This morning, a group of local “clergy, activists and concerned citizens” will be marching from the homeless encampments along the Mississippi River north of downtown to City Hall to protest the City of St. Louis’ closing of the encampments and relocating those living there into housing.
I believe this protest is ill-conceived and destructive to the cause of ending homelessness.
Needless to say, I will not be joining it. And I want to be clear about why … and also about the opportunities I see for us as a Cathedral truly to make a difference toward ending homelessness.
Three points:
1) The city’s closing of the encampments and relocating of the residents is a good thing.
2) Movements for change run off the rails when they treat potential allies as enemies.
3) Well-conceived band-aid measures are necessary, but until we take a systems approach, urban poverty and homelessness will persist.
First on the encampments. This is the easy one.
Last year, Kathleen Wilder of The Bridge, Greg Vogelweid of St. Patrick’s Center and Stephanie Perry (then of St. Patrick’s Center, now with Children’s Hospital) and I set out three principles that would guide us as we worked together to try to end homelessness and urban poverty in St. Louis. We agreed we would insist on and promote only solutions that were in line with these principles.
1) We dream of creating a city that makes happy God’s heart.
2) We seek and embrace solutions that promote the safety, dignity, and quality of life for all people.
3) We refuse to defend the rights of people to demean themselves and others.
The encampments are dangerous – a public health and safety hazard. People living outside in filth and subject to assault and robbery is neither safe nor dignified. I realize that it is some of the residents’ preference to live in the encampments, but I refuse to spend my energy defending the rights of people to demean themselves and others.
The City of St. Louis has taken a census of those living in the camps. The people are not being evicted but are being relocated into safe housing. They are being given funds to provide for their basic needs and help with setting up their new homes and connected with resources to help them stay there.
The city’s relocation efforts are not perfect. Just putting people in a home does not begin to solve all their problems. But it is an important piece … and the encampments are not only not a workable solution, they are an active detriment to the health and safety of the people who live there.
In fact, we should not only refrain from protesting the relocation, we should actively support it.
That is why I invite you to join me in making a personal donation to the Encampment Relocation Fund that will help with transition expenses for people being relocated by making a check out to:
Encampment Relocation Fund
C/O United Way of Greater St. Louis
910 N. 10th St.,
St. Louis, MO 63101
or by calling (314) 657-1702.
But even more disturbing is that this protest and the rhetoric behind it are just more of the same. The biggest stumbling block toward ending homelessness in St. Louis is our inability to work together.
In this instance, the primary players are familiar foes – the City of St. Louis and New Life Evangelistic Center. I’ve spent lots of time with representatives of both these groups. And the truth is, both really care about and are providing necessary services for homeless people. The truth is, we would be in big trouble if the efforts of either one simply disappeared. And the truth is we should be working together to make all of those efforts unnecessary.
Working together. And not just as the City and NLEC … but the City and the County … the business community and the faith community.
As Americans, it’s known as citizenship – working together for the common good. I call it discipleship.
Even if the relocation of those in the encampments was a bad idea (which it isn’t), the answer is not shouting and shaming. That just deepens the chasms between us. The answer is the answer of Gandhi and Mandela and Tutu and King … of treating even your active enemies as future friends. Of seeking loving conversion of hearts.
It is following the counsel Paul gave to the Philippians, “in humility regard others as better than yourselves.”
There is a time for protest. But the protests of Gandhi and Mandela and Tutu and King did not demonize the proponents of the policies they were trying to change and always sought first to work with them. That is not the case here nor has it been anything close to the history of our struggle with homelessness in St. Louis. And unless that changes, there is little hope anything else will.
Finally, we do need to provide band-aid measures that give compassionate care to those who are currently homeless. It’s why we have our Miss Carol’s Breakfast Program on Saturday mornings. It’s why we support The Bridge both financially and with volunteers for their Sunday lunch program. It’s why when City Director of Homeless Services Bill Siedhoff asked me yesterday if we would allow a portapotty to be put on the NE corner of 13th and Olive to try to alleviate the annual warm weather public health problem of outdoor urination and defecation (of which our own buildings are often a target), my answer was, “If you think it might help … absolutely.”
