More McHenry County Blog

The following article was written February 18, 2003. It is reprinted here for reference purposes.

It appears a Methodist bishop can deny

• the virgin birth of Jesus,
• that Jesus was born the Son of God,
• that Jesus died for our sins, and
• the bodily resurrection,

what most people think is in conflict with established Church doctrine, and not face any serious problems with fellow leaders in the United Methodist Church.


Chicago’s Bishop Joseph Sprague has been let off the hook without even a trial on comments and writings that even the denominational leaders dismissing the complaint have characterized as “essentially charges of heresy.” The charges are further characterized as of “a very serious matter…a potential watershed moment in our denomination.”

The United Methodist News Service issued a press release Feb. 18th announcing that the complaint filed by 28 lay people and clergy had been dismissed. The press release did not say “summarily dismissed,” but that was its tone.


Before causing the fault line in the glacier called the Methodist Church, Bishop Joseph Sprague was best known for his advocacy of legalizing homosexual marriage in the Church.

Only time will tell whether this “watershed” will have similar results to the schism that occurred during the Civil War when Northern and Southern congregations disagreed about slavery. There are hints of a similar geographic disagreement today, except this time it is over the foundational doctrine of the Church.


Four people of “the supervisory response team” made the decision. This half-anonymous group seems to have the role of a state’s attorney. It decides whether a complaint should be brought to trial.

The group’s members were appointed by and included Bishop Bruce R. Ough, President of the North Central Jurisdiction College of Bishops and Bishop of the West Ohio Conference. As Secretary of the Council of Bishops, Michigan Bishop Linda Lee also served on the response team.

Bishop Ough explained that the other two members consisted of a minister and a lay person selected by the Church’s Committee on Episcopacy. He declined to reveal their names or to provide a list of that selecting committee’s membership, citing paragraph 413 of the Book of Discipline.

The same day the dismissal decision was announced, with obvious pre-arrangement, Bishop Sprague and “more than 30” supporters held a press conference at the First Chicago Temple across from City Hall. He also released a statement, available at the Methodist News Service web site.


The half-anonymous denominational leaders suggest 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,” continued the half-unidentified dismissers of the complaint, led by Bishop Ough. They continue by then quoting John 14:26-31 and urge the Church to not miss the opportunity to listen “deeply to the Holy Spirit and to one another.”


Although Sprague’s deliberately and widely publicized his utterances and writings, the half-anonymous of the response team seemed to take great offense at the public’s learning of the intrachurch controversy.

While they described the charges about Sprague’s theological pronouncements “as a potential watershed moment in our denomination,” the half-faceless denominational leaders apparently wished that the controversy had not been made public. How a dispute behind closed doors could result in a “watershed moment” in the Church was not revealed.

The half-anonymous team decided to make public its dismissal of the heresy charges. Both Bishop Sprague and those who signed the complaint agreed to this public airing. The report noted that

Bishop Sprague “first learned of the Dec. 30th complain through the press”--“regrettable and unconscionable,” state the half-anonymous denominational leaders.

“(since) the theological and doctrinal issues raised in the complaint are already a matter of considerable public debate within the United Methodist Church, the team wishes to speak to the whole church.”


The half-anonymous Church leaders ask

Are we drifting, or being driven, toward becoming a doctrinal or creedal Church, rather than a Church rooted primarily in (John) Wesley’s “heart religion?”

Are there foundational doctrines that cannot or should not be subject to scholarly examination and interpretation?

Is there room in the church for leaders to engage in serious theological and biblical discourse…without threat of charges?

The half-anonymous team members’ questions continue:

How do we deal with the growing perceptions that the complaint processes are ignored by the bishops and abused by the complainants?

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?

Are we spiritually mature enough to have truly open “conferencing” on the critical theological, doctrinal, social and missional issues confronting the Church?

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?

Recommendations from the half-anonymous group that refused to send the complaint onto a church trial include asking Sprague to release a public statement “clarifying and reaffirming his adherence to the doctrinal standards” of the church. Sprague released such a statement on February 18th, a day after the response team decision was handed down. It is included with the press release on the web site.

The team also suggested Sprague and his critics participate in “a third-party public facilitated dialogue” open to the public, which the elders believe “cannot be achieved under threat of charges or in a Church trial.”

Bishop Ough was asked about the recommended dialogue. “It will depend on the complainants and Bishop Sprague’s agreeing to enter into the dialogue,” he said.

The team also urged the Council of Bishops to enter into “serious theological reflection on the issues of Christology, bibilical authority and the mission of the church.”

Finally, the complainants were asked to offer “a public apology for disregarding the spirit of confidentiality” intended for the supervisory process.


Brenda Klockenga, organizer of a 7 P.M. meeting at the Crystal Lake Methodist Church Sunday, Feb. 23rd, at the corner of Dole and Crystal Lake Avenues, observed, “Our meeting is still on. If anything it is now more important for Methodists to know what their church leaders will tolerate in the way of deviation from the Book of Discipline and orthodox Biblical teaching.”

Pastor Thomas Lambrecht of southeastern Wisconsin spoke for the complaint’s signers when he said they “are deeply disappointed in the decision…to dismiss the complaint.” He suggested the denominational leaders “did not objectively consider our perspective,” declaring a willingness to participate in a theological dialogue.

“We believe, however,” the minister continued, “that we as a church need to go beyond dialogue to develop an understanding of what binds us together theologically.”

Lambrecht criticized the decision for appearing “to give official sanction to the personal interpretation of our doctrinal standards in a way that diminishes their unifying and binding force.


“Sadly, the Rev. Lambrecht continued, “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 on 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.”

The half-anonymous church leaders wrote, “Bishop Sprague has taken responsibility for his actions as a bishop, including acknowledging how bishops can create division and confusion with their words and teachings.” They add, “it became apparent…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.”


Sprague’s February 28th statement contends that 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. He says he is embarrassed “for the anguish these charges have caused my family, colleagues, the people and congregations of the Northern Illinois Conference.” He suggests, “The misunderstandings attendant to this situation are most unfortunate and could have been avoided disciplinary process been observed” or, in other words, had the complaint been kept secret.

Crystal Lake’s Klockenga observes, “The Bishop does not practice what he preaches. I tried to engage him in a theological discussion by e-mail, putting dozens of hours into researching counter-arguments by theologians who disagree with his decidedly unorthodox views. In his responding e-mail, he chose to label me a ‘neo-literalist.’ My experience in life is that people who call other people names really don’t have very logical arguments,” the mother of four said.


In a statement released February 18th, Sprague said, “It was my intent…to stimulate informed debate. It was not my intent that those who were unaware of the issues would be confused or hurt.”

In short, Sprague wants people to believe that those who disagree with him just don’t know as much as he does or that they are simply “confused.”

In addition, he states that in accordance with the vows he took, he does “as…led and empowered by the Spirit…interpret that faith evangelically and prohetically.”

This recent statement is not the only time Sprague has attempted to demean those holding different views. He has often referred to his critics as “neo-literalists” hardly a term intended to endear himself to the more conservative elements of his church.

Perhaps that is one reason the response team “plead” with both sides of the debate “to conduct the discourse without personnel attack….”


Sprague says his lectures and writings are authorized by a section of the Book of Discipline which states the duties of bishops include ”the testing, renewal, elaboration, and applications of our doctrinal perspective in carrying out our calling to spread spiritual holiness over the lands.”

He contends 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.”

Sprague’s book “Affirmations of a Dissenter” states that he “must dissent from Christocentric (exclusiveness, which) hold(s) that Jesus is the only way to God’s gift of salvation. Such an arrogant claim stands over and against the inclusive Jesus of the synoptics and limits God in ways that humans cannot and must not.”


Ironically, Bishop Sprague asks Methodists to “cast out our penchant to power and control. Let us lay aside arrogance.”

Prior to this controversy about basic Christian beliefs, Sprague was best know as a proponent of allowing homosexual marriage in the Methodist Church. His side lost in the struggle for power to overturn hundreds of years of Methodist doctrine.

Sprague concludes his statement asking Methodists to reclaim the mission of “spreading scriptural holiness across the land.”

+++++++++++++++++
No. The response team is constituted according to the discipline par 413. We have ordained deacons and ordained elders. Both deacons and elders are considered ministers.

President of West Ohio Conference, based in Columbus, Ohio.
President and secretary of the College of Bishops and, then, a lay person and a clergy person of the jurisdication committee. I’m not going to reveal those names to you. (Names not published.)

The Secretary of the College of Bishops Bishop Linda Lee from the Michigan. The Episcop (call secy for spelling) Committee makes the selection of the clergy person and the layman. It will depend on the complainants and Bishop Sprague agreeing to enter into the dialogue

Labels: First United Methodist Church of Crystal Lake, Joseph Sprague, Northern Illinois Conference, Thomas Lambrecht, United Methodist Chuch