Culture

Salvation Army gay fight shows fed funds costly

E-mail this page to a friend

Matt Friedeman
Contributing Columnist
November 16, 2001

Lt. Col. Donald Canning called.

He was elated, relieved, ready to go on the air.

Canning is a divisional commander for the Southern Territory of the Salvation Army located in Jackson. And while the Salvation Army deals mostly in compassion and love, he nonetheless felt that he and his corps had just dodged a bullet.

Or, perhaps, just had one removed.

The Western Territory of the Salvation Army decided to sign on to a government contract that required domestic partner benefits for unmarried employees. This was seen, by Canning and most of the rest of the evangelical community, as a major capitulation in America's ongoing cultural struggle over Judeo-Christian values.

Government will play God

Broadcasters James Dobson and Mississippi's Don Wildmon helped fuel a firestorm of outrage through their radio programs, and Salvation Army national headquarters began to feel major heat over the situation. Thousands upon thousands e-mailed, faxed and phoned the Salvation Army with their chagrin.

Canning, for his own part, went on the local programming of American Family Radio and bemoaned the decision by the Western Territory, pleaded for prayer and gave out phone numbers for people to call if they were interested in registering their displeasure.

Displeasure was registered. Powerfully so.

On Monday the Salvation Army rescinded its decision, as well it should have. But through the controversy, we have learned some things.

First, when government funding is at issue for compassionate programs, it is important to remember that eventually the government will decide it wants to play God. This should serve as an eye-opener for all those who are excited about President Bush's faith-based initiative. It is, for this reason, a bad idea.

Second, there is no bad idea so bad that you can't conjure up a theological - even biblical — "reason" to justify it. It is regrettable enough that the Salvation Army chose to make this decision in the first place. They shouldn't have so blundered. But in lurching around for an excuse, they began to wax Scriptural in a stunning and appalling manner. The Western Territory Web site and some of the comments to the press contained justifications that were mind-boggling to many of us who have enormous respect for the Salvation Army.

Sigh of relief warranted

Third, other businesses and ministries felt suddenly without armor before their adversaries when the hugely respected and sizeable institution of the Salvation Army reneged on its previously impenetrable practice of running an upright and moral operation. What respected and upstanding organizations do has repercussions far beyond their own institutions.

Fourth — and this is a point made by the Family Research Council — providing financial subsidies to unmarried and homosexual "partners" would encourage more relationships of this sort and thus undermine the concept and practice of heterosexual marriage.

When this happens, expect a proliferation of the social pathologies that the Salvation Army seeks to combat.

It's a researched fact: traditional marriage prevents many of the social ills we face today; nontraditional "unions" increase them.

Lt. Col. Canning breathed a huge sigh of relief on the airwaves, as did many in the Salvation Army.

His hope is now the hope of many: that this mistake won't cost the Salvation Army; that they will learn from it; and that it will bolster the commitment of other organizations, both secular and sacred, to be careful when federal dollars come marching their way.