Kyle Paisley on melting DUP/Sinn Fein frostiness

 

 

The importance of political relationships was highlighted this week in Mark Carruther’s interview with Nigel Dodds and Martin McGuinness, when reference was made to the “frostiness” that exists between their respective party’s MEPS – Dianne Dodds and Martina Anderson.

Honest men don’t doubt the great difficulty involved in building better relationships, especially in a province torn apart by thirty years of bloody civil conflict. Nevertheless, the task is not impossible. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

The former DUP leader and Northern Ireland’s Deputy First Minister had the will and found the way. As Mr McGuinness said, he and Ian Paisley had not only a good working relationship, but a good personal relationship too.

Although their working relationship was brought to a premature end by ecclesiastical-political assassins, the warm personal relationship they shared continues to this day. As a matter of fact, Mr McGuinness has treated my father with a greater deal of care and respect than a number of my father’s fellow-churchmen and DUP colleagues. This is apparent to all.

Nigel Dodds complained in the interview that charges of “cowardice” levelled at Peter Robinson don’t help build relationships. Maybe so. On the other hand, where fault isn’t recognised and acknowledged it is practically impossible to begin building. Of course, no man is faultless. But over-reacting to criticism can only exacerbate a strained relationship, and is a barrier to reconciliation.

It is up to political representatives from all parties, and on every level, to redouble their effort in building the peace by building relationships. No one expects uniformity. At the same time, no one craves continuing discord!

19 thoughts on “Kyle Paisley on melting DUP/Sinn Fein frostiness

  1. Dodds complained about the charge of cowardice against Robinson causing a difficulty with relationships.

    But surely the existence of cowardice by Robinson is bound to damage relationship.

    We have this pompous talk of Pastor McConnells right to free speech and to attack in any vile way he wants, any religion he does not agree with. There was no talk of free speech from the DUP some years ago when Sinn Fein were banned from the airwaves. ‘But that was different’!

    Robinson’s interview in the Irish News this week had absolutely no criticism of McConnell, nor any thought that he should have moderated his hate language in the interest of ‘love your neighbour’.

    Today’s statement is a much more moderate opus, though it does not go anywhere near enough, and the whole tenor is totally at odds with his first effort.

    So was he being honest in his IN interview or was today’s statement his honest opinion. They cannot both be honest. And if he cannot be honest what use is he to Northern Ireland?

    • The charge of cowardice against Robinson can be made for a number of reasons in addition to those republicans might give. For example, there is nothing more cowardly than conniving, for no good reason, for the demise of good men and the demise of a party leader without whom men like the current leader would not have been prominent in politics. The charge of ignorance is also substantiated by the DUP leader’s condescending remark on sending Muslims to shop for him.
      Re the McConnell controversy: Christian ministers are to take their motive as well as their view of things from Jesus Christ. He never sought publicity for publicity’s sake (Isa.42:2).

      • Dr Paisley’s commitment to the Free Presbyterian church lasted as long as he was its moderator. There is no automatic right to leadership even for Mr Paisley.
        Deeply saddened that in a secular onslaught against a Belfast Pastor and on the right to freedom of speech, your comments now offer more ammunition against the politician, no matter how flawed, was willing to defend him.

        • Quite right about NO AUTOMATIC RIGHT. I can assure you that Ian Paisley never took any position he had in church or party for granted, as some kind of divine right.. On the matter of the secular onslaught against freedom of speech, if you read carefully what I have written you will see that I made absolutely no challenge to any man’s freedom. Nor did I compromise the Christian message. The first sentence in the above article makes this perfectly clear. So as a matter of fact, it is what the offending party has said that has given ammunition, as you put it, against himself and his Pastor.

          • errgghh..i presume you haven’t seen the headlines in today’s Belfast Telegraph: thanks for that!
            I’m glad you weren’t as outspoken when the previous DUP leader said something less than flattering.

          • I am glad you know that he never said of Roman Catholics what the First Minister said of Muslims – ‘I would trust them to go to the shop…’

          • “Quite right about NO AUTOMATIC RIGHT. I can assure you that Ian Paisley never took any position he had in church or party for granted, as some kind of divine right..”

            Perhaps then you could explain this in the context of no automatic right – “Describing Mr Paisley’s removal from the position as overall moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster in 2008, his son Kyle who was also interviewed said “It was like a knife going through you. The family just felt as if we’d all been stabbed.”
            “They seemed to have done it with such consummate ease. We were definitely let down and betrayed.”” (http://www.christiantoday.com/article/ian.paisley.vows.never.to.return.to.church.he.founded/35452.htm)

            Why would you feel ‘stabbed’ over something that was not an automatic right?

