Saturday, June 12, 2010

A theological-political reflection over the happening at City Harvest Church

I have always wondered how does City Harvest Church (CHC) administer itself as a functioning organization as well as a church? This is a theological question as much as a query over the power play within the church.

Being influential over 30,000 people is power-ful. Revolutions started with much lesser number of people than that. Jesus had only twelve to start with. The abolition of slavery in the eighteen century England was carried out by the Clapham Sect. The re-instatement of theistic belief in the analytic philosophical tradition was pioneered by a few epistemologists belonging to the Reformed tradition.

As a church, the controlling principles for the organization is outrightly theological whether one is aware of it or not. Church management, and thus the deliberation of power within the church, is a specific subject in ecclesiology. The church's mission, which is often known as the driving motive of the church, is a subject of eschatology. The very message that the church is given to testify in the world throughout history is a subject of systematic theology.

My point is simply this: Theology is the soul of the church. If the soul is vague, the church is superficial. When the soul is wrong, the church is deluded.

That is the reason why, to my discernment, CHC is going through what it is going through right now. Blogpastor was previously contemplating why is "all this happening" to CHC? And I think Blogpastor is not alone. Many must be wondering over the same question. And this post is a suggestion to answer that question.

My relationship with CHC and other similar Christian organizations is always in a form of an engagement. These organizations are huge and influential. Theologians (including theologian-wannabes) are always on our toes to discern the work of God in the world because it concerns God and his creation.

Hence we are sensitive over public and private matters involving the Christian community, the socially identifiable people who are representing God and his Christ. Therefore it is natural for me personally to try to understand the currents that are sweeping over CHC out of interest as much as out of concern.

After much that has surfaced in the past two months (co-owning Suntec Convention Center, plagiarism, CAD investigation), we can now have a better sense of how everything within CHC is connected.

Theology as the soul of the church.
The founder of CHC, Kong Hee, got his theological degrees from questionable institution. However, that does not mean one’s theology is weak. On the other hand, there may be good theologians who come from institutions that are lesser known too. So one’s formal theological education does not guarantee one’s theological acumen. So Kong Hee’s degrees do not say much about the quality of his theology. We have to examine his theology to find out.

His theology on ‘Cultural Mandate’ is regretfully flimsy and dubious. Cultural Mandate, as a movement to cultivate active contribution among Christians to the flourishing of the society, is wrongly understood and propounded by Kong Hee. The integrity of the movement is blurred in Kong Hee’s misrepresentation of it.

He got the right tagline (‘Cultural Mandate’) but the wrong content. Not to mention his mistaken theological interpretation on Biblical passages that he uses to support his wrong content. Therefore it is not a surprise that Kong Hee urged his congregation of 30,000 to reiterate to one another, “Knowledge is power,” during a service dated 23rd August 2009 at Expo. To the Christians, knowledge is not power; Christ is. Kong Hee’s theology of knowledge and power have been so confused with foreign philosophies. In this case, those of Michel Foucault.

During a dialog session with one of the founding members of CHC, Wu Yu Zhuang (a.k.a Mark Goh Yock Tuan), I noticed a flimsy understanding of Christian’s engagement with cultures permeates not merely the members but also the leaders. Kong Hee’s over-simplistic understanding of ‘culture’ flowing through the organization from top to bottom. I asked Wu Yu Zhuang how does CHC understand the term ‘Cultural Mandate’ and how does the church measures ‘relevance’?

In reply, he said that CHC is being relevant to culture by the casual clothes the pastors wear, the personal styles the leaders adopt, the contemporary worship songs the church uses for their weekly services. (Even until today, I am not sure if Wu Yu Zhuang answered my questions, assuming that he understood it in the first place.)

CHC’s mistaken perception of the ‘Cultural Mandate’ is serious because that is the vision that drives the church in the past recent years. That translates there are about 30,000 people who are being deluded over a mistaken ideology. And each week, these people are being fed with this wrong idea again and again. (My best friend Steven Sim has a wonderful contribution to our understanding of 'Cultural Mandate'. Perhaps the CHC community should look into that.)

