Back to Steelite Controversy Correspondence

[October 19, 1996] Richard Bacon to Greg Price. Re Request to Dialogue.

To: Greg Price

From: Richard Bacon

Subject: Re: Request To Dialogue

At 11:18 AM 10/19/96 -0600, Greg Price wrote:

>Thank you for responding to my post. Brother, I disagree that the

>dialogue was cut off on our end. We have spoken with and written members

>of Reformation Presbyterian Church individually.

Writing to individuals is different from corresponding with the Presbytery. If you wish to do the latter, then the proper means would be via the clerk of Presbytery.

>But we have not received

>correspondence from members of The Reformation Presbyterian Church which

>we did not first initiate. Furthermore, we have addressed several

>communications to The Reformation Presbyterian Church as a whole, and have

>not yet received communication or dialogue concerning reasons for our

>decision to dissociate.

As a matter of fact I have voted on three separate communications from Presbytery to the Edmonton PRC myself. If they were not sent, then I need to bring that to the attention of Presbytery.

>In answer to specific questions we addressed to

>the clerk, we have received correspondence.

Then I do not follow the gist of what you are saying. You have corresponded with individuals and received individual responses. You have corresponded with the Presbytery and received responses from the clerk. What else is there?

>Other individual members of

>The Reformation Presbyterian Church have been willing to dialogue with us

>about matters related to the formation of and dissociation from The

>Reformation Presbyterian Church.

Anyone is free to "dialog" about anything he wishes. We are doing that now, though neither of us is getting the response from the other that he might hope for.

>Here we are expressing our willingness

>to address all of the issues that concern our dissociation, and yet we are

>unable to do so in any other forum than before the courts of The

>Reformation Presbyterian Church.

I have read all the reasons you have sent. In fact, I have read everything that the Edmonton PRC has written on the subject, including emails which included me either in the to: or cc: of the header. Further, your correspondance in this very post indicates that you ARE dialoging in an informal way with members of the RPC. See, you can address individuals as individuals or you can address the court as a court; but I don't see how you can address the court as a simple group of individuals. That would be a concession of your entire position (at least by way of implication).

>Brother, here we reach an impasse. For

>you maintain that we must recognize your jurisdiction and compear before

>your courts which is to in effect to declare our dissociation to be

>sinful. We maintain that we cannot recognize your courts until we have

>settled certain issues that led to our dissociation. Thus, we cannot

>discuss our dissociation apart from the matters of truth and conscience

>that led to our dissociation. If I might paraphrase the problem: You

>want us to make null and void our dissociation and begin by admitting our

>sin in that matter by compearing before your courts; whereas we want to

>begin by discussing in an informal forum the reasons which led to our

>dissociation. Dick, we can no more concede to this request, than our

>protesting forefathers would acquiesce to the demands of the resolutioner

>Assemblies to compear before their *pretended* courts. If you maintain

>the only way to resolve these issues is first to appear before you and

>confess our sin, then we will never get to the matters that led to our

>dissociation.

Yes, and I also could not in good conscience concede to your request. So in what way do you think things will change by having a coffee-klatch type meeting? I do not see that as a solution.

>Yes, we did decline the jurisdiction of The Reformation Presbyterian

>Church. But we did so for reasons--reasons which we have stated in

>writing. Reasons for which we have yet not received any answer--except to

>acknowledge our sin in doing so by compearing before your courts.

Actually, the last correspondance you should have received from the Presbytery was a request that you resubmit in accordance with standard Presbyterian practice. Nor do I believe that you can call the Presbytery to task anymore than you believe Presbytery has jurisdiction over you.

You have never asked me for me personal opinion of your position, nor have I ever offered it to you.

>Yes, we read of the motion that was made in the minutes of your last

>meeting. However, we have not received any official communication as to

>what that motion means.

How many meanings do you think it is subject to? I can conceive only one: It means that all who were present and voting (the attendance should be available to you as an attachment to the minutes) affirmed that we were taking a vow. The reason the discussion even came up was because the Whitestone church insisted that they did not understand that they were previously taking a vow when they affiliated with the RPC. Therefore to preclude any further misunderstanding it was decided to make our vow explicit and to confess (covenant) in writing.

>Dear brother, it comes to this again: We cannot get to the MATTER of why

>we dissociated until we first consider the MANNER in which we dissociated.

>But is not the Manner of dissociation dependent upon the Matter of

>dissociation. If we had just cause for immediate dissociation, would that

>not effect the way in which we dissociated? What I am saying is simply

>this: How would you ever be able to conclude whether our MANNER was

>biblical, unless we first discussed the MATTER?

Then please explain precisely what it is you wish to "dialog" about. If all you wish to do is present your case, I assure you again that I have read your case. Not only that but I was already familiar with a substantial portion of the material upon which your position is based.

>This is one of the important issues that need to be discussed, namely that

>of jus divium association. It specifically relates to our separation.

>But we cannot discuss it because we must first confess our willingness to

>be ruled by a decision made by The Reformation Presbyterian Church.

That is my understanding as well. We do not agree on what the matter is between us.

>I would be willing to help in any way that I can, but you see brother, the

>matters over which Reg and Chris disagree are a microcosm of our areas of

>disagreement. *Can two walk together, except they be agreed?* Their

>inability to resolve their problems is related to our inability to resolve

>our problems. Brother, I invite you to sit with us around the table to

>seek by God's grace to resolve our differences.

I do not see it that way. I don't think the manner in which we speak to one another is mitigated by the fact that we disagree. When Reg leveled accusations against Chris which he was either unwilling or unable to document, he simply turned it over to his session and refused to go further with the discussion. Now during this Chris accused Reg of anger without being able to see Reg's motives. I counselled Chris to repent, apologize, and seek forgiveness. He produced evidence that he had done this and that Reg and forgiven him. Please explain to me why our continued disagreement does not prevent Chris from offering an apology when he is wrong, but it does prevent Reg from doing so.

I am not suggesting, nor did I suggest previously that Reg and Chris must agree on particulars of theology or church government. What I have previously suggested and am suggesting again is that the manner in which Reg refused to document or retract an accusation was not biblical.

I was hoping that you might be willing to help in this regard. If Reg can document his accusations, I think I know Chris well enough to believe he wants to repent of particular sins particularly. On the other hand, if Reg cannot document his accusations, then I honestly believe he should apologize to Chris for the offense of false witness.