作者：张帅  

编辑：黄吉洲   校对：冯仍 翻译：周敏

在很多国家，宗教信仰是一件再普通不过的事情。有人去教堂祈祷，有人去寺庙烧香，有人安静地读经、唱诗，这些都是个人的自由选择。但如果把同样的事情放到中国，有时就会变得非常“复杂”。

在中国，如果你想做基督徒，其实是有一条“标准路线”的——那就是去政府批准的“三自教会”。在那里，一切都井然有序：教会要登记、讲道要备案、活动要审批，连宗教事务都要接受行政管理。换句话说，在这里，信仰最好是“有组织、有计划、有监管”的。

问题在于，并不是所有基督徒都认为信仰需要这种管理方式。于是，一些人选择在家里、在小型聚会点读经祷告，三五个人唱诗、分享信仰，这些被称为“家庭教会”。按常识来说，这不过是一群人在家里聚会而已，但在一些地方，这却被定义为“非法宗教活动”。

于是，一幅颇具讽刺意味的画面就出现了：几个人在客厅里读《圣经》，可能会被当成需要“整顿”的对象；一场祷告会，有时会迎来警察的“现场指导”；一本普通的宗教书籍，也可能被当成需要被没收的“物品”。更有意思的是，很多家庭教会并没有公开宣传，也没有大型活动，只是简单地聚在一起祷告、读经，但在一些地方，这样的聚会仍然会被登记、询问甚至取缔。仿佛信仰这种事情，如果没有经过行政批准，就显得格外“危险”。

于是问题来了：如果祷告必须审批，那信仰还是信仰吗？如果读经需要备案，那良心还算自由吗？很多家庭教会的成员其实并没有什么宏大的目标，他们只是希望在没有干扰的情况下表达自己的信仰。但现实却常常告诉他们一件事：在某些地方，连最安静的祈祷，也可能变成一件“需要解释”的事情。

一个社会是否真正开放，并不只体现在经济发展或城市规模上，而是体现在人们能否自由地思考、表达和信仰。信仰本应属于内心，而不是审批流程。

或许有一天，人们不再需要在客厅拉上窗帘祷告，不再担心聚会被打断，也不再需要解释为什么要读一本宗教书籍。那时，信仰才真正回到了它原本应该存在的地方——人的良心与自由之中。

Do Prayers in China Also Require a “Permit”?

— On the Absurd Situation of House Churches

Author: Zhang Shuai

Editor: Huang Jizhou Proofreader: Feng Reng Translator: Zhou Min

Abstract: In China, religious belief is strictly incorporated into the administrative control system. House gatherings outside of official churches are often regarded as “illegal,” and even reading scriptures or praying may face interference, reflecting the sharp conflict between freedom of belief and power regulation.

In many countries, religious belief is a completely ordinary matter. Some people go to churches to pray, some go to temples to burn incense, and some quietly read scriptures or sing hymns; these are all personal, free choices. But if one places the same things in China, they sometimes become very “complicated.”

In China, if you want to be a Christian, there is actually a “standard route”—that is, to go to a government-approved “Three-Self Church.” There, everything is orderly: churches must be registered, sermons must be filed for the record, activities must be approved, and even religious affairs must accept administrative management. In other words, here, belief is best when it is “organized, planned, and supervised.”

The problem is that not all Christians believe that faith requires this method of management. Consequently, some people choose to read scriptures and pray at home or in small gathering spots; three or five people singing hymns or sharing their faith—these are known as “house churches.” According to common sense, this is just a group of people gathering at home, but in some places, this is defined as “illegal religious activity.”

Thus, a rather ironic scene emerges: a few people reading the Bible in a living room may be treated as objects requiring “rectification”; a prayer meeting may sometimes be met with “on-site guidance” from the police; a common religious book may also be treated as an “item” that needs to be confiscated. Even more interesting is that many house churches do not engage in public propaganda, nor do they hold large-scale events; they simply gather together to pray and read scriptures. Yet, in some places, such gatherings will still be registered, questioned, or even banned. It is as if the act of belief itself appears exceptionally “dangerous” if it has not undergone administrative approval.

This leads to the question: If prayer must be approved, is belief still belief? If reading scriptures requires filing for the record, is the conscience still free? Many members of house churches actually do not have any grand goals; they only hope to express their faith without interference. However, reality often tells them one thing: in certain places, even the quietest prayer can become a matter that “needs to be explained.”

Whether a society is truly open is not only reflected in its economic development or city scale, but in whether people can freely think, express, and believe. Faith should belong to the heart, not to an approval process.

Perhaps one day, people will no longer need to pull the curtains in their living rooms to pray, will no longer worry about their gatherings being interrupted, and will no longer need to explain why they are reading a religious book. At that time, faith will have truly returned to where it was originally meant to exist—within the conscience and freedom of human beings.