Ministries fight for right to serve

Fred Krueger lost his job in insurance sales during the pandemic, and in December 2022, he was homeless—with no job, no money, and a broken-down truck.

That’s when Church of the Rock in Castle Rock, Colo., took him in. After Krueger met with pastor Mike Polhemus, the church agreed to house him temporarily, as it had others, in a recreational vehicle located in the parking lot of the church’s 54-acre campus on the edge of town. Krueger lived there from December 2022 until April 2023 while the church helped him find employment, repair his truck, and secure an apartment. Krueger now provides for all of his needs.

Krueger’s story—outlined in written court testimony—illustrates the tension between a church homeless ministry and the regulatory interests of Castle Rock, a rapidly growing, upscale community south of Denver. Other communities also face similar debates.

A back-and-forth tussle between the town and church over zoning lasted more than two years before the town’s board of adjustment approved a zoning manager’s ruling in late 2023. The decision said RVs parked on the church’s property could not be used as residences.

In May, with the help of the Texas-based First Liberty Institute, the Church of the Rock filed a lawsuit that contended the town violated the church’s ability to live out its Biblical convictions about helping the homeless. Last week, a federal judge agreed.

On July 19, U.S. District Judge Daniel Domenico entered an order blocking Castle Rock from enforcing zoning restrictions against the church’s use of an RV and camping trailer on the church campus, at least until the lawsuit is resolved. Domenico concluded that the church was likely to succeed on its claim that the town violated a 2000 federal law, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

RLUIPA protects churches and other religious organizations from zoning laws and other land use restrictions that substantially burden the exercise of their beliefs, unless government officials can show compelling reason for the restrictions and there are no less restrictive means available.

Domenico dismissed the town’s argument that the church could help the needy in some other way. “To the extent there is a dispute about whether the church’s stated

beliefs actually require it to provide shelter on its own property, there is no reason to second-guess the church at this point,” he concluded, adding that the First Amendment bars this kind of “trolling through a person’s religious beliefs.”

Nor did the town’s concern about setting a bad precedent—one that might allow an exemption for larger housing projects on church property—constitute a compelling interest. And because the church took a number of steps to vet potential residents and stay actively involved with them, there was no demonstrated safety threat posed by the individuals housed on church property.

Pastor Polhemus told WORLD that the church’s passion to help the homeless comes from Biblical injunctions like that in Isaiah 58:7, where the prophet exhorts hearers to “share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house.”

“These are single moms, these are teachers, these are ex-firefighters,” he said of the homeless people they serve. “These are people that are just like us, they’re the same as us. And all we’re doing is we’re helping our own community get back on their feet.”

And yet churches that reach out to the community often run up against community opposition, neighbors who voice concerns about safety and the effect on property values.

Not all judges are as receptive as Domenico to religious liberty concerns. On July 23, attorneys for a Bryan, Ohio, pastor asked a federal court to block the city from enforcing a zoning code that prohibited the pastor, Chris Avell, and his church from temporarily housing the homeless.

In November 2023, Avell, who founded Dad’s Place church in 2018 and opened the church to the homeless 24/7, was charged with violating the city’s zoning by allowing residential use in a property zoned for business. In Avell’s case, that meant criminal charges.

With the help of the First Liberty Institute, Avell fought back, challenging the charges in a federal lawsuit filed earlier this year. As with Colorado’s Church of the Rock, Avell and Dad’s Place relied in part on RLUIPA, but the judge denied their motion to block the city’s application of the zoning ordinance, on July 19, the same day as the Castle Rock ruling.

U.S. District Judge Jack Zouhary concluded that the church’s religious mission was not substantially burdened by requiring it to obtain appropriate permits for the residential use. And he said the city’s safety interest was compelling, noting that “inspectors have observed as many as 20 people sleeping overnight in the church without alert watch or other proper safety measures in place.”

Just days after entry of the order, Dad’s Place appealed and in an emergency motion asked the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to put a hold on the lower court’s ruling until the appeal could be decided.

According to the church’s motion, the city’s actions substantially burden the ministry’s round-the-clock ministry to the homeless. “It is not for the city or the court to dictate how a church must understand or carry out its own mission,” it argues. “The church believes its mission is to provide a place of refuge and rest 24 hours a day, which includes the physical rest of sleep.”

The stakes are high, argues the church. “At least one congregant died because he was forced out of Dad’s Place and into an apartment; he had a seizure in his sleep with no one to help him, and passed away,” according to the motion. “Other congregants have diabetes, end stage renal disease, and other maladies that leave them with few options—if any—outside of the shelter of Dad’s Place.”

There are no guarantees that his clients will win, First Liberty’s Jeremy Dys told WORLD. “But let’s just stop and realize these are critical civil rights, fundamental realities that are guaranteed in our Constitution,” he said. “And we ought not deprive any American or organizations [of those rights] without a very clear, compelling reason for doing so.”