This account of an abusive church is of a very different kind from the account of Trinity Brentwood. It is not about a single congregation but concerns a whole diocese on the other side of the world. The church concerned is the Anglican Diocese of Sabah which is situated in Malaysia and the northern part of the island of Borneo. My account is based, not on gossip or hearsay, but on a sober report commissioned by the provincial House of Bishops for South East Asia. The report, as we shall see, paints a dark picture about the behaviour of the Bishop of Sabah, Albert Vun. It is still unclear why the House of Bishops, having read this devastating report about the Bishop’s conduct, did no more than offer a slap on the wrist. Clearly the church politics in this part of the world are beyond the comprehension of a blog reader based in the UK.
Bishop Albert Vun was consecrated in 2006, having conducted a ‘successful’ ministry in one of the major parishes in the Sabah diocese. I put the word ‘successful’ in inverted commas, because as readers of this blog will know, I do not regard filling a church with worshippers as necessarily implying that the leader is either godly or promoting the values of the Kingdom. In this part of the Anglican world, charismatic renewal is the norm for church practice. In an Asian context this style of worship might be thought something of a cultural ‘fit’ and clearly some Christians here in the West are also excited by this heady brew of uninhibited Asian worship styles and an extremely conservative fundamentalist theology..
The problems that arose with Bishop Vun’s ministry were nothing directly to do with his style of worship or indeed his theology. The latter owed much to the ultra-conservative Moore College in Sydney which teaches a fairly austere brand of Calvinist theology , but now often mixed with Pentecostal-style worship. This college situated in Sydney is largely responsible for the reactionary tone taken by some Australian bishops, especially Bishop Peter Jensen, the secretary of the conservative group known as GAFCON.
To return to Albert Vun. The problems which lay people brought up to the House of Bishops and the secular courts of Malaysia fall into two categories –pastoral and financial. To take the second first, it is enough to say that the Bishop was constantly involved in complicated land and property deals which were, according to the complainants, unsupervised and questionable, both legally and ethically. Also there appears to have been a culture which allowed the Bishop to spend large sums of money, both on his family and on those favoured by him. He also travelled all over the world business class on ‘mission’ trips. These seem to consist of the Bishop preaching to large gatherings, using all the techniques of charismatic rhetoric. One particular institution in this country blessed with his missionary activity is the Anglican theological college, Trinity Bristol. I do not think it unfair to suggest that such hyper-active ‘big tent’ activities only form a tiny part, if any, of a rounded missionary outreach. To have a overexcited Malaysian bishop visiting you for a one off charismatic event is of doubtful benefit for the health of your church, whether in Australia or Britain.
Beyond the financial shenanigans which , I regret to say, are seen to be increasingly common among a certain genre of charismatic leaders (the famous Yonggi Cho of the million strong Yoido Church in Seoul has been recently jailed for fraud) we come to look at the pastoral issues that were raised by the complainants. In summary, the compilers of the report saw no reason to doubt the accusations of pastoral abuse on the part of the Bishop. The events included refusing to allow a clergyman to attend his mother-in-law’s funeral even though there were other clergy able and willing to step in to cover for him. Another incident was the refusal to allow a clergyman who had had a heart bypass operation to have adequate recuperation time. He died a few weeks later. The diocesan staff, particular the women working in the office, were treated with contempt by Bishop Vun. A particular technique was to shout loudly at them and other clergy over periods of up to an hour. This would also happen at church meetings. Bishop Vun was also an expert in holding threats over people’s head that he would sack them. When individuals were dismissed by him, including his Archdeacon, they received less than a week to pack up and vacate their homes.
To say that the diocese was demoralised would be an understatement. A further power game that the Bishop has played was to control totally the intake of future clergy, making sure that none of them were intelligent or independent enough to challenge him. They were then trained ‘in house’ in a course that was not accredited for any other diocese. Thus none of them had the option to move elsewhere in the country, if and when they realised that their future under this bishop was bleak and uncertain. The poor training that was being given to these clergy resulted in sermons lifted from the Internet and inept pastoral care. One sentence sums up their conclusions over the charge of pastorally offensive behaviour. ‘The committee believes that that Bishop Vun needs professional help to assist him through this ‘dysfunctional behaviour’. This was a mild way of saying that the Bishop was guilty as charged of sociopathic and narcissistic tyranny against the majority of the people in his diocese.
What did the House of Bishops do? They took the option of asking the Bishop to take a six month sabbatical to receive spiritual support and time for reflection. He then took his family off around the world visiting his supporters and receiving their hospitality. On his return he appeared to have learnt nothing but resumed his vitriolic attacks on those who had challenged him before his departure, The story has recently taken a new twist, in that Bishop Vun has recently been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. The gloomy prognosis for his earthly survival does not appear to have lessened his anger and vindictiveness towards those that he believes to be his enemies.
The story of the Diocese is, from the point of view of the editor of this blog, a story ultimately about the use and abuse of power. People who acquire power of whatever kind often want to use that power for their own gratification. Bishop Vun first of all found a power given him by his ability to move people through charismatic rhetoric. This, we would speculate, went to his head so that when he became bishop, he started to use power for his own ends. I have spoken before of the three ways of exercising power – sex, money and power games. Thankfully the sex part appears not to play a part in this story but clearly the other temptations were part of Bishop Vun’s ‘dysfunction’. If there is any conclusion to be drawn from this saga, it is that the powerful charismatic preacher must never be allowed to believe that his power and inspiration extends in every direction. Even he/she can be wrong and they should surround themselves with people who are ready to tell them so. Power corrupts and absolute power should be checked at every point – to misquote the old saying.
What a dreadful story. And I’ll bet that all the people who have been praying to be freed from this monster now feel guilty! I must say, I see echoes of similar behaviour in this country in the church I inhabit. By that, I do not mean the buildings, or human gatherings, that I have been in over the years, but the experience of the CofE as a whole that I have lived through and with. Yes to Bishops, but also incumbents, who only put forward those who are not too clever. Sometimes clearly because these people are perceived to be easier to manage than those who perhaps should have been given opportunities. (The management often includes threats and bullying, perhaps of a bad reference, followed by rewards, paying for a retreat perhaps. And then engineering some “promotion”, up to and including ordination in my experience, which will of course ensure that the target is eternally grateful to the person who got them what they never in their wildest dreams thought they could have. And can then be followed up by threats to “unmake” them if they don’t toe the line. Also in my experience. Though that particular incident misfired when the “mark” turned out to be made of sterner stuff than the abuser had realised!)
Some people are called to be evangelists, and some people gain a huge amount from these gatherings. Can’t see why meself, but different strokes don’t you know. The odd preaching trip (however odd!), doesn’t strike me as a problem in itself. In theory, these things can be refreshing for the recipients and the donors alike. As to why the church authorities agreed he had indeed behaved like this, but let’s not do anything. Well, I’ve seen similar behaviour on an individual scale myself. “I’m sorry, I can’t do anything” seems to be the perennial fall-back position. Fortunately, there are more checks on behaviour in this country. But it is far from fool proof. I have seen clergy get away with buckshee holidays, running a business from church premises, not actually doing the services advertised, and making off with fees. The latter was eventually dealt with, but only after many years, and most of the offenses had to be written off. Let’s face it, if they had acted sooner, there would have been less.
So, yes, Stephen, sadly, I recognise the shadow of this man in many of the people I know. I will remember him in my prayers.
hi English Athena – sadly, you have so many inside stories of dysfunction and abuse in the CofE. I’m wondering what’s keeping you from leaving?
The significance of this story from overseas is not that it does not happen in this country, but that bad behaviour is more likely to be hushed up here. The report is remarkable for its detail and still more remarkable that a church that contains laity with such clear ability to grasp issues, does not also have leadership that can respect the research that has been done by sorting out the problem.
To clarify, it’s not that I don’t see that things go wrong here. But as English Athena seems to have seen so much of it personally, maybe she could contribute to an interesting aspect of the church dynamic, which is, why do some stay and some go, when they realise that not all is roses? The blog has explored the situation that people may be so brainwashed and disempowered that they feel they can’t leave a church, but there are all sorts of other different experiences too.
I think it’s clear that we also have laity here with a strong ability to grasp the issues. The implication of your reply would seem to be that our ‘leadership’, which apparently mainly means clergy leadership by contrast, is just as bad at dealing with the issues – if not worse, if things are more hushed up.
Once again Stephen has exposed the evil of power control. I’m sorry to say,that my experience in this town mirrors exactly this wickedness,as it inveigles its way like a virus into (So called)’Church /Fellowship leaders’.
About six weeks ago I met a young couple who had just joined a ‘Fellowship’ overseen by an Anglican body. This is what they said (I quote verbatim) “We like the singing and all that, but we can’t understand why they keep asking us for money, we had to go to the food bank last week!” Is it time to just give up? Sincerely, Chris Pitts
Hi, Chris. Your story is unbelievably depressing, and I don’t know what happened here, obviously. But it may just be (just!) that some people in this church are deeply insensitive and they are always on a fund raising drive!. Many churches are desperately short of money. No excuse of course.
Hi Haiku. Well, long story. I’ve got out once, in a way, and went somewhere else that turned out to be just as bullying, but the blows haven’t got to my soul somehow. (Not from lack of trying, I think!). And I am in the throes of changing another important aspect of my life. God still seems close. And in the end, you know, the fields are white!
Thank you English Athena, You don’t know how much I want to accept that excuse, unfortunately, I think I’m getting near having the maximum amount of information there is to compute on the ‘Churchie’ activities in this town!
Any discussion on this subject is avoided by these Church/fellowships.You become your own worst enemy the moment that you speak out. The absolute tragedy is that the disempowered street wise kids see right through these mausoleums of delusion. PEACE, Chris Pitts
hi EA, thanks for giving some insight. 🙂
I would welcome comments on the following:
1) Is there any point in trying to communicate our concerns with the leaders of these fellowships. Especially (In this country) when they are connected with the Church of England?
2) Should we campaign for an independent body to head up this issue, with perhaps a bishop to oversee it?
The credibility of the Christian gospel is at stake here, along with thousands in real need who are simply bewildered by the theatre of ‘Sunday morning Christians’ ? Chris Pitts
There will be a hierarchy that you could approach. You have to have something very specific, like, it was supposed to be a communion service, and it wasn’t. You can’t just say there were people who didn’t like the service, because only the person concerned can say that. You could say to the incumbent that people who are very poor are being asked for money. And depending on his reply, you could then take it further, to the Archdeacon, for example. Put everything in writing, stick to one subject, keep the replies, and if you feel that is not satisfactory, for example if the Archdeacon does not reply at all, you can follow it upwith a letter to the Bishop. This should be brief, polite, and to the point. And of course the fact that the Archdeacon has not replied is part of the point. Quite often powerful people will just brush things off if the guy is putting bums on pews. But you can try.
With regard to Albert Vun, part of the problem has been that he’s always been jealous and has felt threatened by one of his contemporaries. They started out as young priests working together, then this man (who I’ll call FD) went into the interior ministry, while Albert Vun stayed in the town. They rose up together, being installed as Canons, and then Archdeacons at the same time. FD had great sucess in the interior ministry, church planting, and the training of evangelists: a fair number of clergy in Sabah had been trained and mentored by FD as evangelists. (That was in addition to being the sole priest for 8 village churches, taking five services every sunday and additional services throughout the week). Albert Vun just had a big church in Tawau.
Problem was, the former Archbishop, Yong Ping Chung, favored Albert Vun over FD. It also didn’t help that a lot of people in Sabah say that Albert Vun only became Bishop because FD recused himself from the election. So you’ve got that pettiness and insecurity, another symptom of which was how Albert Vun always kept emphasising that he was the bishop.
Well, this chapter is closing anyhow. He died two days ago from pancreatic cancer.
Thank you ex-Sabahan for finding and commenting on the blog. I hope that you and anyone else from your part of the world who finds our blog will peruse it and see that the issue of abuse in churches is world-wide and not easily eradicated. I am at present extremely interested in the influence of Moore College in Sydney. I am not sure that this influence is benign on the overall situations of Anglicans in South East Asia. Perhaps you have a coment. I have recently acquired two church contacts in Sydney and I shall question them on this issue. Meanwhile I hope and pray that your church can move through this period of transition and change with the death of the bishop Vun. It will require a lot of wisdom, something that has not been evident among your local leaders recently.
Thanks for responding, Stephen! I moved from Sabah a decade ago, but I still have some contacts there, and I knew a ridiculous number of clergy and their children. I agree on the Moore College influence – from what I’ve seen, Moore College grads tend to be convinced that they’re the only people in the room who know anything.
Another factor, I think, which is shared by the Anglican church worldwide, is that there are very few clergy who’ve actually worked for any length of time in the secular world. Those who have tend to have a very different perspective and approach.
But yes. I’ve met a fair number of Moore College grads and I’ve not been very impressed by them. They don’t like to be challenged, or nor do they like idea that they’re not the smartest person in the room. You won’t find a Moore College man leading an Alpha Course, where you can’t show off how correct you are! So I think that’s part of the problem too – the mindset imparted by Moore College.
Not to say that they’re all mean or terrible people – I’ve personally met Peter Jensen and I think he’s an alright bloke – but Moore College does seem to breed a sort of arrogance or conceit that’s not conducive to getting along with people.
…probably didn’t help also that despite FD being demoted from Canon by Albert Vun, everyone in Sabah still insisted on calling him Canon. Slap in the face to Albert Vun there.
To sum up Albert Vun’s problems: his pride got the better of him, and he became too full of himself.
http://thetrutheng.com/ – has more details about everything that’s been going on.
Ex-Sabahan. My own reaction to the Moore Theological types is not just their style, which you describe well, but also their theology. You probably gather from a perusal of this blog that I come from a style of Anglicanism that regards it important to uphold the three pillars of Anglican theology as Scripture, Tradition and Experience. The Broughton Knox/Jensen style is to ignore large swathes of Anglican/church history in favour of a disproportionate concern for the period of the Reformation and particulaly the Puritan side in theology. That, as far as I am concerned, creates a lopsided version of Anglicanism. The wole GAFCON/Moore College approach is, to me, a lopsided unbalanced one and that is why GAFCON does not resonate well with Anglicanism in this country. What was being said at my conference this week is that the majority of Anglicans in the pew chime with the old-fashioned balanced approach to their faith. If you search through the blog you will find material to support the view that unbalanced teaching can contribute to unbalanced personalities such as that suffered in Sabah over the past few years. Thanks for the blog reference. I have in fact been following the trutheng faithfully for a couple of years.
I think in fairness to the Province of South East Asia and the other bishops it needs to be said that they already knew that Albert Vun was likely terminally ill when the case against him was proved – so the 6 month sabbatical was being given to a dying man… probably in the awareness that he would be unlikely to return to post, and also that in mercy to ‘sack’ him at that stage in his life would be difficult.
As a matter of record, Bishop Vun’s illness was diagnosed and announced in October 13. He died in July 14. The provincial committee reported in August 2012. I do not think the Bishops knew over a year before everyone else. There was no suggestion that the Sabbatical was anything to do with an impending illness, unless you know something that the Sabah blog does not.
I agree fully that the late Bp Vun caused immense on ongoing damage in the Diocese of Sabah, not only to laity but also committed Anglican priests. Those who were seen as a threat were moved at short notice or a planned moved rescinded when the furniture van was packed, they and others were insulted verbally or lost their position for no reason. It is unfortunate that Michael Green, in his book ‘Asian tigers for Christ,’ had lauded Vun;s work in Tawau without having any idea of his style of leadership or the needs of the wider Diocese, and most unfortunate that ArchB Yong ‘organised’ the election.
The point made above about Bp Vun rejecting priests with intelligence or pastoral skills, preferring those with neither quality who thus depended totally on him for their status is the one which will haunt Sabah Anglican for years to come. I’ve know a fair few Sabah Bishops since 1966, and have experienced several n Anglican churches descend into rule-bound ego-trips for the leaders to the dismay of rural people who loathe such behaviour on cultural and faith grounds. There are still, thank God, some devoted and devout well-trained priests with pastoral and preaching (not yelling) skills: let all who care for the Diocese pray their commitment comes to fruition.
Thank you Elizabeth for your comment. I made an attempt to report the situation in Sabah as objectively as I could but the case against the late Bishop Vun seems to be unanswerable. See the comment above about the sabbatical being linked to his illness. That seems to be the work of an apologist for the Bishop. The dates that are in the public record suggest that this cannot be not the case. Perhaps such that kind of re-writing of history may help another generation to think in a muddled way about the event of the past few years. I hope not. If any good can come out of this whole saga, it will be a clear understanding of what went wrong from the beginning to the end. The Albert Vun story has in part provoked this blog as I see the pattern of poor leadership being a feature of churches all over the world. This blog is all about understanding how this happens!