Loading...

資料庫

時代講場文章(至2017年2月14日)

《基督日報》事件帶來的思考(一)

經過三個多月的調查,《基督日報》事件獨立調查團於四月十日下午舉行調查結果發佈會,由於事前《基督日報》已宣佈解散顧問團,而《基督日報》、耶穌青年會及Crossmap等團體香港的部分顧問等已作出聲明,辭掉顧問身分,預期答案是呼之欲出的。

筆者曾撰寫〈《基督日報》帶來的困惑〉(二○○七年十一月十六日),表達對《基督日報》、耶穌青年會及Crossmap等團體與張在亨牧師存在某種關係,繼而於十二月二日發表〈《基督日報》疑團未釋──再思新興教派的傳教手段(二)〉,進一步探討南韓統一教等傳教手段,與上述團體有若干相似地方。由於關注而引發獨立調查團的組成與相關調查,筆者等待調查結果發佈後,才表達個人意見。

近數十年來,在宗教多元化的社會內,基督新教要宣判任何新興教派為「異端」,根本是甚困難的,因為任何信仰的判決涉及舉證的要求,在普通法的本港社會,筆者至今未見過有成功的案例。現今我們所談的只是歷史上公認為異端的,如耶和華見證人、耶穌基督後期聖徒教會(又稱摩門教)、統一教等。因此,當筆者出席是次發佈會,獨立調查團已再三強調有關調查不是簡單地定性某些團體為「異端」,而是嘗試了解相關機構或人士與統一教之間的關係。調查報告因考慮要承擔法律責任的風險,採用了描述事件的文字報道,判斷則由讀者自立結論。

在調查過程中,獨立調查團表達:「總體上對耶穌青年會代表提供的證據及證供的一致性及可信性極有保留。至於知情的內地信徒及前耶青成員提供的證據,本調查團一致認為它們是一致和可信的。」(《基督日報》事件獨立調查團文件) 從資料發現,耶穌青年會不少成員均入讀「偉仁大學」(Olivet University),此所學府於二○○五年由張在亨牧師創立,而耶穌青年會也由張在亨牧師創立,於一九九六年透過「福音派長老會」(Evangelical Assembly of Presbyterian Churches,簡稱EAPC,也與張在亨牧師有關的)差派同工於上海復旦大學開展校園宣教事工,發展至今,在內地各主要大學已成功建立據點。獨立調查團指出:「張在亨牧師曾經與統一教有密切的關係,但沒有證據顯示張在亨牧師現在仍然與統一教有關係。」

最重要的發現,莫過於以下的論述:「一致認為本調查團不能排除以下的高度可能性:耶穌青年會在中國內地提倡類似統一教的教義,包括:耶穌第一次降世是失敗的;及他們的牧師(簡稱為Msn)是『再來的主』或『再來的基督』;及耶穌青年會在中國內地多處迅速發展及多間主要大學建立據點,有組織、系統及策略地宣傳以上教義,並且採取了權威式的管理方式。為此,本調查團一致表示強烈憂慮及高度關注。」

從是次事件反映,本港教會甚容易受到政治、商業或「疑似正統信仰」的組織或人士滲透,原因之一是我們太過輕信所謂「名牧」或權威人士。我們需要培育有更多獨立思考,不盲從權威的信徒群體。倘若筆者也是所謂「知名牧者」,不是因為胡某人所講的必定正確,於是信徒就可腦袋懶惰,盲從名牧的權威。上帝賜予每位信徒有思考的頭腦,教牧要教導信徒多用「常識」(common sense)判斷。保羅提醒我們:「我可以證明,他們向神有熱心,但不是按著真知識。」(羅十2)教牧不要因著有年輕信徒表達異乎尋常的熱心,就忽略了應有的防範。筆者也犯了錯,因為曾供稿予《基督日報》,而讀者看了胡牧文章或有關消息報道,就減少了應有的警覺性。

教牧不再可以隨便作任何機構或團體的顧問或董事,倘只是掛名而已,有事時宣稱不關己事,是不負責任的行為。筆者甚欣賞是次事件中眾顧問與獨立調查團成員付出的勞苦,披露真相,使公眾或不知情者,可按理作出判斷。筆者是機構中人,也出任多間機構顧問或董事,了解現有的機構生態,確實存有某種不健康的表現,所謂成王敗寇;只要機構事工懂得包裝,大量花費在宣傳上,又有所謂「知名牧者」推介,就不用理會其「不一致性」了。也許我們過於接受只要為了福音,正如不少教會領袖欣賞《基督日報》與耶穌青年會等信徒的福音熱誠一般,於是手段的「不一致性」合理地可被接受了。我們要重新教導信徒尊重的是真理的權威,不是某人身分或職銜的權威;當更多信徒在日常生活中,有信仰的判斷力,「疑似正統信仰」的謊言才可破解。相反是我們習慣了謊言,我們變得容易接受了謊言?

