Baltimore decision halts case against defiant minister The Layman Online Thursday, November 14, 2002 The Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbytery of Baltimore has rejected a complaint against the Rev. Donald Stroud, a Baltimore minister who says he is an active homosexual and that he will not comply with the Constitution of the Presbtyerian Church (USA). Paul Rolf Jensen, a Virginia lawyer who filed the complaint against Stroud, was angered by the decision to throw his case out. He issued a statement that said, "This is the beginning of the season of apostasy. You have the Baltimore Presbytery interfering in the judicial process in an unconstitutional, unacceptable, unprecedented way. They have decided to use the constitution as toilet paper, and the moderator and stated clerk of the General Assembly have stood by idly and let this happen." Jensen said the dismissal of the Baltimore case makes even more pressing the need for a called meeting of the General Assembly. "The only possible resolution of this practice is for the 214th General Assembly to immediately reconvene and take all such steps necessary to purify our church of this apostasy," he said. The judicial commission appointed two of its members, the Rev. Mary D. Gaunt and elder Thomas B. Eastman, to review Jensen's appeal of a earlier decision by the presbytery's investigating committee not to let the case go forward. "We find no reason to sustain the [Jensen] petition … and [we] concur in the decision of the Investigating Committee that no charges be filed," Gaut and Eastman said. They gave no reason that they could not sustain a petition in a case in which Stroud has made a public issue of his disobedience. Their letter was posted on the presbytery's Web site. By concluding that there was no basis for trial, the Baltimore Permanent Judicial Commission essentially halted the disciplinary case against Stroud, one of a number of ministers and elders who have said publicly – and repeatedly – that they will not obey church law. The Synod of the Mid-Atlantic has announced that it will name an administrative commission to review the presbytery's judicial actions, but that would not be a disciplinary issue. The next regular meeting of the Presbytery of Baltimore is Nov. 21. One item for consideration is a resolution titled "On Upholding the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA)" that was submitted by the sessions of five evangelical congregations. The resolution asks that the presbytery, "to further the peace, unity, and purity of the church, commit itself to upholding the entire Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA.) … enforce the constitution whenever non-compliance is an issue, working both administratively and pastorally with officers and congregations who, by their public statements or behavior, have declared their unwillingness or inability to comply with the constitution." The resolution is also posted on the presbytery's Web site. Previously, the presbytery overwhelmingly voted – as a recommendation to the presbytery's council – in favor of a proposal that the presbytery forbid trials of violations of G-6.0106b, the "fidelity/chastity" ordination standard. That position has not become policy. Following is the text of Jensen's statement on Nov. 13: This is the beginning of the season of apostasy. You have the Baltimore Presbytery interfering in the judicial process in an unconstitutional, unacceptable, unprecedented way. They have decided to use the constitution as toilet paper, and the moderator and stated clerk of the General Assembly have stood by idly and let this happen. Recently, Dr. Howard Edington and other faithful ministers have written that our denomination is "irretrievably apostate under current management." What we see today in the Baltimore decision is the proof of that judgment. The only possible resolution of this practice is for the 214th General Assembly to immediately reconvene and take all such steps necessary to purify our church of this apostasy. There is no longer any middle road. This decision ends the disciplinary process against the most egregiously defiant minister in the denomination, who has explicitly stated that the constitution does not apply to him. If no action is taken to remedy this crisis, that will give permission to all of those who share the Rev. Donald Stroud's views to trash our constitution with impunity. We must not let that happen. Since the stated clerk and moderator of our General Assembly won't act, the rest of us have to. The moderator of the General Assembly has stated a preposterous premise in order to dissuade people from calling a special meeting of the General Assembly. If presented with the requisite signatures and he still fails to call a General Assembly, and if the stated clerk also fails to call the meeting, then I think we ought to have a special meeting of the General Assembly without them.

Respond to this article

Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives · History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links