Print Friendly and PDF

Saturday, October 4, 2014


Subject : A glance at Suak Kho Ngin’s “Corrective Measures at the heart of the Church” entitled as “the Church and Discipline” February 1. 2008

The Problem : Suak Kho Ngin should have stated the problems as“the unconstitutionally elected Union Mission and Upper Myanmar Mission administrations have been accused of being the army that shoots it innocent sheep” and “did every thing with minority vote”

Definition of Discipline : Redemptive measure acted by the church at the heart of the erring member (s).

Four fold goal of Discipline
: 1.
to redeem and restore the
sinner. (Matt. 18:18)

  1. to maintain purity, integrity, spiritual fervor. (1 Cor. 15:6-8)

  1. to have educative training. (Heb. 12:4-12)

  1. to proclaim truth, standard of the church. Church Manual (2000 ed) p.184, 185. It’s the measuring tool by which the purity of the church is judged.

After I have read through the reading report of Suak Kho Ngin to Zomi SDA email subscribers, I would like to straighten some of his misinformation. Nothing is more important than understanding the principles of Church Manual and practically carrying them out.

Suak Kho Ngin’s quotation from Jonas Arrais, is shown below:

“However, according to the Church Manual, having a majority of the congregation present wasnever a prerequisite to discipline someone. The Church Manual does not require the vote of the majority of the church members, but merely the vote of the majority of members present in a properly called meeting,”

This statement needs verification for its truthfulness and investigation for its validity and usability. Let us compare with the detailed explanation of Church Manual:

“Majority vote – Members may be removed from Church membership or otherwise disciplined only by a majority of the members present and voting at a duly called meeting. …….. the majority of the church is a power which should control its individual members.” Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 107; Church Manual p. 184: 1,2.

“An erring member may be placed under censure by a voted of the Church of any duly called business meeting of the Church, provided the member concerned has been notified” Church Manualp. 183: 6

Jonas Arrais uses “the properly called meeting” in the place of Church Manual’s duly called meetings. The technical term “properly” and “duly” means legally, officially, legitimately. Church Board meeting is the Church’s duly, legitimately, properly called meeting. Any meeting other than the Church Board meeting and Business meeting is not a duly called meeting. By the way, “Church Board cannot remove from Church membership.” Who can? The Manual clearly states about this:

“The majority of the Church is a power.” Let’s see how the method of giving discipline is defined, as below:

“Members may be disciplined by the Church for sufficient cause, but only as a duly called business meetingthe Church after the Church Board has reviewed the case.” Church Manual p. 186:3

We need to understand the nature of business meeting that alone can do disfellowshipping. It is “the highest authority in the congregation” (Minister’s Handbook, 1999 ed. p.117) or “the highest ranking committee of the local Church”, which “includes all members of congregation.” “All members are free to express their opinion andshow their support or rejection by vote” in the Church’s decision-making process. Elder’s Handbook, 1994, p.65. It is “customarily announced in advance at a regular Sabbath morning service” (10 BC p.291) and disfellowshipping may only be taken in that such meeting. (Elder’s Handbook, p.70)

Mr. Jonas Arrais and Suak Kho Ngin should by now understand that majority vote of the duly called meeting is the prerequisite and the only method to discipline erring members. What Suak Kho Ngin of Siyin origin had done at Lezaang, and Tedim is constitutionally invalid, as he, a long with twenty-five members who were just a smaller fraction of the church took illegal disfellowshipping to forty-five members who were a larger portion of the church. Did all members participate in making the decision? No. Was the elder of the church present? No.

You can see the truth from the Church Manual against for what Jonas Arrais has misinterpreted the principles of Church Manual, namely below:

“Having a majority of the congregation present was never a prerequisite to discipline some-one. The Church Manual does not require the vote of the majority of the Church members.” __ Jonas Arrais.

It is very clear for what Suak Kho Ngin justified himself in disfellowshipping majority by minority of the Church members without duly called meeting at Lezaang though he testified the majority of its unduly called meeting voted disfellowshipping. What he quotes is not that of Church Manual, but a personal comment, which our Church Manual does not allow as,

“Ministers or Churches not establish tests of fellowship – A minister, an individual Church, or a Conference/ Mission/ Field do not have the authority to set up, or establish tests of fellowship for the denomination.” Church Manual p. 186

Therefore, Suak Kho Ngin’s disfellowshipping members at Lezaang, Tedim is illegal, ineffective and invalid. We do not question the needs, and the nature of discipline. But we surely do object his improper method and wrong procedures of conducting such unduly called meeting of both Lezaang, and Tedim churches.

By interpreting “majority” according to his own choice, without context, Suak Kho Ngin committed all these -

1. He practiced authoritarianism in the place of democratic representation of Church government. He called a part/ function of the Church to drive/ expel out a larger part of the church.

  1. Self made manual contradicts the consensus of GC delegates (Church Manual) Preferring Jonas Arrais’ comment and Augustine to the instruction of Church Manual

  1. He did popish act against the Church authority – Being minister he acts as though he were a small pope with a little part of a Church, without its official representatives, went on taking displinary action at Lezaang and Antioch Church, Tedim.

  1. He commits spiritual cannibalism – As a result, after disfellowshipping and disbandment he caused to divide the

Church without reasonable and sufficient cause. He becomes a wolf wearing a sheep’s cloth (wolf-shepherd)

Again, he reserved room in his heart a wall of partition or discrimination as he stated. “The offender was considered a gentle (who was not allowed to enter the sacred chamber of the Lord’s temple).”The Church Manual allows a privilege of entering in the temple after censuring certain rights that such members have

“No right to participate by voice or by vote in the affairs of the church and can have no public part in the exercise there of such as teaching a Sabbath School class, etc…. He/ She is not deprived, however, of the privilege of showing the blessing of Sabbath School, church worship, or the ordinances of the lord’s house.”

Regarding to Suak Kho Ngin’s comment on “publican (considered a traitor and apostate: Luke 19:2-10)”, we should not be too negative in his spiritual status to have “Holier than thou” attitude. How interesting it is that the publican whom Suak Kho Ngin (MYUM/ UMM) thought to be a traitor and an apostate is a son of Abraham, “Salvation has come to this home, this man, too, is a son of Abraham.” V-19

Conclusion : Suak Kho Ngin and MYUM/ UMM do not achieve any of the three goal he set up. They did not follow the example of Jesus. Their procedure is different from SDA Church Manual. If you cut your healthy hand or foot, you will be maimed, deformed, ashamed and God will punish you for your uncaring of His temple.

Unconstitutional disband, disfellowshipping may be commented as, “it is not denied to those of like faith who are separated by circumstances from organizational connection with the whole body of SDA’s.” SDA Encyclopaedia Vol. 10,1324.

Sincerely yours,

Kai Za Dal

To get the latest update of me and my works

>> <<