This article was posted by
The relationship of NGOs (well, some of them) and church-run
charities to government has bothered me for quite a while. Particularly
concerning is the relationship of the latter. My thinking on this topic has
been kicked off by my long-simmering anger in regard to the Rudd and Gillard
Governments continuation of two dreadful policies of the Howard era: government
funding of wealthy private schools such as Geelong Grammar and The Kings School
and The Intervention (to me it will always be The Intervention no matter how
much the Labor Govt speaks of Closing the Gap and Stronger Futures).
I was once on the board of a major church charity and I have reflected on this
as well. The article below highlights the amount of money paid to CEOs of major
charities. I recall an uproar in the media some years ago about the amount of
money an incoming CEO at The Brotherhood of Saint Laurence (I have no
connection current or previous with this charity) was to receive. I can't
recall the exact figure but let's just say HUGE, particularly in contrast to
The Brotherhood's clientele. There was a lot of back-pedalling and revising on
that issue. But just to give you a look at the intertwining of of government
funding and apparently Christian charities operating within government guidelines
please go here and study what is written.
Some of the programs are obviously government connected. Others, if you stop to
think about it, almost certainly receive government funding. So while it is
easy to criticise on the school funding issue because of Australia's history
and politics in regard to sectarian schooling versus public schooling, we don't
often think of the government linkages in relation to charitable work.
There is a difficulty in discussing the charitable work with youth, the aged,
the ill etc. This is work has always - well, almost always - been part of the
Christian tradition. Rulers in Christian countries have long delivered
beneficence to such charitable work. What Christians seem to have a bit of
trouble with is Jesus's words about His Kingdom not being of this world. With
denominational charities "brand names" supported in the public view
by government funding is this a confusion of Kingdoms? Let's have a look at
this confusion.
In the Kennett years in Victoria, the confidentiality clause entered into
contracts connected with government funding to charities. Policy workers within
charity found that they could not criticise government policy and continue to
receive money from the government. On the other side of the coin, church
charitable empires have frequently expanded their boundaries with government
funding. They may find a need and seek funding. They may establish their work
in a particular way so that they are able to get a share of existing government
funding.
The relationship between church and state is mutually beneficial. The state can
make policy decisions and fund church charities to carry out the work on the
ground. The state can be seen to be responsive to community needs in taking up
policies and ideas from church run charities. And back again to the empire -
the more money the charity receives the more offices, staff, services it can
run and a corporate empire has sprung into being before you can say
"social services".
Then there is the management of these services. If they are very large they
tend to be bureaucratic as corporations and governments and bureaucracies are.
Their modus operandi is a fit - one for the other. This is becoming more so now
that these charities are seeking corporate dollars as well as public money. So
another empire becomes involved in the confusion of Kingdoms.
Long ago we learned how horrible some of the "worthy" church run
charities are - the British WorkHouse idea is usually the first to spring to
mind. To-day, we are trying to eliminate bushfires across the world caused by
"Christian Charity".
All these musings are very well, but there are still people in our society who
need assistance for all sorts of reasons. The money to do this well needs to
come from somewhere. The church/government/corporation, in all likelihood, has
to continue. However, can we, as a community, together with those who work on
the funding side begin to critique what is actually happening and what sort of
models of assistance we are creating?
We know that the corporatisation of government has meant some horrible
attitudes to need. Under the Gillard Government we may be seeing an uplift in
attitudes to assistance as we see the possibility of how we might help, in a
more constructive way, people with disabilities. After all, just because
governments have lurched to the right does not mean that communities have
forgotten their values. As a practising Christian, I ask are we really as
conscious as we should be of the revolutionary and subversive message of Jesus
of Nazareth? Do we know the boundaries of the empires and kingdoms? Do we
understand why it is that He helped people and we try to continue in His
tradition? Because if we don't understand these questions and their answers, we
are nothing but money-grubbing do-gooders. We then fail to be the salt of the
earth.
Then comes Jesus's rhetorical question -
What happens when the salt
loses its savour?
No comments:
Post a Comment
This blog does not take Anonymous comments. Experience shows that comments cluttered with "Anonymous" are boring and people don't know whether "Anonymous" is one person or many. This is not a decision about freedom of speech. It is a decision about boring or unwillingness to be known by even a pseudonym.