Back to Steelite Controversy Correspondence

Feb. 7, 1996. Letter from Jerry Crick to Richard Bacon. RE: Separation and Schism

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 16:55:58 -0500

Subject: RE: Separation and Schism

Dick:

Thanks for the articles concerning separation from and schism within the Catholic Church. I have read the two lectures by Macpherson (which I already have since I possess the complete collection of Naphtali's Anthology). I am unsure as to when I will be able to read all the material, considering my active search for employment and all other incumbent duties.

My correspondence to you bears the nature of attempting to let you know where I stand on certain crucial issues which seem to be quickly escalating to gargantuan proportions. Among these are the issues of separation supposedly based upon such convictions and positions as are bound up with "closed communion" and "Covenanting," among others. Also the matters concerning Larry Birger and Bill Harrell enter into these concerns, especially with the direct involvement of the Canadian group (this descriptive is only for the purpose of convenience).

I am sure that you are aware that Greg Barrow has discussed some of these issues with me via telephone, and I have related the fact to David Seekamp.

It is my concern that you, David, Tim Worrell, Bruce Robinson, and anyone else who cares or may have concern, not to think that I have loosely or thoughtlessly imbibed the positions regarding the aforementioned issues, nor have I become theologically unraveled. As a matter of fact, I have not given any unqualified approval to thoughts on these issues other than what I relate in the subsequent portions of this letter.

I am convinced that too much is taking place too quickly for me to keep up with in a faithful and responsible manner. I do state, nonetheless, that I am willing to LISTEN and to LOOK INTO matters, issues, and opinions of others and am careful not to rashly assert a position or take a stand with respect to an issue before or until I have thoroughly studied, analyzed, and evaluated the same. For example, I spent three plus years studying the issue of exclusive Psalmody and at least one year on the subject of head coverings.

While these respective time periods are not terribly long for some theologians, I devoted what time I thought was necessary for me to arrive at a biblically justified conclusion.

I would, therefore, beg your indulgence in considering the following thoughts and expressions from my heart and present understanding of things. Also, please take the tone of my letter as friendly and informative, not as a set of finger-pointing instructions.

I consciously identify myself with the Reformers of Geneva and Scotland in attempting to maintain and promote the peace, purity, and UNITY of the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ. I denounce intended or attempted separation from the Catholic Church by any true Christian (which is an impossibility anyway, given the definition of both); and I denounce the intended or attempted separation from the Catholic Church by any PROFESSING Christian.

While I appreciate the place, purpose, propriety, and obligations (had to break the alliteration) concerned with the Covenants of the Scottish Church, and while I wholeheartedly agree with "covenanting" in the biblical sense, I am concerned as to how such could be executed in a practical manner given our domestic circumstances. There are a number of issues involved in this particular subject, and there is MUCH, MUCH material which I need to read before coming to any conclusion on the matter.

While I can appreciate the zeal for doctrinal purity and oneness of mind, my understanding of "closed communion" has always been stratightforwardly denounced by the Reformers in Geneva and particularly in Scotland. There are serious implications bound up in the notion and/or practice of "closed communion" which require careful and cautious consideration, among which are the problems of strict Separatism as well as the exclusive nature of the Anglican and Romish churches.

I have agreed with Larry Birger as to his position concerning the importance and place of the regulative principle of worship and the prudence of leaving the PCA. I agree with him in these two areas, otherwise I condemn my own actions. However, I attempted to advise him against sectarianism and a low view of the unity of the true Church. I expressed my patent disapproval of "private" home churches, a la Rushdoony, et. al. I tried to explain to Larry that the work in our home is not the same as that promoted and advocated by Rushdoony and others of similar mindset. We would VERY MUCH prefer to be in a public location. I have not given a wholesale or carte blanche endorsement of everything Mr. Birger has or is doing. I advised him to move his membership to another church, but his response was that the does not regard the PCA as having any ministerial authority. I told him that, while I do consider the PCA as tottering on the brink of apostasy (in principle, if not in practice), I am not prepared to agree with his position. However, I will give such a position careful thought, especially with respect my own situation. Bill Harrell has informed me of his conversation with you concerning Larry Birger and your past communication with him.

These last thoughts lead to what follows now, and please do not take what follows in any way other than a serious, sincere, and genuine concern -- no inuendos, no ulterior motives, no subtleties. Some time ago, after I read your book The Visible Church and the Outer Darkness, I was somewhat convicted and confused as to my having left the PCA. I understand that your book was primarily a rebuttal of Kevin Reed's Presbyterian Government in Extraordinary Times; however, I wondered how, given the content of your book and your arguments, I could justifiably leave the PCA and on what biblical grounds, again in light of your arguments, which could establish a new presbytery outside the PCA. I would greatly appreciate any enlightenment you could offer me, as a resolution to this matter would assist me in studying other issues such as those previously discussed.

I left the PCA not simply because of exclusive Psalmody, but because of what I perceived to be an increasing and deliberate mockery of the three marks of a true Church, the regulative principle of worship (in its broadest scope and application), as well as the WCOF and the L & SC's. I was convicted that remaining in the PCA involved participation in its sins.

As to Mr. Jim Dodson, I have never communicated with him, although I have received many reports concerning him, some good and some not so good. I do hope to contact him soon via e-mail for the purpose of ascertaining his position with regard to the true Church: Is it present on the earth? If Yes - then Where? If No -- then Why Not? I will not offer my personal opinions at this point concerning him, but I do intend to exercise caution.

There are other matters I could discuss, but I think these are sufficient for now. I trust that you will take my thoughts, concerns, and expressions as I intended them, namely in all sincerity and genuineness of heart. Please feel free to communicate the contents of this letter to anyone you wish. In the event that the LORD blesses me with employment soon, I will probably be unable to attend the presbytery meeting sue to the usual obligations and difficulties associated with a new job. I would prefer to attend, however, as these are important issues before us, to say the very least.

May the LORD bless and sustain you and your family in all things through Christ Jesus our only Lord and Saviour.

For Christ's Crown and Covenant,

Jerry W. Crick