An Opinion in Light of Biblical and Historical Analysis (Part 1)
Incorporation, Political Action, and the Endorsing of
by Jack Kettler
Incorporation is Not the Problem
This article grew out of a response to a series of questions sent to the Providence Orthodox Presbyterian Church. One question challenged the Session's (governing body of the local church) refusal to endorse certain political candidates. Another question had been raised concerning the church and its incorporation status. This individual thought that the Providence Church had incorporated, and this was the real reason for not endorsing political candidates. For the record, the Providence Church is not a 501 (c) (3) corporation. The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) denomination is; however, this article is not necessarily an attempt to defend Church incorporation per se. Many people believe that incorporated status on the part of churches is the source of the present-day political woes. False theological positions have caused present-day Christians to be culturally ineffective. Doctrinal decline and apostasy are the real root factors involved in our present Christian cultural impotence. The goal of this article is to help those who have naively assumed that incorporation is the source of the church's present problems. There may be reasons for churches not to incorporate. It is a fact that 501 (c) (3) incorporation status results in restrictions on political activity of churches. Has this caused the church to become unfaithful to Christ? What has been the historic view of Protestant churches regarding political involvement? This article will show that there are Biblical reasons for churches not taking certain political actions such as endorsing political candidates along with a historical view of incorporation. We will also briefly consider the legitimate role of the state. A number of questions will be raised that those who argue for disincorporation should answer. Have we cut ourselves off from the past wisdom and history of Christianity through our ignorance? The doctrine and practice of Reformed churches (churches that originate from the Geneva wing of the Protestant Reformation) is used as a reference point in order to help gauge present-day debates.
The Biblical considerations should be understood as coming from a Reformed position. For those interested in an argument against church incorporation, they should consult the excellent two-part article titled "Introduction To the Concept, Attributes, and Definition of the Corporation." This article takes a serious look at the dangers of church incorporation without making slanderous accusations. John Eidsmoe, in his The Christian Legal Advisor, and the Rutherford Institute have provided helpful information about incorporation and tax-exempt status issues. The information concerning churches and political activity is valuable.
The Church is Not Politics
The organized church should not engage in certain activity, such as endorsing political candidates. Individual Christians should be doing the minimum of intelligently voting. It is a great temptation for churches to endorse political candidates. For example, should the organized church have endorsed George Bush over Michael Dukakis? At the time, it may have seemed like a wise choice. In retrospect, it would have brought reproach on Christ's church for endorsing a public liar. Since churches cannot predict the future actions of political candidates, it is unwise for a church to place Christ's stamp of approval on a political candidate. The question concerning Christ's church endorsing political candidates is primarily a theological issue. The Reformed and Presbyterian churches have held to the position known as "sphere sovereignty." This position was formally developed by Abraham Kuyper, the Dutch theologian statesman. Kuyper summarized sphere sovereignty as follows:
Kuyper's influence is still with us today through the apologetics of the late Dr. Cornelius Van Til of Westminster Seminary. Several of Kuyper's works are still in print. While he was one of the most powerful conservative pastor theologians, he entered politics and became prime minister of the Netherlands. The Reformed churches in the Netherlands did not endorse Dr. Kuyper's candidacy because of their adherence to the rudiments of the doctrine of sphere sovereignty. Sphere Sovereignty stated simply is that the state, church, and family are institutions created by and accountable to God. Each institution should not intrude into the sovereignty of the other institutions. For example, the state cannot pick candidates for church office. The elders of the church cannot tell a family that their children should not eat "Wheaties." The church should not pick or endorse political candidates. There is little disagreement concerning the first two propositions, so why should Christians question the third? The genesis of sphere sovereignty existed in John Calvin (Protestant Reformer) and is continued in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647). This is a distinguished Protestant confession.
Sphere sovereignty lies at the heart of and is fundamental to the Protestant doctrine of separation of powers. The spheres of sovereignty or authority must always be under God's authority. This doctrine of the separation of powers is clearly seen in Reformed church polity (government). For example, there are three layers of church courts: the first being the session of the local church, the second being the Presbytery or regional church court, and third the General Assembly, the highest court of appeal. This Protestant influence is also apparent in our American Constitutional Republic. For instance, we have three divisions or separations of powers, the Judiciary, Legislative, and Administrative.
Should a church endorse political candidates? Endorsing a political candidate as a church session would constitute the placing of Christ's endorsement on the candidate. When the session acts, it is functioning as Christ's representative. Christ governs his church through elders. Sessional members would be in violation of their ordination vows if they, acting in an official capacity, endorsed a candidate that held to some type of heresy. This would bring reproach on Christ. This does not mean that individual Christians and Christian leaders cannot support various political candidates. What would be involved for the church in this type of project? It would be absolutely essential for a session to interview the candidate to determine his faithfulness to Reformed theology or have assurance from a Reformed denomination with whom they have ecumenical relations that this type of interview had been completed to their satisfaction. Elders could not endorse a candidate that was beyond their ability to discipline. Time constraints are another important factor. Each endorsement would necessitate a substantial amount of time to be set aside for an examination, debate and possible training classes for the candidate. A process of this nature would cause other legitimate ministries of church elders to suffer, and would therefore be unacceptable. Once the church begins to violate the state's sphere of authority, it will only be a matter of time before some government bureaucrat wants to return the favor.
In addition, elders in Presbyterian churches are bound by confessional standards. For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith in section 31:5 reads:
It is true that this section of the confession is dealing with synods. If this is true of higher church courts, the lower courts, e.g., a session, should take great caution before ignoring this restriction. G. I. Williamson's comments at this point from his commentary on the Confession are helpful:
In Luke 12:13, 14 Jesus refused to rule on certain family or civil matters. Do we want the church to become another two-bit political organization? Christ is the head of the church. The church is instructed to imitate Him. We must preserve the spirituality of the church. Then can the church have any influence in the political realm? Consider Calvin's position:
Calvin elsewhere argued that the church had the authority to bring discipline against magistrates who were members of both societies. If a church member is an elected representative, he is still subject to the discipline of the church. Politicians in Geneva thought twice before promoting ungodliness. The church through its discipline can have influence politically. For example, politicians who vote to make abortions legal can be excommunicated from the church.
How the Church Influences Politics
What other ways can members of the church influence society? Westminster seminary professor Paul Woolley explains:
The individual Christian is the one who takes and brings forth the whole counsel of God to be applied in the realm of state, family and business. In the Old Testament we find Azariah, the chief priest, opposing king Uzziah (See 2 Chron. 26:18 ). Does this happen today? In 1 Peter 2:5 we learn of the priesthood of all believers. Today's pastors and Christians can bring the word of God to political representatives. If God opens the doors to witness to politicians, we can declare the whole counsel of God. It is perfectly legal. For instance, Pastor Chuck McIlhenny (OPC) has witnessed to government officials. The church McIlhenny pastors and his home were set on fire by militant homosexuals in San Francisco. McIlhenny has stood fearlessly against pro-homosexual legislation (see When the Wicked Seize a City for the real-life story of a courageous pastor). J. Gresham Machen (OPC founder) testified before Congress concerning educational matters. Machen warned against further government involvement in education. The General Assembly of the OPC has petitioned the President and Congress concerning elections on Sunday, abortion, and, most recently, homosexuals in the military. The denomination's incorporated status has not stopped the church from being faithful to Christ. The Presbytery of New Jersey (regional OPC) is suing the state over a law forbidding the criticism of homosexuals in public places.
Can a church use a corporate structure safely? Consider a by-law of Providence Presbyterian Church that sets forth a well-thought-out view concerning incorporation and the state. This by-law sets forth the view that incorporation does not give the state a license to regulate the doctrine and Biblically based practice of the church. The following is an attempt to reassert the concept of a free "Ecclesiastical" corporation into the marketplace of ideas:
Incorporation As a Legitimate Vehicle
It should be again noted that Providence Presbyterian Church is not a 501 (c) (3) corporation. Some have said that this by-law is an example of being naive. Those who make this charge have still not articulated a mechanism by which civil and church governments can, in a practical way, relate to each other. Is there a relationship between church and state? If so, how does this take place? How would the state know of the existence of the church? Incorporation as stated above is a vehicle. The church is more than a particular tool or vehicle. Is incorporation something inherently sinful? Most of us work for companies that are incorporated. If incorporation is inherently sinful, should we quit our jobs? It is true that by definition a corporation is a creation of the state. Is your company a creation of the state? Those who argue that a church must not incorporate should ask their place of employment to disincorporate. Especially family business corporations. Consistency demands it. Would your family be a creation of the state if it made use of a corporation? It is fallacious to assert that the use of a legal tool such as a corporate structure turns a family or church into a creation of the state. The family and church are more than the corporate entity. It has been argued by R. J. Rushdoony that the doctrine of incorporation is one of history's most important doctrines. Rushdoony has this to say concerning corporations:
It should be noted that Rushdoony is one of the more influential Reformed theologians of the twentieth century. Incorporation is the product of a Christian world view. Asian, African, and Arab world views did not produce the doctrine of incorporation. These world views hold to a different teleology (view of history). Disincorporation is a short-term solution. The Branch Davidian sect was an unincorporated religious association. This did not stop the tanks. The removal or absence of the legal barrier, i.e., the corporate shield or veil, may have made the membership of the Davidian sect to a much greater degree vulnerable to the government attack. It is a fact that the corporate shield protects the membership from actions against the corporation. Should we throw out the baby with the bath water? We should not repudiate the products of Christian civilization just because the state is intruding into these areas. Our strategy should be to reclaim and rebuild, not repudiate. Let us elect better representatives who will reign in government abuses.
1 Messrs. Ron Porter, Steven Schlei,
Norman Jones, David Maser, Richard Honaker,
"Introduction to the Concept, Attributes, and Definition
of the Corporation, Part One and Two," The Bias
Report, Editor Larry Woiwode (Carson, Stephen
Sturlaugson, 1993), February, 4-18, March, 6-15.
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book defending the Reformed Faith against attacks. Available at: www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com