The Long and Winding Road

A review of the judicial decisions concerning Steve Van Kuiken

by Paul Peterson
Minister of Outreach and Education
That All May Freely Serve - Michigan

[5-8-04]

Click here for Steve Van Kuiken's own report of the latest chapter in his case.

For the past two years, the Reverend Steve Van Kuiken has forced the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) to take a hard look at both the policies and processes of our denomination. The simple, yet powerful acts of participating in the ordination of persons from the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) community, and the presiding over same-sex marriages, led to a series of judicial cases and decisions that reveal much about who we are as Presbyterians.

Before looking at possible ramifications from the most recent, and likely last, decision by the Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC) of the Synod of the Covenant on Reverend Van Kuiken, it is appropriate to look back at earlier decisions in the tangled disciplinary process surrounding the controversial pastor.

In April 2003, the PJC of the Presbytery of Cincinnati found that Reverend Van Kuiken had not violated the Book of Order in participating in the ordination of practicing LGBT persons. The PJC recognized that the Book of Order specifically assigns responsibility for the ordination and installation of elders and deacons to the session. Since the people in the challenged ordinations had been duly elected by the congregation and examined by the session, the PJC noted, "if Rev. Van Kuiken had not officiated, it would have been an offense against the Constitution." By implication, the decision of the PJC made clear the distinction between remedial cases and disciplinary cases. Remedial cases challenge the decisions of governing bodies. Disciplinary cases apply to the actions of individuals. Had Reverend Van Kuiken been punished for participating in the ordination and installation of gays and lesbians, every individual who laid hands (part of the ceremony) upon those installed would also be vulnerable to disciplinary action.

The April 2003 decision of the Cincinnati PJC did find Reverend Van Kuiken guilty of violating the denomination's constitution by performing same-sex marriages. The censure imposed on Van Kuiken was the lowest level possible. He was rebuked and instructed to no longer preside at same-sex marriages. Reverend Van Kuiken appealed this decision to the Synod of the Covenant PJC.

In June, 2003 the Presbytery of Cincinnati attempted to use an administrative approach to defrock Reverend Van Kuiken for continuing to preside at same-sex marriages. By a vote of 119 to 45 with 4 abstentions, the presbytery declared that Van Kuiken had involuntarily renounced jurisdiction of the church. Through this action, the pastoral relationship between Reverend Van Kuiken and the Mount Auburn congregation he served was dissolved. Van Kuiken was stripped of his ordination and removed from the denomination; that is, until a stay of enforcement was ordered by the PJC of the synod. While the synod PJC stay of enforcement had no effect on the severing of the pastoral relationship, it did reinstate Van Kuiken as a member of the presbytery.

In February, 2004 the PJC of the Synod of the Covenant ruled that the Presbytery of Cincinnati had erred in removing Van Kuiken from ordained office. The lack of due process by the presbytery led to a long list of appeal specifications being sustained by the PJC. Most important among the specifications listed by the PJC was the definition of the word "work." The PJC ruled that the term "work" applies to a minister's vocation, not to specific "acts of ministry." This distinction reduces the possibility of other ministers being defrocked by the administrative route for performing same-sex marriages.

Finally, on April 29, 2004 the Synod of the Covenant PJC ruled on the appeal of Reverend Van Kuiken in the same-sex marriage case. By a 6-4 vote, the PJC overturned the rebuke of Van Kuiken. The majority opinion focused on the requirement to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the inability to do so because current policy against performing same-sex marriages is "highly recommended," but not prohibited to the level required for invoking a disciplinary trial and punishment. Working from within the tension between a spirit of grace and the letter of the law, the PJC affirmed that performing same-sex marriages is impermissible, but censuring someone judicially for performing same-sex marriages is not allowed. This PJC decision, coming two months before General Assembly, may open the door to even more contentious and heated debate than already anticipated from the many overtures sent dealing with LGBT issues. While the decision does not open the door for same-sex marriages, it may open a window. When tied to the earlier decision that does not define performing a same-sex marriage as a "work," thus removing the path of administrative punishment, it seems that performing same-sex marriages is both impermissible and unpunishable.

Ironically, there is also good news for those seeking to reform the denomination on LGBT inclusion in the appeal specification that was not sustained by the synod PJC. By a 6-4 vote, the PJC ruled that Reverend Van Kuiken did not have the right through freedom of conscience to perform same-sex marriages. The majority opinion cited Book of Order G-6.0108b that in determining whether someone has departed from the essentials of the Reformed faith it "ultimately becomes the responsibility of the governing body in which he or she serves." According to the PJC, in Van Kuiken's case the Presbytery of Cincinnati had that responsibility. The good news within this ruling is that a presbytery, in the case of a minister, or a session, in the case of an elder or deacon, may decide that an individual has a "scruple" with the current discriminatory policies of the denomination that are based on a belief that homosexual practice is a sin. This would seem to allow for the possibility of acts of conscience on LGBT inclusion that are contrary to denominational policy. It would also seem to limit the review of such acts to the governing body in which the individual serves. In other words, entire presbyteries may become welcoming and technically not in defiance of the Book of Order. And within presbyteries that are not welcoming, sessions may make decisions for individuals that allow for the full inclusion of LGBT persons.

All of the precedents set by the decisions surrounding Reverend Steve Van Kuiken may be erased by decisions in future cases that come before the General Assembly PJC. However, the GAPJC will not be overturning the specific rulings on Van Kuiken. As of May 1, 2004 Steve Van Kuiken has resigned as a Presbyterian minister and thus renounced jurisdiction. There is no longer a party in the case for appeals by either side. For the time being, the denomination is left with a series of decisions that highlight the tension between grace and law, freedom of conscience and accountability, inclusion and second-class citizenship.

The long and winding judicial road followed by Steve Van Kuiken resulted from simple, straightforward acts of conscience. Some have questioned his strategy. Some have questioned his motives. But those who know Reverend Van Kuiken know that his strategy and motives were based on his belief in the inclusive nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Nothing more. Nothing less. Ultimately though, the controversy is not about a rabble rousing minister in Ohio. Instead, it is centered on the rabble rousing incarnate God from Galilee who taught about justice, love, inclusion, and the necessity to never separate truth from duty. It is a message that creates tension in an unjust world. Thus, our current denominational tension is a gift from God; an invitation to the future church in which all may freely serve.