Talk:House church (China)

April 2005

Should this page also be the main article for information on "the Chinese underground church(es)" or should we create a different article? Dpr 05:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• you seem to be the one most active on these articles. my inclination is that here would do fine, but go ahead and do either. SchmuckyTheCat 13:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Legitimacy?

Interesting article, but we can't expect eight paragraphs to be well-regarded if they rest on three sources, one of which is an obsolete URL for a Christian Outreadch organization. Are there other sources which will back up what is found here? I remember a BBC article about something similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.26.39 (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC) . . . 3rd source also from a very Christian organization. SOMEBODY FIX THIS!

Why there is a Chinese house church movement

I note that, in this article, no reason is given for the existence of the Chinese house churches, which continue in spite of the threat of persecution. I would anticipate that there are significant doctrinal differences between the typical house church and the state-sponsered TSPM, CCC, and CCBC.

An editorial by William F. Buckley Jr. (Christians Afoot, Nov.25, 2005) states, "China is officially and aggressively atheist, and such Christianity as is vestigially permitted is doctrinally emasculated. (Christ did not rise from the dead; his mother was not a virgin.)" Such deviations as these from orthodox Christian doctrine could help to explain the persistence of the house church in China.

Inclusion of such differences between the "underground" church and the state-sponsered church would be helpful and informative, and would complete this article, rather than leave it begging the question.

Problem with unregistered/underground religious sects in China

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/202-three-grades-of-servants

Above article refers to couple house churches often cited by human rights groups - "The Three Grades", and their rival "The Eastern Light".

These unregistered/underground Christian sects were banned by the Chinese government because they were killing people in order to retain and compete for membership.

These "cult of Christianity", thou in name are Christian, do not even believe in the Bible. For example The Eastern Light believes Christ has returned to Earth - in the form of a invisible Chinese woman. The Three Grade's Leader, Xu Shuangfu, actually named himself as the Messiah reborn.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of apologeticsindex.org so I question whether it is a reliable source, but anyone interested in writing about this may find these stories from the International Herald Tribune useful:

China executes leader of Christian sect and 11 followers

China's true bull market: cults

Readin (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

There is already an article on the Eastern Lightning movement.Brian0324 (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Readin, Apologetics Index is well-known in the anti-cult academia, and perhaps not so well outside of it (I have no association with it BTW):

http://www.google.com/search?q=apologeticsindex.org

I hope this will address the notability issue you have raised.

The reason I'm asking for feedback is because the wiki as is does not address this aspect of the reality of house church in China. It could be ideological, political, but it could also be ordinary law enforcement. Bobby fletcher (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Is There Justification for Calling House Churches Protestant?

If so, what is it? Just because a Christian movement does not recognize the pope, does not make it "Protestant."(EnochBethany (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC))

I think it's because they self-identify as Protestant. Homunculus (duihua) 04:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What is your proof that they self-identify as "protestant"? What percent of them have you interviewed to find out how they self-identify? Or what reliable source (based on a proper sample interviewed) makes the claim that they self-identify thus? (PeacePeace (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC))

+ POV tag 06/2014: removal of all information about the cultic nature of some "house churches" or "underground churches"

Chinese "house churches" are basically a concept invented by American Christian writers. This article has no right of existing as separate from the "Christianity in China" article. Most of the "underground churches" in China are part of a milieu of subversive and anti-social cults. The issue is discussed here.--79.17.79.245 (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

For further information, two sources that have been deliberately deleted by users with a Christian agenda:

