>

Why don’t they do what they’re supposed to do and help the homeless…
Sending thoughts & prayers 🙏🏼 >


14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 
15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 
17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead (James 2) >

I’ve noticed that reading James makes a lot of “Christians” real uncomfortable. >

What do you mean? >

Many of the churches formed by the Protestant reformation affirm that believers are made right in God’s eyes solely through profession of faith, and not through good works. In these reformed ideologies, good works are seen as evidence of good faith, and not as a requirement for salvation. 
This is in stark contrast to what is written in James, and most of the reformists I know just kind of ignore James and try not to make eye contact when people bring it up. >

I see, thanks for the breakdown. I grew up Southern Baptist, so I know a small town full of hypocrites. It’s one of the reasons I left the church in the early aughts. I occasionally return to services when I’m in town, but I spend the majority of the time thumbing through the Bible out of nostalgic curiosity. I’ll have to re-read through James sometime. I spent this past Christmas service thumbing around Genesis 19 (thanks, Reddit!) >

Same same same. >

Only if Jesus gave us clear guidance on how to behave towards poor and homeless people… I suppose we’ll never know. >

Jesus was a filthy socialist 
~ godly republicans >

It's all about the trickle down faith... >

"It’s beyond frustrating because it’s impacting our ability to come to church to worship."
I can only imagine Jesus' indignation if he had to ignore and step over homeless people on his way to temple.
If only there was a multi-billion dollar non-profit organization that could help with this problem. >

*If only there was a multi-billion dollar, untaxable organization that could help with this problem >

If only they had giant buildings that are temperature controlled and unused 6 days a week. >

I mean, to be fair, the church I used to attend when I lived with my parents acted as a day care 5 days a week during the day, boys/girls clubs in the evenings, youth groups, young adults groups, worship team practices, weekly dinners for the local elderly. Don't think there was a day or night it wasn't in use. >

and the megachurch in Texas refused entry during a hurricane because they just had new carpet installed.  \~TBF >

I’d use church lightly on that one. Oldstein is the pastor. Not exactly concerned with the poor that one. >

Are any of the rest? (Rhetorical) >

Like many things, the smaller and more local it is, the better a church tends to be. >

Ehhhh, as a product of a small, rural Texas upbringing I can say “it depends”. Plenty of small, local churches are deep wells of racism and hatred that also hand out groceries to the community now and again. >

…and then gossip about the people who had to use the services… >

22 And Jesus visited the temple, and He looked upon the lepers and the poor and the widows who were there
23 Jesus said, "That is gross. I do not want to see those people. I am not going to the temple today until these people are gone from my sight, from my mind and from my heart."
2 Misanthropes >

As a misanthrope I feel insulted. >

Why should the city help a church…it’s not like the church pays any taxes. >

That's actually really good point.  If they don't pay taxes, why should the city provide them any services.  Like if a church catches fire, why waste fire department resources putting it out? >

that's a terrible example because fires can spread. also, even though the church itself doesn't pay taxes, the people inside don't deserve to burn alive because of it. i agree that MOST services should be taken away, but not the fucking fire department >

But what if the adjacent building is also a church? >

Then you’re most likely in the South with shitty infrastructure anyhow. Sherman should have burned the rest of it down. >

Something people seem to not be understanding is that these people are not just homeless, they are likely mentally ill and or also on drugs. They need professional help, not just a couple bucks or a bowl of soup. Do any of you live in the city? I can attest that in the Pacific Northwest, cities are getting bad. >

Maybe if they just had leprosy the church would help them in accordance with Jesus’ teachings… >

A homeless camp shouldn't scare off dedicated Christians. >

A group of mentally ill likely drug addicts who are shitting and pissing in the streets should scare off anyone that doesn’t want to walk in human shit. >

Their Christians,  treat the homeless like family, give a place to live,  shit and piss, get them help, get off drugs.
And don't give up on them. 
It's the Christian way. >

Are we seriously going to just ignore the crime and disgusting conditions that comes with having homeless encampments around because we hate religious people? Bet you wouldn’t be so patient if these tents popped up outside your house. >

