• About C3 Church Watch
    • Church Watch Rules
  • C3 Scandals
  • C3 Testimonies
  • C3 Tirade Brigade
  • C3’s Bible Garble
  • Church Leaders Speak Out
  • Finding a good church near you
  • LoveIs What Exactly?
  • Pringle’s Oracle Debacles

C3 Church Watch

C3 Church Watch

Tag Archives: assessment

Judge See Kee Oon’s assessment over CHC case

23 Friday Oct 2015

Posted by Nailed Truth in C3 & Pringles Associations

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

assessment, case, CHC, Chew Eng Han, City Harvest Church, John Lam, Kong Hee, See Kee Oon, Serina Wee, Serina Wee Gek Yin, Sharon Tan, Tan Shao Yuen Sharon, Tan Ye Peng, trial

All of the CHC six were found guilty of all charges in court on 21st Oct 2015 .

Six Accused

Judge See Kee Oon has published material explaining his judgments and findings.

Judge See Kee Oon

Judge See Kee Oon


IN THE STATE COURTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE

District Arrest Case 023145 of 2012 and others

Between

Public Prosecutor

And

(1) Lam Leng Hung
(2) Kong Hee
(3) Tan Shao Yuen Sharon
(4) Chew Eng Han
(5) Tan Ye Peng
(6) Serina Wee Gek Yin


ORAL JUDGMENT


PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
V
LAM LENG HUNG & 5 ORS


State Courts — District Arrest Case 023145 of 2012 and others
Presiding Judge See Kee Oon

21 Oct 2015 Judgment reserved.

Presiding Judge See Kee Oon:

Overview

1 This was a 140-day trial involving 43 charges against the 6 accused persons. They were tried primarily on charges of conspiring to commit criminal breach of trust (“CBT”) by dishonestly misappropriating funds belonging to City Harvest Church (“CHC”) that had been entrusted to one or more of them. There are two broad groups of charges involving CBT. The first group comprises the first to third charges and pertains to what have been referred to in the course of the trial as the “sham bond investments”. The second group comprises the fourth to sixth charges, pertaining to what has been termed “round-tripping”. A third group of charges, the seventh to tenth, concerns falsification of accounts in CHC’s books relating to the “round-tripping” transactions.

2 I do not propose to set out the evidence as it is lengthy and voluminous. It suffices to note that the main background facts are largely undisputed or uncontroversial. I will set out my findings in relation to the elements of the offence of CBT first, leaving aside the issue of the mens rea of dishonesty. I will then focus primarily on the extent of the accused persons’ knowledge and involvement in the plans to use funds belonging to CHC for the Crossover Project (“the Crossover”) and on whether their conduct in the circumstances shows that they had acted with dishonest intent.

Criminal breach of trust – elements

3 In relation to the elements of the offence of criminal breach of trust by an agent, leaving aside the mens rea element, I shall state my conclusions briefly. First, I am satisfied that Kong Hee, Tan Ye Peng (“Ye Peng”) and John Lam Leng Hung (“John Lam”) were, as members of CHC’s management board, each entrusted with dominion over CHC’s funds, whether in the Building Fund (“BF”) or the General Fund. Second, I am bound to hold that they were entrusted with such dominion in the way of their business as agents because, being board members, they were so entrusted in their capacities as agents of CHC. Third, I am satisfied that the various plans to use CHC’s funds amounted to putting these funds to unauthorised or wrong use.

“Wrong use” of CHC’s funds

4 The BF was a restricted fund that could be used only for building-related expenses or investments for financial return. I find that the Xtron and Firna bonds were not genuine investments but were a wrong use of the BF. I find also that Tranches 10 and 11 of the Special Opportunities Fund (“SOF”) were not genuine investments but were transactions designed to create the appearance that the Firna bonds had been redeemed. I find, finally, that the payment under the Advance Rental Licence Agreement (“ARLA”) was not abuilding-related expense but was a transaction designed to perpetuate the appearance that the Firna bonds had been redeemed. They were therefore all wrong uses of CHC’s funds.

5 I turn next to the accused persons’ involvement and knowledge in the various plans to use CHC’s funds.

Funding the Crossover – being discreet

6 The accused persons understood that Kong Hee’s preference to be discreet about the funding for the Crossover was for the sake of ensuring the success of the Crossover, but being discreet was also synonymous with non-disclosure and mis-statements. Kong Hee had explained that it was his preference to avoid disclosure of CHC’s involvement in Xtron to avoid any misconception that Sun Ho’s secular music career was “not real” and that CHC was (still) using its money to promote her career. But in relation to both aspects, the evidence shows that it was true that her perceived success was inflated from rather more modest levels and Xtron and the Crossover team had to rely heavily on sponsorship from CHC members or supporters to help prop up her album sales and promote her career. When these sources of financial support which did not directly flow from CHC were insufficient, they had to come up with other means.

Xtron bonds

7 Xtron was CHC’s special purpose vehicle for the Crossover, and for this purpose Xtron was clearly under CHC’s control and not independent. The plan formulated in 2007 was that CHC’s funds, specifically funds from the BF, would be channelled through Xtron to be used for the Crossover, and the use of the funds was controlled entirely by Kong Hee and his team. In truth, this was analogous to an elaborate extension of a pattern of financial assistance via “sponsorship”, lending or prepayment to Xtron that had already either been taking place or been contemplated prior to 2007. These were seen as short-term measures to put Xtron in funds and support the Crossover. The mindset was thus that the Xtron bond issues were only yet another “temporary plan” albeit one which involved borrowing from CHC’s BF, and hoping that the funds would somehow find their way back to CHC at some unspecified future point.

