2 of 3

Your research affirmed the efforts of clergy. In fact, you dedicate your book to them. Why?

Everybody expects clergy to be good people. So when they do the good thing, it's not being reported anywhere. When they do something bad, it's always reported. I followed The Philadelphia Inquirer's reporting on clergy. In the last two years, they made the front page only three times, and always in something negative.

But I see that hundreds of them are doing a wonderful job. Not every one of them is perfect. But on average, clergy give way more to society than they get from society. We don't appreciate them enough.

What kind of help do they need the most?

Among other things, there is a need for intermediaries—nonprofits that could give clergy training in the know-how that they don't learn in seminaries but are often expected to know, such as accounting and management.

Besides studying 251 American congregations, you also looked at 46 in Canada. What differences did you spot?

Canada doesn't have the diversity that we have. We have many more denominations and religions. The level of religion in Canada is about half of that in the United States. The behavior of congregations that we studied there was slightly mimicking that of the United States, but they did not have the impact that congregations are having here.

I travel a lot to Toronto, and on every corner there I see a donut shop. In Philadelphia, at every corner there is a congregation. We have in Philadelphia, a city of one million residents, 2,100 places of worship. It's way more, proportionately, than in any other country. We practice religion more and, don't forget, we pay for everything that is religious. In Europe, a lot of the money that goes to the churches comes from the state, directly or indirectly. In Canada, like in the U.S., the government doesn't pay for congregations. But Catholic schools, for example, are financed by the government. So the separation of church and state as we have is uniquely American.

Is evangelism one of the major reasons that churches provide services?

Not really—not even for the more evangelical-minded congregations. I was expecting them to be providing social services in order to persuade people to change their religion and become members. I can't tell you that this motivation doesn't exist. They really believe that transformation is the way to health. But they know that transformation is not something that you see immediately.

When you ask them, "What is your number one hope for the people you serve?" they'll tell you, "We want them to find Jesus in their lives." But I asked them, "Would you stop the service if they don't?" "Oh, no," they say, "this is what we'd like. But it's not a mandatory part." An overwhelming majority of congregations do it because to provide social services is for them to actualize their faith—to be good Christian people, good Muslims, good Jews.

What makes local religious communities particularly able to provide social services?

The proximity to the needs of people. They always tell me, "We know the people who are coming by name. We know when they're serious and what their specific needs are. If we think that's what they need, we can give them these services. If we think they need something else, we'll give them something else."

Government is limited. Government programs don't have the flexibility. A congregation can decide to give you one service and give me another service, and it's legal, and it's understood, and nobody can challenge it. The government has to give the same service to every citizen if the person is assumed to have the same eligibility.

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

February 2003, Vol. 47, No. 2