LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 179

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
Neither is such a reading historically tenable. It may be observed
that the Art. III objectives (other than the 10th) are more ecclesial in
emphasis; they lack obvious reference to the accustomed, concrete
efforts of the Synod to assist congregations and other entities with
financial or other services. This is most notable and relevant, as
congregational property matters are involved here, with regard to
the work of church extension—an activity in which the Synod has
been formally, substantially, and nationally involved since 1902,5
even well before the modern statement of the Constitution in German and then in English (1917–20). The work of church extension
must be constructively identified within Article III, as will shortly
be demonstrated, with relevance to the presently contemplated activity.
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 Art.
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. The 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

179

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
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 endured) and
2026 Convention Workbook