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
~ © by Rev. Jim Lewis
* in this blog post:
*Introduction
*A Call to Missional Service
Historical Christian Service
Beginnings of Rescue Missions
A Brief History of Long Beach Rescue Mission
Examination of Change
Conclusions
New Missional Challenges
Incarnational Effort
Missional Implications
Introduction
The dramatic shifts we see in this generation—especially in our current economic climate, coupled with the unsuccessful reduction of poverty—demand the Church in the U.S. seek a new paradigm for urban ministry and community development. Current methodologies of Christian service and a plethora of government programs have been unsuccessful at stemming the tide of poverty and homelessness. The past few decades brought large investments of public funds and energies to bear in the effort to solve these issues. We have also seen numerous changes in how churches and ministries have adapted their programs and resources in light of those investments – either collaboratively or independently.
In this discussion I will examine briefly ministry to the poor through private and public social services since the story of the Good Samaritan, and the changes in theology, culture, philosophies, and polity that have affected how churches in the U.S. responded to needs over time. In light of these changes, proposed holistic strategies for “reciprocal” and “interdependent” development will be discussed with a view of the programs and outreach to the homeless through Rescue Missions, and particularly that of Long Beach Rescue Mission (LBRM).
A Call to Missional Service
As Scripture is replete with directives to serve those in need (exceeding 300), we see that ministry to the homeless and disadvantaged is presented as God’s mission for the people of God. It may then be logical to assume that ministry to the homeless can be a quantitative measure of missional stewardship within the 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 scriptural and historical support for the church to reassess its understanding of a missional involvement in the community through charitable service.
As an introduction, a healthy understanding of charity 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 (1999b, 251). As the people of God develop a true theology of serving through understanding God’s heart they will accept the admonishment of the fourth century church father, John Chrysostom, “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 in Luke 10:29-37 we find 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 the church impetus to be passionate for stepping beyond its comfort zone and into service. In Doing Well and Doing Good, Os Guinness contrasts those who would serve comfortably from within their own communities, and others who step boldly into the uncomfortable. There is a distinct difference between philanthropy and missional charity; to go from being a “soup-kitchener” to crossing the social lines to care for the poor and needy is a costly decision that requires moral initiative (2001, 221). It is this initiative of extending ourselves beyond the church and our culture that I would like to discuss.
Showing posts with label nimby. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nimby. Show all posts
Monday, October 10, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
An Open Challenge to Long Beach
The unbridled passion for the homeless shown by Andy Bales, CEO of Union Rescue Mission is rubbing off on me. I almost had to pull over this morning during my drive to the office as tears welled up when I got the report yet again of the low number who chose to stay in the Winter Shelter. My wipers were set on fast intermittent, so it was not just a drizzle into which a hundred or so people decided to venture. This issue has angered me, frustrated me, disappointed me . . . and now saddens me.
I am convinced that for most people a well-run shelter is the initial
tool through which successful assistance can lead to a life off the street – and keep people from becoming a chronic homeless statistic. Much effort goes into acquiring, preparing, staffing, and funding a shelter for the few months of potential inclement weather of our winter season. Wind and chilly temperatures transform mere rain in our usually moderate Southern California climate into hypothermic conditions that can kill elderly, ill, and weakened homeless persons on the street.
My staff and I recently wept over the senseless loss of a chronic homeless man in our neighborhood when he was found stabbed in a nearby alley in plain view of the front doors of our Samaritan House. We work closely with police and city staff to assist our citizens toward a life off the street; so it is difficult when people ignore the help that is offered . . . and sometimes pay a steep price. Of course, then the reality hits home – that even our current available beds are insufficient if we were to see an increase in the acceptance of our offer of help – we are now always full. The courts have ruled that cities can’t deal with vagrancy issues unless it has available beds; so what are we to do?
This past year, our successful long-term program took 20 beds from our emergency overnight dorms to accommodate the demand. There’s no replacement of those beds in the near future. The consolation is that the graduates of this program are seeing unprecedented success in becoming changed men and women and returning to society. However, does that offset the negative aspect of losing beds in our city’s continuum of care? To deal with this issue will require public and political will to accept the need and allow appropriate facilities to be acquired and responsibly run. We think we have earned the right to do just that.
The respect we’ve earned in the community by running good winter shelter programs as well as successfully mitigating issues around our current year-round shelters at Pacific and Anaheim is revealing. Last year, WESTPAC Community leaders even went as far as to vote to invite LBRM to locate the Winter Shelter in that district. Much to my surprise, our moving the Winter Shelter to North Long Beach has been met with that same unprecedented unanimous welcome by the neighborhood associations.
But the question remains to be answered . . . will they really come if you build it? As we have seen in the failure of a Winter Shelter to keep people in during the longest and heaviest downpour in Long Beach, they won’t necessarily come if you do build it (as many swear will happen). But what will happen is the newly homeless person or family will have a place to come in from the elements instead of finding themselves on the street, and thereby lessening the chances of another chronic statistic that gets counted every other year to decide how much to fund the services they may not even use until it’s too late . . . and our hospitals or coroner takes over.
My challenge to you and the community is to accept that there is a need, and to accept our responsibility to act in the best interests of the weakest members of our society . . . whether their situation came through bad choices – or through no fault of their own. It is our job to reach out and offer a long-term hand up, not merely a temporary hand out. The Long Beach Rescue Mission and I are here to help when you decide that time enough has passed in which to make a difference by helping the homeless, and changing lives.
I am convinced that for most people a well-run shelter is the initial
tool through which successful assistance can lead to a life off the street – and keep people from becoming a chronic homeless statistic. Much effort goes into acquiring, preparing, staffing, and funding a shelter for the few months of potential inclement weather of our winter season. Wind and chilly temperatures transform mere rain in our usually moderate Southern California climate into hypothermic conditions that can kill elderly, ill, and weakened homeless persons on the street.My staff and I recently wept over the senseless loss of a chronic homeless man in our neighborhood when he was found stabbed in a nearby alley in plain view of the front doors of our Samaritan House. We work closely with police and city staff to assist our citizens toward a life off the street; so it is difficult when people ignore the help that is offered . . . and sometimes pay a steep price. Of course, then the reality hits home – that even our current available beds are insufficient if we were to see an increase in the acceptance of our offer of help – we are now always full. The courts have ruled that cities can’t deal with vagrancy issues unless it has available beds; so what are we to do?
This past year, our successful long-term program took 20 beds from our emergency overnight dorms to accommodate the demand. There’s no replacement of those beds in the near future. The consolation is that the graduates of this program are seeing unprecedented success in becoming changed men and women and returning to society. However, does that offset the negative aspect of losing beds in our city’s continuum of care? To deal with this issue will require public and political will to accept the need and allow appropriate facilities to be acquired and responsibly run. We think we have earned the right to do just that.
The respect we’ve earned in the community by running good winter shelter programs as well as successfully mitigating issues around our current year-round shelters at Pacific and Anaheim is revealing. Last year, WESTPAC Community leaders even went as far as to vote to invite LBRM to locate the Winter Shelter in that district. Much to my surprise, our moving the Winter Shelter to North Long Beach has been met with that same unprecedented unanimous welcome by the neighborhood associations.
But the question remains to be answered . . . will they really come if you build it? As we have seen in the failure of a Winter Shelter to keep people in during the longest and heaviest downpour in Long Beach, they won’t necessarily come if you do build it (as many swear will happen). But what will happen is the newly homeless person or family will have a place to come in from the elements instead of finding themselves on the street, and thereby lessening the chances of another chronic statistic that gets counted every other year to decide how much to fund the services they may not even use until it’s too late . . . and our hospitals or coroner takes over.
My challenge to you and the community is to accept that there is a need, and to accept our responsibility to act in the best interests of the weakest members of our society . . . whether their situation came through bad choices – or through no fault of their own. It is our job to reach out and offer a long-term hand up, not merely a temporary hand out. The Long Beach Rescue Mission and I are here to help when you decide that time enough has passed in which to make a difference by helping the homeless, and changing lives.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
"LA Officials Crack Down on Skid Row"
A recent article in the LA Times discussed groups coming to skid row with meals. It hit home as I often have to explain to groups why we don’t condone feeding in our city parks. Why would the leader of the Long Beach Rescue Mission have a problem with feeding the homeless and destitute people on the streets, you ask? That’s a dichotomy to some, I realize; but there's a good explanation.
