President George W. Bush has waded into the church-state separation debate in a commendable way by creating a federal agency to encourage faith-based groups tackling hard social problems. Bush appointed a political science professor, John Dilulio Jr., to head the new White House Office of faith-Based and Community Initiatives. He also has assigned former Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith to he a presidential adviser on the issue.

Bush’s moves have sparked contention and debate, as expected. Advocates of cleansing the public sphere of references to faith have already expressed shock and dismay in response to new administration plans to let churches and other faith-based groups compete for government grants. These critics contend that the U.S. Constitutions First Amendment forbids government support for any kind of religious faith. They have had considerable success in getting the federal courts to eliminate Scripture references and prayer in public places. Other advocates of strict church-state separation have had some success in blocking attempts to provide education aid to faith-based private schools.

Their assumption is that the first Amendment is primarily designed to give people freedom from religious expression. Actually, it was designed to maximize religious freedom, and Bush’s initiative is helping to bring that point to the church-state debate.

Bush should stand his ground in response to any legal threats to drag his proposals into court. He has the First Amendment on his side, based on a strict constructionist reading of the Constitution. Constructionist judges look to the original intent of the authors of the Constitution. Judicial activist judges, in contrast, see the Constitution as an evolving document and impose their modern preferences. Their assumption often is that Christian faith is oppressive and dangerous and needs to be confined to the private sector of church and home.

Yet the authors of the Constitution prayed together and cited the Bible in their discussions about public affairs. Thomas Jefferson approved federal grants to Roman Catholic missions to the Indians. Congress approved its own government-paid chaplain, even as the Constitution was under consideration.

What the First Amendment was designed to do was head off the establishment of a state church, such as the Church of England, with government influence over the selection of bishops and other church leaders. The caution about Bush’s proposal should more properly come from groups pondering whether to apply for government grants.

There is nothing un constitutional about a government grant for a rescue mission that helps the homeless. Such missions provide some of the most effective and inexpensive shelter and food to people who otherwise might die from exposure or medical problems related to alcohol or drug abuse. The people behind these missions are often motivated by personal faith in Christ and are willing to help without expecting anything in return. When government can assist such groups, the result is a cooperation between church and state that can be vital for the public good.

But the missions and similar groups need to count the cost of government aid. In the long run, regulation, red tape, and lots of paperwork will come with the grants, and the entrepreneurial and volunteer spirit can get lost in the scramble to obtain government favor.

A surge of government money may help a small mission expand and do for many people what it started outdoing for just a few. In Romans 13, Paul explains how civil government is designed to be a “minister of God to thee for good.” 1he king of civil government, after all, is Jesus Christ; so it should not be surprising that He can use that government to help in the resolution of social problems, through cooperation with ministries like Prison Fellowship.

Yet some groups, based on the vision of a dedicated founder and a few volunteers, may be overwhelmed and find their mission diluted by the big bucks, paperwork, and regulations that can come with government grants. They also will find that government grants come and go, whereas their private supporters tend to be more consistent.

Caveat emptor is the Latin slogan warning consumers to be alert to danger in purchasing a seemingly attractive product. It is a useful warning to faith-based groups as they consider whether to pursue government grants under a new administration in Washington.