The Business Arm of NCC.

Has the business arm of New Creation secured a good deal? 

Recently, the business arm spent $296m to acquire The Star Vista and the church assured her members that it will not be raising funds for the purchase. 

It reports that “the New Creation Church is the richest religious group in Singapore in terms of donations collected. Last year, it collected $122 million in donation, in the form of tithes by church members, and it has $633 million in reserves.”

The church is unquestionably rich and it is thus prudent that she is not taking anymore money from her members in the light of such abundant storing up of wealth. 

And that a church, being a predominantly charitable organisation from a secular point of view, is so exceedingly rich is rather out of her missional character?

Even charity council chairman Gerard Ee advised caution when he said that such huge property investments are “certainly not perceived as normal church activities.” But ultimately Gerard said that “it has to be between the church and its followers.”

Well, that is true. It is between those who give and those who receive. It is more a private affair. And how those who receive it use or apply the funds will be reminiscent of the parable of the sower, the talent and the wise steward. 

Although I caveat that those parables that Jesus shared specifically relate to spiritual investment that bears demonstrable, enduring fruits in how one impacts lives with personal sacrifices, no one can say from an objective standpoint that NCC is not impacting lives and bringing the name of Christ to even a larger audience, especially in US. 

And if the accumulation of riches is one of the signs of a church revival, though of a smooth velvety kind, then I can safely say that being the richest missional organization in Singapore, if not in the world, Joseph Prince’s Grace Revolution has come a long way from his Alps experience and he has singlehandedly redefined evangelism from the day Jesus carried it out with only 12 with not even a roof over his head. 

From the one who has reminded us to not be anxious about anything because He has overcome the world to one who preaches prosperity and longevity and ensuring the church’s business arm is responsible to make prudent investments, you get the feel that had the Rich Young Ruler entered the Star Vista today, he may not be walking away from it so disheartened. 

I guess the eye of the needle doesn’t stay the same size as time passes and cultures change 

(Question: Do we overcome the world by ruling over it with money, power and fame that only the world can offer? Or do we overcome the world at a crossroad where the world ridicules, despises and/or shuns?)

In any event, this is the rationale for the acquisition. “Given that The Star Vista and The Star PAC are inextricably linked, our immediate objective of acquiring The Star Vista is both to protect the interest of the church and to preserve the good experience for all who come to The Star PAC.” (Council Chairman Deacon Yong). 

While believers ought to be intimately aware of the interest of the church, although I qualify that the word “interest” (instead of using words like “calling” or “mission”) risks some misconstruction, Deacon Yong’s concern (whether intended or not) “to preserve the good experience for all who come to The Star PAC” is telling of how we expect a worship service to be. 

Now, to be fair, without further elaboration, you do not know what exactly Deacon Yong meant by it. He may be speaking from a strictly business/marketing or consumer-oriented point of view.

But it is nevertheless telling because Jesus once said that “no man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other, Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”

And if I am called to be the “devil’s advocate” for NCC, I would defend her vast accumulation of wealth by saying that the church is constantly subjecting her invested “mammon” in servitude to and of His Kingdom, in particular, to expand it to the outermost regions of the world whilst preserving that tangible “good experience” for all who enters NCC’s signature sanctuary. 

That should end the debate right? Who is the better judge of that than the lives who have been testifying that they were transformed by the Grace Revolution and such testimonies can be found in JP’s books and his audiotapes? 

Well, to be honest, my only reservation with that defence is that I believe the Rich Young Ruler walked away that day not so much because he could not give up his massive wealth after proudly confirming that he has complied with all the commandments Jesus had listed. 

Alas, he however left that day, despondent, because he can’t imagine his life, that is, his religious life, apart from or without the trapping of his vast wealth. In other words, he felt that there is nothing more important than that which defines him, and that which defines him is something he just could not let go of.

Ps: And that is a reminder to all of us, especially those who have much.

A God for the Poor.

A God for the poor?

I always wonder, is there a God for the poor? By poor, I mean those who struggle with minimum wage. They come in all roles conceivable - that is, husbands, fathers or mothers who are largely making ends meet. They also struggle with their mortgages and kids' education expenses. They have little savings because they do not earn enough. Most times, they get exploited and are taken advantage of. They live from hand to mouth.

Is there a God for them? Is there a God for their children who have to depend on hands-me-down, skip lunches as they barely have enough for meals, and work part-time as they study to support their family? 

I write this because I often hear televangelists telling their congregation that following Jesus’ footsteps means expecting great things, mainly endless material blessings. 

Mind you, the Duplantis, Osteens, Roberts, Tiltons and Copelands of the mega-prosperity gospel have all happily jumped into the hundredfold bandwagon to equate faith with fortune, belief with blessings and devotion with possessions. 

It is often said that believing in God comes easy when success shadows the believers, especially for those who come to their wealth via family inheritance. 

For those who are successful, God can’t help but seem closer, more real, more tangible, and this reminds me of the Bible study session conducted by Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh) in opening scenes of the movie Crazy Rich Asians in the comfort of her multimillion-dollar mansion.

And how often does one hear this from the rich and prosperous exuding much envied humbleness: “God is blessing me. I am nobody without Him. All I have is His, my possessions, my promotion and my wealth. I wouldn’t be here without His strength, His guide and His help. I am just a servant, a humble steward. I own nothing. Indeed, all is His.”

But, what does a believer who has little (the poor) have to say then? He can’t claim prosperity the way the rich and prosperous can so humbly disclaim with infectious modesty. He has nothing to his name. He is more worried about how he is going to pay the bills, hold down a job, and save enough for the near future. 

Well, at this juncture, I want to add that it is almost second nature for the already prosperous to tell them that if they truly believe, their time too will come. In other words, they can be equally rich too. 

But good intention aside, that kind of name-it-and-claim-it gospel might just turn out to be the glittering hundredfold bandwagon sailing pass the rest of the struggling world as they trumpet the prosperity gospel from their first class seats. Can you then blame the poor for thinking that maybe God has forgotten them?

So, what is the everyday reality? 

At some point, we have to come to accept that, for every person who succeeds, there will be dozens who do not make it. The ratio matches the leadership, that is, one leader or employer to hundreds of workers - give or take. It is never the reverse. The system we have to contend with is invariably skewed that way. 

It is a socioeconomic pyramid with the handful at the top and a very broad base at the bottom. This is the way it is even if there is high social mobility, and this explains why Jesus said that the poor, we will always have with us. Although he meant it another way, the identification in the majority is just about accurate throughout history. And most of them will leave this earth the same way they came.

So, where does that leave the poor then? While there is a God for the prosperous (so claims the prosperity gospel), do we have a God for the poor, the struggling, the deprived and the disadvantaged for all their life? 

My thoughts on all this came to an illuminating point when I met a client this week. He came to me because his wife was seeking for a divorce. It was a long 27-yr-old marriage with two young adult daughters doing reasonably well academically. 

They were also reasonably well off running two businesses earning a high monthly income. They in fact have two properties, though mortgaged, but were worth quite a lot in the market. At one point, he even told me that they once owned two luxury cars and were living large. 

But he told me that things went downhill when he lost big in the stock market. After that, he met with a tragic road accident when he rear-ended another vehicle. He was hospitalised for months and could no longer run his business as before due to his serious injuries. He now earns close to minimum wage and is struggling to make ends meet with a divorce to worry about. 

I am not here to write about the divorce because there are many factors involved in a marriage of 27 years, but what he shared was that he found his faith after he met with the accident. He told me that he thought he was going to die, but he miraculously came back to life. He said that God gave him a second chance and he has learnt his lesson. He is now a devout believer but he has little to his name - contrasting with what he once had before. 

At this point, he admitted to me that he was nevertheless happy. Despite everything, he has found a certain reassurance, clarity and hope in his life. It was not something that he had when he had money. In fact, he told me that his happiest days were when his wife and him were struggling to make ends meet when they first got married living in a small rental flat. 

I said that that was ironic and he nodded. He recalled a time when he was travelling in his luxury car with his two daughters arguing behind, and across the road, he saw a family with kids crowding at the back of an open lorry, laughing as they were sharing heartily. 

This encounter kept me thinking about the God that the poor has - like the client of mine. It is a God who is different in form and substance from the way the prosperity gospel has painted or airbrushed him. 

I felt that the greatest misconception is to equate God with prosperity as if such blessings is the only aim of His redemptive plan for His people. 

We often make God into our own cultural image because we want to make him the reason for our prosperity. Somehow, that adds a certain sacred and religious glow to our status. We therefore sell God in a way that fits our image of what we want him to be. This misattribution gives us a sense of control, entitlement and uniqueness (or specialness). 

Now, let me be clear to say that I am not saying that prosperity and godliness are incompatible. What I am saying is that godliness is much more than prosperity, even at times, to the exclusion of it. For the greatest amongst us is often the least amongst us. The disciples of Christ come to mind here, right?

In other words, it is not necessary the case that you are rich, therefore you are godly, and you are poor and you are (so-called) god-less. Most times, I dare say that God is the least concerned with your financial status because His blessing is about a life that bears fruit, and the fruit is never one-dimensional, that is, material success. 

So is there a God for the poor? Of course there is, just as there is a God for the rich. More relevantly, He is the God of the harvest and in the harvest field of redemption, we all stand equal before Him, the rich and the poor. For at the end of the day, the ones who are truly rich are those who unfailingly strive in their lifetime to bring the fruit of the Spirit in their life to full bloom. Amen.

Crazy Rich Asians and Jeff Bezos.

The crazy rich will always sit uncomfortably with the crazy poor. Their ostentatiousness, aloofness and condescension irk the poor to no limits. 

The reactions to the Crazy Rich Asians movie is one good example of how many Singaporeans see the uber rich, that is, they are spoilt, snobbish, and at most times, insensitive. 

Although it is just a satire, CRA nevertheless puts flagrant flamboyance on the big screen. And in a society with such a large income and social divide, it only deepens the gap and distorts the perception even further. 

And just when we thought that “the culture of excess by the privilege 0.01” in our society is as far as one can get or imagine to describe the fabulously rich amongst us, next comes a book entitled “The Billionaire Raj” by James Crabtree that makes CRA look like another middle income family sitcom. 

These are the Crazy Rich Indians in, well, India.

Just yesterday, Vikram Khanna, the assoc editor, wrote a thought-provoking article about the book, and in one paragraph he described the home of India’s richest man Mukesh Ambani and his family called Antilia, which is a 170m high, 27-storey vertical palace. 

Here is what Vikram wrote: -

“Billed as the most expensive residence in the world after Buckingham Palace, Antilia is said to have ceilings covered in chandeliers, sports courts, a temple, a theatre that can host Cirque du Soleil and Broadway productions, an “ice room” with man-made snow flurries and six flooring of parking.””

And trust me, Antilia can’t be anymore of an eyesore for the poor majority in Mumbai.

This is on top of toys that billionaires frequently purchase and possess which include huge, sprawling mansions around the world, homes with toilet bowls made of gold, “private museums, fleets of luxury cars, speedboats and private jets”, and “vast estates that host weddings where the buffers stretch for 100m or more.””

Lesson...?

Actually, I don’t think I need one. This tale has been told ad nausem and we are all too familiar with the extravagance of the rich and famous. 

They have been in our face since the days of the Greeks’ and Romans’ palatial mansions and it stretches back to the time of the oldest empires in the history of world civilizations.

Just as the poor will always be with us, the rich will too because the hallowed goal of relative equality is a dastardly utopia that is forever beyond our reach. 

This brings me to the recently crowned richest man in our modern century. 

He is none other than Jeffrey Preston Bezos or better known as Jeff Bezos. 

His company Amazon is the second company to hit the one trillion mark in market value. Todate, his net worth is S$229 billion (or US$166 billion).

So step aside Crazy Rich Asians or Crazy Rich Indians and make way for one Crazy Rich American.

Bezos was born to a teenage mother in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on Jan 12, 1964. 

His mother remarried when he was four and Bezos was legally adopted by his stepfather, a Cuban immigrant who worked as an engineer at a major petrochemical company. 

His dad came to America without knowing any English and according to Bezos, “has been kicking ass ever since”.

On Mother’s day this year, Bezos thanked his mother for everything. He wrote: ”You shaped us, you protected us, you let us fall, you picked us up, and you loved us, always and unconditionally.”

And to his father, he wrote: “Thank you for all the love and heart dad.”

Bezos himself is married to Mackenzie since 1993 and they have four children. 

Let me end with what Bezos said about his success formula. 

He said, “you need to be nimble and robust, so you need to be able to take a punch and you also need to be quick and innovative and do new things at higher speed; that’s the best defence against the future.”

Then he added, “You have to always be leaning into the future. If you’re leaning away from the future, the future is gonna win, every time.”

Well, I don’t know about the nimble and robust part and the quick and innovative bit because the majority of us will probably succeed (in our ways) in a less than nimble and robust pace as compared to him. 

Success in Bezos’ world is definitely different from success in most layman’s world. Not all of us are going to be the richest man in the world anytime soon and hit that over-100 billion mark. 

But still, that leaning into the future part is readily identifiable for me. My spin on that is about hope, not hope to be a billionaire, but simple and sustainable hope for tomorrow. 

For me, it is about fighting for hope, staying the course, doing what you can with what you have, never give up, and to borrow Bezos’ words, “able to take a punch” and then learn from it and move forward. 

In the end, it is about growing strong against the storms of life as one saying goes: -

“Strong people make as many and as ghastly mistakes as weak people. The difference is that strong people admit them, laugh at them, learn from them. That’s how they become strong.”

Alas, we may not be Crazy Rich Asians but we can always be Crazy Resilient Asians who are rich in ways our children can be proud of, and such a rich legacy is in the words of Bezos that of his mother’s unconditional love and the unfailing heart of his father. 

No money can buy that kind of love...and that’s crazy love for you, priceless and timeless. Cheerz.

The Great Rich-and-Poor Divide.

I have two ways to see the world. 

One is an ever-sharpening pyramid where the top 1% still reigns and rules with the ever-expanding base still struggling to make ends meet. 

The other way of seeing the world as it unfolds is to compare the top (of the pyramid) to a mouse, nimble and crafty, moving in and out of nooks and crannies. And to compare the pyramid's vast base to an aging elephant, slow and lumbering, struggling to catch up, lagging behind. 

From these two ways or perspectives, we develop two different categories of people, with their attitude and temperament changing with it. 

The top will look down at the bottom. And the bottom will rage on against the top. The former will develop an indifference spurred by entitlement and privilege, and the bottom will develop a biting sense of desperation spurred by hopelessness and rebellion. 

If Karl Marx's class struggle happened in smokestack industries and factories, in our modern era, it is happening in cities, homes and schools. 

For deindustrialization is not the end of the class struggle, it is unfortunately replaced by something more sinister and creeping. It is replaced by automation, robotic technology and AI industrialisation. 

Today's article by Vikram Khanna entitled "The scary and exciting future of jobs" tells us about this imminent future of job displacement, disjointed career switches faster than we can blink, and the wiping out of traditional small and medium companies catering to the masses.

Well, it seems like a more scary future than one that is brimming with excitement because unlike the social and technological evolution of the not-too-distant past of mass production and assembly line manufacturing, this technological breakthrough exclusively favours the capitalist investor who happens to belong to the top 1% in the global society.

And no country or city-state is immune. 

Khanna highlighted that the future of this little red dot will see "about 24 per cent of work activities...could be displaced by 2030", which in my view, only sharpens further the top of the pyramid and goes further to broaden the base. 

As such, the richer will get richer, and the poorer will get poorer, and who are adding to the base much more than filling up the top? 

Well, it is the middle class. This socioeconomic transition is called the hollowing out of the middle class. 

It works simply by way of this metaphor. It is the inversion of the eye of a needle in Jesus' parable. This time it is not the rich trying to get through, for they are already on the other side.

This time, it is the middle class that are trying to squeeze through; as the poor are too disillusioned to move up. Like the Dead Sea, social mobility for the poor is in a state of immutability and immobility.

But the camel, representing the middle class, is too big to fit through into the needle's eye for entry into the gated community of the wealthy and the powerful on the other side.

So, in time, the camel will starve and shrink and eventually join the base of the pyramid with the majority of the poor, disadvantaged and disenfranchised. The world would then be even more divided, fractured and unstable.

When automation and AI technology take over our jobs, and none is spared from medicine to law, from white collar to blue collar, the ones who will directly, or even indirectly, benefit are the, well, top 1%. 

By then, when robots rule the world, or when the entire production capacity of the world is owned by the top 1%, with billions displaced, the rich, like landlords, will sit on the throne of their walled-up castle to collect economic rent, which has always been defined as the concentration of wealth on a few without expending much effort, or at all, by that collective few. 

We will then return to the age of king and queens with a large feudal system, but this time, the kings and queens are those at the top born not of heritage or hereditary, but those who capitalise on the upward trend of technology and enrich themselves beyond their wildest imagination. 

And the feudal indentured populace will be the same masses who are forever struggling to make ends meet with what little they have, or those who work to their bones just so that they can eke out a smidgen from their lifetime labour. 

Let me end with another article entitled "Priority Primary 1 admission could worsen educational inequality" by Assoc Professor Irene Ng. 

She raises the concerns of the inequality effect by the creation of a preferred/prioritised route to primary school via MOE kindergarten.

Prof Irene's concern is that it will create a category, make it competitive in a way that only the rich can afford, and soon runs the risk of ossifying into being exclusive to price out the poorer class in society. Alas, segregation starts even younger for us. 

She compared it to the Integrated Programme, "which lets students skip O levels and move seamlessly from secondary to pre-university studies. It was meant to be another path to broaden choice, but it became a prestigious programme viewed to be superior, and its students are over-represented by children from wealthier families."

This man-made superiorty effect starts with a category, that is, a category created by public policy. 

Prof Irene aptly observed: "When you create a category, it differentiates. Depending on the starting point, that category starts to be given a prestigious or stigmatised label. Through a self-fulfilling prophecy, the category assigned with prestige attracts more demand and resources, and the stigmatised category attracts less. Richer families are then better able to prepare themselves and their children for entry into the prestigious educational category, leading to educational segregation by socio-economic status."

Alas, collectively, the Mathew effect (where the more will have even more) will go on in our modern society; this time, it may just get worse, and the segregation even more fractured, divisive and inflammatory. 

The categories we have thus created for ourselves will only isolate society, widen the income and social gap, and deepen the divide. 

This is just a microcosm of what is happening in the world where unchecked globalisation is not closing the gap, but fracturing it further and deeper because our nature is always to horde, enrich and exploit. 

So, in the end, the elephant will never catch up with the mouse, and the top will get ever sharper with a broader languishing base. 

This is the definitive modern evolution of materialism whereby, in the primitive world, our ancestors lived shorter lives caused by diseases, war and plague, but in our modern world, we are living longer lives compounded by depression, hopelessness and loneliness. Cheerz?