Back to Steelite Controversy Correspondence

[Feb. 7, 1996] Richard Bacon to Edmonton Clerk of Session. Re: Books of order and worship.

To: Lyndon Dohms

From: Richard Bacon

Subject: Re: Books of order and worship

Cc: Dave Seekamp, Jerry Crick

Bcc: Tim Worrell

Lyndon,

At 06:37 AM 2/7/96 -0700, you wrote:

>Dear Brother,

>

>Thank you for your response. We agree with you that both Scripture and

>the Confession of Faith make it clear that it is the duty of synods and

>councils to make such decisions regarding the worship and government of

>the church. However, we are addressing a different issue.

I must admit that I'm not convinced, however, that you are approaching the issue differently. The question is not HOW, but WHETHER we may change the subordinate standards of the church. There is not presently a HOW before us.

Jesus clarified that it is not by a large number, but even by 2 or 3 properly assembled, called, and ordained that the keys of the kingdom may be used. Thus Matthew 18:18-20.

Matthew 18:18-20 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (KJV)

Now, it is the prerogative of presbytery to make decisions regarding "some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed" (WCF I:6). That prerogative has also been established in our standards at Confession XXXI:3. Presbytery has expressed its desire to do that. As lower courts, sessions do not have the authority to overturn presbytery unilaterally.

>What

>authority do we have as a presbytery (of 2 churches and three mission

>works) to overturn the synodical standards in worship and government of

>entire assemblies (such as the assembly convened at Westminster, the

>assembly of the Church of Scotland, and the various

>presbyterian assemblies or synods who subsequently adopted these

>standards as their own standards)?

There is a fallacy of equivocation in this, Lyndon. Nobody has spoken of "overturning" anything by adopting a BOG. However, we still have authority, based on Scripture (cited above) and the VERY STANDARDS to which you refer (at WCF 31.3) to modify and amend our constitution provided we do not in so doing place ourselves at odds with any teaching of Scripture.

> Furthermore, are we identifying

>ourselves with these faithful assemblies and churches that God raised up at

>the time of the second reformation by making such changes to their

>standards or are we separating ourselves

>from these assemblies and churches?

We are identifying ourselves with Christ and his church. We are not baptized in the name of Paul (1 Cor. 1:13) or in the name of Westminster. To the extent that synods and councils of previous ages have been faithful, we hope to identify ourselves with them as well. What we (or rather I) do not of necessity identify with is one man's particular interpretation of those standards. The courts of the church have the right to agree or disagree with any particular individual's interpretation of the standards. Further, the Westminster divines did not claim for the standards the kind of infallibility which would be required to make them unamendable:

XXXI:4. The Role of Synods

All synods or councils since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice, but to be used as an help in both.

NB: they [including Westminster] are not to be made the rule of faith and practice, but to be used as an help in both.

Ephesians 2:20

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; (KJV)

1 Corinthians 2:5

5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. (KJV)

2 Corinthians 1:24

24 Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand. (KJV)

> Do our actions in making such

>changes to the standards they believed to be agreeable to the Word

>of God indicate that we could have been church officers in their

>churches? In fact, would they even have permitted us to be church officers

>with a different set of standards?

AAMOF yes I believe they would. Your implication that we are proposing a "different" set of standards constitutes a complex question. Since a book of worship or government has not yet been proposed to Presbytery, we cannot say that it is different in the sense of being contrary.

>In other words, in heading down

>the road where such alterations to standards are permitted (standards which

>bind us to the

>most faithful churches since the days of the apostles), we are

>concerned that we

>are acting more like congregationalists than like presbyterians (unless

>we are prepared to charge our forefathers with sin and error).

I am concerned that there seems to be considerable congregationalism inherent in the idea that when Presbytery has said something, one session believes itself free to "overturn" its own presbytery. We do not believe in the doctrines and commandments of men as being finally binding. That is why we hold that constitutional documents are amendable. When our forefathers differ from Scripture [a theoretical possibility], then we have no choice but to hold that they, in fact, erred. However, since no standards are presently before us it is really impossible for us to say whether we believe the Westminster divines erred at any particular point or not. However, I think there may still be considerable confusion here as to the purpose of a Book of Order.

For example: where does the FOPCG speak to presbyterial boundaries in this country or Canada? Where does the FOPCG determine how often and in what place we are to meet as a presbytery? Where does the FOPCG determine the orderly manner for placing an issue before either a presbytery or a session? Is it *ipso facto* an "overturning" of the FOPCG for us to have in hand an orderly manner of dealing with complaints, protests, etc.? I would say that all of these are items which we must determine and that are not "spelled out" in the FOPCG.

>However, in adopting the very standards (unaltered in any way) that these

>faithful assemblies have adopted, we bear historical testimony to the

>fact that we are presbyterians in covenant with these same faithful

>fathers in the faith. Brother, our concern is not with the ministerial

>authority of

>a synod to give to the church such standards, but rather with the

>authority of subsequent councils (and paticularly in our case with only four

>ministers, and three ruling elders) to in effect declare these previous

>faithful assemblies who have adopted these standards to be unfaithful.

1. I have already cited WCF I:6, XXXI:3, and Matthew 18:18-20.

2. However, the idea that "the very standards (unaltered in any way)" are the standards which have been adopted by the RPC is not really accurate.

The presbytery made very specific exceptions to the FOPCG&OM at our first meeting. Additionally, although we (i.e. other presbyters) did not agree fully with your reasons for wanting a "testimony" to WCF XXV:6 we were willing to work toward an accomodation which would preserve the integrity of the original document while at the same time not totally "unchurching" the Edmonton Puritan Reformed Church. I hope you do not think we should have "sent you packing" at that first meeting rather than demonstrating a willingness to work with people for which we have much hope in the Lord.

3. I do not believe your statement that we would "in effect [be] declar[ing] these previous faithful assemblies who have adopted these standards to be unfaithful" can be altogether accurate. Again, until we have specific proposals for a BOG or order of worship before us we cannot say that there is anything that would be changed in the sense of denial. Further, the Directory for the Publick Worship of God was never adopted as a "full subscription" document. We adopted it as a "suitable and scriptural guide" to biblical worship. Does Greg regularly pray for the Queen of Bohemia before the sermon? I know I do not pray for the restitution of "the illustrious Prince Charles." The Directory was never accepted by us as a "full subscription" document.

>It is our concern that unless we are prepared to say that we would

>not want to be in the same assembly with men like Rutherford,

>Baillie, Gillespie, or Henderson that we should not only conform

>unto the same confessional standards, but as well to the same

>standards in worship and government. Those churches that subsequently

>became

>disloyal to the standards established by the faithful assemblies of

>Scotland have inevitably fallen from the high and holy calling of a

>covenanted reformation that burned in the bosom of these our forefathers

>in the faith.

I think your statement is born of misunderstanding. See my comments above.

>To that end our session will be issuing a public statement

>of repentance to the presbytery to the effect that we believe we have

>erred in approving

>such changes in any of of our standards.

Again, it is important for you to realize that we have not changed OUR standards except insofar as the documents THEMSELVES allow us to do so. You may possibly be confusing the documents which we have adopted with subsequent private interpretations of those documents.

>We make such an acknowledgment

>not in a spirit of arrogance or insubordination, but (by God's grace) in

>a spirit of shame, humiliation, and subordination appealing to God that

>He would be merciful to us and grant to us His favor. We sincerely pray

>that all of our brethren within our presbytery will be able to join with us

>*in the same mind and in the same judgment* (1 Cor.1:10) so that we may

>with *one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ*

>(Rom.15:6).

If you will place such a document before Presbytery so that it can be put on the docket, that would be the best approach for you to take at this time. Of course, simply supposing that something is sinful does not make it sinful in accordance with God's Word. If Presbytery is to be called to repentance, the document should be :

first, carefully worded as an entreaty to fathers and brethren, and not a strident or immoderately worded "Jeremiad;"

second, documented scripturally in such a way that it is clear from God's commandments that what has been done by Presbytery is, in fact, called a sin by God and not simply claimed to be so by men.

>Richard, We are assuming you have no objection to the distribution of

>these exchanges to all of our presbyters.

None at all. In fact, in that same spirit I am also cc:ing Dave Seekamp and Dr. Crick.

Dick Bacon