There've been news reports across the country of cities passing ordinances to ban feeding in parks. The voices attempting to protect this activity protest that cities are trying to force the homeless out of public parks, hide the homeless from public view, and are violating the 1st Amendment rights of individuals and churches. The ACLU is now involved in numerous suits to protect the right to provide food in public places.
The cities are saying they need to ensure that health codes are followed and social services are strategically coordinated; that feeding in parks encourages homeless to congregate; that it removes the incentive of homeless to seek services; and hinders the public from using the parks. Driving by Lincoln Park, our civic center park in Long Beach, will confirm that it is primarily homeless people using the park as their lunch-hour venue.
In my line of work – as do many of the groups feeding in parks – we use the example of the Good Samaritan as we provide emergency services of food, showers, clothing, shelter, and counsel to those coming through the doors of the Rescue Mission. I like to say that we “give a hand out to offer a hand up.”
As people are drawn in for emergency services, they’re offered a menu of services and referrals that can help lead them off the street and back into successful lives in the community. A daunting task for ministries and agencies as the Rescue Mission, but we do see life-changing success.
That leads to the question: “are the efforts of food distribution in parks a valid expression of Christian and social action?”. . . That’s where my job becomes difficult. I believe there needs to be collaboration between our ministry efforts to individuals and the needs of the community at large. As I spoke to a group recently in our 14th Street Park, I attempted to explain how bringing their efforts into existing programs can increase that program’s capacity and draw the homeless in for other services; and that their efforts of one-on-one street outreach to the homeless could just as well be augmented by a fruit bar and juice, rather than a large bag of food that actually enables the homeless to camp out, litter, and continue to ignore services . . . and that even the Good Samaritan took the beaten man off the street and into a shelter.
I then joined hands with them in prayer as they sought God’s blessing on their efforts. As I departed, police and community leaders from the 14th Street Park Cleanup Day arrived to encourage them to move on; undoubtedly leaving them with frustration and disdain at the city for disallowing their Christian duty.
The question remains: “What is our personal, civic, and spiritual duty to those homeless and needy in our midst?” 1 Corinthians 12 states that those weaker among us are worthy of more honor – let’s remember that as we struggle with the dichotomy of personal charity and civic responsibility as we seek to provide quality of life for both the homeless person and the community.
There've been news reports across the country of cities passing ordinances to ban feeding in parks. The voices attempting to protect this activity protest that cities are trying to force the homeless out of public parks, hide the homeless from public view, and are violating the 1st Amendment rights of individuals and churches. The ACLU is now involved in numerous suits to protect the right to provide food in public places.
The cities are saying they need to ensure that health codes are followed and social services are strategically coordinated; that feeding in parks encourages homeless to congregate; that it removes the incentive of homeless to seek services; and hinders the public from using the parks. Driving by Lincoln Park, our civic center park in Long Beach, will confirm that it is primarily homeless people using the park as their lunch-hour venue.
In my line of work – as do many of the groups feeding in parks – we use the example of the Good Samaritan as we provide emergency services of food, showers, clothing, shelter, and counsel to those coming through the doors of the Rescue Mission. I like to say that we “give a hand out to offer a hand up.”
As people are drawn in for emergency services, they’re offered a menu of services and referrals that can help lead them off the street and back into successful lives in the community. A daunting task for ministries and agencies as the Rescue Mission, but we do see life-changing success.That leads to the question: “are the efforts of food distribution in parks a valid expression of Christian and social action?”. . . That’s where my job becomes difficult. I believe there needs to be collaboration between our ministry efforts to individuals and the needs of the community at large. As I spoke to a group recently in our 14th Street Park, I attempted to explain how bringing their efforts into existing programs can increase that program’s capacity and draw the homeless in for other services; and that their efforts of one-on-one street outreach to the homeless could just as well be augmented by a fruit bar and juice, rather than a large bag of food that actually enables the homeless to camp out, litter, and continue to ignore services . . . and that even the Good Samaritan took the beaten man off the street and into a shelter.
I then joined hands with them in prayer as they sought God’s blessing on their efforts. As I departed, police and community leaders from the 14th Street Park Cleanup Day arrived to encourage them to move on; undoubtedly leaving them with frustration and disdain at the city for disallowing their Christian duty.
The question remains: “What is our personal, civic, and spiritual duty to those homeless and needy in our midst?” 1 Corinthians 12 states that those weaker among us are worthy of more honor – let’s remember that as we struggle with the dichotomy of personal charity and civic responsibility as we seek to provide quality of life for both the homeless person and the community.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
The Faceless Homeless
Thursday’s LB Press Telegram front page above-the-fold headline told the wrong story. Last week a team of volunteers was surveying the chronic street-bound homeless to identify the most at risk of dying on the street. The headline said that effort was giving the homeless a face and finding ways to help them. But their face is already all too visible, all too often, in our parks, alleys, storefronts, and street corners . . . these faces are the fuel for the NIMBYism that hinders our ability to provide critically needed services. Help is already there in our shelters and public services, if they would only choose to accept it.
What the public does not see, but needs to see, is the face of the homeless who wants help . . . those who have not made a choice to be on the street of their own accord – as many of those surveyed have chosen. The impetus for the survey is humane, as well as economic at its core: identifying the most at risk and providing keys to housing and intense case-management will save the city, county and service provider critical funds that are expended treating a homeless person in the last months of life on the street. Police, EMT and hospital emergency rooms are major costs that can be indentified and redirected to preventative care and housing, which will cost less in the long run.
But what of the homeless we don’t see – those whose face is unseen? Those who are at-risk of becoming chronic homeless on our streets, in our hospitals, jails, and parks? Federal funding is now focused primarily on the chronic homeless rather than stemming the tide of those at risk of being on the streets. Our local homeless shelters provide a critical refuge from the street – or a detour on the way to the street – and provide needed services for life-change. These actually hide those faces from public view. But these faces are the ones who need to be seen, as these are people who are reaching out for help, taking advantage of services, getting physical, emotional and spiritual help changing their lives for the better. But due to NIMBYism, there are not enough beds for the current or future need. Although we can easily fund and staff more beds and services, we can’t find the political capital or public will to make the choice for expanding current, or locating new facilities.
While I serve on the task force and support this housing-first initiative as one of many weapons in our arsenal to fight homelessness, it is a last-ditch effort to stem the costs, and we cannot forget that these people were once like you and me; people with families, friends and careers, whose lives have spun out of control, oftentimes overcome by addictions and mental illness. The challenge for us is to treat the issue on both ends . . . those at-risk of dying on the street, and those at-risk of reaching the same street and the identical outcome. Let’s make sure we see the many faces of those already reaching out for help in our shelter programs – and those that would, if there were only more room in the inn. These faces don’t need our NIMBYism, they need our help and compassion.
What the public does not see, but needs to see, is the face of the homeless who wants help . . . those who have not made a choice to be on the street of their own accord – as many of those surveyed have chosen. The impetus for the survey is humane, as well as economic at its core: identifying the most at risk and providing keys to housing and intense case-management will save the city, county and service provider critical funds that are expended treating a homeless person in the last months of life on the street. Police, EMT and hospital emergency rooms are major costs that can be indentified and redirected to preventative care and housing, which will cost less in the long run.
But what of the homeless we don’t see – those whose face is unseen? Those who are at-risk of becoming chronic homeless on our streets, in our hospitals, jails, and parks? Federal funding is now focused primarily on the chronic homeless rather than stemming the tide of those at risk of being on the streets. Our local homeless shelters provide a critical refuge from the street – or a detour on the way to the street – and provide needed services for life-change. These actually hide those faces from public view. But these faces are the ones who need to be seen, as these are people who are reaching out for help, taking advantage of services, getting physical, emotional and spiritual help changing their lives for the better. But due to NIMBYism, there are not enough beds for the current or future need. Although we can easily fund and staff more beds and services, we can’t find the political capital or public will to make the choice for expanding current, or locating new facilities.
While I serve on the task force and support this housing-first initiative as one of many weapons in our arsenal to fight homelessness, it is a last-ditch effort to stem the costs, and we cannot forget that these people were once like you and me; people with families, friends and careers, whose lives have spun out of control, oftentimes overcome by addictions and mental illness. The challenge for us is to treat the issue on both ends . . . those at-risk of dying on the street, and those at-risk of reaching the same street and the identical outcome. Let’s make sure we see the many faces of those already reaching out for help in our shelter programs – and those that would, if there were only more room in the inn. These faces don’t need our NIMBYism, they need our help and compassion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
