Back to Steelite Controversy Correspondence

[Feb. 7, 1996] Richard Bacon to Jerry Crick. RE: Separation and Schism.

To:Jerry Crick

From: Richard Bacon

Subject: RE: Separation and Schism

Jerry,

I will not address everything from your last post. If I've overlooked anything that you deem important please let me know. I'm abbreviating due to time concerns -- NOT because I do not take your concerns seriously.

At 04:55 PM 2/7/96 -0500, you wrote:

>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.

I certainly understand time constraints. Of course, I would like to see you give this a certain priority, but not knowing your precise situation I must regard your estimation as the proper one.

>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 hope they are not escalating to "gargantuan" proportions. It was because I perceived what I thought were two *distinct* directions taking place within our small group that I thought it best for us to regroup around presbytery rather than each session or elder deciding what is right in his own eyes. I really do fear that Dodson has far too much credibility with the Edmonton session, and that is an additional concern.

>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.

That is why I think it best for some of these things to be handled via overture to presbytery rather than each session or elder going off in his or their own direction.

>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.

The suddenness of all this has also been a concern to Dave and me.

>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.

Well, I think that there are those who are, in this generation, separating themselves from the visible church in order to set up "home churches." I would not insist that they are separating themselves from the invisible church, but I don't know how it would be possible to maintain that they have not (are not) separate from the visible church.

>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.

Which is why the material was sent.

>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.

Well, I think there is a certain "symmetry" about closed (or close) communion which appeals to the logical mind. However, I am firmly convinced that session controlled communion is capable of accomplishing the same purity of life and doctrine as is close communion while also respecting the universality of Christ's church.

>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.

I don't see how. What were your motives for leaving the PCA? Do you have a history of leaving one church after another after causing a row? Was your session/presbytery moving in a more Reformed direction? I think all of these are mitigating circumstances which we must consider. The Reformers all (both first and second reformations) made the useful and I think scriptural distinction between corrupt churches and apostate churches.

>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.

Of course it would be better if there were specific questions or issues so I could give more specific answers. Some (apparently including you) have gotten the impression that _Visible Church_ claims that separation is NEVER allowed. Of course, that is not at all what I maintained in that book. Further, the book as you noted is addressed NOT at leaving a true church to go to a more Reformed church, but at leaving a true church to go to ... nothing.

>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.

I think the Chen case alone is sufficient justification for saying that the PCA lacks at least one essential mark of a true church (I'm taking THREE notes, including discipline). While I know Calvin lists only two essential marks, I'm convinced that the mark of discipline is so bound to the other two marks that they become a dead letter without discipline. So I don't think that Calvin and the Scots are so far apart.

>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.

Jim is a bright guy, I suppose. But I don't understand the fascination that some people seem to have with him. He was a separatist FIRST and only later found a way of justifying his separatism via the Steelites.

[unrelated topics snipped]

Dick