Stewardship versus philanthropy

-->

I got a copy of A Revolution in Generosity last week when I attended the Generosity Forum at Denver Seminary. Wesley K. Willmer, editor of the book, is also author of the first chapter, “Creating a Revolution in Generosity.” I was taken by what he had to say about a fundamental shift in perspective concerning charity that has taken place in the American culture at large but also–and much more–in the Christian church over the last 170 years or so. The shift, from stewardship to philanthropy, has devastated both donors and charitable organizations.

“In America, biblical stewardship characterized Christians’ approach to resources from 1740 to 1840,” Willmer writes.

John Wesley exhorted his parishioners to “gain all you can, save all you can, and give all you can” because “all that we have is given us by God, and since we have been entrusted with these possessions, we are responsible to use them in ways that bring Him glory.” During this period in history, it was acknowledged that the blessings of life were from God; but this mindset did not last.

Soon stewardship, managing God’s resources according to His directives, gave way to “philanthropy,” helping others with our possessions. . . .

In his essay “The Gospel of Wealth,” Andrew Carnegie presented his own good fortune as evidence of natural selection and the survival of the fittest among the human species. With one swift stroke, Carnegie cut the taproot of biblical stewardship and adopted what he called “scientific philanthropy,” based on Darwinian theory. He also replaced the ideal of the common good with that of “selective good.” He wrote, “The best means of benefiting the community is placing within its reach ladders upon which the aspiring can arise.”

With these words, Carnegie drew the line of distinction between those who were worthy of charity and those who were not. According to him, the motive for giving ought to be calculated in terms of cost-benefit for continuous economic growth, not a reflection of God’s generosity in response to human suffering. Carnegie believed in only helping those who would be of “use” to society, either through their labor or their intellect. The priority of shared responsibility gave way to helping people who were a good business investment. This new venture was termed “philanthropy”–friend of humankind–in contrast to stewardship–servant of God.

While being a “friend of humankind” sounds harmless, implicit within the concept of philanthropy is an assumption that we, not God, own our resources and have the sole authority to dispense them. Philanthropy strives to use money to make a prosperous society of the strong and able, while biblical stewardship advocates humans caring for one another as fellow creatures and servants of the God who provides everything we need.

Carnegie’s critics claimed that the poor needed more than just money. . . . [They] believed that newly established voluntary associations–religious and secular–held the solution to the problem. Potential donors were told they could become “agents of change” in society by responding with significant financial support.

These “organized charities” pooled their wisdom and brought further refinements to the scientific model of major gift fundraising. They concluded that religion played only a minor role in influencing generosity and that much more could be gleaned from the business world. The subtle but significant shift in thinking of givers as stewards (servant-managers of God) to viewing them as philanthropists (lovers of humankind) removed faith and God as motives for giving and set up instead a business/sales model of “whatever works.”

Charities flooded to consulting firms in hopes that these “experts” could raise large sums of money for their organizations. . . . The result was a model of fundraising that emphasized “closing the deal.” . . . Major gift programs were keenly intent on “making the sale” and were rarely concerned with the heart of the giver.

As the business community introduced the concept of market segmentation and demographic studies to determine the best ways to get their products into the hands of potential customers, the charitable community followed suit. Databases are now carefully segmented, giving clubs are monitored to move donors toward larger and more frequent gifts, and donor research is conducted to identify those with the greatest potential to give significant gifts.

With the help of technology, the scientific model of philanthropy is now the norm. Today’s fundraising professionals (including those in church and parachurch organizations) are better informed, prepared, and trained in secular techniques of raising money than ever before. However, generosity (adjusted for inflation) is not increasing per capita among Christians or non-Christians. People give because it makes them feel good, to avoid a sense of guilt, or because they get something in return (tax benefit) [rather than, as St. Peter urged, because they are "good stewards of God's varied grace" (I Peter 4:10)].

–pp. 28-30

What do you think? If you are a donor, do you see any issues that you may want to address in your own life as a result of this history a? If you are a fundraiser, are there things that you think, possibly, you may need to change in the way you are “doing business” with your donors?

Personally, I am intrigued by what Willmer says about the heart of the giver: how “[m]ajor gift programs were keenly intent on ‘making the sale’ and were rarely concerned with the heart of the giver.”

Whether you are a donor or a fundraiser, how do you think a charity might express concern with A donor’s heart?

[May I say here: I have felt that at least one of the four charities to which we are particularly committed has shown itself, over and over, strongly dedicated to Sarita's and my hearts--much more than they are to raising funds. But this deeper commitment on their part has actually opened a flow of funds that I don't think we have directed anywhere else.

Let me make very clear: none of the four agencies to which we are committed has ever expressed itself in a way that would make us think they are primarily concerned about "getting 'our' money." They have all been very gracious about seeking to understand our interests and desires and to offer us giving opportunities that will help us achieve those goals we believe God has placed on our hearts. But this one agency, over and over, has taken it upon itself to help build our vision and to help increase our understanding of what God may desire for us on the world stage.

It was they who gave us our copy of Alan Gotthardt's The Eternity Portfolio.

It was they who provided us with Ron Blue's Splitting Heirs: Giving Your Money and Things to Your Children Without Ruining Their Lives.

Neither of these books had any direct potential to move us toward the agency in question. Instead, both books have very much bigger purpose, a purpose far beyond the bounds of the agency itself.]

So where are you? What has your experience been? And how might you like to see things change in the future?

Rate this:

3.2

Welcome, visitor!

If you find my posts interesting, I invite you to sign up, at the top of the column to the right, to receive emails whenever I publish a new article.

Be assured I hate spam as much as anyone, I will hold your information in strictest confidence, and, of course, I always include a means for unsubscribing whenever you want.

Thanks for visiting!

Sincerely,

John Holzmann