Friday, March 27, 2009

Letter to the FGTF by HM

CT received this letter that Bro Hong Meng wrote to the FGTF, contents of which he shared at the FGTF Workshop held on 14 March 2009. Many of us who were at the meeting heard him share his views which gave us a better understanding on the issues addressed by the FGTF that afternoon. We thank Bro Hong Meng for taking the time to put in writing what he said at the FGTF Workshop. For the benefit of those who were not present at the Workshop, we publish his letter for your reading, with his permission.


*****************************************************

To: The Financial Governance Task Force (FGTF)
From: Wong Hong Meng
Date: 27 March 2009

Thank you for the briefing session on Saturday 14 March 2009. I can safely say that all of us who attended the briefing appreciated the time and effort sacrificed by each of the task force members. Thank you also for uploading the powerpoint presentation.

I am writing to expand and clarify the comments and suggestions I made at the briefing. My input is on the macro issues. I shall leave the detail work in your capable hands.


Summary

I present below a summary of my comments and suggestions for the Committee’s consideration.

1. AOG does not have a mandated model of church governance. So there is no constraint on the FGTF to design an organizational structure and governance processes that best meet our needs.

2. The FGTF should consider following Hillsong’s example. Calvary Church should be in compliance to the principles and best practices as set out in the Malaysian Code of Corporate Governance.

3. In looking at our governance processes the FGTF should also be guided by the Singapore Code of Corporate Governance for Charities and Institutions of a Public Character and the ECFA guidelines.

4. The FGTF should give substance to the fact that Calvary Church is a congregational church. Our constitution, organizational structure and governance processes must truly reflect a congregational form of church government.

5. The organizational chart must be redrawn to reflect the provisions of the Constitution and that of a congregational church. The chart must be logical and consistent with organizational principles.

6. Good church governance would require that the involvement of the Senior Pastor in the financial management of the Church be restricted.

7. The Missions Department and the Extended Ministries must be included in the church constitution. It must be clearly and irrevocably acknowledged that the Missions Department and the Extended Ministries are part and parcel of Calvary Church. They are not independent of the Church. To be complete, the accounts of Calvary Church must be inclusive of all the three main components viz., the church, the Missions Department and the Extended Ministries.

8. An Internal Audit function to be set up in Calvary Church as a management tool.

9. There should be a Reserve List for all decisions and actions that are reserved to be done by the members at general meeting which cannot be delegated to the Board of Deacons or taken away by the Board of Deacons. There should also be a similar list for the Board of Deacons which cannot be delegated to any board committee, or any person or persons in the church. These lists must be approved by the members at general meeting.

I shall now expand on and support each of my suggestions.


AOG-USA Position Papers

The FGTF appears to be guided only by two AOG-USA position papers; “Qualifications and Responsibilities of Deacons and Trustees” and “Theology of Ministry” to come to the following conclusion:

“Most if not all Assemblies of God organizational structure are similar. The structures are in line with the positions taken by the General Council of the Assemblies of God.”

Firstly, I am of the opinion that your conclusion is not well supported by the two articles and that the FGTF read into them more than what was there. Secondly I believe a third paper, “The Discipleship and Submission Movement”, would be helpful in understanding AOG’s view on the relationship between the pastor and the congregation.

Quoting the first AOG position paper, “Qualifications and Responsibilities of Deacons and Trustees”, the FGTF seems to imply that a pastor-dominant structure, or in colloquial terms “ketuanan senior pastor”, is the AOG position. We may be conditioned to think that it is so, but I found no support for that assertion in the official AOG pronouncements. The three quotes used were:

“God’s method by which the church of Jesus Christ has moved forward down through the centuries is that God selected a person to be the leader (the pastor) and then gave the leader others (deacons) to serve as support to the leader and as fellow servants to the congregation.”

“The pastor and deacons shall be the official board of the local church.”

“The pastor is the chairperson and voting member of the church boards.”

None of the above three statements is in dispute. That the church is to be led by a pastor assisted by the deacons is completely acceptable and indeed desirable. However, this must not detract us from the need for good and proper church governance. Moreover, the fundamental principles of a congregational church must not be compromised. It is the congregation that would decide on all important issues. These three quotes cannot be used to justify giving the pastor and/or the deacons unfettered power over the congregation. That would be unreasonable extrapolation.

