Factors Associated with Pastoral Preaching on Financially-Related Topics Within the Missionary Church.

CHAPTER 1

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

Introduction and Background

What could be accomplished through Christian ministry causes if there were

another $46 billion available per year? How many more missionaries could be sent to the

field? How many more people could be provided with clean water, or fed, or clothed?

How many more people languages could be interpreted for Bible printing and

distribution? Forty-six billion dollars is what Smith, Emerson, and Snell (2008) estimate

could be available if committed Christians gave 10% of their after-tax income. Ten

percent would be a significantly higher amount than the current 1% to 3% percent that

research showed people actually contribute (Barna, 2008; Smith et al., 2008). Why is

there such a large discrepancy between the reality and the potential in giving?

This concept of tithing (giving 10% of one’s income) is just one example of the

many financial topics taught in the Bible. In fact, the Bible is full of instruction on a

variety of financial matters. There are roughly 500 verses explicitly on prayer, less than

500 verses explicitly on faith, but more than 2,350 verses on money and possessions

(Dayton, 1996). Alcorn (2001) mentions that 15% of everything Christ said dealt with

financial topics, more than His teachings on heaven and hell combined. Sixteen of the 38

parables Jesus presented centered on how to handle money and possessions. Within the

topic of money and possessions, there are a variety of issues addressed by the Bible.

These include such things as investing, wealth, taxes, debt, honesty, cosigning,

inheritance, working, compensation, and giving, to name a few.

If the Bible speaks to financial areas as much or more than any other topic, and if

Jesus Christ emphasized His teaching using financial illustrations, then it would seem

that the financial area would be one of concentrated teaching in churches. According to

Smith et al. (2008), this does not appear to be the case:

Prior research has shown that very many pastors and priests are uncomfortable in

communicating with the members of their congregations about their responsibility to

give money generously. Clergy discomfort with talking about and training for

handling money is a well established fact. One national study of clergy, for instance,

showed that 77 percent of U.S. clergy are very or extremely satisfied with their

seminary training on theological and liturgical issues, but a mere 7 percent are

similarly satisfied with their seminary training on financial duties. The same survey

revealed that while 83 percent of U.S. pastors are very or extremely satisfied with

their experiences of pastoral duties, only 33 percent are similarly satisfied with their

experience in handling financial matters. (p. 72)

Furthermore, John Ronsvalle and Sylvia Ronsvalle (as cited in Hoge, McNamara, &

Zech, 1997) state that only 6% of pastors answered favorably the statement: Most pastors

enjoy preaching about money.

This research indicates pastors often feel unprepared and cautious about speaking

on financial matters. They may not have received the training on how best to teach on

financial themes or how to disciple others into good financial stewardship. In many

cases, they may not know how to manage their own personal financial lives. This lack of

training in the financial area during their professional development may be a factor that

has kept pastors from addressing financial issues.

The link between pastoral teaching on financial themes and member giving raises

concerns about varying factors influencing pastors in this area. Smith et al. (2008)

provided the most comprehensive of all recent work in this area. They suggested several

pastoral thoughts about this issue.

Pastors related to us how sensitive the issue of money is for many of their

parishioners and how uncomfortable that makes them talking about it and so pastors

kind of struggle with actually saying anything about it out loud. . . . Some pastors told

us that talking about money with their congregations is one of the biggest challenges

in their entire vocations, something they have to work very hard to address. . . .

Pastors also spoke frequently and unhappily about the pressure they feel from the

congregations to not talk too much about money. . . . The struggle that some pastors

have with money in their churches is complicated by their uneasiness around their

own personal handling of money. . . . Many pastors also stated that they are

personally uncomfortable talking with parishioners about giving money because of

the direct implications of their own income. It is like I am raising my own salary. . . .

Pastors also voiced discontent with their lack of training and denominational support

for dealing with money issues. A number of them talked about having relatively little

to no training or education about money in their pastoral preparation. One pastor

explained, It’s not something you do in seminary, at least we didn’t. . . . Furthermore,

many pastors of all sorts mention getting negative vibes about money from other

pastors. (pp. 103-106)

Citing a Lilly Foundation Study and a Christian Stewardship Association Study,

Kluth (1998) reported 95% of Christian educational institutions (colleges, universities,

seminaries, and Bible colleges) offer no personal or ministry financial curriculum; 90%

of denominations offer no available (or limited) financial teaching resources to their

pastors or churches; 85% of pastors feel unequipped and uncomfortable teaching on

finances and giving; and 90% of churches have no active plan for teaching biblical

financial principles to their congregations (Kluth, 1998, Section 1, p. 3).

If people are going to learn to apply financial concepts such as stewardship and

tithing and make it a part of their personal habits, it seems these concepts should be

addressed to congregations by their pastor. Understanding the factors influencing a

pastor’s communication on this topic may help to improve teaching on this topic, which

in turn may improve parishioners’ personal biblical stewardship.

Significance of the Study

Because little research about church giving and philanthropy in America existed

prior to 1990, the Lilly Endowment spurred and funded an initiative to find out more. The

last 20 years have been a period of time when research has intensified in the area of

studying giving trends. This research has centered in both church and general

philanthropy. Most of the church research has involved large, mainline denominations

and has tended to focus on the donor, giving percentages and what increases those

percentages (Barna, 2008; Falk, Raybin, & Rooney, 2010; Ronsvalle & Ronsvalle, 1999;

R.D. Roth, 1987; Smith et al., 2008; Zaleski & Zech, 1992;). Studies including personal

traits of donors, such as level of education (Donahue, 1994; Frederick, Tak, Kim,

McDermott, & Kou, 2009; Hoge, 1994; Luidens & Nemeth, 1994), volunteering (Finke,

Bahr, & Scheitle, 2006; Luidens et al., 1994), church attendance (Iannaccone, 1997;

Lunn, Clay, & Douglass, 2001; Wilhelm, Rooney, & Tempel, 2007), gender (Mesch,

2010; Zaleski & Zech, 1992) and personal income level (Collett & Morrisey, 2007; Hoge,

1994; Luidens & Nemeth, 1994), to name a few, have been considered to examine the

likelihood and level of donating. The tithe and pledging efforts have also been

considered in various studies (Hoge, 1994; Inskeep, 1994; Miller, Parfet, & Zech, 2001).

With no known studies highlighting smaller evangelical settings, this exploratory,

quantitative study of pastors within the Missionary Church helped fill this research gap.

The study provides empirical data within a smaller, evangelical denomination which

revealed differences between the evangelical pastor of the Missionary Church and those

from previous studies conducted in larger mainline denominations.

Statement of the Problem

Given the central role of pastors in training their congregation in all-biblical

teaching and given the lack of higher rates of giving, it is important to uncover some of

the factors influencing teaching and preaching on finances. Because there is very limited

study on understanding pastoral factors related to preaching and teaching on financial

matters, this study addresses that problem.

Purpose

The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the extent to which pastors

within the Missionary Church preach on financially related issues and the influence of

selected demographic characteristics, and personal, institutional (church), and social

variables on this preaching on financially related issues.

Research Questions

Two questions guided this study. First, how many weekend messages did a pastor

dedicate to preaching or teaching on financially related topics in a year’s time? Second,

what were the demographic, personal, institutional, and social factors that influence

pastors to preach and teach about financially related issues on a regular basis?

Conceptual Framework

The main focus of this study was on the factors that influence pastoral preaching

and teaching on finances. Several variables in the area of pastoral demographic

information (known as demographic), pastoral personal views and experience with

financial issues (known as personal), institutional (related to the church), and social

factors were identified as linked to the literature. Figure 1 shows the conceptual

relationship envisioned for this study. Each individual variable, regardless of where in the

four categorical areas it lies, may have a relationship with other variables within that

category. Likewise, categories, or individual variables within a category, may have a

relationship with those of other categories. The objective of this exploratory effort was to

find which variables do indeed impact a pastor’s tendency toward preaching and teaching

on financially related topics.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework diagram.

In many ways the Smith et al. (2008) work provided the backdrop for this

dissertation and helped spur the interest of exploring these concepts with pastors in an

evangelical denomination setting. Smith et al. (2008) provided the most recent and most

comprehensive research. For instance, to help illustrate the institutional (church) mind-

set, they wrote the following hypotheses about congregational giving:

preaching and

teaching on

financially

related topics

Personal

Institutional

Social

Demographic

First, if local congregational cultures maintained high expectations of and collectively

honored generous financial giving, Christians would give more generously. Second,

and as part of that, they would give more if Christian congregations confidently

taught the normative instructions of their faith tradition regarding generous financial

giving. Generous giving would also be increased by Christian leaders’ strongly

encouraging believers to make theologically informed, principled decisions about and

commitments to generous financial giving. If Christian organizations provided

multiple means by which Christians could follow through on their principled

decisions to give generously in ways that were structured and routine, that would

increase giving. Finally, if religious and charitable organizations established better

procedures, and practices of transparency, communication, and accountability that

systematically increased potential and actual donors’ trust in their uses of their

contributions, that would increase the financial giving of American Christians. (pp.

97-98)

In reading these thoughts, each of these conclusions was linked to factors of better

communication—congregation cultures, teaching faith traditions, theologically informed

decisions, procedures and transparency. They are all elements that could be

communicated as a part of preaching and teaching on just one financial area in the

Bible—giving. And while overall giving among Christians is low relative to the tithe, the

Smith et al. (2008) study suggests that giving could easily increase if ideals were more

clearly communicated with parishioners. However, research shows pastors often avoid

communicating on this topic (Mead, 1998; Smith et al., 2008; Wuthnow, 1997). This

study sought to explore what factors may influence this. The above quote from Smith et

al. (2008) focuses on the area of giving; however, the Bible is full of other financial areas

that could be taught and bring help, understanding, and direction to parishioners

regarding stewardship of one’s money and possessions.

Research Design

Because of the exploratory nature of this study and the desire to see how

evangelical pastors compared to the overall literature available, a survey design was

chosen as the best way to accomplish these objectives. Survey designs are procedures in

quantitative research in which the investigator administers a questionnaire to groups of

people to identify trends in attitudes, opinions, behaviors, or characteristics (Creswell,

2008).

The Missionary Church denomination was chosen for the study. It represented a

small, evangelical denomination, characteristics absent from known existing research. I

also had access to this denomination. At the time this study was undertaken, the

Missionary Church had 18 districts (including small, mission districts) across the United

States (there are now 21). Fifteen of these districts held an annual meeting at which all

credentialed pastors were expected to attend. The data were collected in person by a

hardcopy survey instrument at these 15 district meetings. Data on the dependent variable

were collected from a question related to the number of weekend messages a pastor

preached on financially related issues. The independent variables were 42 demographic,

personal, institutional (church), and social factors that affect preaching and teaching

attitudes.

Demographic variables included: (a) district in which pastor is located, (b)

pastor’s age, (c) ethnicity, (d) marital status, (e) number of children at home, (f) years in

ministry, (g) years as a preaching/teaching pastor, (h) currently full-time, part time, or bi-

vocational, (i) years at current church, (j) current compensation package, (k) current

church, average weekend attendance, (l) level of education, (m) degree from a Christian

institution or seminary, and (n) who handles finances in the pastor’s home.

Personal variables of pastors included: (a) personal giving habits, (b) personal

debt situation, (c) comfort level of their compensation package, (d) comfort level on

preaching or teaching on financial topics, (e) personal beliefs on the issue of tithing, (f)

desire to be liked by congregation, (g) support of the Missionary Church’s statement on

stewardship, (h) received financial training during education, (i) received financial

training since entering the ministry, (j) willingness to seek or attend future financial

training, and (k) reflect whether a pastor should know or knows giving levels of people in

his congregation.

Institutional factors included: (a) the pastor’s current church’s financial position,

(b) church’s feeling that pastor talks too much about money, (c) belief that those

perceived to be generous people in the congregation are happier, healthy people, (d)

support of the Missionary Church’s Stewardship Statement, (e) pastor’s knowledge of

parishioners’ giving, (f) annual increases in church budget address mostly operational

increases, (g) annual increases in budget address outreach efforts, (h) church offers

Crown Ministry Financial study as an option to the congregation, (i) church offers

Financial Peace University as an option to the congregation, (j) church offers some other

form of financial study to the congregation, (k) materialism/consumerism affects the

congregation, and (l) credit card debt is an issue in the pastor’s church.

Social factors include pastor’s beliefs that: (a) all pastors do is talk about money,

(b) materialism/consumerism is an issue in society, (c) credit card debt is an issue in

society, and (d) society believes that all pastors do is ask for money.

Descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis using principle component

analysis (PCA), and binary logistic regression analysis were used to study data. More

information about the population and sample, survey instrument, and analysis is provided

in Chapter 3.

Assumptions

The study had two assumptions:

1. That the senior preaching pastors of the Missionary Church had an accurate

understanding of the number of annual sermons they presented on a financially related

topic

2. That the senior preaching pastors participating in this study would provide

honest responses on the surveys.

Delimitations

This study was delimited to senior, preaching pastors of Missionary Churches.

The senior, preaching pastor was the primary individual responsible in a church for

delivering the weekend sermons/messages to the congregations.

Definition of Terms

The following are definitions of terms used throughout this study:

Missionary Church: A small, evangelical denomination with 473 congregations

spread throughout the United States and Puerto Rico with 464 senior pastors (Missionary

Church Directory, 2012). It reports a membership of 37,684 with an average Sunday

morning attendance of 63,514.

Preaching/Teaching: Delivering a weekend message to the congregation.

Senior Preaching Pastor: The pastor responsible for delivering weekend

messages for the congregation.

Finances: Money, possessions, investments and/or resources an individual

possesses.

Evangelical: In simplist terms the word comes from Evangelion, which means

“Gospel” or “Good News” (Willmer, 1995. p. 103); one who follows the gospel or good

news of Jesus Christ. (More is included on this in the literature review beginning on page

16.)

Stewardship: Recognizes God as the supplier of all resources and man is

responsible to manage those in a way that honors and brings glory to God.

Summary and Organization of the Study

Although financial issues have been taught and discussed, and stewardship has

been promoted within Christian communities since New Testament times, it has only

been since 1990 that concerted efforts have focused on empirical research issues of

money in the church and philanthropy in general. Most of this research pertaining to the

church has been related to large mainline denominations and has been focused on giving

trends and donors. More research was needed in understanding variables that link pastors

to preaching and teaching on financial issues. This exploratory study of pastors within

the Missionary Church provided such an emphasis.

This study consists of five chapters. Chapter 1 included an introduction, the

statement of the problem, the research question, the conceptual framework, the

justification of the study, the significance of the study, the methodology summary, the

delimitations, the assumptions, the definition of terms, and the summary. Chapter 2

provides a literature review. This review focused on summarizing previous research

performed in this field with special focus placed on content related to social, institutional,

and personal data applying to pastoral insight related to finances and giving. Chapter 3

comments on the methodology of the study and contains all parameters used in gathering

and interpreting research information. Because of the Hispanic growth in the Missionary

Church, the survey instrument was available in both English and Spanish translations.

Chapter 4 provides the results of the study. The findings were analyzed using descriptive

statistics, exploratory factor analysis via PCA, and binary logistic regression. Chapter 5

discusses the findings of the study. This includes a restatement of the problem and

purpose, reviews the research questions and research design, reports the findings,

discusses these findings in light of literature, and, lastly, provides recommendations and a

conclusion.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This literature review provided background support related to the purpose and

problem statements of this study. It is divided into seven main categories. The first

section will give a short overview of data, demographics, and general empirical research

in the area of giving and finances within religious groups in the U.S. I then briefly

review concepts related to stewardship from a biblical perspective. The next three

sections concentrate on issues within the three categorical variables of personal factors,

social factors, and institutional (church) factors that contribute to pastoral views on issues

of finances and giving. A section also reviews the doctrinal and practice issues related to

evangelicals and giving. Lastly, since the study’s focus is on pastors in one evangelical

community—the Missionary Church—I review aspects of that denomination.

Data, Demographics, and Empirical Research on

Churches and Finances

The empirical research and study on giving and related themes in the religious

community is a fairly recent initiative. Hoge (1995) mentions:

I tried to do a thorough review of the research on religious giving. Numerous books

discuss the theology of giving and stewardship, several nationwide polls have asked

about personal giving, and a large number of books teach how to raise funds. I

discovered that religious giving had seldom been studied from hypothesis-testing

social scientific approach. This surprised me since thousands of professionals make

their living in the field of philanthropy and many dollars are at stake. (p. 51)

Iannaccone (1997) echoed Hoge’s comments. He mentioned a 1991 Lilly Endowment

decision to provide substantial financial support for new research on religious giving and

church finance that sparked efforts of exploration. With Lilly’s help, 30 scholars met in

1992 and 1993 to analyze data on church giving. That initiative led to more intensive

study on giving in the past 20 years. Many of those studies have examined indicators that

predict a person’s likelihood to financially contribute to churches and charities.

From these comments it is evident that it has only been the last 20 years in which

empirical research of any significance has contributed to this field of church giving.

Donahue (1994), Hoge (1994), Iannaccone (1997), Inskeep (1994), Luidens and Nemeth

(1994), and Zalaski and Zech (1994) were all early contributors to this field of study.

Their published research in an issue of Review of Religious Research laid the groundwork

in studying giving among religious groups. Since then, others like S.L. Miller (1999),

Mead (1998), Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle (1996, 1999, 2000), Smith et al. (2008), and

Wuthnow (1999) have added more analysis on influences and trends on giving and other

related factors in religious groups.

There has also been growth in organizations that comment on various areas of

philanthropy and provide services to help groups understand trends. John Ronsvalle and

Sylvia Ronsvalle not only provided research in the 1990s and significant information in

their book, Behind the Stained Glass Windows, but continue to do so today through their

ministry, Empty Tomb, Inc. The Barna Group has long provided studies on many

Christian issues including giving. The Indiana University Purdue University campus in

Indianapolis is home to the Lake Institute and the Center of Philanthropy for Indiana

University. Their website provided a wide range of resources and research in this field.

Brian Kluth performs an annual church-giving study and provided resources to pastors

and churches related to issues of giving. And Christian Smith, a leading sociologist and

author who provided much of the backdrop and vision for this dissertation, oversees the

Science of Generosity at the University of Notre Dame. His work and the Science of

Generosity website capture research on many areas of generosity including financial. The

Science of Generosity has accumulated four extensive literature reviews capturing

pertinent sources, authors, and titles, and were used in this study. Last but not least, Dave

Ramsey’s Financial Peace University and Crown Financial Concepts provide significant

resources for education and training on financial issues.

Stewardship

The idea of stewardship is crucial in the overall theology of the Christian. One’s

views of stewardship will likely result in personal views on money, finances, and

possessions. One could get the idea that since “I am supposed to give 10% to God,” one

could do whatever one pleased with the remaining 90%. Stewardship, however, is about

more than the 10%. Stewardship involves careful watch over the whole 100% entrusted

to the steward or manager. The Christian, then, is the steward of what God entrusts to

him/her (Ps 51:9-11 and Ps 24:1); thus overseeing or managing one’s possessions is very

important. The question was asked, “Is the tithe obligatory for the Christian?” Part of

this question arose from Christ’s criticism of the Pharisees (Matt 23:23). Foster (1995)

noted that this criticism stemmed from the people’s legalistic approach to giving, thus

missing the larger mark of stewardship.

Teaching God’s people the importance of stewardship is an important function of

a pastor’s role. Russell (2002) spoke from personal experience as a former pastor when

he said, “We want them [parishioners] to consider their attitude towards possessions as a

personal and spiritual matter vital to their relationship with God” (p. 43). Wuthnow

(1999) recorded that one third of those who heard a sermon in the last year said they also

thought a great deal in the past year about what the Bible teaches concerning money and

about the relationship between religious values and their personal finances. Ninety-two

percent of those who had thought a great deal about the relationship between religious

values and their finances agreed that the Bible contained valuable teaching about money.

Roth (1987) noted the New Testament gave no explicit answer to the question,

“What percentage should people give?” The answer he says was determined by faith,

love, gratitude, and concern for God’s Kingdom. It placed on Christians the single

concern to give as God gave to them (p. 13). Jeyaraj (2004) also suggested giving began

by surrendering one’s life to the Lordship of Christ and then it flowed to help the lives of

others. Giving one’s life to Christ naturally led to giving up one’s possessions and life

for others. Both were interlinked. Mulligan (2007) also mentioned stewardship was

connected to a fuller understanding of the faith.

It was possible a lack of stewardship meant that many of God’s people lacked

faith, love, gratitude, and concern for God’s Kingdom. The question of the tithe was one

that always arose. Russell (2002), like Foster (1995), gave reference to the Old Testament

tithe in mentioning 10% of their crops and flocks were returned to God. “Today, God has

given Christians Jesus Christ, the indwelling Holy Spirit, the fellowship of the church, the

privilege of living in the most affluent nation in the world, plus so many personal

blessings. You decide whether your gift should be more or less than a tithe” (p. 45). Dr.

Frances Pieper (as cited in Roth, 1987) reflected the following thought on the tithe:

Many seek some guidance on this matter and we ought not to be bashful about

speaking at least 10 percent. Most tithers testify that they have experienced rich

blessing in giving a tenth. I have never run across a tither who regretted being one.

Martin Luther says: “Certainly the tithe comes to be the most just of all dues, since

they have existed by divine testimony, almost from the beginning of the world.” In

addition, they seem the most reasonable. . . . In every way we strive that the tithe

remain inviolate.” To those who resist the suggestion of the tithe on the grounds of

legalism may we suggest that they give 11 percent on the grounds of grace. (p. 13)

The importance of training and teaching cannot go unnoticed. Brooks (2006)

asked an executive at a South Dakota community foundation why South Dakotans

donated so much of their income to charity. Her response was immediate: “Religion!

We were all taught to tithe,” she told me (p. 30). People in South Dakota gave the same

amount of money as people in San Francisco, even though the amount of money that they

make per family was just about half of what people in San Francisco make.

Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle (1996) note that the whole area of stewardship was a

measure of devotion. The way that individuals spent their money indicated something

about their emotional and spiritual thermometer. In a consumer society such as the

United States, it became the most readable evident measurement. The life of Christ

offers the Christian a theological basis for Paul’s writing in 2 Cor 8:8-9. Though Christ

was rich, He became poor for the sake of mankind, sacrificing all so humanity could

enjoy salvation. The giver was expected to give according to his or her ability and in the

realization of the love of God (Jeyaraj, 2004).

Finally, Platt (2011) refers to 1 Tim 6:18 where Paul admonishes Timothy to

command the rich to “do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing

to share.” This, Paul says, was the key to being free from the deadly nature of wealth and

possessions.

Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle (1996) made a telling summary about stewardship today:

“Church members have changed from stewards into consumers. People were not

returning a portion of their incomes to God. Rather, they are paying for services rendered

by the church” (p. 31).

This opening portion of the literature review focused on the relative infancy of

study in this area. I followed that by touching on the area of stewardship and the place it

has in the life of the Christian. I now move to literature examining what may be

influencing the emphasis on teaching and giving with the Christian and Evangelical

community. I examine personal, social, and institutional factors that might especially

influence pastoral communication in this important area.

