What Some Pastors Are Saying...

“They should not have taken the case to court.

They have not exhausted all avenues!!!”

It has come to our attention that some AOG pastors are saying that the TTG is wrong in going to the Court as they have not exhausted all avenues available to them. The “available avenue” that these pastors said the TTG should have taken was to have requisitioned for an EGM and then put in the Resolutions for the members to vote on. As the TTG did not do this “necessary available” step, they felt that it was wrong for the TTG to go to court.

There could only be several reasons why these pastors said what they said. One reason could be that they have not read or chosen not to read this blog and therefore, are still totally ignorant of what has taken place in Calvary Church (CC) or all the actions which the TTG group has taken to resolve the issues amicably. Another reason could be that they are just mimicking the justification response of the AOG Executive Committee (Exco) members since it has now been highlighted that the CC Constitution DOES NOT comply with the AOG Constitution.

Calvary Church’s existence is derived from the Trustees (Incorporation) Ordinance 1952 under which the AOG Malaysia was set up. In other words, Calvary Church exists under the umbrella of the AOG Malaysia. Calvary Church is technically a sub-trustee of AOG Malaysia. Any offence of breach of trust within Calvary Church or by its leaders, if charged by the authorities, may have serious material impact on the continued existence of AOG itself.

Since it is now obvious that the CC constitution is not in compliance, besides been seriously flawed, to the requirements as spelt out in the AOG Constitution, the present Exco is in a fix on how to explain or justify why the CC Constitution was approved by their predecessors back then. However, due consideration must be given to the fact that the CC Constitution was approved by the then Exco when Pastor Prince Guneratnam (PG) was its General Superintendent (GS). With PG sitting in the Exco as the GS, who in the Exco then, would be courageous enough to question or not approve PG’s Church Constitution?

Coming back to these pastors, they feel that the TTG should have exhausted the “available” step before going to Court. Do they really understand or know what this “available” step is? Do they know exactly what the requirements are in order for the TTG to requisite for an EGM? We will try to explain the requirements in simple terms.

Firstly, we must understand that there are only two Meetings in which the Church Members can vote on Resolutions.

1. Annual General Meeting (AGM). This can only be called for by the Board of Deacons.

2. Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM). This can be called for by the BOD or by Voting Members by way of a “requisition”.

Now this is the “available avenue” that the pastors are saying that the TTG should have taken. Convene an EGM by way of requisition.

Secondly, we need to understand what CC Constitution states with regards to convening an AGM and EGM.

1, Rule IX (1). states that, "the quorum for a General Meeting is ¼ of the total Voting Members." This means, if the Church has 880 members, there should be 220 members in attendance before the Meeting can proceed.

2. Rule IX (2). states that, “If within half an hour from the time appointed for a General Meeting a quorum is not present at the said meeting, the voting members so present shall by a two thirds majority vote resolve that all Voting members so present shall duly constitute a proper quorum for such a general meeting…”

This simply means that if a General Meeting is convened (called for) by the BOD and after half an hour only one Voting Member turns up, that one member can vote to proceed and the Meeting can actually proceed technically with just one Voting member present, as allowed by the CC Constitution now.

3. Rule IX (7) states that members may requisite for an EGM with signatures from ¼ of the voting members. This means, if the Church has 880 members, we would need 220 signatures before we can requisite for an EGM.

Assuming 220 signatures have been obtained, 3 things can happen depending on the Board of Deacons (BOD) decision.

1. The BOD on receiving the requisition can convene (call for) the EGM within 30 days. If the BOD convenes (calls for) the EGM, the quorum is ¼ of the Voting Members as required in Rule IX 1.

2. The BOD can also refuse to convene (call for) the Meeting.

3. In such case, the requisitioning members can convene the Meeting as provided by Rule IX (7b). It sounds very nice and democratic but Rule IX (7b) imposes an unfair condition on the requisitionists (the 220 signatories). The rule says, “In such an event and notwithstanding Rule IX (1) & Rule IX (2), the total number of VM present to form a quorum shall not be less than one-half of the existing voting membership.”

This means that, if the church has 880 VM, there must be 440 VM present to form a quorum to convene the EGM.

What does this mean in simple terms?

1. When BOD calls for a General Meeting, only 220 VMs need to be present. However, they have an escape clause to carry on the meeting even if less than 220 VM turn up. Technically, even if one VM turns up, the BOD can convene the Meeting.

