|
 erhaps the waning
support on the Right for the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives
would undergo a
miraculous
recovery if the community of conservative intellectuals could better
distinguish between what National Review calls "hectoring
moralism" and a plea on behalf of people in need. With his forceful
guidance of a federal effort in support of one of the original roles
of the church, Faith-Based Office head John DiIulio has endured
the scorn of some conservative leaders, but has heard little in
the way of thoughtful remedies for the underlying problem: how to
help those in need.
The idea of federal support for faith-based initiatives brings us
face to face with fundamental questions about the nature of charity
and good works.
1) Is our goal as conservatives to help people in need, or is it
simply to diminish the role of government without assuming the burden
of helping our fellow man?
2) Do we as private citizens and religious people possess the moral
strength to assume the burden of vigorous charitable acts?
Shifting the Burden
We have talked for so long about the need to diminish the influence
of government that some on the Right have forgotten that certain
basic human obligations now met by government must be met in some
other way should government go away.
President Bush's faith-based initiative supports people and programs
that are making explicit efforts to help. Mr. DiIulio's office isn't
going out on a search for churches to pester in order that they
might invent some new charitable function (though a little "hectoring
moralism" to remind us of our duty as children of God isn't a bad
idea). Faith-based organizations come to Mr. DiIulio's office for
support by their own free will, and financial support is reserved
for what President Bush has called "proven neighborhood healers"
whose methods and field work have already been shown to be effective.
It is demoralizing to see that some conservative writers and leaders
of the Christian Right have attacked the effort on the basis of
some newly fashionable reading of "the separation of church and
state" — a tack which, readers should recall, has been the
subject of considerable disparagement in conservative circles.
If we want people to care about each other more than they do now
— if we want to experience the kind of shift in national mood,
outlook, and values that goes to the root of the problems in this
country (e.g., casual attitudes toward abortion, violence in the
media, public school shootings) — we would be wise to encourage
any activity which, within
| “It
is not enough for us as conservatives to talk about the
dismantling of the welfare state if we are not prepared
to take on as private citizens the perpetual and residual
burden.” |
|
constitutional
bounds, encourages private action and voluntary association over
the cold and sterile dispensation of "compassion" meted out by the
welfare bureaucracy.
We as conservatives need to ask ourselves whether we're prepared
to continue to entrust our clumsy and impersonal government to care
for the indigent.
Moral Fiber
Conservatives who abjure President Bush's faith-based initiatives
are like the dog who chased the car and caught it — but now
doesn't know what to do with it.
It is not enough for us as conservatives to talk about the dismantling
of the welfare state if we are not prepared to take on as private
citizens the perpetual and residual burden. While there is an element
of "sink or swim" that will encourage many, if not most, to make
it on their own, there will always be those who at some point in
their lives need assistance. This is just a fact — even Jesus
reminded us of it.
Who are better equipped to carry the burden than faith-based operations?
As conservatives, we're always talking about the strength of communities
and voluntary associations such as churches. Why not stand by our
words?
Perhaps the problem is that it's a lot harder to take care of people
on a personal basis than it is to write a check to the government
as a sop to our conscience. When the burden of responsibility falls
to churches and other organizations, it forces us to do more soup
ladling than essay writing. Writers such as Charles Murray have
long understood that a libertarian-leaning society requires far
more social engagement and individual moral strength than the current
system ever will.
The Strength to Be Separate
John DiIulio is bang on when he alludes to a faith "hijacked" by
an unwillingness to take up the cross. As Mr. DiIulio knows firsthand,
the fact is that there are people in desperate need all around us.
And while conservatives understand that a free-market system is
the best way to help them — indeed, it is the most moral system
because it preserves the human agency to choose between right and
wrong — faith in markets does not relieve us of the burden
of coming to the aid of others in distress. Nor does it give us
the luxury to dismiss the friendly cooperation between church and
state on account of the fact that this or that group might theoretically
be seduced into compromising its theological purity — or might
threaten the purity of our own.
There can be nothing better for the health of civil society than
restoring the burden of caring to the faithful — and thus taking
it out of the cold and mechanical hands of the federal government
where people only "care" because they are paid to. The Bush plan
will doubtless end up channeling funds to programs operated by religious
groups that are beyond the mainstream. But the distinction between
the programs and the religious groups themselves is vital: If the
program is successful in what it sets out to do — whether it
be fighting drug abuse, restoring neighborhoods, or feeding the
hungry — then why question the program's eligibility for funding?
When the goal is to help others — not merely to prop up one's
own point of view — then most of the objections to the Bush
plan lose their heft.
And if we believe that other religions promote dangerous ideas,
let us at least have the courage to say so (tactfully).
|
