COMMENTARY: The Problem of “Big Religion’’

c. 2000 Religion News Service (Samuel K. Atchison is an ordained minister and has worked as a policy analyst and social worker to the homeless. He currently is a prison chaplain in Trenton, N.J., and a fellow of the George H. Gallup International Institute in Princeton, N.J.) (UNDATED) In his 1991 book, “Reflections of an […]

c. 2000 Religion News Service

(Samuel K. Atchison is an ordained minister and has worked as a policy analyst and social worker to the homeless. He currently is a prison chaplain in Trenton, N.J., and a fellow of the George H. Gallup International Institute in Princeton, N.J.)

(UNDATED) In his 1991 book, “Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby,” Yale law professor Stephen L. Carter draws a distinction between actual social and racial disadvantage and the mere appearance of such disadvantage. In so doing, he sets forth an unfortunate truth that underlies many preference programs: the truly disadvantaged are not in a position to benefit from affirmative action.


Sadly, there is an equally true corollary to this axiom: The service agencies closest to the problems of the poor are often those which, financially, are least able to serve them.

This is especially true of many inner-city churches and para-church ministries, whose lack of financial wherewithal is exceeded only by a divinely ordained commitment to their clients.

I speak from first-hand experience. After finishing seminary in 1987, I spent three years as deputy director of a Christian emergency shelter that housed homeless women and children, including drug addicts and victims of domestic violence. Our male clients _ a montage of junkies, petty thieves and ex-cons _ were served on an out-client basis through a job placement program called “Hands Up,” named because it was designed to give clients a hand up, not a handout.

The lion’s share of our annual budget _ which never exceeded $130,000 _ went directly to client services. My average weekly salary, as deputy director, was $150.

Thus, when I was reminded by John DiIulio in a recent issue of The Weekly Standard that “National evangelical Christian church groups take in billions of dollars each year, but little of it ever goes to help their urban minority brothers and sisters in Christ,” my blood began to boil.

Why? Because I knew what he said is true. As with many affirmative action programs, charitable funds raised in the name of the poor often benefit the middle class.

This is not necessarily to accuse well-heeled evangelicals of malfeasance. Rather, it is to recognize the pitfalls that are often encountered when large, suburban ministries _ which DiIulio refers to as “big religion” _ attempt to serve urban needs.


For example, administrative costs _ which include salaries and benefits for top-heavy bureaucracies _ typically consume a disproportionate amount of the money before the actual problem is ever addressed. Moreover, the manner in which funds for client services are disbursed is often inefficient, reflecting a lack of familiarity with the real needs and circumstances of the clients. The net effect is that few clients are served and the problem is perpetuated.

Then, of course, there are the issues of culture and proximity. Suburban ministries that fund urban programs are generally run by people who don’t live in the communities they serve. The programs they run may be located in inner-city neighborhoods, but their commitment to their clientele is conditioned by such understandable concerns as safety and security.

In addition, program goals and approaches may be based on assumptions that are not realistic for the populations they target.

Consequently, suburban ministries seeking to serve urban populations need to look again at their programs while asking themselves a variety of soul-searching questions: What is the defining purpose of their ministry? What population do they seek to serve, and why? What resources do they bring to this enterprise? What do they lack? Are they close enough to the problems to propose effective solutions?

They might also ask whether they are willing to form partnerships with inner-city counterparts less well-heeled but more credible with the target population? Would they be willing to accept a reduced role in such a partnership if the result would be greater service to the urban community?

To be sure, these are hard questions. Indeed, for many evangelical groups, such questions will challenge the very core of their existence.


Ministries exist for one reason _ to serve. If that service is undermined by lesser motivations, it ceases to be ministry. Evangelical organizations would do well remember that. If not, the problem of “big religion” will continue.

DEA END ATCHISON

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!