Why Mt. Auburn should remain non-compliant
The Layman Online, October 30, 2002
The following is a letter dated Oct. 27 that the Rev. A. Stephen Van Kuiken sent to members of his congregation, Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati. He urged them to continue to defy the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA). The title above the letter is “Why Mt. Auburn should remain non-compliant.”
The Editors
Oct. 27, 2002
“I think that our faith calls us to continue to openly disobey our denomination’s current law regardless of the consequences.”
Stephen Van Kuiken in letter to members of Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church You may be aware that Mt. Auburn Presbyterian Church is in the midst of a dialogue as the Session considers how it will proceed in light of challenges facing us and our role in the Presbyterian Church (USA). Input from the congregation is a very important part of this process of discernment, and I urge members to use opportunities to share their views in writing or in discussion. The Session wants to hear from you.
It is in the spirit of this dialogue that I share some of my thoughts here. We may not all agree, but this should not prevent us from sharing our views openly, honestly and respectfully.
The heart of the issue is whether we should change or modify our policy, “Dissent and Non-Compliance to G-6.0106b.” My own position is that we should not change this policy. It is excellent the way it is.
How We Got Our Current Policy
Our current policy of non-compliance was the result of a deliberate, thorough and fair process that was called, “Where Do We Go From Here?”
About three months after I became the Pastor, the Session began a six-month process that involved the entire congregation. There were special mailings, position papers, letters, forums and discussion groups.
We considered recent non-compliance statements issued by other congregations and were well aware that we were on the brink of something new. There were frank discussions of the possible consequences for putting ourselves a little more “out there.” Yet we were willing to risk charges against us and even our possible expulsion from the P.C. (USA).
As part of this earlier process, I shared my views with the congregation in a letter dated, July 14, 2000. Here is part of that letter:
The question is how explicit and actively open we want to be. Jack Harrison proposed the following scenario:
If a person stood before the Session and stated “I am a self avowed, sexually active, gay or lesbian person who accepts the call to leadership in this congregation, but only if done openly and with full knowledge of the Session and the Presbytery.”
Personally, I would support this. This is much clearer than “counsel[ing] our nominating committees to ignore Amendment B.” And even though this would probably increase the chances of a complaint and/or disciplinary action against us, I would still support it.
So in November of 2000 the Session adopted a new statement that included significant changes from an earlier one in 1997. First, this new policy directly and clearly opposes and challenges an unjust law in our Constitution:
The Session declares that, in practice, the Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church has not and cannot comply with G-6.0106b of the Book of Order.
We not only say “yes” to being inclusive, but we say “no” to an unjust law and declare our disobedience to it. Second, the new policy states,
Upon examination of candidates for ordination, the Session will not ask onerous questions implied by G-6.0106b. The Session, however, is open to any voluntary statements from candidates.
The Session has, in fact, received such statements, recorded them in the minutes and approved the candidates for ordination in order to openly and clearly demonstrate our non-compliance. These were significant steps to a more bold and open witness.
When we shared the new policy with the congregation, the response was overwhelmingly supportive. It was read on the following Sunday to rousing applause. About 14 months later, the Session unanimously reaffirmed it on February 27, 2002, changing only the title to “Statement of Dissent and Non-Compliance to G-6.0106b.”
This policy was legitimately adopted and affirmed, and it still remains our most recent and a current policy of this church. The Session, of course, has the prerogative to change or modify it, as it wishes. This is how the Presbyterian system works. Personally, I think that it is good and that open non-compliance is still the right path for MAPC.
Best Strategy to Transform the PC (USA)
As Christians, individually and collectively, our basic goal is to be faithful to God. The root question is, “How shall we be faithful? What is our faith calling us to do?” There are many answers to this question.
Many would agree, for example, that our faith calls MAPC to help our denomination become more accepting and affirming of gay and lesbian persons. There are many ways that Mt. Auburn was worked to transform the PC (USA). We have sent teams to other congregations to educate and soften hearts. We have participated in the political process of overtures and amendments. We have gone about the business of being a strong and vibrant community.
Yet, I know of no successful movement for social transformation that did not have some people on “the point.” There have always been those who were willing to stand up to structures of oppression, even at great personal cost. The image comes to mind of those willing to face the police, the fire hoses and the dogs in the civil rights movement. Those who sat at the lunch counters in Nashville, TN were essential to the movement because they helped reveal the ugliness of and unjust law to others, and they galvanized support.
By maintaining our open non-compliance with an unjust law and by willingly accepting the consequences for this, we help reveal the true ugliness of this law to the mainstream Presbyterians, changing their hearts and minds.
Not only does this raise a needed awareness in the broad church, but also this witness provides inspiration, encouragement and hope to many others. Many have expressed their gratitude for our bold and courageous actions. Sometimes the effects of this strategy are hard to measure, but I would assert that it is absolutely crucial and essential to the overall movement.
Is this the only good strategy and faithful response? Of course not. The movement and even this congregation need many complementary approaches. But I believe that a handful of congregations, including MAPC, have been called to this approach. If we don’t do it, who will?
If we change or modify our position now, it could severely damage the witness and proclamation we are making in the broader church. It may be perceived as “backing off” or a “loss of nerve” by others, who have respected our resolve and determination. If there ever is the time to change it, now is not the time. The credibility of our witness is at stake, I believe. Now that the accusations have been filed and the Administrative Commission has been established, we’ve passed the point of reconsideration.
I also believe that our bold and prophetic voice is more important in the denomination now more than ever. The recent overwhelming defeat of Amendment A is a striking indicator that we cannot afford to back off. Amendment A would have removed G-60106b from our Constitution, but this was turned back by the largest margin ever. We are in danger of losing our momentum to transform our denomination toward justice without those on the point.
A Matter of Conscience
Being faithful extends beyond measurable goals and effects. Even if our open non-compliance were not the most effective strategy to transform the PC (USA), I would say that there are still even more compelling reasons to remain non-compliant.
First, I believe that it is the most truthful approach for MAPC. Certainly we can respectfully disagree about what is our most truthful response as a church. How else are we able to discern what our most truthful response shall be? We can debate this without questioning each other’s motives. But this is, perhaps, the most important question, because the life of faith calls us to be truthful regardless of the effects.
As I stated in an earlier sermon, “Honest Speech,” I believe that our statement of open non-compliance is wonderfully true and clear. We’ve said that G-6.0106b is “not Christ-like, not Scriptural, not Reformed and not Presbyterian.” It is, in other words, wrong. And we are also aware that we have been and continue to be disobedient to this law in order to be obedient to God. Saying that we will absolutely “not comply” under any circumstances states our message simply and honestly, I believe. It describes the essence and heart of the issue.
Second, we have an ethical obligation to directly challenge this law. Again, we can honestly differ in our views of what is the more or less ethical response without implying that those who disagree are themselves less ethical. My point is that this question is unavoidable; the Session must discern the most ethical response for itself and the church. In other words, let’s discuss these different views while we assume that everyone is equally truthful and ethical.
Our current policy says that it’s not enough for us just to be inclusive. We also recognize that G-6.0106b hurts people and exerts a level of violence and fear throughout the church. If we cooperate in any way with this unjust law, then we, too, bear some responsibility for the violence that it inflicts. This is why I say we have an ethical obligation to not cooperate and to directly challenge the law itself.
South Presbyterian Church in Dobbs Ferry, New York approaches its own policy of open non-compliance from this ethical perspective. Here’s part of their statement issued on August 6, 2002:
- It is our position that the refusal to follow G-6.0106b and allow the inclusion of LGBT folk in the full work and worship of our church can be debated no more than one’s God-given right to breathe. The courts and debates have been used by too many to harbor ongoing pain, while maintaining the status quo. We adamantly refuse to be complicit in such a strategy.
I believe that our policy of dissent and non-compliance reflects such a position of conscience, and that this is what God has called us to do. In taking this position, we have become conscientious objectors to a cruel provision in our Constitution. I think that our faith calls us to continue to openly disobey our denomination’s current law regardless of the consequences. And in so doing, we are making a powerful and prophetic witness.
Again, these are some of my personal thoughts. I simply add my voice to the other voices that have spoken and will speak in our dialogue. And in this process I pray that, together, we will be able to hear the voice of God’s Spirit whispering in our ear.
May God bless us in our journey of continual discernment and faithful action.
Grace and Peace,
Steve Van Kuiken
October 27, 2002