Showing posts with label Biblical or Not Biblical. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Biblical or Not Biblical. Show all posts

Sunday, April 9, 2017

British court orders Malaysian tycoon Khoo Kay Peng to pay $112 million in divorce settlement



KUALA LUMPUR - Malaysian tycoon Khoo Kay Peng, who owns the Laura Ashley brand, has been ordered by a British court to pay £64 million (S$112 million) to his former wife as settlement for their divorce in a long-running row.

Judge David Bodey said in his ruling on Friday (April 7) that Chai should receive the divorce settlement in the form of both cash and property, the Guardian reported. The judge's detailed judgment on how the matrimonial assets would be split is expected to be released soon, said the report.

"I just want to thank my superb legal team ," Chai said in an e-mailed statement to Malay Mail Online after the court ruling.

Her lawyer Ayesha Vardag said in the same statement: "This litigation has been long and arduous. It is a journey which has now ended in the affirmation of the principle of fair sharing. It emphasises that there is no place in England for discrimination between home maker and bread winner."

Chai, who was crowned Miss Malaysia in 1969, had sought £100m from the 78-year-old tycoon following their split after 42 years of marriage. She claimed their assets were worth at least £205m. The 68-year-old said she had contributed to her ex-husband's success by being a "traditional" wife, and that they had made a sharing agreement entitling her to half of the family wealth.

"I looked at marriage in the traditional way," Chai had told Justice Bodey at hearings in the family division of the high court in London. "He is the breadwinner and I stayed at home and looked after the children. It was a daunting task."

Khoo, who owns 44 per cent of Laura Ashley Holdings, argued that his former wife should only receive £9m, the Guardian reported.

The two married in 1970 and had five children before splitting in 2012 and have spent more than £6m between them on lawyers to fight their financial dispute, according to the Guardian.

The tycoon had wanted the divorce proceedings heard in Kuala Lumpur where Chai would likely be awarded a less generous settlement. But Chai wanted a British court to decide on the divorce proceedings, claiming she had not been living in Malaysia since 1980 and is a resident of Britain.

In 2014, Chai gained the upper hand in the divorce battle after London's High Court ruled it could hear the case.

In January 2016, a London court granted a preliminary divorce decree to Chai, which entailed she would be entitled to half of Khoo's fortune once the marriage was officially dissolved.

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Where Does God Exalt the Office of "Preacher"? by Jon Zens



Is it possible that both Protestant and Catholic worship-styles are oblivious to New Testament patterns? Catholicism puts the sacrament on center stage and includes a homily by a priest. For the most part in Protestantism's worship services everything rallies around the sermon, which is delivered from behind a pulpit. Generally, the "office of preacher" has been elevated. Is such exaltation warranted from the Scriptures we claim to be sufficient for all faith and practice?

We claim that the New Testament documents provide God-inspired direction for the New Covenant people of God, just as the Old Testament Scriptures structured life for Israel. But where do these writings ever reveal what has traditionally come to be known as ―the centrality of preaching‖? Where is the "office of preacher" emphasized?

If these traditions cannot be found in the Bible, why do we get our feathers so ruffled when they are questioned? Why is questioning the inordinate focus on one person‘‘s sermon tantamount to challenging motherhood, apple pie, and even God Himself? Please consider with me the following points, and see if some light from the Lord‘‘s Word emerges to drive us to view "church" in a new light.

The "sermon" as traditionally practiced, in which a clergy person usually gives a message from behind a large, wooden object, originated from Greek, not Biblical, sources. There is nothing revealed in God's Word about the primacy and exaltation of a specialist who issues forth a monologue Sunday after Sunday. Roughly in the period of 200 –– 300 A.D. the sermon emerged as central in Christian gatherings. But the cue for this practice was taken, not from the Lord‘s inspired apostles, but from Greek culture. As one author noted, The "sermon" was the result of syncretism –– the fusion of the Biblical necessity of teaching with the unbiblical Greek notion of Rhetoric. [Edwin Hatch notes] "Such are the indications of the influence of Greek Rhetoric upon the early churches. It created the Christian sermon." (Kevin Craig, ― Is the "Sermon‘ Concept Biblical?, ST, 15:1-2, 1986, p.28; citing Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas On Christianity, Peter Smith, 1970, p.113).

The Greek verbs used in the New Testament to portray ―preaching‖ are found overwhelmingly in situations which are outside church meetings and evangelistic in nature (cf. Eric Wright, ―Terms Used to Describe Apostolic Communication in the Book of Acts,‖ ST, 13:2, 1984, pp.7-8).

One of the few places where "proclaim" (Greek, kataggello) is used in an ekklesia setting is in 1 Cor.11:26, and this is accomplished by proclamation through their actions, not by one person‘s sermon. The Greek words used for what goes on in an assembly meeting carry with them a mutuality "pray together, instruct one another, sing with one another, exhort and comfort one another, care for one another, eat with one another, etc. "Preaching" in settings outside of Christian gatherings is more one-way in that unbelievers hear the gospel announced, although discussion and give-and-take are certainly present also.

Paul does charge Timothy to "preach the word," but it must be kept in mind that he was an itinerant ―evangelist," not a resident elder. If you check out the references to Timothy in the New Testament, you will see that he was a person on the move, not having a resident ministry in one place. If "preaching" primarily takes place outside of Christian meetings, why do we magnify the "office of preacher" within the church?

Some point to Acts 20:7-12 as an example of "the centrality of preaching," a time when Paul spoke for a long time. But it must be noted that v.7 specifically states that the purpose of their coming together on the first day of the week was "to break bread" (fellowship) not to hear a sermon.

There were special circumstances surrounding this particular meeting, for it was the last time Paul would ever see them. I'm sure if Paul came to your assembly, you would want to prolong your time together in order to hear what he had to say. Further, the verb used here, dialegomai, from which we derive our English word "dialogue," implies give-and-take with the listeners. What Paul said provided the substance of the gathering, but he did not talk non-stop for hours. There would have been discussion and audience participation. Paul was concerned about what was on the hearts of others too (cf. Norrington, To Preach or Not to Preach, pp.9,100).

In 1976 a brother asked me, "Why is preaching central in your church?" The first verse that came into my mind to defend this practice was 1 Cor.1:21, God uses "the foolishness of preaching." But the brother pointed out that the context there was evangelism, not Christian meetings. I was perturbed at his rebuttal then, but as I reflected on this issue I came to see that he was absolutely right. God uses preaching to save Jews and Greeks who come to faith in Christ.

The Greek word for "preacher" (one who heralds a message) is used three times in the New Testament, and has evangelism in the forefront. Paul twice designates himself as a "herald" (1 Tim.2:7; 2 Tim.1:11), and connects his mission to the Gentiles and his sufferings with this function. In 2 Pet.2:5 Noah is called "a preacher of righteousness," However, he was not preaching to the choir members
, but to a doomed, unbelieving generation. Again, from the scant use of the word "preacher" in the New Testament, there is no basis to focus on this function in the midst of assembly meetings.

Indeed, the Lord has said, "How beautiful are the feet of those who announce good news" (Rom.10:15), but the context here has evangelism of Jew and Gentile in view, not believers‘gatherings. "And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" (Rom.10:14).

1 Cor.14 reveals an open kind of gathering, with no one person presiding, and with multiple participation from the body. If the traditional sermon is removed from our meeting, what is to take its place? Without the focus on one part‘‘s contribution –– the sermon –– it would be possible for the saints to be built up in a gathering where they looked to Christ as the Head, by the leading of the Holy Spirit, to bring forth from the brethren what is needful.

There is nothing in 1 Cor.14, or anywhere else in the New Testament for that matter, about pews, a pulpit, a sermon, one person dominating the meeting, or an "order of service." William Barclay (himself from the very liturgical Church of Scotland) comments on what he saw taking place in 1 Cor.14.

[1 Cor.14] sheds a flood of light on what a Church service was like in the early Church. There was obviously a freedom and informality about it which is completely strange to our ideas…….Clearly, the early Church had no professional ministry…….There was obviously a flexibility about the order of service in the early Church which is now totally lacking. There was clearly no settled order at all…….The really notable thing about an early Church service must have been that almost everyone came feeling that he had both the privilege and obligation of contributing something to it‖ (The Letters to the Corinthians, Revised Edition, Westminster Press, 1977, pp.133-135).

Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary notes concerning 1 Cor.14:26:

"Verse 26 insists that the Corinthians continue to worship in highly participatory and spontaneous fashion." Everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.‘ This does not mean that every person present exercises all of the gifts, nor even that all exercise at least one in every service. But opportunity is made available for all whom the Spirit leads on any given occasion to contribute‖ (The NIV Application Commentary: 1 Corinthians, Zondervan, 1995, p.278).

It is acknowledged by New Testament scholarship that early church gatherings were simple, taking place for the most part in homes. James‘ command, "be slow to speak and quick to listen," may have such gatherings as a backdrop. "There may be an allusion to the free and unstructured worship of early Christian assemblies" (Curtis Vaughn, James: A Study Guide, Zondervan, 1960, p.35).

"It is possible that contentious Christian babes were taking advantage of the informal style of worship in the early Christian church to produce wrangling" (James: A Primer for Christian Living, Pres.& Ref., 1974, p.69).

In light of 1 Cor.14 a big question I have is this: why is the New Testament evidence we do have concerning Christian gatherings discarded and functionally treated as irrelevant, and that for which there is no evidence –– the centrality of the preacher and his sermon –– elevated to assumed divine status?

Why do virtually no Western churches resemble the early churches in practice?

Why do we confess that the New Testament is a sufficient guide for the church's faith and practice, and yet meet together in ways that contradict its patterns? Are we at liberty to set aside what is revealed about gospel gatherings in order to keep intact the non-apostolic traditions that we have received? Paul said in 1 Cor.
12:14 that the body is not one part but many, yet we generally gather in a way that hinges on one part and denies the contributions of all the other parts (except to put a check in the offering plate).

Over a century ago David Thomas touched on some key points in this regard:

"The Christian church in assembly, on the same occasion, might have several speakers to address them…….If this be so:"

1. Should Christian teaching be regarded as a profession? It is now: men are brought up in it, trained for it, and live by it, as architects, lawyers, doctors …."

2. Is the Christian church justified in confining its attention to the ministry of one man?

"In most modern congregations there are some Christian men who, by natural ability, by experimental knowledge and inspiration, are far more qualified to instruct and comfort the people than their professional and stated minister. Surely official preaching has no authority, either in Scripture, reason, or experience, and it must come to an end sooner or later. Every Christian man should be a preacher. Were the half-hour allotted in church services for the sermon to be occupied by three or four Christly men……with the capability and expression withal, it would not only be far more interesting, but more profitably spent than now "(1 Corinthians, " The Pulpit Commentary, 1898, p. 459).

In his song, "All of Us Together," Scott Wesley Brown expresses a wonderful thought that can be applied to the blessings of open Christian gatherings where there is multiple participation no one of us has got it all together, but all of us together got it all."

We must remember that human traditions are not neutral.

Jesus taught in Mark 7:5-13 that human traditions originate from religious leaders and over time take on the force of law; they tend to multiply and take precedence over more important matters; they render the worship of God to be a vain undertaking; when they are elevated, the actual instructions of God take a back seat; when zeal is directed toward them, the commands of God will be flagrantly violated; when people are fixated on traditions handed down from the past, God‘s Word is made of no effect; and fixation on traditions tends to permeate all of one‘s existence.

One tradition can spawn a legion of activities that support it.

Think of all the religious baggage that is created by the exaltation of the clergy's sermon - "myriads of books, seminars, videos, and classes on various aspects of "How to Preach"; seminaries to produce people who preach; ministerial associations for local support of those who preach; clergy conferences to encourage those who preach; denominational machinery and politics to fill empty pulpits; local church pastoral search committees; expensive church architecture that focuses on the pulpit at center stage; the manufacturing of pews, pulpits, audio and video systems and other accouterments that enable the "laity‘‘ to hear sermons; a wide gamut of specialized products, services, and perks for preachers; special days for "clergy appreciation"; numerous sources for sermon outlines for busy preachers. Such a list could go on and on.

Everything in our religion is predicated on the notion, "We must have a Sunday sermon." Yet few ever ask, "Where does God‘s Word reveal the need for a weekly monologue?"

How can we continue to exalt the position of "preacher" when it is just a long-standing human tradition?

Do we realize that by elevating "preaching" we have for the longest time rendered God‘s Word of no effect? Can we reflect on the blessings that would be ours in Christ if we practiced an "each of you" meeting where Christ as the Head would lead the brethren into edification? Why do we pursue the "centrality of preaching" for which there is no Biblical evidence, and thereby neglect, stifle, hinder, and suppress the kind of open, edifying gathering which the New
Testament does reveal?

I appeal to you to consider this illustration, an illustration which could be equally applied to the evaluation of many other human traditions. If a group of new believers located in a remote area of Iraq read through the New Testament in their language, would they ever come to the conclusion that in order for their meetings to please the Lord they must exalt an "office" in which one person who stands behind a ―sacred desk‖ (a pulpit) and delivers a sermon week after week? They wouldn't. They couldn't because such notions aren't to be found in the Scriptures.

Why, then, do we become so defensive when pulpit centrality is examined, questioned, and the emperor is found to have no Biblical clothing?

It is interesting to note that D.M. Lloyd-Jones, who wrote Preaching & Preachers, sensed that some traditions were hindering full church life.

"There is also this whole question of the exercise of gifts in the church……. [Some] have certain major difficulties, one of which is the so-called "one-man ministry." We have our views about that, but I feel the time has come for us to examine even questions such as these. It does not mean that you necessarily abandon that ministry, but it does focus attention on this: are we giving members of the church an adequate opportunity to exercise their gifts? Are our churches
corresponding to the life of the New Testament church? Or is there too much concentration in the hands of ministers and clergy? ……But I still ask, "Do we manifest the freedom of the New Testament church?‘‘ In other words, this is another reason why we must come back and consider the whole doctrine of the nature of the church, and the marks of the church…….The notion of people belonging to the church in order to come to sit down and fold their arms and
listen, with just two or three doing everything, is quite foreign to the New Testament……(Knowing the Times: Addresses Delivered on Various Occasions, 1942 - 1977, Banner of Truth, 1989, pp.195 - 196).

“If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.”

Brethren, I can give testimony to the wonderful blessings of growing in the practice of meeting together around the person of Jesus Christ in simplicity. Of course it is open to abuse –– Paul was correcting the Corinthians in chapter 14. It is more vulnerable when you trust the Lord to guide by the Spirit and not an order of service." It requires commitment to people — like yourself! — who can act at times like porcupines. It involves Spirit-sensitive brothers and sisters who are  active participants, not just passive receivers. Fervent love for Jesus Christ, a desire to discern and act the mind of Christ, and deep humility with openness must flow among the brethren. Taking up our cross and following Jesus is not easy, but it is the only way of true blessedness.

I believe that the exaltation of preaching, while no one could doubt that some good fruit from it has been born over the years, has blocked us from pursuing the gathering of saints in simplicity which is revealed in the New Testament.

It often keeps people in a position of spoon-fed dependency, instead of fostering their growth and maturity into works of service, and deepening their relationship with the Lord and other believers. But when we boil everything down, isn't our basic concern, "What has the Lord revealed to us in His Word in this regard?"

If we exalt that which He hasn't, aren't we going to be the worse for it? Why wouldn't we want to devote our zeal to what He has shown us in the Scriptures? Is it really beneficial for a deeply rooted human tradition to continue its reign over church life?

The story was told of a brother in the 1800's explaining to a Lutheran scholar his understanding of the early church and their gatherings. The scholar then asked, "Yes, but can such things be practiced in these days?" The brother replied, "Have you ever tried it?"

Searching Together
Box 377, Taylors Falls MN 55084
651-465-6516
jzens@searchingtogether.org
www.JonZens.com

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Judge See Kee Oon’s assessment over City Harvest Church case



All of the CHC six were found guilty of all charges in court on 21st Oct 2015 .



Judge See Kee Oon has published material explaining his judgments and findings.

Judge See Kee Oon

IN THE STATE COURTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE

District Arrest Case 023145 of 2012 and others

Between

Public Prosecutor

And

(1) Lam Leng Hung
(2) Kong Hee
(3) Tan Shao Yuen Sharon
(4) Chew Eng Han
(5) Tan Ye Peng
(6) Serina Wee Gek Yin

ORAL JUDGMENT

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
V
LAM LENG HUNG & 5 ORS

State Courts — District Arrest Case 023145 of 2012 and others
Presiding Judge See Kee Oon

21 Oct 2015 Judgment reserved.

Presiding Judge See Kee Oon:

Overview

1 This was a 140-day trial involving 43 charges against the 6 accused persons. They were tried primarily on charges of conspiring to commit criminal breach of trust (“CBT”) by dishonestly misappropriating funds belonging to City Harvest Church (“CHC”) that had been entrusted to one or more of them. There are two broad groups of charges involving CBT. The first group comprises the first to third charges and pertains to what have been referred to in the course of the trial as the “sham bond investments”. The second group comprises the fourth to sixth charges, pertaining to what has been termed “round-tripping”. A third group of charges, the seventh to tenth, concerns falsification of accounts in CHC’s books relating to the “round-tripping” transactions.

2 I do not propose to set out the evidence as it is lengthy and voluminous. It suffices to note that the main background facts are largely undisputed or uncontroversial. I will set out my findings in relation to the elements of the offence of CBT first, leaving aside the issue of the mens rea of dishonesty. I will then focus primarily on the extent of the accused persons’ knowledge and involvement in the plans to use funds belonging to CHC for the Crossover Project (“the Crossover”) and on whether their conduct in the circumstances shows that they had acted with dishonest intent.

Criminal breach of trust – elements

3 In relation to the elements of the offence of criminal breach of trust by an agent, leaving aside the mens rea element, I shall state my conclusions briefly. First, I am satisfied that Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng (“Ye Peng”) and John Lam Leng Hung (“John Lam”) were, as members of CHC’s management board, each entrusted with dominion over CHC’s funds, whether in the Building Fund (“BF”) or the General Fund. Second, I am bound to hold that they were entrusted with such dominion in the way of their business as agents because, being board members, they were so entrusted in their capacities as agents of CHC. Third, I am satisfied that the various plans to use CHC’s funds amounted to putting these funds to unauthorised or wrong use.

“Wrong use” of CHC’s funds

4 The BF was a restricted fund that could be used only for building-related expenses or investments for financial return. I find that the Xtron and Firna bonds were not genuine investments but were a wrong use of the BF. I find also that Tranches 10 and 11 of the Special Opportunities Fund (“SOF”) were not genuine investments but were transactions designed to create the appearance that the Firna bonds had been redeemed. I find, finally, that the payment under the Advance Rental Licence Agreement (“ARLA”) was not abuilding-related expense but was a transaction designed to perpetuate the appearance that the Firna bonds had been redeemed. They were therefore all wrong uses of CHC’s funds.

5 I turn next to the accused persons’ involvement and knowledge in the various plans to use CHC’s funds.

Funding the Crossover – being discreet

6 The accused persons understood that Kong Hee’s preference to be discreet about the funding for the Crossover was for the sake of ensuring the success of the Crossover, but being discreet was also synonymous with non-disclosure and mis-statements. Kong Hee had explained that it was his preference to avoid disclosure of CHC’s involvement in Xtron to avoid any misconception that Sun Ho’s secular music career was “not real” and that CHC was (still) using its money to promote her career. But in relation to both aspects, the evidence shows that it was true that her perceived success was inflated from rather more modest levels and Xtron and the Crossover team had to rely heavily on sponsorship from CHC members or supporters to help prop up her album sales and promote her career. When these sources of financial support which did not directly flow from CHC were insufficient, they had to come up with other means.

Xtron bonds

7 Xtron was CHC’s special purpose vehicle for the Crossover, and for this purpose Xtron was clearly under CHC’s control and not independent. The plan formulated in 2007 was that CHC’s funds, specifically funds from the BF, would be channelled through Xtron to be used for the Crossover, and the use of the funds was controlled entirely by Kong Hee and his team. In truth, this was analogous to an elaborate extension of a pattern of financial assistance via “sponsorship”, lending or prepayment to Xtron that had already either been taking place or been contemplated prior to 2007. These were seen as short-term measures to put Xtron in funds and support the Crossover. The mindset was thus that the Xtron bond issues were only yet another “temporary plan” albeit one which involved borrowing from CHC’s BF, and hoping that the funds would somehow find their way back to CHC at some unspecified future point.

8 Kong Hee, Ye Peng, Chew Eng Han (“Eng Han”) and Serina Wee (“Serina”) each clearly played a substantial role in conceiving and executing this plan to channel CHC’s BF through Xtron for the Crossover. John Lam’s role was evidently less substantial, but I am satisfied that he had his own part to play as a board member and investment committee member. All of them knew that the BF was a restricted fund to be used only for specific purposes. They claim that they believed the Xtron bonds were genuine investments. They believed the Xtron bonds would bring CHC financial return. But on my evaluation of the evidence I consider that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not hold that belief.

9 I find that the accused persons were planning on the basis of Sun Ho’s planned US Crossover album being realistically capable of generating sales of

only 200,000 units, and although their projections showed that the bonds could not be redeemed by the maturity date, they were unconcerned since Eng Han assured them that the maturity date for the bonds could always be extended or fresh bonds could be issued. I am unconvinced that they could have had a genuine belief in Sun Ho’s prospects of success for the US Crossover given their consciousness that much of her earlier success was contrived and contributed to by CHC itself. Serina readily conceded that Sun Ho’s Asian Crossover albums all made losses and Xtron had thus incurred substantial accumulated net losses. Kong Hee, Ye Peng, Eng Han and John Lam also knew that CHC was involved in propping up her Mandarin album sales. I am unable to see how there can be any genuine or honest grounds for their claims that they expected far higher sales for her planned US album well in excess of the projection of 200,000 units. This was no more than an optimistic hope. It was definitely not a realistic expectation. All this strongly militates against their claims that the Xtron bonds were motivated by the realistic prospect of financial return and were genuine investments.

10 Further, the accused persons were all involved in making plans to put Xtron in funds to redeem the bonds. They knew that these plans would involve CHC paying money to Xtron under the guise of legitimate transactions, when in fact the real concern was Xtron’s cashflow difficulties and the purported transactions were mere excuses for CHC to channel money to Xtron. Thus they knew that there was a strong possibility that the apparent financial return under the Xtron bonds would come from CHC itself. This knowledge further undermines their claim that they believed the Xtron bonds were a genuine investment.

11 In addition, the accused persons hid or obscured material information from others. Eng Han and John Lam kept the truth about the Xtron bonds from Charlie Lay. All of them at various times gave the auditors the impression that CHC and Xtron were independent of each other, when they knew that Kong Hee in fact made all decisions on Xtron’s behalf in relation to the Crossover without reference to the Xtron directors, who were mere figureheads. The auditors were not told that Xtron was in fact controlled by Kong Hee and Ye Peng and that they together with their co-accused would exercise control over the use of the bond proceeds. There is no doubt that they knew that they had something to hide.

12 In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the accused persons knew that the Xtron bonds were conceived first and foremost to support the Crossover and not for financial return. The prospect of any financial return was a secondary consideration at best and even then I do not accept that they genuinely believed that the sale of Sun Ho’s music albums would generate sufficient profit for CHC to enjoy financial return. They knew that any financial return to CHC might be illusory in the sense that it was CHC’s own money that might need to be channelled to Xtron to redeem the bonds. Given their knowledge, I cannot accept their claims that they believed the Xtron bonds were a genuine investment. Accordingly, they caused CHC to subscribe to $13 million in Xtron bonds knowing that they were not legally entitled to do so. Thus they acted dishonestly, and I find that the first and second charges have been made out against John Lam, Kong Hee, Eng Han, Ye Peng and Serina.

Firna bonds

13 In respect of the Firna bonds, the accused persons all knew that the primary purpose of the bonds was also to channel money from CHC’s BF to the Crossover. Kong Hee, Ye Peng, Eng Han and Serina knew that they, and not Wahju, were the ones controlling the Firna bond proceeds and deciding how the proceeds should be applied towards the Crossover. Yet they took the inaccurate position that Wahju was somehow “independently” supporting the Crossover using his “personal monies”, and this was what they told the auditors and lawyers. They knew that the financial return under the Firna bonds would not come from the profits of Firna’s glass factory business but depended entirely on the success of the Crossover. If the revenue from Sun Ho’s albums was not adequate, they would find alternative sources of funds for Firna, and that might include channelling CHC’s own money into Firna through various means. Given this knowledge, I do not think Kong Hee, Eng Han, Ye Peng and Serina could have believed that the Firna bonds would generate financial return for CHC, and so they could not have believed that the bonds were a genuine investment.

14 John Lam was further removed from the Firna bonds than the other accused persons. But he signed the “secret letter” that secured the signature of Wahju’s father-in-law on the Firna BSA. I am satisfied that he knew that the prospect of financial return for CHC did not depend on the success of Firna’s glass factory business. He knew that it was a very real possibility that the Crossover would not be profitable. Thus I find that he too did not believe that the Firna bonds would generate financial return for CHC, meaning that he did not think the bonds were a genuine investment.

15 Therefore, in causing CHC to subscribe to $11 million in Firna bonds, the accused persons knew that they were not legally entitled to do so. They thus acted dishonestly. As such, I find that the third charge has been made out against John Lam, Kong Hee, Eng Han, Ye Peng and Serina.

16 At the centre of the first to third charges is how the BF came to be applied for the Crossover when it was a restricted fund for specific purposes – either for building or investment. In my judgment, the Crossover was not one of these purposes. It was not an investment since by their own characterisation, it was meant to serve a “missions” purpose all along. I am not convinced that there was any “mixed motive”, “dual purpose” or “hybrid” intent behind the use of the BF. These are creative labels tacked on in an attempt to strain and stretch the plain meaning of the word “investment”. They were plainly fabricated in an attempt to justify their past conduct and misuse of the BF. I do not see how they can be said to have acted in good faith in relation to the charges they face.

17 The accused persons have of course pointed to the fact that the money did come back to CHC with interest. However, this is patently due to their efforts to put Xtron, Firna and AMAC in funds to facilitate these repayments through the round-tripping transactions. It does not confirm that there was any actual intention at the outset to invest for the purpose of maximising returns. What is more telling is that it was consistently represented to CHC’s Executive Members that investing the BF in this fashion was meant to maximise returns. There was no mention at all that the investment was in the Crossover, let alone that it was for “spiritual returns” or for both spiritual and financial return from the Crossover. The failure to mention those facts buttresses my conclusion that the accused persons knew that they were not legally entitled to cause CHC to enter into the Xtron and Firna bonds.

Round-tripping and falsification of accounts

18 As revealed by the evidence adduced at trial, there was never any financial “return” derived from any of Xtron’s and Firna’s Crossover-related activities. Instead, when the time came to deal with the auditors’ queries and to address Sim Guan Seng’s concerns, they resorted to removing more funds from the BF and also the General Fund under the pretext of making further “investments” into Tranches 10 and 11 of the SOF and purportedly for a building purchase by Xtron through the ARLA. The round-tripping transactions were crafted to create the appearance that these were genuine transactions involving the redemption of bonds when they were not. They were not genuine transactions because the accused persons controlled these transactions every step of the way, and the substance of it was that CHC was channelling money through various conduits in order to pay itself.

19 Given that Ye Peng, Eng Han, Serina and Sharon Tan (“Sharon”) were fully aware of the whole series of transactions, they could not have believed that Tranches 10 and 11 of the SOF were genuine investments, or that the payment under ARLA was a building-related expense. They say that they viewed all this as “restructuring”, but that to my mind is fundamentally inconsistent with a belief that the transactions were genuine investments or building-related expenses, and this inability to provide a coherent explanation for their conduct strongly suggests that they knew they were not legally entitled to cause CHC to enter into these transactions. They may have apprised the CHC board of an earlier version of the transactions, but they kept that knowledge from the lawyers and the auditors. Taking into account all the circumstances, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the fourth to sixth charges have been made out against them.

20 I am also satisfied that there was falsification of CHC’s accounts following from the attempts to disguise the SOF and ARLA transactions as genuine transactions. In relation to the ninth charge, the accounting entry recording a redemption of Xtron bonds in the form of a set-off against advance rental was false, because it was not a case of CHC and Xtron making independent decisions to pay advance rental on one hand and redeem bonds on the other. I find that the accused persons knew that false accounting entries would have to be made pursuant to their plan to create the appearance of redemption of bonds, and hence I find that they each had intent to defraud. I am therefore satisfied that the seventh to tenth charges have been made out against Ye Peng, Eng Han, Serina and Sharon.

Objective evidence and inferences

21 I note that there was an extensive record which comprised an elaborate patchwork of emails, Blackberry messages, phone SMSs, hard copy documents and numerous other documented exchanges in some form or other. The fact that there was a mass of available evidence which when woven together amounted to a paper trail is not necessarily indicative of innocence. In my view insofar as much of it was incriminating, it is more suggestive of a mindset of presumptuousness or boldness, demonstrating that the accused persons were overconfident in their belief that they could replace the funds in time before suspicions were aroused.

22 The case against the accused persons depended heavily on inferences to be drawn from the objective evidence. Much of these inferences can be readily drawn as the tenor and language in the communications adduced at trial strongly point to their dishonest intent. In short, the documentary evidence goes a long way in demonstrating their subjectively guilty knowledge. I am not convinced that they have raised any reasonable doubt in this regard.

23 I find that the accused persons were variously inextricably entangled in two conspiracies to misuse CHC’s funds. One conspiracy consisted of misusing BF monies for the Crossover, and the other involved misusing CHC’s funds, a substantial portion of which comprised BF monies, to create the appearance of bond redemptions and to defraud the auditors via falsified accounts through the various roles they played. Each of them participated and functioned in their own way as crucial cogs in the machinery. Although there are distinctions in their respective levels of knowledge and participation, I am unable to discern any rational basis to exclude any of them from being implicated and characterised as conspirators.

Beliefs, motives and mindsets

24 Much of the defence centred on the beliefs and motivations of the accused persons. If it can be shown that they genuinely, honestly and reasonably held the view that what they were doing was legitimate in the sense that they were legally entitled to do it, and they went ahead to act in good faith as a result, I think there may well be room for doubt as to whether they had acted dishonestly. The weight of the evidence however points to a finding that they knew they were acting dishonestly and I am unable to conclude otherwise.

25 Where professional advice was sought, this was really mainly an attempt to seek out self-supporting confirmatory advice based on selectively-
disclosed information. They omitted mention of the crucial fact that CHC remained in control of Xtron and would correspondingly control the use of the funds. They provided leading questions for belief confirmation and support from only those advisors whom they trusted to support the Crossover vision and were quick to reject or filter out any disconfirming information.

26 The accused persons chose to support the Crossover vision and to act and participate in acts in support of it. The Crossover became a comprehensive logic for justifying their beliefs and actions, and for doing whatever was expedient for its advancement. The pervasive mindset seemed to be one of short-term expediency; the use of means involving dubious methods was worth the risk to them if there was some hope of longer-term gain.

Conclusion

27 In their defence, all the accused persons testified largely to the same effect: they love CHC and would not have wished to do harm to CHC. They never intended to cause loss to CHC. They consulted and cleared their proposals with their lawyers, the auditors and the CHC Board. They were motivated by CHC’s cultural mandate and they believed in the Crossover vision. They pointed to pure motives and a justifiable purpose in the use of CHC’s funds. Ultimately the funds which were removed were for Church purposes and were returned to CHC.

28 The crux of their defence was that there was no conspiracy and no dishonesty. All six would never intend to cause harm or loss to CHC and the ultimate objectives were in furtherance of the Great Commission. It may be arguable that all of them thought they were not acting dishonestly to cause wrongful loss since no permanent loss was intended, but this was premised on their unquestioning trust and belief in Kong Hee and their confidence that the Crossover would succeed. Thus they convinced themselves that it was both morally and legally permissible to temporarily use the money from CHC’s funds when they knew it was not.

29 The accused persons chose to engage in covert operations and conspiratorial cover-ups. They contrived to create cover stories and clever round-trips concealing their unlawful conduct. They chose to participate in the conspiracy to misuse CHC’s funds, which included siphoning off large amounts from the BF for Sun Ho’s music career and eventually for the round-tripping transactions to enable the bond redemptions. They chose to defraud the auditors with falsified accounts suggesting a series of genuine transactions for the redemption of bonds and advance rental. The evidence points overwhelmingly to a finding that they had all acted dishonestly and in breach of the trust reposed in them and they played their respective roles in a conspiracy with intent to cause wrongful loss to CHC and to defraud the auditors.

30 I am therefore satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the six accused persons are guilty of all the charges that have been brought against them. I note that all of them believed that they had acted in what they considered to be the best interests of CHC. There is no evidence of any wrongful gain – that was never the prosecution’s case in any event as the charges were premised on wrongful loss caused to CHC through the misappropriation of CHC’s funds.

31 I consider that John Lam, Eng Han, Serina and Sharon were all acting in accordance with the instructions of people they considered to be their spiritual leaders deserving of their trust and deference, and Ye Peng, although a leader in his own right, similarly trusted completely the leadership of Kong Hee. But no matter how pure the motive or how ingrained the trust in one’s leaders, regardless of the context in which that trust operates, these do not exonerate an accused person from criminal liability if all the elements of an offence are made out. In my judgment all the elements of the relevant offences have indeed been made out. Accordingly, the accused persons stand convicted as follows:

(a) John Lam is convicted on the first to third charges;

(b) Kong Hee is convicted on the first to third charges;

(c) Sharon is convicted on the fourth to tenth charges;

(d) Eng Han is convicted on the first to tenth charges;

(e) Ye Peng is convicted on the first to tenth charges; and

(f) Serina is convicted on the first to tenth charges.

Source: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3A-00dAvijTNXAyaGEyLUtZdW8/view?pli=1. (Accessed 23/10/2015.)

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Apostles: True or False? by George Davis and Michael Clark

awildernestvoice.com

True apostles are not called and made by men, they are birthed and transformed by God. Nothing reveals a counterfeit as effectively as the genuine article. It is an issue of the organic verses the synthetic, the real opposed to the knock-off. ...Who is doing the transforming, God or men? If it is God, the apostle is true, but if it is men, these apostles are Satan's ministers. From what we have seen so far, today's apostolic reformation more resembles Horatio Alger's self-made man than the birthing of true apostles. True apostles are God-birthed, not self-transformed. They are born from above, not made by the hands and wills of men.



In chapter two of the book of Revelation, Jesus is walking in the midst of the seven golden lamp stands, which represented the churches of Asia Minor. Among the few positive things that He said to them are the following words to the church at Ephesus, "...you tried those pretending to be apostles, and are not, and have found them liars" (Revelation 2:2). The trial of those who pretended to be apostles is listed among the positive actions of the Ephesian Church, which pleased the Lord. We are fully aware that we are living in a day when many of God's children fail to understand the difference between testing and judgment, discernment and criticism, and view all speech and writing of a negative nature as critical and destructive. This has led to a general no-speak climate enforced by those in control that resists reform and allows unchecked deception. We are commanded to prove (dokimazo - to test, examine, scrutinize) the genuineness of all things and hold fast to what is good. (See 1Thessalonians 5:21). It is in this spirit that we write the following article.

In certain circles today, a great emphasis is placed on the restoration of the "office of apostle." We believe this has led to an unwholesome preoccupation by power hungry men and women seeking to corral the saints of God in a sheepfold that does not belong to the Good Shepherd. As a result, you cannot kick over an ecclesiastical rock without finding an "apostle" under it. At first this seemed rather innocuous because those claiming this title were a scattered few, but lately this inordinate ambition has risen like a ziggurat on the plains of Shinar.

You can never underestimate the resolve of ambitious men. When people set their minds to a thing, and become one around a central ambition, "nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do" (Gen 11:6). This preoccupation with the restoration of apostles has resulted in a network of so-called apostles and a "presiding apostle" sitting over them in kingly regalia. Under the name of biblical apostleship, these men have created a new Romanism. They move in both secular and religious power, "mapping" an empire tantamount to global papalism, issuing their own versions of the papal bulls called memorandums. These men set themselves over the people of God by the frequent use of honorific titles and extravagant ministry names. Although they claim that their actions are biblical, there is little scriptural evidence to support them.

We do find one passage that aptly describes the driving force behind this new apostolic reformation. It is found in 2 Corinthians 11:13 where the apostle Paul wrote:

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves (3345 metaschematizo--self-transformation) into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed (self-transformed) into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Who is doing the transforming, God or men? If it is God, the apostle is true, but if it is men, these apostles are Satan's ministers. From what we have seen so far, today's apostolic reformation more resembles Horatio Alger's self-made man than the birthing of true apostles. True apostles are God-birthed, not self-transformed. They are born from above, not made by the hands and wills of men.

Not to long ago, I (Michael) went to one of these big name conferences where these self-made men and women presided. The worst sort of pride and lust for power permeated not only the elevated leaders, but went out from them and saturated the crowd that gathered to worship at their feet! The unspoken message from the stage for three days was, "If you give us power and honor, you will receive power and honor from us as well!" We are convinced that these self-transformed "apostles" who come as messengers of light are deceiving thousands. For the sake of God's children we can no longer keep silent!

True apostles are not called and made by men, they are birthed and transformed by God. Nothing reveals a counterfeit as effectively as the genuine article. It is an issue of the organic verses the synthetic, the real opposed to the knock-off. Let us first look at the calling of a genuine apostle, whose birth and preparation was unlike anything known by most of today's so-called apostles.

"One Born Out of Due Season"
We see in Paul an example of the birth of a genuine apostle. Paul spoke of this birth in 1 Corinthians 15:8-10.

"Then last of all He (the risen Lord Jesus) was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." (NKJV)

Note here that Paul attributed who he was and what he did to the transforming grace of God. He was indeed God's workmanship born in travail and crisis. Paul spoke of his calling in Galatians chapter one. "Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)" (Galatians 1:1). Paul's election was not of men. What does this mean? The Greek word for of here is apo [575], which should more correctly be translated from. Paul's calling did not come from man. Neither did it originate with or was it sustained by or through man. It was not the result of years of working his way up through a religious hierarchy, accumulating degrees and finally receiving the recognition due him. Paul's calling and ministry were heavenly in their conception, inception and fruition. From beginning to end, Paul was what he was by the grace of God. Paul was not a self-made man. Those days were over for him when he forsook his past as one of the religious vanguard of Jerusalem in favor of Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Even the gospel that he preached was not formulated or pre-approved by man. It was not developed in a church conclave. In fact, it was not well received by many religious men and therefore brought him into constant conflict with those who did not known the true meaning of the precious gospel that he preached.

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after (kata -down from, through out, according to) man. For I neither received it of (para- with, from, by, near) man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:11-12)

The gospel that Paul preached did not come down (kata) through an approved religious agency. He didn't receive it through association with men. He was not near men when he received it. Paul went out of his way to deny all human involvement regarding his calling and ministry. If his calling and gospel were not purely divine and untainted by ecclesiastical persuasion and ambition, then his ministry could not be purely from heaven. Paul did not seek the approval of men. In fact he saw searching for man's approval as a disqualifying factor, clearly stating that if he sought the approval of men he could not be the servant of Christ. (See Galatians 1:10). He received his Gospel first hand by the revelation of Jesus Christ. How then did God birth and equip this "one born of due season"? How did God transform a Pharisee by the name of Saul into Paul?

From Saul to Paul
In Hebrew culture the changing of the name represented a change of character and station. Names were also prophetic, foretelling your destiny. We see this name changing by the hand of God throughout the scriptures. In the early chapters of Acts, we are introduced to Saul of Tarsus, an ambitious young Pharisee who guarded the cloaks of those who were stoning Stephen and consented to his death. The name Saul means desired. We know that King Saul of the Old Testament was desired and chosen by the people because he met the outward standard of greatness. This standard was not God's standard of leadership, but pagan through and through. Saul was the son of Kish, who descended from Aphiah, the son of a Benjamite, a mighty man of valor.

This son of Kish was "an impressive young man; and there was not among the children of Israel a better (towb) person than he. From his shoulders and upward he was higher than any of the people" (1Samuel 9:2).

In what way was Saul better? He was towb [02896] good, "pleasant, agreeable to the senses." He appealed to the soulish nature of fallen man. When Eve look upon the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, she "saw that the tree [was] good (Heb. towb) for food." In physical stature Saul was taller than any one else in Israel and quite handsome. He was striking in personal appearance. From a purely human perspective Saul was the perfect male, gifted with great potential and charisma for leadership. Let's not forget that Israel had requested a king like those of all the nations (1 Samuel 8:5). This is exactly why Saul appealed to them. He fulfilled the lusts of their hearts perfectly.

Now back to Saul of Tarsus.

Saul of Tarsus had a "little-man complex" that may have motivated him to do spectacular things and do whatever was necessary to excel above his peers. From all appearances he was trying to live up to his namesake, King Saul. From what we know of his pre-conversion days, he was very ambitious. His persecution of the church was to further his career as a Pharisee. Saul of Tarsus was a man on the make, climbing, excelling. He worked hard to reach the top of the religious ladder, overcoming great obstacles along the way. The greatest obstacle of all was his weak outward stature and his speech, which some referred to as contemptible (see 2 Corinthians 10:7).

In chapter thirteen, verse nine of the book of Acts, something life-changing happened to Saul of Tarsus. By this time, even his name was changed from Saul to Paul. The name Paul or Paulus means small or little. Are you catching the drift here? Something happened to Saul that ended his striving to be head and shoulders above the rest. The old Saul-life had passed away and a new name had been assumed that matched his God given character and calling. A new nature and destiny had transformed the man who had struck fear in the hearts of believers, who now preached "the faith which once he destroyed" (Galatians 1: 23).

How had such a radical transformation occurred? What would cause an ambitious man to count his life-pursuit and his perfect religious credentials as dung? What would cause such a man to join the very ones he had persecuted? How was Saul transformed into Paul? The amazing story is recorded in Acts chapters nine through thirteen. Understanding this portion of scripture is key to understanding the birth of an apostle and also discerning the true from the false.

In chapter nine we find Saul in his quest for greatness, doing the very thing that would give his religious career the boost it needed. "Breathing threats and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord," he went to the high priest, to request a letter of permission to go to Damascus and bring believers bound to Jerusalem (Acts 9:1-2).

A funny thing happened to Saul on his way to the top. He was knocked off his religious horse on his religious posterior by a blinding light. After being properly introduced to Jesus Christ as Lord, he was led blind to Damascus. Unbeknownst to Saul, God was speaking to a dear saint named Ananias, telling him that Saul was a chosen messenger. The Lord said to Ananias, "Go your way, for he is my chosen vessel to bear my name before the nations and kings, and the children of Israel. For I will show him how many things he must suffer for my name's sake" (Act 9:15-16).

Here is the rub. We all want to stand before nations and kings and preach the gospel to them, but no one wants to suffer. How many times have we heard the verse parroted, "A man's gift makes room for him, And brings him before great men" (Proverbs 18:16, NKJV)? Have you ever considered the condition God's gifted ones were in when they were brought before the kings of this earth? Some were flogged, starved, and even beheaded as they were presented to these great men of the world system. This could explain why there are so few true apostles today. For this call -- the call of an apostle--IS a call to suffering and that suffering is preparatory and necessary to the work. I (George) told my son, who has recently been going through a severe trial, "Pressure creates the diamond." His answer, though quite candid, is very relevant here. "Yes, but how long do I have to be a chunk of coal?"

I am sure there are many with this call on their lives who feel this very way. We also have called out, "How much longer, Lord?" But take heart and know that true apostles are born through such travail and suffering. The sufferings of this present hour are not to be compared with the greater weight of glory that lies just beyond the cross.

We see this clearly borne out as Saul's story continues. Ananias found Saul, embraced him as a brother, prayed for him and God healed his blindness. Because of his newfound zeal for Christ and his effective preaching in the local synagogue, the Jews set guards at the city gates to take and kill him. Thus his suffering began. The other disciples heard of this plot and lowered Saul down through the city wall in a basket and he escaped to Jerusalem. There, the disciples at first distrusted Saul and later found him too hot to handle. Yes, as soon as Saul hit the city gates he was stirring up trouble again. He preached boldly in the name of the Lord and disputed against the Grecian Jews, who also wanted to kill him.

When the brothers discovered the intentions of the religious Jews, they brought Saul down to Caesarea, and sent him off by ship to Tarsus (Act 9:30). And then "the assemblies throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace, and were built up" (9:31). Perhaps it is not fair to say that the reason for the unrest in the Jerusalem Church was Saul's white-hot zeal, but Luke did think it necessary to record the calm after his departure. Saul's suffering continued as his zeal for preaching the gospel far outweighed any desire he had for a life of Christian enjoyment. His passion for the lost was greater than his desire for his own comfort and safety. Saul stirred the religious pot in Jerusalem. This would not be the last time he would do so. Things were just beginning to calm down after the trouble that Stephen stirred up when he challenged the high council of Jerusalem, and here came another radical. Saul cannot even find consolation in the community of believers. His zeal separated him from them as well.

God had separated him unto Christ from his mother's womb, separated him from the "Jews' religion" (Galatians 1:12-13), and now he was still being separated, but now unto Christ alone. When God sets you apart, He REALLY sets you apart! Jesus was insuring that man would have nothing to do with the birthing and transforming of this apostle, nor would men influence the gospel that he would preach. Where was Saul to go? He was initially sent away to his hometown, Tarsus, but it is clear from his own account of this time of preparation that this is not the whole story. Where did he go? In Acts, Paul completely disappears from the scene for a long period of time.

Here is his own account:

For you have heard of my way of living in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the assembly of God, and ravaged it. I advanced in the Jews' religion beyond many of my own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I didn't immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia.

The Wilderness
After Paul's conversion he did not confer with flesh and blood but instead went into Arabia. The area called Arabia or Arab extends into the Great Syrian Desert. Where is the first place that God led Saul, to prepare him for this great call on his life? The Spirit lead him into the wilderness. Where else would Jesus prepare a chosen vessel? The one common thread that we find in the lives of those God separates unto Himself to do His will is an extensive time of wilderness that kills everything of their old natures and places the kingdom of heaven in their hearts. The stripping process of the wilderness is what makes a true apostle impermeable to the things of men and devoted to the things of God. We don't know much about what happened during this period of Paul's life, but we do know that God had His way with him and made him ready for the work that was ahead in building HIS kingdom.

Before Paul returned to Damascus, Christ had been formed in Him. Today many want the power, the title and the authority that Paul had, but few are willing to be tested and proven in their own wilderness period. Few are willing to let God strip them down to nothing and then raise them up in the character of His own Son. Most think that they can use the strength of their natural man to do "the work of God." To this we emphatically say, "NOT!"

Isaiah prophesied of this dichotomy when he said,

Who among you fears the LORD? Who obeys the voice of His Servant? Who walks in darkness And has no light? Let him trust in the name of the LORD And rely upon his God. Look, all you who kindle a fire, Who encircle yourselves with sparks: Walk in the light of your fire and in the sparks you have kindled--This you shall have from My hand: You shall lie down in torment. (Isaiah 50:10-11, NKJV).

Apostle Paul continues,

Then I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter, and stayed with him fifteen days. But of the other apostles I saw no one, except James, the Lord's brother. Now about the things which I write to you, behold, before God, I'm not lying. Then I came to the regions of Syria and Cilicia. I was still unknown by face to the assemblies of Judea which were in Christ, but they only heard: "He who once persecuted us now preaches the faith that he once tried to destroy." And they glorified God in me. . .Then after a period of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me." (Galatians 1:13-2:1).

It was more than seventeen years before Paul went up to Jerusalem to resolve the Antioch conflict. True apostles are not born overnight.

During this fourteen-year period (2:1), Barnabas, at the bidding of the assembly at Jerusalem, went to see if the reports of the vital Gentile church at Antioch were true. Obviously those apostles who sat in comfortable popularity in Jerusalem did not start that work, or they would have known about it. The Antioch Church that Barnabas witnessed was a great source of rejoicing to him, and we have no record of him reporting back to Jerusalem. Who was the first one that Barnabas thought of when he found this glorious Antioch Church that had mysteriously sprung up? He remembered Saul and his burden for the Gentiles, and without so much as a by your leave from the Jerusalem apostles, Barnabas straightway set out for Tarsus to find Saul.

When Barnabas found Saul he told him about this anomaly at Antioch. They returned together and stayed there at the Antioch Church, teaching the believers for the following year (see Acts 11:22-26).

The Final Stages of an Apostle's Birth
It was while Saul was there at Antioch that another great transformation occurred in his life and ministry. Let's read the account in its entirety to see the final stages of the birthing of an apostle.

And in Antioch some among the existing church were prophets and teachers. (such as Barnabas, and Simeon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, the foster-brother of Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, So, then, separate Barnabas and Saul to Me for the work to which I have called them. Then having fasted and prayed and laid hands on them, THEY LET THEM GO (to set free, to let go, dismiss, to detain no longer). Then these indeed sent out by the Holy Spirit went down to Seleucia. And from there they sailed to Cyprus. And when they were at Salamis, they announced the Word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they also had John as an assistant. And when they had gone through the island to Paphos, they found a certain conjurer, a false prophet, a Jew whose name was Bar-jesus; who was with the proconsul of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man. He called for Barnabas and Saul and asked to hear the Word of God. But Elymas the conjurer (for so his name is, if translated) withstood them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. Then Saul (who is also Paul), FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, set his eyes on him and said, O son of the Devil, full of all deceit and all craftiness, enemy of all righteousness, will you not stop perverting the right ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is on you. And you shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a while. And immediately a mist and a darkness fell on him, and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand. Then, seeing the thing happening, the proconsul believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord. And Paul and those around him sailed from Paphos and came to Perga of Pamphylia. And John left them and returned to Jerusalem. (Act 13:1-13 MKJV)

Note the transition here. It all began with a prayer meeting where prophets and teachers, including Barnabas and Saul, were ministering to the Lord and fasting. It is noteworthy that in the long list of those attending this meeting, Saul is mentioned last. The one who excelled beyond his peers in the Jews' religion was now last in the ekklesia of God. God had him right where he wanted him. Also, when Barnabas and Saul are mentioned together, Barnabas is mentioned first.

As they ministered to the Lord the Holy Spirit spoke a word of separation, "SEPARATE Barnabas and Saul to Me. . ." Consider for a moment the true nature of this separation. This was a call that severed all human attachments, a call to let them go, a call to be set aside BY and UNTO the Spirit of God alone. It was a call to be filled, led and empowered solely by God's Spirit. Something was about to change! Before this time Barnabas and Saul had not been fully SEPARATED by the Spirit unto the work. They had taught and preached the gospel in previous days but something was about to change! Saul had performed no miracles before this time that we know of. Again we see Saul being separated, first unto the Holy Spirit and then unto the work. Then after more fasting and prayer they laid hands on them and let them go.

Please hear us! These brothers were not sent out by the church; they were sent out by the Holy Spirit! They were led out. All that was required of the other brothers in that meeting was to LET THEM GO! That's exactly what they did. They prayed and laid hands on them and let them go. They did not send them forth. They simply set them free to be fully led by God's Spirit--to raise their sails and to be directed by HIS Wind (see John 3:8).

Only God knows all the hidden ties that His children put upon each other, if only the expectation that they should faithfully fill a pew every Sunday morning. God's call on other believers is really none of our affair. Before their Master they will stand or fall. To believe otherwise is to assume a lording-over posture rather than one of caring and obedience. No matter how much we love each other and desire to be together, we must hold all relationships loosely, understanding that the Holy Spirit still SEPARATES believers unto Himself. We are always called to be ministers to God before we are set forth to minister unto men. On judgment day we will answer to Him, not mere mortals. Do you remember Jesus' words to Peter, who was excessively curious about John's calling? "If I desire that he stay until I come, what is that to you? You follow me" (John 21:22).

Barnabas and Saul sailed to Paphos, where they met a conjurer and false prophet named Bar-Jesus, who hindered them in any way he could. Note Barnabas is still mentioned before Saul here. Finally, in verse nine, Saul (who is also Paul), FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, pronounced blindness upon this "son of the Devil," who afterwards had to be led about by the hand for a season. As a result the proconsul was astonished at the doctrine of the Lord and believed!

In verse 13 we read these pivotal words. "And Paul and those around him sailed from Paphos and came to Perga of Pamphylia." Hallelujah! Saul is dead! Paul is born!

Now it is "Paul and those around him." When King Saul was little in his own eyes, God could use him. So it was here. Saul of Tarsus had grown into his new name. Paul--Paulus--small or little. The wilderness had done its work. God gives grace to the humble and resists the proud. Here we see something said of Paul that was never said of him before. Paul, "FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT." There is no doubt that in the past he had been full of zeal, but now, having been fully separated unto the Spirit, he was FULL OF THE SPIRIT and power. As the prophet Zechariah prophesied, "'Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,' says the LORD of hosts" (Zechariah 4:6, NKJV). The way up is down and the way down is up. As Paul's life indicates, the preparation to be an apostle first consists of an emptying and stripping of the old Saul-life (Philippians 3:4-8) and then a filling of the Spirit.

Now that we have witnessed the birthing of a true apostle, let's compare it to the apostolic network that is appearing center-stage, cheered on by many in Christendom today.

"New Apostolic Reformation"
One of the defining differences between Paul and many of the so-called apostles of today is that Paul decreased. By contrast, these men and women who flaunt their titles and positions are ever on the increase. Another big difference is that Paul preached Christ, while these are ever preaching their apostleship. Paul wrote, "For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake" (2 Corinthians 4:5). In contrast, all the books by today's rising stars are written in defense of their supposed ministries. Their sole preoccupation is the resurgence of apostles in the church and the restoration of apostolic authority. To our knowledge, only those who view themselves as apostles have written such books. This is a clear conflict of interest since they preach themselves!

Paul warns us that the identifying mark of false apostles is masquerading. "For such men are deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:13). If you are not a true apostle, it requires constant posing and posturing to convince others that you are. This may explain the need to make up new and extravagant ministry titles almost daily. They want us to think they are as important as they think they are.

They clearly state that victory in "spiritual warfare" is dependent upon them "going into an area and doing spiritual battle with territorial spirits." One of these so-called apostles wrote,

"These evil prince spirits will be defeated little by little, and they will be eventually dethroned by the warfare of the Church. In contrast, a man who is an apostle and submitted to Christ will now reign spiritually over that locality in place of the displaced evil prince spirit . . . As these evil prince angels are defeated one by one, Satan's control over the world is seriously weakened. Finally, in unified global spiritual warfare, the last apostles and the Church will confront Satan himself."

Talk about visions of grandeur! We thought that the angels of God were the ones who throw Satan into the lake of fire at God's appointed time. It was this kind of insanity that Jude warned against when he wrote:

In the same way these dreamers make the flesh unclean, having no respect for authorities, and say evil of rulers. Now when Michael, one of the chief angels, was fighting against the Evil One for the body of Moses, fearing to make use of violent words against him, he only said, May the Lord be your judge. But these men say evil about such things as they have no knowledge of; and the things of which they have natural knowledge, like beasts without reason, are the cause of their destruction. (Jude 1:8-10, BBE).

These presumptuous men also believe that the restoration of "the office of the apostle" is key to "releasing finances" for the church. In their own minds, these men see themselves as the answer to all the needs of the church. A few have even dared to place themselves at the top of the apostolic heap.

After the 9 -11 attacks one of these "apostles," who refers to himself as the "Presiding Apostle," gives us a glimpse into the megalomania of these poor self-deluded men and women.

"In our roles as apostolic leaders of the International Coalition of Apostles, both John Doe (not his real name) and I have written initial apostolic declarations. This is mine, and John Doe's will be attached to it in the same communication . . . I habitually read a chapter of the Bible before each day begins. On September 11, I read 2 Kings 18 before I had heard that we were in a national crisis.

Naturally my reading for September 12, after I knew about it, was 2 Kings 19. This is the story of Hezekiah. In 18 he went on a spiritual offensive and wiped out idolatry from Judah. The devil did not like this, so he sent Sennacherib of Assyria against him with a threat, which I liken to the destruction of the twin towers. As I prayed for my personal role in this crisis, I came to 2 Kings 19 recording Hezekiah's reaction. Hezekiah inquired of the Lord, then sent for the Lord's word through Isaiah the prophet. He was aware that "God does nothing unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7).

Only when he had received the word of the Lord through Isaiah did Hezekiah go back before the Lord and make his kingly declaration. I saw that the Lord wanted me to postpone any declaration about the twin towers war until word had come in from the prophets. The word, at least a preliminary word, has now come in from the prophets (we have received over 1,000 emails), so I am ready to write this memorandum."

Does this man actually envision himself as a king, making a kingly declaration?

He continues,

"I imagine that numbers of other apostles, besides John Doe (not his real name) and me, will be doing the same thing. Who knows? Maybe some day we will be able to collate them in order to agree on what the Spirit is saying to the churches. . .the Strategic Prayer Network, the Observatory, Generals of Intercession, the International Coalition of Apostles, the Apostolic Council of Prophetic Elders, the Jericho Center and other vital units."

Thank you, commander and chief! Did you notice how they gravitate to the titles that this world system employs--titles like Strategic, Network, Generals, Coalition, Center and units? One of these men spoke of an ever increasing ascendancy of titles as the emphasis changed from the ministry of pastors to teachers, from teachers to evangelists, from evangelists to prophets and from prophets to apostles over the last five decades. When I heard this, I (Michael) thought, what title will they clamor after next, the title of Jesus Christ the King? After reading the memorandum above, this does not seem to be so far out of reach. There is nothing so blinding as pride. In contrast, the words of Paul come to mind,

Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus, who was faithful to Him who appointed Him, as Moses also was faithful in all His house. For this One has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as He who built the house has more honor than the house. For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God. And Moses indeed was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which would be spoken afterward, but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end. (Hebrews 3:1-6, NKJV).
The one who builds the house gets the glory. We ask you, "What house are these men building and who is getting the glory?" The answer is all too obvious.

These self-appointed kingdom builders also charge exorbitant prices to get in to their meetings, often over $300 per seat. They make merchandise of the unsuspecting people of God. Other than the Bible, the Didache is among the oldest Christian documents. It was written about 150 AD. In it we find the following instructions.

Now about the envoys (apostles) and prophets, do just as according to the tenet of the good message. Now each envoy who comes to you, accept as you would the Lord. But he will not remain for one day. Now if there is need, also the next day. But if he remains for three, he is a false prophet.
Now when the envoy departs, he should take nothing except bread until he lodges. But if he should ask for money, he is a false prophet.

The Signs of an Apostle
The scriptures clearly state that there are signs that prove whether or not a person is "one sent." Paul's ministry was questioned by the Corinthian ekklesia. He wrote them and reminded them that "the signs of an apostle" had accompanied his ministry. The article "the" in "the signs of an apostle" implies that in the first century ekklesia, it was common knowledge that these signs would confirm the ministry of those who were truly sent. These signs were miracles, wonders, and works of power (dunamis).

Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2Corinthians 12:12)

Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. (Romans15:19)

When Paul preached the gospel, it was fully preached "Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God." We ask all who think they are apostles today, Are you sure? Do the signs of an apostle bear witness of your ministry? Are you truly a "sent one"? This is clearly the only true test of an apostle. If these signs are absent, you are not an apostle. Sorry!

If you cannot say with all sincerity, "by the grace of God I am what I am," and if the words "I labored more abundantly . . . yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me" do not describe your ministry, you had better rethink your calling. You had better seek God and ask Him to try your heart to see if your apostleship is man-made or God birthed--driven by ambition or grace. There is nothing to lose except your illusions. If you discover that you are not an apostle and that you were duped by your own heart-ambitions, you have not lost anything, but have gained the truth. God knows whether the driving force behind our so-called ministries comes from a desire to be first or love for Him and His people. "For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and is able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12).

The time when God winked at this kind of foolishness is over. You can not run a con on God. If you persist in this game you will loose. Paul was warning of this when he wrote,

The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12, NKJV).

In our years in institutional Christianity, we have witnessed the christianization of every ambition known to man. Let's get honest with ourselves, dear saints, and allow God's two-edged sword to pierce and divide between our soulish ambitions and what is birthed of God's Spirit in our lives. The flesh cannot mysteriously be transubstantiated into something spiritual. No, what is born of the flesh IS now and always will be flesh and shall not glory in His presence. The heart is desperately wicked and always tries to put the best face on the flesh. Only God is able to discern and expose its thoughts and intentions. So as living sacrifices, let us put ourselves on the altar before our Great High Priest that our inward thoughts can be laid bare and known to us. Better to find out now than later!

We Leave You with this Simple Exhortation
God is setting us apart so that we are no longer our own. Our minds are no longer ours either. The God who makes all things new is working to form the mind of Christ in us.

Part of God's work in us is to bring us to see that in our flesh dwells no good thing. There is nothing redeemable there. Many people who call themselves "Christian" today are reinventing themselves to avoid the work of the personal cross of Christ, the Cross that requires death to their ambitions. When Peter said to Jesus, "Lord spare yourself..." Jesus' reply was to the point, "Get behind me Satan, for you do not desire the things of God, but rather the things of men." He was speaking to the antichrist spirit within Peter. It is a harsh reality that the temple where the antichrist sits is the very temple of God, those who profess to be Jesus' followers. It was true then and it is even truer today. John wrote:

Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. (1 John 2:18-19, NKJV).

"Went out from" - Greek - exerchomai - 2a) to go out of an assembly, i.e. forsake it, 2b) to come forth from physically, arise from, to be born of, 2c) to go forth from one's power, escape from it in safety, 2d) to come forth (from privacy) into the world, before the public (of those who by novelty of opinion attract attention).

The antichrist spirit rises up above others ("little children") in order to attract attention to itself.

Now consider Paul's warning to the Ephesians,

For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears. (Acts 20:29-31, NKJV).

This constant tendency to come out from the humble brethren and raise yourself up, to draw attention to yourself and build a following is the most perverse and yet the most common form of the man of sin. The son of perdition "opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God" (2 Thessalonians 2:4). It is evident that the falling away was well underway by the time the last of the early apostles died, even though there was some effort to counter the rising tide of hierarchy. "You will not exalt yourself, nor will you give over-boldness to your soul. Your soul will not cling with the high people, but you will conduct yourself with the just and lowly ones" (Didache).

Most of what is parading around in much pomp and circumstance as the "apostolic and prophetic movement" these days is antichrist to the core. These men and women who rise up over the saints of God have been duped and are not modeling the lowliness of Jesus Christ in the slightest degree. As we read their writings we see many chapters about their ministries and their right to rule over the people of God, but very little about Jesus. Maybe it takes being outside the camp, bearing His reproach for a few years, before you finally get eyes that can see what is going on in Christendom. We are praying that something as truly new as heaven itself comes forth rather than a rehash of the old Roman system with Biblical titles to cover its shame

God bless you as you follow the Lamb wherever He leads!

Sunday, September 14, 2014

“SPIRITUAL COVERING” BIBLE DOCTRINE OR ROMAN/PAGAN DOGMA? Must Read!

by Steve Hill (Steve Hill Ministries)

INTRODUCTION:

Sometimes the line between right and wrong in doctrine and practice does not run through the words or even the practice but through the hearts of those involved. People may blame leaders and leaders may blame people. However, foolishness is often driven from both sides! It was the people of Israel that demanded a king when that was not God's will for them. God wanted to be their king! Theocracy is not rule by one man. That is a dictatorship! Theocracy is rule by God. This is fulfilled in the New Covenant with the statement that “the head of every man is Christ”! That is the promise of Jesus, “I will build my church!”

Sometimes the line between truth and error is visible by the emphasis. Truth is in Jesus. It is living and dynamic. Jesus is God of God and man of very man. Logically those two things cannot be true in the same individual at the same time but our universe is not rationally determined. It is relationally structured. Truth is a person! Jesus is both Son of God and Son of Man. We must hold both at the same time to remain true to who He is. If we let go of either truth we end up in the ditch on the other side of the road. To remain in the way to God we must hold both to be equally, absolutely, totally true at the same time! Our minds must worship. They cannot understand, ie, control this! If my mind could do so, it would be God. My mind must worship the mystery of the Son of God who is the Son of Man! All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ (Colossians 2:3)!

Take the example of “spiritual fatherhood” or “ministry father”. There is truth in tension here! Let us see what happens if we emphasize one side over the other. If I mention Moses and Joshua, Elijah and Elisha as well as Paul and Timothy, what do you think of? What would you teach? Most would teach the necessity of having a spiritual father or a spiritual mentor. And that would be half of the truth. However, neither Moses nor Elijah nor Paul had a spiritual father! Paul even uses that fact as part of the authentication of his message and apostleship! True! Read Galatians 1:15- 24! That is the other side of the truth.

Why would the necessity of a spiritual father be taught from these examples and not the other side? What would be the motivation of the heart? If I have a need to be in control and to have people submit to me, I would emphasize the need for a spiritual father. If I am a rebel and want to justify my independence I will teach that we do not need to submit to anyone other than God.

However, if I do not have an agenda, I will teach both sides. 'The head of every man is Christ', Paul declared to the Corinthians in I Corinthians 11:3. And yet in the same book (I Corinthians 4:14) Paul admonishes the Corinthians as his “beloved children”. Truth is living and always in tension! The “head of every man is Christ” and “submit yourselves to one another in the fear of God” are both true at the same time!

Our aim is to be direct. Some may say we are too direct. Being “nice” was never one of my goals in life and being past fifty years old, I am not about to adopt that as a new goal. “Nice” is not a fruit of the Spirit! And in being direct I have Paul as a mentor! In Galatians he asks those promoting circumcision to “go all the way and castrate themselves” (Galatians 5:12, The Message)!

He is powerfully sarcastic when speaking to the Corinthians about their relationships with false apostles! Read II Corinthians 11 in the Message or the Amplified versions!

SCRIPTURES WHICH TEACH SPIRITUAL COVERING BY SUBMISSION TO DELGATED AUTORITY?

SCRIPTURES WHICH TEACH SPIRITUAL COVERING TO BE JESUS ALONE?

I Timothy 2:5 “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.”

The reformation was fought on that one! Do you need a “priest” between you and God to mediate God for you? Doctrinally most present day Christians would say a resounding “No!” to that question. Why then do they allow themselves to be involved in a practice of that teaching? Why do they think they need to be submitted to a leader to be spiritually protected? Where does that come from? This comes from the Roman teaching that salvation is only possible if you are a part of the Roman institution and submitted to a priest.

The acceptance of this dogma by charismatic Christians is driven from both sides. The people do not want to take full responsibility for their relationship with Jesus and trust only Him for their spiritual security so they put another man in that place. The leaders find this dogma very useful for keeping people in their place, ie, in their ministry. In psycho babble this is called a codependent relationship! If Jesus is your head what more spiritual protection do you need? Take your responsibility to be in Christ!

I John 2:24- 28, “But the anointing which you have received from him abides in you and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things and is true and is not a lie and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.”

John 16:13 “However, when He, the Spirit of Truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth;”

In Christ, by the anointing, we are taught the truth. John says that this is the antidote to those who try to deceive. Yes, we have teachers but we have the Holy Spirit and the promise of Jesus that He will guide us into all truth.

Again codependent relationships are driven from both sides. One side needs to be needed and the other side does not want to take responsibility to hear God for themselves. Your protection from spiritual deception is in the Christ and His anointing. Jesus declared that His sheep hear His voice (John 10:4)! That is your responsibility and your freedom!

I Peter 2:4- 10 “a holy priesthood”, “a royal priesthood”, “to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ”

Our spiritual sacrifices are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ and not through any other man! We are all “holy” and “royal” priests. There are no first or second class priests. Only one class!

