Source: http://gatewaynews.co.za/churches-probe-part-1-why-we-cannot-regulate-religion/
Timestamp: 2019-07-21 17:19:29
Document Index: 489254472

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 2']

Why we cannot regulate religion — Part 1
Home � Opinion � Opinion � Why we cannot regulate religion — Part 1
By admin on December 3, 2015 8:16 pm in Opinion, South Africa / 3 comments
CRL Rights Commission Chairperson Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva — She has grounds for concern about unscrupulous pastors but the commission’s probe is too broad and its proposed solution is unconstitutional and poses a threat to freedom of religions, says FOR SA. (PHOTO: The New Age).
By Andrew Selley (Founder of FOR SA & Leading Apostle in Four12 global partnership of churches) & Advocate Nadene Badenhorst (Legal Counsel, FOR SA)
FOR SA Founder Andrew Selley addresses the CRL Commission on November 17, 2015.
In Gateway News two weeks ago, Freedom of Religion South Africa (FOR SA) reported on the CRL Rights Commission’s current investigation into the “commercialisation” of religion and abuse of people’s belief systems, and the subpoenas issued to various religious leaders (including the leaders of prominent churches) to appear before the Commission.
While we (FOR SA) share the Commission’s concerns about unscrupulous pastors who abuse their positions to manipulate the poor out of money for selfish gain, we are concerned that the scope of the investigation is overbroad and touches on matters of religious doctrine which are protected from State interference. In similar vein, we are concerned that the Commission’s proposed solution to the problem, namely “self-regulation” of religion (including the Church), is not a workable or constitutionally permissible solution. (To read the article, click here – http://gatewaynews.co.za/churches-probe-crl-commission-willing-to-talk-but-not-willing-to-stop/).
In a series of three articles over the next three weeks, we will explain why religion and especially the Church, cannot be regulated (Part 1 – this article); present an alternative, and constitutionally permissible, solution to the problem of “rogue pastors” (Part 2 – next week); and discuss, from a Scriptural point of view, how the Church should be responding to this problem (Part 3 – the following week).
The concern with the current investigation is that, in some respects at least, it amounts to an investigation into the rationality of certain beliefs and an interference with doctrine (particularly so if these aspects were ultimately to be legislatively regulated, as proposed by the Commission). Statements such as the following made in discussion, or to the media, should raise more than an eyebrow:
In terms of the subpoenas further, pastors would be required to give evidence regarding “the mechanisms utilised by the church to generate and/or receive income (tithing / pledging / donating / offerings / investments)”, and also “how the income from the church is utilised (salaries / investments / community work / charity work / NGO work, etc)”. To this end, the subpoenas required pastors to produce the church’s annual financial statements, as well as bank statements of all bank accounts of the church. Again, while we understand the Commission’s concern for financial propriety in religious communities, our concern is for issues of doctrine which should be safe from investigation and/or regulation. For many believers, tithing is a Biblical command (based on Scriptures such as Matthew 23:23), and no church should have to defend its doctrine in this regard. In similar vein, some churches hold the view (based on Scriptures such as 1 Timothy 5:17-18) that the Bible commands them to make sure that their pastors do not just scrape by but are well-paid – for them it is a doctrinal issue and as such, one in which the State has no business.
The CRL Rights Commission believes that “self-regulation” is the answer and has said that following the investigation, it intends making such recommendation to Parliament. According to the Commission, religious leaders should be regulated in the same way as lawyers, doctors, social workers, etc. This could take the form of an umbrella body with chapters for different religions (e.g. a Council of Elders for Christianity), who will call pastors out when they are doing something out of the ordinary.
The Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary estimated 34 000 denominations in 2000, rising to an estimated 43 000 in 2012. We encourage all to think multi-generational: we don’t want to put things in place which cause our children to suffer in their day!
As mentioned earlier, this article is Part 1 in a 3-part series on why religion cannot and should not be regulated (or even “self-regulated” as has been proposed). In Part 2 next week, FOR SA will present an alternative, and constitutionally permissible, solution to the problem of “rogue pastors”; and finally, in Part 3 the week thereafter, we will discuss from a Scriptural point of view, how the Church should be responding to this problem. Keep a look out for those articles!
*FOR SA is a non-profit Christian organisation, working to protect and promote religious freedom and autonomy in South Africa. To join the organisation (at no cost) and/or to sign up to its newsletter, visit www.forsa.org.za Also follow us on Facebook at “Freedom of Religion SA” for regular updates on religious freedom and related issues locally and worldwide.
commercialisation of religion, featured, freedom of religion, regulation of religion, religious freedom
Why we cannot regulate religion — Part 2
Excellent article. ‘Self-regulation’ – a typical example of liberal-marxist subversion and deception! What is appalling is most local churches seem to be unaware of these developments, or have chosen to remain silent and apathetic. I heard church leader being dismissive about the concerns of this plan. He is totally ignorant that he could well wake up one day to discover regulations have already been enacted (without parliamentary process) and he now has to report to a statutory body. We have to stop this statist idea before it gains any further traction in the public domain.
To Andrew Selley and Advocate Nadene Badenhorst, thank you for all your effort in taking the stand for religious freedom, keep up the good work!
Thankyou, Andrew and Nadene, for your well-reasoned article. I look forward to the next two! And I pray that the Commission will listen carefully, and follow your sane logic. God has given you the spirit of Wisdom, in your ability to handle Christian truth in the secular-humanist playing field.
Ndoda Ncanana says:
You have open up my mind concerning our right sa christians in South Africa