When Religious Practitioners and Organisations Go Wrong

HOW GREATER LEVELS OF VOLUNTARY AND SELF-REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY CAN EFFECTIVELY RESOLVE PROBLEMS

By Michael Swain, Executive Director of FOR SA

Itseems that every day there is another article or TV exposure of some so-calledpastor or prophet doing something that is either outright criminal orborderline at best.  Both the public atlarge and the vast majority of the religious community roundly condemn suchactions and there is an increasing clamour for solutions and appropriatesanctions.  The challenge lies in findingones which are sufficiently comprehensive to address the issues at hand, while ensuringthat religious rights and freedoms remain protected and respected. 

Inthis context, it is important to emphasise that it is both impossible andunacceptable to try to hide a criminal or illegal act behind a cloak of freedomof religion.  A crime is a crime,regardless of the context.  It is alsoimportant to note that the religious community is already highly regulated andboth religious practitioners (RPs) and religious organisations (ROs) are boundto obey the rule of law, which applies to all South Africans.  However, it is equally important to emphasisethat it is the State – not the religious community – which holds theresponsibility to enforce these laws and to deal with anyone who acts incontravention of them.  Where there is aninfringement of the law – as highlighted in almost all the examples provided inthe CRL’s Report on The “Commercialisation”of Religion and the Abuse of People’s Belief Systems – it is typicallyeither the result of an overt criminal action (which requires Stateintervention), or an omission of a compliance requirement which can be remediedthrough a process of education.

Oneof the big questions facing the religious community – and the Church inparticular – is how to deal with those who claim to practice the Christian faithbut whose actions are evidently in conflict with generally accepted tenets ofbiblical theology. The most immediate response is that there must be some formof “accountability”, typically by forming one or more “oversight bodies”consisting of mature and respected Christian leaders.  Their role would be to serve as “watchmen”over those who claim to be part of the Christian faith, and to have the powerto intervene and to “discipline” anyone who steps over the lines.

Voluntary submission tooversight bodies to be encouraged

Anyindividual or organisation has the right to join together with others of likemind or purpose, and to voluntarily subject themselves to the terms andconditions of this relationship. Arguably, they should be encouraged voluntarily to become part of such astructure, since this would certainly provide a greater level ofaccountability.  Such bodies wouldhave a good sense of what was happening in their local communities and at“grass roots level”, so their existence would be helpful in identifying thosewhose words or actions conflict with these generally accepted tenets of faith.  They could then either warn the community ofthe potential risks of the theological error or, where an evident illegal act wasbeing committed, alert the appropriate State authorities so that they canintervene. In fact, international experience shows that problematicbehaviour is more effectively identified by police, neighbours, disgruntledinsiders and the media, than by any enforced regulation by State authorities.

However,where such a structure (or even a disciplinary procedure) becomes concerning, iswhen suggestions are made that such discipline should entail preventing an offendingRP from continuing in a position of leadership or even closing down the ROitself if he/she refused to “repent of their error”.  While at first glance, this may sound like agood solution, further consideration will demonstrate that this is very closeto the concept of “Peer Review Committees” (PRCs) as proposed in therecommendations of the CRL’s Report.  TheReport said that it should be made compulsory for a RP or RO to join a PRC.  The problem is that such compulsion,particularly when backed by State sanction, will inevitably constitute aninfringement on religious freedom rights.

Church history warnsagainst State sanctioning of religious organisations

Thisproblem is worsened where the State (including therefore the CRL as an “institution of State” in terms of theConstitution) gives support - with the backup of State-enforced sanctions - toPRCs who it views as representing an orthodox or preferred body of religion orreligious interpretation.  A briefoverview of Church history provides clear evidence that whenever this happens,disastrous consequences follow. 

TheLutheran and early Protestant churches were ruthlessly persecuted by theCatholic church until they became established with the backing of State power.  At this point, they in turn persecuted theemerging Anabaptist movement with equal zeal and ruthlessness.  The Puritans fled England and Europe to findrefuge in the “New World” where they could be free to live out their faith but,once they were established, they persecuted emerging “new” expressions of theChristian faith. The Boston Martyrs is the name given in Quaker tradition tothree of their members who were condemned to death and executed by publichanging for their religious beliefs under the legislature of the MassachusettsBay Colony.

Inour more recent history in South Africa, the apartheid government supported(and to a significant extent was endorsed by) one particular group’sinterpretation of Scripture, with hugely detrimental consequences. 

Minimum requirementsfor State sanctioning of religious organisations

Furtherproblems emerge when one considers how such PRC’s may be structured if/when theState becomes involved in their formation, as has been the case in othercountries.  For example, this hasinvolved the State requiring a certain level of formal theological educationbefore someone will be deemed as qualified for the role/profession of a RP, orrequiring minimum numeric membership levels before a church or organizationwill be recognized as an RO. 

InRwanda, the government has closed down over 8,000 churches – most of whom wenot part of the established church denominational structures.  According to Worldwatch Monitor (which reports on religious persecution), inAngola more than 2,000 churches have been closed and over 1,000 more face closureafter Angola’s cabinet approved a new law requiring them to register with thegovernment, including presenting at least 100,000 signatures of followers.

