Another Perspective
Have Faith
Religious groups should trust not in the president’s office of faith-based initiatives.
In less than 100 days, Obama has made good on a few of his promises. One of them is to expand President Bush’s faith-based initiatives office. Unfortunately, Obama’s latest attempt to reach out to religious groups might may not work out so well either — for them or him.
A few weeks ago, Obama expanded the White House Faith-Based Initiatives Office — now the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships — by appointing a new Executive Director and announcing their new direction with characteristic sincerity and conviction at the annual National Prayer Breakfast. “This work is important, because whether it’s a secular group advising families facing foreclosure or faith-based groups providing job-training to those who need work, few are closer to what’s happening on our streets and in our neighborhoods than these organizations.”
Immediately, some religious leaders and organizations applauded these efforts. In an article on Christianity Today’s website, the authors said they saw “five encouraging signs” about Obama’s revamped faith-based office and had only one major concern. They liked the new director — a 26-year-old Pentecostal minister with a master’s degree in public policy from Princeton and thought Obama’s repeated use of the word ‘partnership’ was promising. The authors were pleased that Obama shared many of the concerns of evangelicals like promoting fatherhood initiatives, reducing poverty and making abortions rare and raved that Obama’s new advisory council which includes members like Jim Wallis and Pastor Joel Hunter was a “sign of hope.”
Jim Wallis, long-time leader of the religious left and Sojourners blogged about his excitement in being a part of the new group on Huffington Post and leaders like Eboo Patel, founder and executive director of the Interfaith Youth Core — and the only Muslim on the advisory council — told NPR he also enthusiastically backs Obama’s new initiative.
Still, before religious groups yell “Amen!” too loudly, there appear to be some obvious and subtle hang-ups. First the subtle: Democrats only provided half of the $100 million funding the House version did to faith-based organizations through the Compassion Capital Fund. This is while Obama was supposedly “expanding” Bush’s faith-based program. Though it may not be any consolation to religious groups, that’s about what the Fund received in fiscal year of 2008 under President Bush.
In a July speech last year, Obama said he would expand Bush’s program by allocating $500 million per year for summer learning camps. While some have said Obama’s new office is better-funded, that funding wasn’t allocated under the stimulus plan. It’s not clear how much more money funds the new office now or when it will receive more funding and how much.
Now for the obvious: When Obama announced his new office, some faith-based groups were quick to point out the hiring loophole Obama left wide open. During the campaign, Obama explained the difference between his faith-based initiatives office and President Bush’s. “If you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion. However, when Obama opened his new office, he did not confirm this remained his position
Liberal and religious groups took note. In a statement to Obama, leaders of the Anti-Defamation League said: ”We are deeply troubled by the prospect that taxpayer money will likely fund religious discrimination in employment decisions involving the people who deliver faith-based social services.”
Likewise, in the Christianity Today article referenced above, the authors noted their one major concern about Obama’s new approach to the office was the same. “[H]ow many ministries will want to tell federal investigators that they engage in “religious job discrimination,” if this is how the issue is framed?…It is troubling that both of the “church-state experts” the President appointed to the investigating council are opponents of religious staffing by faith-based groups that receive federal funds.”
What’s troubling is not as much that Obama may not let religious groups receive federal funds and hire whomever they please, but that churches think this arrangement is possible. Even Obama admitted when he started his new office: “The goal…will not be to favor one religious group over another — or even religious groups over secular groups…. It will simply be to work on behalf of those organizations that want to work on behalf of our communities, and to do so without blurring the line that our founders wisely drew between church and state.”
This crack in frame of the newly expanded faith-based office may force faith-based groups to reconsider their role in the Obama administration. Many argue there is little proof of the success of federally subisized faith-based initiatives as a whole — for example, after Hurricane Katrina, a White House report applauded faith-based organizations for their response to those who needed aid, but their success was “in spite of, not because of, the government.”
Obama’s hiring gap may push the groups that receive these funds to perform their religious calling to the fullest with whomever they want to hire, no strings — or federal money — attached. Especially since most religious organizations do not intend to just meet the physical needs of the poor, the needy, the fatherless, the homeless and feel compelled to try and meet their spiritual needs too. This is usually done with staff who embrace the same religious conviction as the organization.
In a recent CNN piece, attorney David Dietman explained what this could mean to churches. “If adopted, ‘faith-based’ initiatives will open the door to the federally mandated destruction of one of the few areas of civil society that works, namely, the private religious and charitable arena.”
Religious groups should not be upset by the guidelines Obama set. Instead they should think twice about accepting federal funds. Maybe this year, faith-based groups will have to operate more on faith than finances, to the betterment of everyone who receives their aid.
About the Author
Nicole Russell writes from Northern Virginia.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (33) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Nicole Russell
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/26/have-faith
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Gerry Ford at 100
- Once Upon a Time in the West
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Alan Brooks| 2.26.09 @ 9:30AM
why should church be separated from state anymore? there's precious little morality left.
the situation today isn't comparable to 1789. we've got little or nothing to lose.
Bill| 2.26.09 @ 9:42AM
Good article. I personally feel that federal money and churches should never be mixed. Once the funds are accepted the churches are not only subject to the rules and regulations at the time but also to any changes that may occur later.
Churches do not need federal funds. They always have a history of responding to a need from within their own congregations and denominations. All they need is for the pastors and leaders to organize within themselves and conduct missions of compassion in the name of Christ. This has always been and will continue to be the best cost effective means of raching those in need.
I recall years ago when Billy Graham said that if every church in America adopted a needy family that welfare would be wiped out. Churches need to take note and get involved in the needs of the people around them.
There should never be a mixing of federal funds in the life and work of the church.
Michael Tomlinson| 2.26.09 @ 11:16AM
As a religious and political conservative I believe it would be in the best interest of both the church and state if we abolished the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships as a first step in trying to reign in Obama's out of control spending. If churches fall for Obama's trap he'll be determining their theolgoy and not scripture.
The church does not need the Federal government bailing it out or becoming its partner. What Obama is doing is establishing a state "church" based on his criteria of what constitutes correct social philosophy.
Churches, even left-wing ones, need to realize Barack Obama really isn't the messiah even if he thinks he is.
Gill O’Teen| 2.26.09 @ 11:28AM
obumah is our messiah. It is altogether fitting and proper that he should control the churches.
Invest in precious metals such as gold, silver, platinum and lead.
Let's have a Tea Party!
S. C. Martin| 2.26.09 @ 12:40PM
My bible says that my God "owns the cattle on a thousand hills". If we are faithfully doing God's work, why should we think we need financial support from any government, whether led by Republicans or Democrats? God's resources are more than adequate to fulfill His intentions.
FOUNDERS IDEA| 2.26.09 @ 1:28PM
The first amendment for those uneducated was to keep Gov't out of the Churchs business not the other way around. Many, Many of our founders use government money to fund proselytize. They, who wrote, and help create the 1st amendment would be shock to learn how it has been twisted by the likes of Obama and secular liberals.
Alan Brooks| 2.26.09 @ 1:49PM
America spends almost as much on porn and dirty books as it does on religion
ruth| 2.26.09 @ 2:12PM
Porn and dirty books are a religion for many; just another symptom of a dying culture.
Alan Brooks| 2.26.09 @ 2:58PM
i just don't buy it that America is at this point in danger of being swallowed up by a church leviathan.
and what could churches do to make the situation worse? they would have to deliberately set out to make it worse.
does anyone seriously believe we'll ever have a State Church of America? that Christians and other people of faith will force us to be truly good? we're in no danger of being really good in 2009.
only reason i can think of to not give churches
Fed$ is because the churches might become corrupt. but if the churches do not become corrupt then what exactly is the harm?
ruth| 2.26.09 @ 3:22PM
I am more concerned about being swallowed up by vice, that's what happened to the Greeks and Romans. It sure wasn't religion that destroyed them.
davod| 2.26.09 @ 4:15PM
Money for ACORN but not for thee
davod| 2.26.09 @ 4:19PM
PS:
The whole idea of The Office of Faith Based Initiatives was to provide funding to religious rganizations. Organizations that were denied funding secular organizations already had access to.
By including secular Obama has neutralized the organization and the funding.
ruth| 2.26.09 @ 4:54PM
Doesn't surprise me a bit because Obama's a marxist. His 'spiritual advisor' for 20 years was Jeremiah Wright. We all know the reverend's take on God and religion.
cjacworth| 2.26.09 @ 5:53PM
As soon as Bush announced his plan for faith-based initiatives I knew how it would work out in the end. Step 1, you accept Ceasars coin. Step 2, you become dependent on Ceasars coin. Step 3, you become Ceasar's vassal, and have to accept Ceasar's rules, however at variance they are with your basic mission. The Church should reject all offers of government "help" with a firm "No thanks"
MC| 2.27.09 @ 9:48AM
Some predictions:
1. Republicans (under Pres. Bush) established a number of structures that were loudly decried by the Democrats as unconstitutional. Now in power the Dems will fill these with content that is repugnant to the constitution beyond anything dreamed of by Republicans.
2. You see this with the bail out then the stimulus. Pres Obama found it conventient to limit the salaries of executives for entities that take bail-out/stimulus money. How long before we kind of forget that the issue was the federal money and say hey, we do it for one, so we need to do it for all. And then we have Federally limited salaries for ALL executives--and others, for fairness' sake?
3. Now that Pres Obama is "expanding" the faith-based initiative program, he is finding it expedient to put strings on hiring and evangelistic activities. First, how far does this go? Do the tentacles of the Federal government extend into churches that ALSO happen to have a faith-based social program? How long before we forget that the issue was Federal $, and are told that in general hiring and evangelistic activity need to be similarly limited for all, for fairness's sake. Besides, tax-exempt status and charitable deductions of Federal tax returns is tantamount to receiving Federal money anyway? Tell me--please--that I am delusional and that this isn't coming.
Calvinist Frank| 2.27.09 @ 7:02PM
There are two principles that are clearly taught in the New Testament concerning the financial support of Christian ministry: no money is to be sought from non-Christians, and all contributions are to be "freely given" and "not under compulsion." The last time I checked, non-Christians had to pay taxes, and taxes are compelled, not voluntary.
No Christian ministry has any business taking tax dollars directly from the government. And since if churches obeyed these principles only non-Christians would be receiving such funds, why should Christians support these measures, thus funding those with whom they differ on the most profound of issues?
Rick Josey | 2.27.09 @ 10:32PM
President Obama, who believes surviving babies should be left to die in an abortion room, should not be allowed any quarters in the religious arena. He lies about earmarks in the "stimulus" package, he'll lie about this also.
It's encouraging tonight to see people all across the country beginning to protest this administration's outrageous spending. Just wait until some religious people get duped. The economy may indeed recover when there is a rush on tar and feathers.
www.PatriotHangout.com
hfghfg| 11.25.09 @ 8:43PM
MOV Converter Mac,
MOV Converter Mac
asdas| 1.5.10 @ 4:31AM
Capture Streaming Video,iPhone To Computer Transfer
Moleskin | 1.3.12 @ 11:43AM
Wonderful article, thanks for putting this together! "This is obviously one great post. Thanks for the valuable information and insights you have so provided here. Keep it up!"