Copyright holder: Tyndale University, 3377 Bayview Ave., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M2M 3S4 Att.: Library Director, J. William Horsey Library Copyright: This Work has been made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws of Canada without the written authority from the copyright owner. Copyright license: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License Citation: Reesor, Lori Ann Guenther. “Using Donor Research to Influence Stewardship Praxis in Mennonite Foundation of Canada's Constituency.” D. Min., Tyndale University College & Seminary, 2014. ***** Begin Content ****** TYNDALE UNIVERSITY 3377 Bayview Avenue Toronto, ON M2M 3S4 TEL: 416.226.6620 www.tyndale.ca Note: This Work has been made available by the authority of the copyright owner solely for the purpose of private study and research and may not be copied or reproduced except as permitted by the copyright laws of Canada without the written authority from the copyright owner. Reesor, Lori Ann Guenther. “Using Donor Research to Influence Stewardship Praxis in Mennonite Foundation of Canada's Constituency.” D. Min., Tyndale University College & Seminary, 2014. [ Citation Page ] Tyndale University College and Seminary Using Donor Research to Influence Stewardship Praxis in Mennonite Foundation of Canada’s Constituency A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Ministry Tyndale Seminary by Lori Ann Guenther Reesor Toronto, Canada March 2014 [ Title Page ] Copyright © 2014 by Lori Guenther Reesor All rights reserved [ Page ] iii ABSTRACT How and why do people donate money to their church and other charities? Donor research sheds light on the practice of discipleship, the strength of Christian community, and the bonds of unity among churches. In all, sixty-six respondents completed a survey on their giving behaviour and participated in focus groups. Donors belonged to the seven supporting conferences (denominations) in Mennonite Foundation of Canada’s (MFC) constituency. The results underscore trust as a condition for giving, and highlight connection and shared values/vision as reasons for giving. These findings are corroborated by national studies of Canadian donors. Understanding how and why constituents donate their gifts will help MFC pursue its mission of promoting “faithful, joyful giving” and may serve as a template or comparison for research in other denominations and charities. MFC services a diverse constituency in terms of language, culture, politics and education; these results should be transferable to other Christian contexts. The research develops a theologically robust, integrated model of giving and posits why giving patterns are changing. This thesis provides a number of discussion points around stewardship including: gratitude, role of the pastor, tithing, and planning. This action research project seeks to both document and influence stewardship values and practices among Canadian Mennonites and beyond. It offers practical suggestions on how charities and congregations can be more intentional in nurturing generosity. [ Page ] vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many generous people shared of themselves for this research. I was privileged to hear stories of hearts wide open to God’s purposes. Thanks to the board and staff of the Mennonite Foundation of Canada for their support. [ Page ] vii CONTENTS List of Figures .... xi List of Tables .... xii List of Poems .... xiii Chapter 1 : Ministry Context .... 1 Personal Background: Tools and Experience .... 3 Defining Research Constituency .... 4 Mennonite Foundation of Canada (MFC) .... 6 More than Money .... 7 Discipleship .... 8 Community .... 9 Unity .... 10 Current State of Giving in MFC’s Constituency .... 12 MFC’s Observations on Giving Patterns .... 13 Sustained Giving .... 13 Declining Giving .... 14 Increased Giving .... 17 Chapter Outlines .... 20 Chapter 1 Ministry Context .... 20 Chapter 2 Theological Rationale .... 20 Chapter 3 Social Science and Precedent Literature .... 20 Chapter 4 Methodology .... 21 Chapter 5 Findings .... 21 Chapter 6 Conclusions .... 22 Chapter 2: Theological Rationale .... 24 Origins of Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem .... 25 Models of Giving .... 27 Tithing Model .... 27 Scarcity Mindset Model .... 32 Core Values .... 37 Discipleship .... 37 Community .... 39 Unity .... 44 Conclusion .... 46 Chapter 3: Social Science and Precedent Literature .... 48 Sustaining Conferences of Mennonite Foundation of Canada .... 50 Types of Precedent Literature .... 52 Mennonite Sources .... 52 Canadian Sources .... 53 Donor Characteristics, Values and Behaviour .... 56 Who Gives? Demographic Profiles and Regional Variation .... 57 Giving Behaviour .... 58 Reasons for Giving .... 60 [ Page ] viii Trust .... 63 Christian Giving .... 64 Conclusion .... 68 Chapter 4: Methodology .... 70 Action Research Methodology .... 70 Action Research as an Iterative, Interactive Process .... 71 Planning .... 75 Survey Design .... 75 Sampling Theory and Sampling Reality .... 79 Conducting Research .... 83 Challenges and Benefits of Administering Surveys and Conducting Focus Groups in the Same Session .... 84 Food as Research Method .... 85 The Mennonite Game - Researcher as Cultural Insider or Outsider? .... 85 Emergent Interview Style .... 86 Data Triangulation .... 88 Ethnographic Field Notes .... 89 Performing Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis .... 89 Quantitative Analysis .... 90 Qualitative Analysis .... 92 Presenting Findings .... 95 Opportunities for Future Transforming Exchanges .... 97 Chapter 5: Findings .... 100 Lessons from Conducting Research .... 103 Analyzing Results .... 104 Demographics .... 105 Giving Behaviour .... 110 Trust .... 115 Reasons for Giving .... 117 Theological Comparison .... 125 Unity .... 126 Community .... 129 Discipleship .... 135 Comparison to Earlier Hypotheses on Giving as Reported in Mennonite Press .... 139 Transforming Exchanges .... 140 Transforming Exchanges While Conducting Research .... 141 Transforming Exchanges While Presenting Research .... 142 Transforming Exchanges Case Study: The “Gratitude Gap” .... 145 Chapter 6: Conclusions .... 150 Summary of Key Findings .... 150 Hypothesis for Why Mennonite Giving is Changing .... 152 Integrated Model of Giving .... 156 Future Research Directions .... 157 [ Page ] ix Validating the Pyramid Model .... 158 Appendix A: Research Timeline .... 161 Appendix B: Survey Questionnaire .... 165 Appendix C: Rationale for Survey Design .... 172 Survey Design as Action Research .... 172 Framework for Defining Research Questions .... 174 Rationale for Specific Questions .... 174 Q1-5 Giving patterns over time .... 174 Q6 Trust .... 175 Q7-9 Planning giving in advance .... 175 Q10-11 Regular vs. spontaneous giving .... 176 Q12 Experience of giving .... 176 Q13-14 Reasons for giving .... 176 Q15-16 Church and Conference Identification .... 177 Q17-23 Demographics .... 177 Q24 Charities supported .... 177 Appendix D: Ethics Review Documents .... 178 Ethics Considerations for my Proposal .... 178 Sample Script Explanation .... 180 Sample Script .... 180 Letter of Information .... 183 Consent Form .... 184 Appendix E: Report to Mennonite Foundation of Canada .... 185 Synopsis .... 186 Introduction .... 188 A dozen donors: Composite donor profiles .... 189 Daughter-in-law: Anne the Analyst .... 189 Father-in-law: Free-spirited Fred .... 190 Agatha the conference loyalist .... 190 Brian the new kid on the block .... 191 Cal the faithful tither .... 191 Christine the volunteer .... 192 Richard the non-giver .... 192 Janet the God-tester: “You can’t out give God” .... 193 Keith the theologian: “it’s God’s stuff’ .... 193 Joyce the “bad banker” .... 193 Albert the missionary parent .... 194 Stella - overwhelmed by choices .... 194 Demographic summary .... 195 Giving Patterns: Changes over time, range of causes supported, planning .... 196 Giving planned in advance .... 201 Trust .... 205 Christian charities .... 205 Secular charities .... 208 [ Page ] x Regularly supported causes and spontaneous giving .... 210 Local church .... 211 Mission workers .... 212 Kids’ Causes: Child Sponsorship and Camp .... 213 Health charities .... 213 Conference .... 214 Church school .... 214 Spontaneous causes .... 214 Comparing Donor’s Experience of Giving to Local Church, Denominational Charities, other Christian Charities and Secular Charities .... 216 Agreement patterns .... 217 Strong agreement patterns .... 218 I am a regular donor but sometimes I wonder why .... 219 Comments on the Local Church .... 220 Reasons for Giving .... 223 MFC constituents compared to Canadian donors .... 223 Reasons for giving based on type of charity .... 224 Focus group comments on reasons for giving .... 225 Write-in reasons for giving .... 226 Conclusion .... 227 Appendix: Demographic Analysis .... 229 Gender .... 229 Age .... 229 Marital Status .... 230 Level of Education .... 231 Church attendance .... 231 Employment status .... 232 Household Income bracket .... 233 Reference List .... 235 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Integrated Model of Giving .... 19 Figure 2.1 Circle of Grace Model of Giving .... 24 Figure 4.1 Methods Flowchart .... 72 Figure 4.2 Research Output Flowchart .... 74 Figure 4.3 Research Locations .... 81 Figure 5.1 Outline of Chapter 5 .... 101 Figure 5.2 Responses to Question 1 by Age Group .... 109 Figure 5.3 Reasons for Giving .... 119 Figure 5.4 Local Church as Nucleus of Trust .... 128 Figure 5.5 Agreement Levels to Question 12 .... 131 Figure 5.6 Strong Agreement Levels to Question 12 .... 132 [ Page ] xi Figure 5.7 Graph Showing "Gratitude Gap" .... 137 Figure 5.8 Action Research Cycles on the Subject of Gratitude .... 145 Figure 6.1 Inverted-Pyramid Model of Mennonite Giving .... 152 Figure 6.2 Integrated Model of Giving .... 156 Figure C. 1 Action Research Cycle of Survey Design .... 172 Figure E.l Percent Responses to Statements About Giving Patterns .... 198 Figure E.2 Why Are Your Giving Patterns Changing, or Why Are They Staying the Same? .... 200 Figure E.3 Donor Responses to How Often They Plan Their Giving .... 202 Figure E.4 Percentage of Annual Giving Planned in Advance Conflated With Percentage Given .... 204 Figure E.5 Level of Trust in Church Schools vs. Secular Schools .... 209 Figure E.6 Levels of Disagreement for "I am a regular donor but sometimes I wonder why" .... 220 Figure E.7 Trends in Reason for Giving .... 225 LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 List of MFC Sustaining Conferences .... 5 Table 1.2 Reasons for Decreasing and Increasing Giving as Reported in Mennonite Press .... 15 Table 2.1 Circle of Grace Model Compared to Tithing and Scarcity Mindset Models .... 27 Table 3.1 Conference Locations and Memberships .... 51 Table 4.1 Framework for Defining Research Questions .... 76 Table 4.2 Research Scope .... 82 Table 4.3 Research Trip Timeline .... 83 Table 5.1 Age Range by Gender .... 106 Table 5.2 Demographic Indicators Compared to Canadian Donors .... 106 Table 5.3 Demographic Indicators Compared to Canadians Generally .... 107 Table 5.4 Frequency Chart of Spontaneous Causes .... 115 Table 5.5 Trust in Secular Causes Compared to Muttart Survey .... 116 Table 5.6 Comparison of Reasons for Increasing Giving .... 139 Table 5.7 Reasons for Decreasing Giving: Comparing Hypotheses to Research Findings .... 140 Table 6.1 Summary of Key Findings .... 151 Table 6.2 Summary of Pyramid and Inverted-Pyramid Models .... 154 Table 6.3 Additional Survey Questions .... 158 Table A.1 Research Timeline .... 161 Table E.1 Frequency Chart for Giving to Local Church .... 211 Table E.2Frequency of Support for Mission Worker(s) .... 212 Table E.3 Age Range Frequency Chart .... 230 Table E.4 Education Level Frequency Chart .... 231 Table E.5 Employment Type Frequency Chart .... 233 Table E.6 Household Income Range Frequencies .... 234 [ Page ] xii Table E.7 75th Percentile Total Income of Individual Donors by Province, 2011 .... 234 LIST OF POEMS Train .... xiv Perfect love casts out fear .... 23 Shape Shifter .... 49 Metre .... 69 Ordinary like Sunsets .... 99 “Giving” - A found poem: Q14 Reasons for giving .... 121 All poems written by Lori Guenther Reesor. Unless otherwise indicated all Bible references in this paper are The New American Standard Bible (NASB) (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995). [ Page ] xiii Train in the glory days of trains my grandparents rolled across the prairies on a steam engine following tracks already laid shovelling coal with all their might giving what money they had to keep the train running they couldn’t steer the train but it didn’t matter survival was the first destination later the town of Budget in the land of Ministry Times changed but the rails were immoveable and so too the engineers people withheld coal stopped giving some jumped ship set their own course alternate destinations the engineers threatened and cajoled, cut loose the caboose more coal, more coal we need more coal! the people who remained on the train did their best Can it be a coincidence that metal fatigue and donor fatigue describe the same phenomenon where a repeatedly stressed part suffers a breakdown? [ Page ] xiv CHAPTER 1: MINISTRY CONTEXT For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. —Matthew 6:21, Luke 12:34. I study treasure to gain insight into hearts: how and why Christians give indicates whom they trust and what they believe. The state of Christian giving provides a measure of spiritual health in terms of discipleship, community, and unity. At an individual level, giving forms part of discipleship. At a congregational level, giving informs the collective spiritual formation of the church community. At a denominational level, pooled congregational giving demonstrates unity; it shows a financial commitment towards promoting members’ shared values. I study giving because I think stewardship and fundraising merit theological thought. Hence, in this project I develop an integrated model of Christian giving based on grace. I study giving because many Christian institutions and organizations depend on donations. I have been a pastor, donor, non-profit marketing analyst, and fundraiser. From these vantage points, I can see that giving patterns are changing. If Christian leaders do not understand how and why donors give, they are planning for the future based on speculation. Donors in this study completed a questionnaire about their giving and then discussed stewardship in groups. To maintain confidentiality, I have not identified [ Page ] 1 any of the congregations that participated in this research. The results highlight the importance of trust as a foundation for giving, which parallels the results of a national donor study. Donors said they give where they feel a connection to the cause and a sense of shared values, which also matches Canadian research findings. Loyalty and obligation are declining motivations for giving, and this research demonstrated generational differences. Giving patterns are shifting, and this research suggests reasons why. My study provides discussion points applicable beyond Mennonite settings: gratitude, tithing, planning one’s giving, and the role of a pastor in church giving practices. This project offers a template for replicating this research in other Christian contexts, as well as suggestions for further studies. I am not merely researching giving behaviours as if donors were butterflies under glass. Rather, I desire to effect change within Mennonite Foundation of Canada’s (MFC) broad constituency as they implement this research within their mandate of promoting “faithful, joyful giving.” Action research provided an ideal framework for both understanding and influencing stewardship practice. An action research approach encouraged me to incorporate what I learned from my interactions with MFC into the research. Within action research methodology, I used both qualitative and quantitative methods and referenced several national studies of giving. Understanding why donors give will help MFC influence Christian donors and church leaders. This chapter examines giving patterns among MFC’s constituency and argues why donor research is needed. It (1) outlines the tools and experience I [ Page ] 2 bring to this research; (2) defines the term conference and introduces MFC; (3) explains what discipleship, community and unity mean in my research context; (4) examines the current state of giving in MFC’s constituency; (5) introduces an integrated model of giving; (6) concludes with chapter outlines. Personal Background: Tools and Experience I begin with the personal background that led me to undertake this research, which is ambitious in scope for a solo practitioner. I earned an undergraduate degree in mathematics, majoring in statistics. Volunteer experience with the international relief and development agency Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) led me to pursue a career in the non-profit sector. I began at World Vision Canada, as a computer programmer, and then turned to marketing analysis. While I have taken academic courses in fundraising and non-profit management, my best learning has been experiential and included survey analysis and focus groups. In recent years, I worked as a marketing analyst and consultant for a variety of Christian charities. I have also actively fundraised for my alma mater, Conrad Grebel University College. I have also practiced and studied theology. I have been a Mennonite pastor and completed my master’s degree in Theological Studies (MTS). My ministry experience grounded me in the lives of congregants and churches. In 2007, I partnered with MFC for my master’s thesis examining the apostle Paul’s collection for Jerusalem and comparing how current Canadian Mennonite praxis and theology compares to the Pauline model. I interviewed 25 donors, asking [ Page ] 3 them questions about their giving and their theology of giving (Reesor 2007a). My variety of experiences gives me a foot in two different realms, with respect to Mennonite giving. Among some Mennonite leaders, 1 hear sadness and confusion about decreasing giving. Paradoxically, in the wider Christian realm, the same Mennonite donors are sought after and celebrated for their generosity. Defining Research Constituency This section introduces Mennonite Foundation of Canada (MFC) and defines the term conference. The 70,000 members in MFC’s core constituency give about $100 million to their local churches each year, according to T3010 data filed with the Canadian Revenue Agency. While MFC works with many Christian groups, it refers to its seven supporting groups of affiliated churches as “sustaining conferences,” as shown in Table 1.1. Estimated number of active worshippers were compiled by MFC (C. Klassen 2012). [ Page ] 4 Table 1.1 List of MFC Sustaining Conferences [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 1.1 details ] [ Footnote 1 is in Table 1.1 ] In my experience, the word conference is widely understood in MFC’s constituency. A conference is a collective noun describing the supporting structure of a group of affiliated churches. Mennonite conferences are roughly parallel structures to Baptist conventions or Lutheran synods. A conference can have multiple layers: the national conference can comprise a collection of regional conferences, as is the case with my church’s conference, Mennonite Church Eastern Canada, which belongs to Mennonite Church Canada. Conversely, some conferences, such as Northwest Mennonite Conference in ______________________________ 1 The total number of congregations and the total number of entities which file T3010 data differ for various reasons, including emerging congregations without a separate charitable status and groups of congregations which operate as one charitable entity. [ Page ] 5 Alberta, are groups that have chosen to depart from an existing conference. A congregation is typically, but not always, associated with only one conference. The largest sustaining conference is Mennonite Church Canada, which refers to itself as a “national church” and to the sub-conferences within it as “regional churches,” although these terms are seldom heard outside of the Canadian Mennonite magazine or official denominational publications. The second largest sustaining conference is the Evangelical Missionary Church of Canada, which again does not refer to itself as a conference. Nor is it Mennonite, although it results from a merger of two denominations, one of which has Anabaptist roots. While the constituency of MFC can be confusing to the uninitiated, it presents a wide and varied base for donor research. Mennonite Foundation’s constituency reaches beyond self-identified Mennonites. MFC and other agencies are à la carte options; there is no prescribed menu that a conference or church must follow. The sustaining conferences may or may not work together in other ways such as participating in Mennonite Disaster service (North American relief agency), Mennonite Central Committee (an international relief and development agency), or missions. Mennonite Foundation of Canada (MFC) MFC stands well-prepared to help church leaders plan for the future, because it works with individual donors, congregations, conferences, and charities across a geographically and theologically diverse constituency. MFC encourages churches and individuals to pursue “faithful, joyful giving” through investments, [ Page ] 6 education, and planning. MFC staff and board have firsthand experience with donor behaviour. MFC is a public, donor-advised foundation: it manages donors’ funds and then distributes them to various charities as requested. In 2012, MFC distributed over thirteen million dollars (Pries-Klassen 2012, 8). MFC has 35 years’ experience facilitating charitable giving, estate planning, and stewardship education (Mennonite Foundation of Canada 2013). Twenty-two staff members, including eight consultants, work out of five regional offices across Canada. Constituent congregants might be most familiar with MFC as a provider of church mortgages, but its role as a public charitable foundation is not well-known. A private foundation (like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) is typically set up by wealthy individuals with a specific mandate. Setting up a foundation offers tax and estate benefits, as well as more flexibility in giving money to various charities over time. However, establishing a private foundation can be complicated. As a public foundation, MFC has an existing infrastructure which offers the benefits of a foundation to individuals of varying means. A foundation is also equipped to receive gifts in kind (e.g. stocks, bonds, property, and insurance) and to handle more complicated situations. A donor writing a cheque to his church would likely not use MFC, but a donor wishing to endow her church in a will might. More than Money While MFC staff possess financial acumen, they know that giving [ Page ] 7 concerns more than money. Researching charitable giving means researching spiritual health. MFC consultant Dori Zerbe Cornelsen writes, “[Christian] practices are patterns of action that create openings in our lives into which the grace, mercy and presence of God can enter. When we practise generosity, we can be transformed by God’s mercy to become who we were really made to be” (Zerbe Cornelsen 2013, 17). Thus, stewardship forms part of our Christian vocation. As I expand upon in chapter 2, giving praxis informs discipleship, community, and unity. In this chapter, I provide context for how the practice of discipleship, community, and unity are changing in current-day Anabaptism. Discipleship Theologian Ben Witherington III notes that what one does with one’s money says much about the heart, and how the “heart has been transformed” by Christian faith (Witherington III 2010, 145). I look at North Americans’ changing relationship with the church and also at different generations’ attitudes towards the church. The relationship between congregant and religious structures has changed significantly in recent decades. Twenty percent of American Christians do not give away any money “to any charity whatsoever, whether to religious or secular causes. Zilch. All of their money they appear to spend on themselves” (C. Smith, Emerson, and Snell 2008, 29). A consumerist model of religious participation prevails (Bibby 2011, 21). [ Page ] 8 In conjunction with increasing consumerism, there is decreasing institutional loyalty. Horizons Stewardship Company founder J. Clif Christopher discusses generational changes in giving, based on his extensive experience working with churches in the United States, and notes that the loyalty of people who grew up during WWII is not shared by subsequent generations (Christopher 2008, 39). The baby boomer generation in particular has shifted religious participation—they are demanding and want input (Bibby 2011, 22). Loyalty must be earned. And subsequent generations are yet again different. For various reasons, younger people feel less connected to institutions (Wuthnow 2007, 12). These changing generational attitudes among North American Christians influence their relationship to the church, plus there are generational shifts more particular to Mennonites, which I discuss in the unity section. Community Community strongly permeates Mennonite theology and culture: Anabaptist historian Arnold Snyder writes that discipleship among Anabaptists is not considered just an individual practice (Snyder 2004, 108-9). In any Christian setting, how one individual gives affects the life of the congregation, and how the congregation gives impacts the life of the community, conference and/or denomination. If discipleship is communal, then how a community practices stewardship merits theological study. Here, I outline how the community focus informs my research methods, and look at funding for overseas missions as an example of how community practice is shifting. [ Page ] 9 I look at individuals as part of a community. Thus, the question of communal discernment, as opposed to individual discernment, on how and where to give money continues to be germane to my research. My use of group interviews, which literally creates a circle of discussion, was informed by this communal approach. Mission trips provide an example of how community might be becoming more narrowly defined as congregations pursue a more consumerist approach and display less denominational loyalty. With the best of intentions, short-term mission trips are based on “what will be most rewarding for us [North American church members]” rather than on the “best interests of those we would serve” (Lupton 2009, 6). The increase in short-term mission trips has not translated into increased support for long-term missionaries, whose support is actually declining (Lupton 2009, 6). Whereas once Mennonite missionaries would have been sent almost exclusively by their conference, a recent Mennonite publication asks: “if mission is an extension of the church, why are there so many mission agencies that are not affiliated with the church?” (D. G. Klassen 2012, 6). Local churches pursue short-term missions that suit their interests, and Mennonite churches interact with unaffiliated mission agencies. Unity Given that the practice of giving informs individual and congregational identity, does reduced giving to Mennonite conferences signal a shift in Mennonite unity and identity? This question arises from my own lifelong [ Page ] 10 experience in various Mennonite churches. One cannot discern a change without knowing the past, and both church history and a changing cultural context inform this discussion. Within the North American trend of declining religious loyalty, there are generational changes specific to a Mennonite cultural context and immigrant experience. During the 1920s to 1950s, many Russian Mennonites came to Canada as refugees and immigrants, assisted by Mennonite institutions (Gerbrandt 2011). They arrived with nothing, and many credit their present prosperity to the help they received from their conference. Consequently, these individuals’ loyalty and identity are strongly connected to Mennonite institutions, particularly their conference. In more recent years, Laotian and Hmong Mennonites share a similar story of arriving as refugees sponsored by Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) and a local church supported by the conference (D. Martin 2012). The second generation has a different relationship with church and conference. For an ethnic church—German- or Laotian-speaking Mennonites, for instance—language matters immensely. Identity changes when a new generation speaks primarily English. I am a participant-observer of Mennonite history, and part of the first generation in my family to grow up in a city, speaking English. My extended family covers the spectrum from isolated Low German-speaking colonists in Bolivia, to rural western Canada townsfolk speaking a mix of both English and Low German. My own experience suggests that speaking the dominant language leads to one’s identity becoming more influenced by the surrounding culture, and that this shift continues to impact giving behaviour. [ Page ] 11 The relationship between a Mennonite congregation and its conference parallels the relationship between an individual member and her church: loyalty cannot be assumed based on earlier generations, and each congregation is inclined to pursue its own direction. The executive minister for Mennonite Church Eastern Canada says it thusly: “The relationship between the congregation and the ministries of the wider church is eroding and has resulted in reduced financial support for wider church ministries” (D. Martin 2011, 2). Congregations are less connected to their conference, a phenomenon that is consistent with declining individual loyalty to institutions. To summarize, North American Christians’ practice of discipleship struggles with consumerism. At a community level, Anabaptists have a theology of communal discipleship, yet evidence from short-term missions trips suggests consumerism and declining institutional loyalty. The unity created by loyalty to conference is diminishing, possibly influenced by a generational shift in language and culture. Current State of Giving in MFC’s Constituency Given that attitudes towards the church are changing, are giving patterns also changing? I begin with MFC’s observations regarding trends in giving and compare the current state of Mennonite giving to the past. Giving to the local church remains constant; however, giving is decreasing in certain areas yet increasing in others. [ Page ] 12 MFC’s Observations on Giving Patterns MFC staff members already know anecdotally and intuitively that giving patterns are changing; individual giving is increasingly moving beyond the local church, denomination, and indeed beyond faith-based organizations (Pries- Klassen 2011). MFC has noticed that the traditional pattern of giving to the local church, national church, Mennonite Central Committee, and denominational schools has changed, and that donors are giving to a wider variety of causes (Pries-Klassen 2011). American data support this conclusion (Christopher 2008, 3), as does my own observation. MFC executive director Darren Pries-Klassen wanted to better understand giving patterns: why does this generation give differently than their parents and grandparents did? What motivates giving? The answers to these questions are useful for MFC staff as they present in churches and related settings across Canada, and as they plan for the future. Sustained Giving The data on Mennonite giving indicate that giving to local congregations remains steady. There are over five hundred congregations in MFC’s sustaining conferences. According to T3010 data that each registered Canadian charity must file annually with Revenue Canada, church attendees in the MFC constituency donated over one billion dollars to their congregations from 2004 to 2012, not including donations to other charities and causes. From 2004 to 2012 the total value of receipts issued by congregations in each conference held steady or [ Page ] 13 increased, although these figures from the T3010 data are not adjusted for inflation. By any measure, this is a generous constituency. Declining Giving However, declining giving within MFC’s constituency means diminished giving to conference and conference-related charities. Donors are still supporting their local churches, but donors and churches direct less of those monies to their conference. Less money is flowing to the denomination and denominational agencies than did in the past (D. Martin 2011, 2). I draw articles from Mennonite periodicals to assess the changing state of Mennonite giving and to collect opinions on why the changes are occurring. To illustrate the present situation, I look primarily at Mennonite Church Canada (MC Canada) and secondarily at Evangelical Mennonite Missionary Conference (EMMC). MC Canada is MFC’s largest constituent conference and comprises five area church conferences, with approximately 230 congregations from British Columbia to New Brunswick. Other Mennonite institutions also struggle to maintain steady funding, but MC Canada presents a particularly clear example of declining funding for three reasons: (1) the decline is well- documented in the Canadian Mennonite, a national biweekly publication for Mennonite Church Canada; (2) comparable yearly data exist; (3) it is a national institution less subject to regional variation. MC Canada is financially supported primarily by contributions of member churches, but also by individual donations. MC Canada reduced its budget and [ Page ] 14 laid off staff in 2011, as a result of decreasing contributions from congregations and individuals (Bergen 2011, 15). The article announcing the cuts was entitled, “With sadness and lament” (Bergen 2011, 15). These cuts were significant and impacted a number of program areas, including the elimination of the national youth ministry position (Loewen 2011, 35-36). Both the tone of the announcement and the emotive language (sadness, lament) suggest anxiety about declining giving to the national church. While it is clear that donations to the national and area church conferences are falling, there is no consensus as to why. There are multiple and varied theories in the Mennonite press on why this change is happening, as Table 1.2 summarizes. Table 1.2 Reasons for Decreasing and Increasing Giving as Reported in Mennonite Press [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 1.2 details ] [ Page ] 15 Willard Metzger, executive director of MC Canada, cites the “economic realities of the last three years [2008-2011 ]” as one contributor to the “seven-year downward trend in donation revenue” that shows no signs of abating (Dyck 2011, 18). A 2010 article on financial trends begins with the question: “Congregational giving is up, so why are donations to area and national church bodies falling?” (Wiebe-Neufeld and Bergen 2010, 8). The moderator of MC Canada’s general board wonders if congregations are choosing to fund short-term aid pro jects rather than long-term mission workers, while other respondents wonder if a lack of education and communication about what MC Canada does might be a factor (Wiebe-Neufeld and Bergen 2010, 9). The Evangelical Mennonite Mission Conference financial review does not offer explanations for the year-end deficit but positively describes a reduced deficit in response to a year-end appeal: “your gracious commitments and generosity helped us to reduce our previously much larger deficit to this smaller, almost balanced budget” (J. Friesen et al. 2012). Secular institutions may struggle to meet their budgets, but in my experience, it is only churches that make desperate year-end budget appeals. Most secular fundraisers would say, “We need this amount of money in order to carry out our very important mission of. .and would never substitute “the budget” for a description of their important mission (Christopher 2008, 28-29). The donors I interviewed for my MTS thesis told me that giving to a budget was not very exciting (Reesor 2007a, 29-30). Could the way in which an organization’s mission is expressed (or implied) influence giving? This study looks at reasons for giving to various types of causes, [ Page ] 16 including the local church and conference, to better understand changing giving patterns. Increased Giving I look at increased giving to non-Mennonite organizations and profile two thriving Mennonite schools, Conrad Grebel University College and Steinbach Bible College. I focus on suggested reasons why donors support some causes more readily than others. In my fundraising database consulting, I find that non-Mennonite charities know and appreciate Mennonite generosity. In an editorial entitled, “The dollars are here” (Benner 2010, 2), the editor of Canadian Mennonite asserts that “giving is increasing to non-Mennonite organizations” (Benner 2010, 2). I agree, based on the Christian donor databases I have seen. Canadian Mennonite writer Will Braun cites “competition. . .from countless non-Mennonite organizations” as a factor in declining giving to conference (Braun 2013, 15). In the same year that MC Canada was announcing cutbacks, Conrad Grebel University College—affiliated with MC Canada—issued a press release to celebrate the achievements of its retiring president, Henry Paetkau. The release characterized the past nine years as a time of fiscal stability and growth, including: balanced budgets, healthy reserves, growing endowments, and an ambitious capital campaign that has already exceeded its initial goal(Conrad Grebel University College, 2011). The release suggests that the success of the capital campaign is a result of [ Page ] 17 Paetkau’s leadership, combined with generous donors “who understand the College’s mission and want to participate in it” (Conrad Grebel University College 2011). These fundraising success factors—confidence in leadership and a sense of shared mission—echo two of the top motivations for giving cited by Christopher (Christopher 2008, 12-13). Given that Grebel draws from the same donor base as its parent denomination, this press release suggests two interesting hypotheses: Could a lack of confidence in leadership contribute to declining giving? Are reduced financial donations a product of reduced understanding and support of a charity’s mission? In August 2013, Steinbach Bible College (SBC) unveiled a $1.5 million residence expansion (Steinbach Bible College 2013). The college is supported by three of MFC’s sustaining conferences. Its fundraising success again illustrates that certain Mennonite institutions are thriving. SBC does not theorize about why donors support them, but the president does note that “we have been intentional in building relationships” (R. Reimer 2012) with former staff and students. Chapter 3 examines connection as a reason for giving. Articles from the Mennonite press demonstrate that there is no consensus about why giving to some Mennonite institutions is in decline. The lack of understanding underscores the need for donor research to investigate changing giving patterns in the larger Mennonite church. Christian institutions need to understand their donors in order to be more intentional in their practice and theology of stewardship (Christopher 2008, 8-9). With the goal of intentionality in mind, I introduce an integrated model of giving that I develop in this thesis. [ Page ] 18 Figure 1.1 Integrated Model of Giving [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 1.1 details ] Figure 1.1 shows an integrated model of giving that includes discipleship, community and unity. Note that God is represented in the diagram. Giving can occur without donors recognizing God, and such giving can still result in community as people help one another. Donors and recipients can become one people. When people receive God’s grace and respond with gracious action (giving), giving becomes part of discipleship. When people unite in praise to God for gifts received, Christian unity grows. The diagram shows discipleship, community and unity as three sides of the same triangle, to emphasize that the three are closely linked. The theological basis of this model is explained more fully in chapter 2. [ Page ] 19 Chapter Outlines Chapter 1 Ministry Context This chapter outlined the purpose of this project: using donor research to influence stewardship praxis in my context. It introduced Mennonite Foundation of Canada (MFC). It explained what discipleship, community and unity meant in my context, painted a picture of the current giving trends in MFC’s constituency, and summarized hypotheses about why giving patterns are changing. Chapter 1 also introduced the integrated model of giving that will be developed further in chapter 6. Chapter 2 Theological Rationale Paul’s collection for Jerusalem provides the best documented example of fundraising within the primitive church. I outline the circle of grace model of giving and then compare it with the Old Testament tithing model and the scarcity mindset model. The three focal points for this theological rationale—discipleship, community and unity/identity—all emerge from the circle of grace model. Chapter 3 Social Science and Precedent Literature This chapter introduces the idea of transforming exchanges, from the perspective of complex adaptive systems. I sketch a brief history of MFC’s sustaining conferences and then review relevant literature on how and why donors give money to charity. It is essential to understand the broader context of charitable giving in order to compare MFC’s constituency to the wider culture of [ Page ] 20 giving. I interpret a variety of studies of charitable giving from secular, Christian, and Mennonite sources. Chapter 4 Methodology Within action research methodology, I used both quantitative and qualitative methods: a written survey and focus groups. The survey questions cover topics around how and why donors give, including trust and reasons for giving. Borrowing survey questions from national studies allows comparison to the Canadian donor population. Quantitative methods gave the research breadth, and