God and Caesar: The Debate over Funding Faith-Based Organizations
By Tanya L. Green, J.D
July/August 2001 Family Voice

As newly inaugurated President George W. Bush signed an executive order creating the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Charles W. Colson proudly watched. The chairman of Prison Fellowship Ministries (PF) was thrilled to hear Bush describe PF’s own InnerChange Freedom Initiative™ (IFI) “as a premier example of a faith-based solution that works!”

“It was equally exciting to know that we now have a president who understands the value and importance of religious organizations and the impact that Christ can have on our society.” In 1997, then-Texas Gov. Bush gave Colson’s ministry permission to operate the IFI in a prison near Houston. Under it, prisoners volunteer for life-skills training and Bible studies. After 18 months, they are released, matched with a mentor, given a job and welcomed in a local church.

The results have been remarkable: To date, of the 107 prisoners who have completed the program, only seven have returned to prison. That’s a recidivism rate of about 7 percent, compared to 40-60 percent nationally.

“It is a far reach for government to assume it can protect the religious integrity of every charity,” she said, pointing out that the state’s control of the religious depth of faith-based organizations (FBOs) amounts to censorship and establishment of religion.

And she’s not alone. Opponents—from anti-religious liberals to religious conservatives—argue the initiative would unconstitutionally entangle religion and government. Religious conservatives warn FBOs that accept government funds could compromise their religious identity. Others say FBOs might use religious coercion against recipients. But what really is the purpose of Bush’s plan?

“The point of the president’s initiative is to end discrimination against persons of faith and faith-based organizations simply [because] they are religious,” said Concerned Women for America’s Vice President for Government Relations Michael Schwartz. “President Bush … is trying to mobilize the charitable agencies that really help the needy, including religious ones, without forcing them to give up the one thing that makes them effective—their religious character.”

“Charitable Choice,” a provision of the 1996 federal welfare reform law, enables religious and secular groups to compete on equal footing for federal funds, provided funds are not used for sectarian activities. However, governmental regulations cause many FBOs to fear they must become secularized in order to participate. The initiative is an effort to identify and correct those regulations that keep FBOs from participating in government-funded programs.

In order to stay within constitutional parameters, Bush’s plan stipulates government funds will not subsidize evangelism, Bible teaching or other inherently religious activities. Instead, the money is earmarked for social services such as shelter, food, job training, education and drug treatment. Additionally, recipients will have a choice between religious and secular providers.

GRM accepts government funds. But Executive Director John Jackson said he does not want the government telling him how to run the ministry.

“We don’t want to take any federal money if we have to water down … our first and foremost goal, … which is leading people to a right relationship with God,” he said, pointing out that people of all faiths—or no faith—are welcome.

Jackson said the funds are helpful, such as when GRM decided to convert a former “crack hotel” into a residence for homeless women. Years earlier, the Department of Justice seized the property, sold the building to GRM for 1 percent of its fair market value and, along with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, provided a grant for renovation.

GRM made concessions in order to take those funds. The agreement stipulates that Fulton House of Hope (as the building was re-christened) can obligate no one to attend religious activities, nor does it subscribe to a statement of faith. Chapel attendance is voluntary.

Another grant came from Washington’s Department of Human Services for the mission’s School of Tomorrow, which provides educational services for those who come to GRM, as well as those in the surrounding community.

Not far from Gospel Rescue Mission is Central Union Mission, a ministry with similar goals and clientele. In contrast, Central Union makes chapel attendance mandatory. Unlike GRM, this mission accepts no government funds.

Once men enter Central Union’s shelter, workers encourage them to join the Spiritual Transformation program, where they attend classes on developing a relationship with Christ. Next, they spend 10 weeks or more in a country camp setting, where job training, church involvement, and spiritual growth are emphasized. When the men return to the city, each one signs a form making him accountable to his pastor, and the pastor accepts responsibility for him.

“We believe Christ is the answer,” said Central Union’s Executive Director Dave Treadwell. He said these men have been through “every psychological program in the world. If they turn to Christ, they can turn their lives around.”

While Treadwell applauds Bush’s efforts to call attention to religious organizations, accepting government funds for “non-religious activities” conflicts with the mission’s core.

“We try to evangelize in everything we do,” he explained. “I want the meal that’s served to contribute toward making that man want to accept Christ and become a disciple.”

He also tentatively supports a voucher system, in which the government would credit ministries based on how many people they feed each night, not on what they teach. Instances when the government receives surplus furniture, which the mission then freely distributes to the poor, also work well.

The wary relationship between government and ministries known as faith-based initiatives will undoubtedly produce more discussion, debate and, hopefully, practical experience. But a principle that doesn’t need more discussion is Christ’s mandate to the Church: Help the poor.

“It’s an opportunity for the Church, just like it is for the government,” Treadwell said. “The best thing—the perfect answer—is that Christians have an obligation to help the poor. If they do that, … we don’t even have to worry about the government!”

More from July/August 2001 Family Voice