Bibles and Brews, Tuesday, September 24, Under Pressure Brewing, at 6:30pm: a Lutheran consideration of Communism

Upcoming event at which this particular blogger will be leading a discussion (a.k.a. presenting, or "herding cats") on a Lutheran consideration of Communism. If you have an interest, do show up!

This coming Tuesday, September 24th, your humble blogger will be part of the presentation on a Lutheran consideration of Communism, to be held at 6:30pm at Under Pressure Brewing, 8806 7th Ave N Golden Valley, MN 55427. The other part of the presentation will be, obviously, some very good beer, so at least one part of this will turn out well. The event is being held by Saint John's Lutheran Church of Corcoran (and Maple Grove) Minnesota.

Those interested in attending should use the comment section below to contribute questions for the event, which I will try to answer, and which will give me a better idea of what topics are of greater interest to those attending. Topics so far may include:

Why has the question of the Christian, the Church and its relation to modern manifestations of communism become important at this particular time in history in North America, Western Europe, and in Western Civilization in general?

Is there one form of political or social structure that is most compatible (or incompatible) with Christianity?

Are the Cultural Marxist, Socialist, and Liberation Theology criticisms of Christianity valid? How so? How not so?

Are private property, ownership, democracy, liberty and the other traditional aspects of what we know as Western Civilization little more than accidents of a particular phase of history? Are they like slavery, an outmoded accommodation to an earlier and more brutal time, economic order and society?

What do the commandments "Thou Shalt not Steal" and "Thou Shalt not Covet" mean if private property is an entirely optional aspect of a given order?

Is Acts 2:44-45 prescriptive or descriptive? What is it describing or prescribing?

And other topics, which you might suggest in the comments below.

Doors should open at 6:30pm, and discussion is scheduled to start at 7pm.

Gordon Bynum, Chaplain, the Saint Timothy Society for Lutheran Seminary Scholarship

2019 Synodical Convention: Overtures 3-06 through 3-09. Why Not Us Among The Immigrants?

For those who are tired of the often repeated tropes about Immigrants (which can mean, variously, Illegal Aliens, Undocumented Workers, Refugee, Asylee, ad nauseum) the 2019 LCMS Convention might offer a slightly different take on the matter. Unlike some churches in the United States and Canada which largely parrot open borders ideology but rephrase it with largely "context free" verses from the Old Testament, the LCMS contains within it a genuine difference of opinion. Should the Church take a specific position on public policy which is at odds with the legimately enacted laws of their country? Or should the Church avoid taking what is effectively a public policy position, and encourage the various levels of government to enforce those valid laws, especially when segments of the state are unwilling to do so?

This blog post grows out of a meeting held on Wednesday, June 26th by the Metro Northwest Circuit of the Minnesota South District with their voting delegates to the convention. It is not intended to be a comprehensive or verbatim reflection of the discussion on June 26th, so by all means corrections, additions, and further comments are welcome. Pay attention to the Acceptable Use Policy and our regulations for comments, and let us know what you think.

First things first, let's get it out of our systems right off the bat: "THE NAZIS DID EXACTLY WHAT THE UNITED STATES IS DOING TODAY! JUST LIKE THE CHURCHES DID IN NAZI GERMANY WE MUST WELCOME ALL IMMIGRANTS HERE TO THE UNITED STATES OR THEY WILL ALL BE SENT TO CONCENTRATION CAMPS!" Scream that a few times, put that up on Twitter, Facebook (or TwitFace) in ALL CAPS (you can copy and paste above!), and then take a few deep breaths, and take a look at overtures 3-06 through 3-09 in the 2019 Convention Workbook, pages 403-406 (435-438 in the .pdf file). There now; that's better, isn't it? These four overtures offer an interesting set of disagreements and points of view normally lacking in modern ecclessiastical discussions.

My bias, of course, is evident, so I leave it up to the readers and commentators to take me to task. Yet, some difficulties are obvious with some of these overtures. Overture 3-07 encourages support of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services ("LIRS"), an organization whose ideology (both theological and political) is cited in overture 3-08 as being unacceptable. It's hard to tell whether LIRS itself is aware that its politics is dictating its theology, which would make it an organization much like the "German Christians" of 1932-45 (somehow, from the dates, I'm guessing that did not end well), but perhaps a mirror image which replaces their national socialist ideology with that of cultural Marxism, class and state socialism. Those of us who reject socialism in general (soviet, national, marxist, democratic, etc., etc.) will find overture 3-08 wonderfully freeing. Individual Christians can, indeed, advocate for all kinds of policy positions. But the Church itself should encourage those who "bear the sword" to carry out and enforce the valid and legitimate laws of their country.

The understated point made in overture 3-08 was at one time commonplace among all churches, but the modern environment has made this a rare, radical and brilliant assertion: it is the duty of the government to enforce valid law especially when large parts of the government advocate lawless evasion of the laws they are sworn to uphold. And Christians and Churches are obligated to encourage them to do their duty.

But all is not lost for those of use (like the present writer) who believe that the LCMS and its members should redouble its efforts outside of our own borders. What could be more salutary and God pleasing than to help those in distress around the world in the places where they live now, as part of our effort to bring the Gospel to all corners of the globe? The challenges in this are vast, but a dollar spent overseas has vastly greater impact, economically, than a dollar spent in this country in an effort to further erode the rule of law in the name of a political ideology masquerading as compassion. Overtures 3-06 and 3-09 have much to recommend in this regard.

So chime in if you like below.

Gordon Bynum, Chaplain, The Saint Timothy Society for Lutheran Seminary Scholarship

2019 Synodical Convention: Overtures 2-06 through 2-11. Congregations and Overseas Missionaries

So are congregations of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (hereafter "LCMS", for the acronym minded) allowed to send and fund overseas missions and missionaries, and if so, under what circumstances and conditions? This is a little bit of "inside baseball" being played within the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, and the next inning will be at the 2019 Synodical Convention held in Tampa, Florida, from July 20 - 25th.

This blog post stems from a meeting held on Wednesday, June 26th by the Metro Northwest Circuit of the Minnesota South District with their voting delegates to the convention. It is not intended to be a comprehensive or verbatim reflection of the discussion on June 26th, so by all means corrections, additions, and further comments are welcome. Pay attention to the Acceptable Use Policy and our regulations for comments, and let us know what you think.

