Millennials are King David’s anti-type—they don’t own a house and can’t quite see why they should help God to have one, either.

My six-year-old son came home last week from his theologically-conservative Christian school, full of enthusiasm and gravity. “We are having an offering in chapel,” he reported, “to get clean water for Malawi.”

Listening to his summary (“They only have two good wells in the whole thing, Mommy!”) I remember that my own first grade dimes and quarters, back in 1984, went to a missionary in Kenya who was telling people the way to be saved. Quaint. I know.

My son’s school project is part of a larger shift in the way Christians give.

Last week also, Tony Cartledge wrote an article for Ethics Daily titled, “Will Postmoderns Support the Church?” He briefly surveys the decline of giving to the church by young Christians, using statistical evidence, as well as anecdotal testimony from American churches.

He concludes that older adults are supporting a progressively large portion of most church budgets.  In one example, over 70 percent of the giving came from members over 70 years old. He rightly points out that this is not a sustainable model.

Cartledge concludes with the question: “If younger adults were more aware of the fiscal realities facing the church, could they be persuaded to share more of the costs?”

If I can speak for a generation, I’d like to propose that the answer to Cartledge’s question is, emphatically, “No.”

(Which doesn’t mean all churches are necessarily doomed to life in the red. More on that later.)

Cartledge is trying to press young people with their fiscal duties, but that’s the wrong way to approach it. To understand the future of giving among young Christians, you have to understand who they are and what they value.

Thoroughly capturing the personality of a generation is a huge task with many facets. We could look at rampant individualism, indicated, in part, by the July Gallup study on declining confidence in religious institutions. We could look at a growing sense of global responsibility, of new technological capabilities for finding and supporting niche social projects, and of waning interest in traditional concepts like property ownership.

This last is helpfully highlighted in this month’s Atlantic. Derek Thompson and Jordan Weissman wrote “The Cheapest Generation: Why Millennials aren’t buying cars or houses, and what that means for the economy.” Their article is a secular analysis, but I can imagine its corollary in the Christian community:

Millennials are King David’s anti-type—they don’t own a house and can’t quite see why they should help God to have one, either.

To this generation, American consumerism is the biggest sin. (Pay no attention to that iPad under my arm.) Concern for global social causes is righteousness.

The generational personality is fostered among Christians by the rise in popularity of theologians like Peter Enns and N. T. Wright. (Never heard of them? Check out Enns’ short article for Patheos the other day. Bottom line: the gospel isn’t about personal salvation, it’s about finding the kingdom and then participating in its mission of social justice.)

All of this brings us to a place where I believe giving is changing.

It appears that younger Christians are giving less to their local churches and more to social projects. The statistics on it are murky, and I’m no economist (but if you know one who will write coherently and for free, please tell him to contact The Aquila Report.)

The IRS and US Consumer Expenditure reports, for example, lump all religious giving into the same category. So giving to churches appears in the same column as all other nonprofits with religious ties. My sons’ pennies for wells in Malawi will count the same as his tithe on Sunday morning.

But, in the absence of a statistical breakdown, there’s other evidence. Cartledge’s anecdotes, for one. And a 2011 Barna Group study on the decline of tithing.

There’s a line in an August 18 Economist article about the Roman Catholic Church: “donations from the faithful are thought to have declined by as much as 20%. The scandals probably played a part in this…But many in the church also feel that COMPETITION FOR CHARITABLE DOLLARS HAS INCREASED (emphasis mine).

And there’s my own Gmail inbox, which is almost daily stuffed with appeals from my friends to donate to 5Ks for abolishing child hunger, human trafficking, the orphan crisis. I have never once received a request from a peer to purchase Bibles.

Earlier this month, The Chronicle of Philanthropy published a study analyzing American giving by geographic location. The religious component of the report suggested that areas of the country which are more heavily religious, give more money to religious institutions. Secular areas of the country give more money to secular causes.

Duh. Right?

That was also the conclusion of an article by Fred Clark on Patheos.  But his slant on this information is exactly the generational perspective I’m talking about.  Halfway through his article, Clark sarcastically mentions “those ‘charitable’ donations to local churches” (Did you catch the quotes?)

Then, he points his accusing finger where he sees the problem: “churchier regions are generally stingier toward ‘secular’ charities.  You know, like those secular categories of the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick and the imprisoned.”

One rogue blogger, you say? I don’t think so.

The replies to his post are illuminating.  The first responder says “I know some of those churches do support mission projects that feed the hungry, visit prisoners, and the like, but if they are anything like my church 1) Often the money does not come from the church budget, but from fund raisers and additional donations, 2) The help offered to those in need is used in order to evangelize, not simply given because those folks need it, and 3) IMO, they can’t really compete with the help offered by non-profit groups…”

Another responder says, “When we tithe to our church, we tithe to benefit ourselves for the most part.”

To summarize: for this generation, giving to the church is not worth the money.

And this is why Cartledge, with his concern to get young Christians to share the responsibility of the church budget, is taking the wrong approach.  Among young Christians something fundamental is missing; they often—and increasingly—misunderstand the value of the church they are requested to support.

And here’s what I think: Young Christians will give to the church only when they believe that the spiritual mission of the church is valuable.

Young people will support the church if they understand that the needy also (some might be so bold as to say primarily) include those of the household of faith. And that the church is not what it is parodied—a club for self-serving spoiled rich kids—but rather a diverse community united by faith in Christ and love for one another.

They’ll give if they can understand that for the Word to be proclaimed, someone has to pay for the lights to be turned on. And that the life-giving Word should be proclaimed in the first place.

Young people will give if they can be convinced that the church is God’s effective tool for the salvation of sinners. And that sinners need to be saved.

Today, we are all standing in the house at Bethany, watching Mary pour out her perfume. The house is filled with its fragrance. And we are shocked.  All that money. All that carefully saved treasure. Poured out in five minutes. Immediately dissipating into the air and sucked into a hundred pairs of lungs. Gone.

For what? For the priceless honor of our Messiah, the Savior of sinners.

Will young Christians see the value?

Megan Hill is a PCA pastor’s wife and regular contributor to The Aquila Report. She and her mother write Sunday Women, a blog about ministry life.

@Copyright 2012 Megan Hill – used with permission

[Editor’s note: Original URLs (links) referenced in this article are no longer valid, so the links have been removed.]