Since the mid-1990s and the advent of then Senator John Ashcroft's "Charitable Choice" legislation, politicians, pundits and preachers have been trying to convince us that communities of faith (usually that means churches) can make an extremely significant contribution to solving the nation's numerous and growing social problems.
The Clinton administration encouraged the idea. The current administration gave the movement institutional life by creating the White House Office for Community and Faith-Based Initiatives. Each year since 2001, funds earmarked for this new agency have grown. Even more significant is the open door the new cabinet level office creates for faith-based groups seeking funding from federal agencies and departments.
During the last two Presidential campaigns, a lively debate ensued concerning the role and effectiveness of faith-based organizations in addressing the social needs of the nation. The conversation has been interesting to say the least.
No doubt communities of faith have much to offer when it comes to addressing issues associated with poverty, addiction, community development, child care and health and wellness, to mention but a few. While very little empirical evidence is available, the anecdotal testimony can be moving and inspirational.
But, what about questions of scale and the real capacity of faith communities to act alone?
I cannot count the times I have been told that the government should simply get out of the social services business and turn such concerns over to the churches where they belong. Often those who make this argument point back to an earlier day (well over one hundred years ago) in the United States when churches performed almost all social service.
"Why, if the government would allow it, the church could take care of all of these matters," one adamant gentleman told me not long ago.
A serious look at the numbers--both of those in need and of the dollars contributed--is important just here.
Consider the data on offerings in religious communities. Between 1968 and 1990, the percentage of annual income donated by the average church member fell from 3.1% to 2.66%. If we compare mainline Protestant denominations to Evangelical denominations in the Christian world, we discover that mainline donations fell from 3.3% in 1968 to 3.17% in 2001. Evangelical donations declined from 6.15% to 4.27% over the same period. Neither of these Christian groupings reach the level of a tithe (10%) in average annual giving.
Interestingly, as members of both groups grew richer personally, contributions as a percentage of income declined.
It is also interesting to note that an examination of the public agendas of Evangelical churches reveals that almost never does the issue of justice for the poor show up as a serious priority or concern.
A recent study conducted by John and Sylvia Ronsvalle ("The State of Christian Giving") reports that if Christians in the U. S. simply tithed, their communities of faith would receive an additional $143 billion annually. Interestingly, the United Nations estimates that an additional $70-$80 billion a year would provide the support needed to open access to essential health care and education to every poor person on earth!
What are we to make of this? What does this all mean for urban revitalization and overcoming poverty in the city?
An amazing pool of assets are available to faith communities. So how do we turn the pool into a river for the poor? There is the challenge and the reality.
All sorts of questions come to mind.
Will people of faith ever have the spiritual will to offer gifts at this level? If they do, will their organized communities have the will to direct the increased funding toward the poor of our great urban areas?
Do communities of faith have the capacity to organize delivery systems that truly benefit the oppressed?
Will new kinds of leaders arise who devote themselves to understanding urban reality?
In short, are people of faith in the United States focused on the issues that impact the city in such a negative manner?
The claims we hear these days are interesting. Watching the outcomes may be even more so. For now and for me it is clear that our most effective solutions will emerge from public/private partnerships involving faith groups, community groups and government at all levels.
Announcement from Duke Memorial UMC
2 weeks ago
7 comments:
The sad fact of the matter is that churches don't have anything approaching the capacity to tackle problems of poverty on their own.
Total giving to all charitable causes each year is about $140 billion. Half of that money goes to churches, and the most optimistic estimate is that 15% of that giving is spent on benevolences. Other, probably more realistic, estimates place the amount churches spend on benevolence at about 3% of what they receive.
So the total currently spent by churches on good works could reasonably be estimated at somewhere between $2 billion and $10 billion annually (a remarkably large range--but good statistics are hard to come by).
The federal government alone spent $437 billion on means-tested programs in 2000. That's somewhere between 200 and 40 times the amount spent by the church on programs for the poor. It's also three times the total of all charitable giving in the United States each year.
Look at the numbers another way: If every single churchgoer tithed and every single cent of that money was spent on benevolence for the poor, then churches could replace half of what the federal government spends on the poor each year.
Or yet another way: If every cent of current charitable giving was spent on the poor, and none on churches, educational institutions, hospitals or the arts, then about one third of what the federal government spends could be replaced.
Of course, vast amounts on aid to the poor are also spent by states, cities and localities.
If you look at the numbers seriously, then you have to admit that the primary responsibility for helping the poor is way beyond anything you could reasonably expect churches, or the private sector as a whole, to assume.
Finally, I find the United Nations estimate of the money needed highly dubious. I think closer to $70-80 trillion dollars than billion dollars, would be necessary.
Our church has an annual budget just over 1 million. We spend about $40,000 (4%) per year on 'benevolence'. 87% of the budget goes to facilities and salaries. For the sake of the poor, we need a different way of conceiving what it means to be a church.
Our church has an annual budget just over 1 million. We spend about $40,000 (4%) per year on 'benevolence'. 87% of the budget goes to facilities and salaries. For the sake of the poor, we need a different way of conceiving what it means to be a church.
Beyond our meager donations to a charitable activity or two, our church has absolutely no social conscience or notion of what social justice might actually mean in the U.S. or around the world. Our faith is never defined in terms of the pain of the world or the plight of the poor. No one ever speaks to the forces that create poverty beyond the role individual failure. We are incredibly shallow.
If you want a different way of conceiving what it means to be a church, you have a lot of kindred spirits. People like Homefront, and Brian Mclaren, and a host of others. A new way of conceiving church is emerging.
waitaminnit--What am I saying, these guys make me want to rip my hair out! I have to start slow: I WANT to WANT a new way of conceiving church. I don't want it a lot of the time--that's confession. But I want to want it--that's faith, I guess.
John, you may be correct. I will need to check out the reference for the $70-80 billion reference. It is cited in an essay by Ron Sider, "The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience," (Feb. 1, 2005). Sider footnotes his claim by referring to Carol Bellamy's study, "The State of the World's Children 2001" (UNICEF, 2003, page 81). I expect Sider has Bellamy's claim correct, so you would be challenging her findings. It is obvious that $70-80 billion US spent annually for health and education would, in Third World contexts and markets, go much, much further than here. Of course, we would never know since we aren't contributing that kind of support and, of course, our faith communities are not either.
Larry, I'm not doubting anybody's sourcing. But the 70-80 billion number doesn't make sense to me, given that we spend upwards of 500 billion each year in the United States.
Sure, the money will go further in other countries, but I find it hard to believe it will go that much further.
Most likely, either the U.N. calculation is too optimistic, or the services that will be provided are pretty limited.
Post a Comment