Sneering about Presbyterianism, but also wrong on the theology

Firstly, McClinton’s bizarre philosophy that rejection of one’s Creed is enlightenment but adherence is blockish, equality applies to his own position.

Secondly, his examples of enlightenment turn out to be nothing more than the usual rogues gallery from Neilson to McCracken. Hardly scions of enlightenment when they were dishonest Ecclesiastics.

Thirdly, much as Henry Cooke was influential he conveniently overlooks two major factors — the Seceders and the Ruling Elders. The former grew precisely because of their orthodoxy; the latter were crucial in ensuring subscription.

Far from being ‘blockish’ ruling elders covered the entire spectrum of society. If he wishes to sneer, he does so at those who were obviously better educated than him.

Thirdly, his supposed knowledge of Presbyterianism overlooks the fact that in 1843 the Presbyterian Church in Ireland cut links with the Church of Scotland for 40 years.

It was hardly a brexit moment then nor is so now.

Fourthly, he is correct in his criticism that many parents have their children baptised who fail to instruct them according to their vows, that fault doesn’t mean its right to commit a worse fault.

Fifthly, his confusion over divorce demonstrates his abject ignorance on every theological point especially his description of Old Testament laws.

If he knew as much as he claimed then he would know the correct answer which has been around for the full length of church history.

Sixthly, in trotting out the usual line on love he once again shows his ignorance — the Bible clearly states that ‘love is the fulfilling of the law’. Love without law is licentiousness. Obviously that McClinton’s position.

Finally, he alleges that several ‘prominent Presbyterians’ have resigned. He ignores the reality that they were neither prominent or Presbyterian but liberals in the wrong house.

Rev E T Kirkland, Free Church Continuing, Ballyclare