How charitable is the Church of England?

The Archbishop of Canterbury has recently been embarrassed by the financial investments of his own church. While he was ranting against Wonga, the high interest pay day lender, it was revealed that his own church had invested in Wonga for a handsome return.

The church claims to have a charitable function in society and as its religious purpose recedes increasingly into the background, it is the church’s work for the poor that becomes the bedrock of its moral impetus. But what about its charitable purpose? How effective is it? 

Hypocrite or saviour of the poor?

The short answer is: we dont know. Neither the Anglican Church nor the Catholic Church ever open their books to public scrutiny to allow us to test their claim to help the poor. Whilst every other charitable organisation in the country is obligated to detail exactly how much they spend on fund raising, staff, and core charitable programmes, the churches refuse to publish these data. 

So, strictly speaking we have actually no evidence whatsoever where the money goes that we drop into the collection box at the church's exit. For all we know, they may just as well use it to pay for their gold-embroidered frocks and man-servants at the Bishop’s Palace. 

So, besides its important role to provide pastoral care, we dont know much about how effective the church is as a charitable organisation. Their charitable status hails from a time when we granted any religious organisation a charitable motivation per se, but those times are over. In fact, it has been these very established churches that have fought tooth and nail against other religious organisations to be granted the same privileges (think of Anglican Bishops sitting in the House of Lords for no apparent reason or justification but that it is an 'established church'). 

It is about time we know more about how effective the Anglican and the Catholic Church are in dispensing aid to the poor. The first step would be to open their books to public scrutiny. By becoming more transparent in financial affairs, the Archbishop Welby may just make the transformation from hypocrite to moral crusader. Perhaps. 

Democracy or protest?

For the last couple of days, there have been several hundred people camping outside St Paul's in London. They have made life very difficult for the Church of England which is not quite sure whether it should support them or seek an eviction order to have them removed from the steps of the Cathedral. 

Yesterday, the Church decided to cave in and join the protesters. It withdrew its support for an eviction notice that was sought by the Corporation of London and subsequently, the Corporation ditched the idea too. This means the camp is to stay for the foreseeable future. 

I fully support the right to protest. After all, I grew up in a country that did not allow these sort of demonstrations. So it is only right and proper that we should carefully balance the rights of protesters with public order issues and, if in doubt come down on the side of demonstrators who exercise their freedom to public assembly and protest. 

Today, however, the Archbishop of Canterbury did something that went beyond tolerating the protesters outside the Cathedral. He said he supported the so-called 'Robin Hood' tax, a tax that was mooted by the German and French government to be levied on every transaction taking place on the stock exchange. 

This strikes me as odd in several ways. Remember the outcry in the media and from left-leaning commentators when the government introduced some bills that were not in the party election manifestos? The fundamentals of democracy were at stake we were told. The government had no mandate to introduce these bills because the electorate had not voted on them in May 2010. 

Now, here is what puzzles me with the Archbishop's suggestion. He says that we should listen to the campaigners outside St Paul's. Yet I do not remember voting for them, nor do I think they have stood for elections and have obtained a mandate from the British electorate. As many commentators on the left of the political spectrum correctly remarked months ago: This is a question that goes to the heart of British democracy. Who has a mandate to make policy? 

The Occupy London camp claims that it speaks for everyone but the 1% super rich in the country. How do they know? So far, they have not produced a list of their demands. I am at a loss of whether or not they even have my support since I do not know what they stand for. Yet, they seem to think that they have 99% support in society, a claim by the way that is eerily reminiscent of the election results of the country in which I grew up where people could NOT camp outside churches. 

So, why should government listen to a few hundred people camped out on the pavement in London? The simple answer is: it should not. The right to protest is a right to make your voice heard. This is not the same as the right to make decisions on behalf of an elected government. 

The Occupy London protest makes an important contribution to the public debate, yet it should stop claiming that it represents 99% of the British people. Chances are it does nothing of this sort, and even if its (yet unknown) demands chime with the sentiments of the majority of people in this country, the protesters have no mandate to govern. Mandates have to be obtained in democratic elections. If we fiddle with this principle, we may as well outsource policy making to Speaker's Corner and every fruitcake can have a go.