Faith Based Desk / Public Funding for Religious Groups

Dear Cheryllyn,

Find following my comments on the CNN.com article entitled "Bush pushes
legislation for "faith based" groups." What George Bush is proposing is
objectionable for at least three reasons:

First, the sphere of Civil government is responsible for up holding
civil justice and protecting the innocent from the civil doer. Civil
government is to use monies collected from the tax base in order to
finance this Biblical ministry of justice. The sphere of Church
government has a Biblical ministry of mercy and grace. And voluntary
associations may be involved in charitable endeavours.

The Lord has instituted the Family and the Church to carry out specific
functions. In the event that there is a breakdown in the sphere of
Family government, the Church does have a Biblical mandate to assist per
Acts chapter six. It is ethically wrong to expect Civil government to do
what Family or Church government should be carrying out. Rebellious man
thinks that he knows better than God and hence seeks solutions to life's
problems mostly at the Civil government level. This is something that
the unbeliever would not appreciate, but it is something that as
Christians we must understand clearly and live out.

Second, it is not the job of the Civil government to collect taxes from
people of a nation for the purpose of redistributing the monies to
charitable organizations. It may seem "noble" but Civil government does
not have a Biblical mandate to do so. The "Messianic Socialist State"
would like to do it, but it's wrong. Do you want Civil government to be
in the business of redistributing tax monies to Bahai, Hari Krisnas,
Sangomas? Of course not.

People should designate funds to the Church or private charities of
their choice, without Civil government involvement. If people's hearts
are not moved to support a particular charity then, that charity does
not have a "right" to public funds.

Also in the event that Civil government funds "Charitable"
organizations, by what standard do they distribute? To people who agree
with themselves! There is massive room for corruption there. So you see
it is better that individuals chose and directly donate to charities.

Third, if religious organizations accept funds through Civil government,
then the Church or private organizations will ultimately find themselves
having to submit to Civil government's dictates. That which Civil
government pays for, it owns. This is seen in the statement "The White
House says that safeguards would be in place to make sure the religious
groups do not use the money to proselytise."

So, in effect, Civil government is saying, "Here is $10,000. Go and
minister to the needs of the poor, sick, hungry; but you can't do it in
the name of Jesus."

The effect upon the Church would be very damaging. In Zambia, when
President Chiluba started dishing out Kwacha from the "presidential
slush fund" to churches etc. the result was that those churches did not
have the backbone to subsequently rebuke Civil leaders who were corrupt
and wicked. As one Zambian Christian previously lamented, "There are
very few Nathan's in Zambia today."

Finally, by the Civil government taking it upon itself the duty of
national fundraising for charities. It then demands more bureaucrats and
taxes! The nation doesn't need more bureaucrats and taxes.

But the dilemma that we find ourselves in today is that "we all want a
king like the other nations." The consequence is that the people will
eventually cry out oppression, as they were warned by Samuel (1 Sam
8:1-8).

Yours in Christ

Robert Zins