GOD'S
MINISTRY
THROUGH HIS SON JESUS CHRIST OF
BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
Revs. Mr. and Mrs. H. Dean Daniels
E-mail: gods-ministry@hdd-gods-ministry.com
Web-site: http://www.hdd-gods-ministry.com/
BAPTIST TAKEOVER BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
JUST TO LET YOU KNOW
How the various authorities are taking away your property including the churches as well as you, the Pastor.
You Pastors, are supposed to have, the responsibility that God placed, upon you! It is a follows: You are to feed, rule. teach and have the oversight of the flock. You are to instruct your flock. You are also to edify and to lift up the people. You are also to teach truth and not lie, nor to permit it to be done by others if within your power to prevent it. Your oath was supposed to be unto Almighty God, not man. Therefore, repent, you pastors of the earth or suffer in eternal punishment that is prepared for the devil and all of those that are in concert with him.
Instead, you wanted to follow the popularity of the people and be submission to them. You would rather be in subjection to the people, RATHER THAN GOD! However your gifts and calling were supposed to have been from God. For Almighty God is God and beside Him is no other. Federal authorities are not God. The Internal Revenue Service Inc. is not God. The New World Order is not God. Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake
However, when you, the pastor, or the church have signed the 501(c)(3) documents requesting to be tax exempt you THEN placed the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE AND ALL THAT ARE IN CONCERT WITH THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INC. as authority over you, instead of God. Therefore you became an indentured servant to INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INC., NEW WORLD ORDER, You then. no longer, had authority over yourself. You signed, all authority, over to them. So you signed away, your God given right, just LIKE ESAU, JACOBS BROTHER!
Therefore you are NOW in concert in league with them. Those documents with OMB numbers are ONLY FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. Therefore you lied pastor! Further , you are encouraging your parishioners to lie. Are you a federal employee, Pastor? You were to remain impartial. 1 John 2:15 love not the world neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is NOT in him.
If you signed that document that had the word "label" on it, the word "label" means an intentional change in will when it is attached to a CODICIL. The CODICIL is the ribbon, or paper (document) containing the address, name, such as Washington District of Columbia (DC). When you signed that paper, document, INDENTURED SERVANT CONTRACT. You changed your will, (POSSIBLY) WITHOUT KNOWING IT. Those that are in charge of Governments, Judges and the Like. all know about this, but have taken an OATH, NEVER REVEAL IT TO YOU, (BEING FRAUD). Those IRS Inc. and Bank Documents with OMB numbers (which they all do) has the appearance of and is an UNREVEALED CONTRACT, (which is deception, fraud). However most Bank Documents have some that are more revealing then others. Again the word label is attached to a codicil. Therefor you have intentionally changed your will when you placed your seal. It could have been a thumbprint or a written signature upon that document. Within that codicil you stated (without your knowing it possibly) that you no longer live in the state that you reside but instead you live in Washington, District of Columbia. Again therefore, pastor, you lied when you signed those documents unless you actually live in Washington, District of Columbia or in one of the enclaves scattered across the American Continent or across the Oceans.
BY SIGNING THEIR DOCUMENTS
You gave the Internal Revenue Service Inc., New World Order, The International Monetary Fund, and the Agency for International Development AUTHORITY as god over your church and you as an indentured servant to them.
I would defiantly say repent and come out from among them whole you still have time before the Lord comes back!
Everyone needs to look up Presidential executive ORDER 11490 which is used to take over the churches
By order of the President and the FEDERAL EMERGENCY ACT (50 U.S.C. 1622 (d)) and EO 12938
Thereby, leaving NO INDIVIDUAL any authority of their own if they can prevent it.
INDIANAPOLIS – The Indianapolis Star reports on the possible future of the Indianapolis Baptist Temple building. An expert assigned to sell the property on the city’s south side tells the Star that another religious organization is the most likely buyer.
The federal government has hired Olympia Partners to try to sell the former Temple building. Olympia took possession of the property on Tuesday. The company says the sanctuary, school and gymnasium will attract another church’s interest.
Federal marshals made history in Indianapolis when they, for the first
time, seized a church because of a tax debt. Tuesday morning federal marshals
moved in. Authorities called it a very calm, organized civil seizure.
Eyewitness News first learned of the marshals coming before the crack of dawn.
Then, around 8:45, marshals drove in and took control of the church. Eyewitness
News had exclusive video from inside the church. Our photographers and a writer
from the Indianapolis Star camped inside with parishioners for 91 days,
waiting for this day to come. An alarm sounded the arrival of the U.S.
Marshal’s office. And as they moved in through a side door an Eyewitness
News camera captured pictures inside. While Marshal Frank Anderson read the
court order, Reverend Greg Dixon Sr. and four other church supporters prayed.
Officers carried them out on stretchers when they refused to leave on their
own. As Reverend Dixon was escorted through the police barricade, he prayed for
the authorities. "Forgive them, for they do not know what they are
doing." But moments after he got up, Reverend Dixon got
into a brief shouting match with police.
That was the only flare up. More than 80 members of the U.S. marshal’s team moved in quickly, taking over the church and several other buildings on the 22-acre church property. There were no arrests and no one was injured in a seizure a federal judge ordered 91 days ago. "A lot of people would ask, ‘Why not go in earlier?’ And if there is a doubt whether someone could get hurt, ‘Why not wait?’ And that’s what we did, and I did what my judgment told me, and the operation was successful," says U.S. Marshal Frank Anderson. Throughout the morning supporters gathered in a nearby parking lot where they symbolically draped a black cloth over their church sign and sang. It’s clear the church members are prepared to stay together and move their worship to another place. Pastor Greg Dixon Jr. says, "They can take our building, but they can’t take congregation, and our people have been unified and we are proud of them and we’ll regroup and we will go on from here." After marshals moved in church members gathered at a Greenwood restaurant. Dozens of people met for lunch to talk about the future of their church and how it felt to see their church taken from them.
Bill Thornburg says, "It’s awfully hard to talk about, to think what you lost, what has been so precious to you." Ed Chandler adds, "It’s a sad day in America to see the religious liberty is now dead in America today. We are officially a communist country." They may not have a building or an office now, but their web site is up to date. Baptist Temple leaders updated their message on the Internet just minutes after federal marshals moved in. The headline reads "IBT seized." It goes on to say that the U.S. marshals seized the church with ten people on the property. They also criticize the Indianapolis Police Department for blocking off the streets around the Temple.
What’s next?
Bill Thornburg says, "I haven’t given up yet. God’s
still on the throne. We still can be vindicated."
Thelma Vanhook was one of those meeting at that
Greenwood restaurant. "I think it will stand. We’ll all stand
together. This has drawn us closer." Ed Chandler believes "it will
have to go on as an underground church now as soon all true ... Christian
churches in America will." As for this church, the property along with the
parsonage seized last fall will be turned over to a receiver issued by the
federal court. That receiver acts as landlord, maintaining the property.
"Religious freedom is more important than that building."
Despite losing his south side church, Pastor Greg Dixon, like his congregation,
isn’t ready to admit defeat. "I think there are people all over the
city that are looking for a congregation. If we move to those areas (it will be
a) positive thing." Reverend Dixon did guarantee there would be
"another day in court," although it’s unclear what if any
appeals are left.
In the meantime, Sunday services will be held at Manual High School
beginning this Sunday and for the next several weeks. Church leaders will
decide this weekend what their next course of action will be.
The Baptist Temple, which includes a school with dozens of workers, owes
some $6 million in penalties and back taxes never withheld from those workers.
Appeals, taken all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, have been exhausted.
Thomas
from Greenville, SC — 2/14/2001 8:43:52 AM
I think Indianapolis Baptist Tabernacle is wrong. Are there others who agree
with me?
