Support Generosity

Imagine with me for a couple minutes that one day I go to the dog pound and get two or three dogs to keep on my farm -- a small pack, because they are pack animals and need companionship. These dogs are only about a year old and very rambunctious. I want to train them, of course, but only in ways that are compatible with my values. My first training rule therefore is to support their right of conscience and their own free and responsible search for Truth and Meaning. This means I will offer my dogs guidance but I will not give them “commands.” Rather than telling them to “sit” or “come” or “lie down” I will say in a firm, clear voice “Be Good”. I want them to determine for themselves what that means.

Then, if one of my dogs actually happens to come toward me or lie down upon hearing “Be Good” I will not say “Good Dog” or offer a treat. I think it is best to not make remarks highlighting particular individuals for praise. Singling out one dog for praise could embarrass the rest of the pack. Each has inherent worth and dignity after all; raising one up for special treatment undermines valuing them equally, or might seem that way to the others.

How long do you suppose it will take me to get my dogs trained, to change their patterns of behavior so that we can meet each other’s needs and live together in peaceful community?

Every stewardship drive and every special appeal is fundamentally about getting people to change their patterns of behavior. In our culture we are concerned foremost with ourselves and our families. Stewardship in our churches is about adding others to the calculus of decision-making. We need to re-think what we do to promote generosity and stewardship -- or nothing will change.

Most church members are familiar with an annual drive for sustaining gifts. The full process follows a familiar pattern: First, the committees are given data about how they have spent money in the past year and are asked to provide an idea about their requirements for the following year. Someone meets with the minister and other staff to get an idea about what they will want for the next year. Simultaneously, the Treasurer guesses how much income will come from monthly commitments, based on current membership and giving trends.

Next, with all this input from different sources the Finance Committee (or, the Board in smaller congregations) adds it up, finds there is a shortage, cuts some of the requests, increases some of the revenue items, and comes up with a budget that is "balanced".

This budget is presented to the congregation which debates the proposal in an open meeting, often full of rancor over the various "cuts" or "waste" or "excessive optimism” in the revenue estimates. The budget debate focuses on the smallest expense categories, such as whether a second telephone line is really justified. Eventually the budget is adopted, everyone goes home feeling upset and unenthusiastic. This is how we kick off the stewardship drive.

What's wrong with this picture? I can think of four things; perhaps you see more. First, the process encourages the membership to consider their gifts as a function of the budget request for the following year; we are supposed to become more motivated in our giving because we see that the church needs to have supplies, purchase insurance, and make retirement plan contributions. We do not engage this paradigm with other charitable organizations: the Sierra Club, CARE, Planned Parenthood, Ducks Unlimited and National Public Radio all receive our generous donations without our questioning their fiscal plans. We "know" what these organizations will do with our money, and we support them grandly. The more generous our gifts, the more uplifted we feel as we become part of the force of good because the organization will do good for us, with us. While we are always concerned that our gifts be used wisely, we presume that the leaders of these entities will continue to further our interests as they have in the past. Any church stewardship process initiated by considering a traditional budget does not foster this presumption.

Second, the process fractures the community as it squabbles over a "fair" allocation of resources, rather than bringing everyone together in support of diverse interests. This divisiveness seems almost intentionally generated as our perverse way of kicking off the drive to encourage sustaining gifts.

Third, the notion of a "balanced budget" is mistakenly lifted from governmental accounting and applied to churches, creating a paradigm for members based upon "zero sum" thinking – completely at odds with the reality of our communal enterprise. In the case of governmental agencies there is an estimated level of revenue which the agency must live within. The revenue usually derives from some tax base; and estimating it for the upcoming year is usually beyond the power of the agency to control. This reality contrasts quite strongly with that of church communities where the flow of revenue is, quite literally, by the design of the members themselves. The members of a church community are in a position to determine for themselves how much they will both provide and receive communally, or how quickly they will attain a program vision. Our relatively small and homogenous group is the only thing standing in the way of moving toward our dream.

Fourth, the focus is on tinkering with the spending pattern of the past, rather than dreaming nobly of what can be in the future. We engage in patching up what we guiltily have left undone in the current year without much thought about where our fundamental path will lead three years from now.

In thinking about our stewardship efforts in this way, we can begin to see that there are two approaches to raising money in churches. One is "rationalistic.” It is a paradigm in which we look for reasons for giving that are beyond the self, beyond control. It looks for stewardship commitments designed to satisfy demonstrated spending requirements. It looks for evidence that budget items have "met the test" by being examined and trimmed appropriately. It looks for reasonableness in the use of funds, usually in comparison to the past year with an explanation of differences.

The other approach we might refer to as "visionary" or even "spiritual.” A visionary paradigm asks that we call forth our own dreams for the future and makes us instrumental to their realization within our church community. This approach to seeking gifts does not look to an annual budget as the basis for giving. Spiritual giving asks instead that we wrestle with our own internal devils, examining our attitudes about scarcity versus abundance in our lives; that we embrace generosity and gratitude as an approach to living; that we consider the notion that we are in a lifelong relationship with our church community, much like marriage, in which continual performance appraisal is detrimental. It sees the act of pledging as part of the spiritual practice of melding oneself into our relationship with our community of faith and values.

The devotion of most liberal religious congregations is to rationality, and it is undiminished particularly as it relates to the gathering of money. The rational approach to the stewardship drive is a way of continuing in a place of spiritual stagnation, for "wrestling with the devil" has always been hard work. This fixation on finding a reason for making gifts to our church may arise out of our humanist traditions. It may be that the denomination of "come-outers" from other faiths is frightened of anything that seems to take us back to an earlier context. Perhaps the generation of "boomers" only understands money as a medium of exchange and cannot turn loose of theirs without a clear understanding of what is coming back to them.

All of these have been offered as explanation. Of course, it does not matter which is the more accurate causal statement. The result is clear: Unitarian Universalists have the highest incomes of any major denomination, and the lowest percentage level of church stewardship. We are not effective in inviting generous behavior. Perhaps we should change our perspective.

It is helpful here to think of people as falling into either of two groups: those with a wage earner mentality, and those with an entrepreneurial mentality. Wage earners understand their income as regular, predictable, limited. Wage earners get a paycheck and pay their bills. Life, for the wage earner, has inflexible income boundaries; planning starts from that reality.

The entrepreneur has a different reality. The entrepreneur decides first what it is that is to be attained, and only then begins to work on what is necessary in getting from the present to the future. Income, for the entrepreneur, is not fixed; it is one of many variables to be managed in bringing a vision into being.

Unfortunately, most of us are wage earners, and it is difficult to acknowledge and move beyond that frame of reference. Our churches, however, are small entrepreneurial enterprises that can be shaped and grown to be whatever we jointly decide to make them. It is helpful to imagine our financial process from an entrepreneurial perspective.

For example, we might spend more time creating a widely held vision of how we want to be in community together three years from now, of what our community would include if it were whole and healthy. Such an envisioning process requires an understanding of our individual place in the community which is quite independent of the particulars of spending in the next year. This is spiritual work.

The annual stewardship drive, then, would not gain its justifications from a budget. Rather, stewardship arises out of our common vision and the budget becomes a description of our first steps down our path together. It is a policy statement about community values.

Everything that we present to the congregation prior to the drive must be directed to one purpose: to make it easier for congregants to feel generous and supportive toward the community. The sole purpose of the vision budget is to inspire the community, not to control future spending. Our vision budget must light the path ahead to our communal gathering place.

We want to know, for example, that the community wants a minister in the future, or an associate minister. We want to know that our staff will be supported with compensation packages that are both competitive and fair. We want to know that the community supports the development and training of both paid and volunteer staff. We want to know that our building will be painted when needed without creating a financial crisis.

Behind our efforts to describe our community of the future, there is the notion that financial stability can be achieved, that we can attain a level of giving which adequately supports the desired service level. Increases in spending beyond this level come from additional growth in membership rather than additions in the average pledging level.

Let’s first agree that there are different ways to present a budget. The two most common are referred to as the “line item budget” and the “program budget”. Each of these formats works well depending upon the organization’s dominant and overwhelming need.

Large organizations, particularly government agencies and large non-profits, need control and accountability. Voters, elected officials, unions, trustees, managers and stakeholders all ask: “How did the money get used? Was any of it spent inappropriately? How can we limit the amount paid for salaries?” The parties need to be answerable to each other on such questions. In such organizations “program budgets” have never gained traction because they do not address the organization’s financial questions. The Finance Director is more pressured to answer the question “Why are we having cost overruns on that grant?” than the question “How will we cover the increased costs in five years as a result of this initiative?”

Churches and most non-profits are smaller, and more homogenous. The interests of the constituents are not nearly as diverse. While controls in small organizations are usually more informal, they are also probably more effective; current spending is questioned less, despite the occasional budget arguments. Issues of control take a second seat to issues of meaning and mission. The most important financial questions facing small not-for-profit organizations are “What are we about? And, “where is the money coming from to do what we need to do?”

It may be that in your church accountability is the most important issue facing the congregation. While I readily admit that I have sat in on many discussions about postage costs being high, such questions are not the greatest concern of the board. More often, the dominant financial issues center on raising more money so that we can better support our ministry.

A “line item budget” shows how much will be spent on postage, or supplies, coffee, copy paper, and so on. This is boring stuff for which no one will increase their monthly commitment. How should we change? What is needed is a budget which will inspire donors to give.

The annual stewardship drive and the interlaced process of determining what services will be provided should be understood as a classical marketing effort. This does not diminish its purpose. "Marketing" the church involves assisting each member in focusing on their thankfulness for the community relationship they have, in identifying what they want additionally in that experience, and in showing the possibility of enhancing their life within their community of choice by adopting a generous notion of themselves sharing their abundance .

People give money to their church for two reasons --- to get something back, and to experience the sense of expansive selflessness that comes from furthering a worthwhile collective enterprise. We need to assure that the membership gets both objectives met.

The process of creating a vision that is more than a year or two away is one of the most difficult tasks facing church leadership --- ministers, boards and committees. While we might appreciate the notion of having a widely shared long term vision for our community, none of us know very well how to temporarily set aside the problems facing us now in order to focus on another time.

And, we worry about being dictatorial; or, we get caught in a never-ending process of seeking complete consensus before committing the congregation to one course or another. Once committed, we are too easily persuaded to revisit the issue three years later because the congregation is “different now”. Finally, if one of our committees has a long term plan, we do not know how to support it.

I do not know any easy way to change the entrenched attitudes which tell us to focus on the present. We reduce expectations for programs and services because some (usually unnamed "others") in the congregation do not want future spending to increase. We hide expense items because of a fear that the community will not be respectful of some program.

Nonetheless, I know that whatever vision is adopted by a congregation becomes a vision only because of the leadership. A widely held and sustaining vision never arose out of the congregation without its active nurturing by the few most committed over time. Such work is not done except by those who are the Board, the committee chairs, the ministers and the stalwarts of the annual stewardship drive. Vision simply does not happen if the leadership waits for it to arise from the pews. Here is a process that may help the leadership in your church get started:

By whatever planning process is appropriate in your church the Finance Committee needs to showcase a set of targets for congregational services for three or four years into the future. The presentation of such plans and their longer term financial implications shifts the congregation’s attention from considering the spending request for next year to considering where the congregation is heading. During the stewardship drive there is an opportunity to meld the conversation about congregational direction with the conversation about individual dreams.

I do not know that any particular process will always result in a congregational vision of itself for the future. I believe strongly however that such planning needs a catalyst to start it, and support by leadership to carry it to fruition. Even processes that seem to involve the “entire congregation” are successful only when the leadership is energized by the plans and focuses attention on them over a long time. A vision budget will help to retain that focus by the leadership. So, here are some guidelines for presenting a vision budget. (See the sample budget in Appendix 8.)

1) Summarize and focus expenses into the major areas of energy for your congregation. We want the membership to "own" the vision -- to believe it is good and to love it passionately. Suppose we organize a vision budget around the major growth needs driving the church.^{^[1]} Consider these examples:

These categories represent what is sometimes referred to as a "mission budget". They virtually scream out the necessity to describe why we are in community. The minister and board need to provide inspiring leadership in each of these areas --- to show in greater detail the aspirations for your congregation. "Worship, Spiritual Growth, and Exploration”, for example, might mean a year around ministry for children or additional emphasis on laity ministry. It might mean developing four or five regular services each week, each targeted to a particular group of people.

2) Present a vision budget which is adequate to the community. Too often churches limp along without the ministerial or other staff support they need, without an annual installment on the building repair fund, or without sufficient funds for religious education supplies. The objective of leadership in presenting a vision budget is to focus attention away from the discouraging present and toward the place we want to be within the foreseeable future.

I do not believe that any church can say with integrity that it enjoys a fullness of spiritual meaning in all of the four areas of concentrated energy suggested above if the average giving level is below $100/family/month. This represents a commitment approaching 2% where congregational monthly incomes average $4,000 to $5,000. Most of our UU congregations are made up of households exceeding this income level. The vision budget needs to show strong progress toward a level of gifts at least in the 4-5% range.

The presentation of a vision budget should bring forth excitement about the opportunities facing the congregation. Use the vision budget process to get both the board and the committees to share their observations and their dreams. They are the core of the congregation and their common purpose for the future is building the community.

3) Include a multi-year forecast. The purpose of a forecast is to show that the leadership has heard what the members want, and that such a church is available in the future. Members understand that programs take time to launch; they need to see movement toward objectives. They will support growth with a vision that fits their own. It expresses a deepened relationship that enhances lives today as it moves toward tomorrow.

Most of what your membership wants to see in its vision will be championed by the various committees. Give committees a way to talk about why they do what they do, and how they want to do it better. Ask "How do you envision your area of interest in three years when the committee is fully operational and we have "xxx" members?" In the development of the budget ask people what they want. Ask members "Why did you join? How are we doing? What is still missing for you?" (See Appendix 9.)

4) Show the number of members or giving units currently and into the future. Growth is important in our denomination, and the vision budget will elevate this discussion. This is also a way to focus attention on the growth in average pledging levels. One might show average commitments separately for "members" and for all other contributors as a way of communicating the higher giving levels expected of membership.

5) Put the entire budget on a single page. Leave lots of white space on the paper and do not reduce the type size. When you can do this, you have a budget that is comprehensible to those not familiar with it. Again, the sole purpose of the vision budget is to increase the level of giving. We who are church treasurers often lose sight of this objective. We default to thinking the purpose of the budget is to present numbers, and more is better. In the vision budget, fewer is better.

6) Do not show the congregation numbers with more than four digits. The membership will not absorb numbers with length, or at least not an entire page of them. A budget totaling $100,000 - $250,000 should express $435 as ".4" while a larger budget should round to even thousands.

7) Show the congregation a budget which addresses general program concepts, not committees. The funds provided to the church are never the property of a particular committee. As much as possible keep everyone focused on the entirety of the community. A program area showing where the congregation is headed with "spiritual growth for children and youth" is better than having a budget with a line for "Religious Education Committee." Even if a program area is the responsibility of a particular committee or staff person (and it probably should be), do not use the committee name in presenting the budget to the congregation.

1) Have the membership "endorse" or otherwise embrace the general priorities suggested by the vision budget. After all, we want to focus attention on the future. Some churches ask the congregation to adopt the annual budget. As you might guess from earlier discussion, I believe this can become an unhealthy frame of reference for the congregation. If the congregation is to "adopt" a budget, offer one at a high level of generalization.

2) Be forthcoming with details if asked. It should be clear that the one page vision budget is not an attempt to hide anything from the members. When you present the budget at the congregational meeting, have the detailed numbers available. You can even have some copies of the detail with three or four pages stapled together. Most people do not want to be confused with this much detail; but have it ready for the quantitative types who are not yet on the Finance Committee.

3) Give the membership a chance to do the right thing. It is important that the leadership not make large cuts in a budget before presenting it to the congregation. (The committees are not asking for tobacco subsidies!) Proposals from committees are the explanations from members of our own community about how they want to be in service. The effort to put that before the congregation should not be quashed.

Too many of our members have worked in large bureaucracies in which the financing ethic is entirely different. Do not succumb to the notion that the Board is "not doing its job" unless it reduces the requests. The first job of the Board is to raise the resources necessary to make the congregational programs successful. The same groups that have put forth their plans for the future are the ones which need to be inspired to finance them. Most experts in the field of church finance agree: It is easier and healthier to help the congregation increase the level of gifts than it is to cut programs. On the other hand, if a little paring back in the first year will produce an aura of a "consistent overall approach" or a "longer term growth curve" such adjustments are usually not offensive to anyone as long as the program is intact in the present and vigorous in the longer view.

4) Use the vision budget to present real issues about the future of the congregation. The budget for Community UU Congregation shown in Appendix 8 calls upon the community to extend its ministry both to a nearby retirement community and to the local junior college. This budget gives a focus for open discussion and the possible adoption of a shared vision that will endorse or reject such plans.

5) In presenting the budget, do not undermine the message of stewardship: We are committed to this community of religious freedom and spiritual growth. We freely and generously support our congregation and all the basic programs that make it worthwhile.

When presenting the budget for adoption every special fee shown such as the extra add-on fees for religious education registration, an adult workshop fee, coffee donations, or even concert tickets can be interpreted as failure of the congregation to support it. The same is true of revenue from special events such as an auction night where such income is necessary to obtain a "balanced budget.” When a vision budget is presented showing an ongoing reliance on such items, isn't this a message projecting failure even before we start?

Passing the collection plate for additional basic support of the church can be understood as a message of stewardship failure.^{^[2]} Some of my bedrock Christian friends tell me the "bucket" (not "plate" mind you) only gets passed in their church for mission work. The support of the congregation comes in routinely like a monthly bill. I think they have thought this through more carefully than we. More UU churches have begun the practice of “giving away” the Sunday collection to other designated groups. They often find the practice carries over to effect generous impulses during the stewardship drive.

Fundraisers are an excellent way to show off the community to potential new members. An annual auction, for example, can be a great deal of fun and raise much money. They are also a great deal of work and require the strenuous efforts of many people over a long period. My personal preference (and I think it makes pragmatic sense too) is to not rely on such activities in the basic annual budget. It is healthier for the congregation to fund its basic program within the confines of the direct contributions the members are willing to make. The energy for organizing a fund-raiser will be more forthcoming, as will the cash, if it is for some special purpose. For example, take the support of the Transylvania partner church or the local AIDS project out of the budget, and take the auction revenue out too. Say in a budget footnote that the Board expects the congregation will hold this worthwhile fundraiser, not for the church but for the important mission of the other organization.

We solicit people in the church community not to get their money, but to help them actualize their dreams for the church community. People give money to the church to realize something about themselves, something they see expressed within their beloved church. As their friends and supporters we have a duty to help them articulate what they want. When we approach another member of the congregation to ask for a commitment of support we must understand our role as pastoral at its core. One of the most serious conversations one can have with another member is helping them imagine how their dreams fit within the life of the congregation. The annual stewardship drive is an opportunity to help those we love reconnect with the meaning and purpose of their lives.

In previous editions of this book I have counseled leaders to do the stewardship drive well (by which I meant intentionally) but that no one form of a campaign was superior to another. I was wrong, or at best sloppy, in making such a statement. I was blind to some of the more crass approaches to stewardship used by some churches. There are decidedly inferior formats in the context of the purpose stated above, and even doing some forms of a stewardship drive “well” does not save them from predictably dismal results.

Some church leaders develop an attractive brochure and mail it with a giving commitment card, requesting that each parishioner complete the enclosed postage paid card and return it in the mail. Short of not conducting a campaign at all this is probably the most inappropriate of all approaches. Consider the subliminal message in such a request: “We really don’t want to know you any better. Even in this most intimate request for your support of our programs we are not much concerned with how you feel about the congregation right now. You are, at the most fundamental level, not very distinguishable from others. You are a source of funds, little else. While we hope you will contribute, why you contribute and how much you contribute are of no concern to your church leaders.”

You may or may not get a card back after having mailed it out; if you do, it will probably not include an increase. The implied request of a stewardship drive mailer is that the members simply continue in their existing relationship within the community, whatever form that takes. This is the most predictable response, even if the brochure is printed in color on glossy paper.

Slightly better is the campaign that follows up the attractive mailing with a telephone call. A phone call is a step closer to personal contact – okay, a big step closer -- but it still lacks sincerity. For example, when you call you do not know whether this person has other things on his or her mind. Even if you ask, chances are they will interpret this call for what it appears to be – an effort to get this distasteful job out of the way with as little involvement on your part as possible. Further, when a solicitor telephones a household with two or more members the conversation only includes one of them.

A positive stewardship drive will usually involve the intimacy of some form of face to face meeting. This should be accomplished privately. Meet in their home, have them come to your place for dinner, take them out for coffee. (Never solicit important commitments during coffee after the service or in the parking lot!) Or, it can be done through small group dinners. If the small group gathering is the selected vehicle, include the minister, the Director of Religious Education, or a trustee. Then, the minister can preach after the drive is completed on “What We Learned about What You Want”.

In thinking about organizing face to face commitment meetings, understand there are four levels of givers among our congregants, and they each need to be treated differently. While it may be possible to gently move someone over time from one level up to the next, in general members will not be responsive and may be angered if they are told they should have a set of motivations substantially different than the level they have already settled into.

1) Some people are PRESENT to support the church and what it stands for, but not as a major expression of their own life priorities. They are uninvolved in the life of the congregation beyond Sunday attendance, if that. Their giving tends toward a standard of “What is the least I can do that is still respectable and gives me some measure of standing in the community?” These people will pay the commitment all at once or in a few payments over the year. The gift is not a burden to them. They are not always the lowest givers – some make above average gifts, although giving will be less than 1% of their income. They are unlikely to increase their giving without a direct, personal reason.

2) A CONSUMER wants to give a “fair” amount based primarily upon what they see others doing, or what they see as the cost of what they “consume” by their membership. They can be motivated to increase if they understand that “other people just like them” give more. From a spiritual point of view this is the most difficult group to deal with. They think of themselves as reasonably decent people who are part of the congregation. Unfortunately, they require an extended effort at changing their perspective to a more complete understanding of the purpose of the church. The consumer perspective is very self-centered. Their growth within the community requires that they develop generosity as an end, rather than an instrumental purpose to serve their individual needs.

