Ex-CHC cell group leader quits CHC and tells all

last SG · 2012-07-14T19:39:10+00:00

eh honeybunziekong hee got fan tai sui or not!!!He born in the year of dragon. So he directly clash and pong pia with this year's dragon.

BroInChrist SG

What's even worse is when church like these are not only content to have spiritual/religious authority, but aspire to gain civil/political influence in national politics and governance.

In America, it's very obvious. In Singapore, such intentions are more subtly suggested.

If you look around us, we aren't that much different from the Middle Ages (aka the Dark Ages). The only mainstream form of Christianity available at that time were also very much into making a big prosperity statement with large buildings and gold-foiled sculptures/art. Wars in the name of God were made - the "greater good" the "net gain" was justified. There were big frienships/alliances with governments (kings, monarchs and nobles rather) so much that only oppression, tyranny and serfdom were the result.

I do think we are not that much different from those times considering the structure and organization of religious group and society in general.

And if Solomon's words "That which has been, is that which will be" is anything to go by, there is a VERY big chance that Islam will rise again - a "new Ottomon" empire so to speak. In my personal opinion, it isn't necessarily a bad thing, since in the OT that was God's way of calling leaders into accountability who failed to lead people well, but pursued their own agenda instead.

And in history, only after the Ottomon's rise and fall, would a new Renaissance and a new Reformation happen, where someone like Luther would radically preach that submission to the clergy is unnecessary in a relationship to God (particularly Salvation, in Luther's context - "the just by faith shall live").

Actually I think it is Biblical to influence society wherever God has placed us, be it in politics or not. I think that is part of being salt and light. But this is not the same as setting up a Christian government and using the Bible as a basis for the country's law. Paul exhorted the believers to obey the government, not be the government. America's beginnings are closely intertwined with the Christian faith and was founded on Christian principles. However, it was under those very Christian principles that freedom of belief was provided for, that there is freedom of religion which unfortunately is now confused with freedom from religion.

Coming back to the life and practice of the church, there is already a revolution going on, George Barna has written about it as well. But still that is the road less travelled and not without its challenges, not least because by and large we are very much used to being in control of things and letting the Holy Spirit take charge of running the church is just too uncertain for many, especially those in positions of leadership.

sgdiehard SG

Thank you for sharing so much so freely.

I agree with you that once you are in leadership position, things can be very different. We can see things that we know should not be so. Somehow the pecking order so accepted in the corporate world does not seem to fit into the church, but nevertheless many are of the view that there is simply no other way to do things, since the church today is very much modeled after the corporate world.

Unconditional submission to church leaders is certainly foreign to the teaching of the New Testament. Many feel uncomfortable with it yet they somehow lack the information to counter proof texts like Heb 13:7 which are often used to silence any internal critic. Of course there is the much touted "Who is your covering?" that has guilt-tripped many believers into thinking that if they do not have a leader lording over them then they are fodder for the devil's minions and out of protection and favour with God.

Whether one is in an institutional church or an organic church, authority, submission, leadership and structure are terms that one will come into contact, but I submit that the concepts can be rather different. The point is to recapture the NT meaning of these words and flesh them out in our church life, something perhaps easier said then done. Leaders exist in the organic churches but they are, and should be, functional, not positional. One leads by example and maturity and faithfulness to the teaching of the Word. The "structure" that exists in an organic church is likened after the human body, and not that of the business corporation. But so long as you find yourself in an institutional church setting, the corporate idea of bottom-up submission along the chain of command is inevitable, and uncomfortable. I am of the view that when one tries to follow the Scripture and encounters problems, there are Scriptural solutions to Scriptural "problems". But it is difficult to solve modern church problems caused by adherence to a corporate model using the solutions in the Scripture, simply because church in the NT was never intended to be institutional and patterned after the corporate world.

What should you do then? But if I may suggest this, that you take time to "rethink the wineskin" and form Biblical convictions about what church is. This would involve much reading (and I suspect you are already doing that) and reflection. And let the Holy Spirit guide your thoughts from there.

"church in the NT was never intended to be institutional and patterned after the corporate world."

This is the most important fact that many church leaders, pastors, bishops...fail to realize....

BroInChrist SG

"church in the NT was never intended to be institutional and patterned after the corporate world."

This is the most important fact that many church leaders, pastors, bishops...fail to realize....

And I think that many who do realise that will rationalise the continuity of the institutional church under the notion of progress and that the church back then was primitive and persecuted etc etc. Actually I think the worst kind of rationalisation is the kind that says "The Bible is silent on how the church should be like."

Really?

Joe 328 SG

George Barna. I was thinking about his book... Based on the reviews and some synopsis found online, he seems to know something about the current phenomenon. The fact that many people think that those who leave church are "backsliders" could not be further from the truth. Many of them who leave are those who have been around (many served as leaders and pastors).

These days, I spend more time reading secular books on Political Science than anything.

The origins of America being founded on Christianity has 2 different opposing arguments. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson weren't Christians at all. Many of these historical people have links to FreeMasonry - a cult and in my opinion something you run from as far as you can. (You can see Freemasonry symbols on American dollar bills in the form of the pyramid and "the all seeing eye") George Washington's faith is still a matter of debate. Only Abe Lincoln was a Christian (only after his son had died) and even then his views are opposed to the mainstream church *in his time* - e.g. slavery. As Lincoln fought against the Confederate Army - the Confederates claimed God's will were on their side, while the Union did too also.

In my opinion, America being founded on Christian principles happened NOT in the way most people thought how (or the way most preachers said how). It happened precisely in the conditions as I described in my previous post where Serfdom was rife in medieval Europe.

Because of the monopolising of lands and privileges occured only within the monarchs and religious authorities (and these 2 were pretty much "friends" - the church and the king was one big gentleman's club), the ONLY way a person, ANY person, can break out of the poverty cycle was to be "free". Free in the sense, he was free buy and own land and run a business without having to lobby and be friends with the nobles/monarchs and the religious elite. He was free to innovate and be inventive and eat off the fruits of his labor without having new laws being arbitrary meted out to cancel his economic advantage due to his enterprising spirit.

Because the idea that all men are created equal under the eyes of God in Reformation Theology, they are liberated (not just from the 10 commandment and the OT, but also liberated from hierarchical systems where a human mediator is needed - none of those things matter. Jesus is the Mediator and the whole notion of the "Mandate of Heaven" being given to a ruling class is nullified), these new Reformed believers went to America and started a new life, AWAY from the previous system.

Hence, the whole idea of the free market system. A (true) capitalist society was born, where each man was free to do trade and exchange as equals (rather than needing the privilege of a social standing to do so); and if any man was not happy with the price, he could well choose an alternative, thereby allowing the the free market economic equilibrium to work its magic. I.e. Prices correct itself without any intervention.

The Constitution of America provided such an environment where each man is no longer viewed and given privileges because of his social class and family background, but is free to pursue his "own happiness" - i.e. to pursue a trade or a business and be responsible for all the risks in his undertaking that he chooses. Because of this, if a man was inventive and made scientific discoveries he could very well make money and prosper without the fear that the rich and powerful is going to come and take it unfairly from him.

Contrast that to Medieval Europe, you could not do that. People were afraid to be inventive and independent, they were afraid to have contrarian views (for invention and discoveries are all about having a different view of the status quo - Gallileo couldn't openly publish his views since the church told him to shut up). Hence the idea of "freedom" and "libery" are big champions of American prosperity, and to say it caused America's initial prosperity is correct. In those days "freedom" didn't really mean "I could mouth off someone's mother because it is my 'freedom'".

Given the econo-political context, freedom was a different idea then compared to today. It was a big idea.. It was also a Christian one. " Whom the Son sets free, is free indeed" - John 8:36, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" - 2 Corinthians 3:17

Joe 328 SG

Really?

My previous megachurch pastor argued with the "Paul got smart" argument (Paul later used the "I am a Roman citizen" privilege escape persecution and lived to spread the Word).

He argues that just because the early church was persecuted and the early church was very simple, it didn't mean that the contemporary church had to be. The church (like Paul) as it "progressed" got smart. We used certain privileges to "escape". For Paul, it was Roman Citizenship, for the contemporary church - being big and prosperous and having a lot of supporting amenities that isn't too far from secular life - No ascetism.

For me, my idea of church is much simpler and it's based mainly on 2 scriptures.

1. "Where 2 or more are gathered IN MY NAME, there I am in the midst of them"

2. "Jacob called that place Bethel"

Jacob encountered God's presence and called the place Bethel , which means House of God. 2 things must be present - 1. God's presence and 2. Two believers coming together in love and *consciously* acknowledging/seeking God is already a church - Building or no building. (Two believers coming together to socialize to talk about movies doesn't count. Two believers coming to church but can't wait for the service to be over and have a can't be bothered attitude about the things of God, also doesn't count).

BroInChrist SG

These days, I spend more time reading secular books on Political Science than anything.

Considering that in the past he was very much a mainstream church person writing about mainstream churches, George's book "Pagan Christianity" co-authored with Frank Viola caused not a few people to raised some eyebrows.

I don't read much about political science so can't say much. But a book I enjoyed reading a couple of years back was reviewed here http://creation.com/world-upside-down and you can actually borrow it from the National Library.

Regarding America's founding fathers, while not all were Christians, I think you would agree that the evidence points to America being founded clearly on Christian values or principles. One can argue if America was founded as a Christian nation or a nation with many Christians, and I am inclined towards the former. But I suppose this is a topic for another forum.

BroInChrist SG

My previous megachurch pastor argued with the "Paul got smart" argument (Paul later used the "I am a Roman citizen" privilege escape persecution and lived to spread the Word).

For me, my idea of church is much simpler and it's based mainly on 2 scriptures.

1. "Where 2 or more are gathered IN MY NAME, there I am in the midst of them"

2. "Jacob called that place Bethel"

Persecution in the early church was largely sporadic and localised and due mainly to Jewish leaders' instigation but one must noticed that even before severe imperial persecution arose many decades later the church was already "organised" as simple functioning house churches for at least the first 300 years. And neither was there any hint that they were functioning as such because of persecution and that the ideal would be anything akin to an institutional church like what we have today.

Exegetically speaking, I am of the view that the passage about 2 or 3 gathered in Jesus' name wasn't in the context of defining the church. The context of Matt 18 was church discipline. I see a distinction between a church and the church meeting. Believers coming together are still considered the church, since by definition the church is a body of believers. But their coming together may not constitute a church meeting as reflected in the NT which has as their primary purpose the breaking of bread and mutual edification.

Boyboyb SG

Let's see what the LAW will do with the shameless couple on 25 Jul 2012

Joe 328 SG

America founded as Christian nation or nation with many Christians? I don't think they are different arguments at all nor mutually exclusive from one another in the discussion. I think they are one and the same. IMO anyway.

I interpret and read that line broadly; so gathering "in His name" also means gathering *for the purpose* of worshipping Jesus and anything that exalts, acknowledges, or seeks, His face/presence, His name, His mind/wisdom, etc.

"Worship" as defined in spirit and in truth - so it can be exposition of scriptures, worship, breaking of bread, praying for one another, etc.

So you are right, coming together alone doesn't make a church.

BroInChrist SG

"Worship" as defined in spirit and in truth - so it can be exposition of scriptures, worship, breaking of bread, praying for one another, etc.

So you are right, coming together alone doesn't make a church.

Actually my point is that there is a distinction between the church and the church meeting. The church (i.e. a group of believers) can be gathered and yet not be a church meeting. IMO a church meeting is characterised by the expressed purpose of saints intentionally and regularly gathering for mutual edification and the building up of the body and partaking of the Lord's Supper. So believers meeting to play golf, watch movies etc does not count as having a church meeting, even though the church is meeting.

Just to clarify, I am not saying that 2 or 3 saints gathered together is not a church nor cannot be having a church meeting, I'm just saying that Matt 18:20 is not about defining what a church is.

Joe 328 SG

Just to clarify, I am not saying that 2 or 3 saints gathered together is not a church nor cannot be having a church meeting, I'm just saying that Matt 18:20 is not about defining what a church is.

Okay. I get what you are saying - Church with a capital 'C'. The collective Church as the entire body of Christ. All Christians are part of THE CHURCH but not all Christians go to church.

I thought we were talking about how would one define a House of God. (i.e. the question of whether CHC is a legit "church", a legit House of God, despite how it is run and how it is structured and what activities are conducted.)

IMO, I think CHC is a legit house of God, despite all the controversy.

BroInChrist SG

Okay. I get what you are saying - Church with a capital 'C'. The collective Church as the entire body of Christ.

BTW, the word "church" is used in various contexts. Sometimes it is spoken of as the collective Church, sometimes it is meant as "the church that meets in so-and-so's house", sometimes it is meant as the church in a locality, e.g Corinth. So the context determines the usage.

BroInChrist SG

Okay. I get what you are saying - Church with a capital 'C'. The collective Church as the entire body of Christ. All Christians are part of THE CHURCH but not all Christians go to church.

IMO, I think CHC is a legit house of God, despite all the controversy.

Personally I avoid using the label "House of God" for a church. Problem is that it conveys the idea that the church is a place, a venue, a building. Such a notion is foreign to the NT even though the NT teaches that the church is a living temple (or spiritual house) made up of living stones. I also avoid using the phrase "go to church" for the same reason.

charlize SG

The IB is back.

laurence82 SG

IB?

TrueReppuzan SG

As an atheist,

I hope Kong Hee’s case has made people realise how delusional today religion is. And it is as true as what has been already said, that people believe in religion to appease themselves. No matter if it be a fairy tale or a funky delusion, if it lost the respective religion ideal sense of goodness to their doers, it just becomes a selfish spirtuality (oops, i should say selfish delusion that you impose indirectly or directly to others ahaha). Of course, this matter of corruption become investigated due to some within CHC feel discomforted about it. Yet majority of CHC jumped into support for Kong Hee. Creative missionary has been in christianity circle before charismatism. Using investment to reap dividends in modern society, etc. is a new add-in due to modernism and materialism. All these crossed the border line of once totally unacceptable before, and modern christianity changes. And the thing is Kong Hee believes he is doing all and the best for God, that he has consulted with others in the questionable grey matters, that he said he stood by his integrity!

I remember how some idiot christians are educated that atheists are bad ass. Just because atheists don’t have a holy God or either rewards for doing good, atheists must have very bad directions and motivations for what is good and what is bad. Just as we don’t need an absolute figure what is absolute hot, we can feel what is cold and what is hot relatively. Similarly we don’t need to have a God as a symbol, a figure or a real person, in order for us to gauge what is right, what is wrong, what is good and what is bad. Then i should suppose that if you have so far a holy God or a supernatural law that rewards you for good, then you should be living much good than those without, but it isn’t. An atheist can do evil by blatanly ignore what is evil or himself deem it as not evil by human rights lah, freedom for drugs lol, selfish stylelife imposed on others, etc.. Hope this answer the dude accusations that atheists are damn immoral… lol…

People in religious world are not doing it anymore, although they are fervently doing the religion. The religion has long long ago lost its salt! Most who are actually doing it before have already left this delusional fever, the primitive irrationality. Why? It is not because of lack of faith or fate … lol … Because it is not true and it is not the truth. And it takes courage, morality, integrity and rationality to break through. Don’t read atheist books for their opinions.. >.<... depend on your reasons and rationality, and find your way out. Or else, you fall into another kind of nonsense primtive irrationality, that can be another type of supersitition and mystical beliefs, after you are out from one nonsense. By the way, Atheism is not liking of lacking of a belief of god, but is the status phenomenon of absence of imaginations of god, ghost and whatever supersititions.

Good luck! Isn’t time for your awakening, but the journey will be painful.. wuhahahaha..

BroInChrist SG

As an atheist,

Good luck! Isn’t time for your awakening, but the journey will be painful.. wuhahahaha..

I think you are confusing and conflating issues here. The personal failures of religious leaders (and KH has yet to be convicted of anything so let's wait for the outcome) is not a justification for atheism or proof that religion in general or Christianity in particular is a delusion.

You make the common strawman argument that theists accuse atheists of being immoral, or that atheists are considered immoral people. The correct view is that atheism cannot account for morality. If you consider yourself a moral person, that in itself presupposes a knowledge of moral absolutes or standard by which to judge between moral right or wrong, good or evil. How does atheism supply such a notion? That you would deny that you need God to tell you what is right or wrong does not mean that God is not the source of morality. You could well be denying that which is true.

You speak much about morality and rationality. But can you justify the existence of both from within atheism? Can atheism account for them? I submit to you that the answer is NO. So yes, an atheist can be morally upright and rational, and even argue that one should be morally upright and rational, but the atheist cannot explain or justify the existence of moral standards and rational thought.

Aneslayer SG

To be fair, Truerep was using Christian values to measure the protagonist here.

BroInChrist SG

To be fair, Truerep was using Christian values to measure the protagonist here.

Was he? That did not seem to come up in his post. What I gathered was that he was using CHC issue to justify the bigoted atheist's view that religion is a delusion and moralising about how atheists do not need God to be moral etc etc.

Aneslayer SG

anecdotes have only surface value... no true meaning unless one gives it to them...

« Previous Page Next Page »