Back to Steelite Controversy Correspondence

[Nov. 20, 1996] Richard Bacon to Greg Price. Dialogue

To: Greg Price

From: Richard Bacon

Subject: Re: Request To Dialogue (fwd)

Dear Greg,

Greetings in the Lord Jesus:

At 09:57 AM 11/20/96 -0700, Greg Price wrote:

>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?

What I am suggesting is in a sense two-fold. First, I do think that y'all acted hastily and unfairly in disassociating without first calling the Presbytery to repentance if you think sin was being committed. OTOH, if sin was not being committed, then I fail to see how waiting until after the April presbytery meeting could have increased your culpability. IMO the problems in great measure arise from the fact that you have not set forth your reasons in a proper manner, but rushed to judgment.

>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 agree with 100% of what you are saying in the doctrinal and theoretical level. I also agree with 99 44/100% of what you are saying in the practical level. Also, not only I, but you and Greg agreed to the statement that "it is not necessary to take the covenant of the three kingdoms." I still do not think it is, nor do I think the material you sent has demonstrated such a necessity.

As far as my willingness to discuss these issues, I was fully prepared to discuss these issues nearly a year ago when your session requested a postponement of presbytery for the purposes of sending up a petition or overture. I have never refused to discuss these things. I believe your session acted hastily in the manner in which it treated those to whom it had promised better treatment. Biblically, I believe our yeas should be yea.

>> 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?

No, I'm saying that we cannot act as though "nothing has happened" when something very clearly has. A wall has been built between us, and much of it has nothing at all to do with the subject of covenanting. It has very much to do with how we handle disagreements (or perceived disagreements for that matter).

>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?

I counted five. Perhaps you can tell me which ones go together so as to make it three distinct issues. Let's handle these one at a time.

(1) I would be happy to answer any questions you have about the implications of taking or not taking specific historical covenants, including SL&C. But I probably meant the same thing you and Greg did when you agreed to the very same phrase. Further, that question came up at our first meeting in October of 1994 and was discussed to a degree that apparently satisfied you at that time. IMO a better question would be what scriptural authority or confessional authority you believe yourself to have to change previously agreed upon terms of communion in a unilateral fashion? I would refer you to a tract distributed by SWRB titled "Of Separation from Corrupt Churches," in which the author stated, "We answer that such evils entering into a church, do by no means, warrant us instantly to forsake it, and form ourselves into a new church-state. It is our duty, first, to labour as the Lord gives us ability and opportunity, for a reformation of abuses; and in this, we ought to be patient as well as earnest." But Presbytery had not only expressed its willingness to consider your concerns, but even postponed a meeting so that you might better prepare yourselves and your arguments for that eventuality.

I submit to you that your separation was NOT the result of rebuffed attempts at reform, but was an instant forsaking. Nor is it possible for the session of the Edmonton PRC rightly to accuse presbytery of obstinacy for requiring you to explain your differences BEFORE leaving.

(2) It was a compromise of the position previously taken by the kirk of Scotland with respect to uniformity of religion.

(3) This question is too vague for me to be able to answer. I will attempt to answer any specific questions you might have. I think promise breakers of all kinds should be called to repentance. Promise breaking is a violation of God's holy law at the ninth commandment.

(4) What has that to do with us or with anything that took place prior to your letter of disassociation?

(5) It is an immoral constitution. I think the second part of your question was intended to ask a moral question, but I cannot tell what it is.

>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?

De 29:11 "Your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that [is] in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water: That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the LORD thy God, and into his oath, which the LORD thy God maketh with thee this day:" Plus, if I understand your position re. the covenant of the three kingdoms correctly, you are claiming precisely that others have taken vows on your behalf -- or at least that such vows are incumbent upon you. Your objection to making Mr. Barrow's vow the rule for your faith and practice is not materially different from others' objections concerning making the SL&C the rule of our faith and practice.

>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?

Yes, the meeting was videotaped. Yes, the particular action was on the tape, from 11:30 to 11:32 on the time imposed on the screen of the video.

While I agree that higher courts can overturn an incorrect minute, it is nonetheless the burden of the higher court to prove the minute incorrect.

Since there is no higher court in the Rfn PC, I do not yet understand the point you make by reference to the manual of practice. As I stated in an earlier post, these minutes have NOT been accepted without scrutiny.

As far as vows are concerned, please read the statement itself -- see if it contains promises and covenants. If it does, then it is binding. If it is a proposal to submit something to a future court then it is not binding. We had previously worked on that covenant statement -- it is a combination of two statements presented by Greg (I assumed for the session of Edmonton, but now I'm not sure what status he held) and Bruce. We worked out the final form of the covenant on 7/22/95 and bound ourselves to it by division of the vote from 11:30 to 11:32 on that date. If the Edmonton session does not believe itself bound by such or if they think that Elder Barrow was vowing only for himself, that could certainly have been a topic of discussion. However, it is now these 17 or 18 months later. Why could these concerns not have been brought to the presbytery in an orderly way in March and April of 1996 instead of the sudden and irreparable manner in which they have been handled? Were copies of the July 1995 minutes (in their unapproved form) not sent to you prior to the scheduled February 1996 meeting? If no (unapproved) minutes were sent to you prior to the meeting, then I would suggest that you have a legitimate complaint against the clerk of presbytery.

Now, what purpose would there have been for a division of the vote if there were no dissenting votes? The tape clearly shows that we were counting each vote separately so that there would not be a misunderstanding that someone else has bound us to such a promise without our consent. Now, if that does release the remainder of the session of the Edmonton church, then presbytery should decided (fyi, I would probably vote with you on it). However, I do not see how it could possibly be understood to be something we may or may not keep for those who were actually present and voting -- including Mr. Robinson.