Mars Hill Church and the 80/20 Rule
Mars Hill Church released its Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Report back on February 16 [link]; I’ve cached a copy [PDF] and recommend reading it. Also, I need to get back to it to refine some wild guesses I made about Mars Hill Albuquerque salaries.
This is an annual report, and as such is a mix of numbers and stories. Most annual reports are a mix of real information and public relations, meant to convey a sense of both transparency and enthusiasm. Sometimes it’s hard to tell one from the other. There is no Securities and Exchange Commission monitoring these reports and making minimal guarantees under threat of force the way there would be for a for-profit company. Churches especially aren’t obligated by the government to be accountable for every dollar they touch, etc.
All that being said the Mars Hill Annual Report makes for an interesting read; it makes clear what Mars Hill considers its distinctives (pages 14-15) and what distinguishes them from e.g. Calvary Chapel or Sovereign Grace Ministries or any other paradenominational organization.
One of the nuggets is on page 54-55 under the heading “Mars Hill Church Attendees by Annual Giving Range,” where there’s a pie chart with slices representing people who attend Mars Hill campus churches and and their giving levels: 21% give $0, 43% give $1-500, 15% give $501-1500, 11% give $1501-4000, and 10% give >$4000. This general pattern is familiar among churches: a small number of people give most of the money, most people give little or nothing, and there’s a third group in the middle that’s hard to describe.
Here’s how the annual report describes giving overall:
The top 21 percent of givers made up 86 percent of all of the 2010 donations. Among those who contributed nothing, some were non-Christians or visitors. As long as Mars Hill continues to grow at the present rate, these ratios will likely remain static as new attendees join while present attendees mature spiritually. The goal is not that 100 percent of attendees would give over $4,000, but that all Christians would learn to give regularly, generously, and sacrificially, each according to their means. Because giving is an act of worship and love for Jesus, we don’t expect non-Christians to give. Therefore, since we want non-Christians to continue coming to Mars Hill Church, there should always be some $0 givers. Christians who give $0 may need to repent, but non-Christians who give $0 should feel welcome as guests.
Yeah there’s a fair amount of Christianese here, but basically they’re saying that their donors more or less follow the 80/20 rule [link], which is fairly typical for churches generally. They don’t touch the question of tithing (the word “tithe” doesn’t appear in the report), so there’s no discussion of giving as a percentage of income. I am guessing this is because they were able to calculate this number (how they estimated donor numbers for cash donations I can’t imagine), whereas they would need a lot of personal data to calculate tithing rates accurately.
I don’t know why the Pareto number describes above tends to settle where it does, nor do I know how one would go about shifting it. Ideally a church would consist of believers who are giving (somewhere) at a sacrificial level; I’m not sure that money should all always go to their local church. It’s not reasonable to expect the Pareto number to be 50 (50% of the people giving 50% of the money) since almost any church has rich people and poor people. Having the donations concentrated in the hands of a relative few (where a power clique sponsors most of the church’s activities) tends to concentrate power in a handful of pews; I’m not sure what happens on the other end of the spectrum. I’ve never seen it.
IRS Form 990-EZ
About three years ago Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) opened an review of “media-based ministries” and their tax status and asked six prominent ministries for financial details. Last month he concluded his review and released a report. It’s 61 pages long and I’ve read about half of it; it’s some of the most fascinating stuff I’ve ever read.
The top page for the review is here; the report I’m referring to is here.
One of the results most Baptists would have heard about is this: the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA) is forming a commission to respond to issues Grassley raised. Michael Foust/The Baptist Press covered it [link], interpreting it as potentially having “a major impact on the tax status of churches and pastors nationwide” and included quotes from among others Dan Busby, head of the ECFA. Here is one of the bullets, regarding IRS Form 990:
Whether churches should be required to file the highly detailed IRS Form 990 that other nonprofits must file. The ECFA historically has opposed forcing churches to file the form, arguing it would lead to an “excessive entanglement” between the church and state.
Busby said many small churches — if forced to complete the form — “would probably have to engage professional assistance and pay several thousands of dollars.”
I would encourage dispassionate readers to consider the fact that Busby is the head of an organization that helps ministries (broadly defined) present their financial results in ways other than through the Form 990, and so doing may have a vested interest in continuing the status quo rather than having churches file the Form 990.
Very broadly speaking Form 990 is the counterpart to the 1040 Form that individuals file each year with their income tax returns. The difference being that it is filed by nonprofits, so it is a disclosure form, required to maintain their tax-exempt status. Churches are explicitly exempt, not only from paying taxes, but also from filing Form 990.
Form 990, like the 1040, comes in several flavors, including a four-page “EZ” short form [PDF]. It describes money flowing in and out of a non-profit in a given year, along with net assets, balance sheet, executive compensation, and some status qualifying questions regarding things like political contributions. I would encourage readers to take a look at the EZ form I’ve linked above and make up their own minds regarding whether it is “highly detailed” as Mr Busby claims, and imagine for themselves whether their local small church would need to spend “several thousands of dollars” to fill in the information it requires.
The staff report is a godsend for a blogger like me, and I’m looking forward to digging into it. I’m surprised it hasn’t gotten more attention.
Frank Turk vs. Michael Horton
I’m not a fan of Frank Turk; I think he’s condescending and occasionally mean-spirited, and I generally find the tone of the Pyromaniacs blog to be self-congratulatory and sarcastic (yeah yeah: pot/kettle/black), and his ongoing “open letters” series to be beyond the pale.
So intellectual honesty requires that I own up to this: I think he’s on to something in his open letter to Michael Horton of the White Horse Inn and other outlets [link]. Turk’s post really could have been edited for brevity and clarity; if I had to do it I might just have pulled this quote:
There is much to be gained from the Law/Gospel, imperative/indicative distinction in Scripture, but not everything is resolved by it. And one of the things which is not resolved by it is what manner of people the Gospel makes us – which is actually part and parcel of the Good News.
This could partly be summarized as “there’s not just Law and Gospel; there’s also sanctification.” Or words to that effect. I’d recommend reading the whole article and the comments at the link above; it’s a mix of “good Frank Turk” and “bad Frank Turk” and is worthwhile even for those of us who read him rarely and as such are tempted to scorn.
D’Souza: Falwell Before the Millennium
When most people talk about “the Religious Right” or “the Christian Right,” they’re talking generally about theologically and politically conservative Christians who can be relied upon to vote a particular way (most of the time) and otherwise participate in politics (through donations or working on campaigns) in a particular way (most of the time). When they state specifics they often resort to breakdowns by denomination; the “Christian Right” consists of conservative Protestants, conservative Catholics, evangelicals, and Mormons. Never mind for the moment that this misses conservative non-denominational types (Calvary Chapel, Vineyard Christian Fellowship, etc.) and considers Mormons Christians; the former is complicated and the latter makes sense because Mormons in one part of the country (the Mormon Corridor, AKA the Jello Belt) can be identified as consistent, significant voter blocks.
Anyway, the history of the Christian Right over several election cycles has experienced a sea change: initially the issues and leaders came from Protestants and evangelicals and the coalition-makers tried to sell them to Catholics; now it appears that process has mostly reversed. See e.g. the Manhattan Declaration. I think this is because initially the analysis focused on the big numbers (there are more Protestants than Catholics) but now it focuses on smaller numbers (there are more Catholics than Southern Baptists or conservative Lutheran or what-have-you). Never mind that Protestants seem to be short on idea leaders and charismatic leaders, while Catholics do at least have a scholastic tradition that can occasionally manage more than a soundbite.
Dinesh D’Souza’s book (the whole title is Falwell: Before the Millennium: A Critical Biography [link]) is from 1984, and while it is mostly a straightforward biography of Falwell through about 1983, and is reasonably well-written, it’s important to understand that at least part of what D’Souza is doing here is attempting to make Falwell palatable to his Roman Catholic brethren. Here’s a quick rundown:
- About 70 pages putting Falwell in context in American history (the Scopes trial, etc.) and another telling of his conversion story. There are several good versions of Falwell’s conversion story, each with differing anecdotes but for the most part consistent with one another. This is a pretty good one.
- 40 pages or so explaining Falwell’s fundamentalist credentials, his entrance into national politics, and how those two things were at variance.
- 40 pages or so describing Falwell’s involvement in Moral Majority, national politics, etc. through about 1983.
- 50-60 pages of miscellaneous topics, including a visit to Lynchburg, a description of the various ministries circa 1983, etc.
Highlights include
- A rundown of the 1970 FCC decision that changed the way religious television was regulated, making it possible for some TV preachers to become popular without various media outlets being required to provide equal time to their less popular counterparts/brethren. Dinesh D’Souza says Falwell was especially grateful to FCC Director (and Reagan appointee) Mark Fowler. I’d never heard that one before.
- The claim on the part of D’Souza that Falwell believed that the Watergate break-in should never have been exposed. I don’t know that I ever heard Falwell say anything like this, and it struck me as a Republican article of faith that sounded weird in 1984 and still sounds weird today.
- A theme regarding Falwell’s disagreements with various people affiliated with the World Council of Churches/National Council of Churches. It’s easy to forget that WCC people were the voice of Establishment Christianity in the United States circa 1975 or so.
This is mostly a brisk read and an interesting period piece. Sometimes it gets bogged down with inside-the-Beltway (or is that inside-the GOP?) minutiae, but that’s to be expected given D’Souza’s perspective at the time. I do kind of wish he’d delved a bit deeper into Falwell’s racial past (e.g. his supposed relationship with Lester Maddox) or his relationship to the right-wing fringe in Republican circles (e.g. his supposed relationship to the John Birch Society), and while a book like this would have been a safe place to do so D’Souza has other fish to fry.
I’d recommend it to people who are interested in the history of the Christian Right and its entanglements with the Republican Party.
The Trinity, before and after the Reformation
I want to share with you the sermon I heard his past Sunday at Christ Church in Santa Fe [flash, mp3]. It’s available temporarily at the official former link; I’ve cached a copy (also temporarily) at WordPress and will happily take it down if asked. I couldn’t figure out how to live link an archival mp3 at the source.
This is the church I attend when I’m in town and don’t have other commitments; this sermon is fairly typical in structure and flow relative to the ones we’ve heard in the last couple of years. The Scripture readings have been omitted from the audio. Nearly every week there is a crystalline moment in Martin Ban’s sermon where he says something that I haven’t heard before, or says something in a way I haven’t heard before, that I suspect is a work of inspiration, revelation, or sheer hard work.
The leadup to the moment in this sermon starts about nine minutes in, when he turns his attention to the Trinity as expressed in Ephesians 1:3-14. Listeners short on time are encouraged to skip the exploration of Steely Dan lyrics in the opening section prior to 9:00 or so. He delves into what Paul is up to, Paul’s relationship to the church at Ephesus, etc. to reach the main text at about 13:00. The point, as he sees it, is that Paul is telling us that God’s gift to us is Himself, and our relationship with Him.
He also attempts to unravel some aspects of predestination of free will; I can’t tell you whether he succeeds. He also covers one of the compulsory forms in Trinitarian theology: Augustine’s explanation of the Persons of the Godhead giving themselves to one another. There’s also some elaboration on the word oikonomos. As best I can tell this is all orthodox, at least from a conservative Presbyterian/PCA perspective.
The moment comes at about 22:00, where he contrasts the various creeds before the Reformation with the positions of the Roman Catholics and the Protestants after the Reformation, where the Catholics focus on the Magisterium and the various Protestant Confessions focus on the authority of Scripture. He says, essentially, that the central relationship of Christianity, as emphasized in the creeds, gets demoted to second behind the authority of either the Church or the Scriptures.
I am not entirely sure he offers a solution to this problem, but I appreciate seeing the tension pointed out. It is as they say food for thought and grounds for further research.
Hefley: The Secret File on John Birch
If you grew up white, male, fundamentalist and Baptist in say the Seventies you probably read at least one book by James C. Hefley. While Hefley is best known for his six-volume series on the conservative resurgence/fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention, he wrote at least seventy books [link], many of them quick inspirational (or even aspirational) biographies of famous Christians.
A typical James Hefley vignette would involve a stirring opening paragraph in which an athlete or a politician achieves something or accomplishes something, followed by a paragraph indicating that they are also a strong Christian and that their faith or spiritual practice and their success in the secular world are connected somehow. This vignette would be unambiguous and would also be written on about a seventh-grade reading level. Hefley’s style is lean; he makes his points overtly; his action moves at a hustling-to-breakneck pace.
This makes Hefley’s biography of John Birch, co-written with his wife Marti, doubly interesting, as it portrays Birch as a fundamentalist Baptist of the best kind, an alpha male, a nonconformist in a world gone mad, a war hero, and a martyr in the fight against Communism, almost as if these things necessarily went together, and every true Christian would be patriotic, anti-Communist, etc. Hefley’s telling of the story is so pure and so perfect that today it comes off like propaganda.
Birch’s story is compelling: he was the son of missionaries that had returned to the States from India for health reasons. He was unusually intelligent and driven, even for his family, and felt a call to a foreign mission field while still young. He was a protege of J. Frank Norris [link], was involved in a Modernist controversy at Mercer University in Atlanta, received language training in Japanese-controlled Shanghai, served inland in China as a missionary. He joined the Flying Tigers when his support stopped and served under Claire Chennault [link] when the latter joined the Army Air Corps before being seconded to the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), predecessor of the modern CIA. Shortly after the Japanese surrender he was killed in northern China by Chinese Communists while traveling with a mixed party of Koreans and Chinese nationalists. He was considered by Robert Welch Jr, founder of the John Birch Society, to be the first casualty of the Cold War [link].
And that, by and large, is the outline of Hefley’s book. There are some narrative sections with fictional dialogue added to flesh out the story, a girlfriend, etc. but that’s the bulk of the story. It’s a brisk read, and I have to admit I got sucked in, waiting to see what would happen next, and wondering how the whole tale would get to the scene where Birch is killed.
Looking at it from a 2010 perspective, though (it was originally published in 1980), there are elements of the story that trouble me. One is the blending of Birch’s identity as an American and his identity as a Christian; he freely exploits contacts he has made as a missionary for the benefit of the American war effort, putting Chinese nationals in harm’s way. Another is the way Hefley suggests that the Army was full of Communist sympathizers dead-set on undermining Chennault and putting the Communists in power. A third is the way Hefley lets Birch off the hook for leaving the mission field and joining a group of military volunteers, blurring the distinctions between patriotism, religious duty, and opportunism. Finally, he draws a pretty straight line between John Birch himself and the society named after him, suggesting an endorsement of the JDS that today sounds a bit arch. Oh and: the neat dichotomy Hefley draws between white Christians evangelizing yellow pagans hasn’t aged well.
This book is available cheap used and presents a point of view that is very much of its time, and I’d recommend reading it because it’s a gripping read, but it should be read critically and understood in its historical context rather than taken at face value. I would also recommend considering what it means that a book like this was written by someone who wrote lots of books appropriate for teenage boys.