America's Story of Effective Compassion

Page 1


America’s Story of Effective Compassion

Baylor University’s SPECIAL EDITION FALL/WINTER 2016 Faith Factor Research

Dan Coats’ Project for American Renewal

Mission Increase AMERICAN OUTLOOK | 1 National Summit

AGENDA CELEBRATION DINNER AND SYMPOSIUM Honoring United States Senator Dan Coats and Learning Together

November 1

November 2



The Willard InterContinental Hotel 1401 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20004

U.S. Capitol East Capitol St NE & First St SE, Washington, DC 20004

Honoring the life and service of Retiring U.S. Senator Dan Coats of Indiana

7:00 pm

Pledge of Allegiance

7:05 pm

Invocation by Ron Post

Meal 7:20 pm Video Honoring US Senator Dan Coats

Faith, Giving, and Community Transformation

Faith in the Public Square US Senator Dan Coats Michael Gerson, Washington Post Byron Johnson, Baylor University Brian Grim, Religious Freedom and Business Foundation

7:30 pm

Michael Gerson, Washington Post

7:40 pm

David McIntosh, Club for Growth

7:50 pm

Jimmy Kemp, Kemp Foundation

Todd Harper, Generous Giving

8:00 pm

Letter by William J. Bennett

Forrest Reinhardt, National Christian Foundation

8:05 pm

Dave Hoppe, Office of the Speaker

8:15 pm

US Senator Dan Coats

Pete Ochs, Kansas Entrepreneur (video)

8:25 pm

Dale Stockamp

Steve Cosler, Elevate Orlando and Indianapolis

8:35 pm

Hunter Smith

9:00 pm

Gail Stockamp


Faith and Giving

Faith-Based Entrepreneurship

Dale Dawson, Bridge2Rwanda

Our Venues

The Willard InterContinental Hotel

President Ulysses S. Grant is credited with coming up with the term “lobbyist” as a result of his frequent visits to the Willard Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue to seek reprieve from the demands of office. Despite his best efforts to keep his outings private, individuals standing in the hotel lobby would approach Grant and ask him for special favors or jobs. President Grant apparently referred to these people as lobbyists. While the historical accuracy of Grant’s invention is not clear, there is no doubt that The Willard has been a rich part of Washington’s history. It has hosted almost every US president since the 1850’s, Mark Twain wrote two books there in the early 1900s, and Martin Luther King finished his “I Have a Dream” speech at The Willard.

United States Capitol Building President Washington laid the cornerstone of the U.S. Capitol in the building’s southeast corner on September 18, 1793. The War of 1812 left the Capitol in ruin a most magnificent ruin as British troops set fire to the building. Only a sudden rainstorm prevented its complete destruction.


The Capitol that we see today is the result of several major periods of construction; it stands as a monument to the ingenuity, determination and skill of the American people.


Table of Contents Fall 2016 Vol. 16, No. 2 Jay F. Hein Editor in Chief


America is Great Because it is Good


Norm Heikens Managing Editor

The Renewal Alliance in Congress

Beverly Nepomuceno Production Coordinator and Designer


American Outlook is published by Sagamore Institute, 2902 North Meridian Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46208. 317.472.2050 Copyright © 2016 Sagamore Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Not By Faith or Government Alone


Faith Counts


How Mother Teresa Changed Missions


Sagamore Institute is an Indianapolisbased nonpartisan research group that brings policymakers and practitioners together to turn ideas into action.

The Purpose of Politics


Letters to the Editor: Send all “Letters to the Editor” to

Before There was Billy Graham, There was...

Sagamore Institute Board of Trustees


P. Douglas Wilson, Chairman Dayton Molendorp, Vice Chairman Jean Wojtowicz, Treasurer Don Palmer, Secretary Jerry Semler, Chairman Emeritus VADM (Ret.) Michael Bucchi David Helmer Chris Lowery James T. Morris Alex Oak Jason A. Riley Marilee Springer Jay F. Hein 4 | AMERICAN OUTLOOK

Serving the Nation, Neighborhood-by-Neighborhood: The Mission Increase Story


Speaker Profiles

America is Great Because it is Good U.S. Senator Dan Coats

The French political philosopher Alexis de Toqueville’s classic work, Democracy in America, presented a story of the new nation that was unlike any other. A political system truly built on self-governing principles and a society where citizens cared for one another. Famously, he wrote that when tragedy befalls and American, the purse strings of a thousand strangers opened up to him. European society turned to the royalty for such favor. Americans offered it from the bottom up. Another great line attribute to Toqueville is “America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.” This line is clearly in keeping with the book; regrettably, it is nowhere to be found in its pages. The citation appears to stem from a speech writer for President Eisenhower who misapplied the quote to one of Ike’s speeches in 1941 and it has been often cited by presidents and politicians since. Yet, regardless of literary confusion, there is no mistaking the exceptionalism of American generosity. I have spent the better part of three decades serving in the United States Congress. Reflecting on this service, I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to help advance the charitable behavior of everyday Americans through legislation expanding tax incentives for giving as well as to

participate in important debates such as how to keep our nation safe and our economy growing. But this career was never my plan. I loved the law but thought I would practice it as a lawyer rather than create it as a lawmaker. Then I met Chuck Colson. With a law degree from Indiana University and a good job working for a life insurance company in Fort Wayne, I found myself captivated by a former lawyer who spoke to our city’s prayer breakfast in April 1976. Colson told us his story, which went from loving the law to breaking it and subsequently led to his fall from Richard Nixon’s aide in the White House to a resident of Maxwell Prison in Alabama. Newly released from prison and author of a just-released book called Born Again, Colson’s message of restorative justice touched me deeply. He challenged me to give up the control I enjoyed in my comfortable life and give over that control to God, who perhaps had a different plan for my life. Thirty-six years after meeting Chuck at that Fort Wayne prayer breakfast, I eulogized my friend from the floor of the United States Senate. His life proved that faith in God could transform not only his own heart but those of the countless prisoners whom he loved over the decades. His ministry proved that the same faith could inform a justice that did not ignore wrongs but did not see punishment as the goal. Restoration was the goal, along with prevention and community well-being. These ideas have shaped my views in Congress. Along with another friend, William J. Bennett, I crafted the Project for American Renewal in 1994. We studied the rising crises of teenage pregnancy, random violence, and other social ills and rejected the conventional wisdom that these things were simply by-products of economic inequality. We felt that a breakdown in personal responsibility and values was the real culprit.

Dan Coats succeeded his former boss Dan Quayle in winning his first race for congress in 1981 SPECIAL EDITION FALL/WINTER 2016

We also understood that the only remedies to these ills were stronger families, churches, neighborhoods, and voluntary associations. These institutions are sometimes called civil society and they are the only known immune AMERICAN OUTLOOK | 5

system to combat cultural disease. These are the only groups who can tend to an individual’s heart, yet whose collective actions benefit millions. When private charities are strong, they comprise a force that lifts people and communities. When they are weak, no amount of police or public spending can provide a substitute. As a policy maker, I tried to square this circle. In other words, what could I do in government to support non-government groups? For starters, government needs to do no harm. Yet that has been the case for the second half of the last century. Fathers have been replaced by welfare checks, private charities displaced by government spending, religious volunteers dismissed as “amateurs,” and whole neighborhoods demolished in slum-clearance projects. The power to replace an institution is the power to destroy it. The 1996 welfare reform law started the process of restoring the place of religious charities in the public square, and President George W. Bush’s effort to level the playing field completed it. Today’s policy makers need to hold this ground in order to re-limit government, leaving enough social space for civil society to resume its role. Our tax code is another way for government to help the helpers. Since conservative social reengineering is as futile as the liberal version, there cannot be a government plan to rebuild civil society. But incentivizing private giving is a very effective way to take the side of charities carrying their neighbors’ burdens with massive spirit but meager resources. I had the experience of seeing how religious charities not only feed the body but touch the soul. They are dramatically effective, while the programs I re-authorized year after year in Congress did not even bother to keep track of their dismal results. One of my favorite programs was the Gospel Mission in Washington, D.C. It has a twelvemonth drug rehabilitation rate of 66 percent, while a once-heralded government program just three blocks away rehabilitates less than 10 percent of those it serves. Yet the government program spends many times more per person. I was moved by one addict who came to the shelter after failing in several government programs and said, “Those programs generally take addictions from you, but they don’t place anything within you. I needed a spiritual lifting. People like those at the mission are like God walking into your life. Not only am I drug-free, but more than that, I can be a person again.”

