David Yonggi Cho has recently spoken at C3 Church Oxford Falls. What makes his invitation so scandalous is how C3 leadership are deliberately lying to their congregation in their attempt to cover up the fact that Yonggi Cho is a convicted criminal.
“Cho was charged with causing around 13.1 billion won in damages to his church and evading approximately 3.5 billion won in taxes in the process (embezzlement as defined in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes). In addition, Pastor Cho’s oldest son Cho Hee-jun, 49, former chairman of the Yeongsan Christian Culture Center, was given a three-year prison sentence and taken into custody.” [Source]
Because of this, he is disqualified to pastor at all, ever again because of his criminal record, his unruly son, his public reputation and his love for money (Read 1&2 Timothy). We also consider Yoido Full Gospel Church a cult, considering “International Apostle” Cho is accountable to no one – not even his elders who tried to blow the whistle on his crimes:
“Yoido Full Gospel Church has suspended or expelled 28 elders for not withdrawing legal accusations against senior pastor David Yonggi Cho, 77.
The punishments are a form of retaliation for blowing the whistle on alleged misdeeds by Cho and his son Hee-jun, 48.” [Source] [Emphasis ours]
Yonggi’s disciple, Phil Pringle, has no allowing this cult leader, criminal and illegal pastor to speak at his church. Instead, Pringle recently stated on Instagram that Yonggi Cho has “Faced many challenges and has remained true”.
True to what Pringle?
C3 LEADERS WORSHIPING PRINGLE’S CRIMINAL MENTOR
Christian McCudden wrote on Instagram,
Amazing night in Sydney with Ps @philpringle and Dr Youngi Cho, amazing download of wisdom, faith and inspiration. #gratefulforourleaders
Source: Christian McCudden, Instagram, https://www.instagram.com/p/BCKgWA7LWxN6Yd42p8Gdsgiyw19JAWtg9AmMro0/, Published 24/02/2016. (Accessed 25/02/2016.)
Pringle put this out on Instagram,
Loved #Leaderstablesessions yesterday with Dr David Yonggi Cho from Seoul, who has led an 800,000 people congregation for many years. Faced many challenges and has remained true. 80th birthday. Thanks@john_pearce for hosting#superpastorsday@C3OF#powerofdreamsandvision Dr Cho speaks again tonight 7pm C3 Oxford Falls. All welcome. #seeyouinchurch
Source: Phil Pringle, Instagram, https://www.instagram.com/p/BCL-srgNP16/, Published 25/02/2016. (Accessed 25/02/2016.)
[More C3 hero worship will be posted here as they surface.]
Recently we recorded Channel NewsAsia reporting the following (emphasis ours):
“[…] In his oral grounds, the judge accepted that there was a plan to move
money from the church’s Building Fund to Xtron Productions and glassware firm
Firna (or PT The First National Glassware), for the purpose of funding Ms
Ho’s singing career.
The court accepted that there is evidence to show that the monies were moved
from the church to the various firms to generate a false appearance that the
church’s investments were redeemed.
The judge said the six had been dishonest in the use of the money. […]” [Source]
The last sentence will be the one that keeps Phil Pringle of the C3 Movement et al awake at night: the judge has come right out and stated that the defendants have been dishonest. His judgement re. the “no case to answer” appeal has taken the case exactly where we expected it might – it is now well and truly into “reversal of the onus of proof” territory, and it’s hard to see any of the accused wriggling out of their predicaments. (In addition, if anyone was going to get off due to connections / bribery / corruption of some form or another, this would have been the most likely juncture for it to happen – it now appears that the miscreants are strapped in for the ride, which should be all downhill for them from here).
Now TodayOnline reports,
Judge rejects bid to clear CHC leaders of charges
SINGAPORE — The bid by the City Harvest Church (CHC) leaders facing criminal charges to walk away without mounting a defence has failed, after the courts rejected their contention that prosecutors had not done enough to make a case against them.
Sufficient evidence has been adduced to support every element of the charges of criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts against the six, presiding judge of the State Courts See Kee Oon ruled yesterday.
“At the close of the prosecution’s case, there is no need for the court to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. It suffices that a court could reasonably convict on the evidence adduced by the prosecution,” he said.
With Mr See’s decision, the trial will stretch beyond the one-year mark and all six accused — church co-founder Kong Hee, his deputy Tan Ye Peng, Chew Eng Han, John Lam, Serina Wee and Sharon Tan — have indicated they will take the witness stand when hearing resumes, likely in July. Chew, the church’s former investment manager who has since left, added through his lawyer that he intends to call witnesses.
The six had argued to be cleared of their charges without having to enter a defence, contending that the prosecution’s case was “piecemeal” and a “cut-and-paste” job. In rebuttal, prosecutors had asserted that the dots in its case against the church leaders connected in a natural, coherent and powerful manner.
Yesterday, Mr See addressed the points of contention between the defence and prosecution in detail. “Some dots are smaller; some are larger. When attempting to connect them, there may be clusters, trails and other patterns, some less granular and some more clearly discernible. The focus of my enquiry is whether a reasonably coherent picture has emerged thus far in support of all the ingredients of the charges,” the judge said.
Referring to a defence lawyer’s argument that the prosecution’s case has been made up of “emails, emails, emails stitched together”, Mr See said: “I am conscious that a reasonable inference is one that coheres with the totality of the documentary and oral evidence, and not merely with the email itself. I also bear in mind that a single email can generate multiple conflicting reasonable inferences, some favourable and others unfavourable to the prosecution.”
On the prosecution’s charge that the accused engaged in various conspiracies, the judge noted that evidence is “largely documentary rather than oral” and that the involvement of some of the accused is less obvious than that of others. But there is, nonetheless, evidence to support the prosecution’s contention, he said.
On the element of misappropriation, which must be fulfilled for criminal breach of trust, the judge said there is evidence to show that sham, or false, investments took place.
“I should add that, even if one does not use the word ‘sham’, the evidence suggests the so-called investments were not genuine investments, but were merely disguises for something else,” he added.
Source: Judge rejects bid to clear CHC leaders of charges, TodayOnline, http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/judge-rejects-bid-clear-chc-leaders-charges?singlepage=true, PUBLISHED: MAY 6, 4:13 AM, UPDATED: MAY 6, 4:15 AM. (Accessed 06/05/2014.)
The defense says that there is “no case against CHC leaders” while the prosecution claims that the “accused fed auditors a pack of lies”.
Channel News Asia reports,
No case against City Harvest Church leaders, say lawyers
The defence lawyers representing the six leaders of City Harvest Church have attacked the prosecution’s case, saying that no evidence has been produced to show that the accused misused church funds.
SINGAPORE: The defence lawyers representing the six leaders of City Harvest Church have attacked the prosecution’s case, saying that no evidence has been produced to show that the accused misused church funds.
This comes after 42 days of trial and evidence from 14 prosecution witnesses.
Chief District Judge See Kee Oon has to decide after the submissions, if the defence has a case to answer.
Church founder Kong Hee and five of his deputies are accused of misusing millions of the church’s building fund monies to boost the career of Kong’s wife, singer Sun Ho.
They are accused of doing so through “sham bond investments” and by round-tripping the funds.
A key argument was with regard to how the charges were framed.
The prosecution’s case is that the accused were entrusted with the church funds and had full control over them.
But the defence said this was not true.
It pointed out that there was no resolution passed by the church board, indicating who were the people who were decision makers and could control the church funds.
As such, the defence’s point was that the church board decided on the use of church funds as a whole.
Another point made by the defence was that the church’s building fund could be invested and in this case, it was invested in Xtron, which was a firm the church supported and knew about.
The money invested in Xtron was then used to fund the Crossover Project, which was used for evangelism and the church members all knew about it.
So there was no concealment and there was no dishonesty about it.
Source: By Claire Huang, No case against City Harvest Church leaders, say lawyers, Channel News Asia, http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/no-case-against-city/1063544.html, Posted on 11 Apr 2014 11:13. (Accessed 11/24/2014.)
