ROY ADAMS

mericans know it as the president's faith-based initiative, a plan under which faith groups (churches, synagogues, mosques, whatever) would provide social services with government money. Some welcome it; others are appalled; and the debate is joined.

In my view the U.S. administration should be commended for its concern about the poor and disadvantaged in society, and for its recognition of the critical role faith communities can play in building the social fabric of a nation. Adventists, however, have generally been silent on the issue thus far, many of us probably opting to wait and see, and not precipitously jump to conclusions. There's wisdom in such caution, of course, especially with the idea being so new and with many details of the program still unclear.

But I think I see the outlines of at least one related issue clear enough to comment.

One point made again and again in the faith-based initiative debate is that so long as a faith group uses the federal dollars it receives exclusively for social programs, there's no violation of the church-state separation principle.

I don't buy that. And here's why.

Consider the case of the First Church of Satan (FCS) in Freetown, Maryland,¹ with an annual operating budget of $1 million (distributed among a variety of programs, including social services and evangelistic outreach). For years the board of FCS has dreamed of putting more money into evangelism; and for years, operating under tight budget constraints, it has seen that dream fall flat. Now, all of a sudden, new money has arrived-$100,000 from the government, earmarked for social services. And what happens? Through the "magic of accounting" (to borrow a phrase), and not a lot of magic at that, FCS is able to beef up its evangelism budget by redirecting funds-you guessed it-previously slated for social services.

The bottom line is that the $100,000 from the government has indirectly boosted the evangelistic outreach of FCS. And that's wrong.

Along these same lines there's yet another factor to consider-the danger that government may find itself unwittingly participating in what the U.S. Constitution calls "the establishment of religion." This becomes clear when one remembers that social services are not nearly as neutral as the government may think. For many faith communities such services, by enhancing their profile and standing in the community, constitute an entering wedge for evangelism and witness. In other cases the group's theology is inextricably interwoven with its social services strategy.

But even in cases in which a faith group strictly adheres to the principle of church-state separation, there still is room for abuse. As someone noted on a National Public Radio broadcast earlier this year: "The federal government [through the faith-based initiative] could find itself in the remarkable position of building churches. Say a small inner-city church wants to operate a homeless shelter, but it can't afford to build a whole new building. The president's rules say the government could pay for that part of the building that is used for that nonreligious activity."² Which led American Civil Liberties Union's Chris Andrews to the following illustration: "A church could decide that it needs a new building; and let's say 50 percent of the building is going to be used for worship services, and 50 percent . . . is going to be used for housing, at least for now. They can get half of their funds from federal sources now."³ And would the federal government have the resources to police how the facility is used 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Anyone with the slimmest knowledge of Washington bureaucracy knows the answer to that. And when we consider the capacity of certain faith groups for mischief and fraud, then we know we're looking at the specter of embezzlement and theft on a mammoth scale.

Money has an uncanny power to blind the conscience, especially when we sense the possibility of getting our own hands on it. And it often takes a heavy dose of principle to see beyond its mesmerizing appeal. Any church has the right to propagate its teachings; but it shouldn't be with my tax dollars.

What do you think? Am I missing something?

_________________________
¹ The name of the church and that of the town are both fictitious.
² Barbara Bradley Hagerty, NPR News, Jan. 13, 2003.
³ Ibid.

_________________________
Roy Adams is an associate editor of the Adventist Review.