From: Society of PG (RPNA)
To: Pastor Greg Price ; Elder Lyndon Dohms
Cc: List
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 3:10 PM
Subject: Public Fast - Resources still needed (060109)
Dear Pastor and Elder Dohms (Elder Barrow excluded while on Leave; we continue to pray for recovery),
Thank you for the broad initial resources you have provided this last Friday, January 6, 2006.
Most of us having just received your email of this last Friday morning, and with Jan. 21 fast approaching, we do not have the luxury of time to prepare our questions for you as carefully or succinctly as we would like to. So in advance, we beg your understanding if our inquiry is not expressed as clearly as they could be.
Also, we happily acknowledge you may have further relevant resources pending for distribution to us and the brethren; if so, please forgive our haste in our desire to walk steadfastly before our God in fasting. Nevertheless, as we think our concerns of urgency and relevance to the entire community, we thought it best to inquire sooner than later, and of course in the broad forum.
If this email appears fractured and poorly formatted on your end, for ease of your reading, at your request we would happily forward it in Adobe Acrobat pdf format.
Resource Documents
We have reviewed the recommended documents on the occasion of past fasts. Further to the documents you now note, when called to fast on July 26, 2003, our Society also reviewed the following helpful resources in detail:
'Causes of the Lord's Wrath Against Scotland, Manifested in His Late Sad Dispensations'; and, 'A Humble Acknowledgement of the Sins of the Ministry of Scotland' (The Works of George Gillespie, Vol. 2, Still Waters Revival Books, reprint edition September 1991)
Further, we have frequently considered the multiple records of 'Causes of Fasting' produced by past Presbytery committee's and General Meeting committee's tasked accordingly with the responsibility of framing specific 'Causes for Fasting' (and also Causes for Thanksgiving). Those 1800's RPNA and General Meeting minutes you well know are readily available throughout the various minute records at:
http://www.covenanter.org/Minutes/minuteshomepage.htm.
Specific & Particular
Having reviewed all the noted documents, has left us with the understanding that Public Fasting is NOT of a Private nature; anymore than a Minister in Private devotions is not doing so as a Public act. Again please forgive us; we do not mean to 'sermonize' or 'instruct' you, only to quickly represent some things we understand to be held by us as a covenanted community; we do NOT understand this view as controversial or contested by any.
The documents reviewed serve to example the Public application of our Confession, Chapter XV- Repentance Unto Life:
5. Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man's duty to endeavour to repent of his particular sins, particularly.
6. As every man is bound to make private confession of his sins to God, praying for the pardon thereof; upon which, and the forsaking of them, he shall find mercy; so, he that scandalizeth his brother, or the Church of Christ, ought to be willing, by a private or publick confession, and sorrow for his sin, to declare his repentance to those that are offended, who are thereupon to be reconciled to him, and in love to receive him.
Our forefathers examples seem consistent with our 'Directory for the Public Worship of God' principled direction to the Minister (Of the Preaching of the Word), that:
We further understand that, as in prayer (1Cor. 14:15), we are to fast with understanding, relative to the Public need. We understand Public as regarding those needs common to us all, respectfully distinguishing those needs which are private in nature (though being known, in quality are of private concern even if not confidential, I.e. sickness, financial needs, vocational aspirations, a barren womb, relocation choices, lack of diligence, a godly spouse - which many may be aware of). And we do thank our God He allows us fasting in our Private capacities, as individuals, families, Societies etc., even as our Standards articulate.
Again, the record of our forefathers is excellent in providing appropriate application to matters of a Public nature warranting Public Fasting. The Jan. 1 email did mention fairly specific private needs; a man's health and two men's vocational demands (respectfully, we can all likely sympathize). Respectfully, not willing to minimize these private needs as unworthy of prayer in other forums, you might argue a common need beyond other individual members; nevertheless, the recommended resources thus far, with the 21st fast approaching, fail to address the clearly Public aspects of the call.
Now on Jan. 6, Pastor Price solicited additional prayer requests of a Private quality not common to all, as matter for this Public Fast with its OWN required duties. With all this in mind, we respectfully submit your announcements thus far lack the requisite detail for the Public concerns stated. Indeed, self-examination is needful in our private capacities; but this fast, again, regards our entire community. Below, we remind you of the Public aspects from your Jan. 1 email:
1. "...for the purpose of humbling ourselves before God,
2. acknowledging our sins against the Lord and
3. against one another, and
4. praying that God would be merciful to us in strengthening our Elders, in ministering to the needs of His people, and
5. in blessing the plans to restructure the RPNA.
6. We will be sending recommended resources as you prepare for this Day of Prayer and Fasting."
In the Public elements, will you instruct us in fulfilling numbers 1-5? Such instruction must be gauged against the required items of 1-5.
Or, are you again recommending Christ's scattered flock self-regulate the details of our public, common needs, in the areas of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5?
Again, we respectfully submit that as far as we can tell, as we approach our 10th year as Covenanters, you still have not substantiated the necessary aspects around the noted explicit Public needs. We do readily grant that in addition to recommending reading resources of a general and broad nature, that requiring this duty with little substance to the public aspects, is not without precedence in your administration; further, that introducing private needs into public fasts also has precedence.
Our Actual Past Experience
The last paragraph notwithstanding, as a Society, we can tell you we have tried to work off of these resources in the way recommended. In our experience, doing so leads to mixed results. A Society may internally be able to agree on the public aspects, yet with no firm knowledge of ANY agreement with other Societies on them.
A Society may be able to meet many hours in prayer and sermon (as we have), and find comfort in the Holy Spirit as He moves the heart in humiliation evident to all. Even so, it is a sad thing of discouragement to later find such Public practice to be at great odds with others who may not have even examined the areas together, reducing the thing to a Private fast at best. It was even the perception of some, that in some cases, individuals would not change their schedules to meet with their brethren, or travel even an hour, for this holy work (as opposed to those who providentially could NOT change their schedules yet kept as much as they could, joining the brethren as soon as possible). We point this out by way of sorrow, and with no desire to use highlight individual failings; yet fearful, lest we do not learn and grow.
We entreat you by the mercies of God, that if one is required, that you will yet provide the resources appropriate in the calling of a Public Fast. Or alternatively, if this represents a flawed view of Public Fasting as we have represented, please instruct us all that we might be edified and built up.
Jan. 1 Email Announcement Confusions
Additionally, that we may all be clear on the nature of the stated fasting priorities, we suggest you clear up the confusions of that Jan. 1 email. We speak of:
1. Restructuring
2. A Committee of 1
One of the called-for fasting topics has to do with some kind of 'restructuring', of which our population remains largely ignorant. We must know at least a bit more, we think. For the purpose of informed fasting, are we required to fast in anticipation of an 'Overture' which we will have the advantage of review, contemplation and input prior to implementation at some future date? Or are we being required to fast in preparation of our hearts, that we will immediately embrace said restructuring? Or, is it only for the public presentation which is being developed, for which we are fasting, the three Elders maybe having already determined the presentation's substance but not form?
Also, the email of Jan. 1 seems to communicate that Elder Dohms is effectively unavailable due to vocational demands, and Elder Barrow continues through the duration on a health-required Leave of Absence; leaving Pastor Price as the only operative to fulfill the stated objectives. Is this the case, that Pastor Price alone, a single man (who we thank God for always), is tasked with the (we speculate) not insignificant responsibility of, "praying and working to propose to the Societies over the next couple months a restructured organization for the RPNA."? For our part, we would fear that represents a sincere hope for strength, exceeding Moses against Amalek; who, for all his virtues and strength, apparently would not have been sufficient to the need, without Aaron and Hur (Ex. 17:11).
Our Inquiry Here
Is respectfully submitted, though not with the advantage of years or even months to consider. At the risk of appearing base in our understanding, we would prefer that and the low price of risking our reputation, than for us to assume, and fast from ill-informed reasons or confused understanding in just 2 weeks. Our concern for ourselves extends to likeminded brethren who may share similar concerns, but fear taking more of your time - inadvertently risking their faithfulness in this holy humiliation. Our observation is that when people are not clear on what they are fasting for, there appears a correlating reduction in their strength of conviction to observe the day as our God commands.
Hoping that we with the brethren will be sufficiently informed on the Public aspects of this fast you require, we remain,
Your in Christ,
Society of Prince George (RPNA)
rpna_pg@ . .
From: Lyndon Dohms
Sent: January 1, 2006 7:23 AM
To: Subject: RPNA Session Announcements
3. In light of what has been said, we call the
Societies to a Day of Prayer and Fasting, January 21,
2006 for the purpose of humbling ourselves before God,
acknowledging our sins against the Lord and against
one another, and praying that God would be
merciful to us in strengthening our Elders, in
ministering to the needs of His people, and in
blessing the plans to restructure the RPNA. We will
be sending recommended resources as you prepare for
this Day of Prayer and Fasting.
To: Pastor Greg Price ; Elder Lyndon Dohms
Cc: List
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 3:10 PM
Subject: Public Fast - Resources still needed (060109)
Dear Pastor and Elder Dohms (Elder Barrow excluded while on Leave; we continue to pray for recovery),
Thank you for the broad initial resources you have provided this last Friday, January 6, 2006.
Most of us having just received your email of this last Friday morning, and with Jan. 21 fast approaching, we do not have the luxury of time to prepare our questions for you as carefully or succinctly as we would like to. So in advance, we beg your understanding if our inquiry is not expressed as clearly as they could be.
Also, we happily acknowledge you may have further relevant resources pending for distribution to us and the brethren; if so, please forgive our haste in our desire to walk steadfastly before our God in fasting. Nevertheless, as we think our concerns of urgency and relevance to the entire community, we thought it best to inquire sooner than later, and of course in the broad forum.
If this email appears fractured and poorly formatted on your end, for ease of your reading, at your request we would happily forward it in Adobe Acrobat pdf format.
Resource Documents
We have reviewed the recommended documents on the occasion of past fasts. Further to the documents you now note, when called to fast on July 26, 2003, our Society also reviewed the following helpful resources in detail:
'Causes of the Lord's Wrath Against Scotland, Manifested in His Late Sad Dispensations'; and, 'A Humble Acknowledgement of the Sins of the Ministry of Scotland' (The Works of George Gillespie, Vol. 2, Still Waters Revival Books, reprint edition September 1991)
Further, we have frequently considered the multiple records of 'Causes of Fasting' produced by past Presbytery committee's and General Meeting committee's tasked accordingly with the responsibility of framing specific 'Causes for Fasting' (and also Causes for Thanksgiving). Those 1800's RPNA and General Meeting minutes you well know are readily available throughout the various minute records at:
http://www.covenanter.org/Minutes/minuteshomepage.htm.
Specific & Particular
Having reviewed all the noted documents, has left us with the understanding that Public Fasting is NOT of a Private nature; anymore than a Minister in Private devotions is not doing so as a Public act. Again please forgive us; we do not mean to 'sermonize' or 'instruct' you, only to quickly represent some things we understand to be held by us as a covenanted community; we do NOT understand this view as controversial or contested by any.
The documents reviewed serve to example the Public application of our Confession, Chapter XV- Repentance Unto Life:
5. Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man's duty to endeavour to repent of his particular sins, particularly.
6. As every man is bound to make private confession of his sins to God, praying for the pardon thereof; upon which, and the forsaking of them, he shall find mercy; so, he that scandalizeth his brother, or the Church of Christ, ought to be willing, by a private or publick confession, and sorrow for his sin, to declare his repentance to those that are offended, who are thereupon to be reconciled to him, and in love to receive him.
Our forefathers examples seem consistent with our 'Directory for the Public Worship of God' principled direction to the Minister (Of the Preaching of the Word), that:
"He is not to rest in general doctrine, although never so much cleared and confirmed, but to bring it home to special use, by application to his hearers: which albeit it prove a work of great difficulty to himself, requiring much prudence, zeal, and meditation, and to the natural and corrupt man will be very unpleasant; yet he is to endeavour to perform it in such a manner, that his auditors may feel the word of God to be quick and powerful, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart; and that, if any unbeliever or ignorant person be present, he may have the secrets of his heart made manifest, and give glory to God."Public versus Private
We further understand that, as in prayer (1Cor. 14:15), we are to fast with understanding, relative to the Public need. We understand Public as regarding those needs common to us all, respectfully distinguishing those needs which are private in nature (though being known, in quality are of private concern even if not confidential, I.e. sickness, financial needs, vocational aspirations, a barren womb, relocation choices, lack of diligence, a godly spouse - which many may be aware of). And we do thank our God He allows us fasting in our Private capacities, as individuals, families, Societies etc., even as our Standards articulate.
Again, the record of our forefathers is excellent in providing appropriate application to matters of a Public nature warranting Public Fasting. The Jan. 1 email did mention fairly specific private needs; a man's health and two men's vocational demands (respectfully, we can all likely sympathize). Respectfully, not willing to minimize these private needs as unworthy of prayer in other forums, you might argue a common need beyond other individual members; nevertheless, the recommended resources thus far, with the 21st fast approaching, fail to address the clearly Public aspects of the call.
Now on Jan. 6, Pastor Price solicited additional prayer requests of a Private quality not common to all, as matter for this Public Fast with its OWN required duties. With all this in mind, we respectfully submit your announcements thus far lack the requisite detail for the Public concerns stated. Indeed, self-examination is needful in our private capacities; but this fast, again, regards our entire community. Below, we remind you of the Public aspects from your Jan. 1 email:
1. "...for the purpose of humbling ourselves before God,
2. acknowledging our sins against the Lord and
3. against one another, and
4. praying that God would be merciful to us in strengthening our Elders, in ministering to the needs of His people, and
5. in blessing the plans to restructure the RPNA.
6. We will be sending recommended resources as you prepare for this Day of Prayer and Fasting."
In the Public elements, will you instruct us in fulfilling numbers 1-5? Such instruction must be gauged against the required items of 1-5.
Or, are you again recommending Christ's scattered flock self-regulate the details of our public, common needs, in the areas of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5?
Again, we respectfully submit that as far as we can tell, as we approach our 10th year as Covenanters, you still have not substantiated the necessary aspects around the noted explicit Public needs. We do readily grant that in addition to recommending reading resources of a general and broad nature, that requiring this duty with little substance to the public aspects, is not without precedence in your administration; further, that introducing private needs into public fasts also has precedence.
Our Actual Past Experience
The last paragraph notwithstanding, as a Society, we can tell you we have tried to work off of these resources in the way recommended. In our experience, doing so leads to mixed results. A Society may internally be able to agree on the public aspects, yet with no firm knowledge of ANY agreement with other Societies on them.
A Society may be able to meet many hours in prayer and sermon (as we have), and find comfort in the Holy Spirit as He moves the heart in humiliation evident to all. Even so, it is a sad thing of discouragement to later find such Public practice to be at great odds with others who may not have even examined the areas together, reducing the thing to a Private fast at best. It was even the perception of some, that in some cases, individuals would not change their schedules to meet with their brethren, or travel even an hour, for this holy work (as opposed to those who providentially could NOT change their schedules yet kept as much as they could, joining the brethren as soon as possible). We point this out by way of sorrow, and with no desire to use highlight individual failings; yet fearful, lest we do not learn and grow.
We entreat you by the mercies of God, that if one is required, that you will yet provide the resources appropriate in the calling of a Public Fast. Or alternatively, if this represents a flawed view of Public Fasting as we have represented, please instruct us all that we might be edified and built up.
Jan. 1 Email Announcement Confusions
Additionally, that we may all be clear on the nature of the stated fasting priorities, we suggest you clear up the confusions of that Jan. 1 email. We speak of:
1. Restructuring
2. A Committee of 1
One of the called-for fasting topics has to do with some kind of 'restructuring', of which our population remains largely ignorant. We must know at least a bit more, we think. For the purpose of informed fasting, are we required to fast in anticipation of an 'Overture' which we will have the advantage of review, contemplation and input prior to implementation at some future date? Or are we being required to fast in preparation of our hearts, that we will immediately embrace said restructuring? Or, is it only for the public presentation which is being developed, for which we are fasting, the three Elders maybe having already determined the presentation's substance but not form?
Also, the email of Jan. 1 seems to communicate that Elder Dohms is effectively unavailable due to vocational demands, and Elder Barrow continues through the duration on a health-required Leave of Absence; leaving Pastor Price as the only operative to fulfill the stated objectives. Is this the case, that Pastor Price alone, a single man (who we thank God for always), is tasked with the (we speculate) not insignificant responsibility of, "praying and working to propose to the Societies over the next couple months a restructured organization for the RPNA."? For our part, we would fear that represents a sincere hope for strength, exceeding Moses against Amalek; who, for all his virtues and strength, apparently would not have been sufficient to the need, without Aaron and Hur (Ex. 17:11).
Our Inquiry Here
Is respectfully submitted, though not with the advantage of years or even months to consider. At the risk of appearing base in our understanding, we would prefer that and the low price of risking our reputation, than for us to assume, and fast from ill-informed reasons or confused understanding in just 2 weeks. Our concern for ourselves extends to likeminded brethren who may share similar concerns, but fear taking more of your time - inadvertently risking their faithfulness in this holy humiliation. Our observation is that when people are not clear on what they are fasting for, there appears a correlating reduction in their strength of conviction to observe the day as our God commands.
Hoping that we with the brethren will be sufficiently informed on the Public aspects of this fast you require, we remain,
Your in Christ,
Society of Prince George (RPNA)
rpna_pg@ . .
From: Lyndon Dohms
Sent: January 1, 2006 7:23 AM
To: Subject: RPNA Session Announcements
3. In light of what has been said, we call the
Societies to a Day of Prayer and Fasting, January 21,
2006 for the purpose of humbling ourselves before God,
acknowledging our sins against the Lord and against
one another, and praying that God would be
merciful to us in strengthening our Elders, in
ministering to the needs of His people, and in
blessing the plans to restructure the RPNA. We will
be sending recommended resources as you prepare for
this Day of Prayer and Fasting.
From: NS
To: SPG ; Pastor Greg Price ; Elder Lyndon Dohms
Cc: List
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: Public Fast - Resources still needed (060109)
Briefly,
Have not these elders functioned (albeit extraordinarily) on a public level? Unless such an "extraordinary" public exercise has been entirely without basis, then the question seems quite superfluous, in my own estimation. If it cannot be demonstrated, that a format inclusive of an extraordinary extension (or retraction, for that matter) of ecclesiastical authority, due to degrees of convenience/expediency, being regulated according to the nearest possible rule of ecclesiastical government, within the confinement of circumstance, etc., is without warrant, then I would ask the following:
1. If an extraordinary extension of authority (within our own context) reaches the public level, how could a change within that obvious public format not be of a public nature?
2. Are extraordinary instances confined to private contexts? If so, which contexts? If not, to what degree on a public level?
3. Is there something more fundamental you’re trying to address, which was not explicitly stated within your email? It wouldn’t seem to be a mystery, that there has been a public element (within degrees) assumed throughout the years of interaction with these elders (please correct me if I’m grossly mistaken).
4. If it were not denied on an historical level, would it be denied on a preceptive level?
5. Is there room for charity, and understanding, within the confinements of difficult circumstances on a societal/ecclesiastical level? (we’re not working off a blank slate here, it’s obvious such things within the announcement will affect the current format – explicitly stated, or not.)
6. Is there any room for a "tacit" approach, on any level, within an ecclesiastical or societal announcement?
Given what was explicitly stated within your email, I’m quite curious in a few areas (working off limited time here):
1. The mind of the PG society, regarding principles of government, and the extension of authority within differing contexts (and difficult situations, presenting uncertain implications).
2. The nature of this concept "extraordinary," and whether or not circumstance presents a potential fluctuating format regarding procedure within extraordinary contexts – given the very "broad" set of circumstances history presents to the church (and all peoples, for that matter).
3. What are the most fundamental parameters regarding the nature of "convenience," in general and specific heads.
4. Assuming (1, 2, & 3) were sufficiently established, is this concept of "convenience" itself subject to fluctuation on any level?
These latter questions have been geared toward the "public versus private" portion of your email.
Regarding an apparent degree of insufficient knowledge concerning the specifics of "restructuring":
1. If the goal to "restructure" was not entirely formatted, and given the potential consequences of any degree of "restructuring" within our current circumstances, is it therefore unlawful to pray and fast over the same? – Especially in reference to a poor and misrepresented remnant, suffering diverse trials throughout the elders’ sphere of influence?
2. Are difficult circumstances, hindering the ability to continue in the present format, having certain degrees of implication (perhaps to the surprise of some) not sufficient reasons to call a fast (highlighting the latter portion of # 2).
3. These are tacitly affirmed within the announcement (in my eyes). Would a simple & explicit highlighting of such things (on the elders’ part) satisfy this portion your inquiry?
4. Again, is there no room for a tacit approach (on any level) within such an announcement?
"Again, we respectfully submit that as far as we can tell, as we approach our 10th year as Covenanters, you still have not substantiated the necessary aspects around the noted explicit Public needs"
Is this comment gauged to exclude any presence of the implicit?
In your email, you mention both an absence of "public" concern on the elders’ part (relative to the societies) and a presence of public concern on the elders’ part (relative to the societies). On the surface, it’s somewhat paradoxical (or perhaps not seemingly contradictory, but an insufficient placement of value regarding what should be obvious to all?). Is this all a matter of degree of thought represented by explicit statement, or implicit statement, within the announcement (on the elders’ part)? If so, I tend to think the email was a tad bit lengthy. Please help me understand if I’ve completely misunderstood. I am a bit dull this evening, as it’s been a long & hard day.
In Christ,
Your brother,
NS
Ps. Note: these are my own constructions/interpretations placed upon the announcement. If I have misrepresented the elders in any way, I certainly apologize, as it was not my intention to.
MG for PG – Tues. Jan. 10/06
Greetings Mr. S,
Thank you for your comments.
We also, found our email to be lengthy, as in turns we attempted to qualify: why we asked what we did; why we viewed our inquiry as lawful and common to us all; tried to represent what we understand as the received reformed view on Public fasting; and, related our own actual experience and the mixed results observed.
We appreciate having long and hard days. At the end of the day, we often find it a challenge as 9 communicant members, to articulate our collective views in a succinct way. We are sorry our lack of ability was so evident in the length; truly, saying something worthwhile in few words is a skill sorely lacking today, and we have little experience in such things. Though always happy to engage with any of the brethren, we trust you noted that our email was written to Pastor Price and Elder Dohms, though before all, for the reasons already given in the original email. Even so, we are happy to reply to you, in the public forum at your initiative.
Perhaps it is dullness on our part, that we find it difficult to offer much of a reply to you. Though we find the line-of-reasoning somewhat familiar, our perception is that just as you feared, you must have misunderstood us. The reason we think so, is that our straightforward hope was to ascertain the DETAILS of what we are all being required to fast OVER. If that was not clear before, let it be so now, by these explicit words. We think it a characteristic of the novice (1Tim. 3:6), to assume overly much, especially as it concerns matters common to all; we do not presume to speak for all, but only for ourselves, though in this case, we acknowledged the common nature of our inquiry.
However, if you yourself ARE clear, for example on our sins against the Lord and one another, we invite your perception. In confidence, we have been offered other private perceptions (however, we will not unnecessarily relate that which has been offered - Pv 11:13). In the meantime, we still hope to hear from those tasked by their Master with providing such informed guidance, suitable to a Public Fast. We say plainly, we do not think we are pressing for perfection, in due care to sufficiently undertake this required duty; if that IS the perception of due care (God forbid), we would see further cause for fear and sorrow, in our already sad state.
We must grant it is possible we have misunderstood you; the initial material seems to dwell on some secret things you have in mind, and further, it could appear duplicity is suggested on our part. We do not presume why this is so; perhaps you have other concerns in mind? Such would not be to you by OUR hand; so, we must at this time leave such matter as between you and God our Judge and we would urge you not to indulge possible talebearing, no matter how pleasant or sincere it may be constructed (Pv 11:13; 26:22). We simply protest that our hope for decency and order in this holy work (1Cor. 14:40) is a sincere and plain one, born of the Reformed Presbyterian way. If this is not the case, we remain open to clarification (Pv 15:32), as we covet the words of Wisdom and desire to be buyers of the Truth, not sellers.
Having removed that, we grant we may be overlooking other points in the balance of the material, as most of the material, worthy though it may be in another forum, does not appear to touch very meaningfully on our stated questions or concerns. Even so, we will make a small summarized effort:
The First Series of Questions
We tried to relate by way of our ACTUAL fasting experience, not ambiguous possibilities and aspirations, that assuming so much was, in our reality, FAR from any REAL unity. We DID the work; we tested the results; we assure you we did not state our experience to fill up the page, though we hesitate to expand further here. On #6: no doubt much has and is argued, in employing the "tacit" approach; however, that seems to us to be far beyond the scope of OUR inquiry of Jan. 9, 2006.