Following Marvin Olasky’s charge to “defund” government and “refund” private charities, Bill Bennett and I made tax incentives central to our Project for American Renewal. Every dollar spent by families, community groups, and faith-based charities is more efficient and compassionate than any dollar spent by the federal government. Our objective was to promote a new ethic of giving in America. When individuals make contributions to effective charities, it is a form of involvement beyond writing a check to the federal government. It encourages a new definition of citizenship—one in which men and women examine and support the programs in their own communities that serve the poor. And with their money, so too should follow their time and talent. I learned this approach by doing. During my life in Fort Wayne before politics, I was privileged to meet C.J. Bundy in 1972 when he allowed me to be his Big Brother. C.J. was struggling in elementary school at the time but he put in the work to become a good student and eventually a professional and family man. He gave me the great honor of being best man in his wedding. In between my first and second terms in the U.S. Senate, I created the Foundation for American Renewal to advocate for effective compassion and to provide funding for faith-based solutions to poverty. My strategic partner in this effort is Mission Increase which you can read about in the later sections of this magazine. But before we look ahead, it’s important to remember our past and the principles that guide our future. The Hopes and Fears of America’s Founders At this moment of history people throughout the world are inspired by the hopes of America’s founders. But we should also be instructed by their fears. In 1819 John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson, asking, “Will you tell me how to prevent riches from being the enemy of industry? Will you tell me how to prevent luxury from producing intoxication, extravagance, vice and folly?” When the founders turned from dreaming to worrying, they worried about this: How could a free and prosperous people preserve a moral culture? How could a commercial republic, celebrating individual liberty and personal gain, cultivate concern for the common good and moral constraint? Would the spirit of freedom undermine the habits of character that make freedom noble and possible? These concerns grew out of a carefully constructed


worldview—a comprehensive vision of man and the state. Though our republic was designed to preserve liberty, the founders believed this requires a certain kind of citizenry—citizens not of perfect Christian virtue but with democratic habits and manners. Reasoned reflection. Self-mastery. Public spirit. A respect for the rights of others. These democratic virtues would temper and check our political and economic systems. They would promote obedience to laws of choice not fear; they would encourage the pursuit of happiness over the pursuit of mere pleasure; they would promote a kind of politics that serves public goals and not private advantage. Professor Gordon Wood, in The Creation of the American Republic, describes the common belief of America’s founders. “Every state, in which the people participated needed a degree of virtue; but a republic which rested solely on the people absolutely required it...Only with a public spirited, self-sacrificing people could the authority of a popularly elected leader be obeyed, but ‘more by the virtue of the people, than by the terror of his power,’ because virtue was truly the lifeblood of the republic.” It follows from this view that the forms of democratic government—its checks, balances and rules—are not sufficient. Samuel Adams wrote, “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of people whose manners are universally corrupt.” Democracy in this view is a set of habits, not a set of institutions. It depends on an internalized willingness to respect the rights and dignity of others. “Constitutions,” said Fisher Ames, our bluntest founder, “are but paper, society is a substratum of government.”

Dan Coats served as US Ambassador to Germany from 2001-05 SPECIAL EDITION FALL/WINTER 2016

The founders, for example, would not have been surprised that Weimar Germany had a carefully written, democratic constitution with ample checks and balances, even though the German republic ended in the election of a totalitarian tyrant. It was the democratic virtues of German citizens that failed, not their constitution. In the worldview of the founders, civic education—education in the democratic virtues---assumes a central importance. Citizens are not born; they are cultivated. Civility, deliberation, and consensus building are learned behavior—and not easily learned. These virtues require more than intellectual assent; they must take root not only in minds but in hearts. Character development is necessary precisely because it secures freedom. The founders assumed that one of the instruments of civic education would be religion, the carrier of conscience. So they made the effort to celebrate faith, even when they did not share it. John Adams was not a churchman and might even be described as a secularist. But he wrote, “One great advantage of the Christian religion is that it bring the great principle f the law of nature and nations, love your neighbor as yourself, and do to others as you would have that others should do to you—to the knowledge, belief and veneration of the whole people. Children, servants, women and men are all professors in the science of public as well as private morality...The duties and rights of the man and the citizen are thus taught from early infancy.” Finally, the founders sensed a tension between this spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom or democracy. Adams worried aloud that “commerce, luxury, and avarice have destroyed every republican government.” Ames concluded, “A democratic society will soon find its morals an encumbrance...the surly companion of its licentious joys.” They feared that citizens, who accepted freedom as the goal of their government and their economy, might come to accept freedom and the goal of their lives. But freedom as a moral goal is empty because it can lead to the internal tyranny of appetites and self-interest. And this in the founders’ view would weaken the support of democracy itself. They agreed with Edmund Burke: “Men of intemperate mind never can be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” This is a hard teaching and it makes many modern Americans uncomfortable. The founders were saying in essence that self-government is possible only when citizens can govern themselves. Freedom requires that citizens broadly share some vision of what is right and good—reciprocity, tolerance and compassion. Without these things democracy loses its legitimacy. Irving Kristol summarizes the founders’ conviction: “There is no inherent right to self-government if it means that such government is vicious, mean, squalid and debased.” As I said, a hard teaching. AMERICAN OUTLOOK | 7

Dan and Marsha Coats met at Wheaton College and their partnership has been a story of faith, family, and service. In 1999, they co-founded the Foundation for American Renewal to use private capital to further the Project for American Renewal legacy.

As a congressman in the 1980’s, Dan Coats was a key part of the Reagan Revolution on defense and economic issues The Project for American Renewal In many ways American society succeeded beyond the expectations of the founders. We discovered rich supplies of democratic virtue, and not just in the wellborn, the educated the landed. We found those virtues in immigrants, freed slaves, and women, places the founders might not have expected. And the explanation leads us back to Tocqueville, the French aristocrat who became a founder by adoption, completing their worldview. Democratic virtues were common in America, Tocqueville observed, because we had perfected the art of association. In a nine-month-long tour during the administration of Andrew Jackson, Tocqueville found strong families, workers associations, educational institutions, neighborhoods, town governments, religious groups—a profusion of institutions that stand between individuals in their private lives and large institutions of public life. And all of them in one way or another served the cause of civic education, instructing citizens in the use of freedom. “Local institutions,” Tocqueville wrote, “are to liberty what primary schools are to science; they put it within the people’s reach; they teach people to appreciate its peaceful enjoyment and accustom them to make use of it. Without local institutions a nation may give itself a free government, but it has not got the spirit of liberty.” The rebuilding of local institutions—which some refer to as civil society—has been the focus of most my career on Capitol Hill as I tried to translate some of these ideas into legislation. The result is the Project for American Renewal. It is not a government plan to rebuild the civic sector—a self-contradictory idea. It attempts instead to take the side of people and institutions who are rebuilding their own communities and who often 8 | AMERICAN OUTLOOK

feel isolated, poorly funded, and poorly equipped. Its components direct attention and resources to community development corporations, religious charities, private schools for inner-city children, neighborhood watches, and communities trying to restore the legal importance of marriage and family. The goal, whenever possible, is to apply private resources of compassion and moral instruction to public problems, expanding the society while limiting the state. The centerpiece of the plan is a charity tax credit. It would allow every taxpaying family to give one thousand dollars of what it owes the government each year to a private charity in their community. It is my expectation that most people would prefer giving to the Salvation Army instead of to the Department of Health and Human Services, to Habitat for Humanity instead of to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I am convinced that in welfare policy, devolution and block grants are simply not enough. It is not sufficient to shift programs from federal bureaucrats to state bureaucrats, who often have the same blind spots and limitations. It is my belief that a bold new agenda of public compassion should adopt this bold objective: to break the monopoly of government as a provider of compassion and return its resources to individuals, churches, and charities. I have tried to define an approach guided by a simple principle: In circumstances when government must act, it should always act in ways that strengthen, not undermine, the web of institutions that create community. To read more about these themes, please see Senator Coat’s Kuyper essay for the Center for Public Justice and his book, Mending Fences.

This approach, I believe and hope, is consistent with a great and noble tradition of Catholic and Protestant social thought origination before the turn of the century with Pope Leo XIII and Abraham Kuyper. The parallel teachings of subsidiarity and sphere sovereignty have enriched our political debates with some basic principles. 1. There is a common good greater than individual rights, and society must actively and tirelessly seek it. Kuyper exclaimed, “We shall not be satisfied with the structure of society until it offers all human beings and existence worthy of man.” In a beautiful passage Pope John XXIII defines the common good as “the sum total of those conditions of social living, whereby men are enabled more fully and more readily to achieve their own perfections.” 2. Through society must seek the common good, society is not identical with the state. A healthy society, in fact, is composed of countless institutions that are not expressions of either politics or the market. These include churches, schools, unions, fraternal groups, neighborhood associations, and other mediating structures. “State and society,” said Kuyper, “each has its own sovereignty, and so one should not try to absorb the other,” Pope John Paul II has written, “A community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order… In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbors to those in need.” 3. A good, rough definition of social justice is the flourishing of these institutions—protected from both market individualism and intrusive government. The Catechism describes the proper role of the state as being “to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens and intermediary bodies.” Pope John XXIII stated, “There is always wide scope for humane action by private citizens and for Christian Charity… It is evident that in stimulating efforts relating to spiritual welfare, the work done by individual men and by private civic groups has more value than what is done by public authorities.” I think this goal—“stimulating efforts relating to spiritual welfare”—is causing the most exciting, important debates in social policy. It is an objective that allows us to emphasize the civilizing, humanizing role of religion and morality in our social order without violating our commitment to pluralism. Many of our worst social problems will only yield to moral solutions: the renewal of parental commitment to children, the internal restraint of parental commitment to children, the internal restraint of impulsive violence and aggressive sexuality, the return of public spirit and civic engagement. Mediating institutions teach these lessons. By supporting them broadly, government can promote moral answers to human problems without favoring or sponsoring any one moral or religious vision. The principles of subsidiarity and sphere sovereignty thus give us an insight into how government can encourage the virtue of a free nation and still leave it free, by encouraging the work of civil society without overwhelming it with rules and restrictions. SPECIAL EDITION FALL/WINTER 2016


The Renewal Alliance in Congress Dan Coats was a founding member of the Renewal Alliance formed by a group of House and Senate Republicans who favored limited government but desired to widen nongovernmental solutions to strengthen families and communities. This effort gave rise to education reform such as school choice and efforts to strengthen faith-based poverty fighting groups through tax incentives for charitable giving. Senator Coats authored a legislative package known as the Project for American Renewal to advance these ideas. His co-sponsor in the House was John Kasich. Below is an excerpt of remarks by both of these leaders at a US Capitol Forum held in 1996 that is much like the Mission Increase National Summit being held in November 2016. Twenty years have gone by and Senator Coats is still seeking ways to serve the least of these among us by strengthen frontline faith-based poverty fighters. To reflect on the work of the Renewal Alliance, the following transcript is taken from a conversation very similar to the Mission Increase National Summit symposium being held on November 2, 2016. As you read the words of Senator Coats and his partner, Congressman John Kasich, you’ll discover their pioneering vision as well as the fact that the process of reform is never completed. Senator Coats was introduced by David Tuerck, director of the Beacon Hill Institute and co-sponsor of the “Compassionate Welfare Reform” event held in the Cannon House Office Building in the 1990s. Coats and Kasich were joined by Bob Woodson, one of the leading intellectual lights of the conservative poverty fighting movement. DAVID TUERCK: The first keynote address will be delivered by Senator Dan Coats of Indiana, and the second by Congressman John Kasich of Ohio. I will be introducing Senator Coats. He will introduce Congressman Kasich. Senator Dan Coats represented Indiana in the Senate since 1989. He has earned the reputation as a compassionate conservative, strong on family values, strong on military matters and prudent on fiscal issues. Along with Congressman Kasich he is the author of the Project for American Renewal in which he writes, as follows: “The institutions we seek to empower are Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and of no particular faith. A riot of pluralism. These institutions have the resources denied to government at every level, love, spiritual vitality and true compassion.” The Washington Times has called him a player, a thinking man’s conservative. It’s with great pleasure that I welcome our co-host, Senator Dan Coats.


SENATOR DAN COATS: David, thank you very much and thanks to all of you for being here today. I’m really pleased with the amount of interest that’s shown in what I think is an issue that will be prominent in the debate in the Congress and, hopefully, a debate throughout the country. I couldn’t help but be moved by the testimonies of the individuals who spoke this morning about the transforming events in their life that occurred in the Center for the Homeless in South Bend. That story is a story that could be repeated in thousands of sites across this country where people, who you never read about in the paper or see on the evening news, are doing remarkable work in communities, in individual lives and making a difference in those communities and those lives in a way that we don’t see at the Federal level. I’ve spent more than a decade examining, first as a Republican leader of the Children, Youth, Family Committee in the House and, now, as the Republican Chairman of the Children, Family Committee in

67 percent of the Federal dollars never reach those below the poverty line. We see just through our own personal experiences, the ineffectiveness of many of the Federal programs and the lack of results. And, so, surely as conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, we can come to the conclusion that the current system is not as efficient, as effective and clearly is not making the kind of difference and giving us the kind of return on our compassion investment that any of us had hoped for. the Senate, the Federal effort side-by-side with the private effort. And there are a number of empirical studies that document the difference but you don’t need empirical studies to witness and observe the difference. A visit to a Federally run facility providing either homeless care or addiction care or you name the social dysfunction that it’s trying to address, versus a visit to a private, non-government organization, will absolutely convince you of the difference. The effectiveness of that organization, the utilization of volunteer help, the ability to impose a series of standards and values that government is limited or prohibited from imposing, the concept of tough love—both of those words being essential, both tough and unrestricted love—has given us examples of the remarkable differences that can occur at the Government versus the non-government level. There are three essential facts I think that we need to acknowledge. One, that the welfare state, by almost every measure, has failed to provide the kind of effective relief and compassion that many had hoped for, many with good intentions had implemented, that we have funded to the extent of literally trillions of dollars over the past 30-some years. There is a compassion fatigue in America, where Americans have willingly given of substantial tax dollars to the Federal Government in an effort to deal with the problems of poverty and problems of the poor and many of the social dysfunctions in this country. And yet, the consequence and the results of all of that have been a disillusionment and a compassion fatigue regarding the effectiveness of those expenditures. We hear from the Beacon Hill group that nearly SPECIAL EDITION FALL/WINTER 2016

Secondly, I would hope that we could come together in agreement on the fact that we do have an obligation to our neighbor. That whether it’s a scriptural injunction or whether it is just the essential goodness of the American people that is so often displayed in times of tragedy and times of war and times of need, that we do have a moral and a personal responsibility to reach out to our neighbor in need and simply reducing and transferring the Federal effort or devolving ourself of involvement in the compassion effort is not an acceptable alternative. Thirdly, I would hope that we could agree that there are organizations and institutions, as Newhouse and Berger called, mediating institutions that historically and traditionally have reached out and provided effective and compassionate relief that have transformed lives, rebuilt families, restored communities, and provided the kind of effective help that has made a difference in communities across this country. Whether it’s Big Brothers, Big Sisters providing mentoring to fatherless children, whether it’s the Salvation Army across this country providing assistance to those in need, the gospel missions that are reaching out to the homeless across our country, Habitat for Humanity building homes for lowincome, those organizations clearly demonstrate far greater effectiveness at far less cost than the Federal effort. Because of the overwhelming presence of the Federal effort has often given people either the excuse to say, well, I gave. I gave to the IRS, who gives to HHS and HUD and I spend a great percentage of my money that goes to the Federal effort or the State or government effort in helping the poor. The need to try to encourage or the series of Federal rules and regulations that have so restricted the AMERICAN OUTLOOK | 11

ability of these organizations to reach out, we ought to be able to come together and agree that there are institutions in America in virtually every community in America that are providing effective compassion and help to individuals in need. And, so, the question then becomes is there a means by which we can begin to encourage the support for these institutions as we move away from a failed Federal and government effort towards a more compassionate, effective private effort? The charitable tax credit is the means by which John Kasich and I and others have proposed we accomplish that. Our proposal is modest. We’re talking about a very small percentage, less than 5 percent initially, of the current Federal social welfare effort. We have added a provision which allows the General Accounting Office to monitor how this effort succeeds, to examine the distribution of funds. All the provisions, there are more than twenty, in the Tax Code, which guide the direction of 501(c)(3)s and guide the qualifications of 501(c)(3)s will apply to this effort. In the end, though, as we move through this process and John Kasich and I believe that we have an excellent opportunity in this next Congress, because these facts, those three facts I talked about, are apparent to so many, both in Congress, and because this unites in a unique way those from different ends of the political spectrum, in the end I think we have to realize that liberals and conservatives must admit to themselves a couple of things. First, that liberals have to stop equating compassion with the amount of Federal dollars that are spent. Far too frequently we hear and debate on the Senate and House floor the fact one side shows no compassion because it offers a 5 percent or a 10 percent less Federal effort for a particular program than the other. And that the true measure of compassion is your willingness to ever increase a failed Federal funding effort. But conservatives also need to arrive at a conclusion and that conclusion is to admit that simply reducing the size of government will not solve the problems of poverty. It’s only when Republicans and Democrats move beyond these two notions that I believe we can make some true progress in terms of dealing with 12 | AMERICAN OUTLOOK

these questions of suffering and problems of the needy. So, today, I want to encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and my colleagues on my side of the aisle to begin to reexamine what it means to be compassionate, to begin to reexamine what it means to devolve the government from Federal spending on social programs and to see if we can come together to find an acceptable alternative, a third alternative that supports the unsung heroes and organizations across this country that are truly, effectively providing help to those in need. Now, it’s my pleasure to introduce my cohort in all of this, someone who has been extraordinarily effective as a member of Congress but is also one of my closest friends and someone whom I have a great admiration for. John Kasich, as you know, is Chairman of the House Budget Committee and, as such, will be in a very pivotal position to debate and to advance this particular issue. He’s been a leader on a number of fronts, and one of the most engaging things about John is his willingness and his ability to be so straightforward and to speak in language that the public responds to and fully understands. He’s been a great ally with me on a number of issues but, in particular, on this one I’m so proud to have him as a equal partner as we move into this next Congress and promote what, I believe, is one of the most important issues we can be addressing. Please, join me in welcoming John Kasich. JOHN KASICH: First of all, I’m Johnny-come-lately to this. I have been kind of an admirer of Dan Coats from the time I arrived in the House in 1983. I wish everybody could get to know him the way I know him. I don’t think there is a guy with greater integrity and greater decency in the entire Congress, in the entire city. If the American people knew about Dan Coats their view of government and their view of public servants would go up immeasurably. This is his idea along with Bob Woodson and a lot of the people who first started dreaming about this. I just kind of lucked into this. I’m not an equal partner with Dan Coats in this, and I’m just glad to be attached to it, where we got a chance to really

do something that we think will really matter for people. Dan is the leader and he is such a wonderful human being. I’m thrilled that conservatives have now realized that helping your fellow man and woman to have opportunity and to save their lives is real conservatism. I’m also encouraged that the makeup of those who deliver care to the poor is embraced by liberals and conservatives alike. I happen to be a Christian. None of the great religions in history ever said that you got to have a certain political philosophy to get involved. In fact, every one of the great religions of the world say: all of you are not practicing religion if you don’t help those who have less than what you have. Dan Coats also said something interesting. The mechanical calculation of who’s on welfare and who is not is not the measure of success. I used to have a 100 people but now when I add up the numbers, I have 90. The question is what happened to the 10? It’s not successful if the 10 aren’t going to end up productive. I mean how many people are on the welfare rolls is an indication of how successful our welfare reform is. But what I want to know is: Are they nurturing families? Are they supporting themselves? Are they helping others around them? If I just reclaim one person, what a success. And frankly, folks, that’s what the charitable tax credit SPECIAL EDITION FALL/WINTER 2016

is about. The charitable tax credit is not just to get people to give their money, it’s to also have them go down and visit these organizations and say, what can I do to help, when they believe that going there will make a difference. When you’re at the end of the bench and you don’t think you’re going to get in the game, you don’t practice as hard as when you know you might be called in, in the next minute. And what the charitable tax credit does is to send a signal to Americans that you matter, you count, you can make a difference. You can give back. You can improve. That’s what it’s all about. And, so, first of all, we’re trying to say to the public: it does matter what you think, it does matter what you do. You, in fact, can make a difference and we’re asking you to do it and I will tell you these local community organizations that serve the poor will devise the most creative, unbelievable ways to help people help themselves. Have you ever been to a homeless shelter? This is hard work. This is the stuff of which saints are made. Modern day saints. These people are out there struggling every day and they’re beating their head against a wall trying to serve their fellow man. They don’t know if they’re successful or not. It’s tough, it’s frustrating, it’s difficult. And what this charitable tax credit says to the people who are doing this is, it’s like giving them a shot of adrenalin. It’s like putting a bucket of water on a flower that’s been out in the desert, it’ll bloom, it’ll give people a reason to have AMERICAN OUTLOOK | 13

hope and be energized and think that the rest of the society is saying, thank you. You can never underestimate that and does it help the client? Well, the bottom line, Dan said it right, faith and love and one-on-one. But you know what else it does? It helps us to reclaim our country. It helps us to reclaim our community and it says to us, you don’t have to build a gate, it helps us to reach out and knit our communities together. The strength of America is a knitted, strong community. That’s what it is and that’s what the charitable tax credit does. It says we can control what happens where we live and we can make it better. Change. And I think we’re going to get there, Dan. And I’m going to work day and night. I think it is important. I know everybody thinks the only thing I live and breathe is balancing the budget. I want to balance the budget to save families and this is a way of reclaiming our communities, breathing life and confidence into Americans and proving to these intellectuals that, in fact, people can get it right. So, we got to go for this. You could not have a better guy than Dan Coats. I’m just glad to be associated with him. So, at the end of the day, folks, let’s leave this room committed to a better America. Because better communities where we live is what makes a great America. BOB WOODSON: I also want to thank Congressman Kasich and Dan Coats. It’s been a long time we’ve been struggling with this, right, Dan? A few years ago, Congressman Newt Gingrich asked some of us to convene grassroots leaders from all over the nation and ask them what they would like to see in place of government-driven welfare. The first recommendation that these 50 grassroots leaders-coming from the barrios of San Antonio, Texas, from Appalachian whites, Native Americans from reservations, blacks from the ghettos--all of them said, charitable tax credits. We have got to empower individuals. We have got to begin to empower the people and we’ve got to make customers. We got to take the principles that operate in our market place and make them operate in our social economy. And, so, I say today that the charitable tax credit issue is to poor people what Brown v. Board of Education 14 | AMERICAN OUTLOOK

and the Voting Rights Act was to blacks. It is a fundamental issue of liberation. It is a fundamental civil rights that we must see it become law in order for us to change the strangle-hold that the poverty industry has over programs to aid the poor. The issue is that we have got to take responsibility beyond all levels of government. That’s why the debate over the devolution of authority to the states is important but an inadequate argument. The issue isn’t should we devolve authority down to lower levels of government; we should devolve it down to civic institutions, put it back where it belongs, in the homes and in the neighborhoods and in the churches and in the nonprofit organizations where people live, so, that they can make the best judgments. These are the people that have demonstrated that they can reach the people who the social service agencies have failed, the prisons have failed. Victory Fellowship, in San Antonio, Texas, has over the past 27 years salvaged and transformed the lives of 13,500 hard-core drug addicts, prostitutes and thieves; people that a psychiatrist, the jails, everyone had given up on, but they were able to transform their lives because they don’t believe in rehabilitation. They believe in transformation. And, so, therefore, let me conclude by saying that it is important for us to have the proper attitude. The very fact that Congressman Kasich and Dan Coats and come and sit and listen and learn, themselves, means that they understood what it takes to be leaders in this movement. I was listening to Chuck Swindoll the other day, he said, love that reaches up is adoration, love that reaches out is affection, but love that bows down is grace. And what we must do, as leaders in this movement, is bow down in the presence of these neighborhood healers and learn at their feet as to how they have been able to transform the lives of people and take what they do and make it the center of public policy. And that’s why I believe that the charitable tax credit is the most important issue of this decade. Bob Woodson served as a key advisor to HUD Secretary Jack Kemp during the early 1990s. After HUD, Kemp formed Empower America with Bill Bennett and both were key allies of Dan Coats and the Renewal Alliance.


Not By Faith or Government Alone

Rethinking the Role of Faith-Based Organizations

in addressing various social ills, including homelessness, crime, addiction, disaster relief, prisoner reentry, and even HIV/AIDS in Africa.



17 19 21 23

24 26 28

29 30

32 33





























Faith Counts By Brian Grim

Is the $1.2 Trillion U.S. Religion Sector on Your Radar? “Some people are so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good,” so said Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. But a new study my daughter, Melissa Grim, and I carried out shows the flip side – the earthly good of being heavenly minded. In an age when fewer Americans participate in local congregations, the new study provides a more balanced understanding about the role of religion in American life beyond the many daily headlines that rightly – but narrowly – highlight people’s concerns about faith groups, ranging from clergy sex abuse to religion-related terrorism. The study finds that religion annually contributes about $1.2 trillion dollars of socio-economic value to the U.S. economy. That is equivalent to being the world’s 15th largest national economy. It’s more than the global annual revenues of the world’s top 10 tech companies, including Apple, Amazon, and Google. And it’s also more than 50% larger than that of the annual global revenues of America’s 6 largest oil and gas companies. These contributions fall into three general categories. First, religious congregations – churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and chapels – of every denomination add $418 billion annually to the American economy. These local congregations number more than 344,000 and employ hundreds of thousands of staff and purchase billions worth of services in every corner and crossroads of the country’s urban and rural landscape. This figure includes what is referred to as the “halo effect”. For instance, St. Benedict’s Prep, a Catholic middle and high school in New Jersey readies 530 mostly poor, mostly minority boys for college and beyond. And graduates, such as Uriel Burwell, return to make an impact. Upon graduating from Drew University, Uriel returned to his childhood SPECIAL EDITION FALL/WINTER 2016

neighborhood to build 50 new affordable houses, rehabilitate more than 30 homes and attracted more than $3 million funding to build additional affordable homes and apartments in the area. Second, tens of thousands of other religiously affiliated charities, health care facilities, and institutions of higher learning also contribute at least $303 billion each year to the U.S. economy. And third, an additional $437 billion is added to the American economy from faith-based, faith-related or faith-inspired businesses. Clearly faithbased businesses include the halal and kosher industries, religious media such as EWTN and the Christian Broadcast Network, and industry-specific businesses such as the faith-based Knights of Columbus, who alone have over $99 billion insurance in force. Beyond faith-based businesses, employees and employers take their faith to work each day across America, as documented in the Harvard University Press book, To Serve God and Wal-Mart: The Making of Christian Free Enterprise, by Bethany Moreton. Examples range from Tyson’s Foods, which employs a large force of chaplains for their multi-religious workforce, to Marriott hotels whose rooms often have the Book of Mormon in addition to the Bible, a nod to the faith of its founder. The data are clear. On the one hand, the wide range of heavenly minded endeavors contribute significantly to America’s economy. On the other, the decline in religious participation may have unforeseen economic implications that will affect the world’s largest economy – a concern for all. For videos and more resources on the study, see: AMERICAN OUTLOOK | 35

The Socio-Economic Contributions of Religion to American Society: An Empirical Analysis Religion in the United States today contributes $1.2 trillion each year to our economy and society. These

contributions range from the basic economic drivers

$438.4 BILLION




of any business—staff, overhead, utilities—to billions

spent on philanthropic programs, educational

institutions and health care services. Congregations,

$302.9 BILLION

businesses inspired by faith, faith-based charities and


institutions not only build communities and families




of the country.




C O N G R E G AT I O N S %





Direct Spending



Individual and Social Impact

Businesses with Religious Backgrounds






Food (Traditional Kosher and Halal)



but also strengthen our economy in every town and city











Health Care



Schools and Daycare











Higher Education









*Numbers do not total due to rounding.

*The sum of line items factors in the exclusion of inter-congregational giving.

The tables and chart above represent the over 344,000 religious congregations across the United States, which collectively employ hundreds of thousands of staff members, and buy billions in products and services in their local communities. The tables also include the tens of thousands of religiously-affiliated charities, health care providers, institutions of higher learning, and business activities— ranging from the purchase of Kosher and Halal food products to religious media and other faith-based companies.


Volunteered in past week




Pew Research finds that adults who are highly religious are more likely than those who are less religious to report they did volunteer work and made donations in the past week. This difference is driven primarily by

Donated money/time/goods to poor in past week 36 | AMERICAN OUTLOOK

volunteering through houses of worship, 41%


which as the next page shows, feeds many social service programs.



