Excellent TV Coverage of the Foolish Sale of the ULC Sanctuary, by Pr. Rossow

We thank BJS reader John Frahm for alerting us to the attached television news story on the Minnesota South District of the LCMS’ foolish decision to sell the ULC sanctuary out from under the parish.

Here is the link to the video of the news story from KSTP, Channel 5 in the Twin Cities: http://kstp.com/news/stories/S2294889.shtml?cat=1

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.


Excellent TV Coverage of the Foolish Sale of the ULC Sanctuary, by Pr. Rossow — 45 Comments

  1. And the LORD said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people. Exodus 32:9

  2. As I wrote on my post on this (Pr. Rossow – you beat me to it by like three minutes):

    I will again say that this whole deal has brought down all sorts of bad “witness” and shows a complete lack of “mercy” and also reflects how poor our “life together” has become. Lord have mercy – don’t give us what we deserve for such offense to the Gospel – the world is scratching its head over us, and not because of our love.

    The silence from MNS District and Synod is baffling.

  3. Yep Pastor Scheer, I completely agree with your words.

    I hope those of us who love ULC aren’t forgetting to give our best gifts to their fundraising efforts. I know that some are on another letter writing campaign, and maybe that doesn’t hurt either. And keep praying that God will have mercy on us all.

  4. Even assuming for the sake of discussion that the MNS BOD has a valid and legit reason for doing what they are doing and planning to do, including having communicated with MNN DP, etc., I cannot understand refusing to comment or even respond to inquiries. Look what heartache and turmoil is being caused. Right or wrong, a refusal to comment or even return phone calls is often seen as hiding or “taking the 5th,” and there will be no assumption of innocence in that public arena.

    Unfortunately, we so often see this lack of transparency in Synodical matters, this “It’s none of anybody’s business.” It is arrogant and, in my opinion, wrongheaded. Certainly, business negotiations or discussion of, for example, pending legal proceedings, can and, in many cases, should be dealt with in closed session. But the future of ULC and a proposed change in the resolution regarding ULC approved at the time of the division of the MN District is the business at the very least, of members of the Synodical districts of MNS and MNN.

    The silence indeed is baffling and, in my opinion, unnecessary and unloving, causing needless pain.

    And the publicity, as shown by the TV news report, is bad publicity for all members of Synod and LCMS congregations.

  5. One can only assume that the Post-Dispatch would like to write about this latest fiasco if they knew about it, based on the extensive coverage the unfortunate sale of KFUO-FM received from them. More negative press for LCMS leadership will not help further the Gospel. People outside LCMS do not make distinctions between districts and synod (or seminaries for that matter). It’s just Lutherans fighting again.

    What happens to any money raised for ULC, if ULC either cannot meet the $3.2 million or if the district turns down their offer? Does that money go to the district if the church is disbanded?

    I’m waiting to give until I know the answer to that one.

  6. Rev. Kirchner,

    I would imagine that since the district saw how silence and hiding worked in the sale of KFUO it can work again here.

  7. @Recent Confessional #5
    That’s a valid question. What happens to the money raised in these campaigns to save ULC if ULC doesn’t survive? Would the district get the $3.2 million from the sale PLUS whatever funds were raised to try and save the congregation? Some answers may be in order here…….

  8. @Rahn Hasbargen #7

    What happens to the money raised in these campaigns to save ULC if ULC doesn’t survive?

    If ULC is not able to buy the chapel, the congregation will use its capital and building fund for relocation. This is stated on the bulletin inserts available by links on the home page of BJS.

  9. According to the bulletin insert ULC sent to congregations, donations will be used to remain on campus or close enough to serve the campus.

  10. On the quest for transparency, may I suggest two questions the District ought to answer before signing any deal with Doran?

    1.) Under which chapter of Minnesota corporation law are you organized?

    2.) If under Chapger 315, have you complied with Section 315.12?

    Minnesota church organizations are generally governed by either Chapter 315 or 317A. If the District is under 315, it is required to follow Section 315.12, which provides:

    A religious corporation organized under this chapter, by and through its trustees, may sell and convey, encumber, or otherwise dispose of real estate. To do so, the trustees must first be authorized by resolution of the society adopted by a two-thirds vote of the members present and voting at a meeting called for that purpose. Notice of the time, place, and object of the meeting must be given for at least four successive Sabbaths immediately before it on which the society statedly meets for public worship. When a religious society ceases to have stated meetings for public worship, or is unable to give notice of the time and place of the meeting, the corporation may make the sale, conveyance, or encumbrance by its trustees, upon being authorized by resolution adopted at a meeting of which at least 20 days’ posted notice has been given. If the society has, for any reason, ceased to exist, for a period of one year, the corporation may sell and convey its property by its trustees upon giving at least 20 days’ posted notice upon the premises of its intention to do so. Proof of nonexistence, notice, meeting, and the adoption of resolution may be made by the affidavit of a trustee or member of the society cognizant of them. The affidavit must be recorded with the county recorder where the certificate of incorporation was recorded, and the affidavit and record, or certified copies of it, are presumptive evidence of the facts they contain.

    No person shall vote at a meeting called to authorize the trustees to sell, convey, encumber, or dispose of the corporation’s real estate unless the person is a member of the religious body. No religious corporation shall sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of its real estate except as provided by the denominational rules and certificates of association of the society as it appears of record in the office of the county recorder of the county. This section does not limit sections 500.01 to 500.20.

    If they won’t answer anything else, they ought to at least answer whether this statute governs them, and produce the documents showing that they have.

  11. @Recent Confessional #5

    @Rahn Hasbargen #7

    @T. R. Halvorsn #8

    @Kimberly #9

    It is wonderful to have such dedicated supporters.

    Recent Confessional and Rahn, as TR and Kimberly have pointed out the bulletin insert (a link to the bulletin is provided at the top of the BJS homepage) explains that the goal of this fund raising campaign is to ensure that ULC will continue its mission to the students of the U of MN and other area colleges – ideally, God willing, right where we are now, on the corner of 11th Ave and University Ave, Minneapolis. However, if we are forced to relocate, the funds raised will be used for that purpose.

    It is the desire and intent of ULC to continue its mission on campus or as close to campus as possible. Your support both financial and in prayers are deeply appreciated.

    Oliver Young
    ULC, Minneapolis, MN

  12. @T. R. Halvorsn #10

    On the contrary, T.R., the burden lies with you to show us that the MNS District is organized under Chapter 315 and then whether the provisions thereunder apply to this situation.

    Otherwise, your suggestion is simply another case of throwing it against the wall and seeing if it will stick, i.e, whether you can throw out any and all frivolous and non-frivolous means to block MNS action, demanding tht they respond to such means.

  13. @Pr. Don Kirchner #13
    What’s wrong with T. R. asking a question? Be nice.

    To answer T. R.’s question, the articles of incorporation of the MNS District under Article I, Section 3. Powers state, “The powers of this corporation shall be, in addition to those enumerated in Minnesota Statutes 317.16…” I see that Statute 317 was repealed in 1989 and is now replaced with 317A.

  14. @Rich #11

    Other districts are doing it… it is more “effective” (denial of the fact that whatever model is used, it is the Lord who gives the increase, see 1 Cor 1)

    The CCM said…

    This resolution said…

    Our Constitution says…

    Don’t worry, the campus ministry may possibly get a portion (7.8%) of the sale. And then the subsidy too (as if the congregation will ever want to rely on District for anything anymore.

    Utterly absent of the Word of God or love for the neighbor (although they prayerfully considered their actions).

    Whatever happened to suffering something for the sake of the neighbor? No, it’s legal, its been done before, we encouraged and gave information to the victim, and now we do it because we have that right! Find a new home!

  15. May God rid us of the natural (by the sinful nature) animism that I see in this towards God… If I do it this way, God has to do His part. We are not Gods puppeteers, manipulating His blessing based upon using the correct models (spells, incantations) to do so. Who is in control of God?

    Psalm 35:10 is fitting (for that matter Psalm 35 may be quite fitting as well)

  16. @Rev. Brian Thorson #13

    No, T.R. did not ask a question. He suggested that the District be required to answer two questions before signing any deal with Doran. As you’ve shown, it is a question that you and T.R. easily could have checked on (i.e, asked) and, obtaining the answer, realize that the rest of T.R.’s post is irrelevant.

    I’m simply a bit chagrined, but not surprised, at the willingness of many to have a end-justifies-the-means attitude in blocking the MNS District proposal, whether legitimate, frivoloous, ethical, or other.

  17. @Pastor Joshua Scheer #15

    “No, it’s legal, its been done before…and now we do it because we have that right!”

    That seems to be it. It’s still the Lord’s church. As Prof. Pless wrote elsewhere:

    “The chapel may well be demolished and that would be a tremendous loss but the work of God’s mighty Word done there will remain. That is [our] consolation.”

  18. @Rich #11
    Here are my thoughts on the MNS District’s FAQs:

    #2. No one at ULC is claiming that this will force the closure of the congregation. Perhaps many have jumped to this conclusion.

    #3. No one is suggesting that campus ministry will end at the U of M.

    #4. The goal of the Strategy to multiply campus ministries in the District is laudable. Why not try it out before selling buildings? Selling two buildings and then trying to expand campus ministry is placing the cart before the horse.

    #5. It appears to me that University Lutheran Chapel asked the wrong question. They asked if an agreement is in place. Clearly there is none. A better question to ask is, “Since the U of M property was excluded in the division of assets when the two districts were formed from the Minnesota District, is the MNN District required to also approve the sale of the property?”

    #6. The Board has not considered this matter carefully. They did not include the two campus ministries in the Campus Ministry Task Force, which recommended the sale. In their May 17, 2011 meeting the Board “Resolved, that the Minnesota South District Board of Directors authorize the District Treasurer to hire a commercial real estate broker to determine the true market value of our campus properties and report back to the Board of Directors.” When the Board met next on September 12, 2011 for their annual retreat, the Board not only received a report on the market value of the campus properties but also a recommendation to sell the properties. The Board took action the next day. This quick time line does not allow for careful consideration.

    The Board has acted consistently with a few previous actions of the Synod, namely the cancellation of Issues, Etc. and the sale of KFUO-FM.

    #7. The Board has not acted with concern for University Lutheran Chapel. The Board has ignored their pleas to wait. The Board did not give the Chapel enough time to launch a national fund raising effort to secure the property. The Board was unwilling to sell the property at a price less than top dollar.

    University Lutheran Chapel was not informed of the listing price until the day before the Board voted to sell the property.

    The District Treasurer recommended office space near campus, use of a Catholic Church near campus, and a few buildings several miles away. None of these are suitable for ULC to conduct her ministry to both the members of the congregation and students at the U of M.

    The Board simply proposed to offer ULC $250,000. This action is not approved and is postponed until the December Board meeting.

    The proposed subsidies are insignificant compared to the new costs involved with securing property.

    #8. It is true that the Board has authority to sell the property. The Minnesota Pastoral Conference in May urged the Board to refer the sale to the District Convention. This FAQ fails to explain the urgency for selling it by December 31, 2011. The only reason is implied: the Board is acting in a way which is uniformed and filled with emotion, sinful action, and political activity. To state that the Convention is susceptible to such activity but the Board is not is to deny human nature and denies the politics involved to get the current Board elected at the last Convention.

    Despite the fact that Board has approved approved the sale of the properties, why hasn’t the Board approved the Campus Ministry Plan?

  19. @Pr. Don Kirchner #13

    Thank you, Pr Kirchner for the caution. I think I understand your idea, and there is merit to that concern.

    My idea was that, since corporations are artifical persons, as opposed to natural persons, and therefore unlike natural persons they frequently have the burden of showing their formation, continued existence, and nature (i.e., what type of corporation, under what statute), in the interest of the transparency that others have mentioned, they should be asked. They would be asked no more than any corporation must frequently do.

    As to its being a delay or preventative tactic, the event shows that your judgment upon my motives is unfounded. As you say, the answer can be found, but not by not asking. By asking, the answer was given, which answer, within hours, eliminated the issue, and caused no delay or obstruction. Asking has had what I consider to be the highly beneficial effect of eliminating an issue.

    Upon what basis did you, Pastor, claim my motives were ill?

  20. @T. R. Halvorson #22

    Despite the fact that Board has approved approved the sale of the properties, why hasn’t the Board approved the Campus Ministry Plan?

    Do you mean to say that the Campus Ministry Plan has not yet been approved? In other words, the sale is ULC is not pursuant to the plan?

  21. A concerned pastor friend of mine, and friend of ULC’s sent this to me within an email from Africa.

    “The Act is a slap in the face to the godly emphases on witness-mercy-life together.
    It witnesses neither to the faith, undermines if not destroys the Divine Service,
    and says nothing about the authenticity of Christian love. Mercy is to consider
    carefully the impact of our actions on our neighbor. And life together is not just
    with the one next to us in the pew but, in the Mystery of the Holy Trinity, with
    fellow saints in the Church Triumphant, that we, with Heaven’s help, may keep faith
    with those who gave life and llivlihood so that a Lutheran Chapel could endure and
    the sacred gifts of Christ be freely given in the midst of the University.” Kyrie eleison.

  22. I posted this on ALPB after reading the MNS FAQ sheet but it seems to fit in this thread also:

    I have no idea about the costs of maintaining ULC’s building. I don’t think there is any question that the current building may be larger than is actually needed – ULC has long leased/rented space in the building or the former parsonage to differ end groups. Having a big front lawn for student barbecues, Frisbee, and curb appeal is nice but not essential to the ministry. So I won’t argue about the possibility that there could be alternative uses of the property.

    The core concerns that I have is that the decision to sell the property has been made without a clear plan for the future of ULC the congregation and ministry, not ULC the building. Although the MNS FAQ talks about *possible* increases in subsidies to ULC, my understanding from the document is that the only decision that has actually been made is to sell the property in the next few months. Thus ULC has no basis to make any concrete plans for its future in the apparently likely event that they will be out on the streets in a few months. It is also a confused plan to on the one hand propose to subsidize ULC and on the other to encourage other congregations to get involved with University of Minnesota ministries (#3). Implicit there is a belief that ULC’s ministry is inadequate in some way, which is a significant issue.

    Putting the bulk of the money into an endowment also implies a lack of faith that the MNS plan for state-wide campus ministry is sustainable over the long term. I don’t think that any congregation serious about campus ministry would require a $5,000 grant from the district to get involved with a nearby school. If the congregation cannot afford that amount from its current budget, or unwilling to budget that amount, then it will not be a not sustainable outreach by that congregation.

    Thus the things that bother me about this situation is not the possibility that the building has outlived its usefulness (I have no way to critique the MNS estimates of upcoming maintenance bills, though apparently the current occupants think they can handle those costs), they are the facts that 1) MNS plans to sustain ULC-the-congregation-and-ministry are not as concrete as their plan to sell ULC-the-building, 2) the implication that ULC’s ministry is inadequate, 3) a college ministry plan that seems simultaneously excessively conservative (putting the proceeds into an endowment and drawing amounts that ought to be within the ongoing budgets of the district congregations if they believed in the plan) and radical (shattering established successful ministries for a risky new approach) and 4) the apparent disregard for the expressed opinions of the District in convention regarding campus ministry (which does not bode well for the success of their new college ministry plan).


  23. Steve Gehrke :I posted this on ALPB after reading the MNS FAQ sheet but it seems to fit in this thread also:
    I don’t think there is any question that the current building may be larger than is actually needed –

    Of course it is bigger than needed. Once upon a time the district offices used to be there. When they left it created a lot of extra space. I remember my visits that a whole second floor was unused. I think Pr. Pless did some LOGIA out of there. Also at that time, St. Matthew’s Deaf Church met in the basement. Kinda neat the building supported TWO congregations.

    The space was great for the Fall Retreats, big and versatile. And the front yard helped for a back to school kickoff I attended. Pr. Brian Thorson was a contemporary of mine at the time (and someone I wonder consider a friend whom I respect), but he actually was a student member, and can tell you even better all the great things ULC has and is accomplishing.

    Can you do ministry without a building? Yes. Can you do more with ample space to host a variety of larger gatherings? Absolutly yes. Anyone who cannot see the logic of the awesome location, ease of access and visible presence seriously lacks gray matter between the ears.

  24. @Jason #30
    Jason, just to be clear, I’m not a proponent of selling the building, but I wanted to make the point that its not nostalgia for the church building that I was married in that bothers me about this situation, but rather the lack of support and concern for the well-being of ULC’s ministry by MNS. No question that ULC’s ministry is enhanced by the versatility of its current facility.

  25. No, I didn’t think you wanted to sell. I did know that it is a bit overbuilt, but that was intentional back at the time. Now that space has been made avaiable, what more ministry could be conducted out of the extra space? there once was a daef congregation. There has been counseling services. No reason why things can’t happen again and fill up the space. And ULC (or district) could charge a little rent to offset costs. I tmay not be a golden egg, but there can be eggs.

    Just as it is wrong to be emotional to the nostalgia, it is just as wrong to see the space as a money making venture. Both have totally lost sight of the primacy of ministry. Some church properties have been lucky and their market value has greatly increased. But to focus on the dollar value is to worship mammon. God has planted a worshipping and witnessing station in a great spot to reach lost souls. The district claims to want to have congregations adopt student minstires, but ULC IS a congregation that iIS doing student ministry. The hyprocracy is monumental, and greatly disturbing. I’m sure Satan is having a field day with this situation.

  26. Dear BJS Bloggers,

    That video clip on the ULC chapel is very impressive. It has hard to get the public mass media to do a story on your congregation in a sympathetic way, and the angle was VERY sympathetic to Pastor Kind and his congregation.

    So this means that people with no connection to the Lutheran church, and who overall may be nominally religious, see the loss of this student ministry as a tragic thing–a loss for the students–which is the MAIN point of my criticism of this move by MNS district.

    I was also impressed by what Pastor Kind said in the video clip about “sacred space,” and that got me to thinking. Why do Lutherans make a big deal about dedicated worship space, whereas some groups like the Emergents and some charismatics could care less? What is different about a pastor leading a devotion in a dorm lobby, student union lounge, or coffee shop, as opposed to doing corporate worship in a dedicated chapel?

    I think there are two primary problems that are resolved with a dedicated chapel or church setting:

    1) FOCUS – i.e., concentration on your prayers and on the message of the sermon. Mental concentration in worship is hard work, and any distraction can cause you to “tune out the liturgist,” “mumble mindless rote prayers and songs,” or lose the train of thought in the sermon. We color our windows in churches, so we aren’t distracted by what is happening outside. Paintings on the wall, and other art or appointments, remind the wandering eye that we are in worship. Non-chapel settings offer too many distractions and no reminders of what we are about. Thus our chapels and churches are “an aid to piety.”

    2) SET TIME AND PLACE – You will not grow any congregation, unless it has a set time and place over a period of time. If you rent, or use facilities not your own, you will eventually have to move after the lease is up. Then people show up and you are no longer there; and they never come back Finding the front door and passage to the meeting place is also a problem when you don’t own property. For the fluid nature of student populations, Set Time and Place is even more of a factor than a small town, where everyone more or less stays put.

    Another note on the psychology of concentration: The charismatics and similar type of religionists don’t worry about mental concentration, because their worship is not a mental activitiy. The charismatic “worship” experience is intentionally non-rational. They can go into their “trance” just about anywhere, as I have witnessed many times. In a similar way, the Evangelical form of preaching is, in many cases, non-rational – it is verbal fluff designed to arouse the emotions. It doesn’t take any work to mentally comprehend it, because it assaults you, and breaks down all rational barriers. In many cases, an hour long sermon by an Evangelical preacher can easily be summarized in one paragraph.

    I think back to my graduate student days in Manhattan, NY, when I lived in Morningside Heights. In addition to visiting our LCMS churches around the City (and taking communion ONLY at LCMS churches), I also visited Inter Varsity Fellowship at Columbia U. for awhile. They met in a student lounge. It was just a Bible study, with a few requests for personal prayers. The people were nice, but it had no sermon, no confession/absolution, no creed, no corporate prayers of the church, no canticles of praise-adoration-thanksgiving, no Psalms, and obviously no Lord’s Supper or Lutheran liturgy.

    Then I visited the ELCA ministry at Columbia University chapel, which is an awesome Romanesque structure. I started going there because they asked me to accompany them on the pipe organ on occasion. I didn’t attend the Supper, but everything else was there that I knew from LCMS worship, using the Lutheran Book of Worship.

    It occurred to me, one day, that when I went to Inter Varsity Fellowship devotions (which WAS their worship service) it was like Oliver Twist getting gruel and water. Going to ELCA campus ministry worship was like being fed a seven course meal, with a fine wine during the meal and port afterwards. And the setting of the ELCA worship encouraged piety, prayer, and concentration on what was being said in prayers and sermon. Since I had to “tune out” the theological disagreements in both cases, the ELCA ministry won my allegiance for the weekends when I couldn’t get away to an LCMS church.

    So, from my experience, Bible studies and prayer meetings are no replacement for real corporate worship in a dedicated space. Any truly Lutheran college student will feel this way too, although he or she might not know WHY they feel that way. They will just feel empty or undernourished, like Oliver Twist. Anyone have some gruel? 🙂

    Yours in Christ, Martin R. Noland

  27. Again, I was a delegate at the 1991 convention of the Minnesota South District. This sort of thing has been in the works for a long, long time and has nothing to do with the economy or parishes redirecting funds. Just check the original overtures for the 1991 MN South convention and you’ll see what I mean.

    After Mart Thompson accepted a call out of the district in 1992 or 1993, there was a fellow of some Seminex background that was proposed for the call list at CLC Mankato by, I think the Mission Administration Committee, and after protests by myself and others to a VP of the District, the person’s name was removed and then Rev. Mick Mathews was called to be pastor at CLC in Mankato. Prior to Mart Thompson and after Mick Mathews the basic M.O. for CLC has been to promote a sort of parachurch group nearly non-demonational way of doing things. I disagree with the selling of CLC as much as I do with the selling of ULC. It is short-sighted and reflects an ecclesiology at odds with the Lutheran Confessions.

    I propose that the district simply sign over the ULC building to the congregation there gratis and that CLC be put toward a liturgical, confessional direction and that such things are regarded as outposts and oases of orthodox theology in the increasingly pagan campus cultures. Let’s see our traditional doctrine and practice as an asset for a change. It’s Time! Money should serve the theology and its consistent practice and not the other way around. Time to put out the generic protestant approach that Lutheranism has been afflicted with since the church growth movement Arminians hijacked the practice of missions in the LCMS decades ago. It is a bankrupt theology and alien to our church.

  28. Perhaps the Mn So. District Office could be sold and they move back into the extra space at the ULC. That way the money from the sale of the District Office could be put into an endowment for Campus ministry and the cost of upkeep at the ULC could be shared.

  29. The synodical convention should have the authority to pass a resolution ordering the Minnesota South District to be shut down, sell its assets, and transfer any funds and congregations to the Minnesota North District, which would be called simply the Minnesota District. Synodical members in the MNS District headquarters who do not currently have calls to congregations would be placed on CRM status until calls would become available.

    A few such overtures at district conventions may help some people to get focused.

  30. T. R. Halvorson :@Rev. Brian Thorson #25
    They did not approve any resolution on what to do with the money once the buildings are sold.
    Words fail me.
    Dare I ask, then, whether they passed a resolution to establish the Campus Ministry Endowment Fund?

    I noticed that there was no report that indicated that they established the endowment fund. It is surprising to me that they would put a building on the market without a clear accompanying commitment of what to do with the proceeds, particularly since there seems to be an indication of serious interest from a buyer at a price within 10% of their resolved asking price.

  31. Old Time St. John’s :

    T. R. Halvorson :@Rev. Brian Thorson #25 They did not approve any resolution on what to do with the money once the buildings are sold.Words fail me.Dare I ask, then, whether they passed a resolution to establish the Campus Ministry Endowment Fund?

    I noticed that there was no report that indicated that they established the endowment fund. It is surprising to me that they would put a building on the market without a clear accompanying commitment of what to do with the proceeds, particularly since there seems to be an indication of serious interest from a buyer at a price within 10% of their resolved asking price.

    PS It also seems odd to ‘cap’ your proceeds by resolving publicly that any amount over $3.2M may be accepted without further board action. Who, then, in his right mind, would offer more than $3.2M?

  32. The sale of the CLC was done in order to force the congregation to hold church in a movie theatre or lecture hall, “emergent church style.” Let us kill a healthy liturgical congregation in order to promote the TCN agenda. That’ll show ’em that “Grandpa’s church” needs to be replaced. The Emergent church is not dead after all. Congratulations, gentlemen!

    Regarding all congregations throughout the LCMS in which the District owns the property: Do such congregations have a plan to buy back their property from the District or to relocate elsewhere. Those congregations might has well be proactive before they find themselves homeless as well.

    Does Steadfast know of any other district properties for sale? You could make it a weekly column.

    I stand by my assertion that the LCMS is a sick organization.

  33. @Ryan #36

    Ryan: Your suggestion is great. It incorporates self-sacrificial giving in a way that Jesus Himself was proud of, with regards to the widow who gave her all.

    I am led to remember a comment by Luther as I consider this discussion and others, frankly any time a controversial issue comes up and some rightly object to false theology and underhanded dealing, and others chastise the objecters for not following proper protocol in that they do not communicate with the individual with regards to his public sin. In his dealings with Zwingli, AE 37, Luther also noticed that when he spoke for the unadulterated words of Scripture with regard to the real presence against Zwingli, Zwingli countered by saying how unloving Luther was, how he was breaking up their unity, and how Luther did not follow good protocol either. Luther remarked that this was like a man whose mother was murdered by bandits in a forest, but then when he reacts, the bandits demand that the man show them love.

    Regardless of how anyone thinks about this particular issue, we should also confess what Scripture says in that public sin must be dealt with publicly, in the same arena that it is done in (1 Tim. 5:20). To keep silent against public sin is to be in tacit agreement with such sin, and to imply to the weak in faith that sin doesn’t matter. That means, to deal with public sin, the procedure is different than the private sin mentioned in Mt. 18 which tends to be resorted to first. Public sin must be publicly rebuked. It is a sad sign of our times that such rebuke is often criticized, even though it is Biblical and needed in such cases.

    In Christ,
    Rev. Robert Mayes
    Beemer, NE

  34. They must have a buyer in mind if the price is $3.2 million minimum. That is alot of campus ministry that can be done for 3.2 million. Now someone will have to hold them to it.

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.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.