▼（original English）P5/13▼

overseas really claim to lead or represent the genuine BTJ movement, let alone all of China’s house-churches?

HONESTY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

There are some major problems in these areas. Privately, some BTJ leaders admit this, but publicly they still go around drumming up financial support.

Brother Z. leader of the Fangcheng church, has been to America and made a video blatantly appealing for funds. According to one of our Chinese AV colleagues he may have raised 13 million US dollars in North America in recent years! (I have no way of corroborating this – however these leaders take hundreds of meetings across the world every year.) He is now discredited for personal corruption and immorality (reportedly with his co-worker) but none of the other BTJ leaders dare confront him because some were baptised by him and still respect him as ‘uncle’. He is reported to own an apartment in Zhengzhou – which would normally be impossible for a poor peasant.

Two years ago Open Doors reported that the major house-churches behind BTJ were already seeing a serious drop-off in financial support because of migration of many peasants to the cities (see below.) The major rural house-church streams then determined to make a major appeal to overseas donors to obtain funds.

In theory most overseas Christians agree the church in China should be ‘self-supporting’. In practice many groups are handing out cash to house-churches for training, evangelism etc with little accountability. One large evangelical church in the States has agreed to cover all the costs for running a 3-year training school for one of the large house-church networks. It is stated in their report that the Americans were asked to make a final decision on the mission of the school. This means that finance and major decisions are already being controlled not by the local leaders but by foreigners (however well-meaning.)

It is good to know that some house-church leaders have stated in no uncertain terms that they do not need foreign money to implement their mission strategy. Leaders from Beijing and Wenzhou have said this to me. Significantly, they are educated city people with churches consisting of people who are well able to contribute to mission and evangelism. Knowing that such leaders and churches exist we should be suspicious of those who are always asking for money.

I submit that giving huge amounts of cash to the house-churches will not produce a godly missions movement. Rather, it will produce corruption, division, and dependency on foreign donors. It will undo the genuine revival of the Chinese house-church movement raised up by God over the last 30 years.

EDUCATION AND BIBLE TRAINING

One spokesman for BTJ recently announced that at least 70% of the 100,000 BTJ missionaries will be peasants. This bodes ill for the success of the movement. A typical peasant in Henan earns only 200US$ A YEAR. The prospect of going overseas, even as a missionary, is an enormous economic incentive. Most peasants

▼(checked ChinseseTranslation) P5/13▼

在海外聲稱領導或代表真正的「回歸耶路撒冷」（BTJ）運動呢？更遑論代表所有中國家庭教會了。

誠實與問責

在這些範疇裏存在一些重大問題。一些「回歸耶路撒冷」的領袖私下承認這一點，但在公開場合，他們仍然四處奔走爭取資金支持。

方城教會的領袖Z弟兄曾去過美國，並錄製了一段視頻，公開呼籲捐款。據我們一位中國AV同事說，他近年來可能在北美籌集了1300萬美元！ （我無法證實這一點——然而，這些領袖每年在世界各地舉行上百次會議。）他現在因個人腐敗和不道德行為（據報道是與他的同事一起）而名譽掃地，但其他“回歸耶路撒冷”的領袖都不敢與他對峙，因為有些人是由他施洗，仍然尊他為“叔叔”。據報道，他在鄭州擁有一套公寓——這對一個貧窮的農民來說通常是不可能的。

兩年前，敞開的門報道，由於大量農民進城（見下文），支持「回歸耶路撒冷」（BTJ）的主要家庭教會的資金支持已大幅下降。主要的農村家庭教會​​因此決定向海外捐款者發出募款呼籲。

理論上，大多數海外基督徒都認為中國教會應該「自給自足」。但實際上，許多團體卻向家庭教會提供資金用於訓練、傳福音等，卻很少承擔責任。美國一家大型福音派教會已同意承擔其中一個大型家庭教會網絡開辦一所三年制培訓學校的全部費用。該報告指出，美國人被要求就該學校的使命做出最終決定。這意味著，資金和重大決策已經不再由當地領導人掌控，而是由外國人（無論其意圖多麼好）掌控。

值得欣慰的是，一些家庭教會領袖明確表示，他們不需要外國資金來實施他們的宣教策略。北京和溫州的領袖都對我說過這些話。值得注意的是，他們都是受過良好教育的城市人，他們的教會成員也非常有能力為宣教和福音傳播做出貢獻。既然有這樣的領袖和教會存在，我們就應該對那些總是要錢的人保持警惕。

我認為，向家庭教會提供巨額資金並不能催生出敬虔的宣教運動。相反，這會導致腐敗、分裂和對外國捐助者的依賴。這將摧毀上帝在過去30年裡興起的中國家庭教會運動的真正復興。

教育和聖經培訓

BTJ的發言人最近宣布，10萬名BTJ宣教士中至少有70%將是農民。這對該運動的成功來說並非好事。河南省的普通農民年收入僅200美元。即使成為宣教士，出國的前景也是一種巨大的經濟誘因。大多數農民