The Buddhist Society seems far from anxious about the imminent changes to charity law. Bryan Appleyard, its vice-president, is confident that his society, one of the oldest Buddhist organisations in Europe, can easily fulfil the Charity Commission’s new “public benefit” requirement.

“There is no problem with us,” he says. “The Buddhist Society is not a closed order and it’s not a monastic order . . . We run courses and classes which are not just for members but for nonmembers as well.”

His optimism is shared by many charities convinced that they can prove “public benefit” and retain their charitable status. But not all religious charities are so confident. Of the responses to the commission’s recent consultation nearly 60 per cent were from faith-based charities — a telling statistic in itself.

The Charity Act of November 2006 removed the presumption that charities relieving poverty or advancing education or religion are of benefit to the public. The commission is consulting charities over the public benefit requirement before the new definition is fully enforced in early 2008. The chairman of the Charity Commission, Dame Suzi Leather, and the chief executive, Andrew Hind, say: “All charities must have charitable aims (or ‘purposes’) which benefit the public. This is known as the ‘public benefit requirement’. The Charities Act 2006 reinforces this requirement by explicitly including public benefit in the definition of a charitable purpose.”

One influential charity, the Lawyer’s Christian Fellowship, welcomed the reforms but also raised some concerns: “Overall, we are of the view that there should not be undue focus on the public benefit criterion . . . Charities do not ‘produce’ public benefit. They have purposes that are for the public benefit. Public benefit must be present in all charities, but where the advancement of religion is the purpose of the charity, the focus should be upon fulfilling this purpose rather than the production of public benefit.”

Also worried is the Board of Deputies of British Jews which acts as an umbrella group for many Jewish groups. “Judaism is not a proselytising religion and the process of conversion required by some sections of the community can be lengthy and difficult,” the board says. “Some activities therefore may not be immediately or obviously accessible to the wider public.”

However, many religious charities are losing no sleep over the new draft legislation. The worry that it might be some vast and out-of-control secularising tool is unrealistic and fanciful. Anne-Marie Piper, of Farrar & Co and chairman of the Charity Law Association (CLA), says: “While there is clearly a great deal of concern within religious communities about the way in which the public benefit test will be applied to religious organisations, the reality is that there is case law to protect them and, so far as I can see, no desire within the commission or elsewhere to challenge the status quo.”

In the CLA’s own consultation with religious groups it identified nine strong areas where faith, in practice, can show public benefit. These include the promotion of ethical and moral codes, supporting people through “key stages” such as birth, marriage and death and by actively demonstrating community and fellowship.

In the discussion of public benefit one potential grey area is the value of a charitable community’s prayer life. Case law, dating back to 1949, deemed that the enclosed praying Carmelite community in Gilmour v Coats did not demonstrate public benefit. This drew on a ruling of Lord Denning who said: “When a man says his prayers in the privacy of his own bedroom, he may truly be concerned with religion but not with the advancement of religion.”

When the new legislation hits the ground next year many monasteries and charities focused on prayer may have to prove a more material benefit to the public, in light of this case law. But this poses the question whether something as intangible as prayer and the monastic life can be said to fulfil public benefit.

Mr Appleyard puts the dilemma clearly: “A group of hermits may appear to be doing nothing for the public, yet it could be said they are an inspiration to others — these are very difficult areas to define.”

One monastic community that has got round the issue is that of the Benedictine nuns of Holy Trinity Monastery in East Hendred, Ports-mouth. The prioress, Sister Catherine, says that in addition to their monastic and prayerful duties her nuns contribute to public benefit by producing audio books for the visually impaired. However, she expressed her concern over other religious organisations with less demonstrable public good.

Further consultations are planned in November before the new public benefit requirement will come into force in early 2008. Dame Suzi has told Parliament that the new legislation was not a “drive to secularise society”. She said that the commission was not trying to “change the tenets of religious faith” and that few charities were in danger of losing their charitable status. All the same, many will be watching the developments closely. Bishop Paul Richardson, of the Newcastle diocese, admits his apprehension: “The situation at the moment seems benign,” he says, “but who knows what the future holds?”