ORI GIN AL PA PER

Diversity, Donations, and Disadvantage: TheImplications of Personal Fundraising for RacialDiversity in Evangelical Outreach Ministries

Samuel L. Perry

Received: 4 January 2011 / Accepted: 9 August 2011 / Published online: 31 August 2011

� Religious Research Association, Inc. 2011

Abstract Employing insights from critical whiteness theory, I analyze the fund-

raising experiences of racial minorities within predominantly white evangelical

outreach ministries (EOMs) in order to assess the ways in which the funding

structure of EOMs contributes to the reproduction of white structural and cultural

dominance and, ultimately, racial homogeneity within these organizations. Quan-

titative and qualitative data from a mixed-race sample of EOM workers (N = 716)

reveal that white dominance is reproduced within the funding structure of EOMs

through two primary means: (1) the individualistic fundraising model of EOMs

naturally advantages whites over economically disadvantaged minorities, thereby

reproducing whites’ structural dominance. And (2) the fundraising strategies of

EOMs embody white cultural preferences that become normalized, requiring

minorities to sacrifice their own preferences and relationships to adapt. The EOM

funding structure thus becomes a mechanism for reproducing white dominance and

ultimately fortifying racial divisions and perpetuating racial homogeneity within

EOMs.

Within the past two decades, there has emerged a growing body of literature

focusing on the challenges confronting interracial initiatives within evangelical

churches (e.g., Becker 1998; Christerson and Emerson 2003; Christerson et al. 2005;

Dougherty and Huyser 2008; Edwards 2008; Emerson 2006; Garces-Foley 2007;

Marti 2005). Yet, despite this increased attention given to race relations within

evangelical congregations, with few exceptions, race relations within evangelical

A previous version of this article was presented at the SSSR/RRA Annual Conference in October 2010.

S. L. Perry (&)

Department of Sociology, University of Chicago, 1126 E. 59th St., Chicago, IL 60637, USA

e-mail: samperry@uchicago.edu

123

Rev Relig Res (2012) 53:397–418

DOI 10.1007/s13644-011-0020-7

parachurch organizations have been largely ignored.1 This is a significant oversight

when one considers both the vital role that these organizations have played in

shaping the American religious landscape within the past 50 years and the recently

professed emphasis of several such organizations on racial reconciliation (Kim

2006; McGlathery and Griffin 2007).

Among the exceptions, several recent studies have given attention to the efforts

of evangelism/outreach-oriented parachurch ministries like Campus Crusade for

Christ (CCC) and InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF) to cultivate greater

racial diversity within their respective organizations (Christerson et al. 2005,

Chap. 6; Garces-Foley 2007; Kim 2006; McGlathery and Griffin 2007). Researchers

argue that, due to their narrowly defined participant base and unique subculture,

these ministries face obstacles to racial diversity that differ significantly from those

faced by traditional church congregations (Christerson et al. 2005; McGlathery and

Griffin 2007). One significant obstacle to racial diversity that has been identified,

but has yet to be examined systematically, is the relationship of minority staff to the

dominant funding structure and fundraising strategies utilized by predominantly

white evangelical outreach ministries (hereafter EOMs) (McGlathery and Griffin

2007; Morton 2007; Sommer 1999).2 It is upon this relationship that the current

study focuses.

Recent research on race relations within evangelical institutions suggests that

white evangelicals, like white Americans in general, tend to embody a complex of

covert racial ideologies, attitudes, and practices collectively labeled ‘‘white racial

identity’’ or ‘‘whiteness’’ that serve to legitimize and reproduce white structural and

cultural dominance within evangelical institutions (Edwards 2008; Emerson 2006;

Tranby and Hartmann 2008). Extending this research, I analyze the fundraising

experiences of racial minorities within predominantly white EOMs in order to

assess the ways in which whiteness is both reflected in the funding structure of

EOMs and, through this funding structure, contributes to the reproduction of white

structural and cultural dominance and ultimately racial homogeneity within these

organizations.

This research extends the literature on race and evangelicalism in two significant

ways. First, this study introduces a novel and helpful field for analyzing race

relations within evangelical institutions. In contrast with previous studies of race

within religious organizations, which focus on overtly religious matters (e.g.,

worship and preaching styles, sacred symbols) for which distinct ethno-religious

1 The term ‘‘parachurch ministry’’ may refer to a Christian organization (typically Protestant) that does

not consider itself an official church, but rather performs a particular task of the church. These

organizations are often divided into several broad categories for analysis. Hamilton (2000) divides

parachurch organizations into six categories: international concerns/foreign missions, domestic outreach

ministries, communications media, educational organizations, social service organizations, and public

affairs organizations. Miller (1999), on the other hand, identifies eight categories of parachurch ministry:

foreign missions, social service ministries, camp and conference ministries, rescue missions, religious

body headquarters, schools, broadcast companies, and outreach ministries.2 Throughout this study, ‘‘evangelical outreach ministry’’ (EOM) will refer to evangelical domestic

outreach ministries and foreign missions organizations that are not officially under the authority of a local

church or denomination. These two types of ministry are appropriately considered together as both

typically employ the same fundraising strategy (Miller 1999).

398 Rev Relig Res (2012) 53:397–418

123

heritages are well-recognized, analyzing the fundraising experiences and perspec-

tives of minorities within EOMs shifts the topic of focus to the ostensibly a-religious

and seemingly race-neutral issues of livelihood and vocation, where more subtle

expressions of racial inequality may be scrutinized. Further, fundraising within

EOMs requires that fundraisers act as mediators between the organization and their

respective social networks. Thus, tensions between the cultural norms of predom-

inantly white EOMs and those of minority fundraisers’ families, friends, and

neighbors are likely to emerge. Lastly, all EOM workers are required to engage in

the task of personal fundraising, which provides a control by which the experiences

and perspectives of EOM workers across racial groups may be compared.

Second, to the extent that personal fundraising—again, required by all EOM

workers—privileges white staff both structurally and culturally over their minority

counterparts, this likely decreases the probability that minorities will work for these

organizations long-term. This study, then, examines EOM fundraising as a potential

mechanism through which racial homogeneity and racial divisions within these

organizations, and possibly—given the importance of EOMs within American

evangelicalism—within evangelicalism at large, are fortified.

To better frame the current study, it is necessary first to provide an overview of

the personal fundraising strategies employed by the majority of EOMs headquar-

tered in the United States, the central aspects of critical whiteness theory utilized in

this study, and their recent application to the study of race relations within

evangelical organizations.

Evangelical Outreach Ministries and the Personal Fundraising Model

Within traditional church congregations in the United States, full-time or part-time

church employees typically draw their salaries from funds collected directly from

their respective congregations and/or denominations (Chaves 2004). By contrast,

those who work for EOMs like CCC, IVCF, and others personally raise their own

salaries through donations obtained from individuals (e.g., friends, family,

neighbors), businesses, events, and/or churches, with a certain percentage of these

donations going to fund the home office (Gardner 2000, p. 302; McCabe and

Campbell 1996; Miller 1999; Turner 2008, pp. 105–106). Individual character

qualities (e.g., work ethic, budgeting habits) being equal, success or failure within

the EOM funding structure is contingent on the ability of a potential worker to

obtain access to enough individuals and/or groups who are sufficiently familiar with

the organization, are in ideological agreement with both the goals of the ministry

and their funding strategy (or at least are not too opposed to either), are motivated to

contribute, and have the financial capacity to make donations.

A survey of evangelical how-to fundraising manuals (e.g., Dillon 1993; Johnson

2007; McCabe and Campbell 1996; Morton 2007; Rust and McLeish 1984; Sommer

1999) yields a consistent picture of the typical fundraising strategy taught to

workers within these organizations. Potential staff are trained to compile large lists

of potential supporters (and possible referrals to supporters) based on their existing

social networks. Once prospective donors have been identified, fundraisers are

Rev Relig Res (2012) 53:397–418 399

123

instructed, first, to send out letters that initiate the solicitation of financial support;

second, to make follow-up phone calls to set up face-to-face appointments; and

third, to make direct requests in person for financial sponsorship, often with specific

dollar amounts expressly communicated. Methods of sponsorship most often take

the form of monthly contributions, but may also consist of one-time or yearly

donations.

This individualized approach to fundraising provides greater freedom and

flexibility than strategies that are predominantly event-driven or that depend solely

on church or denominational support. Consequently, the approach has been adopted

by most evangelical foreign missions agencies and domestic outreach ministries in

the United States (Gardner 2000; Miller 1999). Yet, despite its advantages, because

this fundraising strategy was developed and popularized in the mid-1950s when the

leadership of EOMs like CCC and IVCF was almost entirely white (see: Hunt and

Hunt 1991, p. 155; Turner 2008, p. 59), it is likely that white EOM workers find the

approach more suited to their economic and cultural milieus than their minority

counterparts.

The few systematic studies that have been undertaken to investigate the dynamics

of personal fundraising within EOMs are fraught with methodological problems and

none of them take racial dynamics into consideration (Hamilton 2000, p. 119;

McCabe and Campbell 1996; Miller 1999). Similarly, the vast majority of

evangelical how-to fundraising manuals surveyed by the researcher either cursorily

mention challenges involving racial/ethnic minority fundraising (e.g., Rust and

McLeish 1984) or completely ignore the issue altogether (e.g., Dillon 1993;

McCabe and Campbell 1996; Johnson 2007). Only a handful of studies have given

explicit attention to the issue of minority fundraising within religious contexts, and

even fewer have focused specifically on fundraising in predominantly white EOMs.

Structural-Economic Disadvantages and Minority Fundraising

Generally speaking, white Americans tend to enjoy economic advantages over non-

white minorities in virtually every category measurable (Bonilla-Silva 2001;

Edwards 2008; Omi and Winant 1994). Several researchers (e.g., Carson 1990;

Pressley 1995; Cortez 1995)—though only considering fundraising within the

contexts of traditional church congregations and philanthropy—have theorized that

the economic disadvantages racial minorities face at the societal level inevitably

translate into disadvantages minority fundraisers experience relative to whites. This

likelihood is even more probable within the individualized EOM fundraising model.

At the societal level, African Americans and Latinos tend to come from families

who earn less on average than whites. Moreover, social homophily researchers argue

that persons tend to be embedded within networks of individuals who are the same

race and SES (McPherson et al. 2001). This suggests that the social networks of Latino

and African American fundraisers will tend to be constituted primarily by other

minorities who also earn less on average than whites. Additionally, African American

and Latino Protestants tend to belong to minority churches with fewer economic

resources than white churches (Carson 1990; Hernandez 1999; Pressley 1995). Given

400 Rev Relig Res (2012) 53:397–418

123

that religious giving, in absolute terms, is directly correlated with income (Chaves

1999; Pressley and Collier 1999), Latino and African American fundraisers will

naturally tend to be at a disadvantage to whites when it comes to gaining access to

networks of potential supporters with the disposable income to make donations.

Fundraising researchers have failed to acknowledge the structural nature of white

advantage in EOM fundraising. A highly individualistic approach to personal

fundraising naturally places fundraisers who tend to come from social networks

with greater economic resources at an advantage over those who tend to come from

networks with relatively fewer resources. Predictably then, African American and

Latino fundraisers will tend to experience greater difficulty reaching their financial

support goals than their white counterparts.

Cultural Barriers and Minority Fundraising

Several researchers (e.g., McGlathery and Griffin 2007; Morton 2007; Sommer

1999) have theorized that, compared to white evangelicals, African American and

Latino Protestants tend to be less accustomed to evangelism-oriented parachurch

organizations and thus less familiar with the personal fundraising model. Further,

African American and Latino Protestants also tend to place greater emphasis on

donating to social justice issues and their respective minority-led ministries (Carson

1990; Maldonado 1999; Pressley 1995). Consequently, when African American or

Latino EOM fundraisers petition their networks to contribute financially to the work

of an unfamiliar, historically white, evangelism-oriented ministry, they are

potentially misunderstood or met with reproach. Regarding Asian American

fundraisers, Morton (2007) and Sommer (1999) suggest that while Asian American

Protestants are becoming increasingly familiar with EOMs they may be culturally

offended by the typical EOM fundraising strategy of direct business-like petitions

made outside of the context of personal relationships, requesting specific dollar

amounts, and soliciting referrals.

Researchers have also theorized that African Americans, Latinos, and Asian

Americans alike, as historically oppressed racial groups, place high expectations on

their college-educated young adults to achieve economic independence and

contribute resources to their respective ethnic communities. Within this context,

sons or daughters who attempt to solicit donations from family and friends may be

perceived as begging and lazy, and thus, met with misunderstanding, shaming, and

condemnation (McGlathery and Griffin 2007; Morton 2007; Sommer 1999).

Previous studies addressing the relationship between race and fundraising suffer

from several methodological limitations. Their conclusions are based largely on

anecdotal evidence (Morton 2007; Sommer 1999) and/or data taken from a small

sample of interviewees in which only individuals from one ministry were studied,

and usually of only one or two racial groups (McGlathery and Griffin 2007; Morton

2007). Moreover, in their focus on cultural barriers, these studies neglect ways in

which the EOM funding structure places white fundraisers at an economic

advantage to their minority counterparts. This study seeks to remedy these problems

by utilizing data that examine the fundraising experiences of a large sample of

Rev Relig Res (2012) 53:397–418 401

123

whites, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos from a variety of EOMs,

and by examining these experiences in light of macro-level economic factors and

the EOM funding structure itself.

Critical Whiteness Theory and Race Relations within EvangelicalOrganizations

Scholars in the emerging field of critical whiteness studies have argued that central

to the reproduction of white structural and cultural dominance in the U.S. is the

existence of a distinct ‘‘white racial identity’’ that serves to unite whites as a group

ideologically and legitimize the existing racial order (Bonilla-Silva 2001; Doane

1997; Edwards 2008). This white racial identity is reflected in the tendency for

white Americans to: (1) maintain disproportionate control within all institutions; (2)

set the cultural norms within these institutions to which all other cultures are

expected to adjust; and (3) as a corollary to the first two tendencies, live largely

unaware of their racial identity and consequently fail to see how being white

privileges them (Edwards 2008; Hartmann et al. 2009; Tranby and Hartmann 2008).

Employing the analytical tools of critical whiteness studies, a growing number of

scholars have sought to analyze how racial hierarchy and white dominance is

established and maintained within interracial evangelical organizations such as

church congregations, religious colleges and universities, and EOMs (e.g. Emerson

2006; Christerson et al. 2005; Edwards 2008; Tranby and Hartmann 2008).

A common theme throughout the literature on these interracial organizations is the

tendency for whites to maintain structural and cultural dominance in virtually every

aspect of institutional life and expect that their preferences be represented

disproportionately to their numbers (Christerson et al. 2005; Edwards 2008;

Emerson 2006). Particularly relevant to the present study, McGlathery and Griffin

(2007) examined the experiences of African American staff in a historically white

campus ministry. These workers reported that their cultural preferences were

seldom taken into consideration by the leadership of the organization. Instead, the

workers felt pressured to adopt what they interpreted as white conservative cultural

values towards family, finances, and politics, and they expressed suspicion that

whites were unwilling to relinquish cultural authority to minorities.

Insights from critical whiteness theory have been helpful for understanding the

racial dynamics within interracial evangelical organizations and thus, in this paper,

I employ critical whiteness theory to interpret the fundraising experiences of racial

minorities within predominantly white EOMs. In light of critical whiteness

approaches to race relations within evangelical institutions which argue that whites

tend to (1) maintain structural dominance within such institutions and (2) normalize

their cultural preferences to the extent that they become the taken-for-granted

standard, tacitly expecting minorities to assimilate, it is hypothesized that (1)

fundraising within EOMs naturally works to the economic advantage of whites and

thereby reproduces their structural dominance within these organizations. And (2)

the fundraising strategy of predominantly white EOMs will be (a) according to

white-evangelical cultural preferences regarding income and vocation, and

402 Rev Relig Res (2012) 53:397–418

123

(b) established as the norm to which minorities must sacrifice their cultural

preferences and respective ethnic relationships to adapt.

Methods

Data Collection and Sample Characteristics

Data for this study were taken from the Parachurch Ministries Fundraising Survey

(PMFS), fielded in 2009. The full survey contained a series of 57 closed-coded and

9 open-ended questions designed specifically to assess the fundraising experiences

of individual EOM staff. EOMs headquartered in the United States were selected

under the criterion that their staff be required to raise their own personal support, as

opposed to it being provided largely by a denomination or raised by a board of

directors. This provided for a continuity of fundraising experiences for those

working in the organizations.

Although some e-mail directories for EOM staff can be found online, a purposive

sampling procedure, in which staff were contacted through the EOM directors, was

utilized under the rationale that (1) several EOMs did not have accessible e-mail

directories, (2) ministry directors would be able to recruit more participants than an

unfamiliar researcher, and (3) it would be imprudent to circumvent ministry

directors in the research process should they be suspicious about the intentions of

the research and thus be closed to future research studies. The directors of nine large

EOMs were contacted by the researcher, seven of whom agreed to have their

organization participate in the study. These directors were e-mailed a link to access

the online survey, which could be completed and returned completely online. They

were then asked to forward the link to all the staff in their respective organizations,

requesting that they participate. The directors were also asked to issue follow-up

e-mail reminders to their staff. EOM staff were informed that the survey was

anonymous and that their participation was voluntary. The survey was left open

from February 2009 through September 2009.

Because most EOM directors chose to distribute the surveys through regional

directors and fundraising trainers rather than to the EOM staff directly, most could

not report exactly how many staff received a survey. In order to obtain an

approximate response rate, a sampling frame of 3,570 eligible EOM staff was

estimated based on numbers provided by two EOM directors along with an

aggregation of available e-mail directories and numbers taken from websites of the

five other participating EOMs.3 Dividing the number of completed surveys by the

3 Although the original estimated sampling frame was 5,492 (= about 14 percent response rate) based on

numbers provided by two EOM directors along with an aggregation of e-mail addresses and staff numbers

from the other five EOM websites, it was observed that EOMs included spouses as staff, and because the

PMFS asked for only one of the spouses to complete the survey, this original sampling frame was

overinflated. Based on the demographics of the PMFS sample (Table 1), in which almost 70 percent of

respondents were married, this was applied to the total sampling frame of 5,492 (5,492*.7 = 3,844), cut

in half to remove the spouses (3,844/2 = 1,922), and added to the remaining 30 percent of staff

(1,922 ? (5,492*.3)). This yielded a more accurate estimate of 3,570. Approximate response rates for

each of the seven participating EOMs are available upon request.

Rev Relig Res (2012) 53:397–418 403

123

estimated sampling frame (750/3,570*100) yielded a highly conservative response

rate of 21%. Although this response rate is consistent with other web-based surveys

(Deutskens et al. 2004; Sax et al. 2003), it is likely misleadingly low given that (1)

there is no guarantee that all regional directors and trainers distributed the survey to

their subordinate staff and thus the estimated sampling frame might be somewhat

overinflated; and (2) EOM staff working in developing nations would have

inconsistent web access and thus response rates would naturally be lower for this

group.

Table 1 presents a selection of descriptive statistics for this sample of EOM

workers. The sample consisted of all college-educated, conservative Protestants,

who worked full-time for their respective organization at some capacity. Males and

females were divided somewhat evenly (about 55–45%, respectively) and about

70% of respondents were married. Being that EOMs are predominantly white,

whites made up almost 85% of the total sample, with Asian Americans (about 8%),

African Americans (about 5%), and Latinos (2%) making up the remainder. Almost

73% of EOM workers indicated that their primary job was evangelism, discipleship,

or establishing new churches, while the remainder worked in administrative roles,

theological education, mercy/service ministry, translation/Bible distribution, or

‘‘other.’’ While the majority of workers in the sample worked for domestic

collegiate ministries (e.g., CCC, IVCF), a significant minority worked overseas and/

or worked with adults or children. Thus, this study should not be understood as

focusing strictly on U.S. collegiate ministry workers. After the data were cleaned for

analysis, the final N was 716.

Analytical Strategy

The goal of this study was to examine (1) the fundraising experiences of racial/

ethnic minorities within predominantly white EOMs in light of the possible

structural and cultural obstacles that arise by virtue of whites’ structural and cultural

dominance at both the societal level and at the level of specific institutions and (2)

how white dominance and, ultimately, racial homogeneity within EOMs is

potentially reproduced by these fundraising obstacles. To accomplish this task, I

analyze both quantitative and qualitative data from the PMFS.

Quantitative data were analyzed to better understand the potential disparities that

exist between white and minority fundraisers within EOMs. Quantitative findings,

as corroborated by open-ended survey responses, also provided an indication of the

extent to which structural and social factors were contributing to these fundraising

disparities, and for which racial groups.

Binary logistic regression models were estimated utilizing six dichotomized

dependent variables designed to measure (1) respondents’ subjective level of

difficulty raising financial support, (2) respondents’ objective fundraising outcomes,

and (3) various structural and social factors theorized to affect the fundraising

enterprise. Subjective fundraising experience was measured with the question,

‘‘Compared to most people in your ministry, how would you rate the level of

difficulty you had raising financial support?’’ Values ranged from ‘‘not very difficult

at all’’ (=1) to ‘‘extremely difficult’’ (=7) with 4 being ‘‘about average.’’ For logistic

404 Rev Relig Res (2012) 53:397–418

123

regression, responses were recoded into ‘‘more difficult’’ (=1) and ‘‘average or less

difficult’’ (=0). Objective fundraising outcomes were measured with two Yes/No

questions. Respondents were asked to affirm if they had raised their full support

amount (Yes = 1, No = 0). They were also asked whether they or their spouse (if

married) had to pick up a second job in order to supplement their income (Yes = 1,

No = 0). This would indicate that the respondent was unable to raise enough

financial support to meet their budgeted need and, as a result, had to find other

sources of income. To assess the effects of race on factors related to fundraising,

respondents were asked to indicate their level-of-agreement with the statements: ‘‘I

had a severe lack of support contacts to begin with,’’ ‘‘Many of my support contacts

did not have a lot of money to begin with,’’ and ‘‘My family was embarrassed that I

was raising financial support.’’ Values ranged from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ (=1) to

‘‘strongly agree’’ (=7) with 4 being ‘‘neutral.’’ Responses were recoded into ‘‘agree’’

(=1) and ‘‘neutral or disagree’’ (=0).

Relatively small numbers of minorities in the sample necessitated paring down

the number of independent variables in the regression models. The primary

independent variable was race, for which dummy variables were constructed

(white = excluded category). In four out of the six models, African Americans and

Latinos were combined into one category (Black-Latino), due to their smaller

numbers. All models controlled for gender (Female = 1), age (continuous variable

from 20 to 75), and parents’ income at age 16, which was used to indicate class

Table 1 Select descriptive statistics of EOM staff in the sample

Variable % Mean (SD) Variable %

Female 44.5 Parents’ income at age 16

Married 69.8 Below 40,000 34.8

No children 45.3 40,001–60,000 23

Race 60,001–90,000 21.9

White 84.8 90,001 or More 20.2

Black 4.8 Ministry

Asian 8.3 InterVarsity 35

Latino 2.2 Campus Crusade 30.9

Age (range 20–75) 37.3 (12.5) Otherb 34.1

Region Ministry Role

Did not have question 50.5a Evan./Disc./Est. Church. 72.6

South 14.2 Administration 19.6

West 10.4 Other Rolesc 7.8

Midwest 19.5

Northeast 5.5 N = 716

Source: Parachurch Ministries Fundraising Survey (2009)a The first 360 respondents did not have this question on their survey. No significant difference on key

variables was found between participants who did not indicate region and those who didb Campus Outreach Ministries, Serving in Mission, Chi Alpha, and Student Mobilizationc Theological education, mercy/service ministry, translation/Bible distribution, or ‘‘other’’

Rev Relig Res (2012) 53:397–418 405

123

background. For this measure, respondents could choose: (1) $30,000 or less; (2)

$30,001 to $40,000; (3) $40,001 to $50,000; (4) $50,001 to $60,000; (5) $60,001 to

$70,000; (6) $70,001 to $80,000; (7) $80,001 to $90,000; (8) $90,001 to $100,000;

and (9) $100,001 or more.

Qualitative data for this study consisted of open-ended, essay-style survey

responses, which allowed the researcher to analyze how racial minorities interpreted

their fundraising challenges in light of their own socio-economic situations and

cultural backgrounds. Respondents were asked a series of questions that asked them

to describe various aspects of their fundraising experience. For example: ‘‘Please

describe how your family and close friends view(ed) your raising financial support.’’

Responses were coded according to salient themes, with the few previous

fundraising studies and how-to fundraising manuals providing sensitizing concepts.

Although the open-ended responses of white EOM workers are not presented in the

findings section, they provided a point of comparison for minority responses.4

Findings

Comparative Difficulty for Minority EOM Fundraisers Relative to Whites

The first task at hand was to determine the extent to which the fundraising

experiences and outcomes of racial minorities tended to be different than that of

their white counterparts. Table 2 presents the estimated odds that minority EOM

workers, relative to whites, reported a greater level of difficulty raising their

financial support and were objectively less successful raising financial support,

while holding age, gender, and class background constant. The estimated odds that

African American workers believed their fundraising experience was more difficult

compared to others in their ministry was 3.6 times that of whites (p B .001); for

Latinos, the odds were 9 times that of whites (p B .01). This would strongly suggest

that African Americans and Latinos in the sample tend to believe they have a more

difficult time raising their financial support than their white counterparts. Relative to

whites, the odds that Asian American workers believed their fundraising experience

was more difficult compared to others were 60% greater, but this finding was only

marginally significant (p B .10). For objective fundraising outcomes, the odds of

raising one’s full support were 66% lower for African Americans and Latinos

relative to whites (p B .05). For these two groups together, the odds that they had to

pick up a second job to supplement their income were twice that of white staff

(p B .05). By contrast, Asian American respondents were not less likely to be at full

support than their white counterparts; nor were they more likely to have picked up a

second job.

4 Although I have indicated that IVCF, CCC, and several other EOMs are represented in the survey, I do

not indicate the ministry to which respondents belong when I provide excerpts of open-ended responses.

This allows me to maintain the anonymity of the organization without necessitating the use of

pseudonyms in my discussions. Thus, when I provide excerpts of responses, I only indicate the self-

reported race and gender of the respondent.

406 Rev Relig Res (2012) 53:397–418

123

Ta

ble

2O

dd

sra

tio

sfo

rb

inar

ylo

gis

tic

regre

ssio

no

ffu

nd

rais

ing

exp

erie

nce

,o

bje

ctiv

eo

utc

om

es,

and

fun

dra

isin

gfa

cto

rso

nk

eyp

red

icto

rs

Su

bje

ctiv

eex

per

ience

Ob

ject

ive

ou

tco

mes

Fu

nd

rais

ing

fact

ors

Pre

dic

tors

Ex

per

ien

ce

mo

red

iffi

cult

Rai

sed

full

sup

po

rt

Pic

ked

up

seco

nd

job

Had

few

sup

po

rt

con

tact

s

Con

tact

sh

ad

litt

lem

on

ey

Fam

ily

was

embar

rass

ed

Rac

ea

Bla

ck3

.596

(.3

90

)**

*–

–3

.440

(.3

74

)**

*–

–

Lat

ino

9.0

63

(.7

72

)**

––

5.9

98

(.5

99

)**

––

Bla

ck-L

atin

o–

.340

(.456)*

1.9

80

(.315)*

–1.7

96

(.356)�

b1

.463

(.3

17

)b

Asi

an1

.595

(.2

85

)�.6

31

(.3

34

).8

82

(.3

16

)1

.506

(.3

01

).3

16

(.3

19

)**

*2

.539

(.2

94

)**

Ag

e.9

67

(.0

08

)**

*1

.03

5(.

00

8)*

**

.98

3(.

00

8)*

.98

3(.

00

8)*

1.0

08

(.0

08

).9

98

(.0

08

)

Fem

ale

1.1

53

(.1

66

).8

10

(.1

74

).7

42

(.1

74

)�1

.349

(.1

76

)�1

.53

0(.

16

6)*

*1

.603

(.1

61

)**

Par

ents

’in

com

eat

age

16

.91

9(.

03

4)*

1.0

46

(.0

36

).9

66

(.0

35

).9

13

(.0

37

)*.8

75

(.0

34

)**

*1

.052

(.0

33

)b

Nag

elker

ke

R2

.09

5.0

69

.02

4.0

74

.10

6.0

53

So

urc

eP

arac

hu

rch

Min

istr

ies

Fu

nd

rais

ing

Su

rvey

(20

09)

No

teS

tan

dar

der

rors

inp

aren

thes

es.

aW

hit

eis

excl

uded

cate

gory

.b

Fin

din

gw

assi

gnifi

cant

atth

e.0

5le

vel

inO

LS

regre

ssio

nusi

ng

the

full

seven

val

ues

of

the

ori

gin

al

dep

enden

tv

aria

ble

.�

pB

.10

;*

pB

.05

;*

*p

B.0

1;

**

*p

B.0

01

;tw

o-t

aile

d

Rev Relig Res (2012) 53:397–418 407

123

In sum, African American and Latino staff compared to white staff, tend to

believe that their fundraising experience was more difficult compared to others in

their respective EOMs and seem to have had less success raising their financial

support than their white counterparts as indicated by their lower likelihood to be at

full support and greater likelihood to pick up a second job to supplement their

income. Although Asian American workers may be somewhat more likely than

white workers to find their fundraising experience more difficult than average, they

were not less likely to be at full support and they were no more likely to have picked

up a second job for supplementary income. Thus, although qualitative findings

evidence a number of unique fundraising challenges for Asian American staff, these

challenges may not amount to substantive fundraising disparities.

Taken together, quantitative and qualitative findings help determine the extent to

which the comparative disadvantages minority fundraisers experienced relative to

whites were due to structural and/or cultural factors.

Structural Barriers for African American and Latino EOM Fundraisers

Structural factors that would place minority fundraisers at a disadvantage to white

fundraisers would include (1) the number of viable support contacts accessible to

minorities and (2) the amount of disposable income that these contacts possess

relative to contacts accessible to white fundraisers. Table 2 presents the estimated

odds that racial minorities were more likely than their white counterparts to report

that they had few support contacts, while controlling for age, gender, and class

background. The estimated odds that Latino EOM workers indicated they had few

support contacts to petition for financial support were almost 6 times the odds of

their white counterparts (p B .01). Likewise, the odds that African American

workers affirmed a deficit of contacts were 3.4 times that of whites (p B .001). The

difference between Asian American and white staff was not statistically significant.

This finding that Latino and African American EOM workers tended to perceive

a greater paucity of support contacts relative to their white counterparts was

corroborated by the open-ended survey responses. One Latina respondent stated

plainly: ‘‘We (Latinos) do not have as many contacts as whites do.’’ Referring to

minorities more broadly, one African American female explained, ‘‘Usually ethnic

staff don’t have many contacts to begin with. In our case, our former director, who

was white gave us tons of contacts and went before us.’’ This response suggests that

fewer contacts available to minority fundraisers, in this case African Americans,

may make it necessary for minority fundraisers to depend on their white co-workers

for referrals to viable support contacts. Although a number of white respondents

also expressed that they had a lack of support contacts and/or referral networks to

petition for support, none ever framed their lack of contacts as an obstacle

confronting white fundraisers in general.

In order to assess whether minority fundraisers were less likely than whites to

have support contacts with enough disposable income to make donations,

respondents were asked to affirm whether they felt their support contacts did not

have much money to begin with (Table 2). Latino and African American EOM

workers together appeared to be somewhat more likely than white EOM workers to

408 Rev Relig Res (2012) 53:397–418

123

express that their support contacts had little money to donate. While this effect was

only marginally significant (p B .10) in the logistic regression model, it was

significant at the .05 level when an Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression was

estimated (not shown here) using all seven values of the original dependent variable.

Interestingly, Asian American respondents were significantly less likely than white

respondents to affirm that their contacts had little money (p B .001). Asian

American EOM workers thus tended to believe that their social networks have

plenty of disposable income to contribute. This suggests that any comparative

challenges that Asian American fundraisers experience relative to whites is not

attributable to structural disadvantages (i.e., lack of contacts or the economic

disadvantage of those contacts), but rather to cultural factors.

Open-ended survey responses supported the quantitative findings that both

African American and Latino EOM workers attribute their comparative difficulty in

fundraising relative to their white counterparts, in large part, to the comparative

economic and educational disadvantages of their families, networks, or even of their

racial group within society at large. One Latina respondent, when asked about the

most difficult aspect of fundraising, simply asserted, ‘‘The Hispanic community;

they earn less money.’’ Another Latino respondent elaborated, ‘‘Working class

Latinos were supportive, but they did not have a lot of finances available to help

meet my support needs. I had to go outside of my race to raise support. Most of my

supporters came from a white PCA church.’’ African American respondents also

connected their comparative disadvantages in fundraising relative to their white

counterparts to the lower incomes of their support contacts and to the African

American community in general. One African American female stated, ‘‘African-

American people tend to not have as much expendable cash,’’ while another

asserted the flipside, ‘‘The white community has more resources to give [than the

Black community].’’ The following excerpt further illustrates this point.

There are financial realities generally true of the majority of our White staff

and their accompanying contacts that are generally not true of the majority of

our Black staff: [Black] Staff do not have financial contacts that can give

$2000 ? per year; [Black] Staff do not have families that can support them

through the tougher years… These factors alone mean that the same efforts put

in between a ‘typical’ White staff and a ‘typical’ Black staff will produce very

different results, results that are financially challenging to the Black staff.

—African American male

This respondent thus affirms that the economic obstacles facing African

American fundraisers (and likely Latino fundraisers as well) are such that the

same efforts put forth by a ‘‘typical Black staff’’ and a ‘‘typical White staff’’ will

inevitably result in economic disadvantage for African American staff relative to

their white counterparts.

In contrast with these statements, no Asian American respondents linked their

relative difficulty in fundraising to the lower economic status of their respective

minority support contacts. Also, while white respondents occasionally mentioned

the lower incomes of their support networks as an obstacle to fundraising, no white

respondents connected this to the relative economic disadvantages of whites within

Rev Relig Res (2012) 53:397–418 409

123

society at large. In other words, white EOM workers do not frame their fundraising

challenges in terms of race, but rather in terms of their own personal circumstances.

Cultural Barriers and Sacrifices for Minority EOM Fundraisers

Open-ended survey responses evinced cultural obstacles to fundraising for each

minority group surveyed. Several of these cultural barriers to fundraising were

similar across all three minority groups. For example, minority respondents across

all three racial groups expressed that their families and respective minority-group

contacts were bewildered and disappointed that the minority fundraiser did not want

to use their college education to make money, but would rather ‘‘beg’’ for a living

and avoid getting what their family and friends considered a ‘‘real job.’’ When

respondents from each racial group were asked to describe how their families

viewed their raising financial support, responses like the following were common:

Most of my family don’t understand why I completed a bachelor’s degree to

now ask people who do not have very much (or a degree) for money.

—Latina

My family did NOT like it…‘‘why would you ‘beg’ for money when you have

a college degree?’’ was the question my family had.

—African American female

The idea of education being wasted is a big thing in the Asian community. IF

your parents don’t pressure you they certainly get the stigma from other

parents of not raising you right because their child is begging for money.

—Asian American female

To be certain, a number of white EOM workers also indicated that their family,

friends, and support contacts disapproved of living off of donated income. Yet, few

if any mentioned the idea of a wasted education as a reason and none expressed that

this was a unique value for the ‘‘white community.’’ The frequent references to

education may be due to the value historically disadvantaged minority groups tend

to place on education as a means of gaining economic independence and

contributing to their families and communities.

Family opposition to fundraising in general was common across all racial groups,

but it was most pronounced among Asian Americans. Respondents were asked to

affirm whether they felt their family was embarrassed by their raising financial

support (Table 2). Latino and African American workers together were not

significantly more likely than their white counterparts to feel that their families were

embarrassed by their raising financial support. However, this finding was

statistically significant at the .05 level when an OLS regression model was

estimated (not shown here) using the original seven values in this dependent

variable. For Asian American staff, however, the odds that they reported their

family was embarrassed were 2.5 times greater relative to whites (p B .01). These

findings support the open-ended statements by minority EOM fundraisers, and

Asian Americans in particular, that their families were opposed to their chosen

means of income, beyond the opposition that white EOM workers encountered.

410 Rev Relig Res (2012) 53:397–418

123

In addition to the cultural stigmas against ‘‘begging,’’ ‘‘wasting education,’’ and

an emphasis on ‘‘getting a real job,’’ all minority groups to some degree, African

Americans and Latinos more so than Asian American respondents, expressed that

both ‘‘parachurch ministries’’ in general and particularly the funding model of full-

time ministers living off of individual donations were largely unfamiliar to their

families, social networks, and their respective ethno-religious tradition, as the

following excerpts indicate:

My family and close friends did not understand the individual support raising

model of fund development. Typically, in the Black community people in

ministry, including pastors many times, work full-time to support themselves,

in addition to working or volunteering many hours in a ministry.

—African American female

In the Hispanic culture, it is not accustomed to give to individuals but to

churches, so it has not been easy to ask for support from people of my own

background.

—Latino

My friends were confused for a lack of understanding as to why I had to raise

my own salary and my father felt like [my EOM] should be able to raise their

funds as an organization and pay me like other non-profit organizations do.

—Asian American female

While the three excerpts evidence a lack of familiarity with the fundraising

process, African American and Latino respondents both expressed that such a

fundraising strategy was foreign to the ‘‘Black community’’ or ‘‘Hispanic culture.’’

By contrast, Asian American respondents rarely if ever expressed this about the

Asian community. Further, Asian American respondents mentioned the challenge of

unfamiliarity considerably less than African American or Latino respondents. This

is possibly due to the fact that young Asian Americans are becoming more involved

with campus EOMs (e.g., CCC and IVCF) and thus do not feel that the Asian

American community is ignorant of these organizations. Even so, the traditional

means of supporting ministers (through tithes given to a local church) was culturally

familiar for each group and was therefore generally favored by the family and

church networks of minority respondents for each minority group.

While several cultural obstacles to fundraising were experienced by members of

all three minority groups, other cultural barriers to fundraising appear to be more

specific to particular minority groups. African American respondents, for example,

repeatedly expressed that the idea of ‘‘missions’’ was unfamiliar to the black church.

One male respondent explained, ‘‘It goes back to a cultural issue. In the black

culture missions is a ‘foreign’ concept. Legitimate ministry is considered being a

pastor of a local congregation. So I did not have a list of individuals or churches that

I could approach in my culture to ask for financial support.’’

African American respondents, possibly due to historic economic disadvantages

and a cultural value of economic independence, particularly from whites, were also

unique in their expression of shame and embarrassment associated with having to

petition whites for donations. One African American male asserted, ‘‘As an African

American male, asking white men for support often felt degrading, embarrassing, and

Rev Relig Res (2012) 53:397–418 411

123

shameful. My ‘work ethic’ often bothers me still to this day.’’ Another African

American male explained, ‘‘Some [Black] staff go through painful psychological/

social dissonance when they have to ask non-Black peoples (mostly White) to support

their ministries, especially when their ministries are mostly to Black students.’’

These responses illustrate how particularly racialized the fundraising process is

for minority EOM workers relative to whites. The ‘‘psychological/social disso-

nance’’ felt by African American fundraisers is linked to a racial identity rooted

within a historical context of white oppression, and is likely exacerbated for African

American EOM workers by the fact that almost three-quarters of their financial

support likely comes from whites (see Table 3 below). This feeling of ‘‘dissonance’’

is qualitatively different from the embarrassment felt by white fundraisers because

white EOM workers rarely if ever have to solicit financial support from non-whites

(see Table 3 below) and thus are never confronted with their own racial identity.

Rather, white embarrassment tends to be linked with feelings of individual worth or

family approval. The dissonance or embarrassment felt by African American

fundraisers also differs from that of Latino or Asian American EOM workers whose

racial identities, while far more salient than the racial identities of white workers,

are rooted within their own unique socio-historical contexts.

For Asian American EOM workers, over and above the cultural stigmas on

‘‘begging,’’ values of economic success and independence, and occasional lack of

familiarity with parachurch ministries, respondents repeatedly expressed that their

most significant cultural barrier to fundraising was what they perceived as culturally

white, business-like techniques used to solicit donations. One respondent elaborated

on the potential offense associated with the ‘‘direct asks’’ model of fundraising:

In [our fundraising] training, we are asked to approach support appointments

and potential supporters in such a way that might very possibly leave a

negative impression on Asian/Asian American potential supporters. Such

cultural faux-pas include: asking directly for support (seen as begging, or

looking for money without any prior relationship), asking for a particular

dollar amount (seen as being too direct = ultimately only wanting money, not

relationship)…Being direct is not valued in Asian cultures because it is

viewed and experienced as an uncomfortably high level of confrontation.

—Asian American female

Table 3 Percentage of support coming from someone of another race on race

Race N Range Mean Median SD

White 594 0–70a (70) 4.7 2 8.1

Latino 16 20–98 (78) 71.3 75 22.5

Black 33 10–98 (88) 74.8 85 23.6

Asian 59 0–99 (99) 41.8 30 31.9

Source Parachurch Ministries Fundraising Survey (2009)a The respondent who indicated 70% of support came from supporters of another race had an Asian

American spouse. Otherwise the highest percentage was 52% (mean = 4.5)

412 Rev Relig Res (2012) 53:397–418

123

The culturally white, business-like approach to fundraising violates the cultural

value Asian Americans place on relationships, deference, and being indirect in order

to protect the honor of a friend or elder. Consequently, Asian American fundraisers

must often make personal sacrifices either to embrace the unfamiliar and potentially

uncomfortable technique of soliciting donations or in order to contextualize their

fundraising approach to their respective ethnic audience.

Relational Sacrifices for Minority EOM Fundraisers

The structural and cultural barriers to fundraising experienced by minority EOM

workers inevitably influences who these workers can petition for financial support.

Table 3 presents responses to a question in which respondents were asked to

estimate the percentage of their financial support that came from someone of

another race. While less than 5% of the financial support white respondents received

came from non-whites, about three-fourths of the financial support received by

Latinos (71.3%) and African Americans (74.3%) came from individuals outside of

their racial group. While the survey did not ask respondents to specify the race that

contributed the most to their ministry, judging from the frequent references to

petitioning white donors, this is almost certainly whites. Asian Americans were

between these two extremes at almost 42%. Although this does indicate that Asian

Americans have greater success raising financial support from their own racial

group, it also indicates that they have to venture outside of their own racial circles

quite frequently compared to white workers.

Open-ended responses indicate that feeling unsupported by one’s respective

racial group and having to turn to whites both for potential contacts and financial

support is not without its relational and psychological consequences, particularly for

African American respondents who feel a deep connection to the Black community.

One African American respondent, when asked to describe the most difficult aspect

of fundraising, simply asserted, ‘‘Not having my own race to be as supportive and

give even when they knew my life and involvement.’’ Another African American

respondent elaborated further:

I had to more quickly learn White evangelical culture and look to that culture

for support almost entirely. In the Black Church world, giving outside the

church is foreign and often comes with a pledge that isn’t followed through on.

This led to increasing distance between myself and Black Christians and the

church as I had to build networks outside of my own people group. I think

eventually this phenomenon also contributed to who I chose to marry, where

I chose to live, and where I went to church. Having as a goal to be fully funded

at a high level required moving outside of Black and urban networks and into

suburban, professional, and mostly White networks.

—African American male

This excerpt suggests that African American fundraisers are faced with an

internal dissonance that results from feeling unsupported by one’s own racial group.

For this respondent, fundraising for his predominantly white EOM led to his

separation from the black community, and even contributed to his selection of a

Rev Relig Res (2012) 53:397–418 413

123

white spouse, church, and neighborhood. By contrast, Asian American and Latino

respondents did not report feeling unsupported by their respective minority groups

or frustration about having to go outside of their minority group for financial

support. This may be due to a unique cultural value of belonging, community

support, and economic independence (from whites) within the Black community.

The Normalization of White Cultural Preferences through Fundraising Training

Open-ended responses indicated that the normalization of white cultural preferences

regarding fundraising strategies was both reflected and reproduced within fundrais-

ing training provided by EOMs. One Asian American female asserted, ‘‘Our support-

raising training (which incidentally is done very well) comes from a very white

(majority culture) perspective. I’m not sure if those doing the training realize this.’’

An Asian American male made more explicit the normalization of whiteness within

the EOM fundraising training and how this conflicted with his own cultural norms:

‘‘In Asian American culture, people often communicate indirectly and giving is even

more based on relationships than the norm. This makes asking in the direct manner in

which we are often coached difficult to do.’’ (italics mine) Thus, the cultural

preferences of Asian Americans for indirect communication and relationship-based

giving deviate from ‘‘the norm’’ which they are expected to embrace by their

fundraising coaches. This norm refers to the taken-for-granted canon of white values.

Other minority respondents expressed their belief that their EOMs had not taken

sufficient steps to contextualize or adjust the fundraising approach for minorities.

One African American female explained, ‘‘[B]eing a part of a predominantly white

organization, you have the issue of training. The language and techniques can be

geared towards white culture and I would have to translate what that would mean or

look like in my community.’’ Similarly, an Asian American male stated, ‘‘There’s

an awareness that you have to respect some of the cultural protocols. The

[fundraising] training I received seemed to focus on meeting people who were euro-

American and were in the business world, so asking my Asian friends was an

exercise in contextualizing the methods.’’ These responses indicate that cultural

whiteness and the whiteness of one’s support contacts were taken for granted within

the fundraising training minority fundraisers received. This required that minorities

themselves contextualize the EOM fundraising strategy to the cultural milieu of

their respective networks.

Minority respondents also indicated that whiteness had become so normalized within

the policies, training, and fundraising materials of EOMs that their ministries were often

viewed by minority outsiders as almost exclusively white organizations. This made

their families and respective ethnic-group contacts suspicious of contributing money to

what they perceived as a white ministry. One Latina respondent, referring to the ethnic-

specific wing of her large campus ministry, asserted, ‘‘Some (members of Latino

churches) don’t like that I am working for a ‘White’ organization that keeps its

ministries ‘separate, but equal.’’’ One respondent elaborated:

I still feel a tension when raising support in the Asian community because [my

EOM] is viewed as a white organization. Until more recently, most of the

414 Rev Relig Res (2012) 53:397–418

123

materials that were published by [my EOM] were of white people and the

minorities were the ones being ‘‘shared with.’’ I think even now [my EOM] is

seen as a white ministry from the perspective of minority groups.

—Asian American female

In this case, the white normativity of this EOM was reflected in their published

materials, evidencing that the general whiteness of the organization was taken for

granted while minorities were otherized and portrayed as the unconverted requiring

assimilation. This leads minority contacts to question whether the minority

fundraiser truly belongs in such an organization.

Discussion and Conclusions

The foregoing analysis of the fundraising experiences of minority EOM workers

suggests two primary means through which ‘‘white racial identity’’ is embodied within

the funding structure of EOMs and, through this structure, contributes to the

reproduction of white dominance, leading ultimately to the racial homogeneity of

EOMs. First, the individualized fundraising strategy of EOMs naturally works to the

economic advantage of white fundraisers and thereby reproduces the structural

dominance of whites within these organizations. Latino and African American

fundraisers tend to be at a disadvantage to whites when it comes to gaining access to

sufficient numbers of well-to-do donors and consequently experienced greater

difficulty in the fundraising enterprise and with fewer positive outcomes. The

individualistic EOM fundraising strategy ensures that white fundraisers will naturally

be able to raise their salaries with greater effectiveness than Latino and African

American fundraisers, and thus, the funding structure of EOMs reproduces the

structural advantage of whites without any intentional discrimination on the part of

white EOM workers.

Secondly, respondents from each minority group surveyed consistently affirmed

that the dominant fundraising strategy of EOMs was set up according to white-

evangelical cultural preferences regarding income and vocation, and was estab-

lished as the norm to which the minority workers were expected to sacrifice their

cultural preferences (e.g., economic independence, work ethic, deference to elders)

and ethnic relationships to adapt. For some minority respondents, there even

appeared to be psychological consequences to the reality of being unsupported by

one’s racial/ethnic group and feeling degraded by having to ask whites for money.

For Asian Americans, who tend to maintain deep connections to their families and

elders, respondents widely acknowledged the shame felt by their families due to

their decision to live off of donations rather than to use their college degree to

achieve economic independence.

Respondents indicated that the whiteness of the EOM fundraising strategies were

most saliently reflected and reproduced within the fundraising training provided by

their respective EOMs. Minority respondents repeatedly expressed their belief that

white cultural preferences were taken for granted (normalized) within their training

and, consequently, this training had not been sufficiently contextualized to prepare

Rev Relig Res (2012) 53:397–418 415

123

them to raise support effectively within their respective ethnic communities, which

may be a key reason why minority fundraisers so often went outside their ethnic

communities to petition whites for financial support.

Before discussing both the immediate and broader implications of this research,

several limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First, although the sample

of EOM workers is large, because it is a non-random sample, generalizing the

findings to the whole of EOM workers in the United States must be done with

caution. Second, qualitative data for this study were limited to the essay-style

responses of EOM workers as opposed to participant observation or in-depth

interviews. This precluded the possibility of first-hand observation or follow-up

questions for greater depth and clarity. Future studies on this topic should utilize

these more rigorous qualitative methods. Additionally, quantitative analyses were

unfortunately limited by the small percentage of racial minorities within the sample,

and thus, future quantitative-oriented studies should seek an equally large sample of

EOM workers with a greater oversample for minorities, particularly Latinos and

African Americans.

Morton (2007, p. 195) opines that EOMs that neglect to adjust for the various

obstacles confronting minority fundraisers have embraced an ‘‘every man for

himself’’ and a ‘‘survival of the fittest’’ mentality toward fundraising to the

detriment of their stated diversity goals. The findings of this study suggest that this

is indeed the case. The current ‘‘every man for himself’’ funding structure and

fundraising strategies of EOMs all but ensure that whites will tend to experience

greater fundraising success than their minority counterparts. Thus, it is predictable

that white staff will tend to last longer in these organizations, enjoy greater

economic stability, feel that their cultural preferences have not only been

represented but established as the mainstream, and receive more encouragement

from their social networks relative to minorities.

