Called synod council meeting seeks review of case involving gay pastor
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, December 5, 2003
The council of the Synod of Mid-Atlantic has called a special meeting on Dec. 18 to talk about possible further action in the case of the Rev. Donald Stroud, who acknowledges that he is a practicing homosexual.
The synod council will reconsider the report of its own administrative review committee. The review panel claimed that the Baltimore Presbytery and its investigating committee met constitutional requirements in concluding that there was no reason to bring Stroud to trial because of his defiance of church law.
Stroud, a validated minister in the presbytery, has repeatedly and publicly declared that he is living in defiance of the Presbyterian Church (USA) constitutional standard that requires ministers to shun sexual behavior outside of marriage between a man and a woman.
Stroud is employed as an “evangelist” by That All May Freely Serve, a pro-homosexual ordination group that seeks repeal of the constitution’s “fidelity in marriage/chastity in singleness” clause. That clause is G-6.0106b in the Book of Order.
“For me, to comply with G-6.0106b is not right or just or safe,” Stroud says in a statement on the That All May Freely Serve Web site. “I cannot comply with G-6.0106b of the Book of Order because to do so, for me, can come only at the price of denying my faith in God’s grace in Jesus Christ. My conscience will not allow me to do such a thing.”
He made that statement before Baltimore Presbytery concurred with its investigating report recommending that the presbytery not require Stroud to face trial for defying the constitution. Stroud has played an active role in the presbytery, including serving as a commissioner to the 2002 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
Three members of the synod council – C. Powell Sykes of the Presbytery of Salem, James Fields of the Presbytery of the James and Chung-Min McBride of the Atlantic Korean-American Presbytery – requested the called meeting of the council.
They contend that the administrative review committee failed to include in its review of the presbytery’s investigating committee two requirements in the Book of Order (G-9.049).
That section requires a higher governing body, when reviewing the work of a lower governing body, to determine whether: “(4) The proceedings have been faithful to the mission of the whole church;” and “(5) The lawful injunctions of a higher governing body have been obeyed.”
Neither of those areas was addressed by the review panel.
When the final report was presented to the synod council at its meeting on Oct. 17, 2003, it was meticulous in historical minutia while steadfastly refusing to draw conclusions. The review committee voiced the opinion that pastors within the bounds of a presbytery who have not been ordained or installed in a pastorate by the presbytery are not subject to the “fidelity in marriage, chastity in singleness” standard for ordination found in G-6.0106b.
Stroud was received by Baltimore Presbytery on June 6, 1999, coming to the presbytery to serve as “Minister of Outreach and Reconciliation of That All May Freely Serve: Baltimore.” The presbytery recognizes this position as a validated ministry, even though the purpose of That All May Freely Serve is to overturn G-6.0106b.
The review committee report acknowledged that Stroud “made certain statements which some persons construed to be in violation of the Constitution and in violation of his ordination vows,” but the report did not record any of those statements.
When the review committee presented its report to the synod council, Skyes asked what those statements were. But committee members refused to summarize them. Having received a copy of Stroud’s comments in defiance of G-6.0106b as posted on the TAMFS Web site, Powell attempted to read Stroud’s comments to the rest of the synod council. But Council Moderator Davis Yeuell ruled him out of order.
Critics of the review committee’s work and the actions of Baltimore Presbytery also questioned why the role of Baltimore’s stated clerk, Charles Forbes, was barely examined by the review committee.
Forbes was among those who signed articles of incorporation for That All May Freely Serve. He is a member of the TAMFS board and serves as its treasurer. In addition, three of the four members of the presbytery’s investigating committee had made contributions to or had other ties with TAMFS.
But the synod review committee, noting that the presbytery investigating committee had been approved by the entire presbytery, said, “The ARC determines [that this vote] cures any bias that may have been present in the nominating process.”
When the synod council approved the report of the administrative review committee, Sykes cast the only dissenting vote. His statement was attached to the committee’s report:
- “This is a matter of justice. Does the majority rule in the Presbyterian Church (USA) or not? Baltimore Presbytery is sheltering someone who has, in effect, renounced the jurisdiction of the denomination by his statements of willful defiance of the constitution. It is a rogue presbytery, smugly sure of its righteousness while the vast majority of Presbyterians have voted three times since 1996 to declare and retain the fidelity/chastity standard within the constitution. If ordination standards are not standard denominationwide, neither are any other standards, including ownership of property. When an elite few impose their will upon the majority illegally, it is a recipe for disaster.”