Bishop Chambers' Actions Decried and Repudiated
Episcopal News Service. October 6, 1977 [77327]
PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. -- After debate which consumed generous parts of two days and included deliberation about the shades of meaning of such words as "censure," "deplore," "decry" and "repudiate," the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church adopted a four-part resolution concerning the Rt. Rev. Albert A. Chambers, retired Bishop of Springfield, whose episcopal acts within dioceses where he was functioning without permission from resident bishops have caused no small measure of disruption.
The action "reaffirms... respect for the episcopal authority of a bishop within his own diocese;" "decries and repudiates" Bishop Chambers's "intervention into dioceses where he had been specifically requested not to officiate or not been authorized" to officiate; "supports and sustains" bishops of such dioceses; and "appeals" to Bishop Chambers and other members of the House "to refrain' from repeating such actions "in any diocese without the expressed approval" of its bishop and "in any church no longer in communion with this Church, so long as he is a member of this House."
Bishop Chambers had not planned to attend the annual meeting, but in response to a 79-28 vote of the House, an invitation was extended to him, with several individual members paying his expenses.
When Bishop Chambers arrived, a delay was approved in order for him to acquaint himself with the Statement of Conscience adopted by the House earlier in the week. The delay also made it possible for other bishops who, while not accepting the ordination of women to the priesthood, have decided to remain within the Episcopal Church, to confer with Bishop Chambers in the hope he might reconsider his position.
Bishop Chambers told the House before it voted on the resolution, "I have not changed my mind. It is a terrifying judgment upon this House that you cannot accept my reasons.... I have my vows to fulfill and I cannot go back on that." Bishop Chambers said, "I cannot dictate to this House, I am at your mercy. "
It was explained during the debate by Bishop Fred Wolf of Maine -- who presented the proposal on behalf of the Advisory Committee -- that the word "censure" had been used in House resolutions in 1975 regarding the three Bishops who performed the premature Philadelphia ordinations of women, only after all legal recourse had been completed. At that time, the word "decry" was applied to the similar action of Bishop George Barrett because there was no wish to prejudice any legal action against him which might ensue.
Several bishops noted that presentments against and a trial of Bishop Chambers are not impossibilities. It appeared that the wish of some bishops for stronger measures was heightened when Bishop Joseph T. Heistand, Coadjutor of Arizona, stated that Bishop Chambers "has not assured us" that he will not ordain to the priesthood an Arizona deacon whom the Standing Committee of the diocese has not yet declared ready to become a priest. "People from the (new) Diocese of San Francisco have flown in, given him a one-hour oral exam, and declared him fit for ordination. This I cannot accept."
Bishop James Duncan of South Florida urged the House to use the verb "deplore" rather than "censure" on grounds that "some of us may well want, in time, to bring Bishop Chambers to trial."
Bishop Addison Hosea of Lexington urged the House to act with "equity. " He reminded the House it had tabled a motion regarding the action of Bishop Paul Moore of New York in ordaining the Rev. Ellen Barrett a priest, "and he had not broken any canon. We must seek not only justice but the appearance of justice.... The harsher the term we use, the more we will seem to be seeking self-protection."
Bishop John Wyatt of Spokane said, "I don't like to denounce a person. I can respect Bishop Chamber's wish to give pastoral care, but if he is contemplating ordination, we should bring him to trial."
Bishop Gerald McAllister of Oklahoma took a firm stance in the debate saying, "There is no such thing as community without law, and we must be aware there is sin in community. Law has to be there as a remedy. The purpose of law is not always punitive; sometimes it is redemptive. It would be an unloving action not to censure" Bishop Chambers for his actions. "Had I violated the constitution and canons, I hope the House would be loving enough to censure me. "
In the later session, after Bishop Wolf's discussion of the term "censure," Bishop McAllister did not attempt to re-insert it in the resolution but did continue to press for strong action.
Few speakers either day appeared to favor no action or a very mild one. Bishop Otis Charles of Utah insisted, "We are not going to hold the Church together by force" and then inquired, "How could Bishop Chambers be allowed to function within the context of this House?" The question sounded rhetorical, and none of the other bishops tried to answer it.
Nothing was proposed, in this resolution or other related ones, which could be construed as an offer to give episcopal order to the Anglican Church of North America (the dissenting groups) although that possibility had been mentioned in Presiding Bishop John M. Allin's opening address.