ULSTER CHRISTIAN Reply of George Dawson to Royal Arch Purple critics

Reply of George Dawson to Royal Arch Purple critics

(Issue 30)

Dear Sir,

I must admit to feeling somewhat set up for ambush by the columns of your magazine.

My original letter to you in UC28 concerned the content of your review of the book “Behind Closed Doors.” In that letter I outlined my view that your review had strayed into support for the contents of the publication and listed a number of examples to support my case. These you failed to publish.

Being a response to a review my comments on the book itself were brief, however I did indicate that I was available for interview by any reputable journal on any of the contents of Mr Malcomson’s book. This offer you also failed to publish.

By removing these matters from my original letter it was left as only a brief comment on the book itself. I was not surprised therefore to find that Mr Malcomson and some of his prominent cheerleaders, have responded in the manner outlined in UC 29.

Nevertheless I feel I must respond to some of their comments.

Obviously I would expect the author of any work to defend the contents of his book. After all, I understand his Masters degree depends upon it. However I feel that Mr Malcomson is too close to the work to be an objective commentator. The book stands as the evidence advanced by Mr Malcomson and once again I have no hesitation in rejecting it in the terms previously outlined and standing over my identification of the eight fundamental groupings of error in the book as outlined in my letter in UC28.

In UC29 Mr Evans challenges me to state my position on Freemasonry. This I find an irrelevant question. I am not, and never have been, a Freemason. I know little of their activities. I am however happy to defend the Royal Arch Purple degree on its own merits.

My position on Freemasonry is consistent with the position held amongst the fellowship of believers in which I am a member. I am happy to accept and submit myself to the authority of the ruling elders of my denomination in this regard.

Mr Paul Johnston in his letter asks three questions. Question one and three are as a result of a lack of understanding, or a lack of knowledge, of context. It is possible to draw statements out of context from any work or author which, divorced from their background, give a different meaning to the work taken as a whole.

Orangeism as a whole is consistent with the doctrine of Justification by Faith. We know no other salvation than that purchased by the blood on Calvary and we are confident in our belief that such complete salvation is eternally secure. Mr Johnston’s second question is as inaccurate in content as it is nonsensical.

The extensive list of evangelical leaders mightily used of God this country, and overseas, ranging from Rev. Hugh Hanna and Rev. TC Hammond in previous generations to Rev. Ron Johnston and Rev. William McCrea in this, are testimony to the fact that Evangelical Protestantism is not damaged by recipients of the Royal Arch Purple Degree. Are these men guilty of promoting paganism as Mr Malcomson and his supporters suggest?

Yours sincerely,

George Dawson, Ballymena, Co. Antrim

A book from within the Loyal Orders:

Evangelical Truth debate with Independent Orange Institution

Independent Orange procedure