The Faith-Based & Community Groups Deception
News Analysis by Steve Olree
One of President George W. Bush’s
domestic priorities was the implementation of his Faith-Based and Community Groups Initiative,
a linchpin of his Compassionate Conservatism concept. The Faith-Based and Community Initiative (FBCI) has created controversy
on both the left and right ends of the political spectrum, and on the religious
spectrum from the
most fervently religious to the most stridently atheistic.
In our opinion, much of this debate has focused on peripheral and subsidiary issues rather than the narrower elements of truth that would help believers to decide the matter more easily. In this article we will provide an overview of the main elements of the FBCI and the debate surrounding it. However, we will emphasize the more essential questions that must be considered regarding the proper biblical roles of the church, state, family and the individual in the provision of mercy to the poor and needy.
Our Position
It is our
position that President George W. Bush and various Christian leaders who have endorsed
the FBCI are in serious error. Why? Because: 1. The FBCI is a humanistic rather
than a Christian approach to ministering to the hungry, the homeless, the sick,
those in prison, and those who are held captive by such sins as drug and
alcohol abuse; 2. The FBCI specifically prohibits Christian ministries from presenting
the Gospel of Jesus Christ to those they wish to serve; and 3. Christian
taxpayers will have their tax dollars distributed to various false, occult and
pagan religions, as well as atheistic and humanistic groups.
There are
several other objections to this program from a Christian worldview perspective
that can be cited, but they all can
be traced to the stated three foundational errors.
What is the Faith-Based and Community Initiative?
FBCI denotes a number of new
policies, procedures and legislation within the executive and legislative
branches of the federal government. The stated purpose of FBCI is to provide a “level
playing field” and eliminate “religious discrimination” towards “faith-based
and community groups” in awarding federal funds for the provision of various
social services.
Attention began to be focused on
federal support for faith-based social service ministries in the mid-1990’s during
the debate and eventual passage of welfare reform.
The idea was promoted that faith-based ministries were more
effective than secular agencies at solving various social problems. The reason for
the reported effectiveness was that faith-based ministries also addressed the
spiritual condition of the recipient of the social services, rather than simply
dispensing material assistance. The implied but unstated ‘faith’ was
Christianity, as most of the political and religious leaders promoting the
concept were professing Christians, such as Chuck Colson, then Senator John
Ashcroft, and President George W. Bush, who was governor of
The Two Main Components of Faith-Based and Community
Initiative
The two main
components of the FBCI are:
1. Tax incentives for increased giving by individuals and corporations:
This is a faulty measure, but has
generated less controversy than actual handouts to faith-based organizations. Passed
in April of this year, The Charity,
Recovery and Empowerment Act of 2003 (CARE Act) will allow taxpayers who
use the 1040A income tax return, who do not itemize
deductions, to take additional tax deductions for their charitable
contributions, thereby providing an incentive for them to contribute to
faith-based and/or community groups.
The primary problems with this
proposal are that it furthers the concept of manipulating people and
corporations by changing the tax code to change and control their behavior; and
that the tax code is already far too complex with too many special deductions
and credits for various special interest groups.
The tax code should be used to generate necessary revenue for lawful government
functions, not for behavioral modification and social engineering. Otherwise, this
‘incentive’ is similar to other ‘adjustments’ of the
tax code that have been instituted since the inception of the Income Tax.
2. Elimination of ‘religious discrimination’ against ‘faith-based’
providers of social services, and as a result, more equal access to government
funds. This was enacted by President George W. Bush on
This is
the most controversial aspect of the FBCI. A White House Report stated that several federal
agencies had ‘unfavorable’ attitudes towards religious based
organizations when awarding grants to provide social services. Despite this report,
however, several of the top charities in the nation are ‘faith-based’. The most
prominent of these being Catholic Charities, which receives two-thirds of its
$2.3 billion dollar budget from the federal government, making it essentially
an agency of the federal government. Another is Lutheran Services in
After sifting through government
documents, reports from a ‘working group’ established to study the issue, and
dozens of news reports, it becomes apparent that President Bush is attempting
to restructure the distribution system for federal funding for social services.
His emphasis is to distribute funding to smaller, locally based organizations,
such as local congregations and ministries, and more ‘diverse’ categories of
organizations than are now participating in the system.
The Controversies
from Left to Right
The FBCI concept has been controversial from the beginning, and has raised concern from all sides of the political and religious spectrum. Seeing a breech in the much revered (but non-existent in the Constitution) ‘wall of separation between Church and State’ were the Religious Left and the Non-religious Left. Both groups on the Left also objected to possible ‘discrimination’ if a religious ministry refused to hire homosexuals or anyone else for religious reasons.
Urban churches in poorer
neighborhoods expressed concern that funds would be directed to larger,
suburban churches with better wherewithal to negotiate the morass of paperwork
in applying and complying with federal programs. A few also expressed opinions
that suburban churches were insensitive to the needs of the urban poor.
Jews, Muslims, and other religions
with smaller memberships were concerned that they would be left out of the
equation, with most of the money going to Christian organizations. Some of the
politically liberal Jewish groups were also concerned about church-state
separation.
The libertarian minded, who object
to the existence of welfare to begin with, also objected to federal taxpayer
dollars going to religious organizations for Constitutional reasons.
There were concerns from conservative Christians that accepting government funds would restrict their freedom to preach the Gospel (which it does), or force them to hire practicing homosexuals (not yet) or people not of their own faith.
However,
from a Christian, biblical worldview and a Constitutional
perspective the following questions should be asked to discern the truth:
1)
Who is to care for the social needs addressed by these programs – the Church, the state, families, or individuals?
2)
Does the federal government even have the authority under the Constitution to fund these programs?
3)
What is a “faith-based organization,” and what is a “community
organization?”
4)
Will there be restrictions on religious activities, and should a ‘Christian
ministry’ accept them to obtain federal funds?
In the following paragraphs we will examine the answers to each of questions.
Answers to the
Questions
1) Who is to Care for the Poor?
The Bible makes it clear that God has
established civil government to punish evildoers, maintain order, and defend
the nation against invaders. In other words, civil government has been assigned
the function of justice.
On the other hand, the function of mercy
has been biblically designated to individuals,
the family, and the Church. Indeed, when either group usurps the other’s
function and attempts to assume a function not under its authority, a ‘perversion’
results. When the civil government attempts to administer mercy,
what results is injustice. Civil
government is not capable of fulfilling both functions because each function is
mutually exclusive. There is only one who can dispense both justice
and mercy -- the God of the Bible!
Unfortunately teaching on this subject has been ignored in many churches, and the Church has failed to both educate the Body of Christ on this point, and in the administration of mercy itself.
2)
Does the Federal Government Have the Authority to Fund Social Service Programs?
The Federal
Government derives its authority from the Constitution. The
primary function of the Constitution of the United States is to
specifically delineate the powers and authority to be granted to the government
of the
There is no
legitimate authority in the Constitution for
the Federal Government to provide ‘social services’ such as welfare payments,
job training, drug rehabilitation, or health care. As with other usurpations of
power by the Federal Government, including involvement in education, gun
control, crime, and the Social Security system, the provision
of social services by the Federal Government is completely unauthorized
by the Constitution.
Hence it is illegal, and any government official who supports FBCI and has taken
an oath of office to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the
3) What is a Faith-Based and Community-Based
Organization?
As the saying goes, “the devil is in the details,” and in any legal or governmental question, the precise definitions of terms used are extremely
important to the understanding of the issue and the final implementation of any
government program.
The following are the definitions
of key terms applying to the FBCI along with our [MV] analysis/interpretation
of these terms based upon our research. The
FBCI definitions come from Harnessing
Civic and Faith-based power to Fight Poverty, the April 2003 report of the
“Working Group on Human Needs and Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,” a
group of representatives from organizations ranging from Barry Lynn’s Americans
United for Separation of Church and State (humanist, socialist) to Richard Land’s Commission
on Ethics and Religious Liberty (Southern Baptist, conservative).
It is difficult to
comprehend how Christian leaders can allow themselves to be drawn into such
partnerships with the enemies of God. The exact nature and purpose of these
groups of “diverse individuals which dialogue to a consensus” is complex in
itself, and will be addressed in a later issue. A close examination of the
definitions provided below will provide the discerning reader with some understanding
of the danger of these alliances. God had reason to command, “And have no
fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove [them].” (Eph. 5:11)
Religious
Activities: “…include, but are not are not limited to, worship, religious
instruction, and proselytization.”
[MV interpretation: By including the phrase “are not limited to,” the
term “religious activities” means whatever the government says that it means,
and is subject to change at the whim of whatever administration is in power. In addition, each of these terms will be subject to court
interpretation by judges presiding over the promised lawsuits against faith-based
organizations that will be accused of violating the ‘separation of church and
state.’ Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the ACLU have
already stated that they will be closely monitoring compliance with the program’s
‘restrictions’ and are prepared to bring suit against any organization that
steps over the line by proselytizing (sharing
the Gospel of Jesus Christ). In fact, it is conceivable that a faith-based
charity could spend more money defending itself against lawsuits than it gets
in funding from the government.]
Faith-based Organization: “…any entity that is self-identified as motivated by or founded on religious conviction. We are using the term in its broadest sense to include corporations, unincorporated associations, churches, trusts, foundations, and educational institutions. . .”
[MV
interpretation: this will be self-explanatory after reading the definition of
“religious belief” below.]
Religious belief: “…covers all religious belief systems, including those that affirm or reject belief in a higher power or deity.”
[MV interpretation: religious belief means anything and everything, from Christianity to Islam, even atheism. Hence it means nothing, and any organization can qualify as “faith-based.” There are no standards for being ‘faith-based,’ except that an organization calls itself “faith-based.” In fact, the White House has even announced that radical environmental groups will be eligible for ‘faith-based’ status. Certainly organizations of pagans, Wiccans, Mormons, Muslims and other false religions will qualify for your tax dollars.]
Community-based organization: “…a formal or informal association that aids and empowers people and communities in a particular geographic or ethnic community, led and managed by people drawn from that community.”
[MV interpretation: This category
is often overlooked in the debates, which focus on the term “faith-based”
(shown to be meaningless anyway). But the full name of the program is
“Faith-Based and Community Initiative.” Again, virtually any group can qualify
as a ‘community group,’ including Planned Parenthood, Greenpeace,
PFFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), etc. To
prove the point, a group of homosexuals in
4) Are there restrictions on “religious
activities,” and should a Christian ministry accept
them to obtain federal funds?
Not only will Christian ministries be prohibited from using FBCI funds for religious activities, but any services they do provide utilizing these funds must be “separated in time and location” from any religious activities. “Separated in time and location” means that the function of providing the services funded by the government must be in separate rooms or separate buildings, at times separate from worship, Bible studies, etc.
Many Christians would agree for a
number of reasons that taxpayer funds should not be used to promote a
particular religion or denomination. However, the point here is the fact that
once you take away or restrict a Christian ministry’s ability to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ (the need for
repentance of sin and the offer of salvation and regeneration through Christ) it
is no longer a Christian ministry. The
restrictions placed on ministries which accept FBCI funding eliminate the very
essence of what makes a Christian ministry
‘Christian.’ Any ministry which accepts FBCI funding will become no different
than any another secular or direct
governmental social service provider. (Rom.
Because tax
dollars to support the FBCI have been taken under threat of force for
illegitimate purposes, those who accept these funds are receiving stolen property. This is the
result of confusing the functions of Mercy with Justice. Government can
only dispense Mercy to someone by creating injustice for someone else.
Government has no power to create wealth. It can only acquire it for
redistribution by taking it under threat of force from someone who has created
it. That is theft.
(Ex. 20:15, Ex. 20:17)
The Old Testament is filled with accounts of Kings of Israel and Judah that led their people into or allowed idolatry. Our national leaders, with support from various religious leaders, are doing the same thing by expanding the use of Christian tax dollars (which are already being used by abortion providers) to now providing support for pagans, idolatry, and false religions. This is an abomination before the Lord. (Scripture references are too numerous to list, but include Ex. 20:2-5, 1Cor. 6:9, Rev. 21:8)
Christian taxpayer dollars can and will be given to pagan, atheistic, and other ungodly groups that vehemently oppose and despise Christianity. Their money will be used to bring the poor and others in need (who are in positions of weakness and vulnerability) under their influence.
Last but
not least, the FBCI perverts the idea of charity. Scripture instructs us
to care for the poor, the needy, widows and orphans. But we are to do so out of
love and obedience. Nowhere in Scripture are we told to take money from someone
else to give to the poor.
Conclusion
As was stated earlier, the
implication made by the Christian media and from supporters of FBCI, was that FBCI would be a program for Christian
ministries. We have documented that this is not true.
While President
Bush and the supporters of this concept seem well meaning, the whole idea is
fraught with risks for Christian ministries who may be tempted to get involved,
and from a Christian viewpoint the plan is thoroughly unbiblical.
For those
who comprehend the fundamental principles involved, the irony is striking. The Church
and family have, in large part, abdicated their responsibilities to minister to
those in need. The government has eagerly assumed those responsibilities. As a
result, government has increased its power and gained immense control over the
populace. Now leaders in government have realized that government has failed in
its attempt to assist the needy. Not
wanting to relinquish control (money and regulations) the government is now recruiting
the Church to become its agent and, as an incentive, offering a share of the
plunder. What will result will be a massive increase in government power, and
its authority over the Church, particularly for the ministries that choose to
participate in the FBCI. But the Faith-Based and Community Initiative forbids
the most important thing that can be provided to those in need -- the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
“No
one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other,
or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and
wealth.” (Matt. 6:24)
References:
1) The Bible
2) “Harnessing Civic and Faith-Based Power to Fight
Poverty,” by the Working Group on Human Needs and Faith-Based and Community
Initiatives – April, 2003
3) “Finding Common Ground: 29 Recommendations of the Working Group on Human Needs and Faith-Based and Community Initiatives” by the group of the same name -- January 2002.
4) “Protecting the Civil Right and Religious Liberty of
Faith-Based Organizations.” from the White House Office of Faith-Based and
Community Initiatives,
5) “President Bush’s Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,”
from the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.
6) “Unlevel Playing Field: Barriers to Participation by
Faith-Based and Community Organizations in Federal Social Service Programs,”
from the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, August
2001.
7) “Guidance to Faith-Based and Community Organizations on
Partnering with the Federal Government,” from the White House Office of
Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.
8) “Diverse group reports consensus on 38 faith-based
recommendations,” from the Baptist Press News,
9) “Constitutionally Safe, Religiously Dangerous?” by
Richard Land.
10) Constitution of the
Publisher’s Note
Several years ago, I was invited to attend
one of the first informational meetings held here in
The
meeting was called by then Senator John Ashcroft and held in the basement of a
small church in
I
knew that I had just gotten the answer to my question, but I wanted to hear it
in plain language. After about six or seven other people asked questions, I
shot my hand back up and John recognized me again. “John, I’m sorry, but I
didn’t quite understand your answer to my initial question. I guess I didn’t
phrase it correctly or wasn’t clear. My question is, will faith-based
organizations that join this program be prohibited from presenting the Gospel
of Jesus Christ to those they help if they accept government money?” There was a long pause as John looked down at
the papers in front of him and then raising his head and without addressing me
said, “They don’t have to take the money!” His answer spoke volumes.
As
I recall, there were maybe two more questions asked before the meeting was
adjourned. As I was about to leave, a nice couple who had been sitting to my
left around the corner of the table from me, representing Lutheran Family
Services came up to me. The gentleman said, “Thank you for asking that
question. Mr. Ashcroft’s answer confirmed our suspicions.”