The Second Series of Questions
If our views on any number of subjects were of interest to others, we would defer it to another time, that we might express them in more appropriate venues with broad participation - which was not our intent here. However, we do find it of interest that our simple inquiry could provoke such a line of inquiry as this, to satisfy what we think ought to be understood as straightforward questions relevant to the duty.
The Third Series of Questions
Your own day has been long and hard; if we had greater luxury to indulge ourselves, we expect these questions have numerous points upon which to satisfy our appetite - regrettably, time is limited here also. Often, even one small question can consume so much of limited time resources, that they can be unnecessarily taxed. In fact, we fear our beloved Elders have on occasion been subject to such immoderate and inconsiderate practice (God help us all). Our limited comment is, that we readily agree we are a poor and misrepresented remnant; we ourselves have suffered intimate losses these last 12 years, from the first year to this last, in the difficult circumstances we all walk in. With you, we suffer gladly (1Ptr. 4:13), in the hope we have in our Liege and Lord, Jesus Christ; we know this is not a vain hope but sure and fast in the King.
Closing
The first 3 sentences of your last paragraph, we decline to comment on at length. Perhaps it is further evidence of a writing weakness; if the cause be in us, we further extend our sincere regrets that such a construction could be taken from the concerns we stated in genuine love and affection for all our brethren (Elder and otherwise). It was noted the email is of some length; we found it difficult to discern the comments here, short of being directed to the specific items under question (sorry). In part, that was the purpose of providing section headings, for ease of identifying particular points.
Thank you, it was our privilege to answer you this far, in your private capacity as a covenanted brother in our Christ. Our hope is that He strengthen you also, in all your vocational, family and private duties (Phil. 4:13).
MG, on behalf of,
Society of Prince George (RPNA)
rpna_pg@. .
PS: Where the signature has NO INDIVIDUAL included, you can have great confidence each of our nine communicant members have scrutinized and contributed to the development of the communication.
Where you find an INDIVIDUAL signatory (as in this email), that is to indicate that although we as a Society may have discussed the content broadly, it likely has not been subject to individual scrutiny by every member. Rather, the individual signatory has been tasked with the writing assignment, bearing greater responsibility to represent our Society perspective. Generally, this method is only employed with non-critical communications of an important, but secondary nature.
From: BS
To: NS, List
Date: Tues. Jan. 10/06
Subject: Re: Public Fast - Resources still needed (060109)
Reply to N. S
Dear brother,
If, as you acknowledge, we are in extraordinary times as a church of Jesus Christ, one might suppose that not only those in lawful authority, but also those under them might lawfully resort to out of the ordinary measures. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Hence the P.Geo. Society request and even this conversation. While no one is interested at all in aggravating the situation, a few comments might be in order.
Contrary to what seems to be the primary drift of yours, the PGS is not questioning the lawfulness of the authority of the elders, nor even whether they may lawfully call a Public fast. Not at all and far from it.
I. Rather they are questioning their lawful authories re. what are those public "sins against the Lord and against one another," mentioned as the reason in part for calling this Public, as opposed to a Private, fast. (Never mind that beyond chance and happenstance, it just might be possible that some of those same public "sins against the Lord and against one another," are in part some of the reason why 2 of 3 elders are on sabbatical and the one remaining must restructure the church.) This is a legitimate question, in that respectfully, there is no authority on this earth that:
1. Can erase the distinction between the terms private and public and redefine them as they see fit.
2. Can erase the testimony and example from history re. public fasts in Causes of the Lord's Wrath Against Scotland, and 'A Humble Acknowledgement of the Sins of the Ministry of Scotland' (Gillespie, Works, Vol. 2, rpt. SWRB 1991), as well the RPNA and General Meeting minutes from the 1800's at: http://www.covenanter.org/Minutes/minuteshomepage.htm
in which specific sins of public persons are particularly and pointedly spelled out,.
in which specific sins of public persons are particularly and pointedly spelled out,.
II. Even further, as you note, we would grant that the ability of the elders to do the work required as regards health or time is of concern and cause for prayer. But again to be informed that 2 of our 3 elders are going to be removed from the "informal, tacit, extraordinary, expedient,fluid, convenient," mix and that the one remaining officer will restructure that same "informal, tacit, extraordinary, expedient, fluid, convenient," state of affairs, seems to be a bit much. If we may be excused, it does not appear to be presbyterian in either polity or piety, but rather presumptuous. Although two of three elders are being temporarily removed due to overwork, the one remaining will take on even more and we should but pray about it. Yet how can that be fair to Pastor Price, much more the task? Granted, things cannot continue as they have, but the concern of some is whether or not we are going to jump from the frying pan into the fire and if we are going to be called to publically pray and fast about it, some further clarification, if not security, is needed.
After all, it has been over two and a half years since the dissolution of presbytery - ie. the RPNA is no more whatever anybody might say, and in that same amount of time not much is on record re. the circumstances we find ourself in or where we should be headed. As a rule there are no stated meetings, no minutes, no records etc. This is not to insinuate or even directly accuse anybody of malice or deceit. Not at all. Far from it. Only that due process and good order is in order when anybody short of an angel adminsters authority. The corruption of our memories alone is enough to justify a paper trail. Consequently we think it a fair question to ask, just what this restructuring might entail. Which is exactly what the PGS does:
For the purpose of informed fasting, are we required to fast in anticipation of an 'Overture' which we will have the advantage of review, contemplation and input prior to implementation at some future date? Or are we being required to fast in preparation of our hearts, that we will immediately embrace said restructuring? Or, is it only for the public presentation which is being developed, for which we are fasting, the three Elders maybe having already determined the presentation's substance but not form?
Blind faith is not biblical. The priesthood of the believer is not synonymous with passivity. Again, things cannot continue as they have, but if it were possible, a weaker brother might ask, are we going to be jumping from the proverbial pan into something even hotter? And the guarantee we are not? Consequently the weaker brethren would respectfully request some clarification re. this needed restructuring. Will it be temporary or permanent? Will there be representation, channels of appeal and a paper trail? What specifically is seen as a shortcoming in how we do things now and will be foreclosed in the restructured format, etc. etc.? Are we going to adhere more closely than nominally to the example of the societies than we do - and the general meetings - or are we going to go the route of the Privy Kirk in Scotland before the establishment of the Reformation and church in 1650? Or none of the above? Again, all rhetorical questions for the moment, but real concerns for the long run, never mind Jan. 21.
In conclusion, however erastian Parliament was and regardless of how the Assembly viewed Parliament's request to add them, the scripture proofs only strengthened the Confession. Likewise we are persuaded the PGS request for clarification re.:
1. the public, as opposed to private "sins against the Lord and against one another," required to be confessed in a Public fast.
2. the hard and serious work of restructuring of the church by one officer only, hard on the heels of the other two being temporarily removed from office by overwork.
can only strengthen the church as she fasts, prays and God willing, resolves these issues.
cordially in Christ
BS
Member of, but not speaking for, the Everson,Wa. society.
From: Greg Price
To: rpna_pg@. . .
Cc: '; List; 'Greg Barrow' ; ; Elder Lyndon Dohms ; Pastor Greg Price
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: Public Fast - Resources still needed (060109)
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
We are glad to provide (as an Addendum) specific sins which we should confess and for which we should repent as we prepare our hearts for the Day of Prayer and Fasting.
Confession Of Sins
1. We have not faithfully attended to our private duties to worship the Lord in secret every day. To the contrary, we have ignored and neglected our secret worship, and when we have met secretly with God, we have been greatly distracted and hurried through this necessary duty.
2. We have not loved and honored the Sabbath day as holy unto the Lord. We have allowed vain communication and unnecessary activities (that are neither merciful nor pious) to occupy our speech, hands, and minds.
3. We have not prepared our hearts as we should on the Sabbath to offer our worship to the Lord nor to hear His Word attentively. We have come to worship tired and sleepy because we have been engaged the night before in unnecessary activities that prevented us from being ready to worship the Lord with joy and all readiness. We have fallen asleep and have been preoccupied so that we have not brought acceptable
sacrifices unto Him nor heard Him speak to us.
4. We who are Elders have not prayed fervently and consistently for the flock as we ought. We have allowed ourselves to become more caught up in the business of the ministry than in serving Christ and
the flock entrusted to us.
5. We who are Elders have become weary in well-doing and have looked more at the trials and the problems before us than at an all-sufficient Christ.
6. We have been inconsistent in our family worship. When we have met we have gone through the outward motions of worship, but have been missing a zeal for the Lord in our prayer and singing. We have met so late in the evening that we and our children have fallen asleep during family worship.
7. We who are husbands have failed to love our wives as Christ loved the Church. We have been more concerned that our authority be respected than that our wives be served.
8. We who are wives have failed to submit ourselves to our own husbands as the Church is to submit to Christ. We have looked for reasons not to submit and for weaknesses in our husbands not to submit.
9. We who are parents have not prayed for our covenant children and set an example of piety before them as we ought.
10. We who are children have not honored our parents and those older than ourselves as we ought. We have acted as though they have nothing to teach us.
11. We have not been content with the good providence of a most wise and holy God. We have complained and grumbled about what we do not have and have been thankless for what we do have.
12. We as a nation have broken covenant with God. We have tolerated idolatry, atheism, denominationalism, unsound doctrine, corrupt worship, and tyrannical Church government. We by our laws punish the righteous and protect the wicked. We legally protect idolatry, blasphemy, covenant breaking, Sabbath breaking, dishonoring parents, murder of the unborn, fornication, adultery, sodomy, incest, unjust divorce and many more like crimes.
13. We have not hungered and thirsted for Christ's righteousness nor prayed with passion to see the lost come to Christ.
14. We have buried our gifts of time, treasure, and talent rather than using them to promote the Cause of Jesus Christ.
We would simply add that we do consider the specific Reasons stated for the Fast (in the Announcement, dated January 1, 2006)to be of a public nature rather than of a mere private nature. For when the faithful Elders that we do have become so burdened with their occupational callings, with their poor health, and with the many needs in contrast to the few men to minister to those needs, we view this as a public reason for a Day of Prayer and Fasting. This situation affects the whole Church in our opinion. When these burdens lead the Elders to consider a restructuring of the Church in the hope that the needs of God's people may more effectively be met, we consider this to be a matter of public concern to the whole Church. It is true that we did not view it to be expedient at this time to say more about this restructuring until we had more carefully considered the matter. We do not believe more details are presently necessary in order for the Church to pray fervently for wisdom and knowledge to be supplied to the Elders and to us all at such a time as this. Pastor Price ought not to be viewed as a Committee of One. He may have more responsibility at this time than in the past, but Elders Barrow and Dohms (even in their limited capacity) will together with Pastor Price approve of the plans as presented to the Church.
With love for you all,
The Session of The RPNA
Greg L. Price, Pastor
Greg Barrow, Elder
Lyndon Dohms, Elder
From: Greg Price
To: List; Greg Barrow; Elder Lyndon Dohms; Pastor Greg Price
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 8:39 PM
Subject: Prayer Requests
Prayer Requests
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Allow me to provide a clarification with regard to the personal prayer requests that I indicated we (in Albany) were willing to collate for anyone who desired to have them in preparation for the Day of Prayer and Fasting.
1. This is not intended to detract from the specific stated Reasons (listed in the Announcement, dated January 1, 2006) for the Day of Prayer and Fasting.
Those Reasons must be kept foremost in our minds as we prepare for our Fast. These personal items for prayer are subservient to the public matters of prayer.
2. As to whether matters of a more personal concern can/should be included at all in a Day of Prayer and Fasting for the whole Church, I would encourage our attention to the _Directory For The Publick Worship Of God_ in the section entitled "Concerning Publick Solemn Fasting." In the fifth paragraph which gives a sample prayer for the minister to use, he is instructed to pray not only for public matters, but "humbly and earnestly imploring his mercy and grace for OURSELVES, the church and nation, for our king, and all in authority, AND FOR ALL OTHERS FOR WHOM WE ARE BOUND TO PRAY"....
3. Although the prayer offered by the minister each Lord's Day is a public prayer for the Church, it may likewise include matters more personal to the members of that congregation or other congregations as deemed edifying by the minister.
4. The prayer requests sent to SA should be of an URGENT and IMPORTANT nature in your judgment. I realize that is a judgment call, but one can imagine receiving hundreds of prayer requests if there was no qualification at all.
5. Rather than sending the collated list out to everyone indiscriminately, I will ask Shawn to send the collated list of prayer requests out only to those who request the list. In so doing, only those who desire the list will receive it.
With brotherly affection,
Greg L. Price
From: Society of PG (RPNA)
To: 'Greg Price'
Cc: List
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:04 PMDear Pastor Price, Elder Barrow and Elder Dohms,
Thank you for your Addendum, which marks the first one in our memory and thus cause for encouragement in our God.
As the faithful gather, publically together, in their respective communities where reasonable efforts permit, no doubt these additional guides will be of some assistance in humbling ourselves before our Father in heaven. Further, the appropriate context of secondary praying needs are useful for heart preparations.
As you well know, we in Prince George have long appreciated the many burdens and challenges on the covenanted ministry. Since 1997 at least, we know there has not been a time when circumstantial challenges, of one kind or another, have not been ever-present in your collective ministry to the saints. Not to be misunderstood or misrepresented, we will again (DV) heartily uphold all three in the coming day of fasting and humiliation.
Thank you also, for clarifying the scope of collaboration amongst yourselves, as you seek to determine organizational changes. With you, we agree these all effect the entire church, as they have for many years now.
With Elder Barrow one of the signatories of your Addendum, we rejoice with everyone that he appears here, fulfilling duty we understood he had been relieved of. That we might pray with understanding and continue with appropriate preparations, can you confirm for us what his status is? Or, perhaps the signature was an oversight?
Thankful for you all in our Lord,
MG, on behalf of,
Society of Prince George (RPNA)
rpna_pg@ . .
From: BB
To: Greg Price
Cc: List; 'Greg Barrow' ; Elder Lyndon Dohms
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: Public Fast - Resources still needed (060109)
Dear Greg,
Thank you (and the session) for your pastoral patience, efforts, and wisdom in this difficult time and in these difficult matters -- especially when emotions may be tempted to be high. Upon consideration of these thing, it seems apparent that surely another cause for our repentance is that we have been "like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented" Matt. 11:16-17; and like unto the Galatians we sadly stand in peculiar need of the warning that "if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another" Gal 5:15 in a spectacle of gladiatorial debate wherein is no conclusion because there is no rule of the demonstration of veracity that shall ever satisfy those intent on being dissatisfied: who often aim merely to protract the contest itself (by casting newly spun firebrands here and there) that the eyes of the crowd may continue to be, like incorrigible children, upon them (though they be bloodied by absolute estimate); and that they may keep their opponents from the more important matters in which they themselves have no interest or business, or rather have interest against -- so that whether there is rage or laughter, peace and finality in the victory of veracity are never concluded in this arena by this dubious manner. We have also been too much like the Athenians (who debate whatever is latest for debate sake, stirring up things that require over-much care and time to allay -- distracting and dragging you our elders down to the metaphorical serving of tables of endless fires set by ourselves). Moreover we have been like the religious, but nonetheless unfaithful, Jews, who erroneously held even true historic testimony with a religiously superstitious idolatry so as to attempt to beat back their opponents (even the Lord Christ himself) with the mere ignorant recitation of the form thereof, though not understanding the force and working of the scriptural principles of the very testimony itself in its own essence, but only so using the mere instances of the peculiar form thereof -- and it mechanical recitation -- as something to be venerated in-and-of itself as law (i.e. not properly holding historic testimony like those few names in Sardis did). These things we have done rather than being like unto the Bereans, and as following the example of Christ in the knowing the scriptures and the power of God, and therein walking in the old paths. Please do forgive us for so treating the session (the governors of Christ's kirk), and for the damage this has accrued more generally -- the loss of additional opportunities of time and energy to be used in the forwarding of the kingdom of God otherwise, and the grieving the faithful.
Let it be no mere inference, but explicitly understood, that the reason I have copied your email distribution ("cc:") on this reply to you is because we want this testimony of our thankfulness toward you and toward the session -- and our grief at these many circumstances -- to not be hidden in a corner. It is not because with implicit faith we blindly fawn the session, or with stupid flattery heap-up adulations toward you; but rather because the circumstances call for this measured encouragement and because we feel it is highly unseemly that after the session has humbly stated that you are overwhelmed and assailed with much weakness, to then cast back again into your teeth instances of where you have not been, or are not, sufficient to these extraordinary times and needs, thus begging the very point and primary need calling for our humiliation in a fast. Therefore this testimony is especially intended to be so generally copied, because in this time of our great weakness we conclude, by observation, that the session is too easily a target to be assailed for every grumbling discontentment and for any pang of uncertainty that may now be keenly felt and even (alas) published, thereby giving no little occasion to the enemies of the Lord and the malignants to boast and exalt themselves against Christ and/or his covenant if ever they get wind of the same. Even with over-extending the judgment of charity in observations, there are evidently even temptations to what appears to be an opportunistic thrust -- even timed at this great hour of our need and weakness -- of simmering private matters of discontentment into the public realm (and in incoherence breading consternation, and in frowardness causing dismay), for what may appear to be a thinly veiled tactical maneuver and promotion of persons, building steps to what also may appear to be a larger preconceived strategy already concluded by those who would do so; even a temptation wherein, with many being carried away, societies may begin to act like independently constituted moral persons in-and-of themselves (independency), rather than cultivating their true and subordinated identity as collective members of the constituted moral person of the RPNA and seeking her well-being and uniformity. So that, alas, in these and other kinds of things we have not only tolerated independency, but we have acted like independents and embraced independent principles under the guise of Presbyterianism: its evil principles taking root in our all-to-welcoming and depraved subconsciousness, if not in our consciousness. For this indeed alone we have great cause of repentance, not to mention also that we have not properly esteemed the inestimable advantage of the existence, and sought earnestly for the well-establishment, of the government of Christ's kirk, but have rather kicked against its nascent development in the extraordinary soil of these evil times, and thereby have almost extinguished it in our days, rather than delighting in the rod and staff of Christ by seeking to nurture its growth and health unto an ordinary and well established plant in the earth.
May God have mercy upon us so as to grant us hearty repentance and corresponding forgiveness, and not to give us over and hold us with the consequential cords of our own sins.
For the uniformity and established government of the RPNA, I am (we are)
Sincerely yours,
B(and S)B
MG for PG – Wed. Jan. 11/06
Due to an initial oversight on our part, inadvertently using the bcc
function, it would be a kindness if you ensured our personal Prince George
membership emails were included in future emails of this sort. For your
convenience, those addresses are included in the TO: section here.
Kind regards,
MG, on behalf of,
Society of Prince George (RPNA)
rpna_pg. . . .
NS – Wed. Jan. 11/06
M and B,
Thank you for your replies. M, I didn’t find much substance in your attempt to provide a "summarized effort" in response to the brief & specific questions I had asked. If a response based entirely on summary form can satisfy specifics, by all means, attempt it. However, I’m honestly not satisfied (I found the initial email a little more straightforward, and as well B’s). If there is no desire to engage more specifically, this is entirely your choice. If time is a critical issue, I certainly understand. Being a single father is no easy task, especially when I commute 120 miles (in total) back and forth to work, daily. Nevertheless, I’ll quickly note a few things in response to M, and Lord willing, address B’s response simultaneously (again, working off limited time).
My first set of questions was primarily addressing this notion of "Public versus private." There was a clear impression (in my own eyes) that there was a denial that such private issues, relating to the elders’ circumstances, had any degree of Public concern. I found this quite disturbing, given the obvious format the elders have been operating upon. The degree of emphasis placed by the PG society on this particular seemed to function upon a sweeping aside of the lawfulness of the present application of ecclesiastical government (regardless of what may have been hinted afterward). To explicitly or implicitly deny that circumstances of a private nature (regarding our elders), will very much affect a public platform of government (albeit extraordinary), especially within our current context, left me wondering about the PG society’s view of the current format itself - hence, my questioning of the same. The emphasis placed upon the impossibility of any authority on this earth to erase the distinction between "public and private" is entirely an irrelevant thesis. Who ever questioned that? However, this does not address how private circumstances may influence a public platform. Enter extraordinary instances, and what I’m highlighting will become all the more relevant. Enter our own circumstances, and my point is proved. If the impression left (to me at least) is not the case, then I will happily leave it there.
The second set of questions functioned as an expansion upon the first set (obviously).
The third set of questions was geared toward this idea of "restructuring." The initial email the elders sent out obviously indicated the presence of hardship in the elders’ lives. Such hardships, collectively considered, have had a negative effect upon our elders (by your own admission). This effect will hinder their ability to function in the current ecclesiastical format - to either a large degree, or a small degree. Obviously, within the elders’ estimation, it is influencing to a significant degree. This being the case, the thought of restructuring comes into play, albeit not fully developed. Seeing as such restructuring will likely affect the whole church, and assuming our elders care about us, it would seem quite appropriate for the elders to have heavy hearts concerning this matter – hence, the idea of a fast.
Note also, these sets of questions have fundamental relevance to what might be expected of our elders in our current circumstances.
Having all the specifics regarding something yet to be fully developed (especially within this context) is not essential to a warranted fast. Indeed, the uncertainties involved should cause concern (hence the thought of a fast); and given the degree of influence the current format of government has provided, any alteration of such a format should be treated with wisdom, not approached quite rashly. To demand detailed resolution from the elders without allowing time to deliberate is not only unwise, but as well uncharitable. To demand this of them at this time provides an indirect encouragement for the elders to rashly proceed in their ecclesiastical capacity. I find this particularly discouraging, and unreasonable (a little patience goes a long way - 1Thes:5:14, 1Tm:3:3). To demand a detailed resolution at this time, especially in light of current hardship within our elders’ lives, is especially discouraging – being both uncharitable, and unreasonable. I honestly feel as if I’m rehashing the obvious here, and wonder why something so obvious could have been overlooked.
In my estimation, my questions were relevant, specific, and quite warranted. Note also, the issue of the relationship of societies to ecclesiastical government, is no foreign subject. These current emails are not operating off a blank slate, but by your own admission/operation assume certain principles that have everything to do with the subject (are we blind to our current format?) In light of this, I personally have no issue with addressing subjects of this nature. Apparently, the mere mentioning of them has triggered the need to warn me against "talebearing," and as well cautioning me against the pleasantries of some nameless critics? For the record, the subjects I’ve addressed are not forbidden subjects, as they have high relevance given the issue at hand - and I will engage them quite freely, if I desire – Acts 17:11 (and as well if it’s profitable). B would seem to agree, as he devoted a significant portion of his response to the issue of the function of government in differing circumstances. Why then, M, is it such a wonder that I should raise the subject? I’m not very fond of double standards (unless B has misrepresented your concerns?).
In my estimation, I was never given an impression from the elders that Greg Price was going to handle the entire work of "restructuring." I wouldn’t have nearly assumed it. Unknown consequences do not hinder the warrant for a day of prayer and humiliation, but often times warrant the same. This is not blind faith, but rather, the consequence of lacking a divine attribute (omniscience). I speak here of any potential consequences of restructuring, and knowing them absolutely. To label the act of placing confidence in our elders, to the end that they might wisely restructure, an act of blind faith, is somewhat remarkable in my eyes. It hints of a lack of charity, and unwarranted suspicion? In my estimation, the wisdom needed to restructure, in an orderly way, is quite a convenient occasion for a fast. I’m also confident the elders will handle themselves in accordance to what is expedient – serving the most expedient end relating to societies, yet shunning conspiracy.
Thus, my questions were primarily gauged to address the aspects I engaged, though not every aspect of the original email from the PG society. Indeed, I am not at odds with every aspect (when certain aspects are intrinsically considered). I addressed the ones that concerned me.
Nevertheless, duties call. If I have left any specific portion needlessly without address, my apologies, and I’d be happy to address them when presented.
In Christ,
Your brother,
NS
BS – Sat. Jan. 14/06
Do to my oversight this did not copy to the CC list but went to BB only. My apologies for the inconvenience. BS. Originally sent 1/12/06
Dear B,
Thank you for your recent post.
On one hand your comments are well taken.
The Psalmist after all says, "Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head: for yet my prayer also shall be in their calamities (Ps. 141:5)."
