Church fundraising statistics at a glance
Church fundraising is increasingly defined by digital convenience, recurring generosity, and the ability to meet people where they already are. The latest church giving data shows that churches are not just adding payment options; they are changing how generosity flows across devices, services, seasons, and age groups.
Fast facts
- 95% of surveyed churches offer digital wallet giving, while 62% offer text-to-give and 43% offer QR-code giving (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report).
- Among churches that offer digital giving, 76% provide digital wallet options and 55% offer automatic recurring donations (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report).
- Digital wallet donations rose to 5.1% from 2.3% in 2024 (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report).
- Recurring giving accounted for 35% of digital giving in 2025 (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report).
- 18-29 giving increased at 37% of churches, while 41% reported no change and 23% reported decreases from that age group (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report).
- 33% of churches are using AI for donor communication or follow-up among those using or testing AI (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report).
- Pew found 40% of U.S. adults participate in religious services in person or online at least monthly (Pew Research Center 2025).
- Giving USA 2025 reported $146.54 billion in 2024 religion giving (Giving USA 2025).
Contents
- [Digital giving is now the baseline]
- [Recurring gifts and monthly patterns]
- [Church size and giving growth]
- [Age groups and donor behavior]
- [How churches are using AI]
- [Broader church participation and generosity context]
- [Selected statistics table]
- [What the numbers imply for church fundraising]
Digital giving is now the baseline
The strongest pattern in the dataset is simple: digital giving has moved from optional to expected. In the Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report, 95% of surveyed churches offer digital wallet giving, 62% offer text-to-give, 44% offer giving during livestreams, 43% offer QR-code giving, 38% offer on-screen button giving, and 25% offer link-based giving (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report). Only 18% said they were unsure what digital methods they offer, which suggests digital giving has become normal enough that most churches can name their channels clearly (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report).
That same report shows that among churches already offering digital giving, 76% provide digital wallet options, 55% offer automatic recurring donations, and 24% offer giving during livestreamed services (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report). The practical takeaway is that churches are stacking options rather than replacing one method with another. A church can offer a wallet payment, a recurring plan, and a livestream appeal at the same time, which increases the number of moments when a donor can respond.
The year-over-year change is important too. Digital wallet donations rose to 5.1% from 2.3% in 2024, according to the same Ministry Brands church donation data (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report). That is a clear signal that wallet-based giving is no longer a fringe feature. It is gaining actual share inside the digital mix.
Another useful lens is platform breadth. Among churches using Ministry Brands giving solutions, 52% reported increased giving versus 39% among churches using other giving platforms, and 64% reported more new donors versus 54% among churches using other giving platforms (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report). Those are not universal church outcomes, but they do show how the giving stack can shape reported performance.
What digital giving channels are most common?
Here is a compact view of the reported channel mix from the Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report).
| Giving method | Share of surveyed churches |
|---|---|
| Digital wallet giving | 95% |
| Text-to-give | 62% |
| Giving during livestreams | 44% |
| QR-code giving | 43% |
| On-screen button giving | 38% |
| Link-based giving | 25% |
| Another digital giving method | 21% |
| Unsure what they offer | 18% |
The table shows two things at once. First, mobile-first payment options dominate. Second, the ecosystem is varied enough that a church can choose methods based on service style, congregation habits, and technical comfort.
Recurring gifts and monthly patterns
Recurring generosity is one of the clearest structural themes in the data. Recurring giving accounted for 35% of digital giving in 2025, and recurring giving increased 5.4% year over year in the Ministry Brands church data (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report). That matters because recurring gifts do not just change the total amount collected; they change budgeting predictability.
A recurring donor base can reduce the volatility that comes from one-time campaigns and holiday swings. The report’s seasonal breakdown supports that interpretation. December represented 11% of annual digital donations, the largest monthly share of the year (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report). January through November each sat at 8% or 9% of annual digital donations, with March at 9% and most other months at 8% (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report). That is a fairly even distribution outside the December peak, which suggests recurring systems and steady digital habits may be smoothing out donation timing.
Monthly share of annual digital donations
| Month | Share of annual digital donations |
|---|---|
| January | 8% |
| February | 8% |
| March | 9% |
| April | 8% |
| May | 8% |
| June | 8% |
| July | 8% |
| August | 8% |
| September | 8% |
| October | 8% |
| November | 8% |
| December | 11% |
December is the obvious outlier. The rest of the year clusters tightly, which is useful if a church wants to think about donor communication cadence. If the giving curve is relatively stable most months, then recurring giving and regular reminder prompts may matter more than big one-time asks.
The report also points to a relationship between giving methods and growth. Churches that offer automatic recurring giving, digital wallets, and livestream giving were nearly 2x as likely to report an increase in giving as churches that offer none of those three (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report). That is not the same as proof of causation, but it is a strong association and it shows why churches treat digital access as a growth lever rather than just an operations upgrade.
Church size and giving growth
Church size changes the way the data reads. The Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report shows that 64% of large churches reported more new donors in 2025, compared with 49% of medium churches and 36% of small churches (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report). The pattern is even more pronounced for increased giving overall. In 2025, 78% of large churches reported increased giving, compared with 59% of medium churches and 51% of small churches (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report).
That does not automatically mean size itself is the cause. It may reflect staffing capacity, system maturity, audience reach, or the ability to run multiple giving channels at once. Still, the gradient is useful because it shows how different operating contexts can produce different fundraising results.
Size comparison
| Metric | Small churches | Medium churches | Large churches |
|---|---|---|---|
| More new donors in 2025 | 36% | 49% | 64% |
| Reported increased giving in 2025 | 51% | 59% | 78% |
| Digital wallet giving as share of digital giving | 5.9% | 4.7% | 5.0% |
| Recurring giving as share of digital giving | 3.66% | 4.60% | 5.08% |
The table shows that the largest churches are not simply using digital giving more because they are large. In fact, recurring giving as a share of digital giving rises from 3.66% in small churches to 4.60% in medium churches and 5.08% in large churches (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report). That suggests recurring systems may scale with size and organizational maturity.
Small churches are not absent from the digital picture either. They report 5.9% digital wallet giving as a share of digital giving, slightly higher than the medium-church figure of 4.7% and the large-church figure of 5.0% (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report). That is a reminder that different methods can behave differently across church sizes.
Age groups and donor behavior
Age matters, but not in a simplistic way. The Ministry Brands report shows that digital wallet giving was nearly 2x as likely to be associated with increased generosity among 18-29 year-olds as churches that do not offer digital wallet giving (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report). That is one of the clearest signals in the dataset that payment choice and donor response can be linked.
The age-band results show mixed movement rather than a single trend. For ages 18-29, 37% of churches reported increased giving, 41% reported no change, and 23% reported decreased giving (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report). For ages 30-54, 42% reported increased giving, 30% reported no change, and 12% reported decreased giving (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report). For ages 55+, 25% reported increased giving, 16% reported no change, and 11% reported decreased giving (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report).
These numbers suggest that middle-age groups may currently be the most responsive in terms of reported increase, while younger adults are more sensitive to access and channel design. The older age group is still important, but the reported increase is lower there than in the 30-54 group.
Age-group readout
- 18-29: 37% increased, 41% no change, 23% decreased (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report).
- 30-54: 42% increased, 30% no change, 12% decreased (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report).
- 55+: 25% increased, 16% no change, 11% decreased (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report).
This is where church fundraising strategy becomes more than just asking for money. It becomes a question of reducing friction, timing outreach well, and matching the channel to the donor group.
How churches are using AI
AI is not yet a universal church fundraising tool, but it is showing up. The Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report found that 5% of surveyed churches are actively using AI tools, 11% are exploring or testing AI, 68% are not currently using AI, and 15% are unsure (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report). That means AI is still early-stage in church operations overall.
Among churches using or testing AI, the most common use was drafting or improving messaging about giving or generosity, at 50% (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report). That was followed by 43% using AI for creating donation appeals, 33% for donor communication or follow-up, 29% for stewardship or fundraising materials, 21% for ideas for generosity campaigns or special offerings, 12% for forecasting giving trends, and 11% for identifying lapsed donors or at-risk recurring donors (Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report).
AI use cases reported by churches using or testing AI
| Use case | Share |
|---|---|
| Drafting or improving messaging about giving or generosity | 50% |
| Creating donation appeals | 43% |
| Donor communication or follow-up | 33% |
| Stewardship or fundraising materials | 29% |
| Ideas for generosity campaigns or special offerings | 21% |
| Forecasting giving trends | 12% |
| Identifying lapsed donors or at-risk recurring donors | 11% |
The pattern is straightforward. Churches are using AI first for wording, communication, and campaign support, not for replacing the giving process itself. That makes sense given the early adoption level. The tool is being used where the workflow is text-heavy and iterative.
Broader church participation and generosity context
To understand church fundraising statistics, it helps to step back from payment methods and look at participation. Pew Research Center 2025 found that 33% of U.S. adults attend religious services in person at least once or twice a month, while 18% attend in person a few times a year and 49% seldom or never attend in person (Pew Research Center 2025). Pew also found that 16% watch religious services online or on TV at least once a week, another 7% do so once or twice a month, and 11% do so a few times a year (Pew Research Center 2025).
That matters because the people a church can reach are no longer only the people physically in the room. Pew found that 40% of U.S. adults participate in religious services in person or online at least monthly, and 37% personally belong to a church, synagogue, mosque, or other house of worship (Pew Research Center 2025). Among Christians, 54% personally belong to a house of worship (Pew Research Center 2025).
The denominational variation is also significant. Pew found that 76% of Latter-day Saints attend services in person at least monthly and 80% participate at least monthly in person or online, while 60% of evangelical Protestants attend in person at least monthly and 71% participate at least monthly in person or online (Pew Research Center 2025). Pew also found that 46% of Muslim Americans and 46% of members of the historically Black Protestant tradition attend in person at least monthly, while 40% of Catholics and 34% of mainline Protestants do so (Pew Research Center 2025). Among Jewish adults and Buddhists, the monthly in-person share is lower, at 23% and 17% respectively (Pew Research Center 2025).
That participation picture helps explain why churches often need both in-person and digital fundraising pathways. People are spread across service formats, attendance rhythms, and belonging levels. The giving system has to reflect that spread.
The broader charitable context is just as useful. Giving USA 2025 reported that total U.S. charitable giving reached $592.50 billion in 2024, with giving up 6.3% in current dollars and 3.3% adjusted for inflation (Giving USA 2025). Religion received $146.54 billion in 2024, making it the largest recipient category by dollars among U.S. charitable subsectors (Giving USA 2025). Individuals were responsible for the largest share of all donations in 2024 (Giving USA 2025).
ECFA data points add another layer. ECFA’s State of Giving 2025 notes that 90% of ECFA members report having operating reserves in excess of 2 months, and the State of Giving report spans 16 annual releases (ECFA State of Giving 2025). ECFA’s church stewardship survey also found that online giving via the church website was used by 91.1% of responding churches, credit cards by 82.1%, electronic bill pay by 78.6%, electronic funds transfers by 76.8%, debit cards by 75.0%, mobile giving by 35.7%, giving kiosks by 21.4%, social media for giving by 7.1%, and SMS/text giving by 3.6% (ECFA 1st Annual Church Stewardship Survey).
Selected statistics table
| Statistic | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Religion giving in 2024 | $146.54 billion | Giving USA 2025 |
| Total U.S. charitable giving in 2024 | $592.50 billion | Giving USA 2025 |
| U.S. adults participating in services in person or online at least monthly | 40% | Pew Research Center 2025 |
| Churches offering digital wallet giving | 95% | Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report |
| Churches reporting increased giving in large-church category | 78% | Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report |
| Churches actively using AI tools | 5% | Ministry Brands 2026 Annual Church Giving Report |
| Churches using online giving via church website in ECFA survey | 91.1% | ECFA 1st Annual Church Stewardship Survey |
What the numbers imply for church fundraising
The data points in the same direction even though they come from different reports. Digital giving is mainstream. Recurring giving is important. Large churches tend to report stronger growth. Younger adults respond more to digital wallet access. AI is being used mainly to improve messaging and follow-up. And the broader participation data suggests churches need fundraising systems that work for both in-person and online engagement.
The actionable interpretation is not that every church must copy the same model. It is that the best-performing churches in this dataset usually combine several elements at once: easy digital access, recurring options, donor communication, and a structure that can support both weekly and seasonal giving. The numbers point to a simple strategic priority: reduce friction wherever generosity is asked to happen.