FBF Contributor: Stanley Carlson-Thies, former leader for White House Faith-based and Community office and Co-author of “Revolution of Compassion” with Dave Donaldson
stanley@cpjustice.org

White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

On June 26 and 27, the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives hosted a conference to celebrate and evaluate developments in the partnership between government and civil society organizations, including faith-based organizations. In connection with the conference, a new website now highlights “Innovation in Effective Compassion.”

Religious Exemptions
Constitutional law expert Carl Esbeck explains the First Amendment rationale for providing robust religious exemptions in “When Accommodations for Religion Violate the Establishment Clause: Regularizing the Supreme Court’s Analysis.”

Rethinking Role of Faith-Based Organizations
The Baylor Institute for Studies in Religion recently released Not by Faith or Government Alone: Rethinking the Role of Faith-Based Organizations, a special research report edited by Byron Johnson, with short essays on various aspects of the faith-based and community initiative. Among the essays is “The Paradoxical Role of Faith in the Faith-Based and Community Initiative,” by this editor, arguing that the hard work to ensure the religious freedom of faith-based organizations has not been a distraction from the initiative aims but rather the catalyst for all the reforms requiring government to be more respectful of its civil society partners.

Religious Staffing
For the legal, constitutional, and policy rationales for the religious staffing freedom, download The Freedom of Faith-Based Organizations to Staff on a Religious Basis, by Carl Esbeck, Stanley Carlson-Thies, and Ron Sider (Center for Public Justice, 2004).

Other Faith-Based Articles
Is protecting the religious identity of faith-based organizations that collaborate with government an extremist, sectarian policy, as some charge, or rather the middle position–the equal treatment alternative to the extremes of obligatory secularism and soft theocracy? Read Keith Pavlischek’s reflections on Senator Obama’s proposed faith-based policy, “Doubting Obama.”

Peter Steinfels wrote a thoughtful evaluation of Senator Obama’s proposals for the New York Times: “Obama Sets Off a Debate on Ties Between Religion and Government.”

For a thought-provoking review of John DiIulio’s recent book on the faith-based initiative, Godly Republic: A Centrist Blueprint for America’s Faith-Based Future (2007), focusing on the religious staffing issue, see Joseph Knippenberg’s essay, “Faith Friendly?”

The Presidential Candidates and the Faith-Based Initiative

July 17, 2008

Editor: Stanley Carlson-Thies, former leader for the White House Faith-based and Community Office and Co-author of Revolution of Compassion.

Center for Public Justice

stanley@cpjustice.org

Two weeks ago, Senator Barak Obama announced his plans to expand and improve the faith-based initiative. The reverberations from his announcement continue to sound. And rightly so.

The Obama plan draws fire from groups opposed to government partnerships with faith-based organizations to serve the poor and needy. Some of these critics portray the Bush faith-based initiative as an unprecedented violation of settled church-state guidelines. This ignores the fact that government collaboration with religious social-service groups has a long history and that the major legislation on the topic–the Charitable Choice provisions put into three federal programs–was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Work to expand and improve partnership has been going on intensively for a dozen years. Senator Obama is right to see a continuation of this work–expanding the collaboration and continuing to improve the terms of the relationship–to be a vital aspect of domestic policy for the next President.

Reverberations continue as well from Sen. Obama’s announced plan to restrict religious hiring by faith-based groups in programs operated with federal funds. Many religious leaders and faith-based organizations are hoping for further discussion of this vital issue.

In the “guiding principles” in his proposal on “Partnering with Communities of Faith,” Sen. Obama said that the organizations would be required to “comply with federal anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” But, he added, “Religious organizations that receive federal dollars cannot discriminate with respect to hiring for government-funded social service programs.”

His exact intention is unclear. Title VII includes an exemption that expressly protects the freedom of faith-based organizations to take account of religion in their employment decisions, so complying with this fundamental part of federal anti-discrimination policy preserves the religious staffing freedom. But the second statement, by sharp contrast, proposes a sweeping ban on religious staffing in any program operated by a faith-based organization using federal funds.

The status quo–under the Bush faith-based initiative, and also before the Bush actions–has never included such a universal ban. Rather, the federal rules are these:

+ faith-based organizations, as a general rule, are free to consider religion when making employment decisions (the Title VII exemption);

+ some federal programs explicitly protect that freedom when the organization receives federal funds (programs governed by Charitable Choice);

+ some federal programs explicitly ban religious staffing by all participating organizations (e.g., Head Start and programs funded by the Workforce Investment Act);

+ but most federal programs say nothing about employment, thus leaving intact the religious staffing freedom for participating religious organizations.

Many faith-based organizations are rightly concerned about a sweeping new restriction on religious staffing and may be forced to reject collaboration with federally funded programs if the proposed rule is implemented.

Concerned organizations should ask the Obama campaign for clarification, emphasizing their willingness to serve all, without regard to religion, and yet their conviction that maintaining their religious identity is only possible if they are able to take account of religion when selecting staff. Many faith-based organizations do take account of religion, but surreptitiously, unaware of their legal rights. Now is the time is be clear about how important this aspect of institutional religious freedom.

Senator John McCain’s campaign has issued a press release indicating his view that the religious staffing decisions of faith-based groups should not be subject to governmental restriction. This is a welcome statement. But it needs to be accompanied by a plan for carrying on the faith-based initiative.

The current issue of the E-Newsletter of the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy includes this article: “Opposing Groups Urge Next President to Improve Faith-Based Policy.” The article notes a recent letter from the “Coalition Against Religious Discrimination” calling on the candidates to prohibit religious staffing. It also highlights the memo from the Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom calling for a continued emphasis on religious freedom: “Memo to Presidential Candidates: How to get the faith-based initiative right.”

ENDA and Religious Freedom

The Employment Non Discrimination Act (H.R. 3685), adopted by the House last November, still awaits Senate action. Before passage in the House, an amendment offered by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) was added. The Miller amendment was a response to protests to the bill’s inadequate religious exemption (religious schools not controlled by a church nor dedicated to spreading religious teachings were not clearly exempted). As amended ENDA now exempts from its prohibition on job discrimination based on sexual orientation all religious organizations covered by the Title VII exemption of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That is, religious schools, faith-based nonprofits, and other religious organizations that are free under Title VII to consider religion in their employment decisions are also exempt from ENDA’s sexual-orientation ban.

However, ENDA nevertheless would encroach on religious freedom in other ways. As currently written, ENDA does not maintain the specific FCC provision that protects the employment decisions of religious broadcasters. Further, Title VII includes a BFOQ provision that enables organizations to “discriminate” in hiring for particular job positions where certain personal characteristics are valid job qualifications–such as a secular bookstore hiring a person of a particular faith to maintain the store’s specialized holdings of books related to that religion. ENDA does not include such a provision.

Most important, adoption of ENDA arguably would render religiously based objections to homosexual conduct “contrary to public policy” and thus subject to government penalty. Just as Bob Jones University had its tax exempt status revoked because of its then policy against interracial dating, a faith-based organization that legitimately (because of the religious exemption in ENDA) refused to hire a person who engages in homosexual conduct might nevertheless lose its tax-exempt status or low-cost use of space in a government building. Many backers apparently do wish to regard religiously motivated objections to homosexual behavior to be no different than rank racism.

Legislators who genuinely desire both to protect people who engage in homosexual conduct from unjust discrimination and to safeguard the ability of religious people and organizations to maintain their historic religious standards concerning sexual activity need to amend ENDA further.

If you know other individuals or organizations that could benefit from receiving these updates, please email cprf@cpjustice.org to subscribe to the bimonthly newsletters and occasional action alerts from the Center for Public Justice.

For more information on becoming a member of the Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom, please contact us at cprf@cpjustice.org or 410/571-6300.

Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom

cprf@cpjustice.org

410/571-6300

Emerging Evangelicals and their Denominations

This is the first of several writings I intend to pen on this topic

You do not need to read a Gallup Poll or Barna report to see the shifts occurring in the Evangelical movement. The religious Patriarch’s are graying along with their faithful followers. Mega church pastors such as Rick Warren, Bill Hybels and Andy Stanley rightfully pay homage to their forbearers while emerging leaders coronate them with corners of the Evangelical mantel. In contrast to many Evangelical denominations these innovators have purposely steered away from formalizing their following. One follower described it as “a loosely connected affiliation based on a shared conviction that the church must be relevant and can be progressive without losing its moral Biblical bearings.”

“Can I be both Loyal and Relevant?”

These “affiliations” or “associations” pose stiff competition for denominations that are already struggling to compete for their pastor’s affection and church resources. There is a painful tug-a-war in many Pastors who want to remain loyal to their denomination while not being branded as such. This move was illustrated for me recently when I drove past a church in the process of removing the denominational name from its marquee. One pastor confided, “We want our community to see relevance when they drive by not organized religion.” This sentiment is now hurting the denominational pocketbook which depends on its churches to survive. A growing percentage of mega church funds are going to their own schools, missions programs and compassion outreach. Denominational publishing is also suffering. “How do we compete with a church that produces their own materials or downloads them for free from popular [church resource] websites?” one denominational leader asked.

How does a denomination compete while not appearing to denigrate the value these “affiliations” and/or associations? How do they provide the added value to their churches while not alienating them further?

“Why do I need you?”

While denominational leaders scratch their heads an even greater challenge looms with the younger evangelical pastors. These emerging leaders have less loyalty to their denominations past and make it publicly known (through blogs like this one) that they will choose their friends, mentors and where they spend their money. This group is not afraid to ask, “Why do I need you?” “What is my church paying for?” And “What is the return on investment I can expect?”

Added Value Denominations Offer

While it seems in vogue to question the relevance and value of denominations I would encourage and caution pastors to push the pause button before distancing themselves. Over the past decade I have worked closely with denominations such as the Assemblies of God and Southern Baptist’s North American Missions Board. These institutions have benefited leaders including and not limited to the following:

1. Inspirational leadership and accountability – some of the most dynamic men and women in the world are spearheading denominational. There is much that emerging leaders can garner from those that have trod the path before them. Henry Ford said, “I cannot afford the tuition of learning from my own mistakes.”

2. Shared vision – as an example, denominations have successfully convened and galvanized leaders around global initiatives such as church planting, compassion projects and support of proven missionaries.

3. Outreach models – more and more denominations are searching for proven models to spotlight as a resource for their church constituents. For example, Tom Trask, former General Superintendent for the AG helped to catapult Convoy of Hope nationally and internationally by opening doors for Convoy to serve the AG churches and missionaries. Now Convoy is working with a constellation of denominations, NGO’s and corporations to reach the least, last and lost in Jesus name.

4. Resources – denominations have specialized funds earmarked to support the vision of emerging leaders. One church planter complained, “They were behind me….way behind me.” When I drilled down it was clear that the young leader had received assistance but not to the level he expected. I replied, “Whatever they blessed you with were funds that you did not have to raise.”

5. Avenue to leverage giving to support worthy people and projects. Most denominations retain a very small percentage of the funds received for overhead. For example, the AG keeps 5% and then channels the balance to missionaries and projects. In return, denominations can provide missionaries (home or foreign) with mentoring, accountability and other benefits (e.g. insurance, vehicles, literature, etc). There are an abundance of Para church organizations clamoring for church funds but this is still one of the best ROI’s out there.

In short, it does not need to be “either/or” proposition when partnering with denominations. You can still benefit from the innovations coming out of a Rick Warren’s ministry but receive the “added value” of remaining tethered to your denomination. At the end of the day your churches relevance is dependent on how you utilize the knowledge, experience and resources God bestows on you to lead.

If Senator Obama is elected how will this effect faith-based organizations (FBO’s) ?”

As already demonstrated Senator Obama would be cordial and enthusiastically embrace the participation of FBO’s in competing for publicly sponsored social programs. I suspect that FBO leaders would attend venues sponsored for them by the White House and many would hail him as a champion of faith-based causes. Yet, when it comes to competing for grants and contracts most will choose to skip this dance if Senator Obama insists on not protecting their hiring rights. As stated in my previous blog, “The future of Faith-based Initiatives” what makes FBO’s successful is their “Faith” and volunteers and employers serving God and others through their faith. It is God working through faith-based people that leads to transformation. Can someone who has been a slave to drugs be delivered by God without any intervention or interaction of a social worker specialized in this field? Of course, and there are many testimonials to this phenomenon. However, as one who has worked closely with FBO’s like Teen Challenge in most cases it is God using a compassionate faith-based worker and friend to counsel and provide “tough love” through a series of breakthroughs over time. If you interviewed both the faith-based provider and the client they would both contend it was their faith in God that resulted in becoming “a new person with the old things passed away and replaced by the new.” Therefore, if FBO’s are forced to hire non faith-based employees then the core to their success will be eliminated.

As a result, if Senator Obama is elected then I believe FBO’s will be left with the following options:

1. Do not pursue public funds. The only exception would be in the form of vouchers since the Supreme Court has declared that in this case the client is choosing the organization thereby allowing the FBO to not change their practices including hiring rights. Examples of vouchers include childcare, adult education and Access to Recovery under SAMHSA. The FBO still cannot utilize public funds for proselytizing under any circumstance.

1. “Don’t ask and Don’t Tell.” The FBO when hiring someone will not ask the interviewee about their religious background or affiliation. Likewise, the interviewee will not feel any obligation to address this question during the employment process or thereafter. This approach is outlined in my book, “A Revolution of Compassion” co-authored by Stanley Carlson- Theis who is a renowned expert on the matter.

1. Start a secular sister non-profit organization. Many FBO’s will choose to establish a separate non-profit that will be used entirely for programs funded by the government. This would create a firewall and protect them from mixing private with public funds. Some FBO’s have already taken this course and have developed successful “Community Development Corporations.”

If I were advising the Obama campaign I would strongly encourage them to be proactive in presenting and explaining these options to FBO’s. If not, FBO’s will eventually see that they have been a victim of “Bait and Switch.”

In 2001, as one of his first initiatives, President Bush introduced an executive order: the Faith-based and Community Initiative. The purpose was to level the playing field so that faith-based groups could compete for public funds and become a recommended social service provider. Much of the foundation was actually provided by President Clinton and Congress who signed into law “Charitable Choice” which opened the doors for faith-based groups to compete in select government funded programs without changing their identity. Some have assailed these efforts as a failure or just another political scheme but as one who hosted initial gatherings of faith-based leaders at the White House and provided technical assistance to thousands of organizational leaders it has and will continue to bear much fruit. What both President Clinton and Bush envisioned was an equal opportunity for faith-based and community organizations so that people in need would have access to the best help. In short, if you marginalize any group from competing then you reduce the choices people have to receive the finest quality of services available. To oppose that is nothing short of being un-American and inhumane. Where the candidates stand on the continuation of Charitable Choice and the Faith-based and Community Initiatives is beginning to surface.

The Pew Forum, Religion and Politics reported:

“McCain supports faith-based initiatives and has cited charter schools in Arizona as good examples of effective faith-based organizations. He voted for a U.S. Senate version of President Bush’s faith-based initiative designed to make it easier for religious groups that provide social services to compete for federal grants. McCain’s spokesperson, Brett O’Donnell, says that, if elected, McCain wants faith-based organizations to “have at least the same standing as they have now.”

Barack Obama When asked if he would keep the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives open, Obama said he would need to investigate the office’s operations because of the danger that federal money could be allocated to churches ‘based on politics, as opposed to merit and substance.’ He says the office should be ‘open to everybody” and not allow ‘certain groups to be able to evangelize.’

This past week both Senator Obama and Senator McCain offered more details:

Sen. McCain’s presidential campaign issued a statement today (Wednesday) fully supporting the freedom of faith-based organizations to staff on a religious basis even when they receive federal funds:

See the McCain statement here:
McCain campaign statement

See the Obama campaign fact sheet detailing the Obama plan and the new restrictions he proposes:
Obama Guidelines

Hiring rights will become the central issue for both candidates to defend especially if elected President. If a faith-based organization cannot hire someone who shares their faith and values then they are faced with only two options: to compromise in their hiring practices or not compete for government grants and contracts. Senator Obama’s view is a deviation from both the Clinton and Bush administrations that vigorously defended this right.

Senator Obama’s view stands in contrast to his testimony of how Jesus has changed his life. For other followers of Jesus the key to their organizations success is the “Spirit of God” working through Christian believers (employed or volunteers) for the faith-based organization to bring transformation to peoples lives. If an organization that is based on faith in God is required to hire people not of faith then you are asking groups to change the very basis for why they exist to garner public funds.

Further, isn’t that a violation of the organizations civil rights!!!
Everyone has an ideology. Would a leader from Planned Parenthood hire a Pro-lifer? Would a Democrat or Republican hire someone that does not share their campaign’s vision and values? To prohibit a faith-based group from hiring someone that shares their ideology is blatant discrimination. I appeal to Senator Obama who I believe has a genuine relationship with Jesus Christ to ask “Does my Savior and Lord share this view?” Much progress has been made under the last two administrations to build bridges between government social services and the faith community to provide people with a broader menu of choices. If Senator Obama is elected President and does not protect the hiring rights of faith-based groups that receive public funds then he will become the biggest foe of his vision to bring “a new project of renewal in America.”