In an effort to provide an advocacy for our local churches to reclaim a theology and practice for missional service to the homeless and disadvantaged in our communities, I will be posting a series of blogs. These will be somewhat a compilation of several papers and discussions over the last few years. I hope they will generate discussion in your sphere of influence and in our churches.
Reclaiming Missional Service with a View of Rescue Missions ~ Part 4
~ © by Rev. Jim Lewis
A Brief History of Long Beach Rescue Mission
As with many Rescue Missions, the Long Beach Rescue Mission (LBRM) was the result of Christian and civic leaders seeing a need in their community. As founder Wayne Teurele became increasingly involved with churches and officials in the city of Long Beach in the early 1970s, he saw a need to serve a growing homeless population in Long Beach. Teurele formed a group of local Christian businessmen as a Board of Directors, located a suitable building for a shelter, and soon asked the blessing of God and city officials for success. Due to the evident need at the time, city officials were disposed to assist the Mission start-up. In a growing metropolitan city of over 347,000 there existed few services for those on the streets. A free clinic supported 11 beds and the local Salvation Army 70, but they did not house transients. Law enforcement placed inebriated transients overnight in the drunk tank, and in the morning fed them and “encouraged” them to leave town. George Logan of the United Way Community Planning Council said that they “needed a mission . . . it was long overdue.” Chief of Police Mooney said he “would like to see a mission . . . a conservative figure of need was 50 beds a night.” Judy Kennedy of the Department of Public Health, Long Beach Alcoholic Rehabilitation Center stated, “We endorse this plan without reservation.” Many community leaders joined the effort, assisting in the acquisition and modification of the facility (Kleist 1998).
In his speeches to religious groups, Teurele explained his vision in simple terms: “We think of this as an extension of the church where the church cannot function.” On August 7, 1972, LBRM opened its doors for service. In the Mission’s inaugural newsletter, Teurele declared the Mission to be “unlike the usual men’s mission . . . we are a neighborhood mission.” To this end they not only provided food, showers, clothing, counseling, and Bible study to transients, they also held a Good News Club for the neighborhood children, staged Mothers’ Meetings for Bible teaching and support, gave out free clothing twice a month, held holiday dinners, and even began visitation at the local jail – meeting many community concerns.
LBRM followed a similar model for most Missions of that day: that of starting as a soup kitchen, known for providing “Three Hots and a Cot,” or “Soup, Soap and Salvation.” Overnight services are then expanded to include long-term rehabilitation programs that involve Christian discipleship. This model tended to lack connection to public social service programs that focus on “case management” – which connects people to resources and a path to re-entry into society. Many Missions have picked up on this need, and have become part of the overall public social service continuum of care. However, similar to public programs, there is often a general lack of reciprocal and interdependent services.
In the late 1980s, culture and public opinion began to turn against LBRM and there arose a growing intolerance of the “undeserving poor.” This was especially true in the city of Long Beach where millions of dollars were being spent redeveloping the downtown area after the departure of the Navy. City and community leaders grew weary of panhandlers hurting downtown business; some felt that the Mission’s very existence hurt their commercial success. In 1986 the city passed anti-camping laws, cracking down on transients and living in cars. Partnering with the Downtown Business Association, in 1987 Mayor Ernie Kell formed the Mayor’s Task Force on the Homeless, which led an educational effort on dealing with homeless panhandlers, providing cards listing local shelters and services where they could receive help.
Twenty years from the Mission’s inception, a backlash in the homeless community resulted from these crackdowns. In 1992 protesters picketed the Mission, citing “inhumane treatment of the poor.” Sign-carrying members of the Homeless Organizing Committee bemoaned the Missions “arbitrary criteria” such as a nightly curfew and required chapel attendance (1998).
Arriving in Long Beach in 2006, I found a Mission at odds with the community culture. An adjacent city park was being invaded daily by the homeless and drug traffickers; public perception of Mission practices led to its declining reputation. Meeting with local activists provided examples of a negative community relationship. How could this Mission be successful without being part of its community? Although fully engaged in meeting daily needs, the staff was demoralized . . . but a glimmer of hope had begun to turn things around. A quickly organized community outreach event held on Mission property was open to the public – to which local law enforcement and the community were invited. Program staff was directed to amend several critical elements of Mission programs that were having a negative effect on our immediate neighborhood. We would put into place new schedules and policies that would aggressively mitigate negative issues that our presence was having; we would attempt to “own” our neighborhood alongside of our neighbors, rather than exist in conflict with them. Collaborative activities started building stronger relationships and allowed other agencies an inside view of the Mission’s programs.
Without going into detail of these actions, the Mission once again enjoys a positive reputation in the community, but at some risk of acceptance of the more conservative church community. By placing chapel attendance at the end of the schedule rather than at the outset of the evening services, some feel we are sacrificing the Gospel – when in fact it is enhanced. There is perhaps a misplaced fear that we may become similar to a liberal social service agency. Although structured program elements are enforced, the number of participations has more than quadrupled. More than fifty men and women are in our one-year residential rehabilitation program; however, reducing the number of overnight beds is a result. We also added a graduate Bridge program, which assists in the successful reentry of clients into the community. These services are now seen by our public-sector peers as critical to the continuum of care.
Reclaiming Missional Service with a View of Rescue Missions ~ Part 4
~ © by Rev. Jim Lewis
A Brief History of Long Beach Rescue Mission
As with many Rescue Missions, the Long Beach Rescue Mission (LBRM) was the result of Christian and civic leaders seeing a need in their community. As founder Wayne Teurele became increasingly involved with churches and officials in the city of Long Beach in the early 1970s, he saw a need to serve a growing homeless population in Long Beach. Teurele formed a group of local Christian businessmen as a Board of Directors, located a suitable building for a shelter, and soon asked the blessing of God and city officials for success. Due to the evident need at the time, city officials were disposed to assist the Mission start-up. In a growing metropolitan city of over 347,000 there existed few services for those on the streets. A free clinic supported 11 beds and the local Salvation Army 70, but they did not house transients. Law enforcement placed inebriated transients overnight in the drunk tank, and in the morning fed them and “encouraged” them to leave town. George Logan of the United Way Community Planning Council said that they “needed a mission . . . it was long overdue.” Chief of Police Mooney said he “would like to see a mission . . . a conservative figure of need was 50 beds a night.” Judy Kennedy of the Department of Public Health, Long Beach Alcoholic Rehabilitation Center stated, “We endorse this plan without reservation.” Many community leaders joined the effort, assisting in the acquisition and modification of the facility (Kleist 1998).
In his speeches to religious groups, Teurele explained his vision in simple terms: “We think of this as an extension of the church where the church cannot function.” On August 7, 1972, LBRM opened its doors for service. In the Mission’s inaugural newsletter, Teurele declared the Mission to be “unlike the usual men’s mission . . . we are a neighborhood mission.” To this end they not only provided food, showers, clothing, counseling, and Bible study to transients, they also held a Good News Club for the neighborhood children, staged Mothers’ Meetings for Bible teaching and support, gave out free clothing twice a month, held holiday dinners, and even began visitation at the local jail – meeting many community concerns.
LBRM followed a similar model for most Missions of that day: that of starting as a soup kitchen, known for providing “Three Hots and a Cot,” or “Soup, Soap and Salvation.” Overnight services are then expanded to include long-term rehabilitation programs that involve Christian discipleship. This model tended to lack connection to public social service programs that focus on “case management” – which connects people to resources and a path to re-entry into society. Many Missions have picked up on this need, and have become part of the overall public social service continuum of care. However, similar to public programs, there is often a general lack of reciprocal and interdependent services.
In the late 1980s, culture and public opinion began to turn against LBRM and there arose a growing intolerance of the “undeserving poor.” This was especially true in the city of Long Beach where millions of dollars were being spent redeveloping the downtown area after the departure of the Navy. City and community leaders grew weary of panhandlers hurting downtown business; some felt that the Mission’s very existence hurt their commercial success. In 1986 the city passed anti-camping laws, cracking down on transients and living in cars. Partnering with the Downtown Business Association, in 1987 Mayor Ernie Kell formed the Mayor’s Task Force on the Homeless, which led an educational effort on dealing with homeless panhandlers, providing cards listing local shelters and services where they could receive help.
Twenty years from the Mission’s inception, a backlash in the homeless community resulted from these crackdowns. In 1992 protesters picketed the Mission, citing “inhumane treatment of the poor.” Sign-carrying members of the Homeless Organizing Committee bemoaned the Missions “arbitrary criteria” such as a nightly curfew and required chapel attendance (1998).
Arriving in Long Beach in 2006, I found a Mission at odds with the community culture. An adjacent city park was being invaded daily by the homeless and drug traffickers; public perception of Mission practices led to its declining reputation. Meeting with local activists provided examples of a negative community relationship. How could this Mission be successful without being part of its community? Although fully engaged in meeting daily needs, the staff was demoralized . . . but a glimmer of hope had begun to turn things around. A quickly organized community outreach event held on Mission property was open to the public – to which local law enforcement and the community were invited. Program staff was directed to amend several critical elements of Mission programs that were having a negative effect on our immediate neighborhood. We would put into place new schedules and policies that would aggressively mitigate negative issues that our presence was having; we would attempt to “own” our neighborhood alongside of our neighbors, rather than exist in conflict with them. Collaborative activities started building stronger relationships and allowed other agencies an inside view of the Mission’s programs.
Without going into detail of these actions, the Mission once again enjoys a positive reputation in the community, but at some risk of acceptance of the more conservative church community. By placing chapel attendance at the end of the schedule rather than at the outset of the evening services, some feel we are sacrificing the Gospel – when in fact it is enhanced. There is perhaps a misplaced fear that we may become similar to a liberal social service agency. Although structured program elements are enforced, the number of participations has more than quadrupled. More than fifty men and women are in our one-year residential rehabilitation program; however, reducing the number of overnight beds is a result. We also added a graduate Bridge program, which assists in the successful reentry of clients into the community. These services are now seen by our public-sector peers as critical to the continuum of care.
No comments:
Post a Comment