The Courtroom reports,
City Harvest Trial: Accused fed auditors a pack of lies, say Prosecution
The prosecution in the City Harvest Church case mounted a stinging rebuttal yesterday as it sought to prove it had presented enough evidence for the trial to continue.
Tearing into arguments by the defence, Chief Prosecutor Mavis Chionh strived to show again that the six accused had varyingly cooked deals to misuse church funds, “fed a pack of lies” to auditors and “created false appearances in City Harvest’s books”, reports The Straits Times.
“There is clearly enough evidence for the defence to be called,” she said, after taking the court through a summary of the prosecution’s case.
She was responding to defence lawyers who had argued that, despite 42 days of trial since last May and 14 prosecution witnesses, the prosecution had failed to show enough evidence for the charges against their clients.
The defence wants the case thrown out. The judge will rule on that on May 5.
Church founder Kong Hee and five others are accused of misusing about $50 million in church funds in total. While their lawyers had consistently said auditors vetted and approved allegedly suspicious transactions, Ms Chionh said relying on this defence was “misconceived at best and disingenuous at worst” as the prosecution believes the accused hid information from the auditors.
She pointed to church auditor Sim Guan Seng, who had said earlier in the trial that he would have “raised some red flags” about certain transactions had he been privy to more information.
The defence said some of the information had existed in his audit firm Baker Tilly TFW’s archives.
By relying on the auditors’ approval as a defence now, the accused were “like the fraudster who manages to hide his own crimes, then tries to rely on his success in hiding that crime to exonerate himself”, Ms Chionh said.
She also disagreed with lawyer Andre Maniam’s assertion that his client, former finance manager Serina Wee, had not been dishonest and could not be guilty of criminal breach of trust since the “church money was used for church purposes”.
While part of the allegedly misused funds was spent to advance the pop music career of Kong’s wife Ho Yeow Sun, defence lawyers said the church had accepted her music as a form of evangelism.
Ms Chionh said the evidence showed the money had been illegally taken from the church’s building fund.
While the defence lawyers said the prosecution had taken e-mails and messages among the accused out of context and misinterpreted them, Ms Chionh disagreed, adding that “the totality of the evidence was sufficient” to call for the defence.
Source: City Harvest Trial: Accused fed auditors a pack of lies, say Prosecution, http://thecourtroom.stomp.com.sg/courtroom/cases/city-harvest-case/city-harvest-trial-accused-fed-auditors-a-pack-of-lies-say-prosecution, The Courtroom, Posted on 10 April 2014. (Accessed 14/04/2014.)
Dr Yonggi Cho, whom Pastor Kong Hee address to be his “Spiritual Father” and “Senior Pastor” is sentenced to 3-years in jail with 5-year suspension. This means that the jail term is deferred by 5-years and he will go to jail to serve sentence if is found to further misbehave during this 5-year term. It is still a jail sentence.
The court ruled that Dr Cho is guility of the following charges: (1) Tax evasion and (2) causing approximately 13 billion won (US$12 million) worth of losses to Yoido Full Gospel Church by instructing his church officials to buy stocks privately owned by his eldest son priced at 4x higher than market value in 2002.
“The criminal activity would have been impossible without the approval of Pastor Cho, who had ultimate decision-making authority,” the court ruled. “By condoning the documents that were being written while he was the head of the church, he was largely responsible for these crimes.” – The Hankyoreh
Earlier, in a Straits Times coverage of the news when investigations first began into the Korean Mega-pastor, Dr Cho had denied any wrong-doing, and dismissed the allegations as “a smear campaign by a very small group of people in his church” and that “those who filed the complaint will have to take responsibility accordingly” (ST, 22 Sep 2011)
It is not the intention of this blog to judge a great man like Dr Yonggi Cho, who over the past decades had contributed greatly to the growth of Christianity and helped many people. We have our imperfections and do make mistakes, and do eventually pay the price for it.
However, the patterns of denial adopted up to the point of conviction finds close resemblances to what was seen in the “CHC Trial”:
1) Blame Shifting
“While delivering the three-year prison term for the former newspaper chairman, the judge rebuked the younger Cho for attempting to shift the responsibility for his unethical business practices onto his father and other senior church members.” (source)
Church Growth International Korea, the ministry founded by Dr Cho (independent and separate entity from Yoido Full Gospel Church) issued a statement to their Board Members claiming that the Korean judge, Hon. Yongtun Cho said that:
“The court considered that even though Pastor Cho had the final say in the church, he never took the lead in any of the crimes including tax evasion committed on the suggestion of the accounting firm.” (source)
“During the investigation, prosecutors also acquired evidence of tax evasion by David Cho. In 2004, when the Seoul regional tax office judged that this stock sale was a gift and ordered that 10.3 billion won (US$9.48 million) of taxes be paid, David Cho enlisted the aid of an accountant and submitted falsified documents to the tax office to disguise the transaction as a normal stock trade, not as a gift, prosecutors confirmed. He is suspected of using this means to only pay 4 billion won (US$3.68 million) in taxes, evading 6 billion won.” (source)
While he may not be the mastermind, he was unfortunately convicted because he allowed it to happen anyway – apparently rubber stamped whatever his son handed him. The key here is that as a leader, you cannot just claim ignorance and hope to get away. Tax evasion charges aside, he unfortunately gave instruction to siphon the money and ordered the stock purchase – resulting in the inevitable CBT charge which is even more damning and inexcusable – impossible to blame shift this.
Is it true that as long as the fault can be pushed away to another party, it would be “all clear” for the accused? Will it change the mindset of logical thinking adults? Or is it done in an attempt to continue to mislead the unknowing members? Throughout the CHC Trial, we have seen the blame pushed to the auditors, the CAD Investigating Officer and other parties including the media (accused to be bias) – me thinks it’s definitely not true, considering the coverage they gave Serina Wee. News is a business to sell more after all.
The CityNews Article (http://www.citynews.sg/2014/02/chc-trial-defense-establishes-that-evidence-cad-failed-to-seize-was-clearly-relevant-to-case/) was plastered on top of the City Harvest Church website (above the “Special Notices” tab). For the blame on the other parties, just refer to the CityNewsSG articles on their website, and my earlier blog articles. We need to be mindful that such articles coming from a church whose leaders are embroiled in a criminal charge do stir emotions and sentiments among the membership as well as members of the public, depending on where you look at it.
2) Threat and Warning
Such uses were probably aimed to threaten people who speak up with defamation lawsuits? Will this work? Considering the first line of defense against any form of defamation is the reporting of verifiable facts/truth, the threat would also fall on deaf grounds, no?
“those who filed the complaint will have to take responsibility accordingly” (ST, 22 Sep 2011)
Didn’t work for you this time Dr Cho. Your 29 elders have the evidence and spoke boldly without fear of your threat.
CHC have used this to their full advantage over a decade ago in silencing businessman Roland Poon who asserted that church funds were used to fund Sun Ho’s Crossover Project. Roland Poon had to issue a public apology. Glad that he is now vindicated for the court has heard that church funds were indeed used to fund Sun Ho’s singing career from as early as 2001, and definitely in 2003.
Similarly, according to online media, Bobby Chaw, a pastor of CHC, also issued a warning about the media “pre-judging” in relation to the suspension of 9 key CHC staff. This was done through the official statement made by the church on 28 June 2012. It should be noted that as a leader, anything said in public has an influence on its followers. The result of such statements (personally, I view it as a threat, so do some other online media), made in a highly sensitive and emotional context resulted in a witch-hunt and name-calling for the COC by members of CHC. Not too nice to plaster more screenshots, but some are found in earlier posts. Me thinks that COC had been too nice; they should just make public it’s findings there and then – and once and for all put an end to all the name calling on the COC.
3) “Did not make any personal gain”
In an updated statement issued on 22 Feb 2014 regarding the sentencing of Dr Cho, the Management Board of CHC cited “very reliable sources that Dr Cho had no personal gain from any of the investments” (source)
One need not look far to find contradicting reports from the 29 elders who lodged the commission’s against Dr Cho. In fact, they have out forward some very serious allegations in their writing, besides those already charged:
“Ha Sang-ok , who was part of the group for nearly two decades, admits to being involved in some fraud : ” In the last 14 years I have seen and done bad things. I tried to convince the pastor to stop, but he paid no attention. His behavior is not that of a Christian, but like that of a guru of a sect“. (source)
“First, they claim that Cho returned only 64.3 billion won (US$60.2 million) of the 163.3 billion won (US$152.9 million) he borrowed from the church while building the CCMM Building between 1992 and 1998, when he was chairman of the church‘s Mission Society. The remaining 99 billion won (US$92.7 million), they say, was never returned.
It is also being claimed that Cho’s third son Seung-jae’s International Club Management Group bought three floors of the building from the church for 29.5 billion won (US$27.6 million) and sold them back three years later for 37.2 billion won (US$34.8 million) – pocketing the difference of 7.7 billion won (US$7.2 million).
They also claimed that David Cho’s wife Kim Sung-hae, president of Hansei University, has yet to account for 10.5 billion won (US$9.8 million) paid by the church as support for Bethesda Christian University, an institution she runs in the US. The elders also view US real estate purchased by the university for around US$15 million as having been bought with church money.” (Source)
In the corporate statement dated 28 June 2012, Pastor Aries Zulkarnain also states that “no profit was gained by the individuals concerned” (source)
Just highlighting the similarities and at the same time wonder how this has got anything to do with the deeds already done. After all, how would these “reliable sources” know, and can we believe a statement based on unnamed “reliable sources”?
4) Complain is only made by the minority
According to the statement made by the CHC Management Board in 2011, the complain was made by 29 of over 800 elders, hence the implied treatment is that to ignore the minority’s view. If this is not a leading symptom of groupthink, I really don’t know what to call it.
Me thinks that when the minority’s alternate opinion is faced with the majority’s, in a highly charged environment with a charismatic leader, there’s no guessing whose opinion – no matter how truthful or factual will be dismissed. Just think Roland Poon.
Monkey See, Monkey Try to Outdo? Or Flocking Together Birds of Same Feather?
If we examine the associations Pastor Kong Hee has with his group of “spiritual fathers” and good friends (let’s not talk about the advisory pastor pair of Phil Pringle and AR Bernard now – will examine them in due time), it is surprising what we can find:
1) Steve Munsey: Regular weekend service and conference speaker in CHC from 2008 to 2011
– Over-indulgence in personal benefits, while failing to make mortgage repayments, resulting in foreclosure order
Kong Hee – The Successor to Abraham Alex and Yonggi Cho
In the May 2010 Asia Conference, Dr Cho have laid hands on Pastor Kong and handed the baton to him. It seems that he is the designated successor to Dr Cho, who prophesied that he will outdo his accomplishments.
In another meeting in Indonesia, Alex Abraham also named Pastor Kong to be his successor and prophesied over him that he will have “full vindication” from the Lord. (video recording of service available upon request – link private after being removed)
What is the outcome of such laying on of hands is still to be seen in the coming months, but if there’s any potential of impartation, then whatever is on the hands of the imparter will certainly go to the impartee – might not be a good thing after all.
Bottom line in the Dr Cho case, is that, in the own words of the Management Board, he is “innocent until proven guilty” and all have waited until “due process of the law is complete”. And sorry to note, their “reliable sources” who claimed that this was a “civil suit” have failed them again – it’s a criminal proceeding.
If past history is a good gauge of future occurrences, then everything that was ever said by them just fell to the ground. This is certainly not a happy day for Christianity in Singapore and the world. They can always blame their sources for misleading them, anyway.
We hope that Senior District Judge See Kee Oon takes note of Mr Foong claiming God spoke to him saying, “Son, speak to the judge”.
Foong later claimed, “initially I was quite upset, but then I know where they are coming from… They are definitely very troubled”. The “troubled” that Foong mentioned were “two defendants” that “came to [his] office seeking prayer”. So God wanted Foong Daw Ching to say to the judge that those two defendants are “are definitely very troubled”?
Who does Foong Daw Ching think he is?
Isn’t this cult-like behaviour to use God to speak like this to a judge? In Foong’s mind, who is this judge to now think he has the right to have an opinion on these “two defendants” contrary to what God said to him?
And since God is speaking to Foong Daw Ching, why doesn’t he ask God to fix his faulty memory so he can help the court?
We bring this to our readers attention for this reason: CHC’s Advisory Pastor, CHC ‘Apostle’ and ‘Prophet’ gave this “Apostolic proclamation and blessing” over Kong Hee and Sun Ho back in his 2011 Presence Conference.
“In Jesus name, Father we pronounce victory. [Crowd cheers]. We pronounce conquering. We pronounce deliverance in JESUS NAME. NOT ONE NIGHT WILL THIS FAIR HEAD SPEND BEHIND BARS. LORD GOD YOUR NAME IS EXALTED. YOU WILL GLORIFY THE NAME OF JESUS to this great man and his wife and that awesome church that they have built by the power of God and in the name of Jesus…” [Read/Listen to more here]
We’ve revealed that Phil Pringle of the C3 Church movement has mislead the general Singaporean public about his past, which has led many in CHC to believe he is an “Apostle”. We have continually revealed that Pringle has uttered false prophecies proving he is a false prophet. We have continually exposed how he uses his platform, prophecies and pouts to discredit anyone who has issues with his leadership. In fact, we know that he has huge issues with people (especially his leaders) visiting our site. In his eyes (or God’s) we are “very troubled”. And Pringle’s henchmen and members continually defend what “God is doing” at C3 and dismiss those that oppose them as “troubled”. This attitude is also evident as we have now seen in CHC leadership.
Is this not the height of arrogance? Should we be surprised the world mocks the church for this ludicrousy? Should we be shocked that Jesus calls those who “prophesy”, those who claim to “hear God” and “speak on his behalf” “lawless ones”? (Matt 7:15-23.)
We hope that the court comes to realise they are not dealing with a biblical ‘elder’. They are not dealing with ‘pastors’ of a ‘church’. They are dealing with leaders of a cult. This means Foong Daw Ching fails the biblical requirements laid out in Titus 1:5-9. Specifically, he is disqualified as an elder (see bold),
“This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”
A true biblical elder would NOT remain in a church like CHC that continually desecrates the name of Jesus, His gospel and His Word. As we’ve seen, the CHC leadership is not even faithful with the basic handling of God Himself and His Holy scriptures. If a cult like this can get away with mishandling the basics of the Christian faith (either deliberately or unintentionally), it is only a matter of time before they are back in the courts over another issue that is badly mishandled. The Singaporean churches and the government need to approach issues within CHC with much wisdom.
The Straits Times reports,
Auditor: God told me to speak to the judge
SINGAPORE – Court proceedings for the City Harvest trial kicked off on Thurday with a surprise request by prosecution witness Foong Daw Ching to tell the judge “something from my heart”.
Senior District Judge See Kee Oon allowed it.
Mr Foong said that while he was sleeping the night before, “this voice kept coming to me, and as a Christian, I believe this voice must be from God. He said, ‘Son, speak to the judge.'”
The 63-year-old auditor said he was “hurt” that in the past few days, the defence accused him of distancing himself from City Harvest Church. He then pointed out that two of the accused had, in fact, taken advantage of him during a recent meeting.
Mr Foong had met John Lam and Tan Ye Peng last December to discuss the case. It was revealed this week that the two church leaders filed their own notes on what Mr Foong said in case he changed his tune.
Mr Foong said they did not tell him they were taking notes. They had asked to meet him to pray together, and he agreed as he is “an elder and a Christian counsellor”.
“Two of the defendants came to my office seeking prayer, yet they took the opportunity to record, thinking that I may say something otherwise.. for some safety,” he said.
When he found out about this during the trial, “initially I was quite upset, but then I know where they are coming from… They are definitely very troubled”, he said.
Mr Foong also wanted to restate what he knew about the six accused and City Harvest, but the judge disallowed it as the defence is still cross-examining him.
Defence lawyers have sought to show that church leaders looked up to Mr Foong and trusted his advice, and that his consistent denial that he gave them detailed guidance on various transactions was “breaking their hearts”.
Tessa Wong, Auditor: God told me to speak to the judge, The Straits Times, http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/auditor-god-told-me-speak-judge, Sep 22, 2013. (Accessed 27/01/2014.)
It is concerning that Phil Pringle is keeping his C3 Oxford Falls leaders and congregation and his entire network of C3 churches in his movement in the dark.
This article from the blog ‘Not Under The Table’ gives a great overview and catch up for those not yet up to date with the whole Kong Hee saga. If you are involved in a C3 Church, feel free to pass this article onto other C3 members so they can understand CHC’s situation.
The blog ‘Not Under The Table’ writes,
Why It Is NOT Unacceptable That the CHC Trial is Taking So Long…
Recently read about a blog article ranting about why the CHC trial is taking so long. I would like to offer my personal opinion why it is reasonable the trial is taking so long.
The author wrote:
“This whole trial that is already well known as the CHC saga, is amazingly soon entering into its 4th year of prosecutorial indictment, yet up to this point there is no clear sight of where this is going.”
I disagree – so far the DPP’s flow has been rather consistent – first to establish the conflicting relationship between Xtron and CHC in the first 2 tranches, and then to establish if the auditors were dealt with a sleight of hand to pass the audit without awareness of the underlying issues. Maybe we can consider that majority of the prosecution witnesses are loyal supporters of Kong Hee and CHC which they attend, and be surprised at their apparent amnesia. The DPP is indeed having a difficult task ahead.
It has so far been established in the first 2 tranches that:
1) church funds were used without member’s consent/knowledge to fund Sun Ho’s Hollywood project – it was a well established fact even before Asia Conference 2008 that Sun Ho’s singing career is funded out of “her own success” in album sale, not from the church. The leadership of CHC have reiterated this point many times, until the u-turn when they were charged.
2) church parties such as the senior pastor and the then management board have lied about the use of church funds via the media (papers/Roland Poon apology/numerous AGM/EOGM/etc)
The author wrote:
“For a nation known for its efficiency in civil service administration, it is unbelievable that this trial has taken unreasonably long to conclude. As it is today from the news we read, it is nowhere near a conclusive verdict, as it is reported that this famous church trial would stretch to as far as September 2014 at least. Friends and colleagues of mine interested in the case and with whom I chatted over the usual coffee or lunch, commented that no one knows for sure if this trial that is known to almost all of Singapore would even conclude by September 2014. Now this is of even greater concern for me.” Again, if we understand what is happening, the delay is understandable, and here’s why:
1) The nation is indeed known for its efficiency in civil service administration. But we need to consider that there are 6 individuals under trial now (more may possibly be included as the trial progresses). Aligning the PTC dates to the schedule of the Judge, DPP and the defense lawyers is already a major challenge – the trail only started almost ONE YEAR after they were charged, with no less than 3 PTCs passing by. Do not be surprised this trial goes into 2015 (if we factor in the date for verdict and possible sentencing), and 2016 (for appeals and others)
The document outlines deeds that were not even heard in court yet, such as:
a) Misrepresentation on the Use of the Charity’s Funds
b) Use of the Charity’s Funds to Fund the Project
c) Schemes to Avoid Disclosure on Related Party Transactions
d) Governance and Control Issues
The court is still scratching on the surface of the charges to lay a foundation to the saga with issues relating to Xtron Pte Ltd.
The author wrote:
“As a Christian & a keen observer of this trial that has great implications to the religious society of Singapore, I am worried that this long protracted trial that is apparently going to go on for even longer, has now given rise to more questions than the initial outrage over the news of the alleged fraud of these City Harvests Church leaders. I am pretty sure I would not be the only one with these questions in mind, as people from the professional marketplace have resonated with my observations as well. ”
It has indeed given rise to more questions, as more things get revealed in court, just to name a few:
1) why did the senior pastor and its management board lie to its own members who contributed the funds if they had agreed to the strategy to be “covert” in their evangelistic outreach?
2) why did the senior pastor kong hee write a letter to the American producers to bad-mouth his good friend and a well-known Pnw leader Darlene Zschech, claiming that the gospel singer to be a threat to Sun Ho who sang songs like “China Wine” and “You Stupid”
3) Why does the leadership have to hide from it’s EMs the identity of the American record company that managed Sun Ho? (Tonos Entertainment which was defunct in 2003)
4) As revealed in the second tranche, why did 2 of the accused (John Lam and Tan Ye Peng) “take advantage” of auditor Foong Daw Chin by asking him to “pray together” with them but used the meeting to discuss matters related to the case and then recording his conversation? I mean, what do they have to fear if God is with them and they have done no wrong?
5) why the u-turn about the funding of Sun Ho’s Hollywood career? All along she was portrayed as the mascot and role model of the cultural mandate – being a “successful” pop star and funding her own businesses (e.g skin) and pop career out of her own successful earnings, not taking a single cent from the church. Now the entire story changed and suddenly her personal pop career became a project funded by the church.
The author wrote:
“First, the obvious, why is this trial taking so long? The uneasy part about this is that this first question actually leads to more questions following. For a start, I mean, if the criminal offences and charges against the CHC accused leaders were clear and well substantiated, why does it take so long to prove? Surely it does not take more than 3 years to prove if someone has stolen or pocketed money? One of the longest court trials in the history of Singapore was the well-known insider trading criminal case trial of ex-Deputy Chairman of UOB Mr Allan Ng back in 1989 that was handled by then Deputy Prosecutor Glenn Knight. That trial took a total of 77 days and it was then a record and still is.”
So I say, why do you think the trial will be quick? The content of the charges and the trial relates to to events which took place up to 2010 and not beyond. Based on that summarized annex alone, it should be up to the leaders to prove their innocent and have been above reproach in the things they do as religious leaders of the largest church in Singapore. Surely their claims of innocence contradicts the lies they openly told with the lack of accountability? Duh!
Mr Allan Ng’s case involves only ONE person – not 6 individuals each with the representation of a SC (with the exception of Kong Hee). If you look at it, 77 x 6 = ??
Don’t even try to imply that the wrongful prosecution of Alan Ng by then DPP Glen Knight is comparable to this case – they are miles apart to draw a parallel.
The author wrote:
City Harvest Church leaders’ trial is already seen today as one of the longest running trials in Singapore history, and it might just be the record breaker of all time.
Isn’t that what the leadership would wish for? To be top of everything? They have certainly took the world by storm and outdone their initial goals to take Asia by storm!
The author wrote:
The average Singaporean would question – why are we taking so much time with this and using up far more of our taxpayers’ money to administer and solve a case that is supposed to be solved maybe even a year or two ago? Honestly, if every criminal case that warrants judicial prosecution and court trial takes 4-5 years to close, would we be showing any efficiency in our civil service administration? Would it not reflect an inefficient (- a variant of wasted) use of taxpayers’ money by taking excessively long to solve a legal case?
Honestly, if they were innocent, and they were doing something good and honorable to their God, and have never misused a single cent, why bother to even engage SCs, and have to burden the members to provide for legal fund out of their pocket? IS not their financial burden heavy enough?
On the contrary, the government has the responsibility to ensure justice and order is maintained for the good of Singapore and her citizens, AT ALL COST. And it is precisely the government’s goal to provide a fair trial that they are now given their time and chance to defend – let’s hope the defense make it snappy by providing somesubstantial evidence to explain their deeds and innocence, rather than resort to theatrics and off-the-note recording of prosecution witness conversations as a means of defense. To that note, no taxpayer’s monies will be wasted in providing every Singaporean a fair trial. So please encourage them to save taxpayer’s money.
The author wrote:
Now all these beg even more questions for an average news reader. Observers now are asking a little more seriously, does the Prosecution now even have a case or not? Based on media reports, it is starting to show that the Prosecution witnesses were not providing any strong evidences against the accused, with the witnesses often ended up contradicting themselves and some of the Prosecution’s own witnesses in fact turned out to be witnesses to testify that there could be no legal wrong or criminal breach of trust in the way the church’s funds were used.
I think this is subjective – many observers not from CHC knows that the 6 have no case based on common sense – a religious leader and his management board had to lie to fund his wife’s singing career in the pretext of evangelism, using the monies on extravagance. Again, if we look into who these prosecution witnesses are, we may understand their contradiction and selective amnesia. But anyway, like I have opined earlier, the DPP is still building their case, which looks strong compared to the defense who could only prove that the auditors were aware about the Xtron bonds. The defense at best are arguing on technicalities – honestly – does a work of God really need that?
The author wrote:
Then there is this huge unanswered question that stood out starkly – why are freewill church goers of CHC not allowed to raise their own freewill family church money to support their own pastors? With the hefty legal fees needed to engage such experienced Senior Counsels, it was told that many church members are willing to support their spiritual leaders financially because their church pastors and leaders are still dear to them, but even members of the public are asking why is there even such an arbitrary restriction by the Government (through the Commissioner of Charities) on a Church’s own members’ personal freedom to raise their own money and give out of their own pocket? As a Christian believer & Singapore citizen, I see in two angles, through the eyes of my Christian faith and the eyes of my citizenship rights under the Constitution of Singapore. And I must say I am deeply concerned and worried about this particular restriction on a Christian Church whose members are as much a human and a citizen as would any other Singaporean. To me it is already unconstitutional to put such an unlawful restriction on personal freedom to raise and donate money.
You may wish to refer to the Comissioner of Charity’s role to answer this question. They have a duty to protect the members of the public (church goers included). The DPM is very clear that this case do not involve City Harvest Church but only individuals who were charged for various offenses. I believe that the prohibition has to do with protecting the member’s money – refer to how the MPA were collected, thereby reducing the monies given to the church general and building fund for operations and building related purposes. Personal opinion to CHC members – do not give anything to the funds first – save it and give it as a lump sum until the verdict is given. Your stewardship of your money will find better use.
The author wrote:
As this CHC trial protracts further, I am especially worried about Singapore’s legal efficiencies and credibility of its legal applications.
It is understandable for someone involved with the 6 individuals and the church to be emotionally charged, but Singapore remains one of the legally efficient and credible countries in the world.
The author wrote:
I seriously hope to see an immediate change to the length at which this CHC trial takes to end, as it has become unacceptable to have the case taking that long to conclude, for reasons I have covered earlier. I also wish to see a clear demonstration that natural justice and moral justice are not put in jeopardy as the case unfolds in court. If the Prosecution truly does not have a case convincing enough to prove criminal wrongdoing, the judiciary should just not delay further the already protracted case but render a just verdict as it becomes due. Members of the City Harvest Church should also be allowed to raise money of their own as a sign of their own love and affection for their friends and leaders in need. For the Christians, the Church is a family. You don’t put a law to stop a family from loving each other and giving alms to support those in need. And that is just basic human right. And more than that, a family right.
The undergoing trial now is a demonstration of natural justice in place. As for moral justice, a good place to start will be for the leaders to address the lies and contradicting statements made to the members – every single one of it.
The country do not put a law to stop a family from loving each other and giving alms to support those in need; instead, the country legislates to protect a family loving each other and generous in their giving to those in need from individuals seeking to exploit their trust and generosity, wolves dressed up in sheep clothing.
Perhaps the witnesses called upon can help shorten the trial by remembering key information than transpired.
An overview about “Crossover Project”
For many CHC members who joined the church from 2004 onward, they may not be aware of some developments. Much of the corporate communication found in the internet today regarding “Crossover Project” were backdated or new info designed to provide consistency with the “stories” today. New info taken from past records will be released to address them as the trial progresses.
Generally, the Crossover comprises of two phases – Phase one began in 2002 and is primarily targeting Asian countries (Taiwan/HK/Malaysia/Singapore) with Sun With Love (2002) up to 2005. It was largely a success with many souls saved in Taiwan and Hong Kong, and resulted in a shift in the overall Christian population in those countries. Xtron at that point acts as Sun Ho’s agent, as well as master to the Expo lease (2005-2011). It was maintained that the funding for the project/humanitarian works came from the proceeds of Sun Ho’s mandarin album sales as well as sponsorship by Wahyu Hanafi. But now we know the sponsorship involves Xtron and Firna Glassware bonds.
Crossover phaase 2 comprises the foray into Hollywood and projects to the above-mentioned countries halted when Sun Ho changed her objective to penetrate the Hollywood market, supposedly “talent spotted” by an American Production company for USD5m contract (we know who the company is now, and who funded the shell company). Results of this come in the form of singles like China Wine, Fancy Free, You Stupid, etc. The ultimate objective is to penetrate China through her success in USA, which was deemed to be the strategic key China would open its door. Interestingly, many Taiwanese and Hong Kong artistes need not take that route to become big names in China. It is in this second phase that the much talked about Xtron bonds and relationship with CHC were the subject. Again, it was maintained that no church funds were ever used – that pop culture is strictly Sun’s personal project – you may cross reference to Kong Hee’s blog post titled “whole shallowness” as well as various public announcements he made.
Collectively, Crossover phase one and two were known as a part of the “Cultural Mandate” period which started in 2001/early 2002 by Pastor Kong Hee under the influence of Dr AR Bernard’s teaching on “Kristos Kai Kosmos”, and other notable preachers such as Phil Pringle and Ulf Ekman. The key thrust of Cultural Mandate is to influence society through being culturally relevant Christians in 7 key pillars of society: Religion, Family, Business, Education, Government, Arts and Entertainment and Media.
It is rather disappointing to learn that Cultural Mandate overlooked core basic Christian foundations such as honesty, faithfulness and accountability, choosing to use deception, misrepresentation, bullying (e.g. Roland Poon) and legalites as its key thrusts.
Group-Think at Work?
I’m trying to understand why people can act in such a way in the face of clearly established key facts, and I could only suspect group-think. It could also be the hold on religion – the fear of testifying against “God’s anointed”. But the bible clearly instructs all men to be a truthful and to judge those in the house. My opinion is that the judge and DPP will certainly need to understand the hold of the dynamics of religion and the culture within CHC to cut right through the cloud of fluff.
Source: By notunderthetable, Not Under The Table, Why It Is NOT Unacceptable That the CHC Trial is Taking So Long…, http://notunderthetable.blogspot.sg/2014/01/why-it-is-unacceptable-that-chc-trial.html, 19/01/2014. (Accessed 20/01/2014.)
“Emily and I want to update you on some news about our family and the circumstances that has arisen. Over two years ago we purchased property from some folks who are currently under a federal investigation in pursuit for multiple proprieties. These individuals and the bank that provided the financing were allegedly involved in illegal behaviour.
Although we had no knowledge of their misbehaviour, we’ve been required to participate with the federal government in this case since we were the buyers. This has put us in a very difficult position and cooperation was not an option in the matter. Our testimony now is a very critical part of the case against these individuals.
You may have seen information about this in the media. And if so, please realise that the media is very good at misconstruing facts, which is misleading at best. Nevertheless, it sells papers. We cannot control what the media does or how they represent the circumstance. But let me assure you church, the facts of the matter have been given to our overseers and a team of leaders within the church.”
Moving along, the Citizen-Times reports,
ASHEVILLE — Three men were sentenced to federal prison Tuesday for their roles in an elaborate scheme to obtain more than $23 million in illegal loans to forestall failure of the bankrupt Seven Falls development.
Robert Craig Gourlay, David G. Smith and Nicholas Dimitris conspired with developer Keith Vinson in a case that Judge Martin Reidinger described at the hearing as “a scourge on this community.”
“This is a case where the concerted actions of a few people brought down two banks,” the judge said in U.S. District Court in Asheville. “Not only was it serious wrongdoing, it was very harmful wrongdoing.”
Reidinger sentenced Gourlay, chief credit officer at Pisgah Community Bank, to 15 months in prison. Smith, a loan officer with the bank, received nine months. Dimitris, a minister and real estate investor, got 12 months.
Seven Falls filed for bankruptcy in 2009. The luxury development was planned to accommodate 900 homes and an Arnold Palmer-designed golf course on 1,400 acres, potentially adding $1.25 billion to Henderson County’s tax base.
Prosecutors said Vinson had “straw borrowers” take out illegal loans to buy lots in hopes of preventing foreclosure. Vinson was unable to borrow more money because of rules designed to limit banks’ exposure to any one borrower.
Gourlay and Smith authorized loans involving millions of dollars to straw borrowers, while Dimitris served as such a borrower on loans made by the bank, receiving kickbacks in return, according to criminal complaints filed in 2011.
The three are among 10 codefendants who reached plea deals with prosecutors, leaving only Vinson to stand trial. He was convicted by a jury last month on all 13 counts he was charged with, including conspiracy to commit bank fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States, misapplication of bank funds, wire fraud and money laundering.
Reidinger ordered Vinson held without bond until sentencing. He faces up to 30 years in prison, according to prosecutors.
The judge said that in sentencing of Gourlay, Smith and Dimitris, he took into account their cooperation with the government in the case against Vinson. Gourlay and Dimitris testified at the trial.
But Reidinger pointed out that Bank of Asheville and Pisgah Community Bank failed as a result of the scheme. Such crimes serve to undermine the banking system, he said.
“When citizens don’t have confidence in the banking system, the economy collapses,” the judge said.
Prosecutors said Vinson began Seven Falls with a $25 million bank loan to be repaid with money from the sale of lots. He ran out of money in 2008, when the economy tanked and sales dried up. That’s when Vinson and his fellow conspirators came up with a “lot loan scheme” involving straw borrowers.
Former Bank of Asheville President George Gordon “Buddy” Greenwood pleaded guilty to bank fraud charges and was sentenced in May 2012 to four years in federal prison. According to court records, Greenwood was involved in illegal loans to Vinson totaling nearly $6.8 million.
Vinson and six other codefendants, including former Pisgah Community Bank President Thomas “Ted” Durham Jr., await sentencing.
“Steven Furtick’s financial empire was built with BLOOD MONEY — money earned twisting God’s Word, preaching false doctrine & deceiving people IN THE NAME OF JESUS.” – Chris Rosebrough, 23/10/2013.
Could the same be said of Phil Pringle of C3 Church and Brian Houston of Hillsong Church?
In the last few months, people have been hassling or giving us links to report on the lavish lifestyle of Phil and Chris Pringle, Senior Pastors and Founders of the C3 Church Movement. The Pringle’s recently purchased a $3.5 million house and had no problem flaunting their lifestyle on twitter or instagram.
It’s been reported in the past that Brian Houston and his wife Bobbie have property deals of up to $1.4 million and that they are tenants of waterfront properties at Bondi Beach and the Hawkesbury River that they sold to LMI. Not to mention, it was reported that Houston said his total salary was “just over $300 000″.
Just recently, Steven Furtick (close associate of Phil Pringle and Brian Houston), has come under scrutiny over his $1.7 million house and his CEO approach to church ministry. Before looking at some news articles, we thought it would be good to provide an article and some links from the Pajama Pages blog on this issue. After reading the Pajama Pages articles, we have media articles reporting on Furtick’s mansion. We hope these articles help you understand the nature of how mega churches like C3 and Hillsong run.
Pajama Pages reports,
The problem with businessmenpastors. A reader’s contribution
A comment in the Walt White article is impressively on point that I think it deserves to be read by people who may not have made it to the end of that article. PP reader, Josh, posted the following this afternoon:
The problem with Furtick isn’t that he’s rich, or even that he’s a rich pastor. The problem is that he’s rich because he’s a pastor. If professing Christian Steven Furtick started a successful bakery, retail store or construction company in 2006 that was incredibly successful, so much so that he could buy a $3 million home, few would criticize him for enjoying his earnings. In fact, the world and people in the church generally look favorably on successful Christian businessmen. No one questions how Truett Cathy spends his Chick-fil-a money, for example.
The problem is that Furtick and others got their money by turning the church into a business. Pastors like Furtick are obsessed with business leadership because they fashion themselves as the CEO and identify more with celebrity CEOs like Steve Jobs than with non-celebrity pastors. Decisions are made by the CEO to build the brand, to create a larger customer base, to increase the giving margin, and to expand into new opportunities. Church personnel decisions are made in the same way. Is the youth pastor growing the youth brand? Is the worship pastor stylish enough? While such decisions are constrained at some point by biblical considerations…they aren’t going to hire a guy who publicly rejects the Bible…the biblical standards of Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 aren’t really considerations.
This creates two problems, though. One, churches aren’t businesses and aren’t supposed to be run as such. There is nothing wrong with Macy’s developing a non-fraudulent pricing and promotional strategy designed to extricate consumers with as many spending dollars as possible. Macy’s should offer products and services designed to produce high margin income. But churches aren’t businesses. The pastor shouldn’t spend time developing (or, more likely, purchasing from consultants) “offering talks,” or message series, or coaching services, or conferences with a goal of increasing the church’s income. The church shouldn’t be selling books and t-shirts and lattes and Bibles or anything else. God’s house is not a house of merchandise!
So when the Furticks of the Christian world stand up and talk about money (and they talk about money a lot!) it sounds a lot like Macy’s running television commercials for their two-day After-Thanksgiving sale. When they preach on tithing (a subject on which Bible-believing Christians can easily disagree), it sounds self-serving because it is self-serving. Is it Furtick the preacher of God’s Word talking, or Furtick the CEO of Elevation Church, Inc. talking? Nothing has changed in two thousand years. A pastor cannot serve two masters.
The second problem is the conflict of interest between the company (the church) and the CEO (the pastor.) Former GM CEO Charles Wilson reportedly once claimed that “What’s good for GM is good for the country.” (A misquote, but that’s not the point here.) Celebrity CEO pastors seem to believe that what’s good for the Lead Pastor is good for the church. That’s why they freely write and promote books on the church’s time and bring in other celebrity CEO pastors to “teach” (with undisclosed and sizable speaking fees). Does Furtick invite Craig Groeshel to teach for $____ because Groeshel brought in Furtick to teach at Lifechurhc for $_____? No one knows because it’s all a big, big secret. Is the five-week sermon series on “Sun Stand Still Prayers” for the edification of the church, or to promote the CEO’s new book, which is conveniently for sale in the church bookstore. Building the CEO’s profile will help him sell books, increase his demand as a guest speaker, and feed his ego. But does it benefit the church? None of your business.
The clear conflict of interest is exacerbated by an utter lack of accountability. Sure, if Furtick gets caught sleeping with his cute personal assistant (which has happened in at least two smaller CEO-style churches I’m aware of), he couldn’t salvage his position. But no one from inside his inner circle is going to question his business dealings, his use of church time to work on and promote his books, his purchase of his own and friends’ books by the church, his speaking fee at churches with mutual relationships, or his promotional choice of message series. Anyone from the inside who did ask such impertinent questions would suddenly find themselves on the outs, and in a personality-driven organization, loss of access to the leader is a dire sanction. Outsiders in the media or blog may ask questions, but they won’t get answers. And the rank and file members will stay on and keep giving…
… Related Posts:
For a very long period of time we have seen Pringle play word games and use deceptive means to convince people that his prophetic 2020 Vision from God is being fulfilled. The reason why we are tackling this issue now is because of recent footage we managed to find online.
In our first article we established that Pringle had received a ‘God-give’ vision to PLANT 1000 churches by the year 2020.
In this article we will examine how Phil Pringle is purposely going out of his way to convince his members that his church is PLANTING churches daily to ‘fulfill’ the 2020 vision.
IS PHIL PRINGLE YOUR HABAKKUK?
In the past, we critiqued a giving sermon that had Pringle twist the definition of ‘church plant’. We were being overtly cautious at the time because we believed our critics would accuse us falsely of making up the transcript or find some minor fault with us if we accused Phil Pringle of being highly deceptive.
