Second trial of five Christians from Shengjia Church enters fifth day

(Shunde, Guangdong Province – September 4, 2024) On August 23, 2024, the fifth day of the second trial of five Christians from Shengjia Church in Shunde, Foshan, Guangdong – Deng Yanxiang, Wang Weicai, Zhu Longjiang, Zhu Qiaoling, and Zhu Longfei – charged with “illegal business operations,” the court announced that Zhu Longjiang and Zhu Qiaoling, who are siblings, were granted bail out pending trial. As soon as the trial ended, the two Christians walked out of the courtroom and met with their family members, defense lawyers, and fellow believers. Zhu Longjiang’s defense lawyers are Guo Xiongwei and Wen Yu, while Zhu Qiaoling’s defense lawyers are Zhang Dongmei and Guo Haibo. Christians at the scene welcomed them with flowers, and everyone joyfully took photos together outside the courthouse.

The case began on August 5, 2024, with the first trial lasting five days from August 5 to August 9. Reportedly, the court only allowed ten family members to attend as observers and did not permit live streaming. The second trial phase began on August 19, 2024, and is scheduled to run from August 19 to August 30. On the first day of the second trial, there was intense debate between the prosecution and defense, with defense lawyers pointing out that all evidence provided by the prosecution was untenable, mostly obtained illegally, and full of errors and contradictions.

August 20 was the second day of the second trial, focusing on the presentation and cross-examination of the third and fourth groups of evidence:

1. Lawyers raised the issue of illegal electronic data extraction, where phone data was collected and deleted chat records were recovered without proper legal procedures. This severely violated citizens’ rights to information freedom, privacy, and information confidentiality; lawyers will file lawsuits and complaints against relevant departments such as the public security organs and procuratorate.
   
   
2. Regarding chat record evidence: Lawyers argued that the WeChat chat records of Deng Yanxiang, Wang Weicai, and Zhu Qiaoling actually proved that they were not only not breaking the law, but also not profiting, not disrupting market order, and posing no social harm. The chat records showed them providing marriage counseling, freely distributing “Daily Bible Reading and Interpretation” and other books to those in need. Pastor Deng Yanxiang’s chats with Elder Zhu Longfei were all about weddings, funerals, pastoral care for believers, and church matters, unrelated to printing of any publication. They have been detained for over a year – isn’t this religious persecution in the name of illegal business operations?

3. The fourth group of evidence consisted of testimonies from 14 witnesses nationwide confirming receipt of “Daily Bible Reading and Interpretation” from Pastor Deng Yanxiang, with six witnesses stating that their books, totaling over 300, were given for free. This significantly contradicts the prosecution’s claim of over 14,000 books.
   
   
4. Lawyer Zhang Kai exclaimed in court: “Just because my clients printed a few books and mailed them to readers; encouraging them to read more daily and engage less in drinking, gambling, and idleness… does this constitute a criminal act requiring 17 legal professionals to discuss whether they committed a crime? This is such a sad situation. This case is so simple and obvious that it can be judged based on experience and conscience alone. The prosecutor’s lawsuit is an insult to his alma mater, Peking University. ‘Daily Bible Reading and Interpretation’ is a supplementary reading material for the Bible, the world’s most distributed and widely translated book. Its content is legal, so how can it constitute a crime? Is it just because it doesn’t have a publication number? The monthly paid journal I receive from the Lawyers Association also doesn’t have a publication number; does that mean the Lawyers Association is also committing a crime?”
   
   

According to Christian observers who attended the trial, the entire court proceedings seemed absurd and laughable, with none of the evidence presented by the prosecutor proving any criminal behavior by the five defendants. It’s clearly evident that they are being detained not because they did anything wrong, but because of their identity as Christians. This is blatant religious persecution.

After a one-day recess on August 21, the trial resumed on August 22, with both sides continuing to present and cross-examine two groups of evidence. The prosecutor’s presented evidence mainly included: the arrest process, Shengjia Church member handbooks (versions 1, 2, and 3), Zhu Longjiang’s account book, rental contracts, criminal record certificates for the five defendants (all without criminal records), seizure records from the raid on the study hall on May 24, 2023, testimonies from three witnesses, as well as the church ban decision and four administrative penalty notices. The prosecutor selectively read aloud parts of the “member handbook” regarding church history, elder board governance rules, ministry development, and financial management.

Elder Zhu Longfei asked the prosecutor what the purpose was in displaying the member handbook and excerpting certain contents. The prosecutor responded that it was to demonstrate the church’s operation and management model. Elder Zhu Longfei then spoke about Shengjia Church’s history and governance model, rules for elder selection, division of labor, and the ministries they carried out (including public welfare and shared learning, marriage ministry). He clearly pointed out that Jesus Christ is the only head of the church, and all believers are accountable to Jesus Christ. He mentioned his previous work as a staff member in a Three-Self church, but was expelled for discovering things that didn’t align with biblical teachings, and even corruption. To continue upholding his faith life, he established Shengjia Church with several others. The governance and operation of Shengjia Church are completely open and transparent, just as described in the member handbook. They also follow biblical teachings in helping others. He couldn’t understand why he was sitting in the defendant’s seat for following biblical teachings and doing work that helps people. He hoped that if the judge and prosecutor were willing to read the entire text, they would better understand Shengjia Church, and asked the prosecutor not to take the member handbook out of context.

Pastor Deng Yanxiang fully agreed with Elder Zhu Longfei’s cross-examination and asked the collegiate panel and prosecutor to carefully read the “Shengjia Church Member Handbook.” The handbook clearly states the work done by church elders for believers and the community. The church not only hasn’t harmed society but has brought many blessings to the community, such as helping dozens of couples facing divorce reconcile, and providing used clothing to remote poverty-stricken areas for ten years without interruption. They also tried to register a charitable organization to serve the community, but due to their insistence on not engaging in fraud or accepting kickbacks, they eventually deregistered the charitable organization. However, the two original storefronts still provide free services to the community. The prosecutor has conducted a comprehensive investigation and understanding of Shengjia Church, so why doesn’t the prosecutor mention these things?

During his cross-examination, Wang Weicai said he was very moved. He has known Pastor Deng Yanxiang for nearly thirty years. When he first met Deng, Deng was in a bad state, facing divorce, but after believing in Jesus, he completely changed, giving up his feed mill to serve the Lord… (interrupted by the judge). Wang Weicai thanked the prosecutor for reading out parts of the member handbook and acknowledging their charitable work and contributions to the community.

When Zhu Qiaoling was responding about the violence and humiliation she suffered during the arrest process, she was interrupted by the judge, who said that in-court feedbacks couldn’t be solved and would only affect Zhu Qiaoling’s emotions, suggesting she could complain through other channels.

Then came the lawyers’ cross-examination. The lawyers argued:

1. Although the prosecutor and court denied on the first day that this case is essentially religious persecution, this group of evidence once again proves that this is indeed a case of religious persecution.
   
   
2. The Shengjia Church member handbook shows that their management is transparent and orderly! Their faith is pure.
   
   
3. The member handbook does not record any ministry of printing books for business profit. If the member handbook must be used as evidence for conviction, it is precisely evidence of the five defendants’ innocence.
   
   
4. Legal procedural issues: The Religious Affairs Bureau issued administrative penalties to four defendants during the criminal investigation stage, with investigative agencies suspected of informing; after receiving the penalty notices, the four defendants applied for administrative reconsideration to the Shunde District People’s Government, which was rejected, and then filed an administrative lawsuit with the Shunde District People’s Court, but have not received a response to date. The Shunde District People’s Court is infringing on citizens’ right to litigation, which is a serious violation of the law.
   
   
5. Regarding the testimonies of the three witnesses, they precisely prove that “Daily Bible Reading and Interpretation” is only a small part of the church’s books, completely free to access, with no sales or profit-seeking, and no illegality.
   
   
6. The mention of the study hall in the member handbook is completely irrelevant to this case. Parents are naturally the main body in educating their children; failure to teach is the fault of the parents. This is the most basic principle! If officials send their children abroad to study from a young age, should they be taken to court for violating China’s compulsory education law?
   
   
7. Regarding the registration of house churches: House churches are a reality. Legal provisions do not require house churches to register, but rather adopt a relatively inclusive and helpful attitude. If Shengjia Church were illegal, given that this church has been in Shunde for nearly twenty years, with religious affairs departments often inviting elders for tea in the early years without reminding them, wouldn’t that be connivance or collusion in crime?
   
   
8. The prosecution charge in this case is illegal business operation, but they repeatedly harassed the church’s study hall, charity center, gathering venues, etc., which is clearly religious persecution.

In the August 23 trial, both sides continued to present and cross-examine evidence. That day, the prosecutor presented evidence of interrogation records of the five defendants.

There were two main focuses. First, Elder Zhu Longfei, Pastor Deng Yanxiang, Wang Weicai, Zhu Longjiang, and others discussed and decided to print “Daily Bible Reading and Interpretation.”

Second, the books were distributed, with a voluntary donation of 3-5 yuan per book, collected by Zhu Qiaoling and Wang Weicai and then handed over to Pastor Deng Yanxiang.

In the afternoon, the evidence presented included appraisal documents for the “Member Handbook” and “Bible Reading and Interpretation” (illegal publications), some on-site photos taken during the raid on the study hall, and partial bank transaction records.

During the defendants’ cross-examination, Elder Zhu Longfei said that some of the words were not his, and some were recorded after being partially excerpted. He only learned that he had been induced and trapped into confessing during the interrogation process after receiving the indictment. The investigators had already predetermined the answers they wanted and selectively recorded the sentences they desired. He requested to retrieve the audio and video recordings of the interrogations for verification one by one. Additionally, what the prosecutor read out was his first transcript from August 9 last year. The investigators told him that if he confessed, the others might be released soon. Based on this premise, he signed the transcript. He said the “Member Handbook” was only internal material, not published or distributed, and he didn’t understand why it was identified as an illegal publication.

Pastor Deng Yanxiang said some words in the transcript did not match his original meaning. He clarified some ambiguous terms, such as “distribute,” which he meant as “share.” Regarding “deciding to print at a meeting,” he was completely trapped by the investigators, and in fact, no such meeting ever took place. There were many transcript involving him, and he needed to retrieve the audio and video recordings for verification. He said he was threatened and induced multiple times during the interrogation process. For example, they exaggerated the amount involved in the case, threatening that even if he had multiple houses, it wouldn’t be enough to compensate; hearing that his wife also served in the church, they threatened to arrest her too if he didn’t cooperate; they also took him alone to the disciplinary officer’s office to force him to report on Elder Zhu Longfei and another person.

Wang Weicai said he was deceived during the interrogation process. When asked if they had ever held a meeting about printing the “Daily Bible Reading and Interpretation”, he said he couldn’t remember if they had, it seemed they hadn’t. Later, he was asked: Your church is so democratic, all decisions are made in meetings, right? Wang Weicai answered “yes.” Later, he was coaxed and told it wasn’t a big deal, and if he admitted it, he would be released soon. They showed him the account book and Deng Yanxiang’s notebook, saying that Zhu Longjiang and Deng Yanxiang had already confessed, and if he didn’t confess, he would be making trouble for himself. Under these circumstances, Wang Weicai said that maybe they had held a meeting.

Zhu Longjiang said that what was written in his transcript was also not his original meaning. When making the transcript, the investigator asked him: Was the decision to print the “Daily Bible Reading and Interpretation” a joint decision made by all the elders at a meeting? The transcript wrote “yes.” But his original answer was, “All the elders knew about this matter.” He also said that when the police initially confiscated his belongings, there were a mobile phone, a notebook computer, three bank cards, books, etc., but the provided list only included the mobile phone.

Zhu Qiaoling said she was threatened and insulted during the investigation stage because she consistently refused to plead guilty. When it came to the “grand inspection,” the prosecutor told her that her circumstances were relatively minor, and if she pleaded guilty and accepted punishment, she could be released earlier, so she pleaded guilty. She said the statement in the transcript “The decision to print the ‘Daily Bible Reading and Interpretation’ was made by all the elders at a meeting” was not what she said. As an ordinary believer, she had no knowledge of whether the elders held meetings or how decisions were made, and it was impossible for her to say such a thing.

During the lawyers’ cross-examination stage, the lawyers raised 6 points of doubt:

1. All five defendants said there were instances of induced confessions and inaccurate transcripts. There were also inconsistencies between the transcripts of each defendant. This case provided 45 transcripts, but not a single simultaneous audio or video recording, and the prosecutor did not submit them as case files. According to relevant legal requirements, evidence that cannot provide simultaneous audio and video recordings can be considered inadmissible as illegal evidence, so the credibility and legality of this group of evidence are not recognized.
   
   
2. Given that the list of confiscated items for Zhu Longjiang and Zhu Qiaoling does not match the actual items, the relevant case handling personnels are suspected of intentional theft by taking advantage of their position, and the defendants reserve the right to sue. They also requested the prosecutor to report to the chief prosecutor and respond at next week’s trial on whether the procuratorate will investigate.
   
   
3. In fact, the court is using two sets of logic to handle this case, one set is legal logic, and the other is political logic.
   According to legal logic, none of the five defendants had the intention, purpose, or criminal facts of the illegal business operations alleged by the prosecutor; if legal responsibility were to be pursued, it could only be pursued against the printing factory’s Mr. Wan, and my clients should be dealt with separately. Therefore, they request the presiding judge to withdraw this case.
   The other set is political logic. If based on this logic, the five defendants are indeed members of a house church, and they participated in the pastoral care and related work of Shengjia Church. If the prosecutor accuses them because of their Christian identity and persecutes them, everyone is willing to go to jail for the sake of their faith, gladly for God! But obviously, the prosecutor does not admit that this is religious persecution. This is quite awkward. In fact, the court cannot use two sets of logic to try one case at the same time, so dear presiding judge, please make an appropriate judgment.

4. Remind the court to pay attention to distinguishing the concept of “printing.” The five defendants in this case are not the subjects of printing, but only consumers of “printing.” As consumers of printing, all five of them should be acquitted and released.
   
   
5. When pre-trial confessions and transcripts do not match the in-court testimony, and relevant audio and video recordings or other synchronous files cannot be provided to corroborate, it is considered a retraction of confession, and the in-court testimony should prevail.
   
   
6. This case is as absurd as if someone went to a bank to exchange foreign currency, the bank didn’t tell him that excessive foreign exchange was illegal, exchanged the currency for him, and then reported him as a witness for violating the law. All defendants in this case should be found not guilty.

After the trial ended on the afternoon of August 23, Zhu Longjiang and Zhu Qiaoling were released on bail pending trial from Nanhai Detention Center and returned home. The court will be in recess on August 24 and 25, and the trial will continue on the afternoon of August 26.