A Hearing on Sept 11

During the September holiday, and incidentally, a September 11, I went to the State Court for a City Harvest Church Trial hearing.

I have 'liked' the Facebook page of CHC Confessions and read that anyone could attend the hearing. And some of them posted what the court, but not the mainstream papers, revealed on the page. I thought it could be good to be there in person and experience for myself if it was true that Pastor Kong and the other 5 accused were as what the Facebookers made them out to be.

It was the school holiday. I woke up bright and early and left the house at 9am.

It was the first time I attended a court hearing as a bystander. I walked through the scanning device at the court entrance and got in Court 1 at 10am. 

Outside Court 1, I saw Suraj, the long-time follower and trusted man of Pastor Kong, and another petite, bespectacled man who stared at me as I made my way to the Court.

As I walked into Court 1, a female Indian security guard asked me for a court ticket. I said I didn't have one. I had read on the papers that the court would open the seats to members of the public if they were not taken up by 10am, so I thought I didn't need a ticket.

She directed me to the security guard counter to get a ticket before admitting me into Court 1 again.

The 5 accused were sitting in a separate section from the members of the public, a row or two behind the lawyers and their assistants. 

Pastor Kong was in the witness stand, giving his testimony and answering questions posted by his lawyer, Edwin Tong.

While I could hear Pastor Kong clearly, as he was side-facing us, I had problems hearing Edwin Tong who was back-facing us. His voice was soft and somewhat muffled.

I was terrible at trying to comprehend what was going on.

I had imagined that Edwin Tong, being Pastor Kong's lawyer, would seek to defend Pastor Kong aggressively and show evidence to discredit the Prosecutors' claim of Criminal Breach of Trust (CBT) upon the 6 accused, but all he did was to refer to the different figures on the minutes and statements and asked Pastor Kong what they were for. Most of the time, Pastor Kong replied that they were donations to the construction of Chinese schools in China.

Then Pastor Kong spoke.

He maintained that as a senior pastor, he had some level of influence over the church, the Crossover Project and the Xtron directors, but he did not have total control over the church or the Xtron directors.

To the collaboration with Wyclef Jean, he had this to say,"I love my wife, and I love the vision that God has given to our church, but I cannot agree to a proposition, in good conscience, that will cause CHC to be in a precarious financial situation, to lose money."

In explaining why the church did not continue to work with Wyclef, he maintained that,"Although the prospect of collaborating with Wyclef was tempting, I could not agree to the budget." Besides the upfront payment of USD30mil, Wyclef and Justin Hertz were asking for a 50-50 profit split. He felt that the request was 'beyond reasonableness'.

Halfway through the hearing, my fifth sister whatsapped me to task me with the mission of collecting my father's lab test report from the cardiologist's clinic, so I had to leave after the morning session of the court hearing ended.

Subsequently, I read from the Chinese evening papers that Pastor Kong teared in mentioning how the adults and children in his son's school had taunted his son by asking,"Has your dad gone to jail yet?"

The poor child is probably in P3 this year and he has to suffer the stress even adults can't handle.

I saw a humbled, and somewhat resigned, Pastor Kong that day, but I maintain that he loves his wife the way he did when he first married her, if not more. I don't know of any other man who dares to proclaim his love for his wife in a court, especially when the case has nothing to do with his marriage.

Based on what I saw and heard that day, I feel that Pastor Kong already know what is to come.

Thoughts on the CHC Trial with Kong Hee at the Stand

I have read a few blogs that are 'shared' by CHC friends on Facebook. These personal blogs are maintained by CHC staff or members and they often have at least one entry to defend or state their support for the 6 accused who are charged for Criminal Breach of Trust.

I was reading CHC Confession when someone posted another CHC member's blog that had similar sentiments, that she didn't know everything, but she still supported the accused because the church was her life.

Because it was written by an ordinary member who didn't obtain monetary benefits from the church, I was moved to write a comment to her, and I think it generally sums up how I feel as the trial unfolds:

Use your heart to recall and try to link what Pastor Kong said in the past and now, at the pulpit and in court. Do they concur? Use your mind to decipher the vagueness of his words as he always employs. "I maintain my integrity! " Is being evasive and acting blur the way to maintain integrity? Is Kong a person to delegate finances and any matter totally to another without close supervision? If you have served in 2 ministries, they should have opened your eyes to the working style of the church, which is incidentally the style of Kong. He always demands excellence and accountability. And suddenly, he's become a rancher who doesn't know what's going on in the church he fathers for about 25 years?

Think about it.

Just as the bad he does doesn't erase the good he did, the good he did doesn't erase the bad he does.

Are you supporting something you are in full knowledge of, or what you hear from the leadership and the pulpit? Isn't it just common-sense to make informed decisions (if you decide that you don't need to know everything)?

When the case just broke out a few years ago, I recall someone scrutinise the statistics on CHC website and deduced that only a very small percentage of the money went into the community service. Conversely, a large percentage went to the salaries of the staff. If you think that CHC has reached out to many via community service, think about the poor woman who gave all she had compared to the rich who gave more than her. What did Jesus say? "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others." And Pastor Kong said Jesus wants us to give all, not a small fraction of what we have.

I won't comment on CHC staff's blogs bcos no matter what they say in defence of the leaders, they have vested interest in it. I probably would defend them too if I were a staff. It's a no-brainer. But for you as an ordinary member, I just want to share with you in the capacity of an ex-member who left CHC before you joined the church, that you should think more about the words that Kong uses. I have respected him, loved him, supported him, admired him (with no crush involved as he was 10 years older and wiser), but it is a fact that he has served another god. Just look at the way he spent the money member took pains in giving. How do you justify him admitting to not giving to the Building Fund while urging members to give earnestly? How do you explain him not tithing to the church when tithe-and-pledge is such an important part of the church? What does it say about his integrity when he wrote a cheque on stage and struck it off without anyone's knowledge? He said not tithing is tantamount to robbing God. How long has he been robbing God?

My dearest friends come from CHC. We may not be close now but I will always be grateful for the friendships I found in CHC. I will always be grateful for the love and forgiveness I found there, and I am thankful for Pastor Kong who founded the church. I probably even owe my proficiency in English, in part, to CHC. However, if he has done wrong, he deserves the punishment. And the trial so far has revealed his wrongdoings over a prolong period of time. His so-called mistakes are deliberate, not accidental. I hope the difference between the two speaks something to you.

I can't change what you want to believe, just like how I can't and won't attempt to persuade my CHC friends, of a few who are also staff of CHC. I just hope you can open your heart and mind to the things the trial has revealed, the contradictory words Kong has spoken over the years eg. didn't spend a cent on Sun's albums vs the members are aware that money goes into producing her albums, must tithe but he himself doesn't. Judge for yourself, for your own sake.

Torn between

I have been following the facebook page of Pastor Kong and threads in these forums: asiaone, kiasuparents and hardwarezone.

The more I read the responses to Pastor Kong's tweetered messages and the threads in the forums, the sadder I feel.

I agree that the CAD has a 100% track record in nailing people they charge.

To a large extent, I have to agree with the many observations and criticisms on the threads and his facebook page.

A blogger posted a story about Truth in our heart.

Perhaps it's true that truth will be revealed with time, no matter how much support you have or have not.

For this matter, God knows the truth. And Pastor Kong knows the truth. It is in his heart.

Rev. A. R. Bernard said that there are two sides to a story.

Pastor Kong said that he looked forward to the day when he could tell his side of the story in court.

And it came to my mind something a friend told me when I was just a gullible 19.

