<![CDATA[Ecclesiastical Law Center

<![CDATA[Ecclesiastical Law Center - Ben\'s Blog]]>Thu, 06 Feb 2025 08:33:51 -0800Weebly<![CDATA["A Time to Laugh" Ecclesiastes 3:4]]>Fri, 02 Jan 2015 20:45:11 GMThttp://www.lordshipchurches.info/bens-blog/a-time-to-laugh-ecclesiastes-34

Some of the best Ordinary Attorney jokes I have ever come across. I do not know why Ordinary Attorneys get such sarcastic humor dealt their way. Of course, I do not personally know any attorneys who would counter the humorous thoughts that their jokes would portray.

The National Institutes of Health have announced that they will no longer be using rats for medical experimentation. In their place, they will use attorneys. They have given three reasons for this decision:
1. There are now more attorneys than there are rats.
2. The medical researchers don’t become as emotionally attached to the attorneys as they did to the rats.
3. No matter how hard you try, there are some things that rats won’t do.

A man woke up in a hospital bed and called for his doctor. He asked “Give it to me straight. How long have I got?” The physician replied that he doubted that his patient would survive the night. The man then said “Call for my lawyer.” When the lawyer arrived, the man asked for his physician to stand on one side of the bed, while the lawyer stood on the other. The man then laid back and closed his eyes. When he remained silent for several minutes, the physician asked what he had in mind. The man replied “Jesus died with a thief on either side, and I thought I’d check out the same way.”

Question: How many lawyers can you place on the point of a needle?
Answer: Ten, if you stand them on their heads.

Following a distinguished legal career, a man arrived at the Gates of Heaven, accompanied by the Pope, who had the misfortune to expire on the same day. The Pope was greeted first by St. Peter, who escorted him to his quarters. The room was somewhat shabby and small, similar to that found in a low-grade Motel 6-type establishment. The lawyer was then taken to his room, which was a palatial suite including a private swimming pool, a garden, and a terrace overlooking the Gates. The attorney was somewhat taken aback, and told St. Peter, “I’m really quite surprised at these rooms, seeing as how the Pope was given such small accommodations.” St. Peter replied, “We have over a hundred Popes here, and we’re really very bored with them. We’ve never had a lawyer.”

Question: What do you get if you send the Godfather to law school?
Answer: An offer you can’t understand.

Good News: A busload of lawyers ran off a cliff. The bus was destroyed and there were no survivors. Bad News: There were three empty seats.

Question: What do you have when you bury six lawyers up to their necks in sand?
Answer: Not enough sand.

A mother and son were walking through a cemetery, and passed by a headstone inscribed “Here lies a good lawyer and an honest man.” The little boy read the headstone, looked up at his mother, and asked “Mommy, why did they bury two men there?”

A physician, an engineer, and an attorney were discussing who among them belonged to the oldest of the three professions represented. The physician said, “Remember that, on the sixth day, God took a rib from Adam and fashioned Eve, making him the first surgeon. Therefore, medicine is the oldest profession.” The engineer replied, “But, before that, God created the heavens and earth from chaos and confusion, and thus he was the first engineer. Therefore, engineering is an older profession than medicine.” Then, the lawyer spoke up, “Yes, but who do you think created all of the chaos and confusion?”

A Bar Association charter flight was hijacked by terrorists. When the terrorists made their press release, they said that, until their demands were met, they would release one lawyer per hour.

A man went to a brain surgeon to request a brain transplant . He noted prices were different for brains available from various donors. A doctor’s brain was $500, a banker’s brain was $1500, and a scientist’s brain was $2500. Then, he noticed in a far recess of the shelf, a jar marked with a price tag of $50,000. When he inquired about the unusually high price, he was told, “Oh, that’s a lawyer’s brain–it’s never been used!”

Question: What do you get when you cross a librarian with a lawyer?
Answer: All the information you need–but you can’t understand a word of it.

One day in Contract Law class, Professor Jepson asked one of his better students, “Now if you were to give someone an orange, how would you go about it?” The student replied, “Here’s an orange.” The professor was livid. “No! No! Think like a lawyer!” The student then recited, “Okay, I’d tell him, ‘I hereby give and convey to you all and singular, my estate and interests, rights, claim, title, claim and advantages of and in, said orange, together with all its rind, juice, pulp, and seeds, and all rights and advantages with full power to bite, cut, freeze and otherwise eat, the same, or give the same away with and without the pulp, juice, rind and seeds, anything herein before or hereinafter or in any deed, or deeds, instruments of whatever nature or kind whatsoever to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding…”

A quote attributed to one of America’s founders, John Adams, in the play 1776: “I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, two men are called a law firm, and three or more become a Congress.”

A Russian, a Cuban, an American and a Lawyer are in a train. The Russian takes a bottle of the best vodka out of his pack, pours some into a glass, drinks it, and says: “In USSR, we have the best vodka of the world–nowhere in the world you can find Vodka as good as the one we produce in the Ukraine. And we have so much of it, that we can just throw it away…” Saying that, he opens the window and throws the rest of the bottle through it. All the others are quite impressed. The Cuban takes a pack of Havanas, takes one of them, lights it, and begins to smoke it, saying: “In Cuba, we have the best cigars of the world: Havanas, nowhere in the world there is so many and so good cigars and we have so much of them, that we can just throw them away…”. Saying that, he throws the pack of Havanas through the window. One more time, everybody is quite impressed. At this time, the American just stands up, opens the window, and throws the lawyer through it.

Question: How many lawyer jokes are there?
Answer: Only three. The balance are documented case histories.

]]><![CDATA["Well, Churches With Trusts, I Just Cannot Help You." - Ben Townsend]]>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 06:33:19 GMThttp://www.lordshipchurches.info/bens-blog/well-churches-with-trusts-i-just-cannot-help-you-ben-townsend   “Hi, I’m an attorney; I’m here to help.” – Ordinary AttorneysIn 2004, when I was calculating the effect of the Falwell case in Virginia, where Thomas Road Baptist Church sued in court in order to become a corporation, I started checking the results. How did I do this? I simply Googled “Virginia Church Corporation.” The return I got was over 2000 websites of attorneys in Virginia wanting to provide services for any and all Virginia churches who now wanted to become a corporation. And they were charging an average of $1500 per church to incorporate it. I followed the money. That is the best route to take. Always ask the question, “Who will benefit the most from their church polity stance?” Now churches in Virginia can have the benefits of being a corporation. And a corporation must be represented by an attorney. The Sharks are feeding off the bait.

When the ELC unincorporates a church, we never charge for our services. We include all the paperwork, sample letters to various agencies that should be notified of the change. Yes, we do ask for expenses for an onsite visit to the church to make sure every question is answered by everyone in the church who has a question. And we never have turned down a love offering for preaching at a church (well, I did a few times). But we never charge any set fee for anything. We are just overjoyed when a church and pastor want to divest itself of the old church corporation and become what the Bible wants it to be – a Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

     “If You Are a Trustee, You Need an Attorney” – Professor Gerry W. Beyer, Texas Tech U. School of Law

Beyer writes, “In In re Guetersloh, 326 S.W.3d 737, Trustee attempted to represent himself pro se, that is, without an attorney, in both his capacity as a trustee and in his individual capacity. The appellate court stated that Trustee had no right to proceed pro se in his representative (trustee) capacity but could proceed without an attorney with regards to claims in his individual capacity. The court explained that allowing a Trustee to proceed pro se in his representative capacity would be the unauthorized practice of law. The court stated that ‘if a non-attorney trustee appears in court in behalf of the trust, he or she necessarily represents the interests of others, which amounts to the unauthorized practice of law.’ The court relied on Steele v. McDonald, 202 S.W.3d 926 in which the court held that a non-lawyer may not appear pro se in the capacity as an estate’s independent executor. MORAL: A trustee who is not an attorney may not appear in court pro se in the trustee’s representative capacity.” In other words, Professor Beyer says that a Trustee of a Trust MUST have an attorney when he goes into court. And if the Trustee “represents the interest of others” when HE tries to go into court pro se, then the Attorney who sits with the Trustee must represent “the interest of others” also. Hmmm….interesting.

     But Who Does the Attorney Really Represent?

Tina N. Babel, an attorney with Carmody McDonald in St. Louis, licensed in California, Illinois and Missouri, specializes in civil and fiduciary litigation. She writes in the Illinois Bar Journal in October 2010 and answers the question: “Does Attorney-Client Privilege Belong to the Trustee or the Beneficiary?” This specialized Trust attorney states, “In a number of jurisdictions, courts have held that when a trustee retains an attorney on behalf of the trust, the attorney’s client is in fact the beneficiary. While acknowledging that a trustee might be discouraged by the loss of the attorney-client privilege from seeking counsel’s advice, these courts emphasize that the trustee or the attorney, or both, has a fiduciary duty to beneficiaries that requires him or her to reasonably report to the beneficiaries. This approach has been labeled the fiduciary-duty exception.”

She continues: “Riggs Natl Bank of Washington, DC v. Zimmer is often cited for this proposition. In Riggs, the trustees communicated certain facts to their attorneys to secure a legal opinion for the trustees’ petition for instructions and in anticipation of potential tax litigation for the trust, and the beneficiaries sought to compel production of the attorneys internal memorandum. The Delaware Chancery Court found that because the memorandum was prepared for the benefit of the beneficiaries and there was nothing in the record to suggest that the purpose of the memorandum was ‘defensive on the trustee’s part,’ the memorandum should be produced. A number of courts follow Riggs and the policies set forth therein: that the attorneys’ client is the beneficiary of the trust and, as a result, communications with the trustee are not privileged.”

