In recent weeks the Church has come under withering criticisms because of untoward and even criminal behaviour alleged to have been committed by members of the Church. The Centre for the Investigation of Sexual Offences and Child Abuse, in a recent damning commentary, indicated that pastors and members of the police force are among the leading high-profile cases of criminal sexual abuse of minors in the society. This is a worrying trend, and the society has been understandably incensed at what is happening to our children.

Criticism of the Church in this regard is necessary and should not be easily brushed aside. Such behaviour cannot be excused among those who should be seen as the greatest upholders of integrity in the land. The Church often gets unnerved by such criticisms, but people have a right to expect the best standards of behaviour from those who claim to be different because of their assumed proximity to the creator.

In criticising the Church, however, one must be careful not to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. One can understand that people become more outraged at egregious behaviour demonstrated by those from whom you would least expect it, especially from leaders of the Church. But there is a tendency to use a broad brush to paint the Church and to bring everyone under the judgement that should be best reserved for the few.

Even the most ardent critic of the church and of things holy will admit that it is just a percentage — and I would suggest a small percentage — of pastors who are involved in these dastardly acts. I would further suggest that where bad conduct is seen, this assessment can also be made of people in other professions.

The vast majority of ministers take their call to ministry seriously. Many have come under temptations themselves, but they have held fast, tenaciously and faithfully, to what they believe to be God’s call on their lives. The vast majority continue to work assiduously under dire circumstances. Notwithstanding the misinformation and tomfoolery that come from prosperity preachers as to the lucrative nature of ministry, many soldier on hardly able to make ends meet for themselves and their families.

It must also be said that despite the ‘bad eggs’ in the Church, it continues to be a force for good in the society. This fact must not be lost on even the fiercest critic, neither should it be shrouded in the palpable anger that many have correctly directed at the Church for the behaviour of its members. In the areas of medicine, education, cultural and social programmes, the Church continues to contribute greatly to the progress of the Jamaican society. Vulnerable groups and individuals have continued to benefit from its social programmes. Those who often glibly argue for the demise of the Church, or the evisceration of anything religious, must ponder what will replace the Church’s contribution if their best wishes should ever be realised. They must ponder the cost to society if the Church should be crippled and rendered inoperable.

It is in this vein that one calls attention to the suggestion that the Government may want to impose property taxes on the churches. One fervently hopes that this suggestion is not based on any calculation on the part of the Government that now that the Church is in a weakened state because of its sex scandals, the opportunity is ripe to make a pre-emptive strike on it for property taxes. This would be unfortunate, as matters of such import as taxation should be considered on their own merit and not be subject to opportunistic caprice.

The issue of taxing the Church is not new, but suggesting that this can be done at this time does not appear to be coincidental with budgetary considerations, but is an attempt to exact tribute from what might be perceived as a weakened institution. If this is the Government’s thinking, it would be well advised to disabuse itself of it. There is a reason churches, as not-for-profit organisations, are granted tax-exempt status.

In the United States, for example, it is a given and churches do not even have to apply for this status as do other non-government organisations or other charitable organisations. Once an organisation is deemed a church within the narrow confines of the definition pertaining to sacerdotal (priestly, ministerial) functions, tax exemption is almost automatic courtesy of congressional approval.

But tax exemption for churches, and other charitable organisations for that matter, are appropriate for the reasons outlined above in terms of the work these organisations do in the society. Without the intervention of the Church, the Government would find it difficult, all by itself, to carry out these social and economic functions. In this sense, the Church is a useful ally and not the enemy of the State. This must not be easily set aside. Taxation, at any time, constrains an organisation in the work it does, especially when such an organisation is dedicated to charitable endeavours and is not in the business of making profit.

So the Church may be down, but it is not out. The behaviour of some in recent weeks has certainly sullied its reputation and the criticisms from the society, in general, are well intentioned in the context of bad behaviour. It is sad to say, but one would be naïve to think that there will not be a repeat of such behaviour in the future. One can only appeal to those who need psychological, pastoral and psychosocial help to get it. Such help is abundantly available both within and without the church community.

The Church has persisted throughout the years, warts and all, because its foundations do not rest on the whims or ordinances of men, but on Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever. As the great hymn of the Church reminds us, with scornful wonder the world sees her oppressed, by schisms rent asunder and by heresies distressed. But with all of this, the saints continue to keep watch. It is the vigilance of the faithful that will win the day, with God’s help.

Dr Raulston Nembhard is a priest and social commentator. Send comments to the Observer orstead6655@aol.com.