Indaba on harmful religious practices: Day 2

This premium content has been made freely available

Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs

11 March 2020
Chairperson: Mr G Mpumza (ANC) (Acting)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The second day of the Indaba on harmful religious practices dealt mainly with responses to the questions that had been asked by Members of the Committee the previous day.

Questions were answered by the South African Institute for Professional Pastors, Reverends and Ministers (SAiPPREM), which also provided resolutions and recommendations to the challenges mentioned. It said that the church was active in the community and was ready to address the challenges, together with the government.

The African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) stressed that the church and the religious community required no interference from the state or the Cultural, Religious and Linguistic (CRL) Commission.

The Baptist Union of South Africa (BUSA) also requested little interference from the State when it came to matters involving the church, and also put forward some proposals to address the challenges.

The CRL Commission was present as a guest to clarify some concerns by the religious organisations.

Inkululeko Yesizwe, founded in 2018 as a formation of 65 indigenous spiritual churches with a combined membership of 10 million people, described how it had been accepted in the religious community and by the Commission.

A brief participation document was also presented by the International Institute for Religious Freedom (IIRF) on the proceedings of the Indaba throughout the two days, covering the matters discussed and the recommendations.

Members’ concerns were focused mainly on the role of the church in resolving the issue of harmful religious practices, as well as the surge of foreign pastors entering the country in large numbers and exploiting communities. The CRL Commission’s competence was questioned on the basis of its lack of capacity and resources to investigate reported unethical religious behaviour and exploitation in the name of the church. Committee Members and religious organisations expressed great dissatisfaction with the participation document, stating that it was a consultation process and no deliberations had been conducted to finalise the document. 

A way forward was proposed, which stated that further deliberations would be held to discuss matters arising, with careful consideration being given to the submissions made by the various religious denominations.

Meeting report

Opening Remarks

The Chairperson welcomed everyone and highlighted the events of the first day of the Indaba.

He said that the Portfolio Committee, the South African Religious Forum (SARF), provincial representatives and the South African Council of Churches (SACC) had presented and responded to the questions asked by the Members of the Committee. The presentations were presented by different religious leaders and denominations on the challenges faced by society. Religious groups had to work together with government, especially when community rights were being violated.

Government was working on addressing the issues of church land sites while research into why some churches preferred to preach and others did not was in progress. The Committee had considered the terminology and recommendations from the submissions made by various religious organizations, to involve other stakeholders such as the South African Police Service (SAPS), the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), the Department of Social Development (DSD) and the South African Revenue Service (SARS).

The day would be devoted to responses to the questions by the religious organisations

South African Institute for Professional Pastors, Reverends and Ministers (SAIPPREM)

The SAiPPREM Chairperson said that the institution represented independent churches -- Pentecostal and Charismati – and its constitution and beliefs were biblical. SAiPPREM did not condone cults, but was a professional body that offered services to those serving the church. The organisation was active around the country.

He responded to a question that was asked the previous day about the place of the church in society by saying that the church was relevant in society, but it had not been emphasised on social media or in the news. The church had the responsibility of regulating itself. The Bible had set out how the church should conduct itself, and the Gospel must be spread and the Kingdom of God should be advanced. Advancing the Kingdom of God meant following the biblical principles of the Word, and if the church followed these principles, then it would not be facing the challenges it currently faced. He added that when the church did not act according to scripture, it was not recognised as a church by SAiPPREM.

Mr Grant Classen, SAiPPREM Pastor, said that people did things in the name of Christianity, not religion, which was a problem especially when the practices of the Bible were not followed. A clear definition of a pastor and a minister should be clarified. An issue that SAiPPREM was currently facing was how pastors and ministers did not follow biblical ethical practices. He explained that the church had always been united because the commandments of God were followed, but the church could not be in unison because it had different bodies with different functions.

SAiPPREM’s view on what was considered to be harmful religious practice, was any behaviour that does not abide by the organisation’s code of conduct, any malpractices that violated human beings, as well as inhumane behaviour. He stressed that the difference between faith and insanity was that one’s faith could not be forced on to someone else. The South African law provided for people to report religious leaders who performed inhumane actions. SAiPPREM did not believe in a set regulation, but there was a trend for different church bodies to self-regulate. SAiPPREM was a competency body that ensured the competence of a minister or pastor.

