Paisleyism -- Art thou the man of God' [3]

Paisleyism

‘Art thou the man of God’ [The Prophet]


These words found in 1Kings 13:14 were spoken by the old prophet of Bethel, as he met the man of God from Judah; we have already considered the meeting place, it was a place of treachery and loss; now our attention turns to the old prophet and how he turned the man of God out of the way. The parallel has been drawn between Paisleyism and the man of God from Judah; now another parallel appears as the old prophet can be seen as being representative of secularism.

The prophet gathered information on the man of God; he must have been impressed with his fearless stand against the sinful and idolatrous king; he was probable awe struck with the boldness and integrity of the man of God, so he was determined to follow him. So they saddled the ass and the old prophet chased urgently after the man of God. Over the years of the troubles in Ulster, there were many secular fellows that began to follow Paisleyism; they may not have had much by the way of spiritual conviction; perhaps they may not have had total political sympathy either; but they wanted to support a leader that thundered against an idolatrous system; when it came to decrying Popery and Republicanism, then they joined in that type of anthem. This type of activity can also be seen as Moses led the children of Israel through the wilderness towards the Promised Land; the mixed multitude followed on too; they contributed only to trouble, compromise and chastisement; they wanted their way at the expense of God’s people. Secularism was welcomed by Paisleyism, after all it was a numbers game, and votes counted, regardless of spiritual conviction.

On finding the man of God sitting under the oak, the old prophet found a perfect opportunity to speak. It is significant that the prophet spoke first, the man of God was compelled to comply and offer a response; ‘Art thou the man of God’? ‘And he said I am’. It seems all right on the surface, but the precedent is made, the old prophet had taken the initiative and the man of God was obliged to follow. It was easy for the old prophet to extend the invitation, because the man of God was taken off guard; the old prophet made no delay in applying the personal touch. He wanted the man of God to follow him; he wanted him to change direction; what a change of tactic from that which the king had previously used; what a turn round of events, once the prophet followed the man of God, now he invited the man of God to follow him. This is exactly what the secular wing of Paisleyism has done; the roles are reversed and Paisleyism is invited to follow secularism into power sharing government with unrepentant terrorists. The old prophet was more than ready to enter into debate with the man of God; he had the arguments well rehearsed, his research was complete in every detail.

An invitation to ‘come home’, an invitation to fellowship, ‘eat bread’; the prophet wanted the man of God to compromise his position; he wanted him to abandon his own home and to refuse his own food. This is what secularism has offered Paisleyism prior to the St Andrews agreement; settle down into worldliness, eat the bread of compromise. However the man of God refused the invitation; he cited God’s commandment which he had received and he would not follow the old prophet; he based his argument as Paisleyism once did on the Word of God.

The old prophet gave a very informed response; he declared also an interest in spiritual things,’ I am a prophet as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the LORD, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water.’ The man of God was confronted with deception on a grand scale; now he saw the prophet as a colleague and friend; he heard what he perceived to be a message from God for his own heart; he saw an opportunity for early and easy refreshment, comfort and fellowship. Perhaps he saw this as the opportunity that he had been waiting for, to obtain high office over the northern kingdom. The parallel with Paisleyism is most remarkable here as they contemplated the St Andrews agreement; the influence and arguments of the secular wing were so convincing that the leadership consented to the new plan. Like the man of God, Paisleyism changed direction and followed the secular route to the negotiating table. In the next blog we will view the [Pact], ‘Art thou the man of God’?

Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)