Will the Real Conspiracy Theorists Please Stand Up?
Accusations and allegations fly in the PCA, but how to separate psychological projection from reality.
The PCA is lamentably divided at present. Ruling Elder Brad Isbell recently remarked regarding the failure of presbyteries to ratify BCO changes related to whether a so-called “gay Christian” can be ordained as an officer in the PCA: “There can be no peace in the PCA until this issue is settled.” He is correct. It seems to me the two major positions in this debate are irreconcilable. I hope I am wrong.
Will the PCA be a faith communion in which a “gay pastor in the Presbyterian Church in America” can wander around on social and national media speaking about his identity in ‘tone deaf’ ways that have “troubled and disturbed” the church?1 Or will we be a Church that holds to the classic understanding of a Christian identity and sanctification as summarized by Prof. John Murray:
It needs to be stressed at the outset in the exposition that the fact of having died to sin is the fundamental premise of the Apostle’s thought. This is the identity of the believer: he died to sin.2
In short, will the PCA enter her next half-century as a group of endlessly-hyphenated-winsomely-modified-and-nuanced-broad-evangelicals appealing to senior marketplace leaders and influencers or will the PCA be a confessionally Reformed and Presbyterian church?3
RE Isbell is correct: the PCA cannot have peace until she sorts out her issues. But these issues go deeper than a few overtures and BCO language. We cannot have peace until we can deal openly and honestly with one another. We will not have peace until we address matters troubling the PCA with realistic sincerity instead of wild accusations, rhetorical bluster, and secret dealings.
I. Troubling the Church
Who is responsible for troubling the PCA? Ahab once rebuked Elijah as the troubler of Israel, but it was after all Ahab who had caused trouble in the Old Covenant Church (cf. 1 Kings 18). It is not only pagan kings who are in danger of projection though. Sometimes even misguided presbyters misunderstand who is contentious and who is simply contending for the faith (Jude 3) in the PCA.
I suggest the ones troubling the church are those advancing their own national brand by speaking and writing in a condescending way about the brethren.
If one is truly proffering a “trick for de-escalation,” this seems an unlikely way to achieve de-escalation. Contrasting oneself with such a characterization of one’s fellow-presbyters is hardly a way to endear one side to the other.
But then again, accusing one affinity group in the PCA of engaging in party politics can only fan the flames of mistrust and suspicion:
The accusation was later revealed to be untrue and withdrawn. But the damage was done. The fear and suspicion emanating from one “side” in the PCA is a major impediment to peace.
Take, for example, this recent article - which oddly seems to harken back to Fosdick’s Shall the Fundamentalists Win? address - in which the author denounces some brethren as ‘neo-fundamentalists’ and seems to lay the trouble at their doorstep:
But after this member of the National Partnership characterized his brethren as such, he concludes with a call for “swords into plowshares day” to dawn in the PCA. The irony is rich. And tragic. But effective.
Some weeks earlier, one elder - not associated with the National Partnership - took to Twitter to decry the alleged divisiveness of the GRN:
But is it the “antics” of the GRN that are dividing the PCA?
II. Stacking the Court
In a recent series of tweets, one member of the National Partnership asserted the 2021 Assembly was “stacked,” which casts doubt on the legitimacy of all the acts and deliverances of the 48th General Assembly of the PCA.
The author of those tweets later issued something of a retraction:
And further clarification of his retraction:
In the article referenced in the tweet the author (another prominent member of the National Partnership) implies the Gospel Reformation Network (GRN) brings in elders to vote up its causes:
Since we are on the subject of facts, the assertion the GRN pays for “sympathetic RE’s to get to GA” is truly “factually wanting.” The GRN does not pay for GA expenses. The GRN does indeed invite people to a lunch at GA; it’s a ‘Dutch treat,’ however.
Another, less well-known, member of the National Partnership seemed to allege (complete with emojis) something about an organization that assists Ruling Elders to attend General Assembly:
That organization is not the Gospel Reformation Network.