Personal Factors

Though God’s word said as much if not more about financial issues than any

other topic in Scripture, it remains a lightning rod of sorts. Research suggested few

pastors desire to spend much time on it and few parishioners want to hear anything about

it (Mead, 1998; Miller, 1999; Ronsvalle & Ronsvalle, 1996; Smith et al., 2008;

Wuthnow, 1997). The following lends insight into pastoral factors that played important

roles in understanding this dilemma.

Fear

Hoge et al. (1997) mentioned that one fear felt by nearly every pastor was fear of

criticism, “You’re always talking about money.” For the vast majority of pastors, this

criticism was unfair. Most pastors have gone to great lengths to avoid talking about

money because they know how sensitive and potentially alienating it is. Mulligan (2007)

offered similar thoughts when he mentioned that one of the roles of preaching was

communicating the faith, yet many clergy dreaded the approach of the stewardship

season. They buckled in fear at the thought of talking about money. To listen to some, it

is clear they hated the idea. Schultz (2001) believed pastors were hesitant to teach

stewardship. He shared the fear among pastors that concentration on financial

stewardship only invited the charge that all the church cared about is money.

Bagwell (1993) summarized, “Motivated out of fear, guilt, and even anger, the

preacher speaks to the congregation about money and spirituality. The preacher preached

on giving out of his or her emptiness. No one listened. No one responded. Few gave”

(p. 5). It is as if today’s pastor was fighting a losing battle in this area.

The Need to Be Liked

Hoge et al. (1997) noted that the discomfort of speaking about money has several

sources. One was that many pastors want to be liked by their church members and they

felt they would alienate members if they pushed too hard on money issues. Pastors are

people too. They need friendships and acceptance just like all human beings. Hoge et al.

(1997) furthered noted that most pastors were loved and respected, but they all hoped to

avoid situations in which they risked losing the love and respect of their parishioners.

Asking for money presented a situation of risk.

“Pastors were also keenly aware of the pressures that encouraged church members

to spend money on material possessions even to the point of going heavily into debt.

They were also overwhelmed by these issues” (Wuthnow, 1999, p. 71). “The only way to

come to terms with the changes taking place after World War II was to talk about them.

However, many issues involved responsible use of money in light of scriptural demands.

And pastors, perhaps above all things, do not like to talk about money” (Ronsvalle &

Ronsvalle, 1996, p. 298).

This appeared to be a dilemma for pastors. On one hand, they wanted to be liked

and loved by their congregations. On the other hand, there was the responsibility of

teaching scriptural principles to their congregation, even those scriptural principles that

might cause some parishioners to squirm. Somehow pastors needed to find ways to be

spiritual leaders and also financial leaders. They needed to develop an approach to

church finances that helped church members grow in their stewardship commitment

without alienating them (Hoge et al., 1997, p. 6).

Education and Training

It was surprising to learn of the lack of attention such a major area like this has

received in pastoral training. In fact, Mulder (1999) remarked that the strange silence

about money in the life of the church was matched by inattention to money and

stewardship in theological seminary curricula. Hoge et al. (1997) mentioned that the

seminary leaders are not convinced that they have a responsibility to teach these topics:

Over half said that the seminary curriculum was already filled, and practical management

skills needed to be acquired later. S.L. Miller (1999) remarked of her research and

interviews of seminary leaders that they were not uniformly supportive of the idea a

seminary should teach church leaders about leadership, stewardship, and management of

the churches’ resources. Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle (1996) offered several similar

comments in this area, noting that seminaries believe management and financial

instruction was something the student needed to pick up on their own. They felt

seminary leaders believed stewardship was not considered an academic topic worthy of

attention during the short 3 years a seminary had to work with a student.

“Over the years, seminaries have focused on scholarly academic theoretical

questions, and there has been an absence of work related to practical church life,” says

James Waits, Executive Director of the Association of Theological Schools in the United

States and Canada (Ronsvalle & Ronsvalle, 1996, p. 157). But Al Taylor combated that

by saying, “You give pastors all of this training at the seminary, and the first problem

they run into in the congregation was money and you haven’t taught them a thing about

money” (as cited Ronsvalle & Ronsvalle, 1996, p. 159).

One explanation for this imbalance in academic training may be in the faculty

makeup of today’s seminary. In days gone by, the instructors in seminaries were current

or retired pastors in the denominations they served. Hoge et al. (1997) offer another

insight in that many seminary instructors have never served as pastors and preached for

any extended time in a congregation. Most have been lifelong academics. They went to

college, earned their advanced degrees, and perhaps served some sort of internship, and

then became instructors in seminary. Because those teaching have never had to generate

funds or deal with a congregation, they were not going to talk to students about these

things.

Pastors themselves would concur that their professional development in this area

was below par. In a survey conducted by S.L. Miller (1999), fewer than 15% said they

were satisfied or very satisfied with the administrative and financial training they

received. In separate research, Hoge et al. (1997) noted that pastors in Catholic and

mainline churches said that administrative and financial duties were the least satisfying

parts of their ministry. They said they never had good training. More than 85% said they

were dissatisfied with the administrative and financial training they received in seminary.

Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle recorded only 9% as saying they had received adequate training

(as cited in Hoge et al., 1997).

The feelings surrounding the church and finances today appeared to have soured

future consideration of training in this area. When asked directly about their interest in

attending financial or management-related short courses, clergy were not enthusiastic.

S.L. Miller (1999) noted that only 15% of Protestant and 14% of Catholic clergy said

they were interested in financial resource management training. In a similar study, pastors

said management and financial matters were of importance, but they preferred other

possible forms of leadership in this area. They want to concentrate fully on their

theological, liturgical, and pastoral duties and leave management tasks to someone else

(Ronsvalle & Ronsvalle, 1996).

S.L. Miller (1999) summarized seminary financial education by noting:

The limited training opportunities that are currently available to future church leaders

in the stewardship of human, physical, and financial resources normally are not a

required part of seminary curriculum; they are not, in general, regarded as an integral

part of the theological and pastoral education that church leaders receive in the

seminary. As a result, future church leaders do not receive systematic, integrated

preparation for the management dimensions of pastoral ministry. (p. 101)

Given the dire state of seminary perspective in finance outlined in these several studies,

one wonders what factors could or do lead pastors to work and teach in this area of

stewardship.

Personal Finances

One of the items regarding stewardship and talking about money that bothered

clergy was the fact that their salary was typically a part of the church budget. This reality

was bothersome for many pastors. Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle (1996) noted one of the

national denomination executives believed that many of the pastors have never been

trained to handle money, so they have trouble handling their personal finances. That

thought was elevated when considering ministerial staff often try to survive on marginal

incomes. Given this combination of factors, a pastor found it difficult to lead parishioners

into the responsible use of personal money when his or her own checkbook was not

balanced (Ronsvalle & Ronsvalle, 1996). Hoge et al. (1997) also expressed concern about

how their family financial circumstances, including their own giving to the church,

impacted their ability to talk about money, as well as how their message was received by

church members.

The issue of a pastor struggling in his own giving can be a real source of tension.

One could understand, for instance, why they would not want to preach or teach on

giving. It appeared hypocritical to implore the congregation to do that which he is not.

Allen (2005) said several people in his survey noted that sermons on stewardship were

more credible when worshippers could perceive that the preacher lived with integrity.

The pastor has to model stewardship based on personal experience. It is really an

integrity issue. Southern Baptist assistant regional minister, David Wheeler, agreed: “I

don’t think people will give unless the pastor led by example.” But there was no

guarantee that people will give if the pastor does (Ronsvalle & Ronsvalle, 1996).

Words and Actions of the Congregation

If talking about money and finances in the church was not hard enough in itself, it

seemed to be compounded in many ways by individuals and congregations who worked

to keep the topic out of the pulpit. Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle (1996) told of three specific

situations in their research. One pastor described being told in his first interview with the

congregational leadership board that the congregation expected one money sermon per

year. Another pastor was inspired to preach what he thought was a powerful stewardship

sermon in March. One of the congregation leaders made a special effort to inform the

pastor that he had given a fine sermon—except that it belonged in September, not in the

spring. A third pastor was enthusiastic about stewardship; a tither himself, he felt that it

was his responsibility to keep the possibility of good stewardship before the

congregation. He would therefore preach stewardship sermons when he felt it

appropriate, regardless of the time of year. He would do this in spite of the fact that an

older man, who faithfully sat near the front of the church each Sunday, stood up at the

first mention of money in the sermon and walked out the long aisle in full view of the

entire congregation. This gentleman explained to the pastor that he felt money was a

topic totally inappropriate for the church.

These stories were not isolated ones. Mead (1998) noted pastors were excoriated

for preaching too much about money because people wanted to avoid the subject and its

hold on them. He noted later in his work that clergy were allowed to talk—a little—about

church budgets and contributions to the church, but everything else concerning money

and the people’s personal budgets was off limits. In another portion of their work,

Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle (1996) mentioned an experience at a church where a guest was

speaking about financial matters and the chairman of the finance committee spoke out

saying, “We do not discuss money in this church. What gives you the right to come in

here and talk to us like this?” (p. 127). Mead (1998) suggested that lay people need to

step up by using their spiritual gifts and wisdom to help and share of their wealth and

wisdom in teaching congregational members. Sitting back, complaining the pastor was

preaching “too much” about money, and taking public offense have not helped

accomplish church goals.

“Something has to give! Both in talking with clergy about what they say and

from examining the transcripts of their sermons, we must say that clergy have tiptoed

around the topic of money as if they had walked through a mine field” (Wuthnow, 1999,

p. 147). He further revealed that 68% of the working public, in fact, agreed that money

was one thing and morals and values were completely separate. The church members

were just as likely as non-members to hold this view. Stowell (1987) told a story that

suggests a more positive possibility for money. He noted how one time he apologized for

speaking about money. Two members reproved his apology after the service saying,

“Giving is a privilege and act of worship” (p. 23).

The Pastor Knowing Who Gives What

Research by Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle (1996) also considered whether pastors

should know who gave and who gave what in their congregation. It was a controversial

issue because there are several potential downsides; however, on the positive side, the

more a pastor knew, the better he or she could address financial matters. At a stewardship

workshop, 97 pastors and 112 regional officials were asked, “The pastor’s knowledge of

what individual members give to their church can be a helpful assessment of an

individual member’s spiritual health” and “Most church members do not want pastors to

know how much individual members contribute to the church.” Seventy-eight percent of

pastors and 82% of regional officials agreed with the first question. Eighty-three percent

of pastors and 70% of regional officials agreed with the second question. Pastors

appeared to agree that they could benefit from knowing, but also agreed there would be

member opposition. It was suggested that members preferred to remain anonymous,

possibly because giving levels were embarrassingly low. In earlier research, Ronsvalle

and Ronsvalle (1996) quoted Hugh Magers who said he believed that the clergy who do

know what people in their congregations gave were better teachers on stewardship.

“Terrible pressure was brought to bear that no one knew,” he said. “Episcopalians would

tell you astounding things about their sexuality, but they would not talk at all about their

financial life” (p. 135).

Pastors’ Feelings, Thoughts, and Personal Testimonies

Earlier in this section, comments were given on the idea that pastors, like all other

people, wanted to be liked and appreciated. But the thought of preaching on finances or

the whole area of money in general also initiated other feelings or realities in a pastor’s

life as well. These feelings included guilt, uncertainty, or being uncomfortable, to name a

few. Because this area is so stressful for pastors, it was important to hear what they were

saying and include some of their thoughts for consideration. Consider the following from

Mead’s (1998) work: “Leading the fall stewardship campaign was often uncomfortable

for me. In a sense I kept being aware that I was asking people to contribute to my salary,

which usually was the biggest item in the budget”; “I often felt guilty about our family

situation, aware that my children were paying fairly substantially because of my

professional choices. I saw my kids having less than their friends, many from the

congregation”; “I believed in and practice proportional giving/tithing, but couldn’t get

over the feeling of resentment of people of means who gave little in comparison to what

seemed to be their resources”; “Clergy often feel the need to raise questions about the

materialist assumptions of society at the same time they have a voice inside crying out for

more of the fruits of that materialism for themselves”; “Clergy often feel patronized by

people who wanted to pass along to them their leftovers of clothing or furniture. The

hard part was saying ‘Thank You’ especially when you were choked up with anger” (p.

129-130). Bagwell (1993) told the story of a minister headed to retirement, and he

remembered with glee that there would be no more stewardship campaigns or

stewardship sermons.

Wuthnow (1997) made the point that by virtue of their position, clergy were

members of the middle class but not “of it” as often their income is not reflective of that

economic level. As members of the middle class, they experienced the same pressures

that many of their parishioners do. They did not want to appear to have all of the answers

to questions about personal finances, because they do not.

Pastors experienced a full range of emotions. There were obviously those who

struggled mightily in this area. Then there were others who were making an effort,

whether they saw results or not, to at least preach the topic. Implicitly, the silence in

churches about matters of money communicated only that nobody in the church had any

problem (Wuthnow, 1998, p. 144). This was certainly not the case. Wuthnow (1997) also

mentioned that although this was likely to remain a difficult area, some pastors who

enjoy preaching sermons linked to Scripture have found preaching this topic enjoyable.

Others have found it easier when honestly speaking to their own worries and mistakes.

Though some were making the effort to increase efforts in this area and while

others would always give the standard one message per year, as S.L. Miller (1999) notes,

few clergy found substantial satisfaction in their administrative and financial duties. She

continued by noting that this striking absence of enthusiasm for administrative and

financial duties was clearly evident, and to a nearly identical extent, both in Protestant

and Catholic clergy. That being mentioned, the Alban Institute in conjunction with the

Lake Institute on Faith & Giving (2009) reported that almost 40% of the pastors (N =

1,496) in their study preached or talked about charitable giving either slightly more (30.4)

or significantly more (9.4) than they did in the previous year.

Social Factors

This section looks at social factors that provide insight into the area of finances

and giving in people’s lives and its possible connection to pastoral teaching on this topic.

Consideration is given to materialism, consumerism, and credit card debt, giving

comparisons of today to the Great Depression and World War II, reasons people give,

personal happiness, and the encouragement for pastors to preach on finances.

Materialism and Consumerism

Hubbard (2001) recorded in his work the results of a U.S.A. Today poll that asked

people to finish the line, “I’d give more but . . .” Among the top responses included 79%

who said they had no excess income to give. In considering why this might be, it was

important to consider societal pressures people face to gratify physical desires. Pressures

included feelings of failure if an individual does not achieve financial goals

(Wuthnow, 1997).

Consumerism was defined as “the theory that an increasing consumption of goods

is economically desirable, a preoccupation with and an inclination toward the buying of

consumer goods” (“Consumerism,” 1984). Materialism was defined as “a doctrine that

the only or the highest values or objectives lie in material well-being and in the

furtherance of material progress. Also, a preoccupation with or stress upon material

rather than intellectual or spiritual things” (“Materialism,” 1984). The emphasis on these

two terms in this section related to exploring whether American culture today was

reflective of these concepts.

Platt (2011) posed the question, “Is materialism a blind spot in American

Christianity today?” In his work, Platt (2011) likened materialism to a war, a war against

the heart. He referred to it as a constant battle to resist the temptation to have more

luxuries, to acquire more things and to live more comfortably. In referring to Platt, no

assumption was made that all the respondents in the USA Today survey were Christians.

But, they were all human and experience what Wuthnow was suggesting concerning

social pressure.

An interesting indicator of today’s attitude towards money was seen in the

extension of personal credit. Woosley and Schulz (2011) used several sources in

providing very relevant information regarding credit card use and debt in America. There

were 609.8 million credit cards held by U.S. consumers with the average credit card debt

per household with a credit card at $14,750. This helped contribute toward an overall

total U.S. consumer debt of $2.40 trillion as of June 2010. In 2008, half of college

undergraduate students had four or more credit cards. The total bankruptcy filings in

2009 reached 1.4 million, up from 1.09 million in 2008. Penalty fees alone from credit

cards added up to about $20.5 billion in 2005. The average credit card-indebted family in

2004 allocated 21% of its income to servicing monthly debt compared to the 13%

dedicated to debt payments among all households.

Hubbard (2001) argued that our money gets tied up in culture-driven “wants”

beyond our basic needs. Because purchasing by credit was extending that which one does

not have, the credit card statistics speak to the amount of “wants” people seem to have.

The culture preaches self-indulgence and consumption; this is what these revealing

statistics point to. These statistics helped provide insight into why 79% of people believe

they do not have any excess income to give. And though it is important to note that these

statistics do not just apply to Christians, it is assumed Christians were carrying their fair

share based on Barna research, which seldom finds much statistical difference between

contemporary Christians and non-Christians. Wuthnow spoke to the tremendous increase

in consumerism even though there is evidence of increased church attendance and

religious belief in the U.S. He simply made the point that people are struggling

financially (as cited in Ronsvalle & Ronsvalle, 1996).

In one church interview, Wuthnow (1999) recalled a pastor saying one main

problem for people in his congregation is they simply don’t think carefully enough about

their money. They do not maintain budgets or records of their expenses. Platt (2011)

quotes 1 Tim 6:6, “Godliness with contentment is great gain.” In the context of this

passage, contentment was described as having food and clothing, having the necessities

of life provided for. When Jesus said, ‘Where your treasure is, there your heart will be

also,’ He was drawing a connection between money and human identity. If money and

human life were imminently woven together, then giving money was giving one’s self

away” (Mulder, 1999, p. 158).

The actions of culture seemed to indicate a vast number of people were not

concerned about giving of themselves, as Mulder suggests, but of getting for themselves

as society implored. “It’s easy to understand why we tiptoe around a subject of

stewardship. Money was still a god to many church members” (Russell, 2002, p. 43).

Willmer (1995) noted, “The materialism of our culture was the dominant issue and the

church has not combated materialism with its own set of values. People in the church

often feel that if they take the biblical teaching on stewardship to heart, they would have

to give up a lot that they don’t want to do without” (as cited in Ronsvalle & Ronsvalle,

1996).

The information presented suggests that materialism and consumption of goods

and services were contributing factors to increased debt in people’s lives, which

promoted a barrier to more generous giving in one’s personal life.

Today’s Giving Less Than Depression Levels

Scripture admonished it was more blessed to give than receive (Acts 20:35). The

research just reviewed suggests that contemporary trends push against this scriptural

admonishment. Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle’s (1999) study compared today’s giving to the

days of the Great Depression and World War II. In their study they revealed that

between 1922 and 1933, giving was slightly above 3% of income. This figure from the

days of the Great Depression dropped to equal, or slightly below, 2% during World War

II, and then eventually recovered to exceed 3% from 1957 through 1963. The per-

member contribution figure of 3.11% dipped to 2.46% by 1995.

This represented an astounding figure to most, if not all, to think that with the

affluence that exists in the United States, people were giving a greater percentage of their

income during the Depression and Second World War than was being given today.

Although 225 million Americans give away money each year, another 75 million

never give to any causes, charities, or churches (Brooks, 2006). Giving patterns in the

United States indicated the church was losing market share among its own members. For

the first time in history, a few societies, United States included, found most of their

people had money beyond what was needed for their personal basic needs (Ronsvalle &

Ronsvalle, 1996). “Discretionary income” was a reality for most of the population, and

advertising agencies very intentionally targeted that income, turning “wants into needs.”

This seemed to support the previous information on materialism and played a part in

contributing to the mounting debt being incurred in people’s lives. Ronsvalle and

Ronsvalle (1996) referred to a report going back as far as 1972 that concluded: “As

people see it, the main thing blocking church support simply was a surprising urge for

more affluent living. . . . Rival attractions seem to be gaining more of the religious dollar”

(p. 35). Stowell (1987) cited well-known seminary professor and president, Haddon

Robinson, who said, “You can tell a lot about a man’s spirituality by looking in his

checkbook. Giving was a reflection of where one’s heart was toward God. I tell my

people that making Him Lord of their money was a key of serving Him without

distraction” (p. 25). Platt (2011) noted the way we use our money was a barometer of our

spiritual condition.

This attitude and desire for more seemed to run counter to Christian teaching.

“For Jesus, charity was not a matter of giving out of a state of plenty, but involved the

possibility of losing everything for the sake of the needy. This was a radical principle!”

(Jeyaraj, 2004, p. 168) There seemed to be a lack of knowledge and understanding of

“how well off people are” who lived in the U.S. Platt (2011) helped to bring this to light

when he mentioned that the reality was, if you and I had running water, shelter over our

heads, clothes to wear, food to eat, and some means of transportation (even if it is public

transportation), then we were in the top 15% of the world’s people for wealth. He further

brought to the forefront that nearly half the world lived on one to two dollars per day and

more than a billion people in the world live and eventually die in poverty.

Foster (1995) supported the lack of generosity and concern for others when she

wrote that those in need appeared not to be a priority of modern society. World hunger

and the situation of the homeless in America do not tend to hold integral places in church

or denominational budgets. Today’s Christians were prone to hear and respond to the

demands of the poor, the disinherited, and the desperate only when their cries posed a

threat to one’s own life. Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle (2000) challenged church members

who only contributed to keep the church structure functioning but failed to conduct

efforts to support the physical and spiritual needs of local and global neighbors. They

suggested something needed to happen for “others” rather than “self” in keeping with

Scripture.

Those Who Give Are Healthier, Happier Individuals

Everyday consumers, who carry large debt loads from the purchases they made to

secure the “good life,” receive monthly bills to remit payment. It is possible the initial joy

of that original purchase is swallowed up in reality of monthly payments that continue on

for years in some cases. On the other hand, giving seemed to bring on a different

feeling. Brooks (2006) uncovered evidence that has convinced him that charity is

important to our personal happiness, health, and the ability to express ourselves humanly.

Elizabeth Dunn says, “The effects of altruistic spending were probably akin to those of

exercise which can have immediate and long term effects. Giving once might make a

person happy for a day, but if it became a way of living, it could make a lasting

difference” (as cited in Youngsteadt, 2008, para. 4). Kristoff (2010) noted one study

found people who focused on achieving wealth and career advancement were less happy

than those who focused on good works, religion, or spirituality, or friends and family.

University of Virginia psychology professor, Jonathan Haidt, noted one thing that made a

lasting difference to contentment was to work with others on a cause larger than oneself.

They found this “sacrifice” was a huge source of fulfillment and satisfaction (as cited in

Kristoff, 2010, p. 1).

Supporting these thoughts were comments in a generosity devotional thought by

Maxwell (2003). He noted that selfishness inclined people toward failure because it kept

them in a negative mental rut. In his entry, Maxwell quoted Dr. Karl Menninger (2003),

who mentioned that developing a giving spirit helped a person overcome some of the

feelings of deficiency in a positive and healthy way. Maxwell, in the same context,

mentioned Kevin Myers (2003), who said most people were too insecure to give anything

away. Most people who focus all their attention on themselves do so because they feel

that they’re missing something in their lives, so they’re trying to get it back. Menninger

also noted that generous people were rarely mentally ill people. “A person was less

likely to focus on himself if he was trying to help someone else” (Maxwell, 2003, p. 358).

More than two decades ago, economist James Andreoni theorized that people who

gave experienced an internal satisfaction that he called the “warm glow.” Others have

called it the “helper’s high”—a physical sensation that increased feelings of self-worth

and made people want to give again (as cited in Keen, 2010, para. 9). Besides having

such a positive mental effect on an individual, there were other reasons why people gave.

