Anyanqi, the preacher of the family church in the Taiwon, is held in administrative detention for 15 days: religious activities are managed at the border again.

On 30 September, the Network reported that Anyan Qi, the proselytist of the Orthodox Church in Taiwon City, had been sentenced to 15 days of administrative detention on the grounds of “organization of illegal religious activities” after having been summoned by the police on 29 September. One day ago, according to information from the Orthodox Church in Taiwon City and a police summons, Chenaaid was taken away from the residence of Anyanqia at approximately 10.30 a.m. by members of the Taiwon City Public Security Bureau, who were similarly “organizing illegal religious activities” on the basis of the evidence.

The open source has been updated from “called, unknown legal status” to “15 days of administrative detention”, but the draft has not yet been provided with the original administrative detention decision of the public security organs. Therefore, the most recent information on the duration of detention and the legal basis should be clearly attributed to private sources of human rights information, such as the Human Rights Defence Network, and not be a substitute for official police documents.

From a summons to 15 days of administrative detention, procedural facts need to be distinguished from one level to another

According to a public summons issued by ChinaAid, the Taiwon City Public Security Bureau initially requested Anyan Qi to appear at the Law Enforcement Centre for questioning on suspicion of “organizing illegal religious activities”. The summons itself does not amount to detention, much less to a criminal conviction. The information of 30 September about administrative detention implies a substantial change in the state of the case, but until the decision on detention is made public, the “15 days of administrative detention” should remain the latest report from a source, rather than the official fact that the journalist has confirmed himself.

“Illegal religious activity” is not an isolated law enforcement slogan, but rather an administrative system context

Article 40 of the Regulations on Religious Affairs in force in China stipulates that collective religious activities of religious citizens shall generally be held in places of religious activity; Article 41 provides that religious activities may not be organized or held by non-religious groups, secular institutions, places of non-religious activity or places of non-designated temporary activities. These provisions directly determine whether the place of the meeting and the form of organization are deemed to be unlawful for the church, which is not an official registration system.

The Administration of Religious Teaching Personnel, implemented by the State Religious Affairs Agency in 2021, further stipulates that persons who have been legally qualified for religious teaching shall “apply to the leadership of the Communist Party of China” “appreciation to the socialist system” and “continue to the Chinese orientation of our religion”. This shows that religious regulation in China involves not only registration of places in general and public safety, but also the inclusion of political loyalty and party leadership in the rules governing religious teaching.

For the family church of Anyan Qi, the controversy is taking place outside the boundaries of the system: the believers choose to organize a meeting outside the official religious system, while the management of public security and religious affairs determines which religious practices are recognized as “legal” through rules such as premises, personnel, training and permission to operate. The public significance of the case is therefore not only that a preacher is detained, but rather that the State religious system of administration is specifically accessible to individual beliefs, church organizations and assembly spaces.

Anyan Qi has been administratively and criminally punished for his activities as a member of the family church on several occasions.

According to information from ChinaAid and the USCIRF, on 31 December 2020 Ansyan Qi was held in administrative detention for “organization of illegal religious activities” for 15 days and fined $1,000. In November 2021, he was also held in criminal detention for “stoking the border” in connection with his trip to Malaysia to attend a Christian conference; On 3 November 2022, the People ' s Court of the city of Xianyang sentenced him to one year ' s imprisonment and a fine of $5,000, which expired in the same month.

The USCIRF still includes the previous one-year sentence of Ansyan Qi in its database of victims of religion or belief. In October 2025, bodies such as Chinaaid reported that Anyan Qi and several members of the Reformed Church in Zhong City were held in administrative detention for 15 days after a Sunday meeting to enforce the law.

The question is not just “Does the law exist”, but how the law defines the boundaries of religious freedom

The Regulations on Religious Affairs of China also contain the “freedom of religious belief of citizens” and strict administrative restrictions on places of religious activity, organizers, training and cross-border religious activities. The logic of the official system is to place freedom of religion in the framework of registration, premises and national regulatory frameworks; For their part, the Family Church and the Religious Liberty Initiative believe that this model of regulation places a large number of peaceful religious activities in a state that may be considered “illegal” at any time.

The conflict between the two positions was very specific in the Anyanquí case: the police used the concept of administrative enforcement of “organization of illegal religious activities” to deal with the activities of the family church, which was previously criminally punished for participating in religious meetings abroad. Rather than using the word “religious repression” only, the press needs to continue to follow up on which law is invoked in this administrative detention decision, what specific acts are determined by the police, whether family members and lawyers have access to a complete document and whether new coercive measures will arise after the 15-day period.

The relationship between the State and religion is not entirely separate from a political system that explicitly incorporates “the leadership of the Communist Party of China” in the management of religious personnel. Anyan Qi provides a verifiable Quest: how can party leadership, administrative clearance and public security law enforcement work together to shape the extent to which unregistered religious groups can operate.