A Vow of Silence Church Inc.

The corruption of American Christianity

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Eccl 12:13, 14 Maxim of law; Ignorance of the law is NO excuse. This maxim of English law that is recognized in the United States is applicable in both the Spiritual and Physical realms. Maxim of law; You are presumed to know the law. (If you are of legal age.) This maxim is also applicable. The ramifications of these principles are vast. The tendrils reach into every area of life. We must watch and be sober lest through a lack of knowledge we would destroy ourselves. All have a duty to educate themselves as to their duties, responsibilities and the ramifications of their decisions and actions. Spiritually, all who are of an age of accountability will have no excuse to plead ignorance before God, for all have an opportunity to know God and His law, either through His word or through nature, so that no one has an excuse. (Rom 1:20) Physically, all who are of legal age have the opportunity to research the laws of the land and to understand what they are agreeing to when they enter a contract, when they neglect a duty or commit an act. With the Devil seeking whom he may devour and being more subtle than any other, we can expect that we must be alert and vigilant to avoid giving our support to his cause unknowingly. We must also avoid pride and stubbornness that would prevent us from acknowledging where we may have already fallen into one of these traps and correcting the mistake, no matter what the cost. Satan hates Christ and he hates Christs church. He despises any who will give their rightful allegiance to Christ alone. As Satan revealed in his temptations of Christ, he desires worship. His goal is to capture the allegiance of all, especially of those who make a profession of Christ. He does not care if we claim to be Christians, just so long as we, in practice,, acknowledge the Devil in some way or another. He knows that one act of worship reveals our rebellion to God and our acceptance of the rule of Satan, no matter what we profess. Therefore, with all the subtlety he can muster, the Devil has set about to capture Christs church, to bind their ability to worship, to lead them into sin unknowingly that their protection might be lost, and like Israel on the banks of the Jordan, be led into sin and apostasy. Sadly this hellish strategy has been all too successful. We will reveal one facet of this demonic plot. The following information and the summaries at the conclusion comprise a vital warning for Gods people at this time. This warning necessitates a response between the individual soul and our Maker, both spiritually and physically. May we each have ears to hear. The Danger of 501(c)(3) Organizations[1] When we think of 501(c)(3) organizations we mean charitable corporations that are not for profit and the donations we make can be deducted off our income tax. Before we look at 501(c)(3) corporations we need a little historical background on corporations. A 501(c)(3) corporation is just one type of corporation that can be formed. Legal reference to corporations dates all the way back to the "Code of Hammurabi" in Mesopotamia in 2083 B.C. where reference was made to "societies" which existed for a specific purpose.

Roman civil law brought on the development of various types of corporations; religious sodalitas, governmental municipium, and societas which included both commercial and non-commercial enterprises. During the Roman Empire, the concept evolved that a corporation could only come into existence by the "creative touch of sovereign power" thus assuring greater governmental control. Interestingly, the two principal offshoots of Roman Law are "cannon law" and modern "civil law". One of these offshoots, cannon law, deals with ecclesiastical property holding by clerics or groups. This gave rise to two types of corporations, "corporations sole" composed of one person such as a bishop or other ecclesiastical office and the corporation "aggregate" composed of several people. In the early 13th century Pope Innocent IV developed the concept of the corporations as a "persona ficta" a fictious person or artificial person to be created and controlled by papal authority- analogous to the Roman imperial approach. This led to the legal separation of the artificial person (corporation) from the natural person (human being). At the same time corporate law was developing, another body of law was developing, the Lex Mercatoria or law merchant. This law transcended local law and drew upon some of the principles of Canon law and Civil law (Roman Law). On the European Continent, the law merchant became known as "commercial law" (the basis for the modern "Uniform Commercial Code") and was administered by separate courts until the 19th century. In England, the common-law courts gradually absorbed portions of commercial law into the commonlaw. Civil Law, the dominant law of the European continent evolved from the unifying influence of Roman law. Under this system, also called inquisitorial law, you are presumed guilty until proven innocent; instead of presumed innocent until proven guilty as under English Common Law. It was under Civil law that the corporation became a separate entity. English Common Law absorbed the concept of corporations. The monarch was a corporation sole. So were bishops and parsons. England had, by the 14th century developed eleemosynary or charitable corporations. By the reign of James I, England had accepted the old Roman and Papal theory that a corporation could only be created by the proper authority, and the state was justified in regulating and controlling corporations. In 16th and 17th century England, the overseas trading companies, a type of corporation, were chartered for exploration, trade and colonization. One of their precursors was the Italian mercantile house. These trading companies were considered as arms of the state. So we find that corporations can be traced back to the Code of Hammurabi in 2083 B.C. This code is basis for Babylonian Law. Corporations were refined under Canon Law and Civil Law, both of which trace their origins to the Roman Empire. Civil Law generally being considered as the basic law of the Roman Empire and Canon Law generally being that system of law from the Holy Roman Empire, the Church run State that followed the decline of the Civil Roman Government. At this same time in history, Merchant Law was developing out of Babylonian Law and borrowing concepts from both Roman Civil Law and Roman Catholic Canon Law. Because ancient commerce involved the use of sea going trading vessels, Merchant Law developed into Maritime Law, known as the "Law of the Sea" and Commercial Law, which took precedence over local laws when commerce was involved. Maritime Law developed rules governing the transport of goods by "vessel" such as who owned livestock born during transport, how searches of merchant vessels were to be conducted, when seizures of transported goods were authorized and that during a voyage, the ship captain's word was absolute law. This overview of "Commercial Law" and "Maritime Law's" historical roots are crucial to understanding the modern implications of corporations in general and 501(c)(3) charitable corporations in particular. Again, allow me to emphasize that both Commercial and Maritime Law's roots draw from the Canon Law of the Holy Roman Empire that gave us the "Dark Ages", that period of time in history just before the "Great Awakening" of the Protestant Reformation.

Today, in the 21st century, the corporation, in America, is a creature of the State. Each State's statutes define the basic elements of a corporation and govern every facet of the corporations existence. Although there are no federal corporation statutes, federal law adds a significant layer of corporate regulation. An example of this federal regulation are the Securities Laws that regulate the buying and selling of stock and reporting requirements of corporate income. A corporation is a "person" under the law. The legal definition of a person is a "partnership, association, corporation, trust, or other fictitious entity." The proper legal terminology for a human being is "natural person" or to a lesser extent "private person." The rights of a corporation differ from the rights that a natural person has under the constitution. Where the constitution regulates commerce, a corporation has broad rights. Some of these rights include the right to equal protection under the 14th amendment and the right not to have property appropriated for public use without "just compensation" under the 5th and 14th amendments. But a corporation only has a limited 1st amendment right to speech, limited mostly to advertising their products. Outside of the area of commerce, a corporation has only limited rights under the constitution. The corporation has no right to a 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination, but a corporate officer may claim a 5th amendment privilege if the testimony would incriminate the officer. Corporations have a much narrower 4th amendment right to be free of searches and seizures than natural persons do. Aside from commercial advertising, a corporation may express its views in a state referendum even if the referendum does not affect the corporations business. A corporation is formed by a series of simple steps; 1. A corporate charter, sometimes called "articles of incorporation" are prepared according to State law, 2. At least one incorporator must sign the articles, and 3. The signed document must be submitted to the Secretary of the State in which the corporation was incorporated so it can be filed as a matter of public record. 4. The name of the corporation must be different from other corporations operating in the State and must contain the word "corporation" or "incorporated". Included in the documents filed in the Secretary of States Office must be an address for the service of process and the name of a "registered agent" on whom process can be served. Any changes in the address or registered agent must be filed with the Secretary of State. We must remember that a corporation is a creature of the State in which it incorporated and that there are federal laws that also regulate a corporations existence. Corporations are subject to the doctrine of "visitation." This means that the State, as a silent third partner in all corporations registered in that state, may examine the affairs of the corporation. Visitation gives the State the right to supervise and control the management of the corporation, to correct all corporate abuses of authority, and to nullify all irregular proceedings. Regulating the activities of a corporation is one of the oldest and most established principles of a States jurisdiction. If the corporation will not modify its behavior to conform to the directives of the State, the State may have the State's attorney general file a suit against the corporation in the state court system and obtain either an injunction prohibiting the corporation from doing what the state wants to prohibit it's doing or the attorney general may file suit requesting the forfeiture of the corporate charter. If the charter is forfeited, the corporation no longer exists and the State Court can determine how the former corporation's assets are distributed. A State may require any corporation doing business in that state to make full disclosure of any and all activity the corporation has engaged in and to provide annual financial reports to the State. The creation of a