Brooks (2006) noted social scientists had identified a multiplicity of giving motives,

including the “warm glow” one felt from giving, the provision of goods for one’s own

social group (such as a church), guilt, duty, social pressure, and the pursuit of status.

Hoge et al. (1997) reported the four main motives for church giving were: (a) reciprocity

with a social group, (b) reciprocity with God, (c) giving to attract attention to self, (d)

thankfulness, while also noting most of the social science research on gift giving had

been done on secular, not religious philanthropy.

The study by Hoge et al. (1997) also revealed pastors have indicated that church

members sometimes made gifts out of feelings of gratitude. They told of religious

people—although possibly not a majority—who developed a sense of gratitude for the

many gifts God had given them, and they made gifts to churches and missions as a

response. Jeyaraj (2004) provided a biblical perspective, indicating the three major

reasons to give included support of the Christian preacher/teacher, the missionary who

brought the gospel and the poor people in the churches using Gal 6:6, 1 Cor 9:11-14, and

1 Tim 5:17-18 as scriptural guidelines.

According to Christian Smith, “People who were generous are happier, healthier

and doing better in life. There was something about learning how to get beyond one’s

self and helping other people that was good for the giver. And there is so much need in

the world” (as cited in Keen, 2010, final para.).

Confronting Issues of Materialism and Giving

Though discussed in more detail in the section on personal pastoral factors (what

kept clergy from preaching more often on financial topics), it is appropriate to touch on

this now considering the large emphasis on materialism in this section. It was no secret

that people seemed to want to avoid hearing messages that had to do with giving and

other financial topics, and pastors wanted to avoid giving them. Bagwell (1993), who

spoke from the personal experience of a pastor, mentioned that even the body language

and posture exhibited in the pulpit indicated how totally uncomfortable pastors felt

preaching for giving. The congregation sensed that something was wrong, and they left

stewardship sermons feeling “whipped” and guilty. But the issue of talking about money

was not only taboo in the church, it was everywhere. In the public at large, fewer than

one person in four ever talked about his or her personal finances with close friends.

Among church members, only 3% say they ever discussed their finances with fellow

church members. And only 4% had ever discussed their finances with a member of the

clergy (Wuthnow, 1997). Woosley and Schulz (2011) also mentioned that discussing

credit card debt was highly taboo. Three of their top four responses referenced financial

issues; debt, salary, and monthly mortgage or rent were simply not discussed.

Wuthnow (1997) even discussed the lack of communication about money among

family members when he said, “In our culture, though, people generally shield even their

own children from the information about family finances and consider it improper to ask

the price of ordinary purchases” (p. 141). Though members of society seemed to have no

problem spending money and even extending themselves financially for future years,

discussing it was another issue and one that seemed traditionally to bring discomfort to

the sender and receiver of the message.

Perhaps deep inside people know their spending was out of control, and they felt

guilty. Messages about finances made them feel like the child sitting in the corner for

doing wrong. Perhaps they felt guilty knowing their spending had placed great

limitations on what their potential giving could do for the cause of Christ and other

secular charities. But maybe there is hope on the horizon as Wuthnow mentioned (1999)

church members at least gave lip service to the idea that faith should help them to be less

materialistic, less obsessed with making money, and more committed to higher aims and

ideals.

Preaching as a Positive Social Influence

There was some research evidence that financially based messages from Scripture

were influencing Christians, and that pastors played a role in this. Wuthnow (1999)

mentioned that among church members nationally, 65% said the Bible contained valuable

teachings about money. Allen (2005) shared that most interviewees who commented on

stewardship sermons said that such preaching had played a positive role in helping them

become better stewards. Several pointed out that sermons had been important in

persuading them to tithe. Allen (2005) further recorded the testimony of interviewees

who expressed the opinion that preachers should talk about stewardship more than they

do: “I’d like to see us do a little bit more about stewardship and I’d like to see that

addressed a little bit more directly. I want to know my purpose, my being and how I live

out that purpose and that being. How do I become a better steward of God?” (pp. 2-3).

Mulligan (2007) also confirmed these thoughts when writing that lay people

implied they want to learn about stewardship. Analysis of the interviews indicated that

there were some congregational criticism and personal reasons for preachers’ anxiety

about speaking about finances, but most laity were interested in Christian teachings about

money.

Research that showed positive impact in pastoral teaching on finances offered

encouragement for pastors. Alcorn (2001) wrote because there is a fundamental

connection between our spiritual lives and how we think about and handle money; we

may try to divorce faith from personal finances, but God sees them as inseparable. He

continued by noting that when Jesus warns us not to store up treasures on earth, it is not

just because wealth might be lost; it is because wealth will always be lost. Either it leaves

us while we live, or we leave it when we die. No exceptions!

The words of Mead (1998) perhaps summarized it best. “We begin with a

financial crisis and it leads to a spiritual crisis. We begin with financial meltdown with

our own budgets, and we discovered a financial meltdown of our own personal lives.

Perhaps the financial crisis was the door that led us to deal with the hunger we had to find

our way home to God” (p. 122). Many people in the U.S. have placed themselves in

financial straits, and many people wrestled with this concept of wanting for self as

opposed to giving to others. He suggested this financial crisis can lead people to evaluate

what is most important and therefore lead then to consider their faith in light of their

personal finances. The social pressures to accumulate material possessions was strong

and the battle to resist this temptation was challenging to all, including Christians (Platt,

2011).

Institutional Factors

In this section, institutional or church factors related to stewardship are examined.

I first review financial giving among American Christians. Next, demographic factors

predicting giving are reviewed. These include gender, level of education, volunteering

and church involvement, income levels, free riding, and giving systems. Another section

reviews popular resources within the U.S. that help churches with financial issues. These

include a review of the work of Dave Ramsey and Financial Peace University and Crown

Ministries, the two most popular Christian stewardship and personal finance resources

used in churches today.

Overview of Giving in America

One of the Old Testament financial obligations for Israelites, God’s people, was

the tithe. Smith et al. (2008) noted that nearly all American Christians belong to churches

that teach believers, as stewards of the belongings with which God has blessed them, to

give money generously for the work of God’s kingdom. Most Christians belong to

churches that teach tithing—the giving of 10% of one’s income. However, very few

people actually follow this guideline.

Smith et al.’s (2008) recent study focused on large mainline denominations, and

the results showed that most groups give between 1.5 and 2.0% of income.

Denominations included in the study were Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans,

Methodists, Catholics, and others who did not fall into a category. Also included in the

study were Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons. Baptists gave 2.5% of their

income, and Pentecostals and “other” Protestants gave about 3.5%. Smith et al. (2008)

also noted that a minority of American Christians gave away no money at all to any

organization, needs, or causes. These numbers can be compared to Zaleski and Zech’s

(1992) study that revealed 1960-1974 data showing Protestant and Catholic giving at

2.2% in the 1960s, with a drop to 1.6% in the 1970s and a further decrease to 1.1% in

1980. An increase has obviously taken place since then, but nothing close to resembling

the tithe.

Leading researcher of Christian concerns, George Barna (2008), also documented

that certain segments of the population were more likely to contribute 10% of their

income. Those included: evangelicals (24%); conservatives (12%); people who had

prayed, read the Bible, and attended service during the past week (12%); charismatic or

Pentecostal Christians (11%); and registered republicans (10%). Other significant

research information of note from Barna (2008) included that among born-again adults,

9% contributed one-tenth or more of their income, 5% of all adults tithed, and 84% of all

adults donated some money to churches or non-profit organizations, which was a figure

that has remained consistent in recent years; of that, 64% of the public donated some

money to a church, synagogue, or other place of worship.

In 2008, along with annual giving, nearly $23 billion was left to charities through

donors’ wills, according to research by the Center on Philanthropy for Giving USA

Foundation. Bequests accounted for 7% of total giving that year (Sargeant & Shang,

2010, p. 4). Though Barna (2008) recognized that a high percentage of people give

money to charity annually, Sargeant and Shang (2010) noted that only about 5% of

people leave a donation to charity in their wills.

These figures and giving percentages were important as they represented the total

number of all contributions by Americans in a year’s time. Falk et al. (2010) noted that

in 2009, $303.75 billion was contributed to churches and non-profits. This was actually a

3.6% drop from 2008 giving and the steepest decline since 1956. It should be noted at

the writing of this document that the United States was experiencing an economic

recession, which could explain the drop in giving. Of that total, $251.21 billion was

contributed by individuals or bequests.

While those donations represented an impressive number and there were further

explanations in Falk et al (2010) report on where those dollars were directed, that number

fell short of the possibilities. Smith et al. (2008) spend the first 25 pages of their work

making a case for what could actually happen in America and around the world if 90% of

committed Christian households gave away 10% (a tithe) of their after-tax income.

Doing so would increase annual giving by another $46 billion and as much as $85.5

billion in another illustration they presented.

Triggers That Increase Giving Participation and Levels

The following research illustrates factors that trigger giving and help bring

understanding to how and why people give.

Inward Focus Trends in the Church

Luidens and Nemeth (1994) conducted research on the Presbyterian Church and

Reformed Church in America, doing so because they had nearly complete record-keeping

systems going back to 1860. These churches showed giving going toward their own

internal purposes and denominational benevolent purposes. This internal focus has

continued to gradually increase. Reasons cited for this were the tremendous increase in

expenses as churches increased pastoral staff and began pension plans, insurance,

housing costs, and real wages. Because of an increased female labor force, once active

volunteer tasks have been exchanged for professional services. Churchgoers over time

have become consumers in the religious marketplace. The heightened demand for

specialized services and professionally staffed programs forced congregations to turn

inward in their spending patterns. Zaleski and Zech (1992) also noted that lower Catholic

costs for minister compensation, if they were found to exist, would serve as an economic

explanation for lower Catholic contributions. There simply did not appear to be a need to

give.

This internal focus was further supported in that the bottom line indicated that all

causes outside the local congregation have had a flat income line for 25 years (Mead,

1998, p. 27). Mead also mentioned that budgets typically only give 2 to 4% to outreach

efforts. Sociologist Reginald Bibby noted, “Observers have drawn attention to the reality

of routinization, whereby groups tend to become turned inward, focusing upon

themselves as organizations, rather than on the original purpose that brought them into

being (as cited in Ronsvalle & Ronsvalle, 1996, p. 100).

Roth (1987) mentioned that it is no small wonder that the people claim that all the

church is interested in is money, or the church was always asking for money. It is a

perception that was real and backed by the limited outreach that occurs within today’s

church. Church leaders may have to lay a renewed foundation, addressing basic attitudes

toward money, the role of faith and relationship to giving, and why members should

invest in the work of the church, rather than spend their money in other ways (Ronsvalle

& Ronsvalle, 1999, p. 211). Negative stereotyping could be playing a role in these views

regarding church. Bagwell (1993) cited a Madison Avenue advertising firm survey where

people described churches as a place where they ask for money and people are sad.

Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle (1999) offered a solution that could help reverse

negative giving trends. They claim 81% of pastors and 94% of regional officials agreed

there is no overarching vision to challenge members. Simply providing vision and

shifting from an inward focus could be factors that help change this perception. Schulz

(2001) also contributed to this discussion, saying it may be that there is a certain fear

among some pastors, the fear that to teach on financial stewardship was to invite the

charge that all the church wanted was money.

Gender

Another important socioeconomic characteristic was gender. A 1990 study

showed Catholic women gave the same as men but Protestant women gave a larger

percentage than Protestant men (Zaleski & Zech, 1992, p. 464). It is clear women have

played a major role in philanthropy. Women entering the work force in larger numbers

have been a leading contributor to many churches’ inward expenses rising. Many of

these current expenses in previous years were volunteer hours provided by women. The

last three decades, however, have seen a shift in the landscape. Sixty percent more

women were now in the labor force and college-degreed women tripled between 1970–

2008. Also, in 2008, 36% of working women held college degrees compared to 11% 30

years ago (Mesch, 2010).

The study performed by Mesch (2010) also revealed information regarding the

generosity of women in giving. Eliminating married households (because they

statistically were likely to give more than singles), her study focused on male/female

households in the categories of (a) never married, (b) divorced/separated and (c)

widows/widowers. She considered five different income levels. Her study results

included (a) in all five income groups analyzed, female head of households were more

likely to give to charity then a male-headed households; (b) in every income group,

females gave more than men with the exception of the second lowest income bracket

(23,509-43,500); (c) female-headed households were more likely to give than men in

comparable households with the exception of a widow/widower, and (d) female-headed

households gave more than men in comparable households except for a widow/widower.

Education

Luidens and Nemeth’s (1994) work showed that the level of one’s education also

correlated positively, although less strongly, with family giving. Donahue’s (1994)

findings noted giving to non-religious charities or social services organizations was

related to education and income. Hoge (1994) mentioned all studies that include

education as a factor have a positive relationship with religious giving. The recent study

by Frederick et al. (2010) noted two key findings including those with more education

were more concerned about equity and making the world a better place. They were less

concerned about providing for people’s basic needs and allowing the poor to help

themselves, which contrasts those with less education. Those with postgraduate

educations were even more highly so.

Higher and Lower Income Families

Luidens and Nemeth (1994) noted that of the socioeconomic items, family income

was clearly the stronger predictor of family giving. Members who earn more, gave more

dollars. Though they gave more, Greeley’s research (as cited in Zaleski & Zech, 1992,

pp. 463-464) revealed higher income families give a lower percentage of their income to

churches; he noted that the difference was even more profound for Catholics. Hoge

(1994) also noted this negative relationship between higher income and lower percentage

of giving to religion. Collett and Morrissey (2007) cited those with fewer resources

tended to make the greatest sacrifices when it comes to charitable giving. Further, those

with lower incomes were often ineligible for the tax incentives that lure those with more

means into donating.

Free-Riding

Zaleski and Zech (1992) noted congregation size and attitude toward the

importance of church and religion were two critical considerations determining support

for a church’s mission and, thus, the extent of free ridership. A free-rider was defined as a

church attendee or member who gave no or very little money yet enjoyed all of the

benefits associated with being a part of a church body. A free-rider effect was clearly

present as was evidenced by the negative coefficient on members. The estimate elasticity

was suggested that if a congregation grew by 10%, contributions per member would fall

by about 25%. Hoge (1995) also suggested that a free-rider could as easily be referred to

as “easy rider.” Only when the public good was in danger of disappointment would this

individual offer to pay more and up to the true perceived value. Free-riding accounted

for the widely noted tendency for people to give much more in emergency situations. It

also accounted for the higher level of giving by members who were well informed about

true costs of running a church (Hoge, 1995, p. 67).

Olson and Perl (2005) also used the term cheap riders. Iannaccone (1997) even

noted with fewer free-riders, average commitment levels would rise even higher because

the remaining, committed members contributed even more once they knew that their

contributions were not being “stolen” away by low committed members (as cited in

Olson & Perl, 2005, p. 125). Evidence supported broad estimates that 30-50% of resident

members gave little or nothing of record to their congregation. Present giving patterns

establish that these people were not going to contribute to the general operation or current

mission of the church (Ronsvalle & Ronsvalle, 2000, p. 100).

R.J. Miller et al. (2001) noted in their study that parish size had a negative effect

on average household giving, meaning that as a congregation grew, families gave less.

Finke et al. (2006) also related that income had a positive effect on congregational giving,

and congregational size had a negative effect. Size also had a significant and negative

effect on member involvement and the number of opportunities for involvement.

Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle (2000) mentioned free-riding has been offered by some

researchers as a major explanation in denominational differences in church giving. The

theory stated that giving was higher in evangelical denominations because they have a

stronger motive of reciprocity with God and more obligatory visible indicators of

commitment. Olson and Perl (2005) noted that, compared to other congregations, strict,

theologically conservative congregations have less skewed giving distributions and thus

appear to have fewer free- and cheap-riding participants, just as Iannaccone (1997)

predicted. Olson and Perl (2005) also mentioned that from the individual’s point of view,

it is rational to free-ride so long as the benefits of the social organization can be obtained

without having to pay for them. However, if all individuals act in this same rational

manner, the end result would be insufficient resources to produce the benefit.

Importance of Religious Involvement

Family contributions were strongly related to levels of personal involvement in

congregational life. Attendance at church and Sunday school and amount of involvement

in congregational leadership positions were also strongly related to family giving

(Luidens & Nemeth, 1994, p. 209). Luidens and Nemeth’s (1994) study also showed that

the wealthiest members were slightly less involved in the church’s activities, on average,

than the less wealthy. Donahue’s (1994) work found among their sample of church

members, giving to one’s own congregation was found to be strongly influenced by

income and the religiousness of one’s spouse, while giving to other religious charities

was more strongly influenced by personal religiousness. Engagement and church

involvement appeared to be clear indicators of financial support for one’s congregation.

Both of Hoge’s (1994, 1995) studies mentioned all studies indicate that strong personal

faith is associated with higher contributions. He also confirms what has been mentioned

that church commitment and attendance were strongly associated with giving. Schervish

and Havens (1997) continued with supporting information when they stated:

Those who were motivated mainly either (a) to fulfill a business or community

obligations or (b) to change the way society works tended to give smaller percentages

of their income than those who are motivated by loftier, more focused, more selfless

goals of (c) meeting religious beliefs or commitments, (d) enhancing the moral basis

of society, (e) teaching people to be more self-sufficient. (p. 245)

As seen in others, Iannaccone’s (1997) study and Lunn et al. (2001) also concurred that

attendance was an important factor in giving.

Lunn et al. (2001) noted conservative theological beliefs were associated with

greater total giving, greater giving for normal congregational uses, and for non-

Presbyterian religious organizations, and liberal theological beliefs were associated with

greater giving for denominational purposes and for nonreligious charities.

Finke et al.’s (2006) study also provided insight, mentioning that increasing

involvement and involvement opportunities in the local congregation and high

congregational requirements increased the level of giving.

Wilhelm et al. (2007) also affirmed the importance of attendance and its

correlation to giving in their point-in-time study, which compared prewar cohorts to those

of the baby-boom generation. Less giving and less attendance by baby boomers were

indicators of declining generosity. Their study further expressed that results provide

evidence that generational change was at the foundation of recent changes in American

religious giving and religious involvement.

Lastly, Davidson and Pyle’s (1994) research spoke to the future potential of

understanding the link between participation and generosity:

Our analysis demonstrates the value of linking interactionist and exchange

frameworks and looking at variables which combine both perspectives. Apart from

income, the two variables with the most effect on giving are participation and

intrinsic religiosity, the two which link members’ self-concepts (symbolic

interactionism) and self-interest (exchange theory). Our results have several

implications for church leaders. If religious leaders desire higher levels of financial

commitments from their members, they need to appreciate the special potency of

conditions which link faith with benefits, values with interests and beliefs with

rewards. Leaders should stress participation in all aspects of church life—collective

activity such as worship and religious education, as well as devotional activities such

as private prayer and Bible reading. By increasing members’ involvement in all

aspects of church life, leaders are also likely to increase members’ contributions to

the church. (p. 193)

Mark Ottoni-Wilhelm, professor of economics at Indiana-Purdue, says, “It’s

wrong to look at this as a money problem. The drop in giving followed the involvement

pattern. Because people were not as involved, the giving pattern traces it” (as cited in

Freedman, 2010, para. 12). This statement is important to this study from the standpoint

that though people who were involved gave more, there were fewer people who

volunteered their time. Freedman (2010) also quoted Villanova University economist,

Charles Zeck, who said, “The baby boomers learned skepticism as products of the

Vietnam and Watergate years. This was in contrast to the so-called Greatest Generation

who came during the New Deal and World War II, who developed trust in institutions”

(para. 9).

The State of Church Giving through 2000 (Ronsvalle & Ronsvalle, 2000)

concluded that much of the philanthropy education that took place in the U.S. did so in a

religious congregation. The independent sector series on giving has repeatedly found a

correlation between regular worship attendance and the level of charitable giving.

Giving Systems

In the study performed by Inskeep (1994), congregations using a system of

financial pledges had higher levels of giving. A stewardship emphasis and an emphasis

on tithing also showed a correlation. Hoge (1994) also related information on studies

showing that those that used pledge systems and those that used stewardship materials in

local churches were associated with higher giving. His 1995 study also suggested

reciprocity was a major explanation for religious giving and distinguished four general

types: reciprocity with family, reciprocity with a social group, reciprocity with God, and

reciprocity with history.

R.J. Miller et al. (2001) conducted a study measuring 12 stewardship programs

that various parishes sought to implement. In the end, only two of those, the

establishment or upgrade of a parish finance or stewardship committee and the

implementation of a parish tithing effort, were significantly associated with a growth in

parish household giving.

Role of Other Studies: Financial Peace University and

Crown Financial Ministries

In Chapter 1, some statistics were shared that showed the lack of training in the

church about financial concepts. In recent years, however, some of these opportunities

have grown. The Alban Institute and Lake Institute on Faith & Giving (2009) showed

that 27.7% of their surveyed churches (N = 1,517) offered classes or events on personal

finance or giving. The two most popular resources were Financial Peace University and

Crown Financial ministries.

Financial Peace University was founded by popular radio and seminar figure

Dave Ramsey. Ramsey teaches practical advice on finances from what he learned in

overcoming his own personal financial struggles. He is forthright on his radio show and

in his seminars and is upfront with people about specifically dealing with their personal

debt and finding their way to financial freedom. The key phase of his movement is, “If

you will live like no one else, later you can live like no one else” (Ramsey, 2007, p. 5).

This main concept attests that if you will live in a way now that rids yourself from

financial bondage, you will be able to live the rest of your life without the bondage that

debt places on one’s life. The person who does this will have more opportunities to live

life differently than the one strapped by financial issues.

Ramsey’s Total Money Makeover (2007) strongly stresses destroying one’s credit

cards and establishing a home budget. This is then followed by creating an immediate

$1,000 emergency account, focused effort on retiring debt, followed by growing a larger

emergency fund, maximizing retirement investing, college provision, retiring the home

mortgage, and then further building wealth. Ramsey’s counsel is listened to weekly by

over 3 million listeners on radio stations across the nation (Ramsey, 2007), and his study

is offered through a variety of venues including churches, webinars, and video feeds.

Materials are available in stores and on his website, www.MyTotalMoneyMakeover.com.

The Alban Institute and Lake Institute on Faith & Giving (2009) included

personal testimonies of those who had received training from various seminars. The

following was mentioned about Ramsey’s work: “Financial Peace University has been of

great help to our congregation. People had become slaves to their debt. Asking them to

give more without first setting them free from debtor’s prison just generated guilt, not

results” (p. 24).

Crown Financial Ministries is the merger of two ministries, Crown Ministries,

founded by Howard Dayton, and Christian Financial Concepts, founded by the late Larry

Burkett (1939-2003). Burkett wrote several best-selling books and was the host of a

nationwide radio program that bore the ministry name. Today, much of his work

continues through the merger with the ministry Dayton started.

Crown Financial Ministries differs from Financial Peace University in that a more

biblical perspective is offered. The flagship program for Crown Financial Ministries is a

10-week small-group study that takes 10 different financial concepts or principles and

looks at them from a biblical perspective. The 10-week study includes Scripture

memorization and weekly questions to be answered before meeting for the small-group

study. A significant commitment is needed on the part of the participant. Along with the

weekly study, the participants memorize Scripture, create a home budget, consider legacy

planning at least to the point of will preparation, and make a commitment to begin

making changes in personal habits to become a good steward of one’s possessions.

Crown also offers materials for children, high-school students, Sunday School classes,

and a Capstone Course for seniors considering their full legacy plan. Like Financial

Peace University, Crown Financial Ministries also has a nationwide radio program.

Evangelicals and Giving

Among the Christian-giving segments in the country, evangelicals have been

shown to be most generous. Defined by denominational traditions, evangelicals make up

nearly one fourth of the American population, with about two thirds of that number

categorized as “committed” on the basis of regular church attendance and other factors

that indicated active adherence (Noll, 2007, p. 8).

In order to understand the evangelical culture and their bent toward generosity, it

was helpful to understand the theological underpinnings of their faith. Four main ideas

helped define this: First was the distinct tie to the gospel and the desire to reach people

who do not know Jesus Christ. The second was the desire to preserve a nation perceived

by them to be founded on biblical principles (though not all evangelicals would agree

with this as it may not be historically accurate). The third was a moral and spiritual

responsibility to avoid the material and maintain a God-centered worldview, and fourth is

a response to biblical stewardship (Willmer, 1995, pp. 107-108). Furthermore, Noll

(2007) mentioned that the evangelical religion is a religion of the person engaged with

the Bible. “To lose that engagement would be to lose something essential” (p. 25).

Hoge (as cited in Noll, 2007, p. 12).) supported Willmer (1995) and Noll (2007)

when he suggested “three factors were foremost as reasons” why evangelicals contribute

at a higher level than other Christian denominations. First, evangelicals were more

involved in their churches, and church involvement was the strongest, single predictor of

giving. Second, evangelicals hold to strong beliefs in Bible truths, which is also another

predictor of giving. This includes a commitment to stewardship. Third, evangelicals

disproportionately considered religion important in their lives. The evangelical’s faith

also included belief in God’s promises that God will take care of the faithful, and it gives

higher priority to a spiritual life than the material life. White (1989) supported Hoge’s

thoughts when he said there was a strong correlation between fervency of faith and giving

and volunteering. The most important indicators of who gives in America were

frequency of church attendance, Bible study, and prayer (as cited in Willmer, 1995, p.

101). He also referred to a 1992 study which stated that a much higher percentage of

evangelicals practiced their faith more actively than did either Catholics or mainline

Protestants. Mulder (1999) expanded on this thought in his work, which expressed the

difference between conservatives, moderate, or liberal Protestant giving. Apparently the

difference was explained by “commitment” and “evangelical theology.”

To support these notions, Barna’s (2008) research cites actual financial figures

that clarified the differences in giving levels among the three dominant sub-groups of

Christians:

Evangelicals, the seven percent of the population who are the most committed to the

Christian faith, donated a mean of $4,260.00 to all non-profit entities in 2007. Non-

evangelical born again Christians, who represent another 37 percent of the public,

donated a mean of $1,581.00. The other 42 percent of the Christian population who

are aligned with a Christian church but are not born again donated a mean of $865.00.

(Barna, 2008, p. 2)

Barna (2008) also noted that evangelical Christians distinguished themselves in their

generosity. More than four out of five (83%) gave at least $1,000.00 to churches and

non-profit entities during 2007, far surpassing the levels reached by any other population

segment studied. Barna’s giving figures on evangelicals, as contributors of the church

and para-church, would support Noll’s (2007) work in suggesting that generous funding

of para-church organizations was the jewel in the crown of evangelical philanthropy.

Many para-church organizations put forth the priority of reaching people by meeting a

need and then sharing the gospel. This is in line with the outreach nature of the

evangelical who also tends to get more involved in faithfully funding missionaries. Noll

(2007) also notes that individuals who gave more to non-church causes (para-church) also

gave more to their home church.

Willmer (1995) further noted that:

Evangelical giving was generally characterized by giving to ministries they can

readily understand and put their faith in. Evangelicals generally gave to individuals

or projects more than institutions. Approximately 15 to 40 percent of selected

evangelical church membership giving was going to para-church ministries, and in a

few congregations it reached as high as 50 percent. (p. 106)

This would likely be the case of a person who did not see enough outreach effort

reflected in the regular church budget.

While evangelicals could boast higher giving percentages as a group than most,

they were still behind the tithe (10%) level taught by most of their churches. Wesley K.

Willmer, Vice President for University Advancement at Biola University and former

Board Chair of the Christian Stewardship Association (CSA), spoke about trends among

evangelicals. “We often put ourselves first and God second. It’s a historical problem.

Pastors were not trained, so they seldom knew what to say and (when they did know)

were afraid to say it” (as cited in Ronsvalle & Ronsvalle, 1996, p. 129). Willmer feels

that Christians, including evangelicals, have separated areas of life, with little connection

between faith and money.

This section on evangelical emphasis was important to this study as it framed the

theological background that often guides evangelical communities. Because the

Missionary Church is an evangelical denomination, understanding this basic theology is

important in understanding the context of this study. The next section gives an overview

of specific faith traditions that meshed to form the Missionary Church.

The Missionary Church

With the emphasis in this study on the pastors of Missionary Churches, it was

vital that a perspective of this evangelical denomination be presented. Engbrecht and

Erdel (2003) noted the deepest roots of the Missionary Church were in the Anabaptist

Reformation. Most early congregations and members came from Mennonite or Amish

backgrounds. Slightly less direct connections with Anabaptism came through the River

Brethren and the “German (Mennonite) Branch” of A. B. Simpson’s “Christian Alliance

(now known as the Christian and Missionary Alliance)” (p. 1). Erdel (1997) mentioned

there are five theological traditions that have guided the Missionary Church. These

strong traditions emphasized personal commitment and sacrifice, which was often

expressed through personal giving. Those simple lifestyles sometimes made it possible

to support a missionary for every 50 church members, a ratio that is today closer to 1 in

every 400 regular attenders (Erdel, 2012, p. 77). Most important for this study, each

theological tradition valued personal faith commitment including stewardship.

The Five Traditions

The following provides a brief summary of the five traditions that molded the

Missionary Church and guide much of its theology and practice today. The first tradition

was Anabaptism. This was described as follows: strong commitment to radical biblicism,

the primacy of the teachings of Jesus, lifelong discipleship and a distinctively Christian

lifestyle, personal decision and believer’s baptism, the leading of the Holy Spirit and

humble service (Erdel, 1997). J.D. Roth and Nolt (2012) noted that what first

distinguished the Anabaptists from other reformers was “their insistence that the decision

to follow Christ was a genuine choice that could not be coerced” (p. 11).

The second tradition was pietism. This was described as follows: attention to

crisis conversion, baptism by immersion, personal spiritual disciplines, godly family life,

revivalism and renewal, heartfelt patterns of corporate worship, aggressive evangelism,

and sacrificial missionary outreach (Erdel, 1997). Burkholder (2012) mentioned that what

all pietists had in common was a deep longing to experience God in a way that stirred the

emotions and captured the affections. This “heart religion”/“love theology” displayed

itself in relief work and meeting physical needs inside and outside of the church.

The third tradition was the Wesleyan-holiness movement. This was described as

a full-orbed vision of the Christian faith including Christian authority as derived

preeminently from Scripture, yet also and very importantly from tradition, reason, and

Christian experience, all under the guiding presence, illumination, and direction of the

Holy Spirit. The Christian life entailed conversion, justification, sanctification, and

Christian perfection, with each step bringing the believer toward the goal of a holier life.

The Christian witness encompassed both faith and works, inner spiritual experience and

visible spiritual disciplines, personal piety and social concerns, and both separation from

the world and the transformation of it (Erdel, 1997). Blowers (2012) notes, “Wesleyans

believe that God has authoritatively made Himself known so that believers may be

assured that their lives give testimony to the redeeming and restorative power of God.

Our human experience of conversion, justification, sanctification, and being perfected in

Christian love testify to God’s amazing grace” (p. 51).

The fourth tradition was the Keswickian-holiness movement. This movement

emphasized: the deeper Christian life, personal renewal, and victorious Christian living;

biblical ecumenism which brings together all true believers; the efficacy of systematic

biblical exposition for Christian growth and purity, and particularly on A. B. Simpson’s

focus on Jesus Christ as Savior, Sanctifier, Healer, and Coming King (Erdel, 1997).

Kostlevy (2012) mentions that “in its classic form, Keswick teaching holds that the sinful

nature is not extinguished or eradicated, but counteracted by a second distinct religious

experience following salvation, the baptism of the Holy Spirit” (p. 66).

The final tradition was evangelicalism, which may entail and overlap with the

first four, but also touches other traditions. This tradition was described as follows:

biblical authority to be rightly defined and personally acknowledged (the formal principle

of the Reformation, so that Evangelicals were “Bible Believers”) and the need for

personal conversion and regeneration in light of God’s great work of atonement on the

Cross, which offers forgiveness, and the new life must be appropriated by faith as a

gracious gift of God (Erdel, 1997). The term evangelical is not as easy to define as one

might think. Erdel (2012) mentions “there have been seven or so major historic

meanings connected to the term evangelical” (p. 75). The core theological definitions of

evangelicalism, “being born again” and the view of the Bible as uniquely authoritative,

were settled during the Reformation. These specific beliefs of the evangelical may lend

understanding to the earlier section of this literature review, which showed commitment

to and higher levels of giving by the evangelical.

Though these five traditions have their own unique bents, the common theme that

draws them together and provides emphasis for this study is their personal faith

commitment which included stewardship. The idea of following Christ was more than

just a head decision with lip service. It was a decision of the heart that expressed itself

through following biblical principles, including financial instruction.

Missionary Church Mission

Much growth within the Missionary Church in the United States came between

1989 and 2003 when the denomination set a goal to plant new churches. With 289

churches in 1989, just 16 more than at the time of the merger of the United Missionary

Church and The Missionary Church Association in 1969, the Missionary Church

exceeded goals and grew to just over 400 by 2003. Dominated by Anglo churches at the

time, the denomination grew by 117 churches where Anglos were the minority member.

This type of effort brought the denomination closer to its core values and purpose

statement which proclaimed that the Missionary Church, in obedience to Jesus Christ her

Lord, is committed: To being holy people of God in the world, and to building His church

through world-wide evangelism, discipleship, and the multiplication of growing

churches, all to the glory of God (Missionary Church Purpose Statement, n.d.).

Missionary Church Stewardship Perspective

The focus of this study revolved around preaching and teaching on financially

related issues. Because of this, it was important to understand the Missionary Church’s

denominational perspective on stewardship. The following excerpt from the Missionary

Church Articles of Faith and Practice states their stance:

(a) God’s ownership of all things creatively and redemptively is unquestioned in the

scriptures. Since we are saved by grace and the death of Christ provided our ransom,

our whole being, body, soul, and spirit should be freely given to God, which is our

reasonable service. (b) Not only does God claim our love and devotion, but He has

made us stewards of what we have in time, talent, and temporal goods. Since giving

of our means to support the Lord’s work is a scriptural injunction and an act of

worship received and memorialized by our Lord, and since tithing antedates the

Mosaic Law, was confirmed in the Law, and was approved by our Lord Jesus Christ,

and since the New Testament clearly indicates that our giving is to be proportionate,

believers are encouraged to adopt the system of tithing their income as a minimum

expression of their stewardship. Our stewardship in material things is to be motivated

by the spirit and example of our Lord who freely gave Himself for us all. Gen. 14:20,

Mal. 3:8, 10; Matt. 23:23; Acts 4:32; 1 Cor. 16:2; 2 Cor. 8:9, 9:6-7. (Missionary

Church Articles of Practice, n.d.)

Summary

In the past 20 years, research about philanthropy has taken an increased focus on

the non-profit realm, specifically giving among members of Christian churches. Much of

this research has focused on large, mainline denominations.

The literature in this chapter showed many themes related to the area of preaching

and teaching on financial issues. Personal factors reviewed included fear, the need to be

liked, education and training, the pastor’s personal finances, and the pastor’s knowledge

of congregational giving. Social factors reviewed included materialism and

consumerism, giving today compared to the 1920s, personal donor benefits, and the

positive social influence on preaching on financial issues. Institutional factors reviewed

included an overview of giving in America, triggers that increase giving levels such as

gender, education, family income levels, free riding, religious involvement, and giving

systems. Furthermore, an overview of popular church studies, Financial Peace University

and Crown Ministries, was provided. The literature noted that both pastors and

parishioners often reported being sensitive to money and finance discussions in the

church.

With this study’s focus on the small, evangelical denomination of the Missionary

Church, this chapter also reviewed evangelical giving trends and the theological ideas

and practices related to the Missionary Church. This summary included a look at the five

theological traditions (Anabaptism, pietism, Wesleyan-holiness movement, Keswickian-

holiness movement, evangelicalism) that formed the Missionary Church.

This study attempted to add to previous studies by focusing on factors influencing

pastoral preaching/teaching on financial issues in the small evangelical denomination of

the Missionary Church. Chapter 3 will provide more information on the research design

used for data collection and analysis to address the central questions raised by this study

and informed by this literature review.

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the extent to which pastors

within the Missionary Church preach on financially related issues. Additionally, this

study investigated the extent to which selected demographic characteristics, personal,

institutional (church), and social variables were related to the preaching of financially

related issues.

This chapter describes the methodology used to address the research problem and

questions of this exploratory study. Included in this section are the research questions,

research design, population and sample, research instrumentation, research procedures,

data analysis, and a summary.

Research Questions

Two questions were considered as a part of this study:

1. How many weekend messages does a pastor dedicate to preaching or teaching

on a financially related topic in a year’s time?

2. What are the demographic, personal, institutional, and social factors that

influence pastors to preach and teach about financially related issues on a regular basis?

Research Design

Because of the exploratory nature of this study and the desire to see how

evangelical pastors in the Missionary Church compared to the overall literature available,

a survey design was chosen as the best way to accomplish these objectives. Survey

designs are procedures in quantitative research in which the investigator administers a

questionnaire to groups of people to identify trends in attitudes, opinions, behaviors, or

characteristics (Creswell, 2008).

There were several advantages to using a survey design for this study. First, the

survey questions create a way to illicit a quick response on multiple topics including

demographic areas, Likert-type responses, and Yes/No options for all various statements.

Second, the survey provided immediate feedback for me to analyze. Third, a written

survey was suited to provide a way for respondents to give confidential responses on

fairly sensitive areas of finances and to protect participant anonymity. Fourth, because of

the support of district superintendents and the denomination president, I was able to make

a personal presentation of the study and give directions to respondents at scheduled

district meetings. Because of the personal nature of the presentation, I was optimistic that

high response rates were likely and that would improve data analysis of survey responses.

The survey also promised to be more manageable for me and thus required minimal

outside help or hired staff.

I realized I would face some disadvantages using a survey instrument. First,

though a survey provided immediate feedback, it did not allow exploratory questioning to

understand the meaning pastors gave to their questions. Second, the travel to all of the

sites to collect data involved significant costs. Third, the written surveys would be

subject to bias and coverage errors (Glasow, 2005, pp. 2-4).

Several practices were used to minimize the disadvantages and improve the study.

First, because the Missionary Church was a small denomination with only 464 senior

pastors in the United States and Puerto Rico, one way to increase response rates was for

me to personally attend the district meetings where senior pastors meet. Second,

although these personal visits added travel costs to collect data, the cost was absorbed as

a part of my position at Bethel College, the only college of the Missionary Church

denomination. Because someone from the college attends these district meetings to give

a college update, I made those trips a part of my data collection process. Lastly, because

I visited all districts, the full population of Missionary Church pastors in the United

States and Puerto Rico was well sampled.

Population and Sample

The preaching/teaching pastor, in most cases known as the senior pastor, is the

central leader within a church typically responsible for delivering weekend messages. In

many ways, he is the face of a local congregation and, with the demise of Sunday School

and mid-week Bible studies in many congregations, the prime source of delivering

biblical knowledge to those who attend the church. The 464 senior pastors of the

Missionary Church denomination for the United States and Puerto Rico were the focus of

this study.

Table 1 gives a breakdown of the Missionary Churches by their district location,

the number of churches in a district, and the total number of active, senior pastors. The

districts serve as a way to divide the country into manageable areas to provide oversight

for the various pastors and ministries.

Table 1

The Missionary Church—by District, District Office Location, Number of Churches,

Number of Pastors, Number of Hispanic Churches, and Number of Hispanic Pastors

__________________________________________________________________

Total Hispanic

District District Office Churches /Pastors Churches /Pastors

__________________________________________________________________

Central Fort Wayne, IN 57 55 9 9

Central Texas Fort Wayne, IN 20 20 18 18

East Central Troy, OH 33 32

Eastern New York, NY 29 24 9 9

El Paso Mission San Elizario, TX 1 1 1 1

Florida Sebring, FL 13 13 7 7

Georgia/Alabama Seymour, TN 13 13 2 2

Hawaii Waianae, HI 18 18

Houston Houston, TX 10 10 9 9

Kentucky/Tenn Seymour, TN 7 7

Michigan Burton, MI 53 52 5 5

Mid-Atlantic Fort Wayne, IN 1 1

Midwest Lincoln, NE 17 17

New England Saugus, MA 8 8 8 8

North Central Elkhart, IN 69 69 8 8

North/South Carolina Fort Wayne, IN 14 14 1 1

Northwest Yakima, WA 15 15 3 3

Puerto Rico San Juan, PR 41 41 41 41

Rio Grande Valley La Feria, TX 7 7 7 7

Western Moorpark, CA 47 47 15 15

____________________________________________________________

Totals 473 464 142 142

__________________________________________________________________

There were 473 total churches identified in the 2012 version of the Missionary

Church Directory across the United States and Puerto Rico. Nine churches were without

a pastor. Three hundred and fifteen of the 464 pastors participated in the study, giving a

67.9% participation rate. Field (2005) reviewed many suggestions about the sample size

necessary for a factor analysis study and concluded that it depended on many things. In

general, over 300 cases was adequate.

Research Instrumentation

This section focuses on the instrumentation used for the research and gives a

description of the instrument, discussing how it was developed, its validity and pilot

study.

Description

The survey instrument used to gather data consisted of 43 questions focused on

areas gleaned from the literature review. The survey instrument was translated into

Spanish and English and was available to pastors in both languages. Fourteen of the

questions specifically gathered demographic information. Thirteen of the questions

sought responses on a pastor’s personal views of their experience or given situation

related to finances and stewardship issues. Eleven of the questions sought a pastor’s

views related to their institution (church) and/or congregational matters. Four questions

sought the pastor’s views on social perceptions about money and the church. Finally, one

question asked a pastor to identify the number of weekends in a typical calendar year he

completely dedicated to preaching or teaching on a financially related topic. The response

to this last question served as the dependent variable in the study. The 14 demographic

questions offered several response options designed to gather as many specific data as

possible. The remaining questions, with the exception of three congregational questions,

which sought a Yes or No response, were set in a Likert-type response of either Strongly

Agree, Agree, Disagree or Strongly Disagree. The surveys used for the study can also be

found in the appendixes. The English survey is Appendix A and Spanish survey is

Appendix B. See Appendix C for a full description of each operational variable of the

study. Appendix C includes the scoring used when data were collected and entered into

the SPSS statistical software.

Development

While other survey instruments and results tables were reviewed as a part of this

study (Hoge, Zech, McNamara, & Donahue, 1996; Ronsvalle & Ronsvalle, 1996), none

were usable for this study. This study’s central focus was the pastor. Other studies

focused predominantly on congregational members as donors. Because this study was

exploratory and interested in the Missionary Church’s pastor’s views, the survey

questions were specifically designed around issues of interest identified when conducting

the literature review. Therefore, questions contained in the survey sought responses to

areas such as a pastor’s training in financial areas, the pastor’s willingness to receive

future training, the pressure a pastor felt to not preach on financial issues, and so forth.

When considering the demographic questions, many choices were given, for

many of these questions allowed more detailed analysis. Again with the exploratory

nature of the study in mind, I considered more answer options as information knowing I

could always regroup if needed.

When considering the Likert-type responses, I chose to force the participant to

choose one of the four responses as opposed to allowing an “Undecided” option, which

would allow them an “easy way out or to not honestly respond to the question” (Patten,

2001, p. 35). The downside to this approach was that a respondent might choose to

intentionally skip a question (Glasow, 2005).

Because 142 of the 464 potential pastors were Hispanic (30.7%; see Table 1), it

was important for the study to have the survey instrument available in Spanish. I hired an

outside, experienced individual to translate the survey instrument into Spanish. Once

completed, that Spanish translation was then back-translated to the original English

version by multiple reviewers.

Validity

An extensive review of the literature was performed. Most research in the area of

philanthropy has been conducted in the period since 1990 when the Lilly Endowment

provided funding for research on financial giving. Since that time most of the emphasis

has been on the donor. While pastoral perspectives and financial giving were available

through other research efforts (Hoge et al., 1996; Hoge et al., 1997; Hoge, Zech,

McNamara, & Donahue, 1999; S.L. Miller, 1999; Ronsvalle & Ronsvalle, 1996; Smith et

al., 2008; Wuthnow, 1999) little was known about the evangelical pastor.

When reviewing literature, there were several factors identified that may

influence the extent to which a pastor might preach on financially related issues. These

factors may be broadly categorized as “personal,” “institutional” (related to the church),

or social. The survey was designed to capture the views of pastors in the evangelical

denomination known as the Missionary Church on those three areas: personal,

institutional, and social.

In addition to 14 demographic questions, questions were asked if they were

shown to be central in the literature review. For instance, in the area of personal

considerations, question 19 on the survey was a question that asked the pastors their

personal comfort level in preaching on financial issues. The background for this question

came from several sources including Wuthnow (1999) who mentioned pastors tiptoe

around such issues, Schulz (2001) who mentioned pastors fear teaching financial

stewardship, and Bagwell’s (1993) description of a pastor’s body language and posture

when discussing such issues. Question 22 was another personal question that asked the

pastor about the training he received during his education. Willmer was cited in

Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle (1996) as mentioning that, historically, pastors were not trained;

Mulder (1999) mentioned the lack of attention to financial matters in seminary curricula;

and S.L. Miller (1999) mentioned that seminary leaders believed seminary was not the

place to receive such training. These are two examples that demonstrate how questions

were determined and the survey instrument built to gather the evangelically minded

Missionary Church pastors’ perspectives on personal issues. A full review of supporting

information for each personal question is found in Appendix D.

The same procedure was followed for institutional questions. For instance,

question 30 on the survey asked the pastor to respond to a question related to “his church

believed he talks too much about money.” The genesis for this question comes from

Hoge et al. (1997), “you’re always talking about money”; Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle

(2006) mentioned that a pastor was allowed “one sermon per year” on a financial topic

(typically giving); Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle’s (2006) example of a man walking out of

the service whenever a pastor began a message on a financial issue; and Ronsvalle and

Ronsvalle’s (1996) “we don’t talk about money in church.” Question 31 asked the

pastor to respond to an increase in the church budget: Do they go toward outreach

efforts? This question was based on Noll (2007) regarding the evangelical’s desire to

reach the lost, Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle (2006) noting the churches’ failure to focus on

others, Barna’s (2008) noting that evangelicals were more generous givers, and Ronsvalle

and Ronsvalle’s (1999) finding that lack of vision affected giving. These are two

examples of how questions were determined and the survey instrument built to glean the

evangelically minded Missionary Church pastors’ perspectives on institutional issues. A

full review of supporting information for each personal question is found in Appendix D.

Regarding the area of social issues, creating questions was handled in the same

manner as the personal and institutional area. For example, survey question 41 asked the

pastor if he believed consumer debt kept people from giving more generously. The basis

for this question came from Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle (1996) who noted people were

struggling financially, Russell (2002) who noted money was a god for many people,

Wuthnow (1999) who mentioned pastors were aware of the pressures people felt to buy

and purchase more, and stats on consumer debt provided by Woosley and Schulz (2011).

Question 42 asked if the pastor believed clergy felt pressure to NOT speak on financially

related topics. This question got its basis from Bagwell (1993) who noted people felt

“whipped” and “guilty” and Wuthnow (1997) who mentioned families don’t even talk

about money so why should the church? This process was used on most of the questions

created in the survey. A full review of supporting information for each question is found

in Appendix D.

Once the construction of the survey was completed, it was reviewed by my

dissertation committee and by acquaintances familiar with both the Missionary Church

and financial issues. It was then tested.

Pilot Study

As suggested by Rudestam and Newton (2007), the survey instrument was

piloted. Three test cases were performed. The first took place on the campus of Bethel

College. The second took place at The Chapel in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The pilot

populations, in both cases, were students pursuing a Master of Ministry degree at Bethel

College. These students came to the Bethel College campus once a month for 3 days of

classes while pursuing their degree (or in the case of the Fort Wayne Group, they meet at

The Chapel). In the pilot study, the group received instructions and then each student

was given a survey packet including a consent form, survey, and a 9 x 12 envelope for

their completed survey. The consent forms were collected once signed, and then

participants took the survey. Once completed, the participants kept their survey until all

were completed. A short discussion ensued to consider items that were unclear,

confusing, or presented unforeseen questions or concerns. Following the discussion,

participants placed their survey in the 9 x 12 envelope provided. Following these two

sessions, feedback was shared with the dissertation committee with appropriate changes

made to the survey instrument. A third and final pilot took place with eight members

involved in leadership from the Missionary Church headquarters. Most of these

participants had served as pastors earlier in their careers.

Rudestam and Newton (2007) noted that the reliability and validity of an

instrument can be difficult to determine, and previous literature may be the only way to

provide validation and reliability. As mentioned, a summary table of the variable and

references is available in Appendix D showing the link to questions and literature.

Research Procedures

A meeting with district superintendents from across the nation took place at the

Missionary Church Headquarters in Fort Wayne, Indiana, in the summer of 2010. At this

meeting I was given a chance to present the study and request permission for a few

minutes at their annual district meetings to personally conduct the survey. They all

agreed. Formal permission to perform the study was granted by the president of the

Missionary Church, William “Bill” A. Hossler (see Appendix F).

Each district typically holds an annual meeting between October and June. I

personally contacted each district superintendent to arrange to be on their meeting agenda

sometime during their district conference meeting. It was determined that putting me on

the agenda before a schedule break or meal would be best as those in attendance at the

meetings could go right to break and those pastors participating in the survey could

complete it at that time and then go to break. Once plans were finalized with the district

superintendents, I made necessary travel arrangements.

Credentialed pastors of all churches in a given district were expected to attend

these meetings but some were not able to for various reasons. This is often the case for

bi-vocational pastors or those who have other job responsibilities. At these meetings, I

was given an opportunity to talk to the whole assembly about the survey and promote the

study prior to a scheduled break or meal. I shared with the pastors the purpose of the

study, and I covered the instructions and the consent form and informed them of the time

needed to complete the survey. Though not mandatory, I encouraged their participation

because of the small size of the Missionary Church denomination and the potential

population for the survey. Following my presentation, senior pastors where then given a

chance to participate, at that moment, prior to taking their break. As the break began,

pastors came forward and received a survey packet that contained either an English or

Spanish version of the survey, an English or Spanish version of the consent form, and a 9

x 12 return envelope. Pastors signed the consent form and a designee from the conference

collected those independent of me. Pastors then completed the survey, placed it in the 9 x

12 envelope provided, sealed it, and returned it to me.

Once, the surveys were collected and I had left the district conference, I went

through each survey and recorded the responses to match the operational definition I had

set (see Appendix C).

Early in the data collection process, I worked to obtain participation from pastors

who were unable to attend a given district conference. I worked with the district offices

from the first five data gathering sites (Midwest, North/South Carolina, Florida, Puerto

Rico, and the Eastern Region) to secure names and addresses of pastors who did not

attend. To these pastors, I sent a cover letter, survey, consent form, a postage-paid, self-

addressed number 10 envelope for the consent form, and a self-addressed postage-paid 9

x 12 envelope for the survey to be returned. The purpose behind the two separate

envelopes was to protect a pastor’s privacy. I received very few responses back. This

helped confirm my original plan to do the survey at district meetings in person. I believe

this decision helped to secure the highest level of participation.

Data Analysis

Three different types of analysis were performed on the data set entered in SPSS

on the 315 respondents. These included descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis,

and binary logistic regression.

Descriptive Statistics

Frequency distributions for descriptive statistics were performed on the 14

demographic questions of the study. Descriptive statistics helped present the data in

percentage categories to gain understanding of the study participants. Demographic

variables included (a) district in which pastor was located, (b) pastor’s age, (c) ethnicity,

(d) marital status, (e) number of children at home, (f) years in ministry, (g) years as a

preaching/teaching pastor, (h) currently full-time, part time, or bi-vocational, (i) years at

current church, (j) current compensation package, (k) current church, average weekend

attendance, (l) level of education, (m) degree from a Christian institution or seminary, (n)

who handled finances in the pastor’s home. Table 3 in Chapter 4 displays descriptive

statistics for the demographic responses. Appendix E contains the frequency statistics of

all other survey responses.

Factor Analysis

“Exploratory factor analysis is exploratory. It was designed and is still most

appropriate for use in exploring a data set. It was not designed to test hypotheses or

theories” (Costello & Osborne, 2005, p. 8). “Factor analysis was a technique used to

identify factors that statistically explained the variation and co-variation among

measures” (Green & Salkind, 2011, p. 313). In a nutshell, it is a data-reduction process.

Rietveld and Van Hout (1993) noted factor analysis attempts to bring intercorrelated

variables together under more general, underlying variables. More specifically, the goal

of factor analysis was to reduce “the dimensionality of the original space and give an

interpretation to the new space,” spanned by a reduced number of new dimensions which

are supposed to underlie the old ones. In this process, factor extraction took place,

meaning large numbers of variables were reduced to smaller numbers and regrouped.

Sample Size

Field (2005) reviewed many suggestions about the sample size necessary for a

factor analysis study and concluded that it depends on many things. In general, over 300

cases is probably adequate but communalities after extraction should be above 0.5. In

SPSS a convenient option was offered to check whether the sample is big enough, the

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO-test). The sample was

adequate if the value of KMO is greater than 0.5 (Field, 2000, p. 4). The sample size for

this study was 315 and the KMO was .842, which is considered meritorious.

Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

The starting point of factor analysis is a correlation matrix, in which the

intercorrelations between the studied variables were presented. The dimensionality of

this matrix can be reduced by “looking for variables that correlate highly with a group of

other variables, but correlated very badly with variables outside the group” (Field, 2000,

p. 2). The process of producing this and other matrices typically hinges on using principle

axis factoring (PAF) or principal components analysis (PCA), though there are other

options. SPSS offers six options including PAF, PCA, generalized least squares,

maximum likelihood, alpha factoring, and image factoring.

According to Field (2000), strong feelings existed concerning the choice between

PAF factor analysis and PCA. Costello and Osborne (2005) mentioned principal

components analysis (PCA) became popular decades ago when computers were

expensive and slow. Practically, however, the solutions generated in PCA differ little

from those derived from other factor analysis techniques.

With the exploratory nature of the study, several tools were used with a variety of

rotation methods producing several matrices. Three matrices were considered in a final

analysis: (a) PCA with a pattern matrix using oblique rotation; (b) PAF with pattern

matrix using oblique rotation; and (c) PCA with a rotated component matrix using

varimax rotation. In the final analysis, option 1 provided two factors where the items

meshed well and provided a coherent factor; thus, PCA with oblique rotation was used in

this study.

Rotation of Factors

Field (2000) noted that after factor extraction it might be difficult to interpret and

name the factors/components on the basis of their factor loadings. A solution for this

difficulty was factor rotation. Factor rotation alters the pattern of the factor loadings,

allowing for improved interpretation. Rotation can best be explained by imagining

factors as axes in a graph, on which the original variables load. By rotating these axes,

then, it is possible to make clusters of variables load optimally.

The two most common types of rotation methods are orthogonal and oblique. In

orthogonal rotation there is no correlation between the extracted factors, whereas in

oblique rotation there is. Orthogonal rotation is used when you believe your factors

should be theoretically independent (unrelated to each other). Field (2005) suggested

using oblique when you believe the factors should be related to each other. “In oblique

rotation the results were a pattern matrix, structure matrix and a component correlation

matrix. The pattern matrix represented the pattern loading (regression coefficients of the

variable on each of the factors)” (as cited in Rietveld & Van Hout, 1993, p. 281). Most

of the time pattern matrix is used to interpret factors. Bailey (1993) mentioned that

“pattern matrix defined the simple structure configuration and was the basis for

determining which factors represented which variables” (p. 92). Brauer (n.d.) noted that if

rotation was oblique, the data were interpreted from the pattern matrix. The values in this

matrix are partial correlations between the variables and the factors. Oblique rotation and

pattern matrix were used in this exploratory study.

Identifying Each Factor

With respect to the correlation matrix, two things were important: The variables

have to be intercorrelated, but they should not correlate too highly (Extreme

multicollinearity and singularity) as this could cause difficulty in determining the unique

contribution of the variables to the factor (Field, 2000, p. 444). Bartlett’s test of sphericity

was used to test for multicollinearity; in SPSS the determinant of greater than 0.00001

shows no multicollinearity (Field, 2000, p. 445).

Costello and Osborne (2005) mentioned that more common magnitudes in the

social sciences were low to moderate communalities of .40 to .70. If an item has a

communality of less than .40, it may either (a) not be related to the other items, or (b)

suggest an additional factor that should be explored. Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) cite

.32 as a good rule of thumb for the minimum loading of an item. Costello and Osborne

(2005) note that a factor with fewer than three items was generally weak and unstable;

five or more strongly loading items (.50 or better) were desirable and indicate a solid

factor (p. 5).

Scree Plot

Costello and Osborne (2005) found that the scree test involved examining the

graph of the eigenvalues and looking for the natural bend or break in the data where the

curve flattens out. The number of factors above the break (not including the point at

which the break occurs) was usually the number of factors to retain (p. 3). Field (2005)

mentioned the curve in the scree plot was difficult to interpret because the curve begins to

tail off after three factors, but there is another drop-off after four factors before a stable

plateau is reached. Therefore, we could probably justify retaining either two or four

factors. Field (2005) notes the scree plot can be used when the sample size is large

(around 300 or more cases). These criteria were applied to the data in this study.

Naming and Defining Factors

Once the analysis was run, communality level determined, and scree test

reviewed, the factors were determined. Field (2005) voiced that once highly loading

items have been grouped in the same factor, a process of identifying a theme for a factor

must take place. He continued by saying that a factor with fewer than three items was

generally weak and unstable and five or more strongly loaded items of .50 was desirable

in indicating a solid factor. Two factors resulted and were labeled in this study using

variables ≥ .50. Factor 1 primary focus was on items related to the pastor and

congregational financial training and church finances, and is thus given the theme:

Financial training and church finance. Factor 2 identified the pastor’s beliefs on the tithe

and stewardship as its theme and is thus the theme: Pastoral beliefs on giving and

stewardship.

Reliability and Scale Scores

Reliability comes to the forefront when variables developed from summated

scales were used as predictor components in objective models. Since summated scales

were an assembly of interrelated items designed to measure underlying constructs, it was

very important to know whether the same set of items would elicit the same responses if

re-administered (Santos, 1999). Tavakol and Dennick (2011) note that “internal

consistency described the extent to which all the items in a test measure the same concept

or construct and hence it was connected to the inter-relatedness of the items within the

test” (p. 53). To accomplish this in EFA, Cronbach’s Alpha is used. Cronbach’s Alpha

is not a statistical test; it is a coefficient of reliability (or consistency).

Nunnaly (1978) has indicated 0.7 to be an acceptable reliability coefficient, but

lower thresholds were sometimes used in literature. The following scales were observed:

α ≥ 0.9 = Excellent; 0.8 ≤ α ≥ 0.9 = Good; 0.7 ≤ α ≥ 0.8 = Acceptable; 0.6 ≤ α ≥ 0.7 =

Questionable; 0.5 ≤ α ≥ 0.6 = Poor; and α < 0.5 = Unacceptable. The Cronbach’s Alpha

for Factor I was .82, which was considered good. The Cronbach’s Alpha for Factor 2

was .63, which was considered acceptable.

Binary Logistic Regression

Binary logistic regression was performed using Factor 1 and Factor 2 and 11 of

the 14 demographic variables. The three demographic variables excluded were the

district, number of children, and who handles home finances. Because the demographic

variables were categorical, it was appropriate to use logistic regression. Binary was

chosen because the independent variables were compared to one of two dependent

variable choices.

Three binary cases were explored: (a) pastor preached one or more times in a

calendar year on a financially related topic or did not preach on financial topics at all; (b)

pastor preached two or more times in a calendar year on a financially related topic or

preached once or not at all; or (c) pastor preached three or more times in a calendar year

on a financially related topic or preached twice or less. The second and third cases

provided the most insightful results.

The Hosmer and Lemeshow Test was used to identify linear relationships

between criterion and predictor variables. Since linear relations were being considered,

Nagelkerke R2 was used as the predictor of future outcomes. The regression models

found Factor 1 (financial training and church finance), Factor 2 (pastor’s beliefs on

giving and stewardship), and years 10-19 of a pastor in ministry having significant partial

effects in Case 2. These same variables appeared in Case 3 along with church

attendance. When performing the restricted model in Case 3, the number of years in

ministry variable was dropped from the model.

Summary

This chapter reviewed the methodology applied to this study. Presented were the

research questions, research design, population and sample, research instrumentation

(including its description, development, validity, and pilot study), research procedures,

and data analysis procedures. The data analysis included descriptive statistics,

exploratory factor analysis using PCA, and binary logistic regression. Results of the study

are described in Chapter 4.

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

Introduction

The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the extent to which pastors

within the Missionary Church preach on financially related issues. Additionally, this

study investigated the extent to which selected demographic characteristics, and personal,

institutional (church), and social variables are related to the preaching of financially

related issues. In this chapter, the demographic characteristics of the respondents are

described, followed by analysis for the two research questions, and finally, a summary of

the major findings.

The data were collected by using a survey instrument developed for this study to

answer two research questions. First, in a year’s time, how many weekend messages is a

pastor inclined to completely dedicate to preaching or teaching on a financially related

topic? Second, what are the demographic, personal, institutional, and social factors that

influence pastors to preach and teach about financially related issues on a regular basis?

The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and exploratory factor analysis using

principle component analysis (PCA) and binary logistic regression.

Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

The demographic characteristics of the 315 respondents in this study are

displayed in Tables 2 and 3. Pastoral responses to the survey by Districts within the

Missionary Church are shown in Table 2. Of the total possible senior, preaching pastors

in the denomination in 2012 (N = 464), 67.9% participated in the study. Discounting the

Mid-Atlantic and El Paso Mission outlier, pastoral participation ranged from 14.3% in the

Kentucky/Tennessee District, to 100% in the Georgia/Alabama District.

Table 2

Missionary Churches–Total District Pastors, Total Survey Participants by District, District

Participation Percentage and District Survey Percentage

________________________________________________________________________

District Total Total % %

District Survey District of Survey

Pastors Participants Participants Participants

________________________________________________________________________

Central 55 42 76.4 13.3

Central Texas 20 5 25.0 1.6

East Central 32 21 65.6 6.7

Eastern 24 17 70.8 5.4

El Paso Mission 1 0 .0 .0

Florida 13 11 84.6 3.5

Georgia/Alabama 13 13 100.0 4.1

Hawaii 18 14 77.8 4.4

Houston 10 7 70.0 2.2

Kentucky/Tenn 7 1 14.3 .3

Michigan 52 43 82.7 13.7

Mid-Atlantic 1 0 .0 .0

Midwest 17 11 64.7 3.5

New England 8 6 75.0 1.9

North Central 69 49 71.0 15.6

North/South Carolina 14 5 35.7 1.6

Northwest 15 11 73.3 3.5

Puerto Rico 41 28 68.3 8.9

Rio Grande Valley 7 4 57.1 1.3

Western 47 27 57.4 8.6

________________________________________________________________

Totals 464 315 67.9 100.0

_______________________________________________________________________

Table 3 displays the respondent’s demographics by age, race, marital status,

children living at home, a pastor’s total years in ministry, a pastor’s total years as a

preaching/teaching pastor, a pastor’s current work status, a pastor’s years

preaching/teaching at his current church, pastor’s compensation package, weekly church

attendance at a pastor’s church, pastor’s level of education, pastor’s college degree

earned have a Christian emphasis or earned from a Christian college or seminary, and

who handles the home finances.

Most of the respondents fell between the ages of 40 and 64 (71.8%). Of the

respondents, 64.1% were White/Caucasian and 24.1% were Hispanic/Latino. An

overwhelming majority of the pastors are married (96.5%) and 67% have at least one

child living at home.

Most of the participants surveyed have been in ministry in some capacity between

10 and 34 years (66.9%) with slightly under 50% of pastors serving in a

preaching/teaching capacity for less than 15 years. While there are part-time and bi-

vocational pastors in the denomination, most pastors surveyed (73.7%) work full-time in

their churches with 63.5% of pastors serving at their current church for less than 10 years.

On compensation, 38% of pastors indicated their total compensation package is

under $30,000, 36.2% earn between $30,000 –$59,000, and 21.6% earn more than

$60,000 annually. With church attendance, 54.3% of respondents noted they pastor

churches with fewer than 100 people, while 32.3% have weekly attendance between

Table 3

Description of Respondents (N = 315)

__________________________________________________________________

Variable N %

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Age

Less than 25 1 .3

25-29 8 2.5

30-34 15 4.8

35-39 27 8.6

40-44 43 13.7

45-49 38 12.1

50-54 56 17.8

55-59 53 16.8

60-64 36 11.4

65-69 19 6.0

70-74 8 2.5

75 and above 4 1.3

Missing 7

Race

White/Caucasian 202 64.1

Black/African American 11 3.5

Asian/Pacific Islander 14 4.4

Hispanic/Latino 76 24.1

Other 8 2.5

Missing 4

Marital Status

Married 304 96.5

Widower 1 .3

Divorced 3 1.0

Never Married 5 1.6

Missing 2

Children Living at Home

None 104 33.0

1 child 42 13.3

2 children 69 21.9

3 children 64 20.3

4 children 22 7.0

5 or more 11 3.5

Missing 3

Table 3—Continued.

__________________________________________________________________

Variable N %

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pastor’s Total Years in Ministry

Less than 5 22 7.0

5-9 30 9.5

10-14 46 14.6

15-19 36 11.4

20-24 48 15.2

25-29 40 12.7

30-34 41 13.0

35-39 20 6.3

40-44 17 5.4

45-49 7 2.2

50-54 2 .6

55 and above 1 .3

Missing 5

Pastor’s Total Years as a Preaching/Teaching Pastor

Less than 5 51 16.2

5-9 51 16.2

10-14 53 16.8

15-19 30 9.5

20-24 46 15.2

25-29 20 6.3

30-34 24 7.6

35-39 19 6.0

40-44 11 3.5

45-49 4 1.3

50-54 2 .6

55 and above 0 .0

Missing 5

Pastor’s Current Status

Full-time 232 73.7

Part-time 18 5.7

Bi-vocational 61 19.4

Missing 4

Table 3—Continued.

__________________________________________________________________

Variable N %

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pastor’s Years Preaching/Teaching at Current Church

Less than 1 24 7.6

1-2 48 15.2

3-5 67 21.3

6-9 61 19.4

10-14 45 14.3

15-19 38 12.1

20-24 15 4.8

25 and more 16 5.1

Missing 1

Pastor’s Compensation

Less than 10K 50 15.9

10K-19K 37 11.7

20K-29K 33 10.5

30K-39K 22 7.0

40K-49K 38 12.1

50K-59K 54 17.1

60K-69K 27 8.6

70K-79K 13 4.1

80K-89K 13 4.1

90K-99K 7 2.2

100K-109K 4 1.3

110K-119K 4 .0

120K and above 0 1.3

Missing 13

Weekly Attendance at a Pastor’s Church

Less than 100 171 54.3

100-149 65 20.6

150-249 37 11.7

250-499 25 7.9

500-749 3 1.0

750-999 4 1.3

1000-1499 4 1.3

1500 and above 2 .6

Missing 4

Table 3—Continued.

__________________________________________________________________

Variable N %

Pastor’s Level of Education

High School 39 12.4

2 year/Assoc. 41 13.0

4 year Bach. 109 34.6

Master’s 103 32.7

PhD 18 5.7

Missing 5

Pastor’s Degree Had a Christian Emphasis or Was

Earned from a Christian College or Seminary

Yes 255 81.0

No 53 16.8

Missing 7

Handles the Home Finances

Pastor 124 39.4

Spouse 84 26.7

Both share 99 31.4

Someone else 7 2.2

Missing 1

__________________________________________________________________

100-249, and 12.1% have over 250 people weekly. In the area of education, 73% of

pastors indicate their highest level of education is a bachelor’s degree or above, noting

81% of pastors attended a college with a Christian emphasis or attained their degree from

either a Christian college or seminary. Lastly, 39.4% of pastors handle their home

finances, whereas 31.4% of pastors and spouses share the responsibility.

Results by Research Questions

Research Question 1

The first research question asked the pastor, How many weekend messages do

you dedicate to preaching or teaching on a financial topic? Table 4 presents the results

from this single survey question, showing few pastors in the Missionary Church do not

preach on such topics (7.6%). Many pastors preach and teach three or more times a year

(43.5%). Another 22.2% preach twice a year, with 25.4% preaching or teaching one time

annually. Overall, approximately 92% of pastors in the Missionary Church preach

financially related topics at least once a year.

Table 4

Description of Respondents (N = 315) on How Many Weekend Messages a Pastor

Completely Dedicates to Preaching/Teaching on a Financially Related Topic

__________________________________________________________________

Number of Times N %

Never preach on a financial topic 24 7.6

1 time 80 25.4

2 times 70 22.2

3 times 52 16.5

4 times 47 14.9

5 times 38 12.1

Missing 4

__________________________________________________________________

Research Question 2

The second research question asked, What are the demographic, personal,

institutional, and social factors that influence pastors to preach and teach about

financially related issues on a regular basis?

Preliminary Analysis

The survey instrument was designed to measure demographic, personal,

institutional, and social variables that may influence the preaching and teaching on

financially related issues. To determine if there is empirical support for these constructs,

principle component analysis (PCA) was used. According to Field (2009), PCA is

concerned with “establishing which linear components exist within the data and how a

particular variable might contribute to that component” (p. 639). Once these linear

components (called factors) were extracted, they were then rotated using both orthogonal

and oblique procedures in order to derive more interpretable factor solutions. In

orthogonal rotation, extracted factors are assumed to be uncorrelated. Orthogonal rotation

is used when you believe your factors should be theoretically independent (unrelated to

each other). Factors are assumed to be correlated when oblique rotations are used. Field

(2005) suggested using oblique when you believe the factors should be related to each

other. This was the case in this study and oblique rotations were used.

Assumptions

PCA requires that there are sufficient sample sizes and adequate item correlations

in order for the data to be factorable. The sample size for this study was 315 respondents.

In general, over 300 cases are usually considered adequate, but communalities after

extraction should be above 0.5 (Field, 2005). In this study, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin

(KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy was used, an inter-correlation matrix appropriate

for factor analysis, and indicated a result of .842. Schwarz (2011) mentioned a desired .60

or higher is appropriate in order to proceed with factor analysis. In this sampling, 0.80 to

0.89 is considered meritorious, therefore, .842 was considered ideal for PCA and this

study.

Bartlett’s test of sphericity was used to test for multicollinearity. The results are

displayed in Table 5. With respect to the correlation matrix, two things are important:

The variables have to be intercorrelated, but they should not correlate too highly.

Extreme multicollinearity and singularity could cause difficulty in determining the unique

contribution of the variables to the factor (Field, 2000, p. 444). Bartlett’s test in this study

showed χ2 = 915.73, df = 91, p = .000, indicating that the original correlation matrix was

not an identity matrix and, therefore, factor analysis was appropriate.

Table 5

Measure of Sample Adequacy Criterion

__________________________________________________________________

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity

Analysis Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Approx. Chi df Sig.

Pattern .842 915.73 91 .000

__________________________________________________________________

Factor extraction and rotation

Several extraction methods were attempted to produce matrices that contained the

most coherent data, but PCA produced the strongest loadings. Within this process,

exploration included looking at as many as four factors using eigenvalue > 1. A scree

test was used to consider the “natural break” where the curve flattens out (Costello &

Osborne, 2005). Field (2005) mentions the scree plot can be used when the sample size

was large (around 300 or more cases). The scree plot (see Figure 2) indicated two or three

factors. In light of this, 3- and 2-factor solutions were then rotated using orthogonal

(varimax) and oblique (oblinin) rotations. Factor rotation alters the pattern of the factor

loadings allowing for improved interpretation. Field (2005) suggests using oblique when

you believe the factors should be related to each other. This was the case in this study.

The results of these procedures found that a 2-factor solution using oblique rotation

resulted in the most interpretable and meaningful solution. Bailey (1993) mentions that

“pattern matrix defines the simple structure configuration and is basic for determining

which factors represent which variables” (p. 92).

Figure 2. Scree plot for principle component analysis.

Interpretation of the solutions

Costello and Osborne (2005) observed that low to moderate communalities of .40

to .70 are quite common in social sciences. If an item has a communality of less than .40,

it may either (a) not be related to the other items, or (b) suggest an additional factor that

should be explored. Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) suggest .32 as a good rule of thumb

for the minimum loading of an item. Costello and Osborne (2005) note a factor with

fewer than three items was generally weak and unstable; five or more strongly loading

items (.50 or better) were desirable and indicate a solid factor (p. 5).

I examined a 2-factor solution. The 2-factor pattern matrix included 14 items with

13 items with loadings greater than .50. One item loaded in both Factor 1 and Factor 2

but the loading in each factor was less than .50. In examining the individual items, the

cutoff of >.50 was determined for this study to result in the most interpretable factor

solutions. Costello and Osborne (2005) suggested that items with loadings above .50

indicated a stronger and more solid factor. Because a sufficient number of items in

Factor 1 and Factor 2 scored above .50, this determination provided for more robust

factors. Factor 1 was comprised of 9 items with factor loadings > .50 defined by items

related to pastoral financial training, church member financial training opportunities, and

congregation financial areas. Factor 2 was comprised of four items with factor loadings >

.50 defined by items related to pastoral preaching and teaching beliefs about the tithe and

Missionary Church doctrine. According to Costello and Osborne (2005), a factor is

considered “solid” if there are at least five items loading above .50; less than three is

considered weak. Factor 1 met this criterion with all nine items loading greater than .50.

Factor 2 had four strong items loading greater than .50. Table 6 represents the loadings

for Factor 1 and Factor 2.

Table 6

Factor Model, Principle Component Analysis, and Pattern Matrix

__________________________________________________________________

Survey

Item Factor Loadings

No. Statement 1 2

26 Being liked by congregation is important to pastor .702

39 Church offers financial training options other than

Crown Ministry or Financial Peace University .696

31 Annual increases in church budget address outreach efforts .683

29 Pastor knows giving records of congregation .611

22 Received biblical financial training as part of

educational experience .593

38 Church offers Crown Financial Ministry study .591

28 Pastors should know giving records of their congregation .574

23 Received financial training since entering ministry .519

24 Pastor willing to attend future financial training .508

32 Annual increases in church budget address operations .367α .335α

20 Pastor believes tithing still applicable for today’s Christian .806

21 Tithe is meant to come directly to the church .767

36 Pastor supports MC’s statement on stewardship .540

19 Pastor feels comfortable preaching on financial issues .534

__________________________________________________________________

Note. Survey item 32 (α) meets Tabachnick and Fidell’s (2001) .32 minimum loading

rule of thumb but missed the ≥ .50 cutoff observed for this study. Because of the number

of loadings > .50 a stronger, more robust factor was solidified by observing the stronger

loading. Items with loadings less than 0.32 are not displayed in this table.

Field (2005) mentioned that once highly loading results have been grouped in the

same factor, then a process of identifying a theme for a factor must take place. Factor 1’s

primary focus was on items related to the pastor’s and congregation’s financial training

and church finances, and was thus given the theme: Financial training and church

finance. Factor 2 identified the pastor’s beliefs on the tithe and stewardship as its theme

and was thus given the theme, Pastoral beliefs on giving and stewardship.

Reliability and scale scores

Tavakol and Dennick (2011) note that “internal consistency describes the extent

to which all the items in a test measure the same concept or construct and hence it is

connected to the inter-relatedness of the items within the test” (p. 53). To accomplish

this, Cronbach’s Alpha was used. Cronbach’s Alpha is not a statistical test; it is a

coefficient of reliability (or consistency). Nunnaly (1978) has indicated 0.7 to be an

acceptable reliability coefficient, but lower thresholds were sometimes used in literature

(as cited in Santos, 1999). The Cronbach’s Alpha for Factor 1 was .82, which was

considered good. The Cronbach’s Alpha for Factor 2 was .63, which was considered

acceptable.

See Table 7 for the Cronbach’s Alpha reliability estimates.

Table 7

Factor Analysis Descriptive Statistics and Cronbach’s Alpha (CA) Reliability Statistics

___________________________________________________________________

Factor N Mean SD Poss. Score CA CA Items

1 315 15.67 4.32 9 – 36 .816 9

2 315 5.91 1.65 4 – 16 .629 4

__________________________________________________________________

Note. CA (Cronbach’s Alpha) measures reliability. Factor 1, 10 items at .82 is considered

good; Factor 2, 4 items at .63 is considered acceptable.

Research Question 2 Restated

Based on work done with factor analysis (see preceding sections), question 2 was

restated as follows: To what extent is preaching and teaching of financially related issues

related to demographic characteristics, financial training/church finance, and pastoral

beliefs on giving and stewardship?

To answer this question, three binary logistic regressions were employed. In Case

1, the preaching and teaching of financially related issues were categorized as 0 = never

preach on financial topic, 1 = 1 or more times; in Case 2, preaching and teaching of

financial issues were categorized as 0 = 0 to 1 time, and 1 = 2 or more times; and in Case

3, preaching and teaching of financial issues were categorized as 0 = 0 to 2 times, and 1 =

3 or more times. Demographic characteristics, financial training/church finance, and

pastoral beliefs on giving and stewardship were then regressed on to these categories of

preaching and teaching of financially related issues.

Case 1: Preach once or more times annually

vs. not at all

Table 8 shows the results of the binary logistic regression for Case 1. Regression

coefficients, Wald statistics, p value, and Odds-Ratio are shown. At α = 0.05, a test of

the full model versus a model with intercept only was statistically significant, χ2 =

37.780, df = 25, p = .049. Thus, as a set, the demographic variables—financial

training/church finance, and pastoral beliefs on giving and stewardship—were

significantly related to the preaching and teaching of financially related issues. The

model explained about 30% (Nagelkerke R2 = 0.297) of the variance in

preaching/teaching of financially related topics. However, a closer examination of Table

Table 8

Case 1: Full-Model, Variables in the Equation

__________________________________________________________________

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

ChristEd(1) -.419 .835 .252 1 .616 .658

Educationgroup 4.531 2 .104

Educationgroup(1) -1.188 .846 1.973 1 .160 .305

Educationgroup(2) .608 .640 .904 1 .342 1.838

Agegrp 2.009 3 .571

agegrp(1) 1.329 1.145 1.348 1 .246 3.779

agegrp(2) .121 1.134 .014 1 .907 1.129

agegrp(3) .395 .852 .215 1 .643 1.484

racegrp 2.014 2 .365

racegrp(1) -1.045 1.398 .559 1 .455 .352

racegrp(2) -1.912 1.467 1.699 1 .192 .148

YrsMin 5.670 3 .129

YrsMin(1) -1.820 1.327 1.882 1 .170 .162

YrsMin(2) .419 1.275 .108 1 .742 1.521

YrsMin(3) -.226 1.208 .035 1 .851 .797

YrsPreach 2.384 3 .497

YrPreach(1) .382 1.355 .080 1 .778 1.465

YrsPreach(2) 1.383 1.273 1.179 1 .278 3.985

YrsPreach(3) 1.350 1.336 1.022 1 .312 3.859

yrsptpchurch 2.456 2 .293

yrsptpchurch(1) .320 .839 .145 1 .703 1.377

yrsptpchurch(2) 1.420 .998 2.022 1 .155 4.136

ComperGrp 1.502 3 .682

CompenGrp(1) .342 1.216 .079 1 .779 1.408

CompenGrp(2) .334 1.147 .085 1 .771 1.396

CompenGrp(3) -.651 .803 .656 1 .418 .522

chattendgrp .353 2 .838

chattendgrp(1) -.313 1.331 .055 1 .814 .731

chattendgrp(2) -.590 1.268 .216 1 .642 .555

currstat_Rec(1) .796 .882 .814 1 .367 2.216

marstat(1) .741 1.525 .236 1 .627 2.097

Fact1 -.196 .116 2.883 1 .090 .822

Fact2 -.195 .165 1.403 1 .236 .823

Constant 6.705 2.801 5.731 1 .017 816.354

__________________________________________________________________

Note. χ2 = 37.780, df = 25, p = .049, and Nagelkerke R2 = 0.297.

8 indicates that no single predictor variables are related to the preaching/teaching of

financially related issues.

Case 2: Preach two or more times annually vs.

once or not at all

The results of Case 2 in which the teaching/preaching of financially related topics

is categorized as once/not at all and two or more times are shown in Table 9. The

Hosmer and Lemeshow Test (χ2 = 5.354, df = 8, p = .719) indicates a linear relationship

between criterion and predictor variables. At α=0.05, a test of the full model versus a

model with intercept only was statistically significant, χ2 = 71.348, df = 25, p <0.001.

The model explains about 31% (Nagelkerke R2 = 0.307) of the variance in

teaching/preaching of financially related issues. Three variables appear to be significant

predictors of teaching/preaching financially related topics: YrsMin(1), Factor 1, and

Factor 2. To determine how well a model with only these three variables explains

teaching/preaching of financially related topics, a second binary logistic regression was

conducted. The result is reported in Table 10.

As expected, the model is statistically significant (χ2 = 49.595, df = 5, p <0.001)

and explains about 21% (Nagelkerke R2=0.207) of the variance in teaching/preaching of

financially related topics. With negative regression coefficients, the result suggests that

lower Factor 1 and Factor 2 scores are related to higher preaching/teaching scores. That

is, those who had received financial training and believed in church finance (OR=0.899)

were 1.11 times more likely to preach/teach two or more times per year, and those who

subscribe to church giving and stewardship (OR=0.739) are 1.36 times more likely to

preach/teach financially related topics two or more times per year. The result also

Table 9

Case 2: Full-Model, Variables in the Equation

__________________________________________________________________

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

ChristEd(1) .812 .433 3.516 1 .061 2.253

Educationgroup .209 2 .901

Educationgroup(1) .216 .484 .200 1 .655 1.242

Educationgroup(2) .100 .352 .081 1 .776 1.105

Agegrp 4.338 3 .227

agegrp(1) 1.126 .611 3.402 1 .065 3.084

agegrp(2) .525 .523 1.009 1 .315 1.691

agegrp(3) .736 .453 2.642 1 .104 2.087

racegrp .197 2 .906

racegrp(1) -.167 .600 .078 1 .781 .846

racegrp(2) -.295 .666 .196 1 .658 .745

YrsMin 7.077 3 .069

YrsMin(1) -1.648 .725 5.162 1 .023* .192

YrsMin(2) -.406 .600 .457 1 .499 .666

YrsMin(3) -.250 .544 .212 1 .645 .779

YrsPreach 1.992 3 .574

YrPreach(1) .178 .698 .065 1 .779 1.195

YrsPreach(2) .694 .659 1.111 1 .292 2.002

YrsPreach(3) .164 .633 .067 1 .796 1.178

yrsptpchurch .196 2 .906

yrsptpchurch(1) -.016 .467 .001 1 .972 .984

yrsptpchurch(2) .137 .477 .083 1 .773 1.147

ComperGrp 1.062 3 .786

CompenGrp(1) .465 .652 .507 1 .476 1.591

CompenGrp(2) .586 .616 .905 1 .342 1.796

CompenGrp(3) .390 .454 .739 1 .390 1.477

chattendgrp 3.844 2 .146

chattendgrp(1) -1.199 .636 3.551 1 .060 .301

chattendgrp(2) -1.108 .595 3.471 1 .062 .330

currstat_Rec(1) .370 .451 .675 1 .411 1.448

marstat(1) .002 .986 .000 1 .998 1.002

Fact1 -.139 .060 5.367 1 .021* .871

Fact2 -.347 .104 11.403 1 .001* .707

Constant 4.409 1.463 9.087 1 .003 82.179

__________________________________________________________________

* indicates a p value < .05.

Table 10

Case 2: Restricted Model, Variables in the Equation

__________________________________________________________________

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

YrsMin 14.117 3 .003*

YrsMin(1) -1.119 .397 7.955 1 .005* .326

YrsMin(2) .280 .361 .601 1 .438 1.323

YrsMin(3) .151 .352 .186 1 .667 1.164

Fact1 -.107 .037 8.235 1 .004* .899

Fact2 -.302 .088 11.828 1 .001* .739

Constant 4.320 .722 35.827 1 .000 75.200

__________________________________________________________________

Note. χ2 = 49.595, df = 5, p <0.001, and Nagelkerke R2=0.207.

* indicates a p value < .05.

Table 11

Case 2: Crosstabulation for Years in Ministry, Preaching Two or More Times

__________________________________________________________________

preach2

0-1 2 or more Total

YrsMin: < 10 Count 29 22 51

Years in the % w/in YrsMin 56.9% 43.1% 100.0%

Ministry

10-19 Count 22 60 82

% w/in YrsMin 26.8% 73.2% 100.0%

20-29 Count 26 62 88

% w/in YrsMin 29.5% 70.5% 100.0%

30+ Count 27 59 86

% w/in YrsMin 31.4% 68.6% 100.0%

__________________________________________________________________

Note. Pearson Chi-Square = 14.821; df = 3; p =.002.

indicates that, compared to those who had been in the ministry 30+ years, those who had

been in the ministry less than 10 years were more likely to preach/teach financially

related issues only 0-1 times a year. Indeed, the cross-tabulation in Table 11 shows that

when considered together with Factor 1 and Factor 2, 56.9% of those who had been in the

ministry less than 10 years preach/teach financially related topics 0-1 time per year,

whereas only 31.4% of those who had been in the ministry 30+ years preach/teach it 0-1

time/year.

Case 3: Preach three or more times annually

vs. two or less

The results of Case 3 in which the teaching/preaching of financially related topics

is categorized as three or more times annually or two or less times annually are shown in

Table 12. The Hosmer and Lemeshow Test (χ2 = 2.611, df = 8, p = .956) indicates a

linear relationship between criterion and predictor variables. At α=0.05, a test of the full

model versus a model with intercept only was statistically significant, χ2 = 73.551, df =

25, p <0.001. The model explains about 31% (Nagelkerke R2=0.308) of the variance in

teaching/preaching of financially related issues. Six variables appear to be significant

predictors of teaching/preaching financially related topics: YrsMin(1), chattendgrp,

chattendgrp (1), chattendgrp (2), Factor 1, and Factor 2. To determine how well a model

with only these six variables explains teaching/preaching of financially related topics, a

second binary logistic regression was conducted. The result is reported in Table 13.

As expected, the model is statistically significant (χ2 = 43.549, df = 4, p <0.001)

and explains about 18% (Nagelkerke R2=0.183) of the variance in teaching/preaching of

financially related topics. With negative regression coefficients, the result suggests that

100

Table 12

Case 3: Full-Model, Variables in the Equation

__________________________________________________________________

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ChristEd(1) .728 .428 2.886 1 .089 2.070

Educationgroup 3.162 2 .206

Educationgroup(1) .037 .452 .007 1 .935 1.038

Educationgroup(2) -.542 .346 2.453 1 .117 .582

Agegrp 3.034 3 .386

agegrp(1) 1.045 .609 2.943 1 .086 2.845

agegrp(2) .636 .514 1.529 1 .216 1.889

agegrp(3) .354 .438 .654 1 .419 1.425

racegrp .126 2 .939

racegrp(1) -.159 .545 .085 1 .771 .853

racegrp(2) -.016 .626 .001 1 .979 .984

YrsMin 6.243 3 .100

YrsMin(1) -1.494 .706 4.472 1 .034* .225

YrsMin(2) -.663 .573 1.338 1 .247 .515

YrsMin(3) .010 .499 .000 1 .985 1.010

YrsPreach 2.985 3 .394

YrPreach(1) -.197 .674 .086 1 .770 .821

YrsPreach(2) -.193 .623 .096 1 .756 .824

YrsPreach(3) -.827 .585 2.000 1 .157 .437

yrsptpchurch 2.460 2 .292

yrsptpchurch(1) .112 .450 .062 1 .803 1.119

yrsptpchurch(2) .575 .448 1.646 1 .200 1.778

ComperGrp 3.769 3 .288

CompenGrp(1) .943 .644 2.144 1 .143 2.568

CompenGrp(2) 1.159 .602 3.704 1 .054 3.185

CompenGrp(3) .473 .465 1.034 1 .309 1.605

chattendgrp 8.428 2 .015*

chattendgrp(1) -1.649 .570 8.363 1 .004* .192

chattendgrp(2) -1.237 .513 5.815 1 .016* .290

currstat_Rec(1) .027 .424 .004 1 .949 1.028

marstat(1) .289 1.020 .080 1 .777 1.335

Fact1 -.127 .055 5.344 1 .021* .880

Fact2 -.308 .108 8.117 1 .004* .735

Constant 3.507 1.406 6.218 1 .013 33.350

__________________________________________________________________

Note. χ2 = 73.551, df = 25, p <0.001, and Nagelkerke R2=0.308.

* indicates a p value < .05.

101

Table 13

Case 3: Restricted Model, Variables in the Equation

__________________________________________________________________

B SE Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

chattendgrp 6.757 2 .034*

chattendgrp(1) -1.275 .491 6.741 1 .009* .279

chattendgrp(2) -1.072 .507 4.473 1 .034* .342

Fact1 -.121 .037 10.753 1 .001* .886

Fact2 -.276 .087 10.111 1 .001* .759

Constant 5.388 .837 41.417 1 .000 218.867

__________________________________________________________________

Note. χ2 = 43.549, df = 4, p <0.001, and Nagelkerke R2=0.183.

* indicates a p value < .05.

Table 14

Case 3: Crosstabulation for Church Attendance, Preaching Three or More Times

__________________________________________________________________

Preach3

0-2 3 or more Total

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chattendgrp: < 100 Count 98 70 168

Weekly % w/in chattendgrp 58.3% 41.7% 100.0%

Church

Attendance 100- Count 61 40 101

249 % w/in chattendgrp 60.4% 39.6% 100.0%

250+ Count 14 24 38

% w/in chattendgrp 36.8% 63.2% 100.0%

__________________________________________________________________

Note. Pearson Chi-Square = 6.820; df = 2; p =.033.

lower Factor 1 and Factor 2 scores are related to higher preaching/teaching scores. That

is, those who had received financial training and believed in church finance (OR=0.886)

were 1.13 times more likely to preach/teach 3 or more times per year, and those who

102

subscribe to church giving and stewardship (OR=0.759) are 1.36 times more likely to

preach/teach financially related topics 3 or more times per year. Relative to larger

churches (250+), pastors of smaller churches are more likely to preach 2 or less times a

year on financially related topics. A cross tabulation (see Table 14) indicates that when

considered with Factor 1 and Factor 2, about 60% of pastors in medium and smaller

churches preach 2 or less times per year compared to about 37% of pastors in large

(250+) churches.

Summary of Major Findings

This exploratory survey study was designed to examine independent variables

from demographic, personal, institutional (church), and social characteristics that

influence pastors within the Missionary Church, Inc., to preach and teach on financially

related issues. Though variables within their own category did not show correlation, there

are significant findings in the study. The following are four major findings of this study:

First, over 92% of pastors in the Missionary Church preach about financially

related topics at least once a year. Of those who do, 43.5% preach three or more times,

22.2% preach twice annually, and 25.4% preach one time annually.

Second, through factor analysis, two factors were identified and shown to be

primary predictors of preaching/teaching on financially related topics. Factor 1 had a

theme of financial training and church finance. Factor 2 had a theme of pastoral beliefs

on giving and stewardship. The loadings of these factors are significant when compared

to existing literature in this field of study.

Third, when considered together with Factor 1 (financial training/church finance)

and Factor 2 (pastoral beliefs on giving and stewardship), pastors who have been in

103

ministry over 10 years are more inclined to preach/teach on financially related topics two

or more times annually (10-19 years/73.2%) compared to pastors who have been in

ministry for less than 10 years (43.1%).

Fourth, when considered together with Factor 1 (financial training/church finance)

and Factor 2 (pastoral beliefs on giving and stewardship), pastors in congregations of

larger churches (250+) were more inclined to preach on financially related topics three or

more times a year as compared to those in congregations of smaller size.

These findings will be discussed in Chapter 5.

104

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

This chapter presents a summary of this study designed to explore preaching and

teaching on financially related topics among pastors in the Missionary Church

denomination. It reviews the study context, problem, purpose, research questions, and

research design, and summarizes key findings. It also discusses the implications of the

research for Missionary Church pastors, leaders, and future researchers.

Context of the Study

Smith et al. (2008) estimate an extra $46 billion could be available if committed

Christians gave 10% of their after-tax income instead of the current 1-3%. That figure

rises to $85 billion when considering other offerings.

Tithing is just one example of a financial topic taught in the Bible. In fact, the

Bible is full of instruction on a variety of financial matters. There are roughly 500 verses

explicitly on prayer, less than 500 verses on faith, but more than 2,350 verses on money

and possessions (Dayton, 1996). Fifteen percent of everything Christ said dealt with

financial topics, more than his teachings on heaven and hell combined (Alcorn, 2001).

Sixteen of the 38 parables Jesus presented centered on how to handle money and

possessions. The Bible discusses many financial issues such as investing, wealth, taxes,

105

debt, honesty, contentment, cosigning, inheritance, working, compensation, and giving.

If the Bible speaks to financial areas as much or more than any other topic, and if Jesus

Christ emphasized His teaching using financial illustrations, one would expect financial

topics to be a major teaching area within Christian churches. According to Smith et al.

(2008), this does not appear to be the case:

Prior research has shown that very many pastors and priests are uncomfortable in

communicating with the members of their congregations about their responsibility to

give money generously. Clergy discomfort with talking about and training for

handling money is a well-established fact and a mere 7 percent were satisfied with the

seminary training of financial issues. (p. 72)

Furthermore, John Ronsvalle and Sylvia Ronsvalle (as cited in Hoge et al., 1997) noted

only 6% of pastors answered favorably the statement: Most pastors enjoy preaching about

money.

Other studies (Hoge et al., 1997; S.L. Miller, 1999; Mulder, 1999; Ronsvalle &

Ronsvalle, 1996) suggested that one reason for the reluctance on the part of pastors could

be their lack of training in addressing financial issues. However, minimal research has

examined the factors predicting pastors’ teaching on financial issues. Understanding

these factors may help pastors learn how to improve biblical teaching on financial

principles, which may help church members grow in personal knowledge and

understanding of biblical financial concepts. This exploratory study attempted to fill this

gap in research within a small, evangelical setting.

Statement of the Problem

Little is known about how much time and focus pastors in evangelical settings

give to finances in their preaching and teaching ministry to parishioners. Even less is

known about these issues in smaller evangelical denominations. Still, less is known about

106

the pastoral factors that might influence or predict preaching and teaching on financial

matters. The problem this study addressed was exploring demographic, personal,

institutional, and/or social variables that influence pastors in the Missionary Church to

speak on financial themes.

Purpose

The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the extent to which pastors

within the Missionary Church preached on financially related issues. Additionally, this

study investigated the extent to which selected demographic characteristics, and personal,

institutional (church), and social variables were related to the frequency of this preaching

on financially related issues. The study examined factors in the context of the Missionary

Church denomination using a survey design of senior, preaching/teaching pastors.

Research Questions

Two questions were considered as a part of this study:

1. How many weekend messages does a pastor dedicate to preaching or teaching

on a financially related topic in a year’s time?

2. To what extent is preaching and teaching of financially related issues related to

demographic characteristics, financial training/church finance, and pastoral beliefs on

giving and stewardship?

Research Design and Procedures

A survey design was chosen as the best way to explore variables identified to

study in the research. A complete list of the variables and their source of validity can be

found in Appendix C and Appendix D.

107

The survey instrument consisted of 43 questions focused on perspectives gleaned

from the literature review. Fourteen of the questions specifically gathered demographic

information. Thirteen of the questions sought responses on a pastor’s views of their own

personal experience or given situation related to finances. Eleven of the questions sought

a pastor’s views related to their institution (church) and/or congregational matters. Four

of the questions sought the pastor’s views on social issues related to finances. Finally,

one question asked a pastor to identify the number of weekends in a typical calendar year

he dedicates completely to preaching or teaching on a financially related topic; the

response to this question served as the dependent variable in the study. The survey

questions provided quick response choices for demographic areas, and Likert-type

responses and Yes/No options for all others.

Because 142 of the 464 potential pastors (30.6 %) in the Missionary Church were

Hispanic/Latino, it was important for the study to have a Spanish version of the survey

instrument. A translator was hired to create that survey from the English version. Once

completed, that Spanish translation was then translated back to be compared to the

original created survey. This helped to improve the reliability between the two

instruments. See Appendix A for the English version instrument of the survey and

Appendix B for the Spanish version.

Because the Missionary Church is a small denomination with only 464 potential

senior pastors in the United States and Puerto Rico, it was determined that the best way to

have the highest potential response rate would be for me to attend the annual district

meetings and survey the pastors in person. For oversight purposes, the Missionary

Church was divided into districts across the United States and Puerto Rico. These

108

districts hold annual meetings which require pastor participation. Fifteen sites were

visited between October 2011 and June 2012 to collect data.

At each district meeting prior to a scheduled break or meal, I shared with the

pastors the purpose of the study and covered the instructions for the survey and consent

form. Though not mandatory, I encouraged their participation because of the small size

of the Missionary Church denomination. As the scheduled break began, participating

pastors came forward, received a survey packet that contained an English or Spanish

survey, an English or Spanish consent form, and a 9 x 12 envelope. Once pastors signed

the consent form, it was collected by a conference designee independent of the survey.

Pastors then completed the survey, placed it in the 9 x 12 envelope, sealed it, and

returned it to a designated place. Once, the surveys were collected and I had left the

district conference, I went through each survey, scored the responses to match the

operational definition established for the SPSS software, and then entered the data. (See

Appendix C for operational definitions.)

The purpose for visiting each of these district meetings was to gather as high a

participation rate as possible in an effort to negate non-response bias in the study. Three

hundred and fifteen of the 464 pastors participated in the study (67.9%). Field (2005)

reviewed many suggestions about the sample size necessary for a factor analysis study

and concluded, in general, that over 300 cases is an adequate number.

Data Analysis

The data were analyzed using three different methods. First, descriptive statistics

was used to analyze the 14 demographic questions on the survey (see Table 3 in Chapter

4). Of the total possible senior, preaching pastors in the denomination in 2012 (N = 464),

109

67.9% participated in the study. Discounting the Mid-Atlantic and El Paso Mission

outliers, pastoral participation ranged from 14.3% in the Kentucky/Tennessee District to

100% in the Georgia/Alabama District. Most of the respondents fell between the ages of

40 and 64 (71.8%). Of the respondents, 64.1% were White/Caucasian and 24.1% were

Hispanic/Latino. An overwhelming majority of the pastors were married (96.5%) and

67% had at least one child living at home.

Most of the participants surveyed had been in ministry in some capacity between

10 and 34 years (66.9%) with slightly under 50% of pastors serving in a

preaching/teaching capacity for less than 15 years. While there were part-time and bi-

vocational pastors in the denomination, most pastors (73.7%) worked full-time in their

churches with 63.5% of pastors serving at their current church for less than 10 years.

In the areas of compensation, church attendance, pastoral education, and pastoral

home finances, the following data were recorded: Thirty-eight percent of pastors

indicated their total compensation package is under $30,000, 36.8% earn between

$30,000–$59,000, and 21.6% earn more than $60,000 annually. Over half of the pastors

surveyed have churches with fewer than 100 people (54.3%), whereas 32.3% have

weekly attendance between 100-249, and 12.1% have over 250 people weekly. In the

area of education, 73% of pastors indicate their highest level of education is a bachelor’s

degree or above, noting 81% of pastors attended a college with a Christian emphasis or

attained their degree from either a Christian college or seminary. Lastly, 39.4% of pastors

handle their home finances, while 31.4% of pastors and spouses share the responsibility.

Second, to determine if there was empirical support for the personal, institutional,

and social constructs of the study, exploratory factor analysis was performed on the 28

110

independent variables. “Factor analysis was not designed to test hypotheses or theories”

(Costello & Osborne, 2005, p. 8). “Factor analysis is a technique used to identify factors

that statistically explained the variation and co-variation among measures” (Green &

Salkind, 2011, p. 313). In a nutshell, it is a data-reduction process. Rietveld and Van

Hout (1993) noted factor analysis attempts to bring intercorrelated variables together

under more general, underlying variables.

Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was chosen as the extraction method using

oblique rotation and pattern matrix. I examined a two-factor solution using a scree plot

(see Figure 2) to analyze a breakpoint. The two-factor pattern matrix included 14 factors

with 13 items of loadings greater than .50. One loading appeared in both Factor 1 and

Factor 2 but the loading score of that variable on each factor was less than .50. In

examining the individual items, a cutoff of >.50 was administered in this study to

identify significant factor coefficients. Factor 1 was comprised of nine items > .50 with

concentrations related to pastoral financial training, church member financial training

opportunities, and congregation financial areas. It was given the theme Financial training

and church finance. Factor 2 was comprised of four items > .50 relating to pastoral

beliefs about the tithe and Missionary Church doctrine. The theme Pastoral beliefs on

giving and stewardship was given to Factor 2.

According to Costello and Osborne (2005), a factor was considered “solid” if

there are at least five items loading above .50; less than three is considered weak. Factor

1 met this criteria with all nine items loading greater than .50. Factor 2 has four strong

items loading greater than .50. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling

Adequacy indicated an inter-correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis (KMO =

111

.842 > .50). Bartlett’s test of sphericity was used to test for multicollinearity (X2 =

915.73, df = 91, p = .000). The Cronbach’s Alpha (not a statistical test but a coefficient

of reliability/consistency) for Factor 1 was .82, which is considered good. The

Cronbach’s Alpha for Factor 2 was .63, which is considered acceptable. The descriptive

statistics for Factors 1 and 2 in the study were as follows: In both cases, N = 315. Mean

for Factor I = 15.67 with a SD of 4.32. Possible score range for Factor 1 was 9–36.

Mean for Factor 2 = 5.91 with a SD of 1.65. Possible score range for Factor 2 was 4–16.

Scoring on the survey instrument ranged from Strongly Agree = 1 to Strongly Disagree =

4. Given the way these responses were coded, low to high, a lower score (toward

Strongly Agree) corresponded to a higher likelihood of preaching more on financially

related topics, which will be seen in the logistic regression model summary to follow.

Inversely the same is true, a pastor higher on the scoring scale (toward strongly disagree)

is less likely to preach on financially related topics. Understanding this, pastors who

scored low on areas of training and church finance (Factor 1) were more likely to preach

on financially related topics. Also, pastors who scored low on beliefs toward giving and

the Missionary Churches Statement on stewardship (Factor 2) were more likely to preach

on financially related issues.

The third method used to analyze the data was binary logistic regression analysis

using .05 criterion for statistical significance. Three cases were explored using the

following as dependent variables: (a) pastor preached one or more times in a calendar

year on a financially related topic or did not preach on financial topics at all (Case 1); (b)

pastor preached two or more times in a calendar year on a financially related topic or

preached once or not at all (Case 2); or (c) pastor preached three or more times in a

112

calendar year on a financially related topic or preached twice or less (Case 3). The first

case showed no significant variables likely because there was too small a sample of those

pastors who never preach on financially related issues in a calendar year’s time. The

second and third cases provided insightful results.

In Case 2, a full model was constructed identifying (a) a pastor in years 10-19 of

ministry/p = .023; (b) Factor 1/p = .021, and (c) Factor 2/p = .001 as significant variables.

A restricted model of significant variables and crosstabulations with years in ministry and

the dependent variable were conducted. The Omnibus Test of Model Coefficients

showed X2 = 49.595; df = 5; p = .000 and The Nagelkerke R2 of .207 indicates 21% of the

variance in preaching and teaching on a financially related topic can be explained by the

regression model. The Hosmer and Lemeshow Test (X2 = 9.774; df = 8; p = .281)

indicated a linear relationship between criterion and predictor variables. The

crosstabulations (X2 =14.821; df =3; p =.002) indicated 73% of the pastors in years 10-19

of ministry preached on financially related topics two or more times; 71% of the pastors

in years 20-29 of ministry preached on financially related topics two or more times; and

69% of the pastors in at least their 30th year of ministry preached on financially related

topics two or more times. This compared to 43% of those with less than 10 years of

ministry experience were likely to preach on financially related issues two or more times

annually.

In Case 3, a full model was constructed identifying (a) a pastor in years 10-19 of

ministry/p = .034; (b) Factor 1/p = .021, and (c) Factor 2/p = .004 as significant variables

but also added church attendance groups: chattendgrp (< 100)/p=.015;

chattendgrp(1)(100-249)p = .004; chattendgrp(2)(250+)/p = .016. A restricted model of

113

significant variables was conducted. The Omnibus Test of Model Coefficients showed

X2 = 43.549; df = 4; p = .000 and The Nagelkerke R2 of .183 indicated 18% of the

variance in preaching and teaching on a financially related topic can be explained by the

regression model. The Hosmer and Lemeshow Test (X2 = 2.220; df = 8; p = .974)

indicated a linear relationship between criterion and predictor variables. Of importance,

the restricted model dropped the years in ministry as a variable in the restricted model,

implying a more experienced pastor in terms of years in ministry was likely preaching in

churches of 250+ people.

Major Findings

The following represent the four major findings of this exploratory study of

pastors in the Missionary Church denomination:

1. Over 92% of pastors in the Missionary Church preach about financially related

topics at least once a year; 43.5% preach three or more times, 22.2% preach twice

annually, and 25.4% preach one time annually.

2. Through factor analysis, two factors were identified and shown to be primary

predictors of preaching/teaching on financially related topics. Factor 1 had a theme of

financial training and church finance. Factor 2 had a theme of pastoral beliefs on giving

and stewardship. The loadings of these factors are significant when compared to existing

literature in this field of study.

3. When considered together with Factor 1 (financial training/church finance) and

Factor 2 (pastoral beliefs on giving and stewardship), pastors who have been in ministry

over 10 years are more inclined to preach/teach on financially related topics two or more

114

times annually (10-19 years/73.2%) compared to pastors who have been in ministry for

less than 10 years (43.1%).

4. When considered together with Factor 1 (financial training/church finance) and

Factor 2 (pastoral beliefs on giving and stewardship), pastors in congregations of larger

churches (250+) were more inclined to preach on financially related topics three or more

times a year as compared to those in congregations of smaller size.

Discussion

This section interprets each of the findings, relating them to the research questions

and also to applicable literature.

Finding One

The majority of pastors (92.4%) dedicated at least one weekend message a year to

a financially related topic with 43.5% preaching three or more times, 22.2% preaching

twice annually, and 25.4% preaching one weekend message annually. I considered it a

surprising finding that two thirds of Missionary Church pastors preached at least twice a

year on a financially related topic. I think this is significant given previous studies would

have led me to believe most pastors would spend a maximum of only one weekend

preaching on such issues. It is further surprising given that previous studies report

parishioners’ limited approval to hear such messages.

Mead (1998) noted pastors were excoriated for preaching too much about money

because people want to avoid the subject and its hold on them. S.L. Miller (1999) noted

that pastors in her study were permitted only one standard message per year. My

experience as a lifelong church attender would interpret this one standard message as the

115

annual sermon on tithing or message about giving. Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle (1996) told

of one pastor being counseled in his first interview with the congregational leadership

board that the congregation expected one money sermon per year. Another story

mentioned by Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle (1996) tells of a congregational leader who made

a special effort to inform the pastor that he had given a fine sermon—except that it

belonged in September, not in the spring. In other words, in this church we talk about

money only one time a year and that is in the fall. Mead (1998) argued that clergy seem

to be told to restrict their talking about finances to “a little” when it comes to talking

about church budgets and contributions to the church, but when it came to talking about

people’s personal budgets, this was off limits. “Something has to give! Both in talking

with clergy about what they say and from examining the transcripts of their sermons, we

must say that clergy often tiptoed around the topic of money as if they were taking a walk

through a mine field” (Wuthnow, 1999, p. 147). Additionally, Mead (1998) spoke of

pastors feeling uncomfortable with a fall stewardship campaign, and Bagwell (1993)

mentioned the body language and posture of a pastor exhibited how uncomfortable it was

to preach on these topics.

Because of the five theological traditions that undergird the Missionary Church

value personal faith commitment including stewardship, I had reason to believe that the

Missionary Church pastor would preach at least one weekend message annually and

probably in the area of giving. I was surprised to see how many addressed financial

issues twice and three times annually. Knowing the literature on this sensitive issue, I

anticipated much less than the findings showed. Once or less would have been more in

line with Mead (1998), Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle (1996), and Wuthnow (1999). Even

116

more surprising than the number of times a pastor dedicated weekend messages was their

attitude. Eighty-eight percent of Missionary Church pastors responded Strongly Agree or

Agree to the question, I feel comfortable preaching/teaching on financially related topics.

This finding differed from many researchers. For example, Hoge et al. (1997)

mentioned one fear felt by nearly every pastor was fear of criticism, “You’re always

talking about money.” Hoge et al. (1997) further commented that for the vast majority of

pastors, this criticism was unfair as most pastors go to great lengths to avoid talking about

money because they know how sensitive and potentially alienating it is. Stowell (1987)

wrote of a situation many pastors would welcome: Instead of allowing their pastor to

apologize for preaching on money, two members reproved a pastor’s apology after the

service saying, “Giving is a privilege and act of worship.” There was no need to

apologize (p. 23).

As noted above, the Missionary Church’s more conservative, literal biblical

perspective may help explain this finding and why it differs on this topic from prior

studies. Other studies were predominantly performed in large, mainline denominations.

The Missionary Church’s conservative, evangelical teachings and emphasis often focus

on personal stewardship, on the benefits of stewardship, and the joy that can come from

biblically handling one’s finances. Noll (2007) mentioned that the evangelical religion

was a religion of the person engaged with the Bible and “to lose that engagement would

be to lose something essential” (p. 25). Given the amount of financially related content

in the Bible, it would be appropriate for a pastor who is trained and pastoring within the

Missionary Church to be educated and challenged to understand such topics or issues and

117

feel called and obligated to teach them to others. Willmer (1995) also contributed

important insights into the evangelical mind-set in noting:

Four main reasons help provide an understanding of the theological underpinnings of

the evangelical faith. The first is the distinct tie to the Gospel and the desire to reach

people who do not know Jesus Christ; second, is the desire to preserve the nation;

third, is a moral and spiritual responsibility to avoid the material and maintain a God-

centered worldview and fourth, is a response to biblical stewardship. (pp. 107-108)

The high response of pastors to biblical themes of financial stewardship may also be

linked to Willmer’s first suggestion of reaching people with the gospel. As the name

implies, the Missionary Church has a strong culture of missionary activity, which is

funded through financial contributions. Being receptive to biblical stewardship creates an

openness to personal involvement in remembering and actively participating in reaching

the world with the gospel. While the world often considers evangelicals extremists, Noll

(2007), again, described evangelicals as people engaged in the Bible. It seemed logical

that regular preaching and teaching on financially related topics such as generous giving

would go hand in hand for people “engaged in the Bible.”

Finally, a possible connection may exist between preaching more often on

financial topics and more generous giving. Barna’s (2008) and Smith et al.’s (2008)

studies show evangelicals to be among the most generous of givers. I suggest that one of

the reasons evangelicals are documented as being more generous contributors may be that

sermons are being presented in a more regular manner in evangelical church settings.

Because of this, people are challenged on a more regular basis to consider stewardship in

their daily lives. This notion would support recent work by Starks and Smith (2013) who

report on their work with American Catholics. They note:

In our analysis, we find that the single most important factor explaining giving gaps is

a lack of “spiritual engagement with money” on the part of most American Catholics.

118

Rather than seeing their use of money and possessions as a part of their spiritual

life—as a part of Christian formation and faithfulness—American Catholics tend to

compartmentalize: they tend to separate money from matters of faith and to think that

money and material possessions have little to do with spiritual or religious issues.

Catholics who do engage with money as a spiritual matter and who see their money

as ultimately God’s, however, are much more financially generous, reducing the

Catholic giving gap almost entirely. (p. 3)

The idea of preaching regularly on such topics is one way of integrating the

spiritual life and keeping people from compartmentalizing finances. If my findings here

about the regularity of preaching in the Missionary Church have been true for decades, it

could be that this might give some explanation for the higher giving rates within the

Missionary Church. Table 15 shows five decades of per-capita giving among many

denominations. The Missionary Church has regularly been among the top percentage

givers, which could be a result of parishioners regularly seeing a connection between

their personal spiritual walk and their finances. Starks and Smith (2013) found that

“spiritually engaging with money, recognizing that how one uses money and possessions

is an important part of one’s spiritual journey, was associated with much more generous

giving” (p. 22).

Finding Two

Through factor analysis, two factors were identified and shown to be primary

predictors of preaching/teaching on financially related topics. Factor 1 had a theme of

financial training and church finance. Factor 2 had a theme of pastoral beliefs on giving

and stewardship. These factors, and the loadings represented, were also surprising for as

in the first finding, the results of these respondents were quite different from existing

literature.

119

Table 15

Missionary Church Historical Giving

___________________________________________________________________

Year # Denom. MC $ Per Top Per Capita Denomination

Reporting Rank Capita

1973 42 3 340.09 Berean Fund. Church – 429.19

1983 45 1 783.59 Missionary Church – 783.59

1993 35 3 1291.66 Allegheny Wes. Meth –1846.94

2003 62 3 2011.09 Allegheny Wes. Meth – 2687.10

2012 63 7 2309.42 Allegheny Wes. Meth – 3662.12

__________________________________________________________________

Note. Data in line 1 are from Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches 1973

(pp. 242-243), by C. H. Jacquet, Jr., 1973, Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. Data in line 2

are from Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches 1983 (pp. 244-245), by C. H.

Jacquet, Jr., 1983, Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press. Data in line 3 are from Yearbook of

American and Canadian Churches 1993 (pp. 257-258), by K. Bedell, 1993, Nashville,

TN: Abingdon Press. Data in line 4 are from Yearbook of American and Canadian

Churches 2003 (pp. 382-387), by E. W. Lindner, 2003, Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Data in line 5 are from Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches 2012 (pp. 382-

387), by E. W. Lindner, 2003, Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

First, one finding in this study revealed 88% of the pastors responded Strongly

agree or Agree to “I am comfortable preaching/teaching on financially related topics.”

This was in contrast to Smith et al. (2008) who noted prior research has shown that very

many pastors and priests were uncomfortable in communicating with the members of

their congregations about their responsibility to give money generously. Clergy

discomfort with talking about and training for handling money is a well-established fact.

Furthermore, John Ronsvalle and Sylvia Ronsvalle (as cited in Hoge et al., 1997) stated

that only 6% of pastors answered favorably the statement: Most pastors enjoy preaching

about money. This was a significant difference.

120

Second, 53% of the pastors surveyed responded Strongly agree or Agree to “I

received biblical financial training as a part of my educational experience.” Smith et al.

(2008) mentioned that a number of clergy talked about having relatively little to no

training or education about money in their pastoral preparation. One pastor explained,

“It’s not something you do in seminary, at least we didn’t” (p. 106). This was also a

significant difference. The data analysis noted 81% of Missionary Church pastors

attained their degree in a field with Christian emphasis or attended a Christian College. It

could be that attending Christian colleges may have given them more exposure to training

in the Missionary Church than was reported in other studies where clergy came from

more varied denominations with more diverse educational backgrounds.

Third, only 11% of pastors responded Strongly agree or Agree to “I feel pressure

in my church to not talk about money.” Smith et al. (2008) noted pastors also spoke

frequently and unhappily about the pressure they feel from the congregations to not talk

too much about money (p. 103). Missionary Church pastors did not respond as feeling

this pressure. This was another significant difference between my study and other studies

and could be attributed to the evangelical pastor in the Missionary Church denomination.

If the pastor values a personal faith commitment including stewardship, then he would

not exclude what might be considered sensitive topics just because he might “step on

someone’s toes.” If topics or biblical principles of any nature were important for the

overall spiritual growth of the church member, then it would be worthy of addressing.

Financial principles would be such topics since they are so prevalent in the biblical text.

Fourth, 60% of pastors mentioned their church offers Crown Financial Study,

Financial Peace University, or some other form of financial study, and 26% of churches

121

offer two options. The Alban Institute and Lake Institute on Faith & Giving study (2009)

showed 27.7% of their surveyed churches (N=1,517) offered classes or events on

personal finance or giving. The concern for individuals’ and families’ financial well-

being and the emphasis on missions may provide a social context that supports and

encourages pastors in my study to speak more about financial training as a part of church

ministry.

Fifth, Kluth (1998) mentioned 90% of churches have no active plan for teaching

biblical financial principles to their congregations (CSA seminar research). This study

showed 60% reported offering financial training opportunities to their congregation.

However, the last two decades since Kluth’s study have seen a rise in financial training

opportunities within churches. The Alban Institute and Lake Institute on Faith and Giving

(2009) reported 27.7% of churches engaging in such opportunities. That being said, the

Missionary Church appears to be more actively promoting financial training for

congregational members than do other denominations studied to date.

Sixth, 79% of pastors responded Strongly agree or Agree to “I received biblical

financial training since entering the ministry.” Furthermore, in a separate survey question,

90% of pastors responded Strongly agree or Agree to “I am willing to attend biblical

financial training in the future.” These two responses identify another difference from

previous research. Consider the following: Willmer noted “pastors were not trained, so

they seldom knew what to say and (when they do know) were afraid to say it” (as cited in

Ronsvalle & Ronsvalle, 1996, p. 129). Kluth (1998) mentioned 85% of pastors felt

unequipped and uncomfortable teaching on finances and giving (Lilly Foundation

Studies). In a survey conducted by S.L. Miller (1999), less than 15% said they were

122

satisfied or very satisfied with the administrative and financial training they received.

S.L. Miller (1999) also noted that only 15% of Protestants and 14% of Catholic clergy

said they were interested in future financial resource management training. These

numbers identify two extremes in pastoral views. The large, mainline denomination

pastor appears frustrated, uninterested, and simply unwilling to engage this area. The

Missionary Church pastor, however, seems open to future learning. I believe this

suggests a further link to a willingness to speak to and address financial issues and aligns

well to the evangelical’s personal faith journey, which is supported by the theological

practices of the Missionary Church and may be true of other evangelical denominations.

Factor 2, with the theme of pastoral beliefs on giving and stewardship, also

provided some new findings which lend support to the Smith et al. (2008) work. In Smith

et al.’s (2008) second condition they noted that

if Christian congregations confidently taught the normative instructions of their faith

tradition regarding generous financial giving, generous giving would also be

increased by Christian leaders’ strongly encouraging believers to make theologically

informed, principled decisions about and commitments to generous financial giving.

(p. 97)

Consider the following three responses from my survey: (a) 97% of pastors responded

Strongly agree or Agree to “I believe tithing is still applicable for today’s Christian”; (b)

93% responded Strongly agree or Agree to “I believe the tithe is meant to come directly

to the church,” and (c) 99% of pastors responded Strongly agree or Agree to “I support

the Missionary Church’s statement on stewardship.”

These types of responses, along with the other differences shared, could be along

the lines of what Smith et al. (2008) were encouraging when they suggest Christian

congregations confidently teach their faith traditions. Again, Noll (2007) described the

123

evangelical as engaged in the Bible. If the Bible is held in such high regard, then so

would preaching on all of its contents regardless of the subject matter. Biblical

stewardship and topics of finances are often mentioned within the Bible and appear to be

addressed by the Missionary Church pastor.

These responses from my results were quite different from the literature and were

explained, I believe, by the difference of the evangelical mind-set of the Missionary

Church. Erdel (1997) mentioned there were five theological traditions that have guided

the Missionary Church (Anabaptism, pietism, Wesleyan-holiness movement,

Keswickian-holiness movement, evangelicalism). These strong traditions emphasized

personal commitment and sacrifice, which often were exhibited through personal giving.

That belief included a commitment to honor God with one’s finances as a steward of

one’s possessions, recognizing God as the true owner.

Pastors in the Missionary Church set the tone in the denomination by the fact that

95% of senior pastors tithe or give above and beyond the 10% level. The example of

pastoral tithing commitment supports the Smith et al. (2008) notion of congregations

maintaining high expectations by honoring generous giving and the importance of

building accountability and congregational trust. The pastor “practicing what he

preaches” helps build this trust. It may also provide the platform to be able to preach

about such topics on a regular basis as he knows he is not asking others to do that which

he is not already doing as well.

As an expert in this field, Hoge (1994) suggested “three factors were foremost as

reasons” why evangelicals may contribute at a higher level than other Christian groups.

First, evangelicals were involved in their churches, and church involvement is the

124

strongest, single predictor of giving. Second, evangelicals hold to strong beliefs in

biblical truths, which is another strong predictor of giving. Third, evangelicals

disproportionately considered religion important in their lives; again, a predictor of

giving. The second and third examples from Hoge (1994) strongly attest to the focus of a

life lived by biblical principles. It would be my conviction that effectively teaching

biblical principles would be a top priority of a Missionary Church pastor. Hoge (1994,

1995) further mentioned all studies indicated that strong personal faith was associated

with higher contributions. The evangelical’s faith also included belief in God’s promise

that God will take care of the faithful, and it gives higher priority to a spiritual life than

the material life (as cited in Noll, 2007, p. 12).

In a final thought, Noll’s (2007) work noted that generous funding of para-church

organizations was the jewel in the crown of evangelical philanthropy. With sacrificial

fund-raising efforts for evangelical para-church agencies, evangelical gospel

proclamation and evangelical good works have displayed a flexibility, urgency,

adaptability, and mobility that have accomplished marvels. He continued by saying that

evangelicals were faithful funders of missionaries.

Finding Three

When considered together with Factor 1 (financial training/church finance) and

Factor 2 (pastoral beliefs on giving and stewardship), pastors who have been in ministry

over 10 years are more inclined to preach/teach on financially related topics two or more

times annually (10-19 years/73.2%) compared to pastors who have been in ministry for

less than 10 years (43.1%).

125

Hoge et al. (1997) called this subject “sensitive and potentially alienating.” So,

why would someone in their early years of ministry be less inclined to preach multiple

times annually on financially related issues as compared to someone with at least 10

years’ experience? There are several potential explanations for these data. One of those

reasons, as Hoge mentioned, is alienating oneself. Hoge et al. (1997) noted many pastors

want to be liked by their church members, and they feel they would be alienating

members if they pushed too hard on money issues. The top loading item of Factor 1 in

my study was “Being liked by my congregation is important to me.” This supports Hoge

et al.’s (1997) research although nearly 15 years separate the two studies. Moreover,

Hoge et al. (1997) further wrote that most pastors are loved and respected, but they all

hoped to avoid situations in which they risk losing the love and respect of their

parishioners. This need to be loved is probably all the more sensitive for someone in

their early years when they were establishing their ministry. As a person who has

attended church his whole life, I can see how a pastor, a young or less expereinced pastor,

would be more concerned about building and securing relationships as a part of building

his personal ministry. It is hard to build those if one feels he will actually separate people

by addressing certain topics.

Smith et al. (2008) pointed to a second common consideration. Many pastors

stated that they were personally uncomfortable talking with parishioners about giving

money because of the direct implications of their own income. “It is like I am raising my

own salary” (p. 105). Fifty-five percent of respondents in my survey led churches of less

than 100 people and another 33% of pastors led churches between 100-249 people. A

young or inexperienced pastor would likely be serving in a smaller church, making valid

126

this concept that their salary and benefits amounted to a good portion of the overall

budget. Speaking too often about finances could appear self-serving.

Another real consideration centers around the pastor’s own ability to handle

personal finances. Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle (1996) noted a national denomination

executive believed that many pastors have never been trained to handle money, so they

have trouble handling their personal finances. That thought grows in significance when

considering ministerial staff often try to survive on marginal incomes. Given this

combination of factors, a pastor might find it difficult to speak about financial

responsibility to his congregation when he cannot balance his own checkbook. This could

be further intensified by the fact that 38% of pastors in the Missionary Church were

compensated at less than $29K annually with another 7% earning between $30-39K.

Depending on the size of the pastor’s family and other income sources, some of these

pastors’ families would be only a few thousand dollars above the poverty line. A young

pastor would likely fall into one of these salary categories providing tight financial

margins. If they found they were struggling financially, this could place a barrier in

preaching on financially related topics from an “integrity” standpoint. In other words,

“How can I preach on that which I cannot do myself?”

A fourth potential reason why a younger or inexperienced pastor may be less

inclined to preach as often on financial issues is his own struggle with personal giving.

One could understand, for instance, why a pastor would not want to preach or teach on

giving if he was not giving. Hoge et al. (1997) also expressed concern about how their

family’s financial circumstances, including their own giving to the church, impacted their

ability to talk about money, as well as how their message was received by church

127

members. It would appear hypocritical to implore the congregation to do that which the

pastor is not. It would probably even be convicting. Allen (2005) said several people in

his survey noted that sermons on stewardship were more credible when worshippers

could perceive that the preacher lived with integrity. Though this option was a real

possibility, my survey revealed 95% of pastors in the Missionary Church personally tithe

or give above the 10% level, leaving this potential reason as unlikely. Nonetheless, it is

still a possibility.

Lastly, Wilhelm et al. (2007) affirmed less giving and less attendance by baby

boomers were indicators of declining generosity. Their study further expressed that

results provided evidence that generational change was at the foundation of recent

changes in American religious giving and religious involvement. Ronsvalle and

Ronsvalle (1996) referred to a report going back as far 1972 that concluded, “As people

see it, the main thing blocking church support simply was a surprising urge for more

affluent living. . . . Rival attractions seemed to be gaining more of the religious dollar” (p.

35). “Pastors were also keenly aware of the pressures that encourage church members to

spend money on material possessions even to the point of going heavily into debt. They

were overwhelmed by these issues” (Wuthnow, 1999, p. 71).

My study disclosed 11% of my survey respondents were under the age of 35.

These pastors may be learning how to do effective ministry while at the same time

learning life’s many lessons. They would have always dealt with the issue of materialism,

consumer debt, and the accumulation of “things.” It certainly could be intimidating to

speak often about financial matters or even giving. It appeared safer to speak the

traditional one-time-a-year sermon or not at all and avoid the charge that all the church

128

cares about is money (Schulz, 2001). That being said, the young pastor needs to

understand the importance of teaching on these issues. Wuthnow (1999) recorded that

one third of those who heard a sermon in the last year said they also thought a great

deal in the past year about what the Bible teaches concerning money and about the

relationship between religious values and their personal finances. Ninety-two percent

of those who had thought a great deal about the relationship between religious values

and their finances agreed that the Bible contains valuable teaching about money. And

the Bible is the guide for the evangelical. (p. 74)

While all of these are valid attempts to understand why a younger or

inexperienced pastor would be less likely to preach on financial issues than an older

pastor, my experience tells me that experience matters. Money is an intimidating topic,

especially for young or inexperienced pastors. They know, however, the subject matter

must be addressed so they give the traditional one message a year. But with age comes

confidence and also stronger conviction, in many cases, which leads to more messages in

a year’s time. Also with age comes a higher salary, which increases the church budget

and the need to likely challenge the congregation in their giving.

Finding Four

The fourth finding of this study revealed a relationship with the size of churches.

When considered together with Factor 1 (financial training/church finance) and Factor 2

(pastoral beliefs on giving and stewardship), pastors in congregations of larger churches

(250+) were more inclined to preach on financially related topics three or more times a

year as compared to those in congregations of smaller size.

While only 12.1% of the pastors surveyed recorded they were in churches with

weekly attendance over 250 people, larger churches do face unique issues in the financial

area. A church of 250+ is likely located in an area with growth potential and a more

129

diverse population. The church likely has a larger budget, larger facility, more staff, and

more potential opportunities for ministry. More staff, more space, and more ministry

opportunities would likely present a backdrop to stress financial issues more often. A

small church in a rural area with fewer than 100 people has little opportunity for growth

and may not have those same opportunities.

One potential challenge larger churches face is free-riding. A free-rider is a

church attendee or member who gives no or very little money yet still enjoys all of the

benefits associated with being a part of a church body. Zaleski and Zech (1992) noted

that congregational size and attitude toward the importance of church and religion are

two critical considerations determining support for a church’s mission and, thus, the

extent of free ridership. To help understand the effect of free-riding, Ronsvalle and

Ronsvalle (2000) noted the estimate elasticity was suggested that if a congregation grew

by 10%, contributions per member would fall by about 25%. Evidence supported broad

estimates that 30-50% of resident members gave little or nothing of record to their

congregation. While these are intriguing figures, Ronsvalle and Ronsvalle (2000) note

this was not necessarily the case for a church with an evangelical bent. Ronsvalle and

Ronsvalle (2000) mentioned free-riding had been offered by some researchers as a major

explanation in denominational differences in church giving. The theory stated that giving

was higher in evangelical denominations because they have a stronger motive of

reciprocity with God and more obligatory visible indicators of commitment.

Olson and Perl (2005) noted that compared to other congregations, strict,

theologically conservative congregations have less skewed giving distributions and thus

appeared to have fewer free- and cheap-riding participants, just as Iannaccone (1997)

130

predicted. Though studying free-riders was not a part of my study, it is possible this

could be less of an issue for larger Missionary Churches because (a) pastors in larger

churches appear to be preaching at least three times annually; (b) the Missionary

Church’s value on faith commitment includes stewardship; and (c) the historical giving

record of those in the Missionary Church is always at the top of reporting denominations

(Table 15).

Second, overlooked among all the comments about how pastors disliked

preaching on money or how they tiptoed around the subject matter is the simple fact that

many pastors enjoy preaching financially centered sermons linked to Scripture and have

found it enjoyable even if the subject matter was seemingly difficult (Wuthnow, 1998).

One such difficult issue is materialism. Willmer (1995) noted, “The materialism of our

culture is the dominant issue and the church had not combated materialism with its own

set of values. People in the church often feel that if they take the biblical teaching on

stewardship to heart, they would have to give up a lot that they don’t want to do without”

(as cited in Ronsvalle & Ronsvalle, 1996). Yet, the Bible mentions you cannot serve two

masters. “You can’t serve both God and money” (Matt 6:24). It is possible that pastors of

larger Missionary Churches feel compelled to address this issue of materialism. In my

survey, 83% of pastors believed materialism/consumerism affects those in their

congregation; 78% believed credit card debt is an issue in their church; 95% of pastors

believed consumerism affected people’s ability to give more generously; and 99% of

pastors in my survey believed credit card debt is an issue in our society. Debt, for

instance, would be an issue the Bible addresses and offers guidance and warning.

Messages on financial issues and offering other financial training options (Crown

131

Ministries, Financial Peace University, etc.) within the church serve as ways to keep

congregational members on track with their personal faith commitment.

Wuthnow (1999) presented a third issue when he said people in his congregation

simply don’t think carefully enough about their money. They have not maintained

budgets or records of their expenses. The Bible mentions being a steward of that which

God has entrusted to His people. Alcorn (2001) wrote that because there is a

fundamental connection between our spiritual lives and how we think about and handle

money, we have tried to divorce faith from personal finances, but God sees them as

inseparable. Recent work by Starks and Smith (2013) would support these thoughts as

they note,

Most important of all, however, seems to be fostering parish cultures in which the use

of money is not seen as a mere secular or profane matter but, as the Bible teaches, a

spiritual concern that God cares about, that shapes one’s personal spiritual life

profoundly, and that can genuinely help transform the world along Christian values

and purposes. That is the kind of belief, vision and culture that fosters generous

Christian financial giving. (p. 27)

If the evangelical is engaged in the Bible, then indeed, the spiritual life and one’s

finances would be inseparable.

Fourth, the very name, Missionary Church, suggests an emphasis on outreach

efforts. The denomination is active in a variety of mission works through individual

church efforts and other outreach efforts in the U.S. and abroad. One way this emphasis is

kept at the forefront of congregational minds is to preach on missions, which requires

sacrificial giving. It also puts an emphasis on work done outside of the church.

Sociologist Reginald Bibby noted, “Observers have drawn attention to the reality of

routinization, whereby groups tended to turn inward, focused upon themselves as

organizations, rather than on the original purpose that brought them into being (as cited in

132

Ronsvalle & Ronsvalle, 1996, p. 100). R.D. Roth (1987) mentioned that it is no small

wonder that the people claim: All the church was interested in is money, or the church is

always asking for money. It is a perception that is real and is backed by the limited

outreach that occurs within today’s church. This does not appear be the case in the

Missionary Church, as 55% of pastors in my survey responded that any annual increases

in their budgets also address outreach efforts. In a Presbyterian Church study, Lunn et al.

(2001) noted conservative theological beliefs were associated with greater total giving

and greater giving for normal congregational uses; and for non-Presbyterian religious

organizations, liberal theological beliefs were associated with greater giving for

denominational purposes and for nonreligious charities. These conservative findings

meshed with Missionary Church practice.

Lastly, the Alban Institute in conjunction with the Lake Institute on Faith &

Giving (2009) reported that almost 40% of the pastors (N=1,496) in their study preached

or talked about charitable giving either slightly more or significantly more than they did

in the previous year. There was evidence that delivering financially based messages

seemed to impact people’s lives. Wuthnow (1999) mentioned that among church

members nationally, 65% say the Bible contained valuable teachings about money. Allen

(2005) shared that most interviewees who commented on stewardship sermons said that

such preaching has played a positive role in helping them become better stewards.

Several pointed out that sermons have been important in persuading them to tithe. Allen

(2005) further recorded the testimony of interviewees who expressed the opinion that

preachers should talk about stewardship more than they do: “I’d like to see us do a little

bit more about stewardship and I’d like to see that addressed a little bit more directly. I

133

want to know my purpose, my being and how I live out that purpose and that being. How

do I become a better steward of God?” (pp. 2-3) Mulligan (2007) confirmed that the

preacher’s anxiety was not completely without foundation, but most laity are interested in

Christian ideas about money. It would suggest that preaching routinely about financial

topics as a part of our lives provides a more accepting climate. The research notes people

are interested and it is probably a much more appealing approach then apologizing up and

down before delivering the “annual once a year giving sermon.”

Conclusions

While most previous research suggested pastors and congregations did not favor

preaching on financially related issues, this study found widespread support and practice

for preaching on financial issues by pastors in the Missionary Church. Factors that most

predict preaching on financial issues are

1. Supportive personal beliefs on giving and stewardship

2. Education and training and a willingness to attend future training on financial

issues

3. Personal commitment to giving/tithing

4. Openness of the congregation to address such topics from the pulpit in church

5. More years of ministry experience

6. Larger size of congregation.

This research also supports prior findings that link commitment to faith traditions and

more preaching on financial matters as leading to more generous giving.

134

Recommendations

The following are recommendations to (a) pastors and leaders of the Missionary

Church for future considerations and (b) other researchers.

Pastors

1. Continue to challenge church attendees with messages on financial matters.

Research suggests they are interested and want to know more so their life can be

impacted and they can make a difference. Preaching on financial matters also aligns with

the Missionary Church’s faith traditions, encouraging a stronger faith commitment and

stewardship.

2. With younger or less experienced pastors less likely to preach on financially

related topics two or more times annually, consider a mentoring program for newer

pastors where they can share sermon thoughts, seek guidance, and receive encouragement

from seasoned pastors.

3. Involve church members who have experience in specific financial areas as a

part of an overall church plan to teach financial principles a pastor may feel inadequate

addressing (such as investing, estate planning, debt, etc.)

Leaders

1. With a high percentage of pastors willing to attend future biblical financial

training, consideration should be given to breakout session(s) on such topics at the bi-

ennial General Conference.

135

2. Since Bethel College is the Missionary Church’s denominational college and a

producer of future pastors, work with Bethel to ensure all ministry students take a course

or receive training on biblical financial principles and church finance.

3. Encourage all churches to engage in offering the Crown Ministries study,

Financial Peace University, or other financial studies available for teaching financial

principles in an effort to encourage all churches to have a carefully planned stewardship

experience for their attendees.

Recommendations for Further Research

This study has been able to gather information about pastors in the Missionary

Church and the efforts they give toward preaching on financially related topics. There do

appear to be differences between results of my study and other previous research. The

following recommendations for future research can add to this work.

1. Most other studies focus on the donor and donor trends. Because of the

findings related to the number of times Missionary Church pastors preach on financially

related topics, a study should be done on Missionary Church congregations to (a) gather

congregational perspectives, and (b) see how giving statistics of Missionary Church

attendees compare to other evangelical contribution figures and other mainline

denominations.

2. In a further study, consider distinguishing between how often a pastor preaches

on tithing/giving versus other financial topics such as debt, cosigning, investing,

inheritance, etc.

3. Perform this same study in other conservative, evangelical denominations to

see how those findings would compare to the results of this study.

136

4. Consider further study, in general, on pastors and the role they may play in

increased giving in a congregation and elsewhere.

5. Perform this same study in other mainline denominations to consider

comparative results.

6. At the start of the study, I knew that the survey would have to be translated into

Spanish to serve the large Hispanic/Latino community within the Missionary Church

denomination. Whereas previous studies on socioeconomic behavior often look for

differences by ethnicity, I had not found ethnicity to be a central variable in the research

and scholarship on Christian stewardship and giving. However, given the large

percentage of Spanish-speaking churches and pastors, I felt I should test for variability of

ethnicity in this study. In the data analysis, I did not find any pattern that was significant

or worth reporting, but continue to see more need for research in this area as economic

variability in the general Hispanic/Latino population in the U.S., and also within the

Missionary Church, is a contextual variable needing more exploration.

Summary

This study of pastors in the evangelical denomination of the Missionary Church

has provided new information regarding pastors and their perspective of preaching on

financially related topics. The data revealed 92% of pastors in the denomination preach

on a financially related topic at least once a year, 66% of pastors who have been in

ministry over 10 years preach two or more times annually on such topics, and pastors in

churches of 250+ in their congregation are likely to preach three or more times annually

on financially related issues.

137

This study also revealed considerable differences between Missionary Church

pastors and those from prior research. Factors that most predict preaching on financial

issues within the Missionary Church include (a) supportive personal beliefs on giving and

stewardship; (b) education and training and a willingness to attend future training on

financial issues; (c) personal commitment to giving/tithing; (d) openness of the

congregation to address such topics from the pulpit in church; (e) more years of ministry

experience; and (f) larger size of congregation. This research also supports prior findings

that link commitment to faith traditions and more preaching on financial matters as

leading to more generous giving. This commitment to preach regularly about financial

topics may also contribute to research, which indicates evangelicals are more consistent

tithers and more generous donors.

Factors Associated with Pastoral Preaching on Financially-Related Topics Within the Missionary Church.

Students also viewed