Is christian religious conservatism compatible with the liberal social welfare state?

Belcher, John R. ; Fandetti, Donald ; Cole, Danny 等

The pros and cons of welfare reform are hotly debated (Aber, 2000; Bloom, 1997; Hagen, 1999; Seipel, 2000) with results appearing mixed (Acs, Coe, Watson, & Lerman, 1998; Center for Law and Social Policy, 1999; Zedlewski, 1999). Many women have escaped welfare, but often find themselves in dead-end jobs in which they are locked in a struggle over how to pay for increasing necessities (Pavetti, 1998). Some scholars have predicted "dire consequences" for social welfare because of the change to private market solutions (Briar-Lawson, 1998). There is growing evidence that low-income Americans are struggling (Edelman, 2001; Polakow, Kahn, & Martin, 1998; Scherer, 2001).

There is little doubt that passage of the l996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) (P.L. 104-193) changed the face of welfare. The PRWORA set term limits and ended welfare as an individual entitlement. Although these changes were significant, they have been overshadowed by a growing movement among people who argue for the total devolution of the welfare state in favor of faith-based organizations replacing government as the provider of social welfare. Social work has long advocated against disparities in the economy that create poverty (Dolgoff, Feldstein, & Skolnik, 1993). Despite the many calls for reform of the social welfare state by progressive voices (Abramovitz, 1998), the social welfare state seems poised to move in the direction of private rather than public initiatives (DiIulio, 2001).

The "faith-based initiative," as it has come to be called, is often viewed as a major threat to social welfare. NASW has taken a "cautious" view of President Bush's faith-based initiative (NASW, 2001b; NASW, 2002). The association has noted that a complementary relationship between public and private resources is needed to maintain a comprehensive network of services (NASW, 2001a, 2002). Moreover, the association has argued that a public-private affiliation must uphold fundamental principles of social services delivery, such as access to services, accountability, separation of church and state, appropriate staffing, and maintenance of government responsibility (NASW, 2001a, 2001b, 2002). Most important, NASW (2002) has supported the government's role of serving as the social safety net and now holds the position that "the faith-based initiative should not create the expectation that private charity will substitute for public service funding" (p. 2).

This article focuses on Christian groups and the faith-based initiative, although the faith-based initiative is not specifically directed toward Christian groups--it can also apply to any other religious group. Supporters of faith-based initiatives point out that the initiatives make a contribution to recipients (Raines, 2001). Detractors are concerned that there have been no formal evaluations of these initiatives. How can the church provide assistance to the many needy individuals and families who are now served and may be served by the social welfare state? More important, critics are correct to point out that the faith-based initiative mores the concept of social welfare historically backward.

The contours of the liberal social welfare state were laid out during the formative years of the New Deal and augmented during the 1960s War on Poverty and the Great Society. As Brinkley (1998) observed, "a solution of the nation's greatest problems required the federal government to step into the marketplace to protect the interests of the public" (p. 41). Many liberals were convinced during the Kennedy administration that the United States could solve its social problems (Burns, 1990).

The sponsors of the faith-based initiative are not so sanguine about the ability of government to solve social problems. Supporters of these initiatives rely heavily for support from the Christian conservative movement (Hopkins & Cupaiuolo, 2001). We examine the rise of Christian religious conservatism and whether the theological views of the conservative Christian movement are compatible with the liberal social welfare state.

Rise of Christian Conservatism

Conservative Christians share religious and ideological characteristics (Belcher & Cascio, 2001; Carpenter, 1997). They tend to view the world as inherently flawed and sinful (Moyers, 1990). Moreover, they separate themselves from the world and pursue a distinct life apart from the world, which is characterized by strict adherence to a Christian life (Belcher & Hall, 2001). Conservative Christian culture (CCC) is difficult to explain because it does not represent one particular faith movement. There is diversity within the movement, which means different denominations do not always communicate with one another. This style of organization differs sharply from mainline Protestantism (also referred to as liberal Protestantism) in which the denominations communicate with each other. The CCC is made up of Pentecostals, charismatics, Evangelicals, and fundamentalists.

There was earlier debate in the social work literature about Christian fundamentalism, but not about conservative Christianity. In a discussion with Canda (1989) and Joseph (1989), Sanzenbach (1989) warned of the dangers of Christian fundamentalism. Sanzenbach noted that the values of Christian fundamentalism are often incompatible with the values of social work. For example, Sanzenbach pointed out that social work values are derived from liberal humanitarianism, which is committed to individual rights, whereas Christian fundamentalism emphasizes the sinful nature of men and women. Sanzenbach referred to Jimmy Swaggart as a representative of Christian fundamentalist values.

Canda (1989) said that, although Sanzenbach (1989) was correct in his concerns about Christian fundamentalism, like many scholars Sanzenbach tended to lump all conservative Christians together and paint them with the broad brush of Christian fundamentalism. Canda in much of his scholarship (Lewandowski & Canda, 1995) and other scholars (for example, Netting, Thibault, & Ellor, 1988) emphasized the diversity of spiritual and religious thought. Although many Christian fundamentalist values are in obvious conflict with social work, the values of conservative Christians, many of whom ate not fundamentalists, are not in direct conflict with social work. Lowenberg (1988) pointed out that the religious landscape is broad and diverse. It is the diversity of the conservative Christian movement that this article emphasizes.

DiBlasio (1988) noted that one defining characteristic of Christian conservative movements is their dependence on God. God revealed himself through the bible and through one's experience with God, but disciplines that developed without God's direct direction, as determined by conservative Christians, are less trustworthy.

The different elements that make up the conservative Christian community were affirmed in the aftermath of the Civil War (Dieter, 1980). To many people, the Civil War showed that modernism had failed. Only trust in God would bring about stability (Faupel, 1996). The end of the Civil War left many people, particularly those who were poor and uneducated, in a state of cultural shock (Dayton, 1987). Many Christians felt the increasing industrialization and urbanization in the aftermath of the war was a threat to traditional culture (Anderson, 1979; Faupel). Faupel noted that American Pentecostals, Evangelicals, Holiness-Wesleyans, and fundamentalists were "conceived in the midst of the 1847-1848 revival" (p. 19).

Religion in the United States underwent two major "awakenings." The first led to the development of what would become mainstream Protestant denominations, such as the Methodists. However, to many Americans, the first awakening lacked substance, particularly a "spiritual transforming power." In short, many religious individuals did not feel sufficiently "moved" by the "hand of God" (Arthur, 1856). Nontraditional church leaders who were not aligned with mainline Protestant groups led the second awakening (Faupel, 1996). These leaders were largely uneducated and were drawn from the ranks of average citizens.

The religious movements of the second awakening had in common a basic distrust of modern and liberal tenets (Marsden, 1980). In addition, these new movements were premillennialist in outlook, believing that Jesus Christ would return in a Second Coming (Blumhofer, 1993). Rather than believing that man could change the future, the premillennialists believed that the future was determined because God has ordained the Second Coming (Sandeen, 1970).

The Wesleyan and Pentecostal denominations emphasized moral, spiritual, and experiential answers to secular culture (Belcher & Hall, 2001; Carpenter, 1997), whereas fundamentalism emphasized cognitive and ideological challenges. Fundamentalists felt that they needed to defend U.S. culture (their view of that culture) against the assault of secular culture. The Pentecostals, and later the charismatics, simply withdrew from debates with secular culture (Ferguson, 1971; Smith, 1957). Leaders in the Pentecostal movement emphasized divine healing, justification by faith, salvation, and holy living (Blumhofer, 1993; Lindsay, 1951). Fundamentalism set about developing a cadre of bible colleges to train people to fight for the faith, whereas Pentecostal and charismatic groups discouraged formal religious (seminary) education (Kendrick, 1961). During the 1880s and 1890s the various movements in the CCC emphasized the need for fresh infiltration of the Holy Spirit, the premillennial Second Coming of Christ, and the divine inspiration of the bible. Although liberal theology developed institutions of higher learning and concerned itself with modernism, the various movements within the CCC went about saving souls and adhered closely to the tenets of Christian perfection.

The belief in the eminent Second Coming of Christ was reinforced for conservative Christians by many eschatological texts of the Old and New Testaments. Belcher (2003) noted, "First Century Christians realized the future had been set in motion. They lived between the times: The future began with the resurrection of Christ, but it would not be consummated until the end of time" (p. 184). Fee (1999) characterized the reality of the Second Coming for many conservative Christians: We are "not yet." In other words, the present reality will end when Jesus returns. As Dayton (1987) noted, "eschatology is the point of continuity when prophecy begins to evolve into apocalyptic as the tension between vision and reality falls apart" (p. 159). At this juncture, the experience of the world cannot be related to religious vision.

