Introduction

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod filed a civil lawsuit against Donald Christian, Christopher Bannwolf, and Concordia University Texas, Inc. on September 1, 2023. [UPDATE: A copy of the complaint may be downloaded via this link.] As with most court cases, the filing of the complaint that begins the lawsuit is not the beginning of the story. It is a step in the middle of the story.

A majority of the board of regents of the university, under the leadership and influence of the board chairman and the university president, threw off the control, doctrine, and ownership of the university by 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, and declared that they alone would determine the extent to which they would retain the doctrine of the synod.

The endnote[1] lists my essays and interviews about the context leading up to the filing of the complaint. With that context in mind, this essay proceeds to describe and explain the complaint.

Outline

We will look at the content of the complaint not in historical or logical order, but in the order in which it appears in the complaint, as follows:

• Federal Court; State Law
• Parties
• Background Common to the Counts
• Count 1 – Declaratory Judgment against CTX
• Count 2 – Breach of Contract against CTX
• Count 3 – Promissory Estoppel against CTX (alternative claim)
• Count 4 – Breach of Fiduciary Duties against all Defendants
• Count 5 – Violations of Texas Business Organizations Code against CTX and Christian
• Count 6 – Tortious Interference with Contract against Christian
• Jury Demand

Federal Court; State Law

The first thing to notice is that the case is filed in federal court, not a court of the state of Texas. Most of the previous discussions about the potential court cases that could arise from the actions of the defendants assumed the case or cases would be filed in state court. That is not what has happened.

Why is the case in federal court and what does that mean about the law that will apply to the case?

The state district courts usually are courts of general jurisdiction. This means they are assumed to have jurisdiction over the subject matter of practically any case. Consequently, complaints filed in state district courts usually are not required to plead facts or law showing that the court has jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of the subject matter is assumed unless a party or the court raises a question about jurisdiction.

The federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. This means there is no assumption that the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of cases filed in it. Instead, one of the first tasks of a party filing a complaint in federal district court is to plead facts and law showing that the court has subject matter jurisdiction.

The claims in this case all arise under state law, particularly, the law of Texas. Consequently, a federal court by default does not have jurisdiction of this case. Congress, however, has granted jurisdiction to the federal courts in cases of absolute diversity of citizenship. In this case, diversity of citizenship means that the defendants are citizens of the state of Texas while the plaintiff is not a citizen of Texas. Though LCMS is a corporation with authority to transact business in Texas, it is a Missouri corporation. Absolute diversity means that all of the defendants are citizens of Texas whereas none of the plaintiffs are.

Congress had the idea that out of state parties might suffer a bias in favor of the citizens of the state court’s own state when all of the opposing parties are from out of state. To safeguard the impartiality of the court that will hear a case, Congress gave jurisdiction to the federal courts to hear state law cases when there is an absolute diversity of citizenship of the parties.

LCMS chose to avail itself of the impartiality of a federal court in this case where all the defendants are citizens of Texas and LCMS is from outside of Texas. This, however, does not change the law that applies. Federal courts can and frequently do apply state law. In this case, the federal court will apply the law of the state of Texas.

Parties

The case has a single plaintiff, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS), a Missouri nonprofit corporation.

The case has two named individual defendants, one named corporate defendant, and twelve unnamed individual defendants. The first defendant is Donald Christian, the president of the university. The second is Christopher Bannwolf, the chairman of the board of regents of the university.

The third defendant is Concordia University, Texas, Inc. (CTX), a Texas nonprofit corporation.

The rest of the defendants are John Does 1 through 12. They are unknown individuals who served on the university’s board of regents and voted unlawfully to change the university’s governing documents. The complaint says these twelve will be identified, named, and served as defendants in the lawsuit later. It says they will be identified through discovery. That refers to a process in civil cases requiring parties to disclose and exchange information. The votes were in secret, so the identify of these defendants needs to be discovered.

Background Common to the Counts

Before stating any of the counts or claims of the lawsuit, the complaint provides background necessary to understand the counts. A court would not know this background without the plaintiff pleading it.

