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.
Articles which address biblical principles relating to separation of church and state, Heresy and Apostasy

The Meaning and Results of Apostasy, the Final Outcome of Gospel Preaching, the Social Gospel, Emphasis on the Word of God, the Three Directions of Liberal Preaching, the Only Solution to Racism and all the Problems of Mankind, How Men Become Brothers no Matter Their Color, the Only Way to Transform Mankind

Leave a comment

Modifications of Non-Copyrighted Comments of Dr. J. Vernon McGee
Published August 22, 2017

In 2 Timothy, an ominous dark cloud is seen on the horizon. It is the coming apostasy. Today, apostasy has broken like a storm, like a Texas tornado, on the world and in the churches. Webster defines apostasy as “total desertion of the principles of faith.” So apostasy is not due to ignorance; which results in heresy. Apostasy is deliberate error. It is intentional departure from the faith. An apostate is one who knows the truth of the gospel and the doctrines of the faith, but he has repudiated them.

Paul in 2 Timothy speaks of the ultimate outcome of gospel preaching. The final fruition will not be the total conversion of mankind, nor will it usher in the millennium. On the contrary, there will come about an apostasy which will well-nigh blot out the faith from the earth. In fact, there are two departures that will occur at the end of the age: One is the departure from the faith. Luke 18:8  “… Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” This, in context demands a negative answer. The other is the departure of believers, those who are members of the family of God, which is what we call the “rapture.” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17: “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”).

This view is not in keeping with the social gospel today which expects to transform the world by tinkering with the social system. Such vain optimists have no patience with the doleful words of 2 Timothy. The cold and hard facts of history and the events of the present hour demonstrate the accuracy of Paul. We are now in the midst of an apostasy which is cut to the pattern of Paul’s words in remarkable detail.

Most churches have entered the orbit of an awful apostasy. A remnant of New Testament churches are not affected. All members of the family of God are on their way to glory. I believe that many true believers attend apostate churches, not knowing enough about Bible principles to know of the apostasies of the churches they attend. For example, many believers attend corporate 501c3 churches without understanding that such status grieves our Lord who “loved the church and gave himself for it.” Pastors, leaders, “Christian” lawyers, etc. of such churches are either apostates (know the truth but depart from it) or do not know the truth and are therefore heretics.

Because of the threat of apostasy, Paul emphasizes the Word of God here more than he does in any other epistle. In fact, both Paul and Peter agree. Each of them in his “swan song” (2 Timothy and 2 Peter) emphasizes the Word of God and the Gospel.

My friend, the gospel rests upon a tremendous fact, and that fact is the total depravity of man. In other words, man is  a lost sinner. Someone has put it like this:

  • “Where education assumes that the moral nature of man is capable of improvement, traditional Christianity assumes that the moral nature of man is corrupt and absolutely bad. Where it is assumed in education that an outside human agent may be instrumental in the moral improvement of men, in traditional Christianity it is assumed that the agent is God, and even so, the moral nature of man is not improved but exchanged for a new one.”

Man is in such a state that he cannot be saved by perfect obedience—because he cannot render it.  Neither can he be saved by imperfect obedience—because God will not accept it.

Therefore, the only solution is the gospel of the grace of God which reaches down and saves the sinner on the basis of the death and resurrection of Christ. Faith in Christ transforms human life. We have a showcase today all over this land of a relatively small number of men and women who have been transformed by the gospel of the grace of God.

Liberal preaching, instead of presenting the grace of God to sinful man, goes out in three different directions. From some liberal pulpits we hear what is really popular psychology. It majors in topics such as this: “How to Overcome” or “How to Think Creatively” or “How to Think Affirmatively or Positively,” or “How to Drive Your Life Purposely.” It says we are on the way upward and onward forever! That is popular psychology, and it is not getting anyone anywhere.

A second type of liberal preaching involves ethics. It preaches a nice little sweet gospel—a sermonette preached by a preacherette to Christianettes. The message goes something like this: “Good is better than evil because it’s nicer and gets you into less trouble.” The picture of the average liberal church is that of a mild-mannered man standing before a group of mild-mannered people, and urging them to be more mild-mannered! There’s nothing quite as insipid as that. No wonder the Lord Jesus said to the church of Laodicea: “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor how, I will spue thee out of my mouth” (Revelation 3.15, 16). That would make anybody sick to his tummy. That’s another reason I call these people Alka-Seltzer Christians. They’re not only fizz, foam, and groth, but they cause you to need an Alka-Seltzer.

Then there is the third type of liberal preaching which is called the social gospel. They preach better race relations, pacifism, social justice, the Christian social order, and union of church and state (church and state working with, over or under the other; church incorporation and 501c3 are two of many manifestations of this relationship). It is Christian socialism pure and simple.

In contrast, when the true gospel is preached and men come to Christ, they all become brothers. We don’t need all this talk about better race relations. You cannot create better relationships by forcing people together. Only the gospel of the grace of God will make a man into a brother of mine. When that happens, the color of a man’s skin makes no difference at all.

The solution of man’s problems can come only through the grace of God. We need to recognize that God creates out of nothing. Until a man is nothing, God can make nothing of him. The grace of God through Jesus Christ is the way to transform and save mankind. That is what 2 Timothy teaches, and that is why it is important to study 2 Timothy.

Click here to go to God’s Plan of Salvation.

For a Bible study of 2 Timothy, click here.

–

Legal issues from a biblical perspective (e.g., Legal issues from a biblical perspective (e.g., church incorporation and 501(c)(3))

FELLOWSHIP OF HUMANITY (a Nonprofit Corporation) v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, 153 Cal.App.2d 673 (California Court of Appeals. First Dist., Div. One, 1957)

Leave a comment

Click here to go to complete case online.

1. FELLOWSHIP OF HUMANITY (a Nonprofit Corporation) v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, 153 Cal.App.2d 673 (California Court of Appeals. First Dist., Div. One, 1957) Fellowship of Humanity was a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of California. The precise question involved in the instant case–whether the reverence of a deity is a prerequisite to the receiving of a tax exemption for church property. In this case, a humanist organization applied for property tax exemption on the ground that the property was used “solely and exclusively for religious worship” within the meaning of article XIII, section 1 1/2 of the state Constitution. The trial court below determined that the Fellowship did use its property” solely and exclusively for religious worship” and was entitled to the claimed exemption. The basic problem involved is whether or not, under the findings, the respondent is entitled to this tax exemption. The solution to this problem turns upon whether or not the conclusion that respondent uses its property “solely and exclusively for religious worship,” as these terms are used in article XIII, section 1 1/2, is supported by the findings. Appellants contend that the term “religious worship” necessarily requires reverence to, and adoration of, a Supreme Being, and that under the findings the respondent organization does not require as a condition of membership that its members believe in God, and that such an organization does not use its premises “solely and exclusively for religious” The fundamental question–is a belief in God or gods essential to “religious worship,” as those terms are used in the state Constitution?

In this case, born again students of the Word of God can easily see how preposterous putting secularists (courts) in the position of defining “church,” “religion,” “religious practice,” etc. All man’s laws which give benefits to religion and churches make necessary the definition of such terms. That is one very good reason that a church should remain under the First Amendment and corresponding state constitutional provisions and laws. Incorporating, getting 501c3 status or becoming a legal entity of any kind takes a church out from under such provisions and from under God thereby violating New Testament Church Doctrine and grieving our Lord.

Notes from the case:

If this strict rule of construction is applicable in the instant case it can reasonably be argued that the words “religious worship,” in their strict and limited sense, and in their commonly accepted sense, include the concept of a Supreme Being governing the universe. [4] Generally speaking, “religious worship” is expressed by prayers, reverence, homage and adoration paid to a deity, and include the seeking out by prayer and otherwise the will of the deity for divine guidance. This is the generally accepted dictionary definition of the term. Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (2d ed.) includes within its definition of the term the following: “Worship: … 5. Act of paying divine honors to a deity; religious reverence and homage; adoration, or reverence, paid to God, a being viewed as God, or something held as sacred from a reputed connection with God.” “Religion: … 1. The service and adoration of God or a god as expressed in forms of worship … 6. An apprehension, awareness, or conviction of the existence of a supreme being …”

It is not necessary to cite other dictionary definitions. Many dictionaries contain similar definitions.

Some of the decided cases, in various situations, have interpreted the terms “religion,” and “religious,” and “worship” as including the recognition of a deity. One of the leading cases is Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 [10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637], which approves the restrictive interpretation of the word “religion.” That case involved a prosecution for conspiracy. Under federal law citizens of the territory of Idaho were required to swear when registering as electors that they did not practice bigamy or polygamy, and that they were not members of organizations which held as a tenet the practice of polygamy. The Mormon Church, at that time, advocated polygamy, and defendants were members of that church. The question involved was whether the advocacy of polygamy was protected as a “religious” tenet under the federal Constitution. In the course of its opinion the court stated (133 U.S. at p. 342): “The term ‘religion’ has reference to one’s views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will.” This was probably dicta because the actual holding of this case was that “however 682*682 free the exercise of religion may be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislation.” (P. 342.)

There have also been several cases interpreting the “religious training and belief” exception to the draft act. In Berman v. United States, 156 F.2d 377 (cert. den. 329 U.S. 795 [67 S.Ct. 480, 91 L.Ed. 680]), the court was required to construe a provision of the Selective Service Act of 1940 which granted an exemption to persons conscientiously opposed to participation in war “by reason of religious training and belief.” It was held by the majority that the defendant, who was a humanist, did not qualify, because [fn. *](156 F.2d at p. 380): “It is our opinion that the expression ‘by reason of religious training and belief’ is plain language, and was written into the statute for the specific purpose of distinguishing between a conscientious social belief, or a sincere devotion to a high moralistic philosophy, and one based upon an individual’s belief in his responsibility to an authority higher and beyond any worldly one. … It would be quite ridiculous to argue that the use of the word ‘religion’ (in section 1 of the First Amendment) could have been understood by the authors of this part of our national charter or by those having to do with its adoption as meaning to be inclusive of morals or of devotion to human welfare or of policy of government. Congress has and does make laws respecting the establishment of all of these subjects. … There are those who have a philosophy of life, and who live up to it. There is evidence that this is so in regard to appellant. However, no matter how pure and admirable his standard may be, and no matter how devotedly he adheres to it, his philosophy and morals and social policy without the concept of deity cannot be said to be religion in the sense of that term as it is used in the statute.”

As will later appear there were contrary interpretations of the language of the 1940 act. But Congress apparently approved the definition of the majority in the Berman case when it passed the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948 by providing that “[r]eligious training and belief in this connection means an individual’s belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising 683*683 from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code.” (50 U.S.C.A. App. 456(j).) In George v. United States, 196 F.2d 445, 451, the court said of this definition that it “comports with the spirit in which ‘Religion’ is understood generally, and the manner in which it has been defined by the courts. It is couched in terms of the relationship of the individual to a Supreme Being, and comports with the standard or accepted understanding of the meaning of ‘Religion’ in American society.” The court also pointed out that even if the statutory definition were unduly restrictive, this was a matter for Congress to determine.

There are other cases recognizing that a belief in a Supreme Being is essential to the concept of religious worship. In United States v. MacIntosh, 283 U.S. 605, 633 [51 S.Ct. 570, 75 L.Ed. 1302], in a dissent by Chief Justice Hughes, is to be found an approval of the definition of religion given in Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 [10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637]. The Chief Justice stated: “The essence of religion is belief in a relation to God involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation. … [Here follows the quotation from Davis v. Beason.] One cannot speak of religious liberty, with proper appreciation of its essential and historic significance, without assuming the existence of a belief in supreme allegiance to the will of God.”

The statement of Chief Justice Hughes limiting religions to those faiths who venerate a Supreme Being has not gone unchallenged. In a dissent in the Berman case, which will be discussed more fully later in this opinion, Chief Judge Denman wrote that Chief Justice Hughes was only concerned with MacIntosh’s belief in his personal “God” and was not attempting to give an all-inclusive definition of “religion.” “To attribute to such highly educated men as Hughes, Holmes, Brandeis and Stone [the four dissenters] an ignorance of Taoism or Comte’s humanism, or their denial that either is a religion if the question had been presented to them, would be an unwarranted assertion of their ignorance of the history of religious beliefs.” (156 F.2d 384, n. 2.)

There are several state decisions holding or implying in various situations that the commonly accepted and generally understood meanings of “religion” and of “religious worship” include as an essential element the recognition of a deity, and the concomitant obligations which that recognition imposes. (See Nikulnikoff v. Archbishop etc. of Russian 684*684 O.G.C.Ch., 142 Misc. 894 [255 N.Y.S. 653]; In re Opinion of the Justices, 309 Mass. 555 [34 N.E.2d 431]; People v. Deutsche Evangelisch Lutherische, etc., Confession, 249 Ill. 132 [94 N.E. 162]; People v. Board of Education of Dist. 24, 245 Ill. 334 [92 N.E. 251]; see also cases collected 76 C.J.S. pp. 727-730; see the following annotations: 168 A.L.R. 1222; 83 A.L.R. 773; 22 A.L.R. 907; 81 A.L.R. 1453; 34 A.L.R. 1067, for discussion of related subjects)

These authorities, if a strict, limited interpretation is to be given to the exemption in article XIII, section 1 1/2, would support the conclusion that a belief in a Supreme Being and adoration of that Supreme Being are essential elements of “religious worship”

These cases and definitions do not stand unquestioned. [5] In the first place there are forms of belief generally and commonly accepted as religions and whose adherents, numbering in the millions, practice what is commonly accepted as religious worship, which do not include or require as essential the belief in a deity. Taoism, classic Buddhism, and Confucianism, are among these religions. In the second place, there are dictionary definitions and decided cases holding that the terms “religion” and “religious worship” do not necessarily import a belief in a deity.

The same dictionary cited by appellants (Webster’s Unabridged, 2d ed.) contains the following definition of “religion”: “8. a. A pursuit, an object of pursuit, a principle, or the like, arousing in one religious convictions and feelings such as great faith, devotion or fervor, or followed with religious zeal, conscientiousness or fidelity as, patriotism was to him a religion. b. Acceptance of or devotion to such an ideal as a standard for one’s life.”

Funk and Wagnalls (1915 edition) contains this definition of “religion”: “Any system of faith, doctrine and worship; as the Christian religion; the religions of the Orient.”

Webster also contains a broader definition of the word “worship” than the one relied upon by appellants. It is: “1. To treat with the reverence due to merit or worth; to respect; honor. 2. To revere with extreme respect and veneration.”

The Oxford Universal Dictionary, 3d edition, 1955, also contains broad definitions of the terms in question: “Religion … 4. A particular system of faith and worship …” “Worship” is defined as “b. … Veneration similar to that paid to a deity” 685*685

The Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences includes at least Taoism and classic Buddhism as among “those religions which lack the conception of an omnipotent and transcendent God.” (Vol. 13, p. 237.)

There are also a series of cases holding or implying in various situations that the terms in question should not or constitutionally cannot be limited to those faiths revering a deity, and holding that a belief in a deity is not essential to religion, or religious worship.

In Estate of Hinckley, 58 Cal. 457, the income of a trust was to be devoted to foster “Religion, Learning and Charity.” The court was called to pass upon whether “religion” was a valid charitable purpose. In holding that it was the court stated (p. 512): “In its primary sense (from religare, to rebind, to bind back), it imports, as applied to moral questions, only a recognition of a conscientious duty to recall and obey restraining principles of conduct. In such sense we suppose there is no atheist who will admit that he is without religion.”

In Ex parte Jentzsch, 112 Cal. 468 [44 P. 803, 32 L.R.A. 664], the court held a statute requiring barbershops to be closed on Sundays and legal holidays to be unconstitutional. The court stated that a Sunday closing statute should not be considered as a religious enactment, but as a civil and secular enactment, and reasoned as follows (p. 471): “Under a constitution which guarantees to all equal liberty of religion and conscience, any law which forbids an act not itself contra bonos mores, because that act is repugnant to the beliefs of one religious sect, of necessity interferes with the liberty of those who hold to other beliefs or to none at all.”

“Liberty of conscience and belief is preserved alike to the followers of Christ, to Buddhist and Mohammedan, to all who think that their tenets alone are illumined by the light of divine truth; but it is equally preserved to the skeptic, agnostic, atheist, and infidel, who says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ ”

In United States v. Kauten, 133 F.2d 703, and in United States v. Downer, 135 F.2d 521,the Second Circuit gave a much broader interpretation to the phrase “religious training and belief” in the draft act than was given by the majority in the Berman case, supra, written by the Ninth Circuit. In the Kauten case the court held that the phrase in question did not require a belief in a deity to entitle the registrant to the exemption. Justice Augustus Hand, speaking for the court, defined the type of belief that would qualify the registrant 686*686 for the exemption as follows (p. 708): “We are not convinced by anything in the record that the registrant did not report for induction because of a compelling voice of conscience, which, we should regard as a religious impulse, … Religious belief arises from a sense of the inadequacy of reason as a means of relating the individual to his fellowmen and to his universe–a sense common to men in the most primitive and in the mostly highly civilized societies. It accepts the aid of logic but refuses to be limited by it. It is a belief finding expression in a conscience which categorically requires the believer to disregard elementary self-interest and to accept martyrdom in preference to transgressing its tenets.”

Just three months later the same court in the Downer case, supra, found one Randolph Phillips to be a conscientious objector. Phillips “received his early religious training in the Presbyterian Church, although he stated that he was not now a member of any religious sect or organization. He is opposed to killing men, or assisting directly or indirectly in the killing of men … He would not fight even to repel invasion, but believes that ‘war is ethically and invariably wrong.’ … ‘[F]rom whom I derived my opposition to killing men … I cannot specifically say. …’ … His further sworn assertion that ‘my opposition to war is deep-rooted, based not on political considerations but on a general humanitarian concept which is essentially religious in character,’ appears, therefore, borne out by the record.” (135 F.2d at p. 523.) The exemption was granted.

The definitions thus given by the Second Circuit were disapproved by the majority opinion in the Berman case, and were apparently disapproved by Congress when it amended the draft act in 1948 and adopted the limited definition of the Berman case. However, as already indicated, the Berman decision was not unanimous. Chief Judge Denman wrote a strong and convincing dissent. He was willing to adopt the broad definitions of “religious training and belief” found in the Kauten and Downer cases. The dissent is entitled to particular consideration because the appellant in that case was a humanist. There is much worthy of note in the opinion, but the following quotation is particularly relevant (156 F.2d at p. 384): “It is true that there is no evidence that Berman’s religious conviction that he should not kill his fellow man flowed from the command of some god or gods of one or another of the world’s many religiouscongregations, and 687*687 we may assume that such was not its source. But many of the great religious faiths with hundreds of millions of followers have no god. … It is wrong to say that ‘a sincere devotion to a moralistic philosophy’ is inconsistent with ‘a belief in his responsibility to an authority higher and beyond any earthly one,’ if that supernatural authority is confined to a belief in a particular god. This would exclude all Taoist China and in the Western world all believers in Comte’s religion of humanism in which humanity is exalted into the throne occupied by a supreme being in monotheistic religions.”

There is an Illinois case that is also worthy of mention. It is In re Walker, 200 Ill. 566 [66 N.E. 144], which involved the interpretation of a constitutional provision very similar to the one involved here. The court, in interpreting the words “property used exclusively for … religious purposes” appearing in the Illinois Constitution, and the words “churchproperty actually and exclusively used for public worship,” appearing in the Illinois statute, felt that such terms must be interpreted in connection with an Illinois constitutional provision similar to article I, section 4 of the California Constitution. [fn. *] In this connection the Illinois court stated (p. 147): “[O]ur constitution therefore constitutes a guaranty of absolute freedom of thought and faith, whether orthodox, heterodox, Christian, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, liberal, conservative, Calvinistic, Armenian, Unitarian, or other religious belief, theology, or philosophy, and also the right of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious professions and worship of any variety or form; the only restraint upon the free 688*688 exercise of liberty of conscience being that oaths and affirmations shall not thereby be dispensed with, licentious acts excused, or practices justified which are dangerous to the peace and safety of the state.”

“Any definition of ‘public worship,’ to be acceptable, must be sufficiently broad and comprehensive to include within the beneficial operation of the statute of exemptions the church property of all congregations, and every denomination or form of religious faith and worship. The difficulties attending the task of formulating a definition of the term ‘public worship,’ so that it will be applicable to and comprehend every variety of religious faith and belief, and every religious philosophy of life and death, and omit none, is apparent.”

There is one other case to which reference should be made–a case that was decided by the District of Columbia Tax Court after the instant case was tried, and a case which is now on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The case is Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, the tax court decision being reported in 84 Wash. Law. Reporter 1072. In that case the tax court was presented directly with the precise question involved in the instant case–whether the reverence of a deity is a prerequisite to the receiving of a tax exemption for church property. The tax court was presented with a statute exempting church buildings from real property taxation when “primarily and regularly used for religious worship …” It was required to determine whether the Washington Ethical Society was a church within the meaning of this statute. The Washington Ethical Society is an affiliate of the American Ethical Union, and adheres to their tenets, beliefs and practices. These tenets, beliefs and practices are substantially similar to the basic beliefs, tenets and practices of respondent in the instant case. The essential thesis of the Ethical Movement, as stated by the tax court (p. 1074) is that “morals, ethical conduct and right living are good in themselves, and for that reason must be practiced, and not because of any command or sanction of any deity or Supreme Being …”

“… Its basis fundamentally is the negation of a personal God or any Supreme Being. It denies that there is some heavenly father or deity which is concerned with the affairs of men; … that it is futile to appeal to such or to thank him for the blessings or blame him for the ills of mankind; that we mortals alone are responsible for advantages and disadvantages; and that if we are to be helped, we must help ourselves. … 689*689”

“The Ethical Movement does not require that any of its members believe in, or have any concept of God.”

Were the buildings of this organization used for “religious worship” within the meaning of the statute? The court in an exhaustive opinion came to the conclusion, after expressing many doubts on the subject, that such buildings were not used for religious worship. It quoted from many authorities to the effect that a belief in a deity is not essential to a religion, and pointed out that the case law defining the term was “somewhat confused” (p. 1078). It then cited and discussed many of the cases already cited in this opinion, and cited and discussed many others not cited herein. It then concluded (p. 1082): “After considering all of the foregoing sources bearing upon the meaning of religion, the Court concludes that the generally accepted definition of religion … is substantially the same as that adopted and approved in the Selective Service Act of 1948 and the Naturalization Act of 1950, that is to say, ‘belief in relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views of a merely personal moral code.’ ” Such definition, it was held, “comports with the primary definition in most of the dictionaries and encyclopedias and in the majority of the decisions of the courts, and appears to be most generally accepted.”

It can be observed from this review of the dictionary definitions, and of the case law, that the definitions given are confused, uncertain and certainly not conclusive. In all of the cases cited, except the tax case, the courts were not faced with the precise problem here involved. The most that can be said of these decisions is that there are expressions approving and disapproving the view that “religious worship” need not necessarily involve the concept of homage to a deity. In many of the apparently conflicting cases the result can be explained, in part at least, by the context in which the question was presented.

The views of scholars in this confused field are also conflicting. Many define “religion” in terms of a deity or of a Supreme Being. To others theism plays little or no part in their concept of the term. Many of these authorities are compiled in the amicus curiae brief of the American Civil Liberties Union. Others are referred to in the tax court opinion, supra. Little would be gained by attempting to compile the conflicting views. Suffice it to say that many 690*690 authorities in the field include nontheistic beliefs among the world’s recognized religions. Particularly pertinent is the following statement by Francis Potter in “The Story of Religion” (p. XVII): “A new definition of religion itself is already emerging. Whereas Cicero was satisfied to call it ‘the pious worship of God,’ and Menzies only a generation ago won acclaim for terming it ‘the worship of higher powers from a sense of need,’ there is a tendency today to question the necessity of including the supernatural in a definition of religion.”

“The idea of religion without God is shocking to Christians, Jews, and Muhammadans, but Buddha and Confucius long ago founded nontheistic religions and some modern Unitarian Humanists insist that the idea of God is a positive hindrance to the progress of real religion.”

“An inclusive definition, then, must recognize both varieties of religion, theistic and non-theistic.”

“The author’s present definition of religion and religions is as follows:”

“Religion: is the endeavor of divided and incomplete human personality to attain unity and completion, usually but not necessarily by seeking the help of an ideally complete divine person or persons.”

“Religions are systems of belief and practice which arise among the disciples of some man who has attained a satisfying measure of success in his endeavors to unify and complete his personality.”

One of the most respected groups to recognize the humanists as a religious group are the Unitarians. Unitarianism is generally accepted by most authorities as one of the recognized religions. Yet under Unitarian doctrine there is a peaceful coexistence of theists and humanists. A substantial part of the membership and clergy of the Unitarian Church are humanists. In the “Pocket Guide to Unitarianism,” edited by Harry B. Scholefield, appears the following (p. 4):

“Some Unitarians call themselves ‘humanists’ and others call themselves ‘theists.’ The difference between the two groups is not so much a matter for controversy as for mutual understanding and appreciation. The humanist is content, before this life’s unanswerable questions, to leave them unanswered. He sees enough in the human scene to demand all his energies of mind and spirit. The fundamental questions seem real enough, but speculation upon them seems hopeless, and all answers proposed must rest upon what William James 691*691 called ‘over-beliefs.’ The humanist says in effect, ‘One world at a time. I am interested in the world where I am now, in the moral purposes and meanings which the human mind has infused into it, and in the achievement of such ethical goals and ways of life as are possible.’ A similar attitude was taken by Buddha …”

It is quite apparent from what has been said that authorities can be found to support a limited definition of the terms involved, and that other authorities can be found to support a broader interpretation. It will be noted that, generally speaking, those who advocate the limited definition draw the line in reference to a particular belief held or not held by the group involved: i.e., do the members of the group believe in God? Their position appears to be that the sole criterion of “approved” religious activity is activity which centers around a deity. This interpretation could lead to some strange results. [6] Certainly, even appellants would not limit the exemption to those who believe in the Christian or Judaic God. The worship of other gods would clearly fall within the exemption. Appellants, at oral argument, conceded that even idol worshipers would qualify for the exemption under the test advocated by them. It also follows, of course, that a great many unorthodox but theistic cults in the United States, such as Father Divine’s Peace Mission Movement, whose followers believe that Father Divine is God, would qualify for the exemption. Drawing the dividing line between theistic and nontheistic beliefs would seem to be somewhat arbitrary. [7] In a country where religious tolerance is accepted it would not seem that the limited definition is in accord with our traditions.

There is another factor to be considered. Underlying the whole subject is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which provides: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The provisions of the California Constitution guaranteeing a separation of church and state have already been quoted. [8] The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. (Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 [60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213, 128 A.L.R. 1352].)

Just what does this provision mean when it is applied to state tax exemptions of church property? [9] It is perfectly obvious that any type of statutory exemption that discriminates between types of religious belief–that discriminates 692*692 on the basis of the content of such belief–would offend both the federal and state constitutional provisions. Thus the United States Supreme Court stated in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15 [67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711, 168 A.L.R. 1392]: “Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.” In American Sugar Refining Co. v. Louisiana, 179 U.S. 89, 92 [21 S.Ct. 43, 45 L.Ed. 102], appears the following: “Of course, if such [tax exemption] discrimination were purely arbitrary, oppressive or capricious, and made to depend upon differences of color, race, nativity, religious opinions, political affiliations or other considerations having no possible connection with the duties of citizens as taxpayers, such exemption would be pure favoritism, and a denial of the equal protection of the laws to the less favored classes.” (See also Watchtower B. & T. Soc. v. County of Los Angeles, 30 Cal.2d 426 [182 P.2d 178], which broadly implies that a tax discriminating between types of religious belief is unconstitutional.)

[10] Under the constitutional provision the state has no power to decide the validity of the beliefs held by the group involved. The principal case establishing this concept is United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 86 [64 S.Ct. 882, 88 L.Ed. 1148], which holds that: “Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs.” (See Silving, “The Unknown and the Unknowable,” 35 Cal.L.Rev. 352.) [11] If those concepts are sound, and it is submitted that they are well settled, then the only valid test a state may apply in determining the tax exemption is a purely objective one. Once the validity or content of the belief is considered, the test becomes subjective and invalid. [12] Thus the only inquiry in such a case is the objective one of whether or not the belief occupies the same place in the lives of its holders that the orthodox beliefs occupy in the lives of believing majorities, and whether a given group that claims the exemption conducts itself the way groups conceded to be religious conduct themselves. The content of the belief, under such test, is not a matter of governmental concern.

Under this test the belief or nonbelief in a Supreme Being is a false factor. The only way the state can determine the existence or nonexistence of “religious worship” is to approach the problem objectively. It is not permitted to test validity of, or to compare beliefs. This simply means that 693*693 “religion” fills a void that exists in the lives of most men. Regardless of why a particular belief suffices, as long as it serves this purpose, it must be accorded the same status of an orthodox religious belief. Of course, the belief cannot violate the laws or morals of the community, but subject to this limitation, the content of the belief is not a matter of governmental concern.

[13] If this be a correct approach, and we submit that it is, the proper interpretation of the terms “religion” or “religious” in tax exemption laws should not include any reference to whether the beliefs involved are theistic or nontheistic. Religion simply includes: (1) a belief, not necessarily referring to supernatural powers; (2) a cult, involving a gregarious association openly expressing the belief; (3) a system of moral practice directly resulting from an adherence to the belief; and (4) an organization within the cult designed to observe the tenets of belief. The content of the belief is of no moment. Assuming this definition of “religion” is correct, then it necessarily follows that any lawful means of formally observing the tenets of the cult is “worship,” within the meaning of the taxexemption provision. Admittedly, respondent meets these tests.

There is still another problem involved that has not been discussed, and that is the anomalous nature of the church exemption. [14a] Direct tax subsidies of any churchor sect or of all churches and sects are undoubtedly prohibited by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution above quoted. [15] Separation of church and state is compelled by the federal and state Constitutions. As stated by Mr. Justice Shenk, speaking for the majority of the court in First Unitarian Church v. County of Los Angeles, 48 Cal.2d 419, at p. 434 [311 P.2d 508]: “Without the slightest doubt the First Amendment reflects the philosophy that church and state should be kept separate.” [14b] A tax exemption is, obviously, an indirect subsidy. Thus, logically, any tax exemption to a church, regardless of the beliefs of its members, can be questioned. The more recent United States Supreme Court cases have indicated how divided that court is on this problem, and have made it clear that it is not easy to justify logically the tax exemption provisions. In Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 [67 S.Ct. 504, 91 L.Ed. 711, 168 A.L.R. 1392], the majority of the court upheld payment by a school board that compensated parents for their children’s bus fares even though the children were attending parochial schools. 694*694 The court stated that the state had gone to the “verge” of its constitutional power, and then stated (p. 15): “Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. … No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.” That is ominous language so far as the validity of tax exemption provisions for churches is concerned.

In McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 [68 S.Ct. 461, 92 L.Ed. 649, 2 A.L.R.2d 1338], the court was faced with a so-called “released time” statute under which children in public schools were given, if they desired, time off from regular school work, to attend sectarian religious instruction classes conducted by the church of their choice. The classes were held on school property. The statute was held to be unconstitutional. The court stated (p. 212): “Here not only are the State’s tax-supported public school buildings used for the dissemination of religious doctrines. The State also affords sectarian groups an invaluable aid in that it helps to provide pupils for their religious classes through use of the State’s compulsory school machinery. This is not a separation of Church and State.”

The most recent opinion in point is Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 [72 S.Ct. 679, 96 L.Ed. 954], which upheld a “released time” statute where the classes were not held on school property. The philosophy of the opinion indicates no important retreat from the principles previously announced. At page 314 appears the following: “Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious instruction nor blend secular and sectarian education nor use secular institutions to force one or some religion on any person. But we find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence.”

Without delving into the subleties of the various majority, concurring and dissenting opinions in these cases, which contain frequent references to the constitutional prohibition against discrimination between religious sects, it is the view of many legal commentators that the rationale of these opinions makes it difficult to uphold, logically, the church exemption provisions. (See, for example, Paulsen, Preferment of 695*695Religious Institutions in Tax and Labor Regulation, 14 Law and Contem. Problems, 144, 148; Constitutionality of Tax Benefits Accorded Religion, 49 Columb. L. Rev. 968; 9 Stan. L. Rev. 366; see also Silving, the “Unknown and the Unknowable,” 35 Cal. L. Rev. 352, 365.)

On the other hand we know, of course, that every state and the District of Columbia has a constitutional or statutory provision exempting church property from taxation. In most of the cases where these statutes have received judicial consideration, their constitutionality has been assumed. In California the Supreme Court recently has held that the tax exemption provision is valid. It was so held in Lundberg v. County of Alameda, 46 Cal.2d 644 [298 P.2d 1]. That case involved the validity of a tax exemptionto property “used exclusively for school purposes … and owned and operated by religious, hospital or charitable funds, foundations, or corporations” subject to certain limitations. (Rev. & Tax. Code, 214.) The court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was not violated because, first, the religious school exemption was enacted to promote the public welfare by encouraging the education of the young, and second, such provisions must be upheld because of their very universality. In connection with this second point, the court stated (pp. 654-655): “Secondly, even if we regard the exemption as benefiting religious organizations, it does not follow that it violates the First Amendment. The practice of granting tax exemptions benefiting religious sects began in the colonial period. (See Paulsen, Preferment of Religious Institutions in Tax and Labor Legislation (1949), 14 Law & Contemp. Prob. 144, 147-148; Torpey, Judicial Doctrines of Religious Rights in America (1948), ch. VI, pp. 171-174; Zollman, Tax Exemptions of American Church Property(1916), 14 Mich. L. Rev. 646, 647- 650.) Today, at least some tax exemption for religious groups is authorized by statutory or constitutional provisions in every state and the District of Columbia, as well as by federal law. (See note (1949) 49 Columb. L. Rev. 968, 969-982.) No case has been found holding that the granting of such exemptions is contrary to state or federal constitutional provisions prohibiting the support or establishment of religion, and, where the matter has been raised, the exemptions have been upheld. (Garrett Biblical Institute v. Elmhurst State Bank, 331 Ill. 308 [163 N.E. 1, 5]; Trustees of Griswold College v. State of Iowa, 46 Iowa 275, 282 [26 Am. Rep. 138].) The United States Supreme Court, in 696*696 discussing the prohibition of laws respecting the establishment of religion, recently stated that the standard of constitutionality is the separation of church and state, and that the problem, like many others in constitutional law, is one of degree. (Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314 [72 S.Ct. 679, 96 L.Ed. 954].) The principle of separation of church and state is not impaired by granting tax exemptions to religious groups generally, and it seems clear that the First Amendment was not intended to prohibit such exemptions. Accordingly, an exemption of property used for educational purposes may validly be applied to school property owned and operated by religious organizations.”

It is interesting to note that the United States Supreme Court dismissed an appeal in the Lundberg case because that appeal did not present a “substantial federal question.” (352 U.S. 921.)

The first reason given by the Supreme Court of California for upholding the exemption is not applicable to the church exemption. The second one is applicable. [16] Certainly, while the very universality of the practice of exempting church property from taxation may not be a conclusive test of constitutionality, it certainly is a sound reason for courts to be extremely reluctant to take any steps to disturb such a practice.

This discussion about the validity of church tax exemption provisions is not indulged in because the members of this court have any doubts about the constitutionality of such provisions, but because the discussion suggests, first, that a logical and legal justification of such provisions must be found, and secondly, that in interpreting such provisions the court should be very careful not to limit them by such a narrow construction that by the very limitations imposed, constitutionality is adversely affected.

First, as to a legal justification for the provisions. [17] It is sound public policy to encourage, by tax exemption as well as by direct subsidy, private undertakings in the fields that are properly within the realm of governmental responsibility. Thus, welfare, charitable and private educational grants and subsidies are valid. All churches that warrant the exemption perform some of these tasks. Therefore, churches can be indirectly subsidized for the performance of these tasks. But this indirect subsidy is not for the activities that are peculiarily religious in the sense of dogma or doctrine, but for the many other things all churches do which are properly cognizable 697*697 by the state. This is the legal justification suggested in several of the above articles. This view received indirect judicial recognition in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Reed in the McCollum case when he stated (333 U.S. at p. 249): “It seems clear to me that the ‘aid’ referred to by the Court in the Everson case could not have been those incidental advantages that religious bodies, with other groups similarly situated, obtain as a by-product of organized society. This explains the well-known fact that all churches receive ‘aid’ from government in the form of freedom from taxation.” It also received judicial recognition in the majority opinion in First Unitarian Church v. County of Los Angeles, 48 Cal.2d 419, 438-439 [311 P.2d 508], when it was stated: “This legitimate objective [to grant the church exemption] is sought to be accomplished by placing in a favored economic position, and thus to promote their well being and sphere of influence, those particular persons and groups of individuals who are capable of formulating policies relating to good morals and respect for the law. It has been said that when churchproperties are exempted from taxation ‘it must be because, apart from religiousconsiderations, churches are regarded as institutions established to inculcate principles of sound morality, leading citizens to a more ready obedience to the laws.’ (County of Santa Clara v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 18 F. 385, 400 …)”

How do these observations apply to the instant case? [18] The answer is obvious. We should interpret article XIII, section 1 1/2, if possible, so as not to offend the federal Constitution. If the words “religious worship” are given a narrow, limited meaning, so as to require a belief in and adoration of a Supreme Being, then grave doubts would exist as to the constitutionality of the section. On the other hand, a definition which emphasizes the “nonreligious” facets of the conduct of respondent will serve to sustain the constitutionality of the section. Our interpretation of the tax exemption provision must be as broad as is reasonably necessary to uphold it. If we limit the exemption to those who advocate theism then it is quite possible that the Supreme Court of the United States may hold that such an interpretation encourages particular religious doctrines and practices and thus violates the division between church and state. [19] Theism is a concept which is peculiar to religious theory and practice in the technical sense. It is not a feature common to those advantages gained by the state and supportable by it, through the 698*698 activities of private educational and charitable institutions. The problem can be reduced to a simple formula. If the state cannot constitutionally subsidize religion under the First Amendment, then it cannot subsidize theism. If the state can constitutionally subsidize those functions of religious groups which are not related to “religion” in its narrow sense, then it must subsidize those nontheistic groups which perform the same functions. The First Amendment precludes a classification based on them.

The basic question then is not whether theism is necessarily the basic element of “religion.” It can be assumed that the words “religious worship” in the ordinary and commonly used sense require a belief in a Supreme Being. [20] But the United States Constitution prohibits a subsidy to foster “religious worship,” used in this sense. The real question is whether the activities of the Fellowship of Humanity which in the above sense are “nonreligious,” and which include all of the Fellowship’s activities, are analogous to the activities, serve the same place in the lives of its members, and occupy the same place in society, as the activities of the theistic churches. [21] In the present case, it is conceded that in all respects the Fellowship’s activities are similar to those of the theistic groups, except for their belief or lack of belief in a Supreme Being. It therefore follows that the constitutional exemption is equally applicable to both groups. Respondent is therefore entitled to the exemption.

[22] The next contention of appellants is that even if the property of respondent is devoted to “religious worship” as those words are used in article XIII, section 1 1/2 of the California Constitution, such property is not used “solely and exclusively” for such purpose within the meaning of the section. Appellants rely on the findings to the effect that the property is occasionally used by other organizations and occasionally for dances, dinners and meetings held by respondent. The contention does not require lengthy consideration. Such provisions are to be “reasonably construed, having in mind the object of the provision, and in furtherance of its underlying intent.” (San Francisco-Oakland T. Rys. v. Johnson, 210 Cal. 138, 150 [291 P. 197].) One of the cases referred to with approval in that case is First Unitarian Soc. v. Town of Hartford, 66 Conn. 368 [34 A. 89]. The court there stated (p. 90): “The policy on which the exemption of church buildings from taxation is granted is the encouragement of religion; and that policy is not hindered, but, 699*699 rather, promoted, by permitting this building to be used for profit when not needed for those services distinctly called ‘religious services’; for literary, scientific, or entertaining exercises, or for any other thing not inappropriate to be had in a church.”

Under the cases, it is certainly well settled that however strict the courts may be in determining whether the use of property brings it within the exemption at all, if the court once holds that the property generally qualifies for the exemption, it will be extremely liberal in holding that some incidental use does not take it out of the exemption. Thus in Y.M.C.A. v. County of Los Angeles, 35 Cal.2d 760 [221 P.2d 47],  …

Case Notes

KOPSOMBUT-MYINT BUDDHIST CENTER, v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 728 S.W. 2d 327 (1986) Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Section, at Nashville. Permission to Appeal Denied, April 6, 1987

Leave a comment

First, below is a brief statement of relevant matters in the case, with the most important – for church organization purposes – point(s), then, a more extensive summary below that.

KOPSOMBUT-MYINT BUDDHIST CENTER, v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 728 S.W. 2d 327 (1986) Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Section, at Nashville. Permission to Appeal Denied, April 6, 1987.
–
Point of importance. Property held in trust qualifies for a property tax exemption, if the property is used for religious purposes and the owner, any stockholder, officer, member or employee of such institution is not lawfully entitled to receive and pecuniary profit from the operations of that property in competition with like property owned by others which is not exempt. Property held in trust and which otherwise qualifies for the exemption is to be exempted from property tax.
–
Two members of a Buddhist organization formed a joint venture and bought property for a Buddhist organization. They requested a property tax exemption. The agency held that no property tax exemption applied. However, the appeals court, among other things, implied that an oral “trust” was created since joint venturers could not profit from the venture. The court stated: “A valid trust need not be in writing. It can be created orally unless the language of the written conveyance excludes the existence of a trust. The existence of a trust requires proof of three elements: (1) a trustee who holds trust property and who is subject to the equitable duties to deal with it for the benefit of another, (2) a beneficiary to whom the trustee owes the equitable duties to deal with the trust property for his benefit, and (3) identifiable trust property.” The court further held, contrary to the holding below, that the Buddhist Temple can be deemed to be the “owner” of the property for the purpose of obtaining a tax exemption.
–

KOPSOMBUT-MYINT BUDDHIST CENTER, v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 728 S.W. 2d 327 (1986) Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Section, at Nashville. Permission to Appeal Denied, April 6, 1987 (Click this link to go to the entire case online)

(Two members of a Buddhist organization formed a joint venture and bought property for a Buddhist organization. They requested a property tax exemption. The appeals court, among other things, implied that a “trust” was created.)

…

IV. The Temple’s Entitlement to an Exemption

… “There has been a great deal of litigation construing Tenn. Code. Ann. 67-5-212(a)(1)’s requirement that property must be owned and used for religious purposes in order to be exempt. However, there has been little litigation concerning the nature of the entity that will qualify as a religious institution entitled to claim a tax exemption. Thus, our analysis is government by general property tax principles” The court then stated that the property had been used for religi ous purposes [in 1982].

A. The Kopsombut-Myint Buddhist Center’s 1982 Exemption

The Assessment Appeals Commission found that the Kopsombut-Myint Buddhist Center had not met the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-212(a)(1) for two reasons. First, the Commission stated:

The restriction in the statute precludes ownership by an individual or individuals and by implication suggests ownership which has a foundation by law, whether the mode of its operation be by way of legislative enactment, a corporation or a trust, but imposing always an irrevocable use of the property for exempt purposes.

Second, the Commission held:

The property was acquired by Myint and Kopsombut in December 1981; the joint venture was not formalized until almost a year later on November 12, 1982 at which time a written agreement was drawn that went into substantial detail about the duties of Myint and Kopsombut, the events of default, the transfer of the property and profit or loss. It appears that the conditions placed on the two parties by the agreement in November may have had the effect of forming a trust whereas Myint and Kopsombut acted as trustees for the Buddhist Center. Until this formulation of the restrictions set out in the agreement, the joint venture was an association of two men who had equal right of control over the property. The fact that the individuals did not exercise this right is of no consequence nor is the altruistic intentions of the joint venturers. Either party or both who wished to transfer his interest in the property could have done so with impunity.

These findings indicate that the Commission denied Kopsombut-Myint Buddhist Center’s 1982 exemption simply because the joint venture agreement had not been reduced to writing prior to the beginning of 1982. We infer that the Commission reasoned that until Myint and Kopsombut executed this agreement there was no binding, irrevocable commitment to hold and use the property for exempt purposes. We disagree. In fact, all the evidence is to the contrary.

A valid trust need not be in writing. It can be created orally unless the language of the written conveyance excludes the existence of a trust. Sanderson v. Milligan, 585 S.W.2d S.W.2d 573, 574 (Tenn. 1979); Linder v. Little, 490 S.W.2d 717, 723 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1972); and Adrian v. Brown, 29 Tenn. App. 236, 243, 196 S.W.2d 118, 121 (1946). However, when a party seeks to establish an oral trust, it must do so by greater than a preponderance of the evidence. Sanderson v. Milligan, 585 S.W.2d 573, 574 (Tenn. 1979); Hunt v. Hunt,169 Tenn. 1, 9, 80 S.W.2d 666, 669 (1935); and Browder v. Hite, 602 S.W.2d 489, 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980).

The existence of a trust requires proof of three elements: (1) a trustee who holds trust property and who is subject to the equitable duties to deal with it for the benefit of another, (2) a beneficiary to whom the trustee owes the equitable duties to deal with the trust property for his benefit, and (3) identifiable trust property. See G.G. Bogert & G.T. Bogert, The Law of Trusts and Trustees § 1, at 6 (rev. 2d ed. 1984) and Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 2 comment h (1957). We find that the Kopsombut-Myint Buddhist Center has proved the existence of each of these elements by clear and convincing evidence.

Both the November, 1982 agreement embodying the parties’ commitments when the property was purchased in December, 1981 and Mr. Myint’s uncontradicted testimony show that Kopsombut and Myint intended to create a joint venture that would acquire the Treutland Street property and hold it in trust for Nashville’s Buddhist Community. They agreed to restrict their interest in the property by agreeing to receive no profits of any sort and to convey the property only to The Buddhist Temple when it was incorporated. These oral agreements are sufficient to establish an enforceable trust in the Treutland Street property in favor of the temple which came into effect when the Kopsombut-Myint Buddhist Center purchased the property from the House of Prayer and Praise, Inc.

The trial court’s reason for denying the 1982 exemption differed from the Assessment Appeals Commission. It relied upon the portion of Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-212(a)(4) that states

“But the property of such institution shall not be exempt if the owner, or any stockholder, officer, member or employee of such institution shall receive or may be lawfully entitled to receive any pecuniary profit from the operations of that property in competition with like property owned by others which is not exempt.”

The trial court concluded that Myint and Kopsombut could have received profits from this transaction merely because they formed a joint venture to acquire the Treutland Street property. We disagree with this conclusion. A joint venture is inherently neither a for-profit entity nor a not-for-profit entity. Its nature depends upon the nature of the persons forming it and the purposes for which it was formed.

We should look to the substance of an arrangement rather than its form when we are construing Tenn. Code Ann. § 67-5-212. See National Music Camp v. Green Lake Township, 76 Mich. App. 608, 257 N.W.2d 188, 191 (1977). We have already determined that the Kopsombut-Myint Buddhist Center was holding the Treutland Street property in trust for The Buddhist Temple pursuant to an oral trust agreement. It is the character of the beneficiary of the trust, not the trustee, that determines the availability of an exemption. National Bank of Burlington v. Huneke, 250 Iowa 1030, 98 N.W.2d 7, 11 (1959).

There is no question that the beneficiary of the trust, The Buddhist Temple, is a religious institution. As the owner of the equitable interest in the property, The Buddhist Temple can be deemed to be the “owner” of the property for the purpose of obtaining a tax exemption. See Hahn v. County of Walworth, 14 Wis.2d 147, 109 N.W.2d 653, 656 (1961). See also 71 Am.Jur.2d State and Local Taxation § 366 (1973); Annot., 94 A.L.R.2d 636 § 3 (1964); and 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 231 (1954). It is also undisputed that Myint and Kopsombut, as trustees, agreed that they would hold the property only for the benefit of the temple. Therefore, the trial court’s conclusion that Kopsombut and Myint could profit from this transaction is not supported by the evidence.

The case was remanded to the trial court to determine, in accordance with the opinion of the court of appeals, whether this property was entitled to an exemption in 1982 [and a total exemption in 1983 (this depended upon the use of the property in 1983].

 

Church_LessonsOnDoctrineOf

1 Timothy

Aside Leave a comment

1 Timothy

Click here to go to “Bible Studies on the Doctrine of the Church“ from other books of the Bible.

Contents:

INTRODUCTION
OUTLINE
NOTES

NOTE. For more details see, McGee, 1 Timothy. This study is taken from that book with significant modifications mainly dealing with organization and method aligned to Bible principle and teaching. The study is also available online in audio at: 1 Timothy

DATE. One commentator notes: “The date of 1 Timothy turns upon the question of the two imprisonments of Paul. If there were two, then it is clear that 1 Timothy was written during the interval. If Paul endured but one Roman imprisonment, the Epistle was written shortly before Paul’s last journeyed to Jerusalem.”

INTRODUCTION

1 Timothy is a book about church order.

1 and 2 Timothy and Titus belong together. They are called “The Pastoral Epistles” because they have to do with local churches. These pastoral epistles are in contrast to, for example, the epistle to the Ephesians. There, Paul speaks of the church as a body of believers who are in Christ and the glorious, wonderful position that the church has. The institution of the church is made up down here on earth in local assemblies, in the local churches.

For a church to be a New Testament church, there must be certain identifying features. A local church must manifest itself in a certain way in order to meet the requirements of a church of the Lord Jesus. For one thing, she must be under the Lord Jesus only.

The three epistles were written to two young preachers who worked with Paul—Timothy and Titus. They were part of his fruit. They were led to the Lord through his ministry. He had these men with him as helpers, and he instructed them as to the local church.

In these epistles Paul deals with (1) the creed of a church and (2) the conduct of a church. For the church within, the worship must be right. For the church outside, good works must be manifested. Worship is inside; works are outside.

In 1 Timothy, chapter 1 deals with faith, the faith of a church, its doctrine. Chapter 2 is the order of a church. Chapter 3 concerns the officers of a church. Chapter 4 describes the coming apostasy. Chapters 5 and 6 tell of the duties of the officers.

In 2 Timothy, Paul deals with the afflictions of a church in chapter 1 and the activity of a church in chapter 2. Then the apostasy of the church and the allegiance of the church in chapters 3 and 4.

So there is creed on the inside of a church and conduct on the outside. Within is worship and without is good works.

In Paul’s day a church, the local assembly, did not have a building. They generally met in homes and probably in public buildings. In Ephesus Paul used—probably rented—the school of Tyrannus.

In order to be a local assembly, a church must have certain things that characterize it. It must have a creed, and its doctrine must be accurate. Two verses summarize Paul’s message in these epistles:

“As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine” (1 Ti. 1.3).

A church must also have correct doctrine:

1 Timothy 3.15

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Ti. 3.15).

A local church is made of believers who are members of the body of Christ. They need leadership and they need someone to sweep the building and turn on the heat and cooling. There must be officers who must meet certain requirements. The church should function in an orderly manner and manifest itself in the community by its good works.

Paul tries to convey in these epistles that the men who are officers must be spiritual. No system will function unless the men who are in the place and position of authority are right. If they are wrong, the system will not work.

Paul emphasizes 2 aspects of the spiritual officer: he must be a man of faith, and he must be motivated by love. Without those two, the officer can’t function no matter how much ability he has.

What this means is that the authority of officers is no authority at all. He means that Christ is the Head of the church, and the Holy Spirit is the One to give the leading and guiding in the direction. The officer is never to assert his will in anything. He is to find out what the will of God is. That means he will have to be a man of faith.

He will also have to be motivated by love. That does not mean he is to be a man-pleaser. That means he is to carry through the will of Christ in the church. It is his job to make sure Christ is the Head of the church. How many officers of churches think they are spiritual but have no idea that they are to carry out the will of Christ, probably because they never sought the will of Christ. Such men attempt to serve their own wills because they think their wills are right.

Christ is the head of a local church. In the first verse, Pauls says, “the Lord Jesus Christ.” He is the Lord. That means He is Number One.  He said, “You call me Lord, Lord, and you do not the things I command.” A lot of people call him “Lord” today in churches, and they are not following Him at all. Church officers are to carry through the will of Christ, His Commandments, His desires, and His principles.

Dr. McGee did not think organization of a church  mattered as long as the men were right. However, the men cannot be totally right if church method and organization violate Bible principles. For example, a spiritual man cannot operate totally spiritually in a church which is organized according to man’s, not God’s, principles. And departure from God’s principles starts a downhill slide toward apostasy. A church organized as a legal entity (corporation, 501c3, 508, unincorporated association, etc.) does not have the Lord Jesus Christ as the head of the church and cannot be a New Testament church.

OUTLINE

I. THE FAITH of a Church, Chapter 1
A. Introduction vv. 1, 2
B. Warning Against Unsound Doctrine, vv. 3-10
C. Personal Testimony of Paul, vv. 11-17
D. Charge to Timothy, vv. 18-20

II. PUBLIC PRAYER and WOMAN’S PLACE in the Churches, Chapter 2
A. Public Prayer for the Public and Public Officials, vv. 1-7
B. How Men Are to Pray, v. 8
C. How Women Are to Pray, vv. 9-15

 III. OFFICERS in a Church, Chapter 3
 A.Requirements for Elders, vv. 1-7
B. Requirements for Deacons, vv. 8-13
C. Report of Paul to Timothy, vv. 14-16

IV. APOSTASY in the Church, Chapter 4
A. How to Recognize Apostates, vv. 1-5
B. What the “good Minister” Can Do in times of Apostasy, vv. 6-16

V. DUTIES of OFFICERS of the Churches, Chapters 5, 6
A. Relationship of Ministers to Different Groups in the Local Church, Chapter 5
B. Relationship of Believers to Others, Chapter 6

NOTES:

Chapter 1
(The faith of a church)

The emphasis here is a warning against false teachers in the local church. the gospel of the grace of God is central in doctrine and concerns the person of Christ. At first, the apostles regulated church order, soundness of faith, and discipline. The approaching of the end of the apostolic period made necessary that a clear revelation should be made for guidance of the churches. In chapter 1, legalism and unsound teaching are rebuked.

1_Ti.1.1-2INTRODUCTION (vv1, 2)

vv1, 2 Paul asserts his apostleship “by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope.” In Ep. 1.1 he says, “Paul, and apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God.” The commandment and will of God are the same, but not exactly synonymous. All the commandments in the Bible reveal the will of God. [E.g., pray (1 Thess. 5.17, 18; etc.]. However, since we don’t have the sum total of the commandments in Scripture, the will of God is a much broader term than the commandment of God. Remember, man is not saved by obedience to the will of God.

God found a way that HE might  be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. Acts 13:38-39  “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” The law of Moses was a ministration of death; the law condemned them. The law wasn’t given to save us, but to reveal that God is holy and that you and I are not holy. The way God saves us in the way of the cross. Christ is the way.

God commanded Paul to be an apostle. He was a soldier under orders—not by commission, but by commandment. No one laid hands on Paul and made him and apostle. The Lord Jesus personally gave him the authority. Jeremiah had this same kind of authority.

Any man who is going to speak for God today needs to do it with authority or he ought to keep quiet. Paul spoke with the authority of God.

“And the Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope.” The only other time the Bible says Christ is our hope is in Colossians 1:27 “To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.” Jesus died to save you. He lives to keep you saved. Some day his will take you to be with Himself and consummate the salvation. He is our faith when we look backwards; He is love when we look around us today; and He is our hope as we look ahead. But it is hope all the way through life.

Timothy (the Greek means “dear to God.”)  was dear to God and to the apostle Paul. We read of Timothy in Acts, Ephesians, and Philippians. He had a good reputation. Acts 16:2-5 “Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek. And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem. And so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily.” As he worked with Paul, he became one in whom Paul had the utmost confidence, while others in the churches proved to be false brethren who deceived him.

Pastors need loyal, faithful friends in the churches they pastor. Paul had those he did not trust, but he trusted Timothy. Philippians 2:19-23 “But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state.  For I have no man likeminded, who will naturally care for your state.  For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s. But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the father, he hath served with me in the gospel. Him therefore I hope to send presently, so soon as I shall see how it will go with me.”

Paul led Timothy to the Lord and they were very close.

“Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.” Paul has used grace and peace before in his intros. but we have another word here: mercy. It was the Old Testament sacrifice that made the holy and righteous and just throne of God into a mercy seat.

When one comes to God, he does not want justice—justice condemns a man before God. He needs mercy. God is rich in mercy, but He saves you by His grace. God is merciful to everyone, but one must come to Him by faith. Then God will save you by His Grace.

Grace, mercy, and peace is a little trinity. Love is that in God which existed before He could care to exercise mercy or grace. God is love; Mercy is that in God which provided for the need of sinful man. Grace then is that in Him which acts freely to save because all the demands of holiness have been satisfied. Therefore, because God is merciful, you can come to Him, and by His grace He’ll save you. You cannot bring anything, because it would only be filthy rags to God.

A do-gooder things he does not need the mercy of God, that his own good works will save him. A do-good salvation will do you no good when you need it. The salvation God provides will enable you to do good, the kind of good which is acceptable to Him.

So 1 Timothy is intimate and personal, but it also has to do with the affairs of the local church, the body of believers as it manifests itself in the community.  Every believer should be a member of a local New Testament church.

“God our Father.” God is Paul’s, Timothy’s, every believer’s Father. Believers are all part of the family of God.

“Jesus Christ our Lord..” Anything that is done in the local church needs to be done in the name of Christ and at His command. He is the head of the church; He’s the Lord.

1_Ti.1.3-7

WARNING AGAINST UNSOUND DOCTRINE vv 3-11

Your creed must be right before your conduct can be right. It is almost an impossibility to think wrong and act right.

v3 Paul wrote the Galatians that there was no other gospel. The Judaizers there were preaching another gospel. Paul said there was one gospel and that there is one doctrine. How does that fit your postmodern Christianity, your Catholicism, your Protestantism, your Mormonism, your JWism, etc.?

Doctrine means the teaching of the local church. Following the Day of Pentecost, it is recorded that “they continued in the apostles’ doctrine. (1) The apostles’ doctrine, (2) fellowship, (3) prayers, and (4) the breaking of bread, or the Lord’s Supper are four fingerprints of a New Testament church. A church is not a true church of Christ if its doctrine is not the apostles’ doctrine. By the way, the apostles’ doctrine covers many things to the church.

There are non-essentials which believers and churches can disagree on without losing fellowship. However, we must hold to the apostles’ doctrine, basic truths of the faith such as the doctrines of the church, separation of church and state, the deity of Christ (Paul was absolutely clear on this; for example, see verse 1), repentance, faith, believer’s baptism

Paul explains he has left Timothy in Ephesus as he is in Macedonia. If the teaching of a church is not right, it is not a church. Timothy was to remind the Ephesians to teach no other doctrine.

v4 “Neither give heed to fables” (myths). Ephesus was heartland to the mystery religions of that day, all based on myths. This could possibly mean the philosophy of Philo, an outstanding and brilliant Israelite who spiritualized the Old Testament; e.g., he taught that the book of Genesis is a myth. Religious modernism is not new. 

“Endless geneologies” could refer to the false teaching that the church is just a continuation of Judaism, that it is just one genealogy following another and not a matter of God dealing with man in different dispensations.

Also, the Greeks at that time were teaching demiurge, a teaching which became a part of the first heresy within churches which was gnosticism. They taught that there are emanations from a divine center. The original created a creature, and the creature created another creature below him, and he created another, and then another, and so on down the line. They wanted to fit Jesus somewhere along that line as one of the created creatures. (Is this similar to Mormonism?)

“Which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith.”

v5 “Charity out of a pure heart.” Paul again uses intimate expressions in writing to this young preacher that you will not find in his epistles to the churches. He tells Timothy that what is taught in a church should produce love out of a pure heart.  A “pure heart” is in contrast to our old nature.

Three things should manifest in a church: (1) Faith (in God and in His Word). (2) Love (active concern for others which means you won’t gossip about them or in any way bring harm to them. Faith and love should be lived out in the life of a church. Love for the Lord Jesus is utmost, followed by love for others. A church who organizes ever partially under another head (incorporation, 501c3, etc.) does not love the Lord Jesus. Don’t talk about love if you betray the Lord. Love is action. (3) “A good conscience.” Don’t disregard you conscience when it tells you you have wronged another. These three wonderful graces should be manifested by believers in a local church.

v6 “Vain jangling” means empty chatter, beautiful words, flowery language. Some people will butter you up and pat you on the back, but it means nothing. It is all just talk, and sometimes may be the result of ulterior and impure motives.

v7 There are those who teach error, and they do it with assurance. They reject the Word of God and do not know what they are talking about.

v8 Now Paul warns against legalists who taught that the law is a means of salvation and sanctification after salvation.

The law condemns us. It reveals to man that he is a sinner in need of a Saviour.  Under it, the best man in the world is absolutely condemned, but under the gospel, the worst man can be justified if he will believe in Christ. The sinner cannot please God (is unable to do good works): “So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God” (Ro. 8.8). No man can meet God’s standard.

Good works cannot produce salvation, but salvation can produce good works. One is saved unto good works. See Ep. 2.8-10.

“we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully.” The law reveals the will of God–it is morally excellent.

vv9, 10 The law was not given to the righteous man, the one who has been made righteous because of his faith in Christ. “Thou shalt not kill” is given to the lost, the murderer at heart. The law is for “whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons….” God brings those who have repented toward God and turned to Christ in faith for salvation from their sins into the family of God and to a plane of living higher even than that given in the law. Those who are saved are above and beyond the law. The law is given to control the old nature, the flesh. Under law, man never kept it, he couldn’t measure up to it, and he broke it continually. Under grace, a man is brought into the family of God, and he is not going to murder or lie. If he does, he is out of fellowship with God; the Holy Spirit within him is grieved.

“Any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.” Paul adds this in case he had left out something. It covers any and all sin he may have omitted in his list.

PERSONAL TESTIMONY OF PAUL

v11 The gospel of the blessed God was committed to Paul’s trust.

v12 Paul emphasizes the Lordship of Christ. “He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry.” All believers are in the ministry. Every believer has some service to perform for the Lord.

v13 Paul before was a blasphemer, a persecutor, and injurious. But he “obtained mercy, because [he] did it ignorantly in unbelief.”

v14 “Christ came into the world to save sinners.” When you give your testimony, don’t tell people how wonderful you are or all you have accomplished. “Of whom I am chief.”

v15 He needed mercy to become a minister. “That in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pettern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.”

v17 This is a tremendous doxology “King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God.” To Him, “be honour and glory for ever and ever.” Again, Paul teaches the deity of Christ, the “King eternal” is the Lord Jesus Christ who is the “only wise God.”

CHARGE TO TIMOTHY

v18 This charge to “son Timothy” is not only practical, but also reveals a wonderful personal relationship. Timothy was Paul’s spiritual son. “According to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare. You should never fight a warfare if your heart is not in it, unless you are fighting for a real cause and intend to get the victory. Paul did not want Timothy to make a shipwreck of the faith as others were doing.

v19 “Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck.” There is a real danger for us in our human inconsistencies and failures. We are not living in an ivory tower, as some Christians think they are. But for those who are walking the sidewalks and rubbing shoulders with rough humanity and the problems of the world, we find that there are inconsistencies and failures in our lives. The danger we face is accomodating our faith to the world. When we fail, when there is an inconsistency in our lives, we ought to go to Him and tell Him that we have fallen short and haven’t measured up.

v20 2 Examples of apostates (Hymenaeus and Alexander) whom Paul mentions elsewhere and doesn’t have much good to say about either one of them. 2 Timothy 4:14: “Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works.”

“Whom I have delivered unto Satan.” Paul was exercising what was his prerogative and position as an apostle. This is an authority the apostles had which we do not have. See 1 Co. 5.3-5; see also, for the authority of an apostle, Ac. 5.1-11 (Ananias and Sapphira).

Chapter 2
(Public prayer and woman’s place in the churches)

1_Ti.2.1-2Public prayer is prayer for the public and for public officials. This prayer is to be made in the assembly, within the homes and/or privacy of believers. See vv1, 2. Many years ago, a famous Senate chaplin was asked “Do you pray for the senators?” He replied, “No, I look at the senators, and then I pray for the public.” That is what Paul says we should do.

“That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.” Any government is better than no government. An evil, corrupt government, if it really governs, is better than anarchy. Even today in America, there remains a semblance of law and order. Civil government was ordained by God to control evil men. We ought to give thanks for it. Many of us fall short of praying for our government in order that we might continue to live quietly and peaceably. For more on this, see The Biblical Doctrine of Government.

vv3, 4 A second reason we should pray for government is in order that the gospel might continue to go out to the lost. Paul was beginning to suffer persecution by civil government leaders, and he said they were to pray for them. It was “good and acceptable in the sight of God” for them to pray for them. Why? Because it was God’s will that all men be saved.

Dr. McGee does not believe that any true pastor is called to recommend a candidate for office.   He believes we are to pray for those in office. He wants, as I do, a man in office who is going to make it possible for the Word of God to continue to be given to the lost.

v5 “For there is one God.” The Romans worshipped many gods. Today people worship many gods. For some, their gods are pleasure, entertainment, etc.

“And one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” In the Old Testament, Israelites went to the temple and could go to God through many priests. Now, there is only one mediator, and He is not a human being down here.

We need a mediator, and we have one, the great High Priest. He is God and is able to save to the uttermost. He has also become man and can hold my hand. He understands me. He is a daysman, a Mediator. He puts His hand in mine. He also holds on to God because He is God. Christ is the only way. He will bring you right through to God if you will turn to Him.

v6 You and I were lost sinners and Christ was the ransom, the “redemption price.”

v7 Paul says he was “ordained a preacher, and an apostle.” He is also the one to teach the Gentiles.

HOW MEN ARE TO PRAY”

v8 “Pray everywhere, holding up holy hands.” This was practiced in the early church. It revealed the dedication in the lives of those praying. “Without wrath”–all sins have been confessed. Don’t come in prayer with anger in your heart, or a bitter spirit, but with all your sins confessed. “Without doubting.” Hebrews 11:6 “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” We are to come to God in prayer in faith.

HOW WOMEN ARE TO PRAY (DRESS AND THEIR PLACE IN THE LOCAL CHURCH)

vv 9-16 One note on this: A woman, brought sin into the world, but a woman also brought the Lord Jesus, the Saviour into the world. No man provided a Saviour, a woman did. However, each individual woman is saved by faith, the same as for a man. A woman is to grow in love and holiness just as a man is.

Chapter 3
(Officers in the churches)

REQUIREMENTS OF ELDERS (vv1-7)

v1 In the early church, the pastor was never called “reverend.” He was called (1) a presbyter or elder; (2) pastor or shepherd; (3) bishop, or an overseer; (4) a minister. “Reverend” means terrible, or that which incites terror. It is a name which applies only to God. Dr. McGee’s position is that elder and bishop refer to the same person; that elder refers to the person who holds the office and that bishop refers to the office that is held. A bishop in the early churches never had authority over other bishops or elders or over churches. Even Paul never referred to himself as the bishop of a church. Therefore, according to Dr. McGee, the minister is one who is to serve the church, not rule over it.

In v2 we are given the positive requirements of an elder. An elder must be blameless in that he will not be guilty of anything that he might be accused of. Dr. McGee says he was accused of many things, but was guilty of none; and he did not answer the false accusers and accusations. Dr. McGee believes “husband of one wife” means that the pastor is to be married. He believes Paul’s wife had died. Dr. McGee believes that the primary meaning of this verse is that the bishop or elder is not to have 2 wives. Polygamy was common in Paul’s day. “Vigilant” means temperate. “Sober” means sober minded or serious. He means business. This does not mean that he cannot have a sense of humor. “Of good behavior”: orderly in conduct; not doing questionable things. “Given to hospitality”: the type of fellow who invites others out to lunch. “Apt to teach.”

v3 negative qualifications.

v4 has the authority over his own home, without being a dictator.

v6 Not a (novice) recent convert lest lifted up with pride he falls into the condemnation of the devil.

v7 Good report of those who are without (lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. If he has a bad reputation outside the church (does not pay his bills, is untrustworthy, or is a liar) he is not a candidate to be an officer in the church; he is really a candidate of the devil.

REQUIREMENTS OF DEACONS (VV8-13)

Deacon or minister is a general term for servant or worker. In v9 “the mystery of the faith” means the revelation of the gospel of Christ. The early church “continued in the apostles’ doctrine.” The apostles’ doctrine was “the faith” of the early churches, as it should be for all churches since. v10: “Let these also first be proved.”

v11 deals with wives of deacons.

REPORT OF PAUL TO TIMOTHY (VV14-16)

1Ti.3.16v15 is the key verse of the epistle: 1 Timothy 3:15 “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” If the officers of a church do not represent the truth, the church has no foundation, no prop, and it cannot hold up the truth of God.

v16 probably constitutes on of the earliest creeds of the church. 1 Timothy 3:16: “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” Jesus was God in the flesh. He was manifest in the flesh, but justified or vindicated in the Spirit in His resurrection (“sown a natural body; raised a spiritual body.”).

Chapter 4
(Apostasy in the churches)

HOW TO RECOGNIZE THE APOSTATES (vv1-5)

v1 “That in the latter times.” Dr. McGee feels that this refers to the days of the churches beginning immediately after the life of Paul. The apostasy had begun even at that time. While Paul was at Ephesus, he had warned them that there would come wolves in sheep’s clothing that would deceive the believers. The first great church was the Coptic church in Africa. That church went off into heresy and departed from the faith. The “latter times” here does not have the 2nd coming of Christ in view; Paul was speaking of what lay just ahead for the church in his day.

“Some shall depart from the faith.” Heretical teachers will mislead a great company of people. Apostasy has grown and will continue to grow.

“Depart” means to stand away from. Those who apostatize are ones who have professed at one time to hold to the faith, but now they have departed from it. Thus, there cannot be an apostasy in paganism, since pagans never professed to hold to the faith. The apostasy comes from within organized churches among those who profess to the faith and then depart from it.

“Giving heed to seducing spirits.” “Seducing” means wandering, roving and it comes from the word vagabond or deceiver or seducer. Satan is all those things. They give heed to satanic spirits.

“Doctrines of devils.” Christians are told to “try the spirits whether they are of God” because there have gone out into the world these seducing spirits (1 Jn. 4.1). The test that we should apply is the creed in 1 Ti. 3.16: “God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit.” The only way of salvation is through the death of Christ, and it is by this truth we can test the doctrines of demons today.

There is a small segment of those who claim to be believers who are placing a great emphasis on demonism. They are very interested in the subject and are reading everything they can about it. I think that we are seeing a real manifestation of the spirit world today, but the best thing you and I can do regarding the devil is show him a clean pair of heels. We should not be a bunch of heels, sticking around and getting ourselves involved in all of this. Paul warns us against being seduced by the doctrines of demons. We should stay clear of them, testing each spirit by its acknowledgment that God was manifest in the flesh and that we are justified by the redemption he wrought for us on the cross.

v 2“Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron.” The apostate will pretend to be very pious and very religious. Dr. McGee says he has come to be very suspicious of this pious position taken by super-duper saints who claim to have something special. The truth will make you humble, because the first thing you will find out is how little you know.

“Having their conscience seared with a hot iron.” Believers should be tenderhearted. There is far too much talk about sex in many churches today. Some things happening in churches, says Dr. McGee who passed away in 1988, that made his hair curl; things are being said and done, he says, that could be done unless your conscience has been seared with a hot iron and you have gotten away from the Word of God. [Note. We saw that with Jack Schaap at the First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana and many other churches, past and present.] It is important in the plan and purpose of God that a church have a tender conscience and not stoop to such low levels.

WHAT THE GOOD MINISTER CAN DO IN TIMES OF APOSTASY

v6 “If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things.” Timothy is to warn believers about the apostasy and false teachings that were to come into the church.  “Thous shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ.” Paul has in mind Timothy, a teacher of the Word of God. All believers are ministers. “Nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine.”  This is how a believer grows.  “Whereunto thou has attained.” Paul said Timothy had attained unto the things he mentioned and commended him for it.

Paul will not mention more things Timothy should avoid: v7 “But refuse profane and old wives’ fables.” “And exercise thyself unto godliness.” v8. “For bodily exercise profiteth little.” It took a rugged individual to do all the walking Paul did. He is not downgrading physical exercise. His emphasis on physical exercise is because the Ephesians were a people given over to games and athletics. America is that kind of nation. Put things in the right perspective. “But godliness is profitable unto all things.” Once we get our new body, it won’t matter whether you’ve exercised this earthly body or not. Godliness pays off in eternity.  A Christian who lives a careless rather than a godly one will pay for it even in eternity. The physical ends with the end of this life, but godliness is carried over to the next.

v9 emphasizes the polint Paul just made.

v10 “For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach.” It will cost you something to stand for Jesus. “Who is the Saviour of all men.” “Specially of those that believe.” You can turn Him down if you want to. Christ is the Saviour of all men, but only those who believe will be saved (See Jn. 3.16, 1 Jn. 2.2).

v11 “These things command and teach. v12 “Let no man despise thy youth.” Timothy was young. “But be thou an example of the believers.” Timothy could keep people from despising his youth by not acting like a young fool. The important thing is not your age but whether you are an example “in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.”

v12 “Til I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.” One can grow only by reading the Word of God. A growing minister will make a growing church. We are to grow in grace and the knowledge of Christ. The only way to do so is by reading the Word.

v14 “Neglect not the gift that is in thee.” The Spirit of God gives every believer a gift. “Which was given thee by prophecy.” Paul had predicted what this young man would do. “With the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” Laying on of hands never communicates anything; it indicates partnership in the ministry. Every minister who is ordained should have hands put on him. by those who are partners with him; this is quite meaningful.

v15 “Meditate on these things.” Be diligent in your study. There is no excuse for a Christian not to study the Word of God. “Give thyself wholly to them.” Reading and studying the Word of God means more than reading a chapter with one eye closed and one both feet in bed or in the morning when you are half awake. You would not study mathematics, science or some other secular subject like that. The Word of God is worth of all you can give it, and we can never give it as much as we should have. “That thy profiting may appear to all.”

v16 1 “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.” God have mercy on the minister who is not giving out the Word of God. That is a frightful sin. It would be better to be a gangster that to be a man who is supposed to give out the Word of God and does not.

Chapter 5
(Duties of the officers in the churches-Chapter 6 also deals with this matter)

1Ti.5.1-4v1 “An elder.” In the early church the “elder” was an office, but the word used here refers to the individual. Dr. McGee believes he has both aspects in mind: the mature child of God, and a man who occupied a certain office. Paul means both for the simple fact that an elder was an elder–an older man.

“Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.” Timothy was not to rebuke and elder puclicly, but he was to entreat him privately. Timothy, a young man, was to be very tactful  in his relationship to these older men. He was not to take the position of a know-it-all or of a dictator over these older men. He was to encourage them and have a world privately with them if he though it was necessary.

“And the younger men as brethren.”

v2 “With all purity.” A minister of a church should be very careful with his relationships with the opposite sex. Nothing can destroy the spiritual life of a church more than this kind of experience. The new morality cannot and will not work in a church.

v3 Paul now speaks to the Pastor’s relationship with widows. “Honour.” The thought is of value being attached to something. The early churches were very careful to take care of their widows. “Honour widows that are widows indeed.” The churches were not to honour widows haphazardly or sentimentally. The deacons were to investigate to see who were truly widows, where the need was, and how much need there was.

1Ti.5.8Paul now goes into this in specific detail in vv4-16. v8 The widow is to be taken care of by his own flesh and blood. v9 Widows under 60 could still work. v10 Before helping a widow, check out her past to make sure she meets these standards. Don’t help everyone who comes along. v16 Each family should support their own widows, so the church can concentrate on widows who are without family and are in real need.

v17 The early church took financial care of their teachers, the good teachers a little more.

v18 Paul quotes from De. 25.4 and Luke 10.7.

v19. The pastor and every member of the church should refuse to let anyone whisper into his ear any gossip about the pastor or a church officer. People should prove their accusations by at least 2 witnesses. You should have the facts before you talk. When you have the facts, you should seek to correct the problem by going to the proper authorities.

v20 “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.” Dr. McGee believes that if a church member sins and it does not concern the church body, it should never be brought out into the open, nor should it be confessed publicly. However, when a leader of the church, an officer in the church, sins, and it has hurt the church, then it is time to call names. It may also be time to drop his name from the roll of membership. Great harm can be done to a church by sin in the life of its leaders, and this is the way it should be dealt with.

v21 Timothy is to treat everyone in the church alike. Even if the man has given him money or gifts.

v22 “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.” Officers are to be installed by the laying on of hands (1 Ti. 4.14). Laying on of hands indicates partnership in the ministry. “Suddenly”: not to be done to a neophyte, someone recently converted. If we exalt a young Christian to the position of a teacher before he is thoroughly grounded in the Word, the theology he teaches is apt to be weird theology. The Word is to be taught by men who are built up in the faith. Our mistake is that we often interpret some sort of experience as being the test of spiritual maturity. An experience that contradicts the clear teaching of the Bible is not from God at all. There were many young converts in the Ephesus area and it was serious business for Timothy to select the teachers and appoint them to teach the Word of God.

“Neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.” In other words, “Don’t compromise, Timothy. Don’t let someone talk you into letting a young convert teach. You will be a partner in sin if you do. Make sure the teachers are anchored in the Word of God.

v23 Use wine as a medicine for your stomach’s sake and other infirmities.

v24 Some men’s sins are judged here and now. But if God doesn’t judge him immediately it doesn’t mean he is not going to judge. Paul wrote to the Corinthians where there were some who were not commemorating the Lord’s Supper in the proper manner. He said, “For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep” (1 co. 11.30). Paul went on to say, “For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.” (1 Co. 11.31). When a Christian sins, he should judge himself. Not just feel sorry for his sin but deal with it. If he has hurt somebody, he is to make it right, and turn from that sin. “But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world” (1 Co. 11.32). God judges the world. A believer will judge himself, or God will judge him. If you judge yourself, it is settled. If not, He will judge, either in the here and now or before the judgment seat of Christ.

v25 The same principle applies to good works.

Chapter 6
(Duties of officers in the churches concluded)

RELATIONSHIPS OF BELIEVERS TO OTHERS

vv1-2 “Servants.” Paul deals with the relationship of capital and labor. The Christian should render a full day’s work for whomever he is working. If he has a Christian boss, it brings the relationship to a new level above any kind of contract. They are brethren. Yes, Christianity gets out into the workshop.

vv3-5 There are some proud men in the ministry, and they cause  trouble. Pride always causes trouble. Pride is a constant danger–pride of place, pride of race, pride of face, pride of grace. Some people are even proud they have been saved by the grace of God. But Christians have plenty to be humble about–we have a very sordid and sorry background. We are saved by the grace of God.

1Ti.6.7v6 “But godliness with contentment is great gain.”

v7 A rich man died. The heirs asked how much he left. The answer, “He left it all.”

vv8-9 Riches will not bring satisfaction.

v10 The love of money [not money] is the root of all evil.

1_Ti.6.11-12v11 This lists the virtues a man of God should pursue.

v12 “Fight the good fight of faith., lay hold on eternal life,…” Make sure it is clear you are a child of God.

…

 

 

 

Church_LessonsOnDoctrineOf

A Study of 2 Thessalonians

Leave a comment

Click here to go to “Bible Studies on the Doctrine of the Church” from other books of the Bible.

Click here to go to study of 1 Thessalonians

Contents:

DATE
OCCASION
THEME
OUTLINE
NOTES

NOTE. For more details see, McGee, 2 Thessalonians. This study is taken from that book. I have made modifications since I do not believe in Dr. McGee’s timing of the Rapture and some other details. The study is also available online in audio at: 2 Thessalonians

DATE A.D. 52-53. The second epistle followed shortly after the first epistle.

OCCASION

Paul’s first letter had given rise to further questions, and Paul is attempting to answer them in his second letter. There was circulating in the Thessalonian church a letter or report, purported to have come from Paul, which was inclined to disturb the Christians. This false report claimed that Christ had already come and had already gathered out the church to Himself, and that the world was then living in the judgments of the “day of the Lord.” These people were being persecuted as was shown in the first epistle. They were suffering for the Gospel’s sake, and it was easy for them to believe that they had entered the great tribulation period, and that all of the believers (not only the dead) had missed the Rapture. Paul attempts to allay their fears by writing this epistle and stating definitely that “our gathering together unto him” is yet future” (2 Thess. 2.1), and that “the day of the Lord” has certain forerunners which must come first: the apostasy and the “man of sin” must come first. Therefore they could reasonably believe they were not in the great tribulation.

Paul says that the outward organization of the professing church is going to go into total apostasy. The Lord asked, in a way that indicated a negative answer, “… when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” He will not find faith when He comes again. The organized churches will be in total apostasy. The organized “church” is the great harlot in Revelation 17.

The time of the great tribulation and the pouring out of the wrath of God to follow will be “such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no nor ever shall be” (Mt. 24.21). After the great tribulation, “shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not giver her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken;  And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other” (Mt. 24:30-31).

THEME

2 Thessalonians emphasizes the return of Christ in Judgment and His setting up of His kingdom here on earth.

The hope of the Old Testament saints was an earthly hope. They were looking for their Messiah to come and establish a kingdom here upon this earth—which would be heaven on earth.

OUTLINE

I. PERSECUTION of Believers Now;
     Judgment of Unbelievers Hereafter (at the coming of Christ), 1.1-12

  1. Introduction, 1.1, 2
  2. Persecution of believers and Fruits of It, 1.3-7
  3. Judgment of Wicked at Coming of Christ, 1.8-12

II. PROGRAM for World in Connection with Coming of Christ, 2.1-12

1. Rapture
2. Day of the Lord; Introduced by Total Apostasy and Appearance of Man of Sin, 2.2-5
3. Mystery of Iniquity Working Today; Man of Sin Restrained by the Holy Spirit, 2.6-8
4. Lawless One to Appear in Great Tribulation Period, 2.9-12

III. PRACTICALITY of Coming of Christ, 2.13-3.18

1. Believers Should Be Established in Word, 2.13-17.
2. Believers Should Be Established in Walk, 3.1-7
3. Believers Should Be Established in Work, 3.8-18

NOTES:

Chapter 1
(Persecution of believers now and
judgment of unbelievers hereafter (at the coming of Christ))

v1.1: Paul identifies two of his co-workers who are brethren with him. This tells us something about Paul’s character. A man who had been a proud young Pharisee had become an humble follower of the Lord Jesus Christ and a servant and apostle of His. “Unto the church of the Thessalonians.” Paul believed in the local church. The position of that church was “in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” This makes a true local church very important. Members of a true New Testament church can manifest Christ (since the Holy Spirit indwells the members) in the local neighborhood, in the community, in the town, the state, the nation, and the world showing forth the life of God. Paul had no doubt about the deity of Christ. Not all “churches” are “in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

v1.2 Grace comes first. One who is saved has experienced the grace of God. Salvation is God offering you, a hell bound sinner, the gift (you pay or do nothing for a gift) eternal life if you trust Christ. That is grace.

“Peace.” It is the peace that comes when you know that your sins are forgiven. Peace comes only from a supernatural source—from “God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”; it is supernatural.

PERSECUTION OF BELIEVERS AND FRUITS OF IT (1.3-7)

vv3,4. “Charity” here is love, God’s kind of love. In verses 3-4 we have that little trinity that Paul uses: faith, love, and patience. This again is the work of faith” which Paul mentions in 1 Thess. 1.3. Saving faith produces works, and it will produce a love in the heart for God’s children. If you are a child of god, you will have to love me whether or not you want to, and I’m going to have the love you. It is a wonderful arrangement as long as God’s children honor it. It hurts deeply the heart of a loving believer when a brother or sister does not love him/her.

The “patience in v 4 is not the patience of waiting in a traffic jam, or waiting for a light to turn green. It is the patience that is willing to live for God and accept whatever He sends your way, knowing that all things do work together for good. It is the patience that has as its goal coming not God’s presence someday. This enables you to get over the rough places that come into your life.

2Thes.1.7-10“Tribulations” are afflictions. The Patience and faith of these Thessalonian believers was unshaken as they were enduring a great deal of trouble, persecutions, and afflictions. 1 Peter 4:12: “Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you.” 1 Peter 4:13: “But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.”

v5. Our suffering prepares us for our eternal state.

v7. The Lord Jesus is coming in judgment.

JUDGMENT OF THE WICKED AT THE COMING OF CHRIST. VV. 1.8-12

vv 8-9 The Bible speaks little of heaven. It is so wonderful we could not comprehend it. God does not want us to be so heavenly minded we are no earthly good. He wants us to keep our noses to the grindstone. He has a purpose for our lives on earth which He wants us to fulfill.

2Thes.1.11-12Scripture says less about the condition of the lost than it says about heaven. The HS has drawn a veil over it since it is so awful. There is enough about hell in Scripture to give us a warning. Hell, though is an awful reality. Quoting what is said here: He is coming “1:8: In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

vv10-12 “That the name of Christ may be glorified in you.” Somehow I am more impressed with the little woman lying flat on her back in a hospital or in her home—yet has a radiant testimony for Christ thereby glorifying Christ—than I am by the testimony of one whom “God made a business success.”

Chapter 2
(The program for the world in connection with the coming of Christ to earth)

v1 The gathering together is the Rapture.

v2 The OT often mentions the day of the Lord. It begins with night. Joel tells us it is darkness and not light. It is a time of judgment. “Not by word, nor by letter”: Apparently someone had been circulating by letter or by oral word among the Thessalonians that the day of the Lord had come. There are always those super-duper saints that imagine that they don’t need to study the Word of God. They imagine that they get their information directly from dreams or visions or special revelations. I admit that it is much easier to get your information in a telephone conversation than it is to go to school or study the Bible, but it won’t come straight from God. A special revelation had come to the church at Thessalonica, something brother Paul had not told them.

“Not by letter as from us.” Supposedly, the letter was from Paul, Timothy and Silas.

The word they circulated was “The day of the Lord is at hand.” This had caused a problems with the Thessalonian believers. They were enduring persecution.

The day of the Lord speaks of the period preceded by, as Peter wrote, “Acts 2:20: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:” Peter is saying that the Day of Pentecost was similar to the day Joel described in Joel 2. Joel 2 describes it in some detail. Because of Joel’s prophecy, the orthodox Jews in that day believed that there was a day coming when God would pour out His Spirit on all flesh—on the Day of Pentecost  it was not poured out on all flesh. The day of the Lord is yet future.

Peter says the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night (also, 1 Thess. 5.2). But He will not come as a thief in the night for the church (1 Thess. 5). True churches and believers are to be awake and waiting for Him. 2 Peter 3:10: “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” Again, this did not happen on the Day of Pentecost.

Revelation 6:17 “For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?” This begins the outpouring of the wrath of God. Believers will not go through the wrath of God. Notice that Re. 6.9-11 speaks of those slain “for the Word of God, and for the testimony which they held” (v9) (during this period of Great Tribulation prior to the outpouring of the wrath of God). Re. 6.11 states: “Revelation 6:11 “And white robes were given unto every one of them [those who had already been martyred]; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.”

2Thes.2.3-4v3 The day of the Lord will not come until (1) “There come a falling away first,” and (2) “that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” Neither one of these has happened yet. There are two kinds of falling away that will take place. 1st, the organized “church” will depart from the faith (that is apostasy). There will be total apostasy when the Lord comes, and that cannot take place until true churches and believers are removed. The Lord asked, “Luke 18:8  I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” When He says “faith,” He means that the body of truth which He left here. The answer is no. There will be total apostasy because of two things: (1) the organization of the church has departed from the faith—it has apostatized, and (2) there has been another departure, the departure of the true church from the earth. The departure of the true church leads into the total apostatizing of the organized church. The day of the Lord cannot begin—nor the day of God’s wrath on the earth—until the departure of true believers and true churches. Note. This last paragraph is from Dr. McGee. I will be studying this out more when I get back to the study of Revelation. I am not sure I agree.

We see the total departure of the organized church pictured as the great harlot in Re. 17.

The second thing that must happen is that the “man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.” He is revealed after the wrath of God is poured out. John calls him antichrist (John is the only one who uses this term). He is a subject of the OT. He will be Satan’s man. This is the man who will put the Roman Empire back together again. He will become a world dictator. He will deceive the world.

v4 Paul tells us more about him. He will claim to be god. In Re. 13, we find that the beast out of the sea (the antichrist) brings together western Europe and put it bac together again. When he does this, he will show himself as God. The world will think he is Christ.

v5 Paul did not hesitate to talk about these things. Some say a preacher should not, how sad.

2Thes.2.7-12MYSTERY OF LAWLESSNESS WORKING TODAY, RESTRAINED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT

v6 The HS is the only one who can withhold evil in the world today.

v7 The mystery of iniquity was already working in Paul’s day and continues to work. The enemy has sown tares in the world. The tares and wheat are growing together—the word of God and iniquity are growing together.

Iniquity continues to get worse and worse, but the HS will not let Satan go all the way in this age. When the HS is “taken out of the way,” it will be like taking the stopper out of the bottle—the liquid of iniquity will pour out all over the world in that day. The HS will have a different mission when He is “taken out of the way.”

v8 2 Thessalonians 2:8 “And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.” He will be a world dictator. No one can stop him. No power—only the coming of Christ to establish His kingdom—can stop him. The believers who are on the earth cannot stop him.

“The Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth,” that is, the Word of God. All God has to do is speak.

Christ’s 1st coming had 2 episodes: 1st began when He was born a little baby, and the 2nd at 30 when he began His ministry by walking into the temple and cleansing it. Christ’s 2nd coming will have 2 episodes: “He calls believers to meet Him in the air and He comes to earth to establish His kingdom.” At time the antichrist shall be consumed and destroyed with the brightness of His coming.

LAWLESS ONE TO APPEAR

v9 This is the antichrist, Satan’s man, the man of sin, the lawless one. “Power” means physical power whose source is supernatural. He will be a healer and miracle worker. We should fear that miracle workers are from Satan. That is why is so important to get our eyes off men and on Christ, to walk by faith in Him.

“Signs” means tokens. They have the purpose of appealing to the understanding. This man will have signs that will appeal to the scientific world, politicians and the religious world. People who are not rooted and grounded in the Word of God will fall for all kinds of signs.

“Lying wonders” will affect observers. People all over the world will be talking about the man of sin in a positive way as to what he can do. Why will they fall for his lying wonders?

v10 Because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

v11 God will let the world believe a lie. Like with Pharaoh, whom God forced into a situation which revealed whot was already in his heart. Many so-called believers today are closed to the truths of God’s Word. So God will send them “strong delusion.” Why? Because they would not receive the truth.

People who have stopped going to churches where they heard the gospel or who do not study their Bibles are wide open to the cults and the “isms” of our day. That is why so many cultists go around knocking at doors. When people reject the truth, they believe the lie. God is separating the sheep from the goats. If people will not receive the love of the truth, God sends them a “strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.”

v12 God is going to judge those who have rejected the truth. If someone tries to present the truth from the Word of God to you, then you are wide open for anything that comes along to delude and deceive you. You will never be able to go into the presence of God and say, “I never heard the truth.”

PRACTICALITY OF THE COMING OF CHRIST

Now Paul moves to the practical side of the epistle. In the light of the knowledge of future events, the believer should live a life that demonstrates that he believes in the coming of Christ. Believing that Christ will come will be manifest in 3 different ways: it will affect his attitude to the Word, his walk, and his work.

BELIEVERS SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED IN THE WORD.

vv13-14 These 2 verses give the total spectrum of salvation: all the way from the past, the present, and down into the future. We have been saved, we are being saved, and we shall be saved. It is all the work of God.

“Chosen you to salvation.” This is clearly taught in Romans 8 (See Ro. 8.28-31; Paul is writing the same thing here.). It simply mean that it does not surprise God when you choose Christ. There is another side of the coin. “Whosoever will may come” (There are many verses to the effect in the Bible). The “whosoever wills” are the chosen ones, and the “whosoever won’ts are the nonelect. John 7:37 “In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.” If you won’t come, the reason is not because you are not elected. It’s because you’re not thirsty. If you are thirsty, then come to Christ.

“Through sanctification of the Spirit.” “Chosen to salvation” looks back to the past. This looks to the present. You are sanctified both as to position and to practice. Positional salvation is established when you accept Jesus Christ as your own Saviour (you are in Christ) and that is past tense. Practically, you are to grow in grace.

“Belief in the truth.” That means the believer is going to study the Word of God.

“To the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This is future. 1 John 3:2: “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” Colossians 1:27: “To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.” That looks forward to the future.

v15. The Word enables the believer to stand and be stable.

vv16-17 The Lord Jesus Christ brings comfort and consolation to our hearts. He does this through His Word. That will establish us in every good word and work. The study of the Word of God will lead to the work of the Lord. The Word of God will also edify us. We will be “stabhished” so we are not carried away with every wind of doctrine.

It is the Word of God then that will lead you to do the work of God. It is deceitful to talk about how much you love the Lord if you do not study his Word and apply it. If you really believe Christ is coming, you’re going to be busy working for Him. You are going to give an account someday.

Chapter 3
(Theme: The practicality of the coming of Christ (continued))

2Thes.3.1-2Here in chapter 3, Paul says there are certain responsibilities that we have as believers. Paul said to the Ephesians: “”Walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called.” He is saying the same thing to the Thessalonian believers.

BELIEVERS SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED BY THEIR WALK

vv1-2 The Word of God enables the believer to walk before the wicked world. The Word establishes a believer in his walk.

“”Pray for us.” All believers should pray. Every work must have prayer behind it if it is to succeed.

Paul had a unique ministry. He was a missionary, he was an evangelist (as we think of evangelists today), he was a teacher of the Word. He had led the Thessalonians to the Lord, taught them, and now he is acting as their pastor in his letters.

“That the Word of the Lord may have free course.” Paul is not only instructing them in the Word, but he is attempting to comfort them and to counsel them.

He is also enjoining the to pray. Pray for your brothers and sisters in Christ as they seek to glorify God. Pray for others whom you know who are seeking to glorify God. Pray for your pastor. Paul asks prayer that he “may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men.” Many times, wicked men come into a church. A pastor and other church members need to be delivered from such men. The spreading of the Gospel can be hindered more by people in a church than by anything else. In churches, there are a lot of saints and a lot of “aints.” The “aints” can give the pastor a rough time.

“For all men have not faith.” They do not hold to the doctrines of the faith. The foundation of a church rests upon the doctrine which the apostles have given to the churches. If we really love Christ’s appearing, we will prove it by our relationship to the Word of God and by our walk through this life.

v3 The Lord never lets the believer down. He is faithful. He will “stablish you.” Right now, the home, the church,, and the lives of believers are in disarray. A believer can be established by coming to the Word of God and letting it have its influence in his life. The Lord operates through His Word. The Word of God will keep you from evil. “The Bible will keep you from sin, and sin will keep you from the Bible.”

v4. Christians are commanded to do certain things. There were 22 commandments in 1 Thess. 5. Paul had confidence in the Thess. church.

v5. The believer is to walk in the “love of God.” Only the Spirit of God can make God’s love real to us. Love is a fruit of the Spirit. “Into the patient waiting for Christ.” This does not mean that you are to argue about being premillennial or pretribulational or postribulational or amillennial, but that you are be patiently waiting for Christ.

v6 “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;” The believer is not to go into the bar and sit down with the drunkard and have a beer with him as we witness to him.

v7 Rather, we are to follow those who behave not themselves disorderly.

BELIEVERS CHOULD BE ESTABLISHED IN THEIR WORK

The Thessalonians were walking in a right relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, and they were being persecuted for it. Paul comforted, instructed and encouraged them. Paul now lets them know that he also is undergoing persecution.

v8 On his first missionary journey, Paul paid for what he ate. He would not let anyone pay him for his missionary work among them. He took no love offerings. When he was establishing churches, he supported himself by tentmaking.

However, after the churches were established and Paul had come back to visit them a 2nd and 3rd time, he did receive an offering from them. He made clear to the Galatians that they should give. He thanks the Philippians for their gift. He took an offering on his 3rd missionary journey for the poor saints in Jerusalem.

There are a lot of fanatics. … However, if you believe Christ is coming, you will work for him.

v9. Paul is saying that as an apostle who led them to the Lord and established a church among them, he had the right, the authority, to claim an offering. However, he did not as an example to the believers in Thessalonica. that they might not be led to some fanatical position.

v10. A believer who is looking for the Lord to return is not a dreamer; he is a worker. No work—no food. This is the rule laid down by the apostle.

This epistle deals largely in prophecy, but almost half of it is given over to that which is practical. We are to mesh and gear prophetic truth in to our living down here so that it is practical and working. We are to work while we wait.

v11 There were busybodies among them, disorderly, working not at all. They were causing trouble in the church. It takes just one bad apple to spoil the ointment. They were busy as termites and just as effective as termites in the church at Thess.

v12 Paul commands them that are such to work quietly and eat their own bread. That doesn’t sound very spiritual or theological, does it? But it is practical.

v13 Be not weary in well doing.

v14-15 People ought to withdraw from troublemakers in the church. Admonish him as a brother.

vv16-18 The end of the letter which Paul wrote w/his own hand. Ends w/a benediction.

END

–

Church_LessonsOnDoctrineOf

A study of 1 Thessalonians

Leave a comment

Click here to go to “Bible Studies on the Doctrine of the Church” from other books of the Bible.

Click here to go to Study of 2 Thessalonians

In 1 Thessalonians, Paul’s 1st epistle, the emphasis is upon the rapture of believers, the coming of Christ to take His church out of the world. The fact that the coming of Christ is a purifying hope should lead to sanctification in our lives. 1 John 3:3: “And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.”

 Contents:

  • Selected audio teachings on 1 Thessalonians and link to more through audio teachings online.
  • Occasion of the Writing
  • Theme
  • Purpose
  • 11st OUTLINE
  • 2nd OUTLINE
  • Abbreviated notes.

NOTE. For more details see, McGee, 1 Thessalonians. This study is taken directly from that book. The study is also available online in audio at: 1 Thessalonians. 

Selected audio teachings on 1 Thessalonians and link to more through audio teachings online:

The trinity of faith, hope, and love (Click to go to study). “Remembering without ceasing (1) your work of faith, (2) lobour of love, and (3) patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Thessalonians 1.3. This trinity is marvelously explained in this teaching by Dr. J. Vernon McGee. Learn both the abstract and the concrete meanings of this trinity and how they relate together where the rubber meets the road. Paul here gives 3 graces of Christian life. The past is the work of faith. The present is a labour of love. The future is the patience of hope.

Turning to God from idols. 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10: “For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.” The church in 1Thess1.9Thessalonica turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God. See v. 3. Work of faith (turned to God from idols), labour of love (to serve the living God), patience of hope (to wait for His Son from heaven). Paul preached Christ and they turned to God from idols (not they turned from idols to God). When they turned to God, that is the work of faith; that is what faith did. John 6:29 “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” When they turned to God, they automatically turned from idols—that is repentance. The turning from something is repentance. You can’t turn to Christ without turning from sin. Jesus Christ saves from sin. When a man turns to Christ, he turns from his sin. The message of repentance needs to be preached to the church, as it was preached to the 7 churches in Revelation 2 and 3. The Thessalonians were now serving God, the labor of love. You cannot serve Christ unless you love him. See Jn. 14.15. If you do not love Him, forget trying to serve Him. Waiting for His Son from heaven doesn’t mean sit down and relax. It means get busy for the Lord. A believer is to labor in love.

 For excellent and more audio teachings on Thessalonians, click: J. Vernon McGee teaches on 1 Thessalonians.

Occasion of the Writing
(Apparently, it was at Corinth that Timothy and Silas come to him and brought him word concerning the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 3:6). Timothy also brought some questions to Paul, problems troubling the believers in Thessalonica. Paul wrote this first epistle in response to their questions, to instruct them further and give them needed comfort.)

Thessalonica was located 100 miles west of Philippe and about 50 miles north of Athens. It was right in the center or the heart of the empire and was the chief city of Macedonia. The city is still in existence and is known as Salonika.

The church in Thessalonica, established on Paul’s second missionary journey, was a model church. 1 Thessalonians 1:7: “So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia.” This church was a testimony to the whole area that we would call Greece today. Paul speaks of this church as being an example to the Corinthians in 2 Corinthians 8:1-5.

You will recall that Paul and Barnabas separated on the 2nd missionary journey. Paul took Silas with him, and along the route he picked up Timothy and Dr. Luke. He revisited the churches in Galatia and then attempted to make a wider circle in the densely populated area of Asia Minor, known as Turkey today. Dr. McGee thinks he intended to carry on his missionary work there, because in his 3rd missionary journey he did make Ephesus his headquarters and did what was probably his greatest missionary work. But on his 2nd missionary journey, the Spirit of God put up a roadblock and would not let him go south. He attempted to go oup into Bithynia, but again the Spirit of God prevented him. He couldn’t go north, and he couldn’t go south. So he moved to the west and came to Troasa to await orders. He had the vision of the man of Macedonia, so he crossed over to Philippi. He found that the man of Macedonia was instead a woman by the name of Lydia, a seller of purple—she probably ran a department store there. Paul led her to the Lord along with others of the city. Thus, a church was established at Philippi.

Then Paul went to Thessalonica, and we are told in chapter 17 of Acts that he was there for three Sabbaths. So Paul was there a little less than a month, but in that period of time he did a herculean task of mission work. Paul was an effective missionary—he led multitudes to Christ there. And in that brief time he not only organized a local church, but he also taught them the great doctrines of the Christian faith.

Now Paul had to leave Thessalonica posthaste due to the great opposition to the gospel. He was run out of town and went down to Berea. The enemy pursued him to Berea, and again Paul was forced ot leave. Paul left Silas and Timothy at Berea, but he went on to Athens. After some time at Athens, he went on to Corinth. Apparently, it was at Corinth that Timothy and Silas come to him and brought him word concerning the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 3:6). Timothy also brought some questions to Paul, problems troubling the believers in Thessalonica. Paul wrote this first epistle in response to their questions, to instruct them further and give them needed comfort.

Theme
(Paul presents the second coming of Christ in relationship to believers as a comfort, and this forms the theme of the epistle.)

Although Paul had been in Thessalonica less than a month, he had touched on many of the great doctrines of the church including to second coming of Christ. It is interesting that Paul did not consider this subject to be above the heads of the new converts. Yet there are churches today that have been in existence for more than 100 years whose members have but a vague understanding of the rapture of the church and the coming of Christ to establish His kingdom here on earth. The Thessalonian church was not even a month old, and Paul was teaching them these great doctrines!

The apostle had obviously emphasized the second coming of Christ for believers and had taught that the return of Christ was imminent. For during the period of time since Paul had left, some of the saints who had come to know and believe in Jesus Christ had died, and this had naturally raised the question in the minds of the Thessalonians as to whether these saints would be in the rapture or not. Paul presents the second coming of Christ in relationship to believers as a comfort, and this forms the theme of the epistle. The emphasis is in sharp contrast to Christ’s catastrophic and cataclysmic coming in glory to establish His kingdom by putting down all unrighteousness seen in Revelation 19.11-16.

Purpose

The epistle has a threefold purpose: (1) to confirm young converts in the elementary truth of the gospel. (2) To condition them to go on unto holy living. (3) To comfort them regarding the return of Christ. Paul’s message offered a marked contrast to the paganism and heathenism which was present in Thessalonica.

1st OUTLINE

  1. The Chritian’s Attitude toward the Return of Christ, Chapter 1 (to serve … to wait vv. 9, 10)
  2. The Christian’s Reward at the Return of Christ, Chapter 2.
  3. The Christian’s Life and the Return of Christ, 3.1-4-12.
  4. The Christian’s Death and the Return of Christ, 4.13-18.
  5. The Christian’s Actions in View of the Return of Christ, Chapter 5 (Note 22 specific commands to Christians beginning at v.11.)

2ND OUTLINE

  1. Coming of Christ is an INSPIRING HOPE, Chapter 1
    1. Introduction
    2. Gospel Received in Much Assurance & Much Affliction, vv. 5-7
    3. Gospel Results: Turned from Idols to God; Wait for Coming of Christ, vv. 8-10
  2. Coming of Christ is a WORKING HOPE, Chapter 2
    1. Motive and Method of a True Witness for Christ, vv. 1-6
    2. Mother Side of the Apostle’s Ministry (Comfort), vv. 7-9
    3. Father Side of the Apostle’s Ministry (Charge), vv. 10-13
    4. Brother Side of the Apostle’s Ministry (Challenge), vv. 14-16
    5. Reward of a True Witness of Christ, vv. 17-20
  3. Coming of Christ is a PURIFYING HOPE, 3.1-4.12
    1. Timothy Brings Good Report of Thessalonians, vv. 1-8
    2. Paul Urges Thessalonians to Continue to Grow in Faith, vv. 9-13
    3. How Believers Are to Walk, 4.1-12
  4. Coming of Christ is a COMFORTING HOPE, 4.13-18
    (What Death Means to a Christian;
    What the Rapture Means to the Church)
  5. Coming of Christ is a ROUSING HOPE, Chapter 5

Dead Believers are Asleep in Jesus
Living Believers are Awake for JesusCall to be Awake & Alert in View of Christ’s Coming, vv. 1-10
1. Call to be Awake & Alert in View of Christ’s Coming, vv. 1-10
2. Commandments for Christians, vv. 11-28

SOME ABBREVIATED NOTES

 Chapter 1
(The Coming of Christ Is an Inspiring Hope)

  1. 1.1: Paul humbly identifies himself with the brethren, Timotheus and Silvanus. He was not aloof, separated and segregated above all the others who were working for Jesus Christ. Remember this. The preacher is to be right down among you. No clergy and laity. There are 2 situations in a church which are dangerous. One is a pastor who tries to exalt himself. The other is a layman who tries to be an authority on the Bible and has not really studied the Bible (the total Word of God from beginning to end, but has gone off on a tangent. Grace comes first, then the peace of God.
  2. 1.2: Paul prayed for all the churches he had founded. He had a tremendous prayer list….
  3. 1.3: Paul associates 3 Christian graces: Faith, hope, and love. Paul takes these 3 words and puts them into shoeleather. See Dr. McGee, 1 Thessalonians for a tremendous study on this. Faith is the response of the soul of man to the Word of God…. When a man responds to the Word of God, he walks by faith, not by sight. (2. Co. 5.7). When one loves the Lord Jesus, serving Him is a “labour of love.” Labor is not labor when it is a labor of love. If serving the Lord is a great burden to you, give it up. The Lord does not want it to be like that. Love to God is expressed in obedience. The patience of hope is waiting for His Son from heaven; that is the “blessed hope.”
  4. 5. It’s the word of God, not weak men, which has power. Weak men giving out the word of God will have an effect. The Spirit of God can cause the Word of God to penetrate hearts and lives and transform people. F=”Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God” Ro. 10.17.
  5. 6. The word was rec’d in much afflication (ther was suffering, persecution, and heartache). But there was joy in the Holy Spirit also.
  6. 7, 8. The church at Thess. were examples to all other churches. Their reputation had spread.
  7. 9-10. The church in Thessalonica turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God. See v. 3. Work of faith (turned to God from idols), labour of love (to serve the living God), patience of hope (to wait for His Son from heaven). Paul preached Christ and they turned to God from idols (not they turned from idols to God). When they turned to God, that is the work of faith; that is what faith did. John 6:29 “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” When they turned to God, they automatically turned from idols—that is repentance. The turning from something is repentance. You can’t turn to Christ without turning from sin. Jesus Christ saves from sin. When a man turns to Christ, he turns from his sin. The message of repentance needs to be preached to the church, as it was preached to the 7 churches in Revelation 2 and 3. The Thessalonians were now serving God, the labor of love. You cannot serve Christ unless you love him. See Jn. 14.15. If you do not love Him, forget trying to serve Him. Waiting for His Son from heaven doesn’t mean sit down and relax. It means get busy for the Lord. A believer is to labor in love.

Chapter 2
(The Coming of Christ Is a Working Hope)

No matter when you believe Christ is coming, believer, the important question is, “How does your interpretation affect your life?’

v 1. “in vain” means empty, without results.

v 2. “Contention” means conflict or agony.

v 3. “Deceit” means error. “Uncleanness” means sensuality. “Nor in guile”—he did not use wrong methods or lower his standards to accommodate the prejudices and passions of the old nature….

v 4. “Allowed” means tested or approved. God allowed him to be put in trust with the Gospel.

v 5. Paul never used flattering words or a “cloak of covetousness.”

v 6. Paul never sought position or honors.

Mother Side of the Apostle’s Ministry (Comfort), vv. 7-9. Paul was as tender as a woman in his dealings with the church at Thessalonica. Like a mother, Paul loved these people. He labored over them night and day because he loved them. When work is motivated by love, it does not seem like work anymore (as with mother who takes care of her husband and baby).

Father Side of the Apostle’s Ministry (Charge), vv. 10-13. Paul had a duty to God (“holily) and to man (“justly”). “Unblamably” means that no charge could be maintained against the apostle and his companions. “Exhorted” means Paul came to the side of them, to help, to entreat, and to convict them (v11). “Comforted” in v11 means “to persuade.” Paul “charged” them (v11). This has a note of severity in it—it involves discipline. He was not a Preacherette giving a Sermonette. “Walk worthy” … (v12). Live in light of eternity (v12). the Word should go out and be received as the Word of God—if it does not, it will not work in you (v13).

The Word of God, like salt, stings when it gets into a fresh wound of sin in the life of an individual. The Word is also light—men who do evil love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil. Paul is teaching in this chapter that the church of God should mirror the family of God down here on earth. A church should be a revelation of God to the community just as a family should be. The relationships of husband, wife, and child in the home should reveal the threefold aspect of the love of God and Christ for the world. A child in a home needs to experience both mother-love and father-love. Father-love disciplines. Children are not to be comforted only.

Brother Side of the Apostle’s Ministry (Challenge), vv. 14-16. The brother-side of the ministry within a church is represented by the child in the family. Suffering draws you together and brings you together. They were brothers in suffering. Suffering is a cement that holds brothers together. If suffering came to the church, it would draw brothers together and bring revival. Why don’t we pray for conditions that bring revival—that is suffering and persecution?

Reward of a True Witness of Christ, vv. 17-20. When one is in Christ, he is a brother to all those who are in Christ (v17). Paul had the spiritual discernment to see that it was Satna’s strategy that kept him from going to Thessalonica (v18). One of the great things Paul anticipates when Christ comes to take His church will be the opportunity to see these people he has led to the Lord (vv19-20)

Chapter 3
(The Coming of Christ Is a Purifying Hope)

The great theme of 1 Thess. is the rapture of the church. The great them of 2 Thess. is the revelation of Christ, that is, His coming to earth to establish His kingdom. Paul is teaching practical doctrines, meaningful to life. The coming of Christ will change your life, affect your life-style.

“Wherefore” ties this chapter to what Paul talked about in the last chapter: the family relationship that exists in the church. He had been a mother, father, and brother to them. Paul is frustrated in not being able to return to them. His is a labour of love. Love seeks the welfare of another.

Because of his love, Paul sent Timotheus back to them (“our brother and minister of God”) v.2. “Our fellowlaborer in the gospel of Christ.” Do-gooder “Christians” want the social gospel. But the Word of God brings more good-doing than any social gospel. Do-good liberals actually encourage immorality and license. They haven’t delivered kids from drugs or lifted up  mankind. A believer’s sphere is to be the gospel of Christ; that will produce a whole lot of good. “To establish you…”: Paul sent Timothy to do this—to hold them up v.2. “To comfort you concerning your faith”; “Comfort” means encourage.

v.3-4: “no man should be moved (disturbed) in the midst of afflictions.  See also, Jn. 16.33. ‘”Tribulation” is trouble that all of us are going to have. Believes are going to suffer—they are not going to escape trouble. We won’t miss the storms, but we will go through them and He will go with us.  See also 2 Ti. 3.12 (“Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.”) and 1 Pe. 4.12-19. If there is no cloud in the sky, no ripple on the sea, and everything is smooth and nice, you might question your salvation.

Paul feared that Satan was giving them a bad time, as Satan was giving him a bad time v.5. Another purpose of afflictions is to test the genuineness of belief. There are true believers and a lot of counterfeit believers.

Timothy gave Paul a good report about the church at Thess. v6. This comforted Paul v7. Even if a believer has trouble, it is going to work out for his good.

Paul urges continuing growth vv10-13. Joy is associated with life v.9. Sorrow is associated with death. But sorrow increases the capacity of the heart for joy. Paul wanted to return to them and teach the Word of God v10.-11. “Abound in love” v12. “Abound means exceed. In this epistle, love is seen in action—“labour of love.” “To the end”—love has a purpose; it is not an end in itself. “He may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness—the desired end of their love v.12. “At the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints” v13.

Chapter 4
(The Coming of Christ is a Purifying (3.1-4.12) and a Comforting Hope (4.13-18))

vv1-12 How believers are to walk.

v2 The Ten Commandments have no part in the sinner’s salvation nor are they the standard of Christian conduct. The purpose of the Commandments is to bring us to the cross. They are like a mirror which lets us see that we are sinners. However, there are commandments for believers. In chapter 5 are 22 commandments for believers.

v3 Three kinds of sanctification in the Bible. Positional: Christ has been made unto us sanctification. We are accepted in the Beloved. Practical: the Holy Spirit working in our lives to produce a holiness in our walk. Total: Will occur in the future when we are conformed to the image of Christ Jesus. Sanctification means “to be set apart for God.”

vv13-18 The coming of Christ is a comforting hope. This section teaches the imminent coming of Christ. “Imminent” does not mean the immediate or soon coming of Christ. Paul never uses an expression like that. He did not want people to assume it would be in their lifetime or shortly afterward. When we say that the coming of Christ is imminent,, we mean that it is the next event on the agenda of God’s program. We don’t know how far away the coming of Christ is. Paul believed the coming of Christ could come in his lifetime. He did not say or believe that  He would come in his lifetime. Paul called the coming of Christ for his church the rapture see v. 17). “Caught up” and “rapture” mean the same thing.

Paul taught the new Thessalonian believers prophecy and other advanced doctrines.

Paul obviously taught Christ’s imminent coming. Paul was answering their questions. One was, “Had the believers in Thessalonica who had already died missed the rapture?” This question would not have been pertinent at all if Paul had not taught them the imminent coming of Christ, if Paul had not taught them that Christ could come at any moment. For Paul’s answer, see vv. 13-18.

v14. There are 3 kinds of death in Scripture. Physical death (separation of the spirit from the body). Spiritual death (separation from God. Adam died spiritually, was separated from God, the day he ate of the forbidden fruit. Ep. 2.1.). Eternal death (eternal separation from God. This is the second death spoken of in Re. 20.14.).

Chapter 5
The Coming of Christ Is a Rousing Hope

In C5, we see the Christian’s actions in view of the coming of Christ.

CALL TO BE AWAKE AND ALERT IN VIEW OF CHRIST’S COMING VV1-10.

v1 The believer is looking for a Person, not for times of seasons. The Lord does not come as a thief to the believer. You don’t look for a thief. However, the Lord Jesus does come like a thief to the world.

v3. The day of the Lord will come suddenly. The pronoun here changes to “they.”

One definition of the day of the Lord: a period of time which begins with the [outpouring of the wrath of God] and runs through the millennial reign of Christ here upon the earth. Many passages of Scripture speak of this: (e.g., Isaiah 13:9 “Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.”) It starts out as a day of wrath: Isaiah 13:10 “For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.” Joel 1:15 “Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.” Joel goes on in C2 to describe it as a “day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness.”

The coming of Christ to take the family of God out of the world is not even mentioned in the OT. It is there by type, of course (as, e.g., the experience of Enoch and Elijah both of whom were taken up alive to be with the Lord.). This glorious, wonderful truth that the Lord Jesus is going to take a company of people out of this earth to be with Himself was revealed the 1st time in the Upper Room when He said, “In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” (John 14:2-3). Paul developed it in 1 Thess. 4.

In 1 Thess. 5, Paul is speaking of something that was well known in the OT. “When they say peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them.” It is going to be a big surprise to the world. The big lie in 2 Thess. 2 is the promise of peace and safety. Jesus warned, “Take heed that no man deceive you.”

vv4, 5. The rapture does 2 things. (1) Ends this day of grace in which we are today. (2) It begins the day of the Lord.

v6. Because that blessed hope could take place at any time, we should not be sleeping Christians. Christians are instructed to “Watch and stay sober.” We have a duty to perform.

vv7, 8. We are also to put on the breastplate of faith and love; and the helmet of the hope of salvation. This speaks of the soldier’s duty and is a call to that kind of duty. The breastplate of faith and love is to cover the heart, the vital part of the body. This is the 3rd time faith, love, hope have appeared in this epistle. The faith spoken of is saving faith, and saving faith produces works. Faith is past (for the believer), love is present, and the “hope of salvation” is that blessed hope of the future which is the consummation of our salvation (1 Jn. 3.2: “  Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” Philippians 1:6: “Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:”)

v9 “God hath not appointed us to wrath,…” “But to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

v10. Whether we die first or live until His coming, we shall live together with Him.

THE TWENTY-TWO COMMANDMENTS FOR BELIEVERS IN A CHURCH:

v11: Wherefore, comfort yourselves together….. The first commandment is to “comfort yourselves together,” which means to encourage one another in the faith. The second commandment is to “edify one another.” The Thessalonians believers were already doing that, Paul says. “Edify” means to build up one another. Believers in a church should be a team, edifying each other with the Word of God.

v12, 13. These 3 commandments seem to belong together. “”Know” or understand those who teach the Word of God. It means we should recognize them. When Paul wrote this, he had been with them (the church at Thessalonica) less than a month. He had won them to Christ and taught them. A church had been started. There were no believers there before Paul arrived (Acts 17.2,3). Certain of them would have been given the gift of teaching, some of preaching, and some of helping. Every believer has gifts or a gift bestowed on him by God, and that gift is to be exercised in the body of believers to build up the body of believers. As is the general case, some believers have the attitude, “Where did he get the idea that he could teach me?” So Paul is telling them that church members should respect those to whom God has given certain gifts and look to them for admonition.

We still have the problem today that very few people in a church pay any attention to the teachers that God has given them. If they believe every word of God, then why cannot they obey it? The problem is many times that believes do not know what is between the covers. It is hypocritical to say you believe it and then be ignorant of what it says.  Therefore, those who are preaching and teaching the Word of God should have the attention of believers.

The fourth commandment is “to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake.”

The fifth commandment is “to be at peace among yourselves.” These all come in one package. You can’t have everybody running a church (or any kind of organization). There must be a certain one with authority. There needs to be one who is the leader and who is followed. He should lead to make sure that every member of the body functions fully in the exercise of his gifts. With that arrangement, you can have peace. But when everyone is trying to play his own tune, you have anything but harmony and peace.

v14 gives the sixth through the ninth commandments.

Sixth: “Warn them that are unruly.”  This would naturally follow the fifth commandment. The unruly are those who are out of step.  They are loners who want to do their own little thing rather than suppor the work which God is doing. Warn them.

Seventh: “Comfort the feebleminded.” The feebleminded are those who are afraid to move out for God, not those with mental problems. They need encouraging. Put your arm around such an one and encourage them: “Brother, the Lord is with you and will bring you through, and I am with you and am praying for you.” Sometimes all of us get discouraged and become “feebleminded.”

Eighth: “Support the weak.” These are those who are weak in the faith. They are little babies, not able to march with the rest. So help them, lift them up, and carry them along.

Ninth: “Be patient toward all men.” This means, don’t lose your temper. This is hard with ungodly, unholy, cantankerous, unsaved people who are definitely trying to trip us or to abuse us in some way.

Tenth: “See that none render evil for evil unto any man.”

Eleventh: “But ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.” The pagan does evil in spite of good. You get the other fellow before he gets you. the refined, cultured, educated world does good to those who do good to them. The politician is a good example of this. You take care of your own. Luke 6:33 “And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.” The Christian standard is higher. We are to do good to those who do evil to us.

[The next three go together]

Twelfth: “Rejoice evermore.” This does not mean to be happy. Paul is  not talking about happy hour. “Happy” is not a New Testament word. This is a joy in the Lord as Paul wrote to the Philippians, “Rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice” (Philippians 4:4). The child of God has no right to go around with a sour puss, to be cantankerous. That is a fruit of the Holy Spirit.—love, joy, peace. If you cannot rejoice, begin reading the Word of God and calling on God to put joy in your heart. He will do it.

Thirteenth: “Pray without ceasing.” Have a constant attitude of prayer and pray regularly.

Fourteenth: In every thing give thanks.” This means give thanks in all circumstances and all the time. “For this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.” This is the will of God for you: Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, and give thanks in everything.

Fifteenth: “Quench not the Spirit.” How do you quench a fire, which is one figure used for the Holy Spirit? You dampen it down and don’t let it burn. You refuse to do the will of God. You are not listening to the Holy Spirit and to let Him guide and lead you. You and I quench the Holy Spirit when we take matters into our own hands.”And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption” (Ephesians 4:30). You cannot grieve a thing; you grieve a Person. The Holy Spirit is a person, and He is grieved by our lives. He is quenched when we step out of the will of God.

Sixteenth: “Despise not  prophesyings” (that is, the teaching of the Word of God). Do not look down on Bible study as something that is beneath you. Do not be indifferent to the Word of God. One’s ministry (if it is for God) does not last long without Bible study.

Seventeenth: “ Prove all things.” Don’t be taken in. Don’t be a sucker. Don’t be misled just because somebody sends you a picture of pathetic looking orphans. Don’t contribute to things you know nothing about. Don’t fall for some promotion job. Investigate anything to which you give your support. Christians ought not to be gullible. This also means that we are not to be taken in by flattery. There are many deceivers in this world.

Eighteenth: “Hold fast that which is good” meaning that which is true and genuine.

Nineteenth: “ Abstain from all appearance of evei.” If there is any question in your mind whether something is right or wrong, then it is wrong for you.

Note. Man is a triune being (verse 23: “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”  “Sanctify you wholly”—not perfectly, but to a place of maturation. We should not continue to be babes in Christ. You can depend upon God: “Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it” (Verse 24).

Twentieth: “Brethren, pray for us” (Verse 25). Pray for those who give out the Gospel.

Twenty-first: “Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss” (Verse 26). Just make sure it is a holy kiss. In our culture, a warm handshake will do.

Twenty-second: “I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren” (Verse 27).

“The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen” (Verse 28). And to you, my beloved.

Miscellaneous Spiritual/Legal Matters

The Loveliness of Jesus

2 Comments

Click here to go to the sermon
The Loveliness of Jesus
by Dr. J. Vernon McGee.

Article: “The Loveliness of Christ” by… :

“Yea, He is altogether lovely.” Song of Solomon 5:16

All other greatness has been marred by littleness; all other wisdom has been flawed by folly; all other goodness has been tainted by imperfection. Jesus Christ remains the only Being of whom, without gross flattery, it could be asserted, “He is altogether lovely.”

Perfect Humanity

First, of all, as it seems to me, this loveliness of Christ consists in His perfect humanity.

In everything but our sins and our evil natures, He is one with us. He grew in stature and in grace. He labored and wept and prayed and loved. He was tempted in all points as we are — sin apart.

With Thomas, we confess Him Lord and God. We adore and revere Him. There is no other who establishes with us such intimacy, who comes so close to these human hearts of ours: no one else in the universe of whom we are so little afraid. He enters as simply and naturally into our twentieth century lives as if He had been reared in the same street with us. He is not one of the ancients; He is one with us.

How wholesomely and genuinely human He is! Martha scolds Him. John, who has seen Him raise the dead, still the tempest, and talk with Moses and Elijah on the mount, does not hesitate to make a pillow of His breast at supper. Peter will not let Him wash his feet, but afterwards wants his head and hands included in the ablution. They ask Him foolish questions, and rebuke Him, and venerate and adore Him in one breath. And He calls them by their first names, and tells them to fear not, and assures them of His love. In all this He seems to me altogether lovely. His perfection does not glitter; it glows. The saintliness of Jesus is so warm and human that it attracts and inspires. We find in it nothing austere and inaccessible, like a statue in a niche. The beauty of His holiness reminds one rather of a rose, or a bank of violets.

Jesus receives sinners and eats with them — all kinds of sinners: Nicodemus, the moral, religious sinner, and Mary of Magdala, “out of whom went seven devils” — the shocking kind of sinner. He comes into sinful lives as a bright, clear stream enters a stagnant pool. The stream is not afraid of contamination, but its sweet energy cleanses the pool.

Perfect Compassion

Moreover, Christ’s sympathy is altogether lovely. He is always being “touched with compassion.” The multitude without a shepherd, the sorrowing widow of Nain, the little dead child of the ruler, the demoniac of Gadara, the hungry five thousand — all these represented suffering, and whatever suffers touches Jesus’ heart. His very wrath against the scribes and Pharisees is but the excess of His sympathy for those who suffer under their hard self-righteousness.

Did you ever find Jesus looking for “deserving poor”? He “healed all their sick.” And what grace there is in His sympathy! Why did He touch that poor leper? He could have healed him with a word as He did the nobleman’s son. Why, for years the wretch had been an outcast, cut off from kin, dehumanized. He lost the sense of being a man. It was defilement to approach him. Well, the touch of Jesus made him human again.

A Christian woman, laboring among the moral lepers of London, found a poor street girl desperately ill in a bare cold room. With her own hands she ministered to her; she changed her bed linen, procured medicines and nourishing food and a fire, making the poor place as bright and cheery as possible. And then she said, “May I pray with you?”

“No,” replied the girl, “you don’t care for me. You are doing this to get to heaven.”

Many days passed — the Christian woman unwearily kind, the sinful girl hard and bitter. At last the Christian said: “My dear, you are nearly well now, and I shall not come again, but as it is my last visit, I want you to let me kiss you,” and the pure lips that had known only prayers and holy words met the lips defiled by oaths and unholy caresses — and then, my friends, the hard heart broke. That was Christ’s way.

Perfect Humility

Again, Christ’s humility is altogether lovely. Can you fancy His calling a convention of Pharisees to discuss methods of reaching “the masses”? He, the only one who ever had a choice of how He should be born, entered this life as one of “the masses.” What meekness, what lowliness! “I am among you as one that serveth. He “began to wash his disciples’ feet.” “When he was reviled, reviled not again.” “As a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.” Can you think of Jesus as posing and demanding His rights?

Perfect Gentleness

Further, Christ’s gentleness is altogether lovely. It is in His way with sinners that the supreme loveliness of Jesus is most sweetly shown. How tender He is, yet how faithful; how considerate, how respectful! Nicodemus, candid and sincere, but proud of his position as a master in Israel, and timid lest he should imperil it, “comes to Jesus by night.” Before he departs, this master in Israel has learned his utter ignorance of the first step toward the kingdom, and goes away to think over the personal application of the truth, “they loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” But he has not heard one harsh word, one utterance that can wound his self-respect.

When He speaks to that silent despairing woman, after her accusers had gone out, one by one, He uses for “woman” the same word that He used when addressing His own mother from the cross.

Follow Him to Jacob’s solitary well and hear His conversation with the woman of Samaria. How patiently He unfolds the deepest truths, how gently yet faithfully He presses the great ulcer of sin which is eating away her soul! But He could not be more respectful to Mary of Bethany.

Even in the agonies of death, He could hear the cry of despairing faith. When conquerors return from far wars in strange lands they bring their chief captive as a trophy. It was enough for Christ to take back to heaven the soul of a thief.

Perfect Poise

Finally, Christ is altogether lovely in the perfect equipoise of His various perfections. We could speak at length of His dignity, of His virile manliness, of His courage. In Him, all the elements of perfect character are in lovely balance. His gentleness is never weak. His courage is never brutal. My friends, you may study these things for yourselves. Follow Him through all the scenes of outrage and insult on the night and morning of His arrest and trial. Behold Him before the high priest, before Pilate, before Herod. See Him browbeaten, bullied, scourged, smitten upon the face, spit upon, mocked. How inherent greatness comes out! Not once does He lose His self-poise, His high dignity.

I close with this word of personal testimony: This is my Beloved and this is my Friend. Will you not accept Him as your Saviour and likewise discover His loveliness?

Is He not altogether lovely?

 

Uncategorized

Articles, etc. chronicling and analyzing the attacks, including and beginning with the Northfield MN attacks, against OPBC street preachers

Leave a comment

Click here to go to links to articles on:
Attacks on First Amendment Protection of Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, and Association

Latest Development: April 6, 2016. Northfield News prints a libelous, biased, slanted one-sided attack against OPBC street preachers. Response and further developments will be included. Read the whole story as it develops at: Citizen v. Citizen: Some Northfield, Minnesota Citizens Seek to circumvent First Amendment

Very instructive concise teaching: An Abridged History of the First Amendment

Contents of this page:

a. Preface
b. Introduction
c. Relevant facts concerning the first attack in Northfield (including link to audio of actual events and links to relevant sermons)
d. Updates
e. Highest Law
f. United States Constitution
g. Minnesota Constitution
h. Northfield, Minnesota Code of Ordinances and Charter

February 16, 2014 (The attack  of the officer seems to have been that of a “lone wolf” police officer – video included of prior proper police conduct.)
March 30, 2014 (Courteous Northfield officer approaches OPBC preachers in response to a complaint, mentioned certain city ordinances, but did not arrest or cite anyone in that he needed clarification. The ordinances are quoted and the audio of the encounter is included.)
March 31, 2014 (OPBC member calls Alliance Defense Fund for possible legal representation in the even the city violates the First Amendment. Police inform Pastor Cooley that the city attorney told him there was nothing they could do. Etc.)
June 21, 2014 (On June 21, 2014, some OPBC men went to Faribault MN to preach in the public forum. Complaints were called in and police threatened the preachers with citation and arrest. See how this played out by reading the story below and the article linked thereto.)
August 17, 2014 (Business owners unsuccessfully tried to shut down street preaching in Northfield MN. The obtained a permit for the purpose of preventing the street preaching. The OPBC preachers returned the first week after the permit was issued and nothing was done to them because of First Amendment law.)
September 12, 2013 (Debate on the First Amendment as a result of Old Paths Baptist Church street preaching. Includes op-ed article by Jerald Finney, “Street Preaching: A Misunderstood Blessing.”)
October 11, 2014 Link to report and testimonies on the “No Small Stir” street preaching ministry activity in St. Paul. The enemy continues to oppose the preaching of God’s word.
April 18, 2015. (On this date, OPBC men went to Minneapolis, MN to preach in the public forum. Some were assaulted. The police came and told them to leave in 5 minutes or be arrested, thereby violating their civil rights (First Amendment speech rights). Read the whole story as it unfolds by clicking: April 18, 2015 encounter with unlawful police officer in Dinkeytown, Minnesota and subsequent actions by the offended parties.)
August, 2015. Police try to chill rights of OPBC street preachers, but they hold their ground: 2 videos.
October 21, 2015. Advance letter to “The Halloween Capital of America” concerning street preaching by the men of Old Paths Baptist Church
April 6, 2016. Northfield News prints a libelous, biased, slanted one-sided attack against OPBC street preachers. Response and further developments will be included. Read the whole story as it develops at: Citizen v. Citizen: Some Northfield, Minnesota Citizens Seek to circumvent First Amendment

  1. Highest Law (God’s Law)
    f. United States Constitution and relevant case excerpts which interpret that law
    g. Constitution of the State of Minnesota
    h. Northfield, Minnesota Code of Ordinances and Charter

a. Preface

This page was inspired by an attack against street preaching in Northfield, Minnesota by a lone ranger police officer and citizens who were unfamiliar with the law. As it turned out, many of the Northfield citizens appreciated the street preaching and the freedoms we have in America.  This page covers run-ins with law enforcement and citizens in Northfield and other towns and cities initiated by the uninformed. The information on this page should be helpful to anyone who wishes to speak in the public forum in America.

Right now, in America, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, press, assembly, press, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The United States Supreme Court has interpreted First Amendment freedom of speech to include speech in the public forum (in government owned property such as streets and parks). Even with this clear condition of the law, those who preach the gospel in the public forum are attacked by individuals (including so-called “Christians”) and by peace officers who threaten them, push them around, abuse them, attack them, etc. 99+% of Americans have no clue as to the true history of the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment and the importance of those freedoms. They just know that the preaching offends them and they want it shut up. The day when God’s children (not the religious crowd) will be severely persecuted in America. What does the Bible say about what Christians should do then? For the answers to this and other related questions see “Preparing for the Underground Church in America.” That article links to other resources including a great sermon series by Brother Russell Hildebrandt on the Underground Church. The street preachers of Old Path Baptist Church are among those who suffer the mild “persecution” in America when they preach in the public forum.

As to speech in the public forum the job of peace officers is not to shut it down when someone complains; their job is to enforce the law by (1) protecting street preachers and others speaking in the public forum and (2) informing people who would disrupt and/or violate the rights of street preachers of the law concerning free speech in America. I street preached in Austin, Texas for 20+ years. The police in Austin understood and enforced the law. They protected us (and others speaking in the public forum) on numerous occasions. The Minneapolis Police Officer in the following video understands that his job is to protect those involved in First Amendment protected speech:

Street Preaching, Dinkeytown, and Spiritual Warfare/Luciferianism, Enochian Magick, Aliester Crowley & Dinkytown Witches

Apostate Minnesota Pastor Attends Black Sabbath 2016 & Assaults Street Preacher (July 2016)

Since many towns and cities have not been exposed to speech in the public forum, their peace officers are not familiar with the law and initially take the side of those offended ones who complain and not the side of those citizens who appreciate the public speech and know what a blessing it is to live in a nation which honors God-given rights. However, when the alternatives are presented to them – either learn the law and start doing your job or continue to violate the law and be subject to suit for injunction or damages – they start doing their job.

The Old Paths Baptist Church “No Small Stir” street preaching ministry was appropriately named and, according to its name, has created “no small stir” in Northfield MN. It has served as an educational tool and encouraged a debate in the city. See “Constitution Day events aim to remind Northfielders of their rights, spark discussions” a September 12, 2014 article in the Northfield News. See the updates below which demonstrate that Northfield has now been educated about First Amendment rights and now honors freedom of speech in the public forum. Included in the updates are OPBC encounters with uninformed peace officers in other cities.

Featured Sermons:
“Cut To The Heart – Being Severed By The Sword” or “Street Preaching Produces Bible Explained Results” on sermonaudiocom (051015)(Click here for Youtube of this sermon.)
“The Pricked Heart: Are You Kicking Against The Pricks?” or “The Positive Results Of Preaching” on sermonaudiocom (051015)(Click here for Youtube of this sermon.)

Left click here to go to OPBC Street Preaching Page
Click here to go to the PDF of tract Street Preaching in America: Is It Legal?
Click here to listen to 12/27/14 blogtalk radio show with discussion of the 12/22/14 illegal actions of the police officer against the Northfield, MN street preachers (The introduction of the broadcast is about 6 minutes long. The street preaching discussion resumes at the 38 minute 20 second mark.)

b. Introduction

We live in America, but forces are working throughtout the world and in the United States to destroy First Amendment protections. Leading forces are those who are seeking to bring in the New World Order (Catholicism, members of groups such as the Trilateral Commission and the Counsel on Foreign Relations, Islam, homosexuals, etc.). Police Arrest US Street Preacher In Scotland For Calling Homosexuality A Sin (011014). 

This encounter which is occurring in Northfield, Minnesota would not happen in a city like Austin, Texas. Jerald Finney, the author of this blog, was part of a street preaching ministry in Austin, Texas for 20 years, and led the ministry for many of those years. No peace officer ever interfered with their efforts in the public forum. Instead, the police monitored their street preaching activities and protected them from those who tried to physically interfere with the practice of their protected activities. The street preachers shouted their messages so that they could be heard. Because Austin is the scene of much public activism (by all types of activists from atheists to “Christians” to social activists both liberal and conservative) and the speech related thereto, Austin city, county, and district attorneys as well as law enforcement personnel have learned the law on these matters and the police in Austin are trained to know and protect the constitutionally protected speech of Americans within the city of Austin. Many smaller cities have never had the opportunity to look into the law concerning street preaching and therefore, as in Northfield, have to study it out. To this point, Northfield, Minnesota is now encountering protected speech in the public forum and is responding to complaints.  Northfield, to this point, has been very courteous and reasonable (except for one officer).

Even in Austin, Texas the legality of certain ordinances may be unclear and one may find himself in court. Jerald Finney has successfully handled two cases which dealt with such matters. The following link will take you to the briefs, final decision, etc. in one of those cases. The ordinances being looked into by the city of Northfield, Minnesota in regards to street preaching in that city certainly are unconstitutional if applied to street preaching in the public forum. Austin has ordinances similar to those being looked at by Northfield and, since city personnel understand the law, does not charge street preachers with violations thereof. The street preachers in Northfield are, according to their character (see Repentance, the new life, and the changed life for more on this) imparted to them when they were born again (see God’s Plan of Salvation for more on this), are courteous and careful not to obstruct highways or passageways, litter, or do anything else in violation of legitimate law while at the same time complying with the highest law (see IV below), and, in America federal, state, and city law (see V, VI, and VII below.). One can read the following briefs  for an understanding of the law in the United States.

I received the following e-mail which is very insightful and can be applied to the overall American state of mind:

From:
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 11:20 PM
To:
Subject: Taste of Northfield Celebration!!!!

Gentlemen,
See the attached advertisement for good food and fun times in Northfield’s very own Bridge Square [Click the following link to view the ad: CommercialCopier_20140527_234322].  Incidentally this is the same Bridge Square that many city folk have tried to get the preachers kicked out of by various methods.  I have just one question…Will anyone from good ole Northfield complain about the Awesome Live Music, guns going off with the Bank Raid Reenactment or even the sloppy drunks running around after a day and night of festivities in the Beer and Wine Gardens.  Oh…by the way…it’s “FUN FOR ALL AGES”?

I wonder if they’d mind if the Preachers came down there to “JOIN IN” on all the hubbabaloo and did a little Street Preaching…ya know…”Just to Fit In” with the community.

[]

Click here to see the briefs, final decision, etc. of a case handled by Attorney Jerald Finney which involved the issue of free speech in a public forum.

For the history of how Americans got freedom of religion, press, assembly, speech, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, click one of the following links:

(1) History of the First Amendment.
(2) Abbreviated version of the history of the First Amendment.

c. Relevant facts concerning the first attack in Northfield

Pastor Jason Cooley and some other men were street-preaching in Bridge Square Park in Northfield, Minnesota on December 22, 2013. They had preached there before with the observation and support of the Northfield Police Department.

BRIDGE SQUARE PARK IN NORTHFIELD, MINNESOTA

Bridge Square Park is a city park in Northfield  and is therefore, for speech purposes, a free speech area according to the Highest Law as well as the United States Constitution. (To verify this, see http://www.ci.northfield.mn.us/Index.aspx?NID=284; see also, Northfield, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> PART II – NORTHFIELD CODE >> Chapter 50 – OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS >> ARTICLE V. OFFENSES INVOLVING PUBLIC MORALS >> Sec. 50-116. Curfew for minors…. Public parks and walkways includes Sechler Park; Odd Fellows Park; Central Park; Babcock Park; Way Park; Riverside Park; Cherry Park; Sibley Marsh; Sibley Swale; Bridge Square; Riverwalkway from Second Street to Fifth Street; River Pedestrian Bridge; and any park, playground or walkway maintained by the city [Emphasis mine]. Relevant Northfield ordinances, including this one, are reproduced below. See also, the case excerpts below which interpret the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as to speech in a public forum.)

Hear the unconstitutional actions following the above mentioned street preaching of a police officer in Northfield, Minnesota on December 22, 2013 in Northfield, Minnesota: Street Preachers Rights Attempted To Be Chilled By the Police. After contacting the Northfield Mayor, City Council Members, the City Attorney, the Chief of Police, it appeared that the misguided actions of the officer in the encounter will not occur again. Certain citizens were happy about the results. Others mounted a misguided plan, which they never brought to fruition, probably because they learned the truth about freedom of speech in the public forum and knew that if they proceeded, they were doomed to failure and, also, would be the target of civil action by the speakers if they wanted to pursue civil action.

Hear the rest of the facts in the following message on sermonaudio.com: “Christmass Is Not About The Truth” or on Youtube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGLagkbzvJc

Links to other relevant sermons preached by Pastor Jason Cooley follow:

Submission To God In Trials (122913)-(Click here to listen to Youtube version)
Reasons For Submission To God In Trials (122913)-(Click here to listen to longer Youtube version which includes other matters)
Readings From The Lives Of Virginia Baptist Ministers (122913)(Regarding persecuted ministers in the colony of Virginia prior to the adoption of the United States Constitution)

Listen to this situation discussed on blog talk radio by clicking here.

d. Updates:

February 16, 2014 

After further talks with Pastor Jason Cooley and other men who have done street preaching in Northfield, Minnesota, the encounter with which this article was concerned appears to have been the act of a “Lone Wolf” acting without knowledge and on his own without the consent or authority of the city of Northfield. Before and since this incident, the men have not been wrongly interfered with in the practice of their First Amendment protections.

One example of this may be viewed on Youtube by clicking the following picture to go directly to the Youtube video:

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpu5QnlWpnA&list=PLy6exNmJy7Ro4G1GticVrn_0iOycp_mQi&index=11)

The person who sent the above link to this attorney included the following message: “Brother Jerald Finney, look at the 4:23 min mark and you can see directly behind brother Ickes the three officer’s that were standing there, just shooting the breeze and didn’t bother us. They were standing there so ALL the people would STOP calling. The officer’s were letting everyone know hat we KNOW their preaching and their NOT doing anything wrong.”

You will also hear some good preaching on the above Youtube video, some of which explains why the men are in obedience to God by going outside the walls of a church meeting house and into the world to preach the Gospel.

Let us hope that this is the end of the matter. These street preachers are simply acting in obedience to biblical instructions for churches and believers, and violation of free speech protection in America brings about much unnecessary expense to the taxpayer in the resultant legal litigation against the offending government and the offending government officials. In addition, the street preachers who are wrongly interfered with will expend time and energy in contending for the faith through such litigation that could be better used directly preaching the Gospel in the public forum.

Reading the material and links in this article will be very helpful to one who wishes to understand the First Amendment protection of religion and speech from interference by government and government officials.

March 30, 2014 Update

Click here to listen to the March 30, 2014 encounter of street preachers with Police Sergeant Kevin Tussing in Northfield Minnesota

On March 30, 2014, Police Sergeant Kevin Tussing of the Northfield, Minnesota Police Department approached street preachers in Northfield, Minnesota and told them that a lady had complained and that she had stirred up other people. Sergeant Tussing was very courteous as he had been in the past; before, he had observed the street preachers and had not hindered their efforts. In this instance, he was responding to a complaint. Sergeant Tussing informed the street preachers that they were possibly in violation of two sections of the Northfield City Ordinance, but that he wanted to seek clarification from the city attorney. He did not order them to stop street preaching, nor cite them for any crime. The two sections of the city ordinance which the officer said he was looking at had already been included in this article below and discussed by Jerald Finney and Pastor Jason Cooley. Obviously, the officer – as he recognized by stating that he needed to talk to the city attorney about the matter – only looked at the Northfield ordinances and had not considered all the law, but only the selected laws taken out of context and possibly twisted (similar to the way many “Christians” interpret the Bible). All the laws include the laws of God, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, caselaw based upon the First Amendment which address speech protections for street preachers, the Minnesota Constitution, and all the ordinances of Northfield. This article does look at all the laws below. The two Northfield ordinances the officer cited were as follows:

Sec. 50-86. Disorderly conduct.
No person shall:
(1) Commit any assault;
(2) Engage in brawling or fighting;
(3) Disturb an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character;
(4) Spit upon any sidewalk or crosswalk;
(5) Appear in public or any exposed place in a state of nudity or in any indecent or lewd dress;
(6) Annoy, disturb, interfere with, obstruct or be offensive to others to a degree whereby a breach of peace may be or is likely to be occasioned;
(7) Fail or refuse to obey a police officer’s lawful order; or
(8) Be guilty of any indecent or obscene acts or any lewd, indecent or obscene conduct, language, or behavior.

Sec. 50-87. Noisy parties or assemblies.
(a) Any person who participates in any party or assembly of two or more people from which noise emanates of a sufficient volume or of sufficient nature to disturb the peace, quiet or repose of another person is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any owner or tenant of the place at which a disturbance is occurring, who has knowledge of the disturbance and fails to immediately abate the disturbance, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) A police officer may order all persons present at a noisy party or assembly prohibited in subsection (a) of this section, other than the owners or tenants of the place at which the disturbance is occurring, to immediately disburse. Any person who shall refuse to leave after being so ordered to do so by a police officer shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Notice that Sec. 50-86. Disorderly conduct does not state that one is guilty of a misdemeanor as does Sec. 50-87. Noisy parties or assemblies.Section 50-87 provides for no punishment. Sec. 50-88. Social host states that  “Penalty. Any person who violates this section [Sec. 50-88] shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a fine, imprisonment or both” but applies by its own terms only to Sec. 50.88.

The men will be calling the city attorney about this matter. Hopefully, this can be resolved according to the law of God and the law of man without further legal action.

March 31, 2014 Update

Jerald Finney tried to call the city attorney of Northfield, but he was unavailable until April 7, 2014 and would not take e-mails or voice mails until that date. He then contacted the Alliance Defense Fund (“ADF”) about getting an ADF attorney in Minnesota to take immediate legal action on bahalf of each and all of the street preachers should the city of Northfield violate the law and tell the preachers that they had to quit their street preaching or be issued citations. This action was taken because the work is so preeminent and interruptions delay and damage the work and the cause of Christ.

Then, Sergeant Tussing called Pastor Jason Cooley and informed him that the city attorney told him that street preaching is legal and there is nothing they can do to stop it. I applaud Sergeant Tussing for his vigilant approach to this most important matter. Many officers act unwisely, and take the law into their own hands. In this attorney’s experience, the attitude of most officers is “We are the  law;” most would prefer that the officers arrest would mean the end of the matter except for determination of the penalty. Sergeant Tussing understood that he did not know the law concerning street preaching (probably because he had never had to deal with it) and made sure that he knew what to do to comply with the law before he acted.

Also, I applaud the city attorney of Northfield who actually took the time, without outside input to make sure he correctly assessed the law. It appears to this point that Northfield is in very competent legal hands.

Officer Tussing did not seem pleased with the outcome because this whole thing was going to cause him a headache. He knows that some citizens will continue to call and harass the police in their attempt to try to get something done to stop the street preachers. If he only knew his importance in keeping the peace and enforcing the law in these matters, he would feel differently. Hopefully, this will be a springboard for teaching law enforcement and the complaining citizens the importance and history of street preaching and freedoms of religion, press, and speech in America. The compelling and forgotten history of religious freedom in America should be taught in every school and church in America. Sadly, that is not the case. That history can be read online at “The History of the First Amendment” or in shortened form at “An Abridged History of the First Amendment.”

This is a victory for the citizens and city of Northfield which was won over a long period of history at the cost of the lives of millions or martyrs and others who were imprisoned, tortured, and persecuted and/or lost all their earthly possessions just because they refused to bow down to the church-state alliances, starting with the Catholic alliance with the state and then continued by Protestant alliances which came to the American colonies where the persecution continued. The First Amendment resulted in the end of those persecutions in America and the waves of freedom gained thereby swept across other nations. Tragically, though, Christians are still persecuted and even martyred in nations throughout the world such as Korea, China, and many Muslim and Marxist nations.

Of course, true believers do not get their freedom from civil government, but from Christ. To understand this, read Section II of the article “Laws Protecting New Testament Churches in the United States: Read Them for Yourself.”

May 24, 2013 Update

Again, citizens complained about the street preaching. See the whole encounter at:

Cops Called – Preachers Know Their Rights

June 21, 2014 Update

Brother Paul Pearson, Pastor Jason Cooley, Brother Cooley (Pastor Jason’s dad) and some other younger men from Old Paths Baptist Church went to Faribault MN for street preaching, displaying signs, and handing out tracts. See the two recordings made by Pastor Jason Cooley at the end of this section. Faribault police officers approached them. One of the officers arguably assaulted (petty misdemeanor assault) Brother Pearson as he was preaching by poking his with his finger as he stood on a stand street preaching. As the officer poked Brother Pearson with his finger he told him, “Get down from there. I said get down from there.” Brother Pearson kept preaching. One female officer told them that if they did not leave, they would be cited and arrested. She threatened them by saying they would cite them for violating Section 17-42(a) of the Faribault City Ordinances which reads in relevant part:

“Sec. 17-42. Nuisance noise.

“(a) No person in the city shall make or assist in or permit the making of any noise tending to unreasonably disturb the peace and quiet of persons in the vicinity thereof, unless the making and continuing of the same cannot be prevented and is necessary for the protection or preservation of property or of the health, safety, life or limb of some person.

“…

“(d) Permitted noise. Customary sounds from any of the following activities shall not be deemed to violate this section.

“(1) Marching and/or playing of music by bands, orchestras, or other musical aggregations in conjunction with an authorized city celebration, festival, or other neighborhood or community event, including band shell concerts; or the practice for or presentation of an event sponsored by a local public or private school;
“(2) Church bells, chimes and carillons;
“(3) Authorized parades;
“(4) Construction work conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.;
“(5) School bells;
“(6) Emergency vehicles;
“(7) Permitted street dances; or
“(8) Collection and transportation of garbage or refuse in the city between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the collection and transportation of garbage or refuse for commercial, industrial or institutional properties may be conducted between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.”

Note. I included subsection (d) above because I believe it is significant that the exceptions do not include the most important and constitutionally mandated exception – free speech in the public forum – while it does include garbage collection and other similarly types of sound causing activities including some Biblically offensive types of “noise.”

She had to go get a copy of the above section of the code before she could tell them what they were allegedly doing wrong. Brother Pearson kept preaching and Pastor Cooley explained to the officers that they were engaged in speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (which is above a city ordinance and nullifies any ordinance which is in violation of that amendment). The female officer told them that it was illegal for them to preach there and that “telling people they’re going to hell is alarming and scaring them.”

A separate article has now been written on this matter. It appears that the issue has been successfully resolved. To read how it all played out click the following link: “Is It Wrong For A Believer To Sue For Violation Of His Constitutional Rights? A Real Life Study“.

You can view this happening on the following two Youtube videos:

Faribault MN Police Order Preachers To Stop Preaching

Faribault Police Tell Preachers To Leave Or Be Arrested

August 17, 2014 Update

This update is covered in the article: Business Owners Try To Shut Down Street Preaching In Nortfield, Minnesota

September 12, 2014

The Old Paths Baptist Church “No Small Stir” street preaching ministry was appropriately named and, according to its name, has created “no small stir” in Northfield MN. It has served as an educational tool and encouraged a debate in the city. This was a positive effect envisioned by the street preaches as a side effect of their protected – but not understood in smaller cities where street preaching has never occurred – speech. See “Constitution Day events aim to remind Northfielders of their rights, spark discussions” a September 12, 2014 article in the Northfield News. This will be supplemented as that situation unfolds. It is hoped that all the citizens of Northfield, including Susannah Ottaway, will be open to the true history of the First Amendment.

To go to Constitution Day in Northfield “Toward a More Perfect Union” on facebook, click here.

The following is from Carleton News on September 8, 2014 available at https://apps.carleton.edu/news/news/?story_id=1179154 

  • September 17, 7:00 – 8:30 p.m.
    Constitution Day Event at Carleton College
    The evening kicks off with an excerpt from the thought-provoking PBS seriesConstitution USA, followed by a “lightning round” of personal statements about the Constitution from a diverse lineup of citizens including the Northfield police chief, high school students, a Minnesota state representative, and Carleton president Steve Poskanzer. The audience will be invited to share their own opinions during an open-mic session. Expect a lively conversation reflecting the many perspectives and voices of our community.See the full event details here.
  • September 18, 7:00 p.m.
    Constitution Lecture & Discussion at St. Olaf College
    What forces influenced the men who drafted the Constitution? What compromises did they negotiate in their pursuit of “a more perfect union”? Explore the origins and interpretations of the Constitution with political scientist David Robertson, author ofThe Original Compromise: What the Constitution’s Framers Were Really Thinking. St. Olaf College Viking Theater. Refreshments will be served.
  • October 12, 3:00 – 5:00 p.m.
    “Northfield Reads!” Event at Northfield Public Library
    Engage in a community discussion on the Constitution with a particular focus on issues of free speech—a timely topic in Northfield as the community addresses concerns about speakers in Bridge Square. The Library will post short articles online for participants to read before the event.

“It’s so important for us to have these public conversations about our guiding principles and founding documents,” says Susannah Ottaway, director of the Carleton College Humanities Center, co-organizer of the Carleton event. “Here we have a dysfunctional government in Washington, fraught with an inability to compromise—yet the Constitution itself is the ultimate compromise document! That’s such a powerful symbol to our national community today.”

I would certainly agree with the above statement of Ms. Ottaway. That is why we all need to believe and teach factual history on the subject and steer clear of interpretations. Preeminent facts are available in the teachings on this website.

Click the following to see online op-ed posted in Northfield News:
“Street Preaching: A Misunderstood Blessing” posted on September 24, 2014.

October 11, 2014

For a report and testimonies on the “No Small Stir” street preaching ministry activity in St. Paul on October 11, 2014 click the following link: Sermon “Once Prayed Always Saved Versus Eternal Life” (The street preaching portion is from about the 5 minute to the 33 minute 45 second mark. Baptist preachers who become business entity CEO’s have no clue as to what is going on in the world because they never experience it; they never go out and preach the Bible on the streets, as commanded in the Bible.)

April 18, 2015 

On this date, OPBC men went to Minneapolis, MN to preach in the public forum. Some were assaulted. The police came and told them to leave in 5 minutes or be arrested, thereby violating their civil rights (First Amendment speech rights). Read the whole story as it unfolds by clicking: April 18, 2015 encounter with unlawful police officer in Dinkeytown, Minnesota and subsequent actions by the offended parties.

August 2015

October 21, 2015

Click here to go to ‘Advance letter to “The Halloween Capital of America’ concerning street preaching by the men of Old Paths Baptist Church”

The OPBC men preached in Anoka and the police did their job.

April 6, 2016

On April 6, 2016, the Northfield News published a libelous, biased, slanted, one-sided attack against the street preachers and street preaching. This author is now preparing an article to be presented to the Northfield News for publication. That letter and other developments will be reproduced in this article.

Read the story as it unfolds at:

Citizen v. Citizen: Some Northfield, Minnesota Citizens Seek to circumvent First Amendment

Pastor Jason Cooley learned of the article an hour or so before his April 6, 2016 sermon. He included comments on the article in his sermon:

“What They Meant For Evil God Meant For Good” on sermonaudio.com (040616)(Click here for Youtube of this sermon.)

e. Highest Law (God’s Law)

“We ought to obey God rather than men.”

For more detailed information on this see the “Separation of Church and State Law” (opbcbibletrust.wordpress.com). Particularly important entries on that website include”:

  1. Laws Protecting New Testament Churches in the United States: Read Them for Yourself(https://opbcbibletrust.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/laws-protecting-new-testament-churches-in-the-united-states-read-them-for-yourself/) (Article).
  2. The book,God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application(Covers the biblical doctrines of church, state, and separation of church and state, the history of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Supreme Court Religion Clause Jurisprudence, and Union of Church and State in America which betrays God.)
    a. Online version at:https://opbcbibletrust.wordpress.com/contents/online-version-of-the-book-god-betrayed/
    b. PDF at: https://opbcbibletrust.wordpress.com/contents/books/god-betrayedseparation-of-church-and-state-the-biblical-principles-and-the-american-application/3812-2/
  3. Render Unto God the Things that Are His: A Systematic Study of Romans 13 and Related Verses:
    a. Available in online form athttps://opbcbibletrust.wordpress.com/contents/books/render-unto-god-the-things-that-are-his-a-systematic-study-of-romans-13-and-related-verses/
    b. and PDF form athttps://opbcbibletrust.wordpress.com/contents/books/render-unto-god-the-things-that-are-his-a-systematic-study-of-romans-13-and-related-verses/render-unto-god-the-things-that-are-his-a-systematic-study-of-romans-13-and-related-verses/)(Covers Romans 13, 1 Peter 2.13, and other verses often cited out of context by both religious and secular heretics and apostates in order to justify giving unto Caesar the things that are God’s.).

f. United States Constitution

THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

Fortunately, the highest law of the land is a statement of God’s law concerning freedom of religion (or soul liberty, or separation of church and state), freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. For a complete explanation of this matter, see the resources above. Two resources on the above mentioned website cover the history of the First Amendment:

  1. An Abridged History of the First Amendment(https://opbcbibletrust.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/an-abridged-history-of-the-first-amendment/)
  2. “History of Religious Freedom in America,” (https://opbcbibletrust.wordpress.com/contents/online-version-of-the-book-god-betrayed/the-history-of-the-first-amendment/)

First Amendment to the United States Constitution: “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.”

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

“SECTION 1.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

***

“SECTION 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Cases:

WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH THE SPEECH OR NOT, IT IS PROTECTED IN AMERICA AND THE COURT TELLS POLICE OFFICERS THAT THEY MUST PROTECT THE SPEAKERS AND THE SPEECH.

On October 28, 2015, the U.S. Sixth Circuit restated and strengthened First Amendment protection of speech in the public forum in a case where “Bible Believers” involved in street preaching to Muslims displayed a pigs head. The Sixth Circuit stressed that the First Amendment “envelops all manner of speech, even when that speech is loathsome in its intolerance, designed to cause offense, and, as a result of such offense, arouses violent retaliation.” Attorney Robert Muise of the American Freedom Law Center, who argued the case on behalf of the Bible Believers, applauded the decision, saying it was  “solidly on the side of free speech.” “If this went the other way, it would incentivize  violence as a legitimate response to free speech, and that is wrong in our country,” Muise said.  “Any freedom-loving American enjoys protections of the First Amendment.”The Sixth Circuit said, “(The ruling)  affirms the rule of law that when a violent mob is responding violently to protected speech, the police’s duty is to protect the speaker and not join that mob that is intent in suppressing the speech,” Muise said. “Today, the First Amendment was the victor.” Click here to go directly to the opinion. Article: Anti-Muslim Slurs Get Legal Protection (102915)

SATAN IS THE GOD OF THIS WORLD

  1. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 67 S. Ct. 504, 91 L. Ed. 711, 1947 U.S. LEXIS 2959; 168 A.L.R. 1392 (1947). “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State.’ Reynolds v. United States, supraat 164…” (Ibid., pp. 15-16). [Emphasis mine.]

Everson stated the original purpose of the religion clause—separation of church and state (not separation of God and state)—but added a twist that has been used to do something the First Amendment never intended and that is to remove God from all civil government matters (separating God and state), thereby creating a pluralistic state that is run to a great degree by the principles of the god of this world. However, the First Amendment and those believers in Christ who wish to engage the public through speech by preaching the Gospel in the public square stand in the way of total dominance by the forces of evil.

  1. 3.… The freedom of speech and press are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties which are secured to all persons by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the state. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 95, 60 S.Ct. 736, 740, 84 L.ED. 1093 (1940).
  2. Freedom of speech includes not only the spoken word, but also speech-related conduct, such as picketing, the wearing of arm bands and, in some recent highly publicized cases, flag burning as a type of political protest.Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 756.
  3. “Whenever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.’ Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 515-516, 59 S.Ct. 954, 964, 83 L.Ed. 1423 (opinion of Mr. Justice Roberts, joined by Mr. Justice Black).  Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Ala., 394 U.S. 147, 152, 89 S.Ct. 935, 22 L.Ed.2d 162 (1969).”
  4. [Government control of access to its property, public forums, littering] The extent to which the government can control access to its property for expressive purposes depends on the nature of the forums.Reed v. State, 762 S.W.2d 640, 643 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1988, pet. Ref’d) citing Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 105 S.Ct. 3489, 87 L.Ed. 567 (1985); Olvera v. State, 806 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Public forums are those areas which traditionally have been devoted to assembly and public debate, such as public streets, sidewalks, and parks. Id. “[The] Streets are natural and proper places for the dissemination of information and opinion; and one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place.” Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 97-98, 102, 105-106, 60 S.Ct. 736, 741-742, 744, 746, 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940).

Although a municipality may enact regulations in the interest of the public safety, health, welfare, or convenience, these may not abridge the individual liberties secured by the constitution to those who wish to speak, write, print, or circulate information or opinion. Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 60 S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155 (1939). In Schneider, one appellant was charged with violating a law criminalizing the circulation and distribution of handbills designed, the city said, to prevent littering of the streets even though he did not litter himself—those to whom he handed the literature threw it down. The court said that the city could achieve the same thing without violating appellant’s freedom of speech by punishing those who threw the literature into the streets.

Thornton v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 97-98, 102, 105-106, 60 S.Ct. 736, 741-742, 744, 746, 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940):

“A threat … is inherent in a penal statute … which does not aim specifically at evils within the allowable area of State control but, on the contrary, sweeps within its ambit other activities that in ordinary circumstances constitute an exercise of freedom of speech or of the press. The existence of such a statute, which readily lends itself to harsh and discriminatory enforcement by local prosecuting officials, against particular groups deemed to merit their displeasure, results in a continuous and pervasive restraining on all freedom of discussion that might reasonably be regarded as within its purview….

“Freedom of discussion, if it would fulfill its historic function in this nation, must embrace all issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period….

“[The] streets are natural and proper places for the dissemination of information and opinion; and one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place.”

  1. [Evils within allowable are of state control]

Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1; 69 S. Ct. 894; 93 L. Ed. 1131; 1949 U.S. LEXIS 2400 (1949):

“Freedom of speech, though not absolute, is protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.

“The vitality of civil and political institutions in our society depends on free discussion. As Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365, it is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected. The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.

“Accordingly a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, pp. 571-572, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. See Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 262; Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 373. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.

“The ordinance as construed by the trial court seriously invaded this province. It permitted conviction of petitioner if his speech stirred people to anger, invited public dispute, or brought about a condition of unrest. A conviction resting on any of those grounds may not stand.”

Substantive evils within the allowable are of state control are obstructing or unreasonable interfering with ingress to and egress for enumerated public places, blocking sidewalks, obstructing traffic, littering streets, committing assaults, and engaging in countless other forms of anti-social conduct. Olvera v. State, 806 S.W.2d 546, 548-549 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) citing Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 91, S.Ct. 1686, 29 L.Ed.2d 214 (1971) andCameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611, 88 S.Ct. 1335, 20 L.Ed.2d 182 (1968). Evil within allowable areas of state control include molestation or interference with person and vehicles, obstruction of pedestrians and automobiles, threatening or intimidating or coercing anyone, making loud noises, unpeaceful and disorderly conduct, acts of violence, and breaches of the peace. See, e.g., Carlson v. California, 310 U.S. 106, 60 S.Ct. 746, 84 L.Ed. 1104 (1940), Thornhill v. State of Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 60 S.Ct. 736 (1940), Olvera v. State, 806 S.W. 2d 546 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). See p. 25 of brief.

Municipal legislation meant to keep community streets open and available for movement of people and property is constitutional so long as the legislation does not abridge constitutional liberty of one to impart information through speech and distribution of literature. Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 160, 60 S.Ct. 146, 150, 84 L.Ed. 155 (1939). Crimes may be punished by law, but the freedom of speech and the press may not be abridged in the guise of regulations by the governing entity to prevent littering, fraud, or to promote the public health, welfare, or convenience. Id. While declaring laws unconstitutional which infringe upon first amendment rights, the Court has made clear what a city may do to punish evils within the allowable areas of state control: “[A] city is free to prevent people from blocking sidewalks, obstructing traffic, littering streets, committing assaults, or engaging in countless other forms of anti-social conduct. It can do so through the enactment and enforcement of ordinances directed with reasonable specificity toward the conduct to be prohibited.” Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 91, S.Ct. 1686, 29 L.Ed.2d 214 (1971).

  1. [Disorderly conduct]In Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 92 S. Ct. 1103, 31 L. Ed. 2d 408, a defendant was found guilty of using opprobrious words and abusive language in violation of a Georgia statute. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals declared the statute unconstitutionally vague and broad and set aside defendant’s conviction. “The constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech forbid the States to punish the use of words or  language not within “narrowly limited classes of speech.” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571 (1942).Even as to such a class, however, because “the line between speech unconditionally guaranteed and speech which may legitimately be regulated, suppressed, or punished is finely drawn,” Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 525 (1958), “in every case the power to regulate must be so exercised as not, in attaining a permissible end, unduly to infringe the protected freedom,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 304 (1940).” Government may pass laws which punish “fighting words.” In Chaplinsky, we sustained a conviction under Chapter 378, § 2, of the Public Laws of New Hampshire, which provided: “No person shall address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other public place, nor call him by any offensive or derisive name . . . . ‘Chaplinsky was convicted for addressing to another on a public sidewalk the words, ‘You are a _ _ _ damned racketeer,’ and ‘a damned Fascist and the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists.’ Chaplinsky challenged the constitutionality of the statute as inhibiting freedom of expression because it was vague and indefinite. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire, however, ‘long before  [*523]  the words for which Chaplinsky was convicted,’ sharply limited the statutory language ‘offensive, derisive or annoying word’ to ‘fighting” words’:

“No words were forbidden except such as have a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, the remark is addressed. . . .

“The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. . . . Derisive and annoying words can be taken as coming within the purview of the statute . . . only when they have this characteristic of plainly tending to excite the addressee to a breach of the peace. . . .

“The dictionary definitions of ‘opprobrious’ and ‘abusive’ give them greater reach than “fighting” words. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1961) defined ‘opprobrious’ as ‘conveying or intended to convey disgrace,’ and ‘abusive’ as including ‘harsh insulting language.’ Georgia appellate decisions have construed § 26-6303 to apply to utterances that, although within these definitions, are not ‘fighting’ words as Chaplinsky defines them.”

  1. The state of Louisiana both directly [seeCox v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 574, 85 S.Ct. 476, 486 (1965)] and indirectly [seeCox] attempted unsuccessfully to deny freedom of speech to picketers. The United States Supreme Court ruled against the state in both cases. Louisiana indirectly tried to abridge appellant’s freedom of speech and assembly by charging him with violation of “disturbing the peach” and “obstructing a public passage” penal statutes. 379 U.S. 536, 85 S.Ct. 453 (1965).

As to the “breach of the peace” charge, the Court stated that its independent examination of the record, which it is required to make, shows no conduct which the state had a right to prohibit as a breach of the peace. Id. At 545, 85 S.Ct. at 459. In addressing the “obstructing a public passage” conviction, the Court addressed the issue of the “right of a State or municipality to regulate the use of city streets and other facilities to assure the safety and convenience of the people in their use and concomitant right of the people of free speech and assembly.” Id. At 554, 85 S.Ct. at 464.  There was no doubt that the sidewalk was obstructed by the picketers. Id. At 553, 85 S.Ct. at 464. The Court said that the statute, as applied, violated the appellant’s Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly. Id. At 558, 85 S.Ct. at 466.

  1. [As to when a governmental entity seeks to take away one’s freedom to display signs and banners in conjunction with his protected speech.]A municipality in Carlson v. People of State of California, 310 U.S. 106, 60 S.Ct. 746, 84 L.Ed. 1104 (1940) sought to enforce an ordinance which directly infringed on appellant’s freedom of speech. Carlson declared unconstitutional a municipal ordinance which declared it unlawful for any person, in or upon any public street, highway, sidewalk, alley or other public place … to carry or display any sign or banner in the vicinity of any place of business for the purpose of inducing or attempting to induce an person to refrain from purchasing merchandise or performing services or labor. Id. (emphasis mine).

Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 94 S.Ct. 2727, 41 L.Ed. 2d. 842 (1974): Appellant had displayed an American flag upside down out of his apartment window with a peace symbol attached. at 405-406. The Court noted, and the state conceded, that appellant engaged in a form of communication. at 409, 94 S.Ct. at 2729-2730.

To apply an ordinance to prevent the display of banners or signs in conjunction with protected speech activity violates the speaker’s right to freedom of speech and the rights of the people to whom the speech was directed. [Note for reminder to author: see p. 23-24 of brief].

“An assertion that ‘Jesus Saves,’ that ‘Abortion is Murder,’ that every woman has the ‘right to Choose,’ or that ‘Alcohol Kills,’ may have a claim to constitutional exemption from the ordinance [which prohibited certain political campaign signs] that is just as strong as ‘Roland Vincent—City Council.’ To create an exception for … political speech and not these other types of speech might create a risk of engaging in constitutionally forbidden content discrimination.” Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 104 S.Ct. 2118, 80 L.Ed. 772.

Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, not to mention the First Amendment itself, government may not grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views. Police Department of City of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 96, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 2290, 33 L.Ed. 212 (1972)(Holding a Chicago ordinance unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in a case where the equal protection claim was closely intertwined with First Amendment interests)(p 27 of brief). Once a forum is opened up to assembly or speaking by some groups, government may not prohibit others from assembling or speaking on the basis of what they intend to say. Id. Selective exclusions from a public forum may not be based on content alone, and may not be justified by reference to content alone. Id. Mr. Justice Black called an attempt by a government to pick and choose among the views it is willing to have discussed in picketing activities “censorship in its most odious form, unconstitutional under both the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 85 S. Ct. 453, 13 L.Ed. 2d 471 (1965) cited in 408 U.S. 92, 98-99, 92 S.Ct. 2291; Carey v. Brown, 477 U.S. 455, 100 S.Ct. 2286, 65 L.Ed. 263 (1980) reaffirmed Mosley.

Even if the purpose of an ordinance does not specifically aim at protected speech, it may indicectly attempt to deny freedom of speech. (see p. 34 of brief). Even if the purpose of [an ordinance such as a sign ordinance] is to keep community streets open and available for movement of people and property or to prevent littering, fraud,  to promote the public health, welfare, or convenience, to prevent breaches of the peace or other crimes, it is constitutional only so long as it does  not abridge constitutional liberty or one to impart information through speech and the distribution of literature. See Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 60 S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155 (1939); Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 91 S.Ct. 1686, 29 L.Ed. 2d 214 (1971); Cox v. State of Louisiana,  379 U.S. 536, 85 S.Ct. 453 (1965).

  1. MCCULLEN ET AL. v. COAKLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL.struck down a state law creating 35 foot buffer zones around abortion clinics. This case, which was handed down on June 26, 2014, repeated basic and long-standing Supreme Court jurisprudence concerning speech in the public forum. Some excerpts from the case follow (be sure to read the entire case – click to the above link to go directly to the case):

“Held: The Massachusetts Act violates the First Amendment. Pp. 8–30. (a) By its very terms, the Act restricts access to ‘public way[s]’ and  ‘sidewalk[s],’ places that have traditionally been open for speech activities and that the Court has accordingly labeled “traditional public fora,” Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U. S. 460, 469. The government’s ability to regulate speech in such locations is ‘very limited.’ United States v. Grace, 461 U. S. 171, 177. ‘[E]ven in a public forum,’ however, ‘the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions ‘are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information,’ ‘ Ward, supra, at 791. Pp. 8–10….

“(1) The buffer zones serve the Commonwealth’s legitimate interests in maintaining public safety on streets and sidewalks and in preserving access to adjacent reproductive healthcare facilities. See Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western N. Y., 519 U. S. 357, 376. At the same time, however, they impose serious burdens on petitioners’ speech, depriving them of their two primary methods of communicating with arriving patients: close, personal conversations and distribution of literature. Those forms of expression have historically been closely associated with the transmission of ideas. While the Act may allow petitioners to “protest” outside the buffer zones, petitioners are not protestors; they seek not merely to express their opposition to abortion, but to engage in personal, caring, consensual conversations with women about various alternatives. It is thus no answer to say that petitioners can still be seen and heard by women within the buffer zones. If all that the women can see and hear are vociferous opponents of abortion, then the buffer zones have effectively stifled petitioners’ message. Pp. 19–23.

“(2) The buffer zones burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth’s asserted interests. Subsection (e) of the Act already prohibits deliberate obstruction of clinic entrances. Massachusetts could also enact legislation similar to the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, 18 U. S. C. §248(a)(1), which imposes criminal and civil sanctions for obstructing, intimidating, or interfering with persons obtaining or providing reproductive health services. Obstruction of clinic driveways can readily be addressed through existing local traffic ordinances. While the Commonwealth contends that individuals can inadvertently obstruct access to clinics simply by gathering in large numbers, that problem could be addressed through a law requiring crowds blocking a clinic entrance to disperse for a limited period when ordered to do so by the police. In any event, crowding appears to be a problem onlyat the Boston clinic, and even there, only on Saturday mornings.

“It is no accident that public streets and sidewalks have developed as venues for the exchange of ideas. Even today, they remain one of the few places where a speaker can be confident that he is not simply preaching to the choir. With respect to other means of communication, an individual confronted with an uncomfortable message can always turn the page, change the channel, or leave the Web site. Not so on public streets and sidewalks. There, a listener often encounters speech he might otherwise tune out. In light of the First Amendment’s purpose ‘to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail,’ FCC v. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U. S. 364, 377 (1984) (internal quotation marks omitted), this aspect of traditional public fora is a virtue, not a vice. In short, traditional public fora are areas that have historically been open to the public for speech activities. Thus, even though the Act says nothing about speech on its face, there is no doubt—and respondents do not dispute—that it restricts access to traditional public fora and is therefore subject to First Amendment scrutiny. See Brief for Respondents 26 (although ‘[b]y its terms, the Act regulates only conduct,’ it ‘incidentally regulates the place and time of protected speech’).

“In short, traditional public fora are areas that have historically been open to the public for speech activities. Thus, even though the Act says nothing about speech on its face, there is no doubt—and respondents do not dispute—that it restricts access to traditional public fora and is therefore subject to First Amendment scrutiny. See Brief for Respondents 26 (although ‘[b]y its terms, the Act regulates only conduct,’ it ‘incidentally regulates the place and time of protected speech’). Consistent with the traditionally open character of public streets and sidewalks, we have held that the government’s ability to restrict speech in such locations is ‘very limited.’ Grace, supra, at 177. In particular, the guiding First Amendment principle that the ‘government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content’ applies with full force in a traditional public forum. Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92, 95 (1972). As a general rule, in such a forum the government may not ‘selectively . . . shield the public from some kinds of speech on the ground that they are more offensive than others.’ Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205, 209 (1975).”

g. Constitution of the state of Minnesota

Preamble: “We, the people of the state of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings and secure the same to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

Article I. Bill of Rights:

Sec. 2. Rights and privileges.

No member of this state shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the state otherwise than as punishment for a crime of which the party has been convicted.

Sec. 3. Liberty of the press.

The liberty of the press shall forever remain inviolate, and all persons may freely speak, write and publish their sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right.

Sec. 4. Trial by jury.

The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, and shall extend to all cases at law without regard to the amount in controversy. A jury trial may be waived by the parties in all cases in the manner prescribed by law. The legislature may provide that the agreement of five-sixths of a jury in a civil action or proceeding, after not less than six hours’ deliberation, is a sufficient verdict. The legislature may provide for the number of jurors in a civil action or proceeding, provided that a jury have at least six members. [Amended, November 8, 1988]

Sec. 5. No excessive bail or unusual punishments. …

Sec. 6. Rights of accused in criminal prosecutions. …

Sec. 7. Due process; prosecutions; double jeopardy; self-incrimination; bail; habeas corpus. …

Sec. 8. Redress of injuries or wrongs.

Every person is entitled to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive to his person, property or character, and to obtain justice freely and without purchase, completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, conformable to the laws.

Sec. 9. Treason defined. …

Sec. 10. Unreasonable searches and seizures prohibited. …

Sec. 11. Attainders, ex post facto laws and laws impairing contracts prohibited. …

Sec. 12. Imprisonment for debt; property exemption. …

Sec. 13. Private property for public use. …

Sec. 14. Military power subordinate. …

Sec. 15. Lands allodial; void agricultural leases. …

Sec. 16. Freedom of conscience; no preference to be given to any religious establishment or mode of worship. The enumeration of rights in this constitution shall not deny or impair others retained by and inherent in the people. The right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any man be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any religious or ecclesiastical ministry, against his consent; nor shall any control of or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the state, nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious societies or religious or theological seminaries.

Sec. 17. Religious tests and property qualifications prohibited. No religious test or amount of property shall be required as a qualification for any office of public trust in the state. No religious test or amount of property shall be required as a qualification of any voter at any election in this state; nor shall any person be rendered incompetent to give evidence in any court of law or equity in consequence of his opinion upon the subject of religion.

Cases: To be added.

h. Northfield, Minnesota Code of Ordinances and Charter

Northfield, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> Part 1 Northfield City Charter >> CHAPTER ONE.

Section 1.1. Preamble.

One of our nation’s most cherished qualities is freedom. There can be no freedom, however, without responsibility and order. Written documents governing our nation and state governments clearly declare the right of all persons to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Accompanying statements spell out the responsibilities and order that make freedom possible. It is proper that cities also spell out the freedoms and responsibilities of their citizens that make for good order.

Be it hereby declared that no person in the City of Northfield shall, on the grounds of age, race, color, creed, sex, religion, national origin, marital status or status with regard to public assistance or disability be subjected to discrimination in any form. Human freedom and human rights are indivisible. If anyone is denied equality, no one is free. The following charter is a declaration of the public policy of the City of Northfield to fulfill its responsibility to treat all of its citizens equally and with good order.

BRIDGE SQUARE PARK

AMES PARK

Northfield, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> PART I – NORTHFIELD CITY CHARTER >> CHAPTER TWO. NAME, BOUNDARIES, POWER AND GENERAL PROVISIONS >>

Section 2.2. Powers of the City.

In order to promote and protect the health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience, and welfare of the inhabitants of the city, the city shall have all powers which may now or hereafter be possible for a municipal corporation in this state to exercise in harmony with the constitutions of this state and of the United States. It is the intention of this Charter to confer upon the city every power which it would have if it were specifically mentioned. Unless granted to some other officer or body, all powers are vested in the city council.

 

ASPEN PARK

BABCOCK PARK


Northfield, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> PART I – NORTHFIELD CITY CHARTER >> CHAPTER THREE. FORM OF GOVERNMENT >>

Section 3.7. Investigation of City Affairs.

The council or an officer or officers formally authorized by the council may make investigations into the city’s affairs. The council may provide for an examination or audit of the accounts of an officer or department of the city government. The council may conduct surveys or research studies of subjects of municipal concern.

CAMPOSTELLA PARK

CENTRAL PARK

Northfield, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> PART I – NORTHFIELD CITY CHARTER >> CHAPTER FOUR. PROCEDURE OF COUNCIL >>

Section 4.4. Hearing of the Public.

At each regular meeting of the council a time shall be set aside for the hearing of citizens.

Northfield, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> PART II – NORTHFIELD CODE >> Chapter 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS >>

Sec. 1-1. Designation and citation of Code.

CHAR CARLSON PARK

CHERRY PARK

The ordinances embraced in this and the following chapters shall constitute and be designated the “Northfield, Minnesota, City Code” and may be so cited. Such ordinances may also be cited as the “Northfield Code.”

…

Sec. 1-2. Definitions and rules of construction.

The following definitions and rules of construction shall apply to this Code and to all ordinances and resolutions unless the context requires otherwise:

…

DRESDEN PARK

  1. A. RYSGAARD PARK

City. The term “city” means the City of Northfield, Minnesota.

City council and council. The terms “city council” and “council” mean the council of the City of Northfield, Minnesota.

Code. The term “Code” means the Northfield, Minnesota, City Code, as designated in section 1-1.

…

Delegation of authority. A provision that authorizes or requires a city officer or city employee to perform an act or make a decision authorizes such officer or employee to act or make a decision through subordinates.

GRANT PARK

HAUBERG WOODS PARK

…

Minn. Stat. The abbreviation “Minn. Stat.” means the Minnesota Statutes, as amended.

…

Owner. The term “owner,” as applied to property, includes any part owner, joint owner, tenant in common, tenant in partnership, joint tenant or tenant by the entirety of the whole or part of such property.

Person. The term “person” means any human being; any governmental or political subdivision or public agency; any public or private corporation; any partnership; any firm, association or other organization; any receiver, trustee, assignee, agent, or other legal representative of any of the foregoing; or any other legal entity.

HERITAGE PARK

HEYWOOD PARK


Personal property. The term “personal property” means any property other than real property.

…

Premises. The term “premises,” as applied to real property, includes land and structures.

Property. The term “property” includes real property, personal property and mixed property.

Real property, real estate and land. The terms “real property,” “real estate,” and “land” include lands, buildings, tenements and hereditaments and all rights and interests therein, except chattel interests.

HIDDEN VALLEY PARK

JEFFERSON PARK

…

Sidewalk. The term “sidewalk” means that portion of a street between the curbline, or the lateral lines of a roadway where there is no curb, and the adjacent property line, intended for the use of pedestrians. If there is no public area between the lateral lines of the roadway and the abutting property line, the area immediately abutting the street line shall be construed as the sidewalk.

…

State. The term “state” means the State of Minnesota.

JOHN NORTH PARK

LASHBROOK PARK

Street. The term “street” means any alley, avenue, boulevard, highway, road, lane, viaduct, bridge and the approach thereto, and any other public thoroughfare in the city. The term “street” also means the entire width thereof between abutting property lines. The term “street” includes a sidewalk or footpath.

…

(c) Unless specified otherwise, all references to chapters or sections are to chapters or sections of this Code.

…

LIBERTY PARK

ODD FELLOWS

Sec. 1-8. General penalty; continuing violations.

(a) In this section the phrase “violation of this Code” means any of the following:

(1) Doing an act that is prohibited or made or declared unlawful, an offense, a violation or a misdemeanor by ordinance or by rule or regulation authorized by ordinance.

(2) Failure to perform an act that is required to be performed by ordinance or by rule or regulation authorized by ordinance.

(3) Failure to perform an act if the failure is prohibited or is made or declared unlawful, an offense, a violation or a misdemeanor by ordinance or by rule or regulation authorized by ordinance.

OLD MEMORIAL FIELD

PAR MEADOW PARK

(4) Counseling, aiding or abetting a violation of this Code as defined in this subsection.

(b) In this section the phrase “violation of this Code” does not include the failure of a city officer or city employee to perform an official duty unless it is specifically provided that the failure to perform the duty is to be punished as provided in this section.

(c) Except as otherwise provided by law or ordinance:

(1) A person convicted of a violation of this Code that is not a petty misdemeanor shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00, imprisonment for a term not exceeding 90 days, or any combination thereof.

PRAIRIE HILLS PARK

RIVERSIDE LIONS PARK

(2) A person convicted of a violation of this Code that is a petty misdemeanor shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $300.00.

(d) In any case a person convicted of a violation of this Code shall pay the costs of prosecution. Except as otherwise provided by law or ordinance:

(1) With respect to violations of this Code that are continuous with respect to time, each day that the violation continues is a separate offense.

(2) With respect to other violations, each act constitutes a separate offense.

(e) The imposition of a penalty does not prevent suspension or revocation of a license, permit or franchise or other administrative sanctions.

(f) Violations of this Code that are continuous with respect to time are a public nuisance and may be abated by injunctive or other equitable relief. The

ROOSEVELT PARK

 

SECHLAR PARK

imposition of a penalty does not prevent injunctive relief.

(Code 1986, § 960:00)

State law reference— Authorized penalty for ordinance violations, Minn. Stat. §§ 410.33, 412.231, 609.0332, 609.034.

…

Sec. 1-11. Code does not affect prior offenses or rights.

SIBLEY SWALE PARK

SPRING CREEK PARK

(a) Nothing in this Code or the ordinance adopting this Code affects any offense or act committed or done, any penalty or forfeiture incurred, or any contract or right established before the effective date of this Code.

…

Northfield, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> PART II – NORTHFIELD CODE >> Chapter 46 NUISANCES >>

Sec. 46-4. Obstruction of public way.

TRUMAN PARK

TYLER PARK

No person shall encumber the city streets, sidewalks, alleys, lanes or public grounds with carriages, carts, wagons, sleighs or other vehicles or with boxes, lumber, firewood, posts, awnings, paper, ashes, refuse, offal, dirt, garbage, stones or other material or obstruction of any kind.

Northfield, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> PART II – NORTHFIELD CODE >> Chapter 50 – OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS >> ARTICLE II. OFFENSES INVOLVING PROPERTY RIGHTS >>

Sec. 50-26. Criminal trespass.

No person shall:

WASHINGTON PARK

WAY PARK

(1)   Intentionally enter upon the property of another and, without claim of right, refuse to depart therefrom on demand of the owner, lawful possessor or person with authority to control access to the property;

(2) Intentionally enter upon the property of another without express consent of the owner, lawful possessor or person with authority to control access to the property in the following situations:

  1. After such person has been given written notice by the owner, lawful possessor or person with authority to control access to the property directing that such person not enter upon the property; the written notice may be given to the person by certified mail or by service as provided for civil process; or
  2. After the property has been conspicuously posted with a notice directing that no person or no person other than persons included in a named classification enter upon the property at any time or at specifically stated times; or

(3) Intentionally enter a building or structure of any kind without the consent, express or implied, of the owner, lawful possessor or person with authority to control access to the building or structure. Whoever enters a building or structure while open to the general public does so with consent, unless consent is withdrawn by giving notice to such person directing that such person not enter the building or structure; the written notice may be given to the person by certified mail or by service as provided for civil process.

(Code 1986, § 955:00)

State law reference— Trespass, Minn. Stat. § 609.605.

Sec. 50-27. Defacing sidewalks or public structures.

No person shall write, print, stick, post, or place any bill, placard or sign of any description upon the sidewalks or other public structure of the city.

Northfield, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> PART II – NORTHFIELD CODE >> Chapter 50 – OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS >> ARTICLE IV. OFFENSES INVOLVING PUBLIC PEACE AND ORDER >>

Sec. 50-86. Disorderly conduct.

Sec. 50-87. Noisy parties or assemblies.

Sec. 50-88. Social host.

Secs. 50-89—50-115. Reserved.

Sec. 50-86. Disorderly conduct.

No person shall:

(1) Commit any assault;

(2) Engage in brawling or fighting;

(3) Disturb an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character;

(4) Spit upon any sidewalk or crosswalk;

(5) Appear in public or any exposed place in a state of nudity or in any indecent or lewd dress;

(6) Annoy, disturb, interfere with, obstruct or be offensive to others to a degree whereby a breach of peace may be or is likely to be occasioned;

(7) Fail or refuse to obey a police officer’s lawful order; or

(8) Be guilty of any indecent or obscene acts or any lewd, indecent or obscene conduct, language, or behavior.

Sec. 50-87. Noisy parties or assemblies.

(a) Any person who participates in any party or assembly of two or more people from which noise emanates of a sufficient volume or of sufficient nature to disturb the peace, quiet or repose of another person is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any owner or tenant of the place at which a disturbance is occurring, who has knowledge of the disturbance and fails to immediately abate the disturbance, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(b) A police officer may order all persons present at a noisy party or assembly prohibited in subsection (a) of this section, other than the owners or tenants of the place at which the disturbance is occurring, to immediately disburse. Any person who shall refuse to leave after being so ordered to do so by a police officer shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Sec. 50-88. Social host. …

Northfield, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> PART II – NORTHFIELD CODE >> Chapter 50 – OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS >> ARTICLE V. OFFENSES INVOLVING PUBLIC MORALS >>

Sec. 50-116. Curfew for minors.

(a) The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

Public parks and walkways includes Sechler Park; Odd Fellows Park; Central Park; Babcock Park; Way Park; Riverside Park; Cherry Park; Sibley Marsh; Sibley Swale; Bridge Square; Riverwalkway from Second Street to Fifth Street; River Pedestrian Bridge; and any park, playground or walkway maintained by the city. [Emphasis mine]

Public places includes public streets, parking lots, highways, roads, alleys, public buildings and grounds; places of amusement, refreshment or entertainment; vacant lots; or other unsupported places. [Emphasis mine]

Responsible adult includes a parent, legal guardian, or his/her adult designee, having care and custody of a minor under the age of 18 or any adult having responsibility for a supervised activity.

Supervised activity includes events sponsored and supervised by schools, churches or civic groups or events where a responsible adult is present.

(b) No minor under the age of 16 shall loiter, loaf or be idle in a public place or public park or walkway between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. of the following day unless in the company of a responsible adult or going to, attending, or returning from a supervised activity.

(c) No minor under the age of 18 and over the age of 15 shall loiter, loaf or be idle in a public place or park or walkway between the hours of 12:00 midnight and 5:00 a.m. the following day unless in the company of a responsible adult or going to, attending, or returning from a supervised event.

(d) No parent, legal guardian or other adult having the care and custody of a minor under the age of 18 shall knowingly permit such minor to violate subsection (b) or (c) of this section.

(e) No person operating or in charge of any place of amusement, entertainment, or refreshment shall knowingly permit any minor under the age of 18 to loiter, loaf or be idle in such place during the hours prohibited by this section. This subsection shall not apply when the minor is accompanied by his/her parents, legal guardian, or other adult having the care and custody of the minor.

(f) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the minor was:

(1) On an errand at the direction of the minor’s parent or guardian, without any detour or stop;

(2) In a motor vehicle involved in interstate travel;

(3) Engaged in an employment activity, or going to or returning home from an employment activity, without any detour or stop;

(4) Involved in an emergency;

(5) On the sidewalk abutting the minor’s residence or abutting the residence of a next-door neighbor if the neighbor did not complain to the police department about the minor’s presence;

(6) Attending an official school, religious, or other recreational activity supervised by adults and sponsored by the school district, a civic organization, or another similar entity that takes responsibility for the minor; or going to or returning home from, without any detour or stop, an official school, religious, or other recreational activity supervised by adults and sponsored by the city, a civic organization, or another similar entity that takes responsibility for the minor; or

(7) Exercising First Amendment rights protected by the United States Constitution, such as the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and the right of assembly. [Emphasis mine]

(g) Any person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor and punished by a fine of not more than $100.00.

(Code 1986, §§ 930:00—930:20)

Northfield, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> PART II – NORTHFIELD CODE >> Chapter 54 – PARKS AND RECREATION >> ARTICLE II. PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD >>
Sec. 54-61. Closing hours of parks.

All city parks as defined in section 50-116(a) shall be closed between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. the following day. Any person found in the parks after closing hours shall be in violation of this section. Exceptions to this section shall include annual Defeat of Jesse James Days events, any person or groups granted special permission by city officials or city staff, or any person or groups wanting to camp overnight, after first obtaining permission from the police department. All permissions or special permissions referenced in this section shall be granted upon a showing that there will be compliance with all laws and ordinances and a showing that the proposed activity will not endanger park property, the public peace or the public safety.

Northfield, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> PART II – NORTHFIELD CODE >> Chapter 58 – PEDDLERS, SOLICITORS AND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS >> ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL >> (IN case needed for future reference)

Sec. 58-1. Definitions.

The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:

Peddler means any person who goes from house to house, place to place or from street to street conveying or transporting goods, wares or merchandise or offering or exposing the goods, wares or merchandise for sale, or making sales and delivering articles to purchasers. The term “peddler” does not include vendors of milk, bakery products, groceries, food products or ice, who distribute their products to regular customers on established routes.

Solicitor means any person who goes from house to house, place to place, or street to street, soliciting or taking or attempting to take orders for sale of goods, wares or merchandise, including magazines, books, periodicals or personal property of any nature for future delivery, or for service to be performed in the future, whether or not such individual has, carries or exposes for sale a sample of the subject of such order or whether or not advance payments on such orders are collected. The term “solicitor” includes any person who, for himself/herself or another, hires, leases, uses or occupies any building, motor vehicle, trailer, structure, tent, railroad boxcar, boat, hotel room, lodginghouse, apartment, shop or other place within the city for the primary purpose of exhibiting samples and taking orders for future delivery.

Transient merchant means any person, whether as owner, agent, consignee or employee, who engages in a temporary business of selling and delivering goods, wares and merchandise within the city and who, in furtherance of such purposes, hires, leases, uses or occupies any building, structure, motor vehicle, trailer, tent, railroad boxcar, boat, public room in a hotel, lodginghouse, apartment, shop or any street, alley or other place within the city for the exhibition and sale of such goods, wares and merchandise, either privately or at public auction, provided that the term “transient merchant” shall not be construed to include any person who, while occupying such temporary location, does not sell from stock, but exhibits samples for the purpose of securing orders for future delivery only.

…

Sec. 58-3. Religious and charitable organizations.

(a)   Any organization, society, association or corporation (“organization”) desiring to solicit or to have solicited in its name money, donations of money or property, or financial assistance of any kind or desiring to sell or distribute any item of literature or merchandise for which a fee is charged or solicited from persons other than members of such organization upon the streets, in office or business buildings, by house-to-house canvas, or in public places for a charitable, religious, patriotic or philanthropic purpose is exempt from article II of this chapter, provided there is filed a sworn application in writing on a form to be furnished by the finance director/city clerk which contains the following information:

(1)   The organization’s name and the specific cause for which exemption is sought;

(2)   Names and addresses of the officers and directors of the organization;

(3)   The period during which solicitation is to be carried on; and

(4)   Whether or not any commission, fee, wage or emolument is to be expended in connection with such solicitation and the amount thereof.

(b)   Upon being satisfied that such an organization is a religious, charitable, patriotic or philanthropic organization, the finance director/city clerk shall issue a license without a fee to such organization. Such organization shall furnish all of its members, agents or representatives conducting solicitation credentials in writing stating the name of the organization, the name of the agent and the purpose of the solicitation.

…

Sec. 58-7. Penalty.

Any person convicted of violating any provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor. Each violation shall constitute a separate offense.

 

–

 

Miscellaneous

Examples of correct police conduct and correct response to illegal police conduct

Leave a comment

Police Protect our Freedom of Speech in McKinney

Pastor Jason Cooley gives a police officer a lesson in how to act and the law: Steel County Sheriff Short Circuits When Respectfully Challenged on the Law (082215)(This incident was reported on Infowars.com at: http://www.infowars.com/cop-short-circuits-after-preacher-eloquently-refused-to-be-pushed-into-free-speech-zone/)

A fine example of police bravery and action in Garland, Texas in protecting people exercising their constitutional rights (freedom of speech) is described in the article: 

Garland, Texas, Shooting Suspect Linked Himself To ISIS In Tweets

  • The police officers are to be commended for bravely doing their job according to the law, the United States Constitution. Two Muslims, according to the article, “wore body armor. They carried assault rifles. And one had declared loyalty to ISIS.” Unlike many peace officers in America, these public servants took action to protect innocent Americans involved in protected speech activity. Too often, peace offices become law breakers, abuse their authority, disobey the law, interfere with protected speech activity of speakers in the public forum, and even abuse those speakers instead of doing the right  and lawful thing by protecting those speakers and arresting those who give false reports to the police, assault the speakers, interfere unlawfully with the speakers activities, etc.
  • A good article on Muslim immigration and its effects is: Concerns Of Muslim Immigration Surge Into Western World Come Into Focus(050715)
  • Go toMore Questions… for lawyers’ answers to the following questions posted on AVVO concerning the event:

“Why isn’t the contest to draw Mohammad in Garland Tx recently the same as yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater and not protected a known hate group held a contest to draw a “cartoon” of the Muslim prophet, Mohammad? In doing so, the group knew full well it would likely result in violence against those attending. In fact, only the Muslim protesting the drawing were killed as they approached the facility armed with weapons.”  Get some legal answers to this question by clicking here.