Woman calling churches

[Delvianna]

Asking a question is not making a pre-judgment. I don't know if she's posted everything, but I see no reason to take her word for it. She clearly had an agenda in making these calls to begin with, so why would we trust her not to spin the results to meet her agenda? What was she trying to prove?

That, all of that, is a pre-judgement when you haven't even looked at a single video lol

 

[Fervent]

That, all of that, is a pre-judgement when you haven't even looked at a single video lol

Nope, it's skepticism because I know how people operate. It's a simple question, what reason do we have for thinking she's on the up and up? Random people on the internet spin things and misrepresent things all the time, so why should we trust this random woman?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

"The results"? How do we know what the results are, how do we know we can trust what she's releasing and not that she is selectively smearing by only releasing the ones where the church failed to act?

I think the point is that no church should be failing to act.

 

[Delvianna]

Nope, it's skepticism because I know how people operate.

How can you say this:

but I see no reason to take her word for it.

Without watching a video. That's not skepticism, that's making a blanket judgment based off of nothing other than your pre-judgment decision. "you see" no reason... you haven't looked into her at all! How is this not judgement? That makes literally zero sense.

what reason do we have for thinking she's on the up and up?

Regardless of her motives, does it matter? She never states her motives, she just is conducting an experiment to see what happens and you know, I'm glad she did it. Any church, ANY church that claims they have Christ should be on blast for the answers they gave. We are required to take care of widows, orphans, homeless and show love to even our enemies. The churches though, showed most were heartless and just told her to go to the states outreach center and when she said they couldn't help her, they just told her no.

Random people on the internet spin things and misrepresent things all the time, so why should we trust this random woman?

You don't need to "trust her" you need to see the outcome of what these churches said and how most refused aid.

 

[Fervent]

I think the point is that no church should be failing to act.

Perhaps, but there's a lot that people don't understand about how churches operate. They aren't free to just give away money because of legal requirements, even if there is a desire. There are strict regulations on how churches use funds and most often require pre-established ground rules. So while it would be nice if there was complete freedom and unrestricted funds to help every person in need, it's not that simple and sensationalist pieces like this operate more as smear campaigns than to serve any useful purpose.

 

[Delvianna]

Perhaps, but there's a lot that people don't understand about how churches operate. They aren't free to just give away money because of legal requirements, even if there is a desire. There are strict regulations on how churches use funds and most often require pre-established ground rules. So while it would be nice if there was complete freedom and unrestricted funds to help every person in need, it's not that simple and sensationalist pieces like this operate more as smear campaigns than to serve any useful purpose.

Did Jesus give stipulations on who we are supposed to give to and who we aren't? If someone comes to you for aid, are you supposed to go "well, are you scamming for money?" Because she's asking specifically for formula, you could go to the store, spend 20 bucks on formula and give it to her. There... helping without the risk of someone using money not for the purposes they asked for. And I don't care about the red tape of political church behavior. Someone, reach into their pocket, pull out a 20 and get the woman some baby formula!

 

[Fervent]

How can you say this:

Without watching a video. That's not skepticism, that's making a blanket judgment based off of nothing other than your pre-judgment decision. "you see" no reason... you haven't looked into her at all! How is this not judgement? That makes literally zero sense.

No, it's saying I don't trust people on the internet simply for the sake of trusting them.

Regardless of her motives, does it matter? She never states her motives, she just is conducting an experiment to see what happens and you know, I'm glad she did it. Any church, ANY church that claims they have Christ should be on blast for the answers they gave. We are required to take care of widows, orphans, homeless and show love to even our enemies. The churches though, showed most were heartless and just told her to go to the states outreach center and when she said they couldn't help her, they just told her no.

Her motives matter, and if you've never dealt with church offices from the inside then you don't really know enough to make a judgment or understand the issues at hand.

You don't need to "trust her" you need to see the outcome of what these churches said and how most refused aid.

In a perfect world, but churches use of funds are strictly regulated and my guess is most of the people condemning these churches aren't contributing to the church coffers all that much and engaging in church budget discussions to make it possible to assist in these sorts of situations. It's sensationalist smear tactics.

 

[Delvianna]

No, it's saying I don't trust people on the internet simply for the sake of trusting them.

Her motives matter, and if you've never dealt with church offices from the inside then you don't really know enough to make a judgment or understand the issues at hand.

In a perfect world, but churches use of funds are strictly regulated and my guess is most of the people condemning these churches aren't contributing to the church coffers all that much and engaging in church budget discussions to make it possible to assist in these sorts of situations. It's sensationalist smear tactics.

Excuses excuses excuses in order to not help. I hope that argument holds water when you tell Jesus "I didn't help because of strict church regulations".....

 

[Fervent]

Did Jesus give stipulations on who we are supposed to give to and who we aren't? If someone comes to you for aid, are you supposed to go "well, are you scamming for money?" Because she's asking specifically for formula, you could go to the store, spend 20 bucks on formula and give it to her. There... helping without the risk of someone using money not for the purposes they asked for. And I don't care about the red tape of political church behavior. Someone, reach into their pocket, pull out a 20 and get the woman some baby formula!

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying, because churches don't have the freedom to just give away funds as they see fit. They have to set budgets and get them approved by the stakeholders. The church offices hands are largely tied for legal reasons, it's not "political church behavior" but the reality of legal incorporation.

 

[Fervent]

Excuses excuses excuses in order to not help. I hope that argument holds water when you tell Jesus "I didn't help because of strict church regulations".....

You speak of judgment, but how much have you contributed to church coffers? and how much engagement in church budget discussions have you engaged in to make sure that there is sufficient contingency funds for situations like this one? It's easy to judge, but what have you done?

 

[Delvianna]

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying, because churches don't have the freedom to just give away funds as they see fit. They have to set budgets and get them approved by the stakeholders. The church offices hands are largely tied for legal reasons, it's not "political church behavior" but the reality of legal incorporation.

Do you not see how asinine that is? You turned the church into a business and that is your main focus ... not on what Jesus told you to do, no... about the red tape you've put in the way. I'm sure Jesus is totally going to be happy when you tell them to go be well and be filled while literally doing nothing because "the church has budgets and they have to be approved by stakeholders".... bla bla bla...

You speak of judgment, but how much have you contributed to church coffers? and how much engagement in church budget discussions have you engaged in to make sure that there is sufficient contingency funds for situations like this one? It's easy to judge, but what have you done?

EXCUSES! The church is for the PEOPLE not the other way around!! I DID give my tithes as well as do my OWN out reach because people were being turned away from the church and being refused aid for ZERO reason! ITS an abomination what the churches have become today!

Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. - Luke 6:30

Those churches that didn't do a dang thing are HYPOCRITES! DO whats in the book you claim to follow! Where are your works?

What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. - James 2:14-17

NO EXCUSES GIVE TO ANYONE WHO ASKS FOR IT

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Nope, it's skepticism because I know how people operate. It's a simple question, what reason do we have for thinking she's on the up and up? Random people on the internet spin things and misrepresent things all the time, so why should we trust this random woman?

It doesn’t matter if she only posted the “bad” ones. There shouldn’t be “bad” ones. That’s the point. You’re fixated on “why aren’t there any/many good ones” and “well she clearly had a bias.” None of those things matter if the church attempts to meet her need. She’s saying she has a bias and illustrating why. Effective ministry is to examine her why and see if it needs addressing, not outright saying “you’re biased, who cares what you think.”

If she said “I have a problem with Christianity because of the number of people who are Christians who have brown hair and I find brown hair ugly,” that’s a bias we can ignore. But saying “I have a problem with Christianity because being Christian and going to the church has been presented for a solution for all manner of things, but when I tested this theory during an acute national crisis, a large number refused to help me, so I think they’re ineffective, hypocritical, and display behavior that’s negative, here’s my evidence” is something that should be examined.

If I found out the church I support with my time, energy, and money was doing this to people asking for help, I’d have some serious questions about where my money was going and how effectively we were helping our community. If you think she doesn’t deserve answers for uncovering it and being biased, certainly the members of those 40+ churches do.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Perhaps, but there's a lot that people don't understand about how churches operate. They aren't free to just give away money because of legal requirements, even if there is a desire. There are strict regulations on how churches use funds and most often require pre-established ground rules. So while it would be nice if there was complete freedom and unrestricted funds to help every person in need, it's not that simple and sensationalist pieces like this operate more as smear campaigns than to serve any useful purpose.

I have yet to hear of the church that is legally forbidden from offering help to those who need it, much less food. And there are dozens of things they can do and should be doing they cost $0 that should be basic standard practice if somebody asks for help which an overwhelming majority of these churches did not do.

If you want church to be treated like a business, where red tape and bureaucracy is a valid reason for denying help to somebody in need, then fine, but it means we need to stop treating the church as community resource that provides help and more like a Walmart, where they do some charity work but worry more about the bottom line.

 

[Fervent]

It doesn’t matter if she only posted the “bad” ones. There shouldn’t be “bad” ones. That’s the point. You’re fixated on “why aren’t there any/many good ones” and “well she clearly had a bias.” None of those things matter if the church attempts to meet her need. She’s saying she has a bias and illustrating why. Effective ministry is to examine her why and see if it needs addressing, not outright saying “you’re biased, who cares what you think.”

If she said “I have a problem with Christianity because of the number of people who are Christians who have brown hair and I find brown hair ugly,” that’s a bias we can ignore. But saying “I have a problem with Christianity because being Christian and going to the church has been presented for a solution for all manner of things, but when I tested this theory during an acute national crisis, a large number refused to help me, so I think they’re ineffective, hypocritical, and display behavior that’s negative, here’s my evidence” is something that should be examined.

If I found out the church I support with my time, energy, and money was doing this to people asking for help, I’d have some serious questions about where my money was going and how effectively we were helping our community. If you think she doesn’t deserve answers for uncovering it and being biased, certainly the members of those 40+ churches do.

In a perfect world, but most of the people answering the phones don't have the liberty to access church funds. These things are heavily regulated and restricted, and unless there is a prior authorization it would be illegal for them to appropriate church funds to help. There are realities that are being ignored to present a negative assessment of Christians/Christianity and there's a rush to judgment of these churches based on a lack of knowledge of how these things operate. Most church offices, at least the ones I've been a part of, are stretched beyond their limits with people they are assisting within the bounds of their legal abilities and have to make hard choices and say no to desperate people simply because there aren't resources available. It would be nice to have endless funds to help every person who comes looking for it, but that's just not the reality.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying, because churches don't have the freedom to just give away funds as they see fit. They have to set budgets and get them approved by the stakeholders. The church offices hands are largely tied for legal reasons, it's not "political church behavior" but the reality of legal incorporation.

So church is more like Walmart, not a community resource, with stakeholders and requiring legal incorporation.

Maybe that’s why so many people don’t like Christianity…

 

[Delvianna]

I have yet to hear of the church that is legally forbidden from offering help to those who need it, much less food. And there are dozens of things they can do and should be doing they cost $0 that should be basic standard practice if somebody asks for help which an overwhelming majority of these churches did not do.

If you want church to be treated like a business, where red tape and bureaucracy is a valid reason for denying help to somebody in need, then fine, but it means we need to stop treating the church as community resource that provides help and more like a Walmart, where they do some charity work but worry more about the bottom line.

Amen! I was in a church before I moved that had a food pantry that people would donate food and they'd store it and hand it out to people in need. That's not cutting into any budget, that's allowing the community to help each other. The church would also budget for that too and around thanksgiving, the church would buy turkeys, we'd pack meals into boxes and hand them out to families. There's zero reason why more churches can't do something like that.

 

[Fervent]

I have yet to hear of the church that is legally forbidden from offering help to those who need it, much less food. And there are dozens of things they can do and should be doing they cost $0 that should be basic standard practice if somebody asks for help which an overwhelming majority of these churches did not do.

Churches have to have prior approval for all spending, though most set aside contingency funds for charitable giving. But the secretary who answers phones and the pastor and anyone else in the church office is not authorized to unilaterally release funds for any reason.

If you want church to be treated like a business, where red tape and bureaucracy is a valid reason for denying help to somebody in need, then fine, but it means we need to stop treating the church as community resource that provides help and more like a Walmart, where they do some charity work but worry more about the bottom line.

I'd prefer it not operate that way, but it's the reality of church life in the United States. Churches are legal corporations with legal restrictions on how they can allocate funds. The problem is you're comparing an ideal with reality, rather than recognizing the real issues at play.

 

[Fervent]

So church is more like Walmart, not a community resource, with stakeholders and requiring legal incorporation.

Maybe that’s why so many people don’t like Christianity…

Blamiing Christianity for US legal codes is wild.

 

[Delvianna]

Blamiing Christianity for US legal codes is wild.

Not blaming churches for not having emergency funding already allocated to help people in distress while defending their heartless bureaucracy is wild.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There is a woman who is calling churches (and now other institutions) with audio of a crying baby in the background asking for formula foe their child as they had no money.
Woman Pretends to Need Baby Formula & Exposes Churches That Refuse to Help

The results at this point have been a distinct condemnation of Christians in America.

What has been a particular salt in the wound is that other organizations have so far been proven to be far more consistent that churches in providing relief. I believe she's set to continue and will update results. You can find this story on multiple sites if you don't like this source.

Now, I can certainly say that this is not any kind of scientific study but as I understand she makes videos of these calls. The results are irrefutable.

American christians: What happenned? You are, purportedly the most charitable group but...if it isn't going to a woman with no baby food is it maybe just going back into your own congregations or salaries? Something needs to change.
I can't imagine just as a human being allowing that to happen.

I always love it when single individuals decide to become the collective conscience for every other Christian alive today.