I’ve long had conversations with people about the separation of people’s public personas and their private faith. As someone who’s determined to learn from all people and enjoy the contributions of non-Christians to society, I’d be a hypocrite if I said I’d never taken pieces of a public person without swallowing the whole.

But I believe we take it too far when we deign to remember and commemorate a person, and indignantly insist on our right to separate out only the parts of the person we like, brushing the rest of the person under the rug. It’s a mildly revisionist form of memory, which is bad to start with. It also reflects a foundational attitude toward the people being remembered: we want to remember your public persona (or, the parts of it that we like), and we demand access to that persona without the entanglement of your personality.

Tebow’s one example. The editor contends that since Tebow is being commemorated because of his athletic ability, his evangelistic side–which Tebow himself never separated from his athletic side, which could be seen in the eye blacks in question–was the reason for his commemoration. It’s not the end of the world for me if some video game doesn’t have Bible verses on the front; I completely support their right to put Tebow-sans-Scripture on the front of their game. But it’s the attitude of the author that gets me, an attitude which I’ve seen reflected in the nation’s attitudes towards other people we commemorate.

One example that I’ve seen often is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Since we love having the inspiration of a passionate civil rights activist, we have dedicated a day to him; there are streets and civic buildings and ceremonies dedicated in his honor. However, we feel like we can celebrate the parts of him we like–civic hero–and throw out the parts of him we don’t–passionate preacher of God. For me, I just don’t see how you’re celebrating his legacy when you throw a party to remember what he did for you–and completely avoid mentioning why.

One good counter to my argument, which I’d love your thoughts on: if what I’m saying is true, must we also celebrate his alleged (or proven? I never really looked into it much) unfaithfulness to his wife? How do I feel comfortable throwing that part of him away? Any thoughts? Am I just being a hypocrite?

I took a class my sophomore year of college called “Biological Perspectives on Contemporary Issues.” It turned out to be, “Why Christians are wrong in all of areas of current debate, and scientific proof for why they’re wrong.”

In many cases, I agreed with, or at least could see some serious validity in, the professor’s points; I’m certainly not sold on anti-evolutionist creationism, let alone full-blown Young-Earth creationism. I’m not confident there isn’t a “gay gene.” I’m not some Bible-thumping homophobic backwaters idiot.

However, purely because of the way this professor thought–and thus led the class to think–I felt it my duty to disagree with him often and vocally.

This man had so much faith in the power of science to observe, describe, encompass, and power everything that ever happens that he–and in my mind, much of the scientific community–couldn’t see past the limitations of science.

As soon as I write this (and said it in class), it seemed like I’m some crazed anti-science “reason is wrong, faith is right” nut. I’m not. But science presupposes dozens of things, and as soon as you make presuppositions–assumptions–you are limiting yourself to only describe the narrowed view of the world that’s presented based on your assumptions.

One tiny, and probably very flawed, example I gave: science presupposes the non-existence of God. Right? So if something happens, and a scientist submits a hypothesis, and the entirety of it is this: “God sneezed, and then the stars came out,” this scientist would be mocked. It’s not a legitimate scientific area of study. Sure, you can think that, but can we measure it? No? Well then, science has no interest in it. Instantly, all things not measurable by mankind are outside of the range of science.

I’m not saying we can’t appreciate science, use science, study science, or anything. What I’m saying, and this is inspired much by my excitement in reading this article by C. John Sommerville, is that science is just a tool. It’s not full enough to form the basis for your entire worldview. It’s not capable of describing or measuring all things worth thinking about.

I wish this were longer. I just wanted to get out that one point before I force myself to sleep.

My new friend but long time admiree York Moore (InterVarsity’s National Evangelist) writes on “counting conversions,” a great collection of teaching about what distinguishes a “conversion” from a “decision,” which Jesus would be concerned about, which the Bible records, and what Jesus’ and the Apostles’ evangelistic messages looked like.

One thing that I really appreciated was the listing of the 10 things that York says were a part of every evangelistic message, in a diagram he calls “The Line of the Gospel.” He says that in every Gospel presentation in Scripture, 9 elements were present (and in most, 10 were present). The one that was left out of some was the moral law–but not, as we might assume, because they don’t want to offend people who don’t share their same conviction. Instead, the moral law would be left it if the person was already convicted of their sin.

