Paisley's accidental ecumenism
Today's London Times picks up on our Sunday Sequence story about Ian Paisley's participation in a service led by a Catholic priest . Dr Paisley now maintains that he was unaware that a priest would be involved in the service until he turned up at the Peoples' Park event on 29 December. Fr Paul Symonds suggested that the service in question was not in fact "ecumencal"; but the mere presence of a Catholic priest in the room taking part would be sufficient for most Free Presbyterians to describe the service as ecumenical. Essentially, Dr Paisley's statement on the Sunday Sequence programme amounts to the claim that he took part in an ecumenical service by accident.
At Sunday's service in Martyrs' Memorial Free Presbyterian Church, Dr Paisley addressed his congregation at some length about the Sunday Sequence story and denies Fr Paul Symonds' claim that he had taken part in the service in Ballymena knowing that a Catholic priest would be leading prayers. He explained that he turned up at the service to discover that a priest was taking part and that he only participated in the service because young people would be pledging allegiance to the Queen as part of the scouting event. In the same service, he also made it clear that he would not formally greet the Pope if there was to be a papal visit to Northern Ireland. In Dr Paisley's address, entitled "The Final Settlement of All Things" (listen ), he responds to critics within the Free Presbyterian clergy who have claimed that he signed papers giving a grant to Belfast Gay Pride and that he personally apologised to the Rev David Armstrong over an anti-ecumenical protest many years ago. Dr Paisley tells his congregation that he refused to sign papers authorising grants to "the gays". He told his civil servans, "They're not getting one ha'penny from me." He also says that he was warned that he might be imprisoned for refusing to sign papers authorising this grant, and responded, "Roll on the prison; I've been there before." On the issue of David Armstrong, the First Minister denies rumours circulating "on certain websites" that he made an apology to Mr Armstrong.
Comments
The joke's on Ian Paisley. He doesn't know it yet but when he dies, he will find out he unwittingly became a Catholic in this ceremony. Isn't there some kind of punishment for that the way the Moslems execute those who convert away from Islam for the crime of apostasy? Is there some way to undo it like nullification of a marriage or an exorcism or something? Maybe if he were rebaptized? OTOH, maybe once you are a Catholic you are always a Catholic...just like becoming a member of the Mafia. Now he'd better submit to the "primacy of authority" of the Pope or he could be excommunicated. I think that assures you eternity in hell (wasn't Pope Paul II going to close hell down the way he closed purgatory but he probably died first. I don't think Pope Rottweiler would ever want hell closed.) So there you have it. What happens when you mix green and orange? I think you get brown. Hey, he went along with it, he could just as easily have walked away once he saw he'd been lied to and what he was getting himself into. After all, he does have free will. That's what all Christian theologians tell us we have. How else could they ever convince us we are guilty of sin? "The devil made me do it." If I were Paisley, that's the story I'd stick with.
Yes, but who in the name of Sam Hill is this "Dr" Paisley character mentioned repeatedly in this story? Very confusing as Mr Ian Paisley does not have have any thing which could be described by any definition as a doctorate-is this story about two Paisley's?
Confused!
I think deception would be a far better term to explain D.I.P. being DUPed into taking part in this service for the scouts rather than accidental, I鈥檓 sure the organisers will have another take on this unfortunate conspiracy to blacken D.I.P鈥檚. theological standing with his flock, why don鈥檛 the B.B.C. explain why they prevented the Free Presbyterians in the past from taking part on the 鈥淭hought for the Day鈥 programme on Radio Ulster although they now have relented on this policy against the Free Presbyterians and allow them some airtime under very strict editorial control but if you鈥檙e an ecumenist you aren鈥檛 subjected to the same strict editorial control which was blatantly obvious on the 7/12/07. The B.B.C. has one policy for the wishy washy ecumenist and another for those who contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
The B.B.C. in Northern Ireland are perceived to having a strict editorial agenda against those Christians who emanate from a fundamentalist or reformed background which explains the B.B.C. take on this story by trying to portray D.I.P. as haven taken part in an ecumenical gathering to gain some journalistic capital from this conspiracy against D.I.P.
For example look at the way an ecumenist would questioned on Sunday Sequence to the way someone from the reformed faith would be questioned, to examples spring to mind from two different stories, Christina Bradley who received the soft treatment and Andy McIntosh who was interrogated on the creation wars special.
Mark,
You are quite wrong: Free Presbyterians do not believe in free will. They follow Calvin in believing in predestination. Eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, although Paisley says that it was 鈥榓ccidental鈥, secretly he believes that God predestined him to be the means of bringing Catholics and Protestants together in his twilight years after 6 decades of helping them to tear each other鈥檚 throats.
And where better than in Ballymena, the heart of the Bible Belt where Ian became a born-again Christian at the age of six and where his mission to combat Romanism began. Just as he is now chuckling in governmental brotherhood with his former Sinn Fein enemy, so too has he united with his Catholic fellow Christians in Ballymena. The man who declared when first elected in 1970 that 鈥渢his victory is a victory of true evangelical Protestantism against the apostasy of ecumenism鈥 has had yet another Damascan conversion and is now a beacon of ecumenism.
The transformation is complete. He who as a boy did not want to be a lost sheep but a saved lamb has become the elderly good shepherd leading his sheep on the road to peace and harmony. Hallelujah, brothers! To paraphrase Wordsworth, bliss is it in this dawn to be alive. You鈥檇 better believe it, Mark, or Satan will get you.
Billy,
I listen to Sunday Sequence regularly and you are making odd criticisms.
1 - Andy McIntosh got a tough time because he refused to answer any questions and was going of on some speech. Chritina Bradley answered the questions directly. It's a simple rule with presenters on programmes: when you don't answer their questions, they turn into attack dogs. Crawley's got more teeth than most, so future fundies should answer his questions then they won't be in trouble. There was a fundamentalist woman on this sunday (ANNE KANE) who opposes the ordination of women, and she didn't get a hard time, because she just answered all the questions. In fact, the liberal woman ended up shouting at Crawley because he kept interrupting her to bring her back to the discussion. I don't get your point about bias, Billy. Is it all in your head?
2 - Thought for the Day? I'd take it off the air entirely if I was the head of religion. It's rubbish. The fundies have made it worse.
3 - It's 2008, why are you still so obsessed with "ecumenism"?
Robert Gray #5
Andy McIntosh got a hard time because he said that the formation of DNA in nature without divine intervention to create it violated the second law of thermodynamics. This is a patently false assertion which if nothing else demonstrates that he is not qualified to teach thermodynamics, at least not beyond his specialized area of mechanical engineering. He knows nothing of the thermodynamics of chemistry and should keep his stupid mouth shut. That or his employer Leeds University should fire him for being unqualified. Why would McIntosh say such a thing? Because his zealous commitment to his religious dogma far outweighs his intellectual honesty or ability to reason out what the universe is about, at least insofar as science understands it.
brian mcclinton #4
Frankly I do not understand all the subtle distinctions between the dogma of one Christian sect and another very well. I'm puzzled by this assertion but I am not inclined to challenge or even investigate it because honestly, I don't care. So as far as Presbyterians are concerned, there is no such thing as free will, therefore no such thing as sin, and whether you go to heaven or hell is preordained so why bother going to church or donating to the poor or not breaking every one of the ten commandments? This all seems new and strange to me. Any Presbyterians out there care to clarify or expand on this seemingly nihilistic doctrine?
Mark,
Don鈥檛 worry about your lack of understanding. Anyone who thinks they can make sense of the dogmatic nuances of Ulster Christianity doesn鈥檛 really understand the place. Most of the ordinary people don鈥檛 understand either; all they know is that their lot think the other lot aren鈥檛 true Christians because of what the cognoscenti argue about.
Is the path to heaven the Mass or the Hot Gospel? Take your pick. Free will v predestination is as old as Erasmus v Luther 500 years ago, but still it preoccupies Ulster Christians. Who would have thought that the basic gospel of Jesus was to love one another? Maybe Big Ian has finally got the message. It may not be likely, but let's believe it anyway. It is so much better than the 'accidental' alternative.
I've just listened to the service at Dr Paisley's church which he address. He attacks the 大象传媒 and Sunday Sequence for bringing this story into the open. I think we are entitled to know what happened and as a Free Presbyterian I am very concerned about the whole thing. We have watched the former Moderator of our church abandon each one of his political principles and now he is abandoning the religious principles as well. How can Dr Paisley pretend that he has not changed and that the rest of us are somehow in the dark about all of this? It leaves me feling betrayed and manipulated. I know I am not the only one who feels this way. My husband and I left our previous church to join our FPC congregation and it was Dr Paisley's leadership that most impressed us. It pains me to write this because I love the Lord and I want to do what is right by the Scriptures. We are now considering leaving the FPC once we find another church that honours the Bible and not man.
Jeanie, I am glad that Mr Paisley has done this and taken part in an ecumenical service. I wish he had done it years ago. I am a Catholic and we are his brothers and sisters in Christ. He is welcome at my church and I hope I would be welcome at his.
Billy- how typical of you to bring up Andy McIntosh. Once again, because a creationist is interrogated, it suddenly morphs into a conspiracy against creationists. As Robert Gray and Mark have said, McIntosh came out with a ridiculous conclusion based on the second law and he got hammered for it. It was a disgraceful thing for him to say. He knew it was wrong but said it anyway because it undermined his faith. Incredible.
(on a sidenote I think McIntosh also suggested that the dinosaurs were on Noah's Arc along with the first humans. I am 95% sure about that as I remember laughing uncontrollably despite the feelings of total rage. Can anybody else confirm that he said that on the Creation Wars shows??)
With Reference to post #5 that the is of an imaginary nature is a fallacy on the part of R.G. naive to say the least. The same strict editorial controls that apply to those who contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints was applied to a comment that I made on the 11/07/07 on this blog, in my comment I quoted Charles Haddon Spurgeon and Martin Luther describing the Roman Catholic Church both quotes were deleted from my comment because the B.B.C. deemed them offensive, offensive to who, this strict editorial control or censorship for a better description, this bias isn鈥檛 in my head this is hard undeniable fact, the reason that Anne Kane didn鈥檛 get a hard time was that she hardly got a say in the matter as the other contributor received the majority of the airtime and seemed to control the allocation of airtime that was allotted for their topic.
Of course, there is a bias in the 大象传媒 on religious matters, though less so, I think, than UTV. It is towards religious groups in general. Consequently, no matter how weakly or strongly they are interrogated, the fact remains that they are given ample publicity. The effect over 40 years or more has been to fuel the conflict rather than to act as an agent of change. The bigoted viewpoints on either side have had a field day. This is why the media are partly responsible for the Troubles. So if William is being a bit hard on the 鈥榝undamentalists鈥, then it is long overdue.
Take a basic question: why do so many Protestants and Catholics in NI hate each other? When has there never been a proper in-depth discussion of this issue from a religious perspective? We hear snippets of the arguments 聽鈥 on this blog for example 聽鈥 but never a proper analysis in a wider public arena. There are discussions of differences on specific issues, but where is the overview presented on TV, for example? Is there a fundamental difference between the beliefs of the two main groups? Or is it all a figment of their imagination? Does it matter whether a wafer becomes the body of Jesus or merely symbolises him? Does it matter whether everything in the Bible is LITERALLY true or whether it is a product of its times? Do Catholics really ignore the Bible? Who decided on the Bible if not the 鈥榗hurch鈥? Did Jesus appoint a leader to succeed him or not? Is absolution based on the Bible (John 20:23)? Or is it a creation of the Catholic Church?
Why is it so wrong for a particular Protestant clergyman to attend a Catholic service? Or vice versa? The history of these quarrels needs to be properly explored, yet I cannot recall a single programme which has tried to it in a comprehensive manner that the intelligent layman can understand.
Sure, the divisions are partly political and partly economic. But the religious cannot hide behind these other factors for ever. They have got to address the nature of Ulster鈥檚 religious divide. Why is belief so important? Why is the ethics of Christianity in NI apparently less important to many Christians than its dogma?
Sadly, people who belong to neither of the main religious blocs and to whom such disputes are frankly irrelevant fights over shadows are given short shrift in the 大象传媒. Humanists are not permitted to give a Thought for the Day as humanists, and if they appear on Sunday Sequence it is strictly controlled in case they might say something 鈥榗ontroversial鈥 or 鈥榦ffensive鈥 to the religious. Thus they are never, to my knowledge, interviewed alone: it is always in a group containing at least one and usually more believers.
Also, humanists and others who think outside the box are pigeon-holed. I appeared on a Seven Days programme in the wake of the last Pope鈥檚 death as the token atheist but actually praised the Pope for some of his views. I don鈥檛 think that this was what I was expected to do. In other words, humanists are assumed to have certain views, and the 大象传媒 act on those assumptions irrespective of whether they are true or not.
This is the same approach that is taken with many groups that want to move the society forward. It is assumed that they only think one way, when the truth is that they have many different ways, and it is the individual thinking in his own way that is ultimately what is important. But that is too complex and difficult for the media to handle. They want to put people firmly back into boxes.
Jeanie #8-
Am I to understand that you find it abhorrent to share a Christian ceremony with a Catholic?
The corner Andy McIntosh painted himself into seems to be getting tighter and tighter. DNA from scratch in a laboratory that's a copy of a bacteria's.
"Given the work already done in Japan, building genomes almost 10 million base-pairs long - I would be surprised if by 2012 it were not technically possible to routinely design and construct the genomes of any bacteria or single celled eukaryote, which also means that it will be possible to construct some mammalian chromosomes."
Arbitrarily engineered DNA by 2012? Maybe. Synthetic life in a testube just around the corner? Science is outpacing ethics ability to make sense of it. Dr. Frankenstein never imagined it this way.
What next, Planet of the Apes or Jurassic Park?
McIntosh might have greater longevity if he switched fields and joined the Flat Earth Society. They've had a long time to think up absurd explantions for insurmountable evidence.