I visited the IBT website (http://www.indianapolisbaptisttemple.com) to get their side of the story and after reading what they have to say, I have to wonder if these folks might be more interested in taking a stand than in exalting Christ.
My suspicion is that they have fallen prey to a terrible disease afflicting churches today. I think their stand is misguided and that this is one of the terrible things that happens when churches come to adore their pastors, their church organizations, and their stand against worldliness as much (if not more) than they adore Christ. Is that what has happened in Indianapolis?
Listen to the msnbc video feed on sermonaudio's link to the original msnbc article and hear the people crying about this action causing them to lose "friends" and "the building". Their tears appear to be for losing their "place to meet". -- Not over any supposed dishonor to Christ or his Church.
On the web-site Dr. Dixon writes that separating a church from its building is like separating a soul from its body. He writes: "But, try to sever their soul from their body. . .and they will shout bloody murder."
Bloody murder?? I'm excited that my soul WILL one day be separated from my body as it will be with Christ upon my death while my body rests in the grave until the second coming! (Read Westminster Shorter Catechism #37 and scripture proofs).
Sure, the scriptures say: "Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29) But in our zeal to obey God rather than men, we can't forget what scripture also says in Romans 13:1-2 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."
Why not obey and just withhold the taxes (in honor to the Lord) as the law requires and THEN take a stand -- and let the Lord over rule. Would that require more faith than is present?
Being asked to pay taxes is NOT contrary to scripture! If the government were to take every penny I have, I still trust in the Lord's ability to provide for me.
The church says it is not paying "wages", but "love gifts" to it's 60 non-employee "ministers". It sounds to me like they are just playing with words.
I don't want to be harsh to fellow believers, but am I the only one who thinks that these folks have chosen the wrong battle if their interest is in glorifying God?
I don't agree with a lot of what our government does, or how it spends the money, but I pay my taxes. And the Church should pay its taxes, too!
The IBT web site cites Daniel who continued to pray when ungodly men really DID go against God's law. But Daniel ALSO went to the den of lions without a fight -- and the Lord preserved him.
IBT's refusing 501(c)(3) status is admirable. If 501(c)(3) were abolished we'd probably have less charlatan churches with unsaved men (and women) seeking a "tax free" business.
I don't have any reason to say that the IBT aren't a faithful God-fearing group. But if they were to make godly obedience a companion to refusing 501(c)(3), I believe they would have a much more effective witness. Maybe they wouldn't get the TV coverage, but which is more important?
Pray that God will have the glory in this.
Scott
Bradford from Greenville, S.C. — 2/17/2001 1:17:07 PM
After reading "Thomas" in the
comments section here I feel compelled to reply. Thomas with all due respect
you could not be more wrong. This is why: A very simple maxim of law that just
about all Bible believing Christians, (not to mention the rest of the public)
know nothing about, and that is the fact that "he who creates controls!"
What that means is that if you are a creation (corporation) of the state you
are controlled by the state, period. Whether or not you accept that premise
matters not. There is plenty of case law to prove that fact beyond a shadow of
a doubt! Pastor Dixon recognized this fact, and that is why he revoked his
501-C 3 status with the IRS (which every God fearing church in America should
do!). Why is this such an important issue? Because
there is only ONE head of the church of Christ and it is no government! It is
the Lord Jesus Christ. When you start down the road of letting the government
license churches you have entered the slippery slope to which there is no
return outside of revolution. Whether any reader of this post accepts this or
not one day in the not so distance future your head will be pulled out of the
sand, and you will recognize that right now we are at the end of religious
freedom in this country. God have mercy on us. We all need to be on our knees
seeking God's face to lead us into the days ahead.
David Ekblad
from Fairmont, MN — 2/17/2001 4:40:13 PM
THE REAL PROBLEM RELATING TO IBT IS NOT TAXES--IT
IS WHO IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH?
Below are a couple of letters I've written that will help the
"Render to Caesar" people understand what really belongs to
"Caesar" and what does not.
********
Under Roman law, incorporation came to be deemed as a means of controlling
and silencing opposition to government oppression. In English history, it is
evident that the use of corporations was adopted from the Romans. The legal and
historical basis for corporations in America is the result of inheriting the
body of law which England used.
"By the time Blackstone came along, the doctrine was settled so far as he was concerned: 'But, with us in England, the king's consent is absolutely necessary to the erection of any corporation, either implied or expressly given.' (thus, the Commentaries in 1766); and in 1780, during the American Revolution, Comyns states concisely that 'A corporation is a Franchise created by the King.' So stood the law when the United States was winning its independence; and in that state it was transmitted to the new republic. The Crown had won its fight with collectivities of spontaneous or private consensual origin; the state was master. Because the corporation was an instrument and an act of the state, it was regarded in the new country with a kind of fear almost precisely opposite to the fear which exists today… Then, erection of such enterprises was considered to be dangerous be cause they give too great power to government." "Historical Inheritance of American Corporations," Adolf A. Berle, Jr., Cases and Materials on Corporations, p. 2.
For a religious body to be a corporation was unthinkable in early America. We wonder why our country has lost its historic moorings, and I believe one big reason is that churches have given over the Headship of Christ to the government by incorporating. Thus, the Church, Inc. is a division of the government. What is there to truly stabilize and keep our government on the foundation upon which it was founded?
"The right to act as a corporation is a special privilege conferred
by the sovereign power, and until
there is a grant of such right, whether by special charter or
under general law, there can be no corporation." 18 Am Jur
2d, Corporations; Commencement of existence, Section 67
"Generally, the state, in its sovereign capacity, may resort to the courts through its attorney general for relief by injunction whenever either its property is involved or public interests are threatened and jeopardized by any corporation, especially if the latter is of public service character, and is trying to transcend its powers or to violate its duties to the general public." Ibid., Suits or proceedings in behalf of state, Section 9
In other words, if the Church, Inc. doesn't follow public policy in any
matter (today--includes hiring homosexuals, women preachers, etc.), the
corporation has violated its covenant contract with the state, and can
rightfully be sued for such violations. Therefore to be a corporate officer is
very, very risky. Being an officer of a corporation entails also being
responsible for the actions of the corporation, including any and all violations
of law (minutes kept, procedures, etc.). I have a hard time seeing to it that
our church meets all the contract terms we have covenanted together, via the
corporate contract with the state, and knowing all the things done or not done
that may or may not be in compliance with corporate law.
Church, Inc. must fulfill a useful "public purpose" in order to qualify for and maintain its charitable, tax exempt, and tax deductible status.
"…in enacting both Section 170 and Section 501©(3), Congress sought to provide tax benefits to charitable organizations, to encourage the development of private institutions that serve a useful public purpose or supplement or take the place of public institutions of the same kind." Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 US 574 at 587
"Public purpose. The term is synonymous with governmental purpose." Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition
I cannot imagine someone in Peter's day writing: "Dear Caesar, I want to be a Christian. Please grant your approval." Or Paul writing: "Dear Nero, Please grant me permission to put this church I started under your jurisdiction as a corporation. And the churches of Galatia request your permission to grant them the status of the Galatian Association of Churches, Incorporated." Why would we think it is right today to take the Headship of Christ from churches and grant it to the government?
Whether the government acquires jurisdiction over churches through trickery and carrots or churches knowingly request existence as a division of the state by incorporating and the churches do not comprehend the terms and conditions of those contracts they sign, still, ignorance of the law is not excuse.
I wrestled with being a pastor in any state other than Virginia or West Virginia, which are the only two states that a church cannot be incorporated in. I realize that a true church does not need to be incorporated, never used to be, and still shouldn't be. But God directed me to accept the pastorate in Worthington, MN. I wrestled with it again in coming where I am. As pastor, I am responsible for what the church does, allows, says, etc.
As a nation, and as Christians, we have allowed many things which are not legal, necessary, or right to appear proper. We didn't become informed, or properly act on what we learned. Churches becoming incorporated are one of these areas. Since I'm not in step with the accepted philosophy on this today, I realize I may be highly criticized. I trust that the spirit of our Lord will prevail in this matter. Although I disagree with the species alignment, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions; and experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind." To: Edward Carrington, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (1787), Paul L. Ford. Vol. Iv, p. 360
I do hope and pray that this does not create any hard feelings. I would encourage each and every man of God to seriously consider who is actually the Head of their church--not the assumed head, but the actual head. By the request to the state to be a corporation, the sovereign is the government, not Christ. One of our Baptist distinctives, which doesn't seem very distinct in most churches, is separation of church and state. It seems an oxymoron stretched to great lengths to claim that as a distinctive. An average person with little education would say such a claim seems hypocritical--two-faced.
Feel free to ask any questions, if you should so desire. I do not claim to be better than anyone else in holding to a true separation of church and state principle. But I must act as the Holy Spirit directs me to, according to His Word.
Serving Christ 'till He comes,
David Ekblad
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A follow up letter is below.
Dear Laborers for our Lord,
Since a concern has recently been expressed by a beloved Brother that my previous letter did not include any Scriptures, I am sending this letter to alleviate any possible misconceptions by anyone that I chose to not be on the Association’s Executive Committee apart from Biblical teachings, but rather through human reasoning. Please understand that I am not making this a point of contention or trying to impose my understanding of applying God’s truth to other men’s ministries. (All of us wish that everyone else would believe what we do though, right?)
In my previous letter I wrote with the assumption that all of the pastors receiving it know the Bible doctrines of the Sovereignty of God, the Headship of Christ over His local churches, the true origin of a church and its proper Biblical allegiances, the autonomy of the local church, the desire and commitment of God’s people to be honest and fulfill their obligations/promises/contracts, separation of church and state, God’s instituting government and the proper role of His people in submitting to legitimate government, Satan’s continuous desire to hurt, thwart, defeat, and destroy the work of God to the greatest extent he possibly can--whether by overt confrontation or subtle and crafty deception, and the Biblical commands for God’s people not to be entangled with the world.
Based on the assumption of the knowledge of these and other important Bible doctrines, I did not include in my letter the Scripture passages which teach these truths. Books have been written on each of them, and the purpose of my letter was not to teach these doctrines, but to point out how I do not wish to be involved in the legal responsibilities of the Association--which are required by the contract (of incorporating) with the state, for the incorporating contract subverts the Headship of Christ, and entangles the Association of churches in the dilemma of claiming Christ is the Head, but having denied that claim by the terms of the contract agreed to, which is the Articles of Incorporation. My letter stated my understanding of applying the doctrines which I assumed each of the pastors know and believe. Since it is clear to me that having a church or an association of churches to be incorporated is in violation of these doctrines, I tried to explain why I came to that understanding and application of Scripture. I firmly believe God’s people must follow His Word above all else, and make life’s decisions based on what God tells us, not tradition, other people, organizations, or our own reasoning.
Again I’m writing with the premise that since this letter is going to pastors who know solid Bible doctrine, I do not need to write a book and explain the depths of Biblical word meanings, such as church, world system, etc.
In brief summary of my previous letter, a corporation comes into existence by seeking permission from the government to exist, and sets forth terms of its existence--a contract, which must be followed by both parties, the grantor who is the head, and the grantee who applied for the contract. Thus, when a church incorporates, it seeks permission from the government to exist as a subdivision of the government, and by contract it makes the government its head, whether it understands that or not.
What does God say about this? "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Exodus 20:3. "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other." Mt. 6:24a. Individual Christians have Christ as their Head (Master), and the government is also in authority, where it doesn’t violate God’s Word. A true church has Christ as its Head, but Church, Inc. has the government as its head--by Church, Inc.’s own request in its Articles of Incorporation. Who does God state is the Head of the church? "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." Col. 1:18. Why seek a different head?
Claiming Christ as the Head is contrary to the commitment the Church, Inc. made in the terms of its contract. Trying to make the claim that Christ is the Head of our Church, Inc. is a violation of the contract sought for and entered into upon incorporating. In fact, the only thing a court will recognize as valid terms for Church, Inc. to follow, is its contract with the government. The Bible is not an actual part of the contract (even though the Church, Inc.'s constitution states that the Bible is their only rule for faith and practice), and thus cannot even be used in court as a basis for how it operates, despite what it claims to believe. But a part of the contract of incorporation is that Church, Inc. will follow public policy, which as mentioned in the last letter, is government policy.
Call a snake a puppy, but it doesn’t make it a puppy. Can call a corporation a church, but it doesn’t make it a church. A church is a called out assembly of baptized believers. Called out of what? Out of the world system. What is a Church, Incorporated? A group of people (saved or unsaved) who have sought permission from the world system, specifically a government (in our country, state or federal), to exist as a fictitious, artificial person (numerous court cases state that’s what a corporation is) in the form, for the purpose, and according to the contract set out with the government.
Is it God’s idea that a church go to the world system government to seek permission to exist, as a subdivision of that government, or is it the world’s idea that it is good to exist with the government as the creator and head of the Church, Inc.? It's far from God's idea! "Be not conformed to this world." Rm. 12:2a. "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." John 15:19.
Let’s consider the Church, Inc.’s responsibility, both legally and Scripturally. It has sought for and accepted the terms of a contract granted by the government to exist and abide by the terms of that contract. Operating outside of that contract is a violation of the contract, and may be punished by the government, and properly so. We pay officials to hold people and organizations to the terms of their contracts. It is their responsibility to enforce those contracts, and that includes holding Church, Inc. to the terms it has agreed to abide by. When the Roloff Homes ministries were shut down by the state of Texas, it was because they had failed to follow the terms of their contract of incorporation. Church, Inc.’s contract includes following public policy. So if Church, Inc. is taken to court by the government for not allowing a homosexual to teach Sunday school, or for not allowing a woman to be a deacon or pastor, guess what the terms of the contract-covenant between Church, Inc. and the government dictate? Church, Inc. has agreed to abide by public policy, which today means that Church, Inc. cannot prohibit the preceding from "serving" as they desire to in Church, Inc. For Church, Inc. to claim the First Amendment (of the government not being able to force a church to practice the above mentioned unbiblical things) is frivolous. The Amendment is perfectly true and valid, and the government cannot force a church to abide by public policy. But Church, Inc. has already agreed to abide by it, and as a subdivision of the government, the government can dictate what it wishes to what it created. If Church, Inc. claims that they must submit to God rather than this government demand, it is laughed at by the government, and rightly so. For Church, Inc. to submit to God, they must abide by the terms of the contract they sought and had established with the state. (Remember, a true church cannot be forced to follow those public policies that Church, Inc. agreed to follow.)
"Let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation." James 5:12b. Everyone, including the government, should be able to count on God’s people abiding by their word. Failure to do so is a disgrace to the Lord.
God keeps His covenants (Neh. 9:32, Psm. 89:34), and if we are truly following Him and His example (Eph. 5:1), we must keep our covenants too. In fact, God makes it very clear that even the unsaved are expected to keep their covenants. Note in the long list of sins given in Rm. 1:28-32, God states that covenant-breakers are in the same category as haters of God, homosexuals, murders, etc. As far as God is concerned, it is no small matter to break a contract that has been entered into.
Judas sought a contract with the religious leaders of his day to set terms for delivering Jesus to them (Mt. 26:15). It wasn’t long and Judas realized that he had entered into an awful contract, and tried to get out of it (Mt. 27:3, 4). The Bible tells us that not only did Judas realize that he should not have made that contract, but he repented! His new understanding and change of heart and mind led him to seek to rescind the contract he had made, but, alas, it was too late! The consequences of the contract terms were now in the hands of the religious authorities.
Please understand that I’m not saying or implying that the Association, churches or people in contracts of incorporation with the government are "Judases." But the Bible makes it clear that contracts entered into have consequences that may not be understood at the time of entering the contract, yet still will be accomplished, even if a person later realizes they were wrong in entering into such a contract. Some of the consequences of being incorporated as a church is that the state can dictate who it hires, what it teaches, and how its property is used, whether you understand that or not. That is a part of the terms of the contract of being incorporated. Many court cases have demonstrated that. Just because the government hasn’t come to your doors yet and made its demands does not change the fact of the terms a church or association agrees to by being incorporated. The government can take the Church, Inc.’s building and property, with no payment for it, because the Church, Inc. is a subdivision of the state--by contract. Whether or not we agree with the methods or principles of Pastor Everett Silivan at Faith Baptist Church in Lewisville, NE, the real problem that existed which caused the state to padlock that church was that it was incorporated. The judge told Pastor Silivan that because the church was a corporation, the state owned it, and that he was doing the pastor and church a favor by padlocking it, for he could have had it bulldozed it down. Bob Jones University learned some lessons the hard and costly way too--in court, and rescinded their tax-exempt status so they could obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). (But they kept their corporate status.)
Repeatedly pastors have said to me that since the government hasn't come to their door to tell them that they must hire women preachers, have women deacons, allow homosexuals to teach Sunday school, etc., that it isn't a problem to be incorporated. "But if the government tells us we must do those things, then we'll follow the Bible and not do what the government is demanding, for we ought to obey God rather than men," they say. But God tells us repeatedly to fulfill our word, our promises, and Church, Inc. has made a contract with the government to adhere to public policy. What does the Bible say about God's people's role regarding contracts that are contrary to His Word? Should God's people break those contracts so as to "obey God's Word" as He gave it regarding a different issue, or should God's people obey the part of God's Word of fulfilling their contract, even if the contract violates clear commands from God? Either way, God's Word will be disobeyed "in order to obey God's Word." My belief is that it is better to properly get out of a contract which will cause disobedience to God's Word--before being compelled to violate God's Word, rather than wait until being forced to either disobey God by breaking a contract with the government or disobey God by doing what the contract stipulates, which is in violation of a different part of God's Word.
Remember the Gibeonites in Joshua 9:18, 19? "And the children of Israel smote them not, because the princes of the congregation had sworn unto them by the Lord God of Israel. And all the congregation murmured against the princes. But all the princes said unto all the congregation, We have sworn unto them by the Lord God of Israel: now therefore, we may not touch them." God's people became very upset with their princes who had clearly disobeyed God's distinct command not to make covenants with the heathen. But once the covenant had been made, it would have been wrong to break it. That's the situation of entering into the contract of incorporating a church too. It's terms agreed to are against God's Word, yet when incorporation is sought and agreed to, it is wrong to break that contract. Guess what God's people discovered? They paid a big price, even years later, for the contract they unwittingly had made with the heathen Gibeonites. Almost four centuries after the contract was entered into, God still held His people accountable to their contract. "Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year; and David inquired of the Lord. And the Lord answered, It is for Saul, and for his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites. And the king called the Gibeonites, and said unto them; (now the Gibeonites were not of the children of Israel, but of the remnant of the Amorites; and the children of Israel had sworn unto them: and Saul sought to slay them in his zeal to the children of Israel and Judah.) Wherefore David said unto the Gibeonites, What shall I do for you? and wherewith shall I make the atonement, that ye may bless the inheritance of the Lord?" II Sam. 21:1-3
I believe the best route is to remember and obey II Cor. 6:14-17. We know we cannot be "equally yoked" with unbelievers. But noticed that verse 14 tells us that we are not to even be "unequally yoked" with them. That's pretty strong! I do not see any Biblical reason why we should yoke a church to the government, making the government our head, which can thus dictate how we operate, what we can say, etc. any more than for a saved girl to make a contract of marriage with an unsaved man to be her head to whom she is to submit and serve. God tells us what He expects of us: "Be ye NOT unequally yoked together with unbelievers: … Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and TOUCH NOT the unclean thing; and I will receive you." II Cor. 6:14-17. I get the clear understanding that it is wrong for us to reach out to the government for it to "grant us the privilege" of existing as a subdivision of it, and have it "hold our hand" in guiding us through what we can do and say, etc. Too many Church, Inc.s seem to almost "throw their arms around the state," their creator, clinging to their corporate status, and fail to realize that their obedience is to be first to God. An unincorporated church still must obey government (Rom. 13:1-7), but is not bound by contract to disobey God, as Church, Inc. must, by obeying its contract with the government that requires the Church, Inc. to follow public policy.
"Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s." Mt. 22:21b When a church or association of churches incorporates, guess to whom the things of God are rendered. By the terms of the contract of incorporation, the Church, Inc. is brought into existence by the state, and is thus under its headship. Why would God’s child willingly seek to do contrary to Christ’s specific command in this passage? Why should God’s people who have been unwittingly violating this command continue in such violation? Even more amazing is when God’s people criticize other believers who seek to obey this command because they have come to understand that the terms of the contract of incorporation actually place a church in violation of this command. Note: I am thankful for the spirit expressed to me (at the pastors and wives get-together a week ago Monday) regarding my previous letter regarding this issue. And I’m thankful for any questions anyone may have about this and/or any Biblical insights which may arise in thought or dialogue regarding this issue. Feel free to contact me if you like.
The early church was an unlicensed, unincorporated church. Had they incorporated their churches, just like the hundreds of pagan cults in the Empire, they could have avoided much persecution. With the merger of Church and State under Constantine in the early fourth century, incorporation was again used as a means of controlling opposition. Religious associations were forbidden, unless they qualified for State incorporation. Those that failed the doctrinal standards of the Establishment Church were forced to meet in secret, with the threat of persecution, were they discovered. Incorporation was licens.
History is replete with examples of good men of God, especially Baptists, who refused to be licensed by the government in order to proclaim God's Word. Yet today this problem of government being able to tell a church how it is to function is not understood, and thus, has nearly swallowed up most churches.
So, in order to follow the Biblical commands and principles of obeying God rather than men, rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God’s, not having any other gods before God, having Christ be THE Head of His church, etc., my understanding is that this cannot be done by churches or an Association of churches as long as they are incorporated. To obey God as a church or Association, these "organizations" must not be a subdivision of the government, but realize that God alone establishes them, through His people. Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." John 14:15
Since most people are so entrenched in the tradition and policy of recent times which thinks that a church should be incorporated or that there is nothing wrong with it, I would appreciate if someone can share with me what verse or verses in Scripture teach that the church should incorporate. If there are none (I know of none), and since the preceding verses show that it is contrary to God’s Word, even if the pragmatic view expressed by those who promote churches and church associations and schools to be incorporated were correct (which it is not), it would still be wrong to disobey God’s Word by "rendering unto Caesar" God’s work. God says: "No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier." II Tim. 2:4. This principle applies to local churches as well as individuals.
Again, much more could be said about this. I hope and pray that this letter clarifies why I have taken the position I have, and that it is based on Scripture--applying it in the rubber-meets-the-road of life.
May the Lord bless you as you serve Him.
Revs. Mr. and Mrs. H. Dean Daniels Sui Juris