     “I May Be Ignorant, but I am Not Stupid.” – Ben Townsend

First, the churches over the last 28 years that the ELC has unincorporated have never needed an Officer of the Court (Attorney) for any reason whatsoever. Any why should they need an officer of the court if the court has no jurisdiction over a church of Jesus Christ? So, why would an attorney be promoting a church polity that would include a Trust? Well, if “he” is the only attorney who is an expert in church trusts, then I suppose it is logical that he has decided not to chase ambulances, but to set up Ambulance Papers (a Trust) in order to make himself useful to those churches who use his trust. Second, if this Ordinary Attorney does go into court to represent the Trustee, is he willing to concede that in some jurisdictions he is actually representing God (as Beneficiary) in court? So, does God need this kind of representation by an officer of the court? Third, am I being kind enough to keep giving Ordinary Attorneys plenty of questions to continue to answer in their books? I sure hope so. The most difficult procedure is holding off on blog posts so these particular Ordinary Attorneys are not bombarded by them.

]]><![CDATA[I Still Know Nothing About Trusts...BUT...]]>Mon, 29 Dec 2014 04:25:40 GMThttp://www.lordshipchurches.info/bens-blog/i-still-know-nothing-about-trustsbut …I CAN READ!

In the case of Philipsborn Irrevocable Insurance Trust v. Avon Capital (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163912, the Court made some interesting observations when the subject of “Jurisdiction” came up concerning whether or not the Trust was a Legal Entity. We will be quoting extensively from the record, but not too extensively that you won’t read the entire case for yourselves. It is only eight pages, but it is VERY interesting reading for anyone who stands put on a Trust NOT being a legal entity.

     BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

“The case was filed originally as a contract dispute between Palintiff Thomas D. Philipsborn Irrevocable Trust (‘the Trust’) and Defendant Avon Capital, LLC.” A third party Defendant Financial Life Service (FLS) “challenged the courts jurisdiction that the Trust is not a legal entity, and thus has no capacity to sue or be sued.” And so the Trustee sought to join the suit as the Plaintiff. “FLS, however, asserts that because the Trust in incapable of bringing suit, the Court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction when it issued its prior rulings. If that is the case, this Court would be required to vacate those rulings.”

     The Court Analyzes the Jurisdiction

“As part of the ‘irreducible constitutional minimum of standing,’ the Plaintiff must have suffered an injury-in-fact which is concrete and particularized (cites excluded). The injury requirement is satisfied only if the party seeking review is itself among the injured. (cites excluded) The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing standing. (cite excluded) FLS’s Motion raises two questions: (1) whether a trust is capable of suffering an injury sufficient to meet the requirements of Article III, and (2) whether the Trust suffered an injury that wouldsustain this Court’s jurisdiction over the prior motions. The Court is not aware of any case that has analyzed whether a trust recognized under state law – a mere collection of property – has the capacity to suffer in injury-in-fact. When a case is brought inadvertently by a trust instead of the trustee, the usual practice is for the court to dismiss the case and allow an amended pleading to reflect that the trustee has joined the suit, thereby resolving any standing issues before anything substantial happens in the case. (cites not included) In this case however, this issue was not raised until after the parties had litigated for more than two years and the Court had issued several rulings. The standing issue calls those rulings into question.

“To analyze a trust’s capacity to suffer an injury, this Court must first address underlying principles of trust law. The word ‘trust’ can carry different meanings in different situations, but it refers generally to ‘a fiduciary relationship in which one person holds a property interest, subject to an equitable obligation to keep or use that interest for the benefit of another.” Bogert’s Trusts and Estates, Ch. 1, sec. 1; see also, Restatement (Third) of Trusts, section 2. A trust relationship requires trust property, or res. Sometimes the words ‘trust’ or ‘trust estate’ refer specifically to the property, and sometimes ‘trust’ can refer to the set of relationships between property, trustees, and beneficiaries. (cites excluded)

“As a general principle, ‘a trust is not a juristic person and the trustee is the only party entitled to bring suit’ on behalf of the trust. (cite excluded) For example, courts have explained that ‘historically, a trust estate was not a juridical entity, hence the observation that a suit by strangers to the trust must be brought against the trustees thereof individually and not against the fictional entity. (cites excluded) Federal courts follow this doctrine by holding that lawsuits must be brought in the name of the trustee, administrator, or executor because trusts are not the ‘real party in interest.’ (cites excluded) But just because a trust is not a juridical entity – and thus not the real party in interest – does not mean that a trust is not an entity at all, and that it is incapable of suffering an injury. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not answer whether Article III permits a federal court to hear a suit brought by a trust.

“The Supreme Court has explained that even though a trust is ‘an abstraction,’ it is ‘sometimes dealt with as though it had a separate existence.‘ (Greenough v. Tax Assessors of City of Newport, 331 U.S. 486, 493, 67 S. Ct. 1400, 91 L. Ed. 1621 (1947). When it comes to taxes, a trust is a separate entity because ‘Congress has seen fit so to deal with the trust.’ (Id. at 493-94). Trusts can lose money or have losses attributed to them for tax purposes – the sorts of injuries that one would go to federal court to correct, if necessary. See, Anderson v. Wilson, 289 U.S. 20, 26-27 (1933)

“Trusts are treated similarly in the ERISA context. ERISA provides that ‘an employee benefit plan may sue and be sued under this subchapter as an entity.” 29 U.S.C. section 1132(d)(1). Like an ERISA benefit plan with its beneficiaries, administrators, and benefit providers, a trust involves a set of obligations between other entities: the trustees, property, and beneficiaries… At least in the tax and ERISA contexts, trusts (or similar entities) can maintain suits in federal court, which means they must be capable of suffering injuries and establishing standing. This Court sees no reason why Article III would require the Court to distinguish state law trusts. Thus, a trust recognized by state law can suffer an injury-in-fact.“

     My Little Comment

Although I do not know how to do legal research on par with an Ordinary Attorney, I am combing through more cases, mainly federal, along this line. I have read enough of these to know that someone needs to do a little more intensive and extensive and exhaustive studying. I have honestly tried to study these cases more intensively myself,…but I just get a headache. So instead, I just read them to see what they say. I know it sounds simple, but when one is “already defeated,” why try harder?

]]><![CDATA[A Law, Made by Man, Will be Changed]]>Sat, 27 Dec 2014 01:03:57 GMThttp://www.lordshipchurches.info/bens-blog/a-law-made-by-man-will-be-changed    Lobbying for Christian Righteousness…

When I was the head lobbyist for the Indiana Coalition for Religious Freedom for seven years back in the 80’s and 90’s, I had a box at the Indiana State House with my name on it. The State House staff would place in my box every bill concerning churches, day cares, Christian schools, and various and sundry Church/State relationships. I would get these bills at the end of the week and pass them out to my paralegal class on Legislation, who would read through them and determine if I needed to lobby for or against certain bills. The Marriage recodification bill in 1989 was basically rewritten by me so that it could include Church Covenant Weddings. This bill was presented by State Senators on the Senate committee in my behalf. I spoke before that committee, explaining that certain churches were already doing Covenant Weddings, and we wanted the language on the Statute to be loosely interpreted so that could continue. I showed the committee that all marriage statutes were to be “liberally construed” anyway, so this would fit the Judicial intent also. The committee voted unanimously for the changes in the bill and the bill ended up being passed by the state legislature.

     …All to No Avail!

Years later, after I had moved out of the state, I was working on getting a military couple a pay increase who had a Christian Covenant Wedding Certificate. I read through the same statute that took me literally hundreds of hours and a process of buying lunches for Senators, speaking to sub-committees and standing committees to get the bill through. I was stunned to notice that all of my “liberally construed” language was changed and made “mandatory” for all couples married in the state of Indiana. My “may’s” were all changed to “must’s.” My “shall’s” were all changed to “must’s.” I realized a great truth. When any law is passed, the chances for it to be changed increase exponentially.

     “Congress shall make NO LAW…”

Many Juris-Doctors over the last 200 years have argued in futility that the first ten Amendments of the Constitution were not helpful for individuals. Even the first Amendment states that “Congress shall make NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” I understand the Federalists were attempting to bind down the government by the chains of the Constitution, but still, the first Amendment is A LAW MADE respecting the establishment of religion, AND prohibiting the free exercise of religion. We have first Amendment Supreme Court Opinions BECAUSE we have a first Amendment.

For anyone to say a law will not change is naïve on their part. Laws do not stay the same. Anyone who tells you the law they are relying on for their legal remedy will always be the same is “selling you something.” Do not trust them. I have taught college courses on several law topics. I have taught about a dozen classes on Common Law and about half a dozen on Constitutional Law. My favorite course from my students’ perspective has always been “The History of Anglo-American Law.” I usually start the course giving a test on certain laws passed legislatively, asking the students to comment on these laws as to whether they are Biblical or not. Then I proceed to mark each of their answers wrong (no matter how they answered them) and hand them back their test with a ZERO at the top. Then I proceed to teach the course, at least 40 hours in the history of Anglo-American Law. By the end of the course, the students progressed to where they find legislative statutes (malum prohibitum) repugnant. And it did not matter how many of them argued FOR making certain laws during the course; by the end they were completely understanding why NO LAW was better than “A” law, even if it was a perceived righteous law. Righteous laws can become unrighteous laws by adding or subtracting a single word.

     A Trust is NOT a Legal Entity, Well… Maybe Not Much Longer.

Take for example, 76 Am.Jur. 2d, section 3 on Trusts. It states, “A trust is not a legal entity.” This statement relies upon a 2002 case, Stevens Family Trust v. Huthsing. Law Professor Edward Halbach, who was one if the writers of the Restatement Third of Trusts of 2009, wrote in the California Law Review the following: “Without abandoning the basic definition of a trust as a fiduciary relationship, there appear to be subtle but practical significant departures from the traditional concept that a trust is not an ‘entity’.” (Vol. 8, page 1882) Halbach’s next section, under the heading “B. Increasing Recognition as an Entity,” proceeds to give two pages worth of court decisions and changes toward “typical trusts.” He states, “The tax law, however, has long treated the typical trust as AN ENTITY separate from the person who serves as trustee.” (id. at 1882) (See, e.g., I.R.C. Sections 641-679, 1998, Subsection J)

In a lengthy footnote at the end of section B (Increasing Recognition as an Entity), Halbach quotes Jeffrey Schoenblum, “The Hague Convention on Trusts,” who wrote, “The Convention…requires recognition of the trust as a distinct legal entity….Article 11 sets forth certain attributes of the trust that must be recognized.” (Ellipses in the original, nothing taken out or added by me. -Ben)

But, I digress. It was there all the time. One only has to look at and read the paragraph AFTER the one furnished us by the Ordinary Attorney. That is the paragraph of 76 Am.Jur. 2d, section 3 on Trusts. AFTER that section is a paragraph from the book “Restatement (Third) of Trusts.” That paragraph starts out with the bold word Observation. The rest of the paragraph reads: “The Restatement states that increasingly modern common-law and statutory concepts and terminology tacitly recognize the trust as a legal “entity,” consisting of the trust estate and the associated fiduciary relation between the trustee and the beneficiaries. This is increasingly and appropriately reflected both in language (referring, for example, to the duties or liability of a trustee to “the trust”) and in doctrine, especially in distinguishing between the trustee personally or as an individual and the trustee in a fiduciary or representative capacity.”

I do not know much about Trusts, but I agree with Professor Halbach that laws are always changing.

]]><![CDATA[Zacchaeus, What a Wee Little Man]]>Thu, 25 Dec 2014 02:10:27 GMThttp://www.lordshipchurches.info/bens-blog/zacchaeus-what-a-wee-little-manThe Bible Story of Zacchaeus, the Wee, Little Man

There is a true story in the Bible in Luke, chapter 19 about a man who wanted to see Jesus. Because he was so “little of stature,” the Bible says that he “ran before, and climbed up into a sycomore tree” to see Jesus. He also had a greater view of everyone else (“the press”). He supposed that he would see Jesus better, but Jesus was there to see him. Would it have mattered to Jesus had Zacchaeus been in the tree or behind the press? Probably not. Jesus was going to Zacchaeus’ house anyway. So, why did Zacchaeus have to climb up on that 28-year-old tree? Poor tree. Zacchaeus dug his heels in to the trunk, clawed his way to the first branch, then to the second, and up onto the third branch, with his legs straddling that third branch, waiting to see the throng pass by under him. What a great vantage point he had. Waiting to see if a 33-year-old Jesus had a balding spot, and watching all those “short” people jumping up to get a glimpse of the Savior. He must have felt like BJOC (big Jew on campus).

The Application of Zacchaeus, the Wee, Little Man

Lots of people today think that they can use 28-year-old established trees to climb up on and make themselves look larger than they really are. They do not have the character to allow time and circumstances to mold them or their ministry into what the Lord wants it to be. They usually take the short cut, climb on the backs of established trees, and try to see Jesus. But in the long run, the Lord will still come right to them and say, “Make haste, and come down” off that 28-year-old tree. I’m paraphrasing now, “Zacchaeus, stand on your own two feet. I, your Lord, will judge you according to what you have done.” Verse 8 says, “Zacchaeus stood.” No longer needing that 28 year old tree to climb upon to look taller than he really was, Zacchaeus finally stood on his own merits, and not the merits of a 28-year-old tree that he Lord had blessed through all the storms and winds of life.

The Time I Could Have Been Zacchaeus, the Wee, Little Man

Years ago, a former Associate Pastor of a large church in Indiana called me. He first apologized to me for believing all the lies, rumors, and innuendoes someone else had been spreading about me. I accepted his apology and said it was alright, many others had called me in the same way. I never held a grudge or wished ill on anyone. He stated that basically the same thing had happened to him. He proceeded to tell me the story of his banishment from the “kingdom.” He said that the Lord had led him to write a book against the pastor who had excommunicated him, and he asked me if I would write a chapter in that book. I immediately said, “No.” I told him that I would never write anything negative about a current pastor of a church.

After several years, that current pastor resigned from his church and moved 1000 miles away. But when he did, he did not join a local church in his area. This was something this pastor would have excoriated any past member of his church had they done the exact same thing. “When you move to a different area, join a church, and become active in that church!” Interesting how men suddenly change their Biblical beliefs when it comes to their own circumstances, almost as if they were above the Bible and their own teaching. It was only at that time, when this former pastor had too much time on his hands, he started spreading more things about me, was he stopped in his tracks by other pastors who disagreed with his spreading discord about a current pastor of a church (me). I am still thankful for those pastors who took the grief for me and struck back against such denominational tyranny, and a denominational tyrant. Still, I held back any “Zacchaeusism.” “Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips (Proverbs 27:2)

Zacchaeus’ attempt to improve their stature by self-proclamation. They use words (incorrectly, I might add) like “Author,” when they are nothing like an author. Just because a person writes a book or two, it does not make them an author. The true definition of author is one who writes as a profession. I have written five books, but would never consider myself an author. But living their lives in their own subjective world, Zacchaeus’ see themselves as much more important than they really are. Now, the real Zacchaeus stated, “If I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.” Notice how the Zacchaeus’ of life are such braggers. Like saying, “If any man can show me where I am wrong, I will repent.” They love the hypothetical word “if.” Jesus rightly tells these Zacchaeus’ to “come down.” “Come down” off your high horse; you are merely a man.

Zacchaeus’ attempt to improve their stature by belittling others. Most people realize that there are two ways to be considered righteous. One way is to simply become righteous by humbling ourselves and receiving grace from God. The other way is by tearing down others so that we are the ones left standing taller. They really do not have a ministry to others. That is why they sit around for hours upon endless hours convincing themselves what they do is important. One man belittled my legal knowledge, and my legal research knowledge, so I pointed out with legal authority that he used a legal writing anathema, which only made him mad at me. What a Wee, Little Man. One would think that he would have thanked me. Nope. Never a kind word.

Zacchaeus, what a Wee, Little Man.

]]><![CDATA[Holiday Cheer to Those Who Declare Us the Enemy]]>Fri, 19 Dec 2014 22:59:53 GMThttp://www.lordshipchurches.info/bens-blog/holiday-cheer-to-those-who-declare-us-the-enemy Early Holiday Cheerfulness

I just got out of the hospital with a pretty serious condition. I had a stone blocking the bile duct from my liver to my intestine. Thus the effects were slowly getting worse and there were many tests which narrowed the diagnosis down to a blockage in my bile duct. When they first told me I had a problem with my bile duct, my first comment was, “Then I can just go home and do it myself?” The docs (three of them) looked at me with the same misunderstanding that I get from a certain attorney at times, and said, “No!” I told them all, “Hey, if it’s a duct problem, I have a role of duct tape at home that I think can just wrap around it and take care of it.” One doctor laughed out loud, while the other two turned and glared at him that this was too serious to laugh about. I sure wish people would lighten up some (Hear that Mr. Attorney?).

     They Called me Mellow Yellow

Another effect was that I was turning yellow. Nearly every doctor and nurse coming in to check on me would ask my wife, “Is he yellow?” She would concur with their diagnosis. I could not see myself to tell if I was turning yellow or not, but my calculation skills were getting better, along with my marshal arts reflexes and my ping pong. But the very next doctor in to see me did not ask my wife, he just stared at me and said, “You’re Yellow!” I retorted, “I am NOT a coward!” Funny that he apologized. I just smiled at him.

Well, they got the stone and I am doing very well. Resting peacefully, alone in my thoughts and reflections. When I just wrote “alone in my thoughts and reflections,” all my enemies just gasped desperately. They know that it is best to keep me non-thinking and non-reflecting. Several of them (I get this mainly from the network of ELC Spies I send out who all have tentacles) pray that I stay too busy during the day to have even one thought. What they do not know is that God sometimes disables my body through pain in order to get me to jumpstart my thinking process again. Spending several hurtful days (thankful for vicodin) in the hospital brought out many thoughts of cordiality toward all those who have named themselves as my enemy. Please understand, I do not consider myself anyone’s enemy. I love all the brethren. So, I wanted to bring a blog of cheer (a “nog-blog” if you will) to one of those self-declared enemies of mine.

     Ben’s Twelve Days of Christmas Cheer

So, here is my 12 Days of Christmas Cheer song for one fine Christian Attorney to wish him well this wonderful season of celebration. Sing along if it will make you cheery. I will have the first verse, so that you can get the gist of the song, and then list the other 12 Days of My Personal Wish Gifts to him so that you and 11 of your friends can get together and sing this to brighten your day.

“On the first Day of Christmas I gave Austin Attorney… An Ordinary Trust that’s not an Entity.”

“On the Twelfth Day of Christmas I gave Austin Attorney… 12 ELC Spies, 11 Lordship Pastors, 10 Paying Churches, 9 Prayer Warriors, 8 Months of Smiling, 7 Days Non-blogging, 6 66 Erasor, 5 Oh One C Threeeeeee, 4 Mocking Men, 3 Books Sold, 2 Sarcastic Jabs, and An Ordinary Trust that’s NOT and Entity.”

May God Bless One and All this Festive Season

]]><![CDATA[Song Parodies for Good Medicinal Laughter]]>Fri, 12 Dec 2014 15:38:56 GMThttp://www.lordshipchurches.info/bens-blog/song-parodies-for-good-medicinal-laughter

Many times we take things WAY too seriously. I am guilty of that too – very rarely, but sometimes. I thought, what if we didn’t take things so seriously and just had some fun. This week at our latest ELC conference in Indiana, I wrote a parody song just for another law ministry for me to sing. I’ll put that one at the end of this blog. But first, I was thinking that I would LOVE to hear that attorney sing a parody song that I wrote the words just for him. This would be the song the Lion (I’m not saying Cowardly Lion for an obvious reason) sang. But I changed the words to “If I Were King of the Trusts!” So, sit back, have a little sing-along with yourself as you read this blog, and hear the Lion’s (not Cowardly Lion’s) voice as he sings this little tune.

“If I were King of the TRUUUUSSSSTTTS! Not queen, not duke, not prince.

