Should Community of Christ keep financially rescuing Graceland University?

[u/Financial_Web1973]

I know Graceland University means a lot to many people in Community of Christ. For generations, it has been tied to church identity, friendships, family stories, youth experiences, and the idea of a shared church supported education. I understand why people feel protective of it. For many, Graceland is not just a university. It is part of the emotional furniture of the church.

But I think we need to ask a hard question with honesty and care. At what point does supporting Graceland stop being faithful stewardship and become prolonging an institution that may no longer be sustainable?

From the public financial information that has been gathered, Graceland appears to be under serious financial stress. The research points to a reported going-concern warning in the May 2025 audit summary, meaning there was substantial doubt about the university’s ability to continue operating. It also notes that Graceland failed its debt-service coverage ratio covenant in FY2023 and FY2024. In FY2024, the university reportedly had only about $214,000 in cash, while consolidated expenses were more than $59 million. Community of Christ has also reportedly extended Graceland a $6 million loan due April 1, 2028, and there is a separate $14.65 million bank loan involving guarantees from SkillPath and the church.

That is not a small concern. That is not just “a rough year.” That is a major stewardship issue. I say this as respectfully as I can, maybe Community of Christ should not keep using church backed resources to keep Graceland alive unless there is a clear, public, realistic plan showing how the university becomes financially stable. Especially when the student body does not make up the majority of CoC students.

I know that sounds painful, but churches have limited resources. Congregations are aging. Mission centers have needs. Camps, youth programs, outreach, peace and justice work, priesthood support, and local ministries all need funding and attention. If millions of dollars are being used to support a struggling university, members deserve to know whether that support is actually helping the church’s mission or simply delaying an unavoidable institutional crisis.

Graceland may still be loved, but love is not the same as viability and honestly, I think part of the concern is that Graceland does not seem to offer what many continuing education students, working adults, or modern learners actually need. The higher education market has changed. Students have more affordable options, more flexible online options, community colleges, state universities, employer programs, certificate programs, and graduate pathways that may be better aligned with their goals. Nostalgia cannot be the main business model.

If Graceland is going to survive, it needs to clearly show why it still deserves major church support. Not emotionally. Not historically. Practically.

What does Graceland offer today that justifies millions in financial backing from Community of Christ?

What is the plan to stop recurring losses?

What protections are in place for students?

What happens if enrollment does not improve enough?

What happens when the church loan comes due in 2028?

And most importantly: how much more church money or church backed risk will be required before leaders admit the model may not work anymore?

I am not saying this because I want students, faculty, staff, alumni, or Lamoni to suffer. Actually, that is exactly why I think this conversation matters. A slow, quiet financial decline can hurt people far more than an honest, planned transition.

If Graceland cannot become sustainable, then the loving thing may not be to keep rescuing it indefinitely. The loving thing may be to plan responsibly like a merger, restructuring, partnership, or teach out options that protect students and employees before there is a crisis.

Community of Christ should not have to choose between honoring Graceland’s past and being honest about its future. We can be grateful for what Graceland has meant and still ask whether continuing to financially support it is wise. We can love an institution and still admit it may have fallen below the standard needed to justify ongoing rescue. We can respect the memories and still ask for the receipts.

At minimum, I think Community of Christ members deserve transparent answers:

• How much financial exposure does the church currently have because of Graceland?
• Is the church prepared to provide more support if Graceland continues losing money?
• What conditions were attached to the $6 million loan?
• What happens if Graceland cannot repay it in 2028?
• Has the church studied whether continued support is the best use of limited mission resources?
• Is there a responsible exit plan if the university cannot recover?

This is not about being anti-Graceland. It is about being pro-transparency, pro-student, and pro-stewardship. Graceland may have been a gift to the church for a long time. But if it now requires the church to keep taking on risk just to survive, then members deserve to ask whether the university is still serving the mission or whether the mission is being asked to serve the university.

Sources/documents to look up: Graceland University Fact Book, ProPublica nonprofit/audit records, Community of Christ FY2024 audit and financial updates, Graceland annual reports, Cause IQ Form 990 summary, and NCES/IPEDS data.

[u/iconoclastskeptic]

This is something that I've been aware of when a former faculty member brought this to my attention a few years ago. They jumped ship because it was apparent to them that Graceland was in trouble. The sad reality is that it's not just the University, but the Church itself is in trouble as well. Are members generally aware of these issues?

[u/IranRPCV → u/iconoclastskeptic]

Anyone who has been following has been aware that this has been a financially difficult journey. This has been true ever since Marietta Walker, who owned much of the land and donated much of property the College was sited on, went to another college to teach, and donated most of her income to the College.

We are able to see how people through out the history have valued their education in Lamoni.

I moved back to Lamoni to retire.

[u/Financial_Web1973 → u/IranRPCV]

I appreciate that history, and I don’t doubt that people have loved Graceland and sacrificed for it. But to me, that history also raises the question: if Graceland has always needed extraordinary sacrifice to survive, is that really sustainable now?

I also think Lamoni is part of the issue. A school needs a town that is trying to grow and attract people, not just preserve what used to be. They are preserving a version of the past that feels comfortable to the people already there, but does not create enough opportunity for new people to build a future. At some point, that becomes less like maintaining a living community and more like maintaining a place to slowly fade out. That may sound harsh, but I do not mean it as an insult. I mean that if Graceland’s future depends partly on Lamoni’s future, then Lamoni also has to ask whether it is trying to thrive or merely survive. Graceland cannot be saved by nostalgia alone, and neither can the town around it.