Maintaining sanctuary
16/12/15 05:10
It appears that winter storm Echo has left us with a much smaller impact than other areas. We got a few inches of snow, which was layered on top of freezing fog, so the streets got slippery, but the snow has stopped and the plows have already been in our neighborhood. Today promises to be a rather normal day in the life of the church. We rescheduled our Church Board meeting from last night and cancelled a couple of afternoon meetings and sent employees home early, but other than that we had a pretty normal day yesterday. There was a no travel advisory for the entire county last night, but I have already seen vehicles out and about on Sheridan Lake Road.
I suspect that the school district won’t garner too much criticism for the decision to cancel school yesterday. The streets were slippery and it was particularly rough around the time that school would have been getting out.
It is a no win situation for school administrators. Fail to cancel when the roads are slippery and you are accused of compromising safety. Cancel and the weather passes a bit to one side or the other and you are accused of not being serious about the education of the district’s children and youth. Chances are that whenever weather threatens school administrators will come in for criticism.
I personally hate having to make the decisions for the church. I’ve never gotten used to it even after many years of experience. My instinct is to go ahead and have the activities despite the weather and allow people to make their own decisions as to safety and whether or not to attend. I don’t like the idea of someone coming to the church and finding the doors locked. Yesterday, when things were slippery, a craft group decided not to meet, but they hadn’t informed the church. We were still in the building when a participant walked in all bundled up for the cold. The message had not been delivered to one participant. We were able to offer conversation and a place to warm up, but my offer of a ride home was refused. There was no danger in this case, but I was glad that at least a couple of us had remained at the office to make sure that the building would be open if anyone arrived.
Our general policy is to follow the lead of law enforcement. If they issue a no travel advisory, we cancel. If they do not, we continue with our activities. That policy doesn’t work in every situation. We have some groups with more elderly members who have to wait for assistance with snow shoveling. We have others who might choose to stay in because they have a different sense of how to respond than law enforcement officers. Sometimes one group within the church will decide to continue with activities while another will decide to reschedule.
It isn’t one of the big challenges of my career, but one where I have more second thoughts than others. I have sympathy for school administrators when making decisions about whether or not to continue with schedules.
It was a fascinating aside yesterday to watch the news as the nation’s two largest school districts responded to a threat of terror in two different ways. Both districts have responsibility for the safety of hundreds of thousands of students. Both received threats that a violent plan had already been set in motion with guns and bombs inside numerous classrooms. Recent terror attacks that pushed the limits of what we had considered possible have left most in this nation eager to err on the side of caution. Still shutting down a major school district with thousands of buildings and entire transportation systems is not a small matter.
New York officials kept their schools open yesterday, calling the threat an amateurish hoax that imitated a popular television series. Los Angeles closed every school in the district, disrupting the lives of the families of more than 640,000 students.
It appears that the incident was a hoax designed to disrupt school. If so, it worked for that purpose. There was an expensive disruption. By the time you factor in the lives of teachers and other school district employees, more than a million people were affected by the decision. Los Angeles Superintendent Ramon Cortines will come in for a lot of criticism in the next few weeks, especially since he made a different decision than was made in New York.
As a nation, we’re all on edge. The threat of terrorism and the range of possible responses is the topic of discussion in many circles. It was the focus of the Republican Presidential Debate last night. I could have watched the debate on television, as I was at home, but simply didn’t find the option of watching television to be interesting at all. I caught a bit of the headlines from the Internet this morning, but don’t think that the discussion provided any credible new options or dynamic new situations to the fear that has come in the wake of recent attacks.
I receive invitations to events that purport to assist churches in developing emergency response plans in the event of an attack. I have so far resisted a tack taken by some congregations of establishing security perimeters, hiring armed guards, screening worship participants and other measures. Our approach to maintaining sanctuary is based on individual relationships. We work hard to get to know the people who come to our building. We welcome visitors and greet them in a manner that allows for relationships to begin from their first entrance into the building. We get to know each other well enough for trust to develop.
I’v been told that our approach is naive. It is, however, our business to provide a safe place for our activities while welcoming strangers and reaching out to the entire community in love. I can’t speak for the other members of our congregation, but I feel extremely safe in our facility. I don’t feel the need for guards and additional security measures.
I do, however, have empathy for those who have to make the hard decisions in other and larger institutions. There are real advantages to being relatively small and focusing on personal relationships.
“Pastor, what will you do if terrorists attack in our city?”
“I’ll be at the church, and you are welcome to join me.”
I suspect that the school district won’t garner too much criticism for the decision to cancel school yesterday. The streets were slippery and it was particularly rough around the time that school would have been getting out.
It is a no win situation for school administrators. Fail to cancel when the roads are slippery and you are accused of compromising safety. Cancel and the weather passes a bit to one side or the other and you are accused of not being serious about the education of the district’s children and youth. Chances are that whenever weather threatens school administrators will come in for criticism.
I personally hate having to make the decisions for the church. I’ve never gotten used to it even after many years of experience. My instinct is to go ahead and have the activities despite the weather and allow people to make their own decisions as to safety and whether or not to attend. I don’t like the idea of someone coming to the church and finding the doors locked. Yesterday, when things were slippery, a craft group decided not to meet, but they hadn’t informed the church. We were still in the building when a participant walked in all bundled up for the cold. The message had not been delivered to one participant. We were able to offer conversation and a place to warm up, but my offer of a ride home was refused. There was no danger in this case, but I was glad that at least a couple of us had remained at the office to make sure that the building would be open if anyone arrived.
Our general policy is to follow the lead of law enforcement. If they issue a no travel advisory, we cancel. If they do not, we continue with our activities. That policy doesn’t work in every situation. We have some groups with more elderly members who have to wait for assistance with snow shoveling. We have others who might choose to stay in because they have a different sense of how to respond than law enforcement officers. Sometimes one group within the church will decide to continue with activities while another will decide to reschedule.
It isn’t one of the big challenges of my career, but one where I have more second thoughts than others. I have sympathy for school administrators when making decisions about whether or not to continue with schedules.
It was a fascinating aside yesterday to watch the news as the nation’s two largest school districts responded to a threat of terror in two different ways. Both districts have responsibility for the safety of hundreds of thousands of students. Both received threats that a violent plan had already been set in motion with guns and bombs inside numerous classrooms. Recent terror attacks that pushed the limits of what we had considered possible have left most in this nation eager to err on the side of caution. Still shutting down a major school district with thousands of buildings and entire transportation systems is not a small matter.
New York officials kept their schools open yesterday, calling the threat an amateurish hoax that imitated a popular television series. Los Angeles closed every school in the district, disrupting the lives of the families of more than 640,000 students.
It appears that the incident was a hoax designed to disrupt school. If so, it worked for that purpose. There was an expensive disruption. By the time you factor in the lives of teachers and other school district employees, more than a million people were affected by the decision. Los Angeles Superintendent Ramon Cortines will come in for a lot of criticism in the next few weeks, especially since he made a different decision than was made in New York.
As a nation, we’re all on edge. The threat of terrorism and the range of possible responses is the topic of discussion in many circles. It was the focus of the Republican Presidential Debate last night. I could have watched the debate on television, as I was at home, but simply didn’t find the option of watching television to be interesting at all. I caught a bit of the headlines from the Internet this morning, but don’t think that the discussion provided any credible new options or dynamic new situations to the fear that has come in the wake of recent attacks.
I receive invitations to events that purport to assist churches in developing emergency response plans in the event of an attack. I have so far resisted a tack taken by some congregations of establishing security perimeters, hiring armed guards, screening worship participants and other measures. Our approach to maintaining sanctuary is based on individual relationships. We work hard to get to know the people who come to our building. We welcome visitors and greet them in a manner that allows for relationships to begin from their first entrance into the building. We get to know each other well enough for trust to develop.
I’v been told that our approach is naive. It is, however, our business to provide a safe place for our activities while welcoming strangers and reaching out to the entire community in love. I can’t speak for the other members of our congregation, but I feel extremely safe in our facility. I don’t feel the need for guards and additional security measures.
I do, however, have empathy for those who have to make the hard decisions in other and larger institutions. There are real advantages to being relatively small and focusing on personal relationships.
“Pastor, what will you do if terrorists attack in our city?”
“I’ll be at the church, and you are welcome to join me.”