How Mother Teresa Changed Missions 38 | AMERICAN OUTLOOK

Every outreach-oriented believer should know the secret of the ‘Saint of Calcutta.’ By Rebecca Samuel Shah, Baylor ISR Scholar My siblings and I spent much of our lives sharing our home with the young children whom our mother, Colleen Samuel, had scooped up from various parts of Bangalore City, often in the middle of the night. There was young Asha (a pseudonym)—who was rescued from being the “payment” to a greedy landlord because her mother couldn’t afford the rent—and Sara, sold by her husband to a brothel in Bombay, who arrived at our doorstep dying of AIDS. Not content with serving the poor from a distance, my mother’s work brought our family from a wealthy, middleclass neighborhood of Frazer Town, where my father was an Anglican priest, to the very seedy and often-violent neighborhood of Lingarajapuram. My parents believed that conveying the gospel to the poor meant living among them as Christ would, and serving the poor meant embracing them as part of our community and even part of our family. My parents’ unwavering commitment to the poor in Bangalore was deeply shaped by the life and work of Mother Teresa. Every day on my way home from school, I walked past Shishu Bhavan—Mother Teresa’s home for abandoned children—and every day, I saw a steady stream of weary mothers pounding on the gates as they held listless babies draped over their shoulders. At once, young missionaries of charity would open the gates, and I would glimpse the scores of children playing and laughing in the courtyard. Through those open gates, and also in my own home, I saw mercy in action. Mother Teresa has been catapulted back into global consciousness because of her canonization this Sunday, September 4. As part of the culminating celebration of the Jubilee of Mercy—a year-long period of prayer—Pope Francis will recognize the Albanian nun who was arguably the most prominent advocate for the world’s most destitute SPECIAL EDITION FALL/WINTER 2016

people. Born in 1910 as Agnes Bojaxhiu, Mother Teresa started the “Missionaries of Charity” order in India (that has now spread to over 130 countries) and dedicated her life to those who were unwanted, unloved, and uncared for. The young novices who worked with her often extracted maggots from the rotting bodies of the dying and sopped up pus from the seeping wounds of the many lepers who were lovingly rescued by her. Even as someone who works regularly with the poor, I am astounded by her actions. On the surface, it might seem that Mother Teresa was solely preoccupied with the physical and material needs of the marginalized. She spent most of her life caring for the sick, feeding the hungry, and rescuing the homeless. Yet even as she set up institutions to resolve world hunger, she talked of people’s hunger for God and their inalienable value as creatures made in his image. Material needs, she insisted, can be easily satisfied, but caring for a person’s spiritual needs is more important. In fact, she regarded it as her primary calling. Inspired by Mother Teresa’s example, I have worked in India for the last 10 years with Dalits, also known as “outcasts” or “untouchables.” As I’ve studied and served among them, I’ve come to realize the simple truth of her vision. The poor on the streets of “Kolkata” and places all over the world are deprived of basic human necessities like food, clothing, housing, and healthcare. (Most standard poverty measures assess wellbeing solely in terms of “neutral” social indicators, like calorific intake or years of schooling, and many development practitioners and scholars assume these are the only real aspects of poverty.) However, as Mother Teresa understood, poverty is not always reducible to material factors, and it often involves deprivation of dignity and self-worth. AMERICAN OUTLOOK | 39

For generations, Dalits in India have been employed in jobs regarded as “unclean”—manual scavenging, road cleaning, and tanning. They’re often characterized by a passive acceptance of their low status, an unqualified absence of hope, and a total lack of aspiration to improve their lives. Other caste groups—and, more importantly, the Dalits themselves—believe these negative characteristics constitute their identity and personhood. In many cases, a person’s low self-worth propels him into a vicious cycle: his perceived lack of value reinforces his inability to change, which results in destructive behaviors like drinking or gambling, which in turn reinforces his low self-esteem and marginalization from society. Of course, feelings of social isolation, indignity, and shame may arise because of economic poverty. But nonetheless, it’s not enough to simply care for the poor by providing for their material needs. Studies have shown that as much as they long to be fed and kept warm, the poor also yearn to have a relationship with the transcendent (and, I would add, the sense of worth and belonging that comes with it). According to Father Brian Kolodiejchuk in A Call to Mercy, as Mother Teresa wandered the streets picking up those unwanted by society, she often spoke of “clothing the poor not just with clothes, but also with human dignity.” She offered that dignity to the living, the dying, and the dead. Father Brian tells the story of a young Hindu man who, during a visit to Kalaghat, watched Mother Teresa and two priests lift the body of a dead Muslim man on a stretcher. Although he was reluctant to help with what was (and still is) regarded by upper-caste Hindus as an “unclean activity,” he felt compelled to abandon his fear and transport the cadaver to the burial site. Upon returning, the young man exclaimed, “Today I have become a man!” Every time I visit my native India (which is often), I hear stories like this of people who were inspired by Mother Teresa’s actions and even traveled long distances to see her mop the brows of the dying and destitute. Just being beside her—and vicariously 40 | AMERICAN OUTLOOK

participating in her tender acts of kindness—was redemptive for them. The “Angel of Mercy,” as she is called, is an object of adoration because of her profound vision: She believed the poor occupied an elevated status as the embodiment of Christ himself, and she drew others into a relationship with Christ through her actions with the poor. For the church and its missionaries, she is the model for true outreach. Although I never met Mother Teresa in person, I watched her influence emerge in my mother (who, incidentally, is called the “Mother Teresa of Bangalore”), and I continue to see that same influence play out in my own life. I leave in a few days for another research trip to Bangalore, and from where I sit, it would be difficult to find a more perfect example of radical mercy than the “Saint of Calcutta.” Pope Francis writes in Misericordiae Vultus, “How much I desire that the year to come will be steeped in mercy, so that we can go out to every man and woman, bringing the goodness and tenderness of God!” Mother Teresa’s life was indeed “steeped in mercy.” She extended mercy to the dying, but she also showed the living that by serving the poor, we encounter the Lord, and through this service we ourselves—and our societies—receive mercy as well. Rebecca Samuel Shah is Senior Fellow at the Religious Freedom Institute and the associate director of RFI’s South and Southeast Asia Action Team. A scholar of the impact of religious belief and practice on the social and economic lives of poor women in the Global South, Shah currently serves as a research professor at Baylor University’s Institute for Studies of Religion, where she is the principal investigator for the Religion and Economic Empowerment Project (REEP) funded by the Templeton Religion Trust. Born and raised in Bangalore, India, she lives in Washington D.C. with her husband Tim and their five children. This article has been reprinted from Christianity Today.

The Purpose of Politics By Francis J. Beckwith, Baylor ISR Scholar It is almost always awkward to talk about politics when you are not quite sure of the partisan views of those with whom you are conversing. If you add religion to the discussion, the awkwardness is more likely to increase rather than dissipate. But politics is not just about partisan disagreement, and the question of the place of a citizen’s faith in the public square need not descend into culture war quarrelling. In fact, the best way to clearly and calmly answer the question “Should Christians care about politics?” is to set those conflicts aside and intentionally allow your mind to have an unguarded moment. Let’s begin at the beginning. What is politics? The English word “politics” (not to mention “policy,” “polity” or “police”) comes from the Greek word polis, which refers to “the city,” “the civilization” or “the citizenship of a community.” This implies a richer understanding of politics than how it is often portrayed in our media-driven popular culture, which tends to look at politics as only concerned about campaigns, casting votes, elections, candidates and holding public office. But politics is far more than that. After all, why would anyone bother to try to win elections, gain power and please supporters and constituents unless it were for some other end? In other words, what is the purpose to which all the common accruements of politics point? It really isn’t that much of a mystery. If you think about, when people become politically active they do so because they want to advance what they believe is the good of the community. To be sure, on some topics, there is sharp disagreement on what constitutes the community’s good. This is why legislators, governors, SPECIAL EDITION FALL/WINTER 2016

Scriptur commands us to will the good of our neighbor in charity, service and justice; and politics is an important means by which one can fulfill this command.

presidents, judges and commentators often lock horns on a variety of controversial questions concerning social issues, the courts, public welfare, military engagement and international relations. Nevertheless, despite some deep political differences, at least one thing these citizens have in common is that they believe the world would be a better place if only the government implemented their views. This is one reason why liberal democracies, such as the United States, have political parties. They provide an organizational structure by which citizens with common philosophical and policy beliefs may work in concert with each other to elect people who will advance those beliefs. Unlike most of our predecessors in church history and millions of Christians globally, many of us live in liberal democracies. (Liberal democracy is a type of government that includes some form of the consent of the governed, such as open and free elections, as well as legal instruments, such as a constitution, and public institutions, such as courts, to help ensure protection of its citizens’ fundamental rights.) For this reason, we have the power to influence and shape the trajectory of our societies in ways that someone like the Apostle Paul would have thought unimaginable. We are free to run for office, support candidates, advocate for laws and policies, and exercise our freedom of speech and assembly in making our case to our compatriots.


Why would Christians want to exercise that power? The answer is found in the purpose of politics: to advance the common good. But why would we want to do that? It is an application of the very Gospel that we are commanded to obey. The number of places in Scripture in which we are told to will the good of others is nearly endless. Christ, for example, instructs us to love our neighbors as ourselves (Luke 10:37) and to engage in works of charity and mercy (Matthew 25:31-46), and asks us to broaden our understanding of neighbor in telling us the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10: 29-37). We are told by the Apostle James that the “religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is... to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27, NIV). There are, of course, numerous other passages in the Bible that commend justice and condemn injustice (e.g, Deuteronomy 24:19-22; Proverbs 31:8-9; Isaiah 58:6-10), with the Ten Commandments giving us the blueprint of God’s plan for a rightly ordered, socially just community: we should worship God, honor our parents, maintain marital fidelity, neither covet nor steal the property or spouse of our neighbor, live with integrity in word and deed, and respect the intrinsic and inviolable dignity of human life. As Christians, we are fairly confident what it means to will the good of others. However, we are also told in Scripture that “[i]f it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Romans 12:18, NIV), and in this world we are “foreigners and exiles” and that we ought to “[l]ive such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse [us] of doing wrong, they may see [our] good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us” (I Peter 2:11-12, NIV). What this means for those of us who live in liberal democracies is that we have to exercise political power judiciously and thoughtfully while keeping in mind the perspective of both eternity and our non-Christian neighbors. For this reason, when we enter politics in order to advance the good, we have to understand both the inherent limitations 42 | AMERICAN OUTLOOK