Besides having a skewed theology on ‘Cultural Mandate’, Kong Hee’s theology on prosperity is also questionable. There are many, like Stillhaventfound, sympathise Kong Hee,
I personally believe Pastor Kong Hee is innocent - this is relating to the Commercial Affairs Department (CAD) investigations. I do so because I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. I’d be surprised if a pastor like him was out to make money. I believe his vision for God’s kingdom trumps his desire for person gain.
At first glance, such kind statement is seemingly appropriate to make. And it is especially so when it concerns another Christian brother. Yet I think that statement is not fair to Kong Hee and misrepresents him.

The statement distinguishes between Kong Hee’s personal monetary aspirations from his vision for God’s kingdom, as if the latter has nothing to do with the former. To put this another way, this view suggests that the preacher of prosperity teaching is not really working around wanting to get rich but he is sincerely carrying out God’s work which has no regards to the preacher’s own personal wealth-fare. I think this distinction is false.

To those who study Kong Hee’s theology, we recognize that Kong Hee’s personal monetary aspirations and his vision for God’s kingdom have been confusingly intertwined. This is seen in his own writings. Here are two examples:
1) [The people of God--Jeremiah 29.5-7) were not to be antagonistic as a community but to seek the peace and prosperity of the world God had placed them in, knowing that if their city prospered, they too would prosper. (Link)

2) [Most Charismatics] believe that prosperity is God’s plan for the believer simply because of the abundance of Bible texts to support that. Take for example, 2 Corinthians 8:9 says, “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich.” The word, “rich” (Gr. plouteo) means to become financially wealthy and increased with goods. For most Charismatics, success and wealth are means to help the poor, better society, and fulfill the Great Commission. (Link)
Kong Hee’s theology allows him to pursue his personal monetary gain precisely as his vision for God’s kingdom. So I have no doubt that Kong Hee is a sincere man in his pursuit. That he firmly believes in what he teaches. Yet we have to be clear that the sincerity in one’s belief does not justify the wrongness of that belief. Sincerity also does not turn heterodoxy into orthodoxy. The Lausanne Theology Working Group has produced a rather fair statement examining the mistaken notion of prosperity teachings, like those of Kong Hee. Kong Hee is sincere and wrong.

Kong Hee’s and his cronies’ approach to power-play.
The beauty of a democracy is that human rights and freedom can be pursued for the common good of all.” That was what Kong Hee wrote in his reflection on the relation between religion and politics.

Though he did not comment on church’s polity, yet that statement shows that democracy is the best political system to him, as it guarantees the “common good of all.” However, Kong Hee does not exercise democratic polity in his own church. The power distribution in his organisation is structured in a way that secures Kong Hee’s and his cronies’ access to executive authority.

It is stated in CHC constitution that not all its members have the right to attend annual general meetings. “Only executive members--such as pastors, the board of directors and cell group leaders who have served at least three years--are entitled to do so,” reported in

I gathered from the dialog session with Wu Yu Zhuang that CHC distribution of power is centred on the church’s board. The ordination of reverends and pastors, the visible leaders in the church, has to be approved by the board. Kong Hee is part of the board. According to Wu Yu Zhuang, the board members are all disciples of Kong Hee. In other words, though we are told that it is the board that governs the church, yet on deeper level, it is rather apparent that the entire structure of governance in CHC is centred on Kong Hee. (Wu Yu Zhuang, as one of the founding members of CHC, regards Kong Hee as an “apostle.”)

It is expectable that people project themselves differently at places where they have no or less authority. Kong Hee’s comment on religion and politics was done with the context of him being a subject under the authority of the state. His unhesitant endorsement of democracy makes sense since democracy’s distribution of power is to the demos (the people) of which Kong Hee is one. The endorsement seems like Kong Hee’s attempt to secure a meagre slice of power for himself in the face of the overarching authoritative state.

Is Kong Hee a person who, be he consciously or sub-consciously, crave for authoritarian control? One can never be sure. Yet when we look at Kong Hee’s own governance of his organization, there is no more talk of democracy. At CHC, it looks more like a monarchy. And we know that accountability is vague under such polity. It is not too stretching to see this as a case of one man controlling the teaching and the executive authority of the church.

