| June
27, 2003 Bishop C. Joseph Sprague
Northern Illinois Annual Conference
United Methodist Church
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1820
Chicago IL 60602
Dear Bishop Sprague:
I write at the direction of the
members of the Northern Illinois Conference Evangelical
Association to request an opportunity for as many as
possible of our members to meet with you to discuss your
plan for implementing across our annual conference the
provisions of Document 700-23, passed as amended in the plenary
session of the annual conference on the afternoon of
Saturday, June 7, 2003.
It will be important for us to
obtain your responses to at least these questions:
- Do you expect all pastors
in our conference to proclaim from the pulpits of
our churches that homosexual orientation (no less
or more than heterosexual orientation) can be
compatible with Christian teaching, exposing
parishioners to the fullness of the Scriptural
witness on related matters in our Bible studies?
- Do you expect to encourage
or ask our pastors to encourage Christian
educators, primarily lay people, to "teach
it in our Sunday school classes and tell it to
our children"?
- Do you intend, during the
final year of your Episcopacy in this conference,
to welcome all persons into the clergy covenant,
regardless of their sexual orientation?
- What consequences await a
pastor who refuses to implement the provisions of
document 700-23?
- What consequences await a
pastor who implements the provisions of document
700-23?
While we surely understand the
demands on your time and want to be as flexible as
possible in scheduling, we are receiving numerous
requests for information about this document and what it
means to our churches and want to be able to respond
appropriately and in a timely way. I have provided
contact information below and look forward to speaking
with you.
Very truly yours,
James B. Blue, chairman
[On Bishop's
letterhead - The United Methodist Church - Chicago Area -
Northern Illinois Conference]
July 10, 2003
Mr. James B. Blue, Chairman
NIC Evangelical Association of
United Methodists (NICEA) P.O.
Box 9074 Naperville,
IL 60567-9074
Dear Chairman Blue:
Grace to you and peace in
Jesus’ name.
I write in response to your
letter of inquiry dated June 27, 2003. I shall seek
to respond to your queries in the order in which you
presented them.
- I am a firm adherent of the
historic freedom of the United Methodist
pulpit. I would expect no pastor to preach
or teach that which is contrary to his/her
beliefs. Regarding Document 700-23, a
dissenting pastor might say, “The Northern
Illinois Conference resolved last Spring that
“. . .”, but The Book of
Discipline, the only voice that
speaks for United Methodism, says “. . .”,
and/but I say “. . .”
- Across twenty-seven years of
pastoral ministry and during seven years of
executive ecumenical leadership, I never received
an episcopal directive regarding what subject
matter staff or I should teach. I have not
issued such a directive in seven years as a
bishop, despite some deeply held biblical,
theological, and justice convictions. I
surely do not intend to reverse the trend of a
lifetime in the final year of my active
ministry. In fact, I was quite clear in the
State of the Church address regarding my
aspirations and agenda for 2003-2004.
- This Bishop ordains or
commissions those candidates the Board of
Ordained Ministry (BOOM) certifies as
viable. While I have had personal questions
about the competency and/or commitment of a
select few of the candidates placed before me, I
have acknowledged the understandable separation
of powers in our polity and either ordained or
commissioned all those presented by BOOM.
My assumption was and is that, if any candidates
were homosexual in orientation, BOOM had
determined that he or she met the strictures of The
Book of Discipline, regarding “practice”
and, therefore, was a viable candidate. I
plan no change in 2004. I trust the work of
BOOM, even if I am sometimes vexed by a few
particular decisions the group makes.
- A resolution is that which the
adopting body resolves or intends to
pursue. It is not binding, per se.
It is an expression of intent by the voting
body. In fact, until recently, the Social
Principles were thusly understood. I recall
many debates with a past-President of Good News
on the floor of West Ohio regarding both capital
punishment and issues of peace. He
steadfastly, and rightly, maintained that a
statement of intent or principle is not a mandate
even if it is found in the Social
Principles. Thus, he advocated for capital
punishment and war making despite the then
language of the Social Principles to the
contrary. That working assumption prompted
Good News and compatriots to move additional
prohibitive language regarding activities of
homosexuals into the body of The Book of
Discipline in 1996 and 2000. And,
such an understanding, I suppose, permits many
NICEA-like United Methodists to advocate for
capital punishment and the recent US led wars
despite the language of the Social Principles to
the contrary. Thus, while “. . .
we do not condone the practice. . .” is
resolution-like, the addition of preclusive
language in the body of The Discipline
is what gives this position its actual “teeth”.
I am certain that NICEA is well aware of this.
- I say all of this to say
that a resolution is not a mandate.
Interestingly, however, apportionment giving is a
mandate. I would rejoice if more pastors
took seriously this disciplinary stricture.
However, it seems that both conservatives and
progressives can look the other way on this
mandate, while fussing unduly about resolutions
not to their particular liking. It always
comes down to whose ox is being gored.
- The prohibitions of The
Discipline have been and will be
honored. For example, union services for
homosexual couples cannot be performed by United
Methodist clergy. Neither can United
Methodist sanctuaries be used for such
services. I have been and I remain clear
that The Discipline’s mandates
are primary. They are to be maintained,
even if this Conference and Bishop disagree with
them on matters relating to homosexuality.
We can express disagreement, as Document 700-23
encourages, but our practice must not
violate The Discipline.
Document 700-23 first came to my
attention in the pre-conference mailing. The same
mailing you and the other NICEA members received. I
viewed the resolution in question primarily as an attempt
to influence the General Conference, which is proper
action for an annual conference to take. But,
Document 700-23 does not and cannot take precedence over The
Discipline. I expect all clergy to honor The
Discipline, while I grant to all the freedom to
express themselves from pulpit or lectern as the Holy
Spirit leads, conscience dictates, and the Conference has
spoken in Document 700-23.
I shall be on Renewal Leave
during the months of August and September. Needless
to say, my July calender is full. If these
responses to your queries require further discussion, I
will gladly meet with you and your colleagues upon my
return in the Fall. An appointment can be scheduled
through Ms. Phyllis Griffin, my Administrative Assistant.
Blessings for a joyful Summer.
Your brother in
Christ,
Bishop C. Joseph
Sprague
CJS:peg
|
