——中国家庭教会信徒的宗教自由困境

作者：张超瑜

《中华人民共和国宪法》第三十六条明确规定：“中华人民共和国公民有宗教信仰自由。”从法律文本来看，公民有权选择自己的信仰，也有权按照自己的信仰方式进行宗教活动。然而，在现实生活中，许多家庭教会信徒所经历的情况却与这一宪法承诺存在明显落差。对于基督徒而言，信仰不仅是一种个人选择，更是一种生活方式。祷告、查经、敬拜以及与其他信徒共同聚会，都是信仰实践的重要组成部分。本应受到保障的宗教活动，在一些地方却被视为需要严格管控甚至打击的对象。

近年来，中国政府不断加强对宗教事务的管理，特别是对未纳入官方宗教体系的家庭教会采取了更加严格的监管措施。许多坚持独立聚会的家庭教会被认定为“不合规”或“非法”，聚会场所遭到查封，教会活动被迫停止，信徒和教会负责人受到不同程度的调查和施压。对于许多家庭教会成员来说，他们并非从事任何违法活动，只是在私人场所进行祷告、查经和敬拜。然而，即便是这样的宗教活动，也可能面临警方介入、行政处罚或持续监控。一些教会被要求停止聚会，一些牧师和同工被约谈、传唤，甚至遭到拘留。

这种情况使许多信徒感到困惑：既然宪法明确规定公民享有宗教信仰自由，那么为什么正常的宗教聚会却会受到限制？

事实上，近年来针对家庭教会的整顿行动在多个地区持续发生。一些规模较大的家庭教会被强制关闭；教会财产被没收或查封；聚会地点被迫搬迁；信徒个人信息被登记备案。部分教会负责人因组织宗教活动而受到刑事调查，甚至被判处刑罚。与此同时，中国社会监控体系的不断扩大，也让宗教信徒面临更大的压力。监控摄像头、人脸识别技术以及网络信息管理手段被广泛应用于社会治理。对于家庭教会而言，聚会地点、参与人员以及活动情况越来越容易被有关部门掌握。不少信徒反映，他们曾接到警方电话询问宗教活动情况；社区工作人员上门了解信仰背景；教会负责人被要求定期汇报活动内容；部分信徒甚至因为参与家庭教会聚会而受到工作和生活方面的影响。

这些现象表明，家庭教会信徒所面对的已经不仅仅是宗教管理问题，而是一种长期存在的现实压力。作为一名长期参与家庭教会活动的基督徒，我对此感受尤为深刻。我始终相信，信仰属于个人良心自由的范畴。一个人选择信仰什么、如何敬拜、与谁一起聚会，不应成为受到调查或处罚的理由。

然而，中国近年来针对家庭教会的持续打压，使我不得不认真思考自己未来可能面临的处境。我担心自己的宗教背景会被有关部门调查；我担心过去参与家庭教会活动的经历会成为被关注的原因；我担心自己继续坚持家庭教会信仰后，会受到约谈、监控或者其他形式的压力；我也担心因为公开表达宗教信仰立场，而被视为需要重点关注的对象。这些担忧并非凭空产生，而是建立在近年来大量家庭教会和基督徒所遭遇的现实情况之上。当家庭教会不断被关闭，当牧师和教会同工因组织聚会而受到处罚，当普通信徒因参加宗教活动而受到监控和调查，当宪法所保障的宗教信仰自由在现实中难以得到充分落实时，我有充分理由相信，如果返回中国，自己同样可能因为家庭教会背景和持续参与宗教活动而面临风险。一个真正尊重宗教自由的社会，应当允许公民按照自己的信仰进行和平聚会；应当保障信徒正常的敬拜权利；更应当让宪法中的宗教自由条款不仅停留在纸面上，而能够真正落实到现实生活之中。

遗憾的是，对于许多中国家庭教会信徒而言，宪法赋予的宗教信仰自由与现实处境之间仍然存在明显差距。正是这种差距，以及由此带来的不确定风险，使我对返回中国后的处境感到深深担忧。而这也是我害怕返回中国的重要原因之一。

编辑：钟然 校对：程筱筱 翻译：戈冰

Between Constitutional Commitment and Reality-Based Suppression:

The Dilemma of Religious Freedom for Chinese House Church Believers

Author: Zhang Chaoyu

Abstract: From the perspective of house church believers, this text explores the gap between the legal commitment to and the practical enforcement of freedom of religious belief in China, as well as the resulting pressure on faith and anxieties regarding returning to the country.

