The holy war of faith-based funding

As a holy war heats up between those who favor government funding for faith-based organizations and those who do not, let me suggest what may be at the root of the conflict and propose a truce.

What sounds like a bold new initiative is actually an expansion of 4-year-old legislation signed by President Clinton. Known as the Charitable Choice provision of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, it directs government to include faith-based organizations in the competition for federal money.

The intent was to broaden the spectrum of services to the needy while protecting both the rights of recipients and the mission of providers. By opening the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, President Bush has raised the profile of this legislation and signaled his desire to incorporate the faith community as part of government's "safety net." At the same time, he has stirred an important national dialog on the role of religion in public life.

As a minister and the founder of Project Four, a private social services organization, I am especially interested in the response of the religious community to the Bush proposal. A recent study by the Cato Institute cautions faith-based organizations with warnings of regulation, coercion and compromise that will surely accompany federal dollars.

This calls to mind the scene from It's A Wonderful Life where George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) is offered a too-good-to-be-true job by the villain, Potter. Frank Capra turns the camera on their hands as they shake on the deal. That is the defining moment as George draws his hand away, studies it for a moment and realizes how close he came to making a deal with the devil. This is ow some religious leaders view the extended hand of government.

But others see government money as a means to an end and welcome the new partnership. They are the "Grass Roots Josephs," says John DeLullio, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, "who struggle daily to serve the poor (and) should not continue suffering discrimination. It is not fair to praise their unheralded good works to one breath and tell them to go on making bricks without star in the next."


These helpers of the poor and needy stand in tradition of Dwight L. Moody, the famous 19th century evangelist who, when scolded for accepting "tainted" money from mobsters, countered, "The only trouble with tainted money is there t'aint enough of it." After all it is the love of money, not money itself, that is at the root of all kinds of evil.

The friendly fire in this war of words demonstrates the ambivalence with which people of faith view this new proposal. Fact it, when it comes to what we now call social work, people of faith have been on the outside looking in for so long, we're not sure what our role is.

While not presuming to replace government, we are confident that we can leverage federal dollars for better results giving taxpayers a better return on their investment. As partners we move beyond the arrogance of not needing each other and on to a mutual respect.

What we know for sure is that demonstrating true compassion that really helps the needy is what we do best. We specialize in matter of the heart, and we're convinced that many of our "social" problems are heart problems.

It is for this reason that religious leaders have taken two positions. We are excited by the thought of expanding our ministries but troubled to think that those ministries might be compromised by government control.

If ever there is a good and just war, this is it. Those on both sides of the issue care deeply about compassionate ministry and will do it with our without government's help.

The faith-based inItiative is a promising development, and those who urge President Bush to abandon it should think twice before throwing out the baby with the bath water. Those who are ready to shake on the deal should make sure the devil is not in the details.


(Concord Monitor July 22, 2001)