Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Flinders University of South Australia]On: 05 October 2014, At: 14:52Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Culture and Religion: AnInterdisciplinary JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcar20
The spirit of giving: Mennonitenarratives about charitablecontributionsTomomi Naka aa Asian University for Women , 20/A M.M. Ali Road, Chittagong,BangladeshPublished online: 19 Sep 2011.
To cite this article: Tomomi Naka (2011) The spirit of giving: Mennonite narratives aboutcharitable contributions, Culture and Religion: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12:3, 317-338, DOI:10.1080/14755610.2011.605273
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14755610.2011.605273
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The spirit of giving: Mennonite narratives about charitablecontributions
Tomomi Naka*
Asian University for Women, 20/A M.M. Ali Road, Chittagong, Bangladesh
Many charitable contributions in the USA are religiously motivated. Basedon an analysis of the discussions about charitable contributions among threeMennonite groups in south-central Pennsylvania, this article examinesmembers’ complex decision-making processes about giving. Most recentstudies of such donations among Christians emphasise the importance of asense of sacrifice and the demonstration of one’s religious commitmentthrough giving. This article, however, suggests that giving decisions cannotbe fully understood without considering members’ pragmatic, but alsosometimes conflictive views on appropriate religious contributions. Thethree groups in this article differ considerably in the ways in which theirbeliefs affect their decisions about contributions. While one groupprioritises their immediate church community, another group emphasisessystematic monetary contributions for evangelical activities and the thirdstresses the relationship between their financial decisions and the broadersocial and economic context in which church members are situated.
Keywords: charitable contributions; Mennonites; USA
In a recent article, Bialecki (2008) argues that the economic practices of certain
Christian groups vary in inter-related and hierarchical spheres of exchange.
Although religious beliefs have little influence on secular exchange, they greatly
affect economic decisions about stewardship and sacrificial exchange.
In stewardship exchanges, the focus is on taking care of God’s property through
careful financial management. Sacrificial exchange, in contrast, emphasises
believers’ surrender of economic possessions to God. According to Bialecki,
religious views are most important in sacrificial exchange, which is modelled on
God’s gift of his son. Spontaneous and extravagant giving reminds believers of
their religious commitments. While Bialecki’s argument is based on his research
on an evangelical and Pentecostal/charismatic Christian group, he posits that his
ideas about the three spheres of exchange can help explore ‘the question of
Christian economic practice’ (2008, 372). Studies by others (Coleman 2004;
ISSN 1475-5610 print/ISSN 1475-5629 online
q 2011 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14755610.2011.605273
http://www.tandfonline.com
*Email: [email protected]
Culture and Religion
Vol. 12, No. 3, September 2011, 317–338
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:52
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Harding 1992, 2000) have shown that such sacrificial giving is especially valued
among evangelical groups (for a similar argument on evangelical outreach
activities, also see Elisha 2008).
In this article, I examine the extent to which Bialecki’s ideas are applicable to
religious contributions by members of three different Mennonite congregations in
south-central Pennsylvania. Like other Christian groups, Mennonites believe in
Jesus Christ as the Saviour and the Bible as a sacred text (Redekop 1989).
Mennonites, however, place particular emphasis on separation from and non-
conformity to the secular ‘World’ and its practices. Mennonites interpret the
Bible in support of pacifist positions, mutual assistance among believers and the
provision of support for the poor. Nonetheless, other applications of the tenet of
separation from the World vary considerably among different groups of
Mennonites.
Through ethnographic research among Mennonites, this article explores the
extent to which Bialecki’s ideas are applicable beyond Pentecostal/charismatic
Christian groups. As Bialecki would suggest, Mennonites consider some forms of
giving as especially appropriate. However, stewardship has priority over
sacrificial giving. Moreover, sub-groups of Mennonites differ greatly, influenced
by their specific conceptions of separation from the World, in their views of what
types of stewardship are especially important. Such different emphases suggest
that the hierarchical relationship between sacrificial and stewardship giving
varies among Christian groups.
Religiously motivated giving
Social scientists have long been interested in the relationship between gifts and
other forms of economic exchange and social and cultural relationships. Since
Mauss (1990[1925]) published his influential theory of the gift, scholars have
been interested in how exchanges framed as gifts are intricately related to social
relationships. Gift exchanges are often contrasted with commodity exchanges
(Gregory 1982). Gift exchanges tend to be more about continuous and qualitative
social relationships between the participants, while commodity exchanges tend to
de-emphasise the items’ unique qualities and sentimental and emotional values
and personal association with participants. Other studies (Laidlaw 2000;
Osteen 2002; Parry 1986) suggest, however, that such a characterisation may not
apply in some cases. In his studies among Jains in India, Laidlaw (2000), for
example, argues that the lack of personal connections and anonymous
relationships is particularly sought for as the ideal gift. Because gift exchanges
cannot always be easily distinguished from commodity exchanges, the meanings
and social relationships associated with particular types of exchanges need to be
described carefully (see Carrier 1991). Bialecki’s framework of spheres of
exchange can be understood as an effort to describe the meanings of gift-giving
practices among Christians. His analysis, however, pays relatively little attention
to the social relationships associated with gifts.
T. Naka318
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:52
05
Oct
ober
201
4
In many religious traditions, religiously motivated charitable donations are an
important part of expressing believers’ religious commitment. The emphases on
how and to whom such contributions should be provided, however, vary among
religions. Some religions encourage their members to give a higher priority to
specific groups of people rather than others. For instance, among some Buddhist
groups, donation to the Sangha, religious practitioners’ communities, is
considered particularly appropriate and helps believers earn merits towards
their salvation (Brekke 1998; Gombrich 1993). In Islamic communities,
charitable support is usually focused on fellow believers (Kochuyt 2009). In
contrast, Protestant groups usually encourage believers to perform universal
charity (McCleary 2007), which de-emphasises giving to selective groups of
people. In this form of charity, helping needy strangers is valued as an equally
important expression of their beliefs as is helping members of one’s family and
church. This allows flexibility for believers to find ways to express their religious
commitment through contributions. However, the lack of a clear priority in
giving can challenge members to decide how to and where to contribute
(McCleary 2007).
In the USA, $106.89 billion are contributed to religious organisations,
including congregations;1 this amount is 35% of total giving (Giving USA
Foundation 2009, 83). While other forms of giving, such as volunteer services,
are important in the USA (Allahyari 2000; Wuthnow 1990b), monetary religious
contribution is substantial. Several studies suggest that income and level of
participation in religious organisations are correlated with giving behaviour.
People with higher family income tend to contribute more (Hoge et al. 1999), but
religious affiliation also matters. People who are members of religious
organisations tend to give more for religious causes (Hoge et al. 1996; Smith
and Emerson 2008) and sometimes for other charitable causes (Brooks 2006)
than those who are not members. Those who regularly attend worship services
and other religious activities tend to give to religious causes more often than
those who participate less (Hoge 1994; Hoge et al. 1999).
Studies on Christian groups in the USA, most relevant here, suggest that there
are differences in members’ giving practices among Christian denominations.
Members of conservative Protestant groups (e.g., Assemblies of God, South
Baptist Convention) tend to give more than do those from liberal groups (e.g.,
Evangelical Lutheran and Presbyterian) (Hoge 1994; Hoge, McNamara, and
Zech 1998; Hoge and Yang 1994; Zaleski and Zech 1994). Relating to the studies
that suggest people with higher participation in religious activities tend to give
more, some (Iannaccone 1999; Stark and Finke 2000) argue that members of
conservative denominations have higher expectations of religious commitment,
leading believers to contribute more. These studies suggest that the cultural and
religious contexts of particular groups influence giving behaviour. However, the
precise reasons why these differences exist and how religious affiliation matters
are not clearly understood (Chaves 1999; Finke, Bahr, and Scheitle 2006; Hall
2005; Horowitz 1991; Wuthnow 1990a).
Culture and Religion 319
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:52
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Monetary contribution provides a good opportunity to explore intricate
relationships between economic practices and religious and other symbolic
meanings. While money’s instrumental function as a means of exchange is often
emphasised (e.g., Simmel 1978), money can be an appropriate gift when it is
earmarked for particular use and gains specific meaning (Fennell 2002; Zelizer
1994). Bialecki (2008) argues that money is the only material item that can regularly
move between the sacrificial and stewardship spheres of exchange because of its
symbolic and exchangeable characteristics. He further claims that, especially when
believers emphasise the symbolic and spiritual significance of money, monetary
exchange is framed as a sacrificial exchange, a transaction type that Bialecki argues
represents the closest economic engagement with God. Sacrificial exchange
emphasises surrender of one’s control of money to God and in so doing expresses
one’s religious commitment. This contrasts with the stewardship exchange modality
that stresses believers’ own financial management skills for God’s resources.
Other studies, especially those among evangelical Christian groups, fit well
with his claim that the sacrificial sphere of exchange is valued most among
believers. For instance, in her study about Jerry Falwell and his supporters,
Harding (2000) claims that believers’ contribution practices can be best
understood as an act of sacrifice. She argues that for evangelical believers, the act
of offering is a way of demonstrating one’s ability to transfer this worldly items
and concerns to God’s world. In so doing, believers express and reinforce their
own transition to membership among those who are saved by faith, away from
those who have not been saved.
However, specific theological and congregational contexts can influence giving
practices in many ways. Worship services and other church activities often provide
important opportunities to give. Sermons and interactions among members can
emphasise the importance of financial contribution and charitable actions as well as
provide important moral guidelines for applying religious tenets to daily events and
in responding to them as believers (Allahyari 2000; Wuthnow 1990b). Based on her
studies among four congregations from different denominations (Presbyterian USA,
Assemblies of God, Roman Catholic and Mennonites), Miller claims that
‘denominational culture’ in relation to the religious meanings of giving is an
important factor that affects the level of contribution (Miller 1999a, 37). Believers
tend to give more when congregations emphasise the relationship between giving to
overall church missions and sacred purposes. In contrast, in congregations where
giving is emphasised for the purpose of taking care of church facilities and as a
payment for church operation, believers tend to give to a lesser degree, just enough to
cover such expenses (Miller 1999a).
Miller’s concept of denominational culture provides a useful way of looking
at giving practices among Mennonites. However, as will be shown, there is no
single denominational culture among Pennsylvania Mennonites. Instead,
different groups of Mennonites vary greatly in their ideals about appropriate
giving practices.
T. Naka320
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:52
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Mennonites in the United States
Most Mennonites in the USA can trace their historical origin to Anabaptist
groups formed in Europe during the Reformation (e.g., Redekop 1989; Ruth
2001). Mennonites place particular emphasis on their separation from and non-
conformity to the World and its practices (Redekop 1989). While the specific
activities deemed as worldly practices vary among different groups of
Mennonites, several tenets are widely shared. These include an opposition to
infant baptism, a resistance to violence (especially the use of physical force to
settle disputes), an emphasis on mutual assistance among believers and the
importance of providing help to the poor and needy. While other Christian groups
also refuse to follow unchristian acts and ideas, many Mennonites and related
groups such as the Amish take non-conformity to worldly practices with ‘unusual
seriousness’ and separation from these practices is seen as essential for the
maintenance of the community of believers and their salvation (Dyck 1990, 635).
A variety of historical events contributed the development of these tenets.
The Munster Rebellion, a violent religiously motivated political revolt in which
radical Anabaptists attempted to govern the city of Munster in the sixteenth
century, for example, influenced Mennonite emphasis on non-violence and their
view towards and relationship with the state (e.g., Redekop 1989). Because of
their religious convictions, Mennonites were persecuted by the secular authorities
and the established churches in Europe. Religious freedom and economic
opportunity led some Mennonites to migrate to North America, starting in the
early eighteenth century (MacMaster 1985; Ruth 2001).
With their historical concerns for community, economic justice, and peace,
Mennonites as a group do not fit easily within the categorisation of Christian
groups in the USA (Kauffman and Driedger 1991; Miller 1999a; Redekop 1989).
Through statistical analysis of Mennonite beliefs and practices in comparison
with other US Christian denominations, Kauffman and Driedger (1991) claim
that Mennonites show similarity to Southern Baptists and other conservative
groups in indicators of religious orthodoxy, such as the percentage of members
who believe strongly in God’s existence, but they are more similar to liberal
Christian denominations in their responses to social issues, such as peace
activism.
Economic inequality, poverty and wealth are also important issues in
Mennonite beliefs. Based on several biblical passages (e.g. Acts 2, 4, 5),
Mennonites emphasise mutual aid, providing help for the needy and relief work.
In the past, aid among believers has been crucial on many occasions, such as
when the North American Mennonites supported Mennonites in Russia in the last
century (Redekop 1989; Toews 1996). The most recent version of the Mennonite
Confession of Faith, which is widely used by an important Mennonite group,
Mennonite, USA, emphasises mutual aid, economic justice, and willing and
generous sharing of financial resources with those who are in need (see Article 21
in Herald Press 1995).
Culture and Religion 321
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:52
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Mennonites, however, have little specific instruction on how members should
apply these biblical principles in daily life. Mennonites do not practice communal
property ownership and make few stipulations to individuals about specific
economic decisions, including choices of occupations and use of income.
This absence of guidance can be a challenge for members in deciding how to give
(Halteman 1994; Hershberger 1958; Redekop 1989).
Previous studies on giving among Mennonites are primarily focused on
statistical analysis of giving practices. Kauffman and Harder (1975) claim that
Mennonite households on average give about 6.6% of household income.
Kauffman and Driedger (1991) assert that giving among major liberal
Mennonites has declined somewhat from 1972 to 1982. The reason was not
clear but they suggest that it was not brought by urbanisation, or an increase in
members’ educational level and socio-economic status. According to more recent
data from surveys of members of Mennonite USA, 61% of members reported that
they gave 10% or more of their household income to church and charitable
causes. Twenty-seven percent gave 11% or more. Forty-one percent of members
reported an increase in household giving to their local congregation during the
two-year period when this study was conducted, while 10% acknowledged a
decrease over the past two years (Kanagy 2007, 115–116). The percentage of
giving is higher in this study, partly because it is based primarily on self-reporting
and does not use other data.
Sub-groups of Mennonites
Contemporary Mennonites can be divided roughly into three groups: Old Order,
conservative and liberal (see, for example, Scott 1996; Redekop 1989). All three
groups stress separation from the World and request that believers not conform to
practices that are considered contradictory to biblical teaching. However, they
differ in their interpretations of how religious principles should be applied to
various religious and quotidian practices (e.g., appropriate styles of clothing and
recreational activities) and in their approaches to recruiting new members
(Redekop 1989; also see Kniss 1997; Schlabach 1988). According to Kraybill and
Hostetter (2001), about 7% of the total US Mennonite population belongs to the
Old Order group, 25% are conservative and 68% are liberal.
This article examines discussions about giving among three Mennonite
congregations in Lancaster County Pennsylvania: Summer Creek, Hillside and
Fairview Churches.2 Summer Creek Church is a conservative congregation; the
other two are liberal. The three congregations examined here differ considerably
in their theological emphases, particularly in their views of how members should
relate to the secular World. The Summer Creek congregation emphasises
separation by strongly encouraging members to avoid active involvement in
politics and activities beyond their religious community. Although Summer Creek
Church members are interested in recruiting others from the World, outreach
activities do not lead church members to compromise their position of separation.
T. Naka322
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:52
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Hillside and Fairview congregations take a different approach. Rather than non-
participation in broader society, these two churches engage in the World to expand
their church communities. Both try to influence the secular World through their
religious beliefs. However, they differ in the ways in which they approach the
World. In recruiting new members, Hillside congregation is willing to adopt new
styles of worship and emphasises its being an evangelical Christian rather than a
Mennonite church. In contrast, Mennonite history and Mennonite theological
emphases are an integral part of Fairview Church and its efforts to reach out to
the World. Reminding themselves of Mennonite history, Fairview Church and
its members work actively for peace and social justice in the broader society.
The different theological emphases among these three congregations are not
exceptional but rather representative of the diversity within the Mennonite faith.
Like the Summer Creek Church, conservative (as well as Old Order) Mennonites
emphasise their separation from secular values through various church
regulations, such as appropriate types of clothing (see, e.g. Scott 1996). Like
the Hillside and Fairview Churches, most liberal Mennonites do not have or
enforce similar church regulations. There are differences even among liberal
Mennonites, however. Like the Hillside congregation, some other liberal
congregations place strong emphasis on evangelical Christianity, sometimes even
leading them to de-emphasise their Mennonite backgrounds (Redekop 1998).
Like the Fairview Church, other liberal congregations and church members show
their strong commitment to peace and social justice; for instance, some take
active roles in organisations that promote peace (see Bush 1998; Graber 1996;
Sampson and Lederach 2000). The differences among the Summer Creek,
Hillside and Fairview can thus be seen as representative of broad trends among
Mennonites in the USA.
The divergent religious emphases among these three congregations are also
intertwined with church members’ formal education, occupations and social
class. According to my survey carried out among 36 members from each
congregation, 94.1% of survey participants in Summer Creek Church finished
their education before the end of 12th grade. In contrast, the majority of Hillside
and Fairview members have a high school diploma. Many Fairview members
have a college degree or above; 50% of the survey participants have master’s
degrees or above (0% in Summer Creek and 5.6% in Hillside). Only a few
members of these congregations are currently farmers (three in Summer Creek,
none in Hillside, two in Fairview). Many now have diverse non-farm
occupations. Fairview has the most members who have had occupations that
require special training in schools, such as doctors, registered or licensed nurses,
ministers with seminary training, certified teachers, family and psychological
counsellors (20 people or 55.6% in Fairview, 9 people or 25% in Hillside and
none in Summer Creek). In each congregation, there are several members who
own their businesses or are self-employed (five members in Summer Creek, eight
in Hillside and six in Fairview). These businesses are diverse, but those owned by
Summer Creek members are based on skills that are often acquired through
Culture and Religion 323
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:52
05
Oct
ober
201
4
apprenticeship, such as carpentry and mechanical repairs. This applies often to
many Hillside members’ businesses also, although there are exceptions. Some of
the businesses owned by Fairview members require or prefer formal educational
training or certification, such as consulting firms and clinics. From the standpoint
of educational background and types of occupations, the social class of Fairview
church members is higher than that of the other two congregations.
Similar to other Christian congregations in the USA, all congregations have
members who joined the congregation later in their lives for a variety of reasons.
While most members did not change their affiliation among these three
congregations, a few members moved from Hillside Church to Fairview Church.
Their reasons are complex and cannot be reduced to a single factor. While the
differences of religious emphasis matter, other factors such as marriage, family
and employment-related relocations play important roles in their decisions to
transfer.
All three congregations recognise that contribution to church takes many
forms, including teaching Sunday school classes, volunteering for church-related
organisations and offering assistance for those who need material and spiritual
help. Financial contributions to church are also emphasised as an important part
of their religious beliefs and practices. All three churches agree that their
possessions and financial resources are gifts from God and should be used
carefully in accordance with their religious beliefs. However, each congregation
has a different emphasis on monetary contributions and the use of financial
resources. While Summer Creek Church members prioritise their immediate
church community, Hillside Church members emphasise systematic monetary
contributions for evangelical activities. With religious concerns for helping the
needy and for social justice, Fairview members emphasise the relationship
between their financial decisions and the broader social and economic context.
Summer Creek Church
The Sunday offering at Summer Creek Church is the most informally organised
of the three congregations. An offering time is not included in their regular
Sunday worship service, and no plates or baskets are passed. Instead, members
put their contributions in an offering box outside the sanctuary, a common
method of collecting money among Mennonites until the twentieth century
(Bender and van der Zijpp 1955). At the end of the Sunday service, a church
leader usually makes an announcement about how this week’s and next week’s
offerings will be used, but such announcements do not provide much detail.
There is no announcement on the previous week’s total contributions, and church
leaders seldom mention what the church expects to receive to meet its annual
budget. The discussion of offerings (monetary and other forms) usually does not
occupy the Sunday sermons. However, those topics often come up in adult
Sunday school classes and other meetings, which are led by church leaders (all
positions are unpaid and chosen from the congregation) and members.
T. Naka324
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:52
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Discussions with members suggest that members emphasise voluntary and
spontaneous giving by members. The comments by a couple, John and Lucy, who
are both in their 50s, are illustrative. John told me that how church members use
money is a test of the heart. He explained that offerings and use of money would
suggest whether church members turn their attention to God. He said further that
sometimes people might think that they were giving too much to the church, but
they would need to stop and think about their spiritual relation to God in such
moments. Similarly, joining our conversation, Lucy said that money was not
‘ours,’ but God’s, and church members need to use it carefully and wisely as
God’s stewards. Like John and Lucy, other members generally agreed that
offering is an important part of their relationship to God, and offerings to the
church should be made willingly.
