Slander, for unity's sake.
A public response to Rev. Tim Lecroy
Preface: Since the posting of this article, Rev. Tim Lecroy has apologized for his tone, sarcasm, insinuations, and for not believing the best of his brothers. You can find his apology here. That being said, he further elaborates on his “grave concern” with the GRN, MORE, Presbycast, and Aquila Report. In light of this, I decided to keep this article up, as it is still pertinent to the conversation.
I have only been a member of the PCA for 5 years, so I fully acknowledge my lack of experience within the Presbyterian Church in America. Little did I know that I would be entering the denomination during arguably it’s most contentious season. I was in my first semester at Covenant Seminary when Revoice was hosted at Memorial Presbyterian Church. In the months leading up to the conference, there was a great deal of confusion on campus. Many PCA pastors, local leaders, students, and alumni were involved to some degree-whether by attending, speaking, promoting, or giving.
To be honest, I began to wonder if joining the PCA was a mistake. Revoice was a common topic of discussion after class and during lunch. Some of my close friends debated leaving the seminary. Others left Memorial Presbyterian church. Seminary students and interns within Missouri Presbytery were largely left in the dark. We didn’t know who to talk to or what to believe. Misinformation was being spread on both sides of the aisle. Most PCA pastors and professors I spoke to at the time encouraged patience. “Let’s wait and see how the conference plays out”, was common refrain.
Of course, at that time I was not privy to denominational proceedings. I had no idea that Missouri Presbytery was meeting regularly to investigate Memorial Presbyterian Church, Transluminate, and Greg Johnson. I was not aware of the impassioned debates and floor speeches being conducted at Presbytery.
Dr. Lecroy, I know you served as Moderator of Missouri Presbytery during those crucial years, and I want to thank you for the hundreds of hours you undoubtedly have spent engaging this issue. I want to thank you for your leadership within Missouri Presbytery during perhaps its most contentious season. I also want to thank you for your leadership in providing the PCA with a most-excellent study report on Abuse.
That being said, your latest blog post saddens me. It saddens me because it’s an appeal to unity at the expense of respectable men and organizations within the denomination. To be blunt, it’s a call for unity while slandering in the same breathe.
A Reminder on WLC 145
The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbours, as well as our own, (1 Sam. 17:28, 2 Sam. 16:3, 2 Sam. 1:9,10,15–16) especially in public judicature; (Lev. 19:15, Hab. 1:4)…speaking untruth, (Isa. 59:13) lying, (Lev. 19:11, Col. 3:9) slandering, (Ps. 50:20) backbiting, (James 4:11, Jer. 38:4) talebearing, (Lev. 19:16) whispering, (Rom. 1:29–30) scoffing, (Gen. 21:9, Gal. 4:29).
Here are a few statements I take umbrage with:
“The GRN secret council will no doubt meet soon to “consider the best and most positive way forward” for our denomination.”
There is no “GRN secret council”. Every officer is listed on their website, along with all their blogposts, video series, and contact information. There is nothing secretive about the GRN. To give you an idea how open the GRN is, I contacted Jon Payne a few months ago to talk about their mission and vision, as well as how to support them financially. This was a easy as sending an email and getting his phone number.
Let’s put that in contrast, there have been secret groups within the denomination which have tried to steer the denomination in a particular direction. They have worked and communicated behind the scenes at the presbytery and General Assembly level. This is incontrovertible, not matter how much you wish to downplay it.
“Will those that benefit financially from fomenting ecclesiastical distress cease their activities?”
Rev. Tim Keller is famous for saying, “Never attribute an opinion to your opponents that they themselves do not own.” Dr. Lecroy, are you implying that the GRN exists to foment distress within the PCA? Have you spoken with these men? Before even entering the PCA, I benefitted from GRN videos posted on Youtube. Brother, you are impugning motives to faithful scholars within the denomination. How can you in good conscience liken the GRN to the Republican Party? Why would you even use a political illustration?
Again, please contact these men. The GRN’s vision and distinctives are readily available on their website. My church and I have benefitted from the GRN. You wonder where the funding is coming from? I’ll tell you: rural churches like mine who care about the Reformed piety and the future of our denomination. It’s no secret, but I think you know that.
“What is the source of the hundreds of thousands of dollars flowing into MORE in the PCA to fund conservative elders' attendance of GA? Who has oversight on how that money is disbursed? These are important questions that need to be answered. “
My church was able to send myself and a Ruling Elder for the first time to General Assembly last year because of the generosity of MORE in the PCA. Our annual budget was less that six figures, so sending two elders to Birmingham was financially unfeasible. I would hope that you would be encouraged by MORE(s) efforts in bringing in churches like mine into our denominations highest court. I do not understand your skepticism regarding MORE’s finances and giving. To be absolutely clear, neither my Ruling Elder or I were “prepped” for General Assembly. We were not told who or what to vote for. We simply applied and were given two rooms at the Sheraton in Birmingham. What a blessing!
Why do you assume MORE only supports “conservative” elders? Is it because the GRN promotes the work of MORE in the PCA? Shouldn’t we all support grass-root funding to get more churches involved in our denominational proceedings? Also, I thought we were all conservative! Is there a particular kind of conservative elder MORE is secretly trying to fund? If so, provide evidence.
“They do not want to compromise our doctrine of sanctification in favor of some quasi-Wesleyan perfectionist requirement that only applies to one particular sin. They found the wording of the amendment to be mean-spirited when it used the phrase, “claims to be celibate.”
When it comes to constitutional language, authorial intent is largely erroneous. What matters are the words on the page. Twenty years from now we won’t be arguing the authorial intent behind any proposed overture to the BCO. Can we know the authorial intent behind an overture passed by the presbytery, GA overtures committee, and the 2022 General Assembly? Are you willing to suggest that thousands of elders are mean spirited, and borderline “Wesleyan Perfectionists”? We have got to stop talking past one another.
The real question is, what do the words of overture say and mean? Do they reflect the Bible’s teaching and are they needed? As of this writing, nearly 60% of the denomination believes Item 1 is needed. For reference, overtures 23 & 37 passed the majority of presbyteries last year. So yes, the PCA has spoken. But things are more complicated than you make them out to be.
A Final Appeal
I am proud to be a member of Missouri Presbytery. I may be the only TE within the presbytery that supports the GRN. I am quick to correct detractors when they accuse our presbytery as being liberal. During your time in Missouri, I am sure you did the same. In the same vein, I have corrected elders within our Presbytery who have referred to others presbyteries and the GRN as Pharisees. That is slander. Your blog post strikes me in the same manner. We have got to start talking to one another. Pot shots from both sides do not contribute to what your latest blog post asks for: denominational peace.
Good job, Charles.