Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Bridging the Church-State Divide
Bridging the Church-State Divide
Jul 11, 2025 11:37 PM

This sixth installment of a short history passionate conservatism explores what it meant to finally get into the White House and see policies implemented. Skepticism was not in short supply.

Read More…

In 2000, I didn’t realize until it was too late that my astronomically exaggerated proximity to presidential candidate George W. Bush would make me a target. For example, I had said in 1998 that women volunteers had run charitable enterprises in the 19th century, so women’s entrance into the corporate workforce had hurt the nonprofit world. Now, as Bush’s supposed “ear-whisperer,” my purported opposition to high-achieving businesswomen was newsworthy.

The solace I could take while being pummeled in liberal newspapers was that it was worse in the United Kingdom. Conservative Party leader William Hague and his associates, out of power, wanted to learn about passionate conservatism” and perhaps ride it to a parliamentary majority. My wife and I had two days of meetings in or near Parliament, three days of tourism, and four days of being lambasted by London newspapers.

For example, The Observer showed its precise observation of American geography and society: “On the endless plains of Indiana [Bush] repeated the phrase passionate conservatism’ 15 times. Bush had borrowed it from a man [who’s] got a beard. He’s called Marvin. What more need be said?” Something more, it turned out: I was a “born-again Christian who watched Bush from afar, on television, with a glow of satisfaction and a job in the White House awaiting him.” I purportedly had “a semi-political post as spiritual overseer of George Bush’s Texas.”

The new business cards—“spiritual overseer”— looked great. On the flight home, I read an older London publication, The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment, first printed in the 1640s. Pastor Jeremiah Burrough wrote: “Make a good interpretation of God’s ways toward you. … Think that God perhaps has given you a trial to build your character. Perhaps you had your heart inordinately set on a particular selfish goal. Perhaps, had you succeeded, you would have used the opportunity to fall into sin.”

The rest of the presidential campaign mixed pleasure and pain. A Christian producer at CNN made sure its profile of me, just before the Republican convention, was fair. A 60 Minutes profile was the opposite. I felt like the pastor who prayed as a grizzly bear charged him, “Lord, please make a Christian out of this bear.” That very instant, the bear halted, clasped its paws, and prayed aloud, “Dear God, bless this food I am about to receive.”

At the GOP convention in Philadelphia, during which George W. Bush accepted his party’s nomination for president, delegates wore buttons crowing, “I’m passionate conservative.” At a lecture I gave at Washington University in October, however, 10 young women wore T-shirts stating on their fronts, “I’m passionate conservative because…” Hurrah, I’m finally ing a heartthrob? Not exactly. As I started speaking, they turned their backs and showed me the continuation of their message: “…because I’m racist, sexist” and so forth. Yet they sat down after several minutes and politely listened. One of them gave me not the shirt off her back but an extra one the group had.

Given the closeness of the election, the Bush celebration/wake on election night in November had lows and highs. Television folks had set up a grandstand facing the crowd in front of the stately Texas capitol building. At 9 p.m. I climbed to the top so a BBC interviewer, assuming Al Gore had won, could sneeringly ask me, “Looking at the returns, would you agree passionate conservatism hasn’t much of a future?” As I began to answer, a roar from the Bush crowd indicated that Florida, declared by networks a Gore conquest, was once again in play—and so passionate conservatism.

Five weeks after the 2000 election, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the election of George W. Bush. On December 13 he gave his first speech as president-elect: “Together we will address some of society’s deepest problems one person at a time, by encouraging and empowering the good hearts and good works of the American people. This is the essence passionate conservatism.”

Eight days later, Bush met at Austin’s First Baptist Church with 30 “national faith-based leaders” and one journalist/historian. We sat in a circle on plastic chairs. Each person had 30 seconds to express directly to the president-elect his hopes for personal interaction with the new administration. I said I’d continue to edit a politically independent magazine, and added, “We’ll zing you at times.” Bush smiled and said, “Join the club.” He concluded with a ment: “I hope that a year from now, no one is going to be able to say that this was all just smoke and mirrors.”

Early in January 2001 the most prominent evangelical leader at that time, Prison Fellowship head Chuck Colson, sent me a letter fearing smoke and mirrors. He described the beginning of a Philadelphia project designed to fight crime, drugs, and other negative aspects of gang life: “We had a public meeting kicking the program off, and I talked about evangelizing the streets of Philadelphia, bringing people to Christ.” He wrote that his remarks had rankled other project heads, who then kicked Prison Fellowship out of its position as leader of the project.

Colson worried that the Bush “faith-based initiative” would also push out those with faith in Jesus. Colson wrote that, following the Philadelphia hassle, he “spoke with a very eminent social scientist and told him the story of the conversion [to Christ] of a young lad now out on the streets preaching and reading the Bible to members of gangs. I was thrilled by this evidence of a transformed life.” Colson said conversion was a “success,” but the eminent academic disagreed, saying other social scientists had to “peer-review” it.

Colson was one of the people who gathered at the northwest corner of the White House grounds on the cold, gray last Monday in January. About the same number of “national faith-based leaders” received badges, went through security, and were escorted to a dark-paneled, leather-chaired room. Staffers made sure a nun from New York, an imam from a Detroit mosque, and a long-bearded rabbi literally had seats at the table. Colson was off table. I stood at the back, where I belonged. Bush told the gathering about his goal: “Change lives by changing hearts. … I promise you I will stand up for what I believe … an initiative and a vision that will fundamentally change our country.”

Some who had spent much of their lives out in the cold asked hard questions. Bob Woodson, head of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise and a planner of Teen Challenge’s demonstration at the Alamo in 1995, said many Christian groups were suspicious of government. Steve Burger, head of the Association of Gospel Rescue Missions, noted the bureaucratic tendency to prefer “people in stainless steel buildings with Ph.D. degrees” to volunteers from churches.

Bush replied, “I fully understand the fears of people of faith.” He spoke of passion: “This was the core of America. Then government stepped in, and everyone said government could do it.” He offered his personal understanding of how change occurs: “I was lost and then I was found.” He surprised some in the room with his choice of John DiIulio, a very eminent social scientist from Philadelphia, to head the White House faith-based office. Journalists had speculated that evangelicals would get preference, so DiIulio’s Catholicism and emphasis on peer-review processes were political pluses.

Chuck Colson in his letter gave me a charge: “Bless you, dear Marvin. I hope you will keep your hand upon this because it is critical that the Bush administration get off to the right start.” In February I visited John, on leave from his University of Pennsylvania professorship. He and newly hired staffers padding around their freshly carpeted, high-ceiling office next to the White House. Badge photos on lanyards captured the deer-in-the-headlight look of driver’s license art. That was appropriate, since vehicles from many directions seemed intent on running them down.

Critics played it both ways: churches are so strong they’ll take over government, and so weak that government will take over them. I was on bination business and fathering trip with my youngest son, Ben, who at age 10 swung around throughout our meeting on a revolving office chair. It was clear that John, overweight with some heart problems, was also swinging around. Now that he was Uncle Sam-I-am, reporters kept asking: Will you fund green eggs and ham? Is all this faith-based stuff a sham? Will some church get a puter? Will that be fine with Justice Souter?

I was for decentralization: let individual taxpayers decide where they wanted their poverty-fighting money to go. John wanted centralized grant-making and said fundable programs could not have religious teaching or evangelism. I told him about a church-run program on budgeting for folks who had been on welfare or in prison. The instructor began by distinguishing among needs, wants, and desires. He quoted the Apostle Paul: “If we have food and clothing, we will be content with that,” and further explained his classifications by citing other Bible verses.The instructor taught about the need to pay debts by quoting from Psalm 37: “The wicked borrows and does not pay back, but the righteous is gracious.”

The students seemed impressed that they were not learning just the “seven habits for saving” or some other pilation of human lore, but wisdom imparted from God. Question: Was this religious instruction? Should it be eligible for a federal grant? Find out next time.

