President Bush’s plan to fund "faith-based
initiatives" risks blurring vital distinctions
by the Rt. Rev. Andrew D. Smith, Bishop, The Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut
When the President announced his intention to direct federal funds for social program toward "faith-based initiatives," the proposal certainly caught my attention.
Many of our current church outreach ministries, including Jubilee ministries, certainly could use an infusion of cash. My first reaction to the President’s plan was to see the blessing of significant money to fund social programs which we as a church value. And imagine what new work we could do!
On the other hand, I fear the plan will modify traditional church-state relationships. In the United States, church – and I trust that "church" really intends to mean institutions of all faiths – and the state – which means "government" – live in a healthy tension, a carefully defined partnership that is mutually beneficial when both keep their boundaries clear.
Our government recognizes institutional religion through such benefits as tax exemption and a First Amendment promise of non-interference in the internal life and beliefs of religious organizations. (That promise, however, does have its limits: the state certainly would intervene, for instance, in a religion that practiced child sacrifice.)
Religious faiths in turn play an absolutely crucial role in promulgating truth and values based on divine revelation and by holding individuals, and our society and government, accountable to God – thereby helping inform, shape, nurture and reform the common life of our nation.
Would a new financial partnership between church and state for the design and delivery of social programs cross the Constitutional boundary? I foresee that under the President’s plan we (the church) would become agents directly accountable to government, its standards and bureaucracy, for our funded ministry initiatives.
Would the church, dependent on government funding, dare speak out (as we have, for instance, against war and the death penalty) and thereby risk losing or not obtaining funding for a program initiative? The freedom and expectation – and yes, the Biblical mandate – that we as people of God have to address prophetically government and society could be lost.
Another issue is immediately problematic. In this nation we have freedom to choose personal adherence to any religion (faith-based life) or to disavow religion (agnosticism or atheism). Our country is in fact a land of many widely diverse beliefs and practices. One of my concerns is that behind the good intention of the government’s funding of faith-based initiatives – as also is the case with the support of public school prayer – lurks the question of determining just which faith institutions’ prayers should be offered in public, and just whose initiatives should be funded. Only those of Christians? Should the government support prayers and fund initiatives of a witches’ coven? What if a tenet of a religion’s faith is to seek others’ conversion through its work, or what if the religion itself intends to become a dominant political force? How is the government to judge, without judging what is "acceptable" religion and what is not — thereby "establishing" some faiths and crossing a boundary laid down clearly in the Constitution?
I also wonder what accepting federal money might do to us as a church. Would we have to manage a significant bureaucracy, as does the Scottish (Presbyterian) Church, which administers Scotland’s social welfare system? Could religious bodies – dioceses, deaneries, parishes, and ecumenical ventures – faith-based and therefore voluntary – deliver community social programs responsibly, without neglecting our first task, which is to share the gospel?
Of course we rightly witness to the love of God in Jesus through social program, but would we be free to name Jesus? And, with government money available for our work, would our personal giving, the tithe and beyond, decrease? Finally, Jesus did not run government-funded programs: might we become so engrossed in government-funded programs that the church would devolve into another social service agency?
The truth is that we do have our own resources to fund social outreach and for Christians, giving is a joy. The Bishop’s Fund for Children is an example. With more than two hundred fifty thousand dollars a year given by many members of the church, we assist many initiatives and programs that serve children in Connecticut at risk.
Were we to support these ministries with tax dollars (which most often are not freely given in love!), they would be subject to the whims of political entanglement, or the vagaries of government budgets. Rather, the ministries are supported entirely by our offerings, freely given in response to the love of Christ and the need of the children we serve.
Well-intentioned as the concept may be, I’m not eager for the government to fund faith-based initiatives.
At best the plan smudges the boundary between church and state, and it might destroy that historic and delicate balance. It could also diminish the independence, diversity and vitality of religion in this country. What do you think? Good News welcomes your responses.
This column was written for the April-May 2001 issue of the newspaper of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut, Good News, and is reprinted with permission.