Yet on the other hand, something remains to be desired, particularly regarding the following:
A followup letter signed by our three elders alone on June 14, 2003 says:
We do happen to be on record though, of calling ourselves the Session of the RPNA General Meeting, Sun. Oct. 31, 2004 through Oct. 23 2005 and now the Session of the RPNA Sun. Jan 1 & Tue. Jan. 10, 2006 in the various announcements/letters of those dates from our elders. But not to nitpick, I really could care less about the name ultimately. What matters is the substance. But I will leave that to your judgement, sir, in that the historical testimony of the body we claim to continue as a moral person, the Reformed Presbytery of Steele's day and hereafter, required a plurality of ministers - more than one - and at least one elder to constitute a presbytery. Otherwise they were NOT a presbytery, they were NOT the Reformed Presbytery, NOT the same RP of which the RPNA from Aug. 5, 2000 to June 6, 2003 was the namesake and continuing moral person. Rather they were a general meeting, the RP General Meeting. The same RP,GM for which there were correspondents and/or ruling elders from the different societies and congregations that belonged to it, which attended the at least once a year public stated meeting of that same RP General Meeting. The same RP,GM which had a written record, ie. minutes, which is in part, how we know all this. In other words, however redundant, this is all a matter of again, the public record (see http: // www.covenanter.org/Minutes/ minuteshomepage. htm). In other words, sir, whatever we claim to be, whatever moral person we are the continuation of, it does not seem to me - and that is to put it mildly and to equivocate for the sake of politeness - to be the RP General Meeting, never mind the Reformed Presbytery, in the state of church government we are in now and have been since dissolution of presbytery - the Reformed Presbytery of N. America - the RPNA - as stated by that former Presbytery and our three elders in the summer of 2003. While we are the closest thing to it in existence, our stated desires have yet to substantially match the reality when it comes to church government. I am sorry about that sir, I really am, but I don't see any way around the facts/historical testimony/public record other than wishful thinking.
But is all this the end of the world? No. Not at all. Far from it. No one has left the church over it and no one should. But it is a 9th commandment issue, a matter of frustration, as well prayer and fasting when we won't admit it publically. That is, we won't repent of our public posture and pretence to be something we are not when it comes to church government (as opposed to doctrine and worship), if not at the very least our very well intended ignorance, however sincere at this late date. And if you do not think that this grieves some of the saints of God no end, if not to despair, if that were not also sin, sir, you respectfully know nothing at all.
As for the one sided charge of independency regarding those in the church - for that is what it is, an unproven assertion - you make no mention of the possible corresponding alternative charge to independency regarding the governors. And who will judge who? May I respectfully remind you that the Lord is no respecter of persons. We may not hide behind our office any more than those of us in the pew may hide behind a profession of sincere love for the peace and purity of the church all the while we wreck it, if not that some accuse us of it. But no one may promote anything other than the truth, whether in or out of office, in Christ's church. That is the issue.
Yet we quote the two opening paragraphs to the letter from our three elders of June 14, 2003 commenting further on the dissolution of the RPNA:
But enough, sir, I will leave off, trusting that the Lord will truly bless your day of Public fasting and prayer for the public, as well as private, sins and situation we find ourselves in before him.
Thank you very much.
I am cordially yours,
in our Lord Jesus Christ,
BS
(Member of, but not speaking for the Everson, Wa. Society)
BS – Sat. Jan. 14/06
Dear N,
Thank you for your second post.
I hope this will be my last to you since I need to go back to work, much more there is a lot of work still to do in these days leading up to and including the Day of Public Prayer and Fasting, Jan. 21. I am also not interested in presuming on the patience of the larger audience to the point that when I hit the Send button I get swamped with the return volley of Mail Undeliverable/Block Sender notifications. I am also thankful that so far this informal discussion hasn't deteriorated into a dogpile affair, though some might think even speaking up is squabbling.
Still as to yours, if repetition is the mother of comprehension and the undersigned is a slow learner:
1. I agree with it that the PGS request errs in not regarding the personal circumstances of health and workload with our elders as normally being a sufficient cause in itself to call for a public fast. We are talking about two out of three of our elders, not two out of three hundred, in which case it would be a different story.
2. That said, in the main I still agree with the overall thrust and concern of the PGS request, which again does not question the lawfulness of the elders's authority, nor even the lawfulness of their authority to call a fast. Rather contrary to the repeated misreading of it, it is a request to the lawful authorities to further clarify the public, as opposed to private, "sins against the Lord and each other" which we are being called to confess and humiliate ourselves before the Lord publically. Granted the official announcement doesn't make the distinction, but the PGS request, based on our doctrine and history, properly and commendably enquires further.
Again, while on the one hand, you are correct, the distinction between "public and private" circumstances per se as re. #1 is irrelevant and begs the question, on the other when it comes to #2 since you repeatedly misread the substance of the PGS request and get sidetracked - that fact alone really disqualifies you from joining the conversation in any real sense - consequently you seem to be completely unaware of the necessary distinction between "public and private" sins and the bearing it has on the discussion. (Hence again 1 AND 2 of the first section in my previous.) That means, your comments as far as I can tell when I can even understand them - may I recommend Rule 16 from Strunk and White's little classic The Elements of Style? "Use definite, specific, concrete language ( p.21)." - are also irrelevant to the further discussion. I don't mean to be rude here, N, but regardless if you know what you meant, that does not guarantee you articulated it well enough that others do. You didn't and I don't or at best I am not willing to spend the time deciphering your comments. It is enough that you can't/don't give a correct summary of the PGS request. And if you can't tell us the question, you can't speak to the question, rather you are incompetent to it. Sorry.
To move on, another way of saying it would be that the objections to the PGS request continue to mistake a complex question for a simple one. The bare situation we find ourself in with two out of three of our elders incapacitated as to fulfilling their office is cause for concern and prayer. But add to that, circumstance and history to color the background and things change. Add to that, the possible character of the PUBLIC sins to be confessed in this day of prayer and fasting - which distinction again has yet to be acknowledged by all parties as relevant to this discussion - and it is no longer such a straight forward matter. That's the real status of the question. Anything else is a smokescreen and a diversion.
That is to say, the Lord would not have anyone heal the hurt of his people slightly. That is to say, we are to be wise to the times and know what Israel is supposed to do. That is to say, we who take pride in calling ourselves the covenanted remnant of the covenanted reformation, we who are so quick to judge and condemn others as being members of unfaithful and constitutionally corrupt churches that are the legitimate descendants of the illegitimate Revolution Settlement, we had better have our own house in order; we had better have our own church government squared away. Or maybe we have forgotten, "To whom much is given, much is required."
Consider again, brother, that the RPNA per se is no more and that by the plain testimony of those who formed it, three of whom are still with us and we with them in the letters of June 8 and 14th, 2003. And if presbyterianism classically considered, as well the Reformed Presbytery with Steele, who we claim to follow, required a plurality of ministers - more than one - to form a presbytery, again we don't have a presbytery. What then do we have? Not an ordinary session, but an extraordinary session of a nonexistent presbytery? I don't know. Do you? Who exactly are we? That is, of course, not to say that our elders are not elders. They obviously are. They may administer the sacraments. They may call for days of thanksgiving and prayer. They may, if called and ordained, preach the gospel. They may exercise discipline, within limits, in that there are no higher, wider courts and/or a lawful general assembly. They may admit and demit members to the fellowship/congregation based on the terms of communion etc. etc. Rather what I am saying is that maybe we had better be careful of calling ourself something we are not. Do you not think brother, that the Lord might have something to say about that? Could it be possible that we who are the perfect presbyterian church, because we are the covenanted presbyterian church, could it be possible that we sin in this regard to church government? I would hope not, but in light of the circumstances we find ourselves in, a prayerful examination of the question is certainly in order. Yet your posts, as far as I can tell on a foggy day, fail to even recognize this question, never mind answer it yea or nay.
As for those of us in the societies, can we really call ourselves part of a Reformed Presbyterian General Meeting (never mind the RPNA when it no longer exists) when substantially we don't know what one is, much more fail to live up to the practice of those who held the name in the past and who we claim to be following in the footsteps of? The public record is quite clear. There was a public stated meeting once a year attended by elders/correspondents from all the congregations/societies that belonged and there was a public record of the same as in written minutes. See again, http: //www.covenanter.org/Minutes/ minuteshomepage. htm which just happens to be the website associated with, but not owned by one J Dodson.
We all remember him, don't we? The Lord raised him up as one of the first in this generation to promote and introduce covenanter distinctives to the N. American church at large and then when he went aside and lay in a bed of adultery, the Lord laid him aside. In other words, the lesson and testimony of Scripture and history is quite clear. God doesn't need anybody to build his church and that includes us. If we forget that, we're already on the road to being replaced. Respectfully, we just might need to fish or cut bait here. If we are not what we say we are, again it might behoove us to consider that the Lord might have something to say about that, especially since we pride ourselves - as we do - in our FAITHFULNESS as compared to all those other UNFAITHFUL and bad and wicked and despised publican presbyterian churches out there. Again, a prayerful examination of the question is entirely in order, as opposed to ignoring the question or considering it out of bounds because we are THE covenanted remnant.
Don't get me wrong. I don't claim to be the last word on all this. I am only saying again, we need to ask the question. If we are going to claim whatever, let's make sure we live up to it. Talk is cheap and if we already owe, it's time to shut up, stand down and clean up our act, not carry on, like nothing is wrong. Are we just going to restructure our church government or are we also going to repent for our possible public shortcomings and public sins of church government? That is the question. If we are going to have a Day of Solemn Public Fasting as the Directory calls for, in our circumstances and with our history, is primarily confessing private sins against the Lord - like we didn't have family worship or when we did, we fell asleep - the whole story or truth? Is it the whole counsel of God on the question? By all means we should confess such sins like those re. family worship, but if I may be excused, I think there is more to it than that.
The request of the PGS is an attempt to get those kind of concerns on the table, and so far the objections against the same haven't even understood the existence of those kinds of concerns, never mind speak to them. And that is a very sad thing IMO because if we throw a tantrum and insist on going to Tarshish, when we are supposed to be booking a flight for Nineveh, even the red eye, the Lord has ways of dealing with us. I don't know about you, but after a fashion, I'm not interested in getting swallowed up by a big fish and spit out later. And if you don't think that can happen, have I got news for you. Or have all of our recent troubles come upon only because of blind chance? It's a judgement call to be sure, and mine might not be the prevailing one, yet 1. not only am I entitled to it, 2. it is respectfully without apology. Sorry 'bout that, sir. Ultimately we all will answer to someone higher than the popular opinion.
The Directory says on the subject, that "when some great and notable judgements are either inflicted upon a people, or apparently imminent or by some extraordinary provocation notoriously deserved... public solemn fasting is a duty God expecteth from that . . . people." No doubt, we are in a world of hurt. Our church govt. is in disarray. Two of our three elders are hard-pressed to fulfill their office and the remaining officer has to take up the slack if he can. Things cannot continue like this. All this we grant. Yet again, is the real question whether we need to restructure the church - we do - or rather do we first need to repent of the public sins we are guilty of as members, officers and the church collectively before God, particularly as regards church government?
It is not like God is not able to repay us in our own coin. Yet if we are not what we say we are as a church, we should not say it, but instead we should hold our tongue and work toward that day when our reality will match our rhetoric and then we will not have to repent of the latter. Otherwise we continue in our sin and God will judge us for it, if that is not what he is doing even now as we speak.
But before the Lord, brother, you tell me.
cordially yours,
in Christ
Bob S
(Member of, but not speaking for the Everson, Wa. Society of what? the continuing want to be RPNA,GM, the RPNA(GM) persuasion, the RPNA (GM) terms of communion?)
PS. Even further, unfortunately speaking from experience, it might improve your posts to:
1. Get to bed on time instead of staring at the computer.
2. As mentioned above, get a copy of Strunk and White's Elements of Style immediately. Read it diligently. Practice the concepts it expounds faithfully.
3. Send out your rough drafts to somebody on the basis that they will tell you if they can understand what you are trying to say - not whether they agree with you. The last is to put the cart before the proverbial pony. That is because I first have to know what you said even before I can agree or disagree with you, never mind profitably. First things first. Only in this case we are talking about understanding the PGS request and then and only then voting thumbs up or down on it. Again, maybe it's just my opinon, but I don't see it substantially demonstrated in your posts.
And it is a big deal. If more people understood it, Jordan, Frame, Schlissel, Wilson, Leithart and Gore couldn't get away with their assault on reformed worship. Likewise the Auburn Avenue Theology/New Perspective on Paul and their assault on the orthodox view of justification. None of these guys have earned a right to be at the table and speak up because none of them can/will give us a correct statement of the historical orthodox confessional doctrine, regardless of and previous to whether they agree with it or not. That means they are incompetent to the question. Don't be part of the problem. Please. Thank you.
MG – Sun. Jan. 15/06
Dear N,
As I write this Saturday afternoon, I have moments ago completed my review of your two e-mails, respectively:
1. January 9, 2006
To: Society of Prince George (SPG); Pastor Price; Elder Dohms
Description: An unsolicited reply to the SPG, by brother NS
2. January 11, 2006
To: Society of Prince George; Salutation addressees: “M and B”
Description: Mr. S addresses the one SPG reply to him
As a Society, we have not yet determined how or even if we will give you further reply beyond our e-mail to you January 10, 2006. That reply served to address your initial e-mail, sufficient to the hour for an exchange we had not solicited nor desired.
REPLYING AS AN INDIVIDUAL
As you have chosen to address me by name in my private capacity, I will answer accordingly. I will share with you; it is my long-standing practice for many reasons to avoid interactions of this sort. Generally you can be assured when you see my name volunteered in such a way, there are elements constraining me to lay down this rule and undertake the many associated risks foreign to godly conversation.
It will be granted there are many practical implications of moral persons, be they political parties, the church visible, and religious societies (or Catch-and-Release fishing clubs, for that matter). It will further be granted that there are applications in the distinction of individual authors versus corporate authors. If you lack resources to support this received and established distinction, you might inquire of those you trust in our covenanted community, to secure access.
Nevertheless, by your hand you have chosen to engage me in this way, in public, and I choose this one time at least, to accommodate your request. Naturally, I make no representations on behalf of Mr. S.; or for our Society of Prince George, in my private capacity.
WHAT IS SUPERFLUOUS?
In your second e-mail, you expressed a concern for superfluousness. I also have a concern for exceeding what is necessary; the basis for my own concern is that:
Our INITIAL Society e-mail was:
1. Clear in its object: Pastor Price and Elder Dohms.
2. Clear in its nature: Public and regarding a common concern.
3. Clear in its basis: confessional, historical, experiential, and informed (Jan. 1 & 6).
4. Clear and limited in its scope, respectful in its tone, a product of real world experience.
Could it have been written better for the quick Reader? Undoubtedly. Granted.
In the ADDENDUM provided:
1. The Primary Addressee is our Society
2. The Subject indicates it is in reply to: Public Fast - Resources still needed (060109)
3. The content validates and seeks to satisfy the requests.
Our PUBLIC REPLY, not two hours later, communicates that we:
1. Stated our thanksgiving for this singular blessing from their hand.
2. Acknowledged that the document had positive value to us and all the brethren.
3. Declared positive agreement on many points.
4. Thanked them.
5. Took appropriate care requisite to honest records for posterity and heart preparation.
Could the Addendum have been better? I prefer to ask: is it a legitimate source of encouragement? Absolutely. Is it progress? Absolutely, by any public standard in our recent history.
To that degree, I believe the authors were a credit to their office in their Master’s employment (Jn. 21:16,17). If an undershepherd were to deny sheep bleating in His pasture, in their purpose to walk before Him in a clear conscience on such settled practice of the Church ordinary and extraordinary, would be more akin to the hireling (Jn 10:13; Ezk. 34:4). God forbid.
Producing the Addendum would seem to infer recognition of duty, and an effort to fulfill said duty. An effort was made to address the legitimate concerns; the quality and completeness of it is of little matter to me at this dark hour. So, the record declares the Addendum sufficient to the hour for those making the request; certainly, that includes myself, no matter how mixed with sin and error it is (it will be granted as common to all works of men).
Yet, here you are: demanding satisfaction in an exchange far beyond the stated scope. Superfluous, in my own estimation.
I cannot hold out much hope that you will find the satisfaction you demand, though I will make one wholehearted effort (Lord willing). I will attempt to directly answer most of your material. Your e-mails frequently state what you see as obvious, and some points of dissatisfaction. I also may relate a few opinions of my own and points of dissatisfaction, though I will endeavor to not exceed what I judge expedient to the sake of peace for the flock.
BOLD ACCUSATIONS
When one so quickly alleges uncharitableness, unreasonableness and double-standards (Jan. 11/06, 4th main paragraph), not having gently inquired to establish the matter let alone any other contact with us, I for one do not think it bodes well for honest and constructive dialogue.
I have prayed and sought my God, trying to reconcile your language with your close (Your brother). Having done so, I find I cannot reconcile either of your e-mails with the sacred text (Pv 18:13; Eph. 4:21-32). Some might perceive this as 'overly sensitive' or 'sickly sweet'; I would refer the believer to their Boss to take it up with Him (Lk 17:7-10). I assure you; even my sarcastic unbelieving brother in the flesh outgrew those youthful strivings of his many years ago. In his experience as a federal and provincial prosecutor, he tells me the posturing antics for television are just that; foreign to the law and justice.
Is there a defendable reason you so readily prosecute ‘Ad Hominem’ argumentation against me, casting unsubstantiated suspicions upon me? I will grant from other venues I am getting more used to it these last 18 months or so, but that does not make it any more agreeable to the Savior than any other false argumentation born of the flesh. I suggest in doing so, you do yourself a great disservice.
I could understand if you had cause to hold me as a Diotrephes (3Jn 1:9); perhaps a Publican (Lk 18:11); or a disaffected enemy (2Thess. 3:15). Am I not due the courtesy of a covenanted brother in the field? If not, why not? Do you have some cause against me? If so, it would be best to address that quickly, directly and privately. My Toll Free home number is ------ the office is preferred: -------.
I will follow the admonition to take 9th Commandment accusations seriously (L/Cat. q.144, “love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth”) while guarding my heart from temptations born of the flesh. In the flesh, I am proud of many natural virtues in my lineage; in the spirit, I desire to be a lover of the Truth, to kiss the Son and hold His cause as a citizen of a heavenly country. I confess little patience or tolerance for posturing; church games and their attending vices have been of particular disgust to me for over 22 years. Subsequently, where I can I will defend myself and I will expect satisfaction; I assure you, I am patient in my Lord and His just way (Ps 96:13).
TENTATIVE OUTLINE
My stated hope is to firmly but charitably attempt to answer your inquiries; in turn I will also address aspects I find poorly formed; overstated; and unsubstantiated.
I suspect to answer you fully would require a great volume of pages beyond my willingness to accommodate. However, in my attempt to ‘satisfy’, I do hope to produce several shorter e-mails over the next week or so, titled something along the lines of:
1. A little patience goes a long way. Or not.
2. Dissatisfied, are you? Join the club.
3. Obvious, you think? Here's a few more...
4. Even IF, what of it?
5. Line by Line 1 (your Jan. 9 email)
6. Line by Line 2 (your Jan. 11 e-mail)
Items 5 & 6 will endeavour to satisfy the balance not already addressed in earlier parts.
UNSUBSCRIBE
I do not desire to intrude or abuse where patience is exhausted. You the Reader may have already had your patience exhausted; I must and happily do respect that. If for these purposes you prefer to be removed from this Email distribution list, I respectfully ask you to e-mail me in private. I will immediately comply. If you choose to stay on the distribution list and judge as you go, I'll try to do honor to your interest and kindness,
In the cause of our Christ,
MG (Prince George, BC)
ADOBE ACROBAT
If desired due to formatting challenges, please feel free to request an Adobe Acrobat PDF file for your viewing convenience.
BH – Sun. Jan. 15/06
Hi all,
I'd like to interject a few comments on this debate that's been coming into my email box lately. It's with some fear and trembling that I write this since all of you who are participating are older than me, understand this debate better, and are in some respects still strangers to me. Accordingly, it's a shame to have to have a first run in with you all in this way.
Anyway, what's my reason for writing?
In short, I'm not sure why this thing came out in the public in the first place. It seems to be confusing and frustrating people who are reading this more than edifying them. Why not just take this matter up with the elders or wait until after the decision comes down with regard to how they are going to 'reorganize' the church? This debate isn't interesting to many, or it is becoming a matter of stumbling, so perhaps it would be best to lay it to rest for the time being.
Second, even if there was a good reason at first, it's been precluded by a host of uncharitable emails full of way-too personal attacks. If you want to fight and start to devour each other, please, do it privately, and when you've come to a point when an interesting issue can be cogently (and hopefully concisely) discussed, then perhaps a public discussion could be warranted.
I'll be the first to opt out of this thread.
Valete!
B
BH – Sun. Jan. 15/06
On Second Thought
I had a thought that could somehow keep this discussion interesting and edifying, because I think it started out in that vein. I teach logic at the high school level, and we have debates like this all the time. When we talk about things, typically, I try to follow some generals rules to facilitate an edifying debate. Here's how I'd apply them...
1. Drop the talk about how bad we all write. Sure we could all use some work, but we do the best with what we've got.
2. Restate the actual issue clearly in an interrogative form. If there are several related questions, state them succinctly and how they interrelate.
3. Make it clear who is asserting what. It seems like PGS is saying something different than B, who is saying something different from N. It's not clear if some people are even asserting positions or just encouraging us to ask a given question. How exactly are you each answering the question(s) (if you're offering an answer at all)?
4. After it's been made clear who is saying what, let each side offer their positive reasons for saying what they're saying. Don't put it in a dialectical 'snip-reply' format, but positively say why you think your position is right.
5. Go into the dialectical phase, posing objections to the other view, and answering objections to your own.
6. In general, whenever you find yourself using inflammatory language, delete it. It has no place in a well-reasoned debate.
I think if you make a conscious effort to do something like I've outlined above, you may be on the road to resolving this thing. But if you don't, you're just going to piss each other off and frustrate a lot of people on the side lines.
Hope this helps...
-B
WB – Sun. Jan. 15/06
I think that BH has a good point here at present. Why? Because we are going through a difficult transition period and when we are weakest, many can rise up to tear us apart. Lord knows that some of my comments in the past have not be profitable, and sometimes I need to recoil a bit to allow others some time to ponder. Mostly, it helps me to ponder the truly important things of God...which is building unity, uniformity, holiness, blamelessness and so many other gifts of love for God and our neighbor.
"Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another,
love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: Not rendering evil for
evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing
that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing"
(1Pet.3:8-9).
"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things
are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure,
whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report;
if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these
things. Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and
heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you."
(Phil.4:8-9).
I'm sure that these trials and temptations to rend apart what little flock has been gathered is great, especially since many of us do not have the direct oversight of a local Pastor or Elder whom we can visit with face-to-face to really understand the difficulties facing them at the present time. Can we walk in their shoes? Is it now time to carry them the extra mile when they cannot carry themselves any further? Are you ready to fight the good fight of faith my dear brethren? If we put our Elders on our backs to carry them through these trials, are you ready to do this because you love our Lord and the brethren.
I am ready...and I will patiently sit back and wait until I am called for help by my dear Pastor Price, Elder Barrow and Elder Dohms. I'm here when they need me, and they can know today I am standing for their unity and I'm ready to carry them as far as I am able.
"But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall
be added unto you.^ Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's
good pleasure to give you the kingdom" (Lk.12:31-32).
For the cause of Christ,
W.
SA – Sun. Jan.. 15/06
Could you please remove my email address from any further/future "posts" regarding this thread.
I am doubting that this format will lead to any clarity and unity, but possible further vagueness, and disunity.
I'm not saying that anyone is sinning in participation, it just leads me to unnecessary frustration.
Thank you,
-S
PS I would still like to be included in future correspondence with any Society or individual not associated with this thread. Thanks.
BS – Fri. Jan. 20/06
Apology, further remarks Re: Public Fast – Resources still needed (060109)
January 20, 2006
Greetings all,
If I may presume on the patience of the brethren one more time. (To the best of my knowledge only five people have opted out and they have been accommodated.) I have received a number of private comments and criticisms regarding my previous to Mr.BB and Mr. NS. Some while writing positively, didn't care for the postscript to Mr. NS and/or my statement to Mr.B that: "you, sir, respectfully know nothing at all," and felt I needed to apologize for such statements and retract them in order not to stumble people from understanding my overall concerns about the upcoming public fast and prayer day and the Society of Prince George request for more information.
Preliminary Retractions & Remarks
While on the one hand, if retracting these statements and the like would help others to understand the larger argument and buy into the necessary distinction between public and private sins in regard to a public fast, I would be happy to do so. On the other hand, I don't know that it will be so easy. After all, one who wrote to say they were offended by mine, in the same breath also admonishes another brother, as if he had written what I actually wrote to Mr. BB. However one might desire that people read a post rather than just react to it, evidently practice isn't always perfect, mine, included. Still, while not claiming to be omniscient regarding the deceitfulness of my own heart, my postscript to Mr. NS was prefaced by the remark, "unfortunately speaking from my own experience." In other words, I was saying, 'been there and done that,' if not that, at times I continue to do so. The statement was not meant at all to be patronizing or sarcastic. Certainly it did not need to be said, particularly if it would stumble the brother or brethren and I am happy to withdraw it as not being essential to resolving the question.