(轉載自香港教會網站。作者為香港教會更新運動總幹事。)

相關資訊:【《基督日報》事件專輯

http://www.christiantimes.org.hk,時代論壇時代講場,2008.4.11)

Donationcall

舊回應13則


信徒 / 2008-04-20 23:17:59

不簡單架!(某牧師網誌)


某牧師網誌(已刪除)


 


假扮熱心


 


假扮熱心浸信會會友有多難?只要說個個人得救見證,在教會熱衷參加活動,找牧師代禱,讓他相信你的故事,然後受浸加入教會,同時又表示有很希望服侍主的心志,又表現出多麼純正的信仰,又肯學又肯做,牧師就把你當作佢契仔一樣!然後就應徵浸信會機構工作,牧師必大力推薦。


 


《基督日報》(又名基督新報)其中一名內部活躍份子,半月前離開了《基督日報》,現加入了浸聯會當唯一的一名 IT員工!聯會被蒙在鼓裡。推薦牧師還 「擔保」其人清白!


 


這回異端玩真正無間道,本港有十多名此類 「精英」,試想想再過十年、二十年,隨著福音派信徒那種聖經文盲、信仰膚淺化、神學懶理化、信仰二手化,這些無間道屆時就成了浸會執事、牧師、總幹事,又配合好共同體的成功滲透控制了媒體,到時發難起義,內外夾攻 ,以一般重情面、重關係的華人二手信仰信徒根本不知誰是對、誰是錯?誰是正、誰是邪?


 


希望有識之仕能早日瓦解這第一浪的無間道。


求主憐憫叫我們得勝此一仗。


 


 


以下是聲稱是xxx牧師回應李弟兄的內容。


李弟兄,


 


那個網誌是我的,但那是個個人網誌,並沒有公開傳閱和推廣,只要看看其內容也就知道是非常個人一些思想拾穗 ,那文章是一月寫的,那時只有幾位好友知道我的網誌。也沒想到傳給誰看見!當中也只是一些按當下世情寫的個人感受,是私人寫作,但若叫你有點不安,請原諒!也因此,我就已刪除了。當時是一月份,有關基督日報的陰謀傳聞正熱,人心惶惶,那也只是我一個危機感的感觸,沒有任何推波助瀾的意圖;若那傳聞牽連到你,那是不幸的。


 


至於通知浸聯會,當時我滿城傳聞下,我只知會浸聯會有關你曾在基督日報工作之背景,請他們注意,並沒有(也沒有權)作出任何要求,更沒有說 「入侵浸聯會」,也沒有再跟進。


 


至於你說需要投訴,請向本會正式以書面形式,寄予本會執事會主席xxx執事收,本會執事會有固定程序處理向本來牧師之投訴。李弟兄電話留言中表說會知執事會及牧師,此回覆之電郵也抄副至本會主任牧師、執事會主席,及閣下教會牧師,予以查照。


 


至於李弟兄發現有另一網誌傳載本人文章,我會立刻聯絡該網誌,要求刪除,由於我也不認識那人,我只可要求, 無法確保他照做!


 


我再為本人之私人、也沒有多少人看的網誌內中一些個人感受或狂想,引起你的不安,向你道歉!請在主內包容。


 


主內


 


xxx牧師


 

HIn / 2008-04-17 19:35:25

To anonymous


To anonymous:


Here you are again and here is my response again:









You have a good heart but you need to be careful.



I have responded to your comment about Acts 5:38-39 but you posted your message once again in here. I would like to share with you about these verses briefly since you are using the authority of the Bible to stop others.



These two verses are the sayings of Gamaliel regarding the apostles. The people are against the apostles for testifying for Jesus. Bear in mind that this is a record of what Gamaliel said and it doesn't mean that is the instruction from God regarding any disagreements nor has any divine authority.



In the Bible, there are two types of recordings, one is description and one is perscription. For description, it only describes what has been done or said, it can't decide whether we should follow or not based on it's content alone but for perscription, it is something we need to follow such as the commands from God and teachings of Jesus.



