Presbytery shuns disciplinary action in Mount Auburn case
The Layman Online, Posted Wednesday, May 15, 2002
Background documents
Mount Auburn statement of dissent from G-6.0106b, the “fidelity/chastity” ordination standard in the Book of Order.
Mount Auburn dissent from constitutional prohibition against same-gender “marriages.”
Madeira-Silverwood overture asking presbytery to compel Mount Auburn to recant its statement of dissent.
Letter from presbytery executive calling for appointment of administrative commission.
(Click cancel in identification box to get to document.)
Mount Auburn overture asking Presbytery of Cincinnati to affirm its defiance of the constitution.
(Click cancel in identification box to get to document.)
The Presbytery of Cincinnati has decided to deal administratively with the pastor and elders of Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church and not to immediately compel them to end their decades-long defiance of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
After more than an hour of debate before an audience of 550 people, the presbytery voted 124-79 on May 14 to have an administrative commission consider what steps should be taken in the aftermath of Mount Auburn’s declaration that it has defied and will defy the “fidelity/chastity” ordination standard in the Book of Order.
In addition, the Mount Auburn session has declared, again in defiance of the denomination’s constitution, that the church authorizes and conducts services for the “marriage” of same-sex couples and that it opens its communion table to non-Christians.
The administrative commission, which will be appointed and given its charge in July, will consider two overtures: one from Madeira-Silverwood Presbyterian Church giving Mount Auburn a 30-day deadline to recant its statement of dissent; the other from Mount Auburn essentially asking the presbytery not to enforce the constitution.
Mount Auburn leaders have had long-standing disagreements with the denomination and the Presbytery of Cincinnati over constitutional issues, one dating back to 1991, but they have always managed to escape disciplinary consequences.
The Madeira-Silverwood overture would call the Mount Auburn leaders into account if they refused to rescind their declaration of non-compliance. The overture suggests that the next step would be to declare that the pastor and elders had renounced the jurisdiction of the Presbyterian Church (USA) – which is tantamount to what other Christian denominations call ex-communication.
The pastors and session of Madeira-Silverwood asked the commissioners to approve their overture during the presbytery’s meeting, which was held at Madeira-Silverwood. But the commissioners acted only on the presbytery’s council recommendation to deal with the matter administratively and issue a report in January 2003.
That schedule buys more time for Mount Auburn’s session and pastors, although they still face ecclesiastical charges filed by a Reston, Va., lawyer who says they have already renounced the jurisdiction of the PCUSA.
Tom Sweets, pastor of Madeira-Silverwood, called his session’s overture “an open and shut case. The deliberate defiance … of the Mount Auburn Church is posted on their web site and contained in the booklets mailed to your sessions. The clerk of our denomination, Clifton Kirkpatrick, has spoken and outlined the ways in which the church is participating in ecclesiastical disobedience.”
Sweet’s presentation traced the history of Mount Auburn’s defiance of the constitution going back to 1991. He quoted from a Mount Auburn Web site document: “We at Mt Auburn clearly understood that our policy might be perceived as ecclesiastical disobedience, but we felt it was the denomination that had the faulty position.”
The Mount Auburn case is one of the key tests of the willingness of presbyteries and other governing bodies to enforce the denomination’s constitution now that 73 percent of the presbyteries in a recent national referendum have affirmed the “fidelity/chastity” ordination standard.
Mount Auburn has promoted its dissent on its Web site and all but dared the presbytery and Kirkpatrick to initiate judicial action against its leaders.
Sweets said Mount Auburn “has dishonored our presbytery by the stance of its officers and its dogmatic determination to create conflict within our bounds.”
He added, “Today we must decide who to demand accountability of. Shall the church in defiance demand accountability of our governing body to understand them more fully? Shall we laden with guilt say, we have not studied enough, agonized enough, been patient enough, tolerated enough and let their body bring charges against us? Or shall we give an ample opportunity of 30 days for the officers to rescind their defiant and schismatic statements or be subject to administrative discipline?”