            Why would you feel ‘stabbed’ over an issue on which you father acted and spoke in the following manner – “But Mr Paisley said he did not want to damage the witness of the Church, and so bowed to the pressure of those who said that he could not hold the office of moderator and first minister at the same time.
            “I wasn’t going to stand in the way of people,” he said.
            “If I hadn’t a solid foundation, the work of the Lord was going to be hindered and I am not, was not, a hinderer. I wanted to show people: It’s not the office that the man holds that’s important; it’s the spirit in which he holds it.””

            Why would you feel ‘stabbed’ over an issue and position that was decided by a presbytery majority? Are you above submitting to presbytery’s authority?

            Your father did things that questioned his suitability in the eyes of the presbytery, Whether they were right or wrong politically, history will tell, but the majority believed that he could not hold the positions of FM & Moderator because of his actions! He was still in good-standing and he was allowed to remain until the commencement of 2008, so if the Paisley family did not believe it was an automatic right, then why the fuss Kyle?
            Yes, it would have been difficult at first, but why the need to publicize it now…ah you were all ‘stabbed’ and still have an ax to grind!

          • Timothy, a few things for your consideration:

            # 1 – Are you so blind that you cannot see that it wasn’t so much what was done as the way it was done and the motive that lay behind it?

            # 2 – In respect of your remark – “Your father did things that questioned his suitability in the eyes of the presbytery, Whether they were right or wrong politically, history will tell…” – is not much of a defence of the action taken against him. If the character of an action can only be judged years after that action was taken (“history will tell”) it is at best risky. Again, Christian churches that profess faith in the infallibility of Scripture will know whether or not a thing is right or wrong at the time. They ought to act on basic Bible principles, rather than wait for years to pass to find out whether or not what they have done is right or wrong. Else they are only practising a form of situation ethics.

            # 3 – In respect of your question – “Are you above submitting to presbytery’s authority?” – I will answer in this way:

            First, no governing body of any denomination has/holds its place except by providence.

            Second, no governing body of any denomination, though it has its place providentially, has a right to abuse its power.

            Third, no church governing body is infallible. Even the most Protestant bodies are not faultless.

            Fourth, members of a church’s governing body are not obliged to support a decision that body takes if it is a wrong decision.

            Fifth, my conscience is not ultimately bound to any man or assembly of men. My conscience is bound to the Word of God and is therefore free. “I believed, therefore have I spoken.”

            # 4 – There is a difference between “grinding an axe”, as you put it, and legitimate criticism. I would suggest that if you can’t see the difference you have a problem.

  2. Short but nonetheless interesting on a number of levels. Kyle, doesn’t it all come down to love one another, love our neighbor, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you?

    • That is vital, and best understood and appreciated in the Gospel. Christ died in the place of those who had offended against heaven. If God can love us and forgive us for Christ’s sake, we should love Him and all He gave His life for.

  3. You mention the frostiness between Martina Anderson and Diane Dodds. If you paid attention to the two women when being interviewed you would see that frostiness is one-sided, as Martina always attempts to communicate, but Diane always pointedly ignores her.

    Maybe the charge by Martin McGuinness of ‘moral cowardice’ by our First Minister has at last had an effect. Okay, it took Peter almost two weeks to ‘man up’ and apologise for insulting not only our Muslim neighbours, but in his way insulting all of us living in NI, but can anyone deny that he actually did respond to Marty’s advice?

  4. “As a matter of fact, Mr McGuinness has treated my father with a greater deal of care and respect than a number of my father’s fellow-churchmen and DUP colleagues. This is apparent to all.”

    Kyle, perhaps you could put actions to your words. If you feel this way then resign from the church. That may be a more constructive response than denouncing your fellow-churchmen on Eamonn Mallie’s blog for all to see,

    • As you are responding on the same blog for all to see, what’s the diff?

      By the way, if you paid careful attention to what I wrote you would have noticed that in reference to Ian Paisley’s maltreatment at the hands of ecclesiastics that I said “this is apparent to all.” It certainly was, months and even years before I wrote my article. I didn’t bring it to the attention of the public, the guilty party party did when they put the knife in.

      So will you now, as a man of conscience (I’m hoping that you are), apply the same rule to those who originally publicised their own grievous faults. Will you be so bold as to suggest “resignation” to them? In nothing I have written have I asked for this, but you ought to be true to yourself.

      On the matter of me resigning, I can only say – “Catch yerself on!” I have neither the need nor the intention of resigning.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *