NIC VOICE - A Bit of History, Please

Editor’s Note: Benjamin S. Sharpe is a former UMC ordained elder who has left the UMC and is now ordained in AMIA.

The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity.

Those lines from Yeats' poem, "Second Coming," come to mind in the wake of the recently reported comments of United Methodist bishop, C. Joseph Sprague. Sprague made the news in the last week of November 1999 when he, along with a group of Chicago area religious leaders, went on record opposing Southern Baptist plans for an evangelistic effort in that city set for the summer of 2000. Responding to the Southern Baptist plans, the bishop remarked, "I'm always fearful when we in the Christian community move beyond the rightful claim that Jesus is decisive for us, to the presupposition that non-Christians...are outside God's plan for salvation... That smacks of a non-Jesus-like arrogance." According to the United Methodist News Service Sprague went on to assert that "Traditional proselytizing [evangelizing] would...create yet another potential for violence. (United Methodist News Service, Chicago religious leaders make plea against proselytizing, Nov. 30, 1999)"

Bishop Sprague's public statements referring to traditional Christian evangelism as arrogant and linking it with hate crimes brings up a question I have asked many times: Why does it seem that the farcical fringe element of the Council of Bishops has cornered the market on episcopal backbone?

Please forgive my choice of words. "Farcical" just seems appropriate when a United Methodist bishop says, in essence, "We don't mind the Southern Baptists coming to Chicago. We just don't want them to talk about Jesus while they're here." Doesn't that seem just a little bizarre? So I ask again, why are these peripheral bishops the only ones who seem willing to defy the herd mentality of the Council and valiantly take a principled, if misguided, stand?

Remember the Denver Fifteen? At the 1996 General Conference fifteen bishops of The United Methodist Church were willing to break ranks with their fellows, spurn the jealous god of collegiality, and passionately speak in opposition to The Book of Discipline's classical, biblical view of sexual morality. They were in error, but they were bold, courageous, and passionate in their cause. They were willing to appeal to what they regarded as a higher moral authority than The Book of Discipline, even if it was the fickle authority of experience.

Why is it that the bishops who seem to want to undermine the very Faith they are sworn to protect and transmit are the only ones who appear to be "full of passionate intensity" for their convictions? Although they frequently plead for the unity of the Church they seem to have no compunction about publicly reneging on the collective statements of the Council of Bishops, defying the spirit (if not the letter) of the Discipline, making schismatic statements, and teaching doctrines that separate us from the mainstream of the classical Christian faith. Conversely, why is it that the best among us – those who actually believe the apostolic faith they guard – seem, in the words of Yeats, to "lack all conviction?"

I realize that these reflections appear to present a rather stark, simplistic dichotomy. Yet, all I can do is observe and comment on what I see in our denominational press and the secular media regarding the position of the United Methodist bishops. Perhaps there are blazing firebrands among the traditionalists on the Council – but they are carefully hidden. Indeed, if there is a passionate bishop willing to stand alone against the rising tide of heterodoxy he or she* is practically invisible. We don't hear a peep from them in the United Methodist News Service or religion sections of our local newspapers.

When will an orthodox United Methodist bishop be consumed with such zeal for the living God in the face of destructive and false doctrine coming from the extreme Left of the Council, that s/he declares, "Collegiality be damned! Such teaching is rank heresy!"? Well, I'm not holding my breath. Not while the traditionalist, orthodox, and evangelical bishops seem more driven by a sentimental notion of collegiality than by a yearning to see a sanctified Church. Not while they say things like, "Bishop So-and-So is a deeply spiritual person. S/he is a person of good will with the best intentions." This is an appeal to sentiment, and does not deal with the fact that the hypothetical Bishop So-and-So denies the Nicene formulation of the two natures of Christ and has overtly rejected Christ's claim to be the Savior of the world.

"Deeply spiritual" is not the same as being a Christian disciple. There are plenty of neo-pagans who are deeply spiritual people of good will. They're nice. They have the best of intentions (whatever that means). They're just not Christian. Could it be that the same is true of certain bishops of The United Methodist Church?

That's the question that someone on the Council of Bishops should be bold enough to ask about bishops such as C. Joseph Sprague. I don't mean that anyone should be gauche enough to inquire into the condition of the Bishop's soul or his eschatological destination. Heaven forbid! We haven't done that since the embarrassing days when we actually required Methodists to make a weekly account of their spiritual health to their Class Leader.

Rather, what I mean is that perhaps a colleague on the Council of Bishops ought to ask if Bishop Sprague is a Christian in the classical sense of the term as defined by the creeds and practices accepted by the Church down through the ages. For instance, is it problematic that Bishop Sprague apparently rejects the Church's claim that Jesus is the "only name given under heaven by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12)" and believes that such a claim, "smacks of un-Jesus-like arrogance?"

Should it concern us that Bishop Sprague has overtly renounced the Nicene formulation of the two natures of Jesus Christ in favor of the "christology from below? (Bishop C. Joseph Sprague in the Northern Illinois Reporter, May 1997) Does this place him outside the company of faithful witnesses to the apostolic Faith?

