Friday, April 24, 2009
Methodists Charge Chicago Bishop with Heresy
This article was written in January, 2003, and is reprinted here for reference purposes.
Heresy: An opinion or doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs.
Chicago’s Methodist Bishop C. Joseph Sprague’s unorthodox statements
The Bishop is labeling those who challenge his decidedly unorthodox views “neo-literalists,” while some who disagree suggest Sprague is a “heretic” flaunting church doctrine who should no longer be allowed to lead the church’s Northern Illinois Conference.
A nationwide coalition of twenty-eight ministers and lay people, headed by the Rev. Thomas Lambrecht, pastor of the Faith Community United Methodist Church in Greenville, Wisconsin, have started proceedings aimed at getting Sprague to renounce his heretical views or having Sprague removed from office.
Northern Illinois Methodists are not yet demonstrating in front of the church’s Chicago Temple (across the street from City Hall and the Daley Center). In fact, none from Illinois signed the letter. Part of the reason is that Bishop Sprague has the authority to transfer ministers from church to church, much as the Director of state agencies have the right to transfer employees from location to location.
Opponents to the Bishop’s view of Christianity are active in Illinois, however. A group from Des Plaines, Elgin, Chicago, among others, met Saturday at Wheatland-Salem United Methodist Church in Naperville.
Illinois Leader has obtained a copy of the formal letter of complaint filed by the group that is calling for his renouncement or removal from office. It notes that Sprague first made public his views at Iliff Seminary in Denver a year ago and, more recently, published them in his new book, “Affirmations of a Dissenter.”
His book “is an attempt to deconstruct the theology and doctrine established by the United Methodist Church, as evidenced by” Chapter 4 of his new book, the letter charges. “We believe it is fundamentally fraudulent for C. Joseph Sprague to be disseminating these doctrines under the imprimatur of being a United Methodist bishop,” it adds.
The process of challenging a lack of orthodoxy in the Methodist Church involves, first, a request to the jurisdiction’s presiding bishop, in this case Bishop Bruce R. Ough (address 32 Wesley Boulevard, Worthington, Ohio 43085-3685). That request was obtained by the Illinois Leader.
Bishop Ough plays a parallel role to that of an Illinois state’s attorney. When charges are brought to a state’s attorney, that official has the discretion to prosecute them or to dismiss them. Just as a civil trial does not occur if a state’s attorney decides the charges are not credible, Bishop Ough will decide whether the evangelical’s complaint will go forward ultimately to trial or end up in the wastebasket.
The complaint focuses first on Sprague’s contention that Jesus was not born to the Virgin Mary. Sprague contends that the virgin birth is a “myth” and, “To treat this myth as historic fact is to do an injustice to its intended purpose and to run the risk of idolatry itself….” Sprague further argues, “Jesus was not born the Christ; rather by the confluence of grace with faith he became the Christ…” In other words, Jesus developed into or morphed into the Son of God.
In contrast to Sprague’s views, the filers of the request for a church trial cite the Methodist Articles of Religion, which say,
The Son, who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin;
And in unity of this Godhead there are the three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. (emphasis as indicated in the original letter)
Chicago’s Bishop and his critics also disagree on Christ’s resurrection. “I believe in the resurrection of Jesus, but I cannot believe that his resurrection involved the resuscitation of his physical body…”
Those dissenting from Sprague’s viewpoint again quote the church’s Articles of Religion:
Disagree on Route of Salvation
Sprague view of how to obtain salvation also differs from that of the Methodist Church, the objectors write.
“I must dissent from Christocentric exclusives which hold that Jesus is the only way to God’s gift of salvation,” the Chicago Bishop says.
In contrast, those signing the letter to Bishop Ough again quote the Articles of Religion, maintaining they accept and affirm the Reformation doctrine of salvation by grace alone, by faith alone, and through Christ alone:
Those affirming church doctrine also suggest Sprague “teaches a novel view of the Atonement of Jesus; that it was not done on the cross.”
“Obviously, such an understanding of atonement,” explains Sprague,” leaves no room for me to affirm the substituionary atonement theory that portrays Jesus’ blood on the cross as satisfying an angry deity through one majestic sacrificial human death, much like sacrifices of unblemished sheep and goats in ancient Israel were understood to appease God and atone for the sins of all.”
Again, the Articles of Religion are quoted by those disagreeing with
Sprague:
Having laid out what might be called a “bill of particulars” to Bishop Ough, the letter then suggests, “…even these summary illustrations indicate Bishop Sprague’s address and book to fall under the chargeable offense of disseminating doctrines contrary to our established standards,” further suggesting that they are “particularly egregious because it is being done in an academic context.”
The letter alleges that Bishop Sprague is not fulfilling “the specific responsibilities designated for our episcopal leaders. Rather than fulfill the teaching office of Bishop, we believe he has used, and intends to continue to use, the episcopal office to undermine and overturn the apostolic faith and the theological traditions of the United Methodist Church.”
The signers quote the church’s Discipline:
The evangelical Methodists also point to the questions Sprague answered when he was made an elder of the church and reaffirmed when he was consecrated as a bishop. They include:
“We believe the evidence given above shows that Bishop Sprague has violated these promises and qualifications,” the letter continues. It also points out that the Bishop claims to affirm the “orthodox language of the ancient creeds,” but has redefined “the creedal affirmations to mean nearly the opposite of their commonly understood meanings,” thus rendering “his claim to affirm the creedal language meaningless.”
The letter writers ask, “Do we have doctrinal standards that set boundaries around our teaching?”
They suggest an answer: “We believe the Discipline establishes those boundaries and envisions their enforcement, as evidenced in the chargeable offenses listed.
“We further believe that the role of the bishop is not to flaunt those boundaries (as Bishop Sprague has done by his statements quoted above and by calling the Doctrinal Standards literal understanding of the Christian faith ‘idolatrous,’ but to uphold and defend them”).
The letter concludes by asking Bishop Ough to bring forth its questions “to investigation and, if sustained, that Bishop Sprague either (publicly) renounce his contrary teaching and maintain his teaching with the Doctrinal Standards of the United Methodist Church, or that he resign (or be removed) from his office and surrender his credentials of ordination.
“The integrity of the clergy covenant of the United Methodist Church demands no less.”
Heresy: An opinion or doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs.
Chicago’s Methodist Bishop C. Joseph Sprague’s unorthodox statements
- deny the virgin birth of Christ,
- deny that Jesus was born the son of God,
- deny that Jesus was physically resurrected from the dead and
- deny Christ died for the sins of mankind. These theological positions have stimulated an outpouring of complaints and protest letters from other Methodist Bishops, evangelical pastors and lay people, some of whom are seeking his removal from office.
Those Disagreeing Labeled “Neo-Literalists”
The Bishop is labeling those who challenge his decidedly unorthodox views “neo-literalists,” while some who disagree suggest Sprague is a “heretic” flaunting church doctrine who should no longer be allowed to lead the church’s Northern Illinois Conference.
A nationwide coalition of twenty-eight ministers and lay people, headed by the Rev. Thomas Lambrecht, pastor of the Faith Community United Methodist Church in Greenville, Wisconsin, have started proceedings aimed at getting Sprague to renounce his heretical views or having Sprague removed from office.
Northern Illinois Methodists are not yet demonstrating in front of the church’s Chicago Temple (across the street from City Hall and the Daley Center). In fact, none from Illinois signed the letter. Part of the reason is that Bishop Sprague has the authority to transfer ministers from church to church, much as the Director of state agencies have the right to transfer employees from location to location.
Opponents to the Bishop’s view of Christianity are active in Illinois, however. A group from Des Plaines, Elgin, Chicago, among others, met Saturday at Wheatland-Salem United Methodist Church in Naperville.
Illinois Leader has obtained a copy of the formal letter of complaint filed by the group that is calling for his renouncement or removal from office. It notes that Sprague first made public his views at Iliff Seminary in Denver a year ago and, more recently, published them in his new book, “Affirmations of a Dissenter.”
Dissemination by Bishop “Fundamentally Fraudulent”
His book “is an attempt to deconstruct the theology and doctrine established by the United Methodist Church, as evidenced by” Chapter 4 of his new book, the letter charges. “We believe it is fundamentally fraudulent for C. Joseph Sprague to be disseminating these doctrines under the imprimatur of being a United Methodist bishop,” it adds.
The process of challenging a lack of orthodoxy in the Methodist Church involves, first, a request to the jurisdiction’s presiding bishop, in this case Bishop Bruce R. Ough (address 32 Wesley Boulevard, Worthington, Ohio 43085-3685). That request was obtained by the Illinois Leader.
Bishop Ough plays a parallel role to that of an Illinois state’s attorney. When charges are brought to a state’s attorney, that official has the discretion to prosecute them or to dismiss them. Just as a civil trial does not occur if a state’s attorney decides the charges are not credible, Bishop Ough will decide whether the evangelical’s complaint will go forward ultimately to trial or end up in the wastebasket.
Disagrees on Jesus’ Birth as Son of God and from Virgin Mary
The complaint focuses first on Sprague’s contention that Jesus was not born to the Virgin Mary. Sprague contends that the virgin birth is a “myth” and, “To treat this myth as historic fact is to do an injustice to its intended purpose and to run the risk of idolatry itself….” Sprague further argues, “Jesus was not born the Christ; rather by the confluence of grace with faith he became the Christ…” In other words, Jesus developed into or morphed into the Son of God.
In contrast to Sprague’s views, the filers of the request for a church trial cite the Methodist Articles of Religion, which say,
The Son, who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin;
and
And in unity of this Godhead there are the three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. (emphasis as indicated in the original letter)
Disagree on Resurrection
Chicago’s Bishop and his critics also disagree on Christ’s resurrection. “I believe in the resurrection of Jesus, but I cannot believe that his resurrection involved the resuscitation of his physical body…”
Those dissenting from Sprague’s viewpoint again quote the church’s Articles of Religion:
Christ did truly rise again from the dead, and took again his body, with all things appertaining to the perfection of man’s nature, wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth until he returns to judge all men at the last day. (emphasis as indicated in the letter)
Sprague view of how to obtain salvation also differs from that of the Methodist Church, the objectors write.
“I must dissent from Christocentric exclusives which hold that Jesus is the only way to God’s gift of salvation,” the Chicago Bishop says.
In contrast, those signing the letter to Bishop Ough again quote the Articles of Religion, maintaining they accept and affirm the Reformation doctrine of salvation by grace alone, by faith alone, and through Christ alone:
We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith…Wherefore, that we are justified by faith, only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort. (emphasis as indicated in the original letter)
The offering of Christ, once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. (emphasis as indicated in the original letter)
Disagree on the Atonement of Jesus Christ
Those affirming church doctrine also suggest Sprague “teaches a novel view of the Atonement of Jesus; that it was not done on the cross.”
“Obviously, such an understanding of atonement,” explains Sprague,” leaves no room for me to affirm the substituionary atonement theory that portrays Jesus’ blood on the cross as satisfying an angry deity through one majestic sacrificial human death, much like sacrifices of unblemished sheep and goats in ancient Israel were understood to appease God and atone for the sins of all.”
Again, the Articles of Religion are quoted by those disagreeing with
Sprague:
Whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to b a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of man.
The offering of Christ, once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual.
Having laid out what might be called a “bill of particulars” to Bishop Ough, the letter then suggests, “…even these summary illustrations indicate Bishop Sprague’s address and book to fall under the chargeable offense of disseminating doctrines contrary to our established standards,” further suggesting that they are “particularly egregious because it is being done in an academic context.”
Complaint Alleges Disobedience to Church Order and Discipline
The letter alleges that Bishop Sprague is not fulfilling “the specific responsibilities designated for our episcopal leaders. Rather than fulfill the teaching office of Bishop, we believe he has used, and intends to continue to use, the episcopal office to undermine and overturn the apostolic faith and the theological traditions of the United Methodist Church.”
The signers quote the church’s Discipline:
As followers of Jesus Christ called to servant leadership, bishops are authorized to guard the fair, order, liturgy, doctrine, and discipline of the Church.
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…To teach and uphold the theological traditions of the United Methodist Church.
Bishop’s Ordination Affirmations Questioned
The evangelical Methodists also point to the questions Sprague answered when he was made an elder of the church and reaffirmed when he was consecrated as a bishop. They include:
Have you studied the doctrines of the United Methodist Church?The challengers also point out one of the qualifications of ordination is that the person “be accountable to the United Methodist Church, accept its Doctrinal Standards and Discipline and authority, accept the supervision of those appointed to this ministry, and be prepared to live in the covenant of its ordained ministers.” (emphasis as indicated in the original letter)
After full examination, do you believe that our doctrines are in harmony with the Holy Scriptures?
Will you preach and maintain them?
“Bishop Sprague Has Violated These Promises”
“We believe the evidence given above shows that Bishop Sprague has violated these promises and qualifications,” the letter continues. It also points out that the Bishop claims to affirm the “orthodox language of the ancient creeds,” but has redefined “the creedal affirmations to mean nearly the opposite of their commonly understood meanings,” thus rendering “his claim to affirm the creedal language meaningless.”
“Do We Have Doctrinal Standards
That Set Boundaries Around Our Teaching?”
That Set Boundaries Around Our Teaching?”
The letter writers ask, “Do we have doctrinal standards that set boundaries around our teaching?”
They suggest an answer: “We believe the Discipline establishes those boundaries and envisions their enforcement, as evidenced in the chargeable offenses listed.
“We further believe that the role of the bishop is not to flaunt those boundaries (as Bishop Sprague has done by his statements quoted above and by calling the Doctrinal Standards literal understanding of the Christian faith ‘idolatrous,’ but to uphold and defend them”).
Remedy Sought: Renounce Contrary Teaching &
Stay Within Church Doctrinal Standards, Resign or Be Removed
Stay Within Church Doctrinal Standards, Resign or Be Removed
The letter concludes by asking Bishop Ough to bring forth its questions “to investigation and, if sustained, that Bishop Sprague either (publicly) renounce his contrary teaching and maintain his teaching with the Doctrinal Standards of the United Methodist Church, or that he resign (or be removed) from his office and surrender his credentials of ordination.
“The integrity of the clergy covenant of the United Methodist Church demands no less.”
Labels: Bruce Ough, Joseph Sprague, Northern Illinois Conference
# posted by Cal Skinner : 2:40 PM
