Two leaders whom I greatly admire–Barak Obama and Jim Wallis–have recently come out in support of “faith-based initiatives.” Wallis’s position is a bit more understandable–he is an evangelical and the head of the Sojourners movement/magazine, though unlike some evangelicals Wallis has always put the central message of Jesus first: justice and compassion for the poor and disenfranchised of this world (not anti-abortion, anti-gay rights). Obama’s positive view of the initiative is more of a surprise. I can only conclude that he is . . . well, running for the Presidency of the United States and trying to garner support from the right.
These two men are wrong, as I see it, for three reasons. First of all, addressing social problems is best done through comprehensive “big picture” planning, not piece-meal projects chosen by groups who will inevitably be prejudiced in their choices of who gets services. Some projects are always “sexier” than others and therefore more readily funded. For example, people will give money and volunteer time far more easily to destitute children than to men with chronic drug problems or to women who have been driven to prostitution. Good church people, like all of us, are driven by emotion as much as by logic, and in following our hearts, we may not choose well, in terms of the greater good for the society.
Second, churches are notoriously reluctant to deal with core issues of justice, preferring instead to do works of charity, which address the symptoms, but not the causes of suffering. As Bishop Romero once said, “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why there are so many poor, they say I am a Communist.” Churches are made of mostly pretty comfortable middle-class people, people who want to “help the poor” but who don’t want to take a hard look at their own privilege or to suggest that we might change the tax system in order to be more generous to those in need. (Black churches would be an exception to this rule–and look at the firestorm around the remarks of Obama’s black minister.) When churches fight for systemic change, people–especially people of wealth in those churches–are likely to become nervous, and then angry. “The church should stick to spiritual issues!” they will say. As if you can separate your spirit from your pocketbook.
And third, when people do charitable deeds through their church, many of these people believe they have “done their part” in fixing social problems and therefore are not interested in addressing these problems in any comprehensive fashion through government action. The truth is that these church programs are the proverbial drop in the bucket, and some would say, act as mere band-aids for the gaping wounds of the society, covering up what we don’t want to see and making us church folks feel good about ourselves. We are “Lady Bountiful,” giving of our excess, but not really willing to share our bounty, all the time congratulating ourselves on our goodness and generosity.
Obama, your background is community organizing. You should know better. Let’s hope you do.