8 Kong Hee, Ye Peng, Chew Eng Han (“Eng Han”) and Serina Wee (“Serina”) each clearly played a substantial role in conceiving and executing this plan to channel CHC’s BF through Xtron for the Crossover. John Lam’s role was evidently less substantial, but I am satisfied that he had his own part to play as a board member and investment committee member. All of them knew that the BF was a restricted fund to be used only for specific purposes. They claim that they believed the Xtron bonds were genuine investments. They believed the Xtron bonds would bring CHC financial return. But on my evaluation of the evidence I consider that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they did not hold that belief.

9 I find that the accused persons were planning on the basis of Sun Ho’s planned US Crossover album being realistically capable of generating sales of

only 200,000 units, and although their projections showed that the bonds could not be redeemed by the maturity date, they were unconcerned since Eng Han assured them that the maturity date for the bonds could always be extended or fresh bonds could be issued. I am unconvinced that they could have had a genuine belief in Sun Ho’s prospects of success for the US Crossover given their consciousness that much of her earlier success was contrived and contributed to by CHC itself. Serina readily conceded that Sun Ho’s Asian Crossover albums all made losses and Xtron had thus incurred substantial accumulated net losses. Kong Hee, Ye Peng, Eng Han and John Lam also knew that CHC was involved in propping up her Mandarin album sales. I am unable to see how there can be any genuine or honest grounds for their claims that they expected far higher sales for her planned US album well in excess of the projection of 200,000 units. This was no more than an optimistic hope. It was definitely not a realistic expectation. All this strongly militates against their claims that the Xtron bonds were motivated by the realistic prospect of financial return and were genuine investments.

10 Further, the accused persons were all involved in making plans to put Xtron in funds to redeem the bonds. They knew that these plans would involve CHC paying money to Xtron under the guise of legitimate transactions, when in fact the real concern was Xtron’s cashflow difficulties and the purported transactions were mere excuses for CHC to channel money to Xtron. Thus they knew that there was a strong possibility that the apparent financial return under the Xtron bonds would come from CHC itself. This knowledge further undermines their claim that they believed the Xtron bonds were a genuine investment.

11 In addition, the accused persons hid or obscured material information from others. Eng Han and John Lam kept the truth about the Xtron bonds from Charlie Lay. All of them at various times gave the auditors the impression that CHC and Xtron were independent of each other, when they knew that Kong Hee in fact made all decisions on Xtron’s behalf in relation to the Crossover without reference to the Xtron directors, who were mere figureheads. The auditors were not told that Xtron was in fact controlled by Kong Hee and Ye Peng and that they together with their co-accused would exercise control over the use of the bond proceeds. There is no doubt that they knew that they had something to hide.

12 In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that the accused persons knew that the Xtron bonds were conceived first and foremost to support the Crossover and not for financial return. The prospect of any financial return was a secondary consideration at best and even then I do not accept that they genuinely believed that the sale of Sun Ho’s music albums would generate sufficient profit for CHC to enjoy financial return. They knew that any financial return to CHC might be illusory in the sense that it was CHC’s own money that might need to be channelled to Xtron to redeem the bonds. Given their knowledge, I cannot accept their claims that they believed the Xtron bonds were a genuine investment. Accordingly, they caused CHC to subscribe to $13 million in Xtron bonds knowing that they were not legally entitled to do so. Thus they acted dishonestly, and I find that the first and second charges have been made out against John Lam, Kong Hee, Eng Han, Ye Peng and Serina.

Firna bonds

13 In respect of the Firna bonds, the accused persons all knew that the primary purpose of the bonds was also to channel money from CHC’s BF to the Crossover. Kong Hee, Ye Peng, Eng Han and Serina knew that they, and not Wahju, were the ones controlling the Firna bond proceeds and deciding how the proceeds should be applied towards the Crossover. Yet they took the inaccurate position that Wahju was somehow “independently” supporting the Crossover using his “personal monies”, and this was what they told the auditors and lawyers. They knew that the financial return under the Firna bonds would not come from the profits of Firna’s glass factory business but depended entirely on the success of the Crossover. If the revenue from Sun Ho’s albums was not adequate, they would find alternative sources of funds for Firna, and that might include channelling CHC’s own money into Firna through various means. Given this knowledge, I do not think Kong Hee, Eng Han, Ye Peng and Serina could have believed that the Firna bonds would generate financial return for CHC, and so they could not have believed that the bonds were a genuine investment.

14 John Lam was further removed from the Firna bonds than the other accused persons. But he signed the “secret letter” that secured the signature of Wahju’s father-in-law on the Firna BSA. I am satisfied that he knew that the prospect of financial return for CHC did not depend on the success of Firna’s glass factory business. He knew that it was a very real possibility that the Crossover would not be profitable. Thus I find that he too did not believe that the Firna bonds would generate financial return for CHC, meaning that he did not think the bonds were a genuine investment.

15 Therefore, in causing CHC to subscribe to $11 million in Firna bonds, the accused persons knew that they were not legally entitled to do so. They thus acted dishonestly. As such, I find that the third charge has been made out against John Lam, Kong Hee, Eng Han, Ye Peng and Serina.

16 At the centre of the first to third charges is how the BF came to be applied for the Crossover when it was a restricted fund for specific purposes – either for building or investment. In my judgment, the Crossover was not one of these purposes. It was not an investment since by their own characterisation, it was meant to serve a “missions” purpose all along. I am not convinced that there was any “mixed motive”, “dual purpose” or “hybrid” intent behind the use of the BF. These are creative labels tacked on in an attempt to strain and stretch the plain meaning of the word “investment”. They were plainly fabricated in an attempt to justify their past conduct and misuse of the BF. I do not see how they can be said to have acted in good faith in relation to the charges they face.

17 The accused persons have of course pointed to the fact that the money did come back to CHC with interest. However, this is patently due to their efforts to put Xtron, Firna and AMAC in funds to facilitate these repayments through the round-tripping transactions. It does not confirm that there was any actual intention at the outset to invest for the purpose of maximising returns. What is more telling is that it was consistently represented to CHC’s Executive Members that investing the BF in this fashion was meant to maximise returns. There was no mention at all that the investment was in the Crossover, let alone that it was for “spiritual returns” or for both spiritual and financial return from the Crossover. The failure to mention those facts buttresses my conclusion that the accused persons knew that they were not legally entitled to cause CHC to enter into the Xtron and Firna bonds.

Round-tripping and falsification of accounts

18 As revealed by the evidence adduced at trial, there was never any financial “return” derived from any of Xtron’s and Firna’s Crossover-related activities. Instead, when the time came to deal with the auditors’ queries and to address Sim Guan Seng’s concerns, they resorted to removing more funds from the BF and also the General Fund under the pretext of making further “investments” into Tranches 10 and 11 of the SOF and purportedly for a building purchase by Xtron through the ARLA. The round-tripping transactions were crafted to create the appearance that these were genuine transactions involving the redemption of bonds when they were not. They were not genuine transactions because the accused persons controlled these transactions every step of the way, and the substance of it was that CHC was channelling money through various conduits in order to pay itself.

19 Given that Ye Peng, Eng Han, Serina and Sharon Tan (“Sharon”) were fully aware of the whole series of transactions, they could not have believed that Tranches 10 and 11 of the SOF were genuine investments, or that the payment under ARLA was a building-related expense. They say that they viewed all this as “restructuring”, but that to my mind is fundamentally inconsistent with a belief that the transactions were genuine investments or building-related expenses, and this inability to provide a coherent explanation for their conduct strongly suggests that they knew they were not legally entitled to cause CHC to enter into these transactions. They may have apprised the CHC board of an earlier version of the transactions, but they kept that knowledge from the lawyers and the auditors. Taking into account all the circumstances, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the fourth to sixth charges have been made out against them.

20 I am also satisfied that there was falsification of CHC’s accounts following from the attempts to disguise the SOF and ARLA transactions as genuine transactions. In relation to the ninth charge, the accounting entry recording a redemption of Xtron bonds in the form of a set-off against advance rental was false, because it was not a case of CHC and Xtron making independent decisions to pay advance rental on one hand and redeem bonds on the other. I find that the accused persons knew that false accounting entries would have to be made pursuant to their plan to create the appearance of redemption of bonds, and hence I find that they each had intent to defraud. I am therefore satisfied that the seventh to tenth charges have been made out against Ye Peng, Eng Han, Serina and Sharon.

Objective evidence and inferences

21 I note that there was an extensive record which comprised an elaborate patchwork of emails, Blackberry messages, phone SMSs, hard copy documents and numerous other documented exchanges in some form or other. The fact that there was a mass of available evidence which when woven together amounted to a paper trail is not necessarily indicative of innocence. In my view insofar as much of it was incriminating, it is more suggestive of a mindset of presumptuousness or boldness, demonstrating that the accused persons were overconfident in their belief that they could replace the funds in time before suspicions were aroused.

22 The case against the accused persons depended heavily on inferences to be drawn from the objective evidence. Much of these inferences can be readily drawn as the tenor and language in the communications adduced at trial strongly point to their dishonest intent. In short, the documentary evidence goes a long way in demonstrating their subjectively guilty knowledge. I am not convinced that they have raised any reasonable doubt in this regard.

23 I find that the accused persons were variously inextricably entangled in two conspiracies to misuse CHC’s funds. One conspiracy consisted of misusing BF monies for the Crossover, and the other involved misusing CHC’s funds, a substantial portion of which comprised BF monies, to create the appearance of bond redemptions and to defraud the auditors via falsified accounts through the various roles they played. Each of them participated and functioned in their own way as crucial cogs in the machinery. Although there are distinctions in their respective levels of knowledge and participation, I am unable to discern any rational basis to exclude any of them from being implicated and characterised as conspirators.

Beliefs, motives and mindsets

24 Much of the defence centred on the beliefs and motivations of the accused persons. If it can be shown that they genuinely, honestly and reasonably held the view that what they were doing was legitimate in the sense that they were legally entitled to do it, and they went ahead to act in good faith as a result, I think there may well be room for doubt as to whether they had acted dishonestly. The weight of the evidence however points to a finding that they knew they were acting dishonestly and I am unable to conclude otherwise.

25 Where professional advice was sought, this was really mainly an attempt to seek out self-supporting confirmatory advice based on selectively-
disclosed information. They omitted mention of the crucial fact that CHC remained in control of Xtron and would correspondingly control the use of the funds. They provided leading questions for belief confirmation and support from only those advisors whom they trusted to support the Crossover vision and were quick to reject or filter out any disconfirming information.

26 The accused persons chose to support the Crossover vision and to act and participate in acts in support of it. The Crossover became a comprehensive logic for justifying their beliefs and actions, and for doing whatever was expedient for its advancement. The pervasive mindset seemed to be one of short-term expediency; the use of means involving dubious methods was worth the risk to them if there was some hope of longer-term gain.

Conclusion

27 In their defence, all the accused persons testified largely to the same effect: they love CHC and would not have wished to do harm to CHC. They never intended to cause loss to CHC. They consulted and cleared their proposals with their lawyers, the auditors and the CHC Board. They were motivated by CHC’s cultural mandate and they believed in the Crossover vision. They pointed to pure motives and a justifiable purpose in the use of CHC’s funds. Ultimately the funds which were removed were for Church purposes and were returned to CHC.

28 The crux of their defence was that there was no conspiracy and no dishonesty. All six would never intend to cause harm or loss to CHC and the ultimate objectives were in furtherance of the Great Commission. It may be arguable that all of them thought they were not acting dishonestly to cause wrongful loss since no permanent loss was intended, but this was premised on their unquestioning trust and belief in Kong Hee and their confidence that the Crossover would succeed. Thus they convinced themselves that it was both morally and legally permissible to temporarily use the money from CHC’s funds when they knew it was not.

29 The accused persons chose to engage in covert operations and conspiratorial cover-ups. They contrived to create cover stories and clever round-trips concealing their unlawful conduct. They chose to participate in the conspiracy to misuse CHC’s funds, which included siphoning off large amounts from the BF for Sun Ho’s music career and eventually for the round-tripping transactions to enable the bond redemptions. They chose to defraud the auditors with falsified accounts suggesting a series of genuine transactions for the redemption of bonds and advance rental. The evidence points overwhelmingly to a finding that they had all acted dishonestly and in breach of the trust reposed in them and they played their respective roles in a conspiracy with intent to cause wrongful loss to CHC and to defraud the auditors.

30 I am therefore satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the six accused persons are guilty of all the charges that have been brought against them. I note that all of them believed that they had acted in what they considered to be the best interests of CHC. There is no evidence of any wrongful gain – that was never the prosecution’s case in any event as the charges were premised on wrongful loss caused to CHC through the misappropriation of CHC’s funds.

31 I consider that John Lam, Eng Han, Serina and Sharon were all acting in accordance with the instructions of people they considered to be their spiritual leaders deserving of their trust and deference, and Ye Peng, although a leader in his own right, similarly trusted completely the leadership of Kong Hee. But no matter how pure the motive or how ingrained the trust in one’s leaders, regardless of the context in which that trust operates, these do not exonerate an accused person from criminal liability if all the elements of an offence are made out. In my judgment all the elements of the relevant offences have indeed been made out. Accordingly, the accused persons stand convicted as follows:

(a) John Lam is convicted on the first to third charges;

(b) Kong Hee is convicted on the first to third charges;

(c) Sharon is convicted on the fourth to tenth charges;

(d) Eng Han is convicted on the first to tenth charges;

(e) Ye Peng is convicted on the first to tenth charges; and

(f) Serina is convicted on the first to tenth charges.


Source: PDF, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3A-00dAvijTNXAyaGEyLUtZdW8/view?pli=1. (Accessed 23/10/2015.)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Does All Scripture Point To Mark Kelsey And C3 Leaders?

28 Tuesday Feb 2012

Posted by Nailed Truth in C3 Culture, C3 Ministry, C3 Spirituallity, C3 Teaching, C3 Values

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

2011, assessment, bridge, c3, C3 Church Sydney, C3 Church Sydney Leaders Meeting June 1 2011, c3 global, c3 international, C3i, ccc, ccc international, Chandler, dimension, eisegesis, exegesis, Furtick, June 1 2011, kelsey, leader, leaders, leaders meeting, marcissism, marcissus, Mark, Mark Kelsey, markegesis, Matt Chandler, meeting, meetings, narcigesis, narcissism, Steve Furtick, Steven Furtick, teaching

EXEGESIS, EISEGESIS & NARCIGESIS

When a pastor teaches the congregation, they are meant to use exegesis.

A basic definition of ‘exegesis‘ is a, ‘Critical explanation or interpretation of a text, esp. of scripture.’1

This is the correct way to handle scripture. However, eisegesis was a very popular method used by pastors to approach the scriptures.

A basic definition of ‘eisegesis‘ is a, ‘personal interpretation of a text (especially of the Bible) using your own ideas.’2

This is an incorrect way to handle scriptures.

A basic definition of ‘narcissism‘ is ‘Extreme selfishness, with a grandiose view of one’s own talents and a craving for admiration’.3

When you combine a narcisistic pastor using eisegetical methods you get Furt- a pastor who reads themselves into biblical passages. For example, they are to be a King David conquering giants. They are a Moses, leading the people. They are Solomon bringing the glory of God through their wisdom and expansion of the House of God. This is now becoming known as ‘narcigesis‘. No pastor should use the bible to exalt themselves.

ALL SCRIPTURE POINTS TO JESUS

Jesus said,

“You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me!” John 5:39

By reading ourselves into the text, we replace Christ with ourselves. To do this is to be antiChrist-like. John MacArthur says,

“The spirit of Antichrist has always been in the world. It has manifested itself both in open opposition to Christ and in subtle attempts to replace Christ.”4

The term Antichrist is explained in Vines Expository Dictionary,

“Antichrist: can mean either “against Christ” or “instead of Christ,” or perhaps, combining the two, “one who, assuming the guise of Christ, opposes Christ” (Westcott). The word is found only in John’s epistles”

This is what makes pastors, teachers or leaders who practice narcigesis dangerous. If pastors  are reading themselves or their audience into the biblical text, they are reinforcing the belief that scriptures point to themselves, “instead of Christ”. We have seen Phil Pringle also replace God the Father with himself and Jesus with money. See articles:

C3 Giving Sermon Transcript: Just Another Manic Sunday

“Let Me Just Talk To You Out Of A Scripture” – Pringle’s Use of John 3:16

To quote Pringle from the articles:

“When it says ‘God so loved the world’, we need to put ourselves in there and say, ‘I so love the world, that I will give the only begotten son’. And for us to actually achieve that, to spread the Word of God around the world; to plant churches, make disciples, empower saints, build bible colleges- all of it is done through your giving.”

And again:

“We will so love the world that we will give sacrificially”.

In other words, his narcigetical interpretation of the text is, “For I so loved the world that I gave my finances sacrificially.” He would not be that bold to say something so obviously wrong. However, that is what Pringle was essentially saying.

Scriptures say,

“… This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.” 1 John 2:22

John 3:16 is a fantastic verse that teaches that the Father sent his Son so that we may believe in Him to have eternal life. Pringle denied this passage to speak alone on eternal life given to us by the Father and Son. He denied people access to the gospel. He denied people access to the Way of Salvation through the Father and Son. Instead he pointed a different direction to his congregation – self and money.

This is a good example why narcigesis is dangerous. Unfortunately, Executive Pastor Mark Kelsey took it one step further.

IF ONLY THIS WAS APRIL 1ST…

On the 1st of June 2011, Mark Kelsey spoke at the C3 Church Sydney Leaders Meeting.

“… And then Isaiah 61 sees Jesus walk into the temple. And goes, ‘Oo! Could be my day!’ He sees the scroll handed to the son of God. He sees him unfold it. He’s going, ‘Isaiah sixty one. Isaiah sixty – sixty one! One! One!”

And He, Jesus starts to read it. And He said, “Today this scripture’s fulfilled in your hearings.” Suddenly that scripture was fulfilled. You see, even Jesus found his identity in the word of God. Even Jesus- He didn’t go, “I’m the Messiah by the way. Did I tell you that? I am the Messiah.” He didn’t say that. He went to the scripture, found Himself in the word of God.

Where are you in the word of God? Where are you in it? Where are you in the word of God? Because THAT is what gets God on you. It’s not about knowing scripture, it’s about finding yourself IN the scripture. There’s the difference!” – Mark Kelsey, C3 Church Sydney Leaders Meeting June 1 2011, 19:19, http://vimeo.com/24594951, Uploaded Thu June 02, 2011.

At 10:49, Mark Kelsey says to C3 leaders about Christians in their bible studies (Connect Groups),

“They wont be impressed by what you know. They’ll be impressed by what’s on your life. That’s what touches people. That’s what feeds people. That’s what brings revival.” – Mark Kelsey, C3 Church Sydney Leaders Meeting June 1 2011, 19:19, http://vimeo.com/24594951, Uploaded Thu June 02, 2011.

WHY KELSEY SHOULDN’T USE MARKEGESIS

Remember what Jesus said?

“You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me!” John 5:39

Mark Kelsey above teaches C3 leaders that “it’s not about knowing scripture” but wants them to apply scripture in a way that makes other Christians ” impressed by what’s on [their] life”. He is using the scriptures for selfish gain. This directly opposes the declaration of Christ and should not be how any Christian minister should teach.

Finally, Mark tells the C3 leaders that other Christians “wont be impressed by what you know” and how “what’s on your life. That’s what touches people. That’s what feeds people. That’s what brings revival.” Really Mark? Are we God? Are you speaking from experience?

1. Who touches people’s lives IS the Spirit of God.

2. Who feeds people IS the Word of God.

3. Who brings revival IS God when we exalt Him by preaching repentance through the gospel.

4. And we are NOT Jesus who IS the Word of God.

IN CLOSING

What was just reinforced in the minds of C3 leaders was narcigesis: putting confidence in the flesh; throwing out the Word of God and BECOMING the Word of God (“It’s not about knowing scripture, it’s about finding yourself IN the scripture”). This is very troubling.

This is the very EXACT THING that Pastor Matt Chandler spoke against at Steve Furtick’s ‘Code Orange Revival’. This was the sermon that annoyed Steve Furtick which he afterwards sensored. Possibly due to critics, he uncensored Chandlers sermon. Read our articles about this here:

Phil Pringle Endorsing Problematic Steve Furtick for Presence Conference 2012

Chandlers sermon is well worth the watch:

In essence – the scriptures NEVER point to fallen, sinful creatures. They point mankind to God, Jesus Christ – the fulness of God in bodily form. We are in Jesus but we are not Jesus. We are made in His image but we are not God.

If you feel lead to pray for Mark Kelsey and the C3 movement, please do so.

______________________________

[1] Oxford American Large Print Dictionary, Oxford University Press, pg. 434.
[2] Wordnet, Princeton University, http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=eisegesis, (Accessed 28/02/2012).
[3] Wordnet, Princeton University, http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=narcissistic, (Accessed 28/02/2012).
[4] John MacArthur, Grace To You, Marks of a True Believer, http://www.gty.org/resources/study-guides/40-5145/Marks-of-a-True-Believer, (Accessed 28/02/2012).

Share this:

  • Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

C3 College Classes With Mark Kelsey: Invent Your Own Theology (Part 1)

11 Saturday Feb 2012

Posted by Nailed Truth in C3 & Pringles Associations, C3 Culture, C3 Ministry, C3 Spirituallity, C3 Teaching, C3 Values

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1985, 2007, assessment, bridge, c3, c3 college, c3 creative stream, c3 global, c3 international, c3 students, C3i, ccc, ccc college, ccc creative stream, ccc international, ccc Ministry Training College, Christian City Church Ministry Training College PROSPECTUS 1985, class, classes, college, Creative Stream, dimension, facebook, joke, Kelset, lecture, lecturers, Mark, Mark Kelsey, meetings, Ministry Training College, office, pat, pat antcliff, principal, prospectus, sca, sca college, school of creative arts, students

Exec Pastor Mark Kelsey

C3 DOESN’T HAVE THEOLOGICAL/BIBLE COLLEGES

Solid theological churches with theologically trained ministers don’t generally need to have Bible Colleges with their churches. Qualified teachers should be able to educate the congregation to the best of their knowledge. Often a member can question ministers and ministers will be open for correction or will happily provide members with material to spiritually grow in. As a result, the congregation grows in the Wisdom of God.

Because C3 members generally can’t discuss in depth what is being taught on Sundays, the structures provide it’s members to discuss their teachings in their C3 bible study groups (aka Connect Groups).

Unfortunately, the content isn’t deep. C3 therefore encourages it’s members to go to their colleges to learn, if you have a passion to learn about God. However, it is important to establish that the C3 Colleges are NOT bible colleges or theological colleges. C3’s 1985 Ministry Training College Prospectus says on pg 2,

“We are not a “theological college” though we teach theology, nor even a “bible college” per se, but a ministry training college where students learn biblically how to be effective in the work force of Jesus.

You will learn how to pray, how to move in the anointing of the Holy Spirit, how to preach the word of God, how to set your faith loose, how to study the Bible and numerous other essential skills.”

View the pdf we have made here on the 1985 C3 MTC Prospectus:

Christian City Church Ministry Training College PROSPECTUS 1985

More articles will be written on this topic later.

THE EIGHTH DIMENSION

The above statement by C3 has proven to be true. Mark Kelsey is proof of this.

In the first term of 2007, I had to take a class called ‘Life In Ministry’.  School of Creative Art (SCA) students had to take this class with School of Ministry (SOM) students. Mark Kelsey, the Executive Pastor, was our lecturer. He demonstrated effectively that both Christian City Church Colleges were not theologically or biblically based colleges.

I disagreed with the course content since Mark Kelsey continually taught from this diagram for the majority of the lessons we had with him:

Where is this in the bible? The only thing I found biblical about this diagram was that in the world we need to get a revelation to get into the Kingdom of God.

While loosely applying very few verses in the bible, Mark Kelsey made this up. Each segment was called a ‘dimension’. The way you access the next ‘dimension’ was by crossing the ‘bridge’ to the next dimension, usually through works. It’s important to note that the way you progress up the pyramid to the visionary status of the head C3 Pastor Phil Pringle, is through works of commitment, submission, discipline, responsibility and authority.

Mark Kelsey also drew a snake under the diagram at one point to teach that offense can make us fall back a dimension or take us back to the beginning again. It looked as though he was teaching an Amway scheme of ‘Snakes and Ladders’.

I didn’t want to do the assessment that was in relation to this and tried to protest my way out of doing something so stupid. Some students actually discussed the peculiarity of this subject, discussing the theology and practicality of it. They were confused. Some SCA students inquired how this was biblical in class, (not the SOM students). Unfortunately, none of us found that we could approach C3 College staff to address this peculiar teaching. Since the majority of the students were under 25, none felt they could actually object the class content and the assessment we had to complete in relation to the diagram

I found the entire approach Mark Kelsey was teaching about ministry was unbiblical, religious and pointless. As a result, I purposely went out of my way to mock the assessment. I was shocked to receive an ‘A’ for my efforts.

C3 College Class Assessment

I purposely went out of my way to be proud and not humble. I exalted myself of being prophetic, counselor-like, leadership material.

To get an ‘A’ for an assessment I treated as a joke reveals Mark Kelsey’s lack of competency and understanding as a minister, pastor or teacher of God’s Word and His Church. A thorough examination and training in the letters to Timothy of the bible would have been much more beneficial to students. Instead – Mark Kelsey made up his own theology and had us submit to his teachings.

THE EIGHT CORRECTIONS

The issues with the Amway-like diagram results in people and God favouring those who are in the upper class dimensions. Scriptures teach us that we are all on the same level playing field. While God does delegate certain people for certain roles, gifts and offices, God uses all of us and has no favourites (As C3 members say, ‘God is no respecter of persons’). All Christians:

1. … still sin. (1 John 1:8)

2. … are part of Christs church, therefore included as part of the Kingdom of God. (Matthew 16:19 – Read Gills Commentary on this.) (Mark Kelsey taught we are not of the church until we chose to commit ourselves to the church).

3. … are to be humble servants like Christ and be “with humility of mind” regarding others “as more important than” ourselves (Philippians 2:3-8).

4. … are to submit to one another. (Ephesians 5:21)

5. … are to minister to God’s people and those in the world. (2 Corinthians 5:18, Galatians 6:2, Ephesians 4:29, Romans 12:10)

6. … are called to be responsible. (1 Corinthians 7, Hebrews 4:13, Colossians 3:23, )

7. … are committed to the cause and vision of Christ. (Colossians 2:8, 2 Corinthians 5:18, Hebrews 3:12, 1John 5:20, 1 John 1:2, 1 John 5:5, 1 John 5:13, 2Peter 3:9, Romans 16:27)

8. … are under the authority and pledge loyal integrity to Christ. (Ephesians 5:24, Ephesians 1:22, Ephesians 5:21, 1Peter 1:7-9, 1Peter 3:14-17, Romans 16:27, Jude 1:25, Colossians 3:13, 1 John 3:16)

Hebrews 4 addresses that all people in the church are to grow together in fulness, maturity and unity in Christ. The gifts of God are there to help bring the church to the standard of Christ.

It is disturbing that Mark Kelsey calls students up on their loyalty to gain positions and titles within a church-like structure. Cults will often call people to pledge their loyalty to their leaders and movements. Integrity is the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles and moral uprightness. Integrity is greater then loyalty.

Mark Kelsey seems to disagree with the scriptures by forcing students to submit to his made up diagrams that supposedly look biblical. Then again. He is fulfilling the C3 College mandate that they are neither a “theological college” or “bible college”. We will see another sample of C3 College inventing their own theology in another article similar to this.

Share this:

  • Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

About Phil Pringle: Well The Author Is Confusing & Misleading About His Colleges

09 Thursday Feb 2012

Posted by Nailed Truth in C3 Culture, C3 Teaching, Pringle's Behaviour, Pringle's Business, Pringle's Issues/Events

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

acting, advanced diploma, assessment, baccalaureate, baccalaureate degrees, bridge, c3, c3 college, c3 creative stream, c3 global, c3 international, c3 students, C3i, ccc, ccc college, ccc creative stream, ccc international, ccc Ministry Training College, cert IV, Certificate IV, class, classes, college, contemporary dance, contemporary music, Creative Stream, degree, degree programs, diploma, Hope, International School of the Church, ISC, IV, lecture, lecturers, lies, meetings, Ministry Training College, office, pat, pat antcliff, Phil Pringle, principal, prospectus, sca, sca college, SCD, school of creative arts, School of Ministry, screen production, SOM, songwriting, students, Sydney College of Divinity, theatrecraft, visual arts, worship leading

We at C3 Church Watch have already questioned if the typo in Phil Pringle’s book Top 10 Qualities of a Great Leader, was a typo or not.

“Today, Dr. Phil Pringle oversees the approximately 1,200 churches that make up Christian City Church International throughout the world, a significant proportion planted directly from Christian City Church Oxford Falls.” – About the Author DR. PHIL PRINGLE, Top 10 Qualities of a Great Leader, 2007, pg. 227.

We discussed how flippant Phil Pringle is with his church statistics in this article:

Does Phil Pringle Distort Church Statistics For Personal Gain?

We have counted that he has 243 churches. Pringle updated his profile on his website last year, stating he ‘oversees the approximately 258 churches’, while in his services promotes he has ‘nearly five hundred’ churches in his movement. A commenter on C3 Church Watch has stated, ‘He [Phil Pringle] nearly always says it’s around 500’ (see comment section in the above link).

Phil Pringle released a new book last year called ‘Hope’ in 2011. Pringle writes (emphasis mine),

“He [Pringle] has overseen the planting of new churches in major cities throughout the world. Today, there are more than 300 C3 Churches around the globe, which collectively make up C3 Church Global, with a combined membership of more than 75,000. In addition to its renowned teaching ministry, C3 has an internationally acclaimed, accredited education program that includes kindergarten through high school, and offers baccalaureate degrees in disciplines that include:

  • The School of Ministry, which trains ministers and develops powerful ministries.
  • The School of Creative Arts, focusing in all disciplines of the arts.
  • The Pastoral Care and Counseling College.
  • The International School of the Church, which trains pastors and teams to plant churches and take the Word of God to new levels of growth.” – Phil Pringle, Hope, About The Author, 2011.

This information is not true. Previous articles have revealed that C3 does NOT have over 300 churches. What is also untrue is that NONE of his colleges offer courses that supply “baccalaureate degrees”. The last degree students finished at the end of 2009 and graduated in summer school, February 2010. The graduation ceremony was in April and May. C3 Colleges no longer were running any more degree classes onsite in 2010. Why?

PERSONAL TESTIMONY

When I was involved at C3 Creative Arts College, C3 tried to establish an arts degree program. I was guaranteed that this was obtainable if I signed up for the arts degree program. They failed to get their program recognised.

However, they resulted in supplying creative arts students a theology degree program. However, when the Sydney College of Divinity investigated C3 College’s conduct on their theology degree program, they found many problems.

C3 were not to continue their theology degree program any more. I was with the last batch of students to obtain a degree from the C3 College.

PROOF C3 COLLEGES DO NOT PROVIDE DEGREE PROGRAMS

If none believe what I say, below is what the colleges offer.  Check out their college website here: http://www.c3college.com/main/. You will find that none offer “baccalaureate degrees”.

“COURSES OFFERED: ADVANCED DIPLOMA, DIPLOMA AND CERTIFICATE IV OF CREATIVE ARTS IN CHRISTIAN MINISTRY, SPECIALISING IN ACTING AND THEATRECRAFT” – C3 College, http://www.c3college.com/main/creative/acting-and-theatrecraft, (Accessed 07/02/2012).

“COURSES OFFERED: ADVANCED DIPLOMA, DIPLOMA AND CERTIFICATE IV OF CREATIVE ARTS IN CHRISTIAN MINISTRY, SPECIALISING IN CONTEMPORARY MUSIC / VOCALS AND WORSHIP LEADING” – C3 College, http://www.c3college.com/main/creative/contemporary-music-vocals-and-worship-leading, (Accessed 07/02/2012).

“COURSES OFFERED: ADVANCED DIPLOMA, DIPLOMA AND CERTIFICATE IV OF CREATIVE ARTS IN CHRISTIAN MINISTRY, SPECIALISING IN CONTEMPORARY SONGWRITING” – C3 College, http://www.c3college.com/main/creative/contemporary-song-writing, (Accessed 07/02/2012).

“COURSES OFFERED: ADVANCED DIPLOMA, DIPLOMA AND CERTIFICATE IV OF CREATIVE ARTS IN CHRISTIAN MINISTRY, SPECIALISING IN CONTEMPORARY VISUAL ARTS” – C3 College, http://www.c3college.com/main/creative/contemporary-visual-arts, (Accessed 07/02/2012).

“COURSES OFFERED: ADVANCED DIPLOMA, DIPLOMA AND CERTIFICATE IV OF CREATIVE ARTS IN CHRISTIAN MINISTRY, SPECIALISING IN CONTEMPORARY DANCE” – C3 College, http://www.c3college.com/main/creative/contemporary-dance, (Accessed 07/02/2012).

“COURSES OFFERED: ADVANCED DIPLOMA, DIPLOMA AND CERTIFICATE IV OF CREATIVE ARTS IN CHRISTIAN MINISTRY, SPECIALISING IN SCREEN PRODUCTION” – C3 College, http://www.c3college.com/main/creative/screen-production, (Accessed 07/02/2012).

C3’s Creative College reveals their Creative Arts Core Program does not offer “baccalaureate degrees”.

“Core Studies are on Tuesday and Thursdays in Certificate IV and Diploma and on Tuesdays in the Advanced Diploma, leaving the other days free for training in your chosen area of skill.”

Instead they offer,

“Core areas of study for all students over the one year full-time equivalent programme include:

Certificate IV

  • Christianity in Culture
  • Introduction to Worship
  • Personal Management
  • Industry Knowledge
  • Life in Ministry
  • Church Services and Events
  • Working in a Team
  • New Testament Survey
  • Old Testament Survey
  • The Book of Genesis
  • Bible Interpretation

Diploma

  • Models of Creativity
  • Communication & Conflict Resolution
  • Discovering Your Purpose
  • Copyright
  • Marriage and Family
  • The Book of Hebrews
  • Cross Cultural Ministry
  • School of the Holy Spirit
  • Advanced Ministry Principles
  • Survey of Christian Doctrine
  • Christian Ethics

Advanced Diploma

  • Advanced Leadership
  • Project Management
  • Training Others
  • Church Planting
  • Pastoral Theology
  • Theology and Film” – C3 College, http://www.c3college.com/main/creative/creative-arts-core-program, (Accessed 07/02/2012).

The C3 College Creative Stream (aka SCA) does not offer “baccalaureate degrees”.  The Leadership and Ministry Stream are no different. In Year 1, students get a Certificate IV in Leadership and Ministry courses.

In Year 2, students get a Diploma:

In Year 3, students get an Advanced Diploma. ‘Youth and Young Adults’ and ‘Pastoral Care’ is an elective within the Leadership and Ministry Stream. They do not offer “baccalaureate degrees”.

His online college and night schools also offer no “baccalaureate degrees”. No information can be found here at Night School (http://www.c3college.com/main/home/night-school) or C3 College Online (http://c3collegeonline.com/).

Therefore, we can conclude that Phil Pringle is misleading his readers into believing he offers quality education.

PRINGLE PURPOSELY CONFUSING READERS

It is not right for Phil Pringle to lump the educational quality of Oxford Falls Grammar School (OFGS) with his lack of quality education in his colleges:

“accredited education program that includes kindergarten through high school, and offers baccalaureate degrees in disciplines that include…”

OFGS may have students attend C3 Colleges after graduation and obtain scholarships. However, the educational quality is very different. Pringle’s 1985 Prospectus for his Ministry Training College says,

“We are not a “theological college” though we teach theology, nor even a “bible college” per se, but a ministry training college where students learn biblically how to be effective in the work force of Jesus.” – Ministry Training College Prospectus, 1985, pg 2.

An example of poor education for both colleges are as follows (more articles will be provided later):

C3 College & Dave Sumrall Teaching ‘All Sorts Of Evil’

C3 College: Misrepresenting The Gospel?

C3 has a track record of inviting some of the worst Christian teachers to speak at their colleges which they consider to be “most gifted and experienced ministers“.

CONCLUSION

If anyone has any information about the ISC, please email us at c3churchwatch@hotmail.com. We would like to look into this further if possible.

In relation to this, Pringle has misled his readers to believe…

1. That his church colleges offer “baccalaureate degrees” in:

     a) School of Ministry.

     b) School of Creative Arts “focusing in all disciplines of the arts”.

     c) The Pastoral Care and Counseling College.

     d) The International School of the Church.

2. That he oversees 300 C3 Churches when facts reveal this not to be the case.

It’s been more than a year for Pringle to know that his colleges do not run degree programs. We have constantly demonstrated that Pringle is flippant with the truth about the number of churches in his movement for his own convenience. If this is not intentional, then Pringle needs to stop failing the high standard he sets in his C3 Movement.

Pringle needs to explain why he misinforms readers about himself in his books.

If you feel lead to pray for Phil Pringle and the C3 Movement, please do. Please pray for Phil Pringle to be an accountable and responsible leader.

Share this:

  • Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
  • Reddit
  • Email

Like this:

Like Loading...

WATCH, DISCERN, AVOID

Follow Us
Facebook

Sowell

_________________________________

OUR OTHER SITES

Latest Insights

Nailed Truth on Noble Preaches Furtick Is Mess…
k on Noble Preaches Furtick Is Mess…
ashevillesveryown on C3 Asheville Scandal – M…
churchwatcher on Phil Pringle Influenced By Occ…
Clinton on Phil Pringle Influenced By Occ…
2expose1 on Phil Pringle Influenced By Occ…
Tracker on My! What Big Faith You Ha…
Timothy Boisvert on C3 Asheville Scandal – M…
Bryce on Phil Pringle the “scam…
Tracker on Phil Pringle Influenced By Occ…

Latest Headlines

  • A Scholar On The Holy Spirit? Pringle And The Windy Way.
  • Phil Pringle – God’s Word confirms that you are a false prophet….
  • Have Christians lost the art of biblical discernment?
  • A valuable BTWN resource addressing dangers in evangelicalism

Bible Resources

bible.org

Good Christian Radio Resources

Good Church Resources

Good Discernment Websites

Feeling Supportive?

Must-Read Christian Books

The opinions expressed on this site do not necessarily represent the views of all contributors. Each individual is responsible for the facts and opinions contained in his posts. Generally we agree but not always.

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • C3 Church Watch
    • Join 252 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • C3 Church Watch
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: