(published in Dallas Morning News Feb. 24, 2001)

A recent Viewpoints column by Kenneth Roe speculated that President Bush’s Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives would eliminate the safeguards that have protected people from unwanted proselytizing by religious organizations.

Mr. Roe is crying wolf.

For years, Lutheran Social Services of the South has joined with the government to provide beds in nursing homes, to recruit and train foster parents, to offer emergency assistance to families in crisis and to help youths with severe emotional and behavioral problems. Under then-Gov. Bush’s “charitable choice” legislation, we developed a mentoring program for women who are making the transition from welfare to the workforce.

In none of those programs do we force anyone to take a Bible, say prayers or attend worship services in order to receive services. Even with the legislative expansion of faith-based initiatives, we have no intention of changing how we operate. The reason: We know from experience that you can’t force someone to be faithful. Indeed, attempting to force religion on someone is likely to backfire.

Rather, we hope the faith of our employees and volunteers (who aren’t required to be Lutheran) will demonstrate the positive impact that spirituality has in our lives. We hope that leading by example will encourage those we serve to begin or to further their own faith journeys. Only then can the power of faith have the transformative impact that Mr. Bush has described.

The second point I take issue with is Mr. Roe’s assertion that programs operated under the faith-based initiatives will lack accountability and will be substandard. Any time an organization – secular or religious, profit or nonprofit – is awarded a government grant, specific performance standards are part of the contract. If an organization fails to perform, its funding is in jeopardy.

In our mentoring program, we have to prove we are meeting specific goals. We have to demonstrate that the women either stayed employed or improved their employment status. Because we met our performance standards, we were able to expand our program to include the daughters of those women. Naturally, there also are goals for that program, such as reducing the dropout and teen pregnancy rates.

Mr. Roe theorizes that substandard services are likely to be offered because charitable choice legislation allows faith-based groups to form their own accreditation bodies and supervise themselves. While the law allows that, Lutheran Social Services has elected not to go that route. We believe we should be required to meet the same reasonable standards as our secular counterparts and that we should be monitored by independent agencies. We have no desire to weaken the standards by which we are judged.

The proposal put forth by Mr. Bush essentially levels the playing field for faith-based organizations that want to become partners with government. No longer will the religious orientation of an organization be a liability when a government agency solicits proposals for providing services to society’s needy.

Unfortunately, the voices being heard on this issue are the extreme ends. There are those who are sounding the alarm that this effort will erode our religious freedoms, open the door for a “state” religion and force people to hear prayers they find objectionable. On the opposite end are folks who believe this will be the cure-all for our social ills and that if we just restore God in our society, all will be right with the world.

The reality probably is in the middle – expanded faith-based initiatives will help some members of society who haven’t been reached. But there still will be some who refuse assistance or can’t be helped. It is the hope for those who may be helped for the first time that underlies the case for this new initiative. cure-all for our social ills and that if we just restore God in our society, all will be right with the world.

The reality probably is in the middle – expanded faith-based initiatives will help some members of society who haven’t been reached. But there still will be some who refuse assistance or can’t be helped. It is the hope for those who may be helped for the first time that underlies the case for this new initiative.

Return to Top