As for mine to Mr. BB, it was not written out of spite, but from the perspective of Ps. 126:6, 'That those who sow in tears shall reap with joy.' Yes, there was some frustration and anger mixed in with the tears and sorrow at where we find ourselves in the church today, but while not disagreeing with his concern for the peace of the church, the brother errs in persisting to judge according to appearance, rather than righteousness and the larger history and issues. Not only that, Mr.B seems to accuse me of sin, if not essentially insinuate that I or any who ask similar questions, are but troublers of Israel, malcontents and ungrateful to the elders in his letter full of generalities which appeared on this list shortly after the SPG request and mine to Mr. S appeared. I, for my part, only charge him with being ignorant of the real issues and background. He not only fails to substantiate his remarks, they are vague and ambiguous to begin with. But let the reader judge.
The Larger Question/Issue
Yet above and beyond these items, it was and is my zeal and desire to stop the mouths of those, who IMO needlessly confuse and cloud the important and long standing issues before us today. That alone is bad enough, if they do not also stand along the side of and approve the prophets who proclaim "peace, peace," when there is no peace and daub a wall ready to fall with untempered mortar (Ezek. 13:10).
That is, just what is it that we don't understand about the judgement of God? Just what is it that we don't understand about how important proper church government is in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, who as king rules his church by his word and said same government? Just what is it that we don't understand that when 2 out of 3 of our officers are providentially relieved from office and the remaining elder taxed to his limit, that God just might be chastising us for our sin, whether it be failing to do our office or failing to value and pray for our officers and strive after proper church government as we should? Just what is it that we don't seem to be able to make the distinction, as
our confession, testimony and history clearly do, between public and private sins, and the confession of not just the last in a public fast?
The Name of ?
My understanding is, from the sermons I have heard, that the name of the Lord tells us something about who God is. If we but know his name, we know something truly substantial about even the invisible and incomprehensible God. So too, our name as a church of Jesus Christ. But while we, for instance, adhere to the terms of communion of the RPNA - the RPNA, as the RPNA - a presbytery - has been dissolved and no longer has a stated/written constitution. Neither do we seem to even know what the RP General Meeting is. But we call ourselves by one or the other of these two names. And that only for starters. As if this alone, is not starting to trespass upon the 9th Commandment?
Before the Lord, the question arises again. Just who do we think we are? Just who do we say we are? Just how do we think that God cannot possibly have a controversy with us because of who we say we are? That we can do everything and anything because of extraordinary circumstances and our sincere belief that we are The covenanted remnant? God surely is merciful, but only if the hypocrisy, ignorance and negligence, however sincere on the part of all are repented of, not continued in. That again is still the real status of the question IMO, and to my knowledge it has yet to be acknowledged, let alone rebutted and clear instruction in the correct alternative given. The last would most certainly would be appreciated.
Further Background
But this is not the first time these questions have been asked and in a forum perhaps more appropriate to resolution, which even now still eludes us. The Everson Wa. Society in a letter of Nov. 28, 2004 asked if the name change in the letters from the elders from RPNA to the RPNA, (General Meeting) indicated a corresponding change in practice to one stated public meeting a year with a written record as per the practice of "the RPNA,(GM) those whom we claim to faithfully follow and continue as a church?" The Dec. 10, '04 reply by the elders stated:
Refreshing Our Memory
It has been two and half years since the dissolution of presbytery on June 6, 2003.
1. Since then, there has been no written defense of our position on birth control as intended, promised and demanded by "our present circumstance" as stated in the letter on dissolution of presbytery, June 14, '03.
2. Nor has there been a written notification and clarification of the retraction of the promise and intent to write such a paper since then and about which retraction those of us in Everson have been told only in person or on the phone in Jan. 05, rather than in print. As if this was not one of those "decisions that affect the Societies at large" in which the elders would "communicate in a more formal manner by email" to some degree. After all, being faithful to one's word is part of being faithful to one's testimony, is it not?
3. There has been no further real explanation or clarification written or otherwise of the church government we are under, or the name change from the RPNA to the RPNA, (GM) and now, back again to the RPNA, never mind whether our practice even begins to conform to either.
4. There has been no further explanation or clarification written or otherwise re. the well known, by rumor and hearsay, paper on ordination that another brother and I were told Jan. 24 '05 in Everson would be forthcoming for discussion at the then upcoming July '05 gathering in Edmonton.
And so on and so forth. But not to multiply instances, however minute, which taken by themselves are hardly something to get upset about, but when they are taken as a whole, only further aggregate and aggravate our situation. There are exceptions and there is the rule. In other words, the snowball effect. What started out small at the top of the hill, grows considerably by the time it reaches the bottom. We are not at the top of the hill.
The Question Again
As the letter from the Everson Society Nov. 28, '04 stated,
"the lack of official or regular communication and prevailing disorganization can be very discouraging/confusing at times for us as a society, as we assume it also is for Session. Yet we hope something can be done about it, as was done in the past, in like circumstances by the RPNA,(GM) those whom we claim to faithfully follow and continue as a church."
In short again, we forget that we forget and no matter how well intentioned, the lack of due process, good order and a paper trail is one of the chief shortcomings of the ad hoc, laissez faire, informal, extraordinary church government we find ourselves under. All these things fall through the cracks of our collective and individual memory and further retard, stunt and confuse our growth, development and edification as a church of Jesus Christ. Will we acknowledge it, much less repent of it? That is the question.
Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. (John 9:41.)
Before the Lord and mindful of the upcoming Public Day of Prayer and Fasting, does God have a controversy with us or not? Does it have anything to do with how we conduct or what we call ourselves publically, whether in office or out, whether in part or as the whole congregation, whether before him, the rest of the church, or the world, if not all three? Even further, does it have anything even remotely to do at all with church government? And our answer?
Thank you very much,
cordially in Christ,
BS
Member of, but not speaking for the Everson, Wa. Society of the . . . . ?
PASTOR PRICE – Sat. Jan. 21/06
Accusation or Entreaty?
Dear B[S],
Your public remarks will be answered.
I must confess, however, that your posts give little (if any) indication of love or consideration for the afflictions, trials, and weaknesses under which we as Elders find ourselves--afflictions and weakness, I would submit, that are directly related to the work of caring for the sheep of Jesus Christ. Your public accusations against the Elders of this Church (who have faithfully labored to promote the peace, the purity, and unity of Christ’s Church) compel me to say such things. Forgive me if it sounds like boasting. Like loving yet imperfect parents, we have labored to guide and care for the flock entrusted to us. Dear brother, afflictions, weaknesses and trials (as I think you know) are not necessarily the result of God’s judgment upon His ministers for their sins (2 Corinthians 6:3-13). It is said of faithful Renwick that he was so weak and afflicted that he was unable to get up on his own horse and to ride it without help from others to keep him literally on the horse. We know very personally how our families have been deprived of time again and again not because we love the preeminence, but because we love Christ and our struggling sheep. No doubt we have failed at times to keep everything in proper order (but it not due to our unwillingness or obstinacy), but due primarily to the heavy load of caring for the sheep (God is our
witness).
Regardless of your views with regard to sins you allege against us, our love for the flock and our countless hours in caring for the flock over the years (yes, in extraordinary circumstances) should have called forth your compassion rather than your public humiliation, your private entreaty rather than your public accusation. Where is that love revealed in the way you have chosen to approach us? Do you have any idea what we as Elders are presently facing? Do you care? Did you call or write to talk with the Session privately about your concerns before taking this public approach?
I do not want to debate the issues you have raised at this moment. No doubt, this is not the response you desire from us. A response more in line with what you expect will be issued in due time. For the present time, I would plead with you to await our response rather than continuing these public accusations.
For the cause of Christ and his scattered remnant,
Greg L. Price (speaking on behalf of myself and not my dear fellow Elders)
MG – Wed. Jan. 25/06
How do Participate?
Dear brother N,
A favourite writer of mine once wrote, 'Common sense is so rare, it ought to be called rare sense'.
The writer meant that though many things were of an obvious nature, they were often only 'obvious' after-the-fact. It seems obvious to me now, that hope for meaningful dialogue is compromised where suspicions remain. Thus, after due reflection these last 10 days, I respectfully do not see being able to fulfill my intention to answer your questions while your basic concerns remain unaddressed.
Even if they were removed, I remain uncertain of a wise course. I doubt that issues can be fairly discussed in the existing climate and think the risks of continuing the email discussion appear unreasonably high. I also do not see a clear way to promote a moderate course of action. So although many kindly encouraged me to give a full response, as I suggested I would, I cannot see a constructive way to do so now.
Public discussions seem without hope where contributors and many readers do not seem willing to first divide what is clearly said, before speculating what may also be intended; and where contributors hide behind overly qualified statements and ambiguous aspersions which they will not own.
Also unsettling, is that there appears to be such mixed judgment on what does or does not constitute giving and/or taking of offense, versus direct but brotherly language born of longsuffering and godly labour. Also, it may be there is an overall lack of will and/or capacity to see public offenses maturely administrated and, in my view, confusions abound on this in the virtual absence of positive examples.
It all reminds me of my constant teenage concern to grow "in the word of righteousness" lest one be unable "to discern both good and evil" as commended in Heb. 5:12-14. No doubt, I have often failed to learn and exercise the "first principles of the oracles of God".
Ten days have passed since I publicly offered to participate in a reconciliatory course with you on these very things, offering you opportunity to substantiate your words in private or public, at your discretion. In addition to the public forum you chose to approach me in, I offered two personal toll-free telephone numbers; all have been welcome to you, none used. To my knowledge we as a Society also, have not received any further contact from you.
I am referring again to what I saw as mischaracterizations of my words, and/or our Society's words - namely, your use of the following:
1. "uncharitable": 1Corinthians 13:1,2 - If I "have not charity, I am nothing"
2. "unreasonable": Merriam-Webster at www.m-w.com gives this definition, "Not governed by or acting according to reason"
3. "I’m not very fond of double standards": Proverbs 20:10 - "Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD."
Would you agree that these accurately summarize your characterizations of our emails?
It appears to me that you have based these on misunderstandings, for example representing that our Society did "demand a detailed resolution at this time", which far exceeded our request for "a bit more" information on 3 aspects of restructuring.
N, I am sincerely grieved by the way the Prince George Society emails were misconstrued to be something other than what they were (being intended only for the good of the brethren's preparations). Nothing would make me happier than to have the misunderstandings cleared up. However, recent email exchanges seem to have fostered more confusion and offense than understanding and love. And so I'm not sure that fulfilling my previous intention of answering you point by point would be beneficial. As mentioned earlier, I have reconsidered that option.
I remain,
Yours in Christ,
MG
Toll free home: (866) . . .
Toll free office: (866) . . .
Cell phone: (250) . . .
MG – Wed. Jan. 25/06
How TO Participate? yeah...
yeah... no.
'How DO participate?' was not a bad attempt at a 'catchy' title. Just plain bad!
Kind of supports the view that some people should just, "Step away from the keyboard. Slowly now!"
As the saying goes, "if you can't laugh at yourself..."
Hope you had one on me - I sure did!
Kind regards,
MG
Next, I'll wait the 2 minutes and check if I did it again! But I assure you - you have me word (I mean, 'my' word) - no more follow up to this!
MG – Wed. Jan. 25/06
How TO Participate? yeah...
yeah... no.
'How DO participate?' was not a bad attempt at a 'catchy' title. Just plain bad!
Kind of supports the view that some people should just, "Step away from the keyboard. Slowly now!"
As the saying goes, "if you can't laugh at yourself..."
Hope you had one on me - I sure did!
Kind regards,
MG
Next, I'll wait the 2 minutes and check if I did it again! But I assure you - you have me word (I mean, 'my' word) - no more follow up to this!
From:Brian B
To: Greg Price ; Greg Barrow ; Lyndon Dohms
Cc: SPG & Bob S
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:49 PM
Subject: A Matter of Record
January 26th, 2006
Dear Officers of the RPNA Court,
We submit to the Court, for record, this email to you regarding the attached messages which we deem to contain a strange manner of Christian proceeding, though it be forwarded as "Brotherly", "Apology", or containing the title of "Sir". We have several objections to the attachments (and to other public messages by the same parties not here attached), and therefore do not feel lawfully compelled to answer any such inquiries directed toward us by the same, aside from any specific direction from, or within the venue of, this Court. If formal charges are made against us by the same, and the Court so allows, we are prepared to submit arguments to the Court regarding our reasons for denial to answer such things. In anticipation of events that require us to submit formal counter charges, we are also preparing a brief for the Court that contains the substance of counter charges of a personal and public nature, and which can be submitted to the Court within reasonable notice when the Court's schedule is able to consider such.
If all parties concerned in this matter acknowledge themselves to be under the RPNA Court as common, none should act according to the presuppositions of ecclesiastical Democracy and/or Independency so as to seek a popular majority as a judgment -- by engaging in any disputes or debates regarding this specific matter unto such an end (as though the "court" of public or common judgment is authoritative). This, however, is that which we are threatened with, and into which arena there have been not a few attempts to bait us to respond by the opposing parties. If, however, all parties do not admit the Court of the RPNA as being common to them for adjudication, and under this pretext we are soiled publicly by the representations of the parties so threatening to do the same, we shall answer such things nonetheless lawfully, and as we deem necessary, according to our liberty of discretion in such things.
However, before dealing with such matters any more or in any way, we would firstly know who it is we are dealing with as to the opposite parties: Do the persons represented in the attachments explicitly, fully, and cheerfully own this Court of the RPNA as lawful and faithful (though extraordinary); and, do they own it as extending its authoritative jurisdiction over them in all matters of a moral and ecclesiastical nature? If not, we consider them to have dismembered themselves from the RPNA by their lack of promptly so owning this Court (as is requisite for membership), and shall so deal with them as we are to deal with all disaffected and separated brethren -- by ignoring the nuisance of any of their cavils and attempted obstructions, or by rebuking, entreating, and exhorting them to faithfulness as circumstances dictate and/or allow.
Even if the Court is so owned by them as per above,* and formal charges proceed in this Court, nevertheless, because of the grievous interpersonal tensions and suspicions created by their recent public actions, statements, and methods, we do not intend to interact with them apart from the specific direction of the Court -- until the matter(s), if being so prosecuted, receive a final ruling. Even in the event that such a process is so prosecuted unto such a ruling, we would desire the outcome to be our mutual and full reconciliation in the solidarity of doctrine, government, worship, and discipline; and that we be thereby united, not only with the good-will (according to the good of God's law) that is always required, but also in the mutual complacence of Christian graces and gifts in sincere fellowship, mutually employed to the edification of the whole body.
Psalms 133:1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!
We understand, especially given the present extraordinary circumstances, that the scheduling of this matter (if necessary) for any hearing could be delayed by many, many months, which delays are not dissimilar from present civil court delays. We understand that especially during the next few months that the Court is especially exercised with matters of much more significant import regarding governmental matters proper, and therefore patiently defer the timing of this matter to the calendar that the Court sets for the same on its docket.
Sincerely submitted,
BB
attachments:
(3) emails, "PGS";
(2) emails, BS
At this point, because of concerns raised by the recent public actions, statements, and methods, nothing but an explicit and signed affidavit to this effect will suffice to assure us of the same. We would be glad to provide the same as consistent with our membership engagements.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/547 - Release Date: 11/22/2006
MG – Fri. Jan. 27/06
Dear N,
I confirm my having received 3 new emails from you in my time at the office today.
My conscience is clear and ready before my God, whose holy will I desire to continue trusting in. By all means, do what you feel you must.
The relevant email list as I understand it has been copied into the cc above, reflecting 7 removals - 6 by request plus 1 other which I will clarify in a moment.
Sincerely - MG.
From: NS
Sent: January 27, 2006 9:59 AM
To: M
Subject: Re: How TO participate? yeah...
M,
Just curious,
Would you explain the reasons for your "undisclosed recipients" approach? You're engaging me to respond (while simultaneously sending it to others covertly), yet cutting me off from opportunity to reply to the same audience? This wouldn't appear to be a very honest manner of approach.
Thank you,
N
MG – Fri. Jan. 27/06
BCC? or CC?
Dear N,
I have received your inquiry this morning. I make many mistakes; however, bcc was not one of them. I regret any inconvenience this has caused you.
I removed 5 persons who requested removal from emails originating from myself on these subjects. One more name was noted yesterday, the person thinking they had already requested it of me. This brings the number of positive removal requests I am in receipt of, to 6.
My understanding is, that Elder Barrow is under Pastor Price & Elder Dohms' care in determining suitable levels of involvement during his medical leave-of-absence, him having been relieved of duties until Mar. 1 unless otherwise directed. Inclusion of Elder Barrow's address since Jan. 1, from myself, would be an oversight on my part.
The cc email list above then, reflects 7 names removed from the largest list of recipients I saw, which I believe fulfills my duty, to them. How those remaining perceive their duty to attacker and attacked, I do not know, but I expect to continue accommodating any who request removal. For now at least, you have this list with rationale.
Sincerely - MG
Incidentally, you can tell wherever I actively include Elders. By virtue of their office my email practice is to use their title as a salutation. The minister is listed first, ruling elders next, alphabetically by surname be they 2 or 20. That reflects my need to guard my heart against being a respecter of persons, as I know the deceitfulness of my heart, all too well.
From: NS
Sent: January 26, 2006 8:20 PM
To: M
Subject: BCC? or CC?
Hello M,
I have received responses from persons that I was unaware of their reception of this discussion. However, they have not received my response to your initial inquiry (perhaps you made a mistake, and included all these recipients under 'BCC' instead of "CC." Therefore, would you please send me an exhaustive list of all recipients, that they may too benefit from my reply?
Thank you,
NS
NS – Fri. Jan. 27/06
Inquiry revisited
M,
Setting aside all the "apparent" confusion (it appeared that you chose an email format that excluded others from my reply, while you simultaneously attempted to engage me to respond. If that’s not the case, please forgive my misunderstanding). Nevertheless, I’ll simply post my reply again. If others have already received it, I’m sorry for the duplication.
M,
Observing all that has transpired (it’s been quite interesting, indeed), I have a few fundamental questions to ask before I can proceed. The questions are simple, and direct – without need of any extraneous degree of qualification. They are as follows:
1. Do you explicitly, fully, and cheerfully own the present extension of ecclesiastical government (known as the RPNA) as a lawful, faithful, and judicial court of Christ Jesus – agreeable to Biblical/Historical Presbyterian Church-government -- extending its authority over you in matters of morals, and good order, or not? Yes or no.
2. Do you own BS’s questions, assertions, and/or reasonings as having any basis or legitimacy? Yes or no.
3. If so, would you be willing to sign an affidavit to this effect (re: 1 or 2)? Yes or no.
Thank you,
NS
From: Robert S.
To: Nick S.
Cc: Church List
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 1:50 PM
Subject: Re. Inquiry revisited
Hi Nick,
Was asleep at the wheel and didn't get back to you on this right away.
In light of all the misconceptions and misunderstandings floating around on all this,
I think you can understand that I would be very interested in hearing you spell out what you think my
"questions, assertions, and/or reasonings" to be.
Thank you.
cordially in Christ
Bob S.
From: Nick S.
To: Robert S.
Cc: Church List
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: Re. Inquiry revisited
Bob,
I’d be happy to spell them out for you. Nevertheless, allow me the opportunity to suggest that you represent your own mind in relation to the questions just presented – and as well, in relation to what you’ve already made public. In other words, correlate all that you’ve explicitly/implicitly established in public, with the questions I’ve presented. This way, Lord willing, there will be no room for misunderstanding – nor will there be any need for sewing additional seeds of conflict. At this point (at least), I tend to think this may be the most reasonable/expedient/charitable approach (allowing you to unpack what you’ve already written first, seeing as you’ve made some very definite public statements). If you disagree, please explain why, and I’ll be more than happy to accommodate your request.
Your brother,
Nick S.
From: Mike G.
To: Nick S.
Cc: Church List
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 12:03 AM
Subject: What was attempted: A reconciling path
Dear brother N,
I've pondered your email these last 8 days, but am still confused. It seems you ignore my previous emails to you, and are still trying to take this discussion in entirely different directions. Shouldn't we deal with issues already raised, before addressing other matters?
The issues raised by the Prince George Society were in the nature of promoting an even more meaningful day of public prayer and fasting. Simple, sincere and non-controversial. I for one happily grant your right to view the Prince George Society's request for additional resources as needless, redundant, poorly formed, or whatever - but you have said so much more. After you challenged the Prince George Society's efforts and then addressed me personally, I explicitly offered you a reconciling path, not once but twice.
In my last email, I related, "It seems obvious to me now, that hope for meaningful dialogue is compromised where suspicions remain [...] I doubt that issues can be fairly discussed in the existing climate and think the risks of continuing the email discussion appear unreasonably high. I also do not see a clear way to promote a moderate course of action." Your most recent emails have not eased these concerns, but actually increased them.
Your last questions reminded me of the value in asking a Mormon if he believes the Bible to be the Word of God, yes or no? The Mormon may think no qualifications are required, but we would know otherwise. Likewise, someone joked with me recently asking if I had "stopped beating my wife? Yes or No?" In your efforts to change the subject, I find your lines of reasoning remain unclear and confusing, and submit that while answering a well formed question may require few to no qualifications, answering poorly formed ones only serves to foster greater confusion.
Oddly enough, about 22 hours before I received your last email, another brother had emailed me, alluding to "recent public actions, statements and methods". It demanded an assurance by "explicit and signed affidavit" to clarify whether I "explicitly, fully and cheerfully" owned etc. etc. Then I received your 3 questions, with that same phrase: "explicitly, fully and cheerfully". What should I conclude? Two emails from two different people, containing that exact phrase? And both requesting an affidavit? Just a coincidence? Hard to be sure, of course.
What is sure, is that I remain prepared to discuss anything you wish, privately or publicly, providing it be done decently and orderly in the bonds of Christ, trusting you understand what must be cleared before we can walk together. When you desire to be served the Lord's Supper, I trust my own record of effort has been open and clear. My own answer to the relevant exam question on outstanding offenses, would be similar to one I had to give in the past: "As you know, offense has been perceived from my actions; I have actively made reconciliatory effort; I am open to further efforts with the one who has not acknowledged it removed".
If you have outstanding issues with the Prince George Society, I encourage you to email them. Future emails from you to me, if not of a brotherly quality speaking to first issues, will by God's grace not be answered publicly by me; I hope this explicitly clarifies on what basis I will happily receive future public contacts from you.
I close by restating:
"N, I am sincerely grieved by the way the Prince George Society emails were misconstrued to be something other than what they were (being intended only for the good of the brethren's preparations). Nothing would make me happier than to have the misunderstandings cleared up. However, recent email exchanges seem to have fostered more confusion and offense than understanding and love."
May our Christ bless you, as you walk after His sinless example.
MG
From: Nick S
To: MG
Bcc: Church List
Mike,
It really shouldn’t be a significant mystery as to why anyone would exercise liberty in these areas. The stated primary intention included within any Society’s/individual’s public letter – in this case, ‘promoting an even more meaningful day of public prayer and fasting’ -- does not exclude warrant for probing differing elements within the same public letter. This probing extends to elements assumed, or implicated – whether directly related to the stated primary intention, or indirectly related. It may be the case that you and the rest of the PG Society are not comfortable with this (though, I take no pleasure in anyone being grieved). If so, this may suggest a curious lack of desire to be open about some fundamental issues. Nevertheless, a public inquiry is subject to inquiry itself, on the levels I’ve mentioned – especially when the inquiry is classified as "relevant to the entire community." These latter observations have relationship to both the matter, and as well the manner of a public approach (or private approach for that ‘matter’). Whatever the case, quite honestly, I’m curious as to why your response lacked a simple affirmation and/or denial, which would have hopefully entailed that we’re working on the same page -- particularly in reference to questions 1 & 2 in my last email. Are we on the same page? In relation to this, know also that private discussion is spawned from public discussion – affidavit request, or not. I’m confident that you’re not a stranger to this phenomenon of the development of ideas. "Just a coincidence? Hard to be sure, of course." Actually (setting that apparent hint of sarcasm aside), it’s easy to be sure on this one. It’s certainly no coincidence, and I was quite encouraged by the uniformity of thought within the private discussion (as I often have been).
This apparent issue of "confusion" is interesting. If resolution is truly desired, then simply reassure me that we’re on the same page regarding the public issues before us (especially # 2):
1. The idea of restructuring.
2. Restructuring what?
1. The existence of a lawful court of Christ.
2. The non-existence of a lawful court of Christ.
3. The question regarding extension of authority, which necessarily stems from a & b.
In relation to these questions, please see BS’s public response (1/14/06) which explicitly invokes the name of the PGS, issues of ecclesiastical government, and authority. I found this particular email to be quite alarming. Nevertheless, you can be sure, I wouldn’t assume (on an intrinsic level) that his discussing of such issues "disqualified" him to engage discussion "in any real sense." Again, I’m not fond of double standards, and open contradiction.
1 & 2 (above) obviously have reference to the questions I’ve raised in my last email. If this is squared away, we can then move on to less fundamental issues. The PG Society initially inquired into the nature of this restructuring (impatiently, uncharitably, and unreasonably, in my opinion). I inquired into the PG Society’s initial inquiry itself (see 1st paragraph above, regarding differing levels of inquiry). At this point, it certainly appears that you do not desire to discuss such fundamental issues (the basic questions I presented in my last email, as one example). Honestly, I find your present inability to answer a few simple questions somewhat alarming. If we’re not working on the same page here, then the nature of inquiry may reach chaotic levels of interpretation, and as well reinforce a false front of pretended uniformity. Shall we square this away? Or, shall we leave the public oblivious to the existence or non-existence of such necessary degrees of uniformity – especially since the public has been included in an inquiry directed to their public officers. Anyway, I’d be happy to give you a sample answer to question 1:
1. Do you explicitly, fully, and cheerfully own the present extension of ecclesiastical government (known as the RPNA) as a lawful, faithful, and judicial court of Christ Jesus – agreeable to Biblical/Historical Presbyterian Church-government -- extending its authority over you in matters of morals, and good order, or not? Yes or no.
Answer: Of course I do. But N, what on earth does trying to make a public fast more meaningful have to do with this?
This answer would certainly not include an extraneous degree of qualification.
Your explicit attempt to clarify:
"Future emails from you to me, if not of a brotherly quality speaking to first issues, will by God's grace not be answered publicly by me; I hope this explicitly clarifies on what basis I will happily receive future public contacts from you."
"If not of a brotherly quality." Interestingly enough, that’s a concern of my own (given the history of this public exchange). Nevertheless, I have spoken to first issues, left sufficient room for you to qualify, then moved on to a more fundamental approach given the development of the public discussion – hence the questions I presented in my last email. This is not primarily about a request concerning ‘public needs" regarding a fast (which I have already attempted to demonstrate), but,
1. About other impressions left, given the language used when the public request was first made (see paragraph 1 above for the method of approach. See also my second email).
2. Fundamental issues of relationship between society and government (which you refused to engage).
3. An inquiry into the current position of individuals in relation to government, given what has developed in public (which you refused to engage).
Note also, that "first issues" may also cease to be first issues (in the sense of degree of importance) when other issues begin to surface. We’re obviously not confined to some wooden & sacrificial timeline, to the exclusion of mercy & important development. Within the same vein, when a society approaches ecclesiastical government, in public, including many recipients, anyone may inquire into the nature of this approach. They may request the interpretation of the principles that govern the relationship between society and government – and as well other related issues assumed, or implied. Apparently, these are subjects -- for some reason -- that need to be avoided (at least up to this point). Nevertheless, I’d ask you again to simply answer the 3 questions in my last email. Honestly, what harm could it truly do?
Publicly engaging a path to fundamental reconciliation,
NS
From: Benjamin H.
To: Nick S.; Mike G.
Cc: Church List
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 4:01 AM
Subject: Re: What was attempted: A reconciling path
N and M,
I only have the time and mental ability to go into one part of this email. So forgive my lack of depth and apparent 'short-sightedness'. If I can, I'll reply in more detail later.
FWIW, I think your (N's) ability (and tendency) to look at what is implicit in a person's assertion is unique. Most of us don't look at something and then deduce several implicit premises or implications. It's hard work, especially for those of us with slow brains.
Accordingly, it might be helpful (for me at least) if you'd give a detailed and focused analysis of why you've asked the questions that you see as 'fundamental'. Why exactly are you asking these 3 questions? These are the questions to which I'm referring:
1. Do you explicitly, fully, and cheerfully own the present extension of ecclesiastical government (known as the RPNA) as a lawful, faithful, and judicial court of Christ Jesus – agreeable to Biblical/Historical Presbyterian Church-government -- extending its authority over you in matters of morals, and good order, or not? Yes or no.
2. Do you own Bob S’s questions, assertions, and/or reasonings as having any basis or legitimacy? Yes or no.
3. If so, would you be willing to sign an affidavit to this effect (re: 1 or 2)? Yes or no.
How did you come to see these as so essential and downright fundamental before any fruitful debate can be had?
One principle philosophers invoke often when teaching how to write is to assume that your readers are stupid, lazy and hostile. What this makes one do as a writer (and a thinker) is to write out (sometimes in pedantic detail) how you've come to a given conclusion, or why you've pursued a given strategy in your argument. Assume that I don't want to do the work of connecting all of the dots, and that I'm not smart enough to do so. (The second of which, actually, isn't a bad assumption to make at all.)
Perhaps you have given such a painstaking analysis somewhere and I've missed it. If so, disregard this email and just copy-and-paste where you've done so if you don't mind.
Have a great day!
-B
Dear Nick,
I have been following this discussion all along, and quite frankly, I am puzzled by your responses. In the first place, I have to read your emails several times before I understand what you are saying. Second, your responses do not address the issues at hand, but have veered 'way off in another direction. Third, you sound like a barracuda or a pitbull. From where I sit, it looks like you are going after Mike like a shark that smells blood... and I don't understand why.
a. that we would accept a restructuring plan already formed,
b. that we would pray for wisdom for the elders as they refined a plan already more or less formed, or
c. that we would pray for wisdom as the elders began work on a restructuring plan.
Respectfully yours,Willena F.
From: GD
To: Church List
I, for one, appreciate Nick's attempt to assist the elders in trying
to work through the issue at hand, and get to the bottom of it. Since
arriving down here in Louisiana, I am seeing the heavy workload and
the incredible pressure that is on Lyndon's shoulders every minute of
every day, so anything that any of the members can do to minimize,
instead of adding to, the elder part of his workload is getting a
thanks from me.
From a tired elder's wife, observing my even more weary elder-husband,
Ginny
Thank you (and the session) for your pastoral patience, efforts, and wisdom in this difficult time and in these difficult matters -- especially when emotions may be tempted to be high. Upon consideration of these thing, it seems apparent that surely another cause for our repentance is that we have been "like unto children sitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, And saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented" Matt. 11:16-17; and like unto the Galatians we sadly stand in peculiar need of the warning that "if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another" Gal 5:15 in a spectacle of gladiatorial debate wherein is no conclusion because there is no rule of the demonstration of veracity that shall ever satisfy those intent on being dissatisfied: who often aim merely to protract the contest itself (by casting newly spun firebrands here and there) that the eyes of the crowd may continue to be, like incorrigible children, upon them (though they be bloodied by absolute estimate); and that they may keep their opponents from the more important matters in which they themselves have no interest or business, or rather have interest against -- so that whether there is rage or laughter, peace and finality in the victory of veracity are never concluded in this arena by this dubious manner. We have also been too much like the Athenians (who debate whatever is latest for debate sake, stirring up things that require over-much care and time to allay -- distracting and dragging you our elders down to the metaphorical serving of tables of endless fires set by ourselves). Moreover we have been like the religious, but nonetheless unfaithful, Jews, who erroneously held even true historic testimony with a religiously superstitious idolatry so as to attempt to beat back their opponents (even the Lord Christ himself) with the mere ignorant recitation of the form thereof, though not understanding the force and working of the scriptural principles of the very testimony itself in its own essence, but only so using the mere instances of the peculiar form thereof -- and it mechanical recitation -- as something to be venerated in-and-of itself as law (i.e. not properly holding historic testimony like those few names in Sardis did). These things we have done rather than being like unto the Bereans, and as following the example of Christ in the knowing the scriptures and the power of God, and therein walking in the old paths. Please do forgive us for so treating the session (the governors of Christ's kirk), and for the damage this has accrued more generally -- the loss of additional opportunities of time and energy to be used in the forwarding of the kingdom of God otherwise, and the grieving the faithful.
Let it be no mere inference, but explicitly understood, that the reason I have copied your email distribution ("cc:") on this reply to you is because we want this testimony of our thankfulness toward you and toward the session -- and our grief at these many circumstances -- to not be hidden in a corner. It is not because with implicit faith we blindly fawn the session, or with stupid flattery heap-up adulations toward you; but rather because the circumstances call for this measured encouragement and because we feel it is highly unseemly that after the session has humbly stated that you are overwhelmed and assailed with much weakness, to then cast back again into your teeth instances of where you have not been, or are not, sufficient to these extraordinary times and needs, thus begging the very point and primary need calling for our humiliation in a fast. Therefore this testimony is especially intended to be so generally copied, because in this time of our great weakness we conclude, by observation, that the session is too easily a target to be assailed for every grumbling discontentment and for any pang of uncertainty that may now be keenly felt and even (alas) published, thereby giving no little occasion to the enemies of the Lord and the malignants to boast and exalt themselves against Christ and/or his covenant if ever they get wind of the same. Even with over-extending the judgment of charity in observations, there are evidently even temptations to what appears to be an opportunistic thrust -- even timed at this great hour of our need and weakness -- of simmering private matters of discontentment into the public realm (and in incoherence breading consternation, and in frowardness causing dismay), for what may appear to be a thinly veiled tactical maneuver and promotion of persons, building steps to what also may appear to be a larger preconceived strategy already concluded by those who would do so; even a temptation wherein, with many being carried away, societies may begin to act like independently constituted moral persons in-and-of themselves (independency), rather than cultivating their true and subordinated identity as collective members of the constituted moral person of the RPNA and seeking her well-being and uniformity. So that, alas, in these and other kinds of things we have not only tolerated independency, but we have acted like independents and embraced independent principles under the guise of Presbyterianism: its evil principles taking root in our all-to-welcoming and depraved subconsciousness, if not in our consciousness. For this indeed alone we have great cause of repentance, not to mention also that we have not properly esteemed the inestimable advantage of the existence, and sought earnestly for the well-establishment, of the government of Christ's kirk, but have rather kicked against its nascent development in the extraordinary soil of these evil times, and thereby have almost extinguished it in our days, rather than delighting in the rod and staff of Christ by seeking to nurture its growth and health unto an ordinary and well established plant in the earth.
May God have mercy upon us so as to grant us hearty repentance and corresponding forgiveness, and not to give us over and hold us with the consequential cords of our own sins.
For the uniformity and established government of the RPNA, I am (we are)
Sincerely yours,
B(and S)B
MG for PG – Wed. Jan. 11/06
Due to an initial oversight on our part, inadvertently using the bcc
function, it would be a kindness if you ensured our personal Prince George
membership emails were included in future emails of this sort. For your
convenience, those addresses are included in the TO: section here.
Kind regards,
MG, on behalf of,
Society of Prince George (RPNA)
rpna_pg. . . .
NS – Wed. Jan. 11/06
M and B,
Thank you for your replies. M, I didn’t find much substance in your attempt to provide a "summarized effort" in response to the brief & specific questions I had asked. If a response based entirely on summary form can satisfy specifics, by all means, attempt it. However, I’m honestly not satisfied (I found the initial email a little more straightforward, and as well B’s). If there is no desire to engage more specifically, this is entirely your choice. If time is a critical issue, I certainly understand. Being a single father is no easy task, especially when I commute 120 miles (in total) back and forth to work, daily. Nevertheless, I’ll quickly note a few things in response to M, and Lord willing, address B’s response simultaneously (again, working off limited time).
My first set of questions was primarily addressing this notion of "Public versus private." There was a clear impression (in my own eyes) that there was a denial that such private issues, relating to the elders’ circumstances, had any degree of Public concern. I found this quite disturbing, given the obvious format the elders have been operating upon. The degree of emphasis placed by the PG society on this particular seemed to function upon a sweeping aside of the lawfulness of the present application of ecclesiastical government (regardless of what may have been hinted afterward). To explicitly or implicitly deny that circumstances of a private nature (regarding our elders), will very much affect a public platform of government (albeit extraordinary), especially within our current context, left me wondering about the PG society’s view of the current format itself - hence, my questioning of the same. The emphasis placed upon the impossibility of any authority on this earth to erase the distinction between "public and private" is entirely an irrelevant thesis. Who ever questioned that? However, this does not address how private circumstances may influence a public platform. Enter extraordinary instances, and what I’m highlighting will become all the more relevant. Enter our own circumstances, and my point is proved. If the impression left (to me at least) is not the case, then I will happily leave it there.
The second set of questions functioned as an expansion upon the first set (obviously).
The third set of questions was geared toward this idea of "restructuring." The initial email the elders sent out obviously indicated the presence of hardship in the elders’ lives. Such hardships, collectively considered, have had a negative effect upon our elders (by your own admission). This effect will hinder their ability to function in the current ecclesiastical format - to either a large degree, or a small degree. Obviously, within the elders’ estimation, it is influencing to a significant degree. This being the case, the thought of restructuring comes into play, albeit not fully developed. Seeing as such restructuring will likely affect the whole church, and assuming our elders care about us, it would seem quite appropriate for the elders to have heavy hearts concerning this matter – hence, the idea of a fast.
Note also, these sets of questions have fundamental relevance to what might be expected of our elders in our current circumstances.
Having all the specifics regarding something yet to be fully developed (especially within this context) is not essential to a warranted fast. Indeed, the uncertainties involved should cause concern (hence the thought of a fast); and given the degree of influence the current format of government has provided, any alteration of such a format should be treated with wisdom, not approached quite rashly. To demand detailed resolution from the elders without allowing time to deliberate is not only unwise, but as well uncharitable. To demand this of them at this time provides an indirect encouragement for the elders to rashly proceed in their ecclesiastical capacity. I find this particularly discouraging, and unreasonable (a little patience goes a long way - 1Thes:5:14, 1Tm:3:3). To demand a detailed resolution at this time, especially in light of current hardship within our elders’ lives, is especially discouraging – being both uncharitable, and unreasonable. I honestly feel as if I’m rehashing the obvious here, and wonder why something so obvious could have been overlooked.
In my estimation, my questions were relevant, specific, and quite warranted. Note also, the issue of the relationship of societies to ecclesiastical government, is no foreign subject. These current emails are not operating off a blank slate, but by your own admission/operation assume certain principles that have everything to do with the subject (are we blind to our current format?) In light of this, I personally have no issue with addressing subjects of this nature. Apparently, the mere mentioning of them has triggered the need to warn me against "talebearing," and as well cautioning me against the pleasantries of some nameless critics? For the record, the subjects I’ve addressed are not forbidden subjects, as they have high relevance given the issue at hand - and I will engage them quite freely, if I desire – Acts 17:11 (and as well if it’s profitable). B would seem to agree, as he devoted a significant portion of his response to the issue of the function of government in differing circumstances. Why then, M, is it such a wonder that I should raise the subject? I’m not very fond of double standards (unless B has misrepresented your concerns?).
In my estimation, I was never given an impression from the elders that Greg Price was going to handle the entire work of "restructuring." I wouldn’t have nearly assumed it. Unknown consequences do not hinder the warrant for a day of prayer and humiliation, but often times warrant the same. This is not blind faith, but rather, the consequence of lacking a divine attribute (omniscience). I speak here of any potential consequences of restructuring, and knowing them absolutely. To label the act of placing confidence in our elders, to the end that they might wisely restructure, an act of blind faith, is somewhat remarkable in my eyes. It hints of a lack of charity, and unwarranted suspicion? In my estimation, the wisdom needed to restructure, in an orderly way, is quite a convenient occasion for a fast. I’m also confident the elders will handle themselves in accordance to what is expedient – serving the most expedient end relating to societies, yet shunning conspiracy.
Thus, my questions were primarily gauged to address the aspects I engaged, though not every aspect of the original email from the PG society. Indeed, I am not at odds with every aspect (when certain aspects are intrinsically considered). I addressed the ones that concerned me.
Nevertheless, duties call. If I have left any specific portion needlessly without address, my apologies, and I’d be happy to address them when presented.
In Christ,
Your brother,
NS
BS – Sat. Jan. 14/06
Do to my oversight this did not copy to the CC list but went to BB only. My apologies for the inconvenience. BS. Originally sent 1/12/06
Dear B,
Thank you for your recent post.
On one hand your comments are well taken.
The Psalmist after all says, "Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head: for yet my prayer also shall be in their calamities (Ps. 141:5)."
Yet on the other hand, something remains to be desired, particularly regarding the following:
. . . even a temptation wherein, with many being carried away, societies may begin to act like independently constituted moral persons in-and-of themselves (independency), rather than cultivating their true and subordinated identity as collective members of the constituted moral person of the RPNA and seeking her well-being and uniformity. So that, alas, in these and other kinds of things we have not only tolerated independency, but we have acted like independents and embraced independent principles under the guise of Presbyterianism: its evil principles taking root in our all-to-welcoming and depraved subconsciousness, if not in our consciousness. For this indeed alone we have great cause of repentance, not to mention also that we have not properly esteemed the inestimable advantage of the existence, and sought earnestly for the well-establishment, of the government of Christ's kirk,Plainly put, sir, may I remind you that whether the RPNA - the Reformed Presbytery of N. America - has been dissolved or not, is a matter of public record. There is no question of that. The letter of June 8, 2003 from our three elders and Derek Edwards plainly states at the outset:
This past Friday (June 6, 2003), each of the officers of the resbytery sorrowfully concluded that the Reformed Presbytery in North America must be dissolved due to the recent discovery that fundamental differences exist among us over the issue of the use of contraception in difficult cases.
A followup letter signed by our three elders alone on June 14, 2003 says:
In short, we maintain that the dissolution of Presbytery . . . We do not believe that the error of one man (which consequently led to the dissolution of Presbytery). . .Both letters are signed by the parties as individuals and not under a byline as the RPNA or even the former RPNA. That should be enough said, right? But if the RPNA has been reconstituted, then why has there not been an announcement of it, of all things? We certainly weren't shy about it the first time in Aug. 2000.
We do happen to be on record though, of calling ourselves the Session of the RPNA General Meeting, Sun. Oct. 31, 2004 through Oct. 23 2005 and now the Session of the RPNA Sun. Jan 1 & Tue. Jan. 10, 2006 in the various announcements/letters of those dates from our elders. But not to nitpick, I really could care less about the name ultimately. What matters is the substance. But I will leave that to your judgement, sir, in that the historical testimony of the body we claim to continue as a moral person, the Reformed Presbytery of Steele's day and hereafter, required a plurality of ministers - more than one - and at least one elder to constitute a presbytery. Otherwise they were NOT a presbytery, they were NOT the Reformed Presbytery, NOT the same RP of which the RPNA from Aug. 5, 2000 to June 6, 2003 was the namesake and continuing moral person. Rather they were a general meeting, the RP General Meeting. The same RP,GM for which there were correspondents and/or ruling elders from the different societies and congregations that belonged to it, which attended the at least once a year public stated meeting of that same RP General Meeting. The same RP,GM which had a written record, ie. minutes, which is in part, how we know all this. In other words, however redundant, this is all a matter of again, the public record (see http: // www.covenanter.org/Minutes/ minuteshomepage. htm). In other words, sir, whatever we claim to be, whatever moral person we are the continuation of, it does not seem to me - and that is to put it mildly and to equivocate for the sake of politeness - to be the RP General Meeting, never mind the Reformed Presbytery, in the state of church government we are in now and have been since dissolution of presbytery - the Reformed Presbytery of N. America - the RPNA - as stated by that former Presbytery and our three elders in the summer of 2003. While we are the closest thing to it in existence, our stated desires have yet to substantially match the reality when it comes to church government. I am sorry about that sir, I really am, but I don't see any way around the facts/historical testimony/public record other than wishful thinking.
But is all this the end of the world? No. Not at all. Far from it. No one has left the church over it and no one should. But it is a 9th commandment issue, a matter of frustration, as well prayer and fasting when we won't admit it publically. That is, we won't repent of our public posture and pretence to be something we are not when it comes to church government (as opposed to doctrine and worship), if not at the very least our very well intended ignorance, however sincere at this late date. And if you do not think that this grieves some of the saints of God no end, if not to despair, if that were not also sin, sir, you respectfully know nothing at all.
As for the one sided charge of independency regarding those in the church - for that is what it is, an unproven assertion - you make no mention of the possible corresponding alternative charge to independency regarding the governors. And who will judge who? May I respectfully remind you that the Lord is no respecter of persons. We may not hide behind our office any more than those of us in the pew may hide behind a profession of sincere love for the peace and purity of the church all the while we wreck it, if not that some accuse us of it. But no one may promote anything other than the truth, whether in or out of office, in Christ's church. That is the issue.
Yet we quote the two opening paragraphs to the letter from our three elders of June 14, 2003 commenting further on the dissolution of the RPNA:
"When differences in doctrine and practice arise between brethren, and especially when they arise between Presbyters, it is the duty of all to deal with these differences with true biblical love and God honoring actions. True love to God and faithfulness to His cause demands, at times, that we express our love by sharp rebukes, and lear testimony of truth. The purpose of such is not to harm or to take vengeance upon another brother, but rather to reclaim him from the error of his way and to preserve the pure testimony of the church from a dangerous error or a promoter of error, in order that we might all walk with a clear conscience before God and transmit a faithful testimony safely to our posterity.Accordingly, we share the sentiments of our faithful forefathers when they say:
To speak thus publicly against those who may be the precious sons of Zion, is a painful duty. That charity, however, which rejoiceth in the truth, requires of Christ's witnesses that they censure and rebuke, in a way competent to them, those of the household of faith whom they see and know to be in a course of error or of sin; Is. 58:l; Tit. 1:13 (Act Declaration and Testimony, Supplement to Part 3, Section IV)."Faithful are the wounds of a friend while the kisses of an enemy are sweet deceit. I believed, therefore have I spoken: I was greatly afflicted for Zion's trouble. Yet those who sow in tears shall reap with joy. May God still arise and have mercy on her.
But enough, sir, I will leave off, trusting that the Lord will truly bless your day of Public fasting and prayer for the public, as well as private, sins and situation we find ourselves in before him.
Thank you very much.
I am cordially yours,
in our Lord Jesus Christ,
BS
(Member of, but not speaking for the Everson, Wa. Society)
BS – Sat. Jan. 14/06
Dear N,
Thank you for your second post.
I hope this will be my last to you since I need to go back to work, much more there is a lot of work still to do in these days leading up to and including the Day of Public Prayer and Fasting, Jan. 21. I am also not interested in presuming on the patience of the larger audience to the point that when I hit the Send button I get swamped with the return volley of Mail Undeliverable/Block Sender notifications. I am also thankful that so far this informal discussion hasn't deteriorated into a dogpile affair, though some might think even speaking up is squabbling.
Still as to yours, if repetition is the mother of comprehension and the undersigned is a slow learner:
1. I agree with it that the PGS request errs in not regarding the personal circumstances of health and workload with our elders as normally being a sufficient cause in itself to call for a public fast. We are talking about two out of three of our elders, not two out of three hundred, in which case it would be a different story.
2. That said, in the main I still agree with the overall thrust and concern of the PGS request, which again does not question the lawfulness of the elders's authority, nor even the lawfulness of their authority to call a fast. Rather contrary to the repeated misreading of it, it is a request to the lawful authorities to further clarify the public, as opposed to private, "sins against the Lord and each other" which we are being called to confess and humiliate ourselves before the Lord publically. Granted the official announcement doesn't make the distinction, but the PGS request, based on our doctrine and history, properly and commendably enquires further.
Again, while on the one hand, you are correct, the distinction between "public and private" circumstances per se as re. #1 is irrelevant and begs the question, on the other when it comes to #2 since you repeatedly misread the substance of the PGS request and get sidetracked - that fact alone really disqualifies you from joining the conversation in any real sense - consequently you seem to be completely unaware of the necessary distinction between "public and private" sins and the bearing it has on the discussion. (Hence again 1 AND 2 of the first section in my previous.) That means, your comments as far as I can tell when I can even understand them - may I recommend Rule 16 from Strunk and White's little classic The Elements of Style? "Use definite, specific, concrete language ( p.21)." - are also irrelevant to the further discussion. I don't mean to be rude here, N, but regardless if you know what you meant, that does not guarantee you articulated it well enough that others do. You didn't and I don't or at best I am not willing to spend the time deciphering your comments. It is enough that you can't/don't give a correct summary of the PGS request. And if you can't tell us the question, you can't speak to the question, rather you are incompetent to it. Sorry.
To move on, another way of saying it would be that the objections to the PGS request continue to mistake a complex question for a simple one. The bare situation we find ourself in with two out of three of our elders incapacitated as to fulfilling their office is cause for concern and prayer. But add to that, circumstance and history to color the background and things change. Add to that, the possible character of the PUBLIC sins to be confessed in this day of prayer and fasting - which distinction again has yet to be acknowledged by all parties as relevant to this discussion - and it is no longer such a straight forward matter. That's the real status of the question. Anything else is a smokescreen and a diversion.
That is to say, the Lord would not have anyone heal the hurt of his people slightly. That is to say, we are to be wise to the times and know what Israel is supposed to do. That is to say, we who take pride in calling ourselves the covenanted remnant of the covenanted reformation, we who are so quick to judge and condemn others as being members of unfaithful and constitutionally corrupt churches that are the legitimate descendants of the illegitimate Revolution Settlement, we had better have our own house in order; we had better have our own church government squared away. Or maybe we have forgotten, "To whom much is given, much is required."
Consider again, brother, that the RPNA per se is no more and that by the plain testimony of those who formed it, three of whom are still with us and we with them in the letters of June 8 and 14th, 2003. And if presbyterianism classically considered, as well the Reformed Presbytery with Steele, who we claim to follow, required a plurality of ministers - more than one - to form a presbytery, again we don't have a presbytery. What then do we have? Not an ordinary session, but an extraordinary session of a nonexistent presbytery? I don't know. Do you? Who exactly are we? That is, of course, not to say that our elders are not elders. They obviously are. They may administer the sacraments. They may call for days of thanksgiving and prayer. They may, if called and ordained, preach the gospel. They may exercise discipline, within limits, in that there are no higher, wider courts and/or a lawful general assembly. They may admit and demit members to the fellowship/congregation based on the terms of communion etc. etc. Rather what I am saying is that maybe we had better be careful of calling ourself something we are not. Do you not think brother, that the Lord might have something to say about that? Could it be possible that we who are the perfect presbyterian church, because we are the covenanted presbyterian church, could it be possible that we sin in this regard to church government? I would hope not, but in light of the circumstances we find ourselves in, a prayerful examination of the question is certainly in order. Yet your posts, as far as I can tell on a foggy day, fail to even recognize this question, never mind answer it yea or nay.
As for those of us in the societies, can we really call ourselves part of a Reformed Presbyterian General Meeting (never mind the RPNA when it no longer exists) when substantially we don't know what one is, much more fail to live up to the practice of those who held the name in the past and who we claim to be following in the footsteps of? The public record is quite clear. There was a public stated meeting once a year attended by elders/correspondents from all the congregations/societies that belonged and there was a public record of the same as in written minutes. See again, http: //www.covenanter.org/Minutes/ minuteshomepage. htm which just happens to be the website associated with, but not owned by one J Dodson.
We all remember him, don't we? The Lord raised him up as one of the first in this generation to promote and introduce covenanter distinctives to the N. American church at large and then when he went aside and lay in a bed of adultery, the Lord laid him aside. In other words, the lesson and testimony of Scripture and history is quite clear. God doesn't need anybody to build his church and that includes us. If we forget that, we're already on the road to being replaced. Respectfully, we just might need to fish or cut bait here. If we are not what we say we are, again it might behoove us to consider that the Lord might have something to say about that, especially since we pride ourselves - as we do - in our FAITHFULNESS as compared to all those other UNFAITHFUL and bad and wicked and despised publican presbyterian churches out there. Again, a prayerful examination of the question is entirely in order, as opposed to ignoring the question or considering it out of bounds because we are THE covenanted remnant.
Don't get me wrong. I don't claim to be the last word on all this. I am only saying again, we need to ask the question. If we are going to claim whatever, let's make sure we live up to it. Talk is cheap and if we already owe, it's time to shut up, stand down and clean up our act, not carry on, like nothing is wrong. Are we just going to restructure our church government or are we also going to repent for our possible public shortcomings and public sins of church government? That is the question. If we are going to have a Day of Solemn Public Fasting as the Directory calls for, in our circumstances and with our history, is primarily confessing private sins against the Lord - like we didn't have family worship or when we did, we fell asleep - the whole story or truth? Is it the whole counsel of God on the question? By all means we should confess such sins like those re. family worship, but if I may be excused, I think there is more to it than that.
The request of the PGS is an attempt to get those kind of concerns on the table, and so far the objections against the same haven't even understood the existence of those kinds of concerns, never mind speak to them. And that is a very sad thing IMO because if we throw a tantrum and insist on going to Tarshish, when we are supposed to be booking a flight for Nineveh, even the red eye, the Lord has ways of dealing with us. I don't know about you, but after a fashion, I'm not interested in getting swallowed up by a big fish and spit out later. And if you don't think that can happen, have I got news for you. Or have all of our recent troubles come upon only because of blind chance? It's a judgement call to be sure, and mine might not be the prevailing one, yet 1. not only am I entitled to it, 2. it is respectfully without apology. Sorry 'bout that, sir. Ultimately we all will answer to someone higher than the popular opinion.
The Directory says on the subject, that "when some great and notable judgements are either inflicted upon a people, or apparently imminent or by some extraordinary provocation notoriously deserved... public solemn fasting is a duty God expecteth from that . . . people." No doubt, we are in a world of hurt. Our church govt. is in disarray. Two of our three elders are hard-pressed to fulfill their office and the remaining officer has to take up the slack if he can. Things cannot continue like this. All this we grant. Yet again, is the real question whether we need to restructure the church - we do - or rather do we first need to repent of the public sins we are guilty of as members, officers and the church collectively before God, particularly as regards church government?
It is not like God is not able to repay us in our own coin. Yet if we are not what we say we are as a church, we should not say it, but instead we should hold our tongue and work toward that day when our reality will match our rhetoric and then we will not have to repent of the latter. Otherwise we continue in our sin and God will judge us for it, if that is not what he is doing even now as we speak.
But before the Lord, brother, you tell me.
cordially yours,
in Christ
Bob S
(Member of, but not speaking for the Everson, Wa. Society of what? the continuing want to be RPNA,GM, the RPNA(GM) persuasion, the RPNA (GM) terms of communion?)
PS. Even further, unfortunately speaking from experience, it might improve your posts to:
1. Get to bed on time instead of staring at the computer.
2. As mentioned above, get a copy of Strunk and White's Elements of Style immediately. Read it diligently. Practice the concepts it expounds faithfully.
3. Send out your rough drafts to somebody on the basis that they will tell you if they can understand what you are trying to say - not whether they agree with you. The last is to put the cart before the proverbial pony. That is because I first have to know what you said even before I can agree or disagree with you, never mind profitably. First things first. Only in this case we are talking about understanding the PGS request and then and only then voting thumbs up or down on it. Again, maybe it's just my opinon, but I don't see it substantially demonstrated in your posts.
And it is a big deal. If more people understood it, Jordan, Frame, Schlissel, Wilson, Leithart and Gore couldn't get away with their assault on reformed worship. Likewise the Auburn Avenue Theology/New Perspective on Paul and their assault on the orthodox view of justification. None of these guys have earned a right to be at the table and speak up because none of them can/will give us a correct statement of the historical orthodox confessional doctrine, regardless of and previous to whether they agree with it or not. That means they are incompetent to the question. Don't be part of the problem. Please. Thank you.
MG – Sun. Jan. 15/06
Dear N,
As I write this Saturday afternoon, I have moments ago completed my review of your two e-mails, respectively:
1. January 9, 2006
To: Society of Prince George (SPG); Pastor Price; Elder Dohms
Description: An unsolicited reply to the SPG, by brother NS
2. January 11, 2006
To: Society of Prince George; Salutation addressees: “M and B”
Description: Mr. S addresses the one SPG reply to him
As a Society, we have not yet determined how or even if we will give you further reply beyond our e-mail to you January 10, 2006. That reply served to address your initial e-mail, sufficient to the hour for an exchange we had not solicited nor desired.
REPLYING AS AN INDIVIDUAL
As you have chosen to address me by name in my private capacity, I will answer accordingly. I will share with you; it is my long-standing practice for many reasons to avoid interactions of this sort. Generally you can be assured when you see my name volunteered in such a way, there are elements constraining me to lay down this rule and undertake the many associated risks foreign to godly conversation.
It will be granted there are many practical implications of moral persons, be they political parties, the church visible, and religious societies (or Catch-and-Release fishing clubs, for that matter). It will further be granted that there are applications in the distinction of individual authors versus corporate authors. If you lack resources to support this received and established distinction, you might inquire of those you trust in our covenanted community, to secure access.
Nevertheless, by your hand you have chosen to engage me in this way, in public, and I choose this one time at least, to accommodate your request. Naturally, I make no representations on behalf of Mr. S.; or for our Society of Prince George, in my private capacity.
WHAT IS SUPERFLUOUS?
In your second e-mail, you expressed a concern for superfluousness. I also have a concern for exceeding what is necessary; the basis for my own concern is that:
Our INITIAL Society e-mail was:
1. Clear in its object: Pastor Price and Elder Dohms.
2. Clear in its nature: Public and regarding a common concern.
3. Clear in its basis: confessional, historical, experiential, and informed (Jan. 1 & 6).
4. Clear and limited in its scope, respectful in its tone, a product of real world experience.
Could it have been written better for the quick Reader? Undoubtedly. Granted.
In the ADDENDUM provided:
1. The Primary Addressee is our Society
2. The Subject indicates it is in reply to: Public Fast - Resources still needed (060109)
3. The content validates and seeks to satisfy the requests.
Our PUBLIC REPLY, not two hours later, communicates that we:
1. Stated our thanksgiving for this singular blessing from their hand.
2. Acknowledged that the document had positive value to us and all the brethren.
3. Declared positive agreement on many points.
4. Thanked them.
5. Took appropriate care requisite to honest records for posterity and heart preparation.
Could the Addendum have been better? I prefer to ask: is it a legitimate source of encouragement? Absolutely. Is it progress? Absolutely, by any public standard in our recent history.
To that degree, I believe the authors were a credit to their office in their Master’s employment (Jn. 21:16,17). If an undershepherd were to deny sheep bleating in His pasture, in their purpose to walk before Him in a clear conscience on such settled practice of the Church ordinary and extraordinary, would be more akin to the hireling (Jn 10:13; Ezk. 34:4). God forbid.
Producing the Addendum would seem to infer recognition of duty, and an effort to fulfill said duty. An effort was made to address the legitimate concerns; the quality and completeness of it is of little matter to me at this dark hour. So, the record declares the Addendum sufficient to the hour for those making the request; certainly, that includes myself, no matter how mixed with sin and error it is (it will be granted as common to all works of men).
Yet, here you are: demanding satisfaction in an exchange far beyond the stated scope. Superfluous, in my own estimation.
I cannot hold out much hope that you will find the satisfaction you demand, though I will make one wholehearted effort (Lord willing). I will attempt to directly answer most of your material. Your e-mails frequently state what you see as obvious, and some points of dissatisfaction. I also may relate a few opinions of my own and points of dissatisfaction, though I will endeavor to not exceed what I judge expedient to the sake of peace for the flock.
BOLD ACCUSATIONS
When one so quickly alleges uncharitableness, unreasonableness and double-standards (Jan. 11/06, 4th main paragraph), not having gently inquired to establish the matter let alone any other contact with us, I for one do not think it bodes well for honest and constructive dialogue.
I have prayed and sought my God, trying to reconcile your language with your close (Your brother). Having done so, I find I cannot reconcile either of your e-mails with the sacred text (Pv 18:13; Eph. 4:21-32). Some might perceive this as 'overly sensitive' or 'sickly sweet'; I would refer the believer to their Boss to take it up with Him (Lk 17:7-10). I assure you; even my sarcastic unbelieving brother in the flesh outgrew those youthful strivings of his many years ago. In his experience as a federal and provincial prosecutor, he tells me the posturing antics for television are just that; foreign to the law and justice.
Is there a defendable reason you so readily prosecute ‘Ad Hominem’ argumentation against me, casting unsubstantiated suspicions upon me? I will grant from other venues I am getting more used to it these last 18 months or so, but that does not make it any more agreeable to the Savior than any other false argumentation born of the flesh. I suggest in doing so, you do yourself a great disservice.
I could understand if you had cause to hold me as a Diotrephes (3Jn 1:9); perhaps a Publican (Lk 18:11); or a disaffected enemy (2Thess. 3:15). Am I not due the courtesy of a covenanted brother in the field? If not, why not? Do you have some cause against me? If so, it would be best to address that quickly, directly and privately. My Toll Free home number is ------ the office is preferred: -------.
I will follow the admonition to take 9th Commandment accusations seriously (L/Cat. q.144, “love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth”) while guarding my heart from temptations born of the flesh. In the flesh, I am proud of many natural virtues in my lineage; in the spirit, I desire to be a lover of the Truth, to kiss the Son and hold His cause as a citizen of a heavenly country. I confess little patience or tolerance for posturing; church games and their attending vices have been of particular disgust to me for over 22 years. Subsequently, where I can I will defend myself and I will expect satisfaction; I assure you, I am patient in my Lord and His just way (Ps 96:13).
TENTATIVE OUTLINE
My stated hope is to firmly but charitably attempt to answer your inquiries; in turn I will also address aspects I find poorly formed; overstated; and unsubstantiated.
I suspect to answer you fully would require a great volume of pages beyond my willingness to accommodate. However, in my attempt to ‘satisfy’, I do hope to produce several shorter e-mails over the next week or so, titled something along the lines of:
1. A little patience goes a long way. Or not.
2. Dissatisfied, are you? Join the club.
3. Obvious, you think? Here's a few more...
4. Even IF, what of it?
5. Line by Line 1 (your Jan. 9 email)
6. Line by Line 2 (your Jan. 11 e-mail)
Items 5 & 6 will endeavour to satisfy the balance not already addressed in earlier parts.
UNSUBSCRIBE
I do not desire to intrude or abuse where patience is exhausted. You the Reader may have already had your patience exhausted; I must and happily do respect that. If for these purposes you prefer to be removed from this Email distribution list, I respectfully ask you to e-mail me in private. I will immediately comply. If you choose to stay on the distribution list and judge as you go, I'll try to do honor to your interest and kindness,
In the cause of our Christ,
MG (Prince George, BC)
ADOBE ACROBAT
If desired due to formatting challenges, please feel free to request an Adobe Acrobat PDF file for your viewing convenience.
BH – Sun. Jan. 15/06
Hi all,
I'd like to interject a few comments on this debate that's been coming into my email box lately. It's with some fear and trembling that I write this since all of you who are participating are older than me, understand this debate better, and are in some respects still strangers to me. Accordingly, it's a shame to have to have a first run in with you all in this way.
Anyway, what's my reason for writing?
In short, I'm not sure why this thing came out in the public in the first place. It seems to be confusing and frustrating people who are reading this more than edifying them. Why not just take this matter up with the elders or wait until after the decision comes down with regard to how they are going to 'reorganize' the church? This debate isn't interesting to many, or it is becoming a matter of stumbling, so perhaps it would be best to lay it to rest for the time being.
Second, even if there was a good reason at first, it's been precluded by a host of uncharitable emails full of way-too personal attacks. If you want to fight and start to devour each other, please, do it privately, and when you've come to a point when an interesting issue can be cogently (and hopefully concisely) discussed, then perhaps a public discussion could be warranted.
I'll be the first to opt out of this thread.
Valete!
B
BH – Sun. Jan. 15/06
On Second Thought
I had a thought that could somehow keep this discussion interesting and edifying, because I think it started out in that vein. I teach logic at the high school level, and we have debates like this all the time. When we talk about things, typically, I try to follow some generals rules to facilitate an edifying debate. Here's how I'd apply them...
1. Drop the talk about how bad we all write. Sure we could all use some work, but we do the best with what we've got.
2. Restate the actual issue clearly in an interrogative form. If there are several related questions, state them succinctly and how they interrelate.
3. Make it clear who is asserting what. It seems like PGS is saying something different than B, who is saying something different from N. It's not clear if some people are even asserting positions or just encouraging us to ask a given question. How exactly are you each answering the question(s) (if you're offering an answer at all)?
4. After it's been made clear who is saying what, let each side offer their positive reasons for saying what they're saying. Don't put it in a dialectical 'snip-reply' format, but positively say why you think your position is right.
5. Go into the dialectical phase, posing objections to the other view, and answering objections to your own.
6. In general, whenever you find yourself using inflammatory language, delete it. It has no place in a well-reasoned debate.
I think if you make a conscious effort to do something like I've outlined above, you may be on the road to resolving this thing. But if you don't, you're just going to piss each other off and frustrate a lot of people on the side lines.
Hope this helps...
-B
WB – Sun. Jan. 15/06
I think that BH has a good point here at present. Why? Because we are going through a difficult transition period and when we are weakest, many can rise up to tear us apart. Lord knows that some of my comments in the past have not be profitable, and sometimes I need to recoil a bit to allow others some time to ponder. Mostly, it helps me to ponder the truly important things of God...which is building unity, uniformity, holiness, blamelessness and so many other gifts of love for God and our neighbor.
"Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another,
love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: Not rendering evil for
evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing
that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing"
(1Pet.3:8-9).
"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things
are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure,
whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report;
if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these
things. Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and
heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you."
(Phil.4:8-9).
I'm sure that these trials and temptations to rend apart what little flock has been gathered is great, especially since many of us do not have the direct oversight of a local Pastor or Elder whom we can visit with face-to-face to really understand the difficulties facing them at the present time. Can we walk in their shoes? Is it now time to carry them the extra mile when they cannot carry themselves any further? Are you ready to fight the good fight of faith my dear brethren? If we put our Elders on our backs to carry them through these trials, are you ready to do this because you love our Lord and the brethren.
I am ready...and I will patiently sit back and wait until I am called for help by my dear Pastor Price, Elder Barrow and Elder Dohms. I'm here when they need me, and they can know today I am standing for their unity and I'm ready to carry them as far as I am able.
"But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall
be added unto you.^ Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's
good pleasure to give you the kingdom" (Lk.12:31-32).
For the cause of Christ,
W.
SA – Sun. Jan.. 15/06
Could you please remove my email address from any further/future "posts" regarding this thread.
I am doubting that this format will lead to any clarity and unity, but possible further vagueness, and disunity.
I'm not saying that anyone is sinning in participation, it just leads me to unnecessary frustration.
Thank you,
-S
PS I would still like to be included in future correspondence with any Society or individual not associated with this thread. Thanks.
BS – Fri. Jan. 20/06
Apology, further remarks Re: Public Fast – Resources still needed (060109)
January 20, 2006
Greetings all,
If I may presume on the patience of the brethren one more time. (To the best of my knowledge only five people have opted out and they have been accommodated.) I have received a number of private comments and criticisms regarding my previous to Mr.BB and Mr. NS. Some while writing positively, didn't care for the postscript to Mr. NS and/or my statement to Mr.B that: "you, sir, respectfully know nothing at all," and felt I needed to apologize for such statements and retract them in order not to stumble people from understanding my overall concerns about the upcoming public fast and prayer day and the Society of Prince George request for more information.
Preliminary Retractions & Remarks
While on the one hand, if retracting these statements and the like would help others to understand the larger argument and buy into the necessary distinction between public and private sins in regard to a public fast, I would be happy to do so. On the other hand, I don't know that it will be so easy. After all, one who wrote to say they were offended by mine, in the same breath also admonishes another brother, as if he had written what I actually wrote to Mr. BB. However one might desire that people read a post rather than just react to it, evidently practice isn't always perfect, mine, included. Still, while not claiming to be omniscient regarding the deceitfulness of my own heart, my postscript to Mr. NS was prefaced by the remark, "unfortunately speaking from my own experience." In other words, I was saying, 'been there and done that,' if not that, at times I continue to do so. The statement was not meant at all to be patronizing or sarcastic. Certainly it did not need to be said, particularly if it would stumble the brother or brethren and I am happy to withdraw it as not being essential to resolving the question.
As for mine to Mr. BB, it was not written out of spite, but from the perspective of Ps. 126:6, 'That those who sow in tears shall reap with joy.' Yes, there was some frustration and anger mixed in with the tears and sorrow at where we find ourselves in the church today, but while not disagreeing with his concern for the peace of the church, the brother errs in persisting to judge according to appearance, rather than righteousness and the larger history and issues. Not only that, Mr.B seems to accuse me of sin, if not essentially insinuate that I or any who ask similar questions, are but troublers of Israel, malcontents and ungrateful to the elders in his letter full of generalities which appeared on this list shortly after the SPG request and mine to Mr. S appeared. I, for my part, only charge him with being ignorant of the real issues and background. He not only fails to substantiate his remarks, they are vague and ambiguous to begin with. But let the reader judge.
The Larger Question/Issue
Yet above and beyond these items, it was and is my zeal and desire to stop the mouths of those, who IMO needlessly confuse and cloud the important and long standing issues before us today. That alone is bad enough, if they do not also stand along the side of and approve the prophets who proclaim "peace, peace," when there is no peace and daub a wall ready to fall with untempered mortar (Ezek. 13:10).
That is, just what is it that we don't understand about the judgement of God? Just what is it that we don't understand about how important proper church government is in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ, who as king rules his church by his word and said same government? Just what is it that we don't understand that when 2 out of 3 of our officers are providentially relieved from office and the remaining elder taxed to his limit, that God just might be chastising us for our sin, whether it be failing to do our office or failing to value and pray for our officers and strive after proper church government as we should? Just what is it that we don't seem to be able to make the distinction, as
our confession, testimony and history clearly do, between public and private sins, and the confession of not just the last in a public fast?
The Name of ?
My understanding is, from the sermons I have heard, that the name of the Lord tells us something about who God is. If we but know his name, we know something truly substantial about even the invisible and incomprehensible God. So too, our name as a church of Jesus Christ. But while we, for instance, adhere to the terms of communion of the RPNA - the RPNA, as the RPNA - a presbytery - has been dissolved and no longer has a stated/written constitution. Neither do we seem to even know what the RP General Meeting is. But we call ourselves by one or the other of these two names. And that only for starters. As if this alone, is not starting to trespass upon the 9th Commandment?
Before the Lord, the question arises again. Just who do we think we are? Just who do we say we are? Just how do we think that God cannot possibly have a controversy with us because of who we say we are? That we can do everything and anything because of extraordinary circumstances and our sincere belief that we are The covenanted remnant? God surely is merciful, but only if the hypocrisy, ignorance and negligence, however sincere on the part of all are repented of, not continued in. That again is still the real status of the question IMO, and to my knowledge it has yet to be acknowledged, let alone rebutted and clear instruction in the correct alternative given. The last would most certainly would be appreciated.
Further Background
But this is not the first time these questions have been asked and in a forum perhaps more appropriate to resolution, which even now still eludes us. The Everson Wa. Society in a letter of Nov. 28, 2004 asked if the name change in the letters from the elders from RPNA to the RPNA, (General Meeting) indicated a corresponding change in practice to one stated public meeting a year with a written record as per the practice of "the RPNA,(GM) those whom we claim to faithfully follow and continue as a church?" The Dec. 10, '04 reply by the elders stated:
"The General Meetings of the Reformed Pr esbyterian Church were primarily business meetings with very little recorded by way of substantial information regarding decisions etc. The preponderance of information recorded usually revolved around Causes Of Fasting and Causes Of Thanksgiving. From our perspective, due to our ability as officers to communicate with one another by phone or email, we are enabled to have regular contact in a way that is far more efficient and profitable than was possible to our forefathers of the past. Although we do not record minutes of all of these meetings throughout the year, when there are decisions that affect the Societies at large, we do communicate in a more formal manner by email. We also are always willing to talk by phone with any Society or members thereof when it is desired."The Everson Society replied on Jan. 16 '05 again questioning the "need for a name change to the RPNA,(GM) and its significance." While the ES acknowledged the need for "fasting and/or thanksgiving today," in light of the "one stated public meeting of the RPNA, (GM) a year and likewise, a published/public record of that meeting," the ES asked further: "is the name change only nominal - and if so, why the bother - or will we begin to implement more of the policy and practice of the RP,(GM) than we do now?" The answer to the question in person upon the visit of the elders Jan. 21-24 to Everson was not memorable. At least I did not remember it. Which is just the problem.The ad hoc, laissez faire, informal way we do things around here leads to pretty much everybody forgetting what they forgot, whether in or out of office, whether in the pew or the pulpit.
Refreshing Our Memory
It has been two and half years since the dissolution of presbytery on June 6, 2003.
1. Since then, there has been no written defense of our position on birth control as intended, promised and demanded by "our present circumstance" as stated in the letter on dissolution of presbytery, June 14, '03.
2. Nor has there been a written notification and clarification of the retraction of the promise and intent to write such a paper since then and about which retraction those of us in Everson have been told only in person or on the phone in Jan. 05, rather than in print. As if this was not one of those "decisions that affect the Societies at large" in which the elders would "communicate in a more formal manner by email" to some degree. After all, being faithful to one's word is part of being faithful to one's testimony, is it not?
3. There has been no further real explanation or clarification written or otherwise of the church government we are under, or the name change from the RPNA to the RPNA, (GM) and now, back again to the RPNA, never mind whether our practice even begins to conform to either.
4. There has been no further explanation or clarification written or otherwise re. the well known, by rumor and hearsay, paper on ordination that another brother and I were told Jan. 24 '05 in Everson would be forthcoming for discussion at the then upcoming July '05 gathering in Edmonton.
And so on and so forth. But not to multiply instances, however minute, which taken by themselves are hardly something to get upset about, but when they are taken as a whole, only further aggregate and aggravate our situation. There are exceptions and there is the rule. In other words, the snowball effect. What started out small at the top of the hill, grows considerably by the time it reaches the bottom. We are not at the top of the hill.
The Question Again
As the letter from the Everson Society Nov. 28, '04 stated,
"the lack of official or regular communication and prevailing disorganization can be very discouraging/confusing at times for us as a society, as we assume it also is for Session. Yet we hope something can be done about it, as was done in the past, in like circumstances by the RPNA,(GM) those whom we claim to faithfully follow and continue as a church."
In short again, we forget that we forget and no matter how well intentioned, the lack of due process, good order and a paper trail is one of the chief shortcomings of the ad hoc, laissez faire, informal, extraordinary church government we find ourselves under. All these things fall through the cracks of our collective and individual memory and further retard, stunt and confuse our growth, development and edification as a church of Jesus Christ. Will we acknowledge it, much less repent of it? That is the question.
Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. (John 9:41.)
Before the Lord and mindful of the upcoming Public Day of Prayer and Fasting, does God have a controversy with us or not? Does it have anything to do with how we conduct or what we call ourselves publically, whether in office or out, whether in part or as the whole congregation, whether before him, the rest of the church, or the world, if not all three? Even further, does it have anything even remotely to do at all with church government? And our answer?
Thank you very much,
cordially in Christ,
BS
Member of, but not speaking for the Everson, Wa. Society of the . . . . ?
PASTOR PRICE – Sat. Jan. 21/06
Accusation or Entreaty?
Dear B[S],
Your public remarks will be answered.
I must confess, however, that your posts give little (if any) indication of love or consideration for the afflictions, trials, and weaknesses under which we as Elders find ourselves--afflictions and weakness, I would submit, that are directly related to the work of caring for the sheep of Jesus Christ. Your public accusations against the Elders of this Church (who have faithfully labored to promote the peace, the purity, and unity of Christ’s Church) compel me to say such things. Forgive me if it sounds like boasting. Like loving yet imperfect parents, we have labored to guide and care for the flock entrusted to us. Dear brother, afflictions, weaknesses and trials (as I think you know) are not necessarily the result of God’s judgment upon His ministers for their sins (2 Corinthians 6:3-13). It is said of faithful Renwick that he was so weak and afflicted that he was unable to get up on his own horse and to ride it without help from others to keep him literally on the horse. We know very personally how our families have been deprived of time again and again not because we love the preeminence, but because we love Christ and our struggling sheep. No doubt we have failed at times to keep everything in proper order (but it not due to our unwillingness or obstinacy), but due primarily to the heavy load of caring for the sheep (God is our
witness).
Regardless of your views with regard to sins you allege against us, our love for the flock and our countless hours in caring for the flock over the years (yes, in extraordinary circumstances) should have called forth your compassion rather than your public humiliation, your private entreaty rather than your public accusation. Where is that love revealed in the way you have chosen to approach us? Do you have any idea what we as Elders are presently facing? Do you care? Did you call or write to talk with the Session privately about your concerns before taking this public approach?
I do not want to debate the issues you have raised at this moment. No doubt, this is not the response you desire from us. A response more in line with what you expect will be issued in due time. For the present time, I would plead with you to await our response rather than continuing these public accusations.
For the cause of Christ and his scattered remnant,
Greg L. Price (speaking on behalf of myself and not my dear fellow Elders)
MG – Wed. Jan. 25/06
How do Participate?
Dear brother N,
A favourite writer of mine once wrote, 'Common sense is so rare, it ought to be called rare sense'.
The writer meant that though many things were of an obvious nature, they were often only 'obvious' after-the-fact. It seems obvious to me now, that hope for meaningful dialogue is compromised where suspicions remain. Thus, after due reflection these last 10 days, I respectfully do not see being able to fulfill my intention to answer your questions while your basic concerns remain unaddressed.
Even if they were removed, I remain uncertain of a wise course. I doubt that issues can be fairly discussed in the existing climate and think the risks of continuing the email discussion appear unreasonably high. I also do not see a clear way to promote a moderate course of action. So although many kindly encouraged me to give a full response, as I suggested I would, I cannot see a constructive way to do so now.
Public discussions seem without hope where contributors and many readers do not seem willing to first divide what is clearly said, before speculating what may also be intended; and where contributors hide behind overly qualified statements and ambiguous aspersions which they will not own.
Also unsettling, is that there appears to be such mixed judgment on what does or does not constitute giving and/or taking of offense, versus direct but brotherly language born of longsuffering and godly labour. Also, it may be there is an overall lack of will and/or capacity to see public offenses maturely administrated and, in my view, confusions abound on this in the virtual absence of positive examples.
It all reminds me of my constant teenage concern to grow "in the word of righteousness" lest one be unable "to discern both good and evil" as commended in Heb. 5:12-14. No doubt, I have often failed to learn and exercise the "first principles of the oracles of God".
Ten days have passed since I publicly offered to participate in a reconciliatory course with you on these very things, offering you opportunity to substantiate your words in private or public, at your discretion. In addition to the public forum you chose to approach me in, I offered two personal toll-free telephone numbers; all have been welcome to you, none used. To my knowledge we as a Society also, have not received any further contact from you.
I am referring again to what I saw as mischaracterizations of my words, and/or our Society's words - namely, your use of the following:
1. "uncharitable": 1Corinthians 13:1,2 - If I "have not charity, I am nothing"
2. "unreasonable": Merriam-Webster at www.m-w.com gives this definition, "Not governed by or acting according to reason"
3. "I’m not very fond of double standards": Proverbs 20:10 - "Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD."
Would you agree that these accurately summarize your characterizations of our emails?
It appears to me that you have based these on misunderstandings, for example representing that our Society did "demand a detailed resolution at this time", which far exceeded our request for "a bit more" information on 3 aspects of restructuring.
N, I am sincerely grieved by the way the Prince George Society emails were misconstrued to be something other than what they were (being intended only for the good of the brethren's preparations). Nothing would make me happier than to have the misunderstandings cleared up. However, recent email exchanges seem to have fostered more confusion and offense than understanding and love. And so I'm not sure that fulfilling my previous intention of answering you point by point would be beneficial. As mentioned earlier, I have reconsidered that option.
I remain,
Yours in Christ,
MG
Toll free home: (866) . . .
Toll free office: (866) . . .
Cell phone: (250) . . .
MG – Wed. Jan. 25/06
How TO Participate? yeah...
yeah... no.
'How DO participate?' was not a bad attempt at a 'catchy' title. Just plain bad!
Kind of supports the view that some people should just, "Step away from the keyboard. Slowly now!"
As the saying goes, "if you can't laugh at yourself..."
Hope you had one on me - I sure did!
Kind regards,
MG
Next, I'll wait the 2 minutes and check if I did it again! But I assure you - you have me word (I mean, 'my' word) - no more follow up to this!
MG – Wed. Jan. 25/06
How TO Participate? yeah...
yeah... no.
'How DO participate?' was not a bad attempt at a 'catchy' title. Just plain bad!
Kind of supports the view that some people should just, "Step away from the keyboard. Slowly now!"
As the saying goes, "if you can't laugh at yourself..."
Hope you had one on me - I sure did!
Kind regards,
MG
Next, I'll wait the 2 minutes and check if I did it again! But I assure you - you have me word (I mean, 'my' word) - no more follow up to this!
From:Brian B
To: Greg Price ; Greg Barrow ; Lyndon Dohms
Cc: SPG & Bob S
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:49 PM
Subject: A Matter of Record
January 26th, 2006
Dear Officers of the RPNA Court,
We submit to the Court, for record, this email to you regarding the attached messages which we deem to contain a strange manner of Christian proceeding, though it be forwarded as "Brotherly", "Apology", or containing the title of "Sir". We have several objections to the attachments (and to other public messages by the same parties not here attached), and therefore do not feel lawfully compelled to answer any such inquiries directed toward us by the same, aside from any specific direction from, or within the venue of, this Court. If formal charges are made against us by the same, and the Court so allows, we are prepared to submit arguments to the Court regarding our reasons for denial to answer such things. In anticipation of events that require us to submit formal counter charges, we are also preparing a brief for the Court that contains the substance of counter charges of a personal and public nature, and which can be submitted to the Court within reasonable notice when the Court's schedule is able to consider such.
If all parties concerned in this matter acknowledge themselves to be under the RPNA Court as common, none should act according to the presuppositions of ecclesiastical Democracy and/or Independency so as to seek a popular majority as a judgment -- by engaging in any disputes or debates regarding this specific matter unto such an end (as though the "court" of public or common judgment is authoritative). This, however, is that which we are threatened with, and into which arena there have been not a few attempts to bait us to respond by the opposing parties. If, however, all parties do not admit the Court of the RPNA as being common to them for adjudication, and under this pretext we are soiled publicly by the representations of the parties so threatening to do the same, we shall answer such things nonetheless lawfully, and as we deem necessary, according to our liberty of discretion in such things.
However, before dealing with such matters any more or in any way, we would firstly know who it is we are dealing with as to the opposite parties: Do the persons represented in the attachments explicitly, fully, and cheerfully own this Court of the RPNA as lawful and faithful (though extraordinary); and, do they own it as extending its authoritative jurisdiction over them in all matters of a moral and ecclesiastical nature? If not, we consider them to have dismembered themselves from the RPNA by their lack of promptly so owning this Court (as is requisite for membership), and shall so deal with them as we are to deal with all disaffected and separated brethren -- by ignoring the nuisance of any of their cavils and attempted obstructions, or by rebuking, entreating, and exhorting them to faithfulness as circumstances dictate and/or allow.
Even if the Court is so owned by them as per above,* and formal charges proceed in this Court, nevertheless, because of the grievous interpersonal tensions and suspicions created by their recent public actions, statements, and methods, we do not intend to interact with them apart from the specific direction of the Court -- until the matter(s), if being so prosecuted, receive a final ruling. Even in the event that such a process is so prosecuted unto such a ruling, we would desire the outcome to be our mutual and full reconciliation in the solidarity of doctrine, government, worship, and discipline; and that we be thereby united, not only with the good-will (according to the good of God's law) that is always required, but also in the mutual complacence of Christian graces and gifts in sincere fellowship, mutually employed to the edification of the whole body.
Psalms 133:1 Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!
We understand, especially given the present extraordinary circumstances, that the scheduling of this matter (if necessary) for any hearing could be delayed by many, many months, which delays are not dissimilar from present civil court delays. We understand that especially during the next few months that the Court is especially exercised with matters of much more significant import regarding governmental matters proper, and therefore patiently defer the timing of this matter to the calendar that the Court sets for the same on its docket.
Sincerely submitted,
BB
attachments:
(3) emails, "PGS";
(2) emails, BS
At this point, because of concerns raised by the recent public actions, statements, and methods, nothing but an explicit and signed affidavit to this effect will suffice to assure us of the same. We would be glad to provide the same as consistent with our membership engagements.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/547 - Release Date: 11/22/2006
MG – Fri. Jan. 27/06
Dear N,
I confirm my having received 3 new emails from you in my time at the office today.
My conscience is clear and ready before my God, whose holy will I desire to continue trusting in. By all means, do what you feel you must.
The relevant email list as I understand it has been copied into the cc above, reflecting 7 removals - 6 by request plus 1 other which I will clarify in a moment.
Sincerely - MG.
From: NS
Sent: January 27, 2006 9:59 AM
To: M
Subject: Re: How TO participate? yeah...
M,
Just curious,
Would you explain the reasons for your "undisclosed recipients" approach? You're engaging me to respond (while simultaneously sending it to others covertly), yet cutting me off from opportunity to reply to the same audience? This wouldn't appear to be a very honest manner of approach.
Thank you,
N
MG – Fri. Jan. 27/06
BCC? or CC?
Dear N,
I have received your inquiry this morning. I make many mistakes; however, bcc was not one of them. I regret any inconvenience this has caused you.
I removed 5 persons who requested removal from emails originating from myself on these subjects. One more name was noted yesterday, the person thinking they had already requested it of me. This brings the number of positive removal requests I am in receipt of, to 6.
My understanding is, that Elder Barrow is under Pastor Price & Elder Dohms' care in determining suitable levels of involvement during his medical leave-of-absence, him having been relieved of duties until Mar. 1 unless otherwise directed. Inclusion of Elder Barrow's address since Jan. 1, from myself, would be an oversight on my part.
The cc email list above then, reflects 7 names removed from the largest list of recipients I saw, which I believe fulfills my duty, to them. How those remaining perceive their duty to attacker and attacked, I do not know, but I expect to continue accommodating any who request removal. For now at least, you have this list with rationale.
Sincerely - MG
Incidentally, you can tell wherever I actively include Elders. By virtue of their office my email practice is to use their title as a salutation. The minister is listed first, ruling elders next, alphabetically by surname be they 2 or 20. That reflects my need to guard my heart against being a respecter of persons, as I know the deceitfulness of my heart, all too well.
From: NS
Sent: January 26, 2006 8:20 PM
To: M
Subject: BCC? or CC?
Hello M,
I have received responses from persons that I was unaware of their reception of this discussion. However, they have not received my response to your initial inquiry (perhaps you made a mistake, and included all these recipients under 'BCC' instead of "CC." Therefore, would you please send me an exhaustive list of all recipients, that they may too benefit from my reply?
Thank you,
NS
NS – Fri. Jan. 27/06
Inquiry revisited
M,
Setting aside all the "apparent" confusion (it appeared that you chose an email format that excluded others from my reply, while you simultaneously attempted to engage me to respond. If that’s not the case, please forgive my misunderstanding). Nevertheless, I’ll simply post my reply again. If others have already received it, I’m sorry for the duplication.
M,
Observing all that has transpired (it’s been quite interesting, indeed), I have a few fundamental questions to ask before I can proceed. The questions are simple, and direct – without need of any extraneous degree of qualification. They are as follows:
1. Do you explicitly, fully, and cheerfully own the present extension of ecclesiastical government (known as the RPNA) as a lawful, faithful, and judicial court of Christ Jesus – agreeable to Biblical/Historical Presbyterian Church-government -- extending its authority over you in matters of morals, and good order, or not? Yes or no.
2. Do you own BS’s questions, assertions, and/or reasonings as having any basis or legitimacy? Yes or no.
3. If so, would you be willing to sign an affidavit to this effect (re: 1 or 2)? Yes or no.
Thank you,
NS
From: Robert S.
To: Nick S.
Cc: Church List
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 1:50 PM
Subject: Re. Inquiry revisited
Hi Nick,
Was asleep at the wheel and didn't get back to you on this right away.
In light of all the misconceptions and misunderstandings floating around on all this,
I think you can understand that I would be very interested in hearing you spell out what you think my
"questions, assertions, and/or reasonings" to be.
Thank you.
cordially in Christ
Bob S.
From: Nick S.
To: Robert S.
Cc: Church List
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: Re. Inquiry revisited
Bob,
I’d be happy to spell them out for you. Nevertheless, allow me the opportunity to suggest that you represent your own mind in relation to the questions just presented – and as well, in relation to what you’ve already made public. In other words, correlate all that you’ve explicitly/implicitly established in public, with the questions I’ve presented. This way, Lord willing, there will be no room for misunderstanding – nor will there be any need for sewing additional seeds of conflict. At this point (at least), I tend to think this may be the most reasonable/expedient/charitable approach (allowing you to unpack what you’ve already written first, seeing as you’ve made some very definite public statements). If you disagree, please explain why, and I’ll be more than happy to accommodate your request.
Your brother,
Nick S.
From: Mike G.
To: Nick S.
Cc: Church List
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 12:03 AM
Subject: What was attempted: A reconciling path
Dear brother N,
I've pondered your email these last 8 days, but am still confused. It seems you ignore my previous emails to you, and are still trying to take this discussion in entirely different directions. Shouldn't we deal with issues already raised, before addressing other matters?
The issues raised by the Prince George Society were in the nature of promoting an even more meaningful day of public prayer and fasting. Simple, sincere and non-controversial. I for one happily grant your right to view the Prince George Society's request for additional resources as needless, redundant, poorly formed, or whatever - but you have said so much more. After you challenged the Prince George Society's efforts and then addressed me personally, I explicitly offered you a reconciling path, not once but twice.
In my last email, I related, "It seems obvious to me now, that hope for meaningful dialogue is compromised where suspicions remain [...] I doubt that issues can be fairly discussed in the existing climate and think the risks of continuing the email discussion appear unreasonably high. I also do not see a clear way to promote a moderate course of action." Your most recent emails have not eased these concerns, but actually increased them.
Your last questions reminded me of the value in asking a Mormon if he believes the Bible to be the Word of God, yes or no? The Mormon may think no qualifications are required, but we would know otherwise. Likewise, someone joked with me recently asking if I had "stopped beating my wife? Yes or No?" In your efforts to change the subject, I find your lines of reasoning remain unclear and confusing, and submit that while answering a well formed question may require few to no qualifications, answering poorly formed ones only serves to foster greater confusion.
Oddly enough, about 22 hours before I received your last email, another brother had emailed me, alluding to "recent public actions, statements and methods". It demanded an assurance by "explicit and signed affidavit" to clarify whether I "explicitly, fully and cheerfully" owned etc. etc. Then I received your 3 questions, with that same phrase: "explicitly, fully and cheerfully". What should I conclude? Two emails from two different people, containing that exact phrase? And both requesting an affidavit? Just a coincidence? Hard to be sure, of course.
What is sure, is that I remain prepared to discuss anything you wish, privately or publicly, providing it be done decently and orderly in the bonds of Christ, trusting you understand what must be cleared before we can walk together. When you desire to be served the Lord's Supper, I trust my own record of effort has been open and clear. My own answer to the relevant exam question on outstanding offenses, would be similar to one I had to give in the past: "As you know, offense has been perceived from my actions; I have actively made reconciliatory effort; I am open to further efforts with the one who has not acknowledged it removed".
If you have outstanding issues with the Prince George Society, I encourage you to email them. Future emails from you to me, if not of a brotherly quality speaking to first issues, will by God's grace not be answered publicly by me; I hope this explicitly clarifies on what basis I will happily receive future public contacts from you.
I close by restating:
"N, I am sincerely grieved by the way the Prince George Society emails were misconstrued to be something other than what they were (being intended only for the good of the brethren's preparations). Nothing would make me happier than to have the misunderstandings cleared up. However, recent email exchanges seem to have fostered more confusion and offense than understanding and love."
May our Christ bless you, as you walk after His sinless example.
MG
From: Nick S
To: MG
Bcc: Church List
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: What was attempted: A reconciling path
Mike,
It really shouldn’t be a significant mystery as to why anyone would exercise liberty in these areas. The stated primary intention included within any Society’s/individual’s public letter – in this case, ‘promoting an even more meaningful day of public prayer and fasting’ -- does not exclude warrant for probing differing elements within the same public letter. This probing extends to elements assumed, or implicated – whether directly related to the stated primary intention, or indirectly related. It may be the case that you and the rest of the PG Society are not comfortable with this (though, I take no pleasure in anyone being grieved). If so, this may suggest a curious lack of desire to be open about some fundamental issues. Nevertheless, a public inquiry is subject to inquiry itself, on the levels I’ve mentioned – especially when the inquiry is classified as "relevant to the entire community." These latter observations have relationship to both the matter, and as well the manner of a public approach (or private approach for that ‘matter’). Whatever the case, quite honestly, I’m curious as to why your response lacked a simple affirmation and/or denial, which would have hopefully entailed that we’re working on the same page -- particularly in reference to questions 1 & 2 in my last email. Are we on the same page? In relation to this, know also that private discussion is spawned from public discussion – affidavit request, or not. I’m confident that you’re not a stranger to this phenomenon of the development of ideas. "Just a coincidence? Hard to be sure, of course." Actually (setting that apparent hint of sarcasm aside), it’s easy to be sure on this one. It’s certainly no coincidence, and I was quite encouraged by the uniformity of thought within the private discussion (as I often have been).
This apparent issue of "confusion" is interesting. If resolution is truly desired, then simply reassure me that we’re on the same page regarding the public issues before us (especially # 2):
1. The idea of restructuring.
2. Restructuring what?
1. The existence of a lawful court of Christ.
2. The non-existence of a lawful court of Christ.
3. The question regarding extension of authority, which necessarily stems from a & b.
In relation to these questions, please see BS’s public response (1/14/06) which explicitly invokes the name of the PGS, issues of ecclesiastical government, and authority. I found this particular email to be quite alarming. Nevertheless, you can be sure, I wouldn’t assume (on an intrinsic level) that his discussing of such issues "disqualified" him to engage discussion "in any real sense." Again, I’m not fond of double standards, and open contradiction.
1 & 2 (above) obviously have reference to the questions I’ve raised in my last email. If this is squared away, we can then move on to less fundamental issues. The PG Society initially inquired into the nature of this restructuring (impatiently, uncharitably, and unreasonably, in my opinion). I inquired into the PG Society’s initial inquiry itself (see 1st paragraph above, regarding differing levels of inquiry). At this point, it certainly appears that you do not desire to discuss such fundamental issues (the basic questions I presented in my last email, as one example). Honestly, I find your present inability to answer a few simple questions somewhat alarming. If we’re not working on the same page here, then the nature of inquiry may reach chaotic levels of interpretation, and as well reinforce a false front of pretended uniformity. Shall we square this away? Or, shall we leave the public oblivious to the existence or non-existence of such necessary degrees of uniformity – especially since the public has been included in an inquiry directed to their public officers. Anyway, I’d be happy to give you a sample answer to question 1:
1. Do you explicitly, fully, and cheerfully own the present extension of ecclesiastical government (known as the RPNA) as a lawful, faithful, and judicial court of Christ Jesus – agreeable to Biblical/Historical Presbyterian Church-government -- extending its authority over you in matters of morals, and good order, or not? Yes or no.
Answer: Of course I do. But N, what on earth does trying to make a public fast more meaningful have to do with this?
This answer would certainly not include an extraneous degree of qualification.
Your explicit attempt to clarify:
"Future emails from you to me, if not of a brotherly quality speaking to first issues, will by God's grace not be answered publicly by me; I hope this explicitly clarifies on what basis I will happily receive future public contacts from you."
"If not of a brotherly quality." Interestingly enough, that’s a concern of my own (given the history of this public exchange). Nevertheless, I have spoken to first issues, left sufficient room for you to qualify, then moved on to a more fundamental approach given the development of the public discussion – hence the questions I presented in my last email. This is not primarily about a request concerning ‘public needs" regarding a fast (which I have already attempted to demonstrate), but,
1. About other impressions left, given the language used when the public request was first made (see paragraph 1 above for the method of approach. See also my second email).
2. Fundamental issues of relationship between society and government (which you refused to engage).
3. An inquiry into the current position of individuals in relation to government, given what has developed in public (which you refused to engage).
Note also, that "first issues" may also cease to be first issues (in the sense of degree of importance) when other issues begin to surface. We’re obviously not confined to some wooden & sacrificial timeline, to the exclusion of mercy & important development. Within the same vein, when a society approaches ecclesiastical government, in public, including many recipients, anyone may inquire into the nature of this approach. They may request the interpretation of the principles that govern the relationship between society and government – and as well other related issues assumed, or implied. Apparently, these are subjects -- for some reason -- that need to be avoided (at least up to this point). Nevertheless, I’d ask you again to simply answer the 3 questions in my last email. Honestly, what harm could it truly do?
Publicly engaging a path to fundamental reconciliation,
NS
From: Benjamin H.
To: Nick S.; Mike G.
Cc: Church List
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 4:01 AM
Subject: Re: What was attempted: A reconciling path
N and M,
I only have the time and mental ability to go into one part of this email. So forgive my lack of depth and apparent 'short-sightedness'. If I can, I'll reply in more detail later.
FWIW, I think your (N's) ability (and tendency) to look at what is implicit in a person's assertion is unique. Most of us don't look at something and then deduce several implicit premises or implications. It's hard work, especially for those of us with slow brains.
Accordingly, it might be helpful (for me at least) if you'd give a detailed and focused analysis of why you've asked the questions that you see as 'fundamental'. Why exactly are you asking these 3 questions? These are the questions to which I'm referring:
1. Do you explicitly, fully, and cheerfully own the present extension of ecclesiastical government (known as the RPNA) as a lawful, faithful, and judicial court of Christ Jesus – agreeable to Biblical/Historical Presbyterian Church-government -- extending its authority over you in matters of morals, and good order, or not? Yes or no.
2. Do you own Bob S’s questions, assertions, and/or reasonings as having any basis or legitimacy? Yes or no.
3. If so, would you be willing to sign an affidavit to this effect (re: 1 or 2)? Yes or no.
How did you come to see these as so essential and downright fundamental before any fruitful debate can be had?
One principle philosophers invoke often when teaching how to write is to assume that your readers are stupid, lazy and hostile. What this makes one do as a writer (and a thinker) is to write out (sometimes in pedantic detail) how you've come to a given conclusion, or why you've pursued a given strategy in your argument. Assume that I don't want to do the work of connecting all of the dots, and that I'm not smart enough to do so. (The second of which, actually, isn't a bad assumption to make at all.)
Perhaps you have given such a painstaking analysis somewhere and I've missed it. If so, disregard this email and just copy-and-paste where you've done so if you don't mind.
Have a great day!
-B
From: WF
To: NS
Cc: Church List
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 9:02 AM To: NS
Cc: Church List
Subject: Re: What was attempted: A reconciling path
Dear Nick,
I have been following this discussion all along, and quite frankly, I am puzzled by your responses. In the first place, I have to read your emails several times before I understand what you are saying. Second, your responses do not address the issues at hand, but have veered 'way off in another direction. Third, you sound like a barracuda or a pitbull. From where I sit, it looks like you are going after Mike like a shark that smells blood... and I don't understand why.
I didn't get that from reading Prince George's emails at all. It sounds more like you are accusing someone else of what you yourself are guilty of.
Mike,
It really shouldn’t be a significant mystery as to why anyone would exercise liberty in these areas. The stated primary intention included within any Society’s/individual’s public letter – in this case, ‘promoting an even more meaningful day of public prayer and fasting’ -- does not exclude warrant for probing differing elements within the same public letter. This probing extends to elements assumed, or implicated – whether directly related to the stated primary intention, or indirectly related. It may be the case that you and the rest of the PG Society are not comfortable with this (though, I take no pleasure in anyone being grieved). If so, this may suggest a curious lack of desire to be open about some fundamental issues.
Are you waffling? I mean, you can't be serious? Uniformity of thought is one thing... identical unusual wording is quite another.
Nevertheless, a public inquiry is subject to inquiry itself, on the levels I’ve mentioned – especially when the inquiry is classified as "relevant to the entire community." These latter observations have relationship to both the matter, and as well the manner of a public approach (or private approach for that ‘matter’). Whatever the case, quite honestly, I’m curious as to why your response lacked a simple affirmation and/or denial, which would have hopefully entailed that we’re working on the same page -- particularly in reference to questions 1 & 2 in my last email. Are we on the same page? In relation to this, know also that private discussion is spawned from public discussion – affidavit request, or not. I’m confident that you’re not a stranger to this phenomenon of the development of ideas. "Just a coincidence? Hard to be sure, of course." Actually (setting that apparent hint of sarcasm aside), it’s easy to be sure on this one. It’s certainly no coincidence, and I was quite encouraged by the uniformity of thought within the private discussion (as I often have been).
You are confusing the issue. Prince George's question has to do with what in particular the elders were asking us to pray for...
This apparent issue of "confusion" is interesting. If resolution is truly desired, then simply reassure me that we’re on the same page regarding the public issues before us (especially # 2):
- The idea of restructuring.
- Restructuring what?
- The existence of a lawful court of Christ.
- The non-existence of a lawful court of Christ.
- The question regarding extension of authority, which necessarily stems from a & b.
a. that we would accept a restructuring plan already formed,
b. that we would pray for wisdom for the elders as they refined a plan already more or less formed, or
c. that we would pray for wisdom as the elders began work on a restructuring plan.
By "initial inquiry", do you mean the first email the PGS sent on Jan. 9/06? If so, I don't see that they were asking anything other than clarification and a little further detail on what it was we were being asked to fast and pray for. The inquiry was being made of the elders, and sent to all of us because it was a matter of interest and concern to the group as a whole. I don't see anything there that warrants your subsequent questions.
In relation to these questions, please see Bob S.’s public response (1/14/06) which explicitly invokes the name of the PGS, issues of ecclesiastical government, and authority. I found this particular email to be quite alarming. Nevertheless, you can be sure, I wouldn’t assume (on an intrinsic level) that his discussing of such issues "disqualified" him to engage discussion "in any real sense." Again, I’m not fond of double standards, and open contradiction.1 & 2 (above) obviously have reference to the questions I’ve raised in my last email. If this is squared away, we can then move on to less fundamental issues. The PG Society initially inquired into the nature of this restructuring (impatiently, uncharitably, and unreasonably, in my opinion). I inquired into the PG Society’s initial inquiry itself (see 1st paragraph above, regarding differing levels of inquiry).
But Nick, what business is it of yours what the PGS thinks of this? It isn't part of the question. Why do you need to know??
At this point, it certainly appears that you do not desire to discuss such fundamental issues (the basic questions I presented in my last email, as one example). Honestly, I find your present inability to answer a few simple questions somewhat alarming. If we’re not working on the same page here, then the nature of inquiry may reach chaotic levels of interpretation, and as well reinforce a false front of pretended uniformity. Shall we square this away?
This is because the questions asked are of public concern. The only reason some of us haven't asked is because we didn't think of it. That does not mean we don't need answers.
Or, shall we leave the public oblivious to the existence or non-existence of such necessary degrees of uniformity – especially since the public has been included in an inquiry directed to their public officers.
but *not* the first issues raised by the PGS...
Anyway, I’d be happy to give you a sample answer to question 1:
- Do you explicitly, fully, and cheerfully own the present extension of ecclesiastical government (known as the RPNA) as a lawful, faithful, and judicial court of Christ Jesus – agreeable to Biblical/Historical Presbyterian Church-government -- extending its authority over you in matters of morals, and good order, or not? Yes or no.
Answer: Of course I do. But Nick, what on earth does trying to make a public fast more meaningful have to do with this?This answer would certainly not include an extraneous degree of qualification.Your explicit attempt to clarify:"Future emails from you to me, if not of a brotherly quality speaking to first issues, will by God's grace not be answered publicly by me; I hope this explicitly clarifies on what basis I will happily receive future public contacts from you.""If not of a brotherly quality." Interestingly enough, that’s a concern of my own (given the history of this public exchange). Nevertheless, I have spoken to first issues,
Again, why do you need to know? The questions asked by the PGS are straightforward ones, requesting simple answers from the elders. Your questions are irrelevant to this discussion. I would like to know what makes you ask? Do you have a special reason for asking?
left sufficient room for you to qualify, then moved on to a more fundamental approach given the development of the public discussion – hence the questions I presented in my last email. This is not primarily about a request concerning ‘public needs" regarding a fast (which I have already attempted to demonstrate), but,
- About other impressions left, given the language used when the public request was first made (see paragraph 1 above for the method of approach. See also my second email).
- Fundamental issues of relationship between society and government (which you refused to engage).
- An inquiry into the current position of individuals in relation to government, given what has developed in public (which you refused to engage).
Note also, that "first issues" may also cease to be first issues (in the sense of degree of importance) when other issues begin to surface. We’re obviously not confined to some wooden & sacrificial timeline, to the exclusion of mercy & important development. Within the same vein, when a society approaches ecclesiastical government, in public, including many recipients, anyone may inquire into the nature of this approach. They may request the interpretation of the principles that govern the relationship between society and government – and as well other related issues assumed, or implied. Apparently, these are subjects -- for some reason -- that need to be avoided (at least up to this point). Nevertheless, I’d ask you again to simply answer the 3 questions in my last email. Honestly, what harm could it truly do?
Respectfully yours,Willena F.
From: GD
To: Church List
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: What was attempted: A reconciling path
to work through the issue at hand, and get to the bottom of it. Since
arriving down here in Louisiana, I am seeing the heavy workload and
the incredible pressure that is on Lyndon's shoulders every minute of
every day, so anything that any of the members can do to minimize,
instead of adding to, the elder part of his workload is getting a
thanks from me.
From a tired elder's wife, observing my even more weary elder-husband,
Ginny
From: CG
To: NS ; MG
Cc: Pastor Greg Price ; Elder Lyndon Dohms ; Society of Prince George (RPNA) ; [List]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: What was attempted: A reconciling path
Dear N,
For reasons that are a mystery to me, the initial post from the PGS inquiring about the fast has provoked some responses from you that are rather obscure in their meaning upon initial reading and which require a sharp mind and several cups of coffee in the early morning in order to be able to understand them. Additionally, you chose to start addressing M as an individual as opposed to the entire society. In case there is a misunderstanding, I would like to clear a few things up.
First of all, all nine communicant members of the PGS consulted together on the email that was sent to the elders. We sent it publicly because we felt we were not the only ones who had these questions and thought that it would save the elders time and answer everyone's questions than if we sent the questions privately. All could benefit from instruction. As M said, this should not have been controversial. And M is not leading us about by the nose.
The elders are also aware that for almost two years now we, as a society, have had some questions and concerns before them, some of which have to do with the nature of our ecclesiastical government. You knew this in part I know, from a conversation you and I had shortly after the elders were here in Prince George the summer of 2004, when you told me some of the things you had been told about us by one of the elders. We were served the Lord's Supper that weekend, and those of us who attended again in Edmonton last summer. Combining this with the fact that we were taking direction from the elders concerning the recent fast and had asked questions that would make it more profitable for us should make it self evident that we have NOT cast off their governance nor are we out of fellowship with our brethren in the societies, nor are we seeking to be. These requests for affidavits are downright silly imho, and display a grievous suspicion of mind towards all the members of the PGS on your part, which surprises me greatly, considering the affection, love, and respect we have tried to show them on many occasions. I would hope that you would know this of me personally.
Secondly, what we as a society in Prince George have been doing, has been done without consulting outside our society. If Mr. S and the Everson society have concerns that appear to be similar in nature, this is not because we had been consulting back and forth or seeking to influence one another. We did do much to encourage one another regarding common concerns when Presbytery dissolved summer 2003, and since, even as we communicated to the elders, in our efforts to encourage one another during a trying time. Both of our societies had Pastor Edwards scheduled for visits in the weeks following the dissolving. To my knowledge, this is the first time that anyone from our society has acknowledged publicly that we have been corresponding with the elders on questions and concerns that have been raised by us. What Mr. S related to us last month in their record of society concerns from over a year ago, was the first time any of us in Prince George knew what they in Everson had asked. Though they may speculate what we have asked, they have not seen nor been invited to consult with us, as we have sought to maintain confidentiality as best we can. We did this because we are seeking to be orderly and apply mature judgement in our actions for love of the elders AND the brethren as well as obey fifth and ninth commandment duties.
Do we own Bob S's opinions? We own BS didn't you know?! BWA HA HA! We keep him in a closet and feed him Samuel Adams when he is good, and Coors Lite when he is bad. He has been drinking a lot of Coors Lite lately. [ducks and runs]
Seriously though, B raised some interesting points that I am sure raised questions in the minds of not a few, me included. So tell me N, in light of the official evidence that we have from the elders' own correspondence, what do you believe concerning how our socieities are governed? Was the presbytery dissolved? Has it been re-formed? Though we have been commended for our willingness to hear their biblical and historical reasoning and have been promised a written and comprehensive answer as their highest priority (excluding emergencies and other necessary familial and ministerial duties) we have yet to receive these. It may be that you are privy to these answers where we are not. You appear to have some ideas on this based on your questions. I, for one, would be happy to hear what they are.
Yours and His,
C
From: CG
To: GD, Church List
Dear Ginny,
I am not speaking on behalf of the PGS, however I don't think I would be
misrepresenting them when I say that the heavy burden that the elders have
been carrying is of great concern to us, and I know this sentiment is shared
by many in the other societies.
We know that one elder is seriously ill and has been temporarily relieved of
his duties due to ill health because of stress. We could very well have
lost another elder in the accident that took his best friend and boss. We
also know that our minister is stretched almost to the breaking point and
that the elders' wives and children have felt the strain and stress of these
burdens as well. At some point they will be lost to us as is the way of all
flesh and it is grievous to us that we may be an indirect cause of this
because of the various trials we endure and need assistance with.
I can only speak for myself. Whenever I am having a problem with something
and it requires something beyond the counsel I may be receiving from my
local brethren, it becomes a question of judgement as to whether or not I
should or should not contact them for their assistance, counsel , and/or
advice, knowing that I would be adding to this burden. Am I alone
in thinking this? There is no doubt that we are in a weakened and broken
state with few workers in the field. The result is crisis management of heavy
situations that likely wouldn't have gotten so bad if there had been more
workers dealing with things at an earlier stage before they reached a crisis
point.
With regard to whatever issue it is that Nick and you think needs getting to
the bottom of, I can only say that on this end, my desire is to see a
continuing testimony for the covenanted reformed faith and that it be done
in such a way that doesn't make casualties of the shepherds or the sheep.
Though I don't correspond on a regular basis with the elders or their
families, I do hold all of them in great affection and you are all regularly
in my prayers.
A weary sheep,
Cheryl
From: Bob S
To: Nick S; Mike G.
Cc: Pastor Greg Price ; Elder Lyndon Dohms ; Society of Prince George (RPNA); Church List
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: What was attempted: A reconciling path
February 10, 2006
Greetings Nick,
I will not ask if you are a liar, but I will ask if you are that naive - or maybe I should ask, just how naive do you take your audience to be?
That is, you close your most recent of yesterday by saying, "Publicly engaging a path to fundamental reconciliation." Which is precisely what you have not done.
Rather true to form so far, you do not speak to the primary thrust of the Society of Prince George request (1/9/06) regarding the recent public fast day. It was all about the distinction between public and private offenses and their respective relation to a PUBLIC fast day. That is clearly evident to anyone who reads the request. Under the subheadings "Specific & Particular" and "Public versus Private" there is a page and a half out of a total of three pages vs. two paragraphs or a third of a page on restructuring, church government. Anybody who can’t see that may be able to read, ie. sound out the words, but they can’t think.
Instead of speaking to the primary thrust of the request, you go off on a tangent and a fishing expedition at large, without any real substantiation or specification, based on your personal concerns, suspicions and alarms in what looks like an effort to entice and entrap brethren. (Say it ain’t so, brother, say it ain’t so.)
I do not deny that among any number of the topics that might spin off the secondary topic of restructuring church government could be that concerning the nature of and existence of a lawful church court. Yet the glaring and fundamental error that pervades your argument is simply that:
1. You fail entirely to demonstrate - not just assume or assert - that the topic of church courts is the ONLY one that can possibly flow from a discussion of restructuring church government, which was again really secondary to the SPG request itself.
2. Building on #1, that the SPG request necessarily and only implied that they questioned the church court we now have.
3. Barring that, and it is barred because again you have not proved either #1 or #2 - and I am bold enough to say you cannot prove it, personal suspicions and surmises are inadmissable as proof - you certainly need to justify setting yourself up as the lord inquisitor of your brethren’s conscience and dictating questions that they must answer - and you do not - and proffering sample responses they must essentially accept. But to do so is to implicitly accept #1 and #2 above. (Again, see opening question above.)
I must also ask. Were you born in the roman church? I was and I do not take it too kindly when protestants, God forbid presbyterians, ape popery under whatever kind of self righteous and arrogant pretense whatsoever and lord it over their brethren like you do in your post. Neither will I stand for it. Nor do I have to. If you or anyone considers that too belligerent, the Bible is pretty clear: " Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage (Gal. 5:1)." I answer first to the Lord and then to the lawful authorities in this church. Then to fellow brethren. But that which is freely given, may and should be refused often times when it is arrogantly demanded as you do and with your track record in this discussion, as well what is implicitly is acknowledged if one answers as you say they ought. Sorry about that, but I am not sorry. And as God is my witness, I write that with tears, brother, but so help me I will do no other.
In conclusion, sir, since you really do not answer your own questions, much more speak to the primary concerns of the SPG request, you cannot fault others who simply follow your precedent and refuse to answer your specious remarks, ie. they do as you do and not as you say they are to do, whoever you are. Again, if they did as you say, they would be buying into your unproven presupposition of #1 and #2 and giving away the farm.
But I ain’t blind, brother, and I got both eyes wide open. I can only hope by the grace of God, the wider audience is also awake and sees through this pathetic bullying and arrogant shtick for what it is. If not, we are in worse shape than I figured.
yet I am cordially yours,
in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Bob S.
And yes, if someone doesn’t wise up next time in their next "reply," instead of the Prov. 25:6 approach, we’ll probably have to go with the Prov. 26:4 route. But my best advice is still to stop wasting bandwidth. And your audience’s time. Please.
From: Greg Price
To: Pastor Greg Price
Cc: [Church List]
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 11:01 AM
Subject: A Pastoral Plea To All
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
I urge us all to discontinue the public debate that has ensued since the Announcement of the Day of Prayer and Fasting. I see only further wedges and deeper divisions following from further public debate.
I am not judging the motives of any who have participated. Nor do I intend to minimize the seriousness of any concern.
However, it should be apparent to us all that our ongoing public debate is tearing us apart even though we profess to adhere to the same Terms of Communion.
There will be a time to address all concerns in a way that will promote our reformation. But for the present, let us each one focus more upon our own sins, weaknesses, and failures realizing the depth of our offence against Christ and His infinite love for such wayward children. Let us likewise spend much time in humble and sincere prayer for one another (especially those with whom we may disagree) calling upon the Lord to reconcile us in love and in the truth. If our mutual aim is to promote the Cause of Christ by means of a covenanted reformation, let us not forget that we are mutually bound in love and truth by covenant obligation:
"and shall not suffer ourselves, directly or indirectly, by whatsoever combination, persuasion, or terror, to be divided and withdrawn from this blessed union and conjunction" ("Solemn League And Covenant" Article VI).
With brotherly affection for you all,
Greg L. Price
[This thread/subject continues here.]
From: CG
To: GD, Church List
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: What was attempted: A reconciling path
I am not speaking on behalf of the PGS, however I don't think I would be
misrepresenting them when I say that the heavy burden that the elders have
been carrying is of great concern to us, and I know this sentiment is shared
by many in the other societies.
We know that one elder is seriously ill and has been temporarily relieved of
his duties due to ill health because of stress. We could very well have
lost another elder in the accident that took his best friend and boss. We
also know that our minister is stretched almost to the breaking point and
that the elders' wives and children have felt the strain and stress of these
burdens as well. At some point they will be lost to us as is the way of all
flesh and it is grievous to us that we may be an indirect cause of this
because of the various trials we endure and need assistance with.
I can only speak for myself. Whenever I am having a problem with something
and it requires something beyond the counsel I may be receiving from my
local brethren, it becomes a question of judgement as to whether or not I
should or should not contact them for their assistance, counsel , and/or
advice, knowing that I would be adding to this burden. Am I alone
in thinking this? There is no doubt that we are in a weakened and broken
state with few workers in the field. The result is crisis management of heavy
situations that likely wouldn't have gotten so bad if there had been more
workers dealing with things at an earlier stage before they reached a crisis
point.
With regard to whatever issue it is that Nick and you think needs getting to
the bottom of, I can only say that on this end, my desire is to see a
continuing testimony for the covenanted reformed faith and that it be done
in such a way that doesn't make casualties of the shepherds or the sheep.
Though I don't correspond on a regular basis with the elders or their
families, I do hold all of them in great affection and you are all regularly
in my prayers.
A weary sheep,
Cheryl
From: Bob S
To: Nick S; Mike G.
Cc: Pastor Greg Price ; Elder Lyndon Dohms ; Society of Prince George (RPNA); Church List
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: What was attempted: A reconciling path
February 10, 2006
Greetings Nick,
I will not ask if you are a liar, but I will ask if you are that naive - or maybe I should ask, just how naive do you take your audience to be?
That is, you close your most recent of yesterday by saying, "Publicly engaging a path to fundamental reconciliation." Which is precisely what you have not done.
Rather true to form so far, you do not speak to the primary thrust of the Society of Prince George request (1/9/06) regarding the recent public fast day. It was all about the distinction between public and private offenses and their respective relation to a PUBLIC fast day. That is clearly evident to anyone who reads the request. Under the subheadings "Specific & Particular" and "Public versus Private" there is a page and a half out of a total of three pages vs. two paragraphs or a third of a page on restructuring, church government. Anybody who can’t see that may be able to read, ie. sound out the words, but they can’t think.
Instead of speaking to the primary thrust of the request, you go off on a tangent and a fishing expedition at large, without any real substantiation or specification, based on your personal concerns, suspicions and alarms in what looks like an effort to entice and entrap brethren. (Say it ain’t so, brother, say it ain’t so.)
I do not deny that among any number of the topics that might spin off the secondary topic of restructuring church government could be that concerning the nature of and existence of a lawful church court. Yet the glaring and fundamental error that pervades your argument is simply that:
1. You fail entirely to demonstrate - not just assume or assert - that the topic of church courts is the ONLY one that can possibly flow from a discussion of restructuring church government, which was again really secondary to the SPG request itself.
2. Building on #1, that the SPG request necessarily and only implied that they questioned the church court we now have.
3. Barring that, and it is barred because again you have not proved either #1 or #2 - and I am bold enough to say you cannot prove it, personal suspicions and surmises are inadmissable as proof - you certainly need to justify setting yourself up as the lord inquisitor of your brethren’s conscience and dictating questions that they must answer - and you do not - and proffering sample responses they must essentially accept. But to do so is to implicitly accept #1 and #2 above. (Again, see opening question above.)
I must also ask. Were you born in the roman church? I was and I do not take it too kindly when protestants, God forbid presbyterians, ape popery under whatever kind of self righteous and arrogant pretense whatsoever and lord it over their brethren like you do in your post. Neither will I stand for it. Nor do I have to. If you or anyone considers that too belligerent, the Bible is pretty clear: " Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage (Gal. 5:1)." I answer first to the Lord and then to the lawful authorities in this church. Then to fellow brethren. But that which is freely given, may and should be refused often times when it is arrogantly demanded as you do and with your track record in this discussion, as well what is implicitly is acknowledged if one answers as you say they ought. Sorry about that, but I am not sorry. And as God is my witness, I write that with tears, brother, but so help me I will do no other.
In conclusion, sir, since you really do not answer your own questions, much more speak to the primary concerns of the SPG request, you cannot fault others who simply follow your precedent and refuse to answer your specious remarks, ie. they do as you do and not as you say they are to do, whoever you are. Again, if they did as you say, they would be buying into your unproven presupposition of #1 and #2 and giving away the farm.
But I ain’t blind, brother, and I got both eyes wide open. I can only hope by the grace of God, the wider audience is also awake and sees through this pathetic bullying and arrogant shtick for what it is. If not, we are in worse shape than I figured.
yet I am cordially yours,
in our Lord Jesus Christ,
Bob S.
And yes, if someone doesn’t wise up next time in their next "reply," instead of the Prov. 25:6 approach, we’ll probably have to go with the Prov. 26:4 route. But my best advice is still to stop wasting bandwidth. And your audience’s time. Please.
From: Greg Price
To: Pastor Greg Price
Cc: [Church List]
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 11:01 AM
Subject: A Pastoral Plea To All
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
I urge us all to discontinue the public debate that has ensued since the Announcement of the Day of Prayer and Fasting. I see only further wedges and deeper divisions following from further public debate.
I am not judging the motives of any who have participated. Nor do I intend to minimize the seriousness of any concern.
However, it should be apparent to us all that our ongoing public debate is tearing us apart even though we profess to adhere to the same Terms of Communion.
There will be a time to address all concerns in a way that will promote our reformation. But for the present, let us each one focus more upon our own sins, weaknesses, and failures realizing the depth of our offence against Christ and His infinite love for such wayward children. Let us likewise spend much time in humble and sincere prayer for one another (especially those with whom we may disagree) calling upon the Lord to reconcile us in love and in the truth. If our mutual aim is to promote the Cause of Christ by means of a covenanted reformation, let us not forget that we are mutually bound in love and truth by covenant obligation:
"and shall not suffer ourselves, directly or indirectly, by whatsoever combination, persuasion, or terror, to be divided and withdrawn from this blessed union and conjunction" ("Solemn League And Covenant" Article VI).
With brotherly affection for you all,
Greg L. Price
[This thread/subject continues here.]
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment