Update on Minnesota Chapel – No Report Yet from the Board’s Executive Session, by Pr. Rossow

Thank you to BJS reader Matt Mills for finding this information and posting it on our last story about the proposed selling of the University Chapel facility at the University of Minnesota.

Pastor Kind posted the following at the Save University Lutheran Chapel (ULC) facebook page ( http://www.facebook.com/defendulc?sk=wall ) yesterday:

 “We just returned from the District BOD meeting. I was allowed to give a 20 minute presentation (to be posted on our website soon) and then take 20 minutes of Q and A. It went as well as I thought it could go. Tom Walker and Kristen Weber from ULC attended with me. After the presentations were over, the BOD went into executive session.”

This morning he added:
“At this point I haven’t heard anything from the Board. I am hoping to get some information today.”

I’ve been peeking back at the “Save ULC Facebook” site all day assuming that’s as likely a place as any to get the scoop on the board’s decision.  Closed meetings, executive sessions, secret decisions, it all strikes me as a strange way to shepherd Christ’s Church.
Pax Christi+,
Matt Mills, ULC ’85

About Pastor Tim Rossow

Rev. Dr. Timothy Rossow is the Director of Development for Lutherans in Africa. He served Bethany Lutheran Church in Naperville, IL as the Sr. Pastor for 22 years (1994-2016) and was Sr. Pastor of Emmanuel Lutheran in Dearborn, MI prior to that. He is the founder of Brothers of John the Steadfast but handed off the Sr. Editor position to Rev. Joshua Scheer in 2015. He currently resides in Ocean Shores WA with his wife Phyllis. He regularly teaches in Africa. He also paints watercolors, reads philosophy and golfs. He is currently represented in two art galleries in the Pacific Northwest. His M Div is from Concordia, St. Louis and he has an MA in philosophy from St. Louis University and a D Min from Concordia, Fort Wayne.

Comments

Update on Minnesota Chapel – No Report Yet from the Board’s Executive Session, by Pr. Rossow — 40 Comments

  1. “After the presentations were over, the BOD went into executive session.”

    Why? What could possibly require executive session?

  2. This was posted late last night:

    I just received the resolution of the MNS BOD. It is now posted at http://www.ulcmn.org/Files/Pages/SaveULC.html. Basically they are going to explore the market value of both properties and report to a future (presumably the next) BOD meeting.
    ————-
    Pastor Kind also found some very interesting things from the last Minnesota District Conventions that suggests that MNS does not have exclusive rights to the ULC property. Basically the resolution says that the Chapel property was left out of the division of assets.

  3. I take it you’re referencing the past split of the MN district into MN North and MN South and the division of assets thereby? If ULC was left out of such a division, the MN North District should have input into a change in use or disposal of such an asset, right?

    This would correspond to the fact that many of our young people from MN North congregations matriculate to the main campus of the U of M for their education and are referred to ULC and Pr. Kind for church attendance and pastoral care.

  4. I would caution everybody to not jump to conclusions yet. This is not a done deal and frankly – it’s comments and posts on sites like this that create more problems than it solves. Remember to put the best construction on everything when you proceed with this. (I say this not only to this group, but to everyone, no matter of their position in this matter).

    In my opinion – thinking the absolute worst about people you have disagreements with only creates more problems. Let’s attempt to not make blankets assumptions on people’s motives. One of the things I’m seeing is that both sides seem to be digging in. Satan rejoices in the folly he is creating. Times are tough – not only financially, but spiritually within the LCMS.

    Please – pray for our district – both our campus ministries (yes, there is another campus ministry involved in this too – the Campus Lutheran Chapel as well as the University Lutheran Chapel). Pray that God would heal whatever division and mistrust exists. Pray that God would lead us to a godly and loving conclusion which would help us continue and expand our campus outreach in the Mn North District.

    And if you are in the MNS district – please remember to support district missions in your congregational budgets. The law of unintended consequences hurt our campus ministries, when people have decided to quit supporting district missions.

    Thanks for your time.

    Monte Meyer
    Campus Lutheran Chapel – Mankato

  5. I must be reverting to my last call. I meant “Minnesota SOUTH district” sorry.

  6. Monte,

    Thanks for your input and encouragement to put the best construction on all things.

    I would say this, I am not sure anyone is judging the motives of others. The facts are plain. A solid, thriving, liturgical campus parish that has been able to pay for its annual expenses as well as or even better than most similar parishes, is being put on the chopping block acording to the clear recomendation of the committee. The committee is also proposing that part of the funds from the sale be used to support a new approach to campus ministry under the control of the district. The district’s track record is plain and obvious. They like to support experimental “ministries” that are not traditional, liturgical, etc.

    Those are the facts. No judging of motives there, just well placed fear.

    TR

  7. No – those are NOT the fact – and that is the problem. You are wrong on both fronts. Hence the problem.

    You can choose to believe this – but it simply is not true. And it is putting the best construction on things.

    This is one area in which you can choose your reaction. I encourage you to choose charity right at this point.

    I think this will be my only reply to this. I am not going to debate things point by point. I think I made my motives and pleadings clear. It’s up to you to choose how you will react.

    Thank you for your consideration.

    Monte

  8. The ULC has the ability to purchase the property. This can work, if we just calm down. You are tossing gas on the fire.

    The proposal for expanding campus ministry is not how you describe. I urge you to be more charitable – because I think the description on the PPT was incomplete. Choosing to not put the best construction on this created a false impression. I always assumed that students would be working with a local pastor – and it’s the same thing I do at the CLC.

    NOW – I’m done. (I hope).

    Please, be charitable and don’t assume.

    Thank you

    Monte

  9. Monte,

    Thanks for the dialogue.

    Where in the proposal does it say that the church has the ability to buy the property? Will it be charged the 2 million dollar amount? Do you think that is feasible for a chapel like yours or Pastor Kind’s to raise that sort of money? Why would the district charge them anyway when it was people who donated the original money to build the church, not the district.

    You still have not spelled out how my facts about the proposal are wrong. You just keep asserting that I have it wrong. I am quite willing to change my comments if you tell me what I have wrong. I have described the actual situation factually. Where am I wrong? What is your proof that I am wrong?

    TR

  10. Has anyone inquired why the MN South District is not considering selling its administrative building, putting those funds into actual ministry going on in the district, reducing the district staffing levels and moving into a large LCMS parish somewhere and conducting its business out of it? If things are in fact so desperate financially in the district, it might be wise to model fiscal restraint and fiscal belt-tightening before disrupting a well established and successful ongoing ministry in the district.

    There are, as far as I can tell from the district’s web site, ten full time district staff members, and in addition LCEF personnel located at the district office. A quick glance at commercial real estate properties for sale in Burnsville shows that commercial properties are valued well in excess of two million dollars in many cases. Seems worth exploring this as an option.

    Just wondering.

  11. I think another important point being lost in the shuffle, or frankly, avoided, is a fundamental difference in understandings of what a campus ministry is supposed to be all about. For many years, LCMS World Missions and district staffers have tried to inculcate the view that students are to be involved in campus ministry as “peer missionaries” or talk like that. The notions behind this approach flow from non-Lutheran theologies of church, ministry and the means of grace. The idea that college students should be brought into a campus ministry for the purpose of becoming “missionaries” while on campus at college is simply false. The primary aim and purpose of a campus ministry is to minister to young people who are college, struggling with the unique stresses and pressures of campus life, particularly acute on a highly secularized campus, bringing them into a robust Lutheran Word and Sacrament ministry. Will they tell others about this ministry? Of course, but making campus ministry first and foremost about making “mini missionaries” flows from false understandings of what church and ministry and vocation are all about.

  12. @Monte Meyer #2
    “Times are tough – not only financially, but spiritually within the LCMS.”

    Statements like that are tiresome, insulting, and manipulating. This whole idea of “times are tough” is spoken in ignorant of any history/Church history. You can’t be serious in using such a ploy. Grandma Schmidt would scold you that “you don’t know what tough is.” You are discrediting the perserverance of the saints throughout the ages, most all in the US have it very, very, very easy. The “times are tough” plea also is very contrary to embracing a ‘Theology of the Cross.’ And “spiritually” tough times? And this is based on what? What age in the Church has had it easier than us?

  13. blockquote cite=”#commentbody-149418″>
    Monte Meyer :The ULC has the ability to purchase the property.

    The MNS has the ability to give the property.
    That is charitable too.
    Districts are to serve congregations but increasingly I see that Districts seem to see it the other way around.

  14. It would be easier to put a good construction on things if Minnesota south did not operate in secret. The church is not a business needing confidentiality to compete and protect business plans. Mission plans and finances and property decisions should be completely open.

    And all the relevant documents are public. If the documents are inaccurate, then Minn south should correct them. I still haven’t heard an explanation about what the alley has to do with campus ministry.

  15. It looks like mn north could block the sale of the property if it wanted. If its a joint asset of both districts, then its likely held by mn south in some kind of trust for both districts. If it benefits both districts, then half the funds from a sale would go to mn north. Maybe it would help ulc buy back the property.

  16. While waiting on the sale of ULC, you can read in a ReclaimNews report, LCMS Northwest District Takes Ownership of Church Property of “another example of the Council of District Presidents exercising their purported authority under CCM May, 2004, 267 (04-2387) to ignore proper channels in congregational constitutions and thus take ownership and control of church property. LCMS district presidents falsely claim to have the authority to appoint people as members and officers of the congregation and suspend congregational procedural and property rights.”

    According to the report:

    Gloria Dei Lutheran Church, Spokane Washington, has been a member of the LCMS Northwest District since 1957.

    Unknown to [Gloria Dei] Pastor Daugherty, in December of 2010, Northwest District President Paul Linnemann communicated secretly with at least 2 members of Gloria Dei’s Church Council and two other members of the congregation including former council member Paul Kuhlmann, for the purpose of closing Gloria Dei and deeding the property to the District. About a year earlier Kuhlmann had been suspended from the church council by recommendation of the elders and vote of the church council and was advised to seek anger management counseling.

    This small group of people, with whom the District President had been speaking, called an emergency congregational meeting on December 12th at which meeting Kulhmann was elected president.

    During the same emergency meeting those present voted to close Gloria Dei at the request the District. There was no quorum for the meeting. There was no written communication sent to the congregation about the meeting, and members did not receive notice as required by their constitution.

    A few days later District President Linnemann emailed Daugherty to inform him that he was no longer pastor of the congregation. Linnemann put Daugherty on restricted status because Daugherty didn’t agree to closing the church. On December 28, 2010, Kulhmann signed the church property over to the Northwest District on a quitclaim deed. Paul Kulhmann’s bother and sister-in-law rotate membership on the Northwest District Board of Directors. Kulhmann’s sister is an employee of the District.

    In a letter from the Northwest District Attorney Daniel C. Lorenz, who is also a member of the LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters, dated May 13, 2011, Lorenz informed Pastor Daugherty that he could not ask for a written document that Gloria Dei Lutheran Church had closed because, “You have no legal standing to be requesting documents from me as a representative of a dissolved congregation.”

    Can’t you just feel the Koinonia flowing in the Northwest District?

  17. >>The MNS has the ability to give the property.

    I know of one district that did exactly that a couple of decades ago in a very similar situation, with property right on campus worth millions. But in that case the district was mission not fiscally minded. When they felt they could no longer afford to own and maintain the property, it was just given to the congregation, along with a large, interest-free loan to make some necessary repairs, and continued significant subsidy for a transition period. Two decades later it was a win-win. The campus ministry is thriving and self-supporting. You can bet the people suggesting a “place” is superfluous have never done campus ministry.

    >>Has anyone inquired why the MN South District is not considering selling its administrative building. . . There are, as far as I can tell from the district’s web site, ten full time district staff members

    I wonder if there is any extra space at University Lutheran Chapel? Perhaps it could be remodelled into offices for a downsized district staff. That sounds like a great win-win situation to me.

  18. I remember a basement, main floor and second floor to the building. I think Pless did some Logia activities out of the second floor office rooms once upon a time. The basement was sometimes used for worship for the LC-MS deaf congrregation that was there in the late 90’s. Of recent it sounds like some counseling was done out of the onsite parsonage. That was a one floor with a basement building. So there is space, and multiple ministries have happened at ULC. As a site, it is far more valuable than the monetary one that the district is zeroed in on.

  19. You know, a former parsonage sounds just about the right size for a district office–at least the size a district office reasonably should be. Some years ago one district was getting a new building that doubled the size of the district office. The old building was quite lovely and in great condition and had been built by the district for that purpose 30 years previously, versus the bland, generic office building they ended up getting to replace it. I did a study which showed that at the time the existing building was built the district had more congregations, more lay members, more pastors, and more parochial schools, in some of those categories significantly more. So, why, 30 years later does it take double the space–and personnel too, by the way–to administer a much smaller district?

    I was astounded a few years ago to visit another district’s office that has a huge area with cubicles in the center–we’re talking the size of a tennis court–ringed all around by glass-walled executive offices. In each of those offices sat men in suits–probably a dozen of them–looking quite bored. They were all just sitting there staring out with blank looks on their faces like Stepford wives. Figuring about $200,000 a year per executive, for salary, benefits, and perks and program support such as cars, laptops, cell phones, secretaries, etc.–there was an annual expenditure of something like $2.4 million dollars just sitting there twiddling their collective thumbs.

    Another district has yet another huge office complex built about the same time as and modelled after the International Center. It includes a big board room with luxury furnishings and windows looking out onto a walled garden. A few blocks away is the Assembly of God district office that covers the same area, with about the same number of churches. It is one bay in a humble strip mall, probably a fourth the size of the LCMS office, attractive and adequate but not luxurious.

    This is the same story in district after district after district. Mind you, I also feel the synod and its entities should dispose of some properties. The LCMS Foundation a decade ago moved out of the International Center and bought its own huge office building across I-44. The International Center was purpose built with uique spaces such as a chapel that would make it difficult to sell, but with downsizing of the International Center staff everything should be consolidated back into that building to help cover overhead expenses. That alone could save the synod millions each year and really help with the budget.

    We ALL have to sacrifice in these tough economic times. But why are the districts and LCEF and LCMS Foundation immune? What are THEY doing to help with the synod’s financial situation?

  20. Monte,

    I serve at Bethlehem Lutheran Church in St. Paul, MN, which in proximity is close to ULC. I have seen the stuff you have written. What is false? What is misleading? Be specific. To remain very general in dialogue helps no one and begs the question on many fronts.

    Rev. Kind has been open and honest as have his students. The district in a communication criticized one of the “representatives” from ULC as misinforming or something like that. What was the misinformation? What is not true or misleading? To state someone has put forth misinformation but not clarify what it is, can cause others to violate the 8th Commandment about a person or people at ULC as recipients spread this information further. Also, if one has sinned publicly, call it out publicly that all may know the truth.

    “Times are tough” That is not the issue here as others have pointed out. Many, many things can be done to remedy that issue, including things Rev McCain has posted. The real issue seems to be a different focus on campus ministry and the fact money can be made.

    Were you ever consulted by the newest task force prior to the presentation in April? Were any of your representatives? Was ULC’s pastor or representatives ever consulted? Who on the Board of Directors made the motion recently at the board meeting to go into executive session? Who seconded that motion? Who argued on the board to keep this issue open and allow Rev. Kind, you and the others to hear and be present for the board’s discussion. I think those people on the board who made such arguements and motions ought to be identified publicly as well. You were in the room to know this. Let us have openness when it comes to discussion that followed the presentations as many many have stated. To hear presentations and then dart into executive session strengthens the accusations of many people that things are not being done in the public eye or out in the open. The Board’s action does not build further trust.

    I understand your plan is to sell off both campus ministries and the district office. Are you serious about that? If so, I would like to offer an amendment or two. Why not sell of the buildings in Manakto, if that is your wish, give to ULC their building (not sell it, since the district did not buy it with their own money) and sell the district office. I think you might just become district president, if you offered up that plan.

    This issue never had to be political. It became political, because one side wants to change completely how campus ministry is done. As Rev. McCain said, the new direction comes from a foreign theology and I would say under no circumstances should it ever be implemented. Let students focus on school and studies, not forced into being “little missionaries.” This is not their vocation at this point in life.

    Blessings on your Friday,

    Rev. Nathan Raddatz

  21. Just a note, Monte Mayer is NOT called to be chaplain at the Mankato chapel. He was hired by MNS. Also according to the resolution by the BOD and other comments, he has no interest in the property at Mankato and is encouraging to sell that property.

  22. @Concerned! #23

    True, just like Mick Matthews was “fired” previously. I was still living in the area when it happened. To a certian point, Monte is not and independant pastor. He is a hirling of the district, owes his accountability to the BoD (not a Board of Elders), and may need to support these actions else risk losing his job. The district might have even been looking for a yes man who would sync with their plans, since Mick was (like so many) looking at ULC and Pr. Pless as the model and trying to learn from that example.

  23. @Monte Meyer #8
    No – those are NOT the fact – and that is the problem. You are wrong on both fronts. Hence the problem.

    These are the published facts, including the Board minutes.
    If you have others, tell us about them.

    The “facts” are that three districts, to date, have been identified as attempting to break up a congregation for the sake of profit to the district! [CNH, which spent a million and failed; Northwest, which is apparently succeeding (“by false wares and dealing”), and MN SO which is still under discussion.]
    That is what happens when district officers are enamored of running a corporation instead of leading a Lutheran association of congregations. They will be “boss” (and the Lutheran sheep can go to hell if they get in the way.)

    If money is the problem, do they think the rest of the congregations are going to pony up when they see what is done with their money? Somehow, I don’t think so.

  24. People better check their congregation’s constitution and bylaws. If it states that in the event the congregation ceases to exist or splits, the church property and assets stay with the district or synod, that congregation is simply an asset waiting to be gained.

    No one wants church property to go to a heterodox sect that might take over a congregation, but to assume the synod or district would never become heterodox is… well you know what they say about “assume.”

  25. @Jason #20

    The parsonage has been rent out the last several years to another Christian student group. Details are on the ULC website. The LCMS deaf congregation did worship in the downstairs facilities until they moved to another congregation. The upstairs was partially occupied by LCFS until they moved as well.

    Jason, I’m surprised you haven’t mentioned other service ULC has provided nationally such as having their LSF members help you host a table at the LWML convention when it was in Minneapolis, some time ago.

    @Carl Vehse #27 There’s an assumption that all congregational constitutions have their assets go to the dsitrict or synod. Other options are available too as evidenced by some congregational constitutions. However, many districts recommend that congregations send their assets to the district.

  26. @Luvable Lutheran #28

    Yes, ULC has a Lutheran Student Fellowship chapter number as #1. Tehy were the first college to sign up when the organization started around 1990. Pr. Pless always held a fall study weekend, and I’m sure Pr. Kind continued. Thsi would double as the Fall retreat for the LSF group. Some of the college LSF members would be leaders and even held regional office. And Sheila Kapitzke even was National Rep, and when she got to the national council got elected National VP, and then Natinoal President. As VP she got to chair the committee planning that biennium’s National LSF Gathering.

    As a side note, Derek Roberts and Brian Throsen became pastors. I was invited to go with Brian and Ben (forget his last name) to the prospective student visit at Fort Wayne. All this was in the late 90’s. I would say there was faithful development, spiritual growth and disciple making at ULC. ULC is a valued asset to ministry in its current form. No monetary figure can replace that.

  27. @Jason #29

    Yes! Pastor Kind does still hold a fall study weekend. People such as Rev. Matthew Harrison, Rev. Arthur Just, just to name a few…..

  28. Another item that is notiable…. Monte Mayer has visited the “Save ULC” site on Facebook and has left posts there to stir the hornets nest….

    I dont see Pastor Kind doing that. All I see are facts, facts, and more facts coming from the ULC end. He had a masterful presentation in front of the BoD (again, with facts!)

  29. Luvable Lutheran #28: “There’s an assumption that all congregational constitutions have their assets go to the dsitrict or synod.”

    My earlier post suggested congregations should check their constitution rather than make any assumption. In Section 11 of its Guidelines for Constitutions and Bylaws of Lutheran Congregations, the CCM “suggests” the following statement for a church constitution:

    “In the event that the congregation dissolves, all property shall be disposed of by the final voters assembly for the payment of debts and all just claims against the congregation, and any and all surplus and all rights connected therewith shall be conveyed to and become the property of the __________ District of The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod.”

  30. I am kind of confused. Are we saying that the District wants to shut down the ministry of ULC or just sell the building? From what I have heard wasn’t it more of a strategy to incorporate more campus ministries throughout the district? I would like clarification as I am reading something different here.

  31. @Brady #33
    The district actually wants to sell the building and property and essentially leave the congregation of ULC “homeless”. Go to http://www.ulcmn.org to find out the real reason and motives the MNS District has in closing the doors on ULC. The new district plan was tried before and failed within a few years. It would just essentially throw money at congregations near campuses in hopes that they actually reach out. If you read about what ULC is and what they have done, this is what the district is sacraficing in order to solve thier financial woes.

  32. Dear everyone,

    I would like to issue a word of caution here as I believe this thread is beginning to spin out of control in general.

    I, too am extremely concerned about this situation as a fellow campus pastor, the Christ on Campus Executive of Higher Things, and a longtime friend and supporter of ULC, etc. I also agree with most of what has been offered up on this thread (I especially appreciate the posts of Pastor McCain), I am deeply concerned with the way the MNS District has handled this situation to date, I have major concerns with the District’s plan for campus ministry, and I will continue to defend ULC for all the right reasons.

    BUT I also believe that this thread is moving in a less than charitable or reasonable direction.

    There is a fog of information going on here. While I have great confidence in all that ULC and Pastor Kind have posted and I completely appreciate how they have handled this, I think we need to be careful and vigilent in forums like this to stick to what we know, and not get caught up in speculating about what we don’t know, especially when we begin to assume the motives of others.

    For instance, what difference does it make if Pastor Meyer visited the Save ULC FB fan page or such? (I have looked back and can’t see where he has posted anything anyway) While Pastor Meyer and I may have our own disagreements on some things (and yes, FYI, I actually have taken the time to talk directly with him), I have seen nothing that he has done that is in any way uncharitable toward ULC. While he and Pastor Kind may approach their respective campus ministries differently, this does not mean that Pastor Meyer necessarily wants the property at ULC to be sold, much less his own at Mankato. It is also simply not fair or reasonable to assume that the “whereas” clauses in the MNS BOD resolution, accurately speak for either Pastor Meyer or Pastor Kind. Based on what I know from both of them, as well as the presentations both men made and have posted, I don’t believe those clauses accurately or completely reflect either of their viewpoints very well.

    Again, I’m not saying I don’t share many of the concerns expressed here. I do. But please, let’s not let any common desire to contend for faithful campus ministry and any specific congregation, get in the way of how we go about discussing the situation and our assessment of it.

    Let us also be careful in how we speak of others involved here. We have two different campus ministry arrangements here. While Pastor Kind is called by ULC in Minneapolis and Pastor Meyer is a Missionary-at-Large serving at CLC in Mankato on behalf of the District, that doesn’t make him a “hireling.” That term carries with it a lot of negative baggage and at the very least, is simply not a charitable way of describing Pastor Meyer’s relationship to the District. It implies, a la Good Shepherd Sunday, that Pastor Meyer is simply in it for things other than his students. That is simply not the case. I am quite confident that Pastor Meyer cares very deeply about the Gospel and those entrusted to his care. I am sure he cares about Pastor Kind’s sheep too.

    The bottom line, folks, is that at a certain point a thread like this, while good for raising awareness of a situation, can actually cease to be helpful. I appreciate the discussion and the awareness that is being raised about a very troubling situation.

    But again, please, let us be charitable with one another. Yes, let us defend what must be defended. Yes, let us comment on the facts that are known and even raise the appropriate and necessary questions. But let us also be careful to not assume that we know anyone’s motives much less everything that is going on behind the scenes.

    Fraternally in Christ,

    Pastor Marcus Zill
    St. Andrew’s Lutheran Church & Campus Center, Laramie, WY
    Christ on Campus Executive, Higher Things

  33. @Marcus Zill #35
    Thank you for the reminder. Will be more diligent to keep focus on what the truth is and stick to the fact of the matter. Sometimes in this setting you can get passionate about something and start to exaggerate what the truth is.

  34. The MNS BOD are gracious volunteers who deserve our gratitude and respect.  I’m simply trying to understand something:  The Minnesota Lutherans of my generation worked hard and contributed generously to establish a campus ministry at UofM.  We paid for the property.  There is no mortgage.  It sure seems like we’re going to ask Minnesota Lutherans of this generation to pay for it again (see second “Resolved”).   Why?   I know I’ve asked this question before, but I still don’t have an answer I can understand.  I love our LCMS and expect this to be settled sensibly and fairly.

    Member ULC-Gamma Delta 1958-61

  35. Here is a link to a June 8th Minneapolis Daily article, “Dinkytown church holds on to hope,” with details on an old 1963 agreement that will buy the ULC congregation time in the efforts to save its property.

    As the article notes: “The South District didn’t comment on the issue.”

    HT: Jojakim Dettmann, LQ.

  36. It seems like we’re asking the ULC campus ministry to finance the district rather than the other way around – strange.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.