NIC VOICE - Response to Concerns

Letter to Members of the Administrative Board, Castle Rock United Methodist Church, PNWAC - April 26, 2004

The following letter is authorized for publication by NIC VOICE and www.ucmpage.org by Scott & Julie Bean. It was sent by them to their church in April, 2004, for prayerful consideration and action. They have requested that details on apportionment dollars be omitted until final action has been determined. This letter has been revised for publication (addition of references, insertion of hyperlinks, and notation of authors and their positions).

In light of recent events happening in the United Methodist Church, Julie and I have been doing research as to how our apportionment money is being spent and how consistently the discipline is being applied. We found the results to be quite disturbing. Last year, our church paid all of its apportionments in full. We paid a total of $xxxxxx in apportionments total. Approximately $xxxxx of these funds were required by the General Conference to pay for pensions and salaries for district and conference staffing. The additional $xxxxx was spent to support funds which are participating in questionable activities. Under the World Service Fund (WSF) several organizations such as the Global Board of Church and Society and General Board of Global Ministries Woman’s Division have clearly disregarded the wishes of General Conference and the Book of Discipline(BOD) in order to promote causes which are inconsistent with Christian faith. Among these causes is a push to normalize homosexual activities and promote homosexual clergy, to advocate all abortion on demand, and to incorporate non-Christian practices and other heresy into worship services through programs such as Reimagining Conferences. We feel the question our church needs to address is “Can we continue to contribute to these causes?” In order to help you understand the scope of the problem, we would like to share our findings.

....

Even at the highest levels of power in the UMC, the basic tenets of Christian faith are being denied and leadership has refused to intervene. Bishop Sprague of the Northern Illinois Conference is openly denying the virgin birth, saying any language in the Bible which could be construed as saying Mary was a virgin was symbolic instead of literal; the resurrection, saying Christ may have been raised in spirit but not physically because it would break the laws of science and “God does not work that way”; and that Christ was God, saying since he was born to human parents he could be nothing more than human. He also maintains that any concept of a need for blood sacrifice and atonement is nothing more than idolatry offering “better methods of atonement instead”. Charges were pressed by pastors in his area for heresy, but have been dropped by the Council of Bishops. Sprague does not honor the authority of the Bible. Instead, he views “Christology as the second most divisive issue in the Church today” and supports efforts to create a multi-faith world. Read More

A Letter of Concern

March 3, 2004

TO: The Council of Bishops
              and
        The General Conference
        The United Methodist Church

A LETTER OF CONCERN

We, the people of First United Methodist Church of Canton, Mississippi, write to you out of deep concern over the teachings of Bishop Sprague and the implications that surround his statements and claims. We have been patient as the sensationalism ran its course and the heightened emotionalism somewhat subsided. We have also tried to take into account that you may not be totally aware of all facets of this situation.

Nevertheless, we do believe that Bishop Sprague has denied biblical teachings concerning the Christ-the center of the Christian faith. We believe that he has broken trust with the United Methodist Church by words and actions that recant the vows he took as a minister and as a bishop, as well as the vows that he, as bishop, has required of others who would serve our denomination. In our opinion, this is heresy.

, Furthermore, we have been dismayed at the actions, or lack thereof, of our leadership to respond or at least to distance the United Methodist Church from this apparent heresy. The church-or at least our church-has become appalled at the lack of concern by the leaders of the Church in correcting what we believe to be an intolerable situation. Some have left the denomination and some have even questioned the validity of the Episcopacy.

With this crisis of faith confronting our church, we, First United Methodist Church, Canton, Mississippi, call upon the General Conference of the United Methodist Church and the Council of Bishops to:

1. Confirm that the historic, biblical teachings that are the foundation of Christ's holy church and our denomination are inviolable.

2. Call for the leadership and episcopacy of our church to re-affirm these beliefs.

3. Ask those who cannot re-affirm their belief and support to step down.

4. To distance ourselves theologically from those who would not hold the biblical and traditional teachings regarding the triune god and God's church as paramount to Christian discipleship and practice.

We are all God's people, whoever and wherever. We would be tolerant of those who differ in belief and opinion. We, however, stand on that which has been our heritage in the faith. To that end, our Finance Committee and Administrative Board have approved the withholding of all episcopal apportionments until this crisis of faith has been resolved.

We pray for you, both corporately and individually, in these difficult and trying times.

Sincerely,

The People of First United Methodist Church
Canton, Mississippi

Note: See also Wedron UMC letter

Response from Bishop Ruediger R. Minor

Text Version

On Official Letterhead:

Council of Bishops

The United Methodist church

Ruediger R. Minor

President of the Council

666 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10103

Mail to: Box #257, c/o IPS, Suite 572

November 15, 2003 (postmarked November 25, 2003)

Dear sisters and brothers,

Grace and Peace from our Lord Jesus Christ!

As other Bishops of the United Methodist Church, I received your letter of September 5, 2003, raising several questions about the recommendations of the Supervisory Response Team that dealt with the complaint against Bishop Sprague.

Though you did not address the letter to me as the President of the Council of Bishops, I would like to answer your concerns, especially since I feel that you build your request on assumptions that are not completely corresponding with the situation given. It seems to me that you see the Council of Bishops "in charge" of the further process of the Response Team's recommendations. However, dealing with complaints against a bishop falls in the responsibility of such bishop's Jurisdictional College and Committee on Episcopacy.

Therefore, to receive an answer to your first two questions, you should address them to the North Central Jurisdiction. Concerning your questions connected with Recommendation 2, I can inform you that the Council of Bishops' Standing Committee on Teaching Concerns is working on a proposal, how the intent of this recommendation could best be fulfilled. In the meantime, several persons from this Committee as well as from the wider Council have come forward with personal contributions to these around Christology and the mission of the Church.

With an invitation to join the whole church in the quest to proclaim Christ to a world that does not know him, "that the world may believe' and join Christ's disciples in following His footsteps, I am

Yours in Christ' service

(signed)

Ruediger R. Minor

Response to Bishop Minor's Letter

January 6, 2004

Bishop Ruediger Minor
Global Ministries Box 257
C/O IPS POB 572
New York, NY 10103-0001

Dear Bishop Minor,

On behalf of NIC VOICE, I want to thank you for your response of November 15, 2003 to our earlier inquiry concerning two recommendations made by the Supervisory Team in dismissing the complaint filed just over a year ago against Bishop Sprague.

NIC VOICE intentionally invited all active bishops to comment on two recommendations made by the Team, particularly the one asking that, "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."

We also invited comment about the Supervisory Response Team’s assertion: "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."

Your reply indicates concern that NIC VOICE has built its request on assumptions “that are not completely corresponding with the situation given." We regret it appeared we were making assumptions; we simply inquire of the bishops and their council as to whether or not they, as individuals, or the council in concert, have taken any concrete measures to respond to the Supervisory Team's request.

According to the words of the Supervisory Teams recommendations, they have called on "The Council of Bishops take immediate steps…" In light of this recommendation, NIC VOICE requested a status report on what the response of the Council is to be, especially in light of the Response Team’s further recommendation that "this process be open to the public".

We at NIC VOICE are as anxious as are you for the North Central Jurisdiction to address these recommendations. We are concerned, however, that nearly a year after the Supervisory Response Team reported its findings, we see no evidence of action begin taken on the recommendations which were made directly to the Council of Bishops.

We are especially encouraged to know that the Council of Bishops' Standing Committee on Teaching Concerns is "working on a proposal, how the intent of this recommendation could best be fulfilled,” and that "persons from that Committee as well as the wider Council have come forward with personal contributions to themes around Christology and the mission of the Church."

We urge the Council of Bishops to make its plans known through various channels of communication as soon as possible in light of the length of time since the original recommendations were made (almost a year). Bishop Sprague’s comments at Illiff and what he has written in “Affirmations of a Dissenter” call into question basic tenets of the

Christian faith and create, for lay members of the UMC, a sense of urgency. We would want our bishops to share that sense of urgency.

Bishop Minor, we believe that you can help to reconcile this situation by ensuring that immediate and public action is taken to implement both Recommendations 1 and 2.

In His service and on behalf of all of the signers of the original NIC VOICE letter:

Brenda Klockenga

James Blue

Cc:

Bishop Roy I. Sano, Retired
400 Elysian Fields Dr.
Oakland Ca 94605

Bishop Peter D. Weaver
PO Box 820
Valley Forge, PA 19482-0820