Agree. And surely, the case will reveal whether:
~ indeed the whole management (those as charged) is fraudulent or
~ there are some accounting irregularities, not tantamounting to fraud, but lack of disclosure
Again, it boils down to individual choices to blacklabel the management before trial or to cast judgement as more details unfold.
Just to clarify, I am not from CHC, never been.
But I read with interests how few groups of people behave:
(1) general public on a witch hunt on the way the church has been evangelising, and the way the church has been soliciting fundings. Atheists, sceptics, critics and all. Different objectives, same outcome. A field day for them. I cannot tell who is the mob and who is really fighting a cause.
(2) general public sitting on the fence. Neutral, waiitng for the debacle to unfold. I belong to this group.
(3) christians from other churches sitting on the fence. Relevance in knowing how CHC works. Stay diplomatic as many characteristics of CHC is prevalent in other churches.
(4) christians from CHC sitting on the fence. Took one step back and question their faith. Understand that men can sin too.
and
(5) christians from CHC siding the charged. No qualm about blind faith, no regression of facts as well. Take whatever from the church as the gospel truth. Do not understand that the church is a mere vessel.
