2015 Student Report Warned Concordia Seminary St. Louis About Erik Herrmann
A student reported in 2015 that Herrmann told a teen not to resist rape. Concordia Seminary opted to “talk to him.”
By Iris Lennox
In 2015, a deaconess student reported a classroom exchange that is difficult to read even now. In her written report, Dr. Erik Herrmann told his seminary class that, while teaching on the Sermon on the Mount at an LCMS Youth Gathering, a teenage girl asked whether it was wrong to fight back if she were being raped, and he answered yes. In that same seminary discussion, he presented a second scenario: if a husband walked in on his wife being raped, he should let the rapist finish and hope in the resurrection.
She submitted the report to Concordia Seminary. The response she says was relayed back to her was simple: he would be talked to. He remained on faculty and in public-facing roles for years.
This matters for more than one reason. First, it concerns the safety and moral instruction of students and the church’s youth. Second, Lutheran teaching obligates Christians to protect their neighbor from harm, not to tolerate violent assault. Third, by the time my story began, leadership already had a report that should have triggered a serious review and accountability.
Note on privacy: The student’s name has been changed to protect her identity. Shared with permission.
Note on terminology: The student’s letter uses “National Youth Conference.” In LCMS contexts this refers to the LCMS Youth Gathering.
The 2015 Report
Below is the student’s report in full.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this letter to report the incident that happened April 24, 2015 in the class of Theology of Human Compassion and Care. The situation was as follows:
The reading for the class was Generous Justice by Timothy Keller. The class started off very much like every other class with Dr. Herrmann arriving around 1:10 [for a 1:00 o’clock class]. He asked what we thought of the book and discussion began. I added to the conversation that I enjoyed the book. Sometime during the course of the class the issue of whether we, as Christians, have rights or not was brought up by one of my fellow students. Herrmann discussed the thoughts of Luther concerning what to do if a thief was found in your house and then moved on saying, “Oh, you know this will be a really great question to ask this class.”
He then proceeded to explain that during the National Youth Conference a couple of years ago he was speaking on the Sermon on the Mount and a young teenage girl raised her hand and asked, concerning the turning the other cheek verses (Mt. 5: 38-39), whether it was wrong to fight back if you were being raped. Dr. Herrmann said that he told the young girl that it was in fact wrong to fight back if you were being raped. He continued saying that he then was griped out by all the youth counselors there and told that he did not understand because he was a man. He then turned the question on us asking whether we believed that we could fight back if being raped or not.
At this point, I believe one of my fellow female students may have responded, but I was honestly shocked enough by his question that I did not pay attention to her response. Another one of my fellow female students then spoke up and said that we had a need to fight back for our neighbor. I was then called upon, and said, “Yes, we have a responsibility to fight back if we are being raped because we are helping our neighbor, like [my fellow student] said. By not fighting back we are giving the rapist the idea that it is okay to do this and therefore hindering his morals.” I then proceeded to say, “Even the women that were raped in the Old Testament had some kind of vindication.” During my speaking Dr. Herrmann talked over me and said that I was bringing counseling into it and taking it out of the context of the Sermon on the Mount. He then posited the question again, “Is it okay, according to the Bible, and the Sermon on the Mount, to fight back? Is that what the text is saying?” The conversation continued with someone else, and the issue of self-defense was brought up. I again, raised my hand and said, “Don’t we as Lutheran’s believe that self-defense is not murder?” He answered with, “Does it? Not that I’m aware of. Not unless it’s one of those small things stuck in the Large Catechism somewhere.”
The conversation continued and the idea of passivity and the Mennonite way was brought up. He proceeded to give this example, “If a husband was to walk into his home and his wife was being raped, the husband should let the rapist finish and have hope in the resurrection.” At this point, I sternly and rather loudly stated, “I would divorce that man.” Soon after, one of the five men in the class raised his hand and asked a question that did not pertain to the discussion at hand. It was clear that he was very uncomfortable and wanted to change the subject. Dr. Herrmann said, “Yes, let’s change the subject” and left it at that note.
I was very distraught and emotional by this point, due to the fact that one of my best friends was raped and I was beginning to have flashbacks. Tears were feeling my eyes, but I did not want my fellow classmates or Dr. Herrmann to see, as I believed it would be disruptive to the class. So, I excused myself and went to the restroom, where I was able to pull myself back together and return to class.
Thank You.
What Happened After
The student reports that she submitted her written account to Dr. Gillian Bond, then Director of Deaconess Studies. Dr. Bond forwarded it to Dr. Timothy E. Saleska, then Dean of Students. The response relayed back to the student was brief: he would be talked to. There is no public record of an inquiry, written findings, or classroom safeguards that followed. Dr. Herrmann remained on faculty and continued in public-facing roles for years.
Two contextual notes sharpen why this matters.
Prior leadership in the same program. According to his online CV, Dr. Erik Herrmann served as Director of Deaconess Studies from 2009 to 2012. The report, therefore, concerned a senior faculty member who had previously led the very program whose students were in the room. An informal “talking to” in that setting communicates that the burden of risk sits with students, not with the professor or the institution.
Minimum due diligence that was available. With a detailed, contemporaneous student report in hand, leadership could have taken modest, standard steps: interview students who were present; document what was taught; review course materials; place a note in the personnel file; set expectations for future teaching on sexual violence; provide care to affected students; and ensure that any subsequent concerns would be received by someone outside the professor’s chain of influence. Some of this may have happened, but none of it is visible in the record available to students or the public.
The effect was practical. A documented concern about harmful teaching was handled informally and quietly. Years later, the seminary has not publicly addressed my allegation of clergy sexual misconduct involving the same professor. In that light, the 2015 decision reads as an early missed opportunity to protect students and to set clear boundaries around how sexual violence is discussed in seminary classrooms.
What a Prudent Response in 2015 Would Have Looked Like
This follows the standard cycle most deans, HR, and risk offices use for classroom-conduct concerns and sensitive topics: intake → investigate → document → safeguard → communicate.
According to the student’s written report, the concern was how the topic surfaced and was framed in class. Sexual violence was likely not on the syllabus; the issue was the decision to introduce hypothetical scenarios of sexual violence in mixed company, to teach that resisting rape is wrong, and to say a similar exchange had occurred at an LCMS Youth Gathering. A responsible review would focus on what was said, how it was taught, and its impact.
Take contemporaneous statements from multiple students who were present, including anyone who left the room distressed.
Create an incident memo with date, course, and key quotations as remembered by witnesses.
Meet with the professor, record his account, and set written expectations for any future discussion of sexual violence.
Require pre-approval for any classroom content on sexual violence and prohibit hypotheticals that counsel non-resistance to assault.
Assign an observer to the course for a period or pair the course with a second instructor when sensitive topics may arise.
Notify the appropriate campus safety office or Title IX or equivalent office to assess hostile-environment concerns and ensure compliance.
Offer support and a reporting path to affected students outside the professor’s chain of authority.
Verify the external claim by contacting Youth Gathering organizers or adult leaders to understand what was said and what objections were raised.
Place a formal note in the personnel file and define consequences for any recurrence.
Communicate, as appropriate, that the seminary rejects the harmful framing and has taken corrective steps.
What the Pattern Suggests
What follows is pattern analysis of Erik Herrmann’s behavior over time, with the 2015 incident providing context.
Given the 2015 report, months of deliberate concealment in our relationship, the way he used theological language to normalize harmful behavior, and how he managed our relationship’s exposure risk, it is plausible he had prior affairs or other boundary violations. This is pattern analysis. It is not a claim about any specific prior person or event.
Established comfort with inappropriate intimacy
The 2015 classroom exchange shows he was willing to say shocking, sexualized things in mixed company under the cover of “theological discussion.” That kind of brazenness often develops when boundaries have been tested without consequence.
Institutional protection
When a detailed report results in “he will be talked to,” it signals that pushing limits carries little risk. Institutional safety nets embolden repeat behavior.
Calculated secrecy
He chose someone outside LCMS power structures, tightly managed what I knew about his life, and cut contact when exposure risk rose. That looks learned, not first time.
Comfort in the double life
He maintained a public image of respectability while managing a hidden relationship for months. Compartmentalization of that kind is usually honed over time.
We cannot know for certain without others coming forward. Taken together, these indicators point to a pattern consistent with repeat-offense behavior.
The Theological Center
Under the Fifth Commandment, Lutheran ethics require more than refusing to harm. They require protection. Luther says a person is guilty not only for doing evil but also for failing to “prevent, resist evil, defend and save” the neighbor from bodily harm. (Project Wittenberg, Large Catechism—Fifth Commandment)
Missouri law points in the same direction. A person may use force to defend self or a third person from the use or imminent use of unlawful force; deadly force is permitted when reasonably necessary to prevent death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony, and there is no duty to retreat anywhere one has a right to be. (Missouri Revisor of Statutes §563.031) Rape in the first degree is defined as sexual intercourse with a person who is incapacitated, incapable of consent, lacks capacity to consent, or by the use of forcible compulsion; and “forcible compulsion” means physical force that overcomes reasonable resistance or threats causing fear of death, serious physical injury, or kidnapping. (Missouri Revisor of Statutes §566.030.)
Set side by side, the doctrine and the statute converge: Christians are obligated to shield the vulnerable, and citizens are permitted to intervene. Teaching that a victim must not resist a rape, or that a spouse should allow a rape to continue, conflicts with Lutheran confession and with Missouri’s defense-of-others law.
The Sermon on the Mount does not command passivity in the face of violent assault. In Matthew 5:38–39 Jesus restricts personal retaliation by overturning the cycle of payback embedded in “an eye for an eye.” The example of “turn the other cheek” addresses an insult or strike meant to provoke vengeance, not the ongoing violation of a person’s body. In Lutheran theology, the Christian refrains from private revenge while remaining bound by vocation to love the neighbor in deed. That love can require intervening, resisting an attacker, and shielding the vulnerable. Read in context, the Sermon corrects vindictiveness; it does not cancel the duty to protect life.
Why This Matters Now
Two independent outlets are reporting on this story this week. The 2015 report changes the frame. Concordia Seminary, St. Louis was blindsided by the specifics of my 2023 allegation. Even so, the administration had a detailed, written account in 2015 that should have prompted review, documentation, and safeguards. When institutions protect leaders instead of the vulnerable, harm multiplies. Safety, trust, and faith are the cost.
Corrections welcome; I’ll update promptly with documentation.
Their lack of action is shocking and sinful. They appear to approve when they do not take needed action, and so are participating in the sin.