The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin is suing the members of St. Paul’s, Bakersfield. The lawsuit is the latest in a series of suits stemming from the original diocese splitting from the national Episcopal Church and aligning itself with a more conservative Anglican order.
The congregations being sued occupy what the Episcopal Diocese contends is church property that it owns. The Anglicans dispute that argument. There was no immediate comment from the Bakersfield church about the lawsuit.
Similar cases are pending against the former members of St. Francis, Turlock; St. Michael’s, Ridgecrest; St. John’s, Porterville; St. James, Sonora; Redeemer & Hope, Delano; St. Columba, Fresno and St. Paul’s, Visalia.
Which individual members are they suing? I’m presuming the Vestry members.
I don’t know if Rob Eaton is following this strand, but I wonder to what extent decisions about this seem to be initiated within the leadership of the TEC diocese, and to what extent, from your perspective in SJ, the car is being driven by the PB’s counsel?
Bruce Robison
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Well, considering that each person who is mentioned in a lawsuit must pay some kind of fee or court cost to respond (I can’t remember how much it is, but we’re not talking 20 bucks), the mention of the vestry and/or trustees as individuals is just vindictive, nasty, and punitive. I’m hoping that the parishes can at least counter-sue for costs.
I’m not sure it matters who is driving the car here Fr. Bruce – the fact is that it is done in the name of the SJ Diocese that Isn’t, and the results are the same.
Give Just give Lamb the keys to the empty church. Let him deal with it. Give him something to do. The man needs a job in this economy! Give him some slack. Feel sorry for him.
I ask your prayers for St. Paul’s and all the faithful congregations in our Diocese, who, having taken a stand for truth, now face the storm of derision and litigation from those who care only for their own agenda.
Hi, Bruce.
I haven’t written on this for awhile, so I’ll accept the invite……
Beers’ handprint is definitely on this from early on (early 2008). Michael Glass was retained by Remain Episcopal folks prior to the Dec 2007 convention that voted to leave TECUSA. Some connection between the two attorneys prior to that, I heard. Glass is an Episcopalian, a member of the Diocese of California (or perhaps was) and his wife is ordained and on board at Grace Cathedral, SF. Those connections might explain the blessing given for Michael to be named Chancellor of the diocese at the March 2008 Special Convention (it is canonically legitimate for a chancellor to a diocese to not be a member of that diocese, although they played it off as a “wink, wink, nod, nod” kind of thing). In any case, the strategy from the beginning was two-fold: go after the Corp Sole (Bp Schofield) and thus all the un-incorporated properties, and then go after the incorporated properties including churches, which Michael has been doing methodically, one at a time, since last January or February.
Bp Lamb, if you recall, was one of the California bishops who filed presentment charges against Bp Schofield. He was simply the most likely birddog bishop to provide the channel for Michael to do his work, as Beers laid out the parameters. The PB (as presumptor of diocesan authority after “not recognizing” the regular Standing Committee) had to consider retired bishops for the job of Bishop with Provisional Authority, and Bp Lamb had already been an interim in Nevada, he was a known quantity to her as a bishop supportive of her regime.
Everybody has had their part to play in this boondoggle. So, the plan was laid out, and the players put into place to see it through. But the Beers/TECUSA presence has been evident and felt throughout.
Littlesearchers: It has been a great disappointment to Bp Lamb (and to Glass, and all the people who have been anticipating legal victory and retrieval of properties already) that this wasn’t the slam dunk that I think he was told it would be. His plan had been 3 years as bishop provisional, enough time to do the litigation and have the diocese elect a new (regular) bishop. It is clear he will be stepping down soon, but not with a diocesan election in sight. He would be relinquishing provisional status, and the Standing Committee would have to find another retired bishop, or forgo a bishop for the time being, rely on the Canon to the Ordinary to administrate, and hope for successful litigation and then an election for a regular bishop.
At this point, there is no way he will bishop if and when “keys to the empty churches” are handed over. Wear and tear, and the beckoning of a wife and a nice shalomy place in New Mexico are pulling on him.
Finally, this business of naming members of vestry is the absolute worst of it all. It is simply legal evil. Naming them “just in case”? How about simply providing a case at all, instead. Further, there could have been a sit down reckoning a long time ago. That would have been the fruit of Brian Cox’s work in the first part of 2008. But once the 2008 March Special convention was completed, it became clear to Brian that – at least on one side of the divide – Bp Lamb, Michael Glass, David Beers and PB Jefferts Schori had no intention to work toward “reconciliation”, as Brian had been led to believe and encouraged to pursue formally. Recognizing what would have been a colossal waste of time, even for one as gifted and experienced in such as he, Brian removed himself.
So now, even if St Paul’s, Bakersfield, or St. Paul’s, Visalia, were to offer a compromise financial deal, it is so unlikely such a thing would be even responded to. As it would not have two years ago.
Look at what shenanigans is being played out over Fort Worth. This is not about the right to facilities, it is about the right to assertion (even though right to facilities is what the rank and file are being told is worth the expenditure of funds and the justification for indebtedness).
You know, we could – if we wanted to – choose to follow the canonical example of the ELCA: two successive, majority votes for secession by an congregation, and they are out, and they retain the facilities. End of story.
I can try to field other questions.
Thanks, Rob. I guess what I was wondering was whether there is any distance between the PB’s apparent agenda here and the values and goals of the elected leadership of the TEC diocese. From what you’ve written, I guess not.
Bruce Robison
Personally, I wouldn’t give a plug nickel for the phony diocese’s chances of survival once +Lamb leaves.