The Synod Council in the Synod of the Mid-Atlantic reversed itself late last month. At their meeting on December 18, the Council rescinded its earlier approval of a report that had exonerated Baltimore Presbytery in its failure to discipline one of its members. The Council authorized the formation of a new administrative review committee to be appointed by the Synod Moderator. That should be good news. However, discussion at their meeting suggests that they expect the same outcome from the new administrative review committee that they got from the last one.

The case in point concerns a complaint brought against the Rev. Don Stroud, employed by That All May Freely Serve (TAMFS), an organization that seeks to overturn the Book of Order requirement of "fidelity and chastity" for clergy and officers in the PC(USA). The complaint asked the presbytery to investigate statements made by Mr. Stroud in which he allegedly declared his practice of homosexuality. Mr. Stroud is a member of Baltimore Presbytery and That All May Freely Serve is a ministry validated by that presbytery.

The Stated Clerk in Baltimore is Charles Forbes. Mr. Forbes has been an officer in That All May Freely Serve and is a contributor to the organization. He named the presbytery’s investigating committee, and the presbytery rubber-stamped his appointments. Several members of the investigative committee also were contributors to TAMFS. It was not a surprise when the investigative committee found no reason to bring charges. Their decision was appealed to the presbytery permanent judicial commission (court). The court ruled for the investigative committee.

Discipline cases operate under strict confidence. In this case, Stroud broke the required confidence and announced publicly that he was the subject of the complaint. He also published declarations of his convictions and his refusal to obey the constitution, thus breaking his ordination vows. "I cannot comply with G-6.0106b of the Book of Order," he said. "G-6.0106b makes God complicit in unjust oppressive violence that pits members of the Body of Christ, constituted as the Presbyterian Church (USA), one against the other and rends the peace and unity and purity of the Church." (July 25 2002)

A member of the Synod of the Mid-Atlantic, Pastor C. Powell Sykes, was aware of the failure of Baltimore Presbytery to properly care for and discipline one of its members. He then requested that the synod form an administrative review committee (ARC). Sykes is a member of the Synod Council. The Synod Council responded by forming the committee. Members of Baltimore Presbytery who want their presbytery to uphold the church’s constitution, gathered written evidence of the presbytery’s failure to act and sent it to the committee with a request that their information be considered.

The administrative review committee was oriented to its task by Mark Tammen of the Office of the General Assembly. The committee later went back to the Synod Council’s executive committee to request clarification of their charge. The result was that their review fell short of the Book of Order requirements. They reviewed only three of the five areas required by the Book of Order in G-9.0409. The three areas they chose deal with technicalities of process. Again, not surprisingly, the ARC found that Baltimore Presbytery attended to the technicalities of their process well.

But the ARC failed to consider the concerns of members of the presbytery and synod. Mr. Sykes expressed disappointed amazement that the review committee found no conflict of interest operating in the process. Further, when the ARC refused to consider the facts of the Stroud case, he felt they could not then decide that their proceedings had been "prudent and equitable," as their report said.

Some members of the presbytery were dismayed that the ARC would not address Baltimore’s failure to discipline a clear case of non-compliance with the constitution. In their report, the ARC confessed to deliberately ignoring the substance of the matter but in language that is difficult for many Presbyterians to decipher. They said of themselves: "The ARC is not charged with the task of reviewing judicial aspects of the investigation." By that they meant that they would not look at anything pertaining to the presbytery’s response to Mr. Stroud’s refusal to comply with the constitution. The constitutional issue, above everything else, is what they should have looked at. And G-9.0409 puts that in their purview when it says in the fifth item—one the committee dropped from its charge—that they are to review whether "The lawful injunctions of a higher governing body have been obeyed." In this case, the higher governing body might be the General Assembly or the General Assembly’s court (GAPJC).

When the ARC report was delivered it was approved by majority vote of the Synod Council. Mr. Sykes expressed his disapproval that the ARC had not reviewed all the Book of Order-required items and had essentially white-washed the failures of Baltimore Presbytery. He then sought a called meeting of the Synod Council in an effort to reverse their action. Two other members of the Council joined him in calling the special meeting that was held in the synod office in Richmond on December 18, 2003.

At that meeting, the Council rescinded its previous action to approve the ARC report. Davis Yeuell, moderator of the Council, wrote the proposal that became the motion to rescind. Conversation with the Stated Clerk’s office, Yeuell said, confirmed that their approval of the ARC’s report had been in error. The new action of the Synod Council calls for the synod moderator to appoint a new administrative review committee to look at the findings of the previous review committee for items 1-3 of G-9.0409 and attend to items 4 and 5 as well.

However, discussion around the table made it clear that key members of the Council will urge the new administrative review committee to avoid dealing with anything they regard as "judicial" in nature. The Synod Moderator was present for the meeting. Sykes expressed his concern that the outcome of the new review will be no different from the current review report. Members of the Council confirmed his apprehensions by replying adamantly that members of Baltimore Presbytery need to take the case to the church courts as a remedial case.

In spite of the authority given to governing bodies by the Book of Order, the Synod Council appears not to want to tamper with Baltimore Presbytery’s errors. They insist that administrative review is the wrong way to deal with this situation. Charles Forbes also has said he wants the matter to go to the courts of the church.

Why the courts? There are at least two reasons why this matter does not belong in the courts and does belong in the administrative process:

1. The limits of what the courts can do; and
2. The danger of judicial activism.

The Book of Order’s provision for administrative review allows for enforcement of decisions of the courts. The courts themselves cannot enforce their decisions (G-9.0408; G-9.0410; G-9.0501). Furthermore, the administrative review process is far more a grass roots process than the courts since, unlike a court decision, reports from administrative review committees must be approved by the bodies that commission them. That’s a Book of Order requirement (G-9.0501). In this case, the report of the ARC will be delivered to a meeting of the Synod of the Mid-Atlantic where it will be voted on by representatives of the synod’s fourteen presbyteries. An elected body of many representatives will decide, rather than an elite body of a few.

Synods are charged by the Book of Order "to warn or bear witness against error in doctrine or immorality in practice in the area of its jurisdiction." (G-12.0102m) Presbyteries and synods are accustomed to stepping in to help resolve difficulties, even those of a moral nature. The church courts have made decisions amply sufficient to guide the oversight of governing bodies in assuring compliance with G-6.0106b. When a synod balks at intervening in a situation where the constitution is clear, and the church courts have confirmed and elaborated on the constitution with its decisions, the synod is not fulfilling its duty to the church.

It is the governing bodies, and not the courts, that have the authority to enforce the constitution. To always force matters back into the courts is to create an endless cycle of court decisions which the courts themselves do not enforce. It is also to neglect the enforcement authority of the governing bodies.

Political writer Thomas Sowell recently noted how often the current U.S. Supreme Court tends toward decisions that revise historic understanding of the constitution of our country. Sowell points out how easily such a small and powerful body can trump not only the historic constitutional understandings but also move in diametric opposition to the will of the people. It is often a problem to put too much to the courts and too little to elected bodies.

The courts have their proper place in our form of government, but once they have rendered a decision—as they have on the matter of compliance with G-6.0106b—it is the responsibility of governing bodies to see that the constitution is upheld.

That means that our elected presbytery and synod—and General Assembly—bodies must exercise the authority and responsibility entrusted to them by the constitution, in order to preserve the peace, unity and purity of our corporate life.

The administrative review committee of the Synod of the Mid-Atlantic needs to make use of its broad powers under our constitution and correct the errors in Baltimore Presbytery. It must have the courage to hold the presbytery accountable to make the necessary corrections. If it does that, we can hope that Baltimore Presbytery will rejoin the PC(USA) in spirit as well as in fact, and we can be at peace.

If our governing bodies fail in their responsibility to uphold the constitution, we will have no constitution. What happens now in the Synod of the Mid-Atlantic is crucial to the future of our common life in the PC(USA).