A letter to the community from Fauntleroy Church

This morning, we finally heard from Fauntleroy Church (UCC) leadership regarding the Tent City 3 proposal, which, as we reported on Sunday with reader assistance, is now tabled. Rev. David Kratz forwarded a letter to the community dated Sunday, and added a few additional comments. First, the letter, in its entirety:

Dear Neighborhood Friends,

During the first week of October, a small group of men and women from Tent City 3 (TC3) came to our church to present information, and to ask if we would consider hosting them from December through February because of their pressing need for somewhere to live at that time. Because of their need, we agreed to have TC3 make a similar presentation to our congregation last Sunday. A majority of church members at the meeting favored exploring the possibility of hosting TC3, but there were many concerns about whether we are well-positioned to explore this question right now.

Homelessness and housing is a multi-faceted issue that seriously concerns us. The growing gap between the rich and the poor, the diminishing of the middle class, the rapid loss of affordable housing across the nation and in Seattle, and more importantly coming to know individual homeless people prompt us to discern how we should respond as followers of Christ.

Fauntleroy Church has a long history of service on behalf of the poor. One of the things we’re most proud of is having helped found the original First Avenue Service Center in downtown Seattle (now called the Family and Adult Service Center). FASC is a program that provides the homeless with basic human services, such as nutritious meals, a place to shower, laundry facilities, access to phone and computer services, as well as case management, assistance finding safe and affordable housing, vocational training, and much more.

This morning our Church Council decided not to host Tent City 3 in the near future. We do plan to continue educating ourselves on the issue of homelessness. We directed our Outreach Ministry to create a Homelessness Task Force, with the charge to explore the whole range of theological, biblical, social, and psychological dimensions of homelessness and seek appropriate responses for our church. We plan to start this effort in 2008. We will keep you apprised of our process. Perhaps you may want to join our conversations and learn with us–we would welcome your wisdom and questions. We honor our relationship with you just as much as we do our call to serve the “least among us.”

Sincerely,

David Kratz, Senior Pastor
Susan Towner Larsen, Associate Pastor
Steve Sundquist, Moderator, Church Council

Rev. Kratz added in his e-mail to WSB that he has read the comments on our previous posts and, “I would invite anyone who would like to participate in a broader conversation about how to respond to people who are homeless to become part of a mailing list we are starting. As the letter states in the winter we will take a broader
look and would welcome the wisdom of concerned folks.”

42 Replies to "A letter to the community from Fauntleroy Church"

  • Dis October 16, 2007 (11:41 am)

    Is that the same Steve Sundquist who’s runnning for school board? Very innneresting…

  • Ken in West Seattle October 16, 2007 (11:47 am)

    As a recovering Christian in my 40th year of sanity, I am somehow not surprised that the concerns of the Pharisees and Calvinist and those fearful of property values, overruled the actual tenets of the faith.
    So far….
    I expect better of the UCC and my neighbors in West Seattle.

    ———-
    “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'”

    -Matthew 25:41-45

    “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”

    -Proverbs 31:8-9
    ——-

  • WSB October 16, 2007 (11:50 am)

    Dis — Yes, it is, according to the bio on his campaign website.

  • Ken in West Seattle October 16, 2007 (12:09 pm)

    Well now, I had already decided to vote for Maria Ramirez in the Seattle School board position 6 race.

  • donald October 16, 2007 (1:03 pm)

    As much as I hate to say this: Good. I don’t want a tent city in my neighborhood. I’ve got enough worries as it is, I don’t need to add my house being robbed and my car being stolen to my list any higher than they already are. I’m not saying that everyone is like that, and I know that the majority of people in the tent cities are just trying to survive, but I think it does attract a very undesireable element, people wanting to take advantage, etc. There should be more programs, etc to fight homelessness, but putting a bunch of tents in somewhere is not the answer. Unless it is in Medina, Bellevue, Kirkland, anywhere on the Eastside/bordering if not in Snohomish County. And that’s just more out of spite of the eastside than anything else, because I know those people would hate it even more than me. I would, however, support something like Tent City in West Seattle, as long as it was in the premisis of Mars Hill Church (INSIDE, not a bunch of tents in a parking lot next to a daycare), so we could get those freaks out. Besides, apparently we have some major problems with grannys and three year olds tripping over straight-identifying gay men having sex in public parks, do we really need to add hobos in a bumtown having sex next to a daycare to that list?

  • Sage October 16, 2007 (1:25 pm)

    This letter would be more convincing if it would, oh, say, mention even a single one of the “many concerns” they refer to. How much more evasive could they be? — seems to me that they’re a bit too ashamed to even put their concerns down in writing. And too ashamed to say directly they have concerns about TentCity, which I assume to be the case. Instead, it’s concerns about how “well-positioned” they are to “explore the question.” What does that even mean? I thought they *were* just exploring the question.

    Maria Ramirez just got another vote from me, by default if nothing else. This sure isn’t the letter of someone equipped to make a tough decision and stand by it.

  • JumboJim October 16, 2007 (1:33 pm)

    While I couldn’t say if they are ashamed or not, I share Sage’s thoughts that it would’ve been nice to know why they had turned tent city down this time.

    Parts of the letter smack more of a political statement than anything else. How about some straight-up, honest speaking people. Cut the press releases and tell us what your concerns were. Perhaps many of us would agree with them.

    If they are to consider hosting tent city in the future they would be wise to have some discussion with the nearby community, even if they are fully within their right to host it on their property.

  • Wes October 16, 2007 (1:50 pm)

    Interesting comment Ken, I do agree with you that the gospel of Jesus Christ is represented in the representation of the church showing mercy, but I thought it was funny that someone who has been enlightened above Christianity would care so much about what a church does. Just a thought.
    As a side note, and this is my opinion, American or even western Christianity is in most ways apostate and quite honestly a laughing stock as it should be since it has adopted the ways of secular society instead of following God in His Word. So a low view of scripture creates a church that acts so much much like the secular world that the secular world can not see what’s different about it, and so when it raises it hand to speak up on topics it is ridiculed for having an opinion on any matter. This of course coupled with the writings of Hitchens and Dawkins and you have a church who is less like the bride of Christ and more like the “red-headed stepchild” who should be seen and not heard.
    For someone to say that they are a “recovering Christian” is to perhaps, perhaps say that they have never understood Christ’s redemptive work on the cross in the first place? I don’t know, just an assumption.

  • Dis October 16, 2007 (2:37 pm)

    uh, you lost me there, Wes. you don’t approve of the church because it “adopted the ways of secular society….” and something about a “low view of scripture…” and “apostate” which all doesn’t make much sense to me. Frankly, I don’t have any opinion on this topic, but I don’t understand yours, either.

  • Andy October 16, 2007 (2:52 pm)

    Well, well…this was handled in true Seattle fashion! Instead of choosing the will of the people, representatives have decided to “PC up” and create yet another task force instead of balling up and making a tough decision. We’re talking about people here folks – yes, homeless people – are we really talking about home values and material possessions? Are those things more important than someone’s life? Geez, how sad. What kind of society have we degraded into? This church should have stood up and said, “Yes, we will take these people in! We welcome them, and it’s the RIGHT thing to do.” But no, in true selfish fashion, many of the residents of this West Seattle area have shown their true colors. Disgusting. And to think we were different from those “uppity” Eastsiders who fought so strongly to keep tent cities away. There’s no difference, and you’re no better.

  • JW October 16, 2007 (2:54 pm)

    Anyone who’s reading WSB and adding comments to a blog, etc. etc. has made some accommodations to secular society themselves. As has this church, particularly judging from the content and style of their letter.

    I think the harsh judgment of the church reflects a desire that some institution out there weren’t as compromised by the facts of living in Seattle in 2007 as the rest of us. On the other side, people also approve of the church’s action as a validation of their own views.

    In both cases, it seems to me, we’re looking to be made more comfortable with the world we live in. But I don’t think mommy or god or the state or whoever is going to swoop down and take care of all of this mess for us – we can give and take help, but in the end, we all lie down in the bed we’ve made, and I include the homeless in that “we.”

  • donald October 16, 2007 (3:15 pm)

    I believe that for the most part, churches are parasites on society, far more than homeless people, and they have no business being the sole deciding factor of what goes on in a community where not everyone is a member of their congregation, or shares their beliefs. We are multi cultural and dare i say it? SECULAR SOCIETY. Not a fundamentalist christian terrorist society like so many from the right wing would have us believe through their mouthpieces in the mainstream media, with their right wing evangelical bias. And if anyone wants to talk about people’s lives and well being, well my child’s life is worth a lot more than some bum living in a tent on the corner of bumtown and junkieville that has already pissed away the majority of theirs.

  • Wes October 16, 2007 (3:41 pm)

    Dis-
    Thanks for the questions. The church is to be in the world but not similar to the world or live in the world but not be like the world. Christ lived in the world but He wasn’t like everyone else in the world. When influences outside the church, not of the church, dictate what the church does or believes, that church no longer believes that the Bible (God’s communication to man) is their authority. (Seperation of church and state was originally intended for the state not to govern the churches beliefs and activities, one of the reason why the Pilgrims fled to America).So they live less like Christ. It becomes Sola Cultura and not Sola Scriptura. This is also a low view of scripture, that is the Bible is no longer God’s authoritative word to His church. So this hypothetical church would then be no longer a christian church and always comprimising to the way the world moves instead of holding fast to what God has said. I hope that helps.

