Talk:House church (China)

message: Should this page also be the main article for information on "the Chinese underground church(es)" or should we create a different article? Dpr 05:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: April 2005

message: Interesting article, but we can't expect eight paragraphs to be well-regarded if they rest on three sources, one of which is an obsolete URL for a Christian Outreadch organization.  Are there other sources which will back up what is found here? I remember a BBC article about something similar.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.26.39 (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Legitimacy?

message: If so, what is it?  Just because a Christian movement does not recognize the pope, does not make it "Protestant."(EnochBethany (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's because they self-identify as Protestant. Homunculus (duihua) 04:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your proof that they self-identify as "protestant"? What percent of them have you interviewed to find out how they self-identify?  Or what reliable source (based on a proper sample interviewed) makes the claim that they self-identify thus? (PeacePeace (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Is There Justification for Calling House Churches Protestant?

message: Chinese "house churches" are basically a concept invented by American Christian writers. This article has no right of existing as separate from the "Christianity in China" article. Most of the "underground churches" in China are part of a milieu of subversive and anti-social cults. The issue is discussed here.--79.17.79.245 (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I urge editors to reject any edits made by this anonymous user or at least treat them with a heavy dose of suspicion. Please see this thread in the talk page for Christianity in China for an in-depth analysis of this user's history of biased, politically-motivated edits which continually attempt to deny the legitimacy of the house churches in China and even directly contradict statements made by top-level TPSM officials. -Abishai 300 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Your accusations are false, as exposed here, and the support you have gathered from other Christian apologists does not constitute a neutral Wikipedia consensus.--Etsop (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "house church" is actually derivable from the New Testament in which house churches exist (see for example the start of the epistle to Philemon, who lived at Colossae).  (PeacePeace (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: + POV tag 06/2014: removal of all information about the cultic nature of some "house churches" or "underground churches"

message: Text was added to the lead on practices of other religions and described this as a house church by 151.82.52.242. I moved this to a new section entitled "Similar Practices in Other Religions" in , which was next changed to "House churches in other religions" by 151.36.51.124. I manually reverted the change because the references never describe these other religions as having a "house church" but compared them with Protestant house churches. However, user 151.36.51.124 has changed that back to "House churches in other religions" in . I have since reverted the change again since this heading change implies a question of verifiability. Caorongjin (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, in my second edit to the page I changed the subsection's title to "House gatherings in other religions" in order to avoid the term "church" which, despite being synonymous with "assembly", is mostly used in Christian contexts, thinking this is the main issue.--151.18.113.198 (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that clarification – I did not actually notice this subtle difference. However, I am not sure this fixes the problem. Firstly, some Christians like K. H. Ting were known to describe house churches as house gatherings. Secondly, "home gathering" or "house church" are not terms used by the authors cited – there is no accepted name for this type of meeting; the sources merely imply a parallel practice found (which, in my opinion, is simply saying that illegal activities survive better in small groups). My sense is that the  is the clearest, and am happy with where it stands. Caorongjin (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  House churches and other religions 

message: Does this article err by putting the label of "protestant" on all Christians which are not under the papacy or the Roman Catholic tradition?  Are the editors aware that many non-papist Christians do not consider themselves to be in the tradition of those who broke off from Rome and protested vs the papal system, but as in the tradition of Christians who never were in the papal system?  (PeacePeace (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst I do not have a strong opinion against this change you made, I think the onus is on those who want to use a term that is not "Protestant" to prove (reference) that it is indeed the case and explain this nuanced reading. I presume you are meaning a group such as the True Jesus Church which emphasizes a restorationism understanding of the church (even though the TJC has churches which are registered through the TSPM)? Moreover, this seems like a broader question that needs to be tackled within articles such as Protestantism in China. --Caorongjin (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the term "protestant" in this article accurate? 

message: gfdsgfdsgfndkjbhyjfvhbyjkvfbhdxjbvhfdxbvhjdfxkjbvhfdkjxvbhfxdkjbvhjfdkxbvhjkdfbvhjxfdkbvhjxdkfbvhfkjdxvbhfxkdjvbfhdjxvbfhkjdbvhxdfkjbvhjfdkxbvhjdfxbvhjdkfbvhjkdfbvhjdfkxbhvjkfbhxdjbvfhxdkjbvhjdxfkbhvjkdfxbhvjdkfxbhvjdfkxbhvjxdbvjxdkvjxdkbvjxhdbvfhxjkdbvfhxdkjvbfhxdkjvbfhxkjvbfhxkdj  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.0.229 (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  gfdgfdgfdsgfdgfdsgfds