OP-ED: The register might not stop at the pulpit
Op-Ed: The register might not stop at the pulpit
When picturing the Section 22 process now underway for the Christian sector, many may see a room of pastors and denominational leaders speaking on behalf of their churches. That picture is too narrow and worth reconsidering. The CRL Section 22 Committee’s founding documents frame this process as a national conversation about the religious life of all South Africans and not a discussion for clergy among themselves. So, it belongs to ordinary persons of faith just as much as it belongs to religious leaders and churches.
The Section 22 Committee's Terms of Reference (TOR) envisage developing a legislative framework for registering religious practitioners. The TOR defines ‘religious practitioner’ as an individual who engages in and facilitates religious practices within the community or faith. They may be formally trained, ordained or recognised for their spiritual guidance and experience. The listed examples are priests, pastors, reverends and 'other Christian spiritual leaders'.
That is a wide net. The examples merely illustrate the kinds of roles the CRL Rights Commission contemplated when the definition was written; they cannot narrow a definition drafted in far broader terms.
Evidently, the definition is not limited to ordained clergy or church staff only. It covers anyone who facilitates religious practice and is recognised for spiritual guidance, whether trained, ordained or not. On a plain reading, that could include a worship leader who has never been ordained, a youth leader without a theology qualification, the volunteer who has run a home cell group for a decade, a Sunday school teacher whom a generation of children would say shaped their faith as much as any sermon did, and arguably any other lay leader recognised for their spiritual guidance.
As far as we are aware, the Committee has not clarified exactly who is included – and equally importantly, excluded – from the scope of religious practitioner. Without clarity, it is impossible to know what is actually being proposed, agreed to or disputed.
Here are some examples that illustrate how deep and practical this difficulty runs. There are churches that lean heavily on elders who teach and lead in every meaningful sense, while in others, elders do comparatively little. There are worship leaders and Bible teachers with no denominational tie who have more influence over how congregants practice their faith than their own ordained leaders do.
If 'religious practitioner' is to have a consistent meaning across such different contexts, the Committee must provide a clear, objective standard. Otherwise there is a real risk that the meaning of 'religious practitioner' will be interpreted subjectively and applied arbitrarily on a case-by-case and church-by-church basis at the discretion of whoever happens to be applying it.
What is envisioned here, after all, is a legislative framework. Any framework of that kind creates public power, and public power may never be exercised arbitrarily. So, definitions must be clear. We need to know who is a 'religious practitioner' and who is not. Especially since qualifying as a religious practitioner in the proposed framework carries significant consequences.
In addition to registration, one version of the CRL Section 22 Committee's draft framework for the Christian Sector, dated December 2025, contemplates developing a code of conduct and ethics for the Christian sector and its leaders, which includes the investigation of complaints against member organisations and individual leaders, and sanctions, which can extend to deregistration and public notification in serious or repeated cases, though the framework does not specify whether deregistration applies to individuals as well as organisations. [1] Read together with the TOR's wide definition, this points to a framework that could reach individuals serving in leading or facilitating roles, whether ordained, trained or not.
To be clear, we are not claiming that there is an intention to register every ministry volunteer as a religious practitioner. However, we are concerned that the definition of 'religious practitioner' is wide enough to warrant closer scrutiny – and from far more people than clergy and denominational leadership alone.
There is an even more important point: you do not need to be a conventional or lay religious leader, a ministry volunteer or even a particularly active congregation member, to have a stake in the outcome of the Section 22 process. If you belong to a church, attend one occasionally, were raised in one, or simply hold a faith that a future framework might one day reach, the outcome will shape the community you are part of, whether or not you personally hold any title within it. A framework that can register, certify, sanction or deregister the leaders and institutions you belong to affects you as a member, a parent, or a person of faith, even if you never serve on a ministry team yourself.
This is why public participation matters so much, and why it should not be left to those already active in leadership. A public consultation process is measured, in the end, by who spoke and what they said. Where large numbers of people with a real stake stay away, whether from busyness, uncertainty about whether it concerns them, or the assumption that someone else will speak for them, that absence can be read, fairly or not, as quiet acceptance. Silence in a process like this is easily mistaken for consent. The only way to prevent your own silence from being counted as agreement with a framework you may not have considered carefully is to say so yourself, on the record. The only way to be heard is to speak.
Whether you serve in a visible role, attend quietly, or simply consider yourself a person of faith, this is your process too. Read the documents and understand the issues. Attend the public hearings in person or make an online submission. Ensure that the record reflects your views and voice, not your silence.
ENDS
Issued by Freedom of Religion South Africa (FOR SA).
Media enquiries: info@forsa.org.za | forsa.org.za
For faith & freedom.
[1] It has come to our attention that two versions of this same December 2025 draft framework are in circulation, both carrying an identical cover page date and version label, which differ on this exact point. The version hosted on the CRL’s website refers to the Christian sector “and its leaders” and to complaints against “member organisations and individual leaders”; the version hosted on the Section 22 Committee's website refers to “Christian sector practitioners,” and limits complaints to “member organisations,” without the reference to individual leaders. This discrepancy itself creates confusion about who the framework is meant to cover. It reinforces our call for the Committee to publish a single, clearly dated, version-controlled document, and to confirm which text currently applies.
