# LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters Minutes_St. Louis Missouri_February 3 2025_S4
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

C. The “Constructive” Constitutionality of Church Extension Work
Prior to the 1979 revision, the Synod’s second constitutional objective was “The joint extension of the
Kingdom of God,” “joint” being added in 1924. This, compared with the post-1979 text, provided more
explicitly fertile constitutional ground for the work of church extension. 1979 Res. 2-03, which amended
the objective, however, lists as rationale that “the objectives…should reflect the mission of congregations
organized to strengthen one another for service”; “should affirm the Synod’s role as an organization
designed to serve congregations as God uses them to extend His kingdom”; “should include the Synod’s
program of social ministry and its program of care for its full-time workers” 6; and “should be stated in
terms of action that reflect the urgency of the call to be in mission.”
The 1979 change in language in the second objective must be understood in light of the stated rationale,
resulting in an ultimate meaning closer to the broader, pre-1979 language than would first appear. (That is,
a completely rigid, isolated, surface reading of Article III is not historically tenable.) The language appears
to be intended to be a more detailed, rather than narrower, statement of the same idea, emphasizing with
precision the efficient means (bold witness) that brings about the “joint extension of the kingdom of God.”
“Strengthen[ing] congregations” in this may involve support distantly ancillary to the central activity of
“bold witness by word and deed,” extending—at least in the case of church extension work—to materially
aiding the congregation’s (or school’s) possession, retention, and actual use of a building in which regularly
to carry this out. 7
The financial and administrative work of church extension (i.e., principally, building and maintaining
properties for member congregations, schools, and recognized service organizations), as performed by the
Lutheran Church Extension Fund and a few remaining district funds, is thus comprehended, albeit not
obviously or explicitly, in the Synod’s second constitutional objective, along with the rest of a limited class
of generally “strengthening” activities contemplated in Art. of Inc. II, as noted above, but not explicitly
enumerated in Const. Art. III. Synod is to “strengthen[] congregations…in giving bold witness by word and
deed” (Const. Art. III 2) by serving “as an organization designed to serve congregations as God uses them
to extend His kingdom” and as a vehicle of “congregations organized to strengthen one another for service”
(1979 Res. 2-03) and thus to support materially as well as spiritually “the joint extension of the Kingdom
of God” (pre-1979 Const. Art. III 2).
The “constructive” constitutionality of church extension work by a Synod agency, as thus understood, is
supported by a long history of acceptance and the convention’s repeated confirmation of this impression by
adoption of bylaws explicitly delimiting the scope of work of the relevant entity, principally Bylaws 3.6.4–
3.6.4.4.2 and 3.6.1–9).
D. Application to the Provision of Property Casualty Insurance to Synod Congregations and Schools
The commission has identified that the “strengthening congregations…in giving bold witness” language of
Const. Art. III 2 is historically and contextually open to the possibility of including implicit, constructively
constitutional activities. (The commission considered and discarded many other theories of constitutionality

The fourth and tenth objectives were added at this time.
With regard to church extension work, at the time of adoption of the “modern” Article III in 1979, the Lutheran
Church Extension Fund had just been incorporated in 1978. The convention presumably did not intend to adopt
changes to invalidate constitutionally this long-standing and recently-incorporated activity.
6
7

CCM Minutes – February 3, 2025 – Page 61