Faith, hope and charity

back to the contents page

Among the UK’s religious communities, attitudes to the lottery are varied and complex. Alex Klaushofer reports

Make sure you receive your fair share of lottery cash - take out a no-obligation trial subscription today.

Age-old prohibitions on gambling in world religions make the lottery a difficult issue for many of Britain’s faith groups. But attitudes, particularly on the ethics of applying for lottery-funded grants, are as diverse as the theological beliefs of different religious groups. Perhaps the most comfortable relationship between church and lottery is to be found in England’s established church. The Church of England has never taken an absolutist line on the lottery, arguing that the possible ill effects of gambling only come into play in certain circumstances, such as when it drains resources needed for living expenses or becomes an addiction. The benefits of this position, when it comes to applying for lottery funding, are obvious. One example is the Thornbury Centre in Bradford, which originated as a Church of England project. A grant of £1.1m from the Millennium Commission paid the bulk of the capital costs of converting a church building into a thriving multicultural community centre, with the Anglican church remaining in use.

In contrast, Britain’s second largest religious community is prohibited from any involvement in the lottery. The Koran forbids Muslims to gamble, arguing that – along with wine – it fosters aggressiveness and forgetfulness of God, and promotes an unhealthy attitude to money. Ibrahim Mogra, chair of mosque and community affairs at the Muslim Council of Britain, says: ‘That’s what dictates our attitude to any form of gambling and hence we are unable to tap into any lottery money that is available to communities.’ He adds: ‘We are at a disadvantage compared to, for example, the Christian community, who can access lottery funding. In the long run it affects our delivery of services.’ However, not all churches within the Christian tradition share the same broadly favourable attitude to the lottery. The Presbyterian Church in Wales debated its stance when the lottery was launched in 1994, and decided on a principled position against it. Two years later, a second debate at its general assembly came to the same conclusion by a majority of three to one. The church does not apply for lottery funding and believes that as a result it has lost out (this, it argues, is because funding streams have in effect been transferred from the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Office to lottery distributors). Efan Roberts, General Secretary, says: ‘The local authorities say the same – go to the lottery. There is no public money [outside the lottery], which puts people who are against the lottery in a difficult position.’ The combined effect of this loss of potential funding and the new legal

requirement to fit public buildings with disabled access by 2004 will, Roberts predicts, force the closure of some of Wales’ Presbyterian churches.

Other branches of the Christian church, while opposing the lottery in principle, take a softer line on applying for funding. A spokeswoman for the Evangelical Alliance – condemning the lottery as ‘a thinly disguised and unjust tax’ – says, ‘there is no biblical basis for relying on chance for income, either through gambling or applying to an unjust structure for monies.’ She echoes the view that funding streams have shifted to the lottery, and says the alliance does not advocate a hard line on lottery applications for social projects.

The Quakers – well known for their tradition of social provision – often find themselves caught between the demands of their faith and the practical requirements of philanthropy. While the official position involves refraining from both gambling and profiting from its proceeds, the Society of Friends recognises that individual Quakers, when working as part of a group which is applying for lottery funding, may need to make their own choices. ‘Some Friends take the view that they have to, in conscience, resign from such a group. Others feel that they are not in a position to impose their religious views on a mixed group and find some other way of dealing with that dilemma,’ a spokeswoman explains.

Other religious groups have a scriptural basis for a double position, which, while prohibiting gambling welcomes lottery funding for social projects. According to Bimla Krishna Das, General Secretary of the National Council of Hindu Temples, gambling is forbidden in the Hindu scriptures. But, he admits candidly, ‘you’ll find the majority in the UK do take part.’ Hindu orthodoxy welcomes the use of the proceeds for good causes and the Hindu community have been fairly successful in winning lottery grants. ‘There’s no problem in utilising the funding, irrespective of where it comes from, in the service of the community. It may seem a contradiction, but that’s how it is,’ says Krishna Das. For faith groups that are happy to apply for lottery funding, the requirements of the distributors can cause problems. In its Guide to Eligibility, the Community Fund rules out ‘the promotion of religion such as worship or missionary work’ as a charitable purpose. Yet in its Application Pack Guide, it is clear that the CF has to tread a fine line: ‘We welcome applications from religious organisations which want to carry out work in the community, but we do not normally fund projects that are designed to promote religion itself or where people must take part in religious services to benefit.’ 

Yet for faith groups where religious and community life are intertwined, this kind of distinction misses the point. The Sikh Gurdwara – a centre for spiritual education and community welfare – is a case in point, according to Mohan Singh Nayyar, General Secretary of the Network of Sikh Organisations UK. ‘It is not appreciated by the lottery funders that for some ethnic groups everything revolves around the place of worship –it’s more than a religious place, it’s a community centre,’ he says. ‘It’s like churches used to be a hundred years ago.’ Nonetheless, the Sikh community in Hounslow has recently braved the lottery application process for the first time. Three months ago they applied for £250,000 towards a community building adjoining the temple, and will consider the outcome as something of a test case. The Jewish community, too, finds it impossible to draw any absolute distinction between religious activity and social benefit. A spokeswoman for the Reform Synagogues of Great Britain says: ‘If we’re talking about youth work, that necessarily takes place in a religious setting.’ The requirement for lottery-funded work to be inclusive sits uneasily with the reality of religious communities, according to Leonie Lewis, Director of the Community Development Group for the largest mainstream Jewish group, the United Synagogue. ‘When the lottery [funders] ask “how does this benefit the wider community?” it’s very difficult,’ she says. ‘We need to benefit our own community. It’s always an issue for faith-based groups. We have limited commonality.’ While the distributors’ embargo on promoting worship means that capital grants cannot be used on religious buildings, the Heritage Lottery Fund has, since 1996, run a programme awarding repair grants for places of worship. Originally England-only, the scheme is being extended UK-wide and is open to all denominations. But the ruling that only listed buildings are eligible means, that for faith groups of all kinds, maintaining a roof over worshippers’ heads remains one of their biggest challenges.

What Faith groups think of the lottery