Category Archives: Uncategorized

Section I, Chapter 6: The Bible Trust Relationship with Property is Not Something New: It was God’s plan starting with Adam and Eve

Click here to go to the following webpage for Table of Contents with links to all chapters of: Simply Church: The Holy Union of Christ and His Local Church

Appendix 1 gives links to resources which explain why church incorporation, federal tax exempt status, and other statutory or legal status of churches betray the love relationship between Christ and His churches.

Copyright © by Jerald Finney
March 4, 2023

Introduction

Legal scholars have unsuccessfully sought to uncover the origin of the trust relationship with property. They did not go to the source which would have given them the answer: the Word of God. The Bible Trust relationship with property is a concept, a plan created by God. He was the trustor, settlor, or grantor. The property held in trust is the trust estate. Man is the trustee or steward, the person who has a fiduciary duty to hold and manage the trust estate solely for the glory and benefit of the true owner, God.

The Bible Trust is inherent in the execution of God’s plan for the relationship of mankind with His creation. God owns the earth and all that is in it, to include every person. He entrusted man with the responsibility of holding and managing His properties, earthly and spiritual, solely for His benefit, for His glory. After creating man, “God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Genesis 1:28). “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.” (Genesis 2:15).

That same trust relationship is still in effect. Everyone is responsible to God for managing His properties. God will hold everyone who has reached the age of accountability responsible for how he exercises his fiduciary duty to hold and manage all that God entrusts him with.

When one examines New Testament Church doctrine, one finds that God’s plan is for the local church to be exclusively a heavenly, spiritual, eternal organism only, not an earthly, material, temporal organization or a hybrid of the two. This is thoroughly examined in Part I of God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application. God has entrusted civil government with earthly matters and the church with spiritual matters. Distinct difference between church and state render them mutually exclusive.

New Testament churches were organized according to God’s plan. They had no relationship whatsoever with the state. They acted as spiritual entities only. They entered into no contract with the state or any other entity, owed no debt, depended upon God for everything and the state for nothing, owned nothing, had no employees and therefore paid no salaries, held no bank accounts, held title to no real estate, leased no property, etc.

Of course, as is made clear in Romans 13:8-10 and other New Testament passages, believers and church members are subject to civil government for their relationship with man (the Second Table of the Law), but not for their relationship with  God (the First Table of the Law). God gave civil government temporal earthly jurisdiction over evil doers, those who commit crimes against another or others. He gave the church eternal heavenly jurisdiction over His children. Thus, as to heavenly matters, the church and the believer are to “obey God rather than men.” They are to have no authority over them in those matters other than the Lord Jesus Christ and His Word. Again, see Part I of God Betrayed.

A local church can organize and operate according to God’s will as did churches in the New Testament. As to organization, she can do so by practicing God’s Bible Trust plan. Even better, she can declare the Bible Trust Relationship with both God’s earthly and spiritual properties in writing.

This lesson will explain that:

  1. Although man recognizes the concept of trust, secular scholars have not found its origin.
  2. God originated the Bible (common law) Trust relationship with property, both material/temporal and spiritual/eternal.
  3. There is only one way which a church may organize in compliance with Bible Church Doctrine. The churches in the New Testament all recognized and applied the doctrine of the Bible Trust.

 1. Although man recognizes the concept of trust, secular scholars have not found its origin.

Efforts of scholars to trace the origin have been futile. Whether these origins are Roman, Canonical or Germanic [or of some other origin] remains an unresolved question. …” Trusts, trust-like concepts and ius commune, 8 Eur. Rev. Private L. 453 (2000), C. H. Van Rhee See,  En[i],  (This article can be viewed and/or downloaded at: https://www.academia.edu/5937188/Trusts_Trust_like_Concepts_and_Ius_Commune. It can also be downloaded and viewed at https://www.academia.edu/3568421/On_the_Origin_of_the_Uses_and_Trusts?email_work_card=view-paper.)

The Roman Catholic “Church,” with all its heresies understood this matter, although with some distortion, a long time ago:

  • “Trust-like devices were popular in the Church [speaking of the Roman Catholic ‘church’], since they allowed this institution to accumulate the necessary means to discharge its tasks. At the same time, these devices preempted the criticism that the Church was not practising [sic] its own teachings on the spiritual dangers of wealth. The wealth accumulated by the Church was not regarded as property owned by the Church itself. According to S. Herman, it was said to belong to God the Father as sovereign Lord, the Pope and his clerical lieutenants acting as His stewards. In trust terminology: God acted as ‘settlor’, while the Pope and his clerical lieutenants acted as trustees. Christ, the meek, the poor and the congregation were usually designated as ‘beneficiaries’. God, as the settlor, also figured as the ultimate beneficiary of creation. In this way, the wealth of the Church could be justified, since the Church simply acted as a depositary of goods created for all. Church officials were charged with managing the goods entrusted to them as ‘trustees’ and with using them for the good of the community. ” See Trusts, Trust-Like Concepts and Ius Commune…;Op Cit.

Of course, this Catholic misunderstanding allowed the Institution of the Roman Catholic “Church” to prosper and store up tremendous wealth while the clergy lived a luxurious life (the “beneficiaries” in practice although not in name) since the trust estate was not used for the benefit of God according to his will, the true owner of everything. Nonetheless, even though misapplying the concept, Catholicism recognized it.

2. God originated the Bible (common law) Trust relationship with property, both material/temporal and spiritual/eternal.

Had scholars considered all the evidence, they would have discovered that the concept of trust was originated by God in the manner in which He ordered things. The plan started when God created and covenanted with man; it is evident throughout the Word of God. “Trust” (also explicitly stated), “trust estate,” “trustor,” (or “grantor” or “settlor”), “trustee” or “steward,” “beneficiary,” and “fiduciary” are all found in the Bible. The concept is just part of the way things work, the way God arranged things, as He explains in His Word.

The principle of trust originated with God. God embedded this precept in His word and it is seen from Genesis to Revelation and in all dispensations. God has administered his rule over the world in various dispensations or economies as He progressively works out His purpose of world history. Primarily, dispensations are stewardships. All in a particular dispensational economy are stewards (trustees), although one man usually stands out. For example, Paul was used by God more than any other to reveal His grace and to record the doctrine of the church as dictated by God. Nonetheless, all the apostles and every other believer are also stewards of God’s grace. All have a responsibility to respond to that grace. God will judge those who fail to do so. (Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), pp. 56-57; for an more detailed analysis of dispensations and dispensationalism, see the short article The Essence of Dispensationalism).

Some meanings of trust, as given in the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, are:

  1. Confidence; a reliance or resting of the mind on the integrity, veracity, justice, friendship or other sound principle of another person. He that putteth his trust in the Lord shall be safe. Proverbs 29:25.
  2. Something committed to a person’s care for use or management, and for which an account must be rendered. Every man’s talents and advantages are a trust committed to him by his Maker, and for the use or employment of which he is accountable.

This article will deal with definition 2 above. From that definition, one can see that the God ordained a trust arrangement with mankind.

God owns everything—the land, everyone, and everything. That ownership is implicit in the fact that He created it all. (Ge. 1). He clearly stated His ownership of all in His Word:

  • God said, “Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:” (Ex. 19.5).
  • God said, “The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me.” (Le. 25.23).
  • “Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine isthe kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all. Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reignest over all; and in thine hand is power and might; and in thine hand it is to make great, and to give strength unto all” (1 Chronicles 29:11-12).
  • “The earth isthe LORD’S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.” (Ps. 24.1).
  • God said, “For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.” (Ps. 50.10).
  • “The heavens are thine [God’s], the earth also is thine: as for the world and the fulness thereof, thou hast founded them.” (Ps. 89.11).
  • “The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the LORD of hosts.” (Hag. 2.8).

Re.4.11God, the true owner of all things, entrusted man, under God, with the earth and all that is in it. God entrusted man with His property. Man was put in trust to administer God’s earthly property according to God’s plan. Man benefited from use of the property entrusted him. Man was to use the property God entrusted him with for the glory of God, for God’s pleasure (Revelation 4.11). God entrusted a New Testament church to the members of the church. Church members are trustees of the church they are members of.

Man is a fiduciary under God. Fiduciary, as a noun, means “One who holds a thing in trust; a trustee.” Man, as trustee, had a fiduciary duty to hold and administer God’s property for the benefit of God. Church members have a fiduciary duty to organize and operate the church they belong to according to God’s guidelines as stated in the New Testament. Fiduciary as an adjective means, “Not to be doubted; as fiduciary obedience” or “Held in trust.” Man benefits from use of God’s property and church members benefit from belonging to a church under God only.

God, the trustor, ordered man, the trustee, in the Garden of Eden, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” (Ge. 2:16-17). Eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a violation of man’s fiduciary duty to administer God’s property according to the will of the true, beneficial, and equitable owner of the property.

When God entrusted Adam and Eve with the earth and all that is in it, he gave them responsibilities:

Ge.1.26-28“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.  And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.  And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.  And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” (Ge. 1.28-31).

Man violated his duty and God held him accountable. Satan lied to the woman and tempted her to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.  And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” (Ge. 3:6-7).

God then judged man, woman, and Satan. Things changed. “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” (Ge. 3:22-24)

Man remained in trust of all that God gave him. Mankind continued as trustee of God’s earthly property. Man had legal (temporal earthly) title to God’s earthly property. Later, after the flood, God divided the earth into the nations and instituted civil government–the rule of man by man under God for the purpose of controlling evil doers. The perpetual principle that nations—Gentile nations and Israel—and individuals were left in trust of land and all things for the benefit of God continues.

3. There is only one way which a church may organize in compliance with Bible Church Doctrine. The churches in the New Testament all recognized and applied the doctrine of the Bible Trust.

He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own? No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” Luke 16:10-13

Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.” 1 Corinthians 4.1-2

But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts.” 1 Thessalonians 2:4

According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.” 1 Timothy 1:11

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:” 1 Timothy 6:20

As recorded in the New Testament, God ordained his church, an institution made up of local autonomous spiritual bodies. The churches in the New Testament followed the doctrine given them by God through the apostle Paul. They were “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” and were built “together for an habitation of God through the spirit” (Ephesians 2:20-22). They were spiritual, not earthly, entities. God made them to “sit together in heavenly [not earthly] places in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:6). They entered into no contract with the state or any other entity, owed no debt, depended upon God for everything and the state for nothing, owned nothing, had no employees and therefore paid no salaries, held no bank accounts, held title to no real estate, leased no property, and acted legally in no way. Church members were the church. Church members therefore gave to God, not to the church, not to themselves. Someone was entrusted with managing their gifts for the glory of God (See Acts 4:34-37) and according to His will with His Word as their guide.

They were under the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, and him alone, entirely separate from all civil government. Of course, civil government unlawfully took authority over individual believers, as they had done with our Lord.

God’s doctrine for his churches has not changed. Man’s doctrine has changed. Thus, most churches in America choose to unite with civil government for many purposes. They choose to become legal entities such as non-profit corporations, charitable trusts, and Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) or Section 508(c)(1)(A) tax exempt worldly organizations.

A church can choose to remain a spiritual entity only by utilizing the Bible concept of trust, by practicing the God’s Bible Trust plan. Churches in any nation can do things God’s way. In many countries they will be persecuted for so doing. Churches in America can, without persecution, choose to operate as did the original churches. They can do so without any documentation other than the Holy King James Bible. However, should they wish their gifts and offerings to God to be held in a checking account, they will need to execute documents which establish a Bible Trust; then the trustee of the trust, not the church, can open a checking account whose owner is the Lord Jesus Christ. Should they wish some of their offerings to God to be used to rent or lease a meeting facility or to buy such a facility, they will need documentation so that the title or lease will be held in the name of the trust signed by the trustee, the owner being the Lord Jesus Christ.

Remember that the true owner of the trust estate is the Lord Jesus Christ; the trustee is merely the legal owner whose duty is to hold and manage the trust estate solely for the benefit of the Lord Jesus Christ. In other words, the trustee as legal owner acts solely for the true owner, the Lord Jesus, not for himself.

The trustor church declares the trust relationship. The  trustee is the appointed temporal and legal owner of the trust estate, and the Lord Jesus Christ is the true, beneficial, and equitable owner of the property held in the trust estate. Gifts, tithes, and offerings are to God (to the trust estate which is owned by God), not to the church. The church is the giver, God is the recipient and owner. God’s money is placed in a checking account owned by Him, not in a checking account owned by the church or by the church corporation.

The trust is not an entity or organization, but merely a relationship with property. The church remains totally under the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ and His word as long as she does not act legally (See, Chapter 3: How a Church Can Nullify the Bible Trust Relationship with Property).

The trustee does not hold the property for the church. The trustee holds and manages the property for the benefit of, and according to the will of, the true owner of the property, the Lord Jesus Christ. The trustee is the legal owner of the property and the Lord Jesus Christ is the true, equitable, and beneficial owner. The trustee has a fiduciary duty under God to use the property, not for his own or the trustor church’s benefit, but for the benefit of the Lord Jesus Christ.

When a church assembles together, God owns the land upon which they meet. Although the trustee has the temporal and legal title to the land, God is the true, beneficial, and equitable owner. An equitable owner is “[o]ne who is recognized in equity as owner of the property, because real and beneficial use and title belong to him, even though bare legal title is invested in another.” (BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (6th Ed. 1990), 539). “In a trust relationship, as distinguished from a ‘contract,’ there is always a divided ownership of property, to which the trustee usually has legal title and cestui [que trust] an equitable title.” (90 C.J.S. Trusts § 1, fn. 13 (2007). C.J.S., like AM. JUR 2D, is a highly respected, used, and cited legal encyclopedia). The church does not make Jesus the owner since he is the owner no matter what the church does. The church merely declares and practices the truth: that Jesus Christ is the owner of all, including the real estate upon which the church assembles.

God’s plan requires that man hold legal title to His real property. A church under Christ alone, a spiritual entity only (See, e.g., Ephesians 2:19-22), cannot hold title (an earthly legal declaration of temporal ownership) to property. Nor can a church under Christ alone hold “church property” through a trustee or trustees. If title to property is in the name of church, or if the church holds property through a trustee of a trust, the church has acted legally and is a temporal earthly entity and not a spiritual entity only because she has entwined herself with man’s earthly legal system. Some trusts improperly state that church property will be held by a trustee for the benefit of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is a type of trust arrangement, but it compromises the spiritual only status of the church and combines the holy with the unholy, the church and the state. Corporations (aggregate of sole, profit or non-profit), charitable trusts, business trusts, and Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3) and § 508 organizations are legal entities. A church who owns property through one of these legal devises is asserting ownership, as she is if she owns property in the name of the church.

A  church who does not hold property but puts property into a trust estate of a properly structured Bible Trust is not acting legally. By definition, that trust is not a legal entity. The trustee of such a trust holds legal or earthly title to the property in the trust estate. He, like every citizen in his right mind, is a legal entity. Of course, if he is born again, he is also a spiritual entity (1 Corinthians 2:14-16). Thus, any property a church meets on is temporarily held by a legal entity, whether a person, a corporation, a charitable trust, or some other kind of legal entity. However, only with a properly structured Bible Trust is the property declared to be owned by the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Bible instructs the saved man to obey man as to certain temporal earthly matters and God as to eternal spiritual  matters (See Romans 13 and Render Unto God the Things That Are His/A Systematic Study of Romans 13 and Related Verses). A church under Christ alone is eternal and spiritual and subject to the jurisdiction of God only. God’s desires total separation of civil government and the church: separation of church and state, separation of the temporal and earthly from the eternal and spiritual (See, God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principals and the American Application).

Real property is temporal and earthly and must have a legal owner. The legal owner is entrusted with God’s property; and God, the trustor, desires that the legal owner use the property solely for His benefit. This is true regardless of whether the legal owner knows this or not. He is to administer the property, if any, for the benefit of the true owner of the property, the Lord Jesus Christ.

When a church establishes the Bible Trust:

  1. She obeys God’s will;
  2. She lessens the chances that the property, and especially the buildings, will become idols. “Their idols are … the work of men’s hands.  … They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them.” (Psalm 115.4-8);
  3. She has not prostituted herself by combining the holy with the unholy;
  4. She has chosen not to be structured like a business or a government created organization;
  5. She can operate according to the principles in the New Testament;
  6. Members of His churches give to Him, not to their church. If church members (a church is made of her members ) give to a church, that church gives to herself. The money given by members of an incorporated church go into the church, inc. bank account. The corporation is owned by the members. When members of a church who give to the church, they are technically giving to themselves since they are the church. Of course, many believers in churches not organized according to the principles of the New Testament, while giving to the churches they are members of, not to God, believe in their heart they are giving to God. I believe God will honor their giving, even though not according to knowledge, understanding and wisdom. However, when one grows to understand the truth about giving to God, he has a responsibility to begin to do things God’s way.
  7. The minds of the members have not been corrupted from he simplicity that is in Christ (See, 2 Corinthians 11:1-3).

Endnote

[i] Trusts, Trust-Like Concepts and Ius Commune, 8 Eur. Rev. Private L. 453 (2000), C. H. van Rhee:  This article concludes:

Trust and Ius Commune: an Assessment
On the basis of the above, several conclusions may be drawn. Firstly, it may be concluded that it is very likely that the origins of the trust cannot completely be traced. Whether these origins are Roman, Canonical or Germanic remains an unresolved question. A link between Romanocanonical usus -Roman usus in a Canonical guise- and the trust seems the most promising of all possible links. However, much research needs to be conducted of ecclesiastical records both on the continent and in England. Examining these records should be the primary aim of legal historians interested in the origins of the trust.

“Secondly, the nineteenth-century shift from Roman law to indigenous law as the alleged origins of the trust did not change the position of the trust as a concept which may be placed in the ius commune tradition. Both the Germanic and Romano-canonical origins of the trust are of interest to scholars studying the question of whether trusts are part of a shared European tradition. As we know, ius commune comprised elements from both the Germanic and the Romano-canonical legal traditions.

“And thirdly, it may be concluded that it is very unlikely that there has been an exact
continental equivalent to the English ‘use’ or trust. The conclusion may be drawn that trust law cannot be viewed as an amalgam of concepts from the Corpus Iuris. This conclusion has also been drawn by Kenneth Reid (see his paper), who alleges that the modern trust is a relatively new concept, which cannot be explained solely by a contract/real right model. Nevertheless, we must continue to ask the question whether the uncovered similarities amount to more than parallels reflecting similar social conditions. My answer to this question is that it is very likely that English trust law was influenced by ideas on the Continent. This is not too bold a statement paying regard to the influence of the ecclesiastical courts in England as well as to the fact that English civilians frequently used Roman and Canon law texts when describing trusts.”

An interesting except from the article:

“Trust-like devices were popular in the Church [speaking of the Roman Catholic ‘church’], since they allowed this institution to accumulate the necessary means to discharge its tasks. At the same time, these devices preempted the criticism that the Church was not practising [sic] its own teachings on the spiritual dangers of wealth. The wealth accumulated by the Church was not regarded as property owned by the Church itself. According to S. Herman, it was said to belong to God the Father as sovereign Lord, the Pope and his clerical lieutenants acting as His stewards. In trust terminology: God acted as ‘settlor’, while the Pope and his clerical lieutenants acted as trustees. Christ, the meek, the poor and the congregation were usually designated as ‘beneficiaries’. God, as the settlor, also figured as the ultimate beneficiary of creation. In this way, the wealth of the Church could be justified, since the Church simply acted as a depositary of goods created for all. Church officials were charged with managing the goods entrusted to them as ‘trustees’ and with using them for the good of the community.”

Christ Has Removed the Candlesticks of Most Traditional American “Bible Believing Churches”

Jerald Finney
February 27, 2023

Bible teaching on heresy and apostasy (from God Betrayed, published in 2008):

Tracts:

Every year for decades, Christ has removed the candlesticks of untold numbers of traditional American “Bible Believing Churches,” churches who do not have the power of God. Those churches are either ceasing to exist or going into apostasy (Emerging Church, Charismatic Movement, etc.). Sadly, most believers and churches have no clue as to why this is happening since they have not diligently studied and applied God’s Word. “Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29). Without knowing the Scriptures, a church cannot have the power of God. Christ does not come upon churches unawares. He admonishes before chastising, warns before laying waste.

Many of these “Bible Believing Churches” revel in their good works.  See, Revelation 2:2-3, 6. God tells a church who is doing a lot of good works, but has left her first love: “Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent” (Revelation 2:5).

One first work involves falling in love with, studying and applying God’s Word. The church who does so will find her zeal for the Lord renewed; she will seek to purify her holy relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ; she will watch, fast, pray, reprove sin, carefully attend all the ordinances of God, walk as in His sight, and rest not till she has recovered all her lost ground, and got back the evidence of her acceptance with her Bridegroom.

Section I, Chapter 5: The Bible Trust Relationship with Property Does Not Organize a Church as a Trust

Click here to go to the following webpage for Table of Contents with links to all chapters of: Simply Church: The Holy Union of Christ and His Local Church

Appendix 1 gives links to resources which explain why church incorporation, federal tax exempt status, and other statutory or legal status of churches betray the love relationship between Christ and His churches.

Copyright © by Jerald Finney
February 21, 2021

Sometimes pastors or other members of churches who have declared a Bible Trust will say, “Our church is organized as a trust.” That is not true. A Bible (common law) Trust is not a legal entity or an organization. It is merely a relationship with property with a trustor, trustee, trust estate and beneficiary (the owner of all the property in the trust estate).

As explained in prior lessons, a Bible Trust is nothing more than a fiduciary relationship with property. See, Basics and Elements of a Church Bible Trust Relationship with Property. When a church applies and practices the concept of the Bible Trust and other New Testament church doctrine, she is not organizing as a trust and she is not becoming a legal entity under man’s law. Neither the church nor the trust is an organization.

The Bible Trust is different from trusts whose creator and sovereign is the state. For example, charitable and business trusts are legal organizations formed by contracting with state government. When the state grants the application, the church becomes a charitable or business trust, a legal entity, subject to the authority of state government for many purposes. Like other types of legal entities, such trusts are bound by state rules and regulations of state law and agency regulation; any disputes are decided by the controlling party, the state, through her agencies and/or courts.

No documents are necessary for a church to declare and practice the Bible Trust relationship with property. She can simply do things God’s way and operate as did the churches in the New Testament. She is not subject to the jurisdiction of state law. However, should someone name her in a lawsuit, the pastor or other church representative must make a court appearance to contest jurisdiction. Remember that a church must not slip and do something which disqualifies her status as a non-legal entity in order to remain under God alone. See, How a Church Can Nullify the Bible Trust Relationship with Property.

However, should a church wish God’s money to be held in a bank account, title to God’s real estate for a meetinghouse to be held in His name, etc., she will need to execute proper trust documents.

God is jealous over his churches and wishes them to remain true to Him in all matters. A church who declares and applies Bible Trust doctrine and all other New Testament church doctrine is in God’s perfect will; she pleases and glorifies God. A church which organizes as a legal entity commits spiritual fornication and can be, at best, in God’s permissive will. She may be exemplary in many ways; but having left her first love, she has fallen and God says to her, “Repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of this place, except thou repent…. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit sayeth unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which in the midst of the paradise of God.” (Revelation 2:1-7).

Analysis of “’Freedom of Conscience:’ Rhode Island founder Roger Williams “Wall of Separation” as understood by Jefferson – American Minute with Bill Federer”

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

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

Jerald Finney
February 18, 2023

This article challenges Bill Federer’s American Minute publication: “Freedom of Conscience:” Rhode Island founder Roger Williams “Wall of Separation” as understood by Jefferson – American Minute with Bill Federer. In that article, Federer subtly challenges the historical fact that “separation of church and state” as used with reference to the First Amendment and to Bible principle is not meant to keep a church out of civil government, only civil government out of church matters. Keep in mind that the phrase “separation of church and state,” although not found in the federal or state constitutions, is a succinct way of describing the concept of the historical wall of separation between church and state as intended by the First Amendment.

Right off the bat, in the title, Federer begins to mislead the uneducated reader. Roger Williams’ writings and documented history make abundantly clear that he upheld Bible teaching and believed in and practiced both the “two-way wall of separation” as well as “freedom of conscience.” He was banished by Puritan Massachusetts for his disagreements with the established church on matters such as their denial of freedom of conscience through enforcement of all Ten of the Commandments and their “union of church and state,” with church over the colonial Massachusetts government. Instead of waiting to be shipped back to England, Williams and a group of followers left Massachusetts and started the colony of Rhode Island, the first civil government with any lasting influence with both separation of church and state and freedom of conscience (soul liberty). Thomas Jefferson, a deist who believed in a secular state, also believed in a two-way wall of separation as well as freedom of conscience. His beliefs were based upon human reasoning. Of course, Jefferson knew that the states had chosen to allow voluntary establishment of churches and that many churches had chosen to remain separate from the state. I deal with that matter more extensively in other challenges to Federer. See, Roger Williams: Quotes and other selected information from God Betrayed. For a documented history of Roger Williams as well as that of Thomas Jefferson (on the matter or church/state relationship), see God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application. (For specifics on Roger Williams, see the index of the book.).

Unlike Federer, Roger Williams did not confuse “freedom of conscience” with the matter of “separation of church and state.” Williams knew that these were two separate matters although inextricably linked when a nation has one established church. Federer constantly refers to freedom of conscious when trying to make the point that church and state should not be separated (that the “wall” is only one way).

In his confusion, Federer mis-defines the true and historical meaning and application of the relationship of church and state in the American colonial and early republic context. He does this, in large part, by selectively choosing from historical quotes, writings, sermons, etc. He misrepresents the beliefs of many, to include those of the Puritans, Roger Williams, Dr. John Clarke, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, the Apostle Paul, and many others. For example, both our Lord Jesus Christ and the apostle Paul were clearly against union of church and state and for freedom of conscience. In fact, the believer has a choice, no matter the laws of civil government or an establishment of church or religion and state: honor God even unto the death of the body or dishonor God and bow down to the church/state establishment. Our Lord said, “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28). Jesus said it. Paul laid down his life practicing it.

Since the Danbury letter, Jefferson’s reply, and selected out-of-context quotes are widely misrepresented in “Christian” revisionist writings, as in this article by Federer, I will specifically address it. Federer claims that Jefferson explained who was limited by the “wall” in his letter to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808, that being the federal government. Of course, that letter does not also explain something else that Jefferson believed, fought for, and wrote on extensively: the “wall” was definitely intended to keep the church (not Christians) out of civil government. As stated above, Jefferson was a deist who believed in a secular state. Furthermore, he did not believe in the trinity or in the miracles of Jesus. He went so far as to write his own Bible. Federer treats Madison and what he believed about the matter in like fashion. For more details see, God Betrayed; see also, Dispensation Theology versus Covenant Theology and Their Importance to the Issue of Church and State Relationship in America and Religious Liberty in America.

Along the way, Federer, again dwelling on freedom of conscience rather than separation of church and state, asks, “Freedom of Conscience”: how did it become enshrined in America’s legal tradition?” His answer is designed to carry the uneducated reader down the yellow brick road to a preconceived conclusion—that the wall of separation was meant to keep the government out of church matters but not the church out of government matters; i.e., that the church was intended by God to run the state and enforce all of God’s law. The Puritans in England and also in the colonies definitely did not believe that the King (the state) should be over the church. They came to America for religious freedom, for themselves only. Their colonial establishments in New England persecuted dissenters to the extent they could get away with. After hanging four Quakers for returning to Massachusetts after being banished by the establishment, England forbade them to execute any other dissenters. However, they continued to concoct every way they could to continue persecutions.

The colonial New England colonies combined church (not God) and civil government, the church being in the driver’s seat. They were Judaizers who believed the impossible—due to their wrong division of the word of God inherited from Augustine and John Calvin with modifications: that the rules for the only true theocracy ever ordained by God, the nation Israel, should be applied by a Gentile government. God was directly over both the civil government and the religion of Israel, and all the law and the Ten Commandments were strictly enforced. The Puritans substituted the Congregational Church for God. Their experiment quickly fell apart.

Federer states, that, throughout the Scriptures, Israel and the Church are referred to as the Lord’s “bride,” etc. and takes quotes out of context to support this matter. A contextual literal examination of Scripture makes clear that Israel was referred to as the bride of God the Father, but the bridegroom of the church is the Lord Jesus Christ. Again, all this is explained in God Betrayed. Scripture also makes clear to one who believes it, but not to one who wrongly divides it, that the relationship of “religion” and state in Gentile nations are not the same as those for God, religion, and state for the theocracy of Israel.

Of course, Federer is right when he states that God desires man to have free will and that man, in exercising that free will, choose to love God. God also gives nations a free will—honor or dishonor God and His Word. Believers in North Korea and other God rejecting nations have free will, but they may give their lives for exercising it, as did all the Apostles except John and untold millions of believers who have been viciously tortured and murdered because of their refusal to bow down to Catholic and Protestant church/state establishments. For example, the government of North Korea has chosen, of its own free will, not to honor God and God’s Word. If ta believer in North Korea is caught saying the name of Jesus in a positive way, handing out a Gospel Tract, possessing a Bible, or witnessing to another, he will be killed, and sometimes on the spot.

Federer states, “A controversy raged among inhabitants of Massachusetts, between ‘a covenant of grace’ versus ‘a covenant of works.’” There was no controversy in the colony of Massachusetts between “a covenant of grace” versus “a covenant of works.” How this inaccurate statement, and much more in the article fits together is beyond me. The spiritual battle in the New England colonies was between those who held a literal dispensational view—i.e., Dispensationalists—and the Puritans who believed a spiritualized, allegorized interpretation—i.e., Covenant Theologians. Covenant theology “represents the whole of history on the basis of two or three covenants called the the Covenant of Works, the Covenant of Grace, and, according to some Covenant Theologians, the Covenant of Redemption.” For explanation of the distinctions between the opposing factions in Massachusetts, between those holding the dispensational view and those holding to covenant theology, see Part I, Section I, Chapter 3 and also Part II Section I of God Betrayed; see also, Dispensation Theology versus Covenant Theology and Their Importance to the Issue of Church and State Relationship in America and Religious Liberty in America.

On the matter of separation of church and state, Federer misrepresents Roger Williams, Dr. John Clarke, statesmen such as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Leland and many pastors, writers, statesmen, judges, etc.. He emphasizes their stand for soul liberty, but leaves out their stand for total separation of church and state and what that means. To get the true and documented history of the spiritual conflict in the colonies and early republic, see the histories in God Betrayed, The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus/Christian Revisionism on Trial, and Religious Liberty in America.

State Constitutional provisions protect soul liberty (freedom of conscience) and forced establishment of churches. Soul liberty is the freedom to choose and follow God, a god, or no god without persecution by civil government. Religious establishment is the combining of church and state. The religion clause of the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The First Amendment and corresponding state constitutional provisions separate church and state, absolutely on the federal level and by choice on the state level. Federal mandatory separation has never been forced upon the states, so churches in all the states still have the choice of either pleasing God (not combining with the state through man’s law) or grieving God (combining with the state as an established church though statutory contract—incorporation or charitable trust law).

When a church chooses to combine with a state, she gives up much of her First Amendment and state constitutional protections or religious liberty and becomes a legal person under the Fourteenth Amendment for many purposes. See, Short Answers to Some Important Questions.

Separation of church and state means exactly what it says. The highest federal and state laws were meant in their historical context to separate church and state, with the caveat explained in the last paragraph. Allowing state into church matters or church into state matters does not separate church and state.

Neither the First Amendment nor corresponding state constitutional provisions were meant to separate God and state which is something entirely different from separating church and state. See, Biblical Teaching of Self-Government, the online version of Part I, Section I, Chapter 3 of God Betrayed, for a basic understanding of the relationship of God (not the church) and state. From a more comprehensive understanding, especially in the American context, read the whole book.

Church establishment is always a product of man’s law. The first established church was the Roman Catholic church. Protestant churches which came out of Catholicism combined with the state when the opportunity presented itself. The Puritans in the New England colonies established the Congregational Church and the church was over the state. The Anglicans established the Church of England in the Southern colonies and the King was the head of the church. In all those colonies, as with prior unions of church and state, the colonial establishment legislated all ten of the commandments. Penalties for going against the establishment were severe and violation of any of the commandments were subject to extreme punishment.

Federer starts his article with quotes and comments to show that mankind has always believed in God. A better authority for that conclusion is the Word of God, and especially Romans 1:18-32 which states, in part: “

  • “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:18-20).

The following stood for a two-way wall of separation between church and state:

  • Roger Williams. Federer notes that this (Rhode Island) was “the first place where the church was not controlled by the state.” That is inaccurate. “The state of Teprice in Armenia, in the ninth century, gave absolute freedom of opinion and conscience for one hundred and fifty years before being overcome. All around them were persecutions for conscience sake – they themselves had lost one hundred thousand members by persecutions in the reign of Theodora – yet here was a shelter offered to every creed and unbeliever alike. The Baptists have always set up religious liberty when they had the opportunity” (John T. Christian, A History of the Baptists, (Texarkana, Arkansas-Texas: Bogard Press), pp. 38-41, 51-52). The Catholic establisment in the Old World controlled the civil governments of many nations. In the Puritan colonies of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut, the church controlled the state. The correct statement is, “Rhode Island was second civil government–the first with any lasting influence–in history to honor separation of church and state and soul liberty.”
  • Dr. John Clarke.
  • Thomas Jefferson.
  • James Madison.
  • John Leland
  • Many other men (and women) who were instrumental in the colonial warfare which led to the First Amendment.

The following were for union of church and state

  • The Puritans (The church in the New England colonies ran the state (church over state).
  • The Anglicans (the King was head over the church).
  • Many other Protestants, although, for the most part none of them achieved the status of the established church of a colony. After the advent of multiple establishments, many different churches chose to contract with the state for establishment. Under multiple establishment in America, the state is given much control over the church, but the church is given no control over the state.

Honest Biblical and historical scholarship disproves the Christian Historical Revisionism which predominates the “Christian” landscape on America. Christians, and especially Christian political activists in America, blindly continue to follow a refuge of lies even though educated secularists, who themselves revise to support their satanic goals, have extensively exposed the lies and the ignorance of the Christian community in general thereby causing millions to view Christians as uneducated ignoramuses and to blaspheme the name of God. God wants his children and churches to proceed with knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. The methods of spiritual warfare matter to God; he has not and will not honor such efforts. This is a principle that runs throughout Scripture from Genesis to Revelation.

“Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it” (Isaiah 28:17-18).

Section I, Chapter 4: Which Term, “”Steward” or “Trustee,” Is More Appropriate?

Click here to go to the following webpage for Table of Contents with links to all chapters of: Simply Church: The Holy Union of Christ and His Local Church

Appendix 1 gives links to resources which explain why church incorporation, federal tax exempt status, and other statutory or legal status of churches betray the love relationship between Christ and His churches.

Copyright © by Jerald Finney
February 9, 2023

Why not use the term “steward” instead of “trustee?” Over the years, several have suggested that “steward” should be used. For example, a gentleman at an Unregistered Baptist Fellowship Conference said to me something others have commented on over the years, “We use the term steward because Biblical law is over man’s law.”  This chapter will look at Bible teaching to address this and related matters:  the meanings of the words “steward,” “trust,” “trustee,” “beneficiary,” “trust estate;” the eternal and temporal applications of the relationship; just versus unjust stewardship according to God; and the consequences of just and unjust application of the relationship. This lesson will explain why the use of “trustee” is appropriate and preferable.

The Bible explains the God-ordained trust relationship with all property and the functions of each party to the trust relationship. That relationship has a trustor, a trustee or steward, a beneficiary, and a trust estate. The term “trust” is used in the Bible; “trustee” is explained but the term “trustee” is not used in the Bible. “Steward” is used in the Bible. Like “Trustee,” “Steward” refers to the person to whom someone commits the care and management of his goods for his benefit.

One use of term “trust” references a relationship with property, either material or spiritual. “Trust,” in the context of the trust relationship with property, means: “Property committed to a person’s care for use or management, and for which an account must be rendered. Every man’s talents and advantages are a trust committed to him by his Maker, and for the use or employment of which he is accountable.”

The suffix -or means a person who is something, such as lessor (a person who leases property) or trustor (a person who declares a trust relationship with property). A trustor commits, to the care of someone, God’s property for the sole benefit of God, the owner of the property, the owner of the property held in the trust estate. New Testament churches never owned or falsely claimed ownership of property; they were spiritual entities only, entirely separate from civil government and worldly entanglements. See, Is a Church a Spiritual or Legal Entity? In the context of the Bible trust declareded by a church, the trustor, a derivative of the term “trust,” declares the trust relationship—not with property of the church, since the church, when in obedience to the Word of God, claims ownership of no earthly property, but with property of the true owner of all things, God..

The suffix -ee is used (1) with some verbs to make nouns meaning someone who is affected by an action—as a trainee or an employee-and (2) with some verbs to make nouns meaning someone who performs an action—as a lessee, escapee. When added to the word trust, we have “trustee,” someone who performs an action. A trustee property held in trust for the true owner of the property holds and manages property for the benefit of the owner of the property. Thus, even though the term “trustee” is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, trustee accurately describes the one to whom God has entrusted His property.

The beneficiary – that is, the true, equitable, and beneficial owner – of the property held in a Bible trust is the Lord Jesus Christ, and all of the properties of the trust estate are held in trust, by the trustee, solely for the benefit of the Lord Jesus Christ who is the true, equitable, and beneficial owner of all property including all property held in the trust. The trustor, in declaring the church Bible trust relationship with property is not naming or making the Lord Jesus Christ the Beneficiary or the Trust Estate; Christ is the Beneficiary–the true, equitable, and beneficial owner of the earth and all that is in it (Exodus 19:5, Leviticus 25:23, 1 Chronicles 29:11-12, Psalm 24:1, Psalm 50:10, Psalm 89:11, Haggai 2:8).

The term “trust” refers to both temporal/earthly or material and eternal/heavenly or spiritual relationships. “Trust” relationships are found throughout the Bible, even when the word “trust,” “trustee,” or “steward” is not mentioned. Luke 16 speaks of a temporal material trust, and relates that trust to an eternal spiritual trust. 1 Thessalonians 2.4, and Titus 1.11 speak specifically and solely of the eternal spiritual trust.

The first time the relationship is mentioned is in Genesis 1.27-31, where obviously, although not explicitly stated, the relationship is both earthly and spiritual:

  • “27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which isupon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which isthe fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”

All such earthly and spiritual relationships have several essentials: the possession(s); the true, equitable, and beneficial owner of the possession(s); the commitment by the true owner of the possession(s) to another’s care and management; and the one to whom is entrusted the care and management of the possession(s) for the benefit of the true owner. Every Bible dispensation presents a specific stewardship under God.

Only once in the Bible, in Luke 16.1-13, are the words “steward” and “trust” used in the same passage. That passage is concerned with an earthly steward dealing with earthly possessions of his earthly master, the true owner of the possessions. There, “steward” refers to the person who has a duty to manage the goods of his master, for his master’s benefit. However, the Lord makes a connection between one’s earthly stewardship and his eternal stewardship. “Stewardship” means the office of a steward. The Lord says, “If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? … “Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (Lk. 16.11, 13).

As has been pointed out, “steward,” in one context, has the same meaning as “trustee.” So why not use “steward” instead of using derivatives of the word “trust,” to include “trustee.” The conclusion will answer this question; but first, let us take a further look at “steward” and “trust.”

God entrusted mankind with all possessions, real and personal as well as spiritual. He owned all things—even the body, soul and spirit of man—but left all things, including the real estate, to man to be used for Him. God trusted man with all His earthly and eternal possessions. God committed all to man’s trust. He was “steward” or “trustee,” the one to whom God entrusted management and care of His possessions.

Now, let us examine the terms “steward” and “stewardship” from a Bible perspective. Then we will look more at “trust” and related terms—“trustor,” “trustee,” and “trust estate.”

The term “steward” is found in Genesis 15.2, 43.19, 44.1, 44.4; 1 Kings 16.9; Daniel 1.11; Matthew 20.8; Luke 8.3, 12.42; 16.1,2, 3, 8; 1 Corinthians 4.1,2; Titus 1:7. The word “stewardship” is used only three times in the Bible, all in Luke 16, verses 2, 3, and 4. “Stewardship” simply means “The office of a steward.”

A steward is a man who has charge of another’s goods. As defined in the Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, “steward” means: “(1) A man employed in great families to manage the domestic concerns, superintend the other servants, collect the rents or income, keep the accounts, &c. See Gen. xv. 2—xliii. (2) In Scripture and theology, a minister of Christ, whose duty is to dispense the provisions of the gospel, to preach its doctrines and administer its ordinances. It is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful. 1 Cor. iv.”

The first meaning of “steward” is reflected in several passages of the Bible: Genesis 15.2, 43.19, 44.1, 44.4; 1 Kings 16.9; Matthew 20.8; Luke 8.3, 12.42, 16.1-13 (parable of the unjust steward). Certainly, although not directly dealing with the eternal meaning, many of those stewardships have spiritual applications: Matthew 20.8; Luke 12.42-48 (levels of punishment based upon whether or not the steward knew the Lord’s will), 16.1-13.

The eternal application alone is seen in 1 Corinthians 4.1, 2: “Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.  Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.”; and Titus 1.7: “For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre.”.

The story of a rich man and his unjust steward, which is related in Luke 16.1-13, is very instructive. The terms “trust” and “steward” are used in that parable. The master committed his goods to the steward’s trust (verses 1 and 11). The master was the beneficiary—“the true, beneficial, and equitable owner.”

The steward in this parable was an out-and-out-crook. He was guilty of malfeasance in office and misappropriation of funds. He wasted the goods of his master. His day of reckoning had come (Lk. 16.3). He was afraid of losing his stewardship, felt he could not do manual work, and was ashamed to beg. However, he, like many, was not ashamed to steal (verse 3). He did not repent, nor did he have regret or remorse for his actions. He was crooked—called “clever” by the world’s standards. He had no training for other work, his age was probably against him, he was too proud to beg, but he was not ashamed to be dishonest. He called all his master’s debtors and gave them big discounts.

The Bible tells us that the world loves its own but hates those who belong to God. “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you” (Jn. 15:18-19). In Galatians 1.3-4, Paul says, “Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father.” Again, in Romans 12.2, Paul says, “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 Jn. 2:15).

The first commandment of the world is “self-preservation.” A shady business deal is winked at, questionable practices countenanced, and a clever crook is commended by the world. The law is on the side of the crook and the criminal many times. Every man, according to the world’s law, is innocent until proven guilty. God takes the opposite approach. God says that a man is guilty until proven innocent. “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Ro. 3.23). A man can never be innocent before God, but he can be justified before Him. When a man trusts Jesus Christ as his Savior, he is justified by faith. See, e.g., Ro. 8.1.

The master did not punish the unjust steward, but commended him. Apparently the rich man got rich using the same kind of principles that his unjust steward used and he commended him, saying that the steward had done wisely. In what way? According to the principles of the world. This is the world that hates Christ. It makes its own rules. The law of the world is “dog eat dog.” The worldly master commended his worldly steward for his worldly wisdom according to his worldly dealings. The Lord Jesus said, “… For the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.” That is, the children of this world, of this age, use their money more wisely than do the children of light.

Then, our Lord makes the most shocking and startling statement of all. It concerns the relationship of the “mammon of righteousness,” that is, riches, money: “Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations” (Lk. 16.9). Money is not evil in itself; it is amoral. The love of money is the root of all evil. For believers, money is to be spiritual. Our Lord said that we should lay up for ourselves treasures in heaven. We should be wise in the way we use our money. Then when we “fail” or come to the end of life, we will be welcomed in heaven.

Believers are spiritual stewards (trustees) of all that God commits to their trust; all of which is spiritual. We own nothing as believers. We are responsible to God for how we use His goods. We are to use the “mammon of unrighteousness” to gather spiritual wealth:

  • “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?  And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own. No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” (Lk. 16.10-13).

In this parable, the Lord Jesus is saying, “Do you think God is going to trust you with heavenly riches if you are not using properly or rightly the earthly possessions which He has given you?” Are you serving God or mammon? You cannot serve both.

Now, let us review and supplement “trust” and related terms. “Trustor,” “trustee,” and “trust estate” are derivatives of the word “trust,” a concept found throughout the Bible. The suffix “-ee” added to trust results in a new word meaning a person with to whom something is entrusted. A “trustor” is one who entrusts monies and properties to a “trustee” who holds the money and property entrusted to him in “trust” for the benefit of the true, equitable, and beneficial owner, the “beneficiary.”

Some meanings of trust, as given in the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary, are: “(1) Confidence; a reliance or resting of the mind on the integrity, veracity, justice, friendship or other sound principle of another person. He that putteth his trust in the Lord shall be safe. Proverbs 20.25. (2) Something committed to a person’s care for use or management, and for which an account must be rendered. Every man’s talents and advantages are a trust committed to him by his Maker, and for the use or employment of which he is accountable.” In the context of definition (2), the word “trust” is mentioned four times in the Bible:

  1. “But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts” (1 Thes. 2.4).
  2. “According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust” (1 Ti. 1:11).
  3. “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called” (1 Ti. 6:20).
  4. “If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who [what trustor] will commit to your trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man’s, who shall give you that which is your own” (Lk. 16:11-12)?

In all these references, that which God entrusted was not material and spiritual, but spiritual only—“the true riches.”

The Lord spoke of this concept of trust, in conjunction with an earthly temporal example in Matthew 25.14-30 and Luke 19.12-27, although He used neither the word “trust” nor “steward” or “stewardship.” He spoke of an earthly master leaving certain amounts of his goods or money with his servants, according to their abilities. Actually, the more important parallel spiritual meaning was to the Lord and His servants. The master had an absolute right to his own goods, but he distributed to his servants to be used for the benefit of the master, the servants to be awarded according to their profitable use of the property entrusted to them. Some used the money productively and upon the master’s return presented him with a profit. The property belonged to the master, and the servants were to use it for the master’s benefit, not for their own benefit. Of course, they would be rewarded if they used the property wisely for the benefit of the master. One servant in each example returned only the original amount left in trust with them. The master instructed that the goods which he had left with the unprofitable servants be taken from them, and they were left with nothing. The profitable servants were rewarded by the master. In the story found in Matthew, the Master said, “[C]ast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mt. 25.30). Men, as servants of the Master are likewise left in trust of all things for His benefit and will be rewarded or punished accordingly.

In conclusion, the words “steward” and “trustee” signify the same thing. However, the use of the term “trustee,” a word derived from the word “trust” by adding the suffix “-ee”  is preferable to the use of “steward” when describing the entire relationship. Why? For six reasons taken together. First, in only one context do the terms “steward” and “trustee” mean the same thing.

Second, the one time “trust” and “steward” are used in the same immediate verses, “steward” denotes the person with the responsibility over another’s goods and “trust” is used to signify the fiduciary relationship with the master’s goods or property (Lk. 16). Even though “steward” is the one with the duty to rightly administer the goods the master commits to his trust, the name given to the arrangement is “trust.”

Third, nowhere in the Bible are all the terms involved in the relationship reduced to singular (as “trustor”) or modified terms (as “trustee” or “trust estate”); yet, those terms accurately explain elements of the trust relationship even though the specific terms are not in the Bible.

Thus, fourth, the use of “trust” and derivatives is more practical. The term “trust” as a noun (and as an adjective) and its derivatives, more succinctly describe aspects of the relationship: “trustor,” “trustee,” and “trust estate.” On the other hand, the term “stewardship” is less adaptable: one can interchange “steward” and “trustee;” but the word “trust” describes the overall relationship. No word derived from “steward” or from which “steward is derived” describes the person who declares the stewardship (the “trustor”). No word derived from “steward” or from which “steward is derived” describes the estate the steward is responsible for (“trust estate”)—er, perhaps the “stewardship estate?”; but stewardship means the office of a steward. Parallel words leave less room for argument and misunderstanding. Imagine trying to explain these matters to a lost person.

Fifth, the church, not God, declares a Bible Trust relationship with property. To repeat: “Steward” refers to the person to whom someone commits the care and management of his goods for his benefit. In the church Bible Trust context, the church, the trustor, not God, consistent with Bible principle, commits the care and management of God’s goods for God’s benefit.

Finally, American law, although not legalizing or setting up the Bible concept of trust, recognizes and defines the trust elements consistent with Bible principle. American law uses the Bible term “trust” and its derivatives.  For example, American Jurisprudence 2d Trusts, a highly regarded encyclopedia of American law, describes “trust” in § 1, as follows:

  • “The fundamental nature of a trust is the division of title, with the trustee being the holder of legal title and the beneficiary that of equitable title. By definition, the creation of a trust must involve a conveyance of property.
  • “A ‘trust’ exists where the legal title to property is held by one or more persons, under an equitable obligation to convey, apply, or deal with such property for the benefit of other persons. A trust has been defined as a fiduciary relationship with respect to property, subjecting the person by whom the title to the property is held to equitable duties to deal with the property for the benefit of another person, which arises as a result of a manifestation of an intention to create it. The Restatement definition is similar, providing that a trust, when not qualified by the word ‘resulting’ or ‘constructive,’ is a fiduciary relationship with respect to property, arising from a manifestation of intention to create that relationship and subjecting the person who holds title to the property to duties to deal with it for the benefit of charity or for one or more persons, at least one of whom is not the sole trustee.
  • “Caution: A trust consists not only of property, but also of the trust instrument, the trust’s beneficiaries and trustees, and the trust administrator [if any].”

American Jurisprudence 2d, Trusts § 2 makes clear that a “trust” is not a legal entity, but merely a fiduciary relationship with property. For one thing, this means that the one cannot sue the trust, since it is not recognized as a legal entity. This is not true of a “business trust,” a “charitable trust” or some other legal extensions of the “trust” relationship.

Even though particular words are not necessary to create the Bible Trust relationship, as a study of God’s Word reveals, using certain words is a simplified way of declaring the Bible Trust relationship. “No particular words are necessary to declare a trust if there exists reasonable certainty as to the intended property, object, and beneficiary. Further, the purpose and intention, rather than the use of any particular term, determines whether a valid trust has been established.” American Jurisprudence 2d, Trusts § 65. The preservation of God’s Word exactly as inspired by the Holy Spirit is very important to God. See, e.g., Psalm 12:6-7, Deuteronomy 4:1-2, Proverbs 30:5-6; Revelation 22:19. Within those Words are concepts which God wishes His children to understand, apply, and obey.

The important thing for the born-again believer, regardless of the terms used, is that he handle the use of God’s properties, both material and spiritual, according to the principle of trust as described in the Bible. Those faithful and wise churches who remain under God only will be blessed by their Lord. However, churches who choose to leave their first love by placing themselves at least partially under the state (for example, corporate (aggregate or sole) 501(c)(3) or 508(c)(1)(A) churches), have left their first love and betrayed their Lord’s trust. They are unfaithful and act unwisely; they act either knowingly or unknowingly and will  be judged accordingly (see Lk. 12.42-48; see also Lk. 16 discussed above).

Section I, Chapter 3: How a Church Can Nullify the Bible Trust Relationship with Property

Click here to go to the following webpage for Table of Contents with links to all chapters of: Simply Church: The Holy Union of Christ and His Local Church

Appendix 1 gives links to resources which explain why church incorporation, federal tax exempt status, and other statutory or legal status of churches betray the love relationship between Christ and His churches.

Jerald Finney
February 7, 2023

A church who practices New Testament doctrine concerning the trust relationship with property can nullify that relationship when she acts legally. By acting legally, a church places herself under another jurisdiction for many purposes. There are two ways a church may act legally. (1) Churches combine with the state—through contracting with a state for statutory status (incorporation, charitable trust, etc.) or the federal government for tax exempt status under Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3) or § 508(c)(1)(A). See, Church Internal Revenue Code § 508(c)(1)(A) Tax Exempt Status and the essays linked to thereon for explanation. (2) Other churches who do not contract with the state or federal government through some statutory means simply act legally and thereby become legal entities subject to civil government jurisdiction for many purposes.

Churches who act legally are legal entities who have given up much of their First Amendment status and placed themselves under the Fourteenth Amendment for many purposes. A legal entity is an entity that can be sued, sue, charged with a crime, enter into contracts, or act legally in some other way.

A legal entity is a creature which is entirely distinct from a spiritual entity. See, Short Answers to Some Important Questions for explanations of matters such as the meaning of “legal entity” and “spiritual entity.” A corporation, for example, is an “artificial person” with no soul to save and no body to resurrect. See, for explanation, Corporation: A human being without a soulIn other words, when a church acts in a temporal worldly matter, that church becomes a legal entity and subjects herself to man’s law and the courts of the world as opposed to a spiritual entity subject to Christ and Christ alone. That church has “left her first love” by joining herself with another lover. She has chosen to abandon her First Amendment spiritual only status in favor of Fourteenth Amendment legal status and civil government control and jurisdiction for many purposes.

Remember, should a church who is not a legal entity be named in a criminal or civil suit, she should not submit to suit; the pastor or another mature church member with knowledge, wisdom, and understanding of these matters should make a special appearance contesting jurisdiction of the court over the church, pointing out that the church is not an earthly legal entity subject to court jurisdiction. The court cannot claim jurisdiction over a non-legal entity.

How can a non-statutory church act legally? She can, for example, hold a credit card, hold deed to real property, open a bank account, get an Employee Identification Number (EIN), hold title to motor vehicle(s), hold insurance, contract, borrow money, incorporate the church or a ministry of the church, apply for or claim federal tax-exempt status for the church or a ministry of the church, have employees, pay salaries, adopt a constitution and/or by-laws or do anything else in accordance with or subject to man’s legal system and not according to New Testament church guidelines and example. Our Lord looks at only one disregarded aspect of honoring the church relationship with Him as a serious infraction, especially when committed knowingly. Negligence and recklessness are no excuse. Church members should be diligent in the matter of the purity of God’s churches.

A church who holds insurance admits that she is a legal worldly entity who can be sued. Should a church Bible Trust obtain insurance (such as liability insurance on real estate) in the name of the trust, the insurance policy does not implicate the church. Some trustees get insurance in the name of the trust, but the insurance policy explicitly covers the church. The trustee must be careful to  make sure that the policy is not a church policy with the name of the trust on it. Insurance sellers are not familiar with the church Bible Trust and will, if the trustee of the trust allows, simply put the name of the trust on the standard church policy, thereby nullifying the Bible Trust by setting the church up as a legal entity.

A pastor of a church may also compromise the position of the church as a church under Christ alone by taking a license from the state to act in a pastoral capacity; a license to conduct marriage ceremonies, for example.

God gave churches and civil government distinct jurisdictions. However, he gave neither jurisdiction over the other. See, God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Applicaiton. As long as a church honors God’s principles, no civil government has God-given jurisdiction over that church. The First Amendment to the Constitution and corresponding state constitutional provisions recognize this Bible principle. There are two caveats: (1) States allow churches a choice: remain under Christ alone or contract with the state for legal status. (2) The Federal government allows churches to apply for legal status under Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3) or claim such status under§  508(c)(1)(A). ). See, Church Internal Revenue Code § 508(c)(1)(A) Tax Exempt Status and the essays linked to thereon for explanation.

God gave civil government authority to punish evildoers and reward those who do good:: jurisdiction over any evil doer, to include church members, who commit crime or violate their duty to another or others and thereby injure them. However, God gave civil government no jurisdiction over individuals who do good and honor God. A civil government who acts outside its God-given jurisdiction is tyrannical. In a tyrannical nation—such as North Korea, China, and many other nations—individual believers who come to the attention of the state are summarily executed, tortured, or imprisoned. No matter, “churches and believers should obey God rather than man,” even to the point of martyrdom. A tyrannical civil government such as North Korea can kill the body but cannot send the body, soul, and spirit to hell.

A properly implemented trust relationship with money and/or property keeps a church entirely out of man’s earthly legal systems and under the Lord Jesus Christ in all things. That is, if the church does not misstep and declare herself to be a legal entity subject to the law of man in some other way. Thank the Lord and the martyrs of Jesus who, in putting Christ first in all things, paid the price that led to the protections of religious freedom and soul liberty in First Amendment to the United States Constitution and corresponding state constitutional provisions; churches in America can do things God’s way without persecution. Sadly, only a small remnant do so.

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

Click here to go to the following webpage for Table of Contents with links to all chapters of: Simply Church: The Holy Union of Christ and His Local Church

Appendix 1 gives links to resources which explain why church incorporation, federal tax exempt status, and other statutory or legal status of churches betray the love relationship between Christ and His churches.

Jerald Finney
January 19, 2023

The Basics

The church Bible Trust is a plan or concept of God in Scripture, as Chapter 6 explains. The church who honors this plan does not organize as a trust; rather, she declares and practices the same relationship with property as did churches in the New Testament.

The Bible Trust is a fiduciary relationship with real and personal property (personal property includes intangible property such as money and bank accounts). This relationship is recognized, but not created by, man’s law. It is created by an agreement between a trustor and trustee, is private, creates no contract with the state (the state is not a party), and is not subject to control by civil government and its courts. Trust documents, if any, are never required to be filed in man’s legal system through any of its courts or agencies. Under both the common law and statutory law, if applicable, oral trusts are recognized. Upon petition by an interested party regarding trust affairs and/or administration, a court may, if proper, take jurisdiction over any issue or issues raised. Court decisions will be based upon the common law and/or statutes of the state, as well as principles of equity.

A church does not apply to the state, according to state law, for Bible Trust status, as with a corporation, charitable trust, business trust, or some other type of legal organization. No trust papers are filed with the state because the trust relationship is private. A church who declares the Bible Trust Relationship with property, either orally or in writing, remains totally under the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ and His word as long as she does not act as a legal entity. Even a deed naming, for example “the Lord Jesus Christ” and signed by two deacons, for example, is a written declaration of the trust relationship; the deacons who sign the deed are “trustees” even though another term is used. However, the used of an document which declares the trust relationship and all related matters is the best way to declare the relationship for numerous reasons.

The trustee(s) of trust holds and manages, according to his (their) fiduciary duty, the property in the trust estate for the benefit of the true owner of the property, the Lord Jesus Christ, not for the church. Gifts are to God and are held in His trust estate, not in a corporate or a church bank account. The trustee is the legal (temporary earthly) owner of the property and the Lord Jesus Christ is the true, equitable, and beneficial owner.

The trustor implicitly or explicitly declares the relationship and names a trustee who agrees to administer a trust estate funded by the trustor (and others, if any, who wish to contribute to the trust estate) solely for the benefit of another, the true owner of the trust estate, the beneficiary (the Lord Jesus Christ). The trustor merely establishes the trust relationship. The trustee administers the trust estate solely for the benefit of the owner of the trust estate. Once assets are placed in the trust estate, those assets are owned by the beneficiary, the true owner of the property in the trust estate, and are to be used according to his will.

The Elements

Since a Bible Trust relationship is one in which church reaches an agreement with a person to hold and manage property for the benefit of the owner of the property, the Lord Jesus Christ, convenient, but not necessary, terms for the elements of the relationship are trustor, trustee, beneficiary, and trust estate.

A trustor or settlor is the one who establishes a trust agreement. God was trustor of all things. He appointed man as trustee. The earth and the things that are in it compose the earthly trust estate of the trust relationship with property established by God, the beneficiary (true, equitable, and beneficial owner of the earth and all that is in it).

A church can implicitly operate according to God’s plan of organization by observing God’s concept of trust without written documents as a spiritual entity only. Either way, every church who declares the Bible Trust, and the mature church members, should understand its principles and application. In order for the trustee to, for example, open a trust bank account to hold God’s money, or to hold title to real estate to be used for a meetinghouse, the church must declare the relationship in writing. Every mature church member should understand, among other things:

  1. That the elements of the trust relationship are trustor, trustee, trust estate, and beneficiary.
  2. That the trustor church declares the trust relationship and appoints a trustee:
  3. That the trustee agrees to become the legal (earthly, temporal) owner of the trust estate. He agrees to hold and manage the trust estate solely for the benefit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the owner of the trust estate, according to His will as expressed in His Word, the Holy King James Bible. The trustee receives no compensation for serving as trustee.
  4. That the trustee has a fiduciary duty to use the trust estate for purposes consistent with the will of God as laid out in God’s Word.
  5. That the beneficiary, the Lord Jesus Christ, is the true, equitable, and beneficial owner of everything in the trust estate.
  6. That all ll property in the trust estate is to be held and managed by the trustee, the legal (earthly) owner of the trust estate, solely for the benefit of and according to the will of the true, equitable and beneficial owner of the property, the Lord Jesus Christ.

An inactive trust is no trust at all. Without all four elements, there is no trust relationship with property. There must be a trustor, a trustee, a beneficiary, and a trust estate.  If no property is in the trust estate, there is no trust relationship with property and no Bible trust. Some churches have properly drafted and executed documents establishing a proper trust relationship in order to remain under the Lord Jesus Christ only; but they have nullified their efforts by never listing trust property to the trust estate in an appendix to the trust document. All property and assets in the trust estate should be listed in the appendix. Again, if no property is placed in the trust estate, the trust is non-existent. The Appendix should list all personal property (song books, pews, musical instruments, etc., checking account, real property, motor vehicles, and other assets held in trust estate.

Real property in the trust estate, if any, is held in the name of the trust, or in the name of the trustee as follows: “John Doe, Trustee of ABC Trust]. Should property be held in the name of the trust, the trustee is the legal owner of the trust (the one who holds and manages the property in the trust estate solely for the benefit of the true owner of the property, the Lord Jesus Christ)]. Both the state and the Lord require someone to hold temporary earthly title to His real property. As to property on which a church meets, if no one holds legal title and if it is brought to the attention of the state, the state will declare someone to be legal owner of that property.

Titles to motor vehicles, if any, in the trust estate are held in the name of the trust, or by the trustee as follows: John Doe, Trustee of ABC Trust.

Banks accounts, if any, holding funds in the trust estate are held in the name of the trust, or by the trustee as follows: John Doe, Trustee of ABC Trust.

The pastor should be trustee named in a church Bible trust agreement although a deacon or other mature male church member can serve as trustee. The pastor should be as qualified or more qualified as any man in the church to hold and manage God’s earthly property. Of course, the pastor can appoint others to perform certain duties; but he is the one ultimately responsible. See Endnote [i]. The trust relationship can be modified to accommodate churches who are led by a plurality of elders.

The trust document, if any, should include language which prohibits the trustee from using any property, or proceeds from the conveyance of any property in the trust estate, for the benefit of himself or anyone else. The document should make clear that in no event will the ownership of any property in the trust estate ever inure to the benefit of or be transferred to any member or members of the church except as consistent with Bible guidelines. For example, “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:14).

A written document declaring the trust relationship with property should include language such as:

“God, as declared in His Word has designated the Lord Jesus Christ to be the true, equitable, and beneficial owner of the earth and all that is in it (Exodus 19:5, Leviticus 25:23, 1 Chronicles 29:11-12, Psalm 24:1, Psalm 50:10, Psalm 89:11, Haggai 2:8). This document is merely declaring that truth:

  • “The Beneficiary of this Trust is the Lord Jesus Christ, and all of the properties of the Trust Estate are held in Trust, by the Trustee, solely for the benefit of the Lord Jesus Christ who is the true, equitable, and beneficial owner of all property including all property held in Trust.”

Endnote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jerald Finney
January 18, 2023

This article challenges Bill Federer’s American Minute publication: Jefferson’s Virginia Statute & How Courts Twisted Meaning of First Amendment to make Government Hostile to Religious Liberty.

CONTENTS:

Introduction
A. Challenge to Bill Federer’s understanding of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom
B. Challenge to Federer’s contention that religion was left up to the states
C. Challenge to Federer’s understanding of how the courts twisted the meaning of the First Amendment to make government hostile to religious liberty
Conclusion

Introduction

As is the case with all Christian Revisionist publications, Jefferson’s Virginia Statute & How Courts Twisted Meaning of First Amendment to make Government Hostile to Religious Liberty ignores a significant portion of the spiritual warfare in the colonies which resulted in the adoption of the First Amendment, the period from the early 1630s until the incomplete Virginia portion of the conflict starting in 1760s (leaving out relevant Virginia history before then, and after the passage of the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty). The warfare began in the Calvinist New England colonies and spread to other colonies. Christian Revisionists do not want to open what to them is a can of worms, the truth about the New England Calvinist church/state theology and the accompanying persecutions of dissenters by a controlling Calvinist establishment (union of church and state).

That is why Christian (Calvinist) historical revisionists falsely claim that the movement toward religious freedom in America started with the American Revolution and that the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty birthed religious freedom in America. This is not new. In the late 1980s, I began to realize that their histories left blank the colonial history after the first few years of the Jamestown and New England settlements in the early 1600s until the Virginia persecutions of dissenters immediately prior to the Revolution (1760s) and forward.

Calvinist revisionists have always sanitized their Christian Revisionist histories of Puritan New England, by leaving out significant historical facts, by praising the Puritan Calvinists, and by reaching untenable conclusions (such as their partially true claim, “The Puritans came to New England for religious liberty” leaving out a significant fact, “for themselves only.”).

Revisionists never get into the Calvinist theology which denies religious liberty and calls for harsh and strict enforcement, by the church/state alliance, of all Ten of the Commandments and many moral, not criminal, matters. Had Calvinist theology prevailed, America would not have religious liberty; there would be no First Amendment. Never do they report the persecutions of dissenters by the original Calvinist church/state alliances. Never do they mention books, tracts, speeches etc. written by persecuted dissenters like Roger Williams, Isaac Backus, and others. For example, The Bloudy Tenent of Persection for Cause of Conscience by Roger Williams, published in 1644, chronicled the persections of dissenters in New England; and, equally important, it exposed (and continues to expose to those who read it) the Puritan theology for what it was and is.  The writings of Williams, and their actions, were preeminent in the battle for religious liberty in American.

The original New England Calvinist histories revised history as it occurred. That same revisionism continues until this day.  I explain this in some detail in The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus/Christian Revisionism on Trial (This book also exposes the motives and techniques of Calvinist revisionists). When one knows the the whole story, this Amerian Minute, Jefferson’s Virginia Statute & How Courts Twisted Meaning of First Amendment to make Government Hostile to Religious Liberty is another easily dissected bit of revisionism.

Other revisions are on display in Federer’s article. Christian Revisionists are experts in the use of soundbites. For example, they say, “Separation (or complete separation) of church and state is not in the Constitution.” Those words are not there, but the law meant for complete separation of church and state is, the First Amendment. An honest historical review and analysis proves this beyond any doubt. To support the soundbite, revisionists select quotes and facts completely out of context. They leave out portions of history, caselaw, that disprove their conclusions and soundbites and shine light on their theologies.

They say that the First Amendment “left religion under the control of the states” and try to prop up that statement with more inaccuracies. By the time of the adoption of the First Amendment, most of the colonies which had established churches had abandoned one church establishment in favor of multiple church establishment and this carried over to statehood. Three more states followed suit soon thereafter. Two more, Virginia and West Virginia forbade incorporation (establishment of churches). Rhode Island had never allowed union of church and state. in 1833 Massachusetts become the last state to do away with state mandated establishment. Every state now allows churches a choice: (1) become an earthly entity by combining with state government (establish) through incorporation or some other statutory means, or (2) remain a spiritual entity totally separate from civil government.

Below is a more complete analysis of the revisionism in Jefferson’s Virginia Statute & How Courts Twisted Meaning of First Amendment to make Government Hostile to Religious Liberty.

A. Challenge to Bill Federer’s understanding of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

Let us first look at Federer’s comments on the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty in this American Minute; second, let us look at a summarized version of the relevant history for the truth of the matter.

Federer begins by praising religious freedom, the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty, and the First Amendment. He states out of context and unanalyzed quotes and conclusions to show that the movement toward religious freedom in America started with the American Revolution and that the we owe the Amendment and our religious freedom to the Virginia Statute for Religious liberty which “preceded the First Amendment by five years.” Nothing could be further from the truth. As will be shown below, the First Amendment and its protections for religion, soul liberty, press, association, speech, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances was the product of spiritual warfare that was continued from the Old World long before the colonization of America and continued in the colonies under different circumstances.

As truthful documented historical research shows, the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty, authored by Thomas Jefferson in 1779 and passed in 1786, was just one brick in the brick road that led to the adoption of the First Amendment.

Federer states that the American Revolution brought a need to work together amongst all the colonists. He says, “Like dropping a pebble in a pond and the ripples go out, individual States began to expand religious liberty at their own speeds: [he lists those to whom religious liberty extended, to include atheists.].” First, there were colonies, not states, at that time. The dissenters in each colony had already made much progress in their fight for religious liberty. One colony had won that battle with its founding in the 1630s, the colony of Rhode Island. The pebble had been dropped in the pond in the early 1630s with the arrival of Roger Williams in Congregational (Puritan) Massachusetts.

Williams, a brilliant and charismatic man, was earmarked to be a pastor and leader. However, he took issue with the ecclesiocratic (falsely called theocratic) union of church and state in Massachusetts and the legislation of all Ten of the Commandments. The Congregationalists tried to persuade him that he was wrong on that and some other matters, but he refused to budge from the truths of the Word of God. As a result, he was sentenced to banishment to England. Instead, he with some followers left in the middle of New England winter and went to what was to become the colony of Rhode Island. There he founded the first civil government in the history of the world with complete religious liberty. Then came others. Dr. John Clark and some men who came with him from England also ended up in Rhode Island shortly after Williams and his followers arrived there. Clarke shared Williams’ views on the relationship of church and state. Every American would do well to read their writings and history which are still available today for the interested student with an open mind.

Williams and Clark wrote and published books exposing the truth about the Puritan theology and the persecutions of the dissenters against the established church in the New England colonies. And there were others in this fight which continued up until the adoption of the First Amendment.

The opposing parties in the spiritual warfare were from different lines. On one side were the Calvinists, the persecutors, and on the other side were the “dissenters,” mainly the Baptists. The Baptists were in the line that came through the first churches and Antioch. The Calvinist line came from Alexandria and Rome. The former were used by God to meticulously preserve Scripture always stood for Bible truth; for example, believer’s baptism and separation of church and state. The latter revised Scripture and important Bible truths to fit their theology; for example, they instituted infant baptism and, with the marriage of some of the churches to the state under Emperor Constantine, union of church and state. The latter began with Catholicism and continued with Protestantism in the Old World and into the colonies. The colonial establishments (unions of church and state) in New England traced their origins back to the theology of John Calvin. Calvin’s church/state theology, as were other Protestant theologies regarding the relationship between church and state, was a modification of the theology of Augustine.

Calvinists incorrectly apply the principles of the “theocracy” of Israel to Gentile nations. “Theocracy” was a term used by Josephus to define the union of religion and state under God in Israel. According to the Old Testament, all nations were Gentile until God called out Israel. In Israel, and Israel only, God was directly over both the state and the religion. In Israel, the religion and state were to work together, under God; He was the lawgiver, judge, and king, over the nation and the Jewish religion. Israel was the only theocracy God ever ordained. God’s Abrahamic, Mosaic, Palestinian, and Davidic covenants were to Israel only. Gentile nations, as ordained by God, were to continue under the covenants given to Adam (Genesis 3:14-19) and Noah (Genesis 9:1-7). Of course, the Bible makes clear that God is Supreme over all nations, but God’s treatment of  Israel and Gentile nations is distinct, as is the God-ordained relationship between church and state.

Those “Christians” who support union of church and state spiritualize much of the Bible instead of believing all of it. They contend that the church replaced Israel, and that the principles for the theocracy of Israel apply to the church and Gentile nations. They “Judaize” the church and the state. The Bible is very clear: God made “everlasting” promises to the nation Israel, promises which he did not make to Gentile nations. Gentile nations like America were never under the law, as was Israel. Gentile nations are judged by God based primarily upon their treatment of Israel as well as their morality.

No Gentile nation can be a theocracy, since God only ordained one theocracy, the nation Israel. He did so for specific purposes. Catholic and Calvinist theologians call their unauthorized unions of church and state (not God and state) “theocracy.” Their churches have always worked hand in hand with the states they unite with: the church over the state, the state over the church, or partners working together for the same goals. When, as in the Old World and in most of the colonies, at first, one particular church united with the state the established church/state severely persecuted dissenting believers.

Church/state unions, before the advent of multiple establishments in America, enforced all Ten of the Commandments and persecuted those who would not bow down to the official alliance; in this way they were like the Jewish religion and state which originally worked hand in hand, under God. As we know, Israel asked for a king, like the other nations, to lead and judge her. They were not satisfied with God’s direct lawgiving, leadership, and judgment of the nation. God always gives the people what they want, even if it is against His will. All this is covered in some detail in God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application ,available in online PDF.

Thankfully, the Judaizers in America lost the battle on the national level with the adoption of the First Amendment. They partially won on the state level, with most of the colonies, and then states which had not done so during the colonial period, doing away with forced establishment, but allowing churches to choose to establish by contracting with the states for corporate status or other legal status. Sadly, most churches chose to betray God.

By the time the First Amendment was added to the United States Constitution, only New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut had mandatory establishment of churches. In 1833, Massachusetts became the last state to do away with required establishment. In almost all the states after 1833, establishment was voluntary. A couple did not allow church incorporation for a long time thereafter. A couple did not allow church incorporation. A church could and can choose to either remain separate from civil government or to combine or unite with civil government through non-profit corporation status, charitable trust status, or some other statutory manner. Of course, any church could choose to become established unlike in Europe to that point where only one church could establish and dissenting believers were persecuted. See, for a relatively concise history, see The History and Meaning of “Establishment of Religion” in America; see also, What Is an Established Church?

I chronicle the documented historical facts of this history in much more detail in in The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus; see also Section IV of God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application ,available in online PDF.

Federer, and other revisionists on the Calvinistic side of these matters, seek to cover up this complete history. Their ultimate goal is to set up both state and federal government ecclesiocracies which they call theocracies. Their ultimate goal is union of church and state with the two as equal partners, the church over the state (as in the New England colonies, Germany under Lutheranism, Geneva under Calvinism), or the state over the church (the southern colonies, England). See The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus for much more on this.

The American Revolution and the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty were pieces of the puzzle that led to the adoption of the First Amendment, but only pieces, and not the largest pieces to be sure.

B. Challenge to Federer’s contention that religion was left up to the states

Next, Federer goes to the state level. The point he tries to make is that control of religion was left up to the states. He asserts that the people of the states are to decide the level of religious freedom and that control of religion was left to the states. Again, inaccurate conclusions. He also incorrectly states that all the states supported, financially aided, both the church and the government. That is not true. Rhode Island originally did not allow incorporation of churches and church and state were entirely separate. After the war for religious freedom was over in Virginia, Virginia did not allow incorporation of churches until 2002. See, Fallwell v. Miller, 203 F. Supp. 2d 624 (W.D. Va. 2002). Nor did West Virginia permit church incorporation. Article VI, Section 47 of the West Virginia Constitution explicitly states: “No charter of incorporation shall be granted to any church or religious denomination.” However, most states originally, and all now, allow union of church and state through various statutory means: incorporation, charitable trust, business trust are examples.

Every state Constitution has provisions which protect all, or almost all, the freedoms embodied in the First Amendment. They all protect religious freedom, soul liberty, speech, association and press. Every state allows churches the choice of remaining totally outside government statutory status and control. To see this for yourself online google, “Constitution of [name of state].”

Here is an example of what you will find. Indiana law recognizes that churches should be free to organize under Christ and Christ alone; and protects the soul liberty of the citizens of Indiana. The Preamble to the Indiana Constitution states:

“TO THE END, that justice be established, public order maintained, and liberty perpetuated; WE, the People of the State of Indiana grateful to ALMIGHTY GOD for the free exercise of the right to choose our own form of government, do ordain this Constitution.”

The Indiana Constitution in Article I, Bill of Rights, states:

Section 1. Inherent Rights. WE DECLARE, That all people are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that all power is inherent in the people; and that all free governments are, and of right ought to be, founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and well-being. For the advancement of these ends, the people have, at all times, an indefeasible right to alter and reform their government.

Section 2. Right to Worship. All people shall be secured in the natural right to worship ALMIGHTY GOD, according to the dictates of their own consciences.

Section 3. Freedom of Religious Opinions. No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.

Section 4. Freedom of Religion. No preference shall be given, by law, to any creed, religious society, or mode of worship; and no person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support, any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, against his consent.

Section 5. No Religious Test or Office. No religious test shall be required, as a disqualification for any office of trust or profit.

Section 9. Freedom of Thought and Speech. No law shall be passed, restraining the free interchange of thought and opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print, freely, on any subject whatever: but for the abuse of that right, every person shall be responsible.”

State church non-profit incorporation statutes were carried over from the colonial period when establishment or incorporation of churches was the norm in almost all the colonies. Isaac Backus, John Leland and their followers fought against incorporation in the colonies and continued their fight in the early republic. However, they could not totally overcome forced establishment in the colonies and then in the states. Not all of the colonies, before becoming states, had done away with forced establishment in favor of chosen establishment. The religious freedom of those churches who now choose to remain separate from the state are now protected by both the First Amendment and corresponding state constitutional provisions. Those churches who choose to become established do so out of ignorance of the will of God as expressed in His Word or because they are Judaizers who misinterpret God’s Word to require union of church and state.

One can also suppose, from other Federer comments, that the states should legislate morality. To what extent cannot be determined from what he says. God’s Word makes clear that all crimes are sin, but not all sin is criminal. The state should criminalize only those sins which are crimes.

Then Federer asks, “What things did change?” In his brief explanation, he considers George Hagel’s dialectic; Charles Darwin’s theory that species could evolve; Spencer who “proposed that the theory of evolution could influence other areas of academia, including law,” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who developed a theory of “legal realism,” how it took some years for “them to come around to the view that the law was flexible, responsive to changing and economic climates; the development of the “case precedent” method as a means to change the Constitution; the use of the 14th Amendment and Commerce Clause as tools to take jurisdiction away from the states over various issues; the changing the definition of a few words within the Constitution so as to change the views of the majority of the people. Sounds like a tactic of the Christian Revisionists. Ever hear Christian Revisionists say that “complete separation of church and state is not found in the Constitution” or “separation of church and state is not found in the constitution.” One can also ask, on the matters on historical fact and Bible interpretation, what things have Catholics, Protestants (such as Calvinists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans) left out, added to, selectively quoted and spiritualized in effecting their changes?

Federer states, “The broadening of the definition of religion by the federal government after Hugo Black’s opinion which took religion out of the states’ jurisdiction and put under Federal jurisdiction.” This is not accurate–see the next section for explanation. What the court proceeded to do was to remove God from practically all civil government matters on the city, county, state, and federal level. State laws combining church and state were still in effect. All, or almost all, of the freedoms protected by the First Amendment were also protected by the Constitutions of every state. The preambles to most of the state constitutions still explicitly reverenced the God of the Bible, something not true of the United States Constitution.

 C. Challenge to Federer’s understanding of how the courts twisted the meaning of the First Amendment to make government hostile to religious liberty

The next question Federer asks is, “How did meaning of the First Amendment get twisted to make government hostile to religious liberty?” Then he incorrectly states, “Below is an extended explanation of its evolution.” What he follows with is not an explanation and it is not extended.

First, Federer does not ask the right question. The Supreme Court did twist the meaning of the religion clause of the Amendment for the purpose of removing God and any reference to or reverence for God from practically all civil government matters on, not only the federal, but also on the city, county, and state levels. The First Amendment originally applied only to the federal government. Therefore, the right question is actually twofold: (1) Has the Supreme Court done away with the original meaning and application of the First Amendment? (2) Has the Supreme Court added to the jurisdiction and meaning of the First Amendment.

Second, Federer does not answer the question he raises. This challenge will answer the right question after first examining pages 40-50 of Federer’s American Minute.

I start with an analysis of pages 40-50 of Federer’s Jefferson’s Virginia Statute & How Courts Twisted Meaning of First Amendment to make Government Hostile to Religious Liberty because, on those pages, he most strikingly reveals the primary error of his, and other “Christian” revisionists’—their misunderstanding of the difference between separation of church and state and separation of God and state. The First Amendment dealt with the relationship between church and state (establishment clause), soul liberty (the free exercise clause), and related freedoms: speech, press, assembly, and the petitioning of the government for a redress of grievances, all of which were denied dissenters by the original colonial establishments. Dissenters in the colonies, starting in the 1630s, fought the established churches, in the face of severe persecution, for freedom of religion, soul liberty, speech, press, assembly, and the right to petition their colonial governments for “a redress of grievances” They won the war with the adoption of the First Amendment. The establishments (the Judaizers) lost.

Federer correctly concludes that “the First Amendment was never intended to insulate our public institutions from any mention of God, the Bible or religion.” He also concludes, “When such insulation occurs, another religion, such as secular humanism, is effectively established.” (page 40) Yes to that also. He then offers quotes, conclusions, etc.

He quotes Ronald Reagan and others regarding the fact that the Constitution “was never meant to prevent people from praying” but was meant to protect their freedom to pray” or “to prevent those who believe in God from expressing their faith.” That is true.

He then gives a list of quotes out of context and without any analysis [Bold comments in brackets are mine):

  • The ACLU agenda which includes elimination of prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of ‘separation of church and state.” [For a look at an analysis of ACLU, look up “American Civil Liberties Union” in God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application ,available in online PDF.]
  • A comment from Judge Richard Suhrheinrich stated in ACLU v Mercer County, 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 20, 2005: “The ACLU makes repeated reference to ‘the separation of church and state.’ This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state. Our nation’s history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some case, accommodation of religion.” [This is a 6th Circuit case. To understand its significance would require a study of the facts, procedural history (was it overturned by the Supreme Court, etc.) of the case.]
  • A statement from In Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 760 (197): “This Nation’s history has not been one of entirely sanitized separation between Church and State. It has never been thought either possible or desirable to enforce a regime of total separation.”
  • A statement from the Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971): “Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense.”
  • Supreme Court statement in Lynch v Donnelly, 1984: “The Constitution does not ‘require complete separation of church and state’… The concept of a ‘wall’ of separation is a … figure of speech … but the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state.”
  • A U.S. Supreme Court decision, McCullum v Board of Education, statement: “Rule of law should not be drawn from a figure of speech.” [referring to “separation of church and state.]
  • Associate Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the U.S. Supreme Court case Wallace v. Jafree, 1985, dissent, 472 U. S., 38, 99: “The ‘wall of separation between church and state’ is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history … The establishment clause had been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly forty years … There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation … Recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or intent of the framers … But the greatest injury of the ‘wall’ notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights.” [Notice that this is in the dissent. The majority disagreed. History disagrees. Other Supreme Court decisions, especially 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). I explain Everson and its supreme importance to a correct analysis of the matter of “separation of church and state” below.]
  • He continues with similar quotes from other Supreme Court Justices concerning “separation of church and state.”
  • A quote from President Reagan concerning criticism of the ACLU for his 1983 proclamation of the year of the Bible.
  • He states (page 46), “There is freedom for all religions in America, but sharia Islam is not just a religion; it is also a political and military system which feels it has a divine mandate to subdue or eliminate all other religions.” “Groups hostile to the Judeo-Christian values of America’s founders, such as aggressive LGBT activists or the fundamental Islamist brotherhood, endeavor to use the newly evolved “broad definition of religion” to take liberties away from the majority of Americans — liberties the First Amendment, as well as Jefferson’s Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, were intended to guarantee?”
  • An example of broadening a definition was published by FoxNews, June 4, 2022: “California court rules a bumblebee is a fish under environmental law.”
  • He quotes President Dwight Eisenhower: “The Bill of Rights contains no grant of privilege for a group of people to destroy the Bill of Rights. A group — like the Communist conspiracy — dedicated to the ultimate destruction of all civil liberties, cannot be allowed to claim civil liberties as its privileged sanctuary from which to carry on subversion of the Government.” He follows with a similar quote from President Reagan.
  • He follows this with (page 48): “Did Jefferson, author of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, intend to outlaw the acknowledgment of God and limit students, teachers, coaches, chaplains, schools, organizations, and communities from public religious expression? Did Jefferson intend to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their consciences and support abortion? Did he intend to force cake bakers or wedding photographers who believe in natural marriage to violate their consciences or be put out of business?”
  • He quotes from the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (pages 49-50). [Again, out of context as to its historical significance. See “Challenge to Bill Federer’s understanding of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom” above for correct understanding of that statute.]
  • He ends with a quote from President Reagan: “The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny.”

The above summary of the contents of pages 40-50 clearly show that Federer does not ask the right question, nor does he answer the question. I will now answer the right questions: (1) Has the Supreme Court done away with the original meaning and application of the First Amendment? (2) Has the Supreme Court added to the jurisdiction and meaning of the First Amendment.

Here are the abbreviated answers. The short answer to the first question is “No.” The short answer to the second question is that the Supreme Court twisted the meaning of the religion clause of the Amendment for the purpose of removing God and any reference to or reverence for God from practically all civil government matters on not only the federal, but also on the city, county, and state levels. The First Amendment originally applied only to the federal government.

What follows in this section is a nut-shell view of relevant First Amendment history and meaning, and an analysis of United States Supreme Court First Amendment jurisprudence. I will show how the Supreme Court, in 1947, correctly upheld the original meaning of the First Amendment while also adding a new twist, thereby laying a foundation for the future removal by the Court of God, the God of the Bible, from practically all civil government matters. I will then give the results of that twisting. For much more detail, see The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus/Christian Revisionism on Trial; and God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application ,available in online PDF.

The Anglicans arrived in 1607 in Jamestown, the Pilgrims in 1619, and the Puritans in 1629. By 1660, the Puritan experiment was falling apart. Persecuted dissenters fought a spiritual warfare against the colonial establishments in New England and other colonies. That warfare eventually led to victory for the dissenters: the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was a law which set in concrete the Bible principles of complete separation of church and state, and freedom of speech, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government from a redress of grievances. See, Section IV of God Betrayed. and Part II of The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus.

The courts have never addressed the foundational principles for church and state—those expressed in God’s Word. That was to be expected, even in the early Republic, since there were many diverse Biblical interpretations, as the history of the colonial period and the early republic proves. However, the Supreme Court has recognized that, according to American history, the First Amendment was meant to separate church and state—to keep the state out of church and the church out of state. In Section V of God Betrayed available in online PDF I explain the 19th Century Supreme Court interpretation of “separation of church and state,” the application of the First Amendment to the States: 1868-1947, and Separation of God and state (how the United States Supreme Court removed God from practically all civil government matters while still recognizing that the First Amendment was meant to create a two-way wall of separation between church and state): 1947-2007.

Because the population was predominantly Christian, or at least honored God and His Word, American civil government, to a great degree, initially operated partially, and probably predominantly, according to principles in the Word of God. Many Presidents, Congressmen, Legislators, Judges to include Supreme Court Justices, and the majority of Americans in the nineteenth century were either Christian or at least had a reverence for the Bible and Christianity. In 1892, the Court declared that this nation would go by the principles of Christianity, not by the principles of other religions which the Court called imposters of the true religion. See, Rector, Etc., of Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 12 S. Ct. 511 (1892).

God was honored by almost all civil government organizations and officials in their public proclamations, speeches, and prayers. Official prayers were given in Jesus’ name. God was recognized by leaders and judges who acknowledged that only the God of the Bible could bring blessings and curses to the nation. God was honored at all levels of government, but the church and state, according to the First Amendment were to be separate on the federal level, neither meddling in the affairs of the other. Among the myriad examples of this reverence for God is the Thanksgiving Day Proclamation of President George Washington who agreed with other Founding Fathers that church and state should be separate:

  • “Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly implore his protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to ‘recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.
  • “Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November, next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His [many blessings before becoming a nation, during the late war, etc.]….
  • “And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions….”

See, George Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation: Does It Support Union of Church and State or Separation of Church and State? for more analysis.

Honest, complete history is clear: The First Amendment was intended to erect a two-way wall between church and state, but it was never intended to separate God, and the practice of his principles, and state. See, for a concise, but complete, documented history of the First Amendment, Section IV of God Betrayed available in online PDF.

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) correctly held that the First Amendment created a two-way wall of separation between church and state. However, the Court also incorporated the First Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment, a twist which was used in future cases to remove God and the mention of God or anything to do with God from practically all civil government matters at all levels of government—city, county, state, and federal. Everson twisted the meanings of “establishment of religion and “separation of church and state.” Eventually, the new rationale of the Court in Everson, while honoring the historical First Amendment and biblical principle of “separation of church and state,” laid the foundation for the removal of God and His principles from practically all civil government affairs in America.

After Everson, the convenient term, “separation of church and state,” was now used in cases which had nothing to do with the relationship of church and state. The new twisted “separation of church and state” concept would lead to the removal by the Court, of any vestige of God from civil government related affairs: prayers and Bible reading in public schools, posting the Ten Commandments in the public schools, in government buildings or on government property, etc.  Even when the Court would allow the mention of God, it was with the understanding that God was only historical and of no significance. God, the Ruler of the universe, the Ultimate Lawmaker, and the Judge of the Supreme Court of the Universe, gave United States Supreme Court Justices the right to rebel. Again, see Section V of God Betrayed, available in online PDF.

As stated above, Everson did not do away with the original two-way wall which the First Amendment erected between church and state. The First Amendment forbade union of church and state only on the federal level. Everson did not change that. Since Everson, the Supreme Court has not touched state laws which allow union of church and state. Thus, most, but not all churches can and do, as always since the ratification of the Constitution and First Amendment, choose to “establish”—that is, to put themselves under the authority of civil government as legal Fourteenth Amendment entities for many purposes as opposed to remaining purely First Amendment spiritual entities. Why? Because they want to be practical in the worldly or business, not Biblical, sense.

There is no reason why civil government officials, led by the principles of the god of this world, would wish to do away the ability of God’s churches to commit spiritual fornication. The prince of this world system “has organized the world of unbelieving mankind upon his cosmic principles of force, greed, selfishness, ambition, and pleasure (Matthew 4:8, 9; John 12:31; 14:30; 18:36; Ephesians 2:2; 6:12; 1 John 2:15-17).” His goal is to dethrone God (See Isaiah 14:12-17). When a church unites with the state, she joins herself to an earthly power and submits to laws which redefine the status, organization, and operation of the church. Union of a former Bible believing and practicing church with the state puts that church on a slippery slope downward to heresy and apostasy. Many basically sound American churches who chose man’s cheese above God’s principles are now apostate and the others are heretical to one degree or another; they are nothing more than businesses who, at best, honor Jesus Christ with their tongues, and possibly to a degree in their actions (see, Revelation 2:1-7), while their hearts are far from him.

Satan, I am sure, gets great pleasure from observing and pointing out to God how well his plan has worked in America where only a small remnant of local churches still honor our Lord. Most have prostituted themselves through uniting with the state through corporate, charitable trust, or some other statutory status. Some remain true to the Lord in some ways, but many are highly heretical or apostate.

For a century and a half before Everson, the Supreme Court and civil government interference with churches and attempts to make sure all vestiges of God were erased from public life were practically nonexistent. However, armed with the power of judicial review, the twentieth century Court, beginning with Everson, without the benefit of a biblical worldview, began to decide issues and to attempt to define the liberties and rights of the individual, of the minority and the majority, which had been based upon biblical principles—of which many or most of the Justices had no knowledge or understanding. As a result, some of the Court’s assertions were and are correct but were polluted with unbiblical assertions and reasoning.

The reasoning of the Court was applied in a society generally ignorant of biblical principles and which was becoming more secular with each passing day. “The application to particular factual situations of the … general rules [concerning the First Amendment religion clause as laid down by the Court], simplistic as they appear to be in the abstract, has involved a complex pattern of turns and twists of legal reasoning, cutting across almost all facets of human life.” (Donald T. Kramer, J.D. Annotation: Supreme Court Cases Involving Establishment and Freedom of Religion Clauses of Federal Constitution, 37 L. Ed. 2d 1147§ 2. Kramer lists the “facets of human life” across which the religion clause as applied by the Court has cut. Then Kramer examines the cases. The reader of Kramer’s annotation must keep in mind that Kramer leaves God out of the analysis. A Christian who studies his annotation must also read and study the cases themselves (not just Kramer’s summaries and analyses) and analyze those cases in light of biblical principles. Kramer misses the most important point—the religion clause has been used to remove God from the public life of America and to insult God by eliminating Him from all consideration in civil government affairs.). See Section V of God Betrayed available in online PDF.

The foundational law, the Bible, agrees with a correct interpretation of the First Amendment, an interpretation which has never been fully applied by our courts or understood by the vast majority of Christians, much less Americans. Even Christian lawyers have looked to Court decisions, not the Bible, as the foundational law upon which they make their arguments and place their hope. Their legal arguments have not and do not honor God and His Word; they cannot since churches and Christians have not practiced Bible principle in their organization and practice. The result has been a steady downward spiral toward a totally secular state, church, and populace.

Although “Christian” lawyers have sought to fight this downward spiral, for the most part they have fought in a manner, as exemplified in recent cases dealing with the display of the Ten Commandments on public property, which dishonors God. Even though “claiming” some “victories” in the legal arena, those “victories” are nothing more than compromises, at best, which chip away at or totally destroy recognition of the sovereignty of God, and lead deeper into a pluralistic, Godless, state and society, while Christianity and the true and only God are degraded by civil government and society in general. At the same time that victories (which are rare and which are not victories at all) are being proclaimed by “Christian” lawyers, those lawyers and their firms are leading Bible believing pastors and church members, who have not studied the Bible and the issues, down the road to destruction. Almost all “Christian” lawyers say that churches must incorporate and give their unlearned opinions as to why. For an examination of their excuses for betraying God, see Analysis of False Reasons of Christians and Lawyers for Church Corporate, 501(c)(3) and 508(c)(1)(A) tax Exempt Status or Legal Status of Any Kind; See also, Section VI of God Betrayed available in online PDF.

Since Everson, the Supreme Court has, among other things and in the name of separation of church and state, banned school prayer (including silent meditation), eliminated graduation invocations, driven creches and menorahs from public parks, removed the Ten Commandments from display in the public schools, banned God from the public schools (the public school classroom is now based on the religion of humanism where Satan’s messages are taught to the youth of America), taken carols out of school assemblies, purged the Ten Commandments monuments, laid the groundwork for a secular pluralistic—or more accurately Satanic—state.

On the civil government front, Satan, through those who were following his principles, has been doing more than removing God from practically all civil government matters. Because of the change in Supreme Court First Amendment jurisprudence, states were now taxing to support individuals—aiding individuals through all types of social legislation. Tax money now went to government agencies, whose religion was secular humanism and which were becoming the new source of help and instruction for many Americans. On the national level, the New Deal spearheaded by President Franklin D. Roosevelt had gone far in replacing a faith in God with a faith in government. President Roosevelt, with his proposed court-packing scheme, coerced the Justices of the Supreme Court into going along with his civil government programs. The nation was switching from the way of faith in God to the way of faith civil government; and, in its instructive capacity, was leading the people down the same path.

On another front, that of the church, Satan was also replacing faith in God with faith in the government. Churches have prostituted themselves with the federal and state governments. They have abandoned their Biblical First Amendment status in favor of Fourteenth Amendment status for many purposes. They have chosen to become creatures of the state, to “worship the creature more than the creator” (Romans 1:25). On the state level, through choosing corporate, charitable trust, or some other legal entity (Fourteenth Amendment) status; on the federal level through Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3) or § 508(c)(1)(A) tax exempt status. By the way, 501(c)(3) and 508(c)(1)(A), when applied to churches, are unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment on their face. They are laws passed by Congress which respect and establishment of religion and prevent the free exercise thereof. See, Church Internal Revenue Code § 508(c)(1)(A) Tax Exempt Status and the links therein.

The tyrannical turn of the Court could have been predicted by anyone with a firm grasp of biblical principles. Even during the debates over ratification of the Constitution, some men predicted such a turn by the Court. For, example, Robert Yates, an ardent anti-federalist and delegate to the Constitutional Convention from New York, in opposing the Constitution, predicted the process by which the federal judiciary would achieve primacy over the state governments and other branches of the national government:

  • “Perhaps nothing could have been better conceived to facilitate the abolition of the state governments than the constitution of the judicial. They will be able to extend the limits of the general government gradually, and by insensible degrees, and to accommodate themselves to the temper of the people. Their decisions on the meaning of the constitution will commonly take place in cases which arise between individuals, with which the public will not be generally acquainted; one adjudication will form a precedent to the next, and this to a following one.” Mark R. Levin, Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America (Washington DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005), pp. 27-29 citing Robert Yates, “Essay No. 11,” Anti-federalist Papers first published in the New York Journal, March 20, 17 Available at www.constitution.org.

The abridged history and analysis above, especially when one goes to the more comprehensive sources cited, prove that Federer  (1) asked the wrong question, a question which he did not answer; (2) is totally wrong in stating, “The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.” He produces statements from judges stating that that the court holdings do not call for a total separation between church and state without explaining the facts and issues in those cases. Analysis of those cases prove that the courts are not considering the relationship between a church or churches and the state; they are considering matters which were never envisioned by First Amendment “separation of church and state,” matters which separated God and state. One can go to those cases to verify what I say. Here are the links: ACLU v Mercer County, 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 20, 2005  (this is as Federer cited the case); Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971); McCullum v Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, Wallace v. Jafree, 1985, dissent, 472 U. S., 38, 99 (dissent), Engel v. Vitale, 1962, dissent (as cited by Federer), Zorach v Clausen, 1952 (as cited by Federer).

“When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn” (Proverbs 29:2).

Conclusion

Federer’s method, in the American Minute publications I have read, is to grab a lot of facts, including quotes, from all kinds of sources. Standing alone, the “facts” he presents sound good and even inspirational, but taken together they are disjointed, out of context, and woefully incomplete. He leaves out a lot or relevant historical material. He leaves out immediate and overall context. For example, his quotes from court cases are out of the context of the entire case and also omit the overall context of related cases, history, etc. When contextually examined, his material is inaccurate and/or misleading. He intersperses conclusions, assumptions, questions, and incomplete explanations. Under honest learned examination, his writings are incomplete, confusing, incorrect, and hard to decipher.

An honest analysis of any historical matter must include all the facts. An honest analysis of quotes seeks the truth of those quotes. An honest use of quotes from a legal case must include an analysis of the entire case to include the facts of the case, the legal arguments being made, the context of any given quote, the cases cited to support or oppose the holding, whether the quote is from a majority or dissenting opinion, and whether the case overrules or upholds precedent, and the views of the writer of the quote—was he a strict constructionist or did he embrace the “living breathing Constitution that could be changed with the winds of time?  Primarily he should look to the Word of God for God’s judgment on spiritual matters. What does God say about it?

The weapons of Christian warfare are:

  1. Truth.
  2. Righteousness: “Purity of heart and rectitude of life; conformity of heart and life to the divine law. righteousnessas used in Scripture and theology, in which it is chiefly used, is nearly equivalent to holiness, comprehending holy principles and affections of heart, and conformity of life to the divine law. It includes all we call justice, honesty and virtue, with holy affections; in short, it is true religion.”
  3. The gospel of peace.
  4. Faith.
  5. Salvation.

Ephesians 6:13-17.

American Christianity has been a victim of Christian revisionist teaching. That is why all their efforts, which have been concentrated in the political, not the spiritual, realm, have been counterproductive. After decades of fighting, the slide of America toward the judgment of God is accelerating at an alarming rate. The reason—Revisionists leaders and their pastor and church allies who have predominated the Christian landscape have led the way. God will not honor a warfare which is not fought His way and according to His principles. How in the world can “Christians” save American when they ignore the fact that they have destroyed their churches?

Section I Chapter 1 of Simply Church: Introduction

Click here to go to the following webpage for Table of Contents with links to all chapters of: Simply Church: The Holy Union of Christ and His Local Church

Appendix 1 gives links to resources which explain why church incorporation, federal tax exempt status, and other statutory or legal status of churches betray the love relationship between Christ and His churches.

Jerald Finney
January 17, 2023

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

  • Does God desire union of church and state or separation of church and state?
  • What is church incorporation and federal tax exemption?
  • Do church incorporation and federal tax exemption establish unholy alliances with another lover?
  • Do church incorporation and federal tax exemption violate Bible principle and displease our Lord?
  • What is the Bible Trust relationship with property?
  • Is the Bible Trust relationship with property Biblical?
  • And the list goes on. For a thorough look at answers to all the above and many more relevant questions, see the resources linked to in Appendix 1.

Local church use of the Bible Trust for holding and managing properties given to God for use according to His will comports with New Testament Church Doctrine. The heavens, the earth and all that are in them belong to God.[1] God entrusts man with all His earthly property, and he entrusts His children with all things spiritual. An individual, a family, a nation, and a church are to hold and manage God’s property for his glory. A church should do a thorough Holy Spirit led study of the Word of God concerning God’s principles for church organization, and the Bible Trust Concept and its application.

This Section will explain God’s Bible Trust Doctrine. The Bible Trust does not organize a church as a trust. it is nothing more than a fiduciary relationship with property which is recognized, but not created, by man’s law Although it is not a product of man’s law, a court will entertain a petition by an interested party involving trust affairs or misuse. If jurisdiction of such a matter is accepted by the court, the court will look to the common law and/or statutory law for guidelines in deciding the issues raised.

Chater 6. The Bible Trust Relationship with Property is Not Something New: It was God’s plan starting with Adam and Eve covers the concept of God’s Bible Trust and its application by New Testament churches. For example, no church in the New Testament owned property. Why? Because those churches were eternal spiritual organisms made up of children of God indwelt by the Holy Spirit, not temporal worldly organizations.[2] Never were they told to put Caesar above God as to heavenly matters, those things having to do with their relationship with God. As to those matters, they were to “obey God rather than men.”[3] Of course, they were also worldly citizens of their nation, but their duty to the nation was temporal. They were instructed to be ideal earthly citizens who also, as members of local churches, were to go out of their churches into all the world and perform a spiritual heavenly mission, the preaching of the gospel.[4]

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

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

Footnotes

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

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

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

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

Appendix 1 to Simply Church: Links to Books, Essays, & Articles

Click here to go to the following webpage for Table of Contents with links to all chapters of: Simply Church: The Holy Union of Christ and His Local Church

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

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

Bible Studies on the Doctrine of the Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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