![[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
I would like to know if it would really make any difference to you if I gave specific data regarding the meaning of that passage? I can, and I will, if you will respond by actually thinking about what I present and replying without the insults. But I will not waste my time if you deflect and distort what I say, and insult me again as you just did.
If you are seriously interested in the data that I have to present another interpretation of Corinthians, I will gladly present it. I'd actually like to see if you are open to another side that is equally Scripturally based, but somehow from your past replies, I don't think honest dialogue and exchange of ideas based on Scripture, are what you're looking for.
If 1 Corinthians 14: 34 means literally that women should never say a word in church (as you have told me you interpret it to mean), then why, in 1 Corinthians 11: 5, does it say that "every woman who prays or prophesies" should do so with her head covered?
How can the women of Corinth be told by Paul that they must pray and prophesy with their heads covered (this was at a church meeting, based on chapter 10), and then be told they cannot pray or prophesy at all?
Same writer, same women, same city, same God....... which passage is wrong if you take them both on a surface only, literal way as you have admonished me that I must do?
No no no. I meant that ignoring clear Scripture in favor of "possible explanations" is a slippery slope. For example, the Bible condemns adultery rather clearly. But a person could say that the Scripture is ambiguous on the matter and justify their behavior.
You do not need my permission to post anything. Please do.
You made that up to support your position.
Now, in the earlier Scripture, Paul said that women should keep silent. Here, he says that if women pray or prophesy, they should do so with the head covered. The difference is the command. Paul does not say "Women should pray or prophesy with their head covered". He says "When women pray or prophesy, they should cover their heads". It doesn't say that women SHOULD speak, it merely gives guidelines to how they should pray or prophesy. It is similar to "Dogs are not allowed. If you must bring in a dog for legitimate purposes, please leash it".
I've got to leave the house for a while.....I'll try to respond to it after I get back.
No more insults, OK? I didn't write out the Scripture because I assumed you had one that you could read for the purpose of discussion.
That should be easy to do as I have never done it before.
If Paul is telling the women of Corinth that they must NOT pray and prophesy without head covering, then there is an obvious assumption that they DO pray and prophesy. (The entire passage in chapter 14 is about order in the service, because the Corinthian women had been rowdy). You have to distort what's in chapter 10 and 11 to come up with your view that the negative approach to the wording means there is no positive. It is totally illogical that Paul would have said it without meaning, and Paul is anything but illogical.
I believe in the errancy of Scripture, and that it can be taken literally, but you apparently deny that there are difficult passages that need more study.
I will repeat for the last time, I am not throwing out any passage, I am not seeking to twist passages to my liking, and I am not coming from a position of feminism or a self-serving I-want-the-Bible-to-say-what-I-want-it-to-say position.
It is pointless to discuss this with you, since you do not have one whit of respect for me.....so much so that you don't even realize how insulting you have been.
I am a student of the Word, and seek to become more of one as a come closer to the time when I see my Savior face to face.
I pray that you will grow in your faith and in the wisdom to know when knowledge and opinion is being used as a tool to hurt fellow believers, and not to glorify God.
I assume you will insult me again, but I don't have time to keep this 'discussion' going. I will pray for you, Appy.
I'm sure they do which is probably why they were told not to speak in church.
I am not insulting you. This is the internet. When in doubt, assume the best.
Just for your thought, and for future reference.......telling a fellow Christian, who is seeking the truth of Scripture that she is 'saving herself' by 'deeming a clear piece of Scripture ambiguous' is an insult. That's only one example of many you leveled at me.
This is the Internet, alright......but it doesn't excuse us as Christians from behaving badly. God knows who we are, even if we don't know each other (I am still giving you the benefit of the doubt that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior).
You and your friends insult and belittle others with a flair because you're so sure you've got the answers all wrapped us, and have nothing to learn....... and then you deny that you've done it.
I will avoid you all in the future. There are hundreds of followers of Jesus Christ on this forum who are actually following the model of Christ's love and humility, and can engage in discussions of Scripture and morality without using Scripture to make themselves feel superior. I'll just hang around with them, and stay away from you, thanks.
I respect your Scriptural position. I have from the beginning. If I didn't, I wouldn't respect either my father's or my son's views, and I do.
You have accused me of throwing out Scripture to please myself, of being on a slippery slope, and of any number of other things that are not only wrong, but insulting.
At least be honest with yourself and admit it. I'm not easily offended, and I'm a big girl, and know how totally off the charts wrong your posts about me have been.
Just keep it in mind in the future. Someone else you insult MIGHT be hurt by it. Someone MIGHT be turned away from the Lord because of being insulted by know it alls. Take the blinders off your eyes.
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.