Church tosses defiant minister: He refused to stop performing gay marriages

The Cincinnati Enquirer ^ | Tuesday, June 17, 2003 | Andrea Uhde

[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.

(Mike Simons photo)
| ZOOM |

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

[Jhoffa_]

Where in the bible does it say women must be subservient to men? Or that they should have no say in religion?

It says they aren't supposed to teach men and are to remain silent in church..

PS: If you want to get mad at God, that's fine.. go right ahead, because it's his book.

You shouldn't take it out on the church though, they are just reading and obeying it.

[ohioWfan]

Well, at least you now admit that you're in denial. I've never been in denial my whole life......never. :o)

Have a nice day!

[AppyPappy]

I think you need to dig deeper beyond what it seems to say, to see what it means. All Bible students (myself included) need to do this always.

Once again, if that is the case, where have you seen Scriptural evidence to the contrary? I hate to be repetitive but I have seen no evidence presented that would lead to any other conclusion. All I can tell is that people don't like the verse because it is unpopular. Have you done the digging?

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.

If thy eye causes thee to sin, pluck it out. Better to lose an eye than a soul.

[AppyPappy]

Please read before posting. The PCA does not ordain women. The PCUSA does (and requires it)

[Lady Eileen]

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.

I think there is a need for clarification. Mother Bear believes it is wrong for all women, whether they feel so called or not, to become pastors in church because it is against God's preceptive will, which is God's revealed law or commandments.

OhioWfan takes personal offense at Mother Bear's claim, because OhioWfan thinks Mother Bear is speaking of God's secret Sovereign decretive will, the will by which God brings to pass whatsoever he decrees in our lives. We don't know what this is until it happens.

But Mother Bear does have a right to speak about the former kind of will as applied to other people because God does not contradict himself. He never calls people to sin. So he never calls individual women to be pastors or elders in his church after telling all woman to "be silent" in church, that they can't "teach or have authority over" men.

This is Mother Bear's point and it is well taken. It is a direct application of Scripture and not an assumption.

BTW, more information on the different meanings of the will of God may be found on pp. 67-69 of RC Sproul's Essential Truths of the Christian Faith.

[Mark17]

I would say that it is not at all difficult to submit to a man who is submitting to Jesus, even when you're not particularly submissive by nature. :o)

And this is the way it should be. A man is not to lord it over his wife, and, as you say, a woman should have no trouble submitting to a man who is submitting to the Lord, and also, she should not have trouble submitting to a man who loves the ground she walks on.

[ohioWfan]

I have already talked about the difference between things that are cultural and universal in Scripture. (For example, I don't see many women in Christian cultures wearing veils).

My point is that, unless you understand the meaning of Scripture, by delving into the culture, the words in the original tonge, and a host of other things, the words themselves can be misinterpreted.

Read Amos 4:4. It says, "Go to Bethel and transgress." I went to one of the Bethel colleges in this country, and we all laughed at the literal interpretation of that verse.

All I am saying, Appy, is what I have said all along. Be careful of how you look at people......Christians, who have studied God's Word......who have drawn other conclusions than you have.

As to other Scriptures that show the cultural side of that passage in Corinthians, all one has to do is look in the book of Acts, at all the women who were active and speaking in other churches.

That's all I have to say. Thanks for your respectful replies Appy.

[Lady Eileen]

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.

Women may speak in church buildings. They may even teach in them. But women may not teach men or have authority over them. And they have not, before the modern feminist era. That's the historic record.

The Bible is also consistent on this point. If you read the two passages I quoted above together, you can see that the principle of silence applies to women teaching men in worship services, Sunday School, etc. not to making no sound at all in church buildings.

Here is another Scripture on point: Titus 2:3-5:

Older women...are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderous or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, homemakers, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

Men's business includes leading the church. Women are called to other things, as this passage in Titus makes abundantly clear. In fact, as this passage says, one reason that the word of God is not respected today is that women have left their homes and their duties therein to dispute with men and do the work of men. We must repent and return to our God-ordained labors that his word will no longer be reviled.

[ohioWfan]

Before you clarify, Eileen, make sure you have the facts straight. You are incorrect about what have said, and do not accurately reflect what I believe. I have not said that women should be ordained. I have said that women should not be kept from church leadership in any regard because of the verse "Husband of one wife," and that there is much Biblical evidence that God has used, and will use women in church leadership.

I'm also not one bit offended by Motherbear's Scriptural position. I have members of my family who strongly agree with her.

I am bothered by her (repeated) assumption that those who disagree with her are ignorant of Scripture, and merely imaginining that God is leading in their lives.

Please go back and reread the thread, both of you. You might be surprised by the erroneous conclusions you've drawn.

I didn't really want to get into this, since the purpose of the thread was supposed to be about ordaining gays.....and now I will take my leave.......

[AppyPappy]

That's a mighty slippery slope you have there, maam. Since I didn't write the Scripture, I cannot guess the writer's intent. All I can do is read it. We are all capable of rejecting Scripture in favor of our own "feelings". I do it enough.

Let me ask this. What if you were to remain silent in church. What if you were to refuse to teach men. And refused to be ordained. My mother-in-law followed this religiously (yuk) and she was a member of a PCUSA church. She taught 4th grade Sunday School. She seemed pretty happy with it.

[ohioWfan]

I'm not on a slippery slope, Appy. I'm on the Solid Rock.....Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior, and I pray that you are too.

It's been nice talking with you.

[HatSteel]

There are baptist churches that are also this far gone.

Whatever the denomination, the issue is "what does the specific church that I attend practice?"

If a denomination, then don't send money to the higher-ups who allow such apostasy to exist. Continue supporting your local church as long as it does what's right.

Proclaim the good news so souls will be added to the kingdom. They will die out. We will grow.

[HatSteel]

A church with such a reputation will attract like-minded people.

[Gamecock]

knowing that all church leaders in the early church were male of cultural necessity

And yet Jesus didn't worry about shaking up other cutural norms of the day. Why would he be worried about maintaining this "norm" unless it was his plan?

<><

[irishtenor]

My post #56 gives two verses for her to argue. Very terse, no abiguity.

[irishtenor]

It wasn't the PCA. They do not allow women to be elders. Period.

[ohioWfan]

I'm not arguing the point on this thread any more, Gamecock.

I'll just use Scripture, prayer and the Holy Spirit's guidance to lead me on this subject.

I know that there are profound differences of opinion on what the troublesome passages on women actually mean (i.e. interpretations) by loving students of God's Word, but I prefer not to be insulted and accused of not knowing Scripture when I do, or of having some self-serving motivation for distorting Scripture when I don't.

You can think of me what you wish. I am a mature Christian woman, submissive wife, (stay at home) mother of four grown children who are living for the Lord, have been involved in evangelical churches since birth, believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, have been in music ministry for many years, never rebelled against God, am NOT influenced by feminism, have a solid sense of my worth through the blood of Jesus Christ, yet know that I am unworthy because of my sin. And I have come to another conclusion about how God will use women in these last days than you, and some of the other (less pleasant) folks on this thread.

I prefer to discuss these things with people who are open to growth, to the possibility that they don't already have all the answers and know Scripture better than anyone else in the world, and belittle others who don't interpret every word exactly as they do.

You ask a legitimate question in your post, and I'd love to discuss it with you, somewhere else, assuming you could do it politely. (I'm not going back on this thread to see if you're one of the 'I have all the answers, and you're stupid' types).

So, excuse me if I don't reply specifically to your question. I have what I consider a valid interpretation of it different from yours, but I'm not sure you're interested, and I definitely don't want to risk more insults from others.

[ohioWfan]

One more point while I'm here, appy.

If you truly believe that studying Scripture by finding out the meaning of words in the original language and understanding the cultural context......that is finding out what it really means....... is a 'slippery slope,' it would be wise for you to reevaluate what you've been told.

The only way we can grow in Christ is to seriously study God's word, to dig deep.......and sometimes that means realizing it means something other than what you might THINK it means just by looking at the surface.

We are admonished to STUDY the Word, appy......not just look at it and guess what it means.

[AppyPappy]

Once again, instead of using data to support your argument, you merely deflect the argument by claiming I haven't studied enough i.e. I haven't reached your same conclusion. The problem is not that I need to study enough to reach your conclusion. As best I can tell, YOU don't even know why you reached that conclusion.

In short, we have a clear piece of Scripture that is so compelling, we must deem it ambiguous to save ourselves.