LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — February 3, 2025, Page 5

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

related to the presently contemplated activity, some of which were suggested by the petitioner, involving
objectives 4, 5, 6, 9, 8 and 10. 9)
The contemplated activity is considered with respect to this class of “generally ‘strengthening’ activities”
within which the work of church extension falls. Like church extension, this activity could “strengthen
congregations” in their central activity of “bold witness by word and deed” by materially aiding the
congregation’s (or school’s) possession, retention, and actual use of a building in which regularly to carry
this out. The commission thus finds that the proposed activity falls within this same permitted domain,
though it lacks church extension’s historical track record of acceptance by the convention and relevant
adopted bylaws.
E. Responsibility for Regulating and Assigning Activities not Explicitly Assigned by Bylaw or Resolution
The fact that an activity—even one explicitly or constructively called for by the Synod’s objectives—is
perceived by someone to be helpful to congregations is not license for any agency to engage in it
unilaterally. “All agencies that serve the Synod at the national or district level in a specific area of ministry
shall administer their assigned areas of responsibility as provided or authorized by the Constitution and
applicable bylaws or as assigned by the respective convention” (Bylaw 1.4.5).
While business affairs explicitly delegated by adoption of bylaws or other convention action to specific
agencies are merely overseen by the Synod Board of Directors, areas not so delegated remain within the
native authority of said board as “the legal representative and custodian of all the property of [the Synod],”
exercising “supervision over all property and business affairs” (Const. Art. XI E 2). “[The board] shall be
authorized to take on behalf of the Synod any action related to such business and legal affairs which has
not been expressly delegated by the Constitution, Bylaws, and resolutions of the Synod to other officers or
agencies of the Synod” (Bylaw 3.3.4.4). With regard to activities for which the convention has not assigned
the responsibility, it thus falls to the Board of Directors to regulate, between conventions, what new
activities may be entered into and—should it so authorize—to whom this new activity should be assigned.
The board’s authority to enter into or to authorize entry into a new area of business is not arbitrary, but
relies on a finding that the activity is within the constitutional objectives of the Synod and that such entry
or authorization is consistent with the board’s fiduciary duty not only to corporate Synod but, more
importantly, to the members of the Synod. It needs to do so cognizant, as noted in (A) above, that it is
getting itself and potentially another agency or agencies “out ahead of the convention,” an act that
necessarily involves evaluation of a complex business case (perhaps as evidenced by the long history,
documented in the first three footnotes above, of similar attempts not having been realized or having
Present objectives 2 and 9 appear to root in a common, very general objective of the pre-1917, German constitution
(Chapter IV 3: “Common protection and extension of the church.”) The latter objective 9 has been understood most
often to relate to duties and rights of pastors and congregations vis-à-vis one another and the Synod (1975 Res. 9-07;
1977 Res. 5-01; 2001 Res. 2-03A; 2010 Res. 5-01A; “Opinion on Dissenting Groups and Activities,” CCM Minutes,
Oct. 30–31, 1969 (ref. Op. 03-2328, Minutes, Apr. 29, 2003; Op. 05-2443, Oct. 16–18, 2005; Op. 11-2589, Sept. 3–4,
2011); CCM Ag. 1879, Minutes, Dec. 14, 1989; Ag. 1901, Aug. 30, 1990; Ag. 2115 [with regard to RSOs], Aug. 24,
1998; Op. 02-2280, Oct. 2, 2022; Op. 02-2309, Jan. 20–21, 2003; Op. 03-2338[incl. A and C], Dec. 13, 2003; Op. 092570, Jan. 23–24, 2010; Op. 10-2581, Sept. 7, 2010; Op. 13-2669, May 16–17, 2013; Op. 22-2980, May 2, 2022;
Standard Operating Procedures Manuals for dispute resolution and expulsion), once with reference to procedural
rights within the Synod under worker benefit plans (1967 Res. 4-46). It presumably also extends but does not seem
explicitly to have been applied in interpretation to the Synod’s efforts (e.g. Bylaw 1.2.1 [f][2] to “retain” on behalf of
itself and its membership “all authority and autonomy allowed a church under the laws and Constitution of the United
States and the State of Missouri.” Whether and to what extent the protection and rights describe have to do with
congregational property or its enjoyment, other than in a free exercise sense, the commission does not here opine.
9
Although this activity is proposed by Concordia Plan Services, the constitutional basis for its core work of
administering the Concordia Plans is clear (Const. Art. III 10) but, just as clearly, inapplicable to the instant question.
The commission notes that work related to worker benefit plans was carried out before the 1979 addition of the relevant
(tenth) objective.
8

CCM Minutes – February 3, 2025 – Page 62