An important dividing point between mainline Protestantism and conservative Christianity came about with the development of the social gospel. In 1917 Walter Rauschenbush published Christianity and the Social Crisis. Rauschenbush argued that the message of the Gospels was clear; Christians should be defined by social concern. Moreover, he argued that the church is the incarnation of the Christ--Spirit on earth and is postmillennialist, that is, Christ has already come (Kerr, 1966). The social work profession joined forces with religious supporters of the social gospel.

The advent of World War I resulted in bitter disputes between liberal Protestants and more conservative Christian groups. Liberal Protestants accused Christian conservative groups of being disloyal. Conservative Christians generally believed that the war to end all wars would take place in the Middle East (Fuller, 1995). Premillennial thought, the belief that the world is in the final days before Christ's return, focused on the Middle East as the place where the final battle between Christ and Satan would take place.

In 1919 premillennialists formed the World Christian Fundamentals Association to fight liberal ideas in the nation's churches. One of the major liberal ideas that conservative Christians opposed was state intervention to solve social problems, such as poverty. Fundamentalists took control of the movement and steered it in a militant direction. Splits began to take place in U.S. fundamentalism (see Table 1). The Assemblies of God, for example, the largest Pentecostal denomination, called themselves doctrinally fundamental, but they distanced themselves from fundamentalists because they felt that the fundamentalists missed the "full gospel" (Carpenter, 1997).

More recently, Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart, and Jim Baker have become the spokespeople for what many people perceive as the religious right. It is interesting that mainstream America has failed to understand the conservative Christian movement. Pastors in the conservative Christian movement receive the "call" from God and enter the ministry with little formal education beyond high school. There is little denominational oversight of pastors as in mainline Protestant churches.

Brinkley (1998) wrote that "the increasing strength and visibility of charismatic religion in recent decades has produced bewilderment, contempt, and alarm among secular Americans who not long ago believed active faith to be a vanishing force, consigned to the provincial backwaters of society" (p. 276). People who are active in faith but are members of postmillennial social gospel churches are also concerned about the growth of Christian conservatism. They favor a view that progress can only take place through God. Humans are too flawed to achieve progress without God. Traditionally, the many denominational bodies that make up the mosaic of Christian conservative thought have offered ordinary (nonhighly-educated, traditionally blue collar) people a way to make sense of the world (Roberts, 1984).

Although many people outside the conservative Christian movement believe that those who belong to the movement are highly political, they overlook the emphasis most Christian conservatives place on spiritual growth. Rather than espousing a particular type of social welfare state, these groups generally support the notion that the church should primarily bring people to Christ. Rather than being an organized system, the provision of social welfare should consist of individual Christians reaching out to support fellow Christians.

Conservative Christians tend to be very concerned by a growing trend to separate spirituality from religiousness (Colle, 2000; Zinnbauer, Pargament, Cole, Rye, & Butter, 1997). It is true that spirituality is beginning to emerge in modern culture as having positive connotations (Spilika & McIntosh, 1996), whereas religiousness has taken on negative elements (Pargament, 1996). Root (1993) wrote that there was a large "defection" of baby boomers from institutional religion during the 1960s and 1970s. These groups tended to define themselves as spiritual, but not religious. Conservative Christian groups felt betrayed and were bewildered by these defections, which they perceived as evidence of further corruption by the world.

Conservative Christian View of Welfare

Many conservative Christians take the position that charity should encompass faith, family, and work (Grant, 1994). Proverbs 23:7 points out that a person's faith has "direct effect on his material well-being" (Grant, p. 680). There is a widespread belief that humankind is responsible for poverty (Keith-Lucas, 1989).

The Pentateuchal (Old Testament) narratives present us with an economy based on agriculture (Gottwald, 1979). The Old Testament refers to that time before Christ, whereas the New Testament refers to the times of Christ. In the Old Testament, the temple defined the social welfare state and members of the temple had mutual responsibility for one another. Although property was held privately, the owners and all followers of God obeyed the obligations that were prescribed by God. For example, every seven years the land was to lie fallow so that members of the community could freely obtain the natural growth (Mason, 1987). In addition to prescriptions regarding farming, people lived in extended families; they were also prescribed to take care of the aged members, unmarried members, widows, and servants (1 Sam. 8:12).

The Old Testament also provides rules regarding the functioning of the economy (Lev. 19:35-36 laid out rules governing market activity and employment; Dt. 15:1-11; Dt. 24:14-15; Ex. 22:24-25; Ley. 19:13 prescribed interest rates and repayment of loans. There were also several prescribed practices for providing community assistance to poor people, zero interest loans, and forgiveness of debt (Ex. 22:25; Ley. 25:35-38); release of slaves who were committed for debt repayment (Ley 25:47-53); forgiveness of debt for those forced to sell their land for debt repayment (Lev. 25:8-34); allowing fields to lie fallow (Ex. 23:10-11); gleaning of fields for poor people, widows, and sojourners (Lev. 19:9-10); and third-year tithes for support of widows, orphans, and sojourners (Dt. 14:28-29).

Whether these provisions were honored is difficult to establish (Mason, 1987). However, Jesus's many admonishments about poor people suggest that these rules were not always honored. Conservative Christians seldom debate whether the biblical imperatives regarding welfare were followed or not. Similarly, conservative Christians do not debate the merits of liberal scholars who argue that Jesus's imperatives about people who ate poor demand that Christians move beyond those prescribed imperatives found in the Old Testament (Saunders, Campbell, & Brueggemann, 2000). Instead, conservative Christians primarily base their emphasis on what they believe to be the mission of the church in relation to social welfare based on the Old Testament.

Conservative Christians largely believe that their religious imperative is to "witness"--to provide testimony about the greatness of God (Carpenter, 1997). Social welfare per se is not as important as witnessing the greatness of Christ. Conservative Christian churches may provide soup kitchens and homeless shelters, but the primary aim of these ventures is to evangelize. Moreover, conservative Christians call people to repent their sins, and that repentance may bring about social provision; for example the landlord who decides that he is charging high rents. Lowenstein (1971) and Phillips (1982) pointed out that the religious imperatives laid out by Yahweh (God) in the Old Testament approach a "religio-ethical appeal" (Mason, 1987, p. 8). There was no legal enforcement for these imperatives other than sanctions brought by the local synagogue.

Leaders of the conservative Christian movement (referring to conservative Christians in general) ate often unhappy with the liberal social welfare state because of the provision of services for people that conservative Christians find undeserving. However, conservative Christians have not yet offered a set of programs that could replace the social welfare state.

Conclusion

Conservative Christians have some important things in common with the social welfare state. The true long-term goal of conservative Christians is to win souls for Christ, whereas the social welfare state seeks to remove people from poverty and improve standards of living. Nevertheless, both conservative Christians and the social welfare state seek compassion for people who are poor and "downtrodden." Conservative Christian movements operate many soup kitchens, food and clothing banks, homeless shelters, and substance abuse treatment programs. Other social movements want to go beyond the provision of basics and change society. For example, NeoMarxism views the social welfare state differently and sees the "ruling class," in an attempt to maintain power, as providing minimal concessions to poor people.

Cooperation for meeting basic human needs does not mean that the two camps have to agree with each other's ideology and political goals. Christian conservatives use different and narrower definitions of the family than the social welfare state does. Critics may be right to point out that traditional definitions of the family are not useful and perhaps irrelevant in the changing face of the U.S. family. Moreover, the issue of racism, which is on the minds of most supporters of the social welfare state, is not a priority for conservative Christians.

Faith-based initiatives that rely on conservative Christian values are not always compatible with the goals of the social welfare state. Supporters of faith-based initiatives maintain that compatibility between the two is possible (Sherman, 2001; Skillen, 2000), grossly misinterpreting the theology of conservative Christianity. Mainline Protestantism accepts compatibility, but mainline Protestantism is a shrinking portion of U.S. religion. The number of mainline Protestants is decreasing and the ability of this group to participate in a comprehensive faith-based initiative has been significantly compromised.

The social welfare state constitutes a political and humanitarian response to tragedies such as poverty, classicism, racism, and sexism. Much of conservative religiousity in the United States believes that these social issues may be overblown. The profession of social work is correct in its wariness of faith-based initiatives. To embrace such initiatives as a substitute for government responsibility would change the face of social welfare and move backward to a pregovernment period of social welfare. Recipients of welfare who successfully leave the welfare roles and are able to gain a foothold in the economy do so through government-sponsored programs that provide child care, training or retraining, and other supportive services. Faith-based initiatives can provide some basic supports and the social welfare state can make use of these initiatives, but the driving force behind social change should remain the responsibility of the state.

Table 1
Protestant Denominational Breakdown by Level of Conservatism
 Conservative
Mainline Protestantism Middle Christian Churches

United Methodists Southern Baptist Pentecostal, Church
 of God,
United Presbyterians God (Cleveland,
 Tennessee)
 Church of God
 in Christ
Disciples of Christ Church of God
 (Anderson
 Indiana)
 Church of Christ
 Independent
 charismatic and
 Pentecostal
Presbyterian Church of America Wesleyan
Episcopalians Seven Day
 Adventist
Lutherans Independent
 Baptist
American Baptist Brethren
 Mennonite

References

Aber, L. J. (2000). Welfare reform at three: Is a new consensus emerging? National Center for Children in Poverty: News & Issues, 1, 1-12.

Abramovitz, M. (1998). Social work and social reform: An arena of struggle. Social Work, 43, 512-526.

Acs, G., Coe, N., Watson, K., & Lerman, R. I. (1998). Does work pay? An analysis of the work incentives under TANF. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Anderson, R. M. (1979). Vision of the disinherited: The making of American Pentecostalism. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.

Arthur, W. (1856). The tongue of fire: Or the power of Christianity. New York: Harper.

Belcher, I. R. (2003). Helping the homeless: What about the Spirit of God? Pastoral Psychology, 51, 179-188.

Belcher, J. R., & Cascio, T. (2001). Social work and deliverance practice: The Pentecostal experience. Families in Society, 82, 61-68.

Belcher, J. R., & Hall, S. M. (2001). Healing and psychotherapy. Pastoral Psychology, 50, 65-75.

Bloom, D. (1997). After AFDC: Welfare-to-work choices and challenges for states. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corp.

Blumhofer, E. (1993). Restoring the faith: The assemblies of God, Pentecostalism, and American culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Briar-Lawson, K. (1998). Capacity building for integrated family-centered practice. Social Work, 43, 539-550.

Brinkley, A. (1998). Liberalism and its discontents. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Burns, S. (1990). Social movements of the 1960s. New York: Twayne Publishers.

Canda, E. R. (1989). Religion and social work: It's not that simple. Response. Social Casework, 70, 572-574.

Carpenter, J. A. (1997). Revive us again: The remaking of American fundamentalism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Center for Law and Social Policy. (1999). Federal news: HHS issues second report on TANF. Washington, DC: Author.

Colle, R. D. (2000). Postmodernism and the Pentecostal--Charismatic experience. Journal of Pentecostal Theology, 8, 97-116.

Dayton, D. W. (1987). Theological roots of Pentecostalism. New York: Hendrickson Publishers.

DiBlasio, F. A. (1988). Integrative strategies for family therapy with evangelical Christians. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 16, 127-134.

Dieter, M. (1980). The holiness revival of the 19th century. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press.

Dilulio, J. I. (2001, February 14). Know us by our works. Wall Street Journal, p. A22.

Dolgoff, R., Feldstein, D., & Skolnik, L. (1993). Understanding social welfare (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Edelman, M. W. (2001). Challenges facing working families (FDCH congressional testimony). Washington, DC: Children's Defense Fund.

Faupel, D. W. (1996). The everlasting gospel: The significance of eschatology in the development of Pentecostal thought. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press.

Fee, G. D. (1999). God's empowering presence. Peabody, MA: Peabody Press.

Ferguson, C. W. (1971). Organizing to the beat of the devil: Methodism and the making of America. Garden City, NI: Scarecrow Press.

Fuller, R. (1995). Making the Antichrist: The history of an American obsession. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gottwald, N. (1979). Tribes of Yahweh. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

Grant, G. (1994). Three essential elements of biblical charity: Faith, family and work. In D. W. Hall (Ed.), Welfare reformed (pp. 40-65). Franklin, TN: Legacy Communications.

Hagen, J. L. (1999). Time limits under temporary assistance to needy families: A look at the welfare cliff. Journal of Women & Social Work, 14, 294-313.

Hopkins, J., & Cupaiulolo, A. (2001, June). For better or worse? Faith-based social work. Policy and Practice, 56, 24-27.

Joseph, V. (1989). Religion and social work: It's not that simple. Response. Social Casework, 70, 575-576.

Keith-Lucas, A. (1989). The poor: You have with you always. St. Davids, PA: North American Association of Christians in Social Work.

Kendrick, K. (1961). The promise fulfilled: A history of modern Pentecostal movement. Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House.

Kerr, H. T. (1966). Readings in Christian thought. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Lewandowski, C. A., & Canda, E. R. (1995). A typological model for the assessment of religious groups. Social Thought, 18, 17-38.

Lindsay, G. (1951). The life of John Alexander Dowie, Shreveport, LA: Healing Publishing.

Lowenberg, F. (1988). Religion and social work practice in contemporary American society. New York: Columbia University Press.

Lowenstein, S. (1971). The world history of the Jewish people v Judges. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Marsden, G. M. (1980). Fundamentalism and American culture: The shaping of twentieth-century Evangelicalism, 1870-1925. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mason, J. D. (1987). Biblical teaching and assisting the poor. Transformation, 4, 1-14.

Moyers, J. (1990). Religious issues in the psychotherapy of former fundamentalists. Psychotherapy, 27, 4245.

National Association of Social Workers. (2001 a, April). Faith-based service view is cautious. NASW News. Retrieved September 12, 2002, from http://www.naswpress.org/publications/news/0401/faith.htm

National Association of Social Workers. (2001b, February). NASW cautions about Bush's faith-based initiatire. Retrieved September 12, 2002, from http://www.socialworkers.org/pressroom/2001/021401.asp

National Association of Social Workers. (2002, January). NASW priorities on faith-based human services initiatives. Retrieved September 12, 2002, from http://www.socialworkers.org/advocacy/positions/faith.asp

Netting, E. F., Thibault, J. M., & Ellor, J. W. (1988). Spiritual integration: Gerontological interface between the religious and social service communities. Journal of Religion and Aging, 5, 61-74.

Pargament, K. I. (1996, April). What is the difference between religiousness and spirituality? Paper presented at a symposium presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.

Pavetti, D. (1998, February). Challenges of welfare reform. Paper presented at the Symposium on State and Federal Welfare Reform and Its Impact, University of Utah, School of Social Work, Salt Lake City.

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, P.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105.

Phillips, A. (1982). Prophecy and law. In R. Coggins (Ed.), Israel's prophetic tradition: Essays in honor of Peter R. Ackroyd (pp. 217-232). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Polakow, V., Kahn, P., & Martin, N. (1998). Struggling to survive. Journal for a Just 6. Caring Education, 4, 374-392.

Raines, F. D. (2001, February 15). Faith-based charity works. Wall Street Journal, p. A18.

Roberts, R. C. (1984). The strengths of a Christian. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

Roof, W. C. (1993). A generation of seekers: The spiritual journeys of the baby-boom generation. San Francisco: Harper.

Sandeen, E. R. (1970). The roots of fundamentalism: British and American millenarism, 1800-1930. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sanzenbach, P. (1989). Religion and social work: It's not that simple. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 70, 571-572.

Saunders, S. P., Campbell, C. L., & Brueggemann, W. (2000). The word on the street: Performing the scriptures in the urban context. Grand Rapids, MI: Erdmans.

Scherer, R. (2001). As utility bills rise, so do shutoffs. Christian Science Monitor, 93, 1.

Seipel, M. O. (2000). Tax reform for low-wage workers. Social Work, 45, 65-73.

Sherman, A. (2001). Faith based organizations and welfare reform. Policy and Practice, 59, 16-19.

Skillen, J. W. (2000). Welfare reform and faith-based organizations. Journal of Religion, 80, 555.

Smith, T. L. (1957). Revivalism and social reform in mid-nineteenth century America. New York: Abington.

Spilika, B., & McIntosh, D. N. (1996, March). Religion and spirituality: The known and the unknown. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Psychological Association, Toronto.

Zedlewski, S. R. (1999). Work activity and obstacles to work among TANF recipients. In Urban Institute (Ed.), Newfederalism (B-2, pp., 1-6). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., Cole, B., Rye, M. S., & Butter, E. M. (1997). Religion and spirituality:

Unfuzzying the fuzzy. Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 549-564.

John R. Belcher, PhD, is professor, School of Social Work, University of Maryland, 525 West Redwood Street, Baltimore, MD 21201; e-mail: jbelcher@ssw.umaryland.edu. Donald Fandetti, PhD, is associate professor, School of Social Work, University of Maryland. Danny Cole, PhD, LCSW, is a therapist/ educator, Columbia, MD.

Original manuscript received March 12, 2002

Final revision received September 23, 2002

Accepted December 16, 2002