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

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

Pinning Jello to the Wall

11/26/2014

9 Comments

 
We have, of late, become aware of a lawyer by the name of Jerald Finney who was deeply offended that we found nothing biblical about a document he is pushing amongst the unincorporated Baptists. His "teachings" have undergone rapid evolution, a sort of punctuated equilibrium, where sudden new changes prove that he was not only incorrect to begin with, but that he appears to be making things up as he goes. I do not wish to be unkind toward the attorney, but I do wish to set some things straight. In this post, I will address the preface to his new book with which he honors the Ecclesiastical Law Center. To my knowledge, this is the first book that has been written entirely about the ELC. His document has changed significantly and appears to still be morphing and some of his most outrageous statements have been taken down from his site for obvious reasons. If he changes things again, I am not responsible, because responding to him has been rather like pinning Jello to the wall.

Starting with some of the public vitriol in recent weeks:

  • The ELC has its tentacles in many places: conferences, Baptist history tours, other churches (the organization sends out what it calls 007 spies to monitor and report (usually it misreports)) what is going on in the target churches, the web, etc.

The ELC has tentacles? We send out spies? I wish I had known this. I would have applied for the position. "007 Spy" would look much better on the business card than "research director."

We dare go to conferences? We dare send someone associated with the ELC to the Baptist History Tour (that was me, by the way...great tour)? We dare to go to churches that are not our own? I suppose attorney Finney would have us sit at home and write books about other organizations, trying to promote ourselves on the back of another law center that is attempting to help pastors and churches through their teachings. At least he is leading by example.

I would like to draw your attention to the recently added preface of his new "book" on the ELC.

  • This book answers, exposes, and defeats the long published and continuing attacks by an organization called the Ecclesiastical Law Center (“ELC”) against the Declaration of Trust (“DOT”) and the ordinary trust thereby created which are promoted by the Biblical Law Center (“BLC”) and this Old Paths Baptist Church “Separation of Church and State Law” ministry. This series of articles will prove the fallacies of the former and the validity of the latter. The central focus will be Chapter 18, “Should a Church Be Placed In a Declaration of Trust?” of the ELC book, Approved by Man: A Case for Biblical Reasonableness, by Robin Wright and Ben Townsend. The ELC has no lawyers to guide them in their forays into the legal arena. 

It is the position of the ELC that the Bible is the final authority for all matters of faith and practice. These are spiritual matters and the local New Testament church is included within this realm. Where in scripture are we told to go to the lawyers for answers as to church organization? Christian, is the Word of God not sufficient for a pastor to understand how a church is to be organized and conducted? Not according to attorney Finney. 

  • Some may think that is a good thing, and in some cases it is.

At least we have a concession here. Attorney Finney says that in some cases, it is desirable to keep an attorney away from church issues. I suppose our disagreement then is only a matter of the extent of keeping an attorney away.

  • Spiritual matters should never be addressed by an unsaved person, including an unsaved lawyer or a “Christian” lawyer whose legal education controls his spiritual beliefs and earthly actions. Both legal and biblical issues are involved in the application of the biblical doctrines of government, church, and separation of church and state; and understanding all those doctrines and making the proper applications so as to keep a church out of the legal arena is absolutely necessary for a church who wishes to glorify God.  On the other hand, without serious training in legal research and analysis, one will find it very difficult to navigate the legal landscape in search of answers to church related issues. To understand the law of trusts, for example, one must be able to properly research the vast collections contained both online and in legal libraries. This is not to say that one who has watched a lawyer do a simple thing such as successfully countering a church property tax challenge cannot then, himself, do the same thing. On the other hand, researching and applying more complex and/or intricate legal issues may require the skills of one trained in the law.

By writing a “Declaration of Trust” between the church and the pastor, Jerald Finney wants us to believe he is keeping churches out of the legal realm? Can we really not administrate Christ’s church without a lawyer to guide us? Questions to consider:

Where in the bible is the pastor called the "Trustee?"

Where in the bible is the church to execute a "Declaration of Trust" with the pastor to hold property?

Where in the bible is the pastor told he has the power to bind the entire church (which is a spiritual entity) to financial debt or lease agreements?

  • The BLC was started by Al Cunningham, a born-again lawyer, who initiated the use of a DOT which creates an ordinary trust into which a church may place their tithes, offerings and gifts to be administered by a pastor/trustee for the benefit of the true, equitable, and beneficial owner of the money and property held by the trust (the trust estate). The church is the trustor but the ordinary trust is not the church, and the church is not the trust. The ordinary trust is not a legal entity, and the church remains a non-legal entity (a spiritual entity only) so long as the church does not act legally in any way.

Again, attorney Finney is unable to think spiritually and must view all things legally. Is there a pastor who is truly comfortable calling the church over which he has oversight a “trustor” and himself a “trustee?” There is a reason a pastor should be uncomfortable with this.  It is legal terminology, not biblical.

  • This author became lead counsel for the BLC in 2005, sometime after Al Cunningham went home to be with the Lord. His first great task in that position required him to do extensive Bible first and legal second research to satisfy himself that the trust created by the DOT utilized by the BLC was in line with both biblical and legal principles. The initial period of intense study resulted in the book God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application. The author has continued his studies to this day and has published several smaller books, booklets, and tracts as well as many articles and audio teachings. All these resources are free online, most of the books in online, PDF, and/or Kindle form. One can order 4 of the books  in both Kindle and softback – go to Order information for books by Jerald Finney. This book is now available in online form only. The author concluded beyond any doubt that the DOT and the ordinary trust thereby created which are recommended by the BLC and now by this ministry is flawless, both Scripturally and legally.

“The author” borders on delusional. Which of us would say that our teaching is perfect, flawless both scripturally and legally? He is not coming from the same mindset of most pastors and church leaders that I know. The statement is made that his teaching is “beyond any doubt.” Of course there is doubt, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Many pastors have taken a look at the “Declaration of Trust” and have decided it would be unwise and unbiblical to bind a spiritual entity to an agreement between a “Trustee (the pastor)” and the “Trustor (the church).” I am certain that he is aware of this and it that grates him to think there are those who do not hold him as an authority.

As a Christian service, I am informing others that, yes, you too can check even an attorney’s writings and teachings with scripture as the Bereans did. In fact, it is Christian duty. In an earlier incarnation of this book (while it was still a series of articles), attorney Finney lambasted a Christian brother who dared to ask a question. He does not like his authority to be challenged, but don’t you think God knows more about a church being a church than even attorney Finney?

  • After an honest examination of ELC teachings concerning the DOT and the trust, one can safely conclude that the ELC attacks are without knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. Their teachers and leaders are untrained novices in the science of legal research and analysis. One purpose of this book is to expose the fallacies of their attacks and teachings; but that is not the main purpose. The primary reason for this book is to educate everyone who has an interest in these matters. Nothing is more important than keeping the local church pure and chaste. Hopefully, the ELC and those churches who depend upon them will come to a knowledge of the truth and repent. This ministry will repent of any error brought to our attention. Our goal is to glorify God, and that cannot be done by letting pride, motive, or bias overrule truth.

If the person has to tell you they are honest, well you know the rest. Here we are accused of being without knowledge, without understanding, without wisdom and acting as untrained novices.  Also, though, notice that attorney Finney says that those who do not have a Declaration of Trust need to “come to the knowledge of the truth” and “repent” of not having the DOT.

It takes an extraordinary amount of arrogance to claim one needs to “come to the knowledge of the truth” of the Declaration of Trust and “repent” of not having done so sooner.  This is especially true considering the fact that the Declaration of Trust is not found in the Bible!

Attorney Finney, show us your argument from scripture and please quit using biblical terminology such as “repent” and “heresies” regarding your teachings. They are not on the same level.

9 Comments

    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