Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Say It Ain't So!
When I first saw this headline, I thought it was satire...surely it was from the Onion. Unfortunately it is true. FEMA plans to reimburse faith groups for aid given during Hurricane Katrina. I hope these faith groups do not accept. Thankfully, Southern Baptists have already rejected the offer. I love how the president of the SBC NAMB puts it, "volunteer labor is just that: volunteer, we would never ask the government to pay for it." That's how it should be. Can you imagine Jesus feeding the five thousand and then looking to Rome to foot the bill? Churches give because that's what Christ would have us do, not because they expect something in return. I believe that accepting a reimbursement is contrary to the Christian teachings on giving. God loves a cheerful giver not one who gives begrudgingly or under compulsion (2 Cor 9:7). Churches ought not be dependent on the government, and accepting this reimbursement is just one step closer to that becoming a reality. No one ever said serving was easy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I heard that this morning and my response was the same as yours. I was quite shocked. I hadn't heard that the SBC had rejected the offer, so I'm glad to hear about that. I completely agree with your comment about the church becoming dependent upon the government. Although, while I see it in this context, I will not concede that the government giving money to churches is always bad (now, before you assume that I'm talking about for giving the same care that the church is expected to give, hear me out). The situation I use to suggest this is, for example, say a situation where a church runs something like a rehab clinic (this is an actual case from the 7th Circuit, by the way, opinion written by Justice Posner) that is much better than your run-of-the-mill rehab clinic (which, in my lengthy experience with rehab clinics - or maybe just hearing about them - is almost always the case). If the rehab clinic doesn't usually charge for their service, the analysis doesn't change, but if the rehab clinic does charge, why should the government money that would go to a run-of-the-mill rehab clinic through the agency of the person required to go to said rehab not go to the clinic just because it is run by a church? As far as the situation in the current post goes, you are completely and totally right. (sorry for going on ad naseum here :))
While I don't have a good response lined out for your faith based initiative argument (which I believe is what you are getting at), I would say that I'm really split on that issue. On the one hand I think that faith based groups do the best job at providing care, and I support international relief money going to faith based groups. However, I'm not entirely crazy about faith based groups receiving money for domestic programs (as you know). Seems pretty inconsistant, I know. I don't have a good argument for that, so it'll have to be taken at face value right now.
Well, I understand the waffling, I don't really know how I stand on it either. But, just for argument's sake, here's the problem I see with the entire situation: as the government has increased in size, it has also increased as a welfare state. In other words, the government has been (and is still) attempting to take over the areas where churches have historically done their 'business' (e.g. counseling and, the big one, feeding, clothing, and housing the poor). The push for government to do this has caused an increase in taxes with which to do this. Therefore, people are now giving more money to the government to do the things that churches have always done, and they have less money to give to the churches (note here, I am not advocating giving your money to governmental organizations rather than the church, nor am I saying that people should not give to the church because they are giving to the government - the church almost always does better than the government at anything - case in point, Katrina relief), and so the churches suffer in their ability to provide these services. The government then sees that and interprets it as an inability of the church to provide these services and a corresponding need of the government to not only continue to provide these services but a need to provide more services (to take more over more of the services offered by churches). It strikes me as a rather unhelpful cycle. Then, the government has also thrown a monkey wrench in an already problematic situation (the one I just described) through the courts which have interpreted the 1st Amendment rather interestingly and have decided that the governmental money cannot go to any religious organization (that's a simplification, but life's too short to get into it too deeply here). Katrina really is a great example and one of the points I disagree with Bush on. He says that the government will foot the bill for rebuilding New Orleans, without raising taxes! Where is this money supposed to come from? Yes it's a good idea to ask for donations and for Congress to cut back on spending (I'm always for that - Go Coburn Go!). But, this is a result of big, welfare government. Okay, I'm sorry this was so long :).
Newsweek Cover Picture
Bush's Math Newsweek Article
Post a Comment