Phone: (231)-577-8358
Ecclesiastical Law Center
  • Home
  • Blog Pages
    • Keith's Blog
    • Ben's Blog
    • Jason's Blog
  • Articles
  • Links
  • Contact Form
  • Media

Meeting as a Church

4/4/2020

0 Comments

 
Author's Note: Thanks to Pastor Keith Hoover for the discussion and much of the framework regarding this article. His input was indispensable. This is not an official position of the Ecclesiastical Law Center, but is my own opinion. Jason

Statement of the Issue at Hand

It has come to our attention that a pastor has been arrested for assembling against a county order that assemblies are outlawed. We must begin by making the statement that we do not believe the same way Rodney Howard-Browne does regarding doctrine. We do not agree with how he handled the issue either. He makes the wrong argument that churches are exempt businesses with regard to the stay-at-home order in Florida. Instead, Lordship churches should take a consistent stand. As with any other issue, we should determine to follow the Word of God above all without regard to whether or not the government will allow it. Businesses do not have First Amendment rights. Individuals have God-given rights that are protected by the First Amendment. This is a very important distinction to make. Instead, the argument of a Scriptural church should be this:
We have been commanded by God to hold church services. If we do not, we fear the wrath of God due to our disobedience more than we fear arrest.
For the church, it is all about obedience to God. It is not about constitutional rights.

From a Christian Post article penned by Leonardo Blair on Monday, March 30, 2020,
“[Hillsborough County Sheriff Chad] Chronister noted that Howard-Browne’s church has the technological resources to simply resort to online worship temporarily and abide by the order but the church instead chose to endanger congregants.”
https://www.christianpost.com/news/pastor-rodney-howard-browne-arrested-for-holding-church-service-defying-safer-at-home-order.html
Realize that there is no proven danger to congregants. This is an assumption. Those that attended, did so at their discretion. It was their own free-will choice and they were not coerced to attend services.

The article continues:
“The River Tampa Bay Church has an advantage over most places of worship,” said Chronister, “as they have access to technology allowing them to live stream their services over the internet and broadcast television for more than their 4,000 members to watch from the safety from their own homes. Instead, they encouraged people to come and gather at the church, even provided bus transportation for the services."

Sheriff Chronister argues that because the church has the ability to live-stream services it is thus incumbent to do so as a measure of public safety. The sheriff makes two inescapable misconceptions in this statement. The first is that every congregant has access to online services and has the knowledge and technology to livestream into their home. We personally know many Christians who do not know how to live stream the services, and even some that do not have internet access at all.

The second assumption made by Chronister is even more insidious. He alleges that individuals can worship adequately in a corporate sense through the internet. The reason this is particularly dangerous is that this line of argumentation, the livestream, could be applied to all assemblies as an alternative to “dangerous” gatherings. What is the next danger that will be the pretense for dispersal of assemblies? Society has already declared in the realm of psychology that religion is pathological and harmful to our children. If online assembly meets the requirement for the Constitutionally-guaranteed right of assembly, why would a government allow any physical assembly at all? After all, it is dangerous. Someone could get hurt.

The safety over liberty mindset of the sheriff is shown in the following statement:
"Our goal is not to stop people from worshiping," Chronister said at a press conference, "but the safety and well-being of our community must always come first. "
When the Sheriff’s Department restricted worship to what they deemed to be adequate, they opened up a very dangerous line of thought. If what the sheriff deems to be adequate is then the law, enforceable at the end of a gun, the sheriff makes himself the authority as to what sort of worship is permissible. A government agent then becomes the final arbiter as to whether or not we can worship according to the dictates of our conscience. This is a disturbing mindset to the freedom-loving individual and it leads to only approved religious activity being permissible. It is shocking that this vehicle for oppression is opening up on a local county level in the United States of America.

This is a denial of liberty of conscience. Sheriff Chronister may not realize or admit it, but he has placed himself above God by demanding Christians and any other religious group be allowed to only worship how he sees fit. He is willing to enforce this idea of worship by imprisoning pastors.

We have no doubt as to the sincerity of Sheriff Chronister. More than likely, he believes he is doing what is right and good by keeping the people of Hillsborough County safe. It is our opinion that he was truly concerned for people. Law enforcement officers are on the front lines of panic and disease and they need our prayers. It is not the job of law enforcement, however, to protect people from disease at the expense of liberty. Chronister goes on to state:
“It’s a shame that someone has taken advantage of this. For whatever reason, I just don’t understand it. The only reason I can see is it’s a reckless reason – to put your parishioners in jeopardy."
Of what is this church taking advantage? A God-given right to worship according to the dictates of their conscience? A Constitutionally guaranteed right to assemble? What is it? Sheriff Chronister has no right to assume a nefarious or even neutral purpose for meeting. If he is doing that which he deems right according to his conscience by shutting down a lawful assembly, does the church not have a right to act according to the dictates of their conscience? No elected or appointed official finds it within their sphere of authority to determine the boundaries of worship, whether it is a Christian church, an Islamic Mosque or a Jewish Synagogue, so long as that group is not violating the God-given rights of others. The litmus test is whether or not that religion physically harms another. The argument is made that assemblies such as this will spread disease and yet one can find a liquor store open and an abortion mill destroying life. If social distancing works for business, it works for churches. No doubt, it would be wise at this time for churches to modify their meetings, practice social distancing and sterilize the building and hard surfaces after every use. These things ought to be done to protect the physical safety of the attendees.  Some may even close their doors for a time out of urgent necessity. Each church and pastor is required to make their decision on these things as their conscience before God dictates. As we will see, however, there are much more grave consequences of the wholesale shuttering of churches upon government order.

In the case of Hillsborough County, the sheriff was wrong in his exertion of authority over a peaceful, voluntary assembly. This is the case even though there is a deadly contagion spreading throughout our country. Chronister over-stepped his bounds as an earthly governmental authority and put himself in direct opposition to God in doing so.
 
Biblical Commandment and Example of Assembly

The question must then come, what do the scriptures say about the assembly of the saints? Is it optional? Can it be done via technology?

The first time we see the word “assembly” mentioned in the scriptures, God is rebuking two of Jacob’s sons and He is rebuking Simeon and Levi for doing something evil. When He rebukes them, He says this:
O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall.
Genesis 49:6
Here we find the word “assembly” is connected with the meeting of two people in secret and the Bible says that our soul is not to be bound with them in their secret or in their intention. In other words, assemblies are for a purpose. They are not just getting together and hanging out. The church is not to be a place where people are loitering, but a place where coming together has occurred for a particular purpose. With the mindset given by the Biblical definition of assembly as mentioned in the passage above, we are binding ourselves together when we assemble in our churches. With this in mind, it is very important that we choose the church with which we assemble. Our souls are to be bound to our church to which we have been called. We are placing our honor and our identity in the church we join.
Exodus 12:6 gives us additional information about the word “assembly.”
And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it.
Exodus 12:6-8
Assembling, or coming together, is something the “whole assembly” was to do. We see here that the “whole assembly” refers to everybody. This is the entire group.

In Leviticus, we see a similar usage of the term “whole assembly.”
And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty;
Leviticus 4:13
There is a wonderful Old Testament example here of a gathering that did so in order to watch and protect each other. This is very instructive to us as churches even though the passage is found in the Old Testament law. The principle of God’s people gathering for this reason is clear even in the Old Testament.

We have heard such statements as, why can’t churches assemble at home, separately? A brief look at the actual meaning of the word “assembly” dispels this idea.

The first two definitions of “assembly,” as defined in Oxford Dictionary are as follows:

  1. A group of people gathered together in one place for a common purpose.
  2. The action of gathering together as a group for a common purpose.

We also find applicable passages in the New Testament to help us apply the principle of assembly to the churches of our day and time.
Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
Ephesians 2:19-22
According to this passage, we are not just citizens in the Kingdom of God, but we are also placed into a household. That is the local church. This passage applies the terms “whole building” and “all the building” directly to the assembling together of the local church. The last phrase says “In whom ye also are builded together an habitation of God through the Spirit.” This thrust of this statement is that we are not only part of the whole family of God, but that we are a part of our local assemblies, builded together. The Spirit of God is amongst us when we meet together.
As used in other passages in the New Testament, the term “church” comes from the Greek word “ecclesia,” and means “the assembly.” It is an assembled church. A church that has come together for a specific purpose.

I Corinthians teaches us more about why the assembly is important:
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
1 Corinthians 5:4-5
This passage is speaking about one who knows the truth, claims to follow Christ, and is living in abject, open sin. We see also that he is not repentant about this sin. Paul’s instruction to the church of Corinth is to put out this person from the assembly. It is the hope that as a result of this, the individual might return to Christ and be reunited with the local church assembly. The church must assemble in order for this putting out to occur. The Bible says that the only way this “putting away” is to be done is when the church has gathered together. This is an event that necessitates the entire church body being present.

I Thessalonians 5 is also helpful in furthering the definition of a church assembly:
For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him. Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.
1 Thessalonians 5:9-11
When we are to get together as churches, we are to comfort, edify, and encourage one another in the church. This is an important reason for a church to get together and cannot be left out. Virtual services cannot fulfill this function of the church. This thought is continued and expounded upon in Hebrews 10.
And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
Hebrews 10:24-25
Rejecting the assembly by forsaking it is something that is done by those who do not see value in the local church. We certainly recognize this in a large number of Christians who do not see the church as being “essential.” Christians down through the ages, under various persecutions and pestilences would disagree. Many met in spite of the danger. Their urgency to meet was not only the direct command to do so, but so they could look out for the safety of others in the congregation. When we consider someone else in the church, we look upon them and contemplate their situation. To consider something is to take a close look upon and think about the condition of the object of our consideration. You must see the other person and interact with them to fulfill this. This is an in-person interaction. If we were to simply provoke unto love and to good works without consideration, we would miss the needs of our congregations.

The scriptures are clear about gathering together also in the cases of illness and for the purpose of confessing our faults one to another.
And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
James 5:15-16
The scriptural path to healing requires an assembly. The church is to gather and confess their faults to one another in humility.

We need to realize that when someone says that churches do not need to assemble, as we hear from many different sources now, Christian and otherwise, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches regarding how Christians are to interact. Internet church cannot provide what is needed by and required out of a church.
When we look at the actions of the early church, we see a pattern set forth as early as the first part of the book of Acts.
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
Acts 2:41-47
In the early days of Christianity, every time the church met there was the threat of death. Every gathering of every day as they sought to serve their Lord Jesus Christ had the overhanging shadow of personal injury to all who attended. We should never allow fear to dictate whether or not we fulfill our biblical duty to congregate. The duty is there, even if sometimes it is put off for a time by the voluntary action of a local church according to their sincerely-held religious belief.

This is not said to guilt those who would not assemble. Let every man be convinced in his own mind.
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
Romans 14:12
Response to Dr. Al Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

There have been many responses to the arrest of Rodney Howard-Browne of Hillsborough County, Florida. We were sent the audio to a podcast by Dr. Mohler regarding the issue. His answer was very eloquent, but also very dangerous to liberty-minded individuals and churches in particular.

The first clue we have of Dr. Mohler’s viewpoint on liberty actually comes from his Wikipedia page:
Mohler has argued that libertarianism is idolatrous, and as a comprehensive world view or fundamental guiding principle for human life, is inconsistent with Christian ideals. He is a proponent of personal liberty, but believes such liberties can run into problems when applied in the political sphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Mohler
As a proponent of personal liberty, he believes that sometimes these liberties must be subjected to the political realm. This explains a lot of what he said on his podcast, but ultimately we have to point out this is a conflicted position. The liberties we have been given by God are designed to protect us from politicians in our own government that would attempt to remove rights our forefathers called “inalienable.” It is important to note that the founders of our country did not give us rights. They affirmed rights that were given by God and thus we call them “inalienable” rights.

Concerning Dr. Mohler’s argument against meeting together as a church during the age of Coronavirus, he begins with a quote from Sheriff Chronister we have already visited as a question of safety versus freedom:
"Our goal is not to stop people from worshiping," Chronister said at a press conference, "but the safety and well-being of our community must always come first.”

https://albertmohler.com/2020/03/31/briefing-3-31-20
We disagree with this statement. There is no way to guarantee the safety and well-being of our community completely. There is one thing that can be more destructive than any disease to a people, and that is the removal of churches from the list of those things deemed essential for our country. The diminishing of the role of churches, relegating them to the realm of casinos and party shops, would work far more damage to a community than Covid-19 could ever accomplish. Dr. Mohler states with regard to the sheriff’s statement:
“The kind of orders or requests coming from government entities makes sense in the context of the Covid-19 crisis.”
In saying so, he has entered very dangerous territory. This statement is illogical and immoral. When a government issues an order, they are not requesting something be done. They are demanding it. When a government requests something of its citizens, it is asking, but not demanding. We cannot be both ordered and requested to close down our church services.  If they are ordering, even if they do it in nice terms or flowery statements, they are still orders they expect to be followed. In the case of Rodney Howard-Browne, there was a penalty if he did not comply. It was in no, way, shape, or form a request. It was a command.

If the government were issuing requests, a church could listen and consider the request and not expect consequences for going against the request. The government authority, in this case, did not make compliance optional. The church was supposed to listen to the order and directly obey, and they were to be held responsible even if they did not know the command had been given. The police were to enforce the command under threat of fine and imprisonment. That there was a penalty and thus this was in no way a request.

A fundamental question comes out of this action. Does the state have a right to issue a command that overrides the commandment of God? We must consider whether or not a government official is able to override a God-given right. If they do have that ability, under what other circumstances and to what extent can our responsibilities before God be overridden? When the two conflict, we are given an example in the Bible of what to do:
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Acts 5:29
Dr. Mohler continues:
“If you were to rewind just three or four weeks ago and talk about a pastor, any pastor of any church or religious organization being arrested merely for holding religious services, it would make no sense. But, at the present time, it does make sense. Would it ever be valid for a pastor to be arrested merely for holding services at his church? The answer is yes. Sometimes, but it would have to be extremely rare.”
In this quote, Mohler has revealed what he really is. He has admitted in this instance that there could be a circumstance in America where pastors can be arrested for simply exercising their religion. A true Baptist would never suggest this. A believer the sufficiency of the Word of God would do his best to obey the Scriptures. All the while, he would make the assertion that each church is autonomous and must make a decision in this area as their conscience demands. He would never support the arrest of those who disagree with his position. In making the statement above, he has stated that pastors should be arrested, but that it should be extremely rare.

We are going to guess that if the rare instance would apply to him, he might change his outlook on allowing pastors to be arrested. We truly believe that Mohler is convinced he is doing Christianity and even God a service by making allowance for pastors to be arrested for merely holding religious services. Christ warned His apostles there would be times such as this:
They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
John 16:2
Dr. Mohler actually believes he is doing God a service by recommending that pastors be arrested for the exercise of their faith. In doing this, he forcing open Pandora’s box of violation of freedom of conscience, the very one that his Baptist forefathers dreaded and fought against. We pray that Dr. Mohler would wake to this fact or it may be his seminary or his audio commentary that is shut down for a compelling government interest.

Dr. Mohler uses Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of Constitutional governance as an example as to how this has been done in the past. It causes us to wonder at how he would not only defend or use Lincoln’s actions to promote the imprisonment of pastors for assembling, but sees it as a good example of how we ought to do things in times of national distress. It would do us well to be reminded that Lincoln’s actions brought about military tribunals of citizens among other absurd and harmful consequences attested to by history. In the end, it was the Supreme Court that stepped in against Lincoln’s unconstitutional actions. They ultimately defended the American people from Lincoln’s tyrannical actions (Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866)).

The essence of Mohler’s argument is that because Lincoln violated God-given rights, we can arrest pastors for holding religious services in the United States. We disagree vehemently. He would give powers-that-be the ability to suspend the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people during times of a national health crisis based on statistical modeling of a future what-if scenario. This power in the hands of an immoral government is frightening to those who love liberty.

Dr. Mohler then argues beautifully for the defense of God-given rights. He follows this with an even more ardent defense as to why inalienable rights should be alienated under certain circumstances. It must be noted that no inalienable rights can removed by any authority, compelling interests notwithstanding, without them losing their inalienability. They become alienable when they are alienated. It was not a coincidence our forefathers used the term inalienable. This means they cannot be taken away for any reason, otherwise they are privileges distributed by the ruling power.

Dr. Mohler then attempts to convince his listener that the infringement of the constitution is made necessary under the conditions whereby the government is operating. Remember, we are talking about a Baptist leader here, not a communist-leaning Democratic-Socialist. This is a very dangerous condition Dr. Mohler would wish to place us under. Who determines the conditions are extreme enough to override God-given rights? What if a government were to find churches to be dangerous to the mental health of individuals who are citizens of the country? Would then this be sufficient a condition to revoke our rights? The end of this argument is that the government gets to pick and choose the conditions under which we exercise our God-given rights, thereby making them the giver and taker of the right of assembly, freedom of religion, the right to keep and bear arms, or whatever liberty we currently possess. The government takes the place of God. The right to exercise freedoms should never be in the hand of the government, but in the hands of the citizenry who exercise their right to assembly based upon the dictates of our conscience.

Dr. Mohler continues by stating religious liberty is not infringed when there is a generally-applicable law. In other words, since they are banning everyone from assembling, they should be able to ban religious assemblies. The danger in this argument is self-evident. It could be applied to any right or liberty. According to Mohler, you can suspend all religious liberty as long as you suspend all others’ liberty as well. Think about this in terms of church incorporation. At the founding of our country, there were several attempts to force incorporation or government participation upon all churches equally. Does this mean the standing government had created a good law, just because it is generally applicable? This is an absurd notion, and that from the mouth of a Baptist theologian. Our forefathers fought a revolution over the issues at hand.

If we were to apply Dr. Mohler’s arguments equally to the rest of the constitutional amendments, we can immediately see the absurdity. It can be summed up this way:
The constitution can be suspended and liberty can be infringed if (1) it is a generally applicable law and (2) it makes sense because of the conditions under which the government is operating.
As a test of this absurdity, we will try this logic on the Bill of Rights itself.

  1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion unless it is a generally-applicable law and unless the conditions under which the government is operating makes it necessary.
  2. We have freedom of speech unless it is a generally-applicable law and unless the conditions under which the government is operating makes it necessary.
  3. We have freedom of the press unless it is a generally-applicable law and unless the conditions under which the government is operating makes it necessary.
  4. The right of people to assemble peaceably and to petition their government for a redress of grievances unless it is a generally-applicable law and unless the conditions under which the government is operating makes it necessary.
  5. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless it is a generally-applicable law and unless the conditions under which the government is operating makes it necessary.

This is a frightening line of argumentation. This is an all-powerful government that has the ability to set aside God-given rights at its leisure, even under times of great national distress.

Mohler bases his arguments on the genuine threat of the virus. We do not dispute this threat. He then encourages Christians to surrender certain liberties “that they would otherwise claim largely and unconditionally.”

From the Oxford English Dictionary, the term “inalienable” means:
Not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor.
In other words, if a right is inalienable, it is something that cannot be taken away by any means or even given away. When Dr. Mohler would have us forgo (give up, put away from us, acknowledge it is no longer there) inalienable rights, he would have us possess no rights as a people. When you give up liberty, you no longer have liberty. One does not have to give up liberty to practice safety as long as it is your decision to do so.

The Bible teaches us very plainly how we are to use our liberty. Notice, it is a use of liberty, not a forgoing of it.
We have been given liberty in Christ Jesus, and we are to use this in our day. We are not encouraging the rejection of all rules the government has made. Instead, we are arguing that in good conscience we should do things safely using our liberty, but not accepting that we have to give up that liberty to do what God is calling us to do.
Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
1 Corinthians 10:29-31
It is incumbent upon us to realize that we are not to use the liberty we have been given to judge another. We preach in our churches because we believe that God has commanded us to do so. There may be times when we abridge our services because we love our people. Most of us have done so in allowing for different provisions in the church. We stand in our pulpits because of the command of God and because we believe God wants us to be there. We cannot say, however, that since some are not in agreement with what we are doing, they are in violation of God’s will. In doing so, we are judging our brethren. There are some who have made a decision in their churches to avoid meeting because of health reasons or concerns about the current virus. We cannot judge that. They answer to God for their decision just as we all do.

Likewise, those who have ceased meeting are not to judge those who have continued to do so. For instance, those that meet should not be called “crazy” or “reckless.” We cannot use our liberty to judge another’s conscience.

In a desperate situation, such as the one in which we find ourselves with Covid-19, there is always a tendency to place the blame on others who are not doing things as we are. There is a virus in the air. That is nobody’s fault. We need to pray for each other, not blame each other. There is a reason for this. The Bible says:
But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
1 Corinthians 8:9
We are not to use our liberty as a stumblingblock to others. Some might have a firmly held belief that the Coronavirus is a hoax, which is not our belief. That individual should not force their beliefs on others by giving them hugs or shaking their hands whether they want it or not. We can become a stumblingblock by mocking the other side of an issue. We are not supposed to do this with our liberty. It harms others.

Liberty is a calling to which we have been called and we must avoid giving occasion to the flesh through our exercise of it.
For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Galatians 5:13-14
The liberty we exercise as Christians does not give us an excuse to threaten or harm people that are around us. In fact, it is reasonable for us to recommend that those who are high-risk stay away from services for a time. We should show more love to our community than anyone else. We should show more love to our people than anyone else. We are to, by love, serve one another. It is possible that Rodney Howard-Browne would not have had such a problem if he would have shown the concern and love for his people that he ought to have shown. He could have expressed this love for his brethren by social distancing and cleaning as he should. In times like these, as Lordship churches, we are not to grieve our local law enforcement, but to love our neighbors.

We are not to cause issues and difficulties that can be avoided, but we must do what we believe is right according to the dictates of our conscience out of a love for God and our neighbors.

We are taught this in James, chapter 2:
So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
James 2:12
We are to be judged by God how we use our liberty.

We see the arguments of Dr. Mohler to lay aside our liberties as abhorrent. We strongly recognize the dangers of what he is postulating.

We also recognize that as believers who love one another, we should be of all people most careful toward those in our congregations that might be affected by the Covid-19 virus. It is not unreasonable for us to make some modifications to our service times and how we clean the buildings in which we meet. We need to be wise as to our response. If we choose to continue to meet, we should take the proper care over the churches over which we have been made overseers. We should not act in fear. We should show our love to each other as a testimony to the world. May God be glorified in our churches as He leads us.
0 Comments

Fighting On The Right Battlefield

12/26/2019

1 Comment

 
Picture
One of the more interesting things about being a Research Director is being in the fight and being a part of the creative process behind the scenes. Our hash sessions are always vigorous and sometimes contentious until the Lord brings us to a direction on any given issue. This is not to say that there is any animus in these discussions, but all of the options are better explored this way.

We do our best to remember that the fight in which we are engaging is a spiritual one. This holds true whether it is hashing out ideas with the pastor of the church in question or when sitting in front of government officials. When we are dealing with bureaucrats, we often see them as the enemy. Someone might be tempted to get angry with the person sitting in front of them telling them they can't do what they know the Lord wants them to do. The government employees, try as they might to roadblock a church, are not our primary enemy. Satan is. Our desire is that the bureaucrat, government official, politician or whoever else with whom we are conversing would see the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is our focus through all the interaction and letter writing that occurs.

Actually, this is our only perspective when coming to assisting with church and government interactions. That Jesus Christ might be praised and that the gospel might go forth. It might seem like too simplistic a goal, but I fail to see how Christ can be glorified through an angry and contentious meeting if there doesn't have to be one. We should not be the ones escalating the tension and anger. In fact, we have always found that a reasonable approach has been the best.

There are many steps of reasonableness that must be taken before a public outburst is required. Some want to skip directly to the end, but we do not believe this is wise or proper. Remember that our end goal is that of Jesus Christ being exalted.

The flesh and blood sitting in front of us in an Assessor's office or courtroom (if it so be that you find yourselves in front of one of these) is not that which we wrestle against. Our true enemy is the devil. We should never lose focus of that fact.
Ephesians 6:12  For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
When it comes to warfare, we have our armor to protect us according to that same passage in Ephesians 6, but we also have our offensive weapon described. It is the Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God.

It is strange to me that there would be some that would insist the Word of God is not sufficient for a church to be a church. It is odd that we would need an early English Common Law document called a "Declaration of Trust" in order to be a church. Certainly, most churches throughout history would not understand the necessity to have a gateway to the kingdoms of this world to transact business, receive tax exemption, get insurance and apply for permission to the government for anything.
2 Corinthians 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
Sometimes as Lordship Churches (Jesus Christ is Lord of His church), we can feel like the outliers. Sometimes it feels like there are only a few of us and we hold a radical position, but I am going to flip that idea on its head.

How many churches with true bible doctrine were incorporated before the late 1790s?

None.

How many churches with true bible doctrine were organized around a document called a Declaration of Trust prior to the 1980's.

None of which I am aware. Some claim the Episcopal church here, but they are not a true church of Jesus Christ.

How many churches with true bible doctrine had their buildings insured before 1900? Probably not many.

The question is this then. Who is the outlier? I would argue it is the church that is incorporated, has a 501c3 status, or has a Declaration of Trust as its founding document. Historically-speaking, these are the unusual ones. Christ is either Head of His church or a legal instrument is. Take your pick.

If you want more information on simply being a church in today's complex society, please contact us.

Best Regards in Christ,

Jason

Pastor Jason Burton
Cornerstone Historic Baptist Church
Union City, Indiana
Research Director of the Ecclesiastical Law Center - Pastors Helping Pastors
[email protected]
1 Comment

What is a Lordship Church? (And What Is It Not?)

1/30/2018

5 Comments

 
As pastors, this world presents us with many opportunities for violating our personal integrity. Whether it is a temptation to use money that doesn't belong to us, the possibility of taking advantage of the unique access we have to people and failing morally or simply mishandling the Word of God due to carelessness, we always have to be on guard for when our old enemies seek to mount an attack.


Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. I Corinthians 10:12


What about the integrity of the church? One area of which you might not be aware that many if not most churches in America compromise is in the area of Christ's Lordship over His church. Dr. Robin Wright once asked a question that has resonated with me through the years. It went something like this;


"What if you needed your wife to do something for you and she said she would, but she had to clear it with the gentleman who lived next door . How would you react?"

Although a very loose paraphrase of Dr. Wright, it does bring up the question as to why churches run to the government to solve their problems and handle their difficulties (not to mention for money through the subsidy that is the tax exempt status). Why do churches and pastors compromise and lose their integrity so easily when it comes to asking another if they can do that which God has already told them to do?



And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Mark 16:15


I was reading an article recently about a street preacher in Washington who was arrested while giving the gospel to a bunch of school children. The thing is, he had already asked the permission of the controlling legal authority. I really don't get this. He has a right to free speech. He has a right to stand on public property and exercise that free speech. Why did he ask permission? God has told him to “preach the Word,” so he should just do it, right? That one detail, though seemingly unimportant to the rest of the story, stuck out to me. Why are we asking the government permission to do that which God has already told us to do?


With this in mind, there are essentially three ways to look at the church incorporation issue. The first two are compromises and break down the integrity of the spiritual body known as the church. The last one defines the proper owner, director and stand of a local New Testament church.


The Corporate Mindset.

Incorporation of a body of believers is the acceptable means to enable a church to hold property and deflect liability from the individual members and is what is necessary to legally exist as a church.

This mindset should be easy for us to dispel, but it is not in America today. First of all, do you know what a not-for-profit corporation is? A corporation is an organization that is formed and recognized under the laws of the legislature. A not-for-profit corporation is a business entity that has been given special favor by the legislature and enjoy benefits not enjoyed by regular for-profit corporations. Either way, a corporation is subject to its creator. This is why churches that are incorporated have things like presidents, trustees and regular business meetings, among other things. All of these together keep a church in compliance with its creator and director, the law of the land as expressed through the acts of the legislature.



An organization on the internet offering to incorporate churches says this:


“Under state law, the articles of incorporation are the church's supreme legal document. It has greater authority than the bylaws and any other legal document.”

Is your church incorporated? Is the Bible your final authority for all matters of faith and practice or the articles of incorporation?



All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17


A corporation must follow the directive of the one that authorized its existence or risk losing the benefits that are included with that status. Is there still a real church underneath the corporate status? Sometimes, but the spiritual work is hindered by the physical and voluntary submission to the state. Why is this mindset wrong? It places another authority over Christ's church. The state is husband for the Lord's betrothed.


The Legal Instrument.

The second mindset involves using a legal instrument to hold property, open bank accounts, complete business contracts, etc. for a church. One way this can be done is through a Declaration of Trust or simply conducting business as a business entity. That is enough to gain legal status for an organization. These are called Unincorporated Associations. These types of associations are still subject to the courts because they have been found by the courts to exist in the legal realm. 

You can read more about a particular aspect of this half-way compromise in Dr. Townsend's article located here: Declaration of Trust Overview

The unfortunate thing about those who go this route is that they think they are safe from government intrusion, when this certainly is not the case. Is Christ not capable of protecting His churches? When subjects a church to the courts of Caesar, the church is then subject to the laws of Caesar. These types of churches are still legal entities and in at least one very prominent case the property was taken away.

The truth about the Declaration of Trust is this; it subjects a church to a legal instrument that can endanger the church. It has been tested in court and is not the silver bullet some claim. Why then is this mindset incorrect? Because it seeks a legal workaround instead of a total reliance on Christ to sustain the church. It is pragmatism at the expense of simply being what the Bible shows us is a New Testament church.


The Lordship mindset.

What if I asked you the question as to who owned your church? Would you say "the church?" Would you say "the corporation?" Would  you say "Jesus Christ?" When you think about it, Christ created everything so He really does own it, doesn't He? Often we give lip service to this fact, but in reality, Christ is secondary to the whims of the fire marshal or county zoning board. Did we consult Christ when we allowed Caesar to inspect the things of God. Does this remind anyone else of the story of King Hezekiah and the Babylonian inspectors in 2 Kings 20:12-20?

Didn't Christ say He would build His church? Yes. He did.

To whom should we then look for sustenance? Christ.

To whom should we then look to lead and direct the church? Christ.

To whom should we then submit the church in all things? Christ.

What if I told you a church could exist without incorporating, acting like a corporation or creating a legal instrument called the Declaration of Trust? What if it could simply exist as the churches did in the New Testament with only Jesus Christ as its Head? What if it could have a building in which to meet and do everything that needs to be done to be in accordance with scripture? Would you call me crazy?

As pastors, we are doing it and so can you. We would love to hear from pastors who are tired of doing things the business way and who are ready to follow what the scriptures say a church should be. Scriptures that speak of Christ's preeminence and Lordship over His church.

Please contact us for more information:

[email protected]



5 Comments

Sunrises and Sunsets

4/23/2016

1 Comment

 
The Sunrise.
Picture
​I've always been a night person. Those who know me best can attest to the fact I saw more sunrises from the staying up standpoint than the waking up standpoint. When I stopped working second shift, I began to notice sunrises. Indiana has a surprising number of them in spite of winter seeming like a never-ending gray, contrast-less 6 month block of time. You have to understand I am coming from the perspective of someone who lived most of his life in Sunny Arizona! It was indeed sunny. 


Picture
Over the past two years or so, I have felt the increasing need to have a quiet time with the Lord in the morning before everyone gets up, and that is when I realized I didn't have to stay up late to see the sunrise. I could catch it from the other end. Here I had found a new beginning that showed itself in divine radiance on a surprising number of mornings. Where we live is flat and relatively featureless. Except that golden time when the dawn is breaking. It was an unbelievable revelation to me that in spite of my problems, my difficulties, my self-inflicted trials and those that were thrust upon me, the sun still rises.

This sets me thinking of the zeal which attached itself to me like nothing I had ever experienced. That moment in which I obtained assurance of my salvation 17 years ago. I was quickly to work, everything was fresh and new. I had great plans for the days to come. I laid out a path of prayer, bible study, attending college for ministry and becoming a youth pastor. Much zeal. Many plans still yet unfulfilled. The Son had just risen in my heart. All was new.

There was never a night or a problem that could defeat sunrise or hope - Sir Bernard Williams
Picture
More sharply, this sets me thinking about that new and glorious dawn when Christ returns. He is coming from the east, so it does me well to watch this direction every morning. When I preach, I like to have windows in the eastern side of the auditorium in which I am speaking. I fully expect Christ to return when I'm in the pulpit for some reason. Often, I'll point this out when I'm preaching. Always cognizant of the east from whence my Savior will return.

​Matthew_24:27  For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 

The Midday.
Picture
Sandwiched between the sunrise and the sunset, you will find the middle of the day. The sun is high (if it is not obscured by clouds), there is work to be done and the only time for contemplation might be under the shade of a tree while resting from your labors. This is a very productive time for the diligent and a frustrating time for the lazy. The middle of the day seems to move quickly when you are involved in labor that has a clear direction, accomplishes something and you have co-laborers who are pleasant to be around. Sometimes the work can be frustratingly slow if all of those conditions are not met or if laziness or dissatisfaction with the labor sets in. I am currently in this part of the day, having as much daylight behind me as I have before me. I guess that is why the beauty is often obscured. Because I'm in the midst of it.

Picture
To the one who is in the morning of life, everything midday seems exciting and liberating. It truly must be. The only cages we find ourselves in are those we construct ourselves or those that were constructed for us that we voluntarily enter. In our Christian walks and ministries (not mutually exclusive), this is when we hit our stride. If we ever do. Everything is bright and challenging. Stuff is happening. Building is going on. Our wisdom starts gaining on our knowledge, not quite overtaking it at this point.

This is the part of the race where focus and energy are vital. We should be established enough and exercised enough as Christians to endure.

Proverbs 24:27  Prepare thy work without, and make it fit for thyself in the field; and afterwards build thine house.

The Sunset.
Picture
The sunset is the superstar of the natural world. Showy. Varied. Ever-changing. It is almost a gamble to watch a sunset. A gamble of your time. Then, when the angle of the rapidly descending sun hits the underside of the cloud bank in just the right way, fireworks go off. It begins as a bit of a color change. A lengthening of the rays of the sun in reference to the surface of the earth. A deepening of the shadows. Subtle changes. Often, we miss the initial stages because we are laboring straight through them. We might be aware our bodies are getting tired. We might think about how nice it will be to be home, sitting in our favorite chair, sipping sweet tea. Surrounded by our family. Enjoying the fruits of our labor. Then the western sky explodes in painted beauty, the strokes of an invisible brush. A painting of light.

Picture
I've always enjoyed the sunsets, as I've always enjoyed Autumn. Something about the oranges, golds, and reds strikes a chord with me. I'm enraptured by the scenes of leaves falling and suns setting. There is great beauty to be found in the waning of the day or the year or a lifetime. The bible has much to say about the night, when our work has ceased, we've put our tools away, we've retired for the evening. "Work for the night is coming!" When man's work is done. There is a time for labor, but there is also a time for rest. There is a lack of justice that in our day the elderly and experienced are marginalized and hidden. When wisdom has finally exceeded knowledge, our elderly are often warehoused in "assisted living" or "nursing homes" when they ought to be out in society warning and teaching and encouraging.

Clouds come floating into my life, no longer to carry rain or usher storm, but to add color to my sunset sky - Rabindranath Tagore

Picture
John 9:4  I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
​Do we fear the night? Tomorrow will take care of itself. Do we fret at our day ending? The night is the only place we will find total rest in Christ, body, spirit and soul.

When we see that brilliant star creeping ever west, the clouds exploding in visual exclamations of praise to the One that created such a system of beauty and order, we should rejoice.  There's a new day coming. 
Hebrews 4:8-11  For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.
Picture
1 Comment

Prone to Wander

3/29/2015

0 Comments

 
I am writing this as I miss church because of some sort of stomach malady. Is it ironic that I'm writing about church faithfulness while I miss? No. When I miss church services, I become acutely aware of my need for the fellowship, worship, encouragement teaching and exhortation I receive. This essay is dedicated to my faithful pastor and co-worker in the Lord, Keith Hoover. He has done an admirable job of checking me when I am "prone to wander."

You Need to be in Church

I will begin by saying that if your church does not believe the Word of God and does not seek to follow it in practice, get out. Find one that does. If you are blessed to be a members of a local, New Testament, Bible-believing baptistic church, thank God daily for this.
As Americans, we see self-sufficiency as the pinnacle of manhood, and as Bible-believing Baptists, we sometimes foster an arrogant, I-can-do-it-all-and-I-don't-need-your-help attitude. I understand this. I've been there and probably will be there again. Those of us who think we don't need anybody else will bristle at me pointing out that such an attitude is unbiblical and unchristian.

Let me begin by expressing my credentials in the area of independence. If you ask any of my friends/pastors/family members, they will testify of my rugged individualism and independence. I have been called an outside-the-box thinker, visionary, aloof and I sometimes (regrettably) am told people don't know how to take me. One of my favorite secular books is Walden. I spent days at a time in the wild when I was a teenager. For most of my adult life, one of my biggest dreams has been to be completely off-grid. Given the chance, I would set out on the Appalachian Trail or Pacific Crest Trail on 30 minutes notice. I own and wear Asolo backpacking boots as my daily shoes. My idea of a dream day is no interaction with the public in any way, shape or form. Before you label me as having extreme character flaws, I will readily acknowledge that fact, but also let you know why I am revealing this side of myself.
Picture
Christ did not intend his church to be disregarded by rebellious believers.  You were not intended to be a Christian in solitude.

When we avoid interaction with other Christians who care about us, we miss out on one of the most important purposes God has given us here on earth, to encourage each other in the Lord until his return. If we miss church, we miss the opportunity for iron to sharpen iron. We miss the opportunity for learning. We miss the opportunity to encourage others. We miss the opportunity to learn more about God's Word. 
Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye. And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. 
Colossians 3:12-16

Left to ourselves, we will begin to justify our actions and seek our own counsel. This is not rugged individualism, it is stupidity.
Christ never intended for us to walk alone, without the fellowship of other believers. We have convinced ourselves of something that is UNTRUE if we think we are okay without the church. We may survive without the church. We may exist without the church. We WILL NOT be healthy without the church.
Picture
Our perceived independence and self-sufficiency should never keep us from fulfilling our biblical purpose.

I can be a notoriously difficult person to deal with at times. Just ask my pastors. I default to my basic personality type without much provocation. I don't return calls like I ought to. I am not very good at keeping connections up or speaking with strangers. If possible, I would just want to be left alone. This makes me a very good Libertarian, but not a very good friend or church member. I say all this to do away with any excuse someone reading this might have to avoid church services.

If you struggle with church attendance and make excuses to avoid the assembly, you will have to bend your will to that of your Savior. Here is the most important reason to go to church. Christ wants you to assemble with the brethren and said so in His word.
And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. 
Hebrews 10:24-25.
Plain and simple. No more excuses. Go when you don't feel like it. I'm not saying that if you have some communicable disease you should spread it to the rest of us. Get well and come back when you won't cause those around you to suffer medical debt, but those "independent spirits" know what I mean here.

For those of you who don't understand, please love those who struggle with independence issues and reach out to us anyway. Give us a call if you don't see us at services. Pray that we will learn to play well with others and that God would increase our love for the services and the people of the church. We will, likewise, pray for your faults.
0 Comments

Twice Dead Trees

3/27/2015

0 Comments

 
This essay is aimed at my generation of Independent Baptist pastors, in case there is any confusion. Parts of it may, and probably do apply to members of any generation, but I freely admit it is written in frustration with those who are called to stand right now where others have passed away or been defeated in battle. This is aimed squarely at those of us who do not have decades of seasoning and experience.
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:  Ephesians 4:14-15

Picture
My generation is seeing a great falling away amongst its preachers. There, I said it. It seems as if those who claim to have a special calling of God to preach the Gospel are seeking some new thing or more respectability, or more attention. The current crop of preachers my age has turned into a harvest of self-loving philosophers meeting at the Acropolis, wanting to hear the latest wind of doctrine that seems to so easily stir the intellectual leaves of this connected "Christian" generation. 

Much to the irritation of these attention seekers who are ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth,

The doctrine of the Bible is still sufficient.

What these glory hounds don't realize is that the doctrine of the Bible is clearly enough. Teaching the doctrines of scripture, all of them, can take up many lifetimes. What a waste that so much attention has been turned to novelty preaching and kingdom building amongst Independent Baptist preachers. I was recently made aware of two attention-deprived pastors (young men about my age, I suppose), who were preaching against each other. As far as I know, both of these men have spent a great deal of their adult lives gaining followers by use of their talent for the dramatic with modest success. It was only a matter of time before they were detected on each other's radar screen and, as a result, they felt threatened by one another. What a pathetic sight. What a childish fight.

Others of my generation seem to be always seeking something novel to teach to others. They are excelling as entertainers and pulpiteers and fail as preachers and teachers. You see, someone might not like them if they do not preach the unvarnished truth. Some may leave if they do something so dangerous as teach the application of Bible truth. These pastors hold back, their acceptability among men stinking in the nostrils of Christ. God wants men who will not hold back out of fear of defamation. 

Regardless of the motive, whether differentiating themselves from the pack with new doctrine or refusing to apply scripture for fear of losing respectability, my generation of preachers has largely failed.

The number of people following you online is not the way to measure success in the ministry. How many people like you, whether in person or in social media, is no indicator of your acceptability before God as a preacher of the Gospel.

This is the great travesty of our time. A generation of sell-outs. It is a selling out of truth to build a kingdom. It is a leaving of the foundational doctrines of the Word of God in order to boost oneself in the eyes of other lost and sinful men. Perhaps this has always been an issue surrounding true Christianity. It is a strange thing in most circles if one preacher is not vaunted and lauded above all others as the pinnacle of piety and having "arrived in the ministry." Of course, the preacher who is faithful through the years and walks in a Christ-like humility has been on Christianity's endangered species list for a long time. Most will not know him because he does not promote himself, but if you find one, treasure him, listen to him, and learn from him. He has much to teach you in how to live before God.

Another issue that must be addressed here is the great coldness and lack of humility amongst my brethren today. In the conflict between pastors mentioned several paragraphs above, both claim to be Independent Baptist brethren. In cases such as these, the preacher gains his desire to tear others down from his desire to build himself up without counting the cost.

You will know a preacher who is in it for himself by the way he treats others, especially his assistants, his family and those who can do nothing for him.


What about the foundational truths of the Word of God? No need for them when you can get all of the respectability and acceptance of people you admire by catering to the crowd. Preachers who do this are , indeed, clouds without rain.
Picture
These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. Jude 12-13
How much more time will we waste in trying to build respectability amongst our peers when Christ alone is worth vaunting? How much more of God's money will be wasted in this wanton, fleshly kingdom-building activity instead of a full-scale assault on the gates of Hell? How many more young people will leave the churches due to the full-blown hypocrisy demonstrated by preachers of my generation? 

If you are a preacher of my generation, you know what you must do. Take your precious little ministry you have built, along with the respectability and following because of your charismatic personality or compromise of the truth, throw it on the fire. When the resultant conflagration dies down, exalt Christ above all and in every action of ministry and person. Of course, there may be exceptions to the above. Please point them out to me. Their allegiance to Christ is worth following.

It is time for my unsteady, unstudied, undisciplined, and undone generation to grow up. Quit acting as a pretentious toddler. Start conducting ourselves like men. Raise our families for Christ. Show consistency to younger generations and older alike in our walk with Christ. Teach the Word of God unvarnished. Cast off the sins that so easily beset us and pick up the gauntlet of the generation of faithful men who preceded us. The remedy is repentance. It always has been.

Nevermind. 

You are too busy to do the first works; prayer, bible reading, witnessing, and worshiping of Jesus Christ, the One who died for us. He will understand, right?
0 Comments

How to be the Type of Christian for Whom Others Thank God 

12/24/2014

2 Comments

 
As I mentioned in a previous article, I was able to attend the Baptist Heritage Revival Society's annual tour of historic Baptist sites in New England. Any time you get two Baptist preachers with an agenda together you have a mess on your hands, not to mention what can happen when you have several dozen on the same tour bus.

I am finding this tour was a turning point in my Christian walk and the ministry to which I was called. I was very ill at the beginning of the tour and quite discouraged. There are some who do not believe a Christian should struggle with discouragement, and I am inclined to agree. However, sometimes God brings another Christian brother along at the exact right time to pull alongside, encourage and help in many ways. 

Paul and his helpers found three reasons to thank God the church in Thessalonica. Regarding the tour, the middle one was most applicable, "the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth." We should thank God for those He brings across our paths to keep us going strong in the ministry, who reach out and put the love for the brethren in action. That is the definition of charity. Love in action.

II Thessalonians 1:1-4 -  Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ; Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth; So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:
Love for our brethren can have a tremendous effect on their ministries. I suppose we all reach those points in our ministries where we feel as if there is nobody that understands what we are going through. Elijah certainly was at that point when he was in the cave. David could have been there when he went and joined the Philistines. Jeremiah must have been at that point when he was prophesying to a nation that did not love God and had no interest in returning to Him. These times should turn us to God.

What we fail to realize, however, is that others can be weakened due to a discouraging word (pardon my use of this, I am from the West, where these are seldom heard) or self-seeking, arrogant attitude. In a very real sense, our conduct encourages or discourages others. I am sure Paul had many examples (the church of Corinth, for instance) of Christians who did not grow in faith or extend charity to one another. There were also some who were not patient and faithful in their persecutions. We can all point to examples of those who we thought would be the last to leave the stuff who did leave the stuff. As a young man in the ministry, I remember being very discouraged when I would hear of another preacher falling into sin or a faithful church member leaving the church because of personality conflict. 

Our lack of concern for others and the desire to advance our own viewpoint can cause others to stumble.
I Corinthians 13:1-10  Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.(4)  Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
Based on the definition given to us in the Bible, charity or love can be defined as this:  It is a long-suffering action that does not envy and is not self-promoting.  It causes one to behave properly, to seek the betterment of others, will not be provoked easily, and has the absence of evil thoughts.  It avoids wickedness, promotes truth, bears all things, believes the right things, hopes in everything, and lasts through difficulty even when it seems like it should fail.

Charity is to be acted upon in a sincere way, and this will cause the faith of others to increase, because people can always tell when we are faking our charity toward them.
Romans 12:9-10 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.  Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;
I will always remember and be thankful for the person who stopped and talked to me while I was street preaching many years ago. I must have been there out of duty that particular time because a random person walked up to me and said something to the effect of me not really meaning what I was saying. I thought of that often, and came to the conclusion that he was right. If I am going to do anything for the Lord, it ought to be done for him with charity for others.

I will also always remember and be thankful for the fellowship of like-minded believers as I experienced on the Baptist history tour.  Thank you Jeff, David, Luke, Aaron, Josh, Ben, Ted and others for your faithfulness and pulling a brother up when you didn't realize you were doing so. I do not recall a single preacher on that tour that was self-seeking and the  love of Christ was demonstrated constantly and consistently. 

Lord, thank you for the men and the love, respect and Christ-like attitudes they displayed. Thank you for bringing, if for a brief time, men into my life that unwittingly pulled along side and helped a brother.
2 Comments

Isaac Backus, Fighter Against Church Incorporation

12/3/2014

0 Comments

 
In October, while on the Baptist Heritage Revival Society tour, I was asked to say a few words at the graveside of Isaac Backus regarding his stand on church incorporation.  I would encourage anyone who has the opportunity to attend one of these tours to take advantage of it.  Evangelist Ted Alexander is an amazingly patient and knowledgeable tour guide and the others from the BHRS know how to make things run smoothly.  I especially thank Brother Greg Fromer (forgive me if the name is wrong), who kept me standing while delivering this on a moving bus. 

The tour was well worth the time and funds spent, and I praise the Lord for the renewal it gave to my ministry.  Due to the fact it was raining, I presented the following to a bus full of very patient pastors who I now consider dear brethren.

Picture
 I am Jason Burton, and I am a preacher of the gospel and servant of the Lord Jesus Christ.  I also am also the Research Director of the Ecclesiastical Law Center, which is a ministry of Cornerstone Historic Baptist Church in Union City, IN.  We help pastors and congregations as they seek to live out Colossians 1:18.

Colossians 1:18  And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

For all of us, it is a tremendous privilege to stand at the grave of one who was so prominent in his stand on the truths of the Word of God.   Here was a man who saw the truth of God’s word and in spite of opposition and a true cost to be a Baptist, decided that principle would overcome comfort in his walk with the Lord.  He was opposed by the standing order church throughout his life and by some other Baptists toward the end of his life, those who would try to pull the Baptists into the “mainstream” and trying to make Baptists “respectable.”  Of course, we realize that being “mainstream” and “respectable” to the world means violating Baptist principles.

Certainly, throughout his life, he was a man of character, and this quote from his diary gives us some insight into his influences:

“I was something affected and quickened this morning in reading some of old father Bunyan’s experiences.  O that I might follow him as he followed Christ.”

As Baptists, we are accustomed to battles, and one battle he fought later in life was that of liberty of congregations from the overreaching arm of the state/church alliance of the standing order.  To be something other than a Baptist meant to pitch in to pay the local state-sanctioned Congregational preacher or have your cow or land taken and sold.  We see, nearly 300 years later through eyes that are used to Liberty, that this is clearly wrong.  None of us would put up with having our money be sent to the local mainline protestant denomination.  We aren’t taxed today to pay for faith-based programs in those churches, are we?  Oh we are?  None of us would allow other churches to demand of our folks to pay to build their building.

Brother Backus fought decades to try to secure freedom from compulsory government control of churches and the financial and spiritual cost that came with that environment, as is evidenced by this quote:

“God has appointed two different kinds of government in the world which are different in their nature and ought never to be confounded together, one of which is called civil and the other Ecclesiastical government.”

Combining the two was appalling to someone who stood upon the Baptist principle of soul liberty, as it is to us who are standing here right now.  If you think it would be okay to force a person to be a Baptist at the threat of life and property, you are no Baptist.

During Backus’ time, there were compromises being made to make life easier on the citizens who were not members of the standing order.  All they had to do in Massachusetts was to provide a certificate to the local magistrate informing them of the fact they were a Baptist and the magistrates would collect the ministers pay and redistribute it to the Baptist pastor in the town.  Not a bad away to guarantee a paycheck, even for a Baptist pastor.  To Isaac Backus, this was not good enough, because he recognized that by giving in and filling out the form, this violated the Baptist’s conscience.

The Baptist pastors, when they met, Backus and the others who made up the Warren Association reasoned that the State was encroaching upon the conscience and rights of Baptists, therefore the Baptists could not file the certificates.

We have records from the Grievance committee of the Warren Association from May 5, 1773.  It says: “…these and other things being laid before the committee, May 5, they advised their agent to write to all their churches to consider whether or not it was their duty to refuse to give any more certificates to the powers that opposed them.”

Backus, who was the agent spoken of in the Grievance Committee, stated that most of the Baptists conformed to the certificate laws “...until they were convinced that true help could not be had in that way, and therefore they concluded in 1773 to give no more certificates, and published their reasons for so doing.”

In spite of Backus’ opposition to tax certificates, and Baptist brethren like Elijah Balkcom and Gershom Cutter, who went to jail over the matter, congregations were still supplying Parish tax men (called “certificate men”) with lists of church members in good standing. Backus wrote John Rippon in 1791, “I know not of one of our churches, especially in the Massachusetts, who are entirely free of the evil of giving in a list of their society to their oppressors.”

When it came to establishment, taxes were not the only issue discussed.  At the Warren Association meeting of 1792, two Baptist churches were found to have begun seeking incorporation for their churches.  During the vigorous debates as to whether or not this was acceptable, Backus won the day and the association voted to advise the churches against incorporation under the laws of the state as it placed those churches under the authority of the state.  Here is a partial quote from the resolution:

“...That it be earnestly commended to the churches belonging to the association by no means to apply to civil government for incorporation... because we cannot consent to blend the kingdom of Christ with the kingdoms of this world …”

The reason the Ecclesiastical Law Center exists is to help churches be churches according to the pattern given in the New Testament. We are not a militant organization, as we have seen a reasonable and biblical approach is effective.  Our purpose is to be pastors helping pastors and thereby glorifying the Lord Jesus Christ as head of his church.

Lord bless you and thank you for reading this.  Remember, the position we take on church incorporation is not a new one, but it is a Biblical one.  If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or one of the other representatives.

In Christ,

Jason
0 Comments

Pinning Jello to the Wall - Part 3

11/30/2014

0 Comments

 
This is the third part in a series answering attorney Finney's new book about the ELC. I have completed my commentary on the introduction.
Is the church you are a member of being prepared for His coming?

Is the church you are a member of being prepared for His coming?

Ephesians 5.23-27, 30-32 states:
“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish…. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”

As the informed believer reads the articles which examine the parts of Chapter 18 of Betrayed by Man and related ELC writings, he will see the good, the bad, and the ugly about the ELC position for church organization.
While we would agree with attorney Finney that this verse is applicable to Christ's relationship to the church, I would like to see this applied to the Declaration of Trust.  Dear reader, does a wife, in proper subjection to her husband put the husband's property in the hands of another to keep it safe while the husband is able to protect and care for that property?  Certainly, no bible believing pastor believes Christ is absent from his duties as head of the church.  Why then would a church seek another to protect the property that rightfully belongs to Christ? This is what a Declaration of Trust does. It places the Lord's property into the trust of finite man. Attorney Finney fails to recognize the spiritual application of Christ's presence in his church, and is only able to view such relationships from a legal perspective.
The good:

The ELC method, by written declaration, creates a trust arrangement, places property in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ the true, equitable, and beneficial owner of the property (and money), and names a trustee (or trustees) to serve as administrator(s) of said property and money. The trustee(s) has (have) a fiduciary duty under God and man to manage the trust estate, not for the benefit of the trustee(s), but for the benefit of the true, equitable, beneficial owner, the Lord Jesus Christ. As long as no disputes over, for example, ownership of property, taxation of property, other property disputes, tort claims for injures sustained on church property, or use of funds (tithes, offerings, and gifts) arise, the ELC method will work fine and the inherent weaknesses of the ELC method and the inaccuracies in ELC teachings will not come to the forefront.
Attorney Finney, not understanding the "methods" used by the ELC, and apparently never having read our books with the exception of a few excerpts, proceeds to mischaracterize how the Ecclesiastical Law Center helps pastors. The ELC method DOES NOT by written declaration or otherwise create a trust arrangement.  It is wishful thinking on his part that there is a trust by default.  But then, what do we expect from someone who cannot think outside of his legal box?

Then, having made a false statement about the "ELC method," the attorney proceeds to tell us what happens to those who follow that which we do not teach. Unfortunately, attorney Finney is unaware of the extent to which we have helped churches.  Otherwise, he would realize we have, as pastors, climbed many of the hills he says we cannot climb using the "ELC method." He really should read the books. He very well may learn something. Is he writing about some other ELC of which we have no knowledge? It seems so.
The bad:

The ELC trust arrangement negatively implicates the church who utilizes their method by declaring that “The property should be held by the church in trust for the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the true and beneficial owner,” and “Actually, the church, by the Pastor, can execute a deed on behalf of the Lord Jesus Christ.” The written declarations are not included in a Declaration of Trust to be adopted by a church which organizes under the method recommended by the ELC; rather, the declarations are in at least one publication which teaches ELC methods. Needless to say, their published declaration does not adequately describe the type of trust intended, the duties of the trustee, provisions for successor trustee in the event the trustee resigns, dies, etc., and other matters. These written declarations, especially when studied in conjunction with other ELC teachings, effectively set the church up as a legal entity, as opposed to a spiritual entity only. It would be far better for an ELC church to adopt a properly written DOT declaring exactly the nature of the trust established, the legal status of the church, etc. Should attacks against an ELC church arise, a properly worded DOT could be produced to establish that the church is not a legal entity, that the trust is an ordinary trust (as it now stands, the logical conclusion from ELC teachings is that the church utilizing ELC methods is a legal entity and therefore can sue, be sued and act legally).The ELC method is not according to knowledge and it therefore grieves our Lord and can result in problems for ELC churches. This articles which follow in this series delve more deeply into the matters asserted in this paragraph.
Now that he has labeled the "ELC method" as creating a trust, he can begin to tear down his own creation. I will not argue that a trust shouldn't have a Declaration of Trust. Our contention is that it has not been proven a trust exists in the first place for Lordship Churches!

We are then told that because of some writings in our books CHURCHES have bound themselves to a trust somehow created by the ELC. Attorney Finney is certainly grasping at straws and I would have to assume that he actually knows better and must have made a misstatement here. Churches and pastors, rest assured that we at the ELC don't legally bind you to anything just because attorney Finney says so.

He says "these written declarations (in the ELC books)...effectively set the church up as a legal entity." Again, he is showing more of his own personality as a "leader" of pastors and trying to assume the same on our part.  We have no manual for church unincorporation. Nobody has to sign on to anything we suggest or teach about. "ELC churches" do not belong to the ELC and the ELC does not belong to the collective of churches who we have helped. This shows a disturbing misunderstanding, as I said in my previous blog, as to proper SPIRITUAL authority in the churches. We here at the ELC promise to never try to boss you around as to what you do as pastors and churches. We are merely pastors helping pastors and you are no more legally bound to whatever imagined statements in our books attorney Finney imagines than you are to John Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress."
The ugly:

 The ELC runs a continuing campaign to convince others that the BLC (and now this “Separation of Church and State Law” ministry) are liars and that their methods are bad, should not be used, etc. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The ordinary trust (and a properly worded DOT which creates it) recommended by this ministry and the BLC, as will be shown (and already has been shown in books and online writings) is biblical and it is legal. ELC attacks include sloppy false legal arguments (at best), lies, distortions, personal attacks, etc. Some of those will be exposed for what they are in the accompanying articles. Straight forward language is the only way to get at the truth and, as will be shown in this series, the ELC has no problem either directly or indirectly, without any proof, calling truthful BLC statements lies, no problem with fabricating false, bad motivations on the part of the BLC for the alleged lies, no problem formulating ridiculous legal arguments, no problem with distorting, lying, and publishing recommendations for church organization without knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. This series of articles will prove all this.
I would challenge attorney Finney to show where we have a "continuing campaign to convince others that the BLC (and now this "Separation of Church and State Law" ministry) are liars..." This is not true. As a matter of fact, the only time prior to his book on the ELC I can remember attorney Finney's name being mentioned when Dr. Townsend, Pastor Keith and I were present was when Pastor Keith was corresponding with Finney over a year ago.  It was mentioned in a positive light. The series of articles and subsequent book about the ELC by "the author" Finney was out of left field for all three of us and was deeply disappointing. Especially disappointing was the personal nature of the attacks and the negative spirit from which they came.  The few times he came across our radar screen prior to this, we had viewed attorney Finney as someone with which we mostly agreed.

Based on the preface and the introduction, it has become obvious that attorney Finney has an agenda. Unlike him, however, I will not pretend to know his motives.
This author has seen no ELC written or online publication which, for example, looks at the law of ordinary trusts, the law upon which DOT and ordinary trust thereby created and which the BLC and the “Separation of Church and State Law” ministry recommend. Instead, the ELC mischaracterizes the ordinary trust recommended by the BLC and by this ministry as a business or charitable trust which are entirely different. Business and charitable trusts are legal entities. The ordinary trust is not; yet, relying on business trust and charitable trust law instead of ordinary trust law, the ELC continues to claim, against clear truth, that the ordinary trust is a legal entity. Here are two of many ludicrous examples of false ELC claims:
How is it that we can both never speak about and mischaracterize the "ordinary trust?" Which is it, attorney Finney? He then states that we call the trust a "legal entity" although we do not.  What exactly in this paragraph is reliable? Also, he speaks of "many ludicrous examples of false ELC claims" and provides us with only two examples that are based on his lack of reading comprehension while reading parts of our book.
“The Ecclesiastical Law Center advises churches to not use a Declaration of Trust, a corporation, an unincorporated association, or any legal entity to hold their church assets and property.” (From Betrayed by Man, page 180)(My comments: Here again, the ELC not only misrepresents the ordinary trust, but also condemns their own method. The ordinary trust is not a legal entity. Furthermore, the church who places tithes, offerings and gifts into an ordinary trust has no assets. The ELC church has assets which are held in trust for the benefit of the true owner of the property, the Lord Jesus Christ. The ELC church is a legal entity since she holds property and has assets.)

“And placing church property in Trust is no different from placing it into a Corporation.” (From Betrayed by Man, page 177)
We were not attempting to equate a Declaration of Trust (creating an "ordinary trust") with a corporation except in the sense that it is a compromise position. A Declaration of Trust is one tool a church can legally use, but we are more concerned with what the bible says than what we can get away with. We believe that in order to have the proper administration and organization in a local New Testament church, scriptures are sufficient. Declaration of Trust? No need by a bible-believing church and pastor to go there.

Again, I will point out the fact that he has misidentified the book as "Betrayed by Man."  The title is "Approved by Man."  Let us move on to the second mentioned "ludicrous example."
By “Trust” in the above statement, the ELC means all trusts, thereby including the ordinary trust (a fiduciary relationship with property which is a non-legal entity) with trusts which are legal entities such as business trusts and charitable trusts. In other words, the ELC again misrepresents the ordinary trust by effectively stating that all trusts are the same. The statement also equates placing a church in trust with incorporating a church. An incorporated church is a legal entity. The ELC, in attacking the ordinary trust, cites 13 AM. JUR. 2D Business Trusts and 15 AM. JUR. 2D Charitable Trusts instead of 76 AM. JUR. 2D Trusts which covers ordinary trust law. They also cite reported cases which mention charitable trusts in attacking ordinary trust law. This type analysis by the ELC is either completely dishonest or the result of incompetence in dealing with legal matters. This series of articles will thoroughly analyze, in detail, all these matters. The assertions of this author will be proven beyond any doubt.
The attorney who could not even read the statement in our book properly or name our book correctly then begins to explain to his readers what we meant by the passage he did not properly read. Nice try, I guess. "Beyond any doubt" the attorney makes a mountain of a molehill of his own making. Entertaining but not necessarily helpful in this discussion.

First, we make no such statement that all trusts are the same.

Second, it is our position that as an incorporated church is a legal entity, so is a church that has entered into a Declaration of Trust as a "trustor." If it can agree to bind itself legally, exactly what basis is it to use to show it is not a legal entity? Are these "honest questions" or do I have to cite a Supreme Court decision as was required by attorney Finney of the "ignorant" pastor who dared ask the original question that brought this whole discussion about?
In many ways the law of ordinary trusts is relied upon by the ELC. The language used by the ELC in its published declaration makes that clear; language such as “property held in trust,” “for the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the true and beneficial owner,” and “the Pastor, can execute a deed on behalf of the Lord Jesus Christ.” All of the elements of a trust are in that language. However, the ELC disqualifies their method as creating an ordinary trust by saying that “The property should be held in trust for the Lord Jesus Christ” and “Actually, the church, by the Pastor, can execute a deed on behalf of the Lord Jesus Christ.” This is ugly because the ELC proposes a trust which sets a church up as a legal entity while virulently opposing the ordinary trust which keeps a church in its spiritual only status (non-legal entity status). This series of articles will prove all this beyond all doubt.
Again, he uses the term "published declaration," pretending something written in our books is legally binding to a church who simply exists as a church. He then uses this "published declaration" to try to prove that "ELC churches" are legal entities. Let me get this straight. In order to be a church that is not a legal entity, a legal instrument has to be declared. If you simply exist as a church, not executing a legal instrument, you will then be a legal entity. Is this really the stand of the 'Separation of Church and State Ministries?' Pastors, rest assured that the churches established by Paul, Titus, Timothy, the Donatists, the Paulicians, John Clarke and Shubal Stearns were legal entities because they did not have the attorney's beloved Declaration of Trust. "Preposterous," says the reasonable pastor. Right.
This brings up some very important questions: If the ELC is what they set themselves up to be – experts in trust law – then why do they always cite law and cases which deal with business and charitable trusts and never from the law of ordinary trust in their attacks against the ordinary trust promoted by the BLC and this “Separation of Church and State Law” ministry? This ministry does not know the answer to that question, but some possibilities follow:
I would ask the author to point out one place where we declared we were experts in trust law. As per usual course, the attorney is simply making things up as he goes. One thing the attorney is good at is presuming to know our motives, as seen below.
By so doing, they mislead those who are unstudied in these matters. Could it be that they knowingly wish to mislead others as they attack the ordinary trust with accusations that it is a legal entity? Business and charitable trusts are legal entities and the ordinary trust is not. Or could it be that they have never read the law of ordinary trusts? Or could it be that they got the language and ideas for their form of trust from the law of business trusts and/or the law of charitable trusts, but then attempted to distinguish their “trust” arrangement from those laws? Or could it be that they got the language and ideas for their method from the law of ordinary trust but do not wish to bring it up because they do not wish to bring attention to the fact that they have created some type of trust? This last conclusion is a strong possibility (1) because they would have one believe that when you do things their way, any matters which might arise concerning any property being held by an ELC church cannot be taken to court; and (2) because, to concede that their method actually requires setting up a trust would be to admit that disputes in land (property tax or otherwise) held by their “trust” can be taken to court. They make the untenable argument that there will be no lawsuits because you cannot take the true or equitable owner, the Lord Jesus Christ, to court. Of course, that is partly true. However, the falsity of the argument is that the legal owner, the trustee can be taken to court (or into an agency procedure; for example, the local property tax board).
Do we knowingly mislead others? No. Neither have we stated a Declaration of Trust or any kind of "ordinary trust" by name is a legal entity.

We ARE guilty of promoting a church existing as a church and not executing a Declaration of Trust (a legal agreement) between a church and a pastor. I will ask again, how is it that a church must execute a legal document in order to NOT be a legal entity, but another church that does not and simply exists as a church IS a legal entity?

Poor Isaac Backus. If only he would have known of the Declaration of Trust, he could have had the proper viewpoint on church organization in America. The church he pastored must have been a legal entity. To my knowledge, he never executed a Declaration of Trust between the church and the pastor.
Anytime anyone initiates a lawsuit for damages (slips on the ice at the church entrance and is damaged, etc.), property tax challenge, or any type challenge involving a legitimate dispute over property (especially real estate) or money, the appropriate court (or agency) will assume jurisdiction and decide the dispute. Effectively, there can be no dispute if there is no legal owner. In the case of one damaged because of the knowing, intentional, or negligent action of another who has a duty to maintain safety of a facility, the probable course of action will probably be to sue the church (which means those in the church) if there is no clearly worded declaration that makes clear that the church owns nothing and is not a legal entity. In other types of disputes, if there is no legal owner, the court (or agency) will take jurisdiction over the property or money and decide to whom it belongs if ownership is at issue or whether a crime or tort was committed in the handling of the property or money.
Interesting.  To my knowledge, he has no experience in this arena of actually helping churches with the above issues.  We do. Been there, done that, helped churches, wrote a book about some of the experiences. I'm not saying he can't gain experience. We would certainly take the time to instruct him on the practical side of the Lordship Church battles.
Consider in more detail liability for damages to someone injured on the property due to the negligence of someone in charge. For example, suppose a person falls on ice while entering the premises of the real estate used as the church meetinghouse due to the negligence of the one (the legal entity/trustee) in charge of the property (the legal owner) and/or the person delegated to remove the ice from the entrance, if any. The injured party’s lawyer will seek out the legal owner, who will not be hard to find. An investigation will be done. That is when the church can be, due to the published statements of the ELC, implicated as the legal entity who holds legal title to the property. When the church is implicated, the members are implicated since the members are the church. Should that scenario arise, the church would be better off incorporated, from a worldly perspective (but see, Spurious rationale for church incorporation: limited liability/incorporation increases liability of church members (Section VI, Chapter 6 of God Betrayed; Chapter 6 of Separation of Church and State) for the heavenly perspective). However, when the recommendations of the BLC and this “Separation of Church and State Law” ministry are followed, the church cannot be implicated and the insurance company from whom the trust (not the church) has bought liability insurance on the real estate will take care of the damages. Of course, should the pastor be proven negligent or responsible for not removing the ice, he and anyone given the responsibility to remove the ice can also be included in the lawsuit. And this is as it should be. It is biblical and it is legal to hold one who intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with negligence injures another or causes another to be injured.
Here we see the clear motive for having a Declaration of Trust. Please refer to Dr. Ben Townsend's blog on this website, where he addressed this succinctly. Finding ways around the inconvenience of a church being a church is a primary motive behind incorporating. It appears from the statement above the same motive behind this magic bullet of a "Declaration of Trust" is so a church can borrow money, get insurance and have a bank account (with the SSN of the pastor). What is wrong with a church merely being a church? Quite a lot according to attorney Finney. It appears the churches he advises require quite a bit of compromise. Oh, and a Declaration of Trust.
Should a lawyer who knows the ELC teaching and the basic law of the various types of trusts be involved in any legal action against land, money, or against one responsible for injury and damages to another, that lawyer could make the argument that the ELC church is a legal entity and include the church in the dispute; an impossibility for the church which places tithes, offerings, and gifts into an ordinary trust which is a non-legal entity in which a trustee administers the trust estate for the benefit of the true, equitable, beneficial owner or the property, the Lord Jesus Christ and is careful not to inadvertently act legally and thereby set herself up as a legal entity.
I suppose anyone could make an argument against anything, but proving an "ELC church" (a misnomer by the way) is an entity has, in our experience, fallen flat. Again, however, remember that we are not primarily concerned with legality but with being biblical, once again revealing a worldview distinct from the attorney Finney.  In retrospect, it is really amazing how many attorneys general, judges and other various representatives of the government have understood this. Attorney Finney postulates in abstract whereas those associated with Ecclesiastical Law Center remember in reality.
These matters will be explained in much more detail, with cited authority, in the accompanying articles, the links to which will be included at the beginning of this article as they are completed. May everyone put aside their pride and seek the truth, for His Glory. Addressing all these matters will be require a little time and study by the novice. You who are interested in these things must patiently go through these articles and do some self-study to determine the truth. Following this teaching as it develops piecemeal will give the interested party time to check the assertions of this author and sources and do some study yourself. If anyone who has studied the teachings of the ELC or the teachings of this “Separation of Church and State Law” ministry is confused or has an honest disagreement based on in-depth studies, this author will be glad to examine an issue with you. Again, if this author can be shown to be wrong, he will publicly repent and present corrections.

Now to the task.
Ah yes. Attorney Finney condescends to teach those "novices" who have not put the study in on the Declaration of Trust. Where was Finney when the Paulicians, Waldenses, or historic Baptists of America who knew nothing of such a ridiculous document were witnessing, teaching and preaching? Oh that's right. According to some, there has never been a properly ordered church until the pastor/trustee signed at the bottom line of a Declaration of Trust document thereby providing a legal way to get insurance, borrow money and open a bank account. Really?
0 Comments

Pinning Jello to the Wall - Part 2

11/28/2014

1 Comment

 
Continuing my review and hoping that nothing changes and his doctrine is finally settled, I would like to attach the following remarks to Jerald Finney's "Introduction" in his book about the Ecclesiastical Law Center.

  • This short introductory article replaces prior versions of this article. The initial article indicated that this is a work in progress. As the author learns more as he studies to prepare the articles which discuss Chapter 18 of Betrayed by Man, he makes modifications.  This article narrows the most important issues down much more than prior versions.

Much of the vitriol has been removed from this document, thankfully.  To slander fellow Christians in the way attorney Finney did is unconscionable. I believe I now understand why he did it  He holds his "doctrine of the Declaration of Trust" to be equal to scripture. Unfortunately, however, he has also removed his apology to the pastor he accused of asking an unlearned question. I believe the question was "does the Declaration of Trust create an entity." Although his initial knee-jerk reaction was to rub some poor dumb pastor's nose in his own ignorance, he has now spent the last month and 9 chapters to address this issue.  It wasn't the unlearned question that was at issue.  It was the esteem with which attorney Finney holds his own teaching that was the issue. I believe the poor ignorant pastor (he is not ignorant, by the way, and asked a reasonable question) still deserves the apology to be included.  After all, he was castigated by the attorney publicly on a social media network and on his own blog.

It seems the attorney still reserves the right to change his mind on things we point out that are incorrect.  I am fine with this, but it does make addressing his writings difficult. Due to the instability made obvious by such major changes in his document in such a short period of time, one has to assume he is learning as he goes. I am fine with this as well. It does make me ask the question though, didn't he have this figured out before he started telling pastors of his "beyond question" and "flawless both legally and biblically" teachings?  Could it be that he is not used to being contradicted but merely obeyed as the final authority on church organization?  I could not imagine any pastors that consider themselves "ELC" pastors following us unquestioningly. As a matter of fact, I laugh as I read this when thinking of certain "ELC" pastors. There would be nobody to follow. We are merely pastors helping pastors.

  • For many years, the Ecclesiastical Law Center (“ELC”) has publicly attacked the Biblical Law Center (“BLC”) and the BLC method whereby churches establish an ordinary trust by adopting a Declaration of Trust (“DOT”). The position of this author for many years has been that people should look at all points of view and decide how they want to organize their churches. He had been asked to respond to ELC misinformation and attacks several times over the years, most recently by his pastor, Pastor Jason Cooley after he read Chapter 18 of Betrayed by Man, a book by Robin Wright and Ben Townsend of the ELC. Motivated by the obvious falsehoods in ELC writings which were being disseminated to many sincere and good men of God and which attacked and misrepresented the DOT and the ordinary trust thereby created while promoting a very ill-advised method for a church to hold property in trust for the Lord Jesus by the pastor for the church, this author finally decided to take on the task.

For many years, the ELC has not attacked the BLC and DOT. We do have a chapter in our book about the Declaration of Trust and how it puts churches and pastors in danger.  Also, it is Chapter 18 of Approved by Man. Not Betrayed by Man.  Seriously, he's responding to a book of which he did not read the title? How can we be sure of his interpretation of the contents when he gets the title so wrong? We disagree that our way for a church to hold property is ill-advised.

  • This is not about the ELC, the BLC, or this ‘Separation of Church and State Law’ ministry. This is about the Lord Jesus Christ and his churches and the truth. That is why believers should be concerned about these matters, even though the issues and answers may initially seem complex. You may be a pastor of a church who has organized according to the recommendations of the ELC or according those of the BLC or this ‘Separation of Church and State Law’ ministry. You may believe the literature and teachings of your particular leaders.

Here we see the first half of the problem.  Finney sees himself as a leader of pastors.  This is completely foreign to our thinking and it took some time of discussion with Assistant Director Keith Hoover for me to understand the mindset.  Which ELC pastor would say the ELC is their leader?  This is a fundamental disagreement as to what helping churches is about.  We have not set out to have a following and we do not to my knowledge have a following.  Apparently the BLC and Jerald Finney do. Proper authority is at issue here.

  • However, the ELC teaching are so different from those of this ministry that only one of the teachings can be valid legally and biblically.

Issue number two, and that which truly separates us from 'Separation of Church and State Law' ministry.  We view scripture as being our sole authority. Are our teachings illegal? We don't really care. Paul's teachings were illegal. John the Baptist's teachings were illegal. William Tyndale's teachings were illegal. John Clarke's teachings were illegal. One thing about the above? They were biblical. If the 'Separation of Church and State Law' ministry is worried about legality first of all or even on par with being biblical, run from this group and do so quickly. An Independent Baptist Lordship pastor and church does not recognize any other authority than the Lord Jesus Christ and his revealed word.

  • For that reason, churches and pastors who are concerned about the biblical doctrine of the church need to find out which one is right. The author humbly submits that there is nothing more important than keeping the bride and wife of Christ pure and chaste and that all sides of this controversy must set aside their pride and diligently seek the truth in order that the church you are a member of may be prepared in the matter of church organization for His coming.”

I agree, and encourage attorney Finney to reexamine his "flawless" teaching and "beyond question" doctrine. Anyone who holds legality issues to be equal with biblical issues has an issue.

The rest of the introduction will be addressed in further blog posts.

1 Comment
<<Previous

    Author

    Pastor Jason Burton of Cornerstone Historic Baptist Church in Union City, Indiana, is the Research Director for the ELC. He and his wife Amy have been married for a long time and have a bunch of children.

    Jason Burton
    Jason Burton, Research Director, Ecclesiastical Law Center
    View my profile on LinkedIn

    Archives

    April 2020
    December 2019
    January 2018
    April 2016
    March 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Contact Info
Ecclesiastical Law Center
P.O. Box 35
Mesick, MI 49668
231-577-8358

A Ministry of ​Bible Believer's Baptist Church and Cornerstone Historic Baptist Church
Email Info
Director Keith Hoover - [email protected]
Education Director Ben Townsend - [email protected]
Research Director Jason Burton - [email protected]
West Coast Representative Dan Zike - [email protected]
Website by Radiance Graphic Design