Six Motivations for Contributing

• Reading about the habits of highly effective churches I found that research among people who donate money to churches and other non-profit organizations has shown that there are six primary motivation that lead people to contribute to churches and charities. Fund-raising has become so competitive, that it is not good enough to satisfy just one of those motivations. Before a donor is likely to contribute funds to a church or charity at least three of the six motivations must be satisfied.
  
  Six Motivations for Contributing
  
  1. The desire to be part of a compelling cause;
  2. The desire to make a lasting difference in the world;
  3. The expectation of receiving a personal benefit from the work done by the organization;
  4. The existence of a significant relationship with people of influence within the organization or with a group of donors who support the organization;
  5. The desire to help meet an urgent need being addressed by the organization;
  6. The appeal of the organization’s efficiency in its operations.
  
  
  Highly effective churches do a good job of raising the money they need to implement their ministry plans, but they do not devote an unusual amount of energy or attention to fund-raising. They are effective in raising funds partly because they are aware of what motivates people to financially support a ministry and can effectively communicate how their church fulfills those donor expectations. Effective churches typically provide their congregations with ample evidence of the compelling cause that the church represents and the impact that the church is having upon people’s lives. The third and subsequent motivations that are specifically addressed by these churches vary considerably.
  
  Highly effective churches never assume that they can simply expect people to give to the church. Most people who attend a church provide financial assistance, but it is often quite limited---donations that amount to less than $10 a week among regular attenders and substantially less among sporadic attenders.
  
  In these churches the senior pastor is not the primary fund raiser. This is a strategic choice these churches have made. The underlying reason is their experience---and our research that confirms that experience---suggesting that productive fundraising and effective pastoring are like mixing oil and water. Fundraising in many instances cripples a minister’s ability to pastor because the people are never quite sure of the motivation of the pastor’s words or actions.
  
  A hallmark of highly effective churches is accountability. These churches have discovered ways to hold their people accountable to maintain generous giving, but without being overbearing or intrusive. Some of the ways in which they accomplish this include:
  
• Having the stewardship team held accountable for meeting its deadlines and reaching its goals;
• Holding each ministry, department and program within the church to its budget;
• Keeping the congregation informed about the financial condition of the church thr9ugh correspondence, handouts at church and public announcements, so that people have an accurate sense of the church’s financial condition;
• Having the stewardship representatives in the church each of who is a lay person typically responsible for interacting with a limited number of congregants regarding the finances of the church, stay in close contact with every person to whom they are assigned to answer special questions and to provide “soft” accountability for each person’s giving;
• Having meetings between attenders and a responsible leaders who has access to the giving records of the church body and can skillfully and sensitively address the lack of financial support shown by those attenders.
  
  Although talking to congregants about donations is a matter that raises great trepidation among most pastors, it is a non-issue to the leader/pastors of highly effective churches. One pastor remarked:
  
  Do I relish conversations with members about the fact that they don’t give? Actually, I do, because their failure to support us financially is simply indicative of deeper spiritual problems they have. Sometimes it’s a lack of understanding about biblical stewardship but sometimes I learn that they have personal financial needs that we can help them with through a gift, a loan or budgeting assistance. Sometimes they’re battling a spirit of selfishness. Often it’s simply their unwillingness to trust God or take Him at His word. (His people give nearly twice the per capita average).
  
  On the subject of stewardship the answer comes back to leadership. Casting an appropriate vision to motivate people to give and to live as effective stewards makes a huge difference. Focusing people on the big picture of Christian practice---accomplished in this case by expanding people’s view of stewardship beyond money management to embrace total life and resource management---is characteristic of leaders. The ultimate result of this strategic leadership emphasis is that churchgoers are more knowledgeable about heir faith, more obedient to God through the practice of holistic stewardship and the church is a more effective agent of transformation.
  
  Anyone associated with a group should be willing to help the group pay its expenses. That is reason enough to keep the members involved in the decision making.