Complaints dismissed against Bishop Joseph Sprague
2/18/2003 News media contact: Kathy Gilbert · (615) 742-5470 · Nashville, Tenn. NOTE:
A photograph of Bishop C. Joseph Sprague is available. The full
supervisory team's response and a statement by Bishop Sprague follow
this story. A UMNS Report By Kathy L. Gilbert* United
Methodist Bishop Bruce B. Ough, president of the church's North Central
Jurisdiction College of Bishops, has announced that complaints filed
against Bishop C. Joseph Sprague of Chicago have been dismissed.
A four-person supervisory response team met in January and February to review the complaints and respond to them.
A
group of 28 United Methodist clergy and laypeople filed the complaint
against Sprague on Dec. 30, calling for his removal based on comments
that he made about Christ's divinity at a speech at Iliff Theological
Seminary and in his book Affirmations of a Dissenter. A pastor in the
Mississippi Conference had filed a similar complaint in September.
The
supervisory response process is required by church law to be
confidential. However, the supervisory team said Feb. 17 that it decided
to make the response public to the church because of three factors.
"First
and foremost was the decision by the group of complainants to publicly
disclose their complaint," the response states. "It is regrettable and
unconscionable that Bishop Sprague first learned of the Dec. 30
complaint through the press.
"Second, the theological and
doctrinal issues raised in the complaint are already a matter of
considerable public debate within the United Methodist Church.
"Third,
the supervisory response team desires to speak to the whole church, as
well as the parties to the complaint. The parties to the complaint
(Bishop Sprague, the Mississippi Conference elder and the spokesman for
the group of complainants) have agreed to this public disclosure of the
supervisory response."
In its recommendations, the supervisory
response team asked Sprague to release a public statement clarifying and
reaffirming his adherence to the doctrinal standards of the United
Methodist Church. The team also recommended Sprague and the complainants
participate in a third-party public dialogue; that the Council of
Bishops enter into serious theological reflection on issues of
Christology, biblical authority and the mission of the church; and that
the complainants offer a public apology for disregarding the spirit of
confidentiality intended in the supervisory process.
In response
to the decision, the Rev. Thomas Lambrecht, spokesman for the
complainants, said, "The signers of the complaint against Bishop C.
Joseph Sprague are deeply disappointed in the decision by the
supervisory team to dismiss the complaint. Upon first reading, it
appears the rationale of the complaint did not objectively consider our
perspective, but was heavily weighted against our point of view.
"We
affirm the supervisory team's recommendations for theological dialogue
and declare our willingness to participate. We believe, however, that we
as a church need to go beyond dialogue to develop an understanding of
what binds us together theologically in the United Methodist Church -
what our theological identity is.
"This decision appears to give
official sanction to the personal interpretation of our doctrinal
standards in a way that diminishes their unifying and binding force.
Sadly, this approach to theology within the United Methodist Church will
only deepen our divisions and weaken the mission and ministry of our
church.
"We call for the church, in a spirit of civility, mutual
respect and fidelity to the Lord whom we serve, to reclaim 'the faith
that was once for all entrusted to the saints.' (Jude 3) This is the
faith for which the apostles and martyrs gave their lives - the faith
for which many Christians suffer and die around the world today. This
faith alone can provide the impetus for the loving, grace-filled
ministry that will lead our church to become spiritually vital and
growing once again."
Sprague released a public statement Feb. 13.
"It was my intent, in the Iliff lecture and with the book, to stimulate
informed debate," he said. "It was not my intent that those who were
unaware of the issues raised would be confused or hurt."
When
filing the complaint, Lambrecht had said, "In his address and book,
Bishop Sprague appears to deny the apostolic, orthodox and ecumenical
Trinitarian understanding of Jesus as God in favor of a form of
Unitarianism or 'adoptionism' that denies the virgin birth and full
deity of Christ. He denies the physical resurrection of Christ's body.
He maintains that Jesus Christ is not the only way to salvation and
appears to deny the substitutionary atonement of Christ through his
sacrificial death on the cross."
In his statement, Sprague cited
the Book of Discipline, Paragraphs 404, 414 and 415, outlining the
duties and responsibilities of bishops. Bishops are "to guard, transmit,
teach, and proclaim corporately and individually the apostolic faith as
it is expressed in Scripture and tradition, and as they are led and
endowed by the Spirit, to interpret that faith evangelically and
prophetically."
Sprague also points to Paragraph 104, which
states in part that the theological task of United Methodists is the
"testing, renewal, elaboration, and application of our doctrinal
perspective in carrying out our calling to spread spiritual holiness
over the lands."
"The Iliff lecture, the book, my preaching,
teaching and other writings reflect an unequivocal commitment to both
honoring and interpreting Scripture and tradition," Sprague said. "As a
bishop, I shall continue to guard, interpret, live and transmit the
wondrous treasure we have been given, in earthenware vessels, until that
time when I no longer see through a glass darkly but face to face."
The
supervisory response team stated Sprague has taken responsibility for
his actions as a bishop, including acknowledging how bishops can create
division and confusion in the Body of Christ with their words and
teachings.
"It became apparent to the supervisory response team,
in our review of this case, that Bishop Sprague knows Jesus Christ as
Lord and Savior, has faith in Christ's saving and transforming power,
and is obedient to Christ's teachings."
The statement further
states this matter is an opportunity for the church to "seek the
Spirit's wisdom." The church's mission is being diminished in part
because of factions in the denomination that do not listen or talk to
one another across theological lines.
"Let us enter into a season
of listening deeply to the Holy Spirit and to one another. Let us cast
out our penchant to power and control. Let us lay aside our arrogance.
Let us reclaim our mission of 'spreading scriptural holiness across the land.'"
A
press conference in support of Sprague was held Feb. 18 at First
Chicago Temple United Methodist Church. A group of more than 30 clergy
and laity celebrated the dismissal of the charges.
In a statement
of support, the group said, "We declare ourselves among those who stand
in faith, friendship and loyalty with Bishop Sprague theologically,
missionally and doctrinally. We affirm our support for him, and we will
continue to seek to live and act within the spirit of John Wesley who
declared, 'If your heart is open to God and my heart is open to God,
then let us join hands.'"
# # #
*Gilbert is a news writer for United Methodist News Service in Nashville, Tenn.
The complete supervisory response follows:
SUPERVISORY RESPONSE
TO COMPLAINTS AGAINST
BISHOP C. JOSEPH SPRAGUE
Introduction
On
December 30, 2002, a formal complaint was filed against Bishop C.
Joseph Sprague by a group of United Methodist clergy and laity. The
complaint alleged two chargeable offenses as defined in The Book of
Discipline (2000):
1) dissemination of doctrines contrary to the established standards of doctrine of The United Methodist Church ( 2702.1f), and
2) disobedience to the Order and Discipline of The United Methodist Church ( 2702.1e).
The
complaint was based on an address delivered by Bishop Sprague at Iliff
Theological Seminary on January 28, 2002 and Bishop Sprague's recently
published book, Affirmations of a Dissenter.
A similar complaint
was filed by an elder in the Mississippi Conference in September 2002.
This complaint also alleged the offense of dissemination of doctrines
contrary to the established standards of doctrine of The United
Methodist Church based on the Iliff lecture.
The president of the
North Central College of Bishops convened a four-person supervisory
response team according to 413.3 of The Book of Discipline (2000). The
team met in January and February 2003 to review the complaints and make
a supervisory response.
The Book of Discipline (2000) calls for
the supervisory response process to be carried out in a confidential
manner. However, in this case the supervisory response is being made
public to The United Methodist Church. This decision is driven by three
factors. First, and foremost, was the decision by the group of
complainants to publicly disclose their complaint. It is regrettable
and unconscionable that Bishop Sprague first learned of the December
30th complaint through the press. Second, the theological and doctrinal
issues raised in the complaint are already a matter of considerable
public debate within The United Methodist Church. Third, the
supervisory response team desires to speak to the whole Church, as well
as the parties to the complaint. The parties to the complaint (Bishop
Sprague, the Mississippi Conference elder and the spokesperson for the
group of complainants) have agreed to this public disclosure of the
supervisory response.
Response and Recommendations
The
supervisory response team is dismissing the complaints against Bishop C.
Joseph Sprague. In doing so, the supervisory response team requested
that Bishop Sprague issue a public statement clarifying and reaffirming
his adherence to the doctrinal standards of The United Methodist Church.
Bishop Sprague's statement is attached.
Further, the supervisory response team strongly recommends the following:
1)
Bishop Sprague and the complainants participate in a third party
facilitated dialogue on the theological and doctrinal issues presented
in this case. Further, we recommend this dialogue be open to the
public. The purpose of the dialogue would be to discover and explore
the points of continuity or disconnect between the traditional and new
interpretations of our doctrinal statements.
2) The Council of
Bishops take immediate steps to enter into serious theological
reflection on issues of Christology, Biblical authority and the mission
of the Church. Further, we recommend this process be open to the public
and bring to the table persons to represent the wide range of
theological thought present in our denomination. Further, we recommend
the Council develop means to invite the entire Church into similar study
and reflection. In effect, this process was begun when several bishops
made public responses to Bishop Sprague's lecture at Iliff.
3) The
group of complainants offer a public apology for disregarding the spirit
of confidentiality intended in the supervisory response process.
Rationale
The
complaints (essentially charges of heresy) against Bishop Sprague are a
very serious matter, both for Bishop Sprague and the Church. Indeed,
the supervisory response team recognizes this as a potential watershed
moment in our denomination. The response to the complaints could
establish the cultural ethos and the missional direction of the
denomination (particularly in the United States) for the foreseeable
future. The entire Church is watching. Critical questions hang in the
balance and frame the context of the complaints. Questions such as:
1)
Are we drifting, or being driven, toward becoming a doctrinal or
creedal Church, rather than a Church rooted primarily in Wesley's "heart
religion?"
2) Are there certain foundational doctrines that cannot or should not be subject to scholarly examination and interpretation?
3)
Is there room in the Church for leaders (ordained clergy and
consecrated bishops) to engage in serious theological and biblical
discourse, either of a scholarly or confessional nature, without threat
of charges?
4) How do we deal with the growing perceptions that the
complaint processes are ignored by the bishops and abused by
complainants?
5) Are there corresponding points and processes of
accountability for groups and individuals that relentlessly and
increasingly pressure Church leaders and agencies to reflect their
positions?
6) Are we spiritually mature enough to have truly open
"conferencing" on the critical theological, doctrinal, social and
missional issues confronting the Church?
7) Who will lead the Church
toward such spiritual maturity - a spirituality rooted in
"self-knowledge" (a term Wesley used as an equivalent for true
repentance), faith in Jesus Christ, the disciplines of vital piety and
the praxis of social holiness?
Acknowledging the denomination's
current ethos in no way diminishes the seriousness of the complaints.
Bishop Sprague has taken responsibility for his actions as a bishop of
the Church, including acknowledging how the words and teachings of a
bishop can create division and confusion in the Body of Christ.
It
became apparent to the supervisory response team, in our review of this
case, that Bishop Sprague knows Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, has
faith in Christ's saving and transforming power and is obedient to
Christ's teachings. This is evident in the fruits of his pastoral and
episcopal ministries and many of his public statements. It is also
clear that his intentions were to write a confessional statement
(Affirmations of a Dissenter) that reflects his personal journey of
faith, his biblical hermeneutic and his assessment of ecclesiastical and
missional issues confronting the Church and society. In the book,
Bishop Sprague attempts to balance "professing" the doctrine of the
Church and "confessing" his own journey of faith. This task appears
difficult to accomplish in the current cultural environment of our
Church.
Even as we ask Bishop Sprague to reaffirm his upholding
of the doctrinal standards of The United Methodist Church, we are bold
to invite others in the Church to affirm a spirit of civility, embrace
the historic conciliar process and form of our Church's discourse, and
desist from exploiting this and other serious matters facing our Church
to gain financial support or incite division in the Body of Christ.
We
affirm that there is a place for healthy and constructive dissent
within the Church. We affirm that there is room for reform. A good
portion of our Church's DNA is constructed of strands of dissent and
reform. Many United Methodists have suggested it would be healthy, in
the long run, for an open and public airing of the issues attending to
these complaints. The supervisory response team agrees. However, we
maintain that the openness sought cannot be achieved under threat of
charges or in a Church trial. It is to this end that we are
recommending Bishop Sprague and the complainants participate in a public
dialogue, facilitated by a third party, and that the Council of Bishops
assume a leadership role in framing a dialogue within the Council and
the entire Church. We plead with both the dissenters and the reformers
to conduct the discourse without personal attack, with mutual respect
and for the purpose of strengthening our Church's ministry, witness and
mission.
Conclusion
Let us be absolutely clear. It is
the rightful expectation of the Church, and certainly this supervisory
response team, that every bishop continue to "guard, transmit, teach,
and proclaim, corporately and individually, the apostolic faith as it is
expressed in Scripture and tradition, and, as they are led and endowed
by the Spirit, to interpret that faith evangelically and prophetically" (
413.3). Further, it is a rightful expectation that bishops of the
Church assume a leadership role in our theological task, including the
"testing, renewal, elaboration, and application of our doctrinal
perspective in carrying out our calling to 'spread scriptural holiness
over the lands'." (The Book of Discipline 2000, page 75).
This
matter affords an opportunity for the Church to seek the Spirit's
wisdom. We urge that it be seized. The United Methodist Church's
powerful message of grace, and equally powerful mission of making and
equipping disciples of Jesus Christ for the purpose of transforming the
world, is being diminished, squandered, and sacrificed, in part because
factions in our beloved Church do not talk to each other across
theological lines. This situation often leads to us focusing on the
wrong issues and undermining one another.
In response to a
question about the unity of the Christian witness at a recent ecumenical
gathering in Columbus, Ohio, Dr. James Forbes, pastor of New York's
Riverside Church, said, "When we recognize the common threat, we will
come together." Many in our Church believe the threat is doctrinal
impurity and heresy. Others in our Church believe the threat is the
narrowing of Wesleyan doctrine to a static, rigid formulation. It is
the humble, but considered, opinion of the supervisory response team
that the real threat may well be our arrogance and parochial attitudes.
The Evil One is surely enjoying our folly!
Only surrender to
Christ Jesus will move us beyond our addiction to schismatic attitudes
and litigious behaviors and toward the unity of mission we profess, but
do not practice. Only a deep, abiding, persistent listening to the Holy
Spirit will remind us of what Christ would have us be and do.
We conclude with Jesus' words from his farewell conversation with the twelve disciples:
"But
the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name,
will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to
you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I do not give to
you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled, and do not
let them be afraid. You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I am
coming to you.' If you love me, you would rejoice that I am going to
the Father, because the Father is greater than I. And now I have told
you this before it occurs, so that when it does occur, you may believe.
I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is
coming. He has no power over me; but I do as the Father has commanded
me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us be
on our way."
(John 14:26-31, NRSV)
Indeed, Church, rise, let
us be on our way. Let us not miss this opportunity. Let us enter into a
season of listening deeply to the Holy Spirit and to one another. Let
us cast out our penchant to power and control. Let us lay aside our
arrogance. Let us reclaim our mission of "spreading scriptural holiness
over the lands."
In the name of Jesus Christ, let us rise up and be on our way!
Bishop Bruce R. Ough, President
North Central Jurisdiction College of Bishops
for the Supervisory Response Team
February 17, 2003
Bishop C. Joseph Sprague's statement follows:
February 18, 2003
Dear Ones:
Grace to you and peace in the Name and Spirit of Jesus the Christ, our Savior and Liberator.
This
offering is in response to the charges filed against me. I write with
regret and embarrassment for the anguish these charges have caused my
family, colleagues, the people and congregations of the Northern
Illinois Conference. The misunderstandings attendant to this situation
are most unfortunate and could have been avoided had disciplinary
process been observed. Nevertheless, I am particularly grateful for the
innumerable expressions of gratitude and support received.
It
was my intent, in the Iliff lecture and with the book, to stimulate
informed debate. It was not my intent that those, who were unaware of
the issues raised, would be confused or hurt. Because some have been
adversely affected, what follows is written to erase misunderstanding,
assuage hurt, and affirm clearly the doctrines of our Church.
The
2000 Book of Discipline, Paragraphs 404, 414, and 415, enumerates the
duties and responsibilities of bishops. Among these, bishops are "to
guard, transmit, teach, and proclaim, corporately and individually, the
apostolic faith as it is expressed in Scripture and tradition, and, as
they are led and endowed by the Spirit, to interpret that faith
evangelically and prophetically." (Paragraph 414.3., page 280)
This
is set in the context of what The Book of Discipline, Paragraph 104,
identifies as "Our Theological Task." This paragraph, in part, states,
"Our doctrinal affirmations assist us in the discernment of Christian
truth in ever-changing contexts. Our theological task includes the
testing, renewal, elaboration, and application of our doctrinal
perspective in carrying out our calling 'to spread scriptural holiness
over the lands'." (Pages 74-75)
The Iliff lecture and the book,
Affirmations of a Dissenter, stand as vivid indications of this bishop's
response to these inherent expectations of the episcopal office.
Affirming
the primacy of Scripture and the benchmark nature of historic doctrinal
statements, including the Articles of Religion, the Standard Sermons of
Wesley, the Explanatory Notes Upon The New Testament, and the
Confession of Faith, I have been informed and influenced for a lifetime
by the continuing flow of biblical and theological scholarship so as to
be "led and endowed by the Spirit, to interpret that faith evangelically
and prophetically." (Page 280)
My writing, teaching, and
preaching reflect our Church's historic understanding of Scripture's
primacy. These offerings fulfill the on-going responsibility of a
bishop to interpret divinely-inspired, but humanly-transmitted,
Scripture and tradition.
I affirm the historic doctrines of our
Church (Pages 58ff). However, like Scripture and other aspects of
Christian tradition, these benchmark indicators of the faith once
delivered require constant, informed, and Spirit-led exegesis,
exposition, integration, and interpretation, if they are to inform and
embolden the Church's witness and mission for such a time as this.
Bishops share a particular responsibility for this essential task. I
approach this responsibility with ultimate seriousness.
My
abiding fear is that a repeated failure to interpret Scripture and
doctrine, metaphorically and symbolically in today's Church, will
continue to drive countless spiritually-searching and
critically-thinking people away, not only from this Church but from the
very Gospel for which their hearts yearn. Therefore, I engage Scripture
and tradition, as I do, believing that these are profoundly wondrous
means for proclaiming the Gospel, here and now, to the end that
individual believers and the whole church will repent, believe the
Gospel, and lead transformed personal and institutional lives worthy of
Jesus the Christ.
Historic doctrine is foundational. It is our
Church's benchmark from age to age. I do "guard, transmit, teach, and
proclaim…the apostolic faith as it is expressed in Scripture and
tradition." And, in accordance with the vows taken as a bishop, I do
"as…led and endowed by the Spirit…interpret that faith evangelically
and prophetically."
The Iliff lecture, the book, my preaching,
teaching, and other writings reflect an unequivocal commitment to both
honoring and interpreting Scripture and tradition. As a bishop, I shall
continue to guard, interpret, live, and transmit the wondrous treasure
we have been given, in earthenware vessels, until that time when I no
longer see through a glass darkly, but face to face.
Your brother in Christ,
Bishop C. Joseph Sprague
|
Back : News Archives 2003 Main
|
|
“We believe in God and in each other.”The people of The United Methodist Church
Still Have Questions?
If you have any questions Ask
InfoServ
Purchase a $20 buzzkill t-shirt and help save a life
Buy a t-shirt
|
Korean News