Render unto Caesar or unto God? Government Funding and the Crisis of Conscience

  Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world (James 1:27).

Back in 1869, Baptists in Kentucky established a “Home for the Helpless,” seeking to serve orphans and other homeless children. Like so many other Christian churches and denominations of the era, Louisville’s Baptists saw the need for an orphanage to provide care for parentless and abandoned children, who before the establishment of orphanages were housed with adults in almshouses. The Home for the Helpless became the Louisville Baptist Orphans Home, and its charter established its mission to serve “orphan and destitute children.”

Those Baptists saw the orphanage as a Christian duty in response to a biblical mandate. The orphanage was a direct extension of Christian conviction, and it was operated under a board of Baptist control. In 1953, the Louisville ministry merged with the nearby Kentucky Baptist Children’s Home, and the two became the Kentucky Baptist Board of Child Care. A 1986 “Covenant Agreement” between the child care ministry and the Kentucky Baptist Convention called for the ministry to operate “in keeping with Christian principles and the dream of the founders of child care in Kentucky.”

That pledge is now very much in question as reports indicate that the ministry, now renamed Sunrise Children’s Services, is poised to change its hiring policies to remove any barrier to homosexuals and lesbians working as employees of the ministry.

The proposal came to light as the Western Recorder, the Kentucky Baptist newspaper, reported that the Sunrise board had discussed the matter in a specially called meeting held in August. That news, which stunned Kentucky Baptists, came after years of assurances from the ministry and its president, Bill Smithwick, that current hiring policies would remain in place. As the paper reported, “Up to now, Smithwick has consistently told the KBC mission board and convention messengers that Sunrise would continue defending its right to discriminate based on sexual orientation in on-going lawsuits.” Those lawsuits include an action filed by a lesbian worker who was terminated in 1998. That lawsuit was dismissed by the courts, but the terminated employee later filed a legal challenge to state funding of any institution that teaches religious beliefs. The State of Kentucky agreed to a settlement in the case, but Sunrise refused to accept the settlement, according to the Western Recorder.

When contacted by the paper, Smithwick refused to talk about the proposal and offered a rather belligerent response: “I don’t think Kentucky Baptists need to know something until there is something to know. Right now, my comment is, there’s nothing that Kentucky Baptists need to know, and all this [publicity] will do is hurt us.”

Subsequently, Kentucky Baptist leaders learned that  Smithwick’s August presentation to the Sunrise board had explicitly called for the employment policy to be changed. Smithwick set out several options for the board, making clear that retaining the policy would require the termination of additional employees. In turn, he warned that Sunrise would likely lose major secular funding sources in the business community, suffer further adverse publicity, “and close our doors.” He also told the board that he expects the federal government to mandate the employment of homosexuals in the future, and probably the near future. This is premised on the fact that Sunrise receives millions of dollars each year in government funding.

Smithwick then set out a second option whereby Sunrise would “tough it out until the Federal Government mandates employment of homosexuals” and “then change our employment practices after losing years of time and money spent to build our brand.”

Lastly, Smithwick proposed a third option: “Change our employment practice.” He declared that Sunrise “is not a church, or a religious institution” and argued that the organization cannot operate at current levels without government funds. Then, after arguing that Sunrise is not a religious institution, he assured the board that, even if the policies are changed, Sunrise would “continue to share the Gospel through Bible studies, worship attendance, etc. to residents and staff.”

Included in Smithwick’s argument was his personal statement that he would “rather homosexuals see the love of God through us than be denied employment by us.” He closed by offering the strange analogy of a missionary serving in Iran who wore a head covering out of respect for Muslims, apparently missing the point that no biblical command or biblical teaching is violated by wearing a head covering.

Kentucky Baptists were not alone in their shock over the Sunrise proposal. An attorney who had represented the terminated lesbian employee told The Courier-Journal (Louisville), “This is very surprising. They were very adamant that they wouldn’t hire gays and lesbians.” He is right, they were adamant about the matter and, at least until the board votes later this week on Smithwick’s proposal, they still are—at least officially.

All that can change in short order. Bill Smithwick is absolutely right about one aspect of this matter: there is every likelihood that governmental coercion on these issues is coming. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is expected to pass in the U.S. Senate in coming days, and the Obama Administration has threatened to accomplish much the same by executive order. It is hard to imagine how an entity that describes itself as “not a church or a religious institution” can claim an exemption under such a legal mandate.

There is truth in the claim that Sunrise Children’s Services, along with thousands of similar organizations and institutions, will have to face a hard choice: serve Caesar or serve God. This becomes inevitable once an entity becomes dependent on financial support from the government. That is why Baptists have historically—and rightly—insisted on nonparticipation with government funding. Participation means dependency, as the financial situation of Sunrise Children’s Services makes clear. Smithwick told The Courier-Journal, “The Baptist support, totaling $1 million each year on a $27 million budget, is very much needed, but Sunrise cannot sustain itself without the partnership of state and federal and fundraising dollars.”

The choice faced by Sunrise, soon likely to be faced by a host of similar organizations, is to get smaller or get secular. The instant an organization takes government money it is transformed into an instrument of the state. What Caesar funds, Caesar controls. This is a hard lesson, and one likely soon to be learned by Christian institutions that have been taking government money and have grown dependent on those funds.

This will not end with children’s homes. A good many Christian colleges and universities have grown dependent on funds flowing through federal student aid programs and similar forms of government funding. What happens when they face a similar choice? The math will not work in their favor. A hard choice will have to be made, and we will soon see who will stand on conviction and who will act to save their funding.

The question does not stop with funding. Soon after Britain passed antidiscrimination legislation like ENDA, Christian adoption agencies were basically put out of business. They were given a choice to sever ties with their churches or go out of business. In Massachusetts, the legalization of same-sex marriage meant the end of the adoption work done by Catholic Charities, since they could not and would not violate their convictions. In Illinois, the work of Catholic Charities in foster care and adoption came to an end in 2011, and the admired organization gave up millions in government funding because they would not violate their convictions.

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, himself a Catholic,  made the coercive power and intention of the state clear when he declared that a refusal to recognize same-sex civil unions as equivalent to heterosexual marriage for adoption and foster care: “They have a law in Illinois. It’s the civil unions law. I signed it into law. We’re not going back. Any organization that decides that because of the civil unions law that they won’t participate voluntarily in a program, that’s their choice.”

Some choice. In October of 2011 the state transferred more than 1,000 children from the care of Catholic Charities to secular agencies.

According to Baptist Press, only four or five of the 23 Baptist children’s homes associated with state Baptist conventions do not receive government funds. Bryant Millsaps, president of Tennessee Baptist Children’s Homes, told the news service that his agency had not accepted government monies in its 122 year history. And he explained why: Receiving government money is “almost like being dependent on a drug. You get hooked on it, and getting unhooked is very, very difficult. And in some cases it’s impossible.”

The board of directors of Sunrise Children’s Services faces a hard choice, but the choice is not just between several policy alternatives. They will decide to serve God or to serve Caesar. Paul Chitwood, executive director of the Kentucky Baptist Convention, urged Sunrise to step out in faith, even if it means losing massive funding. He urged the agency “to dramatically scale back its work in order to be faithful to Scripture and to model biblical values in front of hurting children.” As for Kentucky Baptists, they will find a way to serve children and keep their convictions, assures Chitwood: “Either way, I am confident Kentucky Baptists will always minister to hurting children and will do so through a ministry with biblical values.”

When asked about the payment of taxes, Jesus famously responded, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17). We dare not render to Caesar what belongs rightly and only to God.

Peace of Conscience Before God

Over the past few weeks Dr. Joel Beeke and I have been teaming up to work our way through a portion of his massive new work A Puritan Theology. We have not been reading the whole book, but just the final eight chapters which deal with practical theology, the “so what?” of systematic theology.

This week we read chapter 57 which discusses the Puritans and casuistry. I asked Dr. Beeke a few questions related to the Puritans and this strange word that I had never encountered before.

TC: I guess we need to begin here: What is casuistry and why did the Puritans focus on it?

JB: Casuistry is teaching people how to know what God wants them to do in specific situations, and how to live with peace of conscience before God. It addresses particular “cases of conscience” or ethical and spiritual questions. The Reformation of the sixteenth century brought a renewed understanding of justification by faith alone and sanctification by the Holy Spirit, but these very doctrines raised questions such as, “How do I know if I have justifying faith?” or, “What does it mean to please God at my job?” Therefore the Puritans, as heirs of the Reformation, developed answers to such questions based upon the Word of God.

TC: What was the place of counseling for the Puritans? Was it something they did primarily in the corporate worship service or was it done one-on-one and in private?

JB: The answer is both. William Perkins, who wrote a foundational treatise on preaching, said that the preacher must apply the law and the gospel to the several specific spiritual conditions in which people find themselves. Someone who is ignorant and unteachable needs far different treatment than someone broken under the guilt of sin. Some listeners need milk, and others strong meat. Fifty years later the Westminster Assembly, in the Directory for the Publick Worship of God, said the minister “is not to rest in general doctrine,” but “to bring it home” in specific applications, including teaching the truth, refuting errors, exhorting for obedience, warning against sin, applying comfort, and directing self-examination. As a result of such an approach to preaching, Puritan sermons were full of practical counseling.

At the same time, the Puritans recognized that a pastor must counsel families and individuals in a more personal way. Some Puritans did more of this than others. John Owen said some people in a church will face particular spiritual difficulties, such as “the terror of the Lord” on those convicted but not yet converted, backsliding into sin after conversion, great and long-term afflictions, feeling abandoned by God, and horrible temptations from Satan. It is part of a pastor’s calling to understand their cases and the right spiritual medicines to heal them, to give such people attention and concern with patience and tenderness. Personal work is very fruitful both for comfort and rebuke. Richard Baxter said, “I have found by experience, that an ignorant sot that hath been an unprofitable hearer so long, hath got more knowledge and remorse of conscience in half an hour’s close discourse, than they did from ten year’s public preaching.” Preaching the Word is the primary means of grace, but personal counseling plays a significant role as well.

TC: Casuistry was a major emphasis for the Puritans, but it is not just the word that has faded—it is also the practice. What have we lost? What would we gain if we recovered it?

JB: We have nearly severed experience and practice from biblical doctrine. On the one hand, this has sometimes resulted in preaching that rests content in mere teaching or only the most general of applications. Congregations become teaching centers, producing Christians who are informed but do not know how to relate their experiences and particular battles for sanctification to the Word. A return to Puritan casuistry would make preaching much more practical. It would also display more of God’s wisdom, as people feel that “Aha! That’s me!” because their hearts resonate with how the Bible describes various spiritual experiences.

On the other hand, this divorce between the Christian heart and the Christian head has sometimes resulted in counseling that is not grounded in the sound doctrines of Scripture but instead follows secular psychology (with a few verses thrown in). Such counseling can become little more than affirming whatever someone feels, instead of speaking with authority to a person’s sorrows and sins. Puritan casuistry would make counseling more biblical. It would also display more of God’s authority and power, for He not only sympathizes, but also commands, judges, and sets the captives free. A Puritan example of such casuistical counseling can be found in William Bridge, A Lifting Up for the Downcast.

TC: One application you draw out is “be a preacher of the Word not a prober of feelings.” Why is this so important? How can a pastor ensure he is doing this?

JB: Certainly a pastor should ask questions about a person’s experiences, actions, and circumstances. He would be a fool to speak before he listens. But the pastor must never allow the world’s expectations of unconditional positive regard (or his own desire to please people) to make him into a sycophant and flatterer. Rather, the pastor is a messenger of the Lord of hosts (Mal. 2:7). He must command people to repent and believe the gospel because the kingdom of God is coming (Mark 1:15). He should ask himself, “Do my preaching and counseling apply both the law and the gospel? Is Christ the substance of it and supreme over all? Am I preparing souls for judgment day?” The idea that just talking about feelings brings resolution to difficulties is deeply mistaken. Repentance and faith must be exercised in the details or little changes.

TC: If a pastor or anyone else wanted to be counseled by the Puritans on casuistry, what would be the best books to turn to?

JB: Beginners could start with Thomas Brooks, Precious Remedies against Satan’s Devices, a great help regarding specific cases of temptation, and, as I previously mentioned, William Bridge, A Lifting Up for the Downcast.

A broad view of Puritan casuistry for the Christian life may be found in Robert Bolton, General Directions for a Comfortable Walking with God.

More advanced readers who are ready to tackle seventeenth-century print would benefit from reading the classic Puritan text by William Ames, Conscience with the Power and Cases Thereof (digital or in print).

The summa of Puritan casuistry is Richard Baxter, The Christian Directory (out of print, but available in digital format), but one must read Baxter with watchfulness because he is in error in his views of the atonement and justification.

I highly recommend the regular reading of Puritan sermons such as those by Thomas Manton on Hebrews 11. One can learn a lot about biblical counseling simply by paying special attention to the applications (“uses”) in each sermon.

If you are reading along with us, be sure to read Chapter 58 (“Puritan Sacrificial Zeal”) by next Thursday. Then simply check in here to see what Dr. Beeke has to say about it.

The purpose of this project is to read classics together. Please feel free to leave a comment below or to provide a link to your own blog if you have discussed this week’s chapter there.