Posts filed under 'Church'
It’s very rare for someone to send me a book through the mail, but it happened. Back at work last Tuesday, after my recent mourning, I saw a parcel at the end of the day, and lo and behold, inside was Joseph Prince’s devotional version of his book, Destined to Reign. In the front, a fellow blogger, a die hard of Paya Lebar Methodist Church, an evangelist of the grace message, Malcolm Loh, of ROOTS blog, wrote how he felt led to give me the thick book. Thanks, Malcolm. Well, I must admit I had very much like to read his controversial stuff about grace, for the messages I had heard of JP were ancient, more about wisdom, from the SLF days, and when I heard him live during my sabbatical eight years back, it was in the World Trade Center about speaking in tongues. The comments on my posts about his teaching have been on extreme ends of a pole and so now hopefully I may capture more fully his thinking in black and white. I say hopefully because it is after all a devotional and not an exposition about grace. I will enter in not to look for faults, but fillet out the meat and feed on it. If I have a bone or two in my mouth, I will not report it. If I have food poisoning, you will hear from me. Otherwise, it means what I read is okay, to me at least, or I got distracted and backslided in my readings. So far it has been encouraging.
By the way, the groundbreaking ceremony for the NorthOne was conducted yesterday as reported HERE. And the controversy with Joseph Prince seem to have spilled over across the causeway at the Homilia HERE. But please don’t comment here on my post. Pay your toll, take the highway, and make your comments over there. 
Hmmm…as an aside, I had thought it was gone case for Arsenal vs Manchester last Saturday, but wonder of wonders, the boys beat the men and champions 2-1. But still, my hands cover my eyes, and I dare not look, not even open a finger to peep, because the next match may be lost. Such is the inconsistency of Arsenal this year.
November 11th, 2008
A news report about a Buddhist monk caught my attention and I wanted to blog about it. In the space of seven days in the Straits Times, we can now weave a tale of three holy men. They are all “set apart”. They are all men of faith. Two are megachurch pastors and one a monk. But how they live out their faith is different. One owns a few fashion shops but serves the church without a salary and is generous in his giving. There are other pastors like that too who are bi-vocational and the other job is not taxi driver or durian seller but a thriving profitable business, and they are laying their lives for the church and the Lord. Another has a high salary which could have been higher but refuses to accept a system which would have seen him earning even more. He too is generous in his giving. And today Monte Lee Rice a perceptive seer wrote a comment from which I have extracted what he said about the report I wanted to blog on:
And finally brothers and sisters, I am compelled to draw attention to the article in today’s paper (The Sunday Times, 12 October 2008) titled, “I, who have nothing.” This is a short write-up about the British born and Buddhist month Ajahn Brahm, whose picture most of us have at some point seen occasionally in the paper or around town. I am not a Buddhist; I am a Christian. But boy, what shame this man brings upon us! He “travels up to 10 times or more a year” all over the world, “people turn up by the thousands to listen to him,” and yet he “does not carry a single penny, has no mobile phone or MP3 player,” and “sleeps on the floor and has one meal a day from his alms bow.” The article mentions that Ajahn Brahm “doesn’t believe religious leaders should be paid a lot of money either.” I think we better listen to this: “How much money did Jesus have? He had nothing. . . . We’re at an economic downturn here and many people are afraid of what might happen if they lose their savings and house, and I can come along and say I’ve never had a house and savings and I can be happen and peaceful If I can do that with nothing, you don’t need to be afraid.” Well, let’s do give the Lord the last word here: “if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you—you of little faith? . . . . But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”
Monte Lee Rice
Perichorus
Jesus himself, who was not silent on wealth and possessions, had said: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also (Matt 6:19-21). Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys(Luke 12:33). Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”(Luke 12:15).
We know that Jesus died a shameful death, and in the world’s eyes, he died in failure and poverty. We also know that all the twelve apostles, and Paul too died with little possessions to boast of. They were the closest to Jesus, and their interpretation of Jesus words can be seen in the way they lived. I suppose they were like Nazirites: you could call them incarnated prophecies for the larger body, extreme examples that will continually arrest our attention, and make us think about how we are living out our faith.
None of us are to legislate how everyone else is to apply these words and teachings of Jesus, and how we should exactly follow the examples of these apostles who were unlikely to misinterpret Jesus’ teachings. How each one of us specifically responds to God is according to the grace we have experienced in our lives, and our stewardship to Him.
Its not that the church doesn’t have its own examples in this respect: John Wesley who despite more money coming into his hands, insisted on keeping his standard of living unchanged, but increased his giving. Or George Muller who ran an orphanage by faith in prayer and without publicity of needs but just by prayer. He saw thousands of pounds pass through his hands but none got stuck in his palms. Or a St Francis of Assisi. Or a Mother Theresa. Or C.T. Studd who gave up his substantial inheritance and fame as a sportsman and became a missionary to Africa.
As Christians, we are all holy, “set apart” men and women, whether pastor or accountant or clerk, we are all equally accountable to God as to how we live in His presence. How we manage and use the gifts and opportunities He gives us is something we are personally accountable to Him for, and we ought not to judge other Christians over how much they earn, or the way they spend their money or the possessions they keep. Or to make what standards of living we are convinced of, a law that everyone else must comply with. However we can ask ourselves as stewards, “What is God saying to me about me about my desire to be rich; about the possessions I now own and my attitude towards them; about my personal pursuit of earthly security in an enlarged barn to store more grain, rather than in an enlarged vision of a loving God to distribute more grain?”
Now if God can speak through nature’s wonders, an animal and even Caiaphas or king Cyrus, is this Buddhist monk, his mouthpiece of the moment to Singaporean Christians and churches in this furious economic tsunami, a dark parable that Christians need to personally reflect on and ask, “Lord, is there something I need to learn here for myself?”
October 13th, 2008
The New Creation Church board made a good decision when they permitted the Straits Times to do an 
interview with Pastor Joseph Prince. The interview was reported in last Sunday’s papers and was interesting. It has always been my conviction that the “holy man” is most influential when he is humble, open with his weaknesses, and vulnerable. I saw this in Lawrence Khong. And I saw some of it in this report. The flamboyant distant holy and handsome man Joseph Prince became more like one of us: accessible, real, and vulnerable. It gave you a feeling of identification, of empathy, of being made from the same cloth. We find we are able to relate to him.
“(JP)….is a shy man and a stutterer.”
“Joseph Prince says, “I’m still frightened. To me, I’m very humbled. Every week when I stand there for four services, once in a while, I still wonder to myself, people are queueing up, for what? This is not Hello Kitty, you know.
“Born to an Indian father and a Chinese mother, Mr Prince spent eight years - mostly during his primary school days - in Perak where his father was a priest. He doesn’t care to mention which religion his father belongs to because he found no reality in it, he said. His father was often drunk. He eventually came back to Singapore and followed an aunt to church. he was then a young man dabbling in occult, he said, but “supernatural experiences” opened his eyes to Christianity.
“He attended Commonwealth secondary School and went on to finish his A levels at a private school, Our Lady of Lourdes.
“Joseph Prince, by the way, was a name he adopted when he was working as an IT consultant before he became a full-time pastor. “I saw in the Bible that everyone that God raised, he changed their names,” he explained.
The awfully good-looking, charismatic, anointed preacher was a stammerer! He still retains a sense of wonder at what God is doing instead of feeling like they are queueing up because of his great preaching. He had a tough background, an absent and negligent father, and many of us can identify with that. He attended an ordinary non-elite school like the majority of us Singaporeans, and couldn’t even make it to a ‘proper’ junior college. Hear ye, hear ye, he is not a government scholar! Don’t we all love underdog make good by God’s grace stories; Chesterfield beat Man Utd, 6-0 stuff. And he adopted a new name to make a break with the painful past so that he can start anew, and we have all experienced that too. From what I read he is easy to relate to and anyone could feel at ease with him. I can have coffee with him and talk natural. I don’t have to speak in tongues every alternate sentence. I can laugh and even talk about some Korean serial, and not feel obliged to discuss about the fifth trumpet of the book of Revelation. He seems an okay kind of guy: spiritual, yet natural.
October 6th, 2008
“Church pumps in $220m more” screamed the back page Money section of the Straits Time. I looked at that and said, Huh? The report says, “Rock Productions, the business arm of the new Creation Church, said in a statement yesterday that it will double its investment in the project to a staggering $500million, from the $280 million it had announced last year.” Part of the increase, about 25%, is obviously due to construction costs that have risen. The rest is for the extra 8,ooo sq m added to the original 30,000sq m under NCC. With attendance of 16,000 currently, the additional funds needed to be raised works out to about $13,700 per church member. I think the whole amount is within the ability of the church goers to fund over a ten year period. Furthermore, after it is built, the civic and cultural zone they manage may churn out profits. The land however is only leased out to Rock Productions, the business arm of NCC, for 60 years by Jurong Town Corporation.
Now compare this with what Trinity Christian Centre and what it got from its $60m or more at Trinity @ Paya Lebar. When all is built, there will be a 3,000 seater auditorium, two 500 seaters, two 300 seaters, and one multi-purpose hall in a campus with a church, hostel, bible school, social arm and two or more businesses renting space from it. Best of all: they own the land and it is freehold!
This is the sticky point for me: which is wiser stewardship? Obviously there could be different opinions about it. Missionaries and champions of the poor are too polite to shout but they are all imagining what could be done for missions and the poor with that kind of money, and wishing there are churches that would raise that kind of money for their causes. When these two ‘church splurges’ on their respective buildings are compared side by side, it makes me think about wise stewardship. Its not as easy as it looks, for it seems to be obvious that TCC has the better deal. But you have to look at impact and accessibility and other factors too. Any comments?
P.S. Blogpastor, is not a NCC basher. It may seem to be so but it is not so. I write to provoke discussions and cross frontiers of thought on issues that Christian leaders would be concerned about.
September 16th, 2008
The following data of churches with annual income of over $10 million comes from the internet but was first communicated by the Commissioner of Charities. I have always wondered which were the richest churches in Singapore. Now we can all have a peek and know, in order of funds collected, who they are:
NUMBER 1: NEW CREATION CHURCH
Location: Worships at the Rock Auditorium in Suntec City Mall.
History: Founded in 1984 by a small group of young believers who wanted an independent, non-denominational church. From 25 members, the congregation has grown to 16,000 now.
Led by: Senior Pastor Joseph Prince, a Singaporean in his 40s.
Income: $42.8 million for its financial year ended this March.
Income source: Tithes and offerings, sales of goods, income from interest
Business arm: Rock Productions has invested about $280 million in a tie-up with property giant CapitaLand to develop a $660 million lifestyle hub in Buona Vista. In 2001, Rock Productions bought Marine Cove, a cluster of food and beverage outlets in East Coast Park, for about $10 million.
NUMBER 2: CITY HARVEST CHURCH
Location: Jurong West Street 91.
History: Founded in 1989 by Reverend Kong Hee.
Led by: Reverend Kong, 43, is married to pop singer Ho Yeow Sun.
Congregation size: About 23,000
Income: $30.9 million last year.
Income source: Tithes and offerings from church members.
NUMBER 3: FAITH COMMUNITY BAPTIST CHURCH
Location: Holds its services at the Singapore Expo and Marine Parade Central.
History: Founded in 1986 by Pastor Lawrence Khong.
Led by: Senior Pastor Khong, who was awarded the Public Service medal at the National Day Awards in 1998.
Member strength: Close to 10,000.
Income: $27 million last year.
Income source: Tithes and offerings.
NUMBER 4: TRINITY CHRISTIAN CENTER
Location: Adam Road and Paya Lebar Road.
History: Founded by American missionaries Reverend Glen Stafford and his wife in 1969 with 10 people.
The church now has a congregation of about 5,500.
Led by: Reverend Dominic Yeo, 46, who chairs the centre’s eight-member board.
Income: $14.2 million last year.
Income source: Tithes and offerings by congregation.
As I look in a cursory manner at these figures all kinds of observations and questions come to mind. Firstly, where are the Roman Catholic churches? They are rumoured to be the richest, but probably mainly in asset not in cash. One of the richer churches among them is St Ignatius off Farrer Road, but it is not in the list. My surmise is that Catholics do not practise the giving of the tithe (one tenth of one’s income). I also heard from a Catholic they are more generous with their helpfulness and service and compassion compared to Protestants who have money but no time. Maybe his observation is correct.
Secondly, New Creation Church raised more funds than City Harvest Church even though the latter is bigger by 7,000 in attendance. My surmise is that this is probably due to the fact that NCC is now in the midst of a mega building project, and God’s people are willing to give to a specific desirable purpose. They have many businessmen and I think they are tired of queueing up!
Thirdly, what happened to the Methodist Churches -also reputed to be rich? The Wesley Methodist is much vaunted to be the dwelling place of the rich and famous. Their giving should pass the $10 million annual income category but it was not so. Some say Barker Road Methodist Church has overtaken Wesley in this respect, but I think they have more luminaries than treasury.
Fourthly, the image of the “working class” Pentecostal has been broken, by the inclusion into this category, of the highly organized Trinity Christian Centre, an Assemblies of God church, an attractive magnet for the Pentecostal who has surpassed his parent’s roots in the working class. One other reason is also they are still rasing funds for the new church campus in Paya Lebar.
I am not casting a covetous eye on all that money for the Bible says, “Do not covet your neighbouring church’s annual income.” But I was thinking some Old Testament scripture should be relevant here, especially the one on reapers instructed by the Word not to go through the rows of fruit and crops twice so that some fruit would be left behind for the poor amongst God’s people. So is there some system, some method we the rich churches can design, by which poorer brethren like us can have some access to those riches in Christ Jesus? Remember Ruth, the mother of our faith, met her wealthy Boaz, while she was gleaning. Maybe as a result of such generosity, a mega church can merge with a small one? Maybe it’s more of acquisition than merger. But merger sounds better, so let’s stick to that. I know I am being optimistic and idealistically hopeful, but even the crumbs from their table of plenty, can bless many of the smaller struggling churches. I wish I could come up with a list of the four poorest Singapore churches that deserves to glean from such overflow, but I doubt the Commissioner will be interested in that sector. So it will have to wait, like forever.
September 14th, 2008
I came across this review written by Dr Gordon Wong, Old Testament lecturer with Trinity Theological College. There is wisdom to be gained from reading and reflecting on what he has to say about Joseph Prince’s teaching in his book “Destined to Reign”.
I recently read the book Destined to Reign (2007) by Joseph Prince, the senior pastor of New Creation Church. When I conveyed some of my thoughts on the book, one of my pastoral colleagues thought it would be helpful if I shared them with more Methodists. Let me begin by saying that Pastor Prince’s emphasis on grace has been a great blessing from God to many. My nephew and cousin belong to New Creation church and have grown immensely in their relationship with God. My prayer is that God will use Prince’s gifts of preaching to even more blessed effect as he allows the Holy Spirit to convict him (graciously, as always) of areas that could be improved. I hope my comments below will be helpful towards that end.
1. Prince’s teaching on God’s Grace and Anger
His emphasis on grace has led some to accuse him of giving Christians a licence to sin. He vehemently rejects this criticism (e.g. p. 30) and explains that a person who has properly experienced grace is one who is inspired and empowered to turn away from sin.
What I like: the book’s stress on the power of God’s grace is correct. The grace of God in the Bible is meant to inspire holiness, and not allow sinfulness. The book’s strong emphasis on grace is true to the Bible. Self-condemnation and guilt are real problems that afflict many people today, and the message of God’s grace is truly good news.
What I had reservations about:
In stressing grace, the book appears to suggest that God no longer gets angry with Christians. If this is what it really means to teach, then this is not biblical. On p. 41, read: “We do see God being angry in the Old Testament, and in the book of Revelation, where his anger is toward those who have rejected Jesus. But for you and me, believers in the new covenant, we are not part of the Old Testament and we will never be punished because we have already received Jesus. As believers, God is no longer angry with us because all His anger for our sins fell upon Jesus at the cross.”
I suspect (and hope) that what the book really means is that God’s anger is not the type that takes delight in condemning us and pointing out how horrible we are. Also, I think (and hope) that what the book means to say is that God’s anger and punishment on believers does not result in the loss of eternal salvation. But to say the above is very different from saying that God gets angry only with unbelievers and never with true believers (p. 41), or to insist that “the Holy Spirit never convicts you of sin” (p.134). Does the Bible really say that God never gets angry with believers anymore? In the Bible (both Old and New Testaments), God is presented as getting angry with believers. For example, the letters to the 7 churches (i.e. people who profess to be believers) in Revelation 2-3 include a lot of stinging rebuke and condemnation from Jesus himself, including the use of threats of punishment and judgement. (I find attempts to say that the “churches” in Revelation do not really refer to believers as far-fetched.) God Himself seems to punish two professing believers Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11. Isn’t this an example of the Holy Spirit, through Peter, convicting Ananias and Sapphira of their sins? Or must we assume the (not so gracious) judgement that Ananias and Sapphira cannot have been true believers?? For argument’s sake, even if they were not true believers, they were certainly in the church assembly. So there is place still for Spirit-inspired preaching for the conviction of sin within church walls. There may be many “believers” like Ananias and Sapphira who need the Holy Spirit to convict us of sin and our need for grace. Perhaps the book could have made a clearer distinction between divine anger at Christians that results in the loss of eternal salvation (which is what he is most concerned to speak against) and divine anger at Christians that aims to correct and discipline (which he seems to reject). To be fair, Prince does accept the positive idea of child discipline or training (pp. 65-67), but he rejects any association of this discipline with the words “anger” or “punishment”.
God’s anger was, and can still be an expression of His love and grace, just like a loving mother who sometimes scolds her child. (Prince is, hopefully, only joking when he implies, p.37, that children will become schizophrenic if parents sometimes express happiness and at other times anger!) To say that God will never get angry or punish believers anymore may promote (unwittingly or mistakenly) a distortion of the Bible’s teaching about God’s grace. God’s anger is an expression of His love and grace towards his children. Prince would perhaps do better to speak of righteous anger (Ephesians 4:26) versus unrighteous anger. God never gets (unrighteously) angry with us, but loving grace demands a place for righteous anger as long as His beloved children still need discipline.
2. Prince’s teaching on Law
The book is very strong on rejecting the value of the Law in the OT as being of any positive help for Christians. For example, on p.120 there is a section entitled “The Ten Commandments Kill” and it says that these commandments are “the ministry of death”.
What I like: I think (and hope) that the book is trying to say two biblical things about the Law. Firstly, it may be warning us that the Ten Commandments can be used or preached in a condemning way that destroys the soul of people and makes them cringe in fear or turn away from God as a harsh Master. This is a good biblical warning. Secondly, the book’s description of the Law as a ministry of death rather than life correctly describes and reinforces the biblical view that obedience to the Law cannot lead us to receive salvation. It is correct and very good of Prince to speak against those who are “trying to use the Ten Commandments to remove their sins” (p.124). We are saved by grace, not by obedience to the Ten Commandments or the Law. If these two points represent what Prince teaches on the Law in the Bible, then this is good and biblical.
What I had reservations about: That the Law can be preached and understood in such a way as to promote soul-destroying guilt and deeper condemnation is certainly true. Prince is to be commended for eloquently highlighting this biblical warning about the danger of the Law, and stressing the wonderful grace of God that forgives us all through Christ. But while there are many who need this message of God’s grace-filled forgiveness to save them from their guilt and despair over sin, there are many others who need the message of God’s grace-filled discipline and rebuke to save them from presumption and indifference to sin. Prince’s emphasis on free and full forgiveness is very good at helping the former, but not so good for the latter. Does Prince believe that guilt is the only problem people have because of sin? If so, that would present an incomplete picture. Sin does not only imprison us in guilt; it also lulls us into indifference and presumption. The Bible addresses both these effects of sin. The book appears to suggest that there is no way of preaching the Law in a graceful manner in order to set us free from our sinful indifference and presumption.
Similarly, Prince is correct to stress that the Law cannot save or justify, but his writings give the impression that the Law has no other positive function except to prove that we cannot be saved by it. But the Law in the Bible is also presented as a positive expression of God’s grace in telling us what God desires. But because Prince contrasts Law and Grace in this manner, he gives the impression of implying that the Law has only the negative value of telling people that they cannot be saved by their attempts at obedience to the Law. The Law certainly does perform that valuable function, but it does much more as well. It helps us know what is good in God’s eyes. The book is weak on emphasising the ongoing value of the Law for both Christians and unbelievers.
To be fair to this book, there are certain parts of the Bible that also speak in similarly strong negative tones against the Law (e.g. most of Galatians and parts of the books of Romans and Hebrews). But this negative view is balanced out in other parts of the Bible that are very positive about the Law (e.g. Jesus in Matt 5:19-20; James 1:25; Psalm 119 etc.). In other words, the Law as a means of salvation is spoken of very negatively in the Bible, but the Law as a means of showing us God’s pleasure or desire for our lives is spoken of very positively. The book seems to emphasise only the negative picture of the Law. Doing so would fail to do justice to the biblical balance which speaks also of the ongoing positive value of the Law for Christians. Paul, himself, could sum up the Law very positively as teaching us to love one another (Gal 5:14; Rom 13:8,10).
3. Prince’s teaching on Healing
Healing is a big topic in the Bible, and it is not the main theme of Prince’s book. But from the little he says in his final full chapter “Good Things Happen” (pp. 287ff), Prince relates testimonies of people who were healed when they received the grace and forgiveness of God. He also states that “once you know that you have been forgiven of all your sins, past, present and future, the healing of all our diseases follows” (p.290).
What I like: I think Prince is correct to say that the Bible speaks of a God who heals our diseases, and this is a true expression of the forgiveness and grace of God. Physical healing is taught and prayed for and experienced in the Bible.
What I had reservations about: Whilst the book speaks of Bible passages where physical healing is expected and takes place, it says nothing about the passages that accept (without surprise or anguish) that miraculous physical healing did not take place e.g. 2 Tim 4:20; Philippians 2:25-27; 1 Tim 5:23; Gal 4:13-14. Incidentally, Galatians 4:13-14 tells us explicitly that Paul did have a bodily sickness which resulted in the greater good of the Gospel being preached contra Prince’s statement that “Paul did not suffer any sickness or disease” (p. 71). The problem is not so much with what Prince affirms viz. that healing is a blessing from a God who is full of grace; the problem is with what he omits to affirm viz. that physical illness without healing on earth can also fall within the gracious providence of God. The Bible teaches us both to pray for physical healing and to be prepared to endure illness with patient endurance. The victorious Christian life is one that remains faithful to God in both times of abundance and poverty, in sickness or in health, for richer or for poorer (cf. Philippians 4:12-13). I do not know the ministry of Prince well enough to be sure of what he really thinks about healing on earth. Perhaps if you listen long enough to his sermons, you may be able to make a fairer assessment. Does he preach to help Christians cope with the onslaught of poverty and illness, or does he speak only of removing sickness and suffering by effortless faith? We need both messages, because that is the balance we find in Scripture.
In general, most preachers are prone to partial teaching. We all tend to favour one side of the balance more than the other as a result of our personal experience of God’s dealings with us. The danger comes when we imply that the side we prefer is the only true side of biblical truth!
May God grant us wisdom and discernment as we seek to live in ways that befit those who have been saved by such a wonderful grace as that which our Lord Jesus has lavished on us.
Postscript: There are several places where I do not agree with Prince’s interpretation of the Bible verses (e.g. pp. 124f on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; p.263-65 on the cold, hot and lukewarm Laodiceans in Rev 3:15-16), but these are disagreements over the interpretation of specific phrases that can commonly be found amongst devout Bible teachers. My comments above focus on some major issues that discerning Christians should reflect on more carefully.
September 11th, 2008
We need to pray for our persecuted brethren in the state of Orissa, India. Read this report:
Bubaneshwar (AsiaNews) - Shouting “Kill Christians and destroy their institutions,” thousands of Hindus from the militant Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) stormed the Pastoral Centre of the diocese of Cuttack-Bhubaneshwar, laying it waste. The same fate was visited upon a social centre in K. Nuagam, a church and 
parish residence in Kandhamal, and a chapel in Sundergarh. A van owned by the Sisters of Mother Teresa was attacked as it made its way to Bhavanipatni whilst another that belonged to the Daughters of the most Precious Blood was burnt in Udayagir.
The district of Kandhamal in the diocese of Cuttack-Bubaneshwar (Orissa) is at the centre of this violence, the same one that in the recent past witnessed anti-Christian violence that left three people dead and saw 13 churches torched.
The new wave of destruction began yesterday morning and is still going on after Hindu leaders harangued crowds against the Christian community, urging them to destroy, accusing Christians of being behind the assassination of Hindu fundamentalist leader Swami Laxanananda Saraspati and five of his followers.
Laxanananda, who was behind last December’s anti-Christian violence, was killed between 9 and 10 pm last Saturday (23 August) in his ashram, in the district of Kandhamal. About 20 armed gunmen entered the place during yoga session and shot indiscriminately at those present, throwing grenades.
A few days before the Swami had been threatened by a Maoist group that wanted him out of the area, 
accusing him of fomenting ethno-religious conflict. His response was to call for a protest against Muslims in Jammu-Kashmir. However, radical Hindus took advantage of the situation in order to blame Christians.
Laxanananda’s organisation is well known for its opposition to Christian social activism in favour of Tribals and outcasts and for its accusations against bishops, priests and nuns for allegedly proselytising.
Tensions are running high throughout the diocese. Police forces have been deployed in several sensitive areas, albeit with little success. This morning in fact the bishop’s residence was attacked by stone throwers and news has just come in that another, recently built church was destroyed.
In the meantime the VHP has called for a day of strike, blocking roads and transportation throughout the state of Orissa. (NC)
I fear that the fabled image of tolerance of Hinduism is at risk of being overturned by radicals and extremists.
Let’s pray for our Christian brethren in India.
September 1st, 2008
I was deeply disappointed with the waves of news I have been hearing. Not that there is anything new under the sun. But first I read that Paul Cain, a greatly gifted modern-day prophet, had admitted to alcoholism and homosexual liaisons, and is now under restoration, though he resisted it initially. That was hard to digest. It was old news but I only got drift of it two months back. Then next I heard Todd Bentley, the main preacher in the current Lakeland Revival in Florida, had separated from his wife. Worse of all, now out of the blue, this incredible news broke in south Australia. Russell Evans, Planetshakers Church pastor, made a statement a few days ago about Michael Guglielmucci, renowned Aussie pastor and songwriter, whose struggle with cancer has been widely publicised, and whose song Healer is featured on the latest Hillsong DVD & CD.
“Michael Guglielmucci has informed us that he does not suffer from cancer, was never diagnosed with cancer, and has never suffered from the disease. This admission has come as a great shock to everyone including his wife and family who had no knowledge of the matter.”
I am concerned because a lot of young people look up to Michael, the pastor, the worship leader, the singer, the composer, the musician. This will be a big test of faith for many. In addition, in Australia, Christianity will be ripped apart by a cynical Australian press and I would feel embarrassed to be a Christian in the hearing of folks conversing about this over beer. As a pastor, I feel sad, bad, frustrated, angry. My job is tough enough as it is - I don’t need more cynicism, disillusionment, scepticism, and disrespect.
Yet why should the church be shocked? Christians, pastors included, are fallen beings. We are people saved by the sheer grace of God and are works in progress. We do fall into temptation and the more public a figure you are, the greater shame the fall causes. Have we all not stretched our statistics and stories, covered up our tracks by witholding information, and told lies intentionally and inadvertently. We hold the stones in our hands, but our own sins keep us from throwing them at Michael Guglielmucci.
Yet discernment, repentance, restitution and discipline is the order of the day for to whom much has been given, much is required. Just this afternoon, someone mentioned to me a verse in Matthew 18 where Jesus warned about not stumbling children for it is better to put a millstone around the neck and throw it into the sea. The same chapter talks about discipline and restoration. We forgive; we pray but we also love through restorative measures.
Sure each man is responsible for his own sin, but I do think the problem is also systemic. The Pentecostal and Charismatic movement have always valued the gifts of the Spirit, especially the spectacular and the glittering. The gifts that astound and the gifts that attract the thousands. We do not celebrate the gifts of mercy and helps but if you have great faith, healing or leadership gifts, or musical-worship talent, you are highly valued and put on a pedestal next to the Godhead. We value gifts over character; the spectacular over substance; and glitter over solid gold. We are so often blinded temporarily by the glitter and shine of great abilities, charisma and anointings that we just simply cannot discern that its just gold plated and what’s inside a man could be just plastic, made in China.
Maybe we are getting what we deserve for we all worship and dance around the Golden Calf of Success. We have baptized Fu Lu Shu and now worship an unholy trinity of Health, Wealth and Success. And it is a success as the world defines it: big budgets, bombastic buildings; great excitement and crowds; stratospheric worship. All this while the Cinderella of holiness, godliness and integrity sits somewhere in the grimy world of day by day living and working and serving, dishevelled and forgotten in a dark attic, waiting for the fairy godmother to restore her centrality in the royal ball. Such a worship inevitably cause leaders to turn a blind eye, rationalized with grace, and partner with highly gifted ministers in huge events, because they can bring the SUCCESS that God’s people crave. Like Aaron of old, we give in to what the people want, even when we know it is not the REAL THING.
Like the people living in Samuel’s time, we plead with God to give us a king when God would rather we bow and look to and depend on the ONLY TRUE KING: LORD JESUS. So we have made our own human kings, put them on pedestals, and when they fall from the giddiness of the heights we have lifted them to, and they fall with a great fall, we fail to see that we had set him up for the fall. We know we have raised another king when instead of saying the Bible says this, or Jesus says this, we say, Pastor so and so says this, or Prophet or Apostle So and so says this……therefore it is true.
Churches must be taking off Michael’s songs off the worship list for Sunday, and will ponder whether to use the other Planetshakers’ songs, at least as a temporary measure. We need to get behind him and pray for him 
and the thousands of young people whose faith will be tested. Satan is working overtime. We hope he has truly repented, and will go through counselling and restoration. We trust the money raised as a result of his illness will be returned to the givers where possible and those impossible to trace could be donated to charity, which was what the church had announced it would do. But whatever else is done, the church must fix her eyes on JESUS the author and finisher of our faith, and like the cherubim above the ark of the covenant, fix her gaze down towards the atonement cover where she sees nothing but the Blood of Jesus, the crimson love.
More information about this can be read, and his bestselling song Healer heard HERE:
August 22nd, 2008
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has definite conclusions about homosexuality and they diverge from the traditional view. It is believed he still hold these convictions but tow the traditional conservative line to prevent the embattled Anglican Communion from schism. From his letters of old:
“The Bible does not address the matter of appropriate behaviour for those who are, for whatever reason, homosexual by instinct or nature.”
“By the end of the 80s I had definitely come to the conclusion that scripture was not dealing with the predicament of persons whom we should recognise as homosexual by nature.
“I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had the about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness.”
This is serious stuff. A shepherd outwardly, for the sake of organizational order and unity, but a distorter of truth in his personal convictions. I feel disappointed and flabberghasted. What are Anglican priests and members around the world feeling?
Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.(Acts 20: 28-30)
August 8th, 2008
CRM? It’s not customer relationship management, but Church Resource Ministry. This ministry has to do with developing leaders who will in turn strengthen and plant churches. In Singapore, its headed by James Creasman. I signed on for one of their Focusing Leaders Network and now I had not only completed the training but also facilitated one of the networks, together with the experienced hand of Seng Chor (second from left in pic).
This group was unique as it comprised a mix of both senior pastors and marketplace leaders. Two senior pastors were absent for this final meeting where each person shared the fruit of several months of crystallized reflections on one’s personal calling up to that point in time. The materials we used were based on Dr Robert Clinton’s research on leadership in Fuller and the founder of CRM was a mentee of Bobby. It was a rich time together as over the meetings we have gotten to know and respect and trust each other.
We had lunch there. Seng Chor, a baba, cooked us one of his signature dishes: his ‘congee porridge’, which brought us to the entrance of food’s third heaven. Together with this heavenly broth was his mother’s homely panfried bread with topping of mashed luncheon meat, chopped onion, pepper and egg. He said he upgraded his mum’s recipe (like a good Singaporean) with a dash of oregano. We were blessed by his hospitality. He looked a happy man with four women in his home: his wife and three daughters.
Photo: from left, Rev Richard Loh (Snr Pastor of Queenstown Baptist Church); Seng Chor (lead facilitator); Shirley (retired EDB high-flyer); and Jiak Cher (executive at BP); missing from pic: lead pastors Rev Dr Kenny Fam of Woodlands EFC; and Rev Irene from Zion Gospel Mission.
Check out CRM’s website HERE.
August 6th, 2008
Previous Posts
