What you are about listen to are segments of Bishop Albert Vun’s address to the clergy recorded at the just concluded clergy conference in Kota Kinabalu this week. The entire recorded audio clip will be made available tomorrow night when Part 2 will be published. In the first part of this posting, we focus on 4 segments of the Bishop’s address.
1. It’s All a Hoax
The Bishop compares the allegations of his abuse of power to internet hoaxes, and the Anglican members in Sabah who cry out for accountability to the gullible and weak minds who buy into these hoaxes. What an insult to the intelligence of the people. The Bishop’s abuse and mishandling of finances is well documented in the management letter & PAC report, which will see daylight one day. The Standing Committee has yet to re-audit the red-flagged accounts of 2010-2011.
Is true that if a statement were repeated three times, people would think it is true? If it were true, then why despite controlling all the church bulletins, diocesan bulletin, pulpits across the Diocese, Diocesan website, facebook page, blog, more and more people distrust the Bishop, clergy and Standing Committee?
2. Traitors within the Diocesan Office?
Referring to emails between Dean Chak and Bishop Albert Vun published here, the Bishop blames “one or two” persons at the conference for leaking them to this blog. There is no shame, remorse or tinge of contrition for playing the racial card, pitting one congregation against another, manipulating the election. If the Bishop had done no wrong, why did he instruct his staff to delete the email to cover his tracks?
3. The Mightiest Mission Strategist
“Which Diocese in our Province has four Reverends and three licensed pastors stationed full time in the mission field?” Bishop Albert Vun asked the clergy. “Sabah!” he replied himself. How boastful to take credit for the harvest given to us by the Lord. Bishop Albert Vun gave the impression ADOS has the largest mission operation in the Province of South East Asia. Is this true?
The Bishop is right that no other diocese has exactly four priests and three licensed pastors full time in the mission field. But the Diocese of Singapore has 15 priests in Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Indonesia, Nepal, Vietnam (excluding Revd Clarence Chin & Revd Alexander Nenotek in Tarakan and Nunukan respectively). Surely the Bishop who has decades of relationship with the Diocese of Singapore knows this fact. Why did he mislead the clergy? It is unclear how many of our unsuspecting clergy had been duped this week into clapping and cheering the Bishop for telling a LIE.
We must question the Bishop’s motives for missions. Is he motivated by obedience unto God’s call? Or is he serving his ego, one-upmanship and bragging rights? If he is serving his pride, then he is not serving the Lord.
4. Bishop’s Final Legacy?
Bishop Albert Vun is adamant to launch the building of Celebration Center this year. In the next Standing Committee meeting, he will ask the Standing Committee to top up the funding so it will have at least half of what’s budgeted for the controversial RM33 million project.
The purpose for this project is unclear. Bishop Albert Vun said he had to “speed things up” due to his illness, but later claimed he wanted to build Celebration Center because the Lord told him through Isaiah 54 to “enlarge his tent”. So is this a dying man’s wish or is this the divine will of God to spend RM33 million and up for a building? Because someone claims to have heard from God, the Diocese will spend RM33 million? Is that how decisions are made? Is this how money is spent?
The Bishop said he hoped the Stand Comm would allocate up to half of the required fund. Does the Stand Comm have the mandate from the Synod to spend RM16.5 million for this building? No! The Standing Committee must remember that they are elected by the Synod to carry out the mandates of the Synod. They have a fiduciary duty to the Synod and whole Diocese, not just serving the wishes of one man.
With painkillers, morphine, chemotherapy and pancreatic cancer in the Bishop’s body, how do we know he is in the right frame of mind to make such an expensive and far reaching decision?
Bishop Albert Vun sounded as if the Lord had spoken to him recently from Isaiah 54. This sermon is neither recent nor new. He had preached it in other fundraising events or building projects. There is nothing about Christ in the Bishop’s address to the clergy, it was all about his suffering, dying wish, illness, vision, and tent enlargement.
It’s been over a month since we learned that Bishop Albert Vun was diagnosed with stage 4 pancreatic cancer. Most of us go through a range of emotion from denial, shock, disbelief, confusion, fear, acceptance to a quiet confidence that God is totally in charge. What do we make out of BAV’s illness? Let us discuss the three most common answers to this question.
Some see BAV’s pancreatic cancer as a random event in life. Everyone dies, eventually. Whether unexpectedly in an accident, peacefully in old age, suddenly in a heart attack, death will overtake us all. Many Christians are ill. Some are diagnosed with cancer too. BAV is just one of them, a mortal to be called home soon by the Lord. There is no deeper meaning to BAV’s illness. He is probably overworked and stressed out, thus making him more susceptible to serious sickness.
To take on this view, we’ll have to disregard all that had transpired in the last two years in the Diocese. The Bishop is accused of serious indiscretions and investigated by the Province. Instead of refuting the allegations, BAV, Bishop Moses Tay and the clergy resorted to the posturing of power, telling the congregations that God is their judge, that the congregation not to “touch the Lord’s anointed” and let God deal with BAV. To view BAV’s illness as a random event in life would require us to disregard the context, ignore the sovereignty of God and forget what had happened so recently.
Then there are people who blame the pancreatic cancer on those who pray for God to remove BAV as the Bishop. “You brought down curses on the Bishop and now he is stricken with cancer,” they argue. This argument is problematic on several counts. First, praying to remove an unfit leader is not the same as cursing someone with cancer. Secondly, even if someone indeed cursed BAV, the Bible teaches us that an undeserved curse does not come to rest. See Proverbs 26:2. Thirdly, it assumes that God would grant the most vile of prayers. Yet Scripture teaches us God is righteous; He cannot act unrighteously or support unrighteousness. He is also just thus incapable of acting unjustly. Even when He judges and punishes, He does so from the basis of righteousness and his love for his people. Finally, God is sovereign. He is not a stooge that kowtow to our wishes just because we nag him long enough, pray loudly, use impressive words or drown the church with sounds of shofars. He is who He is. He does what He knows is right and just.
