Who should keep religious societies on the straight and narrow?

In the wake of runaway scandalous religious activities, and in this age of too many “wolves” in “sheep’s” clothing, one can hardly blame the government for trying to restore sanity in the management of the affairs of religious societies.

It would also be foolish to condemn all these societies and perhaps conclude that they are getting what they deserve.

If we are to apportion blame, the “sheep” too must take the fair share of responsibility for its predicament.

All genuine religious societies, without exemption, seek to raise standards of morality among all people of good faith.

They must be encouraged to hold out this candle for all to see and follow. 

The State may be tempted to control the altar from the throne, but the distance between these two must be kept apart for very good reasons. 

Kenya, by any standard, is a very religious country.

Going by the statistics from the State Law Office, there are about 20,000 registered churches.

This is only a portion of Kenya’s religious societies as there are others who belong to other faiths. 

The preamble to our Constitution (2010) opens with the words, “We, the people of Kenya, acknowledging the supremacy of the almighty God …”

The Constitution also contains an establishment clause that “there shall be no state religion” (paragraph 8), and in the bill of rights, the Constitution guarantees religious freedom. The freedom to express one’s beliefs and religious practices through worship, practices and teachings is particularly explicit (see 32(1) and 32(2)). The National Anthem begins with a prayer, “O God … bless our land and nation,” and leaders will normally be sworn into office invoking the help of God.

NO AUTHORITY
The fact of our religiosity notwithstanding, the State and religion must be allowed to function without the interference of the other because matters of faith cannot be legislated.

The government does not have authority over the realm of individual conscience, and we have appropriated for ourselves this natural gift in our Constitution.

Religious faithful cannot possibly cede control of their faith, and practices thereof to the government.

They have a contract with their God and in matters of belief and conscience are answerable to none other.

No deterrent, persecution or death, devised to dissuade believers from believing, is known to have ever worked.

As is clearly taught in the Bible, for example, the Christian is never lost for choice when presented with a demand to choice obedience between an earthly authority and God’s word.

In matters of law and order, the government should apply appropriate laws to punish any offender. 

In this regard, the religious are accountable only to God in matters spiritual, but submits to the State in matters of law.

The State has a “social contract” with the people to maintain law and order but also to keep the necessary distance between the authority of the secular throne and that of the altar of worship.

The religious society must also take responsibility to discipline its errant members and to regulate its affairs properly.

Where societies may not have authority over “lone-ranger evangelists,” the State may help at the point of official registration.

What is so contentious about the proposed “The Societies [Religious Societies] Rules, 2015”?

Are the objections about specific rules deemed unacceptable, or more to do with defending, as a matter of principle, religious societies from state interference and control?

CONTENTIOUS ISSUES

As is expected with any matter touching on faith, the proposed rules have generated passionate debates.

The situation calls for a sober engagement among all stakeholders.

An honest appraisal of the proposed rules would really help to answer the question of what really is at stake.

The draft document has been circulated to religious bodies for comments, and I suppose it has not yet been gazetted.

In the public discourse that has since ensued, it does not appear that all interlocutors are equally versed with the actual content of the draft. 

Before we turn to objections raised on the matter of principle, a close look at the draft is helpful.

These new rules are intended to apply in addition to the already existing Societies Rules of 1968.

Nothing suggests a radical departure from what already is in force.

Going by clarifications given to such matters as requirements for registration, the need for work permit, filing of annual returns and leaders’ qualifications, it seems the main object of the rules is to enhance accountability required of religious societies.

There are, however, a few contentious issues as well as some that need clarification.

To begin with the latter, Rule 5(1)(f), which requires the societies to “register all its branches”, needs a guideline on how this may be implemented.

PRICKING ISSUES

Most religious bodies with complex administrative structures and which command a wide geographical spread, operate as one entity and do not necessarily see one part as the branch of another.

I have in mind, for example, large religious entities with three or more tiers of governance levels.

Each level is part and parcel of the whole and none may be seen as a branch of the other.

The requirement to separately register whatever is here referred to as “a branch” goes beyond a healthy arm’s length regulation and moves into micro-management of religious societies by the state. 

Some of the proposed rules are also controversial. Rule 9(6), for example, requires each religious society to “be a member of an umbrella religious society.”

Rule 9(2)(a) specifies that, “For the purposes of registering the umbrella religious society, … the religious society shall have a membership of not less than two thousand five hundred religious societies.”

This applies only for an interim period of two years and five thousand is required for full registration (9(4)).

The challenge here is further compounded by the requirement in rule 10(2) that the umbrella body is mandated to “develop a code of conduct” (2a) “review the doctrines and religious teachings of its membership” (2b) and also “review curriculum and qualifications of leaders” (2c&d) among other things.

Some denominations with close doctrinal and theological views may easily fall under one umbrella body, but I wonder how such an arrangement can work for a religious entity, which may hold reservations to join any umbrella body.

If a given denomination has no choice but must join some umbrella body that reviews and determines doctrines and beliefs, then the rule definitely curtails religious freedom as it ignores our religious diversity and doctrinal differences.

WHOSE ROLE?
Equally contentious is the rule that requires the registrar of societies to form an arbitration committee following a request by a concerned party or by own motion, in order “to manage the religious society” (Rule 11(1)).

This rule may be prescribed in good faith but it certainly contravenes the principle of separation between state and religion.

This will amount to direct meddling in the internal affairs of the religious society.  

Contentious rules aside, many objectors are rejecting the government’s move as a matter of principle.

The faithful are no stranger to rules and commandments, and obedience is what they live by.

The contention is over who has the authority to prescribe rules governing morality and faith.

Who, between the state and the religious societies, should hold the light for the other?

Religious societies deem that the state has no moral authority to keep them on the straight and narrow.

Such a move may be seen as an attempt to silence the prophetic voice and usurp the rightful role of the religious society, “the moral conscience of the larger society”.

The custodians of the altar have every reason to be weary of the dictates of the state.

They are, after all, the recipients and propagators of divine revelation, something that occupants of the secular throne can only receive, not give.

Prof Galgalo is the Vice-Chancellor, St Paul’s University, and an ordained Anglican minister