Homosexual candidacy approved in West Jersey Presbytery case
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, November 23, 1999
NEWARK – A regional church court has ruled that a New Jersey presbytery did not violate the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) when it accepted as a candidate for ministry an openly gay man who declared that he intended to have a fully sexual relationship with another man in the future.
Participants in a trial conducted in Newark on Nov. 5 received registered-mail copies of the decision on Nov. 22. The Permanent Judicial Commission of the Synod of the Northeast voted 7-2 to affirm the West Jersey Presbytery’s acceptance of Graham Van Keuren as a candidate for the ministry.
The dissent was made by Rev. D. Dean Weaver and Fred L. Denson, moderator of the commission. “By voting to enroll an inquirer as a candidate who is outside of the constitutional standards of those who ‘seek office’ and has no intentions to come into conformity with such standards, the presbytery acted irregularly and the action was therefore erroneous.”
Gary Griffith, attorney for the complainants, said, “We believe that the decision ignores the constitution of the church as a whole. The integrity of the ordination process is weakened in this accommodation to the candidate seeking to administer the Word and Sacrament …”
Van Keuren, a Princeton Theological Seminary graduate, had told the presbytery’s Committee on the Preparation for the Ministry that he was homosexual but not in a relationship at the time the committee was considering his application. In response to a question by the committee, Van Keuren said, “I intend to participate in a fully sexual way in any future relationship.”
Intention called a violation
That intention, said Griffith, the attorney for the complainants, should have disqualified Van Keuren from advancing from inquirer to candidate because it violated the denomination’s ordination standard, which requires fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness for church officers.
But the commission said “this criterion for ordination does not apply to someone moving from inquiry to candidacy.” It will be the responsibility of the Committee on Preparation for the Ministry “to make the candidate’s manner of life a subject of discussion at each annual consultation.”
The commission also said the “fidelity/chastity” standard applies “as a condition of ordination” but that a presbytery “may receive an inquirer who may still move into compliance while being nurtured in the covenant relationship as a candidate.”
Candidacy approved 81-61
The presbytery approved Van Keuren’s candidacy by a vote of 81 to 61 on March 16, 1999.
During the trial in Newark, only one witness, the Rev. William F. Getman, pastor of Woodstown Presbyterian Church, testified. Getman was a member of the presbytery’s Committee on Preparation for the Ministry that recommended Van Keuren for candidacy.
He said the committee talked with Van Keuren about his sexual orientation and his intentions. “He described himself as an avowed, practicing homosexual, but he indicated that at that time he was not practicing.”
Not eligible for ordination
Getman said the committee told Van Keuren that if he remained insistent on being sexually active as a homosexual he would not be eligible for ordination under the denomination’s “fidelity/chastity” clause, G-6.0106b in the Book of Order, unless the General Assembly changed the standard.
He also said members of the committee suggested alternatives to being ordained as a Presbyterian, including the United Church of Christ, which does ordain practicing homosexuals.
“We were reasonably satisfied that the individual (Van Keuren) understands he was not eligible at that time to become ordained,” Getman said. “Yes, we made that quite clear.”
But Getman said he knew of nothing in the Book of Order that prohibited the presbytery from accepting Van Keuren as a candidate. He said G-6.0106b applies only to persons who are being considered for ordination.
Statement of intention
During cross-examination, Griffith read Van Keuren’s statement from the record – “I intend to participate in a fully sexual way in any future relationship” – and asked Getman what kind of intention Van Keuren had expressed to the committee.
Getman said Van Kuren had “indicated there will be the possibility of a relationship in the future.” Griffith also asked Getman if the committee considered any constitutional documents that might affect its decision. Getman said it had read the “fidelity/chastity” clause and concluded that Van Keuren was at that time chaste in his singleness. “We believe he was in compliance,” Getman said.
“Do you still believe that to be so?” Griffith asked.
“Yes sir,” Getman said.
Final arguments
During summation, John Reisner, who represented the presbytery, said the case was not about Van Keuren or ordination. “It’s about a candidacy,” Reisner said. Nothing in the constitution specifically forbids a presbytery from accepting a practicing homosexual as a candidate for the ministry.
Reisner said he did not believe the complainants had met the burden of proof required to show that accepting a self-affirmed, practicing homosexual as a candidate for ordination violated the constitution of the PCUSA.
“We too agree it is not a case about Graham Van Keuren,” said Griffith. “But we cannot lower the standards of the Constitution to accommodate this candidate. What if he had gotten up and said, ‘I’m not going to ordain women or I’m not going to ordain blacks’?
“If he had said, ‘I’m going to be celibate,’ we wouldn’t be here. But he said, ‘I’m going to do it my way.'”
Griffith said the Book of Order is “a document for all of us, not just some of us. That’s why the complaint against the West Jersey Presbytery has to be sustained.”