Support the Café

Search our Site

St. James the Great Newport Beach – buyer backs out

St. James the Great Newport Beach – buyer backs out

UPDATED with links to news reports.

The Diocese of Los Angeles reports the prospective buyer of the St. James property has backed out of the agreement. The property will not be sold, but it will not be operated by the displaced parish either. The bishop coadjutor had previously said for the diocese to do the same — back out of the sale – would be fiduciarily irresponsible.

From the bishop’s office, signed by the bishop coadjutor and the president of the standing committee:

October 10, 2017
from The Bishop’s Office, Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles

Statement on cancelled sale of Newport Beach property

We understand that the buyer has decided not to proceed with its purchase of the property on Via Lido. This event, we believe, gives our diocesan community a renewed opportunity for careful discernment about our mission and ministry in south Orange County. We again pledge to do all we can pastorally, logistically, and financially to assist the St. James congregation should it wish to regain mission status in the diocese. After a suitable period of discernment and planning, we will reopen the church as a bishop’s chapel, with supply, or guest, clergy invited to conduct Sunday services. It will be open to all in the community who wish to attend and glorify and serve our God in Christ.

The Rt. Rev. John Harvey Taylor
Bishop Coadjutor

The Rev. Dr. Rachael Anne Nyback
President, Standing Committee

The Living Church has more and points out the announcement was sent out after business hours. In a phone conversation with TLC, Bishop Taylor said: “We’re offering as we have all along to enter into a conversation with the folks at St. James about whether they’d like to re-engage with us as a mission church.” Asked if St. James the congregation might be invited back he referred TLC to the statement above.

The spokesperson for the congregation learned of the statement from The Living Church.

In August Bishop Taylor wrote a lengthy justification for carrying through with the sale. Excerpt:

In prayerful discernment, we opened our hearts to a variety of possibilities for reconciliation in Christ and healing for St. James and our whole community. But Bishop Bruno has entered into a binding contract to sell the property. The buyer has the legal right to expect the seller to honor the contract. Much as we might wish it were otherwise, we do not believe that it would be in the interests of the diocese or consistent with our fiduciary responsibilities to endorse any steps leading to breaching or threatening to breach an enforceable contract that could lead to further expense and litigation.

In the spring of 2017, Bruno entered a new contract to sell the property at the same time a disciplinary panel was considering the denomination’s charges surrounding a previous contract to sell the property without consulting with the parish. It is this new contract that has fallen through.

News stories from LA Times and Orange County Register add some confusion to Bishop Taylor’s edict, if you don’t recall that the congregation is no longer a parish or mission of the diocese — by action of Bishop Bruno.

Taylor said the first step for St. James would be to return to the diocese and officially become a “mission church.”

These stories also tell the buyer’s side:

Burnham Ward, the developer which many in the community perceived might demolish the building, was actually in it to save the church, CEO Scott Burnham said Wednesday.

“What’s frustrating for us was that we were perceived as obstructionist when our goal was actually to help solve a community problem,” he said, adding that he has been involved in several redevelopment and preservation projects throughout the city including the Port Theater in Corona del Mar.

“We simply couldn’t discuss this matter because of a non-disclosure agreement,” he said. “We got involved for the right reasons.”


Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Eric Bonetti

PS Sending out a press release is hardly helpful, and having parishioners learn of the news via the print media is just plain disrespectful. +Taylor, you really need to take a deep breath and consider bringing in outside resources to help you work towards reconciliation, because so far your efforts are flatfooted, at best.

Eric Bonetti

The conduct of the diocese in this matter is deplorable. The fact that parishioners still want anything to do with TEC is remarkable and should be welcomed. Moreover, they never left the diocese and indeed fought +Bruno’s efforts to accomplish that goal.

Further, the comments by +Taylor about alleged bad conduct on the part of the parish displays a shocking lack of understanding of the dynamics of abuse. People who have been abused — and that is exactly what happened under +Bruno — often engage in counterproductive behavior, up to and including suicide. Indeed, had +Bruno engaged in sexual misconduct, no one would bat an eyelash at outrage on the part of the parish. But because the abuse is relational, +Taylor is treating it as a secondary, less serious form of abuse. It is not, and +Taylor needs to work for reconciliation. Criticizing people in the parish is not a step in that direction and is anything but pastoral.

I am outraged and appalled, but not surprised.

Jack Zamboni

The letter from Diocesan leaders seems to imply that Saint James had left the diocese and it needs to come back before any conversation about use of the building could happen. I’m not aware of St James ever having left the diocese. Could someone who knows more clarify what could be behind this part of the statement?

David Ouzts

Why is this so difficult? Why have the Bishops of Los Angeles dug their croziers in? The pastoral decision seems so obvious to me and to many others also.

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café