Narcissism Goes to Church: Encountering Evangelical Worship
By Monte Wilson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evangelical Worship
Have you attended any modern evangelical worship services lately? (Question: Is "Evangelical Worship" an oxymoron?) No? Well, let's walk through one, shall we?
"Good Morning!" bellows the greeter, Mr. Rapport. "Why don't we stand and greet one another?" While every-one nervously pretends to happily welcome those around him with body language that says, "I can't believe he made us do this," Mr. Rapport will walk up and down the aisle shaking hands with the members, kissing babies and, in essence, acting as if he were running for office. (Maybe he is.)
What is this? It is the evidence of the modern proof of God's presence: Warmth and Fuzziness. The service must have the correct ambiance. People must feel wanted, even needed--or they will go elsewhere. Not long ago, the normal service would begin with Bible reading and prayer, declaring the congregation's allegiance and submission to Christ. Today, our allegiance is to user-friendliness.
Some churches will open with a cheery choir special or a hap-hap-happy song sung by the musicians. After all, happiness must mark the service. "We are a happy people. We have something to offer you. We are exciting and positive--and you too can be like us if you join our church!" Compare this with the ancient liturgies that began with, "O God the Father of heaven, have mercy on us miserable sinners." Whoa! That won't do. What a downer. This certainly won't work in a church that wishes to make everyone feel good about himself.
Now the music leader steps to the microphone to lead the "worship." He is a combination of Pavarotti (albeit without the training), Dick Clark and Liberace. He stands, sometimes with other singers, at the center of the stage. The sound booth has been instructed to make certain that his voice is always louder than all others combined. He cajoles, he exhorts, he waves his arms, he explains the depth of meaning in the lyrics of each song, he cheerleads, he cries--all on cue. We then sing songs like "Glo-ho-ho-ry-he-he" or some other such ditty that is equally as intellectually and theologically vacuous. By the way, are the people a little dull this morning? No problem. Change keys on each verse, increase the volume and dump all songs in minor keys. What matters is that everyone has a great, happy, ego-renewing experience.
To insure that everyone is engaged, he will choose songs that match the musical tastes of the congregation. (The demands of Scripture are secondary: preferences and tastes of the people are primary.) Who cares that the church sang majestic hymns and chanted the Psalms for century after century, these are now too complicated, too content laden. What we demand are songs that excite, move and gratify without over-taxing the mind or soul.
It is now time for The Reverend Doctor Raconteur. First, he will tell a story. Now this yarn need not have anything to do with the message, but it must assure everyone that he is a) glad they are there; b) capable of wowing them; c) a real master of the pulpit; and d) just plain folk, like all of them. If he fails to accomplish one of these objectives, he is in trouble. If he fails in two, his job is in jeopardy.
It doesn't matter how well educated in theology the minister is because he will rarely deal in theology: the real need is psychology and entertainment. The man must move the audience. He must make them feel loved, needed, wanted, appreciated, cared for and special--reeeeal special--all in one message. Content is secondary, if it is relevant at all. What matters is that the minister is personable and able to make every individual present feel like he is talking just to him.
It is not just the people's ego being stroked here, but the minister's as well. He moves, he cries, he laughs and he woos. The spotlight is his. He is on center stage and loving it. Men revere him, women adore him and children laugh at his jokes: all stand in awe of his skills. What a life! Except, that is, when there is no response from the people. He stands at the back door and receives only the most mundane of compliments. No one is saved. No one spoke to him of his brilliant performance. No one fell down at the altar. Nothing visible, nothing audible, nothing happened, period. And what of his ego, now? It is dashed. He is a failure. No one appreciates him. No one knows his toil, his anguish--his insecurity and the ravenous hunger of his ego for approbation.
Where to Go for Real Worship
Where does the serious believer go to worship? Where do Christians go who do not want a circus but the sacraments? Where does a hungry seeker go to be fed with doctrine deeper than messages that can be boiled down to, "Don't worry, be happy"? Where are the Houses of Prayer? I was taught that, "You get what you fish for." We fished for people who wanted to be entertained. Now, if we pull the plug on the spotlights, they will go elsewhere. We built our services around the tastes of our members and, thereby, told them that their ego's where The Standard for evaluating the worship service is. What happens when we stand and quote Rushdoony, "Worship is not a matter of taste but of obedience"? What will happen is that we will gain the favor of God and all those who fear him. Those serious about their life in Christ will find their way to our worship services; those who prefer smoke and mirrors will go elsewhere. If space permitted we could take a similar walk through the last years' counseling sessions. Here we see a parade of whiners, victims and self-indulgent, self-proclaimed prophets coming to the pastoral staff to let them know of all that is wrong with the church, the officers, the music, the teaching, their spouses, their lives, etc. All of this can be summed up in one brief sentence: "My needs are not being met." Are some of these needs legitimate? Of course they are. But more often than not the needs all center on the gratification of the ego, not the strengthening of faith.
Hear the mantas of modern evangelicals:
I feel, therefore, I am.
I do not feel God; therefore, something or someone is wrong.
I feel God; therefore, whatever is being said and done must be The Truth.
I feel good; therefore, I am good.
I feel needy and my needs are demands on your abilities and possessions.
Is it any wonder that the average Christian is led around by his experiences and feelings rather than by God? The modern church--the place where he was to encounter God and learn of his ways--has told the Christian through symbols, teachings and structures that his needs and feelings are paramount!
Why are ministers shocked when members come in and say that their discontent with their spouse is grounds for divorce? After all, this same pastor told them that they could ignore covenants with past churches if their "felt-needs" were not being met. Why are we surprised when our members convert to Roman Catholicism where they feel-at-home-in-Rome or attend Laughing Revivals because they feel-the-Spirit? Haven't we told them that the gratification of their feelings is of highest import to God? Isn't it amazing how ministers who pandered to experience and emotions all of the sudden want to talk about truth-claims when one of their members decides he can have more intense experiences at another church!
The Quest for Experience
What is going on in Church-O-Rama? Quite simply, it is the exaltation of emotional gratification outside any theological parameters. This shapes our liturgies, dictates the style and content of our message, directs our counseling strategies, produces deformed theologies and severely damages souls and institutions wherever it prevails.
Modern American Christianity is filled with the spirit of narcissism. We are in love with ourselves and evaluate churches, ministers and truth-claims based upon how they make us feel about ourselves. If the church makes me feel wanted, it is a good church. If the minister makes me feel good about myself, he is a terrific guy. If the proffered truth supports my self-esteem, it is, thereby, verified.
Whence does this error spring? What is its source? One source is the belief that salvation is solely due to an experience of conversion, rather than to what happened on the Cross of Christ. Most Christians today define their salvation exclusively in terms of what happened to them subjectively, having no notion whatsoever of the objective basis for their salvation. This in turn focuses all of their attention on anxiously caring for that experience.
I suggest that another source is the common modern presupposition that experience is the foundation for belief. This cannot be so, however, because experiences do not happen in vacuums. People experience something or someone. The question, then, becomes, "What or Who has been experienced?" The "What" or "Who" must be interpreted. And simply because the Who or What was encountered in a religious setting does not mean that the encounter was sent by God.
One of the attractions for basing beliefs and theologies on experience is that it gives various religious groups a common starting point for ecumenical dialogue: "We have all experienced Jesus (or Truth or the transcendent God), have we not?" But this begs the question: who is going to verify exactly Who was experienced and by what standard shall they make their evaluations? How shall we ascertain if we have experienced God or Truth--or have only been experiencing ourselves?
To those who say that experience is The Standard for evaluating truth, goodness, beauty, etc., Luther had an interesting question. On Good Friday, when the disciples stood before the Cross, where was God? Was he not absent? For years they had experienced him on a daily basis; now he was demonstrably absent. Jesus himself cries out that God had forsaken him. Now, what do we believe? Well, as Luther pointed out, we had better believe the theology of the Bible.
When we allow experience or feelings to guide our faith we will end up in a ditch. Our feelings will tell us that God is absent while, all the time, he was right there "present in a hidden manner." What we need, then, is a theology with which to interpret our experiences.
Ignoring the Quest
There is another problem to which we in the Reformed camp do not always give sufficient thought. Some of these experience-based people are truly hungry for more of God in their lives. They may be misguided, they may fall prey to psychological manipulation, they may fall into grievous errors, but their sense of neediness for God is legitimate. Whereas many modern evangelical churches try to satiate this thirst with MTV Christianity, there is--or at least was--in many of these folks a desire to fill the soul with God's presence.
In what I believe is an overreaction to the lust for experiences in Church-O-Rama, some Christians and churches have denied any and all pursuits of experiencing God and his Truth. All that matters to these folks is the cognitive apprehension of doctrine. But the fact is that Biblical truth is to transform the individual. This means by necessity that we must "experience" the Truth of God.
Quite often in the Reformed world there is a lack of any appeal whatsoever to the imagination or the emotions, as if humans were only a "brain." This was one of the reasons why Anglican churches suffered such loss during the Great Awakening. Wesley and Whitefield were speaking to men and women who were semi-illiterate. However, while they may not have been able to read, these people could feel their need for God and forgiveness. Lecturing these people with theological treatises would not work: they needed to be touched where they sensed their (legitimate) need for God. This is not to suggest doctrine should have been secondary or that everything these evangelists did was right. It is to assert that some of their success was because they presented the truth in such a way as to truly communicate to the needs and hunger of the people.
Augustine pointed out that we were made in the image of God. We have, therefore, a capacity to fellowship with God. After the Fall, however, we insisted on trying to fill this need with creation and created things rather than with the Creator. But as Augustine noted, we can fill the void of God only with God. "You have made us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in You."
People long for God: they intellectually and psychologically crave his presence. However, as Augustine wrote, they are constantly trying to fill this need with experiences that will not satiate their desire. Sadly, the church all too often notes the need of the people, takes a survey of what it is they are using to try and fill this void, and then baptizes the chosen avenues with proof texts and Christian jargon. To compound the problem, those churches that react to such an approach often craft their message and worship in utter disregard of the human need to experience God. So, in one church people's emotions and emotional needs are pandered to, while in the other they are ignored. In one church the spirit of narcissism reigns, in the other the human spirit's capacity for and need of God is, for all intents and purposes, ignored.
People "need" a worship service that says, God Is Here. Here God is worshipped, revered, met. This is not entertainment. This is not a lecture hall, and we are not the audience: God is the audience and we are the performers. We recognize God's demand to be glorified and the human need to be filled with his presence. Prepare to meet God.
The poet Annie Dillard captures this spirit when she writes:
On the whole, I do not find Christians, outside of the catacombs, sufficiently sensible of conditions. Does anyone have the foggiest idea of what sort of power we so blithely invoke? Or, as I suspect, does no one believe a word of it? The churches are children playing on the floor with their chemistry sets, mixing up a batch of TNT to kill a Sunday morning. It is madness to wear ladies' straw hats and velvet hats to church; we should all be wearing crash helmets. Ushers should issue life preservers and signal flares; they should lash us to our pews. (Teaching A Stone To Talk: Expeditions and Encounters, p. 40)
Do you think Dillard extreme? Consider: Moses sees God, kicks off his shoes and starts stammering about how God should send Aaron and not him. Isaiah sees God, crawls under a church pew and begins blabbering about needing his foul mouth washed out. Jeremiah hears God and tells the Almighty that he is just a kid and not up for the rough-and-tumble world of a prophet. Paul saw God's presence and is knocked off of his donkey, blinded by the light of glory. While in the spirit on the Lord's Day, John spends a lot of time on his face. These are not pretty pictures. People "see" God and they are struck with terror. "Holy God, plus sinful me, equals dead meat."
When I contemplate gathering to worship the Triune God in the presence of angels, arch-angels and the Cloud of Witnesses--which is exactly what we do when we "gather as the church"--I am struck with the sinful and irreverent nonsense of much of what goes on in our worship services. I am not only speaking of people falling down laughing or of rock bands screaming; I am also thinking of the bored familiarity with which many approach worship. Both services fail to glorify God and invite his presence. Consequently, both services fail to meet the real needs of God's people.
While the primary purpose of worship is to glorify God, we must not discount how worship shapes and molds people for life. "Worship" that panders to narcissism leaves people void of true devotion and of the will to obey. "Worship" that is cold and heartless is a breeding ground for rationalism, leaving people empty of true spiritual power. Both are incapable of meeting the quest for more intimate fellowship with God or for being filled with his presence.
Feelings and experiences are not foundations for beliefs. However, as Jonathan Edwards wrote,
That religion which God requires, and will accept, does not consist in weak, dull, and lifeless wishes, raising us but a little above indifference. God, in his word, greatly insists upon it, that we be in good earnest, fervent in spirit, and our hearts vigorously engaged in religion: (Rom. 12:11; Deut. 10:12; 6:4, 5) ....
As there is no true religion where there is nothing else but affection [feelings/experiences], so there is no true religion where there is no religious affections. As on one hand, there must be light in the understanding, as well as an affected fervent heart; or where there is heat without light, there can be nothing divine or heavenly in the heart: so, on the other hand, where there is a kind of light without heat, a head stored with notions and speculations with a cold and unaffected heart, there can be nothing divine in that light, that knowledge is no true spiritual knowledge of divine things. If the great things of religion are rightly understood, they will affect the heart. (On Religious Affections, Section 2:1; Section 3:1)
I understand and agree with those who ridicule and rebuke the extremes of emotionalism and the theologies that spawned those extremes. However, the solution to the problem of the narcissistic quest for self-gratification in religious experiences is not in denying the soul's legitimate need and desire to encounter God. On the contrary, the solution is in recognizing that such an encounter is possible only where God in all of his glory is exalted and worshipped. This God--the Triune, sovereign God who requires nothing less than worship that engages the whole person--where ever he is proclaimed and honored, will fill the void within true seekers.
Sooner or later, those who have been attending Church-O-Rama who are truly seeking God will discover that what they have been fed is cotton candy for the soul and that all they have to show for years of eating such things is a heart and head filled with cavities. When they show up, do not merely introduce them to correct theology: lead them to an encounter with the Sovereign Lord.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Monte Wilson is a noted Reformed speaker and writer. He can be contacted at 770-740-1401, montethird@aol.com, or P.O. Box 22, Alpharetta, GA 30239. He is available for preaching, lectures and conferences.
Transformation from Secular to Religious Government
Under the Bush administration, our country is experiencing a major transformation from a secular to a religious government. The President's faith-based initiative is central to this transformation and raises serious questions about church-state separation. "Slouching toward theocracy. President Bush's faith-based initiative is doing better than you think," by Bill Berkowitz, 2/6/04 provides an overview of this transformation.
In his State of the Union address, Bush renewed a call for Congress to make permanent his faith-based proposals that would allow religious organizations to compete for more government contracts and grants without a strict separation between their religious activities and social service programs.
On February 4, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives voted for provisions in a social services bill that allow religiously based job discrimination in publicly funded programs run by churches.
How Much Money?
How much are taxpayers paying for what Barry Lynn, Executive Director of American's United calls "federally subsidized employment discrimination?" According to Daniel Zwerdling who produced two programs on faith-based initiative for Bill Moyers TV show NOW in September, 2003, "administration spokesmen say they can't break down how much money has gone so far to religious groups .. they claim they don't keep that information."
The March, 2004, issue of Church and State reports that the "Faith Czar" Jim Towey announced to reporters that $40 billion dollars was now available to religious charities.
By studying White House press releases and the White House web site, Daniel Zwerdling found that religious groups could apply to more than a hundred federal programs that gave out more than $65 billion. In addition, religious groups ccould apply for more money through state-administered programs.
From the Washington Post, January 4, 2005:
.. in 2003, groups dubbed "faith-based" received $1.17 billion in grants from federal agencies, according to documents provided by the White House to the Associated Press.
That's not enough, said H. James Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. An additional $40 billion in federal money is given out by state governments, he said..
This is the text of an executive order signed by Bush on June 1.
On September 22, 2003, the White House announced new rules making $28 billion available to religious charities that proselytize and discriminate in hiring. Susan Jacoby, director of the Center for Inquiry in Metro New York claims "The White House has taken what may be its boldest step yet to blur the constitutional separation of church and state." While the White House announced these controversial new rules, the media hardly paid attention.
While religious charities receive billions of dollars, federal programs are experiencing funding cuts. The largest federally funded after-school program, the $1 billion-a-year 21st Century Community Learning Centers program is threatened with a budget reduction of $400 million for the Fiscal Year 2004. The resulting cuts in Washington D.C. alone could eliminate after-school services for 2,902 District children.
As reported in the Washington Post, Congress has ordered more than $3 million in grants since 2001 earmarked for respected former Redskins cornerback Darrell Green's Youth Life Foundation, with the goal in part of opening more Green learning centers here and in other cities. But his center is directly serving only 38 kids, in a city where 35,000 live in poverty.
From Church and State editorial, March 9, 2004:
The Corporation for National and Community Service has allocated $324,000 in Americorps funding for staffing at four daycare centers run by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence.
But The Children's Crusade, a mentoring program that has won national honors, lost all its budget of half a million dollars. The group had hoped to partner 35 young adults with poor minority children. That won't be happening now.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State has been following Bush's Faith-Based Initiative since he assumed the office of President. They have filed lawsuits, and their magazine, Church and State, has many important, in-depth articles.
From Americans United, August 17, 2004:
A new study of the "faith-based" initiative raises troubling questions about the Bush administration's disregard for constitutional and civil rights protections, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
The report issued today by the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy lists the many executive actions President George W. Bush has taken to fund a wide range of religion-based social services. The sweeping changes in federal policy, the report indicates, have come without congressional authorization.
Philadelphia Church That Endorsed Bush Gets $1 Million 'Faith-Based' Grant
Wednesday June 23, 2004
"The Rev. Lusk endorsed candidate Bush, and wound up getting a $1-million faith-based grant from the Bush administration," [Barry] Lynn said. "Now there's a heavenly payoff."
"Faith-Based Fiat," January, 2003, Church and State:
"On Dec. 12, speaking to over 1,000 religious and charitable leaders gathered at the Downtown Marriott Hotel in Philadelphia, George W. Bush launched another major offensive in his drive to implement his controversial "faith-based" initiative. Circumventing a reluctant Congress, which has refused to enact the administration's scheme, Bush announced a sweeping package of executive actions to encourage churches and other religious groups to apply for billions in government contracts to help the disadvantaged."
"Faith-Based Foray," From Church and State, October, 2002,
"Not willing to let a skeptical Congress delay its plan for government-funded religion, the Bush administration is moving ahead with the faith-based initiative anyway."
"Faith-Based Victory," Church and State, May, 2003, brings good news! A powerful coalition formed in the U.S. Senate to derail President Bush and U.S. Senator Rick Santorum's efforts to pass legislation making it legal to discriminate in employment. As a result, the final legislation is nothing like the Bush/Santorum plan. This 'good news' article affirms the power of coalition building in the Senate.
"Faith-Based Failure," Church and State, November, 2002, highlights a report documenting major problems with the Faith Based program that has been implemented in Texas for the past five year
"The Bush 'Faith-Based' Orders: Dangerous Decrees, Church and State. On Dec. 12, 2002, President George W. Bush issued two executive orders putting into place his controversial "faith-based" initiative, February, 2003. (So far, I haven't been able to find this article on AU's newly reformatted web site -jb) more
Faith-Based Sex-Education
Sierra magazine, January-February, 2004, has a feature article on abstinence-only education in the public schools. Federally funded programs are based on fear and end up proselytizing. A Louisianna state judge has ruled that the proselytizing must stop or the programs risk defunding.
"For Louisianna seventh graders, abstinence-only education appears first and foremost to be about terrifying diseases: suppurating boils, endless rashes, sterility, cancers, and the physical and psychic morbidity with which they are to be punished for having sex before marriage."
"Hundreds of federally funded abstinence-only programs are run by faith-based groups. The Louisianna American Civil Liberties Union found that ... thousands of dollars went to programs that included prayers as well as continuous referrences to God, Jesus Christ, and the spiritual repercussions of sex before marriage."
Faith Base Lock Up
In Lawtey, Florida, Gov. Jeb Bush dedicated what is being called the nation's first religion-based prison.
A North Florida prison will be converted into the nation's first faith-based lockup. Critics say public money shouldn't be spent on religious programs.
"This is a clearly unconstitutional scheme," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "A state can no more create a faith-based prison than it could set up faith-based public schools or faith-based police departments."
Americans United filed a lawsuit to block a similar state-sponsored fundamentalist Christian project operating with public funds at a prison in Iowa. That case, which challenges state support of Charles Colson's InnerChange program, is pending in federal court.
How the the InnerChange Prison Fellowship program cooked the books so that the program's failure looks like a success. To read about Americans United current litigation, click here.
Faith-Based Parks
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a non-profit group that represents park workers and public employees, charged in a release last week that the National Park Service is hell-bent on removing images of anti-Vietnam War demonstrations, pro-choice marches and gay rights marches from an eight-minute video tape located at the Lincoln Memorial covering historic gatherings that have taken place there and on the Washington Mall.
"The park service leadership now caters exclusively to conservative Christian fundamentalist groups," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch in his group's release. "The Bush Administration appears to be sponsoring a program of Faith-Based Parks."
"... morality conservative groups have a special entree with decision makers at the Park Service and the White House."
The federal government lost a lawsuit when a federal court ruled that a program crossed the line between church and state. From the Washington Post July 6, 2004: "America Corps Loses Suit on Religion:"
The federal agency that oversees AmeriCorps must stop financing programs that place volunteers in Catholic schools, a judge has ruled, saying it unconstitutionally crosses the line between church and state.
Compassionate Conservatism
Marvin Olasky, a Reconstructionist influenced professor of Journalism, has served as a close advisor to Bush. Olasky's book, Compassionate Conservatism, creates a justification for Bush's policies on faith based giving. Bush wrote the forward to the book published in 2000. Olasky is a compelling writer who shares his philosophical ideas through heart-wrenching and inspiring human interest stories. He makes a strong case for faith based giving. Evangelical Christian charities succeed, according to Olasky, where government fails. Olasky sees no problem with government funds going to missions that proselytize. The fact that someone who is hungry and vulnerable might have to undergo a religious conversion to get food and shelter doesn't bother him.
The Problem with Proselytizing
Bill Moyers program, NOW, (the first of a two-part series) aired on PBS September 26, 2003, makes clear the problem with proselytizing. The TV show focuses on one program that trains church volunteers to help lift people out of poverty. At first, the whole concept looked truly wonderful. A volunteer family infuses a young, struggling mother of three with love and a sense of caring -- which is very moving.
