Viewpoint
September 13, 2006

Naked ambition
By Jim Yearsley

I read with interest – albeit something like the fascination of observing a train wreck – Mr. Kirkpatrick's recent letter to the stated clerks of the presbyteries, imploring them to stand for his view of the constitution. I am amazed at his chutzpah. Am I the only one who observes his processional walk over the remains of this denomination with the thought that this seems to be "The Emperor's New Clothes" come to life? I wonder if anyone will tell him that he is naked – and embarrassingly so?

Our Stated Clerk has repeatedly pronounced the same mantra over the past eight years. Throughout this period, increasing numbers of gay and lesbian activists have blatantly defied the constitution of this denomination. Whenever anyone would call on him to stand for the constitution, Mr. Stated Clerk would throw his hands in the air and mutter "that's not my job." Really? Then why is it that now, all of a sudden, when his failed leadership has brought us to the lowest levels of peace, unity and purity ever observed in this denomination; now when property and resources are in play; now he suddenly cares about the constitution. The emperor is indeed naked and his partisan ideology is plainly exposed to anyone who cares to look.

What was it he said in his letter? Oh, Yes: "It is this vision that is at the heart of our Constitution. It is why, in part, it is so important for us to remind Presbyterians that faithfulness to the Constitution is critical as we deal with difficult issues in our life together."

Frankly, it would seem to me he has suddenly elevated a concept he previously denied to a level it doesn't deserve. Might I humbly suggest that faithfulness to the Word first, the confessions second and only then (maybe) the constitution might be a better plan?

I'm curious about precisely when he decided that constitutional fealty was critical. It clearly wasn't critical when Mt. Auburn was in defiance. It wasn't critical when Redwoods was in defiance. It wasn't critical when Jane Spahr was in defiance – yet again. It wasn't critical when Janet Edwards was in defiance. It wasn't critical when denominational representatives (including a sitting Moderator) tried to hijack a service of worship in California. It wasn't critical when Baltimore was defiant. But now, when property and control are in play, now the Stated Clerk is interested in standing for the constitution – or at least for the property chapter.

You get the point. All of a sudden, Mr. Kirkpatrick sees himself as a constitutional defender. The Emperors new clothes are truly exposing him for the partisan he is.