3) The next group is very supportive of the church, want to be CONNECTED, want the congregation to be healthy and want to feel that they are an important part of the community. They will be highly motivated by a congregational vision of where it wants to be in three to five years.

4) Finally there are the COMMITTED. They are wedded to the congregation. They receive a major part of their life’s meaning from their involvement and support of what the church is doing. They will generously supply what is needed to further the church vision, -- if it is made clear and if they feel listened to in shaping it.

It is best if you can form groups of members with similar or nearly similar motivations when asking them to converse with each other about their gifts. Here are a few other guidelines for the face to face stewardship drive:

1) Every gift commitment must be followed up with a personal written note from either the minister or the board president thanking the person(s) and naming the amount. There is nothing wrong with the solicitor sending such a note too.

2) If your membership definition includes teens as members, they should be approached about their stewardship gifts separately from their parents. Every member needs to know what membership entails.

3) No single solicitor should be asked to conduct meetings with more than five persons; even if they volunteer for more eight is the maximum.

4) Never send a “consumer” or someone who is only “present” in the congregation to ask about the stewardship intentions of a highly committed contributor. It is offensive. In fact, don’t ask anyone who is only “present” to solicit any others in the stewardship drive. Working in the stewardship drive is not a motivational tool for boosting the involvement of those who are only present.

5) If there are not enough stewardship leaders to cover the entire congregation with private face to face meetings, concentrate the effort on the those you believe are among the connected and committed. Work down from there. Use a less intensive venue for those remaining. Everyone who has been a member for less than two years however should be treated as though they have the capability and interest to become fully committed.

6) If someone cannot see a way to fulfill their stewardship desire with money, suggest alternative ways to donate (not services). For example, have the library committee develop a list of needed books. The person can commit to scour the used book stores to try to find at least three or four during the year. Or, have them agree to bring snacks for the RE program six times during the year. Everyone needs to be relied upon.

Finally, you may want to conduct a Celebration Sunday in place of the face to face visits. It takes every bit as much work in planning over several months. Because it is an entirely fresh format for the congregants however, it can bring about renewed excitement and commitment to the congregation.

I have included a stewardship drive planning calendar in Appendix 10 and a sample guide that could be given to every canvasser in your stewardship drive in Appendix 11.

Recognition of those among us who are most generous runs against the grain in many churches. When it comes to church giving, we seem to think people should give money solely because of some other-worldly motivation which is unrelated to societal connections.

Think about my dog training program and why it won’t work. We all know that training pets is a process of setting forth expectations and then consistently praising the desired behavior when it happens. We know that rewarding outcomes is more effective in getting the behavior repeated than punishment or shame. This is what we know about pets and changing their behavior to make them more desirable. We offer clear signaling of expectations, and clear rewards for meeting them.

I assert as a father (and not as a child psychologist) that the same process holds true for children. We may (or may not) feel a little more sophisticated when we train our children and do not like to think of it in the same context as training pets. Yet, when pressed, we admit that the process of learning and socialization is remarkably similar. We show children a lot of love; we tell them what we want them to do; and, we reward them with more love and praise when they behave in ways we wish. This approach to child rearing is “good parenting.” Consistently ignoring a child is understood by most as “bad parenting.”

Finally, when I look at the adult world I see indications everywhere that the same generalization applies again. People of all ages are more willing to change their behavior or engage in a difficult series of behaviors when an appreciation by others accrues to them through their efforts. One might say “But, adults are not like children; they are mature.” Meanwhile we strive for letters after our name (and display them); we seek promotions; we covet the symbols of well-being; and when our affinity group is recognized in the press, we proudly hang the picture and story on the wall – as though it says something about us.

All of us, no matter our age, respond readily to praise and recognition. We want to be known by our good accomplishments. We will do more to make ourselves Good People if others, in fact, have an opportunity to witness our goodness. We respond positively to praise and recognition no less than our Golden Retriever, although perhaps more subtly.

One might still argue that the real rewards of a well-lived life are going to be shown to us in the Hereafter. I do not dispute the possibility, even though I do not share that view of eternity. The rewards we know and respond to most predictably are those that come to us in this lifetime. My religion tells me to focus on the lifetime I am in, and to let the Hereafter take care of itself.

So, if we are trying to change people’s beliefs and behavior about their own generosity it makes sense that we would use the same proven methods that we apply in other areas of life. We should not, for example, spend our time and energy focused on the poor performance of the lowest level of givers, preaching shame or damnation. Rather, we should recognize generous behavior whenever and however it occurs and hold it up as a positive example for others – frequently and consistently – just as we do for pets and children. Trying to train a pet or child in the absence of any reward system seems futile. Similarly, it makes little sense to try to change giving patterns in a church community without heralding with our love those among us who already demonstrate a generous spirit.

Of course, the church leadership can continue to conduct stewardship campaigns shrouded in complete secrecy – but don’t expect behavior to change. The notion that all giving records are private and known only to a very small number (ideally, no one), runs counter to this thesis. Secrecy of giving and praise of generosity cannot co-exist. Yet many church leaders are set in the notion that all generous giving should be kept secret. When questioned about why, and not accepting the various versions of “that’s just the way we do it around here” the response is frequently “some people might be embarrassed.” Or alternatively, “It’s just nobody’s business.”

Embarrassment arises out of the strong incongruity between the self we hold out for others to admire, and some actual behavior we engage in which is different. When our behavior is seen to fall short of the image of ourselves we display, we are embarrassed.

Part of what we are about in religious communities is living lives of integrity – claiming values as our own and applying them in our daily living as consistently as we can. This integration of one’s values and one’s life is healthy religious work. Church leaders have a responsibility to help parishioners define what they value and then to live consistently within those values. It is quite appropriate that some people choose to not embrace the church as much as the devoted do. What we want to overcome is allowing anyone to claim he or she values the church community highly (and is entitled to a weighty opinion about its affairs) while adopting parsimonious and irresponsible giving patterns.

The argument that it is nobody’s business when others are generous is also strange. We are supporting our staff, facilities, and programs as a common endeavor. It is our business – our communal religious business. When individuals stand out in their contribution of time or money we need to know and appreciate what they are doing for all of us.

How should we reward generosity? Send a thank you note in response to every stewardship commitment as a starter. Follow up the stewardship drive with public recognition of all those who make a commitment, perhaps especially noting those who increased the most from the prior year or those who are most generous within their means. Many churches list giving levels, such as Stewards and Benefactors. Find some way of recognizing those who are in the most supportive levels of giving. Do not leave the most supportive members of your congregation wondering if they are alone and unknown in their efforts, and chumps for that.

In addition, throughout the year bring forth the names of those who have taken on some extra service responsibility, or have donated heavily toward a special appeal. Those who are at the highest giving levels should be invited to a dinner or dessert with the minister. This is yet another chance for the leadership to talk with those who are most committed to the future of the community about what can and should be the future of the church.

It is time let go of a “minimum” dollar expectation from each member. Too often congregations extend voting membership to those who give no money to the church; or, a congregation will accept “any recognizable gift.” If a minimum is set, it is on the basis of the church's "marginal costs" of membership (for example, denominational dues plus newsletter mailings). Many churches say, in effect, "We lose $85 per year on each member. We are not willing to extend support to anyone, so you need to pay us at least that amount to be a voting member. We want you to be generous with us, but we cannot see our way to be generous with you.” No one is entitled to be a burden on the community.

On the other hand, the congregation says that as long as a person or family is willing to pay this very minor amount the community is willing to grant them full and equal status in membership -- no further contribution to our communal costs of running the church is required. Either represents a strange standard for a religious community to hold forth; neither falls within the meaning of right relationship.

Both approaches to setting forth a financial standard for membership are clearly unacceptable as a stewardship standard for members precisely because 98% of us can afford much more and more is required to maintain the community. "Community" carries the implication that all who choose to become members will support the joint enterprise. By "low-balling" our expectations, we undermine the covenant to be in community. We undermine generous attitudes that help form the foundation of spiritual health we seek in the first place.

But how should we set a giving standard? If we set a required minimum commitment level of, say, $50/month for each member, we violate the serious notion that we are available to all without regard to income level. The very poor among us would be disenfranchised. At the same time, the wealthy individual who might make several times that much in a single hour is not meeting a giving standard worthy of his or her income.

Rather, consider using a percentage standard for setting stewardship expectations. Our job as church leaders is to remind the community of our purpose together --- to support each member on their journey toward a noble life. Part of that journey involves generously embracing the chosen community in which one finds nurture. The journey and the commitment to the journey become one. Money, serious money, is the evidence of serious choices. "Serious money" is best defined not in absolute terms but rather as a percentage of income.

We do need to set an expectation for stewardship in the church. The standard must be one requiring individuals to be serious in their covenant with the community. The church "belongs" to those who take it seriously; so, serious financial commitment and membership are intertwined. It is the job of the leadership to articulate such a standard and then to support members in finding ways to embrace that standard as they embrace the community.

When I talk about percentage giving in workshops, invariably someone will ask “Is that calculation made on gross, adjusted gross, or take-home?” Usually someone else wonders how we are to "enforce" percentage standards. "Are we," they ask disdainfully, "going to ask for a copy of their tax return?" These are natural questions, obvious questions, and irrelevant.

Helping people understand their own stewardship standard as a percent of their income has four purposes: First, it provides a benchmark: while not an enforceable rule, it sets an approach to start people thinking about their values within community life. Second, it provides more opportunity for people at all income levels to ask for acknowledgment of generous behavior even though their dollars are not as bountiful. It also provides an opportunity for the congregation to recognize those who feel they are generous (even while not offering dollar denominated evidence), and to express gratitude to them. Finally it provides some (somewhat skewed) data for the Finance Committee when looking to the future.

It's not an audit. No one will be quizzing respondents or challenging the answers. The worst case is that someone overstates their percentage contribution because they want to feel what it is like to be treated as a generous donor. As a matter of faith, I think most parishioners will find a way to embrace a 2%, 5%, or 7% standard that is more sacrificial than any fixed dollar standard we might all agree on.

There is no way out of the reality that we only offer guidance to our members: clear, helpful guidance. We do not need rules with the stiffness of enforceability. Acceptance and interpretation of our guidance rests solely with each person and is part of their own struggle with commitment to community life. It is part of the individual’s spiritual journey.

Focus on the monthly amount with members. Train members to consider their relationship to the community as one that is continuous through time. We want to match the commitment of support to our member's income cycle. Because mortgage, credit card, and utility payments are on a monthly cycle, we all define our financial lives within that temporal structure. Monthly finance is the context within which we most readily and accurately understand how much we can afford to give to others. Focus on the amount that members receive routinely each month and ask for a percentage of that amount.

Most churches print stewardship cards on which members formalize their monthly commitment level. (See sample in Appendix 7) Ask members how much they prefer to pay monthly and which month they would like to start. Do not refer to an annual amount on the card. Most people do not consider their mortgage or their car payment in annual terms; do not ask people to think about the church in annual terms either. Ask them to think of it as a reasonable portion of their paycheck. Only the Finance Committee needs to use a calculator.^{^[3]}

The financial world is changing. Use flexible approaches to accepting payments. Some churches use on-line banking services to collect the stewardship commitment on a monthly routine. Many members already use such services and pay the extra cost gladly.

On the other hand, such services can be initiated by the church too. Most banks charge modestly for fund transfers in which case the church pays the modest fee. Such bank transfers do not require that the member pay any other bills in this manner; they simply authorize a monthly deduction from their checking or saving account to transfer to the church account. In such cases provide forms during the commitment drive to have funds automatically transferred from the member account on a particular date each month. (There are web based services that are even cheaper than most banks, for example see http://vancoservices.com.) These services are quite inexpensive and allowing members to set up automatic payment schedules means the monthly cash flow is vastly improved and full payment more likely.

Some churches receive donations on credit cards. This costs the church in charges by the credit card company. It's okay to pay the credit card company -- after all the church does not have to chase down the money. While most of us probably find putting our stewardship payment on a credit card a distasteful thought, it is not immoral. It can be an option.

Where I live we are allowed to use United Way to contribute to any not-for-profit organization, including churches. This is attractive for many people since payroll deduction is automatic and painless. People will increase their commitment level substantially if it is made less painful. However, the United Way organization withholds about 15% for administrative costs; but, at least it is part of the individual's tax deductible gift, unlike credit card interest.

Some church Treasurers have avoided these approaches, looking at their cost and seeing a loss. They offer advantages, however, in the certainty and regularity of the gift, in the substantial reduction in accounting workload, in getting funds deposited more quickly and in the possibility that the size of gifts will increase. There are costs of "business as usual" too – the reduction factor one must include in the annual budget when using only traditional collection methods, the cost in waiting for people to get around to paying stewardship commitments, and the cost of tracking them down when they don’t. So, look at all the costs as well as all the benefits of each possible method of collecting the monthly stewardship payments.

^{^[1]} See Loren B Meade's "More Than Numbers, The Way Churches Grow" referenced in the bibliography. I recommend it for further development of these notions.

^{^[2]} Note too that IRS rules make it increasingly important that churches document and verify all contributions.

^{^[3]} Note that the adoption of monthly pledging does not imply that the church needs to have a monthly budget. The church financial cycle is annual; the family financial cycle is monthly. The two are unrelated.