New Faith-Based Initiatives Report: 'Serving People in Need, Safeguarding Religious Freedom'

I have long supported effective partnerships between government and faith-based organizations. Unfortunately, during the years of the Bush administration these partnerships were often used for political ends. Two former staff members of the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives -- John DiIulio's letter in Esquire magazine and David Kuo's book, Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction -- provided ample evidence of that.

During this presidential campaign, Barack Obama strongly supported the principle of such partnerships. In a July speech in Zanesville, OH, he said:

... while these groups are often made up of folks who've come together around a common faith, they're usually working to help people of all faiths or of no faith at all. And they're particularly well-placed to offer help. As I've said many times, I believe that change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up, and few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques.

That's why Washington needs to draw on them. The fact is, the challenges we face today -- from saving our planet to ending poverty -- are simply too big for government to solve alone. We need all hands on deck.

Today, I attended an event at the National Press Club where two expert scholars on this issue, E.J. Dionne of the Brookings Institution and Melissa Rogers of the Wake Forest University Divinity School's Center for Religion and Public Affairs, released a set of recommendations for the new administration -- Serving People in Need, Safeguarding Religious Freedom. It is a thoughtful and balanced look at the issues and questions involved. They write in their introduction:

We would hope that the next administration will see partnerships with faith and community groups as part of a larger effort to lift up the poor, and that this will be a more central purpose of government than it has been in the recent past. ...

We do not pretend here to address or resolve all the questions involved in this discussion, but we do take on many of the difficult issues and suggest solutions. The challenge, as we see it, is to find constitutional ways for government to foster the good work done by religious and other community-based organizations -- and to do this without so dividing Americans across religious and political lines that the work itself is jeopardized. This will not be easy. But good things often aren't, and we believe that in this area especially the effort to find common ground will.

The 15 specific recommendations in the report are thoughtful and offer that effort to find common ground. I urge you to read the report.

Jim Wallis is the author of The Great Awakening, Editor-in-Chief of Sojourners and blogs at www.godspolitics.com.

Click here to get e-mail updates from Jim Wallis

Comments

[LewDan]

Separation of Church and State was never intended to keep religion out of American life public or private. Its intent is to prevent any religion from forcing its beliefs an practices on others or preventing the beliefs and practices of others. The way Evangelicals used the Republican party to legislate their beliefs is exactly what the separation of Church and State was meant to prevent.

But supporting faith-based initiatives which happen to support government goals is not a violation of Church and State, its good government. Why should government waste time and effort duplicating the work of faith-based organizations when it can target funds more productively by augmenting the existing infrastructure? There isn't enough waste in government? Haven't we institutionalized enough government inefficiency?

The antireligious commenters here seem to be more interested in limiting religious influence than achieving policy objectives. That IS a violation of the principle of separation of Church an State. Using government to promote secular services in order to diminish the influence of religious organizations is every bit as wrong as Evangelicals forcing their beliefs through legislation on secular non-believers.

Policy decisions, and tax dollar usage, should be based on how best to serve the people. On getting the most bang for the buck, NOT on rewarding or penalizing faith-based initiatives.

[retest]

I have to disagree with some of your commentary.
You are saying that it is wrong for religion to influence government, but saying the other way around is OK. The discipline that I wrote of is the principle of the secularism of government. We both know what Bush was looking for with his faith-based initiatives.

There is another way of accomplishing this article's goal. An example is the Peace Corps. A secular, independent US federal agency. The infrastructure is there. I doubt that it would take too much effort to amend its charter to get the results that Mr. Wallis would like to occur.

[Daksian]

While organized religions can and do perform good charitable works, it seems that proselytizing those they help and establishing political connections are consistent side-effects of these works, moreso when the government directly supports them.

For example, a missionary will claim any charity work he performs as doing 'God's work', subtly influencing those he assists. Harmless? Perhaps, but it can lead to a level of trust between the organized religion and the impoverished they assist that results in the condemnation of condom use despite the fact that it prevents the spread of HIV.

An example of political influence might be found if a church is denied financial backing from the government, and to get it back church members choose to appeal to a politician's faith rather than his sense of civic or national duty.

Most faith-based charities have a secular equivalent that does not promote or deny any set of beliefs other than having a simple need to help another human being. In my opinion, those institutions are far more worthy of partnership with governments than faith-based ones, who's deeper motives behind the charity are sometimes suspect.

[mommadona]

OK - I'LL ASK.....

WHY do you insist on combining CHURCH and STATE?

WHY doesn't the religious community DO IT ON THEIR OWN?
WHERE does all the 'tithes' go in those MEGA CHURCHES?
WHO'S being held ACCOUNTABLE in the religious community for the obvious lack of leadership in the "do unto others" modis operandi?

WHAT does a joint 'structure' benefit? NOT the public, THAT'S for sure.

And, FINALLY -WHY ARE MINISTERS NOW MILLIONAIRES?

I refer you to Reverend Ike

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZDYrkcOGV8

[radmul]

The government cannot work with the faith based as they always feel the need to bring their religion into the mix. Faith based means fallacy based and will always fail as they refuse to leave their bigotry at the door.

[somsoc]

Faith based mixing with government is criminal and violates the very foundation of our Constitution!!!

[somsoc]

Justice Wm. Douglas pointed out that it is almost criminal to give taxpayer money to religious groups. He also pointed out that few 'for-profit' corporations have amassed the wealth of even the supposedly modest religious organizations and that to give such organizations funds from the public coffers made no sense-it was like giving a rich man money to help the poor, ya' right. Like sending Robertson money for his claimed African relief only to find out it went to help him buy HIS African gold mine. NO, faith based anything is believing in the tooth fairy --- get real.

[retest]

I agree with the above poster (somsoc). Although this sounds nice, it is in direct opposition to the Constitution. This faith-based initiative stuff also violates precisely what our founding forefathers wanted this country to become.

Novus ordo seclorum, meaning the New Order of the Ages. This country was based on the Age of Enlightenment, which would also include the Age of Reason, or the Age of Rationalism. It was a set of attitudes, an ideological revolt if you will, against European aristocracy and established religion that had controlled the social, economic, judicial, and political systems of the Continent for centuries. (Gee, doesn't that sound like the Bush administration?)

And what do we see? The continued attempt of fundamental Christians trying to inject their religious beliefs into our system of government in the attempt to create a theocratic state. Hypocrisy, apparently, knows no bounds.

There are other ways to motivate these authoritarian followers then adding direct links between government and religious institutions.