Blog Archives

God is our Benefactor; He is NOT our Beneficiary.

11/30/2014

The last few days my soul has been troubled. A heavy burden has clouded my mind as I have dwelt upon something in this Declaration of Trust (actually every Trust has a declaration) or Ordinary Trust. I had a problem trying to think through the making of a Church of Jesus Christ as a Trustor, Settlor or Grantor. I have always had a problem with a pastor of a New Testament church being a Trustee of all the church assets. But the deep troubling in my soul has been in the unsettling fact that the Ordinary Trust of Attorney Finney makes our God, the Lord Jesus Christ, a Beneficiary of his Trust document.

GOD IS NEVER A BENEFICIARY IN THEOLOGY.

Darrell Ferguson, in his book “What’s So Great About God,” from Zondervan Press, 2011, says in his section on the Attributes of God, Attribute #37, “Generous Benefactor,” “He simply requires that they look to Him as their Benefactor…He requires only that we prefer the great banquet of God over the worthless banquet of this world. Their sin was to THINK OF GOD AS A BENEFICIARY – thinking He benefited from their worship – verse 9, – so the solution was to begin seeking Him as He is, the great and generous Benefactor, NOT BENEFICIARY.” (page 206, emphasis added)

Theologian Richard Baxter in the 1600’s wrote the following in his Theology book: “God as a Benefactor and a Governor, giveth some benefits Antecedently to any duty of man: And these are never a reward to us, (but of Christ perhaps, in some instances.) As Legislation, so the benefits of it, and that attend it, are before Reward and Judgment. But other benefits are given by God both as a Benefactor and Legislator, upon some condition of some duty of ours in the Antecedent gift, and so in the Judicial sentence and execution of that duty is rendered as the reason of our actual Right to them: And these are a Reward.” (page 231)

John Wesley’s Notes on the Bible, he stated about the “Peace offering” the following: “Those principally respected the honour of God, who is to be served with the best, but the peace-offerings did primarily respect the benefit of the offerer, and therefore the choice was left to himself… But peace-offerings had regard to God as a BENEFACTOR to his creatures, and therefore were divided between the altar, the priest, and the offerer.”

Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible, Leviticus, Chapter 3, Verse one, echoed John Wesley when he wrote: “The peace offering had regard to God as a BENEFACTOR to his creatures, and the giver of all good things to us.”

In the “Language of the New Testament,” Volume 3, Frederick William Danker writes on Romans, Chapter 15, the following: “The recepeints of his letter are personal manifestations and exhibits of God’s beneficence (15:14) … Paul’s directive to recollect (put you in mind) refers to the apostolic assignment given him by God. In keeping with description of GOD AS A BENEFACTOR, Paul calls this assignment a “favor….” And so Paul can brag, but… he is only an agent in the service of the Supreme Benefactor.” (pages 85-86)

Charles Finney (not to be confused with Jerald, who believes God is a beneficiary), in his Systematic Theology, Volume 1, 1846, Lecture 21, states the following: “Gratitude is an attribute of benevolence, recognizes God as a BENEFACTOR to self in bestowing favors on others.”

Even Pastor John Piper has more reverence for God than Attorney Finney. Piper stated, “BEWARE of serving God as a Benefactor. ‘Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed anything.'” Acts 17:25

In Theology Explained and Defended, Volume 3 (1818), Timothy Dwight explains on page 433, “The Infinite Mind is the Infinite Benefactor of the Universe. As the Source and Centre of all existence; as the great Benefactor of all beings; as the Subject of divine blessedness, and excellence; God would be regarded by such a disposition with supreme benevolence and complacency.”

In his work Enthroned with Christ (2008), author Juraj Fenik writes: “In presenting God as inundating humanity with all spiritual blessings, the benediction conceives him above all as a giver who acts out of altruistic generosity and whose work is to confer boons. Perhaps ‘Benefactor’ would be an apt title to designate the God of Ephesians 1:3-14. Neyrey accurately captures this perspective through the following words: ‘To be God means to bestow unmerited blessings…'” (pages 71-72)

A Warning to Those who Make GOD the BENEFICIARY

The Ordinary Trust document that Attorney Finney uses does indeed make God the Beneficiary of the offerings and the property. In other words, the Church and the People are the Benefactors of God. They give because they can Benefit God? That is blasphemy! Neither the Church nor the People would be able to give anything unless a Gracious God provided for them first. Am I nitpicking? Search your hearts, oh people of God! Ye who agree to bring the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob down to a common beggar who has needs, to whom WE can give to meet His needs. Continue on, Attorney Finney, with your heady, high-minded attitude of Omniscience. Continue on, oh Churches of Jesus Christ who “say” that you have Jesus Christ as your Head. Continue on, you Pastors who Manage the Trust FOR your Beneficiary, Jesus Christ. Why do you not ask the all-wise and all-knowledgeable Attorney Finney how many States allow Ordinary Trusts to name their pet animal as a Beneficiary of their Trust! The same type of Ordinary Trust that names a person’s DOG as the Beneficiary, can also name a person’s GOD as a Beneficiary? “Stop it Townsend! Stop making fun of our Beloved Ordinary Trust! You don’t know Trust Law!” No, but I am quite familiar with a God that reached down and saved my wicked soul and set me on a solid Rock, Jesus Christ. This same God called me to preach the Gospel for Him and pastor a local church of which HE is the Head. I know HIM! I keep asking myself, “Would HE be pleased with a local church naming themselves as HIS benefactor, and naming Him their Beneficiary?” That is between you and God. But do not bring me with you to that point. I care not for bringing God down to the level of a dog. Perhaps Attorney Finney delights in it, as he has “studied it intensely.” Perhaps bringing God from BENEFACTOR down to BENEFICIARY was his true desire. Perhaps turning a God-called Pastor into a mere “Administrative Trustee” was his true desire. Perhaps turning the Church of Jesus Christ in to a Grantor Person who Benefits God is a thrill for him. But I will never have any part in it. Jesus Christ is my LORD! Jesus Christ is my ALL! I am NOTHING! I cannot bring myself to the point where I can even think that I am any BENEFIT to Him.

2 Comments

Biblical, Non-Biblical, or Unbiblical?

11/28/2014

1 Comment

    BIBLICAL – In the Subjective Sense Now, everyone knows what “Biblical” means. It usually means whatever a person wants it to mean in order to excuse what they are doing or demand someone else performs in a certain way. “Biblical” can mean lots of different things to people: Worshiping on Saturday only, no pants on women, no long hair for men (meaning not touching their ears), using hymnals, not going to the movies (but waiting until they come out on DVD so they can watch it in their home theatre), drums and cymbals on the platform, head coverings on women, and just about everything else in life, including not driving a red car. I have even heard of a Baptist preacher rail on and on about how wearing wire rim glasses or three button suit coats were NOT Biblical.

     BIBLICAL – In the Objective Sense

I believe when something is “Biblical,” it actually comes from the Bible and not my desires, background, denominational books, or tradition. When I check out if I am doing something Biblical or not, I always check to see if it is consistent in every country in every era since Christ. For example, “Local Church” IS Biblical, first because it is in the Bible, but it can be shown as Biblical because God has blessed local churches around the world in every country for the last 2000 years since Christ first called out and assembled His church. There are local churches like the one I pastor, with much the same doctrine in China, Germany, Australia, South Africa, and many others. Not all of them have used song books, piano and organs, busses, or sound systems. But they all have met together to worship God by singing praises to Him, preaching Christ crucified, risen, and coming again, and studying the word of God.

     When Something is NON-BIBLICAL

Leisure suits are not Biblical. They are not mentioned in the Bible, nor does the Bible have any instructions about wearing them or not wearing them. They are simply “non-Biblical.” In other words, a person could have worn a leisure suit into any church of any country in any era, and he might have been laughed at, but he would have been welcome to worship God. Non-Biblical is something unspoken of in the Scriptures. Air Conditioning is non-Biblical. Had the church at Jerusalem had the opportunity to have an air conditioner to plug in and keep the congregation cool, they would have done so. Undoubtedly even Spurgeon would have plugged in an air conditioner to keep his church people cool. Baptist churches in Africa long to have a book to hold of Christian songs; hey, let’s call it a “song book.” They are okay for a church to have, and removing them from a church does not make it lose its identity of being a Church of Jesus Christ. These “non-Biblical” things are left up to the local church to decide whether to have them or not, use them or not. A building for a church to meet in is “non-Biblical.” Some churches rent buildings. Some churches meet in buildings they have purchased or built. Some churches meet in homes. There is nothing in Scripture which mandates a church to have a building. It can still be a New Testament church if it rents, buys, or builds a building to meet in. There is a lot of wiggle room when it comes to something non-Biblical.

     When Something is UNBIBLICAL

When something is Unbiblical, it violates a Scriptural principle. It would also violate what true churches would have done in every era. I believe a church incorporating with the state is unbiblical. I believe a church giving and receiving tax deductible gifts is unbiblical. Applying to the government’s Internal Revenue Service for same is unbiblical. I believe true churches down through history agreed with this principle. Receiving a benefit from the government through its enacted laws which binds the church to a performance in which it violates its Scriptural convictions is unbiblical. Baptism is Biblical and a church should exercise that ordinance when it can. The Lord’s Supper is Biblical. How often to have the Lord’s Supper is non-Biblical, because the Bible states “as oft as ye do it.” A church not partaking in a correct way is “unbiblical.” A church baptizing in an incorrect manner is also “unbiblical.”

     Is a Church Deed Biblical, Non-Biblical, or Unbiblical?

First, we know that property deeds ARE Biblical. God commanded Jeremiah in Chapter 32 to buy “a field.” He bought it in verse 9. Verse 10 states, “And I subscribed the evidence, and sealed it, and took witnesses, and weighed him the money in the balance.” Then he took the deed “according to the law and custom (verse 11)” and “gave the evidence” (deed) “in the presence of the witnesses that subscribed the book of the purchase (verse 12).” No church in the New Testament owned land of course. But if God led a church to purchase land, it would be wise to record the purchase so that others would be notified of the owner. While some may argue a church deed is Non-Biblical, I believe the notification of the true Owner of the property IS Biblical when done through a Biblically based process (a Deed).

     Is an Ordinary Trust Biblical, Non-Biblical, or Unbiblical?

I still have not found any kind of a Trust in the Bible. So, at best all Trusts are non-Biblical. For an individual to make a Trust would come under the Biblical principle of soul liberty. Personally, I own a Trust. I have no Biblical basis for doing so. But that does not make it unbiblical. According to the History of Trusts from several sources, Trusts go back to the Middle Ages when Knights would leave their property with another during their Crusade. Their only trouble would be when they got back and found out that their “Legal Document” was not legally binding under the Common Law of England and the one Managing the Trust (Trustee) was ruled by the Court to be the owner of the property as legal title to the property was in his name. It was not until the Chancery Courts came about with “Equity” as their basis that Trusts could be ruled upon by a Court. This was so that a “beneficial” interest could exist alongside a separate legal interest. Using the History of Trusts, an Ordinary Trust certainly is not Biblical. Questions come to mind here that should be answered in a certain attorney’s Trust book.

1. Should Christians be thankful Chancery Courts came along to rule by Equity? I say no.

2. Have any other local churches in other countries during other eras who owned buildings ever used a Trust Document as a way to hold assets? I cannot find any. There are no churches in any country, including the United States before 1996, who even considered using a Trust. So, again, I would say no.

3. Since it is not Biblical in its origin, do those who tout these Ordinary Trusts for churches simply believe they are “Non-Biblical?” And if this is Non-Biblical, then they must hold the position that each church gets to decide if it wants to use this way of holding its assets under the Scriptural principle of the Autonomy of the Local Church.

4. Are there any Scriptural principles that would make an Ordinary Trust “Unbiblical?” I believe that making a church a “person” who must become a “Trustor” is unbiblical and a violation of what a church should be. I believe that making a pastor a “Trustee” is unbiblical and a violation of his “office” of a Bishop, especially if and when he becomes a “Landlord.” I believe that too much temporal power is vested in the management of Trustee over the properties and money, especially if a pastor opens a bank account to pay for the church’s bills or borrows money from any lender. A pastor’s authority should be spiritual, based solely upon the Bible, and voluntarily submitted to by the congregation. I believe making the Lord Jesus Christ a “Beneficiary” is unbiblical, as Christ is our Benefactor, and always meets our needs, and not vice versa.

Therefore, at best the Ordinary Trust could be argued to be “Non-Biblical.” Still, I challenge it as being “Unbiblical.” Would anyone like to take the challenge to show the Ordinary Trust to be “Biblical,” and that a church would be in violation of being a true local church of Jesus Christ if it did not have an Ordinary Trust?

1 Comment

“Certain Characteristics” of the Ordinary Trust Documents

11/26/2014

0 Comments

      “TRUSTOR” – Defined: Grantor, a Person who creates a trust. Also called a Trustor or Settlor.

In Attorney Finney’s original writing of “Is the ordinary trust I recommend a legal entity(?),” he defines for use the “parties to the trust agreement.” He writes, “The parties to the trust agreement which I recommend are:”

-“the ‘settlor’ or ‘trustor’ who is the church who creates the trust.” – Jerald Finney

Now, where exactly in the Scriptures does it state that a local New Testament church (LNTC) can “create” anything? Where does it state that a LNTC can be a “Settlor” or a “Trustor?” According to 76 Am. Jur 2d, page 139, “A valid trust REQUIRES a trustor or settlor.” Continuing, “a valid trust can be created only where the trustor or settlor has the legal competence to make a contract and to make a disposition of the legal title to the property.” Continuing, “A PERSON lacking capacity to make an ordinary transfer of property has NO CAPACITY to create an inter vivos trust.” This automatically begs the question, is the LNTC a PERSON? U.S. Code, Title 1, Chapter 1, Section 1, states: “The words person… include(s) corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.” Now, which of these “created the trust,” Attorney Finney?

“RESOLUTIONS” – “The formal decision of an organization. A motion which has obtained the necessary majority vote in favor.”

In Attorney Finney’s Declaration of Trust (DOT), Section B, Number 2, it states, “The Trustor may, at any time and from time to time, by RESOLUTION of the congregation: a) Amend any provision of this Trust agreement, or any amendment to this Trust Agreement.” Where in the Scriptures does it state that LNTCs make “Resolutions” to a Trust Agreement? Did the church at Jerusalem make RESOLUTIONS in Acts 15 to send to the Gentiles at the church of Antioch? Where did the churches VOTE? Does Acts 6:5 really say, “And the saying pleased the whole multitude, and they MADE A RESOLUTION to have the Trustees (Apostles) choose Stephen, Philip, etc.?” Pastors are going to have to determine if their churches are a “PERSON,” or the BODY of a person, the Lord Jesus Christ.

      “BORROW MONEY” – DOT, Section 2(c)

Attorney Finney’s precious DOT states in Section 2(c): “The Trustee shall first consult the congregation prior to the exercise of the following powers: (c) BORROW MONEY from any person, firm, or corporation, for any Church purpose, on such terms and condition, as the Trustee may deem proper, and to OBLIGATE THE CHURCH TO REPAY SUCH BORROWED MONEY.” Now, brethren, do I have to ask where in the Scripture did a church ever “borrow money?” As the Director of ELC, I was an honored guest at the “Bond Burnings” of FIVE different churches over the years. We would never consider completing the unincorporating of a local church until ALL of their debts were paid. We helped churches get OUT of debt, not INTO debt. But, if a LNTC wants to be a “servant to the lender (Proverbs 22:7),” then by all means, seek out Attorney Finney, and HE will set you up. For crying out sideways (!!!), even Noah did not even consider taking out a loan to build the ark quicker (I know it should be “more quickly.”). He could have “floated a loan” and never had to pay it back. But Noah trusted God, and paid for the Ark as he built it. Noah did not “presume on the future.”

     “SECRETARY” – Finney’s Folly, A Certificate of Secretary

It states on the Resolutions on a Lease Agreement from a LNTC which Attorney Finney approves, “I am the duly qualified and acting Secretary of a local New Testament Church, named [BLANK].” The Legal Definition of Secretary by Buovier’s Law Dictionary of 1856, states: “An officer who, by order of his superior, writes letters and other instruments. He is so called because he is possessed of the SECRETS of his employer. The term was used in France in 1343, and in England the term secretary was first applied to the clerks of the King, who being always near his person were called clerks of the secret, and in the reign of Henry XIII, the term Secretary of state came into it.” Pardon the ultra-sarcasm, but you can find this church office right there next to Bishops and Deacons. No, maybe it’s right there next to “Trustee.” And where in the Bible is this Church Secretary who signs his or her name to the RESOLUTIONS documents? Please give us chapter and verse. Did “Scribe” somehow make it into the LNTC? I assume Scribe is someone who Scribbles. And where in 1 Timothy, chapter 3, (or anywhere else in the Bible) are the “qualifications” of this “acting (capital “S”) Secretary?”

“TRUSTEE” - “Hey, it’s there in the Bible if I say it is, because I intensely studied it.” – Pseudo-Jerald Finney (really BT, DBA JF)

In Attorney Finney’s DOT of a LNTC on page one, the fifth “Whereas” down if anyone is counting, it states: “Whereas: Trustor, [BLANK], being a local New Testament Church, acknowledges that the Pastor of the Church is authorized by the Scripture of The Holy Bible to hold title to God’s property as the designated trustee of God, for the Pastor is the steward of God (Titus 1:7), and, as the steward of God, he is accountable to God (Hebrews 13:17).” After I get up off the floor laughing, I just want to ask ALL those pastors who, years ago, screamed from their pulpits to their people, “Trustees are NOT in the Bible(!),” a question. Pssst… WHEN DID TRUSTEE GET BACK INTO THE BIBLE? And no pastor worth his salt would allow such a blatant leap in defining a Scriptural term. From “Trustee” (way over here) to “Steward” (WAY OVER THERE!) is a HUGE leap in translation, much less application. Trustee does NOT mean Steward, and a Biblical Steward was NOT a Trustee. Look at the two differing documents, the DOT and the B-I-B-L-E. The DOT states that the “congregation” makes the pastor a Trustee. The Bible states that the “Steward” is appointed of GOD (“as the steward OF God,” Titus 1:7). Will anyone come forward and challenge my interpretation of Titus 1:7? “For the bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God…” Did this mean that Paul was telling Titus to make that Bishop a Trustee to hold property? A Steward (Trustee?) in the Bible was Eliezer (Genesis 15:2) who was to go into a far country and get a bride for Isaac. Joseph was a steward in Potaphar’s house. Was he the holder of Potaphar’s property in Trust? I think not. Paul uses the terms “minister” and “steward” in the same context in 1 Corinthians 4 – “Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the (PROPERTY AND/OR MONEY???) mysteries of God.” Is a pastor a Trustee of the Trust, or the Steward of the Mysteries of God? One cannot mean the other. “Moreover, it is required in stewards (Did Paul imply Trustee here?), that a man be found faithful.”

There were no Pastoral Trustees in the Bible. To think so is asinine. It would take a man so desirous of borrowing money to build a big building, or having a bank account to seem like a “normal” church to overlook the obvious mistreatment of a Scriptural principle of the God-called man being God’s “Steward” “over His household and family, the church, to give to everyone their portion of meat in due season; one that dispenses the manifold grace, or various doctrines of the grace of God, and mysteries of Christ (John Gill, Commentary on Titus 1:7).” When did God ever call a man to get His Church in debt?

“BENEFICIARY” – “The person for whom a trust has been created.”

According to the Gospel of Finney, he “recommends” that the third party to the trust is the “Beneficiary.” I suppose that should be consistent to read “Pastor/Trustee,” “Trustor/Church,” and “God/Beneficiary.” “God, Thou art the ‘person’ we have created the Trust to Benefit.” Because God needs all the benefits that we can bestow upon Him. And God’s church can even BORROW MONEY to Benefit Jesus Christ. “See, God, we have borrowed money to benefit Thy Son.” “We have opened a bank account for Thine own Son’s Benefit.” How God must be impressed. “Thank you, My Servants, for borrowing fiat money from a broken bench (Biblical Bank) for Me. Now I will bless you by helping you pay it back with Interest.” What really is interesting is that one of the synonyms for “Lordship” in Luke 22:25 is not only “exercise authority,” but also “Benefactor.” Jesus Christ, our Lord, is our BENEFACTOR, and not our Beneficiary. God is the OPPOSITE of a Beneficiary. A Benefactor is “from Latin phrase, bene facere, from bene ‘well’ + facere ‘to do.’ Translated in Old English as wel-done. A person who confers a benefit.” News Note: “WE do not Benefit Him, He Benefits us!” Many of the pastors reading this have preached, “God has given us everything we need, and Christ is All-Sufficient.” My question is, “Will that same pastor then administer something for God’s benefit?” Philippians 4:19 – “But my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus.” Finneypians 4:19 – “But my Trustee shall supply all God’s need according to our riches on earth by a Church, and maybe even a Bank.” Are we going to obey God, or a man? (Acts 5:29)

0 Comments

It Really Isn't Personal: "It's FINANCIAL!"

11/17/2014

1 Comment

It Really Isn’t Personal: “It’s FINANCIAL!”

     “Today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the earth.” – Lou Gehrig (1941), Ben Townsend (2014)

It is amazing to me how the Lord works. Now, I am “sarcastically” using the words “lucky,” “accident,” “accidentally,” and “fortunate” for this blog post. I am quite loved for my sarcasm from those “other” Christian Law people (that was said sarcastically).

Yesterday, Sunday, November 16, a pastor whom we completed the unincorporation of his church a couple of years ago happened to drop by our services. He called me the afternoon before and let me know that he got back from a month vacation to his church a week early, and another young man from somewhere else was preaching. He did not want to be there and intimidate the young man, so he asked if he could join us in our services. Boy, was I LUCKY. After services, he asked me how things were going. I said, “Great! An attorney is really blasting me for my writings on the Declaration of Trust.” He guessed the attorney, having spoken to him on the phone while searching for help unincorporating. He said immediately, “That’s amazing! I just got an email yesterday (Saturday) from the BLC, and it mentioned this attorney. It seems to me like they are wanting to do away with your take on the Trust all because of money.” He explained to me how much the other groups were charging for unincorporating their churches. He said, “You did it for nothing, and led me through it all also.” He volunteered to send me the email, which I received from him this afternoon.

     “Does ‘In Depth’ mean 28 Years of Legal Scrutiny by Judges and Legal Professionals?” -Ben Townsend

The salient paragraph reads thusly: “Bro. Jerald Finney is almost finished with an in depth study on the origin of the Declaration of Trust, which, as you know, is the main instrument that the BLC uses. It should be finished withintwo to three weeks, for me to send it to you. I think that you are really going to appreciate what he has found.”

     “Oh what a tangled web we weave… when first we practice to deceive!” - Sir Walter Scott (1808), Ben Townsend (2014)

This is a wonderful revelation. It tells me that “007 Spies” and that “Wilson” character were not the real reasons for the excoriation of myself and the teachings of ELC. The REAL reason was, Dr. Baldwin is out there now with the BLC, and pastors are Googling “Declaration of Trust” and finding my articles on this subject, warning pastors to NOT let them make you a “Trustee.” So, their trying to pick a fight with us is mere rhetoric. They do not want to know what we teach or why we teach it. Therefore, I am not going to answer their false charges with any of our methods of Unincorporation. I WILL answer their MOTIVES though.

     “PASTORS, DO NOT BECOME A TRUSTEE!“ – Ben Townsend (2014)

And their motives S-T-I-N-K! They really should have left our chapter 17 in our second book, “Approved by Man,” alone. That would have been my final word on the subject. That that whole chapter was our (I am including the actual writer of the chapter, Dr. John Wright, Ph.D in Business) response to the BLC’s statement that the “Declaration of Trust is NOT a Trust.” That is all the ELC was disproving. Attorney Finney can change the question to, “The ELC teaches the DOT makes the church a legal entity,” all he wants. But the truth is the truth. We were MAKING FUN of the BLC Bulletins which made the statement which we answered. And I believe we heralded the warning that Pastors should heed – “DO NOT BECOME A TRUSTEE!” Let me repeat – “DO NOT BECOME A TRUSTEE!”

