From an idea by David Anderson
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." US Bill of Rights, Article I
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." US Bill of Rights, Article II
Are these two articles mutually exclusive? According to people, to churches, in various places such as Minnesota, the answer is yes. A man in Hennepin County is suing to get the new Minnesota Conceal Carry Law made unconstitutional on the grounds that "Religious institutions should have the right to control their own property and to be able to worship without firearms.'' In doing this, he is representing a Lutheran church and a Unitarian church.
This is, of course, ironic, since it was by force of arms that ancestral Lutherans in Germany and elsewhere defended their right to even assemble to worship God by the dictates of their conscience, and the Unitarian church, like its sister United Church of Christ, traces its ancestry from the Puritan Congregational churches of New England: those pilgrims whose silhouettes with tall hats and blunderbusses walking to thanksgiving (church) services we put up in November.
But more to the point: it has been the tradition of hundreds of generations of christians traveling to, and assembling for worship bearing arms for the protection of their fellow worshippers, families, and themselves, starting with Jesus’ own disciples carrying swords as they went to the Garden of Gethsemane. In fact, Jesus Himself made this responsibility clear, both then and earlier, and since then Bible-believing christians have continuied with swords, crossbows, rifles, and pistols. Despite this, these churches don’t want their members who assemble for worship each Sunday (assuming that they do that) to be armed. They believe in the First Amendment with its rights of freedom of religion, speech, etc; but NOT the Second, with its rights to keep and bear arms. They believe in some of Jesus’ words, but not ALL of them, clearly.
In addition to this error (of ignoring the words of Christ), they clearly make one more mistake: they make a mistake far too common today: they attempt to separate “religious institutions” from “religious people.” Apparently, in their view, the “religious institution” is not made up OF people, but exists to control people. However, there is NO religious institution, in Scripture or elsewhere, if there are no people: by denying people assembling (the actual meaning of the word normally translated as “church” into English from Greek, ecclesia, is “assembly”) the right to decide for themselves about weapons, they are denying the right of the institution to “control their own property.”
To push the point, if I wish to worship without firearms, I have every right to lay aside my pistol, rifle, knife (or sword). If someone else worshipping with me is carrying a weapon, I am not (unlike this man claims) being forced to worship with weapons. I can find nothing in Scripture or the creeds of the various denominations to state that worship must be performed with NO one being armed. Were that the case, then I fear there have been few assemblies of worship in the history of this world which have been “acceptable.” I would no more worship with a group, an assembly, which denied me the right to bear arms in the assembly than I would worship with a group that demanded that I worship in the nude: both are examples of assuming authority that God has NOT granted to them, either individually or corporately.
Of course, these churches are also demonstrating their hypocrisy: they are willing to cite the Bill of Rights for the protection of their own religious rights, but refuse to allow not just the bearing of arms protected by that same Bill of Rights, BUT also deny other worshippers of God (including perhaps some of their own number) their own right to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience, including the obligation to protect the weak and innocent, even in the midst of holy services.
Finally, who are these churches harming by their actions?
Let’s look at motives. Why are they doing this?
Perhaps they are afraid of people who carry guns. While it is hard to imagine anyone less dangerous (that is, less likely to commit a crime against someone by attacking them with a gun) than people who assemble together for worship, perhaps they are afraid of their fellow church-goers. In that case, I pity them: they obviously have not paid attention to far more of Jesus’ teaching than His words on self-defense.
Perhaps they just hate guns – and thus again ignore fundamental Biblical teaching: that it is the use to which something is put that makes it evil, not the thing itself.
Or perhaps they are afraid of visitors who might bring guns and use them for evil purpose. Well, in that case, they are very confused and naïve: a law or sign prohibiting weapons on the premises will not stop these people: knowing that one or more people on the premises MIGHT be armed is a surer deterrent.
Whatever their reason, these two churches, and their representative, are seeking to revoke a law which has, as its primary reason, the defense of innocent people – an act which cannot in any way be justified by Christian principles.
Now, you may say that I am being a hypocrite myself by denying these churches (religious institutions) their right, as private institutions, to decide what they can and cannot have on their property: and once I would have agreed with you. But now, having studied and meditated and (yes, even) prayed on the subject, I have corrected my view. There are some freedoms which are NOT subject to private property, to private limitations and opinions. For example, no one would claim that our right to be free from involuntary servitude (that is, slavery) can be “waived” or made void on private property. Nor do we surrender our right of free speech on private property (we cannot TRESPASS to exercise free speech, but while we are on another person’s property, we do not give up our freedom of speech – even though we should exercise restraint in doing so).
“Oh,” you say, “but those are IMPORTANT, BASIC human rights?” You think that keeping and bearing arms for self-defense is NOT? Some people believe (and I do agree with them) that the difference between slavery and freedom is just THAT right, more than any other, to keep and bear arms. I have NO RIGHT to forbid someone from carrying arms on my property if I have invited that person, either singly or generally, to enter my property. If I do not want that person to carry a weapon on my property, and there is not a legitimate reason (such as environmental conditions which would make it a bad idea to carry a certain kind of weapon) to ask him to replace it with another weapon, leave it outside, or to put it on a hook, then I can refuse him entry or order him to leave. So I might agree that a church could place and enforce a sign saying “Visitors are not invited if they are armed” but not to forbid their own membership from bearing arms as a condition of entry into what is, after all, their own property as a member of the church. And certainly not to grant ANY church the right to arbitrarily create gun-free zones, as this Minnesota effort seeks to do.
And finally, please go back and re-read the first two articles of the Bill of Rights, quoted at the beginning of this article, and note the differences. The First Amendment takes the familiar “Congress shall make no law…” but the Second Amendment is more broad: “… shall not be infringed.” The First, technically, only applies to Congress (although the Fourteenth extends that to States, as well); but the Second is a blanket prohibition – NO ONE can “infringe” on that right.
So to summarize, this action by these two “religious institutions” in Minnesota is wrong on at least three counts:
(1) It is unchristian.
(2) It is immoral.
(3) It is unconstitutional.
‘Nuff said.
Author’s Note/Disclaimer: I am and have been for my entire adult life an active member of a church and have assembled for worship with other christians virtually every Sunday and most Wednesdays for my entire life. I normally DO carry a weapon, usually concealed, to and in worship; I have, on occasion, openly carried a weapon either on my belt or on my shoulder, including military weapons as well as civilian weapons.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Humor: Warning Labels of the Future
As lawyers and “risk managers” continue to play Attila the Hun to industry and commerce’s Rome, we have to face the fact that more and more warning labels are going to appear: so many in fact that often the packaging will have to be redesigned to provide room (as is happening on some over-the-counter drugs today). For example, the standard minimum food container size will have to provide room for at least one side to be 8.5 x 11 with 9-point type to hold all the warnings and cautions.
Among these that the author feels are needed (or at least likely to be found to be “needed” by the sharks in sharkskin suits:
1. Warning on turnips: May cause a choking hazard unless cut.
2. Warning on razor blades and disposable razors: Sharp edge. Do not apply to exposed veins or arteries.
3. Warning on flamethrowers: Not for use by babies and unsupervised children.
4. Warning on gas fill caps: Do not use matches or lighters to determine fluid levels.
5. Warning on electrical cords and wire: Do not lick wire if exposed and inserted in outlet.
6. Warning on books, especially “how-to” and mystery novels: Failure to read this book by numerical order of pages may result in disappointment.
7. Warning on packages of nuts: May be unsuitable for people with nut allergies.
8. Warning on passenger side of cars (beside all the other warnings): Do not attempt to exit car while vehicle is moving.
9. Warning on tin cans: Remove contents before attempting to consume them. Can is inedible.
10.Warning on table: flat side up. Ensure all four legs are on floor before attempting to use.
11.Warning at beginning and end of documentaries on death camps, urban bombers, and similar subjects: Please remember the persons performing these actions are trained professionals and these actions should be attempted at home or school.
12.Warning on “realistic” baby dolls: Failure to obey instructions for feeding and care of this doll will result in reporting violations to Social Services.
13.Warning on new pets: This is a live animal. Do not attempt to set on fire or throw from windows or moving vehicles.
14.Warning on matches: Do not attempt to insert orally or nasally.
15.Warning on kitchen cutlery sets: This 12-piece set may contain sharp objects.
16.Warning on shovel (placed on blade): Handle by other end.
17.Warning on weed killer: Designed for use on weeds but may kill animals, humans, and flowers if applied to them.
18.Warning on shower cabinet: Do not block drain nor allow water to rise above the level of your nose.
19.Warning on hammer: Hitting this repeatedly against your head may result in damage, concussion or bleeding.
20.Warning on muzzle of gun: This side towards target.
21.Warning on crucifixes: For decorative and devotional purposes only. The manufacturer does not endorse the use of crucifixion for punishment or pleasure.
22.Warning on rim of bells: Do not insert body parts when bell is in use.
23.Warning on light bulbs: Do not stare directly at lighted bulb. Allow to cool before removing. Fragile: Do not use pliers or vise grips to remove.
24.Warning on axe or hatchet: SHARP OBJECT. May cause injury if used to strike skin.
25.Warning on automobile tires: Do not attempt to use for transportation unless inflated.
Among these that the author feels are needed (or at least likely to be found to be “needed” by the sharks in sharkskin suits:
1. Warning on turnips: May cause a choking hazard unless cut.
2. Warning on razor blades and disposable razors: Sharp edge. Do not apply to exposed veins or arteries.
3. Warning on flamethrowers: Not for use by babies and unsupervised children.
4. Warning on gas fill caps: Do not use matches or lighters to determine fluid levels.
5. Warning on electrical cords and wire: Do not lick wire if exposed and inserted in outlet.
6. Warning on books, especially “how-to” and mystery novels: Failure to read this book by numerical order of pages may result in disappointment.
7. Warning on packages of nuts: May be unsuitable for people with nut allergies.
8. Warning on passenger side of cars (beside all the other warnings): Do not attempt to exit car while vehicle is moving.
9. Warning on tin cans: Remove contents before attempting to consume them. Can is inedible.
10.Warning on table: flat side up. Ensure all four legs are on floor before attempting to use.
11.Warning at beginning and end of documentaries on death camps, urban bombers, and similar subjects: Please remember the persons performing these actions are trained professionals and these actions should be attempted at home or school.
12.Warning on “realistic” baby dolls: Failure to obey instructions for feeding and care of this doll will result in reporting violations to Social Services.
13.Warning on new pets: This is a live animal. Do not attempt to set on fire or throw from windows or moving vehicles.
14.Warning on matches: Do not attempt to insert orally or nasally.
15.Warning on kitchen cutlery sets: This 12-piece set may contain sharp objects.
16.Warning on shovel (placed on blade): Handle by other end.
17.Warning on weed killer: Designed for use on weeds but may kill animals, humans, and flowers if applied to them.
18.Warning on shower cabinet: Do not block drain nor allow water to rise above the level of your nose.
19.Warning on hammer: Hitting this repeatedly against your head may result in damage, concussion or bleeding.
20.Warning on muzzle of gun: This side towards target.
21.Warning on crucifixes: For decorative and devotional purposes only. The manufacturer does not endorse the use of crucifixion for punishment or pleasure.
22.Warning on rim of bells: Do not insert body parts when bell is in use.
23.Warning on light bulbs: Do not stare directly at lighted bulb. Allow to cool before removing. Fragile: Do not use pliers or vise grips to remove.
24.Warning on axe or hatchet: SHARP OBJECT. May cause injury if used to strike skin.
25.Warning on automobile tires: Do not attempt to use for transportation unless inflated.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
The Scout Law and the Bible
Today, the Boy Scouts of America is under attack from all directions. Yet, this organization has done much throughout the 20th Century to make and keep the United States a better place to live and raise a family, and has produced thousands of leaders. Perhaps one of the major reasons for the current attacks is its emphasis on honoring God. This post is dedicated to my sons' troops, and all honorable Scouts.
Exodus 20:16 A Scout is Trustworthy. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Luke 16:10 A Scout is Loyal. He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
Deuteronomy 15:11 A Scout is Helpful. For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.
Psalm 133:1 A Scout is Friendly. Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!
Ephesians 4:29 A Scout is Courteous. Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
Proverbs 12:10 A Scout is Kind. A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
Ephesians 6:1-3 A Scout is Obedient. 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. 6:2 Honor thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; 6:3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
Proverbs 15:13 A Scout is Cheerful. A merry heart maketh a cheerful countenance: but by sorrow of the hea rt the spirit is broken.
Proverbs 6:6-8 A Scout is Thrifty. 6:6 Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: 6:7 Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, 6:8 Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.
Deuteronomy 31:6 A Scout is Brave. Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the LORD thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.
Psalm 24:3-5 A Scout is Clean. 24:3 Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place? 24:4 He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully. 24:5 He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.
Mark 12:30 A Scout is Reverent. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
2005 Scouting Sunday, Troop 518 Mancos Colorado
Exodus 20:16 A Scout is Trustworthy. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Luke 16:10 A Scout is Loyal. He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
Deuteronomy 15:11 A Scout is Helpful. For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.
Psalm 133:1 A Scout is Friendly. Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!
Ephesians 4:29 A Scout is Courteous. Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
Proverbs 12:10 A Scout is Kind. A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
Ephesians 6:1-3 A Scout is Obedient. 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. 6:2 Honor thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; 6:3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
Proverbs 15:13 A Scout is Cheerful. A merry heart maketh a cheerful countenance: but by sorrow of the hea rt the spirit is broken.
Proverbs 6:6-8 A Scout is Thrifty. 6:6 Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: 6:7 Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, 6:8 Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest.
Deuteronomy 31:6 A Scout is Brave. Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the LORD thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.
Psalm 24:3-5 A Scout is Clean. 24:3 Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place? 24:4 He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully. 24:5 He shall receive the blessing from the LORD, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.
Mark 12:30 A Scout is Reverent. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
2005 Scouting Sunday, Troop 518 Mancos Colorado
Monday, February 28, 2005
Purpose and Dedication
This blog is intended to do my part to fulfill the promise Jesus made in John 8:32: "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." It is dedicated to the greater glory of the Everlasting Father.
In this blog, I will post articles (both final and drafts) concerned with the boundaries between the Way and human society, especially government and politics - always with the purpose of glorifying God in our actions, words, and thoughts, and encouraging one another "all the more as the time approaches."
If we are not free to serve God, (which of necessity requires that we be free NOT to serve Him), then all we have is threatened or lost.
In this blog, I will post articles (both final and drafts) concerned with the boundaries between the Way and human society, especially government and politics - always with the purpose of glorifying God in our actions, words, and thoughts, and encouraging one another "all the more as the time approaches."
If we are not free to serve God, (which of necessity requires that we be free NOT to serve Him), then all we have is threatened or lost.
Unincorporated Churches in America
Why Christian Assemblies Should Not Incorporate nor Obtain 501c3 Status
As a young christian, raised in a christian family in the 1960’s and 70’s, I was taught the importance of “being in subjection to the governing authorities,” (Romans 13:1). Because of that, I (and most christians) took for granted that this “subjection” included any regulation that a government put into place that was not directly and immediately obviously against the Scriptures. The correct exegesis of Romans 13 aside, sometimes, the anti-Scriptural nature of some government requirements is not readily obvious.
Over the years, one activity associated with establishing a new congregation of the Lord’s body in a city or town has almost always been the filing of articles of incorporation (with the state, usually) as a religious or non-profit organization. Many hours of the valuable time of elders, deacons, preachers, and other christian men and women has been spent in preparing these articles, writing by-laws, and then submitting reports and other paperwork to state and federal agencies. More time has been spent filling out Internal Revenue Service forms to obtain tax-exempt status as a “501c3 organization.” Filing and other fees have been dutifully paid in the belief that God required this of us in order to “be in subjection.” Often, each year, a report is prepared and submitted to the IRS and/or state, taking more time and money.
This compliance with various laws and regulations has been taken for granted, done unquestioningly. We do it because "everybody else gets one," and because it has been part of a checklist (formal or informal), that includes this as something to be done, like selecting a location to meet, scheduling times of worship, and organizing classes and the assembly. This article answers a question that most christians never even thought about - why shouldn’t we incorporate our church? Why shouldn’t we file for tax-exempt status?
1. The law does not require that a church incorporate or obtain tax-exempt status.
There is no federal law, and no state has a law (that I know of), which requires that a church[1] obtain any kind of legal recognition or be incorporated in order to function in accordance with God’s will, that is to preach the Gospel, teach the Word, worship the Father, or provide benevolence. Nor is incorporation necessary to allow ownership of property such as a meetinghouse, pay salaries to preachers or others, open a bank account, obtain insurance, or perform other necessary support activities. Every state allows for religious groups to be recognized as “free associations” or something similar.[2]
Nor does any federal law require that a church file paperwork to be “recognized” as a non-profit or tax-exempt organization. In fact, the preamble to the Internal Revenue Service’s manual for filing the forms to obtain “501c3” status specifically states that churches are automatically recognized as “501c3” organizations, that is, non-profit and recognized as tax-exempt. No forms and no identification number are necessary.
Why, with all the desire to control every facet of life, does not the government require this? Because the First Article of the Bill of Rights of the Federal Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion (as do similar clauses in most state constitutions - at least the ones I've studied). Mandating incorporation or other forms of organization is seen, even by nonreligious judges, other attorneys and politicians, as being interference in religion by government. A recent court decision in Virginia (a state which had prohibited incorporation of churches as a violation of the separation of church and state) actually allowed incorporation, but reaffirmed the voluntary nature of that act.
2. When you incorporate a church, you grant the State jurisdiction over that church.
First, by filing an application to incorporate, we are asking the State’s permission to organize. Why should we need the State’s permission to participate in something that God instituted? (Matthew 16:18) We should not need the State’s permission to establish a congregation of the Lord’s church nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it. (What if you apply and the State says "no"?) You must understand that the authority to grant incorporation (a form of license, that is, permission to exist as a legal entity) implies the power to prohibit existence. Corporations are by definition a creation of the State; an “artificial person”, an entity that is limited in its existence and powers by the State.
Yet, the State cannot grant the right to come together to worship God and carry out the responsibilities of the church. It is a God-given responsibility (and right), stated clearly in the Bible. If the State is the one granting existence, where does God fit in? When you organize and incorporate a church, that church is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your church, not God. There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence that declares this to be true.
It has been well established in law that the State has the authority to prohibit the exercise of certain religious practices that are deemed as harmful to the public, to the environment, or to public order. The “test” is whether the State has a “compelling interest.” In the 1800’s, the Federal Government and most state government outlawed polygamy as practiced by the Latter-Day Saints: it was deemed that there was a “compelling interest.”[3]
Today, many jurisdictions prohibit animal sacrifices, the sprinkling of blood, and other practices common in Old Testament times and in various religions. Currently (2005), the US Department of Justice is seeking to prohibit a religious group from importing a plant from South America it uses in its worship services, claiming it is an illegal hallucinogen. For decades, the Native American Church was prohibited from using peyote, for the same reason; and even today, members of the NAC who are not enrolled members of a federally-recognized tribe break the law by participating in a peyote ritual.
It is easy to say that these are all unscriptural practices and so it is no great loss that such things are illegal. Yet, today, we find that more and more the State or the “public” has a compelling interest in prohibiting such things as singing in residential areas, having regular Bible studies in private homes, or meeting after a certain time of day.
Who knows what “compelling interest” in the future might prohibit teaching of children, or having communion, or baptizing people by immersing them in water? Such things have been prohibited (and in some cases still are) in many foreign lands. Corporations are prohibited from performing illegal acts and can be dissolved by the state for doing so. The State is the entity that decides what is legal and illegal for the Corporation. And when corporations, creatures of the state, are dissolved by the State, it is the State which then gains control of the property that corporation held.[4]
3. When you incorporate under the State, you place your congregation of believers under an immoral body of law.
By obtaining legal recognition as an “artificial entity” called a “non-profit corporation”, you place that group under the jurisdiction of civil courts, which are governed by unscriptural, immoral laws. Under these laws, the organization can be prohibited from “discriminating” against homosexuals, non-christians, or other protected groups. It is increasingly likely that even merely preaching to someone or reading Scripture will be made illegal as “hate speech” or “discrimination.” In fact, this has already happened in Canada, a nation that has many christians and which shares much of our constitutional history and ideals. However, in Canada today, christians are being punished for teaching the truth![5]
By incorporating you agree voluntarily to follow all these laws, regardless of whether they are in accordance with God’s will, and even rules or regulations that are passed or put in force to regulate such organizations, without legislative action or constitutional process. And if we sign those applications and documents then do not follow the law because it conflicts with God’s laws, we open ourselves to charges of hypocrisy.
4. The “articles of incorporation” frequently invade and remove God-given authority in the church.
When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for congregations to have a certain form of organization, of leadership. There was to be a plurality of elders (also called pastors, shepherds, bishops or presbyters) (Acts 20:7); there were to be deacons, teachers, and preachers (evangelists), each with their own responsibilities.
Most states require a certain form of government for nonprofit organizations, usually requiring a “board of trustees.” These mandated organizations are either self-perpetuating oligarchies, or require elections or other democratic or quasi-democratic methods of organizing and governing the organization: none of these methods are scriptural in nature. Even if it is the custom of the church to make the elders the trustees, this is still not a scripturally-authorized arrangement. And in congregations without elders, if a board is required, then men assume unauthorized authority within the congregation by being a “board” or a “trustee.” Elders and other positions of responsibility are not authorized by Scripture to be elected positions, nor to appoint their own replacements, so this is yet another conflict in the church which holds a human “charter.”
In addition, virtually all laws of incorporation require the corporation to have by-laws or something similar, to govern how the corporation is organized and operates, including terms of membership, authority within the corporation, use of property, etc. Not only is this adding to God's Word (Rev. 22:19-20), but this also gives opportunity - indeed, nearly forces - the creation of a creed: I have seen many "church" corporation's by-laws which inserted requirements and concepts either taking away from the liberty God gives, or taking away some part of Scripture, directly or indirectly. And as far as the state is concerned, the by-laws trump the Bible. And by-laws CAN be changed - allowing opportunity for even more mischief.
5. When you have a state-organized church organization, you have two masters.
From the State’s point of view, when you organize a group with articles of incorporation, you are submitting to their supervision, their control. This violates God’s Word, which tells us that “no man may serve two masters.” When such incorporation is voluntary, then again, we are open to charges of hypocrisy and of not telling the truth.
As children and servants of God, our first loyalty, our first obedience, must be to God. As Peter and the other apostles told the Sanhedrin, “we must obey God rather than man.” (Acts 5:29) This means that our subjection to human government, dictated in Romans 13, must be only in those areas in which human government is not in disagreement with God’s Word. We recognize this applies in such situations as divorce, gambling, abortion, and other issues; it is no less true in the legal and organizational affairs of the local congregation.
While the issue of incorporation or registration of churches is part of a larger issue regarding the relationship of church and government, the issues here are quite clear. Romans 13 does not override other Scriptures which make it clearly wrong to submit to such things. It is wrong to incorporate our churches, it is not required to incorporate our churches, and if we are to be true to our calling to do all things in accordance with God’s will, we must sever all unscriptural ties with human government, just as our forbearers did with the denominational ties which bound them in the 1700s and the 1800s. Do we have the courage to do so?
Footnotes:
[1] congregation, religious group, assembly, etc.
[2] I understand that at least one Amerind nation does require both incorporation and registration, and Hawaii also requires registration for conducting marriage ceremonies.
[3] However, the recent Supreme Court decision on a Texan sodomy law brings the validity of the anti-polygamy law into question.
[4] In addition, modern forfeiture laws mean that it is increasingly likely that property used in committing even a misdemeanor can be seized by the police or courts.
[5] In several recent well-publicized cases, a christian who quoted Scriptures condemning homosexuality in a Canadian newspaper ad was convicted of a “hate crime," as was a preacher in Sweden for preaching against homosexuality in the pulpit during worship services.
Thanks to Matt Trewhella, Albert Harty, and to the memory of Phil Potter, who contributed much of the thoughts and discussion to this article.
As a young christian, raised in a christian family in the 1960’s and 70’s, I was taught the importance of “being in subjection to the governing authorities,” (Romans 13:1). Because of that, I (and most christians) took for granted that this “subjection” included any regulation that a government put into place that was not directly and immediately obviously against the Scriptures. The correct exegesis of Romans 13 aside, sometimes, the anti-Scriptural nature of some government requirements is not readily obvious.
Over the years, one activity associated with establishing a new congregation of the Lord’s body in a city or town has almost always been the filing of articles of incorporation (with the state, usually) as a religious or non-profit organization. Many hours of the valuable time of elders, deacons, preachers, and other christian men and women has been spent in preparing these articles, writing by-laws, and then submitting reports and other paperwork to state and federal agencies. More time has been spent filling out Internal Revenue Service forms to obtain tax-exempt status as a “501c3 organization.” Filing and other fees have been dutifully paid in the belief that God required this of us in order to “be in subjection.” Often, each year, a report is prepared and submitted to the IRS and/or state, taking more time and money.
This compliance with various laws and regulations has been taken for granted, done unquestioningly. We do it because "everybody else gets one," and because it has been part of a checklist (formal or informal), that includes this as something to be done, like selecting a location to meet, scheduling times of worship, and organizing classes and the assembly. This article answers a question that most christians never even thought about - why shouldn’t we incorporate our church? Why shouldn’t we file for tax-exempt status?
1. The law does not require that a church incorporate or obtain tax-exempt status.
There is no federal law, and no state has a law (that I know of), which requires that a church[1] obtain any kind of legal recognition or be incorporated in order to function in accordance with God’s will, that is to preach the Gospel, teach the Word, worship the Father, or provide benevolence. Nor is incorporation necessary to allow ownership of property such as a meetinghouse, pay salaries to preachers or others, open a bank account, obtain insurance, or perform other necessary support activities. Every state allows for religious groups to be recognized as “free associations” or something similar.[2]
Nor does any federal law require that a church file paperwork to be “recognized” as a non-profit or tax-exempt organization. In fact, the preamble to the Internal Revenue Service’s manual for filing the forms to obtain “501c3” status specifically states that churches are automatically recognized as “501c3” organizations, that is, non-profit and recognized as tax-exempt. No forms and no identification number are necessary.
Why, with all the desire to control every facet of life, does not the government require this? Because the First Article of the Bill of Rights of the Federal Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion (as do similar clauses in most state constitutions - at least the ones I've studied). Mandating incorporation or other forms of organization is seen, even by nonreligious judges, other attorneys and politicians, as being interference in religion by government. A recent court decision in Virginia (a state which had prohibited incorporation of churches as a violation of the separation of church and state) actually allowed incorporation, but reaffirmed the voluntary nature of that act.
2. When you incorporate a church, you grant the State jurisdiction over that church.
First, by filing an application to incorporate, we are asking the State’s permission to organize. Why should we need the State’s permission to participate in something that God instituted? (Matthew 16:18) We should not need the State’s permission to establish a congregation of the Lord’s church nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it. (What if you apply and the State says "no"?) You must understand that the authority to grant incorporation (a form of license, that is, permission to exist as a legal entity) implies the power to prohibit existence. Corporations are by definition a creation of the State; an “artificial person”, an entity that is limited in its existence and powers by the State.
Yet, the State cannot grant the right to come together to worship God and carry out the responsibilities of the church. It is a God-given responsibility (and right), stated clearly in the Bible. If the State is the one granting existence, where does God fit in? When you organize and incorporate a church, that church is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your church, not God. There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence that declares this to be true.
It has been well established in law that the State has the authority to prohibit the exercise of certain religious practices that are deemed as harmful to the public, to the environment, or to public order. The “test” is whether the State has a “compelling interest.” In the 1800’s, the Federal Government and most state government outlawed polygamy as practiced by the Latter-Day Saints: it was deemed that there was a “compelling interest.”[3]
Today, many jurisdictions prohibit animal sacrifices, the sprinkling of blood, and other practices common in Old Testament times and in various religions. Currently (2005), the US Department of Justice is seeking to prohibit a religious group from importing a plant from South America it uses in its worship services, claiming it is an illegal hallucinogen. For decades, the Native American Church was prohibited from using peyote, for the same reason; and even today, members of the NAC who are not enrolled members of a federally-recognized tribe break the law by participating in a peyote ritual.
It is easy to say that these are all unscriptural practices and so it is no great loss that such things are illegal. Yet, today, we find that more and more the State or the “public” has a compelling interest in prohibiting such things as singing in residential areas, having regular Bible studies in private homes, or meeting after a certain time of day.
Who knows what “compelling interest” in the future might prohibit teaching of children, or having communion, or baptizing people by immersing them in water? Such things have been prohibited (and in some cases still are) in many foreign lands. Corporations are prohibited from performing illegal acts and can be dissolved by the state for doing so. The State is the entity that decides what is legal and illegal for the Corporation. And when corporations, creatures of the state, are dissolved by the State, it is the State which then gains control of the property that corporation held.[4]
3. When you incorporate under the State, you place your congregation of believers under an immoral body of law.
By obtaining legal recognition as an “artificial entity” called a “non-profit corporation”, you place that group under the jurisdiction of civil courts, which are governed by unscriptural, immoral laws. Under these laws, the organization can be prohibited from “discriminating” against homosexuals, non-christians, or other protected groups. It is increasingly likely that even merely preaching to someone or reading Scripture will be made illegal as “hate speech” or “discrimination.” In fact, this has already happened in Canada, a nation that has many christians and which shares much of our constitutional history and ideals. However, in Canada today, christians are being punished for teaching the truth![5]
By incorporating you agree voluntarily to follow all these laws, regardless of whether they are in accordance with God’s will, and even rules or regulations that are passed or put in force to regulate such organizations, without legislative action or constitutional process. And if we sign those applications and documents then do not follow the law because it conflicts with God’s laws, we open ourselves to charges of hypocrisy.
4. The “articles of incorporation” frequently invade and remove God-given authority in the church.
When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for congregations to have a certain form of organization, of leadership. There was to be a plurality of elders (also called pastors, shepherds, bishops or presbyters) (Acts 20:7); there were to be deacons, teachers, and preachers (evangelists), each with their own responsibilities.
Most states require a certain form of government for nonprofit organizations, usually requiring a “board of trustees.” These mandated organizations are either self-perpetuating oligarchies, or require elections or other democratic or quasi-democratic methods of organizing and governing the organization: none of these methods are scriptural in nature. Even if it is the custom of the church to make the elders the trustees, this is still not a scripturally-authorized arrangement. And in congregations without elders, if a board is required, then men assume unauthorized authority within the congregation by being a “board” or a “trustee.” Elders and other positions of responsibility are not authorized by Scripture to be elected positions, nor to appoint their own replacements, so this is yet another conflict in the church which holds a human “charter.”
In addition, virtually all laws of incorporation require the corporation to have by-laws or something similar, to govern how the corporation is organized and operates, including terms of membership, authority within the corporation, use of property, etc. Not only is this adding to God's Word (Rev. 22:19-20), but this also gives opportunity - indeed, nearly forces - the creation of a creed: I have seen many "church" corporation's by-laws which inserted requirements and concepts either taking away from the liberty God gives, or taking away some part of Scripture, directly or indirectly. And as far as the state is concerned, the by-laws trump the Bible. And by-laws CAN be changed - allowing opportunity for even more mischief.
5. When you have a state-organized church organization, you have two masters.
From the State’s point of view, when you organize a group with articles of incorporation, you are submitting to their supervision, their control. This violates God’s Word, which tells us that “no man may serve two masters.” When such incorporation is voluntary, then again, we are open to charges of hypocrisy and of not telling the truth.
As children and servants of God, our first loyalty, our first obedience, must be to God. As Peter and the other apostles told the Sanhedrin, “we must obey God rather than man.” (Acts 5:29) This means that our subjection to human government, dictated in Romans 13, must be only in those areas in which human government is not in disagreement with God’s Word. We recognize this applies in such situations as divorce, gambling, abortion, and other issues; it is no less true in the legal and organizational affairs of the local congregation.
While the issue of incorporation or registration of churches is part of a larger issue regarding the relationship of church and government, the issues here are quite clear. Romans 13 does not override other Scriptures which make it clearly wrong to submit to such things. It is wrong to incorporate our churches, it is not required to incorporate our churches, and if we are to be true to our calling to do all things in accordance with God’s will, we must sever all unscriptural ties with human government, just as our forbearers did with the denominational ties which bound them in the 1700s and the 1800s. Do we have the courage to do so?
Footnotes:
[1] congregation, religious group, assembly, etc.
[2] I understand that at least one Amerind nation does require both incorporation and registration, and Hawaii also requires registration for conducting marriage ceremonies.
[3] However, the recent Supreme Court decision on a Texan sodomy law brings the validity of the anti-polygamy law into question.
[4] In addition, modern forfeiture laws mean that it is increasingly likely that property used in committing even a misdemeanor can be seized by the police or courts.
[5] In several recent well-publicized cases, a christian who quoted Scriptures condemning homosexuality in a Canadian newspaper ad was convicted of a “hate crime," as was a preacher in Sweden for preaching against homosexuality in the pulpit during worship services.
Thanks to Matt Trewhella, Albert Harty, and to the memory of Phil Potter, who contributed much of the thoughts and discussion to this article.
Unlicensed Marriage in America
Author’s note: As young christians, we were taught the importance of “being in subjection to the governing authorities,” (Romans 13:1). Because of that, we took for granted that this “subjection” included any regulation that a government put into place that was not directly, immediately, and obviously against the Scriptures. Unfortunately, sometimes, the anti-Scriptural , even anti-God, nature of some government requirements are not readily obvious. The recent national debate over homosexual “marriage” makes this issue very timely and of great significance. This is not an easy issue to study and the conclusions are very hard to accept. Be warned.
Unlicensed Marriage:
Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License
Most christian homes have one - sometimes, ironically, it is kept in the family Bible; sometimes in a safe-box. And every year thousands more christians amble down to their local county courthouse and obtain a marriage license from the State in order to marry their future spouse. They do this unquestioningly. They do it because "everybody else gets one," and because the elders and the preacher have that as part of the process of getting married, often even a checklist (formal or informal), that includes this as something to be done, like selecting a bridal dress or choosing songs for the wedding. This article answers a question that most christians never even thought about - why shouldn’t we go get one?
1. The definition of a "license" demands that we not obtain one to marry.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." Why should it be illegal to marry without the State’s permission? Why should we need the State’s permission to participate in something that God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)? We should not need the State’s permission to marry nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it. What if you apply and the State says "no." You must understand that the authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers a right" to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right, stated clearly in the Bible, as we see in Mark 10:6-9. If the State is the one “joining” two people together, where does God fit in?
2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage.
When you marry with a marriage license, your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including the fruit of your marriage. What is the fruit of your marriage? Your children and every piece of property you own. There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence that declares this to be true.
In 1993, parents were upset in Wisconsin because a test, being administered to their children in the government schools, was very invasive of the family’s privacy. When parents complained, they were shocked by the school bureaucrats who informed them that their children were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take the test because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, "your marriage license and their birth certificates." Judicially, and in increasing fashion, practically, your state marriage license has far-reaching implications. As far as law and the courts are concerned, it appears that there is little or no difference between a driver’s license, marriage license, articles of incorporation, or any other kind of license issued by the state. Just as a driver's license can be revoked at the dictate of the state (admittedly through a judicial process) so can the marriage license.
3. When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law that is immoral.
By obtaining a marriage license, you place yourself under the jurisdiction of a civil court, often called a “Family Court” or something similar, which is governed by unscriptural, immoral laws. Under these laws, you can divorce for any reason. Often, the courts side with the spouse who is in rebellion to God, and castigates the spouse who remains faithful by ordering him or her not to speak about the Bible or other matters of faith when present with the children.
There are many preachers of the Gospel who cannot in good conscience perform a marriage that would place people under this immoral body of laws. In addition to the reasons already discussed, they have looked at the traditional wording used by most states, which says something like “by the authority invested in me by the State of…” and have asked themselves, do they perform their duties as evangelists by the authority of the State, or by the authority of the Father? They therefore cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so they have to act as an agent of the State - literally! They have to sign the marriage license, and usually have to mail it into the State (either a State government office or county office). Given the State’s demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given its unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, many have decided that it would be an act of idolatry to do so. (And this is assuming that evangelists (or elders or deacons) have any authority to marry people from God in the first place.)
4. The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental authority.
When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for children to have their father’s blessing regarding whom they married. Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers (Dt. 22:16; Ex. 22:17; I Cor. 7:3 . We have a vestige of this in our culture today in that the father takes his daughter to the front of the assembly and the minister asks, "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?"
Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in colonial America. When you read the laws of the colonies and then the states, you see only two requirements for marriage. First, you had to obtain your parents’ permission to marry, and second, you had to post public notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony. Notice you had to obtain your parents’ permission. Back then you saw limited, godly government displayed in that the State recognized the parents’ authority by demanding that the parents’ permission be obtained. Today, the all-encompassing ungodly State demands that their permission be obtained to marry.
By issuing marriage licenses, the State is saying, "You don’t need your parents’ permission, you need our permission." If parents are opposed to their child’s marrying of a certain person and refuse to give their permission, the child can do an end run around the parents’ authority by obtaining the State’s permission, and marry anyway. This is an invasion and removal of God-given parental authority by the State, and not just permits, but encourages breaking of God’s will, as stated in Ephesians 6:1-3.
5. When you marry with a marriage license, you are literally a polygamist.
From the State’s point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying the State. Though many may think this is a bizarre and outlandish claim, nevertheless, it is true.
The most blatant declaration of this fact is found in a brochure entitled "With This Ring I Thee Wed." It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle "Marriage Vows" states, "Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio."
See, the State knows, the lawyers know, that when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, you are marrying the State! You are a polygamist! You are not just making a vow to God and your spouse, but you are making a vow to the State, and you are giving undue jurisdiction to the State. It is reminiscent of that ancient evil, the “nocht primus” in which a nobleman on behalf of the king (the State) would spend the first night with the bride.
6. When you marry with a marriage license, you are adding to God’s word.
To understand the implications of the state marriage license, let us look at another part of God’s word. Just as God ordained marriage, He also commands baptism. Now, picture a land in which the government requires that we send a repentant, Christ-confessing believer down to the courthouse first, to pay a fee and get a license before that person could be baptized, and where that baptism could only be administered by someone authorized to do so by the government.
We would see a State law demanding that a permit or license be obtained by a person before they could be baptized as an unscriptural and completely unacceptable addition to the God-given plan of salvation, and in the United States, a clear violation of the constitutional prohibition on the free exercise of religion. The situation is virtually identical to that we presently have with marriage.
When Does the State Have Jurisdiction Over a Marriage?
There is no indication in Scripture that God intended the State to have jurisdiction over a marriage for any reason. Some would claim that it is the State that has jurisdiction only in limited circumstances, as 1) in the case of divorce, and 2) when crimes are committed i.e., adultery, bigamy. etc. In the past it might be argued that the State at least did enforce God’s commands in these matters. This might fit within the authority God gives the State in Romans 13:4: “an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.” Unfortunately, the State now allows divorce for any reason (contrary to the Scriptures), increasingly marriage between two people of the same sex is permitted or recognized, it doesn’t prosecute for adultery, and serial bigamy is openly accepted: it has abdicated that God-given duty (if indeed it ever had it), and can no longer claim any authority over the marriage of christians.
Not only has the State violated God’s law, but it has violated its own law. It is clear that both the State and God consider marriage to be a contract; Scripture constantly points out the contractual aspects of the marriage bond. The United States Constitution (Article I, Section 10) expressly forbids any State to pass any “Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” Yet, that is exactly what “no-fault” divorce laws and the abolition of laws making adultery a crime have done: they have impaired the obligations taken on freely in the marriage contract: to cleave to one another until death, to honor the marriage bed. The State has refused to enforce contracts in accordance with its own law; therefore, it has abdicated even the slightest claim to be able to regulate how those contracts are made.
Even so, in either case, divorce or crime, a marriage license is not necessary for the courts to determine whether a marriage existed or not. What is needed are witnesses, and that is why witnesses should be recorded both on the marriage certificate itself and by keeping the wedding day guest book. Marriage was instituted by God, therefore it is a God-given right. According to Scripture, it is to be governed by the family, and the State has no jurisdiction.
History of Marriage Licenses in America
George Washington was married without a marriage license. Abraham Lincoln was married without a marriage license. So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued? Historically, all the states had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would be illegal. (See definition of "license" at the beginning of the article.)
Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines "marriage license" as, "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry." "Intermarry" is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, "Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages."
Give the State an inch and they’ll take a mile (or as one elderly woman once said "10,000 miles.") Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws. As we can see from this history, the requirement for marriage licenses is actually a vestige of the institutional racism of the past in the United States, a racism which was itself a violation of God’s commands (Acts 10:34).
What Should We Do?
It is with reluctance and much prayer and study that we come to this conclusion. Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers of the Gospel be marrying people with State marriage licenses. This is not easy: God did not promise ease in obeying Him.
Some have said, "If someone is married without a marriage license, then they aren’t really married." Given the fact that some states are already legalizing same-sex marriages, we need to ask ourselves, "If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license - who’s really married? Is it the two men with a marriage license, or the man and woman without a marriage license? In reality, this contention that one is not really married unless they obtain a marriage license just reveals how corrupted we have become in our thinking. We need to think biblically.
You should not have to obtain a license from the State to marry someone anymore than you should have to obtain a license from the State to be a parent (which some in academic and legislative circles are currently pushing to be made law), or to be a christian.
It was customary in times past to use a Family Bible that contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. Christians recorded the marriage in the Family Bible. What’s recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as a legally binding document in any court of law in America. Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriage in their Family Bibles. So should we. The marriage vows can be verbal; a verbal contract is still legally and morally binding; written vows, in front of witnesses, provide for the covenant which God intended in marriage and which will be recognized even by non-christians.
If we are to follow the Lord, we must be willing to accept the consequences of obedience to His will, even if we must reject the traditions of our family and our culture, and laws that are contrary to His. As Peter and the other apostles stated so clearly to the leaders of their nation, “We must obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29) This is just as true today as in the First Century, and just as true in the United States of America as in Judea. As Jesus Himself said, in Matthew 6:24: “No man can serve two masters.” If we serve the State in marriage, we reject God in marriage.
Author’s Note:
This was a hard study for me, because years ago, I did just what this study led me to decide was wrong. Not only that, but if I had studied this issue when I should have (before marrying), I would have come to the same conclusion that I do today and deeply shocked my parents, my bride’s parents, and even the church. I think, but don’t know, if I could have persuaded my brother in the Lord who married us, to have done so without a “piece of paper” from the state, but it is clear now that even that was not a scriptural requirement: he merely served as yet another witness, in addition to the christian and non-christian witnesses we had present. It is hard to admit that something you did with pride, part of accepting responsibility and accomplishing something very good, turned out to be the wrong thing. Yet, I have been forced to do so.
Please study this issue openly and with as objective an attitude as possible, and then pray that you and all christians can have the courage of our convictions to serve the Lord.
Special thanks to Matt Trewhella and Albert Harty for much of the material and ideas in this article. However, I accept full responsibility for this article.
Unlicensed Marriage:
Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License
Most christian homes have one - sometimes, ironically, it is kept in the family Bible; sometimes in a safe-box. And every year thousands more christians amble down to their local county courthouse and obtain a marriage license from the State in order to marry their future spouse. They do this unquestioningly. They do it because "everybody else gets one," and because the elders and the preacher have that as part of the process of getting married, often even a checklist (formal or informal), that includes this as something to be done, like selecting a bridal dress or choosing songs for the wedding. This article answers a question that most christians never even thought about - why shouldn’t we go get one?
1. The definition of a "license" demands that we not obtain one to marry.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." Why should it be illegal to marry without the State’s permission? Why should we need the State’s permission to participate in something that God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)? We should not need the State’s permission to marry nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it. What if you apply and the State says "no." You must understand that the authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers a right" to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right, stated clearly in the Bible, as we see in Mark 10:6-9. If the State is the one “joining” two people together, where does God fit in?
2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage.
When you marry with a marriage license, your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including the fruit of your marriage. What is the fruit of your marriage? Your children and every piece of property you own. There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence that declares this to be true.
In 1993, parents were upset in Wisconsin because a test, being administered to their children in the government schools, was very invasive of the family’s privacy. When parents complained, they were shocked by the school bureaucrats who informed them that their children were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take the test because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, "your marriage license and their birth certificates." Judicially, and in increasing fashion, practically, your state marriage license has far-reaching implications. As far as law and the courts are concerned, it appears that there is little or no difference between a driver’s license, marriage license, articles of incorporation, or any other kind of license issued by the state. Just as a driver's license can be revoked at the dictate of the state (admittedly through a judicial process) so can the marriage license.
3. When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law that is immoral.
By obtaining a marriage license, you place yourself under the jurisdiction of a civil court, often called a “Family Court” or something similar, which is governed by unscriptural, immoral laws. Under these laws, you can divorce for any reason. Often, the courts side with the spouse who is in rebellion to God, and castigates the spouse who remains faithful by ordering him or her not to speak about the Bible or other matters of faith when present with the children.
There are many preachers of the Gospel who cannot in good conscience perform a marriage that would place people under this immoral body of laws. In addition to the reasons already discussed, they have looked at the traditional wording used by most states, which says something like “by the authority invested in me by the State of…” and have asked themselves, do they perform their duties as evangelists by the authority of the State, or by the authority of the Father? They therefore cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so they have to act as an agent of the State - literally! They have to sign the marriage license, and usually have to mail it into the State (either a State government office or county office). Given the State’s demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given its unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, many have decided that it would be an act of idolatry to do so. (And this is assuming that evangelists (or elders or deacons) have any authority to marry people from God in the first place.)
4. The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental authority.
When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for children to have their father’s blessing regarding whom they married. Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers (Dt. 22:16; Ex. 22:17; I Cor. 7:3 . We have a vestige of this in our culture today in that the father takes his daughter to the front of the assembly and the minister asks, "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?"
Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in colonial America. When you read the laws of the colonies and then the states, you see only two requirements for marriage. First, you had to obtain your parents’ permission to marry, and second, you had to post public notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony. Notice you had to obtain your parents’ permission. Back then you saw limited, godly government displayed in that the State recognized the parents’ authority by demanding that the parents’ permission be obtained. Today, the all-encompassing ungodly State demands that their permission be obtained to marry.
By issuing marriage licenses, the State is saying, "You don’t need your parents’ permission, you need our permission." If parents are opposed to their child’s marrying of a certain person and refuse to give their permission, the child can do an end run around the parents’ authority by obtaining the State’s permission, and marry anyway. This is an invasion and removal of God-given parental authority by the State, and not just permits, but encourages breaking of God’s will, as stated in Ephesians 6:1-3.
5. When you marry with a marriage license, you are literally a polygamist.
From the State’s point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying the State. Though many may think this is a bizarre and outlandish claim, nevertheless, it is true.
The most blatant declaration of this fact is found in a brochure entitled "With This Ring I Thee Wed." It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle "Marriage Vows" states, "Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio."
See, the State knows, the lawyers know, that when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, you are marrying the State! You are a polygamist! You are not just making a vow to God and your spouse, but you are making a vow to the State, and you are giving undue jurisdiction to the State. It is reminiscent of that ancient evil, the “nocht primus” in which a nobleman on behalf of the king (the State) would spend the first night with the bride.
6. When you marry with a marriage license, you are adding to God’s word.
To understand the implications of the state marriage license, let us look at another part of God’s word. Just as God ordained marriage, He also commands baptism. Now, picture a land in which the government requires that we send a repentant, Christ-confessing believer down to the courthouse first, to pay a fee and get a license before that person could be baptized, and where that baptism could only be administered by someone authorized to do so by the government.
We would see a State law demanding that a permit or license be obtained by a person before they could be baptized as an unscriptural and completely unacceptable addition to the God-given plan of salvation, and in the United States, a clear violation of the constitutional prohibition on the free exercise of religion. The situation is virtually identical to that we presently have with marriage.
When Does the State Have Jurisdiction Over a Marriage?
There is no indication in Scripture that God intended the State to have jurisdiction over a marriage for any reason. Some would claim that it is the State that has jurisdiction only in limited circumstances, as 1) in the case of divorce, and 2) when crimes are committed i.e., adultery, bigamy. etc. In the past it might be argued that the State at least did enforce God’s commands in these matters. This might fit within the authority God gives the State in Romans 13:4: “an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.” Unfortunately, the State now allows divorce for any reason (contrary to the Scriptures), increasingly marriage between two people of the same sex is permitted or recognized, it doesn’t prosecute for adultery, and serial bigamy is openly accepted: it has abdicated that God-given duty (if indeed it ever had it), and can no longer claim any authority over the marriage of christians.
Not only has the State violated God’s law, but it has violated its own law. It is clear that both the State and God consider marriage to be a contract; Scripture constantly points out the contractual aspects of the marriage bond. The United States Constitution (Article I, Section 10) expressly forbids any State to pass any “Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” Yet, that is exactly what “no-fault” divorce laws and the abolition of laws making adultery a crime have done: they have impaired the obligations taken on freely in the marriage contract: to cleave to one another until death, to honor the marriage bed. The State has refused to enforce contracts in accordance with its own law; therefore, it has abdicated even the slightest claim to be able to regulate how those contracts are made.
Even so, in either case, divorce or crime, a marriage license is not necessary for the courts to determine whether a marriage existed or not. What is needed are witnesses, and that is why witnesses should be recorded both on the marriage certificate itself and by keeping the wedding day guest book. Marriage was instituted by God, therefore it is a God-given right. According to Scripture, it is to be governed by the family, and the State has no jurisdiction.
History of Marriage Licenses in America
George Washington was married without a marriage license. Abraham Lincoln was married without a marriage license. So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued? Historically, all the states had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would be illegal. (See definition of "license" at the beginning of the article.)
Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines "marriage license" as, "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry." "Intermarry" is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, "Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages."
Give the State an inch and they’ll take a mile (or as one elderly woman once said "10,000 miles.") Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws. As we can see from this history, the requirement for marriage licenses is actually a vestige of the institutional racism of the past in the United States, a racism which was itself a violation of God’s commands (Acts 10:34).
What Should We Do?
It is with reluctance and much prayer and study that we come to this conclusion. Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers of the Gospel be marrying people with State marriage licenses. This is not easy: God did not promise ease in obeying Him.
Some have said, "If someone is married without a marriage license, then they aren’t really married." Given the fact that some states are already legalizing same-sex marriages, we need to ask ourselves, "If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license - who’s really married? Is it the two men with a marriage license, or the man and woman without a marriage license? In reality, this contention that one is not really married unless they obtain a marriage license just reveals how corrupted we have become in our thinking. We need to think biblically.
You should not have to obtain a license from the State to marry someone anymore than you should have to obtain a license from the State to be a parent (which some in academic and legislative circles are currently pushing to be made law), or to be a christian.
It was customary in times past to use a Family Bible that contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. Christians recorded the marriage in the Family Bible. What’s recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as a legally binding document in any court of law in America. Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriage in their Family Bibles. So should we. The marriage vows can be verbal; a verbal contract is still legally and morally binding; written vows, in front of witnesses, provide for the covenant which God intended in marriage and which will be recognized even by non-christians.
If we are to follow the Lord, we must be willing to accept the consequences of obedience to His will, even if we must reject the traditions of our family and our culture, and laws that are contrary to His. As Peter and the other apostles stated so clearly to the leaders of their nation, “We must obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29) This is just as true today as in the First Century, and just as true in the United States of America as in Judea. As Jesus Himself said, in Matthew 6:24: “No man can serve two masters.” If we serve the State in marriage, we reject God in marriage.
Author’s Note:
This was a hard study for me, because years ago, I did just what this study led me to decide was wrong. Not only that, but if I had studied this issue when I should have (before marrying), I would have come to the same conclusion that I do today and deeply shocked my parents, my bride’s parents, and even the church. I think, but don’t know, if I could have persuaded my brother in the Lord who married us, to have done so without a “piece of paper” from the state, but it is clear now that even that was not a scriptural requirement: he merely served as yet another witness, in addition to the christian and non-christian witnesses we had present. It is hard to admit that something you did with pride, part of accepting responsibility and accomplishing something very good, turned out to be the wrong thing. Yet, I have been forced to do so.
Please study this issue openly and with as objective an attitude as possible, and then pray that you and all christians can have the courage of our convictions to serve the Lord.
Special thanks to Matt Trewhella and Albert Harty for much of the material and ideas in this article. However, I accept full responsibility for this article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)