Borrowed Credibility: How Erik Herrmann Escaped Accountability
When seminaries stay silent, abusers don’t disappear—they just change pulpits.
Preface
Even with healing, closure, and forward movement, it’s necessary to look back with clear eyes. Not to rehash pain, but to examine how accountability failed, and how that failure continues to affect the present.
This post assumes some familiarity with my story. If you're just joining, you can find the background in earlier posts on this Substack page. For those who’ve been following along, I hope this helps connect some dots.
In the world of academia, ministry, and leadership, reputation serves as a powerful currency, opening doors and shielding individuals from scrutiny. However, when someone leverages others' credibility to maintain their own standing, it raises critical ethical concerns.
When a leader resigns amid scandal, one would expect their career to be permanently affected. Yet Erik Herrmann’s career trajectory suggests otherwise. Despite the exposure of his spiritual and sexual misconduct, marked by manipulation, secrecy, and the abuse of ministerial authority, he managed to land in another prestigious academic role: this time at the Christ School of Theology, the seminary division of the Institute of Lutheran Theology (ILT).
Herrmann left Concordia Seminary in June 2023, not by choice but because his conduct was exposed. Yet instead of facing real accountability, he quickly resurfaced in another theological institution. How did he manage to do this? The answer likely lies in a combination of institutional silence, relational trust, and the strategic borrowing of others’ credibility.
Triangulation: Controlling the Narrative
Patterns of manipulation like triangulation—where an individual controls narratives by keeping people separated and misinformed—can allow misconduct to remain hidden. In situations like this, it's common for key figures to be given tailored versions of events, preventing them from seeing the full picture. Whether intentionally or not, those around Erik Herrmann may have been isolated from critical details about his misconduct, leaving them unable to recognize the scope of his actions.
By portraying himself as misunderstood or wronged—perhaps suggesting the relationship was mutual, harmless, or merely an emotional mistake—Herrmann may have deflected responsibility and preserved the trust of those who might have otherwise spoken out. He may have framed the situation in ways that downplayed the power imbalance or cast doubt on the credibility of the person who exposed him. These tactics, whether subtle or overt, can keep people confused, misinformed, or emotionally loyal to the abuser, thereby protecting the person in power while silencing the truth.
It’s important to acknowledge that yes, some aspects of the relationship were mutual. I loved him. There were real feelings, shared trust, and moments of genuine connection. But in relationships where there is an imbalance of power, mutual participation does not negate abuse. A person in the dominant role can cultivate emotional dependence, shape the narrative, and manipulate boundaries while still appearing to engage “mutually.”
In this case, Erik Herrmann was not only a spiritual leader and seminary professor—he was also my boss. I came to him open, vulnerable, and trusting, and he used his position—professionally, spiritually, and emotionally—to initiate and sustain the relationship. He didn’t just break marital vows—he used theology, workplace power, and spiritual intimacy to draw me in while knowing he would never follow through. When the relationship no longer served him, he disappeared and then lied about me to protect himself.
That’s not just a “bad relationship.”
That is spiritual abuse, professional misconduct, and emotional manipulation at its core.
And yet, even after all of this, he didn’t face meaningful consequences. Instead, he was protected by silence, by structure, and by the people and institutions that helped him move forward without ever looking back.
Using Others to Defend and Deflect
The term “flying monkeys” refers to individuals who, knowingly or unknowingly, act on behalf of someone—defending them, attacking their accusers, or helping them maintain power. In Erik Herrmann’s case, critical questions arise:
Who endorsed his appointment at ILT?
Were these endorsers aware of his misconduct, or were they unknowingly complicit in shielding him?
Did ILT leadership accept recommendations without conducting thorough due diligence?
When leaders move between institutions, they often depend on professional networks and recommendations to smooth the transition. This makes it critical to examine who may have vouched for Erik Herrmann and whether they were fully informed about his resignation from Concordia Seminary.
A notable figure in this context is Dr. Robert Kolb, a distinguished Reformation scholar and professor emeritus at Concordia Seminary. Kolb, who was one of Erik's mentors during his studies at Concordia, currently serves as a Distinguished Professor and Research Fellow at ILT’s Christ School of Theology. There is no confirmed information that Kolb facilitated Erik’s hiring, but their long-standing professional relationship makes it reasonable to ask:
Did Dr. Kolb play a role in Erik's transition to ILT, knowingly or unknowingly?
Was Dr. Kolb aware of Erik's misconduct at the time of his departure from Concordia Seminary?
Borrowing Credibility: When Leaders Use Others’ Reputations
A particularly concerning tactic is stealing credibility—aligning oneself with respected individuals or institutions to transfer their trustworthiness onto oneself. This can manifest as:
Using past mentors or esteemed colleagues to secure new roles, relying on their reputations to overshadow misconduct.
Exploiting institutional silence to imply innocence, especially when previous employers do not publicly disclose the reasons for one's departure.
Emphasizing past achievements or affiliations to divert attention from ethical failings.
In this scenario, ILT's credibility is now under scrutiny. If they appointed Erik without full knowledge of his past, will they address this oversight transparently? If they were aware, how do they justify placing him in a position of spiritual influence?
The Bigger Issue at Hand
Erik Herrmann’s ability to step into another theological role without public accountability is not unique. Across faith-based organizations, leaders accused of misconduct often secure new roles elsewhere with little transparency. When institutions prioritize reputation over accountability, they create an environment where misconduct can persist under the guise of authority.
This issue extends beyond a single individual. It reveals how institutions and respected figures can be unknowingly co-opted to shield those who should be held accountable.
Since Erik Herrmann secured a new role despite his misconduct, key concerns remain. Both ILT and Concordia Seminary leadership have since stated they were unaware of the real reason for his resignation. If that’s the case, then the systems meant to ensure transparency and accountability failed.
Did Erik exploit institutional trust and personal relationships to bypass scrutiny?
Were recommendations given without full context?
Was Dr. Robert Kolb aware of Erik’s misconduct, or was his long-standing connection leveraged without his knowledge?
Holding Institutions Accountable
While ILT and Concordia Seminary have both stated they were unaware of the misconduct at the time of Erik’s transition, this raises serious concerns about how easily individuals can move between positions of spiritual influence without oversight. Institutions and endorsers must ask themselves: What processes failed? And how can they be strengthened to ensure this does not happen again?
Theological institutions should uphold integrity by addressing misconduct transparently, rather than protecting those who evade accountability. When seminaries and academic institutions fail to act, they don’t just shield one individual—they undermine their own credibility and betray the trust of those they serve. Worse, by keeping the truth hidden, they may also leave others who have been harmed in the dark—isolated, unheard, and without a path to seek accountability.
Since I began speaking publicly, three women have reached out to me privately. They described similar experiences and patterns, but told me they don’t feel they have a path forward.
Institutional silence protects the powerful and perpetuates harm.