The Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb
P. O. Box 7606
Stockton, CA 95267

Re: St. Andrew’s Anglican Mission

Dear Bishop Lamb:

Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

This will reply to your June 1, 2008, letter to Father Charles Threewit concerning St. Andrew’s Anglican Mission in Taft, California.

Our records indicate that St. Andrew’s Mission validly adopted Anglican bylaws on March 23, 2008. These bylaws cannot be amended without my consent (which was not requested and not given) and without a properly called meeting of the Bishop’s Committee. Title to the Mission’s real property is held by the Anglican Diocese Holding Corporation.

We do not have any first hand knowledge about the meeting you conducted where you say “an overwhelming majority vote” was recorded by those present to remain with the Episcopal Church. We do know that whatever meeting took place was not properly noticed and that a voting quorum of the Bishop’s Committee was not present. Following your meeting, you apparently caused the locks on the Mission doors to be changed and you and your agents have taken physical possession of the building. These actions are all very irregular and, in my opinion, unlawful.

On top of it all, you apparently asked one of our priests who holds Anglican orders, Father Upton, to conduct services. Father Upton has asked my permission to conduct services on a temporary basis and I have granted his request to stabilize the situation for the time being. The Anglican contingent of the Mission can be ministered to by our three thriving Anglican parishes in Bakersfield until we can sort this matter out.

It is not our intention to rush back in and change the locks, as you have done, and cause further upheaval in this small mission. Our actions, however, are not to be construed as a waiver of any rights on our part. The civil courts and our ongoing investigation will ultimately settle the matter of title to the real and personal property of the Mission. To this end, it would be helpful if you would forward to us the minutes of
the meeting you conducted so we can review them.

We will also permit your use of the Mission computer under the same reservation of rights and with your implicit agreement that it will remain at the Mission until a final decision is made by the courts or by our agreement. Father Threewit, the priest in charge, temporarily removed the computer because he suspected something was afoot but he did not know what it was. He thought it wise under the circumstances to remove the computer so its contents could be copied. That has been accomplished and we will make arrangements to get it back to the Mission.

While I in no way agree with or condone your actions, nevertheless, may the peace of God be with you.

In Christ,

--(The Rt. Rev.) John-David M. Schofield, SSC, is Bishop of San Joaquin

Filed under:

1. Cennydd wrote: I agree with my bishop that what +Lamb did is unlawful, but more than that, I believe it is not typical of the character of a true Christian bishop to do something like this.  Speaking strictly for myself, and since I’m not an attorney and am not in any way connected with the courts except as a former trial juror with a lot of jury experience, and as a former member of a California Civil Grand Jury, I believe that +Lamb might be treading on soggy ground…...with unfirm footing. June 19, 5:24 pm | [comment link]

2. Cennydd wrote: As Bishop Schofield has said, whatever happens is for the courts to decide. June 19, 5:25 pm | [comment link]

3. Daniel Lozier wrote: What I find remarkable is that Bishop Schofield wrote this prior to checking with law enforcement or legal counsel to see whether this action WAS indeed illegal. June 20, 10:42 am | [comment link]

4. Cennydd wrote: I believe that what Bishop Schofield did was appropriate, Daniel Lozier.  I wonder what else he could have done? June 20, 4:55 pm | [comment link]

5. Denise wrote: And isn’t the timing interesting?  Just as our bishop is leaving for GAFCON and Lambeth.  Rounding up the few dissidents and holding an impromptu meeting to make decisions of this serious nature,  completely ignoring the legal March 23 meeting.  Can these people do anything in a legal way, or must they terrorize a small congregation and steal it all?  Isn’t it enough that the bishop has already told each congregation in the diocese they may leave or stay, but it must be done through his office?  Hard to believe these folks are our Christian brothers and sisters and we are admonished to pray for them. June 21, 2:13 pm | [comment link]

Registered members must log in to comment.