Minister reaches accord on defiance, will face no disciplinary action The Layman Online Wednesday, April 23, 2003 A minister facing charges of violating his ordination vows and the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) by performing same-sex marriages has reached an agreement under which he will face no disciplinary action. The Rev. Hal Porter is pastor emeritus of Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati, a congregation whose session has issued declarations for the past 12 years saying it is violating – and will violate – the constitution's "fidelity/chastity" ordination standard and that its ministers "marry" same-gender couples. Its pastor, the Rev. Stephen Van Kuiken, this week was convicted of violating the constitution by performing same-sex marriages. On March 14, 2002, Presbyterian Paul Rolf Jensen of Reston, Va., filed accusations in the Presbytery of Cincinnati against Van Kuiken and Porter. Both men later issued public statements acknowledging their defiance of the denomination's ordination standard and church law that prohibits ministers from conducting marriage services for same-gender couples. Porter, in an article posted on the Web site of More Light Presbyterians, a gay advocacy group, said he had reached an agreement with the investigating committee of the Presbytery of Cincinnati which, he wrote, "agreed that there was probable cause that I had committed" two offenses: 1. "Acting in willful and deliberate violation of [my] ordination vows, as set forth in the Book of Order at section G-14.0405b, to be governed by our church's polity. 2. "Actually performed ceremony/ies at the Mt. Auburn Presbyterian Church, which ceremony/ies were in violation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) as so held by the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church (USA) in its decision in the case of Benton vs. Presbytery of Hudson River, Remedial Case #212-11." The investigating committee rejected a third charge that he had renounced "the jurisdiction of the Presbyterian Church (USA) by refusing to comply with its constitution," the article states. The agreement stipulates that Porter "will abide by G-14.0405b(5) to be governed by our church's polity" and that, in the future, he "shall not perform ceremonies on or off church property which are in violation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA)." While agreeing to the alternative resolution of the charges proposed by the investigating committee, Porter then wrote a 2,047-word explanation of what he called the "conditions" under which he agreed. On the first point, for example, he said he agreed " to uphold G-14.0405b as long as it does not require me to discriminate unfairly against lesbians and gays or any other persons as equally created in the image of God." On the second point, he attacked the Benton case, saying that it was wrongly decided. That case, based on the Authoritative Interpretation approved by the General Assembly in 199l, reads, "There is no mention in the Book of Order of same sex unions (ceremonies). If a same sex ceremony were considered to be the equivalent of a marriage ceremony between two persons of the same sex, it would not be sanctioned under the Book of Order. In section W-4.9001, Christian marriage is specifically defined as: "[A] covenant through which a man and a woman are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship. In a service of Christian marriage, a lifelong commitment is made by a woman and a man to each other, publicly witnessed and acknowledged by the community of faith. Inasmuch as the session is responsible and accountable for determination of the appropriate use of the church building and facilities (G-10.0102n), it should not allow the use of the church facilities for a same-sex union ceremony that the session determines to be the same as a marriage ceremony. Likewise, since a Christian marriage performed in accordance with the Directory for Worship can only involve a covenant between a woman and a man, it would not be proper for a minister of the Word and Sacrament to perform a same-sex union ceremony that the minister determines to be the same as a marriage ceremony." (Minutes, 1991, Part I, pp. 55, 57, 395). Porter, criticizing the General Assembly's "conclusion that all homosexual behavior is sinful," said he believed that "homosexuality is a feature of God's creation that, like heterosexuality, may be used for God's purposes. This assumption about the sinfulness of homosexuality remains merely a cultural bias not supported by fact or the Christian understanding of love." He further criticized interpretive statements (citing the 190th General Assembly (1978) of The United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and the 119th General Assembly (1979) of the Presbyterian Church in the United States) and "all subsequent denominational affirmations of these interpretive statements" as "a cultural bias and amount to an amendment of our confessions." Porter then proclaimed that it was "unconstitutional" for the General Assembly to "make an authoritative interpretation out of definitive guidance from 1978 that the practice of homosexuality is a sin. A conviction that a practice is sinful is not an interpretation of the Book of Order and is therefore not a proper subject for authoritative interpretation (G-2.0100b). Our confessions actually take no position on homosexual practice in and of itself. I believe that the authoritative interpretation of 1993 was in effect an attempt to treat a matter of faith and convictions as if it were a matter of government, worship, or discipline and thus to avoid the exacting amendment process necessary to change our confessional documents." Regarding same-sex marriages, he said "the couple creates, constitutes, declares, and consummates the marriage. Any declaration of marriage by the minister is not relevant and should not have been the pivot of Benton. In practice, I will continue to advise and instruct all same-sex couples that the Presbyterian Church (USA) does not presently recognize the covenant between them as a Christian marriage. Nonetheless, I recognize that the covenant between them is to live out their lives together as one family, in an enduring, unitive relationship, seeking a home for the heart's happiness and a school for love. I will support and encourage such covenants so far as they reflect the Christian understanding of fidelity, mutual responsibility and love that should be present between couples, whether opposite-sex or same-sex." "I have the right to advocate on any occasion that whatever the church means and blesses as 'marriage' should be extended to same-sex couples and that not to so extend it is both unjust and immoral," he said. "I reserve my right to dissent from the implication of W-4.9004, if W-4.9004 implies that it is the declaration of a minister that joins two people in marriage. I reserve my right to maintain, rather, that it is the exchanged promises themselves that create the marriage. But I now realize that I cannot, upon the conclusion of such a service, declare in God's name that any couple is married, as if my saying so sealed it. The minister and all those present are merely witnesses. It is the couple themselves, in their exchanged promises, who create and declare the marriage."

Respond to this article

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