The Episcopal Church has called upon Congress and the Bush administration to seek out compromise in the current debate over faithbased initiatives. According to a recent statement, the church supports the “longstanding practice of receiving public funding for faith-based social services so long as such programs do not discriminate or proselytize as part of receiving services.” While concerned with the current “charitable choice” provisions of a bill before the House of Representatives, the statement said the church is “encouraged” by the administration’s willingness to address constitutional and discrimination concerns raised by the faith community. “Receiving public monies from local, state or federal governments is nothing new to the Episcopal Church or other faith-based groups for that matter,” said Presiding Bishop Frank T. Griswold. “I am pleased the questions around this issue have brought serving the needs of others to our public discourse.”
The Executive Council of the Episcopal Church, meeting in Salt Lake City, approved a resolution on June 11 which called for establishing a balanced approach in accepting public funds in some cases, while maintaining important safeguards regarding discrimination, accounting and church-state separation. The resolution also called on the federal government to increase public funding for programs aimed at critical human needs, and requested that the government improve the delivery of assistance to faith-based organizations by simplifying paperwork requirements and providing timely payment for services, as well as appropriate technical assistance.
“This position balances the increasing need for social services with fairness and accountability in the use of public dollars. The church recognizes that discrimination has no place in the delivery of social services,” said Thomas H. Hart of the Episcopal Church’s Office of Government Relations in Washington, D.C. “The government should and certainly can expand the opportunity parishes and faith organizations have to help those in need with public funds, but should clearly put new money behind those proposals and critical existing programs.”