Douglas - Section 23, The Life of Douglas Icon John Spong
<Section #23> Clay Douglas states: “Bishop John Spong had closely analyzed Paul’s life and writings. Spong believes Paul’s fiery manner of writing was his method of dealing with his own homosexuality. There is much, as Anglican Bishop of Newark John Spong has pointed out, which leads one to suspect Paul might have been ‘queer’ in some way. The fact he was never married, unusual for a Jew of his time, his companionship with a series of younger men, especially St. Timothy, his mention of an unnamed ‘thorn in the flesh’, and, possibly, his disdain for some types of exploitative homosexual relationship in his period, all raise questions which cannot be answered it must be admitted, about his sexuality.”
In reply to section <#23>: It is apparent that Douglas has developed many of his ideas about Paul and Christianity from Bishop John Spong. Shortly we shall examine what sort of man this John Spong is, since it is evident that Clayton Douglas is more than a casual reader of Spong’s many uncouth works. I must say now, once the truly pious men amongst the Paul-bashers read what we have to present about Spong, surely they’ll want to reevaluate many of their positions! But first the immediate issues raised here by Douglas must be dealt with.
The liberal (note Isa. 32:5) bloc in this and other western nations, which is actually a motley coalition of deviants, various minority groups, and ignorant do-goody Whites, all led by the communist jews, have long been attacking not only Christianity but all of the pillars and icons of Western civilization. One of their common tactics is to portray a corrupt and decadent portrait of one of our heroes, usually with little or no solid evidence, slandering that hero as some sort of deviant or hypocrite. In that manner, once the masses are convinced by the media, their own decadent behavior is eventually accepted and absorbed into the public perception of “normal”. While this is only one method of their attacks on us, it is effective. It is more than a coincidence that the word “devil” in the N.T. in Greek is often διάβολος (1228), which means in truth “false accuser”. They did this recently with Thomas Jefferson by claiming that he fathered a child by a negress. In truth, they knew that the DNA evidence pointed to only one of several dozen possible male Jeffersons of the era as the culprit, but that didn’t stop them because they wanted it to be Thomas. In reality, the historical evidence points instead to his carousing brother Randolph Jefferson, but the media blitz is long over, the icon is soiled, and the masses will never hear the evidence. Thomas wasn’t perfect, but he was no miscegenist. The desired result is only that once enough great White men can be shown to have been miscegenists, why should it remain taboo for the rest of us? Ditto for homosexuality and other deviant practices. This is just one tactic of the communists’ culture war against our race, brought to us by deviants and jews, the so-called “intelligentsia”.
These vile ‘liberals’ have a problem with Paul, because Paul made it absolutely, unequivocally clear that sexual deviancy and Christianity have nothing in common, thus being impossible to accept together. And if the deviants cannot be Christians, how can they then corrupt Christianity? Although they’ve tried for centuries, never could they destroy it from without! So in this modern age they’ve put forth polluted translations of Scripture, perverting and corrupting the text more and more with each new edition, in order to blur the lines of righteousness and the vision of the readers, circumventing the Truth. Then they destroy the reputation of the writers so that once the truth does come out, it isn’t received with credibility in the minds of the masses! Paul, foremost defender of the gospel of Christ, is in this day the foremost target of the jews and the deviants, and all Paul-bashers are their accomplices, wittingly or unwittingly!
Here are Paul’s remarks from his epistles in reference to deviant sexual behavior, which I shall take from my own translation of Paul because I believe that I have rendered the Greek as clearly as possible, which is especially important in these instances:
Romans 1:26-32: “26 Therefore Yahweh handed them over to a state of disgrace, for both their females exchanged their natural intimacy for that contrary to nature, 27 and likewise the males have given up the natural intimacy of the female, inflamed in their desires for one another, males with males perpetrating shamefulness, and their wandering necessitates the reward they are receiving among themselves. 28 And just as they do not think it fit to have Yahweh in their knowledge, Yahweh handed them over to a reprobate mind, to do things not fitting; 29 being filled with all injustice, fornication, greediness, wickedness; full of envy, murder, strife, treachery, malignity, slanderers, 30 loud talkers, haters of Yahweh, insolent, arrogant, pretentious, contrivers of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 void of understanding, covenant breakers, heartless, merciless; 32 such as these who knowing the judgments of Yahweh, that they practicing such things are worthy of death, not only they who cause them, but also they approving of those committing them.” (The parallels with the apostasy and deviancy of this present time are not coincidental.)
1 Cor. 6:9-10: “9 Or do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of Yahweh? Do not be led astray: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminates, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor rapacious shall inherit the kingdom of Yahweh.”
1 Tim. 1:9-11: “9 Knowing this, that law is not laid down for righteous, but for lawless and unruly, impious and wrongful, unholy and profane, patricidal and matricidal, murderous, 10 fornicating, homosexual, kidnapping, lying, falsely swearing men, along with anything else which is contrary to sound instruction 11 according to the good message of the honor of the Blessed Yahweh, which I have been entrusted with.”
