A Pot of Gold or a Bowl of Beans?
By Marv Knox, Editor of the Baptist Standard
Does the Bush administration's faith-based initiatives program promise a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow or a bowl of beans to be traded for churches' spiritual birthrights?
That's one significant question to be answered by politicians as well as ministries that would accept government funding. The more lawmakers consider providing money for social services to churches and other religious charities, the more they consider adding restrictions that could change the nature of the faith groups themselves.
The House of Representatives passed its version of faith-based initiatives 233-198 July 20. But Senate leaders predict they may not vote on the proposal this year. The primary sticking point is the degree to which faith groups that receive government funds could control their own hiring practices. Opponents of the House version of the program claim it would allow recipients to violate state and local anti-discrimination laws. Specifically, they want to hold all programs that receive government funds to standards that forbid employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The issue surfaced recently with details of a deal brokered between the White House and the Salvation Army. The Bush administration privately agreed to regulations that would protect charitable organizations from anti-discrimination laws in return for the Salvation Army's support for the faith-based initiatives program. Even some supporters of the charity-funding plan insisted the White House/Salvation Army agreement would, at the least, weaken civil rights laws.
Numerous state and local governments have implemented laws that bar discrimination based upon sexual orientation. But those anti-discrimination laws "typically don't apply to religious groups unless they accept government money," the Wall Street Journal reported.
However, the faith-based initiatives program would put government money in the coffers of church charities. Absolute anti-discrimination compliance would contradict the guiding principles of charities that insist homosexual practice is sinful. Imagine the predicament of a conservative church forced to hire a homosexual social worker to run its ministry to troubled teens.
Advocates of church-state separation must bite their tongues to keep from chanting, "See, we told you so."
Government inevitably regulates what it funds. This is reasonable. Recipients of public funds should be held accountable to taxpayers, who provide the money in the first place. The government, as collector and distributor of the people's money, reasonably expects to impose some qualifications on agencies that receive those funds. Despite what many religiously conservative people believe about it, sexual orientation increasingly is becoming a protected civil right. Therefore, faith-based charities that get government funding will be expected to comply with anti-discrimination laws.
Like all major public policy issues of this age, this one is complex. In truth, faith-based initiatives already exist. America could not care for abused and neglected children without government contracts with faith-based child care organizations. Many of the country's religiously affiliated colleges and universities would suffer tremendous setbacks without government grants provided to their students.
For the most part, these are large institutions, structurally capable of meeting government guidelines and segmenting social services from overt ministries. Still, even they are vulnerable, as a suit filed against Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children by a fired lesbian social worker attests. Think how much more vulnerable churches and small church-formed institutions will be if the government is allowed to regulate their practices because it provides them with money.
The faith-based initiatives program seems to be well-intentioned. Yet it could imperil the core foundations of the institutions it purports to support. Lawmakers need to look at other remedies--solutions that will not threaten the religious liberty of faith-based ministries.
For example, they could provide generous tax incentives for charitable contributions to faith-based ministries. They also could strengthen American homes --- by bolstering incentives for parents to get and stay married; making insurance and healthcare available and effective, particularly for children; and guaranteeing a living wage for all Americans willing to work. These steps would reach more broadly to all faith-based ministries and also decrease the need for social services to poor and disadvantaged Americans.
Of course, this issue is complex. But faith-based organizations shouldn't be tempted to sell their souls, hoping for a pot of gold and winding up with a bowl of beans.
