THE RIVER OF LIFE

by David Wilkerson

The prophet Ezekiel was given an incredible vision. Scripture says the hand of God carried him to a very high mountain, where a man appeared to him “whose appearance was like the appearance of brass” (Ezekiel 40:3)

Of course, the man was none other than Christ himself. He ushered Ezekiel to the door of God’s house where he gave the prophet the amazing vision of the future of God’s people. It revealed what the body of Christ will become as the end-times draw to a close. “He brought me again unto the door of the
house [the temple]; and, behold, waters issued out from under the threshold of the house eastward…” (Ezekiel 47:1).

Images of water in the Bible almost always represent the Spirit of God. This vision clearly reveals a mighty outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the last days. The vision was so overwhelming in scope, Ezekiel couldn’t comprehend it. He couldn’t even comment on its meaning; all he could do was report it. In fact, before the vision was finished, the Lord stopped and asked Ezekiel, “Hast thou seen this?” God was asking, “Do you grasp the magnitude of what you’re seeing? Do you see what these rising waters speak of? I know this revelation is awesome and mind-boggling to you, but I don’t want you to miss the true meaning. The waters indicate the way all things will end.”

The prophet Isaiah had a glimpse of the same river that appeared in Ezekiel’s vision. Yet Isaiah saw even more. According to Isaiah, in the last days God’s people will enjoy great protection against all satanic attack: “No galley with oars, neither shall gallant ship pass thereby” (Isaiah 33:21).

Isaiah is speaking here of slave-driven warships. He’s giving us a picture of the enemy, the devil, as he tries to launch an attack on all who swim in the river. And it’s a picture of total confusion.

God is making it clear to us in these passages that his living waters are off- limits to Satan. As the psalmist testifies, “Let them be confounded and put to shame that seek after my soul; let them be turned back and brought to confusion that devise my hurt…let the angel of the Lord chase them…let the angel of the Lord persecute them” (Psalm 35:4-6).

Movement of the Moderates

Source: NECF by Rev Eu Hong Seng

MALAYSIA continues to face some of her darkest moments as a nation. Over the past months, the lack of political will to mitigate racial and religious intolerance has naturally given rise to ideologues, extremists, and radicals. All these are no different in essence from the keris-wavers and cow-head trampling demonstrators we saw a few years ago.

How one can rant and rave and threaten bloodshed and yet walk the streets a free man, whilst those who merely wear yellow T-shirts can be arrested, is most incomprehensible and unfortunate.

Last week's Bersih2.0 rally is a culmination of frustrations of the nation's citizenry, and I suspect this marks the beginning of a movement of the moderates.

There is some truth in the government's reasoning that rallying "is not our culture." But when tens of thousands of ordinary peace-loving people persist to take to the streets, besides the many thousands more who could not go due to the blockades and gridlock in the capital city, then it is incumbent on all of us to do some soul-searching.

The arguments for the legitimacy or otherwise of the Bersih2.0 rally reminds me of the famous "Lady Justice". This iconic figure wears a blindfold over her eyes while lifting a sword in one hand and carrying a pair of scales on the other. Symbolically, she represents fair and equal administration of the law - without prejudice, avarice, corruption, fear or favor.

If our leaders had likewise worn a blindfold ¹ and were asked to objectively judge the calls of concerned citizens and assess their conduct at the rally, their response would not have been so immature.

In many parts of the world, any group or government espousing to "clean the electoral roll," "stop corruption," "use indelible ink" - would have been praised as being proactive, decent, fair-minded, honest, rational. Strangely in Malaysia, when some people ask for these very same practices, they are "demonized", simply because they are "not government". What we witnessed on 9 July 2011 was the epitome of crude partisan politics.

Personally, I think the demands of Bersih2.0 - for electoral reforms and the right to have a peaceful march - were not only reasonable, but impartial as well. Bersih2.0 was not pro-opposition but pro-democracy.

The people of Malaysia are maturing in democracy and we can no longer tolerate unfair practices, corruption, vote-buying and otherwise. Being "blindfolded" like Lady Justice also means we are color blind, i.e. it does not matter if you wear red T-shirts or have green banners, nor does it matter if you are yellow, black or brown-skinned.

A right is a right. A wrong is a wrong regardless of whether it is committed by the government or the opposition or whomsoever.

I know the Church in this nation to be a peace-loving people. But more importantly, we are a people of the Book and our Book teaches us principles and values, rights and wrongs.

We remember Christ's mandate to love our neighbors as ourselves and not conduct ourselves in an un-Christian manner. At all times, we want to be conciliatory and be agents of peace to ensure harmony.

We must resist the temptation to say and do things that are escalatory and antagonistic. When highly confrontational tactics begin to replace more co-operative approaches, conflicts escalate and more extreme personalities maneuver to become leaders of the conflict groups.

And when this polarization degenerates till so much that is said and done makes no sense, we then need to remind ourselves that Lady Justice, though blindfolded, is "not gagged." This is where the silent majority and the Church must speak up. Scriptures mandate us to open our mouth.²

Moderates must speak up to check the damage intended by hard-liners and ensure that democracy is not hijacked.

We do not subscribe to "political subversion" but the Church has the responsibility to stand up against the fanatics and hypocrites bent on corrupting the moral fiber of our people and destroying our democratic nation.

There is nobody to save Malaysia except Malaysians. It is time for the moderates to speak up, be heard and play their role in this nation.

Rev Eu Hong Seng
NECF Malaysia, Chairman


This article is written to guide members of NECF in their prayers and in their journey as responsible non-partisan Christian citizens.

