As a person of faith, I have taken more than a casual interest in the new White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives established by President Bush. On the surface, this sounds like a good thing for both the government and religious organizations. The government can shift responsibility for caring for the poor and marginalized in society to religious groups, and religious groups can gain access to funding to make their social services more effective, comprehensive and long-term.
But such a blurring of the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state raises several significant issues.

First, some background. While the office is new, the concept - “Charitable Choice” - has been around for several years. It was embedded in the 1996 welfare law (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act), and was strongly advocated by then-Sen. John Ashcroft and then-Gov. Tommy Thompson, who granted special favor to faith-based organizations in the welfare-to-work contracting process in Wisconsin.

The provision was also included in the Community Services Block Grant in 1998 and a child health bill in 2000. Since then it has been attached to a series of bills related to juvenile justice, fatherhood initiatives, home ownership, child support, and youth drug and Even-Start programs. In all these programs, as in the new White House Office, the provision requires that states contracting for delivery of social services include religious congregations and faith-based organizations as eligible contractors.

For decades before this recent surge of interest, however, faith-based organizations have received government funding for emergency food, child care, youth and housing programs, and USAID relief and development programs overseas. Now, though, for the first time, the Charitable Choice provision allows churches, synagogues and mosques to receive funds directly, without establishing separate non-profit organizations known as 501(c)(3)s.

This new wrinkle goes beyond expressing openness to faith-based social service providers, to actually seeking to foster the religious distinctiveness of the faith-based organizations or congregations. The former restriction on explicitly sectarian services has been removed, although congregations must distinguish separate funding sources for religious and social services. Preference for candidates with a compatible faith perspectives is now allowed in hiring practices.

The intent of the Bush administration is to funnel federal funds to pervasively religious institutions for social services like drug rehabilitation and pregnancy counseling. It is actively working to eliminate existing protections against tax funding for ministries that integrate religion into social services.

In my mind, this new initiative raises the following issues and pitfalls:

(1) Funds will likely be made available to the most politically connected churches.

(2) Minority religions very likely will be excluded.

(3) Groups receiving federal funds may try to convert service recipients against their will to the religious beliefs and practices of the provider.

(4) Some groups could qualify for federal funds who discriminate in hiring based on religious identification.

(5) Faith-based organizations may become bogged down in a maze of compliance and eligibility requirements and a sea of paperwork which would interfere with their ministry and service priorities.

(6) Churches may discover that a Charitable Choice initiative that purports to be a partnership turns out to have only the government determining the terms and conditions.

(7) The long-term result of such merging of government and church in this coalition could become the “establishment of religion,” which is specifically barred by the Constitution.

(8) In a New York City faith-based project, the contracts include a “gag clause” that prohibits the contractors from evaluating the program or expressing public opinions about it without permission. Could such government-religion partnerships compromise the church’s prophetic role in truth-telling and whistle-blowing?

(9) Thus far, the Charitable Choice regulations prohibit discrimination in the provision of services because of religious beliefs, with the state required to arrange for an alternative service provider if a client objects to receiving help through a particular faith-based organization. But what happens when no alternative exists, or when some congregations refuse to offer interfaith social services? Some religious groups have already expressed concern that interfaith work would “water down” the Christian message, and have suggested that Jews and Muslims go to their respective social service agencies.

(10) Could the legislation and the Office be used by some groups as a way to promote certain forms of Christian morality on such issues as abortion, homosexuality, and blaming the victim?

(11) When Charitable Choice proponents insist on preserving religious distinctiveness in employment practices, could this lead to discrimination in hiring staff and selecting clients based on race, sex, or sexual orientation? If so, this would be a clear violation of present civil rights legislation.

(12) Can faith-based organizations really fill the huge gap left by reduced government programs and funding? It is estimated that in order to operate the social service programs that have long been carried by the government, the annual budget of each church, synagogue, and mosque would have to increase by $225,000. Currently, the annual budget of the average congregation is only $100,000. What would happen to both recipients and providers if churches accept the service task and the money, and then the funding is gradually reduced or withdrawn? Is the proposed shift of responsibility to faith-based organizations really a smokescreen for gutting social service programs and leaving the poor in the lurch?

In light of these concerns, it seems to me that religious communities would do well to re-examine their ethical principles and ponder whether the invitation to partner with the government in Charitable Choice ventures complements or contradicts their beliefs and traditions. Rather than letting themselves be seduced into a questionable partnership, churches, synagogues, and mosques might better devote their energies to raising questions like these:

What is happening to the people who have been removed from the welfare rolls? Are they making successful transitions from poverty to self-sufficiency? If they are working, are they receiving a living wage? If not, how are they surviving? Is affordable housing available? When will the minimum wage be raised? Why is the gap between CEO salaries and the wages of labor increasing exponentially? Who is benefitting and who is hurting as a result of plant closures, employee cutbacks, and the transfer of jobs to developing countries? Who would most benefit from the proposed tax cut and elimination of the estate tax? Is affordable, accessible, quality child care available for all children whose parents, particularly single mothers, have to work? And many more.

Whatever happens with Charitable Choice and the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, religious groups must insist that the government not reneg on its responsibility to be involved in job creation, maintaining welfare recipients’ access to public education, ensuring that no child goes hungry, and providing safety-net programs for all who need them.

(The writer, who lives in Waynesville, gratefully acknowledges the assistance in preparing this article provided by the organization, The Interfaith Alliance, and by an article by Cathlin Baker, “Charitable Choice: When Government Funds Church Outreach,” in the Winter 2000/2001 issue of RESPONSE magazine.)

 

Back to Top
The Smoky Mountain News