阅读本文基础概念和认识：

    今天分享的是一位佛教徒眼中的教会及其可能的改进希望，但为了方便读者理解，所以要先着重描述中国三自教会与家庭教会的基本情况、政府部门的态度以及教会一方应该调整的方向。

第一部分：中国三自教会和家庭教会

    ‌‌三自教会‌是指拥护“自治、自养、自传”三自宣言的中国基督宗教（广义基督教）教会，也称为‌三自爱国教会。这一教会形态是中国基督教在中华人民共和国成立后，为摆脱教会的半殖民地洋教形象，实现自治、自养、自传，团结全国教徒在爱国主义旗帜之下，积极参加国家建设的爱国爱教运动的结晶。从1949年起，中国的教会不再从属于罗马教庭和国外的基督教差会。简单来说，中国的三自教会与梵蒂冈没有任何关系，是中国特色的基督教和天主教。目前全国性的三自爱国教会组织，基督新教有中国基督教三自爱国运动委员会以及中国基督教协会（通常合成“全国两会”）；天主教有中国天主教爱国会、中国天主教教务委员会和中国天主教主教团（即“两会一团”）。

    作为中国基督教的一个重要组成部分，一直以来都秉承着爱国、爱教的优良传统。在漫长的70多年历史进程中，三自教会经历了无数的挑战与困难，虽远离梵蒂冈和耶路撒冷，但始终坚守着自己的信仰和特色原则，其为中国的宗教和谐与社会稳定作出贡献也是仁者见仁，智者见智。之所以这么说，仅基于一个标准：每个硬币都有‘正反两面’，谁都无法否认。

    如果想了解中国基督教三自爱国运动委员会章程，请点击链接查看（摘自中国基督教网）。

    虽然目前早已没有了公开意义上的‘半殖民地’的情况，即成立三自基督教两会的前提因素，但这一定义至今保持，‌应该是提醒信众抵御思想上的‘半殖民地’，持守中国特色。定义的核心是基督教应当‘爱国’且应在维护国家安全和利益的前提下开展宗教信仰活动。从国外基督教的发展史来看，基督教反复经历过‘政在教上’、‘政教合一’、‘政在教下’、‘政教分离’等等情况，在不同的国家和历史时期均不同程度的存在着，因此这样定义的出现的确是有其历史背景和现实意义的，尤其是中国接洽WTO之后与国际关系日渐变化的情况下尤为重要，既要寻求与国际社会的紧密结合又要防止在意识领域过度融合跟随，宗教便是首当其冲需要加强管理的主要内容，尤其是包含天主教在内的基督教，而伊斯兰教则次之，虽规模大大小于基督教群体但要求基本相同。而儒释道虽已经本土化且在民间的传播已有2000多年历史，其实也有类似要求，寺庙、道观悬挂国旗已是普遍现象，国家在这方面也算是‘一视同仁’吧，所以政府要求在教堂悬挂国旗也属正当要求，基督教信徒不要认为是国家针对自己所信的而加以限制，利益使然。

    假如重新定义的话，即便去掉了‘半殖民地’的名词，但依然会有国际形势作为前提条件，因此摆在中国基督教信徒（包括下面要讲的家庭教会信徒）面前的一个使命便是，现阶段灵性成长日渐缓慢却又迫切希望扩大规模的趋势与国家希望高速、稳定发展并在国际上扩大政治影响力之间如何相互兼顾的张力早日转变成为双方动力的局面。

    与此相比，还有一个存在，即家庭教会，某度定义是：在中国大陆地区，是指未经政府批准认可的、由信仰基督教的群众自发组织建立的基督教会。这一名称源于其产生初期多在教徒家里举行聚会的特点，尽管后来聚会地点可能不限于家庭，但“家庭教会”这一名称已沿用至今。

    家庭教会是一个政治上的概念，不是一个宗教意义上的教派或统一的组织。它指的是在中国大陆范围内，与中国基督教三自教会（得到中国政府承认的基督教会）没有关系的基督教组织。其背景是这样的，基督教自1807年由英国人马礼逊正式传入中国后，经历了多个阶段的发展。家庭教会的雏形可以追溯到20世纪20年代，当时为摆脱海外传教士和传教机构的影响，各地出现了以家庭为单位的自立、自养聚会点和教会。新中国成立后，家庭教会的形成和发展与政府的宗教政策密切相关，经历了初步形成、封闭发展、复苏发展和公开发展等阶段。

    家庭教会根据其政治态度、神学观点和活动方式的不同，可以大致分为以下几种类型：

• 辅助型家庭教会：实际为“三自”名下的家庭聚会，信徒认可并奉行“三自”立场，但受教堂数量、时间、地区、身体状况等因素限制，在家中或小型聚会场所组织聚会。这种聚会形式虽与国家宗教政策不完全符合，但一般被政府默认为是辅助“三自”的正常宗教活动。
• 中间型家庭教会：对“三自”态度含糊，既不支持也不反对，坚持所谓“纯正信仰”。此类教会虽然没有正式登记，身份上属于非法，但初期在管理上大多与宗教政策相符，近年来频繁跨地区传教，并与境外宗教组织联系。
• 对抗型家庭教会：直接站在反“三自”、甚至反政府的立场上，大多在海外宗教势力或敌对势力的扶植下发展，带有较强的政治目的和现实危害。
• 异端型家庭教会：以“家庭教会”之名行歪理邪说之实，管理混乱，监督缺失，容易滋生邪教组织。

    家庭教会的存在和发展对当代中国社会产生了多方面的影响。对于部分信徒而言，家庭教会提供了一种更为灵活和便捷的宗教活动方式，有助于他们保持和深化信仰。并且可以肯定的是，绝大部分家庭教会在一定程度上促进了社区和工作岗位里的和谐与互助。但在政府指导部门看来，由于家庭教会缺乏统一的管理和规范的指导，而且其成员也未充分理解其所生活工作的国家对民众信仰活动的要求和法律规范，担心其活动失控，甚至滋生邪教组织。究其原因是政府发现一些家庭教会还与境外宗教势力勾结，从事违反国家法律法规的活动，危害国家安全和社会稳定，因此需要加强管理。此外，家庭教会的跨地区传教和非法违建教堂等行为也加剧了宗教领域的混乱和矛盾。用一句话概括就是，家庭教会与政府指导部门之间缺乏理解和沟通，我会在下文说明。

