Mission not accomplished on reforming faith-based initiatives

John Dilulio’s essay on faith-based initiatives interested me – and caused me some surprise. Let me be clear from the … Continued

John Dilulio’s essay on faith-based initiatives interested me – and caused me some surprise. Let me be clear from the start: In this day and age, it is inexcusable for any child to go hungry. I fully support government funding for social services, especially when the health and welfare of children are involved. I am grateful for the hard work being done by faith-based organizations across the country to provide social services to the community, and I am not universally opposed to government funding for faith-based organizations delivering these services. However – and this is the critical point for me – if faith-based organizations receive taxpayer dollars, they should be required to follow the same rules as every other non-profit organizations who receive such funds.

I was honored by President Obama’s invitation for me to be part of the White House task force on reforming the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Our work led to important reforms that have brought the office more in line with constitutional principles. But, it is quite a stretch that reaches beyond my understanding for Dilulio to assert that “that mission was accomplished.”

The administration declined to adopt a recommendation that would have required faith-based organizations to establish a separate 501(c)3 entity to receive federal money so that federal money and a house of worship’s money would not be intermingled. Instead, the administration only encouraged that action. Presently, the Obama administration operates by the Bush administration’s rules, which allow faith-based groups to discriminate in their hiring even when using taxpayer money. This is a direct contradiction to President Obama’s stated opposition to such a policy in his 2008 campaign. We have waited for four years for the Obama administration to reform the hiring rules, while it has only hedged, saying it will review the issue on a case-by-case basis. In his column, Dilulio clearly says that “many secular liberals are peeved” by this policy. I can tell you, as a minister who has been working in coalition with people of faith on this issue for well over a decade, that we are just as peeved as the secular liberals – likely more so.

I understand the desire for a house of worship to hire co-religionists who live according to the teachings of its faith. I myself am the pastor of a Baptist church in Monroe, La., where we reserve the right to do just that. The difference is that we are supported entirely by private funds given to us by people who support our mission. Were we ever to take public funds to support our ministries, it would be with the understanding that the federal money allows us to administer a social service for the common good, not to promote a religious service with a sectarian mission.

In praising the faith-based initiative, Dilulio also points out one of its most concerning flaws – a lack of transparency. Scarce data are available indicating how much money is flowing from the coffers of our federal government to faith-based organizations or to which ones. This lack of transparency allows for little oversight and masks a critical threat to the boundaries between religion and government.

I believe there is a way for religious institutions to partner with government institutions to provide urgently needed social services — but not at the expense of constitutional principles that exist to protect both government and religion.

Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy is president of Interfaith Alliance, a national, non-partisan grassroots organization that celebrates religious freedom. He also serves as the Pastor for Preaching and Worship at Northminster (Baptist) Church in Monroe, Louisiana.

Written by

  • Who Is Jesus?

    Governments who partner with religion and private business are facist governments.

  • jsoles2001

    How are they facists?

  • DRJJJ

    Secularization of church and state sure hasn’t done us any favors-turn on the news! And they call it progressive!

  • jsoles2001

    I’ll take faith-based over the alternatives any day. Faith-based orgazniations have built a lot of schools, universities and hospitals.

  • Catken1

    Would you rather live in any theocracy on Earth, DRJJJ?

  • Joel Hardman

    DRJJJ,

    What are you seeing on the news that you attribute to the secularization of society? By almost any measure, including violent crimes rates, poverty, etc, our society is doing better now than in the past. What exactly are you bemoaning?

  • Joel Hardman

    jsoles2001,

    I’m not sure what your point is. Are you claiming that faith-based charities have done more than non-faith based charities? Maybe that’s true, but I don’t see what point you’re trying to make. Nowhere does the article suggest banning faith-based charities. The author only advocates rules to ensure constitutional compliance.

  • Joel Hardman

    jsoles2001,

    I’m not sure what your point is. Are you claiming that faith-based charities have done more than non-faith based charities? Maybe that’s true, but I don’t see what point you’re trying to make. Nowhere does the article suggest banning faith-based charities. The author only advocates rules to ensure constitutional compliance.

  • leibowde84

    Great Article. Faith-based groups that get public money should absolutely be forced to adhere to the same requirements as non-faith based groups. If they are too stubborn to follow the law, they can always find money other places.