Basic HTML Version
MEMBER'S HOTLINE, July 16, 1979
Page 2
Church members supported
By DICK LLOYD
Staff Writer
The Na t i ona l Counc i l of
Churches is supporting a group of
members of the Pasadena-based
Worldwide Church of God who
are seeking to intervene on be
half of the church to invalidate a
state suit against the church.
Represented by the law firm of
Rosen, Remcho and Henderson
of San Francisco, the National
Council, of Churches has asked
the California Supreme Court to
grant the local church group a
hearing and allow the interven
tion:
The local church members,
e,alling themselves the Commit
tee for .Defense of Religious
Freedom, last February were
denied permission to enter the
case to seek an end to the receiv
ership placed upon them by the
Superior Court.
At the time, Judge Robert I.
Weil said that the group, whose
lead plaintiff is Fred G. Lopez,
was not seeking any relief not
already sought by the church's
attorneys on several previous
occasions.
Action by the NCC represents a
significant breakthrough for the
Worldwide Church which has
sought assistance from national
religious organizations in its fight
against the suit that charges
church leaders with misuse of
church funds.
The NCC is a religious coopera
tive agency of 32 national Chris
tian religious bodies with a total
membership· of ll!Ore than 40
million persons.
''The National Council of
Churches supports their petition
because itdirectly challenges the
constitutionality of California
Corporations Code Section 9505
as applied to religious groups
organized as non-profit corpora
tions," attorney Robin B. Johan
son wrote to the Supreme Court.
"We urge you to accept this
case for hearing in order to re
solve the fundamental questions
which it raises about the proper
role of the state in chur"h af-
fairs," she' said.
If the Supreme Court grants
the hearing, ttie NCC will file an
an amicus curiae brief in support
of the local church members,
said Ms. Johanson.
The attorney, general claims
that the church as a non-profit
charitable organization falls
under the aegis of the California
Corporations Code and therefore
the attorney general's office has
the authority to assure that char
itable trusts, such as churches,
educational institutions and the
like, collect and spencl. money
according to their own articles of
incorporation.
But the NCC claims that the
state has violated the constitu
tional rights of the church.
"The NCC is deeply concerned
about the serious invastons of
First Amendment freedom that
have occurred in the·Worldwide
Church of God receivership pro
ceedings," said Ms. Johanson.
"Quite frankly, the National
Council has never before encoun
tered such a sustained and de
structive governmental · assault
on religious freedom.
''The crux of the state's argu
ment appears
tq
be that by incor
porating as a religious non-profit
corporation, the church thereby
waived its basic First Amend
ment rights, as wen ·as its right
to claim the clergy-penitent and
attorney-client privileges," said
Ms. Joltanson.
She continued, "The state's
argument that it has not violated
any -constitutional protections
apparently ignores the fact that
the receiver has fired church
employees, scrutinized church
records,
including membership
lists and confidential communi
cations, and intercepted and
stopped a communication from
the pastor to the church's mem
bership worldwide.''
She said also that the state and
the trial court erroneously con
tend that "It is the prerogathe of
the courts to determine whether
a matter is ecclesiastical as
opposed to business or financial
in nature, thus coming with_in the
receiver's jurisdiction and con
trol."
Since many qf. the religious
bodies in the NCC are organized
as religious non-profit corpora
tions, the NCC has a vital inter
est in the case of the state
against the Worldwide Church of
God, Ms. Johanson claims.
The Committee for Defense of
Religious Freedom has asserted
it is independent of the church
and seeks redress on its own
apart from the defense paid for
by the church.
The National Council of Churches is deeply concerned about the serious
invasions of First Amendment freedom that have occurred in the Worldwide
Church of God receivership proceedings. Quite frankly, the National
Council has never before encountered such a sustained and destructive
governmental assault on religious freedom. The Church's reports of the
State's activities would be almost unbelievable were they not supported in
full by court transcripts and written documents.
The crux of the State's argument appears to be that by incorporating as a
religious non-profit corporation, the Worldwide Church of God thereby waived
its basic First Amendment rights, as well as its right to claim the clergy-