What Is It All About?

(30.04.09 - Latest ADDENDUM at the end of this article : Bro Hong Meng’s response to Josh’s comments @ April 29, 2009 10:43 AM )

“What did he do wrong? Who did he offend?” Very good questions indeed.

The issues at Calvary Church had taken such convoluted turns over such an extended period of time that most of us have forgotten what the real issues are. But for those of us who are burdened and had laboured for more than a year, we have kept the real issues in focus, not allowing ourselves to be distracted by the witch hunt, personal attacks, victimization and even condemnation from the pulpit. It is not about personal hurt or personal offences, though there must have been many judging by the outpouring in the blog and at the recent EGM.

The real issues are about the lack of transparency and accountability in dealing with Church matters especially with regards to finance management, are about abuse of powers and the obstinate resistance to be held accountable for mistakes and misdeeds, and are about trying to protect and preserve unreasonable power and authority in the Church.

So what are the real issues? What has been done to address these issues? Here’s an attempt to re-cap and consolidate one year’s events to a few paragraphs.


#1 - The Issue on the Extended Ministries

Two simple questions were asked at the 2007 AGM:

1) “Is CalvaryLand reflected in the Balance Sheet of the Church?”
2) “Are the financials of the Extended Ministries included in the Church accounts?”

From the answers given to these two questions, and the subsequent follow-up by a concerned member, it was established that the Church leadership deemed Calvaryland as well as ALL the Extended Ministries as not belonging to the Church. They were independent and not accountable to members of the Church. (To read HM's article, click on“The Extended Ministries”)

Why do we say so?
These ministries had their own bank accounts and payrolls. They were even outside of the supervision of the Board of Deacons. Up to now there remained no satisfactory answers from the Board to the following questions.

a) “If they did not belong to the Church to whom did they belong?”
b) “What good reason and what benefit to the Church are there to make them separate and independent?”

At the 2008 AGM, we were told in no uncertain terms that the accounts of the Extended Ministries were not given to the members because these ministries did not belong to the Church. There was absolutely no willingness to return these ministries to our Church ownership. One of our Auditors confirmed beyond all doubts that ALL the accounts of ALL the ministries of the Church must be presented to the members. Even then, an attempt was made to avoid giving the members the accounts by calling for a vote to remain status quo, meaning there is no need to furnish the members with the Extended Ministries accounts.

Through divine intervention, and perhaps because members were adequately informed through the two Teh-Tarik Sessions, the members voted for the accounts to be given to the members including those of the Extended Ministries, with a majority of about 60 votes. With this majority vote for the provision of the audited accounts of the Extended Ministries to the members, it can be assumed that the ownership of these ministries would be returned to the Church. Praise the Lord for this.

Please remember that the Extended Ministries were not willingly or happily returned to the Church ownership. The Board resisted all the way but the members decided and voted rightly. If members had been ignorant or manipulated to vote to remain status quo at last year's AGM, the Church would have lost Calvary Land and the Extended Ministries forever. Again, God is to be praised for causing Church members to vote wisely last year.


# 2 - The Issue of Calvary International Ministry (CIM)

The 2008 AGM also sowed the seed for the revelations on CIM. Most of us knew that CIM was a personal ministry of Senior Pastor (SP) established in 2002. It was announced publicly and with great fanfare that the Church contributed RM30,000 for SP’s 30 years of service, to kick off CIM. Then through the effort of a few concerned members, it was gradually exposed that about RM1.9 million had been transferred from the Missions Department to CIM from 2002 to 2007. The almost automatic transfer of RM200,000 per year from Missions Department to CIM was already put in place and it would have continued for years to come if not for the sudden exposure. (To read HM's article, click on “Healing and Reconciliation" 3rd Update)

Why the fanfare on the first RM30,000 and then the secrecy on the RM1.9 million transferred subsequently into CIM, a personal ministry of SP?
Even with the unexpected exposure, the Board of Deacons (BOD) refused to acknowledge any mistake or wrong doing. They engaged a forensic accountant and a criminal lawyer to browbeat and intimidate the members, thus justifying their actions. So at the EGM in August 2008, it was made abundantly clear that the money given to CIM, would be kept in CIM bank account, to fulfil the objectives of CIM.

Again through divine intervention, it was declared beyond all doubts by the lawyer that CIM was a personal ministry and had nothing to do with Calvary Church. With this confirmation, CIM membership in NECF could not be sustained. With its membership status in NECF “rectified”, CIM could not maintain a bank account.

What to do with the RM1.1 million still in CIM bank account?
CIM had to “release” it back to the Missions Department. The CIM money did not come back to the Church willingly or cheerfully. They had no choice. CIM had no intention of retuning the money. They were forced to return the balance money because of the effort of some concerned members.

Now that the ownership of the Extended Ministries had been established and the money in CIM account had been returned to the Church, why then the continuing aggravation?
Because the fundamental issues had not been dealt with and unless they are dealt with properly and conclusively the issues like the Extended Ministries and CIM could resurface again. Up till today, the BOD have not acknowledged that the Extended Ministries do belong to the Church. From the recent EGM where 4 Resolutions were put up for adoption by Church members, they have continued to evade the issue of the actual ownership of the Extended Ministries.

This is an issue of utmost importance because there are least 10 ministries currently parked under Extended Ministries of which a few are Income generating ministries which collects money for services rendered which are also open the the public.


#3 - The Fundamental Issues

At the foundation of the Church Constitution lies the root of all our problems. On the surface the Constitution looks acceptable but when analysed properly it gives the Senior Pastor and the Board of Deacons almost dictatorial power.

As we have seen in the recent AGMs & EGMs, they have no qualms about using their constitutional powers to control the Church and deny members their basic rights. The BOD also abused its powers in the witch hunt of members deemed unsubmissive to them, in rejecting the Resolutions put in for the EGM, in the Kangaroo Court on Dr Lum and in his eventual sacking as a church member.

To appear to satisfy the demands for justice and fairness by concerned members, they set up a Constitutional Review Committee. Two members appointed to the Committee had indicated that they are not suited for the assignment yet they were appointed. (To read HM's article, click on “The Need for Constitutional Amendments”)

What have we heard from this Committee since the August EGM?
The four resolutions put up for the April 2009 EGM were from the Financial Governance Task Force (FGTF). The Constitution must be amended to provide adequate checks and balances without hindering the work of the Church. From what was presented by the BOD, it would appear that the instruction to the Committee could be that the Constitution may be amended but the supremacy of the Senior Pastor, “Ketuanan Senior Pastor”, must be retained.

Why are they restricted to only looking at the financial processes?
The FGTF appears to be doing a good work but their mandate does not go far enough. Their mandate should cover all aspects of governance including organization structures, legal structures, human resource procedures and processes, management processes, risks management and relationship with the General Council and the authorities.

Who does Missions Department report to?
Another fundamental issue is the extra-constitutional powers and authority of the Missions Department. This department which receives all our Faith Promise giving, Monthly Missions Offerings and Designated Offerings, amounting to a few millions a year is not covered by the Church Constitution. It operates from a Missions Manual which had not been approved by the Church members. The BOD also has little or no control over its decisions and operations.

The Missions Committee is appointed by the Senior Pastor and the Missions Director. This results in a Missions Department that is outside of members control except for the tabling of the Annual Accounts at the AGM. Over the years the information content of these accounts had been diluted such that we learn nothing much from it. The Missions Department and all its components must be covered by the Church Constitution and brought back under the BOD’s control and supervision with ultimate responsibility to the members at General Meetings.

Is the Board moving forward with the Constitution Review and improving governance?
Yes but not much, more cosmetic than real. They are treating some minor symptoms but not curing the sickness. They are so protective of the status quo that they ignore the normal rules of meetings and refused members amendments to their resolutions at the recent EGM. They would rather go back to amend the resolutions themselves and then represent them again at, yet another meeting. This process can go on forever.

It would have been more efficient if members were allowed to agree on the amendments and have the resolutions passed as amended. If this route was adopted by the BOD, by now, the four Resolutions would have been done with. However, they are so fearful that allowing Church members this fundamental right would cause them to lose their powers and control over the Church.

“What did he do wrong? Who did he offend?”
We all know that we are forgiven by God and we are willing to forgive others. However, in our church context now, it is not just about forgiving. It is about getting our foundation made right. It is about the need for a Constitution Review. It is about truthful and transparent reporting to Church members about important decisions and happenings.

Was there admission of mistakes or wrong doing? Was there remorse or repentance? Was there a genuine desire to rectify the situation to prevent such problems from happening again?
When something is wrong, it must be admitted to and it must be made right.
Thus far what had been made right was not done willingly or voluntarily. It was extracted through persistent hard work by some concerned members.

Other than heartaches, brokenness, vilification, condemnation and curses, what have the concerned members gained from all this?
Nothing! Except the knowledge that we have acted in obedience to God’s will - To pursue the need for change in the current system of Church Administration, so that the future generations can worship God in Calvary Church with no qualms of possible "skeletons in the closet" and that is most important to TTG.


Article contributed by Bro Wong Hong Meng

*****************************************************
ADDENDUM added on 21 April 2009.

Three of the five resolutions tabled at the April EGM relating to financial provisions contained input, comments and recommendations from the FGTF. However, the proposed resolutions were not drafted or put up by the FGTF at the EGM. I stand corrected.

Hong Meng

****************************************************
ADDENDUM: Bro Hong Meng’s response to Josh’s comments @ April 29, 2009 10:43 AM

Josh said…
It has been some time since our Easter amnesty and after the blessed weekend, I took some time off from CT to clear my thoughts. Work has since overtaken a lot of that free time.

"Need more be said?" however got me thinking again. There's enough speculation and self interpretation posted for plausible deniability I guess... meaning it ain't fact why even bother.

CT has been keen to take the high road on the nature of postings, only to turn a blind eye when it suits them. See how a speculative posting is allowed to dwell without response? Then again, it's probably the same in CU.

But truly I agree, this is magnifying peanuts. More importantly is the AGM in June.

In that respect, I wholeheartedly question Hong Meng's intention in his article "What is it all about". He writes about focusing on the "real issues" and then highlights the hurt and offences etc. Why not focus on the issues instead of fanning the fire?

HM’s response…
I reread the article and I am afraid I cannot see how you came to the conclusion that I had highlighted the hurt and offences. Perhaps we could ask the readers of Calvary Today whether they agree with you. Intentions are very difficult to demonstrate much less prove or disprove. Only God knows our true intentions. And I am fully aware I have to answer to Him. You have every right to question my intentions just as I have to question yours in remaining anonymous. What are you afraid of that you cannot stand in the light? We must not be afraid of vilification if we are standing for truth and righteousness.

Josh said…
He writes that "If members had been ignorant or manipulated to vote to remain status quo at last year's AGM, the Church would have lost Calvary Land and the Extended Ministries forever." Think about it... firstly, if Calverites had voted to maintain status quo they are either ignorant or manipulated? And do you take all Calverites for fools if it were to come to light that these initiatives were lost? What do you think it would do to the bigger scheme of things? I will no doubt be vilified by supporters of CT, but Hong Meng, if you take the role of prosecutor, leave out your personal inclinations.

HM’s response…
You are absolutely right. Our members are no fools. But can they be ignorant? Yes, not because they are dumb but because relevant and necessary information had been withheld from them. Accountability is providing the information before they are asked for. In that the BOD had failed. Who knew, before the 2007 AGM, that Calvary Land and the Extended Ministries did not belong to the Church? Perhaps only some deacons and some pastors. I did not know. Therefore I asked the two questions. Who knew that besides the RM30,000 to kick off CIM, about RM1.9 million was transferred into CIM from the Missions Department? Perhaps some deacons did not even know that. We can be ignorant simply because we trust and therefore we don’t ask.

Can they be manipulated? Yes, spiritual authority is a very powerful thing. We have been conditioned not to question those in positions of spiritual authority. “Trust and obey” and the all too commonly misused, “Touch not God’s anointed”. Take for example the vote on the RM150 million for the CCC. Asking members to stand up in support of the Church leadership cannot be taken to be a vote on a motion to approve the RM150 million. It was unconstitutional and in my view, manipulative. So we stood up as commanded from the pulpit and then it was minuted that the members had approved the RM150 million. Really?

Was I the prosecutor at the 2008 AGM? I only spoke twice. The first time to amend the minutes as my two questions in 2007 were not minuted. The second time was to read out from a prepare script to ask for the accounts not to be tabled for adoption by the AGM but to defer it to when the accounts of the Extended Ministries could be included. I just presented the situation to the members. Others added their comments. That they voted for the accounts to be annexed is proof enough it was not my personal inclination. It was the will of the members.

Josh said…
I have genuine reasons for this because I realize I do know you. And while I reserve my personal opinion of you as private, I am concerned at the subtle work of your pen.

The issues at hand are this:
1. Structural - via the AGM, FGTF etc. this are being addressed. If we are concerned about the slow pace of development, the right forum is the AGM. To be fair, I think change is imminent and deserves a chance. I can think of reasons why Calvaryland for example can operate better outside the structure of the church, but at the same time expect financial accountability on the account of my having participated in funding the program.

HM’s response…
Not only the slow pace of development but the fact is that the Committees cannot be said to be independent and impartial. You said the right forum is the AGM. That is debatable. But the fact is that it is the only forum available to the concerned members. The members need to know what has happened in the last one year. They must exercise their membership responsibility with due care and diligence. They must vote wisely as they did at the last year’s AGM. But would the seven resolutions submitted by the concerned members be on the table?

Josh said…
I would lump CIM under this issue. Again, I see no useful reason for stating that they did not return the money "cheerfully". This matter was disputed and the resolution meant that monies was transferred back. There was no unaccounted use of the funds and the onus is now on ensuring that any future transfer of funds are verified and accounted for.

HM’s response…
CIM was not resolved. An attempt was made at the August EGM to justify their actions. Did the members accept the reports from the forensic accountant and the lawyer? There was no vote. We were not allowed to say whether we accept their justification or not. The reports were not made available to the members. So it was assumed that it was resolved. It was assumed to be even more resolved when the money was returned. The money was returned because CIM was no longer a legal entity. The money was not returned as a solution to the dispute. Josh, what happened in CIM was wrong. I am not in a position to argue on the legality of the fund transfer but definitely, it was morally wrong. If our Church was registered as a company or a society it would be CBT. And many churches are so registered.

Josh said…
A lot of opinions have been offered by various people - some using multiple aliases - both pro and con. Senior Pastor did not have to make that apology on Easter service. Not in front of the whole church and visitors. Maybe time for us to go beyond the hurts and give love a chance to cover the multitude of sin.

HM’s response…
Was that an apology? When an apology is prefixed with an “If”, at best it was a half-hearted apology. And if I am not wrong, the “If” was in connection to “hurt”. As I have said, it is not about hurt and offences. It is about transparency, accountability and governance. It is about the extended ministries being taken away from church ownership without as much as an “excuse me”. It is about the RM200,000 a year transfer from Missions Department to CIM as well as the RM41,000 contributed by us for the Indonesian earthquake victims and not received by them. Would there be an apology for these mistakes? Must the constitution be amended such that these mistakes would not be repeated?

Yes, SP did not have to make that apology. Why did he?

Yes, give love a chance. Show that to Dr Lum, please.

Josh said…
On each side of the argument, sentiments run high and self-righteousness is there for all to see. But no one, least of all myself, is perfect. The fundamental grace of our faith is one of reconciliation.

HM’s response…
None of us are perfect. But when obvious faults and serious weaknesses are so apparent in the procedures and processes we must make all effort to correct them as soon as possible. That is how we can become less and less spotty before God. Reconcile we must but the mistakes and wrong-doings must not be allowed to happen again. Almost as soon as the CIM transfers were revealed in May 2008 I asked for healing and reconciliation through a Truth Committee and a Constitution Review Committee. I offered myself and my friends to be part of the process but it fell on deaf ears.

Josh said…
And to be an agent for Godly change, Hong Meng, even me, we need to set aside the personal agenda.

HM’s response…
Personal agenda? What possible personal agenda could I have? I have no ambition to be a pastor or a deacon. I have no desire to manage or run the church. I am already retired. I have told my TTG friends that in August 2008 whilst in HCMC, the Lord convicted me that I am not to hold any position in Calvary Church, whether elected or appointed. I did not want them to have any misplaced expectation. I will serve the Lord but with no position.

No, my agenda is not personal, but corporate (as in the body). Lawyer KK Wong observed rightly. He said, he had never seen a group of church members who were so protective of church money. Yes, my agenda and those of my TTG friends is to protect the church money. That is stewardship. To be accountable to God and man for the money He entrusted to us and to hold those to whom we transferred that stewardship to be similarly accountable. I am not prepared to accept the erroneous teaching that what I give to the Church I cannot ask question. Even Moses provided accountability.

Josh said…
I have genuine reasons for this because I realize I do know you. And while I reserve my personal opinion of you as private, ... (quoting your earlier statement)
I shall not say more because you know precisely what I mean.

HM’s response…
Josh, it is grossly unfair that you can claim to know me personally whilst I have no inkling who you are. You have the advantage of being able to evaluate what I say against what you know of me. I do not have that advantage. Therefore I suggest that we meet one on one, "empat mata", without the need for others to know. Then I can explain to you my position and I can understand yours too. However if you are a sister, then I can only meet you together with my wife. Or you can meet me together with your husband.

I also issue out an open invitation. I am prepared to explain my position and the basis thereof to any member, or group of members, of Calvary Church. Just set it up and notify me through Calvary Today. Then they can come to their own conclusion as to my intentions. I will of course be accompanied by one or more of my friends as witnesses.

Posted on April 30, 2009