In an essay on "The Voice of Faith Necessary in Social Issues" Evans says:
Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, argues that faith advocacy from whatever quarter and for whatever motive violates the spirit of the Constitution. Lynn believes that politicians and not preachers should develop policy. And that policy should be based on the common good, not a scriptural ideal.I know Barry Lynn well and I've heard him speak to this issue on numerable occassions. The claim that he contends "faith advocacy from whatever quarter and for whatever motive violates the spirit of the Constitution" is simply false. Evans needs to apologize and retract it.
Lynn knows well the role of faith in the civil rights movement. The religious motivation that prompts advocacy for justice and social change has never been at issue. In a pluralistic society, people engage in political processes for a variety of motives.
Evans leaves the impression that Lynn would deny preachers a voice in discussions of policy development. That too is fallacious. Lynn upholds the right of every citizen, for whatever motive, to have a voice in the public square when matters of public policy are being discussed.
The only truth in Evan's caricature of Lynn is that Lynn believes public policy should be based on the common good and not on a scriptural ideal. That, in fact, is what the Constitution requires.
The Constitution prohibits politicians from passing laws that establish religion. Americans hold a variety of different scriptures to be authoritative. Even Americans who consider the same scriptures authoritative, uphold differing ideals from within those scriptures. Public policy must be based on whatever common ground can be found between all faiths and traditions, not on the scriptural ideals of an established tradition.
Evans also leaves the impression that Lynn believes making public funds available to assist the poor establishes religion. That is a complete distortion. Barry Lynn's opposition to federal funding of faith-based initiatives, like the opposition from James Dunn, Brent Walker, Hollyn Hollman, Melissa Walker, Foy Valentine, Phil Strickland and scores of other Baptists and religiously motivated people, has never been based on resistance to the common good of federal support for the needy.
Opposition to federal funding of faith-based initiatives has always been based on the need to protect the church from the intrusion of federal oversight, regulation and political manipulation as well as to prohibit the state from favoring and funding religion and using it as a mechanism for social control.
John Ashcroft, Jim Wallis, and presumably Jim Evans seem to think that the concerns of church-state separationists have been alleviated by the current legislative prohibitions of government oversight and regulation of the funding given to faith-based organizations. It is hard for me to conceive of a more myopic policy. If the devil himself had conceived of a plan to undermine prophetic faith, I don't know how he could have picked a better one.
I once had Jim Wallis as a guest on my radio program. I asked him, "What could possibly destroy the credibility of the church more than easy money and loose accountability?"
He didn't have an answer. Anybody else got one?
3 comments:
I do think Jim Wallis (a friend) underestimates the problems in church/state violations in "faith based initiatives," but should he really be lumped in with the likes of John Ashcroft? Ashcroft is a "Christian Nation" advocate and Wallis, whatever his confusion here (one he shares with Ron Sider), is a committed pluralist.
Michael,
Ashcroft crafted the legislation for "charitable choice." Wallis supported it. What are now called faith-based initiatives are expansions of Ashcroft's legislation.
Prior to Ashcroft's legislation, federal funding for religious charities had to preserve separation of church and state. Ashcroft's legislation was designed to undermine church-state separation and drive a wedge between progressives that supported anti-poverty initiatives and progressives that supported church-state separation.
Ashcroft succeeded in both objectives.
Wallis was concerned only for what he could get for the poor. In real terms, he's got less out of the government for the poor every year since he supported Ashcroft's charitable choice legislation.
The only difference between Ashcroft and Wallis is in their intentions. Ashcroft accomplished his intentions. Wallis did not. Yet, Wallis is still clinging to Ashcroft's supposed solution to the issue of poverty.
In faith based scenarios, help to the poor is often accompanied by some wacky ideology. As a minister, I've noticed in the interaction I've have with the poor, that they have developed a small vocabulary of religious phrases they use when receiving help from me, often automatically going into their "testimony" because they feel I will require it for the help they are seeking. It might be a genuine desire to share their religious story with me, but it has the feel of a litmus. I certainly don't think exchanging religious ideas and stories is too harmful, but when it becomes a game people play simply to get some groceries, or help wioth utilities or health care, then it becomes a bit pathetic for all parties involved. Poor people ought to be able to get some help without having to play such games. I want my goverment to provide this kind of unbiased safety net.
The "seperation issues are difficult." A preachers voice in public policy development will likely mean that a potentially good idea will be attached to some form of Christian mythology (and I mean the word "myth" in a nuetral way, not myth as in false). For many that is offensive, or at minimum, awkward.
And to answer your questions at the end of your post? What could hurt the church as much? Poor rationality.
Post a Comment