It is puzzling why prayer meetings are descending into a shouting match. Do we have to pray aggressively and militantly, breaking curses, “blocking the fiery darts”, declaring and decreeing for complete healing for God to listen to us? Is God deaf? Or is He deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened, like Baal who never answered? The Bible teaches us that Jesus is seated at the right hand of our Father interceding for us. God is a good father who knows what we want before we even ask. He will not give us scorpions when we ask for a fish or stones when we ask for a bread. If we truly believe our God is so, then why are prayer items are so scientific and specific that one wonders if God needs an oncologist to teach him how to heal a pancreatic cancer patient. He is our FATHER for goodness sake. Stop shouting at Him! He doesn’t need a medical manual!
My brothers and sisters, please do not mistake adrenaline for anointing and euphoria for effective prayer. The Bible teaches us the key to God hearing our prayers is a broken spirit and a contrite heart. Perhaps we should stop decreeing and declaring, but put on sackcloth and heap ashes on our heads. Perhaps we need more humility rather than presuming that God is on our side.
Finally, there are people who believe BAV’s illness did not happen by chance nor by curses, but rather because of God’s divine intervention. After two years of being in full blown crisis mode, with the PAC report and management letter concluding all is not well with the leadership of BAV, the Bishop of Sabah returned from six months of enforced leave seemingly unstoppable. He got away with lying to the congregation at All Saints Cathedral, millions in expenditure still unexplained, manipulating the election of PCC members in All Saints. After the PAC investigation and report, a court injunction, a signature campaign, vehement objection to Philip Lo’s ordination all came to nought, many wondered if this is a struggle worth fighting for. The church is in disarray. The people continued to suffer. BAV was home free.
When BAV’s position seemed most secure in 2 years and the people in the deepest despair, Bishop Albert Vun was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.
Those who had always insisted that only God could judge the Bishop, now argue that sicknesses do not come from God. How do we reconcile this stand with God sending 10 plagues to Egypt, striking Miriam with leprosy in Numbers 12, killing Ananias and Sapphira in church, blinding Saul on the road to Damascus? Nobody dare say BAV’s cancer is a judgement from God, yet as news of his illness spread, the fear of the Lord descend upon our church as it did to the Israelites in Egypt and wilderness, to the early church, and to Saul on the road to Damascus.
In Mathew 16:1-3, Jesus said, “When evening comes, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,’ and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.”
Can we discern what our Father is doing? Or are we like the Pharisees and Sadducees who were oblivious of the forthcoming ruin? In Matthew 16, Jesus left the Pharisees and Sadducees and went away. A scholar interpreted the passage this manner, “Jesus left them to themselves, left them in the hand of their own counsels; so he gave them up to their own hearts’ lust.”
If BAV’s illness is not a random event or the result of curses, then we must conclude it is God’s sovereign act. Thus we must consider what God is saying both to us and to BAV and seek the Holy Spirit for an appropriate response, or risk Christ leaving us to our hearts’ lust as he did the Pharisees and Sadducees in Matthew 16. This is a rare word from the Lord, a shout so loud that we ignore to our own peril.
May God help us and have mercy upon us.
The farcical feet washing ceremony is 24 hours away. Here are the latest developments:
1. The 2010-2011 Account is NOT re-audited
During All Saints Cathedral’s PCC meeting last Saturday, when objection to the feet washing ceremony was raised, Dean Chak countered that the controversial accounts of 2010-2011 has been re-audited as per the instruction of Provincial House of Bishops. Other priests are telling church members the same story. To put an end to the speculations, the PCC decided to call Diocesan Treasurer Michael Tong for verification in the middle of the meeting. Mr. Tong confirmed only the 2012 accounts are being audited. How the Commissary Mr. Herbert Tong reached the conclusion that there was “no financial loss and no misappropriation of funds” is beyond right thinking members. To proclaim this LIE in the house of God is a sacrilege.
Herbert Tong’s statement also tantamount to slandering the honorary auditor who signed the management letter and stood by his professional findings. Do we accept the findings of a professional auditor or the statement of the Commissary?
2. A Calculated Political Move
Many asked whose feet will the House of Bishops wash? None of the members who took issue with Bishop Albert Vun’s the abuse of power, money and position is attending the feet washing ceremony. Why is the officialdom pushing forward with a whitewashed event? Many believe it is a calculated political move to show support for beleaguered BAV and to hoodwink the House of Bishops to believing BAV enjoys widespread support. The ASC AGM has taught us getting a packed church is very easy for BAV. The signed pledge card will be used as a barometer of support, painting the complainants as a vicious minority in any legal battles ahead.
Why does BAV need numbers to prop up his position when anyone who stands on the side of God’s truth and righteousness is already a majority?
3. Diocese-wide Coercion
Officially, the three main worship centres (All Saints Cathedral, Good Shepherd Church & St. Patrick’s Church) will conduct the feet washing ceremony tomorrow, while other worship centres “may” conduct it this Sunday. Christ Church Likas’ PCC decided not to go ahead it but the Commissary overruled the PCC. It is likely CCL will be coerced to do feet washing. Privately, some clergy have expressed unhappiness with Herbert Tong’s heavy handedness. Why should the clergy follow the decision of a man who is leaving his job in two weeks while they upset the PCC they have been working with for so long? It is unclear how many churches will do feet washing this Sunday. Perhaps the Commissary wrote “may” but he meant it as a “must”.
