{"id":341551,"date":"2026-06-18T17:09:08","date_gmt":"2026-06-18T17:09:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/341551\/"},"modified":"2026-06-18T17:09:08","modified_gmt":"2026-06-18T17:09:08","slug":"appeals-court-sides-with-lcms-in-dispute-with-texas-university","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-tx\/341551\/","title":{"rendered":"Appeals court sides with LCMS in dispute with Texas university"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Michael Gryboski<\/a>, Editor Thursday, June 18, 2026\"Twitter\"<\/a>\"TheThe campus of Concordia University Texas, an academic institution based in Austin, Texas, that is affiliated with The Lutheran Church\u2014Missouri Synod. | YouTube\/Media Masters<\/p>\n

A federal appeals court has ruled that The Lutheran Church \u2014 Missouri Synod (LCMS) does not have to violate its own bylaws to sue a university that is seeking to end the denomination’s leadership influence over the school.\u00a0<\/p>\n

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision earlier this month in the case of The Lutheran Church\u2014Missouri Synod v. Concordia University Texas<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones, a Reagan appointee, authored the majority opinion, concluding that the lower court had \u201cquintessentially violated the church autonomy doctrine\u201d when ruling against LCMS.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe church autonomy doctrine, a corollary of the First Amendment, protects religious institutions\u2019 internal management decisions and doctrinal self-governance from judicial intrusion,\u201d Jones ruled.<\/p>\n

\u201c[The district court\u2019s] invasive inquiry replaced the Church\u2019s description of its polity, rooted in doctrine, with the court\u2019s secular reading of the Church\u2019s constitution, bylaws, and policies. The district court engaged in precisely the type of review that the doctrine seeks to prevent.\u201d<\/p>\n

In November 2022, the Concordia Board of Regents voted to amend its governing documents to remove the requirement to adhere to LCMS bylaws following months of discernment. Concordia President Donald Christian stated in a memorandum<\/a>\u00a0at the time that the decision was not meant to fully sever ties, writing that \u201cwe are not leaving the LCMS.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThis vote simply reframes the nature of that relationship so that governance will be directed solely by the Board of Regents rather than shared with Synod,\u201d Christian wrote.<\/p>\n

\u201c[W]e will continue to live out the mission of the church by remaining faithful to Scripture and the confessions; engaging with the broader culture and being a light to the world; continuing to train workers for the church; sharing the gospel with students; and partnering with LCMS entities to help them live out their mission.\u201d<\/p>\n

In response, the LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters ruled against Concordia leadership, saying it had to receive prior approval before adopting such amendments.<\/p>\n

When Concordia refused to seat a new set of regents in 2023, LCMS filed a lawsuit against Christian, Board Chairman Christopher Bannwolf and the board of regents in general. The following year, Concordia countersued, and the cases were consolidated.<\/p>\n

Concordia University Texas argued that LCMS was required to bring any legal action against the school, even though LCMS bylaws require the LCMS to handle only spiritual matters. A district court ordered the LCMS to bring the case against Concordia instead of the corporate LCMS entity, which denominational bylaws require to handle such matters.<\/p>\n

Circuit Judge James E. Graves Jr., an Obama appointee, authored a dissenting opinion, claiming that \u201cthe Synod holds the substantive rights at issue, and is therefore an indispensable party.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Synod adopted the Commission\u2019s judgment against Concordia, and elected regents of Concordia\u2019s board to replace the current board,\u201d Graves wrote.<\/p>\n

\u201cEven these descriptions of the Synod-Concordia relationship could suffice for the court to determine, as the magistrate judge and the district court did, that the Synod holds the substantive rights at issue.\u201d<\/p>\n

Daniel Blomberg, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, which helped represent LCMS on the appeal, released a statement<\/a>\u00a0celebrating the decision.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn America, churches \u2014 not courts \u2014 get the final say in how they are structured and governed,\u201d Blomberg stated. \u201cUncle Sam can\u2019t remake houses of worship into his own image. The Fifth Circuit reinforced that common-sense rule, which is a win for every faith community in the country.\u201d<\/p>\n

Follow Michael Gryboski on Twitter <\/a> or Facebook<\/a>