One of President Bush's first official acts was to create an Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives, giving dramatic, tangible support to the growing movement to allow churches and other religious organizations more opportunities to provide government-funded social services. Sometimes labeled "charitable choice," the effort to link government money with religious social programs was made possible initially through a provision in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act.
It seems like a good time to summarize Presbyterian opinion on this topic, gathered in 1997 and 1999 via Presbyterian Panel surveys.
When asked in 1997 what they thought of the "general idea" of churches and other religious organizations receiving "money from state government to help poor and other disadvantaged people," support was lukewarm, at best. Small majorities of elders (54 percent) and specialized clergy (51 percent), half of members, and 43 percent of pastors responded not a good idea. A sizable additional segment, ranging from 16 percent (specialized clergy) to 23 percent (members), responded not sure. Thus, support was limited to 40 percent of pastors, 32 percent of specialized clergy, and 27 percent of both members and elders.
One concern raised over such programs is the possible blurring of separation between church and state. And, in fact, small majorities of members and elders agreed that "a contract between state government and a religious body to provide welfare services" would be "in violation of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment . . . ." Pastors, however, are less troubled by constitutional questions: half think government-funded church programs would not infringe on church-state separation, while 35 percent think it would; 15 percent are not sure.
Two years later, responses to a different question on the same topic found less concern with constitutional matters. In fact, 57 percent of members, 61 percent of elders, 77 percent of pastors, and 71 percent of specialized clergy agree that church-state separation issues should not keep churches and other religious organizations from "work[ing] with the government to help the poor."
Almost all panelists believe that helping the poor materially provides an opening for evangelism. Majorities of 91 percent or more agree that, "through providing goods and services, churches and religious organization have an opportunity to share the gospel with the poor." This finding further suggests that most Presbyterians would be skeptical that faith-based groups can operate strictly secular programs.
Many panelists believe that charitable choice has positive implications for church budgets. Majorities of pastors (56 percent) and specialized clergy (60 percent), and large minorities of members (43 percent) and elders (47 percent), agree that "churches and religious organizations can benefit from the extra financial assistance provided by state government." Only 15 percent, 18 percent, 25 percent, and 20 percent, respectively, disagree; the remainder are uncertain.
If Presbyterians see a dark cloud on the charitable--choice horizon, it is the potential for government regulation of faith- based institutions. Majorities of members (58 percent) and elders (59 percent) agree that "churches and other religious organizations shouldn't receive money from the government because it will make them more accountable to the government for their actions."
But most ministers don't see this possibility as a threat: majorities of pastors (53 percent) and specialized clergy (60 percent) disagree with the statement.
Q-1. Churches and religious organizations can benefit from the extra
financial assistance provided by state government.
Q-2. Through providing goods and services, churches and religious organizations have
an opportunity to share the gospel with the poor.
Q-3. Churches and religious organizations shouldn't work too closely with the
government to help the poor because of separation of church and state.
In short, as responses to another question confirm, most Presbyterians (e.g., 77 percent of members, 75 percent of pastors) agree that providing services for the poor is something churches are "well-suited" to do "because of their traditional concern for the needy." The potential for harm from this breach in the wall of separation between church and state is, to most Presbyterians, especially ministers, less than the perceived opportunity for good.
That noted, a final caution seems warranted. Most responses to the questions on charitable choice lack intensity. Relatively few of the agree responses are of the strongly agree variety, and relatively few of the disagree responses are of the strongly disagree stripe. While I think the generally positive outlook is genuine, it is not deeply held by many, which suggests most Presbyterians remain hopeful even as they take a "wait and see" attitude. As the experiment in charitable choice expands, I would not be surprised to see significant shifts in opinion, although I'll leave predictions to others.
For more information on the Presbyterian Panel survey on Public Role of Presbyterians and Social Justice and Social Welfare, see the summary online.
Email the author: Jack Marcum
Research Services