Living Water of Washington DC. A Christian Outreach Ministry.

The Home Front: Rallying the Armies of Compassion

LWWDC’s operations depend solely on the contributions of private donors such as yourself. We have thoughtfully and prayerfully considered how accepting government funds might impact us, and opt to be privately funded. Below, Scott Fine discusses the “fine print” of the Faith Based Initiative, which forbids Christians from proselytizing, worshipping or teaching the Bible at the same time and place that they carry out federally funded activities.

Overview

Imagine that Congress has directed the government to develop and fund a massive national program to rehabilitate drug addicts. Later, however, it is discovered that small community organizations have a higher rate of former addicts staying clean after treatment. In fact, many graduates of these smaller local programs not only overcome their addictions, but use their talents and assets to help others in turn. Given these results, shouldn’t Congress transfer the funds from the failing Federal program to the successful community programs?

The 104th Congress apparently thought so. In response to increasingly obvious shortcomings of many Federal welfare programs, Congress passed in 1996 the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. The Act transferred primary responsibility for the administration of these programs from the Federal Government to the states. In particular, it contained a provision that allows states to contract social services with religious organizations, or to “allow religious organizations to accept certificates, vouchers, or other forms of disbursement …on the same basis as any other nongovernmental provider without impairing the religious character of such organizations, and without diminishing the religious freedom of beneficiaries of assistance funded under such program.”1

The “Charitable Choice” provision paved the way for President Bush’s effort in 2001 to “rally the armies of compassion” through his Faith-Based Initiative. Welcomed by some, the Initiative has many opponents, both without and within religious communities. Those without argue (unsurprisingly) that providing Federal funds to religious organizations violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” (frequently, yet incorrectly, cited as the basis for enforcing separation of church and state). Those within, however, wonder if Federal money—and the strings attached—will ultimately strip faith-based organizations of their religious character or at least lead them to compromise on sacred principles, converting them into little more than community-based social welfare offices.

The argument over the proper separation of church and state has become as much of an ideological issue as a legal question. The Faith-Based Initiative is only one front (and a relatively quiet one at that) in a multi-pronged war between groups holding differing perspectives on the proper extent of government involvement in spiritual matters.

But is the fear justified that religious organizations choosing to accept Federal funds will be stripped of their religious identity and forced to compromise on sacred principles? More specifically, how should Christians view this matter? What does the Bible have to say about this matter? If fear is justified, what alternatives are available to these organizations when private donations do not cover operational expenses?

The Faith-Based Initiative

The 2001 Faith-Based Initiative is founded upon two executive orders issued by President Bush rather than a new law passed by Congress. For those not familiar with the difference, an executive order is rather like an interoffice memorandum, providing guidance from management on how specific tasks are to be performed. Thus, the president can issue an executive order when he believes a Federal agency is implementing a law incorrectly, or he can issue an executive order to make administrative changes within an agency. President Bush issued an order of each type to implement his Faith-Based Initiative. The executive orders created an Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives within the White House and directed five Federal Departments to establish such offices as well.2 Together, they were instructed to review the Charitable Choice provision and identify Federal regulations that violated the provision by discriminating against community and faith-based organizations applying for Federal funding. Afterwards, the offices were to develop guidelines to remove those barriers and ensure that faith-based and community groups applying for Federal funds received the same consideration as other applicants.

Thus, opportunities for faith-based organizations to receive Federal funding appeared to increase. However, accepting Federal money also means accepting strict limitations on how that money can be used. In his speech announcing the signing of the executive orders launching the Faith-Based Initiative, President Bush described it thus:

Charitable Choice does little more than reflect the prevailing commitment to neutrality and nondiscrimination. Moreover, Charitable Choice is carefully designed to ensure the religious liberty of recipients of services, forbidding any religious discrimination against them and mandating a secular alternative for those who do not want services from a religious provider. Charitable Choice also preserves government accountability. It honors the constitutional prohibition on the establishment of religion by requiring that government funds not be spent on inherently religious activities like sectarian worship or proselytizing.3

To stay within the contrived bounds of separation of church and state, Charitable Choice strives to achieve a delicate balance in order to maintain the religious liberty of both those providing social services and those receiving them. The outcome is a set of vague and sometimes contradictory stipulations. Faith-based services are permitted to provide government services in houses of worship; are allowed to display religious “art, icons, scripture, and other symbols” in areas where government services are provided; and are generally exempted from prohibitions against discriminating against employees on the basis of religion.4 To protect the religious liberty of service recipients, Charitable Choice “continues to ban the use of government funds for ‘sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization’” and mandates a secular alternative be provided.5

After careful review of applicable Supreme Court decisions, the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives issued the following guidance to organizations:

A faith-based organization should take steps to ensure that its inherently religious activities, such as religious worship, instruction, or proselytization, are separate – in time or location – from the government-funded services that it offers. If, for example, your church receives Federal money to help unemployed people improve their job skills, you may conduct this program in a room in the church hall and still have a Bible study taking place in another room in the same hall (but no Federal money can be used to conduct the Bible study). Or a faith-based social service provider may conduct its programs in the same room that it uses to conduct religious activities, so long as its government-funded services and its religious activities are held at different times. If you have any questions or doubts, you should check with the official who administers your Federal funds.6

