COMMENTARY: Real charity means giving the poor spiritual help, too

c. 1996 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.) (UNDATED) At the recent Republican National Convention, much attention was paid to the work of individual Americans who have dedicated their […]

c. 1996 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.)

(UNDATED) At the recent Republican National Convention, much attention was paid to the work of individual Americans who have dedicated their lives to improving the plight of the less fortunate.


There was the Rev. Buster Soaries, whose personal commitment to the youth of Somerset, N.J., has changed the course of many young lives.

There was Freddy Garcia, of San Antonio, a former drug addict whose ministry to other addicts has a success rate, according to Oklahoma congressman J.C. Watts,”that the social scientists can only dream about.” Programs serving fatherless children, the homeless and the unemployed were also praised.

Left unsaid was that many of these are run by churches or other faith-based ministries. Yet the fact that they received so much attention at the GOP convention underscores an important point: Faith-based programs work.

In 1994, Ron Sider and Heidi Rolland, of Evangelicals for Social Action, a Christian think tank, studied the effectiveness of religion and church-based programs and determined that churches”relieve poverty and prevent it as they serve as employment networks, buffers against crisis, and distributors of goods and services, and as they teach the values and behaviors which translate into economic well-being.” A similar review, published earlier this year by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington-based research group, found that”the practice of religion has beneficial effects … on illegitimacy, crime and delinquency, welfare dependency, alcohol and drug abuse, suicide, depression, and general self-esteem.” In attempting to explain the differences in success rates between faith-based programs and their publicly-funded counterparts, Anne Kondratas, a former official of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, concluded that”religious social service organizations often seemed to have the highest success rates because they recognized the spiritual dimension to rehabilitation that public programs did not take into account.” Curiously, it is this spiritual dimension that has kept most faith-based programs from receiving government funding. Federal rules currently prohibit the use of public funds in any program that uses sectarian religious practices.

This may change.

A proposal called the”charitable choice provision”was included in the welfare reform legislation recently passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton.

According to”charitable choice’s”prime sponsor, Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.), the measure”would allow charitable and faith-based organizations to compete for contracts or participate in voucher programs whenever a state decides to use private sector providers to deliver welfare services to the poor.” The implications of this proposal are legion and controversial.

Many religiously affiliated charities, such as Catholic Relief Services or Lutheran Social Services, already receive hundreds of millions of dollars in public money but carry out the provision of services in a secular manner.


Under the Ashcroft provision, however, congregations and other houses of worship will be able to apply for federal funds. Critics say that could open the way to tying provision of services to a recipient’s affirmation of faith.

Critics also contend that when regulations implementing the Ashcroft provision are written, they may well open the way for government regulators to tell churches and congregations how to run their charities.

Nevertheless, many of the most effective religious programs are small operations manned on a shoestring by a few paid employees and a handful of dedicated volunteers. Their success is due largely to a commitment to their clients that extends beyond traditional business hours and levels of service.

I worked for three years in a Christian emergency shelter in my hometown of Trenton, N.J. As the deputy director of an agency with a professional staff of two, I was responsible for providing food, clothing, housing assistance, employment and the message of the Gospel to literally hundreds of men, women and children.

Like Sam Drucker in the old TV series”Petticoat Junction,”I did it all _ from grant-writing and public relations to case management and food distribution. I was paid $150 a week.

The executive director, who lived in the shelter with her husband and the clients, worked for free. Our work in the community _ augmented by a host of faithful volunteers _ was well known.


Yet our emphasis on sharing the Christian Gospel within the context of meeting our clients’ social needs made us ineligible for most federal and state grants. As a result, we always teetered on the financial brink and were never able to provide the comprehensive service we knew our clients needed.

There are those who say that the”charitable choice”provision of the welfare reform bill is unconstitutional and will ultimately be declared invalid by the courts.

When I think of all we could have accomplished in that homeless shelter if more public money had been available to our faith-based ministry, it gives me reason to hope that the”charitable choice”provision survives the inevitable legal challenges. It would go a long way toward ensuring that those who are eligible for assistance receive all the help they need.

MJP END ATCHISON

Donate to Support Independent Journalism!

Donate Now!