The story above is 9 minutes long. But, do watch the interview. Please note that a judge has ruled that it is illegal for the church to feed the poor in its hall. Interestingly enough, the ACLU has offered to help in any legal appeals. Meantime, the church has chosen to continue to feed the poor while the appeal goes on.
So, what do you think? Is this a violation of church and state, as even the ACLU claims? The neighbors are using zoning law to tell the church that it cannot do its ministry and that they must stop their ministry.
This is typical of the church in the West. Jesus tells us to go and we tell them to come. I think the church needs to go to the homeless neighborhoods.
“This is typical of the church in the West.”
Could you please elaborate on this comment? I am just slightly confused.
I personally think that the church isn’t doing anything wrong- if anything, I believe that zoning laws should be reformed.
Fr. Ernesto,
I’m not so concerned that this might be a violation of “church and state” or a violation of a “zoning law.” Is the city’s zoning law a violation of the church’s keeping of God’s word? “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, peace, joy, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things THERE IS NO LAW.” Gal. 5:22-23.
It appears that the church is doing good and not evil, so the zoning law against its deeds is NO LAW at all, per Galatians 5. The church should feel no compulsion whatsoever to obey the city in this case. Moreover, they should stand on the word of God and not an ACLU appeal, no matter how much the ACLU agrees with them.
The Church does have to follow God regardless of the consequences. My question could have been phrased a little better. Let me just say that I am quite upset with both the city and the neighbors. I suspect that, given the interview by the pastor, the church will eventually win since she pointed out the various steps that had been taken by the church to correct any possible problems. However, please watch the clip again and notice that the church is indeed not obeying the judge!
Oh, I should add that the church should feel no compulsion whatsoever to obey the judge, either.
I love what was said:
“We are ‘Church’, this is what we do.”
Thank you, thank you, thank you for showing this video.
That’s an interesting case. I think the church should feed the poor AND act lawfully in the neighborhood. It sounds like the pastor is trying to address the problems of loitering AND maintain the ministry. If that fails, they should go TO the poor.
Sooo, why should the church fight for prayer in the schools but refuse to fight to feed the poor in its parish hall? The church has even less right to pray in a public school than it has to feed the poor in buildings that it owns. Should it not be the reverse then? The church fights the government about ministries within its own buildings but obeys the laws on buildings owned by the government?
In passing, I am not suggesting that this is the solution. I am merely pointing out that there appears to be a logical inconsistency here.
“The church fights the government about ministries within its own buildings but obeys the laws on buildings owned by the government?” Umm … yes? That sounds like consistency to me. The church SHOULD fight the government about feeding the poor inside its doors, but SHOULD NOT fight for prayer in public schools.
I’m not suggesting that this church should “give up” feeding the poor. But neither should they shuttle in people who break laws in the neighborhood outside their doors. I suggest loving BOTH the poor AND the neighbors; why must it be EITHER the poor OR the neighbors?
Notice in the video that the church was making sure to deal with any problems. However, the neighbors wanted nothing to happen at that church. I do believe that the neighbors are crossing the line.
The line about prayer in schools was me thinking about the Christians who (Alabama) will insist on putting the Ten Commandments in the lobby of court buildings but will not fight for the right of a church to feed the poor in its own buildings. I consider that to be an inconsistency. You may not be involved in that inconsistency, so . . .
Yeah, it was obvious when the neighbor called that he was upset about the church’s method of “social justice”; he betrayed his bias clearly when he mentioned the whole “hand-out vs. hand-up.” In that the neighbor is way out of line or crossing the line or whatever.
As Christians we should also care for and love our communities and neighbors. It would be a tragedy if one of these poor people committed a crime against a neighbor of the church. 🙁
Sooo, why should the church fight for prayer in the schools but refuse to fight to feed the poor in its parish hall?
Could this be due to familiarity? People remember praying in schools at one time, but have never fed the poor. It hits closer to home.
This reminds me of a similiar problem in my own community with a local soup kitchen. Wanting to expand their very small and inadequate building and having been gifted with land and money to do so, the city attempted to stop it with a zoning issue. Though this is not a church, the soup kitchen is assisted by several churches in the vacinity both with food donations and volunteers. After months and months of negotiations and back and forth, the soup kitchen took the city to court and won. Whether the city will appeal or not is yet to be decided.
There are at least two sides to the issue and probably more. There is a definate need for a soup kitchen in a community that is wracked with unemployment. The soup kitchen is on the edge of both a residential area and a burgeoning, recovering downtown area. A city park and a city library are a little over a block away. The city library which is the branch I use has been used by the homeless. They bathe and wash clothes in the bathroom and sleep in the bushes around the library and congregate in the city park which borders the library. They use the library for shelter when it is cold or rainy.
Personally, I have never had any trouble or issue with these folks. They for the most part are polite, quiet in the library and keep to themelves in the park. Close friends live in the area and have seen other behavior such as prostitutes being picked up by johns at the library, drug deals and in one instance a man exposing himself. While having someone pick up a prostitute across the street from me is not ideal, I would not have known that was what was happening if my friends had not known that the woman was a prostitute. It just looked like someone picking up someone else. She was not dressed like a hootchie mama or anything. The other issue clearly is a police issue and could have happened at the Mall or almost anywhere else. and drug deals….well…..
Anyway–some of the objections seem to me to be more about THOSE PEOPLE–than actual real problems–though people sleeping in the bushes might not be what you want to see–and as a person who works at a downtown venue, we have had more than one person use a bench in front of our door as a bed, there was never any trouble that could be attributed to the soup kitchen. The trouble was of the sort that any downtown area might bring–people who hang around who might not be quite in our reality–drunks–that sort of thing. Eliminating the soup kitchen will not eliminate the poverty nor will it eliminate whatever criminals might be hanging around–
I say feed people if they need to be fed–if you can help them find a way to feed themselves, fine, well and good, but while some of the homeless are just down and out, others of the homeless are mentally ill or addicted. A soup kitchen cannot cure those problems, but those people still have to eat. Feed people who are hungry, point them in the direction of assistance other than food that they may need if you can. And who cares if they sit in the library and read the newspaper or a book……I am not offended–but I am offended by a society who would rather sweep the problem under the rug or move it out to SOME PLACE ELSE>
Alix
I know of this case. This is a case in which the city is trying to drive out a long-established social work. The downtown has shown some signs of recovery so let’s get rid of these people, even though the social work has been around for a long time. The judge, rightly, told the city that this is inappropriate and illegal behavior on their part. Again, note that the difference is that this social ministry has a well-established track record.