Regulation unnecessary for born-again faith
- June 23, 2017
- Written by MICHAEL KYAZZE
http://observer.ug/viewpoint/53487-regulation-unnecessary-for-born-again-faith.html
The raging
debate on the faith policy as proposed by Fr Simon Lokodo, the minister
of Ethics and Integrity, is a contentious topic. The Constitution has
spelt out our God-given liberties and rights.
The challenge to all leaders is how to
lead and not infringe on these right. The freedom to worship should not
be defined by laws and legal embroideries. Let freedom be free!
From Dr Joseph Serwadda’s article in New
Vision on June 19, 2017 titled Why legislation on Born Again churches
is necessary, he based his argument on seven major reasons:
- The problem of not being recognized by the law of the land as a religion.
- The failure of government to categorize and attach indigenous churches to the right ministry.
-
The challenge of mixed identity, whereby clear universal cults,
indigenous cults and occults are registered by government and given a
semblance of Pentecostal churches.
- The need to regulate the people registering churches and modulate the practices of already registered churches.
- The registration of religious/spiritual entities separate from charities.
- Guarantee for perpetuity of churches as places of worship.
- Equality of born-again churches to the traditional churches.
With those fronted as the reasons to
have legislation on born-again churches, I picture a thirsty man opening
floodgates to scoop a cup of water, only to be washed away by floods.
There is no manner of organization or
law that will regulate faiths and their practices without it becoming
discriminative and oppressive. A thirsty man needs water, but not a
Tsunami.
Looking briefly at the presented challenges, I would like to shed light on each.
1. The failure of government to place
the indigenous Pentecostal churches under the most appropriate political
ministry. This predicament lingers on and our registration proposals
are often addressed whenever there is electioneering.
Promises are made by the leader in power
but nothing concrete comes out. There was a time we were attached to
the ministry of Justice, where it was most appropriate to register a
church as a company limited by guarantee.
Then, through unwavering lobbying, we
were pushed to the ministry of Internal Affairs, where we were
registered as NGOs. The next thing we were told to choose either: With
the NGO board, we were required to renew our permits periodically. Some
of us feel that after 30 years of NRM leadership, this should have been
sorted by now.
Is it deliberate that government would
like to keep us begging till the next elections? The key question is how
will the registration question be settled without creating a monstrous
vetting committee of religious people with personal biases?
This move is obviously asking for a
ministry of religion and a religious authority which will be charged
with the responsibility to approve, vet, assess, police, punish,
terminate as well as regulate worship experiences. Apart from Islamic
nations, there are just a few nations that have the ministry of
religion. Is Uganda going to create a state religion in a secular
Constitution?
2. It should not be our objective to
achieve equality with the traditional religions since the status being
enjoyed by traditional religions was not given to them by the stroke of
the pen, but by many historical postures. Some are ugly, unfair and
mostly colonially pushed with internal patronage of the leaders of our
nation. The best way to be recognized is to do the will of the God that
sent us.
3. Permanence and perpetuity will not
depend on the legislation because experience has taught us that laws are
never free from tinkering fingers of politicians. The law you formulate
today will be mutated as many times as politicians choose to change it.
Whatever we shall commit to paper as religious policy will be beyond
recognition five years from the day it is adopted.
4. No religious ministry will be secure since the law is proposing to regulate, qualify, deny and permit people to register.
In conclusion, whether the law is
beautiful and acceptable today, I resist it because of what it is going
to become and the resultant subculture, patterns and allegiances it will
force us into in order to fit under it and to serve the political
powers that will be existing. Good intentions can become bad mistakes.
Fr Lokodo should not pretend to be
drafting legislation on faith-based organisations. There are enough
rules and laws for him to curb criminal excesses in churches but he
doesn’t have the will to enforce the laws.
We are not buying this lie and we shall resist it.
The author is a senior pastor, Omega International Ministries.
Museveni comes out with policy to Movementalise
(NRM-lise) evangelical churches in Uganda : Govt does not need a separate law
or policy to regulate Pentecostal/evangelical churches
Why Serwada is wrong on
legislating born again churches
Added 23rd June 2017 10:03 AM
By Robert Kirunda
One is left wondering why he deems it necessary
to add a layer of regulation
-
Home
-
Opinion
-
Why Serwada is wrong on legislating born again churches
Why Serwada is wrong on legislating born again churches
By Admin
Added 23rd June 2017 10:03 AM
One is left wondering why he deems it necessary to add a layer of regulation
By Robert Kirunda
I read with interest the article published in the New Vision of June
19, 2016 by Joseph Serwadda titled: Why legislation on Born Again
churches is necessary.
I have also noted that the matter has gained attention in the
mainstream and social media. It is a matter worthy of critical
attention. At the centre of the matter seems to be a policy in the
offing at the Ministry of Ethics and Integrity.
While Joseph Serwadda and his ilk (many of whom remain in the
shadows) are forceful in their arguments for some form of regulation of
born again churches, there are those voices who argue that the motives
are ill informed and the policy unnecessary.
The issue is not new and Joseph Serwadda is the one consistent voice
in advocating for a “policy” or a law to regulate balokole or to somehow
have the Government work with balokole to restore the constantly
declining moral scales of the Ugandan society (see for instance the New
Vision article Religious Leaders want stake in Government April 17,
2015), where the same Serwadda castigated the Ministry of Ethics and
Integrity for failing to restore morality, which failure – in his view –
was caused by the Government not working with balokole). It is
important that we revisit the issue with both perspective and sincerity.
Serwadda’s missive serves to bring some historical facts to light. He
does leave out some facts like those prominent figures in Uganda’s
opposition who once suggested the banning of biwempe churches because
these churches posed a security threat to the then fragile and fairly
young NRM/A government.
Nonetheless, Serwadda’s historical perspective in underscoring the
fact that the “born again” church has undergone quite a long and mostly
turbulent past.
Serwadda is also right when he points out some of the internal
problems within the body of Christ today. Some of the issues he
highlights include the existence of “fake” pastors, questions of
infidelity, unchastity and theological error, which as he puts it, have
ashamed Uganda. He raises a litany of points and it is not my intention
to dismiss them.
But there are a number of reasons why Serwadda is wrong and his zeal
misplaced. Let me deal with the “non legal/technical” reasons. There is
simply no foundation for the assertion that the sole or even most
prominent cause of the Kanungu inferno or Kibwetere saga as he calls it
was the failure of the NGO Board to weed out the wheat from the chaff.
To argue as much would be to argue that since then, there are no
cults in Uganda or that every organisation that has been under the
watch, registration, licensing and in the knowledge of the Government is
legitimate. This would defeat his very subsequent assertion that there
are “fake” ministers in the country today.
More importantly, there are ministries just as old with which
Serwadda and the wider body of Christ have legitimate issues on doctrine
and other matters. Why has the Government not shut them down yet?
In some cases, the head of state has graced the functions of these
somewhat objectionable ministries. The issues with Kanungu were
certainly deeper than could have been avoided by a policy or
legislation. Is the Kanungu inferno defensible or even desirable,
absolutely not. Would a policy or legislation ensure that it never
happens again? Certainly not.
Serwadda seems to waver between identifying a “home” for balokole in
the legal framework and ensuring compliance with regulatory
requirements. Whichever weighs on his heart the most, the man of God
ought to remember that there is in place a legal framework that governs
registration of ministries. Serwadda makes this point quite well when he
says there has never been a time when balokole churches are not
regulated.
One is left wondering why he deems it necessary to add a layer of
regulation. Many of these ministries are registered as companies limited
by guarantee or as NGOs.
Under the new framework, even companies limited by guarantee that
want to do work for which the NGO board will be responsible will be
required to get a permit to operate.
The smart legal thing to do for any ministry is to actually opt for a
multi layered approach. This is not unusual or even cumbersome. It has
its advantages. What is lacking is not clarity on where a ministry
should register or belong. Any vigilant person desiring to comply with
Uganda’s laws can have the answers to this question in the shortest time
possible. I am quite certain that Serwadda’s church or ministry is
registered and I do hope it is compliant under whatever regime it is
registered.
Serwadda is quick to point out that the issues he raises are not
restricted to balokole. He also adds some layers of distinction between
balokole and other sections of society that are quite important.
Interestingly, his prescription to these challenges is legislating
for them all. And yet, not a single Muslim or Catholic voice seems to be
as keen on this pursuit as he is. The Catholic church is no stranger to
internal controversy. No faith or denomination is. But I have yet to
hear them push for a policy, let alone one that legislates morality.
Serwadda complains of “self appointed and media created
pastors/ministers, which in his view cannot point to a church they have
established or one they attend.” It seems to this man of God that there
must be an authority to appoint one into the ministry.
This is not the worst idea ever. But for every self appointed
minister he will show him, I will show him ministers he respects or
ought to respect whose appointment they attribute only to God Almighty,
many of them with churches that sit members far larger than his
congregation and do so more successfully.
It would be interesting for Serwadda to help us understand the
foundation of his forcefully asserted credentials as “Presiding Apostle”
and how wide the section of balokole he portends to preside over is. I
certainly do not believe he has the approval let alone blessing of the
droves of balokole in this country or their leaders.
Serwadda is grossly mistaken to even suggest that the proof of
legitimacy of a ministry is that it must have started or be
superintending over a church. An example even non-balokole will easily
recognise is the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and its sister
organisation, Samaritans Purse.
So far as I know, these organisations were not responsible for the
planting of a single church. But their impact on the body of Christ and
indeed the society in the United States and the rest of the world needs
no explanation.
Fulfilling the great commission or the God given mandate of a
Christian is not about only planting churches and superintending them.
Serwadda is a knowledgeable man. He knows that the call and task is much
larger than this.
The article attempts to make a case for the need for Balokole to
“belong” somewhere. I shudder when I read the obsession for belonging.
In my little understanding of the gospel on which the balokole are
based, the followers of Jesus Christ ought to be known more by their
fruits than their titles or affiliations.
It seems to me that there is a deeper obsession here with titles and
powers to appoint and disappoint people into ministry than there is to
set things straight in the body of Christ.
I will use two simple points to fortify this assertion.
After the Kanungu inferno of which Serwadda like many church leaders
were legitimately concerned, leaders among the balokole started the
National Fellowship of Born Again Churches. It is my recollection that
Serwadda was part of the initial leadership of this fellowship. It has
remained in place since and has done quite a number of things with
modest success. The circumstances of his departure from his fellow
leaders and his eventual exit from this wider section of the balokole
leadership are his story to tell. And if we are discussing motives and
solutions to problems in the body, it is a story that the Ugandan people
deserve to know.
The second point is that what Serwadda is advocating for has resulted
in an obvious division in the body of Christ, not just with older
ministers with whom he parted ways with in the National Born Again
fellowship but also and perhaps, especially with these “self-appointed
ministers” he is critical of. What he forgets is that when he founded
his ministry decades ago, he was just like them. Serwadda has quickly
forgotten the lessons of the history he attempts to teach the younger
generation. I struggle to see the difference between the hostility he
faced as the “new entity” that was encroaching on the space of the
traditional churches of the time and the vociferous attacks he levies on
the younger ministries of today. How sad it is that he is now kicking
away the very ladder he ought to put in place. I have my long list of
issues with some of these ministries and their leaders, as well as their
message. But I know better ways to resolve these disputes and
legislating around them is certainly the worst of ideas.
Serwadda makes a good point about securing the rights of future
generations to worship as they see fit. He misses a very simple point:
this was done by providing for these God given rights in the 1995
Constitution. Where the framers thought more detailed legislation was
necessary, they said so. This was not the case with religious freedoms.
This was not a mistake. Legislating religion in detail is a bad idea.
I have read at least two versions of the draft Policy to which
Serwadda is generous in praise. It seems to me as an attempt to
legislate morality. I am yet to find a single country in the world that
has done this successfully while protecting fundamental freedoms. In its
current form, the policy will result in a law that is ambiguous and
unenforceable at best. If the need is to repair the moral deficit of
society and the choice is between the law and the gospel, I would vote
for the gospel. I am intrigued that a man of God would vote otherwise.
The writer is a practicing advocate and Christian
I read with interest the article published in the New Vision of June 19,
2016 by Joseph Serwadda titled: Why legislation on Born Again churches is
necessary.
I have also noted that the matter has gained attention in the
mainstream and social media. It is a matter worthy of critical attention. At
the centre of the matter seems to be a policy in the offing at the Ministry of
Ethics and Integrity.
While Joseph Serwadda and his ilk (many of whom remain in the shadows) are
forceful in their arguments for some form of regulation of born again churches,
there are those voices who argue that the motives are ill informed and the
policy unnecessary.
The issue is not new and Joseph Serwadda is the one consistent voice in
advocating for a “policy” or a law to regulate balokole or to somehow have the
Government work with balokole to restore the constantly declining moral scales
of the Ugandan society (see for instance the New Vision article Religious
Leaders want stake in Government April 17, 2015), where the same Serwadda
castigated the Ministry of Ethics and Integrity for failing to restore
morality, which failure – in his view – was caused by the Government not
working with balokole). It is important that we revisit the issue with both
perspective and sincerity.
Serwadda’s missive serves to bring some historical facts to light. He does
leave out some facts like those prominent figures in Uganda’s opposition who
once suggested the banning of biwempe churches because these churches posed a
security threat to the then fragile and fairly young NRM/A government.
Nonetheless, Serwadda’s historical perspective in underscoring the fact that
the “born again” church has undergone quite a long and mostly turbulent past.
Serwadda is also right when he points out some of the internal problems
within the body of Christ today. Some of the issues he highlights include the
existence of “fake” pastors, questions of infidelity, unchastity and
theological error, which as he puts it, have ashamed Uganda. He raises a litany
of points and it is not my intention to dismiss them.
But there are a number of reasons why Serwadda is wrong and his zeal
misplaced. Let me deal with the “non legal/technical” reasons. There is simply
no foundation for the assertion that the sole or even most prominent cause of
the Kanungu inferno or Kibwetere saga as he calls it was the failure of the NGO
Board to weed out the wheat from the chaff.
To argue as much would be to argue that since then, there are no cults in
Uganda or that every organisation that has been under the watch, registration,
licensing and in the knowledge of the Government is legitimate. This would
defeat his very subsequent assertion that there are “fake” ministers in the
country today.
More importantly, there are ministries just as old with which Serwadda and
the wider body of Christ have legitimate issues on doctrine and other matters.
Why has the Government not shut them down yet?
In some cases, the head of state has graced the functions of these somewhat
objectionable ministries. The issues with Kanungu were certainly deeper than
could have been avoided by a policy or legislation. Is the Kanungu inferno
defensible or even desirable, absolutely not. Would a policy or legislation
ensure that it never happens again? Certainly not.
Serwadda seems to waver between identifying a “home” for balokole in the
legal framework and ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements. Whichever
weighs on his heart the most, the man of God ought to remember that there is in
place a legal framework that governs registration of ministries. Serwadda makes
this point quite well when he says there has never been a time when balokole
churches are not regulated.
One is left wondering why he deems it necessary to add a layer of
regulation. Many of these ministries are registered as companies limited by
guarantee or as NGOs.
Under the new framework, even companies limited by guarantee that want to do
work for which the NGO board will be responsible will be required to get a
permit to operate.
The smart legal thing to do for any ministry is to actually opt for a multi
layered approach. This is not unusual or even cumbersome. It has its
advantages. What is lacking is not clarity on where a ministry should register
or belong. Any vigilant person desiring to comply with Uganda’s laws can have
the answers to this question in the shortest time possible. I am quite certain
that Serwadda’s church or ministry is registered and I do hope it is compliant
under whatever regime it is registered.
Serwadda is quick to point out that the issues he raises are not restricted
to balokole. He also adds some layers of distinction between balokole and other
sections of society that are quite important.
Interestingly, his prescription to these challenges is legislating for them
all. And yet, not a single Muslim or Catholic voice seems to be as keen on this
pursuit as he is. The Catholic church is no stranger to internal controversy.
No faith or denomination is. But I have yet to hear them push for a policy, let
alone one that legislates morality.
Serwadda complains of “self appointed and media created pastors/ministers,
which in his view cannot point to a church they have established or one they
attend.” It seems to this man of God that there must be an authority to appoint
one into the ministry.
This is not the worst idea ever. But for every self appointed minister he
will show him, I will show him ministers he respects or ought to respect whose
appointment they attribute only to God Almighty, many of them with churches
that sit members far larger than his congregation and do so more successfully.
It would be interesting for Serwadda to help us understand the foundation of
his forcefully asserted credentials as “Presiding Apostle” and how wide the
section of balokole he portends to preside over is. I certainly do not believe
he has the approval let alone blessing of the droves of balokole in this
country or their leaders.
Serwadda is grossly mistaken to even suggest that the proof of legitimacy of
a ministry is that it must have started or be superintending over a church. An
example even non-balokole will easily recognise is the Billy Graham
Evangelistic Association and its sister organisation, Samaritans Purse.
So far as I know, these organisations were not responsible for the planting
of a single church. But their impact on the body of Christ and indeed the
society in the United States and the rest of the world needs no explanation.
Fulfilling the great commission or the God given mandate of a Christian is
not about only planting churches and superintending them. Serwadda is a
knowledgeable man. He knows that the call and task is much larger than this.
The article attempts to make a case for the need for Balokole to “belong”
somewhere. I shudder when I read the obsession for belonging. In my little
understanding of the gospel on which the balokole are based, the followers of
Jesus Christ ought to be known more by their fruits than their titles or
affiliations.
It seems to me that there is a deeper obsession here with titles and powers
to appoint and disappoint people into ministry than there is to set things
straight in the body of Christ.
I will use two simple points to fortify this assertion.
After the Kanungu inferno of which Serwadda like many church leaders
were legitimately concerned, leaders among the balokole started the National
Fellowship of Born Again Churches. It is my recollection that Serwadda was part
of the initial leadership of this fellowship. It has remained in place since
and has done quite a number of things with modest success. The circumstances of
his departure from his fellow leaders and his eventual exit from this wider
section of the balokole leadership are his story to tell. And if we are
discussing motives and solutions to problems in the body, it is a story that
the Ugandan people deserve to know.
The second point is that what Serwadda is advocating for has resulted in an
obvious division in the body of Christ, not just with older ministers with whom
he parted ways with in the National Born Again fellowship but also and perhaps,
especially with these “self-appointed ministers” he is critical of. What he
forgets is that when he founded his ministry decades ago, he was just like
them. Serwadda has quickly forgotten the lessons of the history he attempts to
teach the younger generation. I struggle to see the difference between the
hostility he faced as the “new entity” that was encroaching on the space of the
traditional churches of the time and the vociferous attacks he levies on the
younger ministries of today. How sad it is that he is now kicking away the very
ladder he ought to put in place. I have my long list of issues with some of
these ministries and their leaders, as well as their message. But I know better
ways to resolve these disputes and legislating around them is certainly the
worst of ideas.
Serwadda makes a good point about securing the rights of future generations
to worship as they see fit. He misses a very simple point: this was done by
providing for these God given rights in the 1995 Constitution. Where the
framers thought more detailed legislation was necessary, they said so. This was
not the case with religious freedoms. This was not a mistake. Legislating
religion in detail is a bad idea.
I have read at least two versions of the draft Policy to which Serwadda is
generous in praise. It seems to me as an attempt to legislate morality. I am
yet to find a single country in the world that has done this successfully while
protecting fundamental freedoms. In its current form, the policy will result in
a law that is ambiguous and unenforceable at best. If the need is to repair the
moral deficit of society and the choice is between the law and the gospel, I
would vote for the gospel. I am intrigued that a man of God would vote
otherwise.
