(Hotan, Xinjiang – May 31, 2025) The Hotan City Ethnic and Religious Affairs Bureau, on the 28th, publicly announced administrative penalties against house church Christians Hou Zhucai and Xie Rongguang, citing their organization and participation in so-called “illegal religious activities” and “religious education training.” This move not only directly punishes the individuals involved but has once again sparked deep concern from the outside world over religious freedom and the protection of civil rights in Xinjiang, revealing the Chinese government’s ongoing tightening of the policy direction of religious affairs.
Hou and Xie accused of “disturbing social order” over church activities
According to the official notice, Hou Zhucai and Xie Rongguang underwent a police investigation on suspicion of “gathering a crowd to disturb social order.” Subsequently, the Ethnic and Religious Affairs Bureau intervened, accusing them of conducting religious activities in sites not approved by the authorities. The so-called “evidence” includes interrogation transcripts, on-site video footage, lists of confiscated items, and opinions issued by local religious authorities. These materials allege that Xie Rongguang and Hou Zhucai established the “Living Spring” Church in June 2020 and held religious activities, including Bible study, hymn singing, prayer, and baptism, at multiple locations, with some members bringing underage children to participate.
Church members continued worshipping in a park after church shut down by the authorities
Authorities twice shut down gathering sites located in residential areas and eventually arrested Christians conducting religious activities in a park. Official documents emphasized that the “Living Spring” Church is not registered, and its meeting sites are not officially recognized religious venues or approved temporary locations, and are therefore deemed “illegal.”
However, during a hearing, Hou Zhucai, Xie Rongguang, and their representatives argued that the religious practices conducted in their homes, such as scripture reading, prayer, and baptism, were normal religious rituals. They cited the white paper on the guarantee of religious freedom published by the Chinese government. They also challenged the official definitions of “collective religious activities” and “illegal religious venues,” pointing out that their church is small, with only a dozen members.
Despite the reasonable defense brought up by the defendants, the Hotan Ethnic and Religious Affairs Bureau upheld its penalty decision, asserting that Hou Zhucai and Xie Rongguang had “abused” the right to religious freedom. The bureau stressed that “no religion has privileges above the Constitution and the law.” As a result, Xie Rongguang was fined 30,000 yuan, and 111 items classified as “illegal property” were confiscated.
Broader Concerns Over Religious Freedom and Legal Boundaries
The core controversy in this case is whether self-organized religious gatherings by citizens constitute “illegal” activities. The authorities’ classification of unregistered house gatherings as “illegal” essentially subjects private religious conduct in private spaces to strict scrutiny and regulation. This raises questions about whether the government’s regulation of religious activities has become excessively expansive, infringing on citizens’ basic rights to religious liberty. The relevant provisions of the Regulations on Religious Affairs may in practice be used more to restrict than to guarantee the citizens’ freedom of belief.
The penalties in this case are not only directed at Hou Zhucai and Xie Rongguang individually but also target unregistered religious groups and sites for religious activities. Officials emphasized that “non-religious groups, non-religious educational institutions, sites for non-religious activities, and non-designated temporary locations may not organize or conduct religious activities, may not accept donations of religious nature, and may not carry out religious education and training.” Such stringent restrictions on religious activities will undoubtedly place great pressure on Christians who are unwilling or unable to join state-sanctioned religious organizations.
Additionally, the official notice stated that Xie Rongguang’s actions, due to the church’s long-standing existence, growing number of members, repeated organization of gatherings in public places, and continuation of activities despite two previous shutdowns, constituted a “disturbance of social order,” which served as the justification for an increased penalty.
These vague accusations and restrictions on the public religious activities of citizens have raised concerns about the boundaries of government authority. In the absence of clear definitions and concrete evidence, any unofficial religious activity can be easily labeled as the crime of “disturbance of social order,” providing an excuse for arbitrary suppression.
Hou Zhucai and Xie Rongguang have the right to apply for administrative reconsideration within sixty days or file a lawsuit in court within six months. However, whether they will receive fair treatment and what impact this case may have on the broader religious freedom environment locally and nationally remains to be seen.
ChinaAid’s Call to Defend Religious Freedom and Civil Rights
This incident once again reminds all that the issue of clearly defining the boundary between maintaining social order and protecting fundamental civil rights needs to be urgently addressed. If citizens’ fundamental rights to religious belief and association are not effectively safeguarded, it not only undermines individual dignity but also poses long-term risks to social development and stability. The international community is urged to continue paying attention to such incidents. ChinaAid calls on the Chinese government to fulfill and effectively implement its international commitments to protect religious freedom for its citizens.
(Reported by Special Correspondent Gao Zhensai of ChinaAid)