Back to Steelite Controversy Correspondence

Feb 7, 1996. Edmonton Clerk of Session to Richard Bacon, pastor of FPCR

From: Dohms

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 06:37:50 -0700 (MST) To: Richard Bacon Cc: David Seekamp

Subject: Books of order and worship

Dear Brother,

Thank you for your response. We agree with you that both Scripture and the Confession of Faith make it clear that it is the duty of synods and councils to make such decisions regarding the worship and government of the church. However, we are addressing a different issue. What authority do we have as a presbytery (of 2 churches and three mission works) to overturn the synodical standards in worship and government of entire assemblies (such as the assembly convened at Westminster, the assembly of the Church of Scotland, and the various presbyterian assemblies or synods who subsequently adopted these standards as their own standards)? Furthermore, are we identifying ourselves with these faithful assemblies and churches that God raised up at the time of the second reformation by making such changes to their standards or are we separating ourselves from these assemblies and churches? Do our actions in making such changes to the standards they believed to be agreeable to the Word of God indicate that we could have been church officers in their churches? In fact, would they even have permitted us to be church officers with a different set of standards? In other words, in heading down the road where such alterations to standards are permitted (standards which bind us to the most faithful churches since the days of the apostles), we are concerned that we are acting more like congregationalists than like presbyterians (unless we are prepared to charge our forefathers with sin and error).

However, in adopting the very standards (unaltered in any way) that these faithful assemblies have adopted, we bear historical testimony to the fact that we are presbyterians in covenant with these same faithful fathers in the faith. Brother, our concern is not with the ministerial authority of a synod to give to the church such standards, but rather with the authority of subsequent councils (and paticularly in our case with only four ministers, and three ruling elders) to in effect declare these previous faithful assemblies who have adopted these standards to be unfaithful.

It is our concern that unless we are prepared to say that we would not want to be in the same assembly with men like Rutherford, Baillie, Gillespie, or Henderson that we should not only conform unto the same confessional standards, but as well to the same standards in worship and government. Those churches that subsequently became disloyal to the standards established by the faithful assemblies of Scotland have inevitably fallen from the high and holy calling of a covenanted reformation that burned in the bosom of these our forefathers in the faith. To that end our session will be issuing a public statement of repentance to the presbytery to the effect that we believe we have erred in approving such changes in any of of our standards. We make such an acknowledgment not in a spirit of arrogance or insubordination, but (by God's grace) in a spirit of shame, humiliation, and subordination appealing to God that He would be merciful to us and grant to us His favor. We sincerely pray that all of our brethren within our presbytery will be able to join with us *in the same mind and in the same judgment* (1 Cor.1:10) so that we may with *one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ* (Rom.15:6).

Respectfully submitted,

The session of Puritan Reformed Church

Richard, We are assuming you have no objection to the distribution of these exchanges to all of our presbyters.

Elder Seekamp, according to my information, Pastor Robinson is not on Email. It can take a long time for snailmail to reach him from Canada. Is there a way we can keep him updated on these discussions in a timely way?

Lyndon Dohms

Clerk of Session

Edmonton