Article 36 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China explicitly stipulates: “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief.” From the perspective of the legal text, citizens have the right to choose their own beliefs and the right to conduct religious activities in accordance with their own ways of faith. However, in real life, the situations experienced by many house church believers exhibit a stark gap with this constitutional commitment. For Christians, faith is not merely a personal choice, but a lifestyle. Prayer, Bible study, worship, and gathering together with other believers are all essential components of practicing one’s faith. Religious activities that ought to be protected are, in some places, regarded as targets that require strict control or even suppression.

In recent years, the Chinese government has continuously strengthened its administration over religious affairs, especially by adopting stricter regulatory measures toward house churches that have not been integrated into the official religious system. Many house churches that persist in independent gatherings have been designated as “non-compliant” or “illegal”; their gathering venues have been sealed and confiscated, church activities have been forced to cease, and believers as well as church leaders have been subjected to varying degrees of investigation and pressure. For many house church members, they are not engaged in any illegal activities, but are simply conducting prayer, Bible study, and worship in private spaces. Nevertheless, even religious activities such as these can face police intervention, administrative penalties, or continuous surveillance. Some churches have been ordered to stop gathering, and some pastors and co-workers have been interviewed, summoned, or even detained.

This situation has left many believers feeling bewildered: Since the Constitution explicitly stipulates that citizens enjoy freedom of religious belief, why are normal religious gatherings subjected to restrictions?

In fact, rectification campaigns targeting house churches have continuously occurred across multiple regions in recent years. Some larger-scale house churches have been forcibly shut down; church property has been confiscated or sealed; gathering locations have been forced to relocate; and the personal information of believers has been registered and filed. Some church leaders have faced criminal investigations and have even been sentenced to criminal penalties for organizing religious activities. Meanwhile, the continuous expansion of China’s social surveillance system has also brought greater pressure upon religious believers. Surveillance cameras, facial recognition technology, and network information management tools are widely applied in social governance. For house churches, gathering locations, participating personnel, and activity conditions are increasingly easily grasped by relevant departments. Many believers report that they have received police phone calls questioning them about religious activities; community staff members have come to their doors to understand their backgrounds of faith; church leaders have been required to report activity content regularly; and some believers have even experienced impacts on their work and lives due to their participation in house church gatherings.

These phenomena indicate that what house church believers face is no longer merely an issue of religious administration, but rather a long-standing, reality-based pressure. As a Christian who has participated in house church activities for a long time, I feel this particularly deeply. I have always believed that faith belongs to the domain of individual freedom of conscience. What a person chooses to believe, how they worship, and with whom they gather should not become grounds for investigation or punishment.

However, China’s continuous suppression targeting house churches in recent years forces me to seriously contemplate the situation I may face in the future. I worry that my religious background will be investigated by relevant departments; I worry that my past experience of participating in house church activities will become a reason for being targeted; I worry that after continuing to persist in my house church faith, I will be subjected to interviews, surveillance, or other forms of pressure; I also worry that because of publicly expressing my religious stance, I will be regarded as an object requiring focused attention. These apprehensions are not generated out of thin air, but are built upon the realistic situations encountered by a large number of house churches and Christians in recent years. When house churches are continuously shut down, when pastors and church co-workers are punished for organizing gatherings, when ordinary believers are monitored and investigated for participating in religious activities, and when the freedom of religious belief guaranteed by the Constitution is difficult to fully implement in reality, I have sufficient reason to believe that if I return to China, I could similarly face risks due to my house church background and continuous participation in religious activities. A society that truly respects religious freedom should allow citizens to conduct peaceful gatherings in accordance with their own faith; it should safeguard the normal rights of believers to worship; and furthermore, it should ensure that the religious freedom clauses in the Constitution do not merely remain on paper, but can be truly implemented into real life.

Regrettably, for many Chinese house church believers, a glaring gap still exists between the freedom of religious belief endowed by the Constitution and their actual circumstances in reality. It is precisely this gap, as well as the uncertain risks brought about by it, that makes me feel deeply anxious about my situation after returning to China. And this is also one of the important reasons why I am afraid of returning to China.

Editor: Zhong Ran Proofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao Translator: Ge Bing