Monday, April 7, 2008

Let’s cut through the theological jargon

Let’s cut through the theological jargon and think about the church for a while. First published September 29, 2007

A couple weeks ago I started to do an blog on ekklesia, because in many ways it is at the heart of christian unity and a misunderstanding of the greek term, heavily aided by both the institutions and the King James Version of the Holy Bible, actually works toward disunity among believers. Here is a good article on the word ekklesia. Your thoughts and comments are encouraged.

Let’s cut through the theological jargon and think about the church for a while.In the New Testament (NT), the church is actually the ekklesia (Greek). The problem is that “church” is not a helpful translation of ekklesia. In the world of the NT, the ekklesia was a socio-political term, an assembly of people called together to discuss and decide civic issues. It had no special religious significance. It’s interesting that Jesus and the NT writers selected this word to describe the special “called-out” community He founded. Under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, they apparently wanted to stress the communal side of Christian experience, not so much a “religious” or cultic side. After all, they didn’t identify this new community chiefly as “the temple” or any such thing. There is a total absence of any religiosity in the Greek and Roman idea of the ekklesia, and there is no religiosity in the NT idea of it either. It is the local, called-out followers of Jesus joined together in assembly.

The real distinctive of the church is that they are the followers of Jesus — as opposed to the rest of the world, which does not follow Jesus. This is probably why ekklesia was chosen to describe this congregation in the first place (1 Cor. 11:18; 14:23, 26). It is an assembly called out from the world for a particular purpose. It designates a distinction from the world of unbelievers — the church is distinct from the world.

This congregation is under Jesus’ authority (Eph. 1:20-23). He places human leaders in this assembly. They are called elders or bishops (Tit. 1:5-7). The assembly is called to follow and obey them (Heb. 13:7-17), but they are servants and may never lord it over the assembly (1 Pet. 5:3). They are not “priests,” in an a way more “spiritual” than the other believers, who are priests also (Rev. 1:5-6). They are not a member of some spiritual caste system; the Bible knows nothing of clericalism. They are specially gifted (Eph. 4:7-16), but they are not of a different order than their sisters and brothers (“laypersons”). Their goal is simple but often hard — oversee the spiritual health of the “flock” (1 Pet. 5:1-4).

Second, the only church the Bible knows about is local. In the NT era a city would have a church, usually planted by an apostle or another elder (Ac. 14:23; 15:41; Rom. 16:4; 1 Cor. 4:17). It was a local church. In Hebrews 12:23 we read of the ekklesia registered in heaven, but even here it is visible and localized [!]. Sometimes the Bible uses “church” in a generic sense, as we would of the family, as in, “The family is under attack in today’s world.” The Bible uses the term “church” in this way (Ac. 8:3; 1 Cor. 10:32; 12:28; Eph. 1:22), but it is the local church being talked about. The only church is this local assembly or congregation.

This means that the Roman Catholic Church is not a church. Neither is the Southern Baptist Convention, the United Church of Christ or the Lutheran Church-Missouri-Synod. Neither is the OPC, the PCA, the CREC, the URC, the PRC, the ELCA, the RCUS, the RPCUS, the RPCGA, the CRC, the RCA, or any of the rest of the Protestant ecclesial alphabet soup. An assembly of believers from around the state or nation is not a church. A collection of ministers and elders from a denomination is not a church. These are all human organizations, and they may be useful in the Kingdom of God (see below); but they are not the church, and they should not act as though they are the church. They have no elders, no deacons, and do not enjoy the promises that God granted His church (e. g., Mt. 16:18-19). Now, it’s possible that the true church may have met in different houses, portions at one spot and portions at another in a city (Rom. 16:5; Col. 4:15). But if it isn’t local, it’s not a church.

Nor is the church “invisible.” The ideas of the “invisible church” arose when men had to deal with the problem of sinners and depravity and apostasy in the church. “How could a church that contains sinners and apostasy be the bride of Christ, the blood-washed body the Bible talks about?” It is a good question, but it should not have been answered by creating a new category the Bible knows nothing about: the “invisible” church. The Bible knows only about very visible, local churches — nothing else. True, there is an invisible dimension of the church — the true believers seen to God’s eyes alone. But this is no church the Bible knows anything about, and we shouldn’t act as though there’s a separate “invisible” church.

The Church is Not the Kingdom

There are two final problems — (1), when the church claims to be something it is not; and (2) when things that are not the church claim to be the church.

Let’s take these in order. One of the most injurious errors in the history of Christianity is when the church is identified with the Kingdom of God. Jesus said very little about the church and very much about the Kingdom, and He did not equate the two. Nobody else in the Bible did, either. This is just a fiction dreamed up early in the Western church in the attempt to conform it to the structures of the collapsing hierarchical Roman Empire by which it was surrounded, and this view was later passed on to the Protestants (and even in the Westminster Confession). The church is a local assembly of Christians, but the kingdom is the rule of God by Jesus in the world, wherever that may be (1 Cor. 15:23-28). The church should not try to monopolize these aspects of the kingdom. Sometimes I hear well-meaning Christians say, “All ‘para-church’ ministries are anti-Biblical.” They have yet to find a Bible verse for this assertion. They believe that if the church isn’t doing it, it shouldn’t be done. The problem with this is that God’s plan in the earth is bigger than the church, which is to be sure a vital part of it. The family is a basic ministry in God’s plan. It should be a part of the church, but it is not the church. It has its own calling separate from the church (Gen. 1:26-28). The same is true of the state (Rom. 13:1-7). It is not a part of the church, though it is God’s minister and subject to His authority. The state should be a part of the Kingdom of God in Jesus, yet it is not the church. “Ecclesiocentricity” (church-centeredness) subverts the Lordship of Christ by arrogating to itself tasks and institutions beyond its purview. So, the church is not the Kingdom.

The church (ekklesia) is God’s called-out assembly of Jesus’ followers, his blood-washed people under His Lordship and governed by elders. It is local. All Christians should be members of a local church. The church is not the Kingdom.

The Church and the State Relationship, Part 4

Many legitimate questions have been raised in the first three parts of this series, and the feedback received, as it is established there is no pure separation of the church from the state, and in fact the state wields influence on the church’s internal activities by the very nature of its incorporation and tax exempt status. My friend ECD Pilgrim is concurrently looking at other aspects of the relationship, as well as internal governance issues.

Jesus Christ addressed a situation very similar to what the church in the United States faces today. In his famous interaction in Matthew 12:13-17 (cp. Matthew 22:15-22, Luke 20:20-26), where He was entrapped into a lose-lose situation, Our Lord showed his ensnarers were no match for Him. We must realize that at the time the Temple had aligned with Caesar in a quid pro quo relationship, and backed the oppressive tax render going to Caesar and his minions for their own benefit. There was a legitimate dispute about whether it was legitimate and there was a resistance among many of the believers to pay the tax because it was illegitimate. Our Lord, clearly separates the kingdoms here and shows that the state is always under and subject to God’s authority as it is all His.

So, as pointed out in Part 1, the church has ceded its diaconal ministry to the state and I would further state ,I believe as a matter of convenience or expediency, or at best as a serious lack of discernment. Consider it for the best part gone, as the taxation by the government has placed many church members diaconal gifts rendered to the state as they are the ones whose care we have placed our widows, orphans, elderly and disabled under.

So as we look at governance we need to look at the larger issue, to whom do we ultimately depend on as Christians, Our God or our state? I am not condemning anyone who by nature of the system we live under, has been forced to paid into and receives retirement or disability from the state. Ex post facto condemnation is wrong and is the worst of monday morning quarterbacking.

Our legitimate areas of concern of the church needs to be how we can be faithful to our Lord and live in both kingdoms, rather than making the church a subsection of the state to be used. The first area I think we must meet with strong resistance is liberation theology. In that article I quote Hoyos, “When I see the church with a machine gun, I can not see the crucified Christ (or the risen Christ)in that church”

How do Christians effect change in society? How does that meld with the great commission? I am not for one minute suggesting that Christians take no part in the earthly kingdom of the state, I am suggesting however, it becomes wrong for the church to be a political arm of the state. There are current theologians who have watered down their effectiveness for the gospel of Jesus Christ by wrapping Jesus in the flag. There are others who promote our alliance with the state for programs the “church can’t afford otherwise”, by taking public funds. You can justify it by working within the system and using to our benefit pragmatically. I will agree on one point, “the church can’t afford” to be in such a relationship as she cedes even more authority every time she takes a single dime from the state (all inclusive of government).

We are not our own, and we have been bought with a price . Until we start taking our worldviews and our eschatologies out to the grander scale we see scripture dictating, we have to end our reliance and alliances with the state in any future actions we take. While each of us has our particular worldviews, there is one thing we have in common as the mission of the church, and that is to spread the good news until the day of the Lord.

We must stop where we are and think seriously about our actions and the message the church is sending to the world. Many view us not as an offense, but either just plain offensive, as malcontents, or just plain idiots, and who do we have to blame?

In our common missions, in preaching Christ crucified, in preaching the risen Savior, in equipping the saints and worshipping the Living Triune God, who is alive and well, we need to start to remove the stumbling blocks we place in the way of the gospel. There are so few faithful churches todays, our core message should not be our politics, our activism, our economic theories, it needs to be the whole counsel of God, preached faithful, and worship of our Triune God in spirit and in truth. When we do this, we will affect the earthly kingdom and being obedient to our Master, the one who owns us. We can work across most worldview lines. We have allowed Satan to use this to our detriment in our effectivesness on influence in our community and our culture.

I believe at the same time we need to have systemic theology taught, our children need to be brought up in the faith and properly trained in the confessions of the faith, so they know their own comfort in life and are able to share the hope that lies within them. It is then we build a strong family, a strong church and a strong community. Until those occur we are just fragmenting and spinning wheels with some illusion of what could or should be with no practical implementation of it.

The church needs to put the cart back behind the horse, clearly focus on its scriptural mission and work within the earthly kingdom. Until our own houses and houses are in order, and our reliance is on God and not the state to effectualize change, we are like the jeep stuck up to its axles in mud. Jehovah Jireh , He is our Provider .Soli Deo Gloria.

Church ownership of property and it’s implication (s)-Part 3

Two years ago I was reflecting on the following:

This summers church general assemblies season made headlines in the secular world as well as sent shockwaves across the evangelical community. In reality, none of these were really new developments, of a scripturally sound denominations, suddenly ‘doing a 180′, but just further and more blatant departures from scripture.

Salt losing it savor and lights turning a harlot red. I know several faithful elders within the PCUSA who hold firmly to scripture who are extremely upset with their churches decisions and direction, and just positioning themselves on how to distance themselves from the denomination even further or waiting for an inevitable split between those who hold to biblical views and the liberal control of the denomination. I know of quite a few in ECUSA who are utilizing church by-laws to get around the ECUSA decisons in a way to distance themselves as well. One of their blogs I read this morning recounted a catholic friend asking them why they even bothered to hold services.

Lets just take a quick look at three different views of this. Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Property Trust Clause (G-8.0201) ,the OPC FOG XVI, 7 regarding dissuasion, and the PCA BOCO 25-9. The purpose of comparison is not for the technical legal aspects but for a broader application as it relates to this series.( The latter two documents are not directly from the BOCO, but discussed in context)

The context we are looking at this in is why when a denomination departs from it’s orignal standards and stated purpose ,do particular churches stay within the denomination? The answer many times is given that one stays within the denomination to be a defender of the faith, a voice of truth, heralding the Word of God and calling their brothers unto repentence as dictated by our Lord in the application of Matthew 18:15-18. But what do you do when they fail to repent? Can you remain under the authority of one who has departed from the teachings of scripture?

Strange how it seems we again come to the issue of secular law and the church in dealing with scriptural premises and the Christians life/the life of the church. But we must examine its implications on the body and how we can build up the body, not be mere complainers and finger pointers.

Many of the mainline denominations we see today who have departed from scriptural truth very likely could have never done it and retained their churches without the secular courts on their side. If a church dissents in changes in denomational doctrinal changes such as the Resurrection, the nature of Salvation, the Atonement , while they have the right to leave the denomination by the particular churches vote, they may lose all their property, their assets, and in some cases the pastor may endanger his pension. If a church just choses to ignore the presbytery and hire another pastor anyway, they may well find themselves being sued by the denomination, and even find their denomination going to file briefs on behalf of other denominations to hold this grip on churches.

In the OPC, for instance while each particular church has ownership rights to its property, they use a process of dissuasion. ” ..As a session is obliged to attempt to dissuade a member from leaving the church, so a presbytery is obliged to use its powers of dissuasion against a congregation’s leaving. And as long as that congregation is under the immediate oversight of its presbytery as a congregational unit, some open process must be provided. This FOG XVI #7 does. And in case there is a minority of members opposed to leaving, the OPC has the duty to make provision for their continuing in the OPC with constitutional oversight as paragraph c provides.” Much of this came from the formation of the OPC where all but one church lost their property to the PCUSA.

The PCA in 25-11 states “Particular churches need remain in association with any court of this body only so long as they themselves so desire. The relationship is voluntary, based upon mutual love and confidence, and is in no sense to be maintained by the exercise of any force or coercion whatsoever. A particular church may withdraw from any court of this body at any time for reasons which seem to it sufficient.”

Quoting again from the OPC document I linked above, “Schism is a serious sin. This is not to say that ALL separating congregations are thereby declared guilty of sin against the unity of the visible church (whose unity is disunity is very evident in the church’s present state on earth). but we take seriously John 13:34-35 and 17:20-21 as applying to the visible church as well as the body of Christ invisible.

In fairness we have viewed denominations that have oversight in the form of hierarchial governance. I am strongly in favor of presbyterian style of governance as in my humble opine, it adds to the stability of the local church and guarding against false doctrine.; as well as settling disputes of doctrine and practice by a larger body and a doctrinal standard by which teaching elders are ordained. The ability to have a group outside your own who can advise and mediate internal disagreements upon request is invaluable in maintaining order in the body of Christ.

In looking at these different forms of how much control is ceded to the hierarchial body, I believe that there is a strong case to be made scripturally that when it comes to ceding rights of our property and assets to a larger body, the larger body no longer feels constrained to a check and balance system and has led to an abuse of its authority, and has trusted in the power of the civil magistrate and lorded that civil power over the church of Jesus Christ. What say you?

The state of the Church. Has the church joined with the state? (Part 2)

Last year I was contacted by a pastor who had some comments on a situation he knew I was involved in . This gentlemen made a remark that ended the conversation turning it into a one-sided lecture on his part,. He flatly said that a church is wrong to incorporate as it removes the Bridegroom as the head of the church, and by the very nature of incorporation, derives it existence from the state. He further went on to say how we were wrong to file for tax exempt status.

My initial reaction was flat rejection of his statement and thinking this guy is too heavenly minded to be of any earthly use. He lives in between Nirvana and la-la land, and most likely why he has had financial problems. Of course, it is a pragmatic reaction, that’s just not how things are done today! Join reality buddy. And there was the defensive mechanism-I have personally drawn up articles of incorporation for a church and been a legal officer of a church corporation previously.

Let’s take a look back into history. When King Henry ended the relationship with the pope centuries back, he became the head of the Church of England, and each king thereafter was to succeed him as the head of the church. Whether the King was active or inactive in any governance or oversight is really secondary to this series, it is the fact he was the de facto head.

When the colonists came to America, they had a great desire to have the church be a institution free from any control by the state. Their dream became reality when our constitution made the church immune to any interference by the government and immune from being taxed.

The early church in America was a great influence in society. The reformed churches became education centers for their children where they were both educated and received religious training. Universities, book publishing houses, outreaches, soup kitchens, the list goes on. The Catholic church realized the impact and started their own schools so they could indoctrinate their children as well. In concise summary, the church was having a great influence on society and on its governance. They were salt and light. Immune from any interference from the state.

As churches began having impact beyond their community and began to amass finances, government introduced the concept of tax exemption. Churches and non-profit ventures of the religious institutions would incorporate and be exempted from taxes. Now what is incorporation? It is a fictious person, that would exist beyond the passing of the person who formed it (perhaps overly concise). It’s existence and authority is derived from the state. Now this may seem like hair splitting, but our legal eagles will tell you there is a great difference between immune and exempt.

Immune is free from any authority, where exempt acknowledges the authority and in exchange for an action or inaction, is freed from its obligations to the authority to pay taxes. So what is the quid pro quo? Tax exemption, and the ability of its member to deduct their donations to the church in exchange for no direct involvement in the political process, as long as they file for tax exemption.

Tax deductions are good, I take them. The idea of the church not paying taxes is good stewardship, isn’t ? Aren’t we to be good stewards of the Lord’s money? A win-win situation pragmatically.

Does Matthew 12:13-17. (cp. Matthew 22:15-22, Luke 20:20-26), Render unto Caesar those things that are Caeser’s, …. Come into play here at all? Historically this was addressing the annual tax to Rome, not the taxes on land, to the temple, or customs taxes, but the tax unto Caesar. Jews were divided about this tax and whether they were morally obliged to pay it. The temple authorities (who gave Jesus up to be crucified) collaborated with Roman rule and endorsed the tax, while those sympathetic to the Roman resistance rejected it. Most commentators do feel Jesus Christ answer was a separation of the two kingdoms/realms and that believers should give what is required of them in both realms.

While the passage show our Lords adept debating style and ability to avoid a trap set for him, and generally believed that since all belongs to God anyway, it has little to do with everyday taxation. So why include it here? I wonder aloud is there application in that since God owns everything anyway, are we in anyway perhaps hindering the mission of the church and its influence we have on society by entering into a voluntary agreement with the state to avoid taxation of the church and the donations of its members?

I look around and see where our churches no longer the education centers for our children, the impact the church has on our communities has been diminished. In Pennsylvania pastors have been ruled to be at-will employees whose employment is “at the whim” of the corporation. In fact I would go one step further and say the outside world is having much greater impact on the church, than the church is having on it. We have watched mainline church after mainline church go the way of the world and be influenced by the world, rather than us being salt and light to the world. To the point commentators are laughing at it calling the devolvement, “Larry, Moe and Curly Joe” or “Our Mother Jesus”,.

I do not come with the answer, or with condemning finger pointing. I am not on the higher road looking down at all you infidels .I have actively participated in “what seemeth right unto man”. I do know the Scripture is very clear that Christ is the head of the church and its bridegroom. I only wonder if we are having an illicit affair with the state, citing we have not yet come to the wedding feast, and are reaping the benefits of that relationship.

I actively am calling for a new reformation, am involved in a group entitled reformation42day, am encouraging youth to rise up and take active roles in the church. In doing so I must be willing to examine my own actions and attitudes and be able to be ready with solid biblical answers. Aping a popular talkshow host-what say you?

The state of the Church. (Part 1) Has the church joined with the state?

The perversion of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has been a cause of controversy for years. I am not as concerned about the traditional arguments here and in fact wish to turn the refocus how the church has abdicated its roles and broke down the walls of separation. The focus on this is not the constitutional aspects, which I believe could debunk most of modern opinions of the court by examing the federalist papers and the writings of the founders, but the aspect of the church and its relationship to the state via its own abdication of authority by choice.

My thesis is actually that it is the church who has broken down the barrier wall between itself and the state and it’s willingness to throw it’s responsiblity to it’s flock off onto the state and the heathen, as well as its willingness to take money from the state in exchange for their union.

Starting at the “New Deal”, social security and social assistance programs, the church should have been up in arms in protest. (Maybe a step backward, starting at the prohibition, it should have been in protest of legislating “alleged Christian principles” but was in support of it-with the exception of J. Grescham Madchen. ) But it gladly ceded it’s responsibility to the widows, the infirmed, the orphans and to the needy to the state.

The principle of teaching someone to fish , rather than to merely give fish lost out. We find in Acts where the burden of meeting the needs and serving the tables interfered with the evangelistic and ministerial aspects of the apostles (now transfer to elders), so there were among them those chosen to meet those needs. That office has all been lost today.

How did the church ever allow this to happen? Disorder in the offices is one of the quickest ways to destroy a church and make it unhealthy. Non- functional offices in the church is the norm, not the exception.

The diaconal concept is skewed into distribution only, and the modern day deacon takes care of books, and does labor in the church, cut the lawn, paint the building, clean the church. What does he do with the flock? Maybe a household chore or a ride to the store or doctor or to the state office to sign someone up for benefits? And that is a healthy deacon in today’s church. But, I see this as one of the core problems in todays church.

A deacon must be one who can counsel and instruct and discern. When a deacon cares for the needy, by a members submission to the authority of the church, a deacon should be helping to set up budgets, and look for root causes of the need, not only to “give fish”. When the church gives assistance to a member, it has the responsibility to ascertain why that need is there, and how to overcome the need for assistance. This sets the stage for interaction between the deacon and the member in need?

Is the member terrible with handling funds? Is the member lacking discipline in his own life? Is the member tithing? Is the member involved in some habit that is causing them to deprive their family of their needs to the point the church has to step in? Does the member lack direction in life? Or are they just lazy? Or is there a disability that will exist for a more permanent need for assistance from the church? These are issues that the biblical deacon looked at and it was a way of direct ministry to the flock. Sometimes there is nothing but circumstances beyond their control. In that case, the church would have to make longer term plans and solutions to meet the need and to adjust the members needs downward into what is needed, not just what is comfortable.

But, by abdicating the responsibility of the needy (same principles apply to widows and orphans and the church) to the state we eliminate an entire area of ministry and oversight the church is responsible to its members for. While there are qualifications and programs the government has to support the member, the government does not provide ministry to the flock. Well yes it does, but not a biblical one. How can you legitimately ask a member to see their finances when the state is helping them meet their needs. They can keep getting fish and never need to learn to fish themselves.

We will take a look in the near future about other areas of church offices and members roles, and to see where we have strayed and how (and if we are willing) to correct the error of our abdication and restore our churches to biblical roles .

While we have many issues with the workings of our government that deserve attention, perhaps it is time we start getting the log out of our own eyes before dealing with the governments problems. Our governance is from God as expressed through our roles as priests in our own families, and from the local church to which we are to submit to its biblical authority.

If we want a change in how things are going in our government, perhaps the way to institute that is to get our churches and homes in order first, the ones in which we have the greatest chance of effecting change. When we accomplish that, we can turn our eyes onto the world.

The State-Church

A State-Church is any of the following:

An incorporated church
An incorporated 501c3 church
A 501c3 “unincorporated association” church
A corporation sole church (contrary to the myths promulgated by the corporation sole peddlers, a corporation sole is a corporation, and it makes little difference whether or not it is also a 501c3. A corporation sole church is a State-Church).
A great many of the church’s problems today are a direct result of the church “taking” and actively pursuing a legal status that makes it inferior to, and a subordinate of, the civil government. The two most significant ways this occurs is by incorporation (state jurisdiction) and the tax-exempt 501c3 status (federal jurisdiction).

Scripture simply does not support the notion that the church is an inferior institution to the State. Nor, for that matter, is the church a superior institution to the State. God has ordained both the church and the civil government as His “ministers.” The church is the minister of grace, while the State is the minister of justice. Church and State are two distinct and independent spheres of authority (jurisdictions) ordained by God.

However, no church can remain separate and distinct from the civil government when it incorporates and/or accepts 501c3 status. For legal purposes an incorporated 501c3 church has subordinated itself, by contract, to the civil government. For theological purposes, that church has made a covenant with the State, a covenant which Scripture in no way supports.

What is the solution to the church’s current messy state of affairs? It must cease operating as an underling of the State. The solution is for the church to legally operate as it once had in America (and we might add, quite successfully so). Rather than operating as “tax-exempt nonprofit religious corporations,” churches once functioned as “free-churches.” Just what exactly is a free-church? A free-church operates independent of, and is in no way subordinate to, the civil government.

It is the right of any church to operate free of the corrupting and compromising influence and control of the State; and it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
A free-church is not some radical-fringe concept. Rather, the free-church was one of the most influential, and certainly one of the most common, institutions in early American history. The worldview of those men who fought for America’s independence embraced an uncompromising belief that the church was not an underling, a vassal, or in any way subordinate to any king, parliament, or any other civil government body.

The church is the religious institution ordained and established by Jesus Christ Himself, and Christ has never delegated His authority to the civil jurisdiction to rule in the affairs of His church.

A free-church is the opposite of a State-Church. The Church Of England is a State-Church system. State-Churches are well known throughout Europe, and there have been State-Churches there for many centuries. Rather than being quick to criticize the Europeans for not attending church, we should ponder whether their contempt for the State-Church system isn’t well deserved.Americans, on the other hand, are generally offended by the notion of the State creating or controlling their churches, or that their churches would be subordinate to the State. However, this is exactly what has occurred in recent years as a direct result of churches incorporating and seeking a 501c3 status — they have become State-Churches.

A free-church is a church that is truly separate, independent and autonomous from the State. It is established by a local body of Christian believers, or chartered or “planted” by another church body or denomination, without the permission or sanction of the State. The only “sovereign” of the free-church is the Lord Jesus Christ. A free-church cannot incorporate, it cannot seek a 501c3 status, it cannot become a tax collector for the State (withholding agent), it cannot accept government-issued tax numbers (EIN).

The term “free-church” was widely used by the American colonists. It was not a term that they coined, but one which they inherited from their fathers and forebears such as the Scottish Covenanters, and the “non-conformist” English clergy, both of whom fled the persecutions of the Anglican State-Church and it’s “sovereign head” the British monarchy.Even after American independence there continued to be Christians who fled the religious persecution of their State-Church systems for the freedom of religion America offered them. They too often used the term “free-church” to describe the churches they organized. Such an example of this would be the Evangelical Free Church, which was founded by a group of Scandinavians who settled in America in the mid-nineteenth century.

Tragically, the Evangelical Free Church In America today has become a “Free Church” in name only. By incorporating and becoming a 501c3 they, some years ago, decided to abandon those principles that their Swedish, Danish and Norwegian forefathers endured great persecution for.Equally tragic is the demise of the so-called “Free-Church of Scotland.” Were they honest it would be renamed the “State-Church of Scotland.” So thoroughly has it become a State-Church that Scottish pastors receive their paychecks from the government (and it happened because the Scottish clergy insisted upon it). He who pays the piper calls the tune.

The church must cease operating as an underling, subordinate to the State, or in any way dependent upon the State for “privileges and benefits.” The solution rests in the church organizing and operating as a church — the ecclesia, not as something other than what the Lord Jesus Himself ordained and specified. Jesus spoke of the church as a “body” with Himself as the “head” of His church, and we as various “members of the body.” The church is, therefore, not an “organization” (a “legal entity”) but a living, breathing “organism.”

This should not be a difficult biblical doctrine to grasp, particularly for the Pastor. Sadly, however, ever since local churches started organizing as tax-exempt non-profit corporations in the mid-twentieth century, and since the incorporated 501c3 church is now the status quo, many folks have a hard time conceiving of the church operating as just a church. For some odd reason, just being a church isn’t good enough anymore for too many Christians.

The thinking today appears to be that we must somehow be smarter than Jesus and His disciples were. They refused to incorporate and that refusal resulted in their persecution (incorporation of all “spontaneous collectivities of persons” became mandatory throughout the Roman Empire by 6 A.D.). We’re told that we live in a far more complex world than the first-century church, and so the church too must inevitably become more complex and just adapt to the complexities of the modern information age. The simplicities of the organizational infrastructure (polity) of the early church are no longer adequate to address the complex world in which we live.

Those who hold to such beliefs, whether in word or deed, are in reality, making a public proclamation that Jesus Christ is no longer competent to govern His own church and provide for, and protect it. The courts well-understand that “a church is not an entity recognized in law,” meaning that they have no jurisdiction over the church. However, organizing a church as a church is an especially difficult concept for attorneys to grasp. Few attorneys can comprehend that there are things and issues completely outside the purview and jurisdiction of the civil government, nor do they much care for the idea. After all, it’s hard to get many billable hours out of those churches that understand that the civil government has no jurisdiction over them. A free-church needs an attorney like a fish needs a bicycle.

The legal support for the State’s lack of jurisdiction over the church in America is not only the Word of God, but the First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
No church in any nation at any point in history can lay claim to the freedoms and liberties that are guaranteed the church in America. The First Amendment is an act of God’s Providence to safeguard His church and maintain its independence from the State. The First Amendment is the highest form of real protection the church has ever known in history.The solution rests in the church abandoning the phony third-rate protections and benefits of the State and returning to those real protections and benefits that are ours in Christ Jesus.