Overall, the persona of Kong Hee is vital to CHC as a functioning organization. What CHC is today is largely due to that one person. The mistaken theologies of 'Cultural Mandate' and prosperity propagated by Kong Hee are running deep in the congregation. He is the cornerstone that sustains the church. Unless CHC is open to accountability to the wider public (both to the theological institutions as well as the demos) rather than its own 'governing board', it is still a wonder whether can the CHC community be turned around to be a lesser deluded church. But that would mean the leadership of the church has, for the past decade, been circulating and promoting false teachings within the body of Christ. Though this will be a drastic acknowledgment on the part of CHC, yet it will not be irredeemable. Divine grace as well as the wider body of Christ are always around to build CHC up again.


kelvintan73 said...

Wow, nice reflection!

How about doing a similar research on New Creation Church, its Word of Faith theology, as well as Joseph Prince?

I am currently in that church and would be very interested in a similar piece. After all Prince is as critical to NCC as Kong Hee is to CHC.

gweek said...

Good thoughts, Joshua: thanks! I just want to correct one early inaccuracy: you claim that "the abolition of slavery in the eighteen century England was carried out by the Clapham Sect".

The slave trade was only made illegal in 1807, and slavery itself was not abolished until 1833. Also, the Clapham Sect, mostly rich Anglicans, was just one camp in the abolitionist movement. There were Quakers (famously), Methodists, and Swedenborgians as well as black writers such as Ignatius Sancho, Olaudah Equiano, and Ottobah Cugoano, among others.

sp lim said...

Thank you for your analysis. It's frightening how one person can have so much influence on so many. But it's not surprising if we were to know history.

I hope your conclusion about divine grace will become a reality so that 30,000 will not continue to be deluded.

Sze Zeng said...

Hi kelvintan73, I have a collection of chapter-by-chapter analysis of Prince's book 'Destined to Reign'. Basically that's my view on NCC.

Hi Li Sui, thank you for correcting. You are right that it was a collective movement comprising all those you mentioned. When I wrote that, I had in mind the legislative work carried out in the British Parliament in the late 1700s by William Wilberforce and the group to which he was closely affiliated to, the Clapham Sect. (For eg. Wilberforce's famous abolition speech, delivered in the House of Commons on Tuesday 12 May 1789) It was a long fight in the parliament that bears fruit only in the years that you have rightly pointed out (1807, 1833).

Hi splim, yes, CHC is not the first and wont be the last.

J Wong said...

Good job, Josh, agree with you on many points.

Let's pray that this will shake up All believers in ALL churches, to really examine what their faith means, instead of relying on pastors & teachers to spoon feed them with possibly misinterpreted like the Bereans.

Please share more when we next meet.
Shalom, brother.

her royal highness said...

Fairly said.
I've been a member of CHC for quite a while and have witnessed dramatic changes over the years in the way it functions and the content preached over the pulpit. The church does respond to correction. The prosperity gospel used to be endorsed a great deal. (That was 5-6 years back) But now I've noticed a shift away from it. Still then, the tag 'prosperity church' dies hard.
Anyway, the cultural mandate has never been about the clothes you wear and the casual approach in leadership etc. Was that you were told? It's such a heavy topic and Zhuang's summary just didn't do it justice. That's not what we learnt in CHC. Well at least that's not what I perceived.
I am interested to know how you would summarize the 'Cultural Mandate'

titanic2828 said...

Your article loses credibility with me at the end of the fourth paragraphs - "Theology is the soul of the Church". Where does the Bible say that? I only know that "Christ is the Head over the Church" and the "Holy Spirit is the head of the church". Theology is just a study. Studying has no power - not the kind of POWER that can only come from Christ and the Holy Spirit. A POWER-less church cannot be Christ's church. A POWER-ful church on the other hand must be a megachurch because Christ attracts people.

Steven Sim said...

Christ attracts people! Amen! Amen! Amen!

...just like Hitler and Stalin and if I remember the Bible correctly, the eschatological fake-christs as well.

I just hope the sincere crowd who claims to gather in Christ's name is really really following the "Christ of the Bible" and not some other Christ, just like the sincere honest followers of Hitlers and Stalins and of course the sincere followers of fake christs and fake spirits. How would we know, I wonder? I guess not by theology, no?

Steven Sim

Sze Zeng said...

@J Wong, yes, we have to keep praying for CHC and let them know that the wider body of Christ is here to embrace them with the condition that they are open to be embraced.

@her royal highness, I see this differently from you. It is not that CHC has swifted away from prosperity theology, but has evolved prosperity theology to be included in their version of the 'Cultural Mandate'.

@titanic 2828, you don't know what is 'theology', therefore you thought that my article loses its credibility when it reads "Theology is the soul of the Church." Think about it, your statement "Christ is the Head over the Church" and "Holy Spirit is the head of the church" are theological statements. So you are actually using the importance of theology to deny the importance of theology. That is irrational.

@Steven, well said! Too many times people utter what they don't understand. And when they are corrected, they still insist they are right.

luo said...

Dear brethren,

I would like to say that many people are attracted to what they can (or think they can) get out of Christ; power, health, wealth and all is well mentality.

Many who think they are saved are in fact travelling on the broad way. "Enter by the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." Matt 7:13. If one thinks that a large church membership is a sign that many are drawing to Christ, then think again. There are many deluded people in mega churches just as there are many in mini churches.
Jesus said that "there are few who find it". Few not many.

Throughout history false prohets, ravenous wolves in sheep's clothing have led many astray. Do you remember Jim Jones? He attracted a large following and convinced his followers to commit mass suicide in Guyana in Nov 1978. All in 276 children and 638 adults died in the suicide or were murdered.

The bible says that you will know them (ravenous wolves) by their fruits. Matt 7:16.

And what are the fruits? Signs and wonders? "Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord , Lord have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?. And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!"

Brethrens it is important that we know our scripture and know our theology. Otherwise you will be like sheep led by an evil shepherd to be slaughtered. How terrible it is to hear the Lord declaring "I never knew you; depart from Me".

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables" 2Tim 4:3-5 . As much as false prophets are evil, carnal people itching to hear false doctrine are equally evil.

We need the Lord to open our eyes to see the TRUTH. It is the truth that will set us free. Brethrens do not be deluded. Examine everything that is preached about our Lord. Do as the Bereans did.

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. Who can know it? I, the Lord search the heart, I test the mind, even to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings.""
Jer 17:9-10

Chan said...

I feel that the most important thing regardless of which denomination of church you are from, is to be faithful to God and love God, serve God and love people the best you know how till He comes back a 2nd time.
Different people have different belief system and it is impossible to seek agreement from everyone.
No point saying who is right, who is wrong when leaving the important things closing to God's heart (love Him and His people) undone.

Jeremy said...

Hi Sze Zeng,

that was a rather detailed summary of your perception of what CHC is all about.

However, being a member of CHC for the last few years, there maybe some difference in the understanding of the cultural mandate.

Firstly, the cultural mandate movement started with the desire to win Asia for Christ, more specifically, countries such as China or areas where the Gospel is shunned or banned.

I agree with your statement, the theology of the church is the soul of the church, but the theology of the cultural mandate goes far deeper than just fashionable clothes and knowledge is power.

the cultural mandate is about being relevent and influencial in society as a christian to glorify God and spread the gospel. We're to be people like daniel and joseph, people who are influencial in society but uses it to glorify God and spread the gospel.

this was the way the cultural mandate was meant to be!
Jesus himself was influencial in society to begin with, thats why the pharisees at that time wanted to kill Him!

the cultural mandate is about us as christians living a holy life and examplify Christ, but yet still be influencial and not condemning.

we want to be able to not just win people on the streets to Chirst but people in the various areas of society such as the government, media, education, etc. those are the people that some churches don't reach out to since they feel that they are in the secular world which must be avoided at all costs, or they have no such connections to these people at all!

at the end of the day, CHC is not built on just the cultural mandate or on pastor Kong Hee, its built on the word of God, the Great Commandment, Great Commission, and on being much more Christ-like!

the reason many of the leaders dress extravagantly for service, its not just to show the cultural mandate, but we believe that in the house of God, we should do our best in everything we do! not just in theology, but rather in all aspects of our lives! that what we in CHC believes that God deserves! our absolute best!

this comes down the point, knowledge is power. you're not wrong to say that knowledge is NOT power, but pastor is also not wrong to say knowledge IS power. you're both right to a certain extend!

without knowledge, you can never be influencial in society. people in Singapore who are influencial are people who have qualifications. in this case, knowledge gives you the power to be of influence in society. for students, its the chance to excel!

but we believe that while knowledge is power, we believe that that knowledge is not just what we can attain all by ourselves, we need to study and put in hardwork, but above all, we need to ask God for knowledge! just like how King Solomon asked God for wisdom!

we believe that wherever we are, we need to do our best for Christ! as students, regardless of being in top universities or shunned technical institutes, we believe we are to do our best academically and trust God!

Lastly, regarding voting, think about it in a logical way. should everyone in CHC be allowed to vote, there will be utter chaos. reason being there will be no way to know who may just bring a huge group of people in just to swing the votes in his/her favour! thus to have the best decisions decided, CHC only allows those that are spiritually mature to vote!

which brings me to the last point about the board and the ordination of Pastors. in most the senior pastor of that church is usually the one who chooses who to be his disciples, this is since they're the leaders of the church! however this is not just done by performance alone! this is done in addition to prayer and fasting, then are these people risen up!

lastly, I myself firmly believe that CHC is not about pastor Kong Hee alone! Pastor is like Abraham to us. He's the one who leads us just like how Abraham led Israel!

her royal highness said...

Hi Joshua, Jeremy did expound a little more on what the cultural mandate that we learn in church is all about.
I believe if we sat down and shared our ideas on what the cultural mandate is all about, we would agree on many things.
You did put up a link to Steven Sim's blog, in which he dedicated a post to the political situation in Pulupandan, Phillipines.

That does not deviate from what we have learnt from CHC. The protagonist, Gina is dedicated to being the social architect of her village.

Similarly, that is what we are encouraged to do; to be social architects, to be placed in a position of influence where we can introduce godly values and win people for Christ.

Could say more... but I gotta go!!
P/S: You are right that the prosperity gospel has evolved to the cultural mandate. But isn't that correction?

Sze Zeng said...

Hi Jeremy,

So, what then is being "relevant and influential" in the society for a member of CHC?

Sze Zeng said...

Hi her royal highness,

Ya, we can share more over a glass of coffee or gin tonic :-D

Sze Zeng said...

Hi Jeremy,

On voting. The possibility of being chaotic is a given in a democracy. Kong Hee praises democracy for a state of 5 millions citizens. CHC has only 30,000 members. If compare Singapore and CHC, the former has higher chances of being chaotic. But Kong Hee prefer democracy on the former. So your reasoning does not work on Kong Hee's administration.

Jeremy said...

Hi Sze Zeng,

being relevant and influencial as a member of CHC means you're there to meet the needs of the people, and reaching out to those who are deemed hard to reach out to. this includes the secular world where some denominations of Christianity shun and avoid at all costs.

the cultural mandate embraces the theory of a church without walls. where we as believers are the church. we believe that we are to be the head and not the tail, above and not beneath.

at the end of the day, as a CHC member, I want to be in a place where I'm influencial to the people around me, where I exemplify Christ to people around me. it comes down to the simple concept of being successful in life to break the mindset that the lost have that being Christians means you gotta be poor and a nobody, which is not true! many heros of the bible are influencial and successful in their time, including Jesus!

regarding the voting issue, its true that Pastor Kong don't practice democracy within CHC to the extent as Singapore, but in CHC, there's the issue of Spiritual Maturity and Accountability.

if you were a pastor, would you raise someone up just because he/she has the public support of the church congregation, when you know that he/she dont have the spiritual capacity as a leader?
Pastor Kong is the head pastor of the church and since the leaders rising up are his own disciples, he himself knows the capability of each of his pastors and places them in positions where their maximum capacity can be shown.

reasonable said...

Jeremy wrote: it comes down to the simple concept of being successful in life to break the mindset that the lost have that being Christians means you gotta be poor and a nobody, which is not true! many heros of the bible are influencial and successful in their time, including Jesus!

1. What is "being successful"?

2. Which of the mainstream mainline denominations teaches that a Christian gotta be poor and a nobody? (or is this idea just a straw-man?)

3. A person can be not rich and not living luxuriously but yet be very influential. John Wesley gave away all the money above his expenses year after year (e.g. spending about 30pounds in a year, and gave away the rest of his income (which grew from 30 pounds a year to 1000 pounds a year and so on as the year passes); John Wesley was not rich and not living a luxurious life but he was very influential.
[note: "not rich and not living luxuriously" is different from being poor]

4. The explicit teaching of Jesus was "Woe to you who are rich, for you have received you comfort in full [in your earthly life]; Blessed are you poor for yours is the kingdom of God" in the Gospel according to Luke.

5. The above "Woe to the rich; Blessed are the poor" is elaborated with a good example in the parable of the poor Lazarus and the rich man, told by Jesus, in the Gospel according to Luke. Their eternal destiny was a reversal of their earthly situation - i.e. the poor's eternal destiny was in a place of comfort, while the rich man's eternal destiny was constant burning in the fire of Hades. If one were to believe Jesus' parable, that means woe indeed are the rich, for they have received their comfort in full in their current earthly life, and blessed indeed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God.

6. The explicit words of the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy were "Those who want to be rich fall into a temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires [e.g. foolish desires such as living in big luxurious house, drive high-ended luxurious cars] which plunge men into ruin and destruction... But fless from these things, you man of God, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance and gentleness..."

7. Paul said "Godliness accompanied with contentment is great gain... if we have food and covering, with these we shall be content [i.e. no need to live in big luxurious houses like the one lived in by the pastor's wife, no need to drive luxurious cars]

8. Paul mentioned about "men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, WHO SUPPOSED THAT GODLINESS IS A MEANS OF [FINANCIAL] GAIN"

reasonable said...

9. Back to Jesus' explicit words [this time in the Gospel according to Matthew]: "Lay not your treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy...but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven"

10. It will only be impressive if Kong Hee were to follow the example of John Wesley: keep the expenses more or less the same year after year, lead a non-luxurious life (that means much lower expenses), and give away all the money above these expenses year after year. If he wants to be a good model, then yes, earn lots and lots of money, but at the same time, give away all these money after deducting the expenses (and live a non-luxurious life). We are not asking him to live poorly, but his current lifestyle is way too luxurious and hence not a good model for Christians.

11. "Earn all you can, save all you can, give all you can."

12. "If you are rich [living luxuriously?], then as sure as the sun rises up from the east, you are on the way to hell". [another great revival preacher, the Presbyterian-turned-Congregationalist Rev Charles G. Finney, this time in the United States, in the century after John Wesley, basically said the same thing too]

13. And worse, if one is a pastor and leading many others (e.g. many in the church) along with him to hell. "It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble." (Mark 9.42; Matt 18.6; Luke 17.2)

Sze Zeng said...

Hi Jeremy,

Reasonable has engaged the first part of your contribution. He raised good points over the relevant matters. So I'll engage only the latter part.

You asked, "if you were a pastor, would you raise someone up just because he/she has the public support of the church congregation, when you know that he/she dont have the spiritual capacity as a leader?"

My answer depends on what political system do I advocate. In Kong Hee's case, he made public announcement that he is for democracy. But in his own practice, he is not doing it. So it is in this case that he is being self-contradictory.

Anonymous Writer said...

My view is that... The cultural mandate is okay. but We just cannot use The Building fund money to invest on a "Sun Career" and call it a Cultural Mandate. Because Influential is Personal it should be own effort.

And It is against the Law.

A Investment of building fund monies is still a building fund monies. It is not suppose to aid someone Singing career and call it a Cultural Mandate in the end.

When one Church transparency fails. People will start to fade away, Wont give building fund anymore because they wont know where the monies goes except The board of the Church, Pastors, and lastly The EM would be able to know in the AGM.

Well one should consider reading Luke 9:1-6. Amen!