    针对家庭教会存在的问题和挑战，政府和社会各界应采取以下应对策略。政府应加强对家庭教会的监管力度，规范其宗教活动，防止其滋生邪教组织或从事非法活动。鼓励和支持家庭教会与“三自”教会等合法宗教组织进行交流和融合，共同推动中国基督教的健康发展。加强对信徒的教育和培训，提高其宗教素养和辨别能力，防止其被邪教组织所蒙骗。通过加强社区建设、推动宗教与社会主义社会相适应等方式，促进宗教领域的和谐与稳定。

    三自教会或称三自爱国教会特指不受国外教会的管理和干预的“自治、自养、自传”的中国基督教教会。是中国唯一合法的基督教信仰教会，其他任何形式的基督教会全都是违法的。在中华人民共和国成立以前，像中国耶稣教自立会、基督徒会堂这样的使用“自立、自养、自传”原则的教会可以称为“中国自立教会”，以资区别。

第二部分：三自教会和家庭教会面临的共同问题和建议措施

    上面说到了，中国的基督教会，特别是三自爱国运动委员会下属的教会，名义上是中国基督徒的爱国爱教组织，强调基督教的中国化方向，并坚持自治、自养、自传的原则，独立自主自办教会。然而，现实中许多教会的运作情况却表明，指导部门深度介入了教会的内部事务，包括租赁场地、派驻牧师、参与敬拜环境规划及讲义审核等。这些干预行为超出了行政管理的范畴，面临‘外行管理内行’的情况。

    要知道宗教信仰并不同于政府的公共事业管理，这是高于具体事务的思想乃至灵魂层面的问题，其管理方向是要让信众提升灵性修养后可以反过来作用于整个社会的道德文化水平的，是会一代人影响一代人的传承，那些近些年社会上频频出现的违背人伦道德底线且严重违法犯罪行为无不与各阶层民众缺少宗教信仰有直接关系-----在蒂利希和道森关于宗教与文化关系的阐述一文中有详细描述。

    本人如今不到60岁，半个世纪前指导部门给我描绘的生活愿景是：二十一世纪中国将实现共产主义及四个现代化。现在想想这些年谁带动了中国两个文明的提升和进步了呢？又是什么阻碍了本该实现的‘共产主义’呢？政府指导部门面临的一个问题就是，二十世纪六十年代前后那种‘一句顶一万句’的时代真真实实的过去了，现在还没有从那个时代走出来的人或事究其根本就是没搞清楚这件事或在刻意掩盖这个事实，这些人仍然以为靠背过大街上20几个字的价值观字眼儿就可以改变思想乃至灵魂，错。能一劳永逸的改变人的终究是基督教信仰，而不是信仰的替代品。正确的信仰如同母乳的作用，资本偏偏劝你用奶粉代替，不知不觉中被加上了有毒的配方。

    脱离人性和终极信仰追求的指令性、计划性管理会直接影响到教会的自主性和信仰纯正性，民众呼吁有胆识、有远见的政治家去‘上谏下监’指导那些‘指导部门’警惕思考，不能将宗教信仰管理等同于一般事务，要知道正确的信仰会产生正确的价值观，会最大程度的推进国家高速、稳妥的发展。

    反过来讲，在这样的背景下，信徒应当如何在追求信仰自由与爱国、遵守国家法律之间取得平衡呢？无论是‘三自教会’还是家庭教会的信徒，是否应更加关注自身灵命的成长与悔改，以便在中国社会的特定环境中更好地活出基督教的信仰？这一部分将对这些问题一点粗浅的探讨。

一、‘三自教会’的现状：指导部门参与和教会自治的悖论

    ‘三自教会’的建立初衷是为了实现基督教的中国化，强调教会在信仰传承和教会管理上的独立性。然而，在实际操作中，‘三自教会’的自治性和自主性面临挑战。指导部门通过提供租赁场地、派驻牧师、审核讲义等方式，深度介入了教会的内部事务，这些干预显然已经超越了管理的范围，触及了教会灵性指导和信仰实践的核心问题。

    这种状况使得‘三自教会’的信徒面临一个矛盾：在指导部门监管与教会自治之间，如何保持教会的灵性纯正性？虽然指导部门的干预可能是为了平衡政治环境下的管理与信仰关系，但它却给教会的独立性和信仰自由带来了巨大的挑战。信徒在这样的环境中，往往将信仰实践局限于遵守条条框框，而忽视了内在的灵性成长和实际的信仰生活。我相信敢于公开自己信仰的基督徒也大概率是希望推动国家更加繁荣的那批人，他们更应该活出基督的大使命，从而成为国家建设的推动者。

二、家庭教会的处境：自由与监控的双重挑战

    本文暂不探讨被定性为邪教组织的情况，违背正统基督教核心的犯罪组织在任何国家都是政府重点打击的对象。
    相比之下，家庭教会作为未纳入指导部门监管体系的宗教组织，看似享有更多的信仰自由，但这并不意味着它们可以完全脱离指导部门的视线。家庭教会的活动和聚会，往往受到居委会、街道办事处甚至社区志愿者（如“朝阳大妈”）的监控。虽然家庭教会不受指导部门的直接管控，但其一举一动依然在指导部门的关注之下。信徒在参与社会活动时，常常因为担心可能的后果而自我束缚，难以完全放松地践行基督的爱与使命。

    在这种情况下，家庭教会的信徒需要在灵命成长方面更加积极主动，在遵纪守法的前提下，依然能够大胆追求信仰自由。这种追求不仅仅是形式上的宗教活动，而是通过实际行动来展现基督教信仰的核心价值和精神力量。

    作为家庭教会的信徒需要理解并支持的一点是，指导部门之所以对家庭教会关注，更多的是防止邪教组织对民众和社会造成伤害，但很多家庭教会的信徒往往将这种关注理解为对基督教信仰的压制。另外，家庭教会大多不愿意向三自教会靠拢，这也可以理解，毕竟在当前情况下，双方还没有合适的机遇相互沟通，需要本着爱的原则彼此祷告，至少做到不诋毁、不指责参加三自教会敬拜信徒，毕竟所有人都在同一片土地上共同生活、敬拜，既是‘蒙恩的罪人’，便该彼此祷告守望，‘愿祢的旨意行在地上，如同行在天上’。