Mr Classen responded to the question which had asked about the sanctions that were being carried out against people who practiced harmful religious actions. He explained that the consequences of incompetence by ministers included a careful evaluation of why the incompetence existed, and the SAiPPREM delegation could be revoked from the minister or individual. The code of conduct must be followed.

He said that if there was a code of conduct, there would be order. It was important to consider where the people who performed the inhumane practices came from. According to SAiPPREM’s studies, most people who performed these malpractices were foreign nationals. He then questioned the strength of the Government’s policies and rules regarding border control.

On the question of whether there should be a regulation of the conduct of religious practitioners, he responded that there should be a regulation. The regulations should be conducted by the state, not by religious bodies. However, regulations should not oppress religious practitioners nor violate their right to practise their religion freely. He said that many people followed unbiblical paths in the name of Christianity. Regarding the steps that should be taken to resolve the issue, he referred to an incident that had happened in Rwanda, where 700 churches had been closed. However, South Africa could not afford to close down that many churches, because the church helped to maintain values and morals in the country. Instead of shutting down the churches, the competency of ministers should be reviewed.

Regarding the role of the church in addressing social ills, Mr Classen asked how the government expected the church society to address the issues, when the same government was trying to demolish the churches’ impact in society, by preventing schools from offering religious studies, no Bibles being allowed in schools, and the stopping of morning prayers at school assemblies. The church had always been involved in trying to maintain moral standards. Referring to a statement made by a Committee Member, he said the church could not fight the government when it was supposed to work together with it to address issues,

The gap that had been created between the church and society had opened an opportunity for foreign national pastors to take advantage of Christianity for unethical practices. He added that local pastors were also part of the problem. He concluded that SAiPPREM believed that professional bodies should be involved for there to be proper regulation.

African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP)

Mr Wayne Thring, ACDP Deputy President, said that the ACDP had been in the forefront of discussions and consultations on the state regulating on behalf of the church, and would continue doing so. The ACDP engaged with church leaders, business centres, the Cultural, Religious and Linguistic (CRL) Commission and other stakeholders, to try and find solutions to prevent the exploitation of people. He added that the ACDP had noted the following in its ongoing investigations into inhumane religious practices:

  • It was not right for any religious leader to exploit people for selfish reasons, so the ACDP had rejected the final report from the Commission because the report infringed on the religious freedom of the church -- the very same freedom was stipulated in the constitution. The ACDP believed that religious freedom was freedom.
  • The Commission’s report had stated that the Commission respects the right to religious freedom in all dimensions. The report further stated that the religious sector needs the power to regulate, but the Commission contradicted the report when it mentioned that achievements within the religious sector could be achieved only through cooperation with the state and the Commission. The Commission had also suggested an ‘umbrella’ organisation for traditionally structured religions -- meaning the state and the Commission -- would be the final arbiters for religious organisations. The church was not self-regulated, but state-regulated, which would result in multiple challenges if implemented.
  • The Commission would suspend resources to educate and empower the people who enforced the legislation, to be more compliant.
  • The church was responsible for exposing and holding those who deviate from biblical practices accountable for their actions. The ACDP would continue to champion religious freedom, and the state should not interfere with the affairs of the church. Loopholes should also be resolved to avoid issues of people taking advantage of religious practices to exploit people.
  • The church must lead the way as a moral compass. The ACDP would continue to improve the state of the religious sector, and stand for the truth and proper religious practices.

 Inkululeko Yesizwe

Mr Bhekinhlanhla Sibisi, Inkululeko Yesizwe member, said that Inkululeko Yesizwe had been founded in 2018 as a formation of 65 indigenous spiritual churches, which had a combined membership of 10 million people. He also acknowledged the founders and leadership of the organisation who were present, and those who were not.

Ms Thembi Tulwana, Inkululeko Yesizwe member, said Inkululeko Yesizwe had been established to restore the dignity and pride of African indigenous churches, and to ensure that the values and norms of Ubuntu were revived in the churches and the community at large. The organisation also upholds strong commitments for good governance and accountability in the churches. She explained that the formation of the organisation had assembled churches that were rooted in the African tradition in the way God was worshipped. The organisation also recognised the reverence given to ancestors. Ancestors were acknowledged, not worshipped.

