When I was much younger, I used to be puzzled as to why there were 4 different gospels -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. While there were many similarities among the 1st three (that is why they are also known as the synoptic gospels (syn = same, optic = view), John was in a class of its own.
Only recently was I made aware as to why there are 4 different gospels, because of the difference in emphasis placed by each of the authors. Matthew portrays Jesus as the King of the Jews. Mark portrays Him as the suffering servant. Luke portrays Him as the perfect human. John portrays Him as the Son of God.
Which brings me to the subject of today's entry.
For those of you who have been following ROOTSS recently, you would have been aware that in the October to December 2008 edition of the Beacon, there was an article that appeared on pages 4 through 7 entitled "Salvation Made Easy? A Look into Antinominism" which was purportedly written by Rev Peter Koh, the senior pastor of my church. You can download that entire article here.
I have extracted the heading of it as it appears in the publication.
Prima facie, it will appear that the authorship of this article is that of Rev Peter Koh, as there is no mention of anything to the contrary.
For the purpose of mutual learning and discussion, I had invited readers to write in, either in support of or in opposition to the views expressed therein. Alas, while there were lots of opposing views, there was none in support. I thus googled the word "antinomianism" hoping to put links to articles in support, and chanced upon one written by Rev P G Mathews back in 1995. The content was strikingly similar, which indicated that Rev Koh had plagiarised Rev Mathew's article. I thus wrote to the TRAC President Rev Dr Wee Boon Hup to highlight to him about this because intellectual theft by an ordained Methodist minister is a very serious matter.
Rev Dr Wee did not reply at first, but after a couple of days, had to do so after I mentioned that I would escalate the matter to Bishop Dr Robert Solomon and/or reproduce my email to him on this blog if I did not hear from him. In his reply, he said he had communicated this matter to Rev Koh and the latter had admitted his mistake, and subsequently sought and obtained Rev Mathews' permission. He also told me that an appropriate apology would appear in the next edition of the Beacon.
Well, the Beacon finally arrived in the mail three days back, and here is the content of that apology which appears in a yellow box at the foot of page 2.
Apologies: In the Oct - Dec 2008 issue of Beacon, the article on "Antinomianism" is extracted from http://www.gracevalley.org/ with permission from Rev PG Mathews. We apologise for this omission.
By the way, the discussion on antinomianism happened to be picked up by Edmond Chua, the Chief Editor of sg.christianpost.com.
When he got wind of what was happening, he subsequently put this footnote at the bottom of his article.
Correction: The article posted Thursday, January 8, incorrectly stated that Rev Peter Koh is Malcolm's Loh former pastor. Loh is actually still a member of Paya Lebar Methodist Church but on sabbatical leave. It also omitted to mention that the article by Rev Koh was plagiarised.
I leave it to you readers to draw your own conclusions on the different versions of the truth :-)
Posts
17 comments:
LOL. I love Edmond's footnote. =p
I was quite bemused by the PLMC "save face" foot note. =p
Oh well. Grace grace.
It looks more like the one who plagiarised Rev PG Mathews' article is trying to 'save face' by getting the church to bear the 'burden of the Cross'
The heading of the antinomianism article gave the impression that it was an ORIGINAL article written by Rev PK while the "apologies" gave the impression that permission was in fact sought and granted for the use of Rev PG Mathews' original article BEFORE the publication of the Rev PK's "article".
If in fact permission was sought and granted only AFTER the publication of Rev PK's "article" and evidence of his plagiarism was published in Mal's blog, then I must say that this sham of an apology is consistent with Rev PK's intent to mislead his congregation.
Firstly, the congregation was misled into thinking that he wrote an original article arguing a good case against the grace gospel (which the article labels as antinomianism).
Secondly, after his plagiarism was exposed, the "apologies" tucked into a little yellow box at the foot of a page serves to mislead whoever manages to see it into thinking that he did not intend to plagiarize but merely omitted to inform the congregation that the article was "extracted" with the original author's permission.
Normally, when we say we "extracted" from an article, it usually means that we included some part of that original article into our own article. However, in Rev PK's case, he actually copied Rev PG Mathews' ENTIRE article, rearranging the paragraphs and rephrasing certain sentences here and there (you can see a comparison of both articles at my blog - http://thelogicalchristian.blogspot.com/2009/01/comparison-made-easy.html)
Again, Rev PK has misled by using the word "extract".
If Rev PK did obtain permission from Rev PG Mathews BEFORE the publication of his "article", then I have to question how the acknowledgment of Rev PG Mathews can be omitted since Rev PK is the "author" of the article and ALSO the editor of the Beacon.
Was the omission the result of pure negligence,an innocent mistake or an intent to mislead the congregation that the ideas in the article are Rev PK's?
I was looking forward to Rev PK's apology as I thought it will provide closure to the plagiarism episode but it seems that the "apologies" only serves to stir up suspicions of a cover-up.
I guess only God and Rev PK knows the truth.
Mighty sharp of you... :]
The internet has increased scrutiny like never before... Ephesians 4:29
Like I said before, it's good for him to be honest, to step down, reflect and come back stronger ... but unfortunately, "face" is kinda important to many of us, especially Chinese ... lots of "xiang qing fu lao" (translated roughly as -- all related, close to him, and elders who sees him grow up ..) to face up to ...
it's sad, and the episode simply reflect how desperate this Rev has become, to resort to such measure in an attempt to lift his status in the church body ... and what apalls me is the manner the church is handling the episode ... instead of coming clean, the attempt seems to be an attempt to "blur" the episode, and hopefully bury the issue and pretend that nothing has happened, and that this Rev is not "guilty" of what he has attempted to do?
Now if this camp believes in the Law, and that one day in heaven, everyone would have this big screen showing all the wrongs we have failed ... hmmm.... dun this Rev and his party ought to know better, that honesty is the best policy, else this episode might just be the prime time movie in heaven ... or maybe he & his party has begun to believe also in Jer 31:34 "... I (God) will forgive their wickedness, and I (God) will never again remember their sins."!
Shalom Shalom,
William
malcolm... don't you feel tired of repeating the same episodes again and again in your blog? what purpose does it serve other than to receive comments on judgement of pastor (that you also share) and possibly feel gratified from reading these comments?
to the rest... those comments left above only adds fuel to the fire (my most honest opinion) and encourage the behaviour of continually passing judgement.
i used to attend PLMC and have left for reasons of my own. i don't speak for any church/denomination, but only as a Christian myself. i don't deny the whole cover up seems a political act, but i don't encourage your agenda through this blog either. this will eventually has to stop one day, you will get tired of doing this. so why not choose it to be now?
shalom
if you stand by what you say, and if your opinion is indeed honest, then why hide behind a cloak of anonymity?
i'm sure readers will take your views more seriously.
say, how about meeting us tomorrow at 12:30pm. dessert on me, even though you may be part of the law camp :-)
Hi Malcolm,
I thought the above "Anonymous" gave good counsel. You do well to heed your own "Pharisaical" advisory warning to others as seen on your page.
In case you might have forgotten its meaning, it is appended here for your reflection: Pharisaical - marked by hypocritical censorious self-righteousness.
A Hell Deserving Sinner..... fully forgiven, truly unworthy and saved by God's Amazing Grace in Jesus Christ
Good counsel from an anonymous person? Lol.
That's a good one. I'm sure our government will agree with you :-)
Just for that, you deserve a treat to dessert at Stan's stall tomorrow.
If you happen to be the same anonymous person who posted at 10:41am, no worries. You can have 2 helpings ;-)
Where sin abounds, grace abounds much more. :) Pray for brother Rev Peter :) Let's fix our eyes on the beauty of our Lord Jesus instead.
Hi brothers,
I have two questions and would like to hear from you guys.
The Gospel means good news or almost too good to be true news right?
Then the Gospels of Matthew,Mark ,Luke and John is not really the "Gospels" in that sense becoz it's primarily old covenant (Most of it before Jesus death & resurrection)
The Bible is divided into two.OT and NT.But NT starts at the beginning of Matthew which is still old covenant.Testament also means coveanant right? Isn't NT be at the beginning of Acts instead of Matthew?
This has nothing to do with Rev Koh by the way.
Dear Anonymous (both of you),
Is it so difficult to sign off your "good counsel" with at least a pseudonym?
If you have read most of Mal's blog entries, you will realize that this post by Mal is not repeating the same episode but rather another episode in the long-running saga of Rev PK's battle against the grace gospel.
In one episode, Rev PK disallowed any material by Joseph Prince to be shared and discussed during cell meetings. In a subsequent episode, Rev PK removed Mal, a grace embracer, from all leadership positions, and the cell formerly headed by Mal was disbanded.
In the previous episode, Rev PK published an article "written" by him entitled "Salvation Made Easy? A Look Into Antinomianism" which accused those who embrace the grace gospel as "lawless" and wanting to "sin to their hearts' content".
Mal invited comments on that article and since most of them were of the opposing view, he searched the net for articles that support Rev PK's view and discovered Rev PG Mathews' article which thus exposed Rev PK's plagiarism.
This latest episode of Rev PK's "apology" for his plagiarism should have been a fitting conclusion but it seems that Rev PK does not want this long-running saga to end by publishing a sham of an apology.
Take note that the "apology" says "We apologize", not "I apologize". Who committed the plagiarism? Rev PK or a committee?
Take note that the apology was for the "omission" of the information that "the article on "Antinomianism" is extracted from www.gracevalley.org with permission from Rev PG Mathews."
If this permission was sought and granted only AFTER the plagiarism was discovered, then this apology is a lie to cover up the first lie of Rev PK's "article" being his own original work.
A simple, honest and straightforward apology would have been a fitting concluding episode but Rev PK has chosen to open the door for another episode ...
i am the first Anonymous. i don't see how my identity has got anything to do with my views being taken seriously. what's more important is the msg i'm bringing across.
you still have not answered the question on the purpose of talking abt a certain pastor and garnering comments, instead request to meet me and assume i'm of law camp. so to you, it's simply a case of if i'm not with you, i'm against you?
i do not draw the line between law camp and grace camp. my comment did not even go anywhere near there, so your last statement was unnecessary (never mind the smiley face). this is bordering extremist.
you have a Christian blog, but frankly, there's nothing Christian about it because it's smeared with gossip and judgement. and the comments left behind (look at the first two) is doing nothing to help anybody's faith. but THESE comments make you happy? and you're not happy with mine.... THAT'S why i ask... what is your agenda?
i don't need to know your answer because it won't affect my faith, but you should be reflecting on your motives.
so why do you come by and keep reading it then? nobody is forcing you wat...
actually, i have an inking of who you are ;-)
anyway, missed you at the fellowship today. do join us at the next one, ok?
First Anonymous,
What makes you conclude our comments are to make Mal happy, just because you think it's not helpful (to any body)?
FYI, while I have moved on to another church, I have close attachment with PLMC (do not know Mal personally), having worship there for 20 years since 1973, and it's sad to see the church's name been used to cover up the writer's fault.
Hi 1st Anonymous,
Why do you judge us to have judged? or is passing judgement on a fellow bro?
We merely agree that this Rev should come clean with his action.
We are not talking about any individual but a PUBLIC figure who holds office, is a shepherd who tends a big flock!
Should JP be the one making such a mistake, we (as least for me) would expect him to come clean as a leader of the flock.
But would the flocks, especially those from the Law camp, be as merciful to JP?
Shalom Shalom,
William
Ummm 1st Anon... I am sorry if I appeared legalistic? If I stumbled you in any way, my apologies. =) Sorry also if you felt pricked or that I was judging.
I was basically sharing how I liked that Edmond dared to be frank about the omission (very reminicent of Paul calling Peter a spade when Peter refused to fine with the gentiles) whilst the PLMC reply felt like it was trying to cover up in as tactful a way possible as not to humiliate any one person (very much like Peter's reason for dining with the Jews and not dining with the Gentiles. Similar spirit.
Whilst I am not comfortable with the blessed Rev's decision, I did not go fire and brimstone on it. I acknowledge God chooses leaders for a reason and I am sure He has His purpose and His journey for Rev just like He has for all of us. Amen? I am not trying to dismiss Rev's leadership. I'd like to believe that God will give Him a fresh revelation in His perfect time. Amen.
I was just sharing how I was disappointed because of the choices made in this scenario. The disclaimer speaks volumes of the accountability in the leadership of PLMC in just a few words...
THEN I ended with grace, grace.
And if that is not clear... I meant the grace of our LORD Jesus Christ cover this situation and make good what is meant to stumble. Thank GOD that there is grace to be had by all of us - leaders and little lambs.
Hope that clarifies. I wasn't trying to be gossipy or judgemental, but I was just sharing with Mal my pov.=pp
Post a Comment