City Harvest appeal: Ruling may have serious implications on corruption cases, says Shanmugam

Court's decision to cut jail terms could have impact on other corruption cases

NEED TO TAKE TOUGH STANCE

From the Government's point of view, this legal reasoning has serious implications in other cases, including corruption cases, (and) our zero-tolerance approach for the future and we will have to consider as a matter of policy what other steps to take because we cannot relax our stand on that... We will have to make sure that the position is as strict as we have always maintained it. So I've asked AGC to advise whether we need to do anything.

LAW MINISTER K. SHANMUGAM, on the appeal verdict's serious implications. City Harvest Appeal

The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) is considering if it can take further steps in the City Harvest Church case, given that the decision to cut the jail terms of the six convicted could have serious implications for corruption cases, said Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam yesterday.

"We will have to consider as a matter of policy what other steps to take because we cannot relax our stand on that," he said, referring to Singapore's zero-tolerance towards corruption.

A day earlier, all six church leaders in the largest case of misuse of charitable funds in Singapore's history had their sentences slashed by a three-judge panel in the High Court, despite the prosecution's appeal for longer jail terms.

Their original jail terms, ranging from 21 months to eight years, were cut, in some cases by over half. The 52-year-old church founder Kong Hee, for instance, had his eight-year term cut to 31/2 years, while former fund manager Chew Eng Han, 56, had his six years reduced to three years and four months.

A critical reason for the High Court's decision was the ruling that directors are not agents under the more serious Section 409 of the Penal Code dealing with criminal breach of trust. The bench majority replaced the offence with basic criminal breach of trust, resulting in lighter sentences.

Referring to this legal point, Mr Shanmugam said it has serious implications for other cases, including corruption cases in which company directors are taking bribes.

But he sounded a note of caution, saying people can disagree with the court but they should be careful about "casting improper ulterior motives" on the judgments.

"The reasoning is there, they set it out, we agree, disagree, and from a Government point of view, if we disagree, then we always consider what we do. If necessary, we legislate through Parliament," he added.

In November 2015, the church leaders were found guilty of channelling $24 million in church funds into sham bonds in music production company Xtron and glass- maker Firna, then using another $26 million to cover up the misdeed.

The church had said the money was used to fund the singing career of Kong's wife, Ms Ho Yeow Sun, as part of what it described as a church mission to evangelise through her music.

All six appealed against their convictions and sentences, while the AGC appealed against the sentences for being too low. Mr Shanmugam said the Government agreed with the AGC's push for longer jail terms.

Referring to the four judges - three High Court judges and one State Court judge - who heard the case in total, Mr Shanmugam said two judges had thought "either the sentences should be as they are or higher". Justice Chan Seng Onn, in differing from Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin and Justice Woo Bih Li, had said in his dissenting judgment that there were elements of benefit to Kong and his wife, and also permanent financial loss to the church.

The appeal judgment had commented on how the prosecution had not focused on whether any third parties had reaped gains from the church leaders' actions, even though this may have been suggested in the charges.

This point was not raised in the prosecution's written submissions for the appeal or at the trial.

As a result, the court had approached the sentencing in this case "as one without any element of wrongful gain or personal financial benefit, either direct or indirect", said the oral judgment.

Mr Shanmugam said he has "noted the court's comments on the way the matter was handled by the prosecution", and has asked Attorney-General Lucien Wong and his deputies to look into the matter.

Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore president Sunil Sudheesan told The Sunday Times the AGC could go to the Court of Appeal "to clarify section 409 once and for all". This must be done within a month of the High Court's decision.

Lawyer Lau Kah Hee said if the apex court takes a different view on the legal question, it could then decide on suitable sentences or send the case back for resentencing.

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.



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.)

City Harvest, Singapore Megachurches Using Pop Culture, Mass Consumption Model for Growth

BY STOYAN ZAIMOV, CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER

The rise of megachurches in Singapore has been documented in a new report that reveals how they are modeling the pop culture and mass consumption structure of society to achieve financial success.

"Mega churches have been able to articulate Christianity in a very contemporary manner," said Terence Chong, a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in the report by Bloomberg News. "Being able to adopt the language of pop culture, mass consumption -- we think this appeals to the new middle class, people who are aspiring middle class."

Among several growing churches in Singapore, the report also highlights the rise of City Harvest Church, the non-denominational church founded by senior pastor Kong Hee, who is currently facing allegations of using donation money to further his wife's music career and for other personal purposes. Hee has denied the charges, however, and City Harvest is said to be standing by him as he awaits trial.

Since 2010, City Harvest has amassed more than 20,000 members, and like a number of other megachurches, is reportedly investing big in Singapore malls and other businesses. Its plans in 2010 included spending $248 million to invest in the Suntec International Convention & Exhibition Center, a major multi-use development center, as well as paying for rent and renovation costs.

City Harvest Church Executive Pastor Aries Zulkarnain apparently even "used PowerPoint slides to instruct churchgoers how to give offerings via cash, check and credit card, and highlighted the online donation system," according to Bloomberg. Zulkarnain reportedly shared in the presentation how the congregation had raised close to $18 million for the center since last year.

"The message here is: The more you give, the more you get back from God. It's like an investment," explained Gerard Ee, former President of the National Council of Social Service.

As for the spiritual connection, the Bloomberg report notes that megachurches are linking precisely the economic aspect of church building to people coming closer to God by showing their commitment to their church through their financial contributions.

As they come forth Lord to sow, release upon them Father the power to get, to create, to receive wealth in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ," prayed Senior Pastor Joseph Prince of rising megachurch New Creation Church during one service. "Prosperity is right. Amen. We prosper to prosper others. We prosper to prosper God's kingdom, so come believing."

Prince's ministry is a prime example of a megachurch using all available forms of technology and social media to spread its message, and raise donations around the world, according to Bloomberg. The pastor speaks at no less than four sessions a day, and his iTunes podcast is set to reach millions of people across North America, Europe, Africa, Australia, Israel, and Singapore.

"Market-friendly ideologies associated with individualism and self-empowerment are often blended with selective Christian theologies to emphasize positive living and blessings, while deflecting overtly negative Christian doctrines such as suffering, judgment, sacrifice, hell or death from sin," commented Jeaney Yip, a lecturer at the University of Sydney Business School, whose studies focused on marketing practices of megachurches. "Their church services are scripted and 'produced' with deliberate use of contemporary music, sound and lighting."

DIVINE LAWYERS by Matthew Tozer

Does the Bible declare that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are our divine attorneys?

Paraclete

The New Testament of the Bible was originally written in the Greek language.  Thereafter, the Greek biblical text was translated into other languages, including English.

Jesus and the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit) are identified as our “Paraclete.”  (Holy Spirit: John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, and Jesus: 1 John 2:1).   Paracletos is a Greek word that means “one called alongside to help” or “one who pleads (advocates) the cause of another.”

Secular Lawyer / Attorney

In secular law, at common law, an attorney at law was divided into two sub-professions.  One type of attorney was a solicitor; the other kind was a barrister.  A "solicitor" advised and counseled people regarding  legal matters.  The "barrister" advocated and fought the case in court.  In the USA today, we have no such formal two-fold division of attorneys at law.

In the United States, attorneys at law have, in general, two roles:  

First, a lawyer candidly counsels his or her client in private, advising them regarding the truth about their case, the pros and cons, the strengths and weaknesses, and the risks and probabilities.  This way, a client can make an informed and intelligent decision about his or her case.

Second, an attorney at law advocates on behalf of his or her client to an insurance company, opposing attorney, judge and/or jury.  Such advocate presents the client's evidence in the best possible light, generally emphasizing favorable evidence, and deemphasizing or minimizing negative evidence.

Jesus (Lawyer-Advocate) / Holy Spirit (Attorney-Counselor)

The Bible refers to both Jesus and the Holy Spirit as our Paraclete, as our attorney.  Jesus, as a Paraclete (1 John 2:1), as our defense attorney, "advocates" before the God the Father and relates that, by His blood, our sin debt is paid in full.  God, the Father, as judge, rules, "Guilty as charged.  But the debt has been paid by a 'kinsman redeemer' (Jesus).  Case closed.  Your client is free to go."
The Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit), our Paraclete (translated "Comforter", "Helper", or "Counselor"), is our guide and adviser (John 14:16, 14:26, 16:7). The Spirit of truth guides us into all truth (John 16:13), the truth about God, Biblical truth,  and the truth about our sinful selves.  He counsels us. The Spirit leads and guides us (Romans 8:14, Galatians 5:18).  He teaches us (John 14:26). The Holy Ghost (Spirit) reveals Jesus to us (John 15:26).  He pours God's divine love into our hearts (Romans 5:5). He enables us with His power (Acts 1:8, Ephesians 3:16).1, 2

Conclusion

In conclusion, we see that, for the Christian, the scripture reveals both Jesus and the Holy Spirit as our "paraclete," with distinct, yet complimentary roles.  Jesus is our advocating attorney in the heavenly courts while the Holy Spirit is our advising attorney relating to our spiritual, missionary, and practical lives here on planet Earth.

_____________________

1  Further, the Spirit, as Paraclete, takes on the additional role, by analogy, of prosecuting attorney "convicting" or "convincing" the world (John 16:7-8).

2  Another perspective is that the Holy Spirit is "another" Paraclete (John 14:16).  In other words, the Holy Spirit comes as an "advocate" (i.e., the primary meaning of "paraclete" in the ancient Greek language is that of a "legal advocate" at the courtroom), that is, as a successor who continues the paraclete (advocate) role of Jesus after the glorification of Jesus and "will abide with [all believers] forever" (John 14:16), in a manner which Jesus, in the limitations of his physical body on Earth, did not do.  See The Holy Spirit in John’s Gospel: Another Advocate  (located on another website).

CHRISTIAN ATTORNEY - CALIFORNIA LAWYER

CHRISTIAN LAWSUIT by Dr. Paul Nah

Professor Dr. Paul Nah is a Retired Lecturer. He was an Associate Professor in the University of Malaya. He spends his time doing research and studying on topics that are affecting churches today in Malaysia. This is his view after going through the following 27 Articles written by different individuals.

A REVIEW OF 27 ARTICLES
References:
1. A Manual on Christian Conflict Resolution, Wong K K. 2. Christians and Lawsuits, G. O. Wood, Superintendent, AOG, USA. 3. INAPPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTIONS by D. Goins 4. 1 Cor 6:1-11 by D. Chadwell 5. 1 Cor 6 – No Shield for Lawbreakers, W. JACKSON. 6. Exegetical Paper/1 Corinthians 6 1-8 7. Litigation between Brethren, W. W. Blue 8. 1 Cor 6:1-11, An Exegetical Study 9. 1 Cor 6 “Scriptural Litigation 10. 1 Cor 6:1-11, Dealing With Spiritual Immaturity, G. DeLashmutt. 11. 1 Cor - "Revelation Or Litigation? Pastor D. Legge 12. CHRISTIANS AND LAWSUITS "TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT" by Matthew Tozer 13. Christians and Lawsuits 14. What is your view of lawsuits between Christians? 15. Christians and Lawsuits 16. W. Nee on Christians Filing Lawsuits 17. Should Christians Sue in Court? M. Fairchild 18. 1 Cor 6:1-11 - Avoiding Lawsuits with Christians 19. How to Resolve Legal Issues Biblically, T. Morgan, 20. When Do You Need to See a Lawyer? Crown Financial Ministries 22. When Can Christians Sue? R. Ross 23. Opinion: should Christians sue? L. Burkett 24. AN EXPOSITION OF 1 CORINTHIANS CHAPTER 6. C. Hodge 25. Adam Clarke Commentary, 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 23. 26. Joseph Beet Commentary: SOME OF THEM GO TO LAW, AND THAT BEFORE UNBELIEVER 27. 1 Corinthians CHAPTER 6:1-11 24. Law and Justice in New Testament Times, J. R. Albrektson.

Ways of resolving Christian disputes:
1. Love & Forgive Matthew 5:44 – 48, 18:21-22
2. Suffer wrong & bear cost. 1Corinthians 6:7, Matthew 5:39 – 42
3. Christian Mediation Matthew 18: 15 – 17
4. The Corinthian Christian Lawsuit. 4. 1Corinthians. 6: 1 – 8
5. Paul’s acceptance of the Roman Govt as established by God 5, Romans 13: 1 – 5
6. Paul appealed to the Roman Legal system to for justice, Acts 16: 37-39, 22:25, 25:11

1. Love & Forgive Matthew 5:44 – 48, 18:21-22
Christians are often badgered by pastors into believing that Christian disputes can only be resolved by loving and forgiving the perpetrator. However the truth is, if Christian love is to be a healthy one it must be balanced by firm discipline. Many remember Jesus as sweet and mild, forgetting that once He used the whip to clear in His Father’s temple of the many thieves and robbers lurking there.

Just L-O-O-O-V-E and FORGIVE even our enemies? (Mat 5:44.)
Why don’t we heed the advice of Dr. James Dobson, a famous Family Life teacher and Personal Advisor on American Family to the President of the USA and author of the widely-read book entitled “Love and Discipline” where he strongly recommended that we should ALWAYS BALANCE LOVE WITH DISCIPLINE in the bringing up of our children.

What does God have to say about this?
“....Because the Lord corrects everyone he loves, and punishes everyone he accepts as a child." (Heb 12:6)
"But if you are WITHOUT CHASTISEMENT… then you are BASTARDS and not sons." (Heb 12:8 MKJV)

Dr Richard D. Dobbins, a Christian Psychologist and Family Life Teacher has this to say – “if you ONLY love your child you will end up with a spoilt person whom nobody likes. If you JUST DISCIPLINE you will get a person who cannot love himself.”

2. HOW MUCH SUFFERING OF WRONG MUST WE BEAR ?
“But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, LET HIM SLAP YOU LEFT CHEEK ALSO. And if someone takes you to court to sue you for your shirt, LET HIM HAVE YOUR COAT ALSO. And if one of the occupation troops forces you to carry his pack one mile, CARRY IT TWO MILES.” (Mat 5: 39 – 42)

Note that cost demanded in the three situations are ALL quite small – a slap, a coat, a mile (and some pride.) They are affordable or manageable so you can live with it. What if you can’t afford the demands e.g someone defrauds you of RM One million or all of your life’s saving and you are already 70 years old. Are you going to forgive and forget? Can you?? You would be most stupid not to go to court! Furthermore, by bringing that person to court you are protecting another Christian of a possible fraud.

So THE PRINCIPLE IS: if you can AFFORD it, then overlook the matter and move on with your life. If you can’t then don’t feel guilty by 1 Cor 6, if you have to go to court.

Furthermore, in 2 COR 11: 19 & 20 PAUL REBUKED the Corinthians for allowing false teachers to SLAP THEM ON THEIR FACE.


3. CHRISTIAN MEDIATION
“But if your brother shall trespass against you, (first) go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear you, (second) take one or two more with you, so that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established and if he shall neglect to hear them, (third) tell it to the church. But if he neglects to hear the church, (fourth or lastly) let him be to you as a heathen and a tax-collector.” (Mat 18: 15–17)

Once the church has been consulted and there is no admission of guilt then we are asked to treat the brother as a heathen and a tax-collector. This means we can now take the person to the SECULAR LAW COURT because all avenues have already been exhausted (Wong Kim Kong, Advisor, NECF & George O. Wood, Surperintendent, AOG Council, Misouri. USA)


4. THE "1 COR 6: 1 – 8" LIABILITY.
I describe this as a liability because it often read in such a shallow fashion that impression it gives is that Paul is against Christians going to the secular law court. NOTHING IS FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. Let’s read through 1 COR 6: 1 – 8.

v1 - If any of you have a dispute with another Christian, how dare you go before heathen judges instead of letting God's people settle the matter?
v2 - Don't you know that God's people will judge the world? Well, then, if you are to judge the world, aren't you capable of judging small matters?
v3 - Do you not know that we shall judge the angels? How much more, then, the things of this life!
v4 - If such matters come up, are you going to take them to be settled by people who have no standing in the church?
v5 - Shame on you! Surely there is at least one wise person in your fellowship who can settle a dispute between fellow Christians.
v6 - Instead, one Christian goes to court against another and lets unbelievers judge the case!
v7 - The very fact that you have legal disputes among yourselves shows that you have failed completely. Would it not be better for you to be wronged? Would it not be better for you to be robbed?
v8 - Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.

Background of the Corinthian church.
The Corinthians were extremely immature and carnal (1Cor 3:1,2). Disputes resulted in the church being divided into at least four factions (1 Cor 1:12). They indulged in all sorts of sins including sexual sins and cheating one another (1Cor 5:11). From their behaviour you could barely distinguish them from a non-believer!

Now, lets go to verse 1 of 1Cor 6.
It states clearly that the Corinthian Christians were settling their disputes before heathen judges instead of coming before their fellow Christians in the church. The disputes that were generally trivial - in different translations given as a matter, a complain, and in 1Cor 6:2 as insignificant cases (GW, ISV), smallest matters (ASV, KJV, MKJV, GNB), small problems (CEV), small judgments (LITV). The disputes didn’t really require them to go to the secular courts.

But why couldn’t they resolve it within the church? It likely that they were so divided, into at least four factions (1Cor 1:12), that it becomes impossible to find someone who could be a neutral mediator. So by going to the secular judges an even more horrendous predicament resulted - a shameful Christian testimony before the heathen Judges and all the many non-believers who attended the law courts. The very people whom the Corinthian Christians were supposed to reach with the gospel were the very people they were scrambling to get help to resolve their PETTY PROBLEMS. The Corinthian Christians failed miserably in their CHRISTIAN MISSION!
Can you now understand why Paul was so angry that he used words like “how dare you?’ (1Cor 6:1) and “shame on you” (1Cor 6:5), However, Paul’s strong emotional reaction was NOT DIRECTED AT THE CORINTHIANS GOING TO THE LAW COURTS but to the FAILURE OF THE CHRISTIAN MISSION. Furthermore the disputes were SO TRIVIAL!

Wong Kim Kong, Advisor, NECF, in his article “CHRISTIAN CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND LITIGATION” says PAUL in 1Cor 6:1-11 IS NOT CONDEMNING the secular law courts. In another part he states “There may be times when Christians could morally use legal opportunities”.

George O. Wood, Superintendent, Assemblies of God, Springfield, Missouri, USA., in his article “Christians and Lawsuits” said Paul never addressed the theme of whether a lawsuit would be appropriate once the church had declared a party to be a "pagan and a tax collector.“ (Mat 18:15 – 17) Perhaps such would be permitted under the teaching of Rom 13:1–5 that the secular government exists to uphold justice and to prevent lawlessness.


5. IF WE GO TO COURT TODAY WILL IT BE VERY DAMAGING TO OUR CHRISTIAN TESTIMONY?
CHURCH-RELATED DISPUTES and some SELECTIVE CIVIL CASES should be settled through CHURCH MEDIATION by Godly Christian leaders. (If the church cannot settle it, the dispute may have to be referred to the LAW COURTS because there is no other recourse).

ALL OTHER CIVIL CASES and ALL CRIMINAL CASES are REQUIRED BY LAW to be settled in the LAW COURTS. Christians have no choice here even if it brings about a bad testimony.

So in answer to the question, IF WE GO TO COURT TODAY WILL IT BE VERY DAMAGING TO OUR CHRISTIAN TESTIMONY, the answer is IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE! Christians who have to go to the law courts will have to go to the law courts.

6. GOD’S REPUTATION IS OF LESSER IMPORTANCE TO HIM THAN HIS DESIRE FOR HIS PEOPLE TO LIVE RIGHTEOUSLY.
In 2 Chronicles 36:11 …17 recorded that Zedekiah, King of Judah :
1. Sinned against the LORD
2. Stubbornly refused to repent
3. Caused the people to sin.
So the LORD brought the King of Babylonia to attack the Israelites.

God’s people were totally defeated by the Babylonians. Isn’t that a BAD TESTIMONY FOR GOD?

The Babylonians could then say their gods were greater than the Almighty God of Israel. Isn’t that a BAD TESTIMONY FOR GOD?

BUT WHO BROUGHT THE KING OF BABYLONIA TO ATTACK ISRAEL? GOD HIMSELF !
What is God trying to tell us? – God’s reputation is important to Him
BUT MORE IMPORTANT IS THAT WE LIVE RIGHTEOUSLY BEFORE HIM!

Some Christians express concern that going to the Law Court will be a bad Christian testimony.
HOWEVER, THE TIME TO BE CONCERN ABOUT BAD CHRISTIAN TESTIMONY IS ALREADY PAST.
THE BAD CHRISTIAN TESTIMONY IS ALREADY KNOWN WORLDWIDE.
WHAT THE WORLD IS NOW WAITING FOR IS, TO SEE WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT !
IF A CRIMINAL OFFENSE HAS BEEN COMMITTED, DO WE HAVE THE GUMPTION TO MAKE OR BRING THE CASE TO COURT? THAT IS A GOOD CHRISTIAN TESTIMONY !
OR ARE WE GOING TO JUST SWEEP IT UNDER THE CARPET? – WHICH WILL BE A HORRENDOUSLY BAD TESTIMONY !

“For the time has come that JUDGEMENT must begin in the HOUSE OF GOD” (1 Pet 4:17)

7. PAUL SAYS CHRISTIANS SHOULD SUBJECT THEMSELVES TO THE ROMAN (SECULAR) LEGAL SYSTEM (Romans 13: 1 -7)
"EVERYONE MUST OBEY state authorities, because NO AUTHORITIES EXIST WITHOUT GOD’S PERMISSION, and the EXISTING AUTHORITIES have been PUT THERE BY GOD." (Rom 13:1) This clearly states that we must subject ourselves to the Secular Law Courts as Paul subjected himself to the Roman Secular Legal System.


8. PAUL HIMSELF APPEALED TO THE ROMAN LAW TO GET JUSTICE
In Acts 16, Paul and Silus were thrown into jail for casting out a demon from a slave-girl. They were publicly beaten and thrown into jail. They prayed and sang hymns and an earthquake occurred that led to the salvation of the jailer. Later in Acts 16:37, PAUL TOLD THE GUARDS, "… WE’RE ROMAN CITIZENS”.

“When the Roman officials heard that Paul and Silas were Roman citizens, THEY WERE AFRAID." (Acts 16:38 – 39) So the officials went to the jail and APOLOGISED to Paul and Silas.”
We can see here how Paul, because of his understanding of Roman (secular) Law was able to bring the Roman Officials to near submission! There are two other examples of Paul using the Roman Legal System to seek justice for himself, Acts 22:15 – 19 and 25: 9 -11.

IF, THEREFORE, PAUL COULD SEEK JUSTICE FROM THE ROMAN LEGAL SYSTEM IN HIS TIME, THEN WHY CAN’T CHRISTIANS DO THE SAME THING FROM THE MALAYSIAN LEGAL SYSTEM TODAY?

IT IS IMPORTANT FOR CHRISTIANS TO APPRECIATE CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MALAYSIAN LEGAL SYSTEM IN ORDER TO HAVE CONFIDENCE IN WHAT IT CAN OFFER:

1. They are religiously neutral. It has nothing to do with the Syariah Court.

2. They carry out their functions with high professionalism.

3. The Malaysian Legal System is based on English Law which has its roots in the Biblical Teachings. It is totally separate from the Syariah Laws.

4. It is compulsory for ALL Criminal and many Civil cases to go to court whether or not you like it as a Christian.

5. The proceeding are quite private and unlikely to give rise to bad publicity. In the past several years there have been at least about 5 cases of “church members vs pastors” lawsuits that were brought to the attention of the Malaysians Courts and practically no one knew anything about them. Furthermore, they did not attract any media attention whatsoever.
Posted by CALVARY TODAY at 9:54 AM
Labels: Law and the Christian Perspective