How one church became hospitable to their homeless neighbors

HIS House (Homeless Intervention Shelter) was founded by members of Placentia Presbyterian Church in 1989.  To the north of the Presbyterian Church stood an old two story farm house that was built about 1910.  It had three bedrooms and one bath and tenants passed back and forth over the years.  As orange groves gave way to housing in Placentia it was used as a sorority house for California State College Fullerton students. Then it came into the ownership of the Knights of Columbus, who built an adjacent hall onto the house.  However, in 1988 the Knights found the maintenance of the building a burden they could not sustain, so they put the property up for sale.

Alerted to the availability of the house, several members of the Session, the elected administrative body of the Placentia church, believed it an opportunity to buy the property and thereby provide an area of possible expansion for the church.  A further consideration was to prevent the land from falling into the hands of owners who might develop it for housing that would have been incompatible with keeping the area close to the church in harmony with its buildings.

Some resistance on the part of Session members to the purchase of the property surfaced. Members expressed doubts that the church, which had just finished a building program that caused it to assume a debt of $900,000, should not put itself into still greater indebtedness. Nevertheless, a majority in the Session supported the purchase of the property and in March 1989, at a cost of $360,000 the transfer was finalized.  The Session authorized the borrowing of a temporary loan from the Presbyterian Synod. It was still undecided how to use the house and upon inspection, it was found to be in need of serious repair. Plumbing was especially in poor condition with a large sunken tub that could not be drained.
For several months the house at 907 North Bradford remained empty while interest payments came due on a regular basis. In fact, financing became such a critical issue that in February 1990 the property was listed for sale.

In the meantime at another meeting of the Session, one of its members, Denise Eastin, active in the Featherly Park ministry, urged that the house be opened for the Drapers, a family living at the park.  The wife was soon to give birth and the baby would have to return to a tent in the park with winter approaching. The Session agreed to Ms. Eastin’s request and allowed the Drapers to move into the house. Volunteers commenced the arduous task of cleaning and making repairs so that the structure would be fit for habitation. Once Christopher Andrew Draper was born, the family continued to stay there until they found a place to live.

Development of HIS House

As it is today, in 1990 there was no lack of needy people seeking shelter. Orange County had only 500 beds (today they have 3500 beds) for homeless individuals. The Bulmaro Herrera family, comprised of fourteen members, was threatened with eviction onto the street in September when Placentia city housing inspectors declared their rental house unsafe and unsanitary. The family was ordered to leave but they had nowhere to go and not enough money to pay for an apartment. Happily, Orange County Housing officials knew that the Presbyterians had offered shelter to others in their Bradford Ave house, and the Herreras were invited to move in.  The Herrera’s became residents and the once empty house filled with the cries and laughter of the eight Herrera children.  During 1990 a total of seventeen adults and twenty five children were sheltered at HIS House, the name given to the facility.

It was now evident that a purpose had been established for HIS House, but for Session members the future still looked bleak. The church found the interest on the loan and utility bills worrisome. The HIS House committee, twelve in number and chaired by Denise Eastin, oversaw the activities at the facility, but it was difficult for them to be on call whenever something was needed at the house. The committee members would handle emergency calls. No one had experience running a shelter, yet the committee felt their ministry had to continue. To quote the late Elaine Van Deventer “Prayer was used to finance the house.”

The real estate was still listed for sale in July 1991 when a stroke of good fortune came in answer to those prayers.  The HIS House committee discovered that the California Emergency Shelter Program offered grants to run a shelter for the homeless provided that there would be a commitment to offer services for a number of years. An application to the state was successful, so the property could be removed from the market, as the grant paid a substantial portion of the church obligation to the Synod.

With the state grant in hand, the committee could now look for additional community support. They learned of an organization called Home Aid. This was a consortium of about 900 building contractors and suppliers who donated their services to assist various non-profit organizations that needed assistance. The director of Home Aid found HIS House was exactly the kind of project that met their goals.

After the renovation the shelter could house 25 individuals, couples and families.  In 1996 another grant was applied for and received to expand again.  This time 15 more beds and two additional restrooms. The capacity is now 40 beds.

In 2002, the City of Placentia purchased a home two doors north of HIS House with Redevelopment funds.  They were looking to invite a low-income family to inhabit the property. However, HIS House found out about the property and offered to pay the yearly taxes and invite graduates of the HIS House program to spend an additional “Second Step” while paying a program fee.

What HIS House offers its participants:
We offer a safe and homelike atmosphere where residents can have their own guest room, share baths and kitchens with others while looking for employment and participating in our classes. We offer no-cost housing for 4-6 months. Each week residents participate in life skill classes and an additional class of either parenting, budgeting, a mentor meeting and career development.

Each participant meets weekly with a case manager where they prioritize expenses and save money for permanent housing. Each resident receive a new pillow, toiletry basket (from the Placentia Roundtable women’s club) gas and transportation vouchers, individual counseling and two months of subsidized childcare.  Children receive a quilt from the North Cities Quilt Guild and a welcome basket from the Placentia Roundtable. Each month birthdays are celebrated with cake and ice cream (sponsored by the Placentia Roundtable) and gifts for adults and children are given.

HIS House continues to exist with the assistance of government grants, private donations and fundraisers. The generosity of our community and volunteers help make HIS House a successful program.

This year we are initiating a strategic plan process for organizational reorganization as a solo 501(c)(3), as well as a funding plan in order to deepen, strengthen, and expand our services. We would appreciate your prayerful investment.

Learn how to help here:

Is Public Office a Missional Vocation?

I am deeply moved by the numerous and diverse efforts of Jesus followers at my church to impact our community and the Kingdom. Overseas missions, neighborhood outreach, education, human trafficking, connections to help the homeless, advocating for fostering and adoption . . . it is an awesome example of stewardship - and a retaking of ownership of "social" activity within our world.

I wrote about this effort in several papers while studying at Fuller, and as I did there, I would like to take this discussion one step further, into a broader stewardship role for the church. Dallas Willard makes an excellent point in The Spirit of the Disciplines that “charity and social welfare programs, while good and clearly our duty, cannot even begin to fulfill our responsibility as children of the light to a needy world.” He then calls upon the people of God to “assume the responsibility, under God and by his power, of owning and directing the world’s wealth and goods” (1988:202). He points out that by doing so, with Christ, the church would be able to reduce the causes of poverty. That is a level of stewardship the church has not attempted on such a large scale—and likely will not without realizing that the sacred calling of God is not just within the church, but in all vocations and careers. The church should commission men and women into “farming, industry, law, education, banking, and journalism with the same zeal previously given to evangelism and missionary work” (1988:214).

The outcome of this ownership will lead to being able to speak into the development of policy . . . Once the people of God are involved as stewards in influencing the marketplace for the community’s good, they can have a hand in advising public agencies in serving the truly needy. This culminates in the people of God showing how the church “enters into full participation in the rule of God where they are” (1988:218). That is true stewardship of all that God has made and put under our authority, including social service to those in need. Religious control of social functions, as it has been in the past, can be seen as an authentic Christian response to need. P. Beyer, in Religion and Globalization states that this validates the Christian message (1994:197).

If this be the case, what is keeping us from contributing to the setting of policy in our city? Is not civic service as much a step into missional living as other forms of outreach and involvement? Is the desire to serve a public office not as sacred a vocation? If so, we should commission and support with our time, treasure, and talents those taking that step as well as the missionary.

Rights of the Individual vs Community

In light of recent conversations related to various rights being questioned as being in the community's best interest, I will make a brief comment on the veracity of the individual over the community. Dietrich Bonhoeffer brings critical thinking forward for us today. Claiming one's rights is counter to the self-renunciation we find in the Sermon on the Mount (Discipleship) . . . but we are to fight for the rights of others (Ethics), which – rather than renunciation – is a form of transforming initiative. I think that's what America's founders had in mind with the Bill of Rights as they set forth protection from an oppressive government – in order to provide for free personal and corporate (community) responsibility. That individuals would act with respect toward the benefit of community was part of their ethic . . . an ethic which has been tempered in our post-modernism. (I will preemptively add here related to the slavery issue: some Founders were proactive for the inclusion of extending rights to all, while others surmised that it would cease of its own accord given time and economics). The question remains for us: how to balance the rights of the individual and community. Bonhoeffer’s writings may provide some clues. From “Life Together” to “Letters and Papers from Prison” we glimpse the possibilities of community.

The Common Good of Community

These days, providing for the common good by equalizing the economic level playing field through the “creation or redistribution of wealth”—or giving one’s fair share—is an interesting conversation.  

It intrigues me that many of those who take up such a mantra, themselves live apart from those with whom they wish to build solidarity. However, as “First Things” editor R. R. Reno points out: “Solidarity is not the same as equality. It’s about being with others, being part of something, rather than being the same or having the same amounts of stuff.”^[1] So, if disparity of wealth is not the issue dividing us, what is?

Reno goes on to state that it is actual space that divides us, not just financial distance. We need each other.  Just as the scientific study of isolation on infants indicated that touch and the spoken word are necessary for proper emotional and physical nurturing, people need community. Reno also claims it’s a grievous error to think that this distance can be broached by the rich paying a greater share of taxes – as this chasm is a social gap, not merely economic. 

What the poor and disadvantaged need is not bread alone . . . they need to be in community with us – in solidarity with those seeking to help them. 

Again, solidarity is not merely monetary equality, but togetherness. Detrick Bonhoeffer warned that those who dream of community are likely the destroyer of community. How? They focus only what they want it to be, not on the community itself as it is. Such are those who desire to build a better community from afar – thinking that their charitable contributions, requiring increased taxes, or that their advocacy and activism will bring solidarity . . . without having to bridge the space between themselves and those they “target” with their doing good.   

What personal and professional time, talent, and treasures are creating space rather than lessening it in your sphere of community? We will each need to go beyond our “soup-kitchener” and donor activity, as well as our share of the tax burden, and deal with decreasing the space between ourselves and those we seek to help. If we want to see solidarity of community, we must do it as Jesus did . . . with our feet, our hands, and our actions.

¹ Reno, R. R. "The Public Square: Solidarity." First Things (Institute on Religion and Public LIfe), no. 234 (June/July 2013): 3-4.

Community Renewal as Incarnational Mission

Missonal, Incarnational, and Stewardship are terms that are too easily tossed about these days. In order for the people of God to bring about flourishing in our communities we need real definitions and concrete manifestations, rather than vague illusions of what they mean.   

Urban Homeless Shelter

I believe to be, or take part in something missional is to become part of what we recognize God is already doing in the community (missio Dei). This requires examination of the sociological, historical, and political conditions in which the Church—and our ministry—must become the visible expression of God to the world. When these realities are properly merged we see truly incarnational mission at work – through which we become stewards of God’s grace, justice, and resources of the Kingdom.

An incarnational mission involves our “real and abiding presence” in the community that bears fruit for both the local church and the urban environment. One cannot become part of the organism of community unless he or she becomes intimate with its “cultural rhythms, life, and geography” (2003a, 39); as Ronald Sider shares, “Holistic ministry is incarnational ministry . . . it’s God fleshing out the truth of the Gospel.” It is not only helping others in the community, but inspiring the church member and stretching themselves outside their traditional sphere of influence (2002, 27). Are we bold enough to commit to an incarnational model as sufficient to match the changes in culture and polity we face in this new millennium?

When efforts are not incarnational, little of lasting note gets done – this can lead to negative issues . . . and those seeing themselves in the “crosshairs” of perceived do-gooders begin to see themselves as “targets” rather than in community (2003b, 108). Becoming part of our community through assimilating its culture and recognizing context takes time and effort, which is necessary in order to build a missional bridge of any permanence. 

Fresno Rescue Mission's new Save the Children Home

This integration will take visionary church leaders who are able to assess the needs of the community, as well as considering the strengths within a congregation, and to build individual team leaders who can lay the groundwork for a safe and appropriate missional outreach (2006b, 32). I mention “safe” as there is danger in not considering the full impact of an urban environment when developing programs. This type of missional outreach can allow people to step beyond the “soup-kitchener” experience and into a more personal and contextual missional expression of their faith and lifestyle. 

Such change can only come through a concerted effort of our church leaders, ministries and community agencies in creating a bias for action through educating congregants in missional stewardship of all that they control – time, treasure, and talents.

Frost, Michael, and Alan Hirsch. 2003a. The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21st Century Church. Peabody: Hendrickson.

Linthicum, Robert. 2003b. Transforming Power: Biblical Strategies for Making a Difference in Your Community. Downers Grove: IVP.

Roxburgh, Alan J. and Fred Romanuk. 2006b. The Missional Leader: Equipping Your Church to Reach a Changing World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sider, Ronald J., Philip N. Olson, and Heidi Rolland Unruh. 2002. Churches That Make a Difference: Reaching Your Community with Good News and Good Works. Grand Rapids: Baker.

Newspaper Sweeps Homeless to the “Gutter”?

It’s been 106 days since January 1 of this year and there have been but three articles in the PT addressing our local homeless population. Not counting a story on my departure from LBRM and a fundraiser for homeless dogs, the only stories these pages have covered are of someone from San Pedro catching a bus to the winter shelter, the homeless count, and the recent arson attack by a homeless man. 

Where was the story of the impending loss of 150 winter shelter beds on March 1st – which was 15 days earlier than normal, and the subsequent forecasts of rain causing concern for opening the rainy day shelter by the homeless coalition?  What of the annual story of the real or perceived pre-Grand Prix homeless sweeps, or the massive cleanup along the river we have seen going on this past month?

Has the redesign of the Press Telegram swept any significant coverage of homeless issues into the ‘gutter’ (white space at the fold) as the pages are too ‘tight’ (crowded with ads)?  Where are the voices of our local activists from the Coalition?  Where is Occupy LB – taking control of council chambers, demanding action?  Has the print consciousness of our city been so overcome by bike lanes, pocket parks, and misprinted street lamp banners to address the ongoing issues of our discarded humanity?  

Who will be the voice of those on the street . . . or are we waiting for the potholes to swallow them into obscurity?

Leveraging the Passion of our Emerging Leadership in Philanthropy

Just a year ago in an article discussing the changing culture of nonprofits and the failing economy, I examined the decline of the nonprofit sector due to its failure of facing the realities of a changing market and demographic.* Following this marked decline, in just a few years we have seen an increasing flow of new blood in the sector . . . young leaders (I dislike tagging them “millennial”) are bringing a new passion and desire to impact their society.  

To this aging Boomer, having served most of my vocation in nonprofits, this brings a surprising feeling of promise and a desire to see them become empowered in a way my generation failed to realize through our efforts in the ‘60s and ‘70s.

This upwelling of philanthropic youth is more than evident here at the 50th International Conference of Fundraising in San Diego. The San Diego Convention Center is teeming with young people, wherein such a conference a decade ago would have witnessed an older attendee. In a review class for the CFRE – a certification for those with fundraising experience – there were quite a few young people who obviously did not bring experience of the level normally expected to such a class. I propose that not a few of them thought some of the material and processes discussed a bit mechanistic and antiquated. Additionally, the crowd was standing room only and overflowing the room of the First Timers orientation meeting.  This leads me to wonder what is the impetus of these new fundraisers? 

For those of us who have long been involved in nonprofit fund development, we may recognize the surge of funds now flowing from our generation’s estates, and how best to help divert them from the government and invest in charitable efforts. I sense, however, that the new conference attendees are not so much interested in investing these funds, but rather investing themselves in the empowerment of others. They recognize the weakness of government and institutions to meet the growing gap in services and bring a new paradigm to the task.

While wanting to encourage and empower this new generation, we need to sensitively guide them and their enthusiasm into this sector. Just as the ‘90s saw a growth of nonprofits that was impossible to properly fund, we can allow them to be change agents within existing organizations, as well as lead collaborations, acquisitions, and mergers which will increase capacity, reduce duplications, and bring a new face and paradigm to, not just the nonprofit sector, but to the for-profit sector and world-wide commerce as well.

