Back to Steelite Controversy Correspondence

June 19, 1996. Edmonton Session to Clerk of Presbytery.

Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 23:09:32 -0600 (MDT) From: Greg Price

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

Subject: Presbytery/Charlotte

To: The Reformation Presbyterian Church

David Seekamp, Clerk of Presbytery

June 19, 1996

From: The Session of Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton

Dear Brethren,

In light of your upcoming meeting of Presbytery (June 21-22, 1996) in Charlotte, NC, we believe it would be advantageous to address several matters that have been communicated to us from members of presbytery since your last meeting (April 6, 1996) in Rowlette, TX.

1. We have been cited a second time to appear before presbytery, and if we do not appear we will be charged with contumacy. As we made clear in our communication to presbytery by e-mail (April 18, 1996), we have been willing to address the issues related to our dissociation and continue to be willing to do so. This fact is established by our communications with presbytery via the moderator before the last presbytery meeting in Rowlette (April 6, 1996), wherein we agreed to meet with presbytery by means of conference call. We understood this would be acceptable to presbytery since Dr. Crick would be attending that meeting of presbytery by means of conference call as well. However, we were not contacted to set up a conference call. Why were we not contacted? Contumacy implies an obstinate refusal to hear or listen. For the record, we were willing then to speak with you, and are still willing to do so. Our willingness to address the matters of our dissociation is further evidenced by the number of phone calls (approximately 8) we have made to members of presbytery. Would you honestly accuse us of obstinately refusing to talk with you? Since presbytery has not initiated a single phone call with us, has the presbytery demonstrated as much willingness to talk with us as we have with them? If presbytery sincerely views our session as having been led astray, where is presbyteryUs willingness to talk with us by conference call so as to lead us back into the paths of righteousness?

2. In a recent e-mail communication (May 13, 1996) from presbytery via the clerk, it was stated, *This is an official response to you from the Clerk of the Presbytery. . . . Speaking for the Presbytery (I may be overruled when we convene), we may be willing to provide financial assistance under the following conditions: (1) If youUre (sic) purpose is to come to repent . . . .* We call the presbyteryUs attention to the fact that the presbytery has not yet charged us with a sin for which to repent. This appears to us to be a case of having been found guilty by presbytery before even having been charged with a specific sin (a violation of the ninth commandment or any faithful book of church order). Upon your supposition that we are yet members of presbytery, is this proceeding by due process of law?

3. One of our stated reasons for not appearing in person before the members of presbytery (namely, our present financial circumstances), appears to be dismissed by presbytery via the clerk (in an official presbytery communication by e-mail, dated May 13, 1996) as either irrelevant or fabricated since *this was never an issue as long while (sic) you were committed to the Presbytery.* As a matter of record, we asked the presbytery to consider meeting in Edmonton in an official communication (dated March 8, 1996) and in unofficial communications (both verbal and e-mail). We have discussed this as one of the significant issues for not attending the meeting at Rowlette and Charlotte in recent session meetings as well. In all previous meetings of presbytery, our representatives have traveled by far the furthest distance and have incurred the most significant costs. Since presbytery has no evidence to the contrary, why does presbytery cast doubt upon our testimony as if it were spurious? If evidence to the contrary is available, please provide such evidence.

4. The presbytery apparently refuses to accept our willingness to meet with them by conference call, and yet it agreed to have Dr. Crick attend the last meeting of presbytery by conference call. We were cited for not appearing because we did not appear in person. Did Dr. Crick appear in person at the last meeting of presbytery? This appears to us to be an inconsistency. Why is Dr. CrickUs excuse acceptable and ours unacceptable?

5. Does presbytery have unanimity amongst itself as to when individuals were constituted as members of presbytery by virtue of public and formal vows? Were formal vows to be united as members of presbytery taken at the first meeting of presbytery (October 1, 1994), or the second meeting (January 28, 1995), or the third meeting (July 22, 1995), or the fourth meeting (April 6, 1996), or were they taken on any previous ocassion? We have received a diversity of opinion from the members of presbytery to such a simple question? Such should not be the case if the answer is so clear. This is our reason for not officially recognizing the constituted authority of presbytery to cite us to appear before it. Beyond the matters related to our differences in terms of communion, we wish to communicate to you that at no time in the process of determining the wording of our form of subscription did we conceive or in any way understand that we were taking formal vows. We can only ask that you believe our sincere testimony. Can you cite for us any presbyterian body that was constituted implicitly without formal vows?

6. Our session would propose that we meet as brothers in a neutral location (such as Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane, or Calgary) to informally discuss our differences. Due to the difference that exists in our terms of communion, we cannot in good conscience meet together formally in the context of a church court. If the conference call arrangement is not acceptable to presbytery, we ask presbytery to meet with us in person at a location that will considerably minimize our expenses.

We do pray that you will seriously consider the matters we have raised at your meeting in Charlotte, NC, June 21-22, 1996. We do love you as fellow brethren in Christ and do pray that there might yet be a reconciliation of significant issues that presently separate us.

Respectfully,

The Session of Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton

P.S. Since the moderator cannot receive this communication by e-mail, please see that he receives a copy. Please confirm that you have received this communication.