A congregation has experienced an intensifying series of governance failures, including financial opacity, apparent constitutional noncompliance, and institutional self-dealing.
A point of clarification for readers regarding OSLCS: the only order that has taken place to date, as far as original complainants are aware, is fmr. P. Fredericksen's resignation (though he maintains(ed?) involvement with the church - this was brought to DP Harmon's attention). The Elders, Church Leadership, and School Staff have not retracted their public stances/actions re LGBTQ matters & Islamic proselytizing material (a few books have supposedly been removed from the school library but not all). Same teachers and principals maintain their respective roles. They've not rescinded their banishment orders for those of us who received letters. The congregation maintains that Synod's stances on LGBTQ matters are immoral (as expressed during a congregational meeting with DP Harmon and reported by Ad Crucem).
Thank you, Ad Crucem. Prayers for X's congregation.
Good reporting. The Southeastern District congregation member complainants caught in these disputes, not by their own fault, but out of their faithfulness to our Lord Jesus Christ, are particularly blessed to have Ad Crucem’s help.
A related, interesting stat I saw published by the ACELC (Association of Confessing Evangelical Lutheran Congregations) recently in their January 2026 minutes, comes to mind: “In researching Dispute Resolution, the Documents Committee found that it takes over 400 days, at a minimum, to address a public sin. This hinders Ecclesiastical Supervision. They are preparing a letter to the Council of Presidents on this topic.”
Are you aware of how eagerly the Council of Presidents awaits and devotedly considers letters from the ACELC (Association of Confessing Evangelical Lutheran Congregations)?
If the poor response of our DP to our church discipline issue is any indication, sending a letter to the COP is necessary but will be rather fruitless.
It is interesting (and quite disheartening) to read what Rev. Richard Bolland (of blessed memory) wrote of the ACELC about 10 years ago:
"Over the six years of concerted effort by the ACELC, leadership has changed and so has its goals. At our most recent conference in Nashville, Tennessee this last April, the goal of the ACELC became one of incessant confession regardless of whether or not there will be a response from the LCMS. Gone is the idea of being a last ditch effort to encourage correction of error prior to leaving the Synod. Proposed intermediate efforts to garner the attention of our Synod by declaring a formal 'Mark and Avoid' fellowship practice by ACELC member congregations to pick and choose where to worship and commune within the LCMS failed to gain support, even though it is the common practice among us. A declaration of a true In Statu Confessionis by ACELC congregations will not even be discussed. The ACELC conference made it very clear that regardless of a lack of response from the LCMS leadership, the ACELC will simply continue to confess truth to error. While confessing truth to error is a laudable thing, unless and until the ACELC is willing to put their Synodical membership on the line, the LCMS will simply not give them a hearing. In my opinion, the work of the ACELC has become an exercise in futility."
Your “reporting” seems to pick a side. Reminds me of the old “Christian News” days of old. The likely outcome of your reporting will be one less LCMS congregation, and it will likely morph into the non-denominational tenant becoming the owner. Why can’t we play nice with other Christians? Mine is a larger systemic question, not bearing specifically on this issue you are reporting.
These comments are asinine, pastor, and more so for a man with a terminal degree.
1. You immediately make it about politics and use ad hominem for good measure.
2. How do you know the non-denominational tenant will likely become the owner? Who gave you this information? Is this the bat signal the SED is flashing to defend the horrendous governance at this congregation?
3. You say it's a systemic question, but make specific reference to the situation. It has to be one or the other, but not both.
However, your view is not isolated. All across the LCMS, people want to cover their eyes, ears, and mouths to keep even one congregation on the roster, irrespective of the spiritual and legal price paid.
Your immediate assumption is that this congregation cannot be fixed. Why would you leap to that conclusion?
When one side declines to respond, only one side can be presented. Ad Crucem does not know the other side because those who have that information declined to respond. Perhaps their reasons are valid, perhaps they are not, but the fact remains that, by remaining silent, the other side chose to not have any say in the story presented. The story will necessarily be one-sided.
It seems the world has a huge influence on the church these days. It takes courage to first ask questions and even more to stand up to wrong doing. I no longer have any faith in the LCMS system. The system was built to maintain order and help all congregations build up strong believers. It has devolved into any other old organization, finding itself far from the mission it started with an simply imploding from all the division and infighting.
A point of clarification for readers regarding OSLCS: the only order that has taken place to date, as far as original complainants are aware, is fmr. P. Fredericksen's resignation (though he maintains(ed?) involvement with the church - this was brought to DP Harmon's attention). The Elders, Church Leadership, and School Staff have not retracted their public stances/actions re LGBTQ matters & Islamic proselytizing material (a few books have supposedly been removed from the school library but not all). Same teachers and principals maintain their respective roles. They've not rescinded their banishment orders for those of us who received letters. The congregation maintains that Synod's stances on LGBTQ matters are immoral (as expressed during a congregational meeting with DP Harmon and reported by Ad Crucem).
Thank you, Ad Crucem. Prayers for X's congregation.
That is appalling. If your observations are correct, District must re-engage in this situation. I hate to consider the odds of that happening.
We are sorry to hear that justice remains elusive, Amanda. Will be in touch for a follow-up article.
In other words, no repentance at all and the DP doesn't care?
Good reporting. The Southeastern District congregation member complainants caught in these disputes, not by their own fault, but out of their faithfulness to our Lord Jesus Christ, are particularly blessed to have Ad Crucem’s help.
A related, interesting stat I saw published by the ACELC (Association of Confessing Evangelical Lutheran Congregations) recently in their January 2026 minutes, comes to mind: “In researching Dispute Resolution, the Documents Committee found that it takes over 400 days, at a minimum, to address a public sin. This hinders Ecclesiastical Supervision. They are preparing a letter to the Council of Presidents on this topic.”
Are you aware of how eagerly the Council of Presidents awaits and devotedly considers letters from the ACELC (Association of Confessing Evangelical Lutheran Congregations)?
Lol. I probably shouldn’t laugh, because it’s too bad that’s how things work, but yes, I am aware.
If the poor response of our DP to our church discipline issue is any indication, sending a letter to the COP is necessary but will be rather fruitless.
It is interesting (and quite disheartening) to read what Rev. Richard Bolland (of blessed memory) wrote of the ACELC about 10 years ago:
"Over the six years of concerted effort by the ACELC, leadership has changed and so has its goals. At our most recent conference in Nashville, Tennessee this last April, the goal of the ACELC became one of incessant confession regardless of whether or not there will be a response from the LCMS. Gone is the idea of being a last ditch effort to encourage correction of error prior to leaving the Synod. Proposed intermediate efforts to garner the attention of our Synod by declaring a formal 'Mark and Avoid' fellowship practice by ACELC member congregations to pick and choose where to worship and commune within the LCMS failed to gain support, even though it is the common practice among us. A declaration of a true In Statu Confessionis by ACELC congregations will not even be discussed. The ACELC conference made it very clear that regardless of a lack of response from the LCMS leadership, the ACELC will simply continue to confess truth to error. While confessing truth to error is a laudable thing, unless and until the ACELC is willing to put their Synodical membership on the line, the LCMS will simply not give them a hearing. In my opinion, the work of the ACELC has become an exercise in futility."
Bolland helped to form the ACELC. His full essay can be read here: http://files-theology.s3.amazonaws.com/2016%20OLCC/Dilemma%20of%20an%20Orthox%20Lutheran%20Pastor%20in%20a%20Heterodox%20Church%20Body.pdf
The United Lutheran Mission Association (https://unitedlutheranmission.org/) is one alternative to staying in the LCMS.
Your “reporting” seems to pick a side. Reminds me of the old “Christian News” days of old. The likely outcome of your reporting will be one less LCMS congregation, and it will likely morph into the non-denominational tenant becoming the owner. Why can’t we play nice with other Christians? Mine is a larger systemic question, not bearing specifically on this issue you are reporting.
These comments are asinine, pastor, and more so for a man with a terminal degree.
1. You immediately make it about politics and use ad hominem for good measure.
2. How do you know the non-denominational tenant will likely become the owner? Who gave you this information? Is this the bat signal the SED is flashing to defend the horrendous governance at this congregation?
3. You say it's a systemic question, but make specific reference to the situation. It has to be one or the other, but not both.
However, your view is not isolated. All across the LCMS, people want to cover their eyes, ears, and mouths to keep even one congregation on the roster, irrespective of the spiritual and legal price paid.
Your immediate assumption is that this congregation cannot be fixed. Why would you leap to that conclusion?
When one side declines to respond, only one side can be presented. Ad Crucem does not know the other side because those who have that information declined to respond. Perhaps their reasons are valid, perhaps they are not, but the fact remains that, by remaining silent, the other side chose to not have any say in the story presented. The story will necessarily be one-sided.
It seems the world has a huge influence on the church these days. It takes courage to first ask questions and even more to stand up to wrong doing. I no longer have any faith in the LCMS system. The system was built to maintain order and help all congregations build up strong believers. It has devolved into any other old organization, finding itself far from the mission it started with an simply imploding from all the division and infighting.
We are going to get it fixed one way or another. Those who do not want to hold to the one true faith will be given a peaceful release.
I hope so