Ah yes! November again! Not the most eagerly anticipated month in the Church’s working life! Where I live, and I assume elsewhere, it’s the time for Stewardship Programs, stewardship sermons, and for gathering pledges of financial support for the coming year. I was fortunate, I suppose, because I never found stewardship disabling. I may have been shaped for it by my teen years. As a contributing member of the ‘family farm’ team, one of my regular chores was to feed, water, and clean the pigs. I enjoyed that trust because I enjoyed the pigs. They are intelligent animals, capable of being gentle, trustworthy, and in their own ludicrous way even noble. I had the privilege of being their ‘ward’, the ward of the pigsty, the ‘sty-ward’ from which our word ‘steward’ is derived. So, like that prodigal son in Jesus’ parable (Luke 15: 11-32), I came into adulthood understanding what it means to be responsible and accountable for managing an asset that does not belong to me.
That is not to say stewardship was easy for me. It never is! Navigating in stewardship waters can be hazardous because there are rocks upon which parish programs can easily come to grief. The challenge is to sail safely between them, avoiding becoming spellbound by the Sirens, those ‘femmes fatales’ of Greek Mythology who used their seductive voices to lure ships and sailors to their doom.
One of the rocks we are so inclined to embrace is Fund Raising. The tempting voices sing, “Let’s be honest. Stewardship is about money, so let’s not pussyfoot around it. Our goal is to increase parish income, so let’s employ the techniques that work so effectively for professional fund raisers”. The other rock is ‘Holistic Stewardship’. It takes the opposite tack. It sings, “Stewardship is more than money. We need an holistic approach that treats the three ‘T’s, Time, Talent, and Treasure equally”.
What makes all temptations dangerous is that they contain a fragment of truth. The fatal tree in the Garden of Eden was indeed “good for food, and … a delight to the eyes, and … to be desired to make one wise” (Genesis 3: 6). And yes, there are indeed three ‘T’s each one of which is a stewardship issue.
But it is also true that hard-sell fund raising is not ‘pastoral’ and can even be hurtful. And just as surely, emphasizing the Three ‘T’s can be used as an avoidance mechanism, a means of satisfying the Diocese we are dutifully ‘doing stewardship’, all the while diverting serious effort to come to grips with money.
By navigating in the safe stewardship sea lane, we can acknowledge that stewardship is always about more than money, yet honestly admit it is never NOT about money. Protecting the environment costs money! Cleaning up oil spills costs money! Reversing the devastating effects of climate change costs money! And to be sure, the Church’s ministry of Word, Sacraments, and Pastoral Care costs money! So, how is it possible to sponsor a beneficial parish stewardship program that does not violate the Church’s responsibility to be pastoral?
Well, consider the scene from an old cowboy movie. A drunk stumbles out of the saloon, sees a local citizen walking across the street going about his business, and decides to have some fun. He snarls “Dance, ya varmint”, and begins shooting at the man’s feet.
There are four things to notice here. First, the shooting does produce some fancy footwork. Second, the hapless citizen’s dancing is not motivated. It is coerced. Third, the gun play creates a real danger the citizen might be injured and disabled. Fourth, the gunplay did not, in fact, achieve its stated objective. The poor citizen did NOT learn to dance. What he learned was to avoid drunk gunslingers.
Now consider a parallel real-life scenario in which I became entangled years ago. A decision was made at the national Church level to embark upon a major capital funds campaign that would require the participation of every diocese and parish in the country. At one of our Diocesan meetings, some of our clergy who had been around a few years and had accumulated some wisdom, were less than eager until pointed references were made about parishes north of the Arctic circle where priests were needed!
In retrospect, the same observations apply. First, the national stewardship campaign went ahead under the professional management of a highly successful secular fund-raising company. Second, participation was high because it was required rather than motivated. Third, high-pressure tactics did cause some ‘collateral damage’. Fourth, the campaign succeeded. It surpassed its most enthusiastic estimates by 10%. But it was not by any means an exercise in stewardship. It did not improve the Church’s long-time stewardship performance. Within ten years the new money was gone, and the Church was experiencing serious financial concerns once again.
But how can I say it wasn’t stewardship? It just didn’t pass the ‘duck test’. It didn’t look like one, waddle like one, or quack like one. There are some clear differences between Stewardship and Fund Raising.
Fund Raising asks us to share what is ours.
Stewardship encourages us to manage faithfully the resources God has entrusted to us.
Fund Raising sets its objective and works actively to achieve it.
Stewardship identifies the need and invites us to consider it prayerfully in relation to how richly we have been blessed by God.
Fund Raising pegs its estimate of generosity to the amount of the gift. More is better.
Stewardship regards every gift as generous. As with the widow’s mite, a small gift can actually be more generous than a large one.
Fund Raising targets potential givers who are assumed to have money to give.
Stewardship invites all of us to consider our God-given capacity to give more.
Fund Raising is deemed to be successful when it achieves or surpasses its stated objective. Stewardship success is not reckoned by the financial tally. It is like a free and democratic election … whatever happens is what the people caused to happen. As with the results of an election, “The people have spoken, democracy has prevailed, and we bow to it”. Therein is success.
In Fund Raising, the leaders are expected to solicit responses from other people.
In stewardship, the leaders are expected to make their commitments first, to put their money where their mouths are, so to speak, and only then to invite others to join them.
Clearly, Fund Raising and Christian Stewardship both have integrity. Both are up-front and honest about what they are doing. But as an old dyed-in-the-wool styward, I confess to having a strong preference for the stewardship model. I suggest it is simply a better fit when it comes to dealing with the business affairs of the Church family. It is pastoral. It is biblical. It considers the giver to be more important than the gift. And it challenges us to honour God not just with a portion, but with ALL our hearts, with ALL our souls, with ALL our minds, and with ALL our strength.
In short, it’s just what I prefer, oink you very much!
Dale