Numerous unlearned pastors and “ministries” advise churches on the matter of organizing as churches under Christ and Christ alone as opposed to legal organizations such as corporations, corporations sole, charitable trusts, unincorporated associations, and Internal Revenue Code §§ 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(1)(A) tax exempt organizations.
The Ecclesiastical Law Center was founded by Robin Wright. Brother Wright was a member of the Indianapolis Baptist Temple in the 1980s. Attorney Al Cunningham helped churches, including IBT where he spent a lot of time, reorganize under Christ, as opposed to legally organizing under man’s law. During that time, Robin Wright picked Attorney Cunningham’s brain on the use of the common law trust by churches.
Brother Wright left IBT and became pastor of a church. He also founded the Ecclesiastical Law Center. He modified the principles he had learned from Attorney Cunningham, as the ELC began to help churches organize. The ELC claimed to have come up with a Biblical as opposed to a legal solution for church organization. Actually, the concept, if correct in the details, is Biblical; but neither Wright, his close confidant Ben Townsend, or the ELC originated the concept, nor did they correctly implement it and related matters.
Ben Townsend was a friend of Robin Wright at IBT. He also left IBT and remained a close associate of Wright. He co-authored books and articles dealing with the trust and other church matters with Wright. When Robin Wright passed away, Townsend took over the ELC.
The ELC advises churches to hold real estate in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. The ELC method places churches in the position of legal entities since ELC churches hold the property through a trustee or trustees. The church property is to be managed by persons or a person solely for the benefit of the true owner of the property, the Lord Jesus Christ. See, ibid. This type of church legal status does not, of course, come with all the organizational requirements as does corporate status, charitable trust status, or federal tax exempt status; but it does make the church a legal entity which is under the jurisdiction of civil government courts for some purposes.
An ELC church or trust does not and cannot get a bank account. The ELC, by admission in their own writings, are establishing a common law trust. They do so without a writing executed by the church. ELC churches operate in cash. The ELC ignorantly advises that putting the trust relationship into a written declaration will get a church into trouble. In fact, no church has ever gotten into trouble because of a properly drafted, executed, and practiced Declaration of Trust and associated documents in spite of the fictitious reports published by the ELC. Furthermore, it is wise to properly draft and execute trust documents. See, How a Church Can Organize to Remain a New Testament Church (Holding Property In Trust For God Is A Scriptural Principle Recognized by American Law).
The Churches under Christ ministry just aided a church which had obtained real estate some years ago, with the help of the ELC, in the name of “The Lord Jesus Christ with the [Name of Church] (Church) as Deacons of His Property.” The trustee of the trust saw the flaws with the methods of the ELC. He desired to open a trust bank account. He called this ministry. The trustee talked many hours with this ministry, studied materials published by this ministry, and answered Questionnaires 1 and 2. The ministry explained to him many of the problems with and misconceptions of the Townsend/ELC methodology. The church executed trust documents and is in the process of deeding the property to the trust. The property, which will be deeded to the trust and placed in the trust estate, is still owned by the Lord Jesus Christ, as in the present deed; but the property in the trust estate is not “church” property which is held by the trustee for the church. Once the property is placed in the trust estate under the new arrangement, it is no longer “church” property. The next step will be to open a bank account.
Opening a property constituted common law trust bank account in no way compromises the position of the church as a church under Christ alone or the status of the common law trust as a fiduciary relationship with property only, not a legal entity (organization) of any kind.
Churches should be diligent as they seek to glorify the Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. This requires dedicated study, and consultation with those who love the Lord and do their homework before diving into God’s preeminent matters.
This article concerns those who falsely claim legal expertise in the area of church/state relations and ends with Bible justification for standing against forces of darkness which invade the arena of church organization in America.
A remnant of believers in America seek to do all things the Bible way, God’s way. One perplexing and somewhat complex matter for those believers concerns the organization of a New Testament church. Believers who study and believe the New Testament quickly come across passages which make clear that Christ wants his churches to be under Him only. Some of those believers, including some of God’s good pastors, seek help in organizing churches. Tragically, many come in contact with and rely on charismatic pseudo-Biblical/legal experts.
Truly, a believer must be well-studied in both the relevant Bible and legal principles in order to intelligently and correctly organize a church such that she remains under the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ (Scripture) only. Knowing the Bible without true legal competence is a recipe for disaster. For example, the Ecclesiastical Law Center alleges Bible as opposed to legal solutions to church organization, but due to legal incompetence organizes churches legally, not Scripturally.
Jethro on the Beverly Hillbillies often stated that he wanted to be a brain surgeon. Some pastors are wannabe “lawyers,” some even going so far as to claim lawyer status even though they never produce any reliable proof of such and even though a diligent examination of their attempts to keep churches under the authority of God and the Scriptures only belie their claim. Of course, few if any believers have the time to check out what they are told about such matters and many follow people who are skilled “Christian” con-artists and charlatans. Most get to liking and even loving their misguided mentors and many lash out at anyone who would try to discredit them. It is hard to confront uncomfortable or damnable truths about those one loves.
Complicating the matter is the fact that many “Christian” lawyers either prove to be incompetent or are trained in the law but not studied in the Bible. Their standard for all matters in faith and practice is not the Bible. Their authority for all matters is the law. As they amass their earthly fortunes, they teach and apply legal, not Bible, principles. For example, David Gibbs relies on the Internal Revenue Service, not the Bible, definition of “church,” and instructs churches to become legal, not spiritual or New Testament entities. These spiritual/legal con-artists, while deceiving and being followed by multitudes, also cause some to distrust all lawyers without further examination.
For years, this lawyer shied away from confronting false teachers. For example, he knew for many years that the Ecclesiastical Law Center (“ELC”) was not qualified to deal with church and state matters even though they falsely claim to have “Bible” as opposed to “legal” solutions to church organization. His attitude was that it is up to believers seeking help to sort out and apply good versus bad advice; and, additionally, he did not wish to attack the ELC because he knew and liked one of their leaders who spoke at his church on the subject of church organization several years before he delved into an extended study of Bible (first), and historical (second), principles and methods of church organization. After completing that study, he studied law to assure that he correctly navigated around the legal landscape in a manner which did not inadvertently result in organization of a church as a legal, as opposed to spiritual only, entity.
However, after coming in contact with many of good men of God who were deceived and who parroted the ridiculous rhetoric, the false teachings, and the foolish and unlearned questions of the ELC and after witnessing relentless and untrue ELC attacks against others over a period of years, this author finally took the time to do an examination of the ELC and their teachings. The result was an online booklet, Ecclesiastical Law Center Exposed.
The corporation sole and Internal Revenue Code § 508 method of church organization is another scam used by skilled but unethical charlatans to deceive the unwary. Critique of “Church Freedom and the Corporation Sole” Website exposes that fraudulent deception.
So far the message of this article to believers and churches seeking help in organizing New Testament churches is, “Beware of false teachers and unskilled pseudo-lawyers.” Do your homework. Look at qualifications and testimonies. Seek truth and apply it, even if you must confront false methods and teachings of others you love. Base all conclusions on Bible precepts and verifiable facts.
Now to the question, “Why is this article justified, under God?” What is the Bible basis for exposing deceivers? As soldiers of the Lord, one is to contend against the forces of darkness, to fight the good spiritual fight of faith. Only a few of many verses which support this conclusion are quoted:
Speaking of deceptions within the churches, Jude wrote: “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ…. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities…. But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.” Jude 3-4, 8.
As to Christ’s relationship with his churches, the Apostle Paul wrote: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” Ephesians 5:25-27. Speaking to the church at Corinth, he said: “For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” 2 Corinthians 11:2-3.
Fight the good fight. Keep the faith. Expose false methods and teaching in all matters, including the preeminent area of church organization. Make sure you get it right. Is not the Lamb of God worthy of your diligence efforts to keep his body pure and undefiled?
The Only Way a Church Can Organize to Remain a New Testament Church (050616 article which explains that why trust is a Bible concept and why it is the only way a church can organize in accord with New Testament principles and the wisdom of using a properly worded and executed Declaration of Trust with supporting documents.)
See Spurious rationale for church incorporation: to hold property(Section VI, Chapter 7 of God Betrayed; Chapter 7 of Separation of Church and State) for an explanation of the ordinary trust. That chapter shows how the ordinary trust comports perfectly with Bible principle and why this author now co-labels the ordinary trust a Bible trust.
Chapter 1: Analysis of the title to and first two paragraphs of Chapter 18 of “Approved by Man”
The ELC article, Chapter 18 of Betrayed by Man, begins with two paragraphs. Thereafter, it is divided into titled sections. This chapter will analyze the title and then the first two paragraphs.
The reader should especially notice that this chapter reveals that the ELC method of church organization has, by published ELC admission and according to ELC criteria for what gets a church into trouble, gotten ELC churches into trouble. The ELC method gets churches into the legal system, whereas the BLC method they attack does not.
“Approved by Man: A Case for Biblical Reasonableness” by John R. Wright and Benjamin E. Townsend, leaders of the Ecclesiastical Law Center (“ELC”)), was published in 2009. Concerning the ordinary trust and the DOT, only the teachings of the Biblical Law Center (“BLC”) and this Old Paths Baptist Church “Separation of Church and State Law” ministry or those of the ELC are correct – the teachings are mutually exclusive. The ELC has publicly made this an issue. The ELC has also publicly attacked people who promote the ordinary trust including pastors, churches, and the Biblical Law Center. This booklet corrects the false ELC teachings concerning the ordinary trust and Declaration of trust; and also exposes the ill advised recommendations for church organization by the ELC for what they are.
This chapter analyzes the title to and first two paragraphs of Chapter 18, “Should a Church Be Placed In a Declaration of Trust?” which is also on the home page of the ELC website (ELC website: http://lordshipchurches.info/). Chapter 18 is analyzed paragraph by paragraph and section by section.
Analysis of the title to the chapter
The title to Chapter 18 – “Should a Church Be Placed In a Declaration of Trust?” – should alert anyone with any knowledge of the subject that the author of the chapter may not understand the ordinary trust and the Declaration of Trust. One cannot “place a church in a Declaration of Trust.” A Declaration of Trust (“DOT”) is merely a document which creates an ordinary trust, a relationship whereby a trustee is to hold property for the benefit of the true or equitable owner of the property. The DOT is one manner in which one may set up an ordinary trust which is not a legal entity (or some other type of trust such as a Business Trust or Charitable Trust, both of which are legal entities). One may establish an ordinary trust with or without a DOT. In fact, when a church – as does an ELC church – entrusts tithes, offerings, gifts and/or property to a pastor or other person(s) for the benefit of the true owner, the Lord Jesus Christ, that church has established a trust with the pastor as a trustee; for a church to so establish a trust relationship without a DOT is unwise. For example, when an ELC church holds property in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, the church, by the pastor, acts as a legal entity by signing the deed; that pastor is the trustee of a trust. This will be explained in detail in this series of articles. The better practice is to declare an ordinary, non-legal entity trust through a properly executed DOT. See The Only Way a Church Can Organize to Remain a New Testament Churchfor more on the Bible principle of trust and reasons for the wisdom of adopting a properly drafted and executed DOT.
The ordinary trust is described in Volume 76 of the legal encyclopedia AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE 2d. “Is the ordinary trust a legal entity?” explains why this ordinary trust is not a legal entity; this question is important because the ELC insisted for years that the ordinary trust utilized by BLC churches and the Old Paths Baptist Church Separation of Church and State Law Ministry (SCSLM) was a legal entity. Only after the first 8 chapters of this booklet were published online did Ben Townsend, against public revelation of solid fact which cannot be refuted, relent and admit that the ordinary trust is not a legal entity. Chapter 13 of this booklet addresses an article written by Ben Townsend after the first 8 chapters of this booklet were published in which he finally admitted that the “trust” is not a legal entity.” Read chapter 13 to find Townsend’s ridiculous slant after that admission and this author’s response: this author actually countered Townsend’s slant in 2008 as chapter 13reveals.
Other articles in this series fully explain the ordinary trust which is also explained in Section VI, Chapter 7 of God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application which is available free in online and PDF form. See Order Information for Books by Jerald Finney should you desire to get a softback copy. One of the many flaws in the legal research and analyses of the ELC is that they indiscriminately grab out of context statements from court cases, legal encyclopedias, etc. and just make up fictitious and incorrect law to attack the ordinary trust and DOT. As will be seen as Chapter 18 of Townsend’s book is analyzed in this and subsequent chapters, the ELC, for example, uses the law of business trusts and incorrectly applies it to the ordinary trust.
Analysis of the first paragraph
Approved by God, p. 149
The article begins by saying, “We believe it [the DOT] will get churches into trouble.” Ben Townsend, an ELC leader, has gone so far as to mount a dishonest online attack against a church which places tithes, offerings, gifts and property in a trust whereby the trustee of that trust has a fiduciary duty to use the monies and properties for the benefit of the true owner of the property. The DOT has never gotten any church into trouble, although Ben Townsend has lied and stated that it has. ELC churches have to, as Wright/Townsend state in Chapter 3, page 35 of Approved by Man, “handle legal church problems.” In that chapter, Townsend not only reveals that ELC churches must go to court but also falsely leads one to believe that he can represent churches in court. He is not an attorney and he cannot represent anyone or any entity in court because he is not a lawyer. Furthermore, he is not qualified to do so; nor is he qualified, as is obvious from the analysis of Chapter 18, to do legal research, especially, as he puts it, “intense legal research.”
In Chapter 3 of Approved by Man, Townsend speaks of lawsuits involving ELC churches, tax on property of an unincorporated church, and inspections of the “church’s building.” Using Townsend’s reasoning, the ELC method admitedly gets churches into trouble all the time. Unlike the ELC churches referred to in Chapter 8, a church which places tithes, offerings, and gifts into an ordinary trust as recommended by the BLC and the SCSLM is not a legal entity which cannot be taken into court or agency process; the DOT and the ordinary trusts thereby created have kept BLC churches out of legal problems and legal actions. Chapter 3 makes clear that an ELC churches own property, can and have been taken to court, and are therefore legal entities. Because churches in general enjoy favorable public sentiment and have protections which no other institution or entity has, there has not been an in depth and dedicated study of ELC methods by government lawyers and ELC churches have not been called for what they are – legal entities who have given up much of their biblical and First Amendment protections. One should note that governments still allow sales and property tax exemptions for all churches whether legal entities or not. When a local tax board challenges a “religious use” tax exemption on property on which a local church meets, the ELC church must go through the agency process (and appeal to court, if necessary); but in a property tax challenge against trust property utilized by a BLC or SCSLM church, the church cannot be brought into the process – rather, the pastor/trustee of the trust represents the trust in obtaining the property tax exemption. To this point, no property utilized by a BLC or SCSLM trust has been denied the exemption.
The third sentence to the paragraph then states: “Pastors, Deacons, and other Christians must realize the background of this document in law, and refuse to allow the church and church property to be placed into such a document.” This sentence is totally wrong. What is important for believers to know about the ordinary trust are the biblical principles regarding trust and what the ordinary trust and the document establishing it are. See Spurious rationale for incorporating: to hold propertyfor a biblical and legal analysis of the ordinary trust. Contrary to the ELC assertions, believers do not place any money or property in the document, the DOT. The DOT merely declares the trust. If a church is organized according to biblical principles, there is no church property. Rather, the members of the church (who are the church) give tithes, offerings, and gifts to God and those monies/properties make up the trust estate. The true owner, as declared in the DOT, is the Lord Jesus Christ. The person who is to administer the monies/properties is the trustee (the legal owner – the person who signs deeds, vehicle titles (if any), etc. as trustee. This is necessary since the Lord is not now physically present on earth and has therefore left believers with the fiduciary duty to handle His property and monies for His benefit (for the Glory of God). The trustee has a fiduciary duty to manage the monies/properties for the benefit of the true owner.
The last sentence of the first paragraph in Chapter 18 of Townsend’s article states: “More than that, a pastor must not allow himself to sign a document referring to himself as the ‘Trustee’ which represents the church.”
From page 149 of ELC book “Approved by God”
First, that sentence is ludicrous when delivered by Townsend because pastors of Townsend’s ELC churches are trustees who represent the church. On pages 149 and 150 of the ELC book Approved by God are the following statements: “The property [of an ELC church] should be held in trust for the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the true and beneficial owner” (p. 149); and “Actually, the church, by the Pastor, can execute a deed on behalf of the Lord Jesus Christ, so that isn’t a viable difficulty” (p. 150). These statements make clear that the church is set up to be a legal entity because the church is the legal owner of the property and the true and beneficial owner is the Lord Jesus Christ.
From page 150 of “Approved by God”
On the other hand, the last sentence of the first paragraph of Townsend’s article above is wrong on two accounts as applied to the ordinary trust: (1) it is wise for a pastor/trustee of an ordinary trust to hold money and property for the benefit of the true owner, the Lord Jesus Christ; (2) the pastor/trustee is the legal owner of the property and the Lord Jesus Christ is the true and beneficial owner:
“The trustee of an ordinary trust is the person appointed to execute a trust, and the one in whom an estate, interest, or power is vested, under an express or implied agreement to administer or exercise it for the benefit of another. In other words, a trustee is a person who holds legal title to property under an express or implied agreement to apply it, and the income arising from it, to the benefit of another.” [Bold emphasis mine.]
In other words, the trustee of the ordinary trust has a fiduciary duty to administer or exercise the property for the benefit of the true or equitable owner of the property, the Lord Jesus Christ. This is something entirely different from “representing the church.” A pastor/trustee who holds tithes, offerings, gifts, and property in the name of (for the benefit of) the Lord Jesus Christ has this fiduciary duty in the trust relationship established by a Declaration of Trust.
On the other hand, as Townsend admits in his writings, the pastor of an ELC church acts as the trustee of “church property” even though such declaration is not in a DOT (See, e.g. pp. 149-150 of the ELC book Approved by God which are photographed and inserted above.). ELC publications demonstrate that the ELC methodology clearly establishes a type of trust which is a legal entity, relegates ELC churches to legal entity status, makes the pastor of the ELC church trustee of “church property” thereby representing the church. One could admonish Townsend as follows: “The results of the first microscopic examination of ELC methodology now published in this booklet clearly prove:
“Legally and biblically, the ELC, under your leadership, puts pastors in the position of trustees who represent ELC churches – the very thing you wrongly accuse the BLC of doing through the use of the DOT and the ordinary trust thereby created. Because of this and other flaws pointed out in this booklet, the ELC needs a Bible believing, born-again lawyer who has thoroughly studied the Bible and trust law and is motivated by the love of God, not money, to help you straighten out the mess established by the ELC.”
Both the BLC and the SCSLM utilize the impeccable method which was conceived by Attorney Al Cunningham who obviously put the system under a legal and biblical microscope before implementation. The BLC and now the ELC method have both been put under a legal microscope by another attorney, Jerald Finney. Finney published his conclusions concerning the BLC methodology a long time before taking on the task of microscopic examination of the ELC attacks against the BLC and the ordinary trust recommended by the BLC. He found that the law and the Bible prove that Al Cunningham’s ordinary trust arrangement is on solid biblical grounds and keeps a church out of the legal system. To have lied about his conclusions and the law would have dishonored the Lord. Had Finney concluded that the BLC methods were flawed, he would have informed the BLC, just as he is now informing the ELC that they have created a mess.
Microscopic examination by two lawyers has proved the BLC method to be flawless. Microscopic examination by one lawyer has proven the ELC method to be flawed both biblically and legally. The biblical and legal reasoning supporting the conclusions concerning the problems with the ELC way of doing things are clearly stated in this booklet. ELC responses to the arguments in this booklet have been facetious at best.
Understanding that the ordinary trust is not the church and the church is not the ordinary trust is important. The church does not own the money/property held in the trust (the trust estate). Church members give to God and what they give is held in the trust estate. Money/property has to be held somewhere, by someone. In this case the trust estate holds the money/property which is owned by the equitable owner, the beneficiary. The trustee has legal title to the money/property, but he is to use it for the benefit of the true and equitable owner, the Lord Jesus Christ. Again, this is in contrast to the unbiblical method used by the ELC by which tithes and offerings are given to the church, not to God, and “church property” is held by the church through a pastor/trustee.
Analysis of the second paragraph
The ELC then alleges that the attorney who “came up with this document” (the DOT) “could only think of a legal remedy for church problems, and not a Biblical remedy.” No one should speculate as to the thought processes of that attorney who is now deceased. What is important is the applicability of the method from a biblical perspective. As has already been shown in this chapter, the remedy of the ELC is legal, not biblical and only the unqualified could have come up with such totally chaotic methodology. They have gotten away with their nonsense because no one, until this time, has examined some of their teachings with a “legal microscope.” One can imagine what examination of all their teachings by a qualified legal analyst would reveal.
A biblical and legal analyses of the issues can be found in God Betrayed (see the link above above). The facts, citations, and reasoning supporting the conclusion that the ordinary trust is ideal for an American church are in the writings and teachings on this “Separation of Church and State Law” website. Section VI, Chapter 7 of God Betrayed explains the ordinary trust and the DOT. The first three sections of God Betrayed lay out the biblical doctrines of government, church and separation of church and state; and Section VI, Chapter 7 looks at both biblical and legal precepts concerning the ordinary trust and compares the ordinary trust to incorporation (2 entirely different things) and shows why the ordinary trust is biblical.
The ELC then states, “We believe that this attorney used an existing legal document and applied it to unincorporated churches so that they could hold property without coming under the jurisdiction of the state.” Wrong. The attorney took the concepts of ordinary trust and drafted a Declaration of Trust which declared an ordinary trust. The church who places tithes, offerings, and gifts into the estate of such a trust does not hold property. The trust estate holds the property. The true, beneficial, and equitable owner of the property is the Lord Jesus Christ. Placing God’s money and property in an ordinary trust keeps a church under the Lord Jesus Christ only and out from under civil government jurisdiction if the church is careful not to place herself under state jurisdiction in some other way. One should keep in mind that a church who holds property, opens a bank account, takes out insurance, or does some other legal act forfeits her New Testament and First Amendment status.
The purpose of the ordinary trust is to assure that there is no church property and that all properties and monies in the trust estate are administered by the trustee for the benefit of the true owner of the property (the Lord Jesus Christ). A properly worded “Resolution to Adopt a DOT” and a properly worded DOT makes clear that the trust estate is owned by the Lord and that there is no church property.
A court/agency will assume jurisdiction over a controversy concerning money or property only if the dispute is properly brought to attention of the court/agency with jurisdiction over the matter. If a legitimate action is properly brought to the attention of an appropriate court or agency, the court or agency will assume jurisdiction no matter how the property/money is held and no matter who owns the property/money. In such an action, the court will seek out the legal owner and if none is found, the court or agency will take the necessary steps to get the property/money to a legal owner. Should a church hold/money property, that church is the legal owner and the church is a legal entity; this is the case of an ELC church, but not so with a BLC or SCSLM church. When money/property is put into the trust estate of an ordinary trust, the trustee is the legal owner and the Lord Jesus Christ is the equitable owner. A court cannot bring a church into such a legal controversy if that church places tithes, offerings, and gifts into a trust administered by a trustee where the beneficiary is the Lord Jesus Christ (as long as the church does nothing that makes that church a legal entity).
The elements of the ordinary trust and the DOT recommended by attorney Al Cunningham not only comply with Bible principles, but also incorporate the elements of a DOT and “trust” explained in American lawbooks such as 76 AM. JUR. 2D, Trustsand the DOT guidelines in the accompanying forms volume. “Declaration” means: “Publication, manifestation; as the declarationof the greatness of Mordecai. Esth. X.; A public annunciation; proclamation; as the Declarationof Independence, July 4, 1776” (MERRIAM WEBSTER’S AMERICAN DICTIONARY OR THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1828) definition of “DECLARATION.”). Declaration of Trust is defined as follows:
“The act by which the person who holds the legal title to property or an estate acknowledges and declares that he holds the same in trust to the use of another person or for certain specified purposes. The name is also used to designate the deed or other writing embodying such a declaration” (BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 408 (6th ed. 1990) under definition of “Declaration.” This definition is consistent with the definitions in more authoritative legal references such as AM. JUR. 2D and C.J.S.).
76 AM. JUR. 2D Trusts § 65
The words in the DOT which Cunningham used are unique and are not found in any lawbook. As to the use of express or particular words or phrases to create a trust:
“No particular words are necessary to create 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. An express trust may be created without the use of technical words. All that is necessary are words or circumstances which unequivocally show an intention that the legal estate is vested in one person, to be held in some manner or for some purpose on behalf of another.
“Any statement that shows the ownership or control of property is vested in one person for the benefit of another is sufficient to create a trust, and it is not necessary that the words ‘trust’ or ‘trustee’ be used. Furthermore, even where present, the mere use of the words ‘in trust’ by the parties is not sufficient alone to create a trust, nor does the mere designation of a party as ‘trustee’ create a trust. Absent indications to the contrary, a conveyance using the words ‘for the use of’ or ‘for the benefit of’ demonstrates the intent to create a trust.” (76 AM. JUR. 2DTrusts § 65 (2007)).
As will be shown below, the a church which utilizes the ELC method creates a trust which is a legal entity (perhaps a charitable trust or business trust). The trust which is recommended by the “Separation of Church and State Law” ministry is not a legal entity as explained in the article Is the ordinary trust a legal entity?
Thus, the holding of property by a person (trustee) “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ,” creates a trust. This is a very important for ELC churches to understand since the ELC recommends that property be held by the church (pastor) in trust for the Lord Jesus Christ, the true and beneficial owner and that the church can hold property (e.g., execute a deed) by the pastor, in trust for the Lord Jesus Christ. (See their exact wording below.) The legal system requires a legal tie to real estate as expressed in a deed. If no such tie to real estate exists, and this fact is brought to the attention of the proper court, the court will make sure that a legal entity, such as a person, assumes ownership of the property. Should a controversy arise as to ownership of the real estate, the legal system when properly petitioned will take jurisdiction over the matter. When real property is put up for sale, the buyer is going to want legal assurances that he is getting valid, enforceable legal and equitable ownership.
The ELC states that property may be held in three ways “(1) as a corporation, (2) as an unincorporated association and:
“(3) as an individual. How can property be held to reflect the ownership of Christ over His church? It must be held as an individual, and that individual must be the Lord Jesus Christ! The property should be held by the church in trust for the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the true and beneficial owner. In spite of the skepticism of many, churches in 22 states have placed their property in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ without incident” (Approved by God: A Case for Modern Disetablishment, by Wright/Townsend, page 149). The book goes on to say that “the church, by the Pastor, can execute a deed on behalf of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Ibid.,150.
The ELC are confused since they first say that the property must be held by the Lord Jesus Christ and then they say that the property should be held by the church in trust for the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, property cannot be held by the Lord Jesus Christ since he left all earthly temporal property to be held in trust by man and has given civil government the ultimate jurisdiction over that land. If a nation honors God and His precepts, that nation will also honor God’s churches, and vice versa. If a believer or church is found out in North Korea (and many other nations), any properties which the believer owns will be confiscated and the believers will probably be executed. God allows individuals, families, churches, and nations free will to honor or dishonor him, for the time being. The ELC, in the above statement, also says that the church, is to hold the property.
From ELC book “Approved by God,” p. 149
The ELC states the elements of a trust, and then make clear that the trust they recommend is a legal entity through which the church holds property thereby making the church the legal owner of the property. Some of the words of the ELC quoted above is taken straight out of legal books which define the ordinary trust, but other words compromise the trust and establish it as a legaL entity. They then say, “Held by the church in trust for the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Bold emphasis mine). For a church to hold property violates biblical principle. (See The Biblical Doctrine of the Church and The Biblical Doctrine of Separation of Church and State). Not only that, only a legal entity can hold property. There must be a legal owner of property, even if the legal and true and beneficial owner are not the same. They do not realize that they are in effect stating that the church is a legal entity.
The above illustrates that the ELC recommends compromising the position of a church who uses their method. They state that the church is to “hold the property in trust for the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the true and beneficial owner.” By so stating, they make clear that the church is the trustee of the property which is held in a legal entity type of trust; this argument is strengthened by the fact that, in their attacks against the ordinary trust they incorrectly rely on the law of business trusts as will be shown below. To repeat:
“The ELC teaches that the trust is a legal entity. They are partially correct in that some types of trusts are legal entities. However, the ELC does not quote from the law concerning ordinary trusts as to the legal entity status of the ordinary trust (see above). They do this to establish their incorrect position that the trust utilized by the BLC and this ministry are legal entities. They quote from the law concerning, for example, business trusts. See pages 175-177 of Approved by Man: A Case for Biblical Reasonableness by Wright/Townsend, for an example of where they quote from the law of business trusts and apply it to the ordinary trust. In American Jurisprudence, the law of business trusts is covered in volume 13 whereas the law concerning ordinary trusts is covered in volume 76. The two types of trusts are very distinct types of trusts.”
Thus, the ELC, in their zeal to discredit the ordinary trust, have in fact discredited their own methodology; they create a type of trust which is a legal entity which can act legally, sue, be sued, go into debt if so desired , and enter into contracts (the ELC teaches against a church going into debt and entering into contracts.). Since they declare that the church is to hold the property for the true owner, they are declaring that the church is the trustee and, therefore the church has to be a legal entity. Only a legal entity can hold property; a spiritual entity cannot hold property. The trustee of a trust holds legal title and the beneficiary holds true or equitable title to property.
The ELC then states that “the church, by the pastor, can execute a deed on behalf of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Suffice it here to say that the ELC claims that the church can execute a deed. Only a legal entity can execute a deed. At the same time, they state that the church executes the deed by the pastor. Thus, the pastor effectively serves as trustee, but trustee of what kind of trust? Not a non-legal entity ordinary trust which is something they do not understand and therefore attack. He serves as trustee of a legal entity and that legal entity is the church he signs for.
Public sentiment and the lack of legal action against churches protects churches from legal scrutiny. For the foreseeable future, ELC churches do not have to worry about attacks. There are many situations, even outside the church-state context, where the legal system has not been alerted to some improprieties and therefore has not taken action. Consider the actual situation in which the owner of property has been dead for years and the man living on the property has paid the taxes for years. As long as he keeps up on the taxes and no one takes the issue to court, the man will be able to enjoy the property. Should an ELC church ever be in the legal sights of government lawyers, the ELC has subjected churches who use its methods to a compromised position and sharp government lawyers may pierce their armor. More importantly, the ELC, by not proceeding according to knowledge, wisdom, and understanding, has unknowingly dishonored the Lord.
As a sidenote, it is incorrect to say that property may be held as an individual, corporation, or unincorporated association. The correct way of putting it is that property may be held by or in the name of an individual, corporation, or association.
Finally, the last sentence in the paragraph says, “Since his passing, the Declaration of Trust has evolved into a magic talisman of mystic proportions, designed to fill all the needs of a local church.” That sentence is patently absurd. The author, the pastors, and the believers the author knows and who place tithes, offerings, and gifts into an ordinary trust established by a Declaration of Trust do not believe in magic. Those who put their tithes and offerings in an ordinary trust estate for the benefit of the true owner of all properties, the Lord Jesus Christ, know that the trust established by the DOT is only one piece of the puzzle. There are many ways in which a church can compromise the headship of the Lord Jesus Christ over a church. And even though they believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only one who can fulfill all their needs, their focus is not on themselves and their needs but on obedience to His statutes and precepts. More importantly, they believe that all they do should be for the Glory of God.
Analysis of Ben Townsend’s Article, “A Law, Made by Man, Will be Changed” and Conclusion(Below)
Related articles:
The Only Way a Church Can Organize to Remain a New Testament Church (050616 article which explains that why trust is a Bible concept and why it is the only way a church can organize in accord with New Testament principles and the wisdom of using a properly worded and executed Declaration of Trust with supporting documents.)
See Spurious rationale for church incorporation: to hold property (Section VI, Chapter 7 of God Betrayed; Chapter 7 of Separation of Church and State) for an explanation of the ordinary trust. That chapter shows how the ordinary trust comports perfectly with Bible principle and why this author now co-labels the ordinary trust a Bible trust.
Analysis of Ben Townsends Article “A Law, Made by Man, Will be Changed” and Conclusion
Click the above to go to “A Law, Made by Man, Will be Changed”
This is both an analysis of Ben Townsend’s article A Law, Made by Man, Will be Changed and a conclusion to this booklet. As I wrote the analysis, I saw that it would go hand in hand with an appropriate conclusion to the booklet.
A Law, Made by Man, Will be Changed makes another unexpected admission, but then states that a law of man will be changed. What a revelation and insight which only Ben Townsend can provide. Townsend should have read my books and articles because the Lord guided me to first defeat Townsend’s December 26, 2014 argument in 2008 upon publication of my first book. In that book, I not only explained that man’s laws will be changed but also examined the very Restatement Observation which Townsend cites in his December 26, 2014 article. To God be the glory – God defeated Townsend and all other arguments against doing things God’s way in advance – the Lord had already used the BLC to lay the framework and to begin to help churches; He guided others who seek to glorify God, including me, so as to cover all the bases, in advance; no one could have ever anticipated what was to come, but the Lord saw the past, present, and future, showed it to others. He showed it to me as I studied God’s word first, then history and law, as the Lord put it all together. The Lord anticipated the rantings of all those who would stand against truth, including Townsend. That anticipation was passed on to me and is reflected in my writings, some of which will be cited below. God anticipated:
possible changes not only in the law of ordinary trusts but also in the second highest law of the land—the United States Constitution and specifically the First Amendment thereto; and
the correct Bible response, in the event of such changes, by a church who wishes to remain under the Lord Jesus Christ only. In making his point, as will be seen infra, Townsend uses an Observation from the Restatement of Trusts which Finney quoted and analyzed in God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State (Austin, Texas: Kerygma Publishing Company, 2008).
The God-given truths in this booklet are:
pinning Ben Townsend against the wall where repentance is his only option if he is to not only save face but also help churches who have depended upon him and the ELC understand and apply truth as to church organization; and
flushing out the real Ben Townsend—his character, his qualifications to lead an alleged law ministry, his qualifications to teach law (none, as far as can be ascertained from Townsend’s writings and especially his responses to this booklet), and his qualifications to take part in an honest dialogue concerning trust law.
Two of Townsend’s online admissions—that the ordinary trust is not a legal entity and that he does not know much about trusts—give hope that he is coming closer to repentance and acceptance of the fact that this booklet has totally exposed his long time published and taught false teachings as to all matters concerning the biblically valid ordinary trust of the BLC, the ordinary Bible trust of the Old Paths Baptist Church Separation of Church and State Law Ministry (SCSLM), and the flawed legal entity type trust which has been recommended by the Ecclesiastical Law Center (“ELC”) and applied by ELC churches.
Actually, the truth has been there for Townsend all along; but he did not discover it. Townsend has been active in church matters and organization since at least the 1980s. The Bible along with books on law and history have been there all the time. Townsend did not study it out. The Lord led others to do so. Since a wake-up call was needed for those ELC pastors and churches who have trusted the false teachings of the Ecclesiastical Law Center (“ELC”), the Lord is again, through this booklet and Townsend’s responses, providing the truth for those ELC pastors and believers and others who love the Lord enough to strive to purify their churches and organize them in a manner which will please God.
The first preeminent matter which Townsend admitted thereby explaining his irrationality concerning trust law as demonstrated in his published writings in which he proclaimed himself to know a lot about trusts was that he did not know much about trusts. Chapters 1-8 of this booklet examine Chapter 18 of Approved by Man, in which Townsend purports to know all about trusts. Townsend violated many of God’s precepts and commandments in his method of church organization and his attacks against others. For example:
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness” (2 Timothy 2:15-16).
“According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; … Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall” (2 Peter 1:3-5, 10)(Bold emphasis mine).
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. ” (Exodus 20:16).
“These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, …, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.” (Proverbs 6:16-19 ).
“Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.” (Ephesians 1:20-23).
Now, in the article being analyzed, Townsend also admits the truth proclaimed by the BLC and SCSLM that the ordinary trust is not a legal entity. His admission exposes another of his longstanding lies since it is directly contrary to his false teachings in the ELC book Approved by Man which are also published online. For example, Townsend wrote:
“The Ecclesiasical Law Center advises churches to not use a Declaration of Trust, a corporation, and unincorporated association, or any legal entity to hold their church assets and property” (Approved by Man, p. 180. Townsend’s false teachings are also published online.).
“And placing church property in a Trust is no different from placing it into a Corporation” (Ibid, p. 177).
Townsend is gradually having to admit that some of his published teachings are wrong. Likewise, he is admitting that some of the teachings of this booklet are true because to continue to deny them would clearly demonstrate a total lack of honesty and intellect. However, he continues name calling and dishonest argumentation in an obvious attempt to defend the indefensible – the ELC methodology – and to attack even someone who is trying to show him the truth. He refers to Bible solutions but refuses the obvious one for himself and the ELC – humble, contrite repentance.
Just as one should not entrust an important legal matter to a lawyer who pretends to be competent in many areas of the law, since it is impossible for a lawyer to keep up with more than one or two specialties, one should not trust a “paralegal” who also is a full-time pastor, a lobbyist, a teacher of paralegal courses, etc.; and who, on top of all that, admits that he does not know much about the law concerning a legal matter for which others turn to him for help. Townsend is pastor of Bible Believers Church in Michigan. At the same time, he is very active politically as a lobbyist who has a box at the Indiana State House with his name on it, legally as a self-proclaimed legal authority who spends much time doing “legal research,” and teaches “College” classes (which college?) on several law topics. For anyone to be competent at any one of those endeavors requires total dedication. Competently teaching a law course on one or two topics requires total dedication. For good reason, this author’s law professors at the University of Texas School of Law were assigned to teach on only one legal subject. Trying to do all that Townsend does, as is seen by his forays into the legal arena as analyzed in this booklet, can result in a mess, to say the least.
A church is made up of many equal members. Each member is to apply his calling as part of the church body. The pastor is just one of the members and has a God-ordained role–he is the leader, the steward, the trustee, the under shepherd, and must meet the highest of standards. He is to:
“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry” (2 Timothy 4:2-5).
Understanding and effectively teaching and applying the doctrines of the Bible alone requires tremendous dedication and time. As shown below, Townsend has not even mastered at least two very important Bible doctrines. His teachings addressed in this booklet, his admissions resulting therefrom, and his continued devised arguments demonstrate that he certainly does not understand trust law and its implications to both the ELC trust application and the BLC and SCSLM ordinary trust application. God made clear in the Bible that a pastor cannot do everything. Every member of a church is to exercise his God-given gift(s) for the Glory of God. No one member, including the pastor can do it all. Townsend demonstrates that God knew what he was talking about.
As pointed out in Chapters 9 and 10, Townsend, in his article Give and Take, finally admitted (as he does again in the article being analyzed here) that he does not know much about trusts. He now further admits, for the first time in the article being analyzed in this chapter, that the ordinary trust is not a legal entity by referring to 76 Am. Jur. 2d (his first time to reference that volume as far as this author knows); but he tries to save some face by showing the obvious—that the law concerning the ordinary trust is not a legal entity may change.
Townsend still does not face the fact that the Ecclesiastical Law Center (“ELC”) method of church organization, as has been proven over and over in this booklet, uses a trust which is a legal entity under existing law for ELC church organization and sets the ELC church up as a legal entity. At the same time, he falsely proclaims himself to be some kind of legal authority; calls this attorney an “ordinary attorney” (name calling and lying are two of his chief tactics); suggests that this attorney teaches that laws will not change, that one should not trust that ordinary attorney because he is selling you something when he says that the law he is relying on for “their” legal remedy will always be the same; and that Townsend has taught several college courses on several law topics. His exact words are:
“For anyone to say a law will not change is naïve on their part. Laws do not stay the same. Anyone who tells you the law they are relying on for their legal remedy will always be the same is ‘selling you something.’ Do not trust them. I have taught college courses on several law topics.”
There he goes again. He lies when he says that this attorney says a law will not change. He lies when he states that this attorney has relied on a legal remedy and suggests that the ordinary trust is a purely legal remedy (not so) when in fact Townsend not only admits in this same article being analyzed that the ordinary trust is not a legal entity, but also relies, as shown throughout this booklet, on a legal remedy—a trust which is a legal entity. Townsend is like the liberal who refuses to listen and respond appropriately and reasonably, calls the believer names, and tells the believer all about what he believes, and why he believes what he believes. Townsend, as witnessed by his writings, is so confused that he doesn’t know whether he is coming or going. In his attempts to argue, he takes himself out of the frying pan and puts himself into the fire.
Townsend, in his article, then admits that he himself seeks legal remedies and gives another example that further destroys his credibility (if that is possible). He admits that he was “head” lobbyist for the Indiana Coalition for Religious Freedom for many years. He states, “The State House staff would place in my box every bill concerning churches, day cares, Christian schools, and various and sundry Church/State relationships.” He states, “The Marriage recodification bill in 1989 was basically rewritten by me so that it could include Church Covenant Weddings. This bill was presented by State Senators on the Senate committee in my behalf.” I will not investigate the truth of his statement, but I do consider the findings I have published in this booklet as requiring at least a substantial question mark on any of his self-proclaimed accomplishments.
Townsend’s admission as quoted in the last paragraph is unbelievable in light of Townsend’s false allegation that this attorney seeks a legal remedy by relying on the ordinary trust. The Bible gives absolutely no jurisdiction over marriage to the state. God ordained marriage long before He ordained civil government. After He ordained civil government, He did not then give civil government jurisdiction over marriage—marriage remained a covenant between a man, a woman, and God (See e.g., Genesis 1-3, Matthew 19.3-9; see also, e.g., Jerald Finney’s letter on the following webpage: The Sodomite Agenda, Religious Organizations, And Government Tyranny). By lobbying for a bill which recognized “Church Covenant Weddings” in the state legislature, Townsend admitted that the state has jurisdiction over marriage, thereby dishonoring the principles of marriage in the word of God. He sought a legal remedy for a matter which the Bible teaches is outside legal jurisdiction. Pastor Jason Cooley and Old Paths Baptist Church demonstrated the correct manner of answering questions concerning marriage and the marriage covenant—they went to the Bible to figure out what the Bible teaches about marriage, how a couple is to marry, and related issues. They apply what they learned to marriages of couples who are church members. They did not lobby the legislature. The Bible answers all questions on this matter and the answer is taught and practiced by Old Paths Baptist Church without regard to state law. God gave civil government jurisdiction over marriage. For government to even address the issue is anti-Bible. This is a position believers should have taken a long time ago. This author has dealt with this more extensively in his writings. Pastor Jason Cooley has covered the matter in his sermons and teachings.
Townsend further admits that he lobbied the legislature concerning “churches, day cares, Christian schools, and various and sundry Church/State relationships.” He seeks “legal” remedies for all kinds of “church” problems. What a hypocrite, what a false teacher he is.
This lawyer’s teachings which have been in publication for some time, show that he totally understands that man will change his laws and that even the First Amendment will be changed, ignored, watered down, and, at some time in the future, totally lost. This attorney anticipated the time when man’s laws in America will change, and the possible changes. That anticipation as to the First Amendment is reflected in his lecture, “Hierarchy of Law.” That lecture has been delivered on numerous occasions. (Click here for a sermonaudio.com recording of that lecture which can be downloaded.). By listening to that lecture, one will understand the truth about man’s law and God’s law, that believers are to obey man as long as man’s law (the lower law) is in line with God’s law, and that when man’s law conflicts with God’s law, man is to “obey God rather than man.” This author’s anticipation was presented in God Betrayed, in lectures, in his radio show, and in Render unto God the Things that Are His: A Systematic Study of Romans 13 and Related Verses(click to go to the online version). Other articles make Finney’s position very clear. See also, e.g., Church Internal Revenue Code § 508 Tax Exempt Status, Laws Protecting New Testament Churches in America: Read Them for Yourself,and other articles written by Jerald Finney.
Townsend then shows that, although the trust (referring to the ordinary Bible trust recommended by this author and not the business trust used by the ELC) is not now a legal entity, the law is headed in that direction. This attorney had read the caveats in 76 Am. Jur. 2d and 3d Trusts, and anticipated the possible changes in the law of the ordinary trust and the necessary responses depending on the change(s) in that law when examining trust law and writing God Betrayed. This anticipation is reflected in Spurious rationale for incorporation: to hold property (the online version of Section VI, Chapter 7 of God Betrayed) which not only distinguishes the ordinary trust from incorporation but also explains how the ordinary trust corresponds to New Testament principles.
Finney published God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Applicaton in 2008. In that book, on page 408, Finney referred to the very Restatement observation which Townsend quotes in the article being analyzed. Finney wrote:
“There is a caveat which, if biblical guidelines are followed, is inconsequential to a trust relationship in which a pastor/trustee holds property for the benefit of the Lord Jesus Christ. Modern civil law is beginning to treat a trust somewhat like a legal entity, but only so far as the relationship between the trustee(s) and the beneficiary or beneficiaries is concerned. An outside party still cannot sue a trust.
“’Observation: The Restatement states that increasingly modern common-law and statutory concepts and terminology tacitly recognize the trust as a legal ‘entity,’ consisting of the trust estate and the associated fiduciary relation between the trustee and the beneficiaries. This is increasingly and appropriately reflected both in language (referring, for example, to the duties or liability of a trustee to ‘the trust’) and in doctrine, especially in distinguishing between the trustee personally or as an individual and the trustee in a fiduciary or representative capacity.’”
Another fact must be pointed out which Finney understood when he wrote God Betrayed years ago, which he has taught pastors including his own pastor, and which he has pointed out in this booklet several times. As Finney wrote in Chapter 1 of this booklet:
“Understanding that the ordinary trust is not the church and the church is not the ordinary trust is important. The church does not own the money/property held in the trust (the trust estate). Church members give to God and what they give is held in the trust estate. Money/property has to be held somewhere, by someone. In this case the trust estate holds the money/property which is owned by the equitable owner, the beneficiary. The trustee has legal title to the money/property, but he is to use it for the benefit of the true and equitable owner, the Lord Jesus Christ. Again, this is in contrast to the unbiblical method used by the ELC by which tithes and offerings are given to the church, not to God, and ‘church property’ is held by the church through a pastor/trustee.”
As the Restatement Observation above quoted by Finney in 2008 and then picked up by Townsend on December 26, 2014 (the date of his article) makes clear:
“the modern common-law and statutory concepts and terminology tacitly recognize the trust as a legal ‘entity,’ consisting of the trust estate and the associated fiduciary relation between the trustee and the beneficiaries.”
Notice that the trustor, settlor, or grantor (the church) is not mentioned. That is because the church is not a legal entity in the framework of the “ordinary trust.” Finney continued on pages 408-409 of God Betrayed:
“This caveat should be of little or no consequence unless members of a church violate mandate of Scripture and run to civil government asserting that the pastor/trustee has violated his temporal fiduciary responsibilities.
“’Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren’ (1 Corinthians 6.1-8).
“No matter the status of a church—New Testament church or corporate 501(c)(3)—state courts may possibly attempt to assume illegal jurisdiction initiated by a disgruntled member against a pastor or others in the church as regards temporal matters (just as almost all state courts will assume jurisdiction in a divorce petition initiated by a husband or wife married solely under God without state authority and without a state marriage license). This applies no matter how property utilized by a church is held. However, a court will find it impossible to achieve jurisdiction over a New Testament church, a spiritual entity.”
You see, even should the law treat the ordinary trust as a legal entity, the BLC and SCSLM application of that trust concept does not make a church a legal entity. The pastor is a legal entity as is every citizen in his right mind—he can sue and be sued, he can be charged with a crime, etc. This legal fact applies to the pastor/trustee of the ordinary trust (recommended by the BLC and by the SCSLM) and to the pastor/trustee or trustee of the legal entity trust recommended by the ELC; it applies to every American citizen in his right mind.
The church who places tithes, offerings, and gifts into an ordinary trust as recommended by the BLC and an ordinary Bible trust as recommended by the SCSLM remains an untouchable non-legal entity as long as the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is honored and not changed or discarded and as long as the church does not compromise her spiritual only status in some other way; whereas the ELC church, as has been shown in chapters 1, 6, 8, and 12 of this booklet, has compromised her New Testament church status. Those chapters all prove, from the published words of Ben Townsend and the ELC, that the ELC method not only utilizes a trust which is a legal entity, but also sets the church which uses the method up as a legal entity. The law does not have to be changed at all for an ELC church to be implicated as a legal entity. Townsend and the ELC have, on their own and because of their incompetence in legal matters, made the issue of the effect of a change in the First Amendment on the ordinary trust of no consequence to the ELC church.
The only way for the state to use ordinary trust law to implicate the trustor, grantor, settlor church as a legal entity is to totally ignore the First Amendment as well as the very structure and meaning of the law of ordinary trusts. By its very nature the law of ordinary trust consists of the trust estate and the associated fiduciary relation between the trustee and the beneficiaries. Again, as the Restatement Observation quoted above states:
“… increasingly modern common-law and statutory concepts and terminology tacitly recognize the trust as a legal ‘entity,’ consisting of the trust estate and the associated fiduciary relation between the trustee and the beneficiaries. This is increasingly and appropriately reflected both in language (referring, for example, to the duties or liability of a trustee to ‘the trust’) and in doctrine, especially in distinguishing between the trustee personally or as an individual and the trustee in a fiduciary or representative capacity.”
Of course, if the ordinary trust is shown to be a mere facade to harbor dishonest conduct such as money laundering, profit making activities, etc., those in the know would be subject to the judgment of God and, if pursued, civil action and/or criminal prosecution. This author stresses that the ordinary trust must be completely above board under God and under man. As long as Bible precepts concerning piety are honored, the trustee need not fear God or man and the church which puts tithes, offerings, and gifts into the estate of an ordinary trust or ordinary Bible trust created by a properly worded Resolution and Declaration of Trust will remain a non-legal spiritual entity only.
The day will come when the First Amendment will not be honored. Then, in America as in China, Korea, and many other nations including most Muslim nations, churches who wish to honor the Lord as their only head will have no option but to go underground.
Townsend continues to grasp at straws in order to maintain some credibility. He has reversed himself on some matters thereby destroying his own credibility and that of his books and other writings, but he still has a long way to go. This author never anticipated that Townsend would ever admit that he knew very little about trusts and that the ordinary trust is not a legal entity. He, to this point, refuses to acknowledge the obvious—that the recommendations of the ELC as to church organization violate Bible principles because implementation thereof results in a trust which is a legal entity and a church which is a legal entity. Instead of repenting, Townsend continues with frivolous, mean-spirited, contentions and strivings about the law which are unprofitable and vain.
I recently received a call from a man who stated that Townsend wrote a libelous article which severely defamed me. The caller stated that the attacks were very vicious. Most likely, Mr. Townsend also severely defames me by slander as well. The gentleman who informed me this said that if anyone had that much bad to say about someone, he felt he should call that the person being defamed. He checked out this “Separation of Church and State Law” website and gave me a call. His call has resulted in a new friendship with one who now advises people to read my writings and who understands the ordinary trust and wishes to utilize the method
I have not read the article referred to in the last paragraph. I have covered all that I need to cover in this matter. The important thing is not what someone who has never met me and knows nothing about me says. The important thing is truth. Anyone who loves the Lord, the Lord’s churches, and truth, can read and study what I have written in this booklet, what the ELC and Townsend teaches, and find the truth for themselves. The problem for those who, like the Pharisees, refuse to honestly seek truth, is that they are so convinced of their self-created views that they will not take the time to honestly study so as to rightly divide truth from lies.
Ben Townsend, as have many who those oppose truth and even including those who used every means to counteract the teaching of the Apostle Paul and destroy his influence, resorts to profane and vain babblings which increase unto more ungodliness. His words on the issues herein addressed eat as do a canker. Townsend speaks perverse things intentionally in order to draw away disciples unto himself. He perverts the truth and has to pervert the truth in order to accomplish his purposes. He who speaks the truth will draw disciples to Jesus and not to himself. A religious leader who holds a dishonest position must pervert the truth, and accommodate it to the wishes of those whom he hopes to make or keep as his disciples
This article concludes my examination of Chapter 18 of Approved by Man.
The Only Way a Church Can Organize to Remain a New Testament Church (050616 article which explains that why trust is a Bible concept and why it is the only way a church can organize in accord with New Testament principles and the wisdom of using a properly worded and executed Declaration of Trust with supporting documents.)
See Spurious rationale for church incorporation: to hold property (Section VI, Chapter 7 of God Betrayed; Chapter 7 of Separation of Church and State) for an explanation of the ordinary trust. That chapter shows how the ordinary trust comports perfectly with Bible principle and why this author now co-labels the ordinary trust a Bible trust.
Chapter 10: Reply to Ben Townsend’s Article, “Give and Take”
Ben Townsend and the ELC called for a response by unrelentingly attacking a ministry (the BLC) and the methods used by that ministry. Their attacks were based upon lies and a complete misunderstanding of the law of trusts. Truth concerning preeminent church matters is vital. This booklet responds to and analyzes a writing by Ben Townsend which is published in Chapter 18 of the ELC book, Approved by Man and on the ELC website at http://www.lordshipchurches.info/articles.
This booklet was published online as each section and chapter was written. Ben Townsend wrote a response to this booklet, as it was being published, which he titled Give and Take. This article will address Give and Take section by section.
Mr. Townsend, in his response, does not address or challenge any of the arguments in this booklet. Nonetheless, a reply to his response is necessary because his response continues to misdirect, manipulate, confuse the issues, and make outrageous claims.
Each section of Give and Take is in red below. This author’s response to each section is in black.
Section 1: “Give to the Poor…Take up the Cross (Mark 10.21)”
Section 2: “GIVE – ‘Ben Townsend does not know much about Trusts.’ – Ben Townsend” Section 3:“TAKE – ELC Saved Church $25 Million Dollars. – Ben Townsend” Section 4: “GIVE– I am not a Prude. – Ben Townsend” Section 5: “TAKE– “That Other Attorney IS a Prude.” – Ben Townsend”
Section 1 of Give and Take: “Give to the Poor…Take up the Cross (Mark 10.21)” states:
This is a “Response Blog.” It is in response to a Christian Attorney who has made some claims against the Ecclesiastical Law Center and its leadership (mainly me) that I would deem outrageous. So, I thought between two Law Ministries I could be the first one to make some “Stipulations.” Lay people (those of us who do not know the law but just “lay” around picking our teeth) would call it “Give and Take.” Some would call these “Admissions and Confessions.” I suppose I am not really trying to convince a bevvy of attorneys of anything anyway. But maybe a pastor or two will stumble upon this response and understand where I am going with it.
I am the Christian Attorney who wrote the online booklet to which Mr. Townsend wrote this response. The interested party who studies it out must decide whether what I wrote is outrageous. Townsend’s response was to the Preface, Introduction, and Chapters 1-8 of this booklet.
I consider what I wrote necessary in order to get the truth concerning very important church matters out to pastors and believers. The ELC and Ben Townsend have (1) actively advised and helped churches to order their affairs and (2) viciously attacked the ordinary trust used by many churches as advised by the BLC and the ordinary Bible trust recommended by the Old Paths Baptist Church “Separation of Church and State Law Ministry” for many years.
I decided to first zero in on Chapter 18 of the ELC book, Approved by Man since that Chapter summarizes the essence of the ELC attacks. Analysis of other outrageous ELC publications may follow. Chapter 18 is also published on the ELC website (http://www.lordshipchurches.info/articles) and Ben Townsend is listed as the author. My analysis also refers to some related published writings of the ELC as needed for a complete and honest analysis of Chapter 18. Hopefully, pastors who have and will consider consulting with the ELC on the matters involved in the ELC attacks addressed in this booklet will be enlightened to their benefit and for the Glory of God.
Ben Townsend’s attacks against the BLC and the DOT and ordinary trust started many years ago and continue to this day. Those attacks have been disseminated throughout his realm of influence. Townsend’s assaults which went unchallenged online for many years are ridiculous, vicious, and without knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. In addition to that, the methodology used by the ELC in “helping” churches has some serious flaws.
Townsend admits in his response that he doesn’t know much about trusts. (See below). The truth of the matter, as shown in this booklet, is that Ben Townsend and the ELC do not know what they are doing. Townsend is totally unqualified to do reliable legal research and analysis. Believers who have depended upon the ELC and those considering ELC advice should seriously study these matters out before continuing to follow ELC advice.
Section 2 of Give and Take: “GIVE – ‘Ben Townsend does not know much about Trusts.’ – Ben Townsend”
Okay, I admit it. And when pastors are questioning the “other” attorney from the “other” really good law ministry, he can actually have my blessing to say, “Dr. Townsend admits that he does not know much about Trusts.” Then he can snort through his nose a little giggle, and the pastors in the audience can smile and nod to each other and chuckle. They can even designate one of their own pastors (at that moment) to cackle out loud. I would like him to stipulate that at that point he will tell the congregation of pastors, “Dr. Townsend has the same amount of knowledge on Trusts as Paul, Peter, John, and all the other writers of the Bible.” Whenever anyone would call the ELC and ask about Trusts, I would say, “Dr. Wright, phone call,” and hand the phone to Dr. Wright. Mainly, those would be people whom Dr. Wright had set up their Trust as an individual. He personally set up hundreds of those Trusts. Some were Unincorporated Business Organizations (UBOs), some were Bare Trusts to just hold properties and assets, and one he set up for me to hold money to be used to help other missionaries and ministries in my son Jeremy’s name after his death. He sincerely tried to show me how it all worked once, and I smiled and nodded and said “Hmmm…” a lot. And with Dr. Wright having a B.A. in History, graduating from Central Baptist Seminary, and a Ph.D. in Business Administration, I figured he knew what he was talking about. Besides, I am a pastor. The only thing I really knew about Trusts was “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart.” I was not confused into thinking that was a legal Trust though.
Ben Townsend admits that he does not know much about trusts. That explains the nonsense he writes about trusts in Chapter 18 of Approved by Man which is reproduced on the ELC website. (See the entirety of this booklet for explanation.) This attorney is not snorting and giggling about Townsend’s attempts at what he calls “sarcasm.” This attorney is not at all enjoying any of this and would not pursue it were it not such an important matter. Many good men of God have depended upon the ELC and Ben Townsend; those men of God deserve to know the truth.
Why would Townsend attack the methodology of others when he does not know what he is talking about in his attacks? Perhaps he informed those who read Chatper 18 or the online publication thereof that they should understand that he did not know what he was talking about. If so, where is such a disclaimer except in his just published article Give and Take.Does not this admission, that he does not know what he is talking about, extend to other things he has published? It certainly extends to other matters which follow below. Dear pastors and believers who are following this controversy, please read and study Chapter 18 (book or online) and An analysis of Ecclesiastical Law Center Attacks against the Ordinary Trust Recommended by the Old Paths Baptist Church “Separation of Church and State Law Ministry”. These are not laughing matters which should by brushed aside by silly rhetoric.
For there to be an “other” attorney, there must be an attorney: who is he? Also, who is the first “really good law ministry?” He cannot be referring to the ELC as a “really good law ministry.” The ELC is a really bad law ministry. The ELC understanding of the law of trusts bears no resemblance to the actual law of trusts. The ELC methods of church organization set churches up as legal entities and has many serious flaws which are explained throughout this booklet.
Section 3 of Give and Take:“TAKE– ELC Saved Church $25 Million Dollars. – Ben Townsend”
This other Christian attorney made the statement that he first met Dr. Wright when he came to speak at his church in Texas in July of 2002. He stated, “Years ago, the church I belonged to in Austin paid Robin Wright of the Ecclesiastical Law Center (“ELC”) to spend a few days at the church teaching the church on how to stay under the Lord Jesus Christ only. I, as an attorney, was asked by my pastor to talk with Mr. Wright. I spent quite a few cordial hours so doing.” So, now I will show you what “Take” means. No one on ELC staff over the years, neither Dr. Wright nor myself has ever been “paid” to do anything. We have gone wherever, free of charge, with no expectations of payment for any services rendered. Now, this church in Texas, Capital City Baptist Church, has never supported financially the ELC. The real reason Dr. Wright was invited to come to the church was because the parents of the boy who was beaten by the pastor’s sons were attempting to sue the church for $25 million dollars. Dr. Wright meeting with the church’s insurance company that week was the primary purpose for his trip. His “speaking to the church” and “cordial hours” of speaking with this attorney was incidental. I was on the phone with Dr. Wright all week because I was doing the research in Texas law concerning unincorporated churches being sued. When I presented Dr. Wright with the Texas laws that stated the unincorporated church could not be sued, he presented this research to the insurance company. The insurance company used this research to convince the parents’ attorney to drop the lawsuit against the church. Plus, the insurance agent when thanking Dr. Wright for his help, confided that they had planned to “settle” out of court with the parents for “six figures,” but decided against that when they found out the church could not be sued because it was not incorporated. The parents did end up suing the boys and got a judgment of $1.5 million, which the boys will have to repay when they get out of jail.
As a sidenote, who is the Christian attorney which must be assumed when Mr. Townsend says “other Christian attorney?” As far as is known, the ELC has, and never has had an attorney – there must be one Christian attorney before there can be another Christian attorney.
The claim that the ELC saved the church $25 million dollars is so ridiculous that this author is almost dumfounded. Mr. Townsend has a fertile imagination which he freely exercises.
Dr. Wright received ample reward for the time he spent at the church. He was called to teach on how to organize a church. This author was present for all his teachings and still has his extensive notes. Dr. Wright taught at the Bible Institute during the days and at the church every evening while he was at the church. Dr. Wright’s teaching on church organization was ignored by the pastor.
Even if Dr. Wright was also called to advise the civil attorneys on the fact that an unincorporated church could not be sued, his efforts failed. This author talked with the attorneys about that matter and knows what they had to say about it. Unlike Dr. Wright, they were far more educated in and qualified to do legal research, litigation, and negotiations than Mr. Townsend or Dr. Wright. The truth is that the whole thing was a lot more complicated than Mr. Townsend will ever be able to know.
Here are just a few facts and legal considerations. The Pastor of the church had made the truthful claim that the church was an unincorporated association (a legal entity). In order to hold every person in a church which is a legal entity (corporation, unincorporated association, etc.) liable for damages, the plaintiff would have had to prove that the whole church or the church leadership encouraged or knew about or encouraged what the boys did. That was not the case. The church had a long-standing policy that no person in the church was to discipline any child not their own. The young man who did the discipline was pastor of a Spanish church and the boy was the son of a couple who attended the Spanish church. The Spanish church was autonomous.
Had the church been a non-legal entity, only those who took part in the crime could have been implicated. Of course, should an entire church accept and/or promote illegal or criminal activity which is preached from the pulpit, the whole church, no matter how it is organized, may, under the right facts, be implicated in a lawsuit. The lawyers for the plaintiff and the insurance company lawyers discussed the law and the facts in their negotiations and the church was never in any real danger, before or after Dr. Wright’s appearance, of being held liable.
The insurance company did settle for six figures. No one knows the exact amount for sure, but it was over $1,000,000 but less than $2,000,000. Looks to me like that is six figures. The insurance company paid that settlement.
In short, Dr. Wright’s legal help in the matter, if any, was useless. This author spent a lot of time with Dr. Wright while he was in Austin as well as with the lawyers. They never mentioned to him that they had talked to Dr. Wright and Dr. Wright never mentioned them or that he had talked to them. Dr. Wright did discuss some of the matters involved in the criminal suit – this author, out of courtesy and respect did not inform him that he was out of his field of expertise.
Section 4 of Give and Take:“GIVE– I am not a Prude. – Ben Townsend”
I think anyone who knows me, knows that I really enjoy having a great time, and really enjoy making fun of legalists and Baptist Pharisees. Dear Brother Ben Mott, very proper mind you and very ethical, but not a prude, heard me singing a bunch of my silly songs after one of our conferences were all over. People were still hanging around and I went to the piano and started singing “The Cat Got Dead” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQMDgVCikP0 or “If My Nose Was Running Money” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nhSW6QxGPs at 5 minutes into the radio video, and many others. Bro. Mott at first did not know what in the world was happening. Afterwards he came up to me and made this statement in perfect English, “Dr. Townsend, I now know what you are all about; you shine a light on Pharisees.” He was right. I blast Calvinists with “Super-Hyper-Calvanistic-Predetermined-Theory” sung to the tune of Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, Knit-Pickers with “Swallow the Fly,” and I help pastors with songs like, “If You Don’t LIke My Apples, Don’t Shake My Tree” and “Don’t Tell the Pastor.” Sometimes I get flak from people who do not understand what I am all about. Usually it is from those who completely believe one should be serious about everything. Now, I am serious when I preach in the pulpit. But even when I joke from the pulpit, I am very serious. I never make fun of the things of the Lord. I do tend to make fun of myself and people who need to loosen up or consider themselves too high and mighty to laugh at themselves. And it’s okay, I can take this criticism of not being a prude. Or worse criticisms like, “He calls his attacks on certain other believers ‘sarcasm;’ I do not look at it that way.” “He sets himself up as a legal authority and he is anything but.” Hey, I just do whatever I can to be a blessing to people. I don’t set myself up as anybody. I don’t even care what people think of me, only what the Lord thinks. I have an audience of One. I only want to please Him.
One cannot bless people by ruthlessly attacking them and their good actions and methods based upon nonsense. One cannot bless people in churches by peddling to them – without knowledge, understanding and wisdom – a method of church organization which makes a church a legal entity. Is Mr. Townsend saying, in the last section above, that Chapter 18 is meant to be a blessing to people, something which will please the Lord? I look at Chapter 18 and some of his other blatantly false attacks against the BLC, the DOT, and the ordinary trust and his method of church organization as serious violations of some biblical precepts.
Truth is one necessary ingredient of revival. Truth concerning church organization is at the center of this debate. Another ingredient of revival is repentance.
The ruthless, groundless, inaccurate ELC attacks have been going on for years. To know whether the ELC attacks are correctly characterized, readers should read and analyze both Chapter 18 of Approved by Man and this booklet.
This author would be glad to help Ben Townsend and the ELC in their attempts to help churches organize according to New Testament principles. This author holds no hatred or grudge against Townsend or the ELC. He does hold an allegiance to truth and to the Glory of God.
Section 5 of Give and Take: “TAKE– “That Other Attorney IS a Prude.” – Ben Townsend”
Now, a “Prude” is defined as: “One who is excessively concerned with being or appearing to be proper, modest, or righteous.” (The Free Dictionary.com) Examples of terms from his writings that expose his prudishness are “I started an intense study,” “after years of intense study,” “having done extensive studies,” “knowing the tactics of ELC,” “are thoroughly covered in” his teachings, “I myself instructed them (somehow meaning ELC),” “extensive knowledge,” and the many times he states that he will “repent and publish” his repentance if someone shows him he is wrong. It is so funny to me how guys will state they will repent when so many times in their writings they show that they already know everything so intensively, extensively, and exhaustively that there is no other knowledge left in the world which could ever make them change their minds. (sigh) He even stated in an email he sent me that when he was with the BLC, “I was straight on everything.” Folks, when everything the person deals with is referred to as a “very serious matter,” something is prudish about the fellow. But my nature as a Non-Prude is to point out the mistakes of the Prudish every chance I get. Does that mean we will never get along? Well, I can meet a person like this half-way. I can even go overboard, meaning just say the things I want to say out loud just to myself, and smile a lot. I know God uses all kinds of personalities and Spiritual gifts. My Spiritual gift (Exhortation) is to get everyone to “lighten up” and do not think to seriously of themselves all the time. Now, if this fellow says my calling him a “Prude” is an “Attack” on his character, then everyone will finally know he is a Prude. If he were ever to just say, “That Townsend, what a nut. I can’t believe he would say I was a Prude. He’s so flaky,” then Revival might just break out, or the Lord might just return. But please do not tell me a man is “humble” when he gets mad about what is said about him. True Humility is realizing we are worthless, so whatever anyone says about us is just not that important. Besides, if they knew ALL my sins, they would realize that I am much worse than what they think I am.
As of yet, no one in the ELC has addressed any of the analysis in this booklet.
Since my salvation, I have had to repent of sins and of false beliefs many times. I could write a book on that. I have been confronted with many new truths which revealed to me much nonsense which I had accepted as truth for many years. I repented and redirected. I am still learning. If the ELC or anyone can enlighten me on anything, especially anything in the above article, which is not correct, I will publish my repentance.
I would suggest that Mr. Townsend, if he is truly interested in the Glory of God and revival, would do better to quote the Bible than to quote the dictionary definition of “prude;” than to give his worldly philosophy of how this matter should be handled; than to make light of God’s truths. If he wants to enter into a God-honoring communication is search of truth, I will be glad to accommodate him.
I do not deal with everything as a very serious matter. When the Lord calls me to do so, I do deal with misrepresentations about the church and other serious Bible principles and matters very seriously.
I am not mad about what anyone has done to me or about what anyone has said about me. This booklet was written to address the inaccuracies and baseless attacks against the BLC, the DOT, and the ordinary trust thereby created, not to address what someone said about me. I do care about what the Lord thinks about me – thank the Lord for His mercy, His grace, His discipline, His love, His comfort, His leading, His word, His truth, His churches, etc. etc. The ELC has done something against our Lord and Bible truth and I am mad about that. My heart goes out to those good men of God who would listen to the counsel of Ben Townsend concerning church organization, the DOT, and the ordinary trust.
I can only glory in the Lord. I am not wise after the flesh, mighty, noble. I am one of the foolish things of the world, one of the base things of the world, one of the despised things of the world, one of the things which are not. My flesh cannot glory in God’s presence.
Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it. To him, and to his disciples and millions of Christian martyrs who refused to compromise their Bible beliefs, including their belief in separation of church and state, the church was a serious matter. I have read nowhere in the Bible or history where any of them treated church doctrine with levity. Nowhere can one find any of them who made light of such serious matters. Isaiah 53:3: “[Jesus Christ] is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.”
I suggest that the following verses may be more relevant in these matters than what Mr. Townsend writes in this section:
2 Peter 1:2-10 “Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtueknowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:” [Bold emphasis mine]
Hosea 4:6 “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” [Bold emphasis mine]
For much more on this see the following webpage: After Salvation.
The Only Way a Church Can Organize to Remain a New Testament Church (050616 article which explains that why trust is a Bible concept and why it is the only way a church can organize in accord with New Testament principles and the wisdom of using a properly worded and executed Declaration of Trust with supporting documents.)
See Spurious rationale for church incorporation: to hold property (Section VI, Chapter 7 of God Betrayed; Chapter 7 of Separation of Church and State) for an explanation of the ordinary trust. That chapter shows how the ordinary trust comports perfectly with Bible principle and why this author now co-labels the ordinary trust a Bible trust.
Chapter 9: Ben Townsend Explains Chapter 18 of Approved by Man: He admits that he did not know what he was talking about
As was obvious to this author when he read and analyzed Chapter 18 of Approved by Man, Townsend did not know what he was talking about regarding trust law. He wondered why Townsend would make such outrageous statements and legal arguments. Ben Townsend partially explained his foolish writing in Give and Take. In that article he stated:
“Okay, I admit it. And when pastors are questioning the ‘other’ attorney from the ‘other’ really good law ministry, he can actually have my blessing to say, ‘Dr. Townsend admits that he does not know much about Trusts’” (See the Endnote for the complete section where he makes this admission. Click Give and Takefor this author’s replies to the entirety of that article.).
Townsend goes on to say that Robin Wright, now deceased, was the ELC brains behind the law of trusts. This infers that the ELC is now going forward without anyone with any knowledge of trust law. The ELC, as when Dr. Wright was alive, (1) organizes churches as legal entities through the use of some kind of trust and (2) relentlessly attacks the Biblical Law Center (“BLC”) and the DOT and the ordinary trust thereby created. All this is explained in the Preface, Introduction, and Chapters 1-8 of this booklet.
Give and Take raises a very important question: Why would Townsend write Chapter 18 of Approved by Man when he admits that he does not know much about trusts? The fact is, as shown by Chapters 1-8 of this booklet, he knows nothing about trusts. In Chapter 18, Townsend speaks as though he is an authority on the Declaration of Trust and the trusts thereby created. Pastors have explained Townsend’s reason for his unlearned and virulent attacks to this author. The quote of one pastor (not Dr. Greg Dixon and not a pastor who had, at the time of his quote, utilized the DOT and the ordinary trust) as to Townsend’s motive follows: ““[Out of courtesy, this author will not publish the pastor’s statement.]” Mr. Townsend needs to repent and ask for help in correcting the flaws of the ELC as to church organization for the sake of all the good men of God who depend upon him for leadership.
No one can defend the ELC position against the Declaration of Trust and the ordinary trust thereby created. Townsend certainly has made no rational attempt to do so. Should he make such an attempt, this author will be glad to read and analyze his offering. This author will repent should he be proven wrong concerning any matter.
Section 2 of Give and Take: “GIVE – ‘Ben Townsend does not know much about Trusts.’ – Ben Townsend” follows:
Okay, I admit it. And when pastors are questioning the “other” attorney from the “other” really good law ministry, he can actually have my blessing to say, “Dr. Townsend admits that he does not know much about Trusts.” Then he can snort through his nose a little giggle, and the pastors in the audience can smile and nod to each other and chuckle. They can even designate one of their own pastors (at that moment) to cackle out loud. I would like him to stipulate that at that point he will tell the congregation of pastors, “Dr. Townsend has the same amount of knowledge on Trusts as Paul, Peter, John, and all the other writers of the Bible.” Whenever anyone would call the ELC and ask about Trusts, I would say, “Dr. Wright, phone call,” and hand the phone to Dr. Wright. Mainly, those would be people whom Dr. Wright had set up their Trust as an individual. He personally set up hundreds of those Trusts. Some were Unincorporated Business Organizations (UBOs), some were Bare Trusts to just hold properties and assets, and one he set up for me to hold money to be used to help other missionaries and ministries in my son Jeremy’s name after his death. He sincerely tried to show me how it all worked once, and I smiled and nodded and said “Hmmm…” a lot. And with Dr. Wright having a B.A. in History, graduating from Central Baptist Seminary, and a Ph.D. in Business Administration, I figured he knew what he was talking about. Besides, I am a pastor. The only thing I really knew about Trusts was “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart.” I was not confused into thinking that was a legal Trust though.
The Only Way a Church Can Organize to Remain a New Testament Church (050616 article which explains that why trust is a Bible concept and why it is the only way a church can organize in accord with New Testament principles and the wisdom of using a properly worded and executed Declaration of Trust with supporting documents.)
See Spurious rationale for church incorporation: to hold property (Section VI, Chapter 7 of God Betrayed; Chapter 7 of Separation of Church and State) for an explanation of the ordinary trust. That chapter shows how the ordinary trust comports perfectly with Bible principle and why this author now co-labels the ordinary trust a Bible trust.
Chapter 2: Analysis of “The Propagation of the Declaration”
Note. This is a continuation of the examination of Chapter 18 of Approved by God written by Ben Townsend of the Ecclesiastical Law Center (“ELC”), a chapter which attacks the ordinary (Bible) trust recommended by the Biblical Law Center (“BLC”) and by this “Separation of Church and State Law” ministry. This article answers questions raised in the first section of that chapter “The Propagation of the Declaration.”
When this author became lead counsel for the Biblical Law Center (“BLC”), he began a period of intense study. His main goal was to satisfy himself that he was on solid biblical (first and foremost) grounds. Had he found that the Declaration of Trust (“DOT”) was not correct according to both Bible precept, he would not have continued his position as lead counsel. After 2½ years of intense studies, he concluded not only that the DOT created a trust relationship in line with Bible precept but also was recognized by American law. When he left the BLC in 2011, he and Dr. Greg Dixon were in agreement as to the fact that the DOT created a type of trust (which trust law calls an “ordinary” trust) which describes a relationship with property whereby a trustee (the legal owner) holds the property for the benefit of the true and equitable owner of the property, the Lord Jesus Christ.
The concept of the ordinary (Bible) trust was not invented in 1986, as the ELC points out in this section. The God-given precept of a trust relationship with money and property was implemented in the church context in 1986 by Attorney Al Cunningham who founded the BLC. This author explains the legal and biblical basis of trust (the ordinary (Bible) trust) inSection VI, Chapter 7 God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application (Click the link to go to the online version). This author, by necessity of countering long published and continuing ELC attacks against the DOT and the ordinary trust thereby created, is also explaining certain facets of the ordinary (Bible) trust in this series of articles.
Navigating a particular law in the legal system is not as easy as it might seem. Here is a rack with the volumes from AM. JUR. 2D AND AM. JUR. 2D forms. This is only a good starting place to understand the law of trusts.
The ELC asks in “The Propagation of the Declaration” section of Chapter 18 of Approved by Man, if the DOT has ever been used by churches, and what entities have used this “magic document.” The DOT used by the BLC has created many ordinary trusts and the trust estates of those trusts include the tithes, offerings, and gifts of many churches. After becoming lead counsel for the BLC, this author met and/or talked with many of the pastors of churches for whom the BLC had already helped establish an ordinary trust. After becoming lead counsel, he met others who came to the BLC for help and who adopted a DOT and put into operation the ordinary trust thereby created.
In 2011 this author stepped down as lead counsel for the BLC and became head of the “Separation of Church and State Law” ministry of Old Paths Baptist Church (SCSLM). Recently, he adopted the appropriate name for the ordinary trust when utilized by churches: the Bible trust. Many churches are now putting tithes, offerings, and gifts into the ordinary (Bible) trust which is recommended by this ministry and the trust recommended by the BLC.
Contrary to the assertion of the ELC in this section, any law book cannot explain the DOT and the ordinary (Bible) trust thereby created. There are untold thousands of law books covering every area of the law. Most of those never mention trust law. Moreover, every book on trust law cannot explain the DOT which creates the DOT and the ordinary (Bible) trust thereby created. Some law books (or sections thereof) and court cases address various issues concerning charitable trusts, some business trusts, some ordinary trusts, and the use of the DOT to create the particular type of trust being examined. Any competent lawyer or paralegal knows that one must be able isolate the issue(s), court cases and law(s) relevant to the questions at hand. Should a lawyer present to the court irrelevant law, unreliable law, and/or incorrect law, his opponent would make him look like a fool and the judge would declare his arguments facetious. That is the case of common sense as applied to legal disputes. The same discernment cannot be expected of pastors and believers who have not studied trust law; many have relied upon the facetious teachings and aid of the ELC in ordering their affairs. They have done so because they themselves simply have not been called to know it all and many have become easy prey for the ELC.
Common sense—and more importantly for the believer, biblical sense—should be a rule for all issues, legal or otherwise. The author humbly submits that the judge of the dispute between this ministry and the ELC must use not only common sense, but also biblical sense, in seeking out whom to believe as to these matters. This exchange between the ELC and this ministry is presenting two opposing arguments to those serious readers who will judge this exchange. The ELC challenge, along with personal attacks, pseudo-legal arguments, etc. have been published verbally, online, and in printed publications made available for public consumption for many years. This series of articles is the first public response to those attacks by this, or any other, ministry. For His Glory, this author humbly submits that one should be diligent in his search for truth concerning these most important matters.
After online publication of the first eight chapters of this booklet, Ben Townsend of the ELC partially explained Chapter 18 of Approved by Man – he admitted that he did not know much about trusts in Section 2 of an online response entitled Give and Take(SeeChapter 9 and 10 for a response). He also admitted in an article entitled “A Law, Made by Man, Will be Changed” a very important truth which is in direct contradiction to what he has asserted in books and online articles—that the “ordinary trust” is not a legal entity (See Chapter 13). That admission is only partially true since, as explained in other chapters, some types of trusts are legal entities and only the ordinary trust is not. In other words, he admitted that he attacked the BLC, the DOT, and the ordinary trust without knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. He completely discredits all he has published on these matters by his admissions. A study of ELC teaching reveals that the ELC method of church organization is confused, unlearned, and ill-advised. The ELC system results in churches who are legal entities which are subject to and have been involved in the legal system.
The Only Way a Church Can Organize to Remain a New Testament Church (050616 article which explains that why trust is a Bible concept and why it is the only way a church can organize in accord with New Testament principles and the wisdom of using a properly worded and executed Declaration of Trust with supporting documents.)
See Spurious rationale for church incorporation: to hold property (Section VI, Chapter 7 of God Betrayed; Chapter 7 of Separation of Church and State) for an explanation of the ordinary trust. That chapter shows how the ordinary trust comports perfectly with Bible principle and why this author now co-labels the ordinary trust a Bible trust.
Chapter 4:Analysis of the third section of Chapter 18, “Biblical Law Center Bulletins”
Note. This is a continuation of the examination of Chapter 18 of Approved by Man, an Ecclesiastical Law Center (“ELC”) Publication, which attacks the ordinary trust. This article looks at the third section of that chapter “Biblical Law Center Bulletins.”
Thank you, ELC, for waking up our brain cells.
In the following analysis, ELC quotes will be in red in quotation marks and analysis of their statements in black. This chapter exposes and defeats the false, virulent, hostile accusations and conclusions of the ELC in this section of their article.
The third section of chapter 18 starts out:
Approved by Man, p. 177
“The Declaration of Trust must be validated by those who propagate it. This places all their documents under the scrutiny of a legal microscope. The reason for this answer is because good men of God, who love their churches, have actually asked why is this document being pushed so hard by these people.”
This author, an attorney, has placed BLC documents under a “legal microscope.” His qualifications: legal research at Jr. College prior to going to law school, graduation from one of the best law schools in the country (The University of Texas School of Law), continuing to study and apply legal research and analysis, and practicing law for twenty-one years. In addition to that, he, a born-again believer, has spent just as much time studying the biblical doctrines of government, church, separation of church and state and the application of those principles in the United States. Studying and growing in knowledge, understanding, and wisdom are prescribed by God’s word, but some will make fun of someone who actually obeys these directives.
A pastor is just one member of a church body. The other members are told to exercise their gifts and work with the other members, including the pastor, in fighting the spiritual warfare believers and churches are involved with. Sadly, some pastors think they know it all and can do it all just because they are the pastor. They cannot possibly know it all and do it all. Hence the need for a member who, according to God’s call, studied legal, as well as, Bible matters.
This author finds nothing out of order with the basic concepts concerning the Declaration of Trust (“DOT”) and the ordinary trust thereby created. A properly worded and executed Resolution and DOT and the ordinary (Bible) trust thereby created implement biblical principle, conform to the biblical doctrine of trust, are provided for in American law, and allow a church to remain under God only. The analysis below again shows that the ELC will say anything to support their attack on the DOT and the ordinary (Bible) trust.
The ELC constantly approaches pastors and others about their ideas concerning church organization. They try to recruit people to their way and condemn other methodologies. This is a good thing as to church corporate (including corporation sole), unincorporated association, and 501(c)(3) status. However, the ELC method is seriously flawed, and yet they incessantly attack the use of the ordinary (Bible) trust and the DOT which creates it. Their attacks are wrong and not according to knowledge, as this series of articles shows. One can certainly ask why the ELC method is being pushed so hard by those who promote it; the answer is bias, motive and lack of knowledge.
Approved by Man, p. 178
The ELC article continues:
“A recent ‘Bulletin’ stated, ‘In recent weeks we have seen churches continuing to use the DOT to great advantage. Several have reported opening bank accounts without an EIN#. (Biblical Law Center Bulletin, April 12, 2007)’ Unless they provide the ‘several’ who have done this, I believe it to be a careful distortion to attempt to soothe men who have questioned the document. A pastor close to this situation wrote that this pastor never showed the Trust document to the Bank, but the bank accepted the existence of the Trust by a verbal statement of the pastor. Also, the pastor in question provided his Social Security Number to open the church account.”
Contrary to what the ELC asserts in the above paragraph, the pastor/trustee of an ordinary (Bible) trust does not open a church account. He opens a trust account. The church who used the DOT and ordinary trust thereby created is not a legal entity and cannot open a bank account; for a church to open a bank account makes the church a legal entity. Although the ELC method uses cash only, a church which utilizes the ELC method is a legal entity as is proved in other parts of this booklet.
When this author was lead counsel for the BLC, a number of churches adopted the DOT and the ordinary trust which was recommended by the BLC. A bank account was opened for the trust by the Pastor/trustee in each instance; the pastors were able to do so using their social security number. One of those pastors is now the pastor of the church to which this author now belongs, Pastor Jason Cooley, who opened a trust account for the trust created by the DOT. Pastor Cooley provided his Social Security Number in opening the account. He did not open a bank account in the name of the church. To have done so would have made the church a legal entity.
When Pastor Jason looked at incorporation and IRS tax exempt status he realized that such devices violate New Testament church doctrine. A mutual friend referred Pastor Jason to this attorney concerning church organization. They spent many hours discussing the DOT and the trust thereby created as Pastor Cooley studied the Bible doctrine of the church, the DOT, and the ordinary trust. Prior to discussing these matters with this attorney, he had talked with ELC men. He studied both the ELC recommended methods and those of the BLC. The church (Old Paths Baptist Church) resolved to adopt the DOT and ordinary trust recommended by the BLC. The BLC helped him do this.
This Old Paths Baptist Church “Separation of Church and State Law” ministry has helped other churches execute a DOT and ordinary (Bible) trust with no problems in opening a bank account for the trust. In each case the pastor/trustee provided his social security number in opening the account.
The ELC is confused and does not understand that the a church who creates a trust recommended by the ELC is a legal entity; nor do they understand that ta church which establishes an ordinary (Bible) trust is not a legal entity as long as that church does not compromise her position in some other manner. The ELC does not understand that their trust can be classified as a legal entity whereas the ordinary (Bible) trust cannot. The ELC is against bank accounts for their church trust (a legal entity). This “Separation of Church and State Law Ministry” has no problem with opening a Bible trust bank account since (1) it can find nothing wrong with so doing, biblically or legally (Since the legal system recognizes the principle of the Bible trust); (2) the trustee opens the account for the trust, not for the church since the church is a non-legal entity which holds no money or property; (3) ordinary Bible trusts are administered by pastors/trustees with integrity who wish to be light to the world and have nothing to hide. These matters are explained more thoroughly in other articles in this series.
The pastor/trustee of either an ELC trust or an ordinary Bible trust is a legal entity. Every citizen in his right mind is a legal entity who can act legally in many ways. As pastor/trustee, he can do things which subject him to the civil government legal system (criminal and/or civil) should someone file a complaint (criminal) or initiate a lawsuit (civil). Civil government will take jurisdiction (criminal or civil) to any dispute over money or property to which the government is alerted and which contravenes criminal or civil law. As long as one does right, according to the law, he can only be brought into the legal arena as a defendant (either criminal or civil) by lies or misleading circumstances. The church which places tithes, offerings, and gifts into an ordinary Bible trust to be held by the trustee for the benefit of the true owner of the property, the Lord Jesus Christ, cannot be brought into a lawsuit or charged with a crime since it is not a legal entity; this is not true of the church organized according to ELC methods. Someone who is a member of a church, no matter how the church is organized, can be the subject of a criminal charge or civil suit should a proper criminal complaint be made or civil lawsuit filed.
The ELC continues:
“In their very next bulletin, the ‘several’ reports of bank accounts became ‘many’ in just one day.” The ELC then quotes from a letter from a pastor/trustee who had followed the BLC recommendation in which the pastor opened a trust bank account and states that he had no problem opening a trust bank account with his social security number only. Then the ELC states: “It is ludicrous to think that the document did any good whatsoever. The bank took his Social Security Number and he opened a church account with it. It is dangerous for a pastor to do something like this. The IRS can now attribute those funds as his own. And how exactly is he to try to refute that premise? He cannot.”
Again, the ELC does not know what they are talking about. The pastor did not open a church account. The pastor opened a trust account. The government already had his social security number as well as that of anyone who has a social security number. Should a pastor open an account in his name as an individual, the IRS can attribute the funds to that pastor. However, when a pastor/trustee of a Bible trust opens a trust account, those funds cannot be attributed to the pastor. A properly worded and executed Declaration of Trust and supporting documents validates and explains the Bible trust so that the bank, the IRS, and anyone else may examine the documents if allowed to do so by the pastor/trustee. American law which recognizes the Bible trust rather than providing for the creation of such a trust and the elements thereof. State law does not provide for creation of a Bible trust whereas state law provides for creation of a corporation which is a creature of the state. The ordinary trust for which he opened the account is not a legal entity as is, for example, a corporation. (See, Is the ordinary trust a legal entity?). The Resolution Adopting the DOT and the DOT make clear that the trust is not a legal entity and that the trust creates nothing more than a means, recognized by the legal system, to hold and manage money and property. The law says an ordinary trust is not a legal entity: the law says this because the very nature of the ordinary trust is clear – by its very nature, such a trust cannot be a legal entity. Always remember, the ordinary Bible trust is not the church, the church is not the the trust or the trustee, and the church does not hold property by a trustee as in the case of the ELC trust.
This attorney recommends that the pastor/trustee take the Resolution and the DOT which creates the ordinary Bible trust with him to the bank when he goes in to open a trust account. Should the bank wish to see the documents, the pastor/trustee should show the documents to the bank. There is nothing wrong with doing so. He has nothing to hide. In fact, by shining light, he glorifies the Lord Jesus Christ.
As to the bank taking his social security number (“SSAN”), if the pastor/trustee has a social security number, he should show it to the bank. If he has never had, or has tried to disown, a SSAN, he is fighting another battle which this author has considered but concluded that that fight involves something about which he is not convicted. The pastor/trustee should show his SSAN to the bank because it is an identifying number for which he has not had to betray the Lord; he is stuck with it, but by using it in this context, he does not implicate a church nor does he endanger himself. Whether one has a SSAN or not, he is a legal entity and he can be held accountable by the civil government for wrongdoing brought to the attention of the civil government. See The Biblical Doctrine of Government for more insights on the jurisdictional boundaries of each type of God-ordained government.
The bank will not attribute those funds as being “his own” (belonging to the pastor). Most banks understand trust law and the different types of trusts. Many have their own trust departments. They know that this type trust is an ordinary trust. They know that the pastor/trustee merely administers the funds for the benefit of the true, equitable, beneficial owner of the money. The IRS also understands trust law. Neither the banks nor the IRS are bound by ELC’s perverted statements of what the ELC says is the law. The banks and the IRS are bound by established law. The Resolution and the DOT refute ELC perversions of the law and are there to dispel any doubts.
In conclusion, one could rationally conclude that the writer of Chapter 18 is a half-postmodernist. A postmodernist believes he can create reality through his rhetoric, but also believes that all truth-claims are equal – The first half can be applied to ELC teaching but the second half cannot since the ELC believes that only its truth claims are true when in fact they are nonsense. The ELC articulates a case not according to the facts. I would love to face their pseudo lawyers in a court proceeding called to determine the truth about their ridiculous assertions. They would not stand the chance of a snowball in hell. Fortunately for them, they appeal to many good believers who are duped by their con and do not have the expertise to examine ELC lies and distortions. This booklet serves as a guide to those who take the time to study these matters out. The important thing is truth, not ad hominem attacks by ELC leaders desperate to defend their unlearned positions.
The Only Way a Church Can Organize to Remain a New Testament Church (050616 article which explains that why trust is a Bible concept and why it is the only way a church can organize in accord with New Testament principles and the wisdom of using a properly worded and executed Declaration of Trust with supporting documents.)
See Spurious rationale for church incorporation: to hold property (Section VI, Chapter 7 of God Betrayed; Chapter 7 of Separation of Church and State) for an explanation of the ordinary trust. That chapter shows how the ordinary trust comports perfectly with Bible principle and why this author now co-labels the ordinary trust a Bible trust.
Chapter 7: Analysis of “Has it ever been tested in court?”
Note. This is a continuation of the examination of a chapter of an Ecclesiastical Law Center (“ELC”) Publication, Chapter 18 of Approved by God. This article looks at the sixth section of that chapter.
The sixth section of chapter 18 asks a question which, in and of itself, is very puzzling to the person studied in the law of the ordinary trusts. The question is, “Has it ever been tested in Court?” What is the “it” being referred to and what does “tested in court” mean?
Thank you, ELC, for waking up our brain cells.
Obviously, from the ELC point of view in the context of Chapter 18 and other ELC writings:
“It” refers to “trust;” and, specifically, the ordinary Bible trust utilized by the “Separation of Church and State Law” ministry and the ordinary trust used by the BLC. If the word “trust” or “Declaration of Trust” is mentioned in a court case, anything else in the case is not significant to the Ecclesiastical Law Center. The mere fact that one or both of those words were mentioned in the reported case or the alleged case means that the ordinary trust has been tested in court. It matters not to the ELC should the courts have said, as in the following cases (not cited by the ELC, of course) involving ordinary trusts: (a) A trust is not a legal entity. (Stevens Family Trust v. Huthsing, 81 S.W.3d 664 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 2002), reh’g and/or transfer denied, (July 12, 2002)). (b) A trust is not an entity distinct from its trustees and capable of legal action on its own behalf, but merely a fiduciary relationship with respect to property. (Roberts v. Lomanto, 112 Cal. App. 4th 1553, 5 Cal. Rptr. 3d 866 (3d Dist. 2003), review denied, (Feb. 24, 2004). (c) A trust is not a legal “person” which can own property or enter into contracts, rather, a trust is a relationship having certain characteristics. (Dennett v. Kuenzli, 130 Idaho 21, 936 P.2d 219 (Ct. App. 1997).
The ELC will only cite and consider, when attacking the BLC and the ordinary trust, cases which involve legal entity types of trusts (such as business trusts and charitable trusts) so that they can make the assertion that “it has been tested” in court.
As shown below, the cases they cite prove nothing concerning the ordinary trust and the issue of whether “it has been tested in court,” nor do the cases give any insight as to what the ELC means by “tested in court.”
This author was asked, at the 2011 Unregistered Baptist Fellowship” conference in Indianapolis, Indiana the same question, “Has it ever been tested in court?” and he has heard the question on numerous other occasions. At the time, he suspected that the questioner was affiliated with the ELC. He thought that the reference was to the ordinary trust into which BLC churches place their tithes, offerings, and gifts and the DOT which created that trust; and he further thought that by “tested in court” was meant, “Has the court disregarded the DOT and the trust thereby created and attempted to bring the church into court as a legal entity anyway?” As to the question in the last sentence, the author’s reply is: In several cases the author knows of since beginning to work with the BLC, the court knew that the church was not a legal entity which was subject to court jurisdiction. In one case the prosecutor, in a zoning dispute initiated by the government, acknowledged that church was not a legal entity (the church put tithes, offerings, and gifts into a trust); therefore, the church could not be brought into court. In another such case involving an Indianapolis church which adopted the BLC recommended DOT and ordinary trust thereby created, the church members placed tithes, offerings, and gifts into the trust thereby created. The government challenged the zoning status of the meetinghouse. The DOT had nothing to do with the case and the government recognized that the church was not a legal entity; therefore, the court could not bring the church into the controversy. The case ended in victory and the use of the real estate for a meeting house was upheld.
Of course, the church which places tithes, offerings, and gifts into an ordinary trust for the benefit of the true, equitable, beneficial owner of the money/property is clearly not a legal entity. That is what the law says and that corresponds to reality. The church has to entrust someone with tithes, offerings, and gifts which are given to the Lord Jesus Christ. The person so entrusted is, by definition, a trustee and the true owner is, of course, the Lord Jesus Christ. Reality, biblical principle, and American law agree on this matter.
Contrary to the assertions of the ELC, civil courts may assume jurisdiction over people and land (no matter how the land is held) when a proper suit within the jurisdictional boundaries of the court is initiated. Believers and others in America have been blessed. Christians and churches have the protections of the First Amendment which were won by the persecutions and sacrifices of our historical Baptist forefathers; the First Amendment protects the citizen in his exercise of religion, assembly, press, speech, and his right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. American civil government does not tax land being used for “religious purposes.” However, believers and churches in many countries – such as Korea, China, many Muslim countries, and many other nations – are not so fortunate. In many nations, if one is found with a tract, speaking positively of the name of Jesus, possessing a Bible, etc., either the government or the local religious mob will send him home to be with the Lord. No land or buildings will be allowed for meeting by Christians. If it is tried, they will be confiscated and/or destroyed.
The guaranteed fate of church meetinghouses in some nations.
Even in America, ultimately legal differences concerning land use, taxation, and ownership, if brought to the attention of the appropriate agency/court, will be decided by the agency/court. For example, should an ELC church or any other church come together as a church body at a meetinghouse in an area not zoned for religious use, the court will assume jurisdiction of the issue if and when it comes to their attention, no matter the church’s legal status. There are other possible issues concerning real estate which could result in either/or government agency or court action, but not against a non-legal entity church. The ELC admits the latter; they ask “What happens if there is a lawsuit?” (Robin Wright and Ben Townsend, Approved by God, A Case for Modern Disestablishment (Mesick, Michigan: Adorn Books, 2004), p. 150.) Their answer:
“There are no lawsuits. Lawsuits are leveled against legal entities, not spiritual ones. Lacking a legal organization (corporation, unincorporated association) to attack, lawsuits must ultimately prevail. There are several court cases to prove the point. Besides, it would be tough to get legal service on the owner.” (Ibid.)
Their answer is partially right and partly wrong. They are right in saying that a non-legal entity cannot be a party to a suit; but, if a piece of real estate is the center of a zoning issue, for example, the agency/court will petition the legal owner of the property. Of course, the agency/court cannot petition the Lord Jesus Christ, who under both the ELC method and ordinary trust method, is the true, equitable, or beneficial owner. If there is no legal owner of the property, the agency/court will take the necessary legal steps to take control of the property.
If there is a legal owner, the court will summon the legal owner. The ELC states:
“How can property be held to reflect the ownership of Christ over His Church? It must be held as an individual, and that individual must be the Lord Jesus Christ! The property should be held by the church in trust for the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the true and beneficial owner. In spite of the skepticism of many, churches in 22 states have placed their property in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ without incident.” (Ibid. 149). Actually, the church, by the Pastor, can execute a deed on behalf of the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Ibid. 150).
If the government challenged the use of a meetinghouse for religious purposes because the property was not zoned for religious use, and the church using the meetinghouse were organized according to the recommendations of the ELC, the government would not attempt to subpoena the true owner, in this case the Lord Jesus Christ. The government would petition the person who executed the deed, the pastor; the pastor, by definition, would be deemed to be the trustee holding legal title to the property. This is where the ELC method could result in the church being declared a legal entity since the ELC declares that “the church, by the Pastor, can execute a deed on behalf of the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Ibid.). As has been explained in other articles, should a government lawyer know what he is doing, he could point out that the church is a legal entity and argue that the church could be brought into the suit as the true owner for whom the pastor was only acting as trustee. The reasoning the government attorney could use:
“Only a legal entity can execute a deed and only a legal entity can hold property. The church has admitted by ELC declaration, the church being an ELC church, that ‘the church can execute a deed’ and that the property should be held by the church in trust…. Since the church admittedly executed the deed (through the pastor), the church is a legal entity.”
A properly worded Declaration of Trust which establishes an ordinary trust into which a church places tithes, offerings, and gifts makes clear that the church has no property and that the church has no interest in the money/property being placed into the trust estate and that the trust estate belongs only to the true and equitable owner, the Lord Jesus Christ, to be used for His benefit.
The ELC church could try to maintain their position that the government has no jurisdiction. The ELC might recommend that no one appear to admit jurisdiction or that someone, perhaps the trustee, make a special appearance to challenge jurisdiction only.
To begin such a case, the appropriate agency (many actions start in government agency with provisions for appeal into court should the final agency decision be contested) the agency or court would have to serve some legal entity. Every citizen of this country in his right mind is a legal entity.
Should they serve the pastor and he not appear, the agency or court would probably decide the issue (in court by a default judgment). Should they serve the church and an authorized representative of the church not appear, the result would be the same. Should the church appear and assert that she was not a legal entity, the agency/court would need proof that the church was not a legal entity. The government attorney, if he was familiar with the issue and ELC teachings, could argue that the church, by the ELC’s own admission and declaration is a legal entity such as a business trust or charitable trust.
Should a church appear and lose the jurisdictional issue, what would the next step be? The church would have already admitted that the court had jurisdiction over the jurisdictional issue by making an appearance. The court would probably and correctly rule that the church was a legal entity. Therefore, disregarding the court decision on that issue would be futile and non-appearance thereafter would probably result in a default judgment.
Approved by Man, p. 180
The first paragraph of the ELC article begins:
“It has been repeatedly reported by the BLC that the Declaration of Trust (‘DOT’) has never been tested in court. However, the DOT was filed and tested in the Indianapolis Baptist Temple case. And it did not succeed in protecting that church entity. To further reveal the blindness of those who propagate this document, it has been tested time and time again in every court jurisdiction over the last two hundred years. It is a document that courts recognize as a Trust agreement on which it can have jurisdiction and decide cases. If anything, this document in the IBT case could have been used by the court to prove they had jurisdiction over IBT.”
Approved by Man, p. 181
That whole first paragraph is a total distortion of what happened in the IBT (“Indianapolis Baptist Temple”) case. To fully and rationally explain all that happened in that case would require a lot of time and explanation. Suffice it to say for now and for purposes of the analysis of this section of Chapter 18 that the ELC effectively concedes in the last sentence of the above quoted paragraph that the court did not use the IBT trust document to prove they had jurisdiction over IBT. This author will offer the following true statement: the court did not (which, as pointed out, the ELC concedes in the paragraph above) and could not have used the trust document to prove they had jurisdiction over IBT.
IBT has continued since the court case was settled and the government confiscated the property. IBT has operated under a DOT since and has not been summoned into court or agency proceeding. The property tax exemption allowed the property owner who leases the property in which IBT meets (not IBT) still gets a property tax exemption on the property since the property is used for religious purposes, even though the local property tax board has contested the exemption more than once. Of course, IBT was not summoned or subpoenaed since IBT is not a legal entity.
The section “Has it ever been tested in court” then briefly mentions three cases with brief comments. The three cited cases, the ELC comments, and the ELC “reasoning” (a term loosely used here), are examined below. The first case mentioned is Tort Claimants Committee vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop. There is no citation to that case, but the author of the chapter states that the case is a “July 2006 case in Portland.” Then they state that “the court decided the following about a Declaration of Trust:
“Determining whether the Declaration of Trust created a valid, enforceable charitable trust requires interpretation of the Declaration of Trust. Under Oregon law, “[t]he same rule of construction applies in the interpretation of an instrument creating a trust as controls in construing any other document, to wit, that the intention of the maker of the instrument must, if possible, be determined and given effect.”
I did a Westlaw search of Oregon courts of appeal, Oregon Supreme Court, and United States Tax Court using the case name given in the article as well as the name of each party. I found no such name. If there is indeed such a case, any reliable writer would have included the citation so that the case could be easily found. The authors did give the citations for the next two cases, and I easily found and read them. (See below). I can therefore only analyze what is written in the first article about the alleged case, Tort Claimants Committee vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop.
On its face, it is not on point, even though the statement quoted is valid. It applies to a charitable trust, not an ordinary trust and the Declaration of Trust which created it.
The second case mentioned is “Church of Scientology vs. Commissioner, 83 TC 381. All the ELC says about this case in their article is: “the court found five Scientology groups were using a Declaration of Trust to channel ‘Tithe’ money into bank accounts overseas.”
I pulled that case up on Westlaw and examined it. (See En 1 for a summary of the case.). The case is not on point for many reasons besides the main point relevant to this this article: the trust involved was a charitable trust. I include a summary of the 105 single spaced on 8 ½ x 11 inch page case in En 1. One can go to the law library read the case to verify the truth of this author’s assertions.
These were two of the eighteen issues in the case, the only two issues involving “charitable trust”:
11) Does the application of common law charitable trust doctrine to churches, requiring their conformity to fundamental public policy standards evidenced by criminal or civil statutes, violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment because there are less restrictive ways of regulating church-sponsored misconduct?
12) Does the retroactive application of public policy standards derived from the common law of charitable trusts to petitioner’s operations deprive petitioner of due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment? Church of Scientology vs. Commissioner, 83 TC 381, 384 (1984).
Again, a charitable trust is a legal entity. An ordinary trust is not. Nothing in this case is relevant to the ordinary trust or the ordinary Bible trust and the churches who place their tithes, offerings, and gifts into such a trust. Read the summary in En 1 (or the case) to verify this.
The final case cited by the ELC in this section is Presbytery of Indianapolis vs. First United Presbyterian Church, 143 Indiana Appellate 72.
“The Appellate Court, Bierly, J., held that decision of authorized judicatory of hierarchial church denying petition of local congregation for leave to withdraw and take with it certain property was binding on state courts, notwithstanding that title may have been in corporation as grantee; use and occupancy of local church was matter of ecclesiastical government which could not constitutionally be impaired by any state legislation nor by any action by state judiciary. Reversed.” (Presbytery of Indianapolis vs. First United Presbyterian Church, 143 Ind. App. 72 (1968)).
As to the factual conclusions, the court said:
“This property appears to have been purchased * * * in the ordinary way of business, * * * and conveyed to the trustees by a general warranty deed, without condition of limitation. It is entirely clear that no trust, express or implied, is attached to the title. Appellants (plaintiffs) at no time had any interest in the property except as members of a congregation which was an integral part of the ecclesiastical society known as the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. Our only duty is to determine the identity of the ecclesiastical successor of the original grantee. This we have seen has been determined for us, since the union of the Cumberland Church (which was incorporated and acquired the property as a corporation before combining with the Presbyterian Church) with the Presbyterian Church carried into the United body all its property. The validity of that union appellants cannot question, and in it they must acquiese or defy the decrees of the church to which they pledged allegiance. Consciences cannot be bound, and if in the assertion of individual opinion and conscientious dictates appellants segregate themselves from the body of the church, they must depart as they came in—empty-handed. The court did not err in overruling appellants’ motion for a new trial.” Ibid. 83-84.
The ELC quotes in their short article the following from pages 85-86 of the opinion: “The appellee church received aid through the years from the United Presbyterian Church of North America in a total sum of $45,436.31, which has never been repaid; the appellee never executed a resolution and Declaration of Trust as required by the General Assembly of the Church of North America.”
Thus, the ELC saw those words, “Declaration of Trust” and “trust,” in this case, left out the “charitable” before “trust,” included one quote out of context which contained those words, and never gave any explanation as to why that phrase in this case showed that “it has been tested in court.”
By the way, neither this “Separation of Church and State Law Ministry” nor the BLC will help a Presbyterian Church to establish an ordinary trust. It is impossible to help a Presbyterian church because the ordinary trust is as recommended by these ministries is not compatible with Presbyterian theology.
Now to the final paragraph of the section of the ELC article, “Has it ever been tested in court”:
“Many pages of the book could be filled with cases similar to the ones above. This Declaration of Trust is not a secret modern way for unincorporated churches to hold property. It is a way for the pastor to become the sole legal Trustee of all the church assets.”
Yes, should someone use the ELC method of legal research and analysis, many cases (probable thousands) similar to the cases above could be cited which have absolutely nothing to do with anything relevant to the ordinary trust and the DOT recommended by the BLC or this ministry and any rationale definition of “has it ever been tested in court?” If relevance is not to be considered, all one need do to find such cases as cited by the ELC is a Westlaw or LexisNexis search for cases which contain the word “trust” and/or “Declaration of Trust” select a few such cases and cite perhaps a sentence or two from each selected case which contain the “trust” or “Declaration of Trust,” and/or make some nonsensical comment.
A New Testament church who puts tithes, offerings, and gifts into an ordinary trust should be careful not to do anything which makes them a legal entity: open bank account, contract, etc.
The ELC is right about the DOT when they say it is not secret and it is not modern. It has been around for hundreds of years. The concept was established by God. As to the last sentence of the ELC quote above, the ordinary Bible trust created by the DOT recommended by this author and the ordinary trust recommended by the BLC is not a way for the pastor to become the sole legal Trustee of all the church assets. When a properly worded DOT creates an ordinary trust into which a church places tithes, offerings, and gifts given to God in trust for the benefit of the true owner of the property to be administered by the trustee who has a fiduciary duty under God to use all the trust estate for God, the church remains a non-legal entity which cannot sue, be sued, contract, go into debt or act legally in any way; such a church, under the ordinary trust recommended by the “Separation of Church and State Law” ministry, has no physical assets; all the assets of such a church are spiritual. Note: Should such a church act legally (open a bank account, get insurance, etc.), the church becomes a legal entity in spite of the fact of the ordinary trust or DOT. Read the online PDF of Quick Reference Guide for Churches Seeking to Organize According to New Testament Principles for nutshell information on pitfalls for the church which utilizes the ordinary trust.
Note that a church which places tithes, offerings, and gifts in an ordinary trust estate gives to God. The church does the giving and – unlike gifts to a corporate church, a business trust church, or a charitable trust church, which are given to the corporation the business trust, or the charitable trust – the giving is to God.
None of the cases cited by the ELC make any point at all concerning the DOT and the ordinary trust created thereby; they support nothing the ELC is trying to argue. Truly, this whole ELC section is total nonsense and will serve to convince only those who are unknowledgeable concerning these matters. Most of the good folks who follow the ELC teachers never will have the time to do the studies necessary to examine ELC writing and teaching and therefore are easy prey to outright fallacies. The real tragedy is that good, well-meaning, born-again pastors and believers have followed these teachings, some for many years.
Endnote
Summary of Church of Scientology vs. Commissioner, 83 TC 381, 384 (1984):
Petitioner, a Church incorporated in the State of California, was granted tax-exempt status in 1957 under sec. 501(c)(3), I.R.C. 1954. In 1967 respondent sent petitioner a letter revoking its exemption following audit of petitioner’s records which was in part sparked by litigation involving the tax-exempt status of an affiliated Church of Scientology. Subsequent to issuing the letter of revocation, respondent conducted several audits of petitioner’s records for various tax years and also reviewed the tax status of several affiliated churches. Petitioner was also investigated by several intelligence groups which respondent specially formed during 1969 through 1975 to investigate taxpayers allegedly selected by essentially political criteria. During the period that petitioner’s taxes were under administrative review, petitioner conspired to prevent the IRS from determining and collecting taxes due from petitioner and affiliated churches. Petitioner sold religious services, books, and artifacts according to a fixed fee schedule through its branch churches and franchises. Petitioner’s profits from these sales were not less than $1,494,617.53 in 1970, $881,131.18 in 1971, and $1,707,287.17 in 1972. Petitioner maintained large cash reserves in a sham corporation and in a bogus charitable trust controlled by key church officials including petitioner’s founder. HELD, petitioner was not the victim of selective enforcement of the tax laws since the notice of deficiency was based on valid regulatory considerations. HELD FURTHER, various other asserted constitutional rights of petitioner not violated. HELD FURTHER, petitioner was not operated exclusively for an exempt purpose under sec. 501(c)(3), I.R.C. 1954, since petitioner had a substantial commercial purpose, since its net earnings benefited key Scientology officials, and since it had the illegal purpose of conspiring to impede the IRS from collecting taxes due from petitioner and affiliated churches and thus its activities, dictated at the highest level, violated well-defined public policy.
The Only Way a Church Can Organize to Remain a New Testament Church (050616 article which explains that why trust is a Bible concept and why it is the only way a church can organize in accord with New Testament principles and the wisdom of using a properly worded and executed Declaration of Trust with supporting documents.)
See Spurious rationale for church incorporation: to hold property (Section VI, Chapter 7 of God Betrayed; Chapter 7 of Separation of Church and State) for an explanation of the ordinary trust. That chapter shows how the ordinary trust comports perfectly with Bible principle and why this author now co-labels the ordinary trust a Bible trust.
Chapter 3: Analysis of “Why such a strong stand against the Declaration of Trust?”
Note. This is a continuation of the examination of Chapter 18 of Approved by God, a chapter which attacks the ordinary (Bible) trust, written by Ben Townsend of the Ecclesiastical Law Center (“ELC”). This article looks at the second section of that chapter.
Navigating a particular law in the legal system is not as easy as it might seem. Here is a rack with the volumes from AM. JUR. 2D AND AM. JUR. 2D forms. This is only a good starting place to understand the law of trusts.
The ELC begins this section by stating that that the “Declaration of Trust” (“DOT”) is a trust document. That is true. The DOT is a document which creates a trust. They are not right about their strong stand against the DOT based upon that fact. As shown below, it is ironical that the ELC has declared that the method they use establishes a type of trust. See Analysis of “The Questions will keep coming,” the last section of Chapter 18 of Approved by Man; that is, the ELC has declared a trust for those using their methods, but their trust must be a business trust or some other kind of trust because they quote from the laws dealing with various kinds of trust, but never from trust law covering the ordinary trust such as 76 AM. JUR. 2D Trusts. They exemplify this in the very section being analyzed in this chapter.
The ELC never quotes from this volume when attacking the ordinary trust, and this is the volume that explains the ordinary trust.
They quote nothing from 76 AM. JUR. 2D Trusts which explains the law of ordinary trusts. Rather, they quote for 13 AM. JUR. 2D Business Trusts. There are considerable differences between an ordinary trust and a business trust, some of which are explained in Is the Ordinary Trust a Legal Entity? Again, there are various kinds of trusts. Some are legal entities. Business trusts and charitable trusts, for example, are legal entities. The ordinary (Bible) trust is not.
Honest research requires finding the right law.
To repeat a very important fact, the ELC has a Declaration of Trust. It is in print. This will be shown below by quoting word for word from their own published books. You can look at their declaration and their source definitions and see if this is the truth about this matter or not. The type trust they recommend (without realizing it) must make a church who utilizes their method a legal entity. That means that, as a legal entity, that church is partially under another head other than the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, as long as no one makes an issue of it, the church so organized may continue without interference. In the meantime, only the Lord Jesus Christ is grieved because His church has unknowingly submitted herself to civil government.
Click the above to go to online version of God Betrayed.
The following quote is from Section VI, Chapter 1 of God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application, pages 351-352:
“It is impossible for a New Testament Church to remain a New Testament church if that church chooses to do one thing which may result in legal subjection to the civil government. In other words, when a New Testament church does anything contrary to Scripture which gives even partial claim of sovereignty over that church to the state, that church has committed a wicked act which subjects her to another head, thereby greatly displeasing the Lord. That church has betrayed the Lord.
“Doing one thing that subjects a church to the state creates a legal entity. “Legal entity” means: “Legal existence. An entity, other than a natural person, who has sufficient existence in legal contemplation that it can function legally, be sued or sue and make decisions through agents as in the case of corporations.” (BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 893-894 (6th 1990), definition of “legal entity.”)
“Corporations are legal entities. On the other hand, a pastor/trustee may hold legal title to real and/or corporal personal property for the benefit of the Lord Jesus Christ through a Declaration of Trust without having created a legal entity. Such a trust relationship cannot sue or be sued. ‘Any kind of property, whether real or personal, freehold or leasehold, and any interest therein, whether legal or equitable, may be impressed with a trust. While the question of what property is made subject to a trust is determined by the terms of the trust, as a general proposition a property interest must be transferable to be the subject of an express trust.’ 76 AM. JUR. 2D Trusts 247 (2007). Personal property includes movable and tangible things such as furniture, merchandise, etc., (BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1217, definition of ‘Property.’) ” [Bold emphasis mine.]
For many reasons, a church placing tithes, offerings, gifts, and properties in an ordinary trust (which is a non-legal entity) – as opposed to placing tithes, offerings, gifts, and properties into a legal entity such as a corporation, a business trust, charitable trust, or any other legal entity – is the perfect biblical way to do so. Remember, as pointed out in various places in this booklet, that the true, equitable, and beneficial owner of the trust estate of the ordinary trust utilized by the BLC and by the SCSLM is the Lord Jesus Christ, not the church and not the trustee. The Endnote below links to the entirety of Section VI, Chapter 7 of God Betrayed; that chapter explains the Declaration of Trust and the ordinary trust, and compares incorporation with the ordinary (Bible) trust and proves that they are entirely different. It explains in detail exactly what each is.
The ELC in the section being analyzed, “Why such a strong stand against the Declaration of Trust?” starts with the statement, “This is simple. It is a ‘Trust’” etc. In other words, the ELC is stating that they take such a strong stand against the DOT because it is a trust. They then give the definitions of “Declaration of Trust” from a hodgepodge of sources:
(1) LegalCentral.com:
“A Declaration of Trust (sometimes called a Bare Trust) is one of many types of Trusts available… A Declaration of Trust is a legal structure that allows the division of the beneficial and legal ownership. The person holding the asset for your benefit is the Trustee. The Trustee has legal ownership only. You are the beneficiary. You have beneficial ownership. Provided you are 18 years of age and of sound mind you boss the Trustee around. You tell the Trustee what to do with your asset.” (The comments of the author: This quote deserves the trashcan. A DOT is not a trust. It is the instrument that creates a trust. The statement has some truth and a lot of garbage. Anyone with any legal knowledge of trust law can only laugh at this statement.)
(2) Thompson-Gale Legal Encyclopedia:
“An Assertion by a property owner that he or she holds the property or estate for the benefit of another person, or for particular designated objectives.” (Comment: Another useless statement.)
(3) Barron’s Real Estate Terms:
“A written statement by a Trustee to acknowledge that the property is held for the benefit of another.” Then Barron’s gives an example which says: “A Declaration of Trust was signed by a Trustee to state that certain valuable land was being held in Trust for certain orphaned children.” (Comment: Another statement grabbed out of context that has no definitive value to the invalid point the ELC is trying to make.)
(4) Wikipedia:
“In Trust Law, a settler who declares that he holds certain property on trust is said to make a ‘Declaration of Trust.’”
The ELC quotes here from 13 AM. JUR. 2D Business Trusts. That is the wrong volume to research the ordinary trust.
(5) . “American Jurisprudence 2d explains this Declaration of Trust under Business Trusts, 13 Am.Jur2d, section 1:
“A business trust is formed under, or on the basis of, an instrument or declaration of trust, which must conform to statutory and other requirements relating to trusts. No special form need be followed in creating a Massachusetts or business trust. It is even possible to create such a trust without the use of the word ‘trust’ or ‘trustee,’ where the intention to do so appears from the instrument as a whole. The trust instrument should, however, embody all the elements necessary to constitute a business trust. There should be an unequivocal declaration of trust, a vesting of title in named trustees, a description of the character of the business to be carried on, an outline of the powers and duties of the trustees, provisions for the tenure and election of trustees and for the issuance of certificates of beneficial interest and the transfer thereof, with a statement of the rights of shareholders with respect too profits and dividends. If desired , there may be provisions fixing the term and duration of the trust and limitting or negativing the liability of shareholders and trustees to third persons. The members and trustees are entitled to have the trust instrument applied according to its terms, so long as it does not offend the law or public policy of the state.” [Bold emphasis mine]
The ordinary trust may be distinguished from the business trust in many ways. A few follow. The ordinary trust is very different from the business trust described in 13 AM. JUR. 2D Business Trusts. In an ordinary trust, unlike a business trust, there is no business to be carried on, trustees are not elected and provisions in the DOT provide for a successor trustee in the event the trustee wishes to step down, become incapacitated, die, etc., there is no beneficial interest and the transfer thereof, there are no shareholders, profits, or dividends. The ordinary trust is not a legal entity whereas the business trust is. See 76 AM. JUR. 2DTrusts which lays out the law of the ordinary trust.
(6) Black’s Law Definition of Declaration of Trust: the “act by which the person who holds the legal title to property or an estate acknowledges and declares that he holds the same in trust to the use of another person of for certain specified purposes. The name is also used to designate the deed of [I’m sure they meant “or”] other writing embodying such a declaration.”
What is so ironical about the ELC attacks against the ordinary trust and the DOT is that the ELC has declared their own trust in writing; they have made a written “Declaration of Trust.” If you doubt this, please go to pages 149-150 of Approved by God: A Case for Modern Disestablishment (Mesick, Michigan: Adorn Books 2004), an ELC book. Pages from that book are quoted below. Compare their words with the words from the definitions they rely on to attack the ordinary trust. It is apparent that they are declaring some type of trust.
According to the declarations of the ELC, they recommend a type of trust (maybe a business trust) by which “property should be held by the church in trust for the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the true and beneficial owner.” (See, Robin Wright and Ben Townsend, Approved by God: A Case for Modern Disestablishment (Mesick, Michigan: Adorn Books 2004), p. 149.).The ELC states that for property be held to reflect the ownership of Christ over His church “the property should be held by the church in trust for the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the true and beneficial owner.” (Approved by God, p. 149).
The ELC states that property may be held in three ways: “(1) as a corporation, (2) as an unincorporated association and:
“(3) as an individual. How can property be held to reflect the ownership of Christ over His church? It must be held as an individual, and that individual must be the Lord Jesus Christ! The property should be held by the church in trust for the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the true and beneficial owner. In spite of the skepticism of many, churches in 22 states have placed their property in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ without incident.” Approved by God, p. 149. The book goes on to say that “the church, by the Pastor, can execute a deed on behalf of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Ibid., p. 150.
The last paragraph of the section which is the focus of this article, “Why such a strong stand against the Declaration of Trust?” states: “So, every resource cited has explained that the Declaration of Trust is a Trust document. And placing church property in a Trust is no different from placing it into a corporation.” The last sentence is another totally ridiculous statement on two accounts. First, the ELC unknowingly condemns their own method, and correctly so. Their statement may be correct as applied to the trust they recommend since it is irrefutable that the trust they recommend must be based upon the law of some type trust – such as business trust or charitable trust – since all their understanding of trusts is taken from trusts which are legal entities. Apparently they have never examined the law of ordinary trust, or, if they have, they have ignored it because it defeats their attack against the ordinary trust. Second, corporations and some kinds of trusts are legal entities. A business trust is a legal entity and has other similarities to a corporation. On the other hand, the ordinary (Bible) trust which I recommend is not a legal entity and is totally different from a corporation. This is explained in detail in Separation of Church and State: God’s Churches – Spiritual or Legal Entities?
Thank you, ELC, for waking up our brain cells.
The ELC and those who depend thereon need to study these matters. Since pastors have a full time job, they need the assistance of those with legal as well as Bible knowledge. A correctly worded and implemented Declaration of Trust which makes clear that from henceforth, a church abandons the ELC declaration as well as other measures will assure them that they are accomplishing their goal or glorifying God. The trust which they establish creates a legal entity. They should adopt a DOT which establishes an ordinary trust. For many other reasons other than those already indicated in these articles, that would be by far their best course of action.
“The Endnote below links to the entirety of Section VI, Chapter 7 of God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application; that chapter explains the Declaration of Trust and the ordinary trust, and compares incorporation with the ordinary trust.”
Endnote
The following links to the entirety of Section VI, Chapter 7 of God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application; that chapter explains the Declaration of Trust and the ordinary trust, and compares incorporation with the ordinary trust:
Churches under Christ Ministry Website: Understanding and Applying God's Principles for Church Headship "Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:1-3). ————————————This Ministry is under the authority of Charity Baptist Tabernacle of Amarillo, Texas. Jerald Finney, a Christian Lawyer and member of Charity Baptist Tabernacle, having received this ministry in the Lord, explains how a church in America can remain under the Lord Jesus Christ and Him only. "As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen" (1 Peter 4:10-11; See also, Ephesians 4::1-16 and 1 Corinthians 12:1-25). "Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it" (Colossians 4:17). "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church" (Ephesians 1.22; See also, e.g. Colossians 1:18).
* Jerald Finney
Churches should be diligent as they seek to glorify the Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. This requires dedicated study, and consultation with those who love the Lord and do their homework before diving into God’s preeminent matters.
As to Christ’s relationship with his churches, the Apostle Paul wrote: “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” Ephesians 5:25-27. Speaking to the church at Corinth, he said: “For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” 2 Corinthians 11:2-3.
Simply Church: God's Prescribed Relationship Between Church and State 