Back to Steelite Controversy Correspondence

[Feb.16, 1996] Richard Bacon to Greg Price.

To: Greg Price

From: Richard Bacon

Subject: Re: Thanks

Greg,

At 08:54 AM 2/16/96 -0700, you wrote:

>We have received the second envelope from you and do appreciate the

>opportunity to study the issues before us. I will not be able to get to

>the information you sent until I complete a book for Reg (God willing next

>week). I am already a month behind on this project for Reg. That also

>means we will be a little slow in responding to your most recent posts.

>Thank you for your patience. The church in Rowlett is in our prayers.

Thank you for your prayers. We also pray often for you, the PRC of Edmonton and Prince George being part of our regular prayer cycle.

I am quite concerned at the direction all of this is going, Greg. Elder Seekamp and Elder Barrow had supposed worked out something in which we would have an overture from your session by now so it could come up for consideration at presbytery. In fact, it was my understanding that is the purpose for which presbytery was postponed for two months.

To now we have received nothing but a promise from Lyndon to send something by Dr. M'Knight (a pamphlet with which I was already somewhat familiar, btw) on closed communion.

Also, I have asked Chris Coldwell to forward a series of posts to you in which Reg Barrow has accused Chris of promoting both Independency and Popery. As you can imagine, such accusations are not taken lightly.

When Chris objected and asked for substantiation or a retraction, Reg simply denied that anger had anything to do with it and stated that the charge (which was not a charge because there were no specifics -- it was simply an accusation) stands.

I'm afraid this is getting quite out of control, Greg. Reg has continued to hound Chris both privately and publically in spite of the fact that I understood we had agreed not to circularize one another's members until after Presbytery except to send material to the members of presbytery directly. On another occasion one of your members brought this entire issue before a public forum of PCA and OPC ministers and elders. When asked he said he had his session's permission. I am quite confused as to what is going on. Just when I think we have an arrangement something happens that indicates either that our understanding of the arrangement was different from yours or that it is not being well communicated.

We are frankly concerned at this point that if your session is intent on being consistent with Dodson's principles that it really doesn't matter what presbytery says. At least the Rowlett session is convinced at this point that Jim has your ear moreso than your own presbytery. When I've attempted to communicate to you through Lyndon it seems to fall into a crack somewhere.

Could you bring me up to date? I dislike characterizing what is going on as "government by ambush," but we have been left very much in the dark as the session of Puritan Reformed has seemingly decided to go its own way.

As important as your books may be -- and I do not doubt their importance -- it seems to me that the issues before presbytery are also quite important and require some attention . . .