The FGTF quoted from the second AOG position paper, “Theology of Ministry”,

“…in making an application of biblical leadership roles to the modern era, we conclude that pastors carry out the functions of elders and overseers in the local congregations.”

This probably was intended to justify the absence of elders although provided for in our constitution. However, it would serve the FGTF well to compare the role of elders as envisaged in this position paper and that in our constitution. There is still a need for elders to fulfil the role as spelt out in our constitution.

A balanced reading of this paper would also surface the following statements which seem contrary to the dominance of the pastor in the church as assumed by the FGTF:

“An examination of the concept of ministry and spiritual gifts makes it abundantly clear that ministry is the work of the entire body of Christ, not just of a special priestly or clerical caste.”

“A part of the ministry of the church is given to every single member of the body of Christ. All are called in some way to be ministers. To be baptised into Christ is to be baptised into the ministry of His church. No group of leaders alone can embody the full spectrum of spiritual gifts and provide all the wisdom and energy required to do the work of the church. Therefore, the ministry of the laity is integral to the accomplishment of the mission of the church.”

However there is a third position paper, “The Discipleship and Submission Movement”, which I believe is very relevant to our discussion. This paper spoke out against the Discipleship and Submission Movement but at the same time it gives a clear understanding of the AOG position with regards to the role of the congregation in relation to the pastor. I apologise for the lengthy quotes but they are needed to give a full flavour of the discussion.

“Paul recognized that the elders (pastors) of the congregations in Ephesus had a responsibility to feed the flock, the church (local assembly) of God. He warned that wolves would enter among them, not sparing the flock. But he also warned that from among these elders or undershepherds themselves, men would arise and twist the Scripture to draw away disciples after them (Acts 20:28–30). That is, they will seem to be good teachers but will twist the truth at some points in order to build a following for themselves. Thus believers need more than a human shepherd to protect them. They need to develop their own ability to search and understand the Scriptures under the guidance of the Spirit, who alone can lead into all truth (John 16:13).”

“Along with this there is a current tendency to downgrade democracy in the church in favor of submission to authority. It is supposed that apostles and elders of the Jerusalem church exercised authority over the church in Jerusalem and other churches as well. A closer examination of the Scripture shows that when the seven were chosen to administer aid to the widows, the apostles merely stated the qualifications and asked the people to choose or elect seven men (Acts 6:3, 5). In Acts 14:23 where Paul and Barnabas “ordained” (KJV) elders in every church, the Greek word for ordain means to choose or elect by the raising of hands. Though it is correctly translated “chosen” in 2 Corinthians 8:19, some say it cannot mean elect in Acts 14:23 because the apostles are the subject. There is no reason, however, why the verb may not indicate that Paul and Barnabas laid down the qualifications for elders (as in1 Timothy 3:1–7) and then conducted an election. We see variety in the New Testament rather than one rigid type of organization. The purpose of organization was always to meet the need and accomplish the task, never just to organize for organization’s sake.”

“With regard to the position of the believer, the tendency of this shepherding movement seems to be to over allegorize the Scripture, pressing its analogies too far. The believer is said to be a ‘dumb’ sheep.”

“The context shows that all are to come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God. None are to be as children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine. All are to speak the truth in love so they may grow up into Him in all things. Unlike the human body, when every part of the body of Christ is in its proper place, every part receives from Christ directly, so that the Body increases and edifies itself in love.”

“God has set pastor-teachers in the Church (Ephesians 4:11) as a part of the variety of ministry to the whole Body. To reject these ministries is to deliberately reject the wise provision of the Head of the Church who is the giver of these gifts. On the other hand, however, to suggest that a Christian does not have access to God or guidance from Him apart from a human shepherd is going to the opposite extreme and denies what the Bible teaches about the believer’s direct access to God (Hebrews 4:14–16).”

An open minded reading of these three AOG-USA position papers would not support a pastor-dominant church structure. On the contrary the role of the ordinary member in the congregation is emphasized. That appears to be the AOG position.

AOG-USA position papers are not very helpful in providing guidance on church governance. Of the 26 position papers put out by the AOG-USA none deal with church organization structure or church management. It would appear that the AOG-USA General Council intentionally shy away from taking positions on these very important issues. There is no evidence of an AOG mandated church organizational structure and no mandated guidelines on the constitution for an AOG church. AOG-USA did, in response to an increasing demand from churches, produce a sample constitution in the form of “Recommended Bylaws for Local Assemblies”. However it must be noted that there are no restrictions on the local congregation amending the constitution as deemed necessary. There are no mandatory provisions except for the Tenets of Faith.

Why did the AOG not issue position papers on the very important issues of church organizational structure and church government? I believe it is because AOG does not consider itself a denomination but just a cooperative or a fellowship of independent sovereign churches. Church organizational structure and governance are left to be determined by the congregation of each church.

As such the FGTF should not rely only on the AOG-USA position papers in its deliberation. A more useful source of guidance would be the 2003 Fall and 2004 Winter issues of the AOG Enrichment Journal (“EJ”). This official AOG journal is written essentially by AOG pastors for the benefit of AOG pastors. It is not intended for the AOG congregation. These two issues of the journal were dedicated to the topic of managing the local church and the articles do provide useful guidance on the subject. However, it must also be noted that these are journal articles and not AOG position papers. As I commented earlier the AOG does not seem to take positions on church organizational structure or church governance.

Although AOG-Malaysia is an independent fraternity and is not under AOG-USA, nonetheless the thinking, culture and practices of our American brethren would generally guide the AOG churches in Malaysia. To limit our discourse and recognising that Calvary is an AOG church, I will refer only to AOG sources to support my comments and suggestions to the FGTF. I will take the views expressed in the Enrichment Journal as being representative of AOG leadership. I have added the bold typeface to some words in the quotes for emphasis.



1. AOG on Church Governance

From the above, it would appear that Calvary Church is not restricted by any AOG guidelines or limitations on the way it is to be governed and managed. We can design the most suitable organization structure to meet our needs. We are free to have the best governance processes and practices and perhaps be an example to other AOG churches.

In the interview with Enrichment Journal, Thomas Trask, the then General Superintendant of AOG-USA responded as follows.
“There are several church-governance models used today. What governance model is most effective for churches?
Trask: A governance model should not put all authority in leadership. None of the biblical models do that. A governance model that gives the pastor the flexibility he needs, but also has accountability built within that model, is critical. If this is not done, the church may end up with a dictatorship where the authority is invested in one person who has no accountability. In the Word of God we see that with leadership comes accountability. (Trask, EJ2003 Fall)

Another AOG-USA leader, T.R. Rachels, Superintendant of Southern California District Council, has this to say:
“The single most effective strategy for building public confidence in organizational church life is accountability. Without openness and transparency that provides disclosure of decisions and actions, a pastoral leader invites suspicion and mistrust. One of the important ways to build trust is to have good church governance.”

“The foundation of accountability is a uniform governance standard to which everyone must conform.” (Rachels, EJ 2003 Fall)

It would appear that both these international AOG leaders do not subscribe to a pastor-dominant church structure or culture. Indeed, they are advocating for transparency and accountability.


2. Hillsong Church Australia

Hillsong Church, the largest AOG church in Australia, has made this public statement on its corporate governance.
“Hillsong Church’s governance policies are based on the Australian Stock Exchange Principles of Good Corporate Governance and Best Practice Recommendations, together with adherence to foundational Biblical values. Hillsong Church has opted to make the disclosures in this statement in the interests of good governance and in recognition of its financial and social responsibilities, even though it is not required by law to comply with the ASX principles.”

Hillsong has decided that it will comply with governance principles and best practices required of public listed companies in Australia. Similarly Calvary Church can choose to comply with the governance principles and best practices as enunciated by the Securities Commission of Malaysia for Malaysian public listed companies. To do so would only bring us up to the standards of the world. The Church should have higher standards.


3. Singapore Code of Governance

Across the causeway, our neighbour Singapore has also pronounced a Code of Governance for Charities and Institutions of a Public Character (IPC). Churches are IPCs and Singapore churches are now required to comply with this code. The FGTF may wish to be guided by the Singapore Code.

Some AOG-USA churches and organizations are members of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. The FGTF may find the “ECFA Standards and Best Practices for Churches” a useful resource.


4. Calvary a Congregational Church

George Wood who is now the AOG-USA General Superintendent, writing on the “Biblical forms of church governance” said:
“The Assemblies of God has always believed and practiced that congregational government is both a preferred biblical and practical model. There is plenty of Scripture to warrant this view. The Jerusalem church elected the replacement for Judas (Acts 1:15–23) and selected deacons (Acts 6:1–7). Not only is there a New Testament basis for congregational government, we have also experienced these benefits: (1) it has permitted a sense of ownership by the local church, thereby promoting a greater measure of personal responsibility for the well-being of the body; (2) leadership must be in touch with the membership to sustain election—their authority derives not from the appointment of a bishop (superintendent) but from the people’s earned respect; and (3) persons with strong leadership gifts flourish in a congregational atmosphere where there is not the fettering of an overreaching hierarchical church denominational bureaucracy.”

“Clearly, there are problems in any form of local church government if leadership is unwise or self-seeking, or if the local church itself has a history of unwholesome spiritual pathology.”

“At the start of this new century, we would do well to realize that governance for local churches requires some flexibility, that one style does not necessarily fit all. The dangers lying on the opposite sides of the continuum are twofold: (1) an authoritarian, dictatorial, and ego-centered control (always masked behind a guise of "spiritually strong leadership"), and (2) an entrenched voting bloc within a sick church that votes out any pastor under whom the church begins to grow.” (Wood, EJ 2003 Fall)

R.L. Dresselhaus writing in the Enrichment Journal of 2003 Fall said:
“Finally, governmental structures vary greatly from church to church…The typical Assemblies of God church follows a congregational form of church government—the pastor and board are elected by the full membership of the church. There are, however, modifications to this model that sometimes include a board of elders, either appointed or recognized, to serve alongside the elected deacon board. …Great care must be taken that the leadership structure of the church is representative of the people and separated from all forms of autocratic and dictatorial rule.” (Dresselhaus, EJ2003 Fall)

In Wikipedia, “Congregational churches are Protestant Christian churches practicing congregationalist church governance, in which each congregation independently and autonomously runs its own affairs.”

In the preface to the sample church constitution it is stated:

“It would be well to impress upon the members of the church board at the time of their election that they have been chosen by the assembly to serve, rather than to rule. While they are entrusted with the responsibility of handling the routine business of the church, all major matters affecting the church should be passed on to the congregation as recommendations, permitting the assembly to make its own decisions. This rule is vital for the peace and harmony of the assembly life.”

“The church board is chosen to assist the pastor. The final decision for all major action rests with the congregation in accordance with the provisions of the bylaws.”

Calvary is a congregational church. The FGTF must ensure that the spirit and substance of the above statements are made real and actualized in our constitution and the governance processes. More importantly it must not only be in words but also in deeds; in our practices and behaviour as a church. Members must participate actively and meaningfully in church governance. They must be allowed to decide freely without manipulation, coercion or spiritual domination.


5. Calvary Church Organization Structure

The AOG position paper, “Qualifications and Responsibilities of Deacons and Trustees” cannot be used to support the organization chart as presented at the briefing. The chart is illogical and not reflective even of the existing provisions in our constitution. The FGTF may seek the advice of organizational experts and ask them how they would depict the chart according to our constitution.

We are a congregational church. There is nothing wrong with putting the “Members at General Meeting” at the top of the chart. They elect the senior pastor and the deacons. Together, the pastor and the deacons form the Board which is a separate entity. This entity is responsible for the senior pastor. In turn the senior pastor is accountable to the Board. This would not in anyway lessen the role and authority of the senior pastor or the deacons. It would not reduce the respect we have for them as church leaders. This is how the constitution intended it to be. And there is nothing in the AOG position papers to dictate against such a structure.

Therefore, I request that the FGTF redraw the organization chart as it should be drawn.


6. AOG on Financial Management

In the 2004 Winter Enrichment Journal, Thomas Trask was interviewed and he said:
“Who should determine how the finances of the church are disbursed?
Trask: "First, the pastor needs to know how money is being spent, but he should not be handling the finances. A church needs to require two signatures on each check. If the pastor is one of the designated people to sign the check, then he needs to have somebody else—the treasurer or another board member—signing as well.
There must be an accounting for the church’s finances at the monthly board meeting. There also needs to be an annual audit so the people know that the money they gave was handled properly and that there is financial accountability. This honors the congregation. It isn’t our money; it’s their money. It isn’t our church; it’s their church. When everything is done above board, there are no secrets. Openness in handling finances is healthy for a congregation.”


