Religion can help, but not replace, the state

The question is what the voluntary sector, whatever its denomination, can do on its behalf

The question: Can religion fill gaps left by the state?

The answer to the question of whether religion can replace the state is obviously, in this society, no. We have a plethora of services provided one way or another by agencies of government, both central and local, and even by not-for-profit organisations, such as housing associations, which are heavily state regulated and largely state funded. So the state will always have a role in the funding, and, to some considerable extent, in the provision of services.

However, religious organisations do have a very good record in, say, the provision of care for older people (for example, Jewish Care or Methodist Homes for the Aged). Many organisations that appear to be non-denominational either have a religious foundation or are still religious in their thinking. The Children's Society is Church of England. Barnardo's has a historically strong Christian message and foundation. The Salvation Army provides services for many people no one else wants to bother with, and all of these are in receipt of government funding to some extent.

So, while it seems unlikely that they could wholly replace the state, they can, at best, ask some of the questions no one else is asking, such as why there is a revolving door for so many people in prisons and psychiatric care. They can provide care of a very high – often higher than the mainstream – standard. They can up the ante. They can provide services only to their own group or more widely. In the United States, where receipt of funding from local government sources means that some religious bodies have to be open to all comers, I was hugely impressed by Jewish Community Housing for the Elderly in Boston. The residents are largely Russian, Chinese and Jewish older people living together in harmony, all doing Tai Chi, and all learning from one another. It requires inspirational leadership, but they have that. I have seen other services provided there that have a strong religious ethos of care, but not one that is specific to a single faith, despite the organisation's roots. Yet the people who run the board are largely Jewish, and the value they place on being the best in the business is astonishingly high.

So, for me, the question is not whether religion can replace the state, but whether in fact we will see more not-for-profits and voluntary organisations providing services, paid for but not provided by the state. And then the question is whether the fact that they are faith-based makes a difference. In the case of some groups, it will. We know, for instance, that working with sex offenders as volunteers seems largely to be done by people of faith, who provide circles of support. Other people do not seem to want to know. Hospices, now non-denominational as well as denominational and multifaith, often have a religious flavour to them as well as a wide acceptance of and curiosity about people's spirituality at the end of life. Instead of either/or, the question for the UK should be what the voluntary sector, whatever its denomination, can do on behalf of the state, and specifically what it can do to improve the standards. And the other question will be whether volunteers who are people of faith bring anything different to the table. People volunteer for all sorts of different reasons, and faith is only one of many. Some want company and others want a reason to get up in the morning. Some want something to put on a CV and others want to make the world a better place. My own view is that religious people often bring a particular commitment, and a huge drive, often to difficult issues. But I also believe that people of no faith can do just that. So my hope is that we'll encourage variety in provision, and that religious organisations will be part of the mix, asking the difficult questions, speaking out for the dispossessed, arguing that we do have a duty to make the world a better place, but certainly not claiming that we, and we alone, can do it.