But there is an organization whose leadership proposed financing “friends” to General Assembly to ensure the “wrong moderator” would not be elected and that a “good committee” could be appointed:
That organization is the National Partnership. For the record, I agree with TE Cassidy; I do not believe there is anything wrong with raising money to send elders to the Assembly.4 The Administrative Committee even awards scholarships to help those who could not otherwise attend.
The trouble is, however, if the confessional folks do so, it is treated as though it is a nefarious conspiracy to “stack” the court. But when a distributor in the NP list proposes the idea, no one hits “Reply All” and says, “Hey, Jim, this is a bad idea; it is inappropriate to help our fellow elders attend GA in order to ensure a ‘good committee.’”
III. Packing the Committees
In emails to the National Partnership the allegation of stacking was clearly and unambiguously made against conservatives in the PCA:
So do the members of the National Partnership believe the Assembly is “stacked” and “packed” or do they not? I’m not clear. Perhaps this is the “unity, not uniformity” that TE Kessler references from time to time.
But one thing is clear, there is a group seeking to pack, stack, or fill committees with members loyal to its faction: the National Partnership.
In correspondence to the group, there are frequent updates regarding how many “NP Members” are serving on various committees of the PCA. Here’s one with encouragement to get on a committee:
Here they recognize the members of the NP who are serving on the Overtures Committee:
Here they recognize their members on various committees:
As the author of this note indicates, they count “[m]any of us” as members of the Nominating Committee who worked to get NP men up for election to the permanent committees of the PCA. Other NP correspondence includes recommendations to vote for those men.
I don’t know that there is anything necessarily untoward about volunteering for committee duty. But the trouble is, when conservatives volunteer it is denounced as “packing.” But when NP men do so, it is simply “vacancies to fill” or simply “NP guys nominated…”
Here again we see a difference in what is acceptable for the progressives (Neo-Liberals? according to Cassidy’s nomenclature) versus the conservatives (“Neo-Fundamentalists” according to Cassidy). There seems to be a double standard.
Concluding Thoughts
Clearly there is division in the PCA. The division comes from incompatible visions of the Christian life, irreconcilable understandings of what it means to subscribe the Confession or even to “be confessional,” and differing approaches for how Christians relate to the culture.
Most telling is how some progressives feign outrage or imply there has been “mischaracterization” and underlying conspiracy at work to get conservatives to attend GA and elected to committees. But in reality, progressives are doing the very things they allege against the GRN or ‘conservatives’ in the PCA (the so-called “Neo-Fundamentalists”).
Rather than of caricatures of one another aimed at illustrating for us how to “de-escalate” Christmas dinner, we ought to deal with one another in integrity and truth.
But instead, one ‘side’ on this debate seems to traffic in conspiracy theories alleging the trouble to the PCA is caused by a nefarious effort to imbalance, pack, and stack the church courts and committees.
But who has troubled the church and engaged in a secret conspiracy?
For ten years or more there has been a secret society operating in the shadows emailing one another with lists of who is part of the group, who from their group has been elected to various committees, and how they can influence non-members to “hold the line” and advance their vision for the PCA:
By contrast, the GRN operates openly with a website, conferences, and clearly defined leadership structure working to advance its vision to “cultivate healthy Reformed churches in the Presbyterian Church in America.”5
It’s time to end the peddling of suspicion, conspiracy, and mischaracterization. One group is open and public. The other is not.
See Waters & Neikirk: “Concurring Opinion in Case 2020-12,” p. 4. https://www.dropbox.com/s/au0d5l71h0wuiwb/SJC-2012-12-Concurring-Opinion-Neikirk-Waters.pdf?dl=0
John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT 1959; repr. 1984), 213.
Spare me the “we’re all confessionalists!” trope.
Daniel McPhearson here. Just read your article here. Very helpful!
Daniel McPhearson here. Just read your article here. Very helpful!