By William Raymond: pastor & ambassador for the Christ
By Chad Bush, AKD Baptist Evangelist
September 10, 2010
Often those which claim someone or some group of people focuses on one issue too much often spend more time on the issue than those whom they accuse. the assumption is the other group is single-minded and limited theologically to that one point, the proverbial one trick or one horse show. To the contrary, a balanced Christian is well-researched and able to answer their detractors on many various theological truths from the scriptures; it is often the opposition’s focus on various ideologies which cause a Christian to respond, and thus creates a false illusion of obsession over one issue.
Baptists have been accused of focusing on baptism too much, but apart from dealing with its importance after salvation and righting heresies regarding the doctrine Baptists rarely spend much time on that doctrine; and, we spend far less time on the doctrine than our accusers who believe baptism plays a role in imparting salvation.
King James Only folks are accused of focusing on the issue of Bible preservation and inspiration too much, often to the point of neglecting souls. However, the issue is not the entire theological discourse in the repertoire of the believer. Many KJBO believers just believe as they do and will share the truth when asked, or when they hear someone spreading false facts, but they do not walk around like robots chanting, “King James Bible, King James Bible, King James Bible.”
Those of us who believe in Christ as the only Way to heaven, and the importance of doctrine in fellowship as almost entirely focusing on division rather than the unity of the brethren. Yes, Christians who believe in the truth do believe the truth divides, but they do not focus on division or make it their sole purpose in the faith.
Those of us who adhere to the belief in the antiquity of the faith called “Baptist” and in the ability to find churches of similar faith through all ages are accused of being prideful. We are called Baptist Briders even if we do not hold to the doctrines which makes them Briders. We are accused of being exclusionists, revisionists, ignorant, deceived, and more. Those of us who focus on proving this truth are often cast in a light which seeks to make it seem as if we would abandon all other aspects of the ministry to only focus on Baptist history. The truth is, it is just one more aspect of our balanced education in the scriptures, church history, theology and the things which are of the Spirit.
I could name many other such issues, but I believe my point is made. If you take any issue which the Bible will uphold you will find someone in opposition to it. They will do their best to make those who will not waver feel like they are in error, belittle them, denigrate them, call them names, and more. If you are willing to hold to the truth do not think you will be safe from false accusations from so-called brethren. Even though the Lord sees this as abominable in His eyes, they will ignore this or do their best to soothe their seared conscience so they can remain superior in their own eyes. If their only tactic to attack your position is to posit you only focus on one issue, then it is obvious they grasp for straws and have no other way to rebut the position unto which you adhere.
Remember, it is better to be right with the Lord than it is to be right with man, and it is better to be wrong in our best effort to follow the Lord’s word in what it teaches than to be wrong because we do not believe what the Lord’s word reveals.
Ever your humble servant in The Lord Jesus Christ,
Brother Chad Bush aka Baptist Evangelist
Copyright © August 31, 2014
This author voted for Baldwin when he ran for president in 2008 on the Constitution Party Ticket. Since then, he has become somewhat familiar with the teachings of Baldwin. Chuck Baldwin is not only, at least on some subjects, biblically illiterate, he is also a product of Christian historical revisionism. He is right about some things, but for the wrong reasons: he is right about his teaching that churches should not incorporate or get Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) status; he is right about his contention that state-owned churches are destroying America; he is right about some other things. But he is wrong about history, and he is wrong about some of his Bible teachings; for example, he is right about his conclusions concerning the false interpretation of Romans 13, but his rationale is flawed (compare his teaching on this matter (as expressed by his son in “Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission”) with the teaching of Jerald Finney at Render Unto God the Things that Are His: A Systematic Study of Romans 13 and Related Verses which is also available in softback, Kindle, and PDF). Therefore, he is not proceeding according to knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. When a believer does not proceed according to knowledge, he, and those who follow him, will fall (2 Peter 1.2-10; Hosea 4.6). This brief article will address Baldwin’s early American history concerning religious freedom which is summed up in one statement he made in his article “State Owned Churches Are Killing America”:
“Of course, colonial pastors didn’t have to worry about their churches being ‘Incorporated’ as State-created (and controlled) entities, or about IRS agents intimidating them regarding what they could or could not say. In early America, preachers where free men; they could say whatever they darned well pleased. Gasp! Beyond that, virtually everyone regarded preachers as being ‘God’s men,’ not the ‘servants of men.’”
The true history of America and the American colonies absolutely demonstrates that Chuck Baldwin is an ignoramus as to America colonial history. Of course, there was no IRS with its agents. However, there were established churches in the colonies. Many preachers and other believers were severely persecuted in the colonies for meeting and preaching outside the auspices of the state churches; and not everyone regarded non-state church preachers as being “God’s men” as shown by the persecutions of these so-called “heretics” by the church-state establishments.
This author has the book Baldwin has which teaches about the preachers of the “Black Regiment.” However, this author also has many history books which teach the whole story of the road to religious liberty and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The author would point the interested reader to two resources which give the truth about these historical matters:
The true history of America reveals that the persecution of those whom the state churches of Europe called “heretics” continued in the American colonies. Only through the sacrifice of our historic Baptist forefathers was America to add “religious freedom” to the Constitution of the United States. This is historical fact, and one must understand the spiritual battles which believers have fought as well as the persecution and martyrdom of believers starting with John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, the apostles, the early Christian martyrs, the martyrs who were relentlessly tortured and killed by the Catholic church-states and then the Protestant church-states, and those who were persecuted by the religious establishments in the American colonies before he can successfully fight spiritual warfare on solid ground. Successful warfare must be founded upon correct Bible, historical, and legal knowledge and implementation of that knowledge according to understanding and wisdom. As proven by his prolific public writings and teachings, Chuck Baldwin does not possess that knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. Therefore, churches should never seek the help of Chuck Baldwin on spiritual matter concerning church and state.
Copyright © August 17, 2014
August 8, 2014 Update on Nortfield, Minnesota Street Preaching Ministry
Click here for the website page which covers the trials and tribulations of the “No Small Stir” street preaching ministry
On August 8, 2014, Northfield News, the local newspaper of Northfield, Minnesota, published an article that, if true and depending upon the future actions of the Northfield police, could have resulted in a legal battle. The author has known, since high school, that one cannot depend upon secular news for accuracy or facts, and that, as to important religious, legal, and political matters, such outlets usually, in addition to sensationalizing, portray matters in ways which support their beliefs and philosophies. However, this article could not be ignored. Fortunately, as is explained below, the Northfield police, as in the past, acted very correctly and according to the law in regards to speech in the public forum. As a result, no litigation was required, the citizens of Northfield were spared the expense of costly court intervention, and the street preachers and others were protected as they engaged in speech in the public forum at Bridge Square Park.
The Northfield News article, “Protestors question Northfield’s permit process,” stated that a group was silently protesting war at Bridge Square Park, as they had on Saturdays for the last 13 years. However, they were soon approached by a Northfield police officer, who said there had been a complaint and that the group would have to move to “another public sidewalk,” off Bridge Square.
According to the article:
- The officer came as a result of a complaint from Anna Kochendorfer, who said she was from one of the groups with a permit to use Bridge Square and that the protestors would not leave when she asked them. The group did not leave, according to the article.
- City Administrator Tim Madigan sent a report to city councilors stating that both the Riverwalk Market Fair and the Vintage Band groups had obtained city permits to use Bridge Square on Saturday, “which gives them control of the area for their events.”
- Krin Finger, owner of the Rare Pair, has made use of the city’s Bridge Square reservation process to reserve the area from 1-5 p.m. every Saturday from now until the Defeat of Jesse James Days, with the plan to reserve the space again from DJJD to Christmas and beyond.
- She said she decided to reserve the space with a community event permit, in this case titled, “Take Back Bridge Square.”
The reasons that were attributed to Ms. Finger for seeking the permits every Saturday in order to keep street preachers from preaching in the park on Saturdays were lies. The article stated that she said they were not concerned about the communication of any group or persons other than the street preachers at Bridge Square. She, according to the article, stated that [the street preachers have] become a hindrance to people walking into the door, that the business owners and their customers felt threatened by what sounds like angry and aggressive behavior by these street preachers. Of course, there are government statutes that criminalize disorderly conduct, threatening people, hindering people on sidewalks, obstructing passageways, etc. Had the street preachers done anything in violation of a criminal ordinance, they, like any other lawbreaker, could and would have been cited by the police.
The article stated that Finger said, “We felt it was becoming more aggressive, and it was just a matter of time before this becomes offensive.” Ms. Finger, in fact, has told the street preachers that she is offended by their speech. The Supreme Court of the United States has made clear that Americans have no right to not be offended. Click here to go to the PDF of tract Street Preaching in America: Is It Legal? which briefly goes over the law of communicating in the public forum (public sidewalks and parks) and answers her, and other, objections.
The article stated that, “Finger said many downtown businesses, as well as the Northfield Downtown Development Corporation and the Northfield Area Chamber of Commerce, agreed with her obtaining the permit, and added that the city had been helpful throughout the process.” According to the article, she went on to say that she was prepared to approach the street preachers and tell them that they are not invited to her event, and that she will call the police if necessary and that they will be forced to leave Bridge Square.
The article stated that Police Chief Monte Nelson said there is no official ordinance his officers can enforce regarding the permits and public space. He added he is still working to figure out how to address situations like these, and he doesn’t have a clear answer yet. The article stated that Chief Nelson said, “The problem is, when someone reserves Bridge Square, they’re reserving that area,” he said. “It’s a public area. The million dollar question is, ‘Do they have the ability, if someone comes into some conflict, to say they want them moved across the street?’ That’s what we’re working to try to get a solution to do. There’s not a black and white answer. Does this [permit] mean that a private group can keep certain kinds of people out of Bridge Square, or prevent the presence of dogs, smokers, babies, or cell phones?” he asked. “How can the city turn over a public space to a private entity and then let the private entity make up rules that contradict the U.S. Constitution?” As will be seen below, Chief Nelson and the Northfield police department answered these according to American law. I am very impressed with Northfield handling of this matter.
On August 11, 2014, someone posted a response to the above article on Northfield News: Read that by clicking here. Also, many comments have been made concerning the original article. To read them, go to the article “Protestors question Northfield’s permit process” and scroll down. Many of the opinions in those polls reflect understanding of the public forum speech rights of all Americans and are far more correct than the ridiculous opinion attributed by the Northfield News article to Kimberly Smith, who, sadly, teaches constitutional law at Carleton College. Other opinions expressed therein, like that of the downtown business owners, are against freedom, intolerant, unlearned, and/or bigoted. People who understand the history of the First Amendment usually stand for the freedoms we enjoy in this nation. The following may be read in order to gain an understanding of how we got our First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The response of the street preachers to the article
After reading the article mentioned above, the first action of the preachers was to contact the Northfield city attorney, mayor, and city council. They were assured that the police understood the law and would act accordingly.
Next, on Saturday, August 16, 2014 the preachers went to Bridge Square Park and preached, as already planned. They waited for a community affair taking place in the park to be closed down, then preached. The police came and did their job. The preachers were allowed to preach without hindrance. Ms. Finger never came to ask the street preachers to leave.
Next, Pastor Jason Cooley, pastor of Old Paths Baptist Church of Northfield and one of the street preachers involved in this situation, was inspired to preach the following sermons:
- “The High Places – The Altars Of Witchcraft,” on sermonaudio.com (081714)(Click here for Youtube of this sermon.)
- “King Manasseh From Sorcery To Salvation,” on sermonaudio.com (081714)(Click here for Youtube of this sermon.)
Kim Finger and other business men and women, as reflected in the above article and as expressed to the street preachers while involved in their public forum calling, obviously hate this street preaching ministry. No doubt they are trying to figure out how to get rid of the street preachers. For example, see the following link for a discussion which occurred on the streets of Northfield during a street preaching session between Pastor Jason Cooley and Dave Shumway who is CEO of First National Bank of Northfield:
Should the situation change due to the hostility of a minority made up of a few influential citizens of Northfield, supplemental articles will immediately be published on this website and appropriate legal help who are on standby are prepared to come in to do all they can to make sure justice is done.
Grace Webb, the author of “Protestors question Northfield’s permit process,” the article quoted from above covers the cities of Northfield and Lonsdale, and writes about public safety. You can reach her at 645-1117.
By William Raymond: pastor & ambassador for the Christ
Copyright © Ausust 13, 2014
Some churches proudly proclaim that they are not 26 U.S. Code (Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”)) § 501(c)(3) (“501c3”) churches while they are in reality churches which are effectively the same as 501c3 churches. Many of these churches repeat the words of IRC § 501c3 in one or more of their corporate documents, thereby avoiding the necessity of filling out Form 1023 in order to obtain their 501c3 tax exempt status. They become 501c3 churches without doing anything other than incorporating. They can do this because of 26 U.S. Code § 508 (“508”). (Remember, to check what the author is saying about a code, one can go directly to any referenced material which is in blue simply by left clicking). 508(a) declares that “New organizations must notify Secretary that they are applying for recognition of section 501(c)(3) status.” 508(c)(1)(A) however, declares that churches are mandatory exceptions to this rule. No doubt the drafters of the Internal Revenue Code were aware of the First Amendment, so they included 508(c)(1)(A), even though 508(c)(1)(A) violates the First Amendment religion clause, which says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” 508(c)(1)(A) is obviously a law made by Congress; 508(c)(1)(A) is both a law respecting an establishment of religion, and as will be shown below, prohibits the free exercise thereof. Of course, almost no pastor realizes how he is being deceived into violating the First Amendment religion clause which is simply a law declaring the biblical principle of separation of church and state. I explain the last statement in many of my writings and teachings – You may find very helpful, as a starting point, the article “Is Separation of Church and State Found in the Constitution?“
The IRS publicizes their interpretation of IRS Code. On page 3 of IRS Publication 1828 states that “churches which meet the requirements of § 501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS” [Bold emphasis mine]. The IRS repeats this on page 24 of IRS Publication 557, “Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization.”Under the heading “Organizations Not Required To File Form 1023” churches are listed.” The following paragraph is included: “These organizations are exempt automatically if they meet the requirements of section 501(c)(3).” A church which meets the requirements of 501(c)(3) is – by the rules which are included therein and also by the rule against doing anything that violates fundamental public policy which was added by the IRS, not by law, and upheld by the United States Supreme Court – is thereby prohibited from freely exercising her religion because she is prohibited from doing and saying certain things.
Pastors and others who mislead their flocks on these and other issues are wolves in sheeps clothing. When a church yokes up with unbelievers in any way, including yoking up with and submitting herself to the government agencies and courts, that church fellowships with unrighteousness, communes with darkness, and agrees with idols. The biblical principle of separation comes into play and believers in that church should leave her and find a New Testament church:
2 Corinthians 6:14-18: “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”
See other writings and teachings on this website, jeraldfinney.wordpress.com, for thorough biblical, legal, and historical analyses of all issues concerning church coporate 501(c)(3) (“legal entity”) status. A companion article to this article is “Church Internal Revenue Code 508 Status.”
Copyright © July 29, 2014
Some define corporation to mean “a human being with no soul;” of course this statement makes an important point even though it is not literally true. A corporation is not a human being, but it is an “artificial person” (a legal fiction) who acts legally, by, for example, entering into contracts, buying and selling property, suing and being sued. And, as an “artificial person” with no soul, the corporation, whether profit or not for profit, will act accordingly. Human beings with souls in a corporation act within an unnatural, soulless, Godless, state-created fiction; because of the contracts created by their act of incorporation, all disputes can be taken to secular courts where only man’s law and rules will be tolerated; do not try to argue God’s law in that environment. The “church” non-profit corporation will be polluted to some degree, greater or lesser, by the immoral, soulless part of the two-headed monster.
Many secularists understand the nature of incorporation. The statements in a recent article on corporations “Corporations had been viewed as artificial persons for millennia” (click the blue title to go to the article) gives some of the characteristics of incorporation. I urge the interested reader to read that article. The article concerns business corporations; but, although some of what the article says cannot be applied to church incorporation, much of what the article says is applicable to non-profit church corporations. I have explained the intricacies of church incorporation in the Section VI of God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application (PDF, Online Version, Ordering Information) and in Separation of Church and State (PDF, Online Version, Ordering Information). Those resources thoroughly analyze church incorporation for the believer who has an open mind, some degree of intellect, and some Bible knowledge and wisdom about the principles of church, state, and separation of church and state—those requirements eliminate most believers and pastors, especially fundamental Baptist pastors.
Some of the assertions in the article are applicable to non-profit corporations but some are not. The following are applicable to church incorporation (Quotes from the article are in parentheses. The bold material in brackets  below are my notes, comments, and additions.):
- “Corporations had been viewed as artificial persons for millennia, the debate over whether they should be afforded the same rights as humans had been raging long before the United States created, or the 14th Amendment was adopted. The degree of permissible government interference in corporate affairs was controversial from the earliest days of the nation.”
- “Corporations as legal entities have always been able to perform commercial activities, similar to a person acting as a sole proprietor, such as entering into a contract or owning property. Therefore corporations have always had a ‘legal personality’ for the purposes of conducting business while shielding individual shareholders from personal liability (i.e., protecting personal assets which were not invested in the corporation).”
[I cover “limited liability” for church corporation members in the article “Spurious rationale for church incorporation: limited liability/Incorporation increases liability of church members.”].
- “Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may be recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law. This doctrine forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. The doctrine does not grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens.”
- “As a matter of interpretation of the word ‘person’ in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations. Opponents of corporate personhood seek to amend the U.S. Constitution to limit these rights to those provided by state law and state constitutions.”
[I explain how a church, by incorporating, gives up her First Amendment status and places herself to a large degree under the Fourteenth Amendment in the God Betrayed and Separation of Church and State. Non-incorporated churches (and churches which do not become legal entities in some other manner other than incorporation) are protected by the religion clause of the First Amendment, whereas, of course, the First Amendment religion clause gives no protection to a business. The religion clause is a statement of biblical principles (separation of church and state (the establishment clause) and soul liberty or freedom of conscious (the free exercise clause).]
- “The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively. In this view, treating corporations as “persons” is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation…, simplifies complex transactions which would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association.”
[Churches which do not become legal entities, unlike businesses, are protected by the First Amendment religion clause. I explain why First Amendment protection for churches is biblical and much preferable to Fourteenth Amendment protection in God Betrayed and Separation of Church and State. In fact, seeking Fourteenth Amendment protection places a church under Satanic rules and regulations; the creator of the corporation is the state and state incorporation law gives the manner of organization, the officers, etc. that the law of incorporation requires. Therefore, incorporation completely changes the nature of a church. In addition to the books linked to above, some more concise articles on this matter are “Christians Who Call Evil Good and Good Evil,” “Is Separation of Church and State Found in the Constitution” and “Laws Protecting New Testament Church in the United States: Read Them for Yourselves.”]
- “Generally, corporations are not able to claim constitutional protections which would not otherwise be available to persons acting as a group. For example, the Supreme Court has not recognized a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for a corporation, since the right can be exercised only on an individual basis.”
[A New Testament (First Amendment) church can claim First Amendment religion clause protection whereas a corporation cannot. Since a New Testament church, unlike a corporation, is a not a legal entity, she cannot sue, be sued, or act legally. Churches which become incorporated begin to act like corporate businesses in may ways.]
- “Corporations are NOT people.While it is true that what guides them is the human activity of their executives, boards of directors, managers and employees, all the human emotional factors of the people in the corporation pass through a “filter” created by the two basic rules: (a) Maximize profit (b) Do whatever is necessary to continue the business.”(Rule a should be modified when it conflicts with rule b).”
[In a church corporation, the officers of the corporation operate an entity whose organization, goals, structure, morality, piety, and officers are mandated by state law in direct contradiction to the organization, goals, structure, morality, piety, and officers given by God’s Holy Bible in the New Testament.]
- “It is a slippery road to give personal rights to corporations. The corporation is an amoral entity, i.e., not governed by human moral values. It lacks guilt for what it does, or empathy for those it harms. What’s worse, this “sociopathic” entity is given the rights of a human being, but not similar responsibilities. A corporation is particularly dangerous because of its great concentration of money, power, and political influence–which it uses freely to reach its goals.”
[These realities are clearly seen in the Catholic “church” (not incorporated), and also in incorporated Fundamental Baptist Churches. A prime example of the latter is First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana. See the article “Jack Schaap, First Baptist of Hammond, Heresy and Apostasy.” One can also do a google search to see the reactions of the church lawyer (David Gibbs) and the church members of First Baptist of Hammond for more confirmation. This scenario has played out on a smaller scale in many other Fundamental Baptist Churches, including the offspring, followers, and worshipers of First Baptist of Hammond and her pastors.]
Other parts of the article (the parts dealing with rights of corporations to make political expenditures under the First Amendment free speech clause, the role corporate money plays and should play in democratic politics, the dangers of giving too much power to corporations to allow corporations to participate directly on political campaigns as a threat to democracy) apply to some degree to church corporations. All one has to do is look at the operations of, for example, the average “fundamental church and her pastor, the average seminary or Bible college and what they teach, and the words and activities of the lawyers involved with those institutions to see the application of those matters. That is all the author will say about that in this brief article.
Fundamental Baptist tradition perceives the truth to be that churches are to incorporate and get 28 U.S.C. Section 501(c)(3) status. At the same time, that tradition preaches that the Bible is to be the sole source of truth. The reality is that the biblical doctrines of church, state, and separation of church and state disprove the first mentioned Baptist tradition. But after all, it is the perception of the truth, not the truth, that matters.