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?

Melting Your Clouds

I woke at 3:45am with my mind flying at Mach 3. My Outlook calendar, to-do list, dead-lines and failures were flashing through my brain, overwhelming me; my head feeling full and spinning. I stepped into the hot shower thinking I could steam the thoughts away like dipping into a cup of soothing hot tea. I read the Bible and prayed, asking for calm. A friend had given me Psalm 37 as a reading, but my eyes followed the words into Psalm 38.   Yes, this was me . . . I felt myself in every groan of David. Here’s just a sample:

"Because I have been foolish, my sores stink and rot.  I am bent over, I am crushed; I mourn all day long. I am burning with fever and I am near death. I am worn out and utterly crushed; my heart is troubled, and I groan with pain. O Lord, you know what I long for; you hear all my groans. My heart is pounding, my strength is gone, and my eyes have lost their brightness."

But then I got to the end, and the hope:

"But I trust in you, O Lord; and you, O Lord my God, will answer me . . . Do not abandon me, O Lord; do not stay away, my God! Help me now, O Lord my savior!"

You may wonder what brought that flood into my life. It was a cascading over time of many things of interrelated actions, relationships and personal shortcomings, within which my mind and heart could not realize a rest.  Sharing this with my wife, she suggested a good power walk along the nearby Buff Park. So I bundled up and marched down the sidewalk in the chilly early morning air.

I no time I was warmed up, unzipped my bomber jacket and my mind was clearing a bit. As I rounded the corner away from the Bluff, something had me turn around and cross Ocean Blvd onto the Bluff Park walkway – face into the breeze. And there it was. It stopped me cold.

There, next to the bluff railing, curled up into a disheveled lump, huddled under a blanket, was a shivering mass of human being. I don’t know if the shaking was from the cold or effects of drugs – or both, but my head suddenly cleared and froze right there seeing total helplessness. What was I doing embracing David’s groanings, when I’m looking at the stark reality of Psalm 38?  I prayed right there for that person and admonished myself, for beyond my cloud of worry and confusion are people in far worse condition.

May we reach through our clouds of emotional and mental concerns this day and be thankful for our lives and those with whom God has surrounded us. If you are alone, go to a shelter or church that is serving the poor and disadvantaged . . . your clouds will melt away as you share your life with another needy soul. 

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)

Lewis Finds Call at Mission (Sept 19, 2007 article)

Lewis finds call at Mission (from 5 years ago)
Press-Telegram  |  September 19, 2007 | Greg Mellen

LONG BEACH - When the Long Beach Rescue Mission celebrates its anniversary at a banquet Thursday, it will look back over 35 years of providing help to the city's homeless and destitute.

But there will be another anniversary of note. Jim Lewis will be wrapping up a jam-packed first year at the Long Beach Mission as president and CEO. Lewis admits that when he first agreed to come to Long Beach, after a successful run at the Coachella Valley Rescue Mission, he had his doubts and only agreed to work as a consultant. But Lewis says, "Once I was here, it was a done deal."

It took little time, Lewis says, for him to change his mind. "It was a very spiritual moment for me to understand I was needed here," Lewis says. "Working with the homeless is very difficult. You better know you're being called to it. I needed to know. It was a very personal and spiritual moment. It's not a job, it's a ministry."

Certainly Lewis doesn't have to look far to see the need. Through the heavy grating on his office window at 1335 Pacific Ave. and past the empty lot across the street, Lewis has a prime view of the notorious 14th Street Park and the group of homeless who congregate at its eastern end.

Once Lewis decided to take the plunge, it was head first. Consider: In just a year Lewis has spent $500,000 improving the facilities, including [termite] tenting the main building. Two days before the anniversary dinner, Lewis was meeting with contractors to discuss an impressive facade improvement plan for the main shelter and its satellite buildings. To make way for added programs, the Rescue Mission bought a new building for administrative offices. The staff has more than doubled, from 12 to 25 members.

The mission has added case management with most of its 160 shelter beds, meaning the homeless are guided to social services and helped through steps that can help them leave homelessness. This means they may stay longer, but hopefully will have a better chance of escaping the cycle of homelessness. "We try to create an exit strategy," Lewis said.

The shelter now serves more than 400 meals a day, up from about 250 a year ago. Oh, yeah, and he also agreed to run the winter emergency homeless shelter when no one else in town wanted anything to do with it. And he was able to make it through the winter without complaints from law enforcement or the community.

More important than those accomplishments, Lewis says has been connecting with the community. Or, rather, reconnecting. "He is a flash of lightning," says Maria Giesey, who heads up the rainy day winter shelter for the homeless. "He's gotten to know everyone in town."

Lewis says it's not just enough to provide services; the Rescue Mission has to respect the people in the greater community. To that end, Lewis banned the homeless from loitering around the building and expected them to be respectful of the residents. "I told (the homeless) if they want help, I need help from them," Lewis said. To allay local fears, Lewis also requires the homeless to arrive by van from the city's Multiservice Center for lunches and sign up for services.

He does not allow the homeless who congregate at 14th Street Park and refuse help to come to the mission. "We cannot survive next to a park or a middle school and not mitigate those issues," Lewis says. "If we don't mitigate those issues we are not a responsible neighbor." And yet, despite the restrictions, business continues to grow at the Rescue Mission.

"When he came things were in disarray," Giesey says. "People would say 'I'd rather freeze than go in there.' They didn't want to have to be saved for a cup of coffee." While religion remains central to the Rescue Mission, Lewis said his "guests" are not required to pray or attend chapel services. "We have to make this an attractive place to attend," Lewis says. (clarification: while chapel is voluntary, few choose not to attend. 90% of those surveyed annually prefer our faith-focused services)

In the coming months and years, among Lewis' visions is the ability to provide health clinic services, create transitional and affordable housing and better provide for the growing population of homeless women with children. To Lewis it's all about growth and evolution. "(Thirty-five years ago) we were known as soup kitchens," Lewis says. "The spectrum of services are different from 35 years ago and they'll be different 30 years from now. We need to change to best meet the needs of the homeless."

Greg Mellen Copyright Press-Telegram

Turnout is enabling

As a city resident and provider of services to the city's homeless population, I agree with discouraging drop-off services at Lincoln Park. (See LBPost article here) While there are sufficient meals and services located downtown and throughout the city -- every day -- there is an element of unintentional enabling to these drop-off services. This is a tough thing for any provider to state, but I feel we need to have enough courage to say it.

For some it will bring howls of a lack of compassion, or worse. But for those who fully understand the issues involved in homelessness, they know that effective AND compassionate service should be "reciprocal" and move people toward inter-dependency. Services that lack this focus tend to destroy pride and initiative. Our focus should be in developing the person, not merely aiding the temporary need.

The result of prohibiting drop-off services will be to assist those who are truly in need to go to where the services are provided -- where options for leaving the street will also be offered. Those providing the meals and supplies to the parks can then increase the capacity of those providing these services, thereby expanding the ability to fully serve those needing immediate assistance as well as those desiring to get off the street. This initiative, along with an anti-panhandling campaign will go far in changing the perception and landscape of the homeless persons in Long Beach. I welcome open and reasonable discussion on this matter.

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.

Mission Rescues West Coast Choppers Facility

JESSE JAMES’ WEST COAST CHOPPERS RIDES OUT OF TOWN AS LB RESCUE MISSION “HOGS” FORMER HEADQUARTERS

($2.140 Million Deal Means “Goodbye” To Icon & “Hello” To New Era For Mission)

While Long Beach has said “goodbye” to Jesse James’ West Coast Choppers there is a silver lining to the exit of the iconic custom motorcycle builder. The Long Beach Rescue Mission has purchased the largest of West Coast Choppers’ buildings at 702 West Anaheim Street for $2,140,000 and intends to use the 26,000-square-foot facility for staging and warehousing donated food, clothing and household goods for the Mission’s operations, and house inventory for its planned affiliated thrift shops.

According to Jim Lewis, president and CEO of the Long Beach Rescue Mission, the facility will also accommodate its expanding work therapy program. Lewis said that the purchase comes on the heels of the recent sale of the nonprofit’s Pine Avenue property that sold for $2,450,000. It is expected that the Long Beach Guidance Center, which provides counseling to youth and families, will occupy that space.

Commenting on the escrow process Lewis shared, “The last eight months has been a wild rollercoaster ride for both these contingent transactions, but we saw God’s hand in them coming together within one day of each other as designed.” Lewis added, “We’re delighted to make use of this large, upgraded facility so that we can better fulfill our mission of serving the homeless, and providing holistic rehabilitation, especially as needs have been increasing.”

Since 1972, the Long Beach Rescue Mission has served the city’s homeless population by providing emergency food, clothing, and shelter. The nonprofit is dedicated to helping individuals overcome the homeless cycle in a number of ways including offering spiritual guidance, substance abuse counseling, rehabilitation and job training through its New Life program, and temporary housing at Samaritan House for men and Lydia House for 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.

CHRISTIAN CHARITY: A Call for a Return to Missional Stewardship - Final

CHRISTIAN CHARITY: A Call for a Return to Missional Stewardship - Final

~ © by Rev. Jim Lewis 2012

SUMMARY

Many of the forms of charitable exercises, while they may have been fueled by authentic Christian concern, were performed outside of the life of the church. These efforts, when taken up by a caring public, lost any sense as being ministry of the church, and became known merely as doing one’s “christian duty,” and that of the community as a whole, and ultimately, the government’s. Separating this hospitality from the duty of the people of God leaves it lacking heart. Newbigin puts it directly,

Christian programs for justice and compassion are severed from their proper roots in the liturgical and sacramental life of the congregation, and so lose their character as signs of the presence of Christ and risk becoming mere crusades fueled by a moralism that can become self-righteous. In addition, the life of the worshipping congregation, severed from its proper expression in compassionate service to the secular community around it, risks becoming a self-centered existence serving only the needs and desires of its members. (Newbigin 1995:11)

In these later years, some churches began to see “services” to the homeless and needy as an integral part of the Christian mission of the church. Many christians now see the duty in proclaiming the gospel and acting with justice as part and parcel of that gospel.

As an active participant in missio Dei, the church must then fully understand that God wants us to be His “conduit” for ministry. Alcorn points out that God having made all things equal at the start would have precluded the people of God from their duty as His conduit to the poor and needy. (Alcorn 2003:86) We need to see ourselves as the channel for God’s gifts. In C.S. Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, as Aslan gifted Lucy with a healing cordial, he charged her: “If you or any of your friends is hurt, a few drops of this will restore them.” (Lewis 1978:109) As with Lucy’s gift, Abraham received a promise from God to be blessed, and he was also charged to be a blessing. (Gen 12:1-3)

What we need now is a people of God who recognizes its mission of being a provider of charity as an extension of God’s mission and not merely a duty we must perform. The dutiful giver accepts only the moral leadership of a Jesus (without divinity), whose service leads to a mere “social gospel”—as Rodin states, in doing “the Great Commandment at the expense of the Great Commission”. . . winding up working out their salvation, rather than demonstrating a living and holy Jesus to others. (Rodin 2000:68) A renewed theology of stewardship in the church can be developed through its “praxis” as it translates a reflection on the needs of the world and its duty to live out Christ to the world as stewards of all that He owns—for which it is responsible. Charles Van Engen says this praxis will lead us to comprehend how to move from “reflection” to “participation” as a steward . . . a “theology-on-the-way” to action; (quoting J. Verkuyl) “if study does not lead to participation . . . missiology has lost her humble calling.” (Engen:140-141) It is the role of the church to serve the community in which it finds itself—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. Even if we were to increase charitable giving exponentially, 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.” (Willard 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.” (Willard 1988:214)