corporation is solely within the power and control of the State legislature and the State may grant or revoke a corporate charter as it chooses. Modern Corporate Statutes usually define corporations generally as "for profit" or "not for profit" corporations. Not for Profit Corporations are commonly know as Charitable Corporations or Eleemosynary Corporations. In England, the eleemosynaria was the location in a religious building where alms were deposited for the poor and an eleemosynarius was the person who received the alms and distributed them to the poor. Thus an Eleemosynary Corporation became a corporation created for charitable or benevolent purposes as opposed to a corporation created to make a profit. Usually Charitable Corporations are religious societies or organizations, nonprofit hospitals, and educational institutions. For a Charitable corporation to receive "tax exempt" status as a 501(c)(3) Corporation under the Internal Revenue Code, they must meet the criteria set out by the IRS. Some of the criteria include refraining from political stances such as those taken by an Independent Christian Church in Pennsylvania on the eve of the Presidential Election of 1992 when that church took out a full page add in several newspapers urging Christians to vote for George Bush since Bill Clinton was a known womanizer and suspected of having connections with the drug world. A short time after that election, the IRS "pulled" that churches tax exempt status and was successful in shutting it down. Other 501(c)(3) tax exempt charities have been harassed and threatened if they preached against anything the government or the IRS was doing or took a stance that was against the New World Order. Having a 501(c)(3) status means that in addition to the state having the right of "visitation", now the IRS also has the right of visitation. This means that the IRS, along with the State, has the right to supervise and control the corporation. I'm sure you are all familiar with the story of the farmer who had a stubborn mule who would not budge. Finally the farmer placed some carrots on the end of a stick and held them in front of the mule. As long as the carrots were just out of reach, the mule would walk toward the carrots pulling the farmers plow or wagon. Today we still use the term "carrot and stick approach" to problem solving. In a similar way, both the State and the IRS uses the "carrot and stick approach" to accomplish their goals. If a corporation will abide by certain guidelines set out by the State or the IRS, then that corporation can have certain privileges not allowed to other corporations. To put it another way, if the 501(c)(3) corporation will agree to the supervision and control of State and the IRS, then the State and the IRS will allow that corporation to have "tax exempt" status. The corporation has to pay no taxes on its assets that are used to further the aims of its "charitable" existence and further, that corporation can give a receipt to those who contribute certain funds, goods and services to it and the value of those funds, goods, and services may be deducted on the tax return of the person giving them. I can just hear someone saying, "What a great win-win situation for the 501(c)(3) corporation and those that give to it! The corporation can receive donations and use them tax-free and the giver can deduct the donations from his tax return! Everybody wins, don't they?" Well, there is a fallacy in that line of thinking. You see, only the benefits to the corporation and the giver were mentioned. There are two additional entities that benefit, the State and the IRS. How do they benefit? Both get to "supervise and control" the 501(c)(3) corporation! And don't forget, there is a detriment to the 501(c)(3) corporation also; it can only do what the State and the IRS allow it to do. Lastly, the giver may not be getting all the results he desires, if he gave the donation to be used for a particular purpose that the State or the IRS forbids. Now does this still sound like a Win-Win situation for all involved? I doubt it. But we shouldn't worry, should we? I mean if the 501(c)(3) corporation is trusting in God everything will turn out all right, won't it?

The year was 1983; the place was Nebraska, USA. A small Independent Baptist Church lead by Pastor Everett Sileven decided they would start a church school to educate the children in the congregation. It was decided by the "board" that instead of hiring "licensed" teachers, they would instead hire the teachers best qualified to teach their children the 3 "R's" as well as the 4th "R", religion. The necessary teachers were hired; none of them holding a license, and the school year began. The State of Nebraska discovered that this small Independent Baptist Church School was operating with out licensed teachers and told them to either hire licensed teachers or close the school. Neither demand was met by the school. One morning the teachers and students found the doors to the church chained shut by order of the State of Nebraska. The school was in the church building. Nebraska sued the church and the pastor. At the trial, after the attorney general for Nebraska made his opening remarks, the judge asked Pastor Sileven if he had anything to say. Pastor Sileven stood up and began to speak, "Your honor, the Constitution of the United States gives us the right to freedom of speech, assembly and worship ... But the judge cut him off with a question. "Pastor, is your church incorporated?" "Yes it is your honor". "Pastor, then you will not bring up the constitution in my court room again, or I will hold you in contempt. When your church incorporated it contracted away any first amendment constitutional rights to speech, assembly, and worship." Pastor Sileven said it was like someone slapped him across the face with a cold wet towel. He shut up and sat down. Later the judge came to him and showed him the first page of the lawsuit filed against his church. It read "The State of Nebraska Corporation v Everett Sileven and Faith Baptist Church Incorporated. He asked Pastor Sileven what it said. After a moment Pastor Sileven said, "It is one corporation suing another corporation." The judge answered, "Yes, and corporations have no first amendment rights, basically they have only the privileges given them by the State." Do you think the judge knew what he was talking about? I know he did. Do you understand the implications of incorporating? Lets look at it from the standpoint of another lawsuit. This one was heard in a courtroom in Miami, Florida March 13 to March 16, 2000. I am holding a complete official transcript of the trial. The first page of this transcript reads, "General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists v. Raphael Perez d/b/a Eternal Gospel Church and Eternal Gospel Church of Laymen Seventh-Day Adventist and Ministero Aventista Del Septimo Dia Del Evangelio Eterno, Inc. (Eternal Gospel of the Seventh-day Adventist Ministry, Inc.) an inactive Florida Corporation. Now I ask you, just like the judge asked Pastor Sileven, what does that first page say? We had a corporation suing a corporation, did we not? What type of lawsuit was this, a "trademark infringement lawsuit" or a "first amendment right to speak, worship and assemble" lawsuit? It was a trademark infringement lawsuit. This was one corporation suing another corporation over whether the corporation being sued was infringing on the trademark of the corporation bringing the suit. Corporations operate in commerce; a trademark is a distinctive mark that identifies the origin of the product produced by the corporation. Trademark infringement is when another corporation produces a product so similar as to be confused with the trademarked product of the corporation "owning" the trademark. Here we had two commercial entities, corporations, involved in a lawsuit to decide if one of them was infringing on the other's trademark. Neither corporation denied that they were a corporation, so the court took notice of the fact that there were two corporations, two commercial entities before it. Furthermore, this court was a "commercial court" and as such had the jurisdiction to determine the issues before the court. Basically there were three issues: 1. Was this a commercial law case?

2. If it was a commercial law case, was there a valid trade mark held by the corporation bringing the law suit? 3. If it was a commercial law case and there was a valid trade mark, then was the corporation being sued infringing on the trademark? Issue number 1 was answered in the affirmative by the appearance of two parties who did not deny that they were corporations. Next the issue of whether there was a valid trademark had to be answered. The court determined that there was a valid trade mark held by the corporation bringing the law suit, the General Conference Corporation, so issue number two was answered in the affirmative. All that was left was to determine if the corporation being sued, Eternal Gospel of the Seventh-day Adventist Ministry, Inc. was infringing on the trademark of the General Conference Corporation. The court determined that the Eternal Gospel of the SDA Ministry, Inc. was infringing on the Trade Mark of the General Conference Corporation. Now let me ask you a question. Did either corporation, involved in this trademark infringement lawsuit have a first amendment right to speech, assembly or worship? Think carefully before answering and remember what the Judge told Pastor Sileven in the courtroom in Nebraska in 1983. The answer to the question is NO! Neither the General Conference Corporation nor the Eternal Gospel of the SDA Ministry Inc. had a first amendment right to speech, assembly, or worship! Remember that earlier in this talk, it was stated, "The rights a corporation has differ from the rights a natural person has under the constitution. Where the constitution regulates commerce a corporation has broad rights. But a corporation has only a limited 1st amendment right to speech, limited mostly to advertising their products." Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976). Do you mean to tell me that neither the General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists or the Eternal Gospel of the Seventh-day Adventist Ministry, Inc. have a first amendment right to speech, assembly, and worship? I'm not telling you that, the United States Supreme Court stated that no corporation had anything but a limited first amendment right to advertising speech and that was known 24 years ago and over 4 years before the General Conference applied for a trade mark! The Judge's ruling in this trademark infringement lawsuit shows the presence of a third corporation, Eternal Gospel Church of Laymen Seventh-day Adventists, a Washington State Corporation Sole. This third corporation was discovered after the lawsuit was filed and added to the lawsuit by amending the complaint. At this point two texts from the Bible come to mind: Genesis 3:1, first part, "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made." and Hosea 4:6, first part, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:" In this Great Controversy, being played out on this Planet in Rebellion, there are only two sides, right and wrong, good and evil, Christ and Satan. Either we stand with Christ or we perish in the lake of fire with Satan. That appears, on the surface, to make the issues of right and wrong be simple, to be clear-cut. But what does the Bible say? "...[t]he serpent was more subtle... and "[m]y people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." Could it be that this "subtle" characteristic of the serpent's, this ability to confuse and twist truth with such finesse that it takes an extra measure of knowledge, obtained by not only Bible and Spirit of Prophecy study, but also by studying the legal ramifications of our actions, has operated to the extent that today, every religious

organization that operates a 501(c)(3) corporation has no constitutional right to freedom of speech, assembly and worship? I believe it has. We have the story of Pastor Silevens Independent Baptist Church as proof. And we have the trademark lawsuit as proof. In this transcript of the four days of the trial, the battle fought in the courtroom was whether there was a valid trademark, what is a trademark really and was there an infringement of a valid trademark. Only on the fourth and final day was any "constitutional" argument touched upon and that was in the closing arguments of the attorneys. Even then, the main thrust of both sides closing arguments was trademark not first amendment. The General Conference chose to ask the judge to base any decision that had a constitutional element to it on the "Smith II Case The 1990 US Supreme Court decision that said that a "neutral and generally applicable law, not regulating religious practice, did not infringe on any first amendment rights" and since trade mark was a neutral and generally applicable law there was no religious issue involved so the first amendment did not apply. On April 27, 2000 the judge gave his order in the trademark infringement lawsuit. Judge King based his order on Commercial Law and found in every point against the Eternal Gospel of the Seventh Day Adventist Ministry, Inc. and against the Eternal Gospel Church of Laymen Seventh Day Adventists, a Washington State Corporation Sole. In his ruling, Judge King stated, "The Court finds that enforcement of Plaintiff's trademark rights will not violate any constitutional rights of the Defendants." Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (aka Smith II) Is there anything in this ruling that is surprising? NO! A corporation has no first amendment right to religious speech, assembly and worship and this lawsuit was about a corporation suing corporations. Earlier I spoke about the tie in, historically, between Commercial Law, Maritime Law (the law of the sea that governs searches and seizures) and Roman Catholic Canon Law. In the US, for a federal law to be enforceable there has to be regulations covering that law printed. We find these regulations printed in the Code of Federal Regulations, also known as the CFR. A 501(c)(3) corporation is only found in the Internal Revenue Code also known as Title 26, United States Code. (Title 26 US law). The Code of Federal Regulations, in the Index has a "Table of Authorities" which lists the portions of US law that have regulations for enforcement printed and tells where these regulations can be found. The CFR is set up with "chapters" that parallel the titles of the US Code. So usually one would expect to find the enforcement regulations for a Title of the US Code in the correspondingly numbered chapter of the CFR. In this case, the enforcement regulations for the IRC, 26 USC, would be expected to be found in 26 CFR. If you look up 26 USC sec. 501(c)(3) in this index the enforcement regulations are found in 46 CFR Part 502, the Federal Maritime Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. These rules govern disputes, hearings, court procedures and case resolutions. 501(c)(3) corporations are regulated not by the usual corporate enforcement law, or by the usual IRS enforcement law, but under the law of the sea, which set up rules for searches of vessels, seizure and confiscation of goods and the absolute authority of the captain of the ship! When a 501(c) (3) corporation is in court, the Judge holds the place of the ships captain because this is a Maritime Court. All the regulations governing the dispute are Maritime Regulations and all that is to be determined is determined under "Maritime Law". Constitutional Law is the Law of the Land, not the Law of the Sea, so in a Maritime Court, constitutional law has no bearing or effect on the outcome. That is why a 501(c) (3) corporation cannot argue a first amendment right to freedom of speech, worship, and assembly. Any reference to constitutional law in an action involving a 501(c) (3) corporation is merely "lip service" because the "serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God made."

What is the danger of using a 501(c)(3) Corporation? There are no constitutional rights to religious speech, assembly, or worship. They were contracted away and replaced with control by the "Law of the Sea" which has roots that go all the way back to Babylonian Law and Roman Catholic Canon Law. I do not think it a tremendous leap of logic to say that 501(c)(3) corporations have sold their divine birthright for a mess of pottage. Revelation 18:11-19 tells of the time when a system of commerce, that great city known as Babylon, will fall and all the merchantmen and sailors will weep and morn because they can make money no more. Could God be telling his people to "Come out of Babylon's 501(c)(3) system of control and operate in the freedom of God's sustaining power and grace? No longer dependent on the promises of man to allow those who contribute to the "tax exempt" corporations created by man, to deduct their contributions from man's tax bill, but to depend on the Lord for the substance needed to sustain the gospel ministry? God tells us that the "cattle on a thousand hills belongs to him" Ps. 50:10. He is able to sustain us if we are willing to trust Him. Getting Out of 501(c)(3) Organizations[2] There has been much interest in learning how to operate a church or a mission without it being a 501(c)(3) Organization. A 501(c)(3) Organization is known as a tax exempt charitable organization and those who contribute to these organizations can deduct their contributions from their Federal Income Tax Forms. It seems that most churches and missions have become 501(c)(3) Organizations for the purpose of being able to receive donations of funds or goods and the donor be able to receive a tax deduction by reporting the gift on the donors federal income tax forms. Most state tax returns allow a deduction for contributions to 501(c)(3) Organizations also since most state departments of revenue are structured after the model of the Internal Revenue Service. The chief culprits in the increase of 501(c)(3) Organizations are attorneys. Attorneys are trained in statutory law; the law passed by a legislature. (Attorneys get some training in Constitutional Law, but the vast majority of their education is in statutory law.) Because of the training in statutory law, attorneys tend to look for solutions to questions asked in the statute books. Since about 1935, there has been a tremendous increase in statutory law. It seems that we as Americans have taken to heart the saying there ought to be a law without giving a thought to the reasonableness or flawed logic involved. Law is the low water mark of human behavior. The absolute minimum level of interaction that will keep someone out of trouble. There are various levels of law. The highest level of law in America is Constitutional Law. The middle level of law is Statutory Law, enacted as statutes by a legislature. The lowest level of law is Regulatory Law, the regulations made by a state or federal agency to facilitate the carrying out of that agencys duties. In the 1880s the Supreme Court of the United States of America, in a case styled Norton v. Shelby County told us that any law that was not in harmony with the Constitution was no law at all. It conferred no rights, imposed no duties. It creates no office. That it was of the same effect as if it had never been passed. Sadly courts, law enforcement, legislatures, and attorneys have forgotten that principle in the last 125 years. Any attorney who professes to be a believer in Christ or in the Holy Bible needs to remember the words of Christ in Luke 11:52, Woe unto you lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge... One of the ways the key of knowledge has been taken away is by the laxity with which attorneys, even so called Christian attorneys, go about their counseling with regard to churches and missions. I fear that most Christian attorneys will have a very difficult time defending themselves in front of the Judgment Bar of God.

Title 26 United States Code 501(c)(3), also know as Title 26 Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) gives us the definition of a tax exempt organization. Section 501 is Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, act." (c)(3) is the List of Exempt Organizations. This is what the statutes say: 501(c)(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provisions of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (b)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. I am the first to admit that this statute is both confusing and lacks the basic clarity needed to be able to read it and understand exactly what it is saying. For every statute passed by congress there is supposed to be a corresponding regulation printed in what is called the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The corresponding regulation for 26 USC 501(C)(3) is found in 26 CFR 1.501(c)(3). Where as the statute in the USC is comprised of 133 words, the corresponding regulation in the CFR almost 6 pages of print. These 6 pages cover such items as the organizational test that must be met, the type of provisions that must be in the articles of that organization and what is to happen to the assets of that organization upon dissolution. Before going further some of the terms need to be defined because Law is words. Words have meaning. If you do not understand the meaning of the words you can not understand the meaning of the law. Further, if you want to understand the meaning of the words in a law you go to a Law Dictionary. Why? Because the meanings of words in a lawful or legal context does not have to be the same as the meaning of the same word in everyday language. Going to Websters Dictionary or Funk & Wagnalls Dictionary or any other dictionary of the English Language to define the meaning of words in a statute or regulation is only setting you up for trouble. We will define three words using the definitions from Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. Those words are articles, dissolution, and organization: Articles The subdivisions of a document ... or statute. A contractual document executed between parties, containing ...terms of agreement. Articles of incorporation the basic instrument filed with the appropriate governmental agency (Sec. of State) on the incorporation of a business. Some times called certificate of incorporation, articles of organization, articles of association or other similar name. Dissolution Act or process of dissolving; termination; winding up. The dissolution of a corporation is the termination of its legal existence. ... Dissolution of a corporation can be either voluntary (initiated and approved by the board of directors or shareholders) or involuntary. It then goes on to list how involuntary dissolution can take place. (Administrative by order of state for failure to file reports or pay taxes or fees, judicial by the attorney general for abuse of corporate authority, by deadlocked shareholders, or by bankruptcy). Organization As term is used in Commercial Law, includes a corporation, government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, or association, two or more persons having a joint or common interest, or any other legal or commercial entity. U.C.C. 1-201(28). See also Charitable Organization As regards exempt tax status, such includes; ... (26 I.R.C. 501(c)(3) quoted verbatim. Perhaps we should also define commerce as in commercial law The exchange of goods, productions, or property of any kind; the buying, selling, and exchange of articles. The transportation of persons and property by land, water, or air.

Two other statutes are necessary at this point for understanding, they are: 1. 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C.) 170(c)(2)(B) which reads as follows contribution

(c) Charitable contribution defined.-For purposes of this section, the term charitable means a contribution or gift to or for the use of (2) A corporation, trust, or community chest, fund, or foundation-

(B) organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals; 2. 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C.) 508(a) & (b) which read as follows- 508 Special rules with respect to section 501(c)(3) organizations

(a) New organizations must notify Secretary that they are applying for recognition of section 501(c)(3) status.-Except as provided in subsection (c), an organization organized after October 9, 1969, shall not be treated as an organization described in section 501(c)(3)(1) unless it has given notice to the Secretary, in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe, that it is applying for recognition of such status, or (2) for any period before the giving of such notice, if such notice is given after the time prescribed by the Secretary by regulations for giving notice under this subsection. (b) Presumption that organizations are private foundations.- Except as provided in subsection (c), any organization (including an organization in existence on October 9, 1969) which is described in section 501(c)(3) and which does not notify the Secretary, at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe, that it is not a private foundation shall be presumed to be a private foundation. I have had good men, Godly men, and Christian attorneys tell me that they recommended that churches and missions become 501(c)(3) organizations so that the members can be good stewards of the funds the Lord provides them. A good steward will look for ways to preserve those funds the Lord provides them and if they donate to a 501(c)(3) organization the donations are tax deductible thereby returning to the donor a percentage of the funds donated. This return of the percentage of the funds donated is a sign of good stewardship since there are now more funds available to support the donor and the Lords work. I have no problem with the logic of the return of a percentage of the funds making more funds available and therefore is a sign of good stewardship on the part of the donor. However, I have enormous problems with the recommendation that churches and missions become 501(c)(3) organizations. A 501(c)(3) Organization is a creature of statute (laws passed by a legislature) and being a creature of the legislature, that organization does not have certain rights such as Constitutional Rights according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Listen to what this court said in what has come to be known as the Ashwander Doctrine. Anyone who partakes of the benefits of a given statute, or anyone who places himself into a position where he may avail himself of those benefits at will, cannot reach constitutional grounds to redress grievances in the courts. Ashwander v. T.V.A., 297 U.S. 288. Please allow me to reveal a little legal slight of hand. What is the subject of the just read sentence from the Ashwander Doctrine? (Anyone who partakes of the benefits...). The subject is Anyone. What is the definition of anyone from a law dictionary? First the word is a compound word made up of two separate words; any and one. One is not listed in Blacks 6th ed. so we can make the assumption that one means the same as it does in everyday English. What is the definition of any from Blacks 6th? Some; one out of

many; ... Any does not necessarily mean only one person, but may have reference to more than one. So whats the problem? To understand the meaning of any we have to know the meaning of person in a law dictionary since in the Law dictionary the word any is defined using the word person. Person, Blacks 6th, is defined as In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute, term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. ... Now I have to ask you a question-Is the word anyone in the Ashwander Doctrine a word in general usage or is that word referring to statutory usage? (Anyone who partakes of the benefits of a given statute...) It refers to statutory usage. Now we are going to replace the word Anyone with the definition of person arrived at from first looking up the definition of any then defining the word person used in the definition of any. Now the Ashwander Doctrine reads as follows: [Labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers] who partake of the benefits of a given statute, or anyone who places himself (natural person/human being) into a position where he may avail himself of those benefits at will, can not reach constitutional grounds to redress grievances in the courts. Am I stretching things a bit to make a point and by doing so running the risk of going off the deep end? I will let the U.S. Supreme Court answer that question. The rights a corporation has differ from the rights a natural person has under the constitution. Where the constitution regulates commerce a corporation has broad rights. But a corporation has only a limited 1st amendment right to speech, limited mostly to advertising their products. Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976). In other words the U.S. Supreme Court is saying that a corporation, (a person who benefits from a statute since all corporations are statutory entities), cannot reach Constitutional grounds to redress grievances in the courts. (Ashwander Doctrine) Because the rights a corporation has differ from the rights of a natural person, particularly in the area of the 1st amendment, where the right is limited mostly to advertising their products. (Virginia State Board of Pharmacy Case). What rights do natural persons have under the 1st amendment? 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. Who has the right to a redress of grievances and the other 1st amendment rights? People defined in Blacks 6th as in constitutional law, the entire body of those citizens of a state or nation who are invested with political power for political purposes. (People/citizens, not persons/corporations). So, does this mean that a 501(c)(3) corporation, a charitable tax exempt corporation has no 1st amendment rights except a 1st amendment right limited to freedom of advertising speech? According to the U.S. Supreme Court, that is correct. That means that no 501(c)(3) corporate church has a 1st amendment right to freedom of worship, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances or freedom of speech except advertising speech. And by extension of the Ashwander Doctrine, no member of that 501(c)(3) corporate church has any first amendment rights to worship, speech, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances if that member has availed himself of those benefits at will! Let me repeat that in a slightly different way. If a natural person avails himself of the benefits of 26 USC 501 (c) (3), also known as 26 Internal Revenue Code 501 (c) (3), by deducting his/her charitable contributions made to a 501 (c) (3) church and receiving the benefit of a tax deduction, that natural person cannot argue in court that he/she has a first amendment right to freedom of worship and assembly! Now before any one starts to think that I am telling you that a 501(c)(3) corporate church and its members have no first amendment rights except the corporations right to advertising speech, let me ask you a

question. Am I the U.S. Supreme Court? Of course Im not and I am not giving you my opinion; I have given you the U.S. Supreme Courts interpretation. If any attorney wants to disagree with what I have said, they are not disagreeing with me; they are disagreeing with the U.S. Supreme Court! Until the U.S. Supreme Court reverses its self, the issue is absolutely settled in law. Anything another attorney might say to the contrary is merely that attorneys opinion. And an attorneys opinion is not persuasive when it comes to well settled law as set down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Now, allow me to backtrack a bit to 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C.) 508(c)(1)(A). We read 508 (a) & (b) earlier and does anyone remember that in both (a) & (b) were the words Except as provided in subsection (c)... Dont you think it would be important to know what the exceptions in subsection(c) are? I do. Lets read subsection (c). (b) Exceptions.(1) Mandatory exceptions.-Subsection (a) and (b) shall not apply to(A) churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, ...

Do you mean to tell me that churches are not organizations that need to file to receive tax exempt status under 501 (c)(3) of the I.R.C. to get preferential tax treatment and for the donors of funds and goods to be able to deduct the value of those donations from the donors tax returns? Im not telling you that, the Internal Revenue Code is telling you that! Furthermore, 26 C.F.R. 1.508(a)(2) says ...an organization seeking exemption under 501(c)(3) must file the notice...Such notice is filed by submitting a properly completed and executed Form 1023, exemption application. 26 C.F.R. 1.508(a)(3) Exemptions from notice, exempts, in subsection (a), Churches, interchurch organizations of local units of a church, conventions or associations of churches, or integrated auxiliaries of a church." The Internal Revenue Code says churches do not have to apply for an exemption to be exempt and the corresponding regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations confirms this a fact! Do you want more proof? Internal Revenue Service Publication 557 (Revised March 2005) Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization says in 2. Filing Requirements and Required Disclosures under Annual Information Returns: www.irs.gov/publications/p557)[3] Every organization exempt from federal income tax under section 501(a) must file an annual information return except: (any body want to guess?) 1) A church, an interchurch organization of local units of a church, a convention or association of churches, or an integrated auxiliary of a church (as defined later under Religious Organizations in chapter 3). . A mission society sponsored by or affiliated with one or more churches or denominations, more than one-half of the activities of which society are conducted in, or directed at persons in foreign countries. An exclusively religious activity of any religious order.

4)

5)

This same IRS publication, 557, 3. Section 501(c)(3) Organizations, Exemption application not filed. Donors may not deduct any charitable contribution to an organization that is required to apply for recognition of exemption but has not done so. This means that donors may deduct any charitable contribution to an organization that is not required to apply for recognition of exemption. A few pages further we find, Organizations Not Required To File Form 1023 Some organizations are not required to file Form 1023. These include: (any guesses?)

Churches, interchurch organizations of local units of a church, conventions or associations of churches, or integrated auxiliaries of a church, such as a mens or womens organization, religious school, mission society, or youth group. These organizations are exempted automatically if they meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3). (One of which is to operate for a religious purpose). The section immediately following those not required to file a Form 1023 says: Filing Form 1023 to establish exemption. If the organization wants to establish its exemption with the IRS and receive a ruling or determination letter recognizing its exempt status, it should file Form 1023. (If your organization is not required to file Form 1023 because it is a church, mission society, etc then dont fall for the line about establishing its exemption with the IRS when the IRS has just told you it does not need to establish its exemption.) Several pages further we find, under the heading Churches. Although a church, its integrated auxiliaries or a convention or association of churches is not required to file Form 1023 to be exempted from federal income tax or to receive tax deductible contributions, the organization may find it advantageous to obtain recognition of exemption. In this event, you should submit information showing that your organization is a church, synagogue, association or convention of churches, religious order, or religious organization that is an integral part of a church, and that it is engaged in carrying out the function of a church. In determining whether an admittedly religious organization is also a church, the IRS does not accept any and every assertion that the organization is a church. Because beliefs and practices vary so widely, there is no single definition of the word church for tax purposes. The IRS considers the facts and circumstances of each organization applying for church status. At first glance this appears to say that the IRS can determine whether any organization is really a church. However, closer examination reveals that the IRS can only make this determination on each organization applying for church status. That is, if you dont file a Form 1023 requesting tax-exempt status as a church, the IRS cannot determine if you are a church! Immediately above the section titled Churches we find a section titled Religious Organizations. To determine whether an organization meets the religious purpose test of section 501(c)(3), the IRS maintains two basic guidelines. 1. 2. That the particular religious beliefs of the organization are truly and sincerely held. That the practices and rituals associated with the organizations religious belief or creed are not illegal or contrary to clearly defined public policy.

Therefore, your group (or organization) may not qualify for treatment as an exempt religious organization for tax purposes if its actions, as contrasted with its beliefs, are contrary to well established and clearly defined public policy. If there is a clear showing that the beliefs (or doctrines) are sincerely held by those professing them, the IRS will not question the religious nature of those beliefs. What is public policy? Blacks Law Dictionary, 7th ed., defines it as principles and standards regarded by the legislature or by the courts as being fundamental concerns to the state and the whole of society. If you are a Bible believing Christian this last section should have serious implications. Are you willing to let the IRS, the courts, or the legislature define what is acceptable religious belief? That is exactly what you have done if you are a member of a 501(c)(3) church or you have applied for a 501(c)(3) exemption for your organization! Why is it then that churches apply for a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status? Because they go to an attorney who tells them they need to incorporate and then as a corporation they must file a Form 1023 to be granted the privilege of being a tax exempt charitable organization. When the church incorporates, it partakes of the benefit of a given statute (Ashwander Doctrine) and by declaring that the church is now a statutory entity it must seek permission to receive that which it unquestionably possessed before becoming a corporation! Further, by incorporation, the church cannot reach

Constitutional grounds to redress grievances in the courts, (Ashwander Doctrine) nor can the church claim to possess any 1st amendment rights other than a limited 1st amendment right to speech, limited mostly to advertising their products. (Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council). This is not my assessment of the situation, but the firmly established law of the land by the U.S, Supreme Court. The silver tongue opinion of an attorney who disagrees with the U.S. Supreme Court may tickle the ears but that attorneys opinion does not alter the law established by the Supreme Court rulings. The word of the Lord, spoken almost 2000 years ago, comes across those centuries with renewed clarity and understanding today; Woe unto you lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge. ... (Luke 11:52). How does one go about undoing a 501(c)(3) status? This discussion will be limited to 501(c)(3) corporations and will of necessity not be comprehensive due to the various corporate statutes in the fifty several states. Some clue is given in 26 C.F. R. 1.501(c)(3)(b)(4) Distribution of assets on dissolution. An organization is not organized exclusively for one or more exempt purposes unless its assets are dedicated to an exempt purpose. An organizations assets will be considered dedicated to an exempt purpose, for example, if, upon dissolution, such assets would, by operation of law, be distributed for one or more exempt purposes, or to the Federal Government, or to a State or local government, for a public purpose, or would be distributed by a court to another organization to be used in such manner as in the judgment of the court will best accomplish the general purposes for which the organization was organized. However, an organization does not meet the organizational test if its articles or the law of the State in which it was created provide that its assets would, upon dissolution, be distributed to its members or shareholders. The first thing that has to be done is to read the corporate papers and see how the assets are to be distributed upon dissolution. If the assets are to be distributed to the members or shareholders, the organization was not properly structured in the first place as a tax exempt corporation and you could be facing large monetary penalties if the corporation was to attract the attention of the IRS. Hopefully no one operates a 501(c)(3) corporation with that flaw in it. If the corporate papers direct that upon dissolution the assets be distributed to another exempt purpose, then the procedure to accomplish that purpose must be followed exactly. If you undertake to dissolve a 501(c)(3) corporation and the State gets involved, you can expect the State to step in and take the assets and place them according to the judgment of the court. You are responsible for determining what the proper method of dissolution of a 501(c)(3) corporation is in the State in which that corporation was formed. If the corporation was formed in one state and holds property in 2 or more states, you must determine the proper process necessary for a proper dissolution of the corporation and distribution of the real estate assets in the state in which those real estate assets are located. The proper way to make a determination is to consult with a good corporate law attorney in each state in which assets are located. If the corporation does not own any Real Estate, the process becomes easier. In some states you can wind up the corporation on a given date and distribute any funds to be used in an "exempt purpose". It may be possible to start a new mission associated with an independent church or with several home churches and transfer the funds left in the old corporation to the new church or mission, as long as the funds transferred are not excessive. Then you may be able to notify your contributors that a new mission is replacing the old organization and the new mission will be operating on a given date. I would do this very cautiously and not without competent legal counsel from the state in which the old corporation is domiciled as to the best way to wind up the old corporation. If the old corporation owns personal property such as computers, office equipment, motor vehicles etc. you may be able to sell these items to the new mission and use the funds from the sale for the costs of dissolving the old corporation. I would suspect that the sale prices of the computers, office equipment or motor vehicles must bear some relation to the actual Fair Market Value, (FMV), of those items at the time of the sale. I would not attempt to sell them for any less than about 80% of the actual FMV.

If Real Property is being leased to the old corporation, arrangements must be made to terminate that lease and replace it with a new lease. Two excellent structures to hold title to the assets of the new mission or church are a carefully drafted trust or a Limited Liability Company, LLC. Some banks have a regular business account that can be opened for churches or religious organizations that does not require an Employee Identification Number, (EIN), issued by the IRS. A regular, (non-interest bearing) checking account or a regular non-interest bearing business account has no reporting requirements at present to the IRS. Some of the banks will waive monthly fees if the minimum balance is kept above a moderate level. I would not open an account for the new church or mission at the same bank, or even a different branch of the same bank that the old corporate account was at. Why? I can tell you of instances where some nice well meaning clerk in the banks book keeping department noticed that the account had been changed to a new name but the signatories were the same as the old account. Not wanting to get into trouble, this bookkeeping clerk merely added the EIN of the old corporate account to the new church or mission account. Why is this important? The IRS routinely checks EIN against what is filed in the regular reports from that company. Discrepancies target that company for audit. What kind of problems do you think might result if, say 6 months after the IRS was notified that the corporation was dissolved and the account associated with that EIN was closed, a routine check turned up another account attached to that EIN with the same signatories, but a different name? I cannot over emphasis that the proper counsel to seek in dissolving an existing 501(c)(3) corporation is a good corporate attorney in the state in which the 501(c)(3) corporation is domiciled. If that 501 (c) (3) corporation owns real estate in another state other than the state of domicile of the corporation, also seek help from a good corporate attorney in the state where the real estate is located. I would be extremely cautious of telling any attorney Were dissolving this corporation in order to get out from under a 501(c)(3) status. If you must tell the attorney something, make it simple. Such as, operating this corporation has become more than what we want to do at this point in our life and we want to dissolve it in the way that is the least expensive while using the assets as far as possible to do the business of the corporation while winding it down. Realize that depending on the corporate documents and the State Law, some of the assets may need to be given to some charity. If you can play a role in choosing that charity do so, if not, reduce the assets of the corporation as much as legally possible prior to having the remaining assets given to a charity. I would not personally ask the attorney who is helping wind up the old 501(c)(3) corporation for help in setting up the new ministry or mission. Most would not understand what you are doing and would want to know why and probably would refuse to help at all. Lastly, what I have told you here is not legal advice. I have given an educational seminar. You are responsible for obtaining legal advice before acting. The Logical Conclusion: Canst thou by searching find out God? Job 11:7. Yet we are invited to, Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD. Is 1:18. There are times when Christ invites us to take things to their logical conclusion. This is revealed in the account of Elijah and the Samaritan army companies and Gods responses. King Ahaziah, king of Samaria, fell and was sick. This was a man who should have known to go to God for help. Instead he sent his servants to inquire of Baal-zebub. The Lord came to Elijah and told him to get up and go meet the kings servants and deliver a message. He met them and gave the following message from God to the king: Thus saith the LORD, Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that thou sendest to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron? therefore thou shalt not come down from that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die. 2 Kings 1:6. The servants returned to the king and delivered the message. The king was outraged and found out that it was Elijah who had sent the message. The king ordered a captain and his fifty men to go and take Elijah and bring him to the city to stand before the king for opposing his public policy.

9 Then the king sent unto him a captain of fifty with his fifty. And he went up to him: and, behold, he sat on the top of an hill. And he spake unto him, Thou man of God, the king hath said, Come down. 10 And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty. Even this signal display of the power of God did not detour the king from his rebellion against Heaven. 11 Again also he sent unto him another captain of fifty with his fifty. And he answered and said unto him, O man of God, thus hath the king said, Come down quickly. 12 And Elijah answered and said unto them, If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And the fire of God came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty. Yet again the king commences to persist in his refusal to accept the will of Heaven. He orders a third captain to go and take Elijah. Now if we were that captain, we would have some serious second thoughts about carrying out that order from the king. After all, the two previous companies did not fair well and the prospect of safe return does not look promising. Yet this captain was a man of discernment, notice how he handles the situation. 13 And he sent again a captain of the third fifty with his fifty. And the third captain of fifty went up, and came and fell on his knees before Elijah, and besought him, and said unto him, O man of God, I pray thee, let my life, and the life of these fifty thy servants, be precious in thy sight. 14 Behold, there came fire down from heaven, and burnt up the two captains of the former fifties with their fifties: therefore let my life now be precious in thy sight. 15 And the angel of the LORD said unto Elijah, Go down with him: be not afraid of him. And he arose, and went down with him unto the king. This captain was not going to let anything happen to Elijah, so it was safe for Elijah to go with him. The captain had evaluated the events before him and had taken them to their logical conclusion. He realized that if he went in the same way as the previous men, he too would be burned up. So based upon this reason, he made the choice to humble himself before God and Elijah and approach in an entirely different manner. What is really important is that God accepted the captains approach, his logic, and spared his life. There are times we are called upon to also use logic under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The combining of church and state is one of those times. Notice the conclusion of the story: 16 And he said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Forasmuch as thou hast sent messengers to inquire of Baal-zebub the god of Ekron, is it not because there is no God in Israel to inquire of his word? therefore thou shalt not come down off that bed on which thou art gone up, but shalt surely die. 17 So he died according to the word of the LORD which Elijah had spoken. 2 Kings 1:9-17. When God speaks it will come to pass. He has declared that His kingdom is not of this world. He has told us to come out from among the world and to be separate. He has forever placed a wall of separation between His work and the governments of man. When man told Gods servants that they could not preach without their permission, God intervened. The government threw the church in prison and God opened the prison doors. The government said, do not speak without our permission and God commanded them to go speak again. (Acts 5) We are to obey governments when they operate in their legitimate sphere, but they have no authority and no place in the work of God, His worship, or in any aspect of the functioning of the church. To combine them is to join what God has forever separated and it will result in fire from Heaven when God rains fire from Heaven upon all those who are standing outside the New Jerusalem at the close of the 1000 years. Which side of the wall will we be on? A Maxim of Law was stated at the beginning; Ignorance of the law is NO excuse. This is equally applicable to the Ashwander Doctrine and the Supreme Court ruling 425 U.S. 748.[4] These Supreme Court rulings are concepts that if we do not understand them, it is our fault. All of the ramifications do not change because of our ignorance. Even the Lord declares, My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Hos 4:6. God will not save one because they failed to search out what it was possible for them to know. We are duty bound by conscience to know what we are doing and what we are associated with and what such associations really mean. What a church or ministry agrees to by becoming a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. When we enter into contracts there are always conditions to the contract and agreements we must make. When one is married, they agree to love, cherish, to be faithful, etc. This is no less true of the entrance into the corporate contract. Unfortunately, most people only look at the benefits to be gained without giving due

consideration to the responsibilities and ramifications. When a marriage is entered into, the participants often are enamored with the benefits they perceive. I have a family member whose wife was seriously injured in an automobile accident. She has results from that crash that she will carry with her throughout the remainder of her life. My family member has done what was right and stayed with her through everything and still dearly loves her and cares for her. The new situation, circumstances and conditions were not what he expected or considered when getting married, yet when he said in sickness or in health he entered a contract. When they said I do they were stating that they understood all that was entailed or could happen. Unfortunately, most churches have not realized the ramifications of the contract they have entered when they filed Form 1023 and asked the government to create for them a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. Most churches and ministries were so allured by the perceived benefits to be obtained that they ignored the fine print. Israel did something similar when the inhabitants of Gibeon came and pretended to be sojourners from a far land. Israel entered into a covenant with them that God had forbidden. They did not know that they were violating the word of God, but they did not take all of the available steps to find out, to do their research. Once they entered the contract they had to fulfill the unforeseen consequences of that contract. They found that the Gibeonites were their close neighbors and they soon had to come and fight for them. They were guilty before God, even though they were ignorant. Josh 9. Remember, Ignorance of the law is NO excuse. The perceived benefits that a church or ministry is allured with is primarily mammon. They are induced with the prospect of getting more donations because people will be able to claim the donation on their personal income tax filing and get about 25% of their money back. Most people are only willing to give if they are going to get a write off, that is, if they are going to get a benefit for giving. Now the churches and ministries are all too willing to play upon this unrighteous motive if it is to their benefit. So if they can lure donors, they are willing to enter a contract without knowing what is really involved and what they are really agreeing to. This sad state of affairs has also infected ministries and churches who have had purer motives, yet have also failed to do their own research. They have been told by accountants and attorneys that this is the thing to do and since the majority are doing it, they succumb. Question: When has the majority been right? The subtle reasoning of the professionals has lured the ministries, yet a simple reading of the law would reveal that they do not need to be a corporation for donors to be able to give donations and claim them on their personal income tax filing. We should state at this point, that if someone is giving for the right reason, with the right motive, and also chooses to claim that donation as a deduction, we have no argument with them. The law allows this option and it makes sense to use all of the options that they provide in this vein. We draw a distinction between those who will only give if they get a benefit and those who will give anyway, but will use it as a deduction if they can. Now with this distinction in mind, it should be clearly noted that donations given to a church or ministry are already tax deductible, without the 501(c)(3) status. This is the law. Notice: a church, its integrated auxiliaries, or a convention or association of churches is not required to file Form 1023 to be exempt from federal income tax or to receive tax deductible contributions IRS Publication 557, pg. 22 (557 is the law that creates 501(c)(3) and Form 1023 is the form that is filed to become a non-profit corporation.) Again, we quote from the same law on pg. 7: Some organizations are not required to file Form 1023. These include: Churches, interchurch organizations of local units of a church, conventions or associations of churches, or integrated auxiliaries of a church, such as a mens or womens organization, religious school, mission society, or youth group. These organizations are automatically exempt. So the primary reason a church would become a corporation is a false reason. They have been lied to when they were told they needed that status to receive tax deductible donations. Like Israel of old, they were lied to and did not do a full investigation, and now they are tangled up in an ungodly contract.

The Vow of Silence Now some may still be wondering, what is ungodly about the contract? Where does it violate the law of God? There are multiple factors. Again, we will read from the law and let it explain. Under the requirements for qualifying as a 501(c)(3) corporation we find the following on page 4: The organization will not, as a substantial part of its activities, attempt to influence legislation. (Later on down the page it amends this point to say whether or not substantial. It also states that Such participation or intervention includes the publishing or distributing of statements.) Now some may say, we arent supposed to be involved in politics anyway. Notice it said legislation. Legislation is not politics. As Christians we are supposed to stand for righteousness in all areas. One such area is temperance. If a law was introduced to lower the legal age for alcohol consumption from 21 to 18, a 501(c)(3) church has already agreed to not attempt to influence this legislation, even though righteousness demands that they oppose it with all of their might! If a law were introduced to make homosexual marriage legal, corporate ministries have already agreed to not oppose such a law. Even though the word of God calls it an abomination, the 501(c)(3) churches have agreed to let it go through and not interfere. They have agreed to a Vow of Silence. Some may say, that is only hypothetical, they are not trying to change the legal age etc. They are certainly trying to force the sin of homosexuality upon this nation, but that is beside the point. The point is the agreement that is made. Whether any law is ever made, they have already sacrificed principal by agreeing to follow every law, righteous or not. And the word of God declares that corrupt, ungodly laws will be passed in this nation. (Rev. 13) However to prove to those who still question, let us pose this question. Could it be that these churches and ministries have already agreed to unrighteousness? They have already done so by agreeing not to oppose any future law, which is agreeing to support what they do not know, which is an untenable situation for a Christian. Furthermore they have already agreed to what is found on page 22 of the law which states: To determine whether an organization meets the religious purposes test of section 501(c)(3), the IRS maintains two basic guidelines. 1. That the particular religious beliefs of the organization are truly and sincerely held. 2. That the practices and rituals associated with the organizations religious belief or creed are not illegal or contrary to clearly defined public policy. Therefore, your group (or organization) may not qualify for treatment as an exempt religious organization for tax purposes if its actions, as contrasted with its beliefs, are contrary to well established and clearly defined public policy. The previous statement is staggering in its ramifications. When a church or ministry submits itself to the restriction of becoming a 501(c)(3) corporation, they thereby declare their whole-hearted support of EVERY clearly defined public policy, no matter what words they may say to the contrary. By submitting a Form 1023, a ministry, by their actions, declares their acceptance and planned compliance with every public policy. WHAT ARE SOME OF THESE CURRENT PUBLIC POLICIES THAT EVERY SINGLE CHURCH OR MINISTRY WHO IS 501(c)(3) HAS ALREADY AGREED TO? Gambling Almost every state has a lottery, casinos are legal in many states (especially on many reservations), and even many churches are playing the stock market. Murder Abortion or state approved homicide/slaughter is carried out everyday. This is also conducted in church affiliated hospitals, even ones that claim not to support the murder of unborn babies. Christ says that before you were born He knew you! What if Mary would have had an abortion? Alcohol Legal in every state for anyone over 21. Prostitution Legal in several counties in Nevada.

Promotion of Homosexuality Happening in almost every public school. They are trying to give them a protected status. Pornography Legal in every state for anyone over 18. Tobacco Legal in every state for anyone over 18. Evolution Taught in every publicly funded school in America. Creation and God are denied as a matter of public policy. Christ said that if you deny Him, He will deny you! The list could go on; however, the point is established. Churches and ministries have taken a vow of silence, even though they may speak. They have taken all of the bite out of their bark, because they are unequally yoked with the state. When America was founded, it was the churches and the ministry that were instrumental in bringing about the fight for freedom that established this great land. Without their bold stands for liberty we would still be having tea time and honoring a different King George. Sadly, the stand the early churches took would never happen today. The law stated that it would evaluate the actions, as contrasted with the beliefs of each church or ministry trying to be 501(c)(3). First of all, this is that same philosophy as the Communist state of China. In China they claim to have religious freedom for all. Yet thousands of Chinese Christians are imprisoned and being tortured while you are reading this. How can this be? Simple, China says that you are free to believe anything you want, just as long as you do not act on those beliefs in anyway that violates the laws of the state. Some of the laws of the Chinese state include forced abortions, forced sterilization, a ban on all unregistered churches, a ban on sharing the gospel with anyone under 18, etc. All of the registered churches and members of those churches have agreed to these policies. So you can believe anything you want, as long as you do not act upon those beliefs. This is the trap the American churches are now caught in. They have agreed to believe what they want, as long as their actions can be contrasted with their beliefs and they, through their actions, do not go against any public policy. This is hypocritical; it is being double-minded. Christ declares that a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. Corporate ministries have agreed, whether they will admit it or not, to give tacit support to murder, gambling, prostitution, evolution, and a denial of God. Some may question if church related organizations would say one thing and do another. As we noted above, one example is the fact that church sponsored hospitals daily perform abortions while the churches that are linked with them declare murder to be wrong. This is only a natural outgrowth of what they have already agreed to. Guilty by Association What we need to understand is the principle of guilty by association. If a person is a board-member of a beer company they are responsible for the actions of the company. Now the person may not drink alcohol, they may not even believe in drinking alcohol, yet they are guilty of all of the disastrous results of beer by their association with the company. If a God-fearing person was with a group of people and the group of people decided to rob a convenience store, the Christian may protest that this is wrong. The Christian may try to dissuade the group from committing the crime. Yet if he does not separate himself from the group he is in trouble. If he is still with the group after their crime, and the group is caught, he will be considered to be an accomplice, no matter how much he spoke against the crime and even though he did not participate. He is guilty by association. Now when the God of Heaven, the King of the Universe, looks upon us, He is going to evaluate our actions. Ecc 12:13-14. We may say that we dont agree with murder, gambling, evolution, etc. Yet if, by our actions, we have associated ourselves with those who do, if we have signed a paper that says we will agree with all of those crimes against Heaven, then we will be guilty by our actions and guilty by association. This is such a serious situation that it demands the attention of every Christian. We will reap according to what we have sown!

The Clean Hands Doctrine There is one further point that we need to consider at this point. In law there is a doctrine known as the clean hands doctrine. This principle is also revealed in Scripture. What this doctrine says is that if you are guilty, even a little bit, you cannot ask the court to punish someone with dirtier hands than yours. This principle has interesting ramifications upon the church. Christ taught the same principle when He went to dinner with Simon, and Mary came and anointed His feet. Simon was offended because Mary had been a prostitute and he thought it was wrong for Christ to let her touch His feet. Christ knew their hearts and He also knew their history. He knew that it was Simon who had led Mary into this sin in the first place. He gave a rebuke to Simon that only he would see, and Simon caught it. Christ also taught a slightly different, yet parallel truth when He said to remove the plank from your own eye before you remove the speck from your neighbors eye. Most of the churches believe that they are right with God and that He should judge the world for their sins. Yet they have no grounds to approach God, since most of them are guilty of the same sins, even by consent, by incorporation. If you agree to abide by a policy that is sinful, then you are guilty of that sin, even if you do not physically commit it. This is what the churches have done. In addition, many ministries have their existence because of the corruption of the major churches. They generate a good share of their income by exposing the problems in the various churches. However, according to the clean hands doctrine, they have no grounds to expose or complain about the sins in the various churches because they are guilty also, even if it is only a little bit. They cannot complain about the ones with dirtier hands. According to the Bible, they are in fact guiltier because they profess a higher knowledge and a higher standard. They will also receive a greater punishment from the Lord at His return for their professedly clean hands which are really filthy. Unfaithful Stewards While professedly trying to be faithful stewards by applying for 501(c)(3) status, the churches and ministries have unknowingly betrayed the cause they thought to establish. While trying to safeguard the Lords means, they have in reality exposed them to great peril. The ministries have agreed to muzzle themselves and have agreed to let the government confiscate all of Gods assets (the ministry assets) if they violate their vow of silence and the government chooses to pursue it. The fact that the government rarely exercises the power that it has does not change the fact that they have the power. What power do they have? If a ministry that is now a corporation, through its actions, violates any public policy the government has the power to come in and shut down the ministry and confiscate all of the assets of the ministry. If a ministry was to aggressively oppose a sin that is promoted through public policy, the ministry, by being a corporation, has agreed to give up all of their assets to the government. They have done this because they have vowed to support public policy and to abide by the rules governing corporations. The rules governing corporations say that if a corporation violates its founding agreements, they can, without their consent be dissolved and the assets be distributed by courts. Now anyone who has closely studied the book of Revelation knows that it is prophesied in the 13th chapter that America is going to pass laws regarding worship that violate the Law of God. It will be a matter of clearly defined public policy. Corporate churches and ministries have already agreed to follow these laws. They have also agreed to give up their assets to the government if they should fail to support religious laws that go directly contrary to the Law of God! They have become unfaithful stewards. It is time to redeem the time. Any church or ministry who is still God-fearing will do what it takes to extricate themselves from this disastrous situation. The ramification goes one step further. With the closing of the ministry fines would be assessed. The assets of the ministry would be sold to pay these fines. If the assets of the ministry were sufficient to cover the fines and penalties assessed, then the remainder of the assets would be distributed according to the dictate of the court. However, if the assets of the ministry were not sufficient to cover the fines and penalties assessed, then they would have the option to pursue further for the recovery of the fees and penalties. What this simply means is that they can require the board members to cover the cost of the fines and penalties that the assets of the ministry were unable to cover. That means that the church or ministry could not only bring about the financial collapse of the corporation, but also of the individual board members. How much simpler and wiser to remain a church or ministry rather than seeking to become a corporation.

Watch out for falling rocks. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. Dan 2:42-44 This prophecy of Daniel is reaching a striking fulfillment in Church INC today. We are in the time of the mingling and it is progressing to the point of no return. The Rock is about to fall, and great will be the destruction of ALL who have not placed themselves in a right relation to it. The symbolism of the mingling has a striking meaning. The mingling of churchcraft and statecraft is represented by the iron and the clay. This union is weakening all the power of the churches. This investing the church with the power of the state will bring evil results. Men have almost passed the point of God's forbearance.[5] One of the ways in which the churches are mingling with the state is through the conversion of churches and ministries into corporations. This is one of the developments that are pushing this land to the brink of Divine forbearance. Yet we would be remiss if we did not look one step further. It is not just the churches and the ministries that are going to feel the stroke of wrath from the God of Heaven. While they are guilty, they are not alone. All who are members of these corporations or who patronize these corporations are just as guilty before God. They have also forfeited their constitutional rights, just as assuredly as have the ministries. The Lord said that we must fall upon Him and be broken, or He will fall on us and grind us to powder. Let us humble our pride. Let us forsake our greed. Let us abandon our ignorance. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained. Acts 17:30-31 Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. Rev 18:4 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. 2 Cor 6:14-18 _________________________________________________________
[1]

Transcript of a talk given by a concerned Christian; used by permission.

[2] Ibid. [3] This online IRS Publication has several sections. The portions quoted in this paper are found in sections 2 & 3. Section 2 has 21 pages and the quoted sections are found on p 3. Section 3 has 68 pages and the quoted sections are found on pp 3,7, & 22. [4] Remember a 501(c)(3) Organization is a creature of statute (laws passed by a legislature) and being a creature of the legislature, that organization does not have certain rights such as Constitutional Rights according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Listen to what this court said in what has come to be known as the Ashwander Doctrine.

Anyone who partakes of the benefits of a given statute, or anyone who places himself into a position where he may avail himself of those benefits at will, cannot reach constitutional grounds to redress grievances in the courts. Ashwander v. T.V.A., 297 U.S. 288. The rights a corporation has differ from the rights a natural person has under the constitution. Where the constitution regulates commerce a corporation has broad rights. But a corporation has only a limited 1st amendment right to speech, limited mostly to advertising their products. Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976). And by extension of the Ashwander Doctrine, no member of that 501(c)(3) corporate church has any first amendment rights to worship, speech, press, assembly and petition for redress of grievances if that member has availed himself of those benefits at will! Let me repeat that in a slightly different way. If a natural person avails himself of the benefits of 26 USC 501 (c) (3), also known as 26 Internal Revenue Code 501 (c) (3), by deducting his/her charitable contributions made to a 501 (c) (3) church and receiving the benefit of a tax deduction, that natural person cannot argue in court that he/she has a first amendment right to freedom of worship and assembly! [5] Ms. 63, 99.