Vision Christian Fellowship Inc: charity review

This is a review of the organisation ‘Vision Christian Fellowship’, principally for those who are existing donors, or who are considering donating. The website has an invitation to give to the purchase and fit out of this building^[1].

The previous review (May 2019) (in black) is used as a base, with comment (in green) only if the situation has changed or extra information would be helpful.

I sent a draft of this review to the church on 13 May 2019 16 January 2020. They did not respond. The Lead Pastor, Andrew Baker, responded with comments. I replied with information to help him understand why I had said what I had. And where relevant I reminded him that he could have what he had said inserted in the review as the church’s comment.

That was in January. I have not heard from the church since.

No changes to the review were needed as a result of his comments.

The above was the beginning of the review published five days ago (19 March 2020).  Today (24 March 2020), the Lead Pastor said that he hadn’t had time to respond to my comments and asked me to remove the review until he has a chance to talk to me about it.  These are unusual times, so I am happy to accede to his request.   

Update, 14 April 2020

1. The Lead Pastor send the church’s comments on 27 March. I responded.
2. Two board members rang me. I helped them understand what I had said in the review.
3. The Lead Pastor sent me comments for publication – see below, in blue.

General comment from the Vision Board

“We have had the privilege of getting to know Ted personally over the past year and have known him to be a committed, faithful member of our church over that time. Because of our relationship with Ted we felt it necessary to provide some feedback to Teds report both out of love both for Ted, and for our church. These comments are made in order to express some concerns that at times Ted’s comments are unnecessary and misleading. Some of Ted’s feedback is helpful and we will take this on board as we hope Ted will take on board our feedback also.”

Reviewer’s response: The feedback has been considered. No changes to the review were necessary.

Vision’s comment

“Teds stated aim according to his website (https://www.businessbythebook.com.au) is ‘helping Christians and Christ-centred organisations do things God’s way.” Whilst Ted has indicated that a previous review (May 2019) was sent, no record has been found and certainly no effort was made to contact either the Vision Board or Pastors. We would strongly encourage Ted that in order to truly help Churches (his stated aim) a greater attempt to make contact and discuss his findings with Church would aid significantly.”

Reviewer’s response:

1. 1. The transmittal email was sent to the same address as successfully received the current review, ‘kristelle@visioncf.asn.au’. This address is the one that Vision have put on the ACNC Register as their ‘Address For Service Email’. No notice of non-delivery was received.
   2. Reviews are not our only service. They are not intended to provide help equally to both groups of beneficiaries: the opening line of the review says that the review is ‘principally for those who are existing donors, or who are considering donating’.

The charities’ regulator, the ACNC, in their article, Donating to Legitimate Charities, gives “some things to consider to help you make sure your donation is going where it is intended”:

1. Check the charity’s name.
2. Ask for identification from anyone seeking a donation.
3. Be careful of online requests for donations.
4. No tax deduction doesn’t mean the charity is not a legitimate one.
5. Find out more about how the charity says it uses donations.

Vision’s comment

“It is important to note that Ted’s source for this review has solely been material available on the ACNC and Vision Websites. However, Vision membership has access to several other sources of information through emails, printed and verbal updates as well as several open forums regarding financial management of the church and the building project. The Annual Reports for the AGM are also vital sources of information which includes the report from the Auditor.”

Reviewer’s response:

1. 1. There are people other than members who are potentially interested in the information necessary to make decisions about Vision. For instance, there are a not insignificant number of people who attend the church who are not members.
   2. How does ‘the report from the Auditor’ differ from the one on the ACNC Register?

Here’s the results for ‘Vision Christian Fellowship’, with #5 supplemented by the essentials of the ACNC’s What should I consider when deciding which charity to support?^[2].

1.  A search on the name ‘Vision Christian Fellowship’ on the ACNC Register of charities leads to a registered charity in the name Vision Christian Fellowship Inc (Vision). The email address given on the Register entry for that charity shows that it is the same organisation^[3].

_________________________________________________________________________

Reminder: The previous review (May 2019) (in black) is used as a base, with comment only if the situation has changed or extra information would be helpful.

2.  It would be unusual for a church to use third party collectors. There is nothing to indicate that Vision does.

________________________________________________________

3.  The “web address begins with ‘https’”, there is a “closed padlock symbol next to the web address in the address bar”, so the website is secure [the first ACNC article above]. However, you will not need to test it as there is no online giving facility.

________________________________________________________

4.  The Australian Business Register (linked from Vision’s ACNC Register record), says that the charity is not entitled to receive tax deductible gifts. Even for its Building Fund.

It is, however, a legitimate charity.

Vision’s comment

“Churches do not meet the ATO’s requirements to be endorsed as a deductible gift recipient (DGR). This includes all funds given to churches including those given towards a building fund. Whilst there are many creative ways Churches have “found” to get around these requirements they are against both the spirit and letter of the law.”

_________________________________________________________

5. Objectives/Mission

Nothing found.

Activities

See the main menu item ‘Ministries’.

From the Annual Information Statement (AIS) 2018 2019, here what they said they did in 2017-18 2018-19:

Sharing the Gospel^[4]?

Yes

Locations

Vision operates in Australia, per the ACNC Register, only in the ACT (at 60-62 Gladstone Street, Fyshwick).

NSW has been added. No reason could be found for this.

Vision’s comment

“Vision oversees a Scripture in schools program in schools in the NSW region.”

Reviewer’s response: Given this information, we suggest that Vision investigate whether it needs to apply for an ARBN.

There’s nothing on the Register, but the countries to which Vision sent the $77K $56K [AIS 2018 2019] should be listed.

Vision’s comment

“All our missions giving is clearly identified on the website, in the foyer of the church building and specific amounts are always clearly identified in our published annual statements.”

Reviewer response: Information outside the ACNC Register cannot make up for a lack of information on the Register.

Vision’s comment

“We will look further into Ted’s mention of a new legal requirement to list the countries that we donate money to, on the ACNC website.”

Reviewer response: The requirement is not new:

1. 1. Vision would have been presented with the question of overseas operations when it completed its Annual Information Statement (AIS) 2019 (and earlier years too).
   2. Up until 2017 Vision reported in its AIS that it operated in several overseas countries.

How the mission and activities translated into dollars spent

The audited account of how donations are used is the Financial Report 2018 2019 on the ACNC Register. Are you one of Vision’s 150 200 volunteers [AIS 2018 2019]? Perhaps you intend to donate or are one of the people who gave $706K $695K^[5] [AIS 2018 2019]^[6].  Can you ring Vision’s office and request that they prepare financial statements that answer the question or questions you have about the charity? 

Vision’s comment

“We have a clearly articulated constitution that outlines roles and responsibilities. Vision has a clear membership structure and financial statements are prepared, and presented to members. All Vision members are entitled to question any aspect of Vision’s financial accounts and preparation process and we have always made it a priority to go ‘above and beyond’ in our financial accountability and transparency.”

Reviewer’s response:

1. 1. It is the legislation governing financial reporting that determines the reports that should be prepared.
   2. Our question comes directly from the law’s definition of ‘general purpose financial report’: ‘A financial report intended to meet the information needs common to users who are unable to command the preparation of reports tailored so as to satisfy, specifically, all of their information needs.’ [Glossary, aasb.gov.au].

Reminder: The previous review (May 2019) (in black) is used as a base, with comment only if the situation has changed or extra information would be helpful.

Highly unlikely. 

Vision’s comment

“An example of an unnecessary and potentially misleading comment as people are encouraged to raise issues they are concerned about, both with the pastors and with the board.”

Reviewer’s response:

1. 1. For users to ‘raise issues they are concerned about’ is sensible (and Biblical).
   2. In a review, it is quite appropriate to question the charity’s choice of reporting framework.
   3. It is only misleading if it is inaccurate.

Therefore, you are dependent on the normal kind of financial statements, general purpose statements^[7]. Yet the members of the Committee (see below), with the agreement of the auditor^[8], say that you don’t exist:

They made the same decision this year.

Vision’s comment

“Another example of an unnecessary and potentially misleading comment. It is unclear who exactly Ted is suggesting has been overlooked here. If it is a member of the church that he is referring to then he is incorrect. As previously stated, reports are prepared (and audited) specifically for members. If he is referring to people who are non-members then it is unclear who this group might be and should be noted that never in our 30+ years as a church have any non-members or the church (suppliers etc) asked any questions of our financials, let alone desired to have any specific accounts drawn up for them.”

Reviewer’s response:

1. 1. Questioning Vision’s choice of reporting framework is appropriate because it affects what is reported.
   2. We have the same definition of users as adopted by the accounting profession. See footnote 6 of the review.
   3. Vision do not explain how their stance fits with this opinion by the auditor’s professional body^[1] given to the Board recently:

So, the financial statements have not been drawn up to suit you.  Why, then, would you rely on them? 

Vision’s comment

“Another example of an unnecessary and potentially misleading comment. As clearly stated previously our statements are drawn up specifically for all known relevant and interested parties.”

Reviewer’s response:

1. 1. The question flows logically from our conclusion. It is a necessary part of informed decision-making.
   2. Change the conclusion and the question is no longer relevant.
   3. It is only misleading if it is inaccurate.

Like last year (missed in our review), the directors have omitted one of the legally required statements, the Responsible Entities Declaration.

Reminder: The previous review (May 2019) (in black) is used as a base, with comment only if the situation has changed or extra information would be helpful.

Vision’s comment

“We will look into Teds comment and make any necessary adjustment in future years.”

There’s another reason why you should be cautious about the statements: 

Vision’s comment

“By using the word ‘cautious’, Ted creates doubt in the mind of the reader, which we feel is another example of an unnecessary and potentially misleading comment. As a Board we have always gone above and beyond to ensure the transparency and accountability of our statements including engaging a professional Audit firm to a detailed audit/review of our accounts every year. It should be noted here that engaging the services of a professional audit firm is not a requirement for a church our size but is something we’ve insisted upon to go the extra mile in ensuring our financial accountability. To insinuate anything other than this is simply untrue and unfounded.”

Reviewer’s response:

1. 1. The caution is about the internal controls, not whether Vision had its financial statements reviewed or audited.
   2. It is a review. Based on what was found, a caution to those relying on the statements is defensible. (Change the finding and the need for caution disappears.)
   3. Both reviews and audits must be performed by a current member of a relevant professional body. Such a member is known as an auditor and is bound by the Australian Auditing Standards.
   4. The review made no comment about Vision’s decision to obtain an audit rather than a review.

the $706K of donations is what was recorded, not necessarily what was received.

Vision’s comment

“We have many controls in place that are equally to or well above similar industry standards. We fulfil the requirements outlined on the ACNC website by having “staff and volunteers follow proper financial controls” and have “two people involved in handling and recording any money received” (see https://www.acnc.gov.au/tools/guides/protect-your- charity-fraud). Therefore, we feel this is another example of an unnecessary and potentially misleading comment. As a Board we have always gone above and beyond to ensure the transparency and accountability of our statements including engaging a professional Audit firm to a detailed audit/review of our accounts every year. To insinuate anything other than this is simply untrue and unfounded.”

Reviewer’s response:

1. 1. Neither the controls that are ‘in place that are equally to (sic) or well above similar industry standards’, or Vision’s compliance with the ACNC’s suggestions for protecting against fraud, avoided the need for the auditor to qualify the accounts.
   2. It’s a review, so the comment was necessary.
   3. It’s only misleading if it is inaccurate.

The Committee were either unwilling or unable to put in place the internal controls to ensure that the money that you gave made it into the bank account, and then into the books.

Vision’s comment

“As shown above, we have controls in place that are well above similar industry standards. Therefore, we feel this is another example of an unnecessary and potentially misleading comment.”

Reviewer’s response: If Vision had the controls in place the auditor would not have needed to issue a qualified opinion.

They still provide no explanation for the acceptance of this deficiency in controls.

Vision’s comment

“Another example of an unnecessary and potentially misleading comment. There is absolutely no deficiency in controls here. See comment above”

Reviewer’s response:

1. 1. The statement is factual. (It is not unusual for the directors of charities with an audit qualification to give the readers their thoughts on this qualification.)
   2. See above for whether the necessary controls are in place.

So, the auditor was unable to give a ‘clean’ opinion, but qualified the accounts:

Vision’s comment

“No, in fact it had nothing to do with what controls were in place or not in place. As the Auditor specifically states it is not practical (possible) for the Association to maintain effective controls over ‘cash offerings’. It should be noted here that the donations in question are only those collected in offering bags as the Auditor continually makes references to the ‘cash offerings’. In other words online giving (which is currently over ¾ of the fellowship giving) is not in any way called into question here. Some explanation here may be helpful. In our discussion over many years with more than one auditing firm, it has become clear that under the requirements of the Australian accounting standards it is impossible to independently verify the amount of cash collected in the offering bags on a Sunday. In terms of our Sunday collection we have multiple ‘offering counters’ each Sunday which count and record the total offering. All monies collected are then put directly into a safe. Monies & paperwork are then checked an additional time prior to being banked. All of these controls are standard across all church organisations but will never be sufficient to meet the independent verification that is required for a ‘clean’ opinion.”

Reviewer’s response:

1. 1. The audit qualification was a direct result of ‘what controls were in place or not in place’. To quote the auditor, Vision doesn’t ‘maintain an effective system of internal controls over donations, gifts and offerings’.
   2. That the controls that Vision mentions ‘will never be sufficient to meet the independent verification that is required for a ‘clean’ opinion’ is not supported by the empirical evidence. See for instance the review of churches on our site.

That’s a qualification on 98% 97% of the revenue.

Reminder: The previous review (May 2019) (in black) is used as a base, with comment only if the situation has changed or extra information would be helpful.

The directors were happy to accept the same qualification again this year.

Vision’s comment

“This is simply untrue and unfounded. As stated before approx 75% of our revenue comes from online bank deposits and can therefore can be objectively accounted for. This is both the spirit and letter of the Auditors qualification and a simple phone call to either the Auditor and/or the Church would have been able to clear up Ted’s mis-understanding.”

Reviewer’s response:

1. 1. The acceptance of the qualification by the board is a matter of record. And confirmed in their comments above.
   2. The auditor contradicts himself. He first says that there isn’t an effective system ‘over donations, gifts and offerings from all sources’. Then he says ‘cash offerings’. Then he says ‘ offerings income’.

Note that the auditor, Eric Hummer, prepared the financial statements. You might ask what measures were put in place to reduce the self-review threat to an acceptable level.

Vision’s comment

“Detailed financial reports are prepared by Vision’s financial manager for the audit and the Auditor simply converted and formats the reports into the legally required format, for Financial Statements, by the Auditor. This is yet another example of unnecessary and potentially misleading comment.”

Reviewer’s response:

1. 1. Vision reported, in Note 2 in the financial statements that they paid the auditor $1500 for ‘financial statements preparation’.
   2. Auditor independence is essential to the reliability of the financial statements. And the law says that the self-review threat must be addressed by an auditor in this situation.

There are several other issues with the Financial Report 2019:

• Many Notes are missing from the ‘Notes to the Financial Statements…’ This includes ‘Contingent Liabilities’, ‘Commitments’, ‘Critical accounting judgements…’, ‘New or amended Accounting Standards and Interpretations adopted’, and a reconciliation of ‘Property, plant and equipment.

Vision’s comment

“Thank you Ted for pointing these out. We will investigate these notes and resolve any relevant issues for next year.”

• The auditor signed before the directors had signed their report and the letter.

Vision’s comment

“This is a presumption that in fact is not true.” 

Reviewer’s response: In the Financial Report 2019, The Statement by the Board is dated 22 November, the Independent Auditor’s Report 31 October.

• There is a strange inclusion: what appears to be the Board’s ‘management representation letter’, a letter required by the auditor.

Vision’s comment

“This was a mistake and will be rectified for future years.”

• With a major building project underway, you would think that there would be at least a Note about it. And maybe something under ‘Commitments’ and ‘Events after Balance Date’. But nothing.

Vision’s comment

“There was much discussion and written notes that were sent to members as a part of the annual report which accompanied the financial reports. As mentioned, regular communication has been given to members and church attendees and placed on the website so there was simply no need to make extra mention in the financial statements themselves.”

Reviewer’s response: Communication outside the financial statements cannot compensate for non-compliance with the law governing financial statements.

• Vision has a bookshop, but there is no explanation for the absence of both inventory and revenue from the sale of books.

Vision’s comment

“Vision books are provided ‘on consignment’ from Koorong.”

• ‘Building Fund contributions’ are incorrectly classified as ‘Other income’. They are as much ‘Revenue’ as the items listed under ‘Revenue…’.

Reminder: The previous review (May 2019) (in black) is used as a base, with comment only if the situation has changed or extra information would be helpful.

Vision’s comment

“Building giving and normal giving are both income and have both been recorded as such. We separate out the building giving as a ‘below the line item’ both to clearly distinguish it and to give our members an idea of how the normal operations of the church are functioning.”

Reviewer’s response:

1. 1. Neither of these things was subject to comment in the review. It was Vision’s exclusion of ‘Building Fund contributions’ from revenue, and its classification as a gain (‘Other income’). This is contrary to the applicable Accounting Standard.
   2. The distinction is not just a nicety: reporting obligations of charities are based on ‘charity size’, and ‘charity size’ is based on revenue, not income.
   3. Separate to this, why does Vision include two line items ‘other income’, one under revenue, one not?

• The amount transferred to the ‘Building Fund Reserve’ does not match the amount of contributions to the Fund.
• Why classify as ‘Cash and cash equivalents’ term deposits maturing within one year rather than the industry-standard three months?

Vision’s comment

“This is the decision of our Auditors who also prepare our annual accounts and is in-line with current accounting standards.”

Reviewer response:

1. 1. As the auditor points out in his report, the accounts are the responsibility of the Committee, not the auditor.
   2. Going on the description of what Vision staff do – see above – the classification of term deposits should occur at the time of bookkeeping, not at the time of turning Vision-produced financial reports into reports for publication.
   3. One year is not ‘in-line with current accounting standards’. See paragraphs 6 and 7 of AASB107.

• Are no security deposits held?

Vision’s comment

“No.”

Should you still choose to rely on the statements do so,

Vision’s comment

“This is a disappointing, unnecessary and potentially misleading comment. As a Board we have always gone above and beyond to ensure the transparency and accountability of our statements including engaging a professional Audit firm to a detailed audit/review of our accounts every year. It should be noted here that engaging the services of a professional audit firm is not a requirement for a church our size but is something we’ve insisted upon to go the extra mile in ensuring our financial accountability. To insinuate anything other than this is simply untrue and unfounded.”

Reviewer’s response:

1. 1. It is reasonable for a user of the financial statements to decide whether to rely on them. Experience shows that reliance is sometimes unwise.
   2. It is a decision that must be made by each user; therefore, in Vision’s case, we just raise the question rather than advising them not to rely on the statements.

here is where the donations went (with last year’s in the second column):

2019:

• There were three full time, two part time, and three casual employees [AIS 2018].
• 2019: increased to three, three and one [AIS 2019].

The website does not identify the people – the board – who are responsible for the above situation.

It still doesn’t identify the board members.

Reminder: The previous review (May 2019) (in black) is used as a base, with comment only if the situation has changed or extra information would be helpful.

Vision’s comment

“Due to privacy concerns, we do not make public Board members details, on our Vision website.”

Reviewer’s response: By law – in the absence of a successful application for the information to be withheld – the names are required to be placed on the ACNC Register. Which is public. Here they are. So, privacy is already lost.

But the Statement by the Board [Financial Report 2019] lists those who were responsible for the 2019 internal controls and the financial statements:

Vision’s comment

“It is unclear why this statement starts with “But …”, Is there an issue here?”

Reviewer’s response: ‘But’ is used here in the normal way to introduce a balancing statement.

Pastor Andrew Baker

Mrs. Alison Baker

Mr. Paul Thompson

Mrs. Alice Thompson

Mrs. Ruth van lerschot

Mr. Eric van lerschot

Mrs. Kathryn Hartley

Mr. Justin Hartley

But from the ACNC Register, they are:

Vision’s comment

“It is unclear again why this statement starts with “But …””

Reviewer’s response: Because it follows on from the comment on the absence of names on the website. Again, a balancing statement.

Alice Thompson

Paul Thompson

Alice and Paul are no longer directors

Vision’s comment

“When the Financial Report was loaded on the ACNC Website on 5/12/2019, Paul and Alice Thompson were still members of the board. Due to their interstate move at the end of 2019, they resigned their position and are now no longer listed as board members on the ACNC website.”

Alison Baker

Andrew Baker

Eric Van lerschot

Ruth Van lerschot

Justin Hartley

Kathryn Hartley^[9]

The board is responsible to the members. The number of members is not disclosed.

Outcomes/impact

Nothing systematic on outcomes or impact was found.

1. The cost will be $2 million plus the fit out. I cannot find where it tells donors (a) the expected cost of the fit out, (b) how much they can borrow should the donors not give the total, and (c) what that borrowing would mean for the congregation ↑

Vision’s comment

“All of these details, and much more, has been made very clear to members, church attendees, and all interested parties through website, letters, videos, verbal updates and special meetings.”

Reviewer’s response: Communication outside the financial statements cannot compensate for non-compliance with the law governing financial statements.

1. Focus on the nature of the charity’s work, its beneficiaries and the impact the charity is having in the community.Is it clear what the charity is trying to achieve and how its activities work towards its objectives?Would you like to spend your money, or time if volunteering, to support these objectives?

Is the charity being transparent about its activities? [A section in the article, Donating and Volunteering]. ↑

1. As associations may either be incorporated or unincorporated, Vision’s enabling legislation provides that it must use its full name when dealing with the public:

The website contravenes this. (Vision do not have a business name registered.)

Vision’s comment

“Thank you Ted for pointing this out we will look into this and make any necessary adjustments.”

1. “Good living and social concern are important [to the cause of evangelism], but they are not uniquely Christian graces…I’ve met a lot of fine Hindus, Muslims and atheists. Just living the life is not going to bring someone to Christ. There is much more to it than that. We must help people, certainly, but we must also share with them why we are motivated to do so. We must stand against injustice, poverty and need, but we must at the same time point to the One who brings justice and who can meet the deepest need. Until they know our reasons, how can they come to know our Lord?” [Dan Armstrong, the Fifth Gospel: The Gospel According to You, Anzea Books, pp. 13-14. ↑
2. The giving to the Building Fund is not identified.

A change in reporting this year sees a separate item, ‘Building Fund contributions’. This is incorrectly classified as ‘Other Income’.

Reminder: The previous review (May 2019) (in black) is used as a base, with comment only if the situation has changed or extra information would be helpful.

Vision’s comment

“This is misleading on two counts. Firstly, the giving to the building fund is very clearly identified as Ted himself notes above. Secondly, classifying building funds income separately in not incorrect, simply a decision made to provide greater integrity and clarity to users of our financial statements.”

Reviewer’s response: Neither of these things is the issue we raised. It is Vision’s classification of it as ‘Other income’, outside revenue, that is incorrect. See AASB 118, AASB 101. (See above for the implications of this classification.)

1. From Objective of General Purpose Financial Reporting (SAC2), www.aasb.gov.au: ↑ ↑
2. Vision’s AIS continues to be incorrect in reporting that general purpose financial statements were prepared. It also reports ‘Other comprehensive income’ when there isn’t any, and omits two figures under ‘Gross Income’.

Vision’s comment

“Using detailed financial reports compiled by Vision’s financial manager, Vision’s annual financial statements are prepared by a professional auditing firm, (as noted by Ted) in accordance with relevant accounting standards. We have sought comment from our auditing firm as to the validity of any of Teds suggestions.”

Reviewer’s response: Our comment has nothing to do with the financial statements. The subject of our comment is Vision’s Annual Information Statement, not its Financial Report.

1. Eric Hummer of Synergy Group Audit Pty Limited. ↑
2. Two of the eight are staff members; with the whole membership from which to choose it is interesting that the board is composed of what appears to be four couples. With selection of board members being made by the existing board members, hopefully the conflict of interest was dealt with appropriately. ↑

Vision’s comment

“Vision’s Board is currently comprised of couples. This hasn’t always been the case but for the majority of the past 30 years there has been more couples than not. As a church we see this as both a biblical model with many New Testament house churches being run by couples, and a model that has borne fruit for us as a church.”

Reviewer’s response:

1. 1. Vision is a long way from being a New Testament house church. For instance, here is a description of early Christian worship cited by Robert and Julia Banks in their book The Church Comes Home:

The togetherness of the church and its services is not that of a theatre audience, where one or several paid actors act on the stage while everybody else is looking on. Each one takes part with his special gift…the body of Christ is not a body of soldiers in which one sees at best the neck of the preceding man…it is a body consisting of members living in their mutual addressing, asking, challenging, comforting, sharing of Christ and his gifts.^[2]

2.   Greater fruit may have come from following a different standard, for instance, those of the CMA Standards Council, the ECFA, or even the secular ACFID.

Vision’s comment

“We do appreciate Ted’s interest in reviewing our church and commend him in his continued passion in helping Christians and Christ-centred organisations.”

1. Enhancing Not-for-Profit Annual and Financial Reporting, March 2013, accessed from their website March 2020. ↑

2. E. Schweizer, “The Service of Worship’, Neotestamentica, Zwingli: Zurich, 1963, pp. 335-336, page 39 of Banks, Albatross: Sutherland, 1986. ↑