The Resignation Loophole
When stepping down becomes a strategy to avoid accountability.
When clergy are accused of sexual misconduct, religious institutions often follow a troubling, familiar pattern: discredit the victim, minimize the allegations, and protect the leader. But there’s another way that clergy accused of misconduct escape consequences—they resign before they can be removed.
Resignation may seem like accountability on the surface. However, in many cases, quiet resignations allow clergy to avoid formal discipline, keep their records clean, and continue their careers in ministry or education with no public acknowledgment of their past actions. This systemic failure is widespread across denominations, leaving institutions that hire former clergy unaware of past misconduct, and giving predatory leaders a fresh start.
How the Loophole Works
Many church bodies, including the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS), have strict policies regarding clergy misconduct. According to the LCMS Council of Presidents Manual, any ordained or commissioned minister found guilty of engaging in sexual misconduct is subject to removal from the Synod's roster (LCMS Official Statement on Sexual Misconduct).
However, this removal only happens if formal disciplinary action is taken. If a pastor resigns before discipline can occur, they leave without an official mark on their record, making it difficult for new institutions to understand why they left their previous position.
A Case Study: Erik Herrmann’s Resignation and Its Consequences
When credible evidence of Erik Herrmann’s misconduct was presented to LCMS District President Lee Hagan, he confronted Erik directly. Faced with accountability, Erik chose to resign.
Though Erik could no longer serve as an LCMS pastor or professor at Concordia Seminary St. Louis, his resignation allowed him to secure a teaching position at Christ School of Theology, part of the Institute of Lutheran Theology (ILT), without any public acknowledgment of the behavior that led to his departure. ILT may have had no reason to suspect anything about his past actions.
In fact, despite the lack of a formal process or public acknowledgment of Erik’s misconduct, Erik was once again given a platform. On February 13, 2025, Erik preached in Phoenix, Arizona, as part of a newly announced partnership between ILT and a group within the LCMS called the Center for Missional and Pastoral Leadership (CMPL). This video was later released on March 25, 2025, under the CMPL banner.
This series of events raises serious concerns. Despite the gravity of the allegations against Erik and his resignation from Concordia Seminary in 2023, there was no public acknowledgment or reckoning regarding his past actions. Erik’s preaching and teaching roles were resumed with no apparent review, reflection, or accountability, reinforcing the systemic flaw of resignation without consequence.
This case illustrates the failure of resignation policies. While the LCMS did not actively protect Erik, the lack of formal discipline meant there was no mechanism to prevent him from continuing his career elsewhere.
Why This Is Important
This issue goes beyond one person—it’s a systemic problem that allows clergy accused of misconduct to quietly leave one position and enter another, with no accountability or transparency. This loophole enables:
Predators to continue in leadership roles, often in new congregations or institutions unaware of their past.
Victims to be retraumatized, knowing that their abuser has faced no real consequences.
Churches and seminaries to unknowingly hire problematic leaders, putting future congregants or students at risk.
How Religious Institutions Can Fix This
Many organizations—both religious and secular—have recognized the importance of abuse prevention, transparency, and institutional accountability. These solutions reflect widely accepted best practices for ensuring accountability and protecting communities. To close this loophole and prevent clergy from using resignation as an escape route, religious organizations must:
Mandate that all resignations prompted by the threat of investigation or under investigation be recorded as misconduct-related.
Establish a formal inter-institutional reporting system to ensure that seminaries and churches are aware of past allegations and resignations tied to misconduct.
Make disciplinary records accessible—while protecting due process, there should be transparency about why clergy leave positions of authority.
Conclusion
While many religious institutions claim to take clergy misconduct seriously, the resignation loophole remains a glaring weakness in accountability systems. Without structural changes, leaders who should be disqualified from ministry or education will continue finding ways to evade consequences.
In Erik’s case, the issue was compounded by the way his resignation was communicated. After Erik left, Concordia Seminary St. Louis sent a statement to faculty specifically stating that Erik’s resignation was not due to a moral failing. This type of messaging further obscures the truth, preventing institutions and individuals from making informed decisions about whom they trust in leadership roles.
Religious institutions must decide: Will they protect their reputations, or will they protect their communities? Until this loophole is closed, the cycle will continue, and those harmed by clergy misconduct will be left wondering if their abusers will simply resurface in another pulpit or classroom.
Erik’s case is just one example. It is far from the only one.
This isn’t just about Erik. It’s about the next person, the next institution, the next woman told to be quiet for the sake of the church. And if accountability continues to be optional, then the cycle isn’t broken—it’s institutionalized.
Photo credit: René Magritte