Back to Steelite Controversy Correspondence

Feb. 22, 1996. Greg Price to Richard Bacon.

From: Greg Price

Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 14:14:02 -0700 (MST) To: Richard Bacon

Subject: Re: Thanks

DICK,

THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSE. I WILL SEEK TO RESPOND TO THE CONCERNS RAISED IN YOUR POST. I KNOW IT MAY SEEM TO YOU AS THOUGH OUR SESSION IS AVOIDING YOUR QUESTIONS OR IS POSSIBLY IGNORING YOU IN SOME INDEPENDENT FASHION, BUT I ASSURE YOU AGAIN THAT THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

BETWEEN OUR CONGREGATIONS IN EDMONTON AND PRINCE GEORGE, GOD HAS PUT MUCH ON OUR PLATES. WE WILL BE PRESENTING TO PRESBYTERY VERY SOON AN OVERTURE WITH A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY. IN THE MEAN TIME, WE CAN ONLY ENCOURAGE THE BRETHREN TO BE PATIENT WITH US AS WE ARE BY GOD'S GRACE SEEKING TO BE FAITHFUL AND DILIGENT IN OUR CALLING. WE DO APPRECIATE YOUR PRAYERS FOR US AND CONFESS OURSELVES "UNPROFITABLE SERVANTS" WHO STAND MOMENT BY MOMENT IN NEED OF GOD'S MERCY. I WILL BRIEFLY RESPOND TO MORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS IN WHAT FOLLOWS.

FOREVER INDEBTED TO THE GRACE OF GOD,

GREG

On Fri, 16 Feb 1996, Richard Bacon wrote:

> 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.

THE ISSUE OF AN OVERTURE WAS ONLY MENTIONED AS ONE POSSIBLE WAY IN WHICH TO HANDLE THE MATTERS RELATED TO SEPARATION (E-MAIL FROM D.SEEKAMP). I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WERE AWAITING SUCH AN OVERTURE FROM OUR SESSION UNTIL YOUR POST ON FEB.8,1996. OUR RESPONSE TO THE ISSUE OF SEPARATION (E-MAIL FEB.1) WAS AN INITIAL RESPONSE DEALING SPECIFICALLY WITH YOUR CONCERNS IN REGARD TO REG'S NEWSLETTER (ESPECIALLY NOT ALLOWING THOSE WHO EITHER PRACTICE THEMSELVES OR ATTEND CHURCHES THAT ALLOW VIOLATIONS OF THE SECOND COMMANDMENT TO COME TO THE LORD'S SUPPER WITH US). WE DO BELIEVE THE POSITION ONE TAKES IN REGARD TO THE LORD'S SUPPER, DOES ADDRESS IMPORTANT MATTERS RELATED TO SEPARATION. SO WE WERE ATTEMPTING TO BEGIN THE PROCESS BY SENDING THAT COMMUNICATION. SINCE THAT TIME, WE HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS VIA E-MAIL (THE BALL IS IN OUR COURT, AND WE WILL RESPOND TO YOUR LAST E-MAIL POST). WE HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY BUSY AND HAVE NOT YET SUBMITTED ANY FURTHER

DOCUMENTS TO PRESBYTERY, BUT WE CERTAINLY DO INTEND ON FOLLOWING UP WITH MORE INFORMATION (AND IF AN OVERTURE WOULD BE HELPFUL, WE WILL SEEK TO DO SO). I STRESS AGAIN WE HAVE NOT SOUGHT TO GO OUR OWN INDEPENDENT WAY, BUT SIMPLY HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO GET TO THESE IMPORTANT MATTERS AS SOON AS WE HAD PLANNED. WE HAVE APOLOGIZED FOR THIS BEFORE. PLEASE BE PATIENT WITH US.

>

> 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 WOULD SUGGEST WE ALLOW CHRIS AND REG TO WORK THIS OUT BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM AS FAR AS THEY POSSIBLY CAN. FOR THE RECORD, HOWEVER, I BELIEVE IT WAS CHRIS WHO FIRST CHARGED REG WITH HOLDING TO SEPARATIST VIEWS (IN A LETTER TO REG DATED DEC.4, 1995) WHICH TO ANY PRESBYTERIAN IS ALSO A SERIOUS ISSUE.

>

> 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.