In both cases in which it appears, the word “homosexual” is from the Greek ἀρσενοκοίτης (733), used in this same manner throughout Classical writings. The 9th edition of the Liddell & Scott Greek English Lexicon succinctly defines the word “sodomite”. It should also be evident, that the law which Paul referred to at 1 Tim. 1:9 is certainly the Old Testament law, whereby he clearly demonstrated an obeisance to its principles.
While it shall soon be demonstrated that John Spong certainly is a member of the jewish-liberal bloc seeking to corrupt forever our race and civilization, first his remarks above concerning Paul must be addressed. Douglas states that “Spong believes Paul’s fiery manner of writing was his method of dealing with his own homosexuality”. This is clearly unprovable, undocumentable psychobabble contrived to be false support for further untrue accusations. It is typical jew calumny. As for Paul’s not marrying, he explains the reasons for such himself at 1 Cor. 9:1-23, not wanting to have any hindrance in the task to which he was assigned: the spreading of the gospel of Christ. How many men have sacrificed carnal desires, wife and family, for God and country and other noble pursuits? Were they all homosexuals? Certainly not! And neither was Paul! Yet I shall resort to another comparison with Yahshua Christ, for neither did He marry! Not accusing Christ, which would certainly be blasphemous, Douglas and Spong are mere hypocrites instead. “Marriage is valuable in every way” wrote Paul (Heb. 13:4), and advised Timothy that bishops and ministers must be married, and have faithful children, since if they couldn’t govern their own families well then they certainly weren’t qualified to govern the household of Yahweh (1 Tim. 3:1-13).
Again, Douglas and Spong accuse Paul of having “companionship with a series of younger men”, thereby throwing a blanket accusation of homosexuality over all of the associates of Paul! Calumny indeed! In the laws of Yahweh, which Paul certainly invoked, as quoted above, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman ... they shall surely be put to death” (Lev. 20:13, cf. Lev. 18:22; Deut. 23:17), and it is also written that “... if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then ye shall do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother...”, or in other words, if one makes a false accusation for which the penalty is death, the accuser suffers the penalty instead! I pray that Yahweh grants Douglas and Spong the rewards of their labors, and quickly! Let all the followers of Douglas and Spong consider this, and beware! And again I must say that Yahshua Christ Himself chose out many young men to be His apostles. Douglas and Spong wouldn’t dare accuse Him! So instead, they are again revealed to be hypocrites!
As for Douglas and Spong’s contention concerning Paul’s “unnamed” thorn in the flesh, first we must ask, was it truly unnamed? Surely the jews and liberals would like us to think it was unnamed, so that they can use it as another false support for their attacks on Christianity. Paul mentions his “thorn in the flesh” at 2 Cor. 12:7. This again is from my own translation:
“7 And in order that I would not be exalted in the excellence of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh has been given to me, an adverse messenger, that it would strike me in order that I would not be exalted. 8 Three times I have exhorted the Prince concerning this, that it may depart from me, 9 and He told me, ‘My favor is enough for you; since the power is perfected in weakness’” (2 Cor. 12:7-9).
In weakness, not in sodomy! Paul didn’t necessarily have to tell the Corinthians what his “thorn in the flesh was”, for they probably already knew. Paul had spent some time in Corinth (Acts 18) and had written them not only once before (1 Cor.), but at least twice (see 1 Cor. 5:9, 2 Cor. 7:8), and at least one of his letters to them is lost. Yet we must examine something Paul wrote to the Galatians after he had visited them:
“13 Now you know that in sickness of the flesh I had announced the good message to you earlier, 14 and of my trial in my flesh you did not despise or loathe, but as a messenger of Yahweh you accepted me, like Yahshua Christ. 15 Then what is your blessing? I testify to you that, if possible, your eyes being extracted you would have given them to me.” (Gal. 4:13-15).
Now any honest man, or even a child, can see that Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” was nothing more than his failed eyesight! To make anything more of it is not only dishonest, but purposely slanderous! Spong and his disciple, Clayton Douglas, are both guilty of such deceit!
Writing above, on pages 47-48 in Section 9, while addressing Douglas’ first quote in his article from Bishop Spong, I wondered: “what sort of man could Spong be?” That was back on October 23rd of last year (2005 – this section was first written in February, 2006). Shortly thereafter I was able to obtain some information concerning Spong, and Clifton Emahiser has collected more since then. How little I suspected, that Spong is a much more vile man than I could have imagined back in October! Here it is fitting to divert from our response to Clayton Douglas’ articles to discuss Bishop Spong himself, whom Douglas must have read in depth, and of whom Douglas is a disciple. Once we see – from his own mouth – that John Spong is a lover of negroes and homosexuals – that he is no true Christian but rather a full-blown member of the jewish-led liberal – Communist – deviant – minority bloc who are hell-bent upon destroying our White race and civilization, then the motives of Spong, and perhaps Douglas also, shall become fully manifest. I strongly urge all Paul-bashers everywhere to fully contemplate this review of the life and works of John Spong, which we will begin with some comments and biographical information compiled by Clifton:
In an effort to find all the origins of the phenomenon known today as “Anti-Paulism”, it has led in many unusual directions. We first observed that Paul-bashing was nothing new, for there were many Anti-Paulists during Paul’s own time. The one common characteristic surrounding the attempted refuting of Paul’s writings in all periods of time since Paul is that it appears to have its origin from the bad-fig Judaeans of Rev. 2:9 & 3:9 whom we term as “Jews” today. In pursuit of the “Jewish” connection to this Paul-bashing, which is gaining epidemic proportions, we find that W. G. Finlay from South Africa, a ravenous Paul-basher, based his flawed assumptions on a book Popes From The Ghetto by Dr. Joachim Prince, president of the American Jewish Congress, and chairman of the Conference Of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations. Finlay also referred to Prince as “The learned rabbi, who still serves in the Temple Beni-Abram of Newark in New Jersey.”
As we shall see, this is not the only connection associated with Paul-bashing and Newark, New Jersey. Not that that should be a bad reflection in any way upon any of the good citizens of Adamic-culture from that state. Clayton Douglas’ Paul-bashing articles in the December 2003 and January 2004 issues of his Free American News- magazine state: “Bishop John S. Spong (Episcopal Bishop of Newark): ‘Paul’s words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul - a vast difference’!” Thus, we have one Paul-basher in the person of Clayton Douglas quoting another Paul-basher in the person of “Bishop John S. Spong”. It is paramount, therefore, to investigate the tenets of this “Bishop John S. Spong” from Newark, New Jersey, which we will now examine. To fully investigate this “Bishop” Spong will be no short task. Anyone who would like to verify what is about to be revealed here can go to the web site:
www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/jssbiog.html [January 14th 2011 - link to Spng's blog is now defunct, left the text, but replaced the link with one to his archive page at the Episcopal Diocese of Newark newsletter. - WRF ]
At this web site one will find a biography of John Shelby Spong, and from that biography one can decide if it is advisable and proper to be associated with such an evil person. One will find at this web site that John Shelby Spong is a member of the “House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the United States.” No insignificant position, and a vast realm of influence!
Spong was born 1931 at Charlotte, NC; where he also attended public school; graduated from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1952, and received his Master of Divinity from the Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary in Virginia in 1955, which later conferred on him, along with St. Paul’s College, “honorary Doctor of Divinity” degrees. He then served as rector of St. Joseph’s Church in Durham, NC, 1955-1957; rector of Calvary Parish, Tarboro, NC, 1957-1965; rector of St. John’s Church at Lynchburg, VA, 1965-1969; rector of St. Paul’s Church, Richmond, VA, 1969-1976; consecrated bishop June 12, 1976. Spong’s influence has touched a wide variety of official authority serving on committees and commissions. He was editor of The North Carolina Churchman; president of the Standing Committee; three times deputy to the General Convention; he has been president of the New Jersey Council of Churches; consultant, Episcopal Radio & Television Foundation; consultant, Standing Liturgical Commission; member, Overseas Review Committee of the national church; elected 1973 to six-year term Executive Council, next highest governing body under the General Convention; appointed by Presiding Bishop Edmond Browning to serve on the Standing Commission on Human Affairs and Health; serves on the House of Bishop’s Theology Committee; elected Quatercentenary Scholar, Emmanuel College, Cambridge University, 1991; guest lecturer, Oxford University, United Kingdom, 1993. Also, Spong takes an active interest in sports, including play-by-play radio announcer for stations in Tarboro, NC and Lynchburg, VA for the three major sports; also serving as sports editor for the Daily Southerner at Tarboro.
In addition to the above web site, one might also check the web sites:
www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/reform.html
www.dioceseofnewark.org/antiracistmothers.html [January 14th 2011 - this link now defunct, we changed the link but not the text. - WRF ]
newark.rutgers.edu/~Icrew/spong_cv.html [January 14th 2011 - link to Spng's blog is now defunct, left the text, but replaced the link with one to his archive page at the Episcopal Diocese of Newark newsletter. - WRF ]
www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/profile.html
[End of Clifton’s compilation of Spong’s biographical information.]
Here we have interrupted our address of Clayton Douglas’ article The Seduction: Judeo-Christianity OR Pauline Christianity? Saul of Tarsus: Paul. A different view in order to investigate the life and works of the so-called “Bishop”, John S. Spong. Since Douglas quotes Spong repeatedly in his criticism of Paul. Douglas must have read Spong’s extensive works with a more than casual interest in the “Bishop’s” opinions, because he speaks of Spong with great respect in his article and repeats Spong’s conclusions with avid conviction.
In sections <A> through <V> above, on pages 1 through 26, while discussing the anti-Paulism of H. Graber it was seen that Graber’s primary sources for his opinions were the Socialist George Bernard Shaw and the jew Joachim Prince. Here it may well be made evident that John S. Spong is much more dangerous than these, for Spong is an embracer of negroes and homosexuals, a lover of the anti-christ jews, and a hater of nationalism and patriotism, all while claiming to be a Christian, and a bishop! But we shall let Spong testify to the truth of these things by himself. We are often told that one shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, yet just as often one can find all that’s needed to know simply by reading its title!
At the end of section<#23> above, we gave a summary of Spong’s academic credentials and vocational positions, condensed from the website:
www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/jssbiog.html [January 14th 2011 - link to Spng's blog is now defunct, left the text, but replaced the link with one to his archive page at the Episcopal Diocese of Newark newsletter. Likewise for the link in the first paragraph below. - WRF ]
At another website, newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/spong_cv.html, one can find a summary of Spong’s credentials plus a list of books and articles which Spong has authored, and this partial list of their titles should tell us much about his work: Dialogue: In Search of Jewish-Christian Understanding (Co-authored with Rabbi Jack D. Spiro); Beyond Moralism: A Contemporary View of the Ten Commandments co-authored with Denise G. Haines, Archdeacon; Living in Sin? A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality; Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture; Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus; Resurrection: Myth or Reality? A Bishop’s Search of the Origins of Christianity; Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes; Why Christianity Must Change Or Die: A Bishop Speaks To Believers In Exile.
Some of the individual articles written by Spong include: “The Christian Need for Judaism” The Christian Century; “Breaking Definitions” The Integrater [sic]; “Sexual Stereotypes in the Life of the Church” Ecumenical Trends; “Understanding the Gay Reality” The Christian Century; “Sexual Ethics: No Longer a Matter of Black and White” The Episcopalian; “Changing Patterns of Sexuality” The Living Church; “The Bible and Sexual Ethics” The Living Church; “America’s Survival Depends on Patriotism’s Death” American Values; “Bishop, Please Tell My Congregation I Was Gay” The Church Times, London; “No Outcasts” Update, Presbyterians for Lesbian/Gay Concerns, New Brunswick, NJ; “A Dialog on Christian Sexual Ethics” with John R. W. Stott, Crux; “Christian Symbols and Jewish Midrash” The Human Quest; “Most Biblical Interpretation Illogical” The Human Quest; “Judas Iscariot - A Creation of Prejudice?” The Human Quest; “A Call for a New Reformation” The Fourth R; “The Powerless Christ” The Witness.
By the titles of Spong’s books and articles alone, it should be unequivocally clear that the statements I have made about him are true. ‘Bishop’ Spong is surely a member of the jewish-liberal bloc seeking to destroy our nation from within, and Clayton Douglas is his disciple! Paul-bashers everywhere beware: you have all been following the pied piper of deceit big time!
Some of Spong’s national television appearances include: Good Morning America, ABC; The Today Show, ABC; This Morning, CBS; Firing Line with Wm Buckley - 3 times; The Phil Donahue Show; Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher - 4 times; Firing Line, Debate with Pat Buchanan; Religion Today with Bob Abernathy; McNeil/Lehrer News Hour - 2 times; Larry King Live - 3 times; The O’Reilly Factor with Bill O’Reilly - 2 times; The Tom Snyder Show - 2 times; The John Ankerberg Show; The Oprah Winfrey Show; Nightline, ABC - 2 times; Town Hall, CNN.
Clayton Douglas reveres Bishop Spong, but seemingly the jewish-controlled media establishment loves him even more, and it is no surprise to me considering his views. We also find from this website that Spong lectured at Harvard University in 2000, and was “Humanist of the Year, 1999”, although we are not told which organization bestowed that honor (or rather, placed that curse) upon him. Clearly Spong is no Christian by any stretch of the imagination.
Spong wrote “The Christian Need for Judaism”, yet the early Christian bishop Ignatius knew better, for he wrote that “It is absurd to name Yahshua Christ, and to Judaize. For the Christian Religion did not embrace the Jewish, but the Jewish the Christian” (see page 33, at the beginning of this response to Douglas’ article). Hebrewism was nothing more than Christianity before Christ. Christianity is Hebrewism after its fulfilled promise of Christ’s coming. Judaism is only an offshoot, a corruption, of Hebrewism! The Apostle John refers to the jews as nothing but antichrists: 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7. The last thing Christianity needs is Judaism! Except that Adam himself chose to know good and evil.
Spong wrote that “... Christianity Must Change Or Die ...”, and “No Outcasts” which was for a homosexual publication. In contrast, Paul wrote “Yahshua Christ: the same yesterday, and today, and for the ages” (Heb. 13:8). Compare Psalms 111:7-9; 119:89; Isa. 40:8; 55:10-11; Mal.3:6; Matt. 24:35; Mark 13:31 and 1 Pet. 1:25. Paul also wrote of a sexual deviant, quoting and/or alluding to Deut. 13:5; 17:7, 12; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21, 24 and 24:7: “And you are inflated, and rather you have not mourned, in order that he who did this deed would be taken from your midst ... But presently I have written to you not to associate with any brother if he is being designated a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or abusive, or drunken, or rapacious; not even to eat with such a wretch. What is it to me to judge those outside? Not at all should you judge those within you. But those outside Yahweh judges; ‘you will expel the wicked from amongst yourselves’.” (1 Cor. 5:2, 11-13). Surely Paul teaches that there shall be outcasts, as we have seen from Rom. 1:26-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and 1 Tim. 1:9-11, all discussed here on pp. 69-70 in section <23>, and that homosexuals shall be among those outcasts (cf. Rev. 22:15). Who is in compliance with the laws of Yahweh, Spong or Paul? Who is in compliance with the will of Yahshua Christ, Spong or Paul?
The liberals and the jews with their followers wrongly accuse Paul of somehow doing away with all of the laws of Yahweh (as if a mere man could possibly do such a thing), which they themselves refuse to heed, and certainly do not understand. The Old Testament lays before the children of Israel – and no one else – certain blessings if they are obedient to Yahweh (Lev. 26:3-13; Deut. 7:12-26; 28:1-14), and certain consequences if they are disobedient to Yahweh (Lev. 26:14-46; Deut. 6:10-25; 28:16-58). Paul certainly did not lay this aside (i.e. Rom 3:31; 1 Cor. 10:1-11; Gal. 6:7). Spong embraces homosexuals and aliens, things we were taught to keep ourselves clean from (Jer. 31:31-33; Isa. 52:11; 2 Cor. 6:14-18), and when life doesn’t go as he thinks it should, he writes articles such as “The Powerless Christ”. Blasphemy indeed! Liberals and Humanists seek to conform “God” to their image. True Israelite-Christians know that our Adamic race was created in the image of Yahweh our God (Gen. 1:26-28; 5:3; 9:6; Rom. 8:28-39; Col. 3:1-10 et al.), and we are obliged to act accordingly! Liberals and Humanists refuse to admit that there may be a penalty for their abhorrent, deviant behavior, and John Spong goes to great lengths to convince all men of that same denial. Clayton Douglas is his disciple!
Spong, who couldn’t possibly get around Paul’s clear condemnations of sexual deviancy, employs Freudian psychobabble and uses Paul’s statements out of context in a vain slanderous attempt to discredit Paul, attempting thereby to nullify those condemnations! The treacherous plot should be clear to anyone with a modicum of spiritual discernment. Yet Clayton Douglas fell for it wholeheartedly. Clayton Douglas, publisher of Free American Newsmagazine makes himself a disciple of John Spong, lover of homosexuals and aliens, author of “America’s Survival Depends on Patriotism’s Death”. Oh, the irony is nearly too great to bear! Is Clayton Douglas deceived, a deceiver, or just stupid?
A summary of Spong’s career and personal life can be found in the article “Profile of a Bishop: John Shelby Spong” by Ellen Barrett, found at:
www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/profile.html
The following paragraphs are based upon information found in the article:
Apparently Spong was not a homosexual, at least openly. He married university classmate Joan Ketner, who was trained as a zoologist and worked for the C. I. A., acting as the breadwinner while Spong attended the seminary. Joan stopped working just before the birth of their first child, the first of three daughters, but “rebelled against the claustrophobic nature of her expected role ... not content as a housewife and mother.” Joan developed an unspecified mental illness some time around 1973, and from around 1983 “she had all but cut herself off from outside contact”, and refused treatment for a cancer she developed. “During these years Spong grew ever closer to his teenagers, becoming a mother as well as a father to them ... He also turned more and more to study and writing as a solace and a way to put order into the chaos of his domestic life.”
Yet evidently “study and writing” weren’t the only things which Spong turned to while his wife, who died in 1988, was ill. For “In that loneliness was also born the beginning of his conviction that God was right, ‘It is not good for a human being to be alone.’ Evidently, about the time of Joan’s death, this would lead him to affirm the relationships of homosexuals as well as those of heterosexual people living in non- traditional arrangements.”