    Donald, why all the anger? And you are right the church should not dictate society and vice-versa. But the Tent City went to the church not the chamber of commerce. Also, what would classify a “christian terrorist”? Also off topic, do you believe in animal euthanazia(sp)?

  • JumboJim October 16, 2007 (3:46 pm)

    Ahhh religous discussions…. much heat and little light. I do like having some predictability in life.

  • s October 16, 2007 (4:08 pm)

    i guess the thing i am most confused about is WHERE would they have but the tent CITY if they had decided to host it. last time i drove by there i didnt see any large open spaces that could have held it.

  • Jan October 16, 2007 (4:14 pm)

    JJ…politics and religion….seems to get everyone going on here, huh…

    :)

  • Jiggers October 16, 2007 (5:45 pm)

    For the record, I’m Agnostic because I think organized religion is a sham all the way around.

  • Andy October 16, 2007 (7:17 pm)

    Let’s all remember, that, by default:

    Homeless person ≠ criminal

    People reach this state of homelessness in many different ways, and not just in the convenient, negative ways that some judgmental people prefer to believe.

    And yes, I’d have to agree on another user’s comment – organized religion/churches are a complete sham/scam.

  • Wes October 16, 2007 (7:32 pm)

    I love the unfounded blanket statements. So Jiggers you don’t know because you know that all organized religions are a sham?

  • JT October 16, 2007 (7:49 pm)

    Yes Wes, kind of like you and your unfounded blanket statements about the “secular” world. I’m with Jiggers.

  • Lou October 16, 2007 (9:17 pm)

    me=agnostic
    organized religion=sham

    Just wanted to clear that up before posting :-)

    And before anyone questions my blanket statement…it is based on personal experiences while growing…I’m free to have my own beliefs and opinion.

    As for the tent city, when I first read the letter above I basically took it to me that they decided not to host since they were not fully educated on what it meant to have a tent city. I think it’s fine if they want to setup a task force…hopefully that includes talking to neighbors and understanding their concerns – this is definitely most important. Don’t poop in your own backyard (or whatever that saying is).

    I, too, would like to know their reasons, but suspect they are being cautious and wanting to validate their reasons before just blurting them out.

    Basically, nothing has changed except they will continue to evaluate into the future – that’s not such a bad thing.

    For the record, I do not want any tent cities in west seattle…call me selfish and uncaring…whatever. I didn’t spend hundreds of thousands on a home to share with tents.

  • Wes October 16, 2007 (9:28 pm)

    JT what comments about the “secular world” are you speaking about?

  • The House October 16, 2007 (9:51 pm)

    My only comment:

    Boy, you need to get yo’ self out of “Tent City” and into “Rent City” (two snaps up and down).

    Ken, here are a few other quotes:

    “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.” – Albert Eienstein

    “Suppose we’ve chosen the wrong God.
    Every time we go to church we’re just making him madder and madder.” – Homer Simpson

  • JT October 17, 2007 (12:03 am)

    Wes, in your ramble about christian churches becoming no different than the secular world because of there low view of scripture, the implication is that there’s a problem with being secular. Secular, meaning nothing more than seperate from religion. It’s not a dirty word. I am a card carrying secular atheist, and am happy to help out others whenever I can, homeless or otherwise.

  • donald October 17, 2007 (12:08 am)

    Here’s what we do, ok? This will solve the homeless problem once and for all. We go out into Eastern Washington, right? A rural area, nothing around really. Ok, you guys with me on this one? We go out there into BFE Nowhere, and we build a Shoney’s. We go out into the deserts of Eastern Washington and we build a Shoney’s restaurant. Ok? Then we get some busses. We can buy them from the school, maybe borrow the church’s, or just buy our own. Either way we are going to need a whole lot of busses. Then we round up all the homeless people, we get all of them onto busses, and then we drive them out to the Shoney’s we built. And we feed them. Everyone gets free meals at the Shoney’s! All you can eat salad bar! Breakfast Bar, all you can eat just $4.99! And then whilst they are enjoying a nice family style meal from the soup and salad bar, we get in the busses and take off. We just up and leave. Now they are Shoney’s problem, not the taxpayer’s.

  • Jan October 17, 2007 (12:12 am)

    House…thank you for the Homer Simpson quote…it made my day :)

  • Jan October 17, 2007 (12:14 am)

    donald….does anyone around here even know what a Shoney’s is? hehe…

  • Kayleigh October 17, 2007 (5:47 am)

    Jan, what the heck is Shoney’s? Is it like the old Royal Fork ™? I got sick at the Burien Royal Fork at age 5. Still remember projectile vomiting in their bathroom.

  • Wes October 17, 2007 (7:35 am)

    Hey JT
    I never made the comment that there is a problem with being secular, but that the church should be different. For example, as a Christian my good works do not get me to heaven, but they are the outworking of an inward love for God. Would I be right to assume that the secularists good works are that of a humanist, meaning I do it so that someone can feel good and I can feel good? I did not use it as a dirty word, if you took it that way, I apologize. But there is a clear line between the church and a secular world. Asking first what someone means for a word to say, is always better so there is no miscommunication.
    How do you define atheist?

  • donald October 17, 2007 (8:19 am)

    An athiest is someone who believes there is no god. We have a very strong and profound belief that god does not exist. There is a belief structure at work there. No just “someone who doesn’t believe in god.” Morals and beliefs are not exclusive to religion, in fact I also believe that morals and beliefs are stronger and more pure without religion. I don’t need to be afraid of some imaginary abusive father-figure in the sky yelling at me to “love him” to do good and behave morally.

  • Jan October 17, 2007 (12:34 pm)

    Kayleigh…Shoney’s is a Denny’s type restaurant mainly at truck stops/ interstate exit rest stops in other parts of the country, east coast, etc…none around here that I know of, living here for 32 years…

  • donald October 17, 2007 (1:07 pm)

    Mostly east coast. I think there is one in Idaho, and possibly California. They were popular with the salad bar boom in the 80s, then people caught on that 1) Shoney’s Sucks 2) Salad Bars aren’t that much better. They have a breakfast bar for $4.99 that is the only decent thing there, and even that is iffy. Once in awhile though, when I am back east, sometimes I forget just how bad Shoney’s is and I decide to stop in for nostalgia’s sake. Then the food arrives and I remember why I never go to Shoney’s. It’s a good thing we don’t have them out here though. The success of the BumBus depends on them not knowing how awful the food they are going to get is, or else they will probably just go back to the dumpster and the garbage behind Wes’ house. If anyone asks or starts to question Shoney’s though, tell them it’s not a Shoney’s, its a Denny’s (or maybe a Sizzler), but at that point it will become very important to not stop the bus for anything until we can safely deposit them at the Shoney’s.

  • The Velvet Bulldog October 17, 2007 (2:42 pm)

    For anyone interested in educating themselves on the issue of homelessness, this week’s edition of The Puget Sound Business Journal has the YWCA’s 2007 Progress Report as a special insert. It’s an excellent illustration of current homeless issues and steps being taken to mitigate these issues.

  • Kayleigh October 17, 2007 (2:52 pm)

    Okay, I’ll pass on Shoney’s, should I ever encounter one. And I wouldn’t wish a $4.99 breakfast on anybody, let alone someone who maybe hasn’t had a decent meal in days.

  • Jan October 17, 2007 (3:40 pm)

    Donald..if it has to be the bus, can we at least let House be one of the drivers? :)

  • Erik October 17, 2007 (4:20 pm)

    We could probably just use some of the articulated buses they now use for routes 54,55,56 to transport them there. Leave the bus for them to live in, since Metro has accelerated the depreciation on them by making the po’ ole buses climb Seneca hill every morning after getting off the viaduct(and bottom out on the transitions). House could tow his car behind the bus since he’s worried about others towing it.

  • Jesse October 17, 2007 (4:27 pm)

    As a member of Fauntleroy Church I am troubled by the jump to conclusions about the decision to not have tent city at this time. There are many people in the church, including the pastors and moderator,who believe strongly that the church should carry out its beliefs in the world. We have agreed to be part of Family Promise and will have homeless families staying in the church 4 times a year. Seattle loves process and that is the biggest issue here. The issue of tent city is divisive as seen by the comments here. We believed that we could not make a decision in the time frame required by tent city (within the next few weeks).I was impressed by the people who came from tent city. they are just like you or I expect they are poor and have no home. I was also appalled that people will vote against Steve because of the letter. Steve did a great job of trying to arrive at a decision which would reflect both the realities at the church right now and the concern for doing something about homelessness. I would suggest learning alittle more about the candidates before making a decision.

  • Wes October 17, 2007 (10:05 pm)

    Hey donald way to show us those strong morals. Where do those morals come from anyways?

  • donald October 18, 2007 (7:21 am)

    They come from a brilliant sense of humor.

  • JT October 18, 2007 (8:22 am)

    Donald, you make me laugh.

  • donald October 18, 2007 (12:16 pm)

    Thanks, JT. I am glad someone appreciates my humor. I also want to go on record as saying that while I do not believe in the existance of hell, I do believe that if it existed, Kokomo by the (fake) Beach Boys would be playing on a neverending loop, and everytime I had to use the bathroom I would get stuck in a stall next to Senator Larry “Wide Stance” Craig, who would constantly be peeping in and asking “Whatcha doing? Pooping?” over and over again.

  • grr October 21, 2007 (9:11 pm)

    donald is my new hero.

    And I’m betting he’s had a White Castle burger as well as a Stuckey’s meal in his day.

Sorry, comment time is over.