Historically, there has been an increasing public acceptance of the idea that the responsibility for "social ills" (such as drug dependency, impoverishment, crime, unwed teen pregnancy, and so on) lies not with the individual but with external influences. It is a short step to conclude that, if society must be at fault somehow, it is incumbent upon society to take corrective action.

The history of volunteering on the part of private institutions (particularly houses of worship) is both long and distinguished. In current parlance, church-sponsored social programs are called "faith-based initiatives." Despite the perceived success of such private programs, there has also developed a broad consensus for using public money to address social problems by means of secular programs. In part, this consensus has been reinforced by widespread (but not yet universal) adherence to the notion that government should redistribute wealth to achieve greater equality of condition (as distinguished from mere equal standing before the law or equality of opportunity).

The current Bush Administration has combined both of these policy threads in touting public financing of faith-based initiatives. As a result, advocates of the separation of church and state have become highly alarmed. Liberal separatists now find themselves on the opposite side of some of their traditional allies, the "disadvantaged" groups. On the conservative side, the infusion of public money into religious groups has allegedly muted the expected right-wing criticism of the government dole.

Nationally syndicated radio talk show host and prolific author, the Rev. Barry Lynn, came to the famous Circular Church at 150 Meeting Street last month to sign copies of his latest book, "Piety & Politics," published by Harmony Books. He also exhorted the audience to sign "First Freedom First" petitions calling upon public officials to pledge support for these five principles:

The petition drive is a joint effort by The Interfaith Alliance Foundation and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Lynn has been the national executive director of the AU since 1992. A graduate of Boston University School of Theology and Georgetown University, Lynn is also an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ.

Like the Rev. Anthony Campolo, Eastern University’s professor emeritus of sociology (who spoke earlier this year downtown at the historic First Baptist Church’s annual Hamrick Lectures), Lynn sees an unholy alliance between political conservatives and Protestant fundamentalists (whom Lynn calls "the Religious Right"). In "Piety & Politics," Lynn defines the Religious Right to represent "… a narrow, but powerful, segment of fundamentalists who have had the audacity to wed their faith to ultraconservative political movements." To Lynn, that alliance imperils the separation between church and state, which he terms the most important contribution of the Founding Fathers.

Lynn’s opinion of the significance of the separation doctrine was echoed by the man who introduced him, the Rev. Robert M. "Monty" Knight, pastor of the First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in West Ashley for 13 years, graduate of the Princeton Theological Seminary, and, president of the Charleston chapter of AU. Another subscriber to that view was the Rev. Albert H. Keller, professor emeritus of bioethics at MUSC and pastor of the Circular Church for 33 years.

According to Keller, churches must provide the moral conscience of the nation; yet, "many churches have bought into the philosophy of empire," he says. Keller sees parallels between the American experience and the post-Constantine Roman Empire. "It’s almost inevitable that the church will be in tension with the political order," Keller claims.

Both in his speech and in his book, Lynn focused on faith-based initiatives as a corrupting attempt by the Bush Administration to use tax revenue in order to gain the support of influential religious figures and to affect election results in targeted contested districts.

It is widely believed that funding social programs administered by "community activists" has long been used by politicians to buy influence. This practice has drawn little criticism lest the objector be labeled as "insensitive" to needs of disadvantaged elements of the populace. Lynn complains, however, that the Bush Administration aims both: (a) to subsidize religious organizations having a conservative political agenda; and, (b) "… to woo black clergy into the arms of the GOP."

Lynn credits receipt of a $1.5 million grant (by a group affiliated with TV preacher Pat Robertson) with the conservative Robertson’s conversion from vocal skeptic to silent bystander. As an example of the seduction of black clergy, Lynn points to the Rev. Herbert Lusk of Philadelphia, a famous former athlete whose church received $1 million in grants after dramatically endorsing Bush at the 2000 Republican Convention. According to Lynn, federal money is "… being used as a lure to win Bush more support from segments of the religious community, particularly African-American churches."

"Blacks tend to vote for the Democratic Party. In recent years, Republican strategists have been looking for issues to peel off enough African-American voters to shift the political balance in America", Lynn postulates, "… I believe the faith-based initiative was designed primarily to placate the Religious Right by eroding the church-state wall. The fact that it has also been used to make inroads in black and Hispanic religious communities, which are often strapped for cash, by holding out the possibility of government funding is gravy as far as the Republican Party is concerned."

