Doctrine, Governance, and Due Process Dispute at LCMS Congregation

Laity attempts to use Matthew 18 to address school curriculum, promotion of Islam, LGBTQ+ affirmation, and women leading and teaching in chapel services.

Executive Summary

This report covers a doctrinal, governance, and procedural dispute at an LCMS congregation from September 2024 to July 2025, based on documents and correspondence provided by the lay complainants.¹

Members and school parents expressed concerns about the school curriculum lacking Luther’s Small Catechism (violating 2016 Res. 8-01A), library books promoting Islam, widespread LGBTQ+ affirmation and adjacency in the school and the church, women leading and teaching chapel services, and staff actions that conflict with Synod resolutions on sexuality (2004 Res. 3-05A, 2019 Res. 11-03A). Initial meetings led to exclusions, bans from worship, and ultimatums without full interviews or mediation, in accordance with Matthew 18 and Bylaw 1.10.

An investigation request dated May 4, 2025, was sent to the District President and closed based on leadership assurances, but it did not include input from the complainants. An appeal was sent to the Synod President, but no further action was taken, according to the Regional Vice-President.

The case highlights potential gaps in LCMS oversight and emphasizes the need for transparent and thorough investigations to maintain confessional integrity amid cultural pressures.

Why Ad Crucem News

Ad Crucem News was asked to report on the dispute. This was difficult to take up because Ad Crucem News has no ecclesiastical authority or responsibility. However, we do have a vocational duty to share concerns with our fellow parishioners when the aggrieved parties have had all recourse foreclosed without, in our opinion, fair and reasonable adjudication.

Since this report touches the highest levels of the Synod, we have informed our senior pastor, our circuit visitor, and our District President. They have received the detailed supporting documents and a draft of this article. We left it to the discretion of the RMD DP, Rev. James Maxwell, to alert his peer DP in the situation, as well as the West-Southwest Region Vice President, the Regional Vice President for the affected congregation, and the office of the Synod President, to the publication of this article. We requested that the complainants follow precisely the same process to inform the ecclesiastical authorities in their line, to honor Hebrews 13:17.

---

Publication of this story does not imply that the informed supervisors agree with or endorse the information. Ad Crucem News is simply opting for good order and full transparency.

---

In doing so, we asked that any concerns about the facts or Ad Crucem’s approach be raised before publication.² We have no interest in sensationalism or ambushing anyone, only that 1 Corinthians 4:1–5 and Luke 12:42–48 will be honored by our bishops since they are charged with, and have accepted responsibility for upholding pure doctrine.

We have intentionally avoided posting all the details from the source documents and have anonymized the information in the hope that dispute resolution will resume, as well as to prevent hearts from hardening when open impenitence is widely revealed. Our greatest prayer and desire is that this article will never see the light of day because dispute resolution has resumed.

The evidence

The dispute case highlights the weaknesses of LCMS dispute-resolution processes when the application is inconsistent. It also prompts questions about whether due process, which is vital to Lutheran church governance and community, remains reliably accessible to the laity trying to defend against Scriptural and Confessional decoupling.³

The information reported draws on many primary sources. The facts meet a high evidentiary standard, supported by a combination of eyewitness accounts, open-access social media accounts, websites with related photographic and textual evidence, and correspondence between the parties.

Why it matters

LCMS members are required to maintain fidelity to Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions, and Synodical clarifications, such as the Brief Statement. However, upholding these requirements is a never-ending source of friction and tension within the Synod.

For example, the dissipation of fidelity to Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions at the Concordia University System (CUS) colleges recently led to the adoption of a structured disciplinary approach, the Lutheran Identity and Mission Outcome Standards (LIMOS), to restore minimal alignment with the LCMS’s doctrinal standards.

If even the CUS could not remain faithful through self-discipline, Christian love, and mutual respect, then we should not be surprised if a material percentage of member congregations have similar problems. Congregations are supposed to have LIMOS-like guardrails via their Circuit Visitors and District Presidents. However, there is a very uneven application of what we agree (as a body united in fellowship at the communion rail) constitutes altar and pulpit fellowship if you compare the saltwater districts with the likes of Wyoming and Illinois South.

When disputes arise over doctrine or praxis within congregations, the LCMS provides mechanisms for resolving them in accordance with Matthew 18:15-17. The first approach to a grievance is private address, then with witnesses, and finally through the church’s official dispute resolution mechanisms. However, what happens when oversight fails and there is no accountability for apparent violations of what we have agreed constitutes the Synod's theological requirements?

