第一○七七期的《時代論壇》的頭版專題報道，美國大使命中心會長王永信牧師在看過《基督日報》事件獨立調查團調查結果報告後，表示很認同報告，特別是信仰方面。他希望華人教會以後能加倍小心。
一直關注事件的王永信在接受《時代論壇》長途電話訪問時表示，調查團實在勞苦功高，他為此感謝神。王永信說，報告對華人教會很有幫助，世界各地的華人教會都在注意。他希望報告能給更多北美教牧同工知道。
王永信在看過報告後表示，他很認同報告，特別是信仰方面。他希望華人教會以後能加倍小心，因為在末世時代，不符聖經的教導和團體會愈來愈多。他特別以之提醒傳道人，包括他自己。王永信說，三年多前自己也曾應邀擔任《基督日報》美國顧問團的名譽主席，及後脫離。當時他見很多同工做顧問，都很擔心。現在很多同工已辭任，他也為此感謝主。
（http://www.christiantimes.org.hk，2008.4.19）
共同守望教會！神家安全，匹夫有責！願平安！(無內文)
..To Victor; Thanks
Thanks Victor, hope to see your comments more often on this site. I enjoyed the learning from you. We all think differently or have different perspective and it is good to read other's comment in order to get a more balanced picture and overall viewpoint.
It seems the things have quiet down a bit (may be that is the calmness before the storm), but I can see the forum of GH are still aiming at this issue and they have thought of different ways to defense themselves. They might be ready for some offensive action but let's see in the next month or so.
I haven't heard about the investigation committee of GH that they claimed they will form. I haven't heard about the response to the legal letters from GH by the IIC. I don't know the content of those letters but usually they will demand a response from the recipient.
Remember the IIC and hope that they will be wise and knowledgable; remember the GH and hope they will also act wisely and responsibly.
To Hin: My name is Victor
see aboveTo Anonymous: I think it is enough and what about another name
I know it is frustrated when people don't understand what you said. Well, that is OK, how could everybody understand everybody in every way.
Who did you apologize to? All the readers of your comments. I guess you don't have to but I appreciate you took the step.
I think we have discussed about this enough, let's move on. I hope that I can continue to learn from you, can you choose a letter or word to represent you instead of Anonymous since there are way too many Anonymous out there.
I want to say apology first
Do no judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measnre you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in you own eye?……(Mat:7)
My friends, I do not have desire to dwell into the long winding arguments. May I only discuss the matter in general terms.
I agree that internet is a forum for discussion. But discussion is different from judgment. If you read my previous reply, you may see that I disapprove public internet challenge without presentation of solid evidence despite the outcome. Therefore, I also disapprove Mr. Wu's approach. I have already said that the means does not justify the ends. I am sure that a certain proportion of the Christian public agree with me. But then will I ask the relevant people or Mr. Wu to apologize? No, because I also see some people may think unlikewise.
Asking a person to apologize means that we have a judgment. When we revisit the chain of emails, you will note that some people say that the ex-advisors are responsible, then the same people come forward to give witness, then the same people pass the judgment. It is three in one---prosecutor, witness and judge. That is why I say internet judgment is dangerous.
To Another anonymous: advisors, advisors
Anonymous: Are you kidding me?
You said that "When we demand a person to apologise, the person must have done something wrong first? The question is that we has passed the judgement already? It is the internet critics. It is so funny that the internet critics have passed the judgement based on their own interent talks and then the internet critics now asks the ex-advisors to apologise. The internet critics play two roles: first is the prosecutor, then judge. That is why I say internet judgment is dangerous."Now who's not making sense here?
Hin said advisors need not apologize beucase "we can't hold them accountable for the operation of the organization". Certainly. But why is that the reason people ask for apology? Advisors do not have the same kind of responsibility of a CEO. But it does not mean they have no responsibility at all.To Anonymous: You have said it yourself
You have said it that there is no solution to this. The readers must read with caution and the writers must write with caution.
In the informaiton age, there are tons of information out there, from commercial to research. We really don't know what to trust. Commercial will give you false hope, reserach results change from one side to another from time to time. What do we do? We can't cut off from all information, from all media, again, use caution but also add on cooperate caution. I am not saying cooperate caution will be a guarantee but at least better than individual caution. Another thing is the tradition. Even tradition is not absolutely good nor safe but sometimes it helps as a detecting device, as an alarm system.
Regarding the Bible teaching about do not judge, it is recorded in the Sermon on the Mount as well as in Pauline epislte but they have their context. For Jesus' teaching, right within the context, He has made many judgements regarding the teachings of the Scribes and Pharisees, He even declared His judgement about them.
I also replied another Anonymous about this regarding the teachings of the apostles. Most of the epistles from the apostles are results of a judgement. Without the judgement upon the situation of the recipient churches, you won't get those content in the epistles.
Again, to judge or not, it is not just yes and no but depending on what, why and how. I will not say that we shouldn't judge but we shouldn't judge without ground and with evil intention.
I have to agreed that in many of the critics, there are no ground, many are subjective and inaccurate and even emotional statements but again, if we want objective and accurate and non-emotional statement only, that is again impossible.
As you said, readers read with caution and writers write with caution. We don't have to believe in all the commercials, we don't have to respond to all the researches, it is our own right and responsibilities to what we read and how we respond.
To Anonymous: about the advisors
I think it is hard to ask the former advisors to apologize and I need to clairfy that the former advisors that I am referring to are not those from Hong Kong nor those who stayed on as observers for the investigation.
I just wish some former advisors are willing to stand up and say something like Rev. Thomas Wang. Rev. Thomas Wang didn't apologize. As Anonymous said, for many advisors, they have no idea what is happening and we can't blame them but for those who knew but care less about what is happening, then that is a problem.
Well, I think an apology can't be requested to the advisors in general but for those who are advisors, they can definitely help this and should look into it now if they haven't in the past.
Yes, advisors are different from board members or directors and we can't hold them accountable for the operation of the organization. But, when the organization has some serious doctrinal or moral problems, the staying on or leaving of an advisor will be important. That is just my subjective limited opinion.
To Hin: my humble view is that Christian lives out a same standard in different circumstances.
Dear Hin, when i write the below, I do not link it with the recent matter. Just a general discussion. I have read many internet critics explain away their usual behaviors by justifying the same with reasons like: not too many people reading it? only a small group of people reading it? it confines to a small group? freedom of speech? and so on.
Rights comes with responsibility. The bible clearly says that we should not judge. It should apply to all circumstances. I do not object discussions in the net. But so often we step out of lines by putting words to the absentees, giving comments upon comments, giving judgements based on unverified facts.
The internet influence is persuasive and extensive. It goes to the public as a whole. n fact, my lawyer friend told me that most of the people involving in the discussion committed slander and libel as the comments are not based on true facts and fair comments. Just that we are lucky because we cannot be identified, and because the number of internet critics are too many that no one will bother to sue us.
A very simple example. if a pastor has irritated a group of people, or even just one person. This group takes an active role to use different names to criticise the paster in Christian Times in a subtle way. And this pastor does not want to defend over the internet, what would happen to him? If he does not defend, we will say that he gives up his right. And some people will nonetheless pass suspicion on him. If he comes up to defend, he may be seen as defensive. Sometimes the internet critics even demand people to give evidence in the internet. In reality, it can never be pracitically done. When one cannot give the evidence over internet, he will be seen as failing to prove the case. That is why I say "internet" is dangerous.
I do not have a solution. But I do not have a solution does not mean that it is a right tool or I have to accept it. The readers must read with caution and the writers must write with caution too.
If jesus were us, how would he write or respond in the internet world?
www.wwjd.com
To another anoymous---why not apologise?
When we demand a person to apologise, the person must have done something wrong first? The question is that we has passed the judgement already? It is the internet critics. It is so funny that the internet critics have passed the judgement based on their own interent talks and then the internet critics now asks the ex-advisors to apologise. The internet critics play two roles: first is the prosecutor, then judge. That is why I say internet judgment is dangerous.
People may have confusion over "board members" and "advisors". Board members are responsible for management. "Advisors" is to give advice when needed. It is unusal to hold the advisors for the mistakes or faults of an organization. This is unusual not just to Christian organizations, but also to commercial world.
Also for a media like GH that has never given "cult" hints, is that fair to hold the ex-advisors responsible? Until now, if not being found by the investigation committee, who can say for sure that GH is a cult? If only based on the internet message from the said Japanese, I personally will have doubts. Some people may not have doubts, it is fair. But I am a more conservative person, i definitely have doubts.
I do see the unrighteousness of the ex-advisors. They stay and initiated the whole investigation. Should we thank him instead? Hin said that he got some not too positive responses from the ex-advisors. I were not present. I could not rely solely on his opinions. Perhaps the advisors only stated the general pracitce to Hin and at the same time went an extra mile to sort out the matter? As I can see a great number of the ex-advisors stayed. Even they had to resign from the investigation committee due to conflict of interest, they stayed as observers. If they are irresponsible, they can just leave. They stay and who can say that they will have no risk to be sued/ I am sure that their risk is a lot higher than us the free talker.
To 佚名a: a small response
We are living in a freedom of speech internet world, you can say what you want or how you want. The readers have the total authority to read or not to read; to be affected by what you wrote or not to be affected at all; to be upset or not to be upset.....it is all up to the readers.
Someone once posted and asked us not to be too serious about this forum. Indeed, yes, think about how many are reading this afterall, there might be 4000 hits but most of them are repeated hits and many might not even went thorough the whole thing at all.
I enjoyed this for expressing and interacting with others. Whatever we wrote here has no impact upon GH nor IIC (no matter it is the GH people or us who are posting here). It is just a ground for us to exchange ideas. That is it. As Daniel Cheung suggested if you want real impact, write an article to CT and ask them to publish it, then we can reach and impact more people.
Internet is very powerful in providing information but it still has its limitations. For this forum, I think it will remain as it is, a ground for expressing ourselves.
Respond to: Can common sense help here? from Another Anonymous
I didn't have the chance to read the blog of the pastor nor the article or letter from brother Lee. I only heard about this from other sources.
If someone's common sense is not good or working, it doesn't mean common sense can't help. For example, if someone can't apply the Bible's teachings, it doesn't mean the Bible is no use. I really don't know this pastor, so I can't comment on it further.
We are all learning in the process of life. I made mistakes too and I made wrong statements too. There is no one who can say that he or she is 100% correct all the time. What we can aim for is to be better day by day and what we need to do is to admit that we are wrong when we are, that is how we learn. Life's learning has no end until we reach the end. I am learning from you and many others day by day and my common sense is changing day by day.
Base on the case that you mentioned, that is why we need the body of Christ. One person's common sense might be weak but a cooperate common sense will be stronger. And, common sense, no matter it is individual or cooperate, must build upon Biblical ground.
To another anonymous: two questions
You have two very good questions. I have to first apologize that I made statements without enough content for others to think and understand.
When I said the Bible did't ask us to doubt each other but to love one another. There are explicit verses about loving one another but there is no explicit verses saying the exact wordings of "do not doubt each other".
The word "doubt" appears 24 times in various forms in the Bible including both in O and NT but not referring to doubting among Christians. The Bible didn't say that we shouldn't doubt each other, the Bible also didn't say that we should doubt each other.
Both statements can be deduced from some other passages. First, the Bible taught us to love one another, encourage one another, build up one another, have fellowship with one another...if we doubt each other (I need to explain more about "doubt" later), it is hard to fulfill these commands.
Secondly, the Bible asked us to discern good from evil, to identify the false teachers and prophets, to know the tree by its fruit...if we don't doubt, why and how could we discern at all.
Both are right but I need to limit my meaning of "doubt" and set a context for it. What I meant is doubting without limit, for example, when someone said that I want to pray for you, you don't "doubt" the person must have some hidden agenda, undertable deal, may be he wants to find out about a business deal that you are going through in order to report to your competitor, or your wife send him to you try to find out whether you have cheated on her or not...you can go on and on. May be I went too far. What I meant is that we shouldn't doubt without ground but we should discern when there is ground.
Due to limited space, I can't go on too much to explain about this.
Secondly, about common sense, meaning we discern by the common and usual knowledge or experience that we have. Everyone's common sense is different accoridng to our experience and knowledge. When someone acted or said things that is out of the normal, we then should pay some attention to it or find out more before getting ourselves involved.
For example, (this is a true but modified case), I need a studio for a TV outreach program and suddenly someone came up to me and said that one studio is vacant and may be I can use it. So I went and when I talked to the owner, he never had any eye contact with me. Whatever I said, he said no problem; whatever I asked, he said OK. When I asked for a written agreement, he said there is no need for such an agreement since we are brothers in Christ. Won't you think there is something wrong with it judging from common sense. May be this is absolutely possible to others since God is rich and He will provide what we need but according to "my" common sense, I have doubt. And so, I wait a bit longer and ask a bit more, then I find out something wrong and the deal is off.
In the same way, when I first met the GH, they are young and I appreciate what they tried to do (just like many advisors) and I offered to help but no response from them, it seems that they don't need help or they don't want others to help. When I tried to lined up some business (income opportunities) for them for more than once, they didn't seem to be following thorough at all. When I talked to different GH staff, all their answers and responses are exactly the same, even wordings. I didn't start with doubt but the doubt came after my common sense from my past experience tells me that something is different or not right. Then, I called a couple of people including one former advisor, the advisor was no longer their advisor at that time and told me more about GH and YD. Then, I move on and looked into it more and more.
Does that mean I am being decieved by them? Bear in mind, I didn't jump into it without thinking. I offer one thing at a time to them but actually none of the things that I offered were accepted by them. If anyone of the offers happened, I will observed the result and the process before I move on to the next. What I am doing is move one step at a time and build the trust gradually (If there can be any), this is not blind faith nor blind doubt.
I am sorry that I can explain more due to limited space.
To Anonymous: about internet danger and upset advisors
There are people who believe everything the newspaper, the internet reports but there are also people who knows that they need to make their judgements, what kind of people are we are determined by ourselves, whether we want to believe everything we heard from the media or we believe with discretion, we will change according to time and experience, there is no absolute or black or white only answers. You can't say that you doubt everything or you believe everything; you can't even say that you should believe certain percentage, you just can't. Further, you can't just say that we are unable to know what we should believe and what we shouldn't and so we decide not to decide what to believe and what not to believe, again, that is absurb!
Regarding the upset of advisors, it is not the media that made me believe it or not but from their own responses (not from others' comment about them and only from those advisors who have responded, at least three of them have written in response) I made this judgement. Also, whether they are upset, happy, sad, disappointed or not, it will not change the findings. Feelings and facts are two things. If someone said on the internet that Rev. Lo cried for two days, it really doesn't matter whether that is true or not to me, and it won't affect GH at all; but if someone said that GH is linked to the Pope and has a special mission from him (just making this up), then I will look into it for support before I accept it.
網絡可brainstorm，無地域限制，不過需智慧(無內文)
..教牧談回顧，還個清白
教牧談回顧，還個清白
之前有感覺教牧興沖沖，直說了，有欠公允吧，對不起，因文字沒語氣的，有些人或會敏感想多了，特找來文字，自行看。(我個人覺得後兩篇梁延益全不帶不耐煩的。)下面有些文字如代入時代論壇當時的討論場景來考慮，我會有不安感覺的，或敏感了。
Hin找過五信位顧問，或有親身見聞。
其實網絡討論，增加了即時互動和引入即時資料，可以是教牧與信徒交流的好途徑，是新事物。
基督教週報 陸輝 信任
http://www.christianweekly.net/4DACTION/W4D_CWREAD/16252/20/BACK
打從開始，坊間就發出對調查團不信任的聲音。網誌留言大多質疑調查團的獨立性，以致結果之獨立性。有外國網站以「聲名狼籍」一詞來形容調查團的成員。亦有本港人士明言不信任調查團，因此雖擁有證據，但不會向調查團提供。
時代論壇 羅錫為 做好新興教派的功課
「我參加過調查團的籌備會議，也旁聽了總結的會議。
事前，有人對調查團的立場和能力表示疑慮。它有「自己人查自己人」之嫌，有人批評它可能不夠客觀，卻又有人認為它太「客觀」就不能抱定一個信仰的立場。還有人預測，在短短兩、三個月內，不可能得到充份的資料。」
|
回應文章: 有關有些人回應「自己人查自己人」的質疑 |
回應者: 梁廷益 |
|
| |
|
有關有些人回應「自己人查自己人」的質疑，我的回應是： 1. 獨立調查團並不是「基督日報」要求的， 而是基督日報的顧問成員，而經律師澄清， 「顧問」的角色並不是董事，與組織任何活動也無任何法律上的關連（即不必上身）。顧問的作用在於「提供專業意見」，而不能也不會干預組織的行政運作。所以，顧問成員要求成立獨立調查團，並委任大律師作為召集人，並無不妥，也與基督日報的行政無關。 2. 獨立調查團的成員均基督教界較重量級人物，例如陳恩明、陸輝、司徒永富、張慕皚等，我們也會再找其他願意及有份量人士加入。楊子聰的質疑當然有他的自我見解。調查團是誰人邀請才算真正「獨立」？ 成員又是被視為夠不夠「獨立」？ 我相信只是見仁見智。但楊子聰既有足夠証據，而律師也要求他拿出証據來，他大可把証據拿出來對質（調查團侓師已發信要求他舉証）。若不舉証，或只是信口開河，則他的所謂「証據」只是「質疑」而不是事實。 3. 基督日報與其它有關的組織是否與張大衛有直接關連， 及張大衛的信仰教導是否正統，我們調查後就會有結論。楊子聰如有足夠証據， 應儘早舉証，希望這事儘早水落石出，這也是我們調查團的盼望。若証明基督日報果真是異端的結連，我們就公諸於世，使之奸計難以再得逞。但若只是「誣告」， 就必需還它清白，在主裡大家好好反省。這是我的看法。 | |
|
《基督日報》顧問 | |
|
| |
|
回應文章: 前顧問的分享 |
回應者: 梁廷益 |
|
|
|
|
我雖然不在調查團，但一直都以觀察員身份緊貼跟進這件事。因為關心到大家的表達及掛慮，故分享以下幾點： 1. 請大家耐心等候調查團的公佈。調查團會把事實（Facts）與發現(findings)作總結公佈，請大家放心。 2. 調查團認識很多具法律背景人士，特別是處理「誹謗」經驗的主內肢體，所以大家不必擔心。調查團「不求官司、也不怕官司」，由起步至撰寫報告都考慮這到方面的因素，只願把事實（Facts）與發現(findings)作總結公佈。香港是法治社會，任何人都絕對有自由考慮循法律程序去爭取本身的利益，這點大家不應見怪。 3. 我鼓勵大家多為這件事祈禱守望，讓神把最美好的彰顯，叫愛神的人得益處。我感到神一直在當中動工。 4. 「多言多語難免有過．禁止嘴唇是有智慧。」（箴10:19） 5. 請多記念香港基督日報的同工們。不論他們的立場是怎樣或是否清楚整件事情的背景，他們也需要我們的關心和代禱。 6. 在這裡很多謝調查團裡的基督教領袖們。他們雖然都是大忙人，但四個月以來甘心日以繼夜的展開調查、閱讀如山般的資料、訪問多位相關人士、作長時間的討論和証據的篩選、不斷的會議...這些工作都不為外人知，他們付出的努力也不是一份總結報告可以顯明。在這裡我由衷的多謝他們，也肯定他們對國度作出的這份貢獻。在這裡我也多謝過去對這件事情提出關注的教會領袖們，是因為大家對真理的關注和執著，才導致有今日的成果。最後，我也想多謝一直為這事擔任召集人的柯廣輝律師，他的智慧、愛心、信念與熱誠，是聖徒的優美見証。 調查團公開公佈之前，我不會再發表相關言論。 香港基督日報前顧問（已呈辭） 梁廷益牧師 | |
Can common sense help here?
Have you read the post 殺埋來啦！(某牧師網誌)? It is common sense that people can sneak in so easily. It is anti-common sense to refuse to believe this kind of possibility. Then why is it not right to be suspicious of others, those who claim to be good and turthful?To Hin
I have two questions for you. First, where in the Bible does it say that we should not doubt one another? I only recall those teachings of being careful of false teachers and they can be like angels. Second, do you really mean that people can just use commmon sense to find out the GH problem? Isn't it already argued by someone that this is highly implausible? GH used to have advisors that we all know to be good people. Where is the conflict with common sense? If what those good people would like to "back up" are not safe. What common sense can save you?
