The CRL Rights Commission’s view on followers of controversial prophets in South Africa

Abstract

This article employs the utilitarian view of religion in African traditional religions (ATRs) to critically evaluate the South African Commission for the Promotion of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic (CRL) Communities’ characterisation of adherents of controversial and abusive religious systems in South Africa as gullible and vulnerable. The article addresses the following question: How does the characterisation of followers of controversial faith healers as gullible and vulnerable appear when individuals’ adherence to questionable religious practitioners is analysed from a utilitarian perspective? The utilitarian perspective views religion as a tool for attaining certain outcomes. This perspective is derived from ATRs, which treat religion functionally rather than ontologically. The secondary question is: How should the South African church address this utilitarian perspective in order to protect Christian believers from gullibility and vulnerability? The article contends that the characterisation of followers of controversial religious leaders as gullible and vulnerable misleadingly ignores the utilitarian nature of religion in Africa, which prioritises ‘what works’ over ‘what is true’. It is therefore argued that the solution to ensuring safe religious practices in South Africa does not lie in regulation by state bodies such as the CRL Rights Commission, but rather in the churches’ recovery of the ontological view of religion, which prioritises ‘truth’ over ‘utility’.
Contribution: The article seeks to offer a critical perspective on theological engagement with the CRL Rights Commission’s call for the regulation of religion in South Africa, as well as the apparent prevalence of gullibility and vulnerability among Christians who acquiesce to abusive and controversial religious leaders who have recently gained significant influence in the country and the region.