![[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
Oddly, neither did Jesus it appears. He didn't choose a woman as a Disciple despite the fact he was the Son Of God and could do anything he wanted.
Sorry, Appy. You're a good guy......but I'm leaving this thread now, for my own spiritual health, so I won't be back for your reply.
I'm sure there are some out there but all the ones I have met have a shallow faith they can't defend. My humble opinion of course.
Sorry you won't be here because I'm fixin to be brilliant. I'm always brilliant when people ain't around.
I'm a former atheist. I tend to be skeptical and use reason and logic. I can only conclude it means exactly what it says because it backs previous data and is reinforced by later data. He should be married and not divorced. I see no wiggle room in there. The fact we don't like it IMHO proves its interpretation. When Scripture makes us uncomfortable, it is usually spot on.
As I said, you, in two consecutive posts, negated any argument you might have made by your assumptions about how God was leading my husband and me, and your aberrant, bizarre jump to homosexual sin from my being an elder.
Even when I AGREE with you, Motherbear (like I did on that bikini thread, and on other issues), I find your condescension offensive, and decidedly lacking in Christian humility.
Most people on FR can disagree with respect for the other person. Until I see that in you, I will avoid discussions with you.
The irony is that I probably agree with you on 95% of what you believe, but you're too arrogant to see it.
Another reason to avoid you. You talk behind people's backs, Motherbear, and continue your arrogance.
Next time you talk about me, please ping me out of politeness, even if it goes against type.
I know Scripture, Appy. I know it well. I also know that common interpretations, even my own, can be wrong. Motherbear doesn't.
Praise the Lord that you have come to Him from atheism! Make sure you seek out truth in more than one framework. Some who claim to know it all, have stopped looking for truth, because they think they have a corner on it.
Uhhh....I would bet the bank on that. PCUSA CHANGED their official Bibles to remove the part in Timothy where it mentions "Husband of one wife". Why? Because it goes against their beliefs.
I'm not jumping on you per se. Just on the belief of women's ordination. The ONLY reason I can find for it is self-serving. If you want to believe in it for purely social reasons, fine. No problem. No different from Campaign Finance Reform IMHO. It may go against the Constitution but people are willing to wave that off to get what they want. It only bothers me (and you I think) when people say "The Scripture is against it so I'll just change the Scripture to suit me". There's no need for that. It's not unChristian to believe in women's ordination but it is unChristian to change Scripture to suit your beliefs. We shouldn't be tempted by the greater sin. I've been guilty of that many times and it isn't healthy.
I don't ever seek to change or remove Scripture to suit my own position. EVER! The passage in Timothy is clear, but it is also in reference to male elders, so saying anything but "Husband of one wife" to talk about marital fidelity would have been nonsensical to those to whom it was written. As I said before, that, in and of itself, does not make the case that elders can never be women.
What I am saying is that there are absolute truths in Scripture, and there are also cultural directives, that need to be interpreted in cultural context, and we need to be very careful about how we understand them (after studying them with the understanding that God's word is inerrant).
For instance, the passage in 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, where Paul says that women should be silent in church (preceded by "God is a God, not of disorder, but of peace") specifically refered to the women of Corinth who were behaving inappropriately in church. That passage has been interpreted (incorrectly, IMO) to mean that only men should speak, pray, teach or talk in church. When I was young (in the 50's), it was a common interpretation that women shouldn't say a word in church, yet the Quakers in the 19th century had women lay pastors, and my own VERY conservative denomination had had women pastors during the Depression, but would NEVER have done so in the '50's or beyond. Different well meaning Christians interpret these passages very differently....... and what we need to do as believers is to delve deep to see what they really mean, and not just look at the surface. This is true of any area of faith.....like pre-destination, election, eternal security, works, sanctification, holiness, prophesy.....everything.
I seriously urge you, if you are a young Christian to be wary of those who claim to know what everything in Scripture means, down to the punctuation marks. They have stopped asking questions, of themselves, and of the Lord as to what His Word means, and that, IMO, is dangerous. There are far too many of those folks on FR.
Could not have said it better.
But I accepted in OBEDIENCE to God. Be careful of your judgements.
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.