Conversely, the current funding structure and fundraising strategies of predom-

inantly white EOMs—because they ensure that racial minorities will tend to

experience greater difficulty and less success in fundraising than whites—likely

decrease the probability that minorities will choose to work for these organizations

long-term. This outcome contributes to the sustained racial homogeneity of these

organizations despite the ostensible intensions of EOM directors to diversify their

staff teams. More than this, however, it is likely that sustained racial divisions

within any evangelical organizations (like EOMs) only serve to fortify racial

divisions within evangelicalism at large. Over time, the implicit message becomes:

‘‘Whites have their churches and parachurch organizations; African Americans have

the Black Church; Asian Americans have their ethnic-specific churches; and so on.’’

Thus, for predominantly white EOMs to neglect accommodating their minority staff

is not only to reinforce racial homogeneity within their organization, but also to

contribute to sustaining racial divisions among evangelical Protestants.

Acknowledgement Thanks go to George Yancey, Omar McRoberts, Barnaby Riedel and the

anonymous reviewers for their invaluable suggestions. Special thanks also go to George Yancey for

his aid in constructing and fielding the Parachurch Ministries Fundraising Survey used in this research.

Lastly, thanks go to Jill Perry for her tireless support.

416 Rev Relig Res (2012) 53:397–418

123

References

Becker, Penny Edgell. 1998. Making inclusive communities: Congregations and the ‘problem’ of race.

Social Problems 45(4): 451–472.

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2001. White supremacy and racism in the post-civil rights era. Boulder: Lynne

Rienner.

Carson, Emmett.D. 1990. Patterns of giving in the black church. In Faith and philanthropy in America:Exploring the role of religion in america’s voluntary sector, ed. R. Wuthnow and V.A. Hodgkinson,

232–254. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Chaves, Mark. 1999. Financing American religion. In Financing American religion, ed. M. Chaves and

S.L. Miller, 169–188. Walnut Creek: AltaMira.

Chaves, Mark. 2004. Congregations in America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Christerson, Brad, Korie L. Edwards, and Michael O. Emerson. 2005. Against all odds: The struggle ofracial integration in religious organizations. New York: New York University Press.

Christerson, Brad, and Michael O. Emerson. 2003. The costs of diversity in religious organizations: An

in-depth case study. Sociology of Religion 64: 163–182.

Cortez, Michael. 1995. Three strategic questions about Latino philanthropy. In Cultures of giving ii: Howheritage, gender, wealth, values influence philanthropy, ed. C.H. Hamilton and W.F. Ilchman,

23–40. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Deutskens, Elisabeth, Ko De Ruyter, Martin Wetzels, and Paul Oosterveld. 2004. Response rate and

response quality of internet-based surveys: An experimental study. Marketing Letters 15(1): 21–36.

Dillon, William P. 1993. People raising. Chicago: Moody.

Doane, Ashley W. 1997. Dominant group identity in the United States: The role of hidden ethnicity in

intergroup relations. Sociological Quarterly 38: 375–397.

Dougherty, Kevin D., and Kimberly R. Huyser. 2008. Racially diverse congregations: Organizational

identity and the accommodation of differences. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 47(1):

23–43.

Edwards, Korie L. 2008. The elusive dream: The power of race in interracial churches. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Emerson, Michael O. 2006. People of the dream: Multiracial congregations in the United States.

Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Garces-Foley, Kathleen. 2007. Crossing the ethnic divide: The multiethnic church on a mission. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Gardner, B. 2000. Technological changes and monetary advantages: The growth of evangelical funding,

1945 to the present. In More money, more ministry: Money and evangelicals in recent northamerican history, ed. L. Eskridge and M.A. Noll, 298–310. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids.

Hamilton, Michael S. 2000. More money, more ministry: The financing of american evangelicalism since

1945. In More money more ministry: Money, evangelicals in recent north american history, ed.

L. Eskridge and M.A. Noll, 104–138. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Hartmann, Douglas, Joseph Gerteis, and Paul R. Croll. 2009. An empirical assessment of whiteness

theory: Hidden from how many? Social Problems 56(3): 403–424.

Hernandez, Edwin I. 1999. Moving from the cathedral to storefront churches: Understanding religious

growth and decline among Latino Protestants. In Protestantes/Protestants: Hispanic Christianitywithin mainline traditions, ed. D. Maldonado and Nashville Jr., 216–235. Nashville: Abingdon.

Hunt, Keith, and Gladys M. Hunt. 1991. For Christ and the university: The story of intervarsity Christianfellowship of the U.S.A./1940–1990. Downers Grove: InterVarsity.

Johnson, Paul I. 2007. More than money, more than faith. Enumclaw: Pleasant Word.

Kim, Rebecca Y. 2006. God’s new whiz kids? Korean American evangelicals on campus. New York:

New York University Press.

Maldonado, David Jr. 1999. Hispanic protestant clergy: A profile of experience and perspectives. In

Protestantes/Protestants: Hispanic Christianity within mainline traditions, ed. D. Maldonado and

Nashville Jr., 268–292. Abingdon.

Marti, Gerardo. 2005. A mosaic of believers: Diversity and innovation in a multiethnic church.

Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

McCabe, Tom, and Bob Campbell. 1996. Inside outreach: A guide to financing outreach ministries.

Milwaukee: Christian Stewardship Association.

Rev Relig Res (2012) 53:397–418 417

123

McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M. Cook. 2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in

social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27: 415–444.

McGlathery, Marla, and Traci Griffin. 2007. Becoming conservative, becoming White?’ black

evangelicals and the para-church movement. In This side of heaven: Race, ethnicity, Christianfaith, ed. R. Priest and A. Nieves, 145–161. New York: Oxford University Press.

Miller, Sharon L. 1999. Financing parachurch organizations. In Financing American religion, ed.

M. Chaves and S.L. Miller, 119–130. Walnut Creek: AltaMira.

Morton, Scott. 2007. Funding your ministry, 2nd ed. Colorado Springs: NavPress.

Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial formation in the United States, 2nd ed. New York:

Routledge.

Pressley, Calvin O. 1995. Financial contributions for the Kingdom from the elect: Giving patterns in the

black church. In Cultures of giving: How region, religion influence philanthropy, ed. C.H. Hamilton

and W.F. Ilchman, 91–100. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.

Pressley, Calvin O., and Walter V. Collier. 1999. Financing historic black churches. In FinancingAmerican religion, ed. M. Chaves and S.L. Miller, 21–28. Walnut Creek: AltaMira.

Rust, Brian, and Barry McLeish. 1984. The support-raising handbook: A guide for Christian workers.

Downers Grove: InterVarsity.

Sax, Linda J., Shannon K. Gilmartin, and Alyssa N. Bryant. 2003. Assessing response rates and

nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education 44(4): 409–432.

Sommer, Pete. 1999. Getting sent: A relational approach to support raising. Downers Grove:

InterVarsity.

Tranby, Eric, and Douglas Hartmann. 2008. Critical whiteness theories and the evangelical ‘race

problem’: Extending Emerson and Smith’s divided by faith. Journal for the Scientific Study ofReligion 47(3): 341–359.

Turner, John G. 2008. Bill bright and campus crusade for Christ: The renewal of evangelicalism inpostwar America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

418 Rev Relig Res (2012) 53:397–418

123