I like The Love Revolution, but I don’t love it. Here’s my alternative proposal

Cards on the table time: I love to see Christians doing the word.

It all comes from the way I came to know the Lord. After I prayed the sinner’s prayer, I turned to the person who led me to the Lord and said, “Now what do I do?” To which the person responded, “Nothing, man. That’s the great thing–you don’t need to do anything.

Well, yes, that’s true. Saved by faith and not by works–check. But that’s not what I was asking.

What I was asking was, “Now that the living God has made His home inside of me, does He want to, you know, do anything in there?”

So sanctification–growing comprehensively in the likeness of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit–is always high on my list of Christian Stuff I Like To Talk About And Do.

That’s why I was interested to hear about Christian speaker and teacher Joyce Meyer’s new initiative, The Love Revolution.

Based on one of my favorite verses, Hebrews 10:24–“And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds”–The Love Revolution leaps out of the gate with what I consider a truly great manifesto:

I take up compassion and surrender my excuses.
I stand against injustice
and commit to live out simple acts of God’s love.
I refuse to do nothing. This is my resolve.
I AM THE LOVE REVOLUTION.

So far so good. (And they even do some really nice things with the site, like a “Revolution Roll Call”, where they list who’s joined and from where, that kind of thing.)

But where my love for The Love Revolution grew a bit cold was in the implementation, i.e., what are these simple acts of God’s love that we will resolve to do as we refuse to do nothing?

The Love Revolution Field Guide commends the following “stands against injustice”:

  • Return your grocery cart.
  • Be nice to a telemarketer.
  • Chase down a neighbor’s pet and put it back in their yard.
  • Let someone else have the last sale item.
  • Refold or rehang the clothes in a store.

Hm.

Now, to be fair, in the list of 100 injustice-killers there are some I genuinely like:

  • Befriend someone outside your usual group.
  • Adopt a child.
  • Forgive a loan.
  • Make amends with family members.
  • Visit someone in the hospital.

And maybe we celebrate the effort and say, “Look, you got to mix some easy ones in with some hard ones. After all, you can’t adopt a baby every day.” (Don’t tell that to W.C. Martin, though.)

On the other hand, though, it’s worth noting what makes the second list so much more powerful than the first:

It’s biblical.

That is, every item on that list can be tied to a particular command of scripture.

So I commend Joyce Meyer for the manifesto and for getting Christians to consider that God may want to do something inside that new home of His known as YOU.

But my alternative proposal is to truly make The Love Revolution’s manifesto ring true by calling Christians to simply carry out the commands of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit–not in an effort to earn salvation, of course, but rather in a recognition that this is the kind of stuff that the Holy Spirit yearns to equip us to do so that the character of our Father might be revealed.

Jesus’ list is even better than Joyce’s. Here are some of the injustice-killers he commends us to undertake (from J.S. McConnell’s list):

  • Cleanse first that which is within (Matthew 23:26)
  • Tell…how great things the Lord has done for thee (Mark 5:19)
  • Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; and ye yourselves like unto men who wait for their Lord (Luke 12:35-36)
  • When thou makest a dinner…call not thy friends, nor thy brethren…but…call the poor (Luke 14:12-13)
  • Resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. (Matthew 5:39-41)

There’s E in them thar P’s.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

How to write a transformational press release for your nonprofit

Press releases can reduce the best nonprofit writing minds to pools of wet, sticky Jell-O.

It is of course possible to effortlessly compose a rather poor press release that no media outlet in their right mind (other than the community coupon papers) would ever dream of picking up. This is our nonprofit birthright.

But a good release that garners coverage?

Ah, a rarity.

And a transformational press release?

One may see one posted on the World Wildlife Fund Endangered Species page.

I’ve been mentoring Generous Mind and .W don Jon Hirst on this subject, and, as is always the case, the student is rapidly surpassing the teacher.

My two top resource recommendations on nonprofit press release writing are David Meerman Scott’s The New Rules of PR and Marketing (which you can pick up through amazon.com here or get a free summary PDF download here) and Knight Communications Press Release Workshop here.

Jon quickly synthesized these resources and produced a “TG Press Release Ten”, which I would wholeheartedly recommend as a pre- and post-writing checklist against which to review any release you dream up:

1. Press releases have to be content that can stand on its own, not just for media professionals to consume.
2. Press releases define the ministry, not just reflect it.
3. Press releases are opportunities for authentic communication of ideas instead of simply defining distinctive and impact.
4. Press releases should engage traditional and social media outlets and give them the opportunity to connect and discuss.
5. Press releases need to be champion-driven and not organizationally-driven.
6. Press releases need to connect with a single person instead of focusing on mass media.
7. Press releases need to end up as content in the places where our partner’s champions are looking for a way to connect and engage a cause.
8. Press releases are successful if they result in new champions being engaged.
9. Press releases need to be created in a way that is seen as valuable to the potential champions.
10. Press releases accomplish the goals that traditional marketing and PR have accomplished and those objectives can no longer be separated.
  1. Press releases have to be content that can stand on its own, not just for media professionals to consume.
  2. Press releases define the ministry, not just reflect it.
  3. Press releases are opportunities for authentic communication of ideas instead of simply defining ministry distinctives and impact.
  4. Press releases should engage traditional and social media outlets and give them the opportunity to connect and discuss.
  5. Press releases need to be champion-driven and not organizationally-driven.
  6. Press releases need to connect with a single person instead of focusing on mass media.
  7. Press releases need to end up as content in the places where our ministry’s champions are looking for a way to connect and engage a cause.
  8. Press releases are successful if they result in new champions being engaged.
  9. Press releases need to be created in a way that is seen as valuable to the potential champions.
  10. Press releases accomplish the goals that traditional marketing and PR have accomplished and those objectives can no longer be separated.

Nicely played, sir!

For a sample of what it all looks like in real life, check out this release regarding Christian Resource International’s Operation Bare Your Bookshelf program. Note, however, that this press release is not the one that was done by Jon and his team for Christian Resource International (CRI) but rather one localized and released by a CRI champion to the media in her sphere of influence. Now the champion-centered release has exceeded the circulation of the original.

Which is what transformational PR is all about.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Do transformational gifts to charity make us happier than transactional ones?

Do you remember the research last year that concluded that giving money to charity made people happier?

Katya Andresen points us to a Drake Bennett post that updates that research, and the additional information he provides nuances that earlier conclusion quite a bit.

Turns out that it’s not giving money to charity that makes people happier but rather giving money to other people (so-called “pro-social spending”), which may include charitable giving:

First, they surveyed 632 Americans on their general happiness, along with what they spent their money on, and found that higher “prosocial spending” – gifts for others and donations to charity – was indeed correlated with higher self-reported happiness. They followed this up with a more detailed look at 16 workers before and after they received a profit-sharing bonus from their company. They found that the only factor that reliably predicted which workers would be happy six to eight weeks after the bonus was their prosocial spending – the more money people spent on charity and gifts for others, the happier they were.

Surprisingly, no research has apparently yet been done that differentiates whether the types of gifts we give to charity make us more or less happy.

In other words, if I donate $10 because a charity sends me address labels in the mail, does that yield the same level of happiness as if I give $10 to a family from my church who is struggling?

Take it a step further and ask:

If I give $2 million to build a building for a homeless shelter (who then, perhaps coincidentally, engraves my name on it), will that yield the same amount of happiness as if I designate that that same $2 million be spent on discipling and rehabilitating the homeless people who are normally helped inside of the shelter’s existing building–people whom I then meet because along with donating the $2 million I also decide to volunteer to mentor homeless people in the shelter’s rehabilitation program?

Sum it up and ask:

Is all charitable happiness created equally?

Drake’s post offers some tantalizing clues that certain types of giving might be more happiness-inducing than other types:

Another theme that has emerged in similar research is that money spent on experiences – vacations or theater tickets or meals out – makes you happier than money spent on material goods. Leaf Van Boven, an associate psychology professor at the University of Colorado, and Thomas Gilovich, chair of the psychology department at Cornell University, have run surveys asking people about past purchases and how happy they made them.
“We generally found very consistent evidence that experiences made people happier than material possessions they had invested in,” says Van Boven.
Why? For one thing, Van Boven and Gilovich argue, experiences are inherently more social – when we vacation or eat out or go to the movies it’s usually with other people, and we’re liable also to relive the experience when we see those people again. And past experiences can work as a sort of social adhesive even with people who didn’t participate with us, providing stories and conversational fodder in a way that a new watch or speedboat rarely can.
In addition, other work by Van Boven suggests that experiences don’t usually trigger the same sort of pernicious comparisons that material possessions do. We like our car less whenever we catch a glimpse of our neighbor’s newer, nicer car, but we don’t like our honeymoon any less because our neighbor went on a fancier one.
And while we quickly grow accustomed to a new suit or a bigger house, no matter how much we originally loved it, experiences instead tend to get burnished in our memory – a year after a vacation, we look back not on the stress of dealing with lost luggage or the fights over which way the hotel was, but the beauty of the scenery or the exotic flavors of the food.

Another theme that has emerged in similar research is that money spent on experiences – vacations or theater tickets or meals out – makes you happier than money spent on material goods. Leaf Van Boven, an associate psychology professor at the University of Colorado, and Thomas Gilovich, chair of the psychology department at Cornell University, have run surveys asking people about past purchases and how happy they made them.

“We generally found very consistent evidence that experiences made people happier than material possessions they had invested in,” says Van Boven.

Why? For one thing, Van Boven and Gilovich argue, experiences are inherently more social – when we vacation or eat out or go to the movies it’s usually with other people, and we’re liable also to relive the experience when we see those people again. And past experiences can work as a sort of social adhesive even with people who didn’t participate with us, providing stories and conversational fodder in a way that a new watch or speedboat rarely can.

In addition, other work by Van Boven suggests that experiences don’t usually trigger the same sort of pernicious comparisons that material possessions do. We like our car less whenever we catch a glimpse of our neighbor’s newer, nicer car, but we don’t like our honeymoon any less because our neighbor went on a fancier one.

And while we quickly grow accustomed to a new suit or a bigger house, no matter how much we originally loved it, experiences instead tend to get burnished in our memory – a year after a vacation, we look back not on the stress of dealing with lost luggage or the fights over which way the hotel was, but the beauty of the scenery or the exotic flavors of the food.

If this so-called “conceptual consumption” brings more happiness than, say, buying a big-screen TV, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that charitable giving that draws us deeply into the cause, into relationship with others who are passionate about the cause, into personal interaction with those impacted by the cause, would make us happier than checkbook philanthropy with associated naming opportunities?

If buying a building is less satisfying than hiking through Mayan ruins, then why would giving money so that a charity can build a building be more satisfying than traveling with that charity to impact the cause firsthand?

This is not to rag on capital campaign gifts by any means…though it is meant to rag on capital campaign gifts that do not bubble over out of deep personal experience with the cause for which the building is being built. Never, in other words, ask a donor to give money to fund a building that they will never volunteer inside of.

One suspects the happiness researches may not have had a lot of Transformational Giving experiences, as their charitable imagination appears somewhat limited:

One intriguing possibility is that workplaces could change to encourage more prosocial spending in their workers. Dunn and Norton have argued, for example, that companies can improve their employees’ emotional well-being by shifting some of their budget for charitable giving so that individual employees are given sums to donate, leaving them happier even as the charities of their choice benefit.

Now let me ask you honestly:

Would your happiness really improve that much if the owner of your business said, “Here’s $50 of my money. You get to choose where I donate it”?

What about a matching gift program, where the owner of your business matches non-church gifts you make to charity, up to a certain amount? (That’s what Mission Increase Foundation does for its employees.)

Further, what about a matching time program where the owner of your business gives you a certain amount of time off from work to match volunteer time you’re giving on your own?

Most transformationally of all, what about a matching time and money program where the owner of the business does both?

If it makes for happier (and thus more productive and longer-tenured) employees, why not?

All of these ideas hinge, of course, on the premise that not all charitable giving is created equal when it comes to improving your happiness. That, it seems to me, is the next frontier of happy-giving research.

Until that’s done, enjoy this short story from a dear sister of ours that verifies what the happiness researchers will undoubtedly one day prove: Gifts where our hands come attached to the check make us happiest of all.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment