Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Is it unbiblical to Protest Against Government?

1st May 2013, Population White Paper Protest @ Hong Lim Park.

It will be the second of such protest to voice citizens' concern over the proposed Population white paper. Planning ahead is never easy but it is necessary! The government did something "Good" by preparing, planning into the future but more has to be done to calm our worries.

Over the years I have found Christians are little different than non-Christians in their attitudes and responses toward authority. Compliance is given, but cooperation is not. For example, I would be just as likely to find a radar detector in the car of a Christian (even one serving the Lord), as I would in the car of an unbeliever. Christians comply with the law. We slow down as we pass the police car with its radar speed detection equipment. We drive carefully and lawfully when the patrol car is following us. But as soon as we are sure it is safe, we drive normally—and illegally.

In Romans 13:1-7, Paul deals directly with the Christian’s attitude and conduct with respect to governmental authority. In particular, Paul addresses the Christian’s relationship to civil government. There are a number of reasons Christians and civil government might be at odds with one another, and Christians might wrongly twist these into excuses for disrespect and disobedience to authorities.

First, civil government is secular in nature while Christianity is spiritual. Christians are aliens and strangers, just passing through this world (see 1 Peter 1:1). Their citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3:20). Second, the state can look upon Christianity as competitive, even hostile to its authority. The Christian’s highest authority is God. In Rome, Caesar was “god.” Because of this, Romans considered Christians as atheists. Christianity was eventually seen as treasonous. Third, at times Christians were required to “obey God, rather than men” (see Acts 5:29), which openly confirmed the government’s suspicions. Fourth, government officials, either unconsciously or willingly, used their authority to actively oppose the church and to persecute Christians.

If governmental authorities began to view Christians with suspicion, and even fear, Christians also were tempted to see government as their opponent, and as an enemy of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Civil disobedience might easily become common practice rather than a necessary exception. Submission to governmental authority was a vital topic in a day and time when the Lord’s church and civil government were on a collision course.

Tough decision: On having two Casinos, Government's stand on 377a, sentencing of City Harvest Church leaders; Examples of Faith vs State. The hijack of Aware by Christian groups, removing of Mandatory Death Penalty. Let's work towards common good with common sense.

Government concerns is with survival, economy, old folks.
Citizens concern are comfort, space, competition, future.

Try stepping into each others shoe to see their views from a different angle.

Nehemiah 5 1-13
The “Great Protest”
A great protest was mounted by the people, including the wives, against their fellow Jews. Some said, “We have big families, and we need food just to survive.”

Others said, “We’re having to mortgage our fields and vineyards and homes to get enough grain to keep from starving.”

And others said, “We’re having to borrow money to pay the royal tax on our fields and vineyards. Look: We’re the same flesh and blood as our brothers here; our children are just as good as theirs. Yet here we are having to sell our children off as slaves—some of our daughters have already been sold—and we can’t do anything about it because our fields and vineyards are owned by somebody else.”

I got really angry when I heard their protest and complaints. After thinking it over, I called the nobles and officials on the carpet. I said, “Each one of you is gouging his brother.”

Then I called a big meeting to deal with them. I told them, “We did everything we could to buy back our Jewish brothers who had to sell themselves as slaves to foreigners. And now you’re selling these same brothers back into debt slavery! Does that mean that we have to buy them back again?”

They said nothing. What could they say?

“What you’re doing is wrong. Is there no fear of God left in you? Don’t you care what the nations around here, our enemies, think of you?

“I and my brothers and the people working for me have also loaned them money. But this gouging them with interest has to stop. Give them back their foreclosed fields, vineyards, olive groves, and homes right now. And forgive your claims on their money, grain, new wine, and olive oil.”

They said, “We’ll give it all back. We won’t make any more demands on them. We’ll do everything you say.”

Then I called the priests together and made them promise to keep their word. Then I emptied my pockets, turning them inside out, and said, “So may God empty the pockets and house of everyone who doesn’t keep this promise—turned inside out and emptied.”

Everyone gave a wholehearted “Yes, we’ll do it!” and praised God. And the people did what they promised.

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Guarding the Brand II

CHC is not about Kong Hee, its about God - a platform for the glory of His Kingdom.

I am in no position to judge nor am I qualified, but the best way for those facing legal judgement is to take a step back. Maybe they should take Sabbathical leave from key position within the CHC management so as to allow the church, function without their involvement till all those allegations are settled.

My Brother, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. James 1:2-3

In the mist of your life-changing trial, remember that God is still at work.


A Statement from Kong Hee dated 9 April 2013

The Commissioner of Charities has just announced that it intends to remove 8 individuals, including myself, from the exercise of their respective offices in CHC.  It has also given a press release on this earlier today.

Here are my thoughts on this matter.

First, I have only just received a 227-page report by the COC containing allegations against all 8 individuals.  This is currently under review by our lawyers.  However, I am confident that there is no basis for the COC’s actions and I will in due course make the appropriate representations to the COC.

Second, I am happy that the COC has decided not to take any action against Sun and has now vindicated her.  Sun and I were always confident that there would have been no basis to take any action against her even though the COC had suspended her earlier.

Third, as regards this present step, I am surprised why the COC has decided to embark on this course of action.  The COC has never explained how CHC’s property is allegedly at risk, such that it was necessary to issue suspension orders in 2012 and removal orders in 2013.  Notwithstanding my views above as to the lack of merits of the suspension and removal order, I had agreed with the COC that it would be expedient and practical for a voluntary suspension to be in place until 6 months after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.  The issues raised in both proceedings are related, and the AGC is involved in both sets of proceedings.  I would add that, in fact, it was the COC who made the proposal to me to defer until the criminal proceedings are disposed of, on condition that all 9 affected individuals agree.  The COC had also agreed that this would be entirely without admission to liability and without prejudice to my rights.  In February 2013, both Sun and I accepted the COC’s offer.

Subsequently however, the COC informed me that the premise on which I had agreed to the voluntary suspension had changed.  This was apparently because they were not able to get everyone to agree with them.  This is however not something that is within my control.  I also did not see how this would alter the fact that Sun and I had already agreed to the voluntary suspension on their terms, and I informed COC accordingly.  It was after this that the COC has now decided to pursue this course of action.

Clearly, the COC was itself of the view that it would be more expedient for this matter to be dealt with only after the criminal trial was entirely disposed of.  This was clear from their own offer to me, which also provided that the consent would be without admission of liability and also without prejudice to my rights.  Yet, it now imposes a deadline on me to respond to the COC a mere 2 days before the commencement of the criminal trial.  I will therefore seek clarification from the COC on this point.

In the meantime, I understand that the Commissioner of Charities has assured the CHC Board that I will not be prevented from preaching at CHC’s services.  This is only fair as there is no basis for the COC to encroach on the services of the church.  I look forward to being in church to worship God with my friends and family.  I hope that you continue to keep me, my family and the church in your thoughts and prayers.

Kong


City Harvest Scandal: It'll be over by next year, Kong tells churchgoers
By Jermyn Chow & Melody Zaccheus And Lim Yi Han

City Harvest Church founding pastor Kong Hee rallied his congregation during the weekend's church services, telling them that by next year, "everything should be all over".

This was the first time that he had spoken to churchgoers since the Commissioner of Charities (COC) said last Tuesday that it is acting to remove him and seven church leaders from office over multimillion-dollar corruption allegations.

Its bid to oust them is the latest setback that City Harvest - with over 19,800 active followers - has suffered since Kong was among around a dozen of its leaders questioned after complaints about church finances in 2010.

Yesterday, he assured his congregation: "You've been holding on for three years. One more year. One more year and it will be all over."

WHAT KONG SAID

Reassuring his congregation

    "You've been holding on for three years. One more year. One more year and it will be all over."

On his innocence

    "And yes, I do maintain my integrity."

Tempering the church's optimism

    "While I don't know what is going to happen one year from now, I don't know will I still be standing here, but (from) the way you clap, I better be standing here."

Monday, April 8, 2013

Guarding the Brand

What we DO is of a Higher Calling!



Request to delay City Harvest trial denied
Apr 08, 2013

Six City Harvest Church (CHC) leaders accused of embezzling more than $50 million from their parish had a request to push back the start of their trial denied on Friday.

The highly anticipated hearing will go ahead as planned on May 15 and be presided over by Senior District Judge See Kee Onn.

At Friday's pre-trial conference, District Judge Victor Yeo turned down the defence lawyers' request, having considered that the prosecution registered a strong objection to another delay.

Both sides declined to comment on why the defence had applied for the postponement.

The start date of the trial was already pushed back at a pre-trial conference last month, when both sides agreed to switch it from May 6 to May 15.

This was because the church's former investment manager Chew Eng Han had only then secured representation by Senior Counsel (SC) Michael Khoo, after his application to engage a Queen's Counsel - an elite British lawyer - was rejected earlier in March, and Mr Khoo has another case to handle in May.

The Straits Times understands the prosecution passed documents to defence lawyers on Dec 15 last year to facilitate preparation of an agreed statement of facts for the trial so it can be focused on the legal dispute.

The five other CHC leaders and co-defendants secured representation by other SCs last year, apart from senior pastor Kong Hee, who engaged MP Edwin Tong.

The six are charged with conspiring to cheat the church by funnelling $24 million into sham investments to further the career of Kong's pop-singer wife. They then allegedly misappropriated another $26.6 million to cover up the misuse of the first sum.

A popular clothing shop requires all their sales staff to wear clothes that is from its shop. This is a way of modeling the product and also a practice of "guarding their brand". The idea behind it is that shoppers will be more likely to purchase clothes because they will want to look like the people they see wearing them.

In a consumer-oriented culture, it is easy to be seduced into thinking that we can "buy" acceptance by wearing the things others wear.

Sometimes we even convince ourselves that we can win followers for God by making ourselves attractive to the World. But the Bible is clear about what is really important to God. Jesus is our "brand", not conform to the World. We attract others to Christ when we put on His attributes, which include tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering and abvove all LOVE.

In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God. And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. Romans 8:26-29.

Instead of polishing and protecting our own image, we need to be guarding and reflecting the image of God, which is made perfect through Christ.

Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.  Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. Colossians 3:12-14