Replies

Again, one has no personal knowledge of how Paisley ever chose to apportion his time.

Apparently you do.

I told you the majority of his time and energies were spent on politics and you disagreed.

I'm forced to conclude that you're arguing for the opposite case; namely that most of his time and energies were spent on ministering to his tiny flock.

Right?

From what I know of Paisley (and you might know too if you listened to any of his sermons, as I have already recommended to you twice before) it would be entirely fair to say that Paisley considered his participation in the political debates and processes of his time to be something he did both as the voice of Christian morality and as an extension of his ministry.

I'm unpersuaded and unimpressed by your condescending "I'm a Paisley expert" shtick. From the times and dates you gave in posts above, it appears that you really know very little about Paisley. He was a Member of Parliament for 40 years (not 44) and quit in 2010. Further, his political activism long predates his entry into Parliament in 1970. He spent most of the 1960s fighting the Catholic civil rights campaign then in its infancy and founded the Ulster Defence Committee and several paramilitary affiliates including the Ulster Volunteer Force during this period. Your claim that he spent 20 years as a dedicated minister prior to 1970 is pure fantasy. His election to Parliament was simply the culmination of all the political activism in the preceding decade and a half.

For 25 years he was actually a member of not one but two Parliaments simultaneously; one in London and one in Strasbourg. One wonders just how much time he actually spent in Belfast, still less ministering to his congregation.

I'm here to tell you that all his public utterances during this period addressed political issues related to the "Troubles" and the governance of Northern Ireland. Again, entirely consistent with the political focus of his work.

The remainder of your post does you no favors. The self-congratulatory bombast is an embarrassment to you.

Marshmallow, I am sorry for your sake that you are apparently one who may be named among those who are incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. It causes you to be more slim-sightful than in-sightful, unfortunately.

Paisley's ministry was to be found both in the pulpit and at the podium. Quibbling about a year spent here or there doing this or that is all very irrelevant and overly pedantic when you realize that for Paisley his entire life's work was an outworking and extension of his Christian ministry -- as it often is with other ministers who have served in public life (e.g., former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee).

There really is no "secular" vs. "sacred." It's all sacred.

Just to be fair and for purposes of contrast for what has played out on the Catholic side of things (and to be diametrically opposite that of Paisley's sensibilities) one reasonably suspects that St. Sabina's Father Michael Pfleger considers his political agitation and spreading of his Marxist "liberation theology" in Chicago's "projects" to be every bit as much an outworking and extension of his "ministry," as well.

Perhaps you'll recall some of his antics at Jeremiah Wright's church back in 2008

Massachusetts Democrat (and erstwhile pedophile) Congressman, Fr. Robert Drinan wore his collar throughout his Congressional service until Pope John Paul II (whom I happen to greatly admire as a statesman in his own right) declared that priests should no more run for and serve in political office. One may rightly infer that Drinan saw public service as his ministry (somewhere between all the serial molestations), as well.

I guess your priest friend wouldn't grant you absolution for listening to a Paisley sermon after all, is that it?

FReegards!