作者：张超瑜

编辑：胡丽莉 校对：程筱筱 翻译：戈冰

宗教信仰，本质上属于个人良知与内心领域。无论信或不信，选择何种方式敬拜，都应当是公民最基本的自由之一。然而，在现实治理结构下，宗教并非完全处于社会自发状态，而是被纳入严格的行政管理体系之中。这种管理逻辑，在基督教领域表现得尤为明显。

在中国大陆，官方认可的基督教组织主要是中国基督教三自爱国运动委员会（通常简称“三自教会”体系）。这一体系强调“自养、自传、自立”，并在组织、人员任命、讲道内容等方面接受统一管理。理论上，这被解释为宗教中国化与规范化治理的一部分。

问题在于，当制度只允许一种“被管理的信仰形态”存在，而对其他自发形成的宗教聚会——例如家庭教会——采取打压、取缔、罚款乃至刑事追责的方式时，信仰自由的边界就被实质性收缩。

家庭教会并非秘密组织，其成员大多只是希望在不受行政干预的情况下聚会、祷告、研读圣经。他们的核心诉求，并非政治参与，而是宗教自主。然而，在现实操作中，未经登记的宗教活动往往被视为“非法聚会”。在某些地区，甚至出现将部分宗教团体贴上“邪教”标签的做法。这种一刀切式的定性，将行政管理问题上升为意识形态问题，使得普通信徒承受极大的法律与心理压力。

在习近平提出“宗教中国化”方向后，宗教活动更加被要求与官方意识形态的协调一致。官方解释认为，这是为了防止境外势力渗透、维护社会稳定。但从权利角度看，当信仰内容与表达方式必须符合政治标准时，宗教本身的独立性就被削弱。

信仰自由的核心，不在于是否允许“信”，而在于是否允许“按照个人理解去信”。如果一个人只能在指定场所、指定话语框架下表达宗教情感，那么这种自由更像是一种被限定的许可，而不是天赋权利。

将家庭教会一概视为风险来源，本质上是对自发社会组织的不信任。这种逻辑背后，是对社会多元性的警惕。可是，一个真正稳定的社会，并不害怕多元存在。相反，压缩空间才可能制造紧张。

更重要的是，把行政登记问题与“邪教”概念混为一谈，会严重伤害法治的严肃性。“邪教”原本指向具有强制控制、精神操控或社会危害行为的极端组织。如果普通的家庭聚会也被贴上类似标签，不仅模糊法律边界，也使得真正需要防范的极端组织难以被清晰区分。

宗教问题之所以敏感，是因为它触及人的终极关怀。越是涉及内心领域，越需要谨慎。强制整合或压制，往往不会消除信仰，只会让其转入更隐蔽的空间。历史经验反复证明，信仰无法通过行政命令消失。

一个成熟的治理体系，应当区分“非法行为”与“非官方组织”之间的界限。若没有具体危害，仅因未纳入统一管理体系便被定性为问题，这种做法无异于对个人信仰选择的间接迫害。

真正的信仰自由，并不是国家替个人选择信仰路径，而是保障个人在法律框架内自主选择。允许三自教会存在，并不必然意味着必须排斥家庭教会。二者并非天然对立，除非制度将其设定为对立。

当一个人因为选择不同的敬拜方式而承担风险时，我们就需要反思：问题究竟出在信仰本身，还是出在管理逻辑？

宗教若必须服从单一组织形式，信仰便不再完全属于个人。信仰一旦被过度行政化，自由就会退居其次。对于任何社会而言，如何在治理与自由之间取得平衡，都是一道无法回避的课题。

When Faith Is “Unified Management”: Why Religious Space Outside the Three-Self System Is Being Compressed

Author: Zhang Chaoyu

Editor: Hu Lili Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Ge Bing

Abstract: Against the backdrop of Xi Jinping’s call for “the Sinicization of religion,” religious activities in China have been incorporated into a unified management system, with the space for house churches outside the Three-Self system continuing to shrink. Unregistered religious gatherings are viewed as illegal or sources of risk, and expressions of faith are restricted.

Religious belief fundamentally resides within the realm of personal conscience and inner conviction. Whether one chooses to believe or not, and how one chooses to worship, should be among the most fundamental freedoms of citizenship. Yet within the current governance structure, religion does not operate entirely as a spontaneous social phenomenon but is instead integrated into a strict administrative management system. This management logic is particularly evident within the Christian sphere.

In mainland China, the officially recognized Christian organization is primarily the Chinese Christian Council (commonly referred to as the “Three-Self Patriotic Movement” system). This system emphasizes “self-support, self-propagation, and self-governance,” and is subject to unified management in areas such as organization, personnel appointments, and sermon content. Theoretically, this is interpreted as part of the Sinicization of religion and standardized governance.

The problem arises when the system permits only one “managed form of faith” to exist, while suppressing, banning, fining, or even criminally prosecuting other spontaneously formed religious gatherings—such as house churches. This substantially shrinks the boundaries of religious freedom.

House churches are not secret organizations; most members simply wish to gather, pray, and study the Bible without administrative interference. Their core demand is not political participation, but religious autonomy. Yet in practice, unregistered religious activities are often deemed “illegal gatherings.” In some regions, certain religious groups have even been labeled as “cult organizations.” This sweeping categorization elevates administrative management issues into ideological ones, subjecting ordinary believers to immense legal and psychological pressure.

Following Xi Jinping’s call for the “Sinicization of religion,” religious activities face heightened demands for alignment with official ideology. Authorities justify this as preventing foreign infiltration and maintaining social stability. Yet from a rights perspective, when the content and expression of faith must conform to political standards, the very independence of religion is undermined.

The core of religious freedom lies not in whether belief is permitted, but in whether individuals are allowed to practice according to their personal understanding. If religious sentiment can only be expressed in designated venues and within prescribed discursive frameworks, such “freedom” resembles a restricted license rather than an inherent right.

Treating house churches uniformly as sources of risk fundamentally reflects distrust toward spontaneous social organizations. This logic stems from wariness toward social pluralism. Yet a truly stable society does not fear diversity. On the contrary, compressing space only breeds tension.

More critically, conflating administrative registration requirements with the concept of “cult” severely undermines the integrity of the rule of law. The term “cult” originally refers to extreme organizations characterized by coercive control, mental manipulation, or socially harmful behavior. If ordinary family gatherings are similarly labeled, it not only blurs legal boundaries but also obscures the distinction needed to effectively guard against genuinely dangerous extremist groups.

Religious issues are sensitive precisely because they touch upon humanity’s ultimate concerns. The more deeply they involve the inner realm, the greater the need for caution. Forced integration or suppression rarely eradicates belief; it merely drives it into more hidden spaces. History repeatedly demonstrates that faith cannot be eliminated by administrative decree.

A mature governance system must distinguish between “illegal activities” and “unofficial organizations.” Labeling groups as problematic solely for not being incorporated into a unified management system—without concrete evidence of harm—amounts to indirect persecution of individual faith choices.

True religious freedom does not mean the state selects one’s path of belief, but rather safeguards the individual’s right to choose autonomously within legal boundaries. Permitting the existence of the Three-Self Church does not inherently necessitate the exclusion of house churches. The two are not inherently opposed unless institutionalized frameworks force them into conflict.

When individuals face risks for choosing different forms of worship, we must ask: Does the problem lie in the faith itself, or in the logic of governance?

If religion must conform to a single organizational form, faith ceases to belong wholly to the individual. When faith becomes overly bureaucratized, freedom inevitably takes a backseat. For any society, striking a balance between governance and liberty remains an inescapable challenge.