---

¹ Remember, the blindfold on Lady Justice represents objectivity, not blindness i.e. she is blindfolded, not blind. Image from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HK_Central_Statue_Square_Legislative_Council_Building_n_Themis_s.jpg

² Proverbs 31:8 - Open your mouth for the speechless, .... 9 Open your mouth, judge righteously, And plead the cause of the poor and needy. NKJV

Bersih rally: People on the street speak

By goodtimes.my 

Still talking ... The July 9 Bersih rally is still a hot conversation topic. EPA photo The government, opposition parties, Bersih and its supporters, and independent special-interest groups have all said their piece – and are continuing to do so – about the Bersih rally held last Saturday, July 9. But what do ordinary people on the street have to say? GoodTimes.my conducted a simple street poll in four specific areas in Kuala Lumpur and Petaling Jaya to get a feel of what people are thinking and talking about on this issue. The team split and approached whoever would speak to them in PJ State, Sunway Pyramid, Giant Mall in Kelana Jaya and the SOGO area. We asked three questions and the responses of the people are below. PJ STATE 1. Should Bersih have been allowed to hold its rally without hindrance? Wan Azli ... Bersih rally is the Opposition’s activity. “It should be allowed but it should be held at a venue, maybe Stadium Shah Alam. Not Stadium Merdeka because that is an icon. For me, I see Bersih as an Opposition’s activity.” - Wan Azli Wan Abdul Ghani, 33, customer service officer “I was there. They should have given the people the stadium or better still, the whole KL. This is a novel cause for clean and fair elections.” - Sam Tee, 56, retiree “Yes, definitely. We call ourselves a country that gives freedom of speech. It was supposed to be a peaceful rally; people should have been allowed to gather in a peaceful manner.” - Vidya Madhavan, 29, senior copy editor “Yes, because we are a democratic country. The rally was very peaceful at first but the government made it worse.” - Bavani, 32, assistant manager “The government should let them hold the rally because they (the rally organisers) are right. It seems the government do not listen to them and the Elections Commission only listens to one side, not the rakyat.” - Diana Marof, 45, homemaker 2. Should Bersih have been declared illegal? “They should have registered themselves. Malaysia is a democratic country. If you are legal and the police stop you, then you can sue them. But now it is difficult for them to apply for registration because they have done something illegal and affected businesses. A lot of my colleagues at the call centre could not go to work because of that. We had only about 10 workers at work instead of over 100 and the next day, customers called and scolded us with the ‘F’ word.” - Wan Azli Wan Abdul Ghani “It should not have been declared illegal. (Bersih chairperson) Ambiga (Sreenevasan) said it’s a coalition of 62 (registered) NGOs.” - Sam Tee Vidya ... the government should not be so defensive. “They should never have been declared illegal. They just want the government to hear them out, that’s the least the government can do. They were not there to create a ruckus.” - Vidya Madhavan “No, because they were not saying anything against the government. My question is, 'Why are they illegal?' ” - Bavani “No, because the government should listen to the rakyat’s views also. I am not pro-government nor pro-opposition.” - Diana Marof 3. Do you have suggestions on a better way of handling such rallies? “I could see on the TV and Youtube that police handled the rally professionally. If it were under Hosni Mubarak, the police would have shot them already. The police had the right to arrest people in an illegal assembly like this but they didn’t. Our police already did what was best.” - Wan Azli Wan Abdul Ghani “Give people the right. No shop was burned, no car was smashed. The police were the only aggressive ones, though there was no body contact. I saw the (rally) marshals with red armband cleaning up the street. The police must have been disappointed there were no violence and no rubbish lying around. Even God “bersihkan” (cleaned) the chemicals on us by sending the rain.” - Sam Tee “Give them permission and a location to hold the rally. Tell them to stick to the venue and don’t go out. Keep it contained. And the government should not be so defensive; it really shows they are insecure. The government should give them a chance to speak and be there to listen to them.” - Vidya Madhavan “Just give them (rally organiser) the permission to do it.” - Bavani Diana ... government didn't handle the matter properly. “The government and opposition parties should co-operate and not listen to one side of the story only. Then hear the rakyat’s views. The way the government handled the matter is not right – they say they can use the stadium but refuse to give the permit. They say have it outside KL, but what’s the point? The rakyat already gave assurance that it will be a peaceful gathering. The police said they found weapons and Molotov cocktails but I don’t think it’s the work of Pakatan Rakyat. From what I read in the newspapers and on the Internet, it looks like the government is trying to do whatever they can to make themselves look positive.” - Diana Marof SUNWAY PYRAMID 1. Should Bersih have been allowed to hold its rally without hindrance? “The government should not have interfered at all because it only worsened the situation. In fact, at least four of the eight lists in the (Bersih) memorandum should have been implemented instead of ignored.” – Ulil Aidi bin Mohd Raimi, 24, property sales consultant “The Bersih demonstration should be prohibited because it disrupted public order as well as our businesses. Protest rallies and demonstrations might be a good idea in bringing up justice in this country but to me, this (Bersih) rally was not the way.” Pak Hassan, 46, taxi driver       Nazarul … the rally has tarnished the image of our country. “I think the Bersih rally should have stopped because we live in a peaceful country. Bersih has affected our business, and given us a lot of hassle, especially the roadblocks.” Nazarul Asrie bin Mohd Ashyraf, 21, telemarketing executive “If we really are a democratic country, Bersih should have been allowed to hold its rally without interference. It will be letting truth and justice prevail in this country.” – Junos M.K, 29, teacher “The Bersih rally should have been allowed because it had a good intention – to call for free and fair election for all parties as well as free access to all media.” – Chandrabass, 34, senior executive 2. Should Bersih have been declared illegal? “Absolutely not because according to our country constitution, we as the rakyat (citizen) have a right to assemble. This is a democratic country and thus, they (government) should have given us a chance to march peacefully.” – Ulil Aidi bin Mohd Raimi “It should be labelled as legal as long as public properties were free from vandalism and there was no disruption of peace, comfort and safety to the public.” - Pak Hassan   “Yes, because the Bersih rally has tarnished the image of our country.” - Nazarul Asrie bin Mohd Ashyraf “It depends. It’s illegal because the rally was against the ruling. However, obviously the authority has abused that power to control the citizens. Thus, it makes no difference whether it‘s legal or not. When people get educated, the question of illegal does not matter anymore. Their demand is merely to have a free, fair and clean election and that was why someone has to champion that cause.” – Junos M.K Chandrabass ... everyone has a right to get his voice heard. “No it shouldn’t. Bersih was formed with good intentions and the government should have legalised it instead. This is a democratic country and I believe everyone has a right to get his voice heard.” – Chandrabass 3. Do you have suggestions on a better way of handling such rallies? “The Bersih committee members should have just given the memorandum to the King without going through the peaceful rally which eventually led to the chaotic situation. Compromising between government and opposition is the best solution to prevent the Bersih demonstration.” – Ulil Aidi bin Mohd Raimi “Don’t demonstrate. Just live peacefully.” – Pak Hassan “I think they (the Bersih committee members) should have just taken up the offer by Selangor MB (Khalid Ibrahim) to use of Shah Alam Stadium.” – Nazarul Asrie bin Mohd Ashyraf “Frankly speaking, there is no proper and best way to handle Bersih. We cannot control how people respond to justice because when people get treated unfairly, they will surely react – you (the government) cannot shut people forever. There was a proper method to handle it initially but what happened in Bersih was beyond that ideal way and it had certainly passed the point of diplomacy in solving the problem.” – Junos M.K “The government should have allowed Bersih to hold its rally in the stadium without any interference from the police. But look what happened instead? When they blocked us from gathering at Stadium Merdeka, we were left with no choice but to go to the streets instead.” – Chandrabass GIANT MALL, KELANA JAYA 1. Should Bersih have been allowed to hold its rally without any hindrance? “Yes because they did it for justice and it was just a democratic process. The people just wanted to have their rights upheld.” - Vincent, 32, businessman “Yes. We are a democratic country, not communists, so I don’t understand why the government made such a big deal of it. All Bersih was asking for is clean and fair elections.” - Pei Yin, 27, NGO worker “Yes, absolutely because it is about the freedom of speech. We’re now in the 21st century, so excuses like ‘it’s not part of the Malaysian culture’ are no longer valid. We are changing and becoming more global.” - Jasmine, 43, customer service manager Hidayat ... we pay taxes. We pay the government's salaries. “Yes. It was just a call for improvement within the (electoral) system. The people just wanted to be heard. Another reason is that we pay taxes – we pay the government’s salaries. Therefore it is our right to voice our opinions.” - Hidayat, 28, banker “Of course. They weren’t given any other avenue to voice their opinions.” - Francis Tan, 58, retiree 2. Should Bersih have been declared illegal? “No. I think the reason the government was so against this is that after the 2008 elections, they made a great loss.” - Pei Yin “No. We have the right to express our opinions and should be given a choice on how we want to do so. It wasn’t right for the government to suppress the public’s opinions or to instil fear in people.” - Jasmine “Bersih was declared illegal even before the rally took place. The government was going on a preemptive that it would turn violent and that was not right. In other countries, when the people want to protest, the government give them a space to do so and the police will be there, not to stop them, but to protect the people and control the crowd, and the people would be allowed to protest. It’s their right.” - Zaidi, 28, bankder “No. The people who attended the rally brought mineral water bottles and towels for their own use. It wasn’t as if they brought bazookas or parangs – so what’s the harm? They say it would harm the businesses in that area, when in fact, the businesses made more profit than usual during the rally!” - Hidayat Zafran … it is our basic human right to voice our opinion. “No. It is our basic human right to be able to voice our opinions. It confused the people too, one minute they (the government) say it’s ok, the next they say no.” - Zafran, 25, off-shore engineer 3. Do you have suggestions on a better way of handling such rallies? “The police didn’t have to be so violent as the rally was a peaceful one.” - Pei Yin “A lot of tension could have been avoided if the government allowed it in the first place.” - Jasmine “The government shouldn’t have played the race card. When people ask me, ‘What race are you?’, I tell them, ‘I’m Malaysian and my ethnicity is Malay’.” - Zaidi “The government should have provided a place and space for people to voice their opinions, and they in turn must be transparent to the queries of the public. I think the government is too proud – they think they hold all the power, but they forget that the power is actually in the hands of the people.” - Hidayat “The government could have provided a place for them, like, in other countries where people are allowed to protest if they want to. That should be the way.” - Zafran SOGO, KUALA LUMPUR 1. Should Bersih have been allowed to hold its rally without hindrance? “No, because it caused such a big chaos.” - Hamidah Zuriat, 60, pensioner “Yes, because we’re a democracy. People cannot voice their problems because they weren’t given a stadium to do so. So, they have to do it somewhere. Why was the PM allowed to walk on the same road (as Bersih participants did) the day after the rally without any hindrance? It’s not fair. There’s no democracy, in a way.” - Jason Choo, 21, sales executive “If Bersih wants to have a rally, they can but let it be in a peaceful way at a place that does not disturb the public. That day I couldn’t collect my wedding dress because the road was closed. It is troublesome for others.” - Azlin, 30, clerk (Note: Azlin got married on the same weekend as the Bersih rally) “The government should allow Bersih to have the rally and get feedback. They should not be afraid of it but monitor the situation. You (the government) can set up restrictions but not like the roadblocks. That’s too much restriction.”- Sakinah Alfath Alias, 22, student Ganesan … they can hold a rally but not in a public area. “I think the government should stop (Bersih) because it affects a lot of things. Security-wise, business-wise. Foreigners coming in are afraid. They (Bersih) can hold a rally, but in a closed-door stadium, not in a public area where people are affected. That is very bad for the country.” - Ganesan Rajamanickam, 57, senior administrative assistant 2. Should Bersih have been declared illegal? “I think they are illegal because they are not a registered body under the Registrar of Societies. They’re only an NGO.” - Ganesan Rajamanickam “No, I don’t think so because Bersih is very harmless. It’s not actually against the government or anything. There are people who have the same political views and they want to see all the supporters in the stadium. But I don’t think that’s harmful.” - Khairina Narawi, 22, student “I don’t think so because the people from the NGOs gathered to make known their propaganda. The government should not be afraid.” - Sakinah Alfath Alias "The Bersih rally may not have been good in some aspects. It had its advantages because it allowed people to speak up. We may not know about all these political issues but in my opinion, you shouldn’t say it’s illegal.” - Azlin “Yes, they should because it’s a nuisance to the country. They are not patriotic.” - Hamidah Zuriat 3. Do you have suggestions on a better way of handling such rallies? “Maybe the government should have a department where people can complain. Of course, then again, things like this always fall on deaf ears. So perhaps the press can put up a hotline or people can just blog about their views.” - Jason Choo Khairina … if the government is good, the rally will not affect the government. “Just let them do whatever they want because if the government is good, the rally will not affect the government.” - Khairina Narawi “My best suggestion would be that if you want to have a rally, do it at a venue that does not disturb the public. Do it at a stadium where you can assemble the people and at the same time have the media present.” - Azlin “Maybe they can talk, bring all the people in and talk. That day (July 9) created a lot of problems. We had to take the day off and our salaries were cut. As long as the rally does not cause problems, go ahead.” - Sivamalithy, 25, promoter “Maybe the government and opposition need to compromise. They need to sit at a round table and talk about it. Malaysian citizens want to live in harmony so the government should be a bit more accommodating. Not a lot, just a little. Allow them (Opposition) to do their propaganda.” - Sakinah Source:  GoodTimes

Consciousness of Priesthood in this nation

by Susan Tang (The Station of Life)

We have decided to turn SOL, a 3-week school into just a 14-day school to train WATCHMEN AND INTERCESSORS for the nations. We have heard God’s mandate to raise up watchmen and intercessors and to bring the church back into the consciousness of priesthood – which is, in fact our first calling.

“... let yourselves be built, as living stones, into a spiritual temple; become a holy priesthood.” 1 Peter 2:5

Priesthood (waiting, watching in God’s presence with prayers and intercessions) is indeed one of the most lamentable lack in modern day Christianity – this is why the powers of darkness have prevailed and gone unchallenged as they destroyed nations after nations and cities after cities. Indeed, mankind languish for the lack of priests – for today, we can hardly find them in our churches, families, societies and our nations. Today, there seems to be a concentrated conspiracy in contemporary Christianity to drive the consciousness of priesthood far from the church

We cannot patrol our nation or bring God’s presence to where we are by our fleshly church programs, carnal activities of multimedia displays, sensual concerts, sound and noise – we have to discipline ourselves into priesthood. We must learn to pray and touch God. Many are aware that the economy have collapsed but many do not know that the economy is only one of the 6 devastating elements that make up this coming devastating global storm. Look at the six deadly components now.

• Collapsing economy
• Wide spread wars
• Violent politics
• Sudden geophysical attacks
• Dark religion (deception)
• Rise of incurable sicknesses and diseases

The worse on this list is dark religion which actually means deception or polluted Christianity.( fables, doctrines of devils, heresies, unsound doctrines of men) Our Lord warned His disciples that deception is the first sign of the end times and that they should beware of it.. (Matt. 24) These words have fallen onto deaf ears – this is why heresies, fables, unsound doctrines and the spirit of harlotry have entered into our churches today, causing the precious ‘gold to become dim’ and turning God’s precious stones of the temple ‘to be poured out onto the streets’ as cheap and common stones with no value.

Yes, the mark of distinction in the church today is indeed dim. She had indeed been cheapen and is no longer uncommon or distinct as God wanted her to be because she had lost her valuable royal priesthood. When we cease to exist as priests before God, we ceased in value, in meaning, in fulfillment – in everything.

Under such dark circumstances of wide spread wars, violent politics, collapsing economy, rise of geophysical attacks and sicknesses, we know many people will want to seek God. Hardened hearts may soften a little. But when they do walk into our churches will they truly find God? Or will they find dark religion or the polluted gospel of prosperity and merchandising? Will there be true worship or just pagan music, fanciful programs and fleshly activities led by semi-clad worshippers? Will they find the preaching of God’s word in our churches or will they find some hollow-out, motivational and feel-good messages? Will they find man of God, true priests behind the pulpit or just charlatan-preachers with body piercing, tattoos and gaudy printed tee shirts with skulls and dragons?

In America, David Wilkerson had just unleashed a powerful prophetic word that there will be an earth shattering calamity soon. It is so horrible that even the godliest of men would tremble. What is it? The work of terrorists. Yes, God is going to use the bombs and fires of terrorists ‘as a rod ‘to deal with His church, just like He used the Babylonians to deal with the nation of Israel when they lost their distinction and broke all the landmarks He had set for them. Wilkerson prophesied that this will start in America but it will spread into other part of the world. Who can have peace and safety in days like these? Those who pray and those who had not forsaken their God-appointed priesthood.

Ezekiel 9 thrusts us into a scene in heaven where God ordered five death angels to slaughter everyone in the city of Jerusalem. Even babies were not spared. (Had the tsunamis, earthquakes, diseases etc. spared babies?) Before unleashing this horrific judgment, the merciless slaughter of young and old, God ordered the marking or the sealing of all the faithful watchmen, intercessors or priests in the land – those who had ‘sigh and cry’ over the sins of the land. These men or women with ‘marked foreheads’ were spared the blow from the death angels.

Five death angels were send out to destroy lives and only one were send out to mark the foreheads of those worthy to be spared. The death angels took a long time to do their work while the angel of life did a quick work – meaning there were many heads to kill but not very many heads to mark for protection.

We want to do God’s mandate – to help our churches return to the consciousness of priesthood in this nation. We want to patrol our nation – we can only do this as we serve as watchmen and intercessors and minister to God. If you too, have this desire, then come and pray, watch and wait along with us in this 8 days. Be brave enough to change the system of busyness, of noise, sound, of being driven, of running, hyping, performing. Instead come away from it for awhile, settle into God’s love and let your deep cry be as the Shulamite bride in the Song of Songs, “Draw me away! We will run after You! (not after success) We will be glad and rejoice in You.”

SCHOOL CALENDER:

Watchman (English Session):

March 1^st to March 14^th
July 1^st to July 14^th
November 15^th to November 29^th

Watchman (Bahasa Malaysia Session):

September 20^th to September 27^th

Registration Forms :

Watchman (English Session)

Watchman (Bahasa Malaysia Session)

Church Needs "Bersih"?

Amendment to Church Constitution

At the recent AGM of Calvary Church (CC), Deacon David Peter presented a motion to amend the Church Constitution to include “a new dispute resolution” clause.

The proposed clause to be included in the Constitution will be known as Rule XVI and basically sets out the procedures on resolving disputes in the Church. The new rule will “make it mandatory for any unhappy member to abide by the stated procedures, instead of subjecting the Church to a very public court process.”

Although David Peter proudly proclaimed at the AGM that the CC Constitution is the “most advanced Constitution among all the AOG churches in Malaysia”, nevertheless, he admits in the preamble in the motion that the Constitution currently does not have a satisfactory dispute resolution provision. So much for his proclamation of the church having the most advanced Constitution!

Or perhaps what he meant was that the CC Constitution is the most advanced in terms of concentrating total autocratic power in the Senior Pastor whilst paying lip-service to being a congregational church?

Or maybe, the most advanced in making it impossible for members to initiate any change to improve transparency and accountability in the church and by the church leadership?

It is certainly the most advanced in ensuring that the Senior Pastor cannot be removed by any means and the most advanced in denying the fundamentals rights of members to voice their opinions or to question the leadership.

Click on the attachments at the end of the Article to read David’s letter and the motion.

However, by presenting the amendment to the Constitution, indirectly Senior Pastor Prince Guneratnam (PG) and the Board of Deacons are actually acknowledging that the TTG (Truth, Transparency and Governance) Group’s process in their attempt to resolve the ongoing church crisis was correct and scriptural.

The entire process of negotiation, mediation and arbitration were proposed and attempted by the TTG on many occasions but all efforts failed due to the recalcitrance and defiance of PG.

The proposed dispute resolution process and the TTG’s various attempts to resolve the conflict are set out below:-

<><> <><><>

Proposed CC Conflict Resolution Process	TTG’s Efforts to Resolve Conflict  (6 Separate Attempts at different times identified as 1 to 6 below. These attempts are numbered in chronological order of time)
Negotiation: Parties in conflict to write to each other and meet up to try to resolve the issue in conflict.	1. Members of the TTG individually and/or collectively wrote numerous letters and petitions to the Board of Deacons to review a number of issues in contention including the extended ministries and the severely-flawed constitution. They received either no replies or downright meaningless response to their letters and petitions. A number of the TTG members did individually and corporately meet up with the Deacons and Pastors at various times but nothing was accomplished. All the TTG’s negotiation efforts were simply disregarded and ignored by PG and the Board.
	5. After failure of Steps 3 and 4 by NECF, PG’s lawyer, KK Wong, also tried for out-of-court settlement. PG’s lawyer requested the Plaintiffs (7 TTG members) to submit a proposal for an out of court settlement to PG and the deacons. The Plaintiffs complied.    After sitting on the Plaintiffs’s proposal for almost two months, they rejected the proposal without any willingness to negotiate at all. PG’s slap in the face for KK Wong’s effort probably was the reason why the lawyer withdrew from representing PG and the deacons..
Mediation: If parties fail to resolve the issue through negotiation, then either party can initiate mediation. Mediator will be appointed by either the General Superintendent or Assistant General Superintendent of the AOG Malaysia.	2. TTG members agreed to the mediation attempt by a prominent ex-Calvarite and the AOG General Superintendent as co-chairmen. Two days before the pre-agreed scheduled meeting, PG chickened out and informed the co-chairmen that the date was “not convenient”. The prominent ex-Calvarite gave up in disappointment especially since he had purposely rushed back from an overseas event for the meeting. (This ex-Calvarite who was an ordinary member was then subsequently demoted to an associate member by PG. He has now left CC and moved to another church) To Read CT post click “PG Chickens Out”
	3. NECF picked up from step 2 and tried to restart the mediation process (after waiting many months in vain for AOG to step in). The Plaintiffs agreed and supported NECF’s effort. PG did not respond to NECF’s attempts and the mediation failed.
	6. Plaintiffs made one last attempt at out-of-court settlement and initiated a “court-assisted mediation” with a proposal to drop the entire Originating Summons with only one request which is that the Constitution be reviewed by an independent committee made up of the two sets of lawyers representing the Plaintiffs and PG PG and the Board of deacons, who had agreed to this court-assisted mediation initiative by the Plaintiffs, however, rejected this one simple request and preferred the matter to be tried in court. To Read CT post click “PG Chickens Out Again”
Arbitration: If mediation fails then either party can initiate arbitration. Each party to appoint an arbitrator. The two appointed arbitrators will then appoint a third arbitrator. If the two arbitrators cannot agree on the third arbitrator, then the GS or AGS of AOG shall appoint the third arbitrator. Decision of arbitrators final and binding.	4. After NECF’s mediation attempts (step 3) failed, Plaintiffs agreed that NECF initiate Christian arbitration. Plaintiffs offered to withdraw the Originating Summons if the issues can be placed before an arbitration panel of Christian senior lawyers and/or ex-judges nominated by NECF acceptable to both parties. PG informed NECF that he was not agreeable to mediation or Christian arbitration. NECF gave up. To Read CT post click “PG says No to Christian Arbitration”

After more than 2 years, the Constitution Review Committee has only managed to come out with this one proposed change in the Constitution. And this proposed change is not even addressing the core issues of the total lack of accountability and transparency and the abuse of power by PG and his Deacons, which were the primary causes of the crisis in Calvary Church.

The joke of it is that the proposed procedures in dispute settlement as highlighted above is something PG and his deacons do not subscribe to, anyway.

The purpose appears to be more of an attempt to muzzle the unhappy members and disallow them to refer Church disputes to external parties rather than a genuine objective of wanting to resolve Church issues amicably.

Anyhow, the members at the AGM approved the adoption of the amendment to the Constitution and it is understood that the Church has submitted the same to the AOG Malaysia for their endorsement.

It should be highlighted here that the approval and adoption of this Proposed Amendment to the Constitution may be invalidated, if challenged in Court due to the breach of the Rules and Procedures set out in the Constitution governing such motions. The breaches are:-

1. Rule IX (6) (c) requires that such motion must bear the full name and address of the proposer and seconder and duly signed by them.

If you look at the letter below from David Peter and the motion, there are no details and no signatures of the Proposer and Seconder. David Peter submitted the motion to the Board of Deacons but he did not specify if he was the Proposer or if he was merely submitting a motion he has received from someone else.

2. Rule IX (6) (d) requires that the Secretary of the Board of Deacons distribute the motion to all members at least 14 days before the AGM.

    This was not done. A copy of the motion was slotted into the Annual Report, which was not mailed to the members but was required to be personally collected by the members prior to the AGM. Since not all members collected their Annual Report, many attended the AGM with no knowledge of the proposed motion. The onus is on the Secretary to prove the distribution of the motion to all members at least 14 days before the AGM.

The Proposed Amendment is also not well thought out. It does not spell out what the aggrieved member can do if the Church, Pastor or leader or the AOG General Superintendent or Assistant General Superintendent refuse to cooperate and abide by the rules, that is, if they refuse to negotiate, refuse to mediate or refuse to join the arbitration. It is also not stated what happens if they abide by the procedures but refuses to abide by the decision of the arbitrators.

 

 

Continue reading here. 

I love Christ, but I struggle constantly with sin in my life. Should I doubt my salvation?

by Gty.Org

I love Christ, but I struggle constantly with sin in my life. Should I doubt my salvation?

Not necessarily. Even the apostle Paul experienced perpetual struggle with sin throughout his life (Romans 7:7-25).

All of us struggle continually with sinful thoughts, sinful attitudes, sinful habits, and sinful desires. It is those who don't struggle—those who deliberately and eagerly revel in their sin—who need to have their sense of security shaken. So don't give up in defeat if you find yourself struggling with sin or even if you fall into it. Stay in the battle.

Fight sin by considering deeply what makes you more vulnerable to it, and then establish godly practices in its place. You may find you need to have accountability with a godly person you trust, or spend more time in prayer, or stay away from things that tempt you.

Do whatever it takes to discipline yourself and stop any pattern of sin before it gets started again. That is the key to staying away from sin—the constant, daily practice of thinking on the right things and not making provision for the flesh and its desires (Romans 13:14).

How far can Christians go in sinning?

Excerpted from John MacArthur, Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles, (Dallas: Word Publishing) 1997, pp. 127-129.

I recently read a book about Christians and sin that began with an unusual account. The author of this book was acquainted with a pastor who had been sent to prison for robbing fourteen banks to finance his dalliances with prostitutes! The author was fully convinced the bank-robbing Lothario was a true Christian, and so he wrote a book to explore how such a thing could be possible.

Call me old-fashioned, but I think it is fair to raise the question of whether someone who regularly robs banks to pay for illicit sex is truly saved! That man's sin was secretly his lifestyle. There is every reason to believe that he would still be committing his crimes today if he had not been caught. Can we concede that this "so-called brother" is a genuine Christian, just because he was once an evangelical pastor?

True, we cannot judge the man's heart, but we must judge his behavior (1 Cor. 5:12). "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9-11). In those verses the apostle Paul was describing sins of chronic behavior, sins that color one's whole character. A predilection for such sins reflects an unregenerate heart. Paul reminded the Corinthians, "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God" (v. 12, emphasis added).

But wait. Doesn't Scripture include examples of believers who committed gross sin? Didn't David commit murder and adultery and allow his sin to go unconfessed for at least a year? Wasn't Lot characterized by worldly compromise in the midst of heinous sin? Yes, those examples prove that genuine believers are capable of the worst imaginable sins. But David and Lot cannot be made to serve as examples of "carnal" believers, whose whole lifestyle and appetites are no different from unregenerate people.

David, for example, did repent thoroughly of his sin when Nathan confronted him, and he willingly accepted the Lord's discipline (2 Sam. 12:1-23). Psalm 51 is an expression of David's deep repentance at the end of this sordid episode in his life. The point, after all, is that this was merely one episode in David's life. He was certainly not predisposed to that kind of sin. In fact, 1 Kings 15:5 says, "David did what was right in the sight of the Lord, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite" (emphasis added).

Lot is a different case. Not much is known about him from the Old Testament account, but what is recorded about him is disappointing. He was a pathetic example of compromise and disobedience. On the eve of Sodom's destruction, when he should have fled the city, "he hesitated" (Gen. 19:16). The angelic messengers had to seize his hand and put him outside the city. Near the end of his life, his two daughters got him drunk and committed incest with him (Gen. 19:30-38). Lot certainly did seem to have a proclivity for sins of compromise and worldliness.

Yet the inspired New Testament writer tells us Lot was "oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day with their lawless deeds)" (2 Pet. 2:8). He hated sin and desired righteousness. He had respect for holy angels-evidence of his fear of God (Gen. 19:1-14). He obeyed God by not looking back at Sodom when God's judgment rained down (cf. v. 26).

Lot was certainly not "carnal" in the sense that he lacked spiritual desires. Though he lived in a wicked place, he was not wicked himself. His soul was "tormented," vexed, grieved, tortured with severe pain at the sight of the evil all around him. Evidently his conscience did not become seared; he "felt his righteous soul tormented day after day" with the evil deeds of those around him. Though he lived in Sodom, he never became a Sodomite. Those who use him as an illustration of someone who is saved but utterly carnal miss the point of 2 Peter 2:8.

What is the lesson of Lot's life as Peter saw it? Verse 9 sums it up: "The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment." In Lot's case, one means the Lord used to rescue him from temptation was severe chastisement. Lot lost his home; his wife was killed by divine judgment; and his own daughters disgraced and debased him. He paid a terrible price for his sin, being "tormented day after day." If Lot proves anything, it is that true believers cannot sin with impunity.

God always chastens and disciplines His children who sin. If they do not experience chastening, they are not truly His children, but spiritual bastards. Hebrews 12:7-8 explicitly states this: "What son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons." The specific purpose for which He disciplines us is "for our good, that we may share His holiness" (Heb. 12:10).

All of that flies in the face of the notion that millions of Christians live in a state of unbroken carnality. If these people are true children of God, why are they not constantly under His discipline?

Does God Love His Enemies?

Tommy Clayton
Content Developer and Broadcast Editor - GTY BLOG

I can still remember the chair I was sitting in years ago when I read a life-changing page in John MacArthur’s book The God Who Loves. In an economy of words, John exposed, confronted, and changed my thinking on one of the most critical areas of theology, the nature of God. My understanding of God’s love—specifically His love for the non-elect—was never the same.

For months, I had been wrestling with the question of whether God’s love extends beyond those He chose for salvation. “Does God love all humanity, even the Judas Iscariots and Adolf Hitlers of the world?” At the time, I couldn’t answer that question with any degree of certainty. And although I was sitting under sound biblical teaching, I had begun entertaining the idea that God’s elect have a monopoly on His love. I couldn't reconcile the idea of God loving His enemies with the following texts:

• Psalm 5:5, “You hate all workers of iniquity.”
• Psalm 7:11, “God is angry with the wicked every day.”
• Psalm 26:5, “I have hated the assembly of evil doers.”

Beyond those troubling texts, I was grappling with God’s explicit statements about hating Esau found in Romans 9 and Malachi 1. “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.” You have to admit, that’s a hard verse to refute. God’s hatred was unrelated to Esau’s conduct or character. It was rooted in His eternal, sovereign purposes.

The more I pondered those verses, the more resistant I became to acknowledging God’s love to all humanity. I failed to see the tragic effects such thinking had on my evangelistic fervency. I had adopted a self-righteous mindset, thinking God was absolutely repulsed by unbelievers—probably just as repulsed as I was. I became blind to all the Scriptures speaking to God’s steadfast love and compassion for the lost. Somewhere along the way, my love and compassion for sinners waned.

I was convinced in my own mind. God loves the elect and hates the non-elect. End of discussion. But then, I read the following words by John MacArthur:

Scripture clearly says that God is love. “The Lord is good to all, and His mercies are over all His works” (Ps. 145:9). Christ even commands us to love our enemies, and the reason He gives is this: “In order that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45). The clear implication is that in some sense God loves His enemies. He loves both “the evil and the good,” both “the righteous and the unrighteous” in precisely the same sense we are commanded to love our enemies.

In fact, the second greatest commandment, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mk. 12:31; cf. Lev. 19:18), is a commandment for us to love everyone. We can be certain the scope of this commandment is universal, because Luke 10 records that a lawyer, “wishing to justify himself … said to Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbor?’” (Lk. 10:29)—and Jesus answered with the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The point? Even Samaritans, a semi-pagan race who had utterly corrupted Jewish worship and whom the Jews generally detested as enemies of God, were neighbors whom they were commanded to love. In other words, the command to love one’s “neighbor” applies to everyone. This love commanded here is clearly a universal, indiscriminate love.

Consider this: Jesus perfectly fulfilled the law in every respect (Matt. 5:17–18), including this command for universal love. His love for others was surely as far-reaching as His own application of the commandment in Luke 10. Therefore, we can be certain that He loved everyone. He must have loved everyone in order to fulfill the Law. After all, the apostle Paul wrote, “The whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (Gal. 5:14). He reiterates this theme in Romans 13:8: “He who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.” Therefore, Jesus must have loved His “neighbor.” And since He Himself defined “neighbor” in universal terms, we know that His love while on earth was universal.

Do we imagine that Jesus as perfect man loves those whom Jesus as God does not love? Would God command us to love in a way that He does not? Would God demand that our love be more far-reaching than His own? And did Christ, having loved all humanity during His earthly sojourn, then revert after His ascension to pure hatred for the non-elect? Such would be unthinkable; “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever” (Heb 13:8) (John MacArthur, The God Who Loves, 102-03).


John’s simple explanation of those Scriptures compelled me to rethink my position on God’s love. Jesus was God. Jesus loved His neighbors—even His non-elect neighbors. Jesus was a friend to sinners. Jesus loved His enemies—all of them. How could I have missed that? What caused me to overlook such clear, vital truths about the character of God? The answer is pride, that hideous sin lurking in all of us, waiting for the opportunity to express itself.

If you wrestle with some of the verses I listed, or struggle to reconcile God’s love with his wrath, I’d recommend you pick up a copy of John’s book The God Who Loves.

Is God a Monster?

Nearly fifty years ago, the British agnostic Bertrand Russell penned these words: “There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ’s moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment” (Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian).

Philosopher John Hick echoed those sentiments when he called hell “a perversion of the Christian gospel.” He believed the doctrine of hell attributed to God “an unappeasable vindictiveness and insatiable cruelty.”

We expect statements like that from fallen, unregenerate minds. But what do we do when we hear similar things from prominent, professing evangelical writers? “How can Christians possibly project a deity of such cruelty and vindictiveness whose ways include inflicting everlasting torture upon his creatures, however sinful they may have been? Surely a God who would do such a thing is more nearly like Satan than like God...” (Clark H. Pinnock, “The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent”).

It’s become popular today for professing evangelicals to join the ranks of Pinnock, atheists, and agnostics in protesting the doctrine of hell. They are preaching sermons, writing articles, and publishing books, and some are wandering into the comment threads of Christian blogs. Here’s a small sampling from Grace To You’s blog in our recent series on hell:

• “What kind of God torments people for all eternity?”
• “…Satan loves the false doctrine of eternal torment”
• “[eternal torment is] cruel and unusual punishment”
• “[eternal torment] makes God out to be a cruel tyrant,” “absolutely cruel and malevolent”
• “How can you in your right minds even consider this to be justice?”

If the doctrine of hell as eternal, conscious torment hadn’t been the position of the Christian church for two millennia, it might be easy to think we’re seriously out of step—a bunch of mindless minions who worship a monster-god! But when you examine the biblical evidence, without an agenda, you’ll find we sound a lot like Jesus and the apostles.

So, how could someone who claims to be faithful to Scripture ridicule the idea of eternal punishment? What is at the heart of their rejection of a never-ending hell? It’s simple, really—they minimize the seriousness of human sin and guilt, and they distort the perfection of divine justice. That’s the crime of Protestant Liberalism and every false religion.

Minimizing the Sinfulness of Sin

To one degree or another, we’re all guilty of minimizing sin. I remember the first time I read the account of Lot’s wife. God turned her into a pillar of salt as she was leaving Sodom. Her crime? A backward glance (Gen. 19:26). Reading that story as an unbeliever provoked me to ask the question: “Was that really an offense worthy of death—turning your neck to take one final look at your home?” As I explored more of the Bible, other accounts of God’s judgment appeared equally capricious and severe to me.

• Nadab and Abihu deviated from the priestly procedures. God consumed them with fire (Lev. 10:1-2).
• One man gathered wood on the Sabbath. God commanded Moses to stone him (Num. 15:35).
• Achan took a few forbidden items from the spoils of Jericho. God commanded Joshua to stone and then burn Achan along with his entire family (Josh. 7:24-25).
• Uzzah kept the ark of God from falling into the mud by reaching out his hand and taking hold of it. God immediately struck him dead (2 Sam. 6:6-7).
• Ananias and Sapphira lied to the apostles. God killed them both in front of the entire church. (Acts 5:1-10).

We often struggle to understand how something seemingly so trivial could enact such a severe judgment. Our flesh wants to cry out in protest, “That’s not fair!” But responses like that reveal our failure to grasp the depth of sin. We see only actions—a devoted father gathering firewood to keep his family warm; a zealous Israelite anxious to keep the Ark of God off the ground—but God sees things differently, more clearly, than we do. He sees our sin as insurrection, rebellion against His holiness (Ex. 31:14; Num. 4:15). What’s more, He sees the hidden motives and intentions at the core of our actions (Mt. 5:28; Heb. 4:12).

One of the most basic tenets of justice is that the punishment must fit the crime. So, if the ultimate punishment for those who die without Christ is hell, then what is the crime? What do men do to merit the eternal sentence of hell? Put plainly, they sin.

You may think that’s a small thing, but the way John MacArthur explains sin, it puts it in its proper perspective. Essentially, sin is “an act of treason against the Sovereign lawgiver and judge of the universe.” The Bible describes our sin as “rebellion,” “ungodliness,” “lawlessness,” “wickedness,” and an “abomination” (Lev. 26:27; Is. 32:6; 1 Jn. 3:4; Ezek. 18:27; Pr. 15:9). Sinners then, are traitors, refusing to love, thank, serve, and obey the God who gave them life, breath, and every good thing.

Sinners spurn God’s love, despise His sovereignty, mock His justice, and view His commands with contempt. They are thieves and murderers, stealing God’s glory and assaulting His holiness. In fact, as Martin Luther once remarked, if sinners had their way, they would dethrone and murder God, which is exactly what they did at Calvary (Acts 2:23). Viewed through the lens of Scripture, sin appears exceedingly sinful (Rom. 7:13).

I find it ironic that those who protest the idea of eternal, conscious torment deride the doctrine with words like, “cruel,” “morally revolting,” “monstrous,” and “repugnant.” Why don’t they employ the same terms of outrage to describe sin? Simple: they fail to see as God sees. God finds our sin “cruel,” “morally revolting,” “monstrous,” and “repugnant,” and He’s absolutely right. If we can’t see our sin as God sees it, it stands to reason that we don’t see the just judgment of hell like He sees it either. We’re just going to have to trust Him.

Divine Justice

People who reject the doctrine of eternal hell also stumble over the justice of God. It seems unjust of God to cast someone into a lake of eternal fire for thirty years of sin. Is sin really that bad?

Yes, it is. In fact, you readily accept that there are escalating levels in the seriousness of offenses. For example, if you punch your neighbor, he may punch you back, slash your tires, or even report you to the police. If you assault your boss, he’ll fire you. If you strike a policeman, you’re in danger of getting tased, pepper-sprayed (or worse), and you’re definitely going to jail. Take it up a notch: if you even attempt to assault the President of the United States, you’re going to prison for a long, long time. And if you try those shenanigans with any other head of state, you’ll probably be executed.

Clearly, we live by an established principle—the seriousness of a crime is measured not only by its inherent nature, but also by the one offended. Furthermore, we readily accept the escalation of punishment, based on the status and position of the one offended. If that makes sense on a human level, why are we tempted to ignore the status and position of God? If we live by that principle on a horizontal level, why not on a vertical level?

Our sins have offended an infinitely glorious and holy Being, and punishment must correspond to that offense. God will by no means acquit the wicked (Ex. 34:6-7). He will give the unbeliever exactly what he deserves. Isaiah said “Woe to the wicked! It will go badly with him, for what he deserves will be done to him” (Is. 3:11). God warned the children of Israel: “If you do not obey Me, but act with hostility against Me, then I will act with wrathful hostility against you, and I, even I, will punish you seven times for your sins” (Lev. 26:27-28).

The righteous Judge of all the earth will one day rise up and call every creature into account (Gen. 18:25; Heb. 9:27; 1 Pet. 4:5). He will open the books and mete out a just sentence for every sinful thought, word, and deed (Rom. 2:5; Rev. 20:13).

We’ve all assaulted God (Rom. 3:23), and we all deserve hell. Reject Christ, and hell is exactly what you’ll get. God will rise up in judgment and cast all unbelievers into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:14), and all creation will praise His justice. To accuse God of injustice for sentencing sinners to hell is the height of arrogance and audacity.

Yes, God’s judgment is unbearable, but it is never unjust (Gen. 4:13). And that is why “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:31).

Tommy Clayton
Content Developer and Broadcast Editor (GTY Blog)