I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THE YOUR CHOICE OF WORDS (*HOUND CHRIS BOTH PRIVATELY AND PUBLICALLY*). REG HAS CLARIFIED ON MORE THAN ONE OCASSION WHETHER CHRIS WNATED ANY MATERIAL THAT REG HAD ACCESS TO, BUT I WOULD HARDLY CLASSIFY THAT AS HOUNDING CHRIS. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING OF *CIRCULARIZING THE COURT* ENTAILS DISCUSSION AMONGST THE CONGREGATION DURING A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING. PERHAPS WE HAVE A MISUNDERSTANDING AS TO THE MEANING OF THIS PHRASE, BUT WE DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS WRONG FOR MEMBERS OF OUR CONGREGATION TO BE DISCUSSING THESE MATTERS AMONGST THEMSELVES. THE MEMBER TO WHICH YOU REFERRED ACTUALLY VOICED HIS CONCERNS BEFORE HE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR OR UNDERSTAND THE CHANGES WE ENACTED RECENTLY IN WORSHIP (WHICH SIMPLY BRING US INTO CONFORMITY WITH THE DIRECTORY FOR PUBLIC WORSHIP). HE WROTE THAT FIRST LETTER ON SATURDAY (I BELIEVE), AND THEN RECEIVED INSTRUCTION ON THE LORD'S DAY (AND INDICATED THAT SAME DAY THAT HE WAS QUITE CONTENT WITH THE CHANGES AND THE WAY IN WHICH THEY WERE ENACTED). WE HAVE BEEN TALKING INFORMALLY IN OUR CONGREGATION ABOUT ISSUES RELATED TO A COVENANTED REFORMATION, BUT THE NATIONAL COVENANT WAS NOT AN ISSUE WE RAISED IN ANY FORMAL WAY WITH OUR CONGREGATION.

>

> 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.

JIM DODSON CERTAINLY DOES NOT HAVE MY EAR SINCE I'VE NEVER COMMUNICATED WITH HIM (BY PHONE, MAIL, OR E-MAIL). HE HAS GIVEN REG QUITE A LOT OF MATERIAL ON COVENANTING WHICH WE HAVE FOUND TO BE VERY HELPFUL (WHICH WE HOPE TO PRESENT IN SOME FORMAT TO THE PRESBYTERY). DICK, YOUR COMMUNICATIONS HAVE NOT FALLEN INTO A CRACK, AS I EXPLAINED EARLIER, WE ARE SEEKING TO BE FAITHFUL WITH WHAT IS ON OUR PLATE AT THIS TIME.

AGAIN, PLEASE BE PATIENT WITH US. WE ARE NOT DOING AN END RUN AROUND PRESBYTERY. ALL THAT WE WANT TO SAY TO PRESBYTERY ABOUT ISSUES RELATED TO SEPARATION AND A COVENANTED REFORMATION WE WILL BE DOING IN THE MOST HELPFUL FORUM POSSIBLE. HOWEVER, WITH APRIL 5,6 APPROACHING QUICKLY I AM WONDERING WHETHER IT MIGHT NOT BE BETTER TO POSTPONE PRESBYTERY UNTIL THIS SUMMER. THEN PERHAPS WE COULD HOST THE MEETING IN EDMONTON AND GIVE ALL OF YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE CANADA (IF THIS IS NOT A POSSIBILITY FOR SOME REASON, I STILL THINK IT WOULD BE A BETTER USE OF OUR TIME TO BE ABLE TO CIRCULATE THE MATERIAL WE INTEND ON DISTRIBUTING BEFORE WE MEET).

>

> 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.

WE ARE NOT AMBUSHING ANY ONE. WE JUST NEED A LITTLE MORE TIME. FOR THE SAKE OF THE TRUTH AND SPEAKING THE TRUTH IN LOVE, WE WILL BE SENDING YOU RESOURCES THAT YOU CAN READ.

>

> 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 . . .

THE BOOK I REFERRED TO IS ONLY ONE PROJECT, AND I AGREE THAT THE PRESBYTERY MATTERS ARE VERY IMPORTANT. I AM BY GOD'S GRACE SEEKING TO PRIORITIZE MY SCHEDULE IN SUCH A WAY THAT I WILL BE ABLE TO BE FAITHFUL.

YOUR PRAYERS IN THIS AREA ARE MUCH APPRECIATED.

GOD BE WITH YOU, DEAR BROTHER.

> > Dick

> WCF V:7. Providence & The Church

>

> As the providence of God doth, in general,

> reach to all creatures; so, after a most special manner,

> it taketh care of his church, and disposeth all things to

> the good thereof.