by Eddie Pipkin

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

If you followed the ongoing nationwide recall of baby formula, piled on top of the interruption of SNAP benefits, you know that there was a crisis at hand for parents with limited resources.  You may also have followed the news reports that one independent social justice warrior took local churches to task on social media for not doing more to respond in the way she defined response.  She called individual churches to ask if they could provide her with formula for her child and then shamed those that gave anything less than an immediate affirmative answer.  It is a moment that lends itself to a discussion of when and how churches can best respond to the call to “take care of the least of these.”

If you missed the original story, here’s a quote from one of many versions that were published (this one from Yahoo News):

A TikTok user from Kentucky by the name of Nikalie Monroe has racked up millions of views running an experiment: Posing as a desperate mother with a newborn baby, Monroe calls megachurches around the country asking if they would provide her with baby formula. After videos of her calling local churches in Kentucky made waves, Monroe began taking suggestions and has called dozens of churches around the nation, seeking formula for her nonexistent baby and keeping track of who offers to help.

She called 43 individual churches, and if they didn’t offer help on the spot, she recorded them as failing the feed-the-hungry-baby challenge.  This narrative, originally related on her TikTok account, garnered millions of views and generated some intense debate on social media.  It was one of those stories that called out the hypocrisy of Christianity, and it reserved its harshest critique for suburban megachurches.

Of course, the self-described social justice reporter / activist’s approach elicited blowback as well, considering her methodology, which skirted journalistic ethics guidelines by a mile.  She didn’t have a baby, just a recording of a crying baby in the background.  She outed the churches she considered to be lacking without giving them a full opportunity to respond or explain or clarify.  Etc.

Step back from the heated hot takes that dominated the social media feeds – now an unavoidable part of our human experience, ugh – and this incident was a good launching point for some meaningful discussion.  It’s the kind of discussion that we should be regularly engaging in with our leadership teams.

What is our responsibility as a local church to meet the needs of our communities, and what is the best way to do it?

The implication of those who were critical of the churches in this story is that every individual local church has an accountability to the Gospel to provide formula (or whatever foodstuff or item that is critical and in short supply) to anybody who shows up and asks for it.  If you’re reading this and you have worked in a local church or para-ministry, you know that this proposition is insanity.

It is built on several illogical and impractical premises:

  • We take a person’s story as told, verbatim without any attempt to verify or screen it.
  • Our budget is unlimited to extend supplies to any who ask.
  • We have unlimited storage and logistics bandwidth to respond immediately to all needs.
  • We have an unlimited responsibility to any who call or show up, whether or not they are from our local community.

You could add other problematic premises to this list.

Are we called as followers of Christ to sometimes act in ways that the world identifies as illogical and impractical?  Absolutely!  It’s one of the great joys of what we do.  Are we called to conduct ourselves on a regular basis, as a matter of standard operational procedure to act in ways that are illogical and impractical?  Absolutely not.  That’s bad leadership and bad stewardship.  I’m not going to take this blog in the direction of a full-on Bible study, but there are plenty of biblical examples of responsible, steady decision making by leaders and plenty of examples of improbable stepping out in faith.  The key has always been following the guidance of the Holy Spirit to know when it’s time for which.

The modern world calls for a systemic approach to big social problems that show up at our doorstep.  In the olden days of local villages, small town life, and big city neighborhood parishes, each with its own ready-for-the-big screen affable local priest, it was sustainable to be all things to all needy people at all times.  Locals took care of their local needs.  They knew the stories of the people they were helping because they saw them every day.

Now, people are mobile, populations are expanded, and technology means we are all connected in confusing ways.  The modern social safety net is complicated, and the role of churches in it, historically speaking, is correspondingly more complex.  We know that the most efficient and effective ways for churches to meet pressing community needs is no longer trying to be all things to all people.  It is usually better to partner with charities or para-church agencies or government programs to coordinate and target aid.

The independent reporter and blogger Anne Helen Peterson wrote about this reality last week.  Here’s a paragraph of her thoughts on the subject:

For example, if a woman called for assistance getting out of a domestic violence situation, someone at the religious organization would work to connect them with a local YWCA or women’s shelter — not be the women’s shelter. Alternatively, if someone calls, like Nikalie did, asking for a supply of baby formula, they’d connect her with a local food pantry or food bank that provides baby formula (and so much more). And when many religious organizations are struggling to adequately staff themselves — or grappling with clergy burnout, which I’ve written about in the past— it’s important to figure out systems to better distribute the time-consuming (and often very emotionally demanding) work of care.

Our responsibility is to respond compassionately to requests, always, but also to respond in ways that are practical and ultimately do the most good for the most people.

We should be working to build local and regional connections to organizations that offer organized support to meet needs for feeding people, sheltering people, counseling people, and keeping people healthy.  We cannot necessarily provide our own food pantries, overnight shelter spaces, counseling centers, and medical clinics, but we should absolutely know how to connect people with the nearest organizations that do offer those services.

And we should support those organizations with funds and volunteers.

We should have a well-developed response for people who show up looking for help.  That is holy work.  It is part of our mandate and mission, and having a script for dealing with these moments, having a procedure for helping people find meaningful help, and having a process that’s understood by everyone, reduces stress for those seeking help and the people in our organization who are on the front lines dealing those seeking help.

I will add the caveat that in cases in which the person who needs immediate help is well known to us – is part of our existing community – the rules are different.  We can respond to them differently, and that is okay.  We take care of one another, and when it’s personal, we get directly involved.  This is not favoritism.  It is bringing the right scale to the problem.  We help all people we can in all the ways we can, but the level and form of that response is contextual.

How do you and your local ministry handle requests for immediate help?  Do you have strong connections to other organizations?  Do you have a clear process for guiding people to help beyond your doors?  Is that process conducted in love and hopefulness?  Or are you mired in an ad hoc, unorganized approach that leaves everyone involved feeling frustrated and unfulfilled?  Share your observations in the comments section.