Response to “Private Action, Public Benefit” Government Consultation
Submitted to Cabinet Office February 2003
The Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches is an association of 465 independent evangelical churches in the UK, founded in 1922, and registered as a charity (263354).
The Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches Limited is a trust corporation established to manage the trusts of churches which wish the company to exercise trustee responsibilities on their behalf. It currently acts in this way for 240 churches, and is registered as a charity (251395) and as a company (225717).
We would jointly like to submit the following comments in response to the consultation Private Action, Public Benefit. There are many commendable proposals in the Report, but we have restricted our comments to those aspects which particularly apply to our churches and to the independent church sector generally.
1. Introductory Background
The points made in this submission need to be viewed in the light of the theological principles and the constitutional and functional factors which define the nature and government of an independent church. It has long been established and is recognised by Christian theologians that a local church should be entitled to be independent and self-governing without denominational interference. All the churches affiliated to the FIEC and many hundreds of chapels and other churches throughout the UK believe this to be a fundamental tenet. This has affected what we say below (see Section 3) about the concept of “responsible bodies” and the extent of the oversight they may be required to exercise over individual churches.
2. Classification of charitable purposes
We support the continued inclusion of the “advancement of religion” as a category of charitable purpose.
3. Registration
Churches affiliated to the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches have not previously been required to register as individual charities. While being fully regarded as charitable, under the Excepting Regulations of 1996 they were specifically absolved from the need to register as charities, and the circumstances in which that decision was made have not changed in the years since.
The record of the FIEC churches under the Excepting Regulations has been trouble-free, and as far as we are aware none of our churches have caused the Charity Commission any concern during the period in which the Excepting Regulations have applied.
This being the case we wish to advocate that this arrangement should be allowed to continue indefinitely.
If this is achieved by giving “responsible body” status to umbrella church associations, the duties required of them must not be such as would compromise the nature of the relationship with, nor the independency of, the individual member churches. The “responsible body” must not have responsibilities which constitute “interference.” (See Section 1)
Under the present Excepting Regulations it is understood that in satisfying itself that a local church applying for affiliation is a genuine church, the FIEC has exercised the function of a “responsible body.” However, it would not be acceptable to the FIEC - and would be a breach of the fundamental principle of local church independency - if as a “responsible body” it was required, for example, to examine and approve the annual accounts of affiliated churches.
In the event of a query arising in connection with an affiliated church, there is clearly scope, however, for the umbrella body to provide information, such as identifying officers of individual churches, and to assist in other ways.
4. Presumption of Public Benefit
The Report proposes the removal of the long-established presumption of public benefit in connection with those charities which exist for the “advancement of religion,” but provides no reasoning to justify this fundamental change. Instead it seeks to reassure established religions that they will not be disadvantaged under the new arrangements. We would make the following observations:
(a) Valid reasons should be given to show that such a change is necessary.
(b) If there are no changed effects, why does the presumption need to be removed? It might be supposed, perhaps, that the answer to this is that “harmful” organisations could cosmetically introduce public worship as a front for less worthy activities, in order to claim the right to obtain registration. However the Report itself demonstrates that the removal of the presumption is not necessary to achieve this safeguard, since it states that “Demonstrating public benefit should continue to ensure that the registration of harmful organisations is avoided.” The use of the word continue shows that this power exists already, and therefore no change is needed in order to have it available in future.
(c) We support the principle that the celebration of a public religious rite should be regarded as providing a public benefit, for all the reasons given in the Report.
(d) The word “harmful” is a subjective term, and there is a danger that the use of this definition could adversely affect charities which exist for purposes which, though historically charitable, might not be currently politically-correct nor universally-regarded as being “for the public good.” In our view the regulator must act in line with fixed objective criteria, and not in response to sectional public feeling. For instance a religious organisation which exists to proselytise people of other particular religious backgrounds may be viewed as engaged in “targeting” other groups, and such “targeting” may be construed as “harmful,” given the emphasis in current thinking against all forms of discrimination. In our view such organisations should be regarded as “specialists” rather than agencies engaged in “targeting.” Proselytising has been an accepted activity for centuries and is the whole basis for missionary enterprise. It assumes that everyone equally, irrespective of all factors which differentiate them from others, is entitled to hear the message of a particular religious faith. “Specialist” organisations are not flying in the face of this principle. They will all agree that the entitlement to receive the message is universal. But in gaining a deep knowledge of other particular religious backgrounds they are extending, not narrowing, the process of spreading understanding. It is not the role of state structures to legitimise the sensitivities of individuals and particular faith groups who may not wish to be proselytised by other faith groups. They have a right not to be proselytised, but this is best resolved and regulated by the natural process of individual inter-action rather than by the machinery of state.
5. Income threshold
We can understand why, for charities which do not involve regular religious worship, a threshold figure of £10,000 for compulsory registration is appropriate. Such charities can be run by a very small number of people with little immediate contact with others able to exercise any scrutiny, and in those circumstances the increased obligations of registration are appropriate. We support this proposal.
We would argue, however, that for churches and other worshipping groups, this is much too low a threshold. With churches, where far more people meet each other and are involved together several times a week, there is nothing like the same risk of abuse, and therefore a higher income threshold, say £50,000, for compulsory registration would be appropriate.
It would be a further safeguard if this increased threshold were restricted to those churches which belonged to an approved association of churches, such as those currently covered by the Excepting Regulations, as such a link would already indicate that the church concerned had fulfilled certain criteria required for joining that association.
Submitted on behalf of the FIEC by Rod Badams (FIEC Administrator), 3 Church Road, Croydon CR0 1SG. Tel. 020 8681 7422. E-mail:
Submitted on behalf of FIEC Limited by Brian Matthews (Company Secretary), 3 Church Road, Croydon CR0 1SG. Tel. 020 8667 1821. E-mail:
