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.”1006

Part I

Extreme Donor Benefit

The extreme ending

Traditional, small-gift fundraising all sounds alike. It uses the same message. It’s a message about the charity. The message is this:

“We’re great! We do good things. Can we have some money, please?”

This fundraising is about the charity. The charity is the main character. The important story is the charity’s story. The important values are the charity’s values. The important history is the charity’s history. The charity is the actor. The charity has agency. The charity does the good work. The charity has the good reputation. The charity’s actions are inspirational. The purpose of fundraising is to benefit the charity.

Paul’s fundraising message is different. It’s about the donor. The donor is the main character. The important story is the donor’s story.1007 The important values are the donor’s values.1008 The important history is the donor’s history.1009 The donor is the actor. The donor has agency. The donor does the good work.1010 The donor has the good reputation.1011 The donor’s actions are inspirational. The purpose of Paul’s fundraising is to benefit the donor.1012

Paul’s fundraising is different. His message is different. It’s a message of donor benefit. It’s a message of donor agency. Paul consistently repeats these two themes. In this final phrase, both reach their highest extreme. Donor benefit becomes extreme. Donor agency becomes extreme.

Extreme donor benefit: Real life [ontōs zōēs]

Paul’s fundraising stacks donor benefit upon donor benefit. He does it here in his instructions to Timothy. He does it in his own fundraising appeal.1013 Donor benefit motivates his request. He explains,

“And in this matter I am giving advice because it is profitable for you” (2 Corinthians 8:10a).1014

Paul’s fundraising is explicitly not a command.1015 The donor decides. The donor has agency. Paul simply gives advice,1016 opinion,1017 or counsel.1018 Why is he doing it?

“Because it is profitable for you” (2 Corinthians 8:10b).1019

“Because it will be helpful for you” (2 Corinthians 8:10b).1020

He does it because it is profitable,1021 good,1022 or helpful1023 for the donors. It is to their advantage.1024 It benefits them.1025

1 Timothy 6:17-19 has a laundry list of donor benefits.1026 Giving is a means of enjoying wealth. Donors get to have an

And finally, in this last section, Paul lists the greatest donor benefit of all. What is it? It’s “ontōs zōēs.” Zōēs is life. Donors get life. They get ontōs life.

What is ontōs life? It’s translated in various ways. Some versions use “true”:

Others use “truly”:

Some use life “indeed”:

Still others use “really” life:

Another uses “genuine life”.1042

It’s an amazing outcome. It’s the outcome.1043 It’s life. What benefit could be better? Only one thing is better. Ontōs life is better. True life, real life, life that is life indeed is better.

Ontōs intensifies. It affirms. It confirms amazing, good news. We see this elsewhere in the New Testament. For example,

“So if the Son sets you free, you really [ontōs] will be free.” (John 8:36).

“The Lord has really [ontōs] risen and has appeared to Simon!” (Luke 24:34).

“God is certainly [ontōs] among you.” (1 Corinthians 14:25b).

Ontōs separates reality from mere appearance. It’s the real thing. In 1 Timothy, only ontōs widows are put on the list for support.1044 The people considered John to be an ontōs prophet.1045 Ontōs is surely or certainly the real thing. The centurion at the cross declared that Jesus was surely or certainly [ontōs] righteous.1046

Paul ends his list of donor benefits with the most amazing of all. This final benefit is the most extreme. We’ve heard the expression. A person reaches a pinnacle moment. He stops to really enjoy it. And he says, “This is the life!” Or, “This is really living!” There’s a Bible word for that. That’s ontōs life.

Except the donor’s ontōs life is even more. It’s more because it isn’t just a passing moment. It’s an ongoing, lasting life experience. The donor doesn’t just act once. It’s a continuing lifestyle.1047 It’s an enduring identity.1048 It’s a full life.1049

This passage gives a long list of donor benefits. Ontōs life not only surpasses them, it also encompasses them. Ontōs life includes having

Now that’s really life! That’s truly life. That’s life indeed. That’s ontōs life.

Extreme donor benefit: Life now and later

Paul here uses “truly” [ontōs] life. He could have used “eternal” [aiōniou] life. In fact, he uses that phrase just a few sentences earlier in 1 Timothy 6:12.1050 But not here. In verse 12, Paul tells Timothy to

Epilabou tēs aiōniou zōēs

“take hold of the eternal life”

But in verse 19, he tells Timothy to instruct the rich to

Epilabōntai tēs ontōs zōēs

“take hold of that which is truly life”

Ontōs life is both now and later. It starts right now. It continues into the future. It can include heaven. But it’s not only heaven. It’s also tomorrow. It’s also next week.

Jesus taught the same thing. He, too, combined both immediate and later rewards. One researcher explains,

“Jesus promised the rich man a hundredfold provision now (Mark 10:30) as well as treasure in heaven and eternal life (Mark 10:21, 30). Likewise, those who obey the command to the wealthy in 1 Timothy 6:19 grasp life now and are promised a treasure of a sure foundation for the future.”1051

Does “that which is truly life” include “eternal life?” Yes.1052 It’s heaven, but it’s also here. It’s later, but it’s also right now.

Describing “life indeed,” Professor Ronald Ward explains,

“The indeed calls attention to the life which is real. It is not coming into existence, for it exists already.”1053

Professor I. Howard Marshall explains,

“Clearly heavenly life is meant, but the phrase includes spiritual life here and now.”1054

Oxford Professor Walter Lock explains,

“This true life would be laid hold of here and now, as they enter into the true life of love.”1055

Professor Ken Cukrowski notes,

“In other words, as the rich exercise their generosity in this life, they get a foretaste of eternal life.”1056

A dissertation on 1 Timothy explains,

“In so doing, the rich will store up future heavenly treasures for themselves. Yet, they will also experience the joy of generosity in this present age as they ‘take hold of that which is truly life’ (1 Timothy 6:19).”1057

Finally, Chip Ingram suggests this application:

“That’s what it means to ‘take hold of life that is truly life.’ … instead of feeling guilty about what God has provided, you can simply be grateful for it, appreciating every opportunity to enjoy His gifts and share them generously with others.”1058

Extreme donor benefit: A matter of life and death

Paul’s wealth discussion begins with death. It starts with the use of wealth at death. (1 Timothy 6:7). It continues with the use of wealth causing death and suffering even while we live. (1 Timothy 6:10-11).1059 But it ends with the use of wealth leading to real life.

For Paul, wealth management is a matter of life and death. This is also true for Jesus. Stacking up wealth just to die with it is foolish. Jesus explained this in the Parable of the Rich Fool.

That story ends in death. But it also begins in death. Jesus told the parable because someone had buried his wealth and died with it. This divided a family. Inheritances often do. This family fight over death money prompted Jesus’s story.

The story has a death beginning. It has a death ending. It also has a death middle. Why? Because just holding wealth can’t give life. Jesus explains of the parable,

“one’s life [zōē] does not consist in the abundance [perisseuein] of the things he possesses.” (Luke 12:15b NKJV).

Different translations put it differently, but the idea is the same. Holding abundant wealth is not what life is “about.”1060 It’s not what life “consists in.” It’s not what life is “made up of.”1061 It’s not how life “is measured.”1062

Holding wealth does not lead to a life. It doesn’t lead to satisfaction.1063 In fact, it’s stressful. Moths and rust destroy.1064 Thieves break in and steal.1065 Wealth is often held to the detriment of its owner.1066

Holding things doesn’t make a life. The right goal is not to hold abundant things. It’s to have abundant life.1067 Abundant things can be useful. They can be used to pursue real life. But not if we simply possess them. If we just hold them, they don’t help.

We can stack up as much as we want. We can build as many barns to store it as we want. No matter how much it is, one thing won’t be there when we sort through it all. There’s one thing we won’t find. We won’t find life [zōē].

Real life doesn’t come from possessing abundance. That’s just saving it up to give to death. Instead, it comes from using abundance. It comes from using it,

“to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share.” (1 Timothy 6:18).

Extreme donor benefit: Choose your epitaph

Wealth conversations are an essential part of this ministry to the rich. For Paul, they’re a matter of life and death. They’re a matter of the owner’s life and death. He opens his wealth discussion with death. He ends it with life.

The right use of wealth becomes obvious if we start at the end. We start where Paul started. We start at the owner’s death. What’s it worth to the owner then? Nothing. We can’t take it with us.

Leaving it to the next generation often ends poorly. It creates family fights. It funds harmful choices. Unearned death money isn’t the path to family harmony or family happiness.

But, set that aside. Put yourself in the place of the rich person. Now, start at the end. What’s the best ending summary of your earthly story? What rightly belongs on your gravestone? What epitaph would you want to leave behind? How about this one:

“He made a lot of money. The end.”

Not very inspirational, right? How about this one instead:

“He never really lived. He never experienced real life. But he did die with a lot of unused money!”

That’s just sad. Often, it’s also true. It’s reality. It’s the real-world result. That’s what Paul is trying to help people avoid. He wants a different outcome for them. Paul is selling a different epitaph. Here’s the alternative:

“He really grabbed hold of that which is truly life! He did a lot of meaningfully good work! He was so rich in beautiful, noble, inspirational good works! He was always generous and ready to share! He was deeply connected to those in his fellowship community! He stored up for himself the treasure of a good foundation for the future!”

Isn’t that a better epitaph? Who wouldn’t want to trade this one for the others? We all would. Yet, those really are the options. Those are the real-world outcomes.

These wealth conversations are important. They’re not just a matter of “fund-raising.” They’re a matter of life and death.

Extreme donor benefit: That’s the purpose

We can’t find life [zōē] by holding an abundance of wealth. But abundance does have a purpose. Paul explains,

“And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that [hina] in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.” (2 Corinthians 9:8 NIV).

We can’t get to life by holding wealth. But we can get there by using it for its purpose [hina]. In 2 Corinthians 9:8, the purpose [hina] of abundant wealth is abundant good works. In 1 Timothy 6:19, the purpose [hina] of abundant good works is to grab hold [epilabōntai] of real life [tēs ontōs zōēs].

The ultimate outcome is extreme donor benefit. The treasure they are storing up is “for themselves.” So, too, the grabbing hold [epilabōntai] of real life is for themselves.1068 This verb for grabbing hold means,

“to take hold of [something] in order to make it one’s own.”1069

The result is real life. It’s also the motivation. It’s the reason why. Professor Bill Mounce explains of 1 Timothy 6:17-19,

“hina, ‘in order that,’ goes back to parangelle, ‘urge,’ explaining why the rich should follow these six imperatives.”1070

Grabbing hold of that which is truly life is the reason for following the instructions.

The most extreme possible donor benefit is “life indeed.” This donor benefit isn’t just one more in a long list. It’s not just a cherry on top. It’s the point of the whole ministry. It’s the reason why. It’s the purpose. It’s the reason for all of it.

Paul’s conversion of Greek philosophy

Paul’s message connects to the culture of Timothy’s audience. This was an audience in the Greek world. They had grown up with Greek philosophy. It surrounded them. It permeated their understanding.

Greek philosophy was different. It wasn’t just about having the right set of rules.1071 It wasn’t just about functional practicality.1072 Instead, it focused on virtue based upon a goal for living. This goal was eudaimonia – a life of happiness or flourishing. A thing was good [agathos or kalos] if it led to the ultimate good of a flourishing [eudaimonia] life. Virtue was pursuing the good [agathos or kalos] in order to live the good life [eudaimonia].1073

Our passage mirrors this idea. One change is a rephrasing of eudaimonia. This Greek word is eu-, “good,” and -daimonia, “spirit” or “demon.” Paul replaces “good demon” [eu-daimonia] with a new word, “good sharer” [eu-metadotous]. He then describes the outcome of a flourishing life using “real life” [ontōs zōēs].

Greek philosophy promoted

1 Timothy 6:17-19 promotes

So, what’s the point? The point is to understand the point. In Greek philosophy, the point was a flourishing life [eudaimonia]. That happens by choosing the good [agathos and kalos].

In this passage, the point is donor enjoyment [apolausin]. That happens by choosing good works [agatho-ergein and ergois kalois] leading to a flourishing life [ontōs zōēs]. Donor benefit isn’t an extra piece. It’s not a sweetener for the deal. It’s the point.

