基督日報事件獨立調查團為避嫌正重組．本月廿二日再聆訊（2月14日消息）

基督日報事件獨立調查團
為避嫌正重組．本月廿二日再聆訊
（2月14日消息）

時代論壇 / 2008年2月14日

《基督日報》事件獨立調查團召集人柯廣輝律師，於昨日（二月十三日）公佈最新的調查進展，全文如下：

《基督日報》事件獨立調查團工作情況匯報

由於《基督日報》事件引起廣泛關注，《基督日報》的三位顧問在07年12月12日委託本人成立一個獨立調查團，盡速處理事件。本調查團在07年12月21日首次透過《時代論壇》向教內各界匯報調查團籌組的情況，並在本年1月8日在《時代論壇》公佈調查範圍。

在本調查團成立初期，因為時間緊逼，本調查團把調查範圍限定在被調查機構及人士與已知的異端、即統一教的「關係」，並假定本調查團沒必要深入研究被調查機構及人士是否異端。即使本調查團部分成員是被調查機構的顧問，按原定的調查範圍，也不會存在利益衝突的問題。此外，本調查團認為首要的事項是盡快展開工作，當發現本調查團存在利益衝突的問題時，則進行重組。

本調查團於本年1月28日開始第一次會議，經過仔細的討論後，本調查團確認關鍵性的問題必定觸及「異端」的爭議，故必須避免一切實質及潛在的利益衝突。因此，所有現在或曾經與被調查機構有關聯（例如曾擔任某被調查機構的顧問）的成員，均決定辭任，並由餘下的成員邀請具認受性的教內人士加入調查團。已辭任的成員將繼續協助本調查團的工作。

本調查團已經展開重組工作，在新成員落實接受委任後，本調查團會向弟兄姊妹公佈。

到今天為止，本調查團已經向關心《基督日報》事件的各方發信，邀請他們提供所擁有的證據。感謝上帝和關心事件的弟兄姊妹付出的時間和努力，本調查團得到積極的回應，從本地及海外收到不少對調查有重大幫助的資料。被調查的機構及人士亦已經交出部分證據，本調查團已發信邀請他們提供尚未交出的證據，現正等候他們回覆。

本調查團的下次聆訊將在本月22日進行，並預計能夠按原定計劃在三月份發表報告。本調查團謹此呼籲所有擁有與《基督日報》事件相關的證據及資料的人士，盡快聯絡本調查團。

最後，本調查團懇請主內肢體禱告守望，求神賜下恩典、智慧、愛心和公義，讓調查團能持守聖經原則完成任務。

《基督日報》事件獨立調查團
召集人　柯廣輝律師
2008年2月13日

相關資訊：【《基督日報》事件專輯】

（http://www.christiantimes.org.hk，2008.2.14）

舊回應12則

張國棟 / 2008-02-24 01:19:14

羅鍚為牧師的一番話

現在才看到，在二月十七日，曾任調查員的羅鍚為牧師在《時代論壇》寫了一篇文章（不能免費看的），有以下內容：

「在這篇文章刊出時，《基督日報》事件的獨立調查團已經運作了。調查團嘗試在世界各地搜集人證、物證，替這個「疑團」找真相。在一、兩個月內將會有報告，對事件有個客觀的看法。不是一個人的見解，而是集多人的見識和屬靈的洞察力而作出一個結論。
...
　　我接受柯廣輝律師的邀請，參與《基督日報》事件獨立調查團的原因，是希望能藉親身參與調查，找出真相。我正在寫作一本有關異端與新興教派的書，這事件令我寫不下去，所以，我也想快些見到真相。

第一○六八期.二○○八年二月十七日」

但在二月十三日，羅牧等《基督日報》顧問早就決定離開調查團。似乎羅牧的文章投稿太早，後亦無意請編輯更改過時的話。這可會誤導讀者。另外，他似是刻意寫得很樂觀，明明有兩個月沒有開會，卻只說一兩個月內將會有一份十分客觀的報告，而且，其實調查團只剩下一個月。

Hin / 2008-02-21 18:51:25

One more concern

Thanks Cheung again for his response and invitation.

One more concern I had for the investigation is that they are still not tackling the main issue.

From the first article by Rev. Wu, the key issue is about Jiang and his relationship with unification church. If Jiang is not involved in the investigation, how can the committee find out the relationship between GH and Jiang, it can't be one side process. If they can't prove the relationship between Jiang and GH, whether Jiang is tied to unification church or not will not affect GH at all. Then, what is the meaning of such an investigtion.

As we saw before, in the faith statement of GH, there is absolutely no problem at all regarding their faith. Then, we looked at the advisory board, again, all of them are not only evangelical but also respectful in the Christian circle.

Unless we can prove that GH has no link with Jiang and Jiang is not tied with unification church, then the key issue will be resolved. If not, they are only wasting their time asking the wrong people the wrong questions. So far as I know, the whole process is not transparent at all, and so far as I know, Jiang will not be involved in the investigation at all, if I am wrong, please correct me.

Of course, as Jiang, he has the right to get involve or not to get involve but as an individual, if he is not connected with GH, it is easy for him to disproof all the evidences that show the connection between him and GH, keeping silent will only cause doubt than bring help to GH.

I hope the committee will be more careful but afterall, these committee might not even read the responses posted here but I really hope that the earlier article by Cheung will be published in Christian Times weekly.

張國棟 / 2008-02-21 12:58:48

謝謝Hin的回應

十分感激您的回應！有空的話來敝會談談天。http://s-h-c.org。有好些朋友都在談很多事，但他們少在這裡露面。

Hin / 2008-02-20 21:20:43

Thanks Cheung

Thanks Cheung for being faithful in saying what you should. If they are offensive, they are only offensive to those who couldn't understand the message you try to convey.

The two things that I am doing is make good use of what I have (including my position and my experience) and say what I know is right. As Jesus said, we played the music but they refuse to dance, so what do we do or I should say what did Jesus do? We continue to play the music!

We are not better than others but we are just more willing than others.

Most people seek an easy way out, most people like the wide path and the wide gate, isn't that much easier, after all, most people are going that way, how wrong can it be? It is our choice, let's make the choice that we know we are right and continue to play the music that we should.

張國棟 / 2008-02-20 03:57:12

再回應Hin

你談到《基督日報》 hired a lawyer ，和背後的動機與選擇，正是我想指出可能是你誤解之處。懶得找那些網頁，若我沒記錯，那律師是由那三位顧問在沒有《基督日報》參與決定下自行委託的。

至於為何這調查團曾有一段長時間認為不用關心異端問題，我也不明白。雖然那技術性犯規（即假借佈道大會名義擅自籌款）若屬實的話，足以把《基督日報》踢出局，但更多人關心的和更值得關心的，是他們的神學立場。

原諒我岔開一點，在這裡重覆我近月來經常想講的話題－－香港基督教圈子真是很不文明和落後的，我不明白那些自命知識分子或理性的領袖，究竟在做甚麼，我也不明白他們為何不主張教內傳媒要扮演其應有角色。我們現在談的這些，是教會牧者間旳重要事件，亦本應是基督教圈內的傳媒人士應該做的事和應該問的問題，也應該是香港神學界要研討的事宜。但他們做了甚麼？倒像是只有我們這幾個小信徒在焦急。

我有收看美國 Christianity Today 的消息，他們真的做傳媒應該做的事，走去訪問那些具爭議性的人物，把不同意見都交代出來，讓人們互相對質，也會有神學教授寫文章討論。但我們這香港教會圈呢？媒體角色十分被動，某方有聲明了，那就報導出來，頂多把事件始末整理一下，完全是被動的（當然我明白主動調查是會得罪人的，但這正是要面對的問題）。調查呢？大家都不要談了，只交託一個不知由誰主責的調查團去處理，內裡有沒有甚麼不同宗派和不同神學背景的人（參龔立人博士的批評），處理得好或不好（參我在這裡的回應），都再沒有甚麼人跟進。調查團聲明只懂說感恩的話，呼籲信徒用愛心為他們禱告，看看神的恩典如何令事件水落石出，彷彿他們已盡了人一切可以做的事，包括公平、認真和合乎常理地進行調查。

這些東西沒有很多人會提出來質疑，閒時頂多只有一兩個小信徒在這網上回應欄說幾句話，表達一下心聲。那些愛說「大家不要反智」的領袖們，經常質問信徒為何在信仰的事上不及在平日的工作上那麼多用腦。那是本末倒置的。一般信徒很可能比他們描述的聰明得多，只是，用腦的後果會很麻煩。看！現在我們就多用腦，但卻與他們 set up 出來的－－或至少是他們認為可接受的－－語境和輿論圈格格不入，他們要我們怎樣！（參拙著〈信徒不笨〉，http://dcheung.name/chinese/articles/notstupid.html）

若各位不喜歡我最後的這番話，也敬請不要因此 dismiss 我之前提出的對這調查團的憂慮，反智問題或許不是您關心的，但這個異端調查卻應該是您要關心的。謝謝！

Hin / 2008-02-19 17:25:10

Thank Cheung and my response

Thank you Cheung for pointing out some of the history. Indeed, they have hired a lawyer to form the investigation committee and stated that they won't involve in the forming of the committee but I think when they hired someone, they must have laid down some "common sense" requirements or boundaries for choosing these committee members.

When I hired a person to do the rennovation of my house, I won't interfere in the actual rennovation but I will lay down what I want and what I don't want.

Also, after forming the first committee, as GH, they should be responsible to say whether the committee is OK or not instead of waiting for so long to discover that there are conflict of interest among the committee. The non-response is a kind of irresponsibility.

Again, if I hire someone to rennovate my house and they used a wrong color to paint my house, I won't sit there for another month and then tell them that is not the color I want.

I also knew that they send letters out to those whom they think are related or have made statements about GH to get their written response. I hope the investigation doesn't stop at there. When they present the report, the importance is not the result but how they get to the results. For statistics, we have the sample size, collecting method and analysis procedure. Just presenting a conclusion is not convincing at all, especially in this doubtful process of investigation.

I agreed with D. Law that the focus must upon the relationship with Jiang and his theology and don't be distracted. Being so experienced in the ministry, I really wonder why the advisors didn't notice, why GH didn't notice....a lot of questions indeed!

The case that I mentioned about an irresponsible advisor is only an independent case and it is only one case. For many, they didn't respond at all. There is another case as I called another advisor, he said that as an advisor, he will find out and when he find out GH is not reliable, he will quit for sure and this is a very good case in contrast to the other one. But, even in this good case, it shows that the advisor didn't know too much about GH and out of goodwill, he accepted the invitation to be their advisor. Now, he is looking into it and will decide whether to stay or resign.

I think the investigation won't end here, even if Jiang is clear, then we will go into the ethical issue, how they operate is another issue to look into. Are we trying to destroy them? No, but we need to protect ourselves as well as the Christian communities.

As in Matthew 24, it stated that there will be false teachers and prophets and even false Christ. I am not saying that GH is definitely one of them but it is a good exercise that we learn to discern and screen anything that is labelled "Christian" in order to avoid possible filtration of false teachings.

The Bible also stated that even Satan will appear as an angel of light, this only reminds us not to accept everything in the name of Jesus. The difficult part of false teaching is not that they are false but they looks real.

This is a good alarm for many of us. The way church is running today, the things the church is going after, the shallow foundation of many Christians are very alarming today.

Thanks again Cheung, I really appreciate the attitude and the heart behind your responses. May God grant us wisdom to discern the truth and stand for the truth.

I apology if the word "idiot" is too strong. I just hope that the advisors open their eyes and ears and don't just hope things will be over.

