Who Really Benefits From Regulating the Church? Follow the Money

Whenever the idea of regulating the Church is raised, it is presented as a noble effort to “protect the public,” “ensure accountability,” or “deal with abuses.” But slogans and good intentions mean nothing without hard facts.

Any serious discussion about regulating the Church must begin with an uncomfortable but unavoidable truth: the greatest beneficiaries of church regulation would be the state and the regulatory apparatus created to enforce it. Not congregants. Not communities. Not victims of crime. But institutions, officials, and bureaucratic structures that stand to gain power, relevance, and substantial financial resources.

Once this reality is acknowledged, the persistent calls to regulate the Church start to make far more sense.

Regulation Creates an Industry

Regulation is never merely a moral or administrative exercise. It creates an entire industry.

To regulate places of worship, the state would need to establish:

• Central and provincial regulatory offices

• Registration and licensing authorities

• Compliance and inspection units

• Enforcement and disciplinary panels

• Appeals structures and legal departments

• Large-scale digital systems to track compliance

  
  

All of this requires staff, infrastructure, technology, and ongoing funding. Regulation is not a one-off act; it is a permanent system that must be fed year after year. Those who would staff, manage, and oversee this system are the very people and institutions that would benefit most from its existence.

Why Some Are Pushing for Church Regulation

It is no coincidence that some of the loudest voices advocating for church regulation are those who would be tasked with administering it. Regulation creates relevance, authority, and financial growth for regulatory bodies that currently operate on limited budgets.

At present, the CRL Rights Commission operates on an annual budget of approximately R50 million.

That budget constrains its reach, staff complement, and national footprint. Regulating religion would radically change that reality.

A regulatory regime for the Church would require:

• National and provincial offices

• Large-scale digital registration systems

• Compliance and inspection units

• Legal and enforcement divisions

• Permanent administrative staff

In other words, a dramatically expanded state apparatus — funded not by voluntary support, but by compulsory fees imposed on religious organisations and pastors.

The Numbers Reveal the Motive

South Africa has an estimated 100,000 religious organisations. Any system that seeks to vet, approve, and register each one would require extensive investigation and ongoing oversight.

If each organisation has only four individuals who serve in leadership or ministry, this introduces 400,000 people into the regulatory net.

To manage this, experts estimate:

• Setup costs of approximately R750 million

• Annual operating costs of between R250 million and R300 million

• 200 to 300 employees needed to administer the system nationwide

This is not speculative ideology — this is a massive, costly bureaucratic project.

From R50 Million to Billions

Here is where the real incentive emerges.

The CRL’s current budget of R50 million would be utterly insufficient to sustain such a regulatory regime. To make it viable, the budget would need to increase exponentially — potentially reaching R2.5 billion or more annually.

How would that happen?

Through:

• Registration fees

• Licensing fees

• Annual compliance charges

• Renewal costs

• Penalties and administrative levies

And who would pay these fees? Churches. Pastors. Ultimately, congregants.

The money would come directly from tithes and offerings — funds given in faith to support ministry, charity, feeding schemes, shelters, schools, and community outreach.

Regulation as a Revenue Stream

This is why regulation is so attractive to certain people. Once religion is regulated, it becomes a permanent revenue stream. Every church becomes a “regulated entity.” Every pastor becomes a “licensed individual.” Every act of ministry becomes subject to compliance.

Regulation creates dependency: fail to pay, and you risk deregistration. Fail to comply, and you face penalties. The sacred is transformed into a line item in a government budget.

Who Does Not Benefit

Let us also be honest about who does not benefit:

• Communities plagued by crime and poverty

• Victims of genuine abuse, already protected by existing laws

• Faith-based charities doing critical social work

• Ordinary believers exercising their constitutional rights

  
  

Criminal behaviour does not require church regulation to be prosecuted. Fraud, assault, abuse, and exploitation are already illegal under South African law. Regulation of belief is not justice — it is control.

A Dangerous Misuse of Sacred Funds

Is it morally acceptable to redirect billions of rand from churches and faith-based initiatives into state bureaucracy?

Should offerings given for spiritual and humanitarian purposes be used to finance inspectors, databases, and compliance offices?

This is not accountability. It is extraction.

Better, Constitutional Alternatives Exist

The South African Church Defenders (SACD) maintains that:

• State regulation of religion is unconstitutional

• Existing laws are sufficient to address abuse

• Regulation is unworkable at scale

• And it is financially reckless

Accountability does not require licensing pastors. Justice does not require registering belief. And protecting citizens does not require the state to dominate spiritual life.

Follow the Money, Follow the Motive

Whenever regulation is proposed, citizens must ask: Who benefits most?

In the case of church regulation, the answer is unmistakable. The primary beneficiary would be the state and its regulatory machinery — empowered, expanded, and enriched by funds drawn from the faith of the people.

That is why the push exists.And that is why South Africans must resist it.