logo

Complaints dismissed against Bishop Sprague
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 December 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 February 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 December 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 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 February 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 (Par. 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.”

“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.

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.

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.

Kathy L. Gilbert is a news writer for United Methodist News Service in Nashville, Tennessee.

 

Lambrecht responds to dismissal
of Sprague complaint

Twenty-eight United Methodist clergy and laity have issued a written response to the Jurisdictional Supervisory Response Team (SRT) after the dismissal of their formal complaint against Bishop C. Joseph Sprague (Chicago Area). The group had charged Sprague with “dissemination of doctrine contrary to the established standards of doctrine of The United Methodist Church” (Discipline, Par. 2702.1f), and “disobedience to the Order and Discipline of The United Methodist Church” (Par. 2702.1e).

In a four-page written response from the complainants, submitted by Rev. Tom Lambrecht, their spokes-man, the group welcomed Sprague’s letter affirming the church’s doctrinal standards; and they welcomed the suggestion of further, mediated dialogue with the bishop. However, they expressed disappointment that the SRT’s decision seemed hostile toward the complainants, as if they and their complaint were on trial, not Bishop Sprague’s controversial theology. They also “respectfully declined” to apologize for publicly disclosing the complaint.

The complainants’ response began by welcoming the letter Bishop Sprague has written at the request of the SRT in which he affirms the historic doctrines of the church. (See Good News’ web site for full texts of the Supervisory Response Team statement, Bishop Sprague’s letter, and the complainants’ written response of March 6.) They share the bishop’s desire to make the Christian gospel accessible to “spiritually-searching and critically-thinking people.” They acknowledged they have never questioned his standing as a Christian, believing “that is a matter between him and God, and not for our judgment.” Neither do the complainants question “that Bishop Sprague sincerely believes everything he has said and written.”

Nevertheless, say the complainants, in light of what Bishop Sprague has said and written, “we must continue to question whether his [Sprague’s] doctrinal teachings are consistent with the doctrinal standards that Sprague affirms.” They believe that “Bishop Sprague in his lecture and book is not attempting to test and renew his doctrinal perspective according to the doctrinal standards. Rather, he seems to be testing and renewing the doctrinal standards according to his own doctrinal perspective.” The group fears that “in his zeal to make the gospel accessible to some, Bishop Sprague may be abandoning the gospel itself.”

Responding to several of the SRT’s recommendations, the complainants welcomed the call for a “third party facilitated public dialogue” between them and Bishop Sprague on the doctrinal and theological issues presented in the case. They also welcomed the proposal that the Council of Bishops provide leadership to the church in serious theological reflection.

Having affirmed those recommendations, the complainants were troubled by other items in the SRT’s four-page decision. With obvious disappointment, the complaints said, “We regret, however, that the tone of the decision was quite hostile to those of us bringing the complaint. We do not believe our complaint got an objective hearing.”

The complainants believe that rather than being an objective arbiter of dispute or agent for reconciliation, the SRT “chose to band together in defense of the person and institution of the episcopacy.” Reflecting the groups keen disappointment with the written response, they said “It appears to us that, as far as the Supervisory Response Team was concerned, the complaint itself was on trial, not the theological formulations of Bishop Sprague.”

The complainants noted, with obvious frustration, that the SRT failed “to offer any specific grounds for dismissing the complaint, substituting instead an assessment of `the denomination’s current ethos.’” While the Response Team mentioned several times “the seriousness of the complaints,” the complainants charged that “they fail to take our complaint seriously by grappling with the issues it raises. Instead, they accept at face value Bishop Sprague’s affirmation of our doctrinal standards and his own assertion that his theology fits within them. That is precisely the issue before us, yet the SRT has declined to pursue any thoughtful or substantive investigation of these matters.”

The complainants felt the SRT moved beyond its supervisory response role to take on the role of a Committee on Investigation, but without “the processes in place to ensure a substantive and impartial investigation.”

Specific responses
The complainants’ responded to questions of their motives, as well as others in the church who would be sympathetic. “We object to the implied misrepresentation of our position and the veiled defamation of our motives contained in the written decision,” the complainants said. Several items mentioned specifically were:

• “We are not attempting to ‘drive’ our church ‘toward becoming a doctrinal or creedal church, rather than a church rooted primarily in Wesley’s “heart religion”’ (Rationale question #1 in SRT’s statement). “We see no contradiction between the two, and we hope that our church will have both a genuine experience of God’s mercy and grace through Jesus Christ and well-founded doctrinal expressions of our faith.”

• “We find it unbelievable that our complaint might be considered an abuse of the complaint process” (Rationale question #4). “We believe our complaint laid out clear grounds for thinking that Bishop Sprague’s doctrinal formulations are inconsistent with our doctrinal standards. The Supervisory Response Team did not acknowledge any understanding of how we could have come to that conclusion (even if they thought we were mistaken).”

• “We lament the thinking of leaders of the church who see us as ‘groups and individuals that relentlessly and increasingly pressure church leaders and agencies to reflect their positions” (Rationale question #5). “We are asking our leaders to reflect, not our positions, but the stated positions of The United Methodist Church established in our doctrinal standards.” 

• “We are saddened to have the issue of ‘spiritual maturity’ raised in connection with this complaint” (Rationale questions #6 & 7). Evangelicals and theological traditionalists have demonstrated their spiritual maturity over years of participation in vital and cooperative ministry within our denomination…. We are not dealing with issues of spiritual maturity here, but with how we can in good faith address the theological differences within our denomination.”

• Finally, we find it reprehensible that the decision would ask us to “desist from exploiting this and other serious matters facing our church to gain financial support or incite division in the body of Christ” (p. 3). “We did not enter this complaint process to gain financial support for a cause or incite division in the body of Christ. On the contrary, we are paying the expenses of this complaint out of our own pockets…. We seek not to divide the body of Christ, but to unify it around the stated doctrinal identity of our denomination. With great reluctance, we have used the only process open to us to seek accountability in our church in the area of doctrine…. It was not we who precipitated this crisis by publishing a book dissenting from the established doctrine of the church. We are only responding in an attempt to be faithful to our calling as United Methodist laity and clergy.”

Issues of confidentiality
The complainants made a lengthy response to the recommendation of the SRT statement that “the group of complainants offer a public apology for disregarding the spirit of confidentiality intended in the supervisory response process.” They also responded to the SRT’s statement “it is regrettable and unconscionable that Bishop Sprague first learned of the December 30th complaint through the press” (p. 1).

To clarify the latter concern, the complainants noted that they “sent Bishop Sprague a copy of the entire complaint at the same time that we sent it to Bishop Ough for the College of Bishops, on December 30, 2002. We received a return receipt indicating that Bishop Ough had received the complaint on January 2, 2003. We released our statement to United Methodist News Service and The United Methodist Reporter on January 7, 2003. We reasonably believed that by that time, Bishop Sprague’s office would have received the copy of the complaint.” This was done, said the complainants, as a good faith effort to notify Bishop Sprague so that he would not hear about it first from the press. “We are frustrated that that did not occur.”

Concerning the public release of the charge, the complainants said, “Publicizing the fact of a complaint being filed is not prohibited in The Book of Discipline. Par. 413.3 states, ‘The supervisory response should be carried out in a confidential and timely manner, with attention to communication to all parties regarding the complaint and the process.’ The supervisory response naturally begins after a complaint has been filed, and the Discipline says nothing about confidentiality of the complaint itself.”

Noting, also, the fact that the Sprague controversy had been a matter of public record for nearly a year, with several church publications carrying side-by-side columns with Bishop Sprague’s views presented along with views of a bishop who differed with him, the complainants concluded: “Based on our understanding of the Discipline-mandated complaint process and the need for the church to be aware of the actions that were being taken to address widespread and deeply held concerns, we respectfully decline to apologize for publicly disclosing our complaint.”

The complainants concluded their response to the SRT statement, saying: “We regret that circumstances have forced us to use an adversarial process to get these issues on the table. Now that they are here, we join the Supervisory Response Team in urging us all to ‘enter into a season of listening deeply to the Holy Spirit and one another’ and to ‘reclaim our mission of “spreading scriptural holiness over the lands.’”

James V. Heidinger II is the president and publisher of Good News.

 

Dunnam speaks out on Asbury Seminary flag flap

“We are definitely proud of the American flag,” Dr. Maxie D. Dunnam, president of Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, strongly stated. “In the center of our campus the American flag flies high and is a daily reminder of the price many of our soldiers in years past and present paid for our freedom.”

“I believe our highest and most powerful way of responding to the war in Iraq is through our sustained praying,” explained Dunnam. “At Asbury Seminary, we’re praying for our troops, the oppressed people of the world, and for peace to prevail.”

Asbury Theological Seminary was recently placed in the spotlight due to a newspaper report stating the flags on the campus had been “ordered down.” This story has been repeated in numerous media outlets across the country. As the story was created and circulated, it left some readers with the mistaken impression that the seminary was making a statement in opposition to the war, U.S. troops, and the flag.

“None of that is true,” Dr. Dunnam told Good News. “We have worked hard as a seminary community since early January, in a concerted way, to pray for the situation in Iraq—for the liberation of the oppressed Iraqi people, for the safety of our troops, for true resolution to the conflict, and for peace in the world. As a seminary, we have proudly trained and equipped United States military chaplains who have served in every war that has occurred during our 80-year history.”

Theologically, Dr. Dunnam said, members of the seminary community are “dedicated to an allegiance to the kingdom of God. And, at the same time, Christians are called to be active in the affairs of the nation and to pray for its leaders. We take our responsibility as Christian citizens seriously.”

Because of the misleading media coverage, Asbury Seminary has received angry phone calls from across the United States. In the Associated Press story, the seminary was quoted as saying: “God’s people do not wave flags as the sign of conquest. We bear crosses as the sign of reconciliation.”

“The comment about ‘conquest’ was not a wise choice of words within this context,” Dr. Dunnam explained. “That gave the wrong impression of how we view the flag around here. We’re sorry, deeply sorry, that some people thought we dishonored the flag. Such a notion is a million miles from our minds. Come out to my home. Look at all the flags lining my driveway.”

Dr. Dunnam was disturbed at the headline of one news story which read: “Seminary removes ‘offensive’ U.S. flags.” “That is ridiculous,” he remarked. “Asbury Seminary does not find the American flag offensive. To the contrary, we display it proudly in numerous places on campus. We are Christians, but we are also citizens. The seminary community understands the kinds of sacrifices the flag represents. Furthermore, we unreservedly support our American troops and especially those families in our community who have loved ones in harm’s way.”

Dunnam told Good News that Asbury Seminary is learning much as an international theological community at a time of global crisis. He explained that “as we seek to train Christian leaders, we are focusing on the fact that as citizens of the kingdom of God and of more than 40 different nations, our highest calling is prayer. Being a community of prayer is the most effective way for us to exercise our call as Christian leaders, to serve a prophetic role, and to be faithful to God in times of adversity.”

Dr. Dunnam explained that the seminary’s cafeteria centerpieces of candles, ribbon, and barbed wire provided a very specific prayer focus. “The lighted candle represents Jesus, the light of the world; the barbed wire reminds us of Saddam’s cruel oppression of the Iraqi people; and the yellow ribbon stands for our longing for the safety and homecoming of our military men and women,” he continued. “We believe these combine to call us to ongoing prayer for the war to end, for oppression and suffering to cease, and for peace, God’s shalom, to come.”

Dunnam also told Good News that he understands how some of the seminary’s actions could be misinterpreted by relying solely on media reports. “We did not make decisions based on how this would be played out on the stage of the national media,” he said. “We were trying to figure out how to unite a campus that learns, prays, and breaks bread together. If I thought for one minute that we had removed an American flag because someone deemed it offensive, I would be upset too.”

With more media outlets correcting the mistaken impression that the seminary was discouraging American patriotism, Asbury Seminary has been receiving calls and letters of support. One such letter was from retired Army Chaplain Gordon T. Humphreys, who wrote: “I knew there must be more to the story, and I was right. Asbury Seminary has been proactive in supporting military personnel and their families, while at the same time creating an environment that helps Christian ‘leaders in training’ to focus in on one of their most important tasks—being leaders who pray.”

“I was wrong about the war in Iraq,” says pastor
By Ken Joseph Jr.

AMMAN, Jordan (UPI)—I was wrong. I had opposed the war on Iraq in my radio program, on television, and in my regular columns—and I participated in demonstrations against it in Japan. But a visit to relatives in Baghdad radically changed my mind.

I am an Assyrian Christian, born and raised in Japan, where my father had moved after World War II to help rebuild the country. He was a Protestant minister, and so am I.

As an Assyrian, I was told the story of our people from a young age—how my grandparents had escaped the great Assyrian Holocaust in 1917, settling finally in Chicago.

There are some 6 million Assyrians now, about 2.5 million in Iraq and the rest scattered across the world. Without a country and rights even in our native land, it has been the prayer of generations that the Assyrian Nation will one day be restored.

In early March, I traveled to Iraq with supplies for our church and family. This was my first visit ever to the land of my forefathers. The first order of business was to attend church. During a simple meal for peace activists after the service, an older man sounded me out carefully.

Finally he felt free to talk: “There is something you should know—we didn’t want to be here tonight. When the priest asked us to gather for a peace service, we said we didn’t want to come because we don’t want peace. We want the war to come.”

“What in the world are you talking about?” I blurted. Thus began a strange odyssey that shattered my convictions. At the same time, it gave me hope for my people and, in fact, hope for the world.

Because of my invitation as a “religious person” and family connections, I was spared the government snoops who ordinarily tail foreigners 24-hours a day. This allowed me to see and hear amazing things as I stayed in the homes of several relatives. The head of our tribe urged me not to remain with my people during its time of trial but instead to go out and tell the world about the nightmare ordinary Iraqis are going through.

I was to tell the world about the terror on the faces of my family when a stranger knocked at the door. “Look at our lives!” they said. We live like animals—no food, no car, no telephone, no job—and, most of all, no hope.” That’s why they wanted this war.

“You cannot imagine what it is to live like this for 20, 30 years. We have to keep up our routine lest we lose our minds.”

I realized in every household that someone had already lost his or her mind; in other societies such a person would be in a mental hospital. I also realized that there wasn’t a household that did not mourn at least one family member who had become a victim of this police state.

I wept with relatives whose son just screamed all day long. I cried with a relative who had lost his wife. Yet another left home every day for a “job” where he had nothing to do. Still another had lost a son to war and a husband to alcoholism.

As I observed the slow death of a people without hope, Saddam Hussein seemed omnipresent. There were his statues; posters showed him with his hand outstretched or firing his rifle, or wearing an Arab headdress. These images seemed to be on every wall, in the middle of the road, in homes.

“Everything will be all right when the war is over,” people told me. “No matter how bad it is, we will not all die. Twelve years ago, it went almost all the way but failed. We cannot wait anymore. We want the war, and we want it now.”

When I told members of my family that some sort of compromise with Iraq was being worked out at the United Nations, they reacted not with joy but anger: “Only war will get us out of our present condition.”

This reminded me of the stories I heard from older Japanese who had welcomed the sight of American B-29 bombers in the skies over their country as a sign that the war was coming to an end. True, these planes brought destruction—but also hope.

I felt terrible about having demonstrated against the war without bothering to ask what the Iraqis wanted. Tears streamed down my face as I lay in my bed in a tiny Baghdad house crowded in with 10 other people of my own flesh and blood, all exhausted, all without hope. I thought, “How dare I claim to speak for people I had not even asked what they wanted?”

Then I began a strange journey to let the world know of the true situation in Iraq, just as my tribe had begged me to. With great risk to myself and those who had told their stories and allowed my camera into their homes, I videotaped their plight.

But would I get that tape out of the country?

To make sure I was not simply getting the feelings of the oppressed Assyrian minority, I spoke to dozens of other people, all terrified. Over and over, they told me: “We would be killed for speaking like this.”

Yet they did speak, though only in private homes or when other Iraqis had assured them that no government minder was watching over me.

I spoke with a former army member, with someone working for the police, with taxi drivers, store owners, mothers, and government officials. All had the same message: “Please bring on the war. We may lose our lives, but for our children’s sake, please, please end our misery.”

On my last day in Baghdad, I saw soldiers putting up sandbags. By their body language, these men made it clear that they dared not speak but hated their work; they were unmistakably on the side of the common people.

I wondered how my relatives felt about the United States and Britain. Their feelings were mixed. They have no love for the allies—but they trust them. “We are not afraid of the American bombing. They will bomb carefully and not purposely target the people,” I was told. “What we are afraid of is what Saddam and the Baath Party will do when the war begins.”

The final call for help came at the most unexpected place—the border, where crying members of my family sent me off. The taxi fares from Baghdad to Amman had risen within one day from $100 to $300, to $500, and then to $1,000 by nightfall.

My driver looked on anxiously as a border guard patted me down. He found my videotapes, and I thought: It’s all over! For once I experienced what my relatives were going through 365 days a year—sheer terror. Quietly, the officer laid the tapes on a desk, one by one. Then he looked at me—was it with sadness or with anger? Who knows? He clinically shook his head and without a word handed all the tapes back to me. He didn’t have to say anything. He spoke the only language left to these imprisoned Iraqis—the silent language of human kindness.

“Please take these tapes and show them to the world,” was his silent message. “Please help us ... and hurry!”

The Rev. Ken Joseph Jr. lives in Tokyo and directs Assyrianchristians.com. Copyright 2003 by United Press International.



Click here to send your response plus the title of this article to us at Good News.

Good News | 308 East Main St. | P.O. Box 150 | Wilmore, KY 40390 | 859-858-4661 | 1-800-487-7784
info@goodnewsmag.org | About Us | ©2007 Good News magazine