We live in a fallen world. We are naturally selfish beings (Genesis 6:5), and it is only by God’s grace that we can do anything good. Even when it comes to giving, it is impossible for those who haven’t been bought by the blood of Jesus to give out of pure motives, for without God’s help we labor entirely for our own gain. The articles below explore the many secular motivations for giving: tax breaks, prizes, public recognition, personal satisfaction and others. Although God can use anything for his good, self-serving motives for “good” works are not in alignment with a heart that serves his kingdom.
Surveying the Major Gifts Literature: Observations and Reflections
W. Bruce Cook. Nonprofit Management & Leadership 7, no. 3, 333-347.
As J.G. Lord said in his article ”The Raising of Money”: “The fact is that people give in order to get. They don’t want to feel that they are ‘giving away’ their money. They want to feel they are investing it, and getting something in return” (1983, p.5). This paper by W. Bruce Cook is a broad and strategic analysis and reflection on the major philanthropic gifts. It focuses on: (1) “the critical importance of mission, quality, leadership, and prestige”; (2) “the dichotomy which exists between annual and major gift fund raising”; and (3) “the need for an empirically-derived and theoretically-driven model of fund raising and philanthropic behavior to inform the major gifts effort.” Cook argues that nonprofits that need more funds should use the social exchange theory and model of fund raising described in his paper as a way to attract more philanthropic resources.
 Back to top
The Psychology of Investing
W. Bruce Cook. Fund Raising Management 29, no. 1 (March 1998).
In one sense philanthropists are just like market investors. In another sense they are not. In this paper W. Bruce Cook argues that “sophisticated” or prudent, mature and disciplined philanthropists are like market investors: They (1) are financially knowledgeable, (2) are able and willing to live up to whatever terms are agreed upon and contracted for and (3) will not ask for their money back or sue if the investment is failing due to normal risk factors. On the other hand, sophisticated philanthropists are unlike market investors in that they are concerned first of all about values rather than economics. The philanthropist is primarily concerned with “giving to perpetuate values that coincide with or reinforce one or more of the core values which [he or she] holds dear or cherishes.”
Back to top
Money and Happiness: Do Good Really Well
Laura Rowley. Yahoo Finance, May 5, 2006.
Following a talk given by Cecilia Boone, president of the Dallas Women’s Foundation, writer Laura Rowley asked herself an important question with which she now challenges her readers: “Is the cash you invest really reflecting your deepest beliefs or your highest ideals?” Boone teaches that it is a joy to give, and she encourages us to sort our giving into four categories: (1) honored obligations, (2) social/fun giving, (3) passionate giving and (4) strategic/transformative giving. Rowley writes, “Stewardship is a word most people associate with religion, but I define it as a generous, accountable way of life rooted in your deepest values.” She makes truly insightful observations regarding the often-missing link between our values and our money. This otherwise good article does not address the important nature and source of those values: God.
Back to top
Charity vs. Philanthropy
Karen Woods. Acton Commentary, July 12, 2006.
Billionaire Warren Buffet’s $30 billion contribution in 2006 to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is not an act of charity. Karen Woods, director of the Effective Compassion programs at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, clarifies the distinction between philanthropy and charity. She argues that we must not let our attention to (and awe at) such massive philanthropy as Buffet’s donation obscure the vital importance of charitable work. There is a vast difference between the institutional approach to philanthropy, which Buffet practices, and charity. A definition of words is helpful: Philanthropy is defined as “goodwill toward one’s fellow men esp. as expressed through active efforts to promote human welfare;” Charity is defined as “the kindly or sympathetic disposition to aid the needy as a result of deep feeling or understanding of their misery or suffering.” We should, of course, appreciate Buffet’s enormous contribution to the Gates’ foundation. However, we must realize that (1) such philanthropic activity does not involve personal involvement with the recipients of the money and (2) personal and direct connection with those in need is vital for the positive implementation of philanthropic aid. It is not enough for there to be dozens of Warren Buffets handing out chunks of money. Someone has to work on the micro level, getting close to the problem in order to ensure “long term sufficiency and reconnection to community of the person served.”
Back to top
To Have, Not to Hold: The Rise of the New Philanthropist
The Economist, February 25, 2006.
Philanthropy is on the rise. In 2004 charitable giving in America rose by 5 percent to a record $249 billion. Trends also indicate that internationally there is growing pressure for the wealthy to give, and more people are becoming interested in giving during their own lifetime. Reasons and motives for the new rise in philanthropy are varied, but as Boston College sociologist Paul Schervish says, “The rich are trying to figure out a moral biography of wealth,” and more and more people are realizing that wealth itself is not ultimately fulfilling. The article notes two motivations common among modern-day philanthropists: (1) transcendental meditation, wishing to craft legacies that will carry on their memory; and (2) self interest, pursuing tax deductions and personal glory here and now. Curiously, the article concludes that motivations are not ultimately important—all that really matters is that the money given is put to good use.
Back to top
What Motivates Americans to Volunteer?
Leslie Lenkowsky. The Chronicle of Philanthropy, January 22, 2004.
In 2003, four million more people volunteered than in the previous year. This was viewed by some as a victory for the Bush administration, which had made a push for volunteering and charitable involvement. Lenkowsky, a professor of public affairs and philanthropic studies at Indiana University, says that the government’s efforts “to foster a ‘culture of service’ played only a small role in the rise in volunteering that occurred last year. Presidential leadership can be useful in reminding Americans of their civic duties. ... Charities can help, too, by paying closer attention to how they can more effectively recruit and use volunteers. ... But for most Americans, the decision to donate time or money is ultimately a personal one, motivated by what is really important to them, such as faith or family.”
Back to top
Americans Tend to Give Selfishly
Dale Hanson Bourke. The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, Ohio, February 12, 2005.
Americans can be “amazingly generous” when it comes to spontaneous giving, especially in response to visible disasters. In the weeks following the devastating southeast Asian tsunami, many humanitarian organizations received an outpouring of donations, more in fact, than they had in the previous year combined. This writer argues that the outpouring is an unfortunate display of Americans’ tendency to give when their emotions are stirred, not out of commitment to ongoing efforts.
Back to top
Winning with Awards: How to Add Prizes to Your Philanthropic Arsenal
John J. Miller. Philanthropy 17, no. 3 (May/June 2003).
The Nobel Prize, Pulitzer Prize, and MacArthur fellowships are testimony to the powerful place that awards programs hold in the nonprofit sector. There are more than 30,000 monetary prizes offered around the world, with more being added all the time. Why? “Prizes provide philanthropists a new way to reward, publicize, and strengthen the individuals, institutions, and ideas they already support.” This article discusses the ins and outs of building a new prize program—especially the problem of generating prestige for the award. There are many difficulties that must be considered, but the potential is also great. As Nobel showed, “A small amount of money can have a great influence and provide a tremendous service to humanity.”
Back to top
Pushovers for Ponzi
The Marketplace [the magazine of the Mennonite Economic Development Associates], May/June 2000.
It was called a “gifting ministry”: One makes a “gift” now and a short time later would receive a much bigger “blessing” in return. Donors, most of them Christians, were told they would double their money in 17 months from profits in gold, diamonds and international currency trading. “Give,” they were told, “and it will be given unto you” (Luke 6:38). Not only would they make a killing, but there also would be enough left over to fund mission projects and homeless shelters. It never happened. The “gifting ministry” was actually a huge Ponzi or pyramid scheme in which early investors are paid with money from newer investors. When the scam collapsed last year, $100 million of investors’ money vanished. This is only one of many to which Christians have fallen prey in the past decade, leaving us to ask “Why are Christians such pushovers for Ponzi?”
Back to top
New Hampshire Donors Covet Their Independence—and Wealth
Michael Anft. The Chronicle of Philanthropy, May 1, 2003.
After a donor made a $10,000 pledge to the United Way in Manchester, N.H., last fall, Gail M. Garceau, the organization’s president, wanted to parade the benefactor before the public. “Showing these people off is a great way to link them to your charity, and possibly to other donors,” Garceau said. But the donor balked—hardly a novelty in southern New Hampshire, where a desire for anonymity often walks hand in hand with generosity. This taste for anonymity is considered one of the reasons for New Hampshire’s low rate of philanthropic giving.
Back to top
Filthy Lucre: The Psychology of Money
Bill Wilson. New Directions for Living, no. 4.
It doesn’t take much to see that our culture is materialistic. Just look around you—the evidence is plain. In a world driven so much by money and material gain, it is important for the Christian to see this sickness of our society and to know how to deal with it. Psychiatrist Bill Wilson addresses this problem in describing what he calls “the psychology of money.”
Back to top
Giving Isn’t Tied to Wealth
Jeanie Wyatt. San Antonio (Texas) Express-News, December 23, 2002.
In fact, once people start a practice of giving (because it makes them happy), they generally keep on giving both in good times and bad, whether they are worried about their financial well-being or not.
Back to top
Fears Lead Too Many Donors to Skimp on Charitable Giving
Bill Walch. The Chronicle of Philanthropy, September 5, 2002.
Americans are loaded with dough, and the ups and downs of the market do not change the fact that we have money to give generously. Then why don’t we? The problem is fear. We see ourselves facing lives of scarcity when in fact we could give much away and still have plenty to live on by any worldly standard. We also worry that our support will not make a difference in addressing large and complex social problems. These forces blind us to the extraordinary material wealth that we as Americans possess, and the results that we can achieve when our support is generous and well directed.
Back to top
Charities Must Listen to Donors Who Decide to Quit Giving
Marjorie Hutter. The Chronicle of Philanthropy, June 13, 2002.
Donors who mindfully stop giving do not have idiosyncratic gripes nor are they responding to a perceived slight such as not receiving a thank-you note. Instead, they sense a profound dissonance between a charitable organization's principles and practices. Because their grievances strike at the heart of what ethical leadership is about, they are far beyond the scope of what any nonprofit fund raiser can fix. As such, we find it easy to dismiss donors who choose not to give as the disaffected few when, in truth, our charitable organizations would be better served if we took a moment to listen to them. These activists are harbingers of change in the relationship between charities and donors; they provide early warning to charities straying from their mission; and, perhaps most important, they find other ways to give to the causes that matter to them.
Back to top
Cash Aside, Is That Prize Meaningful?
Warren St. John. The New York Times, May 25, 2002.
The $1 million Dan David prize is only one among a surprising number of little-known big-money awards established in the last few years by wealthy individuals and foundations vying to be the next Nobel or Pulitzer. One source says the number of international awards over $100,000 has shot up to 100 from about 25 in 1990. Yet as big-money honors multiply, people in philanthropy have begun to question whether the large awards are an efficient use of resources or simply elaborate marketing gimmicks that siphon funds and energy from serious philanthropic work.
Back to top
Philanthropist Fanzine: A New Magazine About Having, Not Giving
Tod Lindberg. Philanthropy, Spring 1997.
The American Benefactor, a new journal for the charitable community, while it claims to be a celebration of giving, is really nothing more than a good old-fashioned celebration of having, says columnist Todd Lindberg. The American Benefactor does not leave you wanting to write a check. It leaves you wanting to be the sort who has written checks, but that is altogether different.
Back to top
Donor Expectations Survey
Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance. Report conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates, for the author, September 2001.
Americans want to hold charities accountable for their use of funds, but inability to access information often stands in the way. The findings of a national survey sponsored by the BBB Wise Giving Alliance describe the frustrations average citizens face in deciding where to spend their charitable dollars. Most people say it is difficult to tell whether a charity soliciting their contribution is legitimate and to choose between organizations that raise money for similar causes. Americans rely most on charities themselves to provide information to guide their giving decisions, but charities get mixed reviews, at best, for their performance in delivering the relevant facts and figures.
Back to top
Why People Donate to Charity
About, Inc. Nonprofit Charitable Orgs Newsletter, February 16, 2000.
Is the tax deduction the primary, or even a significant, motivation for giving to charity or to a church? This short piece suggests five more significant motivators.
Back to top
|
| | |
More on This Topic
Books
FAQ
Related Topics
Christian Motives for
Giving
|