Potential infringementon religious freedom rights

Mostimportantly, there is the potential to seriously infringe upon the rights givento all who live in this nation by the South African Constitution, which is thecornerstone of our democracy.  Section 15(1) declares that “Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion,thought, belief and opinion.”

Inthis regard, the Constitutional Court has already decided in Prince vPresident of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope that a person is freeto believe something even if that belief is “bizarre, illogical or irrational”. It explained its decision bystating that even if a belief is “incapableof scientific proof, [this] does not detract from the fact that these arereligious beliefs for the purposes of enjoying the protection guaranteed by theright to freedom of religion.” Clearly, this extends beyond the framework of generally acceptedChristian theology.

Viable alternatives toState regulation of religion

AsFOR SA has long argued, there are viable alternatives to State or statutoryregulation of religion, which can help ensure that there is a higher level ofaccountability in the religious sector. 

a) Database of religious organisations and institutions

Section 5(1)(j) of the CRL Act, 2002 already empowersthe CRL Rights Commission to “establishand maintain databases of …. religious organisations and institutions andexperts…”  It should be noted that there is aworld of difference between requiring RP’s and RO’s to register (which this lawalready makes possible), and regulating them. Registration would entail requiringRP’s and RO’s to provide the CRL with a checklist of information regarding theRP and/or RO, including for example the RP’s and/or RO’s address and contactdetails; the RO’s legal status (whether a voluntary association, non-profitcompany or trust); whether the RO is registered as a non-profit organisation(NPO) with the Department of Social Development; registration with SARS; whatdenomination or religious grouping the RO associates with; who the RO’s officebearers are; whether the RP is registered as a marriage officer; etc.  

It is alsoimportant to note that keeping an informational register (or “database”) doesnot in any way empower the CRL to examine doctrine or religious practice(assuming there is no infringement of law), nor would it affect people’s rightsto exercise their religious freedom.  Registrationwould, however, be compulsory for anyone who wants to be a RP or to establish aRO. 

The information that could legitimately be required bythe CRL in terms of its Act also has the potential to reveal where there may becompliance issues (or even illegalities) taking place.  For example, when a person registers as a RPwho is a foreign national, he/she could legitimately be required to presentproof of permanent residency or a valid work permit. If this was not provided,it could be further investigated and (if the person was found to be working orliving illegally in the country), they could be subject to deportation by theimmigration authorities. If a RO registered, they could legitimately be askedto provide (e.g.) a copy of their constitution, memorandum of incorporation, ortrust deed, or proof that they have a separate bank account registered in thename of the RO.  Again, if suchinformation or documentation was not able to be provided, this could be thesubject of further investigation, which in turn could provide the opportunity eitherfor further education and/or other sanction if the RO remained uncompliant.

b) Code of Conduct for the religious sector

A furtherimportant component in ensuring greater levels of accountability is thedevelopment of a Code of Conduct.  Thiswas a universal recommendation of those denominations, organisations andchurches who appeared before the COGTA Parliamentary Portfolio Committee whenthey held hearings into the CRL’s Report. Specifically, the COGTA Report onthese hearings recommended that a Code of Conduct be developed by the religiouscommunities to provide a level of accountability, and as a benchmark of theresponsibilities which religious communities should be expected to support andembrace. 

The process ofdeveloping a Code of Conduct by and for the religious community has alreadybeen initiated at a conference organised by The Evangelical Association ofSouth Africa (TEASA) at Christian Family Church, Johannesburg in April2018.  This was attended by over 70senior religious leaders from the major denominations, church structures andtraditional indigenous African religious groups.  The conference gave a mandate to the South African Council for the Protection of ReligiousRights and Freedoms (SACRRF) to draft and develop a Code of Conduct, basedupon the SA Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms. This Charter wasdeveloped in the 1990’s and have been endorsed by senior religious leadersrepresenting over 22 million people from the vast majority of faiths in SouthAfrica.

This Code ofConduct is already in its third draft, having been widely circulated for input.Once this process is concluded, this Code could be subscribed to by both RPsand ROs. Such endorsement could be linked to a type of “Unashamedly Ethical”badge for those who have subscribed. It will also provide a standard by whichthe public and community will be able to tell whether or not any RP of RO iscompliant with these common standards and ethics.

Religious community to engage inseeking appropriate solutions

It istherefore of the utmost importance for the religious community to step up andto engage actively in the process of developing appropriate solutions to theproblems we are facing and which have been so clearly highlighted by the mediaand the CRL’s Report. 

On a positive note, the Religious Leader’s Summit, which was co-organised by the CRL, took place on 13 February 2019 at Rhema Church, Randburg.  At this event, the Chairlady announced that the CRL were now handing over the process of developing appropriate solutions to the religious leaders and the religious community.  The Summit subsequently resolved that a local, provincial and national consultative process would now take place where these issues will be addressed and solutions developed by and for the religious community that are voluntary in nature and therefore truly self-regulatory.  This process is due to culminate in a three-day Summit in October, when the findings and solutions can be presented and adopted.