Back to Steelite Controversy Correspondence

Feb 1, 1996. FPCR Clerk of Session to Edmonton Clerk Re: Winter Presbytery Meeting and Separation Issue.

Thu, 1 Feb 1996 15:52:25 -080015:40:02 -0800 From: Dave Seekamp To: Dohms

Subject: RE: Winter Presbytery Meeting and Separation Issue Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 15:39:15 -0800

Thanks for your response, Elder Dohlms. Your apology is accepted. We very much understand how many directions each of us are pulled and the struggles with organization. Makes one long for heaven, doesn't it - though we will still be finite and limited even then.

There was a question from Pastor Price's letter about what was received by us. Besides receiving the catalog (shortly after our request), Chris received a packet from Reg a week or so ago. It's hard to determine if it is private or not (though private mail should be stopped also). It had a form with a comment written across the top indicating "20,000 of these were mailed out". The word "these" was ambiguous since it could have referred to any one of the following:

1) 20,000 order forms only (not including the packet of flyers with it) 2) The order form plus the packet of flyers 3) The order form as representing the catalog (it doesn't look the same)

Among the items in the packet is an article: "Are you dancing with the devil in your worship?" -dealing with the separation issue. Since we had not received any mail it was difficult to tell whether this was an indication of your decision or counter to your decision and our request.

From the response today, it is really confusing to understand several things we've heard now. Having discussed the issue by phone with Pastor Bacon, let me summarize the following observations we made:

1) Elder Barrow originally said it sounded reasonable to hold up anything on the issue since the Presbytery is taking it up (but Greg is an individual speaking, I understand this).

2) Pastor Price inferred that the catalog had already gone out so couldn't be held up (again, an individual and he said the official ruling would come later).

3) The correspondence today suggests the catalog couldn't be stopped (it's mailed from the US - I guess, not reachable by a phone?). Further down in the letter there is a reason given for why mailings on the issue won't be stopped: - because it is unreasonable to ask Reg (as though he wasn't asked) to stop sending the catalogs since Richard's book is still being sold.

I gather the decision is not [to] stop the mailings? Is this your position - that you have not yet asked Reg to stop mailing out on this issue and will not ask him to stop mailing out on it?

There are big problems in the comparison to be observed in this reasoning.

Pastor Bacon as a minister has been examined, ordained and approved to officially represent the church in oral (and written) speech. He is accountable and is bound to express only confessional views according to his oath.

Reg is not a minister, has taken no such oath, and (it could be argued) operates outside his God given authority as he defines doctrinal positions - but particularly as he writes (and mails out) material contrary to our standards. We believe he does send mailings contrary to WCF 25.4. At the very least, his writings and the mailings have been called into question by a court of Christ's church. So if he is sinning and he continues and you allow him to continue then this is an aggravation of sins.

Rather, Reg is to be subject to the 5th commandment to obey those who have the rule over him. At least some of those who have the rule over him (though indirectly) have asked that he cease publishing on this issue.

More directly, the elders of Edmonton have vowed to uphold the standards and promised submission to the brethren. If being in covenant with others means anything, it means respecting one anther's views when there is a dispute (at least until we have heard one another). What is the difference between a loose association of independent churches and us otherwise? The independents by (unscriptural conviction) will not be subject to anyone outside their own local church - which Presbyterians say is contrary Acts 15.

The position Reg is advocating (he is not just reprinting) in his newsletter and in the detailed book writeups fails to make the distinction our confession makes (25.4) between the true and the corrupt.

Some churches "with both mixture and error" are still churches. Otherwise, "some have degenerated to be synagogues of Satan" means "all". Is lacking psalm singing, the error which causes a church to be called a synagogue of Satan? If so, then we were in synagogues of Satan before embracing psalm singing (and are now as we still have any error). Corinth had several errors, so did the Galatians, yet the Paul considered them Churches. Do private individuals determine what churches are synagogues of Satan?

For the Edmonton session to unilaterally decide it will not do the work the presbytery has appointed (which they agreed to do) is just one more example of independent action.