Similar provisions apply to situations such as a staff prayer before commencing a session or a situation where a service recipient asks a provider to share about his or her faith. These are acceptable so long as those present do not feel obligated to participate in order to receive service. 7

Process over Principle

In addition to the direct limitations that come with accepting Federal money, there are indirect consequences that may be of even greater concern for faith-based organizations. The most serious of these is the risk that an organization will lose sight of its priorities, concerning itself more with maintaining the cash flow than changing lives. Ed Gotgart, former president of the Massachusetts Association of Nonprofit Schools and Colleges says of government funds, “It becomes almost like heroin. You build your program around the assumption that you can’t survive without government money.”8 For the Christian, this is a real breach of faith in the God who owns the cattle on a thousand hills. Worse yet, this faithless assumption can become self-fulfilling since private donors may reduce or discontinue contributions due to the perception that government money will cover most or all of the organization’s expenses.9

Funds recipients devote countless hours to developing their applications and fulfilling contract reporting requirements, time that could have been used in more fruitful ways. Worse, many organizations begin to divert funds from their programs and send it back to the government in the form of either direct lobbying or fees to lobbying associations.10 Soon these organizations can find themselves paying more attention to the Washington Whispers section of US News and World Report than they do to the guiding whispers of the Holy Spirit. Trust in God becomes replaced by trust in the state, an “addiction” to Mammon rather than service to the Lord, entreaty to the state for “survival” money rather than faith in God.

There is danger, though, even for the most truly faith-based of Christian organizations. Since the president’s Faith-Based Initiative is founded upon executive order rather than law, it is simply the president’s interpretation of how the Charitable Choice provision can be applied. The president has taken a relatively liberal view of the provision, as noted above in the guidance issued by the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. But some critics argue that allowing faith-based organizations to use Federal funds for the secular aspects of their operations increases the money they have available to spend on religious activities. In this view, government money is, for all practical purposes, being used for religious activities. Critics legitimately point out that all sorts of activities are masked by clever accounting techniques.

These critics can challenge the President’s interpretation in court. If the Supreme Court were to rule in their favor, then the protections promised by the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives would become void. Faith-based organizations in possession of Federal funds would be required to comply with stricter requirements, leading to even greater compromise.

At present, it does not appear that pending legislation will succeed in codifying the president’s protections in law. The CARE Act of 2003 sought to do so and versions were passed in both the House and the Senate by overwhelming margins. The differences between the two bills were not resolved, however, before the Congress adjourned in December 2004. The measure was reintroduced in 2005 11, but it has been reduced to a tax reform provision designed to stimulate private charitable giving.

What is the alternative?

The short answer: faith.

First, scope of operations is not always indicative of effectiveness. In fact, as the government itself demonstrates, the larger an organization becomes, the more bureaucratic and inefficient. If the focus is on the number of people serviced, then bigger is better. But if the focus is on the number of lives changed, then it is the passion of the service providers that is important, and this is more likely to be at its highest concentration in a smaller organization.

Finally, for Christian faith-based organizations, the term “faith” should indicate that they trust God to provide for the needs of their organization, as He has promised.12 Why look to the Federal Government to provide money? Faith means placing oneself in the will of God, which means waiting on His timing, surrendering to His plans. If God has not raised up Christian givers to fund the expansion of a program, the director of a Christian organization should very carefully consider whether expansion is really in God’s plan. When one is full of zeal, it can be difficult to understand why God imposes limitations. Yet, God limited the scope of even Paul’s ministry. 13 Paul’s letter of thanks to the Philippians for their donations should remind leaders of the peace and strength that comes from learning to be content with God’s provision.14

Scott Fine

(Go to Part 2 of this article.)

ENDNOTES

1. Public Law 104-193, sec. 104a(1)(a) (1996).
2. The Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, and Labor.
3. “Rallying the Armies of Compassion.” Office of the President of the United States. Washington, DC: GPO, 2001. Available at whitehouse.gov/news/reports/faithbased.html; accessed July 31, 2005.
4. Tanner, Michael. “Corrupting Charity: Why Government Should Not Fund Faith-Based Charities.” Washington, DC: The Cato Institute, 2001, p. 4. Available at cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp62.pdf; accessed July 31, 2005. It should be noted that contracts may carry specific clauses that prohibit and supersede this general permission to hire employees based on shared religious beliefs.
5. Ibid.
6. “Guidance to Faith-Based and Community Organizations on Partnering with the Federal Government.” White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Washington, DC: GPO, 2003, p. 11. Available at whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/guidance_document.pdf; accessed July 31, 2005.
7. Ibid, pp. 11-12.
8. Laconte, Joe. Seducing the Samaritan: How Government Contracts Are Reshaping Social Services. Boston: Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research, 1997, p. 41.
9. Tanner, p. 11.
10. Ibid., p. 10.
11. The bill is contained within S.6, the Marriage, Opportunity, Relief, and Empowerment (MORE) Act of 2005, a larger welfare reform and family tax relief measure. The measure would expand the charitable donations one can deduct from Federal taxes; most notably, it would allow individuals to deduct charitable donations from their gross income in addition to claiming the standard deduction. A good summary can be found at independentsector.org/programs/gr/CAREAct2005.html.
12. Matthew 6:7-8, 25-34; Luke 12:22-31; Romans 8:26-28.
13, Acts 16:6-10.
14. Philippians 4: 6-7, 12-13.