THERE’S AN EMERGING CONSENSUS On the right that religious charities do a better job of helping the poor than does government. Sen. John Ashcroft of Missouri has thus proposed to allow states to funnel federal welfare dollars to churches and other overtly religious organizations so they can provide federal services and federal cash to the poor. But Christian conservatives, instead of leading the charge for Ashcroft’s proposal, should be the first to recognize how problematic it is. If the money doesn’t go toward proselytizing, it will be ineffective. But if it does, even indirectly, it will seriously violate both conservative and basic American principles.
Ashcroft’s proposal is an amendment to the welfare reform bill. It would allow states to distribute their federal welfare block grants to charitable and other private groups, including religious organizations.
Although churches and religious charities would not have to alter their religious character to get the federal money, the amendment says: “No funds provided directly to institutions or organizations to provide services and administer programs . . . shall be expended for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization.”
If so, the good senator’s proposal is a waste of money. The thing to keep in mind is why Christian charities work so much better than social services provided by government.
Are believers just more effective bureaucrats than non-believers? No, Christian charities do so well because Christ changes lives. When a Christian charity lifts someone out of poverty or drug abuse, the improvement in the person’s circumstances or behavior is merely the outward manifestation of a change within the person; it is new fruit from a regenerated tree.
The gospel is the essential agent, the root of the spiritual change. Without proselytizing, then, Christian charities will be no more effective than government or any other charity.
Of course, one could argue that money is fungible. It’s a familiar conservative point, and it’s true. When the government gives money to the Sierra Club to run a wildlife refuge, it frees up funds that can be used for lobbying, fundraising, and so forth. If it’s true for the Sierra Club, it’s true for the Southern Baptist Convention. Tax dollars given for “secular” use at Christian charities will free up church funds for proselytizing.
But that should concern all those, including evangelicals, who value religious liberty, a basic tenet of which is that citizens should not be taxed to support religions with which they disagree. Evangelicals in particular should remember that under the Ashcroft proposal, state governments will decide which charities get the federal dollars. In other words, raw political power will prevail. Whichever sects have the most influence in each state will get the coveted funds. Imagine the backlash when evangelicals realize that their money is going to support the Mormon Church in Utah and the Roman Catholic Church in Massachusetts. Or when Mormons and Catholics realize that their tax dollars are supporting the Southern Baptists in Tennessee.
If money really is fungible, then government support of Mormon charities means the Mormon Church can send more missionaries to, say, the South. And the Southern Baptists can do more evangelism in, say, Utah. There’s no better way to start a real religious war in America than to coerce the faithful of any church into subsidizing what they view as a false religion.
Conservatives also need to think hard about what Ashcroft’s proposal will mean for the future of welfare reform. What happens if a future Congress decides to reduce the amount of money given to states in welfare block grants? Will Christian charities and churches be willing to give up their subsidies when that happens?
It won’t be easy. Federal funding is a narcotic. Once addicted, recipients fi nd it hard to live without. As Art Smith of Volunteers of America told the Am erican Spectator, government aid “impairs your impetus to go out and raise fu nds. That’s a real danger all non-profits face — just sitting back and figurin g the government will take care of you.” Once Christian charities get used to c ollecting the subsidy, they will develop programs and goals premised on receivi ng government aid. The threat of losing such aid will be genuinely terrifying. They will surely fight such cuts and thus become what conservatives detest — recipients of federal grants lobbying for “more.” Are Christian conservatives prepared for the sight of Christian charities lobbying to keep their place at the federal trough?
Of all people, conservatives should know that federal funding always has unintended consequences. This proposal is no different. The ACLU and other opponents of Senator Ashcroft’s amendment are — this time — on the side of the angels.
Timothy Lamer is director of the Free Enterprise & Media Institute of the Media Research Center in Alexandria, Virginia.
