(Hefei, Anhui Province – July 24, 2025) The trial of the Hefei Ganquan Church case entered its third day on July 18, 2025, as Elder Ding Zhongfu and Pastor Zhou Songlin continued to face prosecution for “fraud” at the Shushan District People’s Court of Hefei. Despite procedural unfairness, the two pastors and their defense attorneys delivered a brilliant defense.
The defense team’s statements not only resolutely refuted the charges but also offered crucial and insightful arguments regarding the difficulties faced by Christians in house churches to register formally, the authority of semi-official bodies such as the “China Christian Council” or “Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association,” as well as the identity and freedom of Christians to practice their faith, and the legitimacy of the rite of offering and its reasonable use. These
arguments provided a theoretical foundation for calling on China’s Ministry of Public Security to end its persecution of house church Christians.
Focus of the Trial: Procedural Disputes and Cross-Examination of Evidence
At the beginning of the trial, the defense team faced obstruction. Attorney Li Guisheng, despite possessing valid documentation, was blocked by bailiffs and only allowed to enter after a delay. During the proceedings, the fairness of the court’s procedures was strongly questioned by the attorneys. Prosecutor Li Weihua attempted to forcibly read the evidence out loud without completing the questioning phase from the previous day. The defense raised an objection, pointing out that it had already been expressed yesterday that the procedural violations had to be addressed first and that they had never waived their right to question, arguing that the judge’s actions violated the Criminal Procedure Law and stripped the attorneys of their right to examination.
Attorney Ou Yuanfang who is representing “victim” Jiang Jun in the “fraud case,” stated in court that his client had not been defrauded but then launched into personal attacks against defense attorney Zhang Kai and his team, engaging in smears and defamation. Other attorneys collectively objected, arguing that his remarks were unrelated to the case and amounted to malicious personal attacks against trial participants. Attorney Zhang Kai questioned the judge: “Judge, he is openly slandering me, why are you not stopping him?” Judge Wu Xiaoshui did not intervene and forced the trial forward, prompting accusations of bias from the defense.
Attorney Tang Xianlong challenged: “Attorney Ou Yuanfang has been attacking Attorney Zhang Kai for an extended period, and the judge does nothing to stop it — beyond outrageous. Under the law, attacking participants in a court session constitutes a disruption of court order and is punishable by fines or detention. It also constitutes the crime of insult, and the judge is obligated to refer it for further action. The judge has clearly lost impartiality and should recuse himself.” Judge Wu Xiaoshui responded that recusal had not been established, offered no explanation, and proceeded with the trial.
Cross-Examination by Defendants and Attorneys: Testimony of Faith and Defense of Law
The prosecutor presented evidence, including the case registration form, certification from the Bureau of Ethnic and Religious Affairs, statements from the Christian “Two Associations,” and transcripts of “victims.” Elder Ding Zhongfu, Pastor Zhou Songlin, and several attorneys delivered a robust cross-examination.
Elder Ding Zhongfu’s Cross-Examination:
“The victim’s transcript explicitly states he gave offerings voluntarily and was not defrauded, yet the prosecutor still lists him as a victim and uses his offering as part of the ‘fraud amount’ to accuse me of fraud. Deliberate distortion of facts is now happening in Hefei today, I am truly grieved for our nation!”
“Pastor Zhou Songlin lives a simple life, rarely treats others, and usually only treats others for breakfast, because breakfast costs little — he would say, ‘I will take care of it.’ Most of the items in his home are secondhand items from others, including used clothing. His income is low, and he lives humbly. He is a far better brother (in Christ) than I am in every way, and yet such a person is now branded a fraudster, how can I be at peace?”
Pastor Zhou Songlin’s Cross-Examination:
“I graduated from Jinling Seminary and spent about five years in the ‘Three-Self’ church. I understand the so-called issue of preaching qualifications. Preaching credentials are determined within each church, with each congregation deciding who may preach, such as through issuing a certificate. But even with a certificate, one may only preach within the church that issued it. Since I do not preach in such a church, why would I need a certificate?”
“Why do I preach? Because Article 36 of the Constitution guarantees our freedom of belief. Without preachers, how can there be faith? Without preaching, faith will then turn into superstition. Article 36 also safeguards our right to preach. I have been recognized by our church to preach, so I preach within our church. Anyone making such accusations shows complete ignorance of Christianity; otherwise, they would never make such claims.”
Regarding the registration of venues for gatherings, Pastor Zhou Songlin stated:
“We are not unwilling to register; we are unable to register. I have repeatedly applied to government officials in the hope of obtaining registration and filing. According to the law, the Hefei municipal government is obligated to provide venues for gatherings for believers. When the relevant authorities fail to assist us in resolving the issue with the venue, we are left with no choice but to relocate frequently. Without a consistent meeting place, they refuse to register us. This is not a matter of our unwillingness, but rather our inability. Government officials know we meet and have not stopped us; they even called me ‘Pastor,’ which effectively acknowledged that I can preach.”
Speaking about venues for religious activities, Pastor Zhou Songlin stated:
“Hefei has 400,000 to 500,000 Christians, but only around 40 churches, which cannot hold them all. Believers can only meet in homes, office buildings, or rented spaces. The Central Document No. 19 of 1982 tacitly allowed house churches not to register. Religious activities are not limited to registered venues, similar to funeral services at crematoriums and hospital visitations are also practices of faith.”
Attorney Li Guisheng’s Cross-Examination:
“Attorney Ou Yuanfang said this morning that the alleged victim, Jiang Jun, believes he was not defrauded and that the two defendants are innocent. To which I agree. However, I believe not only was Jiang Jun not defrauded, but also none of the alleged victims in this case were defrauded. This case is a complete miscarriage of justice. Attorney Ou also mentioned Attorney Zhang Kai’s case from 2016. That too was a wrongful case, which has now been resolved. He still holds a lawyer’s license, which shows he was wrongfully accused at that time; the law never convicted him.”
“This case is about fraud, but none of the laws define what ‘religion,’ ‘religious activity,’ ‘venue for religious activity,’ or ‘pastor’ even mean. What law exactly was violated here?”
Attorney Li Guisheng argued that the case is riddled with illegalities:
“Why is this case so confrontational? Because there are too many violations from the investigation to the trial. The case registration form indicates that no one reported this case, there is no fraud amount, no fraudulent act, and it does not meet the standard for filing a case — the procedure of the case was illegal. Elder Ding Zhongfu and Pastor Zhou Songlin were arrested two years after the case was opened, meaning the case was filed without any criminal facts, and evidence was only collected after the filing. Moreover, the handling unit shifted from Hupo Police Station to the Criminal Investigation Division of Shushan Branch, and later, the specific unit handling the case was changed to the Economic Crime Investigation Division. In reality, the case was not handled by the economic division but by National Security officer Wang Jun. Under the law, Wang Jun is prohibited from interfering in cases; yet, he directed this case and even visited the detention center to demand that Zhou Songlin dismiss Attorney Zhang Kai. This is clearly an abuse of power.”
Regarding the certification from the China Christian Council, Attorney Li Guisheng stated:
“The China Christian Council is an association registered with the Ministry of Civil Affairs; it is a civilian Christian organization. Membership is voluntary, both entry and exit. It does not represent the government, and no law states that it does. Similarly, local Christian Councils are registered with local civil affairs departments as civil organizations. Certification that comes from them, stating that these individuals are not clergy and lack preaching qualifications, only shows they were not registered with them. Preaching qualifications carry no legal meaning, unlike a lawyer who must hold a license, there is no law requiring a certificate to preach. This evidence has no legal effect. Hefei’s Christian Council has no legal authority to determine who is qualified to preach or who is a clergy member. This certification exceeds the Christian Council’s scope of authority. I request that the president of the Hefei Christian Council appear in court to explain why he believes Zhou Songlin lacks preaching qualifications.
Attorney Zhang Kai’s Cross-Examination:
“Today marks the first time in my twenty-year career that I have been openly attacked, smeared, and slandered in court. This young lawyer brazenly attacked colleagues in court, this has almost completely foretold his future.”
Regarding preaching qualifications, Attorney Zhang Kai used a vivid analogy to rebut:“Lack of registration does not mean lack of preaching qualification. Is it that if someone is not registered in the household registry, they have no right to be a person? No right to eat? My youngest son is a year and a half old and not yet registered. Does that mean he has no right to exist as a person? Can I not feed him? I know a couple who never got a marriage certificate, and now their grandson is already several years old. Are their son and grandson the result of ‘fraudulent gains’?”
He further elaborated on the essence of constitutional rights:“The rights guaranteed by the Constitution do not require registration; they are natural rights. Just like my son, who, regardless of whether he has a household registration, naturally has the right to eat, this is a natural right. Constitutional rights are not meant to restrict us; they are meant to restrict the interference of public power in our lives.”
Attorney Zhang Kai offered a philosophical reflection on the definition of “preaching”:“For a pastor, preaching is like how a person naturally needs to speak. Each of us is always preaching, always expressing our own stance, even silence is a stance. Do we all need a preaching license? What is ‘the Word’? Logos, truth. In other words, whenever you express what you believe to be truth and logic, you are preaching, unless you are not human.”
Regarding the certification of venues for religious activity, Attorney Zhang Kai challenged: “If a place is not registered, does that mean it is not a venue for religious activity? What is a venue for religious activity? Every Christian prays before meals, is that then called a venue for religious activity? Are we supposed to report to the Religious Affairs Bureau every time we pray before eating, and ask them to register and approve it quickly? Today in this courtroom, we have spoken extensively about religious matters. Is this then a venue for religious activity?”
He emphasized: “For Christians, the entire world is our venue for religious activity. Every one of our actions is a religious activity. According to our faith, we must express our faith and convictions at all times. The world must be our venue for religious activity. That is what ‘the Word became flesh’ means. Whoever issued this certification clearly lacks knowledge of religion and is not qualified to issue such a document.”
Attorney Zhang Kai elevated the case to a broader critique of the times: “It is now 2025. This trial is not merely a trial to judge these two individuals, but a trial to judge our entire era. In 1982, the central government explicitly clarified its stance toward house churches, stating that they were tacitly permitted and did not need to register, and that failure to register would not
result in imprisonment. You keep saying we must ‘follow the Party,’ so why do you all not acknowledge or uphold the Party’s documents and public statements?”
“According to the Global Times, there are 50 million house church Christians in China. If you consider these two individuals criminals, are you saying all 50 million are criminals? That is why this is a trial of the entire era. You are all denying the law, denying the state’s religious policies, denying the Party’s documents, and denying the White Paper on Religious Freedom. The attacks against me are not important. What matters is that two such good people are facing sentencing. I believe this is not only harm done to two individuals, but also to our collective yearning for a good life and to our judgment of good and evil.”
Attorney Zhang Kai also cited historical examples: “I specifically looked up which institutions in Hefei were once funded by donations from Christians: Hefei Guangji Hospital, Sheng’en Hospital, Anqing Yinghua Academy, the Hefei-Wuhu Orphanage… The renowned Tsinghua University and Peking Union Medical College were also established by missionaries. The funds from those missionaries came from believers who donated according to their faith and conscience. However, even during the Qing Dynasty, they were not branded as fraudsters.”
He concluded with an appeal: “Sentencing these two pastors would wound our society’s fundamental judgment of what is good and what is evil, and harm our shared yearning for a better life. I support cracking down on those who truly exploit Christianity to defraud, those who live in luxury off believers’ donations. However, these two pastors live humble, simple lives.”
“Victim Tang Chengliang not only believes he was never defrauded but even came forward to testify to his pastors’ innocence, even at the cost of losing his job. If such people are to be sentenced, what kind of world will we be living in? Will my son grow up in a world where truth and falsehood are turned upside down? Convicting them will ultimately harm everyone of us, and every one of our descendants. Let us consider this: if the founders of Tsinghua University and Peking Union Medical College had all been arrested as fraudsters, how absurd would that be? From the so-called victim’s testimony, I see no evidence of fraud. All we see is two defendants supporting and loving others.”
A Call for Justice and Truth
The July 18 hearing was deeply disheartening due to its procedural injustices. The judge tolerated slander, stripped away the right to question witnesses, hastily dismissed a motion for recusal, and allowed justice to be trampled. Elder Ding Zhongfu lamented the injustice across ages, Pastor Zhou Songlin refuted the accusations with theology, the attorneys fought vigorously according to the law, and the testimonies of the “victims” confirmed the voluntary nature of offerings, while Tang Chengliang, labeled as a victim, was willing to lose his job to clear the pastors’ names. Their testimonies were like springs in a desert, piercing the darkness with light.
May God reign, may truth be revealed, and may justice flow like a mighty river and truth break forth like the dawn! As Psalm 27:1 declares: “The Lord is my light and my salvation—whom shall I fear?”
Background on Ganquan Church
Hefei Ganquan Church is a house church in Hefei that began as a Bible study group of a few Christians and, after twenty years, it has grown into one of the more influential churches in the area. The members of Ganquan Church give offerings voluntarily, financial affairs are strictly supervised and made public regularly. Property set as the location for their gatherings is purchased only after approval by a co-workers’ assembly, jointly held by several designated co-workers, processed legally, and notarized on video to confirm the property belongs to the church.
In mid-November 2023, members discovered hidden pinhole cameras secretly installed in the church, yet the church did not cease to gather. On the morning of November 30, 2023, sixteen brothers and sisters (including thirteen church co-workers) were subjected to police home raids and taken into custody under suspicion of “fraud.” Fourteen of which were later released on bail, but Pastor Zhou Songlin and Elder Ding Zhongfu remain under criminal prosecution, with hearings held continuously from July 16–18.
(China Aid Association)
