Concerning Compassionate Conservatism
What caused most evangelical Christians to jump on board
the Bush train? Most of us consider ourselves to be conservatives and yet our president's
policies clearly were less 'conservative' than other candidates, especially in the
primaries.
Conservatives, by definition, stand for less government
and fewer governmental agencies. Excuse me, we have also been quite compassionate as well,
despite the rhetoric to the contrary. Conservatives for years have opposed the
federal government having any role whatsoever in education. Conservatives fully agree that
there is a role for government for protection of the people from enemies both foreign and
domestic. To a conservative, there likely are few other roles that would be best
controlled by the federal government. In summary, for conservatives, there is a short list
of legitimate governmental activities. Other roles are most often performed both more
efficiently and less expensively by the private sector, when possible.
For some reason, these days we seem to have forgotten the
basic premises of the label 'conservative'. Is this a concept whose time has passed? In
our pluralistic society, is true conservatism out-dated?
Most would agree that the founders of our nation qualified
as having what is now considered a conservative mindset. They certainly favored a very
limited government. Most certainly felt that man should see pleasing God as the basis of
our behavior. The idea of the 'separation of church and state' (not a constitutional term
but used in a letter by Thomas Jefferson) was a concept-not to keep religion out of
charting the course of the new government, but to the contrary, to assure that government
will not establish an officially sanctioned church.
Let us consider our conservative position as we once knew
it, and why it clearly is different in comparison to the position forwarded by the nice
President G.W. Bush. Most of evangelicals agree conservatism is generally more appropriate
than liberalism for reasons outlined above. After all, if it weren't for our founder's
conservative direction, brilliantly setting up the electoral college, we could be singing
'Hail to the Chief, Gore'. Yes, conservatism has served us well. "Compassionate
conservatism", despite it's well meaning origin, violates some of our most
conservative beliefs, namely the true 'separation of church and state' as we see below and
an expanded role and size of the federal government.
As a Christian, there is strong cohesion between
conservatism and biblical direction. The lessons in the scriptures are true yesterday,
today and tomorrow. Our God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. With Christianity
as the religion that helped shape our government; the government, although imperfect, was
carefully constructed in a manner that has stood well over time.
Should we embrace this 'compassionate conservatism'
philosophical concept of Dr. Marvin Olasky breathed into life by President G.W. Bush?
Simply, no.
First, looking at it from a pure conservative standpoint,
doing God's work of benevolence for the poor, widows, children, etc., does not fall within
the realm of governmental roles and should be left completely to the churches. As our
president realizes, churches are in the best position to best meet these needs without
waste. Nevertheless, how can we call it 'conservative' when these plans cost taxpayer's
money and fall beyond the bounds of constitutional government authority? Assuming that the
churches will do what is mandated by God for them to do- being truly compassionate,
emulating our Savior, wouldn't it be much better if President Bush simply refused to take
that much more money from us? Such a tax cut with no strings attached would allow those
funds to be more freely obtained, without 'Big Brother' telling organizations what to do?
Won't there be an inherent cost to support administering this new program, making the
dollars less available for actually doing the work?
What is the truly conservative and compassionate solution?
Government should free citizens from the tax burden and cut the liberal social programs
away, therefore decreasing governmental costs. Those in need will have their needs met by
the churches and other faith-based organizations without dilution of resources. Why should
Christian organizations willingly choose to have strings attached?
The true 'separation of church and state' (limiting
government from endorsing a state church) is in grave danger, as various organizations
will compete for federal funding of worthy projects. Even if our well-meaning president
manages to set up a plan that helps many people and at the same time allows some financial
relief for faith based organizations, we still have invited the Trojan horse into our
walls. We will have approvingly set up governmental agencies that will regulate funding
based on their own criteria, diminishing our autonomy. We have violated the secular hard
and fast rule, "There is no such thing as a free lunch". There is a cost, likely
too expensive.
Recently there is evidence of concern for the inherent
dangers in operating these conceptual ideas by their originator, Dr. Marvin Olasky. In the
March 3, 2001 World Magazine, in his editorial page, he concludes:
"As Congress gets its hands on the Bush initiatives,
Christians should not compromise on the freedom to evangelize, and should vigorously
oppose anyone who confuses freedom of religious speech with the two bad kinds of
proselytizing. Evangelicals should insist that President Bush's stipulation about
religious freedom-that government officials should not monkey with the religious content
of programs-is nonnegotiable. The First Amendment's protection for the "free
exercise" of religion demands nothing less."
He is correct to be concerned. He may be too late. He
recognizes that Christians are incapable of compromising God's mandate and still pleasing
Him. He recognizes that if that were to happen, we will have lost our most precious
freedom.
Parts of communism also looked good on paper. There is
apparent compassion associated with all people sharing resources. Unfortunately, as we
have seen (and our founders were wise enough to foresee), governments will fail when
precautionary measures to bind man’s inherent evil nature are not taken. Only
Judaeo-Christian religion effectively deals with this absolute reality. Compassionate
conservatism, as planned, will fail.
What about our politicians, including President G.W. Bush?
Politicians fail to grasp just how necessary this is. Their world is built on compromise.
It is paramount to their thought processes. This mind set is incompatible with that of
Christianity. If we allow their dollars, they expect us to deliver thanks to their
generosity.
This funding will initially be a relief to those
organizations who have been working so hard to fulfill our Lord's direction. With time,
those organizations will find a greater dependency on the federal dollars and gradual
control.
Just whose lead are we following? Is this one of the ways
Christ worked? Didn’t He show absolutely the converse? In all of history, no one has
had a greater positive impact on our world than Jesus Christ. Money was not a desirable
tool in His teaching or in His example, but that we should flee from the love of money.
Why should ‘Christians’, followers of Christ, go in another direction or wrong
direction? Just who are we following.
Many of us have seen our incomes raise over the years
(don't erroneously give our former President Clinton credit for this) and yet we seem to
still be no better off than when our income was less. This too will happen to faith-based
organizations if Bush's plan begins. We see initial relief then the organizations
competing for the money will become more like universities as they try to write grant
proposals that will help keep the money flowing. This process automatically will become a
cost center for the faith-based organizations. The cost of doing what they already do will
therefore rise.
In addition, the cost increases as the organizations see
enough funds to 'improve their ability to serve'. Here some of the funds will be diverted
for infrastructure of new buildings, assets and personnel to handle the workload. The
efficiency may increase on paper but with more funds going to the background, less is used
for the main purpose. When the organization has begun this 'upgrade' of services, the
overhead increase such that the group will be dependent on a larger amount of funding
simply to continue operation, much like we find ourselves when we get pay raises. We
simply purchase larger houses, more expensive cars, etc. We likely will have no more
'useable' money. Churches are no different. The more you get, the more you need as you
readjust your budget and add worthy causes for funding.
The darker side of this plan is that as organizations get
more dependent on federal dollars, their ability to exist will be in jeopardy, needful of
governmental funds to remain viable. At that time of increasing expenses, will they manage
to qualify for the grant dollars? If not, will they close their doors, or then be sold to
the recipients of the grant money who may have an anti-Christian world view?
If the proposed "compassionate conservatism" had
been made by Bill Clinton or Al Gore, how many of the Christian 'leaders' who speak
favorably of this plan would have embraced it at all? Clearly there is a difference from
the integrity of the one speaking the plan but still should we believe the claims of
freedom of religion as they enter the church's realm?
Once these plans are made, once the bureaucracy is in
place, despite careful wording and care, we still have a big problem. Assuming President
Bush handles it well and keeps his hands out of the church's business, what about our next
administration? Possibly in less than 4 years! Senator Hillary Clinton may be
our next president. Is that comforting to those who find themselves more at ease with
Bush's plan? Who would be surprised if a Democratic administration did not try to modify
the Bush plan? If there is anything that would give us pause, that should.
Realizing the atrocities that occurred in Nazi Germany
were largely due to the failure of the church to stand strong against the state, (see Dr.
Erwin Lutzer’s excellent, though chilling book, Hitler’s Cross),
are we in the initial stages of this failure? The parallel is thankfully imperfect but
some warnings are appropriate from the errors of the German church. Dr. Lutzer writes:
"From my study I have concluded that the church in
Germany appeared to be too preoccupied with the problems of the nation to see what was
happening before its eyes…The church stood poised between two crosses, wanting to be
loyal to both but learning that neither cross could tolerate the other…The church
made peace with an enemy with which it should have been at war. Called to warn and
protect, it tolerated, then saluted, then submitted…As we in America move toward
arbitrary sociological laws, the state will expand its powers and the church will be
expected either to go along with the changes or face the consequences…At this point
the fervent hope was that both God and Caesar could both be served without choosing
between one or the other. Eventually that hope was shattered."
Suppose the next administration(s) choose to right some
perceived wrongs after this plan begins and decides to put more controls on these
organizations. Will they step into the pulpit or limit the 'proselytizing' done as part of
their service to the people? Will there be governmental mandates for personnel hired to
work in these places? Will the receipt of taxpayer's dollars give congress the perceived
right to tax these organizations? Will the mountains of red tape be worth the dollars
received? Will current contributors feel the need to continue their charitable giving
since the organization seems to be doing fine with the new federal dollars? Will there be
a government- dictated incentive for contributors to give to certain organizations and not
others? Who determines which organizations are worthy? When will bureaucrats choose those
who are 'inclusive' and refuse to fund 'zealots' (like some of us) who dare to claim that
Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven?
If we look at the Medicare program, at the beginning,
physicians and hospitals ("providers" - like the churches would be considered
here) saw a windfall as they began to receive funds for the work that they largely had
written off although patients were still being treated. Medicare was quite positive.
Today, the regulations, additional cost due to paperwork and billing and governmental
requirements have accompanied decreasing payments and patient satisfaction. Few physicians
have dropped Medicare and many would love to but doctors have largely become dependent on
the dollars despite the diminishing returns.
Consider the regulations placed on dollars for highway
construction and maintenance from the federal government to the state government. Money
earned in the states is federally taxed, the feds decide how much or how little a state
deserves based on other criteria (such as EPA compliance). The diluted dollars then might
return to where they are needed. This sounds promising to Christian organizations, right?
Do we really want to be groveling at the feet of the government power brokers?
There will be a cost to receive government funding for
worthy causes. Will it be our ability to witness? With time, yes.
The concept itself is concerning in that it will fund
virtually any approved 'faith-based' organization to do good to those in need. Christian
organizations currently are performing the lion's share of such philanthropy as that is
our mandate from no one other than Christ himself. Current plans allow inclusion of
Muslim, Hindus, Scientologists, Wiccans, and non-religious groups and who knows what
others. These may well be allowed equal access to the federal dollars (to be fair?).
First, this dilutes the dollars given to the Christian
organizations who have a track record of charity. It invites others who have never had
such interest to compete for those dollars and may give them a platform to introduce their
own new ideas of spirituality to achieve wanted results, supported by your tax dollars. It
is tyrannical for Christian's tax dollars going to fund these other groups. In the same
way, it is just as tyrannical for non-Christians to have their dollars fund Christian
organizations.
This plan makes Christianity look like just one other
mercy organization but maybe not as kind as others with their hard stance on Christ's
deity. We open up additional opportunities for false religions to take a strong foothold.
Sure, truth will win in the end but we should oppose anything that makes our own efforts
more difficult.
As the great scriptures say: Proverbs 29:25 "Fear of
man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe."
Friends, we have willingly joined forces with a leader
who, under probable well-meaning pretenses, stealthily is setting up a wolf in sheep's
clothing. We would be screaming if this were Al Gore's plan. In 4 years it could be under
his control. The new bureaucratic agency is now started - with our blessings!!!! How can
this be? We knew better than to do this before President Bush hit the scene, or we should
have known better.
How is it defenders of the faith, such as Chuck Colson can
be so enamored with Bush's plan that he heartily endorses this idea? His Prison Fellowship
ministry has done enormous good and had a pilot program of compassionate conservatism in
the state of Texas. This is thought to be of great success, with greatly reduced
recidivism rates of the inmates who chose to be in this prison environment. Undoubtedly we
are seeing a biased population in that only those who are willing to subject themselves to
such a program would also be the same ones who are willing and really want to change their
lives. That is great. It helped those who were willing to help themselves.
Of course incarceration is a governmental role. In such a
circumstance, Prison Fellowship could do great good and take governmental dollars at very
little risk. As much good as it has done, it still is a parachurch organization that
is not critical to the furtherance of the gospel. In a sense, realizing the good they have
done, Prison Fellowship is expendable. In the pilot setting, even if the State of Texas
rules had for some reason stopped the message of Christianity, an appeal to a federal
level was available to right a possible wrong. On such a small scale, they could easily
walk away if it became a threat. Neither of these options would be available on a large
scale, federally run basis.
Heaping guilt upon ourselves, we are willfully joining a
bandwagon that has gained momentum as we closed ranks, lacking discernment, behind this
nice man in order to allay our fear of an Al Gore presidency. Because of our fear of man,
we have been ensnared by those who claim conservatism and do not practice it.
We have embraced President Bush's non-rancorous, positive
rhetoric and we are so eager to have a breath of fresh air to help clean out the White
House from the Clinton years, we have fallen victims to giving up the absolutely most
important cause for which our forefathers left their homelands-
Freedom of Religion.
If only this weren't true.
Mr. Bush, please reconsider. Christian leaders, if we lose
this freedom, we have opened the door to tyranny and worsening persecution. We don’t
have to do this. Mr. Bush, just don’t take the money from us. We will take care
of other people, at least better than Uncle Sam can.
By all means, cut taxes. Expanding deductions for
charitable contributions and incentives to create charity tax credits are better than
grants but still give the government leverage over what may be considered legitimate
causes.
An article on faith-based initiatives in Insight
magazine by Catherine Edwards has the following quote including statements made by Don
Willett, the director of law and policy for the White House Office of Faith-Based and
Community Initiatives (OFBCI)
"Faith-based groups are going to have to be
prudent about all of this and be cautious about not becoming dependent on government
funds," Ebberly warns. And Willett adds: "We may make a few mistakes, but we do
have the good fortune not to be competing with perfection. The current system is highly
flawed and, while spending billions, has not solved the problem of poverty in America. We
are here to herald antipoverty work and open the doors.
And just because we are leveling the playing field by granting equal access to
government funds for all providers of social services does not mean that everyone has to
suit up and play! It will be an option."
Willett is right that the current system is highly
flawed. The main error is that the government should be involved in what they should
leave to the church. As good as the goal of eliminating poverty is, it will never be
accomplished, if we want to listen to Christ's words.
It is good that everyone is not required to suit up and
play. It is tyranny that any of our tax dollars go to fund their
less-than-conservative approach. The 'playing field' is not leveled but biased
toward the 'players'. We cannot afford to play a game when we could lose our most
precious freedom through an experiment.
"We may make a few mistakes" With government standards imposed on themselves, that is no big
deal. Subsequent administrations are sworn to being friendly to the church and
Freedom of Religion. Oh yeah, right.
Copyright © Dio, Inc., 2001
