Back to Steelite Controversy Correspondence

Nov. 2, 1996. Greg Price to Richard Bacon. Request to Dialogue.

Date: Sat, 2 Nov 1996 10:57:59 -0700 (MST) From: Greg Price

To: Richard Bacon

Subject: Re: Request To Dialogue

On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Richard Bacon wrote:

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

> >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.

The post to which you refer above (2/22/96) was a request to be patient concerning an overture that

our session was working on in regard to matters related to social covenanting and its implications for presbyterians today. This was sent to the Reformation Presbyterian Church (dated March 6, 1996) and actually had the effect of revealing to us the necessity of addressing these issues to The Reformation Presbyterian Church from a position of dissociation rather than from a postion of association. If the time to discuss these issues was before and after last March of 1996, are you saying that you are unwilling to discuss these matters with me now in an informal forum, or unwilling to discuss the reasons for our dissociation with our session in an informal, non-judicial setting?

>

> >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.

Dick, since you acknowledge you have read the material we have sent regarding covenanting and the perpetual obligation of covenants, do you agree with us or not? What did you understand by the statement at the first meeting in Atlanta, GA: *It is not necessary to take the Covenant of the three kingdoms.* Again, does your response above indicate you are willing to discuss these matters with us outside of a judicial context?

>

> >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.

Dick, are you saying that the fifth commandment forbids you from meeting with us in an informal setting to discuss the reasons for our dissociation, or informally discussing these issues with me by e-mail?

> >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?

Dick, we would be willing to discuss any mater you might raise (including placing documents on a website). I would specifically, ask you to discuss with me three issues that I believe bear upon our dissociation: (1) What did you mean by the phrase: *It is not necessary to take the Covenant of the three kingdoms.* (2) What is you view of the Revolution Settlement (1690)? (3) What obligations do presbyterian churches today have in dissociation from Revolution Settlement churches that implicitly own the burning of the covenants, persecution of the covenanters, and Acts Recissory which made null and void the attainments of the second reformation? (4) Is not the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland a descendant of the Revolution settlement in its constitution? (5) Is the constitution of the U.S. a moral or immoral constitution? Can Christians take oaths of allegiance to it?

> >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.

Dick, Mr. Barrow was not present to take vows on behalf of myself or Mr. Dohms. We never gave him leave to do so, nor was there any thing in the motion to that effect. The minute in question in fact states the contrary: *This vote was considered by those voting as the taking of a vow obliging compliance with the statement. The moderator's vote was included in the number recorded above.* The most that can be concluded from this motion is that those voting obligated themselves to comply with the subscription statement. Would you please cite warrant in presbyterian polity for subscription vows being taken by one on behalf of others without their knowledge and without that stated purpose being made known to the assembly present?

> 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 agree it is not the memory of Mr. Barrow or that of Mr. Robinson that determines what happened. My point is that there is no recollection of this motion being constituted as a vow. Thus, my appeal to an audio tape or video tape of the meeting. That would certainly settle the matter once for all whether the motion was constituted a vow by the moderator or by the assembly present. Approved minutes of presbytery may be corrected by a *higher court* according to *A Manual of the Practice of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland* (*They cannot be altered, except by the authority of a higher Court* Ch.II, Pt.I, Par.22, p.34). Such an alteration would presumably be for errors or violations of constitutional law etc. I submit that if there is no *higher court* to which to appeal an error in approved minutes, that such might be done by the same court upon just warrant. We would like to settle this issue in our own minds.

If such a vow was associated with this motion, tapes of the meeting would make this clear. Do you know whether such tapes were made of that meeting?

For Christ's Crown and Covenant,

Greg L. Price