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.” (Willard 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. (Beyer 1994:197) By becoming stewards of God’s love and compassion through charity, the church becomes a centripetal force in the world. Serving societal needs as part of the soteriological effort of the church is the greatest stewardship of all God’s resources, and becomes the attracting light the world seeks. In the words of Bernhard W. Anderson, “The nations are attracted to Zion, the spiritual center, because the teaching that goes forth from that source appeals to the deeper human longings for šālom (peace, welfare). Mission is at its best when it brings something to a people that respond to their deepest desire and quest.” (Okoye 2006:116)

As our mission statement at the Long Beach Rescue Mission outlines, we seek to improve the quality of life of the city’s homeless and needy through providing reconciliation: to God, to self, and to society. Without providing all three, our work is not complete. In order to provide the “full” gospel to those who walk through our doors—and the doors of innumerable ministries at home and worldwide—the people of God must become stewards 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. The people of God need to freely give of their resources with an open hand, because “the Lord needs it.” This is reason enough: when we give to the least, the last, and the lost . . . we give to our Lord and Savior.

References Cited

Alcorn, Randy. Money, Possessions and Eternity. Carol Stream: Tyndale, 2003.

Beyer, P. Religion and Globalization. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1994.

Bosch, David J. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll: Orbis, 2005.

Bosch, David. "Syllabus and Reader." for MT520 Biblical Foundations of Mission. Pasadena: Fuller Theological Seminary, Winter 2004.

Guinness, Os. Doing Well and Doing Good: Money, Giving and Caring in a Free Society. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2001.

Lewis, C.S. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. New York: Scholastic, 1978.

Moll, Rob. "Scrooge Lives! Why we're not putting more in the offering plate. And what we can do about it." Christianity Today. October 24, 2008. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/december/10.24.html (accessed August 22, 2009).

Montgomery, Helen Barrett. The Bible and Missions. Waco, TX: Baylor Press, 2009.

Newbigin, Lesslie. The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Nouwen, Henri. Reaching out: The Three Movements of the Spiritual Life. New York: Image Books, 1975.

Okoye, James. Israel and the Nations: A Mission Theology of the Old Testament. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2006.

Pohl, Christine D. Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a Christian Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Rodin, R. Scott. Stewards of the Kingdom: A Theology of Life in All its Fullness. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Stevens, R. Paul. The Other Six Days: Vocation, Work, and Ministry in Biblical Perspective. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Van Engen, Charles E., and Shawn B. Reford. "Syllabus and Reader." for MT520 Biblical Foundations of Mission. Pasadena: Fuller Theological Seminary, Winter 2004.

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

Wilmer, Wesley. God and Your Stuff: The Vital Link Between Your Possesions and Your Soul. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2002.

CHRISTIAN CHARITY: A Call for a Return to Missional Stewardship - Part 6

CHRISTIAN CHARITY: A Call for a Return to Missional Stewardship - Part 6

~ © by Rev. Jim Lewis 2012

IMPLICATIONS FOR MINISTRY

Missions continues to be considered by many as outside the local church’s concern—and it is delegated to para-church or missionary organizations. When this is the mindset, the internal role of the church primarily becomes salvation, while the role of dispensing “God’s justice” is often separated from—and outside of—the life of the church. Newbigin states that, “The effect of this is that each is robbed of its character by its separation from the other.” (Newbigin 1995:10) The church’s voice, and its role in ministry, must be designed in such a way that salvation and justice are inseparable as the mission of the church through a life of hospitality as stewards.

Hospitality as a means of ministry and an act of mission to the world is often seen as one of many programs of the church used to attract people. However, we must take care not to carry out our charitable acts in order to change others—this reduces hospitality to a tool, which, as Pohl warns, “we distort it, and the people we “welcome” know quickly that they are being used.” (Pohl 1999:145) Pohl continues her rebuke of this misuse of hospitality, sharing Henri Nouwen’s suggestion that it “is characteristic of our times,” and that our service to others will cause, “. . . suspicion that there is no one who cares and offers love without conditions, and no place where one can be vulverable without being used.” (1) The “self-centered existance” of this type of so-called ministry will cause those being served to deepen their distrust of the church and of the ministry that is being directed to them. (Newbigin 1995:11)

Historically, the ministry model of Rescue Missions (emergency services to the homeless) has been to use acts of kindness—emergency food, shelter, and clothing—to draw people in . . . in order to preach the Gospel to them. The program at most Missions requires everyone to first attend an evangelistic chapel service; the homeless must have a chance to respond to the Gospel before receiving services. Sometimes the homeless do not know if a bed is available until the after these services are provided—often leaving them few options for other accommodations for the night. The service one receives tends to become the reward for attending the chapel service. I see this order of events as violating the trust of our guests.

At both Missions I have served, heeding the warning of Pohl and Nouwen, we reversed the order of events and provide all the physical needs before the chapel service. This change ensures that even if the recipient decides to leave before chapel, we have met their basic needs as a Good Samaritan. We feel that even the extension of hospitality itself (as if to Christ) is sharing the message of the Gospel, and we can allow the Holy Spirit to draw and minister as He sees fit.

I believe the focus of our service must come solely from a desire to live out Jesus in view of those we serve. If this is our model, the gift of charitable hospitality will not be directed simply as “social service,” but an extension of the giver’s own relationship with Christ; and in response to Nouwen’s warning, we will not “use” those we serve.

That model notwithstanding, it is my experience leading two Rescue Missions, that exercising hospitality without some expectation of responsibility on the part of the recipient can quickly become enabling; the ministry will, unfortunately, be reduced to mere “social service.” Often, we see our guests responding to the level of expectation we have for them; not in a manner that we force people to respond to our hospitality, but they recognize our underlining purpose is creating an environment of community in which they can feel safe and receive healing. Pohl provides a critical connection between hospitality provided in Christian communities and the response to it:

Hospitality . . . demonstrates that important healing takes place within community. Reclaiming hospitality is an attempt to bring back the relational dimension to social service, and to highlight concern for empowerment and partnership with those who need assistance.” (Pohl 1999:162)

As the church becomes that community, it will learn that stewardship of its hospitality is not merely a matter of distributing resources but the actual life-practice of the church and its members. We need to learn about being a steward before exercising stewardship; the attitude and lifestyle will become one.

(1) Henri Nouwen, Reaching Out: The Three Movements of the Spiritual Life (New York: Image Books, 1975), 26.

CHRISTIAN CHARITY: A Call for a Return to Missional Stewardship - Part 5

CHRISTIAN CHARITY: A Call for a Return to Missional Stewardship - Part 5

~ © by Rev. Jim Lewis 2012

BIBLICAL FOUNDATION FOR CHARITY

NEW TESTAMENT SUPPORT

The church age brings an increased intensity to be responsive to the need of others, as to Christ himself. Contributions to meet needs of those in the church was the expected norm. Montgomery states, “Collections for the poor saints is part of the gospel work itself (2009:73)

Being thoroughly versed in the Law and the Prophets, and aided by Christ’s example, the church responded more than was required of them; the apostle Paul reported that without being asked they pleaded for the opportunity to sacrificially serve their fellow believers in distress:

Now, friends, I want to report on the surprising and generous ways in which God is working in the churches in Macedonia province. Fierce troubles came down on the people of those churches, pushing them to the very limit. The trial exposed their true colors: They were incredibly happy, though desperately poor. The pressure triggered something totally unexpected: an outpouring of pure and generous gifts. I was there and saw it for myself. They gave offerings of whatever they could—far more than they could afford!—pleading for the privilege of helping out in the relief of poor Christians. (2 Cor 8:1-5 The Message)

In Stewards of the Kingdom, Dr. Scott Rodin comments that this is kingdom ethics in the most radical form: even as they experienced severe trial and extreme poverty, they responded with rich generosity; even pleading to be allowed the privilege of giving. These are marks of the kingdom of God at work through missional stewardship. (Rodin 2000:211)

To those who refuse to see the duty of stewardship giving, an ominous warning comes from Christ as he provides a glimpse of the final judgment and the parameters by which the world is judged:

Then he will turn to the goats, the ones on his left, and say, ‘Get out, worthless goats! You're good for nothing but the fires of hell. And why? Because, I was hungry and you gave me no meal, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was homeless and you gave me no bed, I was shivering and you gave me no clothes, Sick and in prison, and you never visited.’ (Mat 25:41)

Although there for anyone who needs the impetus, the church by no means should rely on this passage as their motivation for giving; but if that is what is needed, so be it. An example of an appropriate missonal stewardship response to an observed need is a much overlooked passage, Luke 19:34; when questioned why his colt was being led away, the only motivation the owner needed were the words, “the Lord has need of it.” As in this text, our grip should be held as lightly as his when our most prized possessions are being requested for His use.

Here in the New Testament we are not just charged with being charitable, but instructed in our stewardship of our possessions as treasures. We are not to “lay them up” here on earth, but in heaven . . . this is indicative of in which kingdom our treasure is being stored. (Mat 6:19-21) This text also hints of rewards, as does Hebrews 11:6; correlated with faithfully following God’s direction in faith, we are to please Him rather than man (or ourselves by the accolades we receive through our giving)—versus “having our reward in full.” (Mat 6:16) Here, as in Matthew 19:28-29, rewards motivate one’s unselfish living. Although scripture definitely speaks openly and favorably of rewards, it does not relate that this is the best reason to serve Christ and others. While the awareness of the rewards of service cannot be minimized, the true rewards we should seek are eternal—which provide resources in the Kingdom of God, here and in the hereafter.

CHRISTIAN CHARITY: A Call for a Return to Missional Stewardship - Part 4

CHRISTIAN CHARITY: A Call for a Return to Missional Stewardship - Part 4

~ © by Rev. Jim Lewis 2012

BIBLICAL FOUNDATION FOR Charity

Historic example, although extensive, is not sufficient on which to support a challenge for the people of God to rise up and meet the increasing need for services and ministry to the world’s homeless and needy. Thus, we turn to the Scriptures to solidify our cause.

OLD TESTAMENT SUPPORT

The poor have always figured prominently in God’s economy as a measure of His love and grace being proclaimed and distributed through the nation of Israel. It is obvious throughout Israel’s history that they were, as a people, to demonstrate special care for others—inside and outside the nation. These charges are scattered throughout the Old Testament and are detailed in the Law and through the Prophets, especially when addressing failure on the part of the nation. There is ample detail for the stewardship that was to be exercised; Both Leviticus 25 and Deuteronomy 15 include directives for the nation to be stewards of the land and resources, allowing a present and future prosperity for their benefit and that of the poor . . .

. . . you are to sustain him as a stranger or sojourner, that he may live with you . . . there will be no poor among you . . . For the poor will never cease to be in the land; therefore I command you: You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor . . .”

Knowing these divine directives, Job even used his philanthropy as a defense to his accusers:

No, from childhood I have cared for orphans like a father, and all my life I have cared for widows. Whenever I saw the homeless without clothes and the needy with nothing to wear, did they not praise me for providing wool clothing to keep them warm? (Job 31:18-20 NLT)

Helen Montgomery, in The Bible and Missions, examines the social passion that is addressed by the prophets: “[they] thundered for the poor in messages that are today’s tracts for the times.” (Montgomery 2009:20) Many texts speak of the severe discipline of God for certain heinous sin, but the evidence is clear that it included those who failed to extend their hand to those in need:

“As I live,” declares the Lord GOD, “Sodom, your sister and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy.” (Ez 16:48-49)

Isaiah also levels a charge against those who fasted in Israel due to their failure in this regard:

“[This is] the fast which I chose . . . divide your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into the house; when you see the naked, to cover him . . . then you will call, and the Lord will answer . . .” (Is 58:7)

This message of outreach to the poor is also found throughout the book of Amos, the eighth-century prophet, who preached to the ruling elite of Samaria a message of judgment because of their social injustice, charging “the oppression of the poor in Israel as crimes of violence as if at war.” (Okoye 2006:74, 86) Failure to respond to the needy in our midst brings a heavy charge of robbery from God against those who ignore giving through tithes and contributions. (Mal 3:7-12)

Moreover, the same message continues into the church age.

Is salvation our sole focus?

Given Rescue Mission ministry and services are rooted in biblical foundations, what can we change? I believe rather than directing our attention solely on salvation outcomes, the focus of our service must become more relational and come from a desire to live out Jesus in view of those we serve. If we enact a relational model, our gift of hospitality will not be directed simply as social service, but an extension of our own relationship with Christ, and thus we will empower those whom we serve ― not treat them as clients or recipients (2003, 108).

One of my staff stated it succinctly, "Are we reflecting the love of God when we make someone an object of our charity?"

From my 2011 paper: MD524-Advocacy for Social Justice: Reclaiming Missional Service with a View of Rescue Missions

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

CHRISTIAN CHARITY: A Call for a Return to Missional Stewardship - PART 3

CHRISTIAN CHARITY: A Call for a Return to Missional Stewardship - PART 3

~ © by Rev. Jim Lewis 2012

MISSIONAL STEWARDSHIP THROUGH CHARITY

—Mission and CHARITY in society

Mission was understood to be the “verbal proclamation” of an eternity to come; the related social, political implications were not seen as critical to that message, but secondary. (Bosch 2004:124) In recent decades there has been a growing recognition of mission and charitable efforts as being God’s mission, not ours. Karl Barth (who presented mission as the activity of God) and Karl Hartenstein (who conceptualized missio Dei) broke from Enlightenment theology with this new paradigm of mission. Various mission conferences later presented this terminology and the focus of mission became the work of God rather than the work of man; mission became defined as an activity of God. Both men were desirous to confine mission to God, thus preventing it from “being secularized and horizontalized.” (Okoye 2006:18) Consequently, missions, as an activity of the church, became defined as the “participation” in the sending of God. Okoye further states:

If the church’s mission merely participates in and serves God’s mission, which enfolds all people and all dimensions of existence, then it cannot be limited to church-centered goals like planting churches and saving souls. It must equally be as directed toward the full well-being of humanity and the cosmos as the missio Dei itself. (Okoye 2006:18)

This new understanding led to the development of missional community development.

History is replete with stories of missionaries whose sole purpose was to preach the gospel. In The Open Secret, Lesslie Newbigin discusses missionaries whose goal is “to be pure evangelists uninvolved in all the business of “social service.” However, the common sense of the gospel message defies such limited view. (Newbigin 1995:91) The obvious societal, health, and educational needs of those being reached with the gospel spawned countless service organizations across the globe. In response to these efforts there was much discussion in the church questioning the validity of these activities as being intregal to missions. These activities were defended in missions conferences, such as the Lindsey Commission Report of 1931, which focused on educational minsitry in India. (Newbigin 1995:92)

Colonialism in what was termed “undeveloped” nations fueled much of the perceptions of ministry and public services to nationals under the authority of the ruling government and related missionary efforts. These efforts, usually involving hospitals and schools, were continued in the same fashion long after the reduction of colonialism through so-called “technical assistance” and “development.” (Newbigin 1995:93) This would continue until the growth of “self liberation” through “conscientization” was develped by Brazilian educator Paulo Freire, who believed “all education is either for domination or liberation.” (Newbigin 1995:94) As colonialism declined, so did the foreign economic support for this assistance to nationals. Similarly, while our overseas missions were currently promoting the “three-self” church model, home missions did not address how to make their own poor self-supporting. In both mission environments, this methodology of promoting self-support created an enablement of the status quo and the lack of supportive services. Additionally, the focus on services that lacked an overt spiritual dimension led many evangelicals to withdraw their involvement and financial support. There was an obvious need to address both vertical and horizontal dimensions in missions and in overall Christian charity.

What Lesslie Newbigin had proposed as “distinguishing the missionary dimension of the church from her missionary intention” was later picked up by the 1984 Pontifical Council which expanded the mission of the church to include “. . . commitment to social development and human liberation . . .” (Okoye 2006:20-21) However, it is important to note that the growing swing in missions solely toward a social component of an increasingly materialistic gospel had its opposition. Visser ’t Hooft, speaking to the Uppsala Assembly, decried either extreme:

A Christianity which has lost its vertical dimension has lost its salt and is not only insipid in itself, but useless to the world. But a Christian which would use the vertical preoccupation as a means to escape its responsibility for and in the common life of man is in denial of the incarnation.” (Bosch 2005:408)

Combined with the growing centralistic philosophy in missions and in the church of general welfare and charity, the modern church is left to sort out this dichotomy through developing a holistic Biblical model of mission and charity that has its source in missio Dei.

CHRISTIAN CHARITY: A Call for a Return to Missional Stewardship - Part 2

CHRISTIAN CHARITY: A Call for a Return to Missional Stewardship - Part 2

~ © by Rev. Jim Lewis 2012

Missional Stewardship THROUGH Charity

—A BRIEF HISTORY OF Christian Charity

Following the pattern of Old Testament directives to Israel with regard to hospitality toward strangers, examples of New Testament charity focused primarily upon hospitality within the church, such as the Apostle Paul directing the believers to “welcome one another” as was modeled by Christ. (Romans 15:7) On the surface, it would seem there is little evidence of direction to the church toward charitable outreach to the world beyond the Great Commission and making disciples—which may have been the lack of impetus for outreach beyond basic evangelism. However, throughout history, the people of God have involved themselves in numerous forms of charity and hospitality toward others.

In the majority of New Testament texts, hospitality refers to serving other believers in need of assistance. In some texts it is not clear if there is a distinguishing between serving believers and those in the community, although it seems clear that a believer’s responsibility was outward as well. (Gal 6:10; 1 Thes 3:12) In her book Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a Christian Tradition, Christine Pohl quotes the Emperor Julian (a.d. 362), who provides evidence of an external ministry of Christian charity, and who directs those of his own religion to “imitate Christian concern for strangers.” (Pohl 1999:44)

For it is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg, and the impious [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. (1)

Reformation brought a rebirth of charity and hospitality, as it once again began to be seen as a response to a moral or ethical “duty” to share one’s increase with those less fortunate. John Calvin commented upon what he saw as the “demise of ancient hospitality,” (Pohl 1999:36)

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 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. (3)

Subsequent to Christianity becoming the accepted religion of Constantine’s empire, “government” resources began to support public assistance as well the church. Care for the needy developed into what is now considered “public service” or “general welfare.” It was during this period that these services became institutionalized and specialized as “social service.” What had been considered personal hospitality in the early church 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 them to make a place for the needy in their homes to serve “the maimed, the beggars, and the homeless.” (2) (Pohl 1999:45)

Similarly, the Second Great Awakening changed how missions and charity were viewed in various movements of the day. Differing paths either separated or combined secular and spiritual interests. In Transforming Mission, David Bosch explains these divergent views: “The Wesleyan revival also meant that secular and spiritual interests had parted company; Methodists were concentrating on the salvation of souls. Societal change was viewed as a result rather than an accompaniment of soul-saving.” (Bosch 2005:278) Bosch points out that many Evangelicals were becoming quite involved in aggressive advocacy for societal change as part of faith (e.g. Wilberforce and Carey):

At the same time these evangelicals had no doubt that soteriological emphasis had to take precedence, that they were not proclaiming mere temporal improvement of conditions, but new life in the fullest sense of the word.” . . . “by the end of the nineteenth century the rift between the conservative (or fundamentalists) mission advocates on one hand and liberals (or social gospelers) on the other was becoming even wider.” (Bosch 2005:281, 297)

We then see a shift within some mission movements from evangelism to social concern, which indicates the change in the interest from individual to society. “The new secular social disciplines revealed that each individual was profoundly influenced and shaped by her or his environment and that it made little sense to attempt to change individuals yet leave their context untouched.” (Bosch 2005:323) Along with this shift came a change in environmental concerns within society as it moved away from agrarian (familial) to an urban (corporate) society, as land ownership became coalesced by a few, exploitation of workers, and a growing need for welfare for the growing urban poor. James Okoye explains in Israel and the Nations, “The traditional kinship values that ensured the welfare of the poor were under pressure from the market economy.” (Okoye 2006:74) An industrial economy would change the landscape of charity; charity and social services would move towards centralization and federalization supported through taxation of the general public.

Although the industrial age has been considered a major contributor to poverty, and thus, an increase in the need for charity, a number of industrialists such as Henry Ford and Andrew Carnegie considered it their responsibility to address these concerns. Ford made new inroads to the hiring, treatment and accommodation of those in need—or charity, as it was viewed in that day. He created factory jobs specifically for the disabled so that they could make a living wage. Ford’s view of poverty was to “fix the train tracks first” and then help people help themselves. (Guinness 2001:232) Andrew Carnegie believed it wrong to die rich, and purposed to live within a set means and endeavored to give away the balance of his income. Both men are considered founders of the modern philanthropic movement. From this point we see a growing philosophy for a corporate, or central, responsibility for society rather than the local community or the church. General welfare, once supplied via the church, is now seen as the duty of agencies, corporations, and governments—and funded primarily through taxation.

1. The Works of the Emperor Julian, LCL, vol. 3, pp. 67-71.
2. Chrysostom, Homily 45 on Acts, NPNF1, vol. 11, p. 277.
3. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 340.

CHRISTIAN CHARITY: A Call for a Return to Missional Stewardship

An article on tithing by Bruce Nolan of Religiom News Service brought to mind a paper I wrote on Christian Charity. As I have posted a series of blogs previously from another paper, I think this is a timely subject on which to post a series. I am open to comments and dialogue. (note: some of the statistics may be a bit dated, as this research is several years old)

CHRISTIAN CHARITY: A Call for a Return to Missional Stewardship - Part 1

~ © by Rev. Jim Lewis 2012

INTRODUCTION
MISSIONAL STEWARDSHIP THROUGH CHARITY
--A BRIEF HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY
--MISSION AND CHARITY IN SOCIETY
BIBLICAL FOUNDATION FOR CHARITY1
--OLD TESTAMENT SUPPORT
--NEW TESTAMENT SUPPORT
IMPLICATIONS FOR MINISTRY
SUMMARY
REFERENCES CITED

INTRODUCTION

It is a simple task to gauge a person’s understanding of stewardship by studying their charitable giving, or lack thereof. Christians have been known for generosity since the New Testament; from collecting for fellow believers’ needs to serving the church through their own homes. Throughout the ages this sharing of one’s property, possessions, and income has taken various forms, depending upon the culture, societal conditions, personal ability, felt or communicated need, and the prevailing understanding of charity. Scripture provides a record of the giving of the Israelites and the church, and the impetus for sharing with others—family, neighbors, or visitors—within one’s sphere of influence. From whatever denomination, most Christians will agree the Bible provides an unmistakable model of, and rewards for, giving of one’s resources.

With such sufficient encouragement, and ample evidence for a scriptural basis to share one’s resources with others, one would think that the external environment in which people find themselves would not necessarily be a factor in their giving. Unfortunately, we find that to be untrue in this day of a faltering economy. Given recent research, we see overwhelming evidence that the church has lost its obligatory teaching of stewardship and giving.

The people of God alone, following even a limited scriptural model of giving, could create a stimulus package of their own, wiping out the worst world poverty by just giving an average of ten percent. In his book God and Your Stuff, Wesley Willmer details the recent giving statistics of Christians. Although Christians out-give the general population by four times, their giving leaves a lot to be desired, as average giving of income is well below ten percent. Roman Catholics’ average 1.5 percent of income; Protestants 2.8; and Evangelicals 4.8. (Wilmer 2002:143) However, even with a church that gives more than the general public, the statistics point to a disappointing decline in overall giving by Christians. In Money, Possessions, and Eternity, Randy Alcorn shares 2001 results from Barna Research that reveals significant trends in giving:

• A 19 percent drop in per capita donations to churches
• Among adults calling themselves “born-again,” there was a 44 percent increase in those who gave nothing
• The number of donors to nonprofits or churches declined by 7 percent

Barna Research also reveals that not only does giving decrease as income increases, but that those making less generally give the highest percentage of their income. (Alcorn 2003:180) Likewise, in a new study on Christian giving, Passing the Plate, sociologists Christian Smith, Michael Emerson, and Patricia Snell expose even more disappointing facts:

Americans who earn less than $10,000 gave 2.3 percent of their income to religious organizations, whereas those who earn $70,000 or more gave only 1.2 percent. While the actual percentages are slightly higher for Christians who regularly attend church, the pattern is similar. Households of committed Christians making less than $12,500 per year give away roughly 7 percent of their income, a figure no other income bracket beats until incomes rise above $90,000 (they give away 8.8 percent). (Moll 2008)

The reasons given are: more people living on fixed incomes; they are following the example of the church’s external giving; they are not being asked to give; and they give from their wallets rather than from their paychecks—congregants simply do not plan to give in a premeditated manner. Alcorn’s commentary rings true here, “What we do with our possessions is a sure indicator of what’s in our hearts.” (Alcorn 2003:101)

In declining economies such as we now find ourselves, individuals and families are historically at risk of losing employment and housing, and, for some, even becoming homeless. In this situation the normative and logical reaction is to pull back from charitable giving—limiting our financial stewardship in these areas, and lessening our missional impact to the world. However, I believe the U.S. church needs to reassess their understanding of missional stewardship with relationship to providing charity to the homeless and needy.

Scripture is replete with directives to serve the homeless and needy, and therefore, ministry to homeless and needy can be seen as God’s mission for the people of God. It is logical to assume that ministry to the homeless can be a quantitative measure of missional stewardship within the U.S. church. How a church deals with the weakest members of their own community is now, more than ever, indicative of their understanding of mission.

To facilitate a foundation for this challenge we will discuss—albeit briefly—historical, missional, and biblical support for considering the necessity of the church to reassess its understanding of stewardship and involvement in charitable service. As an introduction, a healthy understanding of charitable giving and how God views the poor is in order. In The Other Six Days, R. Paul Stevens discusses the need for a theology of good works: what orthodoxy is to doctrine and orthopraxy is to works, orthopathy is to having a passion for God’s heart . . . “to care for what God cares for.” (Stevens 1999:251) As the people of God develop a true theology of giving through understanding God’s heart, they will accept what the fourth century church father, John Chrysostom argued, that “the rich are not owners of their wealth but stewards for the poor.” (Stevens 1999:252) He also admonishes the church “that ministering to the poor simultaneously heals the hearts of the rich and nourishes Jesus,” agreeing with Matthew 25:40. Who better to educate our hearts on love and compassion than our neighbor?

In the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:29-37) we find an expanded version of who Christ considers our neighbor: anyone in need to whom we can provide hospitality . . . and thus, we express our love for God through our actions of grace, as we serve—not merely the neighbor—but God. This truth gives impetus to the church to have a passion for stepping beyond its comfort and into service. In Doing Well and Doing Good, Os Guinness contrasts those who would serve comfortably from within their own communities, and those who step boldly into the uncomfortable. There is a distinct difference between philanthropy and charity; “to be a “soup-kitchener” and cross the social lines to care for the poor and needy is a costly decision that requires moral initiative.” (Guinness 2001:221) It is this initiative that I would like to discuss.

Noble Development vs. Toxic Charity

Food coops that donate to needy individuals who are not personally involved in the process can deter from the long-term goal of self-sustaining development. To be more effectively developmental charitable coops should invite underprivileged families to come and be involved in the process from scratch . . . Thereby cultivating their pride as well as their sustenance. They could then sell or trade the excess in a farmers market to buy other needed food items -- or donate to a shelter that provides for emergency shelter and meals. To do so for people beyond their emergency need unfortunately turns the noble effort into "Toxic Charity".

http://fcsministries.org/books/toxic-charity/

"Churches and charities have fallen into the bad habit of creating programs to help the poor when in reality the only people they are helping are themselves, creating a toxic charity that needs to be reexamined and fixed. In this groundbreaking book, Lupton shows how good-intentioned people are actually hurting the very people they’re trying to help. The poor end up feeling judged, looked down upon, only worthy of charity and handouts that end up making them more dependent instead of learning skills to help themselves. Churches and charitable organizations, though good-intentioned, have missed the mark when it comes to serving the poor, creating a toxic form of charity. Lupton says that a better system would be to treat the poor as business partners, empowering them to start businesses, build houses, plan communities, etc. He offers specific organizations as examples of this healthier model of charity and gives practical ideas for how to get involved in service projects that truly help. Together, we can serve our world in a way that actually effects life-altering change."

Reclaiming Missional Service with a View of Rescue Missions - Final

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 - Final & Works Cited
~ © by Rev. Jim Lewis

Incarnational Effort

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 the community through assimilating culture and context takes time and effort, which is necessary in order to build a missional bridge of any permanence. 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 (2009).

In keeping with our Core Purposes, a new effort of Long Beach Rescue Mission will include communicating more fully the needs around us, the missional responsibilities of our local congregations, and the available programs in which they may participate. A corresponding effort will be made with other service providers, assisting in the reduction of duplication of services and identification of the appropriate methodologies of program outreach. Christians must begin to see that the return on their investments will be realized eternally as well in the present, as they see the changed lives of men, women, and children that are impacted by their stewardship – and the grave loss from not investing in the effort (2002, 295).

Missional Implications

The result of this study will lead me to facilitate our Senior Leadership’s examination of our guiding documents and establish whether or not LBRM is indeed contributing fully as part of the Christian Church in an effort to share the love and grace of Christ through its ministry. As I believe that we are not alone in the community—of the city and of our faith—I feel that this evaluation needs to be two-fold. We draw both church and community to us as a resource for, and preparation to mission . . . and we reach out into the community to serve homeless men, women, and children. This is a picture of incarnational ministry as we provide both justice and salvation – intertwined in a manner that they cannot be separated; one is dependent on the other. As several authors through my work at Fuller have spoken about the interaction of faith and social justice, I continue to struggle with aspects of each—faith and justice—and how they work together and/or balance each other.

There are distinct implications for my ministry, as my staff and I spend much time considering how our services and programs fit in the context of our current culture. The manner in which we communicate and present ourselves as the church to our clients, and to the churches for which we provide resources, is critical to our mission and success. Our ministry to homeless people and those in need are, to us, the community to which God has directed us to serve. How we perform these services in the context of the wider community indicates to that community who and what the Church is. This work has made me consider more deeply the sociological, historical, and political conditions in which the Church—and our ministry—must be the visible expression of God to the world.
 
REFERENCES CITED
Bosch, David J. 2005. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll: Orbis.

Drane, John. 2008. After McDonaldization: Mission, Ministry, and Christian Discipleship in an Age of Uncertainty. Grand Rapids: Baker.

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

Guinness, Os. 2001. Doing Well and Doing Good: Money, Giving and Caring in a Free Society. Colorado Springs: NavPress.

Kleist, Patti. 1998. "Saving Grace: A History of Long Beach Rescue Mission". College Paper, Rescue College, Kansas City: AGRM.

Lewis, James K. 2009. "Christian Charity: A Call for a Return to Missional Stewardship." Course Final, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena.

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

Lupton, Robert. 2007. Compassion, Justice and the Christian Life: Rethinking Ministry to the Poor. Ventura: Regal.

Okoye, James. 2006a. Israel and the Nations: A Mission Theology of the Old Testament. Maryknoll: Orbis Books.

Paul, William E. 1946. The Romance of Rescue. Minneapolis: Osterhus.

Pohl, Christine D. 1999a. Making Room: Recovering Hospitality as a Christian Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

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.

Stevens, R. Paul. 1999b. The Other Six Days: Vocation, Work, and Ministry in Biblical Perspective. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Appendix A
Invisible Neighbors

Plan: Develop relationships with local churches to facilitate their hosting a six-week Sunday School lesson utilizing this curriculum

Purpose: To initiate discussion on the Church’s role in hospitality, and provide resources for them to reach-out into their local area and the urban center

SESSION 1: Who is my neighbor?
“Hey, we’re neighbors!” An unusual encounter with a homeless man that changes everything A culture of “cocoons” and “clans” The impact the loss of social capital now has on our every-day lives The Samaritan saga A fresh, in-depth look at one of Jesus’ often-repeated parables

SESSION 2: Nations of neighbors in need
Concerning statistics Facts and figures regarding our most heart-wrenching social issues “This is my story” Getting acquainted with two very typical invisible neighbors The next ten years What the days ahead might hold if things continue as they are

SESSION 3: The question of responsibility
The government’s burden? The very complicated role of government in caring for the poor The church’s responsibility? Why the church of Jesus Christ is not as involved as it should be Under the Overpass Two transients tell of their experiences with Christians on the streets

SESSION 4: Love your neighbor as yourself
A biblical perspective on the poor What scripture says about the poor and the obligation of believers Jesus and the Year of Jubilee How the Son of God brings back to life a forgotten Jewish custom The Matthew 25 upshot The meaning and ramifications of a popular passage on kindness

SESSION 5: Embracing radical hospitality
The New Testament model What biblical hospitality really means and how one patriarch lived it Community, then houses The right priority for addressing homelessness from a faith perspective Christ, then programs Why the Gospel needs to come before enrollment in social programs

SESSION 6: Missions to the rescue
A perfect place to start What rescue missions have stood for and what they continue to do Your invitation for involvement Ways you can serve a rescue mission and what it will do for you Don’t forget the words A final word on communicating the life changing truth of Jesus

Ashmen, John. 2011. Invisible Neighbors: If You Don't See Them, You Aren't Looking. San Clemente: Cross Section. http://www.agrm.org/agrm/Invisible_Neighbors.asp