• Dr. G. Wright Doyle (2010). How Dangerous are Chinese House Churches. A review of "Redeemed by Fire: The Rise of Popular Christianity in Modern China", a book of Lian Xi. Yale University Press, 2010. ISBN 978.0-300-12339-5.
• Robert Murray Thomas. Religion in Schools: Controversies Around the World. Praeger, 2006. ISBN 0275990613. p. 99, quote: «Protestantism expanded rapidly in China within the confines of the TSPM. But that movement accounted for only a portion of Chinese Protestants. Another portion was composed of believers outside the official body, members of sects not acceptable to the government—sects referred to as "house churches", because their covert meetings were usually held in members' homes. [...] The Shouters was one such groups [...] Over the last half of the twentieth century, a variety of Christian evangelical groups sprang up in China, much to the distress of the government. [...] illegal cults, which included not only the Shouters, but also Eastern Lightning, the Society of Disciples, [...] the Full Scope Church, the Spirit Sect, the New Testament Church, [...] the Lord God Sect, the Established King Church [...] and more. The Local Church is the official title of the group that became known as the Shouters because of the members' practice of stamping their feet and repeatedly yelling "O Lord Jesus" during religious services.»

I urge editors to reject any edits made by this anonymous user or at least treat them with a heavy dose of suspicion. Please see this thread in the talk page for Christianity in China for an in-depth analysis of this user's history of biased, politically-motivated edits which continually attempt to deny the legitimacy of the house churches in China and even directly contradict statements made by top-level TPSM officials. -Abishai 300 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Your accusations are false, as exposed here, and the support you have gathered from other Christian apologists does not constitute a neutral Wikipedia consensus.--Etsop (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The term "house church" is actually derivable from the New Testament in which house churches exist (see for example the start of the epistle to Philemon, who lived at Colossae). (PeacePeace (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC))

Requested move 18 March 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. Caorongjin (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

---

China house church → House church (China) – There at present is a page for House church (China) which redirects to the standard Christianity in China. However, this current page should really be linked through the House church (disambiguation), as it is a variant of the usage of the phrase "house church." Caorongjin (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - As the move would be uncontroversial, I would have just gone ahead to move it to the appropriate page. STSC (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't move it because it requires deleting the House church (China) page and I am not an administrator. Caorongjin (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You may try the 'Merge' method[1] - just cut-and-paste, but you'll have to withdraw and close this move proposal first. STSC (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do. Caorongjin (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That was an unnecessary WP:CUTPASTE move. See WP:RM#TR. wbm1058 (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

House churches and other religions

Text was added to the lead on practices of other religions and described this as a house church by 151.82.52.242. I moved this to a new section entitled "Similar Practices in Other Religions" in Old revision of House church (China), which was next changed to "House churches in other religions" by 151.36.51.124. I manually reverted the change because the references never describe these other religions as having a "house church" but compared them with Protestant house churches. However, user 151.36.51.124 has changed that back to "House churches in other religions" in Old revision of House church (China). I have since reverted the change again since this heading change implies a question of verifiability. Caorongjin (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, in my second edit to the page I changed the subsection's title to "House gatherings in other religions" in order to avoid the term "church" which, despite being synonymous with "assembly", is mostly used in Christian contexts, thinking this is the main issue.--151.18.113.198 (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification – I did not actually notice this subtle difference. However, I am not sure this fixes the problem. Firstly, some Christians like K. H. Ting were known to describe house churches as house gatherings. Secondly, "home gathering" or "house church" are not terms used by the authors cited – there is no accepted name for this type of meeting; the sources merely imply a parallel practice found (which, in my opinion, is simply saying that illegal activities survive better in small groups). My sense is that the current version is the clearest, and am happy with where it stands. Caorongjin (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Is the term "protestant" in this article accurate?

Does this article err by putting the label of "protestant" on all Christians which are not under the papacy or the Roman Catholic tradition? Are the editors aware that many non-papist Christians do not consider themselves to be in the tradition of those who broke off from Rome and protested vs the papal system, but as in the tradition of Christians who never were in the papal system? (PeacePeace (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC))

Whilst I do not have a strong opinion against this change you made, I think the onus is on those who want to use a term that is not "Protestant" to prove (reference) that it is indeed the case and explain this nuanced reading. I presume you are meaning a group such as the True Jesus Church which emphasizes a restorationism understanding of the church (even though the TJC has churches which are registered through the TSPM)? Moreover, this seems like a broader question that needs to be tackled within articles such as Protestantism in China. --Caorongjin (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)