Committee approves proposed GA guidance for renunciation cases
By John H. Adams, The Layman Online, June 29, 2004
2004 General Assembly
Richmond, Virginia
June 26-July 3, 2004
General Assembly news indexRICHMOND, Va. – A committee of the General Assembly has called on the national governing body of the Presbyterian Church (USA) to approve an authoritative interpretation that would require presbyteries to follow a constitutional process before declaring that a minister had renounced the jurisdiction of the denomination.
Such a declaration is the final dissolution of the denomination’s relationship with someone who has been accused of violating the constitution. It is tantamount to excommunication.
The Committee on Church Orders and Ministry voted 65-0 Monday morning in favor of the proposed authoritative interpretation, which was submitted by the Advisory Committee on the Constitution in response to questions raised about the Presbytery of Cincinnati’s ouster of A. Stephen Van Kuiken as pastor of Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati.
Van Kuiken had repeatedly and openly defied Presbyterian law forbidding ministers from performing same-sex marriages – even after he was reprimanded publicly by the synod’s Permanent Judicial Commission. Following that post-reprimand marriage, the Presbyery of Cincinnati declared that he had renounced the jurisdiction of the denomination.
Later, the point became moot, because Van Kuiken started an independent congregation in Cincinnati that includes several former members of his Mount Auburn congregation.
But the Advisory Committee on the Constitution said, in effect, that the Presbytery of Cincinnati acted too hastily and without due process. It recommended that the 216th General Assembly spell out the requirements through an authoritative interpretation. If the commissioners approve the proposal, it will become church law unless countermanded by a decision of the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission or an amendment to the constitution.
The Advisory Committee on the Constitution said, “Renunciation of jurisdiction, and its consequent loss of standing as a member and officer of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), is one of the most serious actions that can occur under the Constitution. Therefore, it is critical that a person be afforded due process and be given every opportunity to be heard before removal from office or membership. If one is going to be presumed to have renounced jurisdiction because of persisting in disapproved work following consultation and notice, that presumption can be made only if the work is engaged in after the disapproval of the work and if it is persisted in following a warning of the consequences. In addition, there must not be confusion between engaging in disapproved work and engaging in behavior, which would more properly be subject to a disciplinary case.”
The following is the text of its proposed authoritative interpretation:
“1. In order to presume that an officer has renounced the jurisdiction of this church under G-6.0502, a governing body must follow the following procedure:
“a. The governing body must disapprove the work of the officer (Wilson v. Presbytery of Donegal, Remedial Case 206-8, Minutes, 1994, Part I, p. 149, 11.091).
“b. The governing body must notify the officer that it has disapproved his/her work and that he/she is prohibited from engaging in such work as an officer of the church (Stimage-Norwood v. Presbytery of Southern New England, Remedial Case 214-7, Minutes, 2002, Part I, p. 344).
“c. If the officer engages in the prohibited work after the notice of disapproval and prohibition, the governing body must consult with the officer and notify him/her of the consequences of his/her action, i.e., that his/her persisting in the work may result in a presumption of renunciation of jurisdiction.
“d. If the officer persists in the prohibited work after such consultation and notice, the governing body may presume that he/she has renounced the jurisdiction of the church. If the governing body so determines, it shall notify the officer of its decision.
“e. The officer has the right to challenge the governing body’s determination and to speak on the floor of the governing body in so doing. He/she also has the right to file a remedial case challenging the governing body’s determination of renunciation (D-6.0100).
“2. The term ‘work disapproved by the governing body’ relates to the exercise of the vocation of a minister of the Word and Sacrament or the official conduct of church business for which a deacon or elder was elected. It does not relate to particular acts of ministry, or to behavior, that might be considered an offense under the Constitution (D-2.0203). One can be presumed to have renounced jurisdiction because of persisting in disapproved work following consultation and notice, only if the work is engaged in after the disapproval of the work and if it is persisted in following a warning of the consequences.”