Start here

Chuck Baldwin: Right Or Wrong Concerning The History Of Religious Freedom?

Jerald Finney
Copyright © August 31, 2014

Chuck Baldwin

Chuck Baldwin

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:

History of the First Amendment

An Abridged History of the First Amendment

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.

Business Owners Try To Shut Down Street Preaching In Northfield, Minnesota

Jerald Finney
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

Brother Paul Pearson

Brother Paul Pearson

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 they 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.

History of the First Amendment

An Abridged History of the First Amendment

The response of the street preachers to the article

Pastor Jason Cooley

Pastor Jason Cooley

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:

Dave Shumway

Dave Shumway

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.

Judge’s Ruling on the State Street Baptist Church

By William Raymond: pastor & ambassador for the Christ

Of all the examples I know – and there are more than you might think – none other states more clearly within the law the extremity of change which a church undergoes when she freely elects to incorporate Christ under the state than the case of this “once a church under Christ now a corporation under Caesar” known as the State Street Baptist Church. However, she is not alone. Sadly, the State Street Baptist Corporation shares her fate with thousands of other such legal entities in America today who have traded their holy birthright in Christ for a mess of corporate pottage. It just so happens that in this particular case the judge chose to use language that only a third grader or retarded adult could misunderstand in order to make his point. It’s really that clear.
No less hideous or spiritually grotesque than a Frankenstein monster, the body of Christ becomes legally trans-mutated into what is known in law as an artificial person when her primary identity becomes fixed in the secular (anti-Christ) state through the process of incorporation. Whether you like it or not, this is simply the unbiased truth about corporate religion and the reason why it is such a putrid stench in the nostrils of our Righteous and Holy God, Jesus the Christ.
All churches, mosques, temples, denominations, religions and even witches covens – regardless of their beliefs – for all legal purposes become One under the Beast via the process of incorporation; and for all practical purposes become united possessing equal status under law as common members of the official state church. Let that one sink in for a minute! Consequently, Christ cannot remain Lord over any such reprobate body after they have incorporated – the law will simply not permit it! And while you may believe most sincerely to the contrary, I can assure you, should your incorporated pastor ever go before the magistrate, he will bow in submission, for his contract - his unholy coven with the Beast - has obligated him to do so.
As I said earlier, the decision handed down by the appeals judge in the State Street Baptist Church case says it probably better than any other court ruling I’ve seen. So here’s the history: The church was establishment during the Civil War era and operated as such until 1980 when they decided to incorporate under the state as a 501 (c) (3) religious corporation. Afterwards, when some members attempted to schedule a business meeting others objected and a feud over notification procedures for meetings arose. And so, unable to settle matters between themselves, they simply did like all good corporationists do – they filed a law suit against their church brothers and let Caesar rule the matter. Here, in the case titledHollins v. Edmonds, is what the appeals judge  ruled in clear, unambiguous and full disclosure for all the world to know and understand.
“The business of the church was conducted in a rather informal manner in accordance with its customs. Although this kind of conduct might be suited to church tradition, it does not comply with the requirements of the statutes regarding nonprofit corporations. As the trial judge phrased it — once the church determined to enter the realm of Caesar by forming a corporation, it was required to abide by the rules of Caesar, or in this case, the statutes of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.”
“It is the general holding of this court that those organizations choosing to incorporate under the requirements of Chapter 273 must comply with the requirements of the law. Specifically, we hold that the statute requires that written notice of meetings be given to members of the corporation and that bylaws must be adopted.” Hollins v. Edmonds, 616 S.W.2d 801, (1981).
As I said before, after reading the judges ruling here and in other similar cases, anyone who doesn’t understand that Caesarand not Christ is lord over the (counterfeit) “artificial persons” which are innocuously referred to as religious corporationssimply has to be either retarded or knowingly in denial of the truth… you decide.
Backing Out of the Minefield of Incorporation
Dire as the situation for incorporated churches may seem, in His mercy and grace the Father has provided a way out through our Lord Christ Jesus and His Kingdom. That is the subject of my latest publication titled, Backing Out of the Minefield of Incorporation. This is a brief but essential reference source for pastors and church leaders who are no less than 100% dedicated to the Lordship of Christ and determined to breakout of Caesar’s choke hold in a accordance with the New Testament. I currently have eighteen copies that are available to anyone who will send a gift as the Lord may direct them. If your situation is such that you currently have no gift to send, please contact me and I’m confident our Lord will find a way to make it happen.
If you are serious about transitioning out of Caesar’s venue and into the Kingdom of God in Christ Jesus, I will work with you through the process and share my knowledge and wisdom as the Lord has blessed and given it me. I cannot make it any easier for you than that.
Looking forward to hearing from those called of Christ to serve Him in Spirit and in Truth,

Self-proclaimed Non-501(c)(3) Churches Who Are 501(c)(3) Churches

Jerald Finney
Copyright © Ausust 13, 2014

IRS Publication 557, p. 24. Click the image to go directly to the publication.

IRS Publication 557, p. 24. Click the image to go directly to the publication

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?

From IRS Publication 1828. Click the above image to go directly to Publication 1828.

From IRS Publication 1828. Click the above image to go directly to Publication 1828.

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,, 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.”

Click the image above to go to the article "Is Separation of Church and State Found in the Constitution?"

Click the image above to go to the article “Is Separation of Church and State Found in the Constitution?”

Corporation: A human being with no soul


Jerald Finney
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.

"Christian" churches, wiccan churches, planned parenthood, etc. are all under the same non-profit corporation status.

“Christian” churches, wiccan churches, planned parenthood, etc. are all under the same non-profit corporation status.

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.

5Some 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.”
  • LegalEntityStatus“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).”

16[I cover “limited liability” for church corporation members in the article “Spurious rationale for church incorporation: limited liability/Incorporation increases liability of church members.”].


  • 6Corporate 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.”

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

[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).]


  • PlannedParenthood_2“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.[5] 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.”


14thAm.[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.]


  • 9Corporations 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.]


  • 7“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.”


8[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.]

13Other 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; but the author will not examine those matters 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.

Is It Wrong For A Believer To Sue For Violation Of His Constitutional Rights? A Real Life Study

Jerald Finney © July 9, 2014


Note. I will add any online discussion of this article in EN 7, the last endnote.

One’s heart, flesh, emotions, and reasoning tell him, when his civil rights are violated, to sue for damages, including vindictive damages; and as a lawyer, I am taught, in civil cases, to go for everything I can get. Are man’s heart, flesh, emotions and reasoning consistent with God’s word which is proclaimed to be a believer’s sole source of faith, belief, and practice? What does the Bible teach about this important issue? That is the subject of this article.

Several years ago I became concerned that pastors and other believers were hurting the cause of Christ by suing cities, mayors, individual police officers and others who disobeyed the law and cited and/or arrested them falsely for exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of religion and speech in the public forum. I announced this belief and gave a few Scriptures at a meeting attended by quite a number of Fundamental Baptist pastors. I also stated my belief that filing for injunction as opposed to suing for damages when one’s rights are threatened and/or violated does not violate Biblical precepts. Some of the verses which led me to this conclusion are:

Mt. 5.10-12, 38-48; 6.8-15; 18.21-35; Lk. 6.27-46; 9.51-56; Ro. 8.28; 12.9-21; 13.8-14; 14.19; Ga. 6.10; 1 Thes. 5.15; 1 Ti. 3.1-7; 2 Ti.1,8; 2.8-12; 3.12;  3.12; Ja. 3.17; 1 Pe. 2.9-25 (esp. 15-16 and 20-25); 3.14-17; 4; Ge. 50.16-20; Le. 19.18; De. 32.35 and other verses.

[Most of the above verses from the Bible are reproduced in EN 1. This is done for the convenience of the reader and also because many people either do not have a Bible, or they have an interpretation of the Bible such as the NIV, the ASB, the Living Bible, etc. Reading an interpretation can only confuse one when he wants to get into the truth about doctrine. Please read those verses so that you will understand what the Bible says about taking vengeance, the believer's reaction to evil against him, one's actions against his enemies, about the believer's attitude in time of persecution, etc. Consider this article in light of Biblical teaching, not in light of your traditions. In response to a mailing publicizing this article, one pastor who has been a longtime beloved friend has already e-mailed me to "unsubscribe" him from my e-mail list. He merely states that he is making this request because I obviously do not "understand the clear statutes of Scripture." He gives no reasoning in his request because he cannot. I still love him and his church, but I cannot let anything, including family and friendship stand between me and my Lord. I believe that Scripture clearly supports my position. I always leave open the challenge, "Show me where I am wrong." If you can show me, I will publish my repentance. By the way, I have received communications from other pastors who are supportive of this article. Really, the only thing that matters is the truth of the matter according to the word of God.]

Both the goal and the method matters to God. An active believer with good intentions but the wrong methodology can do great harm to the cause of Christ. My beliefs about this matter of suing for damages were challenged the way that some Fundamental Baptist preachers address issues – in a sermon at a future meeting. I was anxious to hear the preannounced sermon since I had hopes that the preacher, a man for whom I had and have a great deal of respect, would take out his Bible and “show me” where I was wrong. He did not. He explained that after he filed suit in a case where the law enforcement violated his First Amendment rights, the police whom he included in the suits suddenly started treating him with the greatest of respect, that he won quite a sum in damages, etc. He relied on one verse which I do not remember but which did not support his position and a portion of another verse: “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (the last part of Jude 1.3). To understand “how” God wishes a believer to react to a violation of his constitutional rights exercised in the public forum (the method) one has to do some serious Bible study. Verses taken out of context are often used to support heresy. We talked briefly after his message, but he never offered any explanation of why I was wrong. He did give me some unneeded advice on how to proceed with an injunction. His sermon and our brief conversation were cordial but unfruitful.

3Due to an incident in Faribault, Minnesota in which police officers violated the rights of men from the church I am a member of, Old Paths Baptist Church (“OPBC”) of Northfield, Minnesota, I found that my position was partially right and partially wrong. I learned this through talks with my pastor, Pastor Jason Cooley, and more Bible study as the incident in Faribault played out. Instead of preaching to me, he got out his Bible and examined Scripture and talked to me about it. It was important that we do so because it appeared that, in spite of all our sincere efforts to avoid litigation (getting federal court intervention), the City of Faribault, their Chief of Police, and the police department were going to allow a city code to trump the First Amendment speech protections for our men who were preaching in the public forum. All this is reflected in the correspondence in the Endnotes. Thankfully, the city through the Chief of Police, after I got the city attorney and city council involved in the correspondence, seems to have acknowledged that the First Amendment trumps a city ordinance. The law is given in the many cases I cited and quote from in my e-mail correspondence which is in the Endnotes below.

2Many police departments and police officers, including Chiefs of Police, like many Americans, make up the law concerning First Amendment rights. Those in larger towns and cities usually know the law of free speech in the public forum since they regularly deal with all kinds of activists. This is not true in smaller towns and cities where the issue has never arisen. Shame on believers and churches who have not followed biblical guidelines and done their duty to go into all the world and preach the Gospel in this nation where, unlike many nations, they can do so under the protection of man’s law.

After the Faribault police violated the speech rights of the OPBC street preachers, I posted the following report online at


“On June 21, 2014, Brother Paul Pearson, Pastor Jason Cooley, Brother Cooley (Pastor Jason’s dad) and some other younger men from Old Paths Baptist Church went to Faribault MN for street preaching, displaying signs, and handing out tracts. Two recordings of the encounter were made by Pastor Cooley may be viewed by left clicking the following links:

Faribault MN Police Order Preachers To Stop Preaching

Faribault Police Tell Preachers To Leave Or Be Arrested

“Faribault police officers approached them. One of the officers arguably assaulted (petty misdemeanor assault) Brother Pearson as he was preaching by poking his with his finger as he stood on a stand street preaching. As the officer poked Brother Pearson with his finger he told him, “Get down from there. I said get down from there.” Brother Pearson kept preaching. The officer said that if they did not leave, they would be going to jail. One female officer told them that if they did not leave, they would be cited and arrested. She threatened them by saying they would cite them for violating Section 17-42(a) of the Faribault City Ordinances entitled “Nuisance noise” (See EN 2 for the whole ordinance).

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


The preachers stayed on for a time, probably a little longer than they would have stayed had the police not interrupted their efforts, then they left. However, the tone of the police was such that they believed that they would be cited, and possibly arrested, the next time they went back to preach in Faribault.

Chief BohlenIn an attempt to resolve the matter, I called city attorney on June 23, 2014. He suggested that I call the Chief of Police. I have had many dealings with police as a lawyer over the years, including examining them on the witness stand. I knew the “peace officer” mindset. But I decided to honor the request of the city attorney. I left a voicemail for the Chief. Then I sent him an e-mail (See EN 3 for the e-mail). In that e-mail, I told him what had happened and gave him links to the videos above, briefly explained the law, gave him links to materials which explained the law, told him that we were proceeding like this in hopes of settling the matter peaceably with the hope that “this whole matter will glorify God, uplift all involved and bring us closer together in love, strengthen and enforce principles which have made America great, and increase all our knowledge, wisdom and understanding of a vital matter. “etc.

On June 26, the Chief replied by e-mail, since we were playing phone tag. In his e-mail, he explained that the officer who “tapped the preacher on the arm” was a community service officer – not an officer in the Faribault Police Department – that it was not an assault, that a person “has the right to free speech and can preach loudly and exclaim their beliefs in public;” but he went on to explain that “in the City of Faribault we do have an ordinance and a state statute that defines some behavior as public nuisance or disorderly conduct” and that “a citation can be issued.” He expressed his confident belief that “our State Statute” would “comply with the Hierarchy of Law and win challenges.” He went on to explain that correct his officers used correct protocol, were polite and professional, were responding to complaints, etc. It was clear, that citations would be issued for street preaching if citizens complained. He then explained the court process. In other words, he was saying that we could take it up with the trial court judge after the citations were issued. He still did not get it. He ended with, “The City of Faribault will continue to enforce the law and protect all citizen rights, as well as  free speech.” Note. I have his e-mail on file, but am not publishing any of his e-mails. I will only do so if someone accuses me of falsely representing what was in the e-mail. Of course, I will not cover everything he said in his e-mails.

Again, while this was going on, my pastor and I were not only discussing what was going on but also what we should do, according to the Bible, should one or more of the men be arrested in violation of the First Amendment. I will explain our conclusions at the end of this article.

I sent Chief Bohlen a rather lengthy e-mail reply to his June 26 e-mail which is reproduced in EN 4. In that e-mail I 1) apologized; (2) gave him a link to a Youtube video of a Minneapolis policeman interacting with the men of OPBC on June 28, 2013 as they preached at a “gay” pride event, a link to a website page which shows what happened in Northfield MN when people complained about the street preaching in downtown Northfield and my credentials to speak on these matters; (3) presented requests for clarification of his position and some other matters; (4) spoke to the assault issue showing him why I thought that the officer actually did assault Brother Paul Pearson; (5) gave him specific law which clearly proves that it is unlawful for a police officer to arrest someone under color of certain types of statutes (disorderly conduct, nuisance, littering, etc.) laws when they are speaking in the public forum; (6) Concluded.

Mayor John Jasinski

Mayor John Jasinski

Council Member Kevin Vorasek

Council Member Kevin Vorasek

In spite of all this, Chief Bohlen maintained his position which was that our men had a right to speak in the public forum; but that if someone complained the police could still issue a citation for violation of certain statutes. Of course, he would have understood he was wrong had he read and understood the law as laid out in my e-mails. It appeared that the men of OPBC would have to go to court for resolution. However, I knew that I needed to notify the appropriate city officials of what was going on and make sure that they shared his position, as he had asserted. To do so, I sent an e-mail reply to the Mayor of Faribault, the Chief, the City Attorney, and all the Faribault City Council members. The entire e-mail is included in EN 5.

Finally, before I heard from Chief Bohlen again, I sent another e-mail in to all the above mentioned Faribault city officials in which I quoted from and linked to MCCULLEN ET AL. v. COAKLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL. a United States Supreme Court case which was handed down June 26, 2014, and also linked to a recent and relevant Texas case. I ended, in part, “I know that you are all busy, but I would ask you to please let the men of OPBC know as soon as you can as to what your city policy is going to be regarding their First Amendment right to speak in the public forum.” The Chief had indicated that he spoke for the City of Faribault, but I wanted to pin all the above persons and the City of Faribault down in case further legal action were required. See En 6 for the entirety of that e-mail.

Council Member Joan VanDyke

Council Member Joan VanDyke

Council Member John Rowan

Council Member John Rowan

The Chief relented.  He left a voice mail and we talked over the phone later. I think that he finally understood the law on the matter and the role of the police. I have retained his voice mail. Our conversation was not recorded, but he said the same thing, for the most part in our conversation as he said in his voice mail. Among other things, he said that he saw the videos, stressed that no one was taken into custody or arrested, that he understood our frustration, that they would respect our First Amendment rights, that the police have an obligation to take calls of complaint, that he wants to make sure that they handled appropriately, and that he has issued the appropriate directives to his officers as to how to take these complaints. He said that they “have an obligation to go out and take these calls” and that he “wants to make sure they are handled appropriately.” He also said something which causes me concern as to whether he truly understands the law, but I will leave that out of this article. He, the Faribault police department, and the city of Faribault through her officials now cannot say that they did not know the law should they violate it. In talking with Chief Bohlen, I believe that he is a good man, a man of his word, and that he truly wants to run his police force according to the law of the land. The men of OPBC know that many smaller towns, unlike larger cities like Minneapolis/St. Paul and Austin TX, have never had to deal with the controversy caused by activism in the public forum. Therefore, they usually do not respond appropriately when citizens complain. This is an indictment against many, and especially against believers and pastors of churches who were instructed by our Lord: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” Had they only done their job, everyone in the land would not only see the power of God and hear the Gospel, but also know the law of the land concerning First Amendment freedoms; then, they might even study the history of how Americans got those freedoms. That study would enlighten them on many matters such as religion (Catholicism, Protestantism, the history of true Baptist believers and churches, the blood of the martyrs which led to the First Amendment) the history of America, etc.

Council Member Kay Duchene

Council Member Kay Duchene

Council Member Steve Underdahl

Council Member Steve Underdahl

Now, as to the results of the studies and discussions between myself and Pastor Jason. My belief is now, as before, that a believer who wishes to speak in the public forum should do all he can, aside from abandoning his calling and duty, to avoid litigation. I know that this is not always possible. Even in this instance, one or more of the men could have been arrested. Since that did not happen, the men of OPBC did all they could to honor God, Chief Bohlen, the Faribault City Officials, and the City of Faribault and avoid litigation. However, had Faribault not relented, we had decided that the next step was to file for federal injunction. Of course, we felt that, through all the correspondence, we had enough to implicate Chief Bohlen, the City Officials, and the City of Faribault. Had we been forced to take that route, we do not believe that a federal judge would have looked kindly on the city’s actions since they had been thoroughly educated as to the law; in one sense, that would not have mattered since there are no damages to be awarded in a successful action for injunction.

Council Member David Albers

Council Member David Albers

On the other hand, had the city not relented and had the city violated or should the city in violate the constitutional rights of one or more of our men while speaking in the public forum, I now believe, as do the men of OPBC, that a civil rights lawsuit would be in order. We believe that it would be appropriate for the suit to ask for actual damages to any man who lost income or money as a result of being arrested, having to go to court, going to jail, etc. We believe that this is biblically acceptable for several reasons.

3First, God laid out the jurisdiction of civil government. Much of the Old Testament deals with this matter, as do parts of the New Testament. Romans 13.3-4 which gives civil government jurisdiction in a nutshell says:

“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

Ro. 13.8-14 then gives the individual believer’s duty to our fellow citizens. Inherent within that duty is to do God’s bidding and show our love to our neighbors by preaching to them.

When a peace officer seeks to terrorize good, not evil, works, he is misusing his God-ordained power – he is executing wrath on the wrong person(s). He is becoming a lawbreaker.

1 Ti. 1.8-11 says:

“But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.”

6Second, the verses I cited at the beginning of this article to support my belief that believers should never sue because of violation of their civil rights did not take into consideration justice. The above verses, and many others inherently include the notion of justice. One can do a word search of “justice” to find out that the Bible specifically speaks much of justice. Psalms 82:3 says, “Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.” Micah 6.8 says, “He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” If a man’s family suffers because a government has unlawfully terriorzed and/or persecuted him, justice demands that that family receive restitution.

Another consideration for the believer who sues for violation of his constitutional rights is his motive – is his primary desire to glorify God by making sure he is not led in any way by covetousness. In Genesis 14, we read that the King of Sodom wished to reward Abraham for saving the good and the people who had been taken forcefully by certain kings and their armies. “And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich: Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion” (Ge. 14:22-24). “Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me” (He. 13.5-6).

The Bible limits what a child of God should seek in restitution. Never should one seek exemplary damages, damages for mental anguish, damages for emotional distress, or any kind of damages which can be characterized as seeking vengeance. One can study out the meaning of the various types of legal damages to determine which can be characterized as “vengeance” damages. A true believer is to rejoice and be exceeding glad when persecuted for the cause of Christ. He is instructed never to seek vengeance since God makes clear that vengeance is His and that he will repay the offender for his unlawful actions. I refer the reader to the verses at the beginning of this article, most of which are reproduced in EN 1 below, for a study of this matter of vengeance and loving one’s neighbor. A complete serious study of the whole word of God would be even more enlightening.One simply cannot get around the fact that those Scriptures which I rely on to say that Christians are not to seek or take vengeance by making the argument that those Scriptures do not apply to the scenario I am considering. My human emotions, flesh, and reasoning tells me to sue for damages, including vindictive damages but the Bible instructs me not to do so. See how LLDF vindicated Rev. Walter Hoye.

In short, I believe that the course one who wishes to preach the Gospel in the public forum should be as follows:

(1) Do everything possible to avoid having to go to civil (as opposed to criminal) court. If one plans to speak in the public forum within a jurisdiction in which he is unsure if the authorities there are educated as to the law, notify the appropriate official(s) of when and where you will be speaking. If they do not know the law, educate them. Be sure to keep all evidence possible of your communications in case needed in future litigation.

(2) If the jurisdiction threatens citation and/or arrest after having been informed of the law, file for injunction in federal court.

(3) If you are arrested at any time for violation of your Biblical mandate to preach the Gospel in the public forum and in violation of your Constitutional rights, file a civil rights lawsuit. The only acceptable damages, according to God’s word, is actual damages which keeps one from properly keeping his duty to provide for himself and his family, and even those damages may not always be called for – a believer who is suing must honestly determine if such damages are appropriate. Suing for any  type of damages which takes vengeance violates God’s principles. Suing for financial loss which compromises your ability to support your family is Biblically acceptable. I can help get an attorney licensed in your state to practice law to help you. If you are in Austin, Texas or in a nearby county in Texas, I may be able to help you depending upon my schedule.

I salute Chief Bohlen for giving his attention to this matter. He is a busy man. He and the officials and citizens of Faribault as well as the men of OPBC are better off for this educational experience. May the education extend to those citizens who have not, to this point, been privy to what has gone on in resolving this matter. May justice prevail now and in the future.


EN 1

Mt. 5.10-12, 38-48; 6.8-15; 18.21-35: “5:10-12 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.  Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. 5:38-48 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. 6.8-15 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. 18.21-35 [Not reproduced here.]

Lk. 6.27-46; 9.51-56: “6:27-46 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.  Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.  Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again. And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch? The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.  And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye. For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.  A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh. And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? 9.51-56 And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem, And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.”

Ro. 8.28; 12.9-21; 13.8-14; 14.19: “8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 12:9-21 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;  Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord; Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer; Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality. Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not. Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep. Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.  Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. 13.8-14 [God’s command to the believer concerning his acts toward his neighbor in the context of civil government jurisdiction and the believer’s role as a citizen of that civil government. Notice that these verses say nothing about the believer’s relationship to God in that context.]. 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.”

Ga. 6.10: “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.”

1 Thes. 5.15 “See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.”

1 Ti. 3.1-7: “This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;  Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;  One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.  Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” [Since pastors should be going into the world preaching the Gospel, and since they may encounter violations of their civil rights, they should be aware that they are held to an even higher standard than other believers. Verses 10-13 then deals with qualifications for deacons.]

2 Ti.1,8; 2.8-12; 3.12: “1:8 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;” 2:8-12 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound. Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.”

Note. Contextually, in 2.Ti. 3.12 and other verses, when Paul speaks of believers suffering persecution, he means that they will suffer, not fight, persecution. Of course Paul argued within the legal system when falsely accused of crime. He appealed to Rome as a Roman citizen and argued that the facts showed that he was not guilty. He did not have the civil rights given Americans in the Constitution, so one must go deeper into relevant Biblical doctrine to see God’s limits on one’s methods as he enters the civil (as opposed to criminal) law. That is what this article is about.

Ja. 3.17: “But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.”

1 Pe. 2.9-25 (esp. 15-16 and 20-25); 3.14-17; 4: “2:15-16 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. 2:20-25 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.  For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:  Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:  Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.  For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. 3:14-17 But and if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled; But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:  Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.” [Read chapter 4 in your Bible. If you only have an interpretation – a non-KJB – buy a Bible!]

Ge. 50.16-20; Le. 19.18; De. 32.35: [Not reproduced here]

EN 2 “Sec. 17-42. Nuisance noise.

“(a) No person in the city shall make or assist in or permit the making of any noise tending to unreasonably disturb the peace and quiet of persons in the vicinity thereof, unless the making and continuing of the same cannot be prevented and is necessary for the protection or preservation of property or of the health, safety, life or limb of some person. “… “(d) Permitted noise. Customary sounds from any of the following activities shall not be deemed to violate this section. “(1) Marching and/or playing of music by bands, orchestras, or other musical aggregations in conjunction with an authorized city celebration, festival, or other neighborhood or community event, including band shell concerts; or the practice for or presentation of an event sponsored by a local public or private school; “(2) Church bells, chimes and carillons; “(3) Authorized parades; “(4) Construction work conducted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.; “(5) School bells; “(6) Emergency vehicles; “(7) Permitted street dances; or “(8) Collection and transportation of garbage or refuse in the city between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the collection and transportation of garbage or refuse for commercial, industrial or institutional properties may be conducted between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.”

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

EN 3 [First e-mail to the Faribault Chief of Police]

My name is Jerald Finney. I am writing this letter as a member of Old Paths Baptist Church (“OPBC”) in Northfield, Minnesota. I am contacting you regarding a matter which happened on June 21, 2013 in your city. Some of your police officers broke the law by assaulting one member and threatening more than one member of OPBC with arrest and citation for violating Section 17.42(a) of your city ordinances. I have already put the whole story online. You can read it at: You may click the link above and scroll down to “June 21, 2014 Update” to read the story. To verify the story, there are links there to 2 videos which show exactly what happened.

I am a lawyer who specializes in “separation of church and state law” and am licensed in Texas, but not in Minnesota. However, as a member of OPBC and as a representative of that church, I – and the church – wish to attempt to resolve a matter involving your police officers in the most reasonable manner, and in a way which does not waste the money of the taxpayers. This is the best way to handle the matter, in my opinion, since the legal issues have already been decided by the United States Supreme Court. Many lawsuits against municipalities, police departments, and individual police officers have already laid out the parameters of the law and shown that the litigation process ends up with taxpayers spending untold thousands of dollars for not understanding and correctly applying the law. The costs to the city and officers involved have included lawyers fees, court costs, time involved for officers and others who become involved, monetary judgments in favor of those whose legal rights have been violated, etc. OPBC wishes to act in a manner consistent with what the Bible teaches in resolving this matter and avoid further action. We wish to show you our love for you and your city by peaceful resolution. The church has already contacted the Alliance Defense Fund (“ADF”) and an ADF lawyer has told us to call if needed and they will get a lawyer who practices in your jurisdiction on it quickly.

What we would ask from the city is (1) a writing from a city official (Chief Bohlen, City Attorney, Fischer, or the mayor) stating that the Faribault police have been informed of the law regarding free speech in the public forum that can be presented in the future to officers who might attempt to abuse the preachers again and also stating that Faribault police officers have been educated in the law concerning speech in the public forum in America, (2) a written apology from the officer who assaulted the preacher, and (3) an apology from the lady officer who did almost all the talking.

I have thoroughly addressed the law on this matter online. I specifically deal with the issue on the “Old Paths Baptist Church ‘No Small Stir’ (Street Preaching) Ministry” page which you may assess by clicking the following link: There you may find links that will take you to court briefs and other information which spell out the law. I have a 12 page tract which succinctly lays out the law. The link to the PDF of that tract is:

As you can see from the information on that tract and on the website pages, this matter has already been resolved in Northfield, Minnesota without court action in favor of the street preachers from OPBC.

To understand the importance of protected speech and the bloody history of how it came to be in America, I would suggest reading “The History of the First Amendment,” which is Section IV of the book “God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application and which is free in online form at The free PDF of the book is at: One may find order information (available in both Kindle and softback) at: “An Abridged History of the First Amendment” is available free at: That booklet is only published online.

Please contact me as soon as possible concerning this matter. I talked with Attorney Fischer on the phone a little while ago and he suggested calling Chief Bohlen. I called Chief Bohlen and left a voice mail. Our hope is that this whole matter will glorify God, uplift all involved and bring us closer together in love, strengthen and enforce principles which have made America great, and increase all our knowledge, wisdom and understanding of a vital matter. “And now abideth faith, hope, charity [God's type of love], these three; but the greatest of these is charity” (1 Corinthians 13.13).

Very truly yours and for His Glory, Jerald Finney Member of Old Paths Baptist Church 512-785-8445 512-385-0761 E-mail:

P.S. Should you call and get a voice mail, please leave a message and I will return your call as soon as possible.

EN 4 My reply to Chief Bohlen’s e-mail:

Dear Chief Bohlen,

Thank you for your e-mail reply on June 26, 2014. I have been working on this reply for several days. I believe we are getting closer, although still a long way from, a resolution to this problem. It appears to me that I will not be able to resolve this by communicating with you, but I am making an attempt to do so at the request of your city attorney. Again, let me say that I am acting on behalf of the men who were there street preaching, not as an attorney. We are all members of OPBC, a non-legal entity, a First Amendment church (I will not explain what that means other than to say individual men are involved, and no legal entity). The street preachers of OPBC are doing everything possible to get this matter resolved without taxing the city, the church, and the court system. They are ordered by the Bible to love all men and so they are showing their love to you, your city attorney, your city elected officials, your police force, all your city peace officers, and the citizens of your city by proceeding according to the directives of the word of God. They wish to give all their energy to obedience to the Lord which includes preaching the Gospel in public. They have no desire to bring in an attorney who may ultimately ask for certain damages and attorney’s fees which may burden you all in the form of tax dollars used to pay court ordered judgments. They will do that only as a final resort if all efforts to get this resolved according to the law of the land fail.

Let me say that I contacted you because your city attorney, Kurt Fischer, asked me to do so. I wished to take the matter up with him, but out of courtesy, I decided to comply with his request. I am cc’ing this to the mayor, the city council members, and the city attorney. Since in your last e-mail you stated that your position is that of the police department and the city of Faribault, I am sending this letter with a note (included above this letter the mayor to you, the city council members, and the city attorney. it is included, as  you know, in your letter since you saw it before getting to this part of the correspondence.).

In this letter, I will (1) apologize; (2) give you a link to a Youtube video of a policeman interacting with the men of OPBC on June 28, 2013 as they preached at a “gay” pride event, a link to a website page which shows what happened in Northfield MN when people complained about the street preaching in downtown Northfield and my credentials to speak on these matters; (3) present requests for clarification of your position and some other matters; (4) speak to the assault issue; (5) give you specific law which clearly proves that it is unlawful for a police officer to arrest someone under color of certain types of statutes (disorderly conduct, nuisance, littering, etc.) laws when they are speaking in the public forum; (6) Conclude.

(1) My apologies

I wish to apologize to you for what I feel I been wrong in my prior correspondence. I sent you a ton of educational material. I ask you to forgive me for that. The material I sent contained the law concerning the issue we are confronting. I should have specifically given you the important law. Below, I will present what it says and will attach the United States Supreme Court Cases which have laid down the law. You see, I am not the law, the city attorney is not the law, and the police are not the law; nor does any of our opinions have legal effect. The Supreme Court is the law of the American legal system and their opinions are the standard. If their opinion violates the highest law, then they will ultimately pay the price, but that is not our problem. Please forgive me for not being specific.

Let me also apologize for not checking Minnesota law and referring to that when I mentioned what I still feel was an assault by the “officer” in the video. As a citizen of America, I feel the same way the men approached by the Faribault “officials” (I will refer to them all that way, with the understanding that some of them were not “your” officers.). I will clarify below what I meant. I am offended when someone comes up to me and puts their hands, fingers, feet or anything else on me in a negative way, especially if I am doing nothing illegal. I consider that type of action against me to be an assault. I am even more offended when a “peace officer” does so; especially if he says that I can’t do something that is legal, as declared by the U.S. Supreme Court (for example, tells me that a city ordinance trumps the First Amendment which is directly the opposite of the truth – see below for the law), and tells me I am going to jail.

(2) Examples of peace officers who know the law and my credentials to speak on these matters

The men of OPBC have preached in Minneapolis/St. Paul without problem, even in the face of complaints. The police there know the law. They preached at a “gay” pride parade there on June 28, 2014. Go to the video below to see what a police officer who knows and enforces the law (The First Amendment to the United States Constitution) does:

To see what happened in Northfield, Minnesota when citizens vehemently complained to the police of that city in their efforts to try to get the police to cite the preachers from OPBC with violation of city ordinance(s) because of their refusal to quit their protected speech click the following link:

Finally, let me briefly explain that I both led and participated in the street preaching ministry of an Austin TX church for about 20 years. Over that time, many complaints were made to the police – “I am offended,” “I am alarmed,” “You can’t do that,” “The place for this is in the ‘church’ building, not on the street,” “You are making people mad,” “You are in front of my business (where we were closer to the door of the business in busy pedestrian and vehicle traffic than in the incident you mentioned there in Faribault, etc. We were careful not to be so close to his business door that we impeded the progress of pedestrians in any way.). What did the police do to us – they explained the law to the people and protected us. I was assaulted more than once and spit on during those times. One man assaulted me and left to get in a taxi, but some policemen detained him and talked to him. Then the policeman came up to me and said that the man stated that I assaulted him, but that he saw the whole thing and said I could complain and he would arrest the man for assault. I told him that I came to help, not hurt, people and thanked him for protecting us and for all his good work as a peace officer.

Furthermore, I am a constitutional lawyer and have studied free speech. I know the law concerning speech in the public forum (on government sidewalks, parks, etc.) I have successfully represented people who were speaking in the public forum at trial and had to appeal one case which was reversed and acquittal ordered on appeal. Links to my brief and other information on that appeal are linked to at:

(3) Requests

My first request involves your position.According to your letter, your position is the position of both the city of Fairbault and also the Fairbault police department. I will try to contact the city officials and the city attorney to verify that. If we need to go further, we wish to include everyone involved in any civil actions that may follow. We do not wish to go that route, but just in case. I will be attempting to discuss this with the city attorney and officials so they will not be surprised; and also to allow them to verify or deny whether they share your position and whether your position is also the policy of the city, the city officials, and the city attorney.

My second request is for your clarification of your position – what will happen if the preachers preach in your town? I will give my interpretation of your e-mail and ask if it is correct. If it is not, may I ask that you clearly state your position? Again, may I ask if your position is the express or understood position of the city of Fairbault? If so, how and where may I verify their position? I will be asking your city attorney and city officials (those who I and get an e-mail address for) their position and policy and the position and/or policy of the city in the next few days.

Let me give you my interpretation of your position. You said that a citation can and will be issued for disorderly conduct just for street preaching. You then want a judge to decide the issue. As I read it, you believe that police can cite and/or arrest a street preacher because people are offended and alarmed in violation of Noribault City Ordinance Section 17-42. I agree with you that police can do so. I disagree that they can do so lawfully because Supreme Court case law (quoted below) makes crystal clear that the First Amendment forbids it – the First Amendment trumps Section 17.42 and all the disorderly conduct and nuisance statutes in America. By explicit law (see below) the Supreme Court has already decided this issue and lower federal courts have already, on many occasions, awarded damages to American citizens who filed civil rights (42 U.S.C.S. § 1983) lawsuits against officials who unlawfully arrested them under various statutes (including disorderly conduct statutes) for speech activity in the public forum. Of course, a street preacher can be cited and arrested for some crimes such as assault or criminal trespass even if he is street preaching (as long as the alleged crime is not just a pretext for arrest). Police have unlawfully (in violation of the First Amendment) arrested and/or cited street preachers and others who were speaking in the public forum and charged them with disorderly conduct, littering (when in fact, as proven in court, others were littering by throwing Gospel tracts given them by street preachers in the street), and other crimes. Ultimately, the results were acquittal, many cases being dismissed without trial, some going to trial and acquitted, some being convicted, but exonerated on appeal. Those processes have resulted in clear definition of what the law is for those who know how to research it.

The law regarding freedom of speech in the public forum has also been developed in other ways. In some cases, those whose constitutional rights have sued police officers (I will not, at this time, explain the law of qualified immunity of government officials) and cities and city officials successfully under the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C.S. § 1983). All that because the police and maybe the city and city officials did not know the law and, instead of doing their jobs and protecting the law-abiding preachers or other citizens who were involved in protected speech in the public forum, became a law unto themselves and abused their duty to uphold the law. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The street preachers of OPBC truly wish to avoid all that. They have no desire to get anything from anyone unless your unlawful actions continue, their freedom of speech rights are violated, and/or you deprive them of their livelihood needed to take care of their families. Just being forced unlawfully to go to court by summons and/or arrest will interfere with these men’s ability to do their secular jobs and provide for their families. They will not seek vengeance, but they will seek justice. Hopefully, justice will be served without court action. They will love you, as ordered by God in his word which means they will do everything in their power to resolve this in the most expeditious manner possible without lawsuit or other court action. In addition, your citizens deserve better than that. What they need to know is the truth. According to the United States Supreme Court, here is no right not to be offended or alarmed in the public forum in America. I will give you some Supreme Court quotes below. Most thinking people, myself included, are offended or alarmed by something they see or hear every time they venture out in public. These men could have been offended by the unlawful actions of your officers and by the unlawful responses of the members of your community who called the police in hopes of arresting their protected speech.

On top of all that, your proposal that the men come preach, get a summons, go to court, and let the court decide leaves some very important questions. The men probably left later than they would have had the officers not interrupted them by violating their civil rights. What would happen if we followed your proposal and after the summons issued, kept preaching another hour? Two more hours? More complaints and more summons? Or would the preacher(s) be arrested? What if they came back to preach on the streets of Noribault before the judge decided the case or before the appeal, if needed, were finished? More citations, summons, possible arrests? Another important question is why should anyone go through this ridiculous exercise for a matter that has already been decided by the United States Supreme Court? Again, I will offer specific law below. I will attempt to get your city attorney to look at this. It is his job. I will also point it out to any city officials for whom I can obtain an e-mail address. In Northfield, the exact same thing happened, a police officer took it on himself to go to the city attorney, and the city attorney explained that the police could do nothing about street preaching under disorderly conduct, nuisance or other similar laws. I do not know exactly how much detail the city attorney gave, but the police in Northfield now abide by and understand their role. No civil suit of any kind with the collateral consequences to the city, to individual officers, to city officials, to the city attorney, and to the citizens of Northfield (of course, the consequences against the citizens would be indirect since it would all be paid for by their tax dollars). Again, the St. Paul/Minneapolis officers also know and act upon the law as shown in the video linked to above.

By the way, as to the incident at the liquor store, you officers were in the wrong there as well, as far as the video indicates. Paul, I do not believe, did not impede or intimidate customers.  He may have offended them or scared them by telling them that the Bible teaches that “except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish,” of by some other constitutionally protected speech. I will have to talk to him more about that. No need to get into great detail about that here. The main thing is that these two incidents (both of which I have on DVD) are establishing a pattern.

My third request is to ask you if you will send me the names, badge numbers (if any), and service or citation addresses of all the personnel who were involved in the incident and the liquor store incident. If similar incidents occur, I will remind the street preachers to get the names and badge numbers of all officers involved, and the names, addresses and phone numbers of any non-peace officers involved. Please instruct your officers to give that information if requested or not in the event of future incidents of the same nature. We would especially like to know the name and contact info. for the person who “tapped the preacher on the arm” ordered him to get down and said “he can’t do that, he’s going to jail,” etc. From whom did he get his authority? I will get the names and e-mail addresses s of the city officials, if possible, off the city website. As you know, I already have all the contact info. for the city attorney. Having all that information will speed up whatever court action(s), if any, takes place regarding this matter. If such action is necessary, OPBC will turn all the info over to the attorney who handles the case(s), thus lowering his billable hours. He will ask for attorney’s fees as well as for certain types of damages should a 1983 action be initiated. If I were licensed in Minnesota, I would handle it all myself pro bono without asking for anything more than out of pocket expenses be awarded by the court. My work on these type matters has always been pro bono. I regret that I cannot save you money in that way.

(4) The assault issue

Although the assault point is moot and although neither Mr. Pearson nor any of the other men will try to proceed on an assault charge, I must give it some attention in answer to your comments. These people are true Christians. If our Lord could suffer as he did at the hands of the religious and political crowds (because they were alarmed and offended because of what he said. We know the real reason for his crucifixion – my sin, your sin and the sins of the whole world put him on the cross), surely we can suffer such a minute affront from the same crowd. In fact, we are told to suffer such tribulation with joy.

One 2012 Webster’s Dictionary definition of “Assault” is “a :  a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact.” One 2012 Webster’s Student definition of assault is: “2 : an unlawful attempt or threat to do harm to another.”

As to Minnesota law, I offer the following sections from the 2013 Minnesota Statutes: 609.02 DEFINITIONS. “Subdivision 1.Crime.“Crime” means conduct which is prohibited by statute and for which the actor may be sentenced to imprisonment, with or without a fine…. … “Subd. 4a.Petty misdemeanor.“Petty misdemeanor” means a petty offense which is prohibited by statute, which does not constitute a crime and for which a sentence of a fine of not more than $300 may be imposed…. “Subd. 10.Assault. “Assault” is: “(1) an act done with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death; or “(2) the intentional infliction of or attempt to inflict bodily harm upon another.” 609.2231 ASSAULT IN THE FOURTH DEGREE. “Subdivision 1.Peace officers. “Whoever physically assaults a peace officer licensed under section 626.845, subdivision 1, when that officer is effecting a lawful arrest or executing any other duty imposed by law is guilty of a gross misdemeanor and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both. If the assault inflicts demonstrable bodily harm or the person intentionally throws or otherwise transfers bodily fluids or feces at or onto the officer, the person is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years or to payment of a fine of not more than $6,000, or both.” [This states that an assault can occur when there is no demonstrable bodily harm.] Given all the officer said and did, I consider it to be an assault. If I had been the preacher, I would have feared that something more physical (additional unlawful physical force against my person and possible unlawful arrest which usually involves at least some force such as handcuffing) was going to occur. That is the way Paul Pearson felt after the assault. He expressed that sentiment to others who were with him. That can be inferred from what the officer did and said and the way he did and said it. Since it was an officer, I would have had more fear of further unlawful action than if a non-peace officer had inflicted the assault. He, unlike a non-officer, was acting under color of law. Actions against a peace officer, even in self-defense against unlawful action, have resulted in harsh retaliation followed by lies about what happened. Most informed Americans now understand that police can become brutal at the drop of a hat and will lie about it if they think they can get away with it. Cameras help the citizen. One case in point involved Rodney King. Should not law-abiding Americans expect their peace officers to treat them with dignity and know the law? Again, since these street preachers are believers who follow the Lord Jesus Christ, and even though they are physically strong, they are very unlikely to exercise force against and physically hurt anyone unless protecting their families against harm.

(5) The law

The cases below are from the United States Supreme Court. These cases, and many others, clearly lay out the law which a peace officer is entrusted to enforce as regarding those who speak in the public forum (this includes those who preach in the public forum).

1.  The freedom of speech and press are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties which are secured to all persons by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the state. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 95, 60 S.Ct. 736, 740, 84 L.ED. 1093 (1940).

2. Freedom of speech includes not only the spoken word, but also speech-related conduct, such as picketing, the wearing of arm bands and, in some recent highly publicized cases, flag burning as a type of political protest. Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 756.

3. “Whenever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.’ Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496, 515-516, 59 S.Ct. 954, 964, 83 L.Ed. 1423 (opinion of Mr. Justice Roberts, joined by Mr. Justice Black). Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Ala., 394 U.S. 147, 152, 89 S.Ct. 935, 22 L.Ed.2d 162 (1969).”

4. [Government control of access to its property, public forums, littering] The extent to which the government can control access to its property for expressive purposes depends on the nature of the forums. Reed v. State, 762 S.W.2d 640, 643 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1988, pet. Ref’d) citing Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 105 S.Ct. 3489, 87 L.Ed. 567 (1985); Olvera v. State, 806 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Public forums are those areas which traditionally have been devoted to assembly and public debate, such as public streets, sidewalks, and parks. Id. “[The] Streets are natural and proper places for the dissemination of information and opinion; and one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place.” Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 97-98, 102, 105-106, 60 S.Ct. 736, 741-742, 744, 746, 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940).

Although a municipality may enact regulations in the interest of the public safety, health, welfare, or convenience, these may not abridge the individual liberties secured by the constitution to those who wish to speak, write, print, or circulate information or opinion. Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 60 S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155 (1939). In Schneider, one appellant was charged with violating a law criminalizing the circulation and distribution of handbills designed, the city said, to prevent littering of the streets even though he did not litter himself—those to whom he handed the literature threw it down. The court said that the city could achieve the same thing without violating appellant’s freedom of speech by punishing those who threw the literature into the streets. Thornton v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 97-98, 102, 105-106, 60 S.Ct. 736, 741-742, 744, 746, 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940):

  • “A threat … is inherent in a penal statute … which does not aim specifically at evils within the allowable area of State control but, on the contrary, sweeps within its ambit other activities that in ordinary circumstances constitute an exercise of freedom of speech or of the press. The existence of such a statute, which readily lends itself to harsh and discriminatory enforcement by local prosecuting officials, against particular groups deemed to merit their displeasure, results in a continuous and pervasive restraining on all freedom of discussion that might reasonably be regarded as within its purview….
  • “Freedom of discussion, if it would fulfill its historic function in this nation, must embrace all issues about which information is needed or appropriate to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of their period….
  • “[The] streets are natural and proper places for the dissemination of information and opinion; and one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place.”

5. [Evils within allowable are of state control] Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1; 69 S. Ct. 894; 93 L. Ed. 1131; 1949 U.S. LEXIS 2400 (1949):

“Freedom of speech, though not absolute, is protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. “The vitality of civil and political institutions in our society depends on free discussion. As Chief Justice Hughes wrote in De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 365, it is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected. The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes. “Accordingly a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, pp. 571-572, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. See Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 262; Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 373. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups. “The ordinance as construed by the trial court seriously invaded this province. It permitted conviction of petitioner if his speech stirred people to anger, invited public dispute, or brought about a condition of unrest. A conviction resting on any of those grounds may not stand.”

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

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

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

  • “The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. . . . Derisive and annoying words can be taken as coming within the purview of the statute . . . only when they have this characteristic of plainly tending to excite the addressee to a breach of the peace….
  • “The dictionary definitions of ‘opprobrious’ and ‘abusive’ give them greater reach than “fighting” words. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1961) defined ‘opprobrious’ as ‘conveying or intended to convey disgrace,’ and ‘abusive’ as including ‘harsh insulting language.’ Georgia appellate decisions have construed § 26-6303 to apply to utterances that, although within these definitions, are not ‘fighting’ words as Chaplinsky defines them.”

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

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

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

Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 94 S.Ct. 2727, 41 L.Ed. 2d. 842 (1974):

[Appellant had displayed an American flag upside down out of his apartment window with a peace symbol attached. at 405-406. The Court noted, and the state conceded, that appellant engaged in a form of communication. at 409, 94 S.Ct. at 2729-2730.

  • To apply an ordinance to prevent the display of banners or signs in conjunction with protected speech activity violates the speaker’s right to freedom of speech and the rights of the people to whom the speech was directed.
  • “An assertion that ‘Jesus Saves,’ that ‘Abortion is Murder,’ that every woman has the ‘right to Choose,’ or that ‘Alcohol Kills,’ may have a claim to constitutional exemption from the ordinance [which prohibited certain political campaign signs] that is just as strong as ‘Roland Vincent—City Council.’ To create an exception for … political speech and not these other types of speech might create a risk of engaging in constitutionally forbidden content discrimination.” Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 104 S.Ct. 2118, 80 L.Ed. 772. Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, not to mention the First Amendment itself, government may not grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views. Police Department of City of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 96, 92 S.Ct. 2286, 2290, 33 L.Ed. 212 (1972)(Holding a Chicago ordinance unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in a case where the equal protection claim was closely intertwined with First Amendment interests)(p 27 of brief). Once a forum is opened up to assembly or speaking by some groups, government may not prohibit others from assembling or speaking on the basis of what they intend to say. Id. Selective exclusions from a public forum may not be based on content alone, and may not be justified by reference to content alone. Id. Mr. Justice Black called an attempt by a government to pick and choose among the views it is willing to have discussed in picketing activities “censorship in its most odious form, unconstitutional under both the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 85 S. Ct. 453, 13 L.Ed. 2d 471 (1965) cited in 408 U.S. 92, 98-99, 92 S.Ct. 2291; Carey v. Brown, 477 U.S. 455, 100 S.Ct. 2286, 65 L.Ed. 263 (1980) reaffirmed Mosley.
  • Even if the purpose of an ordinance does not specifically aim at protected speech, it may indicectly attempt to deny freedom of speech (See p. 34 of brief in the Steve Drake case which is in PDF form on the website.). Even if the purpose of [an ordinance] is to keep community streets open and available for movement of people and property or to prevent littering, fraud, to promote the public health, welfare, or convenience, to prevent breaches of the peace or other crimes, it is constitutional only so long as it does not abridge constitutional liberty or one to impart information through speech and the distribution of literature. See Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 60 S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155 (1939); Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 91 S.Ct. 1686, 29 L.Ed. 2d 214 (1971); Cox v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 85 S.Ct. 453 (1965).

 (6) Conclusion

 Again, the men of OPBC salute you. They are endeavoring to do everything possible to resolve this matter quickly in accordance with man’s law and with the law of God. The First Amendment which provides for separation of church and state and freedom to practice one’s religion, freedom of assembly, press, speech, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances says that cities, city officers, city attorney’s, and city elected officials are to protect the First Amendment freedoms of all citizens, including those who choose to speak in the public forum. In love, the men of OPBC are trying to treat all the people of Noribault with godly love. Accordingly, we are seeking to avoid further action in the legal arena, an action which will result in expense to your city and also detract our people from their primary duties to their Lord

EN 5 I sent the e-mail below to the Faribault Mayor, City Attorney, City Council members, and Chief Bohlen. In the e-mail was the note. Attached to the e-mail was a link to the online article which described what happened and linked to the Youtube videos which showed what happened [I am omitting that here since one can go directly to the link to see it], some other information, my letter to Chief Bohlen which had replied to his June 26 letter, and a final letter to all the above mentioned Faribault officials.

Note to City Attorney Fischer, Mayor Jasinske, and Faribault City Council members: The letter to Chief Bohlen is below this rather lengthy note. The city attorney asked me to call Chief Bohlen rather than seeking resolution through him. Out of courtesy, I complied with his request even though I did not personally feel that a police officer would have the necessary expertise to delve into the legal issues. I do not mean that as an insult. I can tell from his e-mail, which is copied and pasted at the end and which was very courteous, that Chief Bohlen has the best interests of everyone at heart; but I could also tell that he does not understand the law regarding these matters. He discussed the proper protocols in his letter; I have no quarrel with that when applied to lawbreakers. However, when that protocol is used against law-abiding citizens, it makes the officer who applies it a lawbreaker subject to civil, if not criminal, litigation. I would not know how to do the job of law enforcement because I have no law enforcement training. That is his expertise. Examining, understanding, and litigating the law is mine. That is why the other members of Old Paths Baptist Church (“OPBC”) asked me, a lawyer, to try to resolve this matter as a member of OPBC without bringing in a lawyer. Should legal action come about, an attorney who is licensed in Minnesota (or a pro hoc vice attorney) will represent the men.

Although the Chief understands police protocol, he reveals in his letter that he understands neither (1) the law of free speech in the public forum and the freedom of those who exercise their First Amendment speech rights in that forum nor (2) the role of the police officer when such speech is complained about. Chief Bohlen stated in the letter: “The City of Faribault will continue to enforce the law and protect all citizen rights, as well as free speech.” In that statement, he indicates that he speaks for the City of Faribault. I want to make sure that is so because he also stated, “I am confident that our State Statute would comply with the Hierarchy of Law and win challenges.” That is the first time he mentioned “our state statute.” I do not know which statute he is talking about since the officers who approached the men cited a city statute. He then gave his legal opinion concerning the relationship between the law of free speech in America and the guidelines he follows concerning enforcement of certain state and local ordinances when such ordinances come into conflict with Constitutionally protected speech in the public forum. I take great issue with his legal position; I believe that he is totally off base.

I want to make sure that the Chief speaks for you all before proceeding. I would ask that you all review these matters. I need to know for sure that Chief Bohlen is, in fact, stating the official position of you all so that in the event future action is called for, our attorney will know who to include in any legal litigation.  Should an attorney be called in to take legal action on behalf of the street preachers, he will be informed of your actions and responses – common sense would dictate that no response on your part will indicate that your position and the city’s position is that you support Chief Bohlen’s position and actions and that he speaks for you. You speak for your city. Whatever position you take will also implicate the entire city.

To give you relevant facts, I have copied and pasted facts about the matter directly below. I have also posted the story on the page which is available by clicking following link (left click and scroll down to “June 21, 2013 Update” once you access the link):

Notice that on the above entry and in the copied and pasted page below are links to 2 Youtube videos which you may view which record the whole encounter with the Faribault officials.


I copied and pasted the page mentioned in the last paragraph here One can go to the link to see it. It is essentially the same now as then.:


I am e-mailing this to: Chief of police: Chief Andy Bohlen <> City Attorney: Kurt Fischer <> Mayor: John Jasinske <>

City Council members: David Albers (or Ablers – its 2 ways on website) David Albers < >; David Ablers <>; Kay Duchene <>; John Rowan <>; Steve Underdahl < >; Joan VanDyke < >; Kevin Voracek < >:

I got the e-mail addresses of the mayor and council members off the city website. Council member Albers or Ablers his 2 spellings which differ – one in the spelling of his name and one in the e-mail listing. If the addresses and names are no longer the same, please let me know.

You may read the cases I cite for yourselves to verify that I am not trying to deceive you. If you would like to have a case or cases which is cited below e-mailed to you, let me know. I have most of the cases I quote from below available  in Word documents.

Letter To Chief Bohlen:

The letter was included in the e-mail. I am not reproducing it here since it is in EN 3 Above.

EN 6 My June 30, 2014 e-mail to the Faribault Mayor, Chief of Police, City Attorney, and City Council Members:

Dear Chief Bohlen, Honorable Mayor Jasinske, and Faribault City Council members:

The Supreme Court, on June 26, 2014, handed down another First Amendment speech case dealing with speech in the public forum. In a 9-0 decision, the Court struck down a Mass. law which violated long established principles regarding speech in the public forum. The case is linked to below (just click the name to go directly to it). I have included some quotes from the case. I also link to a Texas case which just came down in which police arrested a street preacher and the Texas Court ruled in his favor. Please take note of these cases.

MCCULLEN ET AL. v. COAKLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL. struck down a state law creating 35 foot buffer zones around abortion clinics. Some excerpts from the case follow (be sure to read the entire case – click to the above link to go directly to the case):

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

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

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

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

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

Links to a couple of articles dealing with the McCullen v. Oakley

Supreme Court strikes down abortion clinic buffer zone, June 26, 2014, Richard Wolf, USA Today

Supreme Court, 9-0, nixes 35 foot ‘buffer zone’ at abortion clinic, June 26, 2014, Warren Richey, The Christian Science Monitor

Click the following to go to article from June 13, 2014: “VICTORY: Texas Court Affirms First Amendment Rights of Street Preachers Arrested for Engaging in Sidewalk Protest and Crossing a Police Line.” Click the following to go to the Texas Court of Appeals opinion: Faust v. Texas.

I know that you are all busy, but I would ask you to please let the men of OPBC know as soon as you can as to what your city policy is going to be regarding their First Amendment right to speak in the public forum.

Thank you for your courtesies in this matter and for your quick attention to the Constitutional issue.

Very Truly Yours, Jerald Finney

EN 7. Followup discussion of this article.

I received 2 Facebook e-mails on August 8, 2014:

(1) We are not to sue a “Brother”, I do not see anything in GOD’S WORD about suing the Government.
(2) Paul invoked his rights as a Roman citizen several times, including an appeal to Caesar.

My reply (as written with a couple of obvious typos) was:

Dear Brother _____________ and Brother _______________, Thank you both for not labeling me an heretic and cutting off fellowship because of the article. One brother, a longtime friend, did this. I let him know that I still love him and see no reason for breaking fellowship over this matter, to no avail. He has been the only negative response. Others agree with me. Still other, I am guessing, may not agree but have not seen it as an issue to get crossways and break fellowship over. Nor do I. Are we not to sharpen one another as we fight this spiritual warfare we are called to engage in? No one has shown me where I am wrongly interpreting the scriptures I gave in the article, many of the quoted word for word in endnote 1. Those scriptures lay out the principles upon which I rely for my position. Let me address Paul and what he did. Paul invoked his rights as a Roman citizen while he was under arrest, at times incarcerated during that arrest (sometimes, as I understand history, he was under house arrest – the point is, he was being detained.). In other words, Paul was charged with criminal activity. He was falsely accused of a crime for which the religious leaders sought death. He defended himself. I have done the same thing for others on many occasions. I have defended people falsely accused of crime and gone all the way to trial for some. A few of those I have defended at no charge and gone to trial for were falsely accused of criminal activity and arrested in violation of their Constitutional rights. There is nothing in Scripture which would be offended by such action. In fact, seeking justice in such a situation is the right thing to do. However, my article was not concerned with seeking justice in the criminal system. My article addressed seeking vengeance in the civil system. I pointed out that I could not argue against seeking justice and restitution in a suit against the government. The Bible speaks to the issue of restitution, and I believe allows for such in the law. It also speaks of justice and upholds justice. But the Bible is very clear that the believer is not to seek vengeance. Paul did not seek vengeance while incarcerated. Paul did not sue those who falsely accused him. Had he had the opportunity, I do not believe he would have violated principles he knew from the Old Testament and which God inspired him to write on in his epistles. I am convinced that he would never have sued for even restitution, much less for damages for pain and suffering and other exemplary damages, the purpose of which is to exact vengeance.I do not believe that he would have even sued for restitution, a stressful and time consuming process. I believe that he would have used the time and resources in carrying out the Great Commission, a thing which he did even while under arrest. A man who has a family to support in today’s world might find it necessary to seek restitution for lost wages and other costs of being falsely arrested. I would have no problem with that and might even help in the legal arena, if possible. I would certainly help that person find a lawyer in his locality to help if I were unable to do so because of distance and lack of monetary resources. That is my answer. Can either of you show me where I am wrong?

I sent a second reply: Dear Brother _____________, I did not address your concern in the last reply. When one sued government for vengeance, who pays for the judgment – one’s fellow man. Government gets its money from the citizens. The citizens are the ones who pay the vengeance damages.


More letters from pastors and others regarding “Separation of Church and State Law” issues

Jerald Finney
May 4, 2013

The following is a complete list (with links) to prior publications of letters concerning this blog. Notice the article Letters from Pastors Regarding Hyles/Schaap and Other Articles which was published September 9, 2010, not long after the 2010 Hyles/Schaap articles were published:

041813 More letters from pastors and others regarding issues raised on this “Separation of Church and State Law” blog

110511 More Letters from Pastors and Others

040511 More Letters from Pastors and Others

121110 More Letters from Pastors and Others concerning this “Separation of Church and State Law” Blog

090610 Letters from Pastors Regarding Hyles/Schaap and Other Articles

041810 More Letters from Pastors in Response to the “Separation of Church and State Law” blog ad My Replies

033010 Letters from Pastors in Response to the “Separation of Church and State Law” blog ad My Replies

102309 What Pastors are Saying in Response to this blog

To download a document, right click the link, then left click “Download Linked File” or “Download Linked File As.”


Note. A “+” represents a supportive letter, a “-” a negative letter, and neither + nor minus a neutral letter

I. Introduction
II. (+)
Letter no. 1 received from Brother Rick Bagwell in response to article “Monumental ‘666-CLA’ Sermon that was attacked by Satan” received on May 2, 2014 regarding a letter he received from a youth pastor regarding the relationship of church, the believer, and the state
. My Reply to Brother Rick’s letter above
b. Brother Rick’s reply to my reply
III. (+) Letter no. 2 received on February 28, 2014 from Pastor William Raymond from  regarding “The Folly of all so-called Christian Patriot Remedies and a ‘Better’ Human Government”and my reply.
IV. (-) Letter no. 3 received on February 24, 2014 from [man] asking for a sample trust document with replies back and forth between he and I.
V. (+)
Letter no. 4 received on Facebook on November 27, 2013 regarding church 501c3 status and other matters and my reply.
VI. (+)
Letter no. 5 received on September 23, 2013 from [man] commenting upon article American Abuse of Romans 13.1-2 and Related Verses
VII. ()
Letter no. 6 received on October 1, 2013 from [man]  regarding “starting a church” and and my reply
VIII. (+)
Letter no. 7 received from Joshua Joscelyn on Facebook on July 22, 2013 regarding a friend who believes in theocracy and marriage of church/state, that abuses of that doctrine doesn’t mean the doctrine is wrong and asking about “the best biblical base for liberty of conscience” with replies back and forth between Joshua and I
IX. (+) Letter no. 8 received on July 3, 2013 from Rev. Paul Wayne Flotz on “trouble in the assemblies” and my reply
X. () Letter No. 9 received on June 13, 2013 from [woman] on “as pastor’s view 501c3″ and my reply
XI. (+) Letter no. 10 from Brother Stanly Rogers on Facebook regarding church Bible studies on Romans 13
XII. (+) Letter No. 11 received on April 11, 2012 from Elwood Hays, an old and dear friend concerning this “Separation of Church and State Law Ministry” and my reply
XIII. Letter no. 12 received on July 28, 2011 from [Steve, a church member of a church in Ohio] concerning liability of church members of an unincorporated church with replies back and forth between he and I
XIV. (+)Letter no. 13 received on June 4, 2011 from Pastor Brandon Teague regarding Pastor Jason Cooley’s sermon “Whose House Is It Anyway” and my reply
XV. (+) Letter no. 14 received on May 3, 2011 from Brandon, expressing concerns because of inconsistency of his pastor’s preaching concerning headship of Christ over His church yet the church is incorporated and my reply
XVI. Letter no. 15 received on March 13, 2011 from [] on “how can a church be set up and own property?”

I. Introduction

This article presents more e-mails from pastors and others with their comments, concerns, and questions concerning articles on this blog, and my replies to those e-mails. These e-mail letters not only raise important questions which need to be addressed, but also give insights into the thoughts of pastors and other believers and non-believers.

II. Letter no. 1 received from Brother Rick Bagwell in response to article “Monumental ‘666-CLA’ Sermon that was attacked by Satan” received on May 2, 2014 regarding a letter he received from a youth pastor regarding the false fundamental position on 501(c)(3)

Brother Finney I sent an article you sent to me about 666 CLA to an ewelryentl. A Church I am considering joining. I may call you by phone later. Anyway here is his reply. I know he is wrong on many points and don’t know how to explain it to him.

Brother Rick

On Friday, May 2, 2014 12:01 PM, [A youth pastor and heretic on this matter] wrote:

It’s funny how God works. Just this morning I read Romans 13.

Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

Rom 13:4 For he (whoever it is that is in charge or in office) is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Rom 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

Rom 13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

Rom 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

I might not like who is in political offices. I might not not like  what is going on in our government or any other government. According to what I read in Romans 13 The very God that created the universe, has put powers (government) in place.

I will exercise my right to vote as an American, but God will have his soverine way. And if he chooses to bless or judge through government, all we should say is “THANK YOU LORD!

Brother Rick

My reply

Dear Brother Rick:

I have totally and biblically proven the arguments of this person to be false (really, his arguments are ludicrous and Satan loves to hear a believer rely on them). If he loves the Lord, and wants to know the truth, he can go to the resources below. He has never studied these matters (that is obvious from his simplistic arguments which are easily shown to be false with honest Bible study). He is a parrot as to these matters. He is simply repeating words that have been taught him. One cannot give easy answers to the deeper things of God which are very important to understand if one is to fight as a good soldier of Christ the spiritual warfare we are commanded to fight.

I recommend to refer him to the following verses:

Ephesians 6:10-20 “Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.  Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.  Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel, For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.|”

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 virtue knowledge; 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:”

The above are just two of the many verses he needs to look at in regards to these matters. For a comprehensive understanding of the spiritual warfare believers are called to fight, I recommend that you refer him to:

After Salvation

Let me say that a church can choose to operate according to biblical principle without persecution in America because of the First Amendment to the US constitution. Even should a church not decide to do so, that church and the members should continue to operate as God laid out in the New Testament. This is all explained in much detail in my writings. In addition, a believer should “obey God rather than men.”

I recommend, for an understanding of Romans 13, 1 Pe. 2.13, 1 Ti. 2.1-6, Matthew 17.24-27, and the Render unto Caesar argument used by heretics to support unlimited submission to the civil government the following resource:

Romans 13 and related verses 

As to the  correct understanding of the biblical doctrine of government, I recommend the following:

The biblical doctrine of government

As to the  correct understanding of the biblical doctrine of church, I recommend the following:

The biblical doctrine of the church

As to the  correct understanding of the biblical doctrine of separation of church and state, I recommend the following:

The biblical doctrine of separation of church and state

For an understanding of church incorporation and 501c3 I recommend the following:

Church legal issues from a biblical perspective; e.g. church incorporation and 501c3

For an understanding of the position of true believers on the issue of separation of church and state I recommend:

The History of the First Amendment

I doubt he wishes to study these matters. Even our Lord could not get through to the Pharisees, etc. because of they were blinded by the god of this world. Most fundamental Baptist preachers are likewise blinded to many biblical truths because of lack of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. They have built religious organizations upon human reasoning (really Satanic reasoning because it is not of God and therefore must be of Satan).

Dear Brother Rick, you deserve better than what this man’s church has to offer. You deserve a church that seeks to follow the Lord, not fundmentalism. Yes, God can and does save some in spite of these heretical (some apostate) pastors and churches, but these type pastors and churches are totally out of biblical order. I consider you to be a great man of God and offer this advice in love.

Offer him the resources above, but my guess is that he has neither the time nor desire to know the truth.

For His Glory,

Brother Jerald Finney

Brother Rick’s reply to my reply

Brother Finney I am with you on his ability to listen. He is a Youth Pastor and like MOST preachers/pastors they want to talk but FAIL to listen to the truth. For the most part the Church is Fundamental. When I talked to the Pastor [another individual] I asked him if the Church is 501-C-3 his reply was it is and it isn’t. Now that’s like asking what is your favorite color and someone says PLAID. I believe the Pastor is either trying to go the 501-C-3 route OR he is trying to steer the Church AWAY from it. Not sure.

I have talked to Pastors in the area and they will ignore the question or avoid any sort of dialog on the subject. Actually avoiding me. The Bible says to forsake not the assembly of yourselves together. It also says if two do not agree and so forth. I also talked to the Youth Pastor about Deut. 22:5 he doesn’t think it is wrong for women to wear pants.  They say the Church is NOT Southern Baptist, I found it to have Southern Baptist leanings. Most Churches are Country Clubs. Entertainment is the norm. I shall pray about the matter.

III. Letter no. 2 received on February 28, 2014 from Pastor William Raymond from  regarding “The Folly of all so-called Christian Patriot Remedies and a ‘Better’ Human Government”

The Folly of all so-called Christian Patriot Remedies and a “Better” Human I

In response to several brothers who were kind enough to included me in their discussion of certain so-called Christian Patriot remedies and their much venerated – and in other cases worshiped – American Constitution, I was led of the Lord to reply with the following letter in defense of the Kingdom. Understand, it is never wise to seek to build something in substitution of that which God in His infinite wisdom has already built perfectly for us. Herein lies the folly of all so-called Christian Patriot movement remedies and the human government by Constitution that they hold out to be the cure for all political sickness. In the end they are just as deadly as that which they seek to circumvent, for all human solutions in the end are pure folly.

May the Lord Jesus be lifted up in this message of truth and may we who seek to serve Him in spirit and in truth open our hearts to the profound realities which He protectively hides from the wise and prudent in order to maintain the purity of His Kingdom.

Greeting in Christ Jesus to all,

I have been reading these posts and have come to the conclusion that all proposed remedies I see here amount pretty much to nothing more than various failed attempt to reinvent the wheel. Please let me explain. While you all may have had a victory or two here and there, for the most part all such efforts of men are always destine to fail from the beginning and here’s why. One cannot step out of the Beast’s system and into a governmental vacuum – spiritual or otherwise. There must be another government to receive you and thank God Almighty He has provided us that Government hosted – at least in theory – by the United States Government.

For over 2000 years now we have had the Lord’s perfect solution right in front of our faces and have been looking straight through it! That solution, the Father’s only solution, is His current day Kingdom in the form of the local, community ekklesia: a fully Lawful government upon His shoulder (i.e., His body) that is immune not exempt from the secular (anti-Christ) current provisional government and is officially recognized as such via The First Amendment.

The problem is that the body of Christ, over all this time, has utterly failed her calling and holy appointment to establish that Government which He alone mandated the commissioning of. Although we have the perfect picture and model of that government to draw from as recorded in the New Testament, we, as the body of Christ, have ignored it. Likewise, not only has the body of Christ failed to build upon the foundation He gave us for a place of protection and safety, we have lost essentially everything the early church and apostles did – all the real progress they made – in establishing His Kingdom for this current dispensation. All that’s left 2000+ years later is a powerless and pathetic “Christian religion” of people who have sold their spiritual birthright for a mess of corporate 501 I (3) pottage: literally, a church structure under the legal lordship of the Beast – Satan’s political surrogate! As such, the church has willingly waived her Divine Immunity in Christ in exchange for a state granted exemption that is subject to constant ongoing review and approval.

We were commanded by Christ to “come out of her my people” and “come out from among them” to establish His holy Kingdom (holy meaning separate). Instead, those falsely calling themselves “believers” have invented denominations and religions that are legally joined (unequally yoked) with the dead and have attempted in vain to reform political “parties” and groups who have no interest whatsoever in building the true Kingdom of Christ Jesus. The so-called religious right is a perfect example of this as likewise are all the human fools on the political left.

As you may know, I spent five years at Salem attempting to establish the government of our local community ekklesia there in accordance to the New Testament model. All that came to a grinding halt in 2005 when the church was seized under court order by the New Jersey State Police Counter Terrorism Division and the local sheriff. Kathy and I were arrested under provisions of The Patriot Act and our lives changed forever. I mention this only to establish my spiritual credentials in the matters wherein I speak and to illustrate how relentless the Beast can be even when everything seems to be “in order”.

To my three brothers to whom I reply here: your goals to separate from the world are a good and worthy demonstration of your intent but unless you do so under the clear and specified authority and structure of the Christ’s holy ekklesia – an already established Lawfully recognized government – our Christ cannot bless nor take even partial part in those lesser efforts.

Please understand I mean this criticism in the spirit and love of Christ, nevertheless also in the authority of my calling as His ambassador.

Peace and blessing in the love of Christ Jesus to all,

William Raymond: pastor & ambassador for the Christ

Some say I am a fool,
And this I say is true.
I am a fool for Christ,
But whose fool are you?

My reply

I agree, Pastor Raymond, on the folly of efforts of so called “Christian Patriots.”

Only Christ will be able to crush the world powers and the beast. It is inevitable that the end times will unfold just as foretold in the word of God. The political and religious beasts will rule for a short time; then, Armeggedon and the establishment of His kingdom here on earth (by our Lord, not by man or by the church on earth, but rather by Him leading his universal assembly to crush the beast and the armies of the world). No church, believer, or group of believers will be able to stop what is coming. All a believer and a church can do here on earth is to operate according to the principles of the word of God in the life and liberty He gives when He saves.

Only a small remnant of professed believers and churches follow Christ. So-called Christians who (1) know nothing about biblical principles for a church, for governments (individual, family, and human or civil), and for the relationship of church and state and (2) follow revisionist history and law, seek to win America back for God. They operate without biblical, historical, or legal knowledge. The are do-gooders who are doing no good (they are doing bad in that they are actually doing the work of anti-Christ) because their activism is without knowledge, wisdom, and understanding.

I was with them in the Republican Party for 20 years. I saw America getting more and more evil in spite of all our efforts. Since I left politics they keep doing the same things while things continue to grow worse at an accelerating rate in the moral cesspool called America. I left political activism when the Lord, through my extensive studies, showed me the folly of what I was doing, and that what I was doing there was not according to wisdom, knowledge, and understanding.

Yet ever seeking, they never come to the knowledge of the truth. The fact is that they are not seeking truth, because they have been blinded by the god of this world.

Their lives are not under God, so how do they hope to bring America back under God?

Their families are not under God, so how do they hope to bring America back under God?

Their churches are not under God, so how do they hope to bring America back under God?

And yet they reject knowledge. Multitudes of so-called believers in America even reject clear biblical teaching on repentance and a changed life after salvation. They reject and criticize Bible teaching and preaching on the subject. In other words, they even take a Satanic position on the fundamental principle of salvation.

But praise the Lord! He has given his children the victory, and they will be victorious even if martyred for the faith, while those professed Christians who have never really been saved bow down to the beast. (See The Voice of the Martyrs, August 2005, p2, “You Will Always Have Your Groupies” which is at the bottom of the following article: Biblical doctrine of the Church)

Even so, come Lord Jesus. I pray the Lord that he will give me the courage to act on my words above if and when the time comes.

For His Glory,

Jerald Finney

IV. Letter no. 3 received on February 24, 2014 from [man] asking for a sample trust document

Would it possible for you to provide me with a sample trust document?

My reply on February 24, 2013

Sorry. Trust documents can be found in the law books. I don’t know you, etc. This is a  ministry for the glory of God and is operated according to biblical order. No insult intended.

Jerald Finney

His reply

OK Mr. Finney, I apologize for bothering you, I won’t make that mistake again. I admire your work and thought you were an attorney. The Glory of God and to operate according to biblical order is my motivation for asking.

My reply

Dear Mr. Trout,

I am an attorney, but I am also a believer and this ministry is for the glory of God and in biblical order through a local New Testament Church. I must make sure I am honoring God. I cannot just send out documents. These are not simple matters.

Are you a pastor? What church do you pastor? What is you testimony as to salvation and your walk with the Lord? Do you wish to organize a church according to New Testament principle? What is your theology as to church organization (I can only help those who agree with biblical teaching on the order, organization, etc. for the local church)? These are some of the questions that one must be prepared to answer should he wish the help of this ministry, but don’t answer these questions now. See below for your next step if you wish to proceed.

Just getting a document is not enough for one to set out to organize according to the guidelines in the NT. One must understand both legal and biblical principles and teachings. I would be doing a disservice to anyone to just send them a document. It is not wise to place a document into the hands of someone who might try to execute the document without wisdom and understanding. If you are a pastor who is following the Lord, you will understand what I am trying to get across to you.

If you wish to proceed, you must follow the order that the Lord has set out for this ministry. That means more than sending an e-mail just asking for a document. Let me know if you wish to know the order of proceeding as to these matters.

Our Lord was man and spoke like a man. So did the apostles. I am trying to follow his example in responding to you.

For His Glory,
Jerald Finney

His reply

I took the Liberty of removing your embedded videos from Utube and links to your website from my website and that of Biblical Law Center so that no one else that you don’t know will bother you either. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Dear Mr. [],

No inconvenience. The Lord is my helper and I will not fear what man does to me. By the way, if you are not saved, please read God’s Plan of Salvation.

If you are saved, please read After Salvation.

The Lord said to love my neighbor as myself. I love you, and hope that if you are lost, you will be saved; and if you are saved that you will grow in knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.

For His Glory,
Jerald Finney

V. Letter no. 4 received on Facebook on November 27, 2013 regarding church 501c3 status and other matters

I’ve wondered about 501 status for some time now, and have had serious concerns. I have just come across a video with you, Pastor Cooley, and Pastor Brandon and I just want to commend you for speaking out in truth. I’ve been studying some law lately, finding a lot of things that are not spoken about. I’m not sure how much experience you have with sovereignty, constitutional law, family law – but I’ve got an open family case that I could use some help with – I’m to the point where I’ve given it to God. The Judge is a fraud, won’t listen to or enforce the statutes, laws – I’ve brought up Supreme Court, case law – Of course, he has violated his oath. If you’ve got any experience, I’d love to have a conversation with you on this. If not, no harm no foul – I still want to commend you for your work exposing the 501c3 trap.

My reply

Thanks for your e-mail and encouragement. I know quite a bit about sovereignty and constitutional law. However, I now limit myself to church and state law (which has a lot to do with sovereignty and constitutional law as well as biblical law and principles) and a limited practice in order to pay my bills. I have never practiced “family” law, so I know little about it.

Thanks for your e-mail. May the Lord bless you as you seek justice in your family case, a very stressful matter for sure.


VI. Letter no. 5 received on September 23, 2013 from [man] commenting upon article American Abuse of Romans 13.1-2 and Related Verses

absolutely abused beyond belief! The 13 chapter of romans has almost become a” bible doctrine” of the modern day church at large,it is abused to put it mildly and just look at the people who preach such things!!! Plenty of money credit cards fancy houses, fancy cars clothes,ewelry etc etc, the things all of gods good people have,sic! Sorry bout the scarcasam but really most of these churches that preach this kind of message contain the upper crust of society,and there all held together by a lot of dough,no pun intended people like lawyers,doctors, law enforcement,and even sadly enough military none of these people seem to notice whats up with the truth just whatever is in fashion as far as current law goes…


VII. Letter no. 6 received on October 1, 2013 from [man]  regarding “starting a church” 


You don’t know me, but my name is [] and I live in Arizona.  I am planning on starting a church in Arizona.  My pastor will be sending me out of our local church to start a new one in another part of the state.  I meet all of the biblical qualifications found in 1 Timothy and elsewhere in the Bible for being a pastor.  I have been reading quite a bit about churches incorporating and even becoming 501I3.  I have read numerous arguments explaining why a church should not incorporate and become a creature of the state.  However, I have not really been able to find any information on how to actually and practically manage the church’s finances from anyone that is against incorporating.  If it does exist, it I either can’t find it or it is being sold and is not available for free.  Unfortunately, I am very limited financially and cannot afford to start buying materials from people that may or may not answer the simple questions I have.

I believe that the pastor of the church is worthy of his hire and ought to be paid by the church for his duties.  This brings about my first question.  How do you handle any income the pastor has from the church, and do you recommend filing any type of paper work with the IRS or any government entity for that matter regarding the compensation received for being pastor?

As a church grows, it is natural that property will be attained that belongs to the church as a collective.  Whether it be vehicles, buildings, tables, chairs, etc.  Without incorporating, how do you establish property ownership, especially if someone were to bring you to court before the unbelievers?  I mean from a legal standpoint, does anything even have to be done to designate that property belongs to an entity if the entity is not recognized by the state?  Maybe I am not correct in my assumption with that last question.  Is an unincorporated church recognized by the state as an entity or organization that can own property?

Finally, I have read conflicting reports on the ability to obtain a bank account for the church without having a tax ID.  I know that money isn’t the focus of the ministry, but I do not see any problems with accepting a personal check as a tithe or offering.  I don’t see how you can accept a check without a bank account.  Do you have any suggestions on how to handle this?  Is it really possible to obtain a bank account in the church’s name without a tax ID?

Thank you for taking the time to read this.  I really did search your site and others for these answers but I could not find it.  Your website has a lot of information so it is possible that I simply missed it.  I did not follow every single link on your website although I tried to find the areas where I thought I might find the answers.  I am just trying to figure out the exact process before I get started.  Any information you can provide is appreciated.


My Reply

Dear Bro. [],

A church can operate according to the principles of the New Testament in America without persecution. If it does so, it is a First Amendment church as well because the First Amendment is in line with biblical principles and guarantees separation of church and state for churches who do not become legal entities.

I know the above paragraph may not make sense to you, and understandably so. The paragraph is understood by me, my pastor, and most of the members of the church I belong to because we have studied both the Bible and law, something that most pastors and believers have never done. Instead, Bible Colleges and most pastors teach “Bible College” principles and not biblical principles.

I have answered your questions in my teachings which are all available free on my website. As of now, these teachings are the result of at least 11 or 12 years of intense study. You must begin to study these matters now if you want to please the Lord. If you trust me, you may call me (see for contact info.), and I will give you the answers to your questions without explaining them. In order to explain these matters fully to anyone, I would have to give a college or postgrad level course or courses.

One problem with many pastors and believers is that they do not take the time to study (not read lightly or once over) the deeper things of God. My pastor, Pastor Jason Cooley, has done the study needed to understand these issues, so I know it can be done. Please do not proceed until you have the correct answers to your questions. Whether you glorify God or not is in the balance.

For His Glory,
Jerald Finney

VIII. Letter no. 7 received from Joshua Joscelyn on Facebook on July 22, 2013 regarding a friend who believes in theocracy and marriage of church/state, that abuses of that doctrine doesn’t mean the doctrine is wrong and asking about “the best biblical base for liberty of conscience”

Hi Brother Finny,

Jason Cooley recommended I contact you about the issue of separation of church and state and liberty of conscience. I’ve read James Beller etc. and believe firmly in our Baptist distinctives. But a good friend of mine and fellow church member is now saying he believes in theocracy and a marriage of church/state – and that the abuses of this doctrine by others in the past don’t mean the doctrine itself is wrong (he is also familiar with Beller’s writings).

Without going to our Baptist history, what is the best biblical base for liberty of conscience? Can you recommend a few specific verses or a good resource that breaks the issue down strictly from scripture?

Thanks for your help!

My Reply

Dear Bro. Joshua,

Thanks for your questions. Theocracy and union of church and state always have and always will result in corruption of individuals, families, churches and civil government. Total corruption is always the outcome of theocracy. This is because union of religion and state is contrary to biblical principles, except for the nation Israel. Israel was the only theocracy ever ordained by God, and even Israel became totally corrupted, first as a theocracy and then as a nation in rebellion against God who withdrew from the theocratic directives of God and demanded a King. While a theocracy, the nation had to turn to God when God judged them for their evil. Read the rest of the story in the Bible.

It’s interesting that your friend has the same attitude as did the Puritans. They felt that they would correctly implement the alledged Biblical doctrine of union of church and state, that they were the right people, at the right time, in the right place to show the world what would happen when theocracy was implemented without the abuses of the doctrine by others in the past. Their experiment was destined to failure and did fail in a very short period of time.

I cover all these matters in God Betrayed. The book is in both online and PDF form on the “Separation of Church and State” blog ( You can go to the “Course” page if you really want to study and master the concepts, which takes a lot of time and study. It will be much easier to do the course than to try to figure it all out on your own.

I cover the Biblical principles in the Part One (the first three sections) of God Betrayed – that is the Biblical doctrines of government, church, and separation of church and state. Part 2 (the last three sections) then build upon that base. Right now, the “Course” page is almost finished with Section I).

Your friend is dead wrong. He has been misled by adherents to a false theology. That is what happens when God’s people do not “Study to show themselves approved of God, rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

May the Lord continue to richly bless you as you continue to grow in knowledge, wisdom, and understanding.

For His Glory,
Brother Finney

His reply to my reply

Wow, that is quite the exhaustive course – thanks for the help, Brother. The surprising thing about all this is that this friend has been an avid student of Baptist history and a zealous defender of the Baptist distinctives – I fear he has simply been led astray by the likes of David Barton et. Al.

My reply

David Barton has done tremendous damage to the cause of Christ. I was misled by him for many years after being saved in 1982. Only after seeing the utter failure of the labors of millions of “Christians,” and only after the Lord directed me into the church and state law ministry, and only after I had to do a tremendous amount of self-study of the Bible, history, and law in order to be qualified to serve the Lord in the ministry did I discover the truth about Barton, Rushdooney, Gary North, Gary Demar, Hank Handgraph, R.C. Sproul, D. James Kennedy, etc.

IX. Letter no. 8 received on July 3, 2013 from Rev. Paul Wayne Flotz on “trouble in the assemblies”

Denying Sola Scriptura, Adopting Arminianism Regarding Salvation and Worship (Adding Unbiblical Innovations To Public Worship According to Man’s Will Instead Of God’s Will), Massive Infiltration of Humanist Psychology & Psychiatry Into the Church, Syncretism In Doctrine and Practice, A Lack of Explicit Biblical Terms of Communion, Adding Unauthorized Holy Days Not Found In The Bible and Even Adopting Antichrist’s (Papal) Holy Days, Little or No Godly Discipline and Little or No Church Government According To the Scriptural Pattern, Tolerating and Even Promoting the Federal Vision Heresy, Attacks On Justification By Faith Alone, contemporary Christian music, using Bible perversions, and Much More Has led to problems in today’s local assemblies.

My reply


X. Letter no. 9 received on June 13, 2013 from [woman] on “as pastors view 501c3″

Is this true??

Every church is viewed as a 501c3 automatically. They don’t have to apply or get a letter to be seen that way. It is the law. I have never applied for 501c3 exemption, but every church I have pastored for 20 years has been viewed that way.  It is a fact lol

My Reply

It is absolutely untrue. It is not the law. Who  “viewed” the churches as 501c3? In fact, the statements are nonsense.

These pastors should quit spreading falsehood and get an education on these matters. A good place to begin is at “Separation of church and state law” blog ( But to understand it, expect to spend a lot of time in study (of the Bible, law, and history).

Brother Jerald Finney

XI. Letter no. 10 from Brother Stanley Rogers on Facebook regarding church Bible studies on Romans 13

Tonight at Woodbridge Baptist we are continuing our study through the book of Romans. We will begin Chapter 13. This has been an exciting and encouraging study for me. I want to thank Brother Jason Cooley and Brother Jerald Finney for their tireless efforts of teaching the proper rolls of Church and State. Their messages on this subject have been an encouragement to me. Come on and join us in this study. You just might get your heart stirred to proclaim and stand for your Heavenly Citizenship!

XII. Letter No. 11 received on April 11, 2012 from Elwood Hays, an old and dear friend concerning this “Separation of Church and State Law Ministry”

May God continue to bless you in your ministry and may many have their eyes open as a result of your teaching. The oppression of our own government towards Christians and the Church seems to be getting  stronger all the time. I pray that as a nation, a mighty remnant will rise up that worships God as God directs and not as our nation would seek to dilute the Church.


My Reply

Thanks, Elwood. Your letter is a great encouragement to me. As I have said many times, you have always been a light on a hill to me. May the Lord continue to richly bless you and your family.

XIII. Letter no. 12 received on July 28, 2011 from [Steve, a church member of a church in Ohio] concerning liability of church members of an unincorporated church

I am very involved in my church in Ohio as a member. Recently a member of our church stated that if our church was not incorporated, each member is open up for law suits since the church cannot be sued itself.

Is this true?? After googling this subject, I came across your name.


My Reply

Dear Steve,

Thanks for your e-mail and concern.

Your friend was misinformed and passing on misinformation. Even some unscrupulous Christian lawyers are using scare tactics to influence churches to incorporate and get 501I(3) tax exemption; their motive? – you probably know the answer. Undereducated worldly pastors are passing on the information. Sadly, most Bible colleges and seminaries are also wrongly training their students about these matters.

I do not have time to go into all matters concerning this issue in writing in this e-mail. However, I have addressed this question in articles and audio teachings on “Separation of Church and State” law blog ( and in the books the Lord has led me to write. Some of the chapters in Section VI of God Betrayed/Separation of Church and State: The Biblical Principles and the American Application specifically examine the various spurious rationale given for church incorporation and 501I(3).

Let me say that non-incorporated, non-501(c)(3) churches which are properly organized have more protection than state churches (incorporated 501(c)(3) churches). New Testament churches are not legal entities such as incorporations, unincorporated associations, individuals, etc as are state churches. State churches willingly and eagerly (due to ignorance and lack of love for our Lord) give up their First Amendment protections as well as, to one degree or another, the protections afforded by God. State churches place themselves under the Fourteenth Amendment by becoming legal entities. New Testament churches retain their First Amendment protections and are not legal entities. Only legal entities can act legally, sue, or be sued.

Individual members in either of New Testament churches or state churches are legal entities and can sue or be sued or charged with crime for their individual torts or crimes in which they participate. However, members of New Testament churches cannot be sued, as a church, because a New Testament church is not a legal entity.

Of course, the day may soon come when America treats Christians and churches as does North Korea, China, Afganistan, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, most Moslem nations, etc. Even then, a true believer and church is instructed by God’s Word to “obey God rather than man” as to those matters over which He has given civil government no jurisdiction. I look at this issue in depth in Render unto God the Things that Are His: A Systematic Study of Romans 13 and Related Verses. That teaching is also on the “Separation of Church and State Law” blog in both audio and written form.

Should anyone take issue with what I say above, I fully explain these matters in the resources mentioned above. If they wish to examine those resources and discuss them with me, I am always available, at no charge since this is a God-called ministry. Feel free to contact me at any time by phone or e-mail. My cell no. is 512-785-8445. My home phone no. is 512-385-0761. I am very busy so you cannot always expect an immediate response. To know the truth, one must hear all sides of an issue. This requires serious study and an open mind. May the Lord guide you in your search for His truth.

For His Glory,

[Steve’s] reply to my reply

Thank you for responding so quickly.

I will be looking for your books you mentioned. Do I purchase the books directly through you?

Thank You,

My reply

Dear Steve,

You can get them (2 printed and 2 on Kindle) on You can order them from Kerygma Publishing by going to the books page of or by going to the following page on this website: “Order information for books by Jerald Finney.” All the books are free in both online and PDF form on this website.


XIV. Letter no. 13 received on June 4, 2011 from Pastor Brandon Teague regarding Pastor Jason Cooley’s sermon “Whose House Is It Anyway”

Bro. Finney,

I just finished listening to “Who’s House Is It Anyway” by Pastor Jason Cooley. That was a true blessing to me. It is refreshing to know that there are men of sound heart and mind that are waking up to the reality of the government takeover of Christianity. I have never regretted for one moment that we organized under the Declaration of Trust and I am thankful that you, Dr. Dixon and Sister Barbara are faithful in the fight. God bless you.

My reply

Thanks, Pastor Teague for your letter. And thank you for your stand for the whole counsel of God, including the very important doctrines of church, state, and separation of church and state.

[One may go to the sermon by clicking the following link and scrolling down to “3. Sermons on the Doctrine of the Church”: “Sermons by Pastor Jason Cooley”.]

Brother Finney

XV. Letter no. 14 received on May 3, 2011 from Brandon, expressing concerns because of inconsistency of his pastor’s preaching concerning headship of Christ over His church yet the church is incorporated

Dear Mr. Finney,

I just came across your web page not long ago and I am very much interested to continue to listen and read your information regarding the 501c3 tax exempt status. Long story short i have been very trouble since coming to learn about it. I believe that being incorporated hinders the church from speaking out against the moral issues of the day.The church espouses to give all glory to God in everything that they do. The pastor gave a sermon on the importance of the headship of Christ over the church. It was stated in the sermon quote, ” to deny Him His place as king in His church is to imperil one personal relationship to Him almost as much as if to deny His attonement. You cannot deny His headship in His church without significant result and they being all negative.’

It was also stated quote, ” for the believer to join with those who gave over His authority as king to any earthly sovereign was about as wicked as to join with those who set aside His personal authority, that they might serve the devil and the world and the flesh.” end quote. How can a pastor preach on the importance of this subject, the headship and knowing very well that his church is incorporated? I did approach the pastor and spoke briefly concerning the status only to recieve an answer that the church is not restricted in anyway. So with all that i have shared with you I would greatly appreciate your feed back. And one other question if i may, how does one go to church when all the churches are incorporated?

God Bless you,
For His Name Sake,

My reply

Dear Brother Brandon

Thanks for your inquiry. I offer some brief comments in love. I mean to attack no one, but I offer the truth in love. Needless to say, I am not God. I judge no one. Everyone ultimately answers to God. This is especially true of pastors. Judgment will be on the basis of truth. I invite anyone show me where I am wrong biblically, historically, or legally. No one has been able to do so after six years in this ministry. No one has even offered a logical and considered effort to do so. I believe that this is because they cannot. The truth is hard to defeat. Should anyone be able to prove that I am wrong as to any matter, I will repent and modify by words and deeds accordingly.

Any believer who has not yet been blinded by the principles of the God of this world and who studies church corporate 501(c)(3) status understands that the use of such devices by a church violates the very principles you referenced as preached by your pastor. I have gone into these matters in some detail in my articles, books, and audio teachings.

I know pastors who, upon beginning the process of seeking church incorporation and 501c3 status, immediately saw the violation of biblical principles by such devices, taught the members the principles and the application of those principles, and organized their churches in a manner which pleases God. Those pastors were grounded in the principles of God, not the principles of the god of this world. I know other pastors who discovered the truth about these matters after the churches they pastored had already obtained corporate 501c3 status and who subsequently repented and, with the members’ support, reorganized according to principles in the Word of God.

By the way, a church in America can operate both in compliance with both biblical principle and American law. In many nations, churches who wish to please our Lord have to operate underground.

Again, in my books, articles, and audio teachings, I explain church incorporation and 501c3 and how such legal tools definitely grieve our Lord since they place churches which utilize them at least partially under a head other than the Lord Jesus Christ and entangle them in Satanic activities which interfere with and damage the God-called purposes of churches and church members.

I am reminded of the following verses:

Ezekiel 33:31  “And they come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they shew much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness.”

Amos 4:4-5:  “Come to Bethel, and transgress; at Gilgal multiply transgression; and bring your sacrifices every morning, and your tithes after three years:  And offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving with leaven, and proclaim and publish the free offerings: for this liketh you, O ye children of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.”

Isaiah 29:13:  “Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men….”

Mark 7:6-13:  “He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me….”

I hope this has been of help, dear brother. Please do not hesitate to contact me for any reason. My phone numbers are: (H) 512-385-0761; (C) 512-785-8445.

For His Glory,
Brother Jerald Finney

XVI. Letter no. 15 received on March 13, 2011 from [] on “how can a church be set up and own property?”

very interesting articles. so how should a church be properly set up and own a property? Reading your articles i see a clear discouragement from accepting government so called tax exemption, grants and corporations money due to 501c3 requirement. to do good the church will have to rely on its members or those who will give without the 501c3 requirement.

My reply

If you are a pastor of a church who desires to organize according to the principles of the New Testament, please contact me at (H) 512-385-0761 or (C) 512-785-8445. I would be glad to discuss your situation and help you in your efforts. If you are ready to act, you will need more specific direction for your particular situation. If you are not a pastor, I address your concerns in my articles, books, and audio teachings. To fully understand these matters takes a lot of time and study.

For His Glory,
Jerald Finney



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 381 other followers