Which is better: a giving system or a giving model?
Models assume:
1. The variables are the same.
2. The expected outcome is the same.
3. The objective is to reproduce what has already been done somewhere else by someone else.
Systems assume:
1. The variables are NOT the same and are specific to context in which it exists.
2. The expected outcome is NOT the same but dynamic and will need to be adjusted and refined over time.
3. The objective is NOT to reproduce what has already been done somewhere else by someone else but to create a platform for growth that is unique and indigenous to the culture in which the system exists.
When it comes to addressing stewardship and generosity in your church, are you building an organic system or attempting to replicate an existing model?
It’s clear which one leads to long-term, sustainable funding.
(Hint: It’s not a model.)


Nice new look on the blog Ben!
Thanks! Still not exactly what I want, but I needed to increase the width of the left margin, and I needed to soften the type to the eyes. Glad you like it.
Ben:
Perhaps I am stuck on the word “system,” because I think of systems as inorganic and inflexible, and also consider “models” as customizable. Can you give examples of what you mean by each?
Thanks if so,
Howard
Howard,
Great question. Meanings are always couched in experience and assumptions. For me, systems can be designed, evaluated, and re-tooled. Models are already defined and are meant to be recreated as originally intended in any situation and under any and all circumstances. While increasing giving capacity does involve some key principles that serve as a guide along the journey, you always begin with the community or church rather than the principles or objectives. Does that help answer your question?
Blessings, Ben.