Feature Article

Damned if you do

A report commissioned by the Church of England this week accuses the Government of religious illiteracy. One of its authors here highlights how, for example, the denizens of the Charity Commission fail to understand the nature of Christian charity

Among the great hallmarks of mainstream Christian charitable activity is the fact that it is offered freely and unconditionally to those in need. Christians working for the relief of poverty and social justice are motivated by their faith but usually do not advertise the fact. They often operate alongside people of different faiths and none who share their objectives.

This is a concept easily understood and accepted by most Christians but not, it seems, by officials at the Charity Commission responsible for new draft guidelines affecting charities. Under the proposals, parishes and religious orders risk losing their charitable status if they directly support peace or environmental groups, run a hospital, deliver meals on wheels to frail elderly people or help run a women's refuge unless they heavily brand these activities as Christian. At risk, therefore, is any kind of activity which can be construed as for the common good without being amplified by religious language.

The guidelines have been issued to help charities to comply with the 2006 Charity Act, the first wholesale updating of charitable law carried out since the seventeenth century. At its core is a new requirement that all charities have to demonstrate their "public benefit". The guidelines state that "advancing religion" can be considered a public benefit but only within very narrow confines.

They state that "advancing religion does not mean advancing a political purpose in the name of religion, nor does it mean advancing a particular viewpoint which is held by a religious person or which perhaps refers to extracts from religious texts which serve to promote the viewpoint."

To be charitable, "advancing religion" must not undermine the national interest, social care must be explicitly religious or else it is not "religion" but something quite different, namely "the relief of poverty", and sacred texts must never be used as the basis for a political campaign. What is more, criticising Western culture will no longer be said to be "advancing religion".

Not surprisingly the guidelines have provoked an outcry among religious organisations which see their status as charities under threat together with the benefits that status brings. This includes large discounts in business rates and an entitlement to claim back the tax from donations.

Stephen Morgan, Chairman of the National Conference of Diocesan Financial Secretaries, says bishops praising John Paul II's preaching against Western materialism could fall foul of the guidelines.

"Simply doing the right thing is no longer, in this guidance, considered a religious virtue. It has to be emblazoned in Christian lights. This statutory dualism undermines incarnational principles ... It's no wonder the National Secular Society have praised it ... The commission is not neutral ... It has a view of what constitutes good religion , a theology, and it's enforcing it," said Mr Morgan.

Catholic charities are not alone in expressing their reservations. At the recent YMCA national conference, Andrew Hind, Charity Commission chief executive, was questioned on the guidance while several Anglican charities plan to raise their concerns in the coming weeks.

"One wonders", says William Hampson, a leading evangelical human-rights campaigner, "where the work of St Paul's Cathedral providing the defence funds for Nelson Mandela at the Rivonia Trial would have fallen under this guidance? Or current congregational attempts to defend human rights in Burma ... or our earlier condemnation, on scriptural grounds, of the sale of Hawks to Indonesia ... not to mention the rather important Jubilee Debt campaign."

The commission's "theology" goes further. All religious charities, it says, must "describe the impact of their beliefs, doctrines and practices and show that they are beneficial". Most religious charities are happy to accept this, as they are convinced that they are useful citizens. However, given the complaint from the Conservative Party (and many others) that Christian charities are being discriminated against in their dealings with the state, the extent of the regulator's religious literacy will be key.

An "evidence-based approach" is the commission's perceived solution to this difficulty - it says it will seek evidence from others outside the organisation to either confirm or refute what is stated by the charity. The implications for religious authority are striking not least as the commission will have to determine definitively the theological words by which practical actions and benefits are described.

It would appear that the architect of the Charity Act himself, Ed Miliband - Secretary of State with responsibility for charities - is unaware of the implications of the Charity Commission's draft guidance. Speaking at the recent Labour Party Spring Conference, he became the first Cabinet minister to endorse the successes of London Citizens' Living Wage Campaign. The organisation has its roots in the churches and mosques of East London. The campaign grew from an explicitly religious retreat. Since its launch in 2001, London Citizens has persuaded numerous companies to improve wages for the lowest paid. Trade unions joined this faith-run and -sustained movement only once the focus turned to the public sector.

When those clergy met for their retreat they were in no doubt that they were doing something that "advanced religion". In launching their campaign, harnessing religious tradition and sacred texts, they drew on a religious vision. When they mobilised their congregations for a very specific set of political purposes and a specific hourly wage, it did not occur to many of them that they were ceasing to be "religious" or were now doing some "secular" form of charity advocacy. And yet the campaign is not drowned in religious language nor branded as "doing God". Meanwhile it would only have been weakened if the commission had told the congregations involved they were misinterpreting their legal status as "religious charities".

Over the coming weeks Christians and others have been invited to feed back to the Charity Commission. Some are already saying that if they do not get satisfaction they will be looking to legal challenges on the one hand, and for a legislative correction from Ed Miliband, on the other. Will he be able to persuade the commission to broaden its view? Only time will tell.