Does Theology Impact Protestant Bank Accounts?

For those of you new to Free Money Finance, I post on The Bible and Money every Sunday. Here's why.

Here's a piece from USA Today that says theology is negatively impacting the finances for many Protestant Christians. The highlights:

According to data analyzed by Keister, a Duke University sociologist, the median net worth for conservative Protestants in 2000 was $26,000, compared to the national median of $66,200.

Why the gap? Keister says it may all come down to theology.

"The one big difference is the conservative Protestants' assumption that God is the owner of money and people are managers of it," Keister said. "They are doing with their money what God wants them to do with it, so that does mean that it is not sitting in their bank accounts."

Lots of qualifications on the "findings" here. Notice above how they say "may" and "one big difference." Seems like there could be several other factors that account for this -- and the piece gets to those later on:

The study also found that conservative Protestants tend to have lower levels of education and begin large families at younger ages, with fewer women working outside the home. These factors make it difficult for many conservative Protestant families to save money or accumulate wealth, Keister said in the study.

"If there is a strong belief in the maternal care of children and that leads to less women in the workforce, that's a reason they may be less wealthy," said Mark Noll, an expert on evangelicals at the University of Notre Dame.

Still, there are exceptions. Mormons, for example, also tend to be religiously conservative and have large families at a young age, and yet tend to have more substantial assets. Keister said her findings are "really just one tiny piece of a greater research agenda."

It seems to me that the last piece is a way of saying "it may or may not be the case -- we don't know yet."

Here's my take:

1. I'm not sure if it's the fact that Christians are taking the Bible seriously that makes their finances rough or if people with rough finances are more prone to look to faith to help them out.

2. It's certainly easy to see where someone would think that Christians are poorer because they give more, but that's a falsehood. Christians don't give that much more, if any more, than the population in general.

3. Does the sociologist really think that most (or even many) Christians are applying biblical principles to their lives that regularly? I don't think they are. My guess is that most pastors could only wish their congregations would take biblical principles as seriously as the above "findings" imply.

4. If the sociologist really understood the Bible, she'd see that applying EVERYTHING the Bible says on money will lead to wealth, not poverty. Instead, it appears that she's selected certain verses and highlighted them to help make her point (though I do admit, that the giving verses are the ones most likely highlighted by the average pastor.)

In the end, I think this sociologist is simply trying to make news and attempting to formulate something out of nothing, though I'm willing to be proved wrong.

Comments

[Dave]

This really just highlights the problem with trying to explain individual actions based solely on population-level data. Keister's conclusion here seems, to my eyes, wrong.

Which is more likely: (1) being Protestant causes you to manage your money differently; or (2) people in poor financial situations are disproportionately Protestant? Keister selected option #1, but I think option #2 is the more substantial contributor.

Protestants may leave their finances up to God, but it would be shocking if being Protestant caused you to lose ~2/3 of what you'd otherwise earn ($66k vs 26k).

On the other hand, what if Protestantism were more common in poor areas? Perhaps it's just happenstance that Protestants tend to be in the midwest. Perhaps Protestantism, due to the ethos or ideology that it embodies, appeals to those who already have very little money - the people who tend to be uneducated, with large families?

There are many ways to resolve this question, but the way to do it is not to use population-level data. One way that would work: Randomly select a cohort of 50,000 individuals, and follow them. From time to time, people will convert religions. When people become Protestant, do they experience a drop in income? Or do the people who become Protestant already have a lower income to begin with than those who don't become Protestant?

[Bobby]

@Dave

Nice! That's the only way to know for sure. Find those who have money, convert, then get poorer.

[Rick]

This is one area I disagree with FMF. I don't believe that "applying the Bible" will lead to wealth. I think it CAN, but not that it WILL. And when it does, it's a case of God choosing to bless you.

"Do not store up treasures for yourself on earth, where moth and rust destroy, but store up treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where theives do not break in and steal." (Matthew 6:19-21, roughly paraphrased).

We are rich, but not necessarily with financial wealth. We are rich in God's grace. We are rich in God's love. We are rich in a secure future in heaven. The apostles followed Jesus's commands, but they were not rich. They were fishers of men, rather than of food.

Relating this to the article, I believe Christians are poorer in the world primarily because Christians are more willing to tithe, give money to charity, support the poor, give money to a friend when she's in need, etc. FMF says Christians don't give "much more" than everyone else, but remember that every little bit adds up and compounds over time, and can certainly account for the difference between a $26K and a $66K net worth in half a lifetime (median).

I think the disparity would be much less if we compared income of non-Christians and Christians, rather than net worth, because net worth truly represents "storing up treasure on earth, where moth and rust (or taxes and inflation) destroy".

Finally, as Dave mentioned, there may also be stastical anomolies not taken into account in the published results. For instance, as we've discussed before, net worth is highly dependent upon age, college education, and career path. Could it be that the Protestants sampled in this survey have a younger age than the non-Protestants? Could it be that Protestants generally live in the midwest and the south, which have lower-paying jobs, than on the coasts, which have higher paying jobs? Could it be that Christians as a whole don't have as much education as non-Christians? (Hey, after all, we did re-elect Bush in 2004...)

I think a real study should take these aspects into account in order to arrive at any meaningful conclusion.

[Rich]

Why doesn't Keister do a study on hair color or left handedness on finances too while he / she is at it. I fail to see how one's philosophy / religion has that much bearing on wealth. He/she is excluding so many other economic factors which in my opinion have a much greater correlation to people's savings rates than religion. National averages are too broad to try and draw specific conclusions from. I find this a case of selective statistics being applied to reinforce a point and I find it disturbing.

[Sam]

I think she got it all wrong. The bible promises on Jeremiah 29:11 - 'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the LORD, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.'

If there are "poor" Christians, its the result of their own being financially illiterate.

Sam
Fix My Personal Finance

[FMF]

Rick --

I was trying to be kind. Instead of "much more" I believe it's more accurate to say "any more." I have seen comments that Christians as a whole give the same amount as non-Christians, though I'd love to see stats to the contrary if you have them.

As far as the Bible's teachings leading to wealth, I suggest you check out this:

http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2007/04/the_bible_will_.html

[Anonymous]

Here in the South, in the deeply poor, lower-education areas of the region, Protestantism is almost exclusively the religion of those areas.

I imagine if you adjusted this data for educational level, a lot of the differences between Protestants and other denominations would evaporate.

[Rick]

FMF: I suppose we can disagree on this, since it's not a salvation-defining issue. But I have read all your previous posts, and I disagreed with them as well. Regarding the verse in Jeremiah, you have to remember that that's under the Old Covenant. God did promise the Israelites physical wealth if they obeyed Him. Under the new Convenant, however, He does not promise wealth, but He promises us persecution. He promises us struggles and hardship in this world. But He promises us grace to bring us through.

We're lucky to live in a very free society. But this was not always the case. Were the early Christians rich? I hardly think so. They were persecuted beyond belief. Were they not following the commands of God? Of course they were. But Nero did not see fit to allow the Christians to live freely and richly. He generally did not even allow them to live at all. This is because God does not promise wealth, but He promises us persecution.

However, the Beattitudes promise us:
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall posses the land [which most believe to be the New Covenant equivalent to the "Promised Land" in the Old Covenant -- the Kingdom of Heaven).
...
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.
...
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

In short, yes, the Old Covenant does promise prosperity, but we do not live under the Old Covenant. We live under the New Covenant. And Jesus does not promise us financial wealth. He promises us Spiritual wealth. And just ask any who have been persecuted over the ages -- spiritual wealth is far greater than physical financial wealth.

[Rick]

I want to add one more thing. In the post you referenced in your comment, you mention some of the Proverbs. It is true the Proverbs do contain valuable advice. Solomon was the wisest man the world has ever known, and if one follows his advice, one could live a better life. However, the Proverbs are considered "aphorisms" -- short, pithy sayings that generally reflect life, but are not absolute law. So while it is true one can get rich by spending less than he earns, he may also run into circumstances beyond his control. His home may be robbed. He may get sick and have to spend a fortune on hospital bills. God may choose to do what He wants with him. We learn in Job, that "The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away."

The Bible contains a lot of good advice. But in order to properly understand it, we must know how to interpret it. Some commands are under the Old Covenant. Some are under the New Convenant. Some commands are universal. Some, like the Proverbs, aren't commands at all, but are wise sayings.

[FMF]

Rick --

A few thoughts:

1. Yes, I think we'll need to disagree. But, thankfully, we can agree on salvation. ;-)

2. What about Proverbs? Are you discounting it because it's in the Old Testament? Has wisdom changed because of the New Covenant? If you simply apply what Proverbs teaches on finances, you will end up being wealthy.

3. There's plenty in the New Testament that discusses wealth. A few for your consideration:

"You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God."
2 Corinthians 9:11

Rich in EVERY way. Plus it's hard to be generous without any wealth.

"Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers." 3 John 2

John is praying for them to prosper. So is prospering somehow bad or something a Christian can't expect? If so, why is John praying for it?

"Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.” Luke 6:38

Seems to be a relationship between giving and growing wealthy.

"But this I say: He who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and he who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver." 2 Cor 9:6-7

Again -- relationship between giving and reaping (earning).

I'm sure you'll have some explanation for how each of these really says something else, so we probably will need to disagree. But if you're interested in more on the topic, I suggest you read "Money, Possessions, and Eternity." IMO, it's an EXCELLENT book on the Christian perspective of money and wealth.

[FMF]

Rick --

Just saw your second comment on Proverbs. I'd agree that they don't GUARANTEE wealth, but unless some sort of unusual circumstance occurs (as you've noted above) following them will lead to wealth. Surely you'd agree with this.

Or maybe our issue is with the interpretation. If so, then it's likely we won't reach agreement.

[Rick]

I'll read the book. Thanks for the suggestion.

[Jim]

I found a link for the complete paper:

http://www.soc.duke.edu/~lkeister/Keister%20-%20Conservative%20Protestants%20and%20Wealth.pdf

Theres more details about the study there.

The author does correct for other factors such as education and race.

Also they did look at the difference between people who were raised as conservative protestant and those who converted to it later in life about that they say: "To address the issue of causality, I studied the relationship between religious mobility and asset ownership. I showed that people who were raised CP and remained CP as adults had the lowest wealth; those who
were raised CP and left the church had the second lowest wealth; and those who were not raised CP but joined a CP church as adults suffered the least disadvantage."

I don't really know what to make of the study or its results. There isn't a clear cause found.

Personally I doubt being a conservative protestant itself causes people to accumulate less wealth. I would guess that its most likely this group of people has been historically lower income and has generally passed along money habits from one generation to the next. Basically I think its probably just coincidental rather than being causal.

Jim

[plonkee]

Sounds like it's family background that's the key issue since it doesn't matter as much whether you stay, as whether you were brought up, conservative protestant.

[barefootmeg]

"applying EVERYTHING the Bible says on money will lead to wealth, not poverty. "

I agree with Bobby on this. I think applying everything the Bible says on money will lead to obedience and contentment. It may not make us wealthier. In fact, if we sell all we have and give to the poor, I'd say we'll be much more content and much less financially wealthy.

And to Rich's statement regarding Jeremiah 29:11. Put that verse in context. God's plans for Israel had included the Babylonian captivity in which many were killed, pregnant women were ripped open and their baby's heads smashed against the rocks, and most were forced to leave their homeland and live among the Gentiles. In that situation, there in the midst of Babylon, that's where those words were spoken to the Israelites. It was a reminder that if they obeyed God by living out their exile rather than fighting it, then he would watch over them and bless them (allowing them to return to the land of Israel). It had very little to do with financial gain and very much to do with obedience and accepting punishment.