Churches Provide What State Will Not

Perhaps it was only a death rattle of a dying mindset. Yet there was something stunning in the message a coalition of Maryland religious leaders delivered last month. They will not, they told the state’s governor, accept a larger role in caring for the poor.

The state of Maryland, like many others, hopes churches and synagogues will help as society replaces the old federal welfare programs.

But the coalition of 250 Maryland congregations called welfare reform “misguided” and declined to cooperate because they are “doing all we can already.”

The protests came mostly from mainline denominations, troubled groups that have lost members to booming, nondenominational suburban megachurches. The old denominations still deliver aid directly, but often express their social concern by lobbying for federal poverty programs. That reflects a trend. A century ago, religious groups provided most poverty relief. Then poverty became government’s job - and tax rates soared to levels that make a tithe seem puny.

Today, change is in the wind.

Last year’s welfare-reform law includes a “charitable choice” clause allowing states to contract with religious groups for provision of social services. Some states have done this for years.

But how much more can private charities do? As the protest in Maryland shows, the answer won’t come easily. Competition for charitable contributions is fierce. Tax burdens and stagnant wages make it tough even for the willing to dig deeper.

But this not just a money question. Congregations are reservoirs of volunteer time and talent. Members share a deeply held desire to live their faith in positive ways. Pews contain skilled healers, administrators, counselors, bankers, teachers, cooks, employers …

Religious charities dispense more than a cold cash handout; they can provide one-on-one encouragement, a community of support and a spiritual ingredient that changes people from within.

And, there may be federal funding for services rendered.

But the key is the approach: community-based, personal, compassionate. Centuries of history say this may work. So do continual stirrings within the living faith. Here in Spokane, for example, a dozen congregations organized the Interfaith Hospitality Network. They hope to use their buildings and members to operate rotating shelters for homeless families. They’re seeking more participants and funds.

Meanwhile, more states are converting welfare into a jobs-placement and training program, and in growing numbers will invite religious groups to help.

Congregations that do might discover new vigor and purpose. It won’t be easy. But which seems more rewarding: Lobbying Congress, or loving our neighbors?

, DataTimes The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = John Webster/For the editorial board