OP-ED: The register might not stop at the pulpit
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 it is worth reconsidering before the next round of hearings reaches Gauteng. On the CRL Section 22 Committee's own founding documents, this was never meant to be a conversation only for clergy to have among themselves. It was framed as a national conversation about the religious life of ordinary South Africans. It belongs to ordinary persons of faith just as much as it belongs to religious leaders and churches as organisations.
The Section 22 Committee's signed Terms of Reference commit the process to developing a legislative framework covering the “registration of religious practitioners.” The document itself defines that term. A religious practitioner, it says, is an individual who “engage[s] in and facilitate[s] religious practices within the community or faith,” and who “can be formally trained or ordained or may be recognised for their spiritual guidance and experience.”
That is a wide net. It does not say ordained clergy. It does not say paid staff. It reaches anyone who facilitates religious practice and is recognised for their spiritual guidance, trained 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, or a Sunday-school teacher whom a generation of children would say shaped their faith as much as any sermon did.
The Committee's Draft Self-Regulatory Framework for the Christian Sector, dated December 2025, commits the process to “registration of the Christian sector and its leaders,” and to a code of conduct and ethics for “all Christian sector and its leaders.” It provides for complaints to be investigated against “member organisations and individual leaders,” and for sanctions that can extend, in serious or repeated cases, to “deregistration and public notification.” Read together with the wide definition the Terms of Reference already adopted, this is not only a framework for churches as organisations. It reaches individuals serving in a leading or facilitating role, ordained or not.
Thus, the word to watch in this process is ‘practitioner,’ not ‘pastor.’ The founding document chose the wider word.
But the more important point is this: you do not need to be a worship leader, a Sunday-school teacher, or even a particularly active member, to have a stake in how this process concludes. 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, a congregant or a person of faith, even if you never serve on a ministry team yourself.
This is why 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.
To be clear about what is, and is not, being said here: It is not being claimed that every ordinary member will be required to register as a “religious practitioner.” What can fairly be said is that the definitions and provisions adopted so far are wide enough, and specific enough, to warrant scrutiny from far more people than clergy and denominational leadership alone. Public hearings have already been held in KwaZulu-Natal, the Eastern Cape, and the Western Cape. The next hearings are in Gauteng from 14 to 18 September and then move to the remaining provinces. We encourage everyone to familiarise themselves with the issues and participate in person. Anyone who cannot participate in person or who missed their provincial hearings can make a quick and easy online submission through the DearSouthAfrica platform.
Whether you serve in a visible role, attend quietly, or simply consider yourself a person of faith, this is your process too. Read the definitions and documents for yourself, and make sure your views and voice, not your silence, are what end up on the record.