三、信徒的灵性突破：在政治与信仰之间追求悔改与成长

    无论是‘三自教会’还是家庭教会的信徒，若要在个人灵命上有所突破，活出基督爱的使命，都需要特别注意一个核心问题：悔改。悔改不仅是基督教信仰的核心内容，也是每一个基督徒灵性成长的关键环节。在中国的教会群体中，35-64岁年龄段的中年人占据了60%以上。这些人多已成家立业，经历了人生的起伏与挫折，对生活有着深刻的理解和反思。随着年龄的增长，尤其是逐步迈入老年阶段，他们更需要反思自己的人生观、价值观，并回转向神，追求灵性上的悔改与更新。比如：

• 教会应加强悔改与灵性引导：无论是‘三自教会’还是家庭教会，都应更加关注悔改的教导与实践。教会可以通过讲道、灵修课程、祷告会等方式，帮助信徒认识到悔改的重要性，引导他们在复杂的社会环境中找到信仰的践行方式。写到这里时，心情很沉重，因为我看到无论是在家庭教会还是三自教会都会看到非常大比例的牧者将敬拜重点放在了经文讲解、恩典降临等等，却不愿意化大气力对重生得救的弟兄姐妹悔改而宣教、祷告。并不是说解经不重要，也不是说恩典不应该感恩，而是这一切如果没有悔改便都是枉然，以至于很多弟兄姐妹‘终生信主却时常活在地狱般的煎熬中’。敬拜是不活在地狱的保障吗？说到这里，我忽然理解了圣经中继耶利米书后为什么还要写耶利米哀歌，只能说神藉先知耶利米表达出对犹大国的爱已经到了无以复加的地步。爱的梯度并不仅是从无到有，比‘无’还冷漠的是对他人爱的不了解导致的诋毁，对‘爱’的超越是牺牲，希望更多的弟兄姐妹活出信仰的自由。
• 中年信徒的灵性反思与生命重建：对于占据教会大多数的中年信徒而言，悔改不仅是一种个人的内在反思，更是一种生命的重建。教会应为这些信徒提供更多分享个人经历和反思的平台，鼓励他们彼此交通，分享悔改的体验与成长的故事。
• 在现实约束中活出基督使命：在当前的政治和社会环境下，无论是‘三自教会’还是家庭教会的信徒，都应在爱国、遵纪守法的前提下，勇敢追求信仰的自由。信徒可以通过参与社会服务、关怀邻里、支持公益等方式，体现基督的爱与关怀，展现信仰的真实力量。没有这样的力量，所谓的信仰终究是一袋营养贫瘠的奶粉；不回到‘小孩子般’的样式重生模样，马丁·路德所强调的‘因信称义’也会成为枉然，别再调侃’中国用40年走完了西方社会400年的路程后发现差距仍然有400年’，我觉得从马丁·路德改教时算起，中国基督教差了至少500年的历史，这还不算因为自己的特色踉跄徘徊的年数。
• 悔改，转向神，成为滔滔暖流：作为这片土地上的基督门徒，无论你在哪里敬拜，都应该为这个地上的国度祷告，并愿意为了主真诚悔改，悔改的力量会让组成这个政府的执政人员从身为门徒的弟兄姐妹、亲朋好友等等身上看到践行基督信仰的力量，这种力量如同冰山一角的火种，一点一点融化这颗看似冷冰冰的心，最终会从涓涓细流汇成活水的江河，如同黄河、长江一般滋润这片土地上心灵饥渴的炎黄子孙，成就主所眷顾的东方家园。

第三部分：站在中国佛教徒的视角看政府与基督教会和解的思考

    我有一位朋友，是一个修为多年的佛教徒，已退休多年，当我和他提到国内教会情况时，他结合自己的工作生活经历表达了下面的一些想法，现在分享给大家，作为我今天文章的重点说明部分，算是从这位大哥的角度叙述吧。

    作为一位在中国文化背景下成长的佛教徒，在多年的修行和生活中，深感佛教的智慧和力量在治愈人心方面的独特之处。然而，面对现代社会的种种挑战，我逐渐意识到佛教在某些方面的局限性。基督教的博爱精神、终极关怀和普世情怀等核心教义，深深触动了我，使我开始思考是否可以在基督信仰中找到更深层次的精神滋养。然而，当我更深入了解中国的基督教会现状时，我发现政府与教会之间存在诸多困惑与矛盾，这些问题不解决，不仅会影响基督教在中国的传播和发展，还会阻碍社会和谐的实现，毕竟佛教在中国的影响已经渗入了生活的各个层面。

一、政府与教会的担忧：各自的困惑与害怕

政府的担忧

    政府对任何可能影响社会稳定的因素都保持高度警惕。基督教会，尤其是家庭教会，由于没有注册和固定的活动场所，常常被视为潜在的风险因素。政府担心这些团体的活动如果不受控制，可能会引发社会不稳定或者被境外势力利用，进而威胁国家安全。

    随着基督教在中国的迅速发展，信徒人数不断增加，政府担心宗教的扩大会影响国家意识形态的稳定，挑战社会主义核心价值观的主导地位。

    在现有的政治体制中，政府对宗教事务的管理体现了对社会组织的严格管控。政府担心的是如果对基督教会的管理放松，会导致对宗教团体失去有效的监管，进而使其在社会中形成具有独立性和反抗性的力量。

教会的担忧

    三自教会作为政府认可的合法宗教组织，常常在教义传播和信仰实践上受到诸多限制，这让教会难以保持其信仰的纯正性和灵性力量。家庭教会由于未注册，信众和布道者信仰情况参差不齐，其活动常常被视为非法，信徒面临法律风险和外部压力，宗教自由受到了极大的限制。

    三自教会的过度‘标准化’和对政府政策的顺从，使得很多信徒担忧教会的灵性和信仰纯正性被削弱。家庭教会则担心在合法化过程中，核心信仰受到妥协，丧失原有的精神力量。

    家庭教会信徒因为参与未经注册的宗教活动，面临法律和行政处罚，这让信徒感到不安和恐惧。此外，政府对宗教活动的严格限制，使得三自教会的信徒对自身的宗教生活无法得到充分保障感到担忧。

二、打破僵局：建立政府与教会的信任与合作

    这位大哥认为，面对这些担忧与困惑，要实现政府与基督教会的和解与合作，‘政教双方’须打破彼此的僵局，结果应该是朝向对双方有利的。目前的局面是，‘政’不理解‘教’，所以是按照行政管理的方式管理‘教’，而‘教’则没有将‘政’纳入实际的祷告日程，进而将‘政’视作假想敌，实际情况是双方对彼此都缺少起码的沟通和技巧，以致彼此隔阂。他提出了以下几条具体建议供参考：

1. 建立透明的对话机制：他认为政府与基督教会之间应建立一个开放、透明的对话平台，定期讨论双方关心的问题。通过这种沟通机制，政府可以更多地聆听教会的诉求，理解宗教团体的需求与担忧，教会也可以通过这一平台表达基层信徒的真实声音，寻求共识与合作。
2. 推动宗教政策的宽松化和灵活化：政府可以在确保国家安全和社会稳定的前提下，尝试进一步放宽对三自教会和家庭教会的监管，赋予宗教团体更多的自治权和宗教自由空间。这不仅能够减少宗教团体对政府的抵触情绪，还能有效增强教会的社会吸引力和灵性力量。
3. 促进家庭教会的合法化进程：他说人们不愿意参加家庭教会的原因之一是担心被检查时处罚，他建议政府应逐步放宽家庭教会的注册条件，简化注册流程，允许愿意合法化的宗教团体在法律框架内开展宗教活动。这不仅可以减少非法活动带来的不稳定因素，还能促进政府对宗教活动的有序管理，改善宗教信徒的合法权益。
4. 鼓励教会积极参与社会建设与公益事业：基督教会应通过参与社会服务、扶贫救灾、教育文化等公益事业，展示基督教的社会价值。政府也应给予宗教团体参与社会建设的机会和空间，通过合作建立互信，让宗教团体在社会和谐与进步中发挥更大的作用。
5. 推动基督教的本土化和中国化：基督教会应深入了解中国传统文化和社会背景，将基督教教义与中国文化相结合，探索更加符合中国人民思维方式和文化习惯的传播方式。通过这种本土化的努力，基督教不仅能够更好地吸引本土信徒，还能有效化解文化冲突，促进宗教信仰与社会的深度融合。
6. 加强宗教教育和内部治理：基督教会应通过加强神学教育和牧者培训，确保教义的纯正性和信仰的灵性力量。同时，教会要加强内部治理和规范化管理，防止极端思想的传播，维护宗教团体的良好形象和社会信誉。

三、共同推动国家繁荣与福音传播的未来愿景

    这位大哥站在一名与社会各界人士打交道多年的经历分析，从国家繁荣和社会和谐的角度来看，政府和基督教会的合作与和解，不仅能够减少社会的紧张关系，还能为国家的长治久安和社会的和谐发展提供重要保障。通过相互理解和共同努力，双方可以在以下方面实现双赢：

1. 提升社会和谐度和道德水平：政府与教会携手，可以更好地促进社会和谐与稳定。通过鼓励宗教团体参与社会道德建设和公益活动，双方能够在提升社会整体道德水平方面形成合力。
2. 推动宗教的健康发展与有序治理：政府宽容和灵活的宗教政策可以为宗教团体创造更好的发展环境，而宗教团体的自律与规范化管理则有助于减少政府的治理成本，促进宗教的有序健康发展。
3. 形成国家繁荣的稳定力量：基督教会在中国社会中拥有大量信徒，若能与政府形成良好的合作关系，将成为国家繁荣和社会稳定的重要力量。通过共同努力，基督教会可以更积极地参与国家建设，帮助信徒培养更强的社会责任感和爱国情怀。

    最后，作为一名佛教徒，他相信基督教在中国的未来具有巨大的发展潜力。在全球化与文化多元化的今天，基督教与中国文化的相遇与融合，不仅是宗教现象的个案，更是人类精神追求与文化交流的生动体现。通过政府的宽容政策和基督教会的自我反思与改革，基督教能够在中国更广泛地传播，成为促进社会和谐与国家繁荣的重要力量。越来越多的人皈依基督教且符合国家法规，基督教会也将成为国家更稳定和繁荣的因素，并会吸引更多像他这样对基督教有追求的人士加入。

结语：灵性成长的道路在悔改中展开

    在中国的社会和政治环境下，‘三自教会’与家庭教会各有其挑战和局限。‘三自教会’在指导部门的日常关照下，需要重新思考如何在继续坚持‘中国特色基督教’方向的同时，保持教会的灵性力量和自主性。家庭教会则需要在相对自由的环境中，智慧地应对外部的监控与压力，找到更好的灵性成长方式。

    对于中国的基督徒而言，无论所属教会的形态如何，他们都需要超越形式上的宗教条款，借助基督的爱彼此连接到主的葡萄枝，悔改、回转向神，特别是对于那些即将步入老年的中年信徒，他们应抓住悔改与灵性成长的机会，勇敢摈弃主面前那个强大的‘老我’，重建自己的信仰生命。通过在实际生活中践行基督的使命，信徒可以在中国特色的环境中活出基督的样式，为社会和谐与国家繁荣贡献自己的力量。

    让我们一起为此祷告，为悔改、回转向神、为国家实现新的四个现代化：信仰与道德文化现代化、科技创新引领现代化、生态文明与可持续发展现代化和社会治理与公民参与现代化尽自己的力量。

（如有建议敬请留言讨论，邮箱：[email protected]）

Has the Characteristic Situation of “Autonomy, Self-Support, and Self-Propagation” Been Realized?

Below are the basic concepts and understandings that form the foundation of this discussion.

Today’s sharing comes from the perspective of a Buddhist on the church and its potential avenues for improvement. For readers’ convenience, it is necessary first to describe the basic situation of China’s “Three-Self” churches and house churches, the attitude of government departments, and the direction in which the church should adjust.

Part I: China’s “Three-Self” Churches and House Churches

The “Three-Self” Church refers to the Chinese Christian (broadly defined) churches that uphold the “Three-Self” principles—autonomy, self-support, and self-propagation—and are often also called the “Three-Self Patriotic Church.” This form of church emerged after the founding of the People’s Republic of China, as Chinese Christianity sought to shed its semi-colonial, Western image, and, by realizing autonomy, self-support, and self-propagation, to unite believers nationwide under the banner of patriotism in an active movement of loving both the country and the faith. Since 1949, Chinese churches have no longer been subordinate to the Roman Curia or foreign Christian missionary societies. Simply put, China’s “Three-Self” church has no connection with the Vatican; it is a form of Christianity and Catholicism with Chinese characteristics. At the national level, the organized “Three-Self Patriotic Church” for Protestantism includes the China Christian Council (CCC) and the Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM), collectively often referred to as “the two associations.” For Catholicism, there are the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, the Chinese Catholic Bishops Conference, and the Chinese Catholic Administrative Committee (collectively “the two associations and one committee”).

As an important component of Chinese Christianity, the “Three-Self” church has long adhered to the fine traditions of loving the country and the faith. Over more than 70 years of history, the “Three-Self” church has experienced countless challenges and difficulties. Although it is separated from the Vatican and Jerusalem, it has continuously maintained its faith and distinctive principles. Its contribution to religious harmony and social stability in China is a matter of perspective—everyone sees it differently. This view rests on a single standard: just as every coin has two sides, no one can deny that such a dichotomy exists.

(If you wish to learn more about the statutes of the China Christian Council and the Three-Self Patriotic Movement, please visit the related information on the official China Christianity website.)

Although the overt “semi-colonial” situation that provided the basis for establishing the “Three-Self” church is long gone, that definition remains in force as a reminder for believers to guard against semi-colonial mentalities and to uphold characteristics with Chinese characteristics. At its core, the definition dictates that Christianity should be “patriotic” and that religious activities should be carried out under the premise of safeguarding national security and interests. Looking at the historical development of Christianity abroad, the church has repeatedly experienced situations of “politics controlling the church,” “theocratic unity,” “politics subordinate to the church,” and “separation of church and state”—all of which have existed to varying degrees in different countries and historical periods. Against this historical and contemporary background, the emergence of this definition indeed has its significance. In the current situation—especially after China’s accession to the WTO when international relations are changing—the nation needs both close integration with the international community and measures to prevent excessive ideological fusion. Religion is a field in which management should be strengthened, especially for Christianity (including Catholicism), while Islam follows with similar basic requirements despite its varying scale relative to the Christian community. Although Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism have already been indigenized and have a history of more than 2000 years among the people, they too have similar requirements. It is now common to see temples and Taoist halls displaying the national flag. In this regard, the state treats them in a “non-discriminatory” manner. Therefore, the government’s requirement to display the national flag in churches is a legitimate demand—Christian believers should not see it as a restriction on their faith imposed by the state for its own interests.

Even if one were to redefine the situation by omitting the term “semi-colonial,” there would still be an international context as a premise. Thus, the mission before Chinese Christian believers (including those in house churches to be discussed below) is to convert the current tension—between the gradual stagnation of spiritual growth and the urgent desire to expand, and the state’s wish for rapid, stable development while expanding its political influence internationally—into a driving force for both sides as soon as possible.

In comparison, there is also the case of house churches. One common definition is: in mainland China, a house church refers to a Christian church spontaneously organized by believers that has not received official government approval or recognition. This term originates from the characteristic that in its early days, such gatherings were often held in believers’ homes. Although later the meeting places might not be limited to houses, the term “house church” has continued in use.

The term “house church” is a political concept rather than a denomination or a unified religious organization in the usual sense. It refers to Christian organizations within mainland China that are not affiliated with the state-recognized “Three-Self” churches. The background is as follows: after Christianity was formally introduced into China by the British missionary Robert Morrison in 1807, it underwent several developmental stages. The prototype of the house church can be traced back to the 1920s, when, to free themselves from the influence of overseas missionaries and mission organizations, self-reliant gatherings and churches based on family units began to emerge in various regions. After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, the formation and development of house churches became closely tied to government religious policies, experiencing stages of initial formation, closed development, revival, and public development.

Based on differences in political attitudes, theological views, and modes of operation, house churches can generally be classified into the following types:

• Auxiliary House Churches: These are essentially family gatherings held under the “Three-Self” umbrella. The believers recognize and adhere to the “Three-Self” stance. Due to limitations such as the number of church facilities, time, locality, and physical conditions, meetings are organized at home or in small venues. Although these gatherings do not fully conform to state religious policy, they are generally tacitly regarded by the government as normal auxiliary religious activities under the “Three-Self” framework.
• Intermediate House Churches: These churches maintain an ambiguous attitude toward the “Three-Self” principles—they neither support nor oppose them, insisting on what they call “genuine faith.” Although such churches are not formally registered and are technically illegal, they initially largely complied with religious policies in terms of management. In recent years, they have frequently engaged in cross-regional evangelism and established contacts with overseas religious organizations.
• Confrontational House Churches: These directly take a stand against the “Three-Self” system—even opposing the government. They are mostly developed with the support of foreign or hostile religious forces, carrying a strong political motive and posing real dangers.
• Heterodox House Churches: These use the name “house church” to cloak the propagation of erroneous teachings. They are usually characterized by chaotic management and lack of supervision, making them susceptible to the formation of cult-like organizations.

The existence and development of house churches have had multifaceted impacts on contemporary Chinese society. For some believers, house churches provide a more flexible and convenient mode of religious activity that helps them maintain and deepen their faith. It can be affirmed that, to a considerable extent, the vast majority of house churches have promoted harmony and mutual support within communities and workplaces. However, from the perspective of government regulatory departments, house churches, which lack unified management and standardized guidance—and whose members have not fully understood the requirements and legal norms that govern religious activities in the society in which they live and work—are feared to spiral out of control and even foster the creation of cult organizations. Fundamentally, the government has discovered that some house churches are colluding with overseas religious forces to engage in activities that violate state laws and regulations, endangering national security and social stability; hence, there is a need to tighten control. Moreover, the cross-regional evangelism and illegal construction of church buildings by house churches have exacerbated the disorder and conflicts in the religious sector. In one sentence, there is a lack of mutual understanding and communication between house churches and the government’s regulatory departments—a point I will explain further below.

In response to the problems and challenges facing house churches, government and various sectors of society should adopt the following strategies. The government should strengthen its supervision of house churches, standardize their religious activities, and prevent the emergence of cults or the conduct of illegal activities. It should encourage and support exchanges and integration between house churches and legally recognized organizations such as the “Three-Self” churches, to jointly promote the healthy development of Chinese Christianity. In addition, education and training for believers should be enhanced to improve their religious literacy and ability to discern, preventing them from being misled by cult organizations. Through strengthening community development and promoting the integration of religion with a socialist society, the aim is to foster harmony and stability in the religious sphere.

To reiterate, the “Three-Self” church—or “Three-Self Patriotic Church”—specifically refers to Chinese Christian churches that are not subject to foreign church administration and interference, that operate under the principles of “autonomy, self-support, and self-propagation.” It is the only legally recognized Christian church in the People’s Republic of China; any other form of Christian church is considered illegal. Before the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, churches such as the Chinese Independent Church and the Christian Assembly, which used the principles of “self-reliance, self-support, and self-propagation,” could be classified as “Chinese Independent Churches” to distinguish them.

Part II: Common Issues and Proposed Measures Facing Both “Three-Self” Churches and House Churches

(Christians on Chinese soil worship together to bless the next generation)

As mentioned above, China’s Christian churches—especially those under the auspices of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement—nominally represent the patriotic and faith-loving organization of Chinese Christians. They emphasize the “Sinicization” of Christianity and insist on the principles of autonomy, self-support, and self-propagation, managing their affairs independently. However, in reality, the operation of many churches reveals that government regulatory departments have deeply intervened in internal church affairs, including leasing premises, sending pastors, participating in the planning of worship spaces, and reviewing teaching materials. These interventions go far beyond administrative management and pose the problem of “laypersons managing professionals.”

It is important to recognize that religious faith is not the same as government management of public affairs. Faith relates to issues that transcend specific administrative matters—it is a matter of thought and even of the soul. The direction of its management should help believers elevate their spiritual cultivation, thereby positively influencing the moral and cultural level of the whole society. It is an inheritance that affects one generation after another. Many of the recent serious incidents of moral degradation and criminal behavior in society can be directly linked to the lack of religious faith among the people—as detailed in the article discussing Tillich’s and Dawson’s exposition of the relationship between religion and culture.

I am now under 60 years old. Half a century ago, the regulatory departments painted a vision of life for me that envisioned 21st-century China achieving communism and the Four Modernizations. Looking back now, who has driven the advancement and progress of China’s two civilizations in these years? And what has hindered the realization of “communism”? One issue facing the government’s regulatory departments is that the era of “one sentence counting as ten thousand” from the 1960s is truly over. Those who have not moved on from that time either fundamentally fail to understand the matter or are deliberately concealing that fact. They still believe that merely reciting a few dozen words of supposedly valuable slogans on the street can change one’s mindset or even one’s soul—but this is wrong. What can change a person once and for all is genuine Christian faith—not a substitute for faith. True faith works like breast milk, yet capitalistic interests persuade you to substitute it with formula, which, before you know it, is tainted with poisonous additives.

Directive, planned management that departs from human nature and the ultimate pursuit of faith will directly affect the church’s autonomy and the purity of its beliefs. The people call for courageous and visionary politicians to “speak up and watch over” those within the regulatory departments, urging them to think carefully and not to equate the management of religious faith with ordinary affairs. One must understand that right faith will lead to the right values and will most effectively promote rapid and steady national development.

Conversely, in this context, how should believers balance the pursuit of religious freedom and patriotism with compliance with state laws? Whether one belongs to the “Three-Self” church or is a house church believer, should one focus more on one’s spiritual growth and repentance so as to better live out the Christian faith in the specific context of Chinese society? This section will offer some preliminary reflections on these issues.

1. The Current State of the “Three-Self” Church: The Paradox Between Government Involvement and Church Autonomy

The original purpose in establishing the “Three-Self” church was to realize a Sinicized form of Christianity, emphasizing the independence of the church in both faith transmission and management. Yet in practice, the autonomy and independence of the “Three-Self” church are facing challenges. Regulatory departments, by providing leased venues, dispatching pastors, and reviewing teaching materials, have deeply intervened in the church’s internal affairs. Such interventions clearly exceed the proper scope of administrative management and encroach upon the core issues of spiritual guidance and the practice of faith.

This state of affairs creates a dilemma for believers of the “Three-Self” church: How can the church maintain spiritual purity between the regulatory oversight of government departments and its own autonomy? Although the intervention by regulatory departments might be intended to balance management and faith in a politically sensitive environment, it brings enormous challenges to the church’s independence and freedom of belief. In such an environment, believers often confine their practice of faith to merely following prescribed rules, thereby neglecting inner spiritual growth and an active religious life. I believe that Christians who dare to openly profess their faith are most likely those who also hope to promote the nation’s prosperity—they should be the ones to live out the Great Commission and thus become the driving forces behind national construction.

2. The Predicament of House Churches: The Dual Challenge of Freedom and Surveillance

(This discussion will not address cases that have been categorized as cults. In any country, criminal organizations that deviate from the core tenets of orthodox Christianity are key targets for government crackdown.)

In contrast, house churches, as religious organizations not incorporated into the government’s regulatory system, might appear to enjoy greater freedom of belief. However, this does not mean they are entirely beyond the reach of regulatory oversight. The activities and gatherings of house churches are often subject to monitoring by neighborhood committees, subdistrict offices, and even community volunteers (for example, the “ChaoYang Grannies”). Although house churches are not under direct government control, every move they make remains in the view of the regulators. Believers participating in social activities frequently impose self-restraints out of fear of potential repercussions, making it difficult for them to freely practice the love and mission of Christ.

Under these circumstances, house church believers need to be more proactive about their spiritual growth and, while abiding by laws and regulations, boldly pursue religious freedom. Such a pursuit is not merely about engaging in formal religious activities; it is about demonstrating the core values and spiritual strength of Christianity through tangible actions.

One point that house church believers should understand and support is that the regulatory departments’ focus on house churches is largely aimed at preventing harm caused by cult organizations to the public and society. Yet many house church believers tend to interpret this attention as an outright suppression of their Christian faith. Furthermore, most house churches are reluctant to draw close to the “Three-Self” churches—a stance that is understandable given the current situation where there has not yet been a suitable opportunity for mutual communication between the two groups. It is necessary, based on the principle of love, for both sides to pray for each other, at least refraining from slandering or criticizing believers attending the “Three-Self” church worship services. After all, everyone lives and worships on the same land; as “graced sinners,” believers are called to watch over one another in prayer—“Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

3. The Believers’ Spiritual Breakthrough: Pursuing Repentance and Growth Between Politics and Faith

Whether one is a believer in a “Three-Self” church or a house church, if there is to be any breakthrough in one’s personal spiritual life and fulfillment of the mission of Christ’s love, one key issue must be given special attention: repentance. Repentance is not only a core element of the Christian faith but also a crucial step in every Christian’s spiritual growth. In Chinese church communities, individuals aged 35 to 64 account for over 60% of the membership. Many of these are already settled in family and career, having experienced life’s ups and downs, with a deep understanding and reflection on life. As they age—especially when approaching later years—they increasingly need to reexamine their views on life and values, turn back to God, and pursue spiritual repentance and renewal. For example:

• The Church Should Strengthen Repentance and Spiritual Guidance: Whether in the “Three-Self” church or in house churches, more attention should be paid to teaching and practicing repentance. The church can help believers realize the importance of repentance through sermons, devotional courses, prayer meetings, and similar means—guiding them to find ways to live out their faith in a complex social environment. At this point, my heart feels heavy, because I see that—whether in house churches or “Three-Self” churches—a large proportion of pastors focus their worship on expository sermons and the outpouring of grace, yet seem reluctant to put substantial effort into proclaiming, praying for, and teaching repentance for their brothers and sisters who need to be born again. It is not that exegetical teaching is unimportant or that grace should not be received with gratitude, but without repentance all these things are in vain. As a result, many brothers and sisters “believe in the Lord for a lifetime yet often live in a hellish torment.” Is worship a guarantee against living in hell? At this point, I suddenly understand why, following Jeremiah, the Bible also includes the book of Lamentations. It seems that through the prophet Jeremiah God expressed His boundless love for the Kingdom of Judah. The gradient of love is not merely a matter of presence versus absence; what is even colder than “nothing” is the slander born of a lack of understanding of true love. Transcending “love” means sacrifice—and I hope that more brothers and sisters will live out the freedom of faith.
• Spiritual Reflection and Life Rebuilding for Middle-Aged Believers: For the majority of middle-aged believers in the church, repentance is not only an inner reflection but also a process of rebuilding one’s life. The church should provide more platforms for these believers to share personal experiences and reflections, encouraging mutual fellowship and sharing of experiences of repentance and growth.
• Living Out the Mission of Christ Within Real-World Constraints: In the current political and social environment, whether in the “Three-Self” church or in house churches, believers should, on the basis of patriotism and compliance with laws, courageously pursue religious freedom. Believers can embody the love and care of Christ and demonstrate the real power of the faith by participating in social services, caring for neighbors, and supporting public welfare. Without such power, the so-called faith is ultimately like a nutritionally impoverished bottle of formula; if we do not return to the reborn state of “childlike” renewal—as Martin Luther emphasized, being justified by faith—then even such claims become futile. No more should we mock the notion that “China has walked in 40 years the path that took Western society 400 years, only to find the gap still spans another 400 years.” From the time of Martin Luther’s Reformation, I believe that Chinese Christianity lags by at least 500 years—even without considering the additional years of stumbling due to its own distinctive features.
• Repentance, Turning to God, and Becoming a Warm Current: As disciples of Christ in this land, no matter where you worship, you should pray for this nation and be willing to repent sincerely before the Lord. The power of repentance will allow those who govern to see, in the form of fellow disciples, family members, and friends, the strength that comes from living out the Christian faith. This power, much like a small spark hidden within the tip of an iceberg, will gradually melt what appears to be a cold, indifferent heart. In time, these small streams will merge into a river of living water—just as the Yellow River and the Yangtze nourish the spiritually parched descendants of the Yan and Huang, fulfilling God’s cherished vision for this Eastern homeland.

Part III. Reflections from a Chinese Buddhist on Government– Church Reconciliation

I have a friend who is a long-practicing Buddhist and has been retired for many years. When I mentioned the situation of domestic churches to him, he shared the following thoughts based on his work and life experiences. I now present his perspective as the key explanatory section of today’s article—framed from his point of view.

As a Buddhist who grew up within a Chinese cultural context, after many years of practice and life he deeply appreciates the unique wisdom and healing power of Buddhism when it comes to mending human hearts. However, when faced with the various challenges of modern society, I gradually realized that Buddhism has certain limitations. The Christian core teachings—such as its spirit of universal love, ultimate care, and global empathy—deeply moved me, prompting me to wonder whether I might find a deeper spiritual nourishment in Christian faith. Yet when I delved deeper into the reality of Chinese churches, I discovered that there are many misunderstandings and contradictions between the government and the church. If these problems are not resolved, they will not only affect the spread and development of Christianity in China but also hinder the realization of social harmony—after all, Buddhism’s influence in China has already permeated every aspect of daily life.

1. The Government’s and the Church’s Concerns: Their Own Confusions and Fears

Government’s Concerns

The government remains highly vigilant against any factors that might affect social stability. Christian churches—especially house churches, which are unregistered and lack fixed venues—are often seen as potential risk factors. The government fears that if the activities of these groups are left unchecked, they may trigger social instability or be exploited by foreign forces, thus endangering national security. With the rapid development of Christianity in China and the continuous increase in the number of believers, the government worries that the expansion of religion may affect the stability of the national ideological framework and challenge the dominant position of socialist core values. Under the current political system, the management of religious affairs reflects the strict control of social organizations. The government is concerned that if management over Christian churches is loosened, it will lose effective oversight over religious groups, which could then form independent and even oppositional forces within society.

Church’s Concerns

As a state-recognized, legal religious organization, the “Three-Self” church is often subject to numerous restrictions in its doctrinal dissemination and faith practice, making it difficult for the church to maintain the purity of its faith and spiritual strength. For house churches, which are unregistered, the faith of both believers and evangelists varies widely. Their activities are often deemed illegal, subjecting believers to legal risks and external pressures, and severely restricting their religious freedom. The excessive “standardization” of the “Three-Self” church and its conformity to government policies have led many believers to worry that the church’s spiritual essence and faith purity are being undermined. Meanwhile, house churches fear that in the process of legalization, core beliefs may be compromised, and they might lose their original spiritual strength. Additionally, house church believers face legal and administrative penalties simply for participating in unregistered religious activities, which causes anxiety and fear. Moreover, the government’s strict restrictions on religious activities leave believers in “Three-Self” churches feeling that their religious lives are not adequately secured.

2. Breaking the Impasse: Establishing Trust and Cooperation Between the Government and the Church

My friend believes that in order to achieve reconciliation and cooperation between the government and the Christian church in the face of these concerns and confusions, both “sides” must break the current stalemate—a situation that ultimately should benefit both. The present impasse is that “the state” does not understand “the church” and thus manages it according to administrative methods, while “the church” does not incorporate the state into its actual prayer agendas, instead regarding it as an imagined enemy. In reality, both sides lack even the most basic communication and skills, resulting in mutual estrangement. He has proposed the following concrete suggestions for reference:

• Establish a Transparent Dialogue Mechanism: The government and the Christian church should set up an open and transparent dialogue platform to regularly discuss issues of mutual concern. Through this communication mechanism, the government can listen more to the church’s demands and understand the needs and worries of religious groups, while the church, in turn, can express the genuine voices of grassroots believers and work toward common ground and cooperation.
• Promote More Lenient and Flexible Religious Policies: While ensuring national security and social stability, the government might consider further easing the oversight of both “Three-Self” churches and house churches by granting religious groups more autonomy and a greater sphere of religious freedom. This would not only reduce the resistance of religious groups toward the government but also effectively enhance the church’s social appeal and spiritual strength.
• Advance the Legalization Process for House Churches: One reason people are reluctant to join house churches is the fear of punishment upon inspection. He suggests that the government gradually relax the registration requirements for house churches, simplify the registration process, and allow those willing to legalize to conduct religious activities within the framework of the law. This measure could reduce the instability caused by illegal activities, improve orderly management of religious activities by the government, and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of believers.
• Encourage the Church to Actively Participate in Social Construction and Public Welfare: The Christian church should, by engaging in social services, poverty alleviation, disaster relief, education, and cultural activities, demonstrate the social value of Christianity. The government, in turn, should provide opportunities and space for religious groups to participate in societal development. Through such cooperation, mutual trust can be built, allowing religious groups to play a greater role in promoting social harmony and progress.
• Promote the Localization and Sinicization of Christianity: The church should deepen its understanding of traditional Chinese culture and social contexts, integrating Christian doctrine with Chinese cultural heritage, and explore modes of propagation that better suit the thinking and habits of the Chinese people. Through these localization efforts, Christianity can not only attract more local believers but also help ease cultural conflicts and foster a deep integration of religious faith with society.
• Strengthen Religious Education and Internal Governance: The church should enhance theological education and pastoral training to ensure doctrinal purity and spiritual strength. At the same time, the church must improve its internal governance and standardize its management practices to prevent the spread of extremist ideas and maintain a positive image and social credibility.

3. A Shared Vision for National Prosperity and Gospel Outreach

From his perspective, drawing on years of experience interacting with various sectors of society, my friend analyzes that government–church reconciliation and cooperation can not only alleviate social tensions but also provide vital support for long-term national stability and harmonious development. Through mutual understanding and joint effort, the following win-win outcomes may be achieved:

• Improving Social Harmony and Moral Standards: By working hand-in-hand, the government and the church can better promote overall social harmony and stability. Encouraging religious groups to engage in moral construction and public welfare activities enables both sides to contribute collectively to elevating the nation’s moral level.
• Promoting the Healthy Development and Orderly Management of Religion: More tolerant and flexible religious policies from the government can create an improved developmental environment for religious groups, while the church’s self-discipline and standardized management can reduce the government’s oversight costs and foster the orderly and healthy development of religion.
• Forming a Stable Force for National Prosperity: Christianity in China has a large base of believers. If the church can forge a good cooperative relationship with the government, it will become an important force for national prosperity and social stability. Through joint efforts, the church can actively participate in nation-building and help believers cultivate a stronger sense of social responsibility and patriotism.

Finally, as a Buddhist, he believes that the future of Christianity in China holds enormous potential. In today’s era of globalization and cultural pluralism, the encounter and integration of Christianity with Chinese culture is not merely an isolated religious phenomenon; it vividly reflects humanity’s spiritual pursuits and cultural exchange. Through tolerant government policies and the church’s own self-reflection and reform, Christianity can spread more widely in China and become a major force promoting social harmony and national prosperity. As more people embrace Christianity in accordance with national laws, the church will further contribute to the nation’s stability and prosperity—and attract more individuals like him, who yearn for the depths of the Christian faith.

Conclusion:  The Road to Spiritual Growth Unfolds in Repentance

Within China’s unique social and political context, both “Three-Self” churches and house churches face their own challenges and limitations. Under the daily oversight of regulatory departments, “Three-Self” churches need to rethink how, while remaining true to a “Sinicized Christianity,” they can preserve their spiritual strength and autonomy. Meanwhile, house churches, operating in relatively freer environments, must wisely navigate external surveillance and pressures to find better ways for spiritual growth.

For Chinese Christians, regardless of the church structure they belong to, it is essential to transcend formal religious regulations and use the love of Christ to connect with one another as branches of the true vine. Repentance and turning back to God—especially for those middle-aged believers nearing old age—offer a vital opportunity to cast off the formidable “old self” before the Lord and rebuild one’s spiritual life. By living out the mission of Christ in practical ways, believers can exemplify the pattern of Christ within China’s unique context and contribute to social harmony and national prosperity.

Let us pray together for this cause—for repentance, for turning back to God, and for a new realization of the Four Modernizations: the modernization of faith and moral culture, the modernization led by scientific and technological innovation, the modernization of ecological civilization and sustainable development, and the modernization of social governance and citizen participation. May we all contribute our strength to these endeavors.