Why would anyone diminish the doctrine of Christ to let anyone else on the planet take any of His function over your life?

Peter goes on through the rest of chapter two and then through to chapter five talking about how we are to relate to each other as royal priests. He talks about submission to civil authorities and to authorities in the work place, even if what they ask may be unjust. He talks about wives submitting to husbands and husbands to wives “so that their prayers would not be hindered”! His conclusion to this section is in verse 8 of chapter 3, “Finally, all of you be of one mind having compassion for one another, love as brothers..”
The rest of chapter 3 and 4 talk about submitting to circumstances where we may suffer due to the fact that we are a Christian. Chapter 5 talks of relationship to spiritual authority. The leaders are commanded to serve without being “lords over those entrusted” to them. The younger are exhorted to submit to the elders but all are commanded to “be submissive to one another and be clothed with humility.”

When someone asks, “Who are you submitted to?” it is often a loaded question! They have their “covering” and they think less of others who do not! My answer to such a person is, “I am submitted to you!” What an answer! What a reality! Thank you Robert Fitts for that insight! (From a book soon to be published, “Forty Trends...” http://www.robertfitts.com/ ).

Hierarchical submission is not New Testament. There is one Master who is Jesus and we are all brothers. Hierarchical submission is an invention of the Roman/Pagan system. It came in when a pagan priesthood was imposed upon the people of God.

Religion is special people (priests), in a special place (temple), at a special time (religious times and days), doing special things (rituals) for the people which they are not allowed to do for themselves. This creates the power of the priesthood and saves the people from responsibility. That is the “bargain” of religion. You give me your freedom (and your money) and I will remove any sense of responsibility for your life or guilt for your sin. You will enjoy a life free of moral responsibility. Just belong to the institution. You will also go to hell since you do not know Jesus! But who said it was a good bargain!

This religious spirit is the same spirit which slaughtered multitudes who simply wanted to read the bible for themselves. How much of this spiritual elitism has crept into the charismatic church?

Psalm 27 “The Lord is my light and my salvation; Who shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; Of whom shall I be afraid?”

Psalm 140:7 “Oh God the Lord, the strength of my salvation, You have covered my head in the day of battle.”

One should know that spiritual covering dogma is wrong simply because it is based in fear. This dogma says that your life is not spiritually protected, ie, that you are open for demonic influence and attack in your life if you are not submitted to someone over you in the religious pecking order.

The kingdom of God is energized by faith working through love. If I truly love people my responsibility as a leader is to press their face into Jesus. Or as Paul said in II Corinthians 11:2, “present you as a chaste virgin to Christ”. That is our job! Apostles and prophets are to be foundational. Foundations are hidden. They hold up the rest of the building and push it into the sky. They are not the covering!

The kingdom of darkness is energized by fear working through hatred. If I have a motivation to control people, I fundamentally despise them. People were made for God. People were made for freedom. My motivation for sowing fear to control and to put myself in a place as a “covering” is really a fundamental hatred of people. I view them as something to be used to benefit my ministry, to run my programs, to serve my vision and generally, to be kept in their place for my benefit.

Psalm 105:39, Isaiah 4:5: “For over all the glory will be there for a covering.”

This was the picture as God took the children of Israel out of Egypt. The cloud by day and the fire by night were their covering. His glory, His presence was their covering. This is the picture as God creates over “every dwelling place of Mount Zion” the cloud by day and the fire by night of the covering of His glory.

Who is your covering? The glorious, eternal, almighty God Himself! His presence in cloud and fire. His glory manifested over my life. This is my Father's world! I dwell in His presence!

If you look to a man to do what God has reserved for himself to do, you will experience increasing fear. You will become more and more dependent upon that man and that ministry. You will more and more deny the doctrine of Christ! You will move more and more into a cult.

SCRIPTURES WHICH TEACH AGAINST SPIRITUAL COVERING?

Matthew 23:8- 12: “Do not call anyone on earth your father for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.”

In Matthew 23 Jesus is speaking “Woe” after “Woe” over the religious leaders of His day. His instruction to His disciples is very simple- do not call yourselves “Rabbi”, “teacher” or “father” like they do for you have one Father, the Heavenly Father and you have one Teacher, the Christ. And besides, “You are all brethren.”

It does not get any simpler than that. However, we are so used to religious usage of these terms and we are so used to the denial of responsibility that we accept and use these terms for our selves and our brothers. Jesus commanded us not to do this!

What about “do not call anyone on earth your father” do you not understand?

II Corinthians 1:24 “Not that we have dominion over your faith but are fellow workers for your joy; for by faith you stand.”

Was Paul over the Corinthians in the Lord? Yes, he made an appeal to them as a father. But he is very clear that if he took a place of dominion, of covering, he would no longer be helping them to stand. He would be precipitating their fall.

SCRIPTURES WHICH ARE TWISTED TO TEACH SPIRITUAL COVERING?

Matthew 8:5:13, “I also am a man under authority”

The centurion recognized that Jesus was a man under authority, like himself, and therefore had authority. Correct observation. The centurion was under Caesar and Jesus was under God. However, when many preach this they make a wrong application. They preach, that if you want to have authority, you must submit to a hierarchical structure, submit to me! Well, true enough, if you want to have authority from them in their structure.

But Jesus was not in any structure. He had authority because of His submission to God and that is the proper application of the scripture. That is the application used in Acts 4:19- they refused to submit to the Jewish council and remained faithful in their submission to God. The authority of God comes from submission to God. It does not come from submission to any man.

Psalm 91:1, “He who dwells in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.”

Some teach that the “shadow of the Almighty” is delegated authority and make the claim that the protection promised in the Psalm has to do with submission to such delegated authority. However, Psalm 91 is one of the most powerful statements in all of the scripture of our protection because we are in God! Read it! Believe it! Enjoy it! Do not let anyone reduce the revelation of this Psalm!

WHAT ABOUT “PRAYER SHIELDS” AND “PRAYER COVERINGS”?

There are no scriptures that speak about this. None. No where. Not in the Old Testament and not in the New Testament. Not there!

What are the New Testament prayers about in the face of spiritual attack? They are prayers for boldness! See Acts 4:24- 31 and Ephesians 6:18- 20!

What are the New Testament prayers about in general? They are about revelation of who we are in Christ! That is the issue!

See Ephesians 1:15- 23! Why would you look to any man for protection and covering if you had any revelation at all of where you are in Christ above all principalities and powers? What about Ephesians 3:14- 21? We do not need a man, we need revelation of the “power that works in us” that can do “exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think”! Check out Philippians 1:3- 11! The prayer is that our “love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment”. We need to know who we are and what we have in Christ! Same story in Colossians 1:9- 11 and in I Thessalonians 3:11- 13 and in Philemon 1:4- 6.

Prayer does not get answered and prayer is not effective by a multiplier of people praying. Do you get those emails requesting you to send on the mail so that they will get one million people praying so that when they get the million praying the child will be healed from the cancer? That is not biblical faith or prayer! James tells us that “The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.” One righteous man is all that is required. One man in right relationship with God!

I am not more protected the more people that are praying for me. Where is that in the bible? The issue is whether or not I am in Christ and boldly obedient to Him no matter what my circumstances. The battle is a battle of faith- am I in Christ or do I believe my circumstances?

BALANCE PLEASE!

Yes, yes, yes, I know that many use the term “spiritual covering” and they do not mean any Roman/Pagan Dogma. They mean right relationship with the body of Christ, with close friends that they love and are open to hear correction from. Yes and yes, again.

We need relationships which allow us to “speak the truth to one another in love” or we will not mature as Paul says in Ephesians 4:15. Submission is an attitude of the heart not a place in an hierarchical structure. In almost every place in scripture where submission to different authority structures is instructed you will also find the sweeping instruction to “submit to one another”. The brotherhood reality of the royal priesthood is never absent. We desperately need that reality!

However, the power hungry and ambitious will submit to the hierarchy simply because that is the way to power. They will submit to those over them but will not receive from anyone “beneath” them. They are experts in “proper order” but lack the heart of humility. They will do the hierarchy thing but will not do the “one another” thing! They depend heavily upon Old Testament example and terminology such as “the Man of God” complex (that is another story!) but lack insight into the New Testament reality of  “all one in Christ” (Galatians 3:28).

This gets even more foolish when one of these leaders “submits” themselves to another leader who lives thousands of kilometres away from them. And then uses that “submission” as part of his presentation to his people, “I am a submitted man. I am under authority.” Implication? “You must submit to me!”
Submission to someone across the world? What does that mean? Do they see how you live? And then no submission to the brothers close at hand because they are lower in the order! That is not a heart of humility. That is a heart of pride! “Pride of life” or pride of position and place, is number one in the satanic trinity. Number two is “lust of the eyes” or materialism and wealth. Number three is the “lust of the flesh”. John Wimber called these three “the glory, the gold and the girls”!

Command and control structures are focused upon position, place, hierarchies and call that “proper order”. When loyalty to the structure, institution or a man takes a higher place than loyalty to the truth we have entered into the ethics of the mafia. Loyalty has a higher value than truth. This is the basic characteristic of a cult. All cults are ultimately concerned with power, money and sex.

Graham Cook says, “I have seen many eunuchs in the house of the Lord and very few fruitful sons” (A Divine Confrontation, page 99). Yes, amen! Men who are faithful to the meetings and to the programs! Men who are submitted. But men who have no faith to do anything for God!

Some of the most faithful people have the least faith! I have seen men who are totally loyal to a certain “spiritual house” to the point of disloyalty to the house which Jesus is building. The dogma of spiritual covering is part of the spiritual technology used to create such deception and to create eunuchs.

Jesus taught that we are all brothers. Paul, Peter, John and James talked a lot about “one another” stuff. How do we do that? Have you ever made a list of all the “one another” scriptures? That is a study!

Better yet- how do we do that?

Related: Uncovering the "Covering Doctrine"