 |
October 24, 1996. Greg Price to Richard Bacon. Request to Dialogue.
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 14:55:43 -0600 (MDT) From: Greg Price
To: Richard Bacon
Subject: Re: Request To Dialogue
On Sun, 20 Oct 1996, Richard Bacon wrote:
> At 11:18 AM 10/19/96 -0600, prcedm@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca 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.
WE HAVE DIRECTLY CORRESPONDED WITH THE REFORMATION PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH PRIOR TO OUR DISSOCIATION: AN OVERTURE (DATED MARCH 6, 1996); AT THE TIME OF OUR DISSOCIATION: NEW TERMS OF COMMUNION AND ITS EFFECTS (DATED MARCH 27, 1996); AND SUBSEQUENT TO OUR DISSOCIATION: TO THE REFORMATION PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH BEFORE THE LAST MEETING IN CHARLOTTE, NC (DATED JUNE 1996). WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR RESPONSES FROM THESE COMMUNICATIONS.
> >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.
WE DID RECEIVE A COMMUNICATION WHICH CITED US TO APPEAR BEFORE PRESBYTERY. WE RECEIVED COPIES OF MINUTES OF THE LAST TWO MEETINGS (AT OUR REQUEST).
> >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?
WE REQUESTED COPIES OF THE MINUTES FROM THE CLERK. THAT HARDLY QUALIFIES AS A DISCUSSION OF THE MATTERS RELATED TO OUR DISSOCIATION WHICH IS WHAT WE DESIRE TO DISCUSS WITH YOU.
> >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.
DICK, THIS IS NOT MY IDEA OF DIALOGUE AS TO THE MATTER OF OUR DISSOCIATION. THAT IS WHAT I AM REQUESTING THAT YOU ENGAGE IN. THE FACT THAT WE ARE *DIALOGUING* ABOUT DIALOGUING IS NOT DIALOGUING.
> >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).
I AM GLAD THAT YOU HAVE READ OUR CORRESPONDENCE--I HAVE ALSO READ YOURS.
SO WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US IF WE DO NOT TALK ABOUT THE MATTER CONTAINED IN THOSE CORRESPONDENCES. IT IS TRUE THAT OUR SESSION CANNOT ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR
LAWFUL JURISDICTION WITHOUT GVING UP OUR POSITION, BUT NEITHER CAN YOU ACKNOWLEDGE OUR LAWFUL
DISSOCIATION WITHOUT GIVING UP YOUR POSITION. WHICH IS THE VERY REASON FOR MY REQUEST TO ENGAGE IN AN INFORMAL DIALOGUE WITH YOU SO THAT WE MIGHT DISCUSS TOGETHER IN A SITUATION IN WHICH NEITHER YOU NOR MYSELF MUST NECESSARILY CONCEDE OUR POSITION AS WE DISCUSS THE MATTER OF OUR DISSOCIATION.
> >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.
BROTHER, WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU TO CONCEDE YOUR POSITION NOR TO NECESSARILY RECOGNIZE OUR DISSOCIATION AS LAWFUL IN MEETING WITH US. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO SELL THE FARM IN IN AGREEING TO DISCUSS THESE MATTERS WITH US. I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING HOW YOU WOULD VIOLATE YOUR CONSCIENCE IN AGREEING TO MEET INFORMALLY WITH US. WHAT COMMAND FROM GOD'S WORD WOULD YOU VIOLATE IN MEETING WITH US AS BROTHERS WHO ARE SEEKING TO RESOLVE MATTERS RELATED TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH?
> >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.
WE RECEIVED THE MINUTES IN WHICH THIS MOTION WAS CONTAINED. WE RECEIVED NO SPECIFIC COMMUNICATION TO THIS EFFECT. OF COURSE, WE COULD NOT RESUBMIT THE ORIGINAL OVERTURE WITHOUT RECOGNIZING YOUR JURISDICTION, BUT WE WOULD BE WILLING TO DISCUSS ALL THE MATTERS CONTAINED IN IT IN THE INFORMAL MEETING I HAVE PROPOSED.
> >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.
HOW MANY MEANINGS? I'M NOT SURE. THE ORIGINAL OVERTURE WAS SUBMITTED TO YOU ACCORDING TO THE FORM FOUND IN THE OPC AND THE RPCNA BOOKS OF CHURCH ORDER. MY QUESTION AS
TO THE MEANING OF THE MOTION HAD REFERENCE TO AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHAT WAS DONE INCORRECTLY IN THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION OF THE OVERTURE.
I WAS NOT REFERRING TO THE MOTION IN WHICH VOWS WERE (ALLEGEDLY) TAKEN BY THOSE PRESENT. BUT SINCE YOU RAISE THAT MATTER (IN THE THIRD MEETING AT ATLANTA), HOW DOES MR. BARROW TAKE VOWS FOR MR. DOHMS OR MYSELF?
FURTHERMORE, IT STRIKES ME AS STRANGE THAT IF VOWS WERE TAKEN THAT NEITHER MR. BARROW NOR MR. ROBINSON REMEMBER SUCH. A MOTION WAS MADE TO ACCEPT THE SUBSCRIPTION STATEMENT, NOT VOWS TAKEN TO SWEAR ALLEGIANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REFORMATION PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. WE HAVE REQUESTED OF THE CLERK ANY VIDEO TAPE OR AUDIO TAPE THAT MIGHT HELP CLARIFY WHAT WAS SAID IN CONJUCTION WITH THAT MOTION.
> >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.
I NOT ONLY WANT TO PRESENT OUR CASE, BUT I WANT TO HEAR YOUR RESPONSE TO OUR CASE.
> >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.
I HOPE TO HAVE MORE WORD ON THIS VERY SOON.
GREG PRICE
> Dick Bacon
> dbacon@airmail.net
> Pastor, First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett, TX
> http://web2.airmail.net/bluebanr
>
> There is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless
> we preach what now days is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to
> call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the Gospel.
> Charles Spurgeon - "The Early Days"
| Page Created 08/17/1997 | Page Last Updated: 07/04/99 08:38:02 PM |