Do the Word

In yesterday’s post, we talked about God’s love of measurement. So prominent an element of His character is it that Paul even refers to Him as ‘The God of Measure’.

But it would be a dreadful mistake to assume that God loves all measurement. In fact, scripture portrays God as actually despising certain measurements that human beings treasure and on which they rely. In other cases, He prohibits certain measurements from being made at all.

On our way to determining what and how Transformational Giving (TG) should measure, we should stop and take somber, serious account of what it should not.

1. ‘Differing weights and differing measures–the LORD detests them both.’ (Proverbs 20:1)

On the face of it, this scripture seems to provide no challenge to the systems of measurement utilized in traditional/transactional fundraising (ttf). After all, the direct reference of the Proverb is to using one set of weights to measuring what one buys, and a different set of weights to measuring what one sells.

But is ttf truly in the free and clear on this count? Or is it actually irredeemably guilty?

John Wesley’s pithy comment on this verse says simply: ‘Divers – One greater for shew and one lesser for use.’

One greater for show and one lesser for use: Wouldn’t that be a fair description of the different measure we use when we generically address a fund raising letter, ‘Dear Friend and Valued Partner of This Ministry’…but then treat that ‘Partner’ as anything but?

• We might go years without calling them.
• We might know nothing about them other than that they send us money.
• More typically, we might fail to exercise our Ephesians 4:12 responsibilities towards them, seeing them as our supporters and content to accept their gifts, rather than what the Bible calls us to be: supporters of them, equipping them to grow in fullness in relation to the cause we represent.

I always ask executive directors and development personnel: if ‘donors’ heard the way we talk about them in private–if they knew the labels we use for them (regular, middle, major)–and the way we track information about them in our databases, might they not say about us, ‘One greater for shew and one lesser for use’?

Sum it up and say: God detests any measurements that cause us to speak to people one way to their face (‘valued supporter’, ‘partner’) and another in our fund raising reporting (‘regular’, ‘middle’, ‘major’, ‘ripe plum waiting to be picked’, ‘guy with some serious cash’).

2. ‘Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.’ (1 Chronicles 21:1)

What’s wrong with taking a census? In and of itself, nothing. God Himself even directs it from time to time.

The problem comes with the reason for taking a census. When one takes a census in order to measure one’s strength and capacity and health…one runs into a few problems with God, who tends to get rankled anytime one puts one’s strength in what one can see and in what one has in one’s hand…or one’s bank account.

Interesting, isn’t it, that when God talks about a census in Exodus 30:12, He says, ‘When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the LORD a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them.’

In other words, every time you count, you need to recognize that each individual is provided by the grace of God. Keeps one from the plague of pride and self-sufficiency…or the plague of despair and faithlessness at not having ‘enough’ to do what God has called one to do.

I am ever amazed at true men and women of God–brave, stalwart firebrands of The Word–who become anything but brave and stalwart when they look at their support accounts or the profit/loss statements for their organization. They continually ‘take a census’…agonizing over the daily income reports, getting frustrated and resentful that people don’t give more, and whoring about for any tool or technique or strategy that will provide an immediate alleviation of an income shortfall. Even their demeanor changes, from peace to passion…to anxiety and anger.

Have you ever considered your own review of your finances as a kind of census? Is it possible that Satan may be inciting you to take your daily ‘census’ in the way you do? What might it mean for you to ‘ransom’ each champion each time you count them?

(Side note: Fascinating, isn’t it, that when David makes the offering that stays the hand of the angel of death, that he does so on the site where the temple is later raised up–the temple, which is one of God’s favorite subjects for measurement?)

3. ‘But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.’ (Revelation 11:2)

Don’t worry–I won’t prophesy a date for the end of the world here. (We’ll save that for the premium subscription version of the blog.)

My point in referencing this verse is simply to note that there are some things that God commands that we exclude from measurement.

What kinds of things?

• Secular things.
• By secular people.
• With secular purposes in mind–purposes that trample on God’s purposes.

Have you ever noticed that the measurements we Christian nonprofits make in our development efforts match completely with the measurements that our secular counterparts track? If we’re tracking the same things they are for the same purposes they are and making the same decisions they do with the same data they have…then is it possible that we, too, are trampling on the purposes of The God of Measure by measuring the things He intends us to exclude and by excluding the things He intends us to measure?

This is of course not to say that you shouldn’t maintain a proper profit and loss statement for your organization. By no means. After all, the problem is not with taking a census. It’s with not following God’s guidelines for what to do when you take a census. The problem is the certain measurements really do tempt us to act and think and rely in ways that aren’t consistent with God’s design for us, His leaders, and for His people.

4. Conclusion

If we pay careful attention, we can see a trend emerging:

God despises measurements that draw attention to human strength and power and capacity because they tempt us to base our decisions on human strength and power and capacity.

Nowhere is that more true–and nowhere is the temptation to do that more acute–than in the arena of fundraising.

If you’re astute, you can almost precisely invert the above statement and predict the kind of measurements God wants us to make and on which He wants us to make our decisions. The surprising thing, though, is the specificity with which the scriptures indicates what those measurements are and how to take them. The measurements scripture directs are literally detailed and practical enough that one can (and is in fact called to) base an entire development program on them.

To these we turn tomorrow.

In the mean time, observe for yourself your own demeanor as you review certain of the measurements you and your organization make. Who is inciting you to measure in such ways? And what might it mean to ransom those statistics in God’s sight?

…and we in regard to the unmeasured things will not boast ourselves, but after the measure of the line that the God of measure did appoint to us — to reach even unto you… (Youngs Literal Translation, 2 Corinthians 10:13)

‘The God of Measure’ is not one of the names Christians typically use for God.

In fact, if you look up 2 Corinthians 10:13 in your NIV or KJV or NASB or Message Bible, you won’t even see the phrase translated that way into English. (The other translations choose to highlight that what Paul appears to be talking about in this section is super-apostles invading the sphere of influence that was divinely measured out to him, namely the Gentiles.)

But for those with an Greek-English Interlinear handy (here, borrow mine), there it is, plain as day in the Greek:

Theos metron. The God of measure.

It makes sense to think of God as the God of measure. Do a search in your concordance and you’ll see that God is quite big on measurements.

Then I looked up—and there before me was a man with a measuring line in his hand! (Zech. 2:1)

Ezekiel and John (in Revelation) are both sent a-measuring. And whose earnest efforts to read the Bible in a year hasn’t ground to a halt with the looooooooong, mega-detailed sections on measurement of the tabernacle and the temple?

So, God being a big practitioner of measurement, and Transformational Giving (TG) being an effort to exposit the scriptures related to the subject of development (which we take to refer not to fund development but rather to our development into the fullness of Christ), it makes sense that if we’re trying to nail down what we ought to be measuring in TG, we ought to ask the question:

• What does ‘The God of Measure’ measure?

And once we determine that, we ought to ask the follow-up question:

• Ought we to be measuring the same thing?

Which would lead to the truly transformational question:

• What would a Christian nonprofit look like if it was measuring (and seeking to maximize and to base its decisions on) the same things The God of Measure measures?

And that, dear reader, is the subject of our blog posts this week.

As if to underscore yesterday’s post on orienting concerns–those ‘worries’ that we bring to every question of theology and fundraising–there was a really clear illustration of the orienting concern of traditional/transactional fundraising (ttf) in the great post yesterday on Beth’s Blog related to measuring the fundraising impact of social media like Facebook.

TTF fundraisers twist in the wind when it comes to figuring out Facebook and Twitter and other social media because even telemarketing and door-to-door fruitcake sales are often still more potent income generators for nonprofits than Facebook. And this is a problem for ttf’ers, since as Betsy Harman is quoted as saying in the piece:

It’s still all about building relationships, telling your story, and taking potential donors through the process of cultivation, stewardship and solicitation.

There’s the orienting concern of ttf–organizational finances–rearing its head again: Everything is measured against its potential to generate income for the organization.

The challenge is, nowhere more than with social media does such a goal drive ttf adherents to drown in sorrowful and desperate tweets. Social media is tenacious and consistent in its resistance to this kind of income calculus. Yet ttf fundraisers can’t ignore that ‘everyone is doing it’–getting involved with social media, that is.

Social media simply resists to the core of its being you and I ‘taking potential donors’ (yikes! What a phrase) through ‘the process of cultivation, stewardship, and solicitation’.

Hard to ‘take’ anyone anywhere on Facebook or other social media. It’s a media that relies on giving something–in the case of our work, giving mentoring, counsel, networking, and interesting opportunities to connect with others to do with others what they can’t do on your own. Giving without thought of return because it’s in service of the cause.

TTF fundraisers totally understand the concept that social media requires a gift mindset. They just for the life of themselves can’t figure out what to do with it.

From Beth’s Blog yesterday:

The other thing to remember is that a lot of social media culture is built on the ‘gift economy:’ the notion that it’s a good idea to do things that are just good ideas. There’s no expected return when you do someone a favor, or when you take time to share research for free. You realize that it’s making the whole environment richer with your unique participation — you don’t expect anything else from it.

The problem for ttf devotees is that at some point they have to make things shift from the organization making a gift with no expectation in return, to the other person making a gift back to them. One always runs the risk of smacking of insincerity when you expect nothing on the way to expecting everything.

Facebook, Twitter, and other social media, in other words, are virtually impermeable to the orienting concern of nonprofit financial health. People on Facebook, in other words, could care less about the financial health of our nonprofit.

On the other hand, TG’s orienting concern–Is the champion/partner being shaped comprehensively in the image of Christ in relation to the cause?–is tailor-made for social media. Social media opens up opportunities to coach champions that are unlike any opportunities we’ve ever had before.

And we can port all of our TG agenda onto social media without Facebook friends feeling like we’ve baited and switched them. We can (and should) even talk openly about how to give to advance the cause, because our orienting concern is helping the champion comprehensively impact the cause, not the financial health of our nonprofit. People will actually appreciate it when we can coach them in how to use all of their personal and corporate assets to impact the cause.

At the end of the day, social media measurement is one more demonstration of the potency of TG when compared to ttf. TTF is left to hem and haw about how social media builds ‘social capital, goodwill, and influence‘…but it can’t figure out how to put that in the ttf fuel tank that only runs on dollars.

TG, on the other hand, is completely comfortable in the social media environment, since it’s designed to allow us to give all the things we are called to give: coaching, accountability, and opportunity.

Now having exposed the lack of clothesiness of the ttf emperor in relation to measurement, we turn next week to what the Bible has to say about measurement (an astonishing amount, actually) in order to ask:

According to scripture, what does God want us to measure anyway?

That’s the question that needs to drive TG measurement–and the answers turn out to be things that, while nothing short of spiritually revolutionary for us as Christian nonprofits, are remarkably do-able from a practical standpoint.