One Christian’s Perspective on The Giving Pledge, Part II: Why Philanthropy Still Beats Philanthrocapitalism

The Giving Pledge of America’s Billionaires highlights a surprisingly underexamined phenomenon in the field of philanthropy, namely, the degree to which the practice of philanthropy is being displaced by philanthrocapitalism.

An increasing number of givers identify themselves not as philanthropists but rather as “philanthrocapitalists”, utilizing their resources to contend for various visions of the future, weighing potential investments in light of their possible social returns (the most lives saved for the least money is one of GiveWell’s benchmarks)–and envisioning “social capital markets” where, in the words of Peter Wilby, funders-as-philanthropists “select charities as they would select suppliers of goods and services to their companies”, seeking “efficiency, clearly defined targets, measurable outcomes, quick results”.

Says Oracle founder Larry Ellison, “The profit motive could be the best tool for solving the world’s problems.”

Concerned, however, that “the poor are written out of their own story, that business tycoons, accustomed to getting their own way, do things to the poor, rather than with them”, former World Bank advisor and author of Small Change: Why Business Won’t Change the World Michael Edwards asks, “Why should the rich and famous decide how schools are going to be reformed, or what drugs will be supplied at prices affordable to the poor, or which civil society groups get funded for their work?”

Notes Wilby, “The emphasis on ‘rates of return’ and ‘value for money’ may exclude people in great need who happen to be difficult to reach or, even if made fit and healthy, would be of marginal economic utility.”

As we’ll note in our next and final piece on the Giving Pledge, it’s precisely on the margins that God plies His own philanthropy.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

One Christian’s Perspective on The Giving Pledge, Part I: Two Very Different Giving Pledges

Even in the midst of several really excellent pieces from secular writers on the Giving Pledge (my own favorites are here, here, here, and one particularly insightful piece I’m saving for the end of this post), I’ve been surprised not to see more vigorous discussion among Christians of this billionaire-driven challenge to America’s billionaires to give away more than half their wealth to charity. Since nature abhors a vacuum even in virtual reality, I’ve decided to devote this week’s posts to my own (Christian) perspective on the Giving Pledge.

We begin our consideration of the topic by contrasting the focus of two different “billionaire pledges”—the first from the Giving Pledge and the second from Zacchaeus the tax collector.

First, from America’s billionaires:

The Giving Pledge is an effort to help address society’s most pressing problems by inviting the wealthiest American families and individuals to commit to giving more than half of their wealth to philanthropy or charitable causes either during their lifetime or after their death.

Second, from Zaccheus the tax collector:

Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. He wanted to see who Jesus was, but being a short man he could not, because of the crowd. So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way. When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a ‘sinner.’ “

But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”

Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.”

Zacchaeus is not helping address society’s most pressing problems. Instead, he is repenting as a result of his warm, personal, unwarranted encounter with Jesus Christ.

In the same vein, Peter Wilby, in an especially insightful piece entitled The Rich Want a Better World? Try Paying Fair Wages and Tax suggests that the greatest social impact of all may come from the repentance of the philanthrocapitalists themselves:

If the rich really wish to create a better world, they can sign another pledge: to pay their taxes on time and in full; to stop lobbying against taxation and regulation; to avoid creating monopolies; to give their employees better wages, pensions, job protection and working conditions; to make goods and use production methods that don’t kill or maim or damage the environment or make people ill. When they put their names to that, there will be occasion not just for applause but for street parties.

There is an irony in the claim of the Giving Pledge that “the Giving Pledge is specifically focused on billionaires”.  In truth, the Giving Pledge is not focused on billionaires but rather on social problems as understood and reshaped by billionaires according to their values and experience. Absent a Zacchaeus-like transformation, it is difficult to imagine such philanthropy not being warped by what Samuel Torvend expositing Martin Luther (p. 32) called our “strong inward curvature” which “pull[s] everything, consciously and unconsciously, into the orbit of self.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Church Marketing: Market the Message AND the Community Formed by It

Here’s a church-angled follow-up to our post last week, Marketing is what happens when relationship fails.