Ms Tulwana said that the organization accepted that the African indigenous and spiritual religion was not academic, and promoted and enhanced the well being of people from different churches in society.

She highlighted the role that Inkululeko Yesizwe had played:

  • The organisation had provided, and continued to provide, sustainable counselling to families;
  • Participation in the acceleration of community outreach programmes;
  • Providing employment to the youth within the churches and organisations that work with Inkululeko Yesizwe;
  • Playing a meaningful role for foster children, orphans, convicted juveniles and ex-felons, as well as ex-sex workers who needed to be reintegrated into society;
  • Commitment to ensure that the beneficiaries of the rehabilitation programmes got a fair chance at life, which allowed the government and the organisation to work together

Ms Tulwana explained that the recognition of Africanism could play an important role against moral decay in society, and since the African tradition system was a rehabilitation process, this could help with restoring communities and society. The African systems could lead in society, especially for public officials to behave in accordance with norms and standards that encourage morality. She stressed that the relationship between the church and political parties should not be governed by elections or election hearings.

The organisation was requesting the fair registration of all religious organizations, and for the Commission not to discriminate against them. Inkululeko Yesizwe had written to the Commission in 2017, hoping to register the organization, and had since been side-lined. She pleaded for the Commission to be open-minded towards religious denominations that were different. She also requested that all churches under Inkululeko Yesizwe be trained by the Commission to ensure compliance. 

Baptist Union of South Africa (BUSA)

Mr Sipho Zondi, Baptist Union pastor, started by acknowledging the COGTA Portfolio Committee and the Commission for the work that had been done. He said that BUSA had been active for 143 years and represented more than 300 churches, and was also part of the South African Council of Churches (SACC).

He said there were malpractices occurring in the name of religion and the church which were not right, and had been acknowledged by the union. BUSA still believed that the state could not regulate the church, and opposed the Commission’s report which infringes on the right to practice religion freely. He highlighted that cases involving church leaders who had been exploiting people were in court, and these cases revealed that laws were functional when applied properly. He did question the reasons for cases against malpractices not being reported, and why the Commission was not investigating these matters. He requested the Commission to act.

BUSA supported the establishment of ministers’ networks which promoted accountability and helped address the current religious challenges. It also supported the development of a code of conduct which would promote accountability, and an environment that would allow citizens to practice their religions freely. It also encouraged education and training among religious practitioners to ensure compliance, and for the Commission to improve its capacity to investigate possible exploitation cases and hold people accountable.

Regarding the registration of religious organisations, BUSA supported the registration of all religious organisations without any interference from the state. He mentioned that there was a belief that the church was doing nothing to resolve the current issues, and argued that the people who made these remarks usually did not belong to the church. He concluded that the church was active in communities.

Cultural, Religious and Linguistic (CRL) Commission

Prof Luka Mosoma, Chairperson: CRL Commission, commented on what had been presented on the first day of the Indaba. He said it was important to consider the role of the church in society. In society, social class distinction should articulate justice on behalf of the poor who were already marginalised, and the Word should empower faith into action.

The mandate of the Commission was to build a religiously conducive environment that promoted human dignity. The Commission was a Chapter 9 institution, which meant that its objective was to strengthen constitutional democracy in South Africa. The establishment of the Commission mandated the promotion of respect and protection of culture, to protect and develop peace, humanity and tolerance in communities on the basis of equality without any discrimination, as well as to foster mutual respect and the rights of communities. The aim was to build a united South Africa in which the cultural and religious community played an important role.

The commercialisation of religion and the abuse of people’s beliefs had been recognised by the Commission. It was also fully aware that not everyone was pleased with the recommendations report that had been written. He said that the report had not been misconstrued as an attack on religion or religious leaders, but as a resolution to the issues facing society and the church. The report should be understood as an action plan in response to social ills and harmful religious practices. The focal point of the Commission’s report was the quest to recover ubuntu and respect for human dignity. He stressed that few religious bodies preferred state regulation, and the majority prefer self-regulation. The Commission had always considered the religious principles in the Constitution which could not be changed.