How we assist, educate, encourage and empower this emerging leadership will be the fulcrum on which their impact is leveraged.  

http://ym.christianleadershipalliance.org/?CriticalShift

A Case for a New Leadership Paradigm

We are in a world of change as paradigms are being challenged. Gone are the days of the broad community acceptance of the Christian service provider. Postmodernism is taking its toll . . . leadership is changing, urban demographics are changing, legal regulations are changing, staff and boards are changing, donors are changing, and ministry core services are changing. Change is as certain as the sun rising.

In this day and age, faith-based service providers and their staff need to be on the cutting edge to keep up with an ever-changing environment that challenges the sustainability of the mission and vision of an organization. In order to meet these challenges there needs to be a constant – and two critical constants are proper stewardship and increasing core competencies through accreditation.

Stewardship of the organization, program curriculum, staff resources, liabilities, finances, and board governance are paramount – and most importantly, is stewardship of the physical and spiritual health of the leader.
Artios Institute provides collaborative accreditation through coursework designed with stewardship as the focus. Through a peer cohort of fellow leaders, development staff and board members, your knowledge, skills, and capacity for change is strengthened and profound impacts are cultivated. In this two-year course, meeting two and a half days every other month for the first year and three times the second year, we will explore four foundational pillars:

1. An Understanding of Biblical Stewardship, Fund Development & Advancement 
2. The Keys to Balanced Personal & Professional Growth of the Leader 
3. The Core Components of Building Boards & Effective Teams
4. The Role of Strategy in Determining Vision & Direction 

Whether you are a seasoned executive or development leader, or just starting in ministry, this course of study will challenge and strengthen you and your organization – and prepare both for the challenges of today and years to come. This is an investment in stewardship you can’t afford not to explore. Examine the course elements and consider Artios Institute for yourself and your team.

  Review the Four Pillars               Examine the CCNL Credential

Stewardship as Mission

“As steward leaders we have a mandate to rule over and subdue this creation according to God’s vision for a redeemed world...” Dr. R. Scott Rodin, author of The Steward Leader: Transforming People, Organizations and Communities

What would happen if this type of stewardship actually took place – if the people of God recognized and appropriately acted on this mandate?  Do we truly believe that it is our responsibility to affect all of life – not just the hereafter?  Just how would having stewardship as our mission impact our message and action?  

I think the people of God need to recognize their purpose of being an extension of God’s mission (mission Dei), which the scriptures indicate restores all of creation.  Perhaps a renewed theology of stewardship in the Church can be developed through a practice of reflecting on the needs of the world and our duty to live out Christ to the world as stewards of all that He owns – for which we are responsible.  It is our role to serve the community in which we find ourselves – engaged and unselfishly serving the needs of others as though serving Christ – as Matthew 25:40 states, “to the extent that you did it to one of the least of my brothers, you did it to me.”

I would like to take this discussion one step further, into a broader stewardship role for the Church with a view of our effectively serving this world through our charity:

Dallas Willard makes an excellent point in The Spirit of the Disciplines that “charity and social welfare programs, while good and clearly our duty, cannot even begin to fulfill our responsibility as children of the light to a needy world.”  Rather than reject wealth, he then boldly calls upon the people of God to “assume the responsibility, under God and by his power, of owning and directing the world’s wealth and goods” (1988:202).  He points out that by doing so, with Christ, the Church would be able to reduce the causes of poverty.  

That is a level of stewardship the Church has not attempted on such a large scale – and likely will not without realizing that the sacred calling of God is not just within the Church, but in all vocations and careers.  The Church should commission men and women into “farming, industry, law, education, banking, and journalism with the same zeal previously given to evangelism and missionary work” (1988:214).

Once the people of God are involved as stewards in influencing the marketplace for the community’s good, they will have a hand in advising public agencies in appropriately serving the truly needy.  This culminates in the people of God showing how the Church “enters into full participation in the rule of God where they are” (1988:218).  That is true stewardship of all that God has made and put under our authority.

The Church needs to recognize its responsibility to offer the Kingdom life: reconciliation to God, to self, to society, and creation.  In order to provide the “full” gospel the people of God must become stewards, and models, of the grace of God in their own lives—our time, treasure, and talent—in order to fully practice stewardship toward others.  This requires a new perspective on possessions, ownership and personal stewardship.

Willard, Dallas. The Spirit of the Disciplines: Understanding How God Changes Lives. New York: HarperCollins, 1988. 

Heart-Response vs. Heart-Change

Bob Lupton reminds us there's a distinct difference between compassionate aid and development in his latest blog that sheds light on Christ's feeding of the multitude:

Heart-responses [to handouts] produce distinctly different behavior patterns than do heart-changes.  Continual heart-responses yield diminishing returns: 

• Feed a person once and it elicits appreciation (oh, thank you so much);

• Feed him twice and it creates anticipation (wonder if he’s going to do it again);

• Feed him three times and it creates expectation (when is he going to do it);

• Feed him four times and it becomes an entitlement (I need it now);

• Feed him five times and it produces dependency (you can’t stop, I’m counting on it).

Read more: Bread for Life (John 6)

Missions Must Mitigate

A recent article in Roanoke, VA covering the issues between local candidates, a homeless shelter, and a neighborhood highlights the issues involved and areas that Rescue Missions must address as part of their community and as a critical components of the continuum of care.

I believe it is the Mission's responsibility to provide services in a responsible manner, which protects the quality of life of the homeless AND their neighborhood.

This quote speaks volumes on what Missions do to shoot themselves in the foot - while not protecting their own and their neighbors' interests.

"Bushnell said the Rescue Mission's past record of charity is admirable, but its history with neighbors gives them adequate reasons to be wary of any proposed expansion. I feel like certain actions of the Rescue Mission in the past haven't shown that willingness to cooperate . . ." 

Aggressive mitigation by the Mission should be the norm, but sadly, it isn't.

By aggressively mitigating issues that we had created in our neighborhood (that ultimately ripples across a city) Long Beach Rescue Mission not only exists next to a city park and a middle school, but have made both staunch supporters of the Mission. Each year, both our core programs and our County Winter Shelter operations have been zero-impact programs and have gained the Mission huge support in the neighborhoods, with city council members, and with city and county agencies. It is a tough line to toe, but it is imperative to the success and legacy of our Rescue Mission. Interestingly enough, our efforts bring the admonition of homeless activists on us . . . so we have the support of the community, but not necessarily from all of those supposedly looking out for the interests of the homeless we serve (but our shelters remain full).

Thank you, Long Beach for embracing our services to homeless men, women and children.

we're expecting from the world what we're not doing

While I am shocked that American's spent $1.5 billion this past week on an infinitesimal chance at winning a lottery, I hold more disappointment for the Church. Why? A mere tithe of that amount could have put a huge dent in the issue of homelessness. However, the issue is rooted in a lack of stewardship.

Recent news stories are evidence of the Church’s failure to provide needed steward leadership. Faith leaders decry the recent GOP budget proposal, citing its oppression of the poor. Critics charge that it balances the budget on the back of the poor while not sufficiently taxing the wealthy. Members of the Faithful Budget Campaign demand more aid supported by increased taxation – calling on national leaders to: “act with mercy and justice by serving the common good, robustly funding support for poor and vulnerable people, both at home and abroad, and exercising proper care and keeping of the earth.” The incongruity for this writer is these leaders want the government to do what they are not doing – at least not to the extent that the historical Christian Church has done on its own.

They’ve forgotten that subsequent to Christianity becoming the accepted religion of Constantine’s empire, “government” resources supplanted the Church’s role as provider of public assistance. It was during this period that the response to needs became institutionalized as social service. What had been considered personal hospitality became separated and distant from the church and the home. Charity became so far removed from the church that in the fourth and fifth centuries John Chrysostom challenged that “hospitality remained a personal, individual responsibility as well,” urging Christians to make a place for the needy in their homes to serve “the maimed, the beggars, and the homeless.”

Even Emperor Julian (a.d. 362) provides historical evidence of Christian charity as the sole responsibility of the Church, and directed those of his own religion to “imitate Christian concern for strangers,”

“For it is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg, and the impious Galileans [Christians] support not only their own poor but ours as well, all men see that our people lack aid from us. Teach those of the Hellenic faith to contribute to public service of this sort.”

Later, John Calvin admonished the Church, for the “demise of ancient hospitality,” toward those in need:

“This office of humanity has . . . nearly ceased to be properly observed among men; for the ancient hospitality celebrated in histories, in unknown to us, and [public] inns now supply the place of accommodations for strangers.”

He warned that the increasing dependence on inns rather than on personal hospitality was an expression of human depravity.

I don’t see the Church giving nor serving as it should; many merely call for more government action. While current church-based giving has reportedly dropped by $1.2 billion last year, it’s still a reality that if Christians tithed, the resulting funding available to God’s work would be nearly 2/3rds of recent stimulus spending. But it’s not just the lack of funds at issue; it’s what ministry leaders are misspending. Currently the families of Trinity Broadcasting Network and Chrystal Cathedral are fighting over millions of assets and control of their empires. The public is treated to weekly reports of misuse of charitable donations and the breakdown of relationships in various ministries. It’s no wonder Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle are considering capping charitable deductions – to both secular and religious organizations.

If that isn’t enough, nonprofit postage rates are at risk, as well as the definition of what constitutes a “religious” organization. Non-sectarian religious nonprofits may face raising funds without such exemptions and tax-deductible benefits; likely crushing many under fiscal collapse and dissolution.

The Church needs to do what it is supposed to do . . . without the assistance of taxpayers. I find no directive to love one’s neighbor after first raising taxes. On the contrary, we are to give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s. To expect of the world what is our responsibility is falling short of steward leadership. To fail at stewardship is to fail in our faith.

AGRM DC Forum on Policy and Advocacy

Spending a couple days in the seat of our republic for most people is an exercise in observing history, memorials, and art – not necessarily an observation of our political process . . . unless one goes there to influence that process in order to get something (if only a gallery pass). In joining 38 fellow leaders in our Association of Gospel Rescue Missions, I spent two days doing the latter . . . not to get funding, but to ask for continued ability to serve our community.

You see, many of the regulations that come from DC hamper fundraising and provision of services through onerous regulation and tax law. The issues we took to the offices of our Congressional representatives involved: a cap on charitable deductions; a potential loss of nonprofit postal rate discount; fixing vehicle donation rules; and the erosion of the definition of “religious organization” by narrowing it to an ecclesiastical church. My observations of our issues and meetings with representatives are mixed.

In sharing with staffers (who actually wield the power in DC), their response varied according to party and office. My meetings with two Senate staffers were met with a measure of aloofness and push-back against our issues. Even though we weren’t asking for funding, they made plain to us that our requests were clearly seen as expenditures; any reduction in tax revenue due to charitable deductions was a loss to them. As if the money was already theirs to begin with . . . and there was little admittance of savings to government services due to the services we provide. It was obvious that they saw what we do as within their preview. When one asked for the CBO “score” of our legislative issues it was evident that the gain or loss to tax revenue would be the deciding factor rather than principle. One actually began to argue with our position on religious exemption with their partisan argument of the need for government to ensure equal access, rather than address the long-standing moral exemption provided to religious organizations.

On the other hand, congressional staffers took more time and asked questions – sometimes surprised at our statistics of services provided and impact of regulations on our operations. A lot of notes were taken, and there seemed to be genuine interest in what we do and the struggle we have in this economy. Their raised level of interest was perhaps because the representatives are closer to us and our issues – if not outright concern for their constituents (and that we would take the time to visit them). When I shared that because of withdrawing principle from an investment in response to our emergency funding request, one donor paid more than 30% tax on their charitable gift, the absurdity of that issue hit home.

As mentioned earlier, it was evident who controls the inflow of information to our elected leaders. But it was brought home when I heard of one representative who, upon leaving the office for a 15 minute floor vote, asked the staffer, “This one is a YES, right?” I think we need to trust these staffers as much as those we actually elected to get our message to them.

Do I think it worth the efforts of the thousands of people who make the trek to DC each day to bring issues and requests to staffers – and hopefully to our elected representatives? I think so . . . it was obvious that some of what we shared was news to them and brought a fresh understanding of how regulations and legislation affect those of us who provide critical services to the most at risk in our communities. WE are the safety net – not government services. Although a letter can do some of that – sitting across from us, hearing our stories, and seeing our concern will, I believe, accomplish so much more . . . if only continued freedom to raise funds and serve others in the Name of Christ.