of political action and the degree to which laws and policies, given certain cultural realities, can be effective in making people virtuous. As St. Thomas Aquinas noted in his Treatise on Law, “The purpose of human law is to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually. Wherefore it does not lay upon the multitude of imperfect men the burdens of those who are already virtuous, viz. that they should abstain from all evil. Otherwise these imperfect ones, being unable to bear such precepts, would break out into yet greater evils.” It should not surprise us then that even among Christians there is disagreement on what policies and laws, if any, would be best in advancing the common good. Consider, for example, questions of economic justice. Though all serious believers maintain that we have an obligation to care for the poor and the vulnerable as Scripture teaches us, the Bible and Christian tradition are silent on what sorts of government policies and laws would be the most effective in providing assistance to these fellow citizens. Consequently, reasonable Christians offer contrary models on what would count as economic justice. Some defend approaches that place a greater emphasis on free markets with the assistance of local governments and subsidiary institutions, while others advocate more elaborate social welfare programs under the authority of the federal government. Because there are good arguments for both points of view, and because both have the same goal of caring for the poor and vulnerable, neither can rightfully claim to be the final Christian word on the matter. This should also be our mindset whenever we find ourselves in disagreement with fellow Christians on many (though certainly not all) of the other contested political questions in the public square. For this reason, we should not be quick to condemn a brother or sister for not following Scripture when in fact he or she may be merely rejecting our political prescriptions and not the precepts of our shared faith. So far we have only discussed the common good justification for why a Christian should care about

politics: Scripture commands us to will the good of our neighbor in charity, service and justice; and politics is an important means by which one can fulfill this command. But there is also an ecclesial justification: a just political regime must allow for the flourishing of the church and its many ministries and missions so that the Gospel may be lived and preached and souls saved. Why is this important? Recall two stories from the Book of Acts and one from history. In chapter 5, the Apostles found themselves confined to a public jail by the religious authorities of their day. After having been freed by an angel the prior evening, the Apostles were ordered to appear before the authorities to explain themselves. In that setting the high priest told the Apostles, “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name” (Acts 5:28, NIV), to which Peter replied, “We must obey God rather than human beings” (Acts 5:29, NIV). Acts 16 records the case of the public beating, imprisonment and release of Silas and the Apostle Paul for preaching the Gospel. Instead of silently walking away as they are released, Paul told the low-level officials that he and Silas were Roman citizens and that the magistrates who ordered their public beating and imprisonment should have to answer for violating their civil rights. When the magistrates were informed of Paul’s complaint, “they [became] alarmed...[and] came to appease [Paul and Silas] and escorted them from the prison, requesting them to leave the city” (Acts 16:38, 39, NIV). In early America, some states had established churches, for the Constitution’s prohibition of religious establishment applied only to the federal government and not the states. (It was not until 1947 that the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment’s anti-establishment clause applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, which had become law in 1868.) In one of those states, Connecticut, the established church, Congregationalism, was supported by a religious tax that all citizens, including nonCongregationalists, had to pay. Although one could SPECIAL EDITION FALL/WINTER 2016

request an exemption and ask the government to redirect your payment to the church of your choice, it was often difficult to obtain. It was this state of affairs that animated the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut to enlist the support of then-President Thomas Jefferson in their cause to disestablish Congregationalism in their state. In a famous 1802 letter in reply to their request, Jefferson tells the Danbury Baptists that he agrees with their cause and hopes that the State of Connecticut will follow the federal constitution in “building a wall of separation between Church & State[,.... an] expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience.” What is the lesson in these three stories? It is this: Christians need to care about politics because politics, whether we like it or not, cares (or will care) about you. The idea that the government will “leave the church alone” as long as we mind our own business has been rarely borne out in practice. To be sure, the American experiment (until relatively recently) is the exception and not the norm in human history, but there is no assurance that it will not eventually appropriate the growing hostility to religious free exercise found among elites in education, law and media. For this reason, Christians have to be especially diligent in protecting the integrity of the message and mission of their own institutions, including churches, schools, and charitable organizations, even if it means boldly challenging the conventional wisdom of the dominant culture. This will not be easy. But we really have no choice if we hope to take seriously our Lord’s command that we should “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 12:17, KJV). For if the church and its mission, message and institutions are not God’s, then nothing is. Dr. Francis J. Beckwith is professor of philosophy and Church-State Studies at Baylor.


Before There Was Billy Graham, There Was… George Whitefield was once the most famous man in America. Historian Thomas Kidd explains why the celebrity evangelist shouldn’t be forgotten. Thomas Kidd, professor of history at Baylor University, ISR Scholar Thomas Kidd, professor of history at Baylor University, has written several books dealing with early American religion, especially the Great Awakening, and with religion’s role in the founding of the United States. These interests came together in his new biography of that era’s most celebrated preacher and evangelist, George Whitefield: America’s Spiritual Founding Father (Yale University Press). Elesha Coffman, assistant professor of church history at the University of Dubuque Theological Seminary, spoke with Kidd—known to friends and colleagues as Tommy—about Whitefield’s fame, his flaws, and his long-term impact on American evangelical life. What got you interested enough in George Whitefield to write a full-length biography? I’d done work on the Great Awakening before, so I knew that Whitefield was such a major figure— really, the most famous person in America before the Revolution. I thought there was room to do a new scholarly biography, but one that would be accessible to regular folks who were interested in religious history. Whitefield is an interesting character in that he was so famous, but he’s relatively unknown today. Some evangelicals know him, but Jonathan Edwards is much, much more famous today. In the 18th century, Whitefield was much better known than Edwards. With Whitefield’s 300th birthday coming up in December, I thought this would be a chance to reintroduce him and re-enhance some of the fame he’s lost over the centuries. Why is more attention given to Edwards than to Whitefield? I think Edwards deserves the attention that he gets, but his brilliance is more preserved in his writing. Whitefield’s brilliance came out in his 44 | AMERICAN OUTLOOK

preaching as delivered. When you read Whitefield’s sermons today, they’re mature and sophisticated theologically, but I don’t think that they’re exceptional in the way Edwards’s writing and sermons are exceptional. Whitefield is one of these classic cases where I wish we had YouTube videos. If we could see him, we would “get” him a lot better. There’s something about a Whitefield sermon that’s ephemeral. People have tried to reenact them today, and almost inevitably it lacks the spark that apparently was there in Whitefield’s talent for public speaking. It’s not that Whitefield’s brilliance is impossible to recover, but there’s an element we have to imagine rather than being able to see it on the stark, printed page. Do you see any connections between Whitefield and Billy Graham? Graham seems like another person whose presence comes across much more strongly in the moment than on the page. I think that George Whitefield and Billy Graham are very, very similar. In the Anglo-American world, they are the two most important evangelists since the Reformation. They both have a unique

gifting in preaching that is close to unparalleled. They were both very good at using modern media techniques to get the word out about their gospel message. Both of them are strongly nondenominational or inter-denominational in their emphasis on the New Birth. For both of them, there’s a way in which the only question that they really care about is whether you’ve been born again or not. The parallels between Graham and Whitefield are many, yet Whitefield is the trailblazer. He’s really the one who begins this evangelical pattern of focus on the New Birth, downplaying denominations, and use of the media. A number of evangelists have come in Whitefield’s wake, and the most important of those is Graham. Back in 1991, Harry Stout wrote a controversial biography of Whitefield, The Divine Dramatist. Stout’s book emphasized Whitefield’s background in theater and suggested to some readers that Whitefield’s preaching was just an act. John Piper called the book “the most sustained piece of historical cynicism I have ever read.” How did your approach build on or depart from that book? I’m trying to bridge some of those divides between evangelical readers and academic biographers of Whitefield. I’m an admirer of John Piper and I’m an admirer of Harry Stout, so I think I’m in a good position to speak to both audiences. And I don’t think Stout meant to be as cynical as he came off to Piper and some others. There are just a few phrases in the book that might not seem cynical to an academic audience but did to evangelical readers. When you look across the range of ways people might approach a biography of someone like Whitefield, at one extreme you could have someone who undermines everything Whitefield was trying to accomplish—and I don’t think that’s what Stout was doing. At the other extreme would be a Christian biographer who might present Whitefield as an unsullied saint who never did anything wrong. There’s a middle way of trying to understand Whitefield in his historical context. I


Thomas Kidd

think anyone reading my biography will know I’m not trying to steer away from the more negative things about Whitefield’s career that virtually anyone would acknowledge today, especially his complicity in slavery. I don’t fundamentally question Whitefield’s sincerity or motivations as a gospel preacher. One of the things I’m trying to emphasize, though, is that temptations come along with being a celebrity preacher. Whitefield called it “the fiery trial of popularity.” He weathered that trial pretty well, but he’s a man of his time, and he’s deeply imperfect in some ways. I think a Christian audience is able to receive that. However much you may admire somebody like Whitefield or Edwards, they’re just people, after all, and they have their blind spots. You write that Whitefield encouraged the expansion of slavery into Georgia, but he also preached to slaves, something few Christians were willing to do at the time. Whitefield was a middle-ground figure in his context, even though to us his advocacy of slaveholding seems shocking and reprehensible. Early in his career, when he started to recognize the appalling conditions for slaves in America, he published a really controversial letter that attacked the masters’ treatment of their slaves and called on the masters, especially on those who called themselves Christians, to treat their slaves in a benevolent way. He stopped short of saying that AMERICAN OUTLOOK | 45

charitable as I can, that maybe if Whitefield had lived 30 or 40 years later, he might have come around to being anti-slavery. That was just not a common position in his time. His position, in a nutshell, was that slavery was acceptable as long as Christian slave masters evangelized their slaves and took them seriously as people with a soul and an eternal destiny. Whitefield’s ideas about slavery definitely reflected his era, but the way he talked about the Holy Spirit seems much more contemporary. Was 18th-century evangelicalism more like 20th-century Pentecostalism than we’ve realized?

George Whitefield

the problem was slavery itself. He would go on, in the 1740s, to become a slaveholder and the key advocate for getting slavery introduced into Georgia, where he had founded an orphanage. Slavery had been banned in Georgia for the first 10 years of the colony’s history. Whitefield never got to the point of questioning slavery itself. Part of the reason for that is because, however much we might wish the Bible were clearer about the immorality of slavery, the Bible never quite gets around to condemning slavery per se. Instead, it seems to give advice about the treatment of slaves. I always ask my students, “Where is ‘Thou shalt not own slaves’?” Whitefield couldn’t find that in his Bible, and that probably would have been required for him to come around to a fully anti-slavery position. It’s also important to realize that Whitefield had almost no one around him who was questioning slavery itself. He did have one or two pastoral colleagues who pushed him on the issue. But John Newton, who Whitefield did know, didn’t publish against slavery until long after Whitefield’s death. Neither did John Wesley. I like to think, being as 46 | AMERICAN OUTLOOK

There are a lot of resonances between the charismatic movement and the evangelicalism of the Great Awakening period. Of course, this is disputed, and it was disputed among participants at the time. For George Whitefield, especially early in his career, what strikes him as being new about his converted state and his walk with God is the ministry of the Holy Spirit in his preaching and also in his personal devotional life. One of the new discoveries I make in the biography is how central the Holy Spirit was to Whitefield’s whole understanding of the Christian life and his ministry. I looked at this unpublished Whitefield diary at the British Library in London. It’s relatively unvarnished, unedited—just Whitefield’s jottings about his early life and walking with the Lord. He writes in the diary, day after day after day, about how he was filled with the Holy Spirit. He would say, “Filled with the Holy Spirit for 30 minutes.” “Filled with the Holy Spirit for 4 hours.” I think that this struck him as the most distinctive and surprising aspect of his converted state. Throughout his ministry, Whitefield tried to open himself to guidance from the Holy Spirit on where to go, who to talk to, what texts to preach on. He would go to the preaching scaffold, and he would think that he was going to preach on one text, but then as soon as he got up there, the Holy Spirit would tell him to preach about something else. One time, in Philadelphia, the Holy Spirit told him to

preach against Deism, which was a topic he had almost never talked about. Later that day, someone said, “You know, there was this group of notorious Deists in the audience.” And Whitefield said, “Oh, that’s why the Holy Spirit told me to preach about that.” The level of practical guidance and tangible presence that he expected from the Holy Spirit—or the Holy Ghost, as he called him—was very, very high. You call Whitefield “America’s Spiritual Founding Father.” How did this Englishman become American, and what spirit did he bequeath to the country? He gets adopted as an American partly because it’s clear that he is enormously fond of America. He thinks a lot about relocating to America permanently. I think that has to do with the relative flexibility of churches and denominations in America, with pluralism in America, and with his relative freedom to preach the gospel of New Birth. He finds more friends across more denominations in America than he does in England or Scotland. It is important to remember, though, that Whitefield spends most of his career in Britain. He is English. He has as much success in England, Wales, and Scotland as he does in America. His evangelicalism was a fully Anglo-American, fully transatlantic movement. We tend to forget that, especially in more patriotic appropriations of Whitefield. What Whitefield would have thought about the American Revolution, we don’t know, because he died six years before the Declaration of Independence. I suspect that he would not have supported the patriot movement, even though he had so many friends who were patriot leaders, because he thought the connection between Britain and America was a good and important one, not least for the spread of the gospel. To call Whitefield “America’s Spiritual Founding Father” is, in part, just to acknowledge that before the Revolution he was the most famous man in America, period. I also think he represents a kind of evangelical faith that continues to have huge SPECIAL EDITION FALL/WINTER 2016

cultural traction in America in a way that it does not in the U.K. And in an inarticulate, symbolic way, Americans at the time of the Revolution appropriated Whitefield as their spiritual founding father. The best example of this is when the Continental Army is on a 1775 campaign against Canada. They stop in Newburyport, Massachusetts, on the Sabbath, and they don’t want to march on the Sabbath, so they have a service in the Presbyterian church where Whitefield is buried. They go down to the crypt, the officers open up the crypt, and there’s Whitefield’s dead body. They take his clerical collar and wristbands, cut the things up, and pass them out to the troops. They never explain why they do this. It’s just something that seems like the right thing to do, because what Whitefield is about is what we’re about. Whitefield is somehow about liberty and freedom, and we love him, and he’s our hero. So this passing out of Whitefield’s relics just makes sense to the officers of the Continental Army in 1775. What can an encounter with Whitefield teach evangelicals today? It teaches us how important evangelicalism was at the time of the American founding, which is a question a lot of people are very interested in. Beyond that, the issues that he struggles with, the issues he represents, are taken from the front pages of religion news today. Celebrity pastors. The accusations of all kinds of malfeasance, particularly financial malfeasance. The trade-off between true piety and mass media. The risk of the evangelical message being dumbed down. All of these things are very much with us today, and it turns out they were there right at the beginning of evangelicalism, in the person of its most famous leader. The more you look at Whitefield, the more you see these enduring patterns. He’s not just someone people should know about because he was so influential and famous. He’s also quite relevant for today.


Serving the Nation, Neighborhood-by-Neighborhood The Mission Increase Story Mission Increase was founded by Dale and Gail Stockamp along with Ron Post in 1999, the same year that Dan and Marsha Coats founded their Project for American Renewal. The Stockamps and the Coats shared a similar passion: to serve the frontline ministries who supply America’s most effective compassion. Whereas Dan Coats’ road wound through government service in Indiana, Washington DC, and Germany, Dale Stockamp’s career was a fusion of entreprenuership, consulting, and innovation. After a ten-year stint with Andersen Consulting (now Accenture), Dale founded Stockamp & Associates in 1990 providing revenue improvement consulting to the nation’s largest hospitals and health systems. The company grew to about 400 people and $100 million in annual revenue and was named as the #1 Healthcare Professional Services Company in the country in 2006. The Stockamps decided to sell the company in 2008 so they could focus exclusively on expanding the impact of Mission Increase Foundation. Now in its tenth year, the proof of concept was well established and it was time to do one of Dale’s favorite things: growth through leverage. The Mission Increase foundation has met a key need in American philanthropy. As the world’s need increase, so too are those called to serve. Every month, about 5,000 new non-profits are being formed and approved by the IRS. According to multiple sources, not counting churches, there are around 2.3 million nonprofit organizations operating/based in the U.S. – the vast majority (90%) operate on less than $500,000 per year and many of these are Christian organizations. Beyond the social impact created by these organizations the non-profit sector has a tremendous economic impact as they create 1 in 10 jobs in our economy. So, with an obvious increase in the visibility of an increased worldwide need, and an increase in the number of those called to serve, why do we have many non-profit organizations closing their doors? One answer is that the average giving remaining at a decades long, stubborn, 48 | AMERICAN OUTLOOK

2% of income representing tremendous, latent capacity to help those in need. Another major contributor is that, too often, the individuals that are being called to serve and lead their non-profit are outstanding at delivering compassionate care but they are not properly equipped to effectively run the business side of their nonprofit organization. This results in no long-term connection with donors/ partners who participate and take ownership of the mission of the non-profit (only 25% of first time givers sustain their giving). It also leads to a constant struggle for resources causing frustration, disillusionment, and abandonment. In short, both nonprofits and donors become weary. This is Mission Increase comes in. Dale Stockamp and Ron Post set out in 1999 was to combine Ron’s knowledge of building and operating a very successful Disaster Relief Nonprofit organization with Dale’s knowledge, methods and tools for enhancing the performance of large hospitals and healthcare systems. They desired to apply a more scientific, data driven approach to the management of and performance of non-profit organizations with the big goal of equipping nonprofit leaders by providing them with teaching and training is multiple facets of their organization. By “teaching a man how to fish,” they sought to create sustainability for nonprofits. Of course, all compassion is local. With 100-200 ministries being trained in each Mission Increase community, the city’s ministry partners/donors are taking increasing ownership in the ministry and feeling better about their contributions. The landscape of the city has been changed from being one where ministries work in isolation and even competition to one of collaboration and partnership. Esther 4:14 calls us to “such a time as this.” Mission Increase desires to be good stewards of its capital and intellectual capital resources to expand the model so that every faith-based nonprofit can attend the free training services within a half day’s drive.

Mission Increase Foundation empowers major givers to help ministries in their community establish a framework to build fundraising excellence and achieve financial stability and sustainable growth for kingdom impact. This happens through training that offers a combination of teaching, coaching, consulting and matched grants provided through a local Mission Increase area director, and backed by the major donor. As ministries begin to treat fundraising as ministry, givers experience greater joy, ministry leaders are encouraged and more lives are transformed for Christ.

Value Propositions The value propositions listed below provide a good overview of the different services Mission Increase provides to various audiences. Familiarize yourself with each of these and be sure you understand the value being provided by Mission Increase. These will serve you best if you understand and articulate them naturally, they should not be read to an individual.

Mission Increase Foundation

Mission Increase Foundation empowers major givers to help ministries in their community establish a framework to build fundraising excellence and achieve financial stability and sustainable growth for kingdom impact. This happens through training that offers a combination of teaching, coaching, consulting and matched grants provided through a local Mission Increase area director, and backed by the major donor. As ministries begin to treat fundraising as ministry, givers experience greater joy, ministry leaders are encouraged and more lives are transformed for Christ.


Through grants, Mission Increase provides financial resources to help ministries develop a new fundraising skill. If awarded a grant, the ministry is required to raise matching funds in an amount at least equal to the grant, creating greater leverage and multiplying the impact well beyond the initial grant. A timeline is set for the grant creating urgency on the part of the ministry and their donors. The Mission Increase area director works with the ministry throughout the granting process, teaching the skill and reinforcing the truth that God is the ultimate provider.

The following graphics represent Mission Increase’s core principles and key facts.



Speaker Profiles

Dan Coats

Michael Gerson

Jimmy Kemp


Dan Coats is a U.S. Senator representing the state of Indiana. After graduating from Wheaton College, Coats went on to serve in the U.S. Army. Following his military service, Coats attended the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, where he received his J.D. and was associate editor of the Indiana Law Review. He went on to work for a life insurance company in Fort Wayne before joining the office of then-Congressman Dan Quayle as a district representative. From 1981 to 1999, Coats served in the United States Congress, first in the House of Representatives and then in the Senate. In 2001, Coats was named Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany, arriving in country only three days before the tragic events of September 11, 2001. As Ambassador, Coats played a critical role in establishing robust relations with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and in the construction of a new United States Embassy in the heart of Berlin. Dan and Marsha Coats met in college and have three adult children and ten grandchildren. Together, the Coats formed the Foundation for American Renewal to continue their engagement in faith-based initiatives. Dan Coats also served as president of the Big Brothers Big Sisters national board of directors. Michael Gerson is a nationally syndicated columnist who appears twice weekly in The Post. He is the author of “Heroic Conservatism” (HarperOne, 2007) and co-author of “City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era” (Moody, 2010). He appears regularly on the “PBS NewsHour,” “Face the Nation” and other programs. Gerson serves as senior adviser at One, a bipartisan organization dedicated to the fight against extreme poverty and preventable diseases. Until 2006, Gerson was a top aide to President George W. Bush as assistant to the president for policy and strategic planning. Prior to that appointment, he served in the White House as deputy assistant to the president and director of presidential speechwriting and assistant to the president for speechwriting and policy adviser. Jimmy Kemp is President of the Jack Kemp Foundation, which he established in 2009. Its mission is to develop, engage and recognize exceptional leaders who champion the American idea, beginning with the premise that the condition of your birth shouldn’t determine the outcome of your life. Mr. Kemp co-founded and is the Managing Partner of Kemp Partners, a strategic consulting firm based in Washington DC. Established in 2002, Kemp Partners provides government relations and corporate affairs services to a diverse clientele. Mr. Kemp has represented Fortune 500 companies as well as burgeoning firms before Congress, the White House and several federal agencies. Mr. Kemp spent eight seasons as a quarterback in the Canadian Football League, finishing his career in 2001 with the Toronto Argonauts. Mr. Kemp was the founding Board Chairman for Hope Community Charter School, located in northeast Washington DC. The school serves 735 pre-k through grade 8 students and has been operating since September 2005.

Brian Grim

David McIntosh

Brian Grim is president of the Religious Freedom & Business Foundation and a leading expert on the socioeconomic impact of restrictions on religious freedom and international religious demography. He is an associate scholar at the Religious Freedom Project. Grim recently served as chair of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on the Role of Faith and works closely with the Business for Peace platform of the United Nations Global Compact. From 2006 to 2014, Grim directed the largest social science effort to collect and analyze global data on religion at the Pew Research Center. He also worked for two decades as an educator in the former Soviet Union, China, Central Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. He is author of numerous articles and books, including The Price of Freedom Denied (2010), and writes the Weekly Number blog. Grim holds a doctorate in sociology from the Pennsylvania State University. David McIntosh is president of the Club for Growth, the leading advocate for economic liberty. Former Congressman David McIntosh represented Indiana’s 2nd Congressional District in the United States Congress from 1995-2001. David served during the Reagan administration as special assistant to Attorney General Edwin Meese III, and as special assistant to President Reagan for Domestic Affairs. During the first Bush administration, he served as executive director of the President’s Council on Competitiveness and assistant to the Vice President. Prior to the Club for Growth, David was a partner at Mayer Brown, LLP in Washington, DC. He is also a co-founder of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy and serves on the Board of Directors. David also served at the Hudson Institute and as a Professor of Economics at Ball State School of Business. Hunter Smith is a former professional football player who punted for the Indianapolis Colts during their Super Bowl XLI victory. Later, he played for the Washington Redskins where he became the first punter to throw for a touchdown and run for a touchdown in a single season. He played college football at Notre Dame. He is now the front man for the Hunter Smith Band which opened for Blake Shelton this past summer and had their song, Indiana Moon, selected to be the Indiana Bicentennial anthem. Hunter is co-author of the book, The Jersey Effect.

Hunter Smith

Jay Hein

Jay Hein is president of Sagamore Institute, an Indianapolis-based think tank that he helped found in 2004. He was Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives from August 2006 to August 2008. Hein serves as Distinguished Senior Fellow at Baylor University’s Institute for the Study of Religion and as director of the Foundation for American Renewal established by US Senator Dan Coats. Hein is a member of the Office Depot Foundation board of directors and managing director of ISOKO, an African free market think tank. Earlier in his career, Hein was a welfare reform policy advisor to Governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin from 1994 to 1997 and director of civil society programs at the Hudson Institute from 1997 to 2004. Hein received a Bachelors of Arts degree from Eureka College and an Honorary Doctor of Laws from Indiana Wesleyan University.



Byron Johnson

Dan Davis

Cherie Harder

Byron Johnson is Distinguished Professor of the Social Sciences at Baylor University. He is the founding director of the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion (ISR) and director of the Program on Prosocial Behavior. He is a Senior Fellow at the Witherspoon Institute (Princeton), Senior Research Scholar at the Institute for Jewish and Community Research (San Francisco), and chief advisor for the Center for the Study of Religion and Chinese Society, Peking University (Beijing). He is recognized as a leading authority on the scientific study of religion, the efficacy of faith-based organizations, domestic violence, and criminal justice. Recent publications have examined the impact of faith-based programs on recidivism reduction and prisoner reentry and his new book, More God, Less Crime, was released in April 2011. He is working with the Gallup Organization on studies exploring religion and spirituality in the world. He is the 2013 Lone Star Big Brother of the year for Big Brothers Big Sisters of Texas. Dan Davis is the President of Mission Increase Foundation, overseeing the operation of ten chapter offices across the United States. He has been an integral part of the foundation for over twelve years. Prior to joining the organization, Dan worked as the Assistant Controller of Pamplin Communications Corporation and as Vice President of Finance and Administration at Medical Teams International, a large Christian nonprofit headquartered in Portland, Oregon. With an extensive knowledge of growing and managing organizations and their financial responsibilities, Dan brings a depth of experience in both business and nonprofit best practices, process analysis, and a key understanding of a company’s infrastructure. Cherie Harder is president of the Trinity Forum. Prior to joining the Forum in 2008, Ms. Harder served in the White House as special assistant to the president and director of policy and projects for First Lady Laura Bush. A former policy advisor to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Ms. Harder counseled Senator Frist on domestic social issues and served as outreach director to outside groups. From 2001 to 2005, she was senior counselor to the chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, where she helped the chairman design and launch the We the People initiative to enhance the teaching, study, and understanding of American history. Ms. Harder has also served as the policy director for Senator Sam Brownback and as deputy policy director at Empower America. Forrest has been a part of the Generous Giving effort since its beginning. He enjoys serving the Church and pastors with the life-giving message of biblical generosity and stewardship. Forrest has served over 30 years in local churches and parachurch organizations including roles as Associate Regional Director for Young Life in Southern California and Executive Pastor for nearly a decade at Saddleback Church. He is presently the NCF Portland Affiliate President, serving ministries and families to resource Kingdom potential. Forrest and his wife, Susie, reside in the Northwest and have two adult children.

Forrest Reinhardt


Todd Harper

Todd Harper is president and co-founder of Generous Giving where he has been actively engaged in spreading the biblical message of generosity for 20 years. Todd is a key spokesperson advancing the generosity message and the author of Abundant: Experiencing the Incredible Journey of Generosity. He holds a bachelor’s degree in economics and entrepreneurship from Baylor University and spent 11 years with Campus Crusade for Christ International (Cru), where he served in Russia, Yugoslavia, and in the United States. Prior to joining Generous Giving, Todd was a partner in an investment management firm, advising high net worth clients on growing and using wealth wisely.

Dale Dawson

Dale Dawson is founder, chairman, and CEO of Bridge2Rwanda. He also serves on President Paul Kagame’s Presidential Advisory Council and on the boards of Urwego Opportunity Bank of Rwanda, Halftime and Edify. During his first half, Dale was in charge of investment banking at Stephens Inc (private investment firm); partner and National Director at KPMG (global accounting firm); and Chair & CEO of TruckPro (distributor of commercial truck parts, sold to AutoZone). He is a University of Texas graduate and divides his time between Little Rock and Kigali.

Steve Cosler is Operating Partner at Water Street Healthcare Partners following his service as President/CEO of Priority Healthcare which he led through its initial public offering. Earlier in his career, he was an executive with CoreSource and IBM. He is founder of Elevate (in both Orlando and Indianapolis), an organization teaching values, leadership, and life management skills for the advancement of urban youth. Steve Cosler

Dave Hoppe

Elevate is one of America’s leading solutions to the high school dropout crisis. Dave Hoppe serves as Chief of Staff for US Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. He has held many leadership posts on Capitol Hill over the past several decades. In this role, he is advancing many of the civil society strategies that he helped form while Chief of Staff for Sen. Dan Coats in the early 1990s. In addition to these roles, he directed Whip offices in both the House and Senate, and led the Senate Majority Leader’s office during the Clinton and Bush 43 administrations. He also served as Chief of Staff for Jack Kemp during his presidential bid and as energy and environmental policy analyst for the Republican Study Committee. Among the highlights of Hoppe’s years on House leadership staff were the passage of the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, both key elements of the first Reagan administration. During his tenure with Rep. Jack Kemp, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was passed and signed into law. He was also involved with the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, and numerous other issues including welfare reform, tax policies and education reform. Dave is an emeritus member of the Board for Easter Seals of DC, Maryland and Northern Virginia, was Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee for the National Down Syndrome Society, and serves on the national board of SourceAmerica and of the Coalition to Promote Self Determination, a group of organizations working to empower disabled individuals to achieve greater independence.

Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.