Despite their emphasis on the religious significance of offering, members
tend to have some reservations about tithing, the regular contribution of 10% of
income. John, for example, said that tithing was a ‘guideline,’ and members do
not have to be bound to it as described in the Old Testament. According to him,
the offering need not be 10% but made ‘as the Lord prospers us.’ He elaborated
by saying that giving was ‘a personal thing’ as well as ‘a test of brotherhood and
spiritual relationship with God.’ Many church members argue that motives for
giving are more important than specifically setting aside a tithe.
The discussions during the winter Bible school in 2005 suggest similar views
on contributions to the church. This annual week-long Bible school is primarily
for young conservative members of Summer Creek and other closely related
churches. In this 2005 event, there was a class about Christian stewardship and
how church members should manage various resources from God. One class
period was devoted to the topic of ‘stewards in giving.’ The teacher asked
students whether they should consider the Old Testament tithe as a rule for
giving. One student answered, ‘If we have it [tithing] as a rule, it is easy to get
away from the spirit of giving.’ Responding to this, the teacher said, ‘Exactly. We
don’t need to be tied to that. Giving is not a prescribed portion, but rather a
response of the heart.’ The handout distributed to the students expressed a similar
view, saying, ‘Under the Law and even before the Law, a tithe (tenth) was the
accepted standard, but under grace giving is not prescribed portions, it is rather a
response of the heart governed in part by how the Lord has prospered us
(1 Corinthians 16:2).’ Like John, this teacher and other students stressed that
offerings should be based on one’s willingness to give what one has.
Lucy suggested another reason why Summer Creek members prefer to view
tithing as a guideline. She compared tithes to commercial insurance, which
conservative Mennonites do not purchase because of their emphasis on mutual
aid (e.g., Scott 1996). Explaining how insurance may sometimes undermine the
spirit of mutual help among community members, she expressed that too much
emphasis on tithing might deter members from willing offerings. What
concerned Lucy was that if contributions to the church are viewed as regulations,
Culture and Religion 325
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:52
05
Oct
ober
201
4
members may come to rely on regulation, and spontaneous and voluntary support
provided by church communities may disappear.
Instead of tithing, church members emphasised more spontaneous offerings
to their church and its community. Several Summer Creek Church members told
me stories to illustrate how God and church members did provide financial means
when they were in need. For example, John told me a story from his workplace, a
church-related printing press that primarily publishes Bibles and Bible stories in
Russian. Many of its books are shipped to Russian-speaking people as a form of
outreach. Because such distributions of books do not usually bring much profit,
this press often depends on donations to supplement its costs of operation.
Sometimes the press does not know when it will be able to purchase necessary
supplies. One day, the ink for printing was low. John noticed this, but the press
did not have enough money to buy ink, and he did not know how and when he
could order more. He prayed about his problems and, on that same day, a letter
came with donation, with which John could order the ink and the press to
continue its printing operation. Other members also told me similar stories that
meant to convey to me that with their strong belief in God, they are not bound by
and do not need to rely on planned contributions: God and their church
community will provide support for those in need.
Summer Creek Church members generally express hesitation to provide
support for non-church-related organisations. Their discussions at winter Bible
school were typical. In one session, the teacher asked his students, ‘How shall we
relate to charitable organizations besides church, in general? Should we give to
them?’ Responding, one student said that their congregation and fellowship needs
should be considered first. Pointing out that their own mission activities were
often under-financed, the teacher also emphasised that they should give first
priority to the church community. He cautioned students against the danger of
being overly involved in non-church-related charitable activities. Such
involvement, he said, might form ties outside the church community that could
eventually trap church members in the secular World. This does not mean that
church members do not appreciate services provided by non-church-related
charitable or non-profit organisations. The teacher and other participants in this
winter Bible school, for example, also pointed out that those organisations often
provide useful services. As seen in the discussion between the teacher and
students, however, they generally urge church members to be careful about
giving financial support to them. For many members, the church and requests
from their church community should be considered first in their giving.
Summer Creek members emphasise religious contribution, and they value
spontaneous giving rather than a strict practice of tithing. However, unlike the
sense of sacrifice discussed by Bialecki (2008), Summer Creek members’
discussions suggest that where and how to give financial support is also
religiously important. Its members stress that their first priority for contributions
should be their own church community. This emphasis also relates to Summer
Creek members’ general economic situations. While most members are
T. Naka326
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:52
05
Oct
ober
201
4
economically stable, church community support plays an important role in
responding to unexpected financial difficulties because of their non-participation
in local and governmental social security programs (Kraybill and Hostetter 2001;
Scott 1996).
Hillside Church
Hillside Church belongs to a major regional liberal Mennonite organisation,
Lancaster Mennonite Conference (hereafter LMC). Like other such congrega-
tions, Hillside Church emphasises evangelical and outreach activities. To reach
out to those who are not saved, it has been willing to adopt changes. Current
Hillside Church services are not so different from those of other Protestant
evangelical churches. However, contrary to the findings of previous studies on
giving among evangelical Christians, Hillside members do not necessarily
emphasise relinquishing financial control as Bialecki (2008) emphasised. Rather,
Hillside and other LMC groups emphasise systematic contributions through
tithing and financial management.
Unlike the offering collected at Summer Creek Church, Sunday offering at
Hillside Church takes place during the worship service. After the sermon and a
prayer led by the preacher with congregational singing in response, offering
plates are passed down each row of the pews and church attendees place cheques
and money into them. The church bulletin distributed to all those who attend
Sunday worship announces how this particular Sunday’s offering will be used
and how much money was collected the previous week. Information on the total
contributions that the church expects to receive to meet its budgetary plan is not
shown on the bulletin. This congregation’s Sunday offering practice is relatively
common in congregations that are affiliated to LMC. According to a survey
among LMC congregations, 30% of the responding LMC congregations use a so-
called offering schedule, in which the use of the offering is decided on a weekly
or monthly basis. About one-third of LMC congregations use a budgetary plan, in
which congregational offerings are used proportionally according to the church’s
annual budget. Another one-third of the congregations use a combination of these
two types. In addition to the regular offering, Hillside Church sometimes solicits
special offerings, mostly for mission and outreach work by members and
Mennonite-related organisations, such as the Mennonite Central Committee and
Eastern Mennonite Mission Networks.
Unlike Summer Creek Church, Hillside Church and its members do not
particularly prioritise church-related (Mennonite or LMC) organisations over
others in making financial contributions. Similar to their willingness to adopt new
worship styles to attract new believers, they are generally willing to support
activities that are clearly and closely connected to outreach to others who do not
hold Christian beliefs. Not a few members told me about stories of how Hillside
members responded to a variety of needs for outreach and mission activities.
For example, one member said that several years ago, Hillside Church received
Culture and Religion 327
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:52
05
Oct
ober
201
4
a request for financial support to buy lamps from a person who carried out
evangelical activities in Nepal. Responding to this request, members decided to
solicit enough money to buy 50 lamps. At first, the money raised was short of this
goal, enough for only 41 lamps. Then, one member who learned that the
collection had not met the goal donated the amount needed for the full purchase.
I also frequently heard about requests for financial support for mission trips
by individuals and groups of Hillside members. Some activities were coordinated
by Mennonite agencies, such as Eastern Mennonite Missions. Others were
organised independently or by non-Mennonite-related agencies. For example, in
the winter of 2005, a few church members decided to join mission activities in
Swaziland organised by another Christian organisation. Another member wanted
to take intensive training in evangelising through the Young Men’s Christian
Association (YMCA) to prepare for domestic and international evangelical
activities. By 2005, Hillside Church had made the decision to support one-third of
the expenses of its church members’ mission activities. Considering the facts that
many of these mission trips go to foreign countries and there are more than a few
requests, this support is not negligible.
Discussions at a workshop on congregational finance at the Stewardship
University in 2005 give further insight into Hillside and other LMC
congregations’ general emphasis on the use of money and giving to the church.
Stewardship University is organised primarily by Mennonite Mutual Aid, a
liberal Mennonite organisation, and is held usually annually in different regions
in the USA. Topics covered by this event are diverse, including church finances,
use of talents, music and worship, business and faith. Members from the regions –
in this case many Lancaster Conference and other groups of liberal Mennonites in
the Lancaster County area – attend this event. In this particular year, several
Hillside members, pastors and the deacon attended this event as organising staff
members and as participants.
This particular workshop was facilitated by LMC staff members and targeted
primarily to and attended by LMC members in leadership positions in their own
congregations, including the deacon of Hillside congregation. The primary focus
of the workshop was on how to encourage LMC members to practice careful
financial planning that would allow them to donate 10% or more of their income
to the church or church-related activities.
At the beginning of the workshop, the facilitator pointed out the biblical
passages that support tithing in order to emphasise how the practice of tithing is
an integral part of worshiping God. He introduced a financial planning worksheet
created by LMC and aimed at encouraging church members to record all their
income so that they can understand how they spend their money. At one level,
this worksheet encourages church members to live within their income and avoid
excessive debt. At the same time, it prioritises offerings and contributions to the
church over other spending: offerings and tithes are first subtracted from gross
income and the remainder was labelled as ‘net spendable income.’ The
contribution to the church is thus set aside at the beginning as money that should
T. Naka328
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:52
05
Oct
ober
201
4
not be spent freely. The facilitator connected this worksheet emphasis to the
biblical importance of offerings and encouraged workshop participants to use the
worksheet with fellow church members.
This workshop also introduced attendees to another form of systematic
financial support to church and church-related activities. A pastor of an LMC
church talked about how his congregation changed its financial planning. This
church used to follow the usual offering schedule (the use of the offering was
designated by the week), but it changed to giving 10% of its weekly offering to
LMC systematically. The pastor explained that this contribution to LMC was
based on the idea that LMC was their congregation’s ‘spiritual head,’ their
congregation’s primary religious institution, which would oversee and guide
the congregational relationship with God. By adopting this budget plan, his
church tried to encourage systematic tithing and planned giving to the church.
The consistent donation of 10% of the weekly offering to LMC would remind
members that they should also tithe to their congregation, as their spiritual head.
Through this church’s example as well as the financial planning sheet, the
facilitator emphasised the importance of systematic planning to benefit the
church and its activities.
Similar emphasis can be found in several financial workshops in other liberal
Mennonite congregations and in books. For example, Lynn Miller, a well-known
Mennonite speaker and writer on this topic, discusses the importance of setting
aside 10% of one’s income in his book Firstfruits Living (1991). He discusses
biblical passages related to tithing and claims that it is spiritually important to
allocate our income to God. He claims that the firstfruit offering is an important
reminder for church members about God’s creation and a significant part of their
workship practices (Miller 1991). Thus, the emphasis on careful planning of
financial resources and systematic contribution to the church can be found beyond
Hillside and other individual LMC congregations.
Fairview Church
Fairview Church is a liberal Mennonite congregation. However, unlike Hillside
Church, it does not belong to LMC, the largest regional sub-group of Mennonites.
Several scholars (Kniss 1997; Ruth 2001) noted that LMC in general was slow to
adopt changes, such as the use of musical instruments in worship and relaxation
of church regulations about daily clothing styles, and this prompted some
Mennonites to form their own congregations. In the case of Fairview Church,
workers of the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) from other regions and
former LMC members who were not satisfied with the LMC orientation helped to
formed this church. Current membership includes MCC workers and other
transplants to this region.
The Sunday offering at Fairview Church takes place during the worship
service. Contributions are collected in plates passed to each row of pews after the
sermon and the prayer by the pastor. The church bulletin lists the amount
Culture and Religion 329
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:52
05
Oct
ober
201
4
collected on the previous Sunday. Fairview Church does not designate the
purpose of the offering week by week. Rather, it follows its annual budgetary
plan, and offerings are divided for different activities according to this plan.
The Sunday bulletin also provides information on the amount needed from
weekly offering to meet the yearly budget and the sum of the contributions to that
point. Periodically, detailed information on how financial contributions are used
is announced at the end of the Sunday service and on a church bulletin insert.
Through these notices, Fairview Church tries to inform church members about
revenues and expenses as much as possible. By stating both the expected and the
actual offerings, it shows members how much it needs each week. Pastors also
often remind members of the importance of giving. Sermons about generosity are
sometimes offered. The topic of spirituality in relationship to material and
economic possessions often comes up in adult Sunday school discussions, Bible
study groups and social gatherings, many of which are attended by (but not
necessarily facilitated by) pastors. In comparison with the other two churches,
Fairview Church provides financial information most systematically.
In terms of individual contributions to the church, however, Fairview Church
does not emphasise systematically giving 10% of one’s income as strongly as
does the LMC. Members generally see a tithing as a guideline, but believe that
too much emphasis on tithing can bring more harm than good: appropriate and
wise use of wealth is difficult to discern, and a set percentage of one’s income and
one’s outward appearance are not necessarily helpful criteria for judging
contributions. Rather than setting a specific percentage to make giving a routine
expression of thanksgiving to God, Fairview Church members tend to focus on
being generous and sharing.
A series of comments in a women’s Bible study group3 provide examples for
such views; members were discussing what generous giving would be. Referring
to one of her friends who had a difficult time in giving generously, one woman
said that it might be helpful to remember that money is not theirs but ultimately
God’s. Like Lucy, a Summer Creek member mentioned earlier, she emphasised
the idea that money should be considered as a gift from God. The conversation
turned to the role of motives in giving. One member asked the others what would
happen if an offering was based on ‘wrong attitudes.’ In response, another woman
said that if the person gave with the wrong motives, God would not bless the giver
but would bless just what the person gave. Joining in, a third member said that
giving in order to save face is an offering based on a wrong attitude. As an
example of this, this person mentioned how President Bush increased US aid to
the tsunami disaster victims in December 2004 after learning that other countries
were giving much more than the USA had promised. One woman said that an
offering should not be based solely on how much a person was moved by the
Sunday sermon. To her, such an offering would be inappropriate because it would
be more like a payment for a performance, rather than an expression of thanks
giving.
T. Naka330
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:52
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Although Fairview Church members generally agree about the appropriate
motives for giving and sharing, their comments also suggest that letting go of
money is not their main focus. Members often said that considerations of their
relationship to the broader society enter into their financial decisions. However,
such giving is not easy. Because tithing is not emphasised, members sometimes
feel that they have few concrete guidelines for how much they should give.
As members have concerns about the broader social and economic implications
of giving, contributions to their immediate church community, while important,
do not always give the high priority they do in the Summer Creek congregation.
Family concerns often take a central role in decisions on how much to give to
the church. Many Fairview Church members emphasise taking care of
themselves and their families rather than relying on mutual aid from the church
community. In a Bible study discussion about times when it would be difficult to
be generous with money, Anna, who was in her 70s, stated that her current
situation was such at the time. Richard, her husband, had previously managed
their financial decisions and set aside a certain amount of money for the church,
but he was in a nursing home, their income was limited, and the future was not so
clear. Anna said that being able to give was a blessing for her, but her children
were concerned that her contribution to the church might be ‘too much,’
especially now that her future needs were unknown. Other church members
expressed similar concerns. One woman in her early 30s said that she wondered
whether it was wiser to give more to the church or to save so that she could take
care of herself and her family in the future.
Other Fairview members’ comments suggest that ‘being responsible’ while
being generous is not limited to taking care of personal finances but also includes
being considerate of the broader socio-economic context in which church
members are situated. For many members, contributing directly or indirectly to
non-church-related organisations and to those in need is often a way to fulfil such
responsibilities. Lisa’s account in a Bible study group for mothers is illustrative.
Members were discussing how their use of money reflected their religious beliefs.
Lisa and Paul had recently purchased a second house, which they were renting
out for additional income. For them, this house was an investment for the future,
as well as a source of additional income against the increasing expenses of their
family of four children. A few years ago, Paul left a job with a fairly good and
stable salary, as well as high demands. He ventured into another business which
would both involve more risk-taking and allow him more time with his family.
Lisa noted that such an investment, through the extra house, sometimes made her
uneasy. She wondered if they might be overly concerned about their own welfare,
rather than showing enough compassion to others. To deal with this unsettling
feeling, Lisa and Paul called an agency that helped local homeless people to gain
more economic independence, hoping to find someone who could rent their
second house at a price just high enough to cover their basic expenses. Although
their attempt was unsuccessful, for Lisa and Paul it was a way to express their
Culture and Religion 331
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:52
05
Oct
ober
201
4
concern for their community. Providing a house at a reasonable monthly rent was
an alternative form of giving based on their religious beliefs.
For many others, balancing multiple financial responsibilities to their families
with giving as members of a Mennonite church and the broader society is often
difficult. Members generally consider it important to support their church, but
many would also like to contribute to other organisations. In a Bible study group,
one woman said that she wished that there were some formula in the Bible on
how to give, not a simple tithe but case-by-case suggestions that would help
church members reduce the complicated considerations of giving.
In these discussions about giving and financial contributions, several women
mentioned that they placed this responsibility on their husbands. There seemed to
be several reasons for this, but one possible background influence is the way in
which certain biblical passages had previously been interpreted. In the past, many
Mennonite churches, including congregations that are now categorised as liberal,
emphasised the role of the husband as leader and the wife as supporter of the
husband in household decisions.4 In addition, for some women such an
arrangement helps them avoid the difficult task of making these decisions.
Elizabeth, who was in her 50s and who had regular income as a nurse, is
illustrative of the latter group. In Bible study discussions on giving, Elizabeth
mentioned that she left such decisions to her husband, Dale, because these
decisions were difficult for her to make. However, such an arrangement does not
necessarily provide an easy answer, either; couples also need to agree on where
and how they give.
For example, Elizabeth said that although Dale was a generous giver and she
appreciated what he did, she sometimes did not quite agree with his decisions on
where to give. Dale works at a Mennonite-related agency and gives most often to
Mennonite-related organisations and/or international relief work. However,
Elizabeth sometimes wishes that they would give more to local organisations to
help those who are in need in the area where they live. One church member
pointed out that Elizabeth should express her wishes to Dale, because their
money, after all, also came from her employment. While Elizabeth did not
directly respond to this opinion, she again expressed her uneasiness about asking,
even though she knew Dale would gladly give to other organisations if she asked.
The comments by Elizabeth suggest the challenges felt by many in deciding
where to give. Members generally feel somewhat responsible for supporting non-
church organisations and several people said that they would like to know how
their contributions would be spent. However, others pointed out that clarifying
where the money would go might not necessarily bring a good result. As an
example, Sarah said that in her previous Mennonite church, people contributed
less to the church when the weekly offering was designated for pastoral care, as
compared to mission and outreach activities.
In other cases, even when it is clear how contributed money is to be spent,
how church members participate remains a problem. For example, in a Bible
study group, Carrie, a young mother, mentioned that she wanted to support a
T. Naka332
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:52
05
Oct
ober
201
4
friend by offering financial help but her friend refused it. Carrie wondered how to
give to individuals without being perceived as showing off. Historically, in many
Mennonite churches a display of pride was often viewed as problematic, as pride
can be associated with arrogance and excessive reliance on oneself. Such
attitudes can undermine trust in God. In a different Bible study discussion, Alice,
another mother, mentioned that she had felt rather discouraged when she attended
a fund-raising auction at Fairview Church. As do many congregations, Fairview
Church members host an annual auction to raise scholarship funds for their
church youth. Alice attended this event, hoping to become part of it and planning
to buy an auctioned item, but the price went too high to buy. For her this was a
vivid reminder of the difference in economic levels among church members. For
some Fairview Church members, even when the use of donated money is
relatively clear, participation in giving can be difficult.
Many Fairview members not only contribute to their immediate church
community, but also consider how their financial decisions may be connected to
the broader social and economic situation – in contrast to Summer Creek
members. Further, unlike Hillside practice, their consideration for the broader
society is not necessarily limited to mission and outreach activities. These wider
concerns provoke additional questions on how much, where and how to give
while balancing multiple financial responsibilities.
Conclusion
Bialecki (2008) argues that Christian economic practices can be categorised into
three hierarchical spheres of exchange. He claims that the sacrificial exchange
sphere is at the top of the hierarchy because believers consider such economic
practice to be based on the closest and most direct engagement with God.
However, the examination of these three Mennonite congregations does not fit
neatly within his argument. Among these three groups, stewardship, not sacrifice,
plays the most prominent role in members’ discussions. Furthermore, this study
suggests that there are considerable differences among Mennonite sub-groups in
the ways in which believers make contribution decisions in the exchange
framework of the stewardship. While all three groups emphasise an important
Mennonite tenet – separation from the World – their interpretations and
applications are quite different. Such divergent understanding affects their views
about appropriate giving.
Summer Creek Church members usually give first priority to their immediate
church community because non-church involvement through charitable giving
may undermine their separation from the World. Hillside Church members
frequently provide financial support for outreach and mission activities
conducted by fellow church members in order to recruit new converts and
extend their membership to others who share their belief in the importance of
separation from the World. To support church missions, members are encouraged
to plan their giving systematically, and tithing tends to be emphasised as the
Culture and Religion 333
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:52
05
Oct
ober
201
4
primary financial obligation. Fairview Church members emphasise giving not
just to their church community, but also to broader social causes. The Mennonite
emphasis of separation from the World has led them to question secular values
and practices and promote peace and social justice. The church community,
although important, is not always accorded first priority in their giving. Without a
hierarchical order for charitable giving, decisions about giving are not easy for
many Fairview members. Their social spheres are broader than their church
community, and they often express difficulty in maintaining a balance between
their personal financial responsibilities and their responsibilities as members of
the church and of the broader society.
The different giving emphases suggested in this article can provide an
opportunity to explore some reasons why Bialecki’s idea about hierarchical
spheres of exchange in Christian economic practices does not apply to the three
Mennonite congregations discussed in this article. While further study is
necessary, one factor to consider is the characteristics of Pentecostal/charismatic
groups (which Bialecki’s study is primarily based on) and their relationship to the
emphasis of sacrificial exchange. While there is diversity within Pentecostal/
charismatic groups, they generally emphasise the power and presence of the Holy
Spirit, speaking in tongues, complete transformation through conversion and
discontinuity with the past (e.g. Burdick 1993; Martin 1990; Robbins 2004). For
those who subscribe to such religious visions, sacrificial giving – giving up of
one’s control of money for God – can provide an important reminder of their
complete surrender to God and God’s power and detachment from mundane
concerns. Giving based on the stewardship framework, in comparison, is much
more similar to ordinary financial management. The hierarchical spheres of
exchange proposed by Bialecki are most likely applicable to types of Christian
groups that place strong emphasis of the ‘ecstatic experience’ (Robbins 2004,
117) through the Holy Spirit and conversion experience.
Such forms of religiosity are much less prominent among Mennonite groups.
While Mennonites emphasise separation from the World, Mennonites’ religious
and historical emphases, such as mutual aid and helping the needy, suggest
believers’ efforts to create good faith communities based on the Biblical
principles in this world play an important role (e.g. Kraybill and Hostetter 2001;
Redekop 1989). With such religious emphasis, believers’ careful decisions on
how they can wisely use God’s resources can play an important role in their
giving.
It is interesting that among the three congregations, members of Hillside
Church most strongly emphasise tithing but care much less about where and on
how given money is used by the church. It seems that Hillside members also the
emphasise ‘letting go of’ the money for God and giving it up for the church by
focusing on the act of giving, not where the money would be used, somewhat
similar to the case of Bialecki (2008). Among the three Mennonite congregations,
Hillside most resembles other non-Mennonite evangelical Christian churches
with its emphasis of proselytising and the power of Holy Spirit and its willingness
T. Naka334
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:52
05
Oct
ober
201
4
to adopt new religious techniques. Such emphasis relates to the members’ focus
on tithing to the Church and how little their decision is influenced by how their
money is used.
The notion of sacrificial and stewardship spheres of exchange cannot be
easily universally applied to non-Christian groups (see, e.g. McCleary 2007).
Through careful consideration of specific religious contexts, however, it can be
helpful to explore cross-culturally how religious beliefs intersect with economic
practices and how divergent relationships between the two relate to groups’
positions and relationships within their faith community and to broader society.
For example, studies of Jewish communities suggest divergent emphases on
giving among believers. For some Orthodox Jews, giving is a public expression
of being a good Jew (Heilman 1991). Like evangelical Christian groups that
emphasise sacrificial giving, generous giving is emphasised as a display of
religious commitment. At the same time, however, Orthodox Jews tend to focus
on giving to the Jewish community. In contrast, Havurah Jews, a Jewish sub-
group, which distances itself from other, established Jewish institutions and
lifestyles, often emphasise that the act of giving is private (Horowitz 1991). Like
Fairview Church’s emphasis on stewardship, Havurah Jews’ giving is not
necessarily limited to Jewish causes, and members stress how their giving can
contribute to broader society.
A study among Mormon believers by Mitchell (2001) provides another
example. She argues that while many Mormons emphasise tithing, some believers
do not tithe because of objections to church support for inappropriate expressions
of religious belief (for example, support of anti-same-sex-marriage campaigns).
Like the Mennonites in this article, their giving is concerned with allocating
money for religiously appropriate causes; different evaluations of appropriate
giving correspond with divergent views on applying religious belief in daily
situations. Close examination of the relationships between religious belief and
giving practices provides an interesting window through which we can explore the
dynamics of how religious understanding intertwines with economic decisions.
Acknowledgements
This article is based on fieldwork in three congregations in Lancaster County inPennsylvania. Research took place in the summers of 2001 and 2003 and in 2004–2005.I am grateful to members of these congregations. I also would like to thank MichaelChibnik, who has provided invaluable assistance in developing my research project andthis article.
Notes
1. This figure includes television and other forms of ministry, but it does not includefaith-based charitable organisations.
2. Church names and members’ names in this article are all pseudonyms.3. In this group, church members studied two Corinthians. The topic of contributions and
offering came up especially when they were studying chapters 8 and 9, where Pauladdresses the topic of giving.
Culture and Religion 335
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:52
05
Oct
ober
201
4
4. For example, the passages in the Bible related to this include Ephesians 5:20–6:9 andColossians 3:18–4:1. The emphasis on the husband as the decision maker can befound in most current conservative Mennonite families.
References
Allahyari, R.A. 2000. Visions of charity: Volunteer workers and moral community.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bender, H.S., and N. van der Zijpp. 1955. Offerings. Global Anabaptist MennoniteEncyclopedia Online. http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/O486.html
Bialecki, J. 2008. Between stewardship and sacrifice: Agency and economy in a SouthernCalifornia Charismatic church. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (N. S.)14: 372–90.
Brekke, T. 1998. Contradiction and the merit of giving in Indian religions. Numen 45, no. 3:287–320.
Brooks, A. 2006. Who really cares: The surprising truth about compassionateconservatism. New York: Basic Books.
Burdick, J. 1993. Looking for God in Brazil: The progressive Catholic church in urbanBrazil’s religious arena. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bush, P. 1998. Two kingdoms, two loyalties: Mennonite pacifism in modern America.Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Carrier, J. 1991. Gifts, commodities, and social relations: A Maussian view of exchange.Sociological Forum 6, no. 1: 119–36.
Chaves, M. 1999. Financing American religion. In Financing American religion, ed.M. Chaves and S.L. Miller, 169–88. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Coleman, S. 2004. The Charismatic gift. Journal of Royal Anthropological Institute (N. S.)10, no. 2: 421–42.
Dyck, C.J. 1990. Nonconformity. In The Mennonite encyclopedia, ed. C.J. Dyck andD.D. Martin, Vol. 5, 635–6. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.
Elisha, O. 2008. Moral ambitions of grace: The paradox of compassion and accountabilityin evangelical faith-based activism. Cultural Anthropology 23, no. 1: 154–89.
Fennell, L.A. 2002. Unpacking the gift: Illiquid goods and empathetic dialogue. In Thequestion of the gift: Essays across disciplines, ed. M. Osteen, 85–101. London: Routledge.
Finke, R., M. Bahr, and C.P. Scheitle. 2006. Toward explaining congregational giving.Social Science Research 35, no. 3: 620–41.
Giving USA Foundation. 2009. Giving USA 2009. Washington, DC: Giving USAFoundation.
Gombrich, R.F. 1993. Buddhism in the modern world. In Secularization, rationalism, andsectarianism: Essays in honor of Bryan R. Wilson, ed. E. Barker, J.A. Beckford, andK. Dobbelaere, 59–80. Oxford: Clarendon.
Graber Miller, K. 1996. Wise as serpents, innocent as doves: American Mennonites engageWashington. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.
Gregory, C.A. 1982. Gift and commodities. London: Academic Press.Hall, P.D. 2005. Religion, philanthropy, service, and civic engagement in twentieth-
century America. In Gifts of time and money: The role of charity in America’scommunities, ed. A.C. Brooks, 159–83. New York: Rowan & Littlefield.
Halteman, J. 1994. Mennonites and market capitalism. In Anabaptist/Mennonite faith andeconomics, ed. C.W. Redekop, V. Krahn, and S.J. Steiner, 321–32. Lanham, MD:University Press of America.
Harding, S.F. 1992. The gospel of giving: The narrative construction of a sacrificialeconomy. In Vocabularies of public life: Empirical essays in symbolic structure, ed.R. Wuthnow, 39–56. New York: Routledge.
T. Naka336
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:52
05
Oct
ober
201
4
———. 2000. The book of Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist language and politics.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Heilman, S.C. 1991. Tzedakah: Orthodox Jews and charitable giving. In ContemporaryJewish philanthropy in America, ed. B.A. Kosmin and P. Ritterband, 133–44.Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Herald Press. 1995. Confession of faith in a Mennonite perspective. Scottdale, PA:Herald Press.
Hershberger, G.F. 1958. The way of the cross in human relations. Scottdale, PA:Herald Press.
Hoge, D. 1994. Introduction: The problem of understanding church giving. Review ofReligious Research 36, no. 2: 101–10.
Hoge, D., P. McNamara, and C. Zech. 1998. Plain talk about churches and money.Herndon, VA: Alban Institute.
Hoge, D., and F. Yang. 1994. Determinants of religious giving in Americandenominations: Data from two nationwide surveys. Review of Religious Research36, no. 2: 123–48.
Hoge, D.R., C. Zech, P. McNamara, and M.J. Donahue. 1996. Money matters: Personalgiving in American churches. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
———. 1999. Giving in five denominations. In Financing American religion, ed.M. Chaves and S.L. Miller, 3–10. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Horowitz, B. 1991. Havurah Jews and where they give. In Contemporary Jewishphilanthropy in America, ed. B.A. Kosmin and P. Ritterband, 187–204. Savage, MD:Rowman & Littlefield.
Iannaccone, L.R. 1999. Skewness explained. In Financing American religion, ed.M. Chaves and S.L. Miller, 29–35. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
Kanagy, C. 2007. Road signs for the journey: A profile of Mennonite USA. Scottdale, PA:Herald Press.
Kauffman, J.H., and L. Driedger. 1991. The Mennonite mosaic: Identity andmodernization. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.
Kauffman, J.H., and L. Harder. 1975. Anabaptists four centuries later: A profile of fiveMennonite and Brethren in Christ denominations. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.
Kniss, F.L. 1997. Disquiet in the land: Cultural conflict in American Mennonitecommunities. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Kochuyt, T. 2009. God, gifts and poor people: On charity in Islam. Social Compass56, no. 1: 98–116.
Kraybill, D.B., and C.N. Hostetter. 2001. Anabaptist world USA. Scottdale, PA:Herald Press.
Laidlaw, J. 2000. A free gift makes no friends. Journal of the Royal AnthropologicalInstitute (N.S.) 6: 617–34.
MacMaster, R.K. 1985. Land, piety, peoplehood: The establishment of Mennonitecommunities in America, 1683–1790. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.
Martin, D. 1990. Tongues of fire: The explosion of Protestantism in Latin America.Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Mauss, M. 1990 [1925]. The gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies.London: Routledge.
McCleary, R.M. 2007. Salvation, damnation, and economic incentives. Journal ofContemporary Religion 22, no. 1: 49–74.
Miller, L.A. 1991. Firstfruits living. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.Miller, S.L. 1999a. The meaning of religious giving. In Financing American religion, ed.
M. Chaves and S.L. Miller. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.———. 1999b. The symbolic meaning of religious giving. PhD diss., University of Notre
Dame.
Culture and Religion 337
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:52
05
Oct
ober
201
4
Mitchell, H.J. 2001. Good, evil, and godhood: Mormon morality in the material world.In Powers of good and evil: Moralities, commodities, and popular belief, ed. P. Cloughand J.P. Mitchell, 161–84. New York: Berghahn Books.
Osteen, M. 2002. Introduction: Question of the gift. In The question of the gift: Essaysacross disciplines, ed. M. Osteen, 1–41. London: Routledge.
Parry, J. 1986. The gift, the Indian gift, and the Indian gift. Man (N.S.) 21, no. 3: 453–73.Redekop, C.W. 1989. Mennonite society. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.———. 1998. Leaving Anabaptism: From evangelical Mennonite Brethren to fellowship
of evangelical Bible churches. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.Robbins, J. 2004. The globalization of Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity.
Annual Review of Anthropology 33: 117–43.Ruth, J.L. 2001. The earth is the Lord’s: A narrative history of the Lancaster Mennonite
conference. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.Sampson, C., and J.P. Lederach. 2000. From the ground up: Mennonite contributions to
international peacebuilding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Schlabach, T.F. 1988. Peace, faith, nation: Mennonites and Amish in the nineteenth
century. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.Scott, S. 1996. An introduction to old order and conservative Mennonite groups.
Intercourse, PA: Good Books.Simmel, G. 1978. The philosophy of money. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Smith, C., and M. Emerson. 2008. Passing the plate: Why American Christians aren’t
more generous. New York: Oxford University Press.Stark, R., and R. Finke. 2000. Acts of faith: Explaining the human side of religion.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Toews, P. 1996. Mennonites in American society, 1930–1970: Modernity and the
persistence of religious community. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.Wuthnow, R. 1990a. Improving our understanding of religion and giving: Key issues
for research. In Faith and philanthropy in America: Exploring the role of religionin America’s voluntary sector, ed. R. Wuthnow, V.A. Hodgkinson, 271–83.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
———. 1990b. Religion and the voluntary spirit in the United States: Mapping the terrain.In Faith and philanthropy in America: Exploring the role of religion in America’svoluntary sector, ed. R. Wuthnow, V.A. Hodgkinson, 3–21. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.
Zaleski, P.A., and C.E. Zech. 1994. Economic and attitudinal factors in Catholic andProtestant religious giving. Review of Religious Research 36, no. 2: 158–67.
Zelizer, V.A. 1994. The social meaning of money. New York: Basic Books.
T. Naka338
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Flin
ders
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Aus
tral
ia]
at 1
4:52
05
Oct
ober
201
4
