One Year at Hope House

We lose track of our humble beginnings at our homeless ministry, Hope House. I think that one of the reasons why it is so difficult to track our birthday is that we were always doing things as soon as we could. We didn't wait to have a grand opening when everything was finished. We housed our first homeless man, not because we had one room completed and ready to be inhabited, but because we had a man leaving a program that would have returned to his storage unit if we had not offered him the room. The rehabilitation of the Hope House buildings took months and could only be tracked by payments for supplies and labor.

But today turns out to be an easy opportunity for an anniversary. For today is the first anniversary of The Book of Common Prayer: A Liturgy for Radicals. One year ago today, November 30, 2010, was the release party of this book of liturgical prayer. I had actually signed up to host a release party at the Hope House location before I owned it. Talk about living into your reality. I knew that those hosting release parties would get free copies of the book, and I wanted to make this prayer resource available to homeless men in a program across town. The first event at Hope House was this release party. By the time of the party I had discovered that I was in way over my head in terms of my ability to provide a competent liturgical showing, with music and songs that were part of other release parties. As a result I invited only a handful of people, and a few showed up. It was certainly an opportunity to show people the book, and a new way to think about prayer, but it turned out to be an excellent first showing of Hope House. With walls freshly painted and a newly donated table just moved into the dining room, sans chairs, Hope House was, on the inside at least, like a shiny new penny.

So we celebrate this season of anniversary for Hope House remembering that this is the season that we began providing housing to our first homeless man, when we first opened the house to visitors, and soon, (probably this coming weekend) the first anniversary of a Hope House outreach morning. Happy one year anniversary to Hope House!

Revising the revisionist history on Old Testament teaching

Jesus tells us to not take an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, but to love our brothers and sisters. He tells us to turn the other cheek, to give more than what we are asked for, and to share with those who don't have what we have. The spirituality of Jesus is a completion of the law. In what the law was attempting to accomplish through justice, Jesus brings to completion for Grace. So we know from the teachings of Jesus, that we are called to more than "an eye for an eye."

Because we have studied the spirituality of Jesus for 2000 years, and at least know on an intellectual level that we are to apply it to our lives, we often view the justice of an eye for an eye is barbaric and antiquated. Sometimes the God of the Old Testament seems so bloody and violent to our modern eyes. I think if we look at the setting of God's teaching on justice we will see that it is not violent, but restrictive in the violence that allows. It is an improvement on what men were doing to each other in the name of retaliation and justice. Although we as Christians know that justice is not enough and that we should extend grace to each other I think the very nature of our problems today comes from our escalation of violence. God's teaching of an eye for an eye is something we should look at with fresh eyes because God's teaching is against the escalation of violence.

Recently we've had arson in the homeless camps that we minister to. It is actually the third arson in the past six months, and we now know that all these fires were basically set by 1 man. The first fire was the burning of a tent that belong to a man who was not well-liked in the homeless community and was somewhat of a bully. Providence used in the burning of his tent to move him into rehab and at the time we didn't know who set fire to the tent, so nothing more was thought of it. Again about six weeks ago there was a fire and about an acre of Woods was burned. No tent was destroyed and no one was harmed. But this last fire was different. It was malicious and violent. The man had been abusive to a woman in the camps, attacking her, knocking her to the ground. She was defended verbally by another homeless man, and for this crime his camp was burned. He lost everything he had, which wasn't much, but whether you have a little or a lot when you lose everything, everything is gone. He torched several other camps, and made a second trip in the middle of the night to burn what he had missed the first time. The only camp left standing was the tent of a man who stands 6'9" and has friends in the community. It was a calculated decision to leave it alone.

The homeless community is very upset with this man, James, who is alleged to have burn the camps. They are concerned about the danger to human life that is present with the burning of tents in the middle of the night. They are angry about the loss of material possessions that cannot be replaced, such as a crucifix that came from the casket of a grandmother, or a Bible that was given by a loved one. They know the level of violence involved in this arson is too extreme and calls for a response. But I think the most heinous thing about this crime is that it extends beyond an eye for an eye. No one would be angry with James to the level they are angry now, if his tent had first been burned. We would be disappointed with him, sad that he had not heeded the call of Jesus, but we would understand on some level the reasoning for his response. So I would argue that James's crime is that no one had first burned his tent. And without this level of justification there is no justice, there is no eye to match eye. He escalated violence beyond any reasonable expectation of reciprocity. If we follow "an eye for an eye" to its logical conclusion, that we never escalated violence above what is done to us, in this absence of the escalation of violence we are only loving each other. Maybe we would just use harsh words with each other in the heat of the moment and there would never be blows thrown or fires lit.

I think somewhere in this argument is a missing link. We who know that with strong love comes strong boundaries and responsibilities know that there must be consequences for actions. This justice begins and ends with loving each other. In the middle, where the rubber hits the road, lies all our successes and failures. The most important rule in living with these failures is to not escalate violence, but only take "an eye for an eye." I think if we never escalate violence to each other, never answer harsh words with a slap, or a rude driver with the middle finger, then we are not far away from what Jesus is asking us to do. Because Jesus asked us to extend Grace to each other and to love as God loves us. God does not give us what we deserve but withholds the taking of an eye. So let us always follow Jesus and not return evil for evil and always remember never more than eye for an eye.

In Defense of Those Who Remain Unhoused

I recently went on retreat at my favorite monastery, the Monastery of the Holy Spirit in Conyers, Ga. It was a weekend retreat and my routine is always the same: check in after 3pm, visit the gift shop and get settled a little mentally before Vespers at 5:20. This was the first time I was assigned to a room with two beds at the retreat house, but I knew that I had the room to myself since there had been no mention of a roommate. But when I returned to my room at 5pm to drop off my recently purchased books and wash up before heading to the church, I discovered that another person's bags were on the other bed. (It turned out that he had been given the wrong key).

Since my friend had a room next door with an empty bed, I bunked there for the night. The minor mix-up on the room assignment turned out to be a great blessing for me. First, I had an opportunity to surrender my retreat to God and admit that this must be the retreat God has planned for me. That remembrance of God's providence didn't alter my plan to get a private room if I could (which I did and it was my favorite room yet), but it dramatically changed the EXPERIENCE of the rooming crisis and the retreat. It was the best retreat I've had yet, in part due to being willing to surrender to the experience.

But I also was able to glean some really useful insights for my ministry to the homeless. I discovered something about myself on this retreat, something I had suspected all along but now I know for sure. I find sleeping in a room with a complete stranger less than desirable. And even though I was able to spend the night in the room with a friend, I was reminded of something else: I can't sleep well in the room with someone snoring. And it occurred to me that this is what my homeless brothers and sisters endure when they enter a shelter- snoring strangers. And usually a room full of snoring strangers, each playing his own melody of nasal music. Just the thought could lead me to the local walmart to buy my camping supplies. Am I any different from most men I know? Definitely not. We may like our creature comforts but our country was founded by men who preferred frontier and the adventure over the next mountain. These men thought nothing of camping out in the open, as do some of our men of today.

Recently one of our homeless men who comes to Hope House has made a point of saying that he really didn't NEED anything. He is happy to have his time at Hope House with the people he loves but he doesn't come because he NEEDS to. He showers in the woods and runs a camp very well. One day, as he was making his point, he declined to take a food bag which was really puzzling to our volunteers because it was obvious that he was a little edgy about it. But I think it was his way of saying that just because he chooses to live in the woods doesn't mean that he is in desperate need of charity or that he is without the ability to care for himself. Sure he is homeless. But so are the people staying in the shelter. In fact, the people in the shelter are not any less homeless. Staying in the local homeless shelter is not morally superior to living in a tent and our brothers and sisters who choose to live independently as they work out their homelessness should not be looked down or denied services. Opportunities for employment or healthcare or other needs should not be withheld to manipulate them into conforming to our expectations. Food, mailing address access, computer access and other tools to escape homelessness should be provided as they work out their own plan, in their own time, and in their own way. May God continue to embolden our volunteers and advocates at Hope House as we continue to live in relationship with our homeless brothers and sisters.

Razor setting number 3

I have created a bit of shock at my house recently, having shaved off my beard, which was rather full, after several years of wearing it longer than my wife would prefer. I have worn a beard now in some form or fashion for close to 8 years, so it was a shock to all in the house, including myself, to see my naked chin.

You would think that shaving a beard would be nothing to write about, and I'm not sure that it is. It's just that we put so much emphasis on our appearance, even when our emphasis is on the lack thereof. Beards have been on my radar for many years and often the most intriguing people in the history books are those with the interesting facial hair. My most favorite picture of Frederick Douglas is the one in which he sports his massive beard proudly, and it is that photograph that makes me wonder what a absolute force of nature that he must have been to deal with as a abolitionist. My interest in monasticism is no different. As I search the archives of materials available to us on the web, my restless eyes often stop to stare at those interesting monks with the long beards. What lies behind those eyes? What of spiritual battles would those gray beards tell? Like the rings of a tree, I often read of years gone by in the shades of gray in an old monk's beard. So it is no coincidence I suppose that many of my spiritual heroes are bearded spiritual warriors, with beards far exceeding setting number 3 on their electric razors, if they were to have one.

You can see by now the meanings one might attach to a beard. Anything of this earth could run the risk of becoming an idol, and many times as I enjoyed the benefits of a beard on a winter day I have thought to cut the darn thing off just to prove to myself that I had no unnatural attachment to it. As the weather has gotten warmer many of my homeless brothers have come to the Hope House and made use of the electric trimmers and shaved off their proud winter manes. Having no interest in setting number 3, they have straight down to the skin, not caring for anyone's opinion of their clean shaven face any more than they cared what others thought of a scraggly beard.

So what of this setting on the beard trimmer that I have referred to as setting number 3? It might not be number 3 on your trimmer at home, but you are familiar with the setting. It's the one that's "just right". Not too long, not too short. Every woman finds it sexy, or distinguished, or, even better, appropriate. If you want your facial hair approved by the masses, setting number 3 is just right for you. My wife would love for me to keep my beard trimmed to setting number 3, although her desire to avoid any attempt to control me would never allow her to say so. I am also sure that she must be baffled at why I would go from a long beard to a clean face, buzzing my way right pass setting number 3. Just as setting number 3 means something to the masses, it means something to me. For the masses, the man with the "just right" beard is safe, non-threatening, a little dangerous but not really, sensitive but physiologically proving his body still can produce a little testosterone. We have emasculated the men of our society as we seek for androgynous balance, having somewhere in the 1980's lost any sense of why men ought be different or do anything other with themselves than setting number 3. You might say that freedom of beard length is akin to freedom of conscience, perhaps an outward sign that interiorally you aren't getting out of line. "Excuse me, Doctor, was there any sign that Mr. Smith wasn't going to cooperative with our indoctrination?" "No, none at all. Hair cut above the ears, beard trimmed to setting number 3".

So next time we see a homeless man with an unkempt beard we should ask ourselves what those visual cues mean to us, and what they may mean to him. It is not as I hope you can see, without meaning for any of us. Let us love one another, those with big beards and those clean shaven, and remember, don't drink the kool-aid and stay away from setting number 3.