廿多位机构总干事及代表签署《捐献者权利约章》（11月10日消息）

廿多位机构总干事及代表
签署《捐献者权利约章》
（11月10日消息）

时代论坛 / 2005年11月10日

廿多位机构领导人及代表，于今日（十一月十日）中午齐集签署《捐献者权利约章》，以公开承诺所属机构愿意遵守约章规定。

该约章由基督教机构协会（ACO）推动，董事会主席翟浩泉牧师表示，该会在八七年创会时已考虑规定会员入会时要作出类似承诺，及至近年社联亦订立筹款约章，故便正式参考制订：「社联只要求会员自愿参与，但我们则规定全体会员都要签署。」故此该会特别在四月举行会员大会，经全体会员商讨后，确定该会全体会员均成为约章签署者。其中廿多个机构的总干事或其代表更亲身出席今日的启动礼，以示支持。

有关约章的宗旨、运作机制及全文内容，可参本报十月廿八日之报道（按此），至于ACO全体卅六个会员机构的名单则如下：

大使命中心
工业福音团契
中国信徒布道会
天道传基协会
世界华人福音事工联络中心
回声谷伤健福音协会
亚洲归主协会国际总会
明光社
城市睦福团契
宣道出版社
香港差传事工联会
国证网络
施达基金会
香港圣乐服务社
香港三元福音倍进布道
香港世界宣明会
香港基督徒音乐事工协会
香港基督教更新会
香港基督教零售业协会
香港亚洲归主协会
香港学园传道会
香港读经会
海外基督使团
汉语圣经协会
基督教卓越使团
基督教爱协团契
视障人士福音中心
晨星出版社
新福事工协会
远东广播
真证传播
福音证主协会
环球电台香港
禧福协会
香港教会更新运动
基督教耆福会

（www.christiantimes.org.hk，时代论坛每日快拍，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.

资料库

昔日新闻