Laity attempts to use Matthew 18 to address school curriculum, promotion of Islam, LGBTQ+ affirmation, and women leading and teaching in chapel services.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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?
A pastor wearing a transgender stole in his chancel is not a hard problem to address.
While I highly respect President Harrison, I would have to disagree that eclesiastical supervision has been adequate.
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.
Pr. Benke, since you broke your silence on this matter, who told you one of the complaints was about girls in Muslim dress?
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.
This is a single congregation with an attached Lutheran school.
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.
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.
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.