Do the Word

And the sum total of church annual campaign stewardship drives that focus on meeting the church’s budget goals rather than increasing the generosity of each person in the congregation?

1 in 5 Protestants give nothing to their local church, according to a post last week by the Presbyterian Outlook.

The post quotes Michael O. Emerson, who co-authored Passing The Plate: Why American Christians Don’t Give Away More Money (a book whose research we like but whose conclusions and proposals we don’t, as we’ve written about in a previous post).

Emerson also notes that roughly 60% of the money churches recieve comes from 5% of American Christians, and that 50% of American Christians account for 1% of the total.

My favorite stat remains the one related to income: American Christians making $25,000 or less a year give a greater percentage of their money away than do any other income group.

Emerson goes on to note that the average Mormon gives nearly 3 times as much as the average Protestant, though Pentecostals are slightly better than the rest of the Protestant bunch.

Anyway, great stats. Wildly sad, of course, but not remotely surprising. After all, when churches’ measurements of success (see? I’m slowly rounding the bend to finish up my Blognum Opus on measurement) focus on total dollars raised rather than an increase in generosity in each individual giving unit (the result of which would logically spill over into an improvement in total dollars raised), why would we expect to see anything different?

What’s disappointing are Emerson’s prescriptions for change:

• Churches should learn to ask better
• Churches should provide other media for giving, like ATM machines
• Churches should do a better job of telling congregation members where their donations went and what they accomplished
• Churches should help congregation members “give, then live”, that is, give first and live on what’s left

[Editor’s note: Emerson also predicted, “One day man will travel to the moon”.]

Missing from Emerson’s prescriptions?

A core conviction of Transformational Giving (TG), namely TG Principle #9, “Giving is learned, not latent”. It does not arise simply from asking better, putting an ATM machine in the lobby, telling them how we spent their money, or telling them to make their first check every month their check to the church.

Rather, it comes from training people how to give, by leaders giving opportunities designed systematically to grow them, by the grace of God,  from participation in projects to engagement in God’s work to ownership of that work in their sphere of influence.

That doesn’t happen through an inspiring and challenging stewardship sermon. It happes through a one-on-one discipleship process.

“But I can’t disciple everyone,” says The Pastor.

“And you’re not called to,” says The TG Practitioner, quoting 2 Timothy 2:2 to show that biblical discipleship involves us leaders comprehensively training just a few (just like Jesus and Paul did) such that those few comprehensively train just a few more who, because of how we taught them to teach others, train just a few more as well.

Sadly, as we’ll talk about in tomorrow’s post, the Presbyterian Church (USA) is heading in a different direction, responding to Emerson’s statistics by resorting to the oldest (and now most outdated) traditional/transaction tactic in the book to boost denominational giving.

What’s that old saying about insanity being defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

I’m still exulting over the lead my Generous Mind man Jon Hirst gave me yesterday, forwarding me a copy of the free Masterful Mentoring e-newsletter from Triple Creek Associates, specialists in open mentoring to the corporate world.

(Why, oh why, are we consistently behind the corporate world in principles that we Christians once knew but increasingly neglect? I suspect on my worst days that I might learn more about biblical discipleship working for Quiznos or Kinkos or Cheerios than a church, since churches are still imitating the business practices that corporations are now eschewing, and corporations are blind squirrels stumbling onto biblical nuts with astonishing frequency these days. But I digress.)

Anyway, this month’s Masterful Mentoring e-newsletter focuses on generational impact on mentoring. Well worth a thorough read; absolutely relevant to Transformational Giving from beginning to end. By far and away the highlight is a chart summarizing the core elements of each generation’s understanding of mentoring:

I’m already overlaying this in my mind on top of the behavior and outlook of different champions I’m coaching from different generations, and I’m liking how it’s helping me to understand certain behaviors and attitudes I’ve observed.

For example, I’m realizing I’ve got to be cognizant with Millennial mentees that their default is to view my mentoring as situational, transactional, and temporary. That definitely squares with my experience, but I’d not yet recognized it as a generational characteristic. I’d always thought it was a character shortcoming in the specific young people with whom I was dealing. “Where’s their commitment?” I’d roar. “How can they tell me one day they’ll give their life for this cause, and then the next day they’ve found another cause to devote their lives to?”

I’m also seeing aspects of Baby Boomers’ and Generation X’s understanding of mentoring that gives me hope that we can engage these groups more constructively through Transformational Giving (TG) than has been possible through traditional/transactional fundraising (ttf), where these groups have hardly distinguished themselves by their commitment.

Finally, I see why many of the older TG practitioners I mentor doubt they can mentor their long-distance champions. As the chart indicates, Traditionalists believe mentoring only happens face to face. I hope they’ll check out the post from yesterday for an alternate take.

Worth asking yourself: Do you fit into your generation’s view on mentoring in the chart above? And does the chart help you to gain any insights that may be useful in shaping your champion coaching program with champions of various ages?

“I love TG, but we’re an international ministry [or I’m a missionary heading to the field] and my champions aren’t local. How can I coach them?”

It’s a valid, vital question and one I receive a lot.

That’s why I was flat-out thrilled when my Generous Mind man Jon Hirst turned me on to the Masterful Mentoring free e-newsletter produced by Triple Creek Associates.

(I always direct TG practitioners to steer clear of fundraising books and towards books on coaching and mentoring, as well as the scriptures. TG has far more in common with the latter disciplines than with the former.)

TCA’s February 09 e-newsletter is all about mentoring at a distance.

If you’re even remotely serious (or even just curious) about coaching your champions at a distance, you’ve got to read the whole piece. I myself am going to print it out and tape it to my forehead. There are unusually good practice exercises and reflection questions, as well as counsel on identifying and overcoming potential challenges and trouble spots that distance mentoring typically trips over, and strategies for strengthening distance mentoring.

The best part of the e-newsletter, however, are the detailed meeting guidelines by proximity. Take a second and drool over this chart with me:

Where has this chart been all my life???

Thanks for the lead, Jon. You are truly a Generous Mind.