J.P. Joseph writing in the 2004 Winter issue of the Enrichment Journal said:
“If there has ever been a time for pastors to have their churches’ finances in order, it is today. Whether warranted or not, the media is searching for CEO mismanagement. Newspapers swirl with stories of mismanagement from Enron to WorldCom. Some of this searching is justified, but there is a deeper message: Corporate leaders in for-profit and not-for-profit organizations are being scrutinized for leadership and fiduciary responsibilities. They are being held accountable by their shareholders, and in the case of religious organizations, their members.
How is your church managing its money? Is everything in order? Is the senior pastor unjustly benefiting? What would happen if someone inspected under a microscope what your church is doing?
In 1 Corinthians 14:40, Paul wrote, "Let all things be done decently and in order.’

“When handling money, always consider protective measures or what is commonly called internal controls. These barriers prevent theft and any accusations concerning mismanagement of funds. Generally, pastors need to avoid handling money, and employees or volunteers assigned to this task should do so in the presence of others.” (Joseph, EJ2004 Winter)

It would appear that the FGTF is still retaining the role of the senior pastor in the financial management of the Calvary Church. The above statements from AOG leaders would advise against it.


7. The Missions Department and the Extended Ministries

Presently the existence of the Missions Department and the Extended Ministries are not covered by the Church Constitution. It is imperative that the Constitution be amended to rectify this very serious shortcoming. The FGTF may recall that at the last AGM Bro Lee Tuck Heng conveyed to the members the opinion of his Technical Partner that all the various components of the Church must be included in the accounts to be presented to the members. The accounts of the Missions Department were already presented. The members voted for the accounts of the Extended Ministries to be annexed to the main church accounts. To ensure that there is a clear understanding that the “Church” includes all its components this must be spelt out clearly in the constitution.


8. Internal Audit Function

As the biggest AOG church in Malaysia with multi-million Ringgit cashflow through multi sources and locations, I believe it would serve us well to establish an internal audit function as a management tool. I am sure the FGTF is familiar with the role and usefulness of such a function. If coordinated properly it could well reduce the audit fees we have to pay to the external auditors. The internal audit function should report directly to the Audit Committee of the Board. I believe the FGTF is thinking of such a committee.


9. Reserve Lists

From experience I have found that a quick way to improve governance is to establish clearly defined reserve lists for decisions and actions including financial ones. The FGTF may wish to define a list of decisions and actions that can only be done by the members at general meeting. These decisions and actions cannot be delegated to the Board of Deacons or any other person or persons in the church.

A similar reserve list should also be established for the Board of Deacons. Again these decisions and actions are reserved for the Board sitting as the Board. They cannot be delegated to any deacon or any board committee or any person in the church.

The same process can then be done for board committees and individual deacon or employee of the church. There will be a logical flow of authority downward and a flow of accountability upwards. Through this process we would be able to develop a chart of authority limits. I am sure most of you would have worked with such authority limits.

I thank you once again for all your hard work. I trust my comments and suggestions would be considered useful by your committee. My comments and suggestions are supported only by the resources available on the AOG-USA website; essentially the position papers and the Enrichment Journal. If the FGTF has other AOG authorities on the subject please let me know.

I request that this memo be posted on your webpage in its entirety to progress the discussion further. I will also be sharing this memo with some of the concerned members of the Church.

Thanking you.

Yours in Christ,

Signed: Wong Hong Meng



­­­­­­­­­

10 comments:

Was at the Workshop said...

Was at the FGTF workshop and I remember hearing Treasurer ER assuring us that there will be more such workshops. They all assured us that they will take all the feedbacks given by members. Looks like it is all talk and for show again.

They are putting forth all their proposals for amendment at the coming EGM. What was the workshop for?

Sorry HM, your hard work here is all going to waste. They obviously have not heard any of the members view. All their assurances were empty talk.

who really should jump into the lake? said...

If the pastors and BOD of Calvary REALLY wanted what is best for the church, they would have elected more qualified people to be in the FGTF, like Bro Wong Hong Meng. But because the pastors and BOD are only trying to protect their own interests and not the interest of the church as a whole, they have chosen to get a group of yes men (come on, who are you kidding...2 existing deacons, 1 existing auditor and 1 ex auditor sitting in a supposedly independent task force???) to set up a 'better' financial governance for the church. In the end, only PG and family prospers from this new financial governance, as usual. The sheep all go astray in the meantime as both their spiritual needs are not met and they are asked to go jump into the lake by their senior pastor.

Apostle said...

An excellent comprehensive article.

If the BOD can’t accept it is because it is unable to (because of PG1).

And if PG1 can’t accept it is because of his flesh (which is overwhelming).

BE Humble before God said...

What has happened to the Constitution Review Committe (CRC)?

Why has CRC not been disclosing what they have done? Or is it just for convenience and show that CRC was set up and just do what has been dished out to it by FGTF?

For convenience and for show a piece of PR job so members think that the leadership has been complying with the "Moving Forward" plan?

The underlying issues with reference to the Church Constitution - pertaining to conflict of interest and overlapping of powers and possible abuse of powers and positions (the hush hush words) have not be addressed at all.

If PG and BOD are sincere and really care for the good of the Church then they would indeed sit down and discuss the issues openly with all concerned members, get the right expertise from members of CC, including TTG group and be humble and willingly work together to bring about transperancy and good church governance. After all what is there to hide?

God led the right people together and with the relevant gifts, expertise and talents in these areas right within the church, so why not tap on these talents? We have the right resources within our own church, so let us work together for the good of Calvary Church. That I would say is indeed MOVING FORWARD! Not one of PR job and using condscending men and women, not well versed in areas of concern to handle the issues.

It is ridiculous to cut away the arms and legs of the Body when they are healthy and fully functional. One should not miam one's own body just because maybe that part has been hurting and causing pain due perhaps to one's own neglect or selfish pursuits?

Truly we pray and ask GOD to work a miracle to bring about a self realisation in PG and BOD and to do the right thing to resolve the matters at hand.... to humble themselves and yield to the Holy Spirit's promptings.

Apostle said...

FGTF : Its a POWER IMBALANCE problem

This is the essential problem in CC:

PG1 wields just too much power.
He is the epitome of pride & arrogance.
His leadership style is dictatorial
He issues top down policies through the BOD
And expects the congregation toaccept without question.

PG1 demands that the congregation absolutely trusts him.
Even though he is a mere mortal.
To implement internal controls is to challenge his integrity.
He wants a congregation of DUMB SHEEP
Who never asks how, why or what?
He wants congregation so NAIVE
That it has NEVER heard of CBT

IN ESSENCE
FGTF, if you really & sincerely want to perform justly,

Reduce the power control of PG1 (not just a liitle bit)

And increase the participation of the congregation (not just a liitle bit)
IN THE MANAGEMENT OF CC.

Otherwise, just like BOD, you are just playing games
.... with congregation & its not going to fool them(even a little bit)

Bamboo Conspiracy said...

Dear Hong Meng

Excellent research!.

What you wrote should be shared in general to other churches as well so that its members may address any present weakness in their constitution.

FURTHERMORE, as the function of any Christian Research commission is to act as WATCHMAN, I suggest you send this as a position paper to the research commissions of National Christian Organisations and request their views. This may be a good test of the integrity of Christian research committees and to determine to what extent they are willing to address present problems in the Christian Community.

I really prey your efforts are not in vain and may the Lord bless you. Remember, your letter has a purpose. Paul wrote letters to the Churches in Asia-Minor. He also wrote (appealed) to Rome for justice. Paul's letters helped influence the people and who knows how the Lord is using this letter - only time will tell. Faith is WORK! A faith-seed has been planted - another may water and yet another may prune it. However, in the end it is the Lord who brings in the harvest.

Let us continue to seek the Lord and expect a miracle! Perhaps more of the leaders and congregations will say "ENOUGH - THIS MUST END HERE" and expedite the changes God wants to see happen in Calvary.

God bless Calvary Church.

Vijay

PS. My colleagues in the USA have given their thumbs up for your article. But a word of caution. Events in Calvary have deep spiritual roots that need the combine efforts of all those who truly love the Lord and expect Him to deliver them. THERE MUST BE FAITH AND EXPECTATIONS to see this through. There are forces in play that no human can defeat except the direct intervention of God.

HIS NAME BE GLORIFIED IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS ENEMIES!

Apostle said...

LEGISLATION TO CONTROL SENIOR PASTORS

It has been said:

The BEST constitution
cannot keep at bay the
GREED & DOMINANCE of an UNGODLY SP.

And,
The WORSE constitution
Cannot disrupt the truthfulness, transparentness and good governance of a GODLY PASTOR.

To put it bluntly,
We need a new SP in Calvary Church!!!
And for that to happen, we need to get rid of the OLD ONE.


...

Tun Daniel said...

CHANGE

One of the main problems with many senior pastors
Is their problem in handling change

When Malaysia was young,
Its economy was based on rice, tin and rubber.
There was a world demand for then.

If today the new PM tries to drive the country in the same direction
There will be economic disaster!!

Change is not an enemy
Change is our friend
We must first see it,
We must then embrace it
.......and adjust our lives around it.

Take for example any senior pastor
who has served in Calvary for 40 years or so.

A member may be just a toddler when he first started.
But today that same member is already 40 year old, at the prime of his career.

He may now be a GM, Director,Professor, State Surgeon,
Consultant Physician, Senior Lawyer, Chief Engineer etc.


The senior pastors should treat his sheeps accordingly the current situation and not to insist on being autocratic, dictatorial, Arrogant, proud, conceited, aloof.


Its seems the members have changed,
But the senior pastors
....... just can’t.

Sadly, by this admission senior pastors are making themselves irrelevant !!


...

joe black said...

Dr Wong Hong Meng.
Surely your well research work should be at least use as a reflection of what TTG has being championing. No they not here to destroy the church or to divide the church. They want transparency so our minister will not be wrongly accused.So that they intergrity shines.
Do not treat at TTG as outside or people wanting to bring the church down,
Anyone just anyone who attend the brief will know that everyone come prepare to contribute and also to warn the BOD the grey line they crossing. BOD you are forewarn and foretold. Please do what is right for the church not for PG.You used to sit where we sit before you were voted in. As soon as you are voted in why do u have to operated under a different set of rules.Tell the church if the TTG do not understand why you have to act the way you act now.
Mr Han as i know him personally, he is know in the goverment department as one who leave by his christian principle . Why can it be practice in the church he attends. is it more difficult to practice christian in church then in the goverment?? Mr Han as credit to you a non christian told me about you as he does not know i know you. Today it is so sad to question the sets of rules you operated in.

stephen liew
you are know in the business world. the business you build on what you promise the people and you always do as you had committed. You know your business well. you know your product you stand by it.Why then do you operated under a different sets of rules in church. Would it be more difficult for you to take the abuses on your intergrity then to resign like what Dr. Lum had done.

Bennedit Foo,

you are a lecture . do you teach facts and well research work. Do you face challenging moments of student questioning your opinion. What do you do with them. Fail them or write them off.You have done al this expecially to those who you were once close friends.You break many hearts who were as dear to you as sister in exchange for your position in BOD. Why do you too operated under a different rules.

for Patrick n Philip need we mention about them . they are chosen because they are blue eyes boy. Philip is not well and on medication yet he was chosen in a hurry.the day he left singapore he was given a job in church also in the comittee of the CCC.

Patrick is a trusted hand of PG he being favor too .


we not asking you to favor PG or TTG. look a t the input given . should you not seriously consider moving forward instead removing those who speak up against you. i am refering to Dr. Lum sacking.
yes yes you may say it conincidence

This sat is EGM. we dont even know what we are voting. if it is given to my lawyer they will need 3 days to come back to me.Now they give me 3 min then vote.
where got meaning?????


lastly i think HM comments should be posted in their offical web site too as comments other wise they will say we don't know Calvary today.

ok see you folks in Calvary church this sat. if you still love the church do come expecially those who are voting

Johanis said...

LEADERS ARE BECOMING ACTORS

A lady shared with me
Wow, PG2 came to talk with me after the service,
And she hugged me a prayed with me!
I WAS SURPRISED !!
SHE HAS NEVER DONE THAT TO ME BEFORE !!

I told her.
NOTHING SURPRISING.
EGM & AGM coming.

Normally only 500 – 600 show up.
The last TIME congregation voted,
PG1 people had about 223 votes
TTG had 298 votes.

If PG2 is sincere
SHE SHOULD BE FRIENDLY ALL YEAR ROUND !!

EXPECT EVERY ONE, PG1, PG2, BOD, Ass. Pastors to be VERY FRIENDLY.

Accept their friendliness but vote the other side.

...

Post a Comment