Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, December 4th, 2008 | Uncategorized | 24 Comments

John Chane’s valet uses one of the Episcopal Organization’s nastiest weapons.  Libel:

And on the other hand, as TEC’s Jim Naughton says from his home in the US where he is on a day off: ‘There are small ANTI-GAY Christian denominations all over the US and we have existed in the midst of these denominations for ages. At this point, this is just another of those small ANTI-GAY Christian denominations.’

Naugton continues: ‘They are distinguished from other small ANTI-GAY churches in the us by their global pretensions, but the relationships they have cultivated with a handful of likeminded leaders in Africa don’t really change the dynamic here in the US. Reporters have allowed these guys to say we at TEC are not Christians. There has to be some deep evidence that The Episcopal Church is not orthodox in its Christian beliefs for that to be justified. I do not think that evidence exists. They are trying to fly under the banner of theological orthodoxy. Really, they are just ANTI-GAY.’

Nice.  “Anti-gay” four times.  Guess I’ll have to add that to my Episcopal buzzword list. 

Jim?  Put down the bong and answer me this.  When was the last time the Episcopal Organization(I invented that term for a reason, big dog, and I think you know what that reason is) said no to its homosexuals? 

B033?  WRONG but thanks for playing.  Yeah, yeah, yeah, we all know that’s who that resolution meant but the fact remains that no reference to gays, lesbians or homosexuals appears anywhere in that thing.

You and I both know that only reason that Frank Griswold pushed B033 through was to buy time; after all, Rowan Williams couldn’t justify your organization’s continued existence in the Anglican Communion after you spit in the Communion’s face the way you did in 2006. 

You also know that thing was totally meaningless.  Since you seem to have forgotten, your boss was one of twenty or so bishops who immediately declared B033 dead-on-arrival.  And you know perfectly well that since your pointy hats got their Lambeth Conference invitations, B033 will officially put out of your misery at GenCon next year.

Play the victim some place else, Jim lad, because a lot of us stopped being impressed by that “anti-gay” crap a long time ago.  Your high-church Kiwanis Club has become an organization of homosexuals, by homosexuals and for homosexuals. 

Any sacrifices homosexuals might be asked to make for the greater Anglican good are injustices and crimes against humanity.  On the other hand, Anglican conservatives everywhere, even those in other countries who had no say in his election, have to accept Gene Robinson as a bishop and are forced to listen to Robbie and his friends whine about it when they don’t.

Come up with an actual argument or shut up, Naughton.

And about that whole “Is the Episcopal Organization still Christian?” question, remind me again which Christian church it was that refused to find Jim Pike guilty of heresy because heresy trials were icky.  Which Christian body did nothing at all about the fact that one of its bishops was an atheist?

What American Christian leader thinks that declaring that Jesus is the only way to God puts God in a small box?  And which Christian church made a bishop out of an unrepentant sinner in 2003?

You know where to find me, Jim.

24 Comments to STAY CLASSY, JIMMY

The young fogey
December 4, 2008

By George you’ve got it but I’ll say out of respect for the Episcopalians who are Christians that, as the creeds are still in their book, unlike the Unitarian Universalists the Episcopal Church is still technically Christian. Of course some day that may change. Who wants to wager when and how exactly the Christians and ex-Christians in it will turn on each other?

The young fogey
December 4, 2008

P.S. Haven’t the mainline denominations been coasting on autopilot as Kiwanis Clubs since long before the gay issue took over the Episcopalians? Robert Schuller for example with his pep talks light on doctrine has been described as channelling the 1950s version of that faith.

December 4, 2008

One wonders if Mr. Naughton is himself a sodomite?

December 4, 2008

In fact, I reckon the ex-Christians and non-Christians will turn upon the rest effective in this very coming New Year (with their convention)!

On the other hand, I didn’t know that Robert Schuller is a lightweight as far as doctrine is concerned…

Jim McNeely+
December 4, 2008

More raw sewage from the Loon Left. Not able to muster a cogent argument, they simply label the Orthodox Faithful as “Anti-Gay.” Typical Stalinist tactic from those more comfortable with propaganda than coherent dialogue.

I know NO ONE who names themselves in the conservative, orthodox camp that is anti-gay. Not one person. We are pro-Gospel, pro-Relationships, pro-Bible.

From now on, I think I will refer to Jim and his ilk as Anti-Christians. Since they deny Scripture, redefine the Creeds beyond their intended meaning, and tolerate obvious heretics like Pike and Spong, the term seems fitting.


December 4, 2008

Jim, naught on.

the pilgrim
December 4, 2008

“There are small ANTI-GAY Christian denominations all over the US…”

Yeah, well the PROgay “churches” ain’t so great in the numbers department either, Jim.

Allen Lewis
December 4, 2008

I see Jim Lad has run out of reasonable arguments so has chosen to go with labeling to try to win the day. Nice try, pal, but it won’t work.

I am OK with worshiping with gays and lesbians. What I am not too thrilled about is worshiping with apostates!

What a jerk wad.

FW Ken
December 4, 2008

Sasha –

It’s irrelevant when Naughton is personally homosexual: he is a homosexualist ideologue, which is to say, he is a heretic promoting a false doctrine about God and humanity, not to mention spewing real hatred and rage wherever he goes. In my opinions, if he is a sodomite, he has never done anything as perverted and sick as the lies and intellectual perversions he displays on a daily basis.

But now, the most interesting thing here:

small ANTI-GAY Christian denominations

the SMALL Catholic Church, at 67 nominal members, probably 20 million active adults.

the SMALL Southern Baptist Convention, at around 16.3million adults.

the various black Baptist conventions add up to around another 14-15 million.

there are, of course, numerous Baptist fellowships, but the PRO-gay groups are… how shall I say this?… small. The largest which might reasonably be consider not ANTI-GAY would be the American Baptists at 1.4 million.

the SMALL Orthodox jurisdictions, at, what? 6 million.

the 11 million United Methodists haven’t YET bent the knee to the homosexualist God, at least officially.

There are still several Presbyterian/Reformed, Lutheran, and pentecostal groups, some small, most larger than TEC who oculd reasonably be considered “ANTI-GAY”.

Besides classic Christianity, we can look to the 4-6 million Muslims and 2.5-3 million Morman as reliably ANTI-GAY.

An interesting chart:

All of which proves: there is no snob like an Episcopalian snob. It would be fair to note the snobbery of most religious liberals, but Episcoplians manage that extra touch that puts them in a league of their own.

December 4, 2008

Well The RC Church would I’m sure be called “anti-gay”. And well… yeah. What the hell is he talking about?

Clown Celebrant
December 5, 2008

Should I know who Jim Naughton is and care about his opinion? Why is he being quoted in this article, is he a TEC spokesman? Gledhill never says. Perhaps it’s a sign of how very inside this whole issue has become that she quotes the dude without saying why we should care what he says. But honestly just because some wacko says people are “anti-gay” are they obliged to trot out credentials to prove otherwise? Anyway, after just a little digging I found this in the NY TImes: “Jim Naughton, canon for communications and advancement in the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, and a liberal who frequently blogs on Anglican affairs, said he doubted that a rival Anglican province could grow much larger.” So now I understand why CJ calls him John Chane’s bagman. How did this guy get quoted in major newspapers? Says more about the state of mainline journalism today than anything else, I guess. But, at least the Times explains in a fairly straightforward way how he rolls.

Michael D
December 5, 2008

“Reporters have allowed these guys to say we at TEC are not Christians…”

Did anyone else find that phrase a little ominous? Don’t you guys in the US have something called “free speech”? The implication here is that “us guys” should not be allowed to say that “those guys” at TEO are “not Christian.” Maybe that’s the next rainbow jackboot campaign: anyone who denies the orthodoxy of TEO is “episcophobic.”

December 5, 2008

Ken, maybe it’s irrevelant if Mr. Naughton is personally a sodomite; however, I seriously wonder given how strongly he’s campaigning on their side! [Would it not make sense that the people who campaign particularly hard for a group are affiliated with it or more?]

Either way, your point about the “anti-‘gay'” groups is spot on – Mr. Naughton is so typical of leftists in resorting to ‘ad hominem’ arguments and attacks on those whom he can’t disprove…

December 5, 2008

I think Jim knows this new church is not “just anti-gay.” He knows full well the Anglican Church in North America is about much much more than that.

Therefore, he is lying.

Ed the Roman
December 5, 2008

“What the hell is [Naughton] talking about?”

Whatever you do, don’t ask him. He doesn’t know.

December 5, 2008

I think Sarah Hey nailed it. The strife is getting to him. That’s good. Even if he is not acknowledging it, he’s getting uncomfortable with his position and the TEC official positions. There’s a chance he’ll spin out of apostasy and into actual religion.

I think Jim Naughton needs our prayers. He may be due for a ‘road to Damascus’ moment.

December 5, 2008

Even though I promised myself not to post here any more, I just have to say this:

Seems to me that Jim Naughton’s telling the truth has sure stepped on a nerve here. It’s funny to watch certain people squirm and wince when confronted with reality.

Until you guys can find the honesty to admit you hate the Episcopal Church (and gay Episcopalians in particular), then you can’t expect to be treated with any level of respect.

Since that aint gonna happen anytime soon, then the rest of us will continue to be amused by your hypocrisy.

Allen Lewis
December 5, 2008

Clown Celebrant –
I think at one time (someone more knowledgeable can correct me) that Mr. Naughton was a reporter for the Washington Post – that bastion of Classic Objective Journalism. I suspect it is that, and being the spokesflak for the Diocese of Washington, D.C. that gets him so many column inches.

But you are right, Ruth Gledhill does tend to treat this like an insider’s game. So let’s just not play, shall we?

Christopher Johnson
December 5, 2008

Give it up, Dave. We don’t “hate” homosexuals any more than we “hate” any other kinds of sinners. We just think that it isn’t a good idea for people to decide for themselves what sins Jesus died for. We’re funny that way.

We don’t even hate the Episcopal Organization. We just have this kind of corrosive contempt for an organization that doesn’t seriously believe much of anything. So good luck explaining to those polyamorous folks why they can’t get married or ordained in one of your outlets. And I hope it doesn’t hurt your feelings too much when they tell you that you hate them.

Smurf Breath
December 5, 2008

Dave, all you’ve done is speculate about other people’s motivations. But of course you don’t really know – and this is the ‘bad kind’ of judging spoken of Matthew 7.

Doesn’t it bother you that all liberals seem to do is to use ad hominem, and that both sides are capable of doing this ad nauseum? Don’t you want to base your views on a firm foundation, rather than just knee-jerk, uncharitable emotional responses you have when confronting different world views? The other commenters here raised valid points (*has* Naughton really forgot about the existence of Southern Baptists and Catholics?), but your comment seems nothing but a thoughtless reaction.

the pilgrim
December 5, 2008

“Don’t you want to base your views on a firm foundation, rather than just knee-jerk, uncharitable emotional responses”

Ah but that would take THOUGHT, and RESEARCH, and like looking things up… And what if you did go out on the internet and looked up numbers and charts and things and discovered that your adversaries were right, and your esteemed leader might actually be WRONG??? i.e. the “small anti-gay denominations” aren’t really so small after all,in fact, they are really really BIG, and they are not really anti-gay!!

Nope, better to just slow down the car, sling some mud and shout some insults then drive on, secure in your ignorance of the true facts, but content in your belief that your wonderful leaders would NEVER EVER lie to you… would they? Would they…?

December 6, 2008

Anyone who wants evidence that Tec may not be entirely Christian, anymore, doesn’t have to look much further than the 1979 servicebook, and study the doctrinal ways that it differs from all the previous prayerbooks. Especially, but not limited to Rite II. Combine this with their mandatory acceptance of WO, gay clergy, and lesbian clergy, and the reality of the situation very clear. Mr. Naughton can talk all day if he want to, but he will never be thought of as orthodox anywhere outside of his own sphere.

Allen Lewis
December 6, 2008

Reporters have allowed these guys to say we at TEC are not Christians.

Well, Jim, reporters are supposed to let those they are interviewing actually speak for themselves, instead of inventing quotes. But I guess in the New, Improved Techniques of Journalism textbook, that will not be included. It saves so much time when a reporter does not have to interview real people and just makes the quotes up as he/she goes along. Yeah! The New Journalism to go along with the New Chrisitanity that TEO embraces.

But, back to my original point. When bishops begin denying the divinity of Jesus; when bishops begin to deny the bodily resurrection; when bishops begin to deny that men and women have anything to repent off, then yes, do not be surprised when those who have studied classical Christianity begin to claim that those bishops are heretics. But, apparently, Jim Lad never did much study in Patristics and teh history of the early Ecumenical Councils. Otherwise he would not issue such gaseous emissions as the above.

December 6, 2008

Dave, come on now. Are you serious? I have said before–I believe right here on MCJ–we do NOT hate the Episcopal Church. Maybe you did not climb aboard until AFTER the 1979 Revolution when most of our Faith and Practice was jettissoned by a couple of national conventions. That is what we hate–and it is not about liking or disliking gays. It’s about the way we were raised. We were raised to be Christians, to know the difference between right and wrong, and to live that way as best we could with the help of the Lord and His Church. That was the old Episcopal Church–and that is what we are going to continue. All are welcome.

Support The MCJ                        

Email the editor-in-chief                    
©2016 Christopher Johnson                                
                        Email about Website issues

Recent Comments