I'm sure many readers have already seen these headlines about Evangelical funding being cut by DOGE - and no doubt many caught the fact that there's something poetic about these developments.
The article/editorial starts with Falwell and the Moral Majority in the late 1970's but I think the critical shift took place under George Bush and his faith-based initiative. Many have forgotten how controversial this was - many Evangelicals thought it was wrong to take money from the government and entangle themselves with the state. But Charles Colson and many others encouraged this and believed it would go a long way in helping their goals regarding cultural influence and transformation. The argument was that these 'ministries' are providing social services and if they didn't, the government would have to provide them. As such, by subsidizing these 'ministries' they were getting the services performed on the cheap (often with volunteer labour and donations) and that these people were (in the end) more qualified than government workers would be. This somewhat dubious framing worked and the money started flowing.
And if you know anything about how non-profits work, it's not hard to imagine or understand that some did very well financially. Overhead costs can be easily inflated and profits can be masked in the form of re-investment, big bonuses, and grants to partner organisations. The business or organisation can't profit per se, but the individuals within it can - as can the many subcontractors whose services they utilize. This is where some of these ministries are revealed to be little more than rackets - relying on all kinds of services from for profit companies run by family members and the like. I've spent quite a bit of time examining IRS form 990's online and sometimes it's clear the costs are very probably inflated and there's a lot of funny business taking place. Why wouldn't there be? From their standpoint with all the donors and subsidies it's like free money. Since in the American and Evangelical worldview its unethical to be poor - the end justifies the means.
Anyway, the Liberals certainly cried foul about this over issues of separation of Church and State but the Libertarians also protested on the basis of their economic theories and view of the state. The Trumpian GOP is now largely in the hands of the Libertarians and something like Bush's faith-based subsidies wouldn't fly today. Trump himself might sign on to something like that in order to score points with his Evangelical base, but those surrounding him and influencing policy were undoubtedly keen to cut all this stuff. They don't believe the government should be providing these services to begin with and so there should be no funding. We'll see if Trump triangulates. His tariff agenda demonstrates that he (personally) is not fully on board with the Libertarian ideology. It depends on how much of a ruckus develops in the next several months. Of course, many Trumpite Evangelicals will be on board with the cuts. They won't want to see ministries suffer, but at the same time their economic idealism cringes at the arrangement. Some view these subsidized ministries as compromised and will actually be glad to see them fail. I have no sympathy for those that do - but I do not agree with the Libertarian ethos.
All Christians should of course oppose not only the subsidies but the entire para-church ministry models, along with Trump - and American Evangelicalism for that matter.
As far as all these people being de-funded and left scrambling - I wish I could conjure up some pity for them, but I don't seem to have it in me. This is not to suggest that I resonate with Trump, any of his people, or his programme - God forbid.
As expected the RNS editorial is not above criticism but in the broad strokes it gets it right. The Evangelical movement continues to re-define fundamental concepts such as 'The Church' and this episode did so in glaring fashion. Only a compromised and unbiblical view of the state would look to fund the Church by means of tax revenue. Of course, as stated, one of the major problems is Evangelicals don't have a clear concept of what the Church is and what it's here for - which is why they've failed to learn the lessons of Church history and the story of Constantinianism and Christendom - so called. This sad situation has only grown more serious (even dire) since the time when Bush was in office.
These groups which invariably wave the flag and worship at the altar of the American Babylon deem it important for the state to recognize them and grant them legitimacy and status. They pay lip service to democracy and social pluralism but would then chafe if the state funded other religious groups as well. They are unbiblical in their thinking about these questions and on another level they are also disloyal to the Enlightenment Liberal ideology and creeds they profess to follow. By creeds I refer to their religious attachment to documents such as the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution. They are overwhelmed by the own internal contradictions and dissonance. Confusion and chaos reign. The whole thing is mess that they created and have now brought down on their own heads.
The more pressing application in recent years has been the question of vouchers which would allow homeschooling families to claim some of the money that goes to the public schools. This would obviously be devastating for the public schools - which is also part of the plan, though this is not stated in public. They want to de-fund and break the public school system which as pathetic as it is, would create an even worse catastrophe.
Yes, it was frustrating at times to homeschool my kids on our shoestring budget. Had we received thousands of dollars per child per year we could have done a lot of things - lots of field trips and that sort of thing. It would have been nice and it was always off-putting to think about our property taxes funding the local school that despised us and produces kids that can barely read or do simple math - as well as funding a bunch of overpaid bureaucrats and teachers. Meanwhile we had to turn in all kinds of paperwork and (in Pennsylvania) pay for evaluations and get forms notarized etc.
That said, I would have and would still (if I had any kids still in school) refuse such vouchers. I don't want the state's money. I just want the state to leave us alone. The local district despised us because they receive funding based on students and by our kids not attending, that was money out of their pockets. However the money was in the pockets of Harrisburg (the state capital). Someone there loved us because we saved the state tens of thousands of dollars a year by not sending our kids to school. I admit the figures are absurd but that's what they spend. I didn't create their mess.
We always thought of the vouchers as a potentially dangerous compromise - it would certainly allow them to demand more accountability and it would not be unreasonable to want some kind of accounting as to how the money was spent. So while some remain excited at the possibility - we never had any interest and still wouldn't.
And in terms of my neighbours - I have no interest in asking them to subsidize or underwrite the choices we make. We just want to be left alone. Let the Philistine and Babylonian schools pursue their tasks, teach their idolatries, and indoctrinate their kids with the ideologies of the state - sadly many Christians also embrace these ideologies when it comes to nationalism and economics. We're not worried about the lost and how they raise their children. Without the gospel, there's no help or hope for them anyway. The primary problem remains with the fact that we have Christians who are compromised in their thinking when it comes to a host of questions surrounding the nation, citizenship, patriotism, and economics. This has created a cloud of confusion. While I couldn't agree with everything Marci Hamilton said, her critique makes many important points and she's mostly right.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.