President Bush’s initiative to support faith-based social programs is a positive development. For too long, faith-based organizations have been excluded from partnerships with government entities just because they were religious. Officials paid no attention to the effectiveness of faith-based programs or their results. President Bush’s initiative opened the door to faith-based organizations to form creative partnerships with government for the benefit of countless communities. That is good. Churches and religious organizations across America do a wonderful job of addressing their communities’ social needs. In the spirit of offering “a cup of cold water in Jesus’ name,” religious ministries serve needy people with programs ranging from soup kitchens to job training programs to health care. These should not be eliminated from possible government support just because the help is motivated by Christian concern.
But, as is always the case, where public money goes, public control follows. The Salvation Army, one of America’s largest faith-based social ministries, learned that bitter lessen when it was forbidden to discriminate against hiring homosexuals in its programs on threat of losing state contracts.
Interestingly, in this country, the Salvation Army is viewed as a social service agency. Yet, in Europe, its primary identity is that of a church, which it really is.
The rule of public control following public money is creating dilemmas across the nation for some ministries that initially saw President Bush’s support for faith-based social services as their monetary salvation.
In California, a recent court ruling declared that Catholic Charities had to furnish contraceptive benefits if they provided prescription drug coverage to their employees.
It is widely known that the Roman Catholic Church opposes any form of artificial contraception. As a Roman Catholic social service, Catholic Charities argued that contraception violates the organization’s religious beliefs and that it should be exempt from the state law requiring drug coverage for contraceptives.
The law in question does provide an exemption for churches and other religious organizations. Determining if one meets the qualifications for exemption is the problem. The first question asked in this process concerns the purpose of the service. Is the main purpose “the inculcation of religious values?”
If the answer is “yes,” then the service is not eligible for funds, because government entities are prohibited from funding programs that advance religion. If the answer is “no,” then questions arises about the faith-based nature of the ministry.
Religious schools are particularly sensitive to this question. Do religious schools exist to teach and advance religion? If such is their mission, then government may not channel public funds to them. The courts have declared that to do so involves the government in the establishment of religion, something expressly prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.
If the answer is “no,” the school is eligible for public funds. However, parents and sponsors then ask about the character of the school. How is it different from any other private school? How is this church-sponsored school faith-based if it is not about teaching religion to the students?
In the case of Catholic Charities, the court ruled the organization was not religious enough for exemption. The organization is a social service organization and “inculcation of religious values” is not the group’s primary mission. Nor does the group employ “primarily persons who share the religious tenets” of the sponsor or primarily serve those who share those beliefs. Catholic Charities, the court found, is a social service organization using public money and is subject to public laws.
The ruling was no surprise to those who follow church-state law. Federal guidelines and U.S. Supreme Court cases affirm the same principle. Programs funded by public money cannot include any kind of evangelistic activity. They cannot include any kind of worship experiences. They cannot include any kind of religious instruction.
Sponsoring churches and ministries may provide these activities, of course, but they must be done at another time or in another place. No one can be forced to participate in order to receive the services offered. However, just because the religious ministry does evangelism, Bible study and worship does not now exclude them from government support. In the past, that was so.
If a church is going to offer a “cup of cold water in Jesus’ name” and partner with a government entity to accomplish that task, then that is what the program must do. A social ministry cannot be a cover for teaching the Bible, for witnessing to clients or for worship and receive funds through President Bush’s faith-based initiative. Such things are expressly prohibited.
That means churches and ministries must ask what they want from their social ministries. If they are satisfied with furnishing the social service out of a religious motivation, then President Bush’s faith-based initiative offers promise.
If the ultimate outcome is to lead clients to faith in Jesus Christ and to teach them the eternal truths of God’s Holy Word, then it must be done without public money.
You cannot have public money without public control. The two go together, and that is the dilemma church-based social ministries must resolve as they determine whether to partner with government in serving their communities.
Share with others: