Presbytery may decide if it will uphold constitution by disciplining officers
By Craig M. Kibler, The Layman Online, May 6, 2002
An upcoming Presbytery of Cincinnati meeting may determine whether or not the constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) will be upheld and ordained officers of the church who defy that constitution will be disciplined.
The presbytery, at its May 14 meeting, will consider an overture submitted by the Madeira-Silverwood Presbyterian Church that seeks to require the presbytery to “comply with the directives of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission in Londonderry v Presbytery of Northern New England (2000)” by ordering the session of Mt. Auburn Presbyterian Church to “rescind its declaration of intent to disregard a lawfully enacted provision of the PC (USA) Constitution.” The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. at the Madeira-Silverwood Presbyterian Church.
“It’s unusual for a church to say, ‘You need not be in the fellowship I’m in,'” the Rev. Sam Roberson, general presbyter of the Presbytery of Cincinnati, told the Cincinnati Enquirer.
“This is not something we’re going to decide on May 14 for all of Christendom and all of Presbyterians,” Roberson said. “But it is a critical time. What we do or don’t do will be a prime direction for how people are going.”
At the end of February, the session of Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church dared Presbyterian courts and the stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church (USA) to intervene against its ringing dissent from the denomination’s constitution.
In separate statements that were directed to Clifton Kirkpatrick, the PCUSA’s stated clerk, and others, the Mount Auburn session declared:
“… in practice, Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church has not and cannot comply with G-6.0106b of the Book of Order. Further, Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church has ordained and will continue to ordain self-acknowledged gay men and lesbian women who live or have lived in singleness or in committed same-sex partnerships, and has promoted and will continue to promote their full participation in all aspects of church life.”
“That marriage between two persons, man and woman, or a man and a man, or woman and woman, is the same in the eyes of the session of Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church.”
The constitutional standard that prohibits the ordination of self-affirming, practicing homosexuals as ministers, elders and deacons has been affirmed repeatedly – most recently by the defeat of Amendment 01-A by nearly a 3-1 margin of the denomination’s presbyteries.
Kirkpatrick has called it the “law of the church,” but has taken no action against Mount Auburn or other congregations that openly defy the standard. Instead, he responded to Mount Auburn’s statement of dissent by calling it “clearly the result of much prayer and study.” He praised the congregation for welcoming “our Lord’s Gay and Lesbian children; surely they are vital to Mount Auburn’s mission and ministry. Clearly you have answered the call to provide a welcoming place.”
But he added, “Yet I believe two statements in your declaration go beyond the session’s authority.” He cited Mount Auburn’s declaration that it “has not and cannot comply with G-6.0106b,” the fidelity/chastity ordination standard, and the session’s stated criteria to the congregation’s nominating committee for officers to ensure the election of homosexuals.
“The session lacks any authority to in any way instruct the nominating committee,” Kirkpatrick said.
The denomination’s constitution recognizes marriage only as a union between a man and a woman – not two people of the same gender. The denomination’s highest court, in authorizing sessions to approve services to bless same-gender couples, specified that the services must not resemble a marriage or constitute approval of homosexual activity.
The Mount Auburn session even called on the congregation’s nominating committee “to provide fair representation [on its session and diaconate] as well in sexual orientation and in other areas of significant human difference.”
In its statement on marriage, the Mount Auburn session said, ” … we resolve that Christian marriage services be held in our church for homosexual as well as heterosexual couples. Heterosexuals must meet the legal requirements of the state and have a license and meet the general requirements and counsel provided in the Directory of Worship.
“Homosexuals because they cannot receive a license from the State, do not need a license but will meet the age requirement of the State and the requirements and counsel provided in the Directory of Worship. Homosexual couples shall further be counseled in developing what legal safeguards there are available to protect their commitment and the benefits accrued in their mutual life together.
“This statement is to make clear that the Session considers marriage an egalitarian institution of faithful commitments by two persons for mutual love and companionship. Its promise is for an enduring relationship through good and difficult times, in joy and sorrow, sickness and health. It is for intimate friendship, encouragement, counsel and support, and it produces many goods, which may or may not include children. All of these good things can be and are achieved by same-sex couples as well as heterosexual couples.”
It is that defiance against the constitution that the session of Madeira-Silverwood Presbyterian Church is seeking the presbytery to address. In its rationale, the session wrote:
“The Presbytery of Cincinnati first dealt with the Mt. Auburn PC non-compliance on November 10, 1992. By a vote of 162 to 75, the presbytery found the policy of inclusion at Mt. Auburn to be “irregular.” Mt. Auburn was ordered to change the policy and did not. On May 11 of 1993 by a vote of 95-94, the presbytery appointed an administrative commission to “inquire into and resolve” the delinquency. Mt. Auburn PC has posted on their Web site … the following statement: ‘Mt. Auburn delayed the commission by appealing to the Synod and then to the General Assembly that such an Administrative Commission was itself an irregular means of addressing our policy since the main purpose of Administrative Commissions is to resolve problems within a congregation.’ The commission investigated Mt. Auburn PC for nearly a year and concluded that until the constitutional discrepancies on the issue of the inclusiveness of gays and lesbians were resolved by the denomination, no disciplinary action would be taken.