The votes of black church members, however, are not for sale to any political party according to Rev. E.J. German, lead teller at DI’s First Citizens’ Bank and pastor of the Wesley AME Church in bucolic Shulerville. A genuinely American denomination, the influential African Methodist Episcopal ("AME") Church has claimed the uplifting of blacks as a primary mission since its inception in Philadelphia nearly two centuries ago. Its founder, Richard Allen, organized the black community into a political force and thus established a heritage of political involvement that is proudly recalled by the church to this day. Emphasizing that she is speaking for herself (and not for her denomination) about faith-based initiatives, Pastor German claims that while "… black churches and communities should take advantage of the [government] programs. I do not think, however, that we should sell out … The way we choose to use our votes is our own business and should not be a bargaining chip for government funding."

Furthermore, Lynn argues that faith-based initiatives are no more effective in addressing social problems than secular programs. Studies purporting to show the greater success of faith-based social programs are not scientifically verifiable, Lynn claims. His position is not only contrary to that of President Bush but also that of fellow social activist Anthony Campolo. In "Adventures in Missing the Point," co-authored in 2003 with Brian D. McLaren, Campolo wrote, "religiously sponsored endeavors … have become so successful, in fact – have done more good with less money than, say, similar government-sponsored programs---that the federal government has … become very interested in such faith-based programs."

Unlike Lynn, Campolo is apparently convinced that it is the Christian component that energizes the program. Moreover, German opines that the effectiveness of faith-based initiatives (relative to the efficacy of strictly secular programs) cannot be determined conclusively without more experience. "I don’t think that these programs have existed long enough for evaluations to produce real results," she adds.

Another local clergyman, however, does not even hazard a guess as to the relative effectiveness of faith-based initiatives versus secular programs. The Rev. Don Flowers, the popular pastor of Daniel Island’s socially active Providence Baptist Church, focuses instead on the dilution of the religious element that necessarily accompanies the infusion of government funding.

"With federal money comes federal requirements," Flowers warns.

Rather than the harmony of administration which should be expected of an organization composed of like-minded personnel, a religious organization might encounter debilitating conflict among philosophically disparate staffers as a result of no longer being able to discriminate on religious grounds in its hiring. That conflict in viewpoint may extend to the relationship between the government and its client church/service provider.

"At what point", Flowers asks, "does the church start altering its message so that I can get a million dollars [in grants]?" Church programs will take on a complexion pleasing to the governmental sponsor, Flowers fears. He seconds Lynn’s warning that a "… church in alignment with the state is a co-opted church. "

Flowers also admonishes that competition for government support pits churches against each other. As a Baptist, Flowers recalls pointedly the pre-Constitution period when colonial Baptist preachers were jailed at the behest of the established Anglican clergy. Referring to the late Saddam’s elevation of the Sunnis over the Shiites, Flowers points to Iraq as a "… shining example of what happens when a government supports one sect as opposed to another." Now that the Shiites are finally ascendant, sectarian violence is the predictable result of this table-turning. What happens, Flowers wonders, when a new federal administration takes over in January 2009? It is unlikely that the pecking order will remain the same.

Lynn labels the faith-based initiative as "church tax" and a "… government-funded religious outreach" which not only contravenes the First Amendment separation principle but also acts as a disincentive for congregants to "… dig deeper and sacrifice …"

A taxpayer can rightly say, ‘I gave at the office’ when the government, after exacting its tribute from his or her weekly paycheck, then liberally endows the religious groups of its choice. Lynn claims that exertion on the part of generous congregants is more ennobling than filling out a grant application. Warning that dependency on government money is eviscerating, Flowers says, "It’s a difficult addiction to break."

Like Flowers, Lynn points to the moribund Christian churches of Europe, which have enjoyed state support for generations, yet have degenerated into "irrelevancy … Hundreds of years of church-state partnership has all but killed Christianity in Europe. It will do the same here."

Rhetorically, Flowers asks, "Why shouldn’t the federal government be giving money to churches?" Answering his own question, Flowers explains, "Because it’s not their business to do so." Federal funding of churches’ programs is so corrupting, so divisive, so compromising, so debilitating, and so contrary to more than two centuries of American political creed that it is not worth whatever positive results may ensue. Instead, Flowers recommends a 150 percent tax deduction for charitable contributions. In that way, it is the taxpayer (rather than the bureaucrat or the politician) who decides where his or her money goes.

As elegant as Flowers’s solution is, it does nothing for those groups whose adherents pay little or no federal income taxes. They require the aid of the federal government’s political power in order to force the redistribution of wealth in their direction.

As the Rev. German forthrightly declares, "… we need the support of the government. For most of us, we do not and did not have rich parents to leave us money or give us money at the drop of a dime. And when government is able to support the cause of better living for poor black people, I think that these programs should be given a chance to make a change."

Thus, it is that old allies find themselves at odds over public funding of faith-based initiatives and, conversely, familiar adversaries find themselves in unexpected agreement.