For descriptive scriptures, we need to base on other passages to determine whether this is something we need to follow or not.



The apostles asked us to discern and to distinguish truth from falsehood, to know and avoid the false prophets, false teachings, false brothers and false teachings. Look at the writings of Paul, it is not hard to see that he is responding to the false teachings at that time in many of his letters. Can we quote this verse to him and ask him to shut up? (I didn't quote all the verses here, but for those who is willing to read the Bible, it is not hard to discern).



Look at Jesus, he rebuked the Pharisees and their teachings. He didn't leave them alone at all!



Please don't quote the verse about "do not judge" in Matthew 7 because again there is a context for that. If we can't judge, how can we determine the tree by it's fruit in the later half ot the same chapter and in 7:15 when Jesus asked us to watch out for the false prophets, how can we do that and what is Jesus doing in the Sermon on the Mount about all the teachings of the Pharisees and Scribes in the past.



Please, when I said "read carefully" in the title of this response, I meant read the Bible carefully. If you have the truth around your good heart, you can go far.



Also, when you make the judgement about the Japanese major, do you have solid, clear, strong evidences? Did you see him yourself? Did you read those evidences yourself or you just believe in what you read about him? If that is the case, aren't you the same as the others that you are talking about? Now, read Matthew 7:1-5, you might be able to understand more about the meaning of "do not judge".



I still admire your heart for the truth but just want to share a bit with you and those who are reading.

佚名Anonymous / 2008-04-17 14:37:55

"Let Them Alone"


耶穌青年會的教導是不是真的是「十字架失敗了」? 「新救主降臨」? 怎麼知道證據一定十分充足? 你有沒有看過證據? 所謂的證人你有見過嗎? 證人姓甚名誰? 有沒有與當事團體解決過問題? 什麼是獨立思考呢? 你就相信大牧,不想知道真相嗎?你又怎麼知道大牧的心中是不是也有懼怕 神的心而不敢下什麼定論嗎?作為一位牧師,對於甚囂塵上的流言肯定是有擔憂的,誰都會。可是,真相如何,我們要繼續看下去啊!


我想最重要的是敬畏 神,而不是看人的情面哩! 



最後送上一段經文:



現在我勸你們不要管這些人、任憑他們罷。他們所謀的、所行的、若是出於人、必要敗壞。若是出於 神、你們就不能敗壞他們。恐怕你們倒是攻擊 神了。(徒5:38-39


他們已經說絕對不相信「十字架失敗了」、「新救主降臨」了,為何大家苦苦要逼別人相信呢?即使拿出世上所有的力量來強逼對方,怎麼可以強逼別人去相信自己不相信的東西呢?這不是嚴重的犯罪行為嗎?就這樣放著吧!


意圖去定別人為異端的根據是所謂的“秘密私人文件”,以這非正式的文件為根據,在這爭戰當中不是一直輸給耶穌青年會了嗎?在日本也是,雖然被起訴的人100%認為對方是異端,甚至認為是引起風暴的,但是那人不是被救世軍所否認除名嗎?這不是簡單的問題,這乃是侵犯信仰自由和良心的可怕行為,這真的可能成為全世界基督教的笑柄!



 雖然這所有的問題問題以後都會揭發出來,但背後非常政治性的東西都會一一顯露出來的,所以應該要帶著忍耐的心走到底,察看真相。

John Doe / 2008-04-16 20:55:45

uphold basic etiquette


... even in this email and virtual environment, we still need to affirm the basic decency of saying things properly, and nicely. If one needs to project a point strongly, let him/her do so with constraint.


I won't get into the mess of "personal attacks", but we should not tolerate (persistantly) abusive, divisive, prejudiced, insulting and trash language, which will only be-mean the writers!!


Let reason and grace prefail.


 

eric / 2008-04-15 18:14:03

唔好意思,放錯版面,請ignore放下偏面,難欲有意思

唔好意思,放錯版面,請ignore放下偏面,難欲有意思

ERIC / 2008-04-15 17:49:32

放下偏見,難但卻有意思


我唔清楚胡、張是否有身齒印,但明顯地兩位都嘗試今次認真討論問題,雖然字裡行間仍然看到對別人有點過份的語氣,但在今天網絡世界是始終可以接受的。(但不等於我們應向這方向發展)。這個園地又不是高水平的學術討論區,我們是要張張就就的。


 


至於其他朋友,我盼望我們不要太自視過高,網上批評是不用代價的,水準亦參差。而且掌握的資訊很有限,許多分析都是建基於對事實的理解不足,或錯誤的假設上,所以更加要有聆聽的耳和謙虛的心。


