~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One Church = $6,090,032 Economic Value For the Community
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prof. Ram Cnaan (social work, Univ. of Pennsylvania) and Partners for Sacred Places have extended their research into the positive economic impact of city churches, seeking to measure for a dozen Philadelphia churches both the value of services offered (volunteer hours worked, free or discounted rent provided to other groups, etc.) and the value of outcomes (divorces prevented, jail time avoided, etc.).  The average?  Over $4,000,000 annually!  The $6 million noted above is the calculated value added just by First Baptist Church. 

More information:
"Spotlight:  What's a Congregation Worth?"  Christianity Today (April 2011).

David O'Reilly, "A study asks: What's a church's economic worth?" Philadelphia Inquirer (Feb. 1, 2011). 

Partners for Sacred Places website.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Last week a Illinois Senate committee killed a bill to ensure that faith-based agencies in the state will be able to maintain their adoption and foster-care services when the new civil-unions law comes into effect, with its requirement that partners in a civil union be treated the same as married spouses.  The civil-unions change isn't even law until June, but already activists, reporters, and state officials have been probing the practices of faith-based agencies, many of which have a policy of placing children with married mother-father families. 

Some opponents of the Illinois bill claimed that its passage would allow "religious child welfare and adoption agencies to bar adoptions and foster care by gay parents."  But that's nonsense.  Illinois law permits gay individuals and couples to adopt or become foster parents, and faith-based agencies can't stop them.  In fact, Rick Garcia, then public policy director at Equality Illinois, was quoted as saying, "Illinois is one of the best places in the country for same-sex couples to be able to adopt."

On the other hand, forbidding religious agencies from exercising their faith-based conviction that children--including adoptive and foster kids--deserve a married father and mother will drive many of those agencies out of the field.  It has happened, with extensive media coverage, in both Boston and Washington DC, where the local Catholic Charities agencies decided they had to abandon adoption and foster care services to avoid violating their religious convictions.

But this actual discriminatory consequence was breezily dismissed in Illinois.  One activist said that it was a mere "bluff" that Catholic Charities agencies in Illinois would be forced to stop adoption services.  And if turned out not to be a mere bluff?  "[F]ine.  Let them get out of the child welfare business . . . Some people have said we have to stop antagonizing faith-based organizations and to that I say a resounding, 'Bullshit.'"  The activist?  Rick Garcia. 

Forced Religion -- Or Forced Secularism?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Americans United for Separation of Church and State is cheering on a lawsuit against the Boise Rescue Mission, alleging that BRM tried to forcibly convert a woman to Christianity.  The case is Intermountain Fair Housing, et al., v. Boise Rescue Mission, et al.  The rescue mission was vindicated in trial court a year ago and now the case is awaiting a decision by the Ninth Circuit federal appeals court.  BRM receives no government funds to provide its services.

BRM's attorneys at the Becket Fund point out, in their brief to the Ninth Circuit, that the lawsuit seeks to punish the rescue mission for doing a good deed.  BRM does operate a Christian discipleship program and it did accept Janene Cowles into the no-charge program, when a judge told her she either had to get such help or stay in jail.  And it did ask Cowles to leave after it became clear that she was not accepting the religious requirements of the program. 

But the rescue mission did not try to coerce Cowles into converting to Christianity.  It wasn't BRM's policy that a return to jail was the only alternative to sticking with the program. When Cowles said the discipleship program wasn't for her, BRM asked her attorney to get her into a program that would "best suit her beliefs and needs," the Becket brief says.  And, at Cowles' request, BRM wrote to the judge, asking that she be "given an opportunity to complete a program that is not faith-based."  The judge subsequently modified the conditions of her probation so that she could attend a non-religious program.

Americans United alleges that the rescue mission essentially became a "state actor" by accepting into its program a person sent by the judge's command and, as a such, could not constitutionally maintain the participation and conversion requirements of its discipleship program.  But it would be perverse if the courts interpret the First Amendment and federal and state laws to require privately funded faith-based organizations to secularize their programs if they agree to give free services to persons referred by the courts. 

Take the Money And Lose Internal Control?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If a faith-based organization accepts government funds to provide services, must its change its internal election process to match secular standards?  An April 15th New York Times blog post details a controversy within a Brooklyn Hasidic community.  The Crown Heights Jewish Community Council receives extensive government funding to provide social services.  The Council also has a religiously based restrictive policy on who can vote for its leadership--no women, for instance, and also no non-observant Jews, and no bachelors (unless they are at least 30 years old). 

Now a community resident is challenging that restrictive policy, alleging that it is unconstitutional because the Council provides government-funded services.   Eliyahu Federman worries that, with women excluded from voting, the Council may be insensitive to the needs of  widows and divorcees (although the story does not record any allegations of actual wrongful decisions).

However laudable Federman's concern, his remedy is draconian:  government officials defining the acceptable internal leadership processes of religious organizations.  Fortunately, the Obama administration has maintained the Bush administration's view on this (which also goes back to the Charitable Choice laws that President Clinton signed):  a faith-based organization that receives federal funds "retain[s] its independence," can take part in the federally funded program "without impairing [its] independence, autonomy, . . . or religious character," and may continue to "select its board members on a religious basis."  (President Obama, Executive Order 13559, Nov. 19, 2010.)

Partnering with the White House Agenda
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The stated purpose of the Obama faith-based initiative is "to build bridges between the federal government and nonprofit organizations, both secular and faith-based, to better serve Americans in need."  The Executive Order refounding the White House faith-based office spoke of assisting faith-based and secular organizations to "deliver services effectively" in partnership with government.  Indeed, there has been a continuation of work from the previous administration to build the service capacity of grassroots organizations, to clarify and reform federal policies affecting religious charities that receive federal funds, to consider how government programs can best support and coordinate with secular and religious private organizations.

But there is a strong impulse in this administration to enlist faith-based organizations in support of the White House's broader policy agenda.  The Bush administration began a number of new programs that reflected the President's policy views--for example, the program to engage volunteer mentors for the children of prisoners, and PEPFAR, the large program to fight HIV-AIDS in Africa--and then invited faith-based and secular organizations to help carry out those programs.  The invitation was to become grantees in specific programs of service. 

The Obama administration, on the other hand, keeps inviting faith-based groups to become its allies to promote various policy goals, to become its allies in political ideology.  The latest example:  yesterday the Environmental Protection Agency opened its Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships initiative, with this rationale:  "Strong relationships with faith and neighborhood organizations will help promote environmental stewardship that will lead to cleaner communities, encourage healthier families and build a stronger America."  EPA intends to open a full-fledged faith-based Center "to work with faith-based and neighborhood groups to increase awareness of environmental issues in communities throughout the country . . . ."

The causes aren't necessarily bad, but the harnessing of faith-based organizations to the administration's policy predilections is troubling.  How about a stronger separation between church and state?

Read also:  Meghan Clyne, "Michelle's Machine:  Churches get roped into the first lady's obesity crusade," Weekly Standard (April 11, 2011).

Take Note
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As President Obama's re-election campaign begins, Washington Post columnist (and former George W. Bush speechwriter) Michael Gerson says:

"The grand repositioning has begun--with one notable exception. Having tilted toward the center on foreign policy and economic issues, Obama has sent a different signal on cultural ones. He has signed legislation repealing "don't ask, don't tell," given up on defending the Defense of Marriage Act and talked of new gun control laws. Republicans have sometimes been guilty of appeasing their base with winks and nods on cultural controversies. Though doubtlessly sincere in his views, Obama is employing the same approach."

That's uncomfortable, isn't it:  vital positions on family, marriage, life, and religious freedom may get traded off so that the President can give the appearance of moderation, pragmatism, and centrism.  The maneuvering is no better when a Democrat instead of a Republican does it.

Worth Reading
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~