Questions Unanswered at EGM by LL

29 August 2008 WITHOUT PREJUDICE

AN OPEN LETTER
(Strictly for Members & Worshippers of Calvary Church Only)

To: Sr. Pastor- CEO and the Board of Deacons (BOD)
Calvary Church, Kuala Lumpur.

Fr: Liza Low


QUESTIONS UNANSWERED AT THE 15 AUGUST 2008 EGM

To all who were present at the EGM, I sincerely hope you will understand why I feel compelled to write this open letter.


AN ORCHESTRATED EGM

The EGM proceedings were well planned and orchestrated by the BOD to deny concerned members who seek the truth from being heard. I take my hat off to the BOD for their mastery in subtlety, such as using RM1,490K in place of the normal RM1,490,000 (or RM1.490 Million) in showing the funds in CIM.

The manner in which the EGM was conducted was deeply regrettable. It was a farce. It was not only unconstitutional but most painful of all was the manner it was carried out—the oppressive control of the entire proceedings that completely undermined the Christian doctrines of Righteousness and Justice.

However, like many who witnessed the entire proceedings, I felt sorry for our beloved Pastor Guynes, who was called to Chair the meeting and put through such a difficult situation because he did not have the benefit of hearing from the concerned members first hand.


THE SCENE AT THE EGM

It was disappointing to see how members who wanted to share the facts and ask questions were sidelined, and consequently those who came hoping to know the truth of the matter were denied.

On numerous occasions during the EGM, members from the floor stood to raise a point of order, only to be abruptly cut off by Pastor Guynes, who muttered ‘I was told by the BOD that this is how…and what it should be.’

Also instructive is the fact that Pastor Guynes was seen constantly looking to Sr. Pastor, who was seated in the front row, for his signal on when to interrupt and cut-off the members who went out to speak, before they could finish what they had to say or ask, myself included. Indeed, several times the microphone was switched off when members persisted in being heard.

In the end, it was not unlike the way all past AGMs were conducted—the intimidation was evident. From the outset, it was clear it would be one-sided. The decree of the all powerful BOD and CEO as enshrined in the Constitution, though not necessarily without recourse for the members, was used to good effect.


UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTIONS

· The BOD failed and refused to present and table The Resolutions submitted in Full compliance with the Constitution* (Rule IX: 5)

*For the benefit of all, a letter which I only received on the eve of EGM, from the BOD, advised me that my proposed two Resolutions were not be necessary to be tabled, simply because it was their decision.

· At an EGM (whether Corporate/ Societies/Clubs/NGOs/ Religious Bodies), the right for members to speak on the issues tabled cannot be suppressed or oppressed.

· There exists no such ruling to impose a two question limit on the same subject for each member. It showed a total disregard for fairness and justice.

· The Constitution provides for Adjournment (Rule IX: 8) of the meeting for unfinished business, therefore the excuse of limitation of time does not arise.

(I would leave out the legal aspects to argue on this point in this letter)



BOD’S UNDERTAKING WAS NOT HONOURED

Notwithstanding all the above, the group of concerned members was also given an undertaking by the BOD in writing that they would be able to speak and present their views and concerns at this forum (EGM) on all the critical issues that were already brought to the BOD’s attention.

When reminded, none of the Deacons owned-up. They remained conveniently silent, and watched as members pleaded for more time to speak, but to no avail.


Q. Is this how the BOD entrusted with both the spiritual and practical superintendence of the church, beat down and ride rough shot over the Congregation?


LEGAL STATUS OF THE CHURCH

Mr. KK Wong had certainly enlightened us on the legal status of Calvary Church (CC) explaining the definition of the different Acts, that the church not a Trust Corporation, etc. His conclusion on the legal status of the church was that the church is not a legal body.

That probably took many members by surprise. But the good news to me is that it reaffirms the church’s status as an institution that is founded on God’s Commandments, Values & Beliefs, not man’s nor the secular world’s.

Q. Why then, would Sr. Pastor & his Board of Deacons prefer, quite obviously, to use Legal interpretations and secular perspectives to deal with the moral and spiritual issues the church is facing?



DEACON PATRICK WONG’S OPENING REMARKS

He said that ‘…as a spiritual organization, the church should be governed primarily using spiritual principles and using the best of the secular practices when deemed expedient. ’

Indeed, this statement underpins the very manner in which the CEO and his BOD are running the church and the objectives the BOD have in mind, i.e. the use of double standards where expedient

Q. Please state which aspects of Spiritual governance have been used or applied thus far?

Q. According to the dictionary, ‘Expediency’ means an action that is convenient and practical, but possibly improper and immoral. What are these best secular practices the BOD has adopted for expediency’s sake?



RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CALVARY CHURCH & HER MEMBERS, AND CALVARY CHURCH & CALVARY INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES (CIM)

According to Mr. KK Wong CIM is a personal ministry belonging to Prince Guneratnam. CIM is a separate, independent entity, and has nothing to do Calvary Church.

Also, he concluded, Calvary Church is not a legal body. Hence members are not Shareholders, and have no rights, though they are Stakeholders of the church.

The BOD is the supreme authority with the final say under RULE XIV (i) of the Church Constitution. Monies given to CIM was passed by a BOD resolution and the transfer of funds from the Missions Department to CIM was considered an absolute gift because ‘all offerings are deemed as gifts’, including designated offerings collected for a specified cause.

Accordingly, CIM and the BOD are at full liberty to use and disburse the monies any way they wish and not be answerable for it.

Besides, in the case of the church, as stipulated in the Constitution, these monies are under the CONTROL of the administrators of church finance, i.e. the BOD, of which Sr. Pastor-CEO is the Chairman, as well as the Chairman of Missions Board.

It is important to note that Mr. KK Wong has emphasised time and again that his views are strictly from a legal perspective, and qualified based on documents he was furnished with.

Q. While all the actions and decisions Senior Pastor-CEO and the BOD may deem to be legally covered & protected under the Constitution, has it ever crossed your mind individually, and as Stewards of the church, that the POWER intended for the good governance of the church has been ABUSED?

Q. Every member or worshipper of the church, when they give an offering they GIVE in GOOD FAITH. However, using legal rulings and rationales to justify the transfer of funds and usage of the offerings as has happened, wouldn’t it be perceived that the BOD acted in BAD FAITH?

Q. Furthermore, before the legal opinion came into the picture, did the BOD or the Missions Director ever considered Faith Promise as an absolute gift to be used or spent as the BOD so wishes?

As we all know, since the inception of Faith Promise giving, the Faith Promise card given to members clearly states the purposes of the collection wherein the Mission Department has represented clearly of its intended purposes.

One brother who went out to speak said how he felt ‘cheated’ and another that he would have thought twice if he knew it had been used for the President’s travel via CIM. Their sentiments echoed many of those who gave sacrificially and who had believed the monies were used responsibly and as designated. Now, many feel duped.



THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN CALVARY CHURCH, CIM & CARED*
*(A sub ministry created by CIM within CIM)

On the basis that CIM and Calvary are separate entities and according to those documents cited by Mr. KK Wong, the transactions were deemed in order. However, I wish to draw attention to the following statements made by Deacon Edward Rajasingam on the overview of CIM & CARED’s Financial Statement:

“Every dollar of financial support from Calvary Church of Missions Dept. goes through a review process of approval & endorsement by Missions Committee or the BOD or both.”

Q. Why was that a Missions Committee member had claimed he had no knowledge of it and was shocked when informed that the Missions Dept. transferred RM200,000 to CIM annually?

Q. Why are there 3 Options in the process–approval: i) Missions Committee, or
ii) The BOD or iii) Both? Where does the actual ‘Authority’ lie?

Q. It appeared from the many RATIFICATIONS made, as revealed, neither party knew what the other has done, wouldn’t such practice open itself to manipulation?


DEACON EDWARD RAJASINGAM’S STATEMENT

“… the Missions Committee assisted in the set-up of CARE in 2002, which was modelled after WAGRA (World Assemblies of God Agency) and in 2002 when CIM was set-up, its Charter also included humanitarian works. So, 2006 the two independent Ministries CIM & CARE were brought under the common umbrella of CIM purely to improve the efficiency of the administration operations.”

Q. Why would CARE which was originally managed by the Missions Dept. belonging to Calvary Church be dissolved and went to CIM, a Personal ministry, an independent entity? WHOSE idea & decision was this?

Q. Please explain what is meant by “So, 2006 the two independent Ministries CIM & CARE were brought under the common umbrella of CIM…” (It’s a very Confusing statement. In the first place, CARE was under Missions Dept. and was not an independent ministry, nor a part of CIM)

Q. Please substantiate how going to CIM would ‘improve the efficiency of the administration operations’, when CIM actually uses the capital and human resources belonging to Calvary Church?

Q. Speaking of efficiency, why were the funds raised by the church for the Indonesian earthquake victims not reach them, but instead got stuck in CIM?



CARE or CARED?

Q. CARE (the Original humanitarian ministry) was set-up by the Missions Dept. Why did CIM also name its humanitarian activity as CARE with a D, i.e. CARED? (Even the Deacon seemed confused at times as to which he was referring to when presenting the accounts a the EGM)

Q. Can the BOD verify hearsay that the original CARE had a new bank account opened in another bank, which subsequently became a CARED account?

As reported at the EGM, CARED has received RM1,106,000* (RM 1.106 Million) from Calvary Church as of 2007

Q.Based on the aforementioned, would it be wrong to say that CARED was preconceived to take over CARE?

*FUNDS from WAGRA

It was informed that of the RM1,106,000, RM550,000 came from WAGRA (World Assemblies of God Relief Agency).

A member had asked: ‘When money was transferred from WAGRA to CARED, was approval given by the incoming President (of WAGRA)?

SR. PASTOR replied: ‘the money that came from WAGRA was a NATIONAL WAGRA… Pastor Peter can confirm it—It’s the National President here, that transferred the money from the organization to the Church Missions’

Q. Can the BOD re-confirm there is indeed a National WAGRA in Malaysia? And, who is the President of National WAGRA Malaysia?

Q. Since the money was given to Calvary Missions*, why was it transferred out to CARED, CIM? Who authorized the transaction?

Until this was made known, I for one, did not know anything about WAGRA and National WAGRA Malaysia. For the benefit of the members, and also because the amount involved was over Half a Million Ringgit ( RM550,000) would the BOD conduct an investigation to the bona-fide status of both, please?

*Incidentally, can the BOD please verify and confirm Sr. Pastor’s answer in reply to a question posed by a member that he is only an Ex-Officio of the Missions Board and not its Chairman, although the Missions Manual has stated otherwise.


CIM (CALVARY INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES)
A personal Ministry of Prince Guneratnam

Q. Can the BOD verify that the Missions Director had allegedly after conferring with Sr. Pastor-CEO (who is also the Chairman of the Missions Board), went to the BOD for their rubber stamping of the proposed amount to be taken from the Faith Promise-Missions Funds allocation?

Q. Is it true that not all of the BOD were not aware of the RM200,000 transferred from the Missions account for the President of CIM’s travelling expenses?

Q. Did the BOD deliberate on the merits of CIM’s formation, and conduct due diligence before deciding on its financial support of CIM?

Q. Was there any evaluation/appraisal of CIM’s performance against its purported objectives?

Q. Can the BOD confirm that the original RM30,000 gift in 2002 was in fact the ‘Seed’ fund given at the launch of CIM?


Could it be the reason then why in the CIM Accounts 2003 it was stated ‘…the Board of Directors resolved to set up a ‘SEED FUND’ for its long term ministry worldwide, and is trusting GOD to raise RM1,000,000 (RM ONE MILLION) to generate a monthly contribution that will play a major role in providing a continuous source of finance for its growing ministries around the world’?

Q. Can the easy and convenient way of simply asking the Missions Dept. to allocate RM200,000 annually under the pretext of “PRESIDENT’S TRAVEL MINISTRY’ as classified in its Accounts, be considered trusting God to raise the RM1,000,000?


EDWARD RAJASINGAM’S REPLY TO QUERY ON SEED FUND

He said “when the SEED FUND was reviewed and approved in 2004 by the BOD… clearly stated the objective was to develop a self-generating gift in recognition of Sr. Pastor service… the idea was for it to be available to fulfil his calling as Missionary & Evangelist at some point in his service to God.

It’s recognized that he’ll continue to hold his responsibilities as Sr. Pastor of the church as God call him to do evangelistic work, but the idea is to have the fund ready...at any point in time when he so desires to go full time, so to speak, as missionary and evangelist and... the accumulation of this fund is to be a gift in recognition of his service to the church.”

This whole statement of Edward’s is very confusing, and to borrow an expression, ‘it’s full of holes’.

Q. Since it is a calling, can it be ’when he so desires to go’ and not abide by God’s timing?


Q. “The idea is to have the fund ready and available at any point in time…the accumulation of this fund is to be a gift…” Is it a wise idea to accumulate and store in advance this fund for such a time, unknown in the future?

Q. The term ‘SELF-GENERATING gift’ – does it mean continuous or endless multiplication? How does it work?

Q. When the RM 30,000 was given it was stated it was in recognition of his service. Now the SEED FUND amounting to almost RM 1,500,000 is also for recognition of his service? It seems as if the BOD uses ‘Recognition of service’ as a convenient reason to give financial support to CIM each time money is called for.

Q. Based on the abovementioned, the transactions between Calvary Church, CIM & CARED (a sub ministry created by CIM within CIM) are not as straightforward as they seem – or are they?



IS THERE INDEED NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

Deacon Patrick Wong had cited 4 reasons in support of the CIM as follows:

CIM’s objectives complements that of Calvary Church.

Having such a ministry whilst he is still the Sr. Pastor of Calvary Church paves the way for him to continue to be effective in the kingdom of God, in the event he is no longer the pastor of the church, he can continue to serve God in a long, long time to come.

It is not unique (many other Pastors do it too.)

All funds to be used as stated in its missions & objectives and no personal gain involved. Hence, the Deacons’ view is that there is no conflict of Interest.


I would wish to respond as follows:

1. The objectives of CIM are in fact the same as that of Calvary Church.
Therefore, how and in what area does it complement that of Calvary Church? Is it not just duplication?

2. As citing the reason “paves the way… in the event he is no longer the pastor of the church.” Q. Under what circumstances do the BOD foresee this happening?

3. Based on the rather wishy-washy explanations given, it seems more like a retirement scheme, isn’t it?

4. Whether it is unique or commonplace, it is not a criterion to set up any Ministry. As for other Pastors who also have Personal Ministries – Yes, indeed, but for sure none uses the same name as the church he/she is pastoring. They use either their own individual names or some other names like ‘Healing Jesus’.

In this case, it is named Calvary International Ministries—which many have mistaken as one of the many EXTENDED Ministries of Calvary Church.

5. As for personal gain, it need not be confined to monetary gains alone. Wouldn’t the enhancement of one’s stature and reputation to advance one’s own agenda, be considered personal gain too?

Note: Any assets & Monies in CIM are under their direct and sole control, including how the funds are to be used, now and in the future. Members were informed at the EGM that all the monies transferred to CIM by the Missions Dept. are considered a gift. In effect, the monies have become CIM’s, and the church cannot ask for its return. It is therefore, entirely at CIM’s Board discretion if they choose to return the monies or not.



WHERE DOES THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST LIE?

ENTITY & OWNERSHIP

Calvary International Ministries (CIM) is confirmed as a personal ministry of Senior Pastor:

Founder & President: Prince Guneratnam
Co Founder & Vice President: Petrina Guneratnam
Director: Jim Guneratnam (and one other appointed Director)

CIM is personal and belongs to the Guneratnams, whereas Calvary Church belongs to the Members. (Although members are not the beneficiaries)

Therefore, they are NOT one & the same.


ROLE & RESPONSIBILITIES

Sr. Pastor and Associate Sr. Pastor are currently in full employment of Calvary Church and serve as full time Ministers enjoying full stipends with all the benefits & perks the positions carry. Yet, his overseas speaking engagements and conferences are under the banner of CIM, in his capacity as President of CIM, rather than as Sr. Pastor of Calvary Church.

Q. Is he able to devote himself fully to the welfare & growth of Calvary Church and its Ministries as required of a Sr. Pastor, while he is also concerned with the advancement of his own personal ministry as an ‘evangelist & missionary’?

Q. Is it true Sr. Pastor spends approx. 3 months overseas in a year? And when he is doing his personal ministry, does he take leave to do it, and his stipends pro-rated for the days away?


USE OF CALVARY CHURCH RESOURCES

The CIM President’s travel expenses are taken from the Calvary Missions Funds –allotted from Faith Promise.

(The travel expenses of Sr. Pastor were not captured in the Main Church’s Accounts under Travel Expenses. In 2007, it showed only RM13,271 when in fact it should have been RM200,000) As of 2007 approx. RM1.9MILLION has been transferred into CIM.)

Calvary Church's other resources: administration, staff, utilities, hardware etc, are used and mobilized for CIM's purposes and activities.

Use of Calvary’s name, address, including email url: cim@calvary.ogr.my

CIM has claimed/inferred events & activities and missions programmes of Calvary Church as that of CIM’s. (As featured under ‘PICTORIAL TESTIMONIES’ in CIM”s brochure)

I remember, very often pastors have reminded good Christian conduct at work place includes not misusing company’s facilities, e.g. use of telephone/fax/internet/photocopier for personal purpose, or moonlighting using office time.

Q. Is this not a parallel in the case of CIM ? Or is there any difference in the case of CIM?


SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS

Linking CIM to Calvary Church as if they are 'interchangeable'

Sr. Pastor’s role & positions in CIM & Calvary Church have become seamless.

The ownership of the Missions programmes of the Church and CIM is blurred.

AMBIGUOUS STATUS

· Is the use of the name Calvary for Sr.Pastor's own personal ministry Calvary International Ministries (CIM) not ambiguous?

· Doesn’t the use of Calvary’s official URL for CIM's email cim@calvary.org.my and the church address & its staff further reinforce the notion that it is a Calvary Church's ministry when it is not so? This can be misconstrued as a 'pass-off', or worse, outright misrepresentation?

· Would not any unsuspecting individuals think, and rightly so, that it is a Calvary Church International Ministry? And, that there is every possibility that donations meant for the church may have unwittingly been misdirected or issued to CIM?

· Doesn’t the setting-up of a sub-ministry called Care Relief & Development Agency (CARED) within CIM, which has its own bank account, add further confusion to its original intent?

· Further, CIM with its Founder/ President holding a position in Calvary Church as Sr. Pastor-CEO, CHAIRMAN of the Board of the Missions Dept. as well as CHAIRMAN of the BOD, isn’t it abundantly clear that there is an obvious conflict of interest?


DOES CALVARY CHURCH NEED CIM/CARED?

Deacon Philip Tan’s statement, an attempt to justify the role and existence of CIM in its present form, ironically, has confirmed concerned members’ stand that CIM/CARED is REDUNDANT.

He said “While CARED is served as the medium in which funds has been moved for humanitarian needs… in all announcements made to you and in the Annual Missions Report.. it clearly states that Calvary Church is the one giving away this money… we have some video clips to show you that reflect the types where we have given out through CIM/CARED, BUT, really we have informed the people it comes from Calvary Church.”

Q. In other words, what one brother had remarked that CARED functions as a ‘COLLECTING AGENCY’ is correct then?

In reply to my analysis that CIM & Calvary Church has become seamless, Deacon Patrick Wong expressed view representing that of BOD was as follows:

“CIM is formed to set a platform for Sr. Pastor to continue his ministry beyond his retirement. Here we are trying to build a platform that will continue… so, to the BOD the blurring of images is not a big problem because we are, to use a secular word, in the same business—not doing different things but same things, just having two (2) separate organizations to do. And the person in-charge/involved is on both sides of the house – he is in Calvary Church and also in CIM – and that is the view we have.”

Q. So, by that statement “the Blurring of images is not a big problem because we are to use a secular word, in the same business”, the BOD is of the view that what belongs to Calvary’s church is also CIM’s? How does this fit into the fact that Calvary and CIM is independent of each other and they are separate & different entities altogether?

Perhaps the problems confronting the church over the transactions, roles & functions between CIM and Calvary Church—the topsy-turvy state of affairs–could be attributed to this irrational explanation from the BOD.


IS THERE INDEED NO CASE FOR CBT?

It was noted in Mr. KK Wong’s opinion that based on the documents furnished to him that there was no misappropriation of funds and no dishonesty since the transfer of funds to CIM were approved by the BOD based on the Minutes of Meetings of the Board of Deacons. The transfer of funds from Mission Department to CIM was an absolute gift. However, I gathered that this view might not necessary be binding, and that Intent could not be conclusive as yet, without a full investigation.

He did emphasise that his conclusion was purely legal, and only based on documents he had access to. And added, it has nothing to do with ‘Trust’ in the Spiritual sense.

Q .Would BOD be able to attest that the Truth and nothing but the absolute Truth was disclosed to Mr. KK Wong?

Q. Would the BOD be able to attest that none of the actions and decisions carried out as disclosed and declared, were not afterthoughts, and/or made up justifications?

Q. Would all the deacons be able to attest that they have the full knowledge of the original intention of CIM/CARED and were not in anyway caught in the web of the process from conception to execution beyond their control in most of the decisions concerning CIM/CARED and transfers of funds?

Q. Looking at the pieces of the puzzle, and in hindsight of all that has taken place with regard to the issues of CIM/CARED and the transfer of Funds from the Missions Dept./CARE to the former, is it highly probable that they took place by skilful manipulation of those involved?

Q. Would it be wrong to say based on the information and the facts that have unfolded thus far, that the BOD has allowed Calvary Church to be used as the stage to lend credence to CIM, and enhance its stature and reputation in the national and international arena to promote its own agenda?

Note: The Founder/ President of CIM, also holds positions in Calvary Church as Sr. Pastor-CEO, CHAIRMAN of the Board of Missions Department as well as CHAIRMAN of the Board of Deacons.

Q. Would you agree even if legally it were found not to be in breach of the law, as Christians we would rather be governed and judged by the SCRIPTURAL CONDUCT laid down in the Bible?


IS IT INDEED MOVING FORWARD?

The ‘Moving Forward’ plan put up by the BOD is a cop-out, and does not address the real issues.

To reiterate, I opine that CIM adds nothing to the church, except duplication, confusion and complication. Now, why add a BURDEN too, in getting the involvement of Church Deacons to sit on the CIM Board, and to bother with CIM’s Financial Reports & Audited accounts, which strictly speaking is none of the Church’s business, as for all intents and purposes, it has been established as a Personal Ministry and it is an independent entity?

Moreover, when there is already so much controversy surrounding CIM and its CARED, can this be a prudent and wise move?

Why does the BOD want to allow CIM to remain status quo in spite of all that the church has gone through— the pain and division to the congregation it has brought to the church?

Allowing CIM to remain status quo is NOT moving forward. In fact, it would be taking the church deeper into the pit instead.



SHOULDN’T THE INTEREST OF CALVARY CHURCH COME FIRST?

DISSOLVE CARED

CIM as a Personal Ministry, its programme, sub ministries, etc must never be mixed-up with the Calvary Church’s. There must be a clear line drawn.

Hence, CIM’s CARED should not be conveniently allowed to move and park itself under Missions Department as yet another Extended Ministry. However, the correct thing to do is transfer all the monies back to Missions, where it rightfully belongs.

The Missions Department originally has CARE, which is its Humanitarian Ministry, and it should be re-established as such.


RENAME CIM

Applying wisdom, CIM has to be renamed should its President still remain in Office as the Sr. Pastor of Calvary Church. However, if left unchanged at its insistence, it must then clearly state in all its communication materials, next to its name, that it is a “PERSONAL MINISTRY of Prince Guneratnam’.

Also, it must not use and carry Calvary Church address, tel, fax and url to avoid misrepresentation*.

*At the meeting between the Concerned members and the BOD on 31 MAY 08, didn’t the Deacons Patrick Wong and Phillip Tan acknowledge it was so, but this could be an oversight, and had agreed to look into it?


CALVARY CHURCH’S FOREIGN MINISTRY – DOES IT EXIST?

Not since 2002. Pastor Peter Ong has told me that originally, all the while, the Foreign Ministry under Missions Dept. was placed under the responsibility of the Sr. Pastor of Calvary Church. However, since Sr. Pastor has set-up his Personal ministry—the CIM, it was transferred to CIM. According to Pastor Ong, this was because the purpose is exactly the same thing.

Q. But is this even a sensible reason at all? Or as with the transfer of CARE’s role to CARED/CIM, is it simply an excuse to prop-up CIM?

Q. I believe the members were never aware of this, but was the BOD aware? And did it in fact approve of it?

Q. Is CIM taking over Calvary Church’s Ministries (albeit selectively) and using the church for CIM’s interest?

Q. Against that background, how could the BOD claim CIM will continue to be an independent Ministry to COMPLEMENT Calvary’s Foreign Ministry, which long has been given over to CIM?

The right thing to do is for BOD to ensure that the Missions Dept. of Calvary Church does not abdicate its role & responsibilities for the Foreign Ministry to carry out and support deserving projects and worthy causes, and not let it function mainly as a vehicle for international networking among ‘Mega’ churches at Conferences.


CALLED TO BE AN EVANGELIST & MISSIONARY

I do understand God’s calling is always specific and for those so blessed to be called there is no ifs’ but to obey. I could cite one example near to home — Pastor Robert Lim who resigned as Sr. Pastor of his church in Singapore because he was called to plant churches in Philippines.

No doubt, members of the church would be supportive of Sr. Pastor’s calling, and surely would contribute to his personal ministry when he needs to step down in obedience to the calling.

However, as long as the Sr. Pastor is holding down his position in the church FULL TIME, is it not highly inappropriate that he should use church time & resources to advance his own Personal Ministry, CIM?

Besides, since CIM is a Personal Ministry, it should have its own resources, including personnel to carry out all its programmes, and also to raise its own funds. Isn’t this true of any INDEPENDENT ministry, not discounting that the church would assist?

Also, the BOD must not forget that Calvary Church, being one of the pioneering churches in the country, still has so much to do for church growth and evangelism to the local community & Malaysia as a nation. We need committed and dedicated FULL TIME PASTORS and Staff alike, to focus, plan and discharge their responsibilities diligently. Sadly, over the past decade not very much of significance has been achieved. Not to mention the shrinking attendance and membership in recent years.


REVIEW OF THE CHURCH CONSTITUTION

The present Church Constitution, as Mr. KK Wong as said, gives absolute power to the Board of Deacons. It also, gives wide power to the office of Senior Pastor. As the saying goes “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This saying should be heeded as a caution and a call to be wise.

Hence, a complete review of the Church Constitution is of utmost importance and should be given priority. The BOD must commit to a timetable at the earliest possible date, for the entire process from the selection of the Review Committee Board* to the completion of the Amended Constitution.

*Selection of the Review Committee Board should go before the members for their agreement, as a matter of good governance



SETTING UP OF A TRUTH COMMISSION

The questions raised herein merely touches the surface of the serious issues the church faces, and are by no means exhaustive. There is just too much to ask since the issues go way back in years. And whatever has been discovered to date is just the tip of the iceberg. Besides CIM, other major issues surrounding CCC and Calvary Land, such as their financial and ownership status among others, need thorough investigation too.

What has been covered under the scope of Mr. KK Wong and the forensic accountants was limited in scope, and the former was not investigative in nature. There are many people within and without who possess material information and firsthand knowledge, and can be asked to testify and reveal facts on the various issues.

Hence, the proposed setting–up of a TRUTH COMMISSION is essential. Until the church comes clean with the truth and not sweep matters under the carpet or simply whitewash them, Calvary Church cannot claim nor can expect to be a good testimony to the community.

It is simply untenable for the church to remain in its present state.

Finally, I would deeply appreciate answers to all the questions presented herein, and trust seven days would be a reasonable time for the BOD to reply, unless I am informed otherwise. I wish to also request a copy of the Minutes for the approval of transfer of funds from the Missions Department to CIM, the written legal opinion of Mr. KK Wong, and the Report & Findings of the accounts by the Consultant Ferrier Hodgson.

Thank you.

In God we trust.