     “Not just a Pastor/Trustee, but a Pastor/Trustee/LandLORD.” -Ben Townsend 2014

There was a certain church we were using to demonstrate the truth that Scripture never wants the pastor to be any legal officer of any legal “instrument,” including an “Ordinary Trust” (Attorney Finney’s term) or a “Declaration of Trust” (BLC’s term). These are not Biblical instruments for Lordship Churches. They attempt to tell us that their “Trust” is not like any other Trusts. And MY dog is not like any OTHER dog! You have your “Business Dogs,” your “Revocable Dogs,” “Living Dogs,” “Charitable Dogs,” and I am sure Attorney Finney has an “Ordinary Dog.” And just because he may call his Ordinary Dog’s tail a leg, it does not make it have five legs. Actually, I would have preferred to use the BLC’s terminology and just say that I have made a “Declaration” that I HAVE a Dog. (Note: I use Dog here not making fun of anyone in the BLC or “whatever the name that other group is” who happens to be Dyslexic.)

We have in our possession the document between the local church and the Pastor/Trustee, with RESOLUTIONS from the church body. Now, I am putting my neck out there and stating this is just paperwork that is done for you, and that NO ACTUAL business meeting was called by the church to pass these “Resolutions.” Let me define “Resolution:” “A corporate action, sometimes in the form of a legal document, that will be voted on or has been voted on at a meeting of the board of directors for a corporation.” I also have the Declaration of Trust from this same church, naming the pastor as “Pastor/Trustee.” I also have the document from an “entity” which rented part of the church’s building, naming the “Pastor/Trustee” as the “LandLORD” This “Pastor/Trustee” (according to the legal lease) “herein known as Landlord, has the right and authority to sub-let any portion of said leased premiseshe so desires.” (UNQUOTE ACTUAL DOCUMENT, emphasis added) And may I add something that Peter said: “Not for filthy lucre…neither as being LORDS over God’s heritage. (1 Peter 5:2-3)”

Do you see? There is no need for Christ to be over His own church, the Pastor/Trustee/LandLORD can handle it just fine.

1 Comment

"Give and Take"

11/12/2014

0 Comments

“Give to the Poor…Take up the Cross” (Mark 10:21)

This is a “Response Blog.” It is in response to a Christian Attorney who has made some claims against the Ecclesiastical Law Center and its leadership (mainly me) that I would deem outrageous. So, I thought between two Law Ministries I could be the first one to make some “Stipulations.” Lay people (those of us who do not know the law but just “lay” around picking our teeth) would call it “Give and Take.” Some would call these “Admissions and Confessions.” I suppose I am not really trying to convince a bevvy of attorneys of anything anyway. But maybe a pastor or two will stumble upon this response and understand where I am going with it.

     GIVE – “Ben Townsend does not know much about Trusts.” – Ben Townsend

Okay, I admit it. And when pastors are questioning the “other” attorney from the “other” really good law ministry, he can actually have my blessing to say, “Dr. Townsend admits that he does not know much about Trusts.” Then he can snort through his nose a little giggle, and the pastors in the audience can smile and nod to each other and chuckle. They can even designate one of their own pastors (at that moment) to cackle out loud. I would like him to stipulate that at that point he will tell the congregation of pastors, “Dr. Townsend has the same amount of knowledge on Trusts as Paul, Peter, John, and all the other writers of the Bible.” Whenever anyone would call the ELC and ask about Trusts, I would say, “Dr. Wright, phone call,” and hand the phone to Dr. Wright. Mainly, those would be people whom Dr. Wright had set up their Trust as an individual. He personally set up hundreds of those Trusts. Some were Unincorporated Business Organizations (UBOs), some were Bare Trusts to just hold properties and assets, and one he set up for me to hold money to be used to help other missionaries and ministries in my son Jeremy’s name after his death. He sincerely tried to show me how it all worked once, and I smiled and nodded and said “Hmmm…” a lot. And with Dr. Wright having a B.A. in History, graduating from Central Baptist Seminary, and a Ph.D. in Business Administration, I figured he knew what he was talking about. Besides, I am a pastor. The only thing I really knew about Trusts was “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart.” I was not confused into thinking that was a legal Trust though.

     TAKE – “ELC Saved Church $25 Million Dollars.” – Ben Townsend

This other Christian attorney made the statement that he first met Dr. Wright when he came to speak at his church in Texas in July of 2002. He stated, “Years ago, the church I belonged to in Austin paid Robin Wright of the Ecclesiastical Law Center (“ELC”) to spend a few days at the church teaching the church on how to stay under the Lord Jesus Christ only. I, as an attorney, was asked by my pastor to talk with Mr. Wright. I spent quite a few cordial hours so doing.” So, now I will show you what “Take” means. No one on ELC staff over the years, neither Dr. Wright nor myself has ever been “paid” to do anything. We have gone wherever, free of charge, with no expectations of payment for any services rendered. Now, this church in Texas, Capital City Baptist Church, has never supported financially the ELC. The real reason Dr. Wright was invited to come to the church was because the parents of the boy who was beaten by the pastor’s sons were attempting to sue the church for $25 million dollars. Dr. Wright meeting with the church’s insurance company that week was the primary purpose for his trip. His “speaking to the church” and “cordial hours” of speaking with this attorney was incidental. I was on the phone with Dr. Wright all week because I was doing the research in Texas law concerning unincorporated churches being sued. When I presented Dr. Wright with the Texas laws that stated the unincorporated church could not be sued, he presented this research to the insurance company. The insurance company used this research to convince the parents’ attorney to drop the lawsuit against the church. Plus, the insurance agent when thanking Dr. Wright for his help, confided that they had planned to “settle” out of court with the parents for “six figures,” but decided against that when they found out the church could not be sued because it was not incorporated. The parents did end up suing the boys and got a judgment of $1.5 million, which the boys will have to repay when they get out of jail.

     GIVE – “I am not a Prude.” – Ben Townsend

I think anyone who knows me, knows that I really enjoy having a great time, and really enjoy making fun of legalists and Baptist Pharisees. Dear Brother Ben Mott, very proper mind you and very ethical, but not a prude, heard me singing a bunch of my silly songs after one of our conferences were all over. People were still hanging around and I went to the piano and started singing “The Cat Got Dead” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQMDgVCikP0 or “If My Nose Was Running Money” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nhSW6QxGPs at 5 minutes into the radio video, and many others. Bro. Mott at first did not know what in the world was happening. Afterwards he came up to me and made this statement in perfect English, “Dr. Townsend, I now know what you are all about; you shine a light on Pharisees.” He was right. I blast Calvinists with “Super-Hyper-Calvanistic-Predetermined-Theory” sung to the tune of Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, Knit-Pickers with “Swallow the Fly,” and I help pastors with songs like, “If You Don’t LIke My Apples, Don’t Shake My Tree” and “Don’t Tell the Pastor.” Sometimes I get flak from people who do not understand what I am all about. Usually it is from those who completely believe one should be serious about everything. Now, I am serious when I preach in the pulpit. But even when I joke from the pulpit, I am very serious. I never make fun of the things of the Lord. I do tend to make fun of myself and people who need to loosen up or consider themselves too high and mighty to laugh at themselves. And it’s okay, I can take this criticism of not being a prude. Or worse criticisms like, “He calls his attacks on certain other believers ‘sarcasm;’ I do not look at it that way.” “He sets himself up as a legal authority and he is anything but.” Hey, I just do whatever I can to be a blessing to people. I don’t set myself up as anybody. I don’t even care what people think of me, only what the Lord thinks. I have an audience of One. I only want to please Him.

     TAKE – “That Other Attorney IS a Prude.” – Ben Townsend

Now, a “Prude” is defined as: “One who is excessively concerned with being or appearing to be proper, modest, or righteous.” (The Free Dictionary.com) Examples of terms from his writings that expose his prudishness are “I started an intense study,” “after years of intense study,” “having done extensive studies,” “knowing the tactics of ELC,” “are thoroughly covered in” his teachings, “I myself instructed them (somehow meaning ELC),” “extensive knowledge,” and the many times he states that he will “repent and publish” his repentance if someone shows him he is wrong. It is so funny to me how guys will state they will repent when so many times in their writings they show that they already know everything so intensively, extensively, and exhaustively that there is no other knowledge left in the world which could ever make them change their minds. (sigh) He even stated in an email he sent me that when he was with the BLC, “I was straight on everything.” Folks, when everything the person deals with is referred to as a “very serious matter,” something is prudish about the fellow. But my nature as a Non-Prude is to point out the mistakes of the Prudish every chance I get. Does that mean we will never get along? Well, I can meet a person like this half-way. I can even go overboard, meaning just say the things I want to say out loud just to myself, and smile a lot. I know God uses all kinds of personalities and Spiritual gifts. My Spiritual gift (Exhortation) is to get everyone to “lighten up” and do not think to seriously of themselves all the time. Now, if this fellow says my calling him a “Prude” is an “Attack” on his character, then everyone will finally know he is a Prude. If he were ever to just say, “That Townsend, what a nut. I can’t believe he would say I was a Prude. He’s so flaky,” then Revival might just break out, or the Lord might just return. But please do not tell me a man is “humble” when he gets mad about what is said about him. True Humility is realizing we are worthless, so whatever anyone says about us is just not that important. Besides, if they knew ALL my sins, they would realize that I am much worse than what they think I am.

0 Comments

"My First Answer" (2 Timothy 4:16)

11/12/2014

1 Comment

“Confused, Illiterate, and Already Defeated“

Yes, I suppose I am sitting here confused, illiterate, and already defeated. And I do not even know how it started. I was just minding my own business, playing my little piano, singing my little songs, preaching messages about Jesus to the church I pastor. Suddenly, someone gets really mad at someone else, ties that someone else (falsely) to me and my teachings, and blasts away at me. Why? They admit they got “in the flesh.” Of course, “they in the flesh cannot please God (Romans 8:8).” So, this all started because someone did not want to please God? Maybe. I mean, “the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God (James 1:20).” So, here I sit, typing away, getting ready to answer someone whom ethically I cannot share everything I do as ELC Director, or else people who read this will know what we do and how we do it, and some will try to take those things and have a “do it yourself” unincorporation party and wreck what has taken the ELC twenty-eight years to accomplish. I am wondering if they will even be satisfied with anything I answer anyway. They have already declared that I am “defeated.” I take that to mean they are pretty confident that the last word has been declared.

     Been There, Done That.

So, where do I start? Well, I do remember a time before when I was “already defeated.” Satan, the confident enemy, had convinced me that I was his, lost in my sins, serving him in every way. Then I heard the Gospel preached and I was convicted that I was already going to hell because of my sins. Nothing I could do about it. I was truly defeated, dead in my trespasses and sins. I could not get victory over my sins. But I turned to Jesus Christ. I found Him to be Lord of everything. He had already taken all of my sins and paid the penalty for them on the Cross. I did not have to do anything but trust what He already did for me. Then I became “more than (a) conqueror(s) through Him that loved us” (Romans 8:37).

     My Brother “AND/OR” Enemy. :-)

Those thoughts took me to the time when Satan was so overconfident again that he had won. It was at the cross of Christ. Finally he had “defeated” his enemy, the One who a few short years before he was going to give all the kingdoms of the world. Christ was dead. Buried. Gone. Then three days later… well, you know the rest. Now, my enemy is not Satan, he isn’t even my enemy, but claims to be a “humble” child of God, I guess we could say we are brothers in Christ. He had it right when he called me “confused.” I did not even know the man. I did not know what he taught. Everything I had heard in the past about the man was positive from people I respected. I had never read his blog or his books. Was that mandatory? I guess I did not get God’s memo that I was supposed to read all that the man wrote. It is quite humorous to me though. Everyone in the past that this man talked to at different conferences that he assumed was tied to the ELC, he patiently tried to put forth his research on this subject, thinking that person would bring it back to me. He even wrote, “many times the ELC has been presented with truth about the matters involved. I myself instructed them.” I suppose he already thought that I had rejected both him and his research. I can understand his frustration. I have probably talked to some of those same fellows at other conferences. I do not automatically think they will go and tell him what I said.

     Distancing ELC From Radical Beliefs

During the decade of the 90s, Dr. Wright and myself would be invited to churches to give our presentation against incorporation. Invariably, during the question and answer time, a pastor would ask if we believed like the pastor of a large Midwestern church. The discussion centered around whether or not the ELC was “anti-government.” It did not take long to discover that good men of good Baptist churches refused to even consider unincorporation because of the way this pastor treated other pastors who were incorporated. These pastors would ask us if we believed that they pastored “a government church.” Others asked us if we considered their church “a church of Satan.” These phrases and beliefs could be traced back to UBF speakers over the years. We were asked, “Why would you have a Mormon speak at your conference?” We were automatically tied to the UBF. Understand, there was no Biblical Law Center during this time period. There was no “Declaration of Trust” being touted. We very rapidly saw the need for redefining where we stood on the local church. And we consciously decided to distance ourselves from those very divisive terms and people. We outlined our position in our first paperback book in 1999, “A Treatise for Church Unincorporation.” This would become our first hardcover book in 2004. The decision was made to critique the IBT case in Chapter 5 of the book. Even knowing how unpopular that would be personally for me, I also knew it would make many more men look into unincorporation. I personally spent over $2000 in getting copies of all the case files in the IBT case. I met several times with the court clerk, the clerks of the judge, and even the judge herself. Chapter 5 was the result. Yes, I took the heat for that chapter. On the other side however were the dozens of pastors of unincorporated churches that were thanking me behind the scenes (“we can’t make _____ mad.”) for writing the book. One of the most sterling boosters was from one of the founding members of the ACUC who told Dr. Wright in 2006 in California that, “I agree 100% with ELC’s assessment of the IBT case.” This person, whom I admired for many years also, confirmed for us his disagreement with the Declaration of Trust, letting us know that he believed it was there to appease pastors who wanted a bank account. I did not know if he was correct in his assessment, but he did know a pastor who used his own Social Security Number to open a bank account with his “Declaration.” This pastor wrote in the BLC Bulletin in 2006, “We too were able to open an account at the local bank with our trust document, and it was not even necessary for us to show them the document or give them a copy.” We found out later that this pastor used his SS#, which was just fine with the bank. It was comical to me, but I came down much harder on the Falwell case, and never received any flak from that camp. Believe me when I say, I considered what writing the truth about the IBT case would do to complete my personal destruction, but the overall cause of Christ was more important.

1 Comment

God is our Benefactor; He is NOT our Beneficiary.

Biblical, Non-Biblical, or Unbiblical?

“Certain Characteristics” of the Ordinary Trust Documents

It Really Isn't Personal: "It's FINANCIAL!"

"Give and Take"

"My First Answer" (2 Timothy 4:16)

Author

Archives

Categories