Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Watchman Daniel Chew Says God Appointed Him!

Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong’s effort to discredit, slander, and destroy Pastor Joseph Prince’s reputation and ministry has resulted in almost one thousand comments on Chew’s personal blog.

I will not dwell further on his asinine post, but I would like to focus upon his most recent reply to a poster called Staub1212.(comment dated 14 March 2009 12:44AM)

The following is an abstract of the conversation:

Staub1212: Daniel, your proclamation of who is going to hell and who is condemned is frightening.

Watchman Chew: Really? Do you believe that non-Christians are going to hell if they continue to reject Christ? If so, then I think you should have a good look in the mirror. Your proclamation of who is going to hell (non-believers) and who is condemned (non-believers) is frightening.

Watchman Chew here makes a deliberate logical fallacy – a false analogy.

Staub1212 commented on Chew's perennial efforts in calling down fire and brimstone upon PROFESSING CHRISTIANS. Chew appointed himself as watchman, and then goes around judging who is saved and who is unsaved.

Here Chew attempted to retort Staub1212 by making a “judgment” analogy with PROFESSING UNBELIEVERS.

If someone claims that one is a Christian, WHO ARE YOU DANIEL CHEW HUICONG TO CALL THEM REPROBATES OR UNSAVED? You may suspect a person to be a false believer, but how dare you pronounce judgment upon a fellow brother or sister in Christ, calling down eternal damnation and reprobation upon this person?

Are you thinking that you are God?

On the other hand, unbelievers do profess themselves as non-Christians, and it is rational and reasonable to judge that these unbelievers are – unbelievers. At least for now, these are unbelievers, and that is what they claim to be.

But the most exciting comment from Daniel has yet to be displayed.

Perusing the conversation between Staub1212 and Watchman Chew a little further:

Staub1212: Be careful Daniel about how you "appoint yourself" as one to watch the watchmen

Watchman Chew: I do not appoint myself. God is the only one who appoints a person. If you have a problem with that, find God.

This is it! Do we need anymore evidence that Chew is probably mentally ill? Chew, plainly and clearly, makes the following proposition:

“I do not appoint myself. God is the only one who appoints a person. If you have a problem with that, find God.”

Chew claims the following:

1.He did not appoint himself as Watchman;

2. God did; and

3. “If you have a problem with that, find God,” which can be interpreted as, “If you do not believe that, then look for God and ask Him.”

Chew appointed himself as Watchman Chew. Then he turns around and claims that God had appointed him!

Logically speaking, this is called a bare assertion (which is a logical fallacy. Period.). Anyone in the mortuary or the mental hospital can claim that God “appointed” him as whatever (e.g. Pope, Watchman, Archangel Michael etc).

However, according to shrinks, this is clinically called visual and/or auditory hallucinations which occur in patients with mental problems like schizophrenia or paranoid delusion. It seldom occurs in patients with Asperger syndrome, but it is not considered very rare, especially if one is on medications.

Questions for Watchman Chew-The-Appointed-One

Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, for Pete's sake, if God appointed you, was your Pastor Paul Goh there to witness your ordination as Watchman?

Were photographs taken with, say, a graduation gown-like thingy and a fatuous smile?

Did God appear on those photographs?

Most importantly, is Pastor Paul Goh and the elders from CERC under your spiritual "watching" as well?

Hear ye, hear ye, Watchman-Apostle-Pope Daniel Chew Huicong claims that God came down to earth, and anointed him as grand master Watchman!

“This is my beloved Watchman; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him.”

- Memoirs of Watchman Chew

PS: Dear Daniel, this is my last question for today, "What medicine are you on?"

According to Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, All Churches Involved in Festival of Praise are Blaspheming God and Condemned to Hell

There was a very interesting Report on the Festival of Praise written by the venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong some time back. My friend Monica pointed it out to me; and could someone please explain to me why wasn’t I the least bit surprised.

The venerable Watchman closed his report with the following statement,

“May God have mercy on us all for this blasphemy conducted in the name of Christ, and may he grant the people involved repentance unto eternal life in our Lord Jesus Christ.”

From his report and the aforementioned statement, the Watchman had accused the churches involved in the Festival of Praise of the following crimes:

1) All churches involved in the Festival of Praise are blaspheming God.

These include several large churches in Singapore namely City Harvest Church, Riverlife Church, Church of Singapore, and Covenant Evangelical Free Church. Pastors and church leaders specifically named by Daniel Chew Huicong include Rev Kong Hee, Canon James Wong, Worship leader Don Moen, and Rev. Ed Silvoso. Therefore, according to the Watchman-Pope-Prophet-Apostle Daniel Chew Huicong, all the above churches, church leaders, and pastors are guilty of blaspheming God Almighty. But that is not all.

Since Watchman Chew insisted that the blasphemy was committed by all those involved, this sin must be committed by the Festival of Praise Committee members as well as other attendees which include Rev. Chia Beng Hock, Pastor Ezekiel Tan, John Suan, Rev Dr Phil Pringles, Bob Fitts, Rev Mark Conner and many others.

2) All churches, pastors, leaders, and church members involved are going to hell unless they repent “unto eternal life.”

A bolder assertion by the Watchman Chew was this: these churches together with their leaders and members ought to repent of their blasphemy and pray to God that He will grant them eternal life. This is a pronouncement-cum-judgment that all churches, pastors, leaders, and members involved are hell-bound blasphemers unless they repent of their alleged blasphemy. And this “blasphemy” – which the Watchman had accused them of – is merely a joint worship of the Christian God within the Singapore Indoor Stadium.

All in all, according to the revelations and prophecies of the venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, the entire City Harvest Church, Riverlife Church, Church of Singapore, and Covenant Evangelical Free Church together with Rev Kong Hee, Canon James Wong, Worship leader Don Moen, Rev. Ed Silvoso, Rev. Chia Beng Hock, Pastor Ezekiel Tan, John Suan, Rev Dr Phil Pringles, Bob Fitts, Rev Mark Conner and many others involved in the Festival of Praise are heading straight for hell fire and are summarily condemned for blaspheming God within the Singapore Indoor Stadium.

And thanks to the great Watchman Chew we now know which churches and pastors in Singapore are going to be damned.

Furthermore, according to Rev Mark Conner (the Senior Minister of CityLife Church in Melbourne, Australia), Festival of Praise 2008 was attended by over 142 churches in Singapore. But according to Watchman Chew, all these 142 churches involved in the Festival of Praise are likewise hell-bound and blasphemers of the most holy faith.

Do you know what these 142 churches are? Let's ask the Watchman for more details, shouldn't we?

Be afraid, be very afraid!

If Watchman Chew can condemn more than 142 churches, their pastors and all their members to eternal hell fire, couldn't he pronounce judgment upon your puny soul as well?

Endnote

Here are some of those pastors and leaders condemned to hell and decreed unto reprobation by our venerable Watchman Chew:

Threefold Office of the Venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong – Prophet, Pope, and Punisher

Blogging: Never before have so many people with so little to say said so
much to so few.

The venerable Watchman Chew has written a brand new post on Hebrews 13:17. Little did he know that this will indict him further as Pope, God, and Watchman. What do we call this? It’s called backfiring – backfired by his immense hypocrisy and pretention. Let us examine his short post. (This is not a verse by verse commentary of Pope Daniel Chew’s writings.)

Chew: “I am NOT arguing that we should rebel against our leaders nor am I am arguing for forcing our personal preferences down the throats of church leaders and expecting everybody to conform to our idea of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. It is expected that my enemies would slander and libel me as stating any of such errors, but this is totally not the case, and I disavow believing any of these errors.”

Oh yes, oh yes, Watchman Chew reminds us that we shouldn’t rebel against our leaders, and not to force our personal preferences down the throats of church leaders. This he does extremely well via calling down hell fire and brimstone upon those who disagree with him (all of whom are church leaders), anathematizing those who differ from him in theological views (all of whom are church leaders), and by criticizing pastors, elders, churches, church organizations and fellow bloggers for their differing theological views.

And yes, the venerable Watchman Chew does not rebel against “our leaders.” He only anathematizes them to eternal damnation and hell fire. That’s all.

What Chew Does Not Say

1) Watchman Chew is Pope and Apostle

Chew: “This line of argument is better known by its "sacred" form: "Thou shall not touch the Lord's anointed!" That Heb. 13:17 is not against criticism of churches, church leaders, Christian organizations and entire denominations can be easily deduced from Scripture.”

Oh yes, oh yes, I suppose by careful exegeses of relevant texts, we can deduce that we are called by Scripture to pronounce anathemas upon those we criticize, appoint ourselves as “watchmen” and pretend that we can decree anyone we “like” to eternal damnation and reprobation.

Chew: “The context in Hebrews already gave us one solution to this problem as it talks about Christian leaders who are keeping watch over our souls, and of speaking the Word of God. Therefore, those who are not keeping watch over our souls (in the sense of shepherding it) but are instead lording over the flock, and those who do not speak the Word of God, cannot be considered true Christian leaders (Modus tollens).”

What? Modus tollens of what proposition?

If P, then Q.

If P = Leaders teach the Word,

Then Q = They are true Christian leaders.

Modus tollens is:

If P, then Q.

¬Q
Therefore, ¬P.

Watchman Chew is perhaps saying, “They are NOT true Christian leaders, therefore these leaders do NOT teach the Word.” So, by using modus tollens here, he makes a bare assertion i.e. that these leaders are “NOT true Christian leaders.” That is, not Q, therefore not P.

Another formulation is as follows:

If P = They are true Christian leaders,

Then Q = Leaders teach the Word.

Ah, this looks better, doesn’t it? If P, then Q; modus tollens would be:

"These leaders do NOT teach the Word, therefore they are NOT true Christian leaders."

Again, there would be much difficulty in accepting the Watchman’s formulation without further definitions and discussion.

What do you mean by the clause “teach the Word?” Do you mean an infallible interpretation of the Word, with the assumption that true Christian leaders teach the correct interpretation of the Word? If so, with so many Christian leaders out there within the orthodox and evangelical realm teaching so many different interpretations, all of them couldn’t be TRUE Christian leaders. John F. MacArthur and John Bunyan cannot be both true Christian leaders, because they both differ in some areas of interpretation of the Word, and two differing interpretations cannot be both true. Either MacArthur or Bunyan is a true Christian leader, but not BOTH. Is that what Watchman Chew is teaching here with his “modus tollens” formulation?

Furthermore, if the Watchman judges as to who is the “true Christian leader” according to their (the teachers’) interpretation of God’s Word, doesn’t it then suggest that the Watchman has access to the infallible or “correct” interpretation of the Word of God? This makes the Watchman Chew an evangelical Pope.

Isn’t this what the Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong has insinuated all along in his blogs? That “I am right, and you are wrong?” That “I know the truth, and the other leaders are in error or heretical?”

Chew: “We are exhorted in Scripture to judge and discern false teachers and false "christs" (1 Jn. 4:1; Jude 1:4), and such people will indeed enter the church (Acts 20: 29-30, 1 Jn.2 :18). We can see such episodes in the narrative of the early churches most especially seen in Paul's strong denunciation of the Judaizers in the epistle to the Galatians, and most certainly the Judaizers were calling themselves Christians, and Christian teachers and leaders at that!”

How Chew extrapolates those verses to his practice of pronouncing decrees of reprobation, anathemas, and in fact, calling ME (and my friends) a son of Satan, is most bewildering.

Furthermore, the fact that Chew had expressed the same or similar spiritual authority as the Apostle Paul means that Chew does think that he IS an apostle in the likeness of Paul of Tarsus, especially in the way he reiterates ad nauseam how the Apostle (and hence, Chew) had pronounced anathemas upon the Judaizers of old.

2) Watchman Chew is Prophet and Punisher of God

Chew: “To a certain extent, such has often been the case in the early church and the history of the church. Criticism and charges of heresy etc were often made by leaders within the institutional Church.”

In the early Church, charges of heresy were not made by self-appointed Watchmen acting independently, apart from the supervision of church bishops, elders, leaders or pastors. Heresy charges and trials were never made and decided upon in the early Church by lay individuals. There were events called church councils. There were proper administrative procedures guided by Scripture, orderly manners whereby charges of heresy were brought up to the appropriate church leadership, studied intensely by spiritual leaders and scholars, and then decided upon – not by self-appointed individuals with large egos – but by godly ordained men and spiritual leaders recognized by the Church.

Chew: “When one looks through the Scriptures and the historical record of the Church, one finds quite a few people who are not church leaders in the proper sense of the term. Old testament prophets like Amos were not of the priestly order for example, Amos being a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore figs (Amos 7:14). In church history, Peter Waldo was certainly not a church leader, while during the Reformation era, besides Luther, Zwngli and Calvin and maybe a few others, almost none of the non-Anglican reformers were ever Christian leaders until they started preaching and planting churches. An extreme example of such would be the Baptist preacher John Bunyan, who became a pastor simply by preaching and planting a church as people turned to Christ through his preaching. Yet he was never seminary trained or ordained in his entire life. This view is therefore not biblical and in error.”

The examples given by Watchman Chew are fraught with difficulties. Amos was an Old Testament prophet communicating the word of God to His people. Is Chew insinuating that he, likewise, hears God directly and communicates His infallible Word to His people? Are the Watchman’s words infallible like Prophet Amos’? Should the Watchman Chew act like he’s some Old Testament prophet pronouncing curses and damnations upon others?

Peter Waldo was accused of heresy and excommunicated, but as far as history goes, he did not pronounce curses, anathemas or damnations upon others. So what’s the Watchman’s point? That Peter Waldo’s charge of heresy justifies the Watchman Daniel Chew’s pronouncement of curses and damnations upon others (non sequitur)?

Chew says, “ … almost none of the non-Anglican reformers were ever Christian leaders until they started preaching and planting churches.”

This is again a non sequitur. Which “Christian leader” – be it Bunyan, Calvin, or Zwingli – was born a Pope, Bishop, Pastor, Elder or Deacon? All were “laity” prior to ordination or entry to “clergy-hood.” So what’s the Watchman’s point? That the fact that clergy was laity before becoming clergy justifies the Watchman Daniel Chew’s pronouncement of curses and damnations upon others?

Furthermore, John Calvin was involved in the indictment and burning of Michael Servetus, so in the tradition of “Calvin,” Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong is justified in his pronouncement of curses and damnations upon others? Should we then be grateful that he didn’t burn his enemies and “heretics” to death? Oh, how great thou art! How great is thine compassion, that thou wouldest spare us from thy wrath on the stake!

3) Watchman Chew Signs Church Membership Agreement So As To Disagree With The Leaders?

Chew: “To follow God's Word even in defiance of the dictates of any Christian leader is never a violation of Heb. 13:17, if we are indeed following God's Word and the leader is not. If however, both are within the bounds of Christian liberty, then we should of course obey our leaders in that respect.”

When Christians join a church as members, they sign a membership agreement stating that they will agree with the church’s teachings, obey their spiritual leaders, and at least acquiesce to their teachings. When Chew signs such a membership agreement, he is stating that he will do the aforementioned. If for any reasons you feel that the leaders are in error, and you cannot acquiesce to their doctrine, why then did you sign the membership agreement?

Is that a lack of integrity or willful prevarication? Is the membership agreement written in a tongue you do not understand? Did the leaders deliberately hide their convictions from you?

If you disagree and if you cannot acquiesce to the leader’s teachings, then simply refuse to join as member. Who is coercing you to join?

Conclusion

We have seen in some detail the teachings and the possible abuses of Heb. 13:17. May we therefore learn to properly apply this verse and have a heart to avoid pronouncing anathemas, eternal damnations and curses upon those we deem as being doctrinally in error. Most of all, let us acquire a spirit of humility, knowing that our interpretation of Scripture is not infallible like the Pope-cum-Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong. Let us refrain from pejorative comments and judgments like “Anathema Sit!” Amen.

Sad and shameful side of so-called Christian blogs ...

The owner of Tartanarmy came over here and posted his anti-christian, sinophobic sentiments about fellow Christian believers who were racially Chinese, so I had to acknowledge his talent in making subtle, pejorative racist comments. Not surprisingly, this man is a Watchman Chew rank-and-file follower who resides comfortably within the Watchman's dominion and rule.

Really, there are some very strange professing Christians out there who ought to be doing something else, other than being a Watchman Chew toady.

I do empathize with pastors, elders, churches, Christian organizations and bloggers who seem to be targets of Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong's and his toadies' blogs. Shame on them.

Trilemma: A Liar, A Lunatic Or A Loser?

The venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong has earlier on declared himself to be a Clarkian Presuppositionalist,

“Before I start, let me first state that I am defending the Christian faith. I am not interested even if you can prove the falsehood of all other faiths; they fend for themselves. In fact, if Christianity is true, all others are false (Jn. 14:6), so I am not interested in defending them. As such, my apologetic method has and always will be presuppositional (Clarkan [sic] as opposed to Van Tillian), and upon this basis I will proceed.”

In other words, he is not supposed to be an empiricist. I will show in this post that the Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong is really a closet empiricist in thinking.

Even those who have no knowledge of epistemology would read from Wikipedia that, “empiricism is a theory of knowledge which asserts that knowledge arises from experience.” “Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas,” and surely in Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong’s latest post, we would find his empiricist leanings leaping out into the open like a zombie out of the closet. This is despite his repeated claims to being a “Clarkian Presuppositionalist.”

Empiricism: Reliance on experience as the source of ideas and knowledge. More specifically, empiricism is the epistemological theory that genuine information about the world must be acquired by a posteriori means, so that nothing can be thought without first being sensed. Prominent modern empiricists include Bacon, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Mill. In the twentieth century, empiricism principles were extended and applied by the pragmatists and the logical positivists.

So What's The Crime?

Watchman Chew wrote:

The promise of forgiveness of sin in this Gospel age (and even in the Old Testament era) was never to be taken to mean sins being forgiven through the instrumentality of prayer. Rather, it must be interpreted in the same way as the principle of forgiveness of sins in 1 Jn. 1:9, which is to say an experience of an established reality proving the genuineness of that same reality. In simpler terms, what this means is that true born-again Christians who have their sins forgiven will by nature confess their sins and pray to God in so doing. Such activities confirm that the ones practicing them have their sins forgiven, and the Holy Spirit uses such activities to bring peace and the sense of forgiveness within their hearts.

I would like to pounce upon the clause, “which is to say an experience of an established reality proving the genuineness of that same reality.”

If you were to read this convoluted, albeit self-indicting and jejune, rendition of the following sentence, “In simpler terms, what this means is that true born-again Christians who have their sins forgiven will by nature confess their sins and pray to God in so doing,” you will notice the following proposition by Watchman Chew:

P = An experience of X proves the genuineness of X.

In other words, whether X is true or not, genuine or not, factual or not, real or not, will be proven by an experience of the X.

An experience of X would inevitably involve perceptual experience, or rather, an experience or experiences of sensory perception. This experience (derived from the human senses) then serves as the “proof” for the genuineness of X.

Despite his rabid denial of the need for empirical evidence for the existence of God and related apologetic issues, he doesn’t seem to have coherent rationality when it comes to other areas of thought in theology. For example, in the aforementioned example, he insists that, “an experience of X proves the genuineness of X.” In other words, Watchman Chew does demand empirical evidence – experiential evidence. This he denies when he proclaimed himself to be a Clarkian Presuppositionalist.

Isn’t it fair, then, for the unbeliever to say, “An experience of God proves the genuineness of God,” therefore show me this experiential evidence for God? Be it visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, proprioceptive, equilibrioceptive, nociceptive, or thermoceptive, show me thine evidence. This is exactly what Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong is demanding in his theology. Show me the experiential evidence, or your profession of faith is false.

So apparently, Watchman Chew has a different set of epistemology when he deals with apologetics and theology. He claims that his “Clarkian” epistemology is derived from the Scripture. But when you ask him questions concerning Scripture exegesis and theology, he turns around and presents another set of epistemological beliefs which purportedly are not derived from Scripture. By the way, how can two opposing epistemological systems be both scriptural?

I have no choice but to conclude that Watchman Chew is either a liar, a lunatic or a loser. Herein lies the trilemma. Which is he?

Furthermore, which epistemology is the great Watchman convicted of? Both?

Similarities Between A Christian Bigot and Osama Bin Laden

In a yet recent post by the venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, he calls those who disagree with him “heretics.” Playing the victimization card – instead of engaging the real arguments and issues – he called those who critiqued his blog as “enemies of the Cross,” and regarded any criticisms of him as “persecution.” Playing the poor victim, he conveniently forgets that it was he who perennially anathematized those who disagreed with him to “damnation” and “eternal fire.”

Since when did anyone EVER anathematize him in the first place?

Since when did anyone EVER call him a heretic in the first place?

Since when did anyone EVER condemn him to eternal hell fire in the first place?

Who is the victim here?

Honest intellectual and doctrinal critiques are expected if your brobdingnagian ego enables you to display your articles and blogs in public blogosphere. If you cannot take any criticism of your flawed logic and arguments, then please do reserve your articles and blogs for your personal sycophants to admire.

While pronouncing judgment and damnation upon those who differed from him in theology and doctrine, he desires to make himself immune to any criticism by accusing his critics of “heresy,” and calling his critics “enemies of the Cross.” It is as if criticizing the Watchman Chew is likened to blasphemy!

Woe is the man who dares to criticize the Watchman! Such “reprobates” and “heretics” are “captives to Satan to do his will,” awaiting the judgment of “God” who judges those who criticize the venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong.

These internet bigots have several similarities to fundamentalist terrorists. They think they represent God and Truth. They feel that all oppositions and criticisms are “persecutions.” They believe that God is on their side and will “judge” their critics and cast these into hell. While they conveniently anathematize others to hell, and spout tons of blogs and articles against almost every theologian and pastor on blogosphere, they immediately hold up their victimization card whenever they are exposed or criticized.

Let us peruse the Watchman’s quote from his most recent post:

Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, “As we as Christians engage the world with the truth of God's Word, we will encounter persecution from the enemies of the Cross …”

Osama Bin Laden, “As we as Muslims engage the world with the truth of God's Word, we will encounter persecution from the enemies of Allah …”

Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, “By slandering and libeling us, those people are most definitely our enemies in any sense of the term. Since they do so because we proclaim the truth of God, they are to be considered enemies of the cross …”

Osama Bin Laden, “By slandering and libeling us, those people are most definitely our enemies in any sense of the term. Since they do so because we proclaim the truth of Allah, they are to be considered enemies of the Quran …”

Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, “After all, they are doing such evil acts as captives to Satan to do his will. Being cursed, we bless, and as such show ourselves to be children of God …”

Osama Bin Laden, “After all, they are doing such evil acts as captives to Satan to do his will. Being cursed, we bless, and as such show ourselves to be people of Allah (Holy Quran16:125) …”

Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, “I truly do not want to be in their shoes when God will judge them by their words (Mt. 12:37) and actions (Rom. 2:8-9), if in fact they show themselves to be reprobates through unrepentance.”

Osama Bin Laden, “I truly do not want to be in their shoes when Allah will judge them by their words (S. 18:26 Hilali-Khan) and actions (S. 6:114), if in fact they show themselves to be reprobates through unrepentance.”

I’m sure the Watchman Chew is only performing his godly call – Jihad.

The Reformed Insurgence

There is a very interesting post by our Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong of late. In his post, “The Reformed Resurgence,” Watchman Chew wrote:

“I have been busy with various projects recently, and will be busy until March at least. One thing which I have been working on is the starting of a new group of reformed-minded Christians to work towards Reformation and revival in the churches. The few of us have been liaising via email (and phone), and the Monday which has just passed saw our first "official" meeting so to speak [apart from the local church]. There are obviously a lot of things to be sorted out, and we most definitely need much prayer in this regard [apart from the local church].

As part of forming the group, The Reformed Resurgence, I had prepared a paper which was read and feedbacked on by the other members. The paper would thus be helpful in this regard as an introduction to our group, and it with this intention that I submit it here for your edification. May it spawn many such movements of reformation in the churches for the building up of the Church and the glory of Christ. Amen.”

Consistent with his extra-ecclesiastic authority as Watchman over pastors, elders, bishops, archbishops and popes, he has started a Christian group called The Reformed Resurgence with the sole aim of working “towards Reformation and revival in the churches.”

I have a couple of questions for our Watchman Chew. For your information, my friend Markbark had likewise asked similar questions over at Watchman Chew’s blog and post, but of course, those comments were quickly deleted by Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong for fear of those comments exposing Chew’s dark intentions to the general public.

Is the pastor of Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, Pastor Paul Goh, involved in this Reformed Resurgence?

Is Pastor Paul Goh overseeing this “movement” or “group?”

Obviously not – and will Pastor Paul Goh correct me if I’m mistaken (you may clarify this with Pastor Paul Goh at handphone number +65 97831037; this number is found on the church's website).

Consistent with Chew’s believe that a Watchman does indeed have spiritual oversight even over his own pastor, “The Reformed Resurgence” is a parachurch organization aimed at working “towards Reformation and revival in the churches.” This “working towards reformation and revival in the churches,” of course, includes Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong’s own church, Covenant Evangelical Reformed Church. If you carefully check the ministries of CERC, you will find no ministry by the name of "The Reformed Resurgence." This is clearly not a local church's ministry. This is a parachurch "ministry" started by and led by the venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong.

In short, the Reformed Resurgence oversees and seeks to reform all Reformed churches in Singapore apart from their pastors’ supervision and assistance. What a great and grievous spiritual authority and responsibility, Watchman Chew!

So what is the big deal?

As the saying goes, action speaks louder than words.

Daniel Chew had, in a previous rant on my blog, denied all charges of disrespecting the ecclesiastical authority of his own Pastor Paul Goh. But in Chew’s recent attempt at setting up a parachurch organization i.e. “the Reformed Resurgence” apart from the direct spiritual supervision of his church’s session, Chew had publicly announced his intention to disregard his church’s supervision and spiritual oversight. This is Chew’s belief. He has always felt that he is able to “reform” Reformed churches in Singapore. And this he does apart from the spiritual oversight of his own pastor and church leaders.

Besides, the FACT that he feels Reformed churches in Singapore NEED reformation speaks A LOT about how the Watchman Chew regard Reformed churches in Singapore.

Despite his insistence that he “respects” and “submits” to his church leaders, his actions speak otherwise. He claimed to believe in the competency and capabilities of his church’s elders. But in his own actions, he has to resort to the organization of “The Reformed Resurgence” to reform his own church – apart from his church leaders supervision – with his self-appointed spiritual authority and self-recognized “gifts” of reformation.

This is a true saying: Truth will out!

What the Watchman Chew does in real life reveals his true convictions despite his rabid denial of the previous charges against him. A Mr Lee (apparently from Chew’s church) had accused Chew of the following, “[Chew] thinks that his pastor is a lousy preacher, unlike him … He thinks the church elders are un-gifted, unlike him.”

If Chew really believed that his church elders are adequately gifted for leadership and at least capable of reformation as reformed elders, will he have started a parachurch organization - apart from his church’s supervision and elders’ assistance – to reform the churches (including the reformation of his own church)?

Will he have enlisted the help of lay members of the blogosphere, instead of his own church’s pastor and elders, to do whatever he had planned to do i.e. to reform the churches (and his own church)?

Will Chew have started this parachurch organization at all if he truly believed that his own pastor (and other churches’ pastors for that matter) is capable of leading the reformed churches on the right track?

All you have to do is to read Watchman Daniel Chew’s blog, and you will see his self-deluded, self-appointed spiritual “authority” which he truly believes will lead the Reformed Resurgence to reform the Reformed churches in Singapore – including his very own church.

This is what he truly believes: he thinks he can do a better job than his church’s pastor and elders.

Let me ask you readers: is this a Reformed Resurgence or a Reformed Insurgence?

I would place my bet on the latter option. Wouldn’t you?