CHINA STUDY JOURNAL CHINA DESK Churches Together in Britain and Ireland \ churches. ìogether IN BRITAIN AND I i i L A N D° * China Study Journal Autumn/Winter 2008 Editorial Address: China Desk, Churches Together in Britain and Ireland, Bastille Court, 2 Paris Garden, London, SEI 8ND, United Kingdom Email: [email protected] ISSN 0956-4314 Cover: Nial Smith Design, from: Shen Zhou (1427-1509), Poet on a Mountain Top, Ming Dynasty (1368-1644). Album leaf mounted as a hand scroll, ink and water colour on paper, silk mount, image 15 V4 x 23 % inches (38.74 x 60.33cm). © The Nelson-Arkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, Missouri. Purchase: Nelson Trust, 46-51/2. Photograph by Robert Newcombe. Layout by raspberryhmac — www.raspberryhmac.co.uk Contents Editorial 5 Section 1 Articles 7 Liu Peng Three Questions concerning the [Chinese] House Churches 9 Liu Tongsu The Mandate of Heaven and the Sign of the Times: 24 the essential relationship between the Government and the House Churches in a New Era. Yu Jianrong Desensitising the House Churches 34 Li Huawei Chinese House Churches seen from the Perspective of 51 Market Theory — a Case Study From Henan Section 2 Documentation 69 Editor: EdmondTang Managing Editor: Lawrence Braschi Translators: Lawrence Braschi Abbreviations ANS : Amity News Service (HK) CASS : Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (Beijing) CCBC : Chinese Catholic Bishops' Conference CCC : China Christian Council CCPA : Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association CM : China Muslim (Journal) CPPCC : Chinese Peoples Consultative Conference FY : Fa Yin (Journal of the Chinese Buddhist Assoc.) SCMP : South China Morning Post(HK) SE : Sunday Examiner (HK) TF : Tian Feng (Journal of the China Christian Council) TSPM : Three-Self Patriotic Movement UCAN : Union of Catholic Asian News ZENIT : Catholic News Agency ZG DJ : China Taoism (Journal) ZGTZJ : Catholic Church in China (Journal of Chinese Catholic Church) Note: the term lianghui is used in this journal to refer to the joint committees and CCC. Editorial (autumn 2009) In the last issue of the China Study Journal we reported on a conférence on house churches sponsored by a government think-tank. The consensus of the meeting: we cannot ignore any longer the existence of the house churches. In the same spirit of openness, but also the intention to put the debate into the public square, the meeting and some of its debate were quickly put on the internet. Almost a year after the conférence, however, we are still not clear about the position of the government authorities or that of the officiai Protestant Church. House churches are still being raided regularly and arrests of leaders still continue, perhaps not more than before, and there are not yet any signs of a large scale crackdown that some feared. Will government policy be liberalised? Most observers are not over optimistic; some scholars privately see this as the cairn before the storm. They cite the conciliatory attitudes towards the Falun Gong movement before a harsh national campaign began. Another reason for the lack of clarity of government policy are the numerous "surveys" and "research programmes" being carried out at the moment by différent government departments (from the Religious Affairs Bureau(s) to public security organs). Until the findings are collated, compared and digested, and an internai government debate has taken place, it is unlikely that a new policy will emerge. Are these new surveys and research any more reliable than those of the past? We have heard that some departments do not trust their own staff who may doctor their findings to suit the policy trends of the moment and have assigned these research programmes to academic institutions and journalists instead. This scramble to research has also resulted in some comical situations. In one village the local people were completely confused by the number of research teams that arrived one after another within a couple of weeks. In the end they were so familiarised with the questionnaires that asked very similar questions, that they handed ready-made answers to the researchers to "facilitate" their task. i In these uncertain times it is encouraging to see a public debate going on. The four articles chosen for Part I are ail available on Chinese websites and written by people who were at the conférence in autumn of last year, and who continue to push the debate into the public square. They are among a group of independently minded researchers, some of whom 5 China Study Journal may be Christians but prefer not to approach the question from a partisan point of view. Almost ail of them agree on the following conclusions: House churches exist and have a following of 50 to 60 million Christians, much larger than that of the officiai Protestant churches, although at the grassroots level there is often varying degrees of overlap. It is a fact that the government and society should recognise. Ali of them are from a fundamentalist/evangelical background but some are more open than others to society and the challenges of social change. Some of the house churches are hostile vis-à-vis the government, mostly due to unenlightened government policy and its bad implementation, but others just want to be left alone to practise their religion. Most want to be registered and operate legally, but only outside the existing framework of the Three-Self Patriotic Movement. They see the latter as a government franchise or monopoly, very similar to the state-owned enterprises, which will be completely reformed or disappear in the free religious market. What is interesting in the analysis found in the recent debate is the classification given to the house churches. In past stereotypes they were lumped together into one category, often for politicai or theological reasons. The house churches are now divided by these scholars into: a) historical groups such as followers of Watchman Nee, Wang Mingdao, etc, b) recent Pentecostal/charismatic groups, c) urban indepdent churches which are theologically conservative but socially liberal.. All these are stili general, provisionai typologies, but many come to recognise the existence of new "independent churches" to distinguish them from the others. These attract educated urban elite, intellectuals and university students and their view of society and state-church relations are very différent from other house churches. As for government policy the academic consensus is also clear. Past policies which tried to eliminate the house churches have failed; they only contributed to increase their strength. The present policy of control will also drive the house churches underground and distort their growth and training. A more enlightened policy, according to these scholars and commentators, should recognise their existence as well as their rôle in civil society. More pragmatically some argue for a model based on the free market. Let market forces solve the problem, but legislate against anti-social behaviour or unfair compétition. For a transitional period, "special religious zones", similar to the special economic zones, could be created to ease the process and test and refîne the legislative measures. All these are interesting ideas but will the government retreat to give room to a larger civil society? Are the open churches ready and open to compétition? Will vested interests be so strong and so entangled with the structures that they cannot be shifted? Will the government learn the lessons from the less than successful campaign against the Falun Gong? We cannot predict the development in the Coming months but one thing is certain. The question of house churches can no longer be swept under the carpet. Edmond Tang 6 Section 1 Articles -- Three Questions concerning the [Chinese] House Churches Liu Peng, MB Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (Translated by Lawrence Braschi) Questions surrounding the Chinese house churches are of longstanding, and have not yet received satisfactory treatment. How can the causal factors behind the house churches properly be understood? How can we understand the nature of the house churches? How can we handle problems associated with the house churches? These questions cannot be avoided in the construction of a harmonious society, they need to be confronted. How Can we Understand the Causal Factors behind the House Churches? For a long time there have been a number of popular explanations for the factors contributing to [the development of the] house churches: i) the infiltration of the West; ii) the lag in inculcating scientific and technological culture; iii) weak grassroots management. These explanations are extensively used by officials, scholars and [religious] management organs, and have become an accepted formula in written reports. Such foundational [explanations] remain unchanged, even where there are some superficial differences reflecting changing times, demographic factors, and local divergences, etc. As soon as these formulaic written reports mention the house churches the question cannot be investigated; it doesn't matter from where they originate, the conclusions have long since been fixed. In the past few decades, there are countless references to house churches in internal investigations, analytical reports, yet explanations of their origins remain stereotyped, even to the extent of the famed 'adding and subtracting soup' of the eight-legged essays [during the Qing dynasty]. But where is the crux of the question: why for the past several decades, despite the implementation of all kinds of methodologies, has the number of house churches not only not decreased but, on the contrary, gotten larger 9 China Study Journal and larger? Those reports that attempt an answer to this question are completely lacking in substance, despite being superficially systematic. They reciprocally plagiarise from each other to the extent that the causal factors behind the house churches have become a fixed ideology and a popular politicai wind. However, in terms of recognising the problem and addressing it, they are worse than useless.