You are currently viewing Half Truths of the Texas District LCMS President’s Convention Report

Half Truths of the Texas District LCMS President’s Convention Report

Introduction

This essay examines a portion of the report of the district president to the Texas District LCMS Convention. It concerns the controversy between imposter regents of Concordia University Texas and The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. The report is riddled with half-truths and distortions. After giving the background for the report, this essay considers:

  • Distortion of the Lawsuit
  • Distortion of the District President’s Role
  • Distortion of “Investigation”
  • Distortion of “Repentance”
  • Distortion of Scripture
  • Distortion of the Lutheran Confessions
  • Furthering the Problem Instead of the Solution

Background

A majority of the Board of Regents of Concordia University Texas (CTX), under the leadership and influence of the board chairman and the university president, threw off the control, doctrine, and ownership of the university by The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) on November 8, 2022. Without authority, they:

  • amended the university’s governing documents;
  • denied any control of the synod’s school by the synod;
  • denied the right of the synod to elect and appoint members to the board of regents;
  • denied the right of the synod to govern the selection of the president who is the spiritual leader of the theological faculty, the rest of the faculty, and the student body; and
  • declared that they alone would determine the extent to which they would retain the doctrine of the synod.

This is:

  • Rebellion against the Fourth Commandment (a child organization rebelling against the authority of its parent organization)
  • Theft against the Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Commandments (misappropriating to itself property in which the Synod has rights)
  • Apostacy against the Third Commandment (defecting from the doctrine of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod)

As amended, the articles of incorporation of CTX now say:

Article II, Purposes: “[T]he corporation is dedicated to the support and maintenance of an educational institution of higher learning that is aligned with, but not subject to the authority of or governance by, The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod.”

Article V, Board: “All determinations regarding the university’s alignment with the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, including but not limited to, the university’s subscription and adherence to the Confession of the LCMS as currently outlined in Article II of the LCMS Constitution, and qualifications for board members and the presidency, will be subject to and determined by the sole and exclusive discretion of the Board of Regents.”

In 2023, the synod in convention overwhelmingly adopted Resolution 7-03, “To Call Concordia University Texas Leadership to Repentance,” Today’s Business, First Edition, 68th Regular Convention, pp. 139-141, which says:

Resolved, That the Synod in convention affirm CCM Op. 23-3006 in its entirety; and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod in convention affirmatively conclude that the CTX BOR members who voted in favor of the April 4, 2023 action that affirmed the CTX BOR’s purported separation have acted in direct conflict with the Constitution and Bylaws, as well as CCM Op. 23-3006; and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod in convention affirmatively conclude that the CTX president and those CTX administrators who have advocated for and supported the purported separation have acted in direct conflict with the Constitution and Bylaws; and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod in convention encourage the appropriate ecclesiastical supervisors to investigate and to determine any appropriate disciplinary action that should be taken against the CTX president and any member of the CTX BOR who is a rostered church worker; and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod in convention encourage the President of the Synod, LCMS BOD, the CUS and its board, and the appropriate district presidents to take all appropriate actions to address this situation; and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod in convention call upon the CTX president, those CTX administrators who have advocated for and supported the purported separation, and the CTX BOR to submit to the governance of the Synod as laid out in the Constitution and Bylaws; and be it further

Resolved, That the Synod in convention call upon the CTX president, those CTX administrators who have advocated for and supported the purported separation, and the CTX BOR to repent for having broken the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Commandments, and to apologize publicly for the illegitimate and wrongful purported separation; and be it finally

Resolved, That the President of Synod stand prepared to grant holy absolution to those who repent and want to do better by rescinding their actions resulting in reconciliation and restoration.

The conflict has resulted in litigation. The case currently is on appeal to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

I have written much and been interviewed multiple times about this matter. The endnote gathers a list and links to essays that I have written and radio interviews that I have done on the CTX matter.[i] As a result, people ask me a lot of questions. At district conventions in North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and the Rocky Mountain Districts, at conferences, in emails, and in messenger messages, people inquire. One of the elephants in the middle of the room is ecclesiastical discipline of ordained members of Synod who might have participated in the rebellion, theft, and apostacy. Another aspect frequently mentioned is the question, what do the people of the Texas district think. At an intersection of such questions is the role of the District President of the Texas District.

Distortion of the Lawsuit

The Convention Workbook of the 63rd Texas District LCMS Convention, June 5-7, 2025 contains “President’s Report, Part Two, Notes about Concordia University Texas,” pp. 29-32. This contains some significant half-truths.

The report says: “On September 1, 2023, the LCMS Board of Directors filed a lawsuit against Concordia University Texas for $111 million.” Is that a forthcoming assertion?

The prime thrust of LCMS’ complaint is in its first claim. The first claim is for declaratory judgment. As the name indicates, it seeks a series of declarations, not money, as follows:

  • Confirming the CCM opinion that the defendants violated the CTX governing documents.
  • Confirming the CCM opinion that the defendants acted in violation of the Synod constitution and bylaws.
  • Declaring that CTX breached its contract with the LCMS or, in the alternative to contract, is liable to the LCMS by promissory estoppel.
  • Declaring that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to LCMS.
  • Declaring that CTX and Christian violated the Texas Business Organization Code.
  • Declaring that the CTX governance documents with amendments through December 31, 2021 are the effective governing documents of CTX and that all actions taken by CTX or its representatives in May 2022 and on November 8, 2022 to improperly amend the CTX governance documents are null and void;
  • Declaring that the May Amendment to the CTX Charter is null and void, and any actions taken by CTX or its representatives based upon such May amendments are similarly void, including the appointment of any new CTX regents not accomplished in compliance with the Synod Constitution and Bylaws.
  • Declaring that the charter amendment, bylaw amendment and policy manual amendment on November 8, 2022 are null and void, and any actions taken by CTX or its representatives based upon those amendments are similarly void, including the appointment of any new CTX regents not appointed in compliance with the Synod constitution and bylaws.
  • Declaring that the Synod and LCMS retain the long-standing and permanent governance relationship with CTX and all rights associated therewith, guaranteed by CTX’s governance documents, including the Synod constitution and bylaws;
  • Declaring that CTX enact upon its property a reversionary interest in favor of the LCMS as is required by the Synod constitution, bylaws and resolutions.
  • Declaring that CTX, the CTX BOR and the individual defendants owe fiduciary duties to the Synod as described in the Synod bylaws.
  • Declaring that any future amendment to the CTX governance documents must comply with the Synod constitution and bylaws, including that the CCM must approve such changes before being adopted by the CTX BOR.

In other words, the complaint in the lawsuit sought to put things back to where they should be. It sought to reverse the unauthorized amendments of the governing documents, the rebellion against the authority of the synod over its synodical school, and the appropriation the schools’ property. In the alternative, LCMS sought damages.

Was it forthcoming to describe the suit as if it were first and only about money? Hardly. Not when the primary claim is about restoration, not money.

In Montana law, one of the ways of accomplishing a deceit is “the suppression of a fact by one who is bound to disclose it or who gives information of other facts that are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact.” § 27-1-712(2)(c), MCA. The report gives information of other facts, namely, the secondary alternative claim for damages. It suppresses information of a primary fact, namely, the primary claim. The suppression of that information after giving the secondary information is likely to mislead people into perceiving the lawsuit as being first and only about money. In ordinary speech, half-truths are deceitful. The report portrays LCMS as the big, bad, greedy synod by suppressing the primary thrust LCMS’ lawsuit having nothing to do with money.

Distortion of the District President’s Role

The report says,

It is important to note that the LCMS bylaws place oversight of universities under the office of the Synodical President (2019 Handbook 3.3.1.1.1.b; 3.3.1.2.a—the handbook in effect when the CTX and LCMS situation developed) and under the Concordia University System (20219 Handbook 3.6.6.1, 3.6.6.4). Neither the Texas District President nor the Texas District Board of Directors possess ecclesiastical authority over the university. That fact has placed me in a limited role: overseeing the rostered workers and giving and receiving counsel from the LCMS President and fellow district presidents.

Is that a forthcoming assertion? Has the district president nothing further to do with this? There is more to the district president’s role. Bylaw 3.10.6.2(4) of the LCMS says:

4. The president of the district in which the college or university is located or a district vice-president as his standing representative shall serve as an ex officio member.

An ex officio member of a board is someone who serves by virtue of holding another position, rather than being elected or appointed separately. In this case, the district president, by virtue of being district president, is a member of the CTX Board of Regents. As a member, the district president is a voting member of the board. Bylaw 3.10.6.2 of the LCMS says: “The board of regents of each college and university shall consist of no more than 18 members, all voting.” All members including ex officio members are voting members.

The Pontius Pilate, hand-washing act in the report fails to tell, as Paul Harvey would have said, “the rest of the story.” How did the district president vote on November 8, 2022? How did he vote on April 4, 2023 when the Regents revisited and reaffirmed the actions of November 8, 2022? How did he exercise the right of a regent to participate in the debate on the motions on those dates? Did he argue for or against rebellion, theft, and apostacy? How does the district president square his membership on the Board of Regents and his public defense of their actions with his obligations as an ordained minister and under synod Resolution 7-03 (2023)? The report simply passes over and omits his being a regent.

Distortion of “Investigation”

The report says since the passage of Resolution 7-03, the district president has “been investigating and determining appropriate disciplinary action.” That sounds as if, were he not investigating what happened on November 8, 2022 and April 4, 2023, he would not know. It is June 2025 now. How much investigating does a person need for the actions of a board of which he is a member and in which he participated? Is it forthcoming to act as if he does not know what happened, including his own votes, on those dates? See Fox Guarding the Henhouse at Concordia University Texas.

Distortion of “Repentance”

The report says, “I rejoice in the repentant and collegial spirit I have seen and heard from CTX regents and administrative leaders.”

If the sins are:

  • rebellion
  • theft
  • apostacy

how would scriptural, Lutheran repentance look? Would it be just a “spirit”? Certainly, repentance flows from the heart. Repentance is not merely about external acts or rituals. It must be a heartfelt change. But wouldn’t a hearfelt repentance for rebellion lead to submission? Wouldn’t repentance from the heart for theft lead to restitution? Wouldn’t repentance for apostacy lead to a re-confession of our faith and doctrine?

Zacchaeus said, “If I have taken anything from anyone by false accusation, I restore fourfold.” (Luke 19:8) “His words and actions show true repentance.” (The Lutheran Study Bible, 1755) When confronted by Nathan, David exclaimed that the sinner must restore fourfold. (2 Samuel 12:5-6) Both Zacchaeus and David referred to Exodus 22:1. A “spirit” of repentance in Zacchaeus would have been nice, but in scriptural repentance, he made restitution. Repentance must be more than lip service.

Distortion of Scripture

The report says that the district president offered counsel to the LCMS Board of Directors regarding the lawsuit. It says he highlighted the scriptural injunction of 1 Corinthians 6:1-7. The report quotes that text from Corinthians, which concludes: “Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?” All this was said to the effect that the LCMS Board of Directors ought to suffer wrong and allow itself to be defrauded.

First, in that text, an apostle counsels Christians at Corinth to let themselves suffer wrong and be defrauded. The apostle’s mouth was not equitably estopped from speaking this exhortation because the apostle was not the defrauder. On the contrary, Paul went very far out of his way to avoid being any burden at all to the Corinthians. (2 Corinthians 11:7-9, 12:17-18) This is not a text by someone who participated in the actions, later publicly defended the actions, and now tells the victims to just suck it up. The exegesis and application of the text in the report are abysmal.

Second, the Board of Directors has no personal skin in the game. CTX is not theirs. CTX belongs to others. CTX was created over time by the people, congregations, and organization of the Synod. The Directors are stewards of other people’s property, institution, and the teaching of the university. They owe fiduciary duties. They would not be the ones suffering wrong and being defrauded. The text says nothing about the duty of a steward to his master. Jesus never commanded one person to turn another person’s cheek for them. The synod in convention overwhelmingly adopted Resolution 7-03 commanding the Directors and all other relevant synodical officers to take matters in hand and redress the synod’s grievances. The district president seems oblivious to the fact that his distortion of Scripture would require the Directors to become unfaithful stewards. His report is part and parcel of the whole CTX rebellion against the synod including its highest authority, the synod in convention.

Distortion of the Lutheran Confessions

Having quoted 1 Corinthians to the effect that the Board of Directors should become unfaithful stewards and allow their masters to be defrauded, the report next quotes Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article XVI, ¶¶ 58-59. “Private remedy is prohibited not by advice, but by a command.” The report says this as if the action in court were what the Apology is calling a private remedy. It is 180 degrees in the opposite direction.

The quotation is another half-truth. It amputates the sentence from the body of the article. In fact, the rest of the story is in the same paragraph 59, so that one wonders how it could have been missed. The sentence quoted by the report is surrounded on both sides by context giving it a completely different meaning than the distorted meaning of the report.

The Gospel forbids private redress in order that no one should interfere with the office of the magistrate. . . . Therefore private redress is prohibited not by advice, but by a command, Matt. 5:39; Rom. 12:19. Public redress, which is made through the office of the magistrate, is not advised against, but is commanded, and is a work of God, according to Paul, Rom. 13:1 sqq.

For crying out loud. The lawsuit is made through the federal magistrates and hence is what the Apology calls public, commanded, and a work of God. It is not a private redress as the report distortedly gives impression.

Furthering the Problem Instead of a Solution

On the heels of all those distortions, the report contends that the Texas District of the LCMS in convention cannot elect four regents for CTX. So, not only will the synod in convention not have the regents it elected seated, but the Texas district will not even elect regents.

This is not the district president obeying Resolution 7-03 and seeking restoration. This is the district president himself taking a hand in dismantling what was  created over time by the people, congregations, and organization of the Synod.

Conclusion

The synod in convention acquitted itself well in 2023 with Resolution 7-03. How will the Texas district do in its convention? Will it be fooled by all these half-truths and distortions? Will it allow the opaque behavior of the board of regents? Will it accept the district president’s report without any transparency of how he acted and voted in the Board of Regents? Will it suborn with the district president a policy of unfaithful stewardship in the synod’s Board of Directors?

Soon this CTX episode will no longer be the fault of only the majority regents on November 8, 2022 and April 4, 2023. It is now the responsibility also of the entire Texas district.

[i] This endnote gathers a list and links to essays that I have written and radio interviews that I have done on the CTX matter.

Pastor Todd Wilken has interviewed me in the following episodes of Issues, Etc.

Leave a Reply