Where is the involvement of the lay people in feet washing? It was all hatched by Bishop Moses Tay and Herbert Tong with zero input from the laity. If they are serious about healing wounds and closing the divide, wouldn’t it be wise for both sides to organise this and come forth with a joint statement?
4. BAV Back in Town?
There are reported sightings of BAV in Kota Kinabalu. Until there’s photographic evidence, this blog cannot confirm this news. An Anglican member pointed out, “How sad it is that a Bishop has to hole up like a fugitive.”
5. Last Minute Plea
Sensing the massive rejection of the feet washing ceremony, its architect Bishop Moses Tay, met with James Chhoa and Rev. Clarence Fun last night urging them to attend the ceremony. The duo rejected overtures of the former Archbishop. While BMT told James and Clarence to stand on God’s side, the duo retorted BMT was taking the Lord’s name in vain when the ceremony starts with proclaiming a lie from Herbert Tong.
Here is an interesting historical fact. The last time BMT initiated feet washing in Singapore, he ended up resigning as a large section of the clergy threatened to resign en bloc. Will this round of feet washing result in another Bishop resigning? We’ll wait and see.
Read this in Bahasa Malaysia.
THIS UPDATED ARTICLE SHOWS THE GRAVE IMPLICATION OF THE SPECIAL HOLY COMMUNION SERVICE TO BE CALLED 19-21 JULY.
It’s been almost five months since Bishop Albert Vun was relieved of his duties under the guise of “sabbatical”. Herbert Tong was appointed the Commissary and Bishop Moses Tey the “facilitator” to find “the way forward” in this protracted crisis. So what is next? A special Holy Communion service will be held around Sabah to bring reconciliation and closure in this crisis, according to an email from the Commissary.
As reported in the previous post, Herbert Tong singled out the Youth Camps for praise with no mention of the death of Alinah Mawah which many blame the Diocese for being a negligent organizer.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements of this special service:
#1 The Welcome Note
In Archbishop Bolly Lapok’s Advent Letter sent in December 2012, he revealed our Stand Comm passed a resolution to have an external audit firm to re-audit the disputed 2010-2011 Diocesan account. In the last Standing Committee meeting in May, the Treasurer, Michael Tong, reported an audit firm would take up the Diocesan account for 2012-2013, and he would follow up if the same firm would take up the 2010-2011 accounts as well. In short, the 2010-2011 accounts was not re-audited yet as of mid May.
How did Herbert Tong reach the conclusion no money is lost and there was no misappropriation of fund? Would Mr. Tong care to enlighten us how he reached this conclusion? The Commissary’s statement contradicts and disputes the Honorary Auditor’s finding. Unless Herbert Tong can back his statement with professional findings and facts, the Commissary had spoken irresponsibly.
The implication of this statement is FAR REACHING. Being proclaimed at a Holy Communion Service, means the church is making an unsubstantiated statement in the presence of our Lord Jesus. This statement exonerates BAV of all financial improprieties. Why? I can only speculate it is to path the way to re-instate him into active ministry as the Bishop of Sabah again.
#2 Feet Washing Ceremony
My brothers and sisters feet washing is not a sacrament instituted by Jesus. The Eucharist and baptism are. I hope none of us are misled into thinking we have rediscovered a missing sacrament.
What is feet washing? What does it mean? Jesus shows his disciples being a leader means laying down of ego and position to fulfill the mandate of God. God’s benchmark for good leadership is different from that of the world. In His kingdom, leadership means servanthood, humility and love; in the world, leadership means being bosses, stature and power. When Peter refused to allow Jesus to wash his feet, Jesus said this, “If I do not wash you [Peter’s feet], you have no share with me.” John 13:8. Jesus is saying unless you are willing to love, serve and be humble as I am, you will have no part of my values and kingdom. Love for God transcends position, even to the point of taking up the lowest of positions. Our Diocesan leadership is introducing feet washing to patch up and heal a deep wound in our Diocese. Is this taking the scriptural account of feet washing out of context? Is this application accurate?
#3 Special Holy Communion Service
What is the point of this “Special Holy Communion Service”? It is to close the crisis by declaring, “No money is lost. It is all a misinterpretation of the accounts. Let’s reconcile and move forward.” Do you share this stand?
The most SERIOUS part of this service is the Holy Communion. The Bible teaches us the Lord is present when we break bread and drink the wine. Let’s look at this example, a marriage is damaged because of infidelity. The husband had been cheating on the wife. The counselor suggested a reconciliation and marriage renewal service by celebrating the Holy Communion. At the beginning of the service, the husband lied by saying, “I had not cheated my wife, it was all a misunderstanding. We will work on our communication and rebuild our marriage.” The couple then proceeded to partake in the Holy Communion.
Is this a real reconciliation? Is this treating the Holy Communion in a worthily manner? Can human relationship be renewed in this manner? Be careful we do not profane God’s holy sacrement with sins and lies.
1 Corinthians 11: 27 warns us, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.”
What the Diocese need is very simple. Re-audit the accounts, revamp the constitution, and convene the Ecclesiastical Court. Do all these and confidence is restored and healing will begin. Anything less than that is hypocrisy, a great pretension, a farce and big waste of time.
Download the entire letter from Herbert Tong.
There is a competition and obsession amongst pastors to build the mega churches. It may come from different denominations but the rhetoric is the same and it goes like this. “Half the urban population is under 30. They are swarmed by declining moral values, fast paced lifestyle and incredible demands of their time and priorities. To reach out to the next generation, we are building a 3000-seater church, equipped with media center, sports facilities, a training center. Let us sow into the next generation. Let’s give our best to honor God.”
Let us examine the obsession with building mega churches and lavish furnishing in the name of glorifying God. Let us put in biblical perspective. Where did this idea stem from?
It was King David who first thought of building a grand building for God, albeit in my opinion a conceited one despite his good intention. This is what David said:
2 Sam 7.1 Now when the king lived in his house and the LORD had given him rest from all his surrounding enemies, 2 the king said to Nathan the prophet, “See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God dwells in a tent.”
However, this is what the LORD said:
2Sam 7:5 “Go and tell my servant David, ‘Thus says the LORD: Would you build me a house to dwell in? 6 I have not lived in a house since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day, but I have been moving about in a tent for my dwelling. 7 In all places where I have moved with all the people of Israel, did I speak a word with any of the judges of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, saying, “Why have you not built me a house of cedar?”’ 8 Now, therefore, thus you shall say to my servant David, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep, that you should be prince over my people Israel.
It is clear The LORD has no desire or idea to have a “mega” building because it cannot add to His glory nor does it add to His enjoyment or satisfaction, for God is in Perfect existence. How can a building made by the created bring glory to the Creator? God eventually “ALLOWED” the building of the temple as a condescension to human needs and desire for a visible dwelling place for God. The proof is that God “ALLOWED” the temple to be destroyed by the Babylonians, and even the second temple built by Herod was destroyed by the Romans. The prophets and Jesus foretold the destruction. If these earthly monuments can in anywhere enhance or bring glory to God would He “ALLOWED” them to be destroyed? Just look at the incredibly beautiful and expensive churches in Europe and around the world, a large number of which have only a few worshipers, are they glorifying God or “mock” God because of the lack of worshipers? One very good example is the Methodist Central Hall in Birmingham, which was converted to a night club in 1991…I have been there, it saddens me to the core. It is a magnificent building, but does it glorify God or “mock” God?
Did the leaders and people who built those building not have zeal and passion? Were they not sold out for God and wanting only to glorify God? Did the people not give sacrificially and enthusiastically for the building? Were the people not absolutely sure that the building will serve the people and expand the Kingdom of God? Were they not thinking of the future generation when they built such a huge building? The answer all these questions is YES!But what a WASTE! How many lives could be touched, reached and helped with their sacrifice.
BAV and his like minded people is thinking exactly the same today! BAV argument goes like this: the buildings and facilities serve the people, I am passionate about loving and serving the people, so I must be passionate and committed to “serve” the building that serve the people. We must give sacrificially and invest sacrificially in building to serve the present and future generations, our children and youth. Sounds logical, sounds passionate and full of zeal, sounds like that is the only thing we should do, sounds charismatic and a man of faith and vision, sounds like a clarion call of God, sounds like trumpet and shofar. Is it? To me it sounds like the voice of SATAN all over again!
People of God, we need buildings not monuments, we need facilities not concert hall, we need transportation not luxury travel, we need office and communication equipments not the latest from Samsung or Apple, we need salary not profit sharing (bonus is profit sharing), we need pastors and friends not CEO (chief executive officer), COO (chief operating officer) or manager.
People who question the wisdom of building an expensive house of worship is often refuted with the story of Mary breaking the alabaster jar, pouring all the perfume on Jesus’ feet and washing it with her tears and hair. Judas pointed out the perfume, which is worth a year’s wages, could have been sold and given to the poor. “For God, nothing is too expensive,” the fundraising clergy would argue. Does God dwell in expensive buildings? The more lavish the building, the more it pleases God? If this were true, then God must detest house churches in China and church with mud floors in our Sabah interior!
The church and the people of God need to REFOCUS! Jesus said, (Luke 11:34) Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eye is healthy, your whole body is full of light, but when it is bad, your body is full of darkness. Our eyes need to focus on the Lord Jesus, the source of light, so that the body of Christ, the church, may have light!
Thus says the Lord:
“Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool;
what is the house that you would build for me,
and what is the place of my rest?
All these things my hand has made,
and so all these things came to be,
declares the Lord.
But this is the one to whom I will look:
he who is humble and contrite in spirit
and trembles at my word. (Isaiah 66:1-2)
God desires to dwell in men and women who are humble, contrite in spirit and trembles at his Word–not in marbles, bricks, stones and concrete. We are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Are we fit for his dwelling?
Seventeen days had passed since the four emails were published in this blog. As expected, neither Bishop Albert Vun nor Dean Chak replied. If the emails were fabricated they would have come charging with a strong denial. So what are the repercussions of these emails?
1. The Church Lost Her Voice
All of us witnessed the fraud, manipulation, racism in the recent general election. Other religious bodies, churches and denominations can be a voice of conscience at this time. Our Diocese however cannot speak up against such darkness because she is mired in the same problems and lost trust of the people. So what is the use of salt when it losses it saltiness?Dean Chak had lost the ability to pray together with the choir before the service started–a cherished ASC tradition. The giving of ASC was around RM150,000 in April 2013, down from RM285,000 monthly average in 2011.
2. Blaming the Whistleblower
Dean Chak is playing the victim and blaming the whistleblower. His hypocrisy makes Chua Soi Lek looks like an angel. When a clandestine video proved his infidelity, the MCA politician resigned and took time to mend his marriage. Dean Chak on the other hand just ignore his immorality. What a sad day when a non-believing politician (a tax collector in New Testament context) has the conscience to do the right thing, while a senior priest donned in white robs does not. How long can Dean Chak continues to hide from church members? BAV’s priority, the tithing and offering of ASC, slides to RM150,000 in April, down from the RM285,000 average in 2011. ASC struggles to pay its assessment to the Diocese.Meanwhile, when confronted by church members Rev. Sim Ka Seng replied he did not follow Bishop Albert Vun’s instructions in the email.
