Church leader gets $500k

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Church leader's massive pay: Blame the congregation

I REFER to yesterday's report, "$500,000 pay for New Creation Church leader".
As a Christian now for 30 years, I cannot help but feel embarrassed by such a report.

However, I do not put the blame for such obscene pay cheques on the elite group of church leaders; rather, I would lay it on the congregation.

During the Chinese New Year period, my family and I visited one of the classier church buildings and attended a service. We were taken aback when a special offering, referred to as a hongbao for Jesus, took place. We were surprised to see many in the congregation willingly coming down the aisles to drop their red packets of money in the baskets held by the pastors and leaders. In return for giving, devotees received a spiritual blessing of prayer.

I was amazed at the congregation's willingness to give without really knowing where all the money was going to. (There was no mention of the purpose of the collection other than giving it to Jesus.)

Edward Rajeshwar Zaccheus

 

[Royston46]

Let's see in the end where this $500k chap ends up, together with God or in the pits of Hell together with Satan...

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

Church leader's massive pay: Blame the congregation

I REFER to yesterday's report, "$500,000 pay for New Creation Church leader".
As a Christian now for 30 years, I cannot help but feel embarrassed by such a report.

However, I do not put the blame for such obscene pay cheques on the elite group of church leaders; rather, I would lay it on the congregation.

During the Chinese New Year period, my family and I visited one of the classier church buildings and attended a service. We were taken aback when a special offering, referred to as a hongbao for Jesus, took place. We were surprised to see many in the congregation willingly coming down the aisles to drop their red packets of money in the baskets held by the pastors and leaders. In return for giving, devotees received a spiritual blessing of prayer.

I was amazed at the congregation's willingness to give without really knowing where all the money was going to. (There was no mention of the purpose of the collection other than giving it to Jesus.)

Edward Rajeshwar Zaccheus

Without the church elders asking for the money then the congregation will not give. Asking is fine and so is giving but the manner of the asking and reason for the giving is all wrong and is totally against God's teachings.

These are evil people who are leading astray God's children.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

What if it is neither? Dead men tell no tales

Let's see in the end where this $500k chap ends up, together with God or in the pits of Hell together with Satan...

 

[kakowi]

Perhaps to be fair to Prince and NCC I don't think NCC falls under the category of a public charity unlike Ren Ci, so I don't think Prince and NCC are really accountable to the public at large, only to their member congregation.

...

First, I corrected my own error in another post when I said that if such latitude was given to Ren Ci then they would not be convicted, due to the Trust Deed on the part of Rock. Such comparison is erroneous on my part.


Now, Ren Ci, NCC and all the other registered charities are under the purview of the Commissioner of Charities which was formed in order to prevent a repeat of the TT Durai's case, which was partly due to his dominance over his EXCO.

If there had been an independent EXCO then TT Durai would not be able to push his way across the Board.

Thus the issue in my context is not one of NCC vs Ren Ci but rather one of the governance principles which the Commissioner of Charities seek to address.



That principle lies in the segregation of power.

In NCC's case, the finance lies in the hands of those in Rock.

There are 3 major shareholders and 1 shareholder holding one share.

The 3 major shareholders are Prince, Joshua and Matthew.

Joshua, according to anecdotes, was the pastor before Prince. He resigned in favour of Prince because he saw the potential in him when he was the youth pastor.

Matthew has been quoted in past newspaper reports in defence of Prince.

Even if only one of them is a strong supporter of Prince, then the decision-making can be done very fast, assuming one man one vote and no veto vote.

Thus the more rigorous consensus of the Finance Committee in NCC may not be present in Rock's decision-making.



The Commissioner of Charities appear to cover their backside with this statement "formalising conflict of interest policy or procedures to manage potential and actual conflicts."

But paper policies do not reflect that of dynamics. The issue in TT Durai's case is not one of governance principles but rather one of dynamics in the way he has control over the decision-making process of NKF.

Based on this reasoning, it appears that the Commissioner of Charities had enforced an inadequate policy.



It is true that Prince is not accountable to the public for how the church's money is spent. Nor even for his salary.

BUT, AND it is also true that the Commissioner of Charities is accountable to the public to ensure that TT Durai's case will never be repeated in Singapore's future, for all the charities under its purview.

And the only way it can be done is via governance principles and checking the dynamics of how it is operated. It is in the dynamics that audit potentials can arise.

The Commissioner of Charities would have known which charity(ies) opposed its segregation principle. For them, they should uncover the dynamics.

Dynamics can be uncovered by interviewing committee members who had been removed or resigned, sitting in on the committee at random and reliance on professional audit reports.



(To avoid any misunderstanding, I wish to clarify that in no way do i infer, imply or have any suspicion that there is wrongdoing. This is a point in governance only)

 

[scroobal]

Religious entities gain rebates and tax exemptions as they are also listed as charitable organisations. Hence what NCC does with its income is NOT purely up to NCC and its member congregation.

NCC, City harvest.... all fall under the purview of the Commissioner of Charities, as did NKF.

So how are they not the same?

You seem to get gist of what I am trying to say. Its to the govt advantage that taoists/freethinkers move towards apolitical religious entities and away from traditional clan where the Politics is an issue.

These apolitical bodies know the power this govt has on them via tax and other non profit related status. The movement of Chinese in particular to these organisations does provide the PAP with an advantage. In social terms the movement to hese organisations are not insignificant.

I was not surprised that Prince joined hands with Liew and Capitaland. Guess which party they were praying for. This is not a new phenomenon. Republicans take great pains not to offend the bible belt for the very same reason except that the religious groups have upper hand in the US.

There is more to this than meets the eye. At the end, it who has got control of the sheep. The Govt at the moment has power over the classification of Sheperds. Something that Gregory Yong did not understand.

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

Under the eyes of the current law they cannot do wrong unless they are overly greedy. As it is,, they can earn enough from product sales and other businesses. What is missing is a code of ethics that governs these churches. Many similar churches and individuals in the USA have been brought down to their level by actions very similar to what we see here. No criminal laws were broken but religious etos ruled that these people and their churches were not spreading the true word of God. In essence, they were using God's word to benefit themselves.

UNtil the churches in sg come under such an ethics committee these acts of greed and destruction of God's true words will continue.

 

[kakowi]

Under the eyes of the current law they cannot do wrong unless they are overly greedy. As it is,, they can earn enough from product sales and other businesses. What is missing is a code of ethics that governs these churches. Many similar churches and individuals in the USA have been brought down to their level by actions very similar to what we see here. No criminal laws were broken but religious etos ruled that these people and their churches were not spreading the true word of God. In essence, they were using God's word to benefit themselves.

UNtil the churches in sg come under such an ethics committee these acts of greed and destruction of God's true words will continue.

I am afraid that will never be the case.

Singapore has been following the US in the pastor-preunics category - the use of Church for money making entreprises.

In such cases, you form your own church, grow it and when successful, endorsed other churches for a fee, sell your products in the church to a captive market and milk it for what it is worth. Monitor the giving of tithes - you pay more, you have more say. Control and dominance of the church then lies in your hands. It is essentially your company.

USA seems to give the world one legacy after another.

 

[tonychat]

Perhaps, but doesn't everyone have the right to choose? If these people want to follow Prince and donate tithes and offerings of their own volition, who are we to judge.

People might not be following it by making the right and clear-minded choice. Cults are there to psycho people into it, there will be social problems too.

Anything that focus the activities toward a self focus individual , usually will have problems later on.

The acting of paying himself half a mil doesn't seems very religious to me.

But you are right to say that they have the right to choose and of course we have the right to have our say and our right to stop them as well.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

To me the issue with regards entities like NCC and CHC (these I do not consider as traditional public charities but rather religious organisations) is whether they and their directors/officers comply with the laws of the land. COC and other relevant authorities need to decide on this one. Ethical and Moral issues on the otherhand are best left to members of the congregation to decide and act upon.

Now, Ren Ci, NCC and all the other registered charities are under the purview of the Commissioner of Charities which was formed in order to prevent a repeat of the TT Durai's case, which was partly due to his dominance over his EXCO.

)

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Good point, in this regard I agree.

I was not surprised that Prince joined hands with Liew and Capitaland. Guess which party they were praying for. This is not a new phenomenon. Republicans take great pains not to offend the bible belt for the very same reason except that the religious groups have upper hand in the US.

There is more to this than meets the eye. At the end, it who has got control of the sheep. The Govt at the moment has power over the classification of Sheperds. Something that Gregory Yong did not understand.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

There is enough government regulation as it is. God forbid more regulation in the realm of religious ethics and morality:(

Let the people decide for themselves and make up their own minds and thereafter live with the consequences.

UNtil the churches in sg come under such an ethics committee these acts of greed and destruction of God's true words will continue.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Perhaps, but individuals still have the free choice to opt in or opt out.

I am afraid that will never be the case.

Singapore has been following the US in the pastor-preunics category - the use of Church for money making entreprises.

In such cases, you form your own church, grow it and when successful, endorsed other churches for a fee, sell your products in the church to a captive market and milk it for what it is worth. Monitor the giving of tithes - you pay more, you have more say. Control and dominance of the church then lies in your hands. It is essentially your company.

USA seems to give the world one legacy after another.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

I don't think you have the right to stop them unless they break the laws of the land.

.

But you are right to say that they have the right to choose and of course we have the right to have our say and our right to stop them as well.

 

[kakowi]

To me the issue with regards entities like NCC and CHC (these I do not consider as traditional public charities but rather religious organisations) is whether they and their directors/officers comply with the laws of the land. COC and other relevant authorities need to decide on this one. Ethical and Moral issues on the otherhand are best left to members of the congregation to decide and act upon.

(1) The COC has not differentiated traditional public charities from religious bodies in their health check on governing principles.

In fact religious organizations fall under the COC direct purview.



(2) It is more accurate to say that church decisions on ethical and moral issues are best left to members of the congregation.

However everyone will need to make their own decision on these ethical and moral questions - to agree, disagree or be indifferent.

And it is on this second level that these discussions are based.

 

[Hakka Tiow]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/udomqgvsHB4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/udomqgvsHB4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>​

 

[Hakka Tiow]

Jim Bakker

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5tH4stg3m_8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5tH4stg3m_8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>​

 

[Hakka Tiow]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RlKIEca2bjk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RlKIEca2bjk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>​

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

I don't think I disagreed with this fact Bro. I was just making my own personal differentiation. Like I said before NCC or any other entities for that matter need to abide and comply with the all the laws of the land.

(1) The COC has not differentiated traditional public charities from religious bodies in their health check on governing principles.

In fact religious organizations fall under the COC direct purview..

Yes.

(
(2) It is more accurate to say that church decisions on ethical and moral issues are best left to members of the congregation.

However everyone will need to make their own decision on these ethical and moral questions - to agree, disagree or be indifferent.

And it is on this second level that these discussions are based.

 

[myfoot123]

What is the criteria of setting up a charitable or religious organsiation? Looks lucrative.