Official Workbook PDF page source text

LCMS 2026 Convention Workbook: Reports and Overtures, PDF page 214

2026 Convention Workbook
179
OFFICER, BOARD, AND COMMISSION REPORTS
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 congrega -
tions … 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 wit-
ness 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 Ex-
plicitly 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 “su-
pervision 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 resolu-
tions of the Synod to other officers or agencies of the Synod” (By-
law 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 en-
tered 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 ac-
tivity is within the constitutional objectives of the Synod and that 
such entry or authorization is consistent with the board’s fiducia-
ry 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 in-
volves 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 
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 Ger -
man 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 ac-
tivity. 
C. The “Constructive” Constitutionality of Church Extension Work
Prior to the 1979 revision, the Synod’s second constitutional ob-
jective was “The joint extension of the Kingdom of God,” “joint” 
being added in 1924. This, compared with the post-1979 text, pro-
vided 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 anoth-
er 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 un-
derstood 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 intend -
ed 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 sup-
port 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) posses-
sion, 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 con-
gregations, schools, and recognized service organizations), as 
performed by the Lutheran Church Extension Fund and a few re-
maining 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” activ -
ities contemplated in Art. of Inc. II, as noted above, but not ex-
plicitly 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 congre-
gations 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 spiritu-
ally “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