This was called: "compassionate conservatism". Now, instead of relying on people's tithing and volunteerism, advertising their presence in the community and preaching the word of God as they engaged in his work, Churches could just apply for a grant, do the same thing, just quietly, and wear emblazoned t-shirts and have a sign hanging behind them and hope that was enough to get some sort of message through. It was a true compromise of ethics; both of the government's role as protector of religious freedom by standing apart, and of any faith based organization willing to take on the burden of increased government oversight, control, and regulation of their activities.
While clearly of good intentions, it stirred up a number of fears, criticisms, and lawsuits during the Bush administration. Many were concerned about pagans, satanists and other fringe "religions" getting their hands on government money and abusing the non-secular public-use clauses guarding the hen house. Some were concerned radical Muslim groups posing as charities would funnel grant money to terrorist organizations. Only a few bothered to point out what should have been the most obvious concern: "Whenever you take the government shekels, sooner or later comes the government's shackles."
The threat was never an external one; it was the gall of any of these organizations to believe that their own faith is not corruptible.
When Obama was elected, one of the first things he did was to rename the faith based initiative office. It was previously called: "White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives", and in an executive order on Feb 5, 2009 (one of his first), officially renamed it to the: "White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships"
This is important, because this wording entirely changes the nature of the grant program by removing any veil that the government is simply awarding money to good causes. It is no longer a "community initiative", now it's a partnership with the government. Yes, annoying people may parse the sentence and interpret the words entirely differently just to be annoying, but the fact remains: the purpose of the funding is no longer to empower faith-based community initiatives, it is to partner with the government to receive funding for government goals under the guise of social services. I would argue that it was always this.
Was there any media mention, let alone a months-long uproar with opinion pages splattering useless critical/complementary opinions, over this name-change? Has there been any media coverage or mention of the Office of Faith-Based Partnerships since 2009? I certainly don't recall it being on anyone's media radar since Bush left office.
So, since 2001, the government has slowly been extending its grasp and control over Faith-Based programs in need of money for social services, until in 2009, these social services openly became "partnerships" with the government, and the grants evolved into a daily listing for social services on some Federal webpage, where anyone willing to sacrifice their religious freedoms in the name of their religion could apply and get money to do God's work without involving God, based on what the government wants to fund and how it wants to fund it, which may or may not overlap with what people of faith should be doing to serve God.
While I'm certain there are thousands of examples of abuse of this system prior, nothing exemplifies this perversion and corruption of the already compromising faith-based "partnership" than the current crisis of illegal immigrant children flooding across the U.S. borders.
The government started advertising for temporary housing for massive numbers of illegals even before they showed up, and they're still advertising now. They advertised for security for their internment housing of illegals as they were caught coming in. They advertised for shipping the illegals around the country.
What was once a slow burn of corruption and moral compromise through political funding has now turned into a waterfall.
How much money does it take for a Baptist to call himself a "Brown-Shirt"? What good service in the name of God allows for the sort of compromise where you can justify hiding the truth from people, threatening health workers, and adopting a self-described moniker evocative one of the most vile and inhuman eras of history?
The Baptist Brown-Shirts. Dwell on that for a minute, if you're wondering how deep and disturbing this corruption of faith in service of the government really is.
Of course it's spread much further than that; the uproar over illegal children being shipped around the country is raising hackles and opening a number of eyes to see that their own Churches may be dealing directly with DHS.
NY church backs out of federal plan to house illegal immigrant children - not because anyone cried foul - they just missed the application deadline.
A good bulk of information on Churches using government money to care for illegal immigrants can be found here: Refugee Resettlement Watch. I'd link individual articles, but this site is pretty expansive, and I work for a living. It's not just Baptists. It's Catholics, Lutherans, Hebrews, A variety of evangelical groups... ironically, the only groups I've not seen signing up to house illegal children are Islamic groups, though it wouldn't surprise me at all if there are and even the loudmouthed conservatives are holding back reporting on it out of fear.
To anyone looking, the conclusion that the flood of illegal immigrant children is an "engineered" crisis is not difficult to reach. It is clearly intentional, and was planned by the government, and enacted to be as detrimental, dehumanizing, demoralizing and divisive to the actual American citizenry as possible. Religious organizations that seek funding in order to assist these illegals are truly partnering with and enabling the government.
Oh, certainly; these children do need help, and the churches should be involved - but on their own terms. To surrender your faith and freedoms in exchange for funding makes you even less than a partner; it makes you a parasite - because the government is not responding to a social problem; it's creating it. Churches involved in this are not being charitable - they're profiteering. You can delude yourself that what good you're doing outweighs the ills you accept in order to do so, but this is a fool's argument: the ends never justify the means. Fouled actions taint all outcomes.
Find out if your Church or Organization is accepting government funding, any arena, and urge them out of it.