Comments on: Take Caesars Money, Play By Caesar’s Rules

By: Karen G

Karen G — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 04:40:01 +0000

World Changers’ stated mission is to provide opportunities “to meet the physical and spiritual needs of others.”

By: Lee

Lee — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:19:21 +0000

I have trouble seeing where the line between the benefit provided by the federal funds is clearly defined against the purpose of whatever religious activity is involved. I’ve spent a couple of weeks every summer since 1993 at World Changers projects, which are sponsored by the SBC’s North American Mission Board. World Changers provides volunteer labor and does repair work for low income homeowners. A World Changers crew, typically high school students with a couple of adults, one with construction experience, can roof a house, install siding, build wheelchair ramps and a whole lot of other stuff in a week’s time, and they help whatever agency provides the funding save and stretch their dollars. They can do major work on about three homes for what it would cost for a contractor to do one, and it is quality work.

The crews are also trained in evangelism and outreach, and have plenty of opportunities to speak to the people in the neighborhoods where they are working about their faith in Christ. I don’t call that proselytizing, but if receiving federal tax dollars to purchase building materials brought government regulation with it, and forced World Changers to stop their evangelistic opportunity, I’d object to that. Though it is an SBC operated program, churches of other denominations participate, and the people at any given project are all volunteers, but their administrative staff is made up of NAMB missionaries, and they definitely need to be committed Christians.

The money for materials does not in any way go toward any expense involving the crews themselves, but I can still see where there might be some blurred lines. The solution, as you say, is very simple. Just don’t accept the federal tax money. Otherwise, it is reasonable to expect federal regulation.

By: Cat's Dad

Cat's Dad — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:08:42 +0000

I fully agree that if you take the government’s money, you’re under their conditions, and that Obama’s a chameleon politician–no CHANGE there.

By: Bart Barber

Bart Barber — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:51:14 +0000

Aaron,

Limited tax credits for donations to organizations that perform eleemosynary work. No tax dollars spent with religious groups. That’s the solution.

By: Byroniac

Byroniac — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:12:16 +0000

Oh, sorry, it’s late. Kudos to the quoted portion, that is. I also like the two closing Bible references.

By: Byroniac

Byroniac — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 06:09:29 +0000

Big Daddy Weave,

I have some mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I think it is perfectly reasonable that the government should expect all those receiving federal aid or who have been granted tax exemption to comply with governmental rules and regulations. On the other hand, because I am a Christian, I believe that Christianity (and its morality) is alone right, and I wish the majority of people including the government recognized it and enforced legislation according to Christian moral principles.

But, I think you are exactly right when you say, “There’s a simple and faithful way to solve this problem. If evangelical groups don’t want the federal government telling them what they can or cannot do with federal tax dollars, they shouldn’t take federal funds.” But I am afraid that many will not separate politics from religion (which is very necessary when your religion is no longer the majority one, even if you do not wish to disavow any portion of your religion for the sake of politics). I do not believe that religion must always be private, but the public manifestation of it is probably best funded privately.