What is a 'Faith-based' Group?
Although Eido is not a faith-based organisation, much of our work focuses on charities and faith-based groups.
But what does it mean to be a faith-based group, and what, if anything, differentiates these groups from other non-profits? This question is particularly relevant in light of recent debate about the usefulness of the “faith-based” term. Despite critiques from some religion and social impact theorists, we believe that “faith-based group” continues to be a useful distinction which (when properly handled) can provide conceptual clarity and guide future research. In short, we think it is a unifying term for an often under-appreciated but highly influential sector of society.
Faith-based groups: no longer a useful category?
Many of the critiques of “faith-based” as a term come from the field of international development, and use slightly different terminology (“faith-based organisation” instead of “faith-based group”). Two articles have been particularly influential. In the first piece, Jill Olivier, a professor at the University of Cape Town, argues that discussing faith-based organisations (henceforth “FBOs”) relies on (1) a religious/secular divide developed in the Global North and (2) has often been conflated with advocacy for the role of religious organisations in poverty alleviation. In the second article, Norwegian development theorist Hans Morten Haugen expands on many of these points, and underscores that (3) research on the supposed advantages of FBOs in combatting poverty has not been sufficiently rigorous.
Perhaps these articles’ most important point, however, is that (4) distinctions between religious and secular organisations can be fuzzy – and drawing sharp lines between them is not necessarily beneficial to religious organisations. As Haugen points out, FBOs may have both religious and secular partners, and secular NGOs may, in turn, have a significant number of religious partners. Furthermore, well-defined contrasts between religious and secular organisations may not always exist in the Global South; Olivier, for example, records the experience of a Ugandan workshop participant who was asked to distinguish between religious and secular organisations and concluded that ‘all organisations in Uganda are faith-based’.Conversely, speaking of “FBOs” risks obscuring the differences between religiously inspired organizations. In this context, Haugen advocates for scrapping the faith-based term, and instead referring only to charities by their immediate religious affiliation: i.e., as Christian organisations, Hindu organisations, Muslim organisations, etc.
Reconsidering “faith-based”
These arguments are compelling, and point out real weaknesses in how the term “faith-based organisation” has so far been used in the religion and poverty alleviation conversation. However, we do not think they spell the end for the FBO term. Although Haugen and Olivier’s arguments deserve serious consideration – and we will examine many of them below – we see sound theoretical and empirical reasons for continuing to refer to faith-based organisations and groups.
Theoretical Reasons: “Faith-based” as Probabilistic Claim
First, having a category for faith-based organisations allows us to consider commonalities between charities inspired by different faiths. While Olivier and Haugen are correct that distinctions between faith-based and secular entities can be blurry, and rely on a Northern religious/secular divide, it is nonetheless useful to have a term that allows us to consider what characteristics (for example) Christian and Muslim organisations share. In their pioneering work on religion and social impact, Gerard Clarke and Michael Jennings define faith-based organisations as ‘any organization that derives inspiration and guidance for its activities from the teachings and principles of… [a] faith’. In practice, this definition does not entail that there will be extensive common ground between any two faith-based organisations, but it does imply a probabilistic claim: that religious teachings will be more likely to influence these organisations than their secular counterparts. Although this claim needs to be held lightly, as secular organisations may also be influenced by religious considerations, we think it remains a useful distinction.
When used carefully, the idea that religious organisations may be more likely to be influenced by certain considerations helps to capture several important aspects of FBOs’ identity. Many FBOs, for instance, tend to share a concern for spiritual impact that is not necessarily reflected in secular organisations. Faith-based organisations may wish to encourage believers to deepen their relationship with God, to educate new believers, or even to win new adherents to their faith. While not all religious organisations are interested in spiritual impact, the faith-based term highlights that this is a probable place to look for organisations that are concerned with these types of transformation.
Similarly, while there may not always be sharp distinctions between faith-based and secular institutions in the Global South, the religious/secular divide is often a reality in the Global North. Northern faith-based organisations may thus experience common difficulties in relating to secular societies and states. One of Eido’s partner organisations, the Religion Media Centre, exists to address just this divide, improving coverage of religion in the UK by facilitating conversations between journalists and religious communities. In this context, creating a category for “faith-based organisations” allows representatives of different faiths to recognise shared challenges and consider how to navigate the religious/secular divide together.
Empirical Reasons: FBOs and Comparative Advantage
In addition to the theoretical reasons discussed above, there is also the under-researched question of whether there are empirical reasons to place FBOs and secular organisations in separate categories. Do FBOs possess comparative advantages (or disadvantages) with respect to other organisations? Various theorists have posited that FBOs might be able to mobilise the moral commitment of ordinary believers, capitalise on religious networks, or play a role in shifting worldviews. Alternatively, critics of religious organisations have expressed concern that FBOs might be unduly rigid in their approach to poverty alleviation, or create disunity within mixed religious communities.
However, as sceptics of the FBO term emphasise, the quality of these studies remains poor. Most work on religious organisations has consisted of literature reviews, with a smattering of qualitative studies, and almost no quantitative studies directly comparing religious and secular organisations. Although some intriguing evidence has come to light, including a meta-analysis published this year showing links between FBOs and substance abuse recovery, and a 2012 study on the underperformance of faith-based microfinance organisations, there is simply not enough hard data on the comparative advantages of FBOs. Instead of considering this reason to abandon the term, however, we suggest that it should provide powerful motivation for more rigorous studies. If we abandon “faith-based” as a category, we will never learn more about how faith-based and secular organisations differ. On the other hand, if we invest in research on FBOs, we may be able to pursue better-quality conversations on what religious organisations can contribute to social impact.
A Way Forward?
We therefore suggest that there is a continued role for the terms “faith-based organisation” and “faith-based group” in describing organisations that are seeking to make a social impact. We think these terms highlight revealing commonalities between organisations of different faiths, and allow for future research into differences in the performance of faith-based and secular organisations.
However, we also acknowledge that there is a need to employ this term more sensitively than it has thus far been used in the religion and social impact discussion. Olivier and Haugen are right to criticise advocating for religion’s role in poverty alleviation without citing solid evidence. Likewise, religious organisations should not be considered solely as FBOs, thereby ignoring their other identities and isolating them from the rest of the social sector. Perhaps most importantly, future use of the FBO tem will need to take into account the differences between faith-based organisations and the fact that distinctions between religious and secular organisations may be less clear in contexts, such as the Ugandan example mentioned above, where religion permeates public life.
Eido’s role
We want to conclude with some thoughts on why we have chosen to engage with this debate. First, Eido is committed to self-reflection. Although we are fascinated by faith-based groups, we want to make sure that continuing to understand charities and non-profits in these terms is beneficial. Second, we want to be part of creating the meticulous, well-constructed research that will give this debate the empirical grounding it deserves. Although we believe that it continues to make sense to speak of faith-based organisations, we also are committed to evidence, and therefore willing to allow our opinion on the topic to be shaped by future empirical studies as well as the theoretical considerations mentioned above. We think that the role of faith in poverty alleviation deserves serious study, and we see a natural role for Eido Research in providing the evidence that will supply this debate with the theoretical and empirical grounding it requires.
REFERENCES
1 Jill Olivier, “Hoist by our Own Petard: Backing Slowly out of Religion and Development Advocacy,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies, no. 72 (2016).
2 Hans Morten Haugen, “What is Gained and What is Lost by the Faith-Based Organization (FBO) Term?” Mission Studies, no. 36 (July 2019).
3 Olivier, “Hoist by our own Petard,” 7.
4 Gerard Clarke and Michael Jennings, “Faith-based Organizations and International Development: An Overview,” in Development, Civil Society, and Faith-based Organizations: Bridging the Sacred and the Secular, ed. Gerard Clarke and Michael Jennings, (Basingstone: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 6.
5 Clarke and Jennings, “Faith-based Organizations,” 2; Severine Deneulin and Masooda Bano, Religion in Development: Rewriting the Secular Script (London: Zed, 2009); Sabina Alkire, “Religion and Development,” in The Elgar Companion to Development Studies, ed. D. Clarke (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2006), 502.
6 Emmanuel De Kadt, “Should God Play a Role in Development?” Journal of International Development, no. 72 (2009); Deepa Narayan, Robert Chambers, Meera Shah, and Patti Petesch, Voices of the Poor: Crying Out for Change (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
7 Olivier, “Hoist by our own Petard,” 8.
8 Brian J. Grim and Melissa E. Grim, “Belief, Behavior, and Belonging: How Faith is Indispensable in Preventing and Recovering from Substance Abuse,” Journal of Religion and Health 58, no. 5 (2019): 1713-1750; Roy Mersland, Bert D’Espallier, and Magne Supphellen, “The Effects of Religion on Development Efforts: Evidence from the Microfinance Industry and a Research Agenda,” World Development 41, no. 1 (2012): 145-156.
