Faith-based Charity
... is still charity
by Jane Hanna, President of The Witherspoon Society
Check
our listing of other stories on the new emphasis on government
use of faith-based organizations.
[published here 2-15-01]
A popular move
There appears to be a ground swell of support for
President Bush's plan for government funding of faith based social
programs. Enthusiastic acceptance might be explained by a survey of
public opinion on the role of religion in society. A report, recently
released by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, may provide a
clue as to why advocacy for religious groups being given responsibility
for addressing social problems appears popular.
Of those surveyed, 69 percent believe that more
religion is the best way to strengthen family values and moral behavior.
The premise is that if more people would become religious, crime would
decrease, materialism would decrease, and parents would do a better job
of raising their children. Does this mean a majority believes only
people who are not religious engage in crime and are poor parents; that
conversely religious people do not participate in undesirable
behavior?
The Pew survey indicated that 76 percent of those
polled expressed a tolerance for religious diversity, not caring what
religious expression people embrace so long as they profess a faith. At
the same time, 74 percent expressed skepticism of politicians espousing
religious beliefs.
There may be a convergence of popular opinion about
the positive values of religion in people's lives and a growing
sentiment that government programs seldom work. Scrutiny of these
perceptions reveals them both to be exaggerations of reality, part of
the mythology that often drives public decision-making. There is no
commanding evidence that faith based social services are
any more or less successful than those sponsored and operated by
government agencies. Success or failure is dependent upon the training
and skills of those providing services, adequate funding, and whether or
not recipients are consulted about their needs.
Reasons for concern
Some of my concern about government funding of faith
based social programs lies in the very definition of
"successful." The tendency is to evaluate programs by how
closely the outcome resembles the values of the dominant culture. While
we may espouse tolerance for other faiths, ethnic and cultural
behaviors, we are actually more comfortable with people whose behavior
resembles our own. Evaluation of charitable programs is often judged by
how closely the impact on the recipient fits the image and intent of the
provider. How often are those we seek to serve invited to participate in
plans meant to help them? Those assisted by faith based programs are
often chosen on the basis of the stereotypes of the servers. How many
faith based programs are operated by those who understand the obstacles
faced by the powerless trying to survive in very different circumstances
from those who try to help?
Do we really understand diversity? Do we recognize
that our expectations and evaluation of others is most often determined
by behavior that resembles our own? Look at the Bush cabinet, which is
being claimed the most diverse in history. Is it really? Although
composed of an array of skin tones, they all hold to nearly identical
political, economic, and military viewpoints. Likewise, Bush spoke to
the diversity of those he invited to the public announcement of his
charity proposal. Laurie Goodstein, writing for the New York Times,
suggests that although numerous faiths and ethnic representatives were
there, the ideological inclinations of those invited were basically
evangelical.
Programs designed and supervised by religious groups
have as mixed a track record as do those that are managed by government
agencies. Here in New Mexico we need look no further than the history of
Protestant administration of boarding schools for Indian children or
Catholic schools attended by Hispanic youngsters. In both instances, the
mingling of faith and culture (an Anglo/Protestant bias) denied these
children their own languages and customs. With good intentions,
"Americanizing" students was the overriding goal. Those
administering the schools saw their responsibility as one of helping
their charges become more like the dominant society. The tendency
prevails no matter who is in charge of a program unless those who run it
are particularly sensitive to this pattern.
Many who have reported Bush's plan have referred to it
as "leveling the playing field." They seem to suggest that
faith based groups should have as much financial support as is presently
directed toward programs sponsored by governmental entities. It seems to
me that the playing field needing to be leveled is that between the poor
and the comfortable, those who have no access to health care and
shelter, and those who do.
Who bears responsibility?
I have other problems with this popularized notion
that people are better helped through programs operated by faith groups.
What happens to the notion that the whole community bears
responsibility for the well being of all? Are people of faith
expected to address a larger share of social problems than the rest of
society? Faith groups have always been active deliverers of charity and
often the prime movers for social change and advocacy for the less
fortunate. Taking on a larger service role will likely divert more time
and energy to the charitable side of response to the unfortunate and
dilute the prophetic voice that has long called for social reform. It is
likely that the efforts of fewer people will be directed toward the
causes of social injustice.
Giving to the poor makes the giver feel good. It is
not so nice a feeling for the recipients of other peoples' abundance and
good will. Faith based groups of people ought to be asking why there are
hungry and homeless people, why many are deprived of health care and an
adequate education, pushing for reform of broken and inadequate systems.
The president has been quoted as saying, "Compassion is the work of
a nation, not just a government." Isn't government the
expression of the nation, the representation of all of us on behalf of
everyone? Do politicians perceive government as something other
than all the people? Is this a shift of financial burdens to just those
who are willing to share?
The most oft-expressed opposition to faith based
charitable programs is "separation of church and state." How
can it be determined whether or not the funding group is proselytizing?
Who is to decide which faiths are legitimate religions and which not,
what is acceptable and what is not? Catholic hospitals often deny
abortions even when a woman's health is in jeopardy and no other medical
facility is near. Some religious groups put great stock in hallucinating
drugs, others in snake handling, and some deny blood transfusions or
medical response to an illness. How will this vast array of beliefs and
practices fit into government funded services to the poor? Many
Christians are more interested in "winning others to Christ"
than in addressing the shortcomings of society.
The president has named two men to head the new White
House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives. He has
established centers in five government Departments (Justice, Education,
Labor, Health & Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development)
to ensure cooperation with religious and nonprofit organizations.
Already the Michigan Legislature has proposed setting up a liaison to
promote state aid for faith based organizations. It would make more
sense to me if resources now to be spent for executives, offices and
staffs across the country were spent directly for health coverage, job
training, rehabilitation centers and other programs for those in
need.
There are countless ministries supported by faith
communities that offer more personal and effectual assistance to the
needy than those operated from a bureaucratic framework. I am not
suggesting otherwise. I caution, however, a rush to accept Mr. Bush's
intent that his "administration will look first to faith based
programs and community groups which have proven their power to save and
change lives." If this wide-sweeping agenda for addressing
society's shortcomings is propelled more by imagined virtues than honest
analysis, the roots of poverty may not be addressed. Individuals may, in
some cases, be better served, but let us beware of compromising our
prophetic voice for justice under the illusion that faith communities
offer superior help to those in need.
