This article (and the writer) truly overstates many facts even to the point of part of the article being not true. Lest you hear me saying that this person is deliberately lying, what I mean is this: the poster of this article has to preface the article with a statement about how this Brother Dong is well connected and part of a large network, etc. just so that what he says will seem like it's true because if it's not true, then there are serious issues. There is no way to some up the church in China in one article; it only represents a certain part–his perspective. Hopefully he is not stating things in a certain way as to misrepresent to this American Organization what the church is currently like. Unfortunately, this is an all-to-often occurence in China.

(1) Bro Dong says that what is happening doesn't easily fit the traditional model. If we're talking about the traditional model of American or European church, then yes, it's easy to agree. But if we're talking about church history, then 1st-3rd century Christianity was the first era to experience what's described by Bro Dong as “restricted circumstances and non-existent religious structure have birthed a homegrown movement”. A continual issue China is that many Chinese want outsiders to think they are special, that they are truly unique. So, they use issues like their population (usually as an excuse) to bring up the subject of uniqueness or their 5000 years of continuous history. (to outsiders, it's an exmample of their insecurity on the world stage). In the past, that's why (now been proven false) it was said that the Great Wall was the only man-made structure seen from space. They made it and it was the only one; look how special they are. A total farse. Yet, it's another example of how the Chinese try to show outsiders how they are unique. Unfortunately, this is what Brother Dong tries to do as well. He tries to describe the situation in China as though it's the only time in history and the only place in the world that this has happened, when in fact, this is not the case. Let's examine what is going on with a historical perspective in mind, not a culture need to show outsiders that the Chinese are unique and need affirmation to their uniqueness.

(2) It is true that the basics of the faith need to be emphasized. When we see heresies popping up that say when you confess your sins you actually need to vomit to show you've been forgiven or that you are God's elect, then that's problematic. Anyway who lives in China for more than a year will be somewhat familiar with the fact that there are TONS of homegrown cults. Why? Because the people were never taught good doctrine–i.e. they were never taught the Bible. But teaching “elaborate theologies” should NOT be thrown out just because most Chinese so-called “believers” don't read their Bible. Doctrine should not be sacrificed for the sake of trying to “get back to the basics” because it's simply the case that GOOD DOCTRINE and teaching is what will help people know that the above mentioned practice is not even in the Bible. Like teaching that when we confess, God is faithful and just and will forgive us. That is doctrine, and it can get elaborate. But to sacrifice theological education will be the day we see the church in China veer more down the path of having more heresies. Jesus said “and teach them to obey all that I have commanded.” We need to teach them.

(3) It's strategies and methods are NOT in any way, shape, form, or fashion “indigneous”. Most churches in China have desired, searched out, AND found outside support and help, and these local chinese churches use the outsiders (Hong Kong, American, European, Aussie, etc) resources and training. Why? Because if these locacl churches don't use the outsiders training and resources/materials, then they won't keep getting the FINANCIAL support from these outsiders. The outsiders have handicapped the church in China. Truly, the church in China needs to stand up for itself and support itself. This point by Bro Dong is a gross mistatement.

(4)The Church in China is completely dependent on OUTSIDE resources. They are least resource-dependent because they don't have to spend their own money to support themselves and the resources/materials they use.

(5) the Fifth and Sixth points are valid, yet without a huge movement of the Holy Spirit, the Church in China will continue to be a backbiting, gossiping, non-communicative with churches outside their circle of influence. There are some things about Western churches that have these aspects. BUT if you've never been in China, then there's no way one can grasp how truly venomous and poisonous chinese Christians can be when someone who is not in their church does something they don't agree with. Of those Christians I know, I've never heard a Chinese Christian NOT say “so and so is just a heresy”. it's an oft said phrase in Chinese Christian circles. sad

(6)in Chinese culture, Chinese people do not care about anyone NOT in their immediate circle. They even say “it has nothing to do with me” when they see someone get struck by a car and could easily get the license plate number and yet do nothing because they don't want to get involved even though they could help the person who was struck and hurt by the car. In this way, Chinese believers and non-believers have no distinction in attitude or practice. You could not tell a believer apart from an unbeliever when it comes to helping with social issues because neither group does anything to help.

Hopefully, what I've written here will both give a different perspective as well as a balancing to the overstatements of Brother Dong.

Frank, thanks for the passion that you exhibit. I'm glad to see someone has a heart for China. Personally, I think your concerns, while valid, are not really mostly applicable in this case. Let me just make a few clarifications:

(1) “traditional” may have not been the best word for Bro Dong to use, but I'm not going to nit-pick on it. Bro Dong was speaking of “current traditional” in the American or European sense, I'm sure, since that is the audience he was primarily addressing – not historical for all time. Just about every model has been used in church growth at some point during church history, from the monastic to the militant to mass-media to microgroups.

(2) Bro Dong is not arguing for a total elimination of doctrine. In fact he has been deeply involved in working with seminaries and pastoral training. But, just as we argue for a priority on the unreached, he is arguing for a need to emphasize the basics of the Christian faith.

(3) To say that most churches in China have reached out to the West is itself a gross misunderstatement. There are somewhere between 50 million and 100 million believers in China, usually grouped in small house churches not more than 25 or 50 in size, many often far less. (Yes, there are churches larger, but I estimate these are exceptions and not the rule.) Thus it is probable that there are over 2 million churches in China – probably significantly over this number. These group in movements, not denominations. There is no “church” in China – there are churches. The vast majority of these churches do not have contacts with the West, particularly the rural churches. Many are networked together, but many are highly isolated. Their processes have been in some way influenced by Western thinking that has seeped into the church, but it is pretty much always highly contextualized. Further the church in China grew mostly during the period when it had no Western support. Yes, Western money has in some ways handicapped some parts of China. But, the paradox of China enters in: there are plenty of places where it HAS NOT handicapped the West, and where the church really isn't even aware of the West.

(4) I disagree entirely with your point. To say “entirely” in the case of the church of China is simply incorrect.

(5) This is a common human failing that is exhibited in plenty of places other than China. Of course it takes the Holy Spirit to overcome this. It also implies that all Chinese are this way, which of course not all Chinese are. “Some Chinese gossip all of the time, and [perhaps] all Chinese gossip some of the time, but not all Chinese gossip all of the time.”

(6) I disagree entirely with this point, from numerous personal experiences and broad statistical information about Chinese involvement with people outside their social circle.

Like I said, I appreciate your passion and concern. I agree that there is no way to sum up the church in a single article. Your posting, like this article, represents your perspective, which is valid in some places in China. But it's important to recognize that even your perspective is not the truth for all of China!

I agree that one article can certainly not characterize the Church in China. As a westerner having lived in China for approx. 2 years, closely involved in various churches including; small house churches, enlightened government churches, mixed foreigner/local fellowships and expat fellowships, I've experienced portions of everything that's been said. Single characterizations don't value the complexity or the needs of this unique environment.
From my experience probably the most applicable comparison for the house churches would be the challenges of the 1st century church with its doctrinal development, little structure, and various heresies. But the 3-Self church also plays a role, at least from what I've seen in several urban areas across several provinces. Some individual and pastors migrate out, and some house church individuals migrate in due to some of the struggles of the house churches. Some 3-Self churches in some areas are quite evangelical, working with house churches, creating special outreach events and drawing on foreigners for support in Bible studies and even “sharing”.

I agree that there are serious problems with heresies in the isolated house churches. Sound doctrine is a need, whether simplified for the rural environment or developed for the urban environment. Foreigners can help tremendously to bring house churches back to the truth since they tend to have the respect of the house church leaders. This is the situation created from the history of persecution and lack of openness creating suspicions between groups.

I've seen that the house churches receive outside support of training resource materials. However, I have not seen any significant external financial support required or given. Different areas may have different situations but I disagree with Frank here.

Relative to foreign missions, most everyone is familiar with the “Back to Jerusalem” movement, coming out of the rural house churches. They are most experienced with personal sacrifice and persecution that newer urban churches have not experienced as much (some have, depending on where). I agree that their inside China experience will give them the best preparation for stepping onto the rocky ground of some foreign lands.

The author speaks mostly from the perspective of the rural house church. Urban churches interact with foreigners easily (quietly) and gain many resources from them. Urban churches do not interact easily with rural house churches, even migrant worker churches close to cities. As an urban pastor friend of mine noted, there is such an education gap between them that teaching must be focused for the abilities of the individuals (remember the complexity of the language). So “sticking to the essentials” works for rural but not necessarily urban churches. Another factor is that urban dwellers have little patience for rural migrants, a built-in societal bias. This limits their potential interaction and mutual development. Also, educated urban individuals, exposed to the internet and westerners, will ask questions closer to western society. This does not lessen the opportunities to convert urban dwellers but increases the need for well trained pastors. I have seen urban house churches tend to meet in homes/apartments and spend little on assets. The principle of tithing is starting to develop and some of those funds are starting to be used for area migrant worker outreach or orphanages, but this seems to be in early stages. Encouragement in this area, following the example and commands of Jesus, may be the best strategy to align the urban and rural house church movement around a common purpose and need, and get past some of the negative behaviours mentioned by Frank, which I’ve also experienced to a degree. There is so much in the Chinese culture that developed these behaviours; the Cultural Revolution is not that far back. Personal survival and village group protectionism are still strong mechanisms. Again, the younger urban professionals are getting past that to a larger degree, but I have also experienced older rural Christians with tremendous heart for others.

BTW, another struggle is when rural house church pastors come to urban environments they face a real risk of being drawn into the accumulation of wealth that urban people have, and losing their zeal for the gospel. Rekindling the personal sacrifice for Christ is a huge challenge for westerners and Chinese urbanites. Materialism is rampant, the modern idol around the world, a gift of the western lifestyle communicated through the media of TV and the internet.

From my personal life experience and my observations in China, it takes a “crisis of faith” through God discipline and Holy Spirit work to set us fully onto His path. That is my prayer for all believers, and these “end times” will sift the wheat from the chaff, clarify and polarize this world as preparation for His Second Coming.

Oh Lord, come quickly.