Kruse Kronicle

Faithful more careful in giving to others

—

by

mwkruse
in ,

Grand Rapids Press: Faithful more careful in giving to others (HT: Ted Gossard)

An annual study of church giving shows activities focused outside the congregation increasingly go unfunded as donations decline. The authors contend U.S. Christianity is becoming a "maintenance organization" that soon will have zero financial capacity for external ministry if the trends continue.

The numbers lay guilt at the feet of the worshippers kneeling in the pews and also challenge church leaders to motivate their parishioners toward a financial generosity that could have Earth-changing effects.

"We're not doing the good that we can do," said Sylvia Ronsvalle, co-author of "The State of Church Giving through 2004: Will We Will?" "The portion of income going to benevolences has been shrinking steadily." …

This article decries the decreasing contributions congregations make to causes outside their congregation. However, I wonder if what we are witnessing has more to do with a sea change in how people give. I suspect that many have stopped giving to congregations so the congregation's board can disburse funds and have instead opted to donate directly to causes that interest them, thus bypassing the congregation as a collection/distribution point. This appears to be the case in the PCUSA data I have seen. I am not sure that giving is in trouble, but I think how we perceive the congregation's role may change.

Comments

9 responses to “Faithful more careful in giving to others”

  1. kairos Avatar
    kairos

    I think you’re observations are astute and likely correct….

    Reply
  2. David M. Smith Avatar
    David M. Smith

    I agree that Michael is correct. Some charities do more harm than good. In most cases the congregation is an unnecessary middle man.

    Reply
  3. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    This pattern (assuming I am correct) is similar to what higher governing bodies in the PCUSA are struggling with. Many fewer people give unrestricted gifts to large bodies, who then determine the distribution of gifts across a broad range of causes. GAC, synods and presbyteries find their contributions shrinking yet surveys show that PCUSA members are giving as much as ever. Hierarchy can not depend on denominational attachment for funds any more because it has largely vanished. People need clear understanding of the impact of their contributions and to this point the GAC and most other governing bodies have done a horrendous job of doing that.

    Reply
  4. Dana Ames Avatar
    Dana Ames

    I too think you are correct in your analysis.
    I “bigger picture” point of view, which I wish the denominational hierarchy could understand and support- a la your subsidiarity theme- is here:
    http://www.wineskins.org/filter.asp?SID=2&fi_key=149&co_key=1241
    Dana

    Reply
  5. Dana Ames Avatar
    Dana Ames

    Here’s another one that caught my eye- I have a huge tender spot for high liturgy & all its symbolism derived from very well-thought-out theology (I look east not only to Canterbury, but also to Constantinople!)…. and at the same time I find this so very attractive:
    http://branthansen.typepad.com/letters_from_kamp_krusty/2006/12/honesty_at_leng.html#comments
    The only person I have found who is trying to combine the two, with some “success”, is Alan Creech.
    Dana

    Reply
  6. will spotts Avatar
    will spotts

    You’re right on this.
    I imagine the change is more culture-wide than anything else – but there seems to be a greater amount of skepticism about how funds will be used and what causes will be supported – that can easily be bypassed by direct giving. In one sense this is consumerist (e.g. people shopping around for the cause that appeals to them), but in another sense it is just a reasonable reaction to past experience.

    Reply
  7. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    Dana, thanks for the links. As you can see, I linked the Morgenthaller piece.

    Reply
  8. Michael Kruse Avatar
    Michael Kruse

    “In one sense this is consumerist (e.g. people shopping around for the cause that appeals to them), but in another sense it is just a reasonable reaction to past experience.”
    And I think part of the reason for giving to a large organization for distribution to others was the relative lack of information about the efficacy of the various organizations that could be funded. Much more of that information is more readily available and decreases the need for someone in the middle. That isn’t all bad.

    Reply
  9. will spotts Avatar
    will spotts

    “Much more of that information is more readily available and decreases the need for someone in the middle.”
    I hadn’t thought of that – it is a positive development.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading