ITTING IN A BIBLE study led by Jim Davids, it's hard to imagine that this jovial man is one of the small group of principals involved in one of the most bitterly contested political issues on Capitol Hill this session: the faith-based initiative. Jim is a sincere Christian, as are Carl Esbeck and Stanley Carlson-Thies, the other faith-based warriors I've come to know over the past eight months. These are people who talk our language, understand our perspective, and care deeply about religious freedom.

But Jim, Carl, and Stanley are more than just passionate supporters of the faith-based initiative. Jim works at the newly created U.S. Department of Justice Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives; Carl is the president's point man on the constitutionality of the proposal; and Stanley is a key member of the White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives. These are three fine men, working diligently to advance a program they believe will be of great benefit to the poor of our nation.

But there is an equally dedicated group of worthy individuals working just as diligently to ensure that much of the faith-based initiative never sees the light of day.

I've long admired Brent Walker. Brent is perceptive, he's candid, and I've observed him handle difficult situations with true Christian grace. Brent is also the executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, and he works tirelessly to advance the legacy of that great Baptist champion of religious liberty, Roger Williams. Roger Williams, whose witness is celebrated in The Great Controversy, first proposed the concept of the separation of church and state in the mid-1600s. In 2001 Brent Walker continues to fight the good fight to ensure that this separation is maintained. He is, of course, not alone.

I recently heard Congressman Chet Edwards give a passionate speech extolling the dangers of mixing church and state that could have come out of the mouth of any number of great Adventist religious liberty leaders over the years. These are not fly-by-night agnostics weighing in to stymie a good thing; they are serious Christians with serious objections to the faith-based initiative.

What Is the Faith-based Initiative?
With good people on both sides of this important debate, we are forced to look beyond the personalities to the principles involved. The faith-based initiative encompasses a variety of proposals designed to provide funding to religious- and community-based entities, such as churches, in exchange for the delivery of social services. The proposals can be divided into two categories: those that involve tax breaks to encourage charitable giving, and those that involve direct government payments to churches and other community-based entities. It is important to note that while the proposals permit churches to receive direct government funding, they are explicitly prohibited from spreading the gospel during the provision of social services paid for by this funding.

Tax breaks to encourage charitable giving are uncontroversial and are wholeheartedly supported by a broad range of nonprofit/charitable and church groups. In contrast, the proposal to provide direct government payments to churches—a proposal that is commonly called "charitable choice"—has created a firestorm of protest. Charitable choice is not a new idea; in fact, some governmental programs already permit the provision of social services through "charitable choice"-style funding. However, it has always been, and remains, highly controversial.

The opposition to charitable choice can be divided into three categories: constitutional objections, civil rights objections, and policy objections.

The Constitutional Debate
The constitutional debate centers on the prohibition on the establishment of religion. The past three decades have seen a pitched battle in our courts over what precisely constitutes an establishment of religion. Views vary from the extreme left, who believe virtually any accommodation of religion by the government violates the Constitution, to the extreme right, who believe that direct state sponsorship and funding of overt religious activities is permissible. The Supreme Court has been moving toward a position that is more permissive of government funding of religious entities. But whether this is a positive or negative move is hotly debated, as is the precise interpretation of the Court's recent cases. The Civil Rights Debate

The issue that has come to the forefront of the faith-based initiative debate is whether churches that participate will retain their right to hire only those who share their faith. The "no taxation to fund religious discrimination" proponents argue that permitting government-funded programs to discriminate on the basis of religion is a major step back in the civil rights struggle. They ask, for example, why a Jew should be forced to pay taxes to support the activities of a church program that refuses to hire Jews. But faith-based entities are not faith-based merely because they have a religious name—they are faith-based because the living, breathing people working in them share a common faith and mission. Therefore, the tying of government funding to a loss of this vital hiring right has proven a major point of contention.

Despite the essential need for religious entities to retain their hiring rights if they are to remain religious in nature, the "no taxation to fund discrimination" argument has proved very powerful in the political arena, with one well-respected poll taken this year finding that 78 percent of Americans believe religious entities that receive government funding should not be permitted to set hiring criteria on the basis of religious faith.¹

The Policy Debate
Two primary lines of policy questions are being debated in relation to the faith-based initiative: is charitable choice good for beneficiaries of social services, and is it good for churches?

There is significant disagreement over whether the use of church-run programs will enhance the provision of social services. Some believe subcontracting social service work to the myriad of church-run programs will dilute the effectiveness of the provision of services. Others believe that church-based services will prove to be significantly more effective than those delivered by current service providers, some of which are church-affiliated.² As there has been little research on the relative effectiveness of various social service providers, and what research there is is bitterly contested, it is difficult for either side to support their views with other than anecdotal stories.

There is also significant debate over the impact government funding will have on the churches that choose to receive it. Government money always comes with government regulations. While these regulations may be acceptable at the outset of a program, they are subject to change, according to the politics of the day. There is concern that once churches are dependent on government funding, they will be vulnerable to compromising their core values should new regulations mandate such compromises as necessary to continue the flow of government money.

Conclusion
The faith-based initiative battle continues at the time this piece is being written. Supporters were successful in passing a House version of a faith-based initiative bill that included both charitable giving tax incentives and charitable choice provisions.³ The momentum has ground to a halt, however, in the Senate. The most recent word is that the White House would like to get a consensus bill through the Senate by early 2002. This consensus bill will likely contain only the charitable giving tax incentives, and not charitable choice provisions.

In the short run, supporters of the faith-based initiative plan to use federal regulations and policies to make it easier for church groups to obtain government funding under the current law. They hope, however, that additional charitable choice provisions will be enacted into law in the future. There is one thing that all sides in the issues agree upon: the faith-based initiative story is far from over.

_________________________
¹ Liberty magazine (November-December 2001) carried an article examining this issue in detail. The 78 percent figure was generated from a survey performed by the Pew Research Center. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, American Views on Religion, Politics and Public Life, April 2001, p. 1.
² Currently government social services are frequently provided by private contractors, either secular in nature or nonprofit, church-affiliated corporations. Catholic Charities is an example of an organization that falls into the second category; while it is affiliated with a church, it is not a church itself and is not directly involved in such church functions as religious services.
³ HR 7, The Community Solutions Act of 2001.

_________________________
James Standish is director of legislative affairs in the General Conference public affairs and religious liberty department.