 Speaking with authority  The Layman Volume 36, Number 2, Posted April 21, 2003
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. |
||
| Respond
to this article Previous columns by Parker T. Williamson Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
||
