Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Is Dr Kreingsak a Politician with a difference ???

I have been following some of the developments in the Thai Politics and our so-called founder of Hope of God. Though there are people still in awe of him and how he supposedly spell a new generation of good politicians in Thailand that can make a change.

No doubt I must admit Dr Kriengsak Chareonwongsak is a highly intelligent person who have written more articles I can remember, but to me he is just a typically politicians. By that i mean, I have come to some conclusions that most if not all politicians in Thailand are only able to have power simply because some corners have to be bent. Whatever they maybe yellow or red supporters, the truth is unless you are willing to bend some rules, there is absolutely no way you can be a politican.

For one thing, I know Kriengsak is the same. A typical politician who try to portray himself as a great alternative. Why do i say that :

1. He was willing to lie about his association with Hope even under oath when queried in the courts
2. He moved people in Hope to his electorate to help him gain votes even though it is illegal to do so.
3. He used church money to fund his campaign even though it was illegal
4. He got church people to help him got to temple to perform Buddhist rite

A man driven by the passion to see thailand at the cost of his moral conviction with God and total disregard for his family and the people who had to sin in order to help him.

Would Dr kriengsak be able to make a difference in thailand, i have no doubt that he has the ability and I have no doubt that he can possible use some of his solutions to build thailand. But for me its not the end that is important, but the journey we take to reach our destination, would he be able to shine God's name in a Buddisht Thailand ? I doubt it though.

Yes he may win the battle for Thailand but in the process he would have lost the war to bring people in Thailand closer to God.

His sory is a good reminder to everyone that as we pursue the path that we believe God called us, be it in the marketplace, in Education, in Science, Media, or politics. Never allow your goals to be your God, and in the process forget why you were there in the first place.

Indeed if we do aim to shine for Jesus in the workplace, lets not forget that our final destination is our heavenly home.

Amen.

























12 comments:

Anonymous said...

He is (was?) the "Super Apostle".

Read:
http://www.cultwatch.com/superapostles.html

Anonymous said...

I can't help but to say this. There's nothing wrong with our teachings but it's always with the one who teaches, implements or practice it.

Do not dump away the Word of God just because the people who teach it has failed to put into practise correctly. The Word of God is the Word of God. Do not be affected by the one who preach or teach it. Keep the spirit within you right.

God has given us a blueprint to build His church. Keep to the standard of God's Word. We will never go wrong.

By the way, who are we to judge DJ or PN or any other bro and sis? We must be very careful in stating facts and not be judgemental. They may have failed but let God be the judge.

Luke 6:37-3 (NIV)
37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

At least I know that not many would have came to know Christ and God's plan had not for them and many others who were willing to respond to God in this vision.

I still choose to give thanks to God because I know everything works for the good of those who love Him.

Anonymous said...

After reading about Super Apostle, I realised that what's written there is imbalanced. Remember that we are being taught to study and analyse using the whole Bible, not just part of it.

That being said, I belief that the teachings in Hope are well balanced in WoG. We don't swing to either extreme.

Watcher said...

Hi Anonymous (the one who wrote that there is nothing wrong with Hope teachings),

I do not wish to have any judgemental attitudes towards others for the dust in their own eyes if I had not first examined myself to see whether I have any plank in my own eye so that I can remove it first before removing the dust from my brother's eye. If I do not do this, I will be a hypocrite. This is clearly written in Luke 6:39-42. Thus, Jesus did not say we cannot make judgements but must first examine ourselves first before proceeding to make right judgements. To be judgemental is different from making a judgement. The former speaks of loooking down on others due to their weaknesses (as if the person having the judgemental attitude does not have any weakness.This is the hypocritical attitude that Jesus is against), while the latter is about recognising correctly the facts and truths without tearing down the other person (for example, a person stole something and I know that he did it, but I do not continue saying or thinking in my mind "oh my, he is such a crooked person".). As you pointed out correctly, we must state facts and not be judgemental.

As you correctly pointed out as well, we should look at the whole bible for the whole counsel of God. If the bible is the ultimate infallible authority for doctrine and practice in the church, the church, in spite of its imperfections, will not be led astray by false teachings. Certainly, we must not dump away the Word of God just because people failed to put it into practice correctly. In fact, in Matthew 23:1-5, Jesus admonished us to obey and learn from correct teachings from the pharisees and the teachers of the law, even though they are legalistic and hypocrites in their practice. The thing to be avoided is not to follow the legalism and hypocritical attitudes of the teachers of the law and the pharisees. In todays context, even though a pastor may have serious character flaw which godly will not apporve of, we must still give a hearing to the correct teachings from the pastor even though he does not practice. Of course, we should not approve of wrong practices that are contrary to God's Word. Simply put, we should throw the water out of the bucket, we should not throw the baby out.

As for the vision which led many people to come to know God and Christ, the vision is an admirable one as it is a zealous desire to obey the great commission throught the preaching of the gospel to amke disciples of all nations.

To conclude, I do agree with you on various points as you have pointed out in your responses to the website that talks about the "Super Apostle".

Regards,
Watcher.

ex-member said...

I agree that there is nothing wrong with the teachings in Hope. However, it is just not complete or limited.

I realised the lacked of depth and broadness after I planted myself in another church and the teachings provided really encompasses much more to build a solid foundation for a Christian to live right and successfully for His glory.

For instance, we don't get taught or imparted on five-fold ministry. What about marketplace theology where work is a ministry? This are just a few examples. I believe there is more.

The church has the obligation to equip its flock. Or else it will be like an army being send out to war without bullets and just ready to be slaughtered or defeated by the enemy.

I also agree that the Super Apostle link provided is imbalanced and written with not the right spirit and without true understanding of God's principles.

ex-member said...

Just to clarify...

When I meant we don't get taught or imparted on five-fold ministry and etc... I was referring to Hope.

Cheers

Watcher said...

Hi Anonymous (the one who wrote that there is nothing wrong with Hope teachings),

Having agreed to some of your comments, I would like to make other observations on some parts of your comments which would need improvement:

1) You mentioned that "I can't help but to say this. There's nothing wrong with our teachings but it's always with the one who teaches, implements or practice it."

Whether there is nothing wrong with Hope teachings, such issues have been discussed widely in other postings "Your Verdict" blog by Eagle Eye. Suffice to say, those previous postings recognised that Hope teachings and practices have their strengths and good points but Hope still needs further improvement. One simple example is the change of name and focus. Why "Hope International Ministries" (HIM)? Its purpose is to shift the focus of the movement to be more Christ centered. It is a recognition that when a vision about accomplishing the great commission is just about achieving the goals of converting but without focusing on Christ, it will just be achieving goals and nothing else. In the end, people focus on doing works but stop worhsipping Christ and having Him as focus. As so clearly pointed out in HIM's vision:
"Fulfilling the Great Commission
by raising Christ-centred disciples
to plant vibrant, biblical churches
in our city, country and all over the world". Even HIM ministries acknowledges the need to improve according to biblical standards. The example by ex-member, such as seeing our work and vocation in the secular as also ministry and not just the church. I do have serious issues with the issues of how shepherding is conducted and taught in Hope, and the works-performance mentality to earn God's favour and justify ourselves before God, when it should be God's grace changing us to do good works out of gratitude. This is a simple example of legalism that have crept into hope.

2)You also mentioned that "At least I know that not many would have came to know Christ and God's plan had not for them and many others who were willing to respond to God in this vision."

We come to know God and Christ by the grace of God through faith alone, not by works, when we hear the word of Christ being preached to us. The saving message that is being preached to us, the Gospel,is "...the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes..." (Romans 1:16, NKJV), speaks of God who sent His only begotten Son who lived a perfectly righteous life without sin at all, died on the cross for our sins to redeem us, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, that whosoever believe in Christ shall not perish but have eternal life, that Christ'righteousness is imputed to all those who would have faith in Him, so that they can be reckoned as righteous, justified in the sight of God. The Holy Spirit converts us through this saving message of the Gospel. It is not the original Hope vision or HIM vision that saves souls. It is the gospel that saves. If, as anonymous who have pointed that it was Hope vision that led many ppl to know Christ, then it is possible that these group of people do not have true faith in the Christ and the gospel, and thus are still unregenerate. Yes, HIM vision of building strong and biblical ppl who are Christ-centered to plant strong and biblical churches is biblical. But how to accomplish this? It is still to preach the gospel so that the elect would to faith in Christ, so that they can know Christ and grow to be effective disciples of Christ.

Watcher said...

Hi Anonymous (the one who wrote that there is nothing wrong with Hope teachings),

3) You also mentioned that "After reading about Super Apostle, I realised that what's written there is imbalanced. Remember that we are being taught to study and analyse using the whole Bible, not just part of it." I agree with ex-member's comment that the spirit in writing the website is not that correct. I also feel that it is emotionally charged up to a certain extent. However, then again, even though it is imbalanced in the spirit of writing, some of the contents are still valid. I would like to hear from Anonymous what you consider to be imbalanced. In fact, it written in that article:

"How do they justify their stance? The Super Apostles look to pragmatism as their justification for practice, rather than Scripture. What works becomes standard operating procedure; hardly any consideration is given to whether it contravenes Scripture. Where a practice is questioned Scriptures are taken out of context, or twisted, to give the illusion that the Bible allows these methods."

Clearly, you are actually in agreement with the writers of this cultwatch website to some extent when you mentioned "God has given us a blueprint to build His church. Keep to the standard of God's Word. We will never go wrong." We must avoid giving sweeping statements that discredits a website, even though its spirit or some aspect of it is wrong.

Finally, I would like to recommend one website that speaks of such issues similar to cultwatch but in a more balanced and well-informed manner.

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/l01.html

and

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/l26.html#who


Hopefully, this two website would provide another perspective as compared to that of Cultwatch.

Cheers,
Watcher

Watcher said...

Hi,

I wrote, "It is still to preach the gospel so that the elect would to faith in Christ, so that they can know Christ and grow to be effective disciples of Christ."

It should be "It is still to preach the gospel so that the elect would place their faith in Christ, so that they can know Christ and grow to be effective disciples of Christ."

Regards,
Watcher

Anonymous said...

"Teachings in Hope" is rather vague terminology. As far as I know there was never any official library of materials. Leaders assembled their libraries from their own local Hope church or books from a Hope conference. Some were excellent, others were not. The most common thing we had was "18 Lessons".

JS

Anonymous said...

In addition, regarding teachings, some teachings were originally in English and translated into Thai. Later, probably without knowing, it was translated back to english. This explains why some books we have don't make a whole lot of sense and were missing some details.

I know for sure it was copied because the illustrations were copied exactly from another book. The words were slightly revised.

I'm not saying that all teachings were like this. But many of the ones I saw were like this.

JS

evision said...

http://www.sangambayard-c-m.com