Story elements: Climax & Resolution (Victory & Altered Identity)

1 Timothy 6:17-19, “Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to set their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy [. Instruct them] to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.387

Give! Give! Give! Give!

In every fundraising story, there is a punchline. There is a call to action. There is an ask, a spur, a suggestion, an idea, or an option … to give. Give. That’s the point of fundraising, right?

We’ve reached that point in Paul’s message. He has challenged the wealthy to enjoy what God has richly supplied to them. Now he provides specificity on how to do so. So, he tells them to give, right?

Not exactly. Certainly, he could have. He could have written, “Give your money!” He could have written, “Give your wealth!” He could have written, “Donate!” He could have written a simple instruction to give.388 He could have written it four times: Give! Give! Give! Give!

But that’s not what he did. Instead, he used these four descriptions:

Each describes giving. But this is not mere repetition. Each phrase is different. Each is specially crafted. They use rare – or even newly created – words to convey special meaning.389 Each provides real-world guidance for effective fundraising.

Don’t ask for money

Paul gets to the fundraising punchline. And he doesn’t say, “Give your money!” He doesn’t say, “Donate!” Instead, he says,

“God is the one who richly supplies us with all things for enjoyment: to do good, to be rich in good works” (1 Timothy 6:17b-18a).

This approach is powerful. It’s effective. But it’s easy to miss why it’s so different. This is not just asking for money. Why not? What’s the difference?

One successful fundraiser explained it best. He wasn’t explaining this verse. He was just explaining his job. A person learned he was a fundraiser and said,

“I could never do that job. I couldn’t ask people for money.”

He responded,

“I don’t ask people for money. I ask people to do things (that happen to cost money).”

This little change makes all the difference. It makes a difference in

Paul’s message doesn’t direct the rich person “to give.” Instead, it directs the rich person “to do good.” This message is fundamentally different. For the donor, it’s different in terms of

Agency: Who is your story about?

The typical fundraising appeal is all about the charity. It’s about the charity’s great work. It’s about all the great things the charity is doing.

Naturally enough, charity insiders like this story. But the story sounds very different from the donor’s perspective. Alan Clayton explains that it’s like saying,

“Hello. I’m Alan. I’m great! Can I have some money, please?”390

That’s not a compelling message for donors. Yet, it can feel compelling to charity insiders. The charity’s story feels compelling to them because it’s a story about them. They are the main characters. They are the heroes. They are in charge. They make things happen. It’s a story about them. It’s about their actions. It’s about their good works.

How does this compare with Paul’s approach? Who does good in Paul’s fundraising story? It’s the donor. Who makes things happen? The donor. Who is the main character? The donor.

In the charity’s story, the charity is the actor. The charity does good. The charity’s inspirational work compels the donor to give. The charity then uses this money to do more good.

In Paul’s story, the donor is the actor. The donor does good.391 Any charity is just a tool for the donor. It might serve as the donor’s hammer. But the donor is the one who swings the hammer. The donor uses the charity to do more good.

In the charity’s story, the charity makes the impact. In Paul’s story, the donor makes the impact. The technical term for this difference is called “agency.” This references,

“a thing or person that acts to produce a particular result.”392

In the charity’s story, the charity has agency. In Paul’s story, the donor has agency.

Agency: Best practices

Which works better in fundraising? Modern experimental research sides with Paul. Giving agency to the donor increases donations.393 A story about the charity doing good is fine. But a story about the donor doing good is more compelling.

One experiment started with an appeal letter about the charity’s work. It then replaced the charity with “you and” the charity. Response rates improved by 40%.394 Adding the donor – “you” – as an actor in the story worked.

Do we see this “you” language in Paul’s fundraising letter? Yes. 2 Corinthians 8-9 is Paul’s appeal letter. In it, “you” and “your” appear 41 times.395 In comparison, “I,” “me,” and “my” appear only 13 times. “We” and “our” appear only 16 times.

A story about the donor and the donor’s impact works. Allowing the donor to have agency works. Research shows this. Research has found something else, too. Giving agency to the donor is even more effective among the wealthy.396

Work: What am I buying?

Is shopping fun? Most people think so. But why? At the end of a shopping trip, you have less money. Is it fun to lose money? No. The fun part isn’t losing money. The fun part is what you buy with the money. You get to do things or keep things.

Is donating fun? That depends. At the end of the donation, you have less money. Is it fun to lose money? No. The fun part isn’t losing money. The fun part is what you buy with the money. You get to do things or keep things.