Then the pressure begins to join their church. This "loving" family is all the support this young mother has in the world, and she feels deeply conflicted about joining their church. When she was asked by the interviewer about joining the church, her face froze in what looked like silent terror. She hadn't wanted to join, but appeared to be terrified of losing the love and support of her sponsoring family. The sponsoring family told the interviewer that they're taught not to invite the family to their church for the first month, and that they never told the woman that she had to join. But it's clear that the invitations to go to church would not let up.
That look of frozen terror on the young woman's face illustrated dramatically the dangers of government funding for church sponsored charities. Millions of young, vulnerable mothers and struggling families will feel coerced to join the "correct" evangelical churches.
The Civil Rights Act, 1964
The Civil Rights Act, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, poses a problem to faith base charities receiving tax-payer dollars, for it bans discrimination in employment on the basis of race, gender, or religion. But religious charities receiving faith based dollars don't want to be forced to hire people of other religions, and especially don't want to hire gays or lesbians. The President doesn't let the Civil Rights Act deter him from giving money to charities that discriminate in hiring.
The Washington Post reported back in July, 2001, that the Bush administration made a deal with the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army would spend upwards of $110,000 per month to lobby for Bush's faith Based Initiative, and the White House would give the Salvation Army a "firm commitment" allowing greater freedom in discrimination against gays in employment. The New York Times reports, 2/5/04, that the New York City Salvation Army is requiring employees to fill out forms stating their religion, among other things.
Senator Rick Santorum vowed to actually rewrite the anti-discrimination laws. There's a difference between executivte orders and changing the law. Executive orders can be changed by the next president, but laws are lasting.
Senator Santorum and President Bush have been trying to change anti-discrimination laws through Congress for religious charities, but they failed, and this is an important and little known success story. After haggling with the Senate for two years, the CARE Act was finally passed. It allows taxpayers who do not itemize tax deductions to write off a portion of their charitable donations for two years. It is vastly different from the Bush/Santorum plan.
The Bush/Santorum plan was stopped by effective organizing. Americans United for Separation of Church and State helped form the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination or (CARD). This coalition brought together fifty two religious, public policy and educational organizations. Members include the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Interfaith Alliance, the NAACP, American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, the National Education Association, The National Association of Social Workers, The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Baptist Churches and the Rabbinical Assembly. For a full list of the 52 organizations, go to stopreligiousdiscrimination.org. The CARD coalition is a good example of effective grassroots organizing.
An article by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman (12/17/02), discusses a move by the Bush administration to enable agencies that receive government funding to discriminate.
Political Manipulation
Another problem with Bush's program is the potential for political manipulation. The Republican Party campaigned to bring traditionally Democratic constituencies into its fold in the 2002 elections. U.S. Rep. Anne M. Northup (R-Ky.) created a non-profit organization to steer federal money to religious groups in order to boost her political strength in the African-American community.
From Church and State, "Preaching The GOP Gospel, Using His 'Faith-Based' Initiative To Try To Win Converts In The African-American Community, Bush Seeks To Make His Calling And Election Sure," Sept., 2003:
Rep. Northup was never popular in the black community before. Now her non-profit, Louisville Neighborhood Initiative Inc., (LNI) doles out federal money to poor, mostly minority neighborhoods. "I can't paint a clearer picture," said the Rev. C. Mackey Daniels, pastor of West Chestnut Baptist Church. "The support was given in order to get votes." U.S. Rep. Robert Ehrlich in his bid for governor of Maryland promised to use money from Bush's faith-based initiative to build support in African-American churches.
More Links
As reported in the New York Times , January 23, 2003, another Bush assault on the 'wall' of separation of church and State is a shift in policy that, for the first time allows the federal government to give money to houses of worship to build buildings. Church and State, January 29, 2003: "Teen Challenge, Louisiana Church Program Proselytize Clients On Behalf Of Evangelical Christianity:" (So far, I haven't been able to find this AU Press Release on their newly reformatted web site -
"There are plenty of reasons for religious groups in America to run, screaming, from the notion of faith-based initiatives." James Dunnmore
Comments