The South African Council of Churches

Submission to the Standing Committee - Private member's legislation

Standing of the SACC

The South African Council of Churches (SACC) is the facilitating body for a fellowship of 26 Christian churches and associated para-church organisations. Founded in 1968, the SACC includes among its members Protestant, Catholic, African Independent, Pentecostal and Orthodox churches with a combined constituency of roughly 15 mill ion members and adherents. SACC members are committed to expressing jointly, through proclamation and programmes, the united witness of the church in South Africa, especially in matters of national debate.

Private member's proposal for the repeal of various denominational and/or religious organisations' Repeal Acts

The SACC appreciate the Portfolio Committee's invitation to comment and/or make submission on various Repeal Acts affecting various denominations and organisations as proposed by Pierre-Jean Gerber, a member of the National Assembly. The proposed legislation forwarded to the SACC for comment relate to "Methodist Church of Southern Africa (Private) Act, No.111 of 1978"; "The Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa (Private) Act, No. 24 of 1961"; and ''The Bible Society of South Africa Amendment Act, No 97 of 1985".

Of these three organizations, the Bible Society of South Africa is not a member organization of the SACC but has integral links with each of its member Churches. The SACC has, however, consulted with the leadership of the Apostolic Faith Mission as well as the Methodist Church of Southern Africa and similarly enquired into the position of the Bible Society. The Dutch Reformed Church has informed the SACC that it is in a similar position to that of the MCSA and AFM and is proceeding with research into the implications of the proposals on their juristic person, regulation and possession of property etc.

The Constitution, promotion of religious belief and discrimination

PJ Gerber correctly notes that the Constitution of South Africa is founded on values of human dignity, the achievement of equality and the advancement of human rights and freedoms, non-racialism and non-sexism. Further, he notes that these pieces of legislation are inconsistent with the values of the Constitution. He believes these pieces of legislation to be discriminatory and repugnant. One could question, however, whether this is sufficiently motivated factor for the proposed Repeal Act. We could point out - as we often do at Budgetary Committee meetings - that there are other unfulfilled mandates by the state - e.g. Sec 77 of the Amendment of Money Bills which till today remains an outstanding legislative requirement Others would still argue, that in the light of a democracy seeking to promote respect, dignity and equity for all on an economic and human level, such outstanding measures as the failure to provide legislation for money amendment bills is equally "discriminatory and repugnant"

However, the Constitution also provides for the freedom of religious belief: expression and practice as well as freedom of association, provided these are not in conflict with the values and rights of our Constitution. In this sense, it is indeed amazing that thirteen years into our democracy that these pieces of legislation still exist and have not been repealed earlier.

Recommendations for a way forward

The SACC has held consistently in all its submissions that the duty of the State is to legislate on the basis of its interpretation of the Constitution and that it should not arbitrate or mediate on the traditions of the religious communities. While it has held the need for a clear distinction between the spheres of politics and religions, it promotes cooperate with the State - where necessary and possible - in common ventures of socioeconomic justice such as poverty eradication and the protection of the rights and dignity of the vulnerable.

From our discussions, it is clear that the state should neither be seen privileging one religious group over another nor even regulating religious belief and practice.

If we are agreed to this, then the motivation by Gerber of discriminatory and repugnant legislation is inadequate and insufficient for a general repeal. More background research is required for motivation. Furthermore, one is required to take into consideration the implications such repeal would have on the juristic relations of these denominations and organizations.

If we are agreed to the paramount importance of the Constitution at this gathering - and I believe we are all in one mind about this - then the question is how to go about promoting a dignified process and legislative outcome that recognises the existence of these religious organizations without compromising the right and duty of Parliament to enact legislation that protects the values and rights enshrined in our Constitution.

The SACC is of the mind that more time be accorded the various parties all round to explore the implications of the proposed repeal and to work together in proposing all round acceptable legislation together with proposals for alternative recognition of the duties and responsibilities of these denominations and organisations

2 November 2007