How far can a church go to house homeless people?  Should it be illegal?

There’s a court case in Ohio that is both interesting and distressing.  The pastor of a church in a small town of about 8,600 people in Ohio had 18 criminal charges filed against him for violating city ordinances when he allowed homeless people to sleep in the sanctuary.  Pastor Chris Avell pled not guilty to the charges and has filed a federal lawsuit against the mayor and the city seeking a restraining order or an injunction to keep the city from enforcing the city’s ordinances.  He claims the ordinances keep his church from pursuing their freedom of religion to follow Jesus and the commands of the Bible.  During an initial meeting with the judge, both sides agreed to continue the ministry until March 4 when the judge will consider the church’s request. 

The church houses an average of eight people per night, more during cold weather. The church opens to allow a place “for people to go who have nowhere else to go and no one to care for them.”  They don’t ask anyone to leave “unless there is a biblically valid reason for doing so or if someone at the property poses a danger to himself or others.”  They open at 11 pm and close at 8 am and allow people to come and go.  During the night, they maintain dim lighting and play Johnny Cash’s reading of the Bible.  Two volunteers oversee the ministry.

The church’s lawsuit says that “no history or tradition justifies the city’s intrusion into the church’s inner sanctum to dictate which rooms may be used for religious purposes, how the church may go about accomplishing its religious mission, or at what hours of the day religious activities are permitted.”

The church is in a downtown area of the city which has an ordinance against residential use.  The city also said that the church doesn’t have adequate kitchen or ventilation.  The church responded to the building issues by installing a new stove hood, by shutting down their laundry facilities, and is in the process of installing panic hardware on the doors.  The city gave them a 10-day warning to stop housing people altogether.  When the church did not do so, criminal charges were filed. 

Until recently, the pastor said the city worked with (or at least didn’t interfere with) the church.  Police officers dropped off homeless people.  Shelters called upon them when they were full.  Hospitals would deliver people with nowhere else to go.  But now, the city is attempting to close their homeless ministry.

There may be aspects of the story I don’t know, though I did get the facts from the Associated Press, a news organization with a reputation for being complete and impartial.  (An aside:  It’s hard to decide issues without facts and the complete stories.  That doesn’t stop many news organizations and most politicians from sharing ill-informed opinions, but it should stop Christians and especially pastors from speaking when we don’t know the details.)

The case does raise important questions:  Whose responsibility is it to house the homeless?  How far can city and zoning codes go in shutting down the free exercise of religion?  Is housing the homeless a free exercise of religion?  Is a nine-hour block of time a worship service even if most people sleep?  Is a temporary homeless ministry “residential use?”  Is this just a case of NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) taken to an extreme?

These are good questions, and I will watch the case closely as it progresses.  In the meantime, here are some of my thoughts:

My opinion:  A city has the right to enforce building codes to ensure safety if it does so fairly without picking on churches.  The city enforced ventilation and other safety issues.  The church acknowledged this by fixing some building issues and restricting some functions.  The pastor was frustrated, though, in that the church seemed to be scrutinized beyond the level of other local businesses.  I don’t know if this was the case.

My opinion:  Restricting religious functions via zoning, though, is different than safe building use.  The zoning in this case allowed for churches, so I believe it should allow the church to minister to homeless people, assuming that the building is safe and laws are followed.

My opinion:  A church has the right to worship God as they understand God’s leading, and that includes helping the homeless.  Historically, for most of America’s history, it has been the church and not the government that helped those needing housing, food, and other types of care.  Religious freedom covers more than music, preaching, and worship.

My opinion:  The city and the church may both be “overstating” their positions, which is often the case in court proceedings.  Is the city fair in claiming that a church open from 11 pm to 8 am is “residential use?”  That seems to be open to interpretation.  And is the church honest in piping in Bible reading at a low level so it can call the ministry a worship service?  (My first reaction was “turn off the recording and “let them sleep!”)     

My opinion:  Cooperation between churches and governments should lead to a solution.  Getting the homeless off the streets, especially on cold nights when sleeping outdoors is dangerous, is a legitimate government function.  Helping the homeless is a legitimate function of a church that wants to follow their mandate to serve God by serving people.  Here in Avondale, our city government has been a great ally in supporting our homeless ministry and we are able to work together.  I don’t know the pastor or the city leaders in Ohio, but my prayer is that charges and lawsuits are dropped, and a cooperative plan worked out.  It is possible.

My opinion:  NIMBY is often the real issue in these arguments.  Everyone seems to want the homeless (and the hungry and the mentally ill and those with special needs, etc.) to be helped, but many don’t want it to happen too close to their home or business or, in some cases, too near their church.  Attitudes will have to change, and real cooperation between churches and governments can help.  The homeless and the hungry and other hurting people need a place, and ministry, and love, and real help.  Moving them out of our own backyards doesn’t solve the larger issue. 

Governments and churches are both Biblically mandated and can and should work together to solve issues without hindering religious freedom and without blurring the “wall of separation” between church and state. 

It works here in Arizona.  And it should work in Ohio as well.