Calls for state to regulate churches are misguided
The Timothy Omotoso trial is bad publicity for Christianity. Here is a man whose congregants trusted him entirely and would have even worshipped the very ground he trod on, now accused of having abused young girls.
That there are a number of women who visit the court to support their accused ‘daddy’ is disconcerting.
One would have expected these women to have been more concerned about the plight of the young girls.
It could have been one of their daughters in the witness stand recounting in graphic detail how a supposed mentor allegedly abused trust to satisfy his sexual appetite.
Cheryl Zondi, one of Omotoso’s congregants, acquitted herself well under pressure.
Television viewers watched as she narrated her version of how she had been abused since she was fourteen.
She was badgered by Omotoso’s lawyer into answering somewhat sensitive questions. I hope that I am not condescending when I say that I was impressed with her composure in handling the questions.
She is a heroine to most South Africans.
The kind of bullying she received from Omotoso’s lawyer justifiably caused a public outcry.
It is a well-known fact that rape is one of the most prevalent crimes in South Africa.
If rape victims are treated like this in court, who is going to report a rape case?
Earlier this month enraged residents of Port Elizabeth marched to the premises of Jesus Dominion International, Omotoso’s church, and clamoured for its closure.
Some are calling for the closure of all churches whose pastors come from elsewhere on our continent, a call with xenophobic undertones.
Others say religious organisations should be regulated by the state.
They argue such regulation would ensure all churches are compelled to be on the straight and narrow.
I am not convinced by this argument.
South Africa is a democracy and citizens are entitled to believe in whomsoever and whatsoever they wish.
It is not the brief of the state to dictate to people as to who they may believe or follow.
Our state is a secular entity and it would be inappropriate for it to interfere in spiritual matters.
Besides, the people who are clamouring for regulation are not explaining what kind of regulation they seek.
As a practicing Christian who is also an upstanding citizen I do not expect the state to interfere in my choice of belief.
Should my pastor compel me to drink petrol or eat grass, I am at liberty to consult a police station and report him.
We have a slew of laws to deal with this kind of abuse.
That congregants who are made to eat dog meat and are trampled on by their pastors do not report this to the police implies they see nothing wrong with these practices.
Why should the state then interfere on behalf of adults who are conscious of what they are doing?
There are, of course, exceptions.
There are more than a few congregants who seem to be under the spell of pseudo prophets.
The Seven Angels Ministries under the Mancoba brothers is a classic example.
Most congregants in that church resigned from their places of work, took their money and went to live in the church compound.
Children were prevented from attending school as the self-styled angels claimed that education was unnecessary.
Even in such a case I would object to state interference and regulation of churches.
I contend that we already have adequate legislation to deal with such extreme eventualities.
An adult who consciously chooses to follow another adult, who tells him or her that he is a friend of God who has shown him that he should be given money, should bear the consequences for his or her choice.
We do not need a nanny state that will keep tabs on all our comings and goings.
If people call for regulation of churches by the state, what about mainstream, orthodox churches that are not guilty of these atrocious practices? Should they be made to suffer for sins committed by other churches?
With a few exceptions, most churches have internal means of dealing with infringements and they do not preclude individual members from seeking legal redress.
Pastors who are found to have abused congregants in some churches are excommunicated and no longer receive their salaries or stipends.
I would suggest that churches not only deal harshly with offending pastors but also devise means of nurturing the abused victims.
This is where most churches have been lacking and definitely need to improve.
As Christians we should be wary of associating with socalled independent ministries run by individuals.
When problems arise you cannot expect the pastor, who is the sole proprietor of the church, to excommunicate himself.
A church needs to have systems and structures in place to deal with errant members, whether they are pastors or laity.
If a pastor is above censure, that is not a church but a cult and it should be abandoned.
My argument is that the state has better things to do than interfere in church matters in which it is not well versed.
Let the law take its course in dealing with those who insist on violating it.
Let the law take its course in dealing with those who insist on violating it