qualitative methods gave the study depth. I then needed a variety of analysis tools. I presented the research results orally in multiple contexts and wrote up the results both for MFC and Canadian Mennonite magazine. I document the many transforming exchanges that comprise this research. Chapter 5 Findings My findings provide a veritable treasure trove of quantitative and qualitative data. Trust underlies charitable giving, and the local church is the nucleus of donors’ trust. Donors give motivated by connection to the cause and by a sense of shared vision more than from obligation and need. However, attitudes towards the local church suggest that familiarity plays a role. In addition to donors’ attitudes towards their church and denomination compared to other charities, highlights of this chapter include generational changes in giving, preferred types of charities, reasons for giving versus national studies, and [ Page ] 21 donors’ reasons for giving, in their own words. I outline reactions and actions resulting from conducting this research and from presenting the findings. An action research case study examines transforming exchanges on the specific topic of the gratitude gap, based on the finding that the local church thanks its donors less than other types of charities. Chapter 6 Conclusions This chapter offers a one-page summary of key findings. I explain the pyramid and inverted-pyramid models that illustrate my theory of how post- Christendom is changing Mennonite giving. I refine the integrated model of giving introduced in chapter 1. Finally, this chapter outlines future research directions and makes suggestions for improvements to the research instruments. [ Page ] 22 Perfect love casts out fear (or at least gently loosens my grip) clenched fists hold on tightly to what’s mine scared to let go open hands share freely what is divine trusting God’s enoughness [ Page ] 23 CHAPTER 2: THEOLOGICAL RATIONALE James Dunn describes a circle of grace in which grace flows from God to people, through people, as gracious action and then back to God, as praise and thanksgiving (Dunn 1998, 708). My theology of giving as a circle of grace comes from Paul’s collection for Jerusalem in the New Testament. The circle of grace model is foundational to this study. It forms the basis for the integrated model of giving introduced in chapter 1, from which derive the three focal points for this theological rationale: discipleship, community and unity. Figure 2.1 Circle of Grace Model of Giving [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 2.1 details ] The circle of grace model undergirds Paul’s collection for Jerusalem. Paul [ Page ] 24 measures the success of the project not by how much money is collected from the various churches but by eager participation (2 Cor. 8:12) and the outpouring of grace and thanksgiving (2 Cor. 9:12,14). Similarly, Mennonite Foundation of Canada’s annual report shares their financial numbers, but the executive director says, “our success is ultimately measured by the response we see when we share the message that God wants Christians to live generously” (Pries-Klassen 2012, 3). When a church in Alberta is grateful for the loan of funds for a new building, funds that were deposited with Mennonite Foundation from donors across Canada, it feels like a circle of grace. Just as Paul, Titus, and partners travelled to various churches, encouraging them to be generous and share with the wider community of faith, Memionite Foundation consultants visit churches and teach “joyful, faithful giving.” I was honoured to partner with MFC in helping them encourage generosity and expand the circle of gracious givers. This chapter outlines the origins of the collection, and then explains the tithing and scarcity mindset models, comparing each to the circle of grace model. Lastly, I demonstrate how the Anabaptist values of discipleship, community and unity emerge from the circle of grace model. Origins of Paul’s Collection for Jerusalem Paul’s collection for Jerusalem from among his Gentile congregations provides the most scriptural details about how fundraising was conducted in the early church. The collection builds community and promotes the unity of believers in the larger church. [ Page ] 25 The collection originates in Jerusalem, where Paul and Barnabas meet James, Peter and John (Gal. 2:1-10). The Gentile churches are asked to remember the poor in Jerusalem, something Paul is eager to do (Gal. 2:10). He collects funds from multiple Gentile churches, for the saints in Jerusalem (Dunn 1998, 706), and a delegation of representatives from the contributing churches brings the money to Jerusalem (Keener 2005, 209). Paul promotes this project among various churches including Corinth, Macedonia, and Philippi. He writes the Corinthians a letter to encourage them to complete the good work they had already begun when they pledged to participate (2 Cor. 8:6-7). This study frequently cites chapters 8 and 9 of the second letter to the Corinthians. Within each local community of faith, all believers are encouraged to participate—“each one of you” (1 Cor. 16:1-2). Paul declines offers of support from Corinthians (2 Cor. 11:7-11) (Keener 2005, 202), which suggests there were rich individuals who might have bankrolled this project (Chow 1992, 185). Courting a few wealthy patrons would have been more efficient, but Paul wants to promote an inclusive community (Chow 1992, 186). Paul’s collection for Jerusalem is no ordinary fundraising project but rather a theological undertaking, intended to promote the unity of Gentile and Jewish congregations (Keener 2005, 215). Paul sees the collection as a means of building koinonia and gives even though he has theological disagreements with Jerusalem (Gal. 2:1-10). The donors rejoice in the opportunity to give, which results in glory to God as the recipients praise God for what they have received (2 Cor. 9:13-14). There is no hierarchy of donor and recipient: the Gentile churches [ Page ] 26 can expect help if situation is reversed (2 Cor. 8:14). I explored this contra- patronage model in an earlier work (Reesor 2007a, 59-60). All are united in a circle of God’s abundant grace. Models of Giving This section discusses the tithing and scarcity mindset models, comparing each to the circle of grace model. While the circle of grace model is the preferred model, the three models are not mutually exclusive. Table 2.1 summarizes the various models. Table 2.1 Circle of Grace Model Compared to Tithing and Scarcity Mindset Models [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 2.1 details ] Tithing Model Tithing refers to the practice of regularly setting aside ten percent of what is produced for the Lord (Lev. 27:30, Deut. 14:22). The practice predates a cash [ Page ] 27 economy and originally referred to agricultural produce. In my experience, tithing is most often interpreted as a requirement to give ten percent of one’s income to the church. Tithing occupies a prominent place in discussions around the discipline of financial stewardship. However, no consensus on the role of tithing exists in my tradition. Hence, I include a brief discussion of hermeneutics when looking at Anabaptist history of giving (see also Reesor 2007a, 89). This section (1) provides an overview of giving from Anabaptist history; (2) examines New Testament references to tithing; (3) highlights common Old Testament references to tithing; (4) suggests some pitfalls inherent in tithing; (5) compares the tithing model to the circle of grace model. Early Anabaptists believed that “selfless sharing of material goods was a visible sign of the Body of Christ” (Snyder 2004, 145). Hutterites, at the extreme end of the sharing spectrum, abandoned private ownership and practiced a “community of goods” (Snyder 2004, 145) that continues to the current day. Anabaptists also practiced, and still practice, a communal interpretation of Scripture. A communal hermeneutic means that the body of Christ interprets Scripture together for the body of Christ (see A. J. Reimer 2003, 5-8, 97). Believers together discern what questions to bring to scriptural texts and how to interpret Scripture’s response, relying on the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Collected readings from early Anabaptists refer to giving alms and sharing treasure, but not to tithing (Snyder and Peters 2002). Snyder suggests the reason tithing was not discussed was because “there was nothing left to tithe if all was already given over” (Snyder 2014). This giving over or yieldedness is part of the [ Page ] 28 practice of Gelassenheit which 1 discuss later in this chapter. Sharing ten percent of one’s possessions would not be wrong but merely insufficient. Tithing is not explicitly prescribed or described in the New Testament, according to Anabaptist scholar Stuart Murray (Murray 2012, 10) and New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III (Witherington III 2010, 21). Jesus only mentions tithing in his critiques of the Pharisees (Matt. 23:23, Luke 11:42), whom he accuses of neglecting justice and mercy while tithing spices. He suggests they need to do both. The warnings Jesus gives the Pharisees apply to present day tithers as well, who risk focusing on tithing to the local church to the exclusion of justice and mercy. Theologian Ron Sider writes, “given what the Bible says, and the needs of the world, and our incredible wealth, we ought to be giving a lot more. I think most American Christians are living in sin by the way they spend their money” (LeBlanc 2010, 27). Loving our neighbour as ourselves presents a more radical challenge than tithing. There are two other New Testament references to tithing. A Pharisee boasts about tithing in Luke 18:12, and tithing is used metaphorically in a dense argument about Melchizedek in Hebrews 7:1-10 (Murray 2012, 43-61). Neither passage presents ethical norms for giving. A survey of Old Testament tithing texts demonstrates the difficulty in determining the frequency and amount of tithes and offerings (Murray 2012, 87). This complex exegesis is often replaced with a focus on Malachi 3:8-10: Will a man rob God? Yet you are robbing Me! But you say, ‘How have we robbed You?’ In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing Me, the whole nation of you! Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in [ Page ] 29 this,” says the LORD of hosts, “if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows.” Some Christian leaders offer Malachi 3:10 as a stewardship model for congregations (Malphurs 2004, 140) and, taken out of context, this implies a prosperity gospel where people give in order to receive riches from God. “Test me in this” forms part of the title of a recent book of tithing testimonials (LeBlanc 2010). Tithing is not wrong, but limiting Christian giving to tithing is insufficient. Murray talks about the “difficulty of seeing anything else in the Bible about giving and sharing while we wear the tithing blinkers” (Murray 2012, 217). For example, earlier in Malachi’s prophecy in Malachi 3, the prophet talks about care for widows and justice for wage earners. The Confession of Faith from a Mennonite Perspective includes the concepts of simple living, mutual aid, and economic justice as part of stewardship (General Conference Mennonite Church and Mennonite Church 1995, 78). Tithing poses the danger of an individualistic, compartmentalized faith. “The unfortunate problem with tithing is that it focuses our attention on how much we give rather than on how much we keep” (Kraybill 1978, 147). Witherington debunks the myth that tithers can do whatever they want with the remaining 90 percent (Witherington III 2010, 169). Canadians live in a society where conspicuous consumption is deemed a virtue, and Christians need to consider how to be good stewards of 100 percent of what God has entrusted to us (see Luke 19, Acts 4). [ Page ] 30 Tithing Model Compared to Circle of Grace Model Paul presents a more radical version of the tithing model in terms of how to give, and why to give. This section compares the Pauline model of giving to tithing as summarized in Table 2.1. Paul encourages regular and proportional giving: “On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come [italics mine]” (1 Cor. 16:2). Tithing is also a regular and proportional giving model, but Paul’s approach is more radical than a fixed ten percent. There is no upper or lower limit on generosity: keep what one needs to live on, and give away the rest (Keener 2005, 139). There is room for the poor to participate in giving, as they are able. Paul emphasizes the ongoing discipline of saving in the last part of the verse. He is opposed to relying on “wringing out” money from the Corinthians in an impassioned appeal when he arrives: “he wants them to contribute as an act of generosity ... not as an act of extortion” (Dunn 1998, 711). “Stewardship is more than just getting money from members’ pockets into the church treasury”; people will resist a heavy-handed approach (Hoge et al. 1997, 83). Paul’s vision of stewardship encompasses more than money; he cultivates generosity rather than making desperate appeals. Paul’s approach to giving is not based on duty, in contrast with the command to give in Malachi 3. Rather, he commends the “hilarious giver” of 2 Cor. 9:7 (Yoder Neufeld 2007, 1), one who gives freely and joyfully in response to the grace of God. Consider this paraphrase of 2 Corinthians 9:7: [ Page ] 31 I want you to decide not because of what I am writing to you or from my gifts at fundraising manipulation or guilt tripping or anything like that, nor from your heightened sense of discipleship and obligation. This needs to well up from within a heart warmed by the grace of God. Not from grief - from sadness - a sense of “we have to” or very closely related from necessity. (Yoder Neufeld 2007, 1) A “grace-full” giver can give regularly, freely and joyfully without being worn down by guilt and obligation. Tithing can co-exist within the circle of grace model. I have been privileged and humbled to meet many faithful tithers who give from “a heart warmed by the grace of God.” Theologian Kamila Blessing places tithing solidly in the old covenant category of giving practices but recognizes that giving in response to grace can include tithing (Blessing 2012, 2-3). Scarcity Mindset Model For a donor, the scarcity mindset means a belief that there are not enough resources to go around. Theologian Walter Brueggemann says, “an affirmation of abundance says just the opposite: Appearances notwithstanding, there is enough to go around, so long as each of us takes only what we need” (Brueggemann 2001). The anxiety resulting from a scarcity mindset makes donors reluctant to give and prone towards accumulation instead. Note that scarcity is a mindset, as opposed to an actual scarcity of resources. American sociologists Christian Smith and Michael Emerson assert that “increased financial resources actually appear to decrease financial generosity” in relative terms (C. Smith, Emerson, and Snell 2008, 67). The more one has, the more one keeps. For a charity, a scarcity mindset can mean using competitive fundraising practices that manipulate the [ Page ] 32 donor. Neither the donor nor the charity trusts that their Creator God will provide what they need; instead they believe in scarcity. Consider the common expression of looking at the glass as half-full versus half-empty. The scarcity mindset believes the glass is half-empty, without any guarantee that the glass will be refilled. There is no scarcity in God’s economy, but Christians—especially rich Christians who accumulate resources—have trouble believing it (Brueggemann 2001). In the circle of grace model, trust in God’s abundance enables sharing. God will provide enough, as Paul recounts the manna story to the Corinthians: “...as it is written, ‘He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little had no lack’” (2 Cor. 8:15). The scarcity mindset model impoverishes the body of Christ by manipulating donors with crisis-based fundraising techniques, treating rich donors differently than poor donors, and creating a hierarchy between giver and recipient. In a chapter entitled, “Confidence in God’s Abundance” authors Jeavons and Basinger point out that “many Christian ministries operate in a perpetual state of scarcity and financial panic” (Jeavons and Basinger 2000, 73). For example, a recent article in Canadian Mennonite was subtitled, “Building campaigns by Mennonite organizations, evangelical appeals siphon giving from national, area church coffers” (Braun 2013, 15). The article presumes a scarcity model wherein competing fundraising campaigns “siphon giving” from the national church conference. Add an emphasis on efficiency to the scarcity mindset model and there will be a focus on major donors—those donors who give the largest amounts. [ Page ] 33 Fundraising becomes an exercise in extracting the most funds from the fewest people. Stewardship becomes a practice more for the rich than for the poor. Not all members of the body of Christ are asked, and giving changes from a communal to an individual practice. Not only are donors divided into categories in the scarcity model, but the difference between donors and recipients is stressed. The fundraiser assumes the donor will more likely respond to extreme neediness. This approach creates a hierarchy of donor and recipient. The donor is in a position to dictate how the funds are spent, rather than the recipient. However, as Volf points out, “human givers are not above human recipients because they are not the source of gifts, but are their channels” (Volf 2005, 83). MFC’s annual report echoes the same idea with their annual report entitled, “Overflowing generosity: From God’s hands through yours” (Pries-Klassen 2012, 1). People are merely channels of God’s goodness. Ironically, despite the emphasis on efficiency, the scarcity mindset model contributes to donor fatigue—the phenomenon in which donors become weary of giving because it seems that their gifts have no positive effect. A continual stream of crisis-based appeals tells the donor that the problems will never be solved, so the donor wonders: why give? “The message conveyed to supporters out of this panic is that God is unable to supply even the most basic needs, let alone provide funds for new programs” (Jeavons and Basinger 2000, 73). In my own Mennonite context, I heard a story of a prosperous congregation that received a letter from conference asking for a small increase. The congregational representative was [ Page ] 34 upset that he/she had not been contacted in person and bemused because the congregation could have easily increased their contribution by much more than what was requested. The scarcity mindset of the conference presumed limited resources, and an efficiency emphasis did not take the time to listen to the donor. The scarcity mindset model of fundraising is blind to God’s abundance: it wearies donors with endless urgent appeals, favours rich donors over poor donors, and creates a hierarchy between giver and recipient. Scarcity Mindset Model Compared to Circle of Grace Model As summarized in Table 2.1, I analyze the scarcity mindset model and the Pauline model with respect to reasons for giving, giving praxis, relationship between donor and recipient, and outcome of giving. While Paul is seeking to supply “the needs of the saints” (2 Cor. 9:12), he does not focus primarily on the need, but rather on grace. The language, timing, and methods of his collection all point to a circle of grace model rather than an urgent response to a crisis, as in the scarcity mindset model. When Paul collects funds for the poor in Jerusalem, he uses the word “saints” not “poor.” He refers to the Jerusalem believers as “saints” (Rom 15:25, 31; 1 Cor. 16:1; 2 Cor. 8:4, 9:12), the same word he uses for Gentile believers (Rom 1:7, 16:2; 2 Cor. 1:1). He does not talk about conditions in Jerusalem in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, nor in any way stress their neediness. In fact, in Romans 15:27, Paul reverses the roles and talks about the Gentiles being spiritually “indebted” to the Jewish believers (Dunn 1998, 709). His appeal does not focus [ Page ] 35 on their poverty, because his goal is unity and equality, rather than a benefactor/recipient relationship. The collection happens over a long timeline and with a large delegation, as opposed to being a swift response to a crisis. Paul mentions this project began “a year ago” (2 Cor. 8:10, 2 Cor. 9:2). A sizeable delegation brings the collection to Jerusalem, including a representative from Corinth “whomever you may approve” (1 Cor. 16:3). Paul’s collection is slow and large, and thus presents an inefficient model for relief. However, this project is not framed as a quick response to material need, but rather an opportunity to share in “gracious works” (2 Cor. 8: 6, 7, 19). The collection provides a wonderful model for ecumenical unity. In 2 Cor. 9:8 Paul makes it clear that God’s grace is the source of all generosity: “And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed [italics mine].” Paul confidently proclaims his trust in God, who will always enable generosity. He trusts an abundant God who “supplies seed to the sower” and will “multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness” (2 Cor. 9:10). He reiterates: “you will be enriched in everything for all liberality” (2 Cor. 9:11). Note that Paul is not preaching the prosperity gospel and does not literally mean that people will become rich; he commends the Macedonians who gave out of their “deep poverty” (2 Cor. 8:1-2). Paul describes the outcome of this giving project as not only helping the believers in Jerusalem but also “overflowing through many thanksgivings to God” [ Page ] 36 (2 Cor. 9:12) as they “glorify God” (2 Cor. 9:13) and pray on the Corinthians’ behalf (2 Cor. 9:14). There is no us/them or separation between givers and recipients but a common rejoicing in the “surpassing grace of God” (2 Cor. 9:14) that unites them together. Sharing becomes difficult in the scarcity mindset model; the illusion of scarcity tempts donors to hold resources tightly. In contrast, the circle of grace model relies on God’s abundant grace. A vision for giving based on “a responsible reliance on God’s infinite goodness and generosity” which “can encourage givers’ hearts to grown bigger and their souls to run more toward God” (Jeavons and Basinger 2000, 73). Growing givers’ hearts makes an excellent link to discipleship, the first core value emerging from the circle of grace model. Core Values The following sections look further at the values of discipleship, community, and unity in the Anabaptist tradition. 1 consider giving as a spiritual discipline, then focus on giving in community, which includes Gelassenheit, trust, and accountability. Lastly, I discuss unity and comment on how a “pure church” theology can be a barrier to global sharing. Discipleship Generosity expresses faith in a tangible way, and Anabaptists have traditionally emphasized active discipleship. Giving is a spiritual discipline for all followers of Christ. In the circle of grace model, giving results from discipleship—it is part of [ Page ] 37 following Christ. Giving is not a duty (2 Cor. 9:7), nor a tax—Paul chose not to follow the mandatory aspect of the temple tax model (Reesor 2007a, 58). Instead, believers give in response to grace and to Christ’s gift of himself (2 Cor. 8:9). In living memory, many Canadian Mennonite conferences used to request an annual per person membership levy from constituent churches. This tribute to the Christendom state church model seems especially incongruous for Anabaptists, who emphasize believers baptism and a voluntary church. It is precisely this mandatory head tax aspect of the temple tax model that Paul discarded when constructing his collection. So, with the caveat that the reach of theology often exceeds the grasp of praxis, I explore discipleship and giving. Discipleship—faith in action—forms the core of Anabaptist theology: “following Christ, regardless of the cost, is the heart of Anabaptist spirituality” (Snyder and Peters 2002, 43). A radical discipleship resulted in persecution and even martyrdom for many Anabaptists in the 16th and 17th centuries (Braght 1996). They had a radical stewardship also. It was: Inconceivable ... that there could be reborn and regenerated Christians, baptised into the Body of Christ, committed to faithfulness unto death, who would at the same time cling to surplus goods or wealth when they saw a fellow member of the Body in need. (Snyder 2004, 139) Stewardship of material resources formed an integral part of early Anabaptist discipleship. They trusted that, if they shared, everyone would have enough. Mennonites frequently cite Martin Luther’s phrase, “the priesthood of all believers” to assert that all believers are expected to minister to one another. I like the phrase “stewardship of all believers” (D. J. Hall 1990, 237), because it expresses the idea both that believers needs to take care of each other, and that [ Page ] 38 stewardship is for everyone. Generosity is not just for the rich. This “stewardship of all believers” assertion goes against the major donor focus so prevalent in the scarcity mindset model outlined earlier. Giving is acting on grace (Bassler 1991, 111), and since all have received grace, all are able to give in some way, “according to what a person has” (2 Cor. 8:12). Giving becomes a communal practice, which leads to the second theological focus of community. Community Mennonites value community, which encompasses many values. I focus on three: Gelassenheit, trust and accountability. Within the discussion of trust and accountability, I also reflect on the role of a pastor in an Anabaptist congregation. Gelassenheit Gelassenheit is both a key term and a doctrine for my purposes. This German term is often translated as “yieldedness,” both to God and to the community of believers (cf. 2 Cor. 8:5 the Macedonians “first gave themselves to the Lord and to us by the will of God [italics mine]”). Gelassenheit carries connotations of submission, yet, used in a stewardship context, there is something radically counter-cultural about defying the individual consumerist model of North America and trusting the counsel of the church (Murray 2010, 122). “Giving as Gelassenheit expresses the connection between giving and living in response to God’s grace: one is only as yielded as one’s chequebook” (Reesor 2007a, 95). In contrast to the pervasive attitude of “what I do with my money is my business,” Gelassenheit assumes, as Vincent counsels, that a believer needs [ Page ] 39 the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the church family to make good decisions about money (Vincent 2006, 90). Gelassenheit creates space to grow community. Trust Gelassenheit presumes trust, and trust is essential to giving. I explore how giving relies on trust both in God and in people. Lastly, I compare grace and trust in matters of giving. In the circle of grace model of giving, everyone who participates trusts in God. It is difficult to live generously if one does not believe that one’s future is in God’s hands, because the temptation towards accumulation becomes too great (Brueggemann 2009). The scarcity mindset model reminds donors that the economy remains uncertain, and North American culture assumes that autonomy and self-reliance are virtues—the antithesis of trust in God (Brueggemann 2009). It is easier to receive gracefully knowing that God is the source of all good things and can be trusted to provide in the future. Receivers too can reject the myth of scarcity and self-reliance and joyfully trust in God’s provision delivered through other believers. Givers need to trust people—both the people asking and the people receiving. Often the people or organization asking are known to the donor. Trust in those receiving the money becomes easier when the donors can see where their gifts are going and how they will be used. For example, media coverage of a disaster temporarily shortens the distance between donor and recipient and increases public contributions. Ideally, giving should contribute to a mutual [ Page ] 40 relationship between donor and recipient, as in Paul’s collection for Jerusalem. Another type of trust is the trust that one will receive help if the circumstances are reversed. To paraphrase 2 Corinthians 8:14: “Right now, your abundance supplies their need, and then their abundance may supply your need, so that there will be equality.” Notice that this trust in mutual aid completely rejects the scarcity mindset. Trust is earned, whereas grace is a gift freely given. Thus, giving only to those who are trustworthy can sit in tension with grace, because, with respect to God’s grace, everyone is an unworthy recipient. There exists an intriguing dynamic between Christians’ efforts to be productive stewards of the resources entrusted to them (Matt. 25:14-30), and a recognition that a generous God sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous (Matt. 5:44-45). If the prodigal son’s father had been a charity, the pie chart for spending would have shown that half of the money was wasted. The father gives the son his inheritance and welcomes him home after he has squandered it (Luke 15:11-32). Christians want God to be gracious to us, but we easily become the prodigal son’s older, judgmental brother when it comes to giving to others. Giving can build trust. If Christians give only to causes and people with whom we already have established trust, we lose the opportunity to extend the edges of community. Trust in God enables communities to give beyond their borders and extend grace to strangers and prodigals. [ Page ] 41 Accountability Accountability also flows from community. Mutual accountability asks of each other: what choices do we make with the resources God has entrusted to us? Both donors and recipients should be accountable for what God has given. Private giving reduces accountability. Mennonite author Mark Vincent outlines the dangers of “totally private giving,” in which people can pretend to be giving even when they are not (Vincent 2006, 91). In my experience, the pericope of the widow’s mite (Mark 12:41-44, Luke 21:1-4) is more frequently cited as an example of sacrificial giving than as an illustration of Jesus breaking the taboo around secret giving by watching and commenting on how much people put into the offering plate (Reesor 2007a, 19). Communities provide accountability for how members behave. Accountability is so valued that it is included in the Confession of Faith from a Mennonite Perspective. The article on baptism says that following Christ includes “both giving and receiving care and counsel in the church. Baptism is for those who are of the age of accountability. ...” (General Conference Mennonite Church and Mennonite Church 1995, 47). Stewardship is not an individual practice. Recipients also need to be accountable for funds entrusted to them. Paul acknowledges this when he demonstrates the precautions he is taking in administering the collection (2 Cor. 8:18-21), including having someone appointed by the churches travel with the collection. A paradox of accountability occurs when donors do not want to be held [ Page ] 42 accountable for how they choose to use their money yet want to hold the charity and recipients accountable. Giving in a circle of grace model has no room for such one-way traffic in accountability; Paul does not hesitate to compare the Corinthians’ giving to the Macedonians’, for instance, or to urge them to honour their previous pledge (Keener 2005, 203). If the power in the giving relationship resides only with the donor, then the donor may hold the receiver accountable, but there is no relationship of mutuality, whether spiritual, material or social. Mutual accountability builds community, and one-way accountability diminishes it. Role of Pastor in an Anabaptist Congregation The role of a pastor in a congregation provides a very interesting example of how trust and accountability operate. In the Anabaptist tradition of lay leadership, the pastor is called from within the congregation, receives no additional formal education, and is not paid (Plett 2011, 3). This is still the model used by Old Order and Amish churches, for example. However, in many other streams of Anabaptism, the pastor’s role has become increasingly professionalized (Sawatsky 2004, 43-44). My point is not that one model is preferable, but that in the professional model the congregation needs to give more in order to pay the pastor. This change happened relatively recently, within living memory of older congregants. In one of MFC’s supporting conferences, the first instance of a paid pastor occurred in 1990. In a typical congregation in the MFC constituency, about fifty percent of donations goes towards staff salaries (Reesor 2011, 1). The amount of the pastor’s [ Page ] 43 salary is often identifiable as part of the church budget, but the pastor does not know how much the people in the congregation give. Christopher argues persuasively that the pastor needs to know how much the people give (Christopher 2008, 46-49) so that the pastor can encourage giving as part of developing congregants’ spiritual maturity. How does pastor’s knowledge about congregational giving figure into trust and accountability? It helps to resolve a paradox around trust: people give because they trust the pastor/church but do not trust the pastor to know how much they give. When the congregation knows the pastor’s salary and the pastor know how much people give to the church, accountability becomes mutual. Unity The Pauline model of giving as a circle of grace built up not only the local community of believers but also the unity of the believing communities across the Mediterranean. It would have been easier to encourage each church to give their contribution to Jerusalem directly, as the church in Antioch did (Acts 11:27-30), but Paul chooses to gather all the contributions together and proceed as a delegation. Given the range of churches and cultures represented within MFC, the idea of unity as an outcome of giving stands out as particularly intriguing. Paul’s collection for Jerusalem carries much ecumenical freight as a model of giving used to unite churches across geography and culture. Anabaptism’s communal emphasis explains why I chose unity as the third theological focal point. Chapter 1 examined the changing context of Mennonite [ Page ] 44 donors and congregations. In this section, I examine unity at the conference level, with respect to the pure church doctrine and the conference’s relationship to the global body of believers. Anabaptist history definitely affects a congregation’s relationship to its conference. “It lies in the Anabaptist DNA that the desire for faithfulness sits uneasily alongside the desire for unity in Christ” (Yoder Neufeld 2012, 349). The Mennonite emphasis on the pure church (M. Martin 1983) often results in church splits. For example, one of the conferences within MFC resulted from a centuries- old church split. This group recently celebrated their forbears’ biblicism— compared to the dominant Mennonite group—going as far back as the Napoleonic wars (Plett 2012, 6-8). This emphasis on doctrinal purity results in a situation ripe with irony in which there is a plethora of autonomous Mennonite groups, all of whom value community and Gelassenheit. Shared identity and common values do not equate to unity, because doctrinal purity trumps community. Giving and sharing resources are means of promoting the unity of worldwide churches (Keener 2005, 215). Conferences working together with a shared giving project could enhance the unity of global Anabaptist churches, a voluntary expression of ecumenical unity. The model of the church as a transnational body caring for each other (Witherington III 2010, 147) needs some sort of structure beyond the local church to be able to provide that caring effectively for the long term. Like Paul’s collection for Jerusalem, churches need a vision that “will propel them beyond primarily caring for the needs of their own members and out into the world” (D. Martin 2011, 1). [ Page ] 45 A vision for promoting the unity of the global church must include addressing the tremendous economic disparity that exists between churches in North America and Europe and the rest of the world. Citing 2 Corinthians 8:13-15 and Paul’s goal of equality, Mennonite World Conference—an international association of Mennonite churches—has set up the Global Church Sharing Fund. In this program “MWC member and associate member churches in Africa, Asia and Latin America/Caribbean receive Global Church Sharing funds through a ‘fair share’ allotment to be spent to advance the life and mission of their churches” (Mennonite World Conference 2012). The receiving churches decide how to use the money to best further the life of the church in their own contexts, much like Paul entrusted the saints in Jerusalem with the collection. Conclusion Paul’s collection for Jerusalem informs a robust theological approach to giving. Giving as a circle of grace presents a compelling model of donor and receiver joined together by God’s gift of grace, a situation that enables one to share and another to praise God for what has been shared. This model stands in contrast to the scarcity mindset model and certain aspects of tithing. The circle of grace model of giving also contains the three focal points that frame this theological discussion: discipleship, community, and unity. Discipleship is grace in action. Financial stewardship forms an essential part of discipleship: “treasure management that helps us to experience meaning and joy by escaping the trap of selfishness and keeping our hearts spiritually [ Page ] 46 focused on God” (Miller, Schaller, and Woolever 2011, 2). Giving is a spiritual discipline. Community lies at the core of Anabaptist practice and is embodied by the circle in the giving as grace model. Community includes Gelassenheit—a yieldedness to each other and to the Spirit, trust in both God and people, and accountability. The role of pastor provides an intriguing example of how the dynamic of trust and accountability interrelate at the congregational level. Unity provides the third focal point. Chapter 1 talked about Mennonites’ changing relationship to the church. Add to this an emphasis on the “pure church,” and unity remains an elusive goal in many ways. For the global church, there is the goal of equality, as embodied in Mennonite World Conference. As in Paul’s collection for Jerusalem, unity and equality go together. In the New Living Translation, 2 Corinthians 9:12-15 reads like this: So two good things will result from this ministry of giving—the needs of the believers in Jerusalem will be met, and they will joyfully express their thanks to God. As a result of your ministry, they will give glory to God. For your generosity to them and to all believers will prove that you are obedient to the Good News of Christ. And they will pray for you with deep affection because of the overflowing grace God has given to you. Thank God for this gift too wonderful for words! So, what could result from a concerted ministry of giving? Equality where needs are met, and unity where believers pray for one another and praise God for each other. All of this relies upon the “overflowing grace” of God, for whom all things are possible. The next chapter moves from the theological basis of giving as a spiritual practice to a social science perspective of giving as donor behaviour. [ Page ] 47 CHAPTER 3: SOCIAL SCIENCE AND PRECEDENT LITERATURE I sought to influence stewardship values and practices among Canadian Mennonites. The language of complex adaptive systems furnishes the vocabulary to describe my role as I endeavoured to be a change agent (Olson and Eoyang 2001, 4, 16) in a very large system. I interacted with pastors, church leaders, donors, MFC staff and more. The goals of my action research project were not only to research patterns in giving but also to influence giving patterns. Each interaction, whether gathering data or presenting it, had the potential to be a transforming exchange (Olson and Eoyang 2001, 14) in which both actors were changed. These small exchanges in turn influenced the larger system. In a complex adaptive system, the direction of organizational change is “determined by emergence and the participation of many people,” rather than as in a traditional model where the “direction is determined by design and the power of a few leaders” (Olson and Eoyang 2001,1). The following poem describes my role working with MFC. [ Page ] 48 Shape Shifter pebble pebble ripple ripple more pebbles more ripples a wave people see the pattern join in soon the boat shifts slightly [ Page ] 49 The rest of this chapter outlines the very large body of water in which I undertook this research. I first provide a brief history of MFC’s sustaining conferences and then outline types of precedent literature consulted. The remainder of the chapter examines donor characteristics, values and behaviour based on secular, Christian, and Mennonite sources. Sustaining Conferences of Mennonite Foundation of Canada Seven conferences or denominations have chosen to align themselves with the stewardship services of Mennonite Foundation of Canada. These sustaining conferences are shown in Table 3.1. Traditionally, Mennonites were rural people; clusters of like-minded believers migrated and settled together. The terms “Bergthal” and “Chortitzer” refer to Mennonite colonies in Russia, and the names migrated to Canada along with the people. Broadly speaking, the first four conferences share a similar Russian Mennonite background. The Evangelical Missionary Church of Canada (EMCC) resulted from a merger of the Evangelical Church and the Missionary Church, the latter of which had Mennonite roots over fifty years ago. While the EMCC does not call itself Mennonite, it still chose to align with MFC. Mennonite Church Canada results from a recent merger between two Mennonite groups, one of which had Russian Mennonite roots. Northwest Mennonite Conference was previously affiliated with one of the groups that merged to become Mennonite Church Canada (Gingerich et al. 2012). [ Page ] 50 Table 3.1 Conference Locations and Memberships [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 3.1 details ] MFC’s constituency differs from the wider Canadian demographic in that it is more rural and concentrated in central and western Canada. Among churches with Russian Mennonite origins, there are still some churches that worship in German and many people whose first language is Plattdeutsch, a German dialect. While the subtleties that separate these groups may be lost on non-Mennonites, these are distinct groups, with their own history and culture (“The story of the Evangelical Mennonite Mission Conference” 2008; Ens 1989; Evangelical Missionary Church of Canada 2007). [ Page ] 51 Types of Precedent Literature I consulted precedent material relating to Mennonite donors, Canadian donors, and American Christian donors. The book Passing the plate: Why American Christians don’t give away more money (C. Smith, Emerson, and Snell 2008) presents a compendium on the topic of American Christian giving, but no such work exists for Canadian Christians. I begin with a list of Mennonite and Canadian sources. They differ in approach and scope and are variously intended for academic, denominational, and fundraising audiences. 