![[img]](http://enquirer.com/editions/2003/06/17/church_zoom.jpg)
Kyla Ford and Eryn Robinson, both 7 and of Anderson Township, hold a sign in support of Rev. Stephen Van Kuiken at Lakeside Presbyterian Church Monday.
(Mike Simons photo)
| ZOOM |
Posted on 06/17/2003 5:27:26 PM PDT by HatSteel
| Kyla Ford and Eryn Robinson, both 7 and of Anderson Township, hold a sign in support of Rev. Stephen Van Kuiken at Lakeside Presbyterian Church Monday.
|
FORT MITCHELL - The Rev. Stephen Van Kuiken was formally renounced by the Presbytery of Cincinnati on Monday for continuing to perform same-sex marriages.
The action, taken by a voting body made up of minister members and elder commissioners in the Presbytery, means the pastor of the Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church can no longer serve as a minister and loses his church membership.
The vote was 119-45, with four voters abstaining.
"I'm sad, and I'm disappointed," Van Kuiken said after the vote. "This is a sad day. This is an issue that is going to continue to stay at the surface of the Presbyterian Church."
Van Kuiken was unsure of his next action. He said he will take some time to re-evaluate what he will do. He is considering filing a complaint with the Synod of the Presbyterian Church USA, claiming his due process rights were violated because he had an appeal pending on an earlier rebuke.
"It's important for me to be true to myself and be true to what my beliefs are about God," he said.
Van Kuiken's case has been closely watched across the country as Presbyterians - who also ban gay clergy - and other faiths continue to debate the roles of gays and lesbians in the church.
In the denomination's first ecclesiastical trial on the issue, Van Kuiken was found guilty in April of marrying gays and lesbians. He was given a public rebuke and told not to do it again. He wed two women on May 17.
The voting body met at the Lakeside Presbyterian Church in Fort Mitchell after a vigil supporting Van Kuiken.
"I just think it was unavoidable," said Howard Smith, one of the voters in favor of the renunciation. "His actions made the action necessary by the Presbytery unless they want to totally disregard the (church) constitution."
A number of members of Mount Auburn Presbyterian attended Monday's vote and the vigil.
"I think it's a travesty what they're doing," said Terrell Lackey. "Being a gay man and a black man, too, I can't believe the world is still the way it is. Cincinnati is sad."
About one-third of the 280 members of the Mount Auburn church are gay.
This is the first time the Presbytery of Cincinnati has removed a minister for performing same-sex marriages, and possibly the first case in any Presbytery nationwide.
Presbyteries don't have to report such cases to the Presbyterian Church USA, but the organization isn't aware of others, said Laurie Griffith, manager of judicial process and social witness at the Presbyterian Church USA in Louisville.
Van Kuiken's rebuke in April was the lightest of possible punishments.
He also faces accusations, including blasphemy, from a California lawyer who filed the original complaints against him.
Van Kuiken could become a church member again, but he would have to restart the process if he wants to be a minister again, said the Rev. Melissa Bane Sevier, Presbytery moderator.
---
E-mail auhde@enquirer.com
You don't respect me.....that's abundantly clear, and I've lost quite a bit of respect for you because of your condescension toward me on this thread.
I think it's best if we leave this subject alone.
Hmmmm..... you can't seem to help your patronizing.
I studied Scripture FIRST.....I have been a Christian since 1956, have been involved in Bible study and prayer, have studied Scripture at a Christian college, and been involved in this same debate among Christian scholars in the 1970's. I became a moderate (though always Christian) feminist in my twenties, and backed off as I matured, but still maintained the respect for women in the eyes of God that was/is missing in so many fundamentalist churches.
I have looked at Scripture anew, and still disagree with your interpretation.
Therefore, you must conclude that every woman who has opened her mouth for any reason (in a worship service, or a meeting, that is) inside a church has sinned, and that all churches who allow it are also in sin.
(1) Esther's authority was 100% derivative of her husband's and extended only to the extent of his permission and over his kingdom, just as a wife's authority is absolute under her husband's in their own home.
Thus Esther is a not a model for women pastors in church, which is a different kind of government.
(2) At first glance, Deborah is a more plausible model for would-be women pastors. She led Israel, not a pagan country, and her authority was not derived from her husband. It was God's will for her to serve as she did. But those who think Deborah is a model for women who want to lead in church today overlook or ignore Scriptures that clarify the unique nature and purpose of God's elevation of Deborah to leadership over Israel.
God raised Deborah, a woman, to lead Israel at that time in large part to judge the men of Israel for their cowardice. She mocks Barak for refusing to lead Israel into battle because he wanted to hide behind the skirts of a woman. [Judges 4:8-9]
That point is also clear from Isaiah chapter 3, which is a judgment on Judah and Jerusalem. Part of God's judgment is that children and women will rule over the weak men: "My people -- infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your guides mislead you..." [Isaiah 3:12]
Some things don't change: today, thousands of years later, feminist guides still mislead many, including many well-intentioned Christians in the church. The fact that they're succeeding is evidence of God's judgment on this generation.
Yes I believe that because that is what it says. My question to you is "What leads you to a contrary position to that Scripture?".
Therefore, you must conclude....
Ever heard of a "strawman argument"?
But I do NOT have the faults that YOU have ascribed to me on this thread, so it would be a lie to 'admit' them......and I will state again, that you are on dangerous ground by assuming you know what God's will is for another person, unless it is involving sin. Dangerous ground.
To assume that one who comes to a different conclusion about the role of women has been misled by feminists is a mistake.
Thank you very much. But I really must credit God's word for telling me to ask my husband at home and my husband for helping me find the answer in Scripture rather than seeking wisdom in human imagination or experience.
Pardon the 'strawman' conclusion, but what other conclusion can one draw? If people through the centuries have allowed women to speak in church, and it is opposed to what Scripture says, then they are in sin.
You said you agreed with me as a feminist, but now that you have studied Scripture you now disagree.
You have consistently said or implied that I don't know Scripture, and that you do. If that is not public 'correction and reproof' what is?
So, regardless of your very strong opinions to the contrary, I will continue to seek and do God's will for my life and learn more about His Word....... and I pray that you do the same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.