All posts by Jerald Finney

Jerald Finney was the lead counsel for the Biblical Law Center ("BLC") from May, 2005 until 2011. The BLC helps churches who desire to organize according to New Testament principles. In 2016, he again worked with the BLC and still does, but he now heads up the Churches under Christ Ministry which is under the authority of Charity Baptist Tabernacle of Amarillo TX. Finney is a licensed attorney who can be reached at 512-785-8445 jerald.finney@sbcglobal.net. Over the last few years he has lectured and preached on the issues concerning government, church, and separation of church and state. God called Finney, a Christian and fundamental Baptist since his salvation, to enter the University of Texas School of Law in 1990 at the age of 43 to stand in the gap concerning legal issues facing Christians. Since being saved, he has been a faithful and active member of a local fundamental, Bible-believing Baptist church. He received his JD degree in 1993 and has followed the Lord in the practice of law since that time. Finney received his law license in November 1993 and began practicing law in January, 1994. All along he was seeking the Lord’s direction. The Lord initially led Finney to practice criminal law. He knew that not many, if any, of the Christian law firms dealt with or specialized in criminal law, and that some Christians were being charged with crimes for their Christian behavior and for taking a stand for God’s principles. The Lord confirmed Finney's choice. Very soon after he started practicing, he helped an Eastern Orthodox priest with a criminal charge. He was charged under a criminal statute for trying to expose the promotion of sodomy and other sins within a Catholic Church. God gave the victory in that case. Then Steve, a Christian who counseled outside abortion clinics, called Finney. He was charged with a crime under the Austin, Texas Sign Ordinance for his activities outside an abortion clinic. Being a new lawyer, Finney called the Rutherford Institute. They asked him to send them a summary of the facts and a copy of the Sign Ordinance. Then they told him that the case could not be won and that they would not help. Steve lost at trial, but God gave the victory on appeal. The Austin Police Department immediately cited Steve for violation of the state sign ordinance. The Lord gave the victory at trial. Finney's first felony trial came about a year and six months after he started practicing law. A single Christian mother was charged with third degree felony injury to a child for spanking her six year old son. She left some prominent stripes across his rear end and also a stripe across his face when he turned suddenly during the spanking. The Lord gave the victory at trial. At the same time, Finney was also representing another Christian married lady who was charged with the same crime for spanking her little girl with a switch. On the date the trial in that case was to begin, the prosecutor, with prompting by the judge, lowered the offer to deferred adjudication probation of short duration on a misdemeanor charge with very few conditions on the probation. In a deferred adjudication in Texas, there is never a judgment of guilt if the probationer successfully completes the term of the probation, (and, with successful completion of the probation, the probationer can now file a Motion for Nondisclosure which, if granted, requires the file to be sealed so that the general public has no access to it). The mother decided to take the offer. The Lord has also allowed Finney to help Christian parents in numerous situations involving Child Protective Services (“CPS”) infringement into parental rights. God has given the victory in all those situations. The Lord has also used Finney to intervene in numerous situations where government officials or private companies tried to deny certain Christians their rights to do door-to-door evangelization, preach on the street, hand out gospel literature in the public forum, and pass out gospel tracts and communicate the gospel at their place of employment. Finney has also fought other legal spiritual battles including a criminal case in San Antonio. A peaceful pro-life advocate was arrested and charged with criminal trespass for handing pro-life literature giving information about the development of the unborn baby, places to go for help, and other information to women entering an abortion clinic. All the above-mentioned cases as well as others not mentioned were handled free of charge (except the last spanking case for which Finney received $750). In 2005 Finney became lead counsel for the Biblical Law Center. Since his early Christian life, he has considered the issue of separation of church and state as taught in the Bible to be one of the primary issues facing New Testament churches today. He believes, based upon what the Bible teaches, that operating as a corporation (sole or aggregate), unincorporated association, or any other type of legal entity and/or getting a tax exempt status from the federal government at the very least puts the church under the headship of both the Lord and the state, and may even take the church from under the headship of Christ and put the church under the headship of the state. He believes that taking scriptures out of context and applying human reasoning contrary to biblical teaching (such as “Obey every ordinance of man,” or “We should be good stewards and incorporation is good stewardship”) in order to justify unbiblical marriage with the state causes our Lord much grief. Once he took on the position as counsel for the BLC, it was necessary to do an in-depth study of the issue of separation of church and state. He began with the Bible. He initially read through the Bible at least five times (and many more times since then) primarily seeking the answer to the question, “Does the Bible have anything to say about this issue?” He was amazed at what He learned. The Bible gives God’s principles concerning separation of church and state, the purpose of a church, the purpose of the civil government, the headship of church, the headship of civil government, the principles by which each is to be guided, and much more concerning these two God ordained institutions. He continued to read the Bible daily seeking insights into these and other issues. He also began to read other books. he had already read starting shortly after being saved, books and other information by Christian authors. For example, he had read, among other works, A Christian Manifesto[1], The Light and the Glory,[2] From Sea to Shining Sea,[3] The Myth of Separation and some other works by David Barton, [4]Rewriting America’s History,[5] and America’s God and Country.[6] These resources inspired, influenced and guided him and millions of other Christians, gave them philosophical and historical underpinning, and led them into battlefields such as politics, law, and education armed with what they learned from those resources. Sometime in 2006 he began to realize that some of the books by Christian authors which he had come to depend upon were misleading, at the very least. Other books revealed to him that some of the above mentioned books had misinformed and misled sincere Christians by revising and/or misrepresenting the true history of separation of church and state in America. In 2006, he read One Nation Under Law[7] which cites a wealth of resources for one seeking to understand the history of separation of church and state in the United States and of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[8] Reading One Nation Under Law, some of the books it cited, and some other books was a launching pad into the universe of historical information which he never dreamed existed. He had expected to be misled in the secular law school he attended. He was amazed that he had been misled by Christian brothers. I asked myself, “How could Peter Marshall and others have missed this vital information?” At an Unregistered Baptist Fellowship conference in Indianapolis, Indiana, James R. Beller, a Baptist historian, gave a PowerPoint presentation which gave him the answer to this question. Finney bought two of Beller's books and read them. Those books filled in the details not mentioned in Pastor Beller’s concise PowerPoint presentation. Since that time, God has led Finney into an in depth study of the issues of government, church, and separation of church and state. God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application and the other books he has written and listed on this website were written as a result of those studies. God Betrayed is not a rehash of the same information that has been circulated in the Fundamental Baptist and Christian community through sermons, books, seminars, etc. since at least 1982, the year Finney was saved. God Betrayed and Finney's other books reveal facts and information that must be understood in order for a pastor and other Christians to begin to successfully (in God's eyes) fight the spiritual warfare we are engaged in according to knowledge. Finney believes that the lack of attention to the biblical doctrines concerning government, church (which is likened to the wife and bride of Christ), and separation of church and state, has had dire consequences for individuals, families, churches, and America. Unless pastors educate themselves on these doctrines and their application in America, the rapid downhill slide will continue at an accelerating pace. [1] Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto, (Westchester, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1981). [2] Peter Marshall and David Manuel, The Light and the Glory, (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1977). [3] Peter Marshall and David Manuel, From Sea to Shining Sea (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1986). [4] David Barton, The Myth of Separation, What is the Correct relationship between Church and State? (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 1992). [5] Catherine Millard, Rewriting America’s History (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: Horizon House Publishers, 1991). [6] William J. Federer, America’s God and Country, Encyclopedia of Quotations (Coppell, Texas: FAME Publishing, Inc., 1994). [7] Mark Douglas McGarvie, One Nation Under Law: America’s Early National Struggles to Separate Church and State (DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press, 2005). [8] The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The religion clause, properly interpreted, as is shown in God Betrayed, is a correct application of the biblical principle of separation of church and state.

Section 1, Chapter 2: THE BASICS AND ELEMENTS OF A CHURCH BIBLE TRUST relationship with property

Click here to go to home page for the booklet
Simply Church: The Holy Union of Christ and His Local Church

 Jerald Finney
January 19, 2023

The Basics

The church Bible Trust is a plan or concept of God in Scripture, as Chapter 8 explains. The church who honors this plan does not organize as a trust; rather, she declares and practices the same relationship with property as did churches in the New Testament. The church does not apply to the state, according to state law, for Bible Trust status, as with a charitable or business trust. No trust papers are filed with the state because the trust relationship is private. The church remains totally under the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ and His word as long as she does not act legally. A trustee holds and manages, according to his fiduciary duty, the property in the trust estate for the benefit of the true owner of the property, the Lord Jesus Christ, not for the church. Gifts are to God and are held in His trust estate, not in a corporate or a church bank account. The trustee is the legal (temporary earthly) owner of the property and the Lord Jesus Christ is the true, equitable, and beneficial owner.

The Elements

As will be shown from Scripture in Chapter 8, the church Bible Trust relationship with property is according to God’s plan, God’s Bible Trust concept. This lesson will explain the elements of that relationship. Since a Bible Trust relationship is one in which church reaches an agreement with a person to hold and manage property for the benefit of the owner of the property, the Lord Jesus Christ, convenient terms for the elements of the relationship are trustor, trustee, beneficiary, and trust estate.

According to God’s Word in the Old Testament, God entrusted man with His earth and all that is in it. God created the heavens and the earth, and all that is in the earth, including man and woman. He gave man the duty to hold and manage His earthly creations. A trustor or settlor is the one who establishes a trust agreement.

God was trustor of all things. He appointed man as trustee. The earth and the things that are in it compose the earthly trust estate of the trust established by God, the beneficiary (true, equitable, and beneficial owner).

A church can operate according to God’s plan of organization by observing God’s concept of trust without written documents as a spiritual entity only. However, should she wish to put God’s money in a bank account, or to use some of God’s money for a meetinghouse owned by the Lord Jesus Christ, she will need to declare and execute the trust relationship in writing. In either scenario:

  1. The elements of the trust relationship are trustor, trustee, trust estate, and beneficiary.
  2. The trustor church declares the trust relationship and appoints a trustee.
  3. The trustee agrees to become the legal (earthly, temporal) owner of the trust estate. He agrees to hold and manage the trust estate solely for the benefit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the owner of the trust estate, according to His will as expressed in His Word, the Holy King James Bible. The trustee receives no compensation for serving as trustee.
  4. The trustee has a fiduciary duty to use the estate for purposes consistent with the will of God as laid out in God’s Word.
  5. Real property in the trust estate, if any, is held in the name of the trust. Both the state and the Lord require someone to hold temporary earthly title to His real property. As to property on which a church meets, if no one holds legal title and if it is brought to the attention of the state, the state will declare someone to be legal owner of that property.
  6. Titles to motor vehicles, if any, in the trust estate are held in the name of the trust.
  7. Banks accounts, if any, holding funds in the trust estate are held in the name of the trust.
  8. The pastor should be trustee named in a church Bible trust agreement although a deacon or other mature male church member can serve as trustee. The pastor should be as qualified or more qualified as any man in the church to hold and manage God’s earthly property. Of course, the pastor can appoint others to perform certain duties; but he is the one ultimately responsible. See Endnote[i].
  9. The trust document, if any, should include language which prohibits the trustee from using any property, or proceeds from the conveyance of any property in the trust estate, for the benefit of himself or anyone else. Property can be real personal, and personal property includes money and bank accounts.
  10. “In no event will the ownership of any or all real or personal property or money in the Trust Estate ever inure to the benefit of or be transferred to any member or members of the church except as consistent with Bible guidelines.”
  11. The beneficiary, the Lord Jesus Christ, is the true, equitable, and beneficial owner of everything in the trust estate.
  12. All property in the trust estate is to be held and managed by the trustee, the legal (earthly) owner of the trust estate, solely for the benefit of and according to the will of the true, equitable and beneficial owner of the property, the Lord Jesus Christ.

A church Declaration of Trust should include language such as:

“The Beneficiary of this Trust is the Lord Jesus Christ, and all of the properties of the Trust Estate are held in Trust, by the Trustee, solely for the benefit of the Lord Jesus Christ who is the true, equitable, and beneficial owner of all property including all property held in Trust. This Declaration of Trust is not naming or making the Lord Jesus Christ the Beneficiary or the Trust Estate; He is the true, equitable, and beneficial owner of the earth and all that is in it (Exodus 19:5, Leviticus 25:23, 1 Chronicles 29:11-12, Psalm 24:1, Psalm 50:10, Psalm 89:11, Haggai 2:8). This document is merely declaring that truth.”


Endnote

[i] Timothy was a preacher with a special position of trust. Timothy was a trustee of a spiritual heritage: “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:” (1 Ti. 6.20). Likewise, elders, which includes pastors, must meet specific requirements which not every man in a church can meet. (See, for example, Tit. 1.5-9). An elder must hold fast the Word of God, “that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers” (Tit. 1.9-16, 2.2; see also, Ac. 11.30, 14.23, (ordained elders in every church), 15.2, 4, 6, 22-23, 16.4, 20.17, 21.18; 1 Ti. 5.1 (“rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father”), 1 Ti. 5.17-19; Ja. 5.14-15; He. 13.7, 17; 1 Pe. 5.1 (Peter the Apostle was an elder, here writing to “the elders who are among you”; 1 Pe. 5.5 (younger to submit to the elder, and all to submit to one another); 2 Jn. 1 and 3 Jn. 1 (John the Apostle was also an elder);

Biblically, a pastor must meet stringent God-given requirements:

  • “This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop [pastor], he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.  Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” (1 Ti. 3.1-7).
  • “For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;” (Tit. 1.7).

These requirements are strict because a pastor, and every member of a church, is entrusted by God to “take care of the church of God.” (1 Ti. 3.5).

“The elders [pastors included] which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.” (1 Pe. 5.1-5).

The Bible proclaims: “Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the Word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.” (He. 13.7). “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.” ( He. 13.17). “Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints….” (He. 13.24). “Them” is plural, and includes the pastor and other elders of a church.

The elders, including the pastor, are to oversee a church: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (Ac. 20.28). Paul was speaking to the elders of the church at Ephesus (Ac. 20.17-18).

A pastor is responsible to act as a ruler, trustee, steward, and overseer of a church. As such, he should be as qualified as any other church member to be the trustee of God’s trust estate.

Analysis of “Jefferson’s Virginia Statute & How Courts Twisted Meaning of First Amendment to make Government Hostile to Religious Liberty” on American Minute by Bill Federer

lick here to go to homepage with links to all analyses of “An American Minute by Bill Federer” Challenged

For a documented history of the spiritual warfare in America that started in the colonial period and continues to this day, see The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus/Christian Revisionism on Trial.

The real problem in America is that the United States Supreme Court removed God all civil government matters. To understand how that happened, see Section V of God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application, p. 194, available in online PDF.

Jerald Finney
January 18, 2023

Click here to go to The American Minute publication of:
American Minute with Bill Federer: “Jefferson’s Virginia Statute & How Courts Twisted Meaning of First Amendment to make Government Hostile to Religious Liberty”

I have removed the contents temporarily. I will add the completely revised article as soon as it is finished.

Section I Chapter 1 of Simply Church: Introduction

Click here to go to home page for the booklet
Simply Church: The Holy Union of Christ and His Local Church

Acting without knowledge, understanding and wisdom is not prudent for the believer who loves, or says he or she loves, the Lord. A believer and a church cannot love and glorify God by just following what someone else says. Sadly, most churches and believers act on the matter of church organization without thinking and as instructed by unthinking pastors, Bible Colleges, Seminaries, “Christian” media, and/or “Christian” lawyers and law firms. They act on misinformation without checking it out against the Word of God. Before organizing a church, they should fully answer and understand answers to questions like:

  • Does God desire union of church and state or separation of church and state?
  • What is church incorporation and federal tax exemption?
  • Do church incorporation and federal tax exemption establish unholy alliances with another lover?
  • Do church incorporation and federal tax exemption violate Bible principle and displease our Lord?
  • What is the Bible Trust relationship with property?
  • Is the Bible Trust relationship with property Biblical?
  • And the list goes on. For a thorough look at answers to all the above and many more relevant questions, see the resources linked to in the Appendix.

This booklet takes the position that local church use of the Bible Trust for holding and managing properties given to God for use according to His will comports with New Testament Church Doctrine. However, no church should act on this conclusion without thorough Holy Spirit led study of the Word of God and the Bible Trust Concept.

