Laity attempts to use Matthew 18 to address school curriculum, promotion of Islam, LGBTQ+ affirmation, and women leading and teaching in chapel services.
I pray you keep this article up indefinitely. There is a tendency to raise the issue and then seek to delete all trace because of some supposed secret resolution. People will look back and not realize what the actual state of the LCMS is or how things proceeded because we whitewash our own history in real time to give a false sense of who we are and what is happening. God help those in the future who seek lessons from what was happening in the LCMS and how it was being handled; they'll be without any real resource.
An impressive article that keeps to prudent, yet transparent presentation of process, alleged facts, and unnamed actors. I appreciate the delineation of two differinng means of procedure. I was a pastor in another denomination (with a detailed national "rule book" which failed to restrain lawlessness) for years and have been an LCMS layman for about three years. Polity IS very important so we can go about our business delegated by Christ without constant wrangling with the " noisy spirits". Thank you.
What a tangled web of LCMS dissidents — Jeff Kloha, Dean of the splinter seminary "Center for Missional and Pastoral Leadership" (CMPL) is an associate pastor at this parish as of June 1 of this year.
I appreciate and agree with this sentiment, but it would be better to not leave "crumbs" which lead readers to associate this concern with a specific congregation before more evidence is revealed. Unless I'm missing something obvious.
I notice the author of the article hasn't mentioned any names, it would be wise for commentors to refrain from doing so.
Yet it remains good to mark and avoid those who have made their false teaching public for everyone to witness.
That seems considerably more damning than the other evidence presented which, while definitely very sketchy and bad sounding, still seems like it may admit of a variety of explanations or interpretations. But a pastor in an obscene stole is a impossible to misinterpret.
Are we sinning by continuing to remain in a denomination and in "fellowship" with congregations like this one and the leadership that approves of this, indicated by their inaction?
I do not see how the Council of Presidents can have a shared confession with this going on. The leadership of the district and the church cannot be allowed to share a communion rail until this is resolved.
It breaks my heart to see any of our churches, schools, and pastors be unfaithful. This is so disturbing. Makes you wonder if this is just the tip of the iceberg, at least in certain districts.
Until Christ comes again, the church will constantly be fighting false doctrine and teachers from within. We see it in Paul’s epistles. Church history bears this out. When it does come up in our neck of the woods, our orthodox Lutheran leaders need to have the authority to quickly resolve these situations for the sake of the sheep. Lingering unfaithfulness will only get worse unless addressed.
Thanks, Rick. It is heartbreaking and infuriating because this is an open-and-shut case of church discipline.
Unfortunately, it mirrors surveyed attitudes in the Synod regarding sodomy, homosexual marriage, birth control, abortion, etc. A significant minority has no objections on those issues, and it is also prevalent in the clergy to a lesser extent. This is one of the reasons why we have seen the LCMS struggle with incident after incident of homosexual and transvestite agency.
First, some of the comments seem to speak of one case, while the article itself does not identify the specific congregation/situation in the comments. Are there two different cases/situations, or are the commentators "outing" the case you bring before us? I'll wait for a response before proceeding with other thoughts, thanks.
Very well articulated. As an LCMS elder back in the day, I can recall objecting to our local church’s use of The Purpose Driven Life book. At an elders meeting, I presented these concerns in detail and provided copies of online articles objecting to the book. The book was still used. Individually, LCMS members have little (or no) say so in how in what a church teaches. Also, what’s presented in this article goes way beyond the type of concerns that I raised. A pastor wearing a trans pride stole has forfeited his right to lead. Members should walk out of such a church in good conscience.
As truly horrifying as this account is, it indicates a more general lack of oversight and recourse for faithful lay people when a congregation or school falls into willful and unrepentant sin. If the LCMS leadership will not take action in such a clear-cut case of apostacy and abuse of faithful lay people, nobody can be secure in an LCMS congregation. If the LCMS were at all concerned about attrition, they might want to take a closer look at the effect of allowing this kind of sin, and what was done to the faithful lay people. This definitely happens in congregations on a smaller scale than this example. It literally drives people away from the church and destroys their faith.
The Iron Law of Bureaucracy is operating inside the LCMS. Yes, it is driving faithful members away from their congregations. Pastors and all members have stated that the Bible is the I inerrant word of God and the Lutheran Confessions are the correct in its interpretation of the Bible.
The evidence presents the slippery slope of a pastor and faculty members who are parents of adult gay and transgender children. They are confronted with a choice. Do they (a) love the sinner, while condemning the sin, (b) remain silent, or (c) publicly justify the sin by condoning and promoting the LGBTQ lifestyle? In choosing the latter, they fail to uphold their vows to the church. Further, they enlist the church itself to silence, denounce, and cast away those who would dare bring accusations against them. Further still, they hide the Lutheran confessions from being faithfully taught.
They are also condemning their children to eternal damnation, by not confronting the sin and bringing them to repentance. It's a dreadful situation to be in, but glossing over sin is never the best option.
This article is troubling. Clearly something is rotten.
I'm confused exactly what the state of the dispute resolution process is if the District President considers it "resolved". Is it still ongoing and that's why the details are redacted? Is the District still handling this or is it being escalated to Synod?
The information we received was that the dispute resolution process halted without the complainants being satisfied that they had been heard or that the problems had been resolved. In our opinion, that was a very reasonable conclusion to draw, reinforced by the scurrying to delete evidence when our draft was released to authorities on both sides ahead of the publication deadline.
We redacted information because we are applying Galatians 6 to this situation and to ourselves. It would be easy to tabloidize it and splash all the images and evidence we have. That is not going to achieve the primary goal, which is to encourage appropriate ecclesial oversight, doctrinal discipline, and remorseful repentance.
OK - so now this is out in the open, because it has been addressed directly by the President of the LCMS. And it is indeed concluded. Ad Crucem, in my opinion, is new to this level of journalism. Christian News is not new to it. As President Harrison indicates, the tendency these days to blow the supervision out of the water is higher than in recent years. So this is a good opportunity to take stock, listen and learn for all involved.
A pastor or congregation of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) that believes, teaches and/or acts contrary to the biblical and public teaching of the LCMS on sex and marriage should be brought to repentance or resign or be removed from the LCMS. From time to time, LCMS pastors or theologians make questionable statements or participate in questionable actions that are at best confusing and at worst heterodox or even heretical.
When such cases are brought to my attention, per the defined ecclesiastical supervision responsibilities of the LCMS president and district presidents, I bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate district president and request a briefing and often an investigation of the issues involved. Often the issues are transparent, and, upon further reflection and visitation by a district president, there is repentance, an apology and a promise to discontinue the objectionable behavior and do better. Sometimes an individual resigns at the urging of the district president after being encouraged to repent and recommit to the Scriptures and the church’s public confession.
Recently, complaints regarding a congregation of the LCMS Southeastern District have been made public. Regional Vice-President Christopher Esget was contacted by individuals concerned about issues in that parish that raised concerns relative to our public biblical confession and practice. Pastor Esget communicated face-to-face with the pastor in question. He also made me aware of the situation. I immediately contacted LCMS Southeastern District President Bill Harmon and requested he visit the parish and evaluate the situation as ecclesiastical supervisor. I learned that he was already visiting and doing the work we ask our district presidents to do. I then met with Pastor Harmon and Pastor Esget in September as a follow up. At that time, President Harmon explained his visitation and the steps he had taken to address the situation. Both Vice-President Esget and I were thankful for his work and satisfied that progress had been made and would continue. Any assertion that the situation was not being or would not continue to be addressed is false. I have specifically requested that the district president continue to address all ongoing concerns.
In my 16 years of experience, district presidents have always followed up on cases about which I inquire. Though the cases that do rise to my attention are often difficult, they are usually brought to a positive conclusion. This often takes significant time and effort. Sometimes complainants are disappointed by what they believe is an inadequate apology or inadequate corrective action.
Removal of a member from Synod requires not only a demonstration that the confession or conditions of membership have been violated or that serious offense continues to be given, but also that thorough admonition of the member has not resulted in repentance (LCMS Constitution, Art. XIII). This is as it should and must be.
Ecclesiastical supervision in the Synod has continued to improve during my tenure. Our district presidents have vastly increased their visitation and familiarity with congregations. At the same time, the nature of social media has meant individual cases, which always have happened and will happen from time to time, come to scrutiny quickly and very publicly.
Previous to this event, I had already resolved to request the Synod in convention provide for the appointment of a task force to evaluate the way we handle accusations and complaints, especially those dealing with doctrinal matters. I will propose that the task force gather opinions from across the Synod, particularly from those who have gone through the current process. The Book of Concord in its Preface notes the confessors’ commitment to resolve matters of doctrinal dispute quickly for the good of the church. We can do better, while also protecting due process for all involved.
This specific case/story/incident has been released online on Christian News over the weekend and in print as of yesterday. It is coordinated and in many ways directed at Dr Jeff Kloha and the online seminary training. So - there is an additional church-political motivation. I do not think that has been the case with Ad Crucem, but there is now a time-designated connection to Christian News.
The other times he has come up have been tangentially on issues related to CMPL.
I will absolutely go to war with and for the CN guys, but we have never spoken on any issue, including this one, and we are not even acquaintances. I learned that CN had published the information via an ALPB link sent to me this morning by a friend. https://www.alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=9116.msg584024#msg584024
My reporting has been in front of probably dozens of people (from the RMD, SED, and, probably, Synod side in the hopes of stimulating a response before release) since November 6, 2025, at 15:00:11 MST.
Yes, we had the "story" first, but we kept our word to everyone involved and did not publish it until 6:30 am today.
Lastly, Ad Crucem, is not "new to this level of journalism". I worked as a financial investigative reporter for over a decade. I broke several high-profile stories, including one that put a price on my head and one that brought unwelcome attention from unsavory government sorts.
Good to know. Why did President Harrison write his letter published today? A very small group of folks would have known anything about the topic explored. The letter is written in response to the wider distribution of the specifics, it seems to me. Because that's essentially what Pr. Harrison states. He also states that because individual cases are elevated so quickly via social media, he has created a task force to address both the Synodical response process as well as the rapidity of the elevation of specifics.
The questions are as follows to me:
1) What kind of denomination does the LCMS desire to be?
2) What kind of Presidential leader does the LCMS wish to have?
I'm pretty much unique in the denomination's history, because I have been both an ecclesiastical supervisor and a person who was suspended from the LCMS roster and went through the processes personally as a respondent. The system on both ends to me has been (and this can be checked out) not only a model but THE model for Protestant denominations in terms of thorough review and multiple checks and balances in the weighing of decisions of doctrine and practice. It's been tweaked a little here and there, but it retains its integrity through time.
So - you're "social media". Interest and views of what you offer has, as you recently stated, jumped by many hundreds of per cent since you added this function. I personally view this site as valuable because it encourages actual dialog and not just siloed conversations.
There's never harm examining a system of supervision. That should be par for the course. And Pr. Harrison and his task force will bring it to pass. At the same time, those hosting social media sites, with no real supervision over them (at least at this time), have less accountability and should be unafraid of facing scrutiny - at the very least, it draws people to the site. And at best, iron sharpens iron even here.
Aren't we to put the best construction of someone's motives, and go on the assumption that people are not colluding against someone unless there is absolute proof?
Both social media posts/articles have come out at almost exactly the same time. I trust what the Ad Crucem author says to be true as far as Dr. Kloha is concerned. The direct nature of the Christian News article as lifting up Kloha is an aim of that publication. The question of sources is an open one. For two publications to come out on the same topic in that timeline takes somebody or somebodies "flooding the zone," so to speak. That Pr. Harrison responded today supports the thought that the social media postings have something to do with his letter. He himself states that.
So - my opinion - this is not a case of "collusion," but of orchestration to produce a level of social media output that would bring a nationwide Presidential response, which is in general terms defensive in articulating the completeness and effectiveness of the handling of the issue. Certainly one result to me is that this was not an issue left unaddressed by anyone in ecclesiastical supervisory capacity. Whatever anyone thinks of the results - case closed at this time - the process was followed in a thoroughgoing way. Which - to LCMS folks - should be received as a good thing!
Sorry, Pastor, that is a really an unhinged conspiracy rant. If you have evidence of some orchestration to force Pres. Harrison, into the spotlight, you must share it. I have no idea how CN came by the information, but it is very clear that we followed approaches that were 180 degrees out of phase.
There was never an accusation that the issue was not attended to by the clerics. The complaint is that it was not handled in accordance with LCMS bylaws, and that there was no clear result. You cannot state that the process was followed in a thoroughgoing way - you have no idea of the content or the process unless it was leaked to you. Everything is secret. We know almost nothing, except that it was only after I distributed the draft to ecclesial authorities that the media started being deleted.
I'm only following what I know. And that's a limited field of knowledge. I and 99.9% of the folks in the LCMS knew nothing about this situation until, within 48 hours, two social media posts from two sources go into detail - different in some regards - about the situation. In the same 24 hour period a letter is issued from Pr. Harrison to the entire Synod with the outline of the situation and the specifics of the involvees including the ecclesiastical supervisors. That's the speed of light in denominational time. The indication you have given is that knowledge of this situation has been out there in certain circles and that you have gone through various local judicatory leadership. If you were aware of this more than 3 or 4 days ago you were way ahead of me.
The item you lift up - that there "was no clear result" - is dealt with in Harrison's letter when he writes: Any assertion that the situation was not being or would not continue to be addressed is false. I have specifically requested that the district president continue to address all ongoing concerns.
"Continue to address all ongoing concerns" means to me that the situation is ongoing, because that's pretty much exactly what it states. Does that address the bylaw requirements? I think it does, because the timeline remains open in terms of inclusion of all parties and conclusion to the filing of the complaint(s).
There are no "leaks" to me. I think the last LCMS person on our spinning planet who would receive insider information on this or any situation would be me anyway. Having left the supervisory line of work, I am also at the end of the line for wanting more of this stuff on my doorstep or online feed.
Pr Harrison's response is woefully inadequate and validates all the concerns raised in this excellently researched and professionally reported article. Casting aspersions on the reporter's motives is entirely unjustified, in my estimation.
This is a serious matter, and people who love the LCMS will naturally have great concern upon hearing about the events reported here. Sound, thorough reporting is the proper medicine for those worries. Calls for journalists to back off are ill-advised and only increase doubts about the church's fealty to its doctrines and God's Word.
How specifically is Pr. Harrison's response woefully inadequate? If the issue is failure to follow the bylaws of the denomination, in what way has his response failed? Are there other inadequacies you find?
As one of the complainants, I can state there was a severe lack of transparency and inclusion in the entire ecclesiastical supervision process as none of the complainants were engaged in the investigation. The DP contacted us post-investigation to inform us that conversations with church/school leadership had been held, their answers were deemed satisfactory, and that since there were hurt feelings on both sides’ reconciliation meetings were recommended. We responded and made it clear that issues concerned doctrine and practice and were not relational in nature. When we requested detailed information on specific questions regarding the issues at hand (obvious questions that should have also been asked in the course of an investigation) we received no response.
The only fruits to come from the investigation: my family was barred from attending worship or participating in any church-related activities (months prior another complainant had been similarly barred), debate at voters’ meetings *continues* on whether to keep Islamic propaganda on school shelves, and other congregants who have objected to our treatment have received pushback from church/school leadership. We were accused of refusing reconciliation meetings when in fact we only stipulated that meetings should follow the protocol of including Synod mediators. If ongoing discussions were being held or some other actions being taken, all complainants were kept in the dark – why should that be?
Bottom line: because the spiritual well-being of children is very much at stake at this school, acting at (denominational) lightspeed would have been appropriate. The comfort of adults matters not.
I'm sorry I missed this comment while replying to S.T.Karnick. As a complainant, Amanda, the letter by Pr. Harrison states that the situation/case/investigation/complaint is ongoing. There are important face to face initial components of the process, at least as I know it. It seems from what you're writing that the face to face reconciliation meetings did not take place. That is an ongoing concern and potential activity.
The problem, Dr. Benke, is that the claim that all the correct processes have been followed and that there's nothing to see here is wrong. It should not take more than a year to resolve a problem with a pastor(s) giving comfort to transvestites and homosexuals while his school is promoting Islam and catechizing first graders with drag queen musicals.
We need to know what questions were asked and what answers were deemed satisfactory. So either they do support the things that were revealed in your original post and said so, and the DP thought that was satisfactory, or they denied that any of these things happened. Either one is a huge problem.
You commit the fallacy of begging the question when you assume that the real issue here is attendance at reconciliation meetings, and since that would be on-going activity, the issues are still being addressed. Amanda made it clear that she was contacted by the DP POST-investigation, and that conversations with church/school leadership had been HELD and their answers were deemed satisfactory. The actual investigation was clearly completed, and the situation was minimized to a case of "hurt feelings". What was actually asked about the books in the library, the questionable field trips, and what was being taught to the children, and what were the answers that were deemed "satisfactory"? Was the DP "satisfied" that the Small Catechism was purposely not being taught? Why was there no response when leadership was asked about specific questions and answers, if the answers were "satisfactory"? Was asking about these issues such a grievous sin that it would legitimately cause a family to be banned from attending church?
Thank you for asking. A situation of this enormity cannot be resolved by generalities stating that the district and synod have followed the process and there is nothing to see here.
I do appreciate Pr Harrison's statements of principles. They are good principles, generally expressed well. The letter, however, strikes me as a defensive action and contains an unworthy deflection: the pastor says that although he has improved the synod's oversight, investigative, and disciplinary processes, social media blow up incidents unnecessarly. Though I appreciate the calm and genteel way in which he states that, claiming that those worrying about the synod's alertness to violations of the Sixth Commandment are being led astray by social media is not a proper response. It will certainly not reassure anyone who is concerned about the issue.
In addition, the failure to interview the complainants, as seems to have been the case, is simply not an acceptable level of investigation. It is not, in fact, investigation at all. It diminishes the value of the laity's concerns for adherence to doctrine and to God's word.
Finally, the choice not to address and respond to the evidence in "detailed supporting documents" presented by Ad Crucem is wrong and is especially pertinent to Pr Harrison's emphasis that everything has been done that was necessary to resolve the central matter appropriately. Publicizing an article via social media does not make the article itself dismissable as social media hysteria--unless that applies to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and all the other news sources that use social media to promote their work.
