I was riding with a friend a few weeks ago, and we started talking about philanthropic institutions. This happens to be one of my passions, and if you want to see me animated, start a discussion with me on this topic.

It is incidental to our friendship, but germane to this discussion, that she is a lesbian of a religious persuasion other than Christianity. However, the religion that she is a part of by birth also holds the same tenets as Christianity about lesbians--they are outside the orbit of God's approval.

My reason for bringing this tenet up is not to dispute it, but to show that according to the teachings of Christianity, there are a number of people who cannot be approved of by the faith if it is to maintain its integrity. Furthermore, to maintain the credibility of the position I will state clearly in a few lines hereafter, I need to say that as long as I can remember, I have been in the church, and there was not a time that I have not been in it, including the present time; and to be a bit like Martin Luther King, Jr., if I may presume, "I love the church." And I know that I am in my most sane and tranquil moment and space when in church listening to a beautifully sung hymn or song or a superbly crafted sermon. I am in good standing in the church, so I will speak freely, as "I ought to speak."

Now, with that said, the point is this: although I have discussed elsewhere the need for building Black philanthropic institutions, I have not discussed why there is a need to build those institutions outside the Black church.

My friend, although not a part of my faith, has her counterpart in the Black community; there are gay Blacks. They are outside the church, according to the teachings of Christianity. But they are not alone. The fornicator, the whoremonger (an old term, indeed), the perpetual liar, the drug addict, the alcoholics, and a number of other persons in certain unfavorable church categories are outside the church orbit. Yet, although outside the church, they are a part of our Black community and should be covered.

One thing that is certain about America is this: America always judges Blacks by their lowest and most uncomely elements. We are judged by the 27% of those in our community who are underclass, not the 73% who are working, middle, upper, and super rich class. The average American, uneducated and poorly informed, sees Dr. Huxtable only as a fiction. But Snoop Dogg (the rap artist, peradventure I get his interesting name incorrect) is accepted as reality--who we are. Even many of the 27% underclass think that they are really representative of the majority of Blacks. This is the psychotic strangeness of America. 

Knowing that we are stereotyped by our most base element, it is important to cover all of us, because America shall always judge us by our lowest elements.

Aside from how psychotic America will judge us, we should cover these parts of us because usually they are the most unloved and uncared for among us, hence, the most needy. And that is the purpose of foundations, to care for the needy of a society by those who have grown beyond the ability to only support and supply their own needs.

Of course, these two concerns, in a way, make adverse assumptions about the church's ability to care for those who are presumptively outside of their religious tenets. Whereas, there are many fine and intelligent members of our churches who clearly read the Scripture, "When you did it not unto the least of my brethren, you did it not until me," to mean that everyone, regardless of his/her morals as defined by the church, must be covered in their good-Samaritan efforts, the vast majority of the churches will not see this Scripture as meaning or saying everyone. Hence, the selected ones will be covered, and those not selected--especially those who seem most repugnant, will not be covered. This is, indeed, a possibility of rejection that we should not have to tolerate, and were we to build foundations outside the church, this could be safe guarded against by that simple process.

But beyond the above stated reasons for building foundations outside the Black church, there is a more cardinal reason. The church has had an historical position in the Black community--it was the Black Church that developed leadership in the community when slaves were not allowed to congregate; it was the Black Church that perfected the moral arguments against slavery and inhumanity; it was the Black Church that led the Civil Rights movement; and today, it is the Black Church that leads our foray into the political sphere--Rev. Jesse Jackson is more of a politician than he is a preacher.

As a result of the vast multi-functional level of the church, the Black Church has become the dominant force in Black communities. Yet, for too many Black Churches, there is no one regulating them. Today, and it has been this way for many years, anyone can claim that he/she is called of God, open a storefront, and build a church. Church founders, in our Black community, are seldom, if ever, removed or regulated, unless they place themselves under regulations or submit to the placing of themselves under regulations. Those are the rare, honest founders. But too many founders set up fiefdoms in which they are lords-the Rev. Lyons was a minister who, only now, is in prison after many years of unscrupulous financial, sexual, and other unsavory behavior.

A philanthropic foundation specializes in giving money to needy causes, not self-proclaimed needy persons. Its product is money; its end for that money is to help the needy. The best way a church can function in foundation-building is to assist, but not to administer, credible efforts to build foundations in the community; a church can literally set up foundation donation funds; a church can have foundation-building discussions on a regular basis with its congregants; a church can have those efforts it is supporting and/or sponsoring make regular reports--financial books open and in hand; a church can encourage its more affluent members to give more abundantly to those foundations; a church can talk about the needs of a community and how foundations are a part of a healthy and thriving community.

For a church to administer a foundation places it in danger of losing its credibility. People are strange about money, and the church already suffers a credibility problem with its own tithing system. Certainly, a church would subject itself to scandals, loss of prestige, and IRS liens, closings, audits, and all the other many and horrible things IRS can do.

The Black Church is simply an incorrect place to build a foundation, but it is a correct force for Herculean assistance in building a foundation because it has the people, the money, and the influence to help build a wall against poverty and need.

Finally, the Jewish community is much smaller than the Black community-approximately 15 million to our approximately 38 million, yet they have their synagogues and their foundations. Their synagogues do not administer their foundations. And they have some of the largest foundations in the world. This is only anecdotal information, not modeling information. We have to determine our own paradigms, but it is good to see what others are doing as we deliberate.

Frank A. Jones
Republished 5.9.05

Home