Christians in the British crown colony of Hong Kong are banding together to prepare for rule by the People’s Republic of China. An accord signed by China and Great Britain late last year set the course for the transfer of rule by 1997.
The Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong contains little reference to freedom of religion. Specific rights and freedoms will be spelled out in the Basic Law of Hong Kong. Next month the National People’s Congress of China will select a committee that will formulate the basic law.
A number of groups in Hong Kong have formed study committees to address the concerns of Christians. A group of professionals called Christian Hong Kong Observers will address political and social issues facing the colony. In addition, a group called the Church Renewal Movement Committee was formed last year after a July fasting-and-prayer rally drew 4,000 people to a Hong Kong stadium.
“We Christians are very eager to have our opinions expressed to those who will formulate the basic law,” said Timothy Siu Hung Lau, pastor of Hong Kong Baptist Church and chairman of the Church Renewal Movement Committee. “We don’t know if any Hong Kong people will be on the [basic law] committee, but we would like to have someone on the committee who could present our views.… Because 1997 is a big challenge to the Hong Kong church, as pastors we feel the need to share how to face this challenge and to seek new ways to do evangelism and church development.”
Only 5 percent of Hong Kong’s population are Protestants, with slightly more than 700 Protestant churches operating in the colony. Nevertheless, the city has been the center of the Chinese church worldwide. Hong Kong serves as the center of Chinese Christian publishing and the headquarters of dozens of parachurch organizations ministering to Chinese people worldwide.
The Sino-British Joint Declaration guarantees that Hong Kong’s capitalistic system will remain unchanged for 50 years. China further pledged to protect Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms of speech, press, assembly, strike, travel, choice of occupation, academic research, and religious belief.
Reaction to the agreement has been largely one of relief. Many said the document was more detailed and substantive than they had expected. Yet, for many Hong Kong residents, serious reservations remain.
“Most Hong Kong people are happy about the agreement, but we question the implementation of it,” said Theodore Hsueh, a member of the program committee of the Church Renewal Movement Committee. “This concept of ‘one nation, two systems’ is something entirely new. No government in the world has had experience with this. It is difficult for us to see how a Communist country can include a capitalist system under its own government.
“The Chinese government, its policies—even its constitution—is not stable,” Hsueh said. “In the last 30 years, the constitution has changed four or five times.… Sometimes the government will make a certain statement, but the implementation on the grassroots level may be quite different from the apparent intention.”
The Church Renewal Movement Committee will explore the development of new church models, promote spiritual growth and theological training for full-time church workers, coordinate evangelistic activities, and advocate social concerns. In addition, it will promote unity within the evangelical community.
“We think that in the future, the church pattern in Hong Kong may change,” Lau said. “So we need to find new models for churches, both large and small. We are expecting 1997 to bring some new challenges. But we are working now to meet those challenges.”
Thus far, Hong Kong’s ecumenical movement has presented a stronger, more unified voice for its constituents. Some ecumenical groups have explored the possibility of organizing a religious structure in Hong Kong similar to the Three-Self Patriotic Movement, China’s only officially recognized church. The group would seek to define “normal” Christian activities and to set limits on “unrecognized” church activities.
Hsueh said the evangelical Church Renewal Movement Committee is working hard to counter such an effort. “We feel that if as evangelicals we emphasize unity in the Spirit and in fellowship,” he said, “that should give us a good base to counterattack the attempt to organize a superstructure to control all religious activities.”
A Christian University Files Suit To Protect Its Hiring Practices
In an effort to maintain control over its hiring practices, Seattle Pacific University has filed suit in the U.S. District Court for western Washington. The evangelical institution, which is controlled by the Free Methodist Church, took action in response to a charge by the Washington Human Rights Commission (WHRC) that the university is guilty of employment discrimination.
The lawsuit names WHRC’s four commissioners as defendants along with Seattle resident Orin Church, the focus of the dispute. In 1983, Church sought a job as a warehouse worker at Seattle Pacific University. He was told that only evangelical Christians are considered for employment. The school maintains that such a requirement is integral to maintaining an evangelical environment.
Church, a Catholic, filed a complaint with the WHRC. The commission referred the case to the state attorney general’s office for litigation. So far, the state has not filed legal action against the university.
However, Seattle Pacific University took the offensive and challenged the WHRC’s charges in federal district court. In its suit, the school is seeking an injunction dismissing the WHRC complaint and affirming the institution’s freedom to determine its own hiring practices. The university’s decision to file suit was a legal manuever designed to circumvent the state court system. University officials said the issue does not fall within the state’s jurisdiction. Chi-Dooh Li, one of the school’s attorneys, said the key issue is constitutional, namely, the free exercise of religion.
Dan Wollam, executive assistant to the university’s president, stressed that the school has not been charged with violating any laws. “Federal law states specifically that church-controlled institutions of education may ‘prefer’ employees for all positions, and state law says the same thing,” Wollam said. By serving notice on Seattle Pacific University, WHRC in essence contested the legitimacy of those laws.
If the federal district court does not dismiss the WHRC’s charges against the university, the likely result is the emergence of a test case. In the past, WHRC has chosen not to issue complaints in deference to laws exempting church-controlled educational institutions. Attorney Li said the state has been waiting for what it sees as the right opportunity to test the laws in court.
Wollam said he has mixed feelings about the possibility that Seattle Pacific University will have to fight a lengthy court battle. “Obviously we could do without the costly litigation,” he said. “But another institution might not have as strong a commitment on this issue, and the result might be a compromise.”