But none of these things do anything to end homelessness. That’s why I was intruiged and grateful to be invited to be a part of a new group forming to look at how systems theory can be used in looking at promoting lasting change for urban poverty and homelessness. We are a priest, a social worker, a homeless activist, a lawyer, developer and a banker. We are a self-described partnership of the two groups that traditionally battle each other … the NIMBYs and the bleeding hearts … and we’re seeing how we can work together to promote solutions that address the multiple causes of urban poverty and homelessness and that don’t just shift the problem around.
It’s a big job, but there is hope. Click here to read a report of a community effort in Battle Creek, MI, that successfully used a Systems Dynamics model in their efforts related to homelessness. Other systems models, like the Harlem Children’s Zone model that Grace Hill Settlement House is exploring for their neighborhood have shown great promise in sustaining community-based change.
I believe this is the path toward that city that makes glad God’s heart of which we dream.
Why is this important for Christ Church Cathedral?
This is the intersection of the historic role of the Cathedral as a community gathering place for all people and our Gospel and historical mandate to see, meet and care for Christ in the poorest of the poor. It is an approach that is in line with the mission of the church to “reconcile all people to unity with God and each other in Christ.” It is also an opportunity for us truly to be a Cathedral in terms of leading an entire community toward sustainable change and not just being another shouting voice.
What do you think?
Do you think I should have been a part of the protest? What do you think of the city’s relocation of those living in the encampments? What do you think the role of the Cathedral should be? Should I have said yes to the portapotty? What else can you or we be doing?
Needless to say, I will not be joining it. And I want to be clear about why … and also about the opportunities I see for us as a Cathedral truly to make a difference toward ending homelessness.
Three points:
1) The city’s closing of the encampments and relocating of the residents is a good thing.
2) Movements for change run off the rails when they treat potential allies as enemies.
3) Well-conceived band-aid measures are necessary, but until we take a systems approach, urban poverty and homelessness will persist.
First on the encampments. This is the easy one.
Last year, Kathleen Wilder of The Bridge, Greg Vogelweid of St. Patrick’s Center and Stephanie Perry (then of St. Patrick’s Center, now with Children’s Hospital) and I set out three principles that would guide us as we worked together to try to end homelessness and urban poverty in St. Louis. We agreed we would insist on and promote only solutions that were in line with these principles.
1) We dream of creating a city that makes happy God’s heart.
2) We seek and embrace solutions that promote the safety, dignity, and quality of life for all people.
3) We refuse to defend the rights of people to demean themselves and others.
The encampments are dangerous – a public health and safety hazard. People living outside in filth and subject to assault and robbery is neither safe nor dignified. I realize that it is some of the residents’ preference to live in the encampments, but I refuse to spend my energy defending the rights of people to demean themselves and others.
The City of St. Louis has taken a census of those living in the camps. The people are not being evicted but are being relocated into safe housing. They are being given funds to provide for their basic needs and help with setting up their new homes and connected with resources to help them stay there.
The city’s relocation efforts are not perfect. Just putting people in a home does not begin to solve all their problems. But it is an important piece … and the encampments are not only not a workable solution, they are an active detriment to the health and safety of the people who live there.
In fact, we should not only refrain from protesting the relocation, we should actively support it.
That is why I invite you to join me in making a personal donation to the Encampment Relocation Fund that will help with transition expenses for people being relocated by making a check out to:
Encampment Relocation Fund
C/O United Way of Greater St. Louis
910 N. 10th St.,
St. Louis, MO 63101
or by calling (314) 657-1702.
But even more disturbing is that this protest and the rhetoric behind it are just more of the same. The biggest stumbling block toward ending homelessness in St. Louis is our inability to work together.
In this instance, the primary players are familiar foes – the City of St. Louis and New Life Evangelistic Center. I’ve spent lots of time with representatives of both these groups. And the truth is, both really care about and are providing necessary services for homeless people. The truth is, we would be in big trouble if the efforts of either one simply disappeared. And the truth is we should be working together to make all of those efforts unnecessary.
Working together. And not just as the City and NLEC … but the City and the County … the business community and the faith community.
As Americans, it’s known as citizenship – working together for the common good. I call it discipleship.