張國棟 / 2008-02-19 00:34:03

回應 Hin

"If they [GH] are sincere from the beginning to do the investigation, they should use at least the "common sense" to form the right group and to do the proper investigation. What they are doing now is drawing a conclusion that they are doubtful and untrustworthy even before the report is out."

若我沒有讀錯你全文的意思，你這句話似乎是錯了。那小組的成立是由《基督日報》的某三位顧問在去年決定委託柯律師發起的，後來他們更講清楚，在小組成員人選上，《基督日報》是沒有介入的。因此，若你要說 "don't treat us like idiots" ，這不應是對著《基督日報》講的。

十分訝異你提到的那顧問的不負責任態度。希望只是個別事件。

D Law / 2008-02-18 22:10:02

Focus on Jang's theology!!!

Regrouping is the only way out - it should have been done last December.

Please focus on what is most significant - the determination of Jang's doctrinal stance. You must involve him. If Jang is reformed as he claimed to be, he should be pleased to cooperate. His refusal to cooperate shall constitute his own condemnation!

The rest is superfluous.

Please do this: 1) swiftly; 2) impartially; and 3) with the help of properly-trained people.

Hin / 2008-02-18 19:47:58

Even before the report is out

I really thank and appreciate what Cheung and Yu said in their reponses.

So many "famous" pastors were involved in this investigation and it is so disappointing that it proceeds and results in the regrouping of the investigation committee. Just based on these, it is extremely doubtful about the usability of the final report, the time allowed, the depth of the investigation, the qualification and involvement of the investigators. All these cast more doubt than clarification of the issue and of GH.

GH tried to buy time and hope that time will help them by reducing the attention and focus of the public. This is only speculation but it is also a reality. If they are sincere from the beginning to do the investigation, they should use at least the "common sense" to form the right group and to do the proper investigation. What they are doing now is drawing a conclusion that they are doubtful and untrustworthy even before the report is out.

If they are sincere, not only they should regroup but also restart the whole investigation, if they really want to gain the confidence of the public, please don't treat us as idiots, we have a mind that is created by God and we will THINK!

We are not trying to discourage anyone nor destroy anything but to be fair and just. If we can't even make sense in the investigation, how could we accept the report as making any sense at all.

There won't be an end to it if they are unwilling to face what they need to face. Once again, I am sorry to say that those who are advisors are responsible because it is them that gave GH the credibility. We don't want to point fingers but I think it only make sense that they should bear the responsibility.

I asked one advisor of GH and I was so surprised to hear the comment: "I don't care about those issues". Then, why is he an advisor, it is just an empty name.

Same for those members of the investigation committee, if they are members, then fulfill your basic duties. I am very interested to know how many hours they spend in the investigation during these three months period.

Advisors, be wise and be responsible. GH, don't treat us as idiots, we are watching and thinking!

虞瑋倩 / 2008-02-18 02:54:07

我晨咁早都提出他們最初調查團組合有問題喇

他們馬上就出來死撐﹐其中包括好似梁廷益牧師呢。結果今日咪死死地氣要重組﹗

早知如此﹐就該小心調查團組合﹐不用到這時候來重組﹐浪費時間。

張弟兄講得對﹐除了重組﹐其實調查方法都有問題﹐根本無法達到獨立和沒有任何偏見。既然如此﹐不如學羅馬天主教咁自己組織一個教會會議一句定人罪就算了﹐不用做戲。

張國棟 / 2008-02-15 08:14:05

補充

「他們把自己的角色視為法官，但整個過程裡卻沒有甚麼人做控辯雙方的律師──提供和審視正反證據，確保證據可靠和真實，這恐怕會使調查結果缺乏公信力。」

應為

「他們把自己的角色視為法官，但整個過程裡卻沒有甚麼人扮演控辯雙方的律師的角色──即缺乏提供和審視正反證據、和確保證據可靠和真實的程序（不是說要請兩個律師來）。這恐怕會使調查結果缺乏公信力。」

張國棟 / 2008-02-15 08:10:26

有關《基督日報》的調查進展實在叫人憂慮！

With all due respect ，以下的觀點並不是用來揶揄或刁難調查團，而是關心整體教會，真誠地擔心這項調查最終會變成一團糟。若這些擔心沒有實現，我是會很高興的。滿有愛心的基督徒可能會覺得要儘量從好的一面想，但請留意，這調查團要做的決定是十分重大的！

一、時間緊逼

調查團在07年12月12日成立，說要在三個月內完全調查。然而，至1月8日才公佈調查範圍。那範圍本身已涵蓋甚廣，我曾在網上回應表達憂慮，他們究竟有沒有足夠時間去做調查。接著，在08年2月13日公佈的最新調查進展（即此文），才說要擴大調查範圍，又要重組調查團。重組調查團的「下次聆訊」是2月22日，即距離三個月期限只有二十天。究竟新調查團是否有足夠時間「按原定計劃在三月份發表報告」？

二、誰在真正進行調查？

文中說，「本調查團於本年1月28日開始第一次會議」，正是在那會議裡他們發現有利益衝突，所以要重組。令人摸不著頭腦的是，08年1月28日前的、兩個多月來的那些公佈和調查活動，是否只由一、兩位調查團成員按己意進行？那麼，整個調查團究竟由誰在主領？誰在進行實質工作？公信何在？

三、新調查團的人選

一般信徒除了不知道調查團裡誰才是真正最積極地工作，直至現時為止仍不知道誰將會進入新的調查團班底。當他們的名單亮相後，再過二十天左右，調查結果就會「按原定計劃」出爐，然後他們功成身退。究竟新加盟成員在那二十多天會做甚麼？他們會否只來看看別人提供的資料然後說是或不是？但這不算是調查吧？比較像是來蓋個印章。換言之，一切調查工作只是由那幾位留任的人去承擔。（但這裡又有另一問題，見下文第五點。）

四、「聆訊」？

稱調查團的會議為「聆訊」並不正確。若真的是聆訊，被告至少要在場和有答辯機會，總不成由幾個人關起門來「聆訊」被告。究竟這是手文之誤，抑或反映出調查團裡有人真的相信他們能夠在沒有答辯的情況下自以為公正地操著這生殺大權？這是否對人性過份樂觀？

五、搜集證據

調查團搜集證據的方式是否過於被動和片面？他們似乎很倚賴發信邀請提供資料。若資料不足，或有誤導成份，他們能察覺出來嗎？（順道一問，那些證據日後可會儘量公佈出來？）

六、一些疑惑

我相信一般信徒均願意信任教會長輩和領袖的決定（但不要忘記龔立人博士曾在其專欄質疑為何沒有別的宗教的神學界人士參與，不知這會否在重組時考慮在內）。只是，觀乎上述各點，今次似乎來得很牽強。這是調查異端與否，事關重大，但卻要在二十天內密集調查，調查人選至今仍不明朗，過往兩個月的調查究竟由誰在主責亦不清楚，即使要信徒對主責的調查員有足夠信任，也至少讓我們知道我們在信任誰。而他們的處事手法也當符合一定的合理性，不給人主觀地匆匆解決的印象，人們方能安心信任。

從這聲明的內容看，調查團裡那幾位真正在積極調查和繼續留任的人士，似乎以為他們最重要的工作是面對著一大堆證據來作出判斷，其中一項判斷是，被調查機構究竟是不是異端（即新增的那項調查範圍）。他們把自己的角色視為法官，但整個過程裡卻沒有甚麼人做控辯雙方的律師──提供和審視正反證據，確保證據可靠和真實，這恐怕會使調查結果缺乏公信力。

張國棟

（《時代論壇》編輯若看為適合，請考慮把本文刊登在　貴刊的印刷版。）

資料庫 > 專輯 > 《基督日報》事件專輯

報道