Debating the CRL's regulations: Are religious leaders accountable?

THE proposed regulations by the CRL have sparked significant debate among various faith groups.

The SA Hindu Maha Saba – recognised by government as the national body representing Hindus in this country – is the latest in a line of religious voices expressing concern about the proposed Clause 22.

This is part of a set of regulations proposed by the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities (known as CRL).

They claim that this is an appropriate response to a spate of scandals involving religions and religious leaders that range from tax evasion to sexual abuse to fraud and embezzlement.

The CRL proposes a system of requiring churches and pastors (and their equivalents in other faiths) to be registered so that their actions can be better regulated.

The Maha Sabha’s complaint centres around the failure to include Hindus in the consultation process. Christian organisations, some of which have been consulted, are also unhappy with the proposals. The Catholic Parliamentary Liaison Office produced a thoughtful response to this as long ago as 2016 when CRL first started exploring this issue (search for CPLO BP 418).

Others have taken to the streets with a series of marches around the country organised by the self-styled ‘SA Church Defenders Group’. This is mostly an alliance of charismatic and pentecostal churches – none of the mainline churches is involved. At the Durban protest, this alliance produced the unusual sight of Zulus and Afrikaners marching side by side.

For me, one of the issues that this debate highlights was the lack of credibility of key players on both sides of the argument. Those objecting rightly point out the irony of a government that is mired in corruption wanting to address corruption in the religious sector. A Christian protester might well turn to a verse from Scripture (Mt 7:5): “First, take the log out of your own eye; then you will see clearly, so that you can remove the splinter from your brother’s eye!”

The anti-brigade had also been greatly assisted in their campaign by the clumsiness of CRL Chair Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva. A comment of hers – “If someone says God was talking to me, tell them to go to the psychiatric ward” – can easily be held up as evidence of prejudice on her part and a lack of respect for the sector of society she is mandated to oversee. It is hard to imagine her thinking it acceptable to say such things about leaders of a linguistic or cultural group.

But I referred to lack of credibility on both sides. That is because religious organisations and religious leaders do not have a good track record in regulating their own behaviour (though that is generally true for any sector which is entirely self-regulating). In the march, there were many placards proudly stating: ‘Leave the Church alone’, ‘Hands off our Church’ and ‘God gives us direction’.

Seen in a vacuum, these might be plausible rallying cries.

But after decades of cover up by churches – sometimes at the very highest levels – of the most grotesque examples of sexual abuse especially of children and vulnerable adults, these placards are at the very least tone deaf. Churches left to themselves made very little effort to investigate or prosecute perpetrators of evil, choosing instead to ignore it, deny it or even to discredit the victims. So, when any part of the church claims that it should be left to regulate its own affairs, we need to be honest about one area in which that has gone so disastrously wrong.

If – and I hope this is true – such crimes are no longer part of the current life of the Church, that is only because of regulations that have been imposed on religious organisations (and others) to ensure greater accountability and transparency.

While one area of abuse has been addressed, religious organisations are still far from transparent when it comes to their finances. They enjoy many of the same tax advantages as an NGO but are required to provide almost no accountability.

Religious leaders might respond by saying that they are not required by law to do these things. But religious virtue is rarely defined by doing ‘what we can get away with’.

A religious organisation could use existing regulations to voluntarily register (say, as an NGO), to put in place systems for good financial governance, and to produce and publish audits.

We should applaud those that do; and wonder about those that do not.

Even if there is still some malfeasance in the NGO sector, the regulations that govern us set a standard against which we can be judged. I would not be able to operate the Denis Hurley Centre or raise funds if I did not have an independent Board, a history of audited accounts, clear systems of governance (critically, in terms of splitting financial powers), and regulations on how money is spent by and on the key managers in the organisation. Perhaps people think that religions do not need these things because we can trust the holy men (usually men) who are in charge. If so, you might need to remove your rose-tinted spectacles.

But as I watched thousands of Christians out on the streets in angry protest, I was saddened to think that this was the issue that had brought them out. Where were the Christian protestors when our government supported the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Or allowed vigilantes to block foreign nationals from accessing healthcare? Or permitted someone to spend millions of rand of state money on his private home under the guise of security upgrades? Do religious leaders only care about justice when it affects their own institutions?

The protesters claimed that they were defending God. They were not; they were defending their religions and their religious leaders.

But let me quote American Anglican priest Barbara Brown Taylor: “If I had to choose between loving my religion and loving my neighbour, I hope

I would choose to love my neighbour. Jesus never commanded me to love my religion.”

Dr Raymond Perrier is Director of the Denis Hurley Centre and a Research Fellow of the Centre for Faith and Community at the University of Pretoria.

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media. 

THE POST