2. However, the requisitionists or the 220 signatories will need 440 VM present before the EGM can proceed. There is no escape clause provided.

How can the AOG Exco approve such unfair and biased provisions in a Church Constitution?

It has an apparent form of democracy and fairness but it is really a camouflage. The Constitution does provide for the rights of members to requisite for an EGM but the same Constitution also makes it almost impossible for the members to do so. The members are made to feel happy at first glance but will be made to face a mountain when exercised.

This is all part of the great deception. Make the members believe that they enjoy democratic rights and responsibilities of a Congregational Church but in reality, it is a Dictatorial Structured Church disguised as a Democratic Structured Church.

Does the present EXCO members and pastors really think that TTG would have been successful in trying to requisite for an EGM as the “available avenue” to propose any Resolutions with PG and the present BOD in control?

Let us do a flashback.

The TTG submitted 7 Resolutions for tabling at the August 2008 EGM. As it happened, the BOD threw out the resolutions. The reasons given were two fold:

1. The first reason given by the Church Secretary was that the explanations from the lawyer and forensic accountants would address the issues. What a ridiculous answer! What has the explanations from the lawyer and accountant to do with the tabling of resolutions?

2. Perhaps recognising that the reason given sounded ridiculous, she then said that since no Preliminary Notice of meeting was given for the said EGM, the BOD would not entertain any resolution.

Since Rule IX (5) states, “within 7 clear days after preliminary notice is given…”, the TTG accepted her interpretation of the Constitution at that time and waited for the AGM instead. This was the TTG’s FIRST ATTEMPT to submit Resolutions for tabling.

Then at the 2009 AGM, the TTG made a SECOND ATTEMPT and submitted the same Resolutions based on Rule IX (5) which states,

RESOLUTION


a) No matter or resolution shall be brought forward at any GM unless written submissions has or have been received by the Secretary of the Board of Deacons within 7 clear days after preliminary notice is given of such meeting or meetings.


b) Subject to para (5a) of this Rule, any matter or resolution, notice of which has been received, shall if received in sufficient time before such meeting, be included in the notice convening the meeting.

Even this time when the TTG submitted their resolutions in absolute compliance with the requirements stated, the resolutions were “thrown out”. The reason given was it was unconstitutional. What does ”unconstitutional” means, up till today no one can explain it properly. The best “award winning” explanation given at this 2009 AGM was that tabling the members’ resolutions were likened to tabling the purchase of Manchester United in a church AGM. This analogy was actually suggested by a young lawyer who was voted in as Deacon at that AGM. This ridiculous analogy was actually accepted by the Resolution Chairman, Pastor Ronnie Chin who is also the Assistant General Superintendent of AOG today. Is this the quality or integrity of our Christian leaders today?

Once bitten, twice shy. After the bitter experience at the 2009 AGM, no one in the right frame of mind would attempt to propose any Resolutions based on the current flawed Constitution. Please listen to the recordings of the 2009 AGM to feel the heartache and intimidation members were subjected to.

Please listen to CLIP 6.
Click here to listen : 2009 AGM

Anyway, this is water under the bridge. With the mastery stroke of a pen, PG has recently axed more than 400 suspected TTG supporters (with many innocent members included as well) from Voting and Associate membership. This despicable act of dictatorship has effectively stopped all possibilities of any requisition for an EGM by any remaining TTG supporters or concerned members.

So have the TTG exhausted all avenues?

The TTG/Concerned Members have exercised great patience and tolerance in trying to engage the BOD to be fair to all the members of the church. The pastors who make comments such as these,

“They should not have taken the case to court.
They have not exhausted all avenues!!!”

have very little or have not understood the camouflage and deception that are embedded in the CC constitution.

Can we fault the pastors?

The camouflage and deceptions in the CC Constitution are very difficult to detect by mere reading. The true spirit of the CC Constitution can only be seen and felt when it is exercised or put to a test like what is happening now….the ongoing CCC, short for Calvary Church Crisis.

Questions That Shroud The CC SAGA (CT)

A certain Datin from Calvary Church is going around the Christian community to recruit prayer warriors to pray against the TTG and CT.  A sister from another church was approached by this Datin, who (with her husband, Ray) are good friends of Senior Pastor Prince and Sister Petrina.  This other church sister did not know what to make of such an "un-Christian"  request.  Christians are taught to pray even for our enemies.  How come Christians are being recruited to pray against other Christians?

She brought this up with another Calvarite who is presently seeking religious asylum in her church.  This Calvarite explained to her that the TTG would not respond to such unchristian behavior and assured her that the TTG had not been praying against anyone.  Instead they have been praying for the church, the pastors, the deacons and fellow Calvarites and have consistently encouraged others to pray similarly.

However, the other church sister was disturbed by the newspaper reports and wondered if there was any way to avert the bad publicity that had been generated.  From the questions asked, it was obvious that the sister was ignorant of the issues behind the Calvary saga.  Therefore CT felt the need to re-inform Calvarites and the Christian community on what had happened in Calvary Church these past two years.  The following FAQs are extracted from materials available in our archives.

Q1.  What started the crisis and how did it start?

A.  At the 2007 AGM, in response to two questions asked by a Concerned Member, Senior Pastor Prince Guneratnam (PG) told members that Calvaryland, a social concern project with assets worth about RM17 million, and the ten “Extended Ministries” included in the organization chart were not reflected in the accounts and financial statements of the church.   

Subsequently, the Concerned Member met with two Associate Pastors, three Deacons and the secretary of the Missions committee to understand why this was so.  He then wrote to the Board of Deacons or BOD in December 2007 to request that this be corrected and that the accounts of Calvaryland and the Extended Ministries be given to the members at the next AGM.  (Read the letter in CT,  The Extended Ministries”.)   

Instead of responding to him, PG announced to a meeting of Church leaders on 1-03-08 that the Extended Ministries did not belong to the church and what is given to Missions must not be questioned by the givers.  This started members questioning how it could be that ministries like the selling of DVDs, the Prayer Tower, the Bookshop, the Home Schooling centre (CERC), the counseling service (CLM), the short term Bible School (AIM), the Calvary printing press and of course, the RM17 million Calvaryland project not belong to the church.  The ministries were funded by the church from our giving and managed by personnel from the church.  If they do not belong to the church who do they belong to?  The quick answer from PG was that they were independent.

At the 2008 AGM, members were told in no uncertain terms that the accounts of the Extended Ministries would not be given to the members because these ministries did not belong to the church. This stand was taken by PG even after our Church Auditor told the meeting that the accounts of the Extended Ministries should be consolidated with the main church accounts or annexed thereto. After a lengthy debate an Associate Pastor called for a vote.  Surprise! Surprise! The majority of members voted that the accounts of the Extended Ministries must be given to the members.  For the first time the members voted against the stand of the Senior Pastor.  

So at the 2009 AGM, members received the accounts of the Extended Ministries as annexed to the main accounts.  The above are facts which PG and the Board could not deny.  However, there remained unanswered questions:

a) Why did PG and BOD decide that the Extended Ministries did not belong to the Church when the funding came from the Church and the ministries were managed by personnel from the Church?

b) Why was this not made known to the members earlier?

c) Why were the members not asked to approve this unusual decision?

d) What was the motive to keep them as independent of the Church and thereby not needed to submit the accounts to the members?

e) If these ministries did not belong to the church then to whom do they belong to?

f) Why the reluctance to be transparent and accountable for these activities which are all part of the Church ministries?

The 2009 accounts of the extended ministries showed the following:

Extended Ministries	Person-in-charge	Accumulated  Fund	Cash & Bank Balance
Asian Institute of Ministries	Pam Guneratnam	50,565	45,368
Calvary Book Corner	Jim Guneratnam	84,865	76,868
Calvary Caring Ministry	Rev Yow Kit Yen	48.459	49,756
Calvary Communication	Jim Guneratnam	1,006,333	842,408
Calvary Church Press	Ps Jerry Chow	29,457	33,559
Calvary Edu Resource Ctr	Katherine Lee	270,239	94,839
Calvary Life Ministries	Pam Guneratnam	596,663	562,196
Calvary Prayer Tower	Ps Timothy Ong	28,053	27,510
Calvary Relief & Devt Agency	Ps Steven Kum	360,365	360,400
Calvaryland Fund	Ps Shireen Wong	6,390,438*	192,133
Creative Arts Centre	Ps Christopher Lee**	41,189	44,666
Calvary Sunshine Home	Rev Sally Leong	83,191	89,134

*Cost of land not included.  Market value about RM10 million.

**Husband of Pam Guneratnam.

Q2.  Since the accounts of the Extended Ministries are now given to the members why is the crisis continuing?

A.  The Extended Ministries appeared to be settled when the members forced PG to give the accounts.  However, in the process of following up on the detailed accounts of the Missions department, four other Concerned Members discovered the “CIM transactions”. 

Calvary International Ministries or CIM was set up in 2002 as PG’s personal ministry.  At that time, the Church contributed RM30,000 to CIM as an anniversary gift to PG for his 30 years of service.  This was announced to the Church, so we all knew about the RM30,000.  However, the four Concerned Members discovered that about RM1.9 million was subsequently transferred from the Missions Department to CIM  from 2002 to 2007. This sum comprise of an annual transfer of RM200,000 from 2004 to 2007 and another RM500,000 of Designated Offerings. The Church and the members were never informed of these transfers.

The transfers stopped in 2008 when these secret transfers were exposed by the TTG.  The first Concerned Member then wrote to the PG and the BOD suggesting a way to resolve the issue and for the Church to move forward. (Read the letter   “Healing and Reconciliation" 3rd Update)

Even with the unexpected exposure, the BOD refused to acknowledge any mistake or wrong doing. They even engaged a forensic accountant and a criminal lawyer to vindicate themselves.  So at the EGM in August 2008, PG made it abundantly clear that the money given to CIM, would be kept in the CIM bank account to fulfill the objectives of CIM.

Subsequently, in November 2008, PG announced that the RM1.1 million still in CIM bank account would be “released” back to the Church.  It was NOT a change of heart.  After investigating a complaint from a Concerned Member, NECF concluded that CIM did not qualify to be a member of NECF.  CIM was then removed as a member of NECF.   The Assemblies of God General Council then investigated and concluded that there was some misrepresentation when CIM applied for NECF membership.  With its membership in NECF removed CIM could not maintain a bank account.  The balance RM1.1 must be moved.  So PG had no choice but to return it to the Church.  

Although the money is now in the Church account we suspect that it is still earmarked for PG’s use, at his discretion.  Nothing has changed despite all these revelations and disclosures. 

The unanswered questions are:

a) When the transfers were highlighted to the BOD by the four Concerned Members initially, the BOD appeared to be ignorant of the transactions.  However, they now claim that these transfers were approved by the BOD.  How come?

b) If the funds in CIM are only to finance PG’s international travels, why were the transfers (RM200,000) so much higher than his yearly travelling expenses of about RM50,000?  

c) Why did the BOD agree to build up the fund in CIM continuously at the rate of about RM150,000 a year?

d) If not exposed would the transfers have continued indefinitely?

e) If there was nothing wrong with the transfers, why the fanfare on the first RM30,000 and then the secrecy on the subsequent RM1.9 million?

Q3.  Whatever it is, the money has now come back to the Church.  Why are you all still unsatisfied?  

A.  The issues of the Extended Ministries and CIM are just symptoms of a more crucial problem in Calvary Church.  It is the almost absolute power that PG can exercise.  With his control of the Board of Deacons, everything he does, can be ratified by the BOD later even though they were not aware of it earlier.  For example, he made a unilateral decision to give a love gift of US$10,000 to Pastor Guynes for chairing an EGM.  He then had it confirmed by the Board later.   There are no checks and balances.  To have better governance the Constitution must be changed.  (Read the article,  The Need for Constitutional Amendments”)

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 million ringgit a year is not covered by the Church Constitution. It operates from a Missions Manual which had not been approved by the Church members. Most members did not even know of its existence.  The BOD also has little or no control over its decisions and operations.  PG cleverly removed the BOD from having oversight of the money in the Missions Department.  He and the Missions Director, who is appointed by him, has control over this Missions money.  The operation of the Missions Department must be covered by the Constitution.  

Questions that still need to be asked:

a) Why did the BOD not insist that the Missions Manual be approved by the members?

b) Why the auditors who are all professionals allowed this deception to continue for so many years?

c) Why is the BOD supporting PG in maintaining the status quo when it is so obvious that the Constitution must be changed?

Q4.  Why can’t the Constitution be changed without all these bad publicity?

A.  The Concerned Members first tried to get the BOD to look at the Constitution through a Petition signed by 158 members submitted to the BOD on 15.03.2008, just before the 2008 AGM. The petition appealed to the BOD to review the Constitution with the view of improving governance.  There was no response from PG or the BOD.  

From then till 15.07.2008 various Concerned Members met with PG and the BOD in the hope of getting an Independent Committee to be set up to review the Constitution but without any success. Subsequently, on 15.07.2008 another Petition supported by 146 signatures was submitted to the BOD.   In addition to the independent Truth Committee and Constitution Review Committee, another request was submitted for PG to retire as Senior Pastor of the Church as he had already reached the retirement of 60 years old.  Again there was no response from PG or the BOD.

  

When the BOD called for an EGM on 15.08.08 to explain the CIM transactions, seven Resolutions were submitted for tabling before the members.  The resolutions called for the setting up of a Truth Committee, a Constitution Review Committee and for the members to ratify PG’s reappointment as Senior Pastor since PG has passed the retirement age of 60 years pursuant to the Church Staff Handbook.  All the resolutions were rejected by the BOD and were not tabled.    

Similar Resolutions were again submitted to the 2009 AGM held on 15.06.2009.  Once again PG and the BOD rejected the Resolutions submitted by the Concerned Members from being tabled for the members to vote on.

Besides trying to get the issues to be placed before the members of the church, we had also tried to get the AOG General Council to resolve the issues.  However, they seem unable or unwilling to act. 

The Unanswered questions:

a) As a Congregational Church, why are the members not allowed to decide on such important decisions?

b) Why is the AOG allowing PG and the BOD to exercise such powers that take away the rights of members?

c) Why is PG and the BOD afraid to face the members’ decision when the TTG are prepared to accept whatever the members should decide on? 

Q5.  Have you tried to get help from the Assemblies of God (AOG)?

A.  The AOG had been kept informed from the very beginning and appeals have been made for them to intervene to stop the escalating conflict.  However, for whatever reason they may have, they are unwilling or unable to do so.  In fact the Deputy General Superintendent chaired the AGM at which the seven Resolutions were thrown out.  You must remember that PG was General Superintendent for 26 years and is now the General Superintendant Emeritus.  He is the biggest "shot" in AOG world in Malaysia.  Also the AOG is controlled by pastors and they may have an unintentional but natural biasness.

If you look at the AOG Constitution and the Calvary Church Constitution you would notice that Calvary Church is not in compliance with the requirements of the AOG.  Yet the CC Constitution was approved by the AOG and no one in the AOG dares to even raise the issue. Make a comparison yourself. For the AOG Constitution go to http://www.ag.org.my/ to download a copy. All Calvary Church members can get a copy of the Calvary Church Constitution from the Church office.

Q6.  What about NECF?

A.  They actually have no authority over PG.  They can only persuade.  We were told that they tried to mediate but without success.  Again remember PG was the Chairman for 8 years and is now the Advisor to the NECF Council.

Q7.  What about AOG America?

A.  AOG Malaysia is not under AOG USA.   Letters had been copied to various leaders in AOG USA but  no response was received from them.  A Concerned Member actually wrote to Pastor Delmer Guynes after he came to chair the EGM on 15.08.08.  He did not even get the common courtesy of a reply.  Instead Guynes wrote an Open Letter to the members saying that there is nothing wrong in getting CCC designed by a freemason.  What he said in the letter was totally out of what was requested of him.

Q8.  Why go to court?  Are you not afraid of 1 Corinthians 6:4?

A.  You must have heard that a verse taken out of context is a pretext.  Most Christians have not made a study of this verse much less have a proper understanding of why, when and under what circumstances Apostle Paul made that statement.  CT did.  (To read the three articles   “Christian Lawsuit  by Dr Paul Nah”, “Christian Involvement in Lawsuits by Dr George Wood”,  “When It’s Right to go to court by Doug Goins”, click on:  LAW  AND THE CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE         

CT is convinced that Christians are not barred from taking another Christian to the secular Court, but it has to be the last resort.   We believe the plaintiffs had cleared the five questions asked by George Wood in his paper before proceeding to Court.  After all they are not suing anyone for anything.  They are merely asking the Court to declare the 2009 AGM null and void and for the seven Resolutions to be tabled before the members for a vote. 

Q9.  But why go to the newspaper?

A.  If you heard that a group of Concerned Members marched to the Star office and demanded that they publish their article, then you have been lied to.  No one went to the Star office.  Two reporters were sent by the Star to interview one of the TTG at his office.  This story is of public interest.  CC attracts people from the public to attend its events and also collects money from the public at the CCC fund raisers and events held in the stadiums.  The public has the right to be assured that there is accountability and transparency in the Church.

Q10.  Is it true that money collected for the Indonesian Earthquake ended up in CIM?

A.   Absolutely.  The money was never sent to Indonesia.  It was kept in the Missions department and later ended up in CIM.  This money came from the public. 

Q11.  What about the other items alleged in the newspaper article?

A.  They are all true.  For the church secretary to say that they are baseless was a blatant lie.  The transactions did take place.  They tried their best to explain them away; usually by saying that the Board had approved them.   These attempts to explain are recorded in the minutes which proved that the transactions took place. Furthermore, by the fact that they did not openly deny those transaction but to merely state that the Board approved it shows that the transactions were real and true.

Q12.  Why the demo?

A.  After 400 members were sacked we could turn to no one to help us.  The sacking was to stop the members from attending the AGM, asking questions on the accounts and submitting Resolutions to be tabled at the AGM.  When you cannot get help from anyone the only choice is to make it known publicly.  Maybe the Christian public and the leaders would wake up and do something.  It is not just about the 400 sacked members.  It is about the integrity and abuse of powers in a Christian Church.

Q13.  Have you tried mediation and arbitration?

A.  In November 2009 a prominent Calvarite and the AOG General Superintendant arranged for the two sides to meet.  The place, time and date were all agreed.  Just two days before the meeting PG said “the date is not convenient”.  That date was agreed to by him at least a week before but suddenly it was not convenient.  He does not want to meet because meeting means compromise, give and take.  He is not prepared to give anything.  He wants to keep the status quo with him having full and complete control of the Church.

Q14. If PG is so bad why are the Deacons and Associate Pastors still supporting him?

A.   They don’t have much of a choice.  They were made to swear an oath of total allegiance and secrecy.  As they supported PG initially in some not so clear violations, they got slowly slowly sucked in.  Before you know it they are too deep to come out.  They are also not allowed to read the CT blog, or talk to anyone from the TTG side or talk to independent parties about the problems.  They have put fear in people by labeling the TTG as evil and satanic. That is why you have a Datin from the Church now recruiting prayer warriors to pray against TTG, even to the point of approaching Christians from other Churches to join in their Crusade. The question that arises is,

a) What does the Datin expect these prayer warriors to say to God? 

b) Is it wrong to ask the Pastor and  Church leadership for TRUTH, TRANSPARENCY AND GODLY GOVERNANCE in the Church?

c) Would any God fearing Christian approach the throne of God with a prayer that calls down "hell, fire and brimstones" on another person, let alone another child of God?

It had been suggested to the Deacons and Associate Pastors to find out and understand the truth from the Concerned Members.  So far none of them dared or bothered to. It was also suggested that they meet with the prominent Calvarite to find out the truth about what happened to the meeting, either individually or as a group. He is willing to make time so that he is easily accessible to any one of them. Again none of them dared or bothered to.  So the Deacons and the Pastors only know what PG wants them to know.

Q15.  What next?

A.  We don’t know.  The Concerned Members are led by God one step at a time.  Only He knows.

Q16.  What should you do?

A.  You should query the Deacons and the Associate Pastors on the statements made by CT above.  Ask them for explanations and answers to the unanswered questions.  Do not allow them to brush you away with general statements like, “The allegations are all baseless.”  Ask them which part is baseless and put their reply on CT.  CT would then respond to them.

Please continue to pray for :

a)  The character of our Lord Jesus Christ to be evident in His people and in His church.  

b) Righteousness, holiness and Christian love to return to Calvary Church.  

c) All the parties involved that they will be enlightened with the truth and that they will have the courage to respond and act according to the truth.

d)  The Will and Purposes of God to be fulfilled and accomplished soon in this whole saga, so that His people and His church will be purified and ready for a great revival in Malaysia. 

(Posted in Berita Calvary also)

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