Theological training will not offer the desired solution

By Anne Tendo

Early last month, the Ministry of Ethics and Integrity convened a meeting at Ridar's Hotel in Seeta, Mukono to validate the Religious and Faith-based Organisations (RFBOs) Policy. As expected, participants (except specially selected members of the press) were prohibited from publishing the proceedings of this meeting and a report on the deliberations is yet to be published. This validation meeting is the latest activity in the Government's attempts steered towards regulation of religious faiths in Uganda.

This Policy is intended to lay a foundation for the religious societies and places of worship Bill which was initially presented by John Baptist Nambeshe, and rejected by Parliament in January 2019; owing to its controversy. Clause 4 of the policy suggests that religion is a lead cause of some of the most perturbing societal problems, including marital breakdown, domestic violence and emerging cultic unregulated establishments in Uganda. Credence to this argument is drawn from the tragic Kanungu incident involving a one Joseph Kibwetere, who led at least 778 followers to death in an inferno over two decades ago. The Directorate of Ethics and Integrity (DEI) proposes a myriad of solutions to address these challenges, including compulsory theological training for all leaders of existing faiths in Uganda.

To begin with, there is glaring evidence that theological training in and of itself is not a viable solution to the challenges the policy and proposed law seek to address. This training only succeeds in blocking the much needed opportunity for spiritual leaders to truly experience and relate with the God they purport to follow and serve, by limiting it to a mere classroom experience. Whereas one may argue that theological training has its basis in the Bible as is evidenced by the existence of Pharisees, it is also clear that none of these was ever celebrated as a great proponent of Christianity. Moreover, not all the celebrated spiritual leaders in the Bible namely; Moses, Daniel, the Prophets Jeremiah, Isaiah, Abraham (who is the father of the faith) and ultimately, Jesus Christ, undertook any such training. Even the Apostle Paul who was highly trained in the law had his greatest spiritual experiences and instructions following an intimate spiritual walk with the Lord.

Secondly, and without prejudice to those who have acquired it, theological training does little (if anything) to curb the vices that society has, unfortunately, come to attribute to the religious denominations to which the perpetrators of these vices belong. One may indeed argue that the moral theology classes are tailor-made to address such issues. It may also be argued that these dogmatic classes alongside Bible study and the other forms of theology, can and will be tailored to curtail the emergence of such vices. It is a trite norm that before one is ordained as a priest in the Catholic Church, he ought to undergo compulsory theological training and yet priests in this church are cited in cases of sexual abuse and acts of sodomy against children, not only in the Vatican, but world over. In Uganda, early investigations into the recent murder of Brother Mugarura while at Kyambogo University have revealed that he was sexually abusing a male beneficiary for years. Suffice to note also, that the renowned occult leader, Joseph Kibwetere, was a former Catholic Priest before his deviation.

It is clear that theological training did nothing to solve the issues cited above, which are, but a pinch of the challenges facing our society. It would, therefore, be unfair to castigate the Catholic Church for individual erratic behaviour, which usually arise from personal choices.

Similarly, it is unfair for one to attribute any erratic behaviour portrayed by a member of a certain faith to the entire membership of this faith. These individuals should be dealt with in their personal capacity and the penal laws in this country are sufficient to address the above crimes. The Ministry of Ethics and Integrity should focus on enlightening the general public about the available adequate avenues for prevention and redress under the law.

Lastly, this move to enforce theological training is an indirect political move to dictate what spiritual leaders ought to say or not. Moreover, this would provide a "lawful" opportunity for the 'deviants' to be arrested and leave room for puppets in religious authority. It should be noted that real spiritual leaders obtain their instructions from God.

The assumption that theological training can address the societal ills can only be equated to extreme forlornness. Rather than embark on such futility, the State would make better strides sensitising the masses about the existing lawful redresses.

The writer is a lawyer at Crownel Co. Ltd