廿多位機構總幹事及代表簽署《捐獻者權利約章》（11月10日消息）

廿多位機構總幹事及代表
簽署《捐獻者權利約章》
（11月10日消息）

時代論壇 / 2005年11月10日

廿多位機構領導人及代表，於今日（十一月十日）中午齊集簽署《捐獻者權利約章》，以公開承諾所屬機構願意遵守約章規定。

該約章由基督教機構協會（ACO）推動，董事會主席翟浩泉牧師表示，該會在八七年創會時已考慮規定會員入會時要作出類似承諾，及至近年社聯亦訂立籌款約章，故便正式參考制訂：「社聯只要求會員自願參與，但我們則規定全體會員都要簽署。」故此該會特別在四月舉行會員大會，經全體會員商討後，確定該會全體會員均成為約章簽署者。其中廿多個機構的總幹事或其代表更親身出席今日的啟動禮，以示支持。

有關約章的宗旨、運作機制及全文內容，可參本報十月廿八日之報道（按此），至於ACO全體卅六個會員機構的名單則如下：

大使命中心
工業福音團契
中國信徒佈道會
天道傳基協會
世界華人福音事工聯絡中心
回聲谷傷健福音協會
亞洲歸主協會國際總會
明光社
城市睦福團契
宣道出版社
香港差傳事工聯會
國證網絡
施達基金會
香港聖樂服務社
香港三元福音倍進佈道
香港世界宣明會
香港基督徒音樂事工協會
香港基督教更新會
香港基督教零售業協會
香港亞洲歸主協會
香港學園傳道會
香港讀經會
海外基督使團
漢語聖經協會
基督教卓越使團
基督教愛協團契
視障人士福音中心
晨星出版社
新福事工協會
遠東廣播
真証傳播
福音證主協會
環球電台香港
禧福協會
香港教會更新運動
基督教耆福會

（www.christiantimes.org.hk，時代論壇每日快拍，2005.11.10）

舊回應7則

銀狐 / 2005-11-12 22:54:55

回貓姐

而且﹐很多基督教機構也不簽署﹐總不成把不簽署的都打成為和影音使團一樣的擋次罷﹖當然有些機構的財政來源比較多元化﹐所以也未必需要向信徒交代。

＜＝咁我又不會把影音使團和沒有簽署的機構連作同一級數，突破機構也沒有在名單之內。

我同意有一個開始是好的，最少，即使不簽署，我們亦可以有一個準備可以做參考。

虞瑋倩 / 2005-11-12 22:23:34

給銀狐

我暫時都只是懷疑影音使團不簽約章﹐但還未知道是他們延誤了還是確實的決定不簽署。

一紙簽署﹐精神是為了要基督教機構真的有所謂 accountability﹐在運用捐獻時候要交代﹑有計劃﹐志在的不是簽署﹐而是機構誠信。

但高興的是﹐總算基督教機構開始了行動﹐或者過多幾個月﹐會越來越多來簽署。

話晒這個簽署會給堂會信心﹐拿捐款都容易點﹐也許會有更多機構參與。

銀狐 / 2005-11-11 22:02:38

回Hin

幾同意你的看法，我想信徒需要更多有關奉獻的教導。

大多的所謂奉獻教導都是叫人為主付出、付出、再付出，但論到如何有智慧地付出，教導卻很少。

我愈來愈覺得，現在有些奉獻，可能都是出於「納各耳板」的心理，似為付了錢便得了，其實還有好多東西要跟進和留意的。

Hin / 2005-11-11 16:46:10

Don't stop at here

Eventhough MEDIA is not on the list, that can't be a reason that we can ask others not to support them. After all, there are only 30 or so organizations who signed this. It is still not a majority. There are hundreds of Christian organizations in Hong Kong.

The key is if there are so many questions and doubts regarding MEDIA's finance, then they should join it in order to show the public that they are reliable. There aren't another organization who is raising fund like them, who is being criticizing by others like them, who has so many doubts in their accounts like them.

Even Silver fox said that they are going to the general and not the Christian general public any more, there is still other ways to examine their accountability. They go to the general public, then we can go to the general public; they go to the church, then we go to the church. We are not doing "witch hunting" but we are asking for "responsible accounting".

What has been done is great, no matter MEDIA join it or not. It has already raise the alertness of the Christians which is something good.

I wish this organization will write some articles to instruct and educate Christians how to donate and how to look for an organization that is responsible and financially sound. We don't have to focus on one or few organizations but general education is important.

For example, what are the general donation consideration? Looking at a financial statement of an organization, what should we look for? When we ask questions about an organization's finance, what should we ask for? What are some of the tricks (bad ones) that organizations use to avoid accountability?

Way to go! Please don't stop here.

銀狐 / 2005-11-10 21:53:17

影音使團的籌款方向可能變了

平日在財政上奉公守法的機構便簽名，應該被監督的機構的不簽名。

算吧ｌａ，貓姐你可以看看影音使團最近有一個叫「家、樂、勁」的步行籌款活動，他們的宣傳品都不多在基督教書樓派分，我便留意不到有。按影音於網上的參加表格表派發地點，都變了做７１便利店。

http://www.media.org.hk/donation/2005walkathon/new/index.asp?pg=11

影音可能慢慢不再以基督教會作為其經濟支持，又或者，單單依靠這個資源是不足夠的。

但無論錢從何處來，都要小心使用才是。

虞瑋倩 / 2005-11-10 18:42:18

Oh..oh.

影音使團不在那個名單上面bor。係佢地未簽署定咩呢﹖

我相信﹐如果影音使團不簽署的話﹐我已經可以用這個理由要求教會不去捐款支持了。

Hin / 2005-11-10 16:48:34

What is next?

It is a joy to see such a system being set up in Hong Kong. I am encouraged by all those organizations who are willing to commit to this. It is a very good example and may God use it for His glory.

The key is then the implementation of such a system. Will it work?

It might be good and necessary for the system itself to report its effectiveness.

Regularly on it's website, try to report how many requests have been made through the system and how many have received satisfactory response from the system.

Since organization should be transparent in their finance, will the requests and responses be available on the website too?

This is the important step. Setting up is easy, but implementation and evaluation are necessary.

Secondly, will the organization send out letters to other organizations to invite them to join this? If membership is required, then become a member. The growing of such a group only reflects the necessary and respect for such a system. If this group is not growing, that is not a good sign at all. Either the system is not working or the existence of such a system means not much to the general public.

Therefore, I congratulate such an act but I also encourage to take another step for the implementation, evaluation and growth of such a wonderful system.

資料庫

昔日新聞