 


很多時候我們討論問題,唔夠三分鐘又變成討論問題的態度,有點可惜。如果我們本着基督的愛,我相信語氣都會好些,大家可以有更理性的討論。始終我們是有別於未信的羣体。


 


我聽講調查團「再三強調有關調查不是簡單地定性某些團體為「異端」,而是嘗試了解相關機構或人士與統一教之間的關係。調查報告因考慮要承擔法律責任的風險,採用了描述事件的文字報道,判斷則由讀者自立結論。」作為一位律師,我十分欣賞調查團的態度和智慧。我個人相信他們「考慮要承擔法律責任的風險」,不單是保障自己,而是彰顯”Justice must be done and must be seen”的原則。指控而沒有事實不單不為法律所容許,也是現今社會所不容。平實展示事情的真相,容讓信徒自己思考,應該是幫助信徒思考的好方法。


 


網上言論可以是不負責任的批評,也可以是智者的批評。最終是個人問題,或許今次我們可以向這幾個月默默工作的調查團學習學習。


 


Anonymous, 聽講今期論壇印行版會有詳細報告,唔敢肯定。

路人 / 2008-04-15 16:48:25

放下偏見,才能溝通


很高興看到你能改變你的態度,放低偏見,這真的很重要。


我不是說笑的,如果帶著偏見來看待別人,不聽別人的澄清,只能繼續誤解對方,越陷越深,最後是自己活在妄想世界中出不來。這是非常嚴重的問題,也是破壞基督的身體的。


聽說基督日報有了新的網站設計,登了一個POPUP和大家分享這個好消息,這麼美好的事竟然被推斷為在那裏裝了病毒,要加害看網站的人。沒想到連這種幻想都編出來,真的很誇張。


大家,真的放下有色眼鏡吧,而不是先作許多假設,把別人幻想成罪犯,這樣才能聽進別人的話,看到全貌, 作持平的判斷。

Hin / 2008-04-15 15:37:37

To Anonymous


I think what you said is reasonable and acceptable, thanks for pointing that out.


GH didn't state what they don't believe in their faith statement since it is only possible to stay what one believes and not what one doesn't believes. I do agreed with you.


What GH did in another way is to make statements to deny what they don't believe and only those that are being stated by those who are investigating them.


 Since YDJ has formed an "investigation committee" to investigate the accusation of their doctrine, I am sure they will clear what they don't believe or believe in the near future.


I am not unwilling to change, thanks for pointing it out and let's keep talking.

佚名Anonymous / 2008-04-15 13:42:29

回HIN

所有異端的教導,人家都一一強烈否認,但居然有人提倡要把不相信的東西列在信仰告白中,很新穎的建議,我從未在任何教會中聽聞過有這樣的信仰告白,這到底是哪個福音派的主張?

你的教會的信仰告白會寫我不相信佛教,不相信印度教..... 這样的嗎?我問你,明明清白的人要在家裏的門口貼,”我不是小偷”嗎?

你總帶著有色眼鏡去看別人,把別人想像成犯罪集團,活在你自己的妄想世界中。你的想法真有毛病!你不放下您的幻想和偏見,叫人家怎樣再跟進行溝通和對話呀!

店小二 / 2008-04-13 23:18:12

思考?思考!


由基報事件開始,己經拜讀胡牧數篇文章,基報結果如何唔緊要,大家唔使睇胡牧的未審先判,一陣又話要開壇公審,己經覺得無咁煩氣。呀胡牧當日就咁激,而家又咁持平,真係好難適應。


如果胡牧再寫文章,拜託唔好再簡單的對号入座,再發揮表面到震的異端理論。最後請佢可免則免,要好似好謙虛咁話比人聽佢比大牧更大牧。


過都睇到佢有改變嘅,希望持久D啦,大家都好想支持胡牧嘅!

