Do the Word

We’re commenting throughout this week on David Meerman Scott’s claim that the ultimate goal we all seek is ‘attention for our company’. In yesterday’s post, I raised the questions: Is attention for our company the goal of Transformational Giving? Is TG simply another way to achieve the standard marketing goal?

You’ve already undoubtedly guessed that I intend to answer in the negative, but what may surprise you is that the ‘no’ is multifaceted, comprehensive, and emphatic.

Today, let me begin with the second part of David Meerman Scott’s formulation of the phrase ‘attention for our company’ and demonstrate why Transformational Giving is not focused ‘for our company’ at all.

One of the key themes I’m teaching in the day-long TG seminars this month is that fundraising is an inadequate way to describe the biblical framework for giving because it introduces a Kingdom ‘nonentity’–the nonprofit organization–and seeks to make it the locus of God’s activity.

Saying that the nonprofit is a Kingdom nonentity does not mean that nonprofits are unimportant or unnecessary. Far from it!

It does mean, however, that–in the biblical framework–institutions grow God’s people and then ultimately become unnecessary, because God’s people reach their full stature in Christ. (Contrast this with the traditional development framework in which God’s people grow institutions; and then God’s people become unnecessary, except for as human ATM machines who support the work of the nonprofit.)

This explains why John the Baptist says he must become less, so that Christ can become more…and why Jesus offers this scathing offhand in Luke 21:5-6 about the most central institution in his own time, the Jewish temple, which he knew was about to give way to an eternal, living temple:

Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, ‘As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.’

The contrast between traditional development’s focus ‘for our organization’ and Transformational Giving’s focus ‘for the champion’ can best be seen in these two slides drawn from the seminar, which contrast the roles of performer, audience, and stage in each framework.

In the traditional framework, the nonprofit is on the stage, attempting to achieve David Meerman Scott’s dream of achieving attention for itself:

The nonprofit calls attention to itself

In the Transformational Giving framework, however, notice the shift:

And the focus of attention is...

In Transformational Giving, the nonprofit is the convening mechanism, the stage, the platform for the champion’s activity and growth…

…but not the focus of the attention.

More tomorrow.

David Meerman Scott hit up with a fascinating post on his blog on Friday in which he contended that what we all really want is attention paid to our companies. He suggests that attention comes in four flavors:

1. Buying attention, which he calls advertising
2. Begging for attention, which he calls public relations
3. Bugging people one at a time for attention, which he calls sales
4. Earning attention, which he says is still acquiring a name but which he sees as the great good.

No doubt that Meerman Scott is right that the above four dimensions comprehend the history of marketing, advertising, public relations, sales, and all such disciplines.

But do they comprehend Transformational Giving?

In other words, is Transformational Giving simply another way to gain attention?

And if so, how would we square that with:

• Luke 14:11, where Jesus says, ‘For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted’?
• Matthew 6:3, where Jesus says, ‘But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing’?
• Luke 5:14 and its dozens of cognate passages, where Jesus instructs his followers, ‘Tell no one’?
• John 3:30, where John the Baptist says of himself in relation to Jesus, ‘He must become greater; I must become less’?

This week in the blog, as we travel to do seminars in Arizona and Colorado, we focus on the question of the goal and purpose of Transformational Giving and ask, from a scriptural standpoint related to Christian nonprofit organizations:

Is it attention we’re after?

Or is it something else?

And if so, what?

This is a great time for you to ‘post up’ with a comment to this blog and share your thoughts.

Should be a stimulating week!

Good times today as the Transformational Giving seminar express rolled through Portland. (Still time to sign up for next week’s day-long whistle stops in Phoenix and Colorado Springs, as well as the dates in SFO and LAX the week following.)

In Portland today I was finally able to work in a clarification I’ve been wanting to make since we did the Major Donor workshops in March, namely:

The word ‘Champion’ does not only refer to Owners. It refers to anyone on the P/E/O grid, including Participants and Engaged folks as well.

‘Owner’, in other words, is not synonymous with ‘Champion’. ‘Champion’ is a much broader term that designates the nature , character, and intent of the relationship we have with an individual.

The term that contrasts with ‘Champion’…is ‘Donor’.

When we call someone a ‘Donor’, we are living in a transactional fundraising universe in which the donation transaction is the central focus and the defining characteristic of the individual in relation to the nonprofit.

When we call someone a ‘Champion’, we are maintaining fidelity to the scripture’s revelation of reality, wherein the central thing goin’ on around us is God’s work in actively shaping His people in the image of His Son.

Our role in that process?

Coaching the Champion in relation to the Kingdom cause for which God is holding us both accountable in our spheres of influence.

When we orient ourselves to God’s people and purpose in this way, we recognize three distinct levels of Champion maturity. In each case, the cause is being championed, but in a very different way:

• Participants are Champions who advance the cause through project-based involvement.
• Engaged people are Champions who advance the cause through  ongoing, covenantal lifestyle changes and commitments.
• Owners are champions who advance the cause by seeing it as their responsibility to spread the cause and equip new Champions within their sphere of influence.

In each level of maturity the Champion may be extremely committed and passionate. What varies from P to E to O is not the degree of commitment or passion but rather the kind of championing the individual is doing in relation to the cause.

We talk about this at much greater length in the Coach Your Champions book and in the seminar; however, the piece I’ve never  clarified well is that the term ‘Champion’ applies at all levels of the P/E/O process, not just when the dial says ‘O’.

Thanks, Portland, for bringing that out!