We were both at a stage when we were lost in life - didn't fare well in our studies, didn't know what to do, where to go after getting our half-past-six results. He was 26 and had been working in a library but knew that could not be his final destination.

We were discussing about career options and he told me that he did consider a career as a prison officer, citing being well paid as the main reason.

But, he heard from his friend who was a prison officer, that they needed to take criminals who were sentenced to death to the gallow.

The night before the prisoners were brought to the gallow, they would suddenly be very afraid, and plead with the friend,"Please help me! Please tell the judge that I am innocent! I am really innocent! I really didn't commit the crime!"

Naive as I was, I asked,"Oh, did your friend help them?"

My friend answered,"No, because every one of them would say the same thing, that they are innocent. They are just afraid of dying."

Perhaps these criminals have their side of the stories too.

Then it brought to my mind a Hong Kong drama serial which used to air on Sunday mornings.

The male protagonist killed his friend and he felt that he had done the right thing.

In court, when he was cross-examined by the lawyer and subsequently convicted, he shouted,"No! The crux isn't whether I killed him or not! The crux is whether I was right to kill him!"

The judge immediately silenced the court, and proclaimed,"The crux IS whether the accused killed the victim!"


Yes. The crux is whether you committed the crime, not why you did it.

I hope Pastor Kong, in all his wisdom, is not blinded from the fundamental fact that it is whether he did it matters.

I remember how Pastor Kong would tell the congregation,"God has blessed Singapore with an upright government."

Yet, he is now prosecuted by the very judicial system he deemed upright and just.

There can only be one side that is right, and I am very afraid to admit, that side isn't Pastor Kong's.

On one hand, I wish Pastor Kong could own up and admit that he too is a mere man, imperfect and fallible.

On the other, I wish what he has claimed so far is all just and fair, that his integrity is not compromised despite all allegations.

I feel so torn between both sides. I feel heart-broken that this man whom I believe wholeheartedly despite not seeing eye-to-eye with his methods to achieve his vision is being held like a criminal, and in many people's eyes, he is already a criminal because of the CAD's 100% track record.

I feel heart-broken that all incriminating evidence is pointing to him.

I feel heart-broken that I have to accept that Pastor Kong did make a serious mistake, perfect as he was a man in my eyes.

I feel heart-broken that my beloved friends who graciously gave me their friendships when I was desperate for one are on the verge of being forced to accept that their trusted pastors are not as above-reproach as they have been all these years.

I feel heart-broken that my dear friends continue to believe that Pastor Kong did not err when evidence is there. But yet I know, how could they not believe him? They have been with him for just about 20 years!

The fact is: Pastor Kong is only a man.

He was a man after God's heart. Nobody could deny that he was.

But he is also fallible. He is just a man, almost perfect as he was.

I wish I could post something about it on my facebook, yet I couldn't. I don't want to hurt my CHC friends whom I have held dearly in my heart even though we haven't met in years.

I don't want them to think that I have taken the position of an outsider now that things have gone south.

I can only read the links and photos that show support to the pastors my CHC friends share and read the snide remarks made by non-CHC friends on the quiet.

Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done

I bought the Chinese evening paper on Tuesday night. The next morning, I made a beeline for My Paper, went to 7-Eleven to grab The Straits Times and Lianhe Zaobao.

Their faces were splashed across the papers.

A CHC colleague had told me last year that it was announced in church that the case was closed and everything's fine.

I thought Pastor Kong had been vindicated and CAD was too embarrassed to admit that they had made a mistake and wasted taxpayers' money.

My first thought was: what kind of investigation does it take for the CAD to conduct for two years? Did they try too hard to dig out the evidence?

Honestly, I was shocked when I first heard from William that the news was out online.

The news came too suddenly.

Suddenly, Pastor Kong was 'arrested'.

I would be called 'daft', but allow me to say this: I can't believe it.

He was a man of God. He truly was. He was a man of wisdom. He was a man after God's heart.

I do not doubt that he started out with good intentions, whether it was the church or the Crossover Project.

I recall him saying,"If charity could win the world for Jesus, Salvation Army (and a list of other charitable organisations) would have done it."

He did not believe that souls would be won just by demonstrating charity, but at the same time, he maintained that stomachs had to be filled before the poor could be reached out to.

Even as I type this, I am so filled with a mixture of feelings. Thoughts and recollections are swimming in my head without any form of organisation.

I am just so scared.

I am just so afraid for a dear friend who had saw me through my darkest moment. Her eldest daughter is of the same age as Coco. With four kids in tow, how is she coping?

I went to Pastor Kong's facebook page and saw that many actually posted "You will be fine" "You will be alright".

I wondered if they truly understand the gravity of the situation. Why would he, along with 4 others, be charged in court if there was no hard evidence?

I have not read or seen about a person walking out of the court unscathed when charges are brought against them by the government.

The paper said the individuals could be 'jailed for life and fined' if convicted.

At this point, allow me to be irrational: I cannot imagine a man I so reverently looked up to be jailed, or disappeared from Singapore, as what happens to most well-known personalities who leave Singapore for good when a bad mark is left on them.

Allow me to sort out my thoughts:

1. Crossover Project

I have a few CHC friends on my facebook.

One of them posted about the Crossover Project, citing that 'thousands of lives are changed'.

My thought was: With at least 23 million dollars, how much more good could have been done and even more lives changed, and souls won?

Pastor Kong said that charity would not save souls. If these $23 million were converted to food and shelter and churches, would not more souls have been won and stomachs filled?

I hate to say this, but even Jesus fed the crowd with loaves and fish before he started to preach.


2. Money

At least $23 million was spent on the couple - music career and lifestyle.

How can I reconcile the lavish lifestyle and extravagant spending with a humble man who wore suits tailored by his own sister?

He had always preached,"Give God one fold and He will give you ten. Give Him ten folds, and you shall receive a hundred, thousand folds."

I am starting to see where he was coming from. He would lead by example in giving to the offering bag on stage. Indeed, he gave one fold, and he received hundreds, thousands and millions folds in return. If I were him, I would have adopted the same belief.

He has always preached that God has never intended that you become as poor as a church mouse when you become a Christian, because God is a God of prosperity. He wants us to prosper, to do well, and to be the head and not the tail.

Some forummers said that Jesus promised suffering, not wealth. And when the scripture stated that we shall receive 'life abundant', it did not mean physical wealth. Pastor Kong certainly did not see it that way. He felt that the everlasting life promised in the Bible starts the moment you accept Christ and 'abundant' would certainly be tangible.

But the Project measured something intangible ie. winning of souls.


3. Evangelism

I do not know why CHC is touted as a 'non-denominational church'. As far as I remember, it was a protestant/charismatic/evangelical/pentecostal church.

Perhaps I do not understand what 'non-denominational' means. Perhaps it means that it emcompasses all denominations and is not tied to any denomination so that no Protestant would reject it at first thought ie. 'I am a Methodist/Anglican, but this church is Charismatic. I prefer Methodist/Anglican churches."

I recall Pastor Kong saying that we must be 'all things to all man' to evangelise to the public, but he maintained that we did not have to be a thief to be a witness to a thief.

Members put up skits to illustrate this point ie. two Christians approach an Ah Beng who squat in a hooligan way. To show that Christians do not have the holier-than-thou attitude, the two believers tuck out their shirts and squat in a similar way to the Ah Beng and start to share the gospel with him.

We were told not to visit nightspots, listen to rock music, sing pop songs, wear revealing or 'indecent' clothes.

But to me, his wife was trying to be a thief in order to witness to thieves, with all the skin-tight clothes that emphasise her voluptuous figure and dancing in provocative manner.

She was a nice person no doubt. She was never nasty. Neither did she despise anyone for any reason.

But I could not agree with using-pop-music-to-reach-out-to-the-world theory.I tried to appreciate the reasons they gave. I tried to justify that they must be right as a radical and reforming church, and Pastor Kong had always been right. But I could not reconcile the two within myself. I do not understand why the rest of the church could switch camp so readily ie. from no-pop to using-pop music to evangelise. I knew I could not see it their way. That was one of the reasons I left.


4. Their lavish lifestyle (and covetousness)

I remember them starting out with a five-room flat in Tampines.

The last I knew, they spent a bomb on renovations on their apartment with a private lift at River Valley. Then they moved to an apartment in Orchard Road. As if that was not lavish enough, they moved again, this time to Sentosa Cove. Each time the apartment was more and more ostentatious.

I have issues with this.

Sentosa Cove is for the filthy rich. I am not saying pastors must be poor, but being filthy rich and not giving to those who need the money more is just so ... unpastoral? They are not obliged to give to the poor, but it's hard to imagine pastors leading a lavish lifestyle knowing the rest of the world is suffering.

Didn't he say that he would not live in a mansion while the rest of us live in squatters when he was making his fund-giving speech?

And it was mentioned on the internet that he has 13 units at Horizon Tower?!!

That, to me, is sheer atrocity!

If this is not covetousness, I don't know what is.


5. The pastors charged

I had whatsapped a CHC friend to ask if she was coping well. She wanted me to know that these 5 people were not crooks.

I replied her that I knew they were not crooks even though I did not know why things turned out that way.

And that is how I truly feel - they are not crooks.

For the large majority who have not attended CHC regularly or long enough, it is indeed difficult to understand why the CHC-ers do not 'wake up', or do not see that their trusted pastors are swindlers.

I attended the church when Pastor Kong was just 25, and Pastor Tan was studying at VJC.

Both of them exuded sense of righteousness in the way they spoke, the way they lived.

Pastor Tan, a cell group member then, told me, a 13-year-old freshie then, that what a new member had told me of another girl in the church was 'slander' when I was clarifying with him what the new member told me about the girl.

It struck me that this guy was extremely holy for a 17-year-old.

How could someone that holy as a youth, at a time when sentiments of rebellion ought to be at an all-time high, falsify accounts?

Pastor Kong had always been loving, yet strict, with his flock. He always interjected his preaching with 'Beloved, I want you to know ...'

His wisdom, his diligence in studying the Word of God, his sneezing on the stage - they were all real. I know it's not possible to measure wisdom and diligence, but there are things that just shine through without being quantified.

Besides a weekly cell group meeting, Sunday service, there were also weekly prayer meetings and Bible study sessions.

How could all these be faked?

Please don't tell me he started the church with the intention to cheat. The church consisted of only young teenagers, mostly in the range of 13 to 16 years old, with a few 19-year-olds. We were all poor teens who faced parental objection in being Christians. He truly had a heart for the youths and wanted to lead young people to Jesus.

He would conduct talks just about how to study smart. Knowing that many of us came from neighbourhood schools, he probably knew we did not even know how to study correctly. So he would gave speeches on study techniques, a bit like Adam Khoo's camps, except that he did it himself.

He did not have to do that, but he did.

Perhaps along the way, things changed. But I truly believe that he is not a crook.

It is not 'blind faith' as outsiders see it. It is not 'worshipping the pastor instead of God' as other interpret the zealousness as. It truly is not.

It is a trust, and faith, that has been built over many, many years. It is just like how you would never believe that your brother whom you grow up with could swindle others of their money or commit a murder. It is just being human.

I must admit I felt indignant when Yeow Sun told the press that she was never a pastor. And more recently, I read about Pastor Kong's justification of her scantily clad and gyrating to tasteless music in China Wine, that she was never ordained as a pastor.

I called her 'Pastor Sun'. Everybody called her 'Pastor Sun'. What do you mean she was never a pastor? She was one of the very first pastors of the church! We did not have amnesia or senile dementia even though that happened in the 1990s.

There are so many things in that article that do not match up to what he had preached and practised in his earlier ministry. I have little doubts that he could be a changed man from what I knew him to be eons ago.

I got a shock when he told the papers that he saw himself as a 'businessman' instead of a pastor. I remember him saying that it was his calling to pastor the youths.

Perhaps it was then that he had changed.

I remember him telling the church to stop telling others that CHC was a 'youth church', because it was no longer a 'youth church'. Instead, it was a 'family church'.

Perhaps it was then that he decided to move in another direction.


6. The term 'breach of trust'

I was, and still am to some extent, disillusioned over the term 'breach of trust'.

My beloved CHC friends, and a CHC-mother-blogger, proclaimed the same thing,"We gave them our money willingly, and knew where our money went to. There was no breach of trust."

I questioned the term 'breach of trust' - whose 'trust' is it that they have breached since most CHC-ers, as it appears to me, do not think their trust is breached.

William explained that it did not mean that the trust is not breached just because the CHC-ers feel that it is not.

More objectively, it is breached because:

- Pastor Kong had issued a press statement that 'not a cent was used in funding or buying Sun Ho's albums', which was not true.

- The fund was supposed to be a church-building fund, but it was used otherwise.

- You cannot just set up a 'Multi-Purpose Account' and use the money in any way you like.

- CHC is bounded by some Charity Act by which it has to comply with the guidelines, and it did not.



The friend I had whatsapped asked me to keep the church in prayer if I could.

I was extremely bothered by the matter. Despite not praying for a long time already, I started to say a prayer. But suddenly, I realised that I did not know what to pray for.

Should I pray like one of the CHC-ers, asking God to let him be acquitted, and to emerge from all the allegations spotless as snow?

Or should I pray like one of the non-believers, that he should be pronounced guilty as charged and be thrown into jail for 20 years?

Or should I pray like a righteous Christian who wants justice be done, whichever is true?

In the end, I could only utter,"Thy kingdom come, thy will be done. Do as you deem fit, Lord."

And I realised, the only way I could pray, is the very way Pastor Kong had taught me.

Back To A Place I Used To Belong

Instead of purging me further from CHC, the CHC saga has drawn me back to the church, albeit for just a service.

I am attending an ex-parental or sibling church of CHC. The preaching and worship style is similar to CHC, and thus familar to me.

CHC was my first church. When a church is your first place of worship and you grow up there, you find that it is difficult for you to get accustomed to another type of delivery of sermon and worship style. I did try to attend other churches, but I was not entirely comfortable in them. I once attended a more 'conservative' church. The worship songs were hymns. Everybody looked at a thick hymn book to sing from it, and the songs sounded more like chanting than singing I thought. Then suddenly, everybody fell to their knees all at once at the suggestion of the pastor's line! I was shocked and felt out of place. The delivery of sermon was solemn - I am fine with that. It suggested that we should take God's word seriously.

But I didn't feel belonged.

I went to two other evangelistic churches with which I ought to feel more 'belonged', but for one reason or another, I didn't fit in. I find myself not willing to commit to any church because of a fear of having others to know what I am. Church-goers are mere human beings. They have their own sets of value system. They have their rights to look down on or reject anyone they deem sinful or unpardonable.

A meet-up with my old friends was followed by an invitation to the Candlelight Service.

It was something new to me. And in all honesty, I have missed Pastor Kong's preaching. So I went.

After reading so much about him and the church in forums and papers, I went there with a heart of wondering how he has handled all this. Part of me wanted to know if he was still the Pastor Kong I knew.

When he went on the stage, I saw that he had aged. Of course he would have, silly. He was just 25 when I first knew him. Now he is 47. I am not sure if his glasses made the difference, but his eyes looked a little different from when I first knew him.

His preaching was still the same. His accent - never changed abit since 22 years ago.

I saw the preaching extracts on youtube in which people accused him of asking others to give till it hurts. Like I said, those were 'extracts'. The video could be as brief as a minute or so and they are often taken out of context just to support the argument of the writers.

Whenever I see an extract like that, I write it off. Having been a victim of words taken out of context more than once, I know too well what these people are up to. I can surmise the intention and character of such people based on the 'extracts' they use. I call this 'behind-the-back assassination'.

No, I am not brainwashed. I have felt this way all along. But I hadn't attended the church for so long I didn't think I ought to comment.

But I was there last week. And I saw him preach.

How difficult it was for him to preach that God wanted us to be successful and not live in poverty again when all eyes were on him, especially when it was likely that his critics were amongst the crowd. He was still preaching the same line 'God wants us to be the head and not the tail'. He started preaching this line since the Hephzibah days. It was one of his favourite lines. It appeared to me that it remained his favourite line.

True. He preached prosperity a little too much for my, or most people's, liking. I also didn't fancy the 'giving' part, in all honesty. But that aside, was he still the pastor I knew him to be?

For some reason, I thought his eyes did not look as sure or confident as they used to be. I am not sure if it was because of the relentless attacks from the media and public that they looked a little ... sluggish? Or tired?

Him aside, the crowd for one service was phenomenal. I still remember how we used to struggle to fill a fraction of a World Trade Centre hall. Some workers, while resting at the back of the hall, played secular music loudly while the preaching was going on. One of the church pioneers had to run to them to ask them to turn their volume down or off so as not to distract the congregation. Pastor Kong was upset by the leaders of the church though. He chided them for not amen-ing louder to drown out the secular music.

He was that open with the church. He did not disguise his unhappiness even in front of the church. He had high expectations and was strict with his leaders, yet he was gentle with the rest of the flock. He was extremely intelligent. He had great people skills. He was charismatic. Always full of energy. Never tired. He could preach three services at one go and sounded as energised for the third service as he did for the first, and did the same thing for the next day again.

The Candlelight Service had me feel that he was still the same person I knew since my teenage days.

I went back to him again, didn't I? Haha ...

The congregation was huge. It must have become one of the biggest churches in the world.

It was William's first time there. He commented that it was indeed like what others said, that a church service had become a concert. I didn't get what he meant at first because the church had done its praise and worship like this all along, even the very first time I went to a cell group. The drum was deafening. The guitar was loud. The song leader was dynamic and jumping on the stage all the time.

I am not sure if it is the Christians who are more critical. If CHC were your first church, you wouldn't know how a church service is 'supposed' to be like - solemn, quiet, soft, phlegmatic. But if like me, it is your first church, you would have thought that a church is supposed to be loud in praise and worship.

I could understand when people critique that CHC has become a place where people go to network or socialise. It is really huge. It is human instinct to do just that. Don't tell me you go to a place where birds don't even drop their poop to socialise or network. And it sounds too flakey to go to a church just to worship God. We are human beings, right? Human beings are by nature social animals. There is nothing wrong with wanting to go there to socialise. Besides, the church's atmostphere does encourage socialising since days of young. We had 'fellowship', meaning eating together and talking together, right after a cellgroup meeting or church service.

I saw Belinda Lee sitting just a few seats in front of me. A friend told me a few other celebrities were in her cellgroup. It is only natural for human beings to want to be friends with celebrities, right? So what's wrong with socialising? I don't see anything wrong with that, even if you use socialising as a pulling factor to get people 'saved'. As long as it is not by 'crook', I think it's perfectly fine.

However, there was something that disturbed me: Coco was in the children's church and she told me she didn't like it. "The children there are very snobbish," she said. Conversation samples included:
"We live in (very big) house."
"My father is working overseas to earn a lot of money."
"My mother is working as a (some high-earning job)."
"My father is so rich my mother doesn't need to work!"
She remarked that "they were even more snobbish than the most snobbish people" she knew. I certainly do not want her to grow up with such friends.

It appears that she does not want to befriend those children either. The next morning, she asked to go back to our current church. When I asked why, since we had already attended a service, she said,"Because that is my church." I guess we all feel the same way about the church we attend most regularly!

I met a few old friends. Managed to search through the crowd and say 'hello' to the pastor's wife who handheld me through the darkest moment of my life.

It was with a heart of gratefulness that I was able to meet the friends who went through so much and mattered so much to me. These were the friends I had in my most insecure years. They were my confidantes. They were parts of me. And they had not changed since the day I first knew them. Such were my CHC friends.

A few pictures from the beautiful Candlelight Service:

The man who comes under fire from the press and public

Aren't they ever so handsome a couple? And she has always been so beautiful, right from our secondary school days. She was the belle of our school, indeed.

An amazingly well-behaved child throughout the service

The affected me

Nowadays, the paper would report something as trivial as 'Pastor spotted at church service'. And I'm talking about The Straits Times - the paper which prides itself on reporting facts. Yes, it's a fact that Pastor Kong was 'spotted at a church service', but is it so newsworthy to take up a news space on the paper?

And I don't like the fact that the papers, Straits Times and New Paper, to place Pastor Kong's reports alongside with some money-related news.

A couple of weeks ago, TNP had this really sensational news about a Chinese national who bought the most expensive bungalow in Sentosa, and it placed Pastor Kong's picture suggestively beside the news.

Since then, I've seen Pastor Kong's or CHC-related news being placed 'strategically' around news to do with money.

I get the vibes that the journalists have also convicted Pastor Kong in their own way.

The last article about Pastor Kong was about his appearance in the Jurong West building. Apparently, the reporters have become avid fans of Pastor Kong and have been attending all the services at CHC to catch him, in action or otherwise. If not, surely they wouldn't have guessed at which service and church venue (there are two: Singapore Expo and Jurong West) and on which Sunday he would make his appearance?

But the last report had me somewhat worried.

A church member had shouted out,"Pastor, I love you!" while Pastor Kong was making his 45-minute speech at the pulpit, and he was reported as saying, after a pause, "Really? In spite of what's reported?"

The Pastor Kong I knew would have laughed off untrue reports.

For some reason, I am uncomfortable with his short reply to that profession of support.

'In spite of what's reported?' doesn't suggest that the reports are untrue. I'm not talking about the facts that Yeow Sun lives in a $28, 000 monthly house or they bought a $2.6 mil Orchard Road condo. I'm talking about all the implications of having all these luxuries.

CHC is not a novice to the criticisms of the media or the circle of Christian churches. Each time, Pastor Kong would laugh them off and sometimes passed remarks about these reports that made the congregation laugh, but this time, apparently, is very different.

Recently, I have been thinking about how stressful this period of time must have been for Pastor Kong and Yeow Sun. Even for someone like me who is absolutely certain that I'm not guilty of any crime, I think I'll be more than uneasy if the police knocks at my door. And I will freak out if the police suspect I'm involved in any form of law-breaking activity. I cannot imagine the stress the couple, and Pastor Tan and his wife (who had been a dear friend to me), are going through, with the police constantly looking for them.

It's easy to say 'you don't have anything to be afraid if you're not guilty'. It's really easy. It's just like saying '平日不做亏心事，半夜敲门也不惊' (loosely translated: you don't have to be afraid of seeing ghosts if you have done nothing against your conscience), but I'm still very afraid of seeing ghosts although my conscience is clear.

There are some truths in what the forummers say, but the unpleasantness spoken of the church makes me wonder how much elements of 'justice' there is in those posts. While a few posts do seem genuine in hoping that justice be done, many others just smack of jealousy - jealous that the church does so well in terms of crowd drawing and the church's income. The eager anticipation of the church's downfall seems more evident than a sincere wish for things to be put right.

One of the forummers had mentioned that the church members said that the cell-group leaders had rallied for a one-million dollar donation among the members to help Pastor Kong and Sun fight the case as their assets are frozen at the moment.

I was doubting the truth of it until a few days later, a report on the change of leadership came up, and in it was stated that the church had engaged top-notch legal counsel. William immediately linked that with the one-million dollar claim and he said that the need to engage these big shots only shows that the church is guilty.

That aside, it makes me wonder how many of those forummers actually go to CHC services to hear the insider news so that they can post them up on the forum, just like those reporters who go to CHC services to get their scoops.

Honestly, when the news first had it that the church was investigated for misuse of funds, I had hoped, to a certain extent, that they could be found guilty, not so much for what so many people claim - that 'justice be done'. Rather, a part of me had probably secretly, selfishly, wished to be proven right in leaving the church. But as I follow the reports and have my teenage memories of the church jolted, I realise that if it's really proven true, damages far greater than good will be done, not just to me, but also young Christians who had started their spiritual journey in City Harvest. I search within myself how I would feel or react if Pastor Kong is found guilty and I realise that there is no joy in it. On the contrary, I think I'll be crushed. I will have a hard time accounting for a large part of my teenage life and formation years which I had so avidly spent in the church. I'm not sure how skeptical I will be of Christianity if a fraud is ever proven.

For someone like me whose first church is City Harvest, and who had built her spiritual foundation in that church, I feel like I am hanging at the tip of a balance till the verdict is passed. And I'm constantly trying to imagine the worst, to prepare for the worst, so that if the matter is ever proven to the church's discredit, it doesn't come as a total shock and shake me hard. On one hand, I tell myself that I should have faith in the church,'I should believe in Pastor Kong.' and yet Sun's flashy and lavish lifestyle keeps popping up in my face. Try as I might, I cannot reconcile Pastor Kong's tithing and giving speeches with that kinda extravagance. I'm not able to find convincing reasons (for myself) to justify the way they lead their lives. Whenever a justification is given, questions and doubts pop up. I'd hoped that the papers would be able to come up with financial justifications of their Hollywood lifestyle - that it's indeed by the virtue of their secular incomes that they are capable of such a lifestyle. Yet, the question of 'then why didn't they give more to God?' is constantly plaguing me. I'm very affected, sometimes literally. I find myself having a hard time giving full attention to my kids or my work even because my mind is constantly thinking about the case. I have to keep telling myself to snap out of the melancholy and uncertainty of the whole matter. I haven't felt like this since God-knows-when.

Pastor Kong said that he has never thought more about the church than the last 30 days. Is that literal? That when they spent excessively, they weren't thinking about the church whose faith in them about the use of money is fervent? If he hadn't thought so much about the church, given that the church is built by him, what is of the more importance that was on his mind? Has it been God, or has it been money-making?

Pastor, please don't let us down.

My Dear Friend in Christ

Sometimes I marvel at the coincidences in life.

I've been on a frenzy of blogging about CHC lately. Strangely, my 20-month-old toddler actually accidentally pressed on a CHC friend's number. She has pressed on a colleague's number and even sent him multimedia messages more than half a dozen times, purely because his name is the first on the phonebook and she happens to enter it by accident after pressing my handphone to death.

Other than that, the only numbers she'd ever sent multimedia messages to are those that are on 'recent calls'.

A few days ago, she called my CHC friend, my wedding singer, accidentally, but I wasn't aware, until I saw my friend's number appeared as 'missed call'. I didn't know what to say and didn't want to come across as a kaypoh without being sincerely concerned (about CHC). So I didn't reply at all.

Yesterday, she smsed me to ask if I'd looked for her, and we started a string of sms exchanges.

We started with the usual 'How have you been?' and I mentioned I read the reports on the church. She said that it's been 'difficult for us', especially the couple who have been in the limelight, and asked me to keep them in my prayer.

For some minutes, I was stumped.

I was highly tempted to ask her: What will you do if they are found guilty? Do you really believe that they are innocent?

I found myself struggling - to ask or not to ask. I tried to think of ways to phrase the questions 'nicely' so as not to sound like a kaypoh, but I realised that no matter how I package the questions, they do not put me out of the 'kaypoh' category. So what if I ask her these questions? What do I expect her to answer? 'I truly believe they are innocent'? 'The Bible says the righteous will be persecuted in the End Times and this is exactly what they are going through now'?

Most importantly, what business is it of mine to know what she will do or feel or think if they are found guilty?

It also dawned upon me that this friend of mine didn't ask me any questions when I approached her to sing at my wedding. If she didn't ask questions when I needed her help, I'm obligated not to ask questions in trying times like this.

It took me a long time before I replied that sms, without asking the curious questions I have.

But our exchanges left me with a lot of thinking to do. It sounds silly but I'm 'kinda' worried for my friend (let's call her B). I'm not sure if my worries are valid, but this is the church my friend grows up in, gave all that she has ie. her money, her youth, her time, her energy. She attends the church since she was 12, and has been fervent in her love for God. She was a beautiful girl - the belle of our school - and the belle of the church, and now a beautiful woman. Yet, she was never enticed by the worldly pleasures ie. boy-girl relationships. She's just about the only pretty face I know who doesn't give a damn to such relationship. Other pretty, and not-so-pretty, faces go into relationships very early and change boyfriends frequently. But not her.

I remember how she treated boys' and men's attention alike with nonchalance, not oblivion, at the tender age of 15. I was impressed because at that same age, I would be flattered by boys' attention, if there was any.

Girls in my school talked viciously about her because of jealousy. I'm sure she would have heard them but she didn't seem affected. The girls in church would be flattered when someone casually remarked that they 'look like B'. It went as far as to this: a cell group member said that another cell group member would be on cloud nine if you told her her pimple look like B's.

She rose to be a cell group leader when she was just 15, and continued to serve faithfully in the church till now. When Yeow Sun cut her first album, I was actually waiting for my friend's turn to cut hers. I would buy her album if it ever came out. I am very convinced that she's a better singer, without flaunting her bodily assets. But judging from the situation and her age now, it's not likely that she'll get a chance to cut an album.

She has always been a humble and discreet person despite her outstanding beauty. Once, I caught boys from outside the church talking about her when we went for our fellowship meal at a Mc Donald's after our cell group meetings.

Despite her fluent spoken English, she didn't do well for her O levels. But her commitment to the church proved to be fruitful. It opened up an avenue for her to be groomed and subsequently, employed by the church on a full-time basis.

I'm not sure how the events will unfold. I can only pray that something good will come out of the investigation. If Pastor Kong and Sun are innocent, the investigation will illuminate their integrity in the dealings of church funds. If they are guilty, I hope things can be put right. No matter what the results are, I hope that my friend, who loves God so dearly, will be spared any form of atrocities, big or small.

The song 'God will make a way' comes to my mind as I end this post with my hope for my friend:

God will make a way, where there seems to be no way
He works in ways we cannot see
He will make a way for me

He will be my guide
Hold me closely to His side
With love and strength for each new day
He will make a way
He will make a way

Remembering the Pastor Kong I knew

When I read about City Harvest members' defence on Sun's lavish lifestyle in LA, I can totally understand where their arguments are coming from.

An excerpt from the article:

MediaCorp spoke to churchgoers yesterday after its 12.30pm service and most - including those who are learning about her lavish Hollywood home for the first time - seemed unfazed by the news.

"Well, she is a celebrity," said 23-year-old student Andrew Lee.

Another churchgoer, Mr David Ong, told MediaCorp that Ms Ho's living arrangements in Hollywood were well-known.

Asked whether they thought part of their tithes was being used to fund Ms Ho's lifestyle, the 10 churchgoers MediaCorp spoke to did not think so.

A member who only wanted to be known as Mr Lim said: "Church money is separate and is protected by the church's constitution. All our financial transactions are on our website - you can go and check it out."

Ms Audrey Tan, 27, said what Ms Ho did was her business and that she had probably paid for the rent from what she earns from her business and royalties as a professional artiste.

Soon after, a bus pulled up to the kerb and a group of elderly folk disembarked. Pointing to the group, a church member who declined to be named said: "This is where part of our tithes go to - we buy them food, medication and pay for their transport to church and back."

'Asked whether they thought part of their tithes was being used to fund Ms Ho's lifestyle, the 10 churchgoers MediaCorp spoke to did not think so.'

Neither did I. And this is the only reason I am giving Pastor Kong and Sun the benefit of doubt before the investigation by CAD is complete.

The public condemns the CHC members as being 'brainwashed', 'blinded' and such.

A blogger commented that the CHC members' defence of Pastor Kong was weak and their replies were idiotic - "He is my hero."

I would think such replies are idiotic too if I hadn't been a CHC member.

I used to think that the people supporting the plane-bombing terrorists, Hitler, Saddam Hussein and even Fa Lun Gong were brainwashed and didn't have a mind of their own too.

But it's all becoming clear to me.

These followers share their ideologies, beliefs and spend so much time with them till they see themselves as knowing them up close personally.

These leaders often have become more than just leaders. They are friends to the followers. Not just a hi-bye friend, but friends who speak to you intimately, about their ideals, about their visions, about their beliefs, about their own lives even.

I remember the Pastor Kong who blew his nose with a hanky right at the pulpit. I didn't think anything of that but a friend was charmed. She said 'he is so real'. And it occurred to me that he wasn't so politically polished that he thought he had an impeccable image to maintain.

I remember the Pastor Kong who said his dream car was never a Mercedes, but a Volvo. Up till today, I don't know what a Volvo is. The only cars I ever know (in chronological order that I knew them) are Mercedes (because my father owned two when I was young), Volkswagon Beetle (because we called it a 'frog' when my father surpassed it on the Malaysia road, in a bid to make us kids excited and happy), Mini Cooper (because it looks so cute) and perhaps Jaguar and BMW (you can't miss the flashy logos).

I remember the Pastor Kong who didn't do well and was using a cracked plastic rostrum. I remember the old, beaten drum set that was desperate for replacement. I remember the Pastor Kong who, despite not doing well for years, perservered and held on to his beliefs. I am sure he must have felt discouraged and wanted to give up at times, but he never let any of his disappointments or fears shown - I think it takes a lot of strength to withhold your fear. I also think it's hard work to maintain a godly appearance, even if it is a facade, in front of many for years. And you're talking about 20 years, mind you.

I remember the way he preached. He doesn't preach in a distant manner. His style is always very personal, and emotional. It draws people to him. He has always been charismatic. I always thought him quite handsome even though he always claims to look hideous. But of course, Pastor Prince is handsomer, haha! I remember falling for Pastor Prince the first time I saw him emceeing Festival of Praise when I was just 15. I didn't even know who he was then.

I remember the way he said,"Beloved, I want you to know ..." It didn't occur to me that it was his pet phrase until a cell group mate imitated his line and intonation that came along with it.

I remember the way he criticised his own singing - "I don't sing. I croak - 'ribbit, ribbit ...'"

I remember the Pastor Kong who sternly told the teenagers who dragged their 'Yesssss ...' after asking a question to the audience seated at the back of the auditorium,"Don't give me a tired 'yes'!" and made everybody sit up. After which he immediately clarified,"Pastor is not angry ..."

I remember the Pastor Kong who told us people asked him how he handled the young youth church and made the youngsters listen to him since teenagers are known to be rebellious and he said he told them,"You need to let them know you're disciplining them because you love them."

I am listing down the ways I can remember the Pastor Kong I knew because I am trying to say that, when a person is your friend, or you see him as a friend, it is difficult for you to associate him with something bad. You've heard him talking about high ideals and visions despite the low valleys in life. He has shared his thoughts and feelings with you in the way friends would.

How can you ever doubt your friend? How can you be convinced that he's not what he said himself to be? Even Huang Na's mother (remember the 8-year-old China girl who was violated and killed by Ah Hao?) maintained that Ah Hao could not have been guilty when the police first listed him as a suspect. They were not even close friends, but because she knew him as the regular guy who was friendly to her and her daughter, she chose to give him the benefit of doubt until he was proven guilty.

I myself will not be convinced that Pastor Kong is associated with fraud, unless it is proven. Yes, all 'evidence' offered by the tabloids seem to be pointing at him and his wife, but till the day the official judgement is passed, I still want to believe that the beloved pastor I once knew is innocent.

Some thoughts on blogs and forum comments

I continue to read up on the City Harvest saga.

You know, calling it a 'saga' seems to suggest that it indeed is a fraud, like NKF's case.

I read on asiaone forum that Pastor Tan had mentioned that bloggers are 'Pharisees' and forummers are 'Scribes'. For those unaware, pharisees and scribes were the very people who condemned and criticised Jesus and were waiting to see his downfall.

On the comments ...

As I read the comments in the forums and blogs, the public seems to be certain that Pastor Kong and Yeow Sun are guilty of fraud, when the truth isn't even out yet!

The comments are so vicious. You can tell that the commenters really wish that those investigated by the CAD, especially Pastor Kong and his wife, go to jail.

I remember when I was doing my A levels History, my History teacher mentioned that in the ancient times, the Chinese system was such that you are 'guilty until proven innocent' while the ang moh system was 'innocent until proven guilty'.

I'm amazed that things like this, where money is often involved, brings out the very essence of Chinese in us - that people are guilty until proven innocent, although the law mandates that they are innocent until proven guilty.

In all honesty, these comments disturb me greatly. They bring out the best and worst in people, but the 'let's wait and see their downfall' is a particularly strong, unsaid statement. Many are laughing and scorning at the church, when nothing is concrete yet!

Down the memory lane ...

Is City Harvest Church so hated?

Since its founding as Ekklesia Ministry, it has met with many criticisms - that it's unorthodox and cult. But I'd seen miracles in that house. My churchmates' fingers and legs of uneven length were lengthened visibly right before my eyes. It was a physical miracle, not something that's unverifiable.

I myself went through the 'deliverance'. There was a period of time when Pastor Kong preached hard on deliverance. In fact, his first book was about deliverance from the demons.

A cell group leader prayed for me. I remember as I lay there on the ceramic floor, I felt that there was a few tums at my chest, within. As the third tum went, I gave a shrill scream. I never expected that. And I certainly didn't plan that. The leader was praying against suicidal spirits, and I did often have suicidal thoughts when I was in my teens. She said that the spirits fled through my screams as they weren't that strong.

When the girls wore veils on their heads, as was the practice in the Corinthian churches, it was met with disapproval of many other churches. The wearing of veil was later abandoned. What reason was given, we weren't told. I thought perhaps it was to appease the other churches and since it wasn't a big issue, we could afford to give in.