I'm not a Christian. >

Neither am I. I’m also not an idiot who thinks that people should have to deal with a homeless encampment in front of their work place just because it’s a house of worship. >

They really should if they are Christian. It’s literally in their book. >

Nowhere does it say they have to dredge through human shit. If you read the article you would see the church is already doing work with the homeless. That doesn’t mean that they should have their space overtaken by them. >

Where are you getting the "dredge through human shit" part? Where in the article does it say that? >

Spoken like another Redditor that has never been anywhere near homeless encampments. I have. It’s a safe assumption to make that there’s human shit and piss near homeless people. Are you serious right now?? Does it really need to be explicitly stated in an article for you to believe that people who have no home shit in the streets? Jesus Christ Reddit is exhausting. >

Jesus famously flipped the tables because there were too many disgusting poors in/near his church >

I lived in Seattle, those homeless encampments are an open air drug market and full of sexual assault crimes. Seriously, be careful if your ever homeless. Also, the church is probably also acting as a food pantry for the homeless, so that's probably why they're staying close by to it. >

According to the news on TV, the homeless get their Amazon packages delivered at the church. >

I think all the 7-11's in Seattle have an outdoor Amazon drop box for packages, so that's barely an excuse if you don't have a mailing address. You can literally have an amazon package delivered to a 7-11 drop box of your own choosing and they email you a code to open the box. It's completely free too, so it's really not an excuse, but I'm not trying to bring hate on people that are down on their luck, just saying that that is an option in Seattle. >


think all the 7-11's in Seattle have an outdoor Amazon drop box for packages, so that's barely an excuse if you don't have a mailing address. 

You're completely full of it. - a guy in Seattle >

Whoever shuts their ears to the cry of the poor will also cry out and not be answered.
🤔 >

Seatle's refusal to deal with their issues in a meaningful way for decades caused this suffering. >

I mean it’s not just Seattle. The government hopes on the goodwill of corporations to provide donations for the homeless. Except when one party tries to pass legislation to help a group that isn’t the homeless then the other group goes “but the homeless!” And then quickly forgets they mentioned them at all. >

The issue I see in Seatle specifically is that it's taboo to discuss bad things people worse off than you do (beyond what they admit to doing). You can't criticize the homeless for, say, harassing business patrons because they're poor and obviously the only way to feel better is to shoot up heroin and attack people on the street. >

The issue I see in Seattle is that housing is unaffordable. There are many other second order effects that people like to focus on but nothing else has such an outsized influence on homelessness than the unavailability of affordable housing. You see this problem throughout much of the west (particularly California) as it has become increasingly an increasingly crowded and desirable place to live. >

Housing could be made more affordable, but doing so would involve addressing the fact that there is a problem, which Seatle and West Coast states struggle to do. It would also force them to ask other questions, like "why don't they move" or "where do we put them" because having them to do anything jnvolves acknowledging that there a reason problems and that somebody at some level isn't doing their job >

Trust me, I know a Seattle city councilman. They are really clear there is a problem. At least two are regularly affected by it that I know of.  The problem itself is much harder to solve than most realize. >

Seattleite here. They know there is a problem, and yet do almost nothing about it. I know because we have asked our councilman to do something about the homeless population that took over a nearby park in countless town halls over the years. 
And no, I don't mean the camp sweeps they do that result in the people scattering for a few months only to return back in six months. Most city residents are fed up to keep asking for concrete, long term plans to house more people, only to be met with endless hand wringing. 
People keep asking for legislation that might result in more affordable housing in the city, or for caps to luxury condos that basically cater only to tech employees with six figure salaries, but the council will never require either because they "don't wanna drive away developers". >

What legislation do you want to see? 
I know what I would like to see, but it would bring down property values for all homeowners. I'm OK with that, my home will never be worth less than what I paid for it, but that's not true for most. 
One thing to do is watch what happens in Canada in the the next few years. They just implemented my idea this past Sunday, at a federal level. It's either going to be great, or a disaster. They banned all foreign buyer sales of residential homes. Which is a part of Seattle's problem when it comes to high prices. 
I can tell you right now, I own a rental capped condo, its a micro version of no foreign buyers in a sense, although, it also keeps domestic real estate investors away too. You can't buy here unless you're going to live in the unit you purchased. The selling prices of these units and turn over is lower than most other condos in the area. And these units are in a great area, are huge, and have nice features like attached garages and yards. But they do sell for 100k less than other comparable units. >

Is that the condo your parents bought for you? >

Yep, that I have always paid in full for, so technically, they didn't "buy it for me." It's in a family trust for a variety of reasons. >

Scaring off parishioners..then you are preaching the wrong lessons to them...also, they are not worthy of following Christ and his lessons. >

Why is the mental illness of homeless people scarier than the mental illness of people who have homes? >

You people are acting like this is a megachruch in texas and not a small local community >

You can help others but also do so safely. Some of these homeless individuals are mentally unstable and not safe to be around. It doesn’t say the church doesn’t help homeless people. This is a systemic issue that all of us are responsible for helping. 
So many people in these comments are quick to judge the church when they themselves would never come near some of these people because it isn’t safe. 
We need mental health hospitals and stop throwing the mentally ill to the street. >

Yeah.  But every one of those “other people” pay taxes.  Churches do not.   They leech of society precisely because they preach compassion.   Now people are rightfully demanding the old adage of “practice what you preach”.  Either that or start paying taxes.   F—- churches! >

Who says this church is not helping the needy?
Are they mental health professionals that can engage with some people who are not safe to be around without proper training? 
These church goers have every right to care for their safety. Just as you do. 
This is not about taxes. >

I get that.  I do. And really the problem should be addressed by the government. With compassion and humanity.   I just don’t like that it’s only a problem if a church complains. >

I think everyone is complaining. The article is chastising the church for complaining too. 
It’s more us Vs them rhetoric so politicians can continue doing nothing for the problem but paying lip service and expensive programs that do more in the way of paying kick backs than getting anything done. >

Yeah, wasn’t that Psalms that said, “Ew, get rid of these dirty poor people”? Pretty sure it was a direct quote from Jesus right after he used a broom to keep the lepers back. >

At least pick a book from the NT, Broseph. >

This thread is another glorious example of redditors not reading the fucking article. Also this title is a complete misreading of what has actually been said:

We want them to get help, we want them to get off the streets. We don’t have the infrastructure as a small church to do that ourselves. We need help," Peppes told KOMO News. “Our parishioners who come from all over are very worried about their safety. They are afraid to come. It’s beyond frustrating because it’s impacting our ability to come to church to worship.” 

They’re not only asking for help out of fear for their parishioners, they want the homeless to get off the streets. 

Peppes said her congregation has participated in homeless services for years, including providing food to two shelters twice a month.

They are helping but they don’t have the infrastructure or the means to do more, why are churches expected to be the sole welfare provider in this country? It’s the responsibility of the fucking state to house these people, not a small church. Do ya’ll know how stupid you sound >

Woah now, we don't do any o that fancy readin round these parts. This is a story bout a church not wantin to have homeless people around and churches are bad. That's that. Now take yer religion and git! >

Hold on bud we don't do nunna that fancy readin roun here. This a story bout some church not wantin to take no homeless people in and the church ain't doin nothin about it! Dag gum. Get on up outta here with that religion stuff. >

So thousands of homeless in Seattle, the church probably helps as much as it can. But isn’t this a systematic issue the city needs to resolve? A small church can’t fix a never ending homeless crisis >

Yes >

The church should probably send people over to the encampment with leaflets. >

Pay your fucking taxes. >

There is a simple Biblical commandment to help the needy. But it needs to be done the right way. Historically the Catholic Church had monasteries, abbeys, convents, religious hospitals, etc. to distribute aid, they weren't making dangerous encampments by churches. Other denominations did and do similar things. This church is clearly trying to help, while keeping things safe. Those aren't mutually exclusive. 
I know that because I read the article. >

Good thing ‘God’ is involved.