Saturday, May 13, 2006
給宣道會的公開信 (廖思威) - 英文
Dear Sir,
Re: Queries on the Announcement on 29th March 2006
At the beginning of this year, Rev. Wong Kwok Yiu, ex-chief pastor of Kwun Tong Alliance Church (KTAC) announced his resign on his personal weblog. The news received media attention, as Rev. Wong criticized The Society of Truth and Light (STL), a para-church organization widely considered as close partner of Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA), during the debate on Sexual Orientation Discrimination Ordinance. This fact was alarming for the public, as they worried that Rev. Wong was forced to resign as a result of his speech.
Your organization published an announcement on the organizational website at the end of March. In the announcement, it was mentioned that Rev. Wong was advised to resign by the Committee of KTAC. Such an advice was accepted by your organization, and your chairman helped in the persuasion. The announcement emphasized that the decision was the result of co-operative problem between Rev. Wong and KTAC, while C&MA had never stopped Rev. Wong from criticizing STL. The latter was only advised to communicate with STL before criticisms.
The case was not closed, however. The letter written by KTAC Committee to Rev. Wong was publicized on InMedia (http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=109102&group_id=11 ) by Hoi Hoi. In point 4.2 of the letter, Rev. Wong's criticism on STL was mentioned as a reason for the failure of co-operation. Some moralistic comments was given in the letter, while Rev. Wong's criticisms was blamed for stirring up conflicts between Christians, and paved the way for devil's work.
Based on this section of the letter, we doubted the integrity of the announcement while it claimed Rev. Wong's resign was unrelated with his criticisms on STL. It could be argued that it was the lack of communication before criticisms, rather than the criticisms themselves, resulted in Rev. Wong's resign. However, merely the mentioning of those criticisms could create reasonable doubts on your statements.
It was unclear that whether there are any regulations by C&MA on the speeches and criticisms of its employees. If they, as your announcement claimed, enjoyed freedom to criticize, under what circumstances would they enjoyed these freedom? As in the case of Rev. Wong, he criticized STL on personal basis without mentioning his post in C&MA. What was your regulations on the private and personal speech of your fellow employees?
Another point that enhanced our doubt is that many of the other points mentioned in the letter was, in fact, without grounds. We could not understand how the number of movies Rev. Wong seen, and the usage of Cantonese in his weblog, could be considered as an evidence of his unholiness? Despite of the importance of being holistic in spiritual services, it would not be a sin if a pastor request for some personal time: a devoted servant of God still need some personal time. He is still a human and he would die without rest. He needed some time for quiet, to face God personally, and to fulfill his duties as a family member. These are not only his rights, but his obligations. I would afraid there was a serious misunderstanding on the duties of a spiritual leader.
If all these reasons are not valid, then we would like to ask a question: What is the real reason behind Rev. Wong's resign? Would the mentioned invalid explanations were just cover-ups, as the real reason is not something acceptable to the public: that is, Rev. Wong's resign was caused by his speeches? As details of Rev. Wong's previous speeches was listed in the letter, one by one, to construct evidences for Rev. Wong's incompetence, we could not stop worrying that his speeches are actually the real reasons behind his misfortune.
There are so many mysteries in the incident. We have faith in God, but not in human organizations which claimed themselves as followers of God. It would be your obligations to explain the issue clearly, and to defend and justify your decisions. A spiritual organization without integrity is nothing, and it would be meaningless for followers of God to hide anything.
May God be the Glory.
Yours Sincerely,
Miu Cze Wai
Re: Queries on the Announcement on 29th March 2006
At the beginning of this year, Rev. Wong Kwok Yiu, ex-chief pastor of Kwun Tong Alliance Church (KTAC) announced his resign on his personal weblog. The news received media attention, as Rev. Wong criticized The Society of Truth and Light (STL), a para-church organization widely considered as close partner of Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA), during the debate on Sexual Orientation Discrimination Ordinance. This fact was alarming for the public, as they worried that Rev. Wong was forced to resign as a result of his speech.
Your organization published an announcement on the organizational website at the end of March. In the announcement, it was mentioned that Rev. Wong was advised to resign by the Committee of KTAC. Such an advice was accepted by your organization, and your chairman helped in the persuasion. The announcement emphasized that the decision was the result of co-operative problem between Rev. Wong and KTAC, while C&MA had never stopped Rev. Wong from criticizing STL. The latter was only advised to communicate with STL before criticisms.
The case was not closed, however. The letter written by KTAC Committee to Rev. Wong was publicized on InMedia (http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=109102&group_id=11 ) by Hoi Hoi. In point 4.2 of the letter, Rev. Wong's criticism on STL was mentioned as a reason for the failure of co-operation. Some moralistic comments was given in the letter, while Rev. Wong's criticisms was blamed for stirring up conflicts between Christians, and paved the way for devil's work.
