Across South Africa, churches have been built one offering at a time. Their walls often represent years of giving by people united by faith and belief in the institution they were building together.
At a recent engagement hosted by FNB Public Sector Banking for church leaders in KwaZulu-Natal, one participant described church buildings as representing “years of congregational sacrifice”.
That should challenge the way banks and churches think about finance.
A church does not need to become more commercial to become bankable. It needs the financial foundations to protect its purpose, meet its responsibilities and grow without placing the congregation’s sacrifice at unnecessary risk.
Churches are not conventional businesses, but neither are they simply places where contributions are collected and bills are paid. Some employ staff, engage suppliers, maintain substantial facilities, counsel families, develop young people and support vulnerable households.
As church leaders emphasised during the engagement, religious institutions carry a spiritual purpose, a social responsibility and an economic footprint.
The banking industry has not always responded adequately to that complexity.
Needs beyond a bank account
Too often, the relationship begins and ends with an account. A church can deposit contributions and make payments, but the limits become clear when it needs to acquire land, complete a building, upgrade facilities or manage a temporary cash flow gap.
Church leaders told FNB that they often lacked a consistent point of contact. Payment solutions are not always explained in the context of congregational giving. When finance is declined, leaders may receive a decision without understanding whether the concern lies with their records, governance, affordability or proposal.
The problem is not that banks sometimes say no. Responsible lenders must decline applications that are not viable or affordable. The problem is a no that ends the conversation and leaves an institution no better prepared for its next application.
A genuine banking partnership should create a route towards finance readiness, even when the immediate answer is no.
This requires a more informed understanding of bankability. Voluntary giving does not automatically make a church unbankable. Equally, a compelling vision or growing congregation does not make a proposal suitable for credit.
The assessment must be disciplined:
- Is income reliable and properly recorded?
- Is financial oversight shared?
- Does the institution have continuity beyond one leader?
- Is the purpose of the funding clear and affordable if contributions decline?
- Is the development appropriately phased?
- Does the leadership understand the risks of offering church property as security?
These questions protect the lender and, more importantly, the people whose contributions built the institution.
They also place responsibility on church leadership. Pastoral training does not necessarily prepare a leader for budgeting, cash flow forecasting, procurement, payment controls and financial reporting. Yet these disciplines are essential when leaders are entrusted with the contributions of others.
Church leaders acknowledged that they must bring accurate records, sound governance, realistic plans and a commitment to honour their obligations.
That is not the language of commercialising faith. It is the language of stewardship.
Responsible finance for religious institutions
Banks must bring their part too. They need relationship teams that understand religious institutions, credit processes that distinguish unfamiliarity from genuine risk and a willingness to explain what an applicant must strengthen before it can qualify for finance.
As a partner to churches, FNB Public Sector Banking has changed its credit policy to enable lending to non-profit organisations, particularly religious entities, subject to appropriate lending requirements.
This does not mean every church should borrow. Some should not. A loan cannot correct a budget that consistently spends more than it receives, and an ambitious project can weaken an institution.
The change matters because a viable, well-governed religious institution should not be excluded from a serious financing conversation simply because it is a church.
Responsible finance may help an institution acquire land, complete a building or upgrade its facilities. In other cases, the right advice may be to build reserves, improve records, strengthen controls or phase development before applying. Partnership means giving the institution an honest assessment, not manufacturing an approval.
That partnership must extend beyond credit. Churches need payment systems that improve safety and reconciliation while respecting members who continue to give in cash. Leaders, treasurers and boards need practical support in fraud prevention, budgeting, cash flow management and financial accountability.
Churches can also extend financial education into communities. They are familiar settings where young adults can learn to manage a first salary, families can strengthen household budgeting, older people can receive help with digital safety and entrepreneurs can improve the records needed to access finance.
This is where the church’s place within the community economy matters. A financially resilient church can sustain its staff, suppliers, facilities and community programmes. Better-informed members can make stronger household and enterprise decisions. The effect reaches beyond the place of worship.
The next phase of banking for religious institutions should not be measured only by accounts opened or loans approved. It should be judged by whether institutions become financially stronger, congregational resources are better protected and viable applicants have a credible route to responsible finance.
Congregations have built their churches on faith, one offering at a time. Banks must now understand what it takes to help them build their future responsibly.
For more information, contact FNB at info@fnb.co.za
This article was sponsored by FNB.
