(ChinaAid – November 18, 2024) Four Christians from the Living Stone Reformed Church in Bengbu, Anhui Province, including Wan Changchun, Xue Shaoqiang, Cao Binting, and Wan Chunqin, will be formally brought to trial from November 19-22, 2024, for the crime of “fraud”. They were arrested on April 11, 2023, and have been in custody for more than a year and seven months, greatly exceeding the legal detention period. Now only two or three days away from the court date, countless people were paying attention to this case. This case not only directly involves the personal interests of the four citizens, but also has a bearing on the image and credibility of the People’s Republic of China. In this article, we will make a simple, common sense analysis of the crime of “fraud” of the four, so that readers around the world can make their own judgments to see if this case is ridiculous or not.
The Chinese courts’ Framing of Christians in the name of “Fraud”
First of all, we can see that the case of the prosecutor’s office charging the above four Christians with “fraud” is not an isolated one. There have been several prosecutors’ offices in different districts that have also prosecuted house church preachers for “fraud” and the courts have convicted them of this offense. Therefore, we must be alert to the fact that the prosecutor’s office and the courts are using the crime of “fraud” to frame Christians.
The so-called “crime of fraud” should have the following factors: First, the perpetrator of the fraud or the fraudulent organization is hiding in the shadows, so that the victim cannot see the perpetrator of the fraud or is confused by the perpetrator of the fraud. Secondly, the fraudster has an appearance of deception, and the victim believes it. Third, the fraudster’s criminal process must be secretive and unknown to outsiders. Four, the money and property of the fraud falls into the hands of a few perpetrators. Five, there are victims. Six, once the crime is revealed, it dawns on the bystanders to say, I won’t be fooled again. Let’s take a look at each of these conditions to see if the accused Christian swindlers in China fulfill them.
1. The Obvious Distinction between Government-sanctioned “Three-Self” Churches and Underground House Churches
The four Christians above are all members of a Reformed church. The nature of this church is a house meeting. House meetings are also called underground churches. Underground churches sound a bit mysterious, but in fact underground churches are not mysterious at all. The reason why underground churches have the so-called title is entirely because the government does not accept them as registered churches. As soon as the government accepts the registration of house meetings, the title of underground church will disappear immediately. However, house meetings are not registered, nor are they kept secret; on the contrary, almost every house meeting is public.
Since the time of Pastor Wang Mingdao (refused to join the Three-Self church; deemed as the “Dean of House Churches”), in 1954, there have been two distinct camps in the Chinese Christian community: the “Three-Self” churches and the house churches. From the very beginning, the house churches made it clear that the “Three-Self” was not a religious organization in the true sense of the word, but a man-made institution controlled by the government. In order not to join the “Three-Self” and to maintain the purity of their churches, all the preachers of the house churches have made extraordinary efforts and sacrifices. All this shows that not only do some Christians/home church Christians not agree with the “Three-Self Churches”, but they also do not agree with the government’s laws and policies.
In almost every Sunday sermon, house church preachers always mention the importance of faith and upholding the purity of the truth. At the same time, they warn and teach their members about the differences between the “ Three-Selfs” and the house churches. Therefore, every believer knows that the church he or she attends is a house church. If a “Three-Self” believer wanders into a house church, the pastor will patiently teach the “Three-Self” believer that he should come out of the “Three-Self” and enter a true and pure church.
The house churches have a mutual understanding that they cannot persuade members of other churches to join their own churches, but for members of the “ Three-Self” churches, the house churches will persuade them to leave the “ Three-Self” churches from the principle of faith. Therefore, from the moment these former “Three-Self” members enter a house church, they fully understand the difference between the two. This is from the point of view of faith, as house church members know that they are not under the jurisdiction of the “ Three-Self”. Everything is done in the open. Therefore, there is no possibility of a house church practicing fraud in the shadows.
2. No Apparent Reason for Fraud
Secondly, the fraudster must have an appearance of reason. For example, when a house meeting collects money from believers, saying that it is to provide relief to the victims of the Wenchuan earthquake, but in reality, the money goes into the private pockets of the preachers of the house meeting. Is this possible? This will depend on the specific case for specific investigation and evidence, and if there is, the crime of fraud is established, and if there is not, the crime of fraud cannot be established. The four Christians were only obtaining a minimal amount of church pay to compensate them for their labor and time, and there is not an outward reason to defraud the church congregation. One could question the reasonableness of the payoff relationship between the four Christians and the church, but there is no fraud at all.
3. No Fraudulent Money Flow
Third, the process of fraud. All investigations have shown that the Bengbu Living Stone Reformed Church in Anhui Province has a well-established financial system like the vast majority of house churches. Although the four Christians mentioned above all hold certain positions in the church, none of them have any contact with money from the offering. The church’s money management is completely transparent and democratic. Every flow of money has been scrutinized by a strict financial system.
4. No Private use of Public Offerings
Fourth, whether the money flows into the hands of a few. It has been proven that the vast majority of the church’s offering money has been used for the church’s needs, such as rent and utilities, disaster relief, and various ordinary church activities. The compensation received by the four Christians accounted for a very small portion of the church’s financial budget.
5. No Fraud Victims
Fifth, the key point is who the victims are. Fraud, as the name implies, must have a party who is being defrauded in order to be called fraud. So has the house church congregation been defrauded by the pastor? To conclude that the congregation of a Christian church has been deceived and tricked into giving money, it can only be established under one circumstance, and that is, the congregation of the house church does not know that the house church is a so-called legitimate church that is not registered. For example, a believer who has always attended a “Three-Self” church in a different region moves to the local area and is brought into a house church. Mistaking this for a “Three-Self” church, the believer continues to give as usual, putting money into the house church’s offering box. And this kind of giving was contrary to the person’s intent. What the believer intended to do was to give money only to the legally registered “Three-Self” Church, so in this case, we can reluctantly say that the believer was misled, and that the believer made a donation that was contrary to his or her intention, and therefore a case of fraud was established.
But such a situation is never likely to occur. All believers who attend house church gatherings know that they are attending a church that is not recognized by the Religious Affairs Bureau and is not legally registered. Members of house churches call “Three-Self” churches “big churches” and “registered churches”.
At the same time, from the perspective of the “Three-Self”, the “Three-Self” also emphasizes every Sunday the importance of attending a legitimate church and warns its members not to join house churches. Generally in a city, there are only one or a few “Three-Self” churches, and it is not difficult for “Three-Self” believers to distinguish the differences between “Three-Self” and house churches. The “Three-Self” churches have lost no time in emphasizing that believers should not go to house churches, partly out of their own interests and partly out of obedience to the government’s requirements.
Visually, there is no possibility of confusion between the “Three-Self” and house churches. The “Three-Self” churches are usually spacious and bright, with many patriotic slogans promoted by the government, explanations of various government policies, and high crosses on the building. On the other hand, house churches are not as large and are not decorated with political slogans, especially inside the church or in the gathering place.
6. No Stopping of the Continued Offering to the House Churches
Six, has the exposure and crackdown by the government caused the believers of this church to realize that their offerings were given to a fraudulent group, and thus to stop giving. What we have seen is that such a consequence, which is what the government would like to see the house gatherings would face, has definitely not happened and will never happen. The members of the Bengbu Living Stone Reformed Church in Anhui Province continue to give, and continue to allocate a portion of their offerings to support the four fellow believers during the time that they were arrested and imprisoned. So this is a good indication that there is no “fraud” going on here.
7. No Evidence and Legitimacy of Accusation of “Fraud”
Seven, from the analysis above, we can see that the government’s use of “fraud” to prosecute the four Christians mentioned above, Changchun Wan, Shaoqiang Xue, Binting Cao, and Chunqin Wan, is a totally unfounded charge and is extremely absurd.
8. No Legal Basis of “Fraud”
Finally, from a legal point of view, we can see whether the above four Christians have committed the crime of “fraud”.
The judge’s view was that the house church was not registered and therefore did not have the legal capacity to collect offerings from the believers, and that the believers in the house church had been deceived by the preacher of the house church into believing that “this church is a legitimate church”, and that therefore, the pastor of the house church had committed the crime of fraud.
Although there are major differences between the “Three-Self” and the house churches in terms of the content of their beliefs, there are great similarities in their formalities:
There is a call to worship, a choir, a pastor preaching, and a collection of offerings.
Since house church members are fully aware that house churches are unregistered churches, how do they understand their offerings? Their understanding of their offerings is very simple, that is, according to the teachings and requirements of the Bible, it is the believer’s direct thanksgiving and direct responsibility to God. Their act of offering is completely voluntary, a fully conscious decision. There is no hidden, misguided part, meaning there is no fraudulent process. Whether the church is registered or not has nothing to do with the believer’s offering, just as when a pedestrian sees a beggar in the street, that person will be moved with compassion and offer the beggar charity. The charity donor does not need to know whether the beggar is legally registered or not. A beggar does not need to be registered to receive an offering, let alone a church that has existed for 3,000 years. For 3,000 years, preachers have accepted offerings from believers.
Legitimacy of Preachers receiving Living Allowance from the Congregation
It is also the teaching of the Bible that church preachers receive a certain amount of living allowance. Preachers view the church’s subsistence allowance exclusively as a provision from God. Preachers who do not accept God’s provision are rejecting God’s grace in the same way that believers do not give.
If it is fraudulent for a house church preacher to receive a living allowance and for a house church to receive a tithe, then every house church should be held to that standard by the courts nationwide. In fact, very few courts have prosecuted house church preachers for tithing as “fraud. Although preachers in house churches such as the Early Rain Church, the Beijing Shouwang Church, and many others have been harassed to varying degrees and even sentenced to prison, no judge has ever persecuted these pastors for fraud. Evidently, the vast majority of judges do not agree that the pastors of house churches have committed the crime of fraud.
Falsely Charging House Churches as “Fraudulent” Discredits the Chinese Government Domestically and Internationally
To characterize the offerings of house churches as “fraud” is a falsehood and a case of injustice fabricated by some judges. The basic function of the law is to protect the rights and freedoms of all citizens, and there is no reason whatsoever to crack down on house churches. It is very unwise for the court to do so, for it will not only consume the limited precious judicial resources of the country, but will also portray the government as a barbaric figure in the minds of many citizens.
Having cracked down on one house church, the court had to crack down on numerous house churches one after another, thus discrediting the Chinese government among the general public. Now the courts have created an extremely bad image of the Chinese government among millions, if not tens of millions of people by creating wrongful convictions. It has also caused irreversible negative effects throughout the world. In the “Anti-Rightist Movement” of 1958, 560,000 people were wrongly convicted, while today the government has purged ten times as many people as in the “Anti-Rightist Movement”. The evil consequences are also ten times greater than those of the “Anti-Rightist” period. Why are the mistakes of the “ Anti-Rightist Movement” still being repeated today?
At the international level, the Chinese Government has also created the impression that it does not abide by the Charter of the United Nations. How does the United Nations define “freedom of religion”? According to the United Nations, citizens may meet in public or in private. To meet in secret means not to be public, not to be registered. Since citizens can meet in secret, the problem of the so-called “fraud” of house meetings is fundamentally negated. Whether it is an aboveground church or an underground church, according to the standards of the United Nations, they are all legal. What the United Nations considers legal is legal in China because China is a permanent member of the United Nations. If a permanent member can trample on the Charter of the United Nations at will, what is the need for the United Nations to exist?
China wants to provide a “belt and road” to all the countries of the world. How can China gain the recognition of the world when such absurd behavior as suppressing and persecuting house church preachers is rampant in China? It is impossible for a country that is not sound in morality and the rule of law to lead the way to the world. China has much to improve morally and in terms of the rule of law, and the first thing it should do is to discard this kind of persecution of Christians in the name of the law. Lastly, the author calls on the Anhui judges to return to reason and common sense, and to immediately release the four Christians, Wan Changchun, Xue Shaoqiang, Cao Binting, and Wan Chunqin.
~ Written by Zhu Yiding (The author is a house church pastor)