Why do the Estonian and English notices of the General Assembly of St. Peter’s Church and of a vote in two weeks on closing the columbarium, differ decidedly in content, with significant omissions in Estonian?

Compare: “Proceeds from the sale of the building would allow us to continue operating as a congregation, in a chapel located on any new development on the existing site, in our own church as renters should we sell to another congregation, as renters in another congregation’s church or in another location of our choosing.”

The 4th option, “another location of our choosing”, not a church, is omitted in the Estonian, which lists “examples” of continuing to hold church services "a) in a chapel that real estate developers have offered to build on the same property; b) carrying on as renters in the existing church building in the event of success in selling to some other congregation; c) carrying on as renters in the church building of some other congregation":

“Hea uudis on aga see, et kinnistu müügitulu võimaldaks meil jumalateenistusi edasi pidada. Seda saame teha näiteks: a) kabelis, mida kinnisvaraarendajad on pakkunud samale kinnistule ehitada; b) jätkata olemasolevas kirikuhoones üürnikuna juhul, kui õnnestub müüa kinnistu mõnele teisele kogudusele; c) jätkata üürnikuna mõne teise koguduse kirikuhoones.”

Furthermore: “A new Future Committee could be formed to examine all available options.” This statement is omitted from the Estonian notice. Is the participation of Estonian readers either on or in the formation of a Future Committee not anticipated? Why aren’t all the options for place of worship listed in Estonian as they are in English?

The question in English is what will be done with the “Proceeds from the sale of the building”, because the new Future Committee would examine all “available options” for “the additional funds”. “The additional funds” are all the funds from the sale of the church that are beyond the cost of relocating the urns (which necessitates selling the church)! And beyond the cost of relocating (or not) the worshippers, as per a, b, c, or [d] i.e. not to a church but “another location of [our] choosing”, above.

In the Estonian, the proceeds from the “sale of the church” would “allow us to continue our own activity for a longer time and to broaden our missionary work as well as better serve our community”. In English, “all options” on the use of proceeds from the sale of the “property” are open, subject to the “examination” of what’s “available” (“outreach” and “additional programmes”) by the “new Future Committee”.

Please DO NOT scaremonger your congregants or refer to your decision as rational. Peetri Kirik's real estate will only dramatically increase in value once the future LRT that is steps away is completed. Peetri Kirik IS NOT BANKRUPT OR EVEN CLOSE. The Peetri Kirik board doesn't have and doesn't want to have VISION to transform Peetri into more than a place of worship as it once was.
The chapel is a masterpiece of architecture. It is Mihkel Bach's finest work. It surrounds you in warmth the minute you enter. The tranquility, the peace, the solace felt is immeasurable. The chapel could open it's doors for concerts, a meditation sanctuary, event space....there are countless opportunities. The auditorium can be rented out for classes, meetings, yoga etc.
Be innovative and seek new ideas instead of doomsday scenarios promoting a desire to sell. Pose pertinent questions. For example: Is a full time minister even needed? Should the church's mandate evolve? Think back to Peetri's roots as a church and community space.
SELLING SHOULD BE A LAST RESORT, NOT A GIVEN

We are taught in the Bible to not have fear. This is stated 365 times!

A proposal to sell of a church because it could one day become bankrupt is based in fear. It is spiritually bankrupt. Those who are pushing the 'sell the church off' option should re-examine their faith and whether they represent true practitioners of Christianity.

People need spiritual refuges now more than ever in this generation. We need spiritual guidance. We need a sense of social connectedness, which required in person experience. The internet is not adequate. Can we not reach out more, and at least include the broader community at the church by re-starting English language services?

Those who chose to have their remains on the church premises believed that the Church would be there for generations. They never would have envisioned a fly-by-night operation that vanished in the face of financial fear. Other churches have been standing for hundreds of years. What is wrong with our community, that we have doubts that we could even maintain a church for over 100 years?

Where has the appeal for donations been this year? It is like the church board is not even trying!!!

The Bible also informs us that we will be judged. It is understandable that people will be concerned about giving if it looks like the ship has already left the port on this decision, similar to the Esto House sale. But still, the optics are not good here. We need reassurance that the board is actually faith based at this point.

St. Peter's Church Board: EKN President Kairi Taul Hemingway, Naani
Holsmer, Talvi Maimets, Leena Liivet, Alar Viinamae and Juri Laansoo.
Why ask for help if you don't plan to listen?

According to the new constitution, which was adopted by the whole congregation on Sept 27, 2020, three members of the board should have been replaced by 3 new members a year later, which would have been at the last Congregational meeting. Of course, not replacing them was an intentional oversight so that the minister's agenda to sell our church could be forced with the help of the current milquetoast council members who don’t have the courage to stand up to him. Everything needs to be done to prevent a sale vote before new council members are instated so that the whole congregation can have a say in what happens with our church - not just those who have suffered through the reprimanding, demeaning, and contemptuous sermons to receive communion and keep their voting status.
We need a minister who loves our church, has empathy and compassion for everyone who steps into our church, wants to serve and build our congregation, and who is open to alternatives and working together with the Estonian community and the surrounding Canadian community to keep Peetri Kirik viable. The minister knows that once the church is irreversibly on the chopping block, there will be no new volunteers for council to help with shutting things down… and the tired old board can just clean up what’s left. Is this what we want??? Please vote for #2 and give Peetri Kirik a fighting chance!!

“Margus tells me later that there are 700 such spots in Estonia, and that the locations are passed down through the generations. Families often go to these sacred spots – even taking a picnic – to connect and spend time with their departed ancestors.” The excerpt from a beautiful article titled “Canada’s Forest University: connecting to what is intrinsically Estonian” brought to mind peoples’ feelings about Peetri Kirik. “’If you believe, you can find peace here,’ Margus says. This makes perfect sense to me. Connecting with my ancestors and spiritual traditions in the simple sanctuary of nature is something I connected to immediately the first time I came here.” Compare in our national Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail, Estonian architectural curator Jarmo Kauge on Peetri Kirik: " ‘I think it's one of the best churches I've ever been to, and I've been to Italy,’ Mr. Kauge says without hesitation. ‘It's just so cozy, and the light is perfect … I don't know, I felt so good inside this church.’" Do we need to invoke The Golden Rule?

I love nature, and the Estonian architecture I appreciate manifests a relationship as does, I believe, St. Peter’s Estonian Lutheran Church in Toronto. It is an Estonian cultural and spiritual sanctuary. That is why it was perfect for our most memorable concert gathering that united the COMMUNITY in song in 2020 (ELLPA got funding for all 4 GTA choirs) under the tutelage of Estonian conductor Triin Koch: https://www.eesti.ca/preservin...

We see images currently of Ukrainians taking great pains to stack sandbags around their architectural and cultural heritage, in the face of a coming onslaught and an ethos of power and domination. Why are Estonians taking a WRECKING BALL to theirs? All the while, it could be said, some are amassing and hoarding millions for a project that could well be said to be spinning out of control.

If a vote in favour of such destruction is achieved it can and should be protested and the application reviewed and denied. The terms in Estonian have been stated in such a way as to suggest that preserving the church building and maintaining familiar church activity are an ongoing pursuit. This is a falsehood, and easily compared with the English in the public document. There has to be a public document, and in this case a language gap has been exploited, with added scare tactics (more on both of these later) to produce a kind of double bind.

A double bind is a dilemma in communication in which an individual (or a group) receives two or more reciprocally conflicting messages. This can be emotionally distressing, creating a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), such that the person responding will automatically be perceived as wrong, no matter how they respond. This double bind prevents the person from either resolving the underlying dilemma or opting out of the situation.

An application for consent to provincial authorities is required to close a Columbarium and “reinter urns to a more suitable location”. Sacred ground is taken seriously. The terms must be subject to scrutiny. Saying, as the current church leader has, that he wouldn’t have put the Columbarium where it is in the first place, by the transit lines, is not good guidance. KESKUS would, perhaps, but does the church really have issues with the homeless, “even in the absence of the potential sale of the property”?

Sacred ground does not become property arbitrarily (read autocratically). Nor does the proposed KESKUS become “architecturally significant” if you say so.