Campolo Diminishes Himself in Oklahoma

I went to Oklahoma City yesterday to hear Tony Campolo speak on "Volunteerism" in an event sponsored by the Oklahoma Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and its parent organization the Oklahoma Department of Human Services along with the United Way and the University of Oklahoma.

I used to be a big fan of Tony Campolo. Until yesterday, I thought his form of faith and mine were nearly identical. In times past, I've heard him speak as an advocate for separation of church and state. Yesterday, however, his actions did not match his previous rhetoric on that subject.

The sermon that was delivered yesterday was vintage Campolo. It was a great sermon. It was an explictly Christian sermon. It was engaging and entertaining. I personally agreed with everything he said.

I even laughed heartily when he said, "You know the difference between a Baptist and a terrorist? -- you can negotiate with a terrorist," while suspecting that some of the event's organizers would think that the Baptist he was referring to was an ardent church-state separationist like myself.

I readily admit that I am reticent to negotiate about the dissolution of the disestablishment clause of the First Amendment. Campolo's sermon was the first sermon I've ever heard from a moderate or progressive Baptist that was solicited, endorsed and introduced by an agent of the state acting in an official capacity and supported by funding from U.S. and/or State of Oklahoma tax dollars.

I remain as strenuously opposed to the state using its power to endorse and support the faith of moderate and progressive religion as I am to the state using its power to endorse and support fundamentalist religion. The state must maintain a benevolent neutrality in regard to religion.

Religion is always diminished when it permits itself to be coopted and utilized by the state.

Summarizing Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives

Bill Berkowitz has done a masterful job of summarizing the work of the Bush administration's faith-based initiatives. Here's the paragraph that leads into more detailed discussion of six of the worst examples of the corruption and cronyism perpetrated by this administration:

Despite the administration’s ceaseless touting of its “compassionate conservativism” and its desire to unleash the “armies of compassion” to deal with the nation’s social ills, Bush’s faith-based initiative never made it out of Congress; no effective legislation was passed. Team Bush was able to establish Faith-Based and Community offices at eleven federal agencies, and the initiative spread its tentacles into a host of other federal, state, and local government agencies. Thirty-five governors and more than seventy mayors, both Democratic and Republican, have established programs modeled on the federal Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, though it was rife with scandal. In short, despite the lack of congressional approval, Bush’s faith-based initiative has burrowed its way into the political landscape.

Unfortunately, as Berkowitz reveals, Obama plans to continue the office. Without doubt, we will be summarizing his administration's abuses whenever he leaves office. Giving taxpayer money to churches is a bad idea. Only the names and political orientations of the abusers will change.

It will be interesting to observe whether the right-wing religionists so eager to receive government funding start singing a different tune when the dollars begin to flow to liberal churches rather than conservative churches.

Obama Skates on Thin Ice with his Faith-based Partnerships

Advance information about the content of Barack Obama's speech this afternoon is springing up all over the internet. He will be speaking about his plans for "Partnerting with Communities of Faith."

It looks like Obama is trying to reinforce and expand policies that were in place for 501(c)3 religious non-profits before the Bush administration relaxed standards and doled money out to churches and charities to drum up political support in minority communities.

I predict that conservative evangelicals will resent the prominence Obama will give to Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services. Evangelicals will perceive that they are being marginalized and that mainline churches are being promoted -- at taxpayer expense. It will simply be a different form of religion being blessed by the President in the public square.

In my opinion, any politician promoting faith-based initiatives or "partnerships" is skating on thin ice. Governments have no business trying to use religion as an instrument of social policy. Churches have no business becoming tools of the government.

(Thanks to The JED Report for posting Obama's campaign fact sheet.)