The writer is a practicing advocate and Christian
Pastor Bujingo attacks Pastor Serwadda before believers
26, june , 2017
As Christian leaders continue to voice their opinion regarding the
alleged government policy intended to regulate faith- based
organisations, House of Prayer Ministries International senior Pastor
Aloysius Bugingo has used his Sunday sermon to condemn presiding Apostle, Dr
Joseph Serwadda for supporting this policy critics say will infringe on the
freedom of worship in Uganda.
Pastor Bugingo, who two (2) months back was accused of burning bibles,
assured his congregation that Satan is using Dr Joseph Serwadda to turn
salvation into religion.
“We have for long as House of Prayer Ministries told you that Dr Joseph
Serwadda, Satan is using him with determination to sell Salvation – to turn it
into a religion that he is forcefully trying to be president over.” Pr Bugingo
said.
“He presumes the Government that registered him is senseless – it does not
know how to register true Balokole (Luganda word to mean saved people). He is
asking government to legislate Born Again Christians differently so that he
regulates them.” He said.
Bugingo noted he is happy so many Pastors and Christian lawyers “wrote
articles firing back at Dr Serwadda when he appeared in New Vision on June 19,
2017 explaining Why legislation on Born Again churches is necessary.”
“Balokole are meant to abide by the already existing laws in the country.
Every lawbreaker is not above the constitution of the country. Issues related
to worship were already settled, only that he is a doctor, he is not informed.
In 1995 when the constitution was being released, the issues related to worship
were sorted. Everyone was accorded the freedom of worship.”
“Let Serwadda read the constitution again or call those that studied law to
tell him that concerning worship, those who made the Constitution put thought
to it, and didn’t turn us all to Muslims, Catholics, Anglicans.”
“It is not about professionalism it is about a calling. When someone
declares today that regulations should be put in place, and consultations
should be made over who should become Pastor because many are self claimed –
who announced him one?” Bugingo said.
He added: “If he is not a self declared Pastor, who called him to be a
Pastor. If one makes an advocacy claiming that the Born Again faith should be
equal to Catholicism, Islam, Anglicanism, such a person is mentally disabled,
for we will never be equal. Everyone takes on a different journey.”
Reports surfaced in May saying that the Office of the President, through the
directorate for Ethics and Integrity (DEI), is spearheading the effort to
regulate affairs of Religious Faith Based Organisations (RFBOs).
The DEI reportedly said, “There is disharmony within and among various RFBOs
and a lack of transparency, [which] if not mitigated, could lead to insecurity
and gross exploitation of citizens.”
According to reports, If enacted into law, the RFBO policy would
maintain the status quo for conventional denominations under Inter-Religious
Council of Uganda (IRCU), but require independent faith-based organizations
including born-again churches, to register with government, declare source of
funds, accountability as well as the possibility of taxing offertories.
“Mainstream religious faiths are losing big numbers of followers to small
born-again churches springing up by the day,” said an IRCU member who preferred
anonymity to the Observer. “This policy would ensure that all balokole churches
without structures are put in check because their leaders are not accountable
to anyone.”
In his New vision Article, Dr Serwadda pledged full support to this
government policy urging that Christians today might not see its value but
those to come will benefit from it.
Bugingo thanked God for Pastor Kyazze of Omega Healing Center, Apostle
Mulinde and many more for voicing their views.
“They have come to know this when he is growing grey hair – something I told
them 7 years ago that this man intends to strangle salvation.” Bugingo said. “I
know he is listening to what I’m saying. Their services have already ended –
they are only intended to collect money.”
Dr Serwadda was reportedly among 50 pastors who in 2015 petitioned UCC,
accusing Pr Bugingo of using his media platforms, Salt TV and salt Radio, to
attack fellow church leaders using abusive and vulgar language , as well as
inciting terror.
