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.)
The result of providing Babylon with a financial statement for God's house was that the children would be slaves to Babylon. Hezekiah effectively verbalized the attitude that says, "As long as I have peace in my day to ‘preach the gospel,' I don't care what happens to my children." But keep in mind, Hezekiah simply reflected the proud attitude of his people, e.g. Isa 29:13 .
Regardless of how the situation came about or the motives involved, one of incorporation's more obvious facts is that it yokes together Christian's who desires to serve God with the anti-Christ crowd. This is a clear violation of the word of God (Cor 6:14-18).
Certainly, the issue of the Social Security Tax Form 8274 is long past, but what was involved was much deeper than 8274, which, by the way, simply made the state-church marriage tighter. What was involved was the law of proper authority over God's work and yoking together with unbelievers.
Incorporation goes to the state to seek its permission or approval to carry out the work of the ministry, &c. Along with the approval comes protection and strings. Thus far, though, the strings are not too tight. But one must realize that the final authority for incorporated "ministries" is a source other than the Lord, and that source's word in the past has been anything but dependable.
Evidently in central Indiana, incorporation was presented in the early 40's as an ideal means of protection from prospective problems. This offer in itself by an anti-Christ state should cause alarm. Clearly, the state is required to provide conditions for righteousness to freely operate. But does the Godly responsibility of the state include providing for and protecting the church?
There were and are three reasons used to influence ministries to incorporate:
- Limited Liability,
- Respectability, and
- Perpetuity.
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."
The state's promise of Limited Liability presents some problems:
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.
Thus by incorporating, a ministry seeks to become a child of the state as it sought the state's protection. The church needs to make the break from the state; incorporation gives the state the authority to extract any price it desires from its "children." The state can "eat its own children" for its own welfare.
When the tie is cut from the false god, the state, the ministry will have to stay prayed up and right with God in order to have the Lord's protection. On the other hand, all it had to do as a corporation was send a small fee with the state's required information to have Babylon's protection. But we can be assured, it is only a matter of time before the small annual fee will increase to all the treasures of the house of the Lord if Babylon is not forsaken.
2 Chron. 23:20, Because ye have forsaken the Lord, He hath also forsaken you. The marriage to the state for permission to operate and for protection forsakes the Lord's protection. The chickens will come home to roost; the wild oats will grow (Chro 25:8; Hosea 10:4). It is the devil's lie that says God's ministries can link up with the state and
- still be God's ministries (they are the state's!) and
- avoid the results of being a State Church (Gal 6:7).
Where are we going to look for our safety and protection?
We should keep in mind that though Christ was perfect in every area, the state still put Him to death. God received more glory in His death than in His life. Even if the church gets every area in line with the Word of God, it is still distinctly possible that God will receive more glory from our death than our life. But it's better to die for being right than for being wrong (1 Pet chapters 2 & 3). It's just a matter of time before there will be no more compromise to make - Then what? The line must be drawn, and the tie cut from the state.
Not only does the State create a new "person," or "body," with limited liability, it also creates:
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:
- By whose grace is the local church to exist? God's or man's?
- 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?
From whom must the church seek respectability? God or man? - 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.
Finally, we have:
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.
The state gives its new creation a set of laws to live by, and if its creation does not live by its laws, thou shalt surely die: the state refuses to recognize its creation any longer, or the state chastises its creation by withholding some of its benefits. Moreover, in the creation of the obedient body, the state not only tells its child it can live forever, but tells anyone who might want to harm its child in any way, "This is my never-dying child; this child has my protection as long as it lives, and its life span is not dependent on any creature created by God. Its life span is now dependent on my word - my authority - my power." Thus the life of the child is not dependent on God or God's Word.
Certainly, if the church or ministry is founded on the teachings of a person such as Moon, Mary Baker Eddie, Ellen G. White, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, or any who have died or will die, then it should be an incorporated, dependent child of the state; it will need its father's, the state's, protection. But the Founder of a Biblical Church is still alive and will outlive any human creation, state creation, as well as any state, government, social order or race of people. Heaven and earth will pass away, but the Lord will not. The church's perpetuity must be found in the life of its Founder, the Lord Jesus Christ! Either He ever liveth to guide His body, protect it and establish its laws, or we have nothing better than what was offered by Mohammed. The state's life, provision and protection from enemies must be sought (Mat 28:18-20).
With sincere desires to serve God, numerous groups of people have besought the state to create and recognize them as corporations, "never-dying persons:" "churches," ministries, mission boards, &c. They acted upon the advice of secular lawyers (i.e. without God) or of people who had no grasp of Godly precepts involved.
Please note that the word "church" is being used very loosely. A New Testament church would be a group of people gathered together in obedience to and under the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ (Ac 2:36). If Christ's authority to establish a local church is given over to the state, is it still a group of people under His authority? Is it possible to recognize two authorities over the same body at the same time? (Lu 16:13). Who is the higher authority in an incorporated church? For lack of a better word, we will continue to use the word "church," although we are actually referring to a group of people operating under the authority of the state, a religious corpora- tion.
Lord, help us to be right; give us the courage to do right even with the prospect of the death of the cross. If Christ could determine to do right as He viewed His horrible death on the cross, then how much more should we be determined to do right with the little aggravation that the state can cause? As we look at the past saints of God who gave all for being right, how much more should we be willing to give all for the cause of righteousness? We do not really have anything to give, not even our lives, because it is all His anyway (Heb 11:33-40; 1 Cor 4:7).
In closing this section, let us consider one more point: Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution grants to Congress the power to collect taxes. The power to tax is further described and limited in Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3, as well as in Section 9, paragraph 4. On the bases of these Sections, the courts have ruled that Congress has the power to lay and collect two distinct types of taxes: Direct and Indirect Taxes (Pollock v. Farmer's Home Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 S. Ct. 673, 39L. Ed. 759 [1895]). According to Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p 415, the two taxes are defined as follows:
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 [1916]) 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.
The other arm of the Indirect Tax is the tax on the acts and events of a privileged person, such as a corporation or licensed attorney.
The people besought the state for creation as an artificial "person," corporation; they asked for and were granted specific privileges from the state: perpetual life, limited liability and respectability from the STATE (A complete treatment of these Direct and Indirect taxes can be found in Christianity and Civilization-Tactics of Christian Resistance, Vol. III, Edited by Gary North, Geneva Divinity School Press, Tyler, TX, pp 251-256, 1983).