“Constitutional discrepancies are resolved. Now is a time for action. In 1996, our General Assembly placed into our Constitution G6.0106b, clarifying that an officer of the church must be faithful in a marriage between one man and one woman or chaste in singleness. This has since been reaffirmed in 1997 by Amendment A, with 66% of presbyteries voting in favor of retaining G 6.0106b, and in 2002, with 73% of presbyteries voting to retain G 6.0106b. Our denomination is confirming the tradition it has held for its entire existence, a tradition affirmed by definitive guidance in 1978, G 6.0106b in 1996, Amendment A in 1997 and Amendment 01.A in 2001-02. By an overwhelming majority, PCUSA presbyteries have agreed that G-6.0106b is our standard for officers and is in keeping with our historic understanding of both sexual morality and ordination boundaries.
“Since the Presbytery of Cincinnati last visited this issue in 1994, it is clear that the GA PJC supports the constitution in its Londonderry v Presbytery of Northern New England decision. On July 7 of 2000, the GA PJC stated that, “This commission finds that there are no constitutional grounds for a governing body to fail to comply with an express provision of the Constitution, . . . Assertions of inconsistency, confusion, or ambiguity may justify the right to protest. They do not create a right to disregard any part of the Constitution.” (Session of Londonderry Presbyterian Church, et al. v Presbytery of Northern New England [Remedial case 213-2]
“The GA PJC also found that ‘A formal declaration by a governing body whose members have taken the vow ‘[to] be governed by our church’s polity,’ and ‘abide by its discipline,’ not to comply with the express corporate judgment of the Church in an explicit constitutional provision exceeds the constitutional bounds of freedom of conscience and therefore requires a response on the part of the governing body exercising oversight.”
Defiance of church law is at the heart of the overture by Madeira-Silverwood, its pastor, the Rev. Tom Sweets, told the Cincinnati Enquirer.
“The issue is, “Do we live by this constitution or not?'”
His 900-member church is not closed to homosexuals, Sweets said. Still, “We will not call something right, which the Bible calls sin. The whole point of the church is that we’re people caught up in sin, and we need help. And that help comes through Christ.”
The Rev. Stephen Van Kuiken, pastor of the 275-member Mt. Auburn Presbyterian Church of which he said about two-fifths of the elders and deacons are homosexual, says the defiance is a reflection of the church.
“What we’re doing is protecting the precious legacy of the Presbyterian church – the legacy of the freedom and liberty to interpret the Bible,” he told the Cincinnati Enquirer.
In the congregation’s newsletter, Van Kuiken wrote, “The Session of the Madeira church proposed that if we do not comply, that our session and I should be removed from office. They suggest that the presbytery then ‘take such other actions of administrative character,’ presumably taking full control of the church.”
“Although MAPC has maintained its position of dissent to G-6.0106b (the ban on ordination of gay and lesbian persons) since its adoption in 1998, no one has brought action against us until now. It is shocking but not surprising. In 1991 MAPC first adopted a policy of full inclusion of gay and lesbian persons. An Administrative Commission found us to be “irregular” and “delinquent” but also a unified and vital congregation. At that time the presbytery took no further action against MAPC as it awaited more clarification from the larger church on the issue. It appears that moment has now arrived.
“We do not expect that this presbytery will adopt such a harsh and violent response to us, but it will probably act on one of the substitute motions that will be proposed.
“Mount Auburn is prepared for this because we are united in our dedication to justice, fairness and inclusion of all. We will be O.K. Of course, the journey will be difficult. But we will persevere these prevent trials and tribulations because we are together,” Van Kuiken wrote.
Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church began ordaining gays and lesbians in 1991. The church also conducts same-sex union services and is one of the most vocal congregations in the country in support of the inclusion of homosexuals in ministry.
In addition, the leadership says it is openly defying the denomination’s constitution in the manner in which it conducts communion.
Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church practices what is known as “open communion,” in which people who are not baptized – including nonbelievers – are invited to receive the elements. The Book of Order says the elements representing the body and blood of Jesus Christ must be served only to baptized Christians, including Christians from other denominations.
In a final appeal to the Presbytery of Cincinnati, the session of Madeira-Silverwood wrote:
“The GA PJC directs presbyteries to continue to work pastorally with sessions ‘to assist any session which expresses intent to disregard the constitution’ … ‘to assist it in fulfilling it’s obligation to comply with the Constitution.’ Mt. Auburn PC has renewed its assertion that it cannot and will not abide with the constitution. The Presbytery of Cincinnati has been working pastorally with Mt. Auburn PC over the years. It is now time for Mt Auburn PC to actively concur or passively submit to the Constitution of the PCUSA in order that Mt Auburn PC not break fellowship by separating itself from our constitutional unity. We ask with great love for Mt. Auburn PC to not persist in separating itself from the Constitution.”
The session also asked the presbytery to “carefully attend to maintaining constitutional order to preclude arbitrary and unilateral abrogation of whatever part of the constitution that officers or governing bodies may choose to ignore. For if one part of the constitution becomes optional, what would distinguish between that part and any other part of the constitution? A constitution whose provisions are optional is an oxymoron. The Presbytery of Cincinnati puts the church in crisis if it fails to exercise its responsibility to preserve and defend the constitution at this time.”