Does the fact Bishop Sprague has admitted that, when a pastor, he performed marriage-like ceremonies for persons in homosexual relationships call his interpretation of Scripture and Tradition into question?

Does Bishop Sprague's teaching have more in common with Paul, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Augustine, John Wesley and Francis Asbury than Marcion, Arius, Pelagius, Friedrich Schleiermacher, or C.T. Russell?

I suppose it would be considered impolite, probably even "hateful" or "spiritually violent," to ask such questions in today's United Methodist Church. Instead, we are supposed to just "go along and get along." Indeed, that's just what the classical Christians on the Council of Bishops seem to be best at doing. Along these lines, I have heard the warnings of some of our conservative bishops who maintain that asking such questions and insisting upon proper teaching within the Church would endanger us of becoming doctrinaire. I am convinced that the real danger is not that we will become doctrinaire, but that Methodism acts like it is founded on a doctrine of air: tasteless, invisible and having little substance.

The traditionalists among the Council of Bishops should be very careful about congratulating themselves for the way they avoid disrupting the unity of the Council. Why? Because by appeasing their less orthodox colleagues they may, in fact, be violating the essence of the episcopal office.

The duties of the episcopal office are clearly stated in The Book of Discipline. Among these duties, bishops of the Church are enjoined:

"To guard, transmit, 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 415.3, The 1996 Book of Discipline)"

That certain bishops have ignored this solemn injunction and have opted to exchange the apostolic Faith in favor of their own designer theologies is irrefutable. However, what is not being said is that there are disturbing implications for those orthodox bishops who, for whatever reason, are accommodating their heterodox counterparts by refusing to publicly disavow theologically outrageous statements made by the likes of Sprague.

The traditionalist bishops fail "to guard, transmit, teach and proclaim" the apostolic faith when they leave unchallenged public statements from their colleagues who link evangelism to hate crimes, who are offended by the very notion of conversion, and who are embarrassed that Jesus claims to be the Savior of the world and not just of those who find him "decisive" within the Christian community. God does not call bishops to remain passive and silent in order to appease shepherds who bleat about unity while poisoning the fold with their toxic teachings. There is no biblical or disciplinary requirement that places the collegiality of the Council above contending for the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. Indeed, it is an immoral act – a sin of omission – for our theologically sound bishops to remain quiescent while their heterodox colleagues ravage the Church.

The good news is that the bishop who actually does, from the heart, what paragraph 415.3 of The Book of Discipline says will be marked by a passionate intensity and still be among those Yeats calls "the best." A bishop of passionate intensity for the apostolic faith may find himself or herself standing alone against the accommodationalist forces on the Council. He or she may lose the warm, fuzzy collegiality of his/her less orthodox fellows. Yet, standing for the Faith in the face of opposition from within and from outside the Church is a part of a bishop's job -- it's a part of "bishing." And, in the words of Albert Outler, it's time for our orthodox, traditional, biblically faithful episcopal leaders to "bish or cut bait."

Mr. Sprague and others of his persuasion do not reject the resurrection of Jesus because it requires an “untenable” belief in “the supernatural.” In fact, the categories of “natural” and “supernatural” are themselves the products of a false dichotomy born of the Enlightenment. The simple fact of the matter is that Mr. Sprague and others reject the resurrection because it offends them. If Jesus is truly raised from the dead, then the resurrection is more than just a vague concept. Indeed, it is more than just “bodily resuscitation.” The resurrection is a Person, and that Person is the resurrection. More than some impersonal force which “guides history toward justice” and “drives creation’s evolution,” Jesus, as the embodiment of God’s new creation, draws all history and creation toward himself. It is easy enough, as demonstrated by Mr. Sprague, to create an alternate universe in which human beings can finally reach their full potential with little more than an ambiguous “Jesus power or Christ essence” to guide or be guided by them. But to acknowledge Jesus as truly raised from the dead requires a risky and courageous humility. For to do so is to recognize that Jesus Christ stands at the very center of everything that God has done, is doing and will do to reconcile all things to himself. To worship this Jesus, who was dead and now is alive forever, is to recognize that he is fully human and fully divine, and the rest of us are neither. Read More

The Methodist Connection

The following address was delivered at the eleventh annual Good News Convocation in 1980

By Dr. Frederick P. Brooks, Jr., Department of Computer Science, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The Methodist Connection is also a structure, a polity, and a hierarchical set of Conferences devised by our forefathers as a means for doing God’s work. Now, what the church needs most is not structural reorganization, but pure doctrine, holy living, and the fire of the Holy Spirit. Does our connectional structure aid or hinder in these matters? We must analyze honestly the health of the structure beyond the local church, and compare it to New Testament norms. I would suggest that we find the following:

We are no longer connected properly, lacking the one thing a Christian connection most needs--a common conviction about Jesus Christ.
We centralize too much, dampening local zeal.
We emphasize too much the less edifying activities of our connection.

...We are confused in our theology, therefore we should consider division. We are remote and impersonal in much of our over-centralized function; therefore we should consider devolution of function down from Annual Conferences to Districts, from the General Ch7urch down to lower bodies. We are burdened with top-down programming and proclamations therefore we should consider de-emphasis. In these ways, perhaps,, we can recover in each of our local churches our first love, the Lord Jesus Christ, and follow him in holy living that fires a concern for our neighbors and our society.

We must take to heart, I fear, our Lord’s message to the church at Sardis,

"You have the name of being alive, and you are dead, Awake and strengthen what remains and is on the point of death, for I have not found your works perfect in the sight of God. Remember then what you received and heard; keep that and repent" (Rev. 3:2-3). Read More

BREAKTHROUGH
Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth
From January 2003 St. Peter’s Post

As with most such gatherings, this Day Apart began with worship. Then Bishop Marion M. Edwards mounted the pulpit. For the next hour or so, he did something this pastor had not before experienced in some twenty-five years of ordained ministry. Our bishop taught. That is, he did not make conference-related announcements. He did not offer administrative musings. He did not share inspirational notes. Instead, Bp. Edwards taught. He taught the faith of the Church catholic. Why did this happen?

For months prior to that October morning, there had been a low-grade rumble throughout The United Methodist Church. The rumbling had been created by a theological lecture delivered by Bishop Joseph C. Sprague, of United Methodism’s Chicago Area. In his lecture at Iliff School of Theology, Bp. Sprague had attempted to describe the Christian faith in modernistic terms that would be understood and accepted by today’s so-called “intellectuals.” Though evangelistically motivated, the bishop’s lecture seemed to undermine Church doctrine related to Jesus Christ. The virgin birth, the resurrection, and the nature of Jesus Christ were explained to the point of being explained away. Again, Bp. Sprague’s intentions were evangelistic and good; however, his lecture seemed to erode the faith he intended to advance. Read More

Deconstructing Bishop Sprague

by Benjamin S. Sharpe Jr.

Editor’s Note: Benjamin S. Sharpe is a former UMC ordained elder who has left the UMC and is now ordained in AMIA

Late last year United Methodist Bishop C. Joseph Sprague once again found himself embroiled in controversy when he went on record opposing the Southern Baptist Church's evangelistic plans for the Chicago area. The United Methodist News Service reported Sprague as declaring:

I'm always fearful when we in the Christian community move beyond the rightful claim that Jesus is decisive for us, to the presupposition that non-Christians...are outside God's plan for salvation... That smacks of a non-Jesus-like arrogance. (United Methodist News Service, Chicago religious leaders make plea against proselytizing, Nov. 30, 1999)

Obviously there is a certain illogical quality to the bishop's statement in that the Southern Baptists are going to Chicago precisely because they believe that non-Christians are not outside God's plan of salvation. Evangelism presupposes it is God's plan for non-Christians to have an opportunity to respond to the Good News about Jesus. If the Southern Baptists believed that non-Christians had no place in God's gracious plan of redemption then they wouldn't bother evangelizing in the first place.

Yet, the real issue for Bishop Sprague is revealed in his comments and the context in which they were made. The bishop was specifically responding to the perception that the Baptists were placing a special emphasis on converting Jews and Muslims. This offended Bishop Sprague because to attempt to convert another person is to infer that their religious views are in error. Sprague's ensuing comments revealed that he was thinking like a deconstructionist along the lines of Stanley Fish, dean of arts and sciences at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

Deconstructionists like Sprague and Fish view claims to absolute, transcendent truth as a power grab. Why? Because truth and reality do not really exist objectively but are the construction of a group and its use of language. This is exactly the reasoning that supports Sprague's statement: "I'm always fearful when we in the Christian community move beyond the rightful claim that Jesus is decisive for us." Here the Bishop reveals that he views that Jesus is decisive only to those within the Christian community. To "totalize" the Jesus story by asserting it is true for everyone (even Jews, Muslims, and Hindus) is out of bounds. It is a wrongful claim that is at least arrogant and may even inspire violence.

How can this be? Deconstructionists maintain that something may be true for a particular group because it is consistent with the narrative that defines that group, and yet be untrue for those in another group who do not share the same "story". Thus, when Baptists maintain that they want to share a truth that transcends their private little construction of reality they are actually seeking to gain power over their intended audience. To Sprague and other deconstructionists this is seen as an act of violence.

With all this said it should be noted that deconstructionism need not be viewed as intrinsically hostile to the Christian faith. In fact, it helps us see that we exist in communities (groups) that provide the lenses through which we perceive reality. This needs to be taken into account in any missionary enterprise. As Christians we recognize that the language and history that define these communities are human constructs and are necessarily tainted by sin. Thus violence and the will to power can indeed flow from these communities -- even the Christian community.

However, it is the transcendent, universally true Gospel of Jesus Christ that has the power to name and judge the sin of cultural or religious coercion. It is precisely because Christians believe there is objective, universal truth (a meta-narrative in deconstructionist parlance) which stands above all competing stories that we are constrained to respect the dignity of other persons and groups.

This is why St. Peter admonished the Church in this fashion: "...In your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15)." Perhaps this scripture would have better served as the starting point for persuasive advice from a United Methodist bishop to the Southern Baptist Church rather than the remarks made by Bishop Sprague.