Measuring Generosity

How much should we give?  And who sets that standard? These questions have been right at the heart of American conversations about giving over the last two centuries. The tenor of those discussions varied from region to region and from one religious tradition to another.

One of the most influential conversations sprang up in evangelical circles in early nineteenth century America. After the War of 1812, American Protestantism entered into a period of enormous expansion. New congregations, schools and voluntary societies (mission agencies sponsoring work across the American frontier and, indeed, across the globe) needed constant infusions of money. The competition became fierce and fund-raising tactics grew increasingly flamboyant and even coercive at times.

A minority of clergy and laity began wondering if there was not a better way. What could be done to encourage people to become self-starting givers? Instead of increasing external pressures upon lay folk, help them develop the inner disciplines of systematic giving. Maybe it would be even possible - so a few idealists thought – to eliminate fund-raising.

The stage was then set for a heated conversation that continues to this day. Though this debate started in church circles, it eventually spread well beyond the religious sector. We will see how some of these arguments play out by exploring four visions of giving.

A classic American dispute, one that frequently pops up today, has long divided “tithers” and advocates of “fair share” giving.

• “Tithe” giving: What could be more fair than asking everyone to contribute the same percentage of their income? Both the wealthy and the poor can be alike at least in this one respect.
• “Fair share” giving: Is the same percentage "fair" regardless of income level? Doesn't it make ethical sense for us to give more or less according to our income level? The tithe allows the rich to escape paying their fair share, while putting too much pressure upon the poor.

This conflict, in turn, made others restless for more daring and far-reaching visions. Both the tithers and the “fair share” activists provided “moderate” answers. A handful of radicals wanted something far more revolutionary. Why argue about percentages when we should be thinking about simplifying our life so that we give as much as possible? Meanwhile there were skeptics who wondered if it is even possible to find one standard of giving for all people.

• "Give all you can." Adopt the simplest life style and discover how much more you can give.
• No one "measure of duty."  Each of us bears the burden of arriving at decisions that fit the circumstances of our lives. It is indeed "rare for two people to think exactly alike."

This four-sided conversation has continued ever since.