This is the sixth installment of an eight-part series on poverty and welfare reform in America. Click through for partsone,two,three, four, and five.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
One More Reason the Government Shouldn’t Subsidize Ethanol
Excerpts from Clifford Krauss’ article in the New York Times (cross-posted at )… The ethanol boom of recent years — which spurred a frenzy of distillery construction, record corn prices, rising food prices and hopes of a new future for rural America — may be fading. Only last year, farmers here spoke of a biofuel gold rush, and they rejoiced as prices for ethanol and the corn used to produce it set records. panies and farm cooperatives have built so...
Mugabe: Rotten from the Start
An interesting article in the Los Angeles Times detailing how badly wrong Robert Mugabe’s supporters in the West have been from the very beginning (requires “free” registration; may I suggest BugMeNot?): From the beginning of his political career, Mugabe was not just a Marxist but one who repeatedly made clear his intention to run Zimbabwe as an authoritarian, one-party state. Characteristic of this historical revisionism is former Newsweek southern Africa correspondent Joshua Hammer, writing recently in the liberal Washington Monthly...
Patterson Stops Too Short In Jena Six New York Times Piece
Orlando Patterson, professor of sociology at Harvard University, penned a challenging piece on Jena 6 and our current racial tensions. I have learned much from Patterson over the years. For example, he was the first person to help me realize that we often confuse issues of race and class in America by assuming the race as the single variable accounting for the cyclical plight of poor blacks. In a September 30th New York Times op-ed piece Patterson rightly says that...
Faith, Funding, and Substance Abuse
Why might there be “increasing participation by religious organizations in offering substance abuse treatment funded by federal government vouchers”? Perhaps because, at least in part, “A program’s faith element relates to the people they serve and the type of help they provide, as programs with more explicit and mandatory faith-related elements are likely to be substance-abuse programs.” Thus, the more explicitly faith-filled substance abuse programs will increasingly face a special temptation to take federal funds for such purposes. And this...
Two Perspectives on Climate Change
These two brief essays provide a good juxtaposition of two perspectives that view immediate and mandated action to reduce carbon emissions as either morally obligatory or imprudent. For the former, see Vaclav Havel’s, “Our Moral Footprint,” which states rhetorically, “It is also obvious from published research that human activity is a cause of change; we just don’t know how big its contribution is. Is it necessary to know that to the last percentage point, though? By waiting for incontrovertible precision,...
Positive Freedom and Paternal Government
A quote from T. H. Green, refuting the view that the law’s “only business is to prevent interference with the liberty of the individual,” construed as doing what you like as long as it does not infringe on others’ rights to do what they want. Green writes: The true ground of objection to ‘paternal government’ is not that it violates the ‘laissez faire’ principle and conceives that its office is to make people good, to promote morality, but that it...
C.S. Lewis vs. Sigmund Freud
Awhile back, I finished reading Armand Nicholi’s book, The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life. Dr. Nicholi is an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard and has taught a seminar on Freud & Lewis at Harvard for the past 35 years. The course eventually led to this book and a PBS series by the same name. The book is an interesting read for anyone modestly interested in one or...
Clarence Thomas Interviews
You are probably aware by now that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has published a memoir. The interview-avoiding judge has lately been giving, as Kathryn Jean Lopez puts it, “a lifetime of interviews.” Given the controversy surrounding his public life since his nomination to the Court, not much remains to be said about him, good or bad, that has not already been said. Suffice it to say that I draw attention to him now because: 1) My own view is...
The Uniqueness of Christian Ecology – Abundance
"Here is a boy with five small barley loaves and two small fish, but how far will they go among so many?" [John 6:9] Among all the many good things going on last weekend in Boise, I (and a few others) noticed something a bit disconcerting. The way many of the topics were covered shows how prone Christians are to being consumed by doom and gloom messages of scarcity and lack and overpopulation and an "ever smaller earth." While it’s...
Pentecostalism, Poverty, and the Global South
Related to last week’s post about Reformed education and Pentecostalism, I point you to this post by Rod Dreher, who discusses his interview with Josiah Idowu-Fearon, the Anglican Archbishop of Kaduna state in Nigeria. Dreher relates the following: Pentecostalism is growing like wildfire, but there’s less to it than you might think. He said that in many cases, people are drawn to the emotional experience, and can tell you exactly when they gave their life to Jesus — but can’t...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved