Back to Steelite Controversy Correspondence

October 18, 1996. Edmonton PRC to Clerk of Presbytery. Response to July 14 letter.

Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1996 17:27:38 -0600 (MDT) From: Greg Price

To: David Seekamp Cc: Richard Bacon, Jerry Crick, Tim Worrell, Greg Barrow, Lyndon Dohms

Subject: Delayed Response

Dear David,

Several months have passed since you last wrote to us an email post (dated July 14, 1996) expressing your repentance for mixing personal opinion with official presbytery correspondence. You sought our forgiveness at that time, and we did (as a session) address the matter and did express a desire to communicate to you our forgiveness. Please forgive us for our prolonged delay in responding to you. While recently going through sessional records, we realized we had not responded to you and had allowed this important matter to fall through the cracks. Thank you for your expression of repentance in that matter.

However, we should also draw to your attention that there were a couple more matters in your email correspondence (dated May 13, 1996) that were equally objectionable.

(1) You stated, *With reference to the cost considerations, this was never an issue as long while (sic.) you were committed to the Presbytery.* This is simply not true. Mr. Price wrote to the Presbyterian Church Covenanted Reformed by email (dated July 12, 1995), "Though I am not able (due to a lack of financial resources to attend this meeting of presbytery (July 22, 1995), I pray our covenant God will grant you His wisdom and peace." Brother, you responded the following day by email (July 13, 1995) with this acknowledgment of the legitimacy of our stated financial concerns, *Sorry to hear you will not be able to attend, however, I think we all understand the great expense incurred by the Edmonton Church in sending many to the meeting.*

(2) You also accuse our session of *vow breaking* in the same email correspondence (May 13, 1996). Can you cite for us at which meeting our session took vows? If you would cite the third meeting in Atlanta, GA (July 22, 1996), you must realize that neither Mr. Price nor Mr. Dohms were present at that meeting. Mr. Barrow (who was present) does not recall taking any vows at that meeting. Though we find in the minutes of that meeting a reference to a unanimous vote which adopted the subscription statement and which (according to the minutes) was *considered by those voting as the taking of a vow obliging compliance with the statement*, it is significant that Mr. Barrow has no recollection of that vote being associated with vows. We would ask if there was any tape (whether audio or video) made at that meeting to which we might refer? Please inform us if there was.

Thus, brother, we do appreciate your willingness to express repentance in the matter of mixing personal opinion with official presbytery correspondence. However, we also request you to recognize your error in the above mentioned false accusations.

Respectfully,

The Session of Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton