Systematic Theology – The State

The Corporation and Limited Existence

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Systematic Theology

Lesson: Government

Genre: Speech

Track: 25

Dictation Name: 25 The Corporation and Limited Existence

Year: 1970’s

Our subject in this, our third session this evening is The Corporation and Limited Existence.

The word “corporation” and the concept of the corporation are both very important to us theologically. The word “corporation” comes from the Latin “corpus,” meaning, a body. The idea of a corporation can be found, to a limited degree, in Rome, but the essentials of the concept of the corporation as we know it in the modern world come to us straight out of the Bible. A corporation is a legal person. It is a body which has an existence even though the members thereof die. The church is a corporation. It is the body of Christ. The concept of a corporation, of course, goes back to the Old Testament. Israel, the Old Testament church, was a corporation, and as such, it was very often purged, captivity, judgment, and disasters of various sorts separated a sizable body of the people from Israel, but Israel as the City of God, continued, and Israel, as the new Israel of God, the church, the kingdom of God, continues.

Now, the state very early saw the threat in Christ and in Christianity, and the whole corporate concept of the church. Here is a transcendental power, that is, a power from beyond this world, a power that said it could not be touched, whose king was in heaven, and is in heaven, and governs from there, and so the state reacted in two ways. First, as with Rome in the early days, it warred against the church. It warred against any allegiance to Christ over the state, and this was the bitter conflict that led to persecutions and to martyrdom.

But then second, the state attempted not only to take over the church and to control it, but to take over the very doctrine of the corporation, and to become itself the corporation, the body of Christ. This doctrine persisted through the centuries, in fact, was developed. The language has changed now from what I am going to be describing in that the theological terminology, the open allusions to Christ have been dropped, but the concept of a corporation as a living person, above and beyond all individuals who are members of it, a legal person, is still basic to our thinking.

Sir Edward Coke said that the state is a mystical body with a king as its head. Blackstone said that the king never dies because kingship is a continuing concept. The king moreover, he said, is never legally under age. Also, he declared, “He is not only incapable of doing wrong, but even of thinking wrong. He can never mean to do an improper thing. In him is no fault nor weakness.” Edmund Plowden said the political body is invisible and immortal, even as Christ is. The king was the incarnate sovereign. In Queen Elizabeth’s day, Justices Southcoat and Harper, according to the law report for that time, held, “The king has two capacities for he has two bodies. The one whereof is a body natural consisting of natural members as every other man has, and in this he is subject to passions and death as other men are. The other is a body politic and the members thereof are his subjects, and he and his subjects together compose the corporation,” as Southcoat said, “and he is incorporated with them and they with him, and he is the head, and they are the members, and he has the sole government of them, and this body is not subject to passions as the other is, nor to death, for as to this body, the king never dies, and his natural death is not called in our laws,“ Harper said, “the death of the king, but the demise of the king. Not signifying by that word ‘demise’ that the body politic of the king is dead, but that there is a separation of the two bodies, and that the body politic is transferred and conveyed over from the royal body natural now dead, or now removed from the dignity royal to another body natural. So that it signifies a removal of the body politic of the king of this realm from one body natural to another.”

Now, this is simply a parody of the doctrine of Christ and his two natures. In 1401, long before Queen Elizabeth’s day, the speak of the house actually spoke of the body politic as being comparable to the Trinity and the Trinity, the king, the House of Lords, and Commons.

Now, it is not surprising that this should have happened, because Rome very early began to use the concept of the corporation and Christian doctrine for its own ends, and this became part and parcel of the paraphernalia of kings and of Holy Roman emperors. In fact, very often the church went along with this in subscribing to this view of the state.

Pope John VIII, whose dates are 872-882 in his papacy, said concerning the Carolingian Emperor, Charles II, that he was the sovereign of the world whom, “God established as the prince of his people in imitation of the true king, Christ his son, so that what Christ owned by nature, the king might attain by grace.” So, the king became a kind of Christ over this world, and the corporation, the body of the Christendom of his day was headed by himself.

Philip II of Spain was a sesoro{?} papist who saw himself as head of the bishops of Spain. When later religious toleration began to come into European thought, it came in again with this concept of the state as the true corporation, and the church as existing only to serve that body whose head is the civil ruler.

Frederick the Great of Prussia, for example, on June 15, 1740, said, “All religions are equal and good insofar as those who profess them are honest men, and if the Turks and pagans come and want to populate the country, we should be ready to build their mosques and temples. The state should see to it that all religions lived in peace and work together and in equal measure for the good of the state.” What Frederick did first was to place all religions on a par under the state. All religions equal under the state, and the state said we will finance them if we approve of them. Frederick had one condition, second, for all religions, “Insofar as those who profess them are honest men.” Now, this is a very important phrase because it reflects so much of the Enlightenment thinking. The Enlightenment view of religion was that it was not a product of religion. Morality was not a product of religion, but of reason. Right reason, and therefore, it was a philosophical attribute, belonging to natural religion which is a philosophical product.

Thus, morality was separated from religion and in particular, from Christianity. All religions could attain to the same moral level for Frederick, through reason. Thus, religious toleration had, as a premise, first that all religions are under the state and on a par, and second, that morality is a product of reason, not of religion, which is a most drastic demotion of religion, and third, the purpose of religious toleration, “for the good of the state,” and with that, we have a return to pagan Rome, because the idea of pagan Rome was that all religions should be licensed and controlled by the state for the good of the state, because they held religion is the most important social cement. It binds people together, and the very word for religion meant binding, social cement for a state.

What had happened was this: that first, the state now claimed to be the true corporation, the transcendental and necessary corporation of man, something beyond all men and beyond all institutions, to govern them and to be the umbrella over them. The state is the new sovereign and the new agency of salvation according to this doctrine, and it is not surprising that in Prussia where this doctrine developed, statist education also began, and statist education thus had a messianic salvationist purpose, as I develop in my book, The Messianic Character of American Education.

Then second, the state now saw the function of the church less and less as a service of Christ, and more and more as the service of the state. The test was political utility. If the church or the religion did not meet that test of political unity, destroy it. This was what the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution, and other revolutions have said.

And third, the state was now the great community, the ultimate corporation. Hence, any other corporation could only be a subsidiary one, so all other corporations must go to the state to be licensed by the state, and that means especially the church. So we have had, especially since 1952, the IRS, the Internal Revenue Service of the United States saying to churches, “You are not a corporation, you are not a body of Christ, until we say you are. Until we approve of you. Until you meet our test,” which is now, I believe, a 14-page questionnaire. If the state creates the corporation, it is what the English call all such state-created corporations; the church limited, LTD. Limited, because it has a limited existence. It is created by and exists on the sufferance of the state, and so the IRS today says, “You are a church only as long as we say you are,” and we saw what that meant in California, when in 1978, a number of churches from then to the present, have had their existence threatened, and all over the country churches have had their existence threatened by state and federal agencies who say, “We have created you and we can take away your life.” A limited and a conditional existence.

The modern state has thus become a new Christ. It no longer uses, as they did in the Middle Ages and a few centuries ago, in the days of Elizabeth and other monarchs, the language of Christology, but it says the same thing. When the state says we are the corporation, the supreme corporation, they are saying we are what the church once was. The institution that is beyond your reach to challenge. You have no right to question our right to existence. You have no right to say, “Who made you a corporation? Who gave you the law that says you are beyond our reach?” A modern state has borrowed the biblical doctrines for anti-Christian purposes. It is, therefore, very, very clearly a time for battle, to contend earnestly for the faith and for our deliverance from these evil doctrines. The corporation that God created is his body, the church.

Are there any questions now about our subjects this evening? Yes?

[Audience] When you talked about the deity and the king, I think that’s one of the reasons why so many English people are against Cromwell, because he’s not in the Westminster Abbey, he’s not included in there with Livingston, Calhoun, all the greats of England, but they weren’t too concerned what the king did, I think it was just because the considered him a deity, or something.

[Rushdoony] A very good point, because the hostility to this day in England to Cromwell is based upon the fact that he challenged totally this doctrine. As a matter of act, when Charles II came to the throne, the regicides were tried, and at the beginning of the trial, the presiding judge said that kings by nature are a species of divinity and cannot do wrong. Therefore, no issue of right and wrong could be introduced, nothing about the fact that Charles I had broken the laws of England, violated the duties of his office, waged war against his own people. None of those could be considered. The only question in that trial was, were these men involved in the trial and death of Charles I? That was all. So, very definitely, this was a very, very evil act, the restoration, because it worked to undo the Christian commonwealth that Cromwell had established. Now, with the Revolution of 1688, what happened was that Parliament took over the same powers from the crown. So, to this day, Parliament claims the rights that the crown did, and it is significant that those same powers are now claimed by the federal government of the United States as having been inherited from the kings of England. Yes?

[Audience] Are churches in this country exempt from property tax, or did they lose that?

[Rushdoony] They are, the churches in this country, still exempt from the property tax, but there are efforts now to challenge that exemption, and to deny it, and I believe either San Francisco or Berkeley, is it Berkeley? Is planning to try to tax the churches.

[Audience] I don’t think it’s Berkeley. If it is, I haven’t heard about it.

[Rushdoony] Yes, one of the cities in the Bay area, either San Francisco or Berkeley, that question is being raised and there is talk of passing legislation to tax the churches. Yes?

[Audience] I have a question on a historical principle. A lot of times I have heard people, I’ve been reared Roman Catholic, and I was fortunately taught pretty good, and I will hear a Protestant talk, quote a Roman Catholic, and the Roman Catholic will throw an accusation as a particular group, and they will poke the Roman Catholic on how terrible this group was, then I just sit back and say, “Boy, you know what, pal? Guess what he said about you? He said the same thing.” For example, Catholics have always practiced re-baptism.

[Audience] Really?

[Audience] Oh yes. They’ll never accept a {?}. You wanted to join the Roman Catholic church. They would re-baptize you. They would also, the Eastern church practiced the same thing, and it was based on their view of the church, and today it was very interesting. Certain Reformed groups are calling themselves Catholic Reformed, and a Catholic would sit back and look at that. I understand what they are saying, about a unity of Christianity. I believe there is a universal faith, you know. There’s one faith, you know. There isn’t ten million different faiths, but they would sit back and they would never consider you Catholic or orthodox, and you know, I look back and I see Augustine, and Augustine was very much a Roman Catholic, and how he would perceive the split of the Reformation. The Reformation was a big mistake in a Catholic’s eyes. You see what I’m trying to say in the point of, I see the principles you were talking tonight, very important principles, I understand, because they undercut society, but sometimes I see people quoting Roman Catholics and they’re saying the same thing about you, and I’m saying, “Well, what did they really mean if they’re going to quote you say, “You’re this and this,” and then they’ll lay the same accusation. I wonder why were they just name-calling people?

[Rushdoony] Well, the official position of the major Protestant groups as well as of the Catholic church is anti-Donatist, but there are a lot of pastors and priests out there who believe in insurance, so they re-baptize very commonly. I’ve heard of instances like that, and that is not valid. Yes, that’s true of marriages also. It’s Donatism to do so. Yes?

[Audience] But you mentioned, of course, in your lecture you said we really don’t have a decision of where you draw the line of when a church goes into heresy and still calls themselves Christian. Of course, in heaven the Lord draws the line. We can see that in Revelations, but to the letters to the churches, but my problem is in my own thinking, you know, well, at least I’ve had that problem, what do I do with certain groups?

[Rushdoony] Nothing at all. We’re not the judge.

[Audience] Yeah, but what I’m saying is, I’m not trying to judge and what I’m saying is, in other words, how do I deal with them? Do I deal with this group in evangelism, or do I deal with them as sinning brothers, or ?

[Rushdoony] You deal with individuals, not in terms of groups, you see. You deal with individuals. Yes?

[Audience] I think one of the big points of your lecture is we don’t perform the final judgment of a particular group. That your point was that we have to deal with certain acts, how we respond to those acts of those individuals, and what a lot of people, go and say, “That whole group is going to hell,” and you know, they play God in that {?}, and I think that’s very dangerous.

[Rushdoony] Yes. I’ve found people in the best churches whose faith is highly suspect. So, you cannot judge in terms of groups. Each individual stands before God in terms of what he is. He cannot say, “Look at me, Lord. I’m a Catholic,” or “I’m a Protestant,” or “I’m an orthodox Calvinist,” or “I’m this and that.” That has no bearing.

[Audience] On the other hand, why you don’t make any final judgment about groups? if you are a part of a group, you do have to make a distinction as far as separating yourself, and when to separate yourself.

[Rushdoony] True, that’s a personal judgment. I’m talking about judging others. You yourself have to make sure that you are where God wants you to be.

[Audience] Well, we do that by the necessity of the way we live our life. For example, a family will do things a certain way. That’s not all that bad, if somebody has a particular way. Today, we talked about separation and that’s of necessity of how we live our life. That we, you know, manifest that.

[Rushdoony] Yes, but remember, the Donatists were the first separationists, and they carried it to Phariseeism, and that is still happening with a lot of separationists.

[Audience] Well, I’m sure {?} how you and your family, how you might govern your family might be different than another Christian, but you two may be the best of friends, you know.

[Rushdoony] Yes?

[Audience] {?} a question with regard to law enforcement since I work for the sheriff’s department. Since I’ve been attending these meetings, I’m a little more cognizant of the government having too much authority. Especially with relation to the family, and I run into those who work in the youth division who have been given, I believe, a little too much authority with relation to children, taking the children from parents under certain situations, and we have had what we call child beating cases that are very marginal, and when I have a chance, I talk to these youth division officers and encourage them to be careful and not to go beyond what they should as far as their authority, overstepping their authority. What would you suggest that I could do in a constructive sort of way to tone down some of the cases?

[Rushdoony] I would say you’re doing very well. Our problem is that families are exercising less authority and the state is claiming more authority, and we have to work at both ends of this. We have to work to strengthen the family authority where we are and in every circle we’re in. The family is the basic and essential governmental unit, the most essential. Yes?

[Audience] Have you heard anymore on the case in Nebraska, where they are, on the Christian schools?

[Rushdoony] No, except that Pastor Sullivan was taken to jail again this week, on Tuesday night. We should have a letter from him very shortly.

[Audience] I didn’t realize, he is in Nebraska.

[Rushdoony] Yes.

[Audience] Was there any reason for why he was taken to jail again?

[Rushdoony] They did not give him any reason, and the state has since said that it was because he had not brought his school into line. However, the school had not yet been reopened, so they really jumped the gun. They came and arrested him with unmarked cars, sheriffs from another county, and took him to prison in another county. At the time they picked him up, they did not say why they were arresting him. They simply came and seized him, at night, by the way.

[Audience] {?} some neighbors {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes?

[Audience] I may be involved in the situation where I would be told by my superiors to make an arrest that I felt would not be legitimate. I’m wondering how I should handle something like that?

[Rushdoony] Well, since it’s not a specific question, it’s hard to answer, you know, because I don’t know the specifics of the case. I would say that if you have the knowledge of the case, it’s a detailed knowledge, just make your case known to your superiors and say that, “I do not feel that in this situation I can legitimately make the arrest, because I do not believe it is valid.”

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Well, our time is up so we’ll adjourn and meet again at our next session. We’ll continue our studies in the theology of the state.

End of tape