Unethical behaviour was regulated on a daily basis -- not religion -- especially since the conducted research on global self-regulation had not been approved. There was a section in the report that was useful in identifying some of the key definitions, and he thanked Professor Sauer for assisting the Commission to compile that section. He also mentioned that there was no proposal as to what should happen to religious leaders who exploited people, and asked if the existing laws were broad enough to promote human dignity.

The Commission had also developed a code of conduct for religious leaders. In the past, the Commission had met with the South African Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms (SACRRF) to discuss cooperative interaction, and had encouraged the continuation of cooperation. He argued that the allegations that the Commission was oblivious to submissions, was untrue, because the Commission did receive complaints and provided a feedback report to Parliament. He said an agreement had been reached with other democracy-oriented institutions where a complaint was received and was referred to the relevant institution. A Forum of Institutions Supporting Democracy had been established to deal with the issue of complaints. 

Prof Mosoma said that the Commission’s mandate provided for a database to be created for CRL communities. A deliberation had been held on the matter, and an approval was still in progress on the registration of CRL communities before the end of March. The database would also assist the Commission to understand and know how many churches and other religions existed. He emphasised the importance of the registration.

He said that within the Commission there was a department that focused on public education, which created awareness and campaigning. The Commission currently did not have the capacity to implement structural training. The South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA)-accredited organisations with training models had approached the Commission to provide training to pastors, and that if there were any religious organisations that were interested in receiving training, then the Commission was delighted to assist. However, it could not make any promises due to lack of resources and capacity.

Prof Mosoma explained that the deliberations, submissions and input by the various religious organisations had been accepted by the Commission. The information would assist it in developing future plans and promote the enhancement of the religious environment. It was encouraging for the Commission to see the commitment by religious organisations to address the issues discussed on harmful religious practices and social ills.

He concluded by encouraging the religious community to commit itself to a plan of action to resolve issues.

Consolidated Summary

Prof Christof Sauer, Director: International Institute for Religious Freedom (IIRF), provided a summary of the submission proposals throughout the Indaba by religious organiaations.

He expressed his appreciation to the COGTA Portfolio Committee for interacting with the document. He then highlighted the alternative solutions as per the submissions made by the religious organisations and the CRL Commission’s report. He also highlighted the following recommendations:

  1. The Code of Conduct for self-regulation by the religious community
  2. Networks of religious practitioners to self-regulate
  3. Training and education for religious practitioners
  4. Investigation and dealing with matters by the Commission to improve capacity
  5. Information register which supports the Commission’s database implementation plan
  6. Enforcement of existing laws to hold exploiters accountable
  7. Law enforcement by state organs for further investigations
  8. Freedom of religious belief (FORB)
  9. Permissible limitations for FORB
  10. Social ills and moral decay
  11. Further engagements, which included the acknowledgement of the diversity of religious communities and awareness of the complaints of the religious community
  12. Public relations

Discussion

Mr V Zungula (ATM) said the issue was that the Committee was dealing with different churches with different doctrines, because there was a struggle with defining terminologies by the various religious organisations. He agreed with the religious organisations that there should be registration of all the different religious organisations, and less regulation by the state. The registration process would allow COGTA and the Commission to group religious organisations. The Commission should conduct research on the different churches that exist in the country. He also mentioned that a code of conduct should be developed to accommodate every faith-based system.

Ms G Opperman (DA) encouraged the church and religious bodies to engage actively with the Commission’s regulations. She also encouraged the religious organisations to review the Commission’s report and state regulations, and mentioned that the Non-Profit Organisations Act could be amended to make the registration of religious organisations compulsory with the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC). However, if the legislation was amended to compel registration as a Non-Profit Organisation (NPO), it would establish the state as a regulator, and as a regulator, the state would have the power to decide which organisations to register and which ones not to. She pointed out that a peer review was included in the Commission’s report, which dealt with issues of registration and licensing, and said that the Commission’s report did encourage self-regulation by the church. She asked how the issues of harmful religious practices were being resolved by the church community, and asked for an estimated ratio of the number of foreign to local pastors involved in harmful practices. She expressed full support for the church being self-regulatory.  