張國棟 / 2008-04-13 00:39:29

給胡牧師

胡牧師,不好意思,我雖不想被人以為我經常在針對你,但你這篇文章某些觀點的確很有問題。由於要仔細點說,也無謂被人輕視為草率的話,我已寫了一篇文章,不日會刊登在這裡。現在先行告訴你。

張國棟 / 2008-04-11 22:44:24

一點分析和評議

以下是我在相關新聞那裡寫過的,但發現貼在這裡可能更適合。所以重貼,無意灌水。



有關《基督日報》的事,今似有明朗化。我現在想到的只是,日後人們想怎樣看待這報章?在過去三年有每週(甚至每天)讀這報章的信徒們,可能與我的印象一樣,那裡的內容很傳統,定位比《時代論壇》保守得多,跟《基督教週報》差不多,但勝在國際基督教消息遠比這兩報的為多。至於國際基督教新聞,由於我對這方面 略有涉獵(參http://s-h-c.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3840),我可以作證說,他們取材的,都是頗保守路線的資料,其他的很少提及。(我會認為他們的編委評審眼光頗幼嫩,有時,他們的記者在報導時會加插很多頗私人的個人反省,古古怪怪,但無論怎樣,那些評論和反省的內容,皆是很傳統的。)從文章內容看,他們的確是在辦報而沒有宣揚半點奇特教義。如果他們保持這作風,基本上,他們跟那張牧師有何關係,對報章內容並沒有很大影響,教會要求的,就只是分清楚他們的背景有些是教會不接受或強烈擔憂的,但這卻不用否定他們報章的內容和路線。當然,有些人會想到全球大陰謀,因為還是避之則吉,那也是不宜排除的可能性,對某些信徒來說,這已是他們不看那報的充份理由。

那麼,再反省一下,所謂「正統」的幾份基督教報刊其實的確有很多要改善的空間,其中一點就是我上面說的國際新聞觸角和分析眼光(要擴大輿論空間,當然不消說,亦無謂說了,因可能會觸怒某些網友)。其實香港信徒有沒有想過,我們大部份人對自己堂會以外的香港教會和國際基督教的認識,若只從這幾份報章獲悉,我們的眼光會弄得很狹隘。這些報章的質素雖然相對地比《基督日報》好一點,但也不是很好,他們的優點只是,他們是這圈子裡的「局內人」,所以可以評論到一些這圈子裡的人喜歡關心的事,然而,他們做到的就只是這些,達不到一份報章 或週刊的其他內容要求。若讀者有看美國的 Christianity Today 或 Christian Century ,就更明白我這裡說的。香港教會雖小,但若要香港基督教發展得好,一份質素更好、投稿園地更大的報章是有必 要的。

至於怎樣才能做到這水平,當然不是他們憑僅有資源可逹到的,那是眾教會當反省的問題。

Hin / 2008-04-11 17:36:37

Can we discern?


I am glad to see Rev. Wu's response after the report is out, after all, his article from last November started this investigation, thanks, Rev. Wu.


GH has publicly denied the doctrine of Unification church, verbally and written. Then, are we saying that they are telling lie as they stated their faith statements? Or, the doctrine of YDJ can be different from one place to another? This is a very key point, if they said that they don't believe in the doctrine of Unification Church, can we say they believe in what they said they don't believe in?


They might argued within themselves that what they stated in the statement of faith are what they really believed in but they have additional faith statements that are not listed there such as those that stated by the investigation committee. I think they need to state those statements in their statement of faith too, in words such as We don't believe that so and so is the second coming Christ....


I think this is the key point, improper procedure can be excused but incorrect doctrine cannot be accepted. It really doesn't matter whether David Chiang is still tied with Unification church at this time, but if GH holds the doctrine stated by the investigation committee, then there is a real problem.


Rev. Wu also mentioned about how organizations using "famous" pastors to help their ministry. I think this not just apply to GH but also to many "evangelical" "Christian" organizations. Some ministries have some basic problem such as wrong presupposition, wrong approach, wrong objectives, wrong means...but because of these "famous" pastors as their reference, people poured in their support, including time and money.


I remembered in one case, someone said even "so and so" pastor is their advisor, how wrong can they be? They are using the "names" to discern whether one organization or one ministry's approach is acceptable or not but didn't look at the organization or the ministry itself, that is dangerous.


As Rev. Wu said, we need to be able to discern but today, the discerning power was so weak. People tend not to think and want to shift the responsibilities to the "famous" pastors.


GH is only one case, if the Christians are willing to slow down to think, slow down to observe, slow down to listen, I think we can save a lot of time, energy and money, we can do much more for God.


I really hope that this event can wake up more "famous" pastors and those "non-thinking" Christians.


We are at war but the worst thing is that we don't even realize that we are at war. This is indeed dangerous. What makes us think that we are OK, enemy is not around, there is no attack, everything is OK, things are so clear and easy to know right from wrong? Who said that? Read the Bible more, listen to Jesus' warnings, read from the Old to New Testaments, may be then, we can have a little bit of idea that there is a war going on, a real one!