Dismissing press reports as social media hysteria is insulting to those who put in very hard work to do their jobs as journalists. Refusing to respond to disturbing material offered by a journalist and member of the church is very difficult to square with claims of a sufficient "investigation of the issues involved" having been done.
I can and do accept that Pr Harrison is sincere in his belief that the laity are blowing up something that the synod is handling quite well. I appreciate his sincerity and his desire to balance discipline and "due process." However, his published response and the investigation itself appear inadequate in the ways noted above.
a) Pr. Harrison and all others in the chain of ecclesiastical supervision are in agreement on the method and principles of handling the complaint. That's what you see in Harrison's reply.
b) the situation is not completed. The same principles apply going forward.
c) the "detailed supporting documents" are an issue in terms of publicity and the appropriate continuation of the case/situation; if the documents/documentation are/is not in the custody of supervisors already, then they should be submitted to the supervisors. If they are in the custody of the supervisors and the case is ongoing, then those documents should not be distributed to those outside of the situation. They become an appeal to an exterior source of determination, a source of determination which does not in fact exist.
Thanks for your reply. I think that our differing perspectives on the matter are clear. The premise that publicity is a more important concern than heresy and violations of commandments seems to me to be the relevant issue here. The synod could have publicized the matter itself in the first place, given that these were public actions. The controversy was sure to get out, and it did. The leadership chose to attempt to keep it quiet, and it continues to do so, while claiming "due process" as their reason for that. You and I will, I'm sure, continue to adhere to our irreconcilable viewpoints on those choices. That is quite all right with me; I respect your choice of priorities though I cannot endorse their specific application in this instance.
As someone who has been a staunch defender of Harrison in the past, we know that he can respond forcefully, passionately and pastorally to certain situations. Addressing this issue was good. His response, however, struck me as corporate and lacking the unequivocal passion and leadership I would have appreciated regarding this scandal.
I mean just compare the tone of the letter denouncing the alt-right (which I applaud) to this, which is far more scandalous of an event in my opinion. Not what I hoped for.
Dr. Benke, one curiosity for me is that you have been silent on the facts presented and admitted. Should a man ordained into the LCMS retain his call if he has been promoting transgenderism, homosexuality, and Islam?
"Facts presented and admitted" are coming from outside the process that Pr. Harrison has chronicled in his letter. Since it's stated as an ongoing process, I have no role in ruling or opining on the pastor's retention of Divine Call.
a) This forum has no adjudicatory role.
b) My encouragement to one of the complainants was to re-enter the process, having refused to participate at an earlier point in that process.
It's not a hypothetical. Publishing it while the ecclesiastical process is stated as "ongoing" and saying "it's not a hard problem to address" is in fact asking "lookey Lous" including me to give a verdict from the outside.
That is disrespectful of the process itself and disrespects both the complainants and respondent(s). The complainant(s) who refused to enter the dispute resolution component of the process eventually determined to seek a "verdict" from outside the required system. They presented their version of events. You and others published that version. Those who received that information and determined to put it in public space bear the weight of causing the open disrespect of the process and the outcome to date.
Since Pr. Harrison has indicated it's ongoing, no report of the situation is being issued. This is to be expected. What must take place at some time is a report of findings and a statement of response to the initial complaints.
Let me give a bit of a theological response to the complaint about a textbook with girls in Muslim dress. My own congregation hosts a mission site for evangelistic outreach to people from Bangladesh, who along with some folks in India, speak the Bengali language. Baptisms take place, worship is lively, the Good News is preached to people living by the thousands right in our back yard. The women being reached wear the traditional garb. Theologically, as I'm sure you know, the truth is that they along with all human beings for all time have been reconciled to God in Christ, so that their sins are not imputed unto them. That's what we call "objective reconciliation." Protestant denominations for the most part believe in double predestination. They don't see things our way - what is left then for all believers in Islam is to be led to the act of God through grace to receive "subjective," or personal, reconciliation. What the women wear, and how they live their lives, does not mean God does not love them. God's Son died for them and rose again same as all humans for all time. So from my perspective on the mission field, room should be given even in a Lutheran school for those in bhurkas to be seen as fellow human beings.
LOL, Dr Benke! The complaint has nothing to do with a girl wearing "traditional garb". The "girl" in the book is a muslim boy cross-dressing as a girl. The complaint concerns library books that proclaim that Allah is God. It's a pattern at that school and congregation. Terrible things have happened there, and we do not need a blue ribbon commission to figure out what to do.
Okay. I read it wrong then, wherever it was located. The idea I catch in the many posts is that the congregation and its leaders still wanted and as far as I know still want to meet with you. Do you want to meet with them?
When I colloquised into the LCMS I thought the Synod would never go liberal. If Harrison approves of this as this article seems to suggest then the Synod is in grave danger.
A "saltwater" district is one along either east or west coast of the U.S. The New England, Atlantic, Southeastern, NJ, Florida-Georgia, California Nevada Hawaii, and Northwest, districts.
A conservative boomer response to this will only embolden satan to double down on his push to subvert the LCMS. If he were accused of racism, the zeroth commandment, he'd have been burnt at the stake already.
I pray you keep this article up indefinitely. There is a tendency to raise the issue and then seek to delete all trace because of some supposed secret resolution. People will look back and not realize what the actual state of the LCMS is or how things proceeded because we whitewash our own history in real time to give a false sense of who we are and what is happening. God help those in the future who seek lessons from what was happening in the LCMS and how it was being handled; they'll be without any real resource.
The article will not be removed. It is now part of the public record.
An impressive article that keeps to prudent, yet transparent presentation of process, alleged facts, and unnamed actors. I appreciate the delineation of two differinng means of procedure. I was a pastor in another denomination (with a detailed national "rule book" which failed to restrain lawlessness) for years and have been an LCMS layman for about three years. Polity IS very important so we can go about our business delegated by Christ without constant wrangling with the " noisy spirits". Thank you.
What a tangled web of LCMS dissidents — Jeff Kloha, Dean of the splinter seminary "Center for Missional and Pastoral Leadership" (CMPL) is an associate pastor at this parish as of June 1 of this year.
https://www.facebook.com/sedlutheran/posts/pfbid02EKzmSdnmuMDmoyuWts9x3c2oGdmPmgTdnN4T8nDM94t6JTKL5XaDwjDNUcSyqXaYl
I appreciate and agree with this sentiment, but it would be better to not leave "crumbs" which lead readers to associate this concern with a specific congregation before more evidence is revealed. Unless I'm missing something obvious.
I notice the author of the article hasn't mentioned any names, it would be wise for commentors to refrain from doing so.
Yet it remains good to mark and avoid those who have made their false teaching public for everyone to witness.
The Synod president has confirmed the identity in today's press release. https://reporter.lcms.org/2025/president-harrison-writes-letter-about-lcms-ecclesiastical-supervision/
Is the trans pride photo at the bottom from the church in question?
Yes.
That seems considerably more damning than the other evidence presented which, while definitely very sketchy and bad sounding, still seems like it may admit of a variety of explanations or interpretations. But a pastor in an obscene stole is a impossible to misinterpret.
The full evidence package may eventually be posted. It will shock even the most normie LCMS Lutheran.
Are we sinning by continuing to remain in a denomination and in "fellowship" with congregations like this one and the leadership that approves of this, indicated by their inaction?
I do not see how the Council of Presidents can have a shared confession with this going on. The leadership of the district and the church cannot be allowed to share a communion rail until this is resolved.
The LCMS is lost if they allow this to happen.
It breaks my heart to see any of our churches, schools, and pastors be unfaithful. This is so disturbing. Makes you wonder if this is just the tip of the iceberg, at least in certain districts.
Until Christ comes again, the church will constantly be fighting false doctrine and teachers from within. We see it in Paul’s epistles. Church history bears this out. When it does come up in our neck of the woods, our orthodox Lutheran leaders need to have the authority to quickly resolve these situations for the sake of the sheep. Lingering unfaithfulness will only get worse unless addressed.
Thanks, Rick. It is heartbreaking and infuriating because this is an open-and-shut case of church discipline.
Unfortunately, it mirrors surveyed attitudes in the Synod regarding sodomy, homosexual marriage, birth control, abortion, etc. A significant minority has no objections on those issues, and it is also prevalent in the clergy to a lesser extent. This is one of the reasons why we have seen the LCMS struggle with incident after incident of homosexual and transvestite agency.
First, some of the comments seem to speak of one case, while the article itself does not identify the specific congregation/situation in the comments. Are there two different cases/situations, or are the commentators "outing" the case you bring before us? I'll wait for a response before proceeding with other thoughts, thanks.
This is a single congregation with an attached Lutheran school.
Very well articulated. As an LCMS elder back in the day, I can recall objecting to our local church’s use of The Purpose Driven Life book. At an elders meeting, I presented these concerns in detail and provided copies of online articles objecting to the book. The book was still used. Individually, LCMS members have little (or no) say so in how in what a church teaches. Also, what’s presented in this article goes way beyond the type of concerns that I raised. A pastor wearing a trans pride stole has forfeited his right to lead. Members should walk out of such a church in good conscience.
We would go further. The District President and the entire church need to be placed under the major ban and ejected from the Synod.
As truly horrifying as this account is, it indicates a more general lack of oversight and recourse for faithful lay people when a congregation or school falls into willful and unrepentant sin. If the LCMS leadership will not take action in such a clear-cut case of apostacy and abuse of faithful lay people, nobody can be secure in an LCMS congregation. If the LCMS were at all concerned about attrition, they might want to take a closer look at the effect of allowing this kind of sin, and what was done to the faithful lay people. This definitely happens in congregations on a smaller scale than this example. It literally drives people away from the church and destroys their faith.
Thank you, Ellen. Yes, that is correct. The Confession is more important than all the institutions and buildings.
The Iron Law of Bureaucracy is operating inside the LCMS. Yes, it is driving faithful members away from their congregations. Pastors and all members have stated that the Bible is the I inerrant word of God and the Lutheran Confessions are the correct in its interpretation of the Bible.
Godspeed!
The evidence presents the slippery slope of a pastor and faculty members who are parents of adult gay and transgender children. They are confronted with a choice. Do they (a) love the sinner, while condemning the sin, (b) remain silent, or (c) publicly justify the sin by condoning and promoting the LGBTQ lifestyle? In choosing the latter, they fail to uphold their vows to the church. Further, they enlist the church itself to silence, denounce, and cast away those who would dare bring accusations against them. Further still, they hide the Lutheran confessions from being faithfully taught.
They are also condemning their children to eternal damnation, by not confronting the sin and bringing them to repentance. It's a dreadful situation to be in, but glossing over sin is never the best option.
Karl! God bless you. I love you and your children. Send me your phone number. I would love to call you. Adrian, pastorsherrill@gototrinity.com
This article is troubling. Clearly something is rotten.
I'm confused exactly what the state of the dispute resolution process is if the District President considers it "resolved". Is it still ongoing and that's why the details are redacted? Is the District still handling this or is it being escalated to Synod?
The information we received was that the dispute resolution process halted without the complainants being satisfied that they had been heard or that the problems had been resolved. In our opinion, that was a very reasonable conclusion to draw, reinforced by the scurrying to delete evidence when our draft was released to authorities on both sides ahead of the publication deadline.
We redacted information because we are applying Galatians 6 to this situation and to ourselves. It would be easy to tabloidize it and splash all the images and evidence we have. That is not going to achieve the primary goal, which is to encourage appropriate ecclesial oversight, doctrinal discipline, and remorseful repentance.
OK - so now this is out in the open, because it has been addressed directly by the President of the LCMS. And it is indeed concluded. Ad Crucem, in my opinion, is new to this level of journalism. Christian News is not new to it. As President Harrison indicates, the tendency these days to blow the supervision out of the water is higher than in recent years. So this is a good opportunity to take stock, listen and learn for all involved.
A pastor or congregation of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) that believes, teaches and/or acts contrary to the biblical and public teaching of the LCMS on sex and marriage should be brought to repentance or resign or be removed from the LCMS. From time to time, LCMS pastors or theologians make questionable statements or participate in questionable actions that are at best confusing and at worst heterodox or even heretical.
When such cases are brought to my attention, per the defined ecclesiastical supervision responsibilities of the LCMS president and district presidents, I bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate district president and request a briefing and often an investigation of the issues involved. Often the issues are transparent, and, upon further reflection and visitation by a district president, there is repentance, an apology and a promise to discontinue the objectionable behavior and do better. Sometimes an individual resigns at the urging of the district president after being encouraged to repent and recommit to the Scriptures and the church’s public confession.
Recently, complaints regarding a congregation of the LCMS Southeastern District have been made public. Regional Vice-President Christopher Esget was contacted by individuals concerned about issues in that parish that raised concerns relative to our public biblical confession and practice. Pastor Esget communicated face-to-face with the pastor in question. He also made me aware of the situation. I immediately contacted LCMS Southeastern District President Bill Harmon and requested he visit the parish and evaluate the situation as ecclesiastical supervisor. I learned that he was already visiting and doing the work we ask our district presidents to do. I then met with Pastor Harmon and Pastor Esget in September as a follow up. At that time, President Harmon explained his visitation and the steps he had taken to address the situation. Both Vice-President Esget and I were thankful for his work and satisfied that progress had been made and would continue. Any assertion that the situation was not being or would not continue to be addressed is false. I have specifically requested that the district president continue to address all ongoing concerns.
In my 16 years of experience, district presidents have always followed up on cases about which I inquire. Though the cases that do rise to my attention are often difficult, they are usually brought to a positive conclusion. This often takes significant time and effort. Sometimes complainants are disappointed by what they believe is an inadequate apology or inadequate corrective action.
Removal of a member from Synod requires not only a demonstration that the confession or conditions of membership have been violated or that serious offense continues to be given, but also that thorough admonition of the member has not resulted in repentance (LCMS Constitution, Art. XIII). This is as it should and must be.
Ecclesiastical supervision in the Synod has continued to improve during my tenure. Our district presidents have vastly increased their visitation and familiarity with congregations. At the same time, the nature of social media has meant individual cases, which always have happened and will happen from time to time, come to scrutiny quickly and very publicly.
Previous to this event, I had already resolved to request the Synod in convention provide for the appointment of a task force to evaluate the way we handle accusations and complaints, especially those dealing with doctrinal matters. I will propose that the task force gather opinions from across the Synod, particularly from those who have gone through the current process. The Book of Concord in its Preface notes the confessors’ commitment to resolve matters of doctrinal dispute quickly for the good of the church. We can do better, while also protecting due process for all involved.
Pastor Matthew C. Harrison
President of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
St. Louis
Pastor Benke,
What in the world does Christian News have to do with any of this? Did I miss something?
Additionally, I have the utmost respect for the investigative skills of Mr. Wood, and I think the clarity of reporting here speaks for itself.
- Weslie Odom
This specific case/story/incident has been released online on Christian News over the weekend and in print as of yesterday. It is coordinated and in many ways directed at Dr Jeff Kloha and the online seminary training. So - there is an additional church-political motivation. I do not think that has been the case with Ad Crucem, but there is now a time-designated connection to Christian News.
Ok, I did miss that -- thank you for the clarification.
Dr. Benke, I do not appreciate the insinuation that Ad Crucem News was "coordinating" with Christian News or that we conspired against Jeff Kloha. We have written about Kloha only once, and it was hardly a hit job. https://www.adcrucem.news/p/missouris-disappointing-biblical?utm_source=publication-search
The other times he has come up have been tangentially on issues related to CMPL.
I will absolutely go to war with and for the CN guys, but we have never spoken on any issue, including this one, and we are not even acquaintances. I learned that CN had published the information via an ALPB link sent to me this morning by a friend. https://www.alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=9116.msg584024#msg584024
My reporting has been in front of probably dozens of people (from the RMD, SED, and, probably, Synod side in the hopes of stimulating a response before release) since November 6, 2025, at 15:00:11 MST.
Yes, we had the "story" first, but we kept our word to everyone involved and did not publish it until 6:30 am today.
Lastly, Ad Crucem, is not "new to this level of journalism". I worked as a financial investigative reporter for over a decade. I broke several high-profile stories, including one that put a price on my head and one that brought unwelcome attention from unsavory government sorts.
Good to know. Why did President Harrison write his letter published today? A very small group of folks would have known anything about the topic explored. The letter is written in response to the wider distribution of the specifics, it seems to me. Because that's essentially what Pr. Harrison states. He also states that because individual cases are elevated so quickly via social media, he has created a task force to address both the Synodical response process as well as the rapidity of the elevation of specifics.
The questions are as follows to me:
1) What kind of denomination does the LCMS desire to be?
2) What kind of Presidential leader does the LCMS wish to have?
I'm pretty much unique in the denomination's history, because I have been both an ecclesiastical supervisor and a person who was suspended from the LCMS roster and went through the processes personally as a respondent. The system on both ends to me has been (and this can be checked out) not only a model but THE model for Protestant denominations in terms of thorough review and multiple checks and balances in the weighing of decisions of doctrine and practice. It's been tweaked a little here and there, but it retains its integrity through time.
So - you're "social media". Interest and views of what you offer has, as you recently stated, jumped by many hundreds of per cent since you added this function. I personally view this site as valuable because it encourages actual dialog and not just siloed conversations.
There's never harm examining a system of supervision. That should be par for the course. And Pr. Harrison and his task force will bring it to pass. At the same time, those hosting social media sites, with no real supervision over them (at least at this time), have less accountability and should be unafraid of facing scrutiny - at the very least, it draws people to the site. And at best, iron sharpens iron even here.
Pres. Harrison probably wrote the letter today because social media blew up and HQ was being inundated. I don't know; that's a guess.
Aren't we to put the best construction of someone's motives, and go on the assumption that people are not colluding against someone unless there is absolute proof?
Both social media posts/articles have come out at almost exactly the same time. I trust what the Ad Crucem author says to be true as far as Dr. Kloha is concerned. The direct nature of the Christian News article as lifting up Kloha is an aim of that publication. The question of sources is an open one. For two publications to come out on the same topic in that timeline takes somebody or somebodies "flooding the zone," so to speak. That Pr. Harrison responded today supports the thought that the social media postings have something to do with his letter. He himself states that.
So - my opinion - this is not a case of "collusion," but of orchestration to produce a level of social media output that would bring a nationwide Presidential response, which is in general terms defensive in articulating the completeness and effectiveness of the handling of the issue. Certainly one result to me is that this was not an issue left unaddressed by anyone in ecclesiastical supervisory capacity. Whatever anyone thinks of the results - case closed at this time - the process was followed in a thoroughgoing way. Which - to LCMS folks - should be received as a good thing!
Sorry, Pastor, that is a really an unhinged conspiracy rant. If you have evidence of some orchestration to force Pres. Harrison, into the spotlight, you must share it. I have no idea how CN came by the information, but it is very clear that we followed approaches that were 180 degrees out of phase.
There was never an accusation that the issue was not attended to by the clerics. The complaint is that it was not handled in accordance with LCMS bylaws, and that there was no clear result. You cannot state that the process was followed in a thoroughgoing way - you have no idea of the content or the process unless it was leaked to you. Everything is secret. We know almost nothing, except that it was only after I distributed the draft to ecclesial authorities that the media started being deleted.
I'm only following what I know. And that's a limited field of knowledge. I and 99.9% of the folks in the LCMS knew nothing about this situation until, within 48 hours, two social media posts from two sources go into detail - different in some regards - about the situation. In the same 24 hour period a letter is issued from Pr. Harrison to the entire Synod with the outline of the situation and the specifics of the involvees including the ecclesiastical supervisors. That's the speed of light in denominational time. The indication you have given is that knowledge of this situation has been out there in certain circles and that you have gone through various local judicatory leadership. If you were aware of this more than 3 or 4 days ago you were way ahead of me.
The item you lift up - that there "was no clear result" - is dealt with in Harrison's letter when he writes: Any assertion that the situation was not being or would not continue to be addressed is false. I have specifically requested that the district president continue to address all ongoing concerns.
"Continue to address all ongoing concerns" means to me that the situation is ongoing, because that's pretty much exactly what it states. Does that address the bylaw requirements? I think it does, because the timeline remains open in terms of inclusion of all parties and conclusion to the filing of the complaint(s).
There are no "leaks" to me. I think the last LCMS person on our spinning planet who would receive insider information on this or any situation would be me anyway. Having left the supervisory line of work, I am also at the end of the line for wanting more of this stuff on my doorstep or online feed.
Pr Harrison's response is woefully inadequate and validates all the concerns raised in this excellently researched and professionally reported article. Casting aspersions on the reporter's motives is entirely unjustified, in my estimation.
This is a serious matter, and people who love the LCMS will naturally have great concern upon hearing about the events reported here. Sound, thorough reporting is the proper medicine for those worries. Calls for journalists to back off are ill-advised and only increase doubts about the church's fealty to its doctrines and God's Word.
Fiat lux!
How specifically is Pr. Harrison's response woefully inadequate? If the issue is failure to follow the bylaws of the denomination, in what way has his response failed? Are there other inadequacies you find?
As one of the complainants, I can state there was a severe lack of transparency and inclusion in the entire ecclesiastical supervision process as none of the complainants were engaged in the investigation. The DP contacted us post-investigation to inform us that conversations with church/school leadership had been held, their answers were deemed satisfactory, and that since there were hurt feelings on both sides’ reconciliation meetings were recommended. We responded and made it clear that issues concerned doctrine and practice and were not relational in nature. When we requested detailed information on specific questions regarding the issues at hand (obvious questions that should have also been asked in the course of an investigation) we received no response.
The only fruits to come from the investigation: my family was barred from attending worship or participating in any church-related activities (months prior another complainant had been similarly barred), debate at voters’ meetings *continues* on whether to keep Islamic propaganda on school shelves, and other congregants who have objected to our treatment have received pushback from church/school leadership. We were accused of refusing reconciliation meetings when in fact we only stipulated that meetings should follow the protocol of including Synod mediators. If ongoing discussions were being held or some other actions being taken, all complainants were kept in the dark – why should that be?
Bottom line: because the spiritual well-being of children is very much at stake at this school, acting at (denominational) lightspeed would have been appropriate. The comfort of adults matters not.
I'm sorry I missed this comment while replying to S.T.Karnick. As a complainant, Amanda, the letter by Pr. Harrison states that the situation/case/investigation/complaint is ongoing. There are important face to face initial components of the process, at least as I know it. It seems from what you're writing that the face to face reconciliation meetings did not take place. That is an ongoing concern and potential activity.
The problem, Dr. Benke, is that the claim that all the correct processes have been followed and that there's nothing to see here is wrong. It should not take more than a year to resolve a problem with a pastor(s) giving comfort to transvestites and homosexuals while his school is promoting Islam and catechizing first graders with drag queen musicals.
We need to know what questions were asked and what answers were deemed satisfactory. So either they do support the things that were revealed in your original post and said so, and the DP thought that was satisfactory, or they denied that any of these things happened. Either one is a huge problem.
You commit the fallacy of begging the question when you assume that the real issue here is attendance at reconciliation meetings, and since that would be on-going activity, the issues are still being addressed. Amanda made it clear that she was contacted by the DP POST-investigation, and that conversations with church/school leadership had been HELD and their answers were deemed satisfactory. The actual investigation was clearly completed, and the situation was minimized to a case of "hurt feelings". What was actually asked about the books in the library, the questionable field trips, and what was being taught to the children, and what were the answers that were deemed "satisfactory"? Was the DP "satisfied" that the Small Catechism was purposely not being taught? Why was there no response when leadership was asked about specific questions and answers, if the answers were "satisfactory"? Was asking about these issues such a grievous sin that it would legitimately cause a family to be banned from attending church?
Thank you for asking. A situation of this enormity cannot be resolved by generalities stating that the district and synod have followed the process and there is nothing to see here.
I do appreciate Pr Harrison's statements of principles. They are good principles, generally expressed well. The letter, however, strikes me as a defensive action and contains an unworthy deflection: the pastor says that although he has improved the synod's oversight, investigative, and disciplinary processes, social media blow up incidents unnecessarly. Though I appreciate the calm and genteel way in which he states that, claiming that those worrying about the synod's alertness to violations of the Sixth Commandment are being led astray by social media is not a proper response. It will certainly not reassure anyone who is concerned about the issue.
In addition, the failure to interview the complainants, as seems to have been the case, is simply not an acceptable level of investigation. It is not, in fact, investigation at all. It diminishes the value of the laity's concerns for adherence to doctrine and to God's word.
Finally, the choice not to address and respond to the evidence in "detailed supporting documents" presented by Ad Crucem is wrong and is especially pertinent to Pr Harrison's emphasis that everything has been done that was necessary to resolve the central matter appropriately. Publicizing an article via social media does not make the article itself dismissable as social media hysteria--unless that applies to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and all the other news sources that use social media to promote their work.
Dismissing press reports as social media hysteria is insulting to those who put in very hard work to do their jobs as journalists. Refusing to respond to disturbing material offered by a journalist and member of the church is very difficult to square with claims of a sufficient "investigation of the issues involved" having been done.
I can and do accept that Pr Harrison is sincere in his belief that the laity are blowing up something that the synod is handling quite well. I appreciate his sincerity and his desire to balance discipline and "due process." However, his published response and the investigation itself appear inadequate in the ways noted above.
To respond in brief,
a) Pr. Harrison and all others in the chain of ecclesiastical supervision are in agreement on the method and principles of handling the complaint. That's what you see in Harrison's reply.
b) the situation is not completed. The same principles apply going forward.
c) the "detailed supporting documents" are an issue in terms of publicity and the appropriate continuation of the case/situation; if the documents/documentation are/is not in the custody of supervisors already, then they should be submitted to the supervisors. If they are in the custody of the supervisors and the case is ongoing, then those documents should not be distributed to those outside of the situation. They become an appeal to an exterior source of determination, a source of determination which does not in fact exist.
Thanks for your reply. I think that our differing perspectives on the matter are clear. The premise that publicity is a more important concern than heresy and violations of commandments seems to me to be the relevant issue here. The synod could have publicized the matter itself in the first place, given that these were public actions. The controversy was sure to get out, and it did. The leadership chose to attempt to keep it quiet, and it continues to do so, while claiming "due process" as their reason for that. You and I will, I'm sure, continue to adhere to our irreconcilable viewpoints on those choices. That is quite all right with me; I respect your choice of priorities though I cannot endorse their specific application in this instance.
As someone who has been a staunch defender of Harrison in the past, we know that he can respond forcefully, passionately and pastorally to certain situations. Addressing this issue was good. His response, however, struck me as corporate and lacking the unequivocal passion and leadership I would have appreciated regarding this scandal.
I mean just compare the tone of the letter denouncing the alt-right (which I applaud) to this, which is far more scandalous of an event in my opinion. Not what I hoped for.
Dr. Benke, one curiosity for me is that you have been silent on the facts presented and admitted. Should a man ordained into the LCMS retain his call if he has been promoting transgenderism, homosexuality, and Islam?
"Facts presented and admitted" are coming from outside the process that Pr. Harrison has chronicled in his letter. Since it's stated as an ongoing process, I have no role in ruling or opining on the pastor's retention of Divine Call.
a) This forum has no adjudicatory role.
b) My encouragement to one of the complainants was to re-enter the process, having refused to participate at an earlier point in that process.
A pastor wearing a transgender stole in his chancel is not a hard problem to address.
It's not a hypothetical. Publishing it while the ecclesiastical process is stated as "ongoing" and saying "it's not a hard problem to address" is in fact asking "lookey Lous" including me to give a verdict from the outside.
That is disrespectful of the process itself and disrespects both the complainants and respondent(s). The complainant(s) who refused to enter the dispute resolution component of the process eventually determined to seek a "verdict" from outside the required system. They presented their version of events. You and others published that version. Those who received that information and determined to put it in public space bear the weight of causing the open disrespect of the process and the outcome to date.
While I highly respect President Harrison, I would have to disagree that eclesiastical supervision has been adequate.
Since Pr. Harrison has indicated it's ongoing, no report of the situation is being issued. This is to be expected. What must take place at some time is a report of findings and a statement of response to the initial complaints.
Let me give a bit of a theological response to the complaint about a textbook with girls in Muslim dress. My own congregation hosts a mission site for evangelistic outreach to people from Bangladesh, who along with some folks in India, speak the Bengali language. Baptisms take place, worship is lively, the Good News is preached to people living by the thousands right in our back yard. The women being reached wear the traditional garb. Theologically, as I'm sure you know, the truth is that they along with all human beings for all time have been reconciled to God in Christ, so that their sins are not imputed unto them. That's what we call "objective reconciliation." Protestant denominations for the most part believe in double predestination. They don't see things our way - what is left then for all believers in Islam is to be led to the act of God through grace to receive "subjective," or personal, reconciliation. What the women wear, and how they live their lives, does not mean God does not love them. God's Son died for them and rose again same as all humans for all time. So from my perspective on the mission field, room should be given even in a Lutheran school for those in bhurkas to be seen as fellow human beings.
LOL, Dr Benke! The complaint has nothing to do with a girl wearing "traditional garb". The "girl" in the book is a muslim boy cross-dressing as a girl. The complaint concerns library books that proclaim that Allah is God. It's a pattern at that school and congregation. Terrible things have happened there, and we do not need a blue ribbon commission to figure out what to do.
Good to know . We are focused on mission outreach to our Muslim neighbors here as the first priority.
Pr. Benke, since you broke your silence on this matter, who told you one of the complaints was about girls in Muslim dress?
I read it here in one of the earlier comments, I think by Amanda.
Wrong (easily verified by....rereading posts). We took issue with books that glorified/promoted false doctrine and practices of Islam.
You have tipped your hand.
Okay. I read it wrong then, wherever it was located. The idea I catch in the many posts is that the congregation and its leaders still wanted and as far as I know still want to meet with you. Do you want to meet with them?
When I colloquised into the LCMS I thought the Synod would never go liberal. If Harrison approves of this as this article seems to suggest then the Synod is in grave danger.
Please excuse my ignorance, but what is a "saltwater" district?
A "saltwater" district is one along either east or west coast of the U.S. The New England, Atlantic, Southeastern, NJ, Florida-Georgia, California Nevada Hawaii, and Northwest, districts.
Thank you for the explanation.
A conservative boomer response to this will only embolden satan to double down on his push to subvert the LCMS. If he were accused of racism, the zeroth commandment, he'd have been burnt at the stake already.