The complaint explains:

• What “the Synod” is, that the Synod is not a civil law entity, and that the Synod is the “church” and an ecclesiastical entity.
• What “the LCMS” is, that it is a temporal legal entity, and that it conducts the secular business of the Synod.
• The role of the Board of Directors in general and particularly regarding the Synod’s universities.
• The Concordia universities as a group and Concordia University Texas in particular.

The complaint explains what an “agency” of the Synod is.

An “agency” of the Synod is not a civil law agent in a civil law principal-agent relationship, but rather an entity authorized to be established to accomplish the Synod’s objectives in society. An “agency” under the Synod polity is an instrumentality of the Synod formed to pursue the objectives, missions and ministries of the Synod. See Synod Bylaw 1.2.1(a), p. 21 (Exhibit B). In this case, CTX (amongst other objectives), as an agency of Synod, was created and exists to fulfill the education and training objectives of the Synod.[2]

That has significance because Concordia University Texas is an agency of the Synod. As such, CTX is an instrumentality which the Synod in conventions or its Board of Directors has caused or authorized to be formed to further the Synod’s objectives. The establishment and furtherance of universities such as CTX within Synod is a foundational objection of LCMS and core to its central beliefs. As an agency of the Synod, CTX is in existence solely because of the efforts of the Synod, its members, and LCMS, and is subject to the constitution and bylaws of Synod. The CTX Board of Regents is a fiduciary of the Synod.

In 1926 LCMS picked and purchased property for CTX near the University of Texas. The LCMS authorized and paid for construction of buildings and for furniture. It assisted with funding and purchasing books for the library. Members of Synod congregations send their children to CTX and pay its tuition to receive a Lutheran education consistent with the confession of the Synod. They make donations to CTX because it is a Synod school. Synod and its other agencies, councils, commissions, and Synod-wide entities such as Concordia University System, The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod Foundation, and the Lutheran Church Extension Fund-Missouri Synod have supported CTX.

LCMS has supported CTX through the years by deeding property in trust to CTX; through direct funding including yearly subsidies, interim financing, grants, facilitation of debt service, and guarantying loans for CTX, among other benefits; and in 2006, conditionally waiving its reversionary interest in the CTX main campus property to facilitate CTX selling that property and moving the campus to a new location based on the obligation of CTX to reestablish the reversionary interest in the new campus property. Such reversionary interest is required, in part, to be granted by CTX to LCMS pursuant to Resolution 4-04 adopted by the delegates of the Synod at its 2004 convention. See Synod Resolution 4-04 (Exhibit D). To date, CTX has failed to follow through with that obligation, instead refusing to recognize LCMS’s reversionary interest in the CTX campus.[3]

In 1950 LCMS approved a transfer of the property comprising CTX to CTX in trust.[4] Deeds transferring title from LCMS to CTX contained reversionary clauses and use restrictions that identified certain circumstances under which CTX property reverted to LCMS.

In 2006, assisting CTX with financial matters and relocation of the CTX campus at the request of CTX, LCMS conditionally waived its reversionary interest in the university real property with CTX having a corresponding obligation to reestablish the reversionary interest on the new campus in LCMS’s favor as is required by Resolution 4-04 passed by the Synod in convention in 2004.

For nearly 100 years CTX operated pursuant to the governance set forth in the Synod constitution and bylaws, openly participating in Synod’s polity, agencies, and church life including receiving regents elected by the Synod in convention, as well as those regents appointed or designated by Synod officers. CTX sent representatives to the Synod convention as allowed only to and required of synodical colleges and universities. CTX participated as a member in the Concordia University System, and CTX’s president has participated ex-officio as a vice-president thereof and a member of its advisory council. CTX held itself out as a synodical school to solicit contributions from member congregations and individuals of the Synod.

On November 8, 2022, a majority of the Board of Regents (BOR) of CTX purportedly made that board self-governing and self-perpetuating in complete independence from the Concordia University System (CUS) and LCMS. CTX delivered unauthorized and newly adopted governance documents to the Texas Secretary of State.[5] They also changed the bylaws and policy manual of the university. The new documents:

• Deny that the university, its board of regents, or its officers owe any duty of stewardship to the synod.
• Declare that the university is “not subject to the authority of or governance by the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.”
• Reject election of regents by the synod in convention. The Synod’s bylaws provide that four of the regents are elected by the synod in convention.
• Reject appointment of regents by certain officers or bodies of the Synod. The Synod’s bylaws provide that four of the regents are elected by the Texas District of the Synod, that one regent is appointed by the Praesidium (Synod President and six Vice Presidents), and that the President of the Texas District is an ex officio member.
• Declare that the board of regents is self-perpetuating. That is, the board itself appoints all its members.
• Reject any duty to subscribe or adhere to the doctrinal confessions of LCMS. The changes declare that all determinations about adherence to the doctrines of the Synod shall made by the sole and exclusive discretion of the university regents.
• Reject the qualifications of regents and the university president established in the Synod’s bylaws. The changes declare that all determinations about qualifications of regents and the president shall be made by the sole and exclusive discretion of the university regents.

Each of those is a change from the prior articles and bylaws of the university. Each of them is contrary to the constitution and bylaws of the Synod. The changes required prior approval of the Synod through its Commission on Constitutional Matters (CCM) but were made without that approval.

The changes are an attempt to wrest from the Synod control of its university, its doctrine, regents, president, and property. At the 2023 convention of the Synod, the delegates elected four regents for CTX just as the convention has done during the whole history of the university. The election was conducted on August 3, 2023. The next day, August 4, 2023, Christopher Bannwolf, chairman of the CTX regents, sent a letter to the regents-elect from the synod convention saying they would not be seated because regents elected “at the LCMS convention cannot be recognized as members of the Board.”[6]

The complaint alleges that “The above actions were primarily orchestrated by Defendants Donald Christian, the current President of CTX, and Christopher Bannwolf, the Chairman of the CTX BOR.” It alleges that they are “the primary architects of the CTX improper action to unilaterally change CTX governance documents.”[7] It alleges that Christian and Bannwolf

have as a result caused harm to the LCMS and Synod for which they are financially liable up to and including the full value of CTX, which has been stripped from the Synod through their tortious actions. Pursuant to the most recent financial statement of CTX available to the LCMS for the period ending June 30, 2022, CTX has net assets of $111,147,678, for which residual value the Plaintiffs seek damages from the Individual Defendants.[8]

“CTX is attempting to walk away with a historic property of the Synod and LCMS without any say from or compensation to the LCMS.”[9]

The Board of Directors of LCMS submitted ten questions to the CCM about the actions of CTX. On March 30, 2023, the CCM issued its opinion that CTX’s actions in changing its governing documents violated the Synod’s constitution and bylaws, are without authority, and are null and void. It found that individuals who voted to change the governing documents without CCM approval were in violation of the fiduciary duties they owed to the Synod.[10]

The CCM opinion was affirmed by the Synod in convention, which is the highest legislative assembly of the Synod.[11] The convention adopted Resolution 7-03, “To Call Concordia University Texas Leadership to Repentance.”[12] The resolves of the resolution are set forth in the endnote.[13] The action of LCMS in filing the complaint with the federal court is in line with and authorized by the resolution of the Synod in convention, to say nothing of its being authorized by the constitution and bylaws of the Synod.

Count 1 – Declaratory Judgment against CTX

A declaratory judgment is a binding judgment from a court defining the legal relationship between parties. It declares what the rights and duties of the parties are without ordering anything to be done or awarding damages.

In this complaint, LCMS seeks a declaratory judgment under the Texas Declaratory Judgments Act or under the Federal Declaratory Judgments Act. Those acts are remedial and procedural, not substantive. They do not define the relationship, rights, or duties. Texas state law still does that. But the declaratory judgments acts allow courts to make declarations that otherwise they could not make.

In this complaint, the LCMS seeks a series of declarations, including:

• 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.

Count 2 – Breach of Contract against CTX

Just before the LCMS 2023 convention in Milwaukee, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas issued its opinion in a case between the Methodist church and Southern Methodist University (SMU).[14] The Methodist conference asserted a claim for breach of contract alleging that the 1996 SMU articles of incorporation formed a contract between the conference and SMU, which SMU breached by making amendments in 2019. The trial court dismissed that contract claim, but the appellate court reversed. It said,

We have found that no Texas appellate court has addressed the precise issue before us—whether the corporate documents of a nonprofit educational institution formed by a parental entity constitute a contract. Nevertheless, Texas courts have long held that a corporation’s governing documents, such as articles of incorporation, are a contract both between the members or shareholders themselves and between the corporation on one side and individual members or shareholders on the other.  … From the time of SMU’s founding to the adoption of the 2019 Amendments, the Conference was SMU’s corporate parent. … We will construe [the parties’] rights under contract principles in the same manner as we would the rights of members or shareholders suing a corporation for breach of its charter. … We conclude that the Conference’s pleadings sufficiently alleged that the 1996 Articles constitute a binding contract between the Conference and SMU, and the trial court erred to the extent it granted dismissal on this ground.

The Board of Directors of LCMS and the attorneys for the Synod have picked up on this quickly. They have included in Count 2 a claim that the prior articles of incorporation of CTX constituted a contract between CTX and the LCMS. They also have incorporated a number of other elements from the pleading by the Methodist conference and the opinion of the Texas intermediate appellate court.

Count 2 alleges that CTX breached the contract formed its articles of incorporation and bylaws in more or less the same way as SMU breached its contracts with the Methodist conference, by amending corporate governing documents without authority from the parent corporation. The amendment deprives the LCMS of its contract rights to elect regents at its national convention, to elect regents at the Texas district’s convention, to appoint a regent through its Praesidium, to exercise prior approval of the appointment of presidents of the university, the right to require approval of changes to CTX’s governing documents, the right to exercise ecclesiastical supervision over the doctrine taught and practiced at the university, and so on.

Count 3 – Promissory Estoppel against CTX (alternative claim)

This count is pleaded as an alternative to the contract claim. If the contract claim is sustained, then LCMS would relinquish this claim as an unnecessary duplication. But if the contract claim fails, then the LCMS would maintain this claim as a fallback position.

Promissory estoppel is a rule that provides parties a remedy when they are harmed by a breach of promise that did not constitute a contract. If we had only contract law, then such parties would be without a remedy. When (A) it is reasonable to foresee that making a promise would induce the party to whom the promise was made to change its position in reliance on the promise, (B) the party does in fact change its position in reliance upon the promise, and (C) a breach of the promise causes harm to the relying party, then the courts “stop the mouth” of the promisor from denying that they are responsible for the harm.

So, in this count, LCMS is alleging that:

• CTX made promises to the LCMS.
• It was reasonable to foresee that the promises would induce LCMS to change its position in reliance on the promises.
• LCMS in fact did change its position in reliance on the promises.
• CTX breached its promises.
• The breach of promise caused harm to LCMS.

For example, CTX made promises about reversion of its property that the LCMS deeded to it in 1950. CTX promised to maintain its property in trust for the LCMS. The LCMS provided CTX direct funding and other financial support. When CTX wanted to move its campus, it promised to continue the reversionary interest at the new campus, so the LCMS conditionally waived is reversionary interest on the old campus to allow it to be sold and the proceeds invested into the new campus. CTX regents and presidents including Christian and Bannwolf assumed their positions pledging to the LCMS that they would govern the university subject to LCMS’s constitution and bylaws.

The point of this count is that even if these promises do not constitute a contract, it would be inequitable to let CTX breach them and damage LCMS without an remedy to make LCMS whole.

Count 4 – Breach of Fiduciary Duties against all Defendants

A fiduciary is a person in a position of trust or confidence for another person.

The bylaws of the Synod expressly declare in several places that the regents of CTX are fiduciaries of the Synod.

A Texas statute provides that a religious, charitable, or educational institution may own property in trust for a controlling parent body.

Fiduciaries owe duties of loyalty, care, and obedience. In this instance, the regents, president of the university, and chairman of the regents owe these duties to LCMS. The complaint alleges that they breached their fiduciary duties by:

• Failing to follow through with establishing the reversionary interest of the LCMS on the new campus.
• Amending its corporate governance documents without approval from the Synod.
• Refusing to seat the four regents duly and regularly elected by the Synod in convention on August 3, 2023.
• Themselves appointing imposter regents.
• Removing all governing oversight by the Synod.
• Removing all ecclesiastical supervision of the theological teaching at the university.
• Denying their duty to adhere to the doctrines of the Synod.
• Filing a materially false charter amendment with the Texas Secretary of State.
• Walking away with synodical assets of the university valued on financial disclosure or reporting documents at $111,147,678.00.

Count 5 – Violations of Texas Business Organizations Code against CTX and Christian

Texas business entity law requires any certificate of amendment to articles of incorporation to contain an express representation that the amendment has been approved “in the manner required by this code and the governing documents of the entity.”

Prior to November 8, 2022, Article V of CTX’s articles of incorporation said:

The business of this corporation shall be conducted and its affairs shall be controlled by a board of trustees to be elected in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

Prior to November 8, 2022, the CTX bylaws required CTX to follow the Synod constitution and bylaws, including the Synod bylaw requiring preapproval of the Synod via its Commission on Constitutional Matters of any changes to the CTX governance documents before filing them with the Texas Secretary of State.

President Donald Christian signed the statement that the November 8, 2022 “amendments to the certificate of formation have been approved in the manner required by the Texas Business Organizations Code and by the governing documents of the entity.” The complaint alleges that:

CTX and Donald Christian had knowledge that the statement was materially false because they knew that CTX had not obtained the Synod’s prior approval and authorization, by and through the CCM, to the amendment of the CTX Charter pursuant to the Charter Amendment as required by the CTX governance documents.[15]

Count 6 – Tortious Interference with Contract againt Christian

A tort is a wrong that is distinct from crimes and breaches of contract. Whereas a crime is a public wrong deemed to have been committed against everyone and is therefore prosecuted by the state, a tort is a private wrong committed only against one or more private persons and is therefore pursued by the wronged private party. Whereas in breaches of contract, the duty arises only because of the terms of a contract that the parties voluntarily made, in a tort the duty is fixed by law independent of contract or the will of the parties.

The law fixes a duty on everyone not to interfere in the contractual relations of others. We saw above that the Texas intermediate appellate court in the SMU case decided this past summer that the articles of incorporation of SMU constituted a contract with the Methodist conference. Here, in Count 2, LCMS has pleaded that the articles of incorporation of CTX constitute a contract with LCMS. Under tort law, LCMS has a right that others refrain from interfering with their contractual relations.

But, the complaint alleges, Donald Christian interfered in the contractual relations between CTX and LCMS. He allegedly fomented the rebellion in the board of regents that in part took the shape of CTX breaching its contract with LCMS. The complaint asserts:

LCMS had a valid contract with CTX regarding governance of the university. The contractual relationship was created through nearly 100 years of continual operation of CTX pursuant to the CTX governance documents, including the Synod Constitution and Bylaws. Donald Christian entered into an intentional and continuing scheme to interfere with this contractual relationship between CTX and LCMS. Claiming to care for the Synod in public statements, but at the same time scheming to harm Synod through his actions, Donald Christian finally was successful in carrying out a long term plan to breach the historic polity of the Synod, cause schism in the Synod, and interfere with the existing contractual relationships between CTX and LCMS. Upon information and belief the CTX BOR would not have taken the precipitous action to unilaterally change the CTX governance documents on November 8, 2022 but for the insistence and interference of Donald Christian in encouraging the CTX BOR to breach their fiduciary duties to the Synod. The resulting interference by Donald Christian proximately caused LCMS injury in losing valuable contractual rights. As a result, the LCMS has lost its historic ministry and governance oversight with respect to CTX and has been damaged through the loss of CTX in the amount of at least $111,147,678. Plaintiff seeks this amount as damages against Donald Christian and all other damages allowed by law.[16]

Jury Demand

A party is not required to demand a jury trial. If no party demands a jury, a case can be tried to the bench, that is, to the judge sitting without a jury.

Interestingly, the LCMS has demanded a jury trial upon all issues of disputed fact in this case. That says something about the view of the attorneys for LCMS of their evidence and the jury appeal of their case.

---

[1] I have written about the context leading up to this stage in the following essays and articles:

• The Sovereignty of Nebulous Ethos at Concordia Texas, Brothers of John the Steadfast, June 16, 2023.
• Two Simple Questions about Concordia Texas Throwing Off the Bylaws of the LCMS, Brothers of John the Steadfast, July 10, 2023.
• Supporting the CTX Rebellion: Is Congregations Matter Sleep Walking?, TRHalvorson.com, July 24, 2024.
• Fox Guarding the Henhouse at Concordia University Texas, TRHalvorson.com, July 28, 1023.
• Open Arms in Missouri, Brothers of John the Steadfast, August 1, 2023.

Pastor Todd Wilken has interviewed me about the context leading up to this stage in the following episodes of Issues, Etc.

• 1731. An Attempt by Concordia University Texas to Reject the Governance and Oversight of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod – Tom Halvorson, 6/22/23.
• 1952. An Update on Concordia University Texas’ Attempt to Reject the Governance and Oversight of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod – Tom Halvorson, 7/14/23.
• 2123. The 68th Regular Convention of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod – Mark Stern & Tom Halvorson, 7/31/23.
• 2142. Votes at the 68th Regular Convention of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod about Concordia University Texas and the Concordia University System – Tom Halvorson, 8/2/23.

[2] Complaint, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod v Christian, Bannwolf, and Concordia University Texas, U. S. Dist. Ct. W. Dist. TX, Austin Div, No: 1:23-cv-1042, ¶ 11, p. 4.

[3] Complaint, ¶ 14, p. 6.

[4] October 20, 1950, LCMS BOD Minutes. Exhibit E to the Complaint.

[5] “The CUS board regrets to inform the delegates to the 2023 Synod convention of an unprecedented action that was taken by the board majority of Concordia University Texas (CTX) though a significant minority voted against such an action on or about Nov. 8, 2022. Without the approval of the CUS board, the board majority purportedly adopted a governance model in an attempt to transform its governance into a self-governing and self-perpetuating board completely independent of the CUS and the LCMS and delivered its newly adopted governance documents to the Texas Secretary of State.” Report 14, “Concordia University System,” Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures 2023, 68th Regular Convention, The Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, p. 67. At the end of the report, Concordia University System President, Rev. Dr. Dean O. Wenthe, concludes, “The preceding analyses should demonstrate that any suggestion of separation from the LCMS is without fiduciary clarity and theological merit.” Ibid., p. 69.

[6] Letter from Chairman Chistopher Bannwolf to regents-elect, August 4, 2023, Exhibit O to Complaint.

[7] Complaint, ¶ 33, p. 17.

[8] Complaint, ¶ 34, pp. 17-18.

[9] Complaint ¶ 39, p. 20.

[10] “University Board of Regents Unilateral Separation,” (23-3006) Minutes of March 30, 2023, Late Reports LR67, Commission on Constitutional Matters, Today’s Business, First Edition, 68th Regular Convention, pp. 29-34.

[11] Synod Bylaw 1.4.1, Handbook: Constitution, Bylaws, Articles of Incorporation, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 2019, p. 25

[12] Resolution 7-03, “To Call Concordia University Texas Leadership to Repentance,” Today’s Business, First Edition, 68th Regular Convention, pp. 139-141.

[13] 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.

[14] Southern Central Jurisdictional Conference of the United Methodist Church v. Southern Methodist University, Court of Appeals, Fifth District of Texas at Dallas, No. 05-21-00151-CV, July 26, 2023.

[15] Complaint, ¶ 72, p. 31.

[16] Complaint ¶ 76, p. 32.