John Shuck sent, a bit before the presbytery's meeting, a helpful summary of what went into their action, along with his own commentary.

We post it here as his personal statement, with only minor editing.

[6-17-03]


Here is the story...

de-frock: see unfrock. un-frock:

1. to deprive of ecclesiastical rank, authority, and function.

2. to divest or strip of a frock

The Situation

The case of Rev. Steve Van Kuiken of the Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati has taken a frightening turn. Van Kuiken could be defrocked on Monday, June 16th. Here is an update from Soulforce.

Steve and the Mount Auburn congregation have been a test case regarding issues of justice in regards to transgender, bisexual, gay and lesbian persons in the church and in matters of conscience in regards to ministry. The congregation is a leader in our denomination for reaching out to sexual and gender minorities for full inclusion in the church and in society. Political issues in the church revolve around the blessing of same sex relationships (gay marriages) and the ordination of individuals who do not fit the heterosexist conceit of a "correct" human being.

Because of the congregation's stand, it is no stranger to controversy. It has found itself over the years in a struggle with those who believe the congregation through its pastoral care and advocacy is acting against the will of God. To learn more about this extraordinary congregation check out their web site http://www.mtauburnpresby.org

Recently, its pastor was brought up on charges for participating in the ordination of "self-affirming practicing homosexuals" and for conducting services of union or marriages for same sex couples. Van Kuiken was acquitted on the ordination question but was found "guilty" for performing same sex marriages. The verdict included a rebuke, which is the lowest form of punishment.

Van Kuiken defended himself and read his defense before the permanent judicial commission of the Presbytery of Cincinnati on April 8th. In his defense, Van Kuiken explained his rationale for his actions and vowed to continue his practice of ministry regardless of the verdict and to appeal any guilty verdict and consequence attached to it. From Van Kuiken's vantage point, what is on trial is the injustice of the PCUSA's interpretation and application of the Gospel in regards to sexual and gender minorities. Here is his statement before the PJC in April.

Steve conducted marriage ceremonies for a same sex couple in May by his own admission. Paul Rolf Jensen filed charges of blasphemy and heresy against him for this and for other alleged violations on May 30th. Van Kuiken will need to face an investigating committee regarding this even as his first ruling is appealed.

Now, the frightening turn. The presbytery council and committee on ministry have called a special presbytery meeting for June 16th to act on a joint recommendation. The recommendation has two parts: The first is that Van Kuiken has "renounced jurisdiction." A majority vote of the presbytery will determine this. The second part of the recommendation is that an administrative commission be given "expanded powers" to "address emerging circumstances" within the church.

Here is the text of the recommendation:

By request of the Presbytery's Council, there will be a called meeting of the Presbytery of Cincinnati on Monday, June 16, 7:00 p.m. (registration will begin at 6:00 p.m.), at Lakeside Presbyterian Church:

1. To act on the Committee on Ministry's recommendation to presume the Rev. A. Stephen Van Kuiken's renunciation of jurisdiction (G-6.0502), based on the following:

a. The Presbytery's Permanent Judicial Council (PJC) in its April 21 decision, found the Rev. Van Kuiken guilty of having "performed and/or condoned and facilitated the performance by others of same-sex marriage ceremonies at the Mt. Auburn Presbyterian Church (USA) W-4.9001." The Rev. Van Kuiken was rebuked and "directed to perform marriage ceremonies only for a man and a woman." (The complete text of the PJC's decision may be found at the Presbytery of Cincinnati Document Center).

b. On April 25, two members of the Presbytery's Committee on Ministry, along with the Presbytery's Acting General Presbyter, met with Rev. Van Kuiken. At the meeting they reminded him of the decision and read the rebuke. He acknowledged its content and said he understood it.

c. At the regular meeting of the Presbytery on May 13 the Stated Clerk read the entire decision of the PJC. Rev. Van Kuiken was present at the meeting.

d. On May 17, Rev. Van Kuiken sent an e-mail to the chair of the PJC, stating: "Given the rebuke, I feel compelled to inform you and the PJC that I have officiated at another same-sex Christian marriage today, Saturday, May 17." He attached a copy of the bulletin from the service.

2. To act on the Committee on Ministry's recommendation that the Presbytery concur with Administrative Commission 02-01's request for expanded powers to address emerging circumstances at Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church. http://www.presbyteryofcincinnati.org/About/schedule.htm

Recommendation 2 is of no concern to us who observe from the outside. I don't know Rev. Van Kuiken. I know nothing about his church except what is public information on the web. The second part of the recommendation is presbytery business in regards to issues within the congregation itself. No one outside the presbytery can really have any comment regarding it.

However, the first recommendation is of concern to all of us, because it is larger than Van Kuiken, the Mount Auburn Church and the Presbytery of Cincinnati. This action could have potential ramifications for the entire denomination.

Renunciation of Jurisdiction

The recommendation cites the Book of Order (G-6.0502): "When a church officer, after consultation and notice, persists in a work disapproved by the governing body having jurisdiction, the governing body may presume that the officer has renounced the jurisdiction of the church."

The effect of renunciation of jurisdiction is found in G-6.0501: "Renunciation of jurisdiction shall remove the officer from membership and ordained office and shall terminate the exercise of office." In other words, he will be defrocked. This is the ecclesiastical death penalty for ministers, the highest possible punishment. You are no longer a minister in the PCUSA; do not pass go; do not collect $200; go directly to another vocation or denomination.

I will argue that it is inappropriate for the Presbytery of Cincinnati to act affirmatively on recommendation one for a number of reasons.

Reason Number One: It short-circuits the judicial process.

Van Kuiken is appealing the decision of the PJC. Until that appeal is complete and these new charges from Paul Rolf Jensen (if they become charges) have also run their course any action to remove Van Kuiken from ministry is premature. The Synod PJC, and if necessary, the General Assembly PJC must hear this appeal to determine if the Presbytery's PJC decision was in accordance with the will of Christ. With this recommendation by the council, a highly politicized presbytery acts as judge and jury, with the power to execute the death sentence, before every doubt and every appeal has been laid to rest.

Here is a new way to do justice in the PCUSA. You can get rid of that annoying minister down the road in your presbytery by filing a charge, finding him guilty, and defrocking him within a month. Easy as pie, if you have the votes. Obviously, this action would set a bad precedent for the entire PCUSA.

Reason Number Two: Beyond Reasonable Doubt?

An assumption that seems to be unexamined is that the verdict of the Presbytery of Cincinnati's PJC was correct. There are reasonable doubts. Here is the text of the verdict:

CHARGE: That the Rev. Van Kuiken performed and/or condoned and facilitated the performance by others of same-sex marriage ceremonies at the Mt. Auburn Presbyterian Church which were in violation of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) W-4.9001.

We find the Rev. Van Kuiken GUILTY of this charge.

The offense 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).

Click here for the full text.

Is it true that performing/condoning same-sex marriage ceremonies are in "clear violation of the Scriptures and the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA)?" The commission is charged to interpret the will of Jesus Christ. Is it beyond all reasonable doubt that Jesus Christ, the second person of the Trinity, God the Redeemer, condemns same-sex covenants (or is it marriages? What is the difference?) The PJC of the Presbytery of Cincinnati seems to be saying that God does not approve of same-sex marriages. Whenever we make a ruling or decision we are representing "the will of Christ." (G-4.0300)

The PJC assumes it is following scripture by making this declaration. I have never read that God condemns same-sex relationships in the Bible or says what we should or should not call them. Not just me, over half the biblical faculty at PCUSA seminaries also have doubts about what some think is the absolute rule of scripture. The Bible for the Whole Human Family is a document signed by 33 professors of Old and New Testament at PCUSA seminaries. In it they state:

As members of the church universal and as professors of Scripture in our Presbyterian seminaries, we affirm that the Bible is an indispensable means of God's communication, especially in a time when the church is urgently seeking to clarify its message and mission in the world. The question of whether gay or lesbian Christians should be ordained to the offices of deacon, elder, and minister of the Word and Sacrament arises at such a time.