In Paul’s fundraising message, what does the wealthy donor get to do? He gets to do good - agathoergein. This is a compound word. It comes from agathos, “intrinsically good,” and ergon, “work.”

Paul’s word choice is rare.397 The typical word would be agatho-poieō. This would also be translated as “to do good.”398 But Paul goes out of his way to instead use a “work” word, agatho-ergein. One translation renders this as “to work the good.”399 The donor gets to do good work.400

And what does the donor get to keep? He gets “to be rich in good works [ergois].” These riches he keeps no matter what. Even if someone took all his possessions, he would remain rich in good works.

The donor gets to do good work. He gets to be rich in good works. Paul’s fundraising message is selling work.

Jesus used this same type of language to describe a major asset gift. This was Mary’s gift of perfume worth more than a year’s wages. While others criticized her for not giving it to the poor, Jesus defended her gift.

Jesus explained, in Mark 14:6 and Matthew 26:10, that she “has done a good deed”. In Mark 14:6, this is more literally,

“a good work she has worked [ergon ērgasato]”.

In Matthew 26:10, it’s more literally

“a work for good she has worked” [ergon gar kalon ērgasato]”.

Jesus double-emphasizes the donor as accomplishing work.

Jesus uses the same word in precisely the same form, ērgasato, in the Parable of the Talents. He contrasts hiding wealth with putting it to work. Jesus says,

“The one who had received the five talents immediately went and did business [ērgasato] with them, and earned five more talents.” (Matthew 25:16).

This contrasts with the one,

“who received the one talent went away and dug a hole in the ground, and hid his master’s money.” (Matthew 25:18).

In 1 Timothy 6:17-18, Paul makes a similar contrast. He contrasts hidden [adēlotēti] riches with being rich in good works [ergois].401

Both Paul and Jesus are making the same point. If you have wealth, don’t bury it. Instead, put it to work. Use it to do good work.

The donor’s contribution buys work. This is not a new idea. Exodus describes a capital campaign for the tabernacle. It explains,

“They received from Moses every contribution which the sons of Israel had brought to perform the work in the construction of the sanctuary.” (Exodus 36:3a).

Notice, the donors didn’t just buy a building. They bought work. These contributions had a purpose. They did work.402

Work: Best practices

In the Bible, donors are described as doing or buying work. Jesus, Moses, and Paul all did this. So, does this message “work”?

A massive research study illustrated the power of this word choice. It looked at over 100,000 crowdfunding campaigns for victims of disasters and emergencies. It analyzed all communications from every campaign. It used this “big data” to find what words helped these campaigns raise more money.

The answer was … “work.” The statistical finding was this:

“Each additional work-related word in an update increases donations on average by $65 per month.”403

These work-related words included,

“words representing work actions such as ‘build,’ ‘clean,’ ‘equip’ and ‘fix.’”404

If the donor feels like they are buying work – they buy more. If they don’t – they buy less.

A 2023 study of such fundraising found the same answer. Donations more than doubled when images showed recipients engaged in physical work actions.405

Another study tested this using experiments. The result was the same.406 Images of work doubled giving. They also made donors feel more “active” and “inspired.” An image of a recipient hammering, moving boxes, or bailing water worked. An image of a recipient standing, thinking, or looking at a blueprint did not. Work worked. Non-work did not.

Paul didn’t use a “big data” approach. He didn’t analyze a hundred million words in a hundred thousand fundraising campaigns. He didn’t code fundraising images or run experimental analyses. Apparently, he didn’t need to. His instructions on fundraising were exactly right!

Agency + buying work: The language of the rich

Paul is using motivational language. It’s motivational for everyone. But it’s particularly motivational for those with wealth.

Wealthy people are used to being in control. They’re used to having agency. They make things happen. Wealthy people are also used to employing others. They’re used to buying work. Buying work is how they get things done. It’s how they get things done with money.

If a wealthy person wants a field tilled, he doesn’t grab a plow. He hires someone. He buys the work. If he wants a barn built, he doesn’t grab a hammer. He hires someone. He buys the work. If he wants to start a business, he does the same. He hires people. He buys the work.

Paul is framing a donation using language that connects with the wealthy person. It offers agency to the donor. The donor is the one who makes it happen. It instructs the donor to buy work. The donor makes it happen by buying the work. He hires someone.

Consider this comparison. Suppose we made this ask of a wealthy donor:

“John, I know you care about the lost in this mission field. Would you consider an annual gift of $200,000 for the next five years to this mission?”

That’s a plausible request. Now, let’s change it a bit. Let’s make it a request to buy work.

“John, I know you care about the lost in this mission field. In different circumstances, you might have even been that missionary yourself. But I’m not asking you to be that missionary. Instead, I want you to be two of those missionaries. Would you consider an annual gift of $200,000 for the next five years to hire and support two full-time missionaries to work in your place?”

One request is about giving away money. The other is about what the donor is buying with the money. It’s about buying work.

One leads to this donor experience:

“I give $200,000 per year to missions.”

This result is about the money. The other leads to this donor experience:

“I employ two full-time missionaries working in this field.”

This result is about the work.

Making things happen by buying the work is what wealthy people do. Agency + work is the action language of the wealthy. Agathoergein is a word of agency and work. It is also something else. It’s a word of meaningful impact.

Impact: Doing good

Paul’s instruction is not simply to give money. It’s “to do good.” Agatho-ergein is from agathos (good) and ergon (work). One lexicon describes ergon as

“(from ergō, ‘to work, accomplish’) – a work or worker who accomplishes something … a deed (action) that carries out (completes) an inner desire (intention, purpose).”407

Paul’s instruction requires the donor to accomplish something. It requires the donor to complete something. It requires making an impact.408

Is it possible for the donor to make a gift that does not result in doing good? Yes. Is it possible for the donor to have no idea if the gift did any good or not? Yes. It’s not only possible, it’s common. Does Paul’s message instruct the donor to do this? No. It does not.

Suppose the donor gives. Later, he asks himself the agatho-ergein question:

“I made a gift. What good did it accomplish?”

Or simply,

“I made a gift. What changed?”

To follow Paul’s instruction, the donor must be able to answer this question. Unfortunately, many charities don’t provide an answer.

“What did my gift do?”

Some charities leave the impression that their answer is

These answers don’t work. The donor can’t tell what his gift has done. He can’t say if his gift has accomplished anything. He can’t say if his gift has done any good. He can’t say if he’s followed Paul’s instructions.

Paul’s instruction isn’t “to give money.” His instruction is “to do good.” Just giving money doesn’t follow the instructions. The donor must go further. He must make sure that his gift is doing something. It must “do good.”

Doing good requires giving wisely. It requires investigating the impact. Giving blindly out of duty or habit isn’t the instruction. The instruction is “to do good.”

Imagery: Can you see it?

The word for “to do good” references work. It’s agatho [good] – ergein [work]. Work is action. It creates an action image. It’s visualizable. Research finds that “words representing work actions such as ‘build,’ ‘clean,’ ‘equip’ and ‘fix’” increase giving.409 We can imagine these things. We can see them in our mind. We can visualize the impact.

The language here describes giving as creating a tangible action. It does good work. We can see it. We can picture it.

Many giving experiences lack this tangibility. At the ask, the donor can’t tell what exactly he would be buying. He can’t visualize it. Later, he can’t tell what, exactly, his gift has done. He can’t visualize that, either. This leads to poor fundraising results.

Visualization is a key component of the charitable giving decision. It drives donations. In experiments, increasing mental imagery increases giving.410 We can even see this in the brain scanner. Internal visualization predicts willingness to make a gift of wealth (an estate gift).411 Using tangible, visualizable descriptions of the results – as Paul does here – increases giving.

Reciprocity: The partnership with God

1 Timothy 6:17 begins with agathoergein – “to do good.” We’ve looked at the definition of the word. But its meaning goes beyond just its definition.

An additional meaning comes from references and context. A reference adds meaning. For example, “amber waves of grain” means something different than “yellowish-brown wheat fields.” Both phrases have the same definitions, but the first references a song.412 It’s obvious. We’ve all heard the phrase before. It’s the only place that phrase appears.

Paul’s message instructs the rich “to do good.” But the word agathoergein is special. It appears nowhere else in all of Greek literature.413 And yet, Paul’s readers would have been familiar with it. Why? Because it appears in the Book of Acts.

And in that single appearance, what does it describe? It describes God as the one who richly supplies us with all things. It describes God’s material generosity. Acts 14:17 reads,

“yet He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good [agathourgōn] and gave you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.”

In Acts, the word describes God richly providing us with material things.414 In 1 Timothy 6:18, it describes the donor’s response to God’s rich provision. The donor responds to God’s blessings by blessing others. He acts reciprocally. He pays his blessings forward. He imitates God.415 The same word describes both God’s actions and the donor’s actions. It’s a newly constructed word. And it’s used only in those two places. The connection is obvious.

Others point out this Acts 14:17 link. In 1871, commentators wrote of 1 Timothy 6:18,

“18. do good—like God Himself (Ps 119:68; Ac 14:17)”416

In 1890, another wrote,

“18. That they do good—the purpose God has in giving all things richly to them. It is that they live lives of holy beneficence, as God himself (Ps 119:68; Acts 14:17)”417

More recently, Professor Luke Timothy Johnson explained,

“Paul suggests that they enter as wholeheartedly into giving as God does in gifting.”418

The unique word choice implies a connection to God’s blessings. It’s a reciprocal response. It’s part of a partnership with God.

This becomes more obvious from the context of the passage’s structure. As with many of Paul’s writings,419 this one has a chiastic structure. That structure looks like this:

A-Riches [Death]420

B-Riches [Now/temporary]421

C-Riches [Leading to community separation]422

D-Riches [Tightly grasped as one’s hope]423

E-Riches [Hidden/disappearing/uncertain]424

F-Riches [Godly source/inflow]425

G-Riches [Purpose: for enjoyment]426

F'-Riches [Godly use/outflow]427

E'-Riches [Visible/beautiful good works]428

D'-Riches [Open-handedly shared]429

C'-Riches [Leading to community connection]430

B'-Riches [Future/permanent]431

A'-Riches [Life]432

The chiastic structure makes each word or phrase part of a connected pair. Here, the source/inflow of wealth connects to its use/outflow. God’s rich provision to us connects to our doing good to others. These two ideas are connected. They describe a partnership with God.

However, we don’t have to rely on this subtle interpretation. In his fundraising appeal letter, Paul is explicit. Giving is part of an ongoing abundance partnership with God. God provides

“an abundance for every good deed” (2 Corinthians 9:8b).

The donor

“will be enriched for everything for all liberality” (2 Corinthians 9:11a).

Our passage simply repeats this idea. It does so using references and structure.

This context changes the giving experience. Giving from tightly held, scarce resources is painful. The feeling is this:

“Once it’s gone, it’s gone! I can never get it back. Any loss is permanent.”

Giving as part of an abundance partnership with God is different. It’s fun. The feeling is this:

“It was a gift to me. Now I’m just passing part of it on to another. And don’t worry. There will be much more where that came from!”

This reciprocal partnership makes giving free, easy, and enjoyable. This is the reciprocal partnership Paul is referencing. The word choice makes it clear. The structure makes it clear. And Paul’s other writings make it explicit.

Reciprocity benefits: Crediting the donor’s account

Paul was a practicing fundraiser. How did he describe his own work as a fundraiser? He writes this to his loyal donors:

“Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit [karpon] that increases to your credit.” (Philippians 4:17 ESV).

What is Paul seeking? He is seeking the fruit – karpon. What is karpon? It’s not just physical fruit from a plant. One lexicon describes karpon as,

“Metaphorically, that which originates or comes from something; an effect, result; … equivalent to ergon, work, act, deed”.433

Karpon references work. It is work that accomplishes something. Paul is not seeking the money. He is seeking the ergon – work, act, or deeds – credited to the donors.434

A modern fundraiser might say,

“I don’t ask people for money. I ask them to do things – that happen to cost money.”

Paul describes his fundraising work writing,

“Not that I seek the money, but I seek the results-of-the-productive-work [karpon] attributed to the donors”

Both ideas are similar. Paul is not seeking the gift. What is given might be money or property. But that’s not what Paul is after. He is not seeking the thing given. He’s seeking the impact credited to the donors.

In 1 Timothy 6:18, Paul’s instruction is not simply to give money. It’s “to do good, to be rich in good works.” Donors don’t just give. They produce good work.

And whose work is this? Who owns it? In 1 Timothy 6:18, it’s the donor’s work. The donor does the work. The donor becomes rich in good works. So, too, in Philippians 4:17. This work is attributed to the donor. It is

“fruit that increases to your credit.” (Philippians 4:17b ESV).

Or, more literally,

“fruit abounding to your account” (Philippians 4:17b Berean Literal Bible).

The work paid for by the donors is their work.435 It is in their account. And what is the result of this giving? Enormous donor benefit. One translation puts this as

“I want you to receive a reward for your kindness.” (Philippians 4:17b NLT).

Giving is a good long-term investment for the donors. The good work is not just attributed to the donor’s account. That account is also interest-bearing. It’s multiplicative. The good work is “abounding” to their account. It is “profit which increases” to their account.

Likewise in 1 Timothy 6:19, the donors are

“storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future” (1 Timothy 6:19a).

The reciprocity is ongoing. God does good [agathourgōn]. (Acts 14:17). Donors respond. They do good [agathoergein]. (1 Timothy 6:18). God responds back. The good they do benefits them, too. It increases or stores up to their credit, their account, or their foundation balance. (Philippians 4:17; 1 Timothy 6:19).

Enjoyment: Agency + Work + Impact + Imagery + Reciprocity

Agathoergein – “to do good” – has important fundraising implications. It incorporates agency, work, impact, imagery, and reciprocity. These all increase giving.

But that’s not the point. In 1 Timothy 6:17-19, the point is always the same. It’s eis apolausin – “for enjoyment.” The point is not just to trigger giving. The point is to trigger joyful giving.

What makes giving enjoyable? Doing good is enjoyable. Making an impact is enjoyable. Making a visualizable impact is even more enjoyable. Being the one who makes things happen is enjoyable. Giving as part of an ongoing abundance relationship is enjoyable.

One commentary on the passage describes the result this way,

“And as those with money discover the joy of enabling new things to come into being, so they will become, deep down, ‘generous and eager to share.’ It won’t be a grudging, ‘Oh, all right then.’ It will flow from the heart.”436

And that’s the point. Enjoyment is the point. The challenge to the wealthy person is this. Don’t bury your wealth. Don’t pile it up just to die with it. Instead, enjoy it. Enjoy it by doing good!

Big gifts and Paul’s messages

In 1 Timothy 6, Paul explains why wealth sharing makes sense. He presents a long list of arguments. Do these messages still work today? Do they actually motivate large gifts from wealthy donors?

One study looked at big gifts from rich donors. In fact, it looked at the biggest gifts from the richest donors. It investigated billionaires who had taken the “giving pledge.” This was a pledge that the donors would give at least half their wealth to charity.437 For 187 of those billionaires, their pledges came with explanation letters. These described their giving motivations.

A research study analyzed these letters.438 It categorized all the giving motivations. What motivated the largest of all gifts from the wealthiest of all donors? The explanations parallel our passage.

In order of frequency, the donors’ stated motivations for their massive wealth sharing were described by the researchers as 439

  1. “Use of terms such as ‘impact,’ ‘Benefit to others,’ ‘making a difference’; references to solving societal problems, instrumental use of wealth or helping others.”

[“to do good, to be rich in good works”]

  1. “Use of terms such as ‘gratitude,’ ‘giving back,’ ‘being blessed,’ ‘being lucky’ (personal benefits received from society in the past prompt wanting to help others, ‘pay it forward’)”

[“God, who richly supplies us with all things → to be generous and ready to share”]

  1. “Use of terms such as ‘enjoyment,’ ‘satisfaction,’ ‘psychological returns,’ or ‘pleasure’ (personal benefits experienced while giving prompt more giving)”

[“God, who richly supplies us with all things for enjoyment: to do good”]

  1. “Description of how giving was learned at a young age from parents and other family members”

[Here, Paul doesn’t have family information. Although when he does, he leads with it. (2 Timothy 1:5.) Yet, he still starts with their life story. The perfect infinitive, “nor to have set their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God” describes their life history. This is the present result of a past action. He describes them with the present infinitive, “not to be conceited.” This is an already in-progress continuing process. He also describes their giving with present infinitives, “to do good, to be rich in good works, to be a generous and ready to share.” These, too, are already in-progress continuing processes.

  1. “Statement that wealth is not their own; use of terms ‘stewards’ or ‘trustees’”

[“For we have brought nothing into the world, so we cannot take anything out of it, either…. the uncertainty of riches … God who richly supplies us with all things.” Both the ending and origin of wealth holding dictate the role as “stewards” or “trustees.”]

  1. “Statement on how a large inheritance can harm offspring.”

[“If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content…. But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap, and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge people into ruin and destruction.”]

  1. “Reference to having more wealth than personally needed.”

[“For we have brought nothing into the world, so we cannot take anything out of it, either.”]

  1. “Term ‘legacy’ used.”

[“storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future”]

  1. “Reference to religious or spiritual texts”

[This is a valid description of our passage!]

This study was published in 2021. 1 Timothy 6 is nearly 2,000 years older. And yet, the answers are the same. The motivations then are the motivations now. These messages are still relevant. They’re still persuasive. They’re still the latest “best practice” for motivating major gifts of wealth.