|
|||
Welfare Reform: New Hope for Gospel Missions? Devil's in the Details |
Commentary by Stephen E. Burger as it appeared in USA Today's OPINION USA Tuesday, September 3, 1996 If a worker at a religiously based mission says, "God bless you" to a homeless person, is that proselytizing? The courts may be called upon to provide the answer. The driving force behind this question is a little-noticed yet potentially landmark provision in the welfare-reform bill, recently signed into law by the president. The provision is known as the "charitable choice clause" that allows states "to contract with religious organizations" to provide social services. Sound like good news? As the executive director of an association of 245 faith-based rescue missions, I think it is. By agreeing to the welfare-reform plan, Congress and President Clinton are finally acknowledging our success in transforming lives by providing the type of help the government does not, and cannot, provide -- spiritual guidance. Most noteworthy, the new law allows faith-based charities to retain "control over the definition, development, practice, and expression of its religious belief." However, the devil (if you will) is in the details. A "limitations" clause states that "no funds provided directly to institutions or organizations to provide services ... shall be expended for sectarian worship, instruction or proselytization." Now, what exactly does that mean? Every morning the House and Senate open their day with prayer. Is that proselytizing? There's a weekly prayer meeting for representatives and another for senators. That sounds like sectarian worship. Every Friday, the Senate chaplain leads a Bible study for Senate employees that is regularly attended by everyone from senior legislative staff to cafeteria cooks to Capitol Hill police. This fits almost any definition of instruction. Yet, presumably, non of these activities (which I fully support) is in violation of the law. Indeed, all of it is funded and sanctioned by the US government. So under the new welfare law, if a rescue mission retains control of its religious beliefs, and the needy individuals being served retains the right not to be proselytized, then how does the mission staff reconcile those rights in practice? What if I, as a preacher of the gospel, say "God loves you!" to comfort a woman who's been living on the streets with her children -- and she feels that's against her religion? Will daily or weekly Bible studies be allowed as part of drug-rehabilitation programs -- programs, by the way, with a higher success rate than those run by the government? Until these tough questions are answered, faith-based charities will not line up to help the government overhaul the welfare state for fear of being dragged into court. As well intentioned as Congress is in passing the provision, it will be the government bureaucrats and the civil-libertarian lawyers who enforce it. Historically, both have been hostile to the efforts of faith-based charities in areas involving labor laws, zoning, licensing, and surplus food distribution. For example, in Schnectady, NY, the states Department of Social Services cited the City Mission because it prohibited pornography in its facilities. "We determined that on health and safety issues, we would submit to government regulations," says Eivion Williams, executive director. "But this was an issue of morality." Only after three months of negotiations did the state relent. In Tennessee, state officials put forward a "client bill of rights" that homeless shelters had to abide by to secure their licensing. This bill of rights, much like the new welfare-reform legislation, included the right of clients not t be presented with religious teaching. After a public outcry, the state dropped this requirement. But, of course, even when a faith-based charity wins a law suit, it still has lost precious time and money defending itself -- resources better devoted to helping drug addicts and needy individuals return t productive, self-sufficient lives. If the new welfare provision (or the court's interpretation o it) sanitizes the spiritual component, then it is not worth much. What good is it for the law to allow a cross to be hung, but to forbid explaining what happened on it? At the very least, faith-based charities should be allows to offer prettier, spiritual instruction and worship services -- even if it is on a voluntary basis. If the law enables us and other faith-based charities to accomplish this, hallelujah! As the welfare-reform plan allows more federal funds to flow to faith-based charities, we need to read the fine print of each dollar carefully. It says, "In God We Trust." Rev. Stephen Burger is executive director of the International Union of Gospel Missions. This column is adapted in part from an article in the Heritage Foundation's current issue of Policy Review: The Journal of American Citizenship.
Mission Services Here's a sampling of some of the mission and the services they provide at an average cost of $35 per person:
|
