"Behind the Stained Glass Windows: Money Dynamics in the Church," John and Sylvia Ronsvalle.

The Stewardship Project reported on in Behind the Stained Glass Windows: Money Dynamic in the Church was based on interviews with church members and leaders of 15 denominations over a seven-year period (1988-1995).?The report describes how leaders of the 15 studied denominations engaged in an effort “to assist congregations in improving stewardship.”[1]?This “assistance” in stewardship included budget reorganization for congregations “coupled with a commitment on the part of the congregation to use income in excess of their defined needs to expand their international mission activity through their denominational channels and domestic outreach in the local community.”[2]?This “assistance” would be considered a conflict of interest in even the sloppiest of financial organizations in the for-profit arena.?

Authors John and Sylvia Ronsvalle observe how denominational support by small and large congregations is shrinking and many of these denominations have elected to identify high capacity donors directly. The authors note, “In some cases, the denomination launched a special campaign and enlisted the minister in identifying potential large donors.?In other cases, the denominations opted not to bother the pastor with the need to identify large donors, using other means of finding contacts with the congregation.”[3]?Many denominations did this through their financial agencies, utilizing “direct appeals” and moving “away from the unified budget concept.”[4]?

Apparently, there is more than one way to skin a cat.?If the savvy members of a congregation do not allow the institutional church in the front door (that is the “unified budget” and "enlist the minister" approaches) the institutional church can always go around the back door to solicit gifts, directly to high capacity donors.?The authors note that many centralized offices of mainline denominations have observed success at the various agency levels and have now begun doing the same:?“The central administration, watching all this activity and experiencing the decreases in formula congregational support, is tempted to follow suit.”[5]?They note “the trend [is] against unified budgets – where contributions from the congregations come to a central office and then are divided among various departments...”.[6] For some mainline denominations, it may be that the institutional church has become so large and sophisticated compared with local congregations that a healthy interdependence between the two has been lost as competition for finite resources is on the rise.

Once again, the argument surfaces[7] that high capacity donors should be discouraged from giving large gifts to their local congregation because, unlike the institutional church, the local church would encounter too many negative effects. Some of the negative effects argued are: Since local churches are unable to manage annual budgets, how can they be trusted with legacy gifts? If local churches have savings, won't members become spiritually lazy and stop giving? And, if local churches receive a windfall, won't members fight over how to spend it? These are, of course, ostensibly virtuous arguments, but self-serving in effect.?They fail to provide sound financial advice or alternative options for local congregations and their would-be benefactors.?Instead, the institutional church acquires the windfall.?If the concern was for the well-being of the local church, solutions could be created for the mutual benefit of both the local congregation and the donor.?

More attention should be given to the shrinkage and closure of mainline denominational churches due to poor organizational stewardship of finite resources. Local churches need to develop a vision for ministry that includes serving their communities until the Lord's return. From the anecdotal and negative narratives created around large financial gifts at the local level, it appears the institutional church and agencies are permitted to plan for sustainable ministry (even in-perpetuity), while the local church is advised to "live by faith" and plan primarily for this present generation.

The position that large amounts of money are too dangerous for a congregation’s spiritual well-being fails to envision the long-term planning needs of the local congregation when the major donor ceases to contribute to the general funds when they are called to glory.?Too many churches suffer due to a lack of vision and sound advice from competent fiduciaries. Rather than disinheriting local congregations that have cared for, and walked alongside of, their faithful members during their lifetimes, donors can design gifting options to protect against any mismanagement, or dependency, concerns that exist. This is a much better approach than stripping local ministries of the entirety of their legacy resources. Weakening local congregations financially only exasperates the much discussed shrinkage of the local church and may unintentionally enrich the bureaucracy. It may be for many mainline denominations, that membership is shrinking while institutional and agency assets are proportionately on the rise. There is a better way!

[1] John and Sylvia Ronsvalle, Behind the Stained Glass Window: Money Dynamics in the Church, (Baker Pub Group, 1996), 18.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 88.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

Martin Edward Lee serves as Executive Director and Chief Investment Officer of Classical Stewardship Institute since 2016. Mr. Lee has been a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LC─MS) pastor for 23 years and an investment advisor for 20 years. Prior to his service at Church Organizers Foundation, Mr. Lee was a branch manager (securities principal) at LPL Financial, at the time the largest independent broker dealer in the United States.?Serving as an investment advisor over the past two decades, Mr. Lee has focused on understanding the financial and economic needs within the nonprofit community. He has a wealth of knowledge and experience providing economic and financial solutions to the unique challenges in the nonprofit community. He has had direct fiduciary oversight of $50 million in endowment and private client investments on platforms at UBS PaineWebber, LPL Financial, and TD Ameritrade.?Mr. Lee is committed to building up the community of faith through promoting organizational stewardship and cultivating healthy innovation.?As an LC─MS pastor, Mr. Lee, has served family- to corporate-sized ministries.?He has provided advisory services to hospitals, shelters, community foundations, and libraries.?He also serves as a full-time pastor in the Intentional Interim Ministry of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and is a faculty member of Lutheran Transitional Ministry Association (LuTMA). SEC Investment Advisor Representative Background Check for Martin Edward Lee and FINRA Broker Background Check for Martin Edward Lee.

?