Based on the article, the assertion is not that a violation of the law has in fact occurred, but that there was a potential risk of violation identified based on the information known and that further action should have been taken to address that risk, particularly given that the actions of some could expose others to the legal risk.
Does the same thing apply to child sexual abuse within the church? Or should we just say, 'Shhhh, let the grownup sort this out.' And their resolution is to sit on the issue until everyone forgets about it because they are too busy being angry at someone else.
Fair point. The title of the article is "What Does an LCMS Congregation Owe Citizens and Caesar?". If the article answers that question as "not sure, get a lawyer to find out and help you form a corporation" the article's answer is a bit of a letdown.
I think the title is meant to reflect the issue raised by church members that may not have been adequately addressed and still outstanding. The question is probably broader than the answer for these particular circumstances, which may not be fully divulged in this article. But the premise is that the church's leadership acknowledged the risk and then failed to follow up to do anything about the risk. They should certainly form a corporation (and you don't need a lawyer to do that) and take other steps to address the apparently shared assessment that there is a risk.
The whistleblowers have raised many issues (in this and the prior articles) that touch on legal, ethical, and moral concerns at this particular church. This extended to the comfort dogs article (from the same congregation), in which the pastor released prejudicial personal and legal information about one of its members that was published for the world to read and see.
"The sheriff is, by all accounts, well-intentioned, but he, too, is not a lawyer, and the legal analysis of federal harboring law was not, so far as we can determine, based on a comprehensive understanding of the building-sharing arrangement or direct knowledge of the status of officers and members of the guest congregation."
Not only is he not a lawyer, but he also (in his office) isn't the right law enforcement individual to speak on it. It's understandable that a congregation uses what resources it has available to make the best judgement it can, but it needs to properly consider the resource for what it is.
"The announcement was made during a congregational meeting with Southeastern District President Harmon in attendance. The original complainants in the case were recommended not to attend the meeting."
"On March 19, 2026, the same member forwarded the entire package, now containing the unanswered letter to Harmon, to LCMS President Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison.
Harrison also did not respond."
Maybe someone should say that there's some possible "white supremacy" going on there, that would get a quick response.
While I support Trump's immigration policies including mass deportation this article is about the Churches involvement. The church should not seek to interfere with this nor oppose it. Nor do anything lame like declare itself a sanctuary. Having said that I do not think it is the Churches mandate to help or aid the government in immigration enforcement. We are to preach the Gospel to every creature. Let Ceasar do his job while we stick to ours.
Just to clarify your comment, no where does the article indicate that anyone suggested that the church (or anyone connected with it) has a mandate to or even should help or aid the government in immigration enforcement.
I can't help but think this is a setup for that congregation in some way. I don't know why you would host a different denomination in your Lutheran church in the first place. What's troubling to me is where does the guest church get their money to pay the rent? Also, why the room that only the guest can access and not church staff? It is inside the Lutheran church property, after all. What's in the room? But the real kicker is the Synod "leadership." Why can't they answer a question? Why are they in Leadership to begin with and how do you hold the President accountable to do his job? Sounds harsh, but somebody's got to make the big decisions. I enjoy your coverage on this topic because you notice the members of this congregation felt they could only be heard by going outside the Synod to someone impartial like yourself. Keep up the good work.
Thank you so much, I especially appreciate the link to official LCMS policy. I am a Trump supporter with all his known character faults.
I would have been one of those who left that congregation. I think law and emigration, and the biblical standards that can inform us, are woefully under taught.
I have found this book 📕 to be a great resource in the Biblical principles reading “Stranger” and immigrant.
Markus Zehnder
The Bible and Immigration: A Critical and Empirical Reassessment
It remains unclear to me why the situation you describe would constitute harboring.
Based on the article, the assertion is not that a violation of the law has in fact occurred, but that there was a potential risk of violation identified based on the information known and that further action should have been taken to address that risk, particularly given that the actions of some could expose others to the legal risk.
Does the same thing apply to child sexual abuse within the church? Or should we just say, 'Shhhh, let the grownup sort this out.' And their resolution is to sit on the issue until everyone forgets about it because they are too busy being angry at someone else.
Fair point. The title of the article is "What Does an LCMS Congregation Owe Citizens and Caesar?". If the article answers that question as "not sure, get a lawyer to find out and help you form a corporation" the article's answer is a bit of a letdown.
I think the title is meant to reflect the issue raised by church members that may not have been adequately addressed and still outstanding. The question is probably broader than the answer for these particular circumstances, which may not be fully divulged in this article. But the premise is that the church's leadership acknowledged the risk and then failed to follow up to do anything about the risk. They should certainly form a corporation (and you don't need a lawyer to do that) and take other steps to address the apparently shared assessment that there is a risk.
The whistleblowers have raised many issues (in this and the prior articles) that touch on legal, ethical, and moral concerns at this particular church. This extended to the comfort dogs article (from the same congregation), in which the pastor released prejudicial personal and legal information about one of its members that was published for the world to read and see.
"The sheriff is, by all accounts, well-intentioned, but he, too, is not a lawyer, and the legal analysis of federal harboring law was not, so far as we can determine, based on a comprehensive understanding of the building-sharing arrangement or direct knowledge of the status of officers and members of the guest congregation."
Not only is he not a lawyer, but he also (in his office) isn't the right law enforcement individual to speak on it. It's understandable that a congregation uses what resources it has available to make the best judgement it can, but it needs to properly consider the resource for what it is.
100%
Is this the same DP who featured in previous articles regarding the school/Pastor with a rainbow stole?
Yes. From one of those articles:
"The announcement was made during a congregational meeting with Southeastern District President Harmon in attendance. The original complainants in the case were recommended not to attend the meeting."
Correct. DP Harmon is involved with both.
"On March 19, 2026, the same member forwarded the entire package, now containing the unanswered letter to Harmon, to LCMS President Rev. Dr. Matthew C. Harrison.
Harrison also did not respond."
Maybe someone should say that there's some possible "white supremacy" going on there, that would get a quick response.
While I support Trump's immigration policies including mass deportation this article is about the Churches involvement. The church should not seek to interfere with this nor oppose it. Nor do anything lame like declare itself a sanctuary. Having said that I do not think it is the Churches mandate to help or aid the government in immigration enforcement. We are to preach the Gospel to every creature. Let Ceasar do his job while we stick to ours.
Just to clarify your comment, no where does the article indicate that anyone suggested that the church (or anyone connected with it) has a mandate to or even should help or aid the government in immigration enforcement.
The church does not wear the magistrates' uniform, nor does it pretend not to see allegedly illegal activity. The duty is twofold.
I can't help but think this is a setup for that congregation in some way. I don't know why you would host a different denomination in your Lutheran church in the first place. What's troubling to me is where does the guest church get their money to pay the rent? Also, why the room that only the guest can access and not church staff? It is inside the Lutheran church property, after all. What's in the room? But the real kicker is the Synod "leadership." Why can't they answer a question? Why are they in Leadership to begin with and how do you hold the President accountable to do his job? Sounds harsh, but somebody's got to make the big decisions. I enjoy your coverage on this topic because you notice the members of this congregation felt they could only be heard by going outside the Synod to someone impartial like yourself. Keep up the good work.
Thank you so much, I especially appreciate the link to official LCMS policy. I am a Trump supporter with all his known character faults.
I would have been one of those who left that congregation. I think law and emigration, and the biblical standards that can inform us, are woefully under taught.
I have found this book 📕 to be a great resource in the Biblical principles reading “Stranger” and immigrant.
Markus Zehnder
The Bible and Immigration: A Critical and Empirical Reassessment
J. A. O. Preuss fired several district presidents. What is preventing Matt Harrison from doing the same?
The fact that Matt Harrison remains silent regarding these issues suggests that he is allied with the “missional” and the “woke” factions of the LCMS.