Back to Steelite Controversy Correspondence

[October 24, 1996]. Richard Bacon to Greg Price. Request to Dialgoue

To: Greg Price

From: Richard Bacon

Subject: Re: Request To Dialogue

At 02:55 PM 10/24/96 -0600, Greg Price wrote:

>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.

As I said, I remember voting on each of those communications. If you have not received any communication at all from the clerk of Presbytery on these things, then please take that up with the 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).

You should have received a letter (email or otherwise) from the clerk of Presbytery informing you of the decision at the Charlotte meeting to return your letter of dissociation and overture with the request that it be resubmitted iaw standard presbyterian practice.

>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.

Quite honestly, brother, the time to discuss this has been both before and after last March. I asked you and elder Dohms both via email on a personal basis if we could not discuss these things at the Spring mtg of the Presbytery. I got this response from you :

From 2/22/96 post from Greg Price:

>I STRESS AGAIN WE HAVE NOT SOUGHT TO GO OUR OWN INDEPENDENT WAY,

>BUT SIMPLY HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO GET TO THESE IMPORTANT MATTERS AS SOON AS

>WE HAD PLANNED. WE HAVE APOLOGIZED FOR THIS BEFORE. PLEASE BE PATIENT

>WITH US.

You asked us to be patient with you on 2/22. Five weeks later I received in my email a letter of "dissociation" which was dated within a month of a stated Presbytery meeting. Please explain how that demonstrates the kind of patience we should be demonstrating in these matters.

>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.

You have never defined for me what you want me to "dialogue" about. See, Greg, I simply disagree with the approach you are taking. I may agree completely with your view of covenanting, with your view of the purpose of covenants, with your ideas regarding the perpetual obligations of covenants, etc. But y'all have never asked. You removed yourseves from the kind of interaction we COULD have engaged in by acting (in my opinion) precipitously.

>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.

In a phrase it leaves us dissociated. I disagree with your manner and method of leaving the Presbytery; I think it would be a violation of the fifth commandment to act as if nothing untoward had taken place; but I also acknowledge that things are as things are.

>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?

What precisely do you wish to discuss and what do you wish to avoid discussing? Would you be willing to discuss the public nature of placing your documents on a website and then wanting to have private conversations about it later?

>> 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.

If you contained the minutes in which the motion was contained, then I wonder if you received the minutes as a result of the clerk sending them to you at presbytery's request or at your request? An earlier paragraph from your correspondance seemed to me to indicate that you were suggesting that you had received minutes only when you had requested them:

>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).

>> >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.

What specific action did it call upon presbytery to take?

>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.

1. Mr. Barrow was present at the meeting as a representative of the church.

2. Neither Mr. Barrow's memory nor Mr. Robinson's memory is the determination of what happened. The official record of that meeting resides in the minutes, once approved. The minutes were approved at the April, 1996 meeting. There were NO objections or corrections to that statement at the April meeting, including from Mr. Robinson (I do not mention Mr. Barrow, of course, because he was not present at the April meeting).

>I NOT ONLY WANT TO PRESENT OUR CASE, BUT I WANT TO HEAR YOUR RESPONSE TO

>OUR CASE.

If you recall, we postponed the February 1996 meeting of Presbytery until April 1996 for that very thing to take place. During the interim the Edmonton PRC dissociated.

>> 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.

I am glad to see this. I must admit to considerable frustration at what *seems* to be a hesitancy to discuss that which does not precisely fit the agenda of the Edmonton PRC. I know that cannot be y'all's motives or perspective on this. I know better of you. However, from our perspective it seems that when legitimate (to us) issues are raised they get sidestepped, while there is a continuing insistence (or at least an ongoing request) that we listen to something that you have to say that goes against the agreement that we crafted at our pre-organizational meeting in Atlanta in 1994.