So there it is evident, that during his wife’s illness and the resulting loneliness which he is apparently weakened by, John Spong has some sort of Homosexual Epiphany so profound that he begins a campaign to normalize such deviant behavior and force it onto his church. Sure, in our Bibles the saying is attributed to Yahweh that “it is not good that the man should be alone” (Gen. 2:18), yet Yahweh’s response to the situation was to create a woman! We are advised by Christ: “He which made them at the beginning made them male and female.” Who is Spong to insist that Christianity be corrupted in order to satisfy some perverted, deviant lust? How is Spong so egotistically arrogant to even think that Christianity could somehow be changed? Placing a honey label on a jar of dung doesn’t do anything to change the dung! Remember Paul’s words at Hebrews 13:8!
Returning to the aforementioned article, Spong’s involvement in the policies of his church toward homosexuals began in 1982, when his wife had already been sick for about 9 years, and the “General Convention resolved that the church should begin serious study of ‘changing patterns of family life’.” Spong must have seen this as a green light for his own base ambitions, since “Three or four years later, the Bishop [Spong] commissioned a diocesan task force to study what he considered to be three key points: The overwhelming increase in young people living together outside of marriage; unmarried older people living together for various economic reasons; and whether people living in homosexual relationships could be called into the church’s desire to consecrate human partnership.”
There we have it: John Spong was a trailblazer in the gay marriage movement, 20 years before the recent attempts by deviants to have their iniquity blessed by the State! “A nationwide storm broke in 1987 when the press reported the committee’s findings as endorsing gay marriage”, after which Spong wrote two of his books in defense of the idea. After the death of his wife, Spong got even bolder: “Acting on his growing conviction that gay people should be fully included in the life of the church, Spong ordained Robert Williams in 1989. The wave of hostility Williams’ ordination generated even intruded upon the funeral service for Spong’s wife, Joan. She was buried from their old parish church in Richmond, and as the Bishop and his daughters sat beside the coffin a woman approached him, struck him across the shoulders with her cane, called him a ‘son of a bitch’, and strode out triumphantly through the pallbearers. But not all reaction was negative.... The Bishop who had once dismissed a gay vicar was well on the way to becoming a hero of the gay community as well as a target of conservative wrath.” Yet that “conservative wrath” didn’t last very long. While initially the Diocese of Newark was dissociated from the rest of the Episcopalian church, political pressure put half of the church’s House of Bishops on Spong’s side within a year, and “inspired two married bishops to ‘come out of the closet’ to” Spong during this period of controversy. While at first I criticized Spong for even participating in a church which had homosexual ministers, little did I know that he was the one who made such shamefulness possible for the Episcopalian church in the first place!
This is the type of man whom Clayton Douglas has chosen to follow, and all Paul-bashers everywhere are in league with! The motives for Spong to pervert Paul’s teachings and to portray the apostle in such a slanderous manner should be perfectly evident. Clifton’s reaction to Spong’s deeds is, in part:
“Thank Yahweh for the woman who struck Spong across his shoulders and called him a “SON-OF-A-BITCH.” She undoubtedly knew something about the secret sex life of Spong! She deserved to be given the Congressional Medal of Honor for courage beyond the call of duty! She demonstrated to all the observers there that day that she was a Christian in every respect! May her reward for that act be greater than she can receive at the White Throne Judgement!”
I find it very difficult to conceive how Clayton Douglas could have read Spong’s work, found Spong’s blasphemous remarks concerning Paul of Tarsus, yet not see that Spong was such an advocate for having homosexuals and their deviant relationships fully recognized, and even consecrated, in open society! I must assert that Douglas had to be aware of all of this, and by making a conscious decision to use Spong’s material as he did, showing reverence for Spong himself, the only logical conclusion is that Clayton Douglas approves of John Spong and his actions. May all Paul-bashers be put on notice: for you are all treading very dangerously by following such misguided men.
I find it just as difficult to conceive how Clayton Douglas read Spong’s work yet managed to avoid or ignore, or even overlook, Spong’s position on racial issues, which is just as vile and even more dangerous than his position on homosexuality. For while homosexuality retards the maintenance and growth of the race, miscegenation destroys it down the line forever. Many branches of White Adam have already, in the past, committed racial suicide, and we see it happening again today on a massive scale!
From the same article by Ellen Barrett, quoted from above, we find that Spong was an integrationist long before he became a champion of sexual deviancy. From 1957-1965 Spong was Rector of Calvary Church, in Tarboro N.C. Barrett tells us: “These were the years of controversy over school desegregation in the South, and Spong was in the forefront of the battle. The local sheriff was a member of his congregation, and Spong announced that he expected black school children to be protected, and that he was going to be there with them as they entered the previously all-white school. The sheriff was stuck; to protect his rector he had to protect the children. Supporting integration in North Carolina in 1959 was not a way to popularity. But the struggle was exhilarating, and Spong found others to fight alongside him for the equality of black people as children of God. It was his first serious foray into the arena of social controversy.” You may thank John Spong for our now ruined educational system!
Aside from the obvious deficiencies in Spong’s scholarship (for only White people are descendants of Adam and are children of Yahweh), Newark N.J. was a good place for Spong to end up. Aside from the Ironbound section (or “Down Neck”, as the locals call it) the city is almost exclusively black, and so there are few integration problems there. My own memories of the city are mostly of its decaying, boarded-up, run-down former areas of commerce, and its sprawling slums. Lately, I understand, the city is undergoing a sort of renaissance, having attracted the interest of yuppies and immigrants because of its proximity to New York and much lower taxes.
But Spong’s crimes as an integrationist continue, so Clifton Emahiser has compiled and comments upon this information from yet another website connected to him:
At the web site www.dioceseofnewark.org/antiracistmothers.html [January 14th 2011 - this link now defunct, we changed the link but not the text. - WRF ], one will find Spong’s position concerning race. It is nearly identical to Jewish-Communism and Catholicism, along with most Protestant churches.
“Mission to Dismantle Racism Anti-Racism Dialogs Facilitators provide guidance for the Anti-Racism Dialogues ‘Seeing the Face of God in Each Other: A Positive Vision of the Unity that can be achieved through Christ.’ They will guide groups through an interactive process to increase participants’ awareness and understanding of diversity, prejudice, social power, privilege and institutional and systemic racism. The ideal goal of the dialogues is the transformation of individuals, congregations and the Church, from a habit of exclusiveness to a value of full participation, the elimination of social oppression and shared decision-making and power.
“Anti-racism Training As it is so very important for participants of anti-racism training to experience the process within the context of community, the Anti-racism Dialogues will be congregationally or organizationally based. In other words, for the foreseeable future, ‘Seeing the Face of God in Each Other’ will [sic, be] sponsored by a congregation or congregations or by a commission, committee, agency, district or board.
“The dates will be published in the Voice and posted online each month with the name of the contact person (and phone number) at the congregation or committee, so that others who so desire may join the groups based on the convenience of the location or the schedule. Call the office of the Justice Missioner for more information - 973.430.9909 or Iheadleydeavours@dioceseofnewark.org.”
From the context of this brazen “Anti-racism Dialog” of Bishop John Shelby Spong, it would appear that the enemy of true Israel is by far working much more forcefully to accomplish their agenda of destroying the White Israel race than those in Israel Identity are in defense of true Israel! When are we ever going to wake up!
[End of Clifton’s compilation from the “antiracistmothers” website.]
Scripture makes it clear, and Yahshua Christ fully expresses in His own parables, that He is indeed a racist (i.e. Matt. 13:36-43, 47-50; 15:21-28; 25:31 ff.). Paul certainly followed in Yahshua’s footsteps on this issue as on all others (i.e. Rom. 9:1-13, 21-23; 1 Cor. 10), yet the issue of race was not at the forefront of Paul’s letters because in the Europe of Paul’s time race was simply not an issue: Europe was very nearly 100% Adamic - White! Yet Paul told the Philippians (from my own well-annotated translation of Paul’s epistles):
“14 Do all things apart from murmuring and disputing, 15 that you would be perfect and with unmixed blood, blameless children of Yahweh in the midst of a race crooked and perverted - among whom you appear as luminaries in the cosmos, 16 upholding the Word of Life for a boast with me in the day of Christ, that not in vain have I run nor in vain have I labored” (Phil. 2:14-16).
Aside from Spong’s lifetime of evil works on behalf of sexual deviants and negroes, he also demonstrates a consistent rebellion against the admonitions of Yahshua Christ (John 8:44), Paul (2 Corinthians 6:11-18) and the apostle John (1 John 2:18-23; 4:1-6; 2 John 7-11) by his work with the jewish rabbis. One of Spong’s first books was entitled This Hebrew Lord. Evidently Spong, unlike Paul (Rom. 9, Acts 13:6-11) and Yahshua Christ (Rev. 2:9; 3:9; John 8:33-47), has the jews confused with true Hebrews. Again from Ellen Barrett’s article: “A local rabbi was so impressed with This Hebrew Lord, despite his disagreement with the premise, that the two of them debated the book three Friday nights at the synagogue and three Sunday mornings at St. Paul’s to record-breaking crowds. Local radio picked up the debates, and the pair were offered a twenty-week cable TV contract to continue.”
Spong co-authored a book with another jewish rabbi, and has written articles for jewish publications such as Menorah. While I have not seen evidence of a relationship mentioned on any Spong-related website, I would find it odd if Spong did not have at least an acquaintance with that other prominent Paul-basher from Newark, N.J., the jewish rabbi and contemporary of Spong’s, Joachim Prince. It would be hard to believe that Joachim Prince, being president of the American Jewish Congress, and chairman of the Conference Of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, wouldn’t be aware of jewish collaboration with people such as Spong within his own city.
One of Spong’s articles is “A Call for a New Reformation”, originally published in 1998. This article is available at the website:
www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/reform.html
and a review of it fully reveals that, while Spong is an Episcopal bishop, his true religions are Darwinism and secular Humanism. It should be no wonder that Spong has so little use for Paul of Tarsus, that he would stoop to slandering a noble man in order to promote his own immoral, homosexual agenda!
Spong’s article begins by misrepresenting the Protestant Reformation. He belittles the issues which led hundreds of thousands of faithful Christians to sacrifice their lives by calling them “quite trivial in retrospect”, and leaves unmentioned the oppression of the Romish church, ignoring all of the slaughter and sins perpetrated by that evil institution. Spong surely has no sense of history, and is absolutely ignorant of Biblical prophecy.
He goes on to state that “The need for a new theological reformation began when Copernicus and Galileo removed this planet from its previous [sic, -ly] supposed location at the center of the universe”, which is also a mischaracterization. Modern astronomical discoveries surely upset the Romish church’s model of creation, but that was actually founded upon the errant beliefs of Aristotle, and not Biblical Christianity. Copernicus and Galileo did nothing to harm true Biblical Christianity because nothing in the Bible – not even the Genesis creation account when viewed from a proper perspective – insists upon a geocentric model of the universe.
Spong then states that “After [Sir Isaac] Newton the church found itself in a world in which the concept of magic, miracle, and divine intervention as explanations of anything, could no longer be offered with intellectual integrity”. Yet Newton didn’t anticipate the discovery of the atom and the subsequent finding that all matter is truly nothing but energy. Paul knew this, and in Hebrews he states “By faith we perceive the ages to be furnished by the word of Yahweh, in which that which is seen has not come into being from things visible” (Heb. 11:3). Today in particle physics it is discovered that sub-atomic particles do not act in a manner which any previously known laws of physics could have possibly predicted, and that some particles apparently even disappear, or can occupy two different places at the same time. The more we learn, the less we know, and Newton’s laws – while once seeming to – certainly do not completely define the behavior of matter in the universe. Spong is arrogant to insinuate that we know too much to believe in the God of the Bible, and by doing so he only betrays his own ignorance!
Spong continues by embracing Darwinism: “... Charles Darwin ... related human life to the world of biology more significantly than anyone had heretofore imagined ... The Bible began with the assumption that God had created a finished and perfect world ... Darwin postulated instead an unfinished and thus imperfect creation out of which human life was still evolving.” And while it can be shown that Spong mischaracterizes even the fundamentals of Darwinism, Darwinism in itself is nothing but another religion. The foundation of Darwinism, that higher life forms somehow evolved from lower ones, is impossible, has never been observed, shall never be observed, and is slowly being discredited; slowly only because of the resistance by atheists. Darwin gave the godless a religion they can accept: Evolution! Darwinism is not science!
Finally, Spong embraces Freud, “who analyzed the symbols of Christianity and found them manifestations of a deep-seated infantile neurosis.” I wouldn’t waste time here in vain debate with Freud’s perverted opinions. The man was a jew and a cocaine addict and just another instrument of the jewish-liberal attack on our civilization. When are we ever going to “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees”?
Here are the final theses to Spong’s proposed “Reformation”, which he boasts “are far smaller in number than were those of Martin Luther, but they are far more threatening theologically”. Read very carefully the anti-christ positions of Spong, and ponder his blasphemous planks paralleling those of Marxism in many ways:
“l. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
“2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
“3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
“4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ’s divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
“5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
“6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
“7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
“8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space-age.
“9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
“10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
“11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
“12. All human beings bear God’s image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one’s being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.”
Here ‘Bishop’ John Shelby Spong should be fully exposed as a godless, sexually deviant, perverted, hypocritical Humanist, and certainly no Christian! Clayton Douglas is his disciple! All Paul-bashers everywhere should investigate and consider this evidence and the consequences which are inevitable if they continue in following the likes of Clayton Douglas, John Spong, H. Graber, Joachim Prince, and all the rest of this cast of perverts, jews and deceivers. Once we veer from the straight path just a little, we are far more likely to end up in a ditch! Yet there is more of Clayton Douglas’ Paul-bashing articles left to address, and we shall continue to do so however long it takes.
[One of the erroneous charges made against Paul is that he did not follow Christ, but started his own religion. Anyone who makes such a charge is highly in error, and has not studied in depth the Scripture. At no time did Paul countermand the teachings of Yahshua Christ, for we read at 1 Corinthians 11:1: “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” Paul, in effect was saying: “If I follow not Yahshua Christ in any way shape or manner, then do not follow me, but follow me only to the extent in which I myself follow Christ.” Without Paul’s ministry, we lost Israelites today would still be groping in the dark! Yes, it’s that serious! – Clifton A. Emahiser]
Please click here for our mailing list sign-up page.
