New Uses for Old Churches? Who knows best?

It is hard to pick up a newspaper today and not read about the decline of the Churches of England and Scotland and the financial pressures that they are under and not for the first time in recent history there is much debate about what to do with surplus buildings.

I grew up in Easter Ross, the land of redundant churches. Every time there was a split during the religious disruptions of the late 19th and early 20th century the dissenters would build a new church in each parish capable of holding the whole congregation whom they were sure would follow them. The people of Ross and Cromarty loved a good schism but after the merger of the Church of Scotland and the United Free Church in 1929 many of those churches faced closure.

There was one particularly austere church which we used to pass daily which had become a store for coffins during World War II. The area had been evacuated to be used as a D Day training area. On a happier note the beautiful Old Tarbat Church in Portmahomack is now saved and preserved as a Pictish Museum and Discovery Centre where our pagan passed is studied.

Both were imaginative examples of new uses for old buildings.

In the last couple of years plans are again afoot to merge congregations across the nation leaving many buildings with uncertain futures, places which have a  special hold on their congregations hearts and many of which have long been at the centre of the communities they have served.

The Church of Scotland was, and probably remains the most powerful voluntary association in Scotland today. Its social care arm, Crossreach is the largest provider in the country and other membership organisations can only dream about 14% of the populations turning up to hear its message every week, but it is a shadow of its former self. The most recent census shows that there are now more atheists in Scotland than members of the National Church.

I leave it to others better qualified by me to opine on why the church in in such decline. It is not a debate I feel qualified to engage with. My interest is in how civil society, and its relationship with business and government continues to evolve. I would only observe that churches were mostly built as community assets at a time when almost everyone regularly used them.

Of course churches aren’t  the only membership organisation in decline. The Freemasons, the Royal British Legion, Rural youth clubs, Probus and Rotary clubs are all in decline. There are also fewer places where people congregate together socially as pubs and clubs close on a weekly basis.

On the other hand there is a growth in new types of groups that chime with the way we live now. Amateur sports clubs, book groups, after school care groups, community cafes and social enterprises are just a few examples so I don’t think that the decline in traditional membership organisations represents a loss of peoples’ wish to participate in civil society more widely.

There is no one-size-fits-all answer to the question of what to do with redundant church buildings. Some old churches are historical, architectural gems which  merit restoration and preservation. Some buildings are in deprived inner-city ares where there is a shortage of community spaces. For some conversion to housing may be an option. However they should be seen as an opportunity, not a problem.

There are already many examples of old churches which are now successful museums, theatres, restaurants, galleries and even pubs. All buzzing social spaces serving their communities; often spaces where weddings, wakes and celebrations are regularly taking place.

A good example is the former Lansdowne Church in Glasgow, which has been acquired by the Four Acres Charitable Trust to create Webster’s Theatre. Their mission is to save this magnificent, architectural gem with its outstanding stained glass on a sustainable basis so the building can be preserved for future generations. 

This strategy is essentially a commercial one, running a profitable business with the profits being re-invested in the project’s work. A true social enterprise,

For new futures to be found for old church buildings the churches needs to let go of control. They aren’t building preservation trusts. They don’t run social and community enterprises as a primary function and they are not in the business of social recreation. They don’t have a monopoly on knowing how best to serve the broad diverse communities we live in. Communities themselves usually have a better idea. The church needs to have faith in wider society in its broadest possible form.

Running former churches as new social enterprises requires different skill sets and the people running them need to be able to tap into the wide plethora of talent that’s available. Church Elders may be best placed to be trustees of working churches but do they really have the skill sets to run museums, community cafes or amateur dance schools?

Successful enterprises will need to be able to attract external funding and will have to develop plans and services that align with funder’s goals. These will vary from case to case. Some major charitable trusts specifically exclude funding religious organisations so the church must distance itself from the new function.

New enterprises need to provide services that appeal to the community as a whole and being too closely associated with the church can be a disincentive to some people who could otherwise benefit in our multi-cultural society.

Different new functions also require appropriate governance structures based on what the new use is.  Some may be “for profit” businesses, some better suited as Community Interest Companies and some a Charitable Trusts. Structure follows function, not the other way round. There isn’t a a one size fits all model.

Of course churches need to have confidence in the people they either sell, give to or partner with. They have to be satisfied that enterprises have credible business plans and sound governance and they may even want to be able to recover their buildings should the plans not work out. Our churches remains a powerful national institution, albeit ones going through a period of evolution. Civil Society is evolving too but there is still a huge role for the church in an increasingly secular, pluralistic society and its redundant buildings are a major national asset.

In the words of Harry Truman “its amazing what can be achieved if you don’t mind who gets the credit”.

Is too much money tied up doing too little?

Recently Lankelly Chase, one of the country’s largest charitable foundations donating some £13 million a year took the decision to wind itself up and distribute its funds over the next 5 years.

The view taken by the charity’s trustees was that the traditional philanthropy model is so entangled with Colonial Capitalism that it inevitably continues the harms of the past into the present.

Personally I don’t understand the bit about colonial capitalism. Lankelly Chase was founded in the late 1960s on the back of fortunes made in the London property market. I fail to see where the colonialism part comes in and without capitalism generating wealth there wouldn’t be much philanthropy at all.

However I do have sympathy with view that the traditional philanthropy model based on endowment funded foundations may not always be that efficient.

Charities, including endowments should be agents for change with a clear vision of the better world they want to be a part of and a mission to get there. Some engage directly, providing services, running projects and engaging in advocacy whilst others engage indirectly funding others to effect the change they believe in.

The latter group includes endowments; charities with substantial invested capital which make grants annually representing a small portion of their value.

There are many good reasons why philanthropists set up endowments but there can also be good arguments for unwinding them. For example a wealthy parent may set up a family charitable trusts to be run by their descendants to inculcate in them a sense of social responsibility but what happens when the family is no longer interested? What about endowments set up to support organisations that themselves have ceased to exist? I once came across one established a long time ago to support indigent governesses. It couldn’t find any beneficiaries.

Far too many endowments are rather precious about themselves, seeing themselves as perpetual entities. Yes. well run ones will regularly review their mission focussing their giving on some particular problem. Frequently, in their literature you will read that “for the next 5 years we will fund charities focussing on ….”, but they will only be spending a small portion of their wealth every year. Do they really need to go on for ever? Wouldn’t they achieve far more spending down over a fixed term? They should all ask themselves form time to time what their charitable objective is (self perpetuation not being a charitable objective) and consider whether their spending commitment is appropriate to achieve that objective or whether by spending down they might improve their chances of actually achieving it.

There are also endowments, especially older small to mid-sized ones, which spend only their income, carefully preserving their capital for the future. By the time they’ve paid their auditors, investment managers and other governance costs there isn’t much left to do good. Often they seem more like memorials to their founder than vehicles for public benefit.

In the United States charities need to spend at least 5% of their funds on charitable activities each year to get tax relief. A rule like this would be viewed with horror by many smaller endowments here.

Imagine instead a world where endowments actually believed that they could succeed in making a real difference somewhere; a world where they believed in what they were doing and had faith that it could be achieved. A world where they have a clear theory of change for success to happen and, just an importantly, a clear timeframe in which to achieve it.

No Foundation, however large can sort all the worlds wrongs but the more focussed they are the bigger the difference that they can make becomes. They could be spending their money today dealing with todays problems. Allow tomorrows problems to be dealt with by future generations of wealth creators. Warren Buffet has left his fortune to charity stating that he wants his wealth spent within 8 years of his death. A good exemplar.

I’ll end with an old story familiar to many of you.

As a man was walking along a beach when he saw a young boy bending down, picking something up and throwing it into the water. As he approached closer, he saw that the boy was picking up starfish that had been washed up on the beach and, one at a time he was throwing them back into the water.

The man asked the boy what he was doing, the boy replied,"I am throwing these washed up starfish back into the ocean, or else they will die”. "But", said the man, "You can't possibly save them all, there are thousands on this beach, and this must be happening on hundreds of beaches along the coast. You can't possibly make a difference.”


The boy looked down, frowning for a moment; then bent down to pick up another starfish, smiling as he threw it back into the sea. He replied, "I made a huge difference to that one!"

Painting in Oil - Tainted donations and the arts.

August - Its Festival season here in Scotland. In Edinburgh the International Festival, Fringe and Book Festival are all underway. In Pittenweem, Fife the annual arts festival has just started. A joyous time of year for all art lovers.

It’s also the season when funding for the arts comes under the spotlight. Greta Thunberg has just pulled out of the Book Festival because it is sponsored by Baillie Gifford, major funders of the arts in Scotland and, as fund managers holders of significant investments in the fossil fuel industry. Without their support the book festival (and much else) would probably come to an end.

Whilst it is sad that one of the worlds most effective eco protestors will not be coming to Edinburgh it would be even sadder if Scotland’s incredible arts sector was destroyed by being conflated with environmental activism. Both are very important but they are separate and both are losers if they work against one another.

Last month Andy Haldane, CEO of the Royal Society of the Arts and former Chief Economist at the Bank of England accused the charity sector generally of sometimes having a rather infantilised relationship with central government with an attitude of “we’re doing all these good things so give us more money”, without backing up its claims with clear evidence and without necessarily seeking alternative sources of financing.

It’s not just the sectors relationship with government that should be under the spotlight. Charities also need to consider carefully their relationship with corporate sponsors whose patronage sustains so much of the arts world.

In 2019 the National Portrait Gallery severed its links with the controversial Sackler Trust foregoing a £1 million donation. Later that year the gallery also came under pressure and severed its links with BP who had sponsored its annual portrait competition for 30 years. The National Gallery of Scotland has also severed links with the oil giant. Hard decisions to reverse.

More recently the “Me Too” movement has shone an uncomfortable light on the fortunes made during the slave trade 2 centuries ago which still endow some of our greatest institutions. Funding for charities is coming under increasing scrutiny when its source is somehow considered to be tainted by the way in which it was first made.

At the same time public funding has come under huge pressure. International development budgets have already been slashed and funding for sectors such as the arts will not be at the top of the government priority list. When he was Culture Secretary, Oliver Dowden warned museums that they risked their public funding if they refused to display artefacts or pull down statues because of public pressure. Charities must beware of engaging in virtue signalling.

Charities are going to need to be very careful if they want to be able to both refuse certain sources of private funding and apply for public funding.

Where there is a direct conflict between the source of funds and the charity’s mission the case is often fairly simple. It would be perfectly reasonable for a cancer charity to turn down tobacco money or an environment charity to reject fossil fuel money on ethical grounds. So far so good.

Refusing donations because they are at variance with with a charity’s trustees and employees personal views (rather than the charity’s purposes purposes) gets into difficult territory, especially when there is nothing illegal about how the money has been made. Trustees must act in the best interest of the charity and turning away much needed funds, risking the ability of the charity to fulfil its work needs to be objectively and transparently justifiable.

So how should trustees deal with the question of what they consider to be tainted money?

If they are going to consider turning away funds trustees must justify the action with resilient, defensible policies. Donations need to be considered agains robust criteria established before an offer is made and not on a case-by-case basis. Trustees must leave their personal prejudices at the boardroom door.

Just giving in to the loudest pressure group is a dangerous road to go down. The National Gallery’s termination of funding agreements with oil companies hasn’t stopped Just Stop Oil protestors throwing tomato soup over Van Gough’s “Sunflowers” in the National Gallery or the Scottish Group eco group This is Rigged defacing Victoria Crowe’s beautiful portrait of The King in the Scottish National Gallery’s collection.

On justification might be that, by accepting such money, a charity might prevent even larger sums being raised form other sources. Possibly they could also argue that it could impact their ability to attract the best talent or dent their visitor numbers, effectively restricting their ability to fulfil their purpose.

In the case of the Sackler Trust trustees are entirely justified in refusing donations that have been made illegally, but what should they do about payments from endowments which, by todays standards are morally and legally reprehensible but were perfectly legal when the original fortunes were made? A clear, logical, defensible policy that is in the charity’s best interests is needed.

Policies need to be be appropriate to the charity’s mission and therefore also need regular reviewing. In the light of the war in Ukraine people have developed a far more nuanced approach to energy security. Perhaps its time for charities to review their relationship with oil too.

Just refusing donations from business and then expecting government to fill the gap isn’t an acceptable approach.

William Booth, the founder of the Salvation Army famously said “the trouble with tainted money is t’aint enough of it.”. You need to have a good reason to disagree with him.