When a Scottish cancer charity was inveigled by an evangelical group called Christian Voice into turning away money raised on its behalf from last Friday’s performance of Jerry Springer — The Opera, there was general (and genuine) horror.

Cancer charities need all the money they can get.

The acclaimed Maggie’s Cancer Caring Centres would have received a financial boost to their plans to open more units. With £3,000 on offer it would have been a small boost, but it would have been something nonetheless.

From another perspective, if performers want to donate money from their performances to good causes — or even to bad ones — that is their choice. In Britain we uphold people’s right to do what they wish within the law, and giving money to a cancer charity is not only within the law but also a thoroughly moral and worthy thing to do. On the face of it, accepting the money was a no-brainer.

However, I’m not so sure. There is, after all, such a concept as “tainted” money. We meet it first in the New Testament when Judas tries to return the 30 pieces of silver he received for betraying Christ, and the chief priests cannot put it back in the treasury because it is “blood money”.

Tainted money is not just a historical concept. If a drug baron were to offer the Scottish executive enough funds to build a state-of-the-art hospital in every town, we would expect a firm refusal.

It should neither surprise nor horrify us that for groups such as Christian Voice, money made through entertainment that they believe to be not just tasteless and nasty but also blasphemous, harmful and evil comes under the category of tainted. Not only that, but when a show such as Jerry Springer — The Opera apparently tries to create a more positive image for itself by linking up with a reputable charity, many people will see red.

Indeed, those who campaigned against the show being aired on BBC2 were not all ardent Christians or prudes. Many were just individuals who believed that certain boundaries had been unacceptably breached.

If Christian Voice wants to suggest to Maggie’s Centres that they should think hard before accepting any money from Jerry Springer — The Opera they are within their rights to do so. What’s more, if Christian Voice really believes the money to be so badly tainted that its acceptance might put off other potential donors, it is its duty to say so.

And there I stop. Giving a message is one thing; taking direct action like this is another. Had Christian Voice simply articulated its legitimate concerns and shut up, those in charge of Maggie’s Centres could have made up their own minds about the money. But this Christian Voice — as so often with certain types of evangelical group — just had to go further. Much further.

Maggie’s Centres were not quietly offered a suggestion but faced the real threat of a protest outside their headquarters, the very last thing an organisation devoted to helping cancer sufferers could bear.

In the face of such pressure, what other decision could they have come to but to reject the money? Maybe they would have rejected it anyway, but we will never know because they were not given that chance.

All we do know is that, in the end, Christian Voice proved more contentious than the show to which it took exception. They have taken a perfectly good message and distorted it by their actions, albeit not to the extreme taken by those deranged Christians (ironically called “pro-lifers”) who shoot abortionists.

In his lifetime, Christ certainly got angry. It was he who tossed the moneylenders out of the temple. But he didn’t resort to militant protest or to shooting them. He gave them his message and left them to decide what to do.

Times Recommends

• UK regional accents thrive against the odds
• ‘Scarecrow’ wind farms put rare birds to flight
• What an anti-climax: G-spot is a myth