Friday, April 14, 2006
Bad day for ecumenism as Moderator says no
The Presbyterian Moderator, Dr Harry Uprichard, has caused controversy by refusing to attend a service to celebrate the RUC’s George Cross Foundation- because of the involvement of catholic clergy.
Dr. Uprichard, who was on the receiving end of much criticism last summer when he appeared rather tardy in his condemnation of a loyalist campaign targeting catholic homes and properties in his native north Antrim, would undoubtedly have wished that the news would have been carried on any other day than Good Friday, given the significance of the day for all christians, regardless of denomination.
Chris Donnelly @ 02:09 PM
With shepherds like Dr Uprichard can we blame the sheep when they stray into bigotry and intolerance?
Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 03:54 PMWhen the going gets tough, call for Ken Newell!
Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 03:55 PM“When the going gets tough, call for Ken Newell!”
If he teamed up with the Reverend John Bannister could they build a Stairway to Heaven?
Bad Good Friday joke. Apologies all round :)
Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 04:18 PMThe Presbyterians seem to alternate yearly between moderate and hardline moderators.
When they have one like this the year seems never to end, and with the likes of Ken Newell or John Dunlop it flies by.Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 06:11 PMIt’s all rather more complex than that.
At a religious level the Moderator is entirely entitled to his views. It is interesting that those who blether on most about ‘mutual respect’ are now turning on him without stopping to give him that ‘respect’.
However, at a political level in a segregated society such an attitude is disastrous.
That is why basing our political divide on a religious divide is a pretty stupid thing to do.
Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 06:13 PMHow disappointing. Here we have an RUC-related service attended by Catholic clergy and the Presbyterian moderator stays away in protest. Disrepectful surely to the former RUC especially those of its personnel who happened to be Catholic. I hope there will be a good turnout at the service by Presbyterians whose personal consciences allow for a broader expression of Christianity.
Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 06:14 PMIJP
“It’s all rather more complex than that.”
It isn’t, you know. The moderator’s views are narrow and intolerant and I cannot possibly respect them.
Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 06:23 PMI respect the fact that he is entitled to hold whatever views he wants, but the views themselves have to earn my respect. His don’t.
Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 06:44 PMSo the Catholic Church attends a RUC event despite decades of criticism of that organisation and yet on a doctrinal point, a “Moderator” (shurely shome mishtake?) refuses to attend?
I thought theological difference was secondary to political/national difference here? It would not always appear to be so. It certainly puts his quiescence on anti-Catholic sectarian attacks in north Antrim under a different light, doesn’t it?
Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 06:48 PMHere’s what this “Christian” leader said:
“My concern is that the involvement of inter-church worship to that degree publicly aligns those of the reformed faith with those not of the reformed faith.”
Is this segregationist talk or have I misread the above? Doesn’t this gentleman wish to heal rifts in NI, or create more? Thankfully he’ll be spending more time with his roses and his conscience in June.
Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 07:11 PMposted by Kathy C
Hi all, Many presbyterians believe that Catholics follow the anti-Christ (Pope) and that Catholics are not Christians. Many Catholics have a difficult time understanding that ministers such as Ian Paisley and Uprichard don’t feel that Catholics are Christains. I wonder if Dr. Uprichard is a member of the orange order because the orange order forbids its members from taking part in any papist ceremony. Does anyone know if he is a member of the oo?
Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 07:31 PMThe Catholic Church recognises itself as the one true and only Church, and has done since it’s creation by the Apostles of Christ. It’s Priests are still willing to attend such services, which is what anyone who reads the Bible would acknowledge is a Christian thing to do. Dr Uprichard has little respect for the Catholic Churches £1 billion followers and overall World standing, and can only see things through his Northern Ireland rose-tinted glasses.
Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 07:37 PM“Hi all, Many presbyterians believe that Catholics follow the anti-Christ (Pope) and that Catholics are not Christians. “
Hi Cathy. What percentage is many?
The presbys elect their moderator annually so he may be gone soon enough. Thank Christ.
Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 08:02 PMIf a moderator does not moderate, can can he still be moderator ..if he is actually an extremist
Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 08:31 PMJacqui
I have to say, you got it in one. Instead of recognising the maturity of the Catholic church in supporting a RUC memorial, Rev Upritchard looks over his shoulder to the FP/DUP and decides to duck out.
You do have to wonder, if the DUP/FP bogeyman departed the stage, how deep these right wing Presbyterian convictions would be?
Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 08:48 PMWhat’s the problem here?
This man feels it would be against the principles of his faith to attend an interdenominational service, so has declined an invite.Isn’t he entitled to practice his faith in a manner of his own choosing?
He’s not telling anyone else that they can’t attend this service, so exactly what is the problem?Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 09:05 PMTAFKABO, more provo-MOPES whining as usually. My,my the hypocritical armchair IRA is out in force today on slugger as per usual.
Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 09:09 PMwhat an extraordinarily profound contribution from dv!!
Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 09:16 PMTAFKABO
“This man feels it would be against the principles of his faith to attend an interdenominational service, so has declined an invite.”
He may feel it’s against the principles of his faith, but if he bothered his bigoted bum checking then he’d find out that it ain’t.
That’s the problem.
Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 09:25 PMDV
Are you scotland in disguise?
Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 09:28 PMDavid Michael
Isn’t it a bit presumptious to lecture any other human being on the interpreation of his or her religion?.
And as for the ‘bigoted’ comment, I rather think bigotry is telling other people that they have to think and act the way you tell them to.So who is the bigot in this scenario?
Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 09:38 PMTAFKABO
“Isn’t it a bit presumptious to lecture any other human being on the interpreation of his or her religion?.”
No, it’s not in the least presumptuous, not when the chap in question is a shepherd. See my first post. It’s like the pope interpreting transubstantion wrongly and urging his flock to commit cannibalism.
“And as for the ‘bigoted’ comment, I rather think bigotry is telling other people that they have to think and act the way you tell them to.”No, it’s following what John Calvin wrote in the second Helvetic Confession. Shouldn’t the mod be heeding it?
“So who is the bigot in this scenario?”
Uprichard of course. Who else? Oh, David Vance as well but hey that’s a given :)
Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 09:55 PMShould have been “transubstantiation.”
What a mouthful eh?Sorry, that’s my second bad Good Friday joke :)
Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 09:58 PMQuick intervention:
“...can can he still be moderator ..if he is actually an extremist”
Yes. And he can be a moderator even if he’s the wettest of wet liberals. That’s the Presbyterian tradition. They don’t work by directives, or encyclicals. And they only have the job for 12 months.
I have to ask how many of our commenters here have taken the trouble to try to understand the traditions of the Presbyterian Church. They were once known as Dissenters, primarily because they (mostly) respect the right of individuals to dissent.
Dr Uprichard is exercising that right. You may not like it. I may not like it. The majority of Presbyterians might not like it. But he ‘leads’ his church by expression of individual conscience not through corporate will.
Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 10:14 PMNo, it’s not in the least presumptuous, not when the chap in question is a shepherd. See my first post. It’s like the pope interpreting transubstantion wrongly and urging his flock to commit cannibalism.
You’re starting from the premise that there is but once correct interpretation, and you adhere to it, whereas this man doesn’t.
That’s a rather infelxible attitude in my opnion.<i>No, it’s following what John Calvin wrote in the second Helvetic Confession. Shouldn’t the mod be heeding it? <i>
Well, I read the Bible, din’t see john calvins name mentioned once, so why you bring him up is beyond me.
Besides, even if the Moderator was a professed Calvinist (and I’ve no idea if he is or isn’t), it still comes down to a persanal interpreatation of calvins theology.BTW, from my own understanding of Calvinism (TULIP and all that for those who know) it would be nothing short of hypocrisy to be a Calvinist and attend a service with people who adhered to doctrines that supported the idea of salvation through works.
Can I ask you why you feel able to dictate what a person ought to believe?
Posted by on Apr 14, 2006 @ 10:18 PM
