| E |
Some Christians in China, as well as most Americans, supported the decision of the leaders of the church to instruct their people to meet in a public space after they were denied access to the restaurant where they had been renting. Others believe that this move was both unwise and unnecessary.
Strong support
Supporters agreed with a Q & A statement on the Shouwang website, which has since been taken down.
The letter begins by detailing the troubles the church has faced in trying to find a place to meet. Time after time, they have been forced to leave a rented space or denied access to alternate places. They have not been able to take the keys to the premises they purchased for a large sum of money in 2010. After the most recent eviction notice, they felt they had no choice but to worship outside, as they had done twice in 2009.
Furthermore, they believe that worship as a complete congregation is necessary. As they state:
God has brought His church to this seemingly hopeless situation to once again challenge our faith and to reflect upon the vision according to which He has led the Shouwang church. We believe that whether it is in registration or in church building, our church remains true to the “City on the Hill” vision. Under the present circumstances when the church does not have a clear resolution for solving the church building problem, the external pressure alone would cause the church to divide and to stray away from the vision God has for Shouwang. This will naturally lead to the church break-up and to the success of Satan’s diabolical plan. Therefore, “Outdoor Worship” is a spiritual warfare resulted from pursuing God’s guidance.
In other words, to “break up” into the smaller groups in which they used to meet would be a spiritual defeat. Their “vision” is to be a “city on a hill,” which requires public worship as a large congregation.
They go on:
What is the main objective of us promoting outdoor worship? Subjectively speaking, we promote ‘Outdoor Worship’ simply because we want to worship our God. The Bible tells us, as Christians, we must not give up meeting together; furthermore, as the church of Jesus Christ, we should not change our mode of Sunday worship just because someone or some entity cannot decide whether we may or may not use a particular gathering place. Our attitude before God should be the same as Daniel’s which is despite of the pressure and difficulties our circumstance presents, we should behave as we normally would, coming before our God weekly to worship Him and offer up our thanksgiving, praises and petitions.
That is to say, Scriptural commands for believers to worship (Hebrews 10:25) necessitate gathering as a large congregation. To obey the government on this point would amount to disobeying God (Acts 5:29).
They also believe that they have a legal right to worship together:
Of course, objectively speaking, our outdoor worship may deliver this message to the various departments of our government: attending Sunday Worship is the most basic necessity for Christians in their life of faith. As a tax-paying citizens of the People’s Republic of China, their place of worship, whether it’d be purchased or rented, it should be protected by all departments of the government, and not be inflicted with unreasonable interference. If the Shouwang Church would be allowed to use its own place of worship (whether through ownership or rental) in peace, then it would set a healthy beginning for the future relationship between church and state.
That is to say, (1) as tax-paying citizens, they should be protected in their worship; (2) if they are allowed to worship together, this would set a good precedent for other house churches in China.
The statement goes on to refer to both the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China and to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which they interpret to guarantee public worship. At this point, they also assert that they should not have to follow government regulations banning all worship “outside of ‘Three-Self Patriotic Movement’ - the only state-sanctioned church.”
Responding to the charge that this sort of challenge to the government comes at a time of great political sensitivity, when the political rulers are very worried about the possible impact of the turmoil in the Middle East, they say, “First of, the church did not decide on the timing; ‘at this time’. Because all the doors that have been closed to us, the church no longer has a place to worship, our church, therefore, is forced to make such an unfavorable decision.”
(In the past few years, the leaders of Shouwang have demonstrated a willingness to register as a “social organization” and to cooperate with local officials on service projects. They claim, with some justification, that their relationships with the police and other officials have been amicable, and deny that they have any political motive at all.)
As we analyze the statement quoted above, we see that the fundamental premise is that the Bible commands Christians to meet in large groups.
That sort of gathering requires a large piece of property. To have to move every few months is a huge inconvenience, involving much labor and instability, not to mention the problem of what to do with the church library, for example.
Another reason for meeting as a large group is that this makes the best use of limited personnel. Instead of preaching to many different small groups, the pastor can address hundreds at a time.
Implied in the statement quoted above there is also a sense that the leaders of Shouwang Church believe that they must meet as a large group in order to have some sort of public presence, as a witness both to the government and to the larger society – a “city on a hill.”
For these and other reasons, leaders of Shouwang felt that they had no choice but to schedule an outdoor meeting. Even after meeting resistance last Sunday, they have declared their intention to try again to meet outdoors.
Criticism
Critics of this decision focus on other considerations, especially two:
1. The leaders of the Shouwang Church are perceived to have been unnecessarily confrontational. Other large unregistered congregations have been allowed to meet publicly in rented premises, with no hindrance. Until recently that is: At least one such church was told last week that their lease would not be renewed. They could only infer that they were suffering from the Shouwang situation. Resentment against its leaders has been widely expressed over the past couple of years by house church Christians who fear that Shouwang’s persistence in seeking a public meeting venue will have harmful consequences for other groups.
It doesn’t help that some of the members of Shouwang are human rights lawyers, or that prominent foreigners, including Congressman Frank Wolf, have expressed support for them. Public statements by China Aid’s Bob Fu, a well-known human rights advocate who often reports on both persecution of Christians for religious activity and Chinese government actions against Christian political and human rights activists, may further confuse the matter.
Because of the complexity of this situation, which has been going on for several years, I believe that foreigners are not competent to make a judgment on this aspect of the case.
2. On the other hand, some critics, both Chinese and Western, question the belief that large meetings are either commanded or even warranted by the Bible. They point to several facts:
a. In the New Testament, both the Acts of the Apostles and the letters of Paul describe or refer only to “church” meetings that take place in homes. To be sure, the early Jerusalem Christians gathered in the Temple for a while, and Paul rented a lecture hall in Ephesus for two years. “Church” gatherings, however, where teaching, fellowship, prayer, and the Lord’s Supper took place, were all in the homes of believers (see Acts 2:42, 46; 5:42; 8 :3; 18 :7; 20:20; Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 1:2;)
b. All explicit instructions about what should take place at regular “church” gatherings assume a situation where there are, at most, only a few dozen people in attendance (1 Corinthians 11:17-34; 14:1-35).
c. The large congregations meeting in big buildings with which we are familiar came into being only in the 4th century after Christ, after Christianity had been recognized as legal, and after its period of most rapid growth.
d. Although some believers are especially gifted to teach, in the New Testament there is no such clergy-based organization as has developed since the second century A.D. The single pastor ruling over a congregation of hundreds finds virtually no support in the Bible.
e. In contrast to the Old Testament temple, in the New Testament, the Church, composed of believers in Christ, is called a “house” or “building” or even “temple” of God. There is no mention of any sort of physical building in connection with regular “church” meetings.
These critics point to pragmatic considerations as well:
Whenever a church becomes too large, spiritual vitality tends to slacken; the previous close fellowship thins out, as people attend a meeting where they don’t know most of the others there.
Even worse, power becomes concentrated in the hands of a few. The offerings of the believers begin to amount to large sums, which are likewise handled by a few people at the top. Even under the best of circumstances and with the best leaders, the potential for disagreement is always present.
All too often, however, power corrupts; leaders become proud and full of their own “visions” – which often lead to buildings, as one 80-year-old pastor wryly observed. Finances are not always handled with complete transparency and integrity.
When the leaders decide that they must buy or build in order to accommodate their growing congregation, more and more money is tied up in “bricks and mortar.” Church splits are all too common.
These critics recall that the Protestant church in China grew to its current size largely through itinerant evangelism and home meetings – which is how it got to be called the “house church,” though many unregistered congregations now own big, and even ornate, buildings. They lament the tendency to copy the Western mega-church model when multiplication of small groups has worked so well.
Some house church Christians also believe that large congregations arouse the government’s fears of mass movements, especially at this time. As they proved this last weekend, the Chinese authorities are not in a mood to compromise. Official patience with Shouwang also seems to have run out.
From the standpoint of these critics, the leaders of Shouwang have involved themselves, their congregation, and possibly many other house churches in unnecessary trouble.