Mal Fletcher comments on the politically correct actions of the Charity Commission

Mal Fletcher

A couple of weeks ago, I sent a text message to a friend in St Louis. I was appalled by what I was seeing on TV, as a super-storm with the innocuous name of Sandy pounded American's east coast.

I simply asked whether my friend was involved in the relief effort. Immediately, I received a reply: 'We're already strategising about responses to the east coast.'

My friend, Jeff, is the founder and director of an NGO called Service International, which has brought practical relief to thousands of people in the wake of several disasters, including Hurricane Katrina. They've also invested many thousands of dollars, over a number of years, to help regenerate foreign cities such as Kosovo. As it happens, Jeff is also the pastor of a large and highly respected church. Whilst they don't constitute a 'mega-church' in the manner of some American churches, members of his congregation are hugely supportive of the NGO's work.

Jeff's story is typical of the common juxtaposition between religious belief and works of charity. In America, religious groups often lead the way in promoting justice, aid and poverty relief. The same is true in other parts of the world. Word Vision is the world's largest NGO. It started through the passion of one man who, because of his religious convictions, was determined to make a difference to the problem of poverty. A couple of months ago, I spent several hours advising the senior strategy team of World Vision Australia, on the subject of likely future social change. I was deeply impressed by their knowledge of shifts in technology and cultural attitudes, but even more so by their passion for their cause.

It has recently come to light that the British Charity Commission has warned the Church of England and other churches that they may be denied charitable status. This, says the quango, is because it does not believe that promoting religion - any religion - necessarily promotes 'the public good'.

For religious groups in this country, the Commission's response may provide a valuable opportunity for reflection. Doubtless, there are some religious organisations that, having started with great intentions, are no longer serving their communities in terms of meeting practical or social needs. Over time, some groups turn inward, focusing more on fulfilling the needs of their members than those of the community they were set up to serve. This, of course, is true of groups outside of the religious fold, too. It is something that can easily be remedied, however - perhaps especially among faith groups, whose members will often, in the cause of public service, go beyond the call of duty because they feel 'called' to do so.

That said, the Commission's stance will also provide cause for concern - and not just for the many adherents of Britain's religions. For a start, it seems to suggest a mindset that sees administration as an end in itself. It appears to be a case of administrators getting above themselves. Yes, the tribunal is charged with defending the law as it relates to the registering of charities; but its mandate does not extend to ignoring long-held conventions when it comes to the definition of 'the public good'.

Our history suggests that religious organisations often do the work that governments cannot - or will not - do. Prior to the last election and in the early days of his government, David Cameron made a lot of noise about the concept of the Big Society. His avowed intention was to encourage and empower individuals and community groups to initiate solutions to social problems, rather than relying on government to do so.

The idea was lampooned by some political observers at the time, but it is sound. Government is not, nor can it ever be, the answer to every problem. Behaving as if it is will only lead to higher levels of social fragmentation and an attitude in society of 'every man for himself'. It will also rob people of the rewards that come from taking responsibility for others. Churchill remarked that, 'The price of greatness is responsibility'. A great society is one in which people feel responsible for their fellows. It is one in which local groups build alliances for the common good, while still being able to retain their particularities of belief.

At its best, government facilitates this type of activity, creating both proscriptive and protective laws to enable these groups to flourish. At its worst, government - and its ancillaries - blocks the way, by removing the links between public service and the personal beliefs that, for many people, provide a motive for action. Religious groups usually do community work because they are religious; they see serving other people as a way of serving God.

The Commission's stance also seems to suggest a predilection toward secularism as a worldview. In response to an application from the Plymouth Brethren - a relatively small Christian group - a lawyer representing the tribunal wrote: 'This decision [to deny charitable status] makes it clear that there was no presumption that religion generally ... is for the public benefit, even in the case of Christianity...'

In this country, history suggests otherwise. Whether one is religious or not, a cursory look at British history will reveal that the religious groups, particularly the Christian church, have contributed much to the public good. Doubtless, religion has also contributed to social conflicts of various kinds - especially when it has been co-opted by wily political forces, or has allowed itself to become too closely aligned with ultra-nationalism. Nevertheless, historians have long acknowledged the part that churchmen and women have played in fighting for unpopular causes and, in the process, raising public awareness and changing government policy.

Among the most celebrated examples are John Wesley and William Wilberforce. Three minutes walk from where I live, in our village, is a house where Wesley preached. He is best known as the father of Methodism, but was also a keen advocate for social change, particularly among the poor. Some historians have credited him with having kept England from the type of bloody revolution taking place in France at the time, because of his emphasis on personal transformation and self-discipline rather than social revolution.

Wilberforce, the prime mover behind Britain's anti-slavery movement in the late-eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, was a committed church member who, at one point, thought seriously about becoming a priest. His courageous moral stand as a member of parliament not only saw the banning of slave trade within the British dominions; it sparked a process that later led to the abolition of slavery in the Americas. Wilberforce was inspired and encouraged by the much older Wesley. Both men saw calling for social reform as a natural extension of their personal religious beliefs.