Due process in the LCMS

The LCMS Constitution and Bylaws outline a process for resolving disputes within congregations and other entities. Bylaw 1.10 details the Dispute Resolution Process, emphasizing reconciliation and fairness, and empowers district presidents to investigate allegations.

A number of years ago, the Synod moved from a more adjudicative system to a “reconciliation” process. The goal of adjudication, theoretically, is to determine what is true, and operates on the basis of objective standards and evidence. The point of adjudication is to inhibit secrecy and the potential for cover-up. “Reconciliation” is already a results-oriented process that derails finding the truth as a goal to such an extent that truth may not even be the highest value. It is rooted in psychology. Consequently, one of the most significant potential abuses of “reconciliation” is precisely the absence of due process.⁴

Lutheran identity in LCMS schools

Synod resolutions further guide doctrinal application, particularly in our educational institutions. Resolution 8-01A (2016) instructs schools to maintain a Lutheran ethos through “daily use of the Scriptures, prayer, Luther’s Small Catechism, and the hymnal” in instructional and devotional life, along with “regular memorization of Holy Scripture and Luther’s Small Catechism.” This resolution’s clear intent was to make Lutheran identity non-negotiable from pre-school to terminal degree graduation. In other words, the Resolution was a prototype LIMOS.

LCMS doctrines regarding human sexuality

When it comes to human sexuality and marriage, Resolution 3-05A (2004) directs a “public witness from Scripture against the social acceptance and legal recognition of homosexual ‘marriage.’”⁵ Complementing this, the Resolution 11-03A (2019) calls congregations “to affirm and faithfully confess the biblical truth that God created humanity as male and female.”

These resolutions were intended to solidify the Synod’s requirement that members uphold Scripture and the Confessions in the face of increasingly intense and frequent cultural storms aimed at destroying church unity and Christian witness. Congregations and their pastors are without excuse when it comes to unambiguous standards for public witness and internal practice.

Repentance and restoration

The process, along with the Resolutions mentioned above, requires the use of “Luther’s Small Catechism and the hymnal” for student instruction and personal devotional life. It also stresses the importance of memorizing Holy Scripture and Luther’s Small Catechism. The resolution underscores the significance of confessional teaching in shaping students and ensuring that Lutheran identity is present throughout school environments. In other words, the Resolution was a prototype for LIMOS.

When either side of the doctrine/process balance falters, the results can be devastating for the body of Christ. It erodes trust, diminishes transparency, and alienates our brothers and sisters in Christ, potentially driving them to cynicism and unbelief. This is especially true in school settings, where children’s spiritual formation is at stake.

There are grave eternal consequences when children are made to stumble, and adults are comforted in their sins. Romans 1:18-32 is unambiguous: ecclesiastical supervisors are without excuse before God’s judgment when they allow impure doctrine to flourish.

Attempting to follow Matthew 18

The dispute at the congregation began in fall 2024, when a member and school parent raised concerns about a teacher’s chapel sermon, prompting questions about the school’s religious curriculum. On two separate occasions, this same parent found the presence of Islamic-themed books in the library⁶. One of the books (Beautifully Me) also had intersectional transvestite themes.⁷

In addition, the school’s curriculum (the Character Formation Project owned by Open Sky Education) excluded the Small Catechism in any religious or life instruction⁸, despite LCMS guidance to the contrary. The pastor rejected using the Small Catechism because it might be a stumbling block to non-Lutherans.⁹ For weeks, the school demurred sharing the Character Formation Project curriculum with a parent, citing “copyright concerns”.¹⁰

In January 2025, a Board of Education member brought the Islamic books to a school board meeting¹¹. The Pastor and Principal defended the materials, describing them as “multicultural.”¹² Within days, the Board of Education member was reportedly criticized for “breaking protocol,” and a church leader allegedly branded her a “white nationalist.”¹³ The former principal later publicly accused the member of theft and wanting to “censor” books.

Through February and March 2025, tensions escalated, shifting from discussions to disciplinary actions and exclusions from worship and the Lord’s Supper amid ongoing doctrinal concerns raised by members.

• Defamation and dismissal: An individual was accused of censorship, racism, and insincere worship; they were dismissed from school as a volunteer. Another member was barred from services/events, given an ultimatum to transfer or be released, and her BoE status was reviewed and terminated; the senior pastor and another pastor extended bans from worship.

• Intimidation tactics: Closed-door meetings despite promises of openness; “Ministry Update and Affirmation Session” equating concerns to personal attacks and demanding allegiance; hostile language in communications and meetings (e.g., February 16 voters’ meeting, Elders’ response letters, email exchanges).

• Exclusion of concerned members: Other members disturbed by events told to seek worship elsewhere; false accusations and ultimatums in the Elders’ June 2 letter rejected as not in the spirit of truth.

• Overall: Viewed as spiritual abuse for raising concerns through proper channels (e.g., Matthew 18:15-17), leading to denial of Holy Communion and life together.

Appeal to the District President

On May 4, 2025, four members submitted a formal Investigation Request to the DP¹⁴. Their letter documented three major areas of concern:

1. Doctrinal compromise, including public LGBTQ+ advocacy by called workers and the pastor’s public support for homosexual and transvestite-related imagery and symbolism.

   1. This included the first-grade class attending an LGBTQ+ “coming of age” musical, “Finn”.

2. Subordinating Lutheran catechesis in favor of a non-confessional curriculum.

3. Retaliation against those who raised objections.

The DP reportedly acknowledged receipt and held conversations with the Pastor, the Principal (since relocated), and the Principal-elect, but not with the complainants. His alleged May 16 reply affirmed that no excommunication had occurred and that the leadership was acting within its authority.

In June, the DP allegedly declared the matter closed, stating that the pastor had “remained faithful to his ordination and installation vows.” The members who initiated the complaint were neither interviewed nor provided with the investigative findings.

Escalation to Synod Inc.

On June 20, 2025, two members of the congregation appealed to the Regional Vice President and Synod President¹⁵, arguing that the DP’s review lacked due process and transparency, and with detailed evidence attached. The appeal asked Synod to “take the reins of investigation” and to confront what the complainants described as a “blind spot” in the system.

The regional VP subsequently informed the concerned members that the President was satisfied the DP had handled the issue correctly and considered the matter settled.

Conclusion

The LCMS possesses the tools to prevent what is reportedly happening at this congregation: Scripture, the Confessions, and an existing well-defined process for discipline and reconciliation. What may have faltered is the consistent application of those tools, but it ultimately redounds to serious theological failures and a persistent weakness in the Synod’s resolve to deal with certain Sixth Commandment matters.

1. Allegations based on documents provided, not every item was independently verified. Views expressed are based on the complainant party’s accounts; the defendants perspectives have not yet been obtained, although requested.

2. After the draft article was distributed, a concerted effort has been made to scrub evidence from the Internet, but residual images and other information remains online via search engines and screen captures.

3. The issue at this congregation echoes a recent incident at an Orange Lutheran High School awards ceremony that promoted lesbian marriage. Overall, the Synod continues to struggle to address issues under the Sixth Commandment, especially in the wake of the disorder surrounding the Large Catechism with Annotations dealing with that Commandment. Similarly, the Synod has already gone through a high-profile “gender dysphoria” drama that caused untold confusion and harm, especially after Higher Things and 1517 virtue-signaled about the case.

4. In the American judicial system, procedural due process means a fair and impartial adjudicative process involving the right to an opportunity to be heard, the right to obtain and question evidence, and the right to confront and question one’s accusers. It is also a fundamental aspect of due process that things not be done in secret. These values and understandings of due process are fundamental to our American understanding of justice and fair play, and the search for the truth. Procedural due process is also a fundamental check against the abuse of power by the privileged or by those in power. Indeed, Christ our Lord was denied due process in his trial before the chief priests and the Sanhedrin.

5. Kieschnick applauds pro-marriage votes. https://reporter.lcms.org/2008/kieschnick-applauds-pro-marriage-votes/

6. “xxxxx - xxxxx - Investigation Request.pdf”, Page 2", section 1.b. Referenced therein, Exhibit 1.b

7. In this interview with the author, she admits, “yes, [character] Alex is gender-nonconforming.”

8. “xxxxx - xxxxx - Investigation Request.pdf”, Pages 2-3, section 2.b

9. Exhibit 3.a.ii. xxxxxxxx Written Testimony of Events And Supplementary Communications with xxxxx

10. Ibid.

11. “xxxxx - xxxxx - Investigation Request.pdf”, Page 3, section 3.a.i. The specific meeting date of January 27, 2025, for this interaction is listed in the “Banishment Letters.pdf” on Page 1.

12. Ibid.

13. Exhibit 3.a.i. xxxxxxxxx Written Testimony & Communications With xxxxx.pdf, Page 2.

14. “xxxxx - xxxxx - Investigation Request.pdf”

15. Response to Investigation Request - xxxxxxxxxxx.pdf, Page 1.