Editorial
It is time Christians learn to read things between the lines
Opinion | Editorial | John S. Shilshi | 13-Nov-2024
The recent statement from the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court, proposing a regulatory body to oversee church properties akin to temple boards and waqf boards for Hindus and Muslims, undoubtedly raises concerns. However, given the number of controversies Christian churches face in managing the affairs relating to properties, this should come as no surprise to the Christian community. On the other hand, it was inevitable; the only question was when or where it would occur. Church property disputes have always been a source of contention. However, over the past two decades, the number of such disputes has significantly increased and continues to rise. So much so that many have already reached the corridors of the judiciary, while in some cases, the controversies have led to the forceful closure of church premises in order to maintain peace. In both scenarios, the harm to the affected churches is incalculable. The situation fosters a strong negative perception that greed, not virtue, overwhelms Christian administrators.
Across Christian denominations, disputes over church properties typically arise within churches that are wealthy, possess assets, or generate a regular income that exceeds the necessary funds for ministry or administration. An intriguing fact is that the same churches had passed through without differences for years. How then suddenly in recent past disputes have come to the fore, that too, so seriously that either of the contesting parties had to knock the judicial door? It would need sincere and honest introspection. Traditionally, Church administrations pin a great deal of confidence in priests and pastors, expecting them to uphold a high standard of integrity. Therefore, the need for strict and well-structured laws and regulations has never been a pressing issue. The denominational books therefore continued with several loopholes, leaving plenty of rooms for the unscrupulous few to manipulate, exploit, and escape. In other words, the rule books were insufficient to establish responsibility and enforce accountability. And when amicable resolutions are no longer the options, the judiciary becomes the ultimate destination.
Justice N. Sathish Kumar, hearing the dispute, says, “Christian institutions make significant public contributions to education and healthcare, so it is important to safeguard their assets and funds; therefore, there is a danger of the depletion of funds by vested individuals who are in authority without a regulatory framework for church endowments." Absolutely spot on! It's a well-intentioned perspective, to be sure. But in a time when Christian persecution itself is all-time high, can Christians really risk outside intervention through legislation framed and enacted by the union or the federal authorities?
What is the way forward, then? The time is more than ripe for every Christian body to understand the imperatives of the law of the land. To ensure this, churches have to rethink on people with theological specializations to formulate the church's property rules. The need to infuse professionalism is more acute now than ever, because every rule book adopted by the church must always be in conformity with the spirit of the national law to which the church belongs. Therefore, unless the current practice of pastoral community dominating all decision-making bodies is reconsidered and reviewed, churches, irrespective their denominations shall continue to face problems. On matters as tricky and sensitive as property, inducting an equal number of knowledgeable people from the secular world in any decision-making body will do a world of good in preventing outside intrusion into church affairs. However, the question remains: will churches demonstrate the prudence to take this extra step?
In matters of land and assets too, churches need to learn lessons. Often, Christians' records and bookkeeping fall short of expectations. The revenue offices' records never synchronize with the land records of many churches in the country. Therefore, we witness situations where many are accused of encroachment, despite having legitimately acquired the land for their church and other institutions. In other words, their attitude of taking things for granted, coupled with their lack of knowledge, leads them to be perceived as encroachers on their own property. Similarly, they maintain the bookkeeping for incoming cash and expenditures in a highly unprofessional manner. Therefore, even though they spent money on noble activities, there were instances where suspicions of manipulation arose.
Returning to the Madras High Court's proposal, the churches bear sole responsibility. Will they change hearts and adopt a system credible enough to avoid outside intrusions, or will they continue to maintain the status quo and invite others to look into their affairs? Only time will tell.
Leave a comment
