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.