Ms P Xaba-Ntshaba (ANC) clarified a statement that had been made on the first day of the Indaba regarding local religious organisations, and churches allowing foreign nationals to ruin the reputation of the church. She also supported Inkululeko Yesizwe on the issue of the recognition of indigenous African churches within the country. She highlighted that the point of Parliament was to be a voice for the voiceless, and that it was important for leaders to care about their followers. She said indigenous churches in unfamiliar locations were started mostly by foreign nationals, and asked how the religious body planned to resolve the issue of foreign nationals who started numerous churches. She argued that some of the churches by foreign nationals were drug dens at night, and churches by day.

Ms M Tlou (ANC) agreed with Ms Xaba-Ntshaba’s views on the issue of foreign nationals starting numerous churches in unfamiliar locations. She encouraged the religious organisations to start resolving this issue, because it was affecting local citizens. She suggested that the churches should be registered so that they were recognised as legal. She encouraged the Commission to find solutions to the issues.

Regarding the land sites issue, she said that the religious organisations were not taking the initiative to resolve the matter. There was also a challenge with harmful religious practices, and the religious organisations should take the initiative to address this, and there should be cooperation between the religious bodies and the Commission. The Commission should ensure that all documents were updated so that all religious bodies followed the same protocol. She also urged that assemblies and morning prayers should be reinstated at schools, and said that the church had the responsibility of implementing moral values in the country.

Ms H Mkhaliphi (EFF) suggested that the Commission engage with the issues of the religious organisations. There should be an objective judgment by Members and an understanding of why the issues had been brought up, which meant not taking sides. The main purpose was to protect citizens, which was the role of the church.   

CRL Commission

Mr Zungula was interested to know the Commission’s view on racism within the religious space. He also highlighted that the religious organisations had expressed dissatisfaction with the Commission, especially on discrimination, but the Commission had not responded to the issues raised by religious leaders.

Ms Opperman raised concern that the submissions by the faith community had been ignored by the Commission, and asked if it was aware of the issues raised in the submissions. She also asked where the funding for the peer review structure would come from, and if a gap analysis could be done to address the existing law vacuums.

Ms Xaba-Ntshaba thanked religious leaders who were able to face the truth, and asked when and where the Commission planned on expanding its leadership in all provinces within the country so that church communities had a place to submit their complaints.

Inkosi B Luthuli (ANC) asked what the Commission was doing to address the issue of foreigners who entered the country to start churches.

Mr K Ceza (EFF) asked about the religious tolerance of the Commission, and the extent of drafting the code of conduct which was given to the churches. He also asked if consultation and participation processes had taken place before drafting the code of conduct. He requested that the document be provided to the Portfolio Committee for deliberation, and asked how it had been drafted.

Ms Tlou referred to the issue of church sites at municipalities, and asked what strategies were used by the Commission to ensure religious leaders and churches received sites.

Consolidated Summary

Mr Sabelo Sibanda, Revival Pentecostal Church, argued that the participation document was not a joint deliberation with the religious organisations. He requested a copy of the document, which had not been provided to any religious organisation for consideration. He acknowledged that the document did address some issues, but not necessarily the purpose of the meeting.

Ms Mkhaliphi also expressed confusion on the document presented, because the Portfolio Committee had also not been consulted. She said that the academics had been supposed to provide academic views on the matters discussed.

The Chairperson explained that a summary of the recommendations from all the presentations that were presented, had been requested. He mentioned that the input from the academics was not final -- it had to be reviewed.

Many religious organisations had asked for the wording of the document to be changed from ‘Recommendations’ to something more appropriate and fitting.

Prof Sauer explained that the invitation to present had been at the last minute.

Inkosi Luthuli argued that the participation document would come across as if the Portfolio Committee agreed on what had been presented.

Mr Zungula argued that the issue lay in the mandate of the academics, because the previous day it had been implied that a recommendation would be discussed, which had not been done. The Portfolio Committee should discuss the way forward, not the academics.

A religious organisation representative suggested that the way forward should be discussed by the religious organizations, especially since there were still issues that required clarification.

The Chairperson said that the summary of the Indaba was being overlooked, and the focus was on the language used in the document. He emphasised that the document was not final.

A religious organisation representative asked how the Portfolio Committee perceived matters, because the document was supposed to be deliberated on by the various religious organisations.

Another representative suggested that a resolution should be made to accommodate the academics. He argued that the intellect of the religious community had been undermined, and that submissions could not be summarised overnight, but required a substantial amount of time.

The Chairperson suggested that Prof Sauer revise the recommendations into a draft, and align it with the various submissions. 

Response

CRL Commission 

Mr Edward Mafadza, Chief Executive Officer (CEO): CRL Commission, responded that a submission was made by the Commission which had been rejected by the 5th Parliament.

On the issue of racism, he said that the Commission followed the Constitution, and that if the Commission was not fulfilling its mandate, submissions should be made. He explained that the reason the case of the racist pastor was not investigated further was because there had been a public apology from the pastor. He added that if the Portfolio Committee wanted the issue to be investigated, then it would be.

He gave an assurance that the Commission was inclusive in terms of discrimination, especially towards iNkululelo yeSizwe. It was not the Commission’s intention to make anyone feel marginalised.

Mr Mosoma said there had been no exclusion by the Commission in the drafting of the code of conduct report. The peer review committee had been assisted to ensure compliance, and the registration of religious organisations was not for control or regulation, but to enable. He was willing to provide the Portfolio Committee with some of the laws that were used by the Commission, and said that the Commission had over-spent on a project, and that gathering funding for the expansion of the provincial and national offices was a current issue. Once registration was open, religious leaders would be invited to register churches. 

Regarding the excess number of foreigners entering the country, he explained that it was not the Commission’s duty to restrict immigration, but the Department of Home Affairs. The Department had been invited to explain the issue and its plans to address the issue, especially since it had stated that it had a waiver provision in its policy if an individual disclosed that they were a foreign national.

He said that the code of conduct was shared with religious leaders at the Rhema Bible Church, and that there were agreements between the Commission and the religious leaders. A copy of the code of conduct would be shared with the Portfolio Committee.

Regarding the church land sites, the Commission did not have the capacity to deal with the issue, but it did ensure that the relevant state organ was informed to resolve the issue.

Follow-up Questions

Mr Ceza asked for a summary of the meeting that had been held at the Rhema Bible Church concerning the conclusion of the code of conduct. He also asked if the code of conduct had been rushed, and whether the purpose of the meeting had been achieved.

Ms Opperman asked about the process involved in the legacy report, and why a rejected submission should be considered.

Mr Zungula argued that the apology from the racist pastor should not be taken lightly, especially because the pastor had made racist remarks. No explanation of why the case was dropped had been given. The Commission had not taken the issue seriously, especially since a letter had been written by him to the Commission.

Response

Mr Mosomi responded that the code of conduct was a work in progress, and had not yet been adopted. The meeting with religious leaders had been a consultation process, not a final adoption of the code of conduct.

Regarding the racist pastor, the Commission wanted an explanation of why the racist remarks had been made, but the reasons had been stated in the media release. He said that the letter on the processes of investigating the racism issue had never been received by the Commission, but a follow-up would be conducted to retrieve the letter.

Mr Zungula mentioned that a letter to proceed with the case had also been submitted.

Mr Thring suggested that it would be improper to single out the racist pastor, especially since he had apologised for his statement. He argued that the remarks were not racist, because no race had been mentioned when the statement was made.

The Chairperson mentioned that Members had been given an opportunity to engage with the Commission’s report, even though the Commission had been invited as a guest, and not to be questioned. 

Mr Zungula asked that a deliberation on the racist pastor should be made by the Commission.

Way forward

The Chairperson concluded that the deliberations from the religious organisations had been received, and that the Portfolio Committee would meet separately to further deliberate on the presentations, as well as to consider the proposals made. Matters on the harmful religious practices would be deliberated, and recommendations would be made. Other state organs, such as the Department of Home Affairs, would be included in the deliberations. Some recommendations would be further deliberated as well.

The meeting was adjourned.

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: