Skip to main content

Full text of "Smith - MOTIVATION IN MISSION OUTREACH"

See other formats


MOTIVATION IN MISSION OUTREACH 

A Professional Project 
Presented to 
the Faculty of the 
School of Theology at Claremont 

In Partial Fulfillment 
of the Requirements for the Degree 
Doctor of Ministry 


By 

Dale Kenneth Smith 
May 1978 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 







For My First Love 


Miriam Devey Smith 
and Second Love 
The United Methodist Church 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



V. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 


Pastors and laypersons of the Pacific and Southwest Annual Conference 
of the United Methodist Church who participated in the questionnaire... 

Crescenta Valley United Methodist Church which gave me an extension 
on my summer vacations in 1976 and 1977 for study at Claremont... 

Cathy Wacker, Jan Wiegmann, Tavy McNair and Miriam Smith who typed 
preliminary drafts and charts and assisted me in many hours of tabu¬ 
lating responses from the questionnaire... 

Gloria and Murray Cooper who graciously made their home in the mountains 
available for the writing of the manuscript... 

Henry Kuizenga and C.Dean Freaudenberger who gave me guidance and 
assistance in the preparation and revision of the project from its 
inception to its completion... 

W.R. Denton who often gave me advice during the project as to form 
and footnotes and finally checked the completed manuscript, bibliography 
and appendix... 

Miriam Smith who encouraged me through the three year process and did 
not complain when I took my days off and evenings to work on "Motivation 
in Mission Outreach"... 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Chapter Page 

I. MOTIVATION IN MISSION OUTREACH 

Problem. 1 

Importance. 1 

Thesis . 2 

Definition. 2 

Scope and Limitation . 3 

Methodology . 3 

Work in this Field by Others and My Contribution... 5 

Outline . 7 

Summary . 8 

II. THE PROBLEMS OF MOTIVATION IN MISSION OUTREACH 
WITHIN THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 

Personal Economic Problems . 10 

Desire for the Better Life . 12 

Church is no longer Relevant . 13 

Personal Self-Centeredness . 14 

Church and Social Issues . 17 

Lack of Personal Involvement . 18 

Negative Attitudes Toward Money. 19 

Undisciplined Giving Habits . 21 

Limited Concern for the World. 22 

Summary . 24 

III. CONTEMPORARY ESTABLISHED PATTERNS OF MOTIVATION 
WITHIN THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 

Apportionments. 26 

World Service . 27 

Missional Priorities and Special Funds . 29 

Conference Benevolences . 30 

General Advance Specials . 31 

Voluntary Funds and Offerings . 33 

United Methodist Women Pledge to Missions . 34 

Promotional Aids. 36 

Summary . 37 

IV. PATTERNS OF GIVING WITHIN THE LOCAL UNITED 
METHODIST CHURCH 

Income of Laity and Pastors . 41 

Personal Giving Habits of Laity and Pastors . 45 

Areas Where Laity and Pastors Give. 53 

Areas Where Churches Give. 55 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 


































How Churches Sponsor Causes . 56 

Personal Church Contact With Persons 

and Projects . 59 

Who or What Motivates People to Give . 60 

A New Look at Motivation in Mission Outreach . 63 

Summary . 67 

V. CONCLUSIONS 

Summary: Purpose of Project . 71 

Summary: Problems of Motivation . 72 

Summary: Contemporary Apportionments . 72 

Summary: Patterns of Giving . 74 

Conclusion: People wil respond to mission 
outreach if they are given the 
opportunity to do so. 75 

Conclusion: The pastor is one of the keys for 

motivation within the local church... 78 
Conclusion: Personal faith in God is a strong 
motivation in giving for mission 

outreach. 81 

Next Steps in Research on Motivation in Mission 

Outreach . 83 

BIBLIOGRAPHY . 84 

APPENDICES . 87 

A. Questionnaire on Motivation 

in Mission Outreach . 88 

B. Results of Questionnaire on 

"Motivation in Mission Outreach". 91 

C. Observation on Results of Questionnaire 

on "Motivation in Mission Outreach" . 98 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




















viii 


ABSTRACT 


PROBLEM AND IMPORTANCE: 

The observation can be made, tentatively, that United Methodist 
Church people in general are not motivated sufficiently to participate 
in the joy of giving financially to the cause of mission outreach. Ev¬ 
ery pastor and layperson knows there is not enough money to fulfill the 
whole mission of the church. 

THESIS AND DEFINITION: 

I observe that people want to be motivated to give of their fi¬ 
nancial resources for the betterment of God's people everywhere and will 
respond if given the opportunity to do so. People give when they are 
made aware of human need and are given the opportunity to respond to 
that need. I further observe in the process of the project that people 
respond more generously when they have a personal faith-experience in 
God through Jesus Christ. 

Motivation is the key word and mission outreach is the goal. 
Motivation answers the question of why people do what they do. Mission 
outreach to others in sharing the "Good News" of the Gospel expresses 
the full meaning of the purpose of the church. 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY: 

This research project centers on the financial response of peo¬ 
ple through the church, not on their giving of their time or abilities. 
There is more to mission outreach than the giving of money, but this 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



ix 

study centers in that area of Christian stewardship. 

A questionnaire was distributed across the Pacific and South¬ 
west Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church to 931 persons to 
which 531 persons responded, representing 337 laity and 193 pastors. A 
good cross section of churches were involved from 173 or 32.6% with less 
than 300 members to 109 or 20.5% with over 1,000 members. Ethnic mi¬ 
nority churches were represented by 56 or 10.4%. Income of individuals 
ranged from 149 or 28.1% under $10,000 a year to 55 or 10.4% over 
$25,000 a year. 

CONTRIBUTION AND CONCLUSIONS: 

In my contribution to the area of financial stewardship I deal 
with what motivates people to give, not how to make people give more. 

The use of the questionnaire gave people a broad choice of possible 
responses. New insights into motivation came from the answers of 
pastors and laypersons and from their write-in comments. 

In conclusion (1) people will respond to mission outreach if 
they are made aware of human need and are given an opportunity to re¬ 
spond, (2) the pastor is one of the keys for motivation within the local 
church, (3) personal faith in God is a strong motivation in giving for 
mission outreach. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



1 . 


Chapter I 


MOTIVATION IN MISSION OUTREACH 


PROBLEM: 


People within the United Methodist Church (as well as other 
churches) are simply not motivated sufficiently to participate in the 
joy of giving financially beyond their regular church pledge to the 
cause of mission outreach. 

IMPORTANCE: 

Not enough money is given by members to fulfill the full mis¬ 
sion of the church. Every pastor knows this as he or she is planning 
the annual budget with the leadership of the church. There is far 
more said about where the congregation can cut corners than where they 
can expand their mission outreach. 

Kenneth Prior gives both a statement of fact and challenge: 

The need is perhaps the most obvious reason for giving... We are 
always being told that the spread of the Gospel is constantly 
hampered through lack of funds, and so this is a challenge to our 
giving. 1 

The future of the church calls for increased giving. Thomas 
Rieke explaines it well. 

A look toward the future quickly assures one that additional dol¬ 
lars will be needed to sustain the ministry of the church in an 
inflationary age. The future will require inovation in order to 


Kenneth Prior, God and Mammon (Philadelphia: Westminster 
Press, 1965), pp. 56-57. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




2. 


keep pace. 

There is nothing more important in the life of the church than 
what it does beyond itself, reaching into the community and throughout 
the world. 

THESIS: 


I observe that people sincerely want to be motivated to give 
of their financial resources for the betterment of God's creation 
everywhere. People will respond if they are given the opportunity to 
do so. 

People give when they are made aware of human need and are 
given the opportunity to respond to that need. They respond more 
generously when they have a personal faith-experience in God through 
Jesus Christ. 

DEFINITION: 

Motivation is the key word and mission outreach is the goal. 
Motivation answers the question of why people do what they do. 

Mission outreach to others in sharing the "Good News" of the Gospel 
expresses the full meaning of the purpose of the church. If the church 
does not reach out beyond itself in mission to others it is not really 
a church. 

The Rev. David Blackburn, Western Field Representative for the 
General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church stated 

2 Thomas C. Rieke and John C. Espie, Opportunities in Stew¬ 
ardship , (Nashville: Discipleship Resources, 1975), p. 82. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




3 . 


What in the world do you think you're doing in the mission of the 
Southern California-Arizona Conference? A lot, that's what! You 
share when you give through World Service and United Methodist 
Women's Pledge to Mission. Get completely involved through pro¬ 
jects and persons... 3 

SCOPE AND LIMITATION: 

This research project centers on the financial response of 
people through the church, not on their giving of their time or abil¬ 
ities. There is more to mission outreach than the giving of money, 
but this study centers in that specific area of Christian stewardship. 

The project covers a good cross section of churches and indi¬ 
viduals within the Pacific and Southwest Conference of the United 
Methodist church which includes Arizona, Hawaii, Southern Nevada and 
Southern California. It does not propose to express the views of the 
entire United Methodist Church in America or other denominations. 

However the conclusions could possibly suggest the attitudes of certain 
segments of all churches. 

This research project is the response of mostly active persons 
within the church and how they are motivated to give financially through 
their churches. It does not delve into the reasons why inactive persons 
do not give financially or how members give outside the church such as 
to the Y.M.C.A., United Fund, Boy Scouts, colleges and the like. 

METHODOLOGY: 

I compiled a three page questionnaire on "Motivation in Mission 


3 Dale K. Smith, (ed.) Facing Up to be Alive in Mission , 
(Los Angeles: Southern California-Arizona Conference of the United 
Methodist Church, 1975), p. 9. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




4 . 


Outreach" (Appendix A) and distributed it across the Pacific and South¬ 
west Conference to eight different groups. Out of 931 persons contacted, 
531 persons returned the questionnaire. 

Groups involved were: 

1. "Mission Possible" in 1976 sponsored by the conference Board 
of Global Ministries and the United Methodist Women of the 
conference. 

2. Top Benevolence Giving Churches in the conference who paid 
all World Service and Conference Benevolences and conference 
apportionments in full in 1976 and gave over $1,000 in advance 
Specials plus $1,000 for local benevolences. 

3. Missionary Salary Supporting Churches in 1976. 

4. United Methodist Women School of Christian Mission in Flagstaff, 
Arizona and San Diego, California in 1977. 

5. Pastors of Conference Ethnic churches in 1977. 

6. Pastors of Conference Churches with fewer than 200 members in 
1977. 

7. Students at the School of Theology at Claremont in the summer of 
1976. 

8. Retired Missionaries at Pilgrim Place in the summer of 1976. 

A variety of persons representing 337 laity and 193 pastors 

participated in the questionnaire. Involved were 249 males and 278 
females whose ages varied from 3 teenagers to 62 persons over age 66. 
Income varied from 37 with under $5,000 a year to 55 with over $25,000 
a year. (Appendix B, p. 91) 

There were 38 churches with less than 100 members. 249 churches 
from 101 to 500; 156 churches from 501 to 1000 and 109 churches with 
over 1,000 members. (Appendix B, p. 92 ) Ethnic minority churches were 
represented by 56 persons. (Appendix B, p. 91) 

From the questionnaire I completed a chart and observations 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



5 . 


on results of the study on "Motivation in Mission Outreach". (Appendices 
B and C) These record and evaluate church and personal giving of those 
who responded as well as who or what motivated them to give financially 
beyond their local church pledge. 

In addition to the questionnaire I interviewed many persons and 
corresponded with mission and stewardship leaders of both the United 
Methodist Church and other denominations and read extensively in these 
areas (see Bibliography). 

WORK IN THIS FIELD BY OTHERS AND MY CONTRIBUTION: 

Much has been written in the general field of stewardship. 

For the most part, authors have confined themselves to why people 
should give (which is more of an ultimatum) and not what motivates them 
to give to the cause of mission outreach. For instance, Bartlett and 
Margaret Johnston Hess ^ rely heavily on Biblical imperatives 
for giving and the "how to" ways of getting people to give, in their 
personal experience oriented book. John H. Mac Naughton ^ gives over 
half of his pages to "And Now Down to the Nitty-Gritty" and "Resources 
and Examples" in telling why and how people should pledge once a year. 
Raymond B. Knudsen ^ in his second book on "models" in three years tells 

^ Bartlett L. and Margaret Johnston Hess, How to Have a Giving 
Church , (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1974). 

^ John H. MacNaughton, Stewardship: Myth and Methods , (New 
York: Seabury Press, 1975). 

^ Raymond B. Knudsen, New Models for Financing the Local Church 
(New York: Association Press, 1974). 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




6. 


of foundations, grants, property, annuities, trusts, life insurance, 
wills and even computer giving as ways to encourage people to give to 
the church. 

Few persons have approached the problem of giving from the 
perspective of motivation factors in people's own experiences, as found 
in this research project. In letting people express themselves through 
a questionnaire, new information on what motivates people to give beyond 
their local needs has surfaced, especially in the write-in comments. 

Douglas W. Johnson and George W. Cornell ^ in their study of 
North American Churches, deal in part with motivation, and use an ex¬ 
tensive questionnaire to find out how people feel about the church, part 

g 

of which is aimed at their financial response. Martin E. Carlson 
writes knowingly of motivational psychology and its relationship to 
Christian stewardship. He finally credits God's grace as the most 
powerful motivation: 

In the matter of fund raising within the Christian Community, we 
should never lose sight of the fact that the very experience of 
grace is in itself one of the strongest motivations towards giving. 
How else does one explain the fa^t that in America about one half 
of all giving is to the church? 

In my contribution to the area of financial stewardship I deal 
with what motivates people to give, not how to make people give more. 

The use of the questionnaire (Appendix A) gave people a broad choice 

^ Douglas W. Johnson and George W. Cornell, Punctured Precon¬ 
ceptions , (New York: Friendship Press, 1972). 

g 

Martin E. Carlson, Why People Give , (New York: Council 
Press, 1968). 

9 Ibid., pp. 172-173. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




7. 


of possible responses. New insights into motivation came from the an¬ 
swers of pastors and laypersons and from their write-in comments. 

OUTLINE: 


"The Problems of Motivation in Mission Outreach Within the 
United Methodist Church" evaluates nine categories that are tradition¬ 
ally problem areas: Personal Economic Problems, Desire for the Better 
Life, Church is No Longer Relevant, Personal Self-Centeredness, Church 
and Social Issues, Lack of Personal Involvement, Negative Attitudes 
Toward Money, Undisciplined Giving Habits, and Limited Concern for the 
World. 

"Contemporary Established Patterns of Motivation Within the 
United Methodist Church" looks at apportionments, quotas, goals and 
general ways currently being used to raise money for mission outreach 
within the national and conference church. This, along with the pre- 
ceeding chapter, help set the present situation in the church and serve 
as a foundation on which to build the evaluation of the responses to the 
questionnaire on "Motivation in Mission Outreach". 

In "Patterns of Giving Within the Local United Methodist Church", 

I deal with areas where churches give and how they sponsor these causes; 
personal giving habits of laity and pastors; mission areas given to 
beyond the regular church pledge; and who and what motivates people to 
give to mission outreach through their church. 

"Conclusions on Motivation in Mission Outreach" gives my summary of 
the research project and offers some next steps in research on this subject. 

A Bibliography of resources on the subjects of financial stew¬ 
ardship and the mission of the Church is found at the conclusion of this 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



8. 


paper. The books not only give the background for this project but 
serve as resources for further research. 

The Appendix includes the three page Questionnaire on Motivation 
in Mission Outreach used in the research project; an eleven part chart: 
Results of Questionnaire on Motivation in Mission Outreach; and a four 
part evaluation of the questionnaire: Observations on Results of Ques¬ 
tionnaire on Motivation in Mission Outreach which covers (1) Personal 
Statistics (2) Church Giving (3) Personal Giving and (4) Motivation. 

SUMMARY: 


The Observation can be made, tentatively, that United Methodist 
Church people are not motivated sufficiently to participate in the joy 
of giving financially to the cause of mission outreach. 

Not enough money is given to fulfill the whole mission of the 
church, as every pastor and layperson knows. 

However I observe that people want to be motivated to give of 
their financial resources for the betterment of God's people everywhere 
and will respond if given the opportunity to do so. 

Motivation answers the question of why people do what they do. 
Mission outreach to others in sharing the "Good News" of the Gospel 
expresses the full meaning of the purpose of the church. 

This research project centers on the financial response of 
people through the church, not on their giving of their time or abilities. 
There is more to mission outreach than the giving of money, but this 
study centers in that area of Christian stewardship. 

A questionnaire was distributed across the Pacific and South¬ 
west Conferende to 931 persons, to which 531 persons responded, repre- 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



9. 


senting a good cross section of laity and pastors and various churches. 

Much has been written in the general field of stewardship and 
especially on why people should give through the church. However few 
authors have approached the problem from the perspective of letting 
persons express themselves as to motivation factors. This research 
project allowed people to say what motivates them to give. 

Chapters I, II and III give an introduction to the research 
project, evaluate the problems, and look at the present patterns with¬ 
in the church. They serve as the foundation for chapter IV where the 
results of the questionnaire are evaluated. 

The Bibliography and Appendix give materials that not only serve 
as background for this project but offer resources for further research 
in the area of "Motivation in Mission Outreach". 

T.K. Thompson gives a good summary on the motivation for giving: 

What now may be said about motivation for giving...? Obviously, 
first of all, one may not make a unilateral decision about a gift 
of self, time, talents, property, or funds; For a Christian does 
not act in isolation... He (one) should be motivated because of 
his (her) loyalty to the Father (God) to whom all the house he has 
acknowledged his subjection but he should also be motivated by his 
loyalty to the rest of the family whose corporate joys and labors 
he shares. 

Again he should be motivated by the knowledge of what the family 
enterprise embraces - a plan of stewardship for the fulness of the 
times... that the entire universe may be reconciled to God. He 
should be motivated by the love and grace of God that have flooded 
his life in the fellowship of God's family. He should be motivated, 
too, by the conscious and painful knowledge that these blessings 
he shares in the commonwealth of God and the covenant of promise 
are still unknown (by some or others). ^ "God was in Christ recon¬ 
ciling the world to himself." (2 Corinthians 5:19) 


T.K. Thompson, (ed.) Stewardship in Contemporary Life (New 
York: Association Press, 1965), pp. 75-76. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




10. 


Chapter II 

THE PROBLEM OF MOTIVATION IN MISSION OUTREACH 
WITHIN THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 

The problem of people not being motivated sufficiently to par¬ 
ticipate in the joy of giving financially beyond their regular church 
pledge to the cause of mission outreach is not limited to the United 
Methodist Church. Many writers, representing numerous denominational 
persuasions, have expressed their concern as they have shared their 
insights. 

The factors affecting motivation are numerous. I divide them 
in nine categories for evaluation. Let us consider these categories 
one at a time. I feel these "problems" are not as insurmountable as 
some would have us believe. 

PERSONAL ECONOMIC PROBLEMS: 

One of the major problems in motivation is expressed by persons 
who say they do not have enough money to share due to personal expenses. 
Even local churches complain that they do well to meet staff salaries 
and maintenance expense and find it difficult to underwrite adequate 
local programing. Consequently little money is left over for mission 
outreach. 

A minister of a church of 100 to 200 members, responded to the 

questionnaire on "Motivation in Mission Outreach", 

Generally the church budget is under pledged. Who is going to push 
projects that cut into one's financial base? 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



11 . 


As far back as 1955, even when employment was high and invest¬ 
ments were on the rise, Look Magazine published the results of a poll 
on worries: 

Economic problems (money) headed the list, involving 43 percent 
of those polled ... This substantiates an earlier Gallup Poll 
survey of American Families in which 45 percent indicated that 
they worried about money. This was the highest percentage for 
any single item in this survey, too. ^ 

However church income continued to rise. In 1971 Americans 
contributed $8.6 billion to religious causes according to Giving , 

U.S.A. , published by the American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel 
in New York. 

In the same year, (Americans) spent about $30 billion for new cars. 
Nevertheless the people's annual investment in church work makes it 
one of the continent's economically mightiest enterprises next to 
the government itself, which uses enforced taxation to meet its 
colossal budget. In contrast, the churches depend entirely on 
voluntary, free offerings. ^ 

In the 1970s there have been many denominational cutbacks as far 
as spending beyond the local church is concerned. Administrators have 
had to re-evaluate staff personnel, programs and projects on the con¬ 
ference, national and world levels. Howard Ham, a general secretary 

of the United Methodist Board of Education in 1972 said, 

Expenditures for local operations are at a level never before equaled 
in the history of the church. In contrast, support is being with¬ 
drawn from the general funding of operations which the people do 
not identify as their own special concerns. 3 


^ Martin E. Carlson, Why People Give (New York: Council Press, 
1968), p. 17. 

o 

Douglas W. Johnson and George W. Cornell, Punctured Precon¬ 
ceptions (New York: Freindship Press, 1972), p. 111. 

3 

United Methodist Annual Meeting Report, Board of Education, 
Nashville, January 24, 1972. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




12. 


It would seem that individuals, as well as local churches, find 
sufficient money for personal needs but are hesitant to extend them¬ 
selves. Howard E. Spragg, executive vice-president of the United 

Church of Christ Board of Homeland Ministries, says: 

As the church becomes more and more self-centered it loses its 
dynamism and reason for existing ... insulated localism is a 
perversion of our faith. ^ 

DESIRE FOR THE BETTER LIFE: 

People want to provide the good things of life for their family 
and themselves. Self-preservation and self-satisfaction are strong 
drives in most individuals. 

A number of responses to the questionnaire on "Motivation in 
Mission Outreach" indicated one of the typical contemporary theories 
that if we give to God, God will give to us. Such a response came from 
a layperson at the United Methodist Women's School of Christian Mission 
in 1977: 

Tithing as recommended by our minister has increased our bank 
account tremendously. 

In a different approach to the desire for the good things of 

life, the North American Christian Church survey in 1972 pointed out: 

The main thing blocking church support is an urge for more affluent 
living for the good things money can buy in the secular world. 5 

Over 83 percent of persons who were asked in the survey listed 
"good things of life" in the upper bracket as the main reason for not 

^ Johnson and Cornell, p. 113. 

5 Ibid., p. 119. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




giving to the church. 

Some people have confused their priorities and live beyond 
their means. In a humorous context but true experience, Bishop Francis 
Asbury, in 1775, wanted to help his ministers keep their priorities 
straight so he required low salaries so that these men would not become 
rich and proud. The laymen assured Asbury that they would "... help 
avoid any such fate, for if God would keep the ministers humble, the 
people would keep them poor." ^ 

CHURCH IS NO LONGER RELEVANT: 

Obviously when you look at the inactive members on the roll of 
any church there must be many persons for whom the church is no longer 
relevant. In looking at that same list of inactive persons you see very 
little financial support for the mission of the church. At the same 
time there is frustration expressed by some active persons who question 
the relevancy of the organized church. 

One such layperson from one of the top giving churches in the 
conference responded to the questionnaire in 1977 with the following 
statement: 

I give X number of dollars to the church budget, period! I give an 
additional amount to 30 other charitable groups to avoid having all 
my eggs in one basket! 

Another person, an ethnic pastor, responded to the same question¬ 
naire in 1977: 


Ibid., p. 121. 

^ T.K. Thompson, Stewardship in Contemporary Theology (New 
York: Association Press, 1960), p. 113. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




14 . 


Too much denominatinal giving is like our government in taxing 
and wasting money foolishly. When there is a worthwhile project 
or need, the immensity of red tape and bureaucracy hangs on to the 
money for dear life. 

Even though there is resentment in giving to a "beauracracy", 

the North American Christian Church survey in 1972 stated, "...local 

concern showed up in a call for more inclusive participation in deter- 

8 

mining church allocations..." Ap chart prepared by the survey puts 

"Church not important in society" in seventh place, out of a possible 

ten, with only 53 percent of those responding saying this was a reason 

9 

for not giving to the church. 

Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote, 

It is becoming clearer every day that the most urgent problem be¬ 
setting our church is this: How can we live the Christian life in 
the modern world? 

Harvey H. Potthoff put it this way: 

As a church in mission, we are entrusted with a gospel we believe 
to be real and relevant. We have this treasure in earthen vessels. 
The issues are complex and the time may be short. IM¬ 


PERSONAL SELF-CENTEREDNESS: 


The Apostle Paul reminds us that "we brought nothing into the 
world, and we cannot take anything out of the world." (I Timothy 6:7) 


Q 

Johnson and Cornell, p. 113. 

9 Ibid., p. 121. 

10 Edwin A. Briggs, (ed.) Theological Perspectives of Steward- 
ship (Evanston: General Board of Laity, United Methodist Church, 1969), 
p. 124. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




15. 


Of course everyone knows this, but all persons do not act as if they 
know this. 

Luther P. Powell in his chapter, Stewardship in the History of 

the Christian Church expresses this well: 

...giving must be motivated, and the motivation will center either 
in Christ or in self. When it centers in self, a great assortment 
of abuses develop, such as exploitations of religious conviction, 
mi snap of civil law, foolish and wasteful activities, and sometimes 
unethical or illegal practices. Only as the motivation is Christ- 
centered will the church be able to evaluate the various methods 
of support that come knocking on her door. ^ 

A form of self-centeredness takes place with many churches as 
they invest in new buildings and face increased payments on mortgages. 
The pastor of a 100 to 200 member church expressed this concern as he 
responded to the questionnaire in 1977 as he referred to the sanctuary 
built by his predecessor, 

We have a building mortgage of $880 a month to meet. Needless to 
say, if we are going to be a viable force for Christendom, we must 
not lose our property. 

Most would agree with the pastor, but a layperson of one of 
the top giving churches made this exclamation in responding to the 
same questionnaire in 1977, 

Beware of the "large mortgage" trap which stifles churches from 
giving outside! 

It is interesting to note that in a study made in 1976 on 54 
churches giving missionary salary support that 41 of them had mortgages 
from $15,000 to $725,000. Half of the churches owed from $50,000 to 
$150,000. All but one paid all conference benevolences and apportion¬ 
ments in full. Churches ranged in size from 6 under 300 members to 


12 


Thompson, 


P- 


125 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




16 . 


5 from 1,500 to 2,700 members. Most of the churches (49) were in the 
100 top giving churches of the conference, based on payment of Confer¬ 
ence Apportionments and Benevolences, over $1,000 given in Advance 

13 

Specials and over $1,000 given for local benevolences. 

Wallace Fisher in his new book expresses himself on selfish 
congregations: 

Millions of church members, gathered in thousands of congregations, 
are free to determine whether they will take up Christ’s ministry 
in the world or live for themselves behind stained glass windows 
that shut the world out. That makes human freedom "dreadful free¬ 
dom" indeed. 

A classic illustration of personal self-centeredness was told 

by Plutarch about Tarpeia, daughter of a Roman governor: 

When the city was being besieged, Tarpeia was charmed by the golden 
bracelets of the besiegers, the Sabines. She betrayed the Romans 
into the hands of the enemies and asked in return for her treason 
that she be given what they wore on their left arms. The Sabine 
general ordered his army to remember their promise. After con¬ 
quering the Romans, the general was the first to take off his 
bracelet and throw it at Tarpis, and with that he removed his 
shield from his left arm and threw it also. Every other soldier 
followed, until the girl was overpowered by the gold arm bands 
and shields thrown upon her, and "sinking under the weight, died" 
(according to Plutarch). 

A positive note to end on in this segment comes from Luther 


Powell, 

In defense of this motivation (self-interest) it is pointed out 
that the strongest human drive is the drive for self-preservation, 
and it is only common sense to appeal to this drive. Nevertheless, 


Dale K. Smith, "Evaluation of 54 Chruches Giving Missionary 
Salary Support" (Mimeographed), 1976. 

Wallace E. Fisher, A New Climate for Stewardship (Nashville 
Abingdon Press, 1976), p. 110. 

^ Basil Miller, Treasury of Stewardship Illustrations 
(Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1952), pp. 134-135. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




17. 


the Christian faith declares there can be a drive in the human 
heart that is stronger than the drive for self-preservation, and 
this drive comes only through a new birth. ^ 

CHURCH AND SOCIAL ISSUES: 

Most people will agree that they know of members who have left 
the church because of its social stand on such issues as war, race, 
poverty, civil disobedience and the like. A desire to separate our¬ 
selves from so-called political and secular activities is a strong one. 
The feeling that the church has lost financial support along with 
its loss of members is still with us. 

One of the laypersons from a top giving church in the conference 

wrote: 

My gifts to mission have been reduced because of disillusionment 
as to how they are often used. 

With the preconceived idea that social activism means loss of 
church revenue, it is interesting to refer to the North American Christ¬ 
ian Churches survey in 1972: 

Only a tiny fragment of the churches consistency, six percent, has 
withheld contributions because of resentment at what their churches 
were doing. 

About half of the six percent were against "lavish buildings, waste, 

card parties and dancing, doctrinal shortcomings and ’lack* of social 
18 

consciousness," leaving about three percent against the church stands 
on war, race and the like. 


16 

Luther P. Powell, Money 
Press, 1962), p. 194. 


17 


18 


Johnson and Cornell, p. 


Ibid. 


and the Church (New York: Association 

116. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




18 . 


Most American church people, 88 percent of the clergy and 71 per¬ 
cent of the lay people, also feel their denominations should take 
definite stands on issues of social justice, using their influence 
to implement Christian ethics in society at large. ^ 

Possibly a sign of the future is reflected in the statement of 
a seminary student at Claremont when he responded to the questionnaire 
in 1976: 

Most of the time I give for a special cause and emergency situation 
such as United Farm Workers, Oxfam-America, etc. Other times I 
support regularly political action, lobbying organizations. I 
respond in this way because I feel my money can be used for the 
betterment of people less fortunate than I. Political action is 
one of the most important ways to aid oppressed people, not just 
giving food or money. Primarily, I feel a responsibility to help 
in any way possible my fellow brothers and sisters. 


LACK OF PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT: 


The problem of motivation dealing with the lack of personal 

involvement is a very real one. As one layperson at "Mission Possible" 

in 1976 said in her response to the questionnaire: 

Direct contacts are much better than anonymous giving for general 
use. 

Another woman at the same event wrote: 

I enjoy being involved in volunteer work and helping others. It's 
a way of life. A natural instinct for me. 

The problem seems to be when we are not "connected" with others, 

as a seminary student phrased it in a reply to the questionnaire in 

1976: 

We feel un-connected with others. So why bother to support them. 
However the student continued: 


19 


Ibid. 


p. 117. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




19 . 


I think it's a matter of faith/spirituality - that once I get hold 
of that and "connect up" with others - the obvious response will be 
to give. 

A beautiful illustration of personal involvement came from a 
pastor of a church with 200 to 300 members who in 1977 responded to 
the questionnaire. 

I gave the full salary of the District Superintendent in the District 
del Noreste (Mexico) for several years. I did it because I was 
personally involved in the extension project and because my wife 
was working and because I had been through the District in person 
and saw the need first hand. 

People may not be motivated because they do not feel loved or 
accepted. Martin E. Carlson speaks of this lack of personal involve¬ 
ment: 

We may speak of God's unmotivated love as agape , but in the human 
realm one loves because one is loved. Love draws forth the response 
of love. It is within this response of love that giving frequently 
takes place. Gifts find their real meaning in the love they express 
which, in turn, is the response to being loved. 20 

Not always, but often if one is not personally involved, that 
individual is not going to be motivated to give for the cause of mission 
outreach through the local church. 


NEGATIVE ATTITUDES TOWARD MONEY: 


Positive thinking is still popular today even though we may 
question the theological basis for it. Certainly negative attitudes 
toward money can cause many problems in carrying out the mission of 
the church. 

A layperson from one of the top giving churches in the confer- 


20 


Carlson, p. 


166. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




20 . 


ence pointed to shame as one of the negative attitudes we carry with 

us when he responded to the questionnaire in 1977: 

We are ashamed of the works we do for the Kingdom. The Baptists 
and Pentecostals are not ashamed. We need to assert the positive. 

Then this person continues to attack this negative attitude with a 

strong affirmation: 

We are doing great things for others and our people ought to know 
it and be proud of it and recognize that we can do more and more! 

Another negative attitude is guilt, as mentioned by a seminary 

student at Claremont in 1976 in reply to the questionnaire: 

Guilt of many kinds is a motivation but not a healthy one. 

Bartlett and Margaret Hess tell of typical negative pastors and 

members in the local church. They speak of "Simon Self-Sacrifice" and 

"Norman Nagger" and "Donald Do-Gooder" and "Peter Pleader" and "Hattie 

Hardwork" and "Selma Stringsaver" and "Sylvia Socialite" and "Sally 

Suburbia" and "Gertrude Greedy" and "Seymour Selfish", none of whom give 

much to the ongoing mission of the church and all of whom have their 

21 

negative hangups when it comes to raising money. 

As Kenneth Prior states it, 

The way in which we give is of far greater importance than the amount, 
for if we give in the righ^ 2 att i tu ^ e it is likely that the latter 
will take care of itself. 

Our attitude is an important factor in our giving. Negative 
attitudes toward money can be a great problem. Somehow we need to 

21 

Bartlett L. and Margaret Johnston Hess, How to Have a Giving 
Church (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1974), p. 17. 

22 

Kenneth Prior, God and Mammon (Philadelphia: Westminster 
Press, 1965), p. 63. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




21 . 


share the positive joy of giving. 


UNDISCIPLINED GIVING HABITS: 

"I guess I never formed the habit of giving to the church" 
stated one person responding to the questionnaire at "Mission Possible" 
in 1976. 

There have always been too many other obligations where I had to 
give. 

Two other persons from top giving churches in the conference, res¬ 
ponded to the same questionnaire in 1977: 

People have to learn how to give. It becomes a habit. 

Another wrote: 

The first thing that motivates me is a developed habit of giving... 

A retired missionary responded in 1976 that the thing that has 
motivated him was the, 

Habit of tithing and giving where need is greatest. 

According to Martin E. Carlson, 

Habit grows out of repetition of the familiar and man is comfortable 
in doing the familiar. Without question much giving is done in a 
routine sort of way - out of habit. 

Carlson says elsewhere. 

The church is keenly aware of the opportunities before it to serve - 
opportunities it cannot meet for lack of resources. It is also 
keenly aware that many of its members also know of these opportunities. 
But it is one thing to know about them and another to want to do some¬ 
thing about them. Hence the need to motivate people to action. 24 

Erick Fromm observed when he noted: 

...for any society to function well, its members must acquire the 


23 


Carlson, p. 87. 


24 


Ibid., pp. 153-54. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




22 . 


kind of character that makes them want to act in the way they 
have to act as members of society or of a group within it. They 
have to desire what objectively is necessary for them to do. 

Inner compulsion replaces outer force and this by the particular 
kind of human energy that is channeled into character traits. 25 

All of this takes us back to the problem of habit as concerns 
our world outlook. 


LIMITED CONCERN FOR THE WORLD: 

For any church member to call himself a disciple of Christ and a 
good steward when his interests are purely local is idle chatter. 26 

However, many persons fit in the category of church members who 
have very little if any concern for the mission outreach to the world. 

To them, "mission" is something we give to after all local bills are 
paid. Actually, at the end of the year they really would like to put 
aside a reserve account for anticipated bills to help the local church 
through the lean months. It is good to note that this attitude was 
not really expressed in the responses to the questionnaire. All groups 
made statements such as the three that follow. A woman at the United 
Methodist Women School of Christian Mission responded to the questionnaire 
in 1977: 

We need to keep the church alive. We can save God's church by serv¬ 
ing God's world. That takes money and manpower. 

A retired missionary said: 

We must be motivated for world need. 


Ibid., p. 154. 

O C. 

Paul H. Conrad, This Way to a Thriving Church (Nashville: 
Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1957), p. 13. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




23 . 


A seminary student at the School of Theology at Claremont wrote: 

World need is so enormous in comparison to local needs that I 
cannot do otherwise: If there is something extra that I can 
give to that seems to make a difference in the world and not 
just a building, then I will give. 

Then we have the classic statement of Charles William Hershman: 

The first reason for giving is the need of the world, never more 
pressing than today. The work that Christianity has accomplished 
is magnificent, but much remains yet to be done... At home there 
is the problem of poverty, the evangelizing of our great cities, 
and of large numbers of those who come to us from other lands. 

There is the black race in America rising grandly from a state of 
servitude, but having yet a long way to travel before the emanci¬ 
pation of heart and mind is achieved... Yet this is but little 
compared with the need in other countries. ^ 

It is of course fascinating to note that the need of the world 
and the United States is so similar today as it was when the above was 
written in 1905! 

Charles McKay tells us: 

Howard Thurman has called our attention to an old Zulu proverb: 
"Full-belly child say to empty-bellied child, Be of good cheer!" 

Is that the way in which the church will respond to the vast needs 
of despairing multitudes who this very day are hungry and dispos¬ 
sessed, empty-bellied, and barren hearted? ^ 

We do not want to slip into the problems of guilt or shame but 
it is amazing how many people can take the vows of church membership as 
Christians and fail to hear the need of other Christians in the world. 
If the church is to be the church it must be motivated to be the "ser¬ 
vant church" (Mark 10:42-45). Limited concern for the world is the 
big problem. Thank God for the minority that does care! 


27 

Charles William Harshman, Christian Giving (Cincinnati: 
Jennings and Graham, 1905), pp. 29-30. 

28 

Arthur R. McKay, Servants and Stewards (Philadelphia: 
Geneva Press, 1963), pp. 53-54. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




24 . 


SUMMARY: 


When we summarize the problems of motivation we find they are 
not insurmountable. 

It would seem individuals, as well as local churches, find 
sufficient money for personal needs even though they are hesitant to 
extend themselves in mission outreach. So the resources are there. 

As the North American Christian Church survey pointed out. 

The main thing blocking church support is an urge for more 
affluent-living for the good things money can buy in the secular 
world. 

There is frustration expressed by some active persons who 
question the relevancy of the organized church and yet these same 
individuals seem only to want a more inclusive part in determining 
church allocations. 

Both individuals and local churches have a tendency to become 
self-centered in their interpretation of mission. This seems especially 
true when local churches acquire mortgages. However it is interesting 
to observe that missionary salary supporting churches in the conference 
also carry heavy mortgages and are at the same time among the top 
giving churches for all causes. 

Church stands on social issues often seem to cause concern among 
both lay and clergy. However this does not necessarily mean a loss of 
church income for mission outreach. 


29 


Johnson and Cornell, p. 119. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




25 . 


It helps for people to be involved with others in order to 
be motivated to give for the cause of mission outreach. A seminary 
student stated it well, 

I think it's a matter of faith/spirituality - that once I get 
hold of that and "connect up" with others - the obvious response 
will be to give. 

Our attitude is an important factor in our giving. Negative 
feelings of shame and guilt do not make for a healthy motivation in 
mission outreach. We need to share the positive joy of giving. 

Martin E. Carlson sums up the habit of giving quite well, 

Habit grows out of repetition of the familiar and man is comfort¬ 
able in doing the familiar. Without question much giving is done 
in a routine sort of way - out of habit. 30 

World needs are enormous and only a minority of the church 
membership expresses its concern through financial support of the 
mission outreach of the church, but thank God for this minority. 

How do we overcome all these problems of motivation and get 
on with the "mission of the church"? First we need to take a look 
at the Contemporary Established Patterns of Motivation within the 
United Methodist Church itself. 


30 


Carlson, p. 87. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




26 . 


Chapter III 

CONTEMPORARY ESTABLISHED PATTERNS OF MOTIVATION 
WITHIN THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 

Ways in which the organized United Methodist Church motivates 
giving are listed in this chapter. In reality it is a description 
of fund raising or a structure for the collection of money. 

APPORTIONMENTS: 

When one thinks of established patterns, apportionments immed¬ 
iately come to mind. For the local church this represents their "fair 
share" of the basic benevolence program of the total church and is 
based on their ability to pay (total budget spent within the church, 
exclusive of mortgage and benevolences; as well as total membership). 

The apportionments set by the General Conference every four 
years are passed on to the annual conferences which in turn give them 
to the local church. For the most part this proves to be quite fair 
and the majority of United Methodist Churches respond well. In 1975, 
during a national recession, 92.9% of the general church goal of 
$23,5000,000 for World Service was paid. ^ 

However there are those who question the apportionments method 
of funding the benevolence program of the church. A Lutheran pastor, 
Wallace E. Fisher, who is pastor of an inner-city church with a 
successful local outreach program is such a person. 

1 "United Methodist Communications News", (Mimeographed), 1976. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




27 . 


The "apportioned benevolence" concept worked for a decade or two 
until the laity and parish clergy grew restless under it. It was 
programmatic at best and manipulative at worst... First, an appor¬ 
tionment (quota) identifies Christian stewardship with secular 
fund-raising. It obscures biblical stewardship, which calls persons 
and congregations to the Christian use of God's gifts of his Word, 
human endowments, natural resources, and in a money economy, 
cash and property. 

Second, an apportionment (quota) allows the church bureaucracy to 
applaud those congregations which meet the apportionment in full 
as having fulfilled Christ's Claim on them. 

I do not happen to agree with this point of view even though 
I would like to see the membership figure removed from the apportion¬ 
ment formula as it encourages removal of inactive members who need the 
ministry of the church. However, it would seem the apportionment 
concept will continue in the United Methodist Church. Hopefully 
ministers will respond as one serving a church of under 200 members 
when replying to the questionnaire in 1977. 

I am motivated to give by a strong conviction of need beyond that 
which is apportioned to our church. 


WORLD SERVICE: 


The term. World Service, is a motivating force in the United 
Methodist Church. It is referred to as the basic benevolence program 
of the church. Over half of the total, 53.7% goes to World Division 
and National Division projects which represent genuine service to 

3 

the world. However the remainder is divided between a variety of 
areas in administration and designated causes making up the budget for 

^ Wallace E. Fisher, A New Climate for Stewardship (Nashville: 
Abingdon Press, 1976), p. 110. 

^ "Division of Interpretation of the United Methodist Church", 
(printed leaflet), 1977. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




28 . 


the general church. This is not necessarily bad, for it makes pos¬ 
sible staff persons and promotional resources to motivate the total 
church in mission outreach. (At times I would be happier with World 
Service projects and the general church budget separated, but this 
is not too practical.) 

The World Service asking from 1977 through 1980 is $24,980,000 

A 

for each year. The United Methodist Church has consistently been 
in the lead in total benevolence giving when compared with other 
denominations. In 1975 $249,106,068 was given for all benevolences 

out of total church contributions of $1,081,080,372 for all purposes. 

This represents 23.0% for others or $25.26 a year per member. ^ The 
record is better than the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) (15.0%), 
the Episcopal Church (13.1%), Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (16.5%), 
Southern Baptist Convention (15.9%) or the United Presbyterian Church 
in the U.S.A. (17.3%); but is far less than the Mennonite Church (41.6%) 

g 

or Seventh-day Adventists (69.4%). 

World Service, as well as all Benevolences, are promoted by 
the Division of Interpretation through the Bishops of the church, to 
the District Superintendents, and then the local pastors. Conference 
personnel and District Directors in the area of Global Ministries do 
their part in motivating local congregations to pay their World Service 

4 

Ibid. 

Nordan C. Murphy, Bettie Meeker, and Constant H. Jacquet, Jr., 
Church Financial Statistics and Related Data (New York: Council Press, 
1977), pp. 4-5. 

^ Ibid., p. 5. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




29 . 


askings in full. 


MISSIONAL PRIORITIES AND SPECIAL FUNDS: 


The General Conference , meeting in 1976, added other askings 
on an apportionment basis. Prior to this, the church had requested 
money to meet emergency needs in our seminaries and historically 
black colleges. The Ministerial Education Fund was renewed with a 
goal of $12,600,000 a year from 1977 through 1978 and the Black College 
Fund was renewed with a request of $6,000,000 a year. ^ 

New priorities in World Hunger, the Ethnic Minority Local 
Church and Evangelism were combined in the Missional Priority Fund for 

g 

$4,125,000 a year in the new quadrennium. In addition to this, 
$6,500,000 was requested for Ethinic Minority Local Church and World 
Hunger through the Advance. 

All these have been apportioned to the local church on the same 
basis as World Service and promoted by the Division of Interpretation. 

In the words of the Interagency Task Force on World Hunger 
statement to General Conference: 

We live in a hungry world. Each day, millions of men, women and 
children wake to a life filled with the pain and hopelessness of 
hunger, malnutrition, starvation. Everywhere, the human family 
cries out, for bread and justice. Despite our efforts, the problem 
deepens. If the causes of hunger go unchecked, more millions will 
join this legacy. 9 


7 


"Division of Interpretation..." 


8 


Ibid. 


Our Missional Priorities 1977-80 (Evanston: United Methodist 
Communications, 1977), p. 49. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




30 . 


This is certainly one of the high priorities of our time and 
deserves the full support of all Christians. 


CONFERENCE BENEVOLENCES: 


Each year at the meeting of the Pacific and Southwest Annual 
Conference of the United Methodist Church new budgets are submitted 
which include various missional projects within the church communities. 
These, along with staff and promotional material become our Conference 
Benevolences; which like World Service, are not all "benevolent" but 
comprise the basic conference budget exclusive of Conference Adminis¬ 
tration and Ministerial Support. The Conference Benevolences budget 
has grown each year and is considerably larger than the World Service 
Apportionment. In 1977 Conference Benevolences were $1,659,245 for 
the Pacific and Southwest Annual Conference of the United Methodist 
Church as compared to $660,906 for World Service in the same year. ^ 

In response to the questionnaire, two ministers wrote comments 
in 1977 about our conference funding that are worthy of comparison. 

Often people distrust conference programing and would rather send 
money to a specific project. Sometimes we have designated gifts 
from persons who do not want their money used for conference or 
administration. 

I am motivated by confidence in the administrative bodies of the 
United Methodist Church and have a sense of responsibility for 
global ministries. I give more to World Service and Conference 
benevolences than to the local church to help make up for those 
who give nothing! 

It would seem that our ministerial leadership is motivated in 
different ways. 


^Pacific and Southwest Annual Conference of the United 
Methodist Church, Treasurer’s Office Statement, (Mimeographed) 1977. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




31 . 


GENERAL ADVANCE SPECIALS: 


General Advance Specials are strictly voluntary and involve 
people in giving on a very personal basis. In 1975 Advance Specials 
in the national church compared favorably with World Service with 
$15,468,323 given voluntarily as compared to $21,849,580 paid our 
World Service Apportionment. 11 That is phenomenal! One of the 
motivations working for Advance Specials is the assurance that the 
entire amount given goes directly to the project. (World Service 
assures this by paying all administration costs.) A layperson res¬ 
ponding to the questionnaire in 1976 said he was motivated by: 

...a clear understanding of a special need and a feeling that 
contributions will help fulfill that need, plus knowledge that 
most funds will go directly for that need. 

The Rev. Joe W. Walker, Assistant General Secretary for the 

Section of Cultivation in the Board of Global Ministries of the United 

Methodist Church explains the Advance. 

For a quarter of a century the Advance has been a means of engaging 
church members in mission at its growing edge, where plans are 
formed and hopes made reality. A privilege available to persons 
whose involvement in the total program of the church reaches beyond 
regular benevolence responsibilities...(You respond) to a situation 
anywhere in the Christian Church where love says plainly, "The Lord 
has need of this." 

One of many exciting stories that came out of the early days of 
the Advance is told by Webb Garrison. 


11 


"Division of Interpretation..." 


12 

Partnership 
p. 5. 


Nancy E. Sartin, (ed.). Catalogue of General Advance Specials , 
in Missions (New York: Board of Global Ministries, 1973), 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




32 . 


In 1950, Bishop Donald Harvey Tippett visited a remote village in 
what was then the Belgian Congo. The villagers had been recipients 
of "Advance for Christ and His Church" money given by Methodists 
in the United States that was making possible schools and religious 
growth. They referred to the United States Methodists as "asking 
nothing and giving much". The chief told of the great Usingi Tree 
in their forest which gives shelter to all and said "...the 
Methodists are like a tall tree with outstretched arms that gives 
help and healing to people in need no matter where they may be." 13 

In the last 25 years the paternalistic attitude has changed 
for the better within the United Methodist Church and there is a 
working relationship between countries. 

The United Methodist Committee on Relief, better known as UMCOR 

preceeded the General Advance. Created by the General Conference in 

1940 to "minister in the spirit of Jesus Christ" overseas it now 

ministers to disaster areas within the United States as well. The 

committee provides relief, rehabilitation, refugee resettlement and 

renewal of life in a creative and compassionate way. 

In recent years disasters from both natural and man made circum¬ 
stances have averaged one every eleven days. Each disaster must 
of course tell its own story. In some cases 200 lives are affected, 
while in other cases the numbers may be in the millions. Whenever 
or wherever disaster occurs UMCOR seeks to bring swift response, 
often in less than 72 hours. ^ 

The General Advance covers all aspects of the church with 
missionaries and services in agriculture, child care, community devel¬ 
opment, education, evangelism, justice, interchurch work, literacy, 
medical care, refugee resettlement, disaster relief, transportation, 
women's work, youth work, work with the aged and establishment 


13 

Webb Garrison, Giving Wings to a Warm Heart (Evanston: 
Commission on Promotion and Cultivation of the Methodist Church, 1968), 
p. 87. 

14 

Sartin, p. 9. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




33 . 


and building of new churches. 

All Advance projects might be called "faith projects" for there 
are no quotas or apportionments or guarantees to cover their support - 
only the voluntary support from those Christians who respond because, 
"The Lord has need of this". ^ 

As a minister of a 200 member church put it in responding to the 

questionnaire on what motivates people to give: 

The ability to share; the insight to see; 
the Spirit of God floating free! 

VOLUNTARY FUNDS AND OFFERINGS: 

The church lifts up a number of special causes and official 
offerings throughout the year to which members are requested to respond. 
Some have goals that are suggested to each church such as for Human 
Relations Day, United Methodist Student Day and Youth Service Fund. 
Others give no financial goal to the local church but request an 
offering such as for One Great Hour of Sharing and World Communion. 

Promotional material is mailed out from the national office and 
each church is encouraged to share this with its members and give them 
the opportunity to respond. 

The following reply from a layperson at Mission Possible in 
1976 is illustrative of many such comments written in response to the 
question, "What do you feel motivates you to give beyond your local 
church pledge." 

The desire to help people in need coupled with information desig¬ 
nating and interpreting that need- 


Ibid., p. 5. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




34 . 


In the questionnaire, people checked which special offerings 

they gave to during the year. (Appendix B, page 95) 

71.2% checked One Great Hour of Sharing 
60.6% checked World Communion Sunday 
37.3% checked United Methodist Student Day 
36.3% checked Human Relations Sunday 

People do respond when given an opportunity. As Webb Garrison 
expressed after surveying the generosity of Methodist giving to all 
forms of benevolence giving: 

...even the hasty glimpse at benevolence giving in the Methodist 
Church, and the philosophy and methods underlying cultivation 
and promotion of causes supported, is enough to warm the heart 
of every constituent and to make him (her) hold his (her) head 
high. 

UNITED METHODIST WOMEN PLEDGE TO MISSIONS: 

The women of the church never cease to amaze me. On the national 
level the United Methodist Women consistantly produce millions of dollars 
every year. In 1976 Women’s Division gave $13,462,198. 17 Representing 
53.9% of the entire church's World Service Fund of $24,980,000. ^ On 
the Pacific and Southwest Conference level, the United Methodist Women 
gave $722,105 for missions in 1977. ^ The same year the churches of 
the Conference gave $739,708 for mission outreach. ^ ^ ot on iy that, 

16 

Garrison, p. 88. 

17 

"Women's Division 1976 Appropriations", (Mimeographed) 1976. 

18 

"Division of Interpretation..." 

19 

"United Methodist Women's Financial Statement", Los Angeles. 
(Mimeographed) 1977. 

20 „ ... 

Council on Finance and Administration, Apportionments Print¬ 
out, Pacific and Southwest Annual Conference of the United Methodist 
Church, 1977. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




35 . 


they give twice - once to their local unit of United Methodist Women 
and again to their local church. 

What is the motivation behind such dedication? One woman at 
the School of Christian Mission in Flagstaff, Arizona in 1977 phrased 
it this way. 

Our pledge to mission is voluntary. We are not given a goal to 
meet. We feel that global mission and mission here at home is a 
sacred trust of every Christian. We believe in education for 
mission and practical giving of our money as well as our time. 

We put emphasis on undesignated giving to missions but give those 
who wish to the opportunity to designate their gift. 

Another woman at "Mission Possible" in 1976 who checked she was 

a member of United Methodist Women expressed herself on the questionnaire. 

Individuals should pay attention to information provided by World 
Division and National Division of the Board of Global Ministries. 
Individuals would then know how the money they contributed is 
distributed to areas of great need. When the individual recognizes 
the good his (her) contribution produces he (she) would probably 
contribute more to other areas of need. 

In 1975 the United Methodist Women and former Board of Global 
Ministries of the now Pacific and Southwest Conference jointly pre¬ 
pared a book on missionaries and related projects. 

...64 (conference-related) persons are representative of over 800 
United Methodist Missionaries who share in our ministries in 93 
countries. Our World Service Giving and the Pledge to Missions of 
United Methodist Women as well as Advance Special Gifts provide 
support for these ministries. 21 

Missions Undesignated, $521,160, comprise the largest share 
of the total United Methodist women conference budget with Missions 
Designated, $79,476, and Conference Related Projects, $36,035, (both 
designated and undesignated) comparing to 22.2% of Missions Undesignated. 


21 Dale K. Smith, (ed.), Facing Up to be Alive in Mission 
(Los Angeles: Southern Califomia-Arizona Conference of the United 
Methodist Church, 1975), p.3. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




36 . 


From the looks of the administrative portion of the budget, $122,008 

($34,880 of which is in and out expense for School of Missions) most 

of the work is done by volunteers and the major part of administration 

22 

covers education, cultivation and personal contact with local units. 

The General Church could take some lessons from the women in 
good stewardship of time, talent and resources. Observe these question¬ 
naire statements from women at "Mission Possible" in 1976 as they ex¬ 
press what motivates them. 

My membership and almost total involvement in United Methodist 
Women and my church - 

Visiting projects of United Methodist Women and United Methodist 
Women study courses - 

Education by United Methodist Women leaders - 
United Methodist Women study courses and meetings - 

Marilyn Mabee, former conference president of United Methodist 
Women, and Jean Wickett former president of the conference Board of 
Global Ministries sum it up: 

So look and care, confront and challenge, change an^sacrifice; and 
learn anew what the Church of Jesus Christ can do. 

PROMOTIONAL AIDS: 

The contemporary established patterns of motivation in the United 
Methodist Church involve many promotional aids such as literature, films, 
magazines and missionary letters. Possibly the best ways to promote 

^ "United Methodist Women's Financial Statement" 

23 

Smith, p. 4. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




37 . 


the cause are persons involved in mission. Missionaries, Field 
Representatives of the Advance, national and conference mission person¬ 
nel and local pastors excited about missions, are all excellent resources. 

The Service Center of the United Methodist Board of Global 
Ministries located in Cincinnati, Ohio provides many educational 
leaflets, a Prayer Calendar listing missionaries, mission films and 
filmstrips and related materials to motivate people. 

Magazines include New World Outlook, the mission voice of the 
total church; Response , a journal of the United Methodist Women; and 
the Interpreter , a program magazine of the church with some mission 
interpretation included. 

Missionary letters are written periodically and circulated 
by the Board to those interested. Supporting churches also hear direct¬ 
ly from missionaries. 

The Pacific and Southwest Conference published a promotional 
book on "projects and personalities of conference-related missionaries" 
with the title of Facing Up to be Alive in Mission in 1975, featuring 
pictures of missionaries, maps, biographical sketches and various infor¬ 
mation. The picture page at the end of this chapter is from this 

, ,24 

book. 

SUMMARY: 


The apportionment method of funding the benevolence program 
of the church is questioned by some, but provides a fair way of letting 

24 

Ibid., p. 83. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




38 . 


the local church carry its "fair share" of the total, based on its 
ability to pay. 

World Service is the basic benevolence program of the church 

and over half of the income 53.69% goes directly to world and national 
25 

projects. The United Methodist Church has consistently been in the 
lead in total benevolence giving when compared with other denominations. 
In 1975 the church gave 23.0% of its total contributions for benevo¬ 
lences. ^ 

Missional Priorities were added by the 1976 General Conference 
covering world hunger, the ethnic minority local church and evangelism. 
The Ministerial Education Fund and Black College Fund were continued 
and all have been apportioned to the local church. 

Conference Benevolences are added to World Service and appor¬ 
tioned to the local church. They are larger than the World Service 

asking. In 1977 Conference Benevolences were $1,659,245 as compared 

27 

to $660,906 for World Service. 

General Advance Specials are voluntary and the entire amount 

given goes directly to the project specified. World Service assures 

this by paying all administrative costs. United Methodist Committee 

on Relief is part of the General Advance. 

Whenever or wherever disaster occurs UMCOR seeks to bring swift 

9 ft 

response, often in less than 72 hours. 

Voluntary Funds and Offerings include One Great Hour of Sharing, 


25 

26 

27 

28 


"Division of Interpretation..." 
Murphy, Meeker, and Jacquet, p. 5. 
Treasurer's Office Statement- 
Sartin, p. 9. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




39 . 


World Communion Sunday, United Methodist Student Day, Human Relations 
Sunday and Methodist Youth Fund. 

Webb Garrison noted: 

...even a hasty glimpse at benevolence giving... is enough to 
warm the heart of every constitutent...9 

The United Methodist Women on the national level consistently 

produce millions of dollars every year. Over half, 53.9% of the entire 

, 30 

church s mission outreach is provided by the women of the church. 

Their motivation comes from their voluntary pledge to missions (mostly 
undesignated), educational opportunities, and dedication. 

Promotional Aids include educational leaflets, a Prayer Calendar 
listing all missionaries, mission films and filmstrips, missionary 
letters, magazines such as New World Outlook , Response and the Inter¬ 
preter . The conference has promotional materials on local projects 
and the book. Facing Up to be Alive in Mission on missionaries and 
projects. The best aids are people: missionaries. Field Representatives 
of the Advance, national and conference mission personal and local 
"excited" pastors. 


^ Garrison, p. 88. 

"Women's Division..." 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 
























41 . 


Chapter IV 

PATTERNS OF GIVING WITHIN THE LOCAL UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 


In North America, with the seperation of church and state, volun¬ 
tary giving became the necessary form of church support. Churches 
have thrived under this pattern. Christian stewardship with its 
call to commitment of life and resources will be a necessary part 
in the renewal of the churches. 

In 1976, I gave out the first questionnaires, "Motivation in 
Mission Outreach", to those attending "Mission Possible" in San Diego, 
in order to ascertain the patterns of giving within the churches of 
the Pacific and Southwest Conference of the United Methodist Church. 

In the remainder of that year and the following year I shared the 
questionnaire with numerous groups and individuals, both laypersons 
and pastors. (Appendix A) 

A total of 931 questionnaires were distributed and the answers 
of 531 persons, representing a good cross section of churches and indi¬ 
viduals in the conference, are found in this research project. The 
present chapter deals with the results of this survey. 

INCOME OF LAITY AND PASTORS: 

John Wesley, spiritual father of Methodism, said to his early 
followers: 

Get all you can, save all you can, give all you can. Permit me to 
speak of myself freely as I would of any other man. I gain all I 
can without hurting my body or soul. I save all I can; not wasting 
anything, not a sheet of paper, nor a cup of water. I do not lay 
out anything, not a shilling, unless a sacrifice for God, yet by 


Winburn T. Thomas, Stewardship in Mission (Englewood Cliffs: 
Prentice-Hall, 1964),p. 103. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




42 . 


giving all I can, I am effectually secured from laying up treasures 
upon earth. ^ 

Our present day laity and clergy have done fairly well in 
following that advice. We seem to have incomes ranging from 7.0% with 
under $5,000 a year to 10.4% over $25,000 a year. (Appendix B, page 91) 
Out of 522 persons who checked their income range: 

7.0% had incomes of under $5,000 a year. 

21.1% had incomes of $5,000 to $10,000 a year. 

32.2% had incomes of $10,000 to $15,000 a year. 

27.7% had incomes of $15,000 to $25,000 a year. 

10.4% had incomes of over $25,000 a year. 

It may be interesting to note that the Pacific and Southwest 
Conference of the United Methodist Church, located in the far west, 
is situated in one of the largest income areas in the United States, 
with per capita annual personal income of $7,164. Only a small part 
of the mideast with $8,648 and Alaska with $10,178 surpasses this area. 
(But then, who would want all that snow!) 

A woman attending the United Methodist Women School of Christian 
Mission in 1977 reflected this affluence as she wrote on her question¬ 


naire : 


We are usually motivated locally because we are being blessed our¬ 
selves. Our church is thriving. 


Ralph Cushman, Dealing Squarely with God (New York: Abingdon 
Press, 1927), p. 28. 

3 

"Survey of Current Business" (U.S. Department of Commerce, 
Bureau of Economic Analysis, April 1977), p. 19. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




43 . 


The average annual income varies for the different groups of 
pastors and laity. (Appendix C, page 101) 


PASTORS 


54 pastors whose 
churches gave 
missionary support 
in 1976 

43 pastors whose 
churches were 
top Benevolence 
givers in 1976 

49 pastors serving 
churches of 
under 200 
members in 1977 

22 ethnic pastors 
responding in 
1977 


AVERAGE 

ANNUAL 

INCOME 

$20,185 


$19,651 


$14,285 


$14,090 


LAITY 


AVERAGE 

ANNUAL 

INCOME 


46 laity whose $22,717 
churches were 
top Benevolence 
givers in 1976 
81 laity attend- $17,098 
ing WMW School 
of Mission in 
in 1977 (includ¬ 
ing 2 pastors) 

205 laity attending $16,463 
"Mission Possible" 
in 1976 (includ¬ 
ing 8 pastors) 


11 retired miss- $8,636 

ionaries re¬ 
sponding in 
1976 

13 students at $5,769 

School of 
Theology re¬ 
sponding in 1976 

It is not surprising to see the laity with a higher average 
annual income, $18,759, than pastors, $16,300. I have not included 
the retired missionaries or students at the School of Theology at 
Claremont as that would lower the average further and be an unfair 


comparison. 

The North American Church study in 1972 gives the following 
income figures ^ which are interesting to compare with today’s salaries. 


^ Douglas W. Johnson and Georgd W. Cornell, Punctured Precon¬ 
ceptions (New York: Friendship Press, 1972) p. 136. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




44 . 


TOTAL U. S. FAMILY INCOME IN 1970 


PASTORS 

AVERAGE ANNUAL 

INCOME 

LAITY 

45.6% 

$ 5,000 to $ 9,999 

16.0% 

43.8% 

10,000 to 17,999 

40.3% 

6.2% 

18,000 to 24,999 

8.8% 

.2% 

over $25,000 

5.1% 


Here too, the laity had higher salaries than pastors in all 

denominations across the United States. The median laity salary for 

1970 was $11,075 compared to $10,111 for pastors. 

Organized religion, like other privately financed agencies, is on 
the whole, struggling with powerful forces of inflation in the 
U.S. Although the dollar amounts of giving have increased from 
$69.00 per capita full member in 1961 to $149.07 in 1976, an in¬ 
crease of 116 percent, in constant 1967 dollars the increase is 
only from $77.01 in 1961 to $87.43 in 1976, an increase in real 
terms of only 14.5 percent. 5 

It is easy to see what this has done to the individual's buying 
power, as well as that of the church, even with increased income. How¬ 
ever, a layperson responding to the questionnaire in 1976 from one 
of the top Benevolence giving churches of the conference wrote: 

When I recognized how grateful I was for all God had given me and 
my family, I was eager and excited to give 10%. God has always 
provided for us, during death and unemployment as well. 

With that refreshing statement of faith, let us move on to per¬ 
sonal giving as related to the conference laity and pastors who were 
involved in this project. 


Nordon C. Murphy, Bettie Meeker, and Constant H. Jacquet, Jr., 
Church Financial Statistics and Related Data (New York: Council Press, 
1977), pp. 4-5. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 





45 . 


PERSONAL GIVING HABITS OF LAITY AND PASTORS: 


In our modern economy the predominance of money created a special 
problem. On the one hand, people are particularly reluctant to 
part with their money. On the other, the impression prevails that 
the giving of money is the only way of sharing... Notwithstanding 
its impersonal character, however, money proves to be an extremely 
convenient means of sharing... Far from spurning this mode of 
assistance, ge should be grateful to God for granting us this mode 
of helping. 

Bishop Azariah, the first Indian to be made Bishop in his 
country, and a product of the mission field, wrote a classic in Christ¬ 
ian Stewardship in 1939. It was translated into English in 1955. In 
writing for the Christians of India he states: 

We do not give because we want to receive; 

We give because we have received. 7 

We are grateful to God for granting us the ability and oppor¬ 
tunity to give of our money. A large group of respondents to the ques¬ 
tionnaire expressed "gratitude" and the opportunity to "share" as high 
motivating factors, as we shall see towards the end of this chapter. 

One such layperson from a top Benovolence giving church in the confer¬ 
ence expressed this in 1976. 

It brings satisfaction to individuals and congregations to be able 
to help others. It's kind of a chain reaction, when you give, you 
want to give more. 

The personal giving of our conference laity and pastors is an 
interesting comparison of various groups’ average annual income with 
their weekly pledge and the percentage of their income their giving 
represents. (Appendix C, pages 101-102) 


6 Otto A. Piper, The Christian Meaning of Money (Englewood 
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1965) p. 88. 

^ V.S. Azariah, Christian Giving (New York: Association Press, 
1955) p. 87. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




46 . 


PASTORS: 


AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE 

ANNUAL WEEKLY PERCENTAGE 

INCOME PLEDGE GIVEN 


54 pastors whose churches 
gave missionary 
salary support 
in 1976 

43 pastors whose 
churches were top 
Benevolence givers 
in 1976 

49 pastors serving churches 
of under 200 members 
in 1977 

22 ethnic pastors re¬ 
sponding in 1977 


$20,185 

$30.24 

7.8% 

$19,651 

$29.20 

7.7% 

$14,285 

$23.83 

8.7% 

$14,090 

$21.18 

7.8% 


11 retired missionaries 

$ 8,636 

$11.36 

who responded in 1976 



13 Claremont students 

$ 5,769 

$ 6.33 

who responded in 1976 




6 . 8 % 


5.7% 


LAITY: 


46 laity whose churches $22,717 $37.58 8.6% 

were top Benevolence 

givers in 1976 (These laity were selected by pastors from 
high pledgers in local churches.) 


81 laity attending 
UMW School of 
Christian Mission 
in 1977 (including 
2 pastors) 

205 laity attending 
"Mission Possible" 
in 1976 (including 
8 pastors) 


$17,098 


$16,463 


$16.17 


$17.16 


4.9% 


5.4% 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



47 . 


In evaluating the chart: 

(1) Pastors give more in cash, as well as on a percentage basis, 
than do the laity. 

(2) Pastors, though very generous, on the average do not tithe 
their total annual income. 

(3) Missionary salary supporting churches and top Benevolence 
giving churches seem also to be more generous in pastoral 
support. 

(4) Pastors serving churches of under 200 members appear to be 
the most generous of all. (I have not included retired 
missionaries or Claremont students in the report since I have 
so few questionnaire responses, but am impressed with their 
total contribution to the project and especially their write- 
in comments.) 


Pastors, who on the average have over $2,000 less annual income 
than laypersons in the survey, contribute over $100 more in actual 
dollars than do the laity. The pastors' percentage giving is also 
almost 2% higher than the laity. (Appendix C, page 101) Retired 
missionaries and students at the School of Theology at Claremont are 
not included below. 


AVERAGE 

ANNUAL 

INCOME 

332 Laity $18,759 

168 Pastors $16,300 


AVERAGE 

WEEKLY 

PLEDGE 

$23.63 

$26.11 


AVERAGE 

PERCENTAGE 

GIVER 

6 . 6 % 

8.3% 


The laity pledge represented here is obviously more generous 


than the average pledge in most local churches. The top Benevolence 


giving church pastors were asked to select high pledgers to respond to 
the questionnaire, as the purpose was not to find out why people do not 
give to mission outreach but rather why do they give. We were concerned 
with the positive aspect in giving, not the negative. One of the very 
positive replys received from a layperson in a top Benevolence giving 
church reads: 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



48 . 


Deep, personal gratefulness for what God has done for me and my 
family encourages me to give. A sense of love and gratitude give 
me the desire and willingness to reach out and help others less 
fortunate. 

The 46 laypersons from the 100 top Benevolence churches in the 
conference not only had the highest weekly pledge, $37.58 but had a 
very strong record in percentage giving as well, 8.6%, which is higher 
than all the pastoral groups except one, which we will discuss later. 

In addition to the previous laity we have the 205 who attended 
"Mission Possible" and the 81 who took part in the United Methodist 
Women School of Christian Mission. These included more of the 
middle and upper middle income people but with seemingly a higher moti¬ 
vation than the average local church member. Their average weekly 
pledge of $16.67 between the two groups, is better than most in the 
local church and their combined percentage giving is a little more 
than 5%, which is very good for any local church. One of the partici¬ 
pants in "Mission Possible" wrote: 

As a member of the United Methodist Church and the United Methodist 
Women and especially as a member of Christ's Church, I feel it is 
my way of expressing God's love and concern for me that He has 
given me enough to share with others, and a sense that I am about 
my Father's business. In order to get, one must give, which has 
been proven to me over and over again. 

As evaluated in the questionnaire and observed on the preceeding 
chart, all pastors, though very generous, do not tithe their total 
income. Surprisingly, the 49 pastors serving churches of under 200 
members and with almost the lowest average annual income, $14,285, give 
the highest percentage, 8.7%, which still does not reach the biblical 
tithe (Leviticus 27:30; Deuteronomy 14:22; Malachi 3:8;10). 

As pastors, we are no more under the law than our laity, even 
though Jesus did say, "These things you should have done and not left 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



49 . 


the others undone" (Matthew 23:23). Tithing is a method of giving 

which many have found to be very freeing. As income goes up, giving 

goes up. As income decreases, personal giving decreases. Listen to 

a pastor from a church giving missionary salary support: 

I believe in tithing with all my heart, not out of a sense of 
obligation or by law, but because it has been the most practical 
method of giving to God's work I have found. I began as a youth 
and have continued all through my ministry. I tithe on my gross 
income through the church and throw in the special offerings and 
community requests extra. I find it a joy to give! You can't 
outgive God! 

Many laypersons affirmed their faith in tithing on the question- 
nairs as well. 

The practical and spiritual rewards of tithing have encouraged me 
to increase my tithe every year. It has increased my faith. 

School of Christian Mission, 1977 

It has been traditional in my family to give at least 10% of our 
income to church and related projects. 

Mission Possible, 1976 

Others may need gimics to give their tithe. I don't . 

Top Benevolence giving church, 1976. 

In 1970, the North American Church survey found that the pastor 
gave an average of $14.65 a week to the church as compared to $5.52 

g 

given by the layperson. With reference to a study of clergy salaries 

made by the National Council of Churches: 

When asked what they would like to do if they had more money they 
replied that, after paying their debts and educating their children, 
they would contribute to worthy causes. Not every group would rate 
this as being more important than being able to travel or to own a 
summer home. People with a strong sense of the purposes of God are 
moved by them. ^ 


Johnson and Cornell, p. 137. 

g 

Martin E. Carlson, Why People Give (New York: Council Press, 
1968) p. 141. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




50 . 


Missionary salary supporting churches and top Benevolence giv¬ 
ing churches seem also to be more generous in pastoral support. These 
churches vary in size and budgets. For instance the 54 churches giving 
missionary salary support in 1976: ^ 

6 churches are from 50 to 299 
9 churches are from 300 to 499 
19 churches are from 500 to 999 
15 churches are from 1,000 to 1,499 
5 churches are from 1,500 to 2,700' 

There were 49 of these same churches on the 100 top Benevolence 
giving churches in the conference in 1976. It is interesting to observe 
in this report that 44 of the 54 churches were paying on mortgages rang¬ 
ing from about $10,000 to $725,000. ^ 

Missionary salary supporting pastors have the highest annual 
income with an average of $20,185 and the top Benevolence giving pastors 
are a close second with $19,651. Both groups give $29.72 a week on the 
average with the missionary salary support pastors giving a slightly 
higher percentage of their income. (Appendix C, page 101) Generous, 
yes; but not as generous as the small church pastors. 

The big surprise was found among the 49 pastors serving churches 
of under 200 members. Their reported income was almost the lowest, 
$14,285, and their percentage of giving was the highest, 8.7%. Not 
only the percentage, but the actual weekly dollar figure, $23.83, was 
close to the high of the missionary and Benevolence churches, $29.72. 
There must be a great sense of dedication in the pastors of these 


Dale K. Smith, "Evaluation of 54 Churches Giving Missionary 
Salary Support ", (Mimeographed), 1976. 


11 


Ibid. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




51 . 


churches. At the same time their remarks in the questionnaire were 
very human and represented the same frustrations found in most 
churches: 

...what benevolences? We can't pay the janitor... 

. ..we have a mortgage of $880 a month to meet... 

...no one who voted for the building of our expensive sanctuary 

is any longer a member of this local church... 

...current expenses need cared for... 

Other comments from these pastors serving churches of under 
200 members indicated their sense of commitment: 

...a faith deeply rooted in Jesus Christ... 

...I think when properly challenged the individuals or churches 
will go beyond the second mile... 

...the feeling that "my contribution makes a difference". 

...commited to Christ and the Mission of His Church... 

...Christ life style... 

...self discipline... 

The ethnic churches in the income and pledge section of the 
report are represented by 2 Afro American pastors, 5 Hispanic American, 
14 Asian American and 1 Native American. One ethnic pastor exclaimed 
in response to the questionnaire: 

Church is for the Mission! 

Another ethnic pastor responded: 

If people realize that they are children of God and they are par¬ 
ticipating in the ministry of God, their world, their thinking 
pattern will be changed and motivated. 

Retired missionaries and students at the School of Theology at 
Claremont are in a different category and represent small representations 
of their groups. They comprise the lowest annual income but their 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



52 . 


percentage giving is quite impressive with retired missionaries 
giving 6.8% of their income and Claremont students sharing 5.7%. 

One retired missionary stated it this way: 

...I was taught to tithe, and share beyond that as much as possible... 
A student responded: 

I am part of the "privileged" who "have". I have no choice, in the 
light of the Gospel, to give - or I am asking more than the Rich 
Young Ruler. 

In the light of this student’s response, we could also hear from 
a contemporary writer. 

What is one's duty if, as an American, he lives in the richest 
country in the history of the world? Are we called to give it all 
up for the poor? To give some of it up? To manage all of it more 
ethically? ^ 


Donald W. Shriver, Rich Man Poor Man (Richmond: John Knox 
Press, 1972) p. 52. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




53 . 


AREAS WHERE LAITY AND PASTORS GIVE: 


I have not been able to go personally to serve and participate 
in God's redemptive work in telling the Good News to those far 
away, so I give that others may go and minister. It is exciting 
to be able to participate in what God is doing today. 

So expressed a layperson from one of the top Benevolence 
giving churches. Laity and pastors alike have caught that excite¬ 
ment. Both checked in the questionnaire where they gave beyond their 
local church pledge. Out of 19 listed areas, 5 areas received 49.0% 
or more positive responses. (Appendix B, page 95) 

71.2% checked One Great Hour of Sharing 

60.6% checked World Communion 

60.1% checked United Methodist Women Pledge 

(42.9% of all respondents were members of United Methodist 
Women.) 

55.4% checked United Methodist Committee on Relief 
49.0% checked Local Community Projects 

Each of the church groups listed all of the top 5 areas first 
even though in a different order. However there were these additions: 
(Appendix B, page 94) 

Ethnic Churches listed Human Relations in third place and 
World Advance Specials in fifth place. 

Churches Under 200 listed United Methodist Student Day in fourth 
place and Human Relations in fifth place, 

Claremont Students listed United Methodist Student Day in fourth 
place and School of Theology in fifth place . 

Retired Missionaries listed World Advance Specials and School of 
Theology in third place and Missionary Salary in fifth place. 

It is worth noting that the two in first place are requested 
special offerings in the total church without apportionments, whereas 
some of the others that were checked fewer times are specials that 
carry goals for the local church (such as United Methodist Student Day 
and Human Relations Sunday). Others on the list may be carried in a 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



54 . 


local church budget and individuals never have reason to give. 

The United Methodist Women Pledge is close to the top of the 
list, (42.9% of those responding were members). This is a good sign 
of across the conference support of this excellent mission-oriented 
organization. 

This is only a partial list of possible places where one can 

give, but these are areas made available in most churches for special 

giving. Other areas listed in the order of those checked were: 

(Appendix B, page 95-96) 

37.3% United Methodist Student Day 
36.3% Human Relations 
34.8% World Advance Specials 
27.9% Missionary Salary Support 
24.3% School of Theology 
23.2% U.S. Advance Special Projects 
17.3% Conference Second Mile Specials 
14.5% Quechan Farm Project 
13.7% All Nations Foundation 
12.4% Wesley Foundation 
11.7% Youth Service Fund 
8.5% Toberman Settlement House 
5.6% Plaza Community Center 
3.6% Hawaii Projects 

This gives an idea as to the number of persons interested in a 

given area, but by no means indicates the financial support. In 1977, 

according to the Pacific and Southwest Conference treasurer's office, 

13 

the following funding was accomplished: 


Council on Finance and Administration Apportionments "Print¬ 
out", Pacific and Southwest Annual Conference of United Methodist 
Church, 1977. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




55 . 


One Great Hour of Sharing 
World Communion 
United Methodist Committee 
on Relief 

United Methodist Student Day 
Human Relations 
World Advance Specials 
School of Theology 
U.S. Advance Specials 
Youth Service Fund 

The Rev. David H. Blackburn, 


% of Persons 

Financial 

Who Checked 

Support 

71.2% 

$ 97,121 

60.6% 

$ 34,855 

55.4% 

$ 80,699 

37.3% 

$ 18,658 

36.3% 

$ 28,935 

34.8% 

$104,414 

24.3% 

$ 6,995 

23.2% 

$ 35,405 

11.7% 

$ 23,853 

Western Field 

Representative for 


Advance Specials, Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist 

Church expresses our desire to give. 

You can hardly find space to begin listing all of the ways in which 
our individual congregations are in mission. Persons give themselves 
and their financial support generously to such programs as FISH, 
child-care centers, senior citizens' lunches, youth coffee houses, 
crisis telephone lines, job-co-ops, recreation centers, apartment 
house evangelism, tutoring, low-cost housing and dozens of other 
projects. Where a human need exists in his community, a Christian 
dedicated to mission will seek some way in which to be of service 
and to give a witness. 


AREAS WHERE CHURCHES GIVE: 


In the questionnaire 6 areas were listed where most churches 

give. Respondents checked these and the answers were compiled. 

(Appendix B, page 92) 

AREAS WHERE CHURCHES GIVE 

76.8% give to non-conference local projects 
73.6 % give to United Methodist Committee on Relief 
71.8% give to World Advance Special Projects 
71.4% give to Local Conference Projects 
54.0% give to U.S. Advance Special Projects 
47.8% give to Missionary Salary Support 


Dale K. Smith, (ed.) Facing Up to be Alive in Mission (Los 
Angeles: Southern California-Arizona Annual Conference of the United 
Methodist Church, 1975). 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




56 . 


The first observation is that the majority of local churches 
continue to find local projects that are not connected with the 
conference. The local church needs to be in mission where it is. 

The second observation is that the local church also places 

great emphasis on conference-related and national church related 

opportunities of giving for three of the areas are near the same 

percentage response as non-conference local projects. World Advance 

Special Projects and local conference projects are all in the low 

seventy percent as compared with the top at 76.9% 

The church's mission to the world is inherent in the gospel, its 
concern for persons in the shadow of its steeple is also mandated 
by the.gospel. Benevolence giving is not either - or; it is both - 
and. 15 


The pastor of a church of under 200 members wrote: 

I am sure in our church, mission giving is too much of a secret... 
If people know of a real need, they will give. 

As if in response to this, a woman at "Mission Possible" ex¬ 
pressed herself: 

Someone presents a need - a cause needs support - Human hurts need 
attention - Bad conditions need correcting - That's where I want 
to be! 


HOW CHURCHES SPONSOR CAUSES: 


How does the local church sponsor these needs? A variety of 
alternatives were listed and respondents checked them off with the 
largest number of churches listing church budget (80.8%) and the 
smallest response going to foundation money (4.0%). (Appendix B, page 93) 


Wallace E. Fisher, A New Climate for Stewardship (Nashville: 
Abingdon Press, 1976), p. 89. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




57 . 


HOW CHURCHES SPONSOR CAUSES 
80.8% through church budget 

75.6% through special offerings at Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter 
62.5% through special offerings at other times 
53.8% through individual gifts 
44.1% through church-wide projects 
32.4% through you ::h projects 
30.7% through memorials 
30.3% through seperate mission pledge 
25.6% through class projects 
20.7% through envelopes in annual boxes 
16.8% through personal contacts 
10.5% through Faith-Promise pledges 
4.0% through foundation money 

The Church budget, various special offerings and designated 
gifts appear to be the most popular ways for churches to sponsor 
causes that are not local expenses or conference apportionments. Even 
the seperate pledge for missions is not used as much now. (30.3% still 
find it useful.) Henry Kuizenga, Professor of Preaching at the 

School of Theology at Claremont, made an observation on the subject. 

The "regular" pledge should include "mission" giving. The Church 
is in mission locally and extra-locally. But whether at home or 
beyond, what the church does jLs its mission. That is the only 
purpose and raison 1 d'etre of the Church, MISSION . 

We ask for money for the church's mission. This mission budget is 
then divided for local mission and mission beyond the local scene. 

My experience is that splitting the budget into one for the local 
congregation and one "for others", caters to the obsession Americans 
already have with spending most of their money on themselves. By 
splitting the budget, we cater to their obsession, most of the 
budget "for ourselves", a smaller portion "for others". ^ 

It is interesting to note that out of 54 missionary salary 

support churches, only 16 have that item in the budget. ^ 


Henry Kuizenga, written statement, 1978. 
Smith, "Evaluation of 54 Churches ..." 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




58 . 


The Faith-Promise pledges seem to have had good response where 
used and projects such as Christmas Tree for Missions, Joy of Christmas 
Giving and Missionary Conferences have been well received according to 
the questionnaire remarks. 

There are persons in each church who are responsive when special 
mission causes are presented. Often we guard our members' bank accounts 
when they are perfectly capable of doing that themselves. The pastors' 
responsibility, and that of the leaders in the area of mission, is to 
make these opportunities known. When people are given the opportunity 
to give, it is amazing what God does through them. I agree with Ray 
Knudsen: 


The fact that people have responded to a need with financial 
support does not imply that they have exhausted all their resources. 
Few, if any have given their all... If you have a parish that has 
engaged in a meaningful stewardship program you have reason to 
rejoice because among those who gave you will find those who can 
be challenged to respond to the deserving needs in the parish, 
across the nation, around the world... the records will provide 
identification of those in the parish who are generous, educated 
and experienced in good stewardship. 1 


Later in his book. Dr. Knudsen tells a priceless story: 

A Presbyterian elder & his wife made a gift of $27,000 to a hospital 
drive for an operating room. When asked why they had never done 
anything like this for their church the answer was, "No one has 
ever asked us." In every parish there are those who would contri¬ 
bute more in any one yeaj.than the total budget of the parish if 
they were so motivated. 

We need "mission motivators" in every local church. As pastors 
and leaders in the area of mission we must be motivated to reach out 


beyond ourselves and motivate others to a deeper commitment to Christ 


18 

(New York: 


Raymond B. Knudsen, New Models for Financing the Local Church 
Association Press, 1974) p. 24. 


19 tk * A 

Ibid, p. 


60. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




59 . 


and His Church. People want to respond. They are just waiting to be 
asked. 

Quoting a layperson from a top Benevolence giving church: 

Giving is a way to say thanks. We all need each other. I can’t 
do medical research, but I can give money so others can. 

In addition to giving money we can become personally involved. 

One way is through our contact with persons in mission and their pro¬ 
jects. 

PERSONAL CONTACT WITH PERSONS AND PROJECTS: 

Giving without involvement and identification with those to whom 
we give is charity in the worst sense of that abused word... Grace 
is generosity to thoge in need. God has shown it to us; we must 
show it to others. 

Out of a possible 531 respondents, 268 churches or 50.5% keep 
in personal contact with a missionary and 251 or 47.3% keep in personal 
contact with one or more mission projects. (Appendix B, page 94) 

This is not a bad percentage of personal involvement. A student 

at the School of Theology at Claremont expressed it well: 

Personal contact with a specific person or project is good motivation. 
When persons can "own" something by either becoming familiar with it 
or creating it themselves, they are much more willing to invest in it. 

The pastor of a church with under 200 members thought foreign 
travel was helpful as one made personal contact with others. He pointed 
to Church Extension in Mexico as an example. A woman at the United 
Methodist Women School of Christian Mission said she liked personal 
contact with students from other lands who have been helped by scholar- 


Kenneth Prior, God and Mammon (Philadelphia: Westminster 
Press, 1965) p. 59. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




60 . 


ships or refugees who were assisted in starting a new life. A retired 
missionary was motivated by personal contact with another missionary 
(his daughter)! 

Others spoke of visiting Plaza Community Center, Toberman 
Settlement House, All Nations Foundation, School of Theology at Claremont, 
Quechan Farm Project, Hawaii Churches, Wesley Foundation and mission¬ 
aries in Japan, Mexico and Africa. All of these personal contacts, I 
am sure, were helpful in motivating the visitor in mission outreach. 

But let us now get to the heart of the project. 

WHO OR WHAT MOTIVATES PEOPLE TO GIVE: 


I think motivation comes from within. It is a spiritual matter, 
not a mechanical one. An inner compulsion, prompted by compassion 
for others and love for Christ is the true source of Christian 
giving. 

When I first read this statement, written by a retired mission¬ 
ary in response to the questionnaire, I thought it was beautiful, but 
I did not see the depth in it. 

Bishop Azariah of India wrote another beautiful statement of 


faith: 

The New Covenant is not a covenant of law but of grace. The 
Christian is not under commandments and regulations, but under the 
more compelling rule of love. Consequently, the N.T. never commands 
the offering of tithes... but reiterates the principle of freewill 
offerings as man's response to God's wonderful love in Jesus 
Christ. 21 

It was not until after I figured the percentages on who or what 
motivated persons to give beyond their local church pledge; and then 
evaluated these findings and lived with them for a year, that I realized 


21 


Azariah, 


P- 


83. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




61 . 


that there were only four areas that had more than a 36% positive re¬ 
sponse, and the highest was only 44.4%. This did not even represent 
a majority! So I looked elsewhere in the questionnaire and began to 
re-read the written remarks in response to the question, "What do you 
feel motivates you to give beyond your local church pledge?" Slowly 
I began to see the essence of true motivation. I am eager to share 
this, but first it is necessary to deal with the statistics. 

Those who responded, checked 24 possible areas on who or what 

motivated them. Out of 531 potential checks there were 4 areas that 

received from 195 to 236 positive marks. (Appendix B, pages 96-97) 

44.4% checked Missionary Speakers 
38.8% checked Local Church Programs 
38.4% checked United Methodist Women 

(This was unusal because 42.9% of all respondents were mem¬ 
bers of the United Methodist Women.) 

36.7% checked Pastor 

(For some reason only 3 out of the 44 pastors of the top 
Benevolence giving churches checked pastor. Otherwise Pastor 
would be second only to Missionary Speaker, but still without 
a majority.) 

Most of the church groups listed the same top four, but in a 

different order. There were also these additions: (Appendix B, pages 96-97) 

Mission Possible listed Mission Possible in fourth place. 

Top Benevolence Giving Churches listed Family in fourth place. 

United Methodist Women School of Christian Mission listed Family in 
fourth place. 

Others above 40% included films, layperson, literature, conference, 
District Missions, Conference Missions, U.M.Y.F. 

Ethnic Churches listed District Superintendent in second place. 

Churches Under 200 members listed District Superintendent in first 
place and Family in third place. 

Claremont students listed Secular Media in first place School and 
Literature in second place. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



62 . 


Retired Missionaries listed Family in first place and Circuit 

West and Films in third place. 

The top four areas listed were: Missionary speakers, local 
church programs. United Methodist Women and Pastor. None of these 
carried a majority percentage. However, since these were the highest 
ones checked, one would assume them to be high motivating factors. 
Consequently, if the following steps are followed a church should be 
motivated in mission outreach: 

1. Have missionaries visit during the year. 

2. Sponsor local church programs on the local church in mission. 

3. Encourage women to become active in the United Methodist Women. 

4. Support pastor in showing his or her concern for missions. 

In addition to these four basic steps, the questionnaire points 
toward other motivating factors: 

1. In ethnic churches and churches of under 200 members, remember 
the District Superintendent can help motivate for mission out¬ 
reach . 

2. Be aware that the secular media and school motivates students in 
the School of Theology at Claremont (and more than likely the 
majority of the youth and young adults in our church). 

3. Recognize the basic family unit as a motivating factor for 
mission. 

4. Encourage members to attend "Mission Possible" sponsored by the 
conference and the United Methodist Women. 

Other areas listed, following the top four, and in the order of 
those checked by majority of all groups as to what motivates people 
were: (Appendix B, pages 96 - 97 ) 


29.9% 

Family 

26.2 

Literature 

21.1 

Films 

20.5 

Layperson 

20.2 

District Mission Emphasis 

19.6 

Local Missions 

19.0 

"Mission Possible" 

18.5 

Annual Conference 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



63 . 


18.1% Conference Mission Emphasis 

18.1 Response Magazine 

16.4 Circuit West 

15.8 National or Conference Leader 
15.8 World Outlook 

12.2 United Methodist Youth Fellowship 

12.1 District Superintendent 

(rated higher by pastors than laity) 

11.5 Secular Media 

11.1 Bishop 

(rated higher by pastors than laity) 

10.5 Interpreter 
10.4 Posters 
10.4. School 


A NEW LOOK AT MOTIVATION IN MISSION OUTREACH: 


Now that we have dealt with the statistics let me go back to 
my earlier observation. As I evaluated the findings and realized I 
had a low percentage response in what I felt were basic motivation 
factors, I began to look elsewhere in the responses to the questionnaire 
for the true motivation spark. I found this in the written remarks 
to a write-in question, "What do you feel motivates you to give beyond 
your local church pledge?" and a second, similar question, "What do you 
think motivates individuals and churches to give beyond local budgets 
and conference apportionments?" (Appendix A, page 90) 

One of the pastors of a missionary salary supporting church 
wrote on his questionnaire, "Where is God in all of this?" A year 
earlier I had put this aside as one of those pious statements by a 
modern Methodist Pharisee. I had not even bothered to mark it for 
future reference. In my second search through the written remarks I 
found quite a few statements from both pastors and laypersons with 
reference to spiritual motivation. The following are examples: 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



64 . 


I believe people are motivated as they grow spiritually. As a 
person expands in growth, so grows his or her concern and commit¬ 
ment. 

Mission Possible, 1976 

A total commitment to Christ is a "top priority." When we put 
Christ first in our lives everything else of any value falls into 
place. 

Layperson, top Benevolence giving 
Church, 1976 

The Bible and my commitment to Christ motivates me. Could I ever 
give enough in return? 

United Methodist Women School of 
Christian Mission, 1977 

I am motivated because of Jesus Christ our Lord. Unless I believe 
in Him, I don't give anything to others. 

Ethnic Pastor, 1977 

Ultimately, if people are serious about Jesus Christ, it follows 
that Missions will have a high priority. 

Pastor, top Benevolence giving 
Church, 1976 

Personal commitment to Christ - Basically, spiritual commitment 
comes from spiritual renewal: "The love of Christ constraineth us." 

Retired missionary, 1976 

...I feel God places a burden for certain individuals and ministries 
on our hearts. 

Student, School of Theology, 1976 

A faith deeply rooted in Jesus Christ... 

Pastor, Membership under 200, 1977 

The joy of giving is the joy of knowing God through Jesus Christ! 
Share the joy in every land! 

Pastor, missionary salary supporting 
church, 1976 

Other observations began falling in place as I re-read the 
remarks portion of the questionnaires. It appeared I needed a new 
list of categories to cover the write-in motivations. The list com¬ 
piled follows. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



65 . 


WHAT MOTIVATES PEOPLE TO GIVE 

Categories were set up after comments were written in response 
to the question: "What do you feel motivates you to give beyond 
your local church pledge?" Percentages are figured on the actual 
number of persons who responded from each group. Some persons of 
course, responded to more than one motivation. (Appendix C, page 108) 



TOTAL 

LAYPERSONS 

PASTORS 

(243 

responded) 

(167 responded) 

(76 responded) 

Human Needs 

62.6% 

64.7% 

57.9% 

Faith in God, Christ 

57.2 

51.5 

69.7 

Gratitude to God 

32.5 

37.7 

21.1 

Church Conference Needs 

32.1 

37.7 

19.7 

Personal Involvement 

26.7 

27.5 

25.0 

Desire to Share 

25.1 

32.3 

9.2 

Love for others 

14.4 

12.0 

19.7 

Obligation to God 

7.8 

9.6 

3.9 

Guilt Feelings 

3.7 

4.2 

2.6 

Social Pressure 

2.1 

2.4 

1.3 

The highest motivating factor 

on the list, "human needs", was 

rated higher in remarks by 

the laity than by the clergy. 

Great concern 


for needs of the people of the world and our Christian responsibility 
were contained in these statements. 


Spiritual remarks about faith, God, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit, 
Bible, and a general Christian belief or commitment were expressed 
throughout the questionnaires. Often a faith statement would preceed 
an expression about human need. Thus Christian experience would motivate 
concern for others and their need. Faith in God through Jesus Christ 
appears to be the "true motivating spark" for mission outreach. Pastors 
rated this higher than laypersons, but "faith" at 69.7% was higher than 
the laity top category, "human needs", at 64.7%. (Appendix C, page 108) 
Remarks pertaining to gratitude caused me to refer again to the 
North American Church study. Their findings in 1970 across the United 
States have some things in common with the new list I compiled. The 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



22 


66 . 


results of their study follows. 


MOST IMPORTANT REASONS FOR GIVING TO THE CHURCH 
(Shown on a scale of 1 to 18) 



Laypersons 

Pastor 

Gratitude to God 

18 

18 

A part of worship 

17 

17 

A privilege to share 

16 

15 

An obligation placed on man by God 

15 

14 

Love for others 

14 

16 

Church needs money 

13 

13 

Duty of membership 

12 

12 

Proud of our church 

11 

9 

Approve church programs 

10 

11 

Makes me feel good 

9 

10 

I've always given 

8 

8 

I'd feel guilty if I didn't 

7 

7 

Fear of God's judgement 

6 

6 

Social pressure 

4 

5 


The North American Church study, in the section on finance, is 
aimed at local church support, not at mission outreach. Possibly this 
explains the omission of "human needs" and "faith in God," but the 
summary has some helpful evaluations and there are similarities in the 
outcome of the two lists. 

The two studies agree that "gratitude to God" is a high motiva¬ 
tor. Both are close in a "desire to share" and "love for others". The 
North American Church study puts a higher evaluation of "obligation 
to God" and a lower priority on "local church needs." It sums up their 
chart on motivation in this way: 

"Gratitude to God" is the most pervasively cited motivation, 
followed by the convictions that "giving is a part of worship," 
that it is a privilege to share," that it is done out of "love 
for others" and in fifth place, that it is "an obligation placed on 
man by God"... Far down the list, in the bottom rankings were the 


22 


Johnson and Cornell, 


P- 


128. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




67 . 


factors customarily regarded as paramount - habit, guilt, fear, 
social pressure... these traditionally assumed motives widely if 
subtly used in trying to promote contributions, were downgraded 
by members... 23 

We have taken a new look at motivation in mission outreach. 

For some it may be the same exciting motivation they have experienced 
for years. Others may scoff and refer to this "new" approach as the 
"old pious" ideas they rejected years ago. For still others it may be 
refreshingly new or challengingly different or to be thoughtfully con¬ 
sidered. 


Motivation must be experienced. It should make you feel excited 
and give you the desire to accomplish great things for God. Methods 
and mechanics help, but if you do not have it in your soul, it is not 
available to share. 

Persons who really give more than they are asked to, do so because 
they are spirit filled Christians who have committed their lives 
to Christ. 

United Methodist Women School of 
Christian Mission, 1977 

I give out of a commitment to Christ and His Church, which includes 
the Great Commission to proclaim the Gospel to the whole world, and 
to be a Good Samaritan. 

Pastor, top Benevolence giving 
Church, 1976 


SUMMARY: 


Patterns of giving within the local church vary with pastors 
and laity. While pastors have less annual income (average $16,300) they 
give more weekly (average $26.11) representing 8.3% of their income. 
(Appendix C, page 101) 


23 


Ibid, 


P- 


127. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




68 . 


Laity in the survey have a higher annual income (average $18,759) 
and give less weekly (average $23.63) representing 6.6% which is still 
considerably higher than the average church member in most churches, 
based on my interviews with other pastors. 

Pastors serving churches of under 200 members had the highest 
percentage giving. With an average annual income of $14,285, these 
pastors gave $23.83 a week representing 8.7%. 

Those areas where individuals checked where they and their 
churches gave, beyond a regular pledge, received high percentages in 
5 categories. (Appendix B, pages 92 and 95) 


Local Church Projects 76.8% 
United Methodist Committee on Relief 73.6% 
World Advance Specials 71.8% 
One Great Hour of Sharing 71.2% 
World Communion Offering 60.6% 


When asked who or what motivated them to give beyond their 
local church pledge, individuals gave the highest percentage to 
four categories. (Appendix B, page 96) 


Missionary Speakers 44.4% 
Local Chruch Programs 38.8% 
United Methodist Women 38.4% 
Pastor 36.7% 


All are strong motivators. Pastors in the survey rated them¬ 
selves at 29.5% while the laity rated pastors at 42.8% giving them an 
average of 36.7%. If pastors had not been so modest, they would have 
been second only to missionary speakers. 

Women are motivated strongly by United Methodist Women and 
should be encouraged to become members of that exciting, mission-oriented 
organization. 

In addition to the above, the District Superintendent is a 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



69 . 


strong motivator in churches of under 200 members where this office is 
rated at the top of their list with 44.9% and in ethnic churches where 
the office is second with 27.3%. (Appendix B, page 97) 

The write-in remarks in response to the question, "What do you 
feel motivates you to give beyond your local church pledge?" were a 
pleasant surprise and caused me to compile a new list of motivation 
factors. (Appendix C, page 108) 


MOTIVATION 

TOTAL 

LAYPERSONS 

PASTORS 

REMARKS 

RESPONDENTS 



Human Needs 

62.6% 

64.7% 

57.9% 

Faith in God, Christ 

57.2 

51.5 

69.7 

Gratitude to God 

32.5 

37.7 

21.1 

Church, Conference Needs 

32.1 

37.7 

9.2 

Personal Involvement 

26.7 

27.5 

19.7 

Desire to Share 

25.1 

32.3 

25.0 

Love of others 

14.4 

12.0 

19.7 

Obligation to God 

7.8 

9.6 

3.9 

Guilt Feelings 

3.7 

4.2 

2.6 

Social Pressure 

2.1 

2.4 

1.3 


That which some have thought were motivating factors such as 

social pressure and guilt, were hardly mentioned. Human needs was at 

the top of the list, often prefaced by a remark signifying that meeting 

human needs was the response of their faith-experience. One layperson 

from a top Benevolence giving church expressed his faith-experience. 

We must accept Christ as Savior and then be challenged to support 
the work of the Kingdom. 

A personal faith in God, as seen in the written remarks on the 
questionnaires, surfaced as a strong motivation in giving for mission 
outreach. We will do well to respond to the pastor who asked "Where 
is God in all of this?" With a reply, "Very High!" 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



70 . 


If we do not give in joyous response to the love of God made known 
to us in Jesus Christ, we fall short of true stewardship. ^4 


Arthur R. McKay, Servants and Stewards (Philadelphia: Geneva 
Press, 1963) p. 47. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




71 . 


Chapter V 


CONCLUSIONS 

SUMMARY: PURPOSE OF PROJECT: 


There is more to mission outreach than the giving of money, 
but this study centers in that area of Christian stewardship. Most 
church members are not motivated sufficiently in the sharing of their 
material wealth for mission outreach. This is made obvious when we 

1 

look at how people in the United States spent their money in 1975. 


Food 

$184.8 Billion 

or 19.0% 

Housing 

1.50.2 

15.4 

Household operation 

142.2 

14.6 

Transportation 

126.0 

12.9 

Medical Care 

86.4 

8.9 

Clothing and Jewelry 

81.7 

8.4 

Recreation and Foreign Travel 

71.0 

7.3 

Personal Business 

50.3 

5.2 

Alcoholic Beverages 

24.7 

2.5 

Tobacco products 

14.8 

1.5 

Private Education and research 

14.7 

1.5 

Cosmetics, beauty and personal care 

14.3 

1.5 

Religion and welfare activities 

12.1 

1.2 


Total personal consumption in 1975 $973.2 Billion Dollars 

The purpose of this project was not to find out why people do 
not give more, but rather to explore the motivation as to why and how 
people do give for mission outreach. In helping to fulfill my purpose, 
I have relied heavily on the results of the questionnaire. I do not 
claim to be professional when it comes to this evaluation process; how¬ 
ever the results appear to be accurate, based on the persons in the 


"Survey of Current Business" (U.S. Department of Commerce, 
Bureau of Economic Analysis, July, 1976) p. 34. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




72 . 


church who responded. I welcome others to evaluate the results in 
Appendix B and C for their own conclusions. 

SUMMARY: PROBLEMS OF MOTIVATION: 

When we evaluate the problems of motivation we find they 
are not insurmountable. Problems that have been dealt with involve: 

1) Personal Economic Problems, 2) Desire for the better life, 3) Per¬ 
sonal self-centeredness, 4) Church and Social Issues, 5) Lack of 
Personal Involvement, 6) Negative Attitudes toward money, 7) Undisci¬ 
plined giving habits and 8) Limited concern for the World. 

Looking on the surface of the problems of finance in the local 
church, the North American Church survey summed it up well: 

The main thing blocking church support is an urge for more affluent 
living for the good things money can buy in the secular world. ' 

L.L. White, District Superintendent of the Pasadena District 

suggested: 

...recognize the consequence of our total giving as power, to be 
used to counteract the powerful forces of evil in our world...^ 

That power comes from the mighty force of the Holy Spirit work¬ 
ing in the lives of individuals and causing them to re-evaluate their 
life styles in the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

SUMMARY: CONTEMPORARY APPORTIONMENTS: 

The apportionment method of funding the benevolence program of 


Douglas W. Johnson and George W. Cornell, Punctured Preconcep - 
tions (New York: Friendship Press, 1972), p. 119. 

3 

L.L. White, "Unit Packaging as a Style of Giving", Pasadena 
District of the United Methodist Church, (Mimeographed), 1977. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




73 . 


the church seems to provide a fair way of letting the local church 
carry its "fair share" of the total, based on its ability to pay. 

This apportionment or "goal" serves as a motivating factor for most 
churches. 

It is questionable whether this is the best method. One 
pastor in a personal interview expressed concern that there are 
too many askings within the basic apportionment of World Service and 
some of them are not mission outreach in the traditional sense of 
mission. 

In addition to World Service there are other national apportion¬ 
ments equaling more than this basic cause, plus voluntary special offer¬ 
ings. This is shown in the national annual church budget. ^ 

World Service $24,980,000 

Other Apportionments 31,057,000 

Estimated Voluntary Offering 27,635,000 

Total Annual Needs $83,672,000 

In addition to the above, the Conference Benevolences are added, 
which for the Pacific and Southwest Conference are more than the basic 
World Service apportionments, ($1,659,245 in 1977 as compared to 
$660,906 for World Service). As one missionary salary supporting 
pastor expressed it: 

Too much of our conference benevolences are not mission but only 
maintaining the institution. 

I do not happen to agree, though I am sure it would be helpful 

4 

Financial Programs of the United Methodist Church, 1977-1980, 
(printed leaflet), 1976. 

^ Pacific and Southwest Annual Conference of the United Methodist 
Church, Treasurer's Office Statement, (Mimeographed) 1977. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




74 . 


to carefully evaluate our conference budget, as we do each year at 
annual conference before voting on its adoption. I would like to see 
the membership figure removed from the apportionment formula as it 
encourages the removal of inactive members who need the ministry of 
the church. 

SUMMARY: PATTERNS OF GIVING: 

Patterns of giving within the local church vary with pastors 
and laity. The pastors have less income and yet give a higher percent¬ 
age plus more dollars than their laity. Pastors in churches of under 
200 members give the highest percentage of all 8.7%. (Appendix C, 
page 101) Many pastors in all areas tithe. 

A tithe (10%) is a small return compared to what God has done for 
me and my ministry. His love motivates me—no compels me to give 
all I can—and then give more!! 

Pastor of Church with under 200 members 

The areas where churches give and areas where individuals give 
include: (Appendix B, pages 92 and 95) 


Local Church Programs 76.8% 
United Methodist Committee on Relief 73.6% 
World Advance Specials 71.8% 
One Great Hour of Sharing 71.2% 
World Communion Offering 60.6% 


Top motivation factors are missionary speakers, local church 
programs. United Methodist Women and pastors, in that order (Appendix 
B, page 96); with human needs, faith in God and church and conference 
needs very high on write-in remarks. (Appendix C, page 108) The North 
American Church study listed gratitude to God at the head of their 

C. 

motivating list. 

£ 

Johnson and Cornell, p. 128. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




75 . 


The strongest motivation for the most generous giving was in 

spiritual areas. This was a revelation. 

In the end, there is only one motivation for a Christian's giving: 
he (she) gives because God has given so lavishly, constantly, 
beyond all his (her) deserving... when all has been said and done, 
we give out of a profound sense of gratitude. 7 

CONCLUSION: PEOPLE WILL RESPOND TO MISSION OUTREACH IF THEY ARE MADE 

AWARE OF HUMAN NEED AND ARE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND. 

There is a whole new spirit moving across the church, a desire 
to be involved in mission; a desire to help with resources, money, time, 
even life. Lifestyles are changing. Occupations are being renewed. 
People want to know what is happening in the world with other members 
of the human race and how they can be involved in the total liberation 
of the total humanity. People are searching for better ways than just 
materialistic satisfactions and they want to be motivated for something 
bigger than just everyday mere existence. 

Before Vern Tryon left as a two-year term missionary pilot in 
Nigeria, he stated: 

I just wanted to do something more in touch with the basic needs 
of the world, rather than working at a highly complex and refined 
job such as traffic control. ® 

People will respond if they are given the opportunity to do so; 
if they are made aware of a human need and given a chance to contribute 
towards the need. In the write-in remarks on the questionnaire, human 
needs were the highest motivating factor. (Appendix C, page 108) 

7 01iver Powell, Stewardship Facts (New York: National Council 
of the Churches of Christ in the U.F.A., 1962), p. 39. 

^Claremont [California] Courier, (January 9, 1974). 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




76 . 


The United Methodist Women give their members ample opportunity 
to respond to mission outreach and their organization gives generously 
year after year. 

Missionary Salary Supporting Churches give their members the 
opportunity to respond to the annual support of missionaries in various 
fields of service and they readily give their voluntary support. Top 
Benevolence giving churches obviously give their members the opportunity 
to respond and they do. 

In a book review by Robert C. Gentry on The Art of Fund Raising , 
he states: 

_the author defines the art of fund raising as raising money by 

asking for it, preferably face to face, from the smallest number of 
people in the shortest period of time, at the least expense. 

Mr. Gentry quotes the author, Irving R. Warner in his 1975 
Harper and Row book: 

(His) understanding of a sacrificial gift is: think of the largest 
gift you can possibly make, then if it won't force you to make any 
changes in your budget it isn't enough. 

Churches that give more to mission outreach appear to do better 
in all areas. Of the 54 conference churches giving missionary salary 
support in 1976, 53 paid World Service and all conference apportionments 
in full. In addition to conference apportionments and missionary sal¬ 
ary support, 6 churches gave from $10,000 to $21,000 to local conference 
and world mission projects; while 27 churches gave from $2,000 to 
$6,000; and 19 churches gave from $500 to $1999 above their apportionments 

9 The Texas Methodist (Dalis, Texas, October 1977). 

10 Dale K. Smith, "Evaluation of 54 Churches Giving Missionary 
Salary Support", (Mimeographed), 1976. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




77 . 


and missionary salary support. 11 The average annual income of pastors 
of these churches is also the highest. (Appendix C, page 101) 

The missionary salary supporting churches vary in size with 15 
under 500 members, 19 from 500 to 999 members and 20 over 1000 members. 
Forty-one of the churches are paying on mortgages ranging from $15,000 
to $725,000. 12 

While at a national stewardship meeting in Miami Beach, Florida 
in January, 1978, a speaker quoted Constant Jacquet, Jr., editor of the 
Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches , as saying that a "key fac¬ 
tor in church growth seems to be aggressive missionary activity." 

The replies to the questionnaire, personal interviews, re¬ 
search and reading all indicate that people will respond to mission 
outreach if they are given the opportunity to do so; if they are made 
aware of a human need and given a chance to contribute towards that need. 

CONCLUSION: THE PASTOR IS ONE OF THE KEYS FOR MOTIVATION WITHIN 
THE LOCAL CHURCH. 

Prior to this project I would have said the pastor is "the" 
key to motivation. He or she is very strong, but do not overlook other 
high motivators for the local church such as missionary speakers, local 
mission programs (possibly arranged by the Commission on Missions), 
United Methodist Women and the District Superintendent. Consider these 
statistics. (Appendix B, page 96) When asked, "Who or what has moti¬ 
vated you to give beyond your local church pledge?" repondents replied: 


12 Ibid. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 





78 . 


Missionary Speaker 44.4% 
Local Church Programs 38.8% 
United Methodist Women 38.4% 
Pastor 36.7% 


(The remainder of the responses to 20 additional areas were lower 
than 30%.) 

It would appear that if we wanted to motivate people in mission 
outreach, we could well be involved in: 

1) Using missionary speakers at church and in group meetings 

2) Having local church programs in the area of mission outreach 

3) Encouraging women to become members of the United Methodist Women 

4) Supporting pastor in his or her role as "mission motivator" 

C. Dean Freudenberger, former missionary to Africa and presently 
Associate Professor of International Development Studies and Missions at 
the School of Theology at Claremont, said in a conversation with me on 
the subject of mission outreach: 

The local pastor is the key. He or she prepares the way for the 
missionary. But if the pastor is not involved, the local mission¬ 
ary contact person and the United Methodist Women will lead. 

Lat us continue to study the results of the survey as it in¬ 
volves the local pastor and other key motivators. It appears that top 
Benevolence pastors are very modest as only 3 out of 44 (6.8%) indicated 
pastors "had motivated them to give..." Pastors of missionary salary 
supporting churches seemingly were also quite modest as only 16 out of 
54 (29.6%) checked themselves. (Appendix B, page 96) If these pastors 
had not been so modest, they would be second only to Missionary Speakers 
in terms of their motivating power! (As a pastor, I write a bit 
facetiously.) 

Seriously, all pastors in the survey averaged only 29.5% in 
checking themselves, while the laity rated pastors at 42.8%, which 
placed them at 36.7%, or in fourth place. (Appendix B, page 96) 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



79 . 


United Methodist Women at the School of 

Christian Mission rated pastors 3rd at - 74.1% 

Top Benevolence giving church laity 

rated pastors 1st at - 56.9% 

"Mission Possible" laity at San Diego 

rated pastors 5th at - 24.8% 

Average rating of pastor by laity 42.8% 


If the pastor is one of the keys for motivation in the local 
church, let us consider the other keys as evaluated by 6 groups. 


(Appendix B, pages 96-97) 

MISSION POSSIBLE 
43.7% U.M.W. 

38.8% Missionary Speakers 
37.4% Local Programs 

MISSION SALARY 
SUPPORTING CHURCHES 
51.9% Missionary Speakers 
29.1% Pastor 
20.4% Local Programs 

ETHNIC 
CHURCHES 
40.9% Pastor 

27.3% District Superintendent 
27.3% Local Programs 

The United Methodist Women, 

is first on the list of both Missio 


TOP BENEVOLENCE GIVING CHURCHES 
41.1% Local Programs 
38.9% Missionary Speakers 
33.7% Pastor 

U.M.W. SCHOOL OF CHRISTIAN 

MISSION 

87.7% U.M.W. 

84.0% Missionary Speakers 
74.1% Pastor and Local Programs 


CHURCHES UNDER 200 

44.9% District Superintendent 

40.8% Pastor 

40.8% Local Programs 

which was third in the total group, 

i Possible and the United Methodist 


Women School of Christian Mission. 

Missionary Speakers, which was the highest over all area, is 
first or second on all lists except Ethnic Churches and Churches Under 


200 . 


District Superintendent is first or second on both Churches 
Under 200 and Ethnic Churches which indicates this position is especially 
helpful to these churches. 

Local Church Programs, which was second in the total group, is 
found on all lists here. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



80 . 


The local pastor shares the key to motivation in the church 
with some other helpful persons. 

CONCLUSION: PERSONAL FAITH IN GOD IS A STRONG MOTIVATION IN GIVING 
FOR MISSION OUTREACH. 

I am motivated by the love of Christ in my life and feel that God 
expects me to respond to human need whenever and wherever I find it. 

This write-in remark by the pastor of a top Benevolence giving 

church is one of many which expresses the spiritual dimension of faith 

found in questionnaire replies. Without a doubt/ personal faith in God 

is one of the strongest motivations in giving for mission outreach. 

... methods, however sound, do not motivate people to give. That 
is the work of the Spirit through the Word in proclamation, teach¬ 
ing, dialogue and deed. 

It is important how we go about giving people an opportunity 
to respond to the call of mission outreach through Jesus Christ, but 
the basic motivation comes from a person’s personal faith-experience. 
Consequently, as pastors and mission leaders we would do well to con¬ 
centrate more on the faith-experience of the person than his or her 
ability to give. 

There is no higher motive for Christian giving than to remember the 

. 14 

grace of God in Jesus Christ. 

A person who has not really experienced Christ in his or her 
life may respond in a limited way to human need, but will not be consis¬ 
tent in on-going mission outreach support. As one layperson expressed it from 

Wallace E. Fisher, A New Climate for Stewardship (Nashville: 
Abingdon Press, 1976), p. 115. 

Luther P. Powell, Money and the Church (New York: Associa¬ 
tion Press, 1962), p. 200. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




81 . 


a top Benevolence giving church: 

A sense of "response-ability" to Christ's calling us to "feed the 
poor", "heal the sick", "make Disciples" and the desire to do God's 
will as guided by the Holy Spirit motivates us to give of ourselves 
and possessions. 

Another layperson, a woman from the United Methodist Women School 

of Christian Mission wrote in response to what motivated her: 

Feeling God's presence in my life and my desire to share his bless¬ 
ings. 

In response to the question, "What do you feel motivates you to 
give beyond your local church pledge?" there were many replys from 
church members and pastors. I compiled a list from their remarks and 
was surprised to see so many persons include "faith in God", "Jesus 
Christ", "the Holy Spirit", "personal commitment to Christ", "Biblical 
belief" and other such "spiritual" terms. I had not included spiritual 
motivation in the questionnaire, partly because I assumed it and partly 
because I did not want people to feel they should check this just 
because it was a "religious" questionnaire. It was a pleasant revelation 
to see so many express their faith-motivation through their write-in 
remarks. 


The new list of top motivations compiled from the remarks gave 


refreshingly new dimension to 

the survey 

. (Appendix C, 

page 108) 

MOTIVATION 

REMARKS 

TOTAL 

RESPONDENTS LAYPERSONS 

PASTORS 

Human needs 

62.6% 

64.7% 

57.9% 

Faith in God, Christ 

57.2% 

51.5% 

69.7% 

Gratitude to God 

32.5% 

37.7% 

21.1% 

Church, Conference Needs 

32.1% 

37.7% 

19.7% 

Personal Involvement 

26.7% 

27.5% 

25.0% 

Desire to Share 

25.1% 

32.3% 

9.2% 

We have no right immediately 

to expect 

radical changes 

in the econom- 


ic systems of the modern world... But did not Christianity, by the 
mere strength of its faith, break the opposition of the Roman Empire 
in spite of its seemingly unlimited resources? Faith is capable of 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



82 . 


restoring man's (woman's) freedom again, because thereby we are 
made the agents of Christ's redemptive power which triumphs over 
all the forces of the universe. ^ 

NEXT STEPS IN RESEARCH ON MOTIVATION IN MISSION OUTREACH 

The research and conclusions in this project have raised ad¬ 
ditional areas to be evaluated. 

1) The apportionments method of the Pacific and Southwest Annual 
Conference is an area of concern, especially as it relates to member¬ 
ship figures. It would be helpful to evaluate the apportionment pro¬ 
cess from the conference formula point of view and examine the churches 
that have removed large numbers of members by charge conference action. 

2) The United Methodist Women give a large amount of money for 
mission outreach. This paper touches only the surface of their moti¬ 
vation and dedication. A further evaluation of this organization's pat 
tern of giving and methods of motivation could prove to be very ben- 
ficial for the entire church. 

3) Personal faith has been the hidden factor in motivation for 
mission outreach in this research project. This needs to be further 
evaluated as to how faith relates to human needs, which was a high fac¬ 
tor in motivation in the questionnaire response. A comparison of faith 
experience and financial giving appears very high and could be further 
researched. This needs to be a two-fold approach for pastors and lay¬ 
persons, as pastors rated faith higher and laypersons rated human needs 
higher. 


■*■5 otto A. Piper, Christian Meaning of Money (Englewood Cliffs: 
Prentice-Hall), pp. 115-116. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




83 . 


4) Following is an outline which could be shared with local church 
leaders to enable them to further evaluate motivation in mission out¬ 
reach based on the background and basic conclusions of this paper. 

Share the background and problems of motivation in mission outreach. 

I. People give because they are made aware of human need and are 
given the opportunity to respond effectively to that need. 

II. The pastor is one of the keys to motivation within the local 
church. 

III. Personal faith is a prerequisite for motivation in generous 
giving. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



85 . 


Azariah, V.S. Christian Giving . New York: Association Press, 1955. 

Briggs, Edwin A. (ed.) Theological Perspectives of Stewardship . 

Evanston: General Board of Laity, United Methodist Church, 

1969. 

Carlson, Martin E. Why People Give . New York: Council Press, 1968. 
Claremont [California] Courier , (January 9, 1974). 

Conrad, Paul H. This Way to a Thriving Church . Nashville: Abingdon- 
Cokesbury Press, 1957. 

Council on Finance and Administration, Apportionments "Print-Out", 

Pacific and Southwest Annual Conference of the United Methodist 
Church, 1977. 

Cushman, Ralph. Dealing Squarely With God . New York: Abingdon Press, 
1927. 

"Division of Interpretation of the United Methodist Church", printed 
leaflet, 1977. 

"Financial Programs of the United Methodist Church, 1977-1980", printed 
leaflet, 1976. 

Fisher, Wallace E. A New Climate for Stewardship . Nashville: Abingdon 
Press, 1976. 

Garrison, Webb. Giving Wings to a Warm Heart . Evanston: Commission on 
Promotion and Cultivation of the Methodist Church, 1968. 

Harshman, Charles William. Christian Giving . Cincinnati: Jennings and 
Graham, 1905. 

Hess, Bartlett L., and Margaret Johnston. How To Have A Giving Church . 
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1974. 

Johnson, Douglas W., and George W. Cornell. Punctured Preconceptions . 
New York: Friedship Press, 1972. 

Knudsen, Raymond B. New Models for Financing The Local Church . New York: 
Association Press, 1974. 

Kuizenga, Henry, written statement, 1978. 

McKay, Arthur R. Servants and Stewards . Philadelphia: Geneva Press, 
1963. 

MacNaughton, John H. Stewardship: Myth and Methods . New York: Seabury 
Press, 1975. 

Miller, Basil, Treasury of Stewardship Illustrations . Kansas City: 

Beacon Hill Press, 1952. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



86 . 


Murphy, Nordan C., Bettie Meeker, and Constant H. Jacquet, Jr. Church 

Financial Statistics and Related Data , New York: Council Press, 
1977. 

Our Missional Priorities 1977-80 . Evanston: United Methodist Communi¬ 
cations, 1977. 

Pacific and Southwest Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, 
Treasurer’s Office Statement, Mimeographed, 1977. 

Piper, Otto A. The Christian Meaning of Money . Englewood Cliffs: 
Prentice-Hall, 1965. 

Powell, Luther P. Money and the Church. New York: Association Press, 
1962. 

Powell, Oliver. Stewardship Facts . New York: National Council of 
Churches of Christ in U.S.A., 1973. 

Prior, Kenneth, God and Mammon , Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965. 

Rieke, Thomas C. and John C. Espie, Opportunities in Stewardship . 
Nashville: Discipleship Resources, 1975. 

Sartin, Nancy E. (ed.) Catalogue of General Advance Specials, Partner¬ 
ship in Missions . New York: Board of Global Ministries, 1973. 

Shriver, Donald W. Rich Man Poor Man , Richmond: John Knox Press, 1972. 

Smith, Dale K. (ed.) Facing Up to be Alive in Mission . Los Angeles: 
Southern California-Arizona Annual Conference of the United 
Methodist Church, 1975. 

_ "Evaluation of 54 Churches Giving Missionary Salary Support", 

Mimeographed, 1976. 

"Survey of Current Business". U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of 
Economic Analysis, July 1976; April 1977. 

The Texas Methodist , Dallas, Texas, October, 1977. 

Thomas, Winbum T. Stewardship in Mission . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- 
Hall, 1964. 

Thompson, T.K. Stewardship in Contemporary Theology . New York: Assoc¬ 
iation Press, 1960. 

_ (ed.) Stewardship in Contemporary Life . New York: Association 

Press, 1965. 

United Methodist Annual Meeting Report, Board of Education, Nashville, 
January 24, 1972. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 




87 . 


"United Methodist Communications News", Mimeographed, 1976. 

"United Methodist Women's Financial Statement", Los Angeles, Mimeo¬ 
graphed, 1977. 

White, L.L. "Unit Packaging As a Style of Giving". Pasadena District 
of the United Methodist Church, Mimeographed, 1977. 

"Women's Division 1976 Appropriations", Mimeographed, 1976. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 






APPENDIX A 
Questionnaire 

on 


88 . 


MOTIVATION IN MISSION OUTREACH 

A Research Project 
of the 

Pacific and Southwest Conference 
(Southern California-Arizona) 
of the United Methodist Church 

Conducted by Dale K. Smith 


We want to know how you personally are motivated to give beyond your 
local church budget and conference apportionments. Please check as many 
as apply and return to the director or mail to Rev. Dale K. Smith, 
Crescenta Valley United Methodist Church, 2720 Montrose Ave., Montrose, 
CA. 91020. This can greatly help the cause of mission outreach in our 
churches. 

I. PERSONAL STATISTICS : PLEASE CHECK AS MANY AS APPLY TO YOU : 

1. (l)Layperson_, (2)Pastor_, (3)Active Missionary_, 

(4)Former Missionary_, (5)Church Staff_, (6)UMW_, 

(7)UMYF_, (8)UMM_, (9)Global Ministries Chairperson_, 

(11) Other_(specify) 

2. Male_, Female_; Age: Teens_, 20-35_, 36-50_, 

51-65_, 66+_. 

3. Caucasian American_, Afro-American_, Hispanic American_, 

Asian American_, Native American_, Other_ 

4. INCOME : Under $5,000_, $5-10,000_, $10-15,000_, 

$15-25,000_, Over $25,000_. 

5. YOUR CHURCH MEMBERSHIP : Under 100_, 101-300_, 301-500_, 

501-800_, 801-1000_, Over 1000_, Do not know_. 

II. CHURCH GIVING : 

6. CHECK WHERE YOUR CHURCH GIVES : (l)World Advance Special 

Projects_, (2)U.S. Advance Special Projects_, (3)Missionary 

Salary Support_, (4)UMCOR_, (5)Conference Local Projects_, 

(6)Non-Conference Local Projects_, (7)0ther_, 

_ (8)Do not know_. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



- 2 - 


89 . 


7. CHECK THE WAYS IN WHICH YOUR CHURCH SPONSORS THE ABOVE CAUSES 

THROUGH THEIR GIVING : (l)Church budget_, (2)Separate Missions 

Pledge_, (3)Faith-Promise Pledge_, (4)Special Offerings on 

Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter_, (5)Special Offerings at 

other times_, (6)Special Offering Envelopes in Annual Boxes_ 

(7) Individual Gifts_, (8)Personal Contacts_, (9) Foundation 

Money_, (lO)Memorials_, (ll)Class Projects_, (12)Youth 

Projects_, (13)Church-wide Projects_, (14)Other_ 

_ (15)Do not know_. 

8. CHECK IF YOUR CHURCH KEEPS IN PERSONAL CONTACT WITH : 

(l)Missionary_, (2)Mission Project_, (3)0ther_ 

_ (4)Do not know_. 


III. PERSONAL GIVING : 

9. CHECK YOUR PRESENT WEEKLY PLEDGE : To local church: $1-3_, 

$4-5_,.$6-10_, $11-15_, $16-24_, $25-30_, $31-35_, 

$36-40_, $41-45_, $46-50_, $51-60_, $61-70_, 

$71-75_, Over $75 weekly_. 

10. CHECK APPROXIMATE PERC E NTAGE OF YOUR TOTAL PERSONAL GIVING 

BEYOND YOUR LOCAL CHURCH BUDGET PLEDGE : 5?_, 101_, 15*_, 

20?_, 301_, 40?_, 50?_, 60?_, 70?_, 80?_, 90?_ 

100?_. 

11. CHECK EACH CATEGORY TO WHICH YOU GIVE BEYOND LOCAL CHURCH PLEDGE : 

(l)UMCOR_, (2)UMW Pledge_, (3)Youth Service Fund_, 

(4)UM Student Day_, (5)Human Relations_, (6)World 

Communion_, (7)One Great Hour of Sharing_, (8)Missionary 

Salary Support_, (9)World Advance Special Project_, 

(10)U.S. Advance Special Project_, (ll)Local Community 

Project_, (12)MEPCO , (13)MUM_, (14)VUM_, (15)TMM_, 

(16)METRO_, (17)Quechan Farm Project_, (18)H.E.L.P. 

Projects_, (19)Wesley Foundation_, (20)Hawaii Projects_, 

(21)School of Theology_, (22)A11 Nations_, (23)Toberman_, 

(24)Plaza_, (25)Conference Second Mile Specials_, 

(26) Others_(specify) 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



- 3 - 


90 . 


IV. MOTIVATION : 

12. CHECK WHO OR WHAT HAS MOTIVATED YOU TO GIVE BEYOND YOUR LOCAL 

CHURCH PLEDGE : (l)Family_, (2)Layperson in church_, 

(3)National or Conference Leader_, (4)Pastor_, (5)District 

Superintendent_, (6)Bishop_, (7)UMW_, (9)UMYF_, 

(lO)Secular Media_, (ll)Conference_, (12)School_, 

(13)Films_, (14)Poster_, (15) Missionary Speaker_, 

(16)Local Global Ministries_, (17)District Missions 

Emphasis_, (18)Mission Possible_, (19)Local Church 

Programs_, (20)Conference Missions Emphasis_, 

(21)Literature_, (22) World Outlook _, (23) Response _, 

(24)Circuit West_, (25) Interpreter _, (26)Other_ 


13. WHAT DO YOU THINK MOTIVATES INDIVIDUALS AND CHURCHES TO GIVE 
BEYOND LOCAL BUDGETS AND CONFERENCE APPORTIONMENTS ? 

(Write a brief statement if you wish) 


14. WHAT DO YOU FEEL MOTIVATES YOU TO GIVE BEYOND LOCAL CHURCH 
PLEDGE ? (Write a brief statement if you wish) 


15. DOES THIS QUESTIONNAIRE BRING SOME MISSION OUTREACH AREAS TO 

YOUR ATTENTION THAT YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF ? Yes_ No_ 

16. HOW WOULD YOU IMPROVE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN 
MORE INFORMATION ON "MOTIVATION IN MISSION OUTREACH?" 


THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



APPENDIX B: RESULTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE ON "MOTIVATION IN MISSION OUTREACH" 

A Research Project of the Pacific and Southwest Conference of the United Methodist Church conducted by 
Dale K. Smith, chairperson. Conference Committee on Stewardship 

(931 questionnaires were distributed across the conference. The following 8 groups represent 531 respondents. 


91 


a z 







~~ ‘ 






— 






— 





iA O 


S'? 











8 






B? 





« H 


CM 

00 

in st 

sO 


O 

O 

O 

CO 

rs 


o 

o 

o 

o 


co 

r*. 

o 

o 

o 

H WvO/% 


• 

• 

• • 

• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

» 

H Cfl fs rl 


oo 


m vo 

co 





rs 

CM 


O 






I s - 

CM 




^ H Ch H 



CO 

st co 

so 





CM 

rs 


O 






CM 

is 

















rH 











Z CO 

O H 

n: z 
tn w 


00 

CM 

rs cm 

00 


0 % 

CO 

rs 

o 

o 


8 

o 

o 

o 

o 


Sjfi 

vO 

st 

o 

o 

o 

{A Q sO ^ 


• 

* 

* • 

• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

<d p rs co 


co 

VO 

rs a* 

o 



CM 

rs 




O 






st 

m 




4 H on H 


m 

st 

vo 

CO 



03 





O 






00 

rH 




U COHV 













rH 











o 
























c n o 

Ed cm 
























3 oi 


EM? 

O 

o 

O O' 

rH 


o 

rs 

rs 

so 

o 


8 

o 

o 

o 

o 


8 

sO 

CM 

CM 

o 

a; td 


• 

• 

• ♦ 

• 


• 

• 

« 

• 

• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 


♦ 

• 

• 

• 

• 

P P I s *. 03 


CM 

CO 

cm m 

St 



sO 

CM 

oo 

CM 


O 







o 

iH 

00 


X z as sr 



as 

03 




co 

CO 

CM 



O 







CO 

vO 



o p «h s> 













rH 











co 
























w 
























CJ EC 

M U 


0 % 

o 

o o 

O 


o 

sO 

o 

sf 

O 


8 

rH 

I s * 

sO 

m 


8 

CO 

CM 

m 

o 

z BS ^ 


• 

• 

• • 

• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 


• 

t 

r 

• 

• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

E p h* N 



o 

o 




co 

o 

sO 




03 

CM 

CO 

st 



rs 

00 

st 


H S C\M 



o 

o 




rH 

m 

CO 





CM 

so 




CM 

sO 



Ed O rH W 



rH 

rH 




















CO 
























En CO 

O H 
























z 
























p 

83 

S5 M 

U H 

CO CO 


B? 





B*? 












Bn“ 





H rs 


m 

m 

sr m 

m 


CM 

OC 

CO 

03 

CM 


rs 

03 

m 

03 

o 


03 

CM 

St 

03 

sO 

3 Ct5 r-. rH 


• 

• 

• • 

• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 


• 

• 

• 

♦ 

• 

s E coo 


rs 

CM 

rH CM 

rs 


rH 

03 

00 

in 

vO 


rs 

st 

CM 

st 



St 

rs 

OO 

in 

CO 

5 O rH w 


a\ 


03 

03 



rH 

CO 

CM 



00 







CM 

CM 

CM 

rH 

















































3 g 
























o 
























Z E-J 

O (A 

W O 


0 % 

O 

o o 

o 


0 % 

st 

co 

rs 



8 

o 

o 

o 

o 


8 

o 

rH 

03 

O 

CO pL) sO 



• 

• • 

• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

vO 


• 

• 

* 

• 

• 


• 

- 

• 

• 

• 

to 



o 

o 




fs 

vO 

O 

• 


O 








CO 

rH 


h p O' in 



o 

O 





st 

st 

m 


o 








st 

m 


2 WHV 



rH 

rH 









rH 











Ed CO 

O Ed 

Z EC 



















fr? 





W CJ 


















>srs 

CM 

CO 

CM 

SO 

00 

P 05 


















4J r 

• 

* 

• 

• 

• 

O P 


















•H CO 

CM 

CO 

CM 

in 

rs 

> EE 


















tdin 




CM 

rH 

Ed CJ 


















P 






Z 

Ed O 

co z 







Bn? 






fls? 






o 

rH 

CO 

ro 

rH 

H\Oa 


rs 

CO 

rs i--. 

CO 


O 

St 

00 

st 

co 


03 

rH 

o 

rH 

c 

4-1 * 


• 

• 

* 

• 

o, > r- m 


• 

• 

• • 

• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

t 


r 

• 

• 

• 

• 

W vO 


CM 

rH 

r—4 

rH 

O H O' O' 


co 

vO 

St St 

in 



rs 

vO 

00 

vO 


I s *. 

rH 


rH 


tdst 



CM 

CM 


H 


m 

sr 

rH rs 

CM 




CO 

Sf 



03 





Ph 






Ed 
























Z P 
o « 

M H 


fb? 





fc*S 












rN° 





CO CO sO vO 


vO 

03 

vo st 

sO 


O 

sO 

CO 

CO 

03 


CO 

St 

03 

m 

03 


co 

CM 

I s *. 

CO 

rH 

co CO rs O 
























H O tT'N 


m 

CO 

St 03 

00 



st 

st 

rH 

00 


03 

CO 

CO 

rH 

rH 


00 

VO 

SO 

sr 

CO 

2 PU rH w 


as 


sb rl 

fs 



rH 

CM 

sr 

rH 


00 







CM 

CM 

CM 

rH 


CO 

8*? 

in 





o'? 






tb? 

m 











w 

§ 

CO 

03 03 

St 


vO 

03 

CO 

m 

rs 


sO 

00 

rH 

03 


8 

<H 

CM 

is 

st 

CO 

H 

• 

• 

• • 

« 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 


• 

• 

♦ 

• 

• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Z 

C 

co 

v£> 

CM sO 

CM 



sO 

rH 

rs 

rH 


03 

CM 

CM 

St 



rs 

rH 

CM 

fs 

O 



SO 

II 

CO 

II 


m 

ll 




CO 

II 

CO 

II 



00 

II 











^ 0 . iH 

^5 

II II 


II 

II 

II 


II 

II 

II 

n 


ll 

it 

II 

II 

II 

H w rs ro 

O 

rs 

CO 

00 03 

co 


CO 

O 

03 

03 

CM 


m 

St 

in 

CM 

m 


rs 

CM 

H 


m 

O u O' m 

H 

ro 

03 

CM St 

rs 



03 

sO 

03 

vO 


ps 


rH 

CM 



ro 

rH 

rs 

st 

m 

H 2 H ^ 

H 

co 

rH 

CM CM 

CM 




rH 

rH 



St 







rH 

iH 

rH 



























Ed 
























P 



c 





















P* 



0 ) 
























e 





















Z 



o 









C 












H 



a 









td 
























u 


c 










a 



-u 









•H 


td 










y 



w 









U 


u 


c 








> 



•H 









<u 

C 

•H 

c 

td 








P 



x 









R 

co 

U 

td 

u 








D 



o 









< 

a 

V 

s 

u 



o 





CO 

t> 

















o 


O 

o 

o 

H 




4J 










u 

< 

u 

at 


o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

z 

H 

C 


<u 










(U 


Qi 

e 


•> 

o 

o 

o 

•* 

Ed 


o 


s 









9 

u 



m 

o 

*> 

** 














*H 

-9 

•H 

< 



<fy 


in 

m 

CM 

5 

z 

M 

u 


0) 








W 


c 


a) 

jtd 


o 

rH 

CM 

<S> 

o 

D 

0) 

0 

Q) 



m 

m 

o 

m 



td 


td 

c 

> 


U 

rH 

</> 

</> 


a. 

10 


4J 

4-1 <U 

td 


c 

co 

m 

sO 


Ed 

a 

o 

a 

td 

H 

o 

<u 

</> 

| 

1 

U 

CO 

Ed 

■A 

t*, 

m 


R 

Ed 

0 ) 

t 

l 

1 


U 

3 

u 

CO 

*H 

4-> 

u 


I 

o 

m 

«u 

A 

(0 

CO 

c td 

<D 

O 

<u 

o 

sO 

rH 

VO 

< 

<d 

4-1 

•H 

5 

td 

z 

c 

m 

rH 

rH 

> 

e 

pL. 

P 

CU 

P E 

U* 

< 

1H 

CM 

CO 

in 

vO 

P5 

o 

< 

X 

Z 

H 

p 

</> 

</> 


o 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 







(931 Questionnaires were distributed across the conference. The following 8 groups represent 531 respondents.) 

TOTAL MISSION TOP BENEVOLENCE MISSION. SALARY UMW SCHOOL OF ETHNIC CHURCHES CLAREMONT I RETIRED 

RESPONSE POSSIBLE GIVING CHURCHES SUPPORT CHURCHES CHRISTIAN MISS. CHURCHES UNDER 200 STUDENTS MISSION 

RESPONDENTS 1977 1976 1976 1976 1977 1977 1977 1976 1976 ’ 


92 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 


(continued next page) 








93 . 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission 











94 


a 

Q) 

C 

O 

CX 

(0 

0 ) 


CO 

in 


c 

<u 

co 

a) 

‘ M 
a 
a) 
u 

co 

a 

o 

u 

00 

CO 

CO 

5 

g 

rH 

rH 

o 


Q) 

02 

H 


a) 

o 

c 

CD 

M 

< 1 ) 

iw 

G 

O 

O 

0 ) 


CO 

CO 

O 

U 

O 

id 

T3 

a> 

4 J 

3 

*H 

U 

4 J 

CO 

♦H 

T3 

a> 

n 

a) 

£ 

CO 

<u 

M 

•H 

CO 

g 

o 


CO 

a) 

3 

O' 


CO 


a z 



















w o 



















3 m 


&-S 

















H C /3 a 


CM 

m 


o 

rH 

m 

<r 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

O 

O 

H W N H 


• 

• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 



CO 

m 



ON 

<r 

NO 











2 s h ^ 


rH 

*d- 




m 

CO 











H 

Z CO 

9 H 



















Z Z 



















w pa 


















PS Q vO 


H 

00 


00 

H 

r- 

o 

O 


o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

< D MO 


• 

• ! 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

* 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

iJ H ON H 


co 

o 


CO 

CO 

r*^ 



fx* 









O CO H ^ 


CM 

co ! 


m 

CM 













o 

CO o 

W CM 

G x 




















ft**? 










5 ^ 







pd W I s * /-N 


O 

r^. 


o 

O 

rH 

<* 

r- 


rH 

rH 

CM 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

b p I s * on 



• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

* 

• 

• 

• 

W Z Oi 


CM 

CM 




-d- 

00 

NO 

00 

NO 

NO 

00 

CM 





UPHV 



CO 





rH 

CO 

rH 









cn 



















w 



















cj as 

M cj 


5 s ? 

















2 Pi I s * ^ 


CM 

CO 


o 

iH 

CM 

m 

ON 


uo 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

: S P ^ cs 


• 

• 


• 

• 

00 

* 

* 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

H S O' N 


00 




ON 

<r 

o 

CM 









BO Hv 


rH 

CM 




rH 



CM 









cn 



















pH CO 

O w 



















z 



















►J 

o z 
o < 

* M 

O H 

CO CO 





rf^ 







B -5 







m r- 


CO 

NO 


NO 

rH 

ON 

CM 

NO 

ON 

cm 

m 

m 

o 

CM 

o 

o 

CM 

S PS r«. H 


m 

• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

* 

• 

• 

• 

E K Oi co 


<t 

o 


00 

»H 

o 

CM 

cO 

'd- 

rH 

CM 

CM 


rH 



rH 

& O H W 


m 

m 



iH 

CO 

CM 

rH 










5 h CO 



















PS w 



















< * 



















hJ O 



















< ps 



















co ay 



















z 



















CJ 



















Z H 

O PS 


ft* 










SM> 







M O 


o 

ON 















CO Pi NO /-n 



• 


o 

O 

o 

rH 

CM 

00 

CO 

ON 

O 

o 

ON 

o 

o 

ON 

w p n <r 
h by on m 


o 

m 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

# 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 


o 






rH 

CM 

f". 

CO 

rH 



rH 



rH 

Z co H V-' 


rH 






rH 

CM 

CM 

CO 








W CO 

U Cd 

Z Z 












&>s 







W CJ 




* 

o 

rH 

rH 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CM 

o 

CO 

CM 

CM 

CM 

rH 

CM 

►J PS 




U ^ 

• 

• 

• 

• 

* 

• 

• 

# 

* 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

2 S 




■rl rH 

rt m 


rH 

rH 

in 

NO 

NO 

CO 


m 

CO 

CO 

■«d- 

rH 

< 1 * 





►4 















w o 

PQ 23 


B* 


u 

f^S 














W ND \ 



m 

0 

o 

O 

O 

CO 

in 

NO 


o 

o 

o 

rH 

O 

O 

rH 

Ph > m 



• 

4 J 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

O M ON ON 



ON 

co -<r 




vO 

O'. 

CM 

CO 




rH 



rH 

H U rl —' 


VD 


Cd Mf 
p< 






rH 

rH 








pa 



















Z hJ 
o « 

MM /-n 


ft* 

















CO CO vO vO 


vO 

CM 


r^. 


CM 

ON 

rH 

00 


ON 

ON 

m 

ON 

o 

rH 

m 

co co r-* o 


• 

• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

* 

• 

• 

M O ON CM 

H 

no 

Sf 


00 

rH 

00 

ON 


NO 

CM 

rH 

rH 


rH 


CM 

rH 

Z Cd tH ^ 

a 


«*• 



rH 

CM 

rH 

rH 






























g 



















o 

ft* 

















pa 

CJ 

m 

co 












00 



CO I 



• 


o 

m 

CO 

ON 

r- 

< 1 - 

CO 

ON 

00 

ON 

ON 

NO 

UO 

2 

t -3 o ^ 

3 

o 

m 

r^. 

<r 




00 

NO 


CM 

00 

rH 

CM 

• 

rH 

• 

• 

rH 

< Ph rH 

2 

il 

II 




rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 






II 

n 

n 

H co- r* co 

O 

co 



i 

N 

ii 

n 

ii 

ii 

ii 

ii 

ii 

ii 

1 ) 

O W oi m, 
H 3 H 

eg 

NO 

m 


CM 

o 


o 

Mf 

NO 

<■ 

O 

m 

m 

O 

<r 

CO 

00 

pq 

CM 

CM 


CO 

<■ 

ON 

ON 

ON 

NO 


rH 

rH 


rH 





Cd 



M 
















z 



s 
















H 



w 



















►j 















CO 1 



Cd 















1 

1 

& 

W 



g 
















2 



2 

w 















CO ! 

« 



pa 















U ! 

CJ 

& 

















w : 

§ 

td 


j 














in 

X 

c 

a «u 
















^ ( 

CJ 

o 

o o 

2 




m 

Mf 

o 

in 

O 

m 

o 

O 

o 

in 

<j> 

o 


•H 

•h a> 

o 



O 

rH 

CM 

CO 

co 

<t 


m 

NO 


r-» 


Ph j 

pr$ 

CO 

CO f-> 

CO 

CO 

m 

rH 

i 

i 

1 

i 

1 

i 

l 

1 

i 

1 

U 

co ! 

w < 

5 I 

CO 

CO O 

P 4 

1 

i 

1 

rH 

VO 

m 

rH 

vO 

rH 

NO 

rH 

rH 

*H 

a) 

o 

•H 

•H U 

pa 

H 

<r 

NO 

rH 

rH 

CM 

CO 

CO 



m 

VO 


> 

3 : 

>* 

z 

Z <d 

P 4 

</> 

■CO- 

-CO- 

</> 

<f> 

<j> 

</> 


<J> 

■co- 

<n- 

</> 

<j> 

6 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 


suyoM6 suyotiz 


































95 


/-N 

• 

03 

4J 

c 

a> 

RETIRED 

MISSION. 

1976 

(ID 


45.5 

36.4 

54.5 

VLZ 

9.1 

.0% 

1*6 

36.4 

18.2 

36.4 

O 















c 

H 













O 

Z to 













a. 

Q H 













03 

S Z 













(U 

Z w 







S'? 






u 

m Q vO 


rH 

00 

o. 

m 


<r 

rH 

r-* 

o 


n* 


<c p co 


• 

• 

• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

rH 

iJ H O' H 


CO 

o 

n* 

00 

m 

m 

CO 

r^» 


n. 


CO 

aw 


CM 

co 


CO 

rH 

rH 

CM 





IT) 














4-» 

o 













c 

w o 













(1) 

Pd 04 













03 

* 













03 

o z 


B>9 












pi Pd i-> 


04 

CO 

00 

o\ 

os 

Os 

OO 


rH 


co 

a. 

P P h> O' 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

0) 

s p os <r 


rH 

m 

o 

vO 

vO 

<* 

o 

o 


00 

<r 

n 

CJ P rH 


vO 

vO 


<r 

<r 

<* 

<r 

CM 


rH 

pH 

03 














& 

CO 













3 

Pd 













o 

o z 













H 

H O 


B^ 











60 

^ 


r- 

CO 

vO 

o 

o 

vO 

vO 

OS 


CO 

CO 


g P h N 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

00 

H * a\ cv 


CM 

I s * 

CO 

o 

o 

CO 

CO 

o 

CM 

r- 

I s - 


W O H V-' 


O- 


rH 

in 

m 

vO 

vO 

<r 

CM 

CM 

CM 

00 




























•H 

• 













s 

CO 













O 

Z cn 













rH 

O M 













rH 

S 













O 

►J 













<4H 

o z 














o < 













03 

Z M 













z 

O H 













H 

CO CO 














m ^ 


CM 

<r 


co 

rH 

O 


vO 

OS 

O' 

CO 


3 Z fx rH 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

S Z Oi 00 


m 

o 

rH 


CO 

CM 

o 

OS 

m 

m 


03 

5 U H ^ 


00 

I s - 

OS 

m 

m 



CM 

CM 

CM 

pH 

CJ 














03 

>4 CO 














Z w 













03 

<3 z 













<4-1 

H CJ 













c 

< Pi 













o 

CO p 













a 

z 














CJ 













03 

» 













Z 

Z H 













4-3 

o z 














M O 













03 

03 Ph vO 


m 

<*• 

<r 

co 

a\ 

m 

CM 

O 

O 

os 

00 

03 

co cl, 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

t 

• 

O 

H P Om 


rH 

o* 


vO 

m 

rH 

m 

o 

o 

m 

r- 

U 

is CO H ^ 


00 

m 

sr 

os 

n* 

CO 

CO 

o 

o 

CM 

r-« 

O 










rH 

rH 




j Pd CO 













TP 

o w 













03 

z z 













4J 

Pd CJ 













3 

iJ z 













P 

o z 













•H 

> z 













M 

!w cj 













4-3 

! z 













03 

w o 













♦H 

a z 


&M> 





B'S 






TP 

H *A 


00 

o 

CM 

H 

m 


f^. 

VO 

o 

m 

CM 


P-, > r-~ lo 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 


• 

* 

• 

• 

• 

03 

O M CT> OS 


m 

o 


rH 

o 


CO 

CM 

O 

Os 


U 

H O H ^ 


n* 

vO 


vO 

m 


CO 

CO 

CM 

CM 

CM 

03 





























Pd 













03 

z a 

W 












03 

o m 

o 












M 

MM y-s 

Q 

B'S 





B^9 






•H 

CO CO vO SO 

W 


o- 

Os 

rH 


Os 

o 


00 

CO 

o 

Cd 

CO CO N O 

i-J 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

a 

H O O'M 

P 

00 

00 

Os 

OO 


m 

m 

m 

r-H 

CO 

m 

c 

2 Z H 


vO 

m 

vO 


<r 

co 

CO 

CM 

CM 

CM 

rH 

•H 














4-3 


CJ 












03 


o 

&*$ 





B^ 






03 

W 

H-I 

CM 

VO 

rH 

<1- 

o 

CO 

CO 

00 

OS 

CO 

CM 

P 

CO 


• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

O' 

5S 

Pi 

rH 

o 

O 

m 

as 


vO 



<r 

CO 


JO ✓—L 

p 


vO 

vO 

in 

<r 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CM 

CM 

CM 

rH 

<! Z r i-l 

o 

ii 

II 

n 

n 

n 

II 

II 

II 

n 

n 

ii 

CO 

H co r-. co 

(H 

00 

CM 

o\ 


o 

00 

CO 

m 

00 

Os 

CO 

O' 

o Pd os m 


I-* 

CM 

rH 

os 

vO 

OS 

OS 

00 


CM 

CM 

s-/ 

H Z H w 

s 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CM 

CM 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 



o 






c 















(H 






03 















w 






B 















n 






o 





















& 















o 





















H 






4J 





4J 
















■ W 





03 




4J 




4-3 


w 






•H 





•H 




O 




CJ 


> 






03 





03 



03 

03 




03 


M 






O 





O 



u 

•n 



03 

•n 

CO 

O 






J3 





43 



C2 

O 



CJ 

O 








4-3 


• 



4J 



cd 

H 

>s 


c 

H 

£ 

z 

4J 




c 

03 


Pi 


Po 

03 


03 

> 

04 

H 

(4H 

cd 

Pm 

Pd 

o 

«0 




0 

s 




4-3 

S 


c 



cd 

O ^ 

> 



JH 

03 4*4 

60 


iH 



o 


•H 4-> 

U 


o 

< 

rH 

0 4-3 

60 

TP 

rH 

z 


M 

o 

a 


a 

T3 

03 



PJ o 

xi C 


*H 


cd 

0 P 

rH 0 

< 

cd 

O 

w 

O 


*H 

*0 

0 

03 

60 

d 

pH 

g 03 

03 03 


C 4-3 

X 

•H 

•H H O 

O rH 


•H 

O) 

< 


M 

M 

rH 


4-3 

op 


cd 

B i-» 

4-3 "3 


cd cd 

rH 

a 

. 03 Cd CL 

O 0 

• 

O 

CO 


a) 

a 

cd 

U 

B 

•H 

0) 

S 

0 

§ o 

*H 3 


g pH 

U 

03 

03 rH CL 

& 03 

C/3 

03 

Pd 

2 

c 

o 

sz 

O 

0 

c 

rH 


0 

o u 

C 44 

(3 

3 03 

0 

a 

H Cd D 

o p 

• 

CL 

2 


6 

Z co 

& 

CJ 

PD 

PU 

d 

p 

CJ P 

p co 

a 

X Pi 

s 

C/3 

IS 03 03 

cn h 

P3 

C/3 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 


(continued on next page) 













96 


a 

<u 

tj 

§ 

a. 

w 

QJ 

u 


§ 

H 

CO V0 
W N H 
M O 

S H 



o m 


o\ 
cn <r 



w 

oo 


H 

H 

W 


. *~s 

0i N rl 
K O 00 
U H ^ 



vD /•> 

> m 
h cn <n 
O H N-/ 


W 

X 

CQ 

M <rs 
C/3 vO vD 

W rv o 

O O' M 
CM rH ^ 


w 

CO 

2 ^ 
O r-» »—i 
Ph c*. co 
" av m 


§ 


ro 

0) 

3 

C 


w 


o 

PH 

CO 


a* 






a* 







a^ 



CO 




o 


o 


O 

O 

0 


O 

rH 

rH 



•<r 

rH 

CM 

vD 

CM 

CO 






























O* 

CTi 



vO 

CTV 

00 


CO 

OO 















CO 


rH 

CM 

VO 

rH 

CM 

a* 






*5 







a* 







o 


o 


O 

O 



O 

O 

O 



<3- 

<r 

O 

00 

'O- 

CO 

r^* 





¥ 






















r-. 







in 

in 


0 

in 

O 

r^- 














rH 

rH 


CO 

rH 

CO 


a< 






8M! 







B^S 









CM 


rH 


<r 


rH 

O 

rH 



r- 

00 


CO 
























CM 


00 


<r 

CJ 

00 


<r 

CM 

VO 



CM 

0 

vO 

0 

vD 

00 

00 

CM 





CM 

rH 







CO 


CO 

vr 

CO 

rH 

rH 

a* 






a* 







t>S 

CO 






co 


O 


m 

vD 



0 

m 




in 

m 

cn 

CM 

rH 

m 






¥ 















r^* 




<r 

CO 

ID 



sr 

CM 



<r 

r- 

<r 

0 

00 

cn 

<r 

CM 





rH 

CO 




CM 






vr 

rH 



a-S 






a* 







ft-S 







CO 


CO 


00 

iO 

rH 


CM 

cn 

CM 



0 

rH 

r- 

H 


O 

CO 























Ch 


Ot 

00 

rH 


ID 

01 




<1- 

•<r 

r- 


in 

CO 

cn 

rH 


rH 


rH 


rH 







00 

r>» 

00 

r** 

vO 

m 

m 












w 




















O 









6-? 






a* 





0 


a^ 







CM 


m 


rH 

CO 

rH 


vD 

c* 


w 


CT> 


Hfr 

vO 

CO 

rH 

r- 












fj 









CM 


00 



CO 



in 

CO 

r- 

04 


rH 

0 


cn 

cn 

rH 

CO 

CM 


rH 


rH 

CO 

rH 





X 


m 

CM 


CM 


rH 













1 


a* 


















X 


CO 

0 


cn 

CM 

m 

r>- 












CJ 

4J 1 - 

• 


* 

• 

• 

• 













*H IT 

m 

cn 

cn 

vD 

rH 

vD 

CO 












53 

cd h 
X ^ 

co 

<r 

CM 

m 

-cf 

CM 

rH 












CJ 



















0 















S'S 





r-l 

M 



















O 

a«5 







<r 


CTV 


in 

r>* 

m 


<r 


CM 

P4 

4J ^ 

CM 

00 

CO 

00 

CM 


00 





* 





• 

• 

x 

(0 <J 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

* 

• 

c- 


00 


0 

CO 

0 


00 

rH 

CO 

0 

cd <j 

CO 

rH 

VD 

VO 

00 

CM 

VD 



rH 


rH 

rH 

rH 






04 ^ 

<r 

CO 



rH 

CM 













0 















a* 





w 


a*? 







m 


O 


<f 

CO 



rH 

CO 

O 

« 


00 

<r 

n- 

CO 

cn 

CO 






















m 


m 


00 

c- 

cn 


CO 

00 

rH 

w 


00 

r-*. 

CO 


cn 

CM 

00 

rH 


rH 


t — 1 




rH 



> 


CO 

CO 

<r 

CM 

rH 

CM 

rH 












0 















K 





0 


a^ 

















H 



00 

sf 


cn 

CM 

rH 

CO 


m 


f*- 

Mf 



m 

vD 

vO 



• 

• 

• 

* 

• 

• 

• 

• 


• 


• 

m 

• 


• 

t 

• 

X 


<r 

00 

00 

vD 

cn 

VO 


r>- 




CO 

CM 



00 

m 

CO 

p 



CO 

CO 

CO 

CM 

CM 

CM 



rH 


rH 

rH 

rH 







11 

II 

II 

II 

11 

II 

II 

tl 


n 


II 

II 

II 


II 

11 

II 



vO 

vO 

<r 

m 

cn 

cn 

CM 

CM 




CO 

vO 

CM 


m 

0 

at 

O 


CO 

0 

0 

cn 

in 

CO 

rH 

o> 




C- 

vO 

vO 


<r 

CO 


w 


CM 

CM 

CM 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 











H 




















< 




d 
















> 




0) 
















M 




B 
















H 




0 
















O 




3 
















E 




4J 
















w 




W 
















< 




•H 
















X 




TJ 



















X 

O 









03 







H 



0 

X 





0) 




e 

a 








>> 

u 

u 



QJ 


o 




0 

0 






rn 


-1 

3 

(U 



U 


C 0) 




•H 

•H 





to 

[j 


d 

X to 

X 



3 


D rl rl 

« 


-u 

4-1 

4J 

a ) 




4J 



3 u 

u u 




4J 


M *H Cd 

3 


o 

cd 

fo rt 

0 


g 

u 

•rH O 

oi 


3 <u 

03 

U 

>v 

cd 


<1) S "H 

x 


<U 

2 

fl) Tl 

X *H 


<U 

cd 01 

•h a> 

0 


H J*5 

H M 

OJ 

0 

rH 

u 

CO 

4H u 

o 

B 



h e 

4J 

T3 

N 4-1 

cd t-} 



0 cd 

cd on 

4J 

4J 

•H 

0) 

B 

c *d <u 

« 

u 

0 

rH 

cn 3 

3 & 

c 


td c 

& 0 

0 


0 <i» 

0 0 

•H 

CO 

s 

4J 

rH 

o c cu 

3 

cd 

M 

3 

a 0 

0 a) 

3 

0 

rH 01 

cd n 

pi 


h ex 

0 u 

C 

cd 

3 

tH 

•H 

CJ CM CO 

CTPh 

CX 

3 h 

CO 

IH 

H 

PH U 

X 04 

5 


C co 

X 04 

X 

PH 

lu 

X 



Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 


(continued next page) 





9 : 


H 0)v0 ^ 
H W H 

SSSi 





CM 

CM 

CO 

00 

00 

r>. 

rH 

rH 

CM 


O rH o O 

on 


w w 

W Q VO ^ 

< *5 cn 
w H Ov H 
UWH v 


O O O 00 


o 
CO o 
W cm 
2 _ 

U CtJ 

« WN /-N 

§ p r>. on 
z ov sr 

CJ P rH w 


B^ 

CM 

CM 

<r 

CO 

CM 

CO 

ON 

rH 

CO 

rH 

rH 

CM 

00 

O 

00 

Ml* 

O 

NO 

<r 

Ml* 


NO 

NO 

CM 


rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 

rH 



rH 


rH 


CO 

u S 

H CJ 

§ pS r-» ✓-> 

p r»* cm 

H 5 O' CM 

UOH v 


B* 







NO CM 

rH 

CM 

NO 

m 

m 

CO 








CO CO 

ON 

00 

CO 

Mf 

-o* 

r- 

rH rH 


rH 

rH 



CM 


m r-* rH o 

Ml* CM O' 


CO 
pH CO 

§s 

EC M 
U H 
CO CO 

M I s ** y-> 

S Pi rs h 
2 S on oo 
5uh^^ 
p 


00 

CM 

B^S 

CO 

m 

O 

On 

mi* 

CO 

o 

00 

co 

«H 

O 

rH 

*0* 

Mf 

CO 

CM 

CM 

CO 


O CO VD CO I 


vO cm mi* r-» | 
rH rH CO Hi 


25 E-h 

o os 
M o 

CO pui NO 
CO P N 
JH p c* 

2 CO H 


w o 

PQ 2 

M NO 

CM > 

O H ON 

HUH 


. * 
o£ 

P5 >>^> VO 
U U H • 

, *h m on 

p CO ^ rH 


g W • 
on o cd * 


■ Q 

W 55 

2 P O 

O CQ >h 

HH ^ W 

COCO VO VO PQ 

co co o 

H O ON CM w 
2 fe H W > 


<U W H 

3 CO 

O' ,55 P 

P O /~n O 

rH <5 p- rH >-* 

m eh co r> co 

o> o w on m g 

^ HKH^u 

—1 


CO 

NO 

rH 

Ml* 

O 

B* 

CM 







CM 

CO 

ON 


m 

00 


rH 


rH 

CM 

rH 


H I*-* ON NO 
rH CO r-H m 


II tl II 

rH CO NO 

O On on 


in 

00 

NO 

B* 

CO 

00 

00 

00 


00 00 










CO 

rH 

r- 

rH 

r*- 

rH 

r-* 

CO 


CM 

rH 

rH 

rH 


rH 


rH 

rH 


CO 

m 

00 

rH 

B^ 

CO 

Ml* 

NO 

rH 

<1- 

nD 

CM 

rH 

CM 

rH 



II II 

no r-> 

ON oo 


m m m »h 
mi* mi* mi* on 


md vo oo r- 


CM CM no oo 
rH rH 


00 

CO 

CM 

rH 

m 

rH 

m 


Mf 










m 

n 

CM 

CM 



o 

o 

o 

rH 

H i 

rH 

rH 






n 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

li 

II 

li 

sr 


in 

<r 

rH 

ON 

NO 

m 

in 

00 

00 

NO 

NO 

NO 

m 

m 

m 

m 


4-> 


CO 


CO 


0) 

a 

a 


CO 

0) 

CJ 

ti 

*H 


c 

c 

rH 

<v 

a ) 

a 

tH 

CO 

d 

•H 

O 

CO 


o 

o 

JO 

u 

Pi 

o 

CO 

Pi 

tH 

CO 

rH 

•H 

•H 

•H 

a> 

0) 

•H 

Cd 

0 

4-1 

CO 


CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

V4H 

4-1 

CO 

jn 

CP 

03 

(0 

& 

CJ 

CO 

CO 

CO 

C 

a 

CO 

CP 

CO 

•H 

Q 

•H 

2 

S 

O 

P 

•H 

2 

3 

O 

fU 

0 

o 

o 

u 

£ 

s 

<u 

OS 


X) 

c 

CO 0) 

o 

. *-* C 

4J M CO Q) CO 

•H O C P P 

3 T3 0 O 0) <U 


<DtHQ> 03 id 0 <D 
OS OS SO ZUP 


Pp C Pi 

* *H Id 

pH J-i rH 


<U 

M CO 

a A Pi 

O Pi 0) 


pH Pi rH «d O Pi 

• <U 3 rl J3 (1) 

2 EP O TJ CO P 

• 3 ai a) *h c 

p CO CO 2 P M 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 






98 . 


APPENDIX C 

OBSERVATIONS ON RESULTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE ON 
"MOTIVATION IN MISSION OUTREACH" 

A Research Project of the Pacific and Southwest Conference 
of the United Methodist Church 
Conducted by Dale K. Smith, chairperson 
Conference Committee on Stewardship 


There were 931 questionnaires distributed across the Pacific and 
Southwest Conference to 8 different groups, to which 531 persons 
responded. The persons represent a good cross section of churches 
and individuals within the Pacific and Southwest Conference of the 
United Methodist Church. 


I. PERSONAL STATISTICS: 


A. Groups: 

Out of 531 persons who responded: 

38.8% or 206 persons responded at "Mission Possible" in 1976. 

The week-end was sponsored by the United Metho¬ 
dist Women of the conference and the Board of 
Global Ministries. 

17.9% or 95 persons responded from the top Benvolence Giv¬ 
ing Churches in the conference in 1976. These 
churches paid all World Service and Conference 
Benevolences in full, paid all Conference ask¬ 
ings in full, gave over $1,000 in Advance Spec¬ 
ials, gave over $1,000 for local benevolences. 

10.2% or 54 pastors responded from churches giving mission¬ 
ary salary support for 1976. 

15.3% or 81 persons responded at the United Methodist 
Women Schoool of Christian Mission in 1977. 

4.1% or 22 pastors responded from conference ethnic church¬ 
es in 1977. There were 2 Afro American, 5 His¬ 
panic American, 14 Asian American and 1 Native 
American. 

9.2% or 49 pastors responded from Caucasian American Church¬ 
es with fewer than 200 members in 1977. 

2.4% or 13 students responded from the School of Theology 
at Claremont in 1976. 

2.1% or 11 retired missionaries responded in 1976. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



99 . 


B. Persons and Sex: 

Out of 531 persons who responded: 

63.5% or 337 were laypersons. 

36.3 or 193 were pastors. 

42.9 or 228 were members of the United Methodist Women. 

46.9 or 249 were males. 

52.4 or 278 were females. 


C. Age: 

Out of 531 persons who responded: 

.6% or 3 were teenagers. 

16.9 or 90 were 20-35 years of age. 

31.8 or 169 were 36-50 years of age. 

37.5 or 199 were 51-65 years of age. 

11.7 or 62 were over 66 years of age. 


D. Race: 

Out of 531 persons who responded: 

89.5% or 475 were Caucasian American. 


2.6 

or 

14 

were 

Afro American. 

2.8 

or 

15 

were 

Hispanic American. 

4.1 

or 

22 

were 

Asian American. 

.9 

or 

5 

were 

Native American. 


E. Income: 

Out of 522 persons who responded (9 did not list income): 

7.0% or 37 had incomes of under $5,000 a year. 

(14 pastors, 23 laity) 

21.1 or 112 had incomes of $5,000 to $10,000 a year. 

(33 pastors, 79 laity) 

32.2 or 171 had incomes of $10,000 to $15,000 a year. 

(91 pastors, 80 laity) 

27.7 or 147 had incomes of $15,000 to $25,000 a year. 

(53 pastors, 94 laity) 

10.4 or 55 had incomes of over $25,000 a year. 

(1 pastor, 54 laity) 

F. Size of Churches: 

Out of 531 persons who responded: 

7.2 % or 38 were members of churches of 100 persons or less. 

25.4 or 135 were members of churches of 101 to 300 persons. 

21.5 or 114 were members of churches of 301 to 500 persons. 

19.6 or 104 were members of churches of 501 to 800 persons. 

9.8 or 52 were members of churches of 801 to 1000 persons. 

20.5 or 109 were members of churches of over 1000 persons. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



100 . 


II. CHURCH GIVING: 


A. Persons checked where their churches gave. Out of a possible 
531 respondents 6 areas are given in the order of importance 
placed on them: 

76.8% or 408 churches give to non-conference local projects. 

73.6 or 391 churches give to United Methodist Committee on 

Relief 

71.8 or 381 churches give to World Advance Special Projects. 

71.4 or 379 churches give to local conference projects. 

54.0 or 287 churches give to U.S. Advance Special Projects. 

47.8 or 254 churches give to missionary salary support. 

(The figure in 1976 was 54, but missionary 
salary support persons were represented in all 
of the 8 groups responding.) 


B. Ways in which churches sponsor the above causes are given in 
order of importance placed on them: Out of a possible 531 
respondents: 

80.8% or 429 churches sponsor causes through church budget. 

75.5 or 401 churches sponsor causes through special offer¬ 

ings at Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter. 

62.5 or 332 churches sponsor causes through special offer¬ 

ings at other times. 

53.9 or 286 churches sponsor causes through individual gifts. 

44.1 or 234 churches sponsor causes through church-wide 

projects. 

32.4 or 172 churches sponsor causes through youth projects. 

30.7 or 163 churches sponsor causes through memorials. 

30.3 or 161 churches sponsor causes through separate missions 

pledge. 

25.6 or 136 churches sponsor causes through class projects. 

20.7 or 110 churches sponsor causes through envelopes in 

annual boxes. 

16.8 or 89 churches sponsor causes through personal con¬ 

tacts. 

9.4 or 50 churches sponsor causes through Faith-Promise 
pledges 

4.0 or 21 churches sponsor causes through foundation money. 

C. Out of a possible 531 respondents, 268, or 50.5%, keep in person¬ 
al contact with a missionary and 251, or 47.3%, keep in personal 
contact with one or more mission projects. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



101 . 


III. PERSONAL GIVING: 

A. Personal weekly pledges of pastors and laity are given. When 
compared with income of same persons, as taken from question¬ 
naire we see the following: (Retired missionaries and students 
at Claremont are not included here, due to the small represent¬ 
ation of the two groups.) 


AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE 

ANNUAL INCOME WEEKLY PLEDGE PERCENTAGE GIVEN 
332 Laity: $18,759 $23,63 6.6% 

168 Pastors: $16,300 $26.11 8.3% 

B. A further evaluation of this shows the giving record of the 
eight groups in the survey, representing 524 persons who re¬ 
sponded. 


AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE 

PASTORS: ANNUAL INCOME WEEKLY PLEDGE PERCENTAGE GIVEN 

54 pastors 

whose church¬ 


es gave mis¬ 
sionary sup¬ 
port in 1976 $20,185 $30.24 7.8% 

43 pastors whose 
churches were 
top Benevolence 

givers in 1976 $19,651 $29.20 7.7 

49 pastors serving 
churches of 
under 200 mem- 



bers in 1977 

$14,285 

$23.83 

8.7% 

22 

ethnic pastors 
responding in 

1977 

$14,090 

$21.18 

7.8% 

11 

retired mission¬ 
aries 1976 

$ 8,636 

$11.36 

6.8% 

13 

Claremont 
students 1976 

$ 5,769 

$ 6.33 

5.7% 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



102 . 


AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE 

LAITY: ANNUAL INCOME WEEKLY PLEDGE PERCENTAGE GIVEN 

46 laity whose 
churches were 

top Benevolence $22,717 $37.58 8.6% 

givers in 1976 (These laypersons were selected by pastors 
from high pledgers in local churches.) 

81 laity attending 
UMW School of 
Christian Mis¬ 
sion in 1977 
(including 2 

pastors) $17,098 $16.17 4.9% 

205 laity attending 
"Mission 
Possible" in 
1976 (including 

8 pastors) $16,463 $17.16 5.4% 

All annual income and weekly pledges are based on highest point of 
scale. For instance: $5,000 to $10,000 income is figured at 
$10,000; $6.00 to $10.00 pledge is figured at $10.00. This in¬ 
creased all of the above figures slightly but the comparison is 
still the same for each group. 


C. Persons checked where they gave beyond their local church pledge. 
Out of 531 possible respondents to 19 possible areas, 5 areas 
received 49.0% or more positive responses: 

71.2% or 378 persons checked One Great Hour of Sharing. 

60.6 or 322 persons checked World Communion. 

60.1 or 319 persons checked United Methodist Women Pledge. 

(42.9% of all respondents were members of 
United Methodist Women.) 

55.4 or 294 persons checked United Methodist Committee on 
Relief. 

49.0 or 260 persons checked Local Community Projects. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



103 . 


The other 14 areas checked in order of preference were: 

37.3% or 198 persons checked United Methodist Student Day. 

36.3 or 193 persons checked Human Relations. 

34.8 or 185 persons checked World Advance Specials. 

27.9 or 148 persons checked Missionary Salary Support. 

24.3 or 129 persons checked School of Theology. 

23.2 or 123 persons checked U.S. Advance Special Projects. 

17.3 or 92 persons checked Conference Second Mile Specials. 

14.5 or 77 persons checked Quechan Farm Project. 

13.7 or 73 persons checked All Nations Foundation. 

12.4 or 66 persons checked Wesley Foundation. 

11.7 or 62 persons checked Youth Service Fund. 

8.5 or 45 persons checked Toberman Settlement House. 

5.6 or 30 persons checked Plaza Community Center. 

3.6 or 19 persons checked Hawaii Projects. 


D. A further evaluation of the top ten checked by each of the eight 
groups shows the following: 

Mission Possible (206 respondents) 

69.9% or 144 United Methodist Women Pledge. 

68.4 or 141 One Great Hour of Sharing. 

58.7 or 121 World Communion. 

48.1 or 99 United Methodist Committee on Relief. 

44.7 or 92 Local Community Projects. 

35.9 or 74 United Methodist Student Day. 

35.0 or 72 Human Relations. 

25.7 or 53 World Advance Specials. 

23.3 or 48 School of Theology. 

21.8 or 45 Missionary Salary. 


Top Benevolence Giving Churches (95 respondetns: 41 pastors, 
51 laity) 

75.8% or 72 One Great Hour of Sharing. 

61.1 or 58 United Methodist Committee on Relief. 

60.0 or 57 World Communion. 

50.5 or 48 Local Community Projects. 

44.2 or 42 United Methodist Women Pledge. 

37.9 or 36 United Methodist Student Day. 

33.7 or 32 Human Relations. 

32.6 or 31 World Advance Specials. 

29.5 or 28 School of Theology. 

24.2 or 23 U.S. Advance Specials. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



104 . 


Missionary Salary Supporting Churches (54 respondents) 


100.0% 

or 

54 Missionary Salary and World Advance Specials. 

96.3 

or 

52 United Methodist Committee on Relief. 

81.5 

or 

44 One Great Hour of Sharing. 

77.8 

or 

42 U.S. Advance Specials. 

75.9 

or 

41 Local Community Projects. 

57.4 

or 

31 World Communion. 

44.4 

or 

24 United Methodist Women Pledge. 

35.2 

or 

19 Human Relations. 

33.3 

or 

18 Wesley Foundation 

31.5 

or 

17 United Methodist Student Day. 


United Methodist Women School of Christian Mission (81 respon¬ 
dents) 


91. 

.4% 

or 

85. 

.2 

or 

70. 

,4 

or 

54. 

.3 

or 

53. 

,1 

or 

42. 

,0 

or 

40. 

7 

or 

29. 

6 

or 

25. 

9 

or 

19. 

8 

or 


74 United Methodist Women Pledge. 

69 One Great Hour of Sharing. 

57 World Communion. 

44 United Methodist Committee on Relief. 
43 Local Community Projects. 

34 United Methodist Student Day. 

33 Human Relations. 

24 World Advance Specials. 

21 Missionary Salary. 

16 All Nations Foundation. 


Ethnic Churches (22 respondents) 


77.3% 

or 

17 World Communion. 

72.7 

or 

16 One Great Hour of Sharing. 

63.6 

or 

14 United Methodist Student Day and Human 
Relations. 

50.0 

or 

11 Local Community Projects. 

40.9 

or 

9 World Advance Specials. 

36.4 

or 

8 Youth Service Fund. 

27.3 

or 

6 U.S. Advance Specials and School of Theology 
and Conference Second Mile Specials. 

22.7 

or 

5 Missionary Salary and Hawaii Projects 

13.6 

or 

3 Wesley Foundation and United Methodist Women 
Pledge. 

4.5 

or 

1 Plaza Community Center and All Nations 
Foundation. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



105 . 


Churches Under 200 members (49 responding) 


65.3% 

or 

32 

World Communion. 

61.2 

or 

30 

One Great Hour of Sharing. . 

46.9 

or 

23 

Local Community Projects and United Methodist 




Committee on Relief. 

44.9 

or 

22 

United Methodist Student Day. 

40.8 

or 

20 

United Methodist Women Pledge and Human 




Relations. 

22.4 

or 

11 

Conference Second Mile Specials. 

20.4 

or 

10 

World Advance Specials and Wesley Foundation. 

18.4 

or 

9 

School of Theology. 

14.3 

or 

7 

U.S. Advance Specials. 

8.2 

or 

4 

Quechan Farm Project. 


Claremont 

Students (13 responding) 

38.5% 

or 

5 United Methodist Committee on Relief. 

30.8 

or 

4 World Communion. 

23.1 

or 

3 One Great Hour of Sharing. 

15.4 

or 

2 United Methodist Student Day and Local 
Community Projects. 

7.7 

or 

1 School of Theology. 

7.7 

or 

1 Youth Service Fund. 

7.7 

or 

1 World Advance Special Projects. 

7.7 

or 

1 U.S. Advance Special Projects. 

7.7 

or 

1 United Methodist Women Pledge. 

Retired Missionaries (11 responding) 

54.5% 

or 

6 United Methodist Women Pledge. 

45.5 

or 

5 One Great Hour of Sharing. 

36.4 

or 

4 World Communion and World Advance Specials and 
the School of Theology. 

27.3 

or 

3 United Methodist Committee on Relief. 

18.2 

or 

2 Missionary Salary. 

9.1 

or 

1 Human Relations. 

9.1 

or 

1 Local Community Projects. 

9.1 

or 

1 Plaza Community. 

9.1 

or 

1 Hawaii Projects. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



106 . 


IV. MOTIVATION: 


A. Persons checked who or what motivated them to give beyond their 
local church pledge. Out of 531 possible respondents to 24 
possible areas, 4 areas received 36.7% or more positive 
responses: 

44.4% or 236 checked Missionary Speakers. 

38.8 or 206 checked Local Church Programs. 

38.4 or 204 checked United Methodist Women. (42.9% of all 

respondents were members of United Methodist 
Women.) 

36.7 or 195 checked Pastor. (It is interesting to note 
that only 3 out of 44 pastors of Top Benevo¬ 
lence giving churches checked Pastor. Other¬ 
wise Pastor would be second only to Missionary 
Speakers.) 

The next eight areas in order of positive response were: 

29.9% or 159 checked Family. 

26.2 or 139 checked Literature. 

21.1 or 112 Films. 

20.5 or 109 Layperson. 

20.2 or 107 District Missions Emphasis. 

19.6 or 104 Local Missions. 

19.0 or 101 "Mission Possible". 

18.5 or 98 Annual Conference. 


The last twelve areas in order of positive responses were: 
18.1% or 96 Conference Mission Emphasis and Response 
Magazine. 

16.4 or 87 Circuit West. 

15.8 or 84 National or Conference Leader and World Out¬ 
look. 

12.2 or 65 United Methodist youth Fellowship. 

12.1 or 64 District Superintendent, (rated higher by 

pastors than laity) 

11.5 or 61 Secular Media. 

11.1 or 59 Bishop (rated higher by pastors than laity) 

10.5 or 56 Interpreter. 

10.4 or 55 Posters and School. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



107 . 


B. A further evaluation of the top six checked by each of the 
eight groups shows the following: 

Mission Possible (206 respondents) 

43.7% or 90 United Methodist Women. 

38.8 or 80 Missionary Speaker. 

37.4 or 77 Local Church Programs. 

31.6 or 65 Mission Possible. 

24.8 or 51 Pastor. 

24.3 or 50 Response. 


Top Benevolence Giving Churches (95 respondents: 44 pastors, 

51 laity) 

41.1% or 39 Local Church Programs (14 pastors, 24 laity). 

38.9 or 37 Missionary Speakers (19 pastors, 18 laity). 
33.7 or 32 Pastor (3 pastors, 29 laity). 

30.5 or 29 Family (8 pastors, 1 laity). 

24.2 or 23 Literature (10 pastors, 13 laity). 

18.9 or 18 United Methodist Women (3 pastors, 15 laity). 


Missionary Salary Supporting Churches(54 respondents) 


51.9% 

or 

28 Missionary Speaker. 

29.6 

or 

16 

Pastor. 

20.4 

or 

11 

Local Church Programs. 

16.7 

or 

9 

Mission Possible. 

14.8 

or 

8 

Local Missions. 

13.0 

or 

7 

District Superintendent 


United Methodist Women School of Christian Mission (81 respon 
dents) 

87.7% 

or 

71 United Methodist Women. 

84.0 

or 

68 Missionary Speaker. 

74.1 

or 

60 Pastor and Local Church Programs. 

65.4 

or 

53 Family and Local Missions. 

59.3 

or 

48 Films. 

58.0 

or 

47 Layperson and Literature. 


Ethnic Churches (22 respondents) 

40.9% 

or 

9 Pastor. 

27.3 

or 

6 District Superintendent and Local Church 
Programs. 

22.7 

or 

5 Layperson and Interpreter. 

18.2 

or 

4 Family and Circuit West and Conference 
Mission Emphasis. 

13.6 

or 

3 Conference and World Outlook. 

9.1 

or 

2 Literature. 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 



108 . 


Churches Under 200 Members (49 responding) 


44.9% 

or 

22 District Superintendent. 

40.8 

or 

20 Pastor and Local Church Programs. 

36.7 

or 

18 Family and United Methodist Women. 

32.7 

or 

16 Missionary Speaker. 

24.5 

or 

12 Layperson. 

22.4 

or 

11 Conference. 


Claremont 

Students (13 responding) 

38.5% 

or 

5 Secular Media. 

30.8 

or 

4 School and Literature and Pastor. 

15.4 

or 

2 Family and Missionary Speaker and Local Church 
Programs. 

7.7 

or 

1 Films and Local Missions. 


Retired Missionaries (11 responding) 


63.6% 

or 

7 Family. 

36.4 

or 

4 Missionary Speaker. 

27.3 

or 

3 Pastorand Circuit West and Films. 

18.2 

or 

2 National, Conference Leaders and Literature 
and United Methodist Women and Conference 
Mission Emphasis and Response. 

9.1 

or 

1 Local Church Programs and District Mission 
Emphasis, World Outlook, Interpreter. 


C. Persons wrote in responses to what they felt motivated them 
and their churches to give beyond their local church pledge. 
The answers are grouped in general categories. 



TOTAL 

LAYPERSONS 

PASTORS 


(243 resp.) 

(167 resp.) 

(7 6 resp.) 

Human Needs 

152=62.6% 

108=64.7% 

44=57.9% 

Faith in God, Christ 

139=57.2 

86=51.5 

53=69.7 

Gratitude to God 

79=32.5 

63=37.7 

16=21.1 

Church, Conference Needs 

78=32.1 

63=37.7 

15=19.7 

Personal Involvement 

65=26.7 

54=32.3 

7= 9.2 

Desire to Share 

61=25.1 

46=27.5 

19=25.0 

Love for Others 

35=14.4 

20=12.0 

15=19.7 

Obligation to God 

19= 7.8 

16= 9.6 

3= 3.9 

Guilt Feelings 

9= 3.7 

7= 4.2 

2= 2.6 

Social Pressure 

5= 2.1 

4= 2.4 

1= 1.3 


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.