1 also note the pitfalls of online surveys and of a too narrow definition of religious activity. Mennonite Sources There is a paucity of studies on Mennonite charitable giving. Precedent studies include: • Theology and fundraising: How does Canadian Mennonite praxis and theology compare to Paul’s collection for Jerusalem? (Reesor 2007a). This master’s thesis by the author involved two small focus groups with donors, plus a dozen interviews by phone or email. All respondents were drawn from MFC’s constituency, but the sampling is not representative of the constituency. • Mennonite Church of Eastern Canada (MCEC) generosity project 2007 (Bergey and Vincent 2007). This study had two parts: an online giving survey of 330 members and a series of dinner meetings discussing generosity with representatives from almost all MCEC congregations. MCEC is a regional conference within Mennonite Church Canada, one of MFC’s sustaining conferences. • Mennonite Church USA 2005 (Wiese and Gerig 2005). This study surveyed 600 members of Mennonite Church USA and held four focus groups (Wiese and Gerig 2005, 3). It is a thorough and detailed study, stratified by age and other demographic factors. Since the North American [ Page ] 52 economic situation has greatly shifted since 2005, I concentrate on the attitudinal aspects of this study rather than on measuring financial giving. Mennonite Church USA and Mennonite Church Canada are sister organizations. Canadian Sources I reference a number of Canadian studies on giving, including two large- scale phone surveys: • Canadian survey of giving, volunteering and participating (CSGVP) 2007 and 2010 were conducted by Statistics Canada. • Talking about charities 2008 (Ipsos Reid Public Affairs 2008b) was commissioned by the Muttart Foundation, a Canadian foundation that “supports charities in Canada” (Muttart Foundation 2012). Statistics Canada regularly asked Canadians about giving and volunteering through the CSGVP, a national phone survey of over 15,000 Canadians (Statistics Canada 2012a, 7). The large number of respondents and historical data for trend analysis makes the CSGVP the gold standard for donor data in Canada. CSGVP includes religious activity as a variable, which makes the CSGVP particularly useful, but as I explain, I think the CSGVP underestimates both the number and the giving of religious donors. The Muttart Foundation report was based on almost 3,900 phone interviews and was carried out by Ipsos Reid in 2008 (Ipsos Reid Public Affairs 2008b). The Muttart Foundation has also conducted this research in previous years. The survey asked about public perceptions of charities, with a focus on which charities are trustworthy and why. The next three studies were conducted by fundraising consultancy firms: • The Cygnus donor survey ... Where philanthropy is headed in 2012 [ Page ] 53 (Burk 2012) • Ipsos Reid 2011: Canadians feeling more charitable, but will it last? (Ipsos Reid 2011) presented by Artez, a fundraising consulting firm • 2012 Philanthropic trends quarterly (Nakoneshny 2012b) published by Ketchum Canada Inc. (KCI), a consulting firm to the non-profit sector The well-known Cygnus fundraising consultancy firm conducts an annual survey in both Canada and the US. Over 11,000 Canadian donors took part in 2012. The survey is conducted anonymously online: Cygnus partners with prominent charities to contact their active donors (Burk 2012, 6). The Ipsos Reid survey report title—Canadians feeling more charitable, but will it last? Greater competition, economic worries put the pressure on charitable giving—suggests a scarcity mindset model of giving. This survey was based on an initial survey of around 1,000 people in 2009 and about 800 people in 2011, using Ipsos Reid’s Canadian Internet panel (Levy 2011, 2). Note that both the Cygnus and Ipsos Reid survey were conducted online. While almost 80 percent of Canadians are online, rates vary; access to home internet increases with income, education and in metropolitan areas (UPI 2011). Findings from an online study will disproportionately exclude less educated people in rural areas and small towns, a segment that figures significantly in MFC’s constituency. Another important consideration when interpreting these studies concerns the definition of religiously active. The CSGVP Caring Canadians, involved Canadians: Tables report 2010 has detailed reports of giving by a number of variables. However, I find their definition of religiously active unsatisfactory. [ Page ] 54 According to the CSGVP, religiously active means attending services at least weekly. Does non-weekly mean three times a month, once a year or almost never? The religiously less active and non-active are combined, and these distinctions are lost. Canadian sociologist Reginald Bibby notes that the “outdated polling measure” of weekly attendance continues to be the benchmark for measuring religious participation, “despite the fact many people clearly have considerable difficulty attending that often” (Bibby 2012, 27). In fact, he cites this outmoded measurement of religious activity as a factor in why researchers may have “dramatically underestimated” the impact of faith in Canadian life (Bibby 2012, 27). Bibby cites Statistics Canada 2010 data that estimate 19 percent of Canadians attend worship services weekly and another 9 percent attend monthly (Bibby 2012, 9). The CSGVP data substantiate Bibby’s claim that the impact of religious activity is underestimated. Not surprisingly, the religiously active give 71 percent of the total amounts donated to religious organizations (Statistics Canada 2012a, 28). Where do the other 29 percent of donations to religious organizations come from? According to CSGVP data, almost all annual donations to religious organizations are relatively large amounts; only 8 percent of donations to religious organizations are less than $357 annually (Turcotte 2012, 31). If one does the math, CSGVP considers that a quarter of large annual donations to religious organizations (over $357) are coming from people not considered [ Page ] 55 religiously active. In my experience, people do not come to church only on Christmas Eve and put $400 in the offering plate. There are more generous and religiously active people than are classified as such by the CSGVP. The CSGVP also limits the category of religious organizations to places of worship and their associated entities. Christian charities engaged in international relief and development, or social services would not be considered religious organizations. Thus, the CSGVP underestimates the number of Christian donors and overestimates the number of secular charities. Donor Characteristics, Values and Behaviour While 84 percent of CSGVP respondents reported making a charitable donation in the previous year, the median2 annual giving reported was only $123 (Turcotte 2012, 20). About 23 percent of tax filers claimed such a donation in 2010, according to government data (Lasby 2011, 1). There is a “steadily decreasing percentage of tax filers claiming donations” (Lasby 2011, 4). Researchers want to know what makes some donors give more generously than others. In this section, I look at the following donor characteristics, values and behaviour: (1) demographics, (2) giving behaviour, (3) reasons for giving, (4) trust, and (5) Christian giving. Giving behaviour includes planning, types of causes supported, and methods of giving. Christian giving includes tithing and donors’ connection to their denomination. While not all of the studies agree on what makes a donor generous, common findings and observations emerge. _________________________ 2 A median is a midpoint value: half of the values are less than the median, and half are above the median. [ Page ] 56 Who Gives? Demographic Profiles and Regional Variation Research shows that many factors influence donors’ giving behaviour including: age, income, education, volunteering, gender, marital status, and region. Older, religious people give more; fundraising expert Penelope Burk cites religious conviction and age as the most significant factors in “philanthropic behaviour and opinion” and notes that this has been the case with every Cygnus survey conducted (Burk 2012, 7). I examine religious conviction separately, but her research supports the CSGVP claim that people who are either older, well- educated or with higher incomes are more likely to be donors (Levy 2011, 5). The demographic profile of online responses to the Cygnus survey is “highly educated” with 66 percent of respondents reporting a college or university degree (Burk 2012, 6-7). Absolute giving increases with age, income and education. Older donors give differently than younger donors. For instance, 6 percent of the population over 75 gives 12 percent of funding to religious organizations (as defined by CSGVP) (Turcotte 2012, 35). Burk notes that older donors support a wider number of charities: 45 percent of donors over 65 years old “supported eleven or more causes in 2011 versus 19 percent of middle-age donors” (Burk 2012, 7). Older donors do not simply give more but give differently. Women are more likely to be donors, although their average annual donation is less than men, and older women are most likely to be donors (Turcotte 2012, 21,28). Married or widowed people are also more likely to be donors than single, separated or divorced people (Turcotte 2012, 21). People who volunteer [ Page ] 57 for 60 or more hours a year are also more likely to make larger annual donations (Turcotte 2012, 35). Looking at regional rates of giving, two studies show that the highest rates of giving appear in western Canada (Levy 2011, 9; Turcotte 2012, 26). I have not read any hypotheses on why giving might be higher in western Canada so this remains a mystery. While aggregating these findings risks creating a caricature, as an illustrative summary the most likely donor, based on demographic profile, would be an older, higher-income, educated, married woman from western Canada who volunteers at least sixty hours per year. Giving Behaviour This section examines three aspects of giving behaviour: (1) planning as a precursor to giving, (2) the number and types of causes donors support, and (3) methods of giving. In general, planning increases giving, donors most frequently support health charities, and donors are supporting an increasing number of causes. Person-to-person remains the most common giving method, as opposed to giving by mail, online, or through other means. Planning Sociologists note that people who plan more, give more (C. Smith, Emerson, and Snell 2008, 95). Not everyone plans however; Burk reports that 44 percent of Cygnus survey respondents “budget for philanthropy” (Burk 2012, 8). [ Page ] 58 Burk also observes that religious donors are more likely to be active monthly donors than non-religious donors (Burk 2012, 9). The MC USA study also notes that top donors make a habit of giving (Wiese and Gerig 2005, 18). Canadian pollster Allan Gregg interprets the CSGVP 2007 study on Canadian giving and notes that “structure and regularity ... explain the tremendous disparity between the giving of church attendees (including their gifts to secular causes), and non-attendees” (Gadeski 2011, 1). Smith and Emerson also emphasize the importance of routine in facilitating giving (C. Smith, Emerson, and Snell 2008, 92) but note that Christian donors perceive spontaneous giving as more genuine (C. Smith, Emerson, and Snell 2008, 94). If spontaneous giving is seen as more genuine, but spontaneous givers tend to give less, churches and charities face a conundrum. Number and Types of Causes Supported An Ipsos Reid survey observes that Canadians are donating “to a broader range of charities” (Ipsos Reid 2011, 1). Mennonites studies also identify “diffused giving” (Wiese and Gerig 2005, 3) and “dispersed giving” (Reesor 2007b, 2) meaning that, whereas Mennonites used to donate primarily through their church, they now give to a variety of causes. An Ipsos Reid survey on charitable giving lists the top ten causes to which people donated most often. Health/medical charities are number one, and places of worship are number seven, behind animals/wildlife charities at number six (Levy 2011, 10). CSGVP also found that health organizations (excluding [ Page ] 59 hospitals) are the most frequently supported cause (Turcotte 2012, 28). Methods of Giving The CSGVP study looks at solicitation method, or how donors were asked when they made their donation. At a shopping centre ranks as number one. Then place of worship and sponsoring someone in a fundraising event are tied for second, and door-to-door solicitation is the third most common method reported (Turcotte 2012, 32). In person remains the “most effective method” for securing a donation, but research highlights the importance of social media and mobile devices (Ipsos Reid 2011). Reasons for Giving People give for a great variety of reasons. A survey in which respondents choose from fixed options cannot capture all the motivations, and different surveys list different motivations. For instance, giving “in response to what God has given them” is not a reason for giving Statistics Canada would report, but it is in a Mennonite survey (Wiese and Gerig 2005, 3). 1 have created four clusters of reasons for giving, compiled from multiple studies: • Connection: involvement, volunteer work, personal connection, relationship • Obligation: contribute to community, obligation, duty • Need: empathy • Vision: values, identify with cause A fundraising consulting firm research paper highlights the prevalence of [ Page ] 60 connection-based reasons for giving. For all charities, a personal connection with the charity is the “most compelling primary motivator for giving” (Nakoneshny 2012b, 6). For pledge-based event fundraising, people give because of a relationship with the person asking (Nakoneshny 2012b, 6). Fundraisers have been quick to capitalize on relationship-based reasons for giving. Pledge-based fundraising events, often runs or rides for a health- related charity, are the latest trend (Levy 2011, 7). Sponsoring someone is one of the top three giving methods reported by CSGVP respondents in 2010 (Turcotte 2012, 32). Personal connection or involvement with the cause drives more than just event-based fundraising. In my previous research, I found that many donors cited their relationship with the charity and/or person asking as a reason for their giving (Reesor 2007b, 2). People give to familiar causes and familiar people. Obligation also motivates giving. For Christians, duty and tithing can be connected (Reesor 2007b, 2). In a study of American donors in 2001, the top two reasons for giving were obligation-based. The first reason was because people “who have more should give to those who have less [italics mine]” and the second because “something is owed to the community [italics mine]” (C. Smith, Emerson, and Snell 2008, 77). “To fulfill religious obligations or beliefs” was the fourth most common reason for giving, cited by 52 percent of American donors (C. Smith, Emerson, and Snell 2008, 77). In the CSGVP study “to fulfill religious obligations or beliefs” was cited as motivation for giving by 27 percent of Canadian donors in 2010, down from 32 percent of donors in 2007 (Turcotte 2012, 33). [ Page ] 61 Speaking about Christians generally, Bibby says that people who are “still motivated by duty, obligation and loyalty” have become a minority (Bibby 2011, 22). While this number is declining, obligation remains a significant reason for giving. Giving in response to need, or out of empathy towards those in need, makes up the third cluster of reasons for giving. The Cygnus survey found that the oldest donors were mostly likely to respond to charities that “focused on need and economic uncertainty” (Burk 2012, 7). Compassion towards people in need was the most common reason for giving amongst CSGVP donors in 2010 (Turcotte 2012, 33) and also mentioned in discussions with Mennonite donors in 2007 (Reesor 2007b, 2). Responses to natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy in 2012 demonstrate giving motivated by needs. Vision defines the fourth cluster of motivations for giving; the donor gives because he or she identifies with the cause. “Personally believing in the cause” was the second most common reason cited for giving amongst CSGVP respondents (Turcotte 2012, 33). Fundraising research identified a faith-based giving segment in which donors choose to give to “organizations that fit with [their] religious beliefs” (Nakoneshny 2012b, 6). The most committed donors to MC USA have a vision of the church “beyond the local level” (Wiese and Gerig 2005, 18). In my MTS work, I referred to vision-motivated giving as value alignment, because people give to causes that align with their own values and goals (Reesor 2007b, 2). Giving follows values and vision. Donors cannot be rigidly fitted into neat categories. People give for more [ Page ] 62 than one reason and likely give to different causes for different reasons. Research shows that donors often give: • where they have a connection • because they feel an obligation • in response to need • in line with their vision and values Trust Trust informs giving. The CSGVP study notes that people who trust more give more (Turcotte 2012, 23). Two Mennonites studies both emphasize the importance of accountability and trust (Wiese and Gerig 2005, 43) (Reesor 2007b, 2) as preconditions for giving. The ongoing demand for accountability means the non-profit industry faces “increasing scrutiny from all comers” (Nakoneshny 2012a, 1). Donors want to know if they can trust an organization. The Muttart Foundation research examines which types of organizations are perceived as most trustworthy and the reasons why donors trust them. The survey’s phone call format enabled open-ended questions about why people trust. The report highlights how important trust is to the relationship between charities and donors, as well as beneficiaries (Ipsos Reid Public Affairs 2008b). The study asked Canadians about their levels of trust in ten different types of charities. Hospitals are rated the most trustworthy, which was not surprising. What was surprising was that 67 percent of respondents trust churches, but only 45 percent trust religious organizations excluding churches (Ipsos Reid Public Affairs 2008b, 5). What about people who regularly attend religious services? The Muttart [ Page ] 63 foundation provided me with detailed data tables. Regular attendees demonstrate the same gap in levels of trust between churches and religious organizations (Ipsos Reid Public Affairs 2008a). Clearly, churches enjoy pride of place when it comes to trust. The Muttart Foundation study also posed open-ended question as to why respondents trusted that type of organization. The top three reasons for trusting a charity were because: (1) the charities “do what they say they do,” (2) the charities “do an important job,” and (3) people volunteer with a charity or are involved in some way (Ipsos Reid Public Affairs 2008a). I paraphrase these reasons for trust as follows: (1) the organization is accountable and responsible, (2) the charity does important work, and (3) the donor is involved and familiar with that organization. Christian Giving Views on Christian generosity diverge considerably. Compared to secular donors, Christians give more. However, Christians can appear miserly when comparing their actual giving to Christian teachings on generosity. On average Christian donors tend to be more generous than secular donors. In Canada, donors who attend religious services at least once a week give more than other donors to both religious and secular causes (Turcotte 2012, 30). Such religiously active donors give an average of $ 1,004 annually (Turcotte 2012, 23) which puts the average religious donor in the top decile (top 10 percent) of all Canadian donors. Religiously active donors displayed no difference in average [ Page ] 64 giving by age groups, except 15-24 year olds (Turcotte 2012, 23). American Christians are “probably the most affluent single group of Christians in two thousand years of church history” (C. Smith, Emerson, and Snell 2008, 3). Yet, when it comes to sharing their money “most contemporary American Christians are remarkably ungenerous” (C. Smith, Emerson, and Snell 2008, 3). The authors estimate that, if self-professed strong Christians in the US (not all Christians) tithed, then the additional 46 billion dollars in donations could accomplish an astonishing list of world transforming objectives (C. Smith, Emerson, and Snell 2008, 12-18). The authors frankly observe that “a lot of American Christians appear to be living in a subjective world of scarcity, not abundance, gratitude, and generosity [italics mine]” (C. Smith, Emerson, and Snell 2008, 171). The book recognizes the prevalence of the scarcity mindset and seeks to understand why it occurs. While there are some cultural differences compared to Canadian donors, I think their findings still apply. In short, Canadian Christians are typically more generous than secular donors but not as generous as they could be, given their tremendous wealth. Tithing In Passing the plate: Why American Christians don’t give away more money, one of the hypotheses the authors test is that ignorance of teaching on tithing and/or generous giving as a “norm of Christian stewardship” partly explains why Christians do not give much (C. Smith, Emerson, and Snell 2008, 75). The data support their claim: according to a binational study on giving in [ Page ] 65 1996, only 53 percent of Canadian Christians surveyed were correctly able to define tithing as 10 percent of giving (Angus Reid Group 1996). The ignorance hypothesis the authors raise merits exploration. The MC USA report also notes that tithing happens more among the old than among the young (Wiese and Gerig 2005, 33). Thus, the pool of generous donors risks depletion. American data suggest that among Christians who attend church regularly, 17.9 percent of them give 10 percent or more of their income. So, tithing may be more discussed than practiced. Data on Mennonite giving praxis are hard to obtain. What does exist suggests that the data cluster at between 6 and 10 percent of gross income, with some people giving more than 10 percent and some giving less than 5 percent (Bergey and Vincent 2007, 66; Wiese and Gerig 2005, 17). The majority of respondents to the MCEC study were church leaders, and I do not think these results are representative of all members. The authors of the MCEC study note that, when it comes to tithing, “most think in terms of dividing their tithe among the entire denominational initiative and beyond, with the most significant gift flowing to the local congregation” (Bergey and Vincent 2007, 64). Donors’ Relationship to Denomination Research indicates that American church members have less trust in the handling of money at the denominational level than at the congregational level (C. Smith, Emerson, and Snell 2008, 81). Mennonite studies also suggest differing [ Page ] 66 attitudes towards the denomination compared to the local church. A report from Mennonite Church USA seeks to explain declining denominational giving and says that giving out of denominational loyalty is diminishing (Wiese and Gerig 2005, 5). The members most likely to contribute to the denomination are older and “somewhat liberal” both theologically and politically, compared to others in the denomination (Wiese and Gerig 2005, 3). I concur with the authors who suggest that “contrasting worldviews among those calling themselves ‘Mennonite’” present a challenge to a common denominational identity (Wiese and Gerig 2005, 4). The online survey done by Mennonite Church Eastern Canada suggests that many churches have a paradoxical relationship with their conference. The authors note the “repeated assertion that the individual congregation and individual person are as important as the overall conference, if not more so” (Bergey and Vincent 2007, 2). This focus on the autonomy of the individual congregation runs counter to the Anabaptist doctrine of Gelassenheit, a yieldedness to God and the community. At the same time, respondents voiced strong support for the idea that more can be done together as a conference than as individual congregations (Bergey and Vincent 2007, 11—12). I detect tension between the ideals of community and the actual congregational relationships with conference. In my previous research, donors and fundraisers alike noted the need for improved communication between Mennonite institutions and their constituency (Reesor 2007a, 48,52,97). [ Page ] 67 Conclusion The studies concur on basic understandings of donors: western Canadians are more likely to be donors, older people give differently than younger people, and generally the amount of giving increases with higher income and education. People who trust more give more, and people who plan more give more. While people give for a multitude of reasons, often donors give where they have a connection, because they feel an obligation, in response to need, and in line with their vision and values. Trust informs giving. Multiple studies affirmed the importance of trust and accountability between a donor and the charity. The Muttart Foundation study examined the issue of trust in more detail and noted that donors, including church attendees, trust their church more than a religious organization. Passing the plate noted that American Christians trust how their local church handles money more than they trust how their denomination handles it. Combine these results with a study like MC USA, which noted that giving resulting from denominational loyalty is diminishing, and one could hypothesize that some donors do not trust their conference or denomination as much as they do their local church. Multiple studies noted a trend towards an increasing diversity of causes supported, especially among older donors. Add social media and changing ways in which funds are solicited to the donor behaviours, and it is clear that how charities ask for money and how donors choose to donate money is changing. From a complex adaptive systems view this is good news: the best time to affect change is during a time of turbulence (Plowman et al. 2007, 347). [ Page ] 68 Metre Mark the beat noting rhythms keeping track of how the thing is to be done, and why pondering each phrase and phase turning over words and stones until meaning emerges in such a rush I struggle to keep pace [ Page ] 69 CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY This chapter describes the action research methodology used and the major steps within my research. I travelled to various churches administering a questionnaire about how and why donors give. After they had completed the survey, I listened to the donors in an unstructured focus group format. I conducted ten such groups. Finally, I wrote a report on my findings and presented my results to various Christian groups, getting feedback from diverse audiences. This approach rests on a precedent framework of how to conduct donor research. Throughout this research, I promoted intentionality in stewardship. Action Research Methodology I am an artist who wants to document and display—through the use of action research—the beautiful landscape of generosity among Canadian Mennonites. When people look at my work, I want them to better understand and appreciate the generosity that they see portrayed there. I hope people will be inspired to become more generous themselves and to talk about stewardship within their various communities. When MFC curates my work, I want it to empower the foundation in its ongoing ministry of encouraging “faithfill, joyful, giving.” I want to be able to help celebrate and preserve the landscape of [ Page ] 70 Christian giving, a landscape whose beauty points to the Creator. Like the landscape artist who is also an environmentalist, I operated within an action research methodology. A methodology is a “general approach to studying research topics” (Silverman 2005, 98). Action researchers desire to “understand, change and learn about practice, and to address problems of immediate and apparent relevance” (Fernie and Smith 2010, 100). Thus, I am not just doing donor research, but seeking both to impact MFC’s praxis as they implement that research and to cultivate intentionality in stewardship praxis. In this action research cycle, I have worked in only one season of the landscape; I pass the torch to others to work in other seasons. Action Research as an Iterative, Interactive Process Action research works in iterative cycles: action requires reflection, which leads to modified action, and then the cycle repeats. The artist paints, looks at the painting, and adds another layer of colour. During this research, I continually acted, reflected, and then modified my actions. Consider the research process diagram in Figure 4.1 : arrows loop backwards to indicate repeated action. Action research is interactive. The artist/researcher does not only engage with her work but also interacts with stakeholders throughout the process. In chapter 3, I introduced the idea of transforming exchanges in which both parties are transformed by their interaction. I am painting a landscape, but while I paint, I change the landscape. I show progressive versions of the work to others, and that feedback influences my work. I document my interactions throughout the various [ Page ] 71 stages and methods in Figure 4.2. Action research author Jean McNiff writes that the “real and sustainable benefit of action research” as a means of cultivating change comes from the fact that action research “is based on the assumption that people hold themselves accountable to values they have identified as important to guide their practice” (McNiff 2013, 59). In other words, as this research encourages reflection and discussion on why people give, these interactions will influence their giving. Art/action research inspires action. I am a mixed-media artist: this research project uses various methods within the action research methodology. The major steps were: (1) planning, (2) conducting research sessions, (3) performing quantitative and qualitative analysis, (4) presenting the results to MFC and beyond, and (5) seeking opportunities for future transforming exchanges. Next page; Figure 4.1 depicts the process up to the point of presenting the results to MFC. Next page: Figure 4.1 Methods Flowchart. [ Page ] 72 [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 4.1 details ] [ Page 73 ] Figure 4.2 shows how I presented results beyond MFC and the additional opportunities for transforming exchanges. Figure 4.2 Research Output Flowchart [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 4.2 details ] [ Page ] 74 The rest of this chapter walks through each of these major steps and describes the many smaller pieces contained in each. The iterative, interactive methodology of action research informs each method used. Planning There were two main tasks in planning this research: designing the survey and defining the scope of the research. The survey design process was both interactive and iterative, but it produced a fixed result—a survey which was complete before the donor research began. Defining the scope of research and seeking out participants was an interactive and iterative process that continued on while I was actually conducting the research. I call this stage sampling theory versus sampling reality. I begin with the important task of survey design. Survey Design Survey design requires much attention to detail. While many of these steps were concurrent, I discuss the following items sequentially: (1) framework for defining research questions, (2) external sources, (3) demographic questions, (4) open-ended questions, (5) questionnaire review process, (6) ethics review. Framework for Defining Research Questions My proposal to the MFC board included a framework for defining the research questions (Coghlan 2010), which I have updated here. [ Page ] 75 Table 4.1 Framework for Defining Research Questions [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 4.1 details ] [ Page ] 76 External Sources Good research practice builds on existing research. In several cases, I have used similar questions and scales from existing surveys (Leman 2010, 180), specifically the Canadian survey of giving, volunteering and participating (CSGVP) conducted by Statistics Canada (Turcotte 2012) and Talking about charities 2008 conducted by Ipsos Reid for the Muttart Foundation (Ipsos Reid Public Affairs 2008a). The CSGVP study was useful for comparing motivations for giving to a broader Canadian donor demographic. The Muttart Foundation study provided a benchmark for comparing levels of trust and varying attitudes towards different types of organizations. I modified the question on my survey to include secular, denominational, and Christian charities, because MFC wanted to understand attitudes towards different types of charities. Demographic Questions The survey contained a number of demographic questions on age, gender, income, education, marital status, and employment status. From the researcher’s perspective, this information helped to classify and analyze responses, and to compare results to other studies. From the participants’ perspective, this was very personal information. I begin with the research benefits. It was vital to be able to demonstrate that the surveyed populations are comparable. Hence, the inclusion of demographic questions (Bradbum 2004, 23, 117). To enable comparisons, I used [ Page ] 77 the same income ranges as the CSGVP and borrowed many demographic categories from the Muttart Foundation survey. In addition, the demographic questions enabled me to explore generational differences, a key aspect for MFC. Data on age, income and education are considered difficult to obtain (Bradbum 2004, 272). It was essential for me to be open and transparent and to explain why I asked such questions: people needed to trust me (Szwarc 2005, 161) in order to answer fully. Open-Ended Questions The survey included several open-ended questions. This type of question required more work for data entry and analysis. However, the results were worth the effort. For instance, the widely-used reasons for giving are, in my view, biased towards a secular audience. Allowing people to write their own reason for giving, rather than simply choosing a response from a list, yielded a much broader spectrum of responses (Bradbum 2004, 154-55). Questionnaire Review Process I designed the survey in consultation with MFC. Appendix B: Survey Questionnaire documents the survey questions. Appendix C: Rationale for Survey Design includes a diagram of the iterative and interactive consultation process of designing the questionnaire, the design framework, and an explanation of the reasoning behind each question. [ Page ] 78 Ethics Review This survey was reviewed and approved by a research ethics committee before the research began. A copy of the ethics submission is included in Appendix D: Ethics Review Documents. The three essential ethical components of my research methods were: (1) respecting privacy, (2) obtaining informed consent, and (3) protecting identity. To respect privacy rules, I did not contact people without their prior consent. MFC staff contacted pastors, and obtained consent for me to contact them. I further explained the project and then pastors or their delegates contacted members from their congregation. Participants were told about the project verbally or via email in advance. At the sessions, I explained the project further. I gave people an information sheet about the project, including contact information for both MFC and Tyndale, if participants wished to express a concern about the research. I provided an opportunity for questions and had all participants sign a letter of consent before proceeding. I was vigilant about protecting the confidentiality of the people who participated in this research. That means taking care to quote people only as “a donor said,” and to not give any identifying characteristic. To preserve anonymity I do not indicate which churches participated. Sampling Theory and Sampling Reality I begin by outlining the sampling theory I used to design the project, and [ Page ] 79 then I discuss how the theory intersected with reality. The research scope shrank as the project got underway. Due to the difficulty in recruiting participants, I had fewer than half the number of participants than originally planned. However, the foundational methods and research instruments of survey and focus group remained relatively constant. My sampling technique was convenience/opportunistic (Davies 2010, 127). That is, I relied on the network of contacts within MFC (convenience). This sampling technique was biased towards people already active in the church and thus more inclined towards the topic (Wiese and Gerig 2005, 14). However, I think that the non-response bias—how respondents differ from non-respondents— was consistent in every region and within every conference. For political reasons, it was important that all conferences which participate in MFC were represented(Pries-Klassen, Executive Director, Mennonite Foundation Canada, 2011). MFC’s geographically diverse constituency covers five provinces, not including a much lower concentration of congregations east of Ontario. In my project proposal to MFC, I had planned to survey at least 150 people and to stratify my sample by age, with separate groups for people 50 and over, and younger than 50. I had planned the group sizes with more weighting on smaller constituencies in order to have enough participants to compare results from the various conferences. Each conference would be represented by at least two congregations from different provinces, if possible. In planning which communities to visit, I made an effort to include the [ Page ] 80 edges (i.e., not just going to the areas with the greatest population of Mennonites.) There were two reasons for this. First, some smaller groups within MFC are limited to one geographic area. Second, it was important to go beyond the dominant voices. For example, focusing my research on Winnipeg would have been the equivalent of focusing Canadian research on Toronto: easier but not necessarily representative of the entire constituency. I sent my proposed research itinerary to MFC consultants for review. There were many questions about “why there and not here.” Consultants gave wise counsel about which communities would be the most feasible, both practically and politically. Like the research project itself, the sampling planning process was both iterative and interactive. The resulting sampling plan was a group effort. Figure 4.3 Research Locations [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 4.3 details ] [ Page ] 81 Table 4.2 Research Scope [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 4.2 details ] MFC regional consultants and board members made the initial contacts with pastors. I contacted pastors who consented to be involved, and pastors (or their delegates) asked members of their congregations. Half of the groups included representatives from various other churches. The task of coordinating representatives from multiple churches to meet at a single church required great diligence with a number of very busy people. Many congregations who agreed to be involved initially were unable to proceed or could not find any participants. The perceived benefits of a donor research project were not obvious to all, and talking about money is a taboo topic. Like the king in the Luke 14 parable who had a successful banquet, but not as he had initially planned, I was able to do illustrative, as opposed to comprehensive, research. I am grateful to pastors, MFC board members, and others, who recruited a broad mix of volunteers. I did not have enough participants to compare one conference to another in a statistically significant way, but I did talk to a diverse group of people of various ages, representing each conference from multiple sources. In order to obtain data from congregations where a focus group did not occur I added interviews with pastors and church [ Page ] 82 treasurers to my methods. While the scope of the research changed, the research objectives were fulfilled. Conducting Research I conducted this research from May to December 2012, in three separate trips to western Canada and short trips within Ontario. A more exhaustive timeline is included in Appendix A: Research Timeline. Table 4.3 Research Trip Timeline [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 4.3 details ] I discuss six significant aspects to undertaking this research: • challenges of administering surveys and conducting focus groups in the same session • food as a research method • the “Mennonite Game” -the researcher as cultural insider or outsider? • emergent interview style • triangulation • ethnographic field notes [ Page ] 83 Challenges and Benefits of Administering Surveys and Conducting Focus Groups in the Same Session Administering a survey and conducting a focus group in the same setting had many advantages. Logistically, it was easier, but there were also challenges. Here I examine the role of the researcher, ethical considerations, and how conducting the survey informed the subsequent focus group. A quantitative survey strives for objectivity; it is best to minimize interaction with participants to avoid influencing results (Dahlberg and McCaig 2010, 25). However, if I appeared too distant, then the trust and ease of communication necessary for a qualitative focus group would be difficult. I was conscious of this balance and kept a research journal of my reflections. Following ethical guidelines demonstrated my professional approach but was also a barrier. The letter of information and consent forms to be signed presented an initial obstacle. Three people walked out of the sessions when they saw those materials on the table. I required informed consent from participants and gave an explanation of how I would protect respondents’ confidential information. While this explanation was meant to further trust, it felt odd to ask people give their names and signed permission forms in order to complete an anonymous survey. I always explained what I was doing and gave opportunity for questions. I usually tried to make a joke that the survey was not like the Census and that you would not go to jail if you missed a question. I explicitly gave people permission to not answer any questions that they did not wish to answer and also said that they could ask for the audio recording to be turned off. [ Page ] 84 The survey questions informed the subsequent discussion. They gave people an opportunity to think about why they gave money to charity. The discussion following the survey gave people an opportunity to challenge the questions, explain their answers, and most significantly, to tell me answers to questions 1 had not thought of asking. I learned something new from each of the ten groups. Food as Research Method Mennonites are a communal people, and communal people eat together. Sharing food builds trust, creates community, and breaks down barriers (Epp 2012, 4-7). I always brought food to my focus groups. I credit my homemade salsa (served with nacho chips) as the single best research tool in my toolkit. Once people tried my salsa, I was no longer some academic stranger from Ontario but someone with credentials in the more familiar/respected currency of home canning. Sharing something I had made with my own hands also helped to establish a personal connection. Home baking was also well-received, but was only feasible for groups in Ontario. Food and faith go together in a Mennonite context (Epp 2011, 24), and bringing food helped to establish trust. The Mennonite Game - Researcher as Cultural Insider or Outsider? “The Mennonite Game” refers to the elaborate practice among ethnic Swiss and Russian Mennonites of establishing a mutual connection upon meeting a fellow Mennonite. I often played the Mennonite Game in my travels, as I have [ Page ] 85 relatives across western Canada. As a researcher, was I a cultural insider or outsider? While I claim to be a cultural insider, I speak only a smattering of the Low German dialect common among Russian Mennonites. This question of language arose repeatedly, and it would have been useful to be able to speak Low German in a couple of settings. However, Mennonites are no longer a cultural monolith and include many languages and ethnic origins. The first question on my survey presumed that the respondent’s parents were also donors. I was enough of a cultural insider to make such unconscious presumptions and enough of a cultural outsider to recognize reactions to my presumptions as valuable data. Emergent Interview Style I was aware of the tremendous influence that a moderator can have when conducting a focus groups. I aimed for an emergent interview style that encouraged unstructured sharing of thoughts and opinions. In this section, I explain how 1 learned this style, and examine the resulting (and worthwhile) chaos this approach brought to the transcription process. Finally, I explore the topic of social desirability bias. I had learned how to conduct a focus group from watching Dr. Richard Michon, who is currently a marketing professor at Ryerson University, and with whom I worked at World Vision Canada. I did not bring a long list of questions to a focus group. “What did I miss [on the survey]” was my opening question, and [ Page ] 86 “What else did you want to tell me” was my closing question. In between, I tried to listen, ask questions of clarification if needed, and pose further questions only if the discussion waned. While there are no fixed rules on how to conduct a focus group, qualitative researcher Steinar Kvale writes, “the moderator’s task is to create a permissive atmosphere for the expression of personal and conflicting viewpoints on the topics in focus” (Kvale 2007, 72). This approach is exactly what Michon demonstrated, and it also aptly describes how I teach Sunday school classes for adults. Kvale notes that this permissive approach means that focus group transcriptions can be chaotic (Kvale 2007, 72), and I agree. My focus groups included debates, storytelling, testimony, lament, and rant. Sometimes there were multiple people talking at once, or people interrupting and finishing each other’s sentences. In most groups, group members asked questions of each other, a sign that people felt safe. It indicated that people did not have other forums in which to talk about their giving, a topic of great importance to them. I concur that it is the “conversation between participants that provides the most interesting data” (M. Smith and Bowers-Brown 2010, 120). I was aware of “social desirability bias” (Bradburn 2004, 11) which refers to the normal human tendency to tell someone what you think he or she wants to hear. Participants frequently asked me if what they said was helpful, if they were talking about the “right” topics. I always assured them that I could not possibly know all the right questions to ask, and that I learned something new from every [ Page ] 87 group. The variety of expressions and conflicting opinions I encountered demonstrate that social desirability bias did not hinder the discussions. Data Triangulation The biggest potential pitfall in this research is that the “interviewer has a monopoly of interpretation” (Kvale 2007, 15). To mitigate this danger, I took every opportunity I could to triangulate my data “to check the accuracy of [my] interpretation” (Silverman 2005, 154). I also needed to seek out other data sources, such as interviews with a pastor or church treasurer, when focus groups did not materialize. Here I briefly outline my data sources. The surveys and focus groups were primary data sources. The audio recordings of the focus group session enabled me to check the accuracy of my observations and to validate trends found in survey data. I made both oral and written reports while the focus groups were ongoing, in addition to the more formal reporting when the research was completed. I communicated with Mennonite Foundation staff and consultants in person and via email on a regular basis throughout the project. I asked them if my specific experiences with a certain constituency matched their experiences. MFC staff from across Canada continually impressed me with their knowledge of their constituencies. I also spoke to conference and denominational leaders, pastors and church treasurers, MFC board members and clients. Data triangulation, like the rest of the research, was an interactive and iterative process. Appendix A: Research Timeline [ Page ] 88 outlines many of my interactions. Ethnographic Field Notes My advisor, Major Elaine Becker, suggested this research tool to me, and I made notes wherever I went, not just of focus group observations. I learned much about local context and congregational praxis and theology from these observations. Eating in a local cafe gave a sense of a town in a way that a website never can. Talking to people was the most valuable way to learn culture. I learned about local social cohesion and trust, two factors that inform giving. A church building revealed much about the congregation I was visiting. Lovingly tended bulletin boards with pictures of missionaries said a great deal about what the congregation values. Posters from various organizations provided a way to triangulate my findings about where people give. Other very useful indicators about a congregation’s stewardship were the condition of the parking lot and age of building. Even listening to a worship band practice yielded insight about congregational praxis and theology. Performing Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis Using both quantitative and qualitative methods necessitated two forms of analysis as well. Numbers provide a wonderful tool for aggregating data and demonstrating trends, but they cannot tell a story. In this section, I outline my parallel methods of quantitative and qualitative analysis and describe how the [ Page ] 89 finished product blended the two approaches. Quantitative Analysis Analyzing the survey data was laborious. Here are the major steps in the process: 1. data entry 2. initial analysis 3. internal and external data comparisons 4. report writing and presentation While data entry and analysis might seem the antithesis of action research, I demonstrate that this process was iterative and interactive. Data Entry I entered the survey data into an Excel spreadsheet, using the data validation feature to assure uniformity. I then exported the data into SOFAStats, an open source statistical software package. The process of coding and recoding variables, and assigning value labels took many days. It was an iterative cycle: the analysis phase drove recoding, which drove further analysis. Initial Analysis My early stage of analysis consisted of generating frequency charts for each survey question. For example, the majority of respondents agreed that giving patterns were changing over time. Based on this early analysis, I did a short preliminary report for a February 2013 meeting of MFC consultants. [ Page ] 90 Internal and External Data Comparisons Internal data comparisons were predominantly composed of crosstabs looking at how the results of one question compared to another question. For instance, with respect to giving patterns changing over time, older people answered the question differently than younger people. It required both intuition and experimentation to choose which questions and donor characteristics to match together. I compared the survey results to two kinds of external data. First, I used previous donor research such as the CSGVP and Muttart Foundation surveys. Second, I put considerable effort into validating the demographic profile of participants compared to Canadians donors as a whole. For the research findings to be credible, I needed to demonstrate that my sample was representative and that survey respondents were not demographically predisposed to generosity. Report Writing and Presentation I employed bricolage—“a multiplicity of ad hoc methods and conceptual approaches” (Kvale 2007, 115)—to create an electronic slide presentation and a written report of survey findings. I wanted to present sound statistical results in an accessible manner so that a non-technical audience would understand. Ultimately, I wanted the focus group participants to be able to read and understand the report. To this end, I used many graphical elements and images in my report. I kept statistical jargon to a minimum and composed a poem from answers to an open-ended question. I created a slide presentation first, and modified the written [ Page ] 91 report document, based on feedback from my oral presentation. Report writing continued the iterative and interactive research process. Qualitative Analysis While the qualitative analysis of the focus group discussions was very different from analyzing the survey data, it was no less intense. There were four phases to the qualitative analysis: • transcription • grounded theory methods • analysis of coded transcriptions • integration of qualitative findings into survey report I start with transcription, the necessary precursor to the other phases. Transcription I had ten focus group sessions. For one session, I unfortunately forgot the recording device and had to rely on written notes, but despite this I still had approximately 15 hours of recordings, which represents at least 60 hours of transcription work Invalid source specified.. While this was painstaking work, I could often visualize who was speaking, and their stories lodged in my memory. The transcription process informed all subsequent research, including survey analysis. In addition to the ethnographic field notes made during the focus group sessions, I also made notes as I reviewed the audio recordings. I opted for a detailed transcription, not completely verbatim but largely composed of either [ Page ] 92 exact quotes or quotes slightly paraphrased for coherency. “Transcription is analysis” (Silverman 2005, 164)—a constant process of comparing and contrasting current data with previous data. As I transcribed I was continually crafting and re-crafting theories. The process of creating models of giving emerged organically from the research methods. As I did the survey analysis, I could hear donors’ voices in my head, refuting or confirming my theories. Transcription can also be a spiritual discipline. I can recall stopping the recording playback to pause for prayer. Overall, my strongest response was a deep gratitude and humility. It was a privilege and a blessing to hear people’s stories of generosity. Grounded Theory Methods I employed grounded theory techniques of coding and memos to collate the transcription data into a database of coded comments. I explain my approach to coding and use of memos. I used line-by-line coding, as per professor Graham Gibbs (Gibbs 2007, 52), a process in which each sentence or piece of dialogue is coded separately. Gibbs notes that “the actual text is always an example of a more general phenomenon and the code title should indicate this more general idea” (Gibbs 2007, 50). While this sounds simple, it took discipline and practice to be able to identify the more general phenomenon. Learning to code was definitely an iterative process; I coded my first session more than once, as the core categories [ Page ] 93 emerged. I ended up with two sets of coding, the first topical and the second thematic, a variation on Gibbs’ schema (Gibbs 2010). Memos throughout the process helped identify categories and avoid “definitional drift” (Gibbs 2007, 98). Analysis of Coded Transcriptions When I had finished coding, I merged all the transcriptions together and sorted them by the thematic codes. I deliberately did not try to construct models based on only certain cases or types of donors. I am working from a hermeneutical community model in which all the voices, no matter how divergent, are part of the whole. Based on a suggestion from an MFC consultant, I compiled a dozen different composite donor profiles. The thematically-grouped coded quotes were the springboard for composing these short character sketches. My creative work here was also informed by the survey results of what type of charities were most commonly supported. Integrating Qualitative Findings into Survey Report Throughout my reporting process, my interim written and oral reports included quotes and anecdotes from donors. The last step in the analysis and reporting process was integrating qualitative elements into the survey analysis report. Having the stories and anecdotes combined with survey results helped to minimize the dangers of selective anecdotalism, a situation in which anecdotes are [ Page ] 94 devoid of reference to frequency of occurrence (Gibbs 2007, 100). Presenting Findings As described earlier, I presented interim research findings to MFC multiple times while the research was underway. Congruent with an action research approach, MFC’s feedback greatly shaped both how I conducted this research and also how I presented my results. This research provided an opportunity for me to help MFC influence Christian leaders, and for me to influence church leaders more directly. I document here the major output from this research: • MFC oral presentation • composite donor profiles • letter to Canadian Mennonite magazine • MFC written report, completed in two stages • feature article for the Canadian Mennonite magazine • workshop based on my research findings at the Canadian Council of Christian Charities (CCCC) fall conference, in September 2013 • workshop hosted by MFC, with 11 charities in attendance I consider each research presentation to have been a transforming exchange, although some were conducted via the media. I presented the survey analysis orally to MFC management in March 2013 and created a written report, which was given to the MFC board in April 2013. The final report, integrating both survey and focus group analysis, was finished in May 2013. It was necessary to have this completed before my September 2013 workshop presentation at the [ Page ] 95 Canadian Council of Christian charities (CCCC) so that MFC could be the first audience. The composite donor profiles described earlier were included as part of the written report to MFC. I list them as a separate output, because I used them as the basis of my Canadian Mennonite article, and because I think they have future potential as a separate entity. My letter to the editor of the Canadian Mennonite was entitled, “Capital campaigns not the real problem for MC [Mennonite Church] Canada” and was published on June 10, 2013 (Reesor 2013a). In it, I used findings from my research to counter claims made in an earlier article which named capital campaigns and competing requests from non-Mennonite organizations as the reasons for reduced giving to conference. When I wrote the letter, I also offered to write a longer article. “Join the Big Hearts club” was the feature article in Canadian Mennonite August 19, 2013 (Reesor 2013b). It included discussion questions composed by the editor, as well as a full page of cartoons on the subject of church giving. MFC reviewed both the letter and the article prior to publication. The CCCC presentation in September 2013 was titled, “New Canadian research into Christian giving: Why we should treat our donors more like horses and less like cows.” This 70-minute workshop was attended by people who work for and with Christian charities. MFC staff organized a workshop for charities and conference leaders within their constituency, held on March 1, 2014. Based on my earlier workshop, [ Page ] 96 I presented my findings to representatives from 11 charities. Opportunities for Future Transforming Exchanges While I have had many opportunities for transforming exchanges, even more await. The scope of transforming exchanges will extend beyond my DMin program. I expect further transforming exchanges as I pursue various opportunities to present these findings and especially as I distribute the research results to the many participants and interested pastors, as well as other people who have expressed an interest. As a result of the CCCC presentation, and through an MFC staff person, I was tentatively booked to speak at the Mennonite Church Eastern Canada (MCEC) delegate sessions in April 2014. This did not materialize; nor did an MFC proposal to do a workshop with my research findings at a national Mennonite Church Canada assembly; nor an informal offer to meet with MCEC staff. I cannot speculate on why all this occurred; however, I am confident there will be opportunities in the future. In a demonstration of the transferability of this research, I am at present working on a donor research proposal with a non-Mennonite denomination; my findings resonated with their own experience. I have also been encouraged to write up my results for Faith Today magazine and to pursue speaking at an annual Mennonite symposium in the United States. I hope to be invited to speak at Conrad Grebel University College in Waterloo. I have also presented results to the staffs of two marketing agencies that specialize in the non-profit sector and [ Page ] 97 will cultivate those relationships for further opportunities. In addition to those interested in praxis, I hope to talk to those interested in theory. The integrated model of giving developed in this thesis could be a point of conversation with fundraising practitioners and theorists alike. I talk about charitable giving continually. Much of the content of chapter 6 arose from a dinner party conversation. I talk about giving and donating with my hairdresser, friends in ministry, at church potlucks and around my dinner table. I met Anglican priests on retreat, and we discussed congregational giving at length. All of this discussion and interaction found its way into this thesis. A Catholic bishop explaining Vatican II once told me that big ships turn slowly. I never expected to be able to quantify the influence of my donor research on the 500 congregations in MFC’s constituency, or on Canadian Christian giving more generally. However, I am gratified by the interactions and responses to my research. People steering the ship are interested in my work and that is very encouraging. Every exchange generates awareness and leads to greater intentionality in stewardship practice. [ Page ] 98 Ordinary like Sunsets The dancing bass voice behind me Makes me smile it bolsters my timid alto I listen carefully the rhythm actually sung matters more than the score Many wonderful singers learned young consider their harmony ordinary ordinary like sunsets apple blossoms blazing maples all praising their Creator [ Page ] 99 CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS The diversity within MFC’s constituency was astonishing, and the generosity I witnessed was humbling. Survey respondents were not richer, older or better-educated than typical Canadian donors, but they gave greater amounts and via different channels. While donors contributed to a wide variety of causes, trust and a belief in the cause were common factors. These results corresponded with national studies on giving. MFC’s constituency trusted the local church and gave there first, a behaviour which parallels how Canadian donors trust hospitals and donate to healthcare first. However, trust diminished with distance from the local congregation; the denomination and denominational agencies were less trusted than the local church. Reaction to this research also constituted a finding, and thus these findings are multi-layered. Based on the reactions I have received, I am convinced that these findings are applicable beyond the denominations studied. This chapter’s analysis incorporates all preceding chapters: • Lessons from the process of conducting this research (informed by Chapter 4: Methodology). This section examines cultural attitudes and biases. • Analysis of survey and focus group results as compared to other studies (as documented in Chapter 3: [ Page ] 100 Social Science and Precedent Literature). This section looks at demographics, giving behaviours, reasons for giving, and trust levels in secular causes. • Analysis of survey and focus group results using the theological foci of discipleship, community and unity (as discussed in Chapter 2: Theological Rationale). This section compares attitudes towards the local church with attitudes towards other charities, measures levels of trust in conference and affiliated charities, and discusses how churches incorporate stewardship into discipleship. • Analysis of findings compared to hypotheses for changing giving documented in the Mennonite press (as outlined in Chapter 1 Ministry Context and summarized in Table 1.2). • Transforming exchanges: action research interactions that changed the participants and the landscape (as introduced in Chapter 3: Social Science and Precedent Literature). • Action research case study: looking at data and responses for the “Gratitude Gap.” Figure 5.1 outlines the chapter graphically. Next page: Figure 5.1 Outline of Chapter 5 [ Page ] 101 [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 5.1 details ] [ Page ] 102 Lessons from Conducting Research Action research continually generates data. This section examines non- response bias, as well as cultural biases, and the impact on research methods. Non-response bias occurs with any type of research: people who respond to a survey are different from people who do not respond. I expect that people who volunteered to attend a focus group on giving are among the most generous givers, just as the literature review showed that volunteers are more likely to be donors. For example, the dozen people who opted to provide a detailed breakdown of their giving monthly each gave over $14,000 yearly on average. Thus, this research presents a rosy picture of giving in the church; the 20 percent of Christians who do not give at all (C. Smith, Emerson, and Snell 2008, 29) and sporadic givers are not well-represented. I explore this further when I discuss tithing. I also encountered attitudes and biases specific to my topic and context: • North American taboos about discussing money • Canadian cultural divide of East versus West • Mennonite distrust of higher education • Christians who do not support women in leadership These belief systems were not new to me; however, I underestimated their power. As a well-educated woman from the Toronto area travelling to rural western Canada to talk about money—often among more conservative groups—I saw all of these factors in play. Recruiting participants required a very significant effort from me, MFC [ Page ] 103 staff, and constituent pastors. Secrecy around giving and reluctance to talk about money (cf. Fullerton 2009, 111) present both a research finding and a barrier to research methods. It was disappointing to travel to a place and realize that no research session was going to happen. My resulting change in methods included interviews with pastors and church treasurers, in addition to group sessions. In retrospect, I overestimated the advantages of being a cultural insider. While being related to someone known in the community helped to establish trust in several instances, family connections also presented a hindrance. Concerns around confidentiality could have been a factor, it could be easier to discuss money with a stranger than a relative. Perhaps the ideal researcher would be a stranger, but not too strange, and connected, but not too closely. I speak only a few words of Plattdeutsch, the Low German dialect common among Russian Mennonites. In that sense I am an outsider. More knowledge would have helped, as it was the first language of many of my respondents. I did test the survey with my peers; however, I regret that I did not test the survey on people who have minimal formal education and whose first language is not English. Fortunately, the focus group enabled people to participate regardless of their written level of English. Analyzing Results In chapter 3, I summarized many current studies on giving. I want to compare my findings to other research in the following four areas: (1) demographics, (2) giving behaviour, (3) trust, and (4) reasons for giving, [ Page ] 104 including tithing and abundance, which are not covered in secular studies. This analysis covers each survey question. A longer treatment appears in the MFC report included in Appendix E. Demographics Survey respondents were ordinary folks who were extraordinarily generous. With respect to age, income, education and employment, survey respondents did not differ from other Canadian donors. However, they were more generous than most: the median total annual donation for a Canadian tax filer in 2011 was $260 (Statistics Canada 2013b). Some of my survey respondents gave more than this every week, and I estimate most would exceed this annual giving threshold by February 28 of each year. They were a diverse group. Some supported environmental causes and some listed the Progressive Conservative party as a charitable cause. From our conversations, I learned that many grew up in a church tradition, but some did not. Demographics matter immensely for two reasons. One, it is important to demonstrate that I talked to a variety of people. The first table looks at age range by gender. It is not a perfect distribution but I am pleased with the representation from people 35 and under, who are often under-represented in donor research. [ Page ] 105 Table 5.1 Age Range by Gender [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 5.1 details ] Two, it is essential to compile a demographic profile of survey respondents so that the above average generosity of survey respondents cannot be explained away as a result of the respondents being older, richer or more well- educated that a typical Canadian donor. Table 5.2 compares the demographic indicators of survey respondents to Canadian donors, and Table 5.3 compares survey respondents to Canadians generally. Table 5.2 Demographic Indicators Compared to Canadian Donors [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 5.2 details ] [ Page ] 106 Table 5.3 Demographic Indicators Compared to Canadians Generally [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 5.3 details ] I add two notes on Table 5.3. First, while the marriage rate is higher than Canadians generally, 12.3 percent of Canadian have common-law arrangements (Statistics Canada 2013d) and in my experience, the respondents’ marriage rate seems consistent with a Christian population. Second, respondents were more likely to be self-employed than the average Canadian. In chapter 3, I noted that giving increases with age, income and education. Survey respondents were not more educated than the average Canadian donor. By these typical fundraising metrics, there is nothing to suggest that this was an exceptionally generous group of people, except for the universally high rate of church attendance. They were all from MFC’s sustaining conferences; so, I cannot control for culture as a predictor of generosity. It is beyond the scope of this study to determine if that specific religious and cultural background contributes to their generosity. [ Page ] 107 Conventional fundraising wisdom says (1) university-educated people are more likely to be donors (M. Hall et al. 2009, 9) and also to give more (Turcotte 2012, 23); (2) higher education and higher income go together. When considering MFC’s constituency, I suggest that conventional wisdom be held lightly. While there was a cluster of university-educated and established donors in their peak earning years, half of the people reporting household incomes of $100,000 or more had not completed university. There were people with little formal education in the top income bracket and people with post-graduate education in the lowest income bracket. Ninety percent of respondents provided their household income range. I do not publish an education by income crosstab, because some of the cells contain information from only one individual. Age merits careful consideration as a predictor of giving behaviour. Early in the process of my research, I identified baby boomers as a generation of interest, based on conversations with pastors and church leadership. Bibby says that people who are “still motivated by duty, obligation and loyalty” are a minority (Bibby 2011, 22). The baby boomer generation (born between 1945 through 1965 (Bibby 2012, 6)) represents the turning point from deference to authority to individual discernment (Bibby 2011, 22). The first question on my survey was about whether donors’ giving habits were changing compared to their parents’ generation. Some people could not answer the question because their parents were not givers, which led one donor to remark, “This is such a Mennonite survey.” However, most people thought patterns in their generation were changing. [ Page ] 108 1. Thinking back to your parents’ generation, do you think that charitable giving habits are changing over time? Yes, patterns of giving are changing quite a bit 59% Maybe some change 35% No, not really 6% Analyzing the results by age yields more insight, as Figure 5.2 illustrates. Figure 5.2 Responses to Question 1 by Age Group [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 5.2 details ] This graph supports the hypothesis that baby boomers represent a shift in giving patterns. Eighty-five percent of respondents 65 and older said that giving patterns were changing compared to their parents’ generation; whereas only 30 percent of respondents under 35 agreed. A donor aged 70 could be comparing the post-WWII era to the present; while a donor aged 30 might be comparing 1990 to the present. Older people may be lamenting decreased institutional loyalty, but younger people are less aware that things used to be different. [ Page ] 109 Giving Behaviour Knowing that giving behaviour is shifting makes it even more important to understand how people give. This section looks at three aspects of giving behaviour: (1) planning, (2) types of causes supported, and (3) methods of giving, including spontaneous giving. Planning MFC was very interested in learning how and if people plan their giving. This section examines planning and also briefly mentions preauthorized giving and un-receipted giving. Questions 4 and 5 asked about the donor’s giving plans for the next year. Almost two thirds of respondents said their giving would remain the same as in the previous year, and a third said it would increase. Only two people anticipated a decrease, and both cited retirement as the reason. The people who anticipated increased giving generally foresaw increased income. People under 55 were most likely to increase their giving, and people working full-time were more likely to cite an increase than those who were self- employed. Five people gave non-financial reasons for their increased giving including “spiritual growth.” Focus group attendees plan more and give more than typical Canadian donors. Seventy-five percent of respondents plan their giving either “most of the time” or “usually,” whereas fewer than half of Canadian donors “budget for philanthropy” (Burk 2012, 8). Donors who budget are typically more generous; [ Page ] 110 sociologists note that people who plan more, give more (C. Smith, Emerson, and Snell 2008, 95). As noted in chapter 3, going to church weekly creates a framework for regular giving, which helps to explain why regular church attendees give more than other types of donors (Gadeski 2011). Question 8 asked how people make their giving plans. Respondents were generally giving from income, not assets. The following comments are typical of the answers received: • “Giving from income. We try to help our family and friends in mission, local church, etc. first, and extra to other organizations and fundraisers that occur.” • “Percentage of projected income, the rest as needs arise and are brought to our attention.” • “I chose them in the beginning by how much I thought I could trust where the money is going, and it’s easier to continue that way.” It is striking to me how much people’s responses to how they give align with their answers to why they give: connection to the recipients, trust in the cause, and in response to need are all mentioned in the comments cited. Pre-authorized giving to the church presents an example of a very structured and regular approach to giving. Donors who actually contributed to their church automatically each month were comfortable with giving this way. However, some donors from contexts where this was not an option expressed disdain about this method. A church treasurer equated preauthorized giving with installing turnstiles to count people when they come to church. Spontaneous giving can be seen as more genuine (C. Smith, Emerson, and Snell 2008, 93-94). [ Page ] 111 MFC consultant, the late Edwin Friesen wrote, “I believe God’s spirit can direct people twelve months in advance as well as on the spur of the moment” (E. Friesen 2013, 27). Thus, rather than being regarded as less genuine, preauthorized giving can be included in the circle of grace model in which donors give regularly and proportionally. Perhaps giving can be seen as a spiritual discipline like prayer; both regular and spontaneous prayer is encouraged. Continuing the discussion of what constitutes genuine giving, I did not anticipate the amount of un-receipted giving I encountered in this research. I enjoy telling the story of the type of fundraising suppers held in small Mennonite communities. Someone experiences a crisis—for example, a house bums down— and an informal group from within the community hosts a dinner. Hundreds of people come, and they deposit money and cheques into a garbage bag, which is given directly to the recipient. This bag can contain tens of thousands of dollars. Suppers like these occur regularly, and the people telling me about them were surprised at my astonishment. No fundraising databases or CRA taxfiler information track this type of giving. This un-receipted giving demonstrates tremendous trust, caring, and sense of community, all themes that recur when looking at reasons for giving. This type of un-receipted giving is not necessarily planned, but it is expected. Just as the pattern of weekly worship promotes regular giving, the very fabric of certain communities also facilitates it. [ Page ] 112 Types of Causes Supported As noted earlier, both Mennonite and Canadian studies have observed giving to a wider variety of causes than in the past. According to my survey, 31 percent of donors gave to a broader category of charities than their parents did, and not one respondent said that they supported the local church exclusively. No one over 55 said that their parents supported a variety of causes beyond Christian circles, and only two people 55 and under said that their parents supported the local church exclusively. As noted in question 1, donors perceive a generational shift in giving. One donor defined the change: “Now we take care of our payments, and then [ask] how much do we have left to give from, where it used to be the reverse — giving used to come first.” This change in attitude recalls the scarcity mindset model, where a perception of scarcity causes diminished giving. Question 24 asked respondents to place a check beside a charity’s name if they had supported it in the last year or two. The list of charities varied for each group and was based on donees3 listed in their congregation’s T3010 report filed with the Canada Revenue Agency. Each group had a list of between 15 and 40 charities, organized by category such as camp, missions, conference. Over 130 causes were selected or written in, and this does not include the various causes listed in the spontaneous causes section. I estimate that the total number of causes/charities supported by this group of 66 donors exceeds 200. Given that about MFC distributed funds to over 700 causes in 2012 (Mennonite Foundation of Canada 2013, 24), this number does not seem high. _________________________ 3 A donee is a registered charitable organization which received hinds from the charity filing the report. [ Page ] 113 One’s place of worship was the number one supported cause: over 80 percent of respondents supported their local church on at least a monthly basis. Second on the list were mission workers: 70 percent of respondents regularly supported a mission worker. A 2009 United Kingdom study of evangelical Christians also reported mission workers as a top cause (Kolaneci 2010, 2). Kids’ causes are the third most frequently supported cause: 47 percent of respondents sponsor a child and 42 percent regularly support a Christian camp or youth centre. Thirty-nine percent of participants make regular contributions to a health charity, but these contributions are made less frequently (quarterly, semi-annually or annually) than other types of regularly supported causes. For Canadian donors, healthcare is the most frequently supported type of charity (Levy 2011, 10). Methods of Giving The donors in my survey gave first and foremost through their local church. The importance of testimony shared in a church setting arose repeatedly during the focus group conversations. One donor said, “Testimony is a stronger motivator than guilt.” While social media and mobile giving generate buzz in the non-profit world, they seldom came up in focus group discussion. In additional to their regularly planned giving, people in my survey also give more spontaneously. As Table 5.4 demonstrates, the top two types of spontaneous causes are local causes and health charities, a pattern which aligns more closely with the general Canadian donor preferences (Turcotte 2012, 28) than monthly giving patterns did. In addition, many of these gifts are in response [ Page ] 114 to being asked in person, in support of an event such as a walk-a-thon. In-person giving is the most common giving method among Canadian donors (Turcotte 2012, 32). Given the types of causes, the smaller amounts given and the giving methods, I suggest that this spontaneous giving compares to the typical Canadian donors’ total giving. For the research participants, the spontaneous giving was auxiliary giving, in addition to their regular support of religious causes. Table 5.4 Frequency Chart of Spontaneous Causes [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 5.4 details ] Trust Trust underlies charitable giving. In this study, the local church was rated the most trustworthy and also received the most regular support. Similarly, Canadians trust hospitals more than other types of charities (Ipsos Reid Public Affairs 2008b, 5), and health-related charities are the most frequently supported cause (Turcotte 2012, 28). Trust in those who are asking for money is a commonly-cited form of [ Page ] 115 trust. To donors it makes a difference whether it is a neighbour or a stranger collecting for the Cancer Society. Familiarity bolsters trust. Donors told me that they gave to their church even if they did not really understand how their church used the money, because they trusted their church. Similarly, donors also said that they gave to missionaries whom they know, even if they were less familiar with the mission agency. On the survey I asked people, “To what extent do you trust the following types of charities?” and gave a list of charities. I borrowed the scale and structure of this question from the Muttart Foundation study. One part of the question was devoted to secular causes. Relief and development charities were the most trusted type of secular charity, although in practice most of the relief and development charities these donors supported were Christian charities. Relief and development was the only category of charity in which my study echoed the Muttart Foundation results (Ipsos Reid Public Affairs 2008a, Table 33). Table 5.5 Trust in Secular Causes Compared to Muttart Survey [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 5.5 details ] [ Page ] 116 MFC constituents trusted education and healthcare charities less than Canadians generally. The level of mistrust in schools, especially secular schools, confirmed my earlier experience that there exists a suspicion of higher education among some Mennonites. Compared to Canadians generally, there was an especially steep drop in trust levels for arts groups, environmental charities and social service agencies. Participants were also less likely to say that they donated to these types of charities. If MFC’s constituency begins to trust these types of organizations more, expect giving to be further diluted amongst many types of causes. Reasons for Giving Do Christian donors have the same reasons for giving as Canadian donors generally? This section compares my research results with the reasons for giving synthesized from the literature review in chapter 3, plus I examine two Christian reasons for giving—tithing and abundance, neither of which appear in secular studies I referenced. Research says that donors give where they have a connection, because they feel an obligation, in response to need and in line with their vision and values. I examine each of these clusters of motivation. I found that connection and vision influence donors the most. The word connection was used so frequently in focus group discussions that it became a coding category when I was doing the transcription analysis. In order to give, donors said they “really have to have some sort of a connection.” [ Page ] 117 One donor astutely noted that “personal connection seems to make a huge difference” on how people give. Donors generally do not give without a sense of connection to the charity or cause, often represented by a connection to an individual. A few donors commented that they did not like the word obligation. Like Canadian donors in the CSGVP (Turcotte 2012, 33), in this study “religious obligation” and “to obtain an income tax credit” were at the bottom of the list of reasons for giving. Some donors might still give out of a sense of duty, but obligation was not a dominant motif in the symphony of why people give. Donors felt bombarded by requests for contributions from needy causes, a feeling congruent with the scarcity mindset model in which charities focus their appeals on neediness and urgency. When the focus group discussion turned to the topic of need, it was most often in the context of donors being overwhelmed by “so many causes.” “So many causes” was so frequently mentioned it became a coding category for my transcription analysis. One donor noted, “You could give your whole paycheque away and people would still phone you.” Donors found it difficult to make giving decisions based on needs when so many charities promoted their neediness. Even when they are responding to natural disasters, I suggest that donors look to the vision and values of the organization in order to determine which causes to support. For example, donors generally trusted Mennonite Central Committee to do disaster relief. Vision and values play a central role in giving decisions. “To help a cause I believe in” was the top reason for giving—by a large margin—whether it was [ Page ] 118 giving to the local church (93 percent), church school or camp (82 percent), or a secular charity such as a hospital (60 percent). The second reason for giving was compassion towards people in need, and the third reason was to make a contribution to the community. Canadian donors in the CSGVP had the same top three reasons for giving, when choosing from the same list of reasons: compassion, then cause, followed by community (Turcotte 2012, 33). Fundraiser J. Clif Christopher cites “a belief in the mission” as the number one reason donors give (Christopher 2008, 13). Figure 5.3 Reasons for Giving [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 5.3 details ] Recall that regular support for mission workers was the top regularly- supported cause, after the local church. While people can support a mission worker for many reasons, I heard comments about “eternal significance” and placing a priority on the gospel. Hence, I suggest support for mission workers combines a belief in the value of evangelism (“a cause I believe in”) with the personal connection to a mission worker. While connection, need, obligation and vision all influence donor behaviour, I think that connection and vision play the biggest roles. [ Page ] 119 Donors were asked to write down their reasons for giving that were not listed in the previous question. I have created a poem based on their responses, which are largely verbatim. The poem testifies to how faith motivates donors’ giving and answers the question: “Why do you give?” more eloquently that the fixed choice question did. [ Page ] 120 “Giving” - A found poem: Q14 Reasons for giving caring for others helping others because it is the right thing to do being our brother's keeper. We will be held accountable for our assets and resources God asks us to give and asks us to give willingly and with joy Giving back to God what is His When I give to the church faithfully, I find God is faithful to provide In obedience of giving, we in turn are blessed. It keeps me from becoming greedy. To tithe to the Lord's work my teaching as a child, my beliefs in giving I give because God has given to me what I have, so I want to give back. to recognize God's goodness to me and my family; I am healthy and can work I feel led by God the Bible says to give to those in need. It’s part of my faith in God. prompted by the Holy Spirit and prayer probably guilt for how much I've got and others don't, church project Sometimes it's just because I was asked. Sometimes it's guilt or because I have extra resources. sometimes I cannot say no. I give because I think that someday I could be the one that is on the receiving end I support “underdog” charities want to help local Mennonite-related groups with small constituents of support I want to encourage those who are working for the charity A charity where I am an alumni to help someone or group out to do mission work to support people who are going out to serve pressure from friends and family. Sometimes I give money for my friends’ kids to go on "mission trips" that appear to be more vacation than mission. Giving and generosity is healthy for the donor. It puts "money" in perspective and helps break the hold "money" has on the donor The joy of giving - makes me feel good [ Page ] 121 The Christian values that donors expressed merit attention. I want to focus on two areas: abundance (“When I give to the church faithfully, I find God is faithful to provide”) and tithing (“To tithe to the Lord's work”). Many donors I met described their faith in God’s abundance by saying something like, “You can’t out-give God;” God is gracious and one can always afford to be generous. In fact, that exact phrase came up so often that I used the acronym of YCOGG as a code in my transcription analysis. The following composite donor profile describes this belief. Janet the God-tester: “You can’t out-give God” Janet laughs and says, “You’ve can’t out-give God, it’s a little game we have.” She is excited to talk about her giving: “You just see God working. So many people don’t see God working in that way because they don’t give him the chance. We run on a pretty tight budget and we make it through every month—we’ve never lacked.... “I don’t notice that it’s gone .... It almost seems like I have more money when 1 give it away..." Janet testifies that her husband became a Christian through their giving, and it’s clear that giving is a big part of her faith. Note that YCOGG donors were not espousing a prosperity gospel that preaches the belief that one gives more in order to get more. Janet acknowledged that her household runs “on a pretty tight budget.” Every time I heard a donor like Janet talk, I lamented the fact that congregations talk about giving so seldom, [ Page ] 122 because donor testimony can be a powerful stewardship lesson. I did ask what percentage of donors’ annual giving was planned in advance. I got two types of answers to this question: the percentage of giving people planned in advance, and the percentage of income people planned to give. Twelve people left the question blank. Clearly, people confused the percentage planned and the percentage given, which diminished the value of the question. However, tithing was frequently discussed and included in the written survey comments. A typical written comment: “I tend to consistently tithe my 10 percent and give above and beyond, when I can.” In the focus group discussions, some of the discussion points were around the more legalistic aspects of tithing such as: • Gross versus net: does one tithe on before- or after-tax income? • Tithes versus offerings: what is the difference and which is directed where? • Should Christians give 10 percent to church, then the rest beyond church or does 10 percent include all giving? While one donor provided a definitive answer to all of these questions, based upon a reading of Deuteronomy, there remain multiple and conflicting interpretations of the requirements of tithing. One viewpoint incorporates tithing into a circle of grace model and is summarized by a composite donor profile. [ Page ] 123 Keith the theologian: “It’s God’s stuff” Keith would be surprised—and possibly insulted—to be called a theologian. Keith runs the auto parts supply shop in town. Keith understands tithing but he’s not legalistic: “10 percent is a good number, but if you can give more, give more. If you can only give 6 or 7 percent, that’s okay.” When asked how he learned to give, Keith talks about God’s ownership: “If you’re just pleasing yourself ... it’s a lot harder to give, because it feels like it’s your money. But if you approach it as if it’s God’s money, not mine, giving is a whole lot easier. It was never mine to begin with.” Keith understands that everything he has belongs to God, that people are stewards of what God has given. There is a paucity of research on how much Mennonites donate to their church. Some tithe, some give more than that, and many give less than the tithe. So, the fictional Keith understands the situation well. More importantly, the recognition of God’s ownership and not just pleasing oneself recalls Gelassenheit, a yieldedness to God. I think that Gelassenheit comes from trust. One donor talked about giving to the local church in obedience to God, even if one did not necessarily agree with all that the church did. This echoes the earlier discussion of Paul’s collection for Jerusalem, a situation in which Paul organizes contributions for a church with whom he has [ Page ] 124 had theological disagreements. I continue the discussion of unity in the next section. To sum up, the donors I encountered in this research are more generous than typical Canadian donors. In fact, my research sample donors are simply too generous to be representative of Christian donors generally. For instance, the estimated 20 percent of self-identified Christians who do not give at all are not represented in my findings. There is nothing about the respondents’ age, income or education that explains their generosity. Many donors plan their giving and almost all give regularly to their local church. To explain their Christian giving these donors talked about tithing and about God’s abundance. Giving followed trust and was frequently motivated by a belief in a cause or shared vision/values, as well as a connection to the charity or to a person representing the charity. Theological Comparison Having compared research findings to the results of the literature review, this section now examines results using the lenses of discipleship, community and unity, as developed in chapter 2. The unity section looks at trust in the church and church institutions. It confirms declining institutional loyalty as posited in chapter 2. The community section looks at donors’ attitude towards the local church as compared to denominational charities, other Christian charities, and secular charities. The discipleship section examines how donors learned to give and how the church nurtures stewardship (or fails to). I begin with unity, because insight [ Page ] 125 into unity helps understand how the concept of community is delineated and how community influences discipleship. Unity MFC’s constituency includes mega-churches and tiny churches, urban churches and rural churches, long-established churches and new churches. While there are certainly churches that connect strongly and passionately to their denomination, overall I found the connection to the denomination weaker than expected and sometimes non-existent. Recall that Paul’s collection for Jerusalem was a theological undertaking intended to promote the unity of the larger church, uniting Gentile and Jewish congregations. Do the survey results suggest that respondents seek to promote the unity of the larger church? This section looks at trust in different levels of the church and church institutions. Trust in Conference Overall, the vast majority of respondents trust their conference: 53 percent trust their conference “a lot” and 32 percent trust their conference “some.” The intensity level drops compared to the local church, which nearly all respondents trust “a lot.” The level of trust matters because people who regularly give to conference are largely (77 percent) from the trust “a lot” category. The Muttart Foundation survey also found a comparable drop in the level of trust between church and religious organizations, excluding churches (Ipsos Reid Public Affairs 2008a, Table 39). Other denominations also struggle with this issue in which it seems that “every church has its own destination,” as one donor [ Page ] 126 lamented. Many people did not know what their conference does. Some people did not care, and some people were apologetic in confessing, “This is probably just my ignorance but.. They did not know how the conference spends its money. There was a frequent disconnect with the work of the larger church. Here is a sampling of donor comments on this topic, beginning with two donors who attended the same congregation: • “I totally trust it [conference], as I do my own church.” • “I don’t feel I know anything about what the conference does. .. .” Other comments on conference: • “We don’t give to the conference our full amount that’s expected. That’s a challenge with some people that are very dedicated to the conference, and some of us that say, ‘Well, we don’t get any value for the money we give to the conference.’” • “I buy a Chevy, I belong to the _____ church. Next time I can buy a Ford.” • "... some tilings about the conference that I do not trust.” • “I do like giving through the church and knowing that ... I am contributing to larger church organizations.” I talked to Christian leaders who lamented their denomination’s lack of ability to communicate their vision with constituent churches. Dr. Barbara Fullerton’s research with the United Church of Canada documents how a demonstrated clarity of vision results in increased support (Fullerton 2009, 111). One leader in my study worried that an increasing service-provider mentality at the denominational level actually encouraged churches to shop around for [ Page ] 127 services such as Sunday school materials. This attitude is also reflected in the “value for money” comment. Conference-affiliated charities It is another step down the trust scale from local church to conference to a conference-affiliated charity. Seventy-nine percent of respondents trust conference-affiliated charities, but they are more likely to rate the trust as “some” rather than “a lot.” Twenty-one percent of participants either trust conference- affiliated charities a little/not at all, or chose not to answer the question. Note that results could be different if I had asked about a specific charity rather than a general category of charities. Figure 5.4 Local Church as Nucleus of Trust [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 5.4 details ] Other Christian Charities Seventy-nine percent of respondents trust Christian charities outside of their conference, the same level of overall trust as conference-affiliated charities. [ Page ] 128 However, people are somewhat more likely to trust conference charities “a lot” than to trust other Christian charities “a lot.” I interpret these results to mean that there are some loyal supporters of denominational charities: they see a difference between their own denomination’s charities and other Christian charities. However, many donors do not make a distinction between denominational charities and other Christian charities. Unity is not solely expressed through the infrastructure of conference or denomination. However, these findings support the conclusions of earlier commentators cited in chapter 2, who observe that institutional loyalty is declining. Community Anabaptists are communal, yet diverse, people. In this section, I first examine some of this diversity and then use survey results to examine donor attitudes towards four levels of charitable structures: (1) local church, (2) charities affiliated with the denomination, (3) other Christian charities, and (4) secular causes. I think that the range of charities supported and attitudes towards those charities help to identify the boundaries of Christian community for the giver, because giving of financial treasure follows the heart’s loyalties. I conclude this section with further examination of giving practices specific to the local church. Diversity of Community Contexts In some contexts, there has been significant change in congregational giving practices. In years past, or in the home country, there had been no money [ Page ] 129 solicited or collected at church. Instead, a prescribed amount was collected at home once a year—“almost like a tax to the church,” one donor said. Moving to a weekly church offering represents a very significant shift. Five miles away from a congregation described above, there might be another congregation with a debit machine in the lobby, which represents a greater openness to both technology and talking about money. In any type of congregation, donors’ experience with the local church defines what they consider to be normal. Comparison of Attitudes to Local Church and Causes Beyond Two pages of the survey were devoted to comparing donors’ experience of giving to four types of charities. The survey question was repeated four times, once each for: (1) local church, (2) charities related to my denomination, (3) Christian charities not related to the donor’s denomination, and (4) secular charities. The question used a Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree and Strongly Disagree scale for the following statements: • I am regularly thanked for my donations. • I am familiar with this charity’s work. • I know how my money is being used. • The charity’s values and my values are compatible. • I am excited about the charity’s vision. • The organization is run efficiently. • I am a regular donor but sometimes I wonder why. [ Page ] 130 The value in these types of questions derives from comparison. Having a certain proportion of respondents agree to something does not carry any objective meaning, the meaning comes from examining relative agreement. (I analyze the first and last statements later in this chapter.) The following graph summarizes responses by looking at combined levels of agree and strongly agree. Figure 5.5 Agreement Levels to Question 12 [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 5.5 details ] In this graph, the pattern of responses makes a wave pattern. The pattern does not matter; what is important to note is the space between the lines. The top dotted line shows that respondents view the local church more favourably than other types of charities. The next two lines demonstrate only a slight difference between denominationally-affiliated charities and other Christian charities. The bottom black line means that secular charities are the least well-regarded. For all types of charities, donors are least likely to agree that they know how their money is being used, and that the charity is efficient. [ Page ] 131 The same graph using only “strongly agree” responses presents a starker view of respondents’ relationship with their local church and raises questions about how well denominational charities share their vision of ministry. Figure 5.6 Strong Agreement Levels to Question 12 [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 5.6 details ] Notice that the slope of the local church line has changed dramatically. Survey respondents are familiar with their local church but less knowledgeable about how the church uses their donations. Fewer than half strongly agree that they share compatible values with their church, and only a minority strongly agree that their local church uses money efficiently. Fewer than 40 percent of respondents strongly agree that they are excited about their local church’s vision. Given that almost everyone who completed this survey trust their local church “a lot,” I find these results quite striking. Going back to the reasons for giving, this data suggests that the relationship with the local church is driven more by [ Page ] 132 connection than by vision. As in the previous graph, the sense of shared values declines with distance from the local church. As one donor noted: “The further away you are from the group ... the harder it is be sure that what’s going on is what you agree with..." These comments underscore the importance of connection in building trust. The lines for denominational charities compared to other Christian charities are quite similar. Note that survey respondents are less familiar with charities from outside their denomination but more excited about these charities’ visions. I suggest this represents the influence of television and other marketing efforts. It is paradoxical that: • Donors want charities to be run efficiently and not “waste” money on administration. • Charities need to spend money on telling the stories of how the charity makes a difference in its ministry so that donors will support their shared vision and values. Since stewardship fits into Christian discipleship, sharing stories that encourage stewardship should be part of every charity’s mission activities. Denominationally-affiliated charities in particular need to heed the story-telling and testimony aspects of their ministry. Being efficient at the expense of being affective will ultimately reduce the capacity of the charity. Communities that do not have shared stories cease to be communities. Two very common shared stories were youth mission trips and church building projects. Several of the churches that hosted focus groups were newly built or renovated. Youth mission trips were frequently discussed. My impressions are that such trips are ubiquitous, easy to fund, and frequently outside [ Page ] 133 of any denominational youth programs. Youth fundraising appeared unrelated to how a congregation gave in other areas. Two churches in two days talked about how they can raise $5,000 to send youth on a missions trip to Mexico in minutes and yet struggle in other areas of giving. Overall, MFC’s constituency has no difficulty funding projects that are meaningful to them. In my summary of the community aspect, I do not want to create an illusion of homogeneity. The local church functions as the nucleus of community, but the types of community vary. Donors give to the church motivated more by the connection of familiarity than by shared vision. Consider the two donor types profiled here. Agatha, the conference loyalist “We are very strong conference people and it hurts us..." Agatha says about the decline in giving to conference. Without the assistance of Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) and the conference in helping her and her husband settle in Canada after the war, what would have become of them? Their loyalty and gratitude to MCC and to their conference are unbounded. “Some of it is payback,” her husband adds. They are saddened that younger generations do not give in the same way, but younger people are not well represented at the church Agatha attends. [ Page ] 134 Brian, the new kid on the block Brian gives to the same camp that Agatha supports, but other than that they have no common causes. He doesn’t have any history with the Mennonite church. As a child, he attended a Catholic church sporadically, and his wife has no church background. They attend a local, recently-planted Mennonite church, where they enjoy the worship and the friendly people. The church connects well to their community. Brian does not know what a conference is. It doesn’t really matter to him or to his congregation. Brian’s giving connections are to the local congregation, the mission workers who share testimonies there, and to the church camp where he volunteers in the summer. His giving pretty much stops where his community stops, as he is largely unaware of any bigger connections. These composite donor profiles illustrate differing understandings of the boundaries of community. As outlined in chapter 2, a pure church tradition and a congregationalist inclination mean considerable autonomy for the individual congregation. I find it significant that church camp provides the common thread for both Brian and Agatha. Discipleship Donors I spoke with were eloquent in their explanations of how their use [ Page ] 135 of time, talent and treasure matters to God: stewardship forms part of discipleship. Most of the donors I spoke with integrated their faith and their giving. One donor commented, “[I] pray better if also writing a cheque.” In this section, I want to look at how donors learned to give and how the church cultivates the discipline of giving. While people learn giving from various sources, people frequently shared stories of family members who modeled tithing. Stories often started like this: “When I was a child I [raised rabbits/pigs, worked for the farm/family business] and learned to give 10 percent to the church.” Donors noted, “If you aren’t taught young, it gets harder as you get older to let go and give.” Some donors had no one to teach them stewardship when they were young. They learned giving from people at church or from their own study. One group talked about the influence of employers, peers and generous business people, who modelled giving. One donor cited the church itself as a good role model of giving and stewardship of the resources it receives. Another donor said, “I served as treasurer in this church for eight years, and my giving increased once I saw how much other people were giving.” This donor’s personal giving increased again as the donor volunteered more and saw incredible need. While the numbers are very small, frequency of giving to the local church, combined with attitudes to the local church, produces an interesting finding. People who give to their church less often (quarterly, semi-annually or annually) are less excited about their church’s vision. I do not know whether this is cause or effect. People who give to their church less frequently are also more likely to [ Page ] 136 agree to the statement, “I am a regular donor but sometimes I wonder why.” Information about who gives regularly and who gives less regularly might be a concern not just for the treasurer or finance committee, but also a topic for pastoral care consideration. How does the church cultivate generosity? In my report to MFC, I coined the phrase “gratitude gap” to refer to the difference in how Christian organizations thank donors, compared to the practices of secular charities. Figure 5.7 shows that donors reported that the local church was the least likely to thank them for their contributions. Figure 5.7 Graph Showing "Gratitude Gap" [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 5.7 details ] While some donors said that a thank you from the church is not required, Fullerton’s research with United Church of Canada identifies that intentionally thanking donors and volunteers is a component of a thriving congregation (Fullerton 2009, 112-113). Christopher bemoans the state of gratitude in church culture (Christopher 2008, 26). Fullerton writes, “We teach that we give out of [ Page ] 137 gratitude to God, yet we don’t practise gratitude with one another” (Fullerton 2009, 113). Praise acknowledges the source of generosity (2 Cor. 9:11-15), and Fullerton provides examples of how to thank God for the generosity shown in the church (Fullerton 2009, 112-113). The donors in my focus groups knew that the church should be more intentional about cultivating giving as part of Christian discipleship. They did not need to see the data on the importance of gratitude nor the numbers that suggest donors who give less regularly might be expressing their lack of connection with the church. Here are some of their observations: • If pastors knew their congregants’ giving patterns, they could counsel people. • Do we all have the resources to make good choices? • “As our kids grow up, there’s so many voices calling for their dollars, except the church.” Donors also shared suggestions on how the church could encourage giving, since many thought that “part of the reason people don’t give is a lack of education:” • “I think if people shared why...” [as in why they give] • Teach people about finances so they can give. • Gratitude provides a basis for a small-group stewardship discussion— even people who complain a lot should be able to come up with something they are thankful for! • Receipts and church bulletin budget updates should say thank you. I am encouraged that congregants have concrete ideas on how to address the gap in stewardship education. Their suggestions are practical and easily implemented. [ Page ] 138 Encouraging testimonies about faithful giving, increased teaching on financial stewardship, and saying thank you should be within the grasp of almost every congregation. Such steps would nurture discipleship and build community. On a conference level, sharing stories would increase connection and shared vision, which could lead to increased giving and—more importantly—a stronger sense of shared identity and unity. Comparison to Earlier Hypotheses on Giving as Reported in Mennonite Press In chapter I, Table 1.2 summarized reasons for decreasing and increasing giving, as reported in the Mennonite press. I revisit the hypotheses for increasing and decreasing giving. I begin with the hypothesized reasons for increased giving to some organizations: (1) confidence in leadership, (2) sense of shared mission, (3) connection with organization. Table 5.6 maps these hypotheses to reasons for giving found in this research. Table 5.6 Comparison of Reasons for Increasing Giving [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 5.6 details ] The reasons for decreasing giving are varied and complex. Conferences [ Page ] 139 are experiencing decreasing giving more than the local congregations that support the conferences. Table 5.7 looks at reasons for decreased giving, as outlined in chapter 1 and compares them with findings from chapter 5. This project was focused on why people give more rather than on why people do not give; however, 1 think the research yields insights into these hypotheses. Repeating this research over time would answer these questions more conclusively. Table 5.7 Reasons for Decreasing Giving: Comparing Hypotheses to Research Findings [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 5.7 details ] Transforming Exchanges Transforming exchanges propelled this research forward, as the earlier discipleship discussion demonstrates. Both conducting and presenting this [ Page ] 140 research involved a series of transforming exchanges. Transforming Exchanges While Conducting Research I consider each of the ten focus groups to be a transforming exchange, not just for me but for the participants. People shared testimony, faith stories, confessions, laments and rants. Many people had taken time to reflect upon their giving before coming to the session. In several sessions, people in the group posed questions to others in the group. I felt that I had created a safe space in which participants could discuss their giving. Comments like, “How can we get settings to have this [stewardship] conversation?” made me realize that people often did not have another forum where they can ask these types of questions. In some cases, the focus group also allowed donors to interact with people from other churches and conferences. I recall donors, only partly in jest, asking another person to come speak about giving at that donor’s home church. I also spoke to pastors and church treasurers individually. In one case, this conversation provided the opportunity for the pastor to ask the treasurer about giving patterns, a discussion that had not occurred before. Another pastor reflected on how his church could be more grateful in thanking donors, rather than focusing on worrying whether the donors had given enough. One congregational leader told me that the congregation had been seeking ways to start the discussion on stewardship, and this leader was pleased that the focus group opportunity just “fell into our laps.” The research process modelled a way for the congregation to begin to talk further about their giving. [ Page ] 141 An unexpected research outcome created an opportunity to propose future action. While conducting this research, I observed that Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) thrift shop volunteers are the ideal demographic for planned giving workshops. On the same day, I met someone from MFC for coffee and someone from MCC for lunch. I proposed the same idea to both. Many research participants were interested in receiving a copy of the results, and pastors who could not arrange focus group participants were nonetheless interested in the focus group results. I have had numerous stewardship conversations with pastors and church leaders, in addition to the pastors whose churches participated in the research. To avoid any potential of readers trying to identify participating congregations, I have not named any of the pastors I spoke with. While conducting this research, I have been given three sets of congregational giving data, because people wanted to talk about the numbers. Churches often do not talk about money. Just as the focus groups provided an opportunity for people to talk about their individual giving, they also provided an opportunity for people to talk about their church’s collective giving. Each transforming exchange leads to greater awareness and intentionality in stewardship. Transforming Exchanges While Presenting Research The act of presenting this research has raised awareness about how and why church members give and resulted in numerous steps towards nurturing [ Page ] 142 stewardship. This research has been discussed within MFC, beyond MFC, beyond Canada, and beyond Mennonites. When I presented my survey findings to a small group of MFC management and staff, the presentation was two hours long. There were many questions, and the discussion was lively. The research results clearly related to their work, and in many cases confirmed their intuition and anecdotal experience. One person exclaimed, “So I’m not crazy!” MFC Communications Strategist Jesse Huxman said that the research provided an additional perspective as MFC staff and board look at long-term decisions, and that it has helped MFC with more “data-driven decision making” (Huxman 2013). The research has helped with MFC’s strategic planning, in terms of how to position the foundation’s message. Because MFC is a donor-advised foundation, they follow giving trends closely and ask, “Where’s our next area of growth?” (Huxman 2013). MFC staff regularly interacts with donors, congregations, and Christian leaders at the institutional and conference level. One MFC consultant used my researching findings in a congregational workshop. That prompted one congregant who sits on the board of a local charity to request a copy of the research so that he could show it to the organization. This exchange led MFC to organize a workshop in which I presented my findings to eleven different non- profit organizations. The response to the MFC workshop I conducted was very appreciative and genuine. The presentation generated many questions and vigorous discussion. [ Page ] 143 I cannot fully measure how far this research travelled, but I know that it has. For example, at an MFC event, I had dinner with a board member, who had read my report in detail and wanted to discuss the connection between regular giving and strength of connection to the local church. MFC Executive Director Darren Pries-Klassen used this research in discussions with church leaders. He said that it is hard for conference leaders to hear about donors’ lack of trust in their conferences, but it is something that some of these leaders already know (Pries-Klassen 2013). The conferences need to clarify their vision, build connection with people in the pews, and move away from the scarcity model. MFC is receptive to more ideas as to how this research could be used, and I predict that there are more transforming exchanges to come. My letter and article in the Canadian Mennonite magazine both generated response. I got three thank-you emails in response to the letter to the editor and, three months later, got an affirmative comment about this brief letter. I found out that a gathering of Mennonite development officers in the U.S. discussed this letter. Many people also read the article. A Mennonite church leader saw me at a quilt auction and asked when my research would be published. Numerous people have asked to be kept informed about the status of my writing. I am especially encouraged by the interest in this research from beyond Mennonite circles. The next iteration of this action research will likely happen outside a Mennonite context, as I am currently working on a donor research proposal. This validates the transferability of this research. [ Page ] 144 The next section looks specifically at the gratitude gap which generated so much discussion during the research presentations. Transforming Exchanges Case Study: The “Gratitude Gap” The term gratitude gap refers to the finding that donors reported their local church was the least likely to thank them for their donations. Figure 5.8 provides a simplified illustration of my interactions on this topic. This action research case study shows how transforming exchanges permeated this project, and how methods and findings influenced each other. Next page: Figure 5.8 Action Research Cycles on the Subject of Gratitude [ Page ] 145 [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 5.8 details ] [ Page ] 146 My analysis of the results from the “I am regularly thanked for my donations” question was informed by the focus group discussions. These discussions caused donors and pastors alike to wonder aloud how their church could better cultivate gratitude on many levels: encouraging giving in response to God’s generosity, celebrating gifts received as a congregation, and thanking donors who were the conduits for the gifts. Gratitude infuses the circle of grace model of giving. When I presented my results orally to MFC management and regional consultants in March 2013, the gratitude gap finding stood out to the audience. My subsequent written report was informed by that presentation. As a result, and to glean further wisdom, I returned to sources that spoke of the importance of gratitude. I highlighted the gratitude gap in my written report and created a series of composite donor profiles, based on a suggestion from an MFC consultant. I had these fictional characters reviewed by a non-Mennonite reader and realized that they had story-telling potential. The written report to MFC led to further transforming exchanges. MFC Executive Director Darren Pries-Klassen said that—when he showed people the gratitude gap graph, which shows the percentage of people who agree that they are regularly thanked for their donations—they responded by saying, “My church would be zero percent.” These people realized that their church did not thank donors at all. An MFC consultant connected me with Brent Babcock, an associate pastor from the downtown Toronto site of The Meeting House. The Meeting House is a [ Page ] 147 multi-site Brethren in Christ (Anabaptist) church, which works with MFC but is not formally connected. Babcock was interested in my research as he was also providing some input to new strategy for their broader sites, as it related to finance and giving. He said the three most valuable things were the findings on thanking donors regularly, planning one’s giving, and generational difference as it applies to donor relationship and communication. My research assisted Babcock to “formalize a multi-faceted go-forward strategy, both at an individual site level as well as for their cross regional support” (Babcock 2013). In my article based on my research findings for the Canadian Mennonite magazine in July 2013, I included the composite donor profiles and emphasized the importance of gratitude in nurturing generosity. I received immediate and positive feedback to the article. I attended a fundraising dinner for a Mennonite college shortly after the article appeared and discovered that many people had already read it. A relative talked about how churches should say thank you, while we were washing the dishes at a family event. For my slides for the Canadian Council of Christian Charities (CCCC) annual conference in September 2013, I made a new graph with the “gratitude gap” findings, separate from the other statements in the same question (see Figure 5.7). I rehearsed my presentation at my local church, and listeners engaged in 40 minutes of questions afterwards. Gratitude was frequently mentioned. Some people did not agree that churches should thank donors, because they believed that people should give regardless of whether they receive thanks. I have noticed that it is always older people who voice this concern, which substantiates the [ Page ] 148 finding that baby boomers and younger generations have different expectations. I articulated ways for a congregation to thank God for faithful donors, which is essential. I also used the story in which Jesus healed ten lepers and only one Samaritan came back to say thank you. I wondered: might Jesus have been speaking to the church? The leaders of my own church have since asked me to be a resource person as they change how they present the annual budget. The CCCC presentation to an audience of Christian non-profit staff went very well. Thirty-four people attended and the room was full. There were numerous questions and comments throughout, with time for ten minutes of questions at the end, plus many informal questions afterwards and during the following day of the conference. Gratitude was again a topic of discussion. One person made an audio recording of me reading the poem based on responses to why people give. I am encouraged that people responded favourably to my presentation and found that it had practical value to them. In summary, this research concerns stewardship in many senses of the word. I feel grateful and humbled to have heard so many stories of generosity while conducting this research. It was a privilege to encounter such big hearts open to God’s purposes in the world. I am a steward of these donors’ stories. When I tell them, I emphasize the trust which provides the foundation for giving. A sense of connection and shared vision direct the giving, and a deep faith in God pervades every step. I hope that sharing stories of stewardship inspires more theological reflection and faith-based action to encourage participation in the circle of grace. [ Page ] 149 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS This chapter summarizes my findings and presents my pyramid/inverted- pyramid model hypothesis for why Anabaptist giving is shifting. I incorporate my “Why we should treat our donors more like horses and less like cows” theme from my workshop presentations into this hypothesis. I further develop an integrated model of giving, as introduced in chapter 1, by including gratitude and trust in the model. I conclude with an outline of directions for future research. Summary of Key Findings I have presented and discussed these findings in a variety of settings. I have found they are transferable and applicable in a range of Christian contexts. If I had thirty seconds in an elevator with a Christian leader I would say: Trust is everything. Donors are motivated by a sense of shared vision and values. Tell your stories! Donors give to causes to which they feel connected, and they are most familiar with their local church. Don’t treat donors like cows who are expected to give without knowing why they should give. Instead, treat donors like horses, with whom you need to cultivate a relationship and point towards the finish line of a common goal. Don’t assume donors learned how to give or know what you do. Practice what you preach on gratitude. Christians give in grateful response to God’s grace; so, say thank you. Not only is gratitude theologically sound, but your secular competition says thank you better than you do. Table 6.1 summarizes key findings from this research. I believe almost every congregation or Christian organization could find a discussion starter here. [ Page ] 150 Table 6.1 Summary of Key Findings [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 6.1 details ] [ Page ] 151 Hypothesis for Why Mennonite Giving is Changing I have developed a model for how giving in the Mennonite church is changing. I think the model also applies to other Christian denominations that in the past consisted of people who lived and worshipped in the same community (Bell 2013). The model begins with the right-side-up pyramid on the left side of Figure 6.1. Community rests on unity, and discipleship is based on community. In its purest form, unity comes from Mennonites separating from the world and living together in largely homogenous Mennonite communities. An obvious example would be an Old Order or Old Colony communities, where people can easily be identified by distinctive clothing and where controlled access to technology (communications, transportation, education) maintains community cohesiveness. Figure 6.1 Inverted-Pyramid Model of Mennonite Giving [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 6.1 details ] In the separated-from-the-world pyramid model, unity is emphasized and community is valued highly. Discipleship remains an individual practice but is regulated and informed by church and community norms. The strong community bonds mean that much teaching about discipleship can be implicit rather than [ Page ] 152 explicit. It is possible to expect certain behaviours of group members without explaining why those behaviours are necessary. For example in stewardship, “You give because you should give” becomes a workable model. A sound theology of stewardship exists within the community, but it is lived rather than explained. Discipleship rests upon community norms, grounded in the unity of the believers. Post-Christendom topples the pyramid. I use Anabaptist scholar Stuart Murray Williams’ definition of post-Christendom as “the culture that emerges” as Christian churches lose influence in a society that had been previously shaped by Christian institutions (Murray 2010, 78-79). Many Christians, Mennonites included, do not live within a like-minded community but instead live in an individualistic, pluralistic society, with unlimited access to technology, transportation and education. They are mobile and scattered. The worshipping community does not equate to the geographic community. Church community practice builds on individual discipleship instead of the other way around. Discipleship remains an individual practice, but is much less regulated and informed by church and community norms. Post-Christendom is emerging more quickly in urban areas than in rural areas. Expecting people to practice behaviours such as charitable giving without explaining why they are needed does not work in the inverted-pyramid model. The community infrastructure that enables stewardship teaching to be implicit rather than explicit does not exist. Individuals have made the transition to the inverted-pyramid model more quickly than institutions. In my view, some [ Page ] 153 Mennonite institutions expect donor support without adequately explaining why donors should give. Institutions risk being regarded simply as service providers when they fail to enable a connection of shared vision and values. Table 6.2 Summary of Pyramid and Inverted-Pyramid Models [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 6.2 details ] Some Mennonite institutions have interpreted the declining giving in this inverted-pyramid as scarcity and have presumed that donors have limited resources (as introduced in the scarcity mindset in chapter 2). In reaction to the presumed scarcity, institutions have focused on their neediness instead of sharing their vision for the future. Donors direct their resources to where they feel a connection and sense a common vision. Donors too might assume they have a scarcity of resources, but again, I think their resources are simply consumed in different ways. The church faces the challenge of needing to nurture and develop stewardship among its members. Church leaders cannot assume that believers trust their cause or know how to give. [ Page ] 154 In my workshop presentations, I expressed this inverted-pyramid change as: “New Canadian research into Christian giving: Why we need to treat our donors more like horses and less like cows.” In the model of the right-side-up pyramid, treating donors like cows works. Cows do not need intensive training, and they are faithful givers. Cows do need to trust the farmer, and they value familiarity. Churches and charities can be less intentional about nurturing stewardship, because family structures and unspoken community expectations will perform that role. Duty and obligation are primary reasons for giving. There is no need to acknowledge giving or to say thank you, because it is assumed and expected that people will give. I suspect that even thanking God for donations received does not fit well into this model. Donors in the inverted-pyramid model need to be treated more like horses. Trust must be earned, and the training required is intensive. Horses are not bom knowing how to run the Kentucky Derby, nor even how to wear a saddle. Training a horse demands a connection between horse and rider. I picture a jockey whispering in a horse’s ear and pointing to the finish line. Success requires shared vision. Donors ask where the money is going. Connection and vision, rather than duty and need, are the primary reasons for giving. Donors will not automatically give because their parents gave, if indeed their parents were givers. In the inverted-pyramid model, donors give to a wider variety of causes. The secular causes they donate to are consistently grateful for the donations. The Christian charities beyond the denomination tell their stories well. Communities are more diverse. It is a challenging environment in which to raise funds, but like [ Page ] 155 Paul’s collection for Jerusalem, I think the inverted-pyramid model provides opportunities to treat stewardship as spiritual formation and to use giving to a common cause to build up the unity of believers. Integrated Model of Giving In the interest of promoting stewardship as spiritual formation, I develop a fuller integrated model of giving. This version of the model includes gratitude and trust in the center. To promote intentionality in stewardship, Christian leaders need to promote trust and gratitude on the vertical axis between God and people, and on the horizontal axis between donor and recipient. Figure 6.2 Integrated Model of Giving [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure 6.2 details ] I start by looking at the model in a clockwise direction. Giving begins with recognition of God’s grace. Recognizing God’s grace turns a perceived scarcity into abundance and results in gratitude. Note that, if trust in God’s provision is [ Page ] 156 absent, then a scarcity mindset results, regardless of how many resources are present. If gratitude is absent, donors may give out of a dry sense of duty rather than in grateful response to God’s abundance. Moving clockwise from people as donors to people as recipients, note that, if God is absent from the model, community can result from giving but praise and thanksgiving to God as a result of the gifts will be lacking. I suspect that congregations often fail to publicly thank God for financial gifts received. Certainly the evidence from this research suggests that they neglect to thank their donors. Gratitude needs to be cultivated on both the horizontal and vertical axes. Trust also needs to be cultivated on both axes. In a post-Christendom culture, trust in divine providence is profoundly counter-cultural and cannot be assumed. Similarly, organizations—particularly denominations and related agencies—cannot presume that their members trust them. The donor needs to trust the person/organization asking for the donation; hence my conviction that donors must be treated more like horses and less like cows. Thanking donors and telling them how their donation will be used expresses gratitude and builds trust, an easy and obvious step for charities seeking to be intentional in nurturing generosity. The charities need to build connection and promote shared vision and values. Future Research Directions The integrated giving model and pyramid/inverted-pyramid models would be strengthened if this research were replicated in other settings. In this section I examine survey questions that should be added or changed in future replications. I [ Page ] 157 also suggest directions for further research into Christian giving. It would be helpful to add the following questions in the written survey. Table 6.3 Additional Survey Questions [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table 6.3 details ] Initially, I had thought that asking about tithing was too intrusive a question, but now I think that most people would have answered it. In future surveys, greater clarity would be achieved if question 13, about reasons for giving to three different causes, were instead three separate questions. Validating the Pyramid Model How can research validate the pyramid model? A cynic might suggest that, if church institutions begin collapsing in ten or twenty years from lack of donors and volunteers, then the model is proved true. However, that contradicts the spirit of action research. Research could measure if the whole inverted- pyramid model of Christian institutions is being supported by a smaller number of donors. This research looked at the giving of people who volunteered to attend a focus group on charitable giving. Respondents were more generous than a typical [ Page ] 158 Canadian donor, and also more generous than some Christian donors. It begs the question: if the donors I talked to are so generous, why are some charities struggling? Could the more generous donors be holding up the pyramid on behalf of others; are fewer Christian donors giving more? The state of Christian giving concerns the entire Canadian charitable sector, because Christian donors also substantially support secular causes. The CSGVP data shows that weekly religious service attendees significantly increased their average giving from 2004 to 2007 (M. Hall et al. 2009, 23). This suggests a pattern, but the CSGVP research does not distinguish Christians from other religions, and it categorizes people who attend services less than weekly in the same group as people who do not attend at all. So, the question remains: are fewer Christian donors giving more? I posit three ways to answer this question. The second and third options have similar focus questions which I list afterwards. Here are the suggested methods: 1. National survey: Conduct a Canada-wide phone/internet survey similar in scale to the Muttart Foundation Talking about charities study, to measure the percentage of Canadians who attend church regularly and who support religious causes with their donations. Attention would need to be given to the definitions of regular church attendance and religious causes, as I argue in chapter 3. The survey would need to be repeated over time to establish a baseline for comparison. 2. Congregational study: Work with giving records from a variety of congregations. T3010 data would be of limited value here because it does not specify the number of donors. This data could shed light on whether fewer donors are giving more to maintain local congregations. 3. Charity study: Work with donor records from a variety of Christian charities. Presumably these records are more likely to be stored digitally than congregational records. [ Page ] 159 For both congregational and charity studies, the questions would be the same: • How many donors supported the organization in each of the past 10 years? • What percentage of the total donations came from the top 20 percent of givers? • Are the top 20 percent of donors providing an increasing portion of total giving? • Do different generations (baby boomers, etc.) give differently? Quantitative research can help identify trends but cannot address why these trends occur. Replicating the survey and focus group research I have done here with non- givers and sporadic givers would help answer the question of why some Christians are giving less. In conclusion, recall the key verse: “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:21, Luke 12:34). I stress that charitable giving concerns the heart more than the pocketbook. While 1 am concerned about giving trends and the future of Christian institutions, ultimately the success of the church will be measured in faithfulness and not in dollars. I care more about the future of stewardship praxis within Christian discipleship than about institutional survival. Creative means to nurture generosity abound: music, testimony, drama, story-telling, celebration, and other expressions of gratitude. I have tried to model this within the confines of academic writing. While I hope my research generates further study, even more I hope that my research inspires grateful giving. [ Page ] 160 APPENDIX A: RESEARCH TIMELINE Names have been omitted where they could be linked to a congregation from MFC’s constituency, whether or not that congregation participated in this research. Table A.1 Research Timeline [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table A.1 details ] [ Page ] 161 [ Table A.1 continues, please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table A.1 details ] [ Page ] 162 [ Table A.1 continues, please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table A.1 details ] [ Page ] 163 [ Table A.1 continues, please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table A.1 details ] [ Page ] 164 APPENDIX B: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE N. B. This questionnaire has been reformatted to fit the printing requirements of this thesis. Please answer the following questions. We will go over the completed surveys as a group; so, you will have opportunity to explain what you meant or to challenge the question. You may choose not to answer any question. 1. Thinking back to your parents’ generation, do you think that charitable giving habits are changing over time? o Yes, patterns of giving are changing quite a bit o Maybe some change o No, not really 2. Which statement about giving patterns best applies to your parents? o My parents supported their local church exclusively o My parents focused their giving on their local church and causes linked to the church o My parents liked to support a variety of causes beyond Christian circles 3. Which statement about giving patterns best applies to you? o I/we support our local church exclusively o I/we focus our giving on our local church and causes linked to the church o I/we like to support a variety of causes beyond Christian circles 4. In the next year, would you say that your charitable giving Will increase stay about the same decrease 5. Why are your giving patterns changing, or why are they staying the same? ____________________________________________________________________________ 6. To what extent do you trust the following types of charities? [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for table details ] [ Page ] 165 [ Table continues, please contact repository@tyndale.ca for table details ] 7. Please circle the frequency that best applies to your situation. I prefer to plan my giving in advance Usually Most of the time Sometimes Rarely 8. What percentage of your annual giving is planned in advance? i.e. a regular amount to the same charity, pre-authorized deductions, post- dated cheques etc._____ 9. How do you make those plans? Do you plan differently for giving from income vs. giving from assets (e.g. sale of business or cottage)? 10. What types of charities do you regularly support? Please add other causes to the table. [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for table details ] [ Page ] 166 [ Table continues, please contact repository@tyndale.ca for table details ] 11. Looking back over the past year, which types of charities have you supported on a more spontaneous basis? A spontaneous gift is a ‘spur of the moment’ gift that is not anticipated nor planned for in advance. Charity Occasion for spontaneous gift Amount (optional) 12. Thinking about the various types of charities you support, how would you compare your experience of giving? Mark your level agreement on the scale, with 1 being Strongly Agree and 5 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly Agree Agree nor Disagree disagree 1 2 3 4 5 Local Church I am regularly thanked for my donations 1 2 3 4 5 I am familiar with this charity’s work 1 2 3 4 5 I know how my money is being used 1 2 3 4 5 The charity’s values and my values are compatible 1 2 3 4 5 [ Page ] 167 I am excited about the charity’s vision 1 2 3 4 5 The organization is run efficiently 1 2 3 4 5 I am a regular donor but sometimes I wonder why 1 2 3 4 5 Charities related to my denomination I am regularly thanked for my donations 1 2 3 4 5 I am familiar with this charity’s work 1 2 3 4 5 I know how my money is being used 1 2 3 4 5 The charity’s values and my values are compatible 1 2 3 4 5 I am excited about the charity’s vision 1 2 3 4 5 The organization is run efficiently 1 2 3 4 5 I am a regular donor but sometimes I wonder why 1 2 3 4 5 Christian charities NOT related to my denomination I am regularly thanked for my donations 1 2 3 4 5 I am familiar with this charity’s work 1 2 3 4 5 I know how my money is being used 1 2 3 4 5 The charity’s values and my values are compatible 1 2 3 4 5 I am excited about the charity’s vision 1 2 3 4 5 The organization is run efficiently 1 2 3 4 5 I am a regular donor but sometimes I wonder why 1 2 3 4 5 Secular charities (e.g. hospital, Cancer Society etc.) I am regularly thanked for my donations 1 2 3 4 5 I am familiar with this charity’s work 1 2 3 4 5 I know how my money is being used 1 2 3 4 5 The charity’s values and my values are compatible 1 2 3 4 5 I am excited about the charity’s vision 1 2 3 4 5 The organization is run efficiently 1 2 3 4 5 I am a regular donor but sometimes I wonder why 1 2 3 4 5 [ Page ] 168 13. Reasons for giving - Please choose your top 3 reasons for giving by putting a 1,2 and 3 next to them in each column. [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for table details ] 14. What other reasons for giving would you add to this list? _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ 15. Please select which church conference you belong to: o Chortitzer Mennonite Conference o Evangelical Bergthaler Mennonite Conference o Evangelical Mennonite Conference o Evangelical Mennonite Mission Conference o Evangelical Missionary Church of Canada o Mennonite Church Alberta ( MC Canada) o Mennonite Church British Columbia ( MC Canada) o Mennonite Church Eastern Canada ( MC Canada) o Mennonite Church Manitoba ( MC Canada) o Mennonite Church Saskatchewan ( MC Canada) o Northwest Mennonite Conference o Other (please specify)_____________________________________ [ Page ] 169 16. Please write the name of your congregation: ___________________________________________________ 17. Gender: Female_____ Male_____ 18. Age: In what year were you born? _____ 19. Marital status o Single o Widowed o Married o Separated/divorced o Other 20. What is the highest level of education you have completed? o Grade school or some high school o High school o College, trade school o Some university o University graduate o Post-graduate university 21. How often do you attend church services? o At least once a week o At least once or twice a month o Three or four times a year o Once or twice a year o Never 22. How would you describe your employment status o Looking after family members o Working full-time o Self-employed o Working part-time o Retired o Student o Unemployed [ Page ] 170 23. Household annual income - this is used to categorize answers and to substantiate my claim that I talked to a variety of people. □ Less than $20,000 □ $20,000 to $39,999 □ $40,000 to $59,999 □ $60,000 to $79,999 □ $80,000 to $99,999 □ $100,000 and over □ Prefer not to answer 24. Please check which of the following charities you have supported in the past year or two. This is not an exhaustive list, but may help you remember. Please write in the names of other organizations. Conference □ Evangelical Mennonite Conference □ Evangelical Mennonite Missionary Conference □ EMC Missions Education □ Emmanuel Christian Academy □ South Shore Christian School □ Steinbach Bible College □ UMEI International Relief □ Canadian Foodgrains Bank □ Mennonite Central Committee □ Salvation Army □ Samaritan’s Purse Local □ Leamington Mennonite Home Missions □ Chosen People Ministries □ Family Life Network □ Focus On The Family □ Grace Missions □ Janz Team Ministries □ Radio Bible Class □ The Childrens Bible Hour □ The Gospel Troubadours Prison Fellowship [ Page ] 171 APPENDIX C: RATIONALE FOR SURVEY DESIGN A survey makes a great tool both for capturing demographic data and as a conversation starter for the group interviews. Demographic information is essential for comparing Mennonite donors to Canadian donors. A paper based questionnaire is a more efficient and confidential way to obtain demographic information. I doubt people would be comfortable sharing their age and income verbally in a group setting. For the attitudinal questions, the written survey provides a useful comparative tool for quantitative analysis. This section outlines how action research methodology informed the survey design, looks at the framework of knowledge used to formulate the questions, and reviews the rationale for each specific question. Survey Design as Action Research This questionnaire has been through several cycles of action research, as shown in Figure C.l. I began with literature review and discussion with Darren Pries-Klassen. He then reviewed my initial questionnaire, which was presented to the MFC board in October 2011. The questionnaire was subsequently tested by my cohort working group, which had some helpful suggestions. My advisor also suggested I explain why and how I chose the questions. The process of writing this rationale resulted in an additional refinement of the survey. The survey was then reviewed by my advisor Elaine Becker, and by Mike Strathdee from MFC. Next page: Figure C.l Action Research Cycle of Survey Design [ Page ] 172 [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure C.1 details ] [ Page 173 ] Framework for Defining Research Questions Based on my previous research, as well as a literature review, I have a list of possible reasons for giving: • Stable income, enough to share • Response to urgent need • I am excited about the organization’s long-term vision • Familiarity with the organization’s work • Trust in leadership of organization • I know what this agency will do with my donation • I have volunteered with this organization • Someone I know well is volunteering with this organization • This organization has told its story really well • We (my parents/my church) have traditionally supported this organization • To keep the institution going, loyalty • Gratitude for God’s grace • Obligation, sense of duty • Biblical mandate - tithing • Learned generosity at a young age • Organization is very efficient at doing it’s work It will not work to ask people to choose their motivation for giving from a list (due to social desirability bias) but these are the types of reasons I will be listening for in the group interview. Of course, there are reasons for giving not on this list and the interview format should help to discover those as well. The rest of this section outlines a rationale for each specific question. Rationale for Specific Questions Q1-5 Giving patterns over time These are simple checkboxes to choose the statement which best applies. The purpose of these questions is to determine if the respondents have different [ Page ] 174 giving patterns than their parents, and to elicit if their giving patterns will be changing in the next year. Q6 Trust This question on trust is adapted from a similar question asked by the Muttart Foundation survey in 2008 (Ipsos Reid Public Affairs 2008a, 59). I have divided the charities into Christian and secular categories where the source question did not make this distinction. This makes a direct comparison to the Muttart results more difficult; however, I am still able to compare the relative ranking of different types of charities. Without making the Christian vs. secular designation specific the results will not be useful to me. For instance, I think donors will feel differently about their local Bible college than a regional university. If I simply ask about levels of trust in educational charities without making this distinction clear, the aggregate answers will be meaningless. I placed this question early in the survey before any questions about which charities the person supports because I want this question to be independent of their actual giving. Q7-9 Planning giving in advance Questions 7 and 8 will be used to identify people who plan their giving compared to people who give more spontaneously. I hypothesize that these two groups will have different motivations for giving. Question 9 about income vs. assets is at the request of Darren Pries-Klassen (Pries-Klassen 2011) who wants to ensure that these two very different types of giving behaviours are identified. [ Page ] 175 Q10-11 Regular vs. spontaneous giving These questions probe for more detail on the types, frequencies and amounts of both regular and spontaneous giving. There are numerous interesting correlations to be explored here: Do people trust their regularly supported charities more? Are the spontaneous charities different types of causes than the regularly supported ones'? It will be interesting to explore this qualitatively as well. MFC works in the area of planned giving; so, they are interested in how people plan their giving and/or why they choose to give spontaneously. Q12 Experience of giving This question compares the donor’s experience of giving to the church, conference affiliated charities, other Christian charities and secular charities. It provides the most explicit attitudinal comparison for these four categories. In my previous research on giving, I had some donors tell me that while they regularly gave to their church, it was not the most exciting cause (Reesor 2007a, 29). Hence, I cannot assume that size of gift equates to level of excitement about the cause. This attitudinal data matched with levels of trust and the types of charities regularly supported could be very illuminating. Q13-14 Reasons for giving Question 13 has been borrowed from CSGVP (M. Hall et al. 2009, 31). Question 14 is open-ended so that people can supply their own reasons. I do not want people to simply choose the most ‘spiritual’ reason from a list. [ Page ] 176 Q15-16 Church and Conference Identification To identify which sustaining conference the respondent belongs to, and to ensure that multiple congregations from each conference are represented. The name of the church is not used in the analysis. Q17-23 Demographics These are standard demographic questions. Question 18, 20, 21 and 22 are borrowed or modified from the Muttart Foundation’s survey of Canadian donors (Ipsos Reid Public Affairs 2008a, 57-65). Question 23 uses income ranges from CSGVP (M. Hall et al. 2009, 19). These questions are essential for two reasons: i. to ensure that my sampling is as inclusive and representative as possible ii. to enable comparisons between this research and other studies. Placement of these questions was difficult. I initially placed these questions at the beginning in an effort to be transparent and to avoid creating an impression of ‘hiding’ the difficult questions later in the survey. However, MFC consultant Mike Strathdee recalled previous church surveys in which such questions had provoked negative responses and he suggested moving the demographic questions to the end. If people do react negatively, there are fewer following questions that could be impacted. Q24 Charities supported The list of charities was different for every group. The charities listed were based on causes supported by focus group participants’ congregations, as listed in the publicly available T3010 returns. [ Page ] 177 APPENDIX D: ETHICS REVIEW DOCUMENTS I am including the Ethics review document submitted in spring 2012, followed by the letter of information and consent forms. All have been reformatted to fit the printing requirements of this thesis. Ethics Considerations for my Proposal My research involves administering a questionnaire and conducting group interviews with donors from denominations affiliated with Mennonite Foundation Canada. There will be approximately 187 donors in multiple locations across Western Canada and Ontario. I will be collecting personal information about age, income, education and annual giving but not names. For example, Mrs. Giesbrecht might be Donor 1 from Church A, Chortitzer Conference. As per the Tri-Council Policy Statement on research ethics (TCPS 2), there are five main areas where I need to be explicitly intentional about ethics; • Inclusion: trying to get a broad mix of participants • Informed consent: Explaining the research to the participants • Protecting the identity of research participants • Safeguarding confidential data • Providing a means for research participants to read the final report Inclusion. I plan to include a mix of ages in my research and to interview women as well as men. 1 will encourage broad participation but cannot mandate the group composition. Informed Consent. I will introduce myself, explain the purpose of the project and how the research will be conducted. There needs to be ample room for [ Page ] 178 questions. I have attached a sample script of what I will say to my participants. I will outline the type of information I will be collecting and explain that they can decline to answer any question or stop participating at any time. With their permission, I plan to audiotape the discussion. If someone declines to participate partway through, I will need to ask if I can use their comments up until that point, ignore their comments in the transcription, or rewind the recording and begin again. I also need to provide contact information for myself, Tyndale and Mennonite Foundation. Protecting Identity. I need to protect respondents’ identities and their confidential information. No names will be used and the personal demographic information will only be used in aggregate form. Quotes from the interview will be used in such a way that the person cannot be identified. I will be collecting the person’s home congregation to ensure that I get a mix of congregations from the same conference; however, I will be recoding this to Church A etc. because I do not want people to try to surmise the demographics or opinions of a certain congregation when reading the finished research. Withholding the names of churches from the finished research will also protect identities. Safeguarding data. I will safeguard the written questionnaires and the audio recordings by storing them in a locked filing cabinet and will password protect any computer data files. At the same time, I will instruct participants that they must do their part in protecting privacy by respecting the confidentiality of the discussion. Access to my laptop is already password protected. Providing access to finished report. On a sheet separate from the questionnaire, [ Page ] 179 participants will be able to record their email or mail addresses to receive electronic copies of the finished report for MFC and/or my thesis. Sample Script Explanation My approach is intentionally casual and comfortable. In the socially constructed realities of many Mennonite communities, too much higher education is perceived as a liability rather than an asset, especially for women. It is important to speak in an accessible manner or I could be viewed with suspicion. For instance, I would definitely avoid using the type of language I am using in this paragraph. Positioning myself within the participants’ socially constructed reality is essential to building trust. First I would explain who I am and the purpose of my research. Given that this will be primarily Mennonite/Anabaptist groups, I would likely also say where I come from, where I worship and any family connections to the area - identity matters immensely! Then I would proceed as follows. Sample Script There is a certain amount of paperwork involved in any research project. By now you should have all received a consent form. I want to explain what you are consenting to do! There are two parts to this research - a written questionnaire and then a group discussion. It should take us about two hours altogether. We will go over the completed surveys as a group; so, you will have opportunity to explain what you meant or to challenge the question. [ Page ] 180 You may choose not to answer any question. I am making an audio recoding of our group interviews to help me keep track of what was said. You may ask that your comments not be recorded. If possible, please tell me first that you’d like to make a comment off the record and then I can stop the recording, as it gets more complicated to back up and delete the recording after the fact. You may also chose to stop participating entirely, at which point it is your decision whether to submit a partial questionnaire or to have it destroyed. The survey is entirely voluntary and you can skip any question. An advantage of doing this research in person is that you can ask me afterwards - why did you ask that question? A lot of homework has gone into this, I assure you. I have also asked for the name of your church and your conference. The reason for this is to make sure that I have more than one church from each conference. I am not going to look at the results by church, that wouldn’t be fair - in fact, when I analyze the survey data it’s just going to be EMC Church A, EMC Church B etc. Please notice that there is no space for your name. Please be assured that your information will be kept confidential - any information that could be used to identify you will not be included in any report. For example, I will not say “A 67- year-old dairy farmer from Altona who is a big supporter of Frontiers Missions said that...” but rather “A donor from Western Canada noted that...” I ask that you respect the privacy of this conversation too and that what is said in this room stays in this room. Access to my computer is restricted. I will be preparing a report for Mennonite Foundation, plus writing a [ Page ] 181 thesis for the Doctor of Ministry program at Tyndale University College and Seminary in Toronto drawing on some of this info. I hope some church conferences and organizations will be interested in this report too. We often ask donors for money, but sometimes we forget to ask for their opinions! Who knows, maybe I will write a book. But there won’t be anything anywhere in my writing that will identify who you are. Your information will be part of the totals and comparisons, maybe there will be a quote from something you said in the interview. But no name or identifying information. So if I am on Oprah talking about my great new book on Anabaptist giving in Canada, your friends will just have to trust you that you were part of the research! I have a sheet - please sign up if you would like an electronic copy of this finished research. And I will leave contact information for myself, MFC and Tyndale if you have any further questions or concerns later. [ Page ] 182 Letter of Information Mennonite Foundation Canada Donor Research Project This research is being conducted by Lori Guenther Reesor under the supervision of Major Elaine Becker, Ph.D., in the Doctor of Ministry Program at Tyndale University College and Seminary in Toronto, Ontario. The research is sponsored by Mennonite Foundation Canada. What is this study about? The purpose of this research is to investigate how and why donors give. The study will require approximately two hours of your time. There are no known physical risks associated with this study. There is a minimal psychological or social risk that may result from discussing charitable giving in a group setting. The benefits outweigh the risks: you are contributing to a greater understanding of why Christians give, which will help Mennonite Foundation Canada continue its ministry. Is my participation voluntary? Yes. Although your opinions are greatly valued, you should not feel obliged to answer any question that you find objectionable or that makes you feel uncomfortable. You may also withdraw at any time without consequence. What will happen to my responses? I will keep your responses confidential. To help ensure confidentiality, please do not put your name on the questionnaire. I will be looking at trends in the data by region, province and denomination but not at the level of individual churches. This research will be published and presented in a variety of settings, but any such presentations will be of general findings and will never breach individual confidentiality. Should you be interested, you are entitled to a copy of the findings. Will I be compensated for my participation? No. What if I have concerns? Any questions about study participation may be directed to my supervisor, Elaine Becker at xxx, or to Darren Pries-Klassen, Executive Director of the Mennonite Foundation Canada at xxx or by phone at xxx, toll free: xxx.. Again, thank you. Your participation in this research study is genuinely appreciated. Lori Guenther Reesor (contact information) [ Page ] 183 Consent Form Mennonite Foundation Canada Donor Research Name (please print clearly):_____________________________________________________ 1. I have read the Letter of Information and have had any questions answered to my satisfaction. 2. I understand that I will be participating in the MFC Donor research study. I understand that this means that I will be asked to complete a written questionnaire and participate in a group interview. 3. I understand that my participation in this study is voluntary and I may withdraw at any time without consequence. I understand that every effort will be made to maintain the confidentiality of the data now and in the future. However, other participants will be present during the group discussion. The research will be published as part of Lori’s D. Min. thesis and publicly presented, but any such presentations will be of general findings and will never breach individual confidentiality. If interested, I am entitled to an electronic copy of the findings. 4. I am aware that if I have any questions, concerns, or complaints, I may contact Elaine Becker at xxx, or Darren Pries-Klassen, Executive Director of the Mennonite Foundation Canada at xxx or by phone at xxx, toll free: xxx. I have read the above statements and freely consent to participate in this research: Signature: ______________________________ Date: __________________________________ [ Page ] 184 APPENDIX E: REPORT TO MENNONITE FOUNDATION OF CANADA N. B. This report has been reformatted to accommodate thesis printing requirements. Elements which appear earlier in this document are referenced but not repeated. The composite donor profiles have been updated to reflect changes made before some were published in the Canadian Mennonite as part of an article on my donor research. [ Page ] 185 Donors speak: Focus Group and Survey findings from Mennonite Foundation of Canada Donor Research Lori Guenther Reesor D. Min. (candidate) Tyndale University College and Seminary June 2013 Synopsis Church members in Mennonite Foundation of Canada’s constituencies donated over one billion dollars to their local congregations from 2004 to 2012, not including donations to other charities and causes. Why do people give money to their church and other charities? How do they decide? This report analyzes the results from a survey and ten focus group discussions about giving habits involving 66 donors from Mennonite Foundation of Canada’s (MFC) seven supporting constituencies. This small study should be considered illustrative rather than definitive, a snapshot of donor thoughts and behaviour. The richness of the study comes from hearing a variety of donors in their own words from both the questionnaires and focus group conversations. I have created “a dozen donors”—composite donor profiles—to give a taste of the diversity. Church attendance and an intense trust in their local church distinguish these donors from other Canadian donors. Demographics show that they are not more generous than typical Canadians because they are older, richer or more educated. [ Page ] 186 Donors told me they were acting on their faith. Giving patterns are definitely changing over time and people support a wider variety of causes than in previous generations. 66 donors supported over 200 unique causes. Donors give because they believe in the cause and trust the organization. The local church ranks number one in both cases, although this support relies more on familiarity than excitement about the church’s vision. Donors trust their conference less than they trust their church, comparable to how Canadian donors trust religious organizations less than churches. The report also looks at levels of trust in other Christian charities. Many (but not all) donors do not distinguish between denominational charities and other Christian charities. Because the survey borrows some questions from national studies on giving, it is able to compare levels of trust and reasons for giving against a benchmark of other Canadian donors. Respondents are more likely to plan their giving in advance than other Canadian donors do, and people who plan more, give more. Local church, mission workers and kids’ causes are the most regularly supported charities. Top causes for spontaneous giving are: local causes, health charities and missions. Donors in this study are generally talking about giving from income rather than assets. My first question in every focus group was: “what did 1 miss in the survey?” People frequently mentioned time: volunteering forms a significant part of giving. This important aspect of stewardship was simply beyond the scope of this project. [ Page ] 187 I think a good companion project to this study on giving would be interviews with people who volunteer in MCC thrift shops, another avenue of generosity. Introduction Between May and December 2012, I had the privilege of meeting with ten groups of donors from MFC’s constituency. Five provinces—from British Colombia to Ontario—and all seven of the sustaining conferences were represented. 66 donors in all completed anonymous questionnaires about how and why they give. I need to explain a statistical concept called non-response bias. Non-response bias means that people who respond to a survey are different from people who do not respond. People who (bravely!) volunteer to come to focus groups on giving are different from people who do not. Non-response bias means that generous people come to focus groups on giving and fill out surveys. I didn’t ask how much people gave in absolute terms, but it was an option and a dozen people provided a detailed breakdown of how they gave—on average each of the twelve gave over $14,000 annually. I have no doubt that everyone I talked with was an active and generous donor in a variety of ways, and it was humbling and inspiring to meet them. After completing the survey, we ate together—what would a Mennonite gathering be without food?—and then talked more informally about giving. With permission, these discussions were recorded and transcribed. The focus group sessions were extraordinary—a combination of testimony, lament, rant and rich theological discussion. I also talked to pastors and church treasurers from [ Page ] 188 congregations not represented in the survey, for a total of 24 churches studied. I compare the survey results to two other studies: Talking about Charities that the Muttart Foundation did in 2008 and Statistics Canada’s 2010 Canadian Survey on Giving, Volunteering and Participation (CSGVP). The report looks at giving patterns, trust, reasons for giving, how frequently people give and how much they plan in advance. It examines giving to different types of charities: the local church, church conference, denominational charities, other Christian charities and secular charities. I begin this report by introducing the participants with both stories and numbers. First, I sketch a series of composite donor profiles and then I provide a brief summary of demographics: full details are provided in the appendix. A dozen donors: Composite donor profiles These donor profiles are composites, based on focus group discussions. The quotations are real and most often merged from multiple sources. The names and identifying details are fictitious. Daughter-in-law: Anne the Analyst Anne looks carefully at a charity’s financial statements, or looks up a charity on the Canada Revenue Agency website. She is very concerned with efficiency, at work and in her giving. If a charity advertises on TV, she wonders how much it costs to do that. She is suspicious of celebrity endorsements and does not display a pink ribbon on her vehicle because she feels breast cancer fundraising has become a huge conglomerate. [ Page ] 189 Some of the charities her father-in-law supports Anne wouldn’t go near with a ten-foot pole. She regularly and faithfully supports a small number of charities: her church, local agencies and trusted mission workers. She reviews the list every year. Father-in-law: Free-spirited Fred Fred gives more spontaneously than his daughter-in-law does. It might be to a missionary or to a Christian organization on TV. Unlike his daughter-in-law, he never looks at the financial reports. Once he gives to an organization, “they’re accountable to God for what happens to the money”. Fred makes numerous one-time gifts to charities like Heart & Stroke when he is asked. (Fred gets a lot of mail!) Aside from his church, Fred’s giving plans are unpredictable. Agatha the conference loyalist “We are very strong conference people and it hurts us. ..” Agatha says about the decline in giving to conference (denomination). Without the assistance of Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) and the conference in helping them settle in Canada after the war, what would have become of her and her husband? Their loyalty and gratitude to MCC and the conference are unbounded. “Some of it is payback” her husband adds. They are saddened that younger generations do not give in the same way, but younger people are not well-represented at the church Agatha attends. [ Page ] 190 Brian the new kid on the block Brian gives to the same camp that Agatha supports, but other than that they have no common causes. He doesn’t have any history with the Mennonite church. As a child, he attended a Catholic church sporadically and his wife has no church background. They attend a local, recently planted Mennonite church where they enjoy the worship and the friendly people. The church connects well to the community. Brian does not know what a conference is. It doesn’t really matter, to him or to his congregation. Brian’s giving connections are to the local congregation, the mission workers who share testimonies there and to the church camp where he volunteers in the summer. According to my survey, after the local church and mission workers, children’s causes such as child sponsorship and camp are the most frequent regularly supported causes. Brian is a typical donor. His giving pretty much stops where his community stops, as he is largely unaware of any bigger connections. Cal the faithful tither Cal learned tithing from his dad. Without fail, 10% off each paycheque went to the church. “It didn’t matter what we wouldn’t get [as a result of money going to the church instead of other things]” says Cal, not harshly but admiringly. Cal’s wife Linda remembers getting her allowance in dimes so she could easily tithe. Cal and Linda model giving to their four kids, just as their parents did. They tithe faithfully to the church, support several sponsored children and give to other church related causes when they can. Their second son is looking forward to the [ Page ] 191 youth group mission trip to Mexico next March and has already started saving up for it. Christine the volunteer Christine works in the church office part-time and volunteers for a Christian children’s charity the rest of the week. She also recruits friends from church to volunteer. She donates regularly to both places and knows exactly what her money is doing. Christine cannot afford to be a big financial donor but she is generous with her time and talent. If she could afford to stop working, she would like to take in foster children. Her congregation, and many people from her congregation, donate to the charity where Christine volunteers because of her involvement. Richard the non-giver I didn’t meet Richard, but I met people who knew him. His church does not talk about giving, does not like to talk about money at all. Richard did not hear the expectations about giving that come with membership because those expectations are unspoken. Richard didn’t learn about giving at home like Cal did. Richard has a mortgage, a car loan and owes money on his credit card. His church does not thank him when he does give, nor does it seem to notice if he goes six months without putting anything in the offering plate. The only difference is whether or not he gets a tax receipt from the church at the end of the year. [ Page ] 192 Janet the God-tester: “You can’t out give God” Janet laughs and says, “You’ve can’t out-give God, it’s a little game we have.” She is excited to talk about her giving: “You just see God working. So many people don’t see God working in that way because they don’t give him the chance. We run on a pretty tight budget and we make it through every month— we’ve never lacked.... “I don’t notice that it’s gone.... It almost seems like I have more money when I give it away....” Janet testifies that her husband became a Christian through their giving, and it’s clear that giving is a big part of her faith. Keith the theologian: “it’s God’s stuff’ Keith would be surprised—and possibly insulted—to be called a theologian. Keith runs the auto parts supply shop in town. Keith understands tithing but he’s not legalistic: “10 percent is a good number, but if you can give more, give more. If you can only give 6 or 7 percent, that’s okay.” When asked how he learned to give, Keith talks about God’s ownership: “If you’re just pleasing yourself. . . it’s a lot harder to give, because it feels like it’s your money. But if you approach it as if it’s God’s money, not mine, giving is a whole lot easier. It was never mine to begin with.” Keith understands that everything he has belongs to God, that people are stewards of what God has given. Joyce the “bad banker” Joyce is a retired banker. She jokes that “they must have thought she was a bad [ Page ] 193 banker” because she counseled clients to take off their giving first, then their payments, then live on the rest. She used to be church treasurer too, a few years back. Joyce and her husband have been faithful donors all their lives, and by now their list of causes is well-established. Joyce has quietly taught her kids how to give. She would be the ideal person to assist in premarital counseling and to help people in the congregation who are experiencing a financial crisis. Albert the missionary parent I was surprised to meet more than one man who supports missionary children based in the Philippines in my small research project. If you saw Albert at Tim Horton’s, you wouldn’t realize that he is a major supporter of an overseas missionary station. His daughter married a Filipino, and they run a base for mission workers in the area. Churches and conferences support mission workers, but families support them in a more involved way. Albert gives to the church but doesn’t have to think about where the rest of his giving goes. Stella - overwhelmed by choices Deciding where to give is much more difficult for Stella than for Albert. There are so many causes—so many good causes! Some choices are easy: the church of course, and the woman undergoing medical treatment who is being supported by the congregation. She gives to local families in need, kids going on a mission trip, Bible camp. But the Compassion and World Vision Christmas catalogs come on the same day. And then Samaritan’s Purse does something along the same lines, Gospel for Asia too. People come to the door asking for donations. Stella gives to [ Page ] 194 the causes which are most familiar, but she struggles with the constant decision making. “How do you decide?” is a question I heard over and over again. Demographic summary Most Canadians do not donate as much as Albert and Stella. Neither of them are rich, but their giving would be four figures each year. In contrast, the median total annual donation for a Canadian taxfiler in 2011 was $260 (Statistics Canada 2013b): survey respondents would be exceeding this annual giving threshold between Jan 3 and Feb 28 each year. These ordinary folks are extraordinarily generous people. By demographics alone, there is nothing to suggest that this is an exceptionally generous group of people, except for the universally high rate of church attendance. They are not older, richer or more educated than the typical Canadian donor. I could find no correlation between income level and education level. Participants are more likely to be self-employed than the average Canadian, and also more likely to be married. Neither of these findings surprises me in a rural Christian setting. Faith and church attendance define this generous population of ordinary people. In the appendix, I have included an analysis of each piece of demographic information separately: gender, age, marital status, level of education, church attendance, employment status and income bracket. [ Page ] 195 Giving Patterns: Changes over time, range of causes supported, planning Mennonite Foundation staff has noticed that giving patterns are changing. Do donors see things the same way? The first five questions looked at giving patterns past, present and future. Two subsequent questions asked how much of a donor’s giving was planned in advance, and how those plans were made. 1. Thinking back to your parents’ generation, do you think that charitable giving habits are changing over time? Yes, patterns of giving are changing quite a bit 59% Maybe some change 35% No, not really 6% The majority of people felt that giving patterns were changing over time, but the results are much starker categorized by age. 85% of respondents 65 and older said that giving patterns were changing compared to their parents’ generation; whereas only 30% of respondents 35 and under agreed. A donor aged 70 could be comparing the post-WWII era to the present; while a donor aged 30 might be comparing 1990 to the present. Older people may be lamenting decreased institutional loyalty, particularly to conference, but younger people are less aware that things used to be different (see Figure 5.2). Some people could not answer this question since their parents were not givers. I often quote the donor who said “my parents raised me to be an atheist” as a reminder that it is a mistake to presume a common background. I think church agencies and denominations often make the same incorrect assumption that people come from a family background of giving and familiarity with denominational causes. A donor relatively new to the Mennonite church felt less connection to Mennonite [ Page ] 196 causes: “because I don’t have any history with it, I’m less likely to have confidence in it.” Some people noted that the church was more diverse now that the language of worship switched from German to English. A sampling of other comments: • “I don’t think it has changed...there’s people that give and people that don’t.” • more money in the community now than there ever was • “our capacity [to give] is far greater than what we are doing...” • “we’re not supporting the same things that our parents did...it changes with every generation.” • institutions are increasingly supported by individuals whereas in the past they were supported by churches. The next two questions asked about the respondent’s parents’ giving habits, as well as the respondent’s own habits. 2. Which statement about giving patterns best applies to your parents? □ My parents supported their local church exclusively □ My parents focused their giving on their local church and causes linked to the church □ My parents liked to support a variety of causes beyond Christian circles 3. Which statement about giving patterns best applies to you? □ I/we support our local church exclusively □ I/we focus our giving on our local church and causes linked to the church □ I/we like to support a variety of causes beyond Christian circles First of all, an explanation of the missing bar on the following graph: not one respondent said they support their local church exclusively. Only 10% of respondents said that their parents supported the local church exclusively. While there is a generational shift towards giving to a variety of causes beyond Christian circles, the movement is not all in one direction. 61% of the respondents gave to the same category of causes that their parents supported—most often the [ Page ] 197 local church and causes linked to the church. 31% gave to a broader category of charities than their parents did and 8% of respondents supported a narrower range of causes. [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure E.1 details ] Figure E.l Percent Responses to Statements About Giving Patterns No one over 55 said that their parents supported a variety of causes beyond Christian circles and only two people 55 and under said that their parents supported the local church exclusively. One donor defined the generational change as now we take care of our payments, and then how much do we have left to give from where it used to be the reverse - giving used to come first. Here are some more comments from donors on changing giving patterns. On younger people: • younger people supporting [charities] on relational basis rather than denominational loyalty • younger people are more transient. On household finances: • more personal debt • more dual income households [ Page ] 198 • the more money you have, the more you think you need On independence: • church members are more self-sufficient than in our parents’ days. They helped each other: “people turned to their church for help”. • now, everyone does their own thing In some contexts, there has been significant change in congregational giving practices. In years past, or in the home country, there had been no money at church. Rather a prescribed amount was collected at home once a year “almost like a tax to the church”. Moving to a weekly church offering represents a very significant shift. Giving to a “variety of causes beyond Christian circles” means wildly different things in different contexts. For instance, • community fund for a firefighter’s widow • local symphony • David Suzuki Foundation • federal Progressive Conservative party • Air Cadets • multiple sclerosis There is a huge variety of causes. Question 24 asked respondents to place a check beside a charity’s name if they had supported it in the last year or two. Over 130 causes were selected or written in, and this does not include the various causes listed in the spontaneous causes section. I estimate that the total number of causes/charities supported by this group of 66 donors exceeds 200. Given that about 400 MFC congregations support at least 700 unique causes in a given year, this number does not seem high. The next two questions asked about the donor’s giving plans for the next year. 4. In the next year, would you say that your charitable giving Will increase stay about the same decrease [ Page ] 199 5. Why are your giving patterns changing, or why are they staying the same? Almost two thirds of respondents said their giving would remain the same and a third said it would increase. Only two people anticipated a decrease, and both cited retirement as the reason. [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure E.2 details ] Figure E.2 Why Are Your Giving Patterns Changing, or Why Are They Staying the Same? The people who anticipated increased giving generally foresaw increased income. People under 55 were most likely to increase their giving and people working full-time were more likely to cite an increase than those who were self-employed. Non-financial reasons for an increase in giving [verbatim] were: • spiritual growth • trying to be more intentional, making giving more of a priority • persons speaking to us about regular giving • want to give more • I am realizing more I give more God will bless us. The third reason for increased giving should stand out to MFC—“persons speaking to us about regular giving.” People do not learn generosity in the scared silence that characterizes stewardship teaching (or the lack thereof) in some [ Page ] 200 congregations. In different provinces, I heard that the MFC representative was the only one who spoke about money in their church. Most people said their income would be the same and hence their giving would be the same. Some said they were content with their current level of giving and types of causes supported. I interpret “same” as meaning that they will continue to be faithful and generous in a way the average Canadian could not imagine. One donor noted that they give 10% to the church, 8% to missions and then budget $5,000 for needs in the community. Another donor noted “I tend to consistently tithe my 10% and give above & beyond when I can,” which was typical of the written responses. A couple of participants noted that they are maxed out and couldn’t increase their giving. A few donors answered about their giving patterns in terms of which organizations they support. Many continue with causes they have previously supported and a couple noted that they like to be able to respond to new needs that come up. One person wrote “[I will] continue to support organizations that I believe in.” This anticipates a later question on reasons for giving. “I tend to consistently tithe my 10% and give above & beyond when I can” Giving planned in advance 6. Please circle the frequency that best applies to your situation. I prefer to plan my giving in advance Usually Most of the time Sometimes Rarely Around three quarters of attendees were planners. People 35 and under are least likely to plan. Focus group attendees may not be typical donors, but I do think [ Page ] 201 they are typical of generous Christian donors. One simply cannot be as generous as these folks are without regular giving, and regular giving requires a plan. [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure E.3 details ] Figure E.3 Donor Responses to How Often They Plan Their Giving Focus group attendees plan more and give more than typical Canadian donors. For example, fundraiser Penelope Burk reports that fewer than half of Canadian donors “budget for philanthropy” (Burk 2012, 8). Donors who budget are typically more generous; sociologists note that people who plan more, give more (C. Smith, Emerson, and Snell 2008, 95). Going to church weekly creates a framework for regular giving. Canadian pollster Allan Gregg says that "structure and regularity. . .explain the tremendous disparity between the giving of church attendees (including their gifts to secular causes), and non-attendees" (Gadeski 2011, 1). Pre-authorized giving to the church presents an example of very structured and [ Page ] 202 regular approach to giving. Donors who actually contributed to their church automatically each month were comfortable with giving this way. However, some donors from contexts where this was not an option expressed disdain about this. Spontaneous giving can be seen as more genuine, a finding reported in Passing the Plate: Why American Christians Don’t Give Away More Money (C. Smith, Emerson, and Snell 2008, 93-94). Edwin Friesen wrote “I believe God’s spirit can direct people twelve months in advance as well as on the spur of the moment” (E. Friesen 2013, 27). The Apostle Paul was an early proponent of planned giving. In 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, he instructs the Corinthians to set aside money every week, if they are able: “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come.” I suggest that the most generous donors are those who follow Paul’s advice. 7. What percentage of your annual giving is planned in advance? i.e. a regular amount to the same charity, pre-authorized deductions, post-dated cheques etc. I got two types of answers to this question: the percentage of giving people planned in advance, and the percentage of income people planned to give. Twelve people left the question blank. The following graph shows responses: if someone said 80-90%, 1 used 80%. [ Page ] 203 [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure E.4 details ] Figure E.4 Percentage of Annual Giving Planned in Advance Conflated With Percentage Given At some point, it becomes difficult to know if people plan 20% of their giving or give 20% of their income. This graph does show a spike of donors who plan 90% of their giving. The zero indicates people who said they do not plan at all. The percentages 5 through 30 are ambiguous. 8. How do you make those plans? Do you plan differently for giving from income vs. giving from assets (e.g. sale of business or cottage)? People are generally giving from income, not assets. The following comments are typical of the answers received: • “Giving from income. We try to help our family and friends in mission, local church etc first, and extra to other organizations and fundraisers that occur” • “percentage of projected income, the rest as needs arise and are brought to our attention” • “I chose them in the beginning by how much I thought I could trust where the money is going and it’s easier to continue that way” [ Page ] 204 Some people research the charity’s finances before giving, but overall, people find it difficult to decide which charities to choose. Their confusion seems understandable since donors are confronted with so many choices: “you could give your whole paycheque away and people would still phone you”. Giving patterns are changing and it’s no longer as simple as giving strictly to the local church. Which causes are trustworthy? This leads to the next set of questions about trust. Trust Question 6 about trust in different types of charities was adapted from the Muttart Foundation 2008 survey “Talking about Charities”. This enables comparison with Canadians generally, and specifically with Canadians who attend religious services weekly. 6. To what extent do you trust the following types of charities? On average, respondents trust Christian charities “some” and secular charities “a little”. The next section will look at levels of trust in each type of charity, both Christian and secular. Christian charities Intense trust in the local church is a defining characteristic of people surveyed. Local church 95% of respondents trust their local church “a lot”. This intense trust is a defining characteristic of the people surveyed. In the Muttart Foundation survey, 87% of people who attended church weekly trusted church “a lot” or “some” (Ipsos Reid [ Page ] 205 Public Affairs 2008a, Table 38). What distinguishes the responses to this study is the level of trust in the local church—“a lot” rather than “some”. Church schools Level of trust in church schools was interesting. 62% of participants trust church schools (a lot or some) but 24% of participants left this question blank. No one said they didn’t trust church schools at all, but this is a high level of non-response. I looked for an explanatory variable and found that the more educated the donor, the more they trust church schools and the less likely they are to leave this question blank. If I could rework the list of organizations, I would be more specific about the type of school and add church camps to the list, which I think would be more trusted than church schools. Conference Overall, the vast majority of respondents trust their conference: 53% trust their conference “a lot” and 32% trust their conference “some”. Notice the drop in intensity level compared to the local church. The level of trust matters because people who regularly give to conference are largely (77%) from the trust “a lot” category. The Muttart Foundation survey also found a comparable drop in level of trust between church and religious organizations excluding churches (Ipsos Reid Public Affairs 2008a, Table 39). Other denominations also struggle with this issue where it seems that “every church has its own destination,” as one donor lamented. [ Page ] 206 Many people do not know what conference does. More educated people are more likely to trust conference but there could be another explanatory variable here such as conference volunteer experience. If I was a conference staffer reading this report, I would be objecting: “but we do mission work and support camps and support youth and...Why don’t people give to us?” Many people do not know what conference does. Some people didn’t care and some people were apologetic in confessing “this is probably just my ignorance but..." they didn’t know how conference spends its money. There is a frequent lack of connection with the work of the larger church. Here is a sampling of donor comments on this topic, beginning with two donors who attend the same congregation: • “I totally trust it [conference], as I do my own church” • “I don’t feel I know anything about what the conference does..." Other comments on conference: • We don’t give to the conference our full amount that’s expected. That’s a challenge with some people that are very dedicated to the conference and some of us that say ‘well, we don’t get any value for the money we give to the conference’ • “I buy a Chevy, I belong to the — church. Next time I can buy a Ford” • “Some things about the conference that I do not trust” • “I do like giving through the church and knowing that... I am contributing to larger church organizations”. Conference-affiliated charities It’s another step down the trust scale from local church to conference to a conference-affiliated charity. 79% of respondents trust conference-affiliated charities, but they are more likely to choose “some” rather than “a lot”. 21% of participants either trust conference-affiliated charities a little/not at all, or chose [ Page ] 207 not to answer the question. (See Figure 5.4). Note that results could be different if I had asked about a specific charity rather than a general category of charities. Other Christian charities 79% of respondents trust Christian charities outside of their conference, the same level of overall trust as conference-affiliated charities. However, people are somewhat more likely to trust conference charities “a lot” than to trust other Christian charities “a lot”. I interpret these results to mean that there are some loyal supporters of denominational charities: they see a difference between them and other Christian charities. However, many donors do not make a distinction between denominational charities and other Christian charities. Secular charities Hospitals 53% of participants trust hospitals: 9% a lot and the rest only some. This is much lower than the Muttart survey where 88% of participants trusted hospitals (Ipsos Reid Public Affairs 2008a, Table 37), which were the most trusted organization among Canadians. The same result holds across all education levels. Schools and universities Only a minority of participants trust secular schools. With church schools, people were reluctant to say “not at all” and instead left the question blank. With secular schools, more people chose “not at all”. The following graph compares levels of trust in secular and church schools. [ Page ] 208 [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for figure E.5 details ] Figure E.5 Level of Trust in Church Schools vs. Secular Schools Relief and development charities are the most trusted secular charity. Arts, environmental and social service agencies are the least trusted. International relief and development International relief and development charities are the most trusted secular charity in this study: 65% of participants trust them “a lot” or “some”. This is the only category which corresponds with the Muttart Foundation results: 68% of Canadians who attend religious services weekly trust relief organizations at those levels (Ipsos Reid Public Affairs 2008a, Table 33). I suspect this level of trust reflects a ‘halo effect’ from Mennonite Central Committee and Canadian Food Grains bank. Art organizations, Environmental charities, Social service agencies Arts groups, environmental charities and social service agencies are the least trusted agencies with trust levels between 26% and 29%. All score much lower [ Page ] 209 than the comparable Muttart results. Environmental charities fared particularly poorly in Alberta. Not surprisingly, participants were also less likely to say they donate to these types of charities. Why does this matter? If this constituency begins to trust these types of organizations, expect giving to be diluted. Regularly supported causes and spontaneous giving The survey asked about regularly supported causes and causes supported more spontaneously. 7. What types of charities do you regularly support? Please add other causes to the table. [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for table details ] Most people (59%) are supporting at least two of the listed charities on a monthly basis (or even more frequently in the case of the local church). 35% support one, 33% support two and 26% support three or more of these charities on a monthly [ Page ] 210 basis. Three or more monthly causes might be: local church, mission worker and sponsored child. For quarterly, semi-annual or annual giving, 26% of respondents supported one of the listed causes, 20% supported two of them and 11% gave to three or more. I will report the charities from most commonly to least commonly supported. Local church More than 80% of respondents give to their church on at least a monthly basis. Table E.l Frequency Chart for Giving to Local Church [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table E.1 details ] This is the only category where people gave biweekly and weekly. Frequency of giving to the local church combined with question 12 produces an interesting finding. People who give to their church less often (quarterly, semi- annually or annually) are less excited about their church’s vision (I don’t know whether this is cause or effect). People who give to their church less frequently are also more likely to agree to “I am a regular donor but sometimes I wonder [ Page ] 211 why.” Information about who gives regularly and who gives less regularly might be a concern not just for the treasurer or finance committee, but also a topic for pastoral care consideration. Mission workers People who give to their church less frequently (quarterly or less often) are less excited about their church’s vision than more regular contributors. 70% of respondents say they regularly support a mission worker, the second most common cause. This figure is complicated by the fact that different churches and conferences support mission workers in different ways. Still, evangelism is a priority for many. One donor chooses to put money into missions because of the “eternal significance”. Mission worker support was usually expressed as support for a specific person, rather than a specific organization. Table E.2 Frequency of Support for Mission Worker(s) [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table E.2 details ] Among survey participants, it’s a three way split between people who: • don’t support a mission worker directly • support a mission worker at least monthly • support a mission worker quarterly, semi-annually or annually. This is a high rate of monthly support. Monthly support was common for mission [ Page ] 212 workers, child sponsorship, and the local church and was uncommon (less than 10%) for other types of causes. Kids’ Causes: Child Sponsorship and Camp 47% of respondents sponsor a child and 42% regularly support a camp or youth centre. After the local church and mission workers, kids’ causes were the most popular regularly supported types of charities. 47% of respondents sponsor a child. Anecdotally, Compassion was the organization I heard mentioned the most often but I did not ask which organization specifically. In a later question, people reported giving to World Vision, Compassion, Foster Parents Plan and MCC Global Family (in that order of frequency), but the information on sponsorship organizations is incomplete. 42% of participants regularly donate to camp or a youth centre, the most popular type of regularly supported denominational charity after the local church. People of all ages expressed their loyalty to camp. If I was a denominational staff person making an annual report, I would put a picture of camp on the cover. Local causes, health charities and missions are the top three categories for spontaneous giving Health charities 39% of participants make regular contributions to a health charity such as the Cancer Society. Almost all of these donations are made quarterly, semi-annually or annually; there were only three monthly donors. [ Page ] 213 Conference 35% of respondents report that they regularly give to their conference. I do not have too much confidence in this figure, as some people might be indicating that they support their conference through their church giving. Church school 29% of respondents regularly give to a church school. Church school donors report supporting a higher number of charities than donors who do not give to a church school. About 55% of people who give to church schools also give to conference, but only 40% of people who give to conference also give to church schools. Spontaneous causes 11. Looking back over the past year, which types of charities have you supported on a more spontaneous basis? A spontaneous gift is a ‘spur of the moment’ gift that is not anticipated nor planned for in advance. Charity Occasion for Amount spontaneous gift (optional) My favourite answers are cryptic summaries of the types of causes people support on a more spontaneous basis: “church, cancer, MCC” or “Funerals. Suppers. Bake sales”. Giving to others forms part of respondents’ lifestyles. The vast number of causes supported suggests three theories about giving, refusing to give and capacity. First, this scope of giving matches the CSGVP finding that donors to religious [ Page ] 214 causes also make the majority of donations to secular causes (Turcotte 2012, 24). Second, some people have difficultly saying no. There are always “special needs/occasions” as one donor put it. At least two donors give to everyone who asks: “I have never turned anyone down at the door”. It might not be a large gift: “the smaller the gift, the less I trust how they’re gonna use it”. Third, spontaneous giving suggests a modest and potentially a large capacity to give beyond what is regularly planned. One donor noted wryly: “your spontaneous gift might not be as spontaneous if you knew this would affect your groceries”. Canadian research on giving shows that donors from smaller communities are more likely to give because “they have been personally affected” or “feel they owe something to their community” (Reed and Selbee 2002, 25). I wonder if donors from smaller communities make more spontaneous gifts to local causes than their urban counterparts. I have sorted the responses into categories. The top three categories were: local causes, health charities and missions. There is also a category for gifts directly to people. These are not charities, but gifts given directly to those in need, either personally or at a community fundraising event. This avenue of generosity does not generate a receipt nor show up in T3010 or CRA data. One evening can raise $50,000 in a small community: “people tend to care for each other in this community, they really do”. Gifts to friends of $3500 and $5000 were listed. I continue to be humbled by the trust and generosity of the people I met with. [ Page ] 215 Comparing Donor’s Experience of Giving to Local Church, Denominational Charities, other Christian Charities and Secular Charities Two pages of the questionnaire asked about donors’ experiences of giving to: • local church • charities related to my denomination • Christian charities NOT related to my denomination • secular charities. The following block of questions was repeated four times, once for each type of charity. Note that the last question is a negatively worded instead of positively worded statement. The goal of these questions was to explore differences in attitudes towards the four types of charities. 12. Thinking about the various types of charities you support, how would you compare your experience of giving? Mark your level agreement [sic] on the scale, with 1 being Strongly Agree and 5 Strongly Disagree [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for table details ] Donors responded the most positively towards the local church, then to charities related to their denomination, then other Christian charities, then secular charities. [ Page ] 216 There are some interesting findings within this overall trend. I will look first at the first six statements: agreement patterns and then strong agreement patterns. Then I will look at the “wonder why” statement. Agreement patterns Figure 5.5 shows the percentage of people who choose “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” in response to the first six statements. The shape of the line and the spacing between lines each tell a story. In addition, I will look at the ‘thank you’ statement separately. Values vs. Efficiency - Shape of Line For the most part, the different lines move in parallel. For each type of charity, donors are slightly more likely to agree that they are familiar with the charity’s work than to agree that they know how the money is being used. They are also more likely to agree that the charity’s values are compatible than they are to agree that the charity is being run efficiently. This makes sense; if people are slightly less certain how the money is being used, then they can’t be sure of the charity’s efficiency either. Differences between types of charities - Space between the lines The space between the lines tells a story as well. The local church generates the most positive feedback. There is a gap between the local church and charities related to the denomination. [ Page ] 217 However, there is very little difference between charities related to the denomination and other Christian charities. For instance, there is no significant difference in positive responses to “excited about vision” between denominationally affiliated charities and other Christian charities. Another gap appears between Christian charities and secular ones. Thanked for donations Donors agree that secular charities and Christian charities outside of their denomination are more likely to thank them. I call this the “gratitude gap”. Donors agree that secular charities and Christian charities outside of their denomination are more likely to thank them. I call this the “gratitude gap”. This is especially significant for the local church, as Barbara Fullerton’s research with United Church Canada identifies intentionally thanking donors as a component of a thriving congregation. Figure 5.6 is the same as the Figure 5.5, but this time only ‘Strongly Agree’ responses have been included. Strong agreement patterns Notice that the parallel patterns of Figure 5.5 have vanished. I explain this graph from left to right: • “Familiar with this charity’s work”: the local church is the most familiar cause by a wide margin over any other type of charity, including denominational ones. • “Know how my money is being used”: donors are more familiar with the work a charity does than how the money is used. Notice that there is very little difference among the non-local church charities. [ Page ] 218 • “Compatible values”: notice the downward trajectory of the local church line here. While most people agree that they share compatible values with their church, fewer than half strongly agree on this point. The compatible values agreement declines for other causes further removed from the church. As one donor noted: “the further away you are from the group. .. the harder it is be sure that’s what’s going on is what you agree with. .. ” • “Efficient”: not a single person strongly agreed that secular charities were run efficiently. However, only a minority of donors strongly agreed that any type of charity was run efficiently : “there is so much waste” was a typical comment. I repeatedly heard that people want “bang for their buck”. • “Excited about vision”: while people are very familiar with what their church does, they are not quite as excited about their church’s vision. Donors are slightly more excited about the vision of Christian charities from outside their denomination than denominationally affiliated charities. I heard stories about Samaritan’s Purse, Compassion, Christian run youth centres and so forth that confirm this finding. Donors are slightly more excited about the vision of Christian charities from outside their denomination. I am a regular donor but sometimes I wonder why The last statement was “I am a regular donor but sometimes I wonder why”. In order to analyze the results of a negative statement, it’s more appropriate to look at the people who disagreed. [ Page ] 219 [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure E.6 details ] Figure E.6 Levels of Disagreement for "I am a regular donor but sometimes I wonder why” The majority of respondents disagreed with the “I am a regular donor and sometimes I wonder why” statement for all of the different categories of charities. Very few people agreed, although people were least likely to agree when it came to secular charities. I surmise that if one wondered why one gave to a secular charity, one would stop giving. Comments on the Local Church The local church was frequently discussed. I have included a selection of comments from the following areas: • youth mission trips • building projects and budgets • tithing • secrecy around giving • ideas on how to encourage giving • prayer Youth mission trips were commonly discussed. In my view, such trips are: [ Page ] 220 • ubiquitous—very, very common • easy to raise funds for—even five figure amounts in one case. Youth fundraising appears unrelated how a congregation gives in other areas • frequently outside of a denominational structure, even when such a structure exists Two churches in two days talked about how they can raise $5,000 to send youth on a missions trip to Mexico in minutes, and yet struggle in other areas of giving. Money might be given through the church or directly to the person at a fundraising dinner or event, or in response to a direct request or letter. Some churches have missions’ kiosks in the lobby to facilitate giving. Overall, MFC’s constituency has no difficulty funding projects which are meaningful to them. Five out of ten churches visited had new buildings, resulting from increased congregational giving and fundraising, combined with borrowing. Some churches struggle but overall I do not think MFC’s constituency has difficulty funding projects which are meaningful to them. Giving to a building project is easier than giving to a budget. I heard one donor express “a lot” of trust in the church but admit they didn’t really know how the church spends money. Various people also voiced a current or past lack of understanding of church budgets. I heard several similar stories. They all began with someone who said our congregation should not spend money on this, but give the money to missions instead. The punch line was always the same: the church did not approve the expenditure, nor did they give money to missions. One donor exclaimed in frustration that they “should do both!” One donor commended on how giving is integrated with discipleship in their [ Page ] 221 church: “I think it seems more as part of our Christian living as opposed to a mandated...it’s not a numerical, business part of church, it’s part of worship and part of our spirituality...a positive thing”. Tithing was frequently mentioned. Here are some of the discussion points: • grace vs. law • gross vs. net • tithes vs. offerings • 10% to church, then the rest beyond church or does 10% include all giving? “If I just waddle along here on my own, I can get kinda lax” [in giving]... Donors talked about the secrecy around giving. Often only the treasurer knows who gives and if someone has stopped giving. Secrecy around money might be combined with a lack of teaching on giving. Here are some donors’ thoughts on secrecy: • if the pastor knew giving patterns, they could counsel people • do we all have the resources to make good choices? • “as our kids grow up, there’s so many voices calling for their dollars, except the church” Donors also shared suggestions on how the church could encourage giving, since many thought that “part of the reason people don’t give is a lack of education”: • “I think if people shared why...” (as in why they give) • teaching people about finances so they can give • gratitude as a basis for a small group stewardship discussion - even people who complain a lot should be able to come up with something they are thankful for! • receipt should say thank you • bulletin budget updates should say thank you Some people said thank yous were not needed since they were a member of the church and not merely a donor. One business person did feel like merely a donor [ Page ] 222 though, and commented that the church preaches on the sin of wealth, “but when they need help, who do they ask?” Prayer was not on the questionnaire but came up during the discussion. It can be a means of discernment. People noted: • “pray better if also writing a cheque” • “if Jesus puts something on your heart, then you should support that thing both in prayer and financially, and both are just as equally as important” Reasons for Giving What motivates people to give? Question 13 asks people to choose their top three reasons for giving to different types of causes, using reasons for giving based on the CSGVP national survey. Several people mentioned that “religious obligation” did not really capture why they chose to give to their church. Question 14 allows people to write in their own reasons for giving. In addition, I have also included some focus group comments on why people give. Question 13 was too complicated for everyone to answer fully, and should have been three separate questions. Future researchers, nota bene. I answer the following questions: • How do MFC constituents compare to the CSGVP respondents? • How do reasons for giving differ based on the type of charity? • What sorts of write-in reasons for giving did people provide? MFC constituents compared to Canadian donors Canadian donors and donors in this study chose similar reasons for giving. When resu lts for the three types of charities in question 13 are combined, MFC constituent respondents had the same top three reasons for giving as the CSGVP [ Page ] 223 studies in both 2007 and 2010 (Turcotte 2012, 18). (See Figure 5.3.) There are differences in the weighting: “to help a cause I believe in” was the top response from MFC constituents by a wide margin and the top reason for giving in every category (93% for local church, 82% for camp and 60% for secular). However, CSGVP respondents chose the various reasons for giving almost equally: compassion, then cause, then community. The top and bottom reasons for giving were the same: “religious obligation” and “to obtain a tax credit” were the least cited reasons for giving for in both the CSGVP study and this research. Top reason for giving: “to help a cause I believe in”. Least cited reason: “tax credit”. Reasons for giving based on type of charity Several interesting trends run in parallel. Almost everyone said they gave to their local church “to help a cause I believe in”. This belief in cause decreases as the organization becomes further removed from the local church. Not surprisingly, giving from religious obligation also decreases. The desire to obtain a tax receipt and a sense of being personally affected go up as the organization becomes further removed from the local church. The choice of secular charities used in the question likely influenced results. People give to the Cancer Society because they know someone who had cancer, for instance. [ Page ] 224 [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Figure E.7 details ] Figure E.7 Trends in Reason for Giving Focus group comments on reasons for giving This section will focus on learning to give and the importance of connection and testimony. While people learn giving from various sources, family was frequently mentioned. I heard stories like “when I was a child I [raised rabbits/pigs, worked for the farm/family business] and learned to give 10% to the church”. People also shared stories of family members who modeled tithing: “if you aren’t taught young, it gets harder as you get older to let go and give”. Some people had no one to teach them when they were young. They learned giving from people at church or from their own study. One group talked about the influence of an employer, peers and generous business people in modeling giving. One donor cited the church itself as a good role model of giving and stewardship of the resources it receives. Another donor said: “I served as treasurer in this church for eight years and my giving increased once I saw how much other people were giving” and then increased again as I volunteered more and saw incredible need. [ Page ] 225 It is a cliché that people give to people, but it’s true. The word “connection” was frequently used as a reason for giving. People need to have “some sort of connection” to the cause: “personal relationship has a huge impact”. Testimonies influences giving: hearing from someone who benefited from the charity or who worked at the charity. One donor said: “testimony is a stronger motivator than guilt”. Typically, these testimonies were shared in at church or a church function. People in the focus groups shared their testimonies about God’s faithfulness and how giving has changed their life. One donor shared that giving has “grown our faith more in the really lean months,” as opposed to months when it’s easier to give. “Personal relationship has a huge impact [in giving]..." “Testimony is a stronger motivator than guilt.” Write-in reasons for giving Donors were asked to write down their reasons for giving that were not listed in the previous question. I have created a poem based on their responses (see p.121 ). This poem captures why these donors are so generous far better than the multiple choice responses do. It’s abundantly clear that these donors are not self-centred, but rather centred on God and serving others. While there is guilt, obligation and an inability to say ‘no’, there is also a tremendous sense of caring and empathy. The “joy of giving” closing really was the answer from the last survey in the pile, a fitting grace note. [ Page ] 226 Conclusion These donors are not richer, older or more educated than typical Canadian donors, but they are more generous. Their written reasons for giving speak to a deep faith where giving forms part of their daily life. Giving patterns are definitely changing over time and donors give to a wider variety of causes than in previous generations. The local church is the most frequently supported cause. After the local church, the most common regularly supported charities are mission workers and kids’ charities, in particular child sponsorship and camp. As one might expect from people who agree to come to a focus group on giving, most people surveyed are planners. Planners give more than people who don’t plan. People are generally giving from income and giving is often stable from one year to the next, both in amount and range of causes supported. In additional to their regularly planned giving, people also give more spontaneously. The top three types of spontaneous causes are local causes, health charities and missions. Many of these gifts are in response to being asked in person, support of an event such as a walk-a-thon or a donation at an event such as a youth fundraiser. Donors give to organizations that they trust and to causes that they believe in. The local church ranks number one in both cases. Trust diminishes the further an organization gets from the local church. The church responds to this loyalty by thanking people less often than secular charities do. Support for the local church is based more on familiarity than on excitement [ Page ] 227 about the vision of the local church. People who give to their church less often than monthly tend to be less excited about their church than people who give more frequently. Many donors (not all) do not distinguish between denominational and other Christian charities. While donors support a multitude of charities, trust in many types of secular charities ranks much lower than among Canadians generally. I hope that this research serves as a springboard for further study and more conversation. I am certain that there are more stories of generosity waiting to be told. [ Page ] 228 Appendix: Demographic Analysis The survey asked for considerable demographic information: gender, age, marital status, level of education, church attendance, employment status and income bracket. In the survey, I explained that the information “is used to categorize answers and to substantiate my claim that I talked to a variety of people.” I did talk to a variety of people: old and young, men and women with varied education and income levels. Survey respondents do not differ significantly from typical Canadian donors, except for their commitment to their faith. This section examines each piece of demographic information. Gender 60% of survey respondents were men and 40% were women. In three or four instances, both husband and wife completed the survey. This was not my intention; however, I soon discovered that spouses answer the same question differently. Age According to Statistics Canada’s 2011 information from taxfilers, the average age of a Canadian donor is 53 (Statistics Canada 2013b). Among survey respondents, the average age is 54 and the median age is 53. This Average age of a Canadian donor is 53. Average age of participants in this study is 54. Thus, the extraordinary generosity of this group cannot be explained away as a result of being older than a typical Canadian donor. [ Page ] 229 is more than a happy coincidence because age matters: older people are more likely to be donors and more likely to donate larger amounts (Turcotte 2012, 21). If this study had asked predominantly older people, the increased generosity could be attributed to age. Table E.3 Age Range Frequency Chart [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table E.3 details ] Marital Status 77% of respondents were married; the remainder were single, widowed or separated/divorced (in that order of frequency). This is a higher rate than the Canadian population—about 55% of Canadian over the age of 20 are married (Statistics Canada 2013d)—but consistent with a Christian population where other types of arrangements are less common. This rate of married respondents matches other studies. The Muttart Foundation survey in 2008 reported that 70% of respondents were married or living with a partner (Ipsos Reid Public Affairs 2008b, 79). The CSGVP in 2010 noted that 75% of top donors are married (Turcotte 2012, 24). Top donors are the top 25% of donors: the CSGVP defines them as those who gave more than $358 in 2010 [ Page ] 230 (Turcotte 2012, 26). I am certain everyone in my study was a top donor. Level of Education Conventional fundraising wisdom says: • university educated people are more likely to be donors4 and also to give more5 • higher education and higher income go together. When considering Mennonite Foundation Canada’s constituency, I suggest that conventional wisdom be held lightly. I could find no correlation between education and income. While there was a cluster of university educated and established donors in their peak earning years, there was also people with little formal education in the top income bracket and people with post-graduate education in a lower income bracket. Table E.4 Education Level Frequency Chart [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table E.4 details ] _________________________ 4 The demographic profile of online responses to the Cygnus survey is “highly educated” with 66% of respondents reporting a college or university degree (Burk 2012, 6-7). 5 According to the CSGVP: “In 2010, 77% of people whose highest level of education was a high school diploma had made a financial donation and their average donation was $373. In comparison, 91% of those with a university degree had given and their average donation was $715” (Turcotte 2012, 23). [ Page ] 231 Church attendance Faith trumps any sort of demographic indicator when it comes to generosity. 97% of respondents reported attending church at least weekly. For comparison, Canadian sociologist Reginald Bibby says that about 20% of Canadian attend church on a weekly basis, and another 10% at least once a month (Bibby 2012, 9). In addition, our conversations indicate that these people were generally active and involved in their church beyond weekly worship. Employment status 67% of respondents reported that they were working and 29% said they were retired. Labour force participation varies by region, but these numbers fall within the range of Canadian demographics. Anecdotally, 1 wonder if fewer participants were working during their retirement than is the Canadian norm. 32% of working respondents were self-employed. This is double the national rate of 15.4% of workers (Industry Canada 2012), although the self-employment rate is higher in Western Canada (LaRochelle-Côté 2010). I speculate that self- employment constitutes a Mennonite characteristic but I have only anecdotal evidence for this claim. [ Page ] 232 Table E.5 Employment Type Frequency Chart [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table E.5 details ] Household Income bracket “Prefer not to answer” was an option for the income question. In a demonstration of trust, 90% of respondents answered this question. (Intriguingly, people who did not provide their income had the lowest average responses to questions on trust.) According to taxfiler data, the median donor income in 2011 was $54,110. In this question, I asked for household income, which combines both spouses and is thus a higher figure. The median household income here is in the $60,000- $79,999 range which is consistent with Canadian norms.6 There is a group of higher income households earning more than $100,000 annually. No matter whether the people who did not answer the income question are included or excluded, the 75th percentile for household income is at least $80,000. However, given that the 75th percentile total individual income of donors from BC to Ontario ranges from $72,000 to $100,000, the income ranges in this study do not suggest a group more affluent than the typical donor. _________________________ 6 According to the 2010 census, the median total income for a Canadian family was $69,860. [ Page ] 233 Table E.6 Household Income Range Frequencies [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table E.6 details ] Table E.7 75th Percentile Total Income of Individual Donors by Province, 2011 [ Please contact repository@tyndale.ca for Table E.7 details ] [ Page ] 234 REFERENCE LIST Angus Reid Group. 1996. God and society in North America, 1996. The Association of Religion Data Archives. http://www.thear da.com/Archive/Files/Descriptions/QUEENS.asp (accessed December 21, 2012). Babcock, Brent. 2013. E-mail message to author. October 24. Bassler, Jouette M. 1991. God & mammon: Asking for money in the New Testament. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. Bell, John. 2013. Doing worship differently. October 2, Sisters of St. John the Divine Monastery, Toronto; ON. Benner, Dick. 2010. “The dollars are here.” Canadian Mennonite Magazine, May 31. Bergen, Rachel. 2011. ‘“With sadness and lament’.” Canadian Mennonite Magazine, May 2. Bergey, Philip C., and Mark L. Vincent. 2007. Survey results & analysis for Mennonite Church Eastern Canada generosity project survey. Kohler, WI: Design for Ministry. Bibby, Reginald W. 2011. Beyond the gods & hack: Religion’s demise and rise and why it matters. Lethbridge, AB: Project Canada Books. -------. 2012. A new day - the resilence and restructuring of religion in Canada. Lethbridge, AB: Project Canada Books. http://www.reginaldbibby.com/images/e- copy_A_NEW_DAY_Aug_14.pdf (accessed November 8, 2012). Blessing, Kamila. 2012. Speak ye first the kingdom - supplemental materials. Kohler, WI: Design Group International. Bradburn, Norman M. 2004. Asking questions: The definitive guide to questionnaire design—for market research, political polls, and social and health questionnaires. Rev. ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Braght, Thieleman J. van, Sohm, Joseph F. 1996. Martyrs mirror. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press. Braun, Will. 2013. “A time of mystery and disorientation.” Canadian Mennonite, April 29. [ Page ] 235 Brueggemann, Walter. 2001. “Enough is enough.” The Other Side, December. http://liferemixed.net/2012/02/29/enough-is-enough/ (accessed November 29, 2012). -------. 2009. “From anxiety and greed to milk and honey.” Sojourners. February. http://sojo.net/magazine/2009/02/anxiety-and-greed-milk-and- honey (accessed March 28, 2012). Burk, Penelope. 2012. “Executive summary the Cygnus donor survey: Where philanthropy is headed in 2012.” Hamilton, ON: Cygnus Applied Research, Inc. http://www.cygresearch.com/downloads/ (accessed July 20, 2012). Chow, John K. 1992. Patronage and power: A study of social networks in Corinth. Sheffield, UK: JSOT. Christopher, J. Clif. 2008. Not your parents’ offering plate: A new vision for financial stewardship. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. Coghlan, David. 2010. Doing action research in your own organization. 3rd ed. London, UK: SAGE. Conrad Grebel University College. 2011. “Henry Paetkau’s lasting influence.” Conrad Grebel University College. June 24. https://uwaterloo.ca/grebeFnews/henry-paetkaus-lasting-influence (accessed November 5, 2013). Dahlberg, Lena, and Colin McCaig. 2010. Practical research and evaluation: A start-to-finish guide for practitioners. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Davies, Joanne. 2010. “Preparation and process of qualitative interviews and focus groups.” In Practical research and evaluation, edited by Lena Dahlberg and Colin McCaig. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Dunn, James D. G. 1998. The theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Dyck, Dan. 2011. ‘“The signs are clear’.” Canadian Mennonite Magazine, April 4. Ens, Adolf. 1989. “Schisms.” Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/S341ME.html/?searchterm= evangelical%20bergthaler (accessed December 13, 2012). Epp, Marlene. 2011. “A celebration of food and faith.” Canadian Mennonite Magazine, August 22. -------. 2012. “Are we eating ‘just’ food?” Canadian Mennonite, September 17. [ Page ] 236 Evangelical Missionary Church of Canada. 2007. A brief history of the EMCC. http.7/www.emcc.ca/about/our-history (accessed December 13, 2012). Fernie, Scott, and Karen Smith. 2010. “Action research.” In Practical research and evaluation, edited by Lena Dahlberg and Colin McCaig. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Friesen, Edwin. 2013. Giving your first fruits: Money, faith and worship. Edited by Emily Loewen. Mennonite Foundation of Canada. Friesen, Jacob, Lil Goertzen, Abe Giesbrecht, Tracy Dueck, and Bob Milks. 2012. “Shared ministry: A narrative budget for the Evangelical Mennonite Mission Conference 2013/2014”. Winnipeg, MB: Evangelical Mennonite Missionary Conference. Fullerton, Barbara L. 2009. Growing generosity: Identity as stewards in the United Church of Canada. Washington, DC: Wesley Theological Seminary. Gadeski, Janet. 2011. “Where are charities on the radar screens of Canadians?” Hilborn Charity eNEWS. http://www.charityinfo.ca/articles/Where-are- charities-on-the-radar-screens-of-Canadians (accessed December 15, 2011). General Conference Mennonite Church, and Mennonite Church. 1995. Confession of faith in a Mennonite perspective. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press. Gerbrandt, Jacob. 2011. “Canadian Mennonite Board of Colonization.” Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. September. http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/C364ME.html/?searchterm= immigration%20to%20Canada (accessed November 19, 2012). Gibbs, Graham. 2007. Analyzing qualitative data. Sage qualitative research kit. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. -------. 2010. Grounded theory: Open coding part 1 - YouTube [Video] Retrieved May 2, 2013, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gn7Pr8M_Gu8. Gingerich, Melvin, Timothy Burkholder, Paul Voegltin, and Sam Steiner. 2012. “Northwest Mennonite Conference — GAMEO.” Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/N6787ME.htmF7searchtenn =northwest%20mennonite%20conference (accessed December 13, 2012). Hall, Douglas John. 1990. The steward: A biblical symbol comes of age. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; Friendship Press. [ Page ] 237 Hall, Michael, David Lasby, Steven Ayer, and William David Gibbons. 2009. “Highlights from the 2007 Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating.” Statistics Canada. http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc- cel/olc-cel?catno=71-542-XIE&lang=eng#formatdisp (accessed November 7, 2011). Harder, Helmut. 2012. “Mennonite Church Canada.” Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. September. http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/M46607.html/?searchterm= mennonite%20church%20canada (accessed December 13, 2012). Hoge, Dean R., Patrick H. McNamara, Charles E. Zech, and Loren B. Mead. 1997. Plain talk about churches and money. Bethesda, MD: Alban Institute. Huxman, Jesse. 2013. Interview by author. Kitchener, ON. September 6. Industry Canada. 2012. “Key small business statistics - July 2012 —How many people are self-employed?” Indus try Canada. August 3. http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/061.nsf/eng/02724.html (accessed March 5, 2013). Ipsos Reid. 2011. “Canadians feeling more charitable, but will it last? Great competition, economic worries put the pressure on charitable giving.” Press Release. Toronto, ON. http://www.ipsos- na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=l 1097 (accessed November 10, 2011). Ipsos Reid Public Affairs. 2008a. “Talking about charities 2008 final data.” Edmonton, AB: Muttart Foundation. -------. 2008b. “Talking about charities 2008: Canadians’ opinions on charities and issues affecting charities.” Edmonton, AB: The Muttart Foundation. http://www.muttart.org/surveys (accessed November 22, 2011). Jeavons, Thomas, and Rebekah Burch Basinger. 2000. Growing givers' hearts: Treating fundraising as ministry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Keener, Craig S. 2005. 1-2 Corinthians. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Klassen, Corinne. 2012. E-mail message to author. February 15. [ Page ] 238 Klassen, Darryl G. 2012. “Calling, accountability and vision: Missions promotion and recruitment within the EMC - an interview with Dr. Ernie Koop.” Theodidaktos taught by God: Journal for EMC theology and education 7 (1) (August): 28. Kolaneci, Redina. 2010. “Why Christians give: Report review.” Colchester, UK: McConkey Johnston International UK. http://www.mcconkey- johnston.co.uk/files/u2/report_review_2_.pdf (accessed July 26, 2013). Kraybill, Donald B. 1978. The upside-down kingdom. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press. Kvale, Steinar. 2007. Doing interviews. Sage qualitative research kit. London, UK: SAGE Publications. LaRochelle-Côté, Sébastien. 2010. “Self-employment in the downturn.” Statistics Canada. March. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001- x/2010103/article/11138-eng.htm (accessed March 7, 2013). Lasby, David. 2011. “Research bulletin: Trends in individual donations 1984- 2010.” Imagine Canada research bulletin 15 (11) (December): 12. LeBlanc, Douglas. 2010. Tithing: Test me in this. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. Leman, Jason. 2010. “Quantitative data collection.” In Practical research and evaluation, edited by Lena Dahlberg and Colin McCaig. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Levy, Steve. 2011. “Charitable giving: The evolution of the Canadian charitable landscape.” Toronto, ON: Ipsos Reid. http://www.artez.com/documents/aia-toronto-2011-presentations/steve- levypdf (accessed November 10, 2011). Loewen, Emily. 2011. “MC Canada youth ministry cuts worry teens.” Canadian Mennonite, July 11. Lupton, Robert. 2009. “‘Vacationary season’ is upon us.” Canadian Mennonite, July 6. Malphurs, Aubrey. 2004. Building leaders: Blueprints for developing leadership at every level of your church. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. Martin, David. 2011. Challenges in extending the MCEC mission: Reflections from the Executive Minister. Kitchener, ON: Mennonite Church Eastern Canada. [ Page ] 239 -------. 2012. “Discussion at Hamilton Mennonite Church” presented at the Adult Sunday School, November 18, Hamilton, ON. Martin, Maurice. 1983. “The pure church: The burden of Anabaptism.” Conrad Grebel Review (Spring 1983): 29-41. McNiff, Jean, ed. 2013. Value and virtue in practice-based research. Dorset: UK: September Books. http://s3.spanglefish.eom/s/15340/documents/books/value%20and%20virt ue/value_and_virtue_online.pdf (accessed June 20, 2013). Mennonite Foundation of Canada. 2013. “Mennonite Foundation of Canada celebrates $100 million milestone.” Canadian Mennonite, February 18. -------. 2013. “Home - Mennonite Foundation of Canada.” Mennonite Foundation of Canada. http://www.mennofoundation.ca/home (accessed November 5, 2013). Mennonite World Conference. “Global Church Sharing Fund.” Mennonite World Conference. Accessed November 18. http://www.mwc- cmm.org/article/global-church-sharing-fund (accessed November 18, 2012). Miller, Herb, Lyle E. Schaller, and Cynthia Woolever. 2011. “What is the pastor’s role in church finances?” The parish paper: Ideas and insights for active congregations 19 (6)(June): 2. Murray, Stuart. 2010. The naked Anabaptist: The bare essentials of a radical faith. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press. -------. 2012. Beyond tithing. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers. Muttart Foundation. The Muttart Foundation. http://www.muttart.org (accessed December 22, 2012). Nakoneshny, Nicole. 2012a. “Issue 1 - Trends.” 1. Philanthropic Trends Quarterly 2012. Toronto, ON: KCI. http://www.kciphilanthropy.eom/lang/en/#panel-4-b (accessed July 10, 2012). -------. 2012b. “Issue 3 - The donor issue.” 3. Philanthropic Trends Quarterly 2012. Toronto, ON: KCI. http://www.kciphilanthropy.com/download_trends/KCI_Q3_2012%20Tre nds%20Final%20English.pdf (accessed October 30, 2012). [ Page ] 240 Olson, Edwin E., and Glenda H. Eoyang. 2001. Facilitating organization change: Lessons from complexity science. Practicing Organization Development Series. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Plett, Harvey. 2011. “Finding spiritual leaders for our church.” Theodidaktos Taught by God: Journal for EMC Theology and Education, January. -------. 2012. “Celebrating the past.” The Messenger, September. Plowman, Donde Ashmos, Stephanie Solansky, Tammy E. Beck, LaKami Baker, Mukta Kulkarni, and Deandra Villarreal Travis. 2007. “The role of leadership in emergent, self-organization.” The Leadership Quarterly 18 (4) (August): 341-356. Pries-Klassen, Darren. 2011. Interview with author. July 26. -------. 2012. Annual Report 2012. Winnipeg, MB: Mennonite Foundation of Canada. -------. 2013. Interview with author. July 10. Reed, Paul B., and L. Kevin Selbee. 2002. “Is there a distinctive pattern of values associated with giving and volunteering? The Canadian case.” Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada and Carleton University. http://www3.carleton.ca/casr/V olunteers%20patterns.pdf (accessed May 21, 2013). Reesor, Lori Ann Guenther. 2007a. Theology and fundraising : how does current Canadian Mennonite praxis compare to Paul’s collection for Jerusalem? Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo. -------. 2007b. “Summary document of theology and fundraising: How does current Canadian Mennonite praxis compare to Paul’s collection for Jerusalem?” -------. 2011. “T3010 data analysis from MFC congregations, 2004-2009: Staffing, receipts, overall giving to donees.” Mennonite Foundation Canada. -------. 2013a. “Capital campaigns not the real problem for MC Canada.” Canadian Mennonite Magazine. June 10. -------. 2013b. “Join the big hearts club.” Canadian Mennonite Magazine. August 19. Reimer, A. James. 2003. The dogmatic imagination: the dynamics of Christian belief. Waterloo, ON: Herald Press. [ Page ] 241 Reimer, Rob. 2012. “Building for the future.” Steinbach Bible College. March 26. http://sbcollege.ca/news/building-ftiture (accessed September 5, 2013). Sawatsky, Walter. 2004. “Mennonite ministry and Christian history.” In The heart of the matter. Tilford, PA: Cascadia Publishing House. Silverman, David. 2005. Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. 2nd ed. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Smith, Christian, Michael O. Emerson, and Patricia Snell. 2008. Passing the plate why American Christians don’t give away more money. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Smith, Maria, and Tamsin Bowers-Brown. 2010. “Different kinds of qualitative data collection methods.” In Practical research and evaluation. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Snyder, C. Arnold. 2004. Following in the footsteps of Christ: The Anabaptist tradition. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books. -------. 2014. E-mail message to author, February 24. Snyder, C. Arnold, and Galen A. Peters. 2002. Reading the Anabaptist bible: Reflections for every day of the year. Kitchener, ON: Pandora Press. Statistics Canada. 2012a. “Caring Canadians, involved Canadians: Tables report, 2010.” 89-649-X-201101. Ottawa, ON: Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division. -------. 2012b. “Median total income, by family type, by province and territory (All census families).” http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum- som/101/cst01/famill08a-eng.htm (accessed June 26, 2012). Statistics Canada. 2013. “Work: Employment rate.” Employment and Social Development Canada. http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.lt.4r@- eng.jsp?iid=13 (Accessed September 22, 2013). -------. 2013b. “The Daily — Charitable donors, 2011." Statistics Canada. February 13. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/130213/dq130213a- eng.htm (accessed February 13, 2013). -------. 2013c. “Charitable donors CANSIM table 111-0001.” Statistics Canada. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/101/cst01/famil90- eng.htm (accessed February 13, 2013). [ Page ] 242 -------. 2013d. “The Daily — Study: Living apart together.” Statistics Canada. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/130305/dql30305a-eng.htm (accessed March 5, 2013). -------. 2013e. “CANSIM - 111-0001 - Summary of charitable donors.” Statistics Canada. http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/pick- choisir;jsessionid=08EBC0AC3B76535F67FEED5D29FD68A9 (accessed March 5, 2013). Steinbach Bible College. 2013. “New dorm unveiled.” Steinbach Bible College. August 28. http://sbcollege.ca/news/new-dorm-unveiled (accessed September 2, 2013). Szwarc, Paul. 2005. Researching customer satisfaction & loyalty: How to find out what people really think. London; Sterling, VA: Kogan Page. “The story of the Evangelical Mennonite Mission Conference.” 2008. http://aemmc.ca/system/files/u 1 l/EMMC%20History%20Booklet.pdf (accessed January 23, 2013). Turcotte, Martin. 2012. “Charitable giving by Canadians.” Statistics Canada Catalogue (11-008-X). Canadian Social Trends (April 16): 36. UPI. 2011. “Survey: 80 percent of Canadians online.” UPI. May 25. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/201 l/05/25/Survey-80- percent-of-Canadians-online/UPI-77791306334634/ (accessed December 8, 2012). Vincent, Mark. 2006. A Christian view of money: Celebrating God’s generosity. 3rd ed. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press. Volf, Miroslav. 2005. Free of charge: Giving and forgiving in a culture stripped of grace. Grand Rapids, Ml: Zondervan. Wiebe-Neufeld, Donita, and Rachel Bergen. 2010. “Financial trends: Healthy or worrisome?” Canadian Mennonite Magazine, August 2. Wiese, Michael D., and Richard L. Gerig. 2005. “Report of findings: Research study of denomination giving Mennonite Church USA.” Bellefontaine, OH: Advancement Associates, Inc. Witherington III, Ben. 2010. Jesus and money: A guide for times of financial crisis. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press. Wuthnow, Robert. 2007. After the baby boomers: How twenty and thirty somethings are shaping the future of American religion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [ Page ] 243 Yoder Neufeld, Thomas R. 2007. “Hilarious Givers” presented at the Conrad Grebel University College School for Ministers, October 27, Waterloo, ON. -------. 2012. “Koinonia: The gift we hold together.” Mennonite Quarterly Review 86 (July). Zerbe Cornelsen, Dori. 2013. “Practise, practise, practise.” Canadian Mennonite Magazine, January 21. [ Page ] 244 ***** This is the end of the e-text. This e-text was brought to you by Tyndale University, J. William Horsey Library - Tyndale Digital Collections *****