THE recent article by John Marsden, condemning the whole foundation and nature of Orangeism, was as prejudiced, intolerant and ill researched a piece of verbal gymnastics as I have encountered.
That is saying something considering the repeated attacks on those who actually believe the teachings of the historic Protestant faith by ecumenists like John Marsden who have abandoned them. Ecumenists hypocritically continue to draw salaries from those religious bodies whose teachings they reject and deny, and which they actively seek to reverse and overthrow.
He accuses Orangeism of "tribalism", stating: "A conception of political community which is tribal and exclusive has no place in a democratic society." His accusation is utter nonsense. As a member of the Independent Loyal Orange Institution, which has for over 90 years advocated no official links with any political party, I can state quite categorically that we exist primarily for the defence and promotion of biblical Protestantism, and that our heartbeat is essentially religious.
The various loyal orders have members from Europe, America, Africa and Australasia. They come from different political perspectives, different Christian denominations and, indeed, come in different colours.
Mr Marsden accuses Orangeism of contributing to the "divisions" within the Christian church. He is incorrect. Within Orangeism, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Reformed Presbyterians, Free Presbyterians, Evangelical Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Independent Methodists and Pentecostals all sit down, pray, sing and witness together.
WHAT unites them? Is it as is the case with the ecumenical movement, professions of mutual love and respect at the expense of biblical truth? No. It is mutual love and respect for biblical truth and because they recognise that fidelity to the Holy Scriptures in each other.
He accuses Orangeism of viewing "Protestants as God's chosen people". Yet again John Marsden parades his prejudices as facts. He expects everyone to bow before his lack of reason and information and treat it as a virtue, accepting his ludicrous statements as if true.
He is, as ever, wrong. Orangeism, precisely because it is built upon a foundation of biblical Protestantism, treats no one as one of "God's chosen people" because they assent to a particular creed or attend a professing Christian church.
No. It is, in fact, the Johns Marsdens of this world who do precisely that. He would accept someone as a brother or sister in Christ simply because they claim to be so, even they teach and practise the basest forms of idolatry, as the Roman Catholic Church does.
Orangeism only treats someone as one of "God's chosen people", as he puts it, if they have received Christ by grace alone, through faith alone, demonstrating such by repenting of their sins and forsaking their former way of life. None of this is true of John Marsden, who happily sees someone breaking the second commandment ("Thou shalt not make unto the any graven image"), rejecting other Scriptures, and embraces him as a brother.
Considering the clear scriptural command to separate from and reprove such practices, this all sits very uncomfortably with John Marsden's declared concern for "gospel obedience".
ORANGEISM, rather, views Protestants as God's favoured people in that He has favoured us with the bible in our mother tongne, with civil and religious liberty and with the Reformation, which, through the Scriptures, gave us direct access tub God without the need or aid of Popes or priests, saints or sacraments, relics or rosaries, or the Virgin Mother - something which, it appears, John Marsden regrets and would reverse.
He accuses Orangeism of having a "sectarian nature" and "spirit". To prove this outrageous charge, he quotes from the qualifications of an Orangeman, citing the one which speaks of popish worship. He conveniently forgets, however, to give the whole quotation, and thereby distorts the context and deceives the reader.
I shall provide the missing statements, leaving out only the part he quoted. An Orangeman's "deportment should be gentle and compassionate, kind and courteous he should seek the society of the virtuous, and avoid that of the evil he should honour and diligently study the Holy Scriptures, and make them the rule of his faith and practice he should love, uphold and defend the Protestant religion, and sincerely desire and endeavour to propagate its doctrines and precepts ... ever abstaining from all uncharitable words, actions or sentiments towards Roman Catholics".
The final false accusation states that to disagree with the ecumenical movement is to suffer from spiritual cancer. Here John Marsden reaches the height of his arrogance and intolerance.
In what is the most controversial theological dispute within Protestantism today, John Marsden claims that to hold a different opinion or belief from his, even if it is held every bit as intelligently, sincerely and biblically as he would claim to hold his, means that one suffers from spiritual "cancer".
The sad truth appears to be that the "cancer" is that which cannot abide someone taking a different view, the religious intolerance which reaches peace and love, but only to those who toe the theological line and accept the naked sectarianism, bigotry and bitterness of John Marsden and those who are equally blind.
