Government Has Found God, but Some Charities Are Skeptical of Conversion

At Gospel Rescue Ministries of Washington, D.C., clients who show up looking for a hot meal and a clean bed are no longer required to attend worship services. The Rev. Edward J. Eyring, executive director of the charity, says that the new policy simply makes sound theological sense.

“Making people go to church doesn’t make them accept Jesus,” Dr. Eyring says.

But changes in the federal welfare system mean that Gospel Rescue Ministries’ new policy could also make sound financial sense. A provision of the welfare law passed last year explicitly permits religious charities such as Gospel Rescue Ministries — where scriptural quotations adorn the walls and Dr. Eyring bids people farewell with “God bless” rather than goodbye — to apply for government grants. The only caveat is that federally subsidized programs for current or former welfare recipients must not discriminate against clients on the basis of “religion, a religious belief, or refusal to actively participate in a religious practice.”

The so-called charitable-choice measure could be just the first beat in a drum roll of support that has been building for government financing of religious groups. Senator John Ashcroft, a Missouri Republican who sponsored the provision in the welfare bill, intends to introduce a bill next month that would expand on the idea and allow religious groups to receive government grants for any kind of social-services program.

“Charitable and faith-based organizations have a proven track record of transforming shattered lives, by addressing the deeper needs of people, by instilling hope and values which help change behavior and attitudes,” Senator Ashcroft said at a meeting on the implementation of the new welfare law. “Now states can actively enroll these organizations as full-fledged participants in caring for and elevating the less fortunate.”

“Charitable choice” has not been greeted enthusiastically by all religious groups or by civil-liberties organizations. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a Washington group, says that it plans to challenge the provision in court sometime in 1998.

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of the organization, says he worries that when poor people show up to receive government services, they will be subjected to proselytizing.

“The nature of the church is to be evangelical,” Mr. Lynn says. “It’s awfully difficult to believe that individual houses of worship will not in fact use their clients as objects of evangelism.”

Some religious organizations remain leery of accepting government funds. They fear that they will have to give up so many spiritual elements that they will become no different than secular social-services groups.

“The concern I have is the same concern I have anytime the fox goes into the hen house,” says the Rev. Paul D. Vyzourek, executive director of the Colorado Springs Rescue Mission. “Let’s see some proof.”

Mr. Vyzourek’s skepticism about government, like that of many religious charities, stems from past experience. When the Colorado Springs Rescue Mission applied for a permit to run a residential shelter two years ago, its request was denied by the city. “They haven’t been wooing us with open arms by a long shot,” Mr. Vyzourek says.

Other religious groups cite similarly discouraging encounters with government, such as being told that they must remove all crucifixes and other religious icons from the walls, or that a ban against pornographic materials in a shelter for the homeless is not acceptable.

Even Catholic Charities USA, which receives more than half its budget from the government, says local affiliates have been told that the name of a shelter had to be changed from “St. Vincent de Paul” to “Mr. Vincent de Paul” and that a nun working at a child-care center that received tax dollars couldn’t wear a habit.

In Charlottesville, Va., Abundant Life Ministries, a social-services charity run by Trinity Presbyterian Church, is cautiously optimistic about the protections afforded faith-based organizations under the welfare bill.

Amy L. Sherman, the group’s director of urban ministries, says her main concern is the section of the law that prohibits government funds from being used for “sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization.” She says that the effectiveness of the law in protecting religious charities from government interference will depend on how that provision is interpreted by state and local officials.

“If they’re going to say, ‘Your teacher quoted from the Bible three times, that’s sectarian instruction, and you are out of line with charitable choice,’ that’s a real problem,” Ms. Sherman says.

Despite their reservations, many religious groups are convinced that Congress is making a good-faith effort to reach out to them. Particularly encouraging, say religious groups, is the welfare law’s assurance that even if faith-based charities received federal funds, they could continue to reject any job applicant who did not share the organization’s beliefs.

“I want to have the right to choose who I’m hiring,” says the Rev. John G. Samaan, president of the Boston Rescue Mission. “I seek individuals who believe in God, who are motivated by faith.” The Boston Rescue Mission already receives about 20 per cent of its $1-million budget from government sources, but Mr. Samaan says he hopes to increase that portion to 50 per cent.

Many gospel missions and other religious charities are seeing long lines for food and shelter, so government’s newfound religious fervor could be opportune.

At Washington’s Gospel Rescue Ministries, for instance, the 120-bed men’s shelter is full every night. The charity is in the process of renovating a building that will house 22 women with drug-addiction problems, and it is also purchasing a six-apartment building to provide temporary housing to men who have been homeless.

“We believe the government ought to be helping us,” Dr. Eyring says. “What we’re asking for is a level playing field. Given that, we can do it better than anyone else.”

At the Milwaukee Rescue Mission, demand is equally high. The number of women and children looking for shelter has doubled in the last year.

The Rev. Patrick H. Vanderburgh, executive director of the mission, says he is reluctant to turn to the government for help for fear that the group will become “Christian in name only.”

“That would be a betrayal of our heritage,” Mr. Vanderburgh says, “and everything that God has called us to do.”