王永信牧师来邮再就《基督日报》事件分享（4月29日消息）

王永信牧师来邮
再就《基督日报》事件分享
（4月29日消息）

时代论坛 / 2008年4月29日

一直关注《基督日报》事件的美国大使命中心前会长、华福运动发起人之一的王永信牧师，昨日（四月廿八日）来邮本报就《基督日报》事件再作补充分享，内容如下：

整个事件，对华人教会来说也许是一个「化装的祝福」（Blessings in Disguise）。表面看来是一场乱事，事实上对华人教会可能有以下作用﹕

一、使教会（特别是领袖们），对新兴团体，将会更提高警觉，小心处理，不轻易接受任何名义或职位，以免我们的爱心被利用。

二、使大家学到功课，不能只看外表或纸面上「信仰告白」就相信并接纳一个新兴团体‧而是需要时间，切实了解其根源，及其果子与见证（路6:44）。

三、我们遭遇了这次痛苦的经历，但仍然顾惜及同情这些位耶青及基督日报的青年们．他们中间很多人本身也是受害者．他们多半是在大学读书时被吸引进入这些团体，他们都是新信徒也没有一般正常教会的经验。可以说耶青及其先入为主的教义几乎是他们对「基督教」唯一的认识。

四、我们要为他们祷告，求主将分辨的灵赐给他们，使他们及早明白真道。我们愿意送给这些位青年八个字：「误入歧途，赶快悔改！」。

五、所谓悔改是从内心及信仰上的真正回转，而不仅是口头上的转变。因为他们在口头及纸面上的「信仰告白」与福音派的信仰几乎一样，但背后却是另一件事。

六、对于那些已经脱离或愿意脱离的青年们，教会可以帮助他们，由一些专家们对他们的信仰、人生、教会、教义等予以解助（Training and de-programming）。因耶青的组织严密，初级同工不知高级的真像或真教义。例如：他们的同工到中、高级时才被告知他们主要的教义，「主耶稣第一次来是失败的，第二次来才成功，而第二次来的基督就是张大卫（或张在亨）。」

七、愿华人教会齐心努力，一方面本身靠主站立得稳，另方面凭爱心挽救这些被误导的青年们。

恳求父神怜悯这末世时代千千万万在信仰，真理及生活上被误导的人们，更求神鼓励他的众教会，努力将福音真道传遍普世，免被各种错误信仰抢先一步，占据人的心灵头脑。求主施恩，愿主旨成！

相关资讯：【《基督日报》事件专辑】

（www.christiantimes.org.hk，时代论坛每日快拍，2008.4.29）

舊回應38則

Pauline / 2008-05-10 16:36:37

A discovery

Tell you what, one of my friends in the United States told me that since November last year, Rev. Wang has publicly claimed that "YD is a cult".

I listened to a sermon Rev. Wang preached in Los Angeles (it is available to download on internet), he said "recently I recieved phone calls from Hong Kong everyday, because there is a new cult that comes out.. the name is Young Disciples of Jesus. It is very dangerous."

What I really want to point out here is that, even BEFORE IIC was formed, Rev. Wang has already had his conclusion "YD is a cult". Rev. Wang has been doing his secret investigation on YD since long time ago. He gathered so many mysterous evidences from Mainland China and has made his conclusion based on that.

This time, as IIC was established in Hong Kong, here comes a golden opportunity for Rev. Wang to publish his thesis "YD is a cult". Look how he has closely cooperated with his local contact in Hong Kong- Rev. Lo. Under Rev. Wang's influence, Rev. Lo therefore inflitrated IIC and did a great job to GUIDE IIC.

Behind IIC, behind GH incident, it is not as simple as we think....There is a story. Christian Times should definitely discover that. Why publishing stories that only tells what these pastors said?

cham / 2008-05-10 12:04:57

To D Law Again：勸勉大家細細察看真相

你可以自由地選擇去單方面相信他們。但是你應該也要看看事態究竟是如何在發展。如果你根本不查驗，卻只是想要單方附從地，那麽沒有問題。但是你幹嗎在這裡討論發表你那毫無思想的文章呢？只是爲了要烘托言論來打擊什麽人嗎？我已經回答過了，沒有理由讓大家相信他們，只是因爲他們是受到過很大的尊敬的。難道他們不是普通人？是人的話就會犯錯。更何況已經披露了他們不是可能被利用而深陷去了別人的陰謀，自己還不知道嗎？可能你還不知道，那麽不妨去看一看其他的信息。不要只是掩耳盜鈴，說他們是可靠的權威。

