Once upon a time two ministers by the name of Hodgie and Podgie of the Hocus and Pocus churches respectively (not their real names) had an issue with one another.
This caused much distress among the fellowship between their churches as well as with other churches associated with them.
What should have been kept and restricted to themselves and their respective churches was foisted upon other churches. Sungai Dua Church was dragged in this hodgy-podgy affair for no reason whatever. It called forth the following letter below... more than 10 years ago. The letter below was written in response to an official and public letter entitled "Objection to the Setting Up of a Tribunal" issued by two churches pastored by Pastor Podgie, and addressed to me, among others, as Pastor of Sungai Dua Church.
I came across this old letter in an old email out-box recently when I was clearing out old mails from the old computer. This old letter is reproduced here for just one purpose. How easily the devil can cause havoc and destroys fellowship among brethren... because of the unforgiving spirit, and the manipulative scheming to destroy seen among fellow ministers. The sad effect is evident for all with seeing eyes to see.
It was a common practice that many pastors would issue FORMAL letters in the name of their churches WITHOUT the knowledge of their church members! Many church members were ignorant that their church leaders issued official and public letters without their knowledge. It is so convenient to keep them in the dark! What rotten churchmanship!
So here is the letter. I despise both the unforgiving spirit of one, and the manipulative hypocrisy of the other!
----------
From: singlau
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 16:50:22 +0800
Subject: Your Letter "Objection to the Setting Up of a Tribunal"
To the EIGHT signatories of the letter "Objection to the Setting Up of a Tribunal," both individually, and jointly as representatives of your respective churches. I therefore request that my letter be distributed to the members of your churches. They made the appeal to me, among others, and I, upon my individual capacity, am responding to yours and theirs appeal. I only request fair play. Kindly concede.
Note to Hodgie: what is written is for your PERSONAL attention only.
Note to Podgie: please receive the letter with the same spirit in which it is written.
Dear brethren,
Greeting in the blessed name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
I wish to thank you, in your individual capacity, as well as representatives of your respective churches for your letter dated 26 March 2002, handed to me at the fraternal meeting on the 2 April. I have read your letter many times, digesting it on my 5 hrs' coach journey back here to Penang after the fraternal.
Let me inform you that this mail is also cc to all those to whom your letter were addressed, except brother Thorny Leek. It is also cc. to your dear Pastor, still an esteemed colleague in the ministry.
I am in hearty agreement with the main thesis in the section titled "Response of Members of the Pocus Church and SC" of your letter. You have wisely highlighted the various disastrous damages should there be such a Tribunal. In principle, I am, all along, opposed to such idea - and have expressed so in unequivocal term elsewhere. See appendix below if you wish to know. Suffice to say that the reason for the inclusion of the appendix is to lay the broader picture to what I desire to say. May I request that you kindly read the rest of what I am going to say in light of my convictions expressed in the lengthy quote. I don't want to be misunderstood.
There are just two simple things I wish to say about your letter - and I say them because my conscience constrained me. I am not one who is interested in taking side whatever you may think. I really have better things to do than writing this letter. It taxed me to no end, but not writing it and having a defiled conscience is far worse. Taking side is the last thing I would do in my life; for whichever side you take, it is still a man's side that you take, therefore a foolish thing to do. The best of man is still man, and man's heart is deceitful above all things - mine included. I am not discouraging you from taking side, but as Christian men take the side of truth and righteousness. I would rather deal with principles.
1. The accuracy of the first point in the Preamble of your letter is questionable to me. Please permit me to explain why I say so. There is a stark discrepancy between what is stated there and what Pastor Hodgie stated in his email to all the pastors in the Fraternal. I believe Pastor Hodgie was responding to the first item of business, i.e. "Tribunal to try Pastor Podgie (requested by Pastor Hodge )" listed in the notice for Fraternal Meeting sent out by Pastor Podgie on March 27.
Following is Pastor Hodgie's email, dated 29 March (unedited).
-------------------
Dear brethren,
I believe I should make this clear so that there is no misunderstanding in this matter.
I have NOT requested for a Tribunal to try Podgie. The event leading to this was like this: In the last fraternal, when I made the mistake of saying ‘my problem is with your office’, that was in respond to Podgie’s question ‘what is your problem with me’. Podgie then offered me two options: i) if I choose to leave the fraternal, he will understand, or ii) to call for a panel to discuss this matter with Podgie’s presence.
After the Chinese New Year, I called up Podgie to apologize to him for making that mistake and also to discuss this matter about the panel. My intention to call for a panel is to explain my problem and nothing more than that. Podgie then said he didn’t mean it, instead, he would like to set up a tribunal. I told him I would go along with that. But we DIDN’T discuss what we intend to do with this tribunal. I agreed to it basically I just wanted a platform to explain myself and nothing more.
-----------------------
Following is point 1 in the Preamble of your [Podgie's] Letter:
"Pastor Hodgie of Hocus Church, has, on 24 February 2002; requested (by telephone) for a Tribunal to be set up to inquire and determine whether Pastor Podgie fulfills the scriptural qualification to be the pastor of a church of the Lord Jesus Christ - more specifically, whether he is fit to hold the office of a Minister of God's Word."
------------------------
You would agree that the discrepancy between what you stated in your 'Objection' letter and Pastor Hodgie's email is quite obvious. This discrepancy begs a question, 'Where does the truth lie?' I am just wondering, if there be any truth in what Pastor Hodgie has said above, then the Preamble has failed to state the matter factually and fairly. If there is any truth in what Pastor Hodge said above then it should have been phrased like this, "Pastor Hodgie of Hocus Church, was, on 24 February 2002 (by telephone) agreeable to Pastor Podgie's proposal for a Tribunal to be set up...." This would reconcile the discrepancy somewhat. Where does the truth lie? Be that as it may, it is my humble opinion that it was an error of judgment on Pastor Hodgie's part to "go along" with the suggested Tribunal (but that is beside the point) - wishfully thinking that the Tribunal was "just a platform to explain himself and nothing more." The reason I say so is two-fold: not only because the suggested Tribunal is unbiblical; it is also a Tribunal that will never be because NO pastors will sit in such a Tribunal. It was only a cleverly invented fiction, for what purpose, I leave it to you to decide.
Does it matter whether we determine who actually requested for, or who proposed or even insisted upon the setting up of the Tribunal? The answer will become obvious soon. Suffice for the moment to say, "He who requests for such a Tribunal is necessarily made to appear obnoxious! BUT a clear-minded and principled man who is willing to submit to such a Tribunal DOES appear all the more obnoxious." So remember well, the SAME sword intended to cut someone, actually cuts both ways. Let me explain.
Having said that, may I ask you to consider the matter. Let me first assume that Pastor Podgie has briefed you concerning the Tribunal "he would like to set up" and to which Pastor Hodgie said he would "go along" with. What kind of a Tribunal were you briefed with? Was Pastor Podgie in favour of the proposed Tribunal or against it? I can only second guess - but that's beside the point too. Whatever the Tribunal Pastor Podgie had proposed to be set up, one thing would be very certain; one can expect that the Tribunal would be one which has biblical warrant, and therefore a 'proper forum'. I am taking this fact for granted and without fear of contradiction because of our high regard for Pastor Podgie's clarity of mind and his consistent fidelity to biblical principles. You are also well-taught men under his ministry. You would agree that Pastor Podgie wouldn't have proposed a Tribunal that is contrary to biblical principles - this much must be granted. (I supposed, Pastor Hodgie, without further thought, took for granted that what Pastor Podgie has suggested would be biblical and proper, and just "go along". I do the same too, often!)
If my assumption is disputed then the only other option left is to conclude that Pastor Podgie himself has actually proposed to set up a Tribunal that has no biblical warrant to begin with. To me, that is most unlikely! Then, my simple question to you is this: "Why would your sharp-minded Pastor set up a "Tribunal" which he knows full well is unbiblical, and which any reasonably taught congregation would abominate?" And you do belong to well-taught congregations and you did reject and denounce such a "Tribunal" proposed by your own Pastor. Something is strangely amiss. I remain disturbed. Do you appreciate my point?
Let me now assume that it is as you have stated in your letter that it was Pastor Hodgie who "requested for a Tribunal." IF Pastor Hodgie's words that it was Pastor Podgie who suggested "to set up a tribunal" are rejected as untrue, and that the Tribunal was Pastor Hodgie's idea all along, and that Pastor Podgie was, and I quote, "willing to submit himself to the inquiry of a Tribunal", THEN I am left with a BIGGER doubt. Aren't you? Why would Pastor Podgie, a man with such clarity of mind and fidelity to biblical principles, "willingly submit himself to the inquiry of a Tribunal" which he knows full well is without any biblical warrant, and therefore not a proper forum, and which is also attended with many potential evils? Even you men know enough to categorically denounce such a Tribunal because, and I quote, "it is not the proper forum. A TRIBUNAL WHICH DOES NOT HAVE LAWFUL AUTHORITY, TRESPASSING INTO THE LAWFUL GOVERNANCE." [emphasis original]. To me, it is MOST unusual of Pastor Podgie, a clear-minded and principled man, to willingly subject himself to the inquiry of a "Tribunal", which is against clear biblical principles, and with all the accompanying evils which you have so aptly and wisely highlighted in your letter, and which you rightly denounced, just as intentioned and expected!!
In my humble opinion, only a VERY serious lapse of mind on Pastor Podgie's part could adequately explain this bizarre 'willingness' to submit himself to an unbiblical, therefore, an unlawful and not proper Tribunal "requested" by Pastor Hodgie. Was there such a lapse? If there was, I am not aware of. I know just enough of Pastor Podgie, remember - he was once my dear Pastor too, and like you, he taught me well; and he STILL IS an esteemed colleague in the ministry - that he is a kungfu expert who wastes no move! Do you see the point? What explains for this strange "willingness" to submit to this unlawful "Tribunal"? Let me venture an opinion.
To me, this most "genuine willingness" to submit to a Tribunal (and one requested by the "opponent" for want of a better term!!!) which one knows full well is unbiblical, and which will NEVER be permitted to take place by the churches concerned, is indeed, a stroke of genius, or shall I say, an first-class showmanship! You may like to describe it as "shrewdness"; others would say, "just plain hypocrisy and manipulation." Now I understand your Pastor Podgie's insistence on a Tribunal "affirmed" at the last fraternal meeting, whereas Pastor Hodge, and I quote, "just wanted a platform to explain myself and nothing more." I ask you again, where does the truth lie?
Is it right for one to insist upon something (for his own advantage), and at the same time insists that the same thing is requested by the opponent (for the opponent disadvantage)? What would you call such practice? Remember that in this case, the sword cuts both ways, and the sword has cut both ways, whether you like it or not.
2. There are insinuation and accusation. Let me explain. In one statement you speak of "the proposed setting up of the said Tribunal;" then in another, you issued an appeal to all pastors "to wisely refrain from any further participation in the Tribunal." One moment you speak of the non-existent "proposed" Tribunal; in the next, you "appeal to all pastors... to wisely refrain from FURTHER [emphasis mine] participation in the Tribunal." The phrase "further participation in the Tribunal" means that such a Tribunal already exists, it is no longer in the 'the proposed' stage. One can't participate in a Tribunal that does not exist, much less "further participates" in it. One can ONLY "further participate" in an existing Tribunal. But your letter is only objecting to the setting up of a "Tribunal" and you have insinuated that the pastors were already participating in it!
Again, who 'proposed' or who 'requested' for the Tribunal, I will leave it to you to judge. Though it is an irrelevant question, it is a useful lesson nevertheless. Try asking these questions: Who proposed? WHY did the person propose such????? It is so important to know the "why", isn't it?. To whom was it proposed? When was it proposed? Who else was informed of this proposal? Who else was invited and/or accepted to take part in this proposal? WHO IS SETTING UP A TRIBUNAL? Or was it all JUST a cooked up, imaginary Tribunal? Do you have answers to these simple questions? Did you bother to ask these questions when you were briefed on the matter, and before you put your signature to the letter? However, please choose what you want to say and say it clearly that I may discern the truth, because:
The phrase "further participate in the Tribunal" carries the implicit CHARGE or ACCUSATION of prior participation in such a Tribunal. Are you aware of what you have written when put your signature to it? Do you actually want to make that accusation against me? I leave it to others to speak for themselves. Have I misread your letter? Please forgive me if I have. Perhaps you would like to restate what you meant to say that I might read it correctly. I leave it to you to do what you see fit. I will give you the benefit of the last word.
Let me conclude by stating categorically and unequivocally, that if your well-intentioned letter in any way insinuate or imply that I, Pastor Lau of Sungai Dua Church, has, in any way participated in the said 'imagined' Tribunal at any stage, then before the Judge of the living and the dead, I categorically REPUDIATE such demeaning insinuation. If my name has been associated with such a "manufactured" Tribunal - whether by words uttered in public or insinuated in private - may the Lord forgive such low impudence and pathetic judgment of character.
Thank you for your patience. I have written in the most respectful manner I know how and if anything comes across disrespectful to you, let me assure you that I do not intend it. I am a peaceful man and love a clear conscience. Please don't find fault with me when there is none at my door at the moment. When there is, please be the first to wound me and I would be very thankful to God for the wounds from brothers like you (Pro 27:6).
We live in troublous days. Do stand by your Pastor. I commend your courage to stand by him, to guard his good name. I suggest that you consider doing the same for other pastors and men in good standing. Be that as it may, please leave a little fly like me alone. Surely you do know that even a harmless little fly may sting severely when it is provoked for no good reason.
May the Lord have pity upon us, and keep us in the bond of peace. I still love you as dear brethren in the Lord whatever you have been led to believe about me, and others. I do DETEST foul play or manipulation no matter which quarters they come from. Beware of making the devil the winner.
If I know my own heart at all, I can safely assure you that I am committed to jealously guard the esteem that my people have for you brethren, and for your dear Pastor, regardless of how you may desire to respond.
I write with a bleeding heart.
I remain,
Your unworthy brother and
a sinner saved and preserved by grace alone,
Pastor Lau Sing Foo
Sungai Dua Church (1689 Baptist), Penang.
-----------------------
Appendix:
Here is part of my letter (unedited), dated March 5, to Pastor Hodge and cc. to all the other pastors. . This letter is prior to the two dates, March 10th and 26th, mentioned in your letter
[quote]
B. Upon careful reflection, I believe the case which has troubled you so much these many years has been very badly handled. It is of no use now for me to say what should have been done. I don't wish to sound like a smart aleck. It is very sad that the matter has been left festering and unresolved for so long - complicating your relationship with Podge all these years, as evidenced from your various course of actions (of course you may have all your 'legitimate' reasons), and also affecting the fellowship of the whole fraternal. For the days ahead, I propose this simple course of action. I am glad that the whole idea of the 'panel' has not gone ahead, for I am convinced now that that course of action is really without biblical warrant. Not only so, it contradicts one basic biblical principle, that of by-passing the local church."
I suggest that if you are still intent in pursuing the issue, that Podge is no longer fit for the ministry, you have to raise the issue with Podge's church. Inform Podge of your intention, and discuss with him an acceptable way for you to raise the issue. I believe THE ISSUE here is that you ARE CONVINCED that Podge is no longer fit for the office because of his 'offence', but Podge believes that his 'offence' does not disqualify him from the ministry. The issue is not whether he has committed the offence or not - because you have admitted that you have forgiven him. Your forgiveness must have implied that he has asked for your forgiveness. UNTIL NOW, I am still baffled, how if you are only a third party to the offence, and that you are not the offended party (unless the offended party is very closely related to you), that you are also involved in forgiving Podge. In any case, THE ISSUE must be very clear.
So, bring THE ISSUE to Podge's church. Let his church deal with the issue, unless you also consider D'salah Church deficient to handle such a matter. Perhaps, Podge may gather the men of his church to form the tribunal to give you a proper hearing. Perhaps you may want to insist that the whole Dodge Church membership be present to hear your concern. Whatever it is, you have to work out with Podge something agreeable to you both.
Think about it carefully. It is only a local church which has the power and authority to recognize, to call and to defrock a minister of the word, not someone outside the church. What you and I and all others outside that church may do is to withhold our fellowship from the man whom we think no longer qualifies for the ministry. And if our conviction is different from that of the man's church, then all we can legitimately do is to withhold fellowship from that church too. We can only withhold what we have first extended, i.e. fellowship, to the church or to the man. There is nothing more we can do. This is Independency in practice.
Now, here is the crunch. When, after you have brought the issue to Podge's church, and the church after careful consideration, concluded that Podge's offence does not disqualify him from his ministerial office, and continue to honour him as their pastor in good standing, are you prepared to abide by the church's decision? You may raise all sort of reasons that the church decision is disagreeable to you... but still, that is the church decision. And we are all agreed that there is no higher ecclesiastical authority than that of the local church. Are you prepared to abide by the church decision's, or will you go your on with your conviction, with the inevitability of OFFICIALLY (which you have been practising unofficially for sometimes!) declaring non-fellowship with Podge as well as his church, and other churches, e.g., Suebunk, Cherust, etc. Are you prepared to draw such a line?
If a time come when I have to choose which way to take for the future, I would be constrained to honour and to abide by the decision of the Dodge church. I do not wish to hear your case against Podge unless the Pocus Church requests my presence as an observer. Let his church hear it if you wish to be heard on the matter; otherwise, it is a biblical duty for you and me to remain silent with respect to the matter. A right thing must be done in a right manner. I see that that is the biblical way forward.
P/s Note carefully, won't you, what I said above, particularly the sentence, "Perhaps, Podge may gather the men of his church to form the tribunal to give you a proper hearing." That's the only Tribunal permissible in my simple understanding.
[end quote]
-------------------
