It appears that our favorite heretic, Bishop C. Joseph Sprague of the Chicago Area, will not be joining the punditocracy in Washington, after all. Sprague, who has become notorious in United Methodist circles for denying every basic doctrine of the Christian faith while continuing to earn his livelihood from the church, has "withdrawn from the process" of developing an endowed chaplaincy at the nation's capital which would have given him, in retirement, a comfortable office in the General Board of Church and Society's United Methodist Building and unfettered access to all the politicians and pundits who scurry about the Beltway.

In his latest column for the Northern Illinois Conference newspaper, Sprague explains his decision to bow out of the chaplaincy program:

 

I made this decision for two reasons. First, I never wanted money to be raised to support me directly in any positions and, second, I would never want my theology, biblical understandings and justice convictions to hamper the significant, on-going work of the General Board of Church and Society.

Sprague regularly uses his column to offer readers penetrating insights into the wonderful experience of being C. Joseph Sprague. His withdrawal announcement is no exception. Despite his best efforts to appear magnanimous, Sprague has drawn attention to himself yet again. A careful reading of his explanation will expose the real reason behind his withdrawal.

From the very beginning, the "Chaplain on the Hill" program has been all about giving Sprague a high profile position in which to continue his "ministry" after he retires later this year. Yet its viability depended on contributions from generous donors. The most generous of donors, however, tend to be on the conservative end of the spectrum, both theologically and politically. Such persons are not likely to pour money into a position which they know will be used to promote revisionist theology and a far-left political agenda. They tend to be very discriminating between what they see as legitimate Christian ministry and thinly disguised (liberal) social advocacy. They will support the former with enthusiasm. But they will steer clear of the latter. Absent a last minute grant from some generously endowed left-wing foundation, the "Chaplain on the Hill" program was doomed to failure.

All this considered, then, the most likely reason for Sprague withdrawing from the "process" is his less than selfless desire to perpetuate the illusion that he is an influential leader in mainline Protestant theology and politics. That illusion would have been shattered by a failed appeal to the people in the pews to endow his retirement gig.

That is why it is a waste of time to continue to devise strategies for the preservation of archaic institutions. Even the informally proposed plans of "separation" between traditionalists and revisionsists are little more than a desperate attempt to maintain some form of the status quo, that is, a church defined not in terms of covenant, community, and missionary zeal, but in terms of buildings, assets, and pension plans. Regardless of theological persuasion, those entrusted with leadership responsibilities have come to view the church as an institution, rather than as a movement. Read More
 

Perhaps the most ridiculous revisionist rationale against the authority of Scripture is the argument that a strict adherence to "biblical literalism" would lead one to conclude that the United States is not a legitimate government. Scripture, according to the revisionists, says kings rule by "divine right" and are not to be challenged. This is an assertion that is rather difficult to prove, in light of such passages as 1 Samuel 8:10-18. Read More