How does this affect our work as fundraisers? It leads to important questions. Are we working to create joyful donors? Or are we just trying to get donors? There’s a difference. If we’re just trying to get donors, we’re missing the point.

What’s our goal?

These are the goals of Biblical fundraising. If they’re not our goals as fundraisers, we might be missing the point.

Extreme donor benefit: This is the best life experience!

In our ministry to the rich, we are offering the best deal ever. We are offering the best investment, the best purchase, the best use of wealth. We are offering wealth enjoyment. We are offering personal impact, personal status, personal identity, and social identity. We are offering that which is life indeed. We are offering it right now. We are offering it for the future.

This reality should affect our mindset. It should affect how we approach our work. We are offering the best deal ever. How confident should we be to come alongside the rich person to make such an offer?

Having wealth conversations is important. This ministry is important. This ministry to the rich is important. If we fail in our ministry, they will not enjoy their wealth. They will bury it, and they will die with it. They will miss experiencing real life. These are the real-world outcomes.

Having a ministry to the rich isn’t easy. Having a ministry focused on wealth conversations isn’t easy. But it is important. It’s important because the results are so extreme.

The results can be life and enjoyment. They’re life and enjoyment right now. They’re life and enjoyment for the future. Or the results can be death and pain. They’re death and pain right now. They’re death and pain for the future.

This isn’t just “fund-raising.” It’s not just “money-getting.” It’s a ministry. It’s a ministry to the rich. The downside of failing is as bad as it gets. The upside of success is as good as it gets. It’s not just donor benefit. It’s extreme donor benefit. This shows just how important this message is. It shows just how important this ministry is.

Part II

Extreme Donor Agency

Donor agency: Technical definitions

In research, it’s called donor agency. Having agency means being the actor, the decider, or the doer. It means being the one who makes it happen. It’s being in control. It’s being the

“person that acts to produce a particular result.”1082

Increasing donor agency increases giving. It works. It works in experiments.1083 It works in real-world practice.1084 It works especially well for one group: the wealthy.1085 It works for “those who are rich.” It works for a ministry to the rich.

Other research in sociology sometimes uses different terms. Instead of agency, it might use “locus of control.” An internal locus of control means you affect or control the environment. Feeling that you control the situation leads to life satisfaction in nearly every domain.1086 An external locus of control means the environment affects or controls you. Feeling that the situation controls you leads to dissatisfaction.

In research, donor agency is key. It’s key to bigger gifts. It’s key to donor satisfaction. What does this mean in practical terms? If we want bigger gifts, agency matters. If we want joyful donors, agency matters.

Donor agency: Level 1 – Your money, your decision

Donor agency starts simple. Giving is an option. You can choose to give. Or you can choose not to give. This freedom separates a gift from a tax or a fee.

You probably send money to the government each year. It’s not an option. The alternative is jail. That’s not a gift. That’s a tax.

You might join a group with membership dues. Paying the money is not an option. The alternative is leaving the group. That’s not a gift. That’s a fee.

In Biblical fundraising, donor agency isn’t just a strategy. It’s essential. It’s essential because the goal isn’t just a gift. The goal is a gift with the right emotion. It’s a gift from the donor’s heart.1087

Ananias made a large gift. But it did not reflect his heart. It gave a false appearance. Peter revealed this deceit. He said,

“Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God.” (Acts 5:4b).

This was stupid. It was stupid in part because the gift wasn’t mandatory. Peter emphasized Ananias’s freedom. He emphasized Ananias’s donor agency. He explained,

“The property was yours before you sold it, and even after you sold it, the money was still yours.” (Acts 5:4a CEV).

The property belonged to Ananias. He didn’t have to give any of it. This wasn’t a tax. It wasn’t an obligation. It was a free choice.

So, too, in Paul’s fundraising, giving is not a mandatory tax. It is not an obligatory fee. It’s just an option. He made this explicit. In his fundraising appeal letter, Paul writes:

“I am not commanding you, but I want to test the sincerity of your love by comparing it with the earnestness of others.” (2 Corinthians 8:8 NIV).

It’s not a command. The donor is in control. He can give or not. It’s a choice. It’s a choice that reflects the heart. It’s a test of love. It expresses the heart in love actions, not just love words. It demonstrates the sincerity of love.

This giving is optional because God doesn’t want just a gift. He doesn’t want it, even if it’s big. He wants a gift with the heart. Paul writes,

“Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” (2 Corinthians 9:7).

A big gift without the right emotion is not a win. It’s not an acceptable sacrifice. No matter how big it is, such a gift amounts to nothing. Paul explains,

“If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.” (1 Corinthians 13:3 ESV).

A big gift without the right emotion isn’t a win. At best, it’s nothing. At worst, it’s a capital offense!

For a gift to express love, it must be a free choice. It can’t be a grudging fulfillment of a mandatory obligation. It requires freedom. It requires donor agency.

Donor agency: Level 2 – Your instructions (restricted giving)

In Paul’s fundraising, donor agency goes even further. The donors’ options are not limited to:

  1. Give to the church.

Or,

  1. Don’t give to the church.

The donors have even more control. The donors get to decide what specific work they will support.

Paul’s biggest fundraising campaign was not for “unrestricted” funds. It was not for the general church budget. This was “restricted” giving. It was a campaign for a special project. This project was far outside the local church.

Restricted giving increases the donors’ agency. Instead of just giving, donors get to pick from a menu. They can give to this project, or they can pick something else.

In research, providing such options increases giving.1088 And here is the strange thing. It works even if the donors choose to make their gift unrestricted.1089 It’s an unrestricted gift, but that was the donors’ decision. They got to decide. They got to be in control of that choice. The donors’ agency still increases. Increasing donor agency still increases giving.

Donor agency: Level 3 – Your story

The story of 1 Timothy 6:17-19 is a story about the donor. The donor is the main character. The donor decides. The donor’s decision is motivated by the donor’s backstory and values. The donor does the work. The donor makes the impact. The donor’s identity is transformed. The donor receives the benefits.

The donor is not just a bit player in the story. The donor does not simply enter briefly to lay money at the feet of the heroic ministers who do the good work. The donor does not just put gas in the tank for the heroic ministers’ grand adventures. This is a story about the donors.

This is not the church’s story. It’s not the minister’s story. It’s not the charity’s story. It’s the donor’s story.1090

Donor agency: Level 4 – Your work

In 1 Timothy 6:17-19, Paul instructs Timothy about major gift fundraising. This includes many messages for the high-capacity donors. But one message is missing. Paul never tells Timothy to say, “Give your money.”

Just saying, “Give!” is not an interesting story. Or, even if it is, it’s still a story about what someone else does with the money. But Paul’s story is different. It’s a donor story. It’s a story about the donor’s actions.

Logically, we might say that the only thing a donor does is give money. But not in Paul’s language. The donors do not give money. Instead, the donors do good. They become rich in good works.

The donors “do” the work. The good works are theirs. They become rich in these good works. They make it happen. They hire the workers. They build the buildings. They send the missionaries. It’s their work.

This language emphasizes donor agency. This story is about the donors. It’s about their actions and their impact. They are the main characters. They are in charge. They make it happen.

Extreme donor agency: Grab life by the horns! [epilabōntai tēs]

Now, we come to the end of the passage. Here, donor agency gets extreme. Having agency means being the one who makes it happen. It means being the

“person that acts to produce a particular result.”1091

What is the most extreme version of this? What is the most extreme agency? It’s the word from our final phrase. It’s epilabōntai.

This word is a form of epilambanomai. A lexicon explains that it’s from

“Lambanō, ‘aggressively take’ – properly, lay hold of something, showing personal initiative (‘focused resolve’) that ‘matches’ the seizing (i.e., laying hold of what is ‘apt, meet’).”1092

Lambanō is aggressive and intense. It’s extreme. Our word is even more extreme. It adds an intensifier on top of lambanō. A lexicon explains,

“epilambanomai (from epi, ‘on, fitting’ intensifying lambanō ‘aggressively take’).”1093

The word is an intensified aggression. It’s forceful. It’s like the cheerleading chant:

“Be aggressive! Be, be aggressive!”

Indeed, the word is often violent. It can be,

“to seize (for help, injury, attainment, or any other purpose; literally or figuratively).”1094

The soldiers “seized” [epilabomenoi] Simon of Cyrene, forcing him to carry the cross. (Luke 23:26). Also, the crowd

“took hold of [epilabomenoi] Sosthenes, the leader of the synagogue, and began beating him in front of the judgment seat.” (Acts 18:17).

Just before 1 Timothy 6:17, Paul explicitly connects the word to fighting. He instructs Timothy to

“Fight the good fight of faith; take hold [epilabou] of the eternal life to which you were called” (1 Timothy 6:12a).

In 6:17, the instruction is to epilabōntai. Timothy Dieppe explains,

“even there a connotation of violence may be intended.”1095

Dr. Flavien Pardigon explains that this word in 6:17,

“seems to also carry the connotation of force or violence.” 1096

This instruction has the intensity of a real fight. It directs aggressively grabbing hold of real life. This is variously translated as

To “epilabōntai” real life does not mean to passively receive it. It’s to go out and “win” real life by intense action. It’s to “Grab life by the horns!” It’s aggressive fighting imagery. This matches with “Grab life by the throat!”1105 One commentary notes of verse 19,

“Believers already have life, but a generous, giving Christian is one who has taken hold of eternal life now and is riding life for all it is worth.”1106

Not just agency, donor agency [hina]

The rich are to aggressively grab hold of real life. And how do they do this? How do they grab real life? They do this as donors. Paul isn’t just describing extreme agency. He’s describing extreme donor agency.

This is the final phrase in the passage. It starts with “hina epilabōntai”. Hina explains the purpose of a thing. Here, it explains the purpose of the previous actions. The donors enjoy their wealth by

Why do they do all of these things? What is the motivation? What is the reason? The reason is this:

“So that [hina] they can aggressively take hold [epilabōntai] of that which is truly life [ontōs zōēs].”

That’s the purpose of the giving. Hina expresses purpose. It’s most commonly translated here as “so that.” The few alternatives are “so,” “that,” “so as to,” or “in this way.”

This is not just agency. This is donor agency. This grabbing hold of real life results from the giving. It’s the result. It’s the consequence. This result is also the motivation for the giving. It’s the purpose.

This is not just donor agency. This is extreme donor agency. This active donor

This is donor action, action, action! This repeated sequence of donor action ends at a peak. It ends with super-intense, extreme, aggressive donor agency. This is not just agency, it is hyper-agency.

Hyper-agency and the sociology of wealth

Paul describes a ministry to a specific group: the rich. To minister to any people group, it helps to learn about them. It helps to understand the group’s culture or sociology.

So, what do we know about this people group? Modern research has explored the sociological characteristics of this people group. One sociology professor summarized his

“research on wealth and philanthropy over the past twenty years.”

He explains,

“Our finding is that at least in the material realm, the class trait of wealth holders is hyperagency, which I define as the array of dispositions and capacities that enable individuals to relatively singlehandedly produce the social outcomes they desire... If agency is the capacity to make choices largely within the rules and resources that are socially given, hyperagency is the capacity to be a creator or producer of those rules and resources.”1107

The central distinguishing characteristic of this people group is hyper-agency. It not only distinguishes the group; it also distinguishes their giving. He continues,

“In common parlance we regularly speak of donors and major donors. Distinguishing between supporters and producers of philanthropy is a more functional distinction.”

The difference is this:

“Most individuals respond to appeals for contributions in a manner similar to the way a consumer responds to the products or services of a business. They are just one person among a far larger pool of actors. They do not individually have enough buying power to have a firm create a product for them; nor do they single-handedly have enough giving power to create or redirect the charitable enterprise to which they contribute... It is a different story altogether when high-tech donors contribute a sizable enough gift to actually shape the agenda of a charity or nonprofit institution. In this instance, the contributor may be termed a direct producer or architect.”

Paul’s major gifts fundraising from the wealthy emphasizes this kind of donor agency. The donors don’t just give to a doer. The donors are the doers. They don’t just give to one who does good work. They do the good work. The good works are their good works. They personally become rich in them.

These donors don’t just sit back and hope for a better life. They go out and aggressively grab real life. They are the actors. They are the protagonists. They have agency. Paul motivates in a way that resonates with this specific people group. He motivates with extreme donor agency.

Agency in sociology and scripture

The message parallels with the modern sociology of agency go deeper still. A foundational work from the American Journal of Sociology is titled “What is agency?”1108 It explains that complete agency relates to the actor’s past, present, and future:

“refers to the selective reactivation by actors of past patterns of thought and action, as routinely incorporated in practical activity, thereby giving stability and order to social universes and helping to sustain identities.”1109

refers to a “practical-evaluative” “iteration” process connecting the past and the future “to make practical and normative judgments.”1110

refers to “the imaginative generation by actors of possible future trajectories of action … in relation to actors’ hopes, fears, and desires for the future.”1111

This foundational description matches the past, present, and future agency description in our passage. The passage begins with the donor’s past decision. They have, in the past, with continuing effect on the present (perfect tense infinitive),

“not … set their hope on the uncertainty of riches but on God who richly supplies us with all things” (1 Timothy 6:17).

They are in the already in-progress, continuing process (present tense infinitive) of being not high-minded. They are not separated from the fellowship community.

In sociological terms, Paul’s instruction “selectively reactivates” these “past patterns of thought and action.” It does so to help “sustain identities.” These identities are the two “I am” [einai] descriptors: eumetadotous and koinōnikous

These rich are eu-sharers or abundance-sharers [eu-metadotous]. This identity connects to the past decision. They have not set their hope in some disappearing, fixed pool of wealth. Instead, they have set their hope in the ongoing rich supply from the unlimited God. This past action sustains their present identity as abundance-sharers.

They are also fellowship-community sharers [koinōnikous]. This identity [einai] matches their in-progress, continuing process of being not above or separated from the fellowship community. They are not high-minded [mē hypsēlophronein].

The passage then turns to the future. In sociological terms, this is

“the imaginative generation by actors of possible future trajectories of action.”1112

Again, the donor remains active. They are “storing up for themselves.” They are doing so “for the future.” Their giving is done “so that they may take hold” of the current and future “life that is truly life.”

The present immediate action connects the past and future. Making the “practical and normative judgment” to enjoy wealth by using it to do good is immediate action. It’s immediate action that iteratively connects past action and future action. It springs from the donors’ past action. It springs from where they have set their hope. It is done to store up “for the future.” It is done for the purpose of [hina] taking hold of the now and future real life.

Complete agency comes from the actor’s past, present, and future. Paul’s message delivers this complete agency. It delivers hyper-agency. It matches the sociology of this people group. It’s the ideal motivational message for the rich.

Ministering to the rich: Donor agency and donor benefit

In this passage, Paul describes a ministry to the rich. In practical terms, this group has two central traits: Possessiveness and hyper-agency.

The rich are possessive. They like to hold wealth. That’s why they became or stayed wealthy. That’s why they haven’t spent it. Paul spends no time warning them against excess bingeing. That’s not the concern with this group. The concern is with the intense desire to hold, protect, bury, and accumulate wealth.

Instead of condemning this trait, Paul taps into it. As elsewhere, he emphasizes donor benefits. But here, he does it differently. He describes charitable giving as investment diversification. It’s a form of becoming rich. It’s building up an endowment or foundation for the future.

The message isn’t, “Stop being rich.” The message is, “Be rich in even more ways!” The message isn’t, “Stop storing up for yourselves.” The message is, “Store up for yourselves in even better investments.”

The rich are hyper-agents. They’re used to getting things done. They are the movers, the shakers, the actors. Instead of condemning this trait, Paul taps into it.

He frames his message as a story. It’s a story starring them. It’s about their past, their present, and their future. They are the protagonists. They are the main characters. They do not simply give money to the actors. They are the actors. They are the doers.

This is a story of their hyper-agency. Their past is an action past. They have not set their hope on the uncertainty of riches but on God.

Their present is an action present. They do good. They become rich in their good works.

Their identity is an action identity. They are abundance-sharers. They are fellowship-community sharers.

Their future is an action future. They don’t just passively receive future benefits. They actively store up for themselves these future benefits. They aren’t just passively granted the good life. They violently take hold of it! They act right now. They act for the purpose of aggressively grabbing real life!