Queries on the Announcement on 29th March 2006
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
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.
case was not closed, however. The letter written by KTAC Committee to
Rev. Wong was publicized on InMedia
) 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.
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
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?
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
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
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.
God be the Glory.