When the group of believers went to the state and sought permis- sion to carry out the great commission, they were granted the privilege, incorporated. Thus they are no longer a church in the eyes of civil law or in the New Testament sense of the word; rather, they are a religious organization. Therefore, the civil government now has the Constitutional and Biblical right to tax the privileged person it created. The privileged person must file for "Not-For-Profit" approval to be tax-exempt. There is no other way to look at this except to see that the government has the Constitutional, legal and Biblical right to demand whatever tax it desires from the privileged person of its creation,viz. the corporation. The corporation must submit to whatever tax pleases its creator, as well as any other desires of its creator.

The church who has not sought the state's privileged status as a corporation or a Not-For-Profit organization is immune from taxes under the Scriptures and under the Constitution (We might mention that seeking is not the same as being "forced" into a situation). When a "Free Church" takes its stand against government intervention, it obeys Romans 13; but when a "Bondage Church" stands against government intervention, it violates Romans 13. Both are commanded to be obedient to the authority over them, but each has recognized a different authority: one has recognized the state as its final authority, and the other has recognized the Lord God as its final authority.

Therefore, the answer is readily apparent for the incorporated church: "What about Rom 13?" Biblically, it must submit to every whim of its authority, the state. Thus lawyers are justified in seeking compromised positions for the incorporated church: the "Bondage Church" cannot say no; rather, it must say, "Let's find a compromise we can live with."

"In theory, this sounds simple, but the practical application is different. I'm afraid I'll lose my property." This pastor must admit, that is certainly a difficult position to find one's self in, but the question must be addressed: is the property ours to lose, or was it provided with money dedicated to God? Is it not His business if He sees fit to take it by whatever means pleases Him: the state, fire or wind? Furthermore, if Christ was despised for doing right, what can His followers expect? (John 15:20).
Chapter II

As we examine the church-state relationship, we must mention the not-for-profit (NFP) situation. Above is a copy of the opening page of Indiana's Bulletin #17. Most, if not all, states probably have similar statements. The state's claim as seen in bulletin #17 clearly presents the problem.

We had no choice but to remove the church from the state owned corporation. When we did, we also changed the name under which we purchase utilities. The power company had not charged sales tax, so when they turned us in to the state as being tax-exempt, we had no exempt number. Reviewing their files, the state found us. We received a request from the state to file for NFP status, so we could be tax-exempt. The above opening statement is only the "tip of the iceberg" of what was required in this application. We really did not worry about the rest of the form because the opening statement settled the question for us.

Clearly, the state is claiming total power and authority over everything right down to God's tithes and offerings. Thus those who will submit to the state's claim of authority can do as they please with the state's blessings: "tax-exempt." Hence, the major problem with the NFP recognition: to receive their `benefit,' the group of people must submit to the authority of the state. NFP, though, can be obtained apart from incorporation.

[Does one want to open an abortion clinic and murder little babies? Then apply to the right people in this system and receive "tax-exempt" donations to continue the work, e.g. Planned Parenthood, Inc. Do you want to preach the gospel? Then apply to the same people in the same system, submit to their authority by seeking their approval and go on about your business, "Church, Inc." Is it not strange how we feel the same system which gives permission for abortion, pornography, drunkenness and debauchery of all kinds, must also give permission to preach the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ? Is this not the "FORCE" of Star Wars with its good side and its dark side? Why would someone desiring to serve the holy, righteous, sovereign Lord God of heaven and earth want to go to this type of power for permission to carry out His commands here on earth?]

 

God's Word

What does God's Word establish about submitting the local church to the state through incorporation or NFP? This pastor wrestled with the problem until the Lord brought the following to light. Though we will be speaking specifically of local "churches" as we know them, what we will present can apply generally to individual Christians.

Though Daniel chapter three has been preached to death, the laws established by the Lord there neither have nor will change. Daniel chapters 1 through 6 were put here by the Lord to give us a proper view of Romans 13:1-5 (1 Cor 10:11; 2 Tim 3:15-17). It is impossible to conceive that the God Who changes not would have one set of laws for the Old Testament saints and another set for the New Testament saints. There is only one God, one Spirit and one mediator between God and man: the man Christ Jesus. Thus there is only one means of Salvation: the Blood Atonement. Therefore, there can be only one standard of holiness for His saints of all time.

Daniel three reveals King Nebuchadnezzar's golden image: 60 cubits by six cubits. Six represents the number of man, so the literal image no doubt represented man's wisdom, pride, might and power. The terrible image was meant to inspire fear and awe in the hearts of all who saw it (Compare this with the image of 2:31. There was probably an eighteen year laps between the dream and the image. Was the king trying to imitate the terrible image he saw in his dream?). Of course, the image carried with it the demand to bow or burn: face the full wrath of the civil authority.

Daniel 3:6 holds an answer for our confusing day as if it were written last year. Let us consider Albert Barnes' comments in opening this section. Writing in 1851, long before our present day issue, he said:

"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).

Notice his conclusion:

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).

Observe:

1. the heathen worshipers would not consider Nebuchadnezzar's command harsh or oppressive. In fact, it complied well with their beliefs in many gods, each due its respective honor. Thus as long as each religion recognized the validity of another, there was no problem. But any claim of exclusiveness by any one religion was a problem. And
2. the command did not carry with it a command prohibiting the worship of other gods, including the Lord God. Required in the command was not an admission that Nebuchadnezzar's god was the only god, but that his god was the final authority in his land, and all other worship was under his authority (Cf. Keil-Delitzsch, v 9, Daniel, p 124, Eerdmans).

Is this not consistent with 2:47, That your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of Kings and a revealer of secrets? Thus the command in 3:1-7 is to recognize the authority of Nebuchadnezzar's god over all other gods; it was not against worshipping other gods; it was an act to bring all religions under the authority of the Babylon's civil government and magistrates.

 

Modern view of religion

Thus today, civil magistrates see nothing wrong with demanding that all religions seek and submit to their authority. Though their demands contain threats of dire consequences against those who refused to bow to their claims of authority, it does not contain prohibitions against other religions and gods. In fact, their demands are quite the opposite, containing encouragements for other religions through "tax breaks." Not only do civil authorities see nothing wrong with their demands of homage, but 99% of those upon whom the demands are placed see nothing wrong with them. Why? Because the demands do not prohibit the "Free Exercise" of the religion of one's choice, as long as his religion claims not exclusiveness and recognizes the final authority of the state (Politically Correct). Thus the Church of Wicca obtains the same recognition from the state as does the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore, the state's "freedom of religion" is very shallow; looking deeper, one sees finds attached which can be used later to control every movement and message of the "religious organization." Some states exercise more control than others, but for now, the state's primary requirement seems to be recognition of its authority over all religious practice, Biblical or pagan.