Due Process and the Mission of the Church

By the Rev. Dr. Edward Arthur Naumann
Pastor, St. Paul’s Lutheran Church, Brookfield, IL

Presented at the Lutheran Concerns Association Annual Conference, Jan. 20, 2025.

---

Abstract

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod enjoys a solid biblical and confessional basis. A lack of due process in the Synod, however, stands in direct contradiction of the Church’s confession, and adversely affects her mission.

This paper will outline the theological necessity of due process, founded in the biblical and confessional teachings that: (1) hypocrites and wicked men are always found in the Church; (2) wickedness spreads and grows in the Church when left untreated; and (3) we are required by God to love our neighbor by practicing justice and mercy.

Following this theological foundation, I shall illustrate with general examples the lack of due process in our Synod, and how this opposes the mission of the Church.

Finally, this paper calls the entire Synod to repentance for our collective failure to provide due process through the Synod bylaws, and suggests a way forward, as a fruit of such repentance, that we may remedy ourselves and desire to do better.

Heavenly Confession and Worldly Practice

The words of Christ by which He sent out his apostles summarize beautifully what the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, perhaps better than any other church body in the world, still confesses to be the mission of the Church—to go out into all the world and make disciples of all nations.^[1] Despite the high lip service that the Synod pays to Scripture and the Lutheran confessions, however, we also permit dreadful neglect and abuse of the mandate of Christ and the mission of the Church. This reality requires us to consider what remedy we ought to apply, to restore the mission of the Church to its rightful place. For we have become a Synod in which we believe, teach and confess one thing, but practice quite another.

This paper is not an attempt to root out every form of hypocrisy in our church body, which in any case would be impossible. This is precisely the point. The church has always been, and always will be, a place where faithful Christians and hypocrites are mixed. Therefore, the Church must be alert and watchful, vigilant and shrewd. If the Missouri Synod is to have any hope of reversing the growing trend (like a spreading cancer) of destroying her own mission, we must reform, to provide due process especially where its absence is giving a foothold to the devil and allowing the wicked to trample with impunity upon God’s faithful servants.

Due process is a practical and theological necessity, founded in the biblical and confessional teachings that: (1) hypocrites and wicked men are always found in the Church; (2) wickedness spreads and grows in the Church when left untreated; and (3) we are required by God to love our neighbor by practicing justice and mercy.

Corpus Permixtum

First, that the Missouri Synod is, and must be understood to be, a mixture of faithful and wicked people, is clearly and sufficiently demonstrated in many of Jesus’ parables: the parable of the wheat and the tares; the parable of the dragnet; the parable of the wedding banquet; the parable of the ten virgins; the parable of the separation of the sheep and the goats.^[2] These and other similar passages contain a common teaching, which Jesus summarizes with the words, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven.”^[3]

Following the writings of Augustine against the Donatists, the Lutheran Confessions acknowledge the truth of the mixed nature of the Church, and reject the Donatist error, which insists on the purity of the entire Church, especially the clergy.^[4]

A fuller treatment of this subject, should it be needed, would take many hours; for Scripture so abundantly and clearly testifies that the Church is now—and always will be—a mixed body (corpus permixtum), until the last day.

The Spread of Corruption

The danger inherent to the mixture of good and wicked people in the church is that wickedness spreads. Jesus and his apostles, inspired by the Holy Spirit, prophesied that false prophets and false teachers would arise in the Church.^[5]

We must not be so proud as to think these warnings do not apply to the LCMS. Rather, we ought to confess that what is common to the entire Church also takes place in our Synod. The ministers of Satan are in our midst, disguised as Lutheran pastors, which Saint Paul says should not surprise us. “And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.”^[6]

Paul urged against tolerating false brethren, by instructing Timothy: “shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer.”^[7] And in another place Paul wrote: “Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.”^[8]

The Church must shun and avoid wicked men, not only because false doctrine is wrong, but also because such false teachers lead people into further immorality.^[9] Tolerating wickedness in the Church only allows it to grow.^[10] “Do not be deceived: Evil company corrupts good habits.” “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.”^[11]

Justice and Mercy

Scripture presents us with no small difficulty. We cannot pull out all of the tares, nor dare we try, lest, as the parable goes, “while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them.”^[12] There will always be tares in the field, until the very end.

The scriptural admonitions, however, to beware of, shun, reject, note and avoid false teachers and wicked people, require us to engage in some process of judgment, which requires wisdom and justice. Jesus indicated that this process was possible, when He said, “You will know them by their fruits.”^[13]

Jesus also made clear, however, that the process of identifying such people by their fruits would not necessarily be easy, and that the Church would not always be successful. Christ prophesied about false brothers within the Church: “And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many.”^[14]

The problems are manifold. False brothers do not do everything publicly; they frequently introduce their false teachings secretly, they falsely accuse the innocent secretly, and lead people into immoral behavior secretly.^[15] They come in disguise, like sheep, though they are wolves; like sons of God, though they are sons of the Devil; like ministers of righteousness, though they are ministers of Satan. Faithful apostles and teachers, meanwhile, as Jesus prophesied, are slandered, hated and persecuted for the sake of His name.^[16] Good men also, whatever strength of faith and virtue they have, may be led astray by the false testimonies of the ungodly, if they are not careful to refrain from unjustly judging their persecuted colleagues. The Church must therefore exercise justice with the utmost care.

In keeping with Jesus’ admonition to the Pharisees, we must also carefully discern when mercy is more appropriate.^[17] Not all sins are equal!^[18] Thus Jude, who warned the entire Church most sternly about those ungodly men who creep in unnoticed, nevertheless adds, “And on some have compassion, making a distinction.”^[19]

Through the application of Scripture, it is possible to correct and win over an erring brother, in a spirit of gentleness, as even Peter needed to be corrected by Paul.^[20] A pastor ought to imitate Paul in warning and admonishing the sheep as a father does his own children.^[21] Thus one or more attempts must be made, to draw an erring brother to repent and change his ways, before any judgment should be made to cut him out of the Church.^[22]

Where is due process lacking and needed?

Having seen from Scripture why due process is needed, we now turn to where it is needed. In many ways, due process is maintained in our Synod, where systems of transparency and accountability are in place, to prevent or correct the abuse of power. Parish pastors, for example, are held accountable by their elders, congregational leaders, and district presidents.^[23]

Systemic problems are found, however, where transparency and accountability are lacking, where an imbalance of power leaves one party vulnerable to abuse from one or more others who are able to work against him in secret.

Problems in the Congregation

Pastors are frequently victims of injustice when their parishioners try to oust them for the wrong reasons, of which there are hundreds if not thousands of examples that could be gathered from the last few decades.

The typical story is familiar: a small yet vocal group gather to conspire and accuse their pastor of petty crimes that they cannot forgive (such as ‘chanting’, being ‘too catholic’, ‘being unwelcoming, ‘owning a hand gun’, etc.), when the real reason is something for which he should be commended (for example, that he refused to commune the daughter of a prominent family, because she was openly living in sin with her boyfriend). Certainly, many pastors caught in such a position have also made mistakes to apologize for (such as forgetting appointments, being disorganized, having less than inspiring sermons, making an off-putting joke or offensive statement, etc.); mistakes are common to every man; but these would have been overlooked and forgiven in Christian love, if it had not been for the main reason, namely, due to that pastor’s faithfulness to God’s Word, on that hill where he chose to make his stand. Meanwhile other parishioners, even if they are the majority, remain silent bystanders and fail to stand up and speak out. The circuit visitor, or more likely the District President is called in, who counsels the pastor to resign, and he often obliges. The rebellious leaders of the congregation send him off with what they think is a generous severance of a few months’ pay, to tide him over until he can find another call. The congregation starts a new call process, and sometimes treats the next pastor the same way.

Situations like this will continue in our Church until the last day, as Jesus prophesied.^[24] What our Synod fails to provide is: (1) a way for troubled pastors to appeal their case to the judgment of their fellow pastors—according to the principles of divine justice and mercy—so that they can be reconciled in brotherly love with those with whom they are in conflict; (2) a way for unseated pastors more quickly to move on, to serve another parish, to continue their ministry where it will be welcomed; and (3) a way for those faithful yet silent sheep to be heard during such a dispute, who are often the ones who suffer most, when a faithful pastor is forced out.^[25]

Problems in the District

At the District level, we are concerned more with the transparency and accountability of the District President and the staff of his office. I have already implied the problem that a faithful pastor will not always have the support of his district president. Pastors who find themselves on CRM status are in an especially precarious position, since District Presidents face little if any oversight of their interactions with them, and no scrutiny of their advocacy for them in the form of putting their names on call lists.

If a District President restricts the status of a pastor on CRM for any arbitrary or unjust reason, that pastor has no real recourse—he is afforded no real due process. He can make an appeal (to a panel drawn from the Council of Presidents), but that could take up to six months. Then even if he is successful in getting the restricted status overturned (a highly improbable outcome), there is no negative consequence for the District President. (LCMS Bylaw 2.13.2-3) A District President can therefore use the threat of restricted status, with impunity, to bully a pastor on CRM status to agree to whatever he wants, and to require silence about any injustice, if that pastor ever wants to serve in the LCMS again.

Some pastors are resilient enough to survive such treatment, but other pastors do not fare so well, whose marriages are torn apart, whose children leave the Church, and who themselves never return to the pulpit, because of the loveless way they are neglected, discarded, abused and betrayed by those who claim to be their brothers in Christ.

Problems in the Synod

Finally, we consider the corporate Synod—an entity that has drawn criticism from every side for a long time.^[26] Significant reforms to the structure of corporate Synod were approved at the Convention in 2010, and since then no serious effort has been made to reverse the changes; and every publication from the Synod seems to indicate that everything is going just fine.

Indeed, it should not be denied that the Synod does serve effectively in some important ways, as has been discussed recently at this very conference.^[27] A closer look at the reality of how the Synod operates, however, reveals some significant ‘growth areas’ that need to be addressed.

First, concerning transparency, the Synod may boast that it publicizes all that it does, with periodicals (The Lutheran Witness, The Reporter, Lutherans Engage the World), as well as the President’s Life Together, Annual Reports, and minutes of various boards and documents provided on the LCMS website.

Synodical officers and the Synod’s own publications, however, are bound to portray the Synod as an effective, functional and faithful Church. Their purpose is to raise funds and support for Synod, and to reassure ‘stakeholders’ that their investments are being wisely invested; it would undermine these objectives if they became too self-critical.^[28] For the same reasons, the Synod naturally shows an interest in controlling the narrative about itself that comes from outside sources.^[29]

Second, concerning accountability, the Synod structure seems to provide all that is needed and conducive to its mission. The Officers of Synod are accountable to the Board of Directors and to the President, and everyone in the chain of command reports to someone.

Again, however, we should not be surprised that such a strongly hierarchical command structure causes more problems than it solves, especially when there is no system of accountability and no due process for any member of it.

1. Top executives in Saint Louis formulate policies and strategies (adopted by respective boards) that may have little or no input from the people they affect, and subsequently often oppose the mission priorities and personnel they are supposed to support.^[30]
2. Executives assume powers that do not belong to them according to the LCMS Bylaws, resulting in political conflict.^[31]
3. Low-ranking employees (or international church partners) do not always know where ‘orders’ come from, or the reasons for those orders.^[32]
4. Higher executives are not fully informed about everything their subordinates are doing, and vice versa.
5. Obedience to the ‘chain of command’ takes priority over every law of man and God, and over the mission and ministry of the Church, as if obedience to the Synod is the very definition of the Fourth Commandment.^[33]
6. The top executive positions are especially problematic in that their job descriptions require more of them than is humanly possible.

Within such a structure, a major problem is the lack of any process by which an employee can complain with any protection of his employment. The Synod’s Human Resources department has never been fully effective in this regard, no third-party tipline is set up to handle complaints, and the Synod’s own dispute resolution process is entirely ineffective.^[34] Instead, we rely entirely on our unshakable certainty that within our Synod, all its officers and employees will behave like Christians.

Another most glaring ongoing problem (which if fixed might solve many others) is that the corporate Synod, despite issuing divine calls to pastors, in practice entirely disregards our Lutheran theology of the ministry and our understanding of the permanence of the call.^[35] The Diploma of Vocation given to called pastors states, “we pledge you our wholehearted and continuing cooperation and support in word and deed and in our prayers to God in your behalf.” All pastors who work for Synod, however, are also required to sign an agreement that states, “The Synod has the right, exercisable at any time, and without notice, to change wages, benefits and policies as well as to terminate, with or without cause, the employment relationship.”^[36]

In other words, Synod gives its called pastors no protection at all beyond what is permitted by the State of Missouri; they are all “at-will employees” or—to use Jesus’ term—‘hirelings.’^[37] Employees—including ordained pastors—have no right to a defense, and no appeal process if they are falsely slandered, accused, disciplined or dismissed. Again, the lack of due process seems to be based on the assumption that the Synod, being a group of justified and sanctified Christian folk, would never conceivably terminate anyone’s employment without a good reason.

‘Corporate Mobbing’ in the LCMS

As a result of the combination of (1) the existing hierarchical command structure, (2) the lack of due process or any effective procedure for voicing complaint or dissent, and (3) the Synod’s ability to dismiss pastors without cause; a recurring pattern of ‘corporate mobbing’ takes place within the Synod, which has been going on for decades. This social phenomenon of ‘mobbing’ has been well documented and studied, as has its widespread occurrence within LCMS institutions.^[38]

To summarize the phenomenon, corporate mobbing occurs within the corporate Synod when an individual is identified as a ‘problem,’ which one or more Synod executives wants to be rid of. Once targeted, a mobbing victim is subjected to all manner of unethical behavior, with the goal that he should voluntarily resign or else be dismissed. Supervisors keep files and shadow files on employees, building a case leading to termination. To rid the Synod of their target, executives routinely engage in smear campaigns, including outright lies, to destroy a pastor’s reputation and isolate him from any other support within the organization.^[39] To make their target’s work unbearable and to encourage him to resign, Synod officers engage in gaslighting, they demean and belittle him, exclude him from conferences and meetings he would ordinarily attend, give him demoralizing tasks, etc. Frequently they strip the pastor of his responsibilities, take away his budget, and leave him with little opportunity to serve effectively within the organization.

One way or another, the target is ejected; he resigns or is dismissed. Frequently the Synod buys the silence of its victim with a non-disclosure agreement in exchange for a more generous severance package. To anyone who asks what happened, the Synod officers respond that they had reasons they cannot disclose, because it is an internal matter. And if a victim seems likely to talk about his experience, he can expect the Synod to watch him closely for a long time—even years—after his employment ended, and may face ongoing opposition, such as being blacklisted from calls and other positions in the Synod, being banned from visiting foreign mission fields, and so on—again, even at the expense of the Synod’s own mission objectives.

The effect for those who continue to work for the Synod—especially international missionaries—is that they serve in a culture of constant fear, aware that their ongoing employment is at the will and whim of higher powers. Some have seen what has happened to close friends, whose demise they could do nothing to prevent, but were compelled to look on as bystanders (and they know they could become the next target, if they are not careful), which is its own form of trauma; others were persuaded to join in with the mobbing of a victim, and earned favor and even promotion, thanks to their assent and cooperation in the slander and unjust removal of a faithful colleague. Thus the structure of our Synod grants protection and immunity to those who engage in such immoral activities, as long as the perpetrators have one another’s support.^[40] Therefore, we should not be surprised that our Synod, while burning through some of their best employees, is finding it increasingly difficult to recruit new ones.^[41]

Lack of Due Process for non-Members of Synod

So far we have considered due process for members of Synod, and employees of the corporate Synod; we should not fail to consider how due process is sorely lacking for non-members, such as ordinary parishioners and overseas mission partners.

How does a parishioner appeal, if he is unjustly excommunicated by his pastor?^[42] What process does our Synod have in place to protect a congregation or its individual members from a domineering pastor?^[43] Where can an overseas bishop make his complaint, if a local LCMS missionary (and/or regional director) usurps his duties in the name of the Synod? To whom can an international school appeal, if the Synod tries to steal everything in their savings accounts, based on a ‘show of right,’ that the Synod owns that school? Do the children at the ‘orphanages’ that we sponsor in Kenya have a number to call if they are ever mistreated?^[44] What provision exists to ensure that RSO applications are judged justly on their merits, not with respect to persons and political biases?

These are not hypothetical questions—they are questions that arise from real-life situations, of which there have been many thousands. What they have in common is that they represent injustices that were perpetrated secretly and with no recourse for the victims. Again, to deny that such cases exist—and that we must find appropriate remedies—is to fall back into a Donatist delusion that no injustice takes place in our church body.

Effect on Mission

Only God makes His mission effective. As Saint Paul wrote: “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase.”^[45]

A Synod that claims to accept without reservations “the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament as the written Word of God and the only rule and norm of faith and of practice”^[46] must, therefore, pay attention to these words: “Do justice to the afflicted and needy.”^[47] This indeed is in the very best interests of the Synod itself, that we should fear the wrath of God; “For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from Him; But when He cried to Him, He heard”; “The Lord executes righteousness and justice for all who are oppressed.”^[48] Every instance of injustice within our church body, however great or small, significant or insignificant it seems, is potentially a scandal that causes someone to fall away from faith, and a cause for divine chastisement and discipline upon our Synod.^[49]

Individuals are to blame, to be sure, and they will face justice in due course. Corporately, however, we are all guilty, when we know what is taking place, tolerate it in our midst, and fail to take the action necessary to prevent it in the future.^[50] By failing to provide due process in our Bylaws where it is needed, we not only fail to serve the vulnerable, we also fail to protect the powerful from the temptations they should not have to face. If only we would practice our doctrine of: (1) original sin, which inclines every heart to evil, and (2) the mixture of the righteous and the wicked in the Church on this side of the final judgment, then we might put in place a system that protects the weak, provides justice to the oppressed, and purge from ourselves what is abominable in the sight of God.

The real danger for the mission of the LCMS is that God will cease to bless our work, and the glory of the Lord will depart from us.^[51] Our danger is that we should hear the words of God’s judgment against the shepherds: “ You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool; you slaughter the fatlings, but you do not feed the flock. The weak you have not strengthened, nor have you healed those who were sick, nor bound up the broken, nor brought back what was driven away, nor sought what was lost; but with force and cruelty you have ruled them.”^[52]

God’s mission cannot be stopped. His will is always done, even without our help or prayer; but when we ignore the teachings of Scripture and tolerate injustice in our church, we risk losing the very object of our desire, namely, that His mission may be done among us also.^[53]

Proposed Solutions to the Aforementioned Problems

Problems are always easier to identify than solutions. What I suggest here, therefore, may effectively be improved through the cooperation and collaboration of all genuinely interested parties. Indeed, an effective solution in the form of any significant change or addition to the Synod’s Bylaws would especially require the cooperation and recommendation of the leadership of the Synod, to enable such reform to get through floor committees and onto the agenda of a Synodical Convention. It is my hope, therefore, that the Synod leadership, who have themselves occasionally questioned the effectiveness of the 2010 restructuring, might also receive this paper as a contribution to their own agenda.^[54]

To protect vulnerable parishioners, let each LCMS district establish a pastors’ ethics board with disciplinary powers, so that complaints can be made and impartially investigated.^[55]

To protect vulnerable pastors (whose service may wrongly be impeded or ended by a congregation or district president), let them be able to make an appeal quickly to a just council of fellow elders; and let districts find a way for them to move quickly from a congregation where they are unjustly ousted to another area of ministry.

To protect employees of the corporate Synod, give them something in their contract that goes beyond the minimum state requirement. Create a tipline, inform employees about how to use it; protect those who complain in good faith from retaliation, and let there be negative consequences for those who complain with malice; then reduce the powers of those to whom we have granted too much, which have proven such a hazardous and inevitable temptation to abuse.

To protect missionaries and overseas partners, separate our overseas missions and our overseas budget entirely from the interests of the corporate Synod; give our missionaries their own district, with their own elected district president and board of directors, elected vice presidents and elected circuit visitors; let missionaries coordinate their activities freely with RSOs; let them communicate with the President’s office; let missionaries have a say in determining mission strategy in proportion to their gifts and experience; let the divine calls of missionaries be protected, so that no one is terminated without cause; and let all missionaries have a process to appeal, to have their cases heard before a just council of fellow elders. In short, let them engage in the ministry of the Gospel with our support, and without interference from Synod.

For every part of our church body, let God’s Word be proclaimed, bringing all sinners to genuine contrition and faith, and providing reconciliation between all members of the body of Christ. Let not pastors Lord it over the flock, but be examples worthy of imitation, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.^[56] Let the Word of God come first again, and the mission of the Church take priority once more.

The details of these proposed reforms would have to be worked out, and I would rejoice if others would propose and implement better solutions than these that I have suggested.^[57]

Conclusion: A Renewed Call to Repentence

In summary, we must reform our policies and procedures, so that they conform to our acceptance of the Scriptural truths: that there will be wicked and hypocritical men in our church body; that such hypocrisy will only increase and spread if left unchecked; and that it is our collective responsibility to do what we can to set things right.

Various solutions have been tried in the past, with varying degrees of success.^[58] We must not fail to act, however, just because we know our Synod can never be perfect. What we should be seeking is the blessing of God himself upon our efforts.

Our solution must begin, however, first with our acknowledgement of the problem. Then follows sincere repentance, on the part of the entire Synod: for denying the problems for too long; for ignoring the pain and suffering of the many victims, who have been silenced and swept under the rug; for entirely neglecting the ministry of reconciliation, which is supposed to be at the very core of the Gospel and our mission; for all the hurt that has been caused so needlessly, which could have been prevented if sufficient protections had been in place; for approving the ‘Donatist’ LCMS Bylaws in 2010 in the first place (which so flagrantly violate article II of the LCMS Constitution), and for not trying to improve the Bylaws since; in short, for allowing the works of the flesh to eclipse the love of God in our Synod and in our hearts. And all for what? For political gain? To avoid “bad optics”? Not to harm the Synod’s fundraising? Not to affect an election? It is time to repent, and to bear fruit in keeping with repentance: the fruit of reform.

---

1. Mt. 28:19-20. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Examples of the Synod’s faithfulness in this regard include: We uphold the teachings of Christ by affirming the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. We continue to require every pastor to study the Lutheran Confessions and confess his own faithful adherence to them because they are an accurate exposition of Scripture. We still teach the faith, using Luther’s Small Catechism, and other resources (such as the books of synodical questions and answers), to ensure that our laity are well educated and capable of defending and articulating the faith for themselves. And we declare our confession boldly and unashamedly before the world, in our published journals, books, and hymnals. In all of this we have no small cause for rejoicing and giving thanks to God. ↑
2. Mt. 13:41-42; Mt. 13:47-50; Mt. 22:13; Mt. 25. ↑
3. Mt. 7:21. ↑
4. This teaching was central to the Donatist claim that the sacraments were not effective when administered by an unrighteous man; thus Augsburg Confession VIII states: “Both the Sacraments and Word are effectual by reason of the institution and commandment of Christ, notwithstanding they be administered by evil men. [Our churches] condemn the Donatists, and such like, who denied it to be lawful to use the ministry of evil men in the Church, and who thought the ministry of evil men to be unprofitable and of none effect.” ↑
5. Jesus warned, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.” (Mt. 7:15) “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.” (Mt. 16:6) So Peter prophesied (2 Peter 2:1-2): “there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed.” ↑
6. 2 Cor. 11:14-15. ↑
7. 2 Tim. 2:16-18. ↑
8. Romans 16:17. Paul also warned the Corinthians to avoid such people (1 Cor. 5:11): “But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.” ↑
9. Peter writes about such people at length in chapter 2 of his second epistle. ↑
10. Thus the Lord rebuked the Church in Thyatira, “because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.” Rev. 2:18-29. ↑
11. 1 Cor. 15:33; Gal 5:9. ↑
12. Mt. 13:29. ↑
13. Mt. 7:15-20. ↑
14. Mt. 24:10-11. ↑
15. See Acts 6:11; Gal. 2:4; Eph. 5:12; Jude 4; 2 Pet. 2:1. ↑
16. And the Lord commands them, “Rejoice and be exceedingly glad!” Mt. 5:12. ↑
17. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith.” Mt. 23:23. ↑
18. See Numbers 15:22-31. ↑
19. Jude 22. ↑
20. See Gal. 2:11-16; also Mt. 18:15; Acts 19:1-6; Gal. 6:1; that this is the proper use and divine intention of Scripture, see 2 Tim. 3:16. ↑
21. 1 Cor. 4:14-15; similarly Christians warn one another: 1 Thess. 5:14. ↑
22. Titus 3:10-11. ↑
23. Indeed, every sermon and Bible class is subject to the discerning judgment of the people. With the advent of ubiquitous streaming and recording devices, today the evidence is easier than ever to find. Hundreds of my own sermons are still available online, if anyone wants to hear them. ↑
24. When Jesus sent out His disciples to evangelize, and instructed them, when they were rejected in one village to shake the dust off their feet and move on to preach elsewhere. Mt. 10:14, Mk. 6:11, Lk. 9:5. ↑
25. Clearly implicit to this criticism is that the existing dispute resolution process is inadequate. ↑
26. See, e.g., Wallace Schulz’ essay, “The LCMS—Its past and future” (2007), which is worth reading in its entirety. Some criticisms are, of course, more justified than others. While it has been pointed out that some are politically motivated, the uncomfortable truth is that partisan bias goes both ways, and many more people bury their justified criticism in silence, so as not to upset the re-election of the incumbent. ↑
27. See recent papers in the Lutheran Clarion by Martin Noland, “Why We Need the Synod”. ↑
28. This kind of ‘transparency,’ to use a worldly analogy, is like getting all your news from the White House Press Secretary about how the President is running the country. ↑
29. Thus the Synod’s interest in speaking at (or sending representatives to) the Annual Conference of the Lutheran Concerns Association should come as no surprise. ↑
30. Examples of such top-down policies and strategies are numerous. In the office of international mission, missionaries are not permitted to communicate with the Office of the President (church relations). Members of the Board of International Mission are not permitted to communicate with missionaries and vice versa. Missionaries are not permitted to contact CPH without permission and participation of the Chief Mission Officer. Funding is frequently used as leverage to require compliance from overseas partners, with damage to church relations. In national mission, the director of the Lutheran Hope Center-Ferguson in 2018 was forbidden from planting a congregation, in direct opposition to the first mission priority of the LCMS. ↑
31. There seems to be perpetual conflict, for example, between the Office of the President, which is responsible for international relations, and the Office of International Mission, as evidenced by the three-page “Agreement for Operating Protocols with Respect to India” (2-13-2019). Regarding the illegitimate assumption of powers, we may note that the withdrawing and releasing of a missionary is presently decided by the executive director of international mission (or by the Chief Mission Officer), without approval of the Board for International Mission, in violation of Bylaws 3.8.3: “Upon the recommendation of the Office of International Mission, the board shall serve as the only sending agency through which workers and funds are sent to the foreign mission areas of the Synod, including the calling, appointing, assigning, withdrawing, and releasing of missionaries (ministers of religion–ordained and ministers of religion–commissioned) and other workers for the ministries in foreign areas.” ↑
32. The ongoing confusion in the Ceylon Evangelical Lutheran Church (which the LCMS in Convention recognized as a “self-governing partner church”—2023 Convention Handbook, Ov. 5-04) is a perfect example, where LCMS pastors comprise the board of directors of the legal entity of the church, and thus control all church finances, and exercise all the duties of the Sri Lankan bishop, including church discipline. Yet where are the orders coming from—the missionary, regional director, executive director of OIM, or higher up? Does the LCMS President know what is happening? No one knows. Apparently still no protocol documents are in place, despite the inclusion in the approved overture of: “WHEREAS, Appropriate protocol documents guiding interactions between the LCMS and the CELC have been developed and are currently being updated”. ↑
33. Note what Pieper says about such obedience: “Rome’s perversion of sanctification and good works reaches its climax in the Order of the Jesuits, which has laid down the rule that sins cease to be sins and become eminently good works when the superior commands these sins and the members of the order perform them in obedience to their superior.” Christian Dogmatics III, 65. For a fuller explanation of the biblical perspective on obedience, contrary to the Synod’s interpretation of the Fourth Commandment, see Michael Lockwood, “The Idol of Obedience,” in LOGIA: A Journal of Lutheran Theology, vol. 34-1 (Epiphany 2025), 45-50. ↑
34. On the deficiencies of the LCMS dispute resolution process, see the papers from the ACELC conference, 2016: https://acelc.net/dispute_resolution_2016.

    We should note that secular companies in Missouri and elsewhere routinely establish internal systems of accountability and due process, e.g. Panera Bread Company states on its website (accessed 12/21/2024): “No Associate will suffer discipline, reprimand, or retaliation for reporting concerns or violations in good faith (unless it is determined that the report was made with knowledge that it was false) or for cooperating in any investigation or inquiry regarding such conduct. Any Associate found to have made an intentionally false complaint will be subject to discipline, up to and including, immediate termination of employment. We may take corrective action and/or disciplinary action against anyone who retaliates, directly or indirectly, against an Associate who reports a suspected violation or who cooperates in an investigation.” To our shame, the sons of this world prove themselves more shrewd than the sons of light. (Lk. 16:8) ↑

35. This inconsistency is occasionally noted by Synod staff. See LCMS Board for International Mission Minutes, June 1-2, 2017, where John Fale reported: “The recent need to terminate a missionary during his fund-raising period raises a question as to how our policy affects the doctrine of the call.” Still no answer seems to have been reached. ↑
36. Quoted from the LCMS ‘Executive Employment Agreement’ as it was presented to me in 2015. ↑
37. Jn. 10:12-13. ↑
38. On mobbing within the LCMS, see Ed Engelbrecht, “Mobbing: Organized Spiritual Abuse in the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod,” January, 2019. Engelbrecht cites a plethora of other studies on this phenomenon, conducted over decades. ↑
39. For this purpose, many different tactics are used; common is the use of ‘confidential’ psychological assessments conducted by CMA or another company, to allege that the problem lies with the victim, not the perpetrators of the attack. On this tactic, see Engelbrecht, “Psychological Labeling”. ↑
40. Though I hope it is sufficiently clear, it is worth emphasizing that such behavior is not carried out by the entire corporate Synod, but by a small group of powerful individuals, who are able to support one another through the hierarchy, that is, by gaining the tacit or active support of their superiors and subordinates. ↑
41. Statistics are rarely and inconsistently provided in the Minutes of the Board of International Mission, but according to the published minutes the number of actively serving LCMS missionaries went from 120 (Feb 2017) to 95 (May 2024), indicating the difficulty of retention, which Rev. Dan McMiller called a “grave concern.” (BIM minutes, Jan 2021; McMiller was executive director of OIM). ↑
42. The case of Ryan Turnipseed illustrates the lack of due process; no system should require the public petition and participation of hundreds of other pastors. Another example, in 2024, in Taiwan: the wife and children of Rev. Dr. Stephen Oliver (then an LCMS missionary) were barred from communion—effectively excommunicated—by the regional director, on grounds of insufficient catechesis, despite their having been examined and admitted to communion by a local pastor. ↑
43. As quoted recently in M. Noland, “Why We Need the Synod (Part II),” C. F. W. Walther writes: “We need the synod so that congregations may be protected from pastors who err in doctrine, follow an offensive lifestyle, or are domineering in office.” (Duties of an Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Thesis II.c) For some reason, however, ‘domineering’ never seemed to make its way into the causes for the removal of a pastor. ↑
44. The fact that the LCMS sponsors such ‘orphanages’ at all in this day and age defies comprehension, in light of the abuses that have accompanied such institutions historically. ↑
45. 1 Cor. 3:6. Jesus affirmed our mission effort requires His blessing: “He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.” Jn. 15:5. ↑
46. Constitution of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, Article II. ↑
47. Ps. 82:3. ↑
48. Ps. 22:24; Ps. 103:6. ↑
49. Lord has harsh words to say, for those who are culpable: Mt. 18:6-7; Mk. 9:42. That we should fear God’s punishment and wrath, see the Small Catechism, Summary of the Ten Commandments. ↑
50. Nor is ignorance an excuse, though it is certainly a mitigating factor. ↑
51. I reference Ezek. 10, where the prophet sees the glory of the Lord depart from the Temple, because of the abominations that take place there. ↑
52. The consequence of this judgment is just as significant: “therefore, O shepherds, hear the word of the Lord! Thus says the Lord God: “Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require My flock at their hand; I will cause them to cease feeding the sheep, and the shepherds shall feed themselves no more; for I will deliver My flock from their mouths, that they may no longer be food for them.” Ezek. 34:3-4, 9-10. ↑
53. I adapt here the explanation of the Third Petition from Luther’s Small Catechism. We should note that such a process has already begun, by which the Synod’s mission is taken up by third party organizations (such as Lutheran Heritage Foundation), as a direct consequence of the Synod’s own reluctance or failure to meet the missional demands that other organizations now supply. ↑
54. Namely, the agenda of saving the Synod. Rev. Kevin Robson, the LCMS Chief Mission Officer, asked, “Did the LCMS’ 2010 restructuring result in, as intended, more effective mission leadership, goal setting and direction at the highest levels of Synod?” (“Received and Delivered: The Future of LCMS Mission,” Lutheran Concerns Association Annual Conference, 17 Jan 2022). The answer ‘no’ is really in the question, as is clear from his subsequent question: “Is it even feasible for the elected BIM and BNM, with roles / responsibilities as currently defined in LCMS Bylaws, to effectively establish ends policies and / or provide goals / directions that inspire, push and drive the OIM and ONM toward the goals reflective of the collective will of the LCMS, as expressed at the Synod’s national conventions?” Robson is not the first LCMS executive to question whether we have got things right. John Fale (at that time, executive director of the Office of International Mission) made the refreshingly honest admission (as recorded in the LCMS Board for International Mission Minutes, October 5-6, in 2017): “We corporately have to rethink how we do mission work. It will require collaboration, coordination and communication. OIM can’t control everything relating to mission work. We need to rethink our processes and improve them so we can better leverage our limited resources. Our greatest strength is our missionaries and personnel who work with local church bodies and help them develop their own programs.” ↑
55. Such boards exist in each State for a variety of professional occupations, for which practitioners are trusted to adhere to high ethical standards, e.g. psychologists, lawyers, physicians, nurses, pharmacists, etc. ↑
56. 1 Pet. 5:3; 1 Cor. 4:1. ↑
57. Perhaps the Synod could even enlist the service of an especially appointed ‘Blue Ribbon Task Force’ to make specific recommendations, if it will help to bring effective change to the LCMS Convention floor. ↑
58. We may take as an example, worthy of our imitation, the work of the Church for many centuries, which provided remedies for the same problems we face today, not by denying their problems, but by addressing them. They provided a bishop’s court to bring justice to the people, on the basis of God’s Word. (See my paper, “Audientia Episcopalis: a Blessing or a Curse?” presented at the NAPS Annual Meeting, Chicago, 2014.) And they held councils, which passed church laws (‘Canon Law’) to regulate the behavior of clergy, on the basis of an honest and open confession of the problems they faced. ↑