Defiant pastor gets slap on the wrist PJC: Guilty on same-sex marriage charge, not guilty on charge of ordaining gays The Layman Online Monday, April 21, 2003 The Presbytery of Cincinnati's Permanent Judicial Commission has given the Rev. A. Stephen Van Kuiken a slap on the wrist after a trial in which the presbytery's investigating committee accused him of two violations of the Presbyterian Church (USA) Constitution. On the charge that the pastor of Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati "performed and/or condoned and facilitated the performance by others of same-sex marriage ceremonies at the Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church which were in violation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) W-4.9001," the Permanent Judicial Commission found him guilty and rebuked him – the mildest form of censure. On the charge that he participated "in the ordination and installation of deacons and elders who refuse to repent of self-acknowledged practice(s) which the confessions call sin," the Permanent Judicial Commission found Van Kuiken not guilty, ruling that such people had been "approved, ordained, and installed by the session." After the rulings, Van Kuiken told Soulforce, a gay advocacy group, that he plans to appeal the guilty verdict and will continue to perform marriages for couples regardless of sexual orientation even though "my actions – performing ceremonies for same-sex couples that are Christian marriages or their equivalent – are a violation of our church law." The Permanent Judicial Commission ruled that the first charge "is in clear violation of the Scriptures and the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Both the Scriptures and the Confessions describe a marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman, as does the Directory for Worship [W-4.9001 – 4.9002]. Further, the Directory for Worship defines marriage as a civil contract [W-4.9001] and expects the minister and the couple to abide by the legal requirements of the state [W-4.9002a(2)]. The Directory for Worship also gives the minister authority to decide if a marriage is unwise [W-4.9002b] and to direct a marriage service [W-4.9003]. We thus conclude that ministers are responsible for seeing that any marriage services they perform meet the criteria of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA)." In the matter of censure for his action, the Permanent Judicial Commission – despite a dissent from one of its members – decided to rebuke Van Kuiken. It also directed him "to perform marriage ceremonies only for a man and a woman. If you perform services of holy union, you are directed to take special care to avoid any confusion of such services with Christian marriage.You shall not appropriate specific liturgical forms from services of Christian marriage but follow the guidance of W-6.2001-2004, 6.3010, and 6.3011. You shall instruct same-sex couples that the service to be conducted does not constitute a marriage ceremony and should not be held out as such." Elder Charles H. Brown, while agreeing that Van Kuiken was "guilty of performing and/or condoning and facilitating the performance by others of same-sex marriage ceremonies that were in violation of the Constitution," strongly dissented with the majority opinion in terms of the censure, saying that a "rebuke does not resolve this case." "Based on the facts before us," Brown wrote in his dissent, "a simple rebuke will not correct or restrain wrongdoing, restore the unity of the church by removing the causes of discord and division or secure the just, speedy, and economical determination of proceedings. The rebuke will not bring resolution and is thus, inherently unfair to the Reverend Van Kuiken, his family and the church, since all of us will be forced to go through this exercise again. Consequently, I am convinced that nothing less than a censure of temporary exclusion from the exercise of ordained office as minister of the Word and Sacrament of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), pursuant to D-12.0104, will resolve this case." On the second charge, again with a dissent from Brown, the Permanent Judicial Commission wrote that, "The Form of Government specifically assigns responsibility for the ordination and installation of elders and deacons to the session [G-4.0301g, G-14.0205]. While the minister is required to officiate at the service of ordination and installation, it is only to describe the nature of the offices of elder and deacon [G-14.0206], to ask the Constitutional questions [G-14.0207], and to pronounce their ordination and installation [G-14.0209b]." "Thus, if Rev. Van Kuiken had not officiated, it would have been an offense against the Constitution. We find his participation in the ordination and installation of elders and deacons who do not meet the criteria of G-6.0106b, and who had been elected by the congregation and approved, ordained, and installed by the session, is not an offense. Therefore he is not guilty." Brown again vigorously dissented, writing: "The facts are also undisputed that the Reverend Van Kuiken deliberately and willfully participated in the ordination and installation of deacons and elders who refuse to repent of self-acknowledged practice(s) which the Confessions call sin, in violation of G-6.0106b of the Book of Order. However, my brothers and sisters in the majority find that this is not an offense. I disagree. "According to G-6.0106b of the Book of Order, one shall not be ordained and/or installed as an elder or deacon if he or she refuses to repent of the self-acknowledged sin. This is not an issue of membership, but rather leadership in the church which demands an elevated commitment to the Scriptures, the Confessions and the Book of Order. Who we ordain, and the requirements set for ordination, are set out in our Constitution and are unique to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Whether these provisions are right or wrong is not at issue here. The PJC cannot determine that the Constitution or any part of it is unconstitutional. Consequently, the PJC must uphold our Constitution whether we agree with it or not. "I agree with the majority that examination, ordination and installation in compliance with the Constitution are the duty and responsibility of the session. However, the majority ignores the responsibility of the individual – those who are preparing to be ordained and/or installed as elder or deacon, as well as the individual members of the session who approve, ordain and install. According to G-6.0106b, "Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church." Additionally, each member who is ordained and installed as an elder and deacon vows to "be governed by our church's polity. Those candidates who refuse to repent of self-acknowledged practices which the Confessions call sin cannot accept the constitutional questions or be ordained and/or installed as deacons or elders in the church. "In addition to the candidate, there must be individual responsibility by each member of session, including the moderator, to uphold his or her ordination vows. Otherwise, the individual vows are meaningless – a corporate resolution or vow for the session as a whole would suffice. "As a member of the Mt. Auburn session and its moderator, the Reverend Van Kuiken did not uphold his ordination vow to be governed by our church's polity. He did not dissent, nor did he instruct his session to focus its energy to work within the denomination to seek constitutional change rather than refuse to follow the Constitution. If any member of the session cannot follow our Constitution in good conscience, then he or she may peaceably withdraw. "For this reason I also disagree with the majority that the Reverend Van Kuiken would have committed an offense against the Constitution if he had not officiated the ordination and installation services at issue. This is contrary to the spirit and intent of our Constitution. As the moderator of the Mt. Auburn session, the Reverend Van Kuiken had the right, power and obligation to step aside and decline to preside at the ordination and/or installation of elders and deacons that he knew could not and would not comply with G-6.0106b. While only one voting member, the moderator has a special responsibility to cast the vision of the session. Here the Reverend Van Kuiken joined the session in unanimously supporting the ordinations, and he endorsed Mt. Auburn's Statement of Dissent and Non-Compliance with G-6.0106b. "Consequently, I believe the Reverend Van Kuiken committed an offense when he willfully and deliberately violated our Constitution by participating without dissent in the ordination and installation of elders and deacons who do not meet the criteria of G-6.0106b, and he should be censured accordingly." Just before his trial began, Mount Auburn – whose leaders have declared their defiance of the constitution for the past 12 years – again issued a statement of defiance against the ordination standards of the denomination. While saying that it will continue to defy G-6.0106b in the Book of Order, the "fidelity/chastity" clause, Mount Auburn said it will welcome gays and lesbians and "promote their full participation in all aspects of church life, including ordination as Elders and Deacons." The statement also admits that Mount Auburn "has ordained gay, lesbian and bisexual persons" and will continue to "ordain self-acknowledged gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons, sexually active or not, following the same criteria used to call heterosexual persons to our church leadership." In its rationale for such action, Mount Auburn states that "homosexual practice in and of itself is not a sin and is not inconsistent with the standards for ordination." The fidelity/chastity ordination standard, the session declares, "came out of a different understanding" of the gospel and Mount Auburn "will not comply with G-6.0106b," adding that it "has not complied with and will not comply" with the constitutional standard. In addition, the Mount Auburn session previously declared, again in defiance of the denomination's constitution, that the church authorizes and conducts services for the "marriage" of same-sex couples and that it opens its communion table to non-Christians. The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission forbid pastors from "marrying" same-gender couples. This was not the first time a leader of Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati has gone to trial for defying the constitution. Actions against the church's leaders date back to 1991, including a complaint that rose to the highest court in the denomination, the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly. But Mount Auburn's leaders thus far have eluded any disciplinary action.

Respond to this article

Home · Archives · The Layman · PLC Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Feedback · Links