Chuck Baldwin: Right Or Wrong Concerning The History Of Religious Freedom?

Jerald Finney
Copyright © August 31, 2014

Chuck Baldwin
Chuck Baldwin

This article is not meant to condemn, but to alert Brother Baldwin and those who follow him. This author voted for Baldwin when he ran for president in 2008 on the Constitution Party Ticket. Since then, he has become somewhat familiar with the teachings of Baldwin. This author believes that, from all he knows about him, that Chuck Baldwin is a sincere pastor. He has a considerable following, and his goals are worthy, yet unattainable since not according to Bible prophecy and historical accuracy. This article alerts the discerning reader only as to Baldwin’s historical revisionism. This author invites anyone to read the writings linked to below; he is very willing to discuss the accuracy of his and Baldwin’s historical teachings. We should all seek truth as to these most important matters.

Pastor Baldwin believes and teaches, as this author once did, historical revisionism. Because of his incorrect view of history, he is right about some things, but for the wrong reasons: he is right about his teaching that churches should not incorporate or get Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) status; he is right about his contention that state-owned churches are destroying America; he is right about some other things. But he is wrong about history, and he is wrong about some of his Bible teachings; for example, he is right about his conclusions concerning the false interpretation of Romans 13, but his rationale is flawed (compare his teaching on this matter with the teaching of Jerald Finney at Render Unto God the Things that Are His: A Systematic Study of Romans 13 and Related Verses). Therefore, he is not proceeding according to knowledge. When a believer does not proceed according to knowledge, he, and those who follow him, will fall (2 Peter 1.2-10; Hosea 4.6). This brief article will address Baldwin’s early American history concerning religious freedom which is summed up in one statement he made in his article “State Owned Churches Are Killing America”:

 “Of course, colonial pastors didn’t have to worry about their churches being ‘Incorporated’ as State-created (and controlled) entities, or about IRS agents intimidating them regarding what they could or could not say. In early America, preachers where free men; they could say whatever they darned well pleased. Gasp! Beyond that, virtually everyone regarded preachers as being ‘God’s men,’ not the ‘servants of men.’”

Of course, there were no IRS with its agents. However, there were established churches in the colonies and in the United States at the beginning of the nation. Many preachers and other believers were severely persecuted in the colonies for meeting and preaching outside the auspices of the state churches; and not everyone regarded non-state church preachers as being “God’s men” as shown by the persecutions of these so-called “heretics” by the church-state establishments. Go to the links below more on the true history of religious freedom in the colonies and early America.

This author has the book Baldwin has which teaches about the preachers of the “Black Regiment.” However, this author also has many history books which teach the whole story of the road to religious liberty and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The author would point the interested reader to two resources which give the truth about these historical matters:

The true history of America and the American colonies absolutely demonstrates that Chuck Baldwin, like this author from the 1980’s until 2005, has accepted the historical revisionism that has been disseminated to American believers. Every so often, at least since this author was saved in 1982, another revisionist history book is printed and promoted by “Christian” media; and many Christians buy them, read them, and believe them. Then, they publicly repeat the revisionist view which then becomes an important part of Christian argumentation on the street, in the church, in the courts, and in civil government circles. All the while, Satan is amused by the gullibility and ignorance of American “Christians” while God is grieved. Read the following for an introduction to accurate history concerning religious liberty and the First Amendment.

The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus
A Case of Premeditated Murder
Christian Revisionists on Trial
The Christian History and Meaning
of the First Amendment

History of the First Amendment

An Abridged History of the First Amendment

Click the image above to go to the article
Click the image above to go to the article “Is Separation of Church and State Found in the Constitution?”

The true history of America reveals that the persecution of those whom the state churches of Europe called “heretics” continued in the American colonies. Only through the sacrifice of our historic Baptist forefathers was America to add “religious freedom” to the Constitution of the United States. This is historical fact, and one must understand the spiritual battles which believers have fought as well as the persecution and martyrdom of believers starting with John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, the apostles, the early Christian martyrs, the martyrs who were relentlessly tortured and killed by the Catholic church-states and then the Protestant church-states, and those who were persecuted by the religious establishments in the American colonies can he fight spiritual warfare on solid ground. Successful warfare must be founded upon correct Bible, historical, and legal knowledge and implementation of that knowledge according to understanding and wisdom.  As proven by his prolific public writings and teachings, Chuck Baldwin does not possess that knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. Therefore, churches should never seek the help of Chuck Baldwin with any spiritual matter unless he repents and revises his history and Bible doctrines to conform with truth.

See the following articles which explain Christian historical revisionism:

Secular and Christian revisionism (Section IV, Chapter 2 of God Betrayed)

The consequences of secular and Christian revisionism (Section IV, Chapter 3 of God Betrayed)

Business Owners Try To Shut Down Street Preaching In Northfield, Minnesota

Jerald Finney
Copyright © August 17, 2014

August 8, 2014 Update on Nortfield, Minnesota Street Preaching Ministry
Click here for the website page which covers the trials and tribulations of the “No Small Stir” street preaching ministry

Brother Paul Pearson
Brother Paul Pearson

On August 8, 2014, Northfield News, the local newspaper of Northfield, Minnesota, published an article that, if true and depending upon the future actions of the Northfield police, could have resulted in a legal battle. The author has known, since high school, that one cannot depend upon secular news for accuracy or facts, and that, as to important religious, legal, and political matters, such outlets usually, in addition to sensationalizing, portray matters in ways which support their beliefs and philosophies. However, this article could not be ignored. Fortunately, as is explained below, the Northfield police, as in the past, acted very correctly and according to the law in regards to speech in the public forum. As a result, no litigation was required, the citizens of Northfield were spared the expense of costly court intervention, and the street preachers and others were protected as they engaged in speech in the public forum at Bridge Square Park.

The Northfield News article, “Protestors question Northfield’s permit process,” stated that a group was silently protesting war at Bridge Square Park, as they had on Saturdays for the last 13 years. However, they were soon approached by a Northfield police officer, who said there had been a complaint and that the group would have to move to “another public sidewalk,” off Bridge Square.

According to the article:

  • The officer came as a result of a complaint from Anna Kochendorfer, who said she was from one of the groups with a permit to use Bridge Square and that the protestors would not leave when she asked them. The group did not leave, according to the article.
  • City Administrator Tim Madigan sent a report to city councilors stating that both the Riverwalk Market Fair and the Vintage Band groups had obtained city permits to use Bridge Square on Saturday, “which gives them control of the area for their events.”
  • Krin Finger, owner of the Rare Pair, has made use of the city’s Bridge Square reservation process to reserve the area from 1-5 p.m. every Saturday from now until the Defeat of Jesse James Days, with the plan to reserve the space again from DJJD to Christmas and beyond.
  • She said she decided to reserve the space with a community event permit, in this case titled, “Take Back Bridge Square.”

The reasons that were attributed to Ms. Finger for seeking the permits every Saturday in order to keep street preachers from preaching in the park on Saturdays were lies. The article stated that she said they were not concerned about the communication of any group or persons other than the street preachers at Bridge Square. She, according to the article, stated that [the street preachers have] become a hindrance to people walking into the door, that the business owners and their customers felt threatened by what sounds like angry and aggressive behavior by these street preachers. Of course, there are government statutes that criminalize disorderly conduct, threatening people, hindering people on sidewalks, obstructing passageways, etc. Had the street preachers done anything in violation of a criminal ordinance, they, like any other lawbreaker, could and would have been cited by the police.

The article stated that Finger said, “We felt it was becoming more aggressive, and it was just a matter of time before this becomes offensive.” Ms. Finger, in fact, has told the street preachers that she is offended by their speech. The Supreme Court of the United States has made clear that Americans have no right to not be offended. Click here to go to the PDF of tract Street Preaching in America: Is It Legal? which briefly goes over the law of communicating in the public forum (public sidewalks and parks) and answers her, and other, objections.

The article stated that, “Finger said many downtown businesses, as well as the Northfield Downtown Development Corporation and the Northfield Area Chamber of Commerce, agreed with her obtaining the permit, and added that the city had been helpful throughout the process.” According to the article, she went on to say that she was prepared to approach the street preachers and tell them that they are not invited to her event, and that she will call the police if necessary and that they will be forced to leave Bridge Square.

The article stated that Police Chief Monte Nelson said there is no official ordinance his officers can enforce regarding the permits and public space. He added he is still working to figure out how to address situations like these, and he doesn’t have a clear answer yet. The article stated that Chief Nelson said, “The problem is, when someone reserves Bridge Square, they’re reserving that area,” he said. “It’s a public area. The million dollar question is, ‘Do they have the ability, if someone comes into some conflict, to say they want them moved across the street?’ That’s what we’re working to try to get a solution to do. There’s not a black and white answer. Does this [permit] mean that a private group can keep certain kinds of people out of Bridge Square, or prevent the presence of dogs, smokers, babies, or cell phones?” he asked. “How can the city turn over a public space to a private entity and then let the private entity make up rules that contradict the U.S. Constitution?” As will be seen below, Chief Nelson and the Northfield police department answered these according to American law. I am very impressed with Northfield handling of this matter.

On August 11, 2014, someone posted a response to the above article on Northfield News: Read that by clicking here. Also, many comments have been made concerning the original article. To read them, go to the article “Protestors question Northfield’s permit process” and scroll down. Many of the opinions in those polls reflect understanding of the public forum speech rights of all Americans and are far more correct than the ridiculous opinion attributed by the Northfield News article to Kimberly Smith, who, sadly, teaches constitutional law at Carleton College. Other opinions expressed therein, like that of the downtown business owners, are against freedom, intolerant, unlearned, and/or bigoted. People who understand the history of the First Amendment usually stand for the freedoms we enjoy in this nation. The following may be read in order to gain an understanding of how we got our First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

History of the First Amendment

An Abridged History of the First Amendment

The response of the street preachers to the article

Pastor Jason Cooley
Pastor Jason Cooley

After reading the article mentioned above, the first action of the preachers was to contact the Northfield city attorney, mayor, and city council. They were assured that the police understood the law and would act accordingly.

Next, on Saturday, August 16, 2014 the preachers went to Bridge Square Park and preached, as already planned. They waited for a community affair taking place in the park to be closed down, then preached. The police came and did their job. The preachers were allowed to preach without hindrance. Ms. Finger never came to ask the street preachers to leave.

Next, Pastor Jason Cooley, pastor of Old Paths Baptist Church of Northfield and one of the street preachers involved in this situation, was inspired to preach the following sermons:

Dave Shumway
Dave Shumway

Kim Finger and other business men and women, as reflected in the above article and as expressed to the street preachers while involved in their public forum calling, obviously hate this street preaching ministry. No doubt they are trying to figure out how to get rid of the street preachers. For example, see the following link for a discussion which occurred on the streets of Northfield during a street preaching session between Pastor Jason Cooley and Dave Shumway who is CEO of First National Bank of Northfield:

Should the situation change due to the hostility of a minority made up of a few influential citizens of Northfield, supplemental articles will immediately be published on this website and appropriate legal help who are on standby are prepared to come in to do all they can to make sure justice is done.

Grace Webb, the author of “Protestors question Northfield’s permit process,” the article quoted from above covers the cities of Northfield and Lonsdale, and writes about public safety. You can reach her at 645-1117.

Judge’s Ruling on the State Street Baptist Church

For more on church incorporation, see What does church inc. mean?