Even if the relocation of those in the encampments was a bad idea (which it isn’t), the answer is not shouting and shaming. That just deepens the chasms between us. The answer is the answer of Gandhi and Mandela and Tutu and King … of treating even your active enemies as future friends. Of seeking loving conversion of hearts.
It is following the counsel Paul gave to the Philippians, “in humility regard others as better than yourselves.”
There is a time for protest. But the protests of Gandhi and Mandela and Tutu and King did not demonize the proponents of the policies they were trying to change and always sought first to work with them. That is not the case here nor has it been anything close to the history of our struggle with homelessness in St. Louis. And unless that changes, there is little hope anything else will.
Finally, we do need to provide band-aid measures that give compassionate care to those who are currently homeless. It’s why we have our Miss Carol’s Breakfast Program on Saturday mornings. It’s why we support The Bridge both financially and with volunteers for their Sunday lunch program. It’s why when City Director of Homeless Services Bill Siedhoff asked me yesterday if we would allow a portapotty to be put on the NE corner of 13th and Olive to try to alleviate the annual warm weather public health problem of outdoor urination and defecation (of which our own buildings are often a target), my answer was, “If you think it might help … absolutely.”
But none of these things do anything to end homelessness. That’s why I was intruiged and grateful to be invited to be a part of a new group forming to look at how systems theory can be used in looking at promoting lasting change for urban poverty and homelessness. We are a priest, a social worker, a homeless activist, a lawyer, developer and a banker. We are a self-described partnership of the two groups that traditionally battle each other … the NIMBYs and the bleeding hearts … and we’re seeing how we can work together to promote solutions that address the multiple causes of urban poverty and homelessness and that don’t just shift the problem around.
It’s a big job, but there is hope. Click here to read a report of a community effort in Battle Creek, MI, that successfully used a Systems Dynamics model in their efforts related to homelessness. Other systems models, like the Harlem Children’s Zone model that Grace Hill Settlement House is exploring for their neighborhood have shown great promise in sustaining community-based change.
I believe this is the path toward that city that makes glad God’s heart of which we dream.
Why is this important for Christ Church Cathedral?
This is the intersection of the historic role of the Cathedral as a community gathering place for all people and our Gospel and historical mandate to see, meet and care for Christ in the poorest of the poor. It is an approach that is in line with the mission of the church to “reconcile all people to unity with God and each other in Christ.” It is also an opportunity for us truly to be a Cathedral in terms of leading an entire community toward sustainable change and not just being another shouting voice.
What do you think?
Do you think I should have been a part of the protest? What do you think of the city’s relocation of those living in the encampments? What do you think the role of the Cathedral should be? Should I have said yes to the portapotty? What else can you or we be doing?
5 comments:
I love it when people ask for my opinion! :-)
Having been to Hopeville, my mind changed some regarding this. A group of people, many of whom chose to live there rather than a shelter, made the best of a bad lot. The whole scene cast the TV reality show, Survivor, in a new light. It seemed that a good many of the residents of that encampment were couples and were there because that place allowed them to be together. That said, it was not a safe place. Weather and crime are just two of the problems.
If relocation and funds for basic needs along with resources to help them stay there are being offered, I believe this will help bring about a change and a chance for independence -- which is one desire of many of the inhabitants.
Marching to bring awareness and marching in protest are two different things. Homelessness is an injustice and blame can be shared by those factors that drive our greed economy. Yet, what the city is offering will help change lives for the better -if for no reason other than it is not emanating from a greed system but from a giving system.
Re: the portapotties -- I would much rather view a portapotty than to smell or see the urination or defacation.
Mike,
I support what you have shared with us here 100%. The opportunity being created by the city for a change in the lives of individuals and couples who have been living in the encampments is a wonderful one.
The work being done by Grace Hill is also a good start, however, what I would really like to see is the empty or derelict property, where the City is the landlord or owner, be freed up to people to rent or buy, so that they may locate small free-standing homes and reverse the trend of people moving out of the city.
With companies like TumbleWeed Tiny House Company, http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com, who can provide good, affordable,individual, houses to live in, working hand in hand with the city and any interesested groups, maybe we can find a way to help people both keep the American Dream alive, and respect their individuality at the same time.
Stephen J. Robin
Mike,
Your post is thoughtful, well-articulated, and thought provoking. Marching in a protest is easy, but working for sustainable change is difficult labor. I don't think I remember Jesus saying, "when I was homeless you marched in protest for me." Working with the city to bring some relief is a good thing, but I can't help but ask "what is the ecclesial response to homelessness in the city of St. Louis?" Or maybe better said, "How would Christ have us love our homeless neighbors?"
I am willing to bet that many of the people living in "hopeville" are baptized Christians, which makes them members of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic church, not to mention our brothers and sisters in Christ. How much space does the church (I am speaking about the entire church, not just one particular congregation or denomination) own that remains vacant throughout the week, and yet, we can't find room to house fellow members of Christ's Body. What a scandal! Christ told his disciples that "when you did unto the least of these, you did unto me." That you is the ecclesial us. Sure, the government can be used as a tool in some instances to help the poor, but how can the world take us, the church, seriously when we can't take care of our own brothers and sisters living down by the Mississippi? Protesting is easy, but turning our mission over to the city can also be an excuse not to get our hands dirty. But I guess we need those hands clean when we pass the peace on Sunday morning.
I think you did the right thing in not joining the protest. I agree, the protest is simply advocating for the status quo, and the status quo is neither desirable nor sustainable.
Instead of helping the city relocate (that word makes me uneasy) these people, why not start up a conversation with this community and the Cathedral community? Maybe invite some members to an adult forum to talk about their experience as living without adequate shelter, and maybe have a church picnic by the Mississippi. Get to know these fellow members of Christ's Body. Ask them how the church can help. If relationships are made, these people will no longer be "these people," but rather Bill, Marge, Henry, etc, etc. Hopefully, mutual support and sharing would come out of these relationships. After all, there are a whole lot of resources that the congregation has access to that could help lift the people of "hopeville" out of poverty and give them a glimpse of our only Hope, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Jon Stratton
Mike, I've tried to answer each of your points in detail. I hope it does your thoughts justice. Peace.
http://justthischris.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/1377/
Chris,
Thank you so much for taking the time for such a prayerful and thoughtful reply. I consider you a partner in ministry, a brother in Christ and a friend, so I am glad you responded and I am sure we will have much more of this conversation face-to-face.
At this point, it would easy for us to get into "dueling tomes" ... and I don't see much point in that ... particularly because we agree on a great deal of what you are talking about. I just want to clarify some things I believe you either misunderstood or I didn't express well enough, agree that there are some "agree to disagree" pieces here ... and then point out one thing you wrote that does illustrate a significant difference.
First on the value of the encampments. I believe we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I'd love to continue that conversation face-to-face.
Second, when I talked about "band-aid" approaches, I think you took that as a pejorative, when I didn't mean it that way. We need band-aids. Band aids are the binding of wounds and we need to do that lovingly and generously. They are loving works of mercy. But they are not sufficient alone -- and I know you know this and you have said this. Band-aids do not prevent new wounds from occurring ... and so a band-aid approach by itself is not enough. I did not presume you disagreed with this when I wrote it, nor did I mean to indicate I thought you were not interested nor working toward this. If that was inferred through my own unclarity, I apologize.
In terms of NLEC's relationship with the City, you must know that the narrative that is played out publicly is that you are two oppositional forces. You wrote:
"Far from attempting to shame the city and the Continuum of Care, which is how this tends to be taken, we are pressing the city to consider all its citizens and all its practices."
Regardless of your intent, you are right that this kind of action will be taken as an attempt to shame the City and CofC. It's a cliche, but perception becomes reality. As I said in my piece, I believe both NLEC and the City (at least the people in the HOmeless Services Dept) are interested in ending homelessness. But as a relative newcomer to downtown, it feels like there is a Montague-Capulet thing going on here that neither one of you can get past. I haven't walked the miles you all have walked together, but I can tell you it just seems intransigent and a huge barrier to getting anything done and protests just seem to make it worse and cement the oppositional narrative in people's minds.
OK ... I promised I wouldn't do dueling tomes so I will stop now. I truly am grateful for your response ... and any time I have a chance to re-ponder Dorothy Day and Bernard it is a good day. BLessings to you, my friend.
Post a Comment