Presbyterians may have trouble following the machinations of church government in the Baltimore/Synod of the Mid-Atlantic situation, but most of us know that when a minister or session publicly says they will not obey the constitution, something is seriously wrong. We change the constitution all the time by majority agreement. If we don’t like what the constitution says, we can work to change it but, as the church courts have said, we cannot refuse to obey it. Refusal to obey is what is happening in Baltimore.

The situation is serious. If Baltimore agrees to bring into its presbytery those who will not obey the constitution and then refuses to correct public disobedience—which is failure to honor ordination vows—we have potential for constitutional chaos. Increasing majorities of us can continue to vote to retain "fidelity and chastity" as standards for our leaders, but if governing bodies chose to ignore the standards and are not corrected, the votes are meaningless.

Our form of government provides for correcting a situation like this one in Baltimore Presbytery by giving the Synod the power and responsibility to step in. If the Synod fails in its responsibility, it becomes the responsibility of the General Assembly to act. If the General Assembly will not act, we are out of options and in a state of constitutional collapse.

Not all the options have been exhausted in this case. However, it is detrimental to the whole church that in this case correction is so difficult and takes so long because those responsible are not willing to act. Our constitution provides the help needed, but it can’t help if leaders circumvent or manipulate the process to their own ends.

Here’s what happened. A Presbyterian lawyer brought a disciplinary complaint against the Rev. Don Stroud, a member of Baltimore Presbytery. Rev. Stroud is on the staff of an organization called That All May Freely Serve [TAMFS]), a validated ministry in Baltimore Presbytery. TAMFS advocates for the removal of the constitutional requirement of "fidelity and chastity." A presbytery investigative committee declined to bring charges; the presbytery court upheld that decision upon appeal. In a disciplinary case, no further appeal is possible. The disciplinary process on that complaint ended.

However, following the decision by the presbytery court, Rev. Stroud made public in writing on the web his position of refusal to comply with the constitution, creating an ongoing non-compliance which Baltimore Presbytery ignored. Furthermore, there were indications of hanky-panky in the process that Baltimore had followed in its investigation of Rev. Stroud. For example, Baltimore’s Stated Clerk Charles Forbes, an officer in TAMFS, named the members of the investigative committee, several of whom had ties to TAMFS.

Knowledge of that clear conflict of interest was all it took for a member of the Synod Council to request the formation of a synod administrative review committee (ARC) to look into Baltimore’s handling of their minister members.

The constitution provides that such a committee may be formed by the governing body. The constitution also directs what such a committee "shall" do if formed. Their duties are specified in five items listed in G-9.0409.

The first three items required for review in G-90409 have to do with technicalities of process. Limiting itself to those items the ARC was able to ignore alleged offenses and the way they were handled. Consequently, the ARC reported that everything in Baltimore was in order.

When it became common knowledge that the instructions to the ARC had dropped two of the five items for review, pressure was applied to the Council to reconsider its acceptance of the ARC report. Council Moderator, Davis Yuell, explained later that he consulted with several people and decided that a called meeting of the Council to reverse their decision to accept the ARC report was necessary.

So, the Council met in December. They rescinded their acceptance of the ARC report and authorize the Synod Moderator to appoint a new ARC.

When Baltimore’s Stated Clerk learned of this development, he quickly consulted with his executive committee. They sent a letter to the Synod Council advising the Council of their intent to file a remedial case against them if the Council did not reverse its December decision.

This may be getting difficult to follow. The Synod Council probably thought so. They had already rescinded a decision to accept the ARC’s report and form a new ARC. Now Baltimore was telling them that if they didn’t rescind their decision to rescind they would face charges from Baltimore Presbytery.

Charles Forbes wasn’t bluffing. He put the wording of a complaint in the papers for the January 22 meeting of Baltimore Presbytery.

The Synod Council Moderator called another special meeting of the Council on January 20 and told them on the previous Friday that his intent was to get an action to rescind their action to rescind. The Council met by conference call and acted to rescind. Baltimore dropped the intent to file charges.

Is this sort of behavior simply bumbling? Is it kneejerk reactions born of fear over who is more likely to file a complaint first? Whatever it is, it isn’t clearheaded or straightforward process and the outcome—deliberate or not—has the potential to do harm to the whole church. And it is not behavior likely to inspire much confidence in Presbyterians who are constantly told to "trust the system."

The process provided for in our constitution has not been exhausted. Council member Rev. Powell Sykes is pursuing the matter in hopes that justice will prevail in the end. When the Synod Council voted to scrap the new ARC, he announced his intention to call a special meeting of the full Synod.

A full meeting of the Synod of the Mid-Atlantic may very well be less subject to manipulation by Baltimore Presbytery than is the Synod Council. We may yet see a proper administrative review of Baltimore and a correction of the defiance of the constitution that so stubbornly prevails in that presbytery.

If the Synod decides to conduct a proper review with people who care for the preservation of our constitution, the whole church will benefit. There is every reason to stay tuned. And every reason to pray.