Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 6
April 7, 1955
NUMBER 47, PAGE 2-3b

The "Incorporated Church" Argument

Floyd Embree, Ontario, California

The brethren at Broadway and Walnut in Santa Ana, California who are the champions of the Church of Christ. Children's Home located in Ontario, California, and whose elders are over the home, not, they say, as elders as such, but as trustees only, have come up with a new argument of late which I deem worthy of attention. In trying to justify the Ontario Home as an "institution which is not the church, and can be no part of the church," through which churches of California and else-were may do their work of benevolence, they have made an argument on the "church corporation."

They say that when the church incorporates, as it frequently does in California, for the purpose of securing a loan more easily, or of holding property in a more business-like manner, that the incorporated church becomes another institution which is "not the church of the New Testament." They argue that the churches over California and other states use this "corporate institution" for the purpose of holding property and securing loans, and in so doing they are using another institution than the church to do the work of the church. Therefore, they ask, if the church can use this "corporate church" — another institution to do its work of holding property, securing loans, etc., then why can it not also use another "corporate institution" to do its benevolent work, namely, the Church of Christ Children's Home?

In the first place, the argument is based on a false premise, namely, that the church when it incorporates becomes another institution, or that another institution besides the church exists. Such is just not so. If it were so, then there is only one answer to give to the question, and that is that to incorporate the church is wrong! Anything which causes the church to lose its identity is wrong, and that is the end of the matter! The church doesn't have to incorporate in California, and if it violates the consciences of those who do incorporate, it would be unconstitutional for the state to force the churches to incorporate.

Before the church incorporates, the church exists unincorporated. After it incorporates, it no longer exists as the "Church of Christ, unincorporated." It now exists as the "Church of Christ, incorporated." Thus, there was one institution before incorporation, and there is one institution after incorporation and it is the same institution! It is still the church of the Lord. The only difference in the church before and after incorporation is that it enjoys a "legal entity" after incorporation it did not enjoy while unincorporated.

In a corporation lawyer's opinion to me upon the question of the church becoming a different institution when incorporated, the following is his answer:

2. Though this has been called an artificial person, it has many of the powers of an individual — the power to sue, be sued, hold property, pay taxes, be exempt from taxes, and the corporation in this sense is ANOTHER NAME APPLIED TO THE CHURCH OR INSTITUTION. (Emphasis mine, F.E.). Thus the statement that a corporation is an artificial person or entity apart from its members is MERELY A DESCRIPTION IN FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE OF A CORPORATION VIEWED AS A COLLECTIVE BODY. (Emphasis mine, F.E.).

4. A church or the name normally given a church , or private institution, and a corporation, if such institution is incorporated, ARE ONE AND THE SAME THING, with the faculty of acting as a unit in respect to all matters within the scope of the purpose for which it was created. (Emphasis mine, F.E.). State vs. Knights of Ku Klux Klan, 232 Pac. 254.

5. Thus a corporation and the institution may be considered SYNONYMOUS. (Emphasis mine, F.E.).

Davidson Bartlett & Walk By: /s/ W. E. Walk, Jr.

Thus, from the standpoint of the law, that should settle the matter. "The corporation and the institution may be considered synonymous." It is "another name applied to the church or institution." It "is merely a description of figurative language of a corporation viewed as a collective body."

Now, let us notice. Both the Children's Home and the Missionary Society are corporations — they are incorporated. If it be right for the church to use the Home "which is not the church and can be no part of the church" because said home is a corporation, then why can not the church, on the same basis of reasoning, use the Missionary Society which "is not the church and cannot be a part of the church" to do its evangelistic work? Both are corporations. And if, because the church is incorporated, the church can use the Home which is another incorporated institution, then why, in the name of reason and logic can the church not also use the Missionary Society? Do these brethren know why they object to the Society? Or do they object?

After making this "corporation" argument, they conclude by asking, "If one be right, can the other be wrong?" (This is asked concerning the incorporated church and the incorporated Home.) They have paid they think it all right for the church to incorporate, so I give them their own question to answer. "If one be right (the incorporated church) can the other (Missionary Society) be wrong?" I challenge these brethren to answer this question either in writing or in public discussion!

Bro. James Sewell, representing the elders at Santa Ana on this question on Feb. 8 said: "There is a very REAL parallel between the Home and what the church is commonly doing, that is, incorporating and using this church corporation to hold its property." I denied then, and I deny now that the parallel exists of which Bro. Sewell spoke. Let us note:

Syllogism No. 1

Major Premise: "The church controls the corporate church" (Statement of James Sewell).

Minor Premise: "Elders are over the church" (Also statement of Sewell).

Conclusion: Therefore elders are over the corporate church.

So, Syllogism No. 2

Major Premise: "Elders are over the 'corporate church'" (Conclusion of No. 1).

Minor Premise: "No elders are over the corporate Home." (Statement, Bro. Sewell).

Conclusion: Therefore the "corporate Home" and the "corporate church" are unparallel in respect of government.

But, Syllogism No. 3

Major Premise: "The Home is under trustees only." (Statement of elders, Santa Ana).

Minor Premise: The Missionary Society is under trustees only.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Home and the Society are parallel in respect of government.

Again, Syllogism No. 4

Major Premise: "The Home is a corporate tool by which the church does its (benevolent) work." (Statement of elders, Santa Ana).

Minor Premise: The Missionary Society is a corporate tool by which the Christian Church does its (evangelistic) work.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Home and the Society are parallel in respect to method of work.

Again, Syllogism No. 5

Major Premise: The Home depends largely on church contributions for its support.

Minor Premise: The Missionary Society depends largely on Church contributions for its support.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Home and the Society are parallel in respect to methods of financing.

So, we see that the real parallel is not between the Home and the incorporated church, but the REAL parallel lies between the Home and the Missionary Society.

At the conclusion of the discussion between Bro. James Sewell and myself on the Home question on Feb. 15, one, or possibly more of the elders at Santa Ana seemed to think that a formal debate should be held on the question concerning the home, to which I was agreeable. I have since formulated, signed and submitted propositions to these brethren in view of a discussion. It remains to be seen if they will sign the propositions and debate the issue.