Third, this booklet is not intended to deal with federal involvements or relationships, e.g. tax-exempt status.
Fourth, in Indiana, the corporation is created, owned, controlled and protected by the state at the body's request. The corporation must then have trustees to protect the state's property, and the pastor is an employee of its trustees. We assume this policy is typical of any state. (We will use "state" to refer to all civil government--local, state or federal.) We have reproduced copies of all the documents referred to in this little booklet.
Isa 39:2-8 And Hezekiah was glad of them, and shewed them the house of his precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious ointment, and all the house of his armour, and all that was found in his treasures: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah shewed them not. Then came Isaiah the prophet unto king Hezekiah, and said unto him, What said these men? and from whence came they unto thee? And Hezekiah said, They are come from a far country unto me, [even] from Babylon. Then said he, What have they seen in thine house? And Hezekiah answered, All that [is] in mine house have they seen: there is nothing among my treasures that I have not shewed them. Then said Isaiah to Hezekiah, Hear the word of the LORD of hosts: Behold, the days come, that all that [is] in thine house, and [that] which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the LORD. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon. (The seriousness of Hezekiah's act is seen in the fact that the Lord records his evil three times: Isa 39; 2 Ki 20, & 2 Ch 32:31.)
1) Limited Liability: the state sets the limits on the liability of the ministry. This point is very important as we consider incorporation of a ministry which is said to belong to God. Through incorporation, the state creates a body: a "person" after its own image, according to its standards and desires. This "person" now exists by the will of its creator, the state. It must be subject to the will of its creator, and as it subjects itself to the state, its creator protects it. The state sets the limits of its child's liability; then the "person" buys insurance to cover its limited liability. As the "person" who has been created by the state obeys the laws of its creator, its creator puts its umbrella of protection over its child. The parent, the state, then tells anyone who would seek to harm its "child," "You can come this far and no farther."
First, who is to protect the church or any ministry which claims to be carrying out Christ's work on earth?
Second, Whom the Father loveth, he chasteneth. Does the state defend its child from the Father's chastening hand? Observe: If a man will not work, he should not eat, but because of the state's protective hand (welfare, food stamps, unemployment compensation, &c.), the laws of God can be violated even by God's people, and they will be fed. "Hunger is God's cure for slothfulness," but when the state intervenes with its social programs, the slothful man proliferates (Heb 12:6; 2 Thes 3:10). How can one preach against the state's socialists programs that replace God and hinder His implementation of the things that will cure slothfulness, when the church through incorporation seeks the same protection of the state as its god from any acts of God which might call the church to consider its wicked ways? Instead of the corporation (church, ministries) looking to the Everlasting Father for safety and protection, in the eyes of the law, it looks to the state. This raises the question: "Who is the protector of the church or any ministry which is incorporated?" One may say, "The Lord is the protector," but God is not that protector in the eyes of the law. One of the reasons given for incorporating is the state's offer of protection.
2) Respectability: in the corporation, the state recognizes a person, a "fictitious person," a "non-existing person," yet that person has all the rights, privileges and protections of a real person. This presents a problem. The "ministry" sought respectability in the eyes of the state, and will be respected as long as it remains obedient to its creator, but:
1. By whose grace is the local church to exist? God's or man's?
2. Who brought the local church into existence? Who is its creator? Who has the authority to create a local body to carry on the work of God? the state or the Word of God?
3. From whom must the church seek respectability? God or man?
4. By whose permission is a local church (or any ministry which carries out God's work) to exist? God's or man's? Not one time in the Book of Acts do we have a record of the apostles seeking civil authorities' permission to preach the Gospel. This `oversight' created quite a bit of contention between the men and the civil authorities. Clearly, incorporation seeks the state's permission to exist.
3) Perpetuity: a never-dying "person." Instead of the person (organization) dying with the death of its founder, the state has created a never-dying person in the eyes of the law. In the corporation, the state, at its sovereign will, creates a person. That person will live forever by the grace and power of the state because the state breathed into the new corporate body the breath of life.
Direct Tax is referred to in Section 9: the tax levied by the individual states in the form of property tax.
Indirect Tax is referred to in Section 2: according to the court (Brushaber v. Union Pacific ) and Black's Law Dictionary, this is a tax on the privileged manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity. This is the tax on a foreign businessman who has permission from the U.S. Government to do business within this Nation.
