resident Bush's ambitious plan to "devolve" the government welfare system and direct public money to religious groups operating social services has created a rift within denominational ranks.

   On one hand is a broad alliance of conservative Christians and mainstream religious leaders who fear that government funding could jeopardize the independence of churches, and lead to a labyrinth of regulations. Others, though, especially black clergy are hailing Bush's creation of a White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives, and the recent introduction on capitol hill of legislation that would expand the range of government programs which religious groups could tap to fund various outreaches.

   It is a gap which, according to the New York Times and political pundits, the Bush administration has noticed and is addressing in hopes of salvaging the entire faith-based initiative. It is also a divide which reflects profound ethnic, racial, cultural and political differences. The Times, for instance, noted a recent gathering of clergy in Augusta George organized by Mayor Bob Young and attended by Stephen Goldsmith, a key Bush advisor and the president's point man on getting faith-based programs energized inside the federal bureaucracy. Goldsmith received a rousing ovation, but, noted the Times:

"Many of the black ministers left and drove back across the railroad tracks, past blocks of rotting shotgun shacks, mentally calculating how many more children they could tutor and houses they could build with the government grants Mr. Goldsmith had talked about.

"The white ministers, meanwhile, drove off to their churches in the blossoming precincts known as the Hill, past the golf course where the Masters tournament is played, and began phoning one another to share their alarm about the dangers that could lie ahead for churches that accept money from the government, and for a nation that puts churches on the government payroll."

    The differences, though, may be even more profound that the Times describes.

   ¶    Religious right leaders such as Rev. Jerry Falwell and televangelist Pat Robertson have both expressed objections to government regulation of churches which accept government funds, and the possibility that fringe religious sects could benefit from public money. Falwell has suggested that since Islam "teaches hate," Muslim groups should be disqualified from receiving any faith-based initiative cash "before they're in the door." Others object to the prospect of organizations like the Church of Scientology, which runs drug and alcohol program based on the teachings of founder L. Ron Hubbard, or Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church being included in the Bush proposal.

   Falwell adds that funding should be restricted to "established" religious groups with a track record of social services.

   ¶    Black clergy seem more enthused about the faith-based initiative than their white counterparts. A 1998 survey of more than 1,200 religious congregations conducted by University of Arizona sociologist Mark Chaves found that 64% of mostly-black churches were willing to apply for state money, compared with only 28% of predominately white churches. That willingness became apparent in the remarks of Rev. Eugene F. Rivers III of Boston, who told the Times, "We are coming out strongly supporting Bush and the faith-based initiative, and we're generating a direct challenge to our flat-earth white fundamentalist brothers because, in all the racket in the last few weeks, the black churches haven't been heard from."

   Rivers is even more adamant about suggesting that a good portion of opposition to faith-based funding is rooted in racism, not legitimate concerns over entanglement. He recently told Cox News Service, "There is a racial dimension that must be looked out." Rivers added that the conservative religious right does not "accept the viability of the black ministry to support the poor. We reject the assumption that we can't manage money."

   ¶    Even with this racial divide, there is evidence that both black of white religious leaders are less worried about the establishment of a "Religion Tax" -- public funding of religion -- than they are about the possible consequences to their own denominations and churches. Falwell, for instance, is willing to wait and see if government funding necessarily will lead to regulation and monitoring; if it doesn't, he says he would re-evaluate his position. Public statements by both white and black Christian leaders suggest that many welcome the opportunity to advance their religious agenda, so long as government interference is minimal.

   Not all, though, agree with the statement of Rev. Larry Fryer, director of a community center in Augusta which provides social services for the poor. "These children are hungry. Now, I'm a minister, but if I have to remove the Bible, remove the cross from the wall, remove the Ten Commandments to get that government money, I'll do it. If God is in me, that's good enough."

   The Bush proposal would not levy such a requirement; nor would H.R. 7, the bill recently submitted in the House of Representatives by Congressmen J.C. Watts and Tony Hall. These measures expand the range of "charitable choice" programs funded by government, and would allow faith-based groups to bid on public contracts and not have to compromise or surrender their "religious character."

   ¶    Even with billions of dollars in re-directed government funding, some clergy realize that pruning the welfare system will inevitably lead to a shortage of funds, even "unintentionally pit one religion against the other," and unravel "decades of efforts to build interfaith relationships, and ultimately exclude minority faiths," noted the Times.

   Rev. J. Richard Short of the Covenant Presbyterian Church in Augusta noted, "It's not faith-based, it's Christian-based. I think it's a portent of things to come. Who is going to sit at the table and decide when applications get funded?"

   Also expressing skepticism is Kevin J. Hasson of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a litigation group which frequently defends school prayer and other religion-in-government cases. He said that federal funding of churches is "problematic," adding "Academic critics look at urban churches and charitable choice, and say it may work in practice, but it doesn't work on paper."

   Rev. Alice Davis of the Shiloh Baptist Church in Washington, DC supports the faith-based funding, though. "The benefit is real clear to us," she told the Washington Times newspaper. "We need the money."

   ¶    What's ahead in the skirmish over the White House faith-based plan?

   The administration is getting some support from select religious conservatives, who two weeks ago huddled for a strategy session on capitol hill organized by "pro-family" activist Connie Marshner. Marshner is a member of the semi-secret Council on National Policy, and according to several sources is a Christian Reconstructionist, a theological group which advocates transforming America into a theocratic republic based on Old Testament-style law.

   Meanwhile, Rep. J.C. Watts is pushing ahead with his plans for an April 25 "Faith-Based Summit" in DC to re-invigorate the drive for his "Community Renewal" legislation. The Watts-Hall "Community Solutions Act" introduced several days ago may also get a boost at that time. Watts' ACRA legislation would create 40 so-called "Renewal Communities" with faith-based social programs as an integral part of the welfare services mix.

   Is HR 7, though, undergoing revision? While a text of the measure appears on Rep. Hall's web site, the legislation has yet to be displayed on the THOMAS site which tracks all House and Senate legislative measures.

[text only]