Public Benefit of Religious Charities

AFFINITY (formerly the British Evangelical Council, which was founded in 1952) is a network of evangelical Christian denominations, church groupings and independent causes.  It is probably the largest association of exclusively Bible-centred churches in the United Kingdom, representing approximately 1,200 congregations.

The churches affiliated to the associations which constitute Affinity are situated throughout the UK, and the vast majority have fewer than 100 members. Though generally small, most of the churches are well-established, viable, respected, and active and influential within their own local communities, which vary from inner city estates to villages in sparsely-populated countryside.

In compiling our response to the above consultation, we have considered the 15 questions, and have restricted ourselves to replying to those upon which we consider we have something useful to say. The questions we have selected, and our answers to them, are set out in order below. The questions are in bold type, and our answers in lighter type.

Following our answers to the selected specific questions we have included two further observations material to the content of the Consultation Document.

You can find out more about the consultation on the Charity Commission website and from there, you can also view or download the draft supplementary guidance document (PDF) which is the source of the questions below.

Q2: Do you have any comments on the suggestion that one way of describing a coherent belief system is: “a collective belief that attains a sufficient level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance and that relates the nature of life and the world to morality, values and/or the way its believers should live”?  Do you wish to suggest alternative wording.

Q2: Religion is about meaning as well as about morality.  The word could be added after “world to” to read “meaning, morality, values...”

Q6: Do you wish to suggest any other examples of ways in which religion can be advanced?

Q6: The most common form of religious practice is the provision of opportunity for collective public worship, and the public preaching of the tenets of a religion. This core activity of a religious group is summarised among the examples given in E2 as “the provision of ... worship services.” In the list of examples in E2, we suggest that the words “and public meetings involving preaching and teaching” should be added after “worship services.”

While the list in E2 is set in the context of clarifying public benefit, there is another list of examples in C3, the section on “advancing religion.” In the list of examples set out under the heading Facilitating Religious Practice, there is no reference to the provision of worship services and public meetings involving preaching and teaching. We think that there should be, as these activities are as much at the heart of advancing religion as they are at the heart of public benefit. 

The reference in the list in C3 to “the provision and maintenance of a building used for religious practice” may seem to imply the provision of the religious practice, as well as of the building, but we are convinced that occasions for worship and preaching are such a core activity of, for example, a church, as to justify a specific reference. 

However, there is also a practical reason for specifically including it. Many established congregations hold their meetings in hired schools or halls and are not therefore “providing and maintaining a building” themselves. Even though they are not providing or maintaining the buildings, it is these organised congregations which are the charities, and which are providing the opportunity for public worship and listening to preaching.

In the guidance it is vital to separate the provision of buildings from the provision of worship and preaching occasions and to include both. This is because it is hugely for the public benefit that such buildings exist, and that worship and preaching and teaching meetings are arranged, even though only a small proportion of the population attends those worship services and meetings. The nation would be impoverished if there were no buildings and no opportunities for worship and listening to preaching. Under those conditions, religion could not advance. This must mean that where buildings are provided, and occasions arranged for worship and preaching, this must imply by definition the advancement of religion. The provision of both the buildings and the occasions for worship and preaching should therefore be included separately and specifically in the list of examples.

Q7: How can the advancement of a religion by pastoral work be more clearly distinguished from social work of a similar kind but which has no connection with a religion?

Q7: By defining “pastoral work” as work “undertaken in fulfilment of a religious ideal, precept or exhortation.”

Q8: Would it be helpful to offer more guidance on the limitations imposed on the advancement of religion by human rights and discrimination legislation? If so, in what areas in particular?

Q8: On the issue of “due respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion of others,” we suggest that two particular examples of proselytising should be given in the guidance, one of them acceptable but possibly near to the limits of acceptability, the other definitely unacceptable and clearly failing the public benefit test (see second paragraph, C4). Such examples, along with a clear statement that proselytism is in principle an acceptable way of advancing religion, and therefore charitable, would not only help to influence planned conduct by charities, but would also have the effect of allaying fears and preventing the very negative “chill factor” which always arises whenever there is any uncertainty.

It would also be useful if an example was given of a circumstance in which a legal restriction may be necessary to protect the “general health,” “morality” and “order” of society (see first paragraph, C5)

Q9: In the light of assurances given in this section, is it clear enough how our assessments in the light of current social and economic conditions will affect our assessment of organisations established to advance religion? If not, in what ways might it be clarified further?

Q9: Working in co-operation with umbrella bodies is the key to this, as they have the most effective opportunity to explain the real picture to their constituencies. The Commission’s commitment to do this is expressed sufficiently clearly and unequivocally in the third paragraph of D1.

Q10: Are there other examples of ways in which it can be shown that the advancement of religion is for the public benefit? If so, what are they?

Q11: Is the often inherently intangible nature of religion dealt with clearly enough?

Q10/11: The list of examples in E2 of the ways in which advancing religion has the potential to be for the public benefit is both full and wide-ranging. This is particularly necessary in view of the intangible nature of some of the public benefit derived, and the list of examples helpfully includes a number of benefits of this type.

Q12: Is it common for a charity for the advancement of religion to have more than one aim? Is it clear enough what the aim of an organisation established to advance a particular religion is and what activities fall under another charitable purpose? Are organisations for the advancement of religion likely to have any difficulty in demonstrating that the benefits they provide are related to their aims?

Q12: In our experience, the churches and religious organisations linked with our constituency tend to have one main aim directly linked with the advancement of their religious faith, and in our view they will have no difficulty in establishing that they exist for the advancement of religion, that they operate for the public benefit, and that the benefits they provide are related to their aims.

Further observations

[1] C2 Religions that are capable of meeting the definition of a religion

This section is unhelpfully vague and we submit that its content ought to be reconsidered.  In particular we would point out the following:

(a) We know of no basis on which the group of religions specifically mentioned should be given the dignity and status of “the nine historic faith communities.”
(b) Although the word capable is mentioned six times in this section, there is no indication at all as to what characteristic or characteristics make a religion capable either of meeting the criteria for a religion or the public benefit requirement. While purporting to be guidance, this section does not guide.
(c) The only firm point in this section is in the final sentence of the final paragraph, which relates to public benefit, rather than the definition of religion and therefore belongs to section E rather than C.

In the light of the above weaknesses, and the fact that religious definition capability is considered thoroughly in C1 and public benefit capability belongs to section E, we would recommend that draft section C2 is removed altogether.

[2] Requirements of a membership structure

In Section F3 on page 33 the statement is made that “if the religious organisation has a membership structure, we would expect to see membership open to all those (over the age of 18) interested in the aims of the organisation.”

If the Commission does have such an expectation, then it is entirely unjustified and inappropriate, and would put thousands of churches at risk of losing their charity status. 

The basis of membership in our churches is “adherence to a doctrinal basis” which is a much stronger commitment than merely “interest in the aims of the organisation.” I might be interested in the aims of another religion, but I would not expect to be admitted as a member, since I do not believe in or live by the doctrinal basis of that religion. So it is with our churches, whose governing documents stipulate the doctrines to be believed and make adherence to them a requirement of membership.

If the Commission’s “expectation” in F3 is enforced, then any religion or religious group could have its essential ethos overturned by a group of incomers who are merely “interested in the aims” but do not hold to the doctrines. This would be particularly possible in the case of a small church, such as the isolated single-figure congregation in a rural, sparsely-populated area mentioned as an example in F3.

Public benefit is not at all linked to the issue of membership, and it is unfortunate that the draft supplementary guidance in F3 appears to imply that it is. Someone who could not be accepted as a member on doctrinal grounds would nonetheless be receiving all the public benefit of the activities of the church, including the freedom to attend services of worship.

The draft supplementary guidance in F3 needs to be re-written so as to safeguard the legitimacy of a membership requirement based on doctrinal belief and adherence.

Submitted by Rod Badams on behalf of Affinity.

Rod Badams
Contact address: FIEC, 39 The Point, Market Harborough LE16 7QU
Tel. 01858 411554
Email: 

Affinity, PO Box 246, Bridgend CF31 9FD.
Administrator: Phillip Grubb
Tel. 01656 646152
Email: