Proponents of a new administrative review committee said it would correct a flawed review of how the presbytery handled a heresy complaint against minister member Donald E. Stroud. Opponents disagreed, saying the action unfairly singles out one presbytery for scrutiny, and this time does not specify an allegation — allowing investigation of much more than the presbytery’s refusal to pursue the charge against Stroud.
Synod Moderator June Bucy, with advice from the synod’s nominating committee, is to appoint a five-member panel “with all due speed” and a report is to be made at the synod’s meeting in July. Where the process leads — final resolution of a confused local review process or the start of a new chapter in challenges nationally to specialized ministries — remains to be seen.
The vote Saturday afternoon followed three hours of reports and a final emotional debate at Richmond’s Overbrook church.
The effort to scrap the synod’s previous review of Baltimore Presbytery and its handling of the Stroud inquiry was spearheaded by C. Powell Sykes, pastor of Westminster church, Burlington, N.C., and a member of the synod council. He said the council inappropriately limited the scope of the earlier review committee’s inquiry — only allowing it to consider three of the five issues listed under the “special administrative review” section of the Book of Order.
His presentation centered on the definition of the word “shall” in the preface to the Book of Order and the use of “shall” in how a higher governing body conducts a special administrative review (G-9.0408 and G-9.0409). The synod council, of which he is a member, erred in limiting its first review committee to only the first three items in G-9.0409 — that proceedings are correctly recorded, that they are in accordance with the church Constitution, and that they are prudent and equitable.
Sykes said the review committee should have been told to also consider whether “the proceedings have been faithful to the mission of the whole church” and whether “the lawful injunctions of a higher governing body have been obeyed.”
As for an allegation upon which to base creation of the new review committee, reference was made to “information recently received” that Baltimore Presbytery’s “policy and practice surrounding validation of ministry may be irregular,” but such information was not directly introduced into the synod’s debate.
It was alluded to, however, by Baltimore Presbytery Executive Presbyter Peter Nord, who noted that the synod was considering creating an administrative commission after receiving only one letter of complaint, and that from a member of his presbytery who had not voted against a recent report on specialized ministries in the presbytery.
Nord, who started his remarks by saying that he was sad to be at the meeting because he wanted to build better relations between the synod and his presbytery, noted that no one had come to him with the complaint contained in the letter — unlike the scriptural command to talk directly with those with whom you disagree. “No one has asked me, ‘So what do you do, regarding these matters?’ No one has taken the time to explore with us — to see if there’s even a reason to have this [synod] meeting. It’s truly — I’m sorry — stupid as well as not scriptural.”
After handing out a paper on the procedures the presbytery uses in admitting ministers, validating ministries and its oversight of ministers, he said he was not worried about a review, but added, “I think it will be a colossal waste of resources and time and finances of the synod.”
The official language for creating the new review group did not mention the Stroud inquiry, but the debate did strike upon the issue of whether a presbytery should validate the ministry of a self-avowed homosexual working for an organization whose goal is to change the church’s Constitution on ordination of sexually active homosexuals.
In his remarks to the synod — before the debate on creating a new review committee — Sykes noted the church has a system of protecting minority rights. “The minority has the right to protest, the minority has the right to try and convince people to come to their side so they can become the majority, and they have the right to leave, if they want to, but the minority does not have a right to defy the Constitution. When an elite minority illegally imposes its will on the majority, it is a recipe for disaster and I think that is where we are headed.”
The question before the synod, said Sykes, is “are we going to go by the Constitution or are we not?”
Nord, in response to a question about why Baltimore Presbytery would validate the ministry of an organization that seeks to overturn a part of the church’s Constitution, noted that the organization for which Stroud works — That All May Freely Serve — “works from within the church for change. As best I can tell, the staff of this organization works very hard at not dividing, but at reconciling over a variety of issues. It seeks to build up; not tear down.”