Based on this section of the letter, we doubted the integrity of the announcement while it claimed Rev. Wong's resign was unrelated with his criticisms on STL. It could be argued that it was the lack of communication before criticisms, rather than the criticisms themselves, resulted in Rev. Wong's resign. However, merely the mentioning of those criticisms could create reasonable doubts on your statements.
It was unclear that whether there are any regulations by C&MA on the speeches and criticisms of its employees. If they, as your announcement claimed, enjoyed freedom to criticize, under what circumstances would they enjoyed these freedom? As in the case of Rev. Wong, he criticized STL on personal basis without mentioning his post in C&MA. What was your regulations on the private and personal speech of your fellow employees?
Another point that enhanced our doubt is that many of the other points mentioned in the letter was, in fact, without grounds. We could not understand how the number of movies Rev. Wong seen, and the usage of Cantonese in his weblog, could be considered as an evidence of his unholiness? Despite of the importance of being holistic in spiritual services, it would not be a sin if a pastor request for some personal time: a devoted servant of God still need some personal time. He is still a human and he would die without rest. He needed some time for quiet, to face God personally, and to fulfill his duties as a family member. These are not only his rights, but his obligations. I would afraid there was a serious misunderstanding on the duties of a spiritual leader.
If all these reasons are not valid, then we would like to ask a question: What is the real reason behind Rev. Wong's resign? Would the mentioned invalid explanations were just cover-ups, as the real reason is not something acceptable to the public: that is, Rev. Wong's resign was caused by his speeches? As details of Rev. Wong's previous speeches was listed in the letter, one by one, to construct evidences for Rev. Wong's incompetence, we could not stop worrying that his speeches are actually the real reasons behind his misfortune.
There are so many mysteries in the incident. We have faith in God, but not in human organizations which claimed themselves as followers of God. It would be your obligations to explain the issue clearly, and to defend and justify your decisions. A spiritual organization without integrity is nothing, and it would be meaningless for followers of God to hide anything.
May God be the Glory.
Yours Sincerely,
Miu Cze Wai
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
黃國堯牧師解僱信全文公開
在給黃國堯牧師做過訪問，寫成「遲來的公義不是公義：訪問黃國堯牧師」一文後，事件引起了廣泛的關注，其後他所屬的教會及其宗派曾作出聲明，表示其離職並非由於他對同性戀問題及性傾向歧視立法的觀點或立場有關，更指他「未有表達事實的全部，部分內容更不是事件的真實處境」，暗示黃牧的言論有不誠實的地方，並因而也有評論認為「記者只報導受訪者一面之詞，並沒有向觀塘堂求證其真偽或是否事實之全部。」筆者奇怪的是，為甚麼評論者自身又沒有跑去向黃牧師求證，就選擇性地照單全收宣道會的聲明呢？
後來筆者就此事再走訪黃牧師，他就向筆者展示了一封長達九頁、由宣道會官觀塘堂給他的解僱信，內中明確地指出，「炒魷」（解僱）的原因之一，是與他在媒體上發表批評明光社的言論有直接關係的。
全文在﹕
真相，從來就得來不易──黃國堯牧師解僱信全文公開
獨立媒體報導﹕http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=109102&group_id=11
後來筆者就此事再走訪黃牧師，他就向筆者展示了一封長達九頁、由宣道會官觀塘堂給他的解僱信，內中明確地指出，「炒魷」（解僱）的原因之一，是與他在媒體上發表批評明光社的言論有直接關係的。
全文在﹕
真相，從來就得來不易──黃國堯牧師解僱信全文公開
獨立媒體報導﹕http://www.inmediahk.net/public/article?item_id=109102&group_id=11
Monday, May 01, 2006
黃國堯牧師 ─ 從批評明光社到被迫辭職（上）
嘉賓：黃國堯牧師
主持：Jackie, Stephen
「非典型」牧師黃國堯，撰文批評明光社因同志帶頭而杯葛 7．1 遊行，引發一連串風波，最後被迫離職。究竟有什麼原因令他決心打破教會「隱惡揚善」的積習？教會迫他辭職的前因後果又是如何？他的心聲，一一在訪問中細訴出來。
主持：Jackie, Stephen
「非典型」牧師黃國堯，撰文批評明光社因同志帶頭而杯葛 7．1 遊行，引發一連串風波，最後被迫離職。究竟有什麼原因令他決心打破教會「隱惡揚善」的積習？教會迫他辭職的前因後果又是如何？他的心聲，一一在訪問中細訴出來。
