Paisleyism U-turn leaves Followers Baffled
Like most leaders who change their mind, Rev Ian Paisley’s past actions has left his followers with a major problem.
For Free Presbyterians, the situation since political power sharing, is one of confusion and division. Confusion, because they once adhered to the doctrine of separation which prohibited such a power sharing arrangement with law breakers; now they find themselves part of that compromising arrangement. They witnessed their founder and former moderator condemn anyone that compromised with Roman Catholicism and Irish Republicanism over the period of the troubles, then suddenly turn and embrace all that he originally condemned. The question must be asked; was Free Presbyterianism wrong regarding the doctrine of separation in the past? Is Free Presbyterianism wrong now regarding the doctrine of separation? This is the dilemma for Paisley’s followers today, the issue cannot be buried in silence, and neither can it be explained away by clever tricks.
For all that followed the political aspirations of Paisleyism, their dilemma is just as poignant. How can they now support a party that has lost the moral authority which it once claimed? Secondly how can they support a party which sold out all their political principles? How can they support the TUV without incurring the wrath of the Free Presbyterian DUP?
The present Free Presbyterian moderator has promised to carry on the fight against Roman Catholicism, ecumenism and apostasy; how can this be done when his church is found to have compromised the doctrine of separation? Clearly he has a major problem on his hands when two Free Presbyterians are fighting for the same Westminster seat; some of these two people have compromised the doctrine of separation and therefore must be disciplined as Rev R Johnston is well aware.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Sunday 28 March 2010
Wednesday 24 March 2010
Paisleyism and the Papacy.
Paisleyism and the Papacy
For decades Paisleyism blasted the Papacy, together with all its ecumenical associates, with the torch of Scripture; steadfastly affirming that the entire system of Roman Catholicism was antichristian at best and overwhelmingly sinful at worst. Standing on the doctrine of separation, Rev Ian Paisley was scathing in his denunciation of Roman Catholicism and on all that sought ecumenical association there with; such strong denunciation in the name of evangelical Protestantism, poured from pulpits, press releases, public platforms and from various publications, while a special kind of vilification was reserved for the Irish Presbyterian church and its members.
Mr Paisley senior, called all the protestant churches, outside his own, apostate, while at the same time, his college, branded dispensational church assemblies as mere cults. These tactics were adopted, to empty long established protestant churches and to fill Free Presbyterian churches, all under the guise of ‘earnestly contending for the faith, once delivered to the saints’. There was also a strategy employed, whereby Free Presbyterians were so conditioned into thinking that there was no where else that preached the gospel outside of their churches; this tactic holds fast to this very day, when discouraged or disaffected Free Presbyterian church members, remain in attendance, even though they see through the hypocrisy and sham.
So Paisleyism claimed to stand for all that the Bible taught, while at the same time, branding the Pope as an antichrist, and insisting that the final Antichrist, ‘the man of sin’, would without doubt be a Roman Pontiff. Parallel teaching from the Free Presbyterian church branded the European Union as the Kingdom of the beast, (antichrist); interestingly Rev Ian Paisley took his MEP seat there, it was strange that his church did not discipline him for such defiant duplicity and grievous compromise of original principles.
At the commencement of the troubles here, Paisleyism carried the doctrine of separation onto the political platform and created a particular brand of unionism which destroyed all other unionists; this particular destructive tactic, was having success in church circles, so this uncompromising position was adopted in the political arena as well. Paisleyism had widened the theatre of operation against the Papacy and Irish Republicanism, to include the spiritual and political armaments. Paisleyism blamed the troubles in Ulster on what it called Popery, which it saw attacking, what appeared to be a corrupted and weak form of Unionism. Any interference from Dublin was viewed by Free Presbyterianism, as another inroad of Popery. Such was the strength of feeling amongst Free Presbyterians that, anyone associated with south border trade was frowned upon, southern goods were even boycotted, and cooperation with Dublin was out of the question.
Whether by design or mere accident, what Free Presbyterianism had accomplished over the duration of the troubles, was for itself to have become a model of the Papacy; a combined political and religious establishment, with its own rules, codes, courts and disciplines; declaring everyone outside as heretic, estranged, misguided or apostate and having a hierarchy under a sole ruler. When Paisleyism entered into power sharing government, its entire structure began to fragment; many in the Free Presbyterian church saw power sharing as an abandoning of scriptural principles, but objection for them, was not an option. Things were different in the political wing of Paisleyism; Mr Alister had the courage and conviction to raise a creditable voice of opposition to the detriment of the DUP.
Now, in this new political dispensation in Ulster, secularism is handed pride of place while religious and spiritual matters are considered as less than relevant. In recent days both Paisleyism and the Papacy have been hung out to dry on the line of hypocrisy under the scorching sun of accountability. Both these, seemingly blighted organisations are being examined under the spot light of public opinion. Both parties must be made to give account of inflammatory statements or actions which provoked trouble in the past, if it was wrong then, it must be put right now; these things just cannot be swept under the carpet of secrecy. It appears that both these organisations encouraged people into taking wrongful actions in the past, it is time for these same organisations to publicly renounce their wrong doing and then help those that they encouraged to go astray.
For years, the Papacy covered up the child sex abuse scandals and ignored the torment that victims were left to suffer in; similarly, Paisleyism covered up, amongst other things, the situation of cheating amongst the students in its Bible College; some of the offending students were made to resit examinations or do an extra year, before going into pulpits, while ministers in pulpits that had cheated in their time at College continued unpunished. The whole question of trust is broken by both organisations, albeit on different levels. Both these organisations operate their own church laws and courts, appointing commissions to investigate various matters within their organisations; has there been fairness here? Have records of these examinations been kept? Are they open to public scrutiny? What about the many victims of deep psychological abuse which have been abandoned for years by both these organisations, are they not worthy of consideration and help today?
When the Papacy has been confronted with the vile and lewd action of some of its clerics in the past, there is still a degree of cover up going on, there is still a reluctance to come clean and to put matters right, irrespective as to the cost. Similarly with Paisleyism, if past actions and words were wrong regarding the Papacy, regarding protestant and dispensational churches, regarding various unionist leaders and parties, then how can they be right now, as today’s position seems to imply? In the past, Free Presbyterianism presented the doctrine of separation as a rule of faith and practice for its people; Free Presbyterians believed that it was wrong to fellowship with what their ministers called apostate churches, they believed that God had raised up Ian Paisley, to defend them
against Irish Republicanism and the Papacy. Moreover they were taught that it was wrong to share power with law breakers and that their leader would never do this, neither would he tolerate Dublin interference. Today, Paisleyism just cannot turn its coat, shred all its former principles and walk away into secular silence; there are multitudes of ordinary people left victims of mental and spiritual anguish, scores of people are devastated and torn asunder, they deserve answers to questions; they are victims of an abuse of trust.
The sad irony is that both Paisleyism and the Papacy have left a legacy behind in Ireland, of which all the people, regardless of denomination are deeply ashamed and hurt. Both these organisations have multiplied victims, whose cries are echoing today, while they themselves have allowed the name of Christianity and decency to be trodden in the gutter of unbelief and shame.
Politicians, who aspire to Catholicism, are showing their displeasure against their church, while politicians, who adhere to the reformed faith, are showing their displeasure against Free Presbyterianism. When secular leaders begin to question the religious establishments on moral grounds, then there is obviously something very wrong. Some may argue that Ulster’s political future is bright, that may be so, time, perhaps will tell; what is alarmingly obvious, is that the spiritual future is far from bright. Paisleyism and the Papacy have been instrumental in bringing reproach upon Christianity and offending a sin hating God, by dishonouring God’s Word and driving people from God, into atheistic secularism.
In order for lasting progress to be made here, morality must be returned to its foundation, which is the Word of God. With this in place, then the plight of victims could be dealt with honourably and sensitively.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
For decades Paisleyism blasted the Papacy, together with all its ecumenical associates, with the torch of Scripture; steadfastly affirming that the entire system of Roman Catholicism was antichristian at best and overwhelmingly sinful at worst. Standing on the doctrine of separation, Rev Ian Paisley was scathing in his denunciation of Roman Catholicism and on all that sought ecumenical association there with; such strong denunciation in the name of evangelical Protestantism, poured from pulpits, press releases, public platforms and from various publications, while a special kind of vilification was reserved for the Irish Presbyterian church and its members.
