When I was parish priest, I was constantly approached by people whose needs were not being met effectively, if at all, by social services and local or state government. I was acutely aware of the material and financial limitations of the institutional church to do what the government was not able to do. On a very modest salary myself, I was frequently digging into my own limited pockets, and unable to make a constructive difference, could offer little more than advice and references, with leftovers from my refrigerator and a prayer. So there is in me something that understands the Bush Administration's efforts to ease federal funding restrictions toward organizations that, though institutionally religious, are also more in touch with the needs of the poor than the government generally is, and perhaps in a better position to address them. There were times when I thought it would be helpful if the government made the distribution of wealth less restrictive and more readily available. However, upon listening closely to the president's rhetoric and looking at the flagrant politicization of the Evangelical Christian right, I canšt help but feel the choice of the term "faith based" is insidiously misleading and fundamentally manipulative.

First, it is clear from President Bush's speeches, where he holds up the bible as the "rule book" when promoting his faith based initiatives, the Administration betrays an Evangelical Christian bias that limits faith to their own definition of that term. At the very least, or perhaps broadest, that bias can be termed Judeo-Christian. Making the Evangelicals' political preference nationally normative implies it is universally acknowledged when, in fact, both socially and legally, it is not. The Evangelical position espoused by the Bush Administration implicitly excludes (rhetorically if not administratively) the many faithful Americans for whom the Bible is not the scripture of their tradition.

This is disturbing, not just because of the issue of the Constitutional doctrine of the separation of Church and State. It displays a cultural arrogance and insensitivity to non-Christians for which this Administration has become infamous, not only in much of American public perception, but around the world. Ironically, in the deepest and most inclusive sense of the term, this is most un-Christian. How often in the coverage of the Administrationšs campaign for faith based programs do we read of a synagogue, mosque, Hindu temple, Buddhist Dharma center, or a Native American shaman receiving federal funds to help the people in their communities? How often do we hear of the government actively promoting them to request that aid? When the Administration had no problem getting as much media coverage as they wanted during the election, to blame this imbalance on the media's failure to cover the news seems unconvincing. Yet the demographic reality is that the number of non-Christian American citizens is steadily and rapidly increasing, so the issue is not just one of votes, but apparently of votes from the "right" people.

Though America is generally admirably inclusive and religion-blind when offering foreign aid, the president's initially lukewarm response to aid for the tsunami victims in South Asia raises contrasts between the alleged depth of faith espoused by the Administration, and its economic or political priorities. The generous outpouring of aid from the American people seems to have shamed the Administration into greater governmental generosity to save face. The wonderful thing about that is that the people's generosity is the more accurate indicator of faith. It embraces both the many congregations of Christians, Jews and Muslims raising funds for aid, and the countless individuals whose personal generosity is not mediated by institutional religion, but nevertheless is indicative of a compassion with which faith is integrally associated. This is a hopeful sign, both for America and for the world.

Of course, if the Bush Administration's program were more accurately named "Church based" or even "Religion based" programs, the Administration would immediately and appropriately come afoul of the Constitutional lawyers and one of the most fundamental (sic) precepts of American government: that neither religious institutions nor the government should be compromised by any control from the other.

There is evidence suggestive that the Administration is not truly interested in the egalitarian implication of social efforts based on real faith. The Bush policy seems to be targeted primarily to a politically conservative voting block happy to support the Administration in exchange for certain privileges that make their work materially easier. Mr. Bush smilingly affirms that his faith based programs, unlike the government, have no regulations requiring the religious institution to hire outside their membership pool. What is packaged as respect for the integrity of the institution, however, is simultaneously an endorsement of discriminatory practices. This, of course, does not mean that the religious organizations receiving federal funds would necessarily be discriminatory in the help they offer the community, but it does specifically allow them to employ only those who buy into their particular theology (and the political agenda that may accompany it). That is problematic not only from the standpoint of constitutional law, but from that of reinforcing cultural and religious biases that may be damaging to the overall effort to help Americans in need.

I do not want to impugn the value of the social service countless well-meaning and sincere organizations do that, in fact, help lighten the burden of the poor and needy. Nor do I underestimate how funds suddenly made available through federal programs, can go a long way to making a positive difference. But there is an unmistakable tension between the good done, and the subtle indoctrination reinforced by the federal government's endorsement of religious institutions. This makes for not only strange political bedfellows, but a lot of really bad theology implying that God is on the side of a particular party or political interest group. More importantly from a social point of view, it creates a blurring of the constitutional principle that is, ironically, the guarantor that Evangelical Christians are free to express their views and preferences publicly, and practice their religion freely - as are the mainstream Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, and members of all other faiths. That principle is one of the factors that has distinguished America from less tolerant nations and made it a beacon of freedom around the world. Yet those who would tout us as the standard-bearers of freedom are, consciously or not, complicitous in undermining that freedom by pushing an agenda scripted largely by Evangelicals fearful of the inclusiveness upon which this nation stands and for which it is admired.

If the Bush Administration is truly concerned with empowering religious organizations to become more socially effective agents of aid to the needy, I would challenge them to evenhandedly, consistently, and very publicly cultivate the participation of those organizations representative of religious minorities, including those whose views differ from the Evangelical agenda, and to do so in a manner that would assure comparable media coverage to raise public awareness of that policy. If the thorny issues of constitutional principle can be reconciled with these "faith-based initiatives", it would help enhance the Administrationšs credibility, and assuage the criticisms that this is merely a thinly veiled co-opting of the political forefront by the religious right. More importantly, it would allow a vast array of small but legitimate organizations to cooperate in doing good on a practical level. The genius of this country is that even people who disagree with each other have both the right and the opportunity to express their differences and still participate in efforts for the common good, and we are a better nation because of it.

It must be admitted that the biases of the Administration and its Conservative Christian funders are only half of the story. For there can be little doubt that at least some "faith based" organizations, even those who may not be particularly political in orientation, are eager to apply for federal funds in the hopes that, by raising their profile in the community as effective organizations, this will also increase their membership. The Administration clearly understands this and is more than happy to take advantage of it. After all, no Administration's policies become popular unless there is a clear constituency who is eager for its benefits. Perhaps this is inevitable, but religious congregationsš willingness to partner with federal funding may also be unfortunate, for it cuts to the essence of the distinction between being religion based, in the institutional sense, and truly faith based in the experiential sense.

Theologically speaking, it is God (by whatever name we choose to address that Higher Power) who is the source of all material and spiritual well-being. That is quite distinct from either institutional religion or government being the source. Though the two are not mutually exclusive and can work together, it is dangerously easy to blur the lines of distinction between them and thereby compromise the integrity of each. Yet this puts us in something of a dilemma. If a program were based solely on the phenomenon of personal faith, institutional religion would become largely obsolete, rendering the creation of an institution-based program in the first place both impossible and unnecessary.

We are faced with the challenge of attempting to marshall the resources available- both governmental and communitarian- to improve the quality of life for those in need. For that to be effective, we must be clear and honest about our motivations. President Bush's evangelical sincerity may be personally genuine, but it appears also to be promoted by members of his inner circle whose motivations are decidedly political and highly selective. We must be careful not to let the rhetoric of being faith based mask an agenda that has more to do with being members of a particular club, with its expected privileges. Empowering people and communities is good. Indoctrinating them to a sectarian or political bias is not, and the government must not be a party to that if it is to be true to its Constitution, or to the Creator it acknowledges as having created all of us- not just Evangelicals or Christians- equal.


Robert H. Stucky is the Executive Director of Faith In Diversity Institute.

Copyright Š 2005 by Faith In Diversity Institute