Why Do You Keep Hoping that Federal Money Won't Undermine the Independence of Every Private Agency That Takes It?

Gary North

President Bush's support for faith-based initiatives has sparked a raging debate about the separation of church and state. But are we worrying about the right things?

My deeper concern is the prophetic integrity of religious groups who might appropriately receive some government funding. Why? Because those in power often prefer the service programs of faith communities to their prophetic voice for social justice. -- Jim Wallis, "The Conscience of the State," Sojourners Magazine (March-April 2001)

Why is it, Mr. Wallis, that you did not perceive from day one that this "faith-based initiative" ploy had these long-familiar goals?

1. To buy off criticism in advance. ("If you take the Queen's shilling, you do the Queen's bidding.")

2. To get the assets of the recipient institutions at the disposal of the government. ("We're from the government, and we're here to help you.")

3. To insert Federal bureaucratic guidelines into the affairs of previously independent agencies. ("There are always strings attached.")

4. To get independent institutions to take some of the heat for the failure of yet another Federal program. ("Spread the blame.")

5. To get political credit for the Federal Government for any local initiative that might actually accomplish something positive before the once-independent organization becomes an operational branch of a Washington bureaucracy. ("Piggy-backing on success.")

6. To gain control over local policy once the local organization is addicted to the "free" money. ("He who pays the piper calls the tune.")

They say that a crazy person keeps doing the same things over and over, even though the procedure fails every time. You liberals are just plain crazy. You cannot see what has been happening for a century. "If you take the State's nickel, you take the State's noose." You are always convinced that "this time, it's different." It never is.

It's right to test words by deeds, but it's wrong to not give someone a chance. If Al Gore was in the White House, I'm convinced he would also be supporting faith-based initiatives, and we would be talking to him, too, about the demands of justice. We may disagree with President Bush on many issues -- such as the death penalty, the missile shield, or the appointment of John Ashcroft. But in his expressed commitments to fighting poverty, and working with people of faith to do it, I believe we should give him a chance, and even help him turn his strong inaugural words into reality. I think many of us in the churches are inclined to do that.

In short, "Give the State another chance!" Would you have said this in Germany in 1933? After all, "Nazi" was shorthand for "National Socialist German Democratic Workers Party" (NASDAP). The Nazis ran an extensive welfare State. But then, as always, this welfare State grew untrustworthy. This never ceases to amaze and astound welfare State liberals.

You welfare State political liberals never learn. You are all are faithful lapdogs of the State. You are always willing to give the State one more chance. You do not learn from past experience.

The politicians -- Clinton and Bush -- have used you to make lapdogs out of greyhounds by cutting off one leg . . . and two testes.

You write:

In the early days of the Clinton administration, the president expressed support for the work many of us in the religious community were doing to solve social problems. I remember personal notes from the White House and talk about "working partnerships." But in 1996, President Clinton signed a welfare reform bill that lacked crucial supports needed by single mothers and their children to move out of poverty. Some of us spoke out. Police arrested 55 inner-city pastors in the Capitol Rotunda as we read the words of the prophet Isaiah, "Woe to the legislators of infamous laws who cheat the poor among my people."

The personal notes from the White House and discussions of partnerships suddenly stopped. Dialogue with the president apparently didn't include criticism. But in the tradition of biblical prophets such as Isaiah, the religious community is called to speak truth to power. Having had breakfast in the White House and been arrested for protesting its policies, I've learned the former is more dangerous to the prophetic vocation.

Let me repeat your words: "I've learned the former is more dangerous to the prophetic vocation." No, sir, you did not learn. You were right back at the Federal trough when Bush offered to write checks to local Christian organizations.

You are a political liberal. You are therefore addicted to the lure of greater power through greater Federal money. Like a heroin addict, you cannot stay away. You are a pusher for every naive organization that thinks "maybe this Federal money is free. Maybe it can help us do some good. Maybe we will not sell our institutional soul."

My question is this: "What part of 'court prophet' don't you understand?"