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.