This is the kind of story that makes one wonder if certain public officials got their ideas about city administration from Beijing or Soviet Moscow. According to The Church Report, the city of Rancho Cucamonga, certain religious activities in homes require a special permit, one that they’ve already said they won’t give:
A city in Southern California is demanding that a small home Bible study group stop meeting because it does not have an expensive permit. The permit is not required for similar-sized gatherings in homes, such as book clubs, birthday parties, or gatherings centered around sporting events. City officials have also indicated that they might not even grant a permit if it is requested.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga has sent a letter to the homeowner insisting that the home Bible study is not allowed because it is a “church,” and churches require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in residential areas. The City has also indicated that no CUP would be granted and the gatherings must cease by Good Friday, April 2. CUP’s require public hearings and regularly require the applicants to obtain traffic studies, architectural design reviews and even seismic retrofits.
In California, the process often costs churches hundreds of thousands of dollars-which probably explains why it is almost never applied to informal gatherings in homes.
“Imposing a CUP requirement on a home Bible study is manifestly absurd and unjust,” said Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute. “I don’t know of a single court in America that would approve their actions. We will give the City a chance to rescind its letter without litigation, but we are fully prepared to take this as far as is necessary to defend this Bible study group–and countless others like it.”
According to the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, the city is saying it’s the neighbors’ fault:
City officials said Tuesday they received a complaint in February from the homeowner’s neighbor that between 40 and 60 people were gathering in the house on Friday nights.
The city did, in fact, notify the homeowner through a letter that a permit was needed to operate a church, said Kurt J. Keating, code enforcement supervisor for the city.
“There’s also some supporting facts that they are advertising themselves as a church over the public domain, such as the Internet,” Keating said.
The city is not trying to place restrictions on home Bible studies, but the group cannot hold church services in a residence, Keating said.
I’m no mathematical wizard or police detective, but I would think it a simple matter to determine whether 40-60 or 15 people are meeting in a home on a regular basis. Given that the story doesn’t say that the city bothered to check the accuracy of the neighbor’s complaint, it sounds to me like they simply took the neighbor’s word for it. Then, they arrogated to themselves the ability to distinguish between “Bible studies” and “church services,” a novel power for city officials to possess under either the free exercise or establishment clause of the First Amendment. Then, they made clear that, even if the group went through the permit process, they wouldn’t get one. Put it all together, and it sounds like Rancho Cucamonga is run by people whose ideas about their own power vis-a-vis religious organizations would warm the cockles of any tyrant’s heart.
Let me put this as simply as I can: people have the right to practice their faith in their own home, and to open their home to others to do the same. Governments can enforce regulations regarding the use of public property such as parking in streets, but they can no more tell you what kind of religious activities you can do in your own home (as long as they don’t violate laws that have nothing to do with religion–for instance, sacrificing children to Moloch is prohibited regardless of the religious component) than they can mandate the color you can paint your rumpus room. If a group is violating parking regulations, the government should say that, rather than arrogate to itself the power to decide which religious gatherings pass muster and which don’t.
(Via Layman Online.)
March 24, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Preach it, brother! Constitutionally accurate.
March 25, 2010 at 7:38 am
Who would guess the Civil Magistrate would have an over-literal reading of Matt 18:20…
March 25, 2010 at 8:18 am
I’m no mathematical wizard or police detective, but I would think it a simple matter to determine whether 40-60 or 15 people are meeting in a home on a regular basis.
——–
Why should the city verify the numbers when 60 people meeting in a house fulfilled their anti-Christian agenda?
It is kinda like the Toyota Prius driver who claimed his accelerator was stuck and the media did not question him because they liked the anti-Toyota angle to the story.
Dan Rather may no longer be the nightly news, but he remains a potent force behind stories too good to be true.
March 25, 2010 at 9:22 am
There are a number of questions here.
1) What limits can the government put on use of home property? Can I operate a grocery store out of my basement? Can I operate a dentist office? Can I have some friends over every friday night for some beers and watch basketball? Can I have friends over for a regular Bible study? Can I have church services at my house? I know this also raises questions regarding church planting, house churches, and the like, which I know is an issue near and dear to David’s heart, as he is a church planter. These are all questions that come to mind from reading this article.
2) David raised a good question as to the inspection of the gathering. If there was a complaint, the county, city, state or whatever authority should not just take the word of the person making the complaint. There is or should always be an inspection.
3) There is a legitimate question about the motives of the neighbors and the city government about the use of this property. Is there simply an anti-Christian bias here? We know that the world hates Christ, and since the servant is not greater than the master, the world will hate Christians, and at times that hate can rise to the level of persecution. Is this what is happening here?
4) Christians have not always acted wisely. In this case, the city says that they sent a letter to the homeowners. How did they respond to the letter? Did they just ignore it? Did they not receive the letter?
There are many issues here, not the least of them are the rights given by the constitution. It will be interesting to learn more.
They may not be able to tell you what color to paint your rumpus room, but some neighborhoods will tell you what color you can and can’t paint the outside surfaces of your house.
I guess since I am having a Bible Study at my house tonight, I should have my wife look out for cops!
March 25, 2010 at 10:30 am
From Doug’s note another question arises: it may not simply be an anti-Christian bias. I remember when I went to University, the University town government hated to see the university add to their physical plant: it took land off the property tax rolls. For example, private residences are taxable, but university owned dorms weren’t — non profit institution and all that. Maybe they’re just working to be sure there’s no possibility of a fellowship establishing a practice of meeting in a residential area and then a couple of years later using that fact on the ground to justify a rezoning application…
March 26, 2010 at 9:33 am
Doug,
Re your questions—Cities and counties have zoning laws to cover all the issues you mention. If your property is zoned residential, then only residences. If zoned commericial or mixed, then residences or businesses.
1) What limits can the government put on use of home property? Can I operate a grocery store out of my basement? Can I operate a dentist office? Can I have some friends over every friday night for some beers and watch basketball? Can I have friends over for a regular Bible study? Can I have church services at my house? I know this also raises questions regarding church planting, house churches, and the like, which I know is an issue near and dear to David’s heart, as he is a church planter. These are all questions that come to mind from reading this article.
March 26, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Larry,
I am aware of zoning restrictions to cover the issues I mentioned. I think that was the point I was trying to make. We don’t have absolute freedom to do anything we want with our homes. We can’t open a grocery story in our basement unless the zoning laws allow it. From the city’s point of view, that is what they are trying to defend: their zoning laws. The real interesting question of the ones I posed has to do with house churches, as there is now a movement of people who like to plant house churches.
Back in the heyday of the singles ministry of our church, we had a large Bible Study that met at someone’s house inside the city. There were often 40 or more people at the house, the same house, every Tuesday evening. It was never advertised as a church, but it could have made the neighbors mad, I suppose, based on the parking problems the study created.
So, the question here has to do with whether this was a home study group that grew large, perhaps, or was this an actual house church advertising itself as such. That could be the supporting facts the city was talking about in the second report above. Of course, the city may have heard that there was singing or “worship” preceeding the study and interpreted it as a church service. I’m sure many of us have been to home study groups where someone had a guitar and we sang some worship songs before the study started. I can see where the city could get confused. The confusion would get worse if a pastor was invited to lead the study regularly. Our pastor leads studies in peoples home during the week. To date, we’ve had no complaints. Maybe the time will come. Maybe not.