Rev. Terry Cripe
President
Ohio District, LCMS
November 2007

Grounded in Christ and His Riches for Us

National research indicates that congregations ask for monetary support from their members in one of three ways: 1) they simply receive offerings with no stewardship campaign. Members of these congregations give an average of 1.5% of their income. 2) They compose annual budgets and secure congregational pledges from their members. The membership of these churches gives 2.9 percent of their income. 3) They conduct annual stewardship campaigns during which the members are asked, "What percentage of your income do you feel God is calling you to give?" Members write their answers on cards. The membership of these congregations contribute an average of 4.6 percent of their income to their church.

The article from which the above was taken then goes on to list five stewardship programs currently in circulation among various denominations. I first chuckled as I read, then became saddened. The question which the article asks and tries to answer is this: "How can we stop looking for more gold with ineffective methods?" Their answer: "By looking for newer and better ways to increase our church's financial giving levels." The writer does an outstanding job describing the various techniques used by various programs, but fails to provide the key answer to the most important question: "On what basis are people asked to contribute?"

I don't care whether people are brought in individually or whether they are spoken to collectively. I don't care whether they are given lowly 3x5 index cards on which to respond or glossy, four-color booklets. But I do care about this: If people are not moved to generosity by Him who for their sakes became poor, so that through his poverty we might be rich, they are ineffective means with a capital "I"! Calling people in for private interviews carries with it heavy anxiety. At worst, interviewees are expecting to be "told" what they are to give, as though they were being interviewed by a Mormon ward bishop. At best, they are feeling guilty because they didn't do as much as they know they should have. Speaking to people en masse is easier all around. It avoids face-to-face uncomfortableness. But it can help people avoid facing the hard questions they perhaps need to face and that is not good either! But again, dwelling on these and the liabilities or pluses which they offer is a fruitless place to begin. Lay-led "temple talks," Scripture verses for monthly newsletters, involvement of youth – nice touches? Maybe. But not if what the lay people are saying is not an appeal from the Gospel, preceded by an encouragement to reflection on the past and appropriate confession of sin.

The problem with a Gospel approach is that one cannot guarantee speedy results. A congregation whose bottom-line needs an immediate infusion of capital may become frustrated if the people of God are not responding as speedily as they would like. Even in our circles, stewardship emphases or programs that promise a 10 – 15% increase are appealing to a "quick-fix" mentality that seems to be backward. Shouldn't evangelical Lutherans be drawn to a program that first advertised itself as "Gospel-based" rather than promises of certain returns? Obviously I am not opposed to personal interviews that are Gospel-based, nor am I writing against attractive materials! But evangelical Lutheran stewardship makes sure, first and foremost, that stewardship programs are attractive because they are grounded in Christ and His riches for us.