In our “Let Me Just Talk To You Out Of A Scripture…” article, we think it is important to reiterate the following information:
In his message Phil Pringle does not seem to know basic arithmetic:
56 people + 36 wanting to plant a church + 16 churches rebranded + 2 church plants ≠ 120 Church Plants
We are almost forced to believe that Dr. Phil Pringle doesn’t have a basic knowledge of church missions and biblical terminology. Pringle is calling ‘church planting’ a “group of pastors” to be “thirty six churches” and “a guy in Bulgaria who has sixteen churches” who possibly “wants to hook” into the C3 movement…
Pringle continues to make dishonest and unsupported claims suggesting that his organisation is responsible for one church being planted every day in Jesus’ name. Pringle says, “I know you were doubting out there but it’s okay. I have my moments too. And so you and I believing together- we’ll start to see ten churches a day being planted and growing”…
Pringle begins to mix his phrases through his address so that it becomes difficult to know what Pringle actually means…
… previously in his message to garner funding he only talked about the number of churches that were being added to his movement, not how many people “will come to Christ all around the world today”. We can rightly conclude he is still talking about the 120 churches he was talking about previously because he confirmed that these churches were coming into the C3 Movement, “right now in Jesus’ name. That’s just in four weeks time”.
Pringle continues, “That’s just in the existing churches. Now once thesenew ones are coming in. And they come into Christ, they become disciples, they become empowered and they become ministries themselves”
It is important to ask whether more accurately these alleged thousands being saved from his aforementioned C3 church ‘plants’ are not rather those people in existing churches being rebranded into the C3 fold. This is flawed thinking to confuse such people who join the C3 banner with salvation into Christ. The conclusions we come too after such dialogue is not good.
If Pringle is saying churches who join C3 “come into Christ, …become disciples,” “become empowered” and “become ministries themselves”, that would make C3 a cult. That is, if Pringle believes their movement is the only true church with the right teachings and formulas for salvation then he himself has set his movement to be a cult…
The sermon that we critiqued was given on the 24th of October, 2010. We managed to get video footage of Phil Pringle later that week repeating the same false material to his staff and C3 college students.
First we want to show a video snippet that features Pringle at the start of his sermon portraying himself as a type of Habakkuk. In this snippet, Pringle stresses that leaders shouldn’t have a vision but a ‘God Vision’. As he is the leader, Pringle attempts to establish at the beginning of this sermon that he is a ‘leader’ leading by ‘example’ with his ‘God Vision’. Pringle is the Habbakuk of C3. He is the watchman and knows the future where the movement is heading. He has the vision to go forward. (Heaven forbid you question his infallible God-given direction.)
Here is the video. Below is the transcript.
“I just want to touch on a few things here today for all of us. As students and staff. Number one, is uh- vision: the importance of it. And how much we need that if we’re gonna change this world. We won’t achieve anything without a vision. But it needs to be a God vision. Okay?
Just having a vision is really not the answer. And so in all the business manuals and coaching, training, you’ll hear about how important vision is. But that’s just a vision people are dreaming up in their own mind. We need to have a God vision inside of us.” – Phil Pringle, 00:16, C3 Church Sydney and C3 College combined staff and students meeting 27 October 2010, http://vimeo.com/16260821, October 27, 2010 6:30 PM.
“Empowering saints is giving. Is delegation. It’s getting people to do things for God. And- and uh, (hm-hm!), so we- we want to release people all the time to get stuff done. And I think it’s awesome! Every- I mean, every week, just about, we see a brand new musician up on the stage. And uh- to get people preaching in chapel. All these things. But the ultimate goal is that we will get people to plant churches and grow churches all around the world.
In the last- uh- (I haven’t- I haven’t done a really detailed study on this though). Well let me- let me explain this. And I mentioned it on Sunday but for those who didn’t hear, I’ll say it again.
In Bali, (which was what? Four weeks ago? Four weeks ago? I think it was. One month? Yeah. [Crowd laughs] Thanks! Thanks Jake! It wasn’t four weeks. It was a month ago), and ah- In Bali, we had our South- East Asia conference, okay.
So a guy comes out. He says, “I’m joining the movement with my churches”. I said, “How many churches have you got?” He said, “Forty eight 48”. In a place called Myanmar [Burma]. So I said, “Okay”. And I really wanted to clear this up. I said, “It’s not just you joining? You’re actually- all these guys are coming?”
“Yep.”
Then another guy from Indonesia, (Philippines, sorry!), he was joining with eight churches. And then we were celebrating planting two churches at that time. All up that’s fifty eight churches. Right there, okay, four weeks ago. Then, another one of our overseers, has just come back from Indonesia. And he says, uh, he’s just having, he’s got thirty six churches just on their way in as well. That’s- ah- how many’s that? Ninety- ninety- four! Ninety four churches, okay?
Then, ah, in- in Africa, East Africa, the uh, the guys over there said they got about a hundred pastors and leaders. And there were thirty churches in Tanzania, Congo, bla-bla-bla, somewhere else. I thought, “I don’t know if they’re brand new or half new or whatever”. So I thought, “Oh! Just count half of them”. So that’s like a hundred and- that’s a hundred and ten. Hundred and nine actually.
Then Simon told me that he’s talking to a guy in Bulgaria. Ah- who is a really good guy. He’s got sixteen churches. And he is also hooking up. He’s got a big church, one of the biggest in Bulgaria. It’s about six hundred. That’s a big church in that part of the world. So that’s one hundred and twenty. One hundred and twenty churches in one month. That adds up to a growth rate of around about four churches a day. Okay? You know, like- I s- I- I know! I know! So, what are you doing here?
You’re getting ready to look after these churches. You’re getting ready to grow these churches.” – Phil Pringle, 24:16, C3 Church Sydney and C3 College combined staff and students meeting 27 October 2010, http://vimeo.com/16260821, Uploaded October 27, 2010 6:30 PM.
SO WHAT? WHAT ARE WE SEEING?
Let us believe Phil Pringle for a moment. Let us establish for a second that the 2020 Vision IS from God. Pringle has emphatically stated that this 2020 ‘God Vision’ or ‘God-given vision’ is to PLANT 1000 churches. But what are we seeing? We are seeing a man trying to convince his various audiences that the 2020 Vision is being fulfilled for the glory of God.
But were 120 churches PLANTED in his movement over one month? No.
If Pringle was following the ‘God Given’ 2020 vision, he would be planting churches and not rebranding, converting or assimilating churches into his movement. If he is not planting church, isn’t Pringle opposing the ‘God Given’ 2020 Vision?
What else are we seeing? Let’s say that those 120 church joined the C3 movement. What does this mean?
It means that a third of his churches were established in ONE MONTH. If any person examined his claim in ratio to the current number of churches in his movement a few months later, they’d know that Pringle was lying to them. Where are these church ‘plants’ today?
This actually raises more questions. Is the C3 Church Movement mainly made up of church plants or rebranded churches? If the C3 Church movement fills up with redbranded churches, does this mean that the movement itself is failing God and His 2020 Vision?
We are about to discover that the C3 movement is mainly filled with rebranded churches.
ARE CHURCHES REALLY BEING PLANTED OR REBRANDED?
Whenever a C3 Church plant is about to be undertaken in the C3 Church movement, the news is often huge. For example, leading up to it’s establishment, Phil Pringle and other leaders were monotonously advertising, Facebooking and twittering the C3 Hong Kong church plant. If churches were being planted everyday, Pringle and his leadership would be plastering the news everywhere. However, they don’t.
We would like to conclude that the majority of C3 churches are not church plants but takeovers. To say that churches are being rebranded is not accurate. A takeover is more appropriate since C3 specifically targets churches and assimilates them into it’s collective.
What should be evident in the above transcripts is how C3 uses their conferences to target and market to churches to join their movement. In the name of ‘relevancy’, a C3 conference can easily make local churches feel inadequate, boring and irrelevant. Who cares about the local church and cultural sensitivity when C3 is the answer to your church’s problem! (Who could resist the enticing relevant music, the flashy lights, and the manufactured presence of God?)
Consider again what Pringle said in the above transcripts.
“In Bali, we had our South- East Asia conference, okay.
So a guy comes out. He says, “I’m joining the movement with my churches”. I said, “How many churches have you got?” He said, “Forty eight 48”. In a place called Myanmar [Burma]…
Then another guy from Indonesia, (Philippines, sorry!), he was joining with eight churches. And then we were celebrating planting two churches at that time. All up that’s fifty eight churches…”
“And then Simon came back from the European conferenceand he met a guy in Bulgaria who has sixteen churches. And he wants to hook in as well.”
May we remind you again what Pringle said how he wanted people to see his Presence Conference:
“We really want to become more cross-denominational, not parochial about just being C3… And it’s so important that we just, you know, spill the banks, go over, lower the wall, let the water run through the city and be a blessing. And not out there just to drag people into- you know- and to get people into and- many people will get involved in what we’re doing and that’s good. But I don’t want that to be the only motivation that we have. I think that if we have the motivation to be a blessing beyond us, that would be a really good- a really good idea.” – Phil Pringle, C3 Leaders Meeting With Phil Pringle – May 2011, Youtube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgTdtB-ha0s, Uploaded by CCCOF on May 5, 2011.
So we can rule out the fact that this ‘vision’ is about ‘planting churches’. We’ve now established this to be false. While we can argue that C3 does rebrand churches, it doesn’t accurately describe the malicious scheming and marketing attempts they use to target vulnerable churches through their conferences around the world. If what is said in the transcripts is true, then one third of all C3 Churches are takeovers. However, C3 appears to inform us that they have taken over more churches than they have planted.
If people are still not convinced that the 2020 Vision is a lie, this next bit of information should convince you.
THW 20/20 VISION FAILING IN VISION
We wrote an article back in December of 2011. In it we had screen grabs and older information on the location of C3 Churches around the world .
Now the date is the 27th of October 2013. All the screengrabs you see and read below are recorded on this date.
If people visit the c3churchglobal.com website, click ‘CHURCHES’ and you will come across to this page (http://c3churchglobal.com/church):
You will be taken to this map. You will notice links at the bottom of the right hand corner: “VIEW: ALL | PLANTS”. This wasn’t available two years ago. This is recently added. If you click ‘ALL’ you will see this map:
So why does the C3 Church Global have a link to PLANTS? When you click the ‘PLANTS’ link, you will see the following map:
Going by the newer information what are we looking at? There are only seven church plants in America? Five church plants in Europe? Three church plants in Europe? Four church plants in Asia? Four in the South East Asia Pacific rim? Four in Australia? About nine in New Zealand and a few around Fiji?
With the information given, that is about fourty churches in total that C3 Church considers ‘Church Plants’. Yet the C3 movement brags of planting anywhere between 240 to 400 churches worldwide? And what are the churches in blue? Church takeovers?
If this information is true, than Phil Pringle has failed spectacularly to fulfill his 2020 Vision. If God did give Pringle the 2020 Vision, then we have the C3churchglobal website exposing Pringle for the false prophet that he is.
NOTE: We would like to ask for your help next article. If you can help us find churches that C3 has taken over, please email us links, screen grabs, testimonies or other forms of evidence. Our email is c3churchwatch@hotmail.com.
Recently Dean Sweetman has been commenting on C3 Church Watch. He is the regional director and overseer of the C3 Churches in the Americas. You can read some of his responses to the C3 Asheville scandal in the comment sections of these articles.
Before reading the below newspaper articles, please familiarise yourself with the background of the scandal that C3 Pastor Nick Dimitris was involved in and how the C3 Church leadership reacted to him.
Ask yourself this question – in light of Nick Dimitris being charged guilty in 2011, has Pastor and ‘Executive Regional C3 Americas Overseer’ Dean Sweetman handled himself well on this blog and over the scandal in Asheville? Have your say below.
The Citizen Times Reported,
2 plead guilty in Seven Falls case
ASHEVILLE — Two more defendants charged with conspiracy in an elaborate scheme to illegally obtain more than $23 million to forestall failure of the bankrupt Seven Falls development pleaded guilty this week.
Real estate investors Avery Ted “Buck” Cashion III and Raymond “Ray” Chapman Jr. each face up to five years in prison and $250,000 fines when they are sentenced, according to court records.
The defendants pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in Asheville to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States. Terms of the plea agreement with prosecutors remain sealed.
Prosecutors allege Cashion and Chapman were involved in a scheme with Seven Falls developer Keith Vinson to have “straw borrowers” buy lots in the development they did not intend to repay. Vinson was unable to borrow more money because of rules designed to limit banks’ exposure to any one borrower.
Vinson and the other remaining three defendants – accountant George M. Gabler, former Pisgah Community Bank President Thomas “Ted” Durham and retired appraiser Aaron Ollis – are scheduled to go on trial Oct. 7.
Vinson arraigned on Seven Falls indictment New Seven Falls indictment reflects co-conspirators’ pleas
ASHEVILLE — Developer Keith Vinson was arraigned Thursday on charges contained in a new grand jury indictment alleging an elaborate conspiracy to obtain more than $23 million in illegal loans to prop up his failing Seven Falls development.
The indictment replaces one filed last year as a way to streamline Vinson’s trial, which is set to begin Monday in U.S. District Court in Asheville, prosecutors said in court papers.
The superseding bill reduces the number of criminal counts from 48 to 13. The charges include conspiracy to commit bank fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States, misapplication of bank funds, wire fraud and money laundering.
Some charges carry penalties of as much as 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine.
Prosecutors said the new indictment reflects the fact that all of Vinson’s 10 alleged co-conspirators have pleaded guilty.
“In order to avoid confusing the jury,” the indictment reorders the remaining counts and updates the status of the other defendants, court records state. Since the document doesn’t add any new counts or “substantive allegations,” the government believes there’s no need to delay the trial.
According to the 27-page indictment, Vinson and others “devised and executed various schemes to defraud federally insured banks and others to forestall the failure of their luxury residential development and golf resort in Henderson County, North Carolina, known as Seven Falls.”
Three defendants who had been scheduled to be tried along with Vinson entered guilty pleas last week. Former Pisgah Community Bank President Thomas “Ted” Durham Jr. and retired appraiser Aaron Ollis each pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States. Accountant George M. Gabler pleaded guilty to withholding information about a crime.
Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell told Durham and Ollis they each face maximum sentences of five years in prison, while Gabler could spend up to three years behind bars.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Don Gast said that as part of their plea agreements with prosecutors, the defendants agreed to assist the government in the case.
Prosecutors allege Vinson and other defendants were involved in a scheme to have “straw borrowers” buy lots in the development with loans they did not intend to repay. Vinson was unable to borrow more money because of rules designed to limit banks’ exposure to any one borrower.
Seven Falls filed for bankruptcy in 2009. The luxury development was planned to accommodate 900 homes and an Arnold Palmer-designed golf course on 1,400 acres, potentially adding $1.25 billion to Henderson County’s tax base.
Weeds have overtaken the golf course, and overgrowth has made it hard to see the pro shop, one of the few structures on the property, which has suffered severe erosion.
Real estate investors Avery Ted “Buck” Cashion III and Raymond “Ray” Chapman Jr. pleaded guilty last month to one count each of conspiracy to defraud the United States.
Durham and former Bank of Asheville President George Gordon “Buddy” Greenwood “conspired to conceal the risks posed by Seven Falls-related loans from their shareholders, auditors and regulators,” court records state.
Greenwood pleaded guilty to bank fraud charges and was sentenced in May 2012 to four years in federal prison. According to court records, Greenwood was involved in illegal loans to Vinson totaling nearly $6.8 million.
Problems with Seven Falls played a key role in the fall of the Bank of Asheville. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. shut down the bank in January 2011 and transferred its assets to Troy-based First Bank because of big losses on loans.
Four other people also have pleaded guilty to being involved in schemes to make or receive straw loans. They are former Pisgah Community Bank officials Robert Craig Gourlay and David G. Smith, minister and real estate investor Nicholas Dimitris and former banker Andrew Quinn Hager.
In the early 1980s, Vinson served just more than two years in prison in Florida for felony convictions for forgery, obtaining property under false pretenses and grand theft.
He was convicted in 1982 in Jacksonville, Fla., according to records from the Duval County Clerk of Court, the Clay County Clerk of Court and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Vinson was sentenced to five years and spent 25 months in a Florida prison, receiving parole in February 1984.
Source: Clarke Morrison, Vinson arraigned on Seven Falls indictment…, The Citizen Times, http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20131004/NEWS/310040036/, 03/10/2013. (Accessed 05/10/2013.)
C3 Church Watch 