The Faith-based Initiative and Congregational Change -- Sightings

Over the weekend, I posted my own thoughts on Mark Chaves' Christian Century article (one that is getting picked up later this week by Ethics Daily.  How prescient I was about the importance of the question, was confirmed not only by the offer to repost on Ethic's Daily, but in Martin Marty's Monday Sightings post, for he too has chosen to focus on the Chaves article. 

I invite you to consider the question -- what role should congregations be expected to play in providing social relief?  And how might the government partner?  These and other questions have been raised -- here is Marty's response.

***********************
Sightings 5/31/10

The Faith-based Initiative and Congregational Change

-- Martin E. Marty

“Did the Faith-based Initiative Change Congregations?” asked astute sociologists of religion Bob Wineberg and Mark Chaves last April. The answer: No. Chaves, based at Duke University, follows up with a revision in The Christian Century (June 1), “Congregations Say No to the Faith-based Initiative: Thanks, but No Thanks.” He is referring to the Congress-launched program to tap the energies and genius of religious organizations, “including congregations, to meet social needs.” Recognizing that the program had been controversial from the first, often on grounds coded as “church-state relations,” Chaves analyzed follow-up studies to see whether the tapping had been productive. Again: No.

Chaves is anything but an anti-institutional, anti-congregational muckraker, doomsayer, or secular snob. His career is devoted to assessing what role crucial institutions like congregations (parishes, mosques, synagogue) can and do achieve. We can picture him having hoped that this innovation would work. “Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services and Jewish Family Services” do work big time, he notes. It’s hard to imagine American voluntary life without such large agencies, something the “spiritual but not religious” or “religious but non-institutional” citizens don’t often notice. But, once more, “did the faith-based initiative have any impact on congregations? Did it prompt congregations to get more involved in providing social services?” Again, No! and No!

Failure followed because those in charge worked with false assumptions. One was “that congregation-based social services represent an alternative to the social welfare system.” No, they don’t. Chaves: “The reality is that there is no such alternative system in the religious world.” Congregations are not an alternative; their social services depend on “the current system.” “It is much more common for a congregation to plug into an existing program than to start a new one.” False assumption two: that “congregations represent a vast reservoir of volunteer labor.” Do they? No. Most congregations are small, internally diverse, peopled by believers who can’t all be mobilized to serve. Pay no attention to the anti-government and anti-taxing people who say we can all take care of the neighbor in need just by being generous one at a time or as congregations.

Don’t write congregations off; Chaves does not, by any means. He simply observes what they are good at. “Congregations are good at mobilizing people. But they are good at mobilizing small groups of volunteers to conduct well-defined tasks on a periodic basis,” most notably disaster relief. They do well collaborating with organizations “like homeless shelters and Habitat for Humanity,” that are good at using the best congregational resources: “small groups of volunteers carrying out well-defined, limited tasks.” The room for fresh definition is vast; the number of limited tasks is without limit.

Chaves consistently is suggesting, based on rich data, that those who want to dream of non-governmental or non-secular forms of addressing social needs are utopian. Congregations play an enormous role in the economy of social care, but they have to be free to find and exercise that role in partnership, along with, and at the side of non-congregational approaches. The anti-government, anti-tax, anti-secular Bible-believers have – or should have – a problem with Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 13:4, where “authorities,” a.k.a. “government,” “is God’s servant for your good;” or 13:6, “For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants.” We see.

References:

Bob Wineberg and Mark Chaves, “Did the Faith-Based Initiative Change Congregations?” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly (March 2010).


Mark Chaves, “Congregations Say No to the Faith-based Initiative: Thanks, but No Thanks,” Christian Century (June 1, 2010).



