Baltimore Presbytery backs overture to repeal ‘fidelity/chastity’ rule
The Layman Online, Posted Wednesday, January 29, 2003
The Presbytery of Baltimore, which on Nov. 21 failed to uphold the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA), has voted to concur with an overture to the 215th General Assembly by the Presbytery of Des Moines asking that it call for yet another referendum on a proposal to delete the “fidelity/chastity” ordination standard from the denomination’s constitution.
The presbytery reported that a motion to appoint the Rev. Don Stroud to serve as advocate for the overture at the 215th General Assembly, which will meet May 24-31 in Denver, was referred to the Presbytery Council.
Stroud, a Baltimore minister who works for a gay-activist group called That All May Freely Serve, says he is an active homosexual and that he will not comply with the “fidelity/chastity” ordination standard in the denomination’s constitution. In November, the presbytery’s Permanent Judicial Commission rejected a complaint against Stroud filed by Paul Rolf Jensen.
In the wake of that action, the Synod of the Mid-Atlantic decided to review the actions of the Presbytery of Baltimore in the Stroud case. A synod administrative committee would have wide-ranging authority, including the possibility of assuming the jurisdiction of the presbytery’s commissioners.
At its January 23 meeting, the presbytery’s stated clerk, Charles Forbes, acknowledged the review, saying that the presbytery has been “informally advised by officers of the Synod that the Synod, acting through its Council, is undertaking an administrative review of actions of the Presbytery relating to the Investigating Committee established by this Presbytery on September 27, 2001.”
As for the motion to concur with an overture that seeks to delete the “fidelity/chastity” ordination standard from the denomination’s constitution, proponents at the January 23 meeting argued that the presbytery repeatedly has “considered and voted affirmatively on related proposals over a period of many years,” according to a report by the Witherspoon Society. The motion to concur with the Des Moines overture was approved by a better than 2-1 margin (77 in favor and 35 against).
The Des Moines proposal is modeled after what was known as Amendment 01-A, which was defeated by a 3-1 margin in a referendum among the PCUSA’s 173 presbyteries in 2001-02.
Instead of prohibiting the ordination of self-affirming, practicing homosexuals as a denominationwide standard, the Des Moines Presbytery voted 47-32 on Jan. 18 to ask Presbyterians to say that “the suitability to hold office is determined by the governing body where the examination for ordination or installation takes place.” In effect, that would allow local option for the selection of deacons, elders and ministers.
The proposal would also have presbyteries vote on whether to nullify the denomination’s 1978 definitive guidance that declares that homosexual practice is sinful.
“We believe that the presence of G-60106b [the “fidelity/chastity” standard] within our Book of Order has created a hostile and divisive environment in our church that is contrary to God’s reconciling love and the spirit of our Reformed faith,” the Des Moines overture says. “We are greatly saddened over the increasing number of accusations and judicial cases that have arisen in recent months as a result of this measure. These trials are causing the church to spend inordinate financial and human resources defending an exclusionary policy that is not an essential of the Reformed faith, drawing precious resources away from the primary mission of the church.”
In November, the Council of the Presbytery of Baltimore affirmed a presbytery-approved statement on “possible next steps” regarding the fidelity and chastity clause of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
The original statement, approved by the presbytery June 27, included a list of actions for consideration, such as working to make the denomination fully inclusive of its gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual members; expressing its strong dissent over the “injustice” of G-6.0106b; not pursuing “any disciplinary or remedial complaints growing out of attempts to enforce the provisions of G-6.0106b;” among others.
Officials emphasized that the statement is just that, a statement, and not a policy of the presbytery.
The council has appointed a committee, “made up of persons supportive of the statement,” that will present those views in “listening sessions” throughout the presbytery.