Most statements from the Presiding Bishop, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, diocesan bishops, and all other clergy have all but no effect. Even instruction on doctrinal matters yield a ho-hum most of the time. Their guidance is dismissed in advance. Issues of war and peace, sexuality, bioethics, economics, and government fall on deaf ears before the ink is dry.
Only traditional statements on certain aspects of human sexuality or rehashes of 19th century beliefs are received eagerly by conservative churchgoers desperate to preserve their status quo.
We live in an age when broad respect must be earned through expertise. A seminary education, even at the doctoral level, does not instill omniscience. Nor does ordination.
Is there an alternative? I believe so.
Contemporary prophetic ministry may be improved, if statements on issues would be prepared by small gatherings of Christians. Working groups would include scholarly specialists, men and women who have practical experience with the topic, and qualified ethicists. Publicized with episcopal involvement as honorary chairpersons (unless a bishop is truly qualified to speak on a particular issue), the prophetic declaration would command respect as no less than worthy counsel. Ideally, policy makers would listen, learn, and implement.
Without true proficiency, we remain ignorable, and our multitude of pronouncements and resolutions will find their use filling file cabinets or stored in "My Documents."
RELATED:
“This White House is certainly not the first Administration to milk religious groups for votes and then boot them unceremoniously back out to pasture. In his days as a notorious ‘hatchet man’ for President Richard M. Nixon, before he had allowed Jesus to transform his life, Chuck Colson used to oversee outreach to the religious community. ‘I arranged special briefings in the Roosevelt Room for religious leaders, ushered wide-eyed denominational leaders into the Oval Office for private sessions with the President,’ Colson later wrote. ‘Of all the groups I dealt with, I found religious leaders the most naive about politics. Maybe that is because so many come from sheltered backgrounds, or perhaps it is the result of a mistaken perception of the demands of Christian charity ... Or, most worrisome of all, they may simply like to be around power.’”
TIME Magazine online Posted Monday, Oct. 16, 2006
“Why a Christian in the White House Felt Betrayed” by David Kuo