"It was an act to enforce uniformity in religion by the authority of the civil magistrate, and to secure it by threatened penalties. It should be observed, however, that the command at that time would not be regarded as harsh and oppressive by heathen worshipers, and might be complied with consistently with their views, without infring- ing on their notions of religious liberty. The homage rendered to one god did not, according to their views, conflict with any honor that was due to another, and though they were required to worship the divinity, that would not be a prohibition against worshipping any other. It was also in accordance with all the view of heathenism that all proper honor should be rendered to the particular god or gods which any people adored. The nations assembled here would regard it as no dishonor shown to the particular deity whom they worshipped to render homage to the god worshipped by Nebuchadnezzar, as this command implied no prohibition against worshipping any other god. It was only in respect to those who held that there is but one God, and that all homage rendered to any other is morally wrong, that his command would be oppressive. Accordingly, the contemplated vengeance fell only on the Jews, of every other nation, who were assembled, complying with the command without hesitation. It violated no principle which they held to render the homage which was claimed, for though they had their own tutelary gods whom they worshipped, they supposed the same was true of every other people, and that their gods were equally entitled to respect; but it violated every principle on which the Jew acted- for he believed that there was but one God ruling over all nations, and that homage rendered to any other was morally wrong. (Barnes' Notes, Daniel I, p 212, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI).
Persecution of idolaters by those who were idolaters was rarely known among the heathen, and toleration was not contrary to the views which prevailed, provided the gods of the country were recognized (i.e. as long as all religions would recognize the authority or validity of others, there was no problem.), persecution was rare, and the toleration of other forms of religion was usual. According to the prevailing views, no mode of religion could be tolerated which would maintain that all the gods that were worshipped were false. Religion was supposed to be identified with the best interests of the state, and was recognized by the laws, and protected by the laws. To deny the claim, therefore, of any and all the gods that were worshipped; to maintain that all were false alike; to call on men to forsake their idols and to embrace a new religion - all this was regarded as an attack on the state. This was the attitude which Christianity assumed toward the religions of the Roman Empire, and it was this which led to the fiery persecutions which prevailed there. While Rome could consistently tolerate any form of idolatry that would recognize the religion established by the state, it could not tolerate a system which maintained that all idolatry was wrong. It would allow another god to be placed in the Parthenon, but it could not recognize a system which would remove every god from that temple. These [pagan] views may be thus summed up: (a) all the gods worshipped by others were to be recognized [e.g. genocide treaty]; (b) new ones might be introduced by authority of the state; (c) the gods which the state approved and acknowledged were to be honored by all [e.g. abortion, &c.]; (d) if any person denied their existence, and their claims to homage, they were to be treated as enemies of the state. (c) The attempts made to produce conformity in countries where the Christian system has prevailed. In such countries, as among the heathen, it has been supposed that religion is an important auxiliary to the purposes of the state, and that it is proper that the state should not only protect it, but regulate it. It has claimed the right, therefore, to prescribe the form of religion which shall prevail; to require conformity to that, and to punish all who did not conform to the established mode of worship. This attempt to produce conformity has led to most of the persecutions of modern times (Ibid. pp 227-228. We have only reproduced a few portions of Barnes' very pertinent comments. Read the rest of his treatment of Dan 3).
Now, as soon as he had ceased praying, having made mention of all that had at any time come in contact with him, both small and great, illustrious and obscure, as well as the whole Catholic Church throughout the world, the time of his departure having arrived, they set him upon an ass, and conducted him into the city, the day being that of the great Sabbath. And the Irenarch Herod, accompanied by his father Nicetes (both riding in a chariot), met him, and taking him up into the chariot, they seated themselves beside him, and endeavoured to persuade him, saying, "What harm is there in saying, Lord Caesar, and in sacrificing, with the other ceremonies observed on such occasions, and so make sure of safety?" But he at first gave them no answer; and when they continued to urge him, he said, "I shall not do as you advise me" (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, The Anti-Nicene Fathers, p 40. WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. See also The Martyrdom of the Holy Martyrs, p 306. The Martyrs did not have to forsake the worship of Jesus; all they had to do was "offer the sacrifice with one accord to the gods").
1) the civil magistrates see nothing wrong with demanding all religious activity be submitted for their approval.
2) those who worship other gods see nothing wrong with the demand because it corresponds with their belief in many gods, each god receiving what he claims as his as long as none claim exclusiveness. (That is, none claiming exclusiveness except the state.)
3) the pagan idea of the validity of each god has infiltrated Christian circles: "It doesn't hurt to recognize another authority over the `work of the Lord' as long as there is no prohibition against worshipping God as I see fit." Of course, there is no prohibition against "worshiping" God because this kind of "worship" is well within the heathen framework of many gods, each owed his individual respect as long as none but the state claim exclusiveness, e.g. respect each person's belief.
4) therefore, idolatry is recognizing any other authority, civil or otherwise, not only over, but on equal footing with the Lord God. Can a ministry, even under the name of the `work of God,' serve two masters? Many attempt to live the impossible dream: the Lord said, "No servant can serve two masters" (Lu 16:13).
As godly people begin to restructure their behavior in terms of what the Bible requires, the world around them will change (Backward Christian Soldiers? Gary North, p 10, Institute for Christian Economics, Tyler TX 75711).
Under pretence of religion, and holiness in making an image to his idol Bel, he sought his own ambition and vain glory: and this declares that he was not touched with the true fear of God before, but that he confessed him on a sudden motion, as the wicked when they are overcome with the greatness of his works. The Greek interpreters write that this was done eighteen years after the dream, and as may appear, the King feared lest after the dream, and as may appear, the King feared lest the Jews by their religion should have altered the state of his commonwealth: therefore he meant to bring all to one type of religion, and so rather sought his own peace than God's glory.
Moloch worship was thus state worship. The state was the true and ultimate order and religion was a department of the state. The state claimed total jurisdiction over man; it was therefore entitled to total sacrifice. For a state to claim total jurisdiction, as the modern state does, is to claim to be as God, to be total governor of man and the world. The Moloch state is the product of apostasy. When a people reject God as their King, and make a man or the state their king, God declares the consequences (The Institutes of Biblical Law, Craig Press, pp 33-34. 1 Sam 8:7-9. I would recommend strongly that you read Dr. Rushdoony's treatment of Moloch worship).
We are now brought to a difficult situation concerning incorporation or the registration with the state as a NFP organization in order to do God's work. In this submission, God's people reject God as their King (final authority) and replace His authority with the state's.
For whoever receives the gifts of God except from God and in God's way received them from devils. Whoso seeks what God forbids, seeks it from Satan, and holds that Satan, not God, loves him: since God refuses it, Satan encourages him to possess himself of it. Satan, then, is his lover (Barnes' Notes, Minor Prophets I, p 30).
Forms contained in the printed booklet:
Back of Annual Report.
Form 300N - Letter from the State.
Letter of Instructions - Form ST 200
Questionnaire - For NFP
Back of IT-35A
Letter to Department of Revenue.
Back of Letter & Letter From State
Order the booklet from us: $5.25 post paid for one. 2 or more, $5.00 each, post paid.
Ovid Need 2141 N River Rd Baker WV 26801
The IRS has succeeded in gagging Christians.
Rev. D. James Kennedy has stated:
The federal government has proved a tremendous impediment to the ongoing work of Christians. In all the laws that they have passed against Christian schools, gagging the church, taxation, and all kinds of things that they have done, they have made it harder for the church to exercise its prerogatives and to preach the gospel.
"Take the last presidential election. There were numbers of things that I knew that I was never able to say from the pulpit because if you advance the cause of one candidate or impede the cause of the other you can lose your tax exemption. That would have been disastrous not only for the church, but for our school and our seminary, everything. So you are gagged. You cannot do that. The IRS, a branch of our government, has succeeded in gagging Christians."
Acceptance of State favors has, indeed, had "disastrous" consequences on the churches in America. The church has been effectively silenced (or as Dr. Kennedy put it, "gagged"). Now the disastrous consequences are being felt by the entire nation.
Is there a remedy? Yes! The church can be re-empowered and regain the former glory and influence she once knew in America. But in order to do so the church must stop acting as an underling, as a subordinate, as a dependent, of the State. The church must cease asking for State favors.
Because that for his names sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles. (3John 1:7)
Are you looking for trustworthy information on how to:
* Start a Church
* Start a Ministry
* Start a Home-Church
* Start a Free-Church
* Empower Your Church
Are you trying to get reliable facts on whether you should:
* 501c3 a Church
* 501c3 a Ministry
* Incorporate a Church
* Incorporate a Ministry
* Become Tax Exempt
* Become Tax Deductible
* Start a Nonprofit Religious Organization
* Start a Corporation Sole or Corporate Sole
Would you like all that without having to hire an attorney?
Contact Peter Kershaw for more information, http://hushmoney.org