3. Does HOB Still Have a Conscience?
It is a widely held view HOB will not act against another fellow Bishop. Bishop Moses Tay is not here to address the issues–which to many is clear cut–but to shore up support for BAV. It is unclear whether these emails will awake the conscience of HOB and open their eyes to see the real Bishop Albert Vun.The Management Letter was discredited and the PAC report deemed biased. Now we have heard from directly from the horse’s mouth. What HOB does next will tell us a lot about the Bishops in our province.
Another batch of emails will be revealed soon to show the masquerade at play at Wisma Anglican.
Last night we have seen Dean Chak Sen Fen’s emails to Bishop Albert Vun. The shocking revelation shows us there is another side to the neutral, honest, pious and humble facade Dean Chak works so hard to portray to members of All Saints Cathedral. He was away in the Holy Land while the AGM was set in motion. He appointed James Chhoa and PCC to revamp the voting system. For so long he appeared to be far away from the manipulation of the AGM many priests, pastors and ASC staff had been suspected of. Chak’s emails reveal hypocrisy, manipulation and dishonesty of the highest order. Who had thought the Dean of our Cathedral could stoop so low? Tonight, you will see someone went even lower.
Here are two emails from BAV.
The suspicion BAV runs the Diocese remotely during his sabbatical is proven by his own emails. Who is the real Dean of All Saints Cathedral? Who pulls the string at ASC? The answer is clear from the four emails published here.
This blog hereby:
- charges Bishop Albert Vun and Dean Chak Sen Fen for dividing the church, pitting the one congregation against another.
- charges BAV and Dean Chak for misleading BM, Chinese and 10:30am congregation that certain members are “troublemakers” when all BAV and Dean Chak wanted was total control of the PCC.
- charges BAV and Dean Chak for manipulating the election by campaigning for their favoured candidates, abusing their authority as leaders, their time and resources in church employment to subvert the unity of the church and slander the reputation certain church members
- charges BAV and Dean Chak for manipulation bordering WITCHCRAFT by advocating “pray and act forcefully”. Were you not forcing the hand of God and manipulating the will of the people to fit your agenda? Is God’s hand to short to help you BAV & Dean Chak that you have to resort to manipulation? Do you not trust the Holy Spirit to convict before people vote? Or do you think you know better than the Holy Spirit?
- charges BAV and Dean Chak for reducing church leadership to a totally political one, forgetting the church is a spiritual entity, the Bride of Christ
- charges BAV and Dean Chak for systematically removing church leaders who advocate transparency and accountability
- charges BAV for coverups when he told his employees to “delete this email after reading it”
- names Rev. Sim Ka Seng, Rev. Lin Khee Vun, Pastor Jemmie Pitah, Pastor Flora Chong as co-conspiritors in the plot to manipulate ASC’s AGM
- charges BAV and Dean Chak for abusing their spiritual office by “guiding” the BM congregation how to vote instead of teaching them to seek the Holy Spirit’s conviction before they vote.
- charges BAV and Dean Chak for demeaning the intellect of the BM congregation to suggest they need “guiding” on how to vote
- charges BAV and Dean Chak for treating the BM, Chinese & 10:30am congregations as pawns in their quest for total control
- charges BAV and Dean Chak for violating the sacredness and freewill of balloting, conducted in the house of God no less
- charges BAV and Dean Chak for being HYPOCRITES. You have put control up an appearance of piety and detachment over the affairs of ASC yet on the contrary you have engineered the AGM cynically and behind-the-scene to fit your agenda
- charges Dean Chak for being a puppet of BAV as it is proven that you are under the control of Bishop Albert Vun. We may have a different Dean but the SAME person is in charge of All Saints Cathedral
- challenges BAV and Dean Chak to PROVE how some of the candidates have plans to control the finances of ASC, failing which BAV and Dean Chak should publish a public apology, nullify the election, and recall a fresh election of PCC
To the House of Bishop and Bishop Moses Tay, this is what your solution has brought us. May the blood be upon your heads. BAV has shown no desire for reconciliation and reform, only determination to systematically remove from leadership people who advocate transparency, accountability and reform.
Bishop Moses Tay, you have been suggesting to many people the PAC report and Management Letter were biased. Now read for yourself the very words of your beloved protege. They are not written by the PAC, honorary auditor or anyone else, but Bishop Albert Vun himself. Now tell us how this man is still fit to be a spiritual leader, let alone the Bishop of Sabah.
[Speaking to the Pharisees and scribes Jesus said,] You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” And he called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” (Matthew 15: 7-11, ESV)
What has come out of the mouths of Bishop Albert Vun and Dean Chak Sen Fen?
In the meantime, when so many thousands of the people had gathered together that they were trampling one another, he began to say to his disciples first, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops.” (Luke 12:1-3)
(UPDATED: All videos are available now)
Here the COMPLETE set of 5-part videos recorded from the Dialogue with Bishop Albert Vun on 15 October 2012, at All Saints Cathedral. All the videos are UNCUT. Follow these viewing instructions:
1. Click PLAY
2. When the movie started playing, click PAUSE.
3. Wait for the movie to load completely before you click PLAY again.
4. It may take up to 60 mins to load & stream the video. Or you can download them for offline viewing.
Uncut PART 1 (approx. 40 mins),
click PLAY to stream immediately or right click to DOWNLOAD to your computer
Uncut PART 2 (approx. 40 mins)
click PLAY to stream immediately or right click to DOWNLOAD to your computer
Uncut PART 3 (approx. 50 mins),
click PLAY to stream immediately or right click to DOWNLOAD to your computer
Uncut PART 4 (approx. 30 mins),
click PLAY to stream immediately or right click to DOWNLOAD to your computer
Uncut PART 5 (approx. 30 mins),
click PLAY to stream immediately or right click to DOWNLOAD to your computer
Last night, 130 Anglican members from All Saints Cathedral, Christ Church Likas, Good Samaritan Church & Christ The King, gathered at the Pavilion of All Saints Cathedral. People started to trickled in at 7:30pm. It started with 10-20 people and swelled to 130 after 8pm. A few asked if the meeting with the Bishop was on. Some looked hesitant and afraid to gather, as if they were taking part in an illegal activity. An elderly lady spoke out in a firm voice, “Do not fear for God has not given you a spirit of fear.”
I thought that was an interesting observation. Why were people afraid to sit around in the Cathedral, the house of God? Why should people be afraid when they only wanted to dialogue and listen to the Bishop? In a healthy home, or relationship, there should not be such deep fear to engage and dialogue with one another.
All Saints Cathedral’s People’s Warden, James Chhoa, told everyone the Bishop called off the meeting at 3pm, citing the meeting had been hijacked (referring to the advertisement in Daily Express). With the short notice, not everyone could be informed of the sudden cancellation. Several people voiced their concerns of the crisis as they see no end to it. Some asked questions about the ordination and the process of approving a candidate. One person suggested to call Bishop Albert Vun and invite him to the meeting, a second chance to the Bishop to change his mind to engage his members rather than to avoid them. James Chhoa called but the Bishop did not answer his phone.
Several young church staff sat at the fringe of the Pavilion, likely to be compiling a dossier for their seniors. Why would the Bishop need a dossier? We were there longing to bare our hearts to him, and hear his explanation. If he had come, he would have heard the message from our hearts, not a from a dossier compiled by his young scouts.
At the end, James Chhoa, urged the group to pray for the Provincial Advisory Committee and the House of Bishop. He said he submitted his will to the decision of the House of Bishop that whatever they decide, he would abide. The meeting ended with prayers from James Chhoa and Rev. Clarence Fu. I was moved to hear cries for reconciliation and healing in the prayers. You would expect them to call down judgement against the Bishop, yet it was an intercession for mercy, grace, healing and divine guidance, and acknowledgement that Christ is the head of the church. The gathering ended at about 9:30pm.
While we could not see or dialogue with the Bishop, we have come and met each other. Clearly it wasn’t 5 people who were complaining.
p/s Special thanks to Just Liew for the photos. Keep them coming!
Following the investigation of the Advisory Committee into Bishop Albert Vun and the criminal charges against Pastor Kong Hee, I am seeing a lot of these statements of support for both men. I’ve compiled the most common ones to determine its truthfulness.
“Do not judge, less you be judged. God is the final judge.”
Why do people insist that only God can judge them? Are they superior to the rest of the human population that normal rules do not apply to them? If we cannot obey/respect laws of the land, can we be expected to obey/respect laws of our God whom we cannot see?
This statement is often used to shutdown debates and imply only God can judge the “anointed”. This argument is faulty.
In the first sentence, “judge” refers to being self righteous and judgmental in condemning another. It DOES NOT mean we can’t make a judgement call. We make dozens of judgement call everyday. Where should I go for lunch? Is this set lunch overpriced? Is this car park safer than the other? Which candidate should I hire? Can we make these judgements or do we wait till Christ come again to be the final judge of these matters? Judgements calls are made by comparing facts, information and our experience. Thus we can discern based on the facts presented by all parties.
God is the final judge because he is the only judge that is ALL KNOWING. Does it mean nobody else can judge apart from God? If judges are expected to be ALL KNOWING, then the world will not have any legal system at all! Judges, whilst limited in their knowledge (as compared to God almighty), can still mete out judgements based on knowledge and facts on the specific cases presented to them.
“Anyone can say anything but they cannot take away the fact the countless whose lives were transformed as a result of the ministry!”
Two issues here. One, changed lives & salvation as a result of the minister’s work. Two, whether the minister is guilty of wrongdoing or not.
What bring sinners to salvation and repentance? The conviction of the Holy Spirit. Ministers are only vessels through which the Holy Spirit flows and does his work. No matter how life changing their sermons, ministries and prayers are, the ministers are not GOD. To blindly insist a leader is infallible & innocent despite incriminating facts is to do the Christian community a great disservice. This is no longer a family crisis. The whole world is watching how the Anglican church of Sabah resolve this mess. What will they see? People who are naive, gullible, with shallow understanding of God’s word? People who are bitter & vengeful? Or people who are determined to be righteous, wise and godly during a very painful time?
Now are we arguing a minister used by the Holy Spirit to save thousands of lives cannot be guilty of criminal breach of trust? Check the annals of church history and we will find a long list of fallen leaders.
Matthew 7:22-23 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
“I’m praying God to protect you from the attacks of the evil one who is trying to stop you from doing God’s work.”
Our Bishop is in trouble not because of persecution over the Gospel.
Our Bishop is in trouble not because of doing the work of God.
Our Bishop is in trouble not because attacks by Satan.
Our Bishop is in trouble for allegedly circumventing good governance and accountability.
“Five troublemakers made wild allegations against the Bishop. That’s why there is an investigation.”
Read the Archbishop’s letter CAREFULLY and SLOWLY. You will find the accusers and accused had 2 opportunities to submit their written case and argument to the Archbishop. After studying and deliberating over these written statements from both parties, the House of Bishops initiated the investigation.
Do you think the House of Bishops would investigate a fellow bishop based on hearsay? Wake up people. This is serious. Pray earnestly the Advisory Committee will do their investigation with fear of the Lord, righteousness, integrity. Pray for the church to focus on Jesus when all else seems to crumble. Pray for truth to come forth from this investigation.
There are a lot of angry Anglicans in Sabah. Yet what are we angry about? What are the real issues? Here is a list of issues that questions the integrity of Bishop Albert Vun, who is also the Dean of All Saints Cathedral:
Conflict of Interests
1. Did the Bishop rent his house in Sunway to the rector of FCC for the last 10-12 years? Why is FCC renting only from the Bishop?
2. Did the Bishop rent his house in Taman King Fisher to Rev. Yong Thiam Choy during Yong’s tenure as the priest in-charge of Christ The King?
3. Did the Bishop sell his family land to the Diocese? Did he recluse himself from the meeting that decided the selling price? Is he not both the buyer and seller in this transaction? Is it not conflict of interests?
4. Did the Bishop shut down a profitable All Saints kindergarten and his wife Mary later started the All Saints Academy?
5. Did All Saints Academy (ASA) receive RM160,000 from All Saints Cathedral? Was ASA subsequently moved under the Diocesan Mission Fund, a fund governed directly by the Bishop’s office? Is the Bishop’s wife is running a school, directly funded by her husband’s office and without the oversight of a board? Does ASA has an audited account to show for the period it is under the Mission Fund?
6. The Bishop purchased an expensive vehicle, Alphard. Did he purchase it with PRIOR approval from the Standing Committee?
7. All Saints Cathedral ran into a deficit of nearly RM1.2 million between 2010 & 2011. This is equivalent to 40 years of salary for the average wage earner. Can the Bishop, who is also the Dean of All Saints Cathedral, explain how this deficit came about? Can the Bishop tell us when the last time any Anglican church in Sabah accumulated a deficit of RM1.2 million?
8. In light of the RM1.2 million deficit, why did the Bishop who is also the Dean, chose not to attend All Saints Cathedral’s AGM on April 2012? His absence left a lot of questions unanswered and many members seeking accountability confused and angered.
9. Why did the Diocese buy a piece of land in Sipitang at an inflated price? Did the Bishop obtain any valuation report prior to sanctioning the purchase?
10. Did the Bishop at any point willfully under declare the selling price of a property and did so by engaging the service of a non-Christian lawyer?
11. Why was Philip Lo–without a theological degree–ordained a priest despite written protestation from the members? When was the other time the Diocese of Sabah ordained a priest without a recognized theological degree?
12. Is it true All Saints Cathedral PCC comprises of 10 elected members, and 16 clergy and staff who are co-opted? Is it prudent governance to have employees outnumbering elected members? Is there another Anglican church that has such composition of PCC?
13. All properties of the Diocese within Sabah are registered to the office of the Bishop of Sabah, NOT under the personal name of the Bishop. When the Diocese bought a property in Thailand for the mission work there, it was purchased under the name of Albert Vun Cheong Fui. Is this the standard procedure when the Diocese purchase properties overseas? Is it prudent to buy properties with church funds and register them under the personal name of the Bishop? How can the Diocese ensure the property is transferred from Albert Vun Cheong Fui back to the Diocese at the event of retirement, resignation or death?
14. The Bishop renovated the Bishop’s lodge 6 years ago. How much did the renovation cost? Is there an account for this? Has the Bishop presented the account of the renovation to Standing Committee?
Breach of Trust
15. When the congregation donate into the Diocesan Mission Fund it is with explicit intend of supporting missionary work of the Diocese of Sabah. Today, All Saints Academy & Faith Academy are financed by the Diocesan Mission Fund. Did the Bishop break the trust of the people by using the Mission Fund for purpose other than mission work?
16. During the tenure of Bishop Albert Vun, had he ever used funds (ie Mission Fund, Building Fund, Vocation Sunday offering, Welfare Fund) for purposes other than the original intent for which the funds was raised?
17. Did the Bishop declare from the pulpit that anyone who had not attended the church for the last six months would not be buried in Anglican cemeteries? Has this become policy for all burials in the Diocese of Sabah?
18. Why did the Bishop tell the whole Diocese, “This is not an investigation team but an Advisory Committee” in his Pastoral Letter, when Archbishop’s letter stated the Advisory Committee is tasked to investigate the allegations, including re-auditing the Diocese and All Saints Cathedral’s accounts from 2006?
19. The letter from Archbishop was addressed to also to the PCC of All Saints Cathedral. Most of them & most of the clergy hadn’t seen it until it was published on this blog. Why?
“If members are not clear about anything happening in the Diocese, they can speak to their Priest or Pastor who will be able to clear things up for them,” the Bishop wrote on May 27. The Bishop has labelled his critics “slanderous” and “traitors”. You shouldn’t come to a conclusion by reading this blog only. Verify the facts. Remain respectful while we seek transparency and accountability. PRINT this page and seek your priest or the Bishop to answer all the questions here.
Pastor Kong Hee of City Harvest Church was arrested and charged for criminal breach of trust, allegedly misappropriating S$50 million. It is a very sad day for Christians. While he remains innocent until proven guilty, there is no joy to see a high profile Christian leader hauled into the court. See this statement from the Commissioner of Charities that outlined their case against Kong Hee.
As I follow the news of Kong Hee, I find some discomforting similarities between allegations against Kong Hee & those against Bishop Albert Vun. See these 4 charges by the Commissioner of Charities against Kong Hee:
1. Misrepresentation on the Use of the Church’s Funds
Kong Hee: Got into trouble for allegedly transferring money from the building fund to support Crossover Project a.k.a. his wife’s singing career. Between 2007-2010, S$23 of church funds were used for this purpose but the Executive Members were not told of this.
Bishop Albert Vun: Transferred nearly RM160,000 from All Saint Cathedral to the All Saints Academy, run by his wife, Mary. After receiving the money, ASA now comes under the Diocesan Mission Fund. The school operates without a board. Since being “parked” under the Diocesan Mission Fund, the school has not produced an account to show its revenue and expenditure. Does any All Saints Cathedral PCC members know how this sum of money is spent?
What about the losses in the failed mission in Beijing? How was money spent? How much was lost? Is there an account to show the in flow and outflow of money? Will the Diocese recover any of the losses?
2. Moving of money
Kong Hee: Moved money from church’s building fund and offering to a private fund called the Multi-Purpose Account (MPA) to support the Crossover Project. Amongst other things the Multi-Purpose Account funded a U$20,000 monthly rental Sun Ho’s accommodation in LA and regular business/first class travelling for Kong Hee to visit the wife. Expenditure for the husband and wife amounted to S$3.6 million between 2007-2010.
Also S$600,000 given to the building fund was diverted to the MPA by funneling the money as love gifts to specific pastors who then put the money into the MPA.
Bishop Albert Vun: The transfer of RM160,000 from ASC to All Saints Academy and subsequently moving the All Saints Academy under the Diocesan Mission Fund. Is this legit? Did All Saints PCC support this transfer of fund and moving the ASA under the Diocese? Who were the PCC members that supported this? Was the transfer made before or after obtaining approval? Is the RM160,000 a loan or a grant? These are questions everyone is asking.
The Bishop renovated the Bishop’s lodge 6 years ago. Until today, he had yet to present the accounts to the Standing Committee on the renovation of the Bishop lodge. It was a project handled directly by him and his trusted employees. This led to speculation it had cost over RM1 million, a figure that cannot be ascertained unless there is an audit.
3. Related Party Transactions
Kong Hee: Between 2006-2008 his company sold over S$3 million of merchandise to City Harvest Church (CHC) without disclosing his interests in these transactions.
Bishop Albert Vun: Rent his house in Sunway to the priest-in-charge of Faith Christian Center (FCC) for at least 10 years. Why was FCC renting this house from the Bishop for such a long time? Did Bishop disclose he was the owner of the house? Did he instruct FCC or the priest-in-charge to rent from him? FCC, started in 18 years ago, now has a congregation of 580 people. Why are they incurring expenses without equity?
The Bishop sold his family land to the Diocese. Was he present at the Standing Committee when the decision was made? Or did he recluse himself? Did he put any pressure or indication to any member of the Standing Committee the deal should go ahead? Why did the Bishop sold his own land to the church when he challenged everyone to donate land and properties to the church?
4. Governance and Control Issues
Kong Hee: The Commissioner of Charities found CHC board less than prudent in discharging their duties. The board “refunded” S$338,000 to CHC’s investment manager Chew Eng Han when Chew had financial difficulties. The board approved the refund 9 months after the actual refund was made.
Bishop Albert Vun: ”The Alphard driven by the Bishop, was that purchased with prior approval from Standing Committee? According to reliable sources, the Standing Committee approved the purchase of a Honda CRV which costs around RM150,000. The vehicle was purchased. Within two months, the Bishop bought another vehicle, an Alphard, which could cost over RM200,000 without prior approval from Standing Committee.”
All properties of the Diocese within Sabah are registered to the office of the Bishop of Sabah, NOT under the personal name of the Bishop. When the Diocese bought a property in Thailand for the mission work there, it was purchased under the name of Albert Vun Cheong Fui. What is the proper process when the Diocese purchase properties overseas? Is it prudent to register that under the personal name of the Bishop? How can the Diocese ensure the property is transferred back to the Diocese at the event of retirement, resignation or death?
5. Convolution of a Board/Committee
Kong Hee: Three members of the Board were charged today for criminal breach of trust and falsifying accounting records. Just because a decision is approved by the board/committee, the transactions may not be 100% above board. A board can be misled too.
Mak Yuen Teen, associate professor from the National University of Singapore Business School commented, “If you look at this organization, you can see that the board was dominated by people who were essentially employees of the church. So, the question therefore is where is the check and balances in place. The board was not really independent of the management of the organization.”
Bishop Albert Vun: All Saints Cathedral PCC comprises of 10 elected members, and 16 clergy and staff who are co-opted. The Bishop argued that major decisions were made with almost unanimous support of PCC. Unsurprising when you look at the composition of the Council. In the name of working with people of “same spirit”, convenience and expedience take precedence over good governance and accountability.
6. Clamps Down Dissent
Kong Hee: 10 years ago, ex-City Harvest Church member Roland Poon questioned how church funds were used after he donated large sums of his money towards the construction of the new building at Jurong West. His questions went unanswered so he contacted the media. The church responded with a threat to sue if Poon could not prove his allegation of mismanagement. Distressed, Poon retracted his statements and issued apologies in 5 publications.
Bishop Albert Vun: Notable church members like James Chhoa, William Thien had sought clarification in person and writing to no avail. Disgruntled member or members set up the popular blog, which to this author’s knowledge was not the doing of Chhoa or Thien. He repeated his favorite sentence in his preaching many times, “I am the Bishop. I am answerable to God.” People who raised questions in PCC or Standing Committee were sidelined and verbally abused. After setting the date for All Saints Cathedral’s AGM, he decided not to attend it. All the questions listed on this blog and more, remained unanswered as the Bishop (also the Dean of All Saints Cathedral) chose to minister in Thailand instead of facing his congregation.
Take time to read and understand the crisis engulfing CHC and Kong Hee. We must not sit idle while Diocese of Sabah and All Saints Cathedral are being mismanaged. It took almost 10 years after Ronald Poon questioned CHC’s integrity before the authorities intervened. We must pray it will not take that long before we see daylight. Pray the Advisory Committee will discharge their duties with the fear of God, prudence and wisdom when they begin the interviews in KK next week.