‘Loving thy neighbor’-hood

A house of worship, like any institution, has the right to grow and

extend itself physically. It also bears the obligation to demonstrate

sensitivity and concern for community responses. Above all, it enjoys

the opportunity to model exemplary behavior in fulfilling the

Biblical mandate to “love your neighbor as yourself.”

Communities often struggle with neighboring religious facilities,

especially in residential areas. It was simpler when religious

buildings were solely “houses of worship,” where congregants met but

several times a week for prayer and study. They are no longer

occupied primarily on the Sabbath, but often operate 24 hours a day

and seven days a week.

Religious sites offer a wide variety of programming, meetings, and

activities, many of them secular in form and content. Often,

nontraditional offerings are featured as part of the marketing of

God’s house. Traffic, lighting, view obstruction and noise are among

the foremost issues that have aroused concern in the

“Wal-Martization” of religious facilities. Those who raise objections

are frequently branded as “prejudiced,” and their legitimate concerns

brushed aside as “anti-religious discrimination.” As Marci Hamilton

wrote in a piece called “Struggling with churches as neighbors”:

“When neighbors express their legitimate concern that their property

value will be negatively affected by the introduction of a large

building and parking lot into their neighborhood, they are subjected

to charges of being more concerned with “mammon” than mission, as

though their property rights must take a backseat to the church’s

religious agenda.”

Congress in 2000 enacted the Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act to prevent cities from using zoning

laws to keep out religious institutions. It grants religious

institutions the right to disregard local land-use limitations unless

there is a “compelling governmental interest” to stop them from

building what they want.

Of course, the compelling interest should not be governmental, but

religious. Not everything that is possible is permissible, not

everything should be done simply because one can do it.

Self-restraint is a high religious ideal and respecting limits is a

topic frequently spoken of in the pulpit.

This is not an issue of the free expression of religion. It is one

of land use that is proportionate to the neighborhood in which the

religious institution stands. Every religious center must conform to

the pace of the community and not upset the delicate balance with

outsized demands for parking space or intensive occupancy at all

hours.

No one, and certainly not in the name of religion, has the right

to disrupt the peace, quiet and comfort of the surrounding

neighborhood.

A religious faith cannot preach “Love your neighbor” while in

practice causing that neighbor distress. It cannot teach “Do unto

others as you would have them do unto you” while antagonizing its

neighbors, strong-arming its way into town, and riding roughshod over

community sensibilities in the name of God. When a religious group

infringes on the values and ethos of the neighborhood, when it

bludgeons its fellow citizens in the courts, it demonstrates a

selfishness at odds with the Biblical ethic. In its zeal to expand,

it may impose its way upon an unwilling public. But at what cost?

Consensus is a cherished ideal in protecting our way of life.

Ramrodding an agenda down the throats of protesting neighbors is

hardly a religious posture. “Our way or the highway” does not fulfill

Isaiah’s counsel of “Come, let us reason together.” Faith groups must

lead the way in demonstrating respect for our fellow human beings. We

live in the land of the free, but we ought not consider ourselves

free to abuse our neighbors in the pursuit of more land.

Ultimately, “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the

world and they that dwell therein.” We are temporary tenants on God’s

land. Our every act should demonstrate the recognition that we must

abide by God’s call enshrined in Deuteronomy 19: “You shall not move

your Neighbor’s landmarks, set up by previous generations, in the

property that will be allotted to you in the land that the Lord your

God is giving you to possess.”

RABBI MARK MILLER

Temple Bat Yahm

Newport Beach

My first experience of Zen meditation was in the mountains of

Idyllwild at an artist’s studio, a crackling fire heating the room on

Saturday mornings. It is common for Zen sitting groups to meet in

someone’s living room, with perhaps five to 15 people getting

together once a week. Practitioners are encouraged to meditate at

home every day and to practice awareness in daily life, whether at

work, on the freeway, taking a walk or shopping for groceries.

Urban Zen centers in the United States tend to be small. We prefer

to expand by adding more times to meet for meditation rather than by

enlarging facilities. I confess, I am sometimes envious of the little

corner neighborhood churches built in the early 1900s. Zen is in the

early stages of growth in the U.S., and lacks some of the benefits of

the more established religious communities, such as property

ownership, local seminaries and salaried clergy. Whenever I travel, I

like to visit the local group to get a sense of how Zen in America is

developing. I was amazed to find that a sitting group now meets in

the library of my hometown in Iowa.

If facilities do need to be expanded, being in harmony with the

neighborhood, considering the use and scale of the other buildings

and streets, should guide plans. Trying to get along with the

neighbors is what world peace is all about.

THE REV. DEBORAH BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

In addition to being the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic

community of the New Covenant,” the church is a human institution;

anyone can see who our visible members are by coming to take a look.

True members are to be “the Body of Christ,” or as Saint Teresa of

Avila wonderfully put it, “God’s hands and feet in this world here

and now;” only God sees who is and who is not.

The great Archbishop of Canterbury during World War II, William

Temple, said, “The church is the only human institution which exists

to serve people who are not its own members.” And the author of the

Book of Revelation (21:22) gives us the high inspiration that there

is “no temple in the New Jerusalem,” thus squelching once and for all

the tedious quip that since heaven is one endless church service,

anybody with two wits to rub together would prefer hell.

Given that the church is a here-and-now human institution composed

of people who are mandated to serve others, it seems to me that the

key question for any particular church feeling moved to consider

expanding its facilities is: “Will this growth affect enough lives

sufficiently and positively to justify the negative effects this

expansion may have on the lives of persons in our extended

neighborhood?”

Significant deliberations over substantial periods of time must be

given to these ethical questions of “the greatest good for the

greatest number of other people” by as many church members and

neighbors as possible.

And, of course, churches should be subject to local zoning rules

and regulations as are all human institutions.

THE VERY REV. CANON

PETER D. HAYNES

Saint Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Parish Church

Corona del Mar