Mr Paisley senior, called all the protestant churches, outside his own, apostate, while at the same time, his college, branded dispensational church assemblies as mere cults. These tactics were adopted, to empty long established protestant churches and to fill Free Presbyterian churches, all under the guise of ‘earnestly contending for the faith, once delivered to the saints’. There was also a strategy employed, whereby Free Presbyterians were so conditioned into thinking that there was no where else that preached the gospel outside of their churches; this tactic holds fast to this very day, when discouraged or disaffected Free Presbyterian church members, remain in attendance, even though they see through the hypocrisy and sham.
So Paisleyism claimed to stand for all that the Bible taught, while at the same time, branding the Pope as an antichrist, and insisting that the final Antichrist, ‘the man of sin’, would without doubt be a Roman Pontiff. Parallel teaching from the Free Presbyterian church branded the European Union as the Kingdom of the beast, (antichrist); interestingly Rev Ian Paisley took his MEP seat there, it was strange that his church did not discipline him for such defiant duplicity and grievous compromise of original principles.
At the commencement of the troubles here, Paisleyism carried the doctrine of separation onto the political platform and created a particular brand of unionism which destroyed all other unionists; this particular destructive tactic, was having success in church circles, so this uncompromising position was adopted in the political arena as well. Paisleyism had widened the theatre of operation against the Papacy and Irish Republicanism, to include the spiritual and political armaments. Paisleyism blamed the troubles in Ulster on what it called Popery, which it saw attacking, what appeared to be a corrupted and weak form of Unionism. Any interference from Dublin was viewed by Free Presbyterianism, as another inroad of Popery. Such was the strength of feeling amongst Free Presbyterians that, anyone associated with south border trade was frowned upon, southern goods were even boycotted, and cooperation with Dublin was out of the question.
Whether by design or mere accident, what Free Presbyterianism had accomplished over the duration of the troubles, was for itself to have become a model of the Papacy; a combined political and religious establishment, with its own rules, codes, courts and disciplines; declaring everyone outside as heretic, estranged, misguided or apostate and having a hierarchy under a sole ruler. When Paisleyism entered into power sharing government, its entire structure began to fragment; many in the Free Presbyterian church saw power sharing as an abandoning of scriptural principles, but objection for them, was not an option. Things were different in the political wing of Paisleyism; Mr Alister had the courage and conviction to raise a creditable voice of opposition to the detriment of the DUP.
Now, in this new political dispensation in Ulster, secularism is handed pride of place while religious and spiritual matters are considered as less than relevant. In recent days both Paisleyism and the Papacy have been hung out to dry on the line of hypocrisy under the scorching sun of accountability. Both these, seemingly blighted organisations are being examined under the spot light of public opinion. Both parties must be made to give account of inflammatory statements or actions which provoked trouble in the past, if it was wrong then, it must be put right now; these things just cannot be swept under the carpet of secrecy. It appears that both these organisations encouraged people into taking wrongful actions in the past, it is time for these same organisations to publicly renounce their wrong doing and then help those that they encouraged to go astray.
For years, the Papacy covered up the child sex abuse scandals and ignored the torment that victims were left to suffer in; similarly, Paisleyism covered up, amongst other things, the situation of cheating amongst the students in its Bible College; some of the offending students were made to resit examinations or do an extra year, before going into pulpits, while ministers in pulpits that had cheated in their time at College continued unpunished. The whole question of trust is broken by both organisations, albeit on different levels. Both these organisations operate their own church laws and courts, appointing commissions to investigate various matters within their organisations; has there been fairness here? Have records of these examinations been kept? Are they open to public scrutiny? What about the many victims of deep psychological abuse which have been abandoned for years by both these organisations, are they not worthy of consideration and help today?
When the Papacy has been confronted with the vile and lewd action of some of its clerics in the past, there is still a degree of cover up going on, there is still a reluctance to come clean and to put matters right, irrespective as to the cost. Similarly with Paisleyism, if past actions and words were wrong regarding the Papacy, regarding protestant and dispensational churches, regarding various unionist leaders and parties, then how can they be right now, as today’s position seems to imply? In the past, Free Presbyterianism presented the doctrine of separation as a rule of faith and practice for its people; Free Presbyterians believed that it was wrong to fellowship with what their ministers called apostate churches, they believed that God had raised up Ian Paisley, to defend them
against Irish Republicanism and the Papacy. Moreover they were taught that it was wrong to share power with law breakers and that their leader would never do this, neither would he tolerate Dublin interference. Today, Paisleyism just cannot turn its coat, shred all its former principles and walk away into secular silence; there are multitudes of ordinary people left victims of mental and spiritual anguish, scores of people are devastated and torn asunder, they deserve answers to questions; they are victims of an abuse of trust.
The sad irony is that both Paisleyism and the Papacy have left a legacy behind in Ireland, of which all the people, regardless of denomination are deeply ashamed and hurt. Both these organisations have multiplied victims, whose cries are echoing today, while they themselves have allowed the name of Christianity and decency to be trodden in the gutter of unbelief and shame.
Politicians, who aspire to Catholicism, are showing their displeasure against their church, while politicians, who adhere to the reformed faith, are showing their displeasure against Free Presbyterianism. When secular leaders begin to question the religious establishments on moral grounds, then there is obviously something very wrong. Some may argue that Ulster’s political future is bright, that may be so, time, perhaps will tell; what is alarmingly obvious, is that the spiritual future is far from bright. Paisleyism and the Papacy have been instrumental in bringing reproach upon Christianity and offending a sin hating God, by dishonouring God’s Word and driving people from God, into atheistic secularism.
In order for lasting progress to be made here, morality must be returned to its foundation, which is the Word of God. With this in place, then the plight of victims could be dealt with honourably and sensitively.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Saturday 13 March 2010
Free Presbyterian Foundation Divided
Foundation of Free Presbyterianism Divided
Back in the early seventies, when the Free Presbyterian Church settled its principles on the political foundation, many scriptural arguments were advanced to justify this erroneous position. Rev Ian Paisley was considered by some in his church, to be a prophetic figure, a kind of a modern day Joseph, a modern day Daniel, a man brought to the kingdom for such a time as this. Every attempt was made to spread the separatist principle equally throughout the church and party. Many Free Presbyterians considered their politically reinforced foundation to be impregnable, perhaps even long lasting.
When Free Presbyterianism compromised its separatist principles and turned away from the solid foundation of God’s precious Word, what ensued, sadly, was inevitable; ruinous shame and confusion swept Christian standards, principles and testimonies into the secular gutter. For Free Presbyterians, to enter power sharing, within a terrorist associated government, was tantamount to entire self destruction. In order to enter fully into this political arrangement, Free Presbyterians had to shift away from the bedrock of God’s Word and to build upon a purely secular foundation; this has meant the total surrender of all their former principles and standards.
Now, Free Presbyterians are battling it out on the foundation of secularism against one another, in order to gain political or perhaps personal advantage. It is now common place for two Free Presbyterians to contest the same Westminster seat in the forth coming general election; Free Presbyterian ministers can walk the road of political compromise while at the same time claim to be walking with God before their congregations.
The politically reinforced foundation on which the Free Presbyterian Church stood for the last forty years, has divided asunder under the weight of spectacular compromise. With the ‘house of Paisley’ already fallen, the semi detached block which houses his party and church, is found unsafe and unsatisfactory for occupancy.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Back in the early seventies, when the Free Presbyterian Church settled its principles on the political foundation, many scriptural arguments were advanced to justify this erroneous position. Rev Ian Paisley was considered by some in his church, to be a prophetic figure, a kind of a modern day Joseph, a modern day Daniel, a man brought to the kingdom for such a time as this. Every attempt was made to spread the separatist principle equally throughout the church and party. Many Free Presbyterians considered their politically reinforced foundation to be impregnable, perhaps even long lasting.
When Free Presbyterianism compromised its separatist principles and turned away from the solid foundation of God’s precious Word, what ensued, sadly, was inevitable; ruinous shame and confusion swept Christian standards, principles and testimonies into the secular gutter. For Free Presbyterians, to enter power sharing, within a terrorist associated government, was tantamount to entire self destruction. In order to enter fully into this political arrangement, Free Presbyterians had to shift away from the bedrock of God’s Word and to build upon a purely secular foundation; this has meant the total surrender of all their former principles and standards.
Now, Free Presbyterians are battling it out on the foundation of secularism against one another, in order to gain political or perhaps personal advantage. It is now common place for two Free Presbyterians to contest the same Westminster seat in the forth coming general election; Free Presbyterian ministers can walk the road of political compromise while at the same time claim to be walking with God before their congregations.
The politically reinforced foundation on which the Free Presbyterian Church stood for the last forty years, has divided asunder under the weight of spectacular compromise. With the ‘house of Paisley’ already fallen, the semi detached block which houses his party and church, is found unsafe and unsatisfactory for occupancy.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Wednesday 10 March 2010
Cradel of Free Presbyterianism Rocked by the Winds of Change
The Cradle of Free Presbyterianism Rocked by the Winds of Change.
Ballymena, at the heart of the North Antrim Constituency, could well be described as the very cradle of Free Presbyterianism; after all it is the home town of the out going MP, Rev Ian Paisley, former moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church. This hub of Paisleyism had grown accustomed to hearing warnings against Romanism, Republicanism, Compromising Unionism, Apostasy and Ecumenism; however, in recent years there is a wind of change beginning to blow.
This spiritual weather system developed, when Mr Paisley led the DUP into power sharing with Sinn Fein; there was shock and dismay amongst ordinary people, at such an uncharacteristic turn around, of a man that had been their spiritual and political leader for decades. His dramatic change of heart, took the breath from those that had lived and voted by the principles that they had heard Rev Ian Paisley preach; people that had been loyal followers of the ‘Doc’ found themselves torn between two opinions; on the one hand they considered the principles of spiritual and political separation which they had lived by, while on the other they looked on the new position of compromise which their leader had adopted.
As these winds of change are blowing, there is very little by way of foundation left, for Ian Paisley junior to build upon. The DUP have surrendered the moral high ground, in the wake of great scandals, and have embraced the base standards of secularism. Traditional unionist values and principles have been compromised by Ian senior, so junior has no foundation here. No dependence can be placed upon evangelical Protestants, as their support would be misplaced in any form of criminal inclusive government.
Free Presbyterians, perhaps, are the most exposed of all, to these spiritually chilling winds of change. Their former moderator has cast away, the once cherished position on separation, now they lack that all important foundation, upon which to launch their attacks against, apostasy, ecumenism and Romanism. How can they support the DUP, without showing support for compromise? On the other hand how can they not support the DUP when their church oversight demands it?
What about the very vulnerable position of TUV members or voters in the Free Presbyterian Church? Will Free Presbyterians view them as traitors, because they have left the church’s political wing? Will these TUV members of the church be shunned or victimised by DUP sympathizers in the church?
So many questions have been raised; as the wind of change, blows the cradle of Free Presbyterianism.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Ballymena, at the heart of the North Antrim Constituency, could well be described as the very cradle of Free Presbyterianism; after all it is the home town of the out going MP, Rev Ian Paisley, former moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church. This hub of Paisleyism had grown accustomed to hearing warnings against Romanism, Republicanism, Compromising Unionism, Apostasy and Ecumenism; however, in recent years there is a wind of change beginning to blow.
This spiritual weather system developed, when Mr Paisley led the DUP into power sharing with Sinn Fein; there was shock and dismay amongst ordinary people, at such an uncharacteristic turn around, of a man that had been their spiritual and political leader for decades. His dramatic change of heart, took the breath from those that had lived and voted by the principles that they had heard Rev Ian Paisley preach; people that had been loyal followers of the ‘Doc’ found themselves torn between two opinions; on the one hand they considered the principles of spiritual and political separation which they had lived by, while on the other they looked on the new position of compromise which their leader had adopted.
As these winds of change are blowing, there is very little by way of foundation left, for Ian Paisley junior to build upon. The DUP have surrendered the moral high ground, in the wake of great scandals, and have embraced the base standards of secularism. Traditional unionist values and principles have been compromised by Ian senior, so junior has no foundation here. No dependence can be placed upon evangelical Protestants, as their support would be misplaced in any form of criminal inclusive government.
Free Presbyterians, perhaps, are the most exposed of all, to these spiritually chilling winds of change. Their former moderator has cast away, the once cherished position on separation, now they lack that all important foundation, upon which to launch their attacks against, apostasy, ecumenism and Romanism. How can they support the DUP, without showing support for compromise? On the other hand how can they not support the DUP when their church oversight demands it?
What about the very vulnerable position of TUV members or voters in the Free Presbyterian Church? Will Free Presbyterians view them as traitors, because they have left the church’s political wing? Will these TUV members of the church be shunned or victimised by DUP sympathizers in the church?
So many questions have been raised; as the wind of change, blows the cradle of Free Presbyterianism.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)