mean?
This is an interesting way to apologize; to retract one’s assertion and then assert he has evidence and hunches to support his insinuation.
II. The Show Me State
TE LeCroy does not have the benefit of having been born in Missouri as I have. But TE LeCroy has ministered in the Show Me State long enough to understand how we Missourians don’t accept claims without evidence. What “experience” and “anecdotal evidence” does Dr LeCroy have to support his claims?
I asked publicly on Twitter for this evidence and I received a (now deleted) sarcastic reply from an anonymous user of the SemperRef twitter account:
Few people appreciate sarcasm more than I do. Sometimes I tell my wife, “sarcasm is my love language.” So I am indeed feeling the love from our brothers at SemperRef.
SemperRef describes itself as an organization that aims to:
Provide content that upholds our calling to speak the truth in love and which honors the fullest understanding of the responsibilities embodied in the ninth commandment.
I find it an odd response that when asked for evidence of the claims made in one of their articles, they demanded I provide the emails to disprove what was “insinuated” in the article and seems to be oddly-reiterated in the oddly-named “Mea Culpa” followup.
That is not the way evidence works; one does not have to prove a negative or prove the non-existence of what another “insinuates.” Such a response from SemperRef does not inspire confidence they are sincerely working toward peace and brotherly affection in the PCA.
III. The National Partnership
Dr LeCroy stated his “insinuation” was due to his own experience. I wonder if that was a reference to his tenure on the apparently now defunct National Partnership. He was a member of the NP at least as early as 2014:
But LeCroy insists the NP “was never anything more than an email list and a facebook chat group that apparently enjoyed the occasional bourbon and cigar.” However, when one reads the correspondence of the NP, one quickly discovers the organization was much, much more than a bunch of buds who messaged throughout the year and enjoyed bourbon.
The NP worked to organize its members to vote together on issues such as overtures and members of permanent committees. At one point members of the Partnership were encouraged in how to vote on a procedural matter aimed at disqualifying TE Dominic Aquila from the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC).
The author of the email explains how they will attempt a procedural motion in order to clear the way for a particular member of the NP to be elected to the SJC.
Later - in that very same email - a coordinator in NP mentions the organization needs to unite behind one of their two preferred candidates lest they “split the vote”
While there is nothing necessarily wrong with a group of friends uniting behind certain candidates to support their election to shape the trajectory of the PCA, it’s simply not accurate to say the NP was simply merely a chat group that enjoyed the occasional bourbon.
Not only do we know for a fact they also enjoyed whiskey, more significantly, the NP leaders encouraged its members to vote together; one might even be excused for thinking this resembles a voting bloc. One might also remember that frantic email in which someone called “James” emailed the group: “Please join us in the assembly hall. We are losing votes at the moment.”
It is clear the NP saw the PCA divided between “we” and someone else, between the “healthy” and the “unhealthy” wing. And the NP attempted to set the course for the PCA by rallying their members to vote together and advocate for specific causes and candidates at GA “whose experience and views would align more clearly with a healthy PCA.”
But who decided what a “healthy PCA” looked like? Apparently the NP thought that was their role. But did they publicly deliberate? Did they publicly set forth their vision and principles for the PCA? They decided in their once-private group whom they would support and how they would use the Rules of Assembly Operation to exclude an opponent from standing for election.
Perhaps that is the “experience” to which TE LeCroy refers and which he attempts to portray as what the GRN was doing.
IV. Public Advocacy
TE LeCroy faults the GRN for having “closed meetings to decide the way forward for the PCA.” This is a rather odd way to characterize what the GRN does. The vision of the GRN is clearly posted on their website.
I’m not a member of the GRN, I’ve only been to one of their events outside of a GA lunch, and the congregation I serve gives a very small amount annually to the GRN. But as an outsider, it seems to me, the “way forward for the PCA” as the GRN envisions it is simply to hold fast to our Reformed Confession, to stay firmly in the “old paths” of God’s people, and to promote vibrant, Reformed congregations feasting on the ordinary means of grace.
As an outsider it seems to me, the vision for a “healthy PCA” as the GRN sees it, is simply to uphold the Standards our Church has agreed on together. In short, the GRN simply wants to support PCA congregations in being Reformed and Presbyterian.
The way the GRN seems to do this is not by emailing me and my 200 best buds and encouraging us to vote for Mel “the Agitator” Duncan for SJC or Sean McGowan for Covenant College Board. The GRN simply doesn’t function that way.
The way the leadership of the GRN advance their vision (or agenda) for the PCA is by public articles, public conferences, and public video resources. They attempt to persuade others to their viewpoint. And - so far as I know - they’ve never endorsed particular candidates.
Participation in the NP group was by approval only. But participation at GRN conferences and lunches is open to people regardless of where they fall on the spectrum of the PCA. Elders such as Bryan Chapell1 and Irwyn Ince - all listed as members of the National Partnership - have been spotted at GRN events in the past.
The GRN seems to do all it can to ensure people feel welcome; at the Fall 2022 GRN Gathering, they even had a food truck giving away free breakfast tacos. What better way to say everyone is welcome here than free breakfast tacos?
It is these public events where the GRN Council members and guests make their case for their vision of the PCA as they call us to joyfully embrace our Reformed heritage and walk confidently together for the future.
V. Concluding Thoughts
TE LeCroy’s pair of blogposts make some outlandish insinuations regarding the GRN and other groups such as the Aquila Report, MORE in the PCA, and Presbycast. While he’s long on insinuation, Dr LeCroy is short on specifics and evidence. That’s not a way forward for peace in the PCA.
I propose a different way forward for peace in the PCA. First, cease the broad brush allegations about “big money” and “rhetoric,” but rather be clear and specific about concerns. Second, we must hold with integrity the confessions of our church, we must believe what we said when we subscribed to our Constitution, and not use nuance and vagaries to dodge the clear meaning of our Standards.
Let us move forward together with integrity and truth. If we can do that, the 100th Anniversary of the PCA will be even more glorious than our 50th Anniversary. We can do it, but do we have the will?
While the NP lists repeatedly claim TE Chapell is a member, Stated Clerk Chapell has denied being a member of the National Partnership, but that he was simply added to the list by another person.