This Section will explain God’s Bible Trust Doctrine in some detail. The Bible Trust is a relationship with property; is not statutory; has no nexus with civil government, its authority or courts; and does not organize a church as a trust. The heavens, the earth and all that are in them belong to God.[1] God entrusts man with all His earthly property, and he entrusts His children with all things spiritual. An individual, a family, a nation, and a church are to hold and manage God’s property for his glory.

Following the chapters which explain the concept, this section shows, from the Bible, that the plan is God’s and that the churches in the New Testament followed the plan. For example, no church in the New Testament owned property. Why? Because those churches were eternal spiritual organisms made up of children of God indwelt by the Holy Spirit, not temporal worldly organizations.[2] Never were thy told to put Caesar above God as to heavenly matters, those things having to do with their relationship with God. As to those matters, they were to “obey God rather than men.”[3] Of course, they were also worldly citizens of their nation, but their duty to the nation was temporal. They were instructed to be ideal earthly citizens who also, as members of local churches, were to go out of their churches into all the world and perform a spiritual heavenly mission, the preaching of the gospel.[4]

Oh that we believers could have the attitude, actions, and goal of the Apostle Paul expressed in Philippians 3:7-14:

“7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: 10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; 11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. 12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, 14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.”


Footnotes

[1] See, e.g., 1 Chronicles 29:11; Psalm 24:1; 89:11-12;  Jeremiah 32:17-24; 2 Corinthians 5:18-20; Colossians 1:16;

[2] See, e.g., Ephesians 4, and 1 Corinthians 12.

[3] Acts, 5:29. See, Render Unto God the Things that Are His: A Systematic Study of Romans 13 and Related Verses (https://jeraldfinney.com/god-betrayed/books/render-unto-god-the-things-that-are-his-a-systematic-study-of-romans-13-and-related-verses/).

[4] Romans 12:17-21, Romans 13:8-10, 1Peter 4:12-19 (the actions of the believer toward those who temporally persecute them for being Christians); Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15; Luke 24:47-48; Acts 1:8.

Appendix to Simply Church

Click here to go to home page for the booklet
Simply Church: The Holy Union of Christ and His Local Church

Links to books, essays, and articles which explain all matters related to the church/state relationship from God’s perspective as prescribed in His Word. These resources explain why church non-profit corporation status, federal tax-exempt status, charitable trust status, or legal entity status of any kind is spiritual prostitution; combine the heavenly with the earthly, the holy with the unholy, the eternal with the temporal; grieve our Lord; start a church on a downward slide toward heresy and apostasy; and corrupt the church, the state, and the people. All aspects of these matters are covered in the materials linked to below.

All resources and links below are from on jeraldfinney.com.

Bible Studies on the Doctrine of the Church

Separation of Church and State: God’s Churches: Spiritual or Legal Entities. This book explains why church corporate status, church Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3) or § 508(c)(1)(A) tax-exempt status or legal status of any kind is spiritual fornication. Churches who obtain such status betray their first love.

God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application. This book covers the Bible principles regarding God’s desired relationship between church and state and the American application of those principles. Section VI, “God Betrayed: Union of Church and State,” is an amplified version of Separation of Church and State: God’s Churches: Spiritual or Legal Entities.

Short Course covering the material in God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application.

Short Answers to Some Important Questions
gives links to short relevant articles which serve as good quick references:

The New Testament of Jesus Christ: His Executor Named and Empowered

  1.  What is a Spiritual entity?
  2.  What is a legal entity?
  3. Is a church a Spiritual entity, a legal entity, or a Spiritual/legal entity?
  4. Is it illegal for a church in America not to incorporate? Does a church have to be a 501c3?
  5. Does God Care if our Church is Incorporated?
  6. Should a Church Be a 508 Church?
  7. Does a church in America need an Employer (Tax) ID Number?
  8. Did President Trump do away with 501(c)(3) Requirements?
  9. What does church, inc. mean?
  10. Who Is the head of an incorporated church? 
  11. What is 501c3?
  12. What is 508?
  13. What is the history of the First Amendment?
  14. What is the History and Meaning of “Establishment of Religion” in America?
  15. What is an established church?
  16. What is a First Amendment Church?
  17. Question from a Church Concerning Church Organization
  18. The Bible Answer to the Question, “Is an Incorporated 501(c)(3) or 508 Church a Church of Christ?”

 Analysis of False reasons of Christians and Lawyers for church corporate, 501(c)(3) or 508(c)(1)(A) tax-exempt status or legal status of any kind

Essays and articles linked to at https://jeraldfinney.com/miscellaneous-articles/.
Here are links to articles there which are relevant to church/state relationship:

Why Understanding and Applying Church and State Law Is Important for Believers and Churches

Introduction to Simply Church: God’s Simple Plan for Local Church Organization

Click here to go to home page for the booklet
Simply Church: The Holy Union of Christ and His Local Church

Jerald Finney
January 13, 2023

All individuals and institutions—families, nations, and churches—would do well to go to the Word of God, the Bible, for direction in their affairs. Things would be much simpler, far more fulfilling and rewarding, full of the blessings of God, and free from the judgments of God. Sadly, rarely does this occur. This booklet is concerned only with the matter of doing things God’s way, the Bible way, in the matter of the ordering the God-ordained institution of the church made up of local churches in their relationships to the God-ordained institution of civil government.

Doing things God’s way in the matter of local church organization is really simple, very simple. On the other hand, organizing a church man’s way is very complex, changes the very nature of a church from an eternal, heavenly organization to a temporal, earthly organization, and brings in man-made complexities that change the nature and functioning of a church. Joining church and state combines an temporal earthly power (civil government) with an eternal heavenly power (the local church). Such unions either place the church over the state, the state over the church, or makes them coequal partners. As history amply proves, all such unions inevitably corrupt the church, the state, and the people.

In America, churches may, without persecution, choose either to remain in relationship with Christ alone or to enter into an unholy union with state government (e.g., through non-profit corporation status) and/or federal government (thought “tax-exempt” status). A church who chooses to enter into unholy union with the state grieves our Lord, starts a slide toward heresy and apostasy, and profanes that which God desires, according to His Word, to remain holy, set apart for Him and Him alone.

God wishes the relationship of both husband and wife and Christ and his churches to be holy, set apart for God. Christ likens the relationship between his churches to the marriage relationship: “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.” (Ephesians 5:25-27).

Christ paid a high price for the local churches. He has given church leaders a great responsibility in maintaining their holy status. “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28).

Suppose that one day, John Smith is at home when his wife Alice walks in the front door with her arms around another man, Joe. Alice says to her husband John,

“Hello, dear. I want you to meet Joe. I met him a couple of months ago and he and I have become good friends. We have talked over the phone and had lunch together a few times. That’s all. I have found him to be a very wise and compassionate man, concerned with my well-being, and yours as well. He has some wonderful suggestions as to how this marriage should be run. His ways are much better than your ways as to many matters. I think we should bring him into our relationship for wise counseling and direction. Not only that, he is a rich man and wants to help us out financially. You must agree with me that this new relationship will be far better?”

What would a husband who loved his wife say to her in this eventuality?

Sadly, most churches, like Eve, have been beguiled by the serpent through his subtilty, so that their minds have been corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. They have left their first love as did the church at Ephesus. They have chosen to combine with the state. They usually do so through contracting with the state and federal government for non-profit corporation status, federal tax-exempt status, charitable trust status. Some few do so by setting themselves up as legal entities by acting legally, entities subject to civil government control. A church acts legally when, for example, she takes out insurance on the church, holds property in the name of the church, opens a bank account in the name of the church.[1]

Churches have followed the wrong advice in structuring their relationship with the state. Many know that the example of the churches in the Word of God is complete separation of church and state. Nonetheless, they argue that times have changed and that churches can no longer follow the doctrine and practice of the original New Testament churches. They reason that the church must combine with the state:

  1. So that she can own property, hold a bank account, or act legally in some other manner.
  2. So that she can enter into contracts.
  3. To limit the liability of church members.
  4. So that one’s tithes, offerings and gifts will be tax deductible.
  5. Winning souls is the most important thing, even more important than loving God.
  6. My “Christian” lawyer disagrees with your opinion and advises me such and such.
  7. The church must combine with the state according to Romans 13, 1 Peter 2:13, or some other Scripture.
  8. The Word of God teaches that a church can choose to either combine with the state or not and that one should follow his convictions on the matter.
  9. ad nauseum.

After nineteen years working in the arena of church state relationships, I have found the excuses are seemingly endless. See, [2] for a link to webpages on all related issues including analyses of false reasons for church legal status. Pastors and churches who wish to do things man’s way are always backed up by other pastors, believers Bible colleges, seminaries, churches, and lawyers who will agree with them that their way is the right way. A small minority who have not already come to the knowledge of the truth on the matter defer to the Word of God, study the matter out, repent, and cast aside their unholy alliances.

For two thousand years, a remnant of believes, according to civil and religious laws of those in unholy union with one another, have been persecuted—beheaded, drowned, burned at the stake, mercilessly tortured, imprisoned, banished, deprived of all their property, etc.—because they refused to dishonor their relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. Except for a small remnant, churches in America choose to profane their relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ by becoming legally entwined with civil government. This is true in spite of the fact that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and corresponding state constitutional provisions grant religious and soul liberty. Churches in the United States can do things God’s way with the protection of man’s laws.

This booklet will show churches how to do things God’s way, the simple way, as to their relationship with Christ; the same way that New Testament churches did so by following a concept, a plan utilized by God as to both earthly material and heavenly spiritual possessions from the creation of man until the end of time. Keep reading to see if these things are not so.[3]


Endnotes

[1] See the Appendix for links to resources which explain in detail why a church commits spiritual fornication and betrays her first love by choosing church corporate status, charitable trust status, federal tax exempt status or legal status of any kind.

[2]False reasons of Christians and Lawyers for church corporate, 501(c)(3) or 508(c)(1)(A) tax-exempt status or legal status of any kind” (https://jeraldfinney.com/posts/false-reasons-of-christian-lawyers-and-pastors-for-combining-church-and-state/). Other resources which analyze all related questions include: Separation of Church and State: God’s Churches: Spiritual or Legal Entities (https://jeraldfinney.com/god-betrayed/books/separation-of-church-and-state-gods-churches-spiritual-or-legal-entities/ ); God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application (https://jeraldfinney.com/god-betrayed/books/god-betrayedseparation-of-church-and-state-the-biblical-principles-and-the-american-application/ ); Essays and articles linked to at https://jeraldfinney.com/miscellaneous-articles/.

[3] The Appendix gives links to resources which explain why church incorporation, federal tax exempt status, and other statutory or legal status of churches create unholy relationships between Christ and his local churches. These relationships are spiritual fornication since, by choosing to engage in them, a church takes on another lover besides the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Preface to Simply Church: “Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love”

Click here to go to home page for the booklet
Simply Church: The Holy Union of Christ and His Local Church

Jerald Finney
January 11, 2023

Revelation 1-3, as well as other New Testament books, have many lessons for the churches. [1] One lesson has to do with the proper motivation for the relationship between Christ and the local church. Just as the relationship of husband wife can be profaned, so can the relationship between a church and Christ:

“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” (Ephesians 5:25-27).

Just as a husband who does not uncompromisingly love his wife can be guilty of adultery, so can a church who does not love the Lord Jesus Christ with all her heart, soul, mind, and strength. A church can profane her love for the Lord by entering into unholy unions with other lovers, most notably with federal and/or state government.

Motive influences action. Love for Christ is the proper motivation for service, for preaching, teaching, contending for the faith, for good works, for all that the believer and church do.

Revelation 1-3 reveals that Christ is walking in the midst of every one of his churches, inspecting and judging them. He is observing their actions, attitudes, hearts, and motives. He sees their strengths and weaknesses. Every church should study Revelation 1-3 as well as other New Testament Scripture regarding the doctrine of the church so that she can measure, judge, and bring herself into line with the heart of God.

Many churches in America have “left their first love” (Revelation 2:4). Some, like the church at Ephesus, have hard workers who persevere for His name’s sake, work diligently even though weary, remain patient and steadfast, hate and condemn that which is morally wrong, remain moral in spite of surrounding immorality, abhor that which is wrong, hate false teachings, exercise spiritual discernment and keep themselves pure from doctrinal error. They stay in the battle even though it is wearisome to carry on.

Nonetheless, Christ has a solemn rebuke against many of these churches because they have left their first love. He knows their hearts. He knows that their motivation for service is not a love for Him.  The Church at Ephesus once had an unwavering love for Jesus Christ (Acts 19:17-21). However, within a generation, the church membership had an insensitive disregard for Christ and lacked a yieldedness to Him due to their waning love for Him.

Christ commanded the church at Ephesus to “remember.” They were to recall the joy of their salvation that they first experienced when they were abiding in Christ and feeling the peace of God in their hearts.

He then commanded them to repent and do the first works—that is, to return to Him, to a simple faith in, and genuine love for Him, and for what he had done for them on Calvary’s cross. History records the persecutions—burning at the state, beheading, drowning, extreme torture, imprisonment, banishment—of believers in Christ, members of churches who refused to prostitute their churches by remaining true to the Word of God.

The result of failing to heed Christ’s counsel are serious. Christ said that—if the church at Ephesus did not repent—He would cause her to lose her influence to the point that she would no longer exist as a light in the midst of darkness. Eventually, their light did burn out. Like the church at Ephesus, that of any church not motivated by love for the Savior and acting according to His Word is empty and futile. Their light is not shining, and many, because unrepentant, have ceased to exist.

The size of a church is not evidence of favor with God. The church at Philadelphia was small and insignificant compared to the church at Sardis, but God said that the large, “successful” church at Sardis was dead in his sight while this small, unpopular church at Philadelphia was spiritually thriving. (Revelation 3:1-6; 3:7-13). [2]


Endnotes

[1] Much insight for this preface gleaned from, Matt Costello,  “Christ Speaks to the Seven Churches” (Fresno, CA: Fundamentalist Evangelistic Association, http://www.feasite.org).

[2] The Appendix gives links to resources which explain why church incorporation, federal tax exempt status, and other statutory or legal status of churches betray the love relationship between Christ and His churches.

George Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation: Does It Support Union of Church and State or Separation of Church and State?

Click here to go to an online copy of the Proclamation
The Proclamation is also pasted in the Endnote

Click here to go to homepage with links to all analyses of “An American Minute by Bill Federer” Challenged

Jerald Finney
Copyright © November 24, 2022

This brief article will address the question: “What does George Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation have to say about the relationship of church and state?” The Proclamation as well as facts outside the Proclamation prove that President Washington believed in separation of church and state; the Proclamation also proves that he believed in and supported union of God and state. The difference between the two is explained in both The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus and also God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application.

The Proclamation does not:

  1. mention “church;”
  2. state that church and state should be united in any way; or
  3. explicitly state that church and state should be separate.

My comments on six statements in the Proclamation are in red.

The Proclamation does:

  1. mention “Almighty God.” The Bible makes clear that God is almighty. Washington agrees.
  2. refer to the “providence of Almighty God.”
  3. implicitly state that church and state should be separate.
  4. state that it is the “duty of all nations to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor.” All these statements make clear that Washington believed that God is over all nations and that all nations have a duties to God. He makes clear that he does not believe in separation of God and state.

President Washington stated several conclusions. All are consistent with the Word of God. It is clear from God’s Word that, for the good of man, he wishes all nations to proceed under him, both Jew and Gentile, with distinctions that should be recognized and followed.

The Old Testament deals much with nations and human government. At first, all nations were Gentile. There was no theocracy—God directly over civil government and religion with both working lockstep for the same purposes. Later God covenented with Israel to be  a theocracy, the only theocracy, other than the church, that God ever ordained.

During the time between the fall and the flood, God forbade human government (control of man by man; man taking vengeance for evil doing by men). As a result, since the imagination of man’s heart was only evil continually, “the wickedness of man was great in the earth,” “the earth was corrupt” and “filled with violence.” God’s only remedy was judgment, the judgment of the flood.

God ordained the nations and human government providing for the rule of man by man under God at the flood. He ordained civil government for the temporal earthly purposes of providing a direct control over evil-doers and rewarding those who do good. At first all nations were Gentile.

Later, God called out a nation unto himself, the nation Israel, when he made his covenant with Abraham who was to be the father of Israel.  Israel was to be a theocracy. God has never covenanted with any other nation to be a theocracy with the political and religious combined, working together for the same goals, each doing its part, but both directly under God, according to covenant he he made with Israel through Moses. That covenant dealt with both man’s relationship to God (the first table of the law) and man’s relationship to man (the second table). God later made additional covenants with Israel.

God did not give the law to Gentile nations, as the Old and New Testaments make clear. “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another” (Romans 2:14-15).

None of God’s covenants with Israel apply to Gentile nations. Gentile nations were and are to continue under the covenants  God made with Adam (recorded in Genesis 3:14-19) and Noah (see, Genesis 8:21-9:27).

For much more detail, see The Biblical Doctrine of Government.

America is a Gentile nation. Christian revisionists attempt the impossible: application of the history, covenants, promises, principles, etc. for Israel to America (and other Gentile nations). They want to “Judaize” America and the church. History clearly proves that all unions of church and state have resulted in corruption of the “church,” corruption of the state, and corruption of the people. Of course, God has always had a remnant who stood against the church/state establisment even under penalty of death. Many of our founding fathers understood and proclaimed this.

  1. states, “whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Washington is agreeing with God’s Word which makes clear that all individuals, families, and nations should give such thanks to Him for many reasons. However, the God-given purpose of all governments (individual, family, human, and church) is to glorify God, not happiness, no matter the situation, whether safe or unsafe. Christ wishes that his children might have his joy, not happiness, fulfilled in them (see, e.g., John 17:13). King David prayed, after committing his great sins of adultery and murder, “Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit” (Psalms 51:12). Since God has afforded safety, his children should be thankful and use the occasion for doing his will in all things.

  1. personally recommends and assigns Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be—That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks—for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation—for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war—for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed—for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted—for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.”

Here, President Washington implicitly states that church and state should be separate. Notice that he mentions “civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed.” This is consistent with facts outside this proclamation which make clear that President Washington believed in separation of church and state. One can have both civil and religious liberty only when they have the religious freedom and soul liberty provided by the First Amendment and now by corresponding provisions in all the state constitutions. Massachusetts became the last state to do away with forced establishment in 1833. Both federal and state laws give temporal earthly liberty to the born again believer, who – no matter the state of his temporal earthly liberty – has eternal spiritual liberty “wherewith Christ hath made us free” (Galatians 5:1).

The federal and state laws which provide for civil and religious liberty protect everyone from temporal earthly persecution by the state for their “religious” beliefs; one is free to worship the true God, a false god or gods,  or no god. One cannot have civil and religious liberty when union of church and state are mandated. Without Christ’s liberty, one is a slave; with it, one is free even if the state does not provide for civil liberty.  “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed” (John 8:36).

President Washington—as did James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and many other Founding Fathers—believed in separation of church and state, as history proves. They did not believe in “Judaizing” America, something that can only be simulated and justified by a false interpretation of Scripture and propped up by historical revisionism. For documented proof of the beliefs of the founders, see The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus/Christian Revisionism on Trial, especially Section II Christian History of the First Amendment. The index of the free online PDF version, or the printed book will guide you quickly to pages covering particular persons, places, events, etc.

  1. concludes: “and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions—to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually—to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed—to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord—To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us—and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.”

Amen. Notice that he said, “To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion.” He did not say, “To force men to practice any religion,” including that of any Protestant, Baptist, Quaker, Catholic, Jewish etc. denomination or sect. That precludes union of church and state and requires separation of church and state. As history proves, all such unions have always forced, under severe penalty for disobedience – imprisonment, death, banishment, torture, etc. – all citizens to bow down to the official church/state union. Again, for emphasis, all such unions always resulted in the corruption of the people (who bowed down to the unified religion and state), the state, and the official state “church.” See what Jefferson, Madison, Roger Williams, Isaac Backus, John Leland and others involved in the colonial spiritual warfare said on this matter in the book cited above and also in God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application (go to the index of the PDF or printed version to find pages for particular persons).

So there you have it. President Washington in his Thanksgiving Proclamation – as did Jefferson, Madison, Backus, Leland, Williams – supported separation of church and state. He, as he proclaimed, along with other founding fathers, also believed in and union of God and state, in God over state. This is Biblical. God and church are not the same. God ordained the church long after he ordained civil government. He ordained Gentile human government to deal with termporal earthly matters. He ordained the church with jurisdiction over eternal heavenly matters. Combining the two violates Bible principles. See, God Betrayed for comprehensive explanation.

Christian revisionists cite Washington’s Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, and other historical speeches and documents, out of the context of contrary historical facts in their effort to convince Americans, and especially American “Christians,” that church and state should combine. Because of their inability to correctly believe Scripture, they cannot understand the difference between separation of church and state and separation of God and state. Because they believe it is alright to lie to those who do not share their views, they revise Scripture and history. Like their Catholic and Protestant forefathers, their goal is to “Judaize” American civil government and the church. They say, ad nauseum, “Separation of church and state is not found in the constitution.” I fell for that line and their other soundbites as I began to read and hear Christian revisionists after my salvation in 1980. Over the years, God revealed the truth to me. I had a choice. Go with truth or go with lies. Read the whole story in The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus/Christian Revisionism on Trial/A Case of Premeditated Murder/Christian Revisionism on Trial/The Christian History of the First Amendment (Available in free PDR, softback, online version).


Endnote

Thanksgiving Proclamation, 3 October 1789

[New York, 3 October 1789]

By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be—That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks—for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation—for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war—for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed—for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted—for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions—to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually—to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed—to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord—To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us—and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington

Open Letter from Christian Attorney to Amarillo Mayor Concerning Her Letter Addressing “A Drag Queen Christmas” Event

The picture above is being plastered on billboards in Amarillo, Texas.

This letter was hand delivered and emailed to the Amarillo Mayor and Amarillo city counsel members. Satan and his henchmen are working hard to corrupt every noon and cranny of America. Amarillo is in one of the more coservative areas of the United States, but, like the rest of America, is quickly sliding toward the judgment of God.

Other articles on this matter which also include a copy of the Mayor’s letter:

Amarillo Mayor responds to concerns surrounding drag Show

Organizations ‘upset’ after letter from Amarillo mayor on drag show (Wicked organizations use every opportunity to publish their evil philosophies and influence others to accept or join in their practices and warfare against God.)

Drag Queen brags about what he can do in the open, says children should be exposed to his abomination

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God” ( Deuteronomy 22:5).

Jerald Finney
Attorney at Law
801 Elgin Street
Amarillo, TX 79118

November 22, 2022

RE: Open letter concerning Mayor Ginger Nelson’s letter to churches concerning “A Drag Queen Christmas”

Mayor Ginger Nelson
ginger.nelson@amarillo.gov
601 Buchanan Street
Amarillo TX 79101

To the Honorable Mayor Ginger Nelson:

In this letter, I wish to introduce myself, thank the Amarillo Police Department, and express both my agreements and also my disagreements regarding your letter concerning the use of city facilities for “A Drag Queen Christmas.”

I am a citizen of Amarillo, Texas, and the United States of America; a member of Charity Baptist Tabernacle in Amarillo; and a lost sinner saved by the blood of Jesus. In obedience to our Lord’s commission to God’s children, I, and other members of Charity Baptist Tabernacle, will be outside the “A Drag Queen Christmas” event with signs telling people about Jesus and how to become a child of God. Some may preach, and we will all be available to council those who wish to know how to become a born-again child of God. We will also be available to discuss deeper spiritual matters involved in the spiritual warfare presented by this wicked event with those who already know the Lord as their Savior. Thankfully, First Amendment protections allow us to speak the truth in the public forum without persecution and with the protection of the government.

We appreciate all Amarillo Police Department Officers and personnel. They honor their God-ordained duties including the protection of peaceful and law-abiding speakers and speech in the public forum. We understand and apply our God-given duty as spiritual soldiers to remain peaceful and not to obstruct the movement of others. We understand that law enforcement has a duty to make sure we, and those who disagree with and oppose us, honor that duty. Pastor Larry Hickam, now retired, has explained to me that, due largely to his efforts years ago, the Amarillo Police Department has diligently done their job in protecting those involved in speech in the public forum and especially street preachers.

In your letter, you extend your leadership as mayor to include spiritual leadership and advice. You encourage citizens who are concerned about the “messages and possible content of this show” to take certain actions. Your letter to selected church groups around the city, and others by extension, stated among other things:

“I am praying that this event will give our city an opportunity to engage with people who do not know Jesus and don’t share our beliefs. I pray that our kindness and compassion will be attractive to them as they visit our city and that it will lead to questions and curiosity about our beliefs. … Most of all, I’m praying that those who don’t know Jesus or His grace will meet Him in Amarillo and be changed forever. I hope you will pray with me for these things.”

Do you agree with Charity Baptist Tabernacle that the authority in all matters of faith and practice for the believer in Jesus Christ, for you and the other leaders and employees of the City of Amarillo, is the Word of God? Based upon that understanding, let me briefly address some questions raised by your comments quoted above.

  1. First, if you, in referring to one who “knows Jesus,” mean that such a person is a child of God through the new birth, we are in agreement on that matter. To be born-again, a child of God, a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, God says in His Word that one must realize that he can do nothing to earn his salvation, agree with God concerning his sin, repent (turn to God) with a humble and contrite (not proud) spirit, and trust Jesus Christ to save him from His sin. At the moment of salvation, the newly born child of God is a spiritual baby. The baby Christian is then to be discipled—taught the Word of God and how to study the Word of God and its application in this world. He is to test all that he is taught against the Word of God.
  2. I believe that your call to prayer is according to the will of God, but woefully incomplete. Of course, God instructs his children to pray about all things, but God’s Word makes clear that this matter calls for more than prayer. This is spiritual warfare against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. The instigator of this warfare and the influencer of the “Drag Queens” and their supporters is the “god of this world,” not God. The following gives children of God their marching orders:

“Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.  Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints” (Ephesians 6:10-18).(Bold emphasis added).

God’s Word is truth (John 17:17). It covers knowledge of all aspects of every spiritual warfare, including the one at hand. God’s Word lays out His truths and principles for all governments—individual government, family government, human government, and church government—their God-given jurisdictions, interrelationships, and much more. God desires that His soldiers apply God’s doctrines, testimonies, precepts, commandments, principles, etc. as they represent Him in this world. By the way, God makes clear that children of believers are to obey their parents and that born-again parents are to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:1-4). The home is to be the bootcamp for the spiritual warfare that children will face when they come of age.

“The powers that be are ordained of God” (Romans 13:1c, the context is human government). Human governments have limited God-given jurisdiction (Romans 13:3-4, 8-9; 1 Peter 2:14; those verses and others in the New Testament reflect the much more detailed Old Testament teaching on human government). The God-given jurisdiction of human government extends to matters dealing with man’s relationship with man but not to matters dealing with man’s relationship to God as expressed in the first four of the Ten Commandments (Romans 13:8-9; much more can be learned about these matters from a study of the Old Testament). Render Unto God the Things that Are His: A Systematic Study of Romans 13 and Related Verses (https://jeraldfinney.com/god-betrayed/books/render-unto-god-the-things-that-are-his-a-systematic-study-of-romans-13-and-related-verses/ ), explains the details about man’s obligation to human government. When a human government rule conflicts with what God commands, “We should obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

Civil governments are to “punish evildoers.” Sinners are evil doers; but according to God’s Word, all crimes are sins, but not all sins are crimes. Thus, civil governments are not to punish all sins. Are adultery, homosexual conduct, lesbianism, transgenderism, and men acting as women and vice-versa sins? Definitely. Does God desire that civil government punish them as crimes? I have given much thought to that matter, with God’s Word as my authority.

One thing I know for sure, God will judge individuals, families, churches, and nations who commit, promote, and/or take pleasure in such things (See, e.g., Romans 1:32; for context read Romans 1:18-32 King James Bible, the Bible which was the authority of those persecuted dissenters in colonial America whose stand for religious liberty, freedom of press, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly paved the way for the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. For a history of that spiritual warfare in the American colonies, see  Section II of The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus: Christian Revisionism on Trial)( https://jeraldfinney.com/god-betrayed/books/the-trail-of-blood-of-the-martyrs-of-jesus/ ).

Does God desire that a human government allow such practices to be openly practiced and promoted. I think not. Although God’s Word teaches that God desires separation of church and state, it also teaches that God does not desire governments to apply and practice separation of God (and His principles) and state. I explain that in some detail in Part I of God Betrayed: Separation of Church and State/The Biblical Principles and the American Application (https://jeraldfinney.com/god-betrayed/books/god-betrayedseparation-of-church-and-state-the-biblical-principles-and-the-american-application/ ).

Allowing sinners to openly and pridefully practice abominable sins in an open public forum corrupts and leads to the eventual judgment of God, not to mention the natural consequences of sin. Pride is an abomination to God (Proverbs 6:16-17). “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Corinthians 15:33). The principle of separation runs from Genesis to Revelation. When one combines the holy with the unholy, the unholy always corrupts the holy, and never the other way around. What happens when one puts a teaspoon of arsenic in a glass of water. The concerns for the effects of “A Drag Queen Christmas” on the children of Amarillo (as well as many adults) are well founded. This event is to occur in a city owned facility, paid for by Amarillo taxpayers. Thus, Amarillo, by not taking a firm stand against this event is implicating the political leaders and employees of the city, but also all the taxpayers and citizens of Amarillo. I personally believe not only that you should apologize to but also recompense all Amarillo taxpayers who disagree with your stand on this matter.

America has witnessed the growing acceptance of adultery, fornication, perversions of all kinds, immorality in general, and pride in that immorality. The increase in immorality and acceptance of such over the last ten or twenty years has been at an ever-accelerating rate. This increase has been fueled by postmodernism—the idea that all lifestyles, philosophies and truth claims are equal and no one has a right to say that his truth is superior to that of another—has been taught by our public schools and universities and disseminated by liberal news outlets, magazines, and all kinds of literature. To the postmodernist, the most hateful thing one can is God’s principle that we should hate the sin but love the sinner. Postmodernism is a direct frontal attack on God and His Word. Much of America is now in the grips of this wicked philosophy. Amarillo is still behind and is still somewhat conservative. Yet even Amarillo has it’s “gay pride” parades and other events, as well as businesses, churches, and organizations which are corrupting this city and the citizens who still believe in God and His Word. Sadly, the resistance is not according to God’s knowledge, understanding and wisdom. I have heard church-going people condone sodomy, lesbianism, and same sex marriage. As a sidenote, there is no such thing as same sex marriage. God ordained and defined marriage in the Garden of Eden and never gave civil government any jurisdiction regarding the marriage relationship. See what Jesus said about marriage in Matthew 19:3-6.  No matter what the Supreme Court or any other earthly power says, the marriage union is available only to one man and one woman.

At the very least, the individual believer—no matter his station in life—is to warn everyone of the nature of sin and the consequences for the unrepentant sinner. One cannot be saved if he takes pride in his sin and/or refuses to turn to God and trust Jesus to save him from his sin.

So what is a believer who is a political leader to do? Every believer, whatever his or her post in life, should “obey God rather than men.” The highest law is God’s law, not man’s law. When man’s law contradicts God’s law, the believer should stand on God’s law. Many in America like to proclaim that America is “one nation under God.” The truth is that every nation is under God. However, for the time being, every nation and human government past, present, and future is on probation. There comes a time in the existence of every nation when it will be judged by God; when God’s only remedy is judgment. That time is fast approaching for America, Texas, and Amarillo. For details from the Word of God on this matter, see The Biblical Doctrine of Government (https://jeraldfinney.com/god-betrayed/books/god-betrayedseparation-of-church-and-state-the-biblical-principles-and-the-american-application/online-version-of-the-book-god-betrayed/the-biblical-doctrine-of-government/ ); see also, for more on the hierarchy of law, First Amendment Protection of New Testament Churches/Federal Laws Protecting State Churches (Religious Organizations) (https://jeraldfinney.com/2010/02/26/laws-protecting-new-testament-churches-in-the-united-states-read-them-for-yourself/ )

  1. You stated:

“I am are praying that this event will give our city an opportunity to engage with people who do not know Jesus and don’t share our beliefs. I Pray that our kindness and compassion will be attractive to them as they visit our city and that it will lead to questions and curiosity about our beliefs.”

I agree that individual believers in a city like Amarillo—a city whose leaders have failed to perform their God-given responsibilities—should be kind and compassionate, according to God’s way. One does that by giving forth and exemplifying the truths of God’s Word in a straightforward manner. We should speak the truth in love. We should openly proclaim that their practices are sin; an abomination to God; an attack on God and God’s order for the individual, the family, and human government. We should give them God’s eternal solution. We should do this with the hope that they will recognize their hopeless condition, repent, and trust Jesus Christ to save them from their sin.

Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my concerns and the concerns of some other Amarillo citizens and taxpayers. Hopefully, those who wish to unite against the evils of our day can come together in truth according to the Word of God. Again, my heart-felt thanks to Amarillo law enforcement as they maintain order and protect the rights of all citizens of this city.

Very truly yours,

Jerald Finney

Cc:

Cole Stanley, Councilmember Place 1 cole.stanley@amarillo.gov, 601 Buchanan Street, Amarillo TX 79101

Freda Powell, Councilmember Place 2 freda.powell@amarillo.gov, 601 Buchanan Street, Amarillo TX 79101

Eddie Sauer, Councilmember Place 3 eddy.sauer@amarillo.gov, 601 Buchanan Street, Amarillo TX 79101

Howard Smith, Councilmember Place 4 howard.smith@amarillo.gov, 601 Buchanan Street, Amarillo TX 79101

Analysis of “Virginia’s Founding Highlights of its Religious History – American Minute with Bill Federer”

Click here to go to homepage with links to all analyses of “An American Minute by Bill Federer” Challenged

To gain a comprehensive understanding of this spiritual warfare between Calvinists, Anglicans, and other advocates of union of church and state (church establishment) and historic Baptists, I especially recommend: The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus.

Analysis of “Virginia’s Founding & Highlights of its Religious History – American Minute with Bill Federer”

Jerald Finney
October 31, 2022

Bill Federer’s American Minute article, “Virginia’s Founding & Highlights of its Religious History – American Minute with Bill Federer” mentions a few selected facts from the religious history of Virginia but leaves out more important facts which more correctly explain the whole picture of that history. However, even those few selected facts do not point toward a correct understanding of the road to the First Amendment, religious freedom, and soul liberty in America. Click here to go to Federer’s articleEndnote [i] (click to go to the Endnote) is a summary of the article. Although far from comprehensive on the colonial history of Virginia as related to the issues of the relationship of church and state and the road to the First Amendment, the article did point out a few important facts concerning those matters.

This article now presents a comprehensive history of the struggle for religious freedom and soul liberty in Virginia colony into the early republic. See, The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus pp. 185-218; see also, To Virginia.

The Battle for Religious Freedom in Virginia

Although the final expression of religious freedom that would be incorporated into the Constitution came from Virginia, the final motivation came because of the convictions of the dissenters, mainly the Baptists, and the thrust for their growth and influence came from the Great Awakening.

“[T]he early Baptists of Virginia, … while they could not boast of great wealth, or culture, or refinement, they possessed some things of more real value, and which the Commonwealth greatly needed. In the first place they had religion—genuine religion; not a sham, nor an empty form, but the old time religion of the heart. Then they had a personal worth or character, that character which always follows from having genuine religion. And then, again, those early Baptists had an unquenchable love of liberty. The truth of the New Testament makes men free indeed, and it inspires them with a love of freedom, not for themselves only, but for all men. And it was because they possessed these traits that they resisted the temptations of the General Incorporation and General Assessment, and stood their ground amid the general desertion. They resolved to continue to fight.” Endnote [ii].

The conflict in Virginia originally involved the Anglicans and Presbyterians, neither of which originally believed in either religious freedom or separation of church and state. Religious freedom and separation are owed mainly to the Baptists who believed in both. What Jefferson and Madison wrote about and did for religious freedom resulted from their observance of the conflict among Christians and is not to be found in the pages of philosophers of the Enlightenment. Endnote [iii].

“The Presbyterians [in Virginia] won religious liberty for themselves against the opposition of the Episcopalians. Next the Baptists won religious liberty for themselves against the opposition of the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians. By 1775 about three quarters of the people of Virginia were outside the Church of England, but many of the most influential Virginians were inside. When the war started, there were ninety-five Anglican parishes in Virginia. The war killed off at least a quarter of them. Nowhere in the colonies was Tory sentiment stronger than among the Anglican clergy of Virginia, and they found themselves at the gravest of odds with their flocks.” Endnote [iv].

Virginia “was founded by members of the Church of England and none others were tolerated in its jurisdiction.” Endnote [v]. The Episcopal church, the Church of England, in Virginia was established from the founding of Jamestown in 1607.

“It was known, also, as the ‘Established Church,’ because it was made, by legal enactment, the church of the State and was supported by taxation. Not only so, but it was designed to be the established church, to the exclusion of all others. Rigid laws, with severe penalties affixed, were passed, having for their object the exclusion of all Dissenters from the colony, and the compelling of conformity to the established, or State, religion. Even after the Revolution of 1688, which placed William and Mary upon the throne of England and secured the passage of the ‘Act of Toleration’ the following year, the ‘General Court of the Colony’ of Virginia construed that act to suit themselves, and withheld its benefits from Dissenters … until they were compelled to yield to the force of circumstances.” Endnote [vi].

Christian revisionists Peter Marshall and David Manuel who favored the Calvinism of the New England Congregationalists, wrote, amidst many historical revisions, the truth that Jamestown was a disaster and that the people who settled the colony were motivated by greed and not the love of the Lord. Endnote [vii]. Although undoubtedly there probably were some godly ministers, much of the clergy of the Anglican church in Virginia prior to the Revolution had loose morals, were mainly concerned about their financial security, and were lacking in biblical and spiritual knowledge. The clergy of that church fought to keep their establishment to the bitter end. By far their most consistent and determined opponents were the Baptists. A publication of a law firm that encourages churches to become corporate 501(c)(3) religious organizations led off with an article laughingly entitled (to one who knows the real facts about the settlement) “Jamestown, Where America Became a Christian Nation.” Endnote [viii]. The author, unnamed, states some truth in the article but also gives a totally distorted view of the early history of Jamestown and fails to mention the depravity of the people who originally settled there. Neither Marshall and Manuel nor the author of the aforementioned article make mention that the theology behind the settlement was ecclesiocratic and against religious liberty: the “Articles, Instructions, and Orders” from the homeland said that the “‘true word’ must be ‘according to the doctrine, rights, and religion now professed and established within our regime in England.’” Endnote [ix].

The Church of England was stronger in Virginia than in any colony. In Virginia, the established Anglican church was controlled by the state, unlike in New England where the established church controlled the state. From the beginning of the colony, the “company knew not how to control the members composing the colony but by religion and law.” Endnote [x]. The original “Lawes Divine, Moral and Martial” which were decreed in 1612, were severe. Speaking impiously of the Trinity or of God the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, blaspheming God, incorrigibly cursing, a third failure to attend religious services, and a third “Sabbath-breaking,” were punishable by death. Other spiritual offenses were punished by whipping and other penalties. Endnote [xi].

Upon appeal to England, these laws were repealed. The laws enacted in support of the Anglican establishment were less severe. Still, the Anglican church was established (and this establishment continued until the revolution with one short interruption), nonattendance at church services was the subject of fines, the payment of tithes were mandatory, every parson was entitled to the glebe—a piece of land—parish churches were built by taxes, and ministers were required to “conform themselves in all things according to the canons of the Church of England.”

“Puritan clergy were banished for failing to conform to Anglican services; Quakers [and Baptists] were fined, imprisoned, and banished. Catholics were disqualified from public office, and any priest who ventured to enter the colony was subject to instant expulsion. Penalties were imposed on those who having scruples against infant baptism, neglected to present their children for that purpose.” Endnote [xii].

A 1643 law forbade anyone to teach or preach religion, publicly or privately, who was not a minister of the Church of England, and instructed governor and council to expel all nonconformists from the colony. Endnote [xiii]. In 1643, three Congregationalist ministers from Boston were forced to leave the colony. Also in 1643, “Sir William Berkeley, Royal Governor of Virginia, strove, by whippings and brandings, to make the inhabitants of that colony conform to the Established church, and thus drove out the Baptists and Quakers, who found a refuge in … North Carolina.” Quakers first came to Virginia in “1659-60, and … the utmost degree of persecution was exercised towards them.” “During the period of the Commonwealth in England, there had been a kind of interregnum as to both Church and State in Virginia; but in 1661, the supremacy of the Church of England was again fully established.” Only ministers of the Church of England were permitted to preach, and only ministers of that church could “celebrate the rites of matrimony,” and only “according to the ceremony prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer.” Endnote [xiv].

Although some Presbyterians settled in Virginia from 1670 to 1680, the number & influence of Presbyterians in Virginia was small until the mid-1700s. In the mid-1700s an influential body of Presbyterians settled in Hanover County as a result of a 1738 agreement between the Presbyterian Synod of Philadelphia and Virginia governor William Gooch which allowed “emigrants to occupy the frontier portions of Virginia and enjoy the benefits of the Act of Toleration.” Endnote [xv].

The first non-Anglican minister to receive a license under the Act of Toleration passed by the British Parliament in 1689, which instructed liberty of conscience for all but Papists, was Francis Makemie, a Presbyterian minister in Accomac County. By 1725, no more than five conventicles, “three small meetings of Quakers and two of Presbyterians,” were licensed, and these in poorer counties who were unable to pay the established minister enough to stay. In 1725, a similar license was granted to “certain parties (doubtless Presbyterians)” in Richmond County. Endnote [xvi].

Presbyterian families from Pennsylvania and Maryland began to move to remote parts of Virginia on the western frontier in 1738. The Presbyterian Synod of Pennsylvania wrote Governor Gooch of Virginia asking for religious freedom for those Presbyterians. Governor Gooch, knowing these people “to be firm, enterprising, hardy, brave, good citizens and soldiers,” and desiring “to form a complete line of defense against the savage inroads,” welcomed them. “At so great a distance from the older settlements, he anticipated no danger to the established church.” The conditions of settlement were that they “were not only to settle in the frontier counties as a buffer between the Churchmen and the Indians, but they had to swear allegiance to ‘His Magesty’s person and government,’” pay the taxes levied in support of the Established Church, and never by word or deed seek to injure the said church…. “Houses for public worship could not be occupied without permission from the civil authorities, and each application for a house of worship was heard on its own merits.” “[Those early Presbyterians] did not break their promise nor violate their oaths.” Up to the Revolution, “they never demanded anything more than their rights under the Act of Toleration, and … not until the Revolution was accomplished, and Virginia had thrown off allegiance to Great Britain, did they (the Presbyterians) strike hands with the Baptists in the effort to pull down the Establishments.” However, with the fury of the French and Indian War, which broke out in 1755, Presbyterians east of the Blue Ridge occupied houses of worship without license or molestation. Endnote [xvii].

Different bodies of Baptists came to Virginia during the colonial period. The “Regular Baptists,” like the Presbyterians, “applied for license and took the prescribed oaths.” As for the “Separate Baptists,” the “body spread so rapidly throughout the State from 1755 to the … Revolution,” and “did not recognize the right of any civil power to regulate preaching or places of meeting.” They were the “most active in evangelizing Virginia and most severely persecuted, and … had the largest share of the work of pulling down the ‘Establishment’ and securing religious liberty for all.” “While yielding a ready obedience to the civil authorities in all civil affairs, in matters of religion they recognized no lord but Christ. They were truly apostolic in refusing to obey man rather than God.” Endnote [xviii].

Conditions were favorable for the rapid growth of Baptist principles. “First, the distress of the colonists, consequent upon the French and Indian wars, inclined them towards religion.” Secondly, the distressed people could find no solace or comfort in the immoral established clergy.

“The great success and rapid increase of the Baptists in Virginia must be ascribed primarily to the power of God working with them. Yet it cannot be denied but that there were subordinate and cooperating causes; one of which, and the main one, was the loose and immoral deportment of the Established clergy, by which the people were left almost destitute of even the shadow of true religion. ‘Tis true, they had some outward forms of worship, but the essential principles of Christianity were not only not understood among them, but by many never heard of. Some of the cardinal precepts of morality were discarded, and actions plainly forbidden by the New Testament were often proclaimed by the clergy as harmless and innocent, or, at worst, foibles of but little account. Having no discipline, every man followed the bent of his own inclination. It was not uncommon for the rectors of parishes to be men of the lowest morals. The Baptist preachers were, in almost every respect, the reverse of the Established clergy.’” Endnote [xix].

Their own authorities prove the bad character and actions of the established clergy. Many of that clergy came to Virginia “to retrieve either lost fortune or lost character….” “Many of them had been addicted to the race-field, the card-table, the theatre—nay, more, to drunken revel, etc….” “They could babble in a pulpit, roar in a tavern, exact from their parishioners, and rather by their dissoluteness destroy than feed the flock.” Endnote [xx].

The Baptists grew stronger and more numerous in Virginia. Robert Nordin, when he arrived from England in 1714, established the first Baptist church in Virginia. By 1755, there were six Baptist churches in Virginia. Endnote [xxi]. 1758 to 1769 was a period of slow but persistent growth in the face of a determined popular hostility. The early opposition to the Baptists came from the lower classes and was based upon prejudice.

The Virginia expansion was intimately tied up with the ministry of Colonel Samuel Harris. Harris—who served at various times as churchwarden, sheriff, justice of the peace, colonel of the county, and captain and commissary of Fort Mayo and its military garrison—was the first person of prominence to join the Separates in Virginia and was just one of many examples of the power of this movement. He was saved at a house meeting after hearing a sermon preached by a Separate Baptist from North Carolina. He resigned from his official positions and narrowed his business interests almost to the vanishing point in order to preach. He began to preach throughout Virginia, and many were converted because of his ministry. Endnote [xxii].

Harris was a fearless preacher. “The excellence of his preaching lay chiefly in ‘addressing the heart,’ and Semple holds that ‘perhaps even Whitefield did not surpass him in this.’” Endnote [xxiii]. He had the assistance of several North Carolina itinerant evangelists planting the earliest Separate churches in south central Virginia. In 1760, Daniel Marshall and Philip Mulkey with seventy-four charter members, eleven of whom were Negroes, started the Dan River Church. Other churches were soon constituted from the Dan River Church. Endnote [xxiv].

Wherever the Baptist itinerants preached, great crowds came to hear them. Many were converted in Virginia, and many Baptist churches were started. In 1770, there were only two Separate churches north of the James River, four south of it. The General Association of Separate Baptists of Virginia was held in May 1771 in Orange County with twelve churches represented, and three not represented.

By 1772, the Separate Churches outnumbered those of the Regular churches. In that year, as many as forty thousand Virginians may have heard the gospel. By 1773, thirty-four churches were represented at the General Association meeting, and they reported a combined membership of 3,195. By May 1774, when Baptist expansion and Baptist persecution were at high tide, the Southern District in Virginia had twenty-seven churches with 2,033 members and the Northern District had twenty-four churches with 1,921 members. By the end of 1774, there was at least one Separate Baptist church in twenty-eight of the sixty counties of Virginia. During the Revolution, Baptist growth continued, but at a much slower pace. Endnote [xxv].

From 1768 through 1774, the Baptists were persecuted severely. “Baptist preachers were whipped, arrested, fined, imprisoned on bread and water, although the authorities sanctimoniously denied that punishment was for ‘preaching’; the crime they said, was ‘breach of the peace.’” Endnote [xxvi]. The first instance of actual imprisonment was on June 4, 1768, when John Waller, Lewis Craig, James Childs, James Reed, and William Marsh were arrested at Craig’s meetinghouse in Spotsylvania and charged with disturbing the peace. The magistrates offered to release them if they would promise to preach no more for a year and a day. They refused and were jailed. Many more were jailed and otherwise persecuted until 1774. Endnote [xxvii].

  • “[The persecutors] seemed sometimes to strive to treat the Baptists and their worship with as much rudeness and indecency as was possible. They often insulted the preacher in time of service, and would ride into the water and make sport when they administered baptism. They frequently fabricated and spread the most groundless reports, which were injurious to the characters of the Baptists. When any Baptist fell into any improper conduct, it was always exaggerated to the utmost extent.” Endnote [xxviii].
  • “The enemy, not contented with ridicule and defamation, manifested their abhorrence to the Baptists in another way. By a law then in force in Virginia, all were under obligation to go to church several times a year; the failure subjected them to fine. [Little action against members of the Established church was taken under this law, but] as soon as the ‘New Lights’ were absent, they were presented by grand jury, and fined…. [Others were imprisoned for preaching without a license.] ‘When persecutors found religion could not be stopped … by ridicule, defamation, and abusive language, the resolution was to take a different step and see what they could do; and the preachers in different places were apprehended by magisterial authority, some of whom were imprisoned and some escaped. Before this step was taken, the parson of the parish was consulted [and he advised that] the ‘New Lights’ ought to be taken up and imprisoned, as necessary for the peace and harmony of the old church….’” Endnote [xxix].
  • “[An Episcopalian wrote,] No dissenters in Virginia experienced, for a time, harsher treatment than did the Baptists. They were beaten and imprisoned, and cruelty taxed its ingenuity to devise new modes of punishment and annoyance.” Endnote [xxx].

Because of the persecutions and oppressions, Baptists began to petition the House of Burgesses for relief. Their first petition in 1770 requesting that Baptist ministers “not be compelled to bear arms or attend musters” was rejected. Other petitions from Baptists in several counties were submitted in 1772 requesting that they “be treated with the same indulgence, in religious matters, as Quakers, Presbyterians, and other Protestant dissenters enjoy.” The petitions continued until 1775. Endnote [xxxi]. The Presbyterians petitioned also, but for the right to incorporate so that they could receive and hold gifts of land and slaves for the support of their ministers. One of the Presbyterian petitions was improperly hailed as proof “that the Presbyterians anticipated the Baptists in their memorials asking for religious liberty.” An examination of that petition reveals that it “contemplate[d] nothing more than securing for Presbyterians and others in Virginia the same privileges and liberties which they enjoyed in England under the Act of Toleration,” and contained no “attack upon the Establishment, or any sign of hostility to it.” Endnote [xxxii].

During this time, James Madison wrote to his old college friend, Bradford of Philadelphia, in a letter dated January 24, 1774. He expressed his belief that if

“uninterrupted harmony had prevailed throughout the continent [in matters of established religion as practiced in Virginia] it is clear to me that slavery and subjection might and would have been gradually insinuated among us. Union of religious sentiments begets a surprising confidence, and ecclesiastical establishments tend to greatly ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitates the execution of mischievous projects…. Poverty and luxury prevail among all sorts; pride, ignorance, and knavery among the priesthood, and vice and wickedness among the laity. This is bad enough; but it is not the worst I have to tell you. That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some, and to their eternal infamy, the clergy can furnish their quota of imps for such purposes. There are at this time in the adjacent country not less than five or six well-meaning men in close jail for publishing their religious sentiments, which in the main are very orthodox. I have neither patience to hear, talk, or think of anything relative to this matter; for I have squabbled and scolded, abused and ridiculed, so long about it to little purpose, that I am without common patience…. So I must beg you to pity me, and pray for liberty of conscience to all.” Endnote [xxxiii].

[In another letter to Bradford dated April 1, 1774, Madison wrote that he doubted that anything would be done to help the dissenters in the Assembly meeting beginning May 1, 1774.] He spoke of “the incredible and extravagant stories [which were] told in the House of the monstrous effects of the enthusiasm prevalent among the sectaries, and so greedily swallowed by their enemies…. And the bad name they still have with those who pretend too much contempt to examine into their principles and conduct, and are too much devoted to ecclesiastical establishment to hear of the toleration of the dissentients…. The liberal, catholic, and equitable way of thinking, as to the rights of conscience, which is one of the characteristics of a free people, and so strongly marks the people of your province, is little known among the zealous adherents to our hierarchy…. [Although we have some persons of generous principles in the legislature] the clergy are a numerous and powerful body, have great influence at home by reason of their connection with and dependence on the bishops and crown, and will naturally employ all their arts and interest to depress their rising adversaries; for such they must consider dissentients, who rob them of the good will of the people, and may in time endanger their livings and security. … Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind, and unfits if for every enterprise, every expanded prospect.” Endnote [xxxiv].

1775 closed the period of “Intolerance, Toleration, and Persecution.”

“The colony is involved in trouble with the mother country. Virginia has denounced the ‘Boston Port Bill,’ and made common cause with Massachusetts. The First Continental Congress has already met in Philadelphia. Patrick Henry has electrified the country by his memorable speech in the popular Convention which met March, 1775…. The Battles of Lexington and Concord have been fought (April 19), and Virginia has taken steps to enroll companies of volunteers in every county. The war of the Revolution is on, and the times call for union and harmony among all classes. Hence, there is no more persecution of Baptists. There are no more imprisonments in 1775, and that obnoxious Toleration Bill is indefinitely postponed. The same ruling class that admitted the Presbyterians to Virginia and to the benefits of the Act of Toleration, on condition that they occupied the frontier counties, and thus protected them against Indian raids, are now inclined to tolerate, not only the Presbyterians, but the Baptists also, with all their ‘pernicious doctrines,’ if only they will help in the struggle with Great Britain. The Baptists will help, and not a Tory will be found among them. But they will strike for something more and something dearer to them than civil liberty—for freedom of conscience, for ‘just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty.’” Endnote [xxxv].

The Baptists were ready to push for religious freedom and abolition of the establishment. In their Association meeting on the fourth Saturday of May 1775, “they were to a man favorable to any revolution by which they could obtain freedom of religion. They had known from experience that mere toleration was not a sufficient check, having been imprisoned at a time when that law was considered by many as being in force.” “The Revolutionary War opened up possibilities to overthrow the entire system of persecution…. [Baptists] were everywhere the friends of liberty…. There was not a tory among the Baptists of America.” Endnote [xxxvi]. They received the highest praise for their patriotic endeavors. Endnote [xxxvii].

The Baptists decided to circulate petitions throughout the state calling for abolition of the church establishment and freedom of religion, and also to appoint commissioners to present their address for military resistance to British oppression and “offering the services of their young men as soldiers and asking only that, so far as the army was concerned, their ministers might enjoy like privileges with the clergy of the Established church” to the State Convention which was the House of Burgess under a new name and in a different character. The Convention, still controlled by “the same class that had, a few years before made concessions to the … Presbyterians on condition that they settle on the western counties forming a line of defense against the Indians, resolved to allow those dissenters in the military who so desired to attend divine worship administered by dissenting preachers. This first step towards placing all Virginia clergy on an equal footing, came as a result of the need for the numerical strength of the Baptists in what was considered by the establishment in 1775 a “struggle for their rights ‘in the union’ [with England].” The Convention maintained their “faith and true allegiance to His Majesty, George the Third, [their] only lawful and rightful King.” “It would have been very impolitic, even if their petitions had been ready, to have sprung the question of disestablishment upon [the Convention] before they had committed themselves to the cause of independence.” Endnote [xxxviii].

Virginia adopted a new constitution in 1776. The Convention of 1776 was, by its act, made the “House of Delegates” of the first General Assembly under the new constitution. Twenty-nine new members in this meeting were not in the 1775 Convention. “[W]hen there was anything near a division among the other inhabitants in a county, the Baptists, together with their influence, gave a caste to the scale, by which means many a worthy and useful member was lodged in the House of Assembly and answered a valuable purpose there.” Endnote [xxxix]. Among those favorable to Baptist causes was James Madison. On May 12, the Congress met in Philadelphia “and instructed the colonies to organize independent governments of their own. The war was on.” On May 15, the Convention resolved to declare the “colonies free and independent states” and that a committee be appointed to prepare Declaration of Rights and a plan of government which would “maintain peace and order” and “secure substantial and equal liberty to the people.” Endnote [xl].

Other than Rhode Island, Virginia was the first colony to recognize religious liberty “in her organic law, and this she did in Article XVI. of her Bill of Rights, which was adopted on the 12th day of June 1776.” Endnote [xli]. In 1776, petitions from all over Virginia seeking religious freedom and freedom of conscience beset the Virginia state convention. Patrick Henry proposed the provision to section sixteen of the Virginia Bill of Rights, which granted religious tolerance. Endnote [xlii]. On June 12, the House adopted a Declaration of Rights. The 16th Article provided for religious tolerance. However, [o]n motion on the floor by James Madison, the article was amended to provide for religious liberty. In committee, Madison opposed toleration because toleration “belonged to a system where there was an established church, and where it was a thing granted, not of right, but of grace. He feared the power, in the hands of a dominant religion, to construe what ‘may disturb the peace, the happiness, or the safety of society,’ and he ventured to propose a substitute, which was finally adopted.” Endnote [xliii]. He probably moved to change the amendment before the whole house in order to demonstrate his position to the Baptists who were viewing the proceedings. The amendment as passed by the convention read:

“That religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.” Endnote [xliv].

“The adoption of the Bill of Rights marked the beginning of the end of the establishment.” Endnote [xlv].

Where did Madison learn the distinction between religious freedom and religious toleration?

“It had not then begun to be recognized in treatises on religion and morals. He did not learn it from Jeremy Taylor or John Locke, but from his Baptist neighbors, whose wrongs he had witnessed, and who persistently taught that the civil magistrate had nothing to do with matters of religion.” Endnote [xlvi].

Madison studied for the ministry at Princeton University, then the College of New Jersey, under John Witherspoon. When he returned to Virginia, he continued his theological interests and developed a strong concern for freedom of worship.

“At the time of Madison’s return from Princeton, several ‘well-meaning men,’ as he described them, were put in prison for their religious views. Baptists were being fined or imprisoned for holding unauthorized meetings. Dissenters were taxed for the support of the State Church. Preachers had to be licensed. Madison saw at first hand the repetition of the main evils of the Old Country. But he also saw a deep dissatisfaction among the people—the kind of dissatisfaction that would grow and that would serve as a mighty battering ram for religious freedom.” Endnote [xlvii].

It appears that the Baptists were the only denomination of Christians that addressed the 1775 and 1776 conventions on the subject of the rights of conscience. Not until the Revolution in Virginia were the Presbyterians free from the agreement with Governor Gooch. When the Assembly met in October 1776, they were “powerful allies of the Baptists and other dissenters in the war against the Establishment.” Endnote [xlviii].

“From that time down to January 19, 1786, when Jefferson’s ‘Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom,’ became the law of the State, the battle for soul liberty was on,” Endnote [xlix]. and the process of disestablishment gathered momentum. The legislature of 1776 repealed the laws punishing heresy and absence from worship and exempted dissenters from paying taxes for support of the Church. Although this bill was a compromise, it sounded the death knell of the Anglican establishment. A later statute removed the law fixing the salaries of clergymen, and the position of the Established church was limited more and more until the Declaratory Act of 1787 ended establishment in Virginia. Endnote [l].

“From 1776 to 1779 the assembly was engaged almost daily in the desperate contests between the contending factions.” Endnote [li]. Whereas only one Baptist petition had been presented to the first Convention in 1776, and that after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the Legislature that assembled on October 7, 1776, was immediately flooded with petitions both for and against establishment. “None of the petitions against establishment were from Baptists as such. However, historians of the times admit that Baptists ‘were not only the first to begin the work, but also the most active in circulating petitions for signatures.’” “Among the signers were some of all denominations of Christians, and many of no denomination. This explains why the Baptist petition or petitions were from dissenters in general, instead of from Baptist dissenters in particular.” Endnote [lii]. The Reverend E. G. Robinson, in his review of Rives’ Life and Times of James Madison, Christian Review of January 1860, said, “The [Presbyterians] argued their petitions on various grounds, and indeed sought for different degrees of religious freedom, while the [Baptists] were undeviating and uncompromising in their demands for a total exemption from every kind of legal restraint or interference in matters of religion.” Endnote [liii]. The Methodists and the established church presented petitions for establishment. Endnote [liv].

The established church did not give up. Thomas Jefferson gave an account of the struggle through which the Legislature, meeting in late 1776, had just passed:

  • “The first republican Legislature, which met in 1776, was crowded with petitions to abolish this spiritual tyranny. These brought on the severest contest in which I have ever been engaged…. The petitions were referred to a Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Country; and, after desperate contests in the committee almost daily from the 11th of October to the 5th of December, we prevailed so far only as to repeal the laws which rendered criminal the maintenance of any religious opinions (other than those of the Episcopalians), the forbearance of repairing to the (Episcopal) church, or the exercise of any (other than the Episcopal) mode of worship; and to suspend only until the next session levies on the members of that church for the salaries of its own incumbents. For, although the majority of our citizens were dissenters, as has been observed, a majority of the legislature were churchmen. Among these, however, were some reasonable and liberal men, who enabled us on some points to obtain feeble majorities. But our opponents carried, in the general resolutions of November the 19th, a declaration that religious assemblies ought to be regulated, and that provision ought to be made for continuing the succession of the clergy and superintending their conduct. And in the bill now passed was inserted an express reservation of the question whether a general assessment should not be established by law on every one to the support of the pastor of his choice; or whether all should be left to voluntary contributions; and on thus question, debated at every session from 1776 to 1779 (some of our dissenting allies, having now secured their particular object, going over to the advocates of a general assessment,) we could only obtain a suspension from session to session until 1779, when the question against a general assessment was finally carried, and the establishment of the Anglican church entirely put down.

 

Endnote [lv].

Legislative meetings from 1776 to December 1779 were presented with memorials both for and against establishment. Endnote [lvi].

When the House met in June 1779, petitions presented to the Assembly showed that the old establishment and its friends were fighting for some sort of compromise based on a general assessment. In 1779, the assembly repealed all laws requiring members of the Episcopal Church to contribute to the support of their own ministry. Endnote [lvii]. In December 1779, a bill passed which “cut the purse strings of the Establishment, so that the clergy could no longer look for support to taxation. But they still retained possession of the rich glebes, and enjoyed a monopoly, almost, of marriage fees.” Endnote [lviii]. It took until 1779 to pass a bill taking away tax support for the clergy because the dissenters, with the exception of the Baptists, “having been relieved from a tax which they felt to be both unjust and degrading, had no objection to a general assessment.” Endnote [lix].

“Jefferson sought to press the advantage, and introduced his Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, but Virginia was not quite ready to formalize the separation which had in effect taken place, and the bill was not voted on.” Endnote [lx]. Instead “a bill was introduced which declared that “the Christian Religion shall in all times coming be deemed and held to be the established Religion of this Commonwealth.” This bill required everyone to register with the county clerk stating which church he wished to support. Endnote [lxi].

Although various petitions were presented to the Assembly during the period from 1780 until the end of the Revolution on September 3, 1783, the General Assembly did very little regarding the cause of religious liberty. In 1783 “the project … of incorporating, or establishing as the religion of the State, all the prevailing denominations, and assessing taxes upon the people to support the ministers of all alike, was now warmly advocated by Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Methodists, and becoming quite popular. To this scheme the Baptists still gave the most determined opposition, and sent up against it the most vigorous remonstrances.” The Baptists also continued to petition for the adoption of the Act to Establish Religious Freedom. Endnote [lxii].

After the Revolution, numerous petitions and memorials were presented to the House of Delegates in 1784 and 1785 by the above-mentioned denominations in support of their positions. Endnote [lxiii]. The Episcopalians sought to recover lost ground. “In the late spring of 1784, a resolution was introduced in the Virginia Assembly seeking official recognition for the Episcopal Church. The resolution was debated for two days, with notable opposition from Baptists and Presbyterians.” Endnote [lxiv]. Madison, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson dated July 3, 1784, wrote concerning this resolution:

“The Episcopal clergy introduced a notable project for re-establishing their independence of laity. The foundation of it was that the whole body should be legally incorporated, invested with the present property of the Church, made capable of acquiring indefinitely—empowered to make canons and by-laws not contrary to the laws of the land, and incumbents when once chosen by vestries, to be immovable otherwise than by sentence of the Convocation.” Endnote [lxv].

The Baptists continued their uncompromising stand against any vestige of union of church and state. They gave their reasons for their position against a general assessment:

  • “First, it was contrary to their principles and avowed sentiments, the making provision for the support of religion by law; that the distinction between civil and ecclesiastical governments ought to be kept up without blending them together; that Christ Jesus hath given laws for the government of his kingdom and direction of his subjects, and gave instruction concerning collections for the various purposes of religion, and therefore needs not legislative interference.
  • “Secondly, should a legislative body undertake to pass laws for the government of the church, for them to say what doctrines shall be believed, in what mode worship shall be performed, and what the sum collected shall be, what a dreadful precedent it would establish; for when such a right is claimed by a legislature, and given up by the people, by the same rule that they decide in one instance they may in every instance. Religion is like the press; if government limits the press, and says this shall be printed and that shall not, in the event it will destroy the freedom of the press; so when legislatures undertake to pass laws about religion, religion loses its form, and Christianity is reduced to a system of worldly policy.
  • “Thirdly, it has been believed by us that that Almighty Power that instituted religion will support his own cause; that in the course of divine Providence events will be overruled, and the influence of grace on the hearts of the Lord’s people will incline them to afford and contribute what is necessary for the support of religion, and therefore there is no need for compulsory measures.
  • “Fourthly, it would give an opportunity to the party that were numerous (and, of course, possessed the ruling power) to use their influence and exercise their art and cunning, and multiply signers to their own favorite party. And last, the most deserving, the faithful preacher, who in a pointed manner reproved sin and bore testimony against every species of vice and dissipation, would in all possibility, have been profited very little by such a law, while men-pleasers, the gay and the fashionable, who can wink at sin and daub his hearers with untempered mortar, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace, who can lay out his oratory in dealing out smooth things mingled with deception, the wicked, it is clear, would like to have it so; and it follows the irreligious and carnal part of the people would richly reward them for their flattery, and the undeserving go off with the gain.”

Endnote [lxvi].

The Presbyterians took “a sort of middle ground, which caused confusion in their own ranks and compromised them in the estimation of others.” It appears that the Presbyterian clergy advocated a plan of general assessment supporting all denominations who believed in union of church and state, but not those who believed in religious liberty and absolute freedom of conscience. James Madison commented on the position of the Presbyterians:

  • “The laity of the other sects (other than Episcopalian) are generally unanimous [against the general assessment]. So are all the clergy, except the Presbyterian, who seem as ready to set up an establishment which is to take them in as they were to pull down that which shut them out. I do not know a more shameful contrast than might be found between their memorials on the latter and former occasions. Rives, I., 630.” [Quoting a letter to James Monroe, April 12, 1775] Endnote [lxvii].

Thus, “[i]n [these] later stages of disestablishment there was a curious alliance formed between the Episcopalian and Presbyterian clergy with an eye to creating a new line of defense.” Endnote [lxviii]. “In 1784, the Virginia House of Delegates having under consideration a ‘bill establishing provision for teachers of the Christian religion,’ postponed it until the next session, and directed that the Bill should be published and distributed, and that the people be requested ‘to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of such a bill at the next session of assembly.” Endnote [lxix]. This last action was a result of a resolution offered by the Baptists and adopted by the Legislature. The Baptists, appearing to be losing ground as the only opponents of a general assessment, the majority of the Legislature being churchmen, the only hope of the opponents of the assessment was an appeal to the people. Endnote [lxx].

The bill—which was proposed by Patrick Henry and supported by George Washington, Richard Henry Lee, and John Marshall—provided for the establishment a provision for teachers of the Christian religion, in effect providing for the “establishment of Christianity, but without precedence in such an establishment to any particular church.” Endnote [lxxi]. The bill required all persons “to pay a moderate tax or contribution annually for the support of the Christian religion, or of some Christian church, denomination or communion of Christians, or for some form of Christian worship.” Endnote [lxxii].

Leo Pfeffer noted:

  • “the bill was predicated on the legislative determination in its preamble that ‘the general diffusion of Christian knowledge hath a natural tendency to correct the morals of men, restrain their vices, and preserve the peace of society; which cannot be effected without a competent provision for licensed teachers.’
  • “The preamble is of great significance, because it recognized the widely held belief that religion was not within the competence of civil legislatures. It sought to justify intervention not on any theocratic ground but on what today would be called the ‘police’ or ‘welfare’ power. Government support of religion is required to restrain vice and preserve peace, not to promote God’s kingdom on earth.” Endnote [lxxiii].

Pfeffer does not understand that God has given civil government the choice of whether to honor his principles. The government is to intervene, according to God’s word, to control and restrain certain crimes. Government does not support religion in order to do its job. Government merely makes a choice of whether to honor God and his principles for the purpose of restraining vice and preserving peace.

James Madison, among others, opposed the bill. Mr. Madison had witnessed and opposed the persecution of the Baptists in his own state.

  • “Madison wrote to a friend in 1774: ‘That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some…. This vexes me the worst of anything whatever. There are at this time in the adjacent country not less than five or six well-meaning men in close jail for publishing their religious sentiments, which in the main are very orthodox. I have neither patience to hear, talk, or think of anything relative to this matter; for I have squabbled and scolded, abused and ridiculed, so long about it to little purpose, that I am without common patience. So I must beg you to pity me, and pray for liberty of conscience to all.’ I Writings of James Madison (1900) 18, 21.” Endnote [lxxiv].

Mr. Madison prepared his famous “Memorial and Remonstrance,” in which he maintained “that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator,” was not within the cognizance of civil government. The “Memorial” presents fifteen arguments against the assessment bill. Endnote [lxxv]. One historian says of this document, “For elegance of style, strength of reasoning, and purity of principle, it has, perhaps, seldom been equaled, certainly never surpassed, by anything in the English language.” Endnote [lxxvi]. “Dr. George B. Taylor says: ‘It may certainly be called a Baptist document this far, that they only, as a people, held its views, and pressed those views without wavering.’”Endnote [lxxvii]. Dr. E. G. Robinson wrote of the document:

“In a word, the great idea which he [Madison] put forth was identical with that which had always been devoutly cherished by our Baptist fathers, alike in the old world and the new, and which precisely a century and a half before had been perfectly expressed in the celebrated letter of Roger Williams to the people of his settlement, and by him incorporated into the fundamental law of the colony of Rhode Island. By Mr. Madison it was elaborated with arguments and wrought into the generalizations of statesmanship, but the essential idea is precisely the same with the ‘soul liberty’ so earnestly contended for by the Baptists of every age.” Endnote [lxxviii].

One must keep in mind that although the document advocated freedom of conscience, something for which Baptists had long struggled, the tone was that of deistic or humanistic arguments based upon reason and natural law. As pointed out supra, Jefferson and Madison and other deistic separatists “were interested in leaving the mind free to follow its own rational direction.” A trust in man’s reason without consideration of principles in the word of God is a leaven which eventually totally pollutes. Tragically, the pietistic arguments of Isaac Backus never prevailed in America. America never fully proceeded upon the lessons taught by the Bible, and implemented by Roger Williams, John Clarke, and the other founders of Rhode Island.

Some excerpts from Madison’s “Memorial and Remonstrance” follow:

  • “Because we hold it for a fundamental and unalienable truth, ‘that religion, or the duty which we owe to the Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence,’ the religion, then of every man, must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. The right is, in its nature, an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds, cannot follow the dictates of other men. It is unalienable, also, because what is here a right towards man, is a duty towards the Creator…. The duty is precedent both in order and time, and in degree of obligation, to the claims of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe…. We maintain, therefore, that in matters of religion, no man’s rights is abridged by the institution of civil society; and that religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance….
  • “Because if religion be exempt from the authority of society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the legislative body. The latter are but the creatures and viceregents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited…. The preservation of a free government requires, not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power, be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people. The rulers, who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are tyrants. The people who submit to it, are governed by laws made neither by themselves, nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
  • “Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties, we hold this prudent jealousy to be first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late revolution…. Who does not see that the same authority, which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions, may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects; that the same authority, which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property, for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment, in all cases whatsoever?
  • “Because the bill violates that equality which ought to be the basis of every law; and which is more indispensable, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached…. Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and observe the religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those, whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man. To God, therefore, and not to man, must account of it be rendered….
  • “Because the bill implies, either that the civil magistrate is a competent judge of religious truths, or that he may employ religion as an engine of civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension, falsified by the extraordinary opinion of rulers, in all ages, and throughout the world; the second, an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.
  • “Because the establishment proposed by the bill, is not requisite for the support of the Christian religion itself; for every page of it disavows a dependence on the power of the world; it is a contradiction to fact, for it is known that this religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them; and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence: nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy: it is, moreover, to weaken in those, who profess this religion, a pious confidence in its innate excellence, and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those, who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its faculties, to trust it to its own merits.
  • “Because experience witnesses that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution. Inquire of the teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest luster; those of every sect point to the ages prior to its incorporation with civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive state, in which its teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall….
  • “Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of civil government…. If religion be not within the cognizance of civil government, how can its legal establishment be said to be necessary for civil government? What influences, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In some instances, they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; in more instances, have they been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the publick liberty, may have found on established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government instituted to secure and perpetuate it needs them not. Such a government will be best supported by protecting every citizen in the enjoyment of his religion, with the same equal hand which protects his person and property; by neither invading the equal hand which protects his person and property; by neither invading the equal rights of any sect, nor suffering any sect to invade those of another.
  • “Because the proposed establishment is a departure from that generous policy, which, offering an asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every nation and religion, promised a luster to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens…. [The proposed bill] is a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of citizens, all of those whose opinions in religion do not bend to those of the legislative authority. Distant as it may be, in its present form, from the inquisition, it differs from it only in degree; the one is the first step, the other the last, in the career of intolerance….
  • “Because it will have a tendency to banish our citizens…. Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm to extinguish religious discord, by proscribing all differences in religious opinion….
  • “Because the policy of the bill is adverse to the light of Christianity. The first wish of those, who ought to enjoy this precious gift, ought to be, that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those, who have as yet received it, with the number still remaining under the dominion of false religions, and how small is the former? Does the policy of the bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of truth, from coming into the regions of it; and countenances, by example, the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them….
  • “Because, finally, ‘the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his religion according to the dictates of his conscience,’ is held by the same tenure with all our other rights…. Either then we must say, that the will of the Legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the plentitude of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred: either we must say, that they may control the freedom of the press; may abolish the trial by jury; may swallow up the executive and judiciary powers of the State; nay, that they have no authority our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary assembly; or we must say that they have no authority to enact into a law, the bill under consideration. We the subscribers say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such authority; and that no effort may be omitted on our part, against so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it this Remonstrance, earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may, on the one hand, turn their councils from every act, which would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them; and on the other guide them into every measure which may be worthy of His blessing, may redound to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the property, and the happiness of the Commonwealth.”

Endnote [lxxix].

Madison, who led the opposition, was able to obtain a postponement of consideration of the bill from December 1784 to November 1785. Before adjourning, the legislature passed a bill which incorporated the Protestant Episcopal Church,

“deemed necessary in order to regulate the status of that church in view of the severance of its subordination to the Church of England that had resulted from the Revolution. The bill gave the Episcopal ministers title to the churches, glebes, and other property, and prescribed the method of electing vestrymen.

“Even Madison voted for the incorporation bill, though reluctantly and only in order to stave off passage of the assessment bill. Nonetheless, the incorporation bill aroused a good deal of opposition.” Endnote [lxxx].

The people were against the assessment bill, and the Presbyterians reversed their position, opposed the bill, and for the first time, on August 10, 1785, the whole Presbyterian body supported Jefferson’s “Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom,” “although that bill had been before the Legislature since June 1779.” The Baptists asked all counties which had not yet prepared a petition to do so and agreed to prepare a remonstrance and petition against the assessment. Thus the Presbyterians and Baptists stood together, but for different motives. Mr. Madison’s opinion was that the Presbyterians were “moved by either a fear of their laity or a jealousy of the Episcopalians. The mutual hatred of these sects has been much inflamed by the late act incorporating the latter…. Writings of Madison, I., 175.” Endnote [lxxxi].

Patrick Henry, the leading proponent of the assessment bill was elected governor, “depriving the bill of its ablest legislative leader.” The Memorial and Remonstrance had received wide distribution. At the next session, the General Assembly was flooded with petitions and memorials from all parts of the State, overwhelmingly against the bill. The bill was defeated by three votes.

On January 16, 1786, the Virginia Act for Religious Liberty, drafted by Thomas Jefferson, was passed instead. That bill provided for religious liberty and freedom of conscience. It stated:

  • “I. Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord of both body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do;
  • that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such, endeavoring to impose them on others hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;
  •    that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, … that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than [on] our opinions in physics or geometry;
  • that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; …
  • that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with, or differ from his own;
  • that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt [open, or public] acts against peace and good order;
  • and, finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is proper and sufficient antagonist to error and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors [cease] to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
  • “II. Be it enacted by the General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
  • “III. And though we well know that this assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to her own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet, as we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural right of mankind, and that if any act shall hereafter be passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural rights.”

Endnote [lxxxii].

The act included three factors: church, state, and individual. It protected the individual from loss at the hands of the state incursion into his church affiliation, and implicitly banned church establishment. “It did not attempt to define the relations between Church and State except in terms of the individual.” Endnote [lxxxiii].

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the above bill, never swerved from his devotion to the complete independence of church and state. He wrote:

  • “The care of every man’s soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well, what if he neglect the care of his health or estate, which more clearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he shall not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills.” Endnote [lxxxiv].
  • “But our rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God….
  • “Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.” Endnote [lxxxv].

According to Biblical principles, the bill was right about some things and wrong about others. It was right about its position on freedom of conscience from interference by civil and ecclesiastical governments, about compelling contributions to opinions to which one is opposed, about forcing any contributions to any pastor whatsoever, and about its assertion “that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.”

However, the act was wrong in four ways. First, it was wrong in not recognizing that the word of God is the source of all ultimate truth. Second, it was wrong in not recognizing that God desires all nations to be under Him, and that judgment is the ultimate fate of all nations which do not glorify Him. Third, it was wrong in not recognizing that the only way to determine what acts against peace and good order against one’s fellow man is through God-given conscience and the study of the word of God as led by the Holy Spirit. Fourth, the act was also wrong when it asserted “that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is proper and sufficient antagonist to error and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, [for] errors [cease] to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.” As mankind has proven over and over, truth never prevails. Ultimately, mankind always reverts to satanic principles instead of truth, which is of God. Not recognizing this accelerates the ultimate deterioration and judgment of a nation.

The Baptists continued their struggle to remove all vestiges of the establishment until 1802 when the glebes were sold and all religious societies were placed on equal footing before the law. The glebes were tracts of land and buildings built thereon for the accommodation of the minister and his family, all at the expense of the people within the parish. The Baptists fought to have the act incorporating the Episcopal church repealed. Reuben Ford and John Leland attended the first 1787 assembly meeting as agents in behalf of the Baptist General Committee. Endnote [lxxxvi]. On August 10, 1787, the act incorporating the Episcopal church was repealed, and until 2001—when Jerry Falwell and trustees of the Thomas Road Baptist Church, who were joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, challenged the Virginia Constitutional provision forbidding the incorporation of churches in federal district court—no church in Virginia could be incorporated. Endnote [lxxxvii].

“The Baptists continued to memorialize the Legislature … and in 1799 that body passed an act entitled ‘An Act to Repeal Certain Acts, and to Declare the Construction of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution Concerning Religion,’ which act declared that no religious establishment had legally existed since the Commonwealth took the place of the regal government, repealed all laws giving to the Protestant Episcopal church any special privileges, and declared that ‘the act establishing religious freedom’ contains the true construction of the Bill of Rights and of the Constitution; but no order was given for the sale of the glebes.” Endnote [lxxxviii].

As the Anglican establishment in Virginia yielded to pressure from Baptists [and to a much lesser extent Presbyterians] so that religious liberty was established in that state, “[t]he same pressure, reinforced by the conditions of frontier living, ended the Anglican establishment in the Carolinas and Georgia…. [T]he conditions which made establishment possible never existed in the states admitted after Vermont, nor in the territories with the exception of unique Utah.” Endnote [lxxxix].

By the time the Constitutional Convention convened in 1787, “three states, Rhode Island, New York, and Virginia granted full religious freedom. Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland demanded in different degrees adherence to Christianity. New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia demanded Protestantism.”[xc]


Endnotes

Endnote [i] Summary of Federer’s article. I will make a few comments in red.

  1. 1n 1584, Sir Walter Raleigh attempted to settle Roanoke Island Virginia according to a grant which he quotes part of. I would note the important part of that grant for purposes of the state/church theology of England which was to go with the colony: “Ordinances … agreeable to … the laws … of England, and also so as they be not against the true Christian faith.” He points out what Thomas Jefferson wrote in his autobiobraphy: “The first settlersof Virginia were Englishmen, loyal subjects to their King and Church, and the grant to Sir Walter Raleigh contained an express proviso that their laws ‘should not be against the true Christian faith, now professed in the Church of England.'”

He points out that the colony was abandoned and that Sir Walter Raleigh personally lost 40,000 pounds on the venture.

  1. More than two decades later, the Virginia Company was formed, and King James I granted to the Virginia Company the First Charter of Virginia, April 10, 1606 and quotes part of that charter:

“For the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of His Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God.”

Of course, in context, the Christian Religion to be propagated and the “true Knowledge and Worship of God” spoken of was that of the Church of England.

  1. On April 26, 1607, Captain Christopher Newport arrived with 105 settlers on 3 ships. The “First Landing” was at Cape Henry, named from Prince Henry of Wales, the eldest son of King James I. Their first act was to erect a wooden cross and commence a prayer meeting led by Rev. Robert Hunt.
  2. They ascended the James River, named for King James I, and settled Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in America.
  3. Meanwhile King Henry IV of France sent Samuel de Champlain, who founded Quebec City, capital of Canada in 1608.
  4. Captain John Smith was of Jamestown’s leaders. Federer includes some information about him, including military exploits including that he was captured and held as prisoner by the Turks, etc.
  5. Smith was captured by Chief Powhatan in December 1607. Pocahontas interceded on his behalf and he was not killed. Federer then tells more about Pocahontas, that she was baptized, and married tobacco planter John Rolfe. People in England thought that smoking tobacco would make one healthy since the Indians smoked “peace pipes,” and were healthy. This caused a great demand for tobacco.
  6. On May 23, 1609, King James granted a Second Charter of Virginia. He quotes part of that charter: “The principal Effect which we can expect … is the Conversion and reduction of the people in those parts unto the true worship of Godand the Christian Religion … It shall be necessary for all such our loving Subjects … to live together, in the Fear and true Worship of Almighty God, Christian Peace, and civil Quietness, with each other.”
  7. The colony would have been abandoned in 1610 except for the arrival of more settlers and supplies.
  8. The Third Charter of Virginia,March 12, 1611, stated: “Our loving Subjects … for the Propagation of Christian Religion, and Reclaiming of People barbarous, to Civility and Humanity, We have … granted unto them … the first Colony in Virginia.”
  9. In May of 1611, the London Company sent Sir Thomas Dale to Virginia. He founded Henricus, the colony’s second settlement, named after James’ eldest son, Prince Henry
  10. In 1619, Henricus became the location of the first English hospital in American and the first chartered college in the English colonies initially designed to educate Powhatan children. It was destroyed in 1622 in an Indian uprising in which Indians killed 347 men, women, and children, one full quarter of Virginia’s population. An Indian convert to Christianity saved the town by warning Richard Pace. Federer gives more facts about the massacre.
  11. The colony suffered droughts, famines, starvation, diseases, and attacks. Between 1608 and 1624, of the 6,000 settlers that came to Jamestown, only 3,400 survived.
  12. In 1624, King James I revoked the Virginia Company charter and ruled directly over Virginia.

The Church of England was established from 1606 till 1786. Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defined “establishment” of religion as:

“The episcopal form of religion, so called in England.”

Webster’s 1828 dictionary was written to comport with the English language of the time of the writing of the Bible and also to conform, in many matters, to the Anglican establishment in England. “Establisment” of religion is any combination of religion and state.

Establishment also meant that settlers had to take the “oath of supremacy.” The Second Charter of Virginia, 1609, stated:

“None be permitted to pass in any voyage … into the said country, but such as first shall have taken the Oath of Supremacy.”

The Oath of Supremacy, 1535, stated:

“I declare … that the King’s Highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm … in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things.”

Church attendance was mandatory. The Virginia House of Burgesses passed an ordinance in 1623:

“To see that the Sabbath was not profaned by working or any employments, or journeying from place to place.”

On March 5, 1624, Virginia’s legislature passed the ordinance: “Whosoever shall absent himself from Divine service any Sunday without an allowable excuse shall forfeit a pound of tobacco …”

That there be an uniformity in our Church as near as may be to the Canons in England … and that all persons yield ready obedience unto them under pain of censure.”

  1. In 1699, the Virginia Assembly adopted the statues of monarchs William and Mary allowing for limited toleration of some Protestant dissenters.

James Madison wrote to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819:

“The English Church was originally the established religion …

Of other sects there were but few adherents, except the Presbyterians who predominated on the west side of the Blue Mountains …”

Madison continued:

“A little time previous to the Revolutionary struggle, the Baptists sprang up, and made very rapid progress …

At present the population is divided, with small exceptions, among the Protestant Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Baptists and the Methodists.”

Federer then offers some quotes from Justice Hugo Black, writing in Engel v. Vitale, 1962:

“As late as the time of the Revolutionary War, there were established Churches in at least eight of the thirteen former colonies …

The successful Revolution against English political domination was shortly followed by intense opposition … in Virginia where the minority religious groups such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Quakers and Baptists had gained such strength …”

“In 1785-1786, those opposed to the established Church … obtained the enactment of the famous ‘Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty’ by which all religious groups were placed on an equal footing.”

The “Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty,” drafted by Jefferson, prevented the government from infringing on the rights of conscience, January 16, 1786:

“Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint;

that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments … are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion,

who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone …”

“To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical …

that … laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust … unless he … renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges … to which … he has a natural right …

that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction;

that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion … is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty,

because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others …

that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself …”

“that no man shall be … molested … on account of his religious opinions or belief;

but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.”

  1. Federer then points out how that Jefferson’s view that no man should be molested “on account of his religious opinions, would have pitted him against mandatory CRT teaching, LGBTQ grooming, anti-bullying or hate crime laws, etc. What about how it would affect the issue of the relationship of church and state, establishment of religion?
  2. The Virginia Declaration of Rights,Article 16, ratified June 12, 1776, stated:

“That Religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence;and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other.”

  1. Only a small number of Catholics settled in the Anglican Colony of Virginia because Virginia’s 1609 Charter denied Catholics the right to settle there. That changed with Virginia’s Declaration of Rights, 1776, and Jefferson’s Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty, 1786, followed by the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, 1789, and bill of Rights, 1791. The first Catholic Church in Virginia was erected in 1795. The first Jewish synagogue in Virginia was in 1820. Federer asserts that it is one of the oldest colonial Jewish congregations in America along with others in New York, Philadelphia, Newport, Savannah, and Charleston. I believe this is error. I believe at least one Jewish synagogue was founded in Rhode Island in the colonial period, in the 1600s. Also, 1820 was not the colonial period.
  2. Virginian George Washingtonwrote November 27, 1783:

“Acknowledge … our infinite obligations to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for rescuing our country from the brink of destruction; I cannot fail … to ascribe all the honor of our late success to the same glorious Being … The establishment of civil and religious liberty was the motive which induced me to the field … It now remains to be my earnest … prayer, that the Citizens of the United States would make a wise and virtuous use of the blessings placed before them.”

[ii] Charles F. James, Documentary History of the Struggle for Religious Liberty in Virginia, (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 2007; first published in Lynchburg, Virginia: J. P. Bell Company, 1900), Appendix A, pp. 207-208.

[iii] See, e.g., William H. Marnell, The First Amendment: Religious Freedom in America from the Colonial Days to the School Prayer Controversy, (Garden City New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1964), pp. 89-90.

[iv] Ibid., p. 93.

[v] John T.  Christian, A History of the Baptists, Volume I, (Texarkana, Ark.-Tex.: Bogard Press), p. 381.

[vi] James, pp. 10-11.

[vii] Peter Marshall and David Manuel, The Light and the Glory, (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1977), pp. 80—105.

[viii] “Jamestown: Where America Became a Christian Nation,” Legal Alert (Monthly Newsletter of the Christian Law Association), April 2007, p. 1.

[ix] Marshall and Manuel, pp. 80-105; see Clarkson for this excerpt from “Articles, Instructions, and Orders” from the homeland.

[x] Ibid., p. 17.

[xi] See Leo Pfeffer, Church, State, and Freedom, (Boston: The Beacon  Press, 1953) p. 69 for the text of this law.

[xii] Ibid.; see also James, pp. 17-20 for a more comprehensive overview of the laws of Virginia which provided for religious persecution and the established church.

[xiii] William A. Lumpkin, Baptist History in the South, (Shelbyville, Tennessee: Bible and Literature Missionary Foundation) p. 105.

[xiv] James, pp. 17-20.

[xv] Ibid., pp. 11-12.

[xvi] Ibid., pp. 20-22.

[xvii] Ibid., pp. 22-25, citing Foote, “Sketches of Virginia,” pp. 99, 160-162, 307, 308.

[xviii] Ibid., pp. 12-14, 26.

[xix] Ibid., pp. 26-27, citing Robert B. Semple, “History of the Baptists of Virginia,” 1810, p. 25.

[xx][xx] Ibid., pp. 27-28, citing Foote, p. 38 quoting from the Bishop of London; Bishop Meade, “Old Parishes and Families of Virginia” (Vol. I, 118, 385, etc.; Dr. Hawks, “History of the Protestant Episcopal Church of Virginia,” p. 65.).

[xxi] James R. Beller, America in Crimson Red: The Baptist History of America, (Arnold, Missouri: Prairie Fire Press, 2004) pp. 140-142.

[xxii] Lumpkin, pp. 48-49.

[xxiii] Ibid., p. 90, citing A. B. Semple, A History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists of Virginia (Richmond: Pitt & Dickinson, 1894), p. 380.

[xxiv] Ibid., pp. 90-98.

[xxv] Ibid., pp. 90-103.

[xxvi] Pfeffer, p. 95. citing Edward F. Humphrey, Nationalism and Religion in America (Boston: Chipman Law Publishing Co., 1924), p. 370.

[xxvii] James, pp. 29-30. Included is a listing of some of those jailed and otherwise persecuted. See also Beller, America in Crimson Red, pp. 230-250; Lumpkin, pp. 105-120; Grady, What Hath God Wrought, Appendix A, pp. 593-598 citing Lewis Peyton Little, Imprisoned Preachers and Religious Liberty in Virginia, (Galatin, Tenn.: Church History Research and Archives, 1987), pp. 516-520 (lists many Baptists and the persecutions they endured in Virginia; persecutions such as being jailed for preaching, civil suit, being annoyed by men drinking and playing cards, being jerked off stage and head beaten against the ground, hands being slashed, beaten with bludgeons, being shot with a shotgun, ousted as a justice for preaching, being brutally beaten by a mob, severely beaten with a stick, etc.).

[xxviii] James, p. 30, citing Semple, p. 19.

[xxix] Ibid., pp. 30-31, citing William Fristoe, “History of the Ketocton Baptist Association,” p. 69.

[xxx] Ibid., citing Dr. Hawks, “History of the Protestant Episcopal Church of Virginia,” p. 121.

[xxxi] Ibid., pp. 31-35.

[xxxii] Ibid., pp. 42-47.

[xxxiii] Lenni Brenner, editor, Jefferson and Madison on Separation of Church and State (Fort Lee, NJ: Barricade Books, Inc, 2004), pp. 11-12; James, p. 36.

[xxxiv] Brenner, pp. 12-13; James, pp. 35-38, citing Rives Life and Times of Madison, Vol. I, pp. 43, 53; Norman Cousins, In God We Trust (Kingsport, Tennessee: Kingsport Press, Inc., 1958), pp. 299-301.

[xxxv] James, pp. 47-48. See also Christian, Volume I, pp. 381-384.

[xxxvi] Christian, Volume I, p. 386-387.

[xxxvii] Ibid., pp. 390-391.

[xxxviii] James, pp. 49-57.

[xxxix] Ibid., p. 58.

[xl] Ibid., pp. 58-62.

[xli] Ibid., p. 10.

[xlii] Marnell, pp. 94-95; James, pp. 62-65.

[xliii] See Leni Brenner, editor, Jefferson and Madison on Separation of Church and State, ((Fort Lee, NJ: Barricade Books, Inc. 2004), pp. 21-22 for George Mason’s Article, Madison’s Amendment to Mason’s Article, The  Proposal of Committee of Virginia’s Revolutionary Convention, Madison’s Amendment to the Committee’s Article, and the Article as Passed); James, pp. 62-65.

[xliv] James, pp. 62-64; Pfeffer, p. 96.

[xlv] Pfeffer, p. 96.

[xlvi] James, p. 63 quoting Dr. John Long.

[xlvii] Norman Cousins, In God We Trust, ((Kingsport, Tennessee: Kingsport Press, Inc., 1958), p. 296.

[xlviii] James, pp. 66-67.

[xlix] Ibid., p. 10.

[l] Marnell, pp. 94-95; Pfeffer, p. 96.

[li] Pfeffer, p. 97.

[lii] James, p. 74. See pp. 68-74 for the petitions against establishment.

[liii] Ibid., p. 82.

[liv] Ibid., pp. 75-78. The petitions of the Methodists and the established church are quoted and the author comments on the petition of the established church.

[lv] Ibid., pp. 80-81; See also Pfeffer, p. 96.

[lvi] James, pp. 84-91 quotes those memorials.

[lvii] Pfeffer, p. 97.

[lviii] James, p. 95.

[lix] Ibid., pp. 96-98.

[lx] Pfeffer, p. 97.

[lxi] Ibid., citing R. Freeman Butts, The American Tradition in Religion and Education (Boston: Beacon Press, 1950), pp. 53-56.

[lxii] James, pp. 112-121 citing Dr. R. B. C. Howell, “Early Baptists of Virginia” for the quotation which is on p. 120.

[lxiii] Ibid., pp. 122-133.

[lxiv] Cousins, p. 301.

[lxv] Ibid., p. 302; Brenner, pp. 60-61.

[lxvi] James, pp. 132-133, citing William Fristoe, “History of the Ketocton Association.”

[lxvii] Ibid., p. 130; Cousins, p. 306.

[lxviii] Marnell, p. 95.

[lxix] Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 163 (1879); see James, p. 129 where the preamble to the bill is quoted.

[lxx] James, p. 135.

[lxxi] Marnell, pp. 95, 96.

[lxxii] Pfeffer, p. 98, citing N. J. Eckenrode, The Separation of Church and State in Virginia (Richmond, Va.: Virginia State Library, 1910), p. 86. Pfeffer notes in Chapter 4 fn. 102 that the text of the bill is printed as an appendix to Justice Rutledge’s dissent in Everson, 330 U.S. 1.

[lxxiii] Ibid.

[lxxiv] Everson, 330 U.S. fn. 9 at 11; 67 S. Ct. at 509.

[lxxv] Pfeffer, p. 101. Pfeffer states that “[i]t is important to note the emphasis the ‘Memorial’ places on ideological factors.” His comments following that quote ignore the references to our “creator,” and the “Governor of the Universe.”

[lxxvi] James, p. 135, quoting Semple.

[lxxvii] Ibid., p. 135, quoting Dr. George B. Taylor, Memorial Series, No. IV., page 19.

[lxxviii] Ibid., p. 135.

[lxxix] James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, June 20, 1785, cited in Beller, America in Crimson Red, pp. 512-515; Cousins, pp. 308-314; may also be viewed online.

[lxxx] Pfeffer, p. 99, citing Eckenrode, p. 100.

[lxxxi] Brenner, p. 74 (letter dated August 20, 1785); James, pp. 134-139. Madison’s quote was from a letter to Mr. Jefferson.

[lxxxii] Cited in Cousins, pp. 125-127; see also, for an edited version, Living American Documents, Selected and edited by Isidore Starr, Lewis Paul Todd, and Merle Curti, (New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, Burlingame: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1961), pp. 67-69.

[lxxxiii] Marnell, pp. 96-97.

[lxxxiv] Pfeffer, p. 94, citing Saul K. Padover, The Complete Jefferson (New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1943), p. 943. Keep in mind that although Pfeffer’s quotes of Jefferson and others often spoke of God and His sovereignty and freedom of conscience, Pfeffer passes over God as though he had not been mentioned.

[lxxxv] Pfeffer, citing Joseph L. Blau, Cornerstones of Religious Freedom in America (Boston: Beacon Press, 1949), pp. 78-79.

[lxxxvi] James, pp. 142-146.

[lxxxvii] See Falwell v. Miller, 203 F. Supp. 2d 624 (W.D. Va. 2002).

[lxxxviii] James, pp. 142-145.

[lxxxix] Marnell, p. 130.

[xc] Ibid., p. 98.

Analysis of “How Luther & Protestant Reformation had Political Repercussions on America” by Bill Federer

Click here to go to homepage with links to all analyses of “An American Minute by Bill Federer” Challenged

To gain a comprehensive understanding of this spiritual warfare between Federer (and other Protestants) and historic Baptists, I especially recommend: The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus.

Analysis of “How Luther & Protestant Reformation had Political Repercussions on America” by Bill Federer

Jerald Finney
October 31, 2022

Most notably, the title, “How Luther & Protestant Reformation had Political Repercussions on America,” is misleading. The article does not reveal what the title alleges it will reveal which is “How Luther & Protestant Reformation had Political Repercussions on America.” I believe that Federer’s article is a hodgepodge of facts constituting no logical analysis from which one can make conclusions as to the matter asserted in the title. Read it to see if you will agree. Click here to go to Federer’s article. Endnote [i] (click to go to the Endnote) is a summary of Federer’s article.

To do justice to all Federer’s misleading and false information related to Scripture and pre-colnial and post colonial American history, especially as related to the relationship of church and state, would require a book. See, The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus. Therefore, only the most important relevant issues raised are covered here. We are men, so let us behave like men, as Jesus, the apostles, and Christian dissenters since have done. Let us confront falsehood with truth head on.

One of Federer’s comments that Patricia Bonomi wrote that the colonists were about 98% Protestant, 2% Catholic, and 1/105% Jewish (of course this is a total misrepresentation since a significant percent were the Baptists—who led the fight for religious freedom and soul liberty in America. Baptists never have been Protestant. As unrevised history proves  religious freedom and soul liberty in America and the First Amendment were the trophies of the persecuted Baptists during the colonial period). See the authorities cited and relied on in The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus (Especially in Section II)),

Contents

  1. On Deuteronomy 28 as commented on by Federer in his article
  2. Facts (not mentioned by Federer) about Martin Luther relevant to religious freedom and soul liberty (the First Amendment) in America
  3. Endnote: Summary of Federer’s article

1. On Deuteronomy 28 as commented on by Federer in his article

Federer misquotes and misapplies Deuteronomy 28.” He writes:

“Deuteronomy 28 lists blessings and cursings. If a nation ‘shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord thy God … all these blessings shall come on thee. ‘But if a nation does not hearken to the voice of the Lord, ‘all these curses shall come upon thee,” including: “The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low … and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed.’ {Emphasis added]

Deuteronomy 28:1-2 says: “And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth: And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God.” [Federer left out the part of the verse in bold red and substituted “a nation” for “thou.”]

Notice that Federer starts his quote with a misinterpretation of Scripture. He replaces “thou” with “a nation.” When one understands Federer’s theology, one then understands why he made this replacement in or change of Scripture. In context the “thou” is Israel. God is speaking to Israel, to whom he gave the law. God never gave the law to Gentile nations, only to Israel. Gentile nations, all nations except Israel, were to proceed under the Adamic and Noahic Covenants.

  • Romans 2:14-15: “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.”

Federer then proceeds to insert “a nation” instead of “Israel” as he mentions the curses in Deuteronomy 28:63-68. He asks, “How did God judge ancient Israel when it sinned?” Here, of course, he is limiting it to Israel, but the inference is that the admonitions in Deuteronomy 28 are to all nations, and specifically to the United States of America.

Of course, God is over all nations. He is over Israel and he is over Gentile nations. However, for Gentile nations, the primary consideration is how they deal with Israel. The Old Testament deals with Gentile nations—past, present, and future—and what He looks at to bless or curse them. I explain Bible teaching on both Israel and Gentile nations in Part I, Section I, The Biblical Doctrine of Government of God Betrayed: Separation of Church and State, the Biblical Principles and the American Application.

I explain these matters in much more detail in my books, essays and other writings. Click here to go to Order Information, Free PDFs, and Free Online Versions Pages for Books by Jerald Finney. Click here to go to Written Lesson. for Basic Online Course by Jerald Finney.

  1. Facts (not mentioned by Federer) about Martin Luther relevant to religious freedom and soul liberty (the First Amendment) in America

Many of the early colonists were Protestants who thought Luther, Calvin, or the Church of England was correct about union of church and state. Dissenters, predominantly Baptists, believed in and fought for separation of church and state. Historic Baptists had never come out of Catholicism or Protestantism since they never joined with them. The First Amendment was primarily the result of a spiritual warfare between those holding opposing Scriptural interpretations, the established churches versus the dissenters, primarily the Baptists. The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus, page 92.

The theological turmoil that resulted from the Reformation continued in the new world, and out of that storm emerged a separation of church and state that had never before existed of any lasting influence in any nation in the history of the world. The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus, page 107.

The atrocities and heresies of the Catholic church eventually led to an effort to reform that church from within. Among the greatest of the reformers were Martin Luther, who started the Lutheran church (which became the state-church of Germany), and John Calvin, founder of the Presbyterian church (which became the state-church of Scotland). The Reformed churches became Christian Revisionists working contemporaneously with their Catholic Revisionist predecessors.

During this period of reformation, there existed those who dissented from Catholic and Reformation theology. In early sixteenth century Germany, two currents flowed in opposite directions. One, fostered by the established church, was toward a state-church. The other, promoted by dissenters, was toward separation of church and state. When a Protestant church became an established church, it continued the persecution practiced by its harlot mother.

“Both the Lutheran and Presbyterian Churches brought out of their Catholic Mother many of her evils, among them her idea of a State Church. They both soon became Established Churches. Both were soon in the persecuting business, falling little if any, short of their Catholic Mother.” J. M.Carroll, The Trail of Blood, Distributed by Ashland Avenue Baptist Church, 163 N. Ashland Avenue, Lexington KY 40502, 606-266-4341, Copyright 1931 p. 33.

Martin Luther wrote:

  • “It is out of the question that there should be a common Christian government over the whole world. Nay, over even one land or company of people since the wicked always outnumber the good. A man who would venture to govern an entire country or the world with the Gospel would be like a shepherd who would place in one fold wolves, lions, eagles, and sheep together and let them freely mingle with one another and say, ‘Help yourselves, and be good and peaceful among yourselves. The fold is open, there is plenty of food, have no fear of dogs and clubs.’ The sheep forsooth would keep the peace and would allow themselves to be fed and governed in peace; but they would not live long nor would any beast keep from molesting another. For this reason, these two kingdoms must be sharply distinguished and both be permitted to remain. The one to produce piety, the other to bring about external peace and prevent evil deeds. Neither is sufficient to the world without the other.” Philip Hamburger, Separation of Church and State (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2002), p. 22, citing Works of Martin Luther, Volume 4 (Philadelphia: A. H. Holman Co., 1931), p. 265.)

“When Luther was expecting excommunication and assassination, he pleaded that:

  • “Princes are not to be obeyed when they command submission to superstitious error, but their aid is not to be invoked in support of the word of God.
  • “Heretics, he said, must be converted by the Scriptures, and not by fire. With passion, he asserted: “I say, then neither pope, nor bishop, nor any man whatever has the right of making one syllable binding on a Christian man, unless it be done with his own consent. Whatever is done otherwise is done in the spirit of tyranny…. I cry aloud on behalf of liberty and conscience, and I proclaim with confidence that no kind of law can with any justice be imposed on Christians, except so far as they themselves will; for we are free from all.” Leo Pfeffer, Church, State, and Freedom. (Boston: The Beacon Press, 1953), p. 21, citing Acton, “The Protestant Theory of Persecution,” in Essays on Freedom and Power, p. 92, and Wace, Henry, and Bucheim, C. A., Luther’s Primary Works, Lutheran Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1885, pp. 194-195, quoted in Noss, John B., Man’s Religions, New York, The Macmillan Co., 1949, p. 92.

Nonetheless, Luther later, when he had made an effective alliance with the secular power, advocated that the magistrate, who does not make the law of God, enforce the law of God. According to Luther:

  • “The law is of God and from God. The State is the law-enforcing agency, administering a law of God that exists unchangeably from all eternity….
  • “The need for a state arises from the fact that all men do not hear the word of God in a spirit of obedience. The magistrate does not make the law, which is of God, but enforces it. His realm is temporal, and the proper ordering of it is his responsibility. Included in the proper ordering the maintenance of churches where the word of God is truly preached and the truly Christian life is taught by precept and example. In his realm, subject to the law of God, the Prince is supreme, nor has man the right to rebel against him. But if the Prince contravenes the law of God, man may be passively disobedient, in obedience to a higher and the only finally valid law.” William H. Marnell, The First Amendment: Religious Freedom in America from Colonial Days to the School Prayer Controversy (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1964), pp. 13-14.
  • “Heretics are not to be disputed with, but to be condemned unheard, and whilst they perish by fire, the faithful ought to pursue the evil to its source, and bathe their hands in the blood of the Catholic bishops, and of the Pope, who is the devil in disguise.” Pfeffer, p. 21, quoting Acton, pp. 102-103; see also Verduin, The Anatomy of a Hybrid, pp. 158-160, 163-168, 186-198; Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Erdsmans Pub. Co., 1964) and Thomas Armitage, The History of the Baptists, Volumes 1 and 2 (Springfield, Mo.: Baptist Bible College, 1977 Reprint).

Luther espoused that coercion by the state to achieve religious unity was justifiable. This was an expansion of Erastian philosophy—“the assumption of state superiority in ecclesiastical affairs and the use of religion to further state policy.” Erastianism … pervaded all Europe, with the exception of Calvin’s ecclesiocratic Geneva, after the Reformation. Pfeffer, pp. 23-24. Erastianism achieved its greatest triumph in England. See Ibid., pp. 24-25 for a concise history of Erastianism in England.

Luther’s position resulted in persecution of dissenters such as Anabaptists who believed in believer’s baptism. Opposition to a state-church follows logically from the thinking behind believer’s baptism.

“Believer’s baptism [was] the key to religious thought of the Anabaptists. Infant baptism implies that a child may be admitted into the Church without his understanding or personal consent. Such a church must be a formal organization, with sponsored membership possible for those whose years permit neither faith nor understanding. Adult baptism implies a different concept of the Church. The anabaptized are the elect of a visible church which is essentially a religious community of the elect. But obviously such a church could in no sense be a State Church. The Prince could neither bring it into being, regulate it, nor enforce membership in it; indeed, any connection between the State and such a church could only be injurious to the Church. Adult baptism on the surface is remote from the concept of a separated Church and State, yet such separation is implicit in the rationale of Anabaptism. The call to such a church can never come from the palace of the Prince; it must come from the Kingdom of Heaven….” [Emphasis mine.] Marnell, pp. 18-20.

The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus, page 24-27.

“Thus, before the close of the Sixteenth Century, there were five established Churches—churches backed up by civil governments—the Roman and Greek Catholics [the Greek Catholics separated from the Roman Catholics in the ninth century] counted as two, then the Church of England; then the Lutheran, or Church of Germany, then the Church of Scotland now known as the Presbyterian. All of them were bitter in their hatred and persecution of the people called Ana-Baptists, Waldenses and all other not established churches, churches which never in any way had been connected with the Catholics…. Many more thousands, including both women and children were constantly perishing every day in the yet unending persecutions. The great hope awakened and inspired by the reformation had proven to be a bloody delusion. Remnants now [found] an uncertain refuge in the friendly Alps and other hiding places over the world.” Carroll, p. 34 cited in The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus, page 29.

Many of the early colonists were Protestants who thought Luther, Calvin, or the Church of England was correct about union of church and state. Dissenters believed in and fought for separation of church and state. The First Amendment was primarily the result of a spiritual warfare between those holding opposing Scriptural interpretations, the established churches versus the dissenters, primarily the Baptists.

  • “Of the Baptists, at least, it may be truly said that they entered the conflict in the New World with a clear and consistent record on the subject of soul liberty. ‘Freedom of conscience’ had ever been one of their fundamental tenets. John Locke, in his ‘essay on Toleration,’ said, ‘The Baptists were the first and only propounders of absolute liberty, just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty.’ And the great American historian, Bancroft, says: ‘Freedom of Conscience, unlimited freedom of mind, was from the first a trophy of the Baptists.’ Vol. II., pages 66, 67.
  • “The history of the other denominations shows that, in the Old World, at least, they were not in sympathy with the Baptist doctrine of soul liberty, but in favor of the union of Church and State, and using the civil power to compel conformity to the established church….
  • “… It was left to the sect once ‘everywhere spoken against’ to teach their Protestant brethren the lesson of soul liberty, and this they did in the school of adversity in the New World.” Charles F. James, Documentary History of the Struggle for Religious Liberty in Virginia (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 2007; first published in Lynchburg, Virginia: J. P. Bell Company, 1900), pp. 14-15 cited in The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus, page 92.


Endnote

Endnote [i] Summary of Federer’s article:

  1. Luther’s 95 “theses” in 1517 which began the Reformation.
  2. His summon to trial in 1521 before the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V.
  3. Charles V’s dismissal of Luther’s theses as “an argument between monks.”
  4. The order to recant and Luther’s refusal to do so.
  5. Luther’s being kidnapped and hid by Frederick III.
  6. the Catholic and Orthodox church split in 1054; the Papal Schism in 1378-1417;
  7. the burning and burial of John Wycliffe for “attempting a translation of the Scriptures;”
  8. the general prologue of Wycliffe’s 1384 translation of the Bible; Jan Hus (1369-1415) shared Scriptures translated into the Czech language, his burning at the stake for being a heretic;
  9. Luther, unlike Wycliffe and Huss lived after the invention of the printing press;
  10. Johannes Gutenberg (100-1468) invented the western world’s first moveable-type printing press and the first significant book printed, the Bible;
  11. comments by Pope Pius II and Victor Hugo about Gutenberg and his invention; and Martin Luther’s account of how he came to an interpretation of the meaning of the expression “the justice of God” and its relationship with the statement “The just shall live by faith” and how he was “reborn,” etc.;
  12. the German Peasants’ War in 1524;
  13. the 1527 sacking of Rome and imprisonment of Pope Clement VII the same Pope who refused to annul the marriage of Henry VIII and Charles V’s aunt Catherine of Aragon leading Henry to break away from Rome and start the church of England. He failed to mention that Henry set himself up as head of the Church of England
  14. Charles V oversaw the Spanish colonization of the Americas and began the Counter-Reformation, and a few other facts;
  15. Spain used gold from the New World to push back the Muslim Ottoman invasion of Europe, a few facts related thereto, and a misquote and misapplication of Deuteronomy 28 (See below for more on this);
  16. some of Martin Luther’s references of Deuteronomy 28 as applied to the Turk being the “rod of wrath of the Lord our God,” the Turk’s god being the devil, how the fight against the Turks must begin with repentance and reformation of their lives, how (the church should) drive men to repentance and how, etc.
  17. Charles V’s attempt to unite the Holy Roman Empire against the Muslims and his agreeing to a truce recognizing the Protestants, the truce between the Protestant and Catholic territories in Nuremberg in 1532;
  18. that “the Lutheran movement was, for the first time, officially tolerated and could enjoy a place in the political sun of the Holy Roman Empire;
  19. a comment of John Calvin on the Islamic threat;
  20. a list of notable Protestant reformers;
  21. that some Protestant reformers refused to help against the Muslim invasion;
  22. a treaty by Charles V which ceased the religious struggle between Catholics and Protestants and which allowed each king to decide what was to be believed in his kingdom;
  23. the rest of the secluded life of Charles V;
  24. that Luther “penned an indefensible anti-semetic work that contributed to future Jewish persecutions;
  25. that in the two centuries following Luther, many migrated to other countries for conscience sake, many to America;
  26. that Luther influenced John Wesley and George Whitefield who preached the Great Awakening in Colonial America and a statement of Wesley on how a reading from the Epistle to the Romans led him to trust Christ alone for salvation (see The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus for the story of the Great Awakening preached by Whitefield and its influence on the road to separation of church and state in America);
  27. that Patricia Bonomi wrote that the colonists were about 98% Protestant, 2% Catholic, and 1/105 Jewish (of course this is a total misrepresentation since a significant percent were the Baptists—who led the fight for religious freedom and soul liberty in America. Baptists not and never have been “Protestant. See The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus);
  28. that the signers of the Declaration were predominantly Protestant (another representation meant to mislead—see The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus);
  29. a misleading statement by Edmund Burke in an address to Parliament (a statement that shows that Burke had no understanding of the facts about the spiritual warfare in the Northern Colonies. See The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus);
  30. a statement of Samuel Adams, “This day, I trust the reign of political Protestantism will commence.” Of course if Protestantism had prevailed, there would have been no separation of church and state, religious freedom, and First Amendment in America. See, The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus);
  31. statements of John Adams and Robert D. Woodberry of the National University of Singapore. Woodberry said that nations where “Protestant missions” became more prosperous, etc.;
  32. a statement of Luther concerning that schools should explain the holy Scriptures, that “every institution where men are not increasingly occupied with the Word of God must become corrupt;
  33. and finally, the article ends with: “Luther, who died in 1546, wrote: “If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that one point.”