Standing by Faith
Helping others, helping ourselves.

By Michael Long, director of the White House Writers Group
March 13, 2001 9:45 a.m.

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 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).