Diane Langberg: Understanding Abuse of Power in the Church

 

EXCLUSIVE: John MacArthur Shamed, Excommunicated Mother for Refusing to Take Back Child Abuser

 By Julie Roys

On August 18, 2002, prominent radio pastor and author, John MacArthur, took time during an evening service to address a grave matter at his 8,000-member Grace Community Church (GCC) in Sun Valley, California.

A woman at GCC was living in sin, MacArthur alleged. And though shaming her publicly was “sad,” MacArthur said it was necessary to maintain fidelity to God and His Word.

So, as men were distributing the elements for communion, MacArthur stated: “I want to mention a sad situation, a person who is unwilling to repent. And the church bears responsibility before God to be the instrument of discipline. . . . This is what the Lord wants. He wants discipline . . . to be put out of the church, to be publicly shamed, to be put away from fellowship. In this case, it applies to Eileen Gray.”

According to MacArthur, Gray’s sin was that she had decided “to leave her husband, to grant no grace at all, to take the children, to go away, to forsake him.” This, MacArthur emphasized, meant rejecting “all the instruction and counsel of the elders, all instruction from the Word of God.”

MacArthur then encouraged the church to pray for Eileen and to “treat her as an unbeliever—for all we know, she may be.”

He also urged the church to pray for her husband, David Gray, who taught music and Bible to children at Grace Community Church (GCC) from 1994 to 2001. “Pray for David, for the sympathy and compassion and the lovingkindness of God to be his portion.”

MacArthur then invited the church to sing, “Amazing Grace.”

Today, David Gray is serving 21 years to life in a California prison for his 2005 convictions for aggravated child molestation, corporal injury to a child, and child abuse.

To be continued at The Roys Report REPORTING THE TRUTH. RESTORING THE CHURCH.

LIVING THE ANTITHESIS

by Rev Susan Tang
(Sr. Pastor of Calvary Charismatic Centre, Lahat Datu, Sabah and the founder of Station of Life)

For the past few years the Lord has been speaking to me about living in a manner that is the 'antithesis' to all that is happening in the church and in the nation. Over the years, as I waited on Him, I heard Him say, " There is darkness in My House. I am now calling those who can hear My voice to live lives that will be the antithesis to all that is happening. Stop your activities; start to pray and to live out that 'antithesis.'”

It was difficult because I had meetings lined up and my itinerant ministry was bringing in much financial blessing. The books and tapes were selling well and people were blessed. The only problem was, I did not have a deep sense of God's reality. I was finding it extremely hard to hear from Him and I did not enjoy the sense of joyful liberation and rest in my spirit that I am experiencing now. God settled my indecision by taking me through the typhoid incident! I was pathetic during that illness but so spiritually enriched after it. After I recovered, I could hear Him better and with His directives, came the explanations. I heard Him say, "Too many want to travel and speak for ministerial and money sake. They have no interest to build into my kingdom but into their own ministry which has no eternal validity. Now, will you obey and live in a manner that is the antithesis to all these?"As I cancelled my itinerant ministry to stay back and spend time to pray, the directives also came to price down my books, to put them on the website for free reading. I was also to sell my house to buy a piece of land and to pioneer a prayer community. Oh, have I been struggling over these directives and decisions for the past two years! No wonder so many of us do not dare to spend time in His presence. Who knows what He will direct us to do next?

The struggles ceased lately as I read Matthew 7:13-14 and Jeremiah 7. In Matthew 7:14, Jesus commanded His disciples to walk the narrow way (or to live in a manner that is antithetical to the popular worldly order) although it was an unpopular choice and 'few there be that find it.' In Jeremiah 7 He convicted me that the deception in the church worldwide had already produced decline and darkness, a darkness which will finally lead to destruction. I then saw the decline of many local pastors and also much confusion in our local church scene as everything climaxes into what Jeremiah described in verse eleven:

"Is this house, which is called by My name, become a den of robbers in your eyes. Behold, even I have seen it, saith the Lord."

Not only do we have semi - nudity, gays and lesbians, con-men and women, paedophiles, adulterers, fornicators, pseudo prophets/prophetesses and false apostles defiling the church, we now have an influx of the merchandizing and trading spirit. No wonder God said the final result is that His house will become 'a den of robbers.' As the mercenary and the merchandizing spirit join forces with the present profanity, we will not only rob God of His glory, we will also rob the nation of godly standards or ‘the sense of God,’ and the heathen of their hope and salvation.

Many non-Christians are already disgusted as they could not find the difference between the church and the world.

Pope Benedict called the present culture the ‘culture of death’, and weaved his recent Easter Day message around the contrast between material and spiritual riches an told Christians to undergo a ‘purification of hearts’ so that we can heal a lacerated world. He warned against selfishness, corruption and said that the temptation of worldly riches is ‘the language of the serpent’.

Yes, even the church is now inundated with the ‘culture of death’ and the ‘language of the serpent.’ What, then, is God saying to us? What is His urgent and fresh call at this hour to the church in our nation? Are the prophets and prophetesses in Malaysia hearing Him or are we still prophesying ‘vain things’ and dishing out only favorable personal prophecies? Can we hear God calling men and women to live lives that are the antithesis to the horrible system of greed, materialism and compromise that has defiled the church and the land? Do we hear God calling us back to kingdom life and an apostolic lifestyle? When we do hear, do we then, have the strength to obey? To live a life that is the antithesis to all that is around us is like a fish swimming against the tide. Its strength could break against that onslaught.

Does God know? Yes, He does. This is why He told Israel, “Go on this special diet. Feed on manna (Me) daily. If you do, then you can fight against that order. The journey is indeed too hard for you but you can do it as you feed on Me and let Me infuse you with My life.”

But Israel rejected that special diet. This is why they could not make the journey. Will we let the same happen to us? God knows we can only walk the narrow way and be the antithesis to the defiled, worldly and devilish system if we have an infusion of the life of Jesus. But the church life today is hardly an ‘infusion of His life’; rather, it is an infusion of programs, activities, mental knowledge and great exteriors. If I had not stopped my itinerant ministry and spent time in His presence to hear from Him, and then to have been allowed to see what He showed me, I would not have the strength to carry out His directives. And to many of us these directives seem to be utter foolishness.

Does it seem too much for a single woman pastor who is in her ‘retirement years’ to sell her house and part with her only piece of visible and tangible asset? Yet my disobedience, after the Lord has shown me the rich rewards of my decision, would be worse than total foolishness and wickedness. My heart came to a liberating rest and joy when I could finally agree with what God was saying to me.

“The church must not only pray. She must live her prayers. If the church in Malaysia will not live lives that are the antithesis to all that is around her she will never be able to defeat the powers of darkness in this land; neither will she have the strength to avert My coming judgment.”

The infusion of His strength has helped me to yield, to agree to His directives and to start to live in a manner that will be the ‘antithesis’ to that which is selfish, worldly and devilish. I am doing it not because I m spiritual, wonderful or ‘one step above the rest’. I am doing it as an act of obedience and out of a deep love for God. I am also doing it because I want to ‘stand in the gap’ for many priests and prophets who are unable to come free of the psychic bondage to materialism. I am also doing it as an encouragement to others to follow. The Lord has given me the assurance that there will be many others who will follow as His reality enveloped us for “Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power” (Psalm 110:3)

I now know what it means when I pray, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done.” God’s kingdom cannot come if His will is not done. The ‘kingdom lifestyle’ is the antithesis to the selfish, worldly and devilish order which the enemy has set up. It is wonderful to give it all to Him instead of allowing an incoming tsunami to sweep it away. Of course many still do not believe that a tsunami will ever hit the Malaysian shore or that Malaysian houses or properties will get swept off. People in Acheh and New Orleans did not think it could happen; nevertheless it did. Did people think that Subang Jaya and Shah Alam would get that badly flooded and that winds of that magnitude can hit the city? It happened and the worse is yet to come.

Is your life, up to this time just a product of an institution (the church) or is it an infusion of the life of Jesus? If it is an infusion of the life of Jesus, then you can come free of the psychic attraction to materialism and the ‘culture of death.’ You can live the ‘kingdom lifestyle’ and not listen to the ‘language of the serpent’. You can speak God’s language, ‘go against the tide’ and live the life that is the ‘antithesis’ to all that is around you so that you can heal the lacerated world … and the church.

Other articles related by Susan Tang: 

http://goeagles2u.blogspot.com/2010/07/anointed-priest-who-sins-by-rev-susan.html

http://goeagles2u.blogspot.com/2010/07/adding-value-to-land.html

Fresh Fire leader Todd Bentley accused of ‘perverse sexual addiction,’ preying on interns

By Leonardo Blair, Christian Post Reporter



Stephen Powell, an estranged protégé of controversial evangelist Todd Bentley at Fresh Fire USA, has publicly dismissed his mentor as “not fit for public ministry,” alleging that he has a “perverse sexual addiction” that has driven him to prey on interns.

Citing personal and reported testimony, Powell, who runs Lion of Light Ministries in Pineville, North Carolina, alleged in a lengthy post on Facebook Thursday that Bentley “has an appetite for a variety of sexual sins, including both homosexual and heterosexual activity.” He was not immediately available to respond to The Christian Post's request for further comment on Friday.

Powell also charged that Bentley’s behavior is enabled and covered up by his wife, Jessa, as well as Christian leaders in the evangelist’s orbit such as Rick Joyner, author of The Final Quest and founder of Morning Star Ministries and Heritage International Ministries.

Joyner helped Bentley create Fresh Fire USA in 2009, the year after Bentley separated from now ex-wife, Shonnah, and got involved in an emotional relationship with a staff member. Joyner was also part of the “healing team” that was formed to help restore Bentley after the divorce and emotional affair.

In a Facebook Live broadcast on Friday, Joyner said he currently has no authority over Bentley and acknowledged being aware of accusations that he had preyed on interns. He also acknowledged that Powell had come to him and tried to pressure him into taking swift action against Bentley. He accused Powell of operating in a spirit of “witchcraft” for going public with his knowledge.

“When people come to me with pressuring, manipulating, especially threatening if I don’t do something their way, or in their time, I know that’s the devil," Joyner said. "That’s in Scripture, counterfeit spiritual authority which is called witchcraft. That is not the Holy Spirit. We’ve got to start recognizing what is from the Holy Spirit and what is not.”

Powell said that even though he had been aware of misconduct by Bentley over the years, much of the evidence supporting his current allegations came to light this summer after he started appealing to Joyner to stage an intervention.

“Down through the years, Todd [Bentley] has made sexual advances toward (and in some cases engaged in sexual sin with) a number of different men and women outside his marriage, many of them interns and/or students under his leadership care in the church,” Powell alleged.

Powell cited testimony from a male intern who claimed in 2013 that Bentley offered to pay him $1,000 if he allowed him to perform oral sex on him.

He said the intern told him: “‘There was a time that I was with Todd and I was struggling to get by. ... I was living with my sister, working a job, just trying to pay my bills and get by, and Todd was supposed to be my mentor you know. And we’re hanging out and he’s paying for me to eat out, paying for me here, paying for me there, you know, and always showing off his money you know. ... And he was like, ‘I know you’re struggling so’... I don’t know how it came up, but He was like, ‘Can I suck your d--- for $1,000?’ And I’m like, ‘What?’ I was like, ‘What the F is your freaking problem?' ... And I was like, oblivious. ... And you know, it was not just that. ... I saw pictures of His wife naked, fully naked, the whole nine yards.”

He said he was told by another male intern who witnessed what happened that he informed Joyner of Bentley’s actions but ultimately “nothing was done and Todd was still allowed to go on in ministry as if everything was okay.”

In a response on Facebook Friday, Bentley admitted to “having a past” and noted that the allegations against him weren’t new.

“I decided to come out in a public way ahead of what has been brewing in recent months….This isn’t something new as many of the things that I’m dealing with do go back up to six, seven years. Yes, old stuff. I do have a past and many of the things I’m being accused of today come from the fact that I’ve had cracks in my foundation. I’m not about to hide, try to lie or run from the fact that I have a past in which my wife and my therapist [have been a part],” he explained.

He said he has been working with a therapist for approximately one year as well as an accountability team.

Bentley called many of the current accusations against him, “false.”

“They are gossip, they are swirl, they are speculation, hearsay and they are without any real evidence. As far as let the accusers come forth. Let them name names. Let them meet with me, with Rick. With whoever is on my leadership. I would love to be able to look in the eye of the people making the claims,” he said.

“I do have the things in my past I gotta say … whether they are six months, a year, two years, five, six, seven. Many of the things that I’ve addressed and continue to address in my life to be clean,” he said.

“I am not guilty of the things that I’m being accused of as far as those homosexual acts. Things that are taken out of context in inappropriate text messages or conversations that I had that were not right that I’ve had to own, that go back to 2013,” he said, noting that he didn’t have any sexual affairs or commit adultery.

He said he is now leaning on the prayers and support of his friends, then read a prepared statement after assuring his followers that his ongoing healing revival will continue.

In his response, Joyner explained that after he completed oversight of Bentley’s restoration in 2012 stemming from the 2008 scandal, the evangelist has been charting his own path while continuing counseling.

“I do not have authority over Todd Bentley. Those of you who know the story had the issues [that manifested in 2008]. I was asked by Peter Wagner as a representative of the Revival Alliance to oversee Todd’s restoration. I was given very few guidelines, [not] anything. Just here, you take this. We think you’re supposed to do it. I thought I was the worst one in the world to do it,” he said. “I’m not good at that. That’s not my type of calling.”

He said he prayed about it, however, and he felt like God would give him the grace to do it.

“I would say this about Todd, he’s still being restored but guess what? So am I. So are you. We still have a ways to go. I felt like the Lord showed me in 2008 that this wasn’t the last big public embarrassment that Todd was gonna have or mistake or sin. I was given a Scripture in Proverbs where the righteous fall seven times. Even the righteous fall seven times, but He said Todd would keep getting back up. He said he would fight on. But I never expected after we released him in I think about 2012, that he would be perfect,” Joyner said.

He disputes as well that nothing was done when he learned of Bentley’s behavior toward interns.

“A situation arose in 2013 when Todd, a friend brought some text messages that Todd had sent to some interns. I was appalled,” Joyner said.

“They are in the accusations that the brother put out yesterday. I was shocked. I still didn’t have authority over Todd but I went to him as a brother and I confronted him with it. As a matter of fact, I confronted him harder than I ever confronted anybody over anything. I was absolutely outraged,” he said.

When Is It Time to Leave a Church?

By J. Lee Gradys



A friend of mine from England recently asked me for counsel regarding a serious dilemma. His pastor had been involved in extramarital affairs, yet the man never stepped down after the scandal. My friend grew increasingly uncomfortable. Then he became alarmed when the embattled pastor announced he was going to lay hands on every church member during a weekend service to impart "special revelation."

This pastor had a base of loyal fans, but the Sunday crowd was dwindling because people could smell trouble. They knew it wasn't right for this man to remain in leadership without receiving some serious personal ministry. I advised my friend to run for the door.

I've never found a perfect church in all my travels—and it certainly wouldn't be perfect if I joined it. But there are some churches that deserve to be called unhealthy. Though I believe we shouldn't give up on a church too fast, there are some warning signs that should cause you to stop and ask if you'd be better off finding better pasture.

1. No accountability. There is safety in the multitude of counselors (see Prov. 11:14). There is much less safety—perhaps even danger—when a leader runs a church in total isolation. All leaders should be team players. They should seek counsel from peers as well as from gray-haired men and women who have the wisdom that comes with experience. If a pastor or church leader isn't open to correction or financial oversight, he is headed for a train wreck. If you stay in that church, you may crash with him
2. Spiritual elitism. Healthy leaders love the entire body of Christ. Beware of any church that claims "exclusive" revelation or suggests it is superior to other Christians. This is how cults start. If a pastor ever makes such claims, it is time to shake the dust off your feet and move on.
3. Entrenched immorality. The apostle Paul commanded leaders to enforce biblical discipline. This must be handled with gentleness (see Gal. 6:1) but nevertheless with firm resolve, because the enemy wants to infiltrate the church with moral compromise. If a pastor has been involved in adultery or perversion and continues preaching, meanwhile refusing discipline, his unrepentant spirit will infect the entire congregation—and you can expect to see immorality spread throughout the church. Don't be defiled.
4. An authoritarian spirit. I'm amazed at how much spiritual abuse is tolerated in churches today. No pastor is perfect, and we are called to be patient with each other's faults. But if a church leader is verbally abusive toward his staff or members of his congregation, he is in direct violation of Scripture. The apostle Paul taught that church leaders should not be "violent" or "quarrelsome" but "self-controlled" and "gentle" (see 1 Tim. 3:2-3, ESV). It's best to find another pastor if yours cannot control his anger or if he is unwilling to repent of a dictatorial style.
5. Unbridled greed. Paul made it clear that a leader has no business being in the ministry if he isn't "free from the love of money" (1 Tim. 3:3b, NASB). Yet we have turned that requirement on its head today. We have given greedy charlatans access to the airwaves and allowed them to corrupt the church with a money-focused message. Your pastor does not have to live in poverty, but if he insists on living in luxury—and manipulates people during offering time to squeeze more money out of your wallet to pay for his toys—you are supporting his habit.
6. False doctrines and manifestations. A pastor should be open to the Holy Spirit's spontaneous work, but he or she should also protect the flock from deception. In many segments of the charismatic movement today, bizarre New Age influences have been wholeheartedly embraced—and Christians seem to have thrown away the gift of discernment. If your church is focusing on a particular prophet's revelations, or is going off on weird tangents—at the expense of solid doctrine—then you should go elsewhere fast.
7. A culture of pride. Some church leaders are so insecure that they manufacture a sense of importance around them in order to function. They surround themselves with security guards, "armor bearers," handlers and assistants—and never actually build genuine relationships with their church members. They think church is all about their stage performance, so they rely on volume, theatrics, clothes and a grand entrance to impress the crowd rather than just being normal, touchable, accessible servants.

If your pastor is building a personality cult rather than a dwelling place for God, get out before you become a casualty!

4 Biblical Elements Missing From The Modern Church Service

By Dale Partridge

The evidence is weighty and difficult to explain away—the institutional expression of church is hurting. Westernized churchianity is losing steam, its moral authority and influence are fading, and its congregants are disengaging. While the conversation is incredibly complex, I believe the overarching cause is more straightforward than most pastors want to admit.

In 1 Corinthians 2:3-5 The Apostle Paul says, “I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.”

Paul knew a truth that churches and pastors have seemed to miss:

What you win people with is what you win people to.

While the Apostle was terrified to win souls with the wisdom and charm of man, many churches have made it their modus operandi—from scripturally impoverished keynotes presented as sermons and barn wood wrapped stages to church-owned coffee shops and even on-campus skateparks. Many churches are desperate to win people with just about everything except the Gospel, the Bible, and a covenant commitment to the body of Christ.

Furthermore, the problem with winning people with flash, production, and amusement is that the moment it all stops so does the attendance. As a result, thousands of church leaders must continue “the show”—a frantic effort to keep their sheep from leaving by layering on more and more creative, yet extra-biblical ideas. For some churches, it’s a professional worship band and a slick coffeeshop /bookstore; for others, it’s a new Creative Director and expensive landscaping. But whatever it is, it doesn’t take long for a biblical Christian to realize that little of it has to do with the Bible. If they are the investigative type, they might even notice these additions are suspiciously similar to the type of marketing seen in a corporation and that their Sunday mega-service feels oddly like a conference or evangelistic outreach.

So while pastors can’t seem to debunk the cause of their dwindling flocks, millions of homesick Christians are revealing it for them: Extra-biblical practices, predictable programs, and man’s wisdom cannot sustain the soul.

In other words, watered-down, oversized, uncommitted, spectator church is much like a pasture filled with Astroturf—to a sheep it looks amazing, but in reality, there’s not much to eat.

In my opinion, the solution to creating a devoted, loyal and faithful local church isn’t to add more fluff but to take it away. To oust much of the church’s well-intended but non-biblical practices and return to the simple gathering experience represented in the New Testament.

But that’s easier said than done. Because Western Christianity has altered the church experience to such a cringe-worthy state, the average Christian can’t even determine what portions of the Sunday gathering are biblical and which are just inventive ideas. To be honest, most Christians are so scripturally illiterate they authentically believe the idea of seminary or Sunday school or a worship leader or a senior pastor is somewhere to be found in God’s holy book.

It’s clear, innovation and renovation have become the current church formula. Consequently, we must ask ourselves if we have innovated ourselves to a territory beyond the Bible. We must evaluate if what we are doing as a church matches us with what God is saying in His Bible. Having said that, I have listed four biblical elements many churches have simply erased from their gatherings. Elements that, in a variety of ways, have been pushed out, labeled as archaic, or simply don’t fit within the Americanized anatomy of church. With that said, I encourage you to evaluate my points, because my experience has taught me that the life-long, soul-sustaining, fruitful, and committed church experience many of us long for cannot occur without them.

1. The Raw, True Gospel

First off, let me remind you that the purpose of the church gathering is not for non-believers to hear the Gospel. Churches who actively invite non-believers to the meeting of the saints have, in many cases, have turned church into an evangelism outreach event. This incorrect emphasis on Sunday-sanctioned Gospel outreach forces many pastors to adopt a “lowest common denominator” style of teaching that focuses on feeding the guest instead of the committed.

In the Bible, the preaching of the Gospel is recorded as an outside work for the lost while the church gathering is as an inside work for the found.

Having said that, every church should participate in the fulfillment of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20). In doing so, let us avoid the emotional presentation that has been adopted by many churches and instead preach the raw, soul-saving Gospel:

“You are a sinner and have broken God’s laws; for that reason, you are currently under God’s wrath and destined to eternity in hell; but God loves you so much He sent His Son Jesus to die and his blood has paid the debt of your sin. If you believe in Jesus and that God raised Him from the dead and you make Him Lord over your life, you will be saved.“

We must remember following Jesus always ends at a murder scene—a cross waiting to kill our flesh. Many churches have attempted to market Christ and Christianity in a way that omits the raw truth about the Gospel (Matthew 10:39). In connection with the church, we must ask ourselves how many of today’s Christians are leaving the church not because they don’t like the preaching or the worship music but because they were never won to the true Gospel? In other words, what if the people who are leaving never actually came?

2. Biblically Qualified Elders

The “elder board.” A common, but extra-biblical idea. The practice of seeking out experienced businessmen, influential community leaders, generous donors, and theologically inclined individuals to join the oversight of a modern church. Over the years, I’ve met several “elders” from popular Christian churches; people who are incredibly gifted, talented, brilliant, but biblically unqualified.

You see, many churches have ditched the biblical qualifications for leadership and have adopted their own. Today, you can be young or female or single or even homosexual and land a seat on the elder board of many of today’s popular churches.

But the Bible has a different opinion on the matter.

In 1 Timothy 3:2-7, the Apostle Paul says, “A bishop (elder) then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover, he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”

It requires some significant mental gymnastics to reject that the Bible is calling for elders who are: Men, morally above reproach, married and not previously divorced, has the spiritual gift of teaching, is a father to obedient and orderly children (not child), has an ordered home life, is mature in the faith and is respected even by those outside of the church.

The Bible does not call for brilliant entrepreneurs or wealthy CFO’s or associate pastors or celebrities. That being said, a church whose overseers do not fit the Bible’s qualifications is at great risk of spiritual misdirection.

Much of today’s sheep are lost not because they wandered off, but because their unfit shepherds simply led them astray.

As biblical Christians, we should seriously and actively evaluate if our elders meet God’s criteria for church leadership. If you do not know your elders, you’ve revealed a problem. If your church is too large for you to meet with your elders, you’ve revealed another problem. God did not intend his local churches to be led by shepherds who are unknown by their sheep. If you’re longing for a biblical Christian community, then look for a church whose elders are close, known, and qualified.

3. Multi-Teacher And Dialogue-Centric Church Service

How would you feel if you went to a community meeting and instead of a fruitful and orderly dialogue between the members, one person spoke the entire time? Welcome to almost every church service in America. We’ve turned the meeting of the saints into audience Christianity—and it has nothing to do with the Bible.

In 1 Corinthians 14:26-33 Paul writes, “How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets (teachers of truth) speak, and let the others (other teachers) judge. But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first (teacher) keep silent. For you can all prophesy (teach truth) one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. And the spirits of the prophets (teachers) are subject to the prophets (other teachers). For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.”

This is the order, structure, and blueprint that Jesus Christ calls us to observe when His church comes together. Now, you might be thinking, “Didn’t Paul write 1 Corinthians and not Jesus?” That’s correct. But just four verses later (vs. 37), Paul pens a sentence that should cause each of us careful consideration.

He writes, “If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.”

Now, you can argue with this passage if you’d like, it looks as if the Apostle even expected resistance by people who thought they were a “prophet” or “spiritual.” Nonetheless, our feelings do not change the fact that these directives are God’s commandments for how the church should gather.

For me, the heart of this passage is quite beautiful—Paul is instituting a format that is foreign to almost every church in America—an unpredictable, dialogue-centric, Holy Spirit led, and communally-governed gathering. From the prophets (those individuals with the gift of forth-telling truth inspired by the Holy Spirit and whose teachings align with the doctrines of the Old Testament, the teachings of Jesus, and the writings of His Apostles) to the those who simply come with a psalm to sing or personal revelation to share.

If you’re a quick thinker, you’re probably recognizing the difficulty to carry out this every-member-functioning arrangement inside a church building with hundreds of people. Herein lies the problem. In almost all instances, the modern church has unquestionably erased this doctrine and practice from its operations. While there are no scriptures which speak directly to church size, there are many biblical doctrines aimed at the church (like this one) which become impossible to fulfill within the current headcount of a large gathering. As a church-going Christian, this should pose a question: Are you looking for a consumer experience filled with passive spectating similar to a conference or are you looking for a contributor experience where you can bring your spiritual gifts to the meeting, be known by your community, and find your purpose among God’s people?

4. Active and Accountable Church Discipline:

For a moment, I want you to imagine if we took all the unrepentant fornicators, adulterers, drunkards, addicts, sexually immoral, and liars that are in the church today and placed them on an island. Let’s just say that it equaled 10 million people. In five years, what do you believe the culture of that island would become? Would it become more righteous or more carnal?

Now let’s imagine for a moment that we, as the Church of Jesus Christ, allowed the population of that island to be imported back into 100,000 Christian churches (1,000 people added to each church). What do we expect will happen to those 100,000 churches? Will the church’s native population be able to correct the behavior of the newly joined members? Will the church, regardless of the presence of these new congregants, not be changed and continue as is?

The Apostle Paul says certainly not. In speaking to immorality in the church and the exercising of church discipline, 1 Corinthians 5:6 says, “Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?” In other words, Paul is telling Christians that a little bit of tolerated immorality in a church will eventually destroy the entire body and also tarnish the name of Christ.

The church who does not practice church discipline but tolerates the presence of known habitual and unrepentant sinners is a sinful church.

But this isn’t Paul’s idea, Jesus himself calls for church discipline in Matthew 18:15-17, “Moreover if your brother sins against you, 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, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.”

Paul continues in 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 with, “I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”‘

Anyone named a Christian who’s walking in habitual sin, whether that is viewing pornography or choosing to get drunk each weekend, or is living with their boyfriend or girlfriend should cause us to mourn. We are to be so troubled with the existence of unchanging wickedness in our church body, that we will obediently but not enjoyably carry out the removal of it.

This once again, is a church doctrine which becomes challenging to fulfill when within a large gathering filled with strangers. As a result, many of our churches are wallowing in their sin. Pure and righteous sheep are standing side-by-side with sin-loving goats unwilling to make Jesus Lord and walk in the freedom they have to be obedient to God’s Word.

Ultimately, we have many brilliant, creative, exciting, and unbiblical churches. A church absent of the raw Gospel, led by unqualified leaders, silenced by an audience format, and intoxicated with immoral members. We have taken far too much liberty in the innovation and addition of ideas that we have sped past the formational framework that upholds the heart and health of a local church.

However, let us tread carefully. We cannot forget that when Jesus was confronted by His Apostles and their frustration with outsiders who were casting out demons (Mark 9:38-40), Jesus’s response was, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side.”

While many churches might have an incorrect doctrine or be walking in unknown immaturities, we mustn’t forget that they are on our side. As mature believers, we must not elevate our doctrine above the brother or sister before us. In John 17, Jesus’s prayer is that his Christians might be one as He and the Father are one. Church correction and personal spiritual course correction are sensitive matters. We are not perfect in our execution of God’s Word and we must be wary to expect others to be.

In closing, the most fruitful and life-giving expression of local church is a biblical expression. For us, the home has proved to be the best environment to support these biblical truths. But wherever you gather, your heart should be homesick for a place and a community of people who are crying out for God’s truth. There are many places to look for ways that we could do church but there is only one place to look for ways that we should do church—and that is the unchanging, immutable, and all-powerful Word of God.

Relearn Church - Dale Partridge is the Founder and Editor in Chief at Relearn Church. He is also a Wall Street Journal bestselling author, Christian apologist, house church planter, and is currently earning his Masters of Divinity at Western Seminary. He and his wife have three children.

Why the Azusa Street Revival Ended

In September of 2009, I had the privilege to travel to Los Angeles, California, and visit some of the original sites where the historic Azusa Street Revival transpired. As I shared some of my personal experiences online through Facebook and other forms of social media, one of my friends asked me to reflect on why the Azusa Street Revival ended.
 

The question of why religious revivals end is one that comes up often and usually elicits a number of different responses from people. Obviously the gradual breakdown of something that God has been in the middle of can be a mystery. So as I share my reflections, I cannot claim to have complete insight into these things.

In the case of the waning of the Azusa Street Revival, there was a number of things that hindered it. I would like share a few of them below.

Losing the Mailing List

One of the biggest setbacks of the Azusa Street Revival came with the sudden loss of their extensive mailing list in 1909. After some disagreement, Florence Crawford, the strong-willed secretary of the Apostolic Faith Mission abruptly left town with the extensive roster of subscribers. Without this, the mission's newspaper could no longer be circulated. As a direct result, the vast crowds stopped coming to the services. With absolutely no media to broadcast the testimonies or provide information about the ongoing meetings, many were convinced that the revival had ended. Without new visitors, the subsequent meetings began to lose much of the impact and urgency that they once had. With fewer people to pray for, many of the other problems that had been lying under the surface finally began to emerge. Soon conflict and disagreement became more pronounced in the once tranquil congregation. Sadly, nothing would ever be the same again at the Apostolic Faith Mission.

Cantankerous, Independent People

In time, many ridiculous conflicts arose at the Mission. Several of the participants began to have disagreements over various things. For example, since neckties were little more than frivolous adornment, should they be worn by sanctified men? This debate invited even more arguments. Members also fought over whether constructing a storm shelter at the Mission demonstrated a lack of faith or not. Of course, one of the more absurd conflicts was over William Seymour's marriage to Jennie Evans Moore in 1908 (This is something that may have contributed to Florence Crawford and Clara Lum leaving the Mission the following year). As foolish as this this conflict was, it shouldn't be that surprising. Early Pentecostal and Holiness people were very cantankerous and independent. It was often hard for them to agree with others for any length of time. Many would break rank over the smallest  differences of opinion. There is little doubt that rambunctious, obstinate people were bulk of the membership of the Apostolic Faith Mission on 312 Azusa Street in Los Angeles, California. This contributed even further to the waning of the revival.

Competing Churches

There was something else that may have contributed to the breakdown of the revival. Some of the leaders who attended the services were convinced that they could do a much better job of perpetuating the revival than William Seymour and his team. By the second and third year of the revival, several competing missions popped up around Los Angeles; attempting to take the attention away from the Apostolic Faith Mission. Interestingly, one of which was a congregation launched by the infamous Charles F. Parham, the Pentecostal leader who had first influenced Seymour with the Pentecostal message in Houston, Texas. When Parham visited the meetings, he didn't like what he saw and began to voice his opposition. It wasn't long before he attempted to start a competing work nearby. Many of preachers would visit the revival services for a week or two and then launch out in their own work. A few succeeded in their efforts, but, like Parham, most failed. These ongoing expressions of opposition and conflict confused the people and made it difficult for the work to continue.

Doctrinal Wars

To make matters worse, a tense theological war over the appropriation and experience of sanctification erupted on Azusa Street in 1911. Coming from a Wesleyan-Holiness background, Pastor William Seymour and his associates believed that sanctification, or a "moral cleansing," was a second, instantaneous work of grace. This was the standard view of all holiness leaders at this time. Yet others arose, William Durham to be specific, who taught that sanctification was more of a gradual process. While Seymour was away, Durham preached his understanding of the "finished work of Christ" at the Apostolic Faith Mission. When Seymour returned, he was aghast and felt compelled to lock Durham out of the church. This argument created a great schism among the ranks of the congregation that only intensified when Durham proceeded to start a new church nearby. A significant number of Seymour's congregation joined Durham and a gaping hole was felt in the already troubled congregation. This was truly a terrible wound that it really never recovered from.

So, What Was It?

So, what is it that truly caused the gradual waning of the Azusa Street Revival? Well, as I have already shared, there was likely a number of different things that contributed to its breakdown.

We have seen how the mailing list was stolen and how this impeded the revival's promotion. Also, there was the terrible problems of disharmony and schism. Of course, the intense theological battles contributed to opposing factions and a general loss of trust among leaders. These attitudes and expressions all contributed to this great revival's cessation.

I guess things first began to wane in the fall of 1909. Just a couple of years later, the revival at the Apostolic Faith Mission was pretty much gone. While there is no denying that the flames of revival quickly spread around the world, impacting untold thousands, it had certainly ended in Los Angeles by 1912.

While it is difficult to perfectly pin down the cause of the Azusa Street Revival's waning, I believe we can make some valid observations that apply to us today. Modern-day revivalists need to work to avoid schisms and intense personal conflict. However difficult it might be, we should learn to major on the majors and minor on the minors. If we could only figure out how to stay together in spite of our differences, our ministerial impact will be intensified.

Yet, as I finish this historic exploration, I think there is one important lesson that the revival at Azusa Street provides for us. I believe that it helps us to understand that revivals seldom end because of the trouble without. No, revivals end because of the trouble within.

J.D. King is the director of the World Revival Network and associate pastor of World Revival Church.

Megachurch Pastor Kong Hee Pleads for 8 Year Prison Sentence to Be Overturned as Court Case Resumes

Singapore's City Harvest Church founder and Senior Pastor Kong Hee is back in court, pleading for his eight-year prison sentence for misappropriating $35 million of church funds to be overturned.



Kong's lawyer, Edwin Tong, argued on Thursday that the pastor should see all three of the criminal convictions against him overturned, Channel News Asia reported.

Tong said that the CHC founder put money forward to support the church's mission, which was supported by virtually the entire congregation, and that the church had not suffered any actual financial loss.

Although Kong is accused of being part of a scheme that funneled $35 million to the pop star career of his wife, fellow CHC pastor Sun Ho, the lawyer noted that the singer was synonymous with the Crossover Project, the church's ministry through music effort.

"It is beyond question that the accused believed wholeheartedly that they were using church funds for an approved church purpose," Tong explained.

Judge See Kee Oon said last year that Kong and five other CHC members had a major role to play in channeling millions of dollars that were set to be used for investments and building-related projects into sham bonds, used for Ho's career.

All six of the convicted church members have appealed their guilty verdicts and sentences, pleading innocence.

The prosecution has insisted that Kong and the others were well aware that they were misusing the church's money, however, and said that the sentences are "manifestly inadequate," calling on Kong to face a jail term of 11 to 12 years instead.

Tong said on Thursday that it is wrong to believe that Kong acted dishonestly and was only concerned with funding his wife's music career, however, and gave evidence that Kong had consistently consulted auditors and lawyers on two bond investments.

"Every cent was used entirely for the church's mission," the lawyer said. "Even if (the church's funds — meant for investments or building-related expenses) were put to 'wrongful use,' they were 'applied in good faith," he added.

Kong has said in his own words that he was not the mastermind behind the misuse of money, and said that the sentencing against him was "erroneous."

"My lawyers will also address the prosecution's appeal at the appropriate time. I sincerely need your prayers during this process for a favorable outcome. The road ahead is long and arduous, but God's grace is sufficient for me," he told supporters last year.

Ho has stood by her husband in the long standing court case, though she has not herself been accused of wrongdoing.

The Straits Times reported that the trial will resume on Friday, with former CHC fund manager Chew Eng Han and former finance manager Sharon Tan expected to present their own appeals.

The prosecution, on the other hand, is scheduled to present its case on Sept. 20.

12 Teachings That Harm the Church by JOSEPH MATTERA

I have heard it said that "balance is the key to life." I agree with that statement, as I have found that any truth taken to the extreme (that ignores others aspects related to its subject) is unbalanced and can be harmful.

This is also why Paul the apostle said that he teaches "the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27), which involves a full-orbed presentation of truth.

The following are some of the "hyper" teachings that have been harmful to the body of Christ, in my opinion:

1. Hyper-Grace – Grace is typically defined as unmerited favor given to humans by God. This is a satisfactory definition albeit not comprehensive. Since Scripture teaches us that we are saved by grace and not by works (Eph. 2:8-9), those in the hyper-grace camp believe and teach that once a person is saved, they can live any way they want and still achieve the benefits of salvation. They need a full dose of the book of James to counter-balance their hyper-grace!

2. Hyper-Holiness – Those in this camp put an overemphasis on outward holiness to the point in which they believe a person has to dress a certain way in order to have right standing with God (for example: Women should not cut their hair, wear pants, makeup or jewelry). Their emphasis on outward conformity to strict standards makes them more like Pharisees than Christians. They need to meditate on Matthew 23 to understand God's view that inward holiness is a greater priority than outward holiness.

3. Hyper-Calvinist – This camp emphasizes God's sovereignty to the point that it bypasses what Scripture teaches regarding human responsibility. For example, during Charles Finney's ministry, he had to constantly debate hyper-Calvinists who taught that it was wrong for preachers to induce sinners to repent, make decisions for Christ or do anything that aided in the process of salvation. Of course, the majority of Calvinists have not taken this approach as we study the ministries of former heroes of the faith such as George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon and other Calvinists God used mightily to bring thousands of sinners to Christ by commanding repentance and obedience to the gospel.

4. Hyper-Arminianism – Those in this camp overemphasize human responsibility to the point that they nullify God's sovereignty. Extreme Arminianism such as "open theism" even goes as far as teaching that God doesn't know everything in the future and that God makes His decisions after He sees how humans respond to Him. They have reduced predestination (Eph. 1:4; Rom. 8:29-30) to "post-destination" and have created a god that responds to time and space rather than the One who controls it.

The difference between predestination and human responsibility is a scriptural paradox that will never be fully understood this side of heaven. I always say that Scriptures that emphasize predestination are taken from God's transcendent view of human reality (from heaven's perspective), and Scriptures that emphasize human responsibility are from an immanent view of human reality (from the earth's perspective).

5. Hyper-Love – Those in this camp emphasize the love of God to the exclusion of the holiness and righteousness of God. (Psalm 89:14 says "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne.") Whenever we focus on one attribute of God to the exclusion of the other attributes of God, we become unbalanced and present a wrong view of God's character and nature. Those in this camp say that God is love (1 John 4:7) and ignore the Scriptures that deal with God's wrath, along with the laws of sowing and reaping due to sin (Eph. 5:1-6; Gal. 6:7-8).

Even the apostle John, who wrote "God is love," also said in the same epistle that those who practice sin are of the devil and are lawless because sin is lawlessness (1 John 4:1-10).

Love Wins author Rob Bell went so far as to teach that all men would eventually be saved because of God's love. Read Revelation 20:11-15 to balance that view.

6. Hyper-Faith – Those in this camp primarily preach on faith for healing and deliverance, and set believers up to think there will always be victory with very little suffering or pain if they exert faith in God. This neglects the fact that Jesus not only healed the sick but also spoke about the need for His followers to walk in humility and meekness, to take up their cross and lose their lives in order to find it (Matt. 5:1-10 and Mark 8:34-35).

7. Hyper-Prosperity – Similar to the faith camp, this circle of preachers primarily emphasize Scriptures that deal with personal blessing and financial prosperity. Although there is some truth in their teachings, this overemphasis produces believers who seek the blessing more than the Blesser! It can also produce false expectations of people who sow their money into a ministry expecting a hundredfold return, which rarely, if ever, happens on a purely financial level. I believe in biblical prosperity but not in a "rights-centered" gospel that ignores our biblical stewardship to produce wealth primarily to confirm His covenant in the earth (Deut. 8:18).

8. Hyper-High Church – Those in this camp emphasize institutional church traditions and protocols that produce a professional class of clergy who have to walk around all day in clerical garb. They insist that the church be set up as a hierarchical organization replete with titles and even a throne for the head bishop! Those in this camp are losing most of their young people and have to reread the New Testament to understand the way of Jesus and the apostles. Somehow I cannot picture Jesus, the original apostles or Paul wearing clerical robes and collars every Sunday and focusing on hierarchical titles and titular elevations.

To counterbalance this approach, Philippians 2:1-12 comes to mind as well as Matthew 23, which is a judgment against the religious system set up by those who claim to follow God.

9. Hyper-Kingdom – Those in this camp preach as though the fullness of the kingdom has already come and that there are no more biblical prophecies left to be fulfilled. (Some call them "full preterists.") Many don't even believe things could get worse on the earth and don't believe in the second bodily return of Christ. Scripture teaches a paradoxical view that the kingdom is already here (Col. 1:12-13) but not yet fully manifest (Rom. 16:20).

10. Hyper-Dispensational – Those in this camp believe they have to passively wait for the rapture and avoid political and social reform, because trying to transform culture is like "rearranging the chairs on the Titanic." This is based on a faulty reading of Scriptures such as Daniel 9:24-27.

Although I do not believe every nation and all people will be saved before the second bodily return of Christ, I do believe there will be some sort of strong kingdom influence in the nations (especially "sheep nations"; read Matt. 25:32) before the Second Coming. All of the major biblical covenants and themes point to a victorious church and victorious gospel before the end of human history (Gen. 1:28, 12:1-3, 22:17-18; Ps. 110:2; Acts 3:21).

11. Hyper-Charismatic – Those in this camp focus more on the gifts of the Spirit than on the Word of God, character development and inward holiness. They elevate their spiritual experiences above the truth of Scripture.

12. Hyper-Rational – Those in this camp are afraid of any spiritual (subjective) experiences or manifestations. They depend on their mind to the neglect of their spirit. They believe God only speaks through His written Word. They rationalize their faith and have little or no real prayer life or substantive fellowship with God. They split hairs over biblical doctrines and in some ways worship the Bible more than the God of the Bible. (Jesus said it is possible to study the Scriptures without coming to God—read John 5:39-40).

In conclusion, whenever we focus on a truth to the exclusion of other aspects of truth, we end up in error.

May God help us to understand and preach the whole counsel of God so that we can feed the flock of God and equip them to fulfill their divine purpose!

Joseph Mattera is an internationally known author, futurist, interpreter of culture and activist/theologian whose mission is to influence leaders who influence nations. He leads several organizations, including The United States Coalition of Apostolic Leaders (uscal.us). He also has a blog on Charisma magazine called "The Pulse." To order one of his books or to subscribe to his weekly newsletter go to josephmattera.org.

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

The Sign of a True Apostle (It’s Not What You Think)

A few years ago I heard a preacher tell a room full of ministers that they couldn’t work miracles or exercise apostolic authority unless they used the word apostle as a title. So some of them ran out and printed new business cards—as if putting the word in front of their names was the magic ticket to reclaiming New Testament power.

That was a bad idea. For the past 15 years or more, thousands of people have been wounded and countless churches have nosedived because immature leaders thought they could gain apostolic status the easy way. We are so eager to qualify ourselves that we forget God alone calls, prepares and sends true apostles.

The late Arthur Katz, who was a prophetic voice to our movement for many years, wrote in his 1999 book Apostolic Foundations that nobody should be eager to step into an apostolic assignment or to treat such a task flippantly. “God is jealous over the word apostolic,” Katz wrote. “It is a word that has fallen into disuse and needs to be restored, and that restoration is not going to be cheap.”

We are so carnal, so power hungry and so enamored with status and position that we don’t have a clue what apostolic ministry really is. Most charismatics think it is about authority, and many men who claim to be apostles build top-down pyramid structures that abuse people. Others think apostolic leaders are marked primarily by sensational miracles. Yet I see something we have entirely missed when I look at the life of the apostle Paul.

Paul told the Thessalonians that love is the true hallmark of any person who is sent on an apostolic mission. Therefore, if we want apostolic power or authority (which we should), it must flow through apostolic love or it is a counterfeit. This apostolic love can be described in four ways:

1. It is incarnational. Paul brought the gospel to the Thessalonians and lived among them. He did not just drop in, preach a good sermon and leave. He said, “We were well-pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God but also our own lives” (1 Thess. 2:8, NASB, emphasis added). Just as Jesus came to this earth, lived among us and died for us, true apostles give it all. If all an “apostle” does is preach a good message, he is a poor substitute for the real thing. (And if he also spends more time taking up offerings for himself, he is a hireling or a con artist.)

2. It is sacrificial. Paul risked his neck in Thessalonica, and then he told his followers that he would “suffer affliction” from his persecutors (1 Thess. 3:4). But he loved them so much that he prayed for them continually, and he longed to visit them again even though he knew it would be risky. He never mentions money. In fact, when he was with the Thessalonian church, he worked night and day “so as not to be a burden to any of [them]” (1 Thess. 2:9). That flies in the face of modern apostles who charge $1,000 an hour for their consulting fees.

3. It is relational. The word brethren appears in 1 Thessalonians 17 times. That’s because Paul viewed the church as the family of God. He saw himself in the role of a gentle, nursing mother (1 Thess. 2:7) as well as a strong father (v. 11). Paul’s affection is so thick and so slobbery that it drips off the page of his letter. He says the members of the church “have become very dear” to them (v. 8) and that they “also long to see [them]” (3:6). It’s no surprise that he ends the epistle by exhorting the people to greet one another with "a holy kiss” (5:26).

What has happened to this kind of holy affection in today’s church? Why are we so disconnected? We have replaced deep relationships with cold professionalism. Many pastors have not been properly fathered, so they don’t know how to love—nor do they have close friends. So we cover our dysfunction with busyness. We work, work, work—while sterile, loveless congregations struggle to grow. We use gimmicks and programs to get people in seats because our love is not warm enough to attract people to Jesus.

4. It is confrontational. Paul was not seeker-sensitive. He did not hesitate to confront sin. He gave the Thessalonians one of the most frank, forthright sermons on sexual sin ever written (1 Thess. 4:1-8). But he confronted them as a loving father by emploring them to stay within their God-given boundaries. He didn’t use anger, manipulation, domination or threats. He led with strong, apostolic love.

I believe God wants to pour out a new wave of apostolic power on our generation. But we can’t be trusted with this anointing if we refuse to grow up. We will have the maturity to use the word apostolic when we learn to walk in the love that was modeled by the first apostles.

J. Lee Grady is the former editor of Charisma and the director of the Mordecai Project (themordecaiproject.org). You can follow him on Twitter at @leegrady. He is the author of The Holy Spirit Is Not for Sale and other books.

The Great Ecclesiastical Conspiracy

by George Davis, Michael Clark, & Kirk Pearson

Introduction

This book was written as an expose' of an 1800 year old conspiracy. It is intended to define the conspiracy, leaving you to judge for yourself. Consider it a primer, covering only the basic elements of the subject. It is not intended to be exhaustive, since the total truth of this matter could not be told in such brevity. It is written with the utmost confidence that its readers will be its perfecters. It is the result of a million prayers, asking, "Why? Why Lord, is the Church before me so unlike the one I read about in the Bible? Why O God is there so much failure and defeat in what is supposed to be the representation of you in the earth?" This book may present more questions than answers, but questions are not to be feared.  God is not like the haggard parent who resents the seemingly unending barrage of questions proceeding from the inquisitive child. God is eager and attentive to them all.

While not written for everyone, this book is dedicated to those analytical ones who have dared to ask the forbidden question, "What is wrong with the church?" It is dedicated to all those who are willing to pay the price to see Christ's Ekklesia restored. The reformation is not over. In fact it is just begun, and this book is dedicated to all reformers everywhere. It is dedicated, as we are, to the restoration of all things. It is written to those who willingly suffer the loss of all things for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ. It is written in the deepest respect and honor for those of whom the world is not worthy, who laid down their very lives to expose this conspiracy. What qualifies us to write such a work? Nothing, except perhaps an indescribable burden, a passion that can only be characterized by the heart of a Father yearning to see His children set free from their oppressors, and a desire for the final deliverance of His family from the conspirators’ hands.

George Davis and Michael Clark

Continue reading The Great Ecclesiastical Conspiracy

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.)