Back to Steelite Controversy Correspondence

December 19, 1995. David Seekamp to Greg Price. Separation issue.

From: Dave Seekamp

To: Greg Price

Subject: Separation issue

Date: Tuesday, December 19, 1995 6:22PM

Greetings Pastor Price in our blessed Lord's name -

Having talked with Elder Barrow about this issue by phone, I wanted to address him and Cc: you. Since he's not on email, maybe this will work. Could you forward this to him.

Since talking with Elder Barrow (a very good conversation, I thought), it appears that maybe we (Rowlett) have gotten some wrong impressions from Reg's newsletter about your session's views on this question. Could you please consider my request below regarding Reg's publications, as a session. I'm concerned that many (19,000) people might begin to think our denomination stands for a position contrary (potentially) to our views? Reg is doing a great service for our Lord and his kingdom and I really appreciate his zeal to reach so many [even to entire world - this is exciting]!!

I am looking forward to our next Presbytery meeting on Feb. 2nd and 3rd. Hope it works out for both you and Elder Barrow (and/or Elder Dolms) to attend.

Best regards in the Lord,

Elder Seekamp

*****

To: Elder Greg Barrow % Pastor Greg Price

From: Elder David Seekamp

Subject: Separation issue

Date: Thursday, 12/14/95

Dear Elder Barrow,

[snip; comments regarding computers for presbyters]

I was encouraged about the many areas of agreement in our discussion of the subject of the separation. While these are fresh on my mind and for the benefit of others, I might catalog the areas of agreement recognizing, of course, that these represent our views and not necessarily the views of our sessions. Also, please correct me where I incorrectly state (or infer) what we discussed. I am trying to formalize the language somewhat - without changing the content.

(These points relate to a situation where a church member is confronted with a particular worship practice that is a violation of the regulative principal. These are always a sin - breaking at least the 2nd commandment.)

We agreed:

1) that Reg's newsletter article on separation lacks a necessary detailing of the "process of protest" that is the duty of church member in such a case. This is a big concern sense many do not know how to disagree and may just leave in a schismatic (not following due order) way.

2) that the offended members do not "partake in other men's sins" by being in the assembly if at the same time they do not personally participate (a modest form of protest) in the sinful practice. ,An additional issue was raised here - related to a necessity to participate in every element of worship or be involved in a sin of omission. We also discussed whether it is necessary for every element to be present to some degree in each worship service. What would be a sin of omission on the part of the minister may not be sin to the members since it is not part of their place and station to determine the worship elements. This should be discussed further - there is not agreement on these points.>

3) that the "process of protest" involves a gradual progress from lesser means of protest. <We didn't discuss all the particulars but these would possibly include abstaining from the practice, answering those that ask about the issue, sharing articles and discussing the issue in a humble way first with one elder, then meeting with the session, and finally may include drafting charges.

Personal Observation: This process of protest could have several outcomes over the course of time:

a) the church practice could change completely to a scriptural practice b) the protest could be permitted but not acknowledged c) there could be mixed practice for a time as the issue is considered d) the protest could be deemed rebellious and followed with censures (demonstrating the requests are considered necessary duties since they are issues of discipline). Under items

b, c - it is difficult to see departing as a requirement since there is no positive enforcement of the command. It is therefore difficult to see how one would be required to sin.

Since this subject is expected to be on the docket of the next presbytery meeting, and since Reg's newsletter article is considered a debated view, would you bring before your session the following request: that Reg be instructed not to distribute his newsletter containing the article about separation or other material that addresses this issue until we have met and determined our position as a presbytery.

Warm regards in the Lord,

Elder Seekamp