My Legal pay for the TRUUUUSSSSTTS, would be gold, not silver, not cash.

I’d command each church, be it Baptist or not,

With a word and a Deed and a final DOT – Woof!

As I click my heel, all church people would kneel.

And the pastors would bow and deacons kowtow.

And the ELC would take wing – If I – If I – were King!

That Townsend would show respect to me. And Hoover and Burton genuflect to me.

Though I could display a lash, I would show compash – For every underling!

If I – If I – were King!

Just King!

Monarch my Trust would make me – Mo-na-a-a–arch my Trust would make me!”

The song I sang at the conference was a parody of Trust and Obey, called “Trust OR Obey.” Enjoy.

“When you’re starting a church, do not get in a lurch, ‘Cause we want to give glory to God.

There’s a group you can go, they say they’ll help with this woe, But they tell you to Trust OR Obey.

Chorus: Trust OR Obey, for that is the way, to make Lawyers wealthy, Only Trust OR Obey.

But they never can know, which direction to go, unless they call Lawyer (insert name).

Then they follow his will, as he sends them his bill, or my name isn’t Brother Benny.

Chorus: Trust OR Obey, for that is the way, to make Lawyers wealthy, Ordinary Trust OR Obey.

But if you call ELC, we help churches to be, Solely under Christ Jesus her Lord.

You won’t need an attorney, to make you a Trustee, Simply Lordship, obeying His Word.

Chorus: Trust AND Obey, for there’s no other way, To be happy in Jesus, Simply Trust AND Obey.”

Blessings, Dr. Ben

]]><![CDATA[Various and Sundry Thoughts from my Heart]]>Wed, 03 Dec 2014 20:49:56 GMThttp://www.lordshipchurches.info/bens-blog/various-and-sundry-thoughts-from-my-heart     God Always Knows How to Humble Us -

This past September, after a month of maximizing my multiple ministries (isn’t alliteration wonderful?), I came to the end of the month of having burned that candle at both ends. I was furiously writing a court brief to counter a state’s Attorney General’s brief. I had four days to research, write, and get it to the court before a hearing was due. Of course, the Attorney General’s underlings filed their brief in such a timely fashion that they knew we only had a short amount of time to answer theirs. It is a tactical ploy. That four days was over a weekend also as the Brief had to be filed by Tuesday, with the hearing on Wednesday. That meant I still had to prepare and preach three sermons for the church I pastor also. All my time, day and night was spent researching our arguments on Lexis. I really do not remember sleeping much at all. After gathering all the research, I started writing the brief. The arguments seemed to flow together well, and that was not a problem at all. I was to even drive to the hearing on that Wednesday so I could be present in court. Tuesday morning, after getting the brief done sometime during the night Monday night, I got up and started stumbling around the bed. My wife noticed and asked if I was alright. I mumbled something incoherent in her direction. I could not think what I was to wear that day and picked out something that was really tacky which would make our wives want to stick a “STUPID” sign on our chest to warn everyone we were coming. My daughters found out what was going on with me and convinced me to see a doctor about my condition. I did, and the doctor ordered a CT-Scan of my head, thinking I may have had a stroke. I went to the hospital, had the scan, and waited for the doctor’s call. When I answered the call at the hospital radiology department, the doctor said, “We couldn’t find anything.” I responded with, “No brain, huh?” The doctor concluded that I had a case of “Exhaustion, which mimicked the symptoms of a stroke.” Doctor said, “Get some rest.” One of my favorite jokes is, “Last night I dreamed I was a muffler, and woke up this morning exhausted.” That literally happened to me (not the muffler dream part). I had to apologize for not being able to go to the Hearing. The pastor understood, and did a great job without me being there.

     Sometimes You Wonder What Plan God Has for You -

Going through Chemotherapy in January of 2012 (it started September of 2011), and knowing it would be still going through June, I made a conscience effort to let everyone know on my other blog that I would not be traveling and speaking anymore. There were two younger men who the Lord led to be the future of the Law Center. I was content to teach them and let them handle everything Law Center related. I would exist as an Advisor/Mentor/Emeritus/Idiot-Behind-the-Scenes. Each year since then I would seek the Lord to see when the last phase of my ELC ministry would begin. Several times I had my “speech” written out to give at the ELC Conference in June about passing the baton, and riding into the sunset. For some reason or another, the Lord never gave me peace to do so. I have seriously tried to slow down. In the past I have usually had to have a Semi hit me head-on to slow me down (once even literally).

     “Something” Has Energized Me -

This past month I have had some unkind things said about the ELC and me personally. If I were to have done this to the “ones” doing this to me, they would have called it an “ATTACK.” They called our Chapter 18 in our book, “Approved by Man” (lovingly renamed “Betrayed by Man” by the gentleman writing against us) an “ATTACK” on the Ordinary Trust and the Biblical Law Center. (Sorry, I’m still chuckling about his renaming our book; I’ll be done in a minute and get back to writing this. He’s just so dramatic.) I have been wondering in my heart why this person wrote these things now. We always tend to place motives on why things are done in a certain way at a certain time. I view this as a blessing of God. My God has reenergized me to write and study even more about Trust Law. Of course, I will not be as smart as the other guy in reading law books because I am not an attorney with his vast attorney training and incomparable attorney knowledge from one of those “attorney schools” (“Duh, I forget what they are called.”). I repeat, I am not an attorney (PRAISE GOD!). (Once some pastor called me a “lawyer” at one of our ELC briefings, and I said, “Did you call me a LIAR,” and he said, “No. Lawww-yer.” I said, “I thought they were the same thing.” He laughed, I laughed, all the pastors laughed. Wish you could have been there.

     “Why did it take them SIX YEARS?” -Ben Townsend

Our last ELC book was written in December of 2008 (Printed January 11, 2009). It is now December of 2014. So, why is this person NOW writing in answer to Chapter 18 in our six-year-old book? Why did he not do it back in 2009? Had he written against it in 2009, OUR Trust Expert would have been more than willing to have a dialog with him. They actually KNEW and RESPECTED each other. Why wait until our guy is DEAD, and then challenge our writing? That seems a little suspect to me. And a couple of years after the ELC “reached out” to this guy to attempt to get together and discuss our similarities and differences. Recap: “Six years late, Dr. Wright dead five years ago, reached out to this fellow two years ago.” Would any sensible pastor consider me a “Dirtbag” for calling this guy’s motives suspicious? Or am I the only one who sees holes in his timing (or lack thereof)? He stated it was because of dumb “ELC men questioning him,” which we proved were not ELC men, and “ELC Spies,” which we disproved having, an “attack by an ELC man against the BLC head,” which we proved was not done by an anyone even associated with the ELC. My question is, “Did these excuses hide his real reason?”

     “I miss Dr. Wright.” -Ben Townsend

I have stated that Dr. Wright, in the 10 years he was not pastoring, had gotten his Ph.D in Business and ran a couple of businesses (which were not ELC) to provide an income for him and his family. One of these was doing Trusts for individuals. He personally did hundreds of different Trusts for people. He did one for me. Actually, he and his business partner Ed (from Las Vegas) did my Trust. Ed (last name withheld to protect the innocent) had done literally thousands of Trusts all over the United States. Dr. Wright once told me that the two of them had done Trusts for “seven different Billionaires.” I will not reveal what I paid Robin and Ed to do my Trust, but it was a LOT more than anyone reading this blog paid for their Trust, I assure you. I really would like this other attorney to let people know HOW MANY TRUSTS he has actually done. If anyone reading this blog would like to ask him, please do. He might get mad at you, but don’t worry, he will blast me (that’s his method so far) and not you. You he will apologize to because he is “humble” (at least he and his pastor say he is). Just make sure you are a “good fellow” and just searching for truth. How many times have I said to myself, “I wish Robin were here to answer this fellow”? But he is not here. So, I have to rely upon the Lord alone for my answers. I am sure He knows how to answer. He has given me several answers about my closing years in ELC. The words of the Apostle Paul echo one answer: “And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you, though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved.” (2 Corinthians 12:15)

]]><![CDATA[God is our Benefactor; He is NOT our Beneficiary.]]>Sun, 30 Nov 2014 13:07:02 GMThttp://www.lordshipchurches.info/bens-blog/god-is-our-benefactor-he-is-not-our-beneficiaryThe last few days my soul has been troubled. A heavy burden has clouded my mind as I have dwelt upon something in this Declaration of Trust (actually every Trust has a declaration) or Ordinary Trust. I had a problem trying to think through the making of a Church of Jesus Christ as a Trustor, Settlor or Grantor. I have always had a problem with a pastor of a New Testament church being a Trustee of all the church assets. But the deep troubling in my soul has been in the unsettling fact that the Ordinary Trust of Attorney Finney makes our God, the Lord Jesus Christ, a Beneficiary of his Trust document.

     GOD IS NEVER A BENEFICIARY IN THEOLOGY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     A Warning to Those who Make GOD the BENEFICIARY

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

]]><![CDATA[Biblical, Non-Biblical, or Unbiblical?]]>Fri, 28 Nov 2014 23:39:20 GMThttp://www.lordshipchurches.info/bens-blog/november-28th-2014    BIBLICAL – In the Subjective Sense Now, everyone knows what “Biblical” means. It usually means whatever a person wants it to mean in order to excuse what they are doing or demand someone else performs in a certain way. “Biblical” can mean lots of different things to people: Worshiping on Saturday only, no pants on women, no long hair for men (meaning not touching their ears), using hymnals, not going to the movies (but waiting until they come out on DVD so they can watch it in their home theatre), drums and cymbals on the platform, head coverings on women, and just about everything else in life, including not driving a red car. I have even heard of a Baptist preacher rail on and on about how wearing wire rim glasses or three button suit coats were NOT Biblical.

     BIBLICAL – In the Objective Sense

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

     When Something is NON-BIBLICAL

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

     When Something is UNBIBLICAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

]]>