I think the church has come a long way, adjusting its various practices for various reasons. From 'no discotheque, no lion dance, no skimpy clothes, no boy/girlfriends' to practices that are more laxed, perhaps the church is constantly adjusting itself to suit the generation. Afterall, every industry is asked to modify itself to cater to the ever-changing landscapes in the secular world, right? So why can't a church change itself too?

My non-violent rebuttals ...

1) On the unorthodox teachings

A blogger mentioned that a church has no business in self-improvement, after viewing Pastor Kong's sermon on how to set S.M.A.R.T.E.R. goals for Christians. But the church has so many youngsters. I think it's appropriate to impart self-improvement skills to these youths.

I remember when the church first started out with a Manhood message for the guys and we were all intrigued, but it made good sense to teach Singapore boys how to behave with girls. Many boys, and men, do not know how to treat a girl or woman. They think men and women are equal in everything (since they themselves demand equality), so they bring this 'equality' mentality into their marriage, which eventually leads to divorces.

How many of those in CHC have married members from the same church? And how many of them are so happily married? None of the ones I know is divorced. I think it speaks alot about how well the men are taught in that church.

I'm not sure why the prophet CHC is inextricably linked to, Benny Hinn, has his wife of 30 years asking for a divorce. The reason given is 'irreconciliable differences'. After 30 years of marriage, the relationship is ended based on 'irreconciliable differences'. Of course, it couldn't have happened over one or two years. Just like William and me. If I'm never married, I wouldn't be able to understand why she only saw the differences after 30 years. She'd probably borne with much before she finally decided to throw in the towel. It takes untold courage to file a divorce when your marriage is high on profile.

For others, it might be strange why I'm blogging about CHC when I haven't been part of them for so long. Although I left the church 'officially' when I was 19, I still went back to the church for Sunday service on and off, even after I had my first kid, most of the time just to see how the church was doing. After all, it was part of my life in my formation years. In those awkward and sensitive teenage years, it opened me up to a world of friends and ideas from outside the school. It taught me many things, showed me many things, and was instrumental in building my foundation of spoken English.

2) On friendship pressure

I was never afraid of 'losing friends' if I ever left that church, like what some forummers claim. Many of those who left CHC before me actually didn't want the friends in CHC! Probably because they felt that they were pressured unnecessarily. From the statements of various ex-CHC members, they don't sound like they were afraid of losing friendships from the church either.

3) On youths' monetary contribution

I'm surprised to know that the majority of the church is still made up by youths under 25, because I remember the church had aimed to become a 'family church', no longer 'youth church'. I don't believe that youths are able to contribute so much. I always thought that the ones who contribute the most are the working adults who had been there since their teenage years.

4) On the lack of staying power

A forummer mentioned that less than 10% of people she knew in her first year stay in CHC because as they grow up to be sensible adults, they are able to distinguish the right from wrong and so they left the church, but the pioneers I knew are still there. A letter that went to the Straits Times Forum bore the name of a CHC member I knew personally. The man in the picture showing Sun walking out of the police station is someone I knew. The faces in the youtube videos leading the praise and worship are as familiar to me as the back of my hand.

I'm not here to judge Pastor Kong and Sun for something that is not even proven.

I'm just expressing my thoughts on how I feel about the whole episode. If I ever have any questions, they are really just that - questions.

The issue of Giving

I have been reading up on City Harvest Church saga. Because it bothers me.

The church was so much a part of my life. I believed it totally when they said it's the devil's work when my parents persecuted me. We even had a short form for it: P. O. which stands for 'parental objection'.

I believed whatever it delivered throughout my 6 full years there. Even after I had left, I never thought it was evil or anything like that. Like I mentioned, I just couldn't attend the church with my mind bursting with question marks and disagreements. I attributed my 'fallen away' or 'backsliding' as the church calls it to my own weakness in character.

The friends who gave along with me, also gave big-time. None were pretentious. None were hypocritical. As far as I know, everybody in the church had been most kind. I found the sincerest form of friendship in that church. Yes, even now, I still feel that the friends I made in that church are one of the best people around. They truly believe in the kingdom of God. A friend gave me a card that read 'In my father's house are many mansions. I hope yours is next to mine.' It's been many years, but I remember it fondly because the first sentence is quoted from Jesus and I thought it a creative to follow it up with a personal statement. I appreciated that friend's gesture because she has always been very faithful and staunch in her beliefs and had always been encouraging and never despised my weak foundation. Today, she's working full-time in that church, leading songs in worship on Sundays.

That same friend agreed to sing at my wedding without asking any questions. She didn't judge me or refuse to sing because it wasn't biblical for me to have a church wedding. For that, I'm forever grateful. It tells me I have a true friend indeed.

I was reading the comments online about Yeow Sun's home in LA when one of the comments struck a chord with me:

'Make your sacrifices for the church fund, to build a house for God!

Downgrade from a $28,000/month apartment to a $14,000/month apartment and give the difference to the church building fund!

Sell off your apartment and move back to a HDB flat, IF you REALLY believe God will honour your sacrifices.

And if you don’t, don’t tell others to make their sacrifices. You have no right to…'

How spot-on is that?

That's exactly how I feel. You've been preaching on giving to God cheerfully, giving to Him till your heart breaks, but there you are, living in the lap of luxury, and not giving to Him.

I remember Pastor Kong asking us to 'downgrade' the products we use so as to give to the church,"Instead of Lancome, use Max Factor." It left a very deep impression on me because I could not afford Lancome products then since I was a student. When you preach like that, it induces guilt in people even when they can afford the better things in life.

But you don't suffer a tinge of guilt when you spend like nobody's business. Yeow Sun showcased her favourite brands of clothings to the reporters who visited the couple at their River Valley home 5 years ago. The only brand I have heard of is Fendi.

And Pastor Kong's Boss suits were in that walk-in wardrobe as well.

I mean, the pastor who had worn his handicapped sister's self-sewn suits wears branded stuff now? Wouldn't it have suited his preaching better if he wore something not so expensive and gave the amount he saved from those suits to the church-building fund?

He and Yeow Sun are global icons and it does fine if they have a bungalow in Sentosa - this is what someone said in defence of them. It sounded fine as long as they could afford it, until the word 'building fund' comes in. He has been asking people to sacrifice so as to give more to the building fund. My question would be: what kind of sacrifices have they made to give to the building fund?

Remember the poor woman who gave her all at the temple? Jesus defended her when her contribution was scoffed at, saying that it beat the contribution of a rich man who gave many times more than she.

Likewise, even if they have given millions to the building fund, have they much more to give?

The church members are often challenged to give to the building fund, even beyond what they can give. Are they challenged to give much more than the average church members, or beyond what they can give, too?

I truly truly hope that they are not what the public have portrayed, because if they are, many Christians, including myself, will be stumbled.

Sun's home in LA

Yesterday, I was walking past the provision shop below my flat when the headline of The New Paper caught my eye. It read 'Ho Yeow Sun's $28,000-a-month Hollywood Home' with an accompanying picture of a huge mansion.

I bought the tabloid paper without hesitation and devoured the article.

On the immediate pages, there was a full write-up on the house, size equivalent to 5 five-room flats, and pictures of the beautiful and luxurious house.

The following page is a report on the history of the couple's transaction of units in Singapore, from a humble five-room flat in Tampines, they upgraded to a River Vally unit with a private lift, 2 living rooms and 4 bedrooms, and paid $200, 000 for its renovation and furnishings when Sun's sister and brother-in-law are both interior designers who had helped with the unit-designing. Earlier this year, they sold the unit and moved into the $2.6 million The Suite at Central, which is an apartment with a private lift (again) and in THE prime area of Singapore, Orchard Road.

The write-up blew my mind away.

For someone in her mid-thirties, I find myself feeling disillusioned.

I still remember vividly how Pastor Kong said,"It's no fun giving to the building fund!" when they wanted to build the first building in Jurong West. He assured the church that it would not be forever and that he would not live in the lap of luxury while the rest of us live in squatters.

That was what he said. Of couse, nobody in Singapore lives in squatters now, but who else lives so luxuriously like him and his wife?

I am not saying that it's wrong to live so luxuriously. It's definitely not out of jealousy that I'm questioning the lifestyle. The first question that popped into my head when I finished reading the article was: Did Sun's singing career, her Skin Couture business and Pastor Kong's sermon-giving sessions pay for the $28,000 rent and their branded clothes and rich-and-famous lifestyle?

If they did, they certainly have made it on their own.

I'm just wondering, is there no better option than to live in such luxury? They are involved in humanitarian works. They should know the sufferings of people in other parts of the world out there better than the average Singaporean. Sometimes I wonder if I should have splurged on trips when there are others who don't even have food for months - and I am someone who has never done any humanitarian work in my whole life. I would think for people like them who have been highly involved in compassionate works, they would feel the sting of splurging excessively on themselves when at the back of their mind, they remember the sufferings of the people they have helped. Wouldn't this kind of money be better used if it's used to help the destitutes?

I'm not saying that we are compelled to help the poor and destitutes the moment we have money. We have the options of helping or not helping others. The issue is excessiveness. The article stated that the area that Sun lives in is for the millionaires and rich and famous. Brad Pitt and Angelina owned a property there too.

Is it a necessity to live up there? I always thought Christianity emphasises on necessity and not excessiveness. God blessed David, Solomon and Job with prosperity - did the couple equate themselves with these people?

I have to admit. I am disillusioned.

I was from CHC

I'm back from Hong Kong. We touched down at 1am on 12 June 2010, but only got home at about 3am as we went for our dinner before going home.

I will have to go get an external hard disk today (today's the last day of PC Show) so that I can 'export' all my pictures and memories on another source before this old faithful computer crashes on me again.

What prompts me to blog now is not the wonderful Hong Kong, but what I read on the internet about City Harvest Church.

Truth be told, I attended CHC services and cell group meetings when I was thirteen.

It was then known as as Ekklesia Ministry. "Ekklesia" in Greek (or was it Hebrew?) means 'the called out ones'. It originally refers to the Israelites who were called out from the ancient Egypt. Led by Moses, they went through various trials and tests before they reached their promised Land of Milk and Honey.

It's always reported that the church started with just 20 people in 1989. I'm not sure where Pastor Kong got his figure from, but when I joined them in July 1989, there must have been at least 200 people in the congregation.

As I recall, Pastor Kong had always been a man of integrity. Very intelligent. Dressed smartly (and still does) and knew his own strengths and weaknesses very well. For so many years, he has preached in the services faithfully, almost every week without fail. In his early days when building the church, he preached a few times a week. I remember him preaching the same message at least 3 times, consecutively, on the same Sunday, because there were 3 services, one after another. And within the same week, he had to share the cell group sermons with the cell group leaders, have prayer meetings. These are just the few things I knew as I never was in a leadership position. But I knew it wasn't easy. It takes a lot of passion, the right kind of passion that drives you on all the time, and effort to keep it going. Many fell away, but he continued to be fervent in the love of God. You can tell he truly loved God.

True. He preaches in an emotional way. Perhaps that's the way he attracts people, or perhaps that's his style. But can't a preacher choose the way he wants to preach?

He was only 25 then. The only working adult among us. The next oldest youths were one or two undergraduates and a few others like his then-girlfriend-turned-wife-to-be who completed A levels but did not manage to go to the university.

There were 'confirmed' and 'unconfirmed' members. You have to be very committed to the church, attend cell group meetings, prayer meetings, church services and other church activities, pray for an hour every day and exhibit positive attitude towards the church before you can become a confirmed member. After becoming one, you would be asked to tithe. Back then, the cell group leader explained to me, using bible verses on how the newer churches were asked to tithe additional amount on top of the usual 10% of your income. It was 23.something percent then. On top of that, you would have to make a monthly pledge of an amount of money you would like to give.

I read that members were pressured to the extent of being chased after by their cell group leaders, and asked to see their payslips to make sure they are paying the 'correct' amount. During that time, we were just students receiving pocket money from our parents, so the issue wasn't so compelling. However, I did feel the invisible pressure of giving too little compared to a cell group leader who was also my friend and a schoolmate. She would ask,"No income huh?" as she would know the amount I tithed. But being a miser as I always have been, tithing has always been an issue with me, so it never occurred to me that the problem could be with anybody else.

I read from the various forums and posts that the members are asked to tithe 10 percent of their income now. I'm not sure what happens but perhaps the church decided at some point that they had too much money and could afford to lower the amount they asked people to tithe. I don't see the move as an inconsistency. Any move to reduce the financial strain on anybody is a good move.

Towards the end of my departure from the church, there had been more and more of prosperity gospel preaching. I didn't know what to make heads or tails of as like many others, I was just an impressionable teenager. But it did sound right that pastors do not need to be 'as poor as a church mouse', and God wants to prosper us. It sounded right that princes and princesses ought not be dressed in rags. Give 10 fold and receive a hundred - doesn't that sound biblical? I have to admit that I am not rooted in the bible, nor do I study deeply into the verses, so I'm not able to discern if these lines are really of God's will, but they do sound right, don't they? If Christianity is meant for us to live in poverty, then who will want to be a Christian? If Buddhism is meant for one to suffer without attaining any form of enlightenment, who will want to be a Buddhist?

I left the church when I was 19. I didn't think that the church was horrible or anything like that. In fact, I made some great friends there. They were, and still are, the greatest people I ever know. I just could not attend the church with all the questions in my head anymore. I remember the church started out advising us not to visit nightspots or be involved in sexual, provoking dances. In terms of dressing, girls were banned from wearing tight-skirts - it was a kind of short, denim skirts with a little split at the hem at the back of the skirt. But when I attended its service at the Indoor Stadium one day, Pastor Sun was dancing on the stage, dressed in skin tight tops which emphasised her well-endowed chest. To a certain extent, I was disillusioned. I couldn't appreciate or understand the intent of the changed messages, spoken or unspoken. I have nothing against the pastor I once knew personally. Despite my disillusionment, I never for once doubt her personality. She was a jovial, warm and helpful person despite her cool apppearance.

I didn't know if The Straits Times had misquoted her, but in an interview, Pastor Sun was quoted as saying that she never addressed herself as a pastor, when all the while, she was introduced as Pastor Ho, or more affectionately to the members, Pastor Sun. However, I would give her the benefit of doubt as The Straits Times is notorious for misquoting or quoting the interviewees wrongly. I had an expatriate NIE lecturer who told us he was very angry with The Straits Times for quoting him wrongly and he vowed never to be interviewed by The Straits Times again. And I think he really meant it, because he left Singapore for another job in another country after that.

In my heart of hearts, I hope that Pastor Kong will come out clean from the investigation. No ordinary man would feel untempted in the face of millions of dollars. It takes a God-knows-how-much amount of integrity to be stoic with this kind of money. But still, I hope that Pastor Kong has stood the test.