The blog site Q considers whether Christianity is amenable to being marketed as a “product”, ultimately deciding in the negative:

Let’s think for a minute about what Christianity is and why it doesn’t make a good “product.” For one thing, products must be subject to markets, yet God is not subject to the consumer needs or wants of any market. God only and ever deals on his own terms. His grace comes from within him and is bestowed on us as he pleases. It doesn’t come when we are ready for it or when we long for it. We struggle to fathom something that can’t be purchased “on demand” in this day and age, but Christianity is one such thing. God saves at his discretion and on his watch.

Good stuff. And yet the title of the post, Church: Marketing a Non-Commercial Message, implies an interesting assumption, namely, that what one would be marketing–were one to be marketing it (which Q suggests one should not)–would be “the message”:

Another reason why Christianity doesn’t make a good product is that it doesn’t lend itself to an easy commercial sale. Sure, there are appealing things about it, but there are also not-so-appealing things about it (um… taking up one’s cross, avoiding sin and worldliness, etc.). And although the Gospel is wonderfully simple in the sense that even a child can recognize its truth, it is also mind-blowingly complex in a way that doesn’t lend itself to thirty-second jingles.

The potential danger here is a slide into a conception of Christianity that can be adequately expounded entirely through propositions–a perspective on which Jesus makes an interesting comment in John 5:39-40 which is brought out nicely in The Message translation:

“You have your heads in your Bibles constantly because you think you’ll find eternal life there. But you miss the forest for the trees. These Scriptures are all about me! And here I am, standing right before you, and you aren’t willing to receive from me the life you say you want.”

So marketing “the message”–the propositional aspect of the Gospel–in disembodied form typically leads to “missing the forest for the trees”.

Marketing the embodiment of “the message”–the church community itself–is a concept that receives attention from Carol Howard Merritt in a Huffington Post piece from last week provocatively titled, Church Charity In The 21st Century. She relates a conversation she had at a party recently when a fellow partygoer asked her, “So what do you do?” When Carol answered, “I’m a pastor”, she received a notable reply from her interlocutor:

“Oh my God,” she responded. “I never knew why anyone would go to church. But last year, my mom got sick. She’s divorced, and I’m living hundreds of miles away from her, so I didn’t know what we were going to do. And her church totally took care of her. They brought her meals. They drove her to the doctor. They called me when anything out of the ordinary happened.”

“Yeah. That’s what the good churches do.”

“Really?” She looked completely confused as she continued, “I had no idea. You should really advertise that.” I laughed, and we talked for a bit more about her career. But, her initial comments stuck with me as I walked away and snagged a rare empty space on the couch. I looked at the crowd of mingling people, and the loud music triggered my thoughts. It never occurred to me that people wouldn’t know that churches care for the sick. What had church become in the minds of most people?

The last question is a fair one to ask and a painful one to answer. Carol posits a reply worth discussing:

While many civic organizations have become relics of the past, spiritual communities still thrive in our society, as a place of solidarity in all stages in life. In our sanctuary, there is a space where CEOs and homeless people sit together in the same pew. We’re a gathering where people from diverse ethnicities work with one another. It is a setting where the young and the old support each other when we’re in spiritual, emotional, or physical need. It is a place I can go to in times of faith or in doubt. When I’m too weak to hold any belief in God or myself, I know that a community holds it for me. And I can be strong for others when they falter. It is a sanctuary, in a broad sense of the term, where people can question and work to make the world a better place.

Two posts, two approaches to marketing the church.

The Book of Acts suggests a third and different approach, however: Since “the message” is incomplete unless it is embodied, the marketing of the church requires the presentation of both “the message” and the community formed by it if the transmission is to be complete.

Simon Sinek’s Start With Why is especially relevant in this regard. If we keep the “why” in mind, we’ll market neither the propositions nor the community separately, as the “why”–why do we feed the sick and visit the shut-ins, why do we gather together across age and economic boundaries, why do we stay together when we’re weak–links the two:

Any organization can explain what it does; some can explain how they do it; but very few can clearly articulate why. WHY is not money or profit– those are always results. WHY does your organization exist? WHY does it do the things it does? WHY do customers really buy from one company or another? WHY are people loyal to some leaders, but not others?

Q is right that we can’t just market the “what”. Howard Merritt’s “how” is compelling but incomplete. Church marketing–and Christian nonprofit marketing, too, for that matter–depends on the “why” for its power and persuasiveness.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment