Parker T. Williamson
editor-in-chief
Church leaders in Jesus’ day who purported to possess
authority had none and the people instinctively knew it. Scripture says
the crowds were amazed at Jesus’ teaching “because he taught
as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.”
(Matt. 7:28)
There was something about the Scribes and Pharisees’ words that did
not ring true with the people who heard them. It wasn’t that these
officials lacked credentials. They were, after all, certified by the
Sanhedrin. But diplomas, mortar boards and titles do not, in themselves,
validate authority.
Authority is derivative. When Jesus taught the Word of God, those who
heard him recognized that he was intimately related to its source. He
who spoke God’s Word was God’s Word. That connection gave his
words authority.
The stated clerk of the Presbyterian Church (USA) may be wondering why
he and other ecclesiastical officials were spurned when they sought to
advise the White House on what to do about Iraq. Their anti-war media
campaign produced a spotty audience – little more than an
appearance on Larry King Live, a clip for
60 Minutes and a bit
of hype from Hollywood. They were never taken seriously by those who
bear the responsibility for forging public policy. Why? Because
impassioned clerics and show business personalities are not generally
regarded as persons who speak with authority.
On what grounds would Kirkpatrick advise the president of the United
States? To put it another way – since authority is derivative –
what was the source of his words? If he presumed to speak for God, the
evidence of this special revelation was hardly self-evident. If he
purported to speak for Scripture, what texts sustained his proffered
policies regarding Iraq? And if he professed to speak for the church,
what poll among its members validated such a claim and what General
Assembly action authorized it?
The fact of the matter is that Kirkpatrick, Elenora Giddings Ivory, the
denomination’s chief Washington lobbyist, and the host of church
bureaucrats who inhabit an increasingly irrelevant denominational bunker
speak only for themselves. They cite no substance from which their words
can derive a legitimate claim to authority.
Washington senses this void in our church leaders’ pronouncements,
as did the crowds centuries ago when Scribes and Pharisees made such
claims. Thus, government officials accord scant notice to positions
promoted by denominational lobbyists. We saw an example of this recently
when, despite intense pro-abortion lobbying by Presbyterian Church (USA)
officials, 11 of 13 Presbyterians in the U.S. Senate voted to ban
partial birth abortion, which the 2002 General Assembly sanctioned.
There is one source from which Kirkpatrick could derive substantial
authority: The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA). To the
degree that the stated clerk articulates, defends and preserves his
denomination’s constitution, he can anchor his words and work in a
bedrock of authority. But, ironically, in this – his primary task –
he has uttered hardly a whisper.
By a huge majority, the people of this denomination have affirmed and
re-affirmed the standards to which our leaders must conform. But the
stated clerk refuses to enforce those standards, saying that the church
is not of one mind on such matters. In so doing, he has cut himself off
from the Constitution, and thereby severed the only basis for his claim
to speak with authority.
Rootless rhetoric produces hollow words. Who will listen to them?
Parker T. Williamson is editor-in-chief of The Layman.