Churches are a ‘soft’ touch when finance is involved.

They are in the business of saving souls and providing assistance to the community where government cannot/will not help, not in the business of high finance.

Churches rely on handouts/collections from their members.

Their membership comprises persons from every walk of life.

It is the only ‘club’ where everybody is welcome.

Churches all have committees to ‘run things’.

The committees comprise members of the church and are usually recommended by the pastors, elders, prominent persons, etc. to serve and are elected by the congregation by ballot.

Accountability for the ‘established’ churches eg. Roman Catholics, Anglicans/Episcopal, United, Adventists, Baptists, is normally from a ‘higher’ authority the churches belong – in the case of the Anglicans it the Diocese.

In the case of St George’s Anglican Church, where I attend, they are a member of the Diocese of Jamaica and the Cayman Islands and copies of the accounts are sent to the HQ (in Kingston, Jamaica) and once a year they receive a visit from the hierarchy – Lord Bishop accompanied by other dignitaries including the financial adviser – normally a banker/accountant.

I know the United Church has a similar system as does the Roman Catholics and I am sure the others I have mentioned do too.

The local person who looks after the accounts is often someone who is a member of the church and has some knowledge of accounting or at least bookkeeping although that is not always the case.

Remember, it is very unlikely anyone doing these tasks get paid.

With the ‘free’ churches that do not have to report back to an outside overseer the accountability is ‘at home’.

In the Church Covenant it is a “call for a membership of mutual accountability in a local body of believers suggests the need for believers to make a covenant with one another. This is simply implied in agreeing to hold each other accountable to walk in a manner pleasing to the Lord.

“The church covenant is a written summary of biblical practice that a church agrees should be the basis of its accountability. The covenant allows for freedom of conscience in areas where the Bible is not definite in its guidance. The covenant focuses on principles, especially as they relate to our corporate life together.”

To put it simple, “Christians are to be members of churches where they are held accountable to walk in a way that pleases the Lord. If there were no relationship of accountability, it would be meaningless to ‘tell it to the church,’ because the offending person would simply say, That church has no jurisdiction over me’.”

The Bethlehem Baptist Church Covenant says it very well:

“(2) We engage, therefore, by the aid of the Holy Spirit, to walk together in Christian love, to strive for the advancement of this church in knowledge, holiness, and comfort; to promote its prosperity and spirituality; to sustain its worship, ordinances, discipline, and doctrines; to contribute cheerfully and regularly to the support of the ministry, the expenses of the church, the relief of the poor, and the spread of the gospel through all nations.”

Of course, accountability in all churches does not mean that the church will ever be perfectly pure in this age!

A number of our local churches are being asked to provide a formal accounting of money they received from the government’s former Nation Building Fund sent from Cayman Islands Auditor General Alastair Swarbrick’s office.

Tell us where the money has gone is essentially being asked.

The National Building Fund that was the idea of former Premier McKeeva Bush has been the target of much comment with accusations of corruption even coming from one of the present government’s ministers, Marco Archer, now Finance Minister.

When he was campaigning last year he said, “Absolutely, unequivocally, I believe that the money that was given to those churches amounts to nothing more than corruption.”

However, the corruption he was referring to was not corruption within the church but the way the money from the National Building Fun was handed out.

Why did only certain churches get the money and why the huge difference in the amounts?

What were the criteria?

The accusation was that only the churches Bush was a regular attender at received the bulk and it coincided with the lead up to the May 2013 election.

Bush correctly said, “There is nothing wrong with government giving money to church and community programmes.”

What is wrong, however, is if the churches that receive the money must be accountable for what they did with the money, so must the government of the day, or the person who made the decision, Bush, be accountable as to why they were the recipients.

It has to be a two-way track.

Because of the backlash that followed the grants some of the churches gave back either a significant portion or all of the Nation Building Fund money they received.

Of course, all this now being described as an attack by the Auditor General on our local churches, is also an attack on Bush.

According to a report in the Cayman Compass today (31) Bush said “he believed the probe by auditors was another attempt by the gubernatorial-appointed office to smear him prior to the start of his criminal trial, which is expected later this year.

‘“That auditor general received a contract extension so he could carry out [former Governor] Duncan Taylor’s agenda,” Mr. Bush said. “They’re doing all they can to try and influence a jury before my trial.”’

I hope the Auditor General is not expecting audited accounts from the churches. If he is he will be attacked.

We are all accountable and I believe it is to God.

God is not Bush, the Auditor General, nor the Church.

If the church is under attack it will survive and I also believe so will Mr. Bush.