It is really baffling why our Board of Deacons (BOD) and Senior Pastor (SP) are bent on causing further confusion and division in our embattled church.
As a few readers have pointed out, Calvary is behaving more like a political party than a church, having “ceramahs” for selected members to win votes for the forthcoming AGM.
Since last Thursday, the BOD and pastors have called Life Group leaders and other Ministries’ leaders to DH for small group briefings. Each group is said to be not more than 20 people. The presenters/speakers are the pastors, deacons and selected leaders.
There is only 1 agenda and that is to share and explain the issues mentioned by Dr Lum in his private resignation letter to SP. The said letter of resignation as a deacon was written by Dr Lum to SP, with copies extended to the deacons. Most of the issues in the said resignation letter (as revealed now by the deacons and pastors) are the same as the ones published in the CT interview with Dr Lum (read “Interview with Dr Lum Part 1 and II” found in Blog Archive, December 2008). However, the deacons and pastors at last Thursday and Saturday briefings have also brought out a few other issues which were contained in Dr Lum’s letter but not highlighted in the CT interview.
Coming to the briefings, the format of the presentation is as follows. 3 pre-selected individuals will each present a batch of issues raised by Dr Lum. He/She will then elaborate on the “Concerns Raised” and “Opinions Formed” in respect of each of the issues and then explain the “Church Perspective” on those issues.
The “Opinions Formed” are opinions which Dr Lum’s statements had presumably caused to be raised. In other words, when you read Dr Lum’s statements, these are the opinions you will form. This is controversial because Dr Lum, in highlighting the issues may not necessarily have intended to imply anything or create any opinion other than to voice his concerns. As you read the later part of this post, you will be able to put this in perspective.
The “Church Perspective” is basically the BOD’s explanation and justification of the issues raised. A couple of the justification or explanation actually contradict the findings of the auditors, Bro Tam and Bro Chow which were presented to members at the last EGM on 4th April 2009.
At these small group briefings, the pastors and deacons also emphasized more than once that they are fully standing behind SP and that they have full trust in his leadership.
Looking at the readers’ comments coming in to CT, there appears to be some confusion as to who were called and who will be called. Although sources have informed us that only Life Group leaders and other Ministries’ leaders are called to attend these briefings, some members believe that voting members are also being invited. Adding to the confusion, at least 1 member has commented that his wife was invited but he was left out. The latest news is that members are now being called to attend the briefings over the next few days.
From the above and if you read on, we can clearly see that the BOD and SP are still at their old game of twisting facts and side-stepping the real issues. After the theatrical act of SP seeking forgiveness IF he has done wrong or hurt anyone at the Putra Stadium, we thought that, he and the BOD would have become wiser and be truly humble, loving and open. Apparently, they have not changed but instead are more adamant on having things done their way.
The only concrete change that we have noticed is that SP has re-designated himself as Senior Executive Pastor. This was announced in the latest Calvary News. Time and again, SP has insisted that we are a church and therefore, we should not follow the world system and now he changes his title to follow the world. Just what is wrong with a simple “Senior Pastor” title? We hope that his self re-designation does not come with a salary raise. It will be a scandal then. (For consistency and to avoid confusion, we will continue to use the acronym “SP”)
Back to the matter at hand, it was so clear at the recent EGM that if Dr Lum’s issues were to be discussed, the members would want him to be present to tell his side of the story. Ignoring that, the BOD and pastors have now instead, organized these small group briefings to give their own explanation of the issues without any opportunity for Dr Lum to defend himself. This is obviously the BOD and SP’s desperate attempt to “divide and conquer” the hearts and minds of the members. Such an action will only cause more confusion and even more disunity in the Church.
The whole exercise is pure propaganda with the sole aim to win the votes of the leaders and members at the coming AGM on 19 June. But we believe the members are now wiser and will not be fooled anymore.
For the benefit of those who are not invited and may not be invited for the briefings, we set out below a summary of the briefing notes and what was presented to the attendees.
Please note that the Concern Raised, Opinions Formed and Church Perspective are taken almost word for word from the briefing notes, presentation by the various Church leaders and reconfirmed by us listening to the audio recordings of a few sessions.
PART I
Issue 1 : Witch Hunting and Pulpit Bashing
1a. Witch Hunting (Issue not raised by Dr Lum in CT interview)
Concern Raised
SP was vindictive and ordered that leaders supporting the TTG meetings be removed from serving in the church immediately after the AGM.
Opinions Formed
a. SP is revengeful, merciless and has no love.
b. The Pastors who carried out the witch-hunt were following orders from SP.
Church Perspective (BOD’s Perspective)
a. The church conducts an annual review of leaders including communion servers.
b. Pursuant to the review which ended the week after the 2008 AGM in March, some leaders were not reappointed and interpreted it as a punitive action.
c. In previous years, the annual reviews were done at the end of each year but however, in 2008, the reviews were completed only after the AGM.
d. It was a matter of bad timing and misunderstood as a witch-hunt.
e. The pastors also acted on their own accord.
CT Comments
Although the church may argue that it was bad timing and not a witch-hunt, the fact remains that out of the 19 leaders who were relieved of their duties, 12 were known TTG core members and supporters. A few of the remaining 7 stood up to vote for transparency at the AGM which probably led to their sacking. The church claims that a few were relieved because they wanted to step down but no one has been able to verify this. As to the statement that the pastors acted on their own accord, any Calvarite who has been long enough in our church can tell you that none of our pastors would dare to act on their own accord. SP’s dictatorial leadership style is well known among the members and staff alike.1b. Pulpit bashing
Concern Raised
SP’s conduct while preaching is un-Christian like, injecting personal remarks to hurt and divide the congregation.
Opinions Formed
SP misused the pulpit to rebuke TTG supporters, inciting hatred and disunity in church and preach partial truth teachings.
Church Perspective (BOD’s Perspective)
a. The pulpit ministry is always conducted with reverence and respect. There is clear understanding that is it not be used to hit out at anyone or to promote any personal causes.
b. The understanding of sermons preached and any remarks made from the pulpit must take into account the content, intent and context of the entire message.
c. Each of the expression used were made with the intent of promoting spiritual growth of the whole congregation.
d. Pas Dag Mills has preached the same message at many places (are you a snake or a sheep?)
e. Calvary do not tell visiting speakers what to preach. Each speaker prepares their own sermon and message independently.
f. Visiting Pas Peter Mortlock was never briefed about the situation in church during his visit. (take another bus).
Pastoral Response
The Bible clearly promotes wholesomeness and Christ-likeness and the manner it does so includes loving rebuke and correction when needed.
CT Comments
The church perspective is persuasive but we cannot fathom how asking members to “jump into the lake” or “take another bus (meaning to leave Calvary and join another church)” can promote spiritual growth in the church. If our pastors and SP think these caustic remarks are “loving rebuke”, then we better send them all back to Bible College. For our 2 pastors who have not gone through formal bible school training, it will be a good start for them.Issue 2 : Gym Fees
Concern Raised
The concerns are that it was an abuse of privileges and breach of trust and that SP lied to the BOD about the club membership as a promise to him.
Opinions Formed
a. SP splurges on fitness membership using the church’s money without proper authorization.
b. SP lied that this has been promised to him.
c. None of the deacons can verify that an approval was given.
d. BOD pays RM15,000-00 but cannot pay more than RM250.00 for Adeline Koh.
Church Perspective (BOD’s Perspective)
a. SP did not lie about the approval.
b. On Nov 23, 1994, in lieu of a stipend increase, the BOD approved a sum of RM13,000-00 for him to spend as he chooses. The only deacons who were present at that time were Patrick Wong and Philip Tan.
c. No conditions were attached. He may even withdraw this in cash.
d. In May 2005, SP exercised this option when he joined the gym for a life time membership.
e. Actual amount paid for the membership was RM7,946.
CT Comments
If indeed the BOD minutes of Nov 23, 1994 are true and not tampered with, which we cannot verify, it is still strange that the current BOD would deem that approval as valid as only 2 deacons were present to approve the RM13,000 entitlement in lieu of stipend increase. Should not a stipend increase of the SP be approved by the whole BOD? Even if everything is in order, is it not inappropriate for SP to claim his entitlement 10-11 years later? How can we be sure that this amount has not been utilized already by him sometime between 1994 to 2005? Would anyone wait that long to claim his entitlement and it is amazing that SP can still remember this “promise” after a decade. Can we assume that BOD had wanted to give SP a RM1,000 increment in 1994? If so, what would his increment be like this year? How can we be sure that during the 10-11 years, the BOD did not reward SP with a bigger increment as compensation because he has not claimed the RM13,000 entitlement?
Issue 3 : Prayer Meeting (Issue not raised by Dr Lum in CT interview)
Concern Raised
Dr. Lum was totally excluded from leading prayer during Friday prayer meetings in the past 7 years.
Opinions Formed
SP shows favoritism and Dr. Lum is sidelined because of his constant opposing opinions.
Church Perspective (BOD’s Perspective)
a. Pas SK recalls that on at least 4 occasions, Dr. Lum has led in prayer at Friday prayer meetings.
b. There were also times when Dr. Lum turned down requests to pray due to his schedule.
c. Associate Pastors takes turn to plan the Friday prayer meetings and each decides whom to ask to lead in prayer. SP plays no part in the decision.
CT Comments
This matter was NOT brought out by Dr Lum in his interview and we are of the opinion that this is too petty to be highlighted by the BOD as a major issue. It is probably a strategy by the BOD to distract members from the real issues affecting and hurting our church. The BOD wants the members to believe that Dr. Lum has brought up petty issues because he was hurt personally. It is also quite remarkable that Pas SK can recall that Dr. Lum prayed 4 times in the 7 years.
Issue 4 : Church Membership Concern Raised
The church is misleading the public into believing we are a 10,000 plus member strong church.
Opinions Formed
a. That CC does not have 10,200 members as per our church website and newspaper reporting.
b. The Church is boasting erroneously.
c. This should be brought up to the AG ethics committee.
Church Perspective (BOD’s Perspective)
a. Calvary website says Calvary and its outreaches minister to 10,200 people.
b. There has never been a claim that we have 10,200 members.
c. The BOD members do not recall SP denying that “we have less than 10,000 worshippers.”
d. The 10,200 is derived from:
3,612 - Calvary Church & satellites
2,878 - Local outreaches
3,680 - Overseas outreaches
10,170 - Total (rounded up to 10,200)
CT Comments
We are just dumbfounded that our BOD and SP are still insisting that Calvary and its outreaches minister to 10,200 people! Any of you who have visited our outreaches will know that in some outreaches, the attendance can be as low as 4-5 persons. How the BOD can come up with such ridiculous figures is beyond understanding! It is highly probable that they have included outreaches which have gone independent decades ago like Glad Tidings, and churches which Calvary has given some financial support in the past.
Financial support cannot equate to ministering when computing such numbers. If that is so, any church giving RM100 to Yoido Full Gospel Church can claim to be ministering to more than a million people.
The BOD should give a breakdown of the above numbers with a full name list of the local and overseas outreaches which are fully supported and “owned” or “overseen” by Calvary, and their weekly attendance numbers, together with the numbers from the main church and satellites.
In one of the briefings, a deacon maintained that they did not simply inflate the figures. To this statement, we would like to highlight that in an AG news article dated 19 Nov 1999, it is stated that our church has a weekly attendance of more than 4,000. (
http://rss.ag.org/articles/detail.cfm?RSS_RSSContentID=1542&RSS_OriginatingChannelID=1007&RSS_OriginatingRSSFeedID=1034&RSS_Source=searchthe) In a write-up on SP in Rev David Cho’s web journal in early 2000 or so, it is stated that our church has 7,000 members (
http://www.davidcho.com/journal/jbody.asp?id=533).
In Nov/Dec 2002 Calvary News, it is stated that Calvary ministers to more than 7,000 people. On our church website less than a year ago, it was stated that Calvary ministers to more than 8,400 people (CT has a printout of the webpage in our file showing this number). The current church website states that Calvary ministers to more than 10,200 people
It is about time our BOD and SP stop misleading the public and the world Christian community and publish actual numbers of worshippers that we currently have, which should be in the range of 2,300-2,600 (and slowly dropping!).Issue 5 : Sr. Pastor’s Children’s salary
Concern Raised
Nepotism
Opinions Formed
a. SP promotes and increases salary of his children by himself and HR deacon.
b. No other deacon knows about these evaluations.
c. There are no proper evaluations for SP’s family members.
d. The appraisal forms are not divulged to the other deacons.
Church Perspective (BOD’s Perspective)
a. All staff in church undergo the same annual appraisal process.
b. Annual appraisal consists of 3 steps:-
- Department Head conducts Staff Appraisal
- Review by Senior Pastor.
- SP & HR Deacon finalises the appraisal & ratings
c. BOD decides on each year's increment scale for each performance rating
d. SP & HR Deacon recommends their increments/promotions to the BOD for approval.
e. BOD agreed on 30 Nov 2002 that only certain deacons (presumably HR Deacon and Treasurer) will have access to stipend information of individual staff.
d. The SP’s children are not exempted from this process.
e. The appraisal of SP’s children are discussed by HR Deacon with SP.
Auditors’ Findings
1. Earlier practice – all salaries were made known to the BOD.
2. On 30 November 2002, the BOD decided that they be shown summary of increment percentages and appraisal review results and only the HR Deacon & Treasurer know salaries of all staff.
3. Board set the increment ranges for the different levels.
4. Present HR Deacon has reverted to previous practice of providing details to the Board.
5. Now, HR Deacon reviews and validates the performance appraisals and ratings, particularly for family members.
CT Comments
The above explanation does not dismiss the fact that since SP’s children are department heads, SP himself does the appraisal. After that, he discusses and finalises the appraisal with the HR Deacon and presumably, both of them recommend their increments and/or promotions to the BOD for approval as should be the procedure. But the BOD only sees the summary of increment percentages and not the actual increment amount or salary. Only the HR Deacon and Treasurer knows the salaries of all staff. The conflict of interest in the appraisal and increment/promotion process in respect of SP's children cannot be denied. The BOD's explanation confirms exactly the truth of what Dr Lum has said.
Part 2.Issue 6 : Adeline Koh
Concerns Raised
a) Whilst serving as our outreach pastor, she only received RM250 per month.
b) She was forced to live in a store room because of this.
c) Church is flouting labor laws.
d) Insinuation that whoever determined her salary is unkind.
Church Perspective (BOD’s Perspective)
a) Adeline was not our outreach pastor at the material time. Neither was she employed by the church.
b) She was a full time BCM student – fully sponsored by Missions for 1 year.
c) She participates in “weekend ministries” as part of her practicals – meaning she serves during weekends only at Bandar Baru Ampang.
d) Sponsored BCM students given an honorarium to assist with their meals and travel.
e) She was given RM250 per month and was given the use of a church van.
f) Adeline graduated in December 2008 (after Dr Lum’s letter).
g) She finished her course in July. Pending graduation she continued with weekend ministries.
h) Her honorarium continued despite the fact she was no longer a student.
i) She stayed at the outreach without obtaining prior clearance from Missions.
j) When this was known and out of concern for her safety, she was advised to find alternative accommodation.
k) However, she requested that she be permitted to stay until she could come up with a suitable alternative.
l) She applied for and was accepted as a full time Missions outreach worker commencing 15 February 2009.
CT Comments
The clarifications by the Church raises more questions. Are our BOD and pastors saying that because Adeline was a full time BCM student and not an outreach pastor and was not employed by our church at the material time, it is justified to take advantage of her? Bear in mind, she was responsible for the outreach and ministers there. It is unbelievable that our BOD and pastors can proudly say that after she finished her course and was no longer a student, her RM250 honorarium continued. What planet are they living on? So long as Adeline continues to serve as the outreach pastor, whether official recognized or not, she should be paid. And with only RM250 allowance per month, it is not surprising that she was forced to be a “squatter” in the store room.The presenter showed photographs of the room where Adeline stayed and said that it was not a store room (but it was used as a store!). From the layout of the room, location of the bed and calculation of the floor tiles, the room size is about 13 feet by 7 feet. The end portion of the room, behind a curtain was used as a store. Because the room is elongated and with the window ledge indenting inwards, there was no space for a small wardrobe or desk, just enough for a single bed and walking room.
Issue 7 : Airfare for Azalea & Shawn Wong
Concerns Raised
a) Church funds utilized for private use.
b) Funds were used to benefit those in positions of influence i.e. SP and a sitting deacon.
c) An example of how SP abused his power.
d) Airfares were sourced from Missions Funds, it therefore was not used for Missions purposes.
e) Only SP knew of this practice. It was kept secret from all other staff.
f) Decision makers made decisions in their own favour.
Church Perspective (BOD’s Perspective)
a) Missions has a budget for “personnel”.
- Full time church staff can be allowed educational related assistance for themselves or their children.
- Intended as an encouragement to full-time staff, in view of their faithfulness in ministry.
b) This one-time financial assistance is by way of scholarships and/or travel sponsorship.
c) Azalea (Pas Chris Lee’s daughter) and Shawn (Pas Shereen Wong’s son) both children of full time pastoral staff were provided assistance.
d) Others have similarly received such encouragement. For e.g. Roy Selvaratnam (Lydia Selvaratnam’s son) and Valerie Ong (Pas Timothy’s daughter).
e) Decision was entirely a Missions initiative. BOD was not involved in the decision.
f) For the case of Azalea, SP informed BOD since Azalea is his grand daughter.
CT Comments
It is true that the Missions/Faith Promise Budget has an allocation categorized as “Personnel” but we are confident that all members had believed that this was to cover salaries of outreach pastors and to support missionaries. Who would have thought that our SP and Missions Director could be so sly to hide these frivolous claims under this category? These expenses obviously has nothing to do with missions and clearly an abuse of position and power by SP and the Missions Director. It was not clarified if Pas Shereen was already employed as an Assistant Pastor at the time when her son was given this sponsorship but we know for sure her husband is our deacon Patrick Wong. As to Lydia Selvaratnam, as far as we know, she worked for a short while as the church receptionist.
Pas Steven clarified that the sponsorships are not a staff benefit and not provided in the Staff Handbook and are given on case to case basis. Since there were no proper approved guidelines and the “benefits” were only given to SP, an Associate Pastor, an Assistant Pastor and a receptionist, it would appear these payments and sponsorship were arbitrary decisions by SP and the Missions Director. Our view is that if the above persons cannot afford to send their children overseas for studies, then they should send them to local universities, just like what 90% of our congregation do. It is unethical and morally wrong to use money from Missions Fund, which is contributed by the members for the purpose of saving souls, to send pastors' and staff's children overseas.
Not surprisingly and very conveniently, the BOD and pastors left out the findings of the auditors that SP’s children’s education fees, books and airfares to the US, were also partially paid by the church.
Issue 8 : BOD Church-Wide Announcements (Issue not raised by Dr Lum in CT interview)
Concerns Raised
a) That BOD was forced to make a public announcement by SP.
b) That the findings were falsely stated because the forensic accountant and independent lawyer had not completed their assignments at that time.
c) Announcement was divisive.
d) Announcement ought not to have been made.
e) Allegations were not malicious.
Church Perspective (BOD’s Perspective)
a) The BOD has never been forced into any decisions by the SP. The BOD unanimously refutes any allegations that they were coerced into making the announcement.
b) In view of all the allegations circulating at that time, the BOD had to come up with an interim position stating the status of the investigations thus far and promising a full report at the appropriate time.
c) The specific words used by the BOD was “thus far” meaning that fact-finding into other issues were still ongoing.
d) The BOD agrees, in hindsight, that the announcement could have been phrased better.
e) The fact remains that the forensic accountant and independent lawyer have since found no wrongdoing whatsoever. This shows the allegations were unfounded.
CT Comments
This issue was not raised by Dr Lum in the CT interview because he felt it was too petty to harp on this matter. For reasons best known to the BOD, they have included this in their presentation.
The BOD may be adamant that the findings of the forensic accountant and lawyer proved that the allegations were unfounded but the fact remains that the forensic accountant was asked to “bark at the wrong tree”. They were asked to look into the accounts of CIM but no one made any issue about the CIM accounts. The issue was on the inappropriate and illegal transfer of funds from the Missions Fund to CIM which has been proven to have taken place. The lawyer, KK Wong had clearly stated that his findings was based purely on the documents given to him by the church. Was he given the true and correct and all related documents? We guess the members will never know.
Issue 9 : USD10,000 - Gift to Dr. Guynes
Concerns Raised
a) This is not an issue of “quantum but about of processes”.
b) Amount decided upon unilaterally by SP. Amount given by SP to Dr. Guynes from church funds without approval or discussion with deacons.
c) “after the event” request put to the BOD by SP that the gift be ratified by the BOD.
d) This amount is large. USD10,000, since his personal expenses were also covered. Eg airfare and accommodation.
e) The payment was an inducement to Guynes for chairing the meeting.
f) It was a waste of church funds as the EGM was unnecessary.
g) Ancillary issue: When asked by Dr. Lum on 13 August 2008 (2 days before EGM) as to who was going to chair the EGM. SP said “not confirmed”. SP was alleged to have lied.
h) Lee Tuck Heng’s advice that CIM & EM accounts be released to the members prior to the EGM was ignored.
Church Perspective (BOD’s Perspective)
The actual process & chronology:
1) The EGM was convened to address issues of concern. An independent chairman was required as it was inappropriate for SP to chair the meeting.
2) As at 13 Aug 2008, it was still “not confirmed” as to who would chair the EGM. There were 2 possibilities, Rev Ong Sek Liang (AG General Superintendent) and Dr. Guynes.
3) Dr Guynes (Honorary Pastor) reached KL on 14 Aug 2008. Met with a working team of deacons on to find out what was expected of the chair at the coming EGM.
4) Only after being fully appraised of his role, did he accept and confirm that he would chair the EGM. This was 14 Aug 2008.
5) After he had left that meeting, that SP suggested that a love gift be given to him. The deacons present were in agreement as the love gift would help to defray his airfare and nursing care for Sis. Guynes.
6) This suggestion was then ratified at the immediate next full Board meeting on 20 September 2008, following the EGM.
7) Dr. Guynes paid for his own airfare.
8) Bro Tuck Heng had in fact suggested non-consolidation of the accounts (presented as stand-alone) aids clarity and understanding. He did not give any advice to the effect that CIM accounts should be released.
CT Comments
It is obvious that Dr Guynes had been asked to fly here from USA way before 13 August. Otherwise, it will not be possible for him to be here to meet the deacons on 14 August as the flight from USA takes between 15 to 24 hours depending on the connections. It is truly inconceivable that he would leave his sick wife alone in USA, take the long flight here, not certain if he needs to chair the EGM at all and knowing very well that he had to take an immediate flight back home to attend to his wife who was very ill at the time. On top of the uncertainty, he had to fork out a few thousand USD to fly here for a chit chat, while his wife would need lots of money for medical expenses. SP and the BOD must take Calvarites for fools to believe that it was not pre-planned for Dr Guynes to chair the EGM.
That aside, we cannot understand why Rev Ong Sek Liang was not chosen to chair the EGM. He would have done it for free.
Finally, what has Bro Lee Tuck Heng’s advice on CIM and Extended Ministries got to do with this issue of love gift to Dr Guynes? We certainly have a confused bunch of deacons and pastors. Anyway, while on this note, the members are aware that Bro Tuck Heng did not give any advice on CIM accounts because at the last AGM, the issue raised was on the Extended Ministries accounts. By the way, the Treasurer promised to release the Extended Ministries' accounts to the members by mid 2008 and today, we are all still waiting.
Issue 10 : Phil Stevenson
Concerns Raised
a) We openly misled him that he money collected was for him personally.
b) Amount collected was never given to Phil.
c) Youth Pastor at that time deceived the donors.
Church Perspective (BOD’s Perspective)
a) All youth camps are funded by a Calvary Youth budget.
b) Before the camp, Youth Pastor’s requested Missions to sponsor Phil’s travel expenses. The understanding was that in return for full sponsorship, any amounts collected in offerings will be handed over to Missions.
c) The term “love offering” was not used when the offering was collected.
d) Phil was traveling during a peak period, so his air fare was more expensive than expected and much more than the budgeted amount.
e) Phil’s meals and accommodation were fully covered.
f) Only RM1,858-93 was collected.
g) It was given over to Missions. Missions paid him the full travel fare of RM4,242-00 even though he also ministered at another church.
CT Comments
The above explanation by the BOD and pastors are irrelevant and side-stepping the real issue. The issue here is that the offering collected was not given to Pas Phil.
Pas Steven, at the recent EGM, also clarified that he did not use the word “love offering” when the offering was collected. However, the youth and even Pas Phil himself got the impression that the offering will be given to him. Either Pas Steven is right OR everyone else present at the camp is wrong. We will leave it to the members to decide.
Issue 11 : Non Declaration of Gifts
Concerns Raised
a) SP receives monetary gifts whilst on ministry which gifts are not declared to the Board.
b) Inconsistent application of the rule when SP is compared to all other pastors.
c) SP not accountable to the Board.
d) SP concealed and kept for himself the monies gifted to the church through him.
Church Perspective (BOD’s Perspective)
a) There is an existing process for recording gifts received.
b) All pastors, including SP adheres to the process.
c) Auditors have confirmed that all gifts received by the pastors including SP are recorded.
d) In SP’s case, if whilst on overseas assignments monies are received, these amounts are to set-off against expenses incurred.
CT Comments
The auditors DID NOT say that all gifts received by SP are recorded and that SP adheres to the process for recording gifts. We rewound and listened to the EGM recording several times to confirm this. The above statements at the briefings were outright lies by the BOD.
There were 5 occasions where SP received the reimbursement of airfares from other churches and these were returned to CIM to offset the airfares paid in advance. There were no declaration of love gifts received by SP. This confirms what Dr Lum has said. (Part 3 is in the next posting.)
