Dear Mr. Simmons,

I’ve long enjoyed reading Civil Beat. Its investigative reporting serves to strengthen our community and provides a valuable platform for those who wish their voice to be heard.

In that spirit, I’d like to offer some observations on your recent column, “Why Does New Hope Make People So Nervous?” I’d like to balance out the “no small measure” of ire directed at New Hope.

You begin by observing that “much if not most of that ire” over the recent controversy concerning the request to provide a $250,000 city grant to New Hope church “was focused on (Honolulu City Council Chair Ernie) Martin and (City Council Member Joey) Manahan.” But you then directed nearly all your comments at criticizing church activities not related to the Martin/Manahan proposal. I believe this type of column encourages nervousness among your readers rather than encouraging them to dig deeper and see how we can encourage delivery of more social services to those in need.

Let me preface my specific views by sharing that for 15 years I have attended New Hope, though less frequently in recent years due to the distance from my home to the Sand Island location.

Politically I am left-of-center and twice voted for President Obama. Obviously, I do not agree with some of the positions of New Hope leaders, but feel perfectly comfortable worshiping with them and supporting their community outreach efforts.  I’ve found the overwhelming emphasis at New Hope is for sharing Christ’s love and serving others, rather than pushing a political agenda, as you state.

Pastor Wayne Cordeiro is a friend and mentor with whom I’ve discussed political issues many times. Our exchanges, reflecting at times opposing viewpoints, have always been respectful and cordial. We’ve never questioned each other’s patriotism or sincere desire to work for a healthier America.

In general, I’m not a fan of megachurches, nor do I support the commercialization of religion. But to lump all megachurches in the same category as stereotypical, corrupt televangelical ministries is akin to saying all Muslims are jihadists or members of ISIS.

I’ve found that nearly all the New Hopers I’ve met (hundreds) are gracious and kind people who care deeply about others and their community and want to serve. In my mind there is a huge difference between those who truly believe in (and work to propagate) the New Hope vision of compassion and those who merely wish to criticize a belief system from afar.

Key comments I wish to call attention to:

A proposal to provide a taxpayer gift of $250,000 to the New Hope building fund. I agree the application for a $250,000 grant for the New Hope building fund is not consistent with our laws and the separation of church and state. I think Councilmen Martin and Manahan’s hearts were in the right place. Having witnessed the good work that New Hope has done over the last two decades on Oahu, they wanted to help further its social programs but didn’t put enough thought into how best to do that.

Misuse of public resources has created a level of suspicion and brand drag. As you noted, just because New Hope is a religious non-profit, it should not be railed against for receiving public funds for social services that are properly conducted and non-proselytizing in nature.

Over a couple decades, the church has done enormous good serving the needs of the less fortunate members of our community – the homeless, disabled, infirm, the poor, the incarcerated and their families and others. It has conducted numerous food drives, provided shelter and clothing and cleaned up our beaches, parks and schools. These activities, though taught and encouraged in the church, are not specifically religious in nature. They are activities that all people of good conscience, who care about society and their fellow man, might endeavor to undertake.

I’ve found that nearly all the New Hopers I’ve met (hundreds) are gracious and kind people who care deeply about others and their community and want to serve.

The Mormon Church, a Buddhist temple, Muslim mosque, Catholic Charities, Salvation Army or New Hope should all receive the same consideration and treatment and be given the opportunity to help their community with public funds so long as the services rendered are verifiable and legitimate as defined by U.S. regulations. After all, there are tens of thousands of New Hope parishioners (and members of other organizations) that have paid their fair share of taxes.

New Hope has never received or used tax dollars in an effort to convert “unbelievers” or build an “empire.” You bring up the 2014 lawsuit over New Hope’s underpayment of rent to use Honolulu public school buildings and $775,000 settlement as if it were some type of conviction. Let’s agree that settling is not an admission of guilt. Settlement of a case is sometimes less expensive and troublesome, given the peculiarities of our legal system. Insurance companies often dictate the direction of legal cases.

The reality is agents of the state and school districts allowed New Hope to use their facilities at a predetermined rent, which was paid. In addition to rent income, one high school, Farrington, received significant help from New Hope in modernizing and maintaining its facility, helping with its sports programs and mentoring students. You can confirm this with Catherine Payne, the former principal of Farrington during the period that New Hope rented its facility.

On the matter of voter registration, does it make you nervous when the League of Women Voters or Buddhist or Muslim organizations engage in this activity? So why pay particular attention to New Hope’s efforts? Don’t they have the same rights as other organizations?

Marriage-equality and LGBT rights. I had dinner with a gay friend last night and discussed your column. He shared his strong disagreement with New Hope’s stance on the same-sex marriage issue. Yet, he understood and respected people’s right to hold different religious beliefs and emphasized we should not nullify or discredit the good they do simply because they think differently – that would constitute exactly the type of blanket condemnation that makes our society and political system so polarizing and dysfunctional.

But even over such a sensitive issue, is there not room in our hearts to disagree, and yet still care for each other and encourage one another to serve our community?

It’s an arduous process to be sure, but meaningful dialogues on important issues can only prepare New Hope and other social service organizations to better care for the myriad needs of a diverse people. To dismiss an entire body of good works over a single position only does harm to all and diminishes the availability of services so desperately needed.

To borrow a tired cliché, one doesn’t toss the baby with the bathwater. It seems to me that you and some members of the community are using this one position as the basis for a general condemnation of New Hope. Is that what really makes you nervous?

In today’s highly charged political climate with leading Democratic/Republican presidential candidates who are highly unpopular, I hope we, the people of Hawaii, don’t fall into the trap of divisiveness. It is my fervent prayer that we look for common ground, rather than suspect, demonize and devalue the good works that many organizations, including New Hope, are doing.

Though there may be differences on fundamental issues, we must work to create an environment that is respectful, not suspicious, and that allows us to join hands to build our community.