Back to Steelite Controversy Correspondence

April 20, 1996. Greg Price to Clerk of Presbytery.

Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 12:28:19 -0600 (MDT) From: Greg Price

To: David Seekamp Cc: Richard Bacon, Jerry Crick, Tim Worrel

Subject: Response to Second Notice from Presbytery

Mr. David Seekamp

The Clerk of Presbytery

The Reformation Presbyterian Church April 18, 1996

Dear Brethren,

We acknowledge receipt of your correspondence (dated April 15, 1996) concerning "a second notice to appear before the Presbytery." We request that the clerk please provide us with minutes from the most recent meeting of the Presbytery as soon as he is able.

The motion passed by the Presbytery ("It was moved and seconded that in light of the Edmonton session's non-appearance at the presbytery meeting, that we cite them a second time to appear. This meeting is to occur in Charlotte, NC on June 22, 1996 to convene at 9:00 AM. If they do not appear at this meeting charges of contumacy will be filed against them.") begs the very question which this session has already put to the Presbytery in our correspondence of March 27, 1996: Is the Reformation Presbyterian Church a duly constituted court of Jesus Christ? Not only have we maintained that the constitution of The Reformation Presbyterian Church is unfaithful to the terms of communion established by our covenanted and presbyterian forefathers of The Second Reformation (cf. our correspondence of March 27, 1996), but we also maintain that The Reformation Presbyterian Church is not duly constituted for the fundamental reason that no formal vows have yet been taken by officers of The Reformation Presbyterian Church to any constitution. Certain subordinate standards and a subscription statement have been adopted by The Reformation Presbyterian Church, but no formal vows have yet been publicly taken by any officer in owning these as subordinate standards. Churches that profess to be reformed have universally maintained that a binding union is established between a church officer and a church when he publicly promises (vows) and owns the constitution of the church before witnesses. This is even required by A MANUAL OF THE PRACTICE OF THE FREE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (pp. 123-127). This formed the reason why The Reformation Presbyterian Church at its meeting of July 22, 1995 in Snellville, Georgia rightly chose not to censure Mr. John Cripps for breaking any vows, for he had not broken any formal vows which constitutionally bound him to The Reformation Presbyterian Church. Thus, brethren, if you maintain that you are lawfully constituted, we request the Presbytery to produce from the minutes of presbytery formal vows which any officer has taken to the constitution of The Reformation Presbyterian Church (as distinguished from motions which only adopt certain documents as subordinate standards of The Reformation Presbyterian Church).

Brethren, until you present us with answers to these constitutional questions, we cannot own you as a duly constituted court of the Lord Jesus Christ. For these reasons we have necessarily declined the jurisdiction of The Reformation Presbyterian Church. We are not acting from a spirit of contumacy at all, but from a biblical and historical necessity to establish duly constituted order and authority within a church court before it can lawfully rule on behalf of Christ. Therefore, we believe the Presbytery cannot lawfully (de jure) cite us to appear before it as a true church court (even if it does so de facto), nor can it lawfully charge us with contumacy if it be not a lawfully constituted church court. We plead with the Presbytery to answer these questions. We do not desire to remain separated from you brethren. The issue of a duly constituted authority cannot be avoided.

Furthermore, we have made known our willingness to discuss these matters with the Presbytery. In our e-mail correspondence to the Presbytery (March 27, 1996),we stated this to be our desire, and in phone conversations with the Presbytery through the Moderator before the last Presbytery meeting, we assured the Presbytery of our willingness to meet with them via conference call. We waited to see if the Presbytery desired to meet with us, but we received no communication to that effect. Though unable to afford the expense of flying our entire session to Rowlett, we willingly consented to appear before the Presbytery by conference call to discuss our actions. Thus, we did not wilfully refuse to "appear" before the Presbytery on even the first occasion. Concerning "the second notice" to appear, we request that the venue of the meeting be changed to Edmonton since we have borne a greater financial burden in previous meetings due to the greater distance we have had to travel. If the Presbytery should yet choose to meet in Charlotte, NC, we must decline appearing personally at that meeting (for financial considerations), though we would yet be willing to consider the possibility of a conference call on that date. We do not consider our non-appearance at these meetings for financial reasons to be the result of contumacy on our parts. Such a trip for our entire session would cost us in the vicinity of $3,000 (Canadian). Our church budget will not permit such an expenditure. So you see, brethren, we are not refusing to discuss these issues with you, nor are we refusing to meet with you. Please seriously consider our request for a change of venue if you desire to meet with us personally, or consider a conference call on June 22 if you desire to discuss these matters with us at that time in Charlotte.

We acknowledge as well that we have received the Presbytery's motion (of 4/6/96) "that we remind Elder Greg Barrow of his duty to keep the Presbytery informed about his progress as a man under care." Brethren, since we have declined the jurisdiction of The Reformation Presbyterian Church due to its absence of duly constituted authority as a church court, we must maintain that Mr. Barrow was never under care of a truly constituted Presbytery. We implore you to join with us in establishing a duly constituted Presbytery that is agreeable to the Word of God and to the standards of our covenanted and presbyterian forefathers of The Second Reformation. To that end shall we continue to work and pray.

For Christ's Crown And Covenant,

The Session of Puritan Reformed Church