Byron Johnson, co-director of Baylor University’s Institute for Studies of Religion, returned recently from the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives National Conference in Washington, D.C. The White House credits Johnson with helping lay the groundwork for what became President Bush’s initiative 7 1/2 years ago encouraging faith-based organizations to compete for federal funding with secular nonprofit groups.

In this interview with the Tribune-Herald, Johnson discusses presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s declared support last week for the initiative; misconceptions Johnson says have dogged the program for years; how Bush’s post-presidency may see him occasionally at Baylor and why there’s an apparent lack of faith-based organizations in “Bush country” seeking the funding.

Q President Bush’s faith-based initiative was his first real policy initiative and one of his most controversial. You’ve been involved in this from the beginning.

A I was there when he signed the papers, the executive orders (in 2001).

Q Has it turned out as you thought it would?

A I think it’s different than what everyone expected. There’s been so much, as you mentioned, controversy. The controversy has been so misdirected and misunderstood as to be absurd. I mean, now what you have is this initiative that he launched 7 1/2 years ago, and it’s deeply entrenched in virtually every state in the country with Democrats and Republicans on board. But since this was a conservative president and since this was seen as a Republican agenda, it automatically became controversial, and half of Congress felt they couldn’t embrace it, even though the initiative was all about helping the poor. There have been things about all this that have left a bitter taste in many people’s mouths who tried to do good work and were in the trenches.

Q What’s the biggest sticking point? Is it the proverbial cross on the wall? The singing of church hymns at the soup kitchen supper?

A I think for a lot of people, the sticking point has been this fear of violating church-state separation. It’s largely misunderstood and, I think, is based on a misinterpretation of what the founding fathers intended in the first place. There’s nothing wrong with federal funds going to faith-based organizations if those faith-based organizations provide social services. If they say to folks, you have to believe a certain way to receive these services or you have to pray — no, you can’t do that. You know, it’s funny because for 7 1/2 years no one has been able to find any instances of those things happening.

Q One criticism I’ve read about the program is that it’s administered in such a way that groups competing for grants have to go to Washington to attend grant-application conferences, which would seem to rule out smaller, financially weaker faith-based groups.

A It’s completely wrong. The White House has put on conferences in every region of the country, charged no registration fee whatsoever, and made it open to people and said, “Here’s how you should go about competing. You have every right to compete for funds.” Now, this most recent conference was unusual in that it was in Washington, but they have another one coming up in Dallas in August. They’ve been doing this all around the country and they have about 1,000 to 1,500 show up at a time. They’re all these grass-roots, faith-based institutions — the majority, or close to that, involving people of color. So the very people who, in large part, never supported this president have in fact gone to these conferences, have in fact received training on how they can compete for these funds. But, again, that’s one of the misconceptions about it.

Q Last week, Barack Obama said he wanted to expand the program while making the organizations that win federal funding more accountable. Is that a justifiable aim?

A I’ve heard this too. A lot of people were wondering if Obama would come in and completely eliminate the office. A lot of people thought it would come back to haunt him because so many of the beneficiaries are in fact people who are likely to be voting for him in the first place. Now, the accountability argument doesn’t make any sense. They’re all accountable. That’s the problem with federal dollars. You have to be accountable. You’re worked to death with paperwork, and that’s why some folks have opted not to go after federal dollars. They don’t want to have to go through all the red tape.

Q How has this program manifested itself in Waco?

A I don’t know of individuals in Waco who have gone to (this sort of) federal funding. One of the curious things, if you talk to people in faith-based organizations and you ask them about faith-based initiatives, they’re so gung-ho. But then if you ask them, “Would you consider applying for a federal grant from the government to help you do what you do?” it’s “Absolutely not! Why would I want to get into bed with the government?” They’re certainly entitled to that opinion. Here in Waco I haven’t had a chance to go out and interview all kinds of people who have faith-based groups about whether or not they’d like to seek funding.

Q Is it an ideological thing about being involved with the government or is it all the paperwork?

A Both. It’s the paperwork, but the main thing is they’re afraid they’ll lose their religious identity. If they take the coin of the realm, they’re afraid they’ll have to take down, as you say, their religious icons on the wall and they won’t be able to share what they do, which may be to share the Gospel. That message is something they don’t want to lose. They don’t want to become secular. And here again the president has been very clear. We’re not asking people to strip themselves of their religious identity, we’re just saying they can’t be about proselytizing. So if you want to share with folks who are homeless and there’s literature there they want to read, that’s fine. And if there’s a cross on the wall or the Star of David, that’s fine, too. You don’t have to get rid of your religious identity. But a lot of these groups feel that’s the case, so they opt not to pursue it.

Q Has the president’s fervor for all this changed much over the years?

A Well, I don’t know whether you know this or not, but he’s very punctual when he goes to an event. He’s punctual to a fault. He shows up on time and he leaves on time. That’s the kind of White House he runs. But he shows up on time for faith-based events and leaves late. I’ve never seen him stay on schedule. The reason why is it’s the one thing — I mean, he cares about a lot of things — but it’s the one issue that resonates with him personally. He went to a prisoner re-entry thing in Baltimore in January where he was there with X number of ex-prisoners, sitting down and having a conversation. Next to no media coverage. There’s rarely coverage of him doing things like this, which fascinates me. If he stubs his toe on his bike, there would be enormous news, but when he goes to hang out with ex-prisoners, there’s no one there to cover that. And one guy was saying, “Mr. President, I was a drug addict and because of that I did this and wound up in prison and I’ve wasted my life away.” And the president said, “You know, I can relate. I was drinking mine away and I got to the point where I had to make decisions and I had a spiritual conversion of my own.” This thing deeply resonates with him and I think it’s an issue that, over the last 7 1/2 years, hasn’t lost any power in his eyes. When he leaves the White House, this will be one of his ongoing legacies, to promote faith-based initiatives.

Q With both of you hailing from Central Texas, does he ever come up and ask how things are back in the Waco area?

A He hasn’t asked that question. I mean, I know this area is dear to him for sure, and he’s anxious to get his feet back on Texas ground. I know that. We were sad (at Baylor) to lose the bid for the Bush presidential library, but I really believe because we do so much of that work at Baylor (on faith-based initiatives and faith-based communities) that it’s going to put us in a position to work with him on this issue post-White House. And that will be good for Baylor. We’re the only ones doing it in any fashion. We’re about it. There’s like no one else in the country that is doing the kind of work we’re doing on it.

Interview conducted, edited and condensed by Bill Whitaker.