Back to Steelite Controversy Correspondence

October 26, 1996. Clerk of Presbytery to Edmonton PRC. Delayed Responses.

From: Dave Seekamp To: Price Cc: Bacon, Crick, Worrell, G Barrow, Dohms

Subject: RE: Delayed Response

Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 23:44:45 -0700

Encoding: 141 TEXT

Regarding (1)

You are correct, my statement, "With reference to cost consideration, this was

NEVER an issue.." was an overstatement.

This was a violation of the 9th commandment and was bearing false witness

against you as it predjudiced the truth and overfaced it. I am truly sorrow for

having made this generalization of you. I do not believe, nor should others

believe, that you are altogether lacking in fiscal concern or care in the

management of financial resources. In this, I ask that you would forgive me.

My understanding and sympathy for your financial concerns was, as to the occasion, addressed to one who had not yet become a member of Presbytery

though you were requesting an entrance with "all speed". It was also then

known that Elder Barrow would be in attendance as a delegate representing the

Edmonton Church.

No one was being sent to Presbytery on the occasion mentioned above. As Pastor Price has now, at his own request, become a member of the court, and

is duty bound to attend Presbytery as a standing member of the court, any

excused absence with legitamacy must come from the Presbytery. My personal

comments cannot legitimize absences due to financial hardship or for any other

reason with authority. This is properly the domain of Presbytery.

Regarding (2)

The Prebytery would need to make a ruling about any video tape if one still exists.

The minutes to which you refer from July 22, 1995, which are the official record of

the actions of Presbytery, were approved by the Presbytery at the next meeting.

The accuracy of the minutes does not rest upon Elder Barrow's personal recollection

of what took place but upon the Presbytery's recollection as a whole.

I am personally

unable to alter what is there. According to our standards - A Manual of Practice of

the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, Chapter III, Part 1, Section 17 (p. 64):

After the minutes of any Meeting have been approved by the Synod, they

cannot afterward be altered. The approval or correction of the minutes

does not imply any power to alter the resgestrae of the Meeting.

Regarding Elder Barrow's capacity in the meeting of Presbytery, he would not have

been seated and allowed to vote in any capacity other than as a delegate representing

the Edmonton Church as an Elder acting on your behalf. This is the only understanding

of his business there consistent with Presbyterian government. That this was your own

understanding seems to be clear from your minutes dated June 20, 1995 which contain

the following item:

Delegate: Elder Dolms confirmed his preference to allow Elder Barrow to

serve as our delegate to Presbytery.

Best regards in the Lord,

Dave