Back to Steelite Controversy Correspondence

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

To: Greg Price

From: Richard Bacon

Subject: Re: Thanks

Cc: Dave Seekamp

Bcc: Chris Coldwell

Greg,

At 02:14 PM 2/22/96 -0700, you wrote:

[I will be snipping that which I'm not addressing]

>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 certainly wish to be patient with you. Pray for us in that regard, as we have much need of patience. However, it is my understanding that the very reason we postponed Presbytery was to give your session time to put together an overture. If there has been a misunderstanding, then I certainly want to get the misunderstanding cleared. However, we are now close to 30 days before our scheduled Presbytery meeting. I know you will want all of us to have time to consider your overture so that we don't have to table it for lack of time.

>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.

I'm sorry that was not communicated to your session. I will check with David to find out why that was the case. I have personally spoken to every other member of Presbytery and believe it was the understanding across the board that the reason for the postponement was to give your session time to put something by way of overture together. My understanding was that Elder Barrow had agreed with Elder Seekamp in a telephone conversation that the Edmonton session would bring the issue before Presby by way of overture.

We found out in an email from Elder Dohms on February 1st that in your January 9th session meeting you had decided to handle it differently.

>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.

I do not see this as a matter for forgiveness or apology, Greg. I do wish to be patient, but I also desire time to read and carefully study your material BEFORE the Presbytery meeting. I am sure you understand that we want to make decisions based on more than short notice. I have known this issue to be potentially before us for some time (at least since December 4).

>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.

Yes, and because it was a serious issue, he went to Reg with specifics including page numbers and sources. To date all Reg has done (that I have seen) is make rather broad charges and when Chris has asked for specifics he has refused to forward them to Chris saying only that the Presbytery will take care of it. Now, I am happy for Chris and Reg to work this out between them. But what we have seen is Reg making charges and then simply saying "this is my session's position as well" or "this will all come out eventually." Obviously if Chris has promoted Independency or Popery he desires to repent. But, as our standard say -- we must repent of particular sins particularly (WCF 15.5). Chris was kind enough to Reg to tell him what he was talking about. Reg has not returned the kindness so far as I can tell.

>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.

Again, I refer to an agreement reached between Elders Seekamp and Barrow.

According to our understanding of that agreement, the discussion until Presby met would be limited to the churches and presbyters and we would NOT attempt to influence the general membership of any of our churches. Previous email from Elder Dohms referenced what I thought was the same agreement. I will check with Elder Seekamp, but I am positive that he memorialized the telephone conversation and sent a copy either to Elder Barrow or to the session.

From email of Feb. 1, 1996:

LWD>We have full agreement with Elder Seekamp's statement that LWD>"we really should give one another time to reflect on the issues LWD>prior to arrival at presbytery and seek the Lord's help in formulating LWD>considered and thoughtful opinions" (Jan. 3 E-mail)

>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).

One person of whom I am aware (who is a member of none of our congregations and who lives nowhere near any of our churches) has reported that Jim Dodson told him that he had the Edmonton church "tied around his little finger." I hope for Jim's sake as well as the Edmonton Church's that the report was false.

>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).

My suggestion would be to stay with what was originally agreed upon.

However, given some of what you have written in your post I wonder if there ever was an agreement. What did your session understand the reason/purpose of the postponement to be?

>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.

I do believe it is not your intention to ambush anyone. However, we need to have something to debate before it can be debated. We do not want "resources," so much as we want an overture from your session stating specifics. Given the postponement, I do not think it is fair to characterize our concern as "impatient."

Also, I think it is very important for Reg to name specifics if he intends to accuse anyone of either Independency or Popery (or, as is the case with Chris, both).

>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.

I was referring to what I understood to be a commitment that your session made to Presbytery.

I will be out of town for the next three weeks (beginning on Feb 26th and continuing to roughly March 15th). Please do not become alarmed when you do not hear back from me. As you can imagine, this has also been a concern as to why we have not yet received anything from your session.

Even if it were waiting in my mailbox upon my return, it would give me only a little over two weeks to study it.

We are also busy here and must have time to schedule reading and studying any material you wish to send us. Please be as understanding with us as you ask us to be with you.

Dick