Crusader War College

The Faith Based Initiative. Good or bad?

A debate at Rantburg turned to the issue of the Faith Based Initiative of President George W. Bush. The Initiative, essentially, gives public funds to private and religious organizations to perform social work. Obviously, restrictions would have to be placed on the funds to prevent their use for non-social work, such as preaching and converting people, to stay within the strictures of the First Amendment.

I'm against the initiative, and for very unique and Christian reasons. Secularlists who are reading this post may not find the reasons personally convincing, but trust me, I will be "talking turkey" to Christians, who will find them "interesting" and "pertinent".
-----------------------
Firstly, secular money flowing into a religious ministry for its social work will have the same bad effect on the ministry that secular power had on the early Catholic Church. Regardless of the "legality" of the Donation of Constantine that supposedly gave the Western half of the Roman Empire for the Pope to rule, rulership WAS given to the Church at that time.

And it was an unmitigated disaster.

Despite the saintly qualifications of the first Pope, who probably was worthy of the role, the Papal throne quickly attracted power seekers who had no truly pious regard for the Church or the religion. They MAY have had a regard and respect for the Christian religion, but for many, it became a fifth or sixth concern. What became a higher concern, and soon concern number 1, was getting and maintaining power "For the glory of God".

Yeah. of course.

I assure you, one of the ways to kill an effective ministry is for it to get so successful and get so much money that the founders lose sight of the Gospel and concentrate on the cash flow. If the founders resist the temptation, then their successors may not. How effective is the Reverend Jesse Jackson at being a preacher of the Gospel? How many people has he converted and transformed? I daresay most readers have enough thumbs and big toes to count the number.
-----------------------
The second problem with the Initiative is that it confuses effects with causes. My fellow Christians, you KNOW that the success of ANY Christian ministry is dependent solely on the power and grace of God, and the fervor of the members to follow His advice and seek His counsel in prayer. I speak as one who worked in a very successful prison ministry, having an 85% success rate in preventing recividism and getting many families OFF of welfare during the notorious "Reagan Recession" of the early 1980's. You cannot imagine how embarassing it was being praised for "our success" with the prisoners, when we knew, and repeatedly said, that our success was due to God's grace and what Paul called "the power of the Gospel."

Could we have done more if we had more money? Yes, I believe so. BUT, if that money was dedicated only to the social portion of our ministry, while erecting barriers between it and the preaching and counseling portions, then I KNOW our effectiveness would have gone down, our time and dedication to our mission and to our God diluted by concerns of using the money rightly. A religious ministry with a social outreach is a synergistic proposition, like two organs, each dependent on the other and feeding the other. The required legal and organizational barriers required to properly use federal money in the right areas and prevent leakage to funding "prohibited" activities WILL kill the effectiveness of the organization as a whole, because the success of the social arm is not dependent on money, but on God's power and providence that comes with being faithful in preaching the Gospel and seeking His guidance.

We Christians started and ran the first Hospitals, "for the glory of God" of course. Eventually, hospitals became such socially important institutions that they eventually spun off from the Church and became businesses or branches of the government, taking government money "to help more people." of course. Secularists want everyone to forget that fact of origin, but it is true.

We Christians started and ran the first Universities, "for the glory of God" of course. Eventually, universities became such socially important institutions that they eventually spun off from the Church and became businesses or branches of the state government, taking government money "to help more people", of course. Secularists want everyone to forget that fact of origin, but it is true.

We Christians started and ran the first welfare programs, "for the glory of God" of course. Eventually, welfare became such an effective vote buying mechanism, er socially important institution, that it eventually spun off from the Church and became a branch of state and federal government, using tax money "to help more people", of course. Secularists want everyone to forget that fact of origin, but it is true.

The liberals, of course, don't want to admit the mess that they've made of formerly successful Christian institutions. Thank heavens that the conservatives at least have one foot in reality. Let's give Dubya credit for realizing that the "thousand points of light" are really distant suns, some far more capable of giving more light and heat than the "sun" of government if brought closer. Give him credit for realizing who's being really effective in transforming and improving lives.

However, it sure seems to me that the Church has a damnably poor record of holding on to its own institutions once government money gets involved. Do we really want to lose the Salvation Army? Prison Fellowship? Samaritan's Purse? World Vision? There's the Paul Anderson Youth home here in Vidalia, Georgia. Do I want THAT institution to lose its effectiveness, given its past stellar record at transforming lives? Surely you know of a similarly successful religious organization in your area or in your church denomination that may superficially "benefit" from federal money. Do you want to lose THAT organization?

Been there, done that. Do we really want to go through that AGAIN? I don't!
-----------------------
The third problem is the issue of the money itself. The Apostle Paul wasn't kidding when he said that the first concern of the government is gathering taxes, with maintaining tranquillity and executing justice a poor second.

Let's be blunt. Federal money is involuntary money, taken by force. Let's not be fooled by the rhetoric of the Infernal Revenue Service that our tax system is "voluntary." If you don't believe me, then practice some "Faith Based Initiative" funding on your own by routing your taxes to your favorite social organization, and see if the IRS says, "Hey, that's okay with us! We were gonna do that anyhow, but you beat us to it and got more bang for your buck by cutting out the middle man! Good Job!"

Riiight.

Let's state the obvious again: For the Christian, the Christian Church, and parachurch Christ-based ministries with social programs, the end does NOT justify the means. Do we honestly believe that God doesn't see the money trail? That He doesn't see our fellow taxpayers sweating over their income tax forms, trying to make heads and tails of an arcane tax code, motivated from a fear of punitive fines and imprisonment? That He can't see the electrons that represent money earned by sweat and blood flowing from a hard working two-income family's bank account into the coffers of the State? That He can't see those same electrons being transformed into a check or different electrons that flows back into a ministry that should be looking to HIM for their support, rather than a State whose sustenance comes from the exertions of IRS Auditors, Agents, and judges totally outside of the civil legal system? Do you really think we can fool HIM? Trust me. Been there, done that, can't be done.

The history of the Church is stained with the blood of people shed when the sword of the state was at the command of the Church. Forgive me if I worry about what the future history of the Church will say when the money of the state, taken by force from our unbelieving neighbors, is put into her pocketbook.
-----------------------
The fourth problem is that federal money brings federal control. Let there be a few Jim Bakkers, Jesse Jacksons, and Al Sharptons, and as sure as the sun comes out tomorrow, you'll see a mountain of regulations miraculously rise up out of the sea and be cast onto the backs of the undeserving. It doesn't matter if only 1% of them do it, and the other 99% are faithful: We're talking about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT here. Even the normally rational and realistic Steven Den Beste of USS Clueless goes spastic and believes the liberal media unquestioningly when it comes to "the abuses of the Christian religion".

Now, I will grant that the present administration and Congress will not allow such a situation to arise. However, unless you believe the rantings of Democratic Underground about the coming reign of King George I of the Bush Kingdom of the United States of Amerikka, they won't be around forever to make sure sanity always reigns in the bureaucracy that will spring up to administer the Faith Based Initiative. (Assuming, of course, that sanity reigns in ANY government bureaucracy.)

The federal government goes in cycles, and although things may be going "our way" in our eyes right now, there will come a time when it won't be going "our way", and then there will be the devil to pay. An administration and Congress willing to keep their hands off private organizations and businesses will eventually be replaced by one that will interfere in those same organizations and businesses if given a chance. The refusal to take federal dollars has always served as a firewall between the State and volunteer organizations formed by the people. The Boy Scouts barely escaped the tender attentions of the Clinton Administration when the Supreme Court ruled that the organization was outside the control of the government because benefitting from a national park wasn't the same thing as getting money from the government directly. I don't care if a "born again" Supreme Court overturns Abortion: "He who pays the piper calls the tune" is a principle that is higher and more ancient than the Constitution, and it WILL be heeded and obeyed if any organization takes federal money but objects to federal regulations. Heck, what makes anyone think that a federal-funds-taking volunteer para-church organization has the right to object and win if the 50 individual states have, at one time or another, challenged federal regulations after taking federal money, and have uniformly lost in the FEDERAL Supreme Court?
-----------------------
To conclude, I think that the Faith Based Initiative is a bad idea, because it will eventually corrupt and destroy any truly Faith based organization that does any good in the social sector. A TRULY faith based organization should rely on faith in God and on the power of the Gospel for its provision. It does so by being faithful to its contributors, using the money wisely and staying on mission and in contact with God. Any money it receives from fellow Christian brothers and sisters should be regarded as holy and treated as such, since God obviously spoke, in one way or another, to that very Christian to send them that money. Only with attitudes like this on both sides of the giving equation shall the good works done in accordance to the Divine Will will be truly effective.
-----------------------
Well, what role SHOULD the Government play in solving the problems of low funding of effecitve Faith based organizations, so that their benefits can continue and spread?

Only in one way: reformation of the tax code.

I have three modest proposals for such changes.

1. No income percentage limits on contributions. There used to be a time when a citizen could give 90% of his money to the Church and be taxed on and live on the remaining 10%. There were citizens who actually did this. Instead of giving such people a medal, Congress and the IRS slinked off and put a cap on how much a good citizen could give away. THAT is a perversity, a sore affliction as The Preacher would say. Such a cap needs to GO.

2. Better deductability rates on contributions. One of the inconvenient truths that the liberals seek to bury and keep out of sight was the fact that charitable contributions shot sky high during the Reagan Presidency. (So much for the "Decade of Greed!") Tax policy had much to do with this. I do not recall the exact amount, but in one year the first X dollars given to charity was 100% tax deductible on the EZ form! You didn't even need to itemize! Let the first, say, $2000 be 50% deductible. Better yet, to get the rich involved, let the first 3% be 50% deductible.

3. Order IRS Auditors who audit the returns of people who "give too much away" based on these reforms, and who find that all the paperwork is in order, to get on their damn hands and knees and kiss the right big toe of these fine citizens.

(Since I'm not totally unreasonable, I'm willing to compromise on one of the above three proposals.)

The only people standing in the way of these reforms are the congresscritters, composed (right now) of psuedo-righteous liberals who think it a virtue to be generous with other people's money taken by force, and supposedly pro-life, Religious Right Conservatives who should know better about the dangers of the feds saying to ANYBODY, much less church organizations, that "we're here to help you." Let the Government change the tax code so that the American people are not penalized for doing what they do best: being the most lavishly generous people that the sun ever shone on.

Posted by ptah at April 26, 2003 09:42 PM