One of the more remarkable events in recent Irish history was the formation of a power-sharing government in Northern Ireland in 2007. Unionist Ian Paisley, then head of the Democratic Unionist Party and moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, became the First Minister, while Republican Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein became the Deputy First Minister. Contrary to expectations, Paisley and McGuinness got on famously. Shortly before Christmas 2007, the “odd couple of Ulster” helped open IKEA’s first Irish store, in Belfast, posing on a red sofa for photographers. Paisley expressed delight that the store made it easier for the man from Ballymena (his heavily Protestant constituency) “to buy cheap” because “[i]t’s got the best possible goods for the lowest possible price.”[1]
The Shaping of Ulster Presbyterian Belief and Practice, 1770-1840
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
392 pages
$73.00
As Paisley’s tribute to Presbyterian frugality suggests, Presbyterians have a distinctive identity—both cultural and religious. It’s not Presbyterians’ tightfistedness but their religious identity that concerns Andrew Holmes in The Shaping of Ulster Presbyterian Belief and Practice, 1770-1840. He aims to describe the theological character of Ulster Presbyterianism, paying particular attention to interactions between clergy and laity, the variety of Presbyterian opinions, and the significance of individual faith. Throughout the study, Holmes notes the growth of Presbyterian evangelicalism, which he defines as the search for reform and renewal within the church, and not as enthusiasm or individualism.
Holmes starts his study in 1770, by which time Presbyterianism was well established in Ireland, having been brought to the island by Scottish settlers in the early 17th century. Perhaps justifying a Presbyterian reputation for fractiousness, Irish Presbyterians were not monolithic. The majority of Irish Presbyterians belonged to the Synod of Ulster. In the early 18th century, a seceding synod formed, which subsequently split into two further synods. The Presbytery of Antrim, the Remonstrant Synod of Ulster, and Reformed Presbyterians known as Covenanters further contributed to the Presbyterian mix. Despite differences over theology, common religious practice united Presbyterians. They met weekly on the Lord’s Day to hear sermons and sing psalms. They celebrated communion twice a year. They baptized their children and buried their dead according to their own forms. They learned the Westminster Catechism and read the Bible.
Describing the shared religious identity of Ulster Presbyterian laity is no easy task. Holmes faces the problem of getting from the pulpit to the pew, a problem common to all who write the history of lay belief. Pastors leave abundant records of their theological opinions; lay people are less likely to do so. Holmes responds to the challenge by using a variety of sources to gauge lay belief. In addition to printed theological tracts and denominational publications, he considers Kirk visitations, poetry, and occasional lay records. While the voice of pastors is always present, he skillfully uses clerical reports and sermons to describe the corporate life of the laity.
Ulster politics further complicate Holmes’ project, especially since he wants to examine religious history separately from political history. He essentially treats the religious history of Ulster Presbyterianism in isolation and avoids broader political and social questions. Major political events, such as the 1798 Irish rebellion, are mentioned only in passing, and the wider social and political context of religious history is elided. Holmes tracks a few temporal changes, such as the growth of evangelicalism, but mainly he focuses on constant patterns.
Holmes regards weekly Sunday services as the foundation of Presbyterian life and cultural self-identification. Therefore it is curious that few Presbyterians—averaging 25 percent across the denominations—participated in them. Holmes compares the number of adherents (people identified as Presbyterians in 1834) to the number of attendees (average attendance figures from 1835). The percentage of adherents who actually attended Sunday worship ranged from a low of 20.3 percent for Remonstrants to a high of 41 percent for the Presbytery of Antrim. The percentage for the Synod of Ulster, the largest Presbyterian denomination, was 23.2. Holmes only gives this data for 1834/35, hinting that increasing urbanization further decreased the percentage of attendees.
Since Sabbath services are one of Holmes’ key markers of Presbyterian identity, attendance figures are significant for his study. He argues that low Sabbath attendance points to the existence of a Presbyterian identity distinct from Presbyterian doctrine, an identity that “signified attachment to certain cultural, ethnic and political ideals that were informed but not necessarily beholden to the peculiar doctrines of Presbyterianism.” This identity seems to have been a composite construction made up of a shared ethnic background, the experience of life in Ulster, attendance at Presbyterian services, and Presbyterian celebration of the sacraments.
A Presbyterian baptism was the essential marker of belonging to the Presbyterian church. Baptisms were often celebrated at home, which removed the social pressure of attending Sunday service. Poor Presbyterians, who often avoided church because they lacked suitable clothes, still had their children baptized. Unlike the Church of Ireland, which required sponsors or godparents, parents presented their children for Presbyterian baptism. Being baptized not only gave the child a name, it secured the child’s place in the Presbyterian community. It was widely believed that baptism helped the child flourish. Some even thought baptism protected the child from being abducted by fairies—surely not a doctrine preached from the pulpit.
Communion celebrations were another element in constructing a Presbyterian identity. Presbyterian congregations held communion twice a year, usually in May and October, and often outdoors. Determining communion participation is even more difficult than measuring Sunday attendance, but surviving records document communal celebrations for thousands. Clearly communion attracted much larger crowds than regular Sunday meetings.
Presbyterians celebrated communion differently from their Catholic and Anglican neighbors. A common Presbyterian pattern was to hold a series of services: a preparation sermon on Sunday before communion, a fast day on Thursday, a day of spiritual preparation on Friday, a service and examination of communicants on Saturday, communion on Sunday, and a thanksgiving service on Monday. The Westminster Confession had established that the ignorant and the scandalous were to be excluded from the communion table. Accordingly, Presbyterians were examined and, when necessary, disciplined by Kirk sessions before being readmitted to the table. At the communion service the celebrating minister warned the ungodly not to participate for danger to their souls. A hallmark of Presbyterian communion was that those receiving communion took seats at long tables covered in white linen tablecloths, symbolizing purity, and passed the elements to each other.
Holmes considers both communal and individual understandings of communion. He identifies the emphasis on protecting communion from the unworthy as an attempt to define Presbyterian community, to separate the godly from those whose behavior or beliefs had fallen short. He also describes how communicants found that sitting at a table with fellow believers, a uniquely Presbyterian practice, reminded them that all were equal before God. The personal significance of the sacrament is reflected in private communion covenants. Holmes reprints the communion covenant of his namesake, another Andrew Holmes, written before communion in the 1780s. The 18th-century Andrew Holmes dedicated his soul and body to God, asked God’s help in renouncing “the thrice enemies of the [glorious] Trinity,” and requested that he be sealed to the day of redemption.
This communion covenant affords a brief flash of individual belief in a book that concentrates on corporate belief and shared habits. Other sections in the book describe family practices—family worship, and funerals—but Holmes still writes about them in general terms. Perhaps since lay sources are rare, describing corporate Presbyterian life is the only way to describe the religious life of individuals. But the problem with relying on corporate life is that, at least as Holmes portrays it, only some Presbyterians regularly participated in it. What about the other Ulster Presbyterians? What shaped their identity?
Or, to put the question another way, how did the descendants of Scottish settlers who did not attend Sunday services, but still identified themselves as Presbyterians, become Ulster Presbyterians? Holmes has done an excellent job of tracing public practices of faith, but these things only occupied a fraction of the week. The shaping of Ulster Presbyterianism also occurred in homes, marketplaces, and political arenas. Identifying oneself as Presbyterian became as much a cultural and political statement as a theological one.
Being baptized a Presbyterian, attending church on the Sabbath (or knowing that one should attend church), and participating in communion are only part of the story. A full survey of the creation of Ulster Presbyterianism also needs to account for the formation of a religious and cultural identity that flourished outside public worship and prescribed behavior. Ultimately the history needs to help explain why, when Ian Paisley joked about the man from Ballymena who was excited by the prospect of cheap furniture, his listeners readily understood that he was talking about a Presbyterian.
Mary Noll Venables is a historian living in Ireland.
1. David Lister, “Ikea opens doors to ‘odd couple of Ulster,'” timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3047534.ece, December 13, 2007.
Copyright © 2009 by the author or Christianity Today/Books & Culture magazine. Click here for reprint information on Books & Culture.
