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.”788

Part I

More Partnership Relationships

It’s not altruism

At first glance, this passage appears to teach altruism. The rich should give because there is a need. Paul is telling the rich to be altruistic. Except, he’s not.

What Paul is describing is not altruism.789 It doesn’t qualify. It doesn’t meet the definition. Instead, Paul makes the case for reciprocal altruism.790

What’s the difference? The biggest difference is this. Altruism does not benefit the giver. Reciprocal altruism does.

The benefit to the giver might come from the gift recipient. It might come from others who also support the cause. Either way, reciprocal altruism must benefit the giver. That’s what makes it reciprocal.

Altruism requires no response to the gift. Reciprocal altruism does. Altruism can be an isolated, hidden, one-way transfer. Reciprocal altruism cannot. Reciprocal altruism is different. It’s part of an ongoing partnership.

It’s reciprocal partnership

Paul encourages generosity. But that generosity is not just a detached transfer to those in need. It can also be part of ongoing beneficial partnerships. Dr. Verlyn Verbrugge and Professor Keith Krell write,

“Paul extrapolates what may be called the law of reciprocity … that the giver and receiver should be equally involved and equally concerned about each other.”791

Professor Stephan Joubert explains of Paul’s collection,

“The collection is to be understood in terms of the social convention of benefit exchange.… In particular, the principles of reciprocity that were embedded and reflected in benefit exchange relationships provided the basic interpretive framework for the collection.” (italics in original)792

This same “basic interpretive framework” also applies to our passage. Why should we give? In this passage, we give because

  1. We’re good (reciprocating) partners.
  2. We’re in great (beneficial) partnerships.

The mutual partnership with the fellowship community motivates giving. It does so in many ways:

“Not to be high-minded”. (We’re good partners.)

“To be generous and ready to share [koinōnikous]”. (We’re good partners.)

“God who richly supplies us with all things … to be generous and ready to share”. (We’re in a great partnership.)

“The uncertainty of riches … the treasure of a good foundation for the future”. (We’re in a great partnership.)

The mutual partnership with God also motivates giving. It does so in many ways:

“Set their hope on … God, who richly supplies us with all things … storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future”. (We’re in a great partnership.)

“Not to … set their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God”. (We’re in a great partnership.)

“God, who richly supplies us with all things”. (We’re in a great partnership.)

“To do good … good works”. (We’re good partners.)

“To be generous and ready to share [koinōnikous]”. (We’re good partners.)

“Storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future”. (We’re in a great partnership.)

“So that they may take hold of that which is truly life.” (We’re in a great partnership.)

The message is about partnerships. It’s about partnership values. A good partner is connected. He cares. He repays. It’s also about partnership benefits. These partnerships provide amazing rewards.

Partnership values are not transaction values

These are beneficial relationships. But these are not market-exchange relationships. Instead, these are social-emotional relationships. Partnership values reflect social-emotional bonding. Market-exchange transactions do the opposite.

A transactional mindset violates partnership values. Anthropologists find this across human cultures, explaining that

“attempts to [strictly] balance exchanges are tantamount to ending … relationships.”793

Others explain,

“Explicit contingent exchange and turntaking reciprocation are the forms of altruism that exist when trust is low and friendship is weak or absent, and treating others in such a fashion is commonly interpreted as a communication to that effect.”794

Insisting on a tit-for-tat trade shows a lack of bonding. It’s what strangers do. Sustainable partnerships are beneficial but not transactional. Acting transactionally violates partnership values.795

Partnership types

Our passage encourages giving. But this is partnership giving. It’s giving that shows partnership values. It’s giving that provides partnership benefits. It’s giving that reflects

  1. We’re good (reciprocating) partners.
  2. We’re in great (beneficial) partnerships.

It’s easy to think of a partnership as just one type of relationship. It’s not. Instead, it’s a category of relationships.796 In each partnership type, the relationship is valuable. It provides important benefits. These benefits can include

In Paul’s arguments for sharing, these partnerships include:

“Pay it forward” partnership

X gives to Y. Y returns the favor by supporting those people or values X cares about. Y fulfills partnership values.

Mutual gifting partnership

X gives to Y without compensation. Y, in turn, later does the same for X. Y fulfills partnership values.

Donor community partnership

X, Y, and Z all pull together to accomplish a task. Y gives less effort than either X or Z. Y violates partnership values by shirking.

Recipient community partnership

X, Y, and Z all benefit from the varied things they share as a group. Y receives much but shares little of what he has. Y violates partnership values.

Temporary manager partnership

X appoints Y as the temporary manager of X’s property or business while X is away. Y manages counter to X’s instructions. Y violates partnership values.

Simple insurance partnership

X and Y agree to help each other if either is in need. X gives to Y during Y’s time of need. Y returns the favor during X’s time of need. Y fulfills partnership values.

[Extreme] family insurance partnership

X and Y agree to save each other in any crisis even if the cost is extreme and could never be repaid. Because of the potentially high cost and the risk of an unreliable “fair-weather” partner, such partnerships usually arise only in family or family-like relationships.797

Partnership types in the passage

The repeated theme in this passage is partnership sharing. It’s giving because

  1. We’re good (reciprocating) partners.
  2. We’re in great (beneficial) partnerships.

This applies to each partnership type. For example:

“Pay it forward” partnership

This reciprocity doesn’t give directly to the partner. Instead, it helps people or values that the partner cares about. This is useful when a direct transfer won’t work. The partner may be gone. Or, he may not have a personal need.

Suppose we receive support and guidance from a grandmother. After her passing, we can’t return the favor directly. But we can support the things she cared about. This might be gifting to a cause that was important to her. It could be supporting our own family in a similar way. We “return the favor” by doing things she would have wanted. We “return the favor” by imitating her generosity.

This theme appears in our passage. God richly supplies us with all things. We cannot return benefit directly to God. God isn’t in need. But we can benefit those people and values that God cares about.

The rich person does this by putting his wealth to work. He uses it to do good. He uses it to generously share with God’s fellowship community. The rich person imitates God’s generosity.

Professor Robert Wall writes that the passage

“does not demand the forfeiture of wealth, … but rather a reciprocal action according to which the congregation’s wealthy follow the example of God, who richly gives good things for people to enjoy (vv. 17-18)” (emphasis added).798

Similarly, Professor Risto Saarinen explains,

“Following this paradigm, rich people need to be generous and rich in giving, imitating the model given by God (6:18).”799

This concept appears even in the word choice used to describe the giving. One commentary notes,

“‘Do good’ is a single word in the Greek, a word used only one other place in the New Testament, where it speaks of God showering his good gifts on his hearers (Acts 14:17).”800

God has richly supplied us. We respond by supporting the people and values that are important to God. We do good. We become rich in good works. We “pay it back” by imitating God. By doing so, we fulfill our partnership values. We act as good (reciprocal) partners.

Mutual gifting partnership

As donors we can imitate God. We can “pay forward” the blessings God has given. But the reciprocity cycle doesn’t stop there. This partnership creates many future benefits. It results in,

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

Giving results in reciprocal benefit. It results in a good foundation for the future. Professor Saarinen proposes,

“In giving, one also receives something, namely, the gratitude of the recipients. This gratitude transforms into the favor of God, who is in charge of our future life. In this gift exchange the ‘uncertain’ capital becomes transformed into a ‘good foundation.’”801

Paul describes this reciprocity elsewhere. (2 Corinthians 9:7-15). God responds to giving with His blessings. He will provide “an abundance for every good deed.”802 The giver “will be enriched for everything for all liberality.”803 As Jesus explains,

“Give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.” (Luke 6:38 ESV).

The Old Testament directs giving to the poor brother. It explains,

“You shall generously give to him, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this thing the Lord your God will bless you in all your work, and in all your undertakings.” (Deuteronomy 15:10).804

The partnership with God is a mutual gifting partnership. We give. God responds with His own gifts. Giving is beneficial. It supports a great (beneficial) partnership!

Donor community partnership

A partnership arises whenever a group works together to accomplish a task. Suppose the task is to pull a rope attached to a heavy object. In a good partnership, each person will pull as hard as possible. In a bad partnership, some won’t. Some will hold the rope but give little effort.

This passage describes giving in a similar way. Giving is part of a joint effort. It’s not just the rich who are richly supplied. God richly supplies each of us with all things. God’s rich supply has a purpose. It allows us to do good. It allows us to be generous and ready to share.

We each follow the same rule. We each give generously from what God has richly supplied. The rich person who isn’t generous breaks this rule. He becomes the one holding the rope who isn’t really pulling. He violates partnership values.

Recipient community partnership

This passage encourages sharing. This is koinōnikous [sharing] with the koinōnia [fellowship community]. When we give in this way, we benefit the community. We are also part of that community. Our giving helps our community, our people, and our partners. Our giving strengthens our bond with that fellowship community. It strengthens our partnership with this community.

This partnership is valuable. It provides many benefits. This works because the other partners share, too. They, too, have been richly supplied. They, too, generously share from those things. We receive as a member of this partnership. We receive as part of the fellowship community.

If we were to receive like others but not give like others, we would be “free riding.” Others generously share from what God has given them. But we don’t. That would violate partnership values.

Temporary manager partnership

A store owner leaves for a long trip. He pays a manager to run things while he’s gone. The manager has a choice:

  1. He can fulfill his partnership duties. He can manage the business according to the owner’s instructions.

Or,

  1. He can violate those duties. He can manage the business against the owner’s instructions. He might spend everything for his own pleasures.805 Or, instead of running the business, he might shut it down. He could just put it all in storage.806 Either way, he’s a bad partner. He violates partnership values.

The temporary manager analogy is recurrent in Jesus’s teaching. We see it in Matthew 24:45-51. We see it in Matthew 25:14-30. We see it in Mark 13:33-37. We see it in Luke 19:11-26.

These partnerships start with benefits. The manager is given control of everything. The manager then fulfills – or violates – partnership values. Fulfilling partnership values leads to even greater partnership benefits. Violating them leads to punishment.

This same theme is referenced here. The rich person has control of wealth. But this control is temporary. The wealth itself is unreliable. It is uncertain or disappearing [adēlotēti]. It is not worth setting our hope in. Also, the manager’s role is temporary. Paul writes,

“For we have brought nothing into the world, so we cannot take anything out of it, either.” (1 Timothy 6:7).

Again, the manager can either fulfill or violate the owner’s instructions. Here, the rich person fulfills them. Unlike the bad servants in Matthew 25:25 and Luke 19:20, he does not trust in the hiddenness [adēlotēti] of wealth. He does not bury the wealth. Instead, he acts like the faithful servants in Matthew 25:16-17. They put the money to work [ērgasato]. He does the same. He uses it to do good [agathoergein]. He uses it for good works [ergois kalois]. He creates the kind of “return on investment” the owner desires.

Again, fulfilling partnership duties leads to more rewards. The generous rich person stores up for himself the treasure of a good foundation for the future. Like the faithful managers in Luke 19:13, he makes a profitable trade.807 He exchanges unreliable wealth for wealth that lasts.

Here, the rich person is a good manager. He is being a good (reciprocal) partner. He is fulfilling partnership values. He is in a great (beneficial) partnership. He receives partnership rewards.

Simple insurance partnership

This passage references sharing, koinōnikous. This is not simple altruism. It’s reciprocal altruism. Paul contrasts these two types of giving. He explains,

“For this is not for the relief of others and for your hardship,” (2 Corinthians 8:13a).

In other words, this is not simple altruism. Instead, it’s reciprocal altruism. He continues,

“Right now you have plenty and can help those who are in need. Later, they will have plenty and can share with you when you need it. In this way, things will be equal.” (2 Corinthians 8:14 NLT).

This is giving with partnership insurance. Today, we are up, and they are down. Tomorrow, this may be reversed. By giving, we enter into a great (beneficial) partnership. We protect against an uncertain future. This is giving but with reciprocity. It’s giving with insurance for the future. It’s giving with benefits.

[Extreme] family insurance partnership

This passage describes reciprocal altruism. It’s giving as part of beneficial partnerships. This goes beyond simple partnerships. It goes to an extreme. This extreme partnership is family partnership.808

A normal partnership is an ongoing mutual relationship. It’s not a carefully balanced exchange, but it’s still mutually beneficial. A family partnership is different. It’s different when things go bad. It’s different in a crisis.

If we lose everything, we’re no longer attractive partners. We have nothing to offer. In such circumstances, normal partnerships will fade away. They’re no longer mutually beneficial. But a family partnership remains. It’s different. It continues no matter what. It will save us in a crisis.

The partnerships in this passage are like this. God saves. He saves even when we have nothing to offer in return. When we die, He is our only hope. We can lose everything, but our relationship with God remains.

The same is true for the relationship with the fellowship community. Even if we lose all riches, it remains. This beneficial partnership continues. It’s a permanent connection. It’s like family.

These partnerships are strong and reliable. They last. Thus, the benefits of generous giving also last. A rich person can become poor. But the status of having shared generously with the fellowship community doesn’t change. God’s recognition of that generosity doesn’t fade. The partnership with the fellowship community doesn’t fade. Like a family, these are permanent relationships.

In 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul describes the church as the “household” of God.809 This family theme continues throughout. Timothy appeals to older men as fathers.810 He appeals to younger men as brothers.811 He appeals to older women as mothers.812 He appeals to younger women as sisters.813 This family relationship also says something about the giving relationship. This is not just sharing within a community. It’s sharing within a family.

This idea would have been more obvious and intense for Paul’s contemporary audience. Our passage references (and Christianizes) a scene from Menander’s play Dyskolos.814 In it, a son convinces his wealthy father to act generously. The father permits his only son to marry a poor family’s only daughter. And he allows his only daughter to marry the same poor family’s only son.

This is extreme wealth sharing. All of the rich father’s wealth now becomes the inheritance of the new combined family. This is wealth sharing as part of family creation. It’s wealth sharing within a multiple-bonded, exclusively-connected family. This literary allusion intensifies the family nature of the sharing in our passage.

This passage encourages giving. But it’s not just giving. It’s giving within partnerships. And these are not just normal partnerships. They’re extreme partnerships. They’re family partnerships. And these are not just normal family partnerships. They’re extreme family partnerships. They’re like a multiple-bonded, exclusively-connected family partnership from a double-marriage of all children.

Reciprocal partnerships: This one is different

Encouraging simple altruism is great. But this is different. This ministry of major gift fundraising is different. It uses different processes. It has a different audience. It has a different message.

Our passage does not describe simple altruism. It describes reciprocal altruism. It’s not an argument to simply give away. It’s an argument for reciprocity. This is not isolated, disinterested giving. It’s giving as part of a partnership. It’s giving with massive partnership benefits. It’s giving with benefits right now, today. It’s giving with lasting benefits in the future.

These partnerships are beneficial. But this is not simply a transaction. This sharing is not a commercial exchange. Instead, it’s part of a lasting, deeply connected, reciprocal relationship. It’s not just a beneficial partnership. It’s an extreme partnership. It’s a family partnership. It’s an extreme family partnership.

These are important distinctions. They’re important for understanding this type of giving. They’re also important for understanding this type of fundraising.

Part II

Good Gratitude Confirms Partner Impact and Relationship

Your response is requested

Charitable giving in scripture is not just about disconnected transfers to those in need [eleēmosynē]. Much of it involves partnerships here on earth. The key point about these relationships is that they are mutual. They are reciprocal.

Thus, giving is not just about the donor’s responsibilities. Fundraising is not just persuasion. These partnerships require actions by the recipients or recipient organizations. These are obligations to respond to the gift. They are obligations of reciprocity. The right response is gratitude. It’s good gratitude.

Gratitude and Biblical fundraising: Impact and relationship

Good gratitude confirms the impact of a gift. It also confirms relationship reciprocity. The donors do receive benefit, but not through transaction. They receive benefit through personal relationship.

For example, donors can gain status through an admirable social identity.815 They can connect with an emotionally bonded, reciprocal fellowship community. They can connect with an emotionally bonded, reciprocal God. That’s how they store up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation. That’s how they experience the life that is really life.

This is the ideal donor experience. It delivers meaningful impact. It delivers beneficial relationships. So then, how should we respond to a gift? We respond by confirming and delivering this ideal donor experience. We respond with good gratitude. Good gratitude confirms both impact and relationship reciprocity.

Bad at gratitude: Impact and relationship

Here is the reality of modern fundraising. People will make a gift. But they won’t do it again. Data from thousands of charities shows new donor retention of 20%.816 New donors will try out a charity. But 4 out of 5 don’t repeat their mistake.

Charities are good at asking for a gift. They get the first gift. But they’re bad at responding to a gift. They lose those donors. Why are charities so bad at donor retention?

One study interviewed lapsed donors from several charities. Why had they stopped giving? The answers were about impact and relationship. The top three reasons related to the charity were these:

Why are charities so bad at donor retention? Because they’re bad at responding to a gift. What is the right response? It’s gratitude. Good gratitude signals impact and relationship.

Gift gratitude levels: Impact and relationship

Suppose I mail a gift to another person. What happens next reflects impact and relationship.

Suppose my gift is returned. The recipient just mails it right back to me. This says, blatantly and harshly, that we are not in a relationship.

Suppose I get no response at all. I reached out. I made a gift. They made no response. The response doesn’t seem to reflect a relationship. The gift didn’t seem to make any impact.

Suppose I get a transactional response. I gave some item. The response is a check for the retail price of the item. (It even includes a website printout showing the price.) This says we are not in a personal relationship. It’s purely transactional.

Suppose I get a simple acknowledgment. I make a gift. Later, I get a response letter. It states the gift amount. It says simply, “Thank you for your contribution.” If this is gratitude, it’s the lowest level of gratitude. It doesn’t signal impact. It doesn’t signal relationship. It doesn’t signal reciprocity.

Suppose I get an expression of gratitude for the gift. This response letter is different. It says,

“Thanks so much for this wonderful gift! It made such a difference for me. I really appreciate it.”

This is gratitude. It’s gratitude for the gift. It signals that the gift made an impact. It might even suggest some willingness to be reciprocal.

Now, suppose I get a slightly different response. This letter says,

“Thanks so much for this wonderful gift! It made such a difference for me. You are such a wonderful and thoughtful friend. You mean so much to me.”

This reflects the highest level of gratitude. It signals both impact and relationship. It’s not just gratitude for the gift. It’s gratitude for the giver. It reflects an emotionally bonded, reciprocal relationship.

In each case, the gift response reflects the relationship. It can reflect

From rejection to true gratitude, different responses reflect different reciprocity levels.

Good and bad gratitude in fundraising: Impact and relationship

Many charities are bad at gratitude. Sometimes, they don’t want to express gratitude. Sometimes, they don’t know how. Either way, this hurts fundraising.

Getting good at gratitude starts by understanding what it is. Good gratitude confirms impact and relationship. Ideally, it expresses an emotionally bonded, reciprocal, social relationship. Bad gratitude does not do these things. Good gratitude works. Bad gratitude probably won’t.

This is not just theory. We can see it in scientific experiments. Confirming gift impact works.818 It increases future giving. Expressing gratitude for the gift does too.819

One study examined 70,441 donations on a charitable crowdfunding platform. What caused donors to keep giving? Gratitude for impact and relationship. The study found

“successful donation result and ‘Thank-You’ feedback from fundraisers can significantly decrease [donors’] attrition rate.”820

Gratitude works. But it’s important to understand how it works. In experiments, gratitude works by signaling a reciprocal social relationship.821

This social-emotional reciprocity can be beneficial. But this is not a market transaction. It’s not exchange reciprocity. It’s relationship reciprocity. As Gail Perry puts it,

“Donors want to be appreciated as people, not pocketbooks.”822

Good gratitude is not just gratitude for what the donor has done. It’s gratitude for who the donor is being. It confirms the donor’s positive identity. It confirms a relationship based on identity.

Thanking a donor for “their generous gift” is one message. Thanking them for “being a generous donor” is a different message. This may seem like a slight difference. But it’s important. The first message is gratitude for the gift. The second is gratitude for the giver.823

The second message is more powerful than the first. Like Paul’s message, it describes the donor’s attractive identity. It confirms their “I am” [einai] statement as a generous sharer.

One experiment found this in a different pro-social activity. Instead of charitable giving, it looked at voting.824 One group was asked questions about voting. The other group was asked the same questions about being a voter. For example, some questions asked either,

One set of questions asked about their action. The other set asked about their identity. The wording change was slight. But the impact was great. Of those asked the identity questions, 96% voted in the following election. Among those asked the action questions, only 82% did.

A later experiment tried this for a different election in a different state. The results happened again. Among those asked about “being a voter,” 90% voted. Among those asked about “voting,” only 79% did. Asking about a pro-social action didn’t help. Asking about a pro-social identity did.

This same idea applies to fundraising. Consider this practical example. In one study, students called donors to their university. This included an update on the fundraising campaign, its impact, and a thank you.825 This worked. It increased the likelihood of future gifts.

However, one small addition more than doubled the impact of the call.826 It added these two sentences to the thank you message:

“You went out of your way to support us, and we want you to know how much we appreciate you. Basically, we think you’re great.”827

Notice the change. This was not just gratitude for the gift. It was gratitude for the giver. It confirmed the donor’s positive identity. It confirmed their identity in relationship. Its language expressed a positive, emotionally bonded, social relationship.

What about the opposite? Can a “thank you” be so bad that it doesn’t work at all? Yes. Another experiment showed this. It used generic “thank-you” telemarketing calls. These calls were not from anyone at the charity. They came from an outside telemarketing firm. Rather than warm, personal, social language, the calls used phrases like,

“This call may be monitored or recorded for quality assurance,” and

“If you have any questions regarding your donation, please call member services.”

And the calls were late. On average, the telemarketers called six months after the gift.

So, did these “thank you” calls work? Not really.828 Is this a surprise? Not really. Good gratitude expresses an emotionally bonded, social relationship. These calls failed to do that. They failed to express real gratitude.

What can we learn from these experiments? Good gratitude expresses impact and an emotionally bonded, reciprocal, social relationship. Bad gratitude does not. Good gratitude works. Bad gratitude probably won’t.

How can we deliver good gratitude that works in real-world fundraising? Scripture shows us how.

Gratitude: Paul promises a reciprocal relationship

In his fundraising appeal letter, Paul tells the donors to expect gratitude. The recipients’ response will express an emotionally bonded, reciprocal, social relationship. This includes reciprocity in the future. Paul explains,

“Right now you have plenty and can help those who are in need. Later, they will have plenty and can share with you when you need it. In this way, things will be equal.” (2 Corinthians 8:14 NLT).

It also includes reciprocity right now. The recipients will pray to God for the donors. They will express gratitude for the donors. They will do so in many ways. (2 Corinthians 9:13-14).

This is not a transaction. It’s not a trade or market exchange. Instead, it’s an expression of an emotionally bonded, social relationship. Paul explains to the donors that the gift recipients will “yearn for” them. (2 Corinthians 9:14). A lexicon explains the meaning here as,

“to experience a yearning affection for someone – ‘to have a great affection for, to have a yearning love for.’ … For example, in 2 Corinthians 9:14 one may translate ‘they love you very much and will pray for you.’”829

This reciprocity expresses an emotional relationship of love. Love is essential to meaningful giving.830 Good gratitude confirms this relationship. It confirms a social-emotional reciprocal partnership relationship.

So, does this work in real-world fundraising? In 2 Corinthians 8 & 9, Paul encourages donors to fulfill their gift pledge or intention. A modern study examined the best ways to increase pledge fulfillment. It found the answer. The answer was this:

“If expressions of gratitude are then targeted to individuals who select into pledges, reneging can be significantly reduced and contributions significantly increased.”831

Expressions of gratitude increase pledge fulfillment. Paul’s approach worked in the ancient world. It still works today.

Gratitude: Paul confirms a reciprocal relationship

Paul responds to the Philippian donors’ gift. He writes of their donation,

“But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at last you have revived your concern [phronein] for me;” (Philippians 4:10a).

Paul responds by expressing emotion. He rejoices. He also calls their gift an expression of emotion. Their gift expresses

Paul expresses gratitude for their gift. He does more. He expresses gratitude for them. He thanks God for them. (Philippians 1:3). He prays for them. (Philippians 1:4) He expresses gratitude for their long history of past giving. (Philippians 1:5). This past giving was no mere financial transaction. In Philippians 1:5, he calls it koinōnia. In Philippians 4:15, he uses the verb form, calling it ekoinōnēsen.

Paul’s gift acknowledgment delivers the 1 Timothy 6:17-19 experience. It confirms the donor’s positive identity in a relationship. Their giving expresses personal care, concern, and thoughtfulness. It demonstrates phronein.

He confirms that the donors are being not hypsēlo-phronein. (1 Timothy 6:17). He confirms their positive identity. Their gift expresses an emotionally bonded, reciprocal partnership relationship. It demonstrates koinōnia. He confirms that they are being koinōnikous. (1 Timothy 6:18).837 He confirms their positive identity.

In many charities, making a gift results in silence. Or it may generate only a formal, transactional acknowledgment. This isn’t how Paul responds to a donation. The donor’s gift does not generate silence. Instead, it generates multiple confirmations of a personal, reciprocal, social-emotional relationship.

In experimental research, what donor acknowledgment did not work? The one that used formal, transactional language. What donor acknowledgment did work? The one that used personal, emotional relationship language. This is what worked 2,000 years ago. It’s what still works today.

Gratitude: Paul confirms long-term relationship

What else do we see in Paul’s donor acknowledgment letter? Paul goes out of his way to frame their gift as part of a long-term relationship. He acknowledges that they were, in fact, lapsed donors. They had stopped giving. He writes,

“now at last you have revived your concern for me” (Philippians 4:10b).

He acknowledges the lapse in giving. Then, he immediately excuses it. He writes,

“indeed, you were concerned before, but you lacked an opportunity to act.” (Philippians 4:10c).

Circumstances interfered. It happens all the time. But Paul explains to them that the relationship still continued. He explains that they were still concerned, even though they stopped giving. Such temporary issues are trivial in the context of the long-term relationship.

Paul drives home his point by reviewing the donors’ long history of support. He writes,

“You yourselves also know, Philippians, that at the first preaching of the gospel, after I left Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving except you alone; for even in Thessalonica you sent a gift more than once for my needs.” (Philippians 4:15-16).

He writes,

“I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, always offering prayer with joy in my every prayer for you all, in view of your koinōnia [‘participation’; ‘contribution’838; ‘gracious contributions’839] in the gospel from the first day until now.” (Philippians 1:3-5).

Paul doesn’t just acknowledge their gift as a gift. He acknowledges it as part of a long, ongoing history of gifts. It’s part of a long-term, social-emotional relationship. They didn’t just make a gift. Their long-term, ongoing identity is one of being a good sharer.

Gratitude: Modern fundraising confirms long-term relationship

Paul thanks God for the donors. He prays for them. He doesn’t do this simply in view of their current gift. He does this in view of their entire history of giving. Does this still work for fundraising? Does reminding donors of their entire history of giving work?

One experiment tested a variety of different headlines across 50,000 fundraising letters.840 The most effective headline was this:

“CAMPAIGN DONOR FOR ___ YEARS

Your most generous gift was $___. Thank you.”

Reviewing the length and depth of the donor relationship worked. It showed their long history of giving. It showed their personal backstory as long-term donors. It mentioned the biggest gift they had made in the past.

Paul was working with lapsed donors. What modern approach works well to reactivate lapsed donors? Patrick Schmitt calls it a “time traveler” note. He shares this example:

“Hi Devon!

I was going through our records, and I saw you made a really meaningful gift to our museum in March of 2011. (March 17th to be exact!) Thank you again for being someone who supports access to art!

That was certainly a different time - Barack Obama was still in his first term, Adele had just released her first album, and the world barely ever used video chat!

I’d be curious to better understand what motivated that gift, and I’d love to share how those resources have been put to use over the years.

Would you mind if I gave you a call this week?

All my best,

Patrick”841

Notice what this lapsed donor message does. It starts by expressing gratitude for their long history of support. This matches Paul’s approach. It takes a moment to recount this history for them. This, too, matches Paul’s approach. It’s the latest, greatest, best practice in fundraising. And it’s also 2,000 years old.

Beyond this, Paul also thanks God for the donors. He prays for them. Does this still work for fundraising? A study of the fundraising practices of parachurch organizations found that

“there was a statistically significant relationship between those who pray regularly for their donors and their financial success in fundraising.”842

This is what worked 2,000 years ago. It’s what still works today.

Gratitude: Paul confirms the donors’ practical impact

Good gratitude reflects a relationship. It confirms a personal, emotionally bonded relationship of ongoing reciprocity. It confirms koinōnikous. (1 Timothy 6:18). It binds together the koinōnia – the mutually sharing fellowship community.

Good gratitude also does something else. It demonstrates impact. It shows that their gift has resulted in intrinsic good work. It confirms agatho-ergein [“to do good”]. (1 Timothy 6:18). It confirms that their gift has produced beautiful, good works. It confirms ergois kalois [“good works”]. (1 Timothy 6:18). It reveals that their gift has made a difference.

Paul’s gift acknowledgment letter does this too. It describes and praises the impact of the donors’ gift. Paul writes,

“Nevertheless, you have done well [kalōs] to share with me in my difficulty.” (Philippians 4:14).

“But I have received everything in full and have an abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you have sent” (Philippians 4:18a).

Their gift addressed a serious need. The donors shared with Paul in his difficulty. They shared in his

Their gift fixed the problem. Paul is now amply supplied. The donors are not left to wonder, “I made a gift. What changed?” Paul describes the change. Because of their gift, he went from “hardship” to having “an abundance.”

Did they do good [kalois] works [ergois] as 1 Timothy 6:18 directs? Yes. Paul confirms it in Philippians 4:14. They “have done well” [kalōs epoiēsate]. (Kalōs is just the adverb form of the adjective kalois. Both epoiēsate and ergois mean to work or accomplish. 847)

Were they generous [eumetadotous] as 1 Timothy 6:18 directs? Yes. Metadotous means sharer. Eu-metadotous is a good sharer of abundance.848 In Philippians 4:18, Paul confirms he has received “an abundance.” They were indeed sharers of abundance.

Paul’s gift acknowledgment completes the loop. It confirms the donors’ accomplishment. It delivers proof of impact. It confirms their good actions.

Gratitude: Paul confirms the donors’ emotional relationship impact

The donors made an impact. Paul confirms it. But this impact was not merely transactional. It was part of a closely bonded relationship. The effect of the donors’ gift was to

“share with me in my difficulty.” (Philippians 4:14).

Others translate this as

“fellowship with me in my affliction”849

“partnering with me in my hardship.”850

The word here is synkoinōnēsantes. It means to have fellowship with. It combines syn, “identified with,” and koinōneō, “share in.” Again, Paul frames the donors’ giving as an expression of koinōnia.

What was his response to their gift? It was joy. He writes,

“But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at last you have revived your concern for me;” (Philippians 4:10a).

Others translate this as

“The Lord has filled me with joy because you again showed interest in me.”851

“it is a great joy to me that after so long a time you once more had the chance of showing that you care for me.”852

The donors’ gift created an emotional impact. How does Paul’s joy in receiving the gift relate to gratitude? It actually is gratitude. The Contemporary English Version reads,

“The Lord has made me very grateful that at last you have thought about me once again.” (Philippians 4:10a).

Paul delivers gratitude. He confirms impact and relationship. He does this in his letter. He also goes further. He combines this “direct mail” response with the “personal visit.”

Paul sends his representative, Timothy. (Philippians 2:19). He also sends Epaphroditus back to the donors’ congregation. (Philippians 2:25). Having briefly worked alongside Paul in the ministry, this was an ideal person to confirm impact and relationship. (Philippians 2:25).

Gratitude: Paul confirms impact without instability

Paul’s gift acknowledgment letter leaves no doubt. The donors’ gift made an impact. This impact was made even greater because of the difficult circumstances. The donors

“have done well to share with me in my difficulty” (Philippians 4:14b).

Modern fundraising letters often point to difficulties. A crisis can trigger a gift. But such messages can also be dangerous. Major investment gifts don’t go to unstable organizations. They go to solid, reliable organizations.853

Paul addresses this issue. The gift came during a time of difficulty. It came at an opportune moment. But Paul’s ministry was never at risk. It would continue no matter what. (Philippians 4:13). After mentioning the donors’ lapse in giving (Philippians 4:10) and before referencing his difficulty (Philippians 4:14), he writes,

“Not that I speak from need, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am. I know how to get along with little, and I also know how to live in prosperity;” (Philippians 4:11-12a).

Paul does not speak from need [hysterēsin]. This word means he is not delivering a fundraising message of, 854

Such fundraising messages of need or deficiency can be tempting for ministries. They can trigger gifts, but there’s a problem. They tend to trigger only small gifts. And they will do so at the cost of future major life investment gifts. Large gifts go to strong, stable ministries.

Yet, even strong, stable ministries can have difficult times. Paul is forthright in mentioning in Philippians 4:14 that the donors shared with him during a time of difficulty [thlipsei]. Strong, stable ministries can have thlipsei. In other words, they can have

Such times may increase the impact of a gift, but they do not project instability. Paul makes clear that his ministry would continue no matter what. (Philippians 4:13).

He also does something else. He writes that he can manage “prosperity.” He can manage “abundance.” This issue is a common barrier preventing donors from making a large gift.

High-capacity donors often worry that a ministry may not be ready for abundance. It wouldn’t know how to use such abundance effectively. It often doesn’t even have plans for such a scenario. It wouldn’t even know where to begin. Paul emphasizes that his ministry is not in this situation. He knows how to manage such circumstances. He knows how to manage abundance.

This message is practical. Charities should communicate that they know how to manage large gifts. A first step is to simply put them on the menu. This requires thinking through specific examples of what good work different large gifts could do. Only then can a ministry offer donors a specific, visualizable impact as an option. This helps to show that the charity could manage “prosperity” or “abundance.”

Paul separates gratitude from asking

It is common for gift acknowledgment letters to also include a request for funds. This seems efficient. It costs money to send a letter. Why pay for two different mailings?

Here is the issue. Effective gratitude confirms an emotionally bonded, reciprocal, social relationship.856 It should make a person feel “socially valued.”857 An immediate financial request contradicts this feeling. It delegitimizes the expression of gratitude. It feels more like a pretext to ask for more money. Experiments confirm this. The positive effect from expressing gratitude disappears if it is coupled with another request.858

Paul’s gift acknowledgment does not contain another gift request. In fact, it goes to an extreme. It delivers the opposite message. He writes,

“But I have received everything in full and have an abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you have sent,” (Philippians 4:18a).

In modern fundraising, the typical response to a gift is

“Thanks for the gift. Could you send more, please?”

Paul’s message is the opposite. He writes, “I am amply supplied.” This word, peplērōmai, literally means “I am full.” Can you imagine receiving such an acknowledgment for your gift? It might say,

“Thanks for your gift. Because of what you sent, we now have an abundance! We’re all full! Thanks!”

This message might seem to undermine future fundraising. It shows that the ministry is not in need. But it actually sets the stage for future gifts.

This message shows that the donors’ gift made a huge impact. The ministry went from “difficulty” to “abundance” and “amply supplied.” It delivers a satisfying donor experience. Making the experience enjoyable means it’s worth repeating. It justifies making the next gift whenever the next opportune moment arises.

Good gratitude is essential. It confirms the donor’s impact. It confirms the donor’s identity in a beneficial partner relationship. It delivers the 1 Timothy 6:17-19 experience. It delivers on the best deal ever!