So, starting with the somewhat-optional Moral Law:

• The Moral Law
• Sin
• Death
• Eschaton (this is my first time even hearing this word)
• Righteousness
• Death/Cross
• Resurrection
• Lordship
• Repentance
• Decision

I’ll let you follow as I walk through trying to process this. I’m hoping to find that somewhere else York has written a document further explaining this, but for now–and since I have no Internet to check or even to look these words up–you’ll see how my brain tries to process it.  NOTE: My understanding of all of this is very limited. That’s why I’m trying to read up on it. So please, correct me, teach me, expand my knowledge. I’ll even buy you lunch for it if you want.

The Moral Law

All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. There’s a moral law written on all of our hearts, and none of us have or will meet up with it.

Sin

Sin is separation from God. I wish I had a better understanding here, because I’d normally say “sin is when you break the Moral Law”; yet I’m not really sure if that’s theologically correct. But I do know that it means separation from God, the giver of the Moral Law.

Sin is multi-faceted, and there are many words that we translate as sin. But there are some things for sure, as York writes: “We have been born into sin (hamartia) and have actively sinned against God and our world (hamartema) and are in the process of embracing a love for sin (hamartano) which will lead to our eventual absolute depravity and worthlessness (adokimus).” And each/every/all? of these elements of sin break our relationship with God, drawing us away from him and his desires.

Death

I also know the consequences (“wages”, to use Bible-speak) of Sin is death. If you sin, the consequence is death. And everyone sins.

Eschaton

OK. I know that eschatology has to do with studying and being aware of things to come (the end of the world.) So I’ll say this next step is sharing the reality of the return of the King and His judgment.

There will come a day when the King of the world will return to the earth and will judge the living and the dead. To those who are a part of him, he will say “welcome home.” For those who are not, he will say, “depart from me, for I never knew you.” The not folks are headed to a lake of eternal fire, along with Satan and his minions.

Righteousness

Here’s where I get confused. I would’ve assumed that righteousness and Lordship go hand-in-hand; making Jesus the Lord of your life ties nicely in with working out your salvation with fear and trembling, working towards righteousness. But that’s not it. Is this God’s righteousness? Is it Jesus’ righteousness while he was on earth? Is that, “An unrighteous man will sure not enter the Kingdom of God?” Not sure.

York is talking about Jesus’ righteousness here. I definitely don’t know everything there is to say here, but I do know that a good understanding of how our righteousness is obtained (imputed? infused? whatever?), we must start with the understanding of Jesus’ righteousness. Beyond that, I still have a lot to learn.

Death/Cross

OK, so Jesus died on a cross. But whereas our deaths pay for our sin, Jesus has a lot more power, and was able to take the consequence–the debt owed–for the sin of all people onto his back. Because of this, his death didn’t just pay for his sin–it paid for everyone’s sin. Ever.

Also, Jesus’ death was not just a normal death. Quoting York, “he was mercilessly beaten, scourged, spit upon and ultimately died at the hands of sinful men. Isaiah 53:10 tells us that it was the Lord’s will to “crush him,” thus signifying that Christ’s death was a result of God’s direct wrath and judgment, poured out on Him on our behalf.”

Resurrection

Foggy here again. I know the resurrection is vital in many, many ways–that it is a solid historical fact that gives proof to Jesus’ status as God, that it foretells our coming new life. But I want a better understanding of its significance in the role of this story and this evangelism, because I think I’m missing something.

Lordship

OK. I know that Jesus wants to be Lord of our lives. I don’t know if he ever says those words, but it’s clear that he wants that. “If you love me, you will obey my commands” is one. Another is the fact that the Kingdom of God is a place where God is King–so the thing that Jesus preached all that time was a place where he was the King, and people obeyed his command.

York referenced in his post “The Lordship of Christ,” and while that phrase seems like it would practically refer to what I wrote above, it looks like a broader concept–not just that Jesus wants to be our Lord, but that there’s no hope unless he is. “The Lordship of Christ is necessitated because any other captain at the helm will only lead us further into the deep seas of death and judgment.”

Repentance

Again, I’m a little fuzzy about the order here. Doesn’t Lordship come after repentance? Either way, I know that when he took the consequence of our sin on his shoulders, Jesus didn’t automatically apply that salvation (freedom from the penalties of our behavior) to everyone. Rather, he bundled up all that salvation and freedom as a present, and held it out to each of us. We need to accept the gift in order to reap its benefits, and when Scripture talks about accepting that gift, there are a few steps to it.

I’m not a Biblical scholar in this aspect, but I know that repentance, baptism, and public proclamation of your new status are all a part of it. I don’t know which is required when. But I do know that a part of both receiving the gift and of making God your King and Lord is repentance–turning 180º from where you were before. Walking toward sin? Turn 180º and walk toward God.

Once again, I know it’s more complex. But that’s what I have so far.

Decision

See! Once again, I’m confused with the order. Because the thing above describes decision–you have to decide to receive the gift. It’s not forced on you.

OK. Thanks for walking through that with me. I’d love to hear your thoughts, both on York’s model and on my experiences with it. Please teach me better theology! Show me where I’m dearly missing huge chunks of essential Scripture or practice.

Pause for a moment. Racialization is not the same as racism. I first read the term in Divided by Faith, an incredible book that gave me so much understanding and wisdom and research and fact (to add to the personal testimony I’d gained) about the race situation in America and in the church. Racialization as I read it is not the same as racism; racism is a knowing dislike of and unfair negative approximation of a person’s worth because of their skin color, ethnicity, etc. (which in our world fall under the social construct “race.”) However, many people have told me that white people who don’t get super-involved with race issues, etc. are racist. I always clashed with that. Instead, Divided by Faith presents the concept of a racialized society–one that has distinct lines drawn along the boundaries of race. More black men in prison, segregated churches, different health rates and hiring rates and educational quality, etc. So, you can exist in your happy white world, unaware of what’s going on with people of ethnic minorities, and you can think great things about them–you’re not a racist. Yet if you aren’t actively learning about and doing things to end racialization, you’re still allowing a racialized society to persist–which isn’t any a lot better.

Back to the original point: I’ve been making some comments recently on Twitter about Black characters on TV. Essentially, I like to watch TV while I design web sites–it distracts me just enough to keep from getting bored, but it’s not stimulating enough to slow down my work. I’ve been watching a lot of normal shows recently–not advanced, award-winning shows that are on the forefront of social commentary, but plain old normal shows–and I’ve noticed a trend across all of them: Black people are accessories.

It’s sad. It’s a terrible thing to admit. And, growing up, I would’ve told the person saying what I’m saying now to stop whining. But there’s something to this. In these shows I’ve been watching, the Black characters fall into a few simple categories:

• The mean girl’s follower best friend
• The drug dealer
• The young kid from the projects who’s trying to make his way out playing basketball
• The “mammy”, the homely, simple, sweet but a little sassy mother/neighbor/grandmother/landlady
• The voodoo mystic (usually African, Haitian, or from New Orleans)

There are certainly others, but I can’t tell you the last time I saw a consistent Black character with depth that didn’t fall into some strong stereotype. Smallville had Petey, but he disappeared right quick. I know there have been others–everyone can name a show with a Black president or a Black best friend. But in general, I’ve been more and more disappointed the more I see.

Obviously, this is excepting movies and TV intended for Black audiences. From what I can gather, I once would’ve been able to point to BET, but now it seems to be shirking its original intention of giving Black Americans A) real roles for the actors/characters and B) programming that meets them where they are.

Anyway, that’s where I’ve been coming from. I find that I’ve been mentioning this a lot recently, and I decided it was time to really write something about it and see if people wanted to say anything about this, teach me more, learn from what I’ve learned, or whatever else.

*Edit*: If you’re interested in learning more about these topics, two of the best sites (in my opinion) are UrbanFaith and Racialicious. UrbanFaith looks at national issues from a Black Christian context; Racialicious is devoted to all things racially motivated/striated. One note: Racialicious contributors are very comfortable with sex and some language that might make some people uncomfortable, so visit if you can handle it.

Whoopi, Sherri, and Hasselback on The N Word

As an African American woman, I would like to thank Elisabeth Hasselbeck for her empathy and concern for not only the Black community, but for the unification of humanity. As Whoopi stated in the controversial episode discussing the ‘N’ word, we do not live in the same worlds. There are prejudices that I will undoubtedly undergo because of my race, but, are we not called to correct the past wrongs of our history? I believe that Elisabeth’s yearning is for us to mend the bridges that our past has attempted to destroy, and the ‘N’ word has caused nothing but emotional strife and suffering.

I hope that the View’s audience did not walk away thinking that Whoopi and Sherri’s perspectives are accurate representations of African American thoughts and attachments to the word. How can we embrace something that has such negative connotations? By continuing to embrace the ‘N’ word, we are furthering the wedge of segregation and racism, by stating that it is ‘ok’ to make allowances for some people’s use of the word and not for others. We are also stating that is ‘ok’ for us to perpetuate self hatred, but it is not ok for others to hate us because of our skin. Can we get any more hypocritical and ignorant?

Is this the kind of world that we want our children to inherit?  A world where they are to continue living lives separate from their peers, mates, co-workers, friends, family, because they follow an unspoken rule of conduct? It’s absurd. You can NOT strip shame away from a word that has been used for hundreds of years. It is inextricable at this point. Whoopi, Sherri, listen to your female counterparts. The color of their skin does not strip them of their credibility, nor their wisdom, and desire to rectify situations that hurt our communities and world.

We aren’t supposed to judge people. Judge not lest you be judged, Plank in your eye, and all that. People who God have used mightily in the past have ranged from those who occasionally disobey God to people who are seriously messed up–David, Samson, Solomon, Martin Luther King Jr., and plenty of other people. If you read anything about the lives of “revival” preachers and honestly about other people God have used in the past, they’re all messed up people. The gifts of the Spirit–big, powerful, crazy things–are not necessarily accompanied by the fruits of the Spirit in individual leaders. Why? Because God uses messed up people to work his will. If he didn’t, whom would he have to use? I’m constantly arguing this, and I’m constantly a proponent of seeking the good in what God’s doing, not the bad in how people are messed up.

However, we are called to be wise. We are called to discern between good and evil spirits. We are called to not be misled by false prophets. We are told there will be false prophets among us, wolves among the flock. We have a responsibility to see that the people of God are being led well, and that they are not being misled–especially away from God and/or toward oppression or bondage. And if we are wise, we will be aware of the potential for bad teaching, bad leadership, and things that don’t lead toward God.

Therefore, we have two primary responsibilities, whether or not we’re responding to a situation like this: to seek God, and to help others seek God. If the Lakeland Outpouring is a big revival that’s sparked, led, and inspired by God, then our response is to participate in any way we can and to encourage others to do the same. But if there are spirits or leaders who don’t point toward God, we cannot in good conscience sit back and say “Well, God will deal with them.” How do you think God will deal with people who oppress his people? By judging them on judgment day? Yes; however, God calls us now to draw people out of bondage and oppression and fear and the world, and if we see people in the name of God leading people away from God then we need to be the first there to stop it.

Am I saying that the Lakeland Outpouring is not God? No. I never have. My first response to it was positive; I started with the assumption that it was a legitimate move of God led by legitimate seekers of God. It’s only been through my attempts to discern wisely and Biblically and lovingly that I’ve come to see a lot of very worrying things about the man who stands in front of the pulpit throughout the entire meetings, the man who directs the movement of the meetings and controls the microphone. So am I saying its leaders are imperfect? Absolutely. But that’s a given.

God is moving in Lakeland. People are seeking God in Lakeland. Real healings (seem to be) happening in Lakeland. These things are very good. Todd Bentley is leading poorly in Lakeland (not just his past–he’s doing it now.) Some people are faking things in Lakeland. Lakeland itself seems, from friends I’ve spoken to in Lakeland, to not be affected at all by a “revival” in its midst. These things are very bad. Therefore, we need to respond wisely.

I don’t have a point. I don’t have an agenda. I don’t even have a solution for these things I’m writing. I’m just trying to figure out what my response should be. I’m not for or against the Lakeland Outpouring. I’m for people seeking God, and I’m against people being misled. I’m for the Kingdom of God coming into our world, and I’m against Christian bubbles and sensationalist church meetings that have no impact on the world around them.

Finally, a somewhat related note on the word “revival”: I put it in quotes because it’s a hugely dangerous word, one whose misuse has convinced far too many people that a true revival looks like a bunch of people in a big Christian orgy seeking God together. I’m sorry, but something that doesn’t bring about the Kingdom of God isn’t a revival. Therefore, if a revival is breaking out somewhere, I think (my personal opinion–correct me if I’m wrong, this isn’t hugely researched and I’m not a scholar in the history of revivals) that the surrounding areas should be affected. If revival breaks out in Lakeland, then the city of Lakeland should be transformed. People should see God’s glory and want to repent and then follow and glorify him. (Berry tells me that many historically significant revivals have been characterized by individuals repenting and then receiving the work of the Spirit in their lives; he characterizes revivals by three things: Repentance, Faith, and then Mission). Sinners repent, sick healed, poor restored, widows and orphans and the oppressed and aliens freed and loved. Is that happening now? No, no, and more no. Might it happen? Please, Jesus, work mightily in the hearts of those people who are desperately seeking you and move them to make a difference in that city and in their home cities. Yes, it might, and I pray that it will.

Since the days of the early church, history has led us to an unfortunate understanding of the word minister as a professional, seminary-educated leader. This leads the rest of us to think that ministry is an extra, a volunteer aspect of our lives. Kingdom resources are often wasted because those who do not do official “ministry” simply pour all of their skills and talents into self-growth, success or making money. More Christians should see themselves as ministers first in whatever job they do and seek to maximize their effectiveness as kingdom workers, regardless of position or title. [...]

If we believe that God is everywhere, there is no such thing as a secular job. We should never think of our work as being separate from our lives of faith. Any job, as long as it is not in opposition to the laws of God, can be a matrix for our real, central call–to be fishers of men and women. Work should be an act of worship, a vehicle for purpose, creativity and joy rather than simply a utilitarian act in order to secure food, housing or education.

From Following Jesus Without Dishonoring Your Parents

Well, not my mother. She was quite comfortable with her hand up in the air, and she looked at me and laughed. “I like money!” She then proceeded to show and tell me over the span of the weekend that the reason she likes money is not for driving fancy cars, or wearing fancy new clothing, or for fancy jewelry, or for financial stability and security, but because she likes giving it away. Yes, that’s right. She told us about keeping $1 bills in her purse and the joy of handing them out to people who needed them (or just who were asking). She showed joy in being able to take care of me, often telling me that she was sad that I didn’t live at home because she could never buy me groceries or anything the way she can her other chilluns.

I don’t know why, but the joy she got from giving made a profound impact on me, almost more than any sermon on stewardship could. I just thought you might appreciate it as well. That’s all.

(She pointed out when I asked her about this post that Johannes is generous… and Abbie… and Ricke… and plenty of people I know… which is true. This is just a story about me loving my mom. )

Recently I was mentioning that night time often brings an introspective mood that often turns negative (because it’s late, and you’re alone, and Satan attacks when you’re alone, and often I’m sitting alone at my computer looking at photos or descriptions of awesome parties/adventures/missions other people’ve done). Erica said, “Yah, I know that. Go take a bike ride.” It’s great. Nature… Gainesville at night… Endorphins… Connecting to God… Seeing the beauty of my surroundings… Getting out of my stupid room and out from in front of my computer… Overkilling on the ellipses… You get what I’m saying. Take a bike ride.

Also, a few years ago I was in a significant spiritual funk and couldn’t figure out how to get out of it. I had been trying to connect to God and trying to pray about it, but nothing was working. Berry asked me, “Well, when was the last time you were on the ‘front lines’ for God?” He elaborated to let me know he wanted to hear the last time I put myself out there to help someone else; he wanted to know the last time my discomfort, concern, and prayers were for another person instead of for myself. I couldn’t think of the last time I had focused so much attention on someone else; rather, I had spent the entire time focusing entirely on myself. And that’s what it took. I think that’s an essential part of the Kingdom of God, and why we’re not supposed to defend ourselves, but we can defend others; why prayer for others always seems more effective than prayer for ourselves. God wants us to be interdependent and to focus on each other.

That’s it. Enjoy.

Luke 14:12-14 says: “Then Jesus said to his host, ‘When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.”

As Christians, we have a responsibility to be compassionate, and to serve those who are hurting and need our help. Unfortunately, the Gainesville City Commission is currently proposing restrictions that would severely affect our ability as an institution of faith to provide food and shelter to homeless people in our community through programs such as the Interfaith Hospitality Network.

I have sent the letter below to the Gainesville City Commissioners to express my concern regarding the city trying to take away the rights of congregations to be to compassionate towards people who are homeless and hungry. Please consider speaking up so that we are able to continue helping our needy brothers and sisters without unnecessary restrictions imposed by the city. The commissioners’ email addresses can be found below. Please send them a letter or email expressing your concerns or feel free to forward mine to them saying that you concur.

(Craig Lowwe), commCL@ci.gainesville.fl.us
(Rick Bryant), commRB@ci.gainesville.fl.us
(Pegeen Hanrahan), mayor@ci.gainesville.fl.us
(Scherwin Henry), henrysl@cityofgainesville.org
(Comm Jack Donovan), donovanjf@cityofgainesville.org
(Jeanna Mastrodicasa), mastrodij@cityofgainesville.org
(Ed Braddy), commEB@ci.gainesville.fl.us

God Bless,

Scott Blades

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Scott Blades
Date: Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Subject: City Ordinance – Increased Restrictions on Homeless Ministries
Dear Gainesville Commissioners,

My name is Scott Blades, and I have been a proud member of the Gainesville community since 2002, the year I moved to this area to obtain my masters degree at UF in Educational Technology. Along with being the Coordinator of Instructional Design at UF’s College of Pharmacy, I am currently a Partner in Ministry at Grace United Methodist Church. As part of my activities at Grace, I have traveled to the Gulf Coast region to provide food and shelter to victims of Hurricane Katrina, donated resources to the Arbor House (a program providing assistance to homeless, single mothers), and volunteered my time to the Interfaith Hospitality Network (an organization that coordinates the efforts of volunteers from all faiths to shelter, feed, and transport homeless families).

I have recently become aware of your discussions regarding increased restrictions related to the housing and feeding of homeless people within Gainesville churches. I see these proposed restrictions as being unconstitutional, discriminatory toward churches, and ultimately counterproductive in what should be the city’s efforts to address our city’s homeless problem.

The First Amendment clearly indicates that US laws cannot prohibit the free exercise of a religious establishment. Furthermore, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) states that zoning and landmarking laws cannot (1) treat churches or other religious assemblies or institutions on less than equal terms with nonreligious institutions and (2) cannot unreasonably limit religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction. 1

Despite these clear guidelines, it appears that the City Commission is moving toward the following measures:

1. Congregations wishing to provide shelter to homeless people will only be permitted to house three families or three unrelated persons. Currently congregations offering housing to homeless people on a permanent basis are permitted to shelter up to 20 people at once. All of these scenarios fly in the face of the aforementioned laws. If a church has the staff and facilities (or wishes to develop the staff and facilities) to provide shelter for any number of homeless people, the government has no business prohibiting churches from using their resources for these purposes.If a new motel in town were to open its doors, the owners (operating within fire code) would make the determination of how many people to house each evening. If the motel has enough space for 50 travelers (people who do not have a place to sleep for the night) and 50 people show up at the doorstep, the motel would operate at full capacity and have a good night of business.The business of the church is to offer selfless compassion and help to those who are in need. If a church has the capacity to house X number of homeless people within its facilities, then that is how many people they should be allowed to serve. The ultimate instance of ludicrousness would be for a church with “room at the inn” to turn away any number of homeless people because the government is tying its hands. The government must treat religious institutions and nonreligious institutions equally.
2. New restrictions would only allow churches to serve 20 meals per day to homeless people and operate from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. The measures would also require a quarter mile separation between churches providing food to the needy. This is an incredible example of discrimination. Non-religious institutions such as restaurants and bars are allowed to serve as much food and drink as they wish, remain open for business until 2:00 AM, and operate side by side. If these measures are put in place, should we also expect the city to impose the same restrictions on Mark’s Prime Rib and Dragonfly? To fall in line with RLUIPA, the city would need to do so.
3. New measures would require the following lot sizes for congregations building in Resident Single Family districts:
   
   • Building capacity of 100 – 1.0 acre
   • Building capacity of 150 – 1.5 acres
   • Building capacity of 200 – 2.0 acres
   • Building capacity of 250 – 2.5 acres
   • Increasing by .5 acres for every 50 persons

   Would these same guidelines apply to non-religious institutions where people congregate, such as restaurants, bars, museums, etc.? Yet again, RLUIPA would require this to be the case.

Along with these proposed restrictions being unconstitutional and discriminatory toward churches, there is the much bigger issue of them causing our city’s homeless population to face even greater difficulties in receiving assistance and rehabilitation. In looking at these proposals, one has to wonder where the city expects homeless people to go. Why is the city making it so difficult for our homeless population to receive relief?

It was this time last year when I traveled to Mississippi to aid in the relief effort of Hurricane Katrina. I met many people, who lost their homes during the storm, but I will never forget the one elderly woman, who broke down into tears when our small group offered to put her in touch with a faith-based group that would renovate her dilapidated home for free. During our talk, a theme emerged that has stuck with me since. She communicated that her government had let her down and that her insurance company had failed her. We were the first group to offer her help with no strings attached and no bureaucracy to navigate.

I see the city of Gainesville’s current efforts to restrict and further regulate faith-based aid to homeless people as creating unnecessary obstacles for both those attempting to deliver services and those who desperately need them. The government should encourage the volunteerism and altruism of our city’s faith-based organizations, not devise methods to hinder and complicate such efforts.

I recognize that the push to put these types of measures in place is coming from neighborhood associations and local businesses that do not want homeless people “in their backyard.” There is the perception that when any number of homeless people gather in an area, they bring crime and other disturbances that would not have existed otherwise. Therefore, the city is attempting to appease these groups, “protect” its mainstream population from its homeless population, and “protect” churches from themselves. I take issue with this line of thinking for three reasons.

First, this reasoning conveys a “those people” type of attitude. It stereotypes homeless people as being hobos, vagrants, drug addicts, criminals, etc. My experience and research has taught me that homeless people are as varied and diverse as any other segment of our population. Homeless people are those, who have had the misfortune of losing a home to a fire or other natural disaster. They are mothers and fathers, who love their children. They are elementary, junior high, and high school students, who need to finish their homework just like kids with homes. They are people, like many renters or homeowners in this country, who find themselves in the rut of living paycheck to paycheck due to the nature of our economy and the cost of living. 2 They are even people, who go on to become famous like Halle Berry, Cary Grant, Kelsey Grammer, Jewel, “Colonel” Sanders, Martin Sheen, Hilary Swank, and Shania Twain. 3 World history has taught us the homeless people can even change the world. Yes, Gautama Siddhartha (Buddha) and Jesus Christ were both homeless. 3

My second issue is that this effort to legislate against “potential problems” seems grossly misplaced. I would be interested in knowing how the number of disturbances related to feeding or sheltering homeless people relates to the number of disturbances associated with our city’s thriving bar economy. Based on the fact that Gainesville Police Department reports that there is a shooting, stabbing, or other type of disturbance related to bar activity every weekend in Gainesville, I think it is safe to say that this segment of the population causes more crime than homeless people being fed or sheltered at a church. Despite this disturbing trend in “our back yard,” bars are allowed to serve as many beverages as their costumers can consume, operate side by side, and remain open until 2:00 AM.

Third, the idea that the government must intervene to protect congregations from the problems that can arise from helping too many homeless people at once shows little to no faith in these organizations to govern themselves. The Interfaith Hospitality Network (IHN) is an excellent example of a faith-based organization that recognizes its own strengths and limitations and governs itself accordingly. IHN accepts families with children. The organization does not accept persons with serious mental illness, substance abuse problems within the last 6 months, current dangerous domestic violence involvement, or certain criminal charges. A church or faith-based organization (knowing its own staff, facilities, and resources) is in the best position possible to regulate its own charitable activities for homeless people.

Ultimately, I believe these unconstitutional and discriminatory restrictions would result in the following:

• They would undercut one of the central missions of churches and faith-based organizations—to help those in need.
• They would create additional obstacles for homeless people seeking relief and rehabilitation and make their plight even more difficult to endure.
• They would communicate to our society that homeless people are not worthy of attention or respect (that they are nothing more than outsiders, who should go somewhere else, so that they are a not a bother to mainstream society).

What a sad day that would be.

My hope is that you will use your position of leadership to do the right thing at this critical juncture and abandon these measures. Legislation should never promote inequality, place a cap on compassion, or chain up a charity.

Sincerely,

Scott Blades

Sources:

1. “Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act,” U.S. Department of Justice (Civil Rights Division)
   http://www.justice.gov/crt/housing/rluipaexplain.htm
2. Sampling of news articles:
   “Homelessness grows as more live check-to-check,” USA TODAY, August 12, 2003
   http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2003-08-11-homeless_x.htm“Living paycheck to paycheck,” CNN, April 4, 2007
   http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/Careers/04/04/cb.paycheck/index.html
3. “Noted Individuals Who Have Experienced Homelessness” http://www.angelfire.com/stars4/lists/homeless.html