Back to Steelite Controversy Correspondence

Nov. 1, 1996. Greg Price to Clerk of Presbytery. Delayed Responses.

Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 16:13:26 -0700 (MST) From: Greg Price

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

Subject: RE: Delayed Response

DEAR DAVID,

WE DO APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO ACKNOWLEDGE AN OVERSTATEMENT IN REGARD TO THE FIRST POINT LISTED BELOW. WE HUMBLY FORGIVE YOU LOOKING TO OUR OWN SINS AND FAULTS WHICH ARE EVER BEFORE US. PLEASE NOTE COMMENTS IN CAPS THAT ARE INTERSPERSED THROUGHOUT YOUR REPLY TO US.

On Sat, 26 Oct 1996, Dave Seekamp wrote:

> 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.

DAVID, IT IS TRUE THAT PASTOR PRICE DID REQUEST THAT HE BE RECEIVED AS A MEMBER OF PRESBYTERY AND THAT THE MINUTES OF THE THIRD MEETING (HELD AT SNELLVILLE, GA) REVEAL THAT HE WAS ACCORDINGLY RECEIVED. HOWEVER, CAN YOU CITE ANY PRESBYTERIAN BODY (PAST OR PRESENT) THAT RECEIVES MINISTERS FROM ANOTHER BODY WITHOUT ADMINISTERING AN OATH OR VOW OF SOME NATURE CONCERNING THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH TO WHICH HE SEEKS ADMISSION?

THE FREE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH'S *A MANUAL OF THE PRACTICE OF THE FREE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF SCOTLAND* STATES: *NO MINISTER OR PROBATIONER OF ANOTHER DENOMINATION OR CHURCH SHALL BE RECEIVED TO THE STANDING OF A MINISTER OR PROBATIONER OF THIS CHURCH, WITHOUT AN UNQUALIFIED SUBSCRIPTION OF THE FORMULA* (ACT VIII. 1850--ACT ANENT THE ADMISSSION OF MINISTERS AND PROBATIONERS FROM OTHER CHURCHES, P. 135). WAS PRESBYTERIAN POLITY FOLLOWED IN THE PROCESS OF ADMISSION? IF SO, PLEASE CITE WARRANT. IF NOT, HOW IS HE BOUND AS A MEMBER?

>

> 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.

DAVID, YOU HAVE QUOTED THE APPROPRIATE SECTION WHICH APPLIES TO THE SYNOD AND ITS RESPECTIVE MEETINGS, HOWEVER, WE WOULD DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE SECTION WHICH APPLIES TO THE PRESBYTERY AND ITS MINUTES CONCERNING MEETINGS: *THE PRESBYTERY MUST THEN EITHER APPROVE OF THESE MINUTES AS READ, OR CORRECT THEM, AND APPROVE OF THEM AS CORRECTED. THEY CANNOT AFTERWARDS BE ALTERED, EXCEPT BY THE AUTHORITY OF A HIGHER COURT* (CHAPTER II, PART I, PAR. 22, P. 34). WHY WOULD A HIGHER COURT BE PERMITTED TO ALTER THE MINUTES OF A PRESBYTERY MEETING? PRESUMABLY IF THERE WAS AN ERROR OR BREACH OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. SINCE THERE IS NO *HIGHER COURT* WE WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF AN ERROR OR BREACH OF LAW HAS OCCURRED THAT PRESBYTERY WOULD HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO CORRECT THAT ERROR. TO SUGGEST OTHERWISE WOULD IMPLY THAT PRESBYTERY CANNOT ERR AND BE CORRECTED AFTER ITS MINUTES ARE APPROVED. THE MINUTES OF PRESBYTERY ARE NOT TO BE VIEWED AS THE LAW OF THE MEDES AND PERSIANS. IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT PRESBYTERY WOULD CHOOSE NOT TO ALTER THE MINUTES OF A PARTICULAR MEETING, BUT RATHER TO CORRECT AN ERROR MADE IN THAT MEETING IN A SUBSEQUENT MEETING. REGARDLESS OF WHICH WAY PRESBYTERY MIGHT DEEM MOST APPROPRIATE, ERRORS CAN BE CORRECTED.

WE WOULD REPECTFULLY ASK YOU AGAIN WHETHER THERE WAS EITHER AN AUDIO TAPE OR A VIDEO TAPE MADE OF THE MEETING HELD AT SNELLVILLE, GA? YOU SEEMED TO IMPLY THAT SUCH MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE CASE, BUT WHETHER OR NOT TAPES WERE MADE IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THE APPROVED MINUTES STAND. WE WOULD SUBMIT THAT IF (FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT) THE APPROVED MINUTES ARE CONTRARY TO THE ACTUAL FACTS, THEN THE TRUTH MUST CORRECT EVEN *APPROVED MINUTES.*

>

> 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.

THE POINT WE WERE MAKING WAS THAT EVEN IF ELDER BARROW WAS APPROVED AS A DELEGATE TO THE THIRD MEETING OF PRESBYTERY, HE CANNOT TAKE VOWS BY PROXY FOR OTHERS WHO ARE ABSENT UNLESS AT LEAST THEY GIVE HIM PERMISSION TO DO SO, AND ALL WHO WITNESS THE VOWS UNDERSTAND SUCH TO BE THE CASE. SINCE NONE OF THESE CONDITIONS WERE MET, ELDER BARROW COULD ONLY TAKE VOWS FOR HIMSELF (IF VOWS WERE INDEED TAKEN AT THAT THRID MEETING IN SNELLVILLE).

SINCERELY,

THE SESSION OF PURITAN REFORMED CHURCH

>

>

> Best regards in the Lord,

> Dave