Sometime in 2014, the Commission on Constitutional Matters ("CCM", in acronym speak) was asked to give an opinion to clarify in what way was "Synod... [i.e., LCMS, the] Only Sending Agency” according to Bylaw 3.8.3 of the LCMS Handbook. The result was CCM Opinion 14-2724, which has it's own FAQ here: FAQ on CCM Opinion 14-2724. For those looking for the full text of this opinion, it can be found in .pdf format here, on pages 133-137 (the .pdf has those on pages 167-171) of the 2016 LCMS Convention Workbook.

The various resolutions which this opinion has generated are found in the first edition of the 2019 Convention Workbook on pages 395-399 (427-431 in the .pdf), specifically overtures 2-06 through 2-11. Some of these are pro, some are con, and while the wording may seem convoluted to those unfamiliar with the process, "con" means the LCMS in convention expunges and makes void the opinion, "pro" indicates the convention affirms the opinion.

It may be the case that this disagreement is a self inflicted confusion on the part of the LCMS. For example, this "Whereas" from 2-06:

WHEREAS , 1983 Res. 5-10A, “To Reaffirm Essential Congregational Polity of the Synod” (Proceedings, 181) in a “Resolved” clause states that “The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod reaffirms that its synodical polity is essentially and principally congregational in nature ...”;

The reason this is confusing is perhaps due to polity, a discipline which is part art, part science, part black magic, and part other things. LCMS polity is synodical, which combines the worst features of episcopal and congregational polity, or best, depending on your point of view. Some have called synodical polity "Hegelian" in the sense that the thesis is episcopal, the antithesis is congregational, and the thesis (or synthesis) is synodical. Who knows, maybe that fits, but that's a different discussion. To the casual observer, doctrine comes first, followed by practice, followed by polity. This may, in fact, be accurate.

This blog post will be extended, edited, amended and footnoted as we learn more.

The Saint Timothy Society is Now a Recognised Service Organisation (RSO) of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod

Sometime back in 2007 the Evanglical Lutheran Church of Kenya (ELCK) invited Rev. Tom Aadland to teach at their seminary in Matongo, Kenya following his last term as Presiding Pastor of the American Association of Lutheran Churches.  At the end of that year the Saint Timothy Society for Lutheran Seminary Scholarship was chartered and incorporated to support that work and become a 501c3 organisation in 2008 (for our readers outside the United States, that's one of those pesky codes for non-profits and charities that allow donors to deduct their contributions when paying their income tax; for our readers inside the United States, you have our empathy for having to deal with the current tax code).  We've chugged along for the past nine years doing a lot more than we thought we could largely due to Tom Aadland's excellent success in raising money.  This is often the way of Churches and Church societies; we fail to understand that we can't do what we intend to do, and due to that lack of understanding we manage to do those things anyway.

At some point the Saint Timothy Society decided to apply for what is known as "RSO status", that is, to become a Recognised Service Organisation (RSO) within the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LC-MS).  This came to completion in the beginning of July of 2016: the Secretary of the LC-MS sent the synod's agreement for RSO recognition to the Saint Tim Society Directors, which approved, signed and returned the agreement on July 8, 2016. In August of 2016 the Saint Timothy Society appeared on the LCMS.org website (and in the RSO directory).

Your humble writer (blogger? that's a word now, eh?) has gained even greater humility (and proud of it!) by being called as the Chaplain for the Saint Timothy Society, which I accepted on July 10, 2016.  So the sporadic postings here will become somewhat less sporadic and will include more information about the Saint Timothy Society, in addition to University Lutheran Chapel in Minneapolis.  And in the next week I hope to have comments and contact info working on this blog.

The Saint Timothy Society Has Been Accepted as a Recogized Service Organization (RSO) of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS)

On July 5th the Saint Timothy Society was offered Recognized Service Organization Status by the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Details to follow.

For those who are fond of acronyms, that means the Saint Timothy Society has been accepted as an RSO (Recognized Service Organization) of the LCMS (The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod). For the rest of us, it means that the Saint Tim Society will continue its efforts to help support Lutheran Seminary scholarship and education overseas, most notably as part of the work Tom Aadland does at the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Kenya's seminary in Matongo, Kenya. As of this date, we're still waiting to hear in which District of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod the Saint Timothy Society will reside. This writer is a member of the clergy roster of the LCMS as a member of the English District, and we're waiting to hear back from them if they would like to be the home of the Saint Timothy Society.

Convention Materials on Google Docs; Readable in Browser or Download

We here at Friends of University Lutheran Chapel Minneapolis have devoted much of this blog to making available to the public the documentation related to University Lutheran Chapel and the chapel's effort to bring the sale of the campus ministry property to a vote by the Minnesota South District Convention.  Along the way, we discovered that Google Drive (formerly Docs) and Google Picassa Web can be very useful in displaying documents either "in-line" or in a new browser window.

So why not do the same for the 2013 Convention Materials for the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod meeting this week in Saint Louis?  The "LCMS" (as it is abbreviated) already does an excellent job in making available its convention materials on its own website at http://www.lcms.org/convention/downloads and at http://www.lcms.org/convention.  Why not make some of these available as readable in the browser? The documents are already publicly available, so unless we're asked to remove them, we'll put the links in this post.

As usual, there are many, many caveats, disclaimers, and various other dire warnings, consequences and cautionary tales that go with the the use of the blog and whatever you find here.  See our Acceptable Use Notice (the link is displayed on the right) and read the "fine print" at the bottom of this post.

This may take a long time to load, depending on your bandwidth, connection speed, and the overall load on google apps servers, but feel free to try to view the

If that doesn't work, you can try to

The First Issue of Today's Business is a smaller file, and you might have more luck viewing

Or you can try to

And now the "fine print". The versions of these documents here may be incorrect, inaccurate, out of date and suffer from various other defects. Refer to the official website of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (URL's given above) or to the convention officers for complete and accurate versions and other documentation. The server host provider(s) for this blog also have limitations and restrictions, including limited bandwidth and availability depending on your location and connection speed.

Which means that at some point the downloads and views may (and probably will) exceed the quota for this account on Google Apps for Business, and the links will no longer work, the page may not load, etc. Until then, we hope this is of some use.

No Secrecy or Non Disclosure Here - The Settlement Between ULC and the District

The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS) meets in convention on July 20th.  Here at Friends of ULC we have been trying to help those involved by sharing the relevant documents concerning University Lutheran Chapel and its struggle to have the Minnesota South District Convention vote on the sale of the campus ministry property in Minneapolis.  In our last post we dissected one erroneous reason why the LCMS should not vote on convention workbook memorial 1-15, and urged that this memorial go to the delegates for a vote.

In this post we dissect yet another erroneous reason why the LCMS in convention cannot  - or should not - vote on memorial 1-15, "To Commend and Support Campus Ministry at University of Minnesota".  That would be that the legal settlement between University Lutheran Chapel and the Minnesota South District involves some sort of secrecy or non-disclosure.  We don't know if that reason has been suggested to the floor committee or others at the upcoming convention.  We hope not, but we have heard and seen this speculation elsewhere, and it would not be surprising if this were offered as an excuse to decline to consider the memorial.

In the same way that some have made demonstrably false oaths, affidavits, and sworn statements exposed elsewhere on this blog, this line of argument could prove ultimately very embarrassing to the arguer.  The first question to them should be, can you produce the text of the settlement and show us where it supports what you say?  Even if the text of the settlement were not available, it would be a shame to make this case to any deliberative body or convention.  They would want the delegates to decline to consider a memorial based on a settlement whose terms we cannot know, whose text we cannot see, and hidden from us by a non-disclosure or secrecy clause we cannot examine.

But the text of the settlement is available, just like almost every other document from the legal action.  It was part of the order dismissing the eviction and litigation.  And there is nothing in the settlement to prevent the synod, or any district, from acting on this memorial, or, for that matter, just about anything else they would like to address regarding the Minnesota South District or University Lutheran Chapel.  The only limitation the settlement mentions is that University Lutheran Chapel and the Minnesota South District will no longer litigate against each other on the specific grounds of the legal actions dismissed by the settlement.  The synod in convention can do a vast number of things (especially so in convention) just like the Minnesota South District Convention was correct in wanting to vote on the sale, but was prevented from doing so by their former district president.

But don't take my word for it. Read the text of the settlement agreement

or

.

If you find the legalese too dense, get a lawyer to explain it to you (as I've said earlier, unlike many other pastors, I know I'm not a lawyer). Some individual names and the signature and exhibit pages (giving the legal description of the property) are redacted in this digital copy (including the last 10 pages of the 23 page document), but anyone interested can ask the Minnesota South District for a full copy. If for some reason they wont give it to you (it should already be available to all their pastors and congregations as members of their corporation), ask if University Lutheran Chapel will give you a copy. Or get a copy from the 4th district court records office (that's my favorite method; it's a charming trip to the downtown Minneapolis courthouse, and the records office is part of the scenic underground parking ramp!).

Why not just let the delegates vote on the original workbook memorial 1-15? Conventions and floor committees have a lot of work to do. Spurious reasons for not allowing the delegates to vote on memorials are a distraction, and waste everyone's time. Conventions and floor committees have more than enough to do without having to sift through speculative theories which are not established by the documentary evidence.

Another Convention, Another Chance to Vote on ULC? Let's Make that Happen.

Visitors to our humble little blog are probably aware that we've been doing what we can for some years to help University Lutheran Chapel (ULC) and get the word out about the sale of the campus ministry property by the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.  We don't claim any credit for any of the good things that have happened so far, but we're glad to play some small part.

It appears as if we have another chance to do some good, or, more accurately, all of you have a chance to do some good before and during (and after, if you like!) the upcoming convention of the The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod July 20 - 25 in Saint Louis.  The good news is that there is an excellent memorial in the Convention Workbook on page 139 "To Commend and Support Campus Ministry at University of Minnesota":

So the convention will get to vote on this, right?

Well, maybe, maybe not.  This gets a little arcane, but the process goes something like this.  Memorials to a synodical convention are sent to one of several floor committees.  In this case, that is floor committee #1 (also called "Witness"; I won't try to explain this beyond saying the names are apparently an attempt to designate the general topic area of the committee).  So floor committee #1 should do their thing, and decide what to do with the memorial.

The process might involve taking a memorial, then fashioning it into an overture, which then may or may not become a resolution (more details later will be added to this very rough description).  Floor Committee #1, however, has decided to ask the convention to decline to consider this memorial in the First Issue of Today's Business:

The reason given for their action is "Issue has already been resolved by Minnesota South Distr", which apparently means the Minnesota South District.  But this is precisely what did not happen.  From 2008 to the present, the district president, directors and officers of the Minnesota South District refused to let their district "resolve" in any way the question of the sale of the campus ministry property in Minneapolis, or Mankato.  In fact, the district president refused to let his own convention vote on the matter by ruling a motion to do exactly that out of order.  And to make matters worse, the officers and directors of the Minnesota South District continue to refuse to discuss the sale, or to respond to the process in the LCMS Handbook which specifies how to "resolve" disputed issues (dispute resolution).

More posts will follow, but please consider contacting Floor Committee #1 to have them send the original memorial 1-15 to the convention delegates to have them vote on it.  If you do, make sure you are courteous, polite, respectful and follow the words of Scripture, "Speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15). From what I can tell, the floor committee is open to more information, and is willing to correct whatever incorrect data it has been given to date. If it helps, you can

I sent to Floor Committee #1 on 2013 June 17 or

it as a .pdf file. If you are interested in the supporting documentation, you can see the other entries on this blog, or you can see the dispute resolution letter from

or

the .pdf File. The dispute resolution letter from

is online here, and is also available for

Same Sex Marriage as "No Tolerance Policy" to Charities (Religious or Otherwise)

Previous posts have outlined the very bad effects of the same sex marriage legislation being considered by the Minnesota Senate today.  Those posts have already pointed out that the "fig leaves" lightly pasted on the legislation - the religious exemption and the use of the term "civil marriage" - will not fix the basic problems with same sex marriage.  Yet another proof of this is the history of same sex marriage in other states.  A striking example is Catholic Charities of Boston, an organization which no one would describe as "conservative", and which for 100 years or more included placing children for adoption as part of its charitable work.

So how did same sex marriage affect this charity, which has never performed marriages?  The effect was simple and devastating: it shut them down as an adoption agency.  In 2005 the Roman Catholic Church insisted that Catholic Charities of Boston cease placing children for adoption with same sex couples (which it had done for 15 years) and follow the church's moral and religious teachings.  Catholic Charities of Boston (itself a rather liberal social service agency) was caught between its church and its state.   They asked the State of Massachusetts for permission to continue their work from the state in a way that did not violate their beliefs.  The answer was "no".  So Catholic Charities of Boston ceased the "pre-adoption" work of their agency.

This example is instructive because it shows the effect of same sex marriage legislation on a religious organization which no one would consider conservative.  In fact, the (now former) director of Catholic Charities of Boston resigned for the stated reason that the Vatican's directive contradicted their single adoption criteria, the "best interest of the children".  The former director, Mr. Meade, is of course entitled to his opinion, but one obvious point would be that Christianity, Western Civilization, and the vast majority of religions around the world do not and have not considered homosexuality and same sex marriage in the "best interest of the children".  This is one reason why, today, liberals, leftists and radicals are consistently mocked when they claim that their program should be carried out "for the children".

So how would a religious exemption clause from performing same sex marriage in the Minnesota legislation protect similar charities in that state which do not perform marriages?  The answer would be that it cannot, which would leave the more liberal agencies (many of whose names have a Christian denomination in front of "Social Services") caught between their church and their state.  But for those charities and social service organizations that take the teaching of their church seriously (or are forced to do so by their sponsoring religious group), the consequences would be much more dire.  Same sex marriage law combined with other laws  (like fair housing accommodation) would allow those who are intolerant of traditional morality to persecute them and put them out of business.  This would include the litigious, the intolerant, and those who sympathize with them in various state, county and local agencies.

The experience with same sex marriage in other states shows us that it will not be just churches and their affiliates in the crosshairs.  And charities which are not affiliated with any church or religion may fare much worse.  The attacks on the Boy Scouts have already shown us what happens to those groups that are not religious and insist on a simple traditional moral code that includes a belief in God and the rejection of homosexuality.

If this legislation becomes law, expect the same here.

Why "Religious" Exemptions from "Civil" Same Sex Marriage Won't Help

The same sex marriage legislation that the Minnesota House has sent to the Senate was passed after adding two elements: a religious "exemption" from performing same sex marriages, and the addition of the term "civil", as in "Civil Marriage", apparently between two individuals of the same sex.

We already know that in states which already have same sex marriage (usually by judicial fiat, and in some cases by legislature) the first organizations that find themselves under attack by state regulators and plaintiffs lawyers are churches and church organizations.  Catholic Charities of Boston after 100 years of placing children in homes for adoption was forced to close its doors after same sex marriage was allowed in Massachusetts.  Because of the moral position of their church which objected to homosexuality (and therefore same sex marriage) Catholic Charities asked for a narrow exemption from placing children with same sex couples.  The state's response was a resounding "no".  The same thing is happening now in Illinois, which has passed legislation allowing adoption by same sex couples.

Ocean City, New Jersey, a unique association and city affiliated with the Methodist Church refused a request from a lesbian couple to be married on their property.  To do so would violate Methodist Church law.  The lesbian couple litigated using New Jersey's same sex marriage law combined with the legal theory of public accommodation, and succeeded in having the tax exemption of the religious association that owned Ocean City revoked.  Owners of private businesses, such as the devote Roman Catholic proprietors of the Montpelier Inn in Vermont, were charged with violating Vermont's Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act.  Of special interest in this instance is that the owners of the inn did not refuse a lesbian couple's request to host a civil union reception.  Their "crime" was to express their religious conviction about same sex marriage in suggesting they might not be the best venue for the event.

Even in states which reject same sex marriage moral and religious objectors to the idea are subjected to persecution by proponents of the idea.  After the passage of California's famous proposition 8, which enshrined traditional marriage in their constitution, Mormons were targeted by the proponents of gay marriage in retaliation for their support of the measure, along with other churches, pastors, and moral and religious individuals and organizations.  In the last days of the campaign, same sex marriage supporters paid for a series of television ads accusing Mormons of having "too much wealth" which they used to "overly influence" the government.  The parallels to anti-semitic propaganda used by neo-nazi and white supremacist groups is striking, and its use against a particular religious group should be a warning.

Should this legislation become law in Minnesota, the same will happen here, even with the "religious exemption" and "civil marriage" clauses.  Religious organizations, such as adoption agencies, will find themselves persecuted when they follow their moral and religious precepts.  Public school teachers and other government employees will face discipline or dismissal for holding to their moral or religious convictions about marriage.  And an exemption based on religious conviction should terrify all individuals and citizens who hold moral convictions based on natural law, reason, history or common sense about marriage.  Why would a religious association be necessary for exemption?  Why is the moral objection of the individual citizen not enough?  But they will have no exemption.

Please urge the Minnesota Senate to vote down this legislation.  See the previous post for their contact information.

Let the Minnesota Senate Know What You Think About The Same Sex Marriage Legislation.

The Minnesota State Senate is scheduled to consider the same sex marriage legislation passed by the Minnesota House last week.  I have already written to as many state senators as I could to express my opposition to this legislation, and I would encourage you all to do the same.  The contact information for the Senate is here:

http://www.senate.mn/members/

If you would like to use an email merge program, here is a .csv file with each senator's email address derived from concatenating their contact information:

Minnesota Senators, with Email, Comma Separated File (.csv)

That .csv file is crude, but the email address works for all but about 10 senators.  The first link above also includes an ascii text file under the "labels" tab.

Below is the text of the email I sent.  I encourage you to write your own, but if this inspires you, feel free to use what you can.  Make sure you are civil, polite, decent, courteous and respectful.  Short and to the point is also good, and a simple sentence or two expressing your hope that they will vote against this legislation would be just fine.

Subject: Please consider voting no on same sex marriage legislation. HF 1054, SF 925, revisions do not correct problems.

Dear Senator ____,

It is my understanding that the Senate will soon consider the same sex marriage legislation recently passed by the House.  Having spent some amount of time reading and looking into HF 1054, SF 925, and the proposed revisions, amendments and impact of the legislation the Senate may produce, I would like you to consider voting against the version of this bill that reaches your chamber.  You may be mistaken in believing that the narrow failure of the marriage amendment last November indicates support for such legislation, and even a majority of support by Minnesotans.  I would ask you to consider this: if next election sees a proposed constitutional amendment enshrining same sex marriage as constitutional, would it in fact pass?  Or would it fail by an even greater percentage than its opposite in the last election?

I also believe I understand the good intentions of those who have amended the legislation by inserting language and categories such as "civil" marriage and "Exemptions based on Religious Association".  Unfortunately, these efforts do not make the bill acceptable.  Because it proposes something that is unprecedented and opposed by so many Minnesotans and Americans, the need for such an exemption is troubling.  Will the vast number of Minnesotans who consider same sex marriage wrong, unnatural, and destructive of family, society, state and country need to ask the state's permission under this law to continue their opposition?  Would it make any difference if this opposition were not religious in nature, much less Christian?  The use of the word "civil", while also well meant, does not seem to sufficiently clarify or lessen the enormous confusion, uncertainty and indecision this legislation will unleash.

The arguments I have heard for this legislation appear to be largely emotional, and based on an individual's supposed "right" to "love whomever they want".  If that argument is valid as the supporters of this legislation seem to believe, then I suppose we could change "whoever" to "whatever", of any age, condition, or species, singular or plural.  If you pass this, you will owe polygamists (including some Mormons, Muslims, and others) an apology for decades and centuries of criminalizing their love.  Many of us love our money, and would like to be married to it, but our governor and your chamber now consider denying us the right to keep all - or at least more - of what we love.  If you detect some (little) humor in that, you are right, but the point is that emotion and a supposed claim to an invented right of some kind is a terrible basis for legislation.  It's also destructive of a genuinely ordered civil society where morality and reason can consider what is right and wrong as well as the consideration of good and evil, virtue and vice.

I appreciate your time.  Should you, or your staff, wish to contact me, feel free to do so using the information on this email.

How Very Nice of You; Thank You, and God Bless!

The convention of the Minnesota South District of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod ended last week, and we're delighted to report that there was some good news.  Earlier posts have outlined the many, many errors that needed correction and action by the convention.  Efforts from the floor to address these were, as expected, largely blocked.  So the convention did their own version of "rough justice", and instead directed that 2.4 million from the sale of the campus ministry properties be given to University Lutheran Chapel (ULC) and Hosanna Lutheran Church, Mankato.  ULC will receive 2 million, and Hosanna will have their $900,000 purchase price for the campus property in Mankato reduced by $400,000.

So thank you to all of the pastors and congregations of the Minnesota South District, and God Bless you.  You did a wonderful thing, and our hope is that one day soon you as a convention will get to make decisions like these.  You also sent a marvelous message to your officers and directors: be clear, open, accountable, and not too hasty about what you're doing - especially to our governing documents, bylaws and articles - and ask us for our approval.  We have high hopes for your new district president and directors, and we expect that they will make a much greater effort to treat you like the deliberative body you are.

We will keep our readers posted here on developments and details of the convention resolution.  The details have yet to be worked out, but at the moment the Minnesota South District is continuing their eviction of University Lutheran Chapel from the campus ministry property in Minneapolis.  So the legal actions have not stopped, and ULC will likely be out of the property shortly, in a day or two.  The convention had expressed their hope that the legal actions might stop, and it is certainly expensive for both the district and ULC to pay more in legal fees.  We hope that the details of the 2.4 million transfer to ULC and Hosanna, Mankato can be worked out quickly, and that the district's officers and directors carry out the convention resolution without any unnecessary delay.

It's been an unfortunate and expensive proposition for the district.  They're selling a 4 million dollar property for 3.25 million after signing a purchase agreement for 3.5 million.  They may also have to pay closing costs due to the purchase agreement they signed, and we're not sure if the Mankato campus ministry could be sold for more.  So out of a possible 5 million dollars from the sale of both campus ministries they will get to keep around 1.75 million, and that's before deducting their other expenses.


Haste makes waste.  It was a mistake to try to rush through the sale before the convention could meet and weigh in on what the directors did.  Maybe the next convention should divide their remaining 1.75 million between ULC and Hosanna, Mankato.

Here's One Memorial to Correct Past Mistakes

We've been asked if there is some way for the convention to fix what has happened to the Minnesota South District's governing documents.  Quite frankly, we don't see how one convention can do this.  But we do think the next two or three conventions could do this given enough time, information, and study.

We also think that the only way to resolve the attempted sale of University Lutheran Chapel at the 2012 convention meeting now would be for the convention to answer two questions:

1. Does the convention approve of what the directors have done in attempting to sell University Lutheran Chapel?

2. Does the convention wish to make that decision itself?

All the other memorials and resolutions concerning campus ministry are pointless and deceptive without the convention answering those two questions.

The following memorial is an attempt to do all of the above, and do it in an informed and deliberate way.  If someone can get this to the floor (a very daunting task indeed), feel free to do so:

WHEREAS God has blessed the work of our district's campus ministry at the
University of Minnesota for more than eight decades, and

WHEREAS many of our fellow members of synod have urged the Minnesota
South District to not sell the campus ministry in Minneapolis, or to
leave the decision on a sale to the district convention, and

WHEREAS University Lutheran Chapel of Minneapolis has also sought to
have the sale of the property decided by the district convention in a
clear and unambiguous vote on the merits of the proposed sale, and

WHEREAS numerous errors, difficulties, ambiguities and confusion have
been discovered in the District's governing documents most notably in
2006 and later, and

WHEREAS efforts to correct these errors in 2007 were not reported to
the 2009 convention in accordance with bylaw 4.2.17 and have led to
even greater confusion and ambiguity, be it

RESOLVED that the sale of the campus ministry in Minneapolis be
decided by the convention in a year of their choosing, and be it
further

RESOLVED that a committee be appointed with all urgency by the newly
elected District President to reexamine the condition and validity of
the District's governing documents and especially the Articles of
Incorporation, and be it further

RESOLVED that this committee bring its findings and proposed actions
regarding the governing documents and Articles of Incorporation to the
2016 convention of the Minnesota South District, and be it finally

RESOLVED that this committee present its findings with all urgency to
the newly elected District President and Directors and advise them on
the validity of the attempted sale of the campus ministry property in
Minneapolis.

It's Recission Time! The "Do Over" Bylaw.

We have examined in an earlier post the curious case of the conflicting sets of Articles of Incorporation filed by the president of the Minnesota South District of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod here:

http://blog.friendsofulc.org/2012/06/so-who-do-you-believe-district.html

The good news is that there is a way to correct errors such as these, and that method is contained in the corporations own bylaws.  Here is the "Do Over" Bylaw:

4.2.17  Execution of District Resolutions

Any district resolution not carried out by the District or the officers responsible for its execution shall be reported to the next convention of the District for re-affirmation or rescission.

You can see a .pdf copy here, on page 21:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQQTNxc3dnWDExOU0

So what is "recission"?  This being the internet, we have a handy definition from Wikipedia:

In contract law, rescission has been defined as the unmaking of a contract between parties.  Rescission is the unwinding of a transaction. This is done to bring the parties, as far as possible, back to the position in which they were before they entered into a contract (the status quo ante).

(From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescission)

This means that each convention can literally have a "do over" if a previous resolution has not been carried out.  The convention must be informed, and must decide to affirm or reverse (recission) what they have done.

The president of the district's sworn affidavit claims that he filed 40 years of convention resolutions that were never executed by the District of its officers:

In 2007, the District properly filed with the Minnesota Secretary of State the District's Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation. Attached hereto as Exhibit W is a true and correct copy of a December 31, 2007, letter from the District's counsel enclosing the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation with a Department of State date stamp of December 26, 2007.

That is from page 10, number 39, and the .pdf is posted here:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQN05XSjhXYXlFazg

Instead of presenting decades of convention resolutions which had not been executed to the convention in 2009, the president filed them himself, and failed to report even that action to the voting members in 2009.  He violated bylaw 4.2.17 by not allowing his convention their duty to re-affirm or recise their past resolutions which had not been executed.

The convention meeting now in 2012 should demand this bylaw be followed, and they be given a "do over" to correct the egregious errors committed by their officers and directors.  It's recission time.

"Who Told You You Were Naked?" The Dishonest Memorials to the Convention

There are two pressing questions for the 2012 convention of the Minnesota South District meeting this week in Saint Paul: Does the convention approve of what the Board of Directors has done in attempting to sell the campus ministry in Minneapolis?  Or does the convention wish to make that decision themselves?

So why is there no memorial in workbook that asks these two simple questions?  Why hide from your own pastors and congregations?  Why are the president and directors of the district going to such great lengths to avoid direct accountability to the pastors and congregations which they serve?

And why are they hiding behind dishonest memorials such as 5-01 and 3-04?

In an earlier post we detailed the unfortunate treatment of the president of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod by the president and directors of the Minnesota South District:

http://blog.friendsofulc.org/2012/06/so-who-do-you-believe-president-of.html

President Harrison of the LCMS, after stating clearly his objection to the sale of the campus ministry at the University of Minnesota, was used by the president and directors of the Minnesota South District as an exhibit in court to support their actions, which Harrison had clearly condemned.

And now the officers and directors of the Minnesota South District are trying to do the same thing to their voting members.  Resolution 5-01, among others, is asking the convention to ratify the directors attempted sale of the Minneapolis campus ministry, but without explicitly stating this as the intention of the resolution.  In the same way that they used President Harrison's letter to dishonestly claim support for what they had done, if Resolution 5-01 or anything like it passes, they will use it as an exhibit in court to claim that their attempted sale of the campus ministry was approved by the convention.

This is just wrong.  If the directors believe what they claim, that they have to right to sell the Minneapolis campus ministry without the convention, no action by the convention is needed.

The voting members in convention should reject memorials like 5-01, 3-04, and any other resolutions that does not do exactly what the directors should have done: bring the question of the sale of the campus ministry properties to their pastors and congregations in convention.

God asked Adam in Genesis 3:11 “Who told you that you were naked?"  Those who proposed these memorials meant well by them, but like President Harrison, they are being used by the president and directors of the district to do something wrong.  They have become fig leaves, cobbled together to cover the shame of something sinful, wrong and evil.

So Who Do You Believe? The District President in 2007, or in 2009, or in 2012?

Previous posts here have examined the documents related to the attempt by the Minnesota South District Board of Directors of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod to sell the campus ministries in Mankato and Minneapolis.  A recurring conclusion from the documents themselves is that the president of the Minnesota South District has an unfortunate knack for saying things in sworn affidavits that are demonstrably false.  A previous post asked "Who do you believe?  The president of the synod, or the president of the district?"  We're suggesting you believe the president of the synod, for the reason given above.

But now we have a surprising new question: Who do you believe?  The district president in 2007, or in 2009, or in 2012?

First we have the "Restated and Amended Articles of Incorporation" from 2007, which the district president swears are valid.  Here is Article III, Section 2 "Meetings", subsection a"

Section 2. Meetings a.

The regular meetings of this corporation, called District Convention, shall be held in the year in which the general convention of THE LUTHERAN CHURCH-MISSOURI SYNOD is held.

You can see a .pdf of the original here (see page 7, page 6 of the Articles themselves):

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQZzNYeFBzZ1hZdXc

Secondly we have the same section from the district handbook from 2009, which the district president also claims is valid:

Section 2. Meetings

a) The regular meetings of this corporation, called District Convention, shall be held in the year preceding the year in which the general convention of THE LUTHERAN CHURCH—MISSOURI SYNOD is held.

Here is a .pdf copy of the original (see page 9 of the .pdf, page 5 of the articles section):

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQQTNxc3dnWDExOU0

So, great; which is it?  Are the regular meetings "in the year" or "in the year preceding" the "general convention" of the LCMS?

Well, according to the district president, the answer is "yes".  Or "both".  It's hard to tell.

Now we come to 2012.  Here's what the district president swears to in his May 7, 2012 affidavit to the Fourth District court, on page 9 (Number 36):

At the 2006 Convention, further amendments were made to the District's Articles of Incorporation and properly approved at the Convention. However, prior to filing the 2006 amendments with the Secretary of State, the District discovered that some prior amended articles had not yet been filed with the Secretary of State. As a result of that discovery, the District engaged in a review process to ensure that all amendments that had been voted on and approved at previous conventions were accounted for and filed with the Secretary o f State along with the 2006 amendments.

We've posted a .pdf of the district president's May 7, 2012 affidavit here:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQN05XSjhXYXlFazg

The district president continues his affidavit with numbers 39 and 40 on page 10:

39. In 2007, the District properly filed with the Minnesota Secretary of State the District's Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation. Attached hereto as Exhibit W is a true and correct copy of a December 31, 2007, letter from the District's counsel enclosing the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation with a Department of State date stamp of December 26, 2007.

 40. Every provision in the 2007 Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation that were filed with the Secretary of State had been properly approved by previous Conventions.

So who do you believe?  The district president in 2007 filing the "amended and restated articles", or the same district president in 2009 in the Handbook for the District?

According to the May 7 affidavit by the district president, the Handbook applies.  And the amendments which the district presiden filed on his own (and invalid) authority in 2007:

37. This is consistent with the District's Handbook which incorporates the District's Articles of Incorporation into the materials provided after each convention. The District holds a Convention every 2-3 years. After every Convention, the District publishes a handbook and distributes a printed copy of the handbook to every congregation. Each handbook includes a copy of the most recent updated Articles of Incorporation and would include the changes to the articles made at the previous Convention.

38. After the 1974 Amendments, every subsequent Handbook distributed to the congregations included the updated language that granted the Board authority to sell the Property.

Which is either confusing, or also demonstrably false (this may be a false dichotomy: it's both!) as we have posted earlier on this blog.  The 1974 Convention Manual proposed deleting the article reserving the right to sell ULC to the voting members, but the 1974 Convention Proceedings are ambiguous, as to what the convention actually did with the proposed deletion.  And, in either event, the presiding officer failed to certify and the secretary of the corporation failed to verify, and all of them failed to file the change with the Minnesota Secretary of State.

So in 2012 the district president claims that both the 2009 Handbook and his filing for record with the Secretary of State in 2007 are valid, correct, and proper.  But the 2007 and 2009 documents contradict each other in at least one Article.

So who do you believe?  The President of the Minnesota South District in 2007, or in 2009, or in 2012?

We pick "None of the Above".

It's time to stop hiding mistakes.  It's time for the officers and the directors of the Minnesota South District of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod to admit that their correct, true and valid Articles of Incorporation date from 1966.  It's time for them to admit that what happened in 2007, 2009 and 2012 were illegitimate attempts to create an authority to sell that they do not have.  And it's time for them to admit that it was wrong for them to deny the decision to sell the campus ministry at ULC to their voting members meeting in convention.

So Who Do You Believe? The President of Synod, or the President of the District?

Of the many, many unfortunate consequences of the effort by the Officers and Directors of the Minnesota South District to sell the campus ministries in Mankato and Minneapolis perhaps the most sad are the contradictory claims made by the the President of the Synod and the President of the District.  The President of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod has, reluctantly, been forced to expose this divide in his letter of June 12, 2012, to the Directors of Minnesota South.  We have posted a copy of it here:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQX2N6N2hrTEJUdEE

The letter is a short one, and the text is reproduced below:

Dear Directors,

 As you well know, I have refrained from involvement in the ULC matter. I am compelled, however, to send this note to you as my name has been used, in part, to justify the action of the board in selling ULC. I want to be very clear to you and for the sake of the good people in the Synod who have been so troubled by this whole affair.

In your presence I acknowledged the board’s legal “right” to sell the chapel. However, I do not in any way, shape, or form, condone the sale of ULC. It is a tragic mistake, which has unleashed a blizzard of sin on all sides. Our life together has been deeply embittered.

I continue to name you in my daily prayers, as I have from the beginning of this affair, praying the Lord would grant us all repentance and rescue us from our sinful selves.

Fraternally in Christ,

Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison, President The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

So how was President Harrison's name "used, in part, to justify the action of the board in selling ULC"?  This is exactly what President Lane Seitz did on May 7, in his affidavit to the Fourth District Court of Minnesota, on page 14, Number 60:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQN05XSjhXYXlFazg

In an Open Letter to the members of the Synod (including ULC) dated September 11, 2011, the Synod's President stated, in regard to the sale of the District's Property: "There is no question that the Board had the right to do what it did with the property." Attached hereto as Exhibit CC is a true and correct copy of the Synod President's September 20, 2011, letter.

So who do you believe, the president of the synod, or the president of the district?  Several previous posts on this blog have proven from the documents themselves that the President of the Minnesota South District has an unfortunate habit of swearing affidavits that contain items that are demonstrably false.  So we suggest you believe the President of Synod.  But check out the documents above for yourself, and let us know if you would like us to post more.

We feel very badly for President Harrison, and this is a shame.  The president of the Minnesota South District hid vital information from him, and used him to generate a public statement that he could use to support what the directors had done, which contradicted what President Harrison actually communicated.  We're guessing that the district president has still not told the synodical president that the board's legal right to sell the chapel is also fictitious, and based on amendments to Articles of Incorporation the district president filed by himself, which makes them void and invalid. 

We also wonder when the Board of Directors will realize that they too are being used and vital information is being hidden from them.

Why Not Read the Docs for Yourself?

We here at FriendsOfULC.org have been blogging and posting on the nifty platform provided by Google (www.Blogger.com) in order to keep our readers aware of the ongoing developments in the effort of the directors of the Minnesota South District to sell the campus ministry property which is used by University Lutheran Chapel.  We've been sharing the parts of what documents we can here, and we hope to share more as soon as we can.

In the last few days the president and staff of the Minnesota South District have sent a mailing to the convention delegates about the ongoing litigation with University Lutheran Chapel in which they quote the judge writing that ULC has little or no chance of success in their suit.  We don't like to speculate too much on what courts do (or not do), largely because conditions (and their rulings) can change.  So we leave it up to you the read the docs for yourself.  Here is the complete order vacating the courts earlier Temporary Restraining Order (TRO):

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQczBMVFNaVU0wODQ

The Minnesota South District has quoted from a section which favors their case, which is fair enough.  But apparently they have not quoted the following from page 6:

<<

Although the Court recognizes that the South District has taken steps to reduce ULC's potential harms, the Court finds that the irreparable harm ULC would face weigh in favor of granting an injunction over the monetary harms that the South District faces.

>>

This may be why in the week following the order above the judge required ULC and the Minnesota South District to go to negotiation by August, and why ULC is still in the building at 1101 University Avenue.  That can change, however, and we don't know what the court will ultimately do.

The judge's lifting ("vacation") of the Temporary Restraining Order does not dismiss ULC's case.  ULC's complaint from April 26th is here:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B2ywU0fUxfdQZGJydFZqVGxUZUE

The judge has not dismissed the complaint, only the restraining order that stopped the eviction of ULC initiated by the Minnesota South District.  So unless the judge dismisses the case, it will be heard.

Everybody Makes Mistakes, Part 4: Hiding Mistakes Never Ends Well

When people make mistakes, their first inclination is to hide.  This is "as old as Adam", as the saying goes,  perhaps because Adam and Eve hide from God after making their mistake with the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil".  The second question recorded in the Bible is designed to flush out and bring to the surface both the one hiding, and the mistake that caused him to hide: "Who told you that you were naked?"  After admitting his shame at being naked, Adam keeps trying to hide, coming up with more excuses and obfuscation: the serpent, this woman you gave me, etc.  All of which increases the shame, and the guilt, and the mistakes.

Adam's problem here is our problem as well, and the consequences of the fall continue, including our condition of sinfulness, which is expressed in our shame and hiding from God, which then continues the cycle described above and in other posts on this blog.  One secular analogy to God's second question to Adam is the "Watergate" interrogatory: "What did you know, when did you know it, and who did you tell?"  The length of time between each of these parts, usually documented by a paper trail, flush out and bring to the surface the one hiding, and the mistakes that caused them to hide.

From the paper trail that we can find, it appears that the president of the Minnesota South District knew about the problems with their Articles of Incorporation prior to their 2009 convention.  But no record can be found of any discussion of the void and invalid articles in the minutes of their directors meetings, or the convention proceedings from 2009.  This raises more questions for the president of the corporation (the District President):

1. When did you become aware of the problems with the Articles of Incorporation?  In 2006 before, during, or after the convention?

2. Did you share this knowledge with your voting members at any time so they might be asked for a remedy, or did you take some kind of action to attempt to correct this problem without informing them?

3. Did you share this with your members in convention in 2009, along with the fact that you had filed the changes using your sole (invalid) authority in 2007, and allow the convention in 2009 to remedy this?

4. Did you share this information with your Directors at any time prior to their action to sell the property?

5. Who else was aware of the unfiled amendment changes?

6. Did you seek advice concerning how invalidly filed amendments to articles would affect an action taken by the board or officers relying on those invalidly filed amendments?

7. Did you tell Synodical President Harrison and Minnesota North District President Fondow that Minnesota South had the right to sell the property at 1101 University Avenue?

8. Did you also tell them that this was based on amendments to articles you filed on your own authority and discretion without informing your pastors, congregations, or directors?

9. Did you share this information with other officers of the corporation?  Which ones, and when?

Luckily, we now have a paper trail that can answer some of these questions in the sworn affidavit given by the president to the Fourth Judicial District Court of Minnesota on May 7, 2012.  Here is section 36:

So presumably we have in this affidavit an answer to question 1: the president knew as early as 2006 about the problem, soon after the convention.

The answer to question 2 ("Did you share this knowledge with your voting members at any time so they might be asked for a remedy, or did you take some kind of action to correct this problem without informing them?") is given in the sections 39 and 40 of the affidavit:

So the answer to question 2 is "No, I did not inform them or ask for their remedy, and yes, I acted on my own to try to fix this problem".

As demonstrated in earlier posts from the publicly available documentation, both the 2007 and 2009 attempted filings for record with the Secretary of State have insurmountable defects and problems.  Number 40 of this affidavit compounds has already been proven to be demonstrably false from the attempted 2007 filing itself:

http://blog.friendsofulc.org/2012/06/everybody-makes-mistakes-part-1.html

Previous conventions have never approved "Article III, Section 2: Meetings, a", which the president claims they have in his dubious filing from 2007:

"The regular meetings of this corporation, called District Convention, shall be held in the year in which the general convention of THE LUTHERAN CHURCH–MISSOURI SYNOD is held"

As pointed out in previous posts on this blog, the corporation's own Article IV requires that amendments must be "verified by the presiding officer" and "certified by the secretary of the corporation" when filing with the Secretary of State.  From other documentation we also know that the unfiled articles went back to 1966, forty years prior to the discovery.  Since this presiding officer was elected in 1991, and the secretary even later, that would make it impossible for him to be the presiding officer at conventions prior to 1991, and for him and the secretary to "certify" and "verify" these amendments.

This points to an answer to question 3 ("Did you share this with your members in convention in 2009, along with the fact that you had filed the changes using your sole (invalid) authority in 2007, and allow the convention in 2009 to remedy this?").  The answer would be "No".

As for questions 4 through 9, and our hope is that the delegates to the convention being held this week will demand answers.  They - and apparently the directors - have been kept in the dark for 6 years.  It's time to shine a light on what has been kept hidden for far too long.

Everybody Makes Mistakes, Part 3: Refusing an Offer for $550,000.00 More

In earlier posts, we detailed how mistakes can lead to other mistakes, and be very, very costly.  Covering up for earlier mistakes and errors is often a very expensive proposition, and correcting mistakes once those involve can admit them is also expensive.

What is rare, however, is to intentionally cost your corporation $300,000 by hastily signing a purchase agreement with another potential buyer for less money.  And, last week, in one of the ongoing hearings in the litigation between University Lutheran Chapel and the Minnesota South District, we may have something even more rare: Doran Development, with which the Treasurer of the District signed a purchase agreement within 10 days of the action of the Board of Directors, apparently has dropped their purchase price for the University Lutheran Chapel property from 3.5 million to 3.25 million.  Common sense, of course, would dictate that the seller (whatever legitimacy their actions may or may not have) then place the property back on the market, especially when they know they can get a better offer.

In this case, however, the seller already knew that Doran's offer of 3.5 million was already beaten by a 3.8 million dollar offer from CPM Development.  And, in addition to offering more, CPM would also "keep a space designated for campus ministry on-site.  CPM is working on a similar project with another church".  This is from the affidavit filed on May 12th with the Fourth Judicial District:

This is from page 2 from the exhibit and affidavit from the president of CPM.

Well, that's unfortunate, but with any luck this fumbling and lack of responsiveness did no harm if CPM's offer was the same or less than Doran's.  

Oops; apparently not.  It looks like about $300,000.00 worth of harm was done:

So CPM made an offer for 3.8 million compared to Doran's 3.5 million.  Haste makes waste; had the Treasurer waited for longer than 10 days to sign an agreement, there probably would have been more offers:

With the developments last week, Doran's 3.5 million has now apparently been reduced to 3.25 million.  Even if Doran's offer had remained the same, that would still be $300,000 less than the offer from CPM.

The other striking feature of CPM's offer is that it would allow University Lutheran Chapel space for campus ministry in the new building.  And, of course, who knows what offers would have developed if more time were given to the bidding process.

Why the haste?  What was the reason for the rush?  A reasonable inference would be the officers and directors of the Minnesota South District wanted the sale to go through before they would answer to their voting members at their convention next week, and they wanted to make sure there was no possibility that University Lutheran Chapel would still have space on the property in the new building.  Since this has already been done at other campus ministries in the church (for example, at University of Wisconsin Madison) it is staggering to think this did not occur to the officers and directors of the corporation.

As of this writing, University Lutheran Chapel remains in the building at 1101 University Avenue in Minneapolis, and is still fighting.  It's time to reverse this sale, and stop trying to cover over past mistakes by making greater and greater mistakes.  God willing, the voting members at the convention next week will do exactly that.