We observe that this debate often revolves around six passages that refer to same-sex relationships. We would first of all caution the church against wresting these passages out of context and pressing them into service in our debate. On careful reading, these passages seem to be advocating values such as hospitality to strangers, ritual purity, or the sinfulness of all human beings before God. Before we can hear their meaning for our time, we must first understand their meaning in their own time.

Secondly, we would caution the church against any hasty conclusion that these passages present instructions for us on what we know as homosexuality today. In important sections of the Bible - the Ten Commandments, the prophets, the teaching of Jesus - this issue does not arise. Indeed the concept of homosexuality as now understood may not appear at all in the Bible. It is likely that the biblical authors never contemplated the phenomenon that we have been able to name and describe for only a little over a hundred years, a sexual orientation which is integral to the identity of a small minority of the human family.

Thirdly, we caution the church against an interpretation of the Bible that leads the church into pronouncing judgment upon a specific behavior of a whole category of persons in the human community. As the 1985 General Assembly observed in its Guidelines for the Interpretation of Scripture in Times of Controversy, "Let all interpretations be in accord with the rule of love, the twofold commandment to love God and to love our neighbor."

We would encourage the church at this time to interpret particular passages of the Bible in the light of the whole Bible, and in the recognition that Jesus Christ, the Redeemer, is the living Word of God. It is the gospel of Jesus that invites gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to full communion in the church; it is the Spirit of Jesus that calls and equips Christians for ministry; and it is the justice of Jesus that calls us to insure that those who are invited, called, and equipped are free to fulfill their ministries among us with the full recognition and support of the church.

Click here for the full text of the statement.

It is certainly possible that the PJC decision does not speak for over half the biblical faculty on the scriptural basis for its decision. It is certainly possible one can interpret the Bible as condoning rather than condemning same-sex covenants or marriages whatever you want to call them. If one believes that heterosexual and homosexual relationships are equal in the eyes of God, as many do, does it really matter what we call them? If it does, then why?

Reason Number Three: Love and Marriage, what is it?

What is same-sex marriage? Does it even exist? Not in the United States…yet. Marriage is a civil contract, or is it? What about common law marriages? Are they marriages? What if you get married by an Elvis impersonator while parachuting from airplane with no mention of God? Can you be ordained in the PCUSA? I am not convinced that any of these questions are clearly answerable because our culture and church is in a quandary about what marriage is and means. What will the PCUSA do when one of our states grants marriage licenses to same gender couples? Will that couple then be ordainable?

It gets trickier. Can you be married in the PCUSA without having it legally recognized by the state? Is that couple then ordainable? Should the church even be enmeshed with the state regarding marriage? The answers to these questions are less clear to me than they may be to others. I am not exactly sure what Van Kuiken did if he performed/condoned a ceremony that doesn't exist. Is he being defrocked for one word? The issue may not be about using the word "marriage." The issue seems to be about equality. Are homosexual covenants equal to heterosexual covenants in the sight of God or not? I don't believe the PCUSA is of one mind on this issue. Defrocking someone over this issue smells like a powerplay.
 

Reason Number Four: What about conscience and mutual forbearance?

Could this be a matter of conscience? Check out G-1.0301(1)a: That "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in manners of faith or worship." While you're checking, G-1.0305: "…we also believe that there are truths and forms with respect to which men of good characters and principles may differ. And in all these we think it the duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other."

Generally, a minister is defrocked for doing really bad things. You can defrock a minister when the community is sure beyond doubt that she has denied the essentials of the faith. Whatever we feel about same-sex relationships, the issue is not essential to the faith. We differ. You don't defrock for difference.
 

A stab at the big picture

Who or what is on trial here? Is it Van Kuiken? Not really. It is much bigger than him. It is bigger than Mount Auburn. It is bigger than Cincinnati. What is on trial is the PCUSA and our attitudes and practices regarding sexual and gender minorities. Are we even Christian any longer? If we allow a presbytery to defrock a minister over a matter of conscience without the benefit of an appeals process or one word of protest, I wonder.

john shuck