而那些顧問就更加讓我感到疑惑了。他們口口聲聲說自己幾年當中被欺騙了，什麽都不了解。如果按照這個邏輯，他們的結論就更加不可靠了不是嗎？他們被這麽弱小的年輕人騙了，那麽他們不會更加被他們所相信的專家權威欺騙了？我這個推論不算過分吧？

可能有人也會跟你一樣，在專家權威的招牌面前就止步不前了。但是這是歸於你自己的，你在這裡執著的宣傳，又要讓更多人跟你一樣糊塗地就得出一個結論然後走嗎？我們挑戰人家的信仰的話，不也是要公平公正的對待？我看過你之前的文章，從支持到反對，你也肯定有你的理由。不如給大家説明一下你是緣何反對了呢？這樣不是更加清楚地可以給大家一個思考的基礎嗎？若你所有的只是所謂的專家權威已經發表了意見，這樣的話，我只能是認爲你不慎重的對待了這件事情。

閙得這麽大，我們還這麽草率，實在不妥當。就算大家是牧師，或者是普通信徒，都應該要求的是事實真相。到現在為止，其實仍然是不清不楚。隨著那個調查報告之後所爆出的更多信息當中，反而更加讓人萌生疑問。王永信牧師，羅錫為牧師，這兩個調查團之外的人物體所扮演的究竟是什麽角色。若他們與調查團無份，但是爲什麽他們兩位又現身成爲了資料收集人？他們在這個事件當中若隱若現，實在令人很費解他們的所作所爲。我不想相信傳聞說他們是製造陰謀的人，可是現實當中的所見（他們自己所發出過的文章和通訊）又令人不得不疑惑他們！

調查團給大家一個結論，但是仍然未有澄清他們的資料。就算是解答一個數學題，我們也不能只是寫下一個數字就交差了。這個不是小學生也都明白的道理嗎？籠統地說這是多方收集，這是毫無説服力的。話都只是人口裏說的。還是給大家看實在的證據資料吧。若沒有的話，實在只是給了我們一個很大的負擔。

你若心裏面已經疑惑了人家是異端的，但是你卻沒有證據，我還是勸你更加要謹守你的口和你的心。就連你所信任的調查團也還不能堂堂正正的說什麽，總是避重就輕的說調查團只是公開自己的調查。不過到底他們公開的是什麽就不知道了。好像根本不是公開自己的調查，而是讓我們去接受他們的報告，而唯一能夠依靠來相信他們的，就是他們是權威專家。我看你是已經很準確地進入了他們鋪設的軌道，而且還正在宣傳這軌道。是否這樣呢？但我不想進入。我也勸勉大家細細察看真相，免得陷入“專家權威”的陷阱！

Linda / 2008-05-10 12:00:40

Christian Times and Rev. Wang

Speaking about Rev. Thomas Wang, it is very interesting that this time Rev. Wang has accepted the interview with Christian Times on the GH incident.

I remember around two years ago, there was a huge debate on the pro-gay hollywood movie "Brokeback Mountain". Rev. Wang strongly criticized the movie, and called on all Chinese evangelicals wordwide to be awake and fight against homosexual movement. In contrast, Christian Times, which represents a more liberal viewpoint, wrote some relatively positive comments about "Brokeback Mountain".

Rev Wang and Christian Times belongs to two totally different groups in Christian circle. But why would Rev. Wang speak on the GH incident through such kind of liberal newspaper this time?

Actually, I would say Christian Times is using Rev. Wang's name to make a fuss over the GH incident, so GH could be defamed and be killed in the market. Christian Times does have a business agenda in all these.

Imagine, if it is not Christian Times, Rev. Wang and these few nosy Hong Kong pastors, would anyone make a fuss over such a small GH incident?

Obviously, Christian Times is playing a market game very well to kill its competitor GH.

Paulline / 2008-05-10 10:34:59

Careful Examination

1. Rev. Lo and Rev. Wang have both provided information to IIC and IIC made such kind of report saying "YD is teaching something related to Unification Church".

2. And even more, these information from Mainland China provided by Rev. Lo and Rev. Wang appeared to be the only sources for IIC to know about YD's mainland China operation. Based on that, they also made conclusion. I agree that pastors in IIC all have independent mind, yet if the basis of consideration is only limited to what one or two people provides, there is still limitation.

3. These materials from China are undisclosed. Who are the people giving the testimonies? Are they spy from Chinese government? Or are they YD's "competitor" on the campus mission field? More dangerously, they might be members from the Unification Church and lied saying YD has such teachings?

Once again, I wish all of us can think about this deeply instead of only relying on IIC's judgement. There is no reason why we determine "YD is related to cult" without our own careful examination.

D Law / 2008-05-10 06:12:38

To Cham again

I would rather trust in the Investigation Team pastors, who are by and large respectable. Some are even former advisors to GH. There is no (or very little) personal benefit they can gain from being on the Team.

There are lots of things the Team can not publicise in their report... Based on all the peripheral evidences the Team tells us, and on the performance of GH so far, I have reasons to believe there is something fishy about GH. One plus one can never be .5!!

That is my independent thinking, brother Cham! Can I therefore be absolutely sure in my position? No.

No one, you (who wish to remind us to think independently) or me, or the pastors in the Team, can be absolutely sure. Even if Rev. Jang is willing to appear in an open inquiry and subject himself to cross examination by people trained to do so, CAN WE then TRUST HIM? I don't know.

This is the dilemma we face with cults, my friend!!!

Hin / 2008-05-09 19:25:47

To Pualine: Please check it out first

Don't forget that IIC has already stated that any evidences or informaiton outside of their report don't count and please don't tied whatever you found from other blogs to IIC.

Rev. Lo and Rev. Wang might be two of the sources but if you read the first report from IIC, you should be able to know that there are many other sources and IIC didn't depend on these two (if they did collect information from them) for their conclusion.

If IIC talked to Rev. Wang or Rev. Lo, does that mean they didn't have their independency? Of course not, as long as their decision on the content of report is totally independent of Rev. Wang and Rev. Lo, meaning that they have no right to change, add nor alter the content of the report. No matter what Rev. Wang and Rev. Lo (if they did) provide to IIC, IIC is on their own in writing up the report, deciding which piece of information is true and which one is not.

Even for those former advisor who had the press conference, they can say whatever they want but again, has nothing to do with IIC and IIC retain their independency.

What is the agenda of Rev. Wang? May be you can tell me but don't tell me that he is working for the Chinese government, in Rev. Wang's past decades of service, I don't think anyone can point to this conclusion at all.

I don't know what is behind Rev. Lo, is cult a special interest to him, that is his personal issue. Whether he wants to present himself as a cult expert, that is his own matter but again, that has nothing to do with IIC.

Don't mix Rev. Lo, Rev. Wang and any others with IIC.

You can ask tens more questions about all kinds of possibilities, such as did Rev. Wang resigned from his organization so that he can focus on working for the Chinese government? Did Rev. Lo receive false vision from God to attack GH? You can go on forever and ever but at least we need some basis for our speculations.

How can someone in US received those information? I think you should know more about Rev. Wang, then you won't be surprise that he will. So many people will go to him and he is travelling all over the world. It is no surprise at all, on the contrary, if he didn't know, then we will be surprise.

Pauline / 2008-05-09 17:28:50

Check it out

On Rev. Lo Sek Wai's personal blog, he once shared about his journey and progress in gathering information for IIC, there are some interesting points here:

(Direct extract)

1. "對一個新興教派的追查，已經有了結果...我做的主要是收集證據，包括跑到美國和大陸去。得到的資料，交由一個獨立的調查團去判斷。"

2. "先是在本年一月初去美國訪問...在美國大使命中心王永信牧師辦公室，看見一大曡文件。

我眼前一亮，如獲至寶。

王牧師一早就得到那些數據，不知道為什麽我在香港沒有拿到。後來，再從大使命新任會長陳惠文博士那裡，再找到另一些珍貴的數據。"

3. "由於日夜倒置，或是這些新發現令我太興奮了，幾天通宵達旦的研究這些文件，差不多把重要部分都能背出來。"

It is obvious that Rev. Thomas Wang has been doing his secret investigation since ...who knows when!

It is all because Rev Wang "shared" his information with Rev. Lo and Rev. Lo was able to make "crucial contribution" to IIC. IIC also depended on Rev. Lo as the only information provider from Mainland China side.

While IIC made conclusion that YD in Mainland China has wrong teachings based on these undisclosed materials, let us look back and think:

1. Did IIC really maintain its independency? What is Rev. Lo and Rev. Wang's role in this investigation?

2. What is Rev. Wang's agenda trying to kill an unregistered Christian group in China?

3. Not only that, how did a pastor in United States receive such kind of information?

Is it from communist officials in China who wants to kill an unregistered Christian group like YD? Or is it possible that some Chinese pastors sent spy to steal documents from YD? Or is it possible that "Rev. Lo the Cult-Expert" accidently mixed some documents from Unification Church and thought it is YD's?

One more point, observing how Rev. Lo reacts, he does have an extreme interest in investigating cult... I hope he was not cheated by his own illusion and paranoid thought in his investigation.

I suggest the Christian Times go ahead to investigate what is behind IIC.

Pauline / 2008-05-09 16:13:20

Background Information

Rev. Lo Sek Wai is known to be a "cult-expert" in Hong Kong and he seems to be well-respected for his work locally. Also, I found out that he has special friend in United States to help him work on his projects! Read:

http://pastorswlo.blogspot.com/2007/11/blog-post_29.html#links

In one of articles on his personal blog, he stated that Rev. Wang has a generous heart, yet does not compromise with cult and heresy. As far as I know, Rev. Wang authored a book entitled《真道小冊》in which he identified some major cults, especially those in China.

No wonder Rev. Wang and Rev. Lo have been working closely together in this game.

cham / 2008-05-09 00:41:11

To D Law

謝謝你對我的回應。

但是我不同意你的説法。你的説法明顯豈不是要讓我們都放棄掉福音信仰的本質嗎？

首先，我沒有說大家沒有獨立思考。我在說的是，某些發表出來的意見，只給我們看他們的想法，卻不給大家説明緣由，然後就要我們因爲他們是所謂的“專家”，也就是你所說的EXPERT，就要大家完全單方面接受他們的想法，這不是奪取大家獨立思考的空間嗎？

獨立思考當然是基於證據的辯證思考。難道你不知道嗎？你問我HOW，WHERE，ON WHAT，那麽是要說我不懂怎麽獨立思考，無從獨立思考，毫無獨立思考的依據嗎？這個問題的答案難道不是顯而易見的？正反雙方都有他們的陳辤立場，我難道不是應該考察雙方意見嗎？信息也都不公開在面前嗎？或者你的意思是還有未公開的嗎？考察的時候當然要看是什麽證據，否則還看什麽呢？只不過到底這些證據是否成立，這不是同樣應該要清楚地考證嗎？難道不會有人做僞證，捏造是非嗎？

結論當然應該是要在事實之上。而且每個人的結論可以不同。所以你就更加沒有理由要推崇你的專家理論。

最終，朋友，我們雖然是朋友，但是我不好像你那樣，選擇依賴專家。沒有人能夠說自己是專家。難道我們在教會當中有人可以自稱自己是通曉神的智慧的專家嗎？都是普通人，而且還都是罪人，凴什麽要相信這個專家理論？信仰不是讓我們相信專家，不是嗎？

關於IC，我沒有說自己對他們是贊同或者反對，也沒有說我要做自己的調查。所以不要代替我發表你的言論。我在說的是我們每個人都應該要有自己獨立的思考，而且不希望被人製造的言論混戰奪取這空間。你難道不因爲這樣的混戰而混沌嗎？

我們是基督徒，相信的是真理，相信的是真相，相信的是可以判斷是非的公義的一位神。這不是我們一切信仰的首要原則嗎？IC的牧者們固然是我們中間的領袖，但是他們不也是讓我們自己要獨立思考嗎？只有不負責任的人才隨聲附和，將別人的立場當作自己的擋箭牌；而後當事態改變的時候，又來把問題歸咎于他人。你是要這樣來使用IC的專家們嗎？

我想你的確有你的獨立思考。

D Law / 2008-05-08 21:49:58

To Cham

獨立思考？I have heard that too many times. Are you saying we have NOT done that?

How do you 獨立思考? Where do we start? On what do you base your 獨立思考？

Conclusions (personal or corporal) must be based on facts. But even conclusions can be subject to different interpretations.

Facts may be difficult to find in any investigation on cults because many cults are authoritarian and secretive. Some are even willing to use deceit to achieve their goals.

Ultimately, my friends, we all need to depend on "experts." If you do not like the way the Investigation Team handled the incidence, no one will convince you.

You can of course start your own investigation.

No need for any conspiracy theories. If you can not trust the pastors in the Investigation Team, who else can you trust?

You must think I am being naive, right? Lacking 獨立思考, right?

cham / 2008-05-08 17:17:21

不要奪去獨立的思考

這麽多留言，還以爲很多人了解情況多多討論。看了半天都是某某幾個在這裡誇張渲染麽。

YD也有發出他們的聲音，不過好象都被王牧師還有幾位貶得一文不值。然後就是一大堆你來我往的互讚聲當中，我們的眼球就看不到了。

王牧師還有幾位這麽努力推進那個報告，應該不會是擔心報告不夠説服力吧。不過，難道要讓大家在這個口水戰爭當中繼續陷入下去，越來越失去我們的獨立思考嗎？

Pauline / 2008-05-08 16:37:43

Looking Back

In the entire GH incident, we can see that there are actually just a few pastors who have been actively involved.

Apart from some ex-GH advisors from Hong Kong- Rev. Lo Sek Wai, Rev. Enoch Lam, Rev. Leung Ting Yik- it is interesting to see that Rev Thomas Wang from the United States have also continuously put a hand on this incident from the side.

As some of you may know, Rev. Lo is Great Commission Center International's Hong Kong branch chairman. His relationship with Rev. Wang should be quite close.

While Rev. Lo played an active role in IIC, gathering evidences all the way from Mainland China to prove GH and YD is related to cult, Rev Wang made such decisive statement regarding GH and YD. Is there any inside story here?

Hin / 2008-05-07 17:50:20

To anonymous

If you read the report from the recent press conference of the former advisor, then you should be able to see something very clear and solid.

The reason that I trust the IC instead of GH is the integrity and consistency. I can see both in IC but not in GH.

It is OK that GH made mistakes but at least they should admit their mistakes and that is absolutley OK to me. The lack of integrity and inconsistency caused great doubt to me and to the public.

Also, regarding stating clear the evidence is possible for some issues, such as those mentioned by the former advisors but stating clear the evidence about the false doctrine is another story. IC has spend many many hours to find the right wordings that will bring out their meaning but not to cause problem for themselves.

Again, if you have been in legal cases, then you should be able to understand; if you haven't, then ask some who are in the legal field, then they can help you.

I don't think we are so insane and mentally unbalanced to the extent that we love to push these group of young people off the cliff. No, not at all, we are still normal people just like you.

Victor / 2008-05-07 17:41:13

The procedure is just and the conclusion is clear

The evidence about cult must be sensitive, otherwise IIC will treat it as same as other $ or advisors issues. See the supplemental report, it is very detailed and clear.

Also GH requested IIC to investigate, that means it trusted the procedure and integrity of the IIC, now the result is against them and GH says it is unfair.

If you think that GH can be trusted, go ahead to support them. Like me, I will trust the IIC as i see no reason that they will harm GH.

佚名 / 2008-05-07 14:22:26

unclear report

因為沒有show出什麼證據，加上有很多地方都沒有明確說明，所以看調查報告本身的話，印象就是模模糊糊，似是疑非。如果你看到報告清楚地說了GH有問題的話，不如你直說吧。用含糊的話暗示別人信仰有問題，我不認為是教牧/法律人士應該做的。有問題就清楚說明，雙方弄清誤解矛盾，至少有將證據拿出來對質一下的機會。現在是拿著一份含糊的東西，指別人「疑似」、「類似」異端 (雖報告沒有這兩個字，但那兩個教導分明就是異端的定義)，又不給人看證據，又不肯聽人家的投訴，我也不明白為什麼調查團可以這樣做。

如果是宗教裁判所，定了就是定了的話，倒不如直說吧，不要說自己怎樣有公信力、怎樣中立開放，因為真的看不到。

記得龔立人都憂慮調查團受不到監管的文章，下面節錄一部份，大家不妨找找看(20/1的時代論壇)。

“我們需要考慮被懷疑者的利益。否則，調查可以是一種壓迫。例如，《基督日報》是否有權可以不同意調查團的成員？《基督日報》是否有權可以不同意調查的內容？若需要的話，《基督日報》可以向誰投訴調查團？調查團受誰監控？

若關係就牽涉權力的話，我看見調查團與《基督日報》的權力不平衡。”

Hin / 2008-05-06 19:19:44

To Anonymous

First of all, this interchange of opinions will end soon; secondly, only at the most a few hundreds (may be much less) people will read these responses.

Now, if you read the report from IC again and still can't find a problem with GH, I advise you to show the report to others who know nothing about this and seek their objective opinion.

Also, if there is no problem with GH, why would the former advisors (not just in Hong Kong) resigned from their position and for many, even stated that they will not receive interviews from GH nor provide any news to GH. Isn't that something?

Are we creating something for ourselves to fight with? Are all these out of imagination and speculation? Can you say a definite yes to above two questions?

I never said there is a trap, I am just responding to Victor for warning me. Let me put it clear that I don't think there is a trap and I don't really care if this is a trap since this trap is not very powerful nor effective at all.

There is no "one side forum" here, it is open, welcome you to join and I appreciate your view point so that we can continue this exchange of opinions.

People like you who are willing to speak up are very few, good to have you with us.

佚名 / 2008-05-06 18:17:06

to Hin, victor

Victor說 “Hin, do not fall into the trap. GH wants to use this forum through its people to make a picture that:

1)The report has not said that they had problem;

報告有確定地說GH有什麼問題嗎﹖請指出來。

2)There are scandals against them. “

另外為什麼掩耳不聽GH的聲音呢﹖這不是尋找真相應有的態度。論煙幕的話，反而看到大家下下用名牧作為煙幕，不斷散佈未公佈證據的言論。

另外二人你一言我一語去說什麼trap，為什麼總是以陰謀論的想法來思考，然後去說別人﹖說實話，因為看到這裡一言堂才忍不住出言的。

是不是想這裡只有你們二人說話呢﹖

Hin / 2008-05-06 17:40:48

To Victor

Thank you Victor for warning me.

First of all, I am sorry if I have been providing bullets to them to fire at us.

Secondly, this forum is not as powerful as we think, at the most, only a few hundred people might click and watch comments like this one. Chritian Times only provide this ground for us to exchange ideas and comments.

Thirdly, the arguement of GH is the same from beginning till now, nothing new, nothing special. The IC is handling them very well, we don't have to worry, at least up to now.

Sorry if I made you worry. Thanks again for your kindness.

Hin / 2008-05-06 17:34:38

The false doctrines are from China but since GH, YJ are all connected and under the same umbrella, that is why there is the concern and conclusion about GH.

I think the former advisors and some other pastors have been very patient until now. I don't think it is because the article of Rev. Wu from last November that started this. Rev. Thomas Wang pulled out from his position in GH long before Rev. Wu's letter. The suspicion has been there for sometime before Rev. Wu's letter is out.

They have been patient before they release the questions and suspicions. Even if GH didn't form the IC, there will be another IC; since GH formed the IC, the public or those who are concerned decided to wait for the outcome. When the outcome is not going in GH's direction, GH dissolved the IC just like they dissolved the boards of advisors.

So, I want to say that they have been patient and wait before and they are still patient and wait now. I suspect that they are waiting for GH's response before they move on to the next step. One step at a time, if it is not necessary, they won't move to another step. That is what I think.

Victor / 2008-05-06 15:55:28

Do not fall into the trap

Hin, do not fall into the trap. GH wants to use this forum through its people to make a picture that:

2)There are scandals against them.

If you continue to argue with them, you will only give them bullets. The report has clearly said that GH, YDJ, Crossmap and so on are in the Community of Jang. But they always avoid this clear picture. They always give half true picture. When all the key people of GH are YD people, it is impossible for them to say that they are not relating to YD and Jang. They set up so many institutes is to create confusions and smoke screening.

People may think I am sceptical. But you will soon see that they will use a lot of different names to create an atmosphere that they are innocent. Stick to the report. The report has gone through thorough investigation under the study of many reputable pastors. For the cult issue, this is the only reliable source.

资料库 > 专辑 > 《基督日报》事件专辑

报道