BiblicalInsights.net

Christian Smith, Michael O. Emerson and Patricia Snell teamed up to write Passing the Plate. This book takes a look at giving in American churches.  In this book, the authors state, “We were struck then, by what seemed to us in many American Christians as a kind of “comfortable guilt”–that is, living with an awareness and feeling of culpability for not giving money more generously, but maintaining that at a low enough level of discomfort that it was  not too disturbing or motivating enough to actually increase giving” (Passing the Plate, p. 110).  Guilt is a motivator.  But, comfortable guilt is not motivating enough to over the comfort zone most have established.  Many feel guilty about not giving more, but not guilty enough to motivate them to be better givers!  Are you reaching your full potential as a giver?
The authors state nine reasons for ungenerous giving.  Each is stated as a hypothesis and then put to the test.
The first is “objective resource constraints.”  The hypothesis is:  American Christians do not possess the discretionary financial resources to give 10 percent.  The hypothesis tested untrue.  Many have the ability to give more, they just do not.
The second is “subjective resource constraints.”  The hypothesis is:  Many American Christians regardless of objective capacities, subjectively believe that they do not possess discretionary financial resources to give 10 percent.  The hypothesis tested true.  Many have the objective ability to give more, but psychologically they have convinced themselves that they can’t.
The third is “unperceived needs.”  The hypothesis is:  American Christians do not perceive legitimate needs.  The hypothesis tested untrue.  Many do see and understand the needs, but do not feel a compunction to meet those needs themselves.
The fourth is “normative ignorance.”  The hypothesis is:  American Christians are not aware of the faith traditions’ requirements to give 10 percent.  The hypothesis tested true regarding stewardship, but untrue otherwise.  Stewardship involved 100% of what a Christian possesses not just 10%.  If we don’t manage the 10% well, why would we manage the other 90% any better?
The fifth is “administrative distrust.”  They hypothesis is:  American Christians are suspicious of waste or abuse.  This hypothesis tested mixed.  Some see and experience waste and abuse and others do not.  Church leaders must act responsibly with the monies entrusted to them.
The sixth is “low leadership expectations.”  The hypothesis is:  Church leaders are too tentative.  The hypothesis tested true.  Leaders need to be visionary and have a specific goal with a plan to meet that goal.
The seventh is “collective-action shirking.”  The hypothesis is:  American Christians do not give liberally because they lack confidence that other American Christians are also giving liberally.  The hypothesis tested true.  No one wants to think that they are pulling the load by themselves.
The eighth is “lack of accountability.”  The hypothesis is:  American Christians do not give liberally because matters of personal and family finances are highly privatized in American culture.  The hypothesis tested true.  American religious groups do not hold their members accountable for their giving.  Giving is highly personal and thought to be an act of worship between the person giving and God.  Of course, God will hold them accountable.
The ninth is “non-routine giving process.”  The hypothesis is:  American Christians give occasionally and situationally rather than consistently and routinely.  This hypothesis tested true.  Haphazard giving is a poor way to meet a budget!
The authors use the word Christian is a broad sense and they use the 10 percent threshold for giving as a norm.   While I may disagree with these terms, their findings are helpful in analyzing why people do not give more.  Perhaps this will open up a much needed discussion on giving in many churches today.

Recently, I read the story of John Hancock’s signature on the Declaration of Independence.  His signature is the largest appearing on the document.  According to legend, the founding father signed his name bigger than everyone else’s because he wanted to make sure “fat old King George” could read it without his spectacles.  The story isn’t accurate.  The truth is less dramatic.  Hancock, then president of the Continental Congress, gave a super-sized signature because he was the first to sign the document.  He did the sensible thing and put his name front and center.  He was the president of the Congress and he did not know his fellow patriots would sign their names on a smaller scale.  Also, he signed his name weeks before anybody else.  The National Archives explains, “One of the most widely held misconceptions about the Declaration is that it was signed on July 4, 1776 by all the delegates in attendance.”  In reality, Hancock signed it in the presence of just one man, Charles Thomson, the secretary of Congress.  No one actually signed the Declaration of Independence at any time during July, 1776.  Signing began August 2, with John Hancock’s famous scribble, and wasn’t completed until late November (Shine, from Yahoo.com)
Now, the most interesting fact about the signatures is that every person who signed the Declaration of Independence was sure to be hanged if he was caught by the British.   To sign this document was to risk your life for liberty!  Those who signed exhibited the courage of their convictions.
What is the source of deep convictions?  The  Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.  That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…”  Conviction is based upon truth.  Truth comes from God.
Conviction is firm persuasion of the truthfulness of principles held to be immutable.  In Heb. 11:1, faith is defined as “the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.”  G. Campbell Morgan paraphrases this passage by stating that faith is confidence in the promises of God and conviction of the precepts of God.  Conviction is based upon knowledge of the truth.  Truth transcends governments and culture.  Truth comes through Jesus Christ.  Jesus declared, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6).   Spiritual freedom is based upon truth.  Jesus states, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.  And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.  If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.”  Earlier, Jesus proclaimed, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:34-36, v. 32).  Through the courage of our convictions based upon the veracity of the Word of God, we can be made free from the bondage of sin.   While I believe that spiritual freedom  is more important than political freedom, both are based upon convictions that are formed by knowing and adhering to the truth revealed by God Himself.  Religious truth is worthy of our faith and our lives.