Martin E. Marty's biography, current projects, publications, and contact information can be found at http://www.illuminos.com./



----------

On April 6, 2010 Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, spoke at the University of Chicago Divinity School in an event sponsored by the university’s Theology Workshop. This month’s Religion and Culture Web Forum brings audio from Land’s discussion, titled “Christians, Public Policy, and Church and State Separation,” and offers reflections on the event in an introduction by David Newheiser, Ph.D. student and coordinator of the Theology Workshop at the University of Chicago. http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/webforum/index.shtml

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

The Faith Based Initiative and Congregations

I remember back when President George W. Bush proposed and saw implemented his Faith Based Initiative.  At the heart of this proposal was that the government would open up funds to be used by faith-based institutions, including local congregations, so that they could be alternative deliverers of social services.  I remember that our clergy group in Santa Barbara, made this a focus of conversation, dedicating one meeting to exploring it.  I went out and got as much information as I could (I was the President of the Greater Santa Barbara Clergy Association at the time) to distribute.  We had a guest presenter who was working with faith based initiatives come and speak to us.  We batted it around, wondering what it would mean for us and the communities.  We were in agreement that congregations should be involved in social service, but we were not all certain as to the implications of the project.

Well, it's been nearly a decade since that Office of Faith-Based  and Community Initiatives was formed.  Over the course of time, a number of the people brought in to lead it left their positions, discouraged at the way in which the Administration wanted to use it for political gain.  When President Obama came into office, he kept the office, but sought to reform it some and provide more funds for the initiative.  But while faith communities remain committed (or at least a good portion) to social service, the question remains -- what impact did it have? 

Yesterday, my copy of the Christian Century arrived in the mail, and the cover story is entitled:  "Thanks, but No Thanks:  Congregations and government funding."  The article, which is written by Duke Divinity School's Mark Chaves, offers an assessment.  His assessment from studying the data -- he's a sociologist of religion who conducted a major survey of US congregations -- is that it didn't really change the habits and activities of local congregations.  The program did raise the levels of conversation about such funding, but didn't actually eventuate into much in the way of increased activity.  

As Chaves examines the data, he concludes that the formulators of this project started with certain flawed assumptions.  What they misunderstood was the nature of involvement of congregations in social service.  They assumed that congregations could be alternative deliverers of service, and that all they needed was a bit of help in getting grants.  The problem is that there really isn't any congregation based alternative system of social welfare.  Most congregations participate in already existing networks of providers.  A good example would be our congregation's involvement annually in a local homeless shelter.  For one week each year we partner with another congregation to host or assist in hosting a rotating shelter.  It services about 30-50 people.  We provide a place to sleep and meals.  But we participate in a larger project that has no religious ties, and we only serve a small portion of the county's homeless population.  Consider Chaves's comment:

The faith-based initiative failed to change congregations in part because it tried to bypass existing networks and support systems in favor of putting resources into one small part of those systems.  Congregations are usually a part of these networks and systems; they rarely stand separate from them.  A better informed faith-based initiative would focus on building up the social service delivery network as a whole. (Chaves, Christian Century, June 1, 2010, p. 24).

 

The second mistaken assumption was the belief that congregations "represent a vast reservoir of volunteer labor."   Chaves writes that congregations are good at mobilizing people, but only if the tasks are well defined and on a periodic basis (like our involvement in the homeless shelter).  He writes

Congregations are good at mobilizing 15 people to spend several weekends renovating a house, or getting five people to cook dinner at a homeless shelter one night a week, or organizing ten young people to spend two weeks painting a school in a poor community. (Chaves, Christian Century, June 1, 2010, p. 24) 

The key is well-defined and short periodic efforts.  Asking congregations to organize and staff long term, ill-defined projects doesn't work so well.  Thus, we're great at working with Habitat for Humanity or providing relief support as with Katrina or Haiti.  Even if every church truly understood itself to be missional and devoted considerable effort and expenditure to outreach efforts, it's likely that they would become true alternatives.  What we're able to do is help support and extend those broader efforts provided by nonprofits and governments.  If people really want to get churches involved, then it's probably best to find ways of using their resources well -- and that means finding ways to mobilize small groups of volunteers for specific tasks.  It might be less exciting and less headline grabbing than trying to create an alternative mode of social service delivery, but it's likely to be more successful.