Left click the following to go to case cited in Pastor Raymond’s article below: Hollins v. Edmonds, 616 S.W.2d 801, (1981)

Click here to go to the Kentucky Non-Profit Corporation Statute (revised since Hollins v. Edmonds). I suggest that each church carefully study the non-profit corporation law of their state. To go to the law of a particular state, google “non-profit corporation law of [name of state].” Then compare what you find to church principles for organization given in the New Testament epistles of Paul. After all, does not the Lord wish the bride of Christ to know whether their actions please and glorify God?

By William Raymond: pastor & ambassador for the Christ

Of all the examples I know – and there are more than you might think – none other states more clearly within the law the extremity of change which a church undergoes when she freely elects to incorporate Christ under the state than the case of this “once a church under Christ now a corporation under Caesar” known as the State Street Baptist Church. However, she is not alone. Sadly, the State Street Baptist Corporation shares her fate with thousands of other such legal entities in America today who have traded their holy birthright in Christ for a mess of corporate pottage. It just so happens that in this particular case the judge chose to use language that only a third grader or retarded adult could misunderstand in order to make his point. It’s really that clear.
No less hideous or spiritually grotesque than a Frankenstein monster, the body of Christ becomes legally trans-mutated into what is known in law as an artificial person when her primary identity becomes fixed in the secular (anti-Christ) state through the process of incorporation. Whether you like it or not, this is simply the unbiased truth about corporate religion and the reason why it is such a putrid stench in the nostrils of our Righteous and Holy God, Jesus the Christ.
All churches, mosques, temples, denominations, religions and even witches covens – regardless of their beliefs – for all legal purposes become One under the Beast via the process of incorporation; and for all practical purposes become united possessing equal status under law as common members of the official state church. Let that one sink in for a minute! Consequently, Christ cannot remain Lord over any such reprobate body after they have incorporated – the law will simply not permit it! And while you may believe most sincerely to the contrary, I can assure you, should your incorporated pastor ever go before the magistrate, he will bow in submission, for his contract – his unholy coven with the Beast – has obligated him to do so.
As I said earlier, the decision handed down by the appeals judge in the State Street Baptist Church case says it probably better than any other court ruling I’ve seen. So here’s the history: The church was establishment during the Civil War era and operated as such until 1980 when they decided to incorporate under the state as a 501 (c) (3) religious corporation. Afterwards, when some members attempted to schedule a business meeting others objected and a feud over notification procedures for meetings arose. And so, unable to settle matters between themselves, they simply did like all good corporationists do – they filed a law suit against their church brothers and let Caesar rule the matter. Here, in the case titledHollins v. Edmonds, is what the appeals judge  ruled in clear, unambiguous and full disclosure for all the world to know and understand.
“The business of the church was conducted in a rather informal manner in accordance with its customs. Although this kind of conduct might be suited to church tradition, it does not comply with the requirements of the statutes regarding nonprofit corporations. As the trial judge phrased it — once the church determined to enter the realm of Caesar by forming a corporation, it was required to abide by the rules of Caesar, or in this case, the statutes of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.”
“It is the general holding of this court that those organizations choosing to incorporate under the requirements of Chapter 273 must comply with the requirements of the law. Specifically, we hold that the statute requires that written notice of meetings be given to members of the corporation and that bylaws must be adopted.” Hollins v. Edmonds, 616 S.W.2d 801, (1981).
As I said before, after reading the judges ruling here and in other similar cases, anyone who doesn’t understand that Caesarand not Christ is lord over the (counterfeit) “artificial persons” which are innocuously referred to as religious corporationssimply has to be either retarded or knowingly in denial of the truth… you decide.
Backing Out of the Minefield of Incorporation
Dire as the situation for incorporated churches may seem, in His mercy and grace the Father has provided a way out through our Lord Christ Jesus and His Kingdom. That is the subject of my latest publication titled, Backing Out of the Minefield of Incorporation. This is a brief but essential reference source for pastors and church leaders who are no less than 100% dedicated to the Lordship of Christ and determined to breakout of Caesar’s choke hold in a accordance with the New Testament. I currently have eighteen copies that are available to anyone who will send a gift as the Lord may direct them. If your situation is such that you currently have no gift to send, please contact me and I’m confident our Lord will find a way to make it happen.
If you are serious about transitioning out of Caesar’s venue and into the Kingdom of God in Christ Jesus, I will work with you through the process and share my knowledge and wisdom as the Lord has blessed and given it me. I cannot make it any easier for you than that.
Looking forward to hearing from those called of Christ to serve Him in Spirit and in Truth,

Self-proclaimed Non-501(c)(3) Churches Who Are 501(c)(3) Churches

Jerald Finney
Copyright © Ausust 13, 2014

IRS Publication 557, p. 24. Click the image to go directly to the publication.
IRS Publication 557, p. 24. Click the image to go directly to the publication

Some churches proudly proclaim that they are not 26 U.S. Code (Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”)) § 501(c)(3) (“501c3”) churches while they are in reality  churches which are effectively the same as 501c3 churches. Many of these churches repeat the words of IRC § 501c3 in one or more of their corporate documents, thereby avoiding the necessity of filling out Form 1023 in order to obtain their 501c3 tax exempt status. They become 501c3 churches without doing anything other than incorporating. They can do this because of 26 U.S. Code § 508 (“508”). (Remember, to check what the author is saying about a code, one can go directly to any referenced material which is in blue simply by left clicking). 508(a) declares that “New organizations must notify Secretary that they are applying for recognition of section 501(c)(3) status.” 508(c)(1)(A) however, declares that churches are mandatory exceptions to this rule. No doubt the drafters of the Internal Revenue Code were aware of the First Amendment, so they included 508(c)(1)(A), even though 508(c)(1)(A) violates the First Amendment religion clause, which says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” 508(c)(1)(A) is obviously a law made by Congress; 508(c)(1)(A) is both a law respecting an establishment of religion, and as will be shown below, prohibits the free exercise thereof. Of course, almost no pastor realizes how he is being deceived into violating the First Amendment religion clause which is simply a law declaring the biblical principle of separation of church and state. I explain the last statement in many of my writings and teachings – You may find very helpful, as a starting point, the article “Is Separation of Church and State Found in the Constitution?

From IRS Publication 1828. Click the above image to go directly to Publication 1828.
From IRS Publication 1828. Click the above image to go directly to Publication 1828.

The IRS publicizes their interpretation of IRS Code. On page 3 of IRS Publication 1828  states that “churches which meet the requirements of § 501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS” [Bold emphasis mine]. The IRS repeats this on page 24 of IRS Publication 557, “Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization.”Under the heading “Organizations Not Required To File Form 1023” churches are listed.” The following paragraph is included: “These organizations are exempt automatically if they meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3).” A church which meets the requirements of 501(c)(3) is – by the rules which are included therein and also by the rule against doing anything that violates fundamental public policy which was added by the IRS, not by law, and upheld by the United States Supreme Court – is thereby prohibited from freely exercising her religion because she is prohibited from doing and saying certain things.

Pastors and others who mislead their flocks on these and other issues are wolves in sheeps clothing. When a church yokes up with unbelievers in any way, including yoking up with and submitting herself to the government agencies and courts, that church fellowships with unrighteousness, communes with darkness, and agrees with idols. The biblical principle of separation comes into play and believers in that church should leave her and find a New Testament church:

2 Corinthians 6:14-18: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”

See other writings and teachings on this website,, for thorough biblical, legal, and historical analyses of all issues concerning church coporate 501(c)(3) (“legal entity”) status. A companion article to this article is “Church Internal Revenue Code 508 Status.”

Click the image above to go to the article "Is Separation of Church and State Found in the Constitution?"
Click the image above to go to the article “Is Separation of Church and State Found in the Constitution?”