The River Church Community

St. James Park has a certain ministry appeal.  Whenever downtown ministry is on the table, St. James Park is served.  The main reason is, I presume, that the homeless gather there in droves.  Another reason is that it is so close to the heart of downtown (at least, where the tall buildings are: i.e., what I like to call “tall downtown.”)  But to be honest, while I assumed that St. James park and ministry go together like a hot-dog and a bun, I really had no idea what other churches did there or what other services already existed there.  To alleviate this obvious gap, I visited the churches next to St. James Park.  And I was surprised by what I found out. 

There are two primary churches on St. James Park—a Unitarian church and an Anglican church.  Since the outreach director was out at the Unitarian church, I met with their head pastor.  I’d written a paper on William Ellery Channing so I was able to build some quick bridges, and get a sense of their St. James park ministry without pretence: they don’t do anything.  In the past, they apparently held services in the park.  When pressed, she couldn’t think of a reason why they had stopped.

The Reverend at the Anglican Church was more focused on “the homeless question.” Having worked with the homeless in Washington D.C. for 13 years, he explained that the homeless in St. James Park are different.  Granting some possible exceptions, he told me that almost all of the homeless in the park are drug addicts or drug dealers.  For this reason, the city has forbidden feeding the park’s homeless—to discourage the drug dealers and addicts from congregating where children are meant to play.

This policy still unsettles me.  Are we really contributing to the problem by giving food to someone who has no kitchen?  If we switched back the clock to AD 30 would we really not feed that wandering homeless Nazarene who consorted with “society’s dregs”?  When I met with the Reverend, these ideas flooded into my head and I was temporally distracted.  When I came back to reality, I heard the Reverend explain that someone could easily feed the homeless, get arrested, and be put in the paper.  But he wondered whether this would really help the homeless.  The homeless have access to food in San Jose (for the most part) but what they need is housing.  EHC (emergency Housing Consortium), which is the largest homeless housing project in Santa Clara Valley, turns away 20% of the homeless who come to its overcrowded doors every day!  If I wanted to help, he argued, it would be better to focus on this problem, not food.  

I had to admit, he had a point.  I was infatuated with my principle but my principle was less connected to benefiting the homeless than the righteousness of the principle itself—and I have to admit it seemed rather sexy to have my mug in print as the defender of the defenseless (oohh narcissism!).  Yet, with that said, is making homeless-feeding illegal really the solution?  Should we really shun drug dealers and addicts so that they only consort with one another?  Does that make the children any safer?  And I guess I even have my doubts about how often meth addicts, high out of their gourd, really enjoy the slide and the swing.  Or does the dealer really sling meth to the four year olds hanging out with their mother’s? 

And so my thoughts wander…I am not totally sure what I think or what I should do next.  But I am convinced that doing nothing is not an option—though I admit it is appealing.  It is much easier to loose interest when I face the confusion than to keep trying.   Yet, I have a feeling that this is what it means to have hope in God: I will not continue to advocate for the poor because I believe that I am capable of making a significant difference.  I labor on because I believe